HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments on the DEIS OFFICE LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS:
Town Hall Annex �F Sr7(/ P.O. Box 1179
54375 State Route 25 O�� l/y� Southold, NY 11971
(cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) ti `o
Southold, NY � � Telephone: 631 765-1938
www.southoldtow-xmy.gov
�O • i�
�y�0UNT1,��
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
MEWANM
To: James H. Rich III, Vice Chairman
Members of the Planning Board
From: Planning Staff
Date: July 10, 2023
Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
STRONG'S YACHT CENTER—PROPOSED BOAT STORAGE BUILDINGS
SCTM No.: DISTRICT 1000, SECTION 106,BLOCK 6,LOTS 10& 13.4
STAFF COMMENTS
Page Numbers Correlate to the DEIS
Number of Truck Trips and Phasing
The magnitude and duration of expected large adverse impacts (significant) to the quality
of life of residents and visitors, community character, and infrastructure being proposed
regarding the number of vehicle trips for this action have not been accurately discussed in
the DEIS.
1. To give the Planning Board a clear picture of the cumulative impacts of the truck
traffic for the entire project, provide a table of total truck trips, including delivery
trucks and the return of empty trucks for each phase of the project, with a grand total
of all expected truck trips.
2. Provide a table or a graph of truck trips over time on a single sheet showing each
phase and the expected dates (on a weekly basis), assuming the project starts
December 1st. Show the phases at weekly intervals on one axis and then the number
of trucks in and out on a weekly basis on the other axis throughout the project's
timeline.
I
3. How many materials delivery trucks will be delivering on-site during the retaining
wall (block) and the slab (wet cement) phase. This number should be included in the
table/graph as truck traffic to/from the site.
4. Did the traffic engineers drive the entire route to I495 with a 55' truck or just the
immediate route to Sound Avenue? The DEIS mentions the route was driven on the
side roads, but no mention of it once the trucks meet Sound Avenue.
5. Was the route to I495 chosen with the full knowledge of how long it takes to
maneuver a truck of that size and weight? The traffic report doesn't seem familiar
with local conditions, especially during the summer months; even though the truck
traffic will be during the week, not the weekend, we still have congestion during the
summer on weekdays.
6. How long will it take to fill a 30' trailer during the excavation phase?
7. How will the four trucks an hour during excavation be monitored?Is it possible there
will be more than four trucks an hour at some times during the work day?
8. How will the damages to pavement, etc., that the applicant has said they would pay
for be determined? Will the extent of damages be determined by a third party other
than the person reviewing the potholes on a daily basis?Will money be put in escrow
to make sure there is money available to pay for said damages if they should occur?
"Truck IdIiii
The 5-minute truck idling limit described at the public hearing may be challenging because
the operators will work through the winter, and heating the cab will be desirable by truck
drivers as they wait in the queue. How will a five-minute idling limit be monitored and
enforced?
Safety Flaggers
l. Explain how the Flaggers are expected to perform their duties, and exactly what their
duties will be.
2. What safety measures will be provided for their visibility by drivers, especially those
traveling west on Sound Avenue, keeping in mind they are navigating the curves and
hills in this section of the road? Describe any extra measures to be taken during the
winter when darkness will occur before the end of the work day.
3. What authority do the Flaggers have to stop traffic?
4. If Flaggers stop traffic, what warning will oncoming vehicles have of stopped traffic
ahead? How will the risk of rear-end accidents be reduced on this stretch of road
where drivers do not expect stopped traffic?
2
5. Will signage be posted on Sound Avenue warning of Flagger ahead?
6. Why was Suffolk County Route 58 selected to access I495?Was a route using Suffolk
County Route 105 to NYS 27 (Sunrise Highway) assessed? If not, why not?
7. Provide a more comprehensive explanation of why the route that includes the Sound
Avenue path to Edwards Avenue and then to 1495 is not viable.
8. Additionally, has there been an analysis to divide the truck routes (once the trucks
get to Sound Avenue) so not all trucks travel the same major roads?
Consistency N%ith the Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP
Page 157.
The Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) is a document that
establishes policies on many important attributes of the Town. It divides the policies into
sections to recognize their distinct values, they include: Developed Coast Policies, Natural
Coast Policies, Public Coast Policies, and Working Coast Policies. The balance of the
policies when evaluating a project is important. It is agreed that the LWRP identifies
Mattituck Creek as a maritime center in the Town. However, that point is not contended.
The potential adverse impacts from the proposed action that result in the physical,
degradation, and functional loss of ecological components of the area should be discussed in
detail further to each of these policy qualifiers. Page 310 recognizes this stating, "The
proposed development would result in the loss of approximately 634 trees within 5.51::L acres
of forested area (Coastal Oak-Beech Forest and Successional Southern Hardwood
communities) with a resultant decrease in habitat availability for the plants, birds, and
wildlife that utilize these habitats. "
The planting of a total of 135 trees,including 95 Pitch Pine trees, and a donation of 50 native
trees to the Town is proposed as mitigation for the clearing.
Please discuss the proposed action to Policy 6 Protect and restore the quality and function
of the Town of Southold s ecosystem and if it meets any of the qualifiers listed below.
A. Avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that
would result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by:
1. Physical loss of ecological components
Physical loss is often the most obvious natural resource impairment to identify. It usually
results from discrete actions, such as filling or excavating a wetland or clearing an
upland forest community prior to development.
3
2. Degradation of ecological components
Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either as a direct loss
originating within the resource area or as an indirect loss originating from nearby
activities. Degradation usually occurs over a more extended period of time than physical
loss and may be indicated by increased siltation, changes in community composition, or
evidence ofpollution.
3. Functional loss of ecological components
Functional loss can be indicated by a decrease in abundance offish or wildlife, often
resulting from a behavioral or physiological avoidance response. Behavioral avoidance
can be due to disruptive uses that do not necessarily result in physical changes, but may
be related to introduction of recreational activities or predators. Timing of activities can
often be critical in determining whether a functional loss is likely to occur. Functional
loss can also be manifested in physical terms, such as changes in hydrology.
The loss of ecological components of the (Coastal Oak-Beech Forest and Successional
Southern Hardwood communities) will impact the Mattituck Creek watershed. How many
acres of this forest type occur in the Mattituck Creek watershed?How much is in the Town?
Please update the DEIS to reflect the protected status change of the Northern Long-Eared
Bat to federally endangered, and evaluate the action to Policy 6.4 Protect vulnerable fish,
wildlife, and plant species, and rare ecological communities of the LWRP.
'tidal RanFc and Vessel Navigation
Page viii of the DEIS states that The tidal range for Mattituck Creek is approximatelYfive
eet. Al low tide, depths adjacent to SYC average between 9-to-10 feet within the channel.At
high tide, the average depths range from 14-to-15 feet.As noted above, there are two areas
inintediately north of SYC with depths greater than 25 feet and at high tide would be
approrimately 30 feet, providing substantial draft for the yachts typically serviced by the
existing marina.
Page 315. Regarding Navigability of Barges.
There is a conflict in the tidal discussion and vessel navigability limitations. It is
understood that the draft of a vessel is the distance between the ship's bottom or keel
and the vessel's waterline.
The DEIS states: Specifically, the barges need a minimum of 10 feet draft at low tide to
avoid hitting the inlet floor bottom and damaging the barge. As indicated in Section 2.2.1 of
this DEIS and illustrated in the Mattituck Inlet soundings performed for SYC (see Appendix
M), the average depth of draft at low title is five (5)-to-seven (7) feet. Additionally, the
existing sharp S turns upon entering the Inlet on the first and second corner bends are very
tight and would not allow the width or depth necessary to safely navigate these areas.
Accordingly, the barging of material is not a viable alternative for the proposed action.
4
The Boat Study Proposed Boat Storage Buildings report prepared by P.W. Grosser
Consulting,Inc,and included as Appendix M in the DEIS,discussed the adequacy of channel
depths for large recreational and commercial vessels. In the report, page 19 shows an 84'
commercial vessel hauled by a travel lift at the marina in a photo (below).
�r
v.b" ir"inE5TFIII lfT
I
Ic'�' r r'�c ljai i��V ��;, f71,_ �;yr �, Jj� .(- �''ir.l� r.� CS•�t_�.'
Figure 4f.'84 foot commercial vessel hauled via Travelift.
1. What is the draft of this 84ft vessel shown in the photo when loaded and unloaded?
2. What four barge companies were contacted?
3. Did the four barge companies that were contacted reply in writing? If so, please
provide their responses.
4. What information was presented to the barge companies regarding the water depths
at Mean High Water(MHW)?
5. Was the alternative for using barges to move the excavated soil modeled during
high tide periods? Why does it appear that the high tide depths were omitted from
the barge navigability discussion? Can barges operate mid to high tides when the
water depth is greater?
6. Could several barges be loaded with material and depart during high tides?
7. What is the increase in the draft from a loaded and unloaded barge with materials?
8. Is there an option to use shorter, self-powered barges, loaded with less material,
with more frequent trips? If so, were the potential impacts of this option explored?
9. What length barges could be used to safely navigate the radii of the inlet curves?
10. Was a schematic showing the radii of the curves in the inlet produced to illustrate
the feasibility of barge navigation?
5
Different Water Depth Sampling Methods and Presentations for Barges and Yachts
The above information and that presented on page 60 of the DEIS conflicts with the claim
that barges cannot safely navigate the inlet/creek due to water depth. The presentation of
water depths differs using two different data sets for assessing the navigability of the inlet
for barges versus yachts. The water depths used for the barges were presented as Mean Low
Low Water(MLLW) as outlined in The Boat Study Proposed Boat Storage Buildings report
prepared by P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc, and included as Appendix M in the DEIS. The
water depths to assess the navigability of the large yachts used Mean High Water (MHW).
Consequently, the DEIS concludes that water depths to operate barges safely are
inadequate, but adequate for large yachts, pointing out that there is a substantial draft
for the yachts typically serviced by the existing marina. Table 1. summarizes the data
provided.
Table 1.
Bare Yacht
Maximum Length=NA Maximum Length = 133'
Required Barge Draft Required Draft
10' at low tide 5.'11" to 6'.8"
Av. Water Depth 6' to 7' ALLW Av. Water Depth 6' to 7' ALLW—
Discussed Not Discussed
Av Water Depth at High Tide 14'-15' in Channel Av. Water Depth 14'-15' AHW in Channel
25'+Not Discussed 25'+ Discussed
Limited Limitations: None
1. If the average water depth at high tide is 14'-15', shouldn't that be sufficient for
clearance? There should be a daily window unidentified between high and low tide
to get the barges in and out of the inlet.
Adequate Water Depths for Large Yachts
The channel depths are adequate for the boat/yachts that are expected to utilize the SYC
slorage facilities (with similar yacht Wines currently utilizing Mauituck Creek). As outlined
in Table 3in Section 2.2.4 of Appendix M, the drafts of the boats/yachts range from
approximately S feet-1]-inches to 6-feet-8-inches. It should also be noted that vessels apart
of the commercial fishing fleet currently dock along Mattituck Creek, and these vessels have
greater channel depth requirements with greater drafts (i.e., 7 feet typical drafts)".
The DEIS states: "Overall, average channel depths at low tide are in the 9-to-10 feet range
with most areas significantly deeper than that. While channel depths decrease along the
banks, the approximate centerline of the navigation channel has adequate depth for
boats/yachts to traverse without grounding and boat captains would utilize on-board
navigational charts to guide safe movements.
1. Can yachts navigate the inlet/creek at low tide? It is difficult to understand how a 133'+
yacht could navigate the inlet/creek and a barge could not. Could you explain this further?
6
2. Mattituck Inlet is a federal waterway, and as such, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE) is responsible for routine dredging. In 2013-2014 the ACOE dredged the inlet,
which widened and deepened the inlet channel to about 15 feet below mean low tide, A
total of 100,000 cubic yards was removed. How does this affect the operation of the barges
during all tide cycles? (Source: Suffolk Times)
NoiseNibration
The noise/vibration consultant commented in the DEIS and at the meeting that the sand of
long island mitigates the vibrations in the soil and the distance of transmittance. Is that a
known, documented reduction or is it assumed based on the generic properties of sand?
Other
1. How is the slope stabilized prior to the retaining wall being built?
2. Was a green/living roof for the buildings proposed or discussed?
Ecological Impacts
Page 337: What functions and values of the successional field would be degraded or lost
with the burying of vegetation with sand?
The occurrence and use of the Northern Long-Eared Bat(NLEB) on the parcel
Recent conversations with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) notified us
that the status of the NLEB changed on March 30, 2023, from threatened to endangered
(Papa, 2023). With the endangered status comes a higher level of assessment for potential
takings.Private development projects that are found to cause a reasonable certainty of"take"
will have to file for a permit to do so, and that permit often requires mitigation.
The first step is to use the range-wide determination key to identify the potential effect the
project might have on the species. Then the USFWS reviews will make a determination on
whether or not they need to apply for a take permit (Habitat Conservation Plan Section 10
Permit). Forest removal can result in an adverse effect even if done outside the bats' active
season(Papa, 2023).
According to USFWS, March 1 to November 30 is the active season for the NLEB, and the
pup season is June 1 to July 31 but could be expanded to two weeks on either side based on
newer data the USFWS have.
Please update the DEIS will all pertinent information regarding the use of the parcel by the
NLEB. The NLEB status is new information under SEQRA and may require a supplemental
EIS.
Cc: Paul DeChance, Town Attorney
James Squicciarini,Deputy Town Attorney
7
From: Lanza, Heather S
Sent: Tuesday,July 11, 2023 9:11 AM L L,IM BC ,/'`I C
To: Westermann, Caitlin �E�t\/�
Subject: FW: Strongs Memorandum
ED
1
oulo sn
Planning Board
From:James Rich<jhrichiii.stpb@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 9:41 PM
To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strongs Memorandum
Hi, I read over the Strongs memorandum dated July 10 2023. It is really well prepared -my thanks and compliments to
all who worked on it. I have a couple comments/ideas.
+ Flaggers would work under whose legal authority?
• Flaggers under whose liability should an accident happen?
M Change of federal status for Northern Long Eared Bats has to be addressed moving forward
• Water depths and silting from prop wash is very much a concern and not gotten the attention it warrants
0 1 don't personally believe that the reported water depths exist in Mattituck Inlet-certainly they are greater than
my experience s at Sterling Harbor in Greenport
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,July 11, 2023 11:29 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Mattituck Inlet project
Svb�P
-----Original Message----- RECENED
From: Hannah Van Manen<hrvm426@aol.com>
Sent: Friday,June 2, 2023 1:24 PM JUL, 1
To: Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us> >.w.......
ouffibid Town
Subject: [SPAM] - Mattituck Inlet project Planning Board
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe that the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement(DEIS) does not adequately address the impact the project will have on Mattituck Inlet's water quality.
Specifically, how exactly will stormwater be managed on the site, during and after construction activities?The
introduction of new sanitary systems so close to Mattituck Inlet is a major concern,given the fact that the inlet already
has shellfishing closures<https://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/103483.html#12833> and advisories due to bacteria
impairment. Inadequate sanitary management on waterfront properties is a common issue on the North Fork. How will
the Planning Board ensure that these surface and groundwater issues are not going to be made worse by this
development?
Additionally, I am concerned about the destruction of natural habitat as well as flora and fauna including but not limited
to shellfish, seagrass,trees, wetlands, and other natural resources. How will the Planning Board weigh the public benefit
of this project with the need to preserve natural resources in the midst of climate change, threats to biodiversity, and
erratic weather and flooding that is plaguing the North Fork?
I am worried that the parcels of land untouched by development are dwindling, and this is not right.
I support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Thank you.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/aol-news-email-weather-video/id64610066l>
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
ry
From: Cummings, Brian A. RE - EIVED
Sent: Tuesday,July 11, 2023 11:05 AM ""-
To: Westermann, Caitlin
JUL j. '
Subject: FW: Mattituck Creek yacht storage project
Planning Board
From:cgdinda@aol.com<cgdinda@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday,July 9, 2023 3:32 PM
To:Cummings, Brian A.<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Cc: Carol Dinda <cgdinda@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mattituck Creek yacht storage project
On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 03:21:22 PM EDT, g .iiud gig �ci m <gg fLLLI a baol corn> wrote:
Dear Mr. Cummings,
Wanting to be an eternal optimist, I implore you to consider using the old adage "Do the right thing."
Our very beautiful, yet fragile, environment is struggling to survive an inordinate number of crises-
-both natural and man made. We may be unable to completely control the direction of nature,
however, we do have the ability to put our environment before needlessly destructive projects.
Please consider the wise, yet often considered a rather trite bit of advice.
SAVE WHATS LEFT!
Thank you for your time and attention to this request.
CG Dinda
Sent from my iPad
i
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 11:00 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
b�
Subject: FW: Letter regarding Strong's Marine Proposal for Mattituck Inlet""
RECEIVED
Y_._._... .. _......._
JUL 10 2023
From:Annie Correal<anniecorreal@gmail.com> ... csaitnni rO n...
Sent:Thursday,June 8, 2023 8:14 PM Planning Board
To: Cummings, Brian A.<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Letter regarding Strong's Marine Proposal for Mattituck Inlet
Dear Members of the Southold Town Planning Board,
I am writing to voice my opposition to Strong Marine's proposed construction of two 50,000-
square-foot heated yacht storage facilities on Mattituck Inlet. As a resident of Mattituck who has
studied the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), I wish to express my firm belief that
this project is not aligned with Southold Town's Vision Statement and does not benefit the
community.
While Jeff Strong may be a popular figure, his plan for Mattituck Inlet fails to meet the town's
goals and carries serious short- and long-term consequences for residents and visitors, ranging
from construction-related air and noise pollution and heavy truck traffic congesting and
damaging our narrow roads, to the permanent degradation of our most prized assets—
undeveloped land adjacent to a 27-acre town-owned preserve and a fragile waterway
containing wetlands and salt marshes. It appears that there is no community-driven market
demand for the proposed storage facilities, and that a prime area that has been preserved from
large development by the town and enjoyed and cared for by dozens of tax-paying families
would be irrevocably altered for the sake of a single business owner and his out-of-town
clientele.
Additionally, the DEIS fails to provide adequate evidence that Strong's Marine has a long-term
plan that mitigates the serious effects of construction on the site and the addition of 88 or more
very large yachts to the fragile ecosystem of Mattituck Creek. This development will destroy a
rare oak-beech forest, which serves as a habitat for threatened and endangered species—the
box turtle and the northern long-eared bat, among others. The proposal also involves the
removal of a hillside that acts as a natural stormwater absorber, leading to increased erosion
and runoff. Combined with the pollution generated by an additional 88 large boats for 12 weeks
each year, this stands to significantly escalate the toxicity levels of Mattituck Inlet. It is crucial to
protect these impaired waters and prevent further degradation, especially considering Mattituck
Inlet has been declared by the state to be a pathogen-impaired watershed.
Before delving into specific areas of concern, I ask you, as the board entrusted with
safeguarding Southold Town, to critically evaluate the purported benefits of this proposal for the
broader community.
The following is a list of specific issues identified in the proposal.
1
Failure to Fulfill Southold Town's Vision Statement
• Neglected Goals: The proposed project fails to fulfill key goals outlined in Southold
Town's Vision Statement, such as land preservation, protection of natural
resources, efficient transportation, diverse housing stock, and expanded
recreational opportunities.
• Unsuitable Architectural Design: The architectural design of the massive
warehouses does not harmonize with the existing character of Mattituck Inlet,
diminishing its appeal to tourists, kayakers, fishermen, and potential homebuyers.
• Prioritization of Private Interests: The project prioritizes the needs of wealthy private
yacht owners over those of the public, hindering recreational activities including
walking and bird-watching at Mill Road Preserve and fishing, swimming and boating
at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Mattituck
Creek Waterway Access Site, sites which will be obstructed by truck traffic and the
construction project. These sites are crucial public facilities in Southold Town,
providing fully-accessible amenities for enjoying nature and the waters of Mattituck
Creek and Long Island Sound.
• Improper Extraction of Resources: Concerns have been raised regarding the
potential exploitation of valuable sand resources. The removal of the hillside could
yield substantial profits from the sale of sand (the DEIS states that 63 percent of
the material has been identified as quality sand). Such actions necessitate
compliance with Mined Land Reclamation Permit regulations, which the proposal
currently lacks. The removal of lucrative sand by thousands of trucks would also
lead to pollution, damage roadways, and compromise the safety of nearby
homeowners and the quality of life of the community at large.
Lack of Evidence of Local Market Demand
• Absence of Market Demand Documentation: The DEIS fails to provide evidence
supporting the market demand for the proposed heated indoor yacht storage
facilities. There is no substantiation of the need for these facilities or their
sustainability.
• Non-local Market Focus: The proposal primarily serves a non-local market, with
potential customers described by Jeff Strong, the developer, as affluent boat
owners from outside the area. According to a May 24, 2023 article in The New York
Times, "The yacht storage facility, he said, will offer heated indoor winter storage
that fills a gap in the market for wealthy boaters from Hamptons communities like
Sag Harbor and Amagansett, as well as Westchester County and Connecticut."
Earlier, Mr. Strong was quoted in the Suffolk Times saying Mattituck was primarily
intended as a link to his other business holdings on Long Island: "Upon purchasing
this site from the Pape family in 2016, Mr. Strong told the Suffolk Times Strong's
other locations in Southampton and Port Washington will feed customers to the
Mattituck site." This project aims to draw business from outside the area and to
connect Mr. Strong's various investments around Long Island to Mattituck rather
than benefiting the local community.
Overstated Economic Benefits to the Community
• Inflated Job Creation Claims: The economic benefits presented in the DEIS are
overstated, as only 11 new positions are being created. Specific details about these
2
jobs and whether Strong's Marine will prioritize or train local residents for the
positions are lacking.
Lack of Housing for Employees: The DEIS fails to address the pressing need for
housing for employees, who would put further pressure on the already stretched
supply of housing in the area. Existing members of the maritime industry — running
commercial fisheries, sailboat charters, and working as ferry captains— have
children forced to live in basements, mobile homes or places not zoned for
residential use in order to remain in the area because of the severe lack of
affordable housing options. The economic gains of this project primarily benefit the
owner of the firm and do not address the actual needs of the local maritime
industry.
Neglected Environmental Impacts on Mattituck Creek and Marine Life
• Insufficient Study: The DEIS inadequately addresses the environmental impact of
removing the sandhill on Mattituck Creek, and understates the impact of erosion,
increased runoff and elevated nitrogen levels, including the potential loss of
wetlands, and the effect on declining fish and shellfish populations. The storm
water plan in the DEIS fails to adequately account for increased rainfall and
flooding as a result of storm events related to climate change.
• Inadequate Pollution Control Measures: The DEIS does not sufficiently address
comprehensive pollution control measures to manage an additional 88 large
yachts, which will traverse Mattituck Creek for 12 weeks every year and pose risks
to water quality, sediments, and biological resources. The addition of these large
vessels heightens the risk of contamination from petroleum products, including oil,
fuel, and chemical byproducts, as well as solvents and antifreeze. The DEIS does
not sufficiently address the increased need for comprehensive pollution control
measures with the addition of these vessels, including proper waste management,
spill prevention and response plans. Additionally, the DEIS overstates how many
vessels are active in the marina and downplays the potential impact of 88 additional
large vessels, which stand to significantly escalate boat traffic and the toxicity levels
of Mattituck Inlet, which has previously been declared by the DEC as a pathogen-
impaired watershed. The DEIS does not include information on exactly how long
the yachts will remain in Mattituck Creek and how they will be managed before and
after being stored (there are only 45 slips at Strong's Marine). Further, the addition
of 88 more motorized large yachts will have a potential detrimental effect on the
marine life of nearby Long Island Sound.
Environmental Impact and Endangered Species
• Destruction of Native Forest: The project will result in the removal of 630 trees,
including four acres of native forest, significantly altering the scenic landscape and
permanently degrading the area's character. Donating trees to the town is
insufficient as a mitigation measure and does not offset the loss of native forest and
the habitat it provides for dozens of species, including threatened and endangered
species.
• Endangered Species at Risk: The development threatens the habitat of at least two
endangered species, the box turtle and the long-eared bat and further study is
needed to establish that construction will not create higher mortality among both
species. Additionally, increased boat traffic in and out of Mattituck Creek would put
at risk marine life, including sea turtles, which are at a high risk of injury and
mortality because of boat strikes. Four species of threatened and endangered sea
3
turtles have appeared in larger numbers in recent years in Long Island Sound. All
four species of sea turtles (Atlantic green, loggerhead, leatherback, and Kemp's
ridley) are either threatened or endangered at the state and federal level.
Therefore, they are protected under the Endangered Species Act and New York
State Environmental Conservation laws and regulations. A comprehensive study is
needed to assess and mitigate the impact of an additional 88 large yachts on
vulnerable sea turtles, which will be traveling into and out of Mattituck Creek during
key times in the turtles' migration cycle. The impact on endangered piping plovers
has also been understated in the DEIS, with insufficient study of the potential
effects of excavation on their nesting habits. (The ecology expert at the public
hearing on 6/5 named "blasting" as a concern for piping plovers and their nesting
habits).
• Lack of Independent Evaluation: The project's impact has not been independently
evaluated by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) of the state of
New York.
Considering these concerns, I urge you, as the board responsible for safeguarding town
land and the well-being of residents, to prevent the advancement of this project. Allowing it
to proceed would diminish our quality of life and harm an irreplaceable asset—Mattituck
Creek and its shores. You have the opportunity to make a lasting impact by rejecting
Strong Marine's proposal and instead focusing on preserving the natural beauty of this
area for future generations. I implore you to make the right choice.
Sincerely,
Annie Correal
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
4
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Tuesday,July 11, 2023 11:28 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Stop the overdevelopment of mattituck Inlet by enacting Stron's plan to
cut down hundreds of trees and remove a hill of sand
.. "
-----Original Message-----
J U L ) ��
From: Brian Withers<brianwith@gmail.com> Y, -"r
'i"own
Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2023 3:24 PM Planning Boars!
To: Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Stop the overdevelopment of mattituck Inlet by enacting Stron's plan to cut down hundreds of trees
and remove a hill of sand
Dear Mr. Cummnings:
I live with my family at 485 Raccoon Road in Mattituck. Our house is quite close to Mattituck Inlet. Everyone, or almost
everyone, in my neighborhood is against Stong's plan to kill 640 fully grown trees and haul away a hill of sand (134,000
cubic yards of sand) by Mattituck Inlet. This will cause a disaster. Why not change the jplan and allow Strong's to build
their buildings further south in Mattituck Inlet on land that would not require such a huge removal of trees and sand.
Strong's could donate the land they wanted to use initially to the nearby town park near the entrance to the Inlet. This
is a win-win plan that would benefit everyone concerned. It could be done, and hundreds of Southold residents would
be relieved. Why wreck the North Fork coastline? After all the water level of Long Island Sound is rising due to climate
change. In years to come if Strong's initial plan is enacted vast amounts of Mattituck Inlet may be under siege due to the
invasion of Long Island Sound waters. Nearby homes and properties on the coastline could be severely damaged during
storms, etc. Please change Strong's plan and allow them to build carefully so that the North Fork is preserved and
sustained. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Brian Withers
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
r
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 11:28 AM �? ,�, �
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Opposition to Strongs projectMPIanl
-----Original Message-----
From: Lori Panarello<lori.panarello@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 12:56 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Opposition to Strongs project
My name is Lori Panarello and my wife's name is Catherine Canade. We live at 1065 West Mill Rd. in Mattituck directly
on the route to the Strongs project.
In addition to the fact that 653 trees will be cut down, and an insufficient number will be replanted,wildlife will be
completely lost in and around the inlet,there is a severe danger posed by the amount of propane and gasoline that will
be housed in those two giant storage containers, we are very concerned about the number of heavy and large trucks
every day, all day, that will undoubtedly speeding up and down our road every 7 minutes for more than a year,
destroying the roadways with insufficient money put aside for repair.The amount of noise, pollution, and disruption will
be incredibly dangerous and destructive to all of the residents in that area that use that road to walk,jog,walk dogs,
push baby strollers,and pullout of our driveways.
We feel that Strongs is vastly underestimating the length of time the project will take, and the number of loads that will
have to be removed both for sand mining, and then the construction of the area and the buildings,failing to take into
account the adverse effect on the residents' way of life.
Please do not allow this to happen.
We moved to the North Fork 10 years ago to live the lifestyle that was promised by the beauty of this area and we feel
that this project will not only strip it away but it will lead to other similar projects and ultimately destroy what Mr.
Strong says he is trying to uphold. When is enough money enough?
When we attended the Strongs information evening at the Mattituck Laurel library a short time ago,on behalf of Save
the Mattituck Inlet it was clear to us that the Strongs are minimizing the impact on the environmental and on the
surrounding neighborhoods, in order to maximize the profit for their own family and their company.This goes against
everything that the North Fork stands for. We strongly oppose this project and feel it is a commercial project taking
place in a residential community. For all Mr. Strong's assertions that this will "be over in no time at all" we highly doubt
that Mr.Strong would move this project onto Wickham where he lives and have the project disrupt him, his family and
neighbors the way ours will be.
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,July 11, 2023 11:28 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
g' p Buildings
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- Pro Proposed Boat Storage
F..... ... ...n,..... __ ....
JUL 10 2023
-----Original Message-----
From: Atsuko Shio<atshio@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2023 10:30 AM Planning Board
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center-Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
Dear Southold Town Planning Board Members,
I am writing to express my strong support for efforts to save Mattituck Inlet, and to voice my opposition to the proposed
expansion of Strong's yacht storage buildings in Mattituck.As a concerned citizen and environmental advocate, I believe
that both issues are closely intertwined, and that preserving the natural beauty and ecological health of our community
is of the utmost importance.
Mattituck Inlet is a vital part of the local ecosystem, providing essential habitat for a variety of marine species. It also
serves as an important recreational area for fishing, boating, and other water-based activities. However,the inlet is
currently facing significant threats, including erosion, pollution, and other environmental pressures.The proposed
expansion of Strong's storage buildings would only exacerbate these threats, potentially causing irreparable harm to the
fragile ecosystem of the inlet and surrounding areas.
I urge you to take swift action to address these threats and protect Mattituck Inlet for future generations.This could
include implementing measures to reduce pollution and erosion, increasing public awareness and education about the
importance of protecting the inlet, and collaborating with local environmental groups and other stakeholders to develop
a comprehensive conservation plan.Additionally, I urge you to deny the proposed expansion of Strong's storage building
expansion, as it would be detrimental to the health and well-being of our community and the natural environment.
Saving Mattituck Inlet is not just an environmental issue—it is also a social and economic issue.The inlet supports a
thriving local fishing industry and provides recreational opportunities for residents and visitors alike. By protecting this
important resource and opposing the expansion of Strong's yacht storage buildings, we can ensure that future
generations can enjoy the many benefits that it provides.
In addition to the environmental and economic concerns, I am also deeply worried about the safety of the community's
residents/children who frequently kayak/paddle in the narrow inlet. Allowing larger boats into the area through the
proposed expansion of Strong's storage buildings creates a significant safety risk for these watercraft users.The
increased traffic in the inlet, combined with the limited space and narrow channels, could lead to serious accidents and
injuries. It is essential that we prioritize the safety of our community and take action to prevent unnecessary risks to
their well-being.
I thank you for your attention to these important matters, and I look forward to your continued leadership in preserving
and protecting Mattituck Inlet and our community as a whole.
Sincerely,
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 11:27 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
AV
RE
-NE
-----Original Message----- G)L
From: Lainie Doherty<lainiedoherty@gmail.com> ovv
°
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 6:16 PM Planning B0
To: Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mar ':der y@to K- s>
Cc: Save Mattitucklnlet<savemattituckinlet@gmail.com>
Subject: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
Hello,
Three years ago my family and I purchased a home in Mattituck across from the Mill Road Preserve. For many years we
traveled to the North Fork with the hope of one day living there. We purchased the home to make an escape from the
city because in Mattituck we found a place of untouched natural beauty that we truly cherish. We walk to the beach
and ride bikes knowing that the roads are safe with very little traffic.
With the proposed building of yacht storage at the inlet we are ALL very concerned about overdevelopment in the area
and the negative impact it will most certainly have on the wildlife and environment. We are appealing to you to please
consider denying this proposed change.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Lainie Doherty.
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
Svb�
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Tuesday,July 11, 2023 11:27 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin RECEIVED
... m._�._
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Mattituck Inlet JUL 10
2023
. .... .. .....
o6thold fown
Planning Board
-----Original Message-----
From: Maureen Fritch<reenyruns@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:34 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] - Mattituck Inlet
Mr Cummings,
As a resident on the inlet I cannot believe that the planning board is giving any approval on moving this project forward.
Have you personally experienced the inlet and its serenity.The inlet is visited by many with small boats and canoes from
all over the eastern seaboard.These visitors,some coming every summer season as tradition, state how beautifully
unique this inlet is. It is a hidden jewel.
This project is based on one person's greed for wealth and a lack of consideration for his neighbors.
You have heard this statement over and over.This project is too large for the inlet. It is not an appropriate location.
I will be attending the next hearing.
Please reconsider giving this project any further momentum.
Maureen Fritch
975 Westview Drive
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: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 11:25 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
--VED
Subject: FW: Strong Marina Proposal
��. . 0 2023
n ....
Planning Board
From: L B Heit<heitl@mindspring.com>
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 1:18 PM
To:Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>; terry@town.southold.ny.us
Subject:Strong Marina Proposal
The Strong Marina proposal is so out of line with an environmentally conscious North Fork it
really deserves to be summarily dismissed. Let us eliminate the red herrings being circulated
about whether the town supports the marine industry or if Jeff Strong is a good guy and reliable
businessman. The real bargain is how many old growth trees and tons of sand does one get to
destroy to create a "job". In the current proposal, the answer seems to be 52 old growth trees
(plus tons of sand) per job. That is a really bad deal for the environment and the Town of
Southold. Unemployment is less than 3% in Suffolk County. The indoor storage of mega
yachts for the extremely wealthy is a new business for Mattituck. What if it is
unsuccessful? Well the North Fork will have paid a price it can not recoup. The trees and sand
are gone forever..
The Southold Board should be saying NO to these tradeoffs. We do not have to destroy the
environment to create a job and we do not have to turn Mattituck in the boating garage for the
Rich and Famous to sustain and enhance the quality of life for the North Fork.
Thanks for consideration of comments.
L B Heit
235 Linnnet St
Greenport, NY 11944
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, July 11, 2023 11:28 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- proposed boat storage buildings
JULRECEIVE Q
1. 0 2023
-----Original Message-----
uti�d To.....ww..
Planning Bo . ...
From: Michael Getches<mike@researchmaterial.net> v�n
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 4:19 PM � and -
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- proposed boat storage buildings
Dear Brian and Mark,
My name is Michael Getches and I am a resident of Mattituck. I live here full time with my wife,4 year old daughter and
10 month old son. I am writing in vehement opposition of Strong's proposed boat storage buildings.Simply put, it is a
dangerous precedent to irrevocably alter a cherished habitat and recreation area for the, more than likely,short term
whims of the privileged few. Living on breakwater road we already deal with a frightening influx of high powered and
absurdly expensive vehicles racing down our"quiet" road during the summer. So much so, it is too dangerous for my
children to play in our front yard.This is a complex and layered issue, but it is also extremely simple.A choice between
what is right and money. Please put the kibosh on this dastardly over reach by Strong's.
Thank you for your time,
Michael Getches
Michael Getches
www.researchmaterial.net
(631)413-9951
Sent From The Field
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,July 11, 2023 11:28 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin F B r H L i MT f BG/ Mc_
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
R"E'Qf"IVED
-----Original Message----- !_. _.,......
From: Peter Nesgos<peternesgos@gmail.com>
Planning 0oard II
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 5:17 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
To:Town of Southold, Planning Department
As residents of Mattituck for more than 15 years,we wish to express our grave concerns regarding the environmental
and social impacts of the proposed development of the Strong's Marine Storage Building Project.
We urge you, as officials responsible for the planning and development of our community,to carefully evaluate this
proposed Project from the perspective of retaining the health, safety and well-being of our Town and the North Fork.
Thank you for this opportunity to express our views on the serious consequences to our community of this proposed
project.
Peter and Carolyn Nesgos,
Mattituck
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,July 11, 2023 11:30 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] -The Strong Proposal SV b p
PQ,HL. ..,MTI...Q.G...I MIC
iMessage
Y ji y .�.. _.._....o. 073
Jim Case < imcase 67@gmail.com> JUL 10 Original essa a-----
From: M
Sent:Tuesday,July 4, 2023 2:01 PM S-06ih6,Id Dawn
To: Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us> Planning Board
Cc:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us> _.. ..... _..... . . _._...._...................
Subject: [SPAM] -The Strong Proposal
As a 45 year Mattituck resident in close proximity to Mattituck Creek, I want to express my very strong opposition to the
extensive expansion of Strong Marina.
Who does this benefit?
Jeff Strong,the 11 permanent workers who would be employed and the wealthy owners of the large yachts that would
be docked there. I believe that even North Fork restaurants would not profit. If these yacht owners do not bring their
own chefs on board,the greater likelihood is that they and their guests would take a car service to the South Fork where
the greater number of upscale restaurants would fit their high end tastes.
And who would not benefit?
Let's deal primarily with humans..The damage to the wetlands,trees,fish and sea life would also be considerable.
The residents in close proximity to the proposed site would come first.Their immediate quality of life would be affected
by the noise of the many large trucks carrying large loads on their small roads.The neighbors on the roads leading to the
site would also be touched by these trucks.Our roads would also suffer unnecessary damage.
The negative aesthetics of these 50,000 square foot warehouses would affect the North Forkers and all visitors whose
eyes come in contact with them. I myself frequently walk on the east side of the creek and would be one of these
people.
So your task should not be a difficult one. You should act for the greater good of the North Fork, not for the benefit of
one wealthy business and wealthier yacht owners.
Sincerely,
Jim Casey
Mattituck
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.
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Tuesday,July 11, 2023 11:30 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Mattituck inlet 1s v b 1F
P5, HLIMT, BC Mo
-----Original Message----- JUL j. 0 2023
From:John French<jtfrench63@gmail.com> C .. f
Sent:Wednesday,July 5, 2023 2:55 PM " 6��fi�r��d T-6v-rr
Planning Board
To: Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us> . _ .,_._..._ .w.ry.,.,_...w..
Subject: [SPAM] - Mattituck inlet
Dear Brian, as a long time Laurel home owner I am very upset about what is happening to our beautiful north fork.
Slowly but very surely we don't realize how much we keep destroying the fork. I have nothing against Jeff Strong. He has
actually turned a couple of raggedy marinas into clean ones. My family dock at them in the summer.This project has
gone too far,please do not destroy the only real inlet on the north fork. Let's" keep what's left" before its too late.
Thank you. John French
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, July 11, 2023 11:30 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin Svbf
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Re: Comments on Strong's Proposed Yacht Storage F51 H LI MT, 06, �C
RECEIVED
-----Original �Message-----g
From: Garrett Cutler a rrettc t
< u ler verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday,July 9, 2023 2:56 PM Planning Board
To: Cummings, Brian A.<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] - Re: Comments on Strong's Proposed Yacht Storage
> Dear Members of the Southold Town Planning Board,
> I am writing to express my deep concerns with Jeff Strong's plan to construct warehouses for large yachts on
Mattituck Creek. Living beside the creek for 26 years, I have witnessed its fragility and the decline in habitat over time. I
am particularly concerned over the potential effects of construction runoff and increased boat traffic on the wetlands
and marine life, particularly on the creek's shellfish. I have seen firsthand the negative impacts of development,
pollution, and invasive species on the clam population in my hometown of Ipswich, Massachusetts.And I fear that our
local shellfish population is at risk of suffering the same fate.
>Our local surface waters have already been severely degraded due to our inaction on pollution caused by
sewage, septic systems, cesspools, and runoff. Examining Strong's DEIS, I have noticed that the removal of the sand
hillside to build the warehouses will increase stormwater runoff.Although there is a plan to mitigate this runoff, it fails
to adequately address shoreline erosion, increased storm intensity and frequency and coastal flooding associated with
climate change. It also fails to address the runoff caused by the construction project itself.
>You might wonder why we should be alarmed over runoff, and its effect on shellfish. Do they have any
benefits for humans and our local economy? Here are a few key points to consider.
>Shellfish, as filter feeders, naturally remove particles and nutrients from the water, significantly improving
water quality. In fact, market-sized oysters can filter up to 45 gallons of water per day!They also play a crucial role in
creating new habitat for other species by forming reefs.These reefs provide shelter and food for invertebrates,juvenile
fish, and other marine species, ultimately supporting the overall ecosystem.Additionally, shellfish help control harmful
algal blooms, such as red tide, by preventing the accumulation of algal cells to harmful levels.They also contribute to
minimizing the impacts of climate change, including shoreline erosion, by stabilizing sediments and protecting the
shoreline.
1
>As you weigh this proposal, I implore you to consider the detrimental effect it will have on our local shellfish
population and to instead explore sustainable alternatives that can still support our economy and create jobs.Shellfish
aquaculture--that is, shellfish farming and restoration --has been embraced in other areas along the Eastern Seaboard,
including Long Island Sound. Preserving(and restoring)the oysters, clams, and mussels of Mattituck Creek could not
only help improve the water quality of the creek and the health of the wetlands but also provide food and jobs.
>I trust that you will carefully consider the long-term consequences of Strong's proposed warehouses on our
fragile ecosystem and make a decision that prioritizes the preservation of our local environment and the well-being of
our community.
>Sincerely,
>Garrett C. Cutler
>784 Bailie Beach Road, Mattituck, NY 11952
2
'Svb-P
PBS -- ' " c
RECE......T .. .-
JUL 1, 0 2()23
soUtholC Town
To the Southold Planning Board: Planning Board
My Name Is Ted Papadopoulos, I am writing to express my support for the Strong's Marine Yacht
Storage proposal.
My Family has been a part of Mattituck since the late sixties and have moved out full time in the late
1990's. We have had the pleasure of raising our kids and families here and have enjoyed the beautiful
waters and wonderful lifestyle Mattituck affords us.
We have always kept our boats at a Strongs Marina facility and are fortunate to know the Strongs
family. They are multigenerational Mattituck folks who care about Mattituck!
When Jeff originally asked me to support this project, I objected. Like many, I was concerned about the
environment,the traffic,the pollution,the noise,you name it.
The more I learn,the more I think this project makes sense.This is a unique piece of property that can
have multiple uses. For starters while there will be extreme inconvenience for 9 months during
construction,that will come to a halt at completion.
Learning about the flexible zoning of this property,what is to stop a major developer from buying it and
building multiple homes, condos, stores or a hotel?
Mattituck will then still have the inconvenience of the traffic,the environmental concerns, pollution
concerns, along with sewage and septic concerns,wear and tear of the roads,schools, police and fire
protection. However,with that scenario,those issues will be here to stay PERMENANTLY.
Yachts do not use bathrooms, nor do they go to school. With the proposed Tax revenue this project will
generate,the towns expenditures will remain minimal in regard to this parcel of land.
Looking at the other Strongs properties, I am sure this will be done with taste and class and will be
beautiful upon completion. This project allows Mattituck to stay a boating community and not a place
for weekend warriors to come in and out of our town. No transient guest will ever be as protective of
the town as we are.
Please approve the Strong's Yacht Center project as submitted and let's keep this a working shipyard,
Your M icerely,
1 Papa Poulos
S ub-F
P6 H L I t Theresa Dilworth
3755 Hallock Lane
Q...__........._.............. ..... _,., Mattituck,NY 11952
i
J U. ). fl '2 f")?
Board July 10, 2023
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Strong's Yacht Center, LLC's Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)
I'd like to express my concern regarding the Southold Town Planning Board and Planning
Department's non-consideration of the March and April 2020 input of the Suffolk County
Planning Department and Suffolk County Planning Commission--thereby ignoring SEQR
guidelines and causing harm to the community.
As lead agency, the Town has a duty to coordinate with other"involved agencies". Suffolk
County is one such agency; Riverhead Town is another.
Southold Town as lead agency has a legal obligation to involve other agencies. "The lead agency
will make every reasonable effort to involve project sponsors,other agencies and the public in
the SEQR process. Early consultations initiated by agencies can serve to narrow issues of
significance and to identify areas of controversy relating to environmental issues, thereby
focusing on the impacts and alternatives requiring in-depth analysis in an EIS."1 (emphasis
added).
The other involved agencies, including Suffolk County Planning Department and Suffolk County
Planning Commission, also have a legal duty under SEQR. "Each agency involved in a proposed
action has the responsibility to provide the lead agency with information it may have that may
assist the lead agency in making its determination of significance, to identify potentially
significant adverse impacts in the scoping process, to comment in a timely manner on the EIS if
it has concerns which need to be addressed and to participate as may be needed, in any public
hearing. Interested agencies are strongly encouraged to make known their views on the action,
particularly with respect to their areas of expertise and jurisdiction."
16 NYCRR§617.3(d),
1
Southold Town notified the Suffolk County Planning Department and Planning Commission in
February 2020. The involved agencies in March and April 2020 promptly apprised Southold
Town of concerns and technical requirements, identified potential environmental impacts, and
suggested alternatives and mitigation with respect to their areas of expertise and jurisdiction.
However, on several occasions,the Town repeatedly neglected the questions and comments of
the other involved agencies. This appears to disregard the SEQR requirement of"early
consultations to narrow issues of significance and identify areas of controversy, thereby focusing
on the impacts and alternatives requiring in-depth analysis in an EIS."Z
1. On April 1,2020, the Suffolk County Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled
meeting and discussed the SYC matter. The summary of the meeting indicates that the
Commission agreed with the Staff Report dated March 25, 2020 which approved the
project, but on two conditions. The first condition is that"no soil is to be excavated and
removed off site. It is questionable if the excavation and removal of approximately
130,000 cubic yards of soil off site is necessary. The intended excavation will create a
bowl on site where storm flood waters from Mattituck Creek will surge into.
Building Improvements and infrastructure in the created flood plain (excavation)
will only set up a"repetitive economic loss" scenario into the future for the boat
storage building owners."We understand that the meeting summary and Staff Report
were made available to the Town. They are available on the Suffolk County Planning
Commission website and are attached for reference.
Southold Town ignored this condition of approval; allowing the SYC proposal to move
forward for the last three and a half years as a bluff excavation and sand removal plan.
2. A second condition of the County's approval was investigating the alternative of
constructing buildings in their existing locations without soil excavation and
removal,in an expanded Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF). Building at
the existing grade lessens the repetitive economic loss concern and also addresses the
functionality of the waste and storm water systems proposed. See the adopted report
of the Suffolk County Planning Commission for further details on this alternative.
The Southold Town Planning Dept. and Planning Board omitted this item when it filed
the FEAF in August 2020. The FEAF was signed by Mark Terry as preparer and by
Donald J. Wilcenski as responsible officer in the lead agency, both signatures dated
August 11, 2020. A copy is on the Southold Town Planning Department website.
3. As a consequence of being omitted from the FEAF,the County's conditions-no soil
removal and investigate building in the existing location-were missing from the
applicant's Draft Scope and Final Scope documents and discussed in just a single
paragraph in the DEIS, on page 336. One paragraph of a DEIS containing thousands of
pages including Appendices is inadequate—definitely not the"hard look"required under
the case law. SEQRA always requires review of less environmentally damaging
alternatives—and not simply because Suffolk County Planning Commission approval is
z 6 NYCRR§617.3(d).
2
conditional upon such review. SEQRA requires a lead agency to "act and choose
alternatives which,consistent with social, economic and other essential
considerations,to the maximum extent practicable, minimize or avoid adverse
environmental effects.i3
4. The April 1, 2020 Suffolk County Planning Commission meeting summary contains
requests for further information. It states that"Staff deem the referral to be incomplete
and noted that the referral will not be reviewed until certain information is submitted
through the offices of the municipal referring agency."Further information requested
included"channel depths at the mouth and course of Mattituck Creek particularly in the
off shore location creekward of the shoreline of Strong's Yacht Center," "the typical type
and size of boats to be serviced by the "yacht center" as a result of the proposed new
storage buildings", "the necessity to excavate soils at the subject location", "an
explanation of the need for the proposed elevation of the floor of the boat storage
buildings,"and"clarification on Town of Southold protection of wetland regulations with
respect to issues of soil erosion and sedimentation from clearance, grading, excavation or
other disturbance of steeply sloped soils to be held by retaining walls on adjacent areas to
tidal wetlands."
5. On April 2, 2020,the Suffolk County Planning Commission officially requested this
further information in a letter to Elizabeth Neville, Southold Town Clerk. The letter is on
the Southold Town Planning Department's website in the Subject File and is attached
here. The information requested essentially mirrors that of the meeting summary dated
April 1, 2020, and requests: (a) channel depths at the mouth and course of Mattituck
Creek particularly in the off shore location creekward of the shoreline of Strong's Yacht
Center; (b) information regarding the typical type and size of boats to be serviced by the
yacht center including maximum beam, draft,weight, and length, (c) the necessity to
excavate soils at the subject location, and (d) further clarification of the Town of
Southold wetland protection regulations.
The Town does not appear to have provided the information to the Suffolk County
Planning Commission for over three years.
6. On April 7, 2020, Andrew P. Freleng, the Chief Planner of the Suffolk County
Department of Economic Development and Planning wrote a letter to the Town of
Southold, attn: Brian Cummings. The letter repeats verbatim much of the information
contained in the Staff Analysis section of the Staff Report dated March 25, 2020, and
expands upon it. It states "It is questionable if the excavation and removal of
approximately 130,000 cubic yards of soil off site is necessary. Best management
practice for site design is to have balanced cut and fill for site development.No soils
should be removed. This is not the case here. The intended excavation will create a
bowl on site where storm flood waters from Mattituck Creek will surge into. Details
shown on plans prepared by Young and Young last revised No. 20 2018 and referred
from the Town of Southold Planning Board show elevation of the finished excavation to
be approximately 9-10 feet above mean sea level. Only a few feet above the base flood
s 6 NYCRR§617.11(d).
3
elevation and would be susceptive, as are other areas of similar elevations, to surges and
flooding from category 2 hurricanes in the least."
Had the Southold Town Planning Department and Planning Board heeded the Suffolk County
Planning Commission Staff Report's conditions of approval, the applicant could have spent the
last three years detailing out a less environmentally impactful alternative with an actual chance
of being approved by Suffolk County. Instead, the project has persisted for over three years as
the most ecologically devastating alternative -- creating bitter divisions in the community, and
angst, ill-will, and negative feelings toward the Strong family and the Town government.
The DEIS inadequately discusses an explicit alternative not requiring soil excavation and
removal put forth by an involved agency with concurrent jurisdiction to review and approve the
action. Accordingly, it is difficult to fathom why the Planning Dept. even considered the DEIS to
be "complete"and"suitable for public review and comment"at this time.
Southold Town's repeated lack of acknowledgement of the Suffolk County Planning
Commission's input for over three years has consequences. If an agency(Southold Town) does
not comply with SEQR, citizens or groups who can demonstrate that they are harmed by this
failure may take legal action against the agency under Article 78 of the New York State Civil
Practice Law and Rules. Courts may annul project approvals and require a new review under
SEQR. New York State's court system has consistently ruled in favor of strong compliance with
the provisions of SEQR.4
The community has been harmed. By not considering the input of Suffolk County Planning
Commission and Planning Department, for the last three years, the Town has squandered the
time and resources of:
• State, county and municipal government agencies including Southold Town Planning
Department, Planning Board, other Town departments, Town officials of Riverhead,New
York Department of Environmental Conservation, etc.;
• the general public who have collectively spent hours attending public hearings,
organizing petitions, and writing letters, both for and against the project;
• several civic associations, libraries, community organizations, etc. who have held
meetings and open houses;
• journalists from at least four newspapers; and
• the applicant,who has spent time and resources on consultants, engineers, lawyers and
architects.
t5y 'of Count,, JurmLvdiction
The Suffolk County Planning Commission is an involved agency with concurrent jurisdiction
over this matter because it is within 500 feet from Mattituck Inlet. Another reason for Suffolk
County jurisdiction is that the action impacts two municipalities in the County- Southold Town
°The SEQR Handbook,4th Edition,at page 10.
tit a ..fw. ec,rt cav�ciec .crr�it era at'ic,n dF' se rhardc�ardl
4
and Riverhead Town. The action also creates important impacts on County Route 48, which
starts 1,000 feet west of Cox Neck Road,s and on County Route 43,Northville Turnpike.
The Suffolk County Planning Commission has not issued its final report due to questions to
Southold Town that remain unanswered for over three years. What is the reason for the Town's
failure to provide the requested information, to an involved agency,pursuant to a New York
State process?
Suffolk County Planning Commission review and approval is no secret. Page 4 of the Final
Scope of the DEIS contains a table of government agency approvals required. One of these is
"Suffolk County Planning Commission: Review and Approval."
We note that if Southold Town declines to adopt recommendations of the Suffolk County
Planning Commission, it may do so only upon an affirmative vote of a majority plus one, in a
resolution that explicitly sets forth its reasons for not adopting the Planning Commission's
recommendations.6 It appears that a unanimous vote is necessary since one member of the
Southold Planning Board,Donald Wilcenski, has recused himself for personal reasons; we
understand he does business with the applicant. Of the remaining four members, three would be
needed to create a majority, and so all four non-recused members would constitute the majority
vote plus one.
After the Final EIS is completed, all involved agencies, including Southold Town as lead agency,
must make findings. An involved agency, in this case Suffolk County Planning Commission,
will prepare its own separate SEQR findings. SEQR provides all involved agencies with the
authority, following the filing of a final EIS and written findings statement,to impose
substantive conditions upon an action.' If one agency prepares positive findings, and another
prepares negative findings,the action cannot go forward unless the conflict is resolved.$
Conclusion
In conclusion, it appears that the Town of Southold has not properly followed SEQR regulations
which require lead agencies to, early in the process,"involve other agencies to narrow issues of
significance and identify areas of controversy, thereby focusing on the impacts and alternatives
requiring in-depth analysis in an EIS." Early in the process,the Suffolk County Planning
Commission's Staff Report stated as a condition of its approval that no soil is to be excavated
and removed off the site,but this condition was ignored.
'See ltt s.LLw L dotdot.n . ovLdLMs arcs irlecrinp.technical-services/lids.
rsasitrarNYtII LHN Coanty_,,1tods ufctgc c�aaaf
e Suffolk County Administrative Code section A14-16(B).
6 NYCRR 617.3(b).
a The SEQRA Handbook at page 146.
5
The Town of Southold also appears to have ignored the Suffolk County Planning Commission's
second condition of approval, including in the FEAF the alternative of constructing buildings
in their existing locations without soil excavation and removal.
The Town of Southold also appears to have ignored the County's requests for further information
contained in the meeting summary dated April 1, 2020, the letter to the Town Clerk dated April
2, 2020, and the letter to Brian Cummings dated April 7, 2020.
In summary,the Town's failure to follow SEQR guidelines requiring consultation with other
agencies has wasted government resources and caused harm to the community.
Very truly yours,
Theresa Dilworth
6
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
Steven Bellone
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Summary of Regularly Scheduled Meeting
Jennifer Casey Sarah Lansdale,AICP
Chairwomen DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
Date: April 1, 2020
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Location: ZOOM Video Conference
Due to the Novel Coronavirus(COVID-19)Emergency and State and Federal bans on large meetings or gatherings
and pursuant to Governor Cuomo's Executive Order 220.1 issued on March 12,2020 suspending the Open
Meeting Law,the Suffolk County Planning Commission Meeting will be held electronically via ZOOM. Instead of
a public meeting open for the public to attend in person,members of the public may Listen to or log into the
video conference. The public was encouraged to send in their statements for the public portion to the address
above or email to � . The Minutes of the meeting will be posted on the Suffolk
County Planning Commission website.
Members Present (13)
Jennifer Casey-Town of Huntington
Adrienne Esposito-Villages Over 5,000
Samuel Chu -Town of Babylon
Rodney Anderson -At Large
Matthew Chartrand - Town of Islip
John Condzella-Town of Riverhead-
John Finn -Town of Smithtown
Kevin Gershowitz-At Large
Michael Kaufman -Villages Under 5,000
Michael Kelly-Town of Brookhaven
Errol Kitt-At Large
Thomas McCarthy-Town of Southold
Nicholas Morehead -Town of Shelter Island
Members Not Present (0)
Staff Present(6)
Sarah Lansdale-Director of Planning
Andrew Freleng -Chief Planner
Ted Klein -Principal Planner
John Corral- Environmental Projects Coorindator
Christine DeSalvo- Principal Office Assistant
Brittany Toledano-Assistant County Attorney (Counsel to the Commission)
H.LEE DENNISON BLDG W 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,11th FIN P.O.BOX 6100 a HAUPPAUGE,NY 11768-0099 a(631)853-5191
Meeting Summary (continued) April 1,2020
Call to Order - The Suffolk County Planning Commission meeting of April 1, 2020 was called to
order by Chairwoman Jennifer Casey at 2:05 p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance
Guest Speaker(s)
• Town of East Hampton, Director of Planning, Joann Pahwul, mentioned in her presentation
that the Moratorium being considered by the Commission is a Town Board initiative and the Board
held a preliminary hearing and are looking for preliminary comments, Lisa Liquori, of Dodson &
Flinker, Consultant to the Town of East Hampton gave a presentation on the East Hampton
Hamlet Studies.
• Town of Southold,Director of Planning,Heather Lanza, gave a presentation on the proposed
6 month Moratorium(extension)—"State Route 25/Love Lane Intersection and Surrounding Area"
to the Planning Commission and addressed questions from commission members.
Public Portion— No public portion
Section A14-14 thru A14-26 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code
• Town of East Hampton, Master Plan for Amagansett,s two main Commercial Districts and
Master Plan for Montauk,s two main Commercial Districts, located in the Town of East
Hampton. As part of the Town process of adopting amendments to the Town Comprehensive
Plan. The East Hampton Town Board has referred two Hamlet Plans (Amagansett and
Montauk) to the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Received on February 24, 2020. The
Commission's jurisdiction is Adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments - Hamlet Plans
As with prior East Hampton Hamlet plans referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission
the purpose of these initiatives is to better understand and address the potential changes and
challenges facing the business areas within the Town. To do that the East Hampton Town Board
retained a consulting team to prepare a Hamlet Plan for each of the Town's 5 planning Areas
(School Districts) including Wainscott, East Hampton, Amagansett, Springs and Montauk along
with a Town-wide economic business district analysis. The preparation of these detailed studies
was recommended in the 2005 Town of East Hampton Comprehensive Plan.
As noted in the referral material to the Suffolk County Planning Commission from the East
Hampton Town Board the Planning Process for these hamlet plans was a collaborative process
including public charrettes, open Town Board meetings, and several public workshop and
hearings on the draft and final plans.
The Amagansett Hamlet Plan focuses on the 2 major commercial areas along Montauk
Highway; Amagansett"Center and Amagansett"East" and also provides an inventory and
analysis of the entire planning area with regard to historic and cultural resources, demographics,
natural resources, environmental challenges, zoning, land use, economy, residential and
commercial buildout and transportation and infrastructure. The Plan provides general objectives
and an illustrative master plan depicting a vision for how the Amagansett business district could
be redeveloped over the coming decades based on the input received during the multiple public
workshops.
H.LEE DENNISON BLDG N 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,IIth FI 4 P.O.BOX 5100 N HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 K(631)853-5191
Meeting Summary (continued) April 1, 2020
Section A14-14 thru A14-25 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code (continued)
Town of East Hampton, Master Plan for Amagansett,s two main Commercial Districts and
Master Plan for Montauk,s two main Commercial Districts (continued)
The Montauk Hamlet Plan report focuses on the 2 major commercial areas referred to as
Montauk Downtown and Montauk Harbor but also provides an inventory and analysis on the
entire Planning Area with regard to historic and cultural resources, demographics, etc. and has a
focus on the Montauk Long Island Rail Road Station and how the Montauk Hamlet could be
redeveloped over the coming decades based on the input received during the multiple public
workshops.
The staff report recommended approval of the Town of East Hampton Hamlet Plans for
Amagansett and Montauk with five (5) comments for their consideration and use by the Town of
East Hampton.
After deliberation the Commission resolved to agree with the staff report and approve the Hamlet
Plans with five(5) comments.
The motion to approve the Town of East Hampton's Hamlet Studies with the five (5) comments for
their consideration and use by the Town of East Hampton was made by Commission member Kelly
and seconded by Commission member Finn, vote to Approve; 13 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions.
Strongs Yacht Center, Town of Southold, The application is referred by the Town of Southold,
received on February 18, 2020 the Commission's jurisdiction for review is thatthe application is that
it is within 500 feet of Mattituck Creek. Applicants seek Town of Southold Planning Board Site
Plan approval for the construction of 101,500 SF of boat storage in two one-story buildings
(52,500 SF [Bldg. 1.] and 49,000 SF [Bldg. 2.]) plus associated site"improvements" including
grading, storm water drainage, water supply, and sewage disposal. In addition, traditional
concrete and evergreen retaining walls, French drains, two locations for duel 2,000 gallon Liquid
Propane above ground storage tanks and a six foot high black vinyl clad chain link fence along
the top of the proposed evergreen retaining wall is proposed.
Staff deemed the referral to be Incomplete and noted that the referral will not be reviewed until
certain information is submitted through the offices of the municipal referring agency:
At the time of Site Plan referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission a full environmental
quality review of the proposal shall 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.
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. Future referral
material to the Suffolk County Planning Commission with respect to the Suffolk County
Administrative Code Article XIV Section A14 -25 shall include facts as to the maximum beam,
draft, weight and length of water craft that will be serviced at the marina after completion of the
proposed boat storage buildings.
There is inadequate information regarding the necessity to excavate soils at the subject location
of the proposed action. Referral material to the Suffolk County Planning Commission with
respect to the Suffolk County Administrative Code Article XIV Section A14-25 shall include an
explanation of the need for the proposed elevation of the floor of the boat storage buildings.
H.LEE DENNISON BLDG 8 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,11th F(4 P.O.BOX 6100 0 HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 0(631)853-5191
Meeting Summary (continued) April 1, 2020
Section A14-14 thru A14-25 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code (continued)
Is Strongs Yacht Center, Town of Southold (continued)
The Suffolk County Planning Commission would like further clarification on Town of Southold
protection of wetland regulations with respect to issues of soil erosion and sedimentation from
clearance, grading, excavation or other disturbance of steeply sloped soils to be held by
retaining walls on adjacent areas to tidal wetlands.
After deliberation the Commission resolved to generally agree with the staff report and deemed the
referral to be incomplete due to lack of information received. A motion was made by Commission
member McCarthy and seconded by Commission member Anderson, vote to deem Incomplete; 11
ayes, 1 nays (Gershowitz), 0 abstentions.
Town of Southold, Moratorium (extension), Moratorium (extension)—State Route 25/1-ove
Lane Intersection and Surrounding Area. Received on March 3, 2020 (8/8/2019). The
Commission's jurisdiction is Moratorium area is adjacent to NYS Rte. 25. The Southold Town
Board has referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission a "local law in relation to the six
(6) month extension of a temporary moratorium on the issuance of approvals and/or permits for
the parcels of property in the State Route 25 Love Lane Intersection and surrounding area".
This would be the second extension and the third six(6) month period making the total of the
three moratoria eighteen (18) months (1.5 yrs.).
Staff indicated that it would appear that the Town overrode or disregarded the Suffolk County
Planning Commission resolution. With respect to this Local Law referral, none of the above
information has been submitted with this latest request and the language of the Local Law is
essentially identical to language in prior iterations of the moratorium.
It is recommended by staff that the proposed Local Law in relation to the six (6) month extension
of a temporary moratorium on the issuance of approvals and/or permits for the parcels of
property in the State Route 25 Love Lane Intersection and surrounding area" be disapproved. A
moratorium is, from one perspective, the most extreme land use action that a municipality can
take because it suspends completely the rights of owners to use their property.
After deliberation the Commission resolved to generally agree with the staff report and deemed the
referral to be disapproved for three (3) reasons and a recommendation for more information was
recommended. A motion was made by Commission member Finn, and seconded by Commission
member Kaufman. Vote to disapprove, 10 ayes, 1 recusal (McCarthy),
Meeting Adjourned
The motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Commission member Kaufman, seconded by
Commission member McCarthy; and approved unanimously.
H.LEE DENNISON BLDG a 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,11th FI a P.O.BOX 6100 a HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 0 (631)853-5191
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
YryA;�.YC »
P
F
Steve Bellone
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Natalie Wright Department or Economic Development and Planning
Commissioner Division of Planning and Environment
STAFF REPORT
SECTIONS A14-14 THRU A14-24 OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Applicant: Strongs,Yacht Center
Municipality: Town of Southold
Location: Terminus of Mill Road approximately 400 feet east of Nau les Road
Received: 2/18/2020
File Number: SD-20-01
T.P.1.N.: 1000 10600 0600 010000
Jurisdiction: within 500 feet of Mattituck Creek
ZONING DATA
• Zoning Classification Mli and R80
• Minimum Lot Area (Sq Ft): 80000
• Section 278: NA
• Obtained Variance: NA
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
• Within Agricultural District: No
Shoreline Resource/Hazard Consideration: Yes
• Received Health Services Approval: No
• Property Considered for Affordable Housing Criteria: No
• Property has Historical/Archaeological Significance: Yes
• Property Previously Subdivided: No
• Property Previously Reviewed by Planning Commission. No
o Map Yield: NA
• SEQRA Information: Yes
• SEQRA Type Unlisted
• Minority or Economic Distressed No
SITE DESCRIPTION
• Present Land Use: Marina
• Existing Structures: Four 1 story metal buildings; 2 story frame building;
1 story frame house, 7 garages, pool and shed
• General Character of Site: rolling
• Range of Elevation within Site: 10-70 feet above MSL
• Cover: wooded, gravel/asphalt/concrete and buildings.
• Soil Types Carver, Plymouth and Riverhead associations.
• Range of Slopes (Soils Map): 3-35%
• Waterbodies of Wetlands: Mattituck Creek
Suffolk County F'iant ing Q"<rrnm�ssion ��_ I 3/25/2020
NATURE OF SUBDIVISION/ NATURE OF MUNICIPAL ZONING REQUEST
• Type: site plan
• Layout: linear
• Area of Tract (Acres): 32.9559
• Yield Map: NA
o No. of Lots: 1
o Lot Area Range (Sq. Ft.): 1 lot =32.9559 ac
• Open Space (Acres): 22.59
ACCESS
• Roads: Public
• Driveways: private
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
• Stormwater Drainage
o Design System: catch basins - leaching pools
o Recharge Basins: no
• Groundwater Management Zone: IV
• Water Supply public
• Sanitary Sewers: septic tank and leaching pools
PROPOSAL DETAILS
OVERVIEW
Applicants seek Town of Southold Planning Board Site Plan approval for the construction of
101,500 SF of boat storage in two one-story buildings (52,500 SF [Bldg. 1.) and 49,000 SF
[Bldg. 2]) plus associated site "improvements" including grading, storm water drainage, water
supply, and sewage disposal. In addition, traditional concrete and evergreen retaining walls,
French drains, two locations for duel 2,000 gallon Liquid Propane above ground storage tanks
and a six foot high black vinyl clad chain link fence along the top of the proposed evergreen
retaining wall is proposed.
The new storage buildings are to be added to an existing boat yard and building complex with
an existing gross floor area of 62,245 SF (now or formerly known as Strong's Yacht Center). It
is presented by the applicant to the Town Planning Board that approximately 3.9 acres of the
site will be physically disturbed.
The proposed boat yard expansion is located on a parcel 32.6 acres in area in the MII (Marine
District) and R-80 (Residential-low density)zoning districts. An out parcel and several out
buildings take access from a 20' right-of-way at the north end of the site. As noted the parcel
is "split zoned". The westerly portion of the site is in the R-80 zone. The proposed development
site is located on the south side of Mill Road approximately 100 feet east of Naugles Road at
Mattituck and is to be only on the south-east side of the lot in the Marine District. The limit of
clearing is roughly along the zoning boundary and approximately 120 feet south of the out
parcel.
The residentially zoned western-portion of the site is not to be developed with the exception of
a construction access road noted below.
According to referral materials to the Suffolk County Planning Commission from the Town of
Southold Planning Board, the proposal includes the construction of a "haul road"from Mill
Road eastward across the residentially zoned and wooded area of the property for the
excavation and removal of approximately 130,000 cubic yards of soil off site.
Suffilk County Planning Commission _ ... 2 :3/25/2020
The proposed haul road, according to referral materials, will be constructed prior to the
commencement of excavation and construction activities. No planned route across the parcel
is provide in referral materials to the Suffolk County Planning Commission (plans prepared by
Young and Young last revised Nov. 20 2018).
The subject development property is bound on the west by Mill Road (Town road). To the
north the site is adjacent to a detached dwelling on a low density lot and the terminus of Mill
Road. The subject lot is adjacent to Mattituck Creek to the east and Town of Southold owned
undeveloped land and detached residential dwellings to the south.
The zoning pattern in the area is predominantly residential (R-40 and R-80) with several
Marine District properties along Mattituck Creek.
Potable water is to be supplied by the Suffolk County Water Authority via a water main
extension of 765 feet along Mill Road. In addition, according to referral materials to the Suffolk
County Planning Commission from the Town of Southold Panning Board, approximately 1,665
gpd of sanitary liquid waste is proposed to be directed to a conventional subsurface sewage
disposal system.
Onsite below grade storm water management structures are intended for the expansion of the
proposed boat storage area
Total parking required by Town of Southold zoning law is not shown on the site plan or
referenced in any materials referred to the Commission and is anticipated to require a variance
from the Town. The area around the proposed boat storage buildings is to be stone blend
and/or gravel as is typical throughout the existing development.
The total area of buffers (approximately 23 acres) is contained mostly on the R-80 residentially
zone portion of the site and a small area north of proposed Building 1 between it and the out
parcel.
The proposed project site is situated over Hydro-geologic Management Zone IV. The subject
parcel is not located in the Southold Special Groundwater Protection Area (SGPA). The site is
not located in a Suffolk County Pine Barrens Zone. The development site is not located in a
State designated Critical Environmental Area. The property is however, listed in the NYS
Heritage Area—Long Island Heritage Area. The site has tidal wetlands on site along Mattituck
Creek at the southern end of the property and is likely to be regulated by the Town of Southold
and the NYS DEC. The subject property is within the 100 year and 500 year flood plain.
The subject property is situated in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)flood zone A with a base flood elevation set at 7 feet above mean
sea level. Based on the extreme topographic change behind the existing buildings the flood
zone stops at the existing retaining walls. The Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from
Hurricanes (SLOSH) model applicable for the subject site demonstrates the subject property to
be effected by surges from category 1 and 2 hurricanes at the existing marina and penetrating
into the subject development site at the southern end.
STAFF ANALYSIS
GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW CONSIDERATIONS: New York State General Municipal Law,
Section 239-1 provides for the Suffolk County Planning Commission to consider inter-
community issues. Included are such issues as compatibility of land uses, community
character, public convenience and maintaining a satisfactory community environment.
Suffolk County Planning Co nm�ssion 3 � 3/25/2020
The proposed construction of the two boat storage buildings are within the MII zoning district
along Mattituck Creek. The proposed use on site is consistent with water related uses though
not water dependent due to the fact that boat storage can be accomplished inland. As
existing, the subject property that is to include this action is adequately buffered from existing
residential uses to the south. Issues related to compatibility of land use or community
character may arise from the creation of construction access to Mill Road for the excavation
and removal of soil from site.
LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS: The Town of Southold 2019
Master Plan update recommended commercial use of the subject site. For the Maritime District
the 2019 Draft Comprehensive Plan references the 2005 LWRP for specific recommendations.
The LWRP appears to recommend residential for this site but is extremely supportive of Water
dependent, related and enhanced uses.
It is the belief of the staff that the application is consistent with local plan recommendations.
However, it is apparent that the current zoning pattern on site is indicative of the extent of the
marine activities existing and into the future that should be permitted.
SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GUIDELINE CONSIDERATIONS:
The Suffolk County Planning Commissions has identified six general Critical County Wide
Priorities that include:
1. Environmental Protection
2. Energy efficiency
3. Economic Development, Equity and Sustainability
4. Housing Diversity
5. Transportation and
6. Public Safety
These policies are reflected in the Suffolk County Planning Commission Guidebook
(unanimously adopted July 11, 2012). Below are items for consideration regarding the above
policies:
Suffolk County Planning Commission Jurisdiction over this application is triggered by the
project sites proximity to Mattituck Creek. It rises to a regionally significant project by
Commission definition as it is located in one of the five East End towns and proposes the
construction of more than 50,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Because of the subject action's location proximate to Mattituck Creek, matters related to
coastal process become important. Issues such as storm water runoff from site, waste water
discharge and the treatment of nitrogen containing effluent, periodic tidal flooding and ground
water swelling are particular for this site and application. Moreover, the principles of"Climate
Change" puts forth the notion of rising seas level, more frequent and severe and frequent
storm events including more violent storm surges.
As indicated above "boat storage" is not a water "dependent" use. While "related" to water,
boat storage is often accommodated inland away from the waterfront. It is the belief of staff
that storage of boats on site is not essential but is related and enhances the functionality of the
operations on site.
It is questioned by Suffolk County Planning Commission staff if the excavation and removal of
approximately 130,000 cubic yards of soil off site is necessary. Best management practice for
site design is to have balanced cut and fill for site development.
Suffolk County Planning Corr mis,sk)n 4 33(251202.0
No soils should be removed. This is not the case here. The intended excavation will create a
bowl on site where storm flood waters from Mattituck Creek will surge into. Details shown on
plans prepared by Young and Young last revised Nov. 20 2018 and referred to the Suffolk
county Planning Commission from the Town of Southold Planning Board show elevation of the
finished excavation to be approximately 9 feet above mean sea level. Two feet above the
base flood elevation and would be susceptible, as are other areas of similar elevations, to
surges and flooding from category 2 hurricanes in the least.
While this could be considered beneficial to the area for additional flood water storage during
storm events, the fact that there is proposed to be building Improvements and infrastructure in
the created flood plain (excavation) will only set up a "repetitive economic loss" scenario for the
boat storage building owners going into the future.
It is not demonstrated in the referral materials to the Suffolk County Planning Commission from
the Town of Southold Planning Board that there has been much consideration to the Climate
Change/sea level rise, SLOSH or flood zone issues. As noted above, conventional
subsurface sewage disposal systems and onsite below grade storm water management
structures are intended for the expansion of the proposed boat storage area. Details shown on
plans prepared by Young and Young last revised Nov. 20, 2018 and referred to the Suffolk
county Planning Commission from the Town of Southold Planning Board suggests that the
elevation of the water table during normal groundwater conditions would be 3 feet below the
bottom of the drainage rings. Test hole data from only two test holes provided on the plans
referred to the Commission noted above show depth to water to be 6.4 feet to 7.6 feet below
existing grade. It is not clear that, as designed, the existing waste and storm water systems
would function during elevations of the groundwater table due to extreme climatic events.
An alternative development approach would be to construct the proposed boat storage
buildings in the same locations at or near the existing grade and not excavate down to
elevation 9. This would require an access road at an appropriate slope from between any
two of the existing storage building to the top of the boat storage building footprint. One such
design could, for example, be from between metal storage buildings 7 and 8 and southerly
behind building 8 and curl northward to the building envelope. This route runs along the less
steeply sloped parts of the site and can mitigate excavation issues. Building at the existing
grade lessens the repetitive economic loss concern and also addresses the functionality of the
waste and storm water systems proposed.
The proposed haul road could still be the temporary construction route and left for emergency
access to the site after construction. Opportunities would exist that would warrant the
utilization of storm water treatment through natural vegetation and green methodologies. This
alternative should be investigated fully.
Significant buffering of Mill Road and properties to the south of the new boat storage buildings
would be appropriate for this alternative as would "Dark Sky" lighting techniques utilized on
site. This is an important mitigation to lessen lighting impacts to the roadway right-of-way and
single family housing to the south of the proposed boat storage buildings.
Application materials referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission from the Town of
Southold regarding the consideration of energy efficiency indicate little consideration. The
applicants should be encouraged to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission
Guidebook particularly with respect to energy efficiency and incorporate where practical
elements contained therein.
No trip generation or traffic study information was provided in referral materials to the Suffolk
County Planning Commission. The applicant should be encouraged to begin/continue
dialogue with the Town of Southold.
Little discussion is made in the petition to the Town and referred to the Commission on public
Suffolk County Planning Commission 5 3/25/2020
safety and universal design.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the Site Plan referral from the Town of Southold Planning Board to the Suffolk
County Planning Commission for"Strong's Storage Buildings" proposing the construction of
101,500 SF of boat storage in two one-story buildings (52,500 SF [Bldg. 1.] and 49,000 SF
[Bldg. 2.]) plus associated site "improvements" including grading, storm water drainage,water
supply, and sewage disposal; with the following condition and comments:
Condition:
1. No excavated soil shall be removed off site. It is questionable if the excavation and
removal of approximately 130,000 cubic yards of soil off site is necessary. The
intended excavation will create a bowl on site where storm flood waters from Mattituck
Creek will surge into. Building Improvements and infrastructure in the created flood
plain (excavation) will only set up a "repetitive economic loss" scenario into the future
for the boat storage building owners.
2. An alternative development approach shall be investigated in an expanded Full
Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) that would construct the proposed boat
storage buildings in the same locations at or near the existing grade and not excavate,
Building at the existing grade lessens the repetitive economic loss concern and also
addresses the functionality of the waste and storm water systems proposed. See the
adopted report of the Suffolk County Planning Commission for further details on this
alternative.
Comments:
1. Review by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services is warranted for the
proposed treatment of project wastewater and the applicant should be directed to
begin/continue dialogue with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
2. It is not clear that, as designed, the existing waste and storm water systems would
function during elevations of the groundwater table due to extreme climatic events. The
applicant should be encouraged to investigate Innovative Onsite Alternative Waste
Water Treatment Systems (IO/AWTS) including shallow drainage and wetland treatment
systems.
3. The applicant should be encouraged to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission
publication Managing Stormwater-Natural Vegetation and Green Methodologies and
incorporate into the proposal, where practical, design elements contained therein.
4. "Dark Sky" lighting techniques should be utilized on site.
5. The applicant should be encouraged to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission
Guidebook particularly with respect to energy efficiency and incorporate where practical,
any elements contained therein including commercial rooftop solar etc..
6. No trip generation or traffic study information was provided in referral materials to the
Suffolk County Planning Commission.
.Suffolk County Planning Commission 6 3l25/2220
7. The applicant should review the Planning Commission guidelines particularly related to
public safety and incorporate into the proposal, where practical, design elements
contained therein.
8. The applicant should review the Planning Commission guidelines particularly related to
universal design and incorporate into the proposal, where practical, design elements
contained therein.
uffoi'k County PlaPlaDnirng C-oniimissiornw--.....wM.-w...m----
. 7
3/25/2020
�i' 4�e�MNwi
I
w�
�n p
RVu M N
r
�c
' YS
R V
Proposed 1 Story �; w
Boat Storage Bldg n p
52,500 SF
5
AV v°°r1 A3
Jaf ,q Ydo- k N .e pp 4�* pp
Proposed 1 Story „`38Aj06
M "f
Boat Storage Bldg
49,000 SF
WP
ka� t q
P C
77 V y �a
d
a
Seale (in Feet .
0 200
Suffolk County Planning Commission 8 3/25/2020
0fh 6,mm M^`^ay A.i ^A,+„nP a„,4'q,P'2,m'v,0 1�PCAs��dW��IrYAo�,l�3WM4�M1'MM'�kC�µJhC W'«s.XbN.wmewRw;p,Pob /!.a VbA%Ie�N�WFNs,�,iNY b n'o,F'M`.rvA'.WJ
60
o a°o
0
Z
con
,
19
m 4
v
ui
e �Ak qqqq
° � Muam�wuwvm�
h
�P
4 L-s,LL
6S
CD
a
w
yq� y O
_.. (D
q. II
n B C
O
w
W
pM1
Oil i
S
yyy��y
w�.
.� 44
z
Suff:''oIk County.FIanning Commission y 3/25/2020
rS(A4-
..P
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK RECEIVED
5
Planning Board
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Steven Bellone
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Natalie Wright Department of
Commissioner Economic Development and Planning
April 2, 2020
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Attn: Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk
Re: Strongs Yacht Center
Local File No.: N/A
S.C.T.M.No.: 1000 10600 0600 0100000 and 013004
S.C.P.C. File No.: ZSR-20-09
Dear Ms.Neville:
The Suffolk Planning Commission at its regular meeting on April 1, 2020, reviewed the referral
0 r�
from the Town Of Southold entitled, "Strongs Yacht Center"referred to It pursuant to Section
A 14-14 thru A]4-25, Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code.
The attached Resolution signifies action taken by the Commission relative to this application.
Very Truly Yours,
Sarah Lansdale
Director of Planning
e
By Christine DeSalvo
Andrew P. Frelemy0. Chief Planner
1
A i--T/c d Division of'Plannina and Environment
cc: Heather Lanza. Director ot'Plannina
H LEE DENNISON BLDG a 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,4th F I a P.O.BOX 6100 a HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099* (631)853-5191
File No. SD-20-01
Resolution No. ZSR-20-09 of the Suffolk County Planning Commission
Pursuant to Sections A14-14 to thru A14-25 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections A14-14 thru A14-25 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, a
referral was received on February 18, 2020 at the offices of the Suffolk County Planning
Commission with respect to the application of"Strongs Yacht Center"located in the Town
of Southold
WHEREAS, said referral was considered by the Suffolk County Planning Commission at its meeting on
April 1, 2020, be it therefore,
RESOLVED, that the Suffolk County Planning Commission, pursuant to NYS General Municipal Law
Section 239-m 1. (c), the Suffolk County Administrative Code section A14-15C., and the
Suffolk County Planning Commission Guidebook, Section 2.1A, deems the referred
from the Town of Southold Planning Board to the Suffolk County Planning Commission
for"Strong's Storage Buildings" proposing the construction of 101,500 SF of boat
storage in two one-story buildings (52,500 SF [Bldg. 1.1 and 49,000 SF[Bldg. 2.1) plus
associated site"improvements" including grading, storm water drainage, water supply,
and sewage disposal to be Incomplete, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the above noted referral will not be reviewed until the following information is
submitted through the offices of the municipal referring agency:
1. At the time of Site Plan referral to the Suffolk County Planning Commission a full environmental
quality review of the proposal shall 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.
2. 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. Future referral
material to the Suffolk County Planning Commission with respect to the Suffolk County
Administrative Code Article XiV Section A14 - 25 shall include facts as to the maximum beam,
draft, weight and length of water craft that will be serviced at the marina after completion of the
proposed boat storage buildings.
3. There is inadequate information regarding the necessity to excavate soils at the subject location
of the proposed action. Referral material to the Suffolk County Planning Commission with
respect to the Suffolk County Administrative Code Article XIV Section A14-25 shall include an
explanation of the need for the proposed elevation of the floor of the boat storage buildings.
4. The Suffolk County Planning Commission would like further clarification on Town of Southold
protection of wetland regulations with respect to issues of soil erosion and sedimentation from
clearance, grading, excavation or other disturbance of steeply sloped soils to be held by
retaining walls on adjacent areas to tidal wetlands.
('.;G C"°wV umrl atev V tiabPue.at" o- 'r' r Cad wA LC l��UbhCa1![ma P�s10raNa^✓�W'r rar�:>d�u_rua 2d�radr;aa�tC.p V 8r r�r!1 x.)n:rck.g (w Wv e 5,off *�"Lw`__..
a, �FIC Guidebook ._:n v_..m.w �,,qk, U, t afi . �_� ee ' 4 a ad 98
ZSR-20-09
File No.: SD-20-01
Town of Southold
Strongs Yacht Center
COMMISSION ACTIONS OF INCOMPLETE RESOLUTION
AYE NAY RECUSE ABSENT
ANDERSON, RODNEY—At Large_� _... _... �.. ..
X
CASEY, JENNIFER -Town of Huntington X—
CHARTRAND, MATTHEW-Town of Islip X
—Town of Babylon X
.._..._ ._.w�_............ w w ... .........
CONDZELLA,JOHN —Tow _
n of Riverhead X
ESPOSITO, ADRIENNE-Villa es over -
g r 5,000 X
FINN, JOHN -Town of Smithtown _ X
GERSHOWITZ, KEVIN G.-At Large .. ............ ... X
KAUFMAN, MICHAEL - and Villages �
g under 5,000 X
KEL , MICHAEL—Tow .._.._.._..__ww.. ._...._�.m.�_.._M...�......�.m..�m.._.......... ......_m..........._...........
L n of Brookhaven X�_�Y
KITT ERROL—At Large X
MOREH .415 NICH6C,k ... —.._......-.�- —...........
_ _� ...... _ ..m.._.._ _.. ..._.........�_
E� —Town of Shelter
Island
VACANT, -Town of East Hampton
McCarthy, -Tow....._....w.__...�._.�..m..a.a�-.. ,�—_ ,.,.�........-,... _......_.._.. ....,�,.........._....n_.�.......�_................
y, Thomas n of Southold X
VACANT, -Town of Southampton
Motion: Commissioner McCarthy Present: 12
Seconded: Commissioner Anderson Absent: 1
Voted: 12
Recused: 0
Absent: 1
DECISION Incomplete
K t,, n1T
RECEIVED ,
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
;,i`I l 0 2!j2Ab
I
" ..._
c��ctl�taEc6W��arr._�
°µ Planning Board
Steven Bellone
SUFFOLKCOUNTY EXECUTIVE
Natalie Wright Department of
Commissioner Economic Development and Planning
April 7, 2020
Town of Southold
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Attn: Brian Cummings, Planner
SEQRA Lead Agency Coordination
Re: Strongs Yacht Center
Municipal File No.: N/A
S.C.T.M.No.: 1000 10600 0600 010000 and 013004
S.C.P_C. No.: SD-20-LD
Dear Mr. Cummings:
Your notification for SEQR Coordination was received by our agency on February 18, 2020,
Please be advised that our agency,the Suffolk County Planning Commission,has no objection to the
Town of Southold assuming Lead Agency status for the above referenced.
The Suffolk County Planning Commission reserves the right to comment on this proposed action in
the future and wants to be kept informed of all actions taken pursuant to SEQRA and to be provided
with copies of all EAF's, DEIS'S and FEIS's, etc. Please note that pursuant to New York State
General Municipal Law section 239 and Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code,
this latest action should be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for review.
Please note the following comments:
Comment:
I . Because of the subject action's location proximate to Mattituck Creek, matters related too coastal process becme important. issues such as storm water runoff from site,waste water
discharge and the treatment of nitrogen containing effluent, periodic tidal flooding and
ground water swelling are partiCLIJar for this site and application, Moreover,the principles of
"Climate Change" puts forth the notion of I-ising seas level, more frequent and sever storm
events including more violent storm surges.
H-LEE DENNISON BLDG am 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HVVY,11th FI a P.O.BOX 6100 a HAUPPAUGE,NY 11789-0099 Ra (6311853-5191
2. Certain detailed information is lacking that would make environmental quality review of the
potential adverse impacts of the proposed action thorough and complete.
C)
3. "Boat storage"is not a water"dependent"use. While"related"to water,boat storage Is often
accommodated inland awayfrom the waterfront. Storage of boats on site is not essential but
C�
is related and enhances the functionality of the operations on site.
4. It is questionable if the excavation and removal of approximately 130,000 cubic yards of soil
off site is necessary. Best management practice for site design is to have balanced cut and
t� al
fill for site development. No soils should be removed. This is not the case here- The
intended excavation will create a bowl on site where storm flood waters from Mattituck
Creek will surge into. Details shown on plans prepared by Young and Young last revised
Nov.20 2018 and referred from the Town of Southold Planning Board show elevation of the
finished excavation to be approximately 9 -10 feet above mean sea level. Only a few feet
above the base flood elevation and would be susceptible, as are other areas of similar
elevations,to surges and flooding from category 2 hurricanes in the least.
1
5. While the proposed excavation could be considered beneficial to the area for additional flood
water storage during storm events, the fact that there is proposed to be building
Improvements and infrastructure in the created flood plain (excavation) will only set Lip a
"repetitive economic loss" scenario for the boat storage building owners going into the
future.An explanation of the need for the proposed elevation of the floor of the boat storage
buildings is in order.
6. Conventional subsurface sewage disposal systems and onsite below grade storm water
management structures are intended for the expansion of the proposed boat storage area.
Details shown on plans prepared by Young and Young last revised Nov. 20, 2018 and
referred from the Town of Southold Planning Board suggests that the elevation ofthe water
L7 4:-Cl
table during normal groundwater conditions would be 3 feet below the bottom of the
drainage rings. Test hole data from only two test holes provided on the plans referred and
noted above show depth to water to be 6.4 feet to 7.6 feet below existing grade. It is not
clear that, as desianed, the existing waste and storm water systems would function during
elevations of the groundwater table due to extreme climatic events.
Z�
7. 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 offshore location creek-ward of the shoreline of Strong's Yacht Centel-.
8. 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 at the marina after completion ofthe proposed boat
storage buildings.
H.LEE DENNISON BLDG a 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,11th Fla P.O.BOX 6100 * HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 0(631)853-5191
9. An alternative development approach would be to construct the proposed boat storage
buildings in the same locations at or near the existing grade and not excavate down to
elevation 9. This would require an access road at an appropriate slope from between any
two of the existing storage building to the top of the boat storage building footprint. One
such design could, for example, be from between metal storage buildings 7 and 8 and
southerly behind building 8 and curl northward to the building envelope. This route runs
along the less steeply sloped parts of the site and can mitigate excavation issues. Building at
the existing grade lessens the repetitive economic loss concern and also addresses the
functionality of the waste and storm water systems proposed.
10. The proposed haul road could still be the temporary construction route and left for
emergency access to the site after construction. Opportunities would exist that would
warrant the utilization of storm water treatment through natural vegetation and green
methodologies. This alternative should be investigated fully.
11. Significant buffering of Mill Road and properties to the south of the new boat storage
buildings would be appropriate for this alternative as would "Dark Sky"lighting techniques
utilized on site. This is an important mitigation to lessen lighting impacts to the roadway
right-of-way and single family housing to the south of the proposed boat storage buildings.
12. The environmental quality review process should include the above information and analysis
in order to take a complete and hard look at the potential adverse impacts of the proposed
action.
Sincerely,
By Christine DeSalvo
Andrew P. Freleng, Chief Planner
Division of Planning and Environment
APF/cd
H.LEE DENNISON BLDG a 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,11th FI P.O.BOX 6100 a HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 a, (631)853-5191
su bf
RECEIVED
_. -
23
July 9, 2023 U. 0
�g�w� id "C'oWn
Re: Comments on DEIS prepared for Strong's Yacht Center __ „planning Board
Dear Planning Board members,
For the past 26 years, my husband Garrett and 1 have lived year-round in Mattituck
overlooking Bailie Beach. We are lucky to live near Mattituck Inlet, with its winding
creek, healthy marshes, forested bluffs, and sandy dunes where we regularly swim,
kayak, birdwatch, fish, and dig soft-shelled clams.
Bailie Beach and Breakwater Beach are also where 1 have been volunteering with North
Fork Audubon Society as part of the Shorebird Monitoring project, funded by Southold
Town. From mid-March through the late summer, I monitor the arrival, breeding,
nesting and fledging of Federally endangered piping plovers and least terns. For
official DEC records, I observe and record where each species nests on Bailie Beach
and where they forage on Mattituck Inlet. Just yesterday afternoon, I witnessed 3
piping plover chicks take their first flight. While three chicks successfully fledged, one
2-week old chick died and eight other eggs were lost due to predation and/or unusually
high tides. Thus, the overall percentage of fledging success on Bailie Beach is low and
the same is true on many other Southold Town beaches this year. Like many other
bird and animal species, piping plovers and least terns are seriously threatened by a
range of animal and human predators, plus a warming climate, rising seas and eroding
shorelines. For me the birds represent something far larger than a few living creatures:
they represent healthy beaches, bays, marshes, creeks and forests. These are the
natural resources that support our local economy.
Strong's Yacht Center proposal now adds two more human-induced threats to the
plovers and the health of our environment: 88 mega yachts traversing a busy, narrow
waterway and heated yacht storage warehouses constructed by destroying a rare oak/
beech forested hillside. The result is likely to cause stormwater runoff, worsening
water pollution and eroding shorelines. These and many other adverse impacts are not
adequately addressed or mitigated in the DEIS.
have studied Strong's revised DEIS, including the Ecological Conditions and Impact
Analysis. I have attended and zoomed the Planning Board's public hearings and
listened to Mr. Strong's presentations. I and hundreds of others in this community have
concluded there are myriad reasons to reject this ecologically devastating project.
Because of my personal interest in birds, and the growing threats to their survival,
would like to address specific areas in the revised DEIS Ecological Analysis that
include inaccurate, incomplete or misleading statements:
• The DEIS does not mention that Federally endangered piping plovers and federally
endangered roseate terns nest and forage on Bailie Beach habitat as well as
Breakwater Beach— both areas are in close proximity to the project site.
(Ecological Analysis, page 17)
• The DEIS does not sufficiently document that Federally endangered peregrine falcons
and bald eagles have been regularly observed in the neighboring town-owned Mill
Road Preserve and along Mattituck Creek Inlet. According to birding experts in
Southold Town, bald eagles could now, or will in the near future, be nesting in one of
the 634 trees slated for destruction. Of note, eagles prefer to nest in living trees,
including deciduous trees close to water. Bald eagles do not migrate. They begin
nesting in mid to late winter, exactly within the proposed timeline for tree removal and
excavation on the subject site.
• The DEIS does not sufficiently document that other bird species listed under the NYS
status of Special Concern include the common nighthawk, common loon, osprey,
sharp-shinned hawk and the horned lark— all of which have been documented by
Cornell E bird lists in or near the project site.
• The DEIS fails to adequately consider the immediate and long-term threats posed to
the entire bird population on the project site, the adjacent Mill Road Preserve and
Mattituck Creek. For the birds and other wildlife, these areas are interconnected, not
separate. The DEIS states that approximately 84 bird species were observed or
expected to occur on the project site. (Ecological Analysis, Page 11) but according
to Cornell's Ornithological E. Bird list compiled in January 2023, approximately 117
bird species have been observed in the neighboring Mill Road Preserve and in the
waters and along the beaches of Mattituck Creek.
• The DEIS further states that bird species that are habitat generalists are "less likely to
be adversely impacted by the proposed action, due to their 'general tolerance for
human activity.' (Ecological Analysis page 27) It is absurd to suggest that the
complete destruction of nearly five acres of mature deciduous forest, and the
accompanying construction noise impacts will be "generally tolerated."
• The DEIS undercuts its assertion quoted in the preceding paragraph by
acknowledging that "potential noise levels during daytime construction hours over
[during] the 12-month construction period . . . slightly overlap with the range of the
chronic industrial levels . . . that have been found to impact bird breeding
(productivity and are similar to the change in sound levels that have been found to
adversely impact bird community composition and abundance, foraging and nesting
behavior, and body condition." (Ecological Analysis, page 31)
For all of the above reasons and those expertly detailed by representatives of North
Fork Audubon Society, Stony Brook University and others, the revised DEIS fails to
describe and evaluate adequately the short-term and long-term threats posed to the
bird population on the subject property, the neighboring Southold Town-owned Mill
Road Preserve and Mattituck Creek and Inlet.
Planning board members, how could we permit such an ill-advised and devastating
project to move forward when, according to Cornell Lab of Ornithology, we have lost 3
billion birds in the US and Canada in the last 50 years? Protecting birds—and
preventing further habitat loss (for all species) should be a top priority of Southold
Town. We need you to do your part. I implore you to reject Strong's Yacht Warehouse
proposal.
Sincerely,
Lucy Cutler
784 Bailie Beach Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 11:51 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Please, Will You Stop the Strong's Yacht Storage project?
Sub-P
From: Dave Tolley<tolleydwl@gmail.com> RECEIVED
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 11:51 AM
J y Y g Y I..... .5_-651 di..._m.._
To: Michaelis Jessica < essica.michaelis@town.southold.n us>• Cummings, Brian A. Rfl- 0 2023
<brian.cummmgs@town.southold.ny us>•Terry, Mark<mark.terr @town.southold.n us> _..,_,
Subject: [SPAM] - Please, Will You Stop the Strong's Yacht Storage project? `�Planning
Town
Planning Board
In my 30+ years managing multi million dollar projects, inevitably project benefits are
overstated, frequently by highly paid consultants and PR people, in order to get the project
Green Lighted.
Also inevitably, project costs and harms are understated or glossed over or ignored entirely.
The harms of the Strong's Yacht Storage project, both identified and not yet known or
understood, will endure long beyond any of our lifetimes.
As Hazel Kahan points out in her 7/6 Suffolk Times letter, already, before the project has even
begun, there has been an unanticipated traffic issue. Many more unanticipated and much
more significant damages to nature, community character and the environment/ecology of
our community will occur for years beyond the initial damages from the construction period.
Please read also excellent letters to the Suffolk Times on 6/29 (Theresa Dilworth, Annie
Correal) and on 7/6 (Susan Bloom, Jan Nicholson) for more specific permanent harms and
shortfalls in the local community benefits that can be identified today. There are many more
harms that can not yet,be identified but will affect our community for years beyond the
construction period.
Your decision is irrevocable. If you choose to say 'Yes' to this project, there is no going back,
once the inevitable additional impacts and harms become apparent in the future.
Please Stop the Strong's Yacht Storage project!
Thank you!
David W. Tolley 3245 Wells Road, Peconic 917 543-0641
1
Svb-F
MT
RECEIVED
July 10, 2023 §6 tfi-6Ra� ow.rti
Southold Town Planning Board Members: ._ Planning Board
We have been year round residents of Mattituck for the last 31 years. We own a 17
acre property adjacent to Mattituck Creek. My husband and I have spent our lives in
horticulture and have developed a wholesale nursery on this property. Approximately 12
acres of this property are preserved as natural open space with trails to allow
exploration of the meadows and woodland as well as the 4 acres of our cultivated
gardens. We are deeply invested in preserving the natural environment of Mattituck and
promoting plant diversity. In 2020 we started opening our extensive garden and native
meadow to the public which coincided with the advent of the Covid pandemic. Our
garden attracts visitors of all ages, offering a unique opportunity to appreciate
horticulture as well as native plants and biodiversity and to explore the beauty of Long
Island. It provides a place of peace and stability that gardens bring to people throughout
the world. It is with great concern that we express our strong opposition to Strong's
Marine's proposal to demolish a hillside opposite our gardens for the purpose of
constructing luxury yacht storage. This project would not only destroy a native beech
forest, a critical habitat for endangered species, but it also contradicts our shared
commitment to preserving the natural heritage of Mattituck.
Unfortunately, Strong's Marine's proposal represents the opposite direction, and it is
evident that it is merely the initial step towards expanding development on the Strong's
30-acre site. While the proposal claims to construct two 50,000-square-foot
warehouses, it also states Strong's intention to double the size of the parking lot.
Despite the site's proximity to the Mill Road Preserve, it seems apparent that the Strong
Family have no intention of preserving or donating any of this invaluable land that
significantly contributes to maintaining water and air quality. This remains our primary
concern.
As a guardian of the natural environment, we cannot overlook the potential
environmental repercussions of the project itself on the site and on the creek. The
interconnectedness of various species, from insects to birds, bats, and woodland
creatures, is vividly evident throughout our surrounding environment. The wholesale
destruction of a vast expanse of native forest and the removal of a massive hill
jeopardize the ecosystem beyond the confines of the Strong's property. Northern long-
eared bats have been detected within a three-mile radius of the project site, and piping
plovers within a mile. While the owner claims he will clear trees during a time that will
not disrupt the roosting and nesting periods of these endangered species, no
comprehensive plan or timeline has been presented that will fully mitigate the effects of
construction on these vulnerable creatures. Preserving their habitat in its current state
would be far more effective than attempting to implement safeguards that are inherently
flawed.
Furthermore, we are deeply troubled by the potential impact of this proposal on the
wider community. The significant volume of sand-hauling trucks, which is inadequately
addressed in the proposal, poses a threat to traffic safety along the area's narrow, hilly,
and winding roads. Insufficient information regarding the duration of the sand-hauling
activities, especially in the event of delays, further adds to my apprehension.
Moreover, this project sets a dangerous precedent for strip mining on private property.
The owner has exploited a regulatory loophole by incorporating sand removal into a
construction project, bypassing the requirement of obtaining a DEC permit. By
disguising their intentions as necessary construction, they evade the necessity of a
Mined Land Reclamation permit from the DEC. However, there is no substantial
evidence demonstrating that this construction itself is truly essential for their business
operations or beneficial to the local community. (To the contrary, it primarily serves
individuals who do not reside in the area or contribute to its local businesses and
cultural attractions) Permitting this project to proceed sends a disheartening message to
others that they too can excavate on private property without a DEC permit by masking
their activities as necessary construction, disregarding the profit-driven motivations
behind such actions, namely the sale of sand to offset costs. (Furthermore, the project
introduces risks such as accidents and construction collapses, including the potential
collapse of the hillside during construction.)
Lastly, it is evident that the presence of large yachts navigating the twisting waters of
Mattituck Creek poses significant dangers to kayakers, swimmers, and small boaters,
including over 100 families who have homes along the waterway. These residents, like
ourselves, have devoted their lives to living in and protecting this unique area. As
members of the town board, it is your responsibility to ensure our safety and preserve
the land that distinguishes us from the paved suburbs and cities people leave behind to
experience the untrammeled beauty of our community. It is incumbent upon you to
prioritize our well-being and make a resolute decision to vote against this proposal.
Respectfully,
William J. Smith & Dennis A. Schrader
1200 East Mill Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
From: Michaelis, Jessica
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 12:14 PM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strong's Yacht Warehouses DEIS
rrTJL
M�. C MC
From: Isabelle Kanz<izziekanz@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 12:03 PM i"'96-6 6`61"d'r6W"6___'
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> Planning Board
Mµ ....M...
Subject:Strong's Yacht Warehouses DEIS
I strongly oppose the construction of the Strong warehouses because of the many adverse environmental impacts of
this project. In a time of climate crisis, allowing the removal of 630 mature trees is foolish. This coastal oak-beech forest
is considered a "vulnerable"forest type in New York State. These forests support the endangered long-eared bat and
eastern box turtle which is a species of special concern in New York State.
Mattituck Creek is a tree-lined, regionally important waterway to Long Island Sound. The creek is edged with vital salt
marsh and home to ospreys, terns, warblers, hawks,owls and breeding piping plovers which are endangered in NY.
Frankly, I'm appalled that such a project is even being considered. The building of these warehouses would seriously
jeopardize the character of Southold. We must be adamant about preserving the woodlands which are still left. This is
truly a quality of life issue.
Please, please do not allow this project.
Sincerely,
The Kanz family
Peconic
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
July 8, 2023
Mr. James Rich, Vice Chair
Town of Southold Planning Board Members
Mr. Mark Terry, Assistant Town Planning Director
54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS - Aesthetic
Resources Section Conclusion is Not Supported by the Visual Information
Dear Vice Chair Rich, Members of the Southold Planning Board, and Mr. Terry,
have spent over 50 years translating the 3-dimensional world into 2-
dimensional images using many different media including architectural drawings,
photography and digital tools such as Photoshop. I have a Masters Degree in
Fine Art from one of the country's leading art schools and I work full time as a
professional artist. I am also a professional writer using words to analyze and
describe visual phenomena as I critique art works and exhibitions.
am deeply sensitized to the qualities of light, the natural beauty and rural
character of the North Fork. My first visit to the North Fork was as a small child.
My family has owned property on the North Fork for most of the span from 1890
to the present. I own a house where I live year round which is adjacent to my
painting studio at 1185 West Mill Road in Mattituck within a mile of the proposed
Strong's Marine Yacht Warehouse Project. I am one of the co-founders of Save
Mattituck Inlet, a community group focused on raising awareness about this
project. I have been following in detail the Southold Town Planning Board's
environmental review of this project for over three years.
My professional background and personal experience of the North Fork qualify
me to evaluate section 3.4 Aesthetic Resources, page 229 of the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Strong's proposed Yacht Warehouse
Project in Mattituck dated November 2022.
After carefully reviewing this section, I have determined that the written
conclusion of this section, found on page 239 of the DEIS, is not supported
by the visual information provided by the developer. The section concludes,
"Although the views of the subject property would be altered as a result of the
proposed action, they would not be significant as depicted by the photo-
simulations, landscaping plans, and architectural elevations." There are a variety
of ways this written conclusion is not supported by the visual information in the
DEIS. On page 14 of the Final Scope for the DEIS the developer is specifically
required to, "determine if and how scenic receptors [scenic views from Mattituck
Creek, outdoor recreation facilities, historic properties, etc.] would be affected.
For two key examples, the scenic view from Mattituck Creek and from the Mill
Road Preserve, the visual information in the DEIS shows that the views will be
significantly altered.
12
r�
13
7
1 �
�u10 6
3
} 2
"Viewpoints Key Map" in Appendix Q, DEIS
Views from Mattituck Creek
Despite their decidedly motley, mismatched nature, the photos and photo-
simulations show that the project's visual impacts to the views from Mattituck
Creek — its removal of an entire hillside along Mattituck Inlet, destruction of
nearly 4 acres of native woodlands, construction of the two out-of-scale
warehouse buildings and a 875-foot long, and the 30 foot high retaining wall —
will be very significant. Viewpoint #13 as indicated on the "Viewpoints Key
Map" in Appendix Q, is looking west across the inlet to the project site.
The text in the DEIS about this view narrowly centers on the the relationship of
the existing buildings and their building materials to the proposed buildings, not
the relationship of the proposed project and buildings to the project's
expansive natural setting. It states, for example on page 239, "Buildings 7 and
8 would effectively screen most of the proposed Buildings 9 and 10 from
properties to the east of the subject property."
In photograph of Viewpoint #13 from the "Viewpoints" section of Appendix Q
showing the existing conditions we can clearly see that the lush green treetop
line of the of the woods makes a high, undulating arc across the sky over the
buildings and boats. This type of visual gesture along the skyline is a
characteristic and much beloved feature in the rural North Fork landscape.
In the "Proposed Action Renderings" of Viewpoint #13 in Appendix Q after the
project's construction, however, the gentle curve of the tree line is gone. Since
the trees have all been cut down and the hillside eradicated there is a vast,
abrupt, unsightly jagged gap behind the buildings. The viewer's eye is now
drawn even more to the man-made structures including the two huge new
warehouse buildings. The developer appears to be trying to disguise this
significant visual impact by not showing the full hillside in the existing conditions
photograph. While a true comparison in the renderings cannot be made, the
visual information provided gives an indication of the significance to the visual
impact.
Rry —flOm—'r-W%%4b*Il al.•ai -W-0 NkN I III f.k#W.i Ylr 7e- wl 4w aijllpi•
r -
Y+wa air.v%m amp rr�
aamp,:Y�I�eA•e+•lePir•9n WF f S
�rr.rvr.r arm w�a+r� T �
..-,tea•,■r m=r-w t i4 F
- w-3aM rfw.*.e afrPrY1 wF }
- � �ar�r•a.r�a r�r
a V ar mwq iar
r �•..�,..•are r°rr.ur•T_4*R.a 1 I
.alaH., ympmbra Mal
y � s•rr ca�vr.r
4 T{
.rarer
rr�r s.ira c�
r
APR 'rtQr r i`FRS JAV
W4 -WI ft& 1
■J*
Views from The Mill Road Preserve
A view of the Mill Road Preserve is presented in Viewpoint #4 in Appendix Q.
This view is labeled as being from "the most southern trail" of the Mill Road
Preserve. The location of Viewpoint #4, however, does not appear to be on the
southern most trail. It is not clear if the location on the Viewpoints Map Key is
intended as the view in question or another location on the southern end of the
Mill Road Preserve. The descriptive term "most southern trail" is not accurate.
This point needs clarification by the developer.
Furthermore, the written conclusion is not supported by the visual information.
Here is the written description on page 236 of the DEIS of the "before and after
views" from Viewpoint #4:
"As shown in Photograph No. 4 (Appendix Q), the current view of the subject
property is of the undeveloped upland heavily forested area. The marina
operations and Mattituck Creek are obscured by the forested area and the
topography. As depicted on Rendering A-4 in Appendix Q, the post-
development views would consist of the woodland area of the subject property
that would not be disturbed and a portion of the western and southern fagades
and roof of Building 9, the roof and a portion of the southern fagade of Building
10, and a portion of the western fagade of existing Building 8. The cover in the
setback area would remain. The impact to the visual setting of the subject
property would be minimal."
Here are the two views provided by the developer:
y 1'
F s
F • � r}JYiu'�i��¢i!i'�i Yi i'
dfi--Y �iKFi®-AA A.fl
6!S 3til!�S�O��.•f a
�.=rllYsa.�ay.F FaWI.P.
•*—LaL11t hw-"m fly bobrqw'�,
r.�r,�,rr nra,rc�rrr�+�r.•��r F+uI�YD P�r�'1 —-
4F%q,-uL46mI-.or
'
Y
It is hard to know where to begin to disqualify the stated conclusion that "The
impact to the visual setting of the subject property would be minimal." It would
be difficult to imagine an impact that would be more significant. The existing
conditions photograph in Viewpoint #4, Appendix Q shows dense, native forest
composed of a range of different sized thriving trees, situated amongst the
natural contours of the hillside. In Proposed View #4, Appendix Q, the trees are
all cut down, the flora and fauna are gone, the natural curves of the hillside are
removed and flattened to make way for over 100,000 square feet of metal and
concrete industrial structures. A comparison of the images shows that there is a
potentially devastating visual impact to the views from the preserve. The
rendering of this view after the project is built, indicates that the visual impact
couldn't be more extreme. The views that would be destroyed here belong to
those who are walking through the publicly owned Mill Road Preserve. The
visual impact available from this community resource would be negative, severe
and irreversible.
Additional Flaws and Misrepresentations
These are just two examples of the flaws in the visual impact section of the
DEIS. There are also omissions of important information. In the set of
architectural drawings provided by the developer there are elevations of the
buildings, but no drawings showing precisely the changes to the elevations of
the topography in which the buildings will be set. The excavation of the hillside
is a significant component of this project. In this instance precise visual
information has been withheld. The 40-foot vertical change of the hillside due to
the excavation of 134,000 cubic yards of sand is not included in the technical
drawings.
There is an unsupported claim that the proposed plantings will screen the
project. The imagery created uses a crudely employed Photoshop tool to
replicate natural vegetation at an indeterminate time in the future. It is
impossible to know, based on the visuals provided, how the number and size of
proposed plantings will screen the large scale of the project. The images have
been scrubbed of actual information. They are simplified and do not accurately
render the effects of excavation, the years it will take for the minimal plant
material to mature assuming they are properly maintained.
The collection of visual materials presented in the DEIS listed is in many key
respects poorly prepared and omits information needed to determine the precise
nature and full significance of the visual impact of this project within the context
of "shoreline and community character of Mattituck Inlet environs" as stated in
and required by the Final Scope of the DEIS. It also does not take into account
the substantial construction phase, the possibility that the excavation will be left
uncovered for an indeterminate length of time while while the buildings are built,
if in fact both ever are. No information shows the visual impacts of this large
industrial project at night to both the natural world and neighboring residents.
This project is being evaluated against many important community standards.
For example, the Comprehensive Plan where Goal 1 is to protect scenic
resources. It is also being judged by the its compliance with the LWRP. The
LWRP's Policy 3 is to enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources
throughout the Town of Southold and its Policy 1 fosters a pattern of
development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character,
preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial
use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. From a
visual standpoint, this project does not meet the goals of these important
community guidelines.
The developer should be required to fully redo this section so that it complies
with the requirements of the Final Scope of the DEIS. Despite the omissions and
the crudely prepared "artist's renderings" the developer has provided some
indication of the visual impacts of the project. The full scale and nature of this
negative impact cannot be determined by the faulty information provided, but
there is enough to show that this impact is significant and in order to be fully
understood should be completely detailed with properly prepared visuals.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these flaws and deficiencies in the
DEIS. The visual impact of this project would be devastating from every angle.
Anne Sherwood Pundyk June 8, 2023
1185 West Mill Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
annepundyk.com
annesherwoodpundyk@gmail.com
(917) 612-1863
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 1:56 PM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Save Mattituck Inlet Petition update -for the Strong's Yacht Warrehousg public
`�
comments file ��''��"'''
Attachments: Letter to Director Lanza - March 2022 (re - Comments).p .2-8-A" -M C
CEIVED
F__. ___._ ..__.... .
From:Save Mattitucklnlet<savemattituckinlet@gmail.com> oJUL
.. -.
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 12:31 PM hng avrr B n
Planning Board
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> -
Subject: Save Mattituck Inlet Petition update-for the Strong's Yacht Warehouse public comments file
Dear Jessica,
Could you please confirm receipt of this email and post the email and attachment to the public comment file?
Thank you.
To the Southold Town Planning Board:
On March 22, 2022 we sent to the Planning Department a summary of our petition drive opposing the Strong's
Marine Yacht Warehouse Project showing that at the time, 2,585 people had signed. (See attached letter.) As of
July 10, 2023 a total of 3,960 people have signed our petition on-line and on hard copy.
As you can see 1,375 more signatures have been gathered in the last year. The total number and this momentum
cannot be ignored. These signatures represent a significant expression of opposition.
It is your responsibility to represent our community's values with respect to this project.
We would be happy to provide the petition details upon request.
Thank you,
Save Mattituck Inlet
Co-chairs Stephen Boscola and Anne Sherwood Pundyk
SAVE MATTITUCK INLET PETITION:
Stop the irreversible environmental destruction that would result from the Storage Buildings project at Strong's Yacht
Center!
The developer plans to cut down over 600 tress, haul away a hill of sand(134,000 cubic yards) using local roads for
personal profit replace nearly four acres of a native forest with two enormous buildings for yacht storage, remove a
natural feature that projects against the effects of climate change, and potentially harm a Significant Coastal Fish
and Wildlife Habitat.
The undersigned, are opposed to the Strong's Storage Buildings proposal, which has the potential to cause
irreversible environmental damage to the Mattituck Inlet and negatively impact the quality of life in our community.
We call on Southold's elected& appointed officials to:
1
• Prioritize environmental protections by insisting on a careful and thorough review of the Environmental
Impact Statement.
• Reject the proposal if it is not withdrawn, reduced significantly in size or moved to a more suitable site.
• Protect the land adjoining the Town Preserve that would be seriously compromised if this project went
forward as proposed.
Ic L
About Save Mattituck Inlet
Save Mattituck Inlet, established in 2020 by a group of local residents, seeks to protect and preserve Mattituck Inlet and
the surrounding ecosystem.We understand that Mattituck Inlet holds a delicate balance of rich environmental and
historical importance while serving as a foundation for local commerce, recreational activity, and scenic beauty.
Save Mattituck Inlet aims to ensure that the community's voice is active in the oversight of development of and around
the Inlet by raising awareness and advocating for transparent and responsible development that considers the impact
on the economy,the ecology, and the local quality of life.
PO Box 592
Mattituck, NY 11952
See our website here:
hftps://savemaftituckinlet.com
See our facebook page here:
hftps://www.facebook.com/arougs/friendsofthelnlet
See our Instagram here:
save mattituck inlet
2
MATTITULK INUI
March 22,2022
Ms. Heather Lanza, Director
Town of Southold Planning Department
54375 Main Road
Southold,NY 11971
Re: Strong's Storage Buildings—Public Comments
Dear Ms. Lanza,
It was our understanding, per the disclaimer in the subject file, that public comments were not being
accepted until after the DEIS was deemed adequate for public review. However, we note that public
comments are being recorded in the Southold Town subject files for the above referenced project.
We would like to submit the attached comments that have been sent to us to date. These represent a fraction
of the 2,585 online petition signatures and dozens of paper petition signatures we have collected against the
proposed project as of the above date. We would be happy to submit full copies of all the signatures to date
if the Planning Department is officially accepting them; the number of those signatures, however,
continually increases on a weekly, if not daily,basis.
We recognize that this is not a "popularity contest." In the spirit of fairness, however, we feel that if
statements of support, a great deal of which are from employees of the developer, and the developer
himself, are being added to the record, then all of the independent signatures we have received should
be given equal weight or greater.
Sincerely,
SAVE MATTITUCK INLET
Stephen M. Boscola Anne Sherwood Pundyk
Co-Chair Co-Chair
Save Mattituck Inlet ♦ P.O. Box 592 ♦ Mattituck, NY 11952 ♦ www.SaveMattitucklnlet.com
�c b b m !'°I'C 7 "6
-t b z
- m o` 7s io m` a a _m` b d
s S m ^', i` F. o 5, m v m 3
G m v m 4 O > j mm 0 m s m
7 v m � oNi v � o ro < m b � m m 0 vo � m z °
O O a ° o c x c
o —
�
o ',
o.
rr
ccSo3 C '
°c oOO
> ? - R °
>o 0 dd- °
o c
S
C ?y
_wwwwwww.
Z Z Z Zm zZZZZZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z
> b <
? 0
� O
W
Y 01
VI N A O Y W W Y Y 4� Y Y Y Y J Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y O Y 2
W Y O O N tp t0 N Y l0 W W lb N lD lD O tD 40 W l0 tD tp lfi 1p W O lD O tD m
O Y 1p O Y W W N''...A Vf J tJ1 W Y LJ1 A J Vt ilf 01 J lA O W O Qt Y t!i Y lf�
lA'.d N N Qp t!� In N CO A W W Y C C C C C C C Y
Z C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
s
ro
d
0
3
W W \ N N '... ".."...i`.. `�. w.. "�.. '.w"...°•..". In ` �...�.- W "... `... \ D_
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N E.i N N N N N N N N N N N
O O C) 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O C, O C) O d 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O 0 0 (p
b G1 jZ O - d ~ - a a Z Zc b Z
o' a m c < °' m o vim,'
n=i '`•a 'm �_. m 20 d@ = m m n m 3 z0 a s 3 m rmn 'o 00 .o o ro o m
aS a �o _. Z ' ro a o, n. � 2. s a '_ m N. "z a.
omi ° 0 o a= c c aD o 0
0 o OR O
° z m o £ Cd ao '°< ro 0m mn 0
m ro m rov a
3o wo 0o- °v o
m £ 3aoI o roo '
° ° c o. oma on=o „o ' ° = o c o .c. o
mp=a a.qo D ro ? m n c avc °E 3
m 2 c ro a. o. <° m 3 - ° v rm' v T. v
u, fD o o. _ s '. m o ro .: m c m d m
mro N ,o o. v m a n' o °-' iu c m °. m n m
Im
m m c 6 m ;,' 3 m. vm, o.
p�.• O O O
0 mo cw-, o _ o um
a ap .�"r 3 O w d w rm an
_ o ro 3 _ oo 0 3 z < > > m c - o
o = m m o m v m U
cx.. :EEw
aFNN m o m nn ° 3
m o rtao m n
o 3 _ ,m, c m m m
sm ° ro d n. o a g E £
i� 3 m b o o f $ v 3 ° m o o o N o
a3a � m � vim, °-',......3 m m
p
o ro d w ny O ° p s m m n o ro o
a a ° z o ,�
0 0 Et
d c y
0
o'a o " m a ^ o c °
3 v 0 tl° m
O m C p a 0-
0 m
o Jo o s_ U s o o
3 a ry 0 N a m n ,m^. m'
North Fork Environmental Council
12700 Main Road
. + PO Box 799
North For Mattituck, NY 11952
Environmental Counci Phone: 631.298.8880
- Fax: 631.298.4649
t «ro Web: www.NFECl.org
Sub,F
July 10, 2023 P ._H L a N`r,BC/M C
RECEIVED
ChairmanMembers of the DonalSo thold Town Planning Board Just W10 2023
r
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Planning Board
Southold,NY 11971 -
Re: Strong's Storage Buildings DEIS (Suffolk County Tax Map 1000-106.-6-10 & 13.4)
1 am writing to you on behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council, a fifty-year-old local grassroots envi-
ronmental organization. Following are comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) for the
Strong's Storage Buildings project.
Environmental Impacts
The DEIS proposes removing 4.5 acres of a coastal bluff. Coastal bluffs should never be removed, especially on
a property that is in a flood zone. The DEIS also proposes excavating thousands of pounds of dirt and sand and
erecting a retaining wall in order to build two giant boat warehouses.
The DEIS also proposes removing 634 trees, part of a rare coastal oak and beech forest. We do not believe that
planting new trees can mitigate the loss of old established trees on the site with roots that stabilize and filter the
soil and serve as a habitat for birds, Eastern Box Turtles, a Species of Special Concern in New York, and the
endangered Northern Long-Eared Bat.
Traffic Impacts
Specifically, the DEIS proposes an immense increase in truck traffic that will damage the roads and impair the
community character not only of Southold, but the Town of Riverhead as well. We believe that Cox Neck Lane
and West Mill Road in Mattituck are inadequate to handle the truck traffic that is proposed, yet the applicant
offers no mitigation for the traffic and the DEIS states that"overall no significant adverse traffic impacts during
construction are anticipated."
The DEIS also notes on page 295 that along Sound Avenue,Northville Turnpike and Route 58 in Riverhead
there is "already existing significant truck traffic,"that is "part of the existing conditions of these areas" as if the
additional truck trips don't matter. We believe a few thousand truck trips do matter, and they will endanger bi-
cyclists, school buses as well as pedestrians along the proposed truck routes in both Southold and Riverhead.
No Public Benefit
We do not see any public benefit to Southold residents in attracting out-of-town yacht owners to store their
boats in Mattituck. They will not be active recreational boaters in Mattituck in the summer, their boats will only
be stored there in the winter. This will benefit mostly the marina owner and the yacht owners. The eleven pro-
posed jobs do not outweigh the permanent damage to our environment and community character that will surely
result should this project be approved.
In summary, according to the DEIS, to accommodate the off-season storage of large boats of the billionaire
class the residents of Southold must:
Endure months of heavy truck traffic making over 9,000 trips hauling sand and debris from the site over our al-
ready crowded roadways which not only cause damage to the roads but will add air pollution and noise into our
environmentally fragile community.
Accept the loss of a coastal buff,the loss of a forest of over 600 mature trees in a 4.5-acre area and the destruc-
tion of a wildlife habitat.
According to a survey recently conducted by the North Fork Civics, Southold residents value the preservation
of natural habitats, rural character, farms, and open spaces in Southold, their two biggest concerns were the
cleanliness of the bays and the sound and commercial overdevelopment. This project flies in the face of all
these numerous concerns.
Sincerely,
Mark Haubner
President
North Fork Environmental Council
The NFEC is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization which works to increase public awareness of key issues,educate the
public and public officials about important environmental and quality of life issues,and works to make sure that the
public's voice is heard as we try to protect and preserve the land,waters,air,
wildlife and way of life on the North
Fork.
From: Michaelis, Jessica U b T
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 3:16 PM f -j-
To: Westermann, Caitlin C
Subject: FW: Stong's Marina Projec RECEIVED
t
L 10 7023
I
-----Original Message-----
Planning Board
From: saracevans@earthlink.net<saracevans@earthlink.net> -----.......................••----.........- •.....- .--
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 3:16 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>
Cc:Jan<nicholsonjan@yahoo.com>
Subject: Stong's Marina Project
This project is nothing but sheer vandalism and a sad example of town croneyism. If passed, it will irreparably damage a
beautiful area of the North Fork and create knock-on environmental problems.There is no reason for us to become a
marine parking lot for our neighbors on the South Fork.
I urge you both in the stongest possible terms to reject this proposal.
Sara Evans
Peconic
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
From: cheryl <farm1 @optonline.net> S v bf
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 3:28 PM P8, N !`SIT JB M C
To: Westermann, Caitlin RECEIVED
Subject: Opposition to the Strong's Marina Proposal •_.•• ..,_" ',�----_
J U I.. 1, 02023
To: Southold Town Board _ utl ohs ��"`6"
Planning Board
I am writing this to join with those voices who oppose the Strong's Marina Project.
While this is no reflection on the Strong family, they are making a business decision which will
impact the very way of life on the North Folk. Although they would have residents believe that
they have taken into consideration all of those issues — like destroying established wildlife and
tree sanctuaries, heavy machinery disturbing sight and sound, trucks with daily multiple runs
on roads that were never intended for such heavy loads. It is very hard to believe that anyone
who understands and appreciates the precious place could propose such a project. Clearly this
is based on business alone—serving people who don't live in Southold town, and in fact,
probably never come here.
What about our community- those of us who live, work, and play here and want our children
and grandchildren to be able to appreciate and embrace what is here now. It is our duty to
protect and conserve so that, unlike countless other places, the North fork will always be a
special place for people, nature, and wild life.
We are the stewards of this place- it is our responsibility to maintain and improve what we
have to pass it along. As board members- you should hold that commitment dearly. If you
pass this it will be too late--too late to say it was a mistake, too late to save the displaced wild
life and too late to recreate woodlands that are hundreds of years old.
I oppose this proposal
Cheryl Tortoriello/Orient NY
Sent from Mail for Windows
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
Mary Elizabeth Guyton
3331 Grand Avenue
Mattituck, NY 11952
July 8, 2023 ... EIVEP
Attention: Brian Cummings, Town Planner mfl- I• ) 0
..�766Nc11own.....
Re: Strong's Yacht Center Expansion Project Planning Board
I write to share my grave concerns about the Strong's Yacht Center Expansion Project and the
inadequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). I want to first thank the
Southold Town Planning Board and Planning Board staff for their extensive work to understand
the impacts of this project and follow the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) in
weighing a projects' public need and benefit against any environmental impacts. I believe when
all accurate and solid evidence is examined, the Planning Board will agree with the substantial
expert and public opinion to decide this project's irreversible impact cannot be justified by public
need and benefit.
For brevity of this letter, I will defer to expert comments submitted for the public record and
testimony at the May 15 and June 5 hearing in representing concerns regarding the ways the
DEIS underestimates and does not adequately address the irreversible impact of this
warehouse project to our North Fork ecology. (Group for the East End, North Fork Audubon,
Sierra Group, Turtle Rescue of the Hamptons, Save the Sound, Faculty from Stony Brook
University, Save Mattituck Inlet). The project location is of particular natural significance;
Mattituck Inlet is a NYSDOS Significant Coastal Habitat, the project abuts the Town's Mill Road
Preserve and is the demonstrated home to engendered species including the northern long
eared bat and a mature rare oak beech forest. The permanent and destructive impact of the
project on this can not be mitigated despite the ways the DEIS attempts to explain.
Fire safety
It is difficult to conceptualize the amount of flammable material that will be added to the site with
this proposed project. Boats are built from flammable fiberglass, lithium batteries and stored full
of gasoline. In addition, heating the facility will use 8,000 gallons of propane. Of interest, Costco
will only sell one small BBQ tank at a time because of its ability to explode and destroy a home.
Is our small Mattituck Volunteer Fire Department and other neighboring squads equipped to
fight this type of fire? Recent Boat storage fires have been in the news because their size,
speed and heat. I encourage the Town Planning Board to require an independent fire review
and an analysis that collaborates with volunteer local fire departments to assess the true risk,
state of current equipment and training of Mattituck and neighboring fire departments to
respond and put out a fire of this magnitude. Exploration into the impact on the safety of the
volunteer firefighters as well as neighboring homes and the Mill Road preserve are of grave
consequence. We are currently experiencing the impact on our air quality of fires thousands of
miles away-what impact would this type of fire have on our North Fork air quality and our
health?
Boater safety
As a kayaker I ask the Town Board to do further study on boater safety, especially the impact
on manual operators like kayaks and paddle boards who are particularly vulnerable. Despite
the current speed limit and "no wake" guidance- it can be challenging for paddlers of all ages
and skill level to currently negotiate the wakes of motorized boats. A study to understand the
impact of proposed barges and increase in large yachts is essential to gauge the risk to boaters.
Further, it will be important to understand if this increase in large vessels puts paddlers at risk,
what resources does the town's fire and rescue company have to rescue victims?
Town Guidance Documents Civic Survey and Zonin
I encourage the Town Planning Board to look further into the Yacht's Storage compliance with
local guidance documents, zoning and recent resident survey results
• 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". I disagree this project complies
with the spirit of the LWRP
• Soulbold Tgwn Comorghgn ive PI 2 2 - The project is at odds with the Town's
Comprehensive plan focuses on: WATER RESOURCES: Goal 5- Protect Freshwater
and Marine Habitats and LAND RESOURCES: Goal 1 Protect Soils and Geologic
Features; Goal 2- Protect Upland Habitat and Trees; Goal 3- Protect Fish and Wildlife
Resources
• North Fork Civic-Town Wide Surve -This 2022 survey with over 1000 respondents
identified the top priorities for local residents as: preservation of natural habitat, rural
character, farms and open space-the project description: the removal of 630 mature
trees, removal of hill of sand (134,000 cubic yards) and impact a 33-acre wooded lot on
Mattituck Inlet adjacent to Mill Road Preserve, a 25-acre public woodland and remove
630 mature trees is not in line with what local residents want in their community.
• Zonina- Comments at the May 15/June 5 meetings comment on outstanding zoning
questions. I encourage the town to further look into this issue to seek an answer to
residents' questions
ImparA gf increased sound and light to residential and natural populalign-
Living along Mattituck Inlet for over 40 years, you come to understand that the creek functions
to carry, echo and elevate sound. The DEIS does not adequately address the ways sound is
elevated in the Inlet and there is no reference to further understanding the impact of sound
during the construction phase and more permanently for the process of lifting, transporting and
staging and storing of yachts as is planned. There is a solid body of evidence to the negative
impact of sound on humans and animals. More thorough analysis should be undertaken to
understand the ongoing impact of this increased and ongoing sound to neighboring residents
and ecology. The DEIS does not adequately address the impact of increased lighting at the
proposed storage buildings. We need to further understand how internal and external lighting for
two oversized boat storage buildings, that will each be 45' tall and standing 18' higher than
any other building on the Strong's Yacht Center property will have neighboring properties and
the ecosystem.
Sand removal-
The DEIS does not appropriately address the removal of sand and the question of sand mining.
More research and a transparent analysis into the sale of sand that will result from removing the
hill is necessary to assure the community that the sale of the sand is not untoward.
Assessing need and benefit
Guided by SEQRA, the Planning Board's substantial responsibility is to judge a project by the
public need and benefit against any environmental impacts. There are multiple letters to the
Planning Board (posted to the town file)from financial experts that question the lack of clear
analysis in the DEIS to the need vs benefit of the project. Many cite a lack of market analysis.
The developer is quoted by the New York Times in May 24, 2023 issue "the yacht storage facility
will offer heated indoor winter storage that fills a gap in the market for wealthy boaters from the
Hamptons communities like Sag Harbor and Amagansett as well as Westchester County and
Connecticut". This comment directly from the developer demonstrates that this project is not
addressing a local need. Further to the question of need, communication from several boat
manufacturers (posted to the town file) state that indoor storage is not required and boats
properly wrapped can be kept outside in the Northeast winter. More poignant, is a February
2020 Suffolk County staff report on the project(posted to the town file) that states "The
proposed use on site is consistent with water related uses though not water dependent due to
the fact that boat storage can be accomplished inland". The need for this project is unclear and
questions remain about the ways this warehouse yacht storage can benefit the North Fork
public.
I join the almost 4,000 petition signatures, substantive letters of opposition submitted to the
Town Planning Board and compelling opposition support at town hearings. The DEIS does not
adequately address the risk vs benefit of this Yacht warehouse project. I believe that ultimately
the Town Planning Board will look toward our future and decide that the irreversible and
overwhelming negative impact of the Strong's Yacht Center Expansion Project cannot be
mitigated and does not benefit the greater good of the Town of Southold and our North Fork.
Sincerely,
'i
From: Michaelis, Jessica
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 8:16 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: String's Yacht application - NO _
I`el(Z
RECEIVED
-----Original Message--- -
_.....W............._..._....
From: c biemiller<cbiemiller@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 4:55 PM -'-" outotit aw n -w
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> Planning Board
Subject: String's Yacht application - NO �-
As a local resident and small boat operator i vigorously oppose this huge environmentally disruptive project by a private
business that offers no benefit to the public, and threatens to disrupt a waterway used by many like me for an exclusive
club.
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.
From: Michaelis,Jessica
�vb-P
Sent: Tuesday,July 11, 2023 8:17 AM � G
To: Westermann, Caitlin RECEIVED
Subject: FW: Strongs ....-. .......I_..
-----Original Message----- Planning Board
From:Andrew Torgove<andrewtorgove@yahoo.com> -
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 5:13 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strongs
I am vehemently opposed to the Strongs proposal. Destroying our environment in order that wealthy people,from
somewhere other than here, can park their large yachts here, is an incredibly self destructive, short sighted,selfish
proposal that should not be approved!!
Andrew Torgove
7300 New Suffolk Rd
New Suffolk NY 11956
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Tuesday,July 11, 2023 8:17 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strong's proposed construction project
PR, H L, 11-T' 16C t `�,ic
-----Original Message----- RECEIVED
.. ,. ...0
From: nancy may<nmayl3@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 5:46 PM JUL j
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> -.-.�.....6 ..�. .,�_.i.
out �r��i "awn...
Subject: Strong's proposed construction project Planning Board
Southold Town Board,
As a local resident for decades, I oppose Strong's proposed project to construct two enormous storage warehouses,
inconsistent w its surroundings and environment, on the banks of Mattituck Creek. I have deep concerns regarding the
size of the buildings and their unsuitable location.The banks of the Creek simply cannot accommodate two additional
fifty thousand square foot warehouses especially considering the presence of the already existing seventy thousand
square feet of warehouses.
Moreover,the scale of excavation required for this project is entirely inappropriate given the area's topography and
soil composition,which consists of sand shores prone to erosion. It is important to acknowledge the impact on erosion
and access when considering sensible zoning regulations.
This situation presents an ideal opportunity for the board to reflect on these concerns, reject the proposal, and revisit
the matter. I have been informed that the Town Planning Board is questioning the project through the SEQRA process,
and it is crucial that these concerns are addressed before any further progress is made. Specifically,there are significant
issues with the current zoning regulations, such as the location of the boundary between R-80 and M-II and the
permissibility of storing such a large amount of fuel near tidal waters in the M-II zone. Additionally, it is important to
evaluate compliances with the town code, especially regarding building height, preservation of natural features,
protection of habitat of wildlife and marine life and the potential threat to endangered species,flood hazard areas,and
other relevant factors. These considerations must align with the Comprehensive Plan and the LWRP to ensure proper
adherence.
Finally, it is essential to recognize that there is no compelling need for this project. Our community does not require two
massive warehouses solely dedicated to luxury yachts.Allowing such development would only serve as a blemish on our
landscape and tarnish our reputation for responsible and preservation-minded progress. I ask you to. It's against
Strong's proposal.
Sincerely,
Nancy May
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.
From: Michaelis,Jessica S c!b'te
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 8:18 AM P L r
To: Westermann, Caitlin RECEIVED
Subject: FW: DEIS - Strong's Marine �_._..._. ........_............. .._,.__.........
JUL
Town.
From:jennifer murray<turtlebackfarmer@gmail.com> Planning Board
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:26 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Cc: Michaelis,Jessica<jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>;jennifer murray(Turtleback EEC)
<turtlebackfarmer@gmail.com>
Subject: DEIS-Strong's Marine
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe that the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately address the potential adverse impact on
multiple threatened and endangered shorebird species breeding and foraging at Mattituck Inlet (in addition
to increased boat traffic, no wake zone concerns, and shoreline degradation.)
On page 131 of the DEIS under the section "Endangered, Threatened, Rare Species or Significant Ecological
Communities," it is stated that "no endangered, threatened, or rare species or significant ecological
communities were observed during the ecological surveys conducted. Consultations were undertaken with
the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) and in correspondence dated December 1, 2020, the
NYNHP indicated the piping plover (Charadrius melodus), a New York State threatened species, is the only
record of a known occurrence of a rare or state-listed animal or plant or significant natural community on or
in the vicinity of the site (Appendix 1 in Appendix N of this DEIS). Piping plovers nest at Breakwater Beach
located more than 0.5 miles away on the west side of Mattituck Inlet. There is no breeding or foraging
habitat for piping plover present on the site."
As a shorebird biologist for over a decade, and as an individual heavily involved in the conservation of the
federally threatened and state endangered Piping Plover at Mattituck Inlet (Breakwater and Bailie Beaches)
since 2020, 1 have a unique perspective on this topic. Mattituck Inlet is currently the most productive nesting
shorebird site on the North Fork, with the most pairs of Piping Plovers.As verified by Anne Hecht,the
leading Endangered Species biologist for the US Fish &Wildlife Service during a site visit in 2022,the reason
for Piping Plover success at Mattituck Inlet is the high quality foraging areas found along Mattituck Creek.
The plovers can be found foraging along Mattituck Creek at low tide, from the mud flats at the Inlet to
Strong's proposed storage facility.
The DEIS does not adequately address the wake zone issues of the yachts in and out of Mattituck Inlet. As
an environmental educator, I led a beach clean up and various conservation projects for elementary aged
school children at Bailie Beach and Mattituck Creek in 2020. The students found dislodged wild oysters
1
along the mudflats of the creek. They spent an hour or so carefully placing the oysters back in the mud fiats.
A 66 foot yacht not observing the wake zone on its way out to the.sound blew an air horn at the kids and
waved. The.startled kids stood with their mouths agape as what Looked hike a tsunami wage to them washed
away their efforts.. The erosion we witnessed from just one yacht was considerable and measurable. What
would the already severely eroded shoreline look like after the passing of over$a yachts TWICE:::: in a
season? All one has to do is walk the creek side of Bailie Beach and see for themselves the shoreline
degradation currently happening.
It its important to mention the federally threatened (Least Terra also nests at Mattituck inlet, and this
species will leave incubated nests and young each time a large vessel goes through the inlet. Too much
activity could not only lead to unviable eggs, nest failure, and predated young, it could cause site
abandonment, where the colony abandons the site completely, leaving eggs and young behind„ i...astly,
endangered roseate 'Ferns are found at Mattituck Inlet during migration, and increased traffic of large
yachts could deter Common and Roseate"Ferns from using this important resting.site.
The DEIS does not address the population recovery of the bald Eagle, which can be found along the creek
year round. it is possible a Bald Eagle pair has nested this season within a few miles of the proposed storage
facility,Three pairs of eagles have recently been observed over Mattituck Creek engaged in a territorial
battle.. Also not adequately documented is the presence of the recovering river Otter. Deceased otters were
documented in 2022 near Love Il...ane If::3oat ramp and just east of IBailie Beach. Otters have been observed
foraging in Mattituck Creek in Spring of 20211 encourage further studies be performed on the presence of
above species and how this proposed storage faciil.ity could hinder the population recoveries,
I .support the Planning Board rejecting this project or requiring more in depth documentation on the
potential impacts to the rare plant communities and protected wildlife species.
Sincerely,
.Jennifer Murray
Turtleback Conservation Center
PO Box 288
Peconic NY 1.1958
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
2
Alexander Villani
1735 Breakwater Road
Mattituck,NY 11952
631-298-4036
Sub-F
July 10, 2023 F B , H L.,MT B C , /m CRECEIVED
..,._
Town of Southold Planning Board
54375 NYS Route 25 L7s66thoio town
P.O. Box 1179 Planning Board
Southold,NY 11971
Re: Strong's Marina Project
To the Planning Board:
As a commercial fisherman out of Mattituck Inlet for the last 33 years, I support Strong's
Marine's right to develop their six acres. It's just a garage for boats; no big deal.
I do not believe that this project is harmful to the environment. Fertilizer use on lawns
adjacent to the Inlet certainly do much more damage.
Perhaps the Save Mattituck Inlet group should use their energy to prevent harmful
fertilizers that leach into the Inlet and should look into the dredging of the Inlet as well.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Alexander A. Villani
good
food
<&P is
good
business `
SV Y-P
P s , ���-^^��� MTV , 8 c C
July 10,2023 R E 1..�.E I V E D
_. _.
Mr.Brian Cummings
Mr.Mark Terry
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Hall
atlto own....
53095 Main Road PlanningBoard
PO Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
[send via email]
Re:Strong's Marina Expansion
Dear Mr.Cummings and Mr.Terry,
I am writing to strongly oppose the expansion plan proposed by Strong's Marina in Mattituck.
This builds on many prior statements made at planning meetings,stories and letters published in the"Suffolk Times"that
so well explain how the scope and scale of this project is inconsistent with the character of Southold Town:and the
intelligent and informed voices that detail the immense environmental damage that the preparation,construction,and
operation of such facilities will be to Mattituck Creek,the neighboring areas,and the entire North Fork.
To add to the many good reasons this project should be rejected is that it-from conception to construction to
operations-is extractive.
According a paper written by Dr.Sally Goerner for T'tLc,,,,, "Regenerative Development:The Art and Science
of Creating Durably Vibrant Human Networks,"extractive economies tend to treat most local,regional and even national
economies as places from which wealth-resources,money,labor,etc.-can be extracted."They concentrate resources
for the gain of a few.
Indeed,as has been well documented,great amounts of natural resources will literally be extracted(a creek dredged,land
dug out and trees cut),This project will realize the financial gain of one company(Strong's)in lieu of building community
wealth through job creation,or products or services that serve the community.
As I have heard many of my neighbors and friends say,if this proposal is accepted it will be"the end of Southold Town as
we know it"
Indeed,the theory of extractive economies explains that"overly concentrated wealth tends to corrupt institutional
behavior,pushing activity more towards elite service and away from the institutions authentic role in service to society."
In other words,if the Town of Southold accepts this proposal,it indicates that the priority is servicing
the few(the"elite"owners of yachts who do not live here and will not contribute to our local economy nor build wealth for
the community)and shows us residents and voters the true priority of our local government.
We cannot afford to wait until the next election to vote in people who will focus on responsible planning,because this
project will tilt the balance away from all the important preservation and local economic development work that we have
achieved here in the last 20 or so years.
We must focus on a more regenerative approach to building our economy-projects that infuse
KarenKarp&Partners P.O.Box 515 r:212.260.1070 kkandp.com
Southold,NY 11971 F.917.591.5104
resources back into developing our internal(Southold Town)capacities and capabilities and deliver long term vitality to Our
community.
We have examples of how responsible planning created local wealth.the environmental policy that helped bring back the
osprey and eagles,thereby restoring our bays and waterways and revived our historic oyster industry,and the
preservation of development rights that locked in a path for hard-working farmers and related business owners to build a
215t century farm and food(and wine)economy here,These are examples of local economy success stories that
themselves will be greatly negatively impacted,could easily diminish,through the Strong s plan.
It is imperative that the Southold Town Planning Boardreject the Strong Marina proposal—for the
good of our environment,our community,and our economy.We can use this experience to help us think
more creatively and regeneratively about building our economy in different,in more human and environmentally sensitive
ways.
Thank you,
Karen Karp
Founder and Partner,Karen Karp&Partners
4th Generation Agriculture and Food Entrepreneur,3 generations here on the North Fork.
KarE?r Qarp artners P.O.Box 515 T.212.260.1070 kkandp.com
P. 2
Southold,NY 11971 F:917.591.5104
Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
P.O. Box 191—Montauk, N.Y.—11954 Phone 516-527-3099— Fax 631-668-7654E-mail
Greenfluke@optonline.net www.licfa.org https://www.facebook.com/LICFA Twitter@LICommFishAssn
Sustainable Fisheries and Fishermen for the 215tCentury
Sub-r
July 10, 2023
Pg , �L i MT, B C, MC
Ms. Heather M. Lanza,AICP
Planning Director 0 .-�..�
Southold Town Planning Department
JUL 1, 2023
Town Hall Annex Building
P.O. Box 1179 .....,.,56 ....�.. ..__.w
tl�ol Town
Southold, NY 11971 Planning Board
Dear Ms. Lanza
Please accept the following comments on behalf of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association.We
represent commercial fishermen of all gear types at various ports on Long Island, including those whose
home port is the hamlet of Mattituck. Mattituck is known as the center of the Town of Southold's
commercial fishing fleet.
We are writing to support the expansion of Strong's Marine Yacht Center to include two storage sites on
their property with which to overwinter various personal pleasure craft and yachts.Strong's has been a
Mattituck fixture for decades, and while the Yacht Center on West Mill Road is only seven years old,
their efforts to help the commercial fishing fleet of Mattituck Inlet has been exemplary.
First we would like to say we are pleased to see that Southold has an approved Local Waterfront
Revitalization Plan (LWRP)from New York's Department of State. Because the primary focus of
Southold's LWRP is on water-dependent and water-enhanced uses,we feel that the request for this
expansion is well grounded in Southold's history and future as a method to both help the commercial
fleet in Mattituck and those recreational boaters that depend on Strong's and the services they provide.
Commercial fishermen in general have had a good working relationship with Strong's throughout the
Island. In Mattituck particularly,Strong's has understood the needs of the fleet.
What that translates into is a place nearby to order parts, purchase supplies, and provide haul-outs for
doing repairs independently so as to save on expenses. It also provides a spot for annual maintenance,
like pressure washing and bottom-painting,which they have consistently done for the commercial fleet
each year for more than a dozen small businesses.Then for those who need storage during the winter,
Strong's provides that winter storage outside.
We believe it is extremely important that Strong's Yacht Center to be able to invest in these new
buildings for their pleasure craft clientele so they will continue to have room to store commercial fishing
vessels outside in the winter where it is more affordable for them. Strong's is the last marina left to
provide these storage and haul out services within 30 miles to the east and west and we cannot afford
to lose the only local haul out site for the fleet. Commercial fishing infrastructure is a vital necessity to
the fleet,and we cannot afford to lose these services.
When the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program was first approved in 1994, it acknowledged
the needs of the"working fleet," including to:
"Reinvigorate the Sound's working waterfront,its jobs and products, at appropriate locations by
protecting uses dependent on the Sound,furnishing necessary infrastructure,providing business and
marketing assistance, and promoting efficient harbor operations.'
Policy 10 of Southold's LWRP took it one step further as written and approved in 2005 and amended and
approved in 2014, promising the protection of Southold's water-dependent uses. It recognized
Mattituck Inlet and Creek as"identified by the state as a regional Maritime Center, Mill Creek and the
Village of Greenport are the primary focus of maritime activity within the Town of Southold. The intent of
this policy is to protect existing water-dependent commercial, industrial, and recreational uses and to
enhance the economic viability of water-dependent uses by ensuring adequate provision of infrastructure
for water-dependent uses and their efficient operation."z
We also believe that the request by Strong's Marine to add two storage buildings to its property
envelope fit clearly within the guidelines of LWRP Policy Standards:
10.2 "Promote Mattituck Inlet and Creek, Mill Creek and the Village of Greenport as the most
suitable locations for water-dependent uses within the Town of Southold. Mattituck Inlet and
Creek, identified by the state as a regional Maritime Center, and the Village of Greenport are the
primary focus of maritime activity within the Town of Southold. Give water-dependent
development precedence over other types of development at suitably zoned waterfront sites
within Mattituck Inlet and Creek and the Village of Greenport."3
10.3 "Allow for continuation and development of water-dependent uses within the existing
concentration of maritime activity in harbors,inlets and creeks." In addition to Mattituck Inlet
and Creek and the Village of Greenport, important concentrations of water-dependent uses are
located at Orient Point, Orient hamlet, Gull Pond, Mill Creek/eudds Pond, Town/Jockey Creek,
New Suffolk,James Creek and West Harbor. Individual marinas and other water-dependent uses
are located outside of the concentrations of maritime activity.
A. Ensure that public actions enable these harbors, inlets and creeks to continue to
function as concentrations of water-dependent uses.
1 tit- pg 51
Z Ibid, pg 694
3 Ibid,pg 698
10.4A "Minimize adverse impacts of new and expanding water-dependent uses and provide for
their safe operation. Limit the potential for adverse impacts associated with development of a
new water-dependent use by promoting the location of new development at appropriate sites.
Appropriate sites include:
1.sites which have been previously developed,
2.sites which require minimal physical alteration to accommodate development,
3.sites that already possess public infrastructure or locational characteristics that would
support a water-dependent use.
Thank you for the time to allow us to comment on this proposal.Should you request any further
information regarding the needs of the local commercial fishing fleet that would be affected by
this project, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
7oo�
Bonnie Bra y
Executive Director
LICFA
auo+'
PS 4L_ MT 9C, /vt c.
�,._.......W...._..... .w... ...... ....._.._.__.....
Re: Strong's Yacht Warehouses DEIS ) 0 2023
Dear Ms. Michaelis, Planning Board
I urge Southold Town to deny the permits needed to build yacht storage buildings along Mattituck
Creek abutting the 27-acre publicly owned Mill Road Preserve. The coastal oak—beech forest covering
both properties is considered a "vulnerable" forest type in New York State and among the wildlife it
supports is the northern long-eared bat (endangered). Northern long-eared bats use forested areas not
only for roosting, but also for foraging and commuting between summer and winter habitat. They
emerge at dusk to fly primarily through the understory of forest areas, feeding mostly on moths, flies,
leafhoppers, caddisflies and beetles. The bats catch these insects while in flight using echolocation or
by using gleaning behavior, catching motionless insects from vegetation.
The final rule reclassifying the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis)from threatened to
endangered under the Endangered Species Act took effect on March 31, 2023. The northern long-
eared bat is known to occur throughout much of New York State, including Oyster Bay in Nassau
County and the entirety of Suffolk County. As per the Final Rule, the USFWS is committed to reducing
the impacts of disease and protecting the survivors to recover the population. Because of the
importance of the Long Island sub-population, the NYS Department of Conservation is currently
developing region-specific guidance.
Long Island's northern long-eared bat population is considered a source sub-population to one day
replenish the species throughout its native range (East End Beacon, July 2023). The main threat to
northern long-eared bat is white-nose syndrome (a disease caused by a fungal pathogen) and has
caused a precipitous decline in bat numbers (in many cases, 90-100 percent) where the disease has
occurred (81FR1900 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 4 d Rule for the Northern Lon -
Eared Bat published on 111412016). Declines in the numbers of northern long-eared bats are expected
to continue as WNS extends across the species' range. Because Long Island lacks caves and the bats
have adapted by not hibernating in large numbers, Long Island is one of the few places in which the
northern long-eared bat population is more robust. Researchers from SUNY Albany have found that
the bats on eastern Long Island hibernate in small groupings of five to six, instead of groups of
hundreds, so the fungus is less easily transmitted (East End Beacon, July 2023). Small groups of
hibernating bats are also more likely to find insects to feed on if they awaken during hibernation.
Wind energy mortality, effects from climate change, and habitat loss also influence the northern long-
eared bat's viability. As per the USFWS Species Status Report 2022 , "Habitat loss may include loss of
suitable roosting or foraging habitat, resulting in longer flights between suitable roosting and foraging
habitats due to habitat fragmentation, fragmentation of maternity colony networks, and direct injury
or mortality." The northern long-eared bat is assumed to be present in any forested habitat in Suffolk
County (meaning a land owner cannot prove absence). According to biologists, the northern long-eared
bat seeks out trees with cracks and crevices (i.e., black locust, shagbark hickory, and old oaks) for day
roosting, and any trees with snags or cavities for maternity roosts. Given the low reproductive
potential of northern long-eared bats (one pup per female per year), death of adult females or pups
during tree felling (or erasing their habitat altogether with a large housing or commercial
development) will continue to erode the long-term viability of Long Island's sub-population.
Artificial lighting also results in the loss of habitat for the northern long-eared bat. "Installation of
temporary or permanent lighting can introduce barriers to movement, sever foraging areas, discourage
emergence or precipitate roost abandonment. Roost adjacent lighting may modify microclimatic
conditions (i.e., humidity or temperature) or cause disturbance, which may precipitate roost
abandonment." (White-nose Syndrome Conservation and Recovery Working Group 2018).
The report Use of Forested Habitat Adjacent to Highways by Northern Long-Eared Bats (Foster et al.
2019) prepared for The New England Transportation Consortium further outlines how artificial light
reduces the habitat of the northern long-eared bat (NLEB):
"Artificial light can affect roosting and foraging behavior. Bats will delay leaving roosts that are near
lights (Downs et al. 2003), which reduces foraging opportunities (Jones and Rydell 1994). Light near
roosts also leads to lighter and smaller juvenile bats due to delayed parturition and slower growth
rates (Boldogh et al. 2007). Road lighting deters slow-flying, forested-adapted species such as NLEB
(Rydell 1992, Blake et al. 1994, Stone et al. 2009). Older sodium lights and new LED lights deter forest
species even at low light intensities (>3.6 lux) (Stone et al. 2012). Bats will reverse flight direction when
they perceive low intensity light sources (0.6-3.2 lux) (Kuijper et al. 2008). Street lights are usually
between 10-60 lux (Gaston et al. 2012), thus dimming lights to acceptable levels for bats may not be
feasible. Open space foraging bats can benefit from lights with improved foraging efficiency, as insects
exhibit positive phototaxis resulting in higher insect abundances around light sources (Rydell 1992,
Blake et al. 1994). However, this concentrating effect on insects reduces insect prey in dark foraging
areas thus decreasing prey abundance and foraging success for light phobic genera such as Myotis spp.
(Eisenbeis 2006, Evens 2012). While the effects of lights on Northern Long-Eared Bat (NLEB) have not
been directly assessed, NLEB is a forest-dependent species (light adverse)whose primary prey, moths,
are highly phototaxic,thus it stands to reason that NLEB foraging success may be greatly reduced in
lighted landscapes." (page 7)
Please do not allow this project to go forward.
Sincerely,
Laura Klahre
Blossom Meadow Farm
laura@blossommeadow.com
References
Blake, D., Hutson, A. M., Racey, P. A., Rydell,J., & Speakman, J. R. (1994). Use of lamplit roads by
foraging bats in southern England. Journal of Zoology, 234(3), 453-462.
Boldogh, S., Dobrosi, D., &Samu, P. (2007). The effects of the illumination of buildings on house-
dwelling bats and its conservation consequences. Acta Chiropterologica, 9(2), 527- 534.
Downs, N. C., Beaton, V., Guest,J., Polanski,J., Robinson, S. L., & Racey, P. A. (2003). The effects of
illuminating the roost entrance on the emergence behaviour of Pipistrellus pygmaeus. Biological
Conservation, 111(2), 247-252. htt s: doi.or 10,1016 S0006-3207(02)00298-7
East End Beacon.July 2023 1 Volume 7 Issue 7 "Bats Prove a Bellweather for a Changing Habitat
Paradigm"
Eisenbeis, G. 2006. Artificial night lighting and insects: attraction of insects to streetlamps in a rural
setting in Germany. In Rich, C. and Longcore, T. eds Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting:
345-364. Washington, Island Press.
Evens, N. 2012. Shedding light on bat activity: artificial lighting has species-specific effects on British
bats. Doctoral dissertation.
Foster Jeffre et al. Use of Forested Habitat A "acent to Highways by Northern Long-Eared Bats care
other Bats), No. NETC 15-1 NETCR117. New England Transportation Consortium 2019,
htt s: www.newen landtrans ortationconsortium.or w -content u loads NETC 15-
1 FinalRe ort FinalVersion. df
Gaston, K.J., Davies, T. W., Bennie,J., & Hopkins, J. (2012). Reducing the ecological consequences of
night-time light pollution: options and developments. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(6), 1256-1266.
Jones, G., & Rydell, J. (1994). Foraging strategy and predation risk as factors influencing emergence
time in echolocating bats. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological
Sciences, 346(1318), 445-455.
Kuijper, D. P., Schut, J., van Dullemen, D., Toorman, H., Goossens, N., Ouwehand, J., & Limpens, H.J. G.
A. (2008). Experimental evidence of light disturbance along the commuting routes of pond bats (Myotis
dasycneme). Lutra, 51(1), 37.
Rydell,J. (1992). Exploitation of insects around streetlamps by bats in Sweden. Functional Ecology, 744-
750.
Stone, E. L.,Jones, G., & Harris, S. (2009). Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current Biology,
19(13), 1123-1127. htt s: doi.or 10,1016 i.cub.2009.05.058
Stone, E. L.,Jones, G., & Harris, S. (2012). Conserving energy at a cost to biodiversity? Impacts of LED
lighting on bats. Global Change Biology, 18(8), 2458-2465. htt s: doi.or 10,1111 i.1365-
2486.2012.02705.x
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022. Species Status Assessment Report for the Northern Ion eared bat
M otis se. tentrionalis Version 1.2. August 2022. Bloomington, MN.
White-nose Syndrome Conservation and Recovery Working Group, 2018. Acceptable Management
Practices for Bat Species Inhabiting Transportation Infrastructure. A product of the White-nose
Syndrome National Plan (www,whitenoses ndro e.or ). 49 pp.
*****************************************************************
Laura Klahre
Jammer/Bee Rancher/Berry Farmer, Blossom Meadow Farm
Store Location: 31855 Main Road, Cutchogue NY (just east of the King Kullen Shopping Plaza)
Farm Location: South Harbor Road, Southold, NY
email: laura blossomrneadow,com
website: blossom meadow,com instagram: @BlossomMeadowFarm
cell: (631) 905-9780 facebook: @BlossomMeadow
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 11:48 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: I strongly oppose the Strong's Yacht Warehouse! S b�
PH L 4 0-
RECEIVED
From: Lindagnes@aol.com <lindagnes@aol.com>
Sent: M n Jul 202311:44AM
Monday, y 10,
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> f..., 9-66l"FR'To—n
Cc: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> Planning Board
Subject: I strongly oppose the Strong's Yacht Warehouse!
I strongly oppose the Strong's Yacht Warehouse project. This project is outsized and
not at all in keeping with the rural charm and beauty of the North Fork and its character.
As I hope you already know, the project would cut down over 600 mature trees, which is
a climate disaster and a totally unnecessary destruction of North Fork forestation. To do
that, and to excavate 135,000 cubic yards of sand, on the banks of Mattituck Creek,
next to the publicly owned Mill Road Preserve, just to build yacht storage buildings, is an
exercise in the privilege of rich people to ruin the land for the rest of us. This project
threatens the integrity of both the creek, because the contaminants from the boat
winterization process seep into the water, and the preserve, because the destruction of
so many trees and the removal of so much sand will destabilize the surrounding land.
Please shut this project down! Let's preserve the North Fork as a place for all people,
not turn it into a giant storage facility for rich people's yachts!
Thank you.
Linda Mule
1220,Sigsbee Road
Mattituck, NY
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 11:07 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strong's Marine Project on Mattituck Inlet
P. .. ..- �- .M roc
IVE
o......_...._ ... ......_.._....
From:joni friedman <pedrogft@yahoo.com> JUL 10 2023
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 11:03 AM y � � 1own To:Ter y
Mark<mark.ter @town.southold.n us> 5 ��th� i ."`
Subject:Strong's Marine Project on Mattituck Inlet Planning Board
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
I am strongly opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe that the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is a mere sketch of the proposed devastation of the environment and
community that peacefully coexisted and flourished despite the current boat activity on Mattituck Inlet.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified the following potential environmental impacts from
boating and marinas: high toxicity in the water; increased pollutant concentrations in aquatic organisms and
sediments; increased erosion rates; increased nutrients, leading to an increase in algae and a decrease in
oxygen (eutrophication); and high levels of pathogens. In addition, construction at marinas can lead to the
physical destruction of sensitive ecosystems and bottom-dwelling aquatic communities."
(Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution from Boating and Marinas
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution from Boating and Marinas
Pointer No. 9
E PA841-F-96-0041)
With the worldwide pollution of our oceans, bays, rivers and fragile estuaries forcing the mass extinction of
species on land and water, how can this completely self serving, profit driven project be a consideration for
our town?There is not one iota of public or community benefit nor philanthropy in this project. Only the loss
of yet another landscape, the razing of a pristine ecological safe haven and the disruption of the lives of
millions of humans and animals for the rest of our lives here on the Northfork. The DEIS does not offer
sufficient mitigation as it relates to my concerns as they are short sighted projections with no adequate
comparison with projects already underway or completed. Anticipation of longterm detrimental impacts
doesn't enter into this study.
"It's clear that boats' climate effects are multifaceted. As the engines expel harmful gases into the
atmosphere, residual chemicals and direct aquatic and marine habitat destruction eliminate crucial resources
for wildlife.
Even boat maintenance activities like antifouling can harm the environment, due to the toxic chemicals used.
In addition to the carbon dioxide and other gases released into the environment, this practice can also
introduce toxic emissions from paint. This accounts for 67 percent of total emissions for leisure boat owners.
("Antifouling" refers to treating the boat's hull with specialized substances to prevent "fouling." Fouling is the
accumulation of plants and small marine and aquatic animals on a boat's exterior.)
-Erase Your Emissions and Go Climate Neutral Written by Jazmin Murphy
Carbon Ecological Footprint Calculators I March 28, 2023
1
We are entering into the world's most dire climate crisis. Local governments are granting permission to
developers, domestic oligarchs and entrepreneurs without our permission, disregarding the democratic rights
of the people on the lands most impacted.
Further, I have additional concerns about the significant increase in truck traffic and the dangerous impact it
will have on our local roads. The increased tourism has already made our roads unsafe and driven away the
peace of what was once sought after bucolic beauty.
I support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Sincerely,
Joni Friedman
New Suffolk
P.S. I would like my email to be part of the public record
IM
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
2
From: Terry, Mark SV b�
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 9:58 AM P� j � L I Mr' gG , M�
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Please do not allow the Strong Marine yacht storage facility plan to proceed
RECEIVEP
-----Original Message----- Grp 1 o.wn-11
From: Megan Bowles<megan@meganbowles.yoga>
Planning Board
Sent:Thursday,June 29, 2023 7:08 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Please do not allow the Strong Marine yacht storage facility plan to proceed
Dear Mr. Cummings and Mr.Terry,
I am a Southold resident and I oppose the Strong Marine proposal to build a yacht storage facility on Mattituck creek.
The environmental impacts are too powerfully negative. It will not create a significant number of jobs and will be a huge
burden on those living near the site. Please do not allow the plan to go forward.
Respectfully,
Megan Bowles
Cutchogue
Certified lyengar Yoga Teacher
www.meganbowles.yoga
mobile 1301.452.1226
On a day
when the wind is perfect,
the sail just needs to open and the world is full of beauty.
Today is such a
day.
- Rumi
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Terry, Mark 5 V b-p
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 10:00 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin FBI H.L P-AC
Subject: FW: Mattituck Creek Letter RECEIVED
outlfb
-----Original Message----- Planning Board
From: Maude Adams<meadams@optonline.net>
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 9:54 AM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Mattituck Creek Letter
Dear Southold Town Planning Board:
I am writing to add my name to the long list of residents who would like you to block Strong's Marine from building huge
yacht storage warehouses on Mattituck Creek.
As a town, we rely on the undeveloped beauty of our landscape to draw visitors and sustain our many small businesses-
these visitors range from fishermen and kayakers to those who choose our wineries for their weddings and events. To
give any fraction of this landscape over to a developer for yacht storage that mars the appearance of a beautiful
waterway and will do nothing but pollute the environment and block our roads with dump truck traffic is to disregard
this fact and put our economy at risk.
Specifically,transforming Mattituck Creek into a high-traffic waterway for enormous yachts for several months of the
year can only harm the economy that already revolves around the creek, including fisheries and charter boats, and also
the vibrant real estate market. We pride ourselves on staying apart from the majority of towns on the South Fork,
where rampant development has eroded the natural beauty,overwhelming the landscape with residential and
commercial projects. Approving this proposal would be a step toward that undesirable direction.
Furthermore, I implore you to consider the tactics employed by Jeff Strong,who has attempted to garner support by
cozying up to local business owners while issuing veiled threats of constructing a hotel or low-income housing on the
site if his yacht storage plan fails to get approved. These tactics prey on fears related to socioeconomic issues and
capitalize on the "Not in My Backyard" mentality. If these alternative proposals hold any substance beyond mere
intimidation, they should be meticulously documented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS), as is
required.
I beseech you to protect our local economy and preserve the very essence of what we hold most dear by rejecting the
developer's bid to commandeer our beloved creek solely to expand his own operations. Let us safeguard the integrity of
our community and its invaluable natural resources.
Sincerely,
Maude Adams
Cutchogue, NY
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
S U b-P
51 If
RECEIVED
Save the Sound0=00 .. ..
Action for our region's environment. `
July 10, 2023 Planning Board
Mr.James Rich,Vice Chair BY EMAIL:
Town of Southold Planning Board Members Mark Ter town.southold.n .us
Mr. Mark Terry,Assistant Town Planning Director Jessicg,,.M ichaefis2 town.southold.n .cis
54375 Main Rd
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re:Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
Dear Vice Chair Rich, Members of the Southold Planning Board, and Mr.Terry:
Save the Sound is a nonprofit organization representing over 5,000 member households and 19,000
activists throughout the Long Island Sound region. Our mission is to protect and improve the region's
land,air,and water.We use legal and scientific expertise and bring citizens together to achieve results
that benefit our environment for current and future generations.
We have examined the above-named Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)and offer our
comments below. We request you also include our previous comments'in the record.At the outset,we
recommend the Planning Board prepare its own Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS), using a
qualified,independent consultant. FEIS preparation is the responsibility solely of the lead agency; given
the controversy surrounding this project throughout not only the town, but the entire North Fork,the
town must show complete impartiality.The DEIS, as prepared by this applicant's consultants,cannot
provide the basis for taking a reasoned, hard look at the project's adverse environmental impacts.
We appreciate the incorporation of our scoping comments into the official amended scope for the DEIS.
Following our DEIS review,we maintain our original position that the proposal is out of scale and
inappropriate for the site.The Planning Board should prepare to issue a negative Findings Statement.A
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(SEIS) may be required first, however,to address the
many concerns raised below and by the reviewing public. Preparation of an SEIS would require
additional public notice and comment on the new studies and reports.
1 By reference we incorporate our concerns about the proposed project's adverse environmental impacts that we
presented orally in our comments at the public scoping hearing on November 2,2020;in our written scoping
comments on December 7,2020;in oral testimony before the Southold Town Trustees on May 19,2021,on the
matter of segmentation of review involving the"Strong's West Mill, LLC"wetland application(see PDF pp.36-37
of hearing record);in oral remarks made at the May 15, 2023,hearing on the DEIS by our Long Island natural areas
manager Louise Harrison;and in oral testimony delivered by both Save the Sound's staff attorney Jessica Roberts
and Louise Harrison at the second part of the DEIS hearing on June 5,2023.
P.O. Box 1850 I Southold, New York 11971 1 631-428-1315
127 Church Street I 2nd Floor I New Haven, CT 06510 1 203-787-0646
www.savethesound.org
Save the Sound comments 2
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
The required removal of a forested, natural coastal feature, including nearly 135,000 cubic yards of
sand,to provide space—where otherwise there is none—along the waterfront for over two acres of
non-water-dependent, boat storage warehouses is testament that the site is wrong for this type of
development.
The immediate area of the proposed project is important ecologically and recreationally,as well as for
maritime heritage; its immediate surroundings are protected, maintained,or recognized by federal,
state, regional,and local authorities:
• In its Stewardship Initiative,the US EPA's Long Island Sound Study lists Mattituck Creek as an
Inaugural Stewardship Site'for its ecological and recreational significance.
• The US Fish and Wildlife Service lists Mattituck Inlet as a Significant Coastal Habitat.'
• The project site lies immediately south and west of New York State-owned tidal wetlands.
• The project site adjoins the state-designated Mattituck Inlet Wetlands and Beaches Significant
Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat,which is incorporated into Southold's Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program(LWRP).
• The project site is contiguous with Mill Road Preserve,owned by the Town of Southold.
The site itself is developed at its easternmost terminus with a marina,yet the remainder is comprised of
natural geologic features and biological components that are integral to the Long Island Sound
estuary. Its morainal elevations,west of the existing marina and reaching over 50 feet above mean sea
level, host two forest types, one considered vulnerable by New York State—a coastal oak—beech forest.
The site provides habitat for endangered and threatened species and species of special concern.
We acknowledge the importance of maritime uses of Long Island Sound and its coastal creeks, bays, and
harbors to regional economies,ways of life,and appreciation of natural resources. Fostering such uses
can lead to better understanding of those resources and improvements in stewardship of the Sound as a
whole;finding ways to support the natural environment while simultaneously encouraging water-
dependent marine industry is essential, although it can be challenging.We believe analysis of
consistency with the coastal policies in Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) helps
to resolve potential or perceived conflicts, leading to sound decision making that protects coastal
resources for future generations.We provide our analysis in Table 1 accompanying this letter.
If approved,the proposal would pose new dangers: By leveling a natural coastal feature and siting new
buildings only 10 feet above mean sea level,more of the applicant's site would be exposed to
potential inundation from storm tides and sea level rise.This could introduce pollutants to Mattituck
Creek and Long Island Sound.The DEIS does not present mitigation for the numerous adverse
environmental impacts that would result from approximately four acres of forest ecosystem destruction,
harm to Mill Road Nature Preserve,sand excavation, materials hauling through the two North Fork
'htt s ,: Ncan u I nds a ndstud „n t, 012 11 ha Ilock_,stated:pgrk-p esery .Lnatt��ituck cLggkl' accessed July 7,2023.
a United States Fish and Wildlife Service(1991).Northeast Coastal Areas Study:Significant Coastal Habitats of
Southern New England and Portions of Long Island, New York.Charlestown, RI.249 pp.+maps.
Save the Sound comments 3
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
towns, construction activities, and,finally,the buildings as installed.Some of the potential adverse
impacts are unmitigable.The document's analysis of alternatives to the proposed action is inadequate.
DEIS DEFICIENT AS BASIS FOR FINAL EIS AND FINDINGS
FLAWED DEIS.The DEIS lacks full adherence to the required scope, and contains numerous mistakes,
inconsistencies,false assertions, and misleading information. It should not be used as a tool for decision
making. Many of these issues with the document have been thoroughly described in other comments to
the Planning Board, by Save Mattituck Inlet,Joel Klein, North Fork Audubon Society,Group for the East
End,other environmental organizations,and many engaged citizens. It is clear the Planning Board now
must take full command of the review of this proposal and draft its own, independent Final
Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS).We support your efforts to date to secure an outside
consultant for this purpose.Your Findings Statement and ultimately your decision must be supported by
a careful analysis of facts.
CONFUSING TERMS. One recurring and troublesome issue with the DEIS is its loose and sometimes
interchangeable references to areas on the property, such as"site,""project site," and "construction
site."The most immediate result of unclear definitions is they cause confusion over measurements.Just
one example is in assessing the percentage of trees to be removed or remaining/planted—the DEIS
should specify whether such numbers refer to the whole property,the project site, or the area of
excavation. By counting trees that would remain in the portion of the site not zoned for the proposed
project,where such a project should not proceed, it obscures the 100% removal of trees in the actual
excavation zone and confuses the reader as to what percentage might remain in the designated "project
area."A proposed haul road in the area outside the construction zone further complicates a reviewer's
ability to gauge impacts.The HIS should clearly label the areas of the property where the project work
would be undertaken and use those same place names in the narrative so adverse impacts can be
properly evaluated.
Our comments below concern the DEIS'treatment of the following:
• edge effects of excavation,
• impacts on essential ecosystem services provided by forest,
• adverse impacts on Mill Road Preserve,
• potential adverse impacts of sand excavation,
• potential effects of lowered elevation coupled with sea level rise on water quality,
• additional water quality considerations,
• consistency with the Town of Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP),
• growth inducement,
• alternatives, and
• irreversible and irretrievable impacts.
Save the Sound comments 4
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
EDGE EFFECTS OF EXCAVATION
Forested areas and protected open space along the coastline of Long Island Sound are critically
important for restoring and maintaining the estuary's complex ecosystem.The undeveloped portion of
the subject property hosts two types of forest cover in a terrain reaching over 50 feet above mean sea
level.These cover types,successional southern hardwood forest and coastal oak—beech forest,along
with successional shrubland,are contiguous with Mill Road Preserve's forest.Also consisting of the same
two types of forest and shrubland—the successional shrubland and southern hardwoods representing
regrowth after agricultural use and the mature, native, coastal oak—beech forest, Mill Road Preserve is
owned by the Town of Southold as a public amenity. Ecologically the two properties,one privately held
and one owned by the public, need to be considered as one ecosystem to understand their collective
and interdependent value to Mattituck Creek and the adverse impacts posed by the project.
Wholesale removal of over four acres of the mature forest on the applicant's property,a type
considered vulnerable in New York, affects the resources belonging to the public.
We applaud the Planning Board for requiring the applicant to discuss the edge effect of destroying the
coastal oak—beech forest on the project site in the DEIS.The presentation significantly downplays the
effect, however.This adds an element of dismissiveness regarding the public's investment and the
town's rightful expectation of retaining Mill Road Preserve's numerous natural and recreational benefits
to the community long into the future.
Although the DEIS purports to be able to predict the precise amount of disturbance in linear feet and
percentages that would be caused by the edge effect of excavation on the coastal oak—beech forest
areas on site and in Mill Road Preserve and concludes it to not only be minimal but also tolerable,these
findings cannot and should not be supported.
First, no area of the publicly owned Mill Road Preserve should suffer the adverse impacts of a private
undertaking.The preserve was bought with taxpayer dollars and is maintained for the people of
Southold, present and future,for its ecosystem services, and for wildlife.A single family or company's
profit cannot be justification for harming a valuable public resource,at any level.
Second,the DEIS underestimates the damage of edge effects, primarily because it appears to view
them as"once-and-be-done," rather than continually occurring over the long-term, potentially
multiplying and spreading.The former view may be handy for a developer seeking quick and definable
mitigative solutions, but precise assertions of how many feet into a forest one might find the adverse
impacts of soils drying,changes in soil invertebrate species,adverse effects on fungal relationships
between forest plants, and other edge effects are not so easily arrived at through models and formulae.
The DEIS does not discuss the ecological feedback mechanisms that would occur in nature and continue
over long periods of time.
INVASIVE SPECIES.One adverse impact of nearby disturbance and opening of the canopy by tree
removals and excavation that can be severe, rapid, long-lasting, and capable of spreading over large
areas is the incursion of invasive species,which opportunistically take advantage of modified soils,
Save the Sound comments 5
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
added sunlight, removals of established competitors,and changes in humidity.The western section of
the applicant's property is rife with potential seed stock of invasive plant species that could expand
rapidly into Mill Road Preserve should the proposed project be permitted.Should the aggressively
invasive plant species known to exist on the subject property's western end find conditions at the
eastern end and near Mill Road Preserve favorable because of disturbance and opening of the canopy,
the long-term viability of the forest in sustaining its composition and habitat for wildlife populations
could be severely threatened.
Further,assigning new plantings on the proposed long, high retaining wall to birds,who are expected to
drop seeds into the wall's soil installations via their excrement,according to the DEIS, may be another
way of saying the applicant expects invasive species to take hold and does not intend to do any weeding.
Retaining walls, open to sunlight, hard to irrigate,and without the natural controls of native vegetation
and natural soil components, provide ready conditions for exotic plant invasions,whether aided by bird
poop or not.
The FEIS should specify which plant and animal species are most likely to present the danger of
invasion and by what means the developer would provide mitigation. It is not sufficient simply to
state that some purported small percentage of impact would occur and that similar impacts have
occurred in the past.
WIND EXPOSURE.The proposed removal of 630+mature trees on the applicant's property does more
than directly destroy coastal oak—beech forest classified by New York State as"vulnerable;" it has
indirect adverse impacts on the remaining forest, both on the project site and on public land,by
exposing trees to damage from wind events.Trees that have matured in open environments,such as
the trees at the eastern end of the project site,tend to be thicker and have stronger wood than those
that develop in forest interiors.They therefore are better able to withstand high winds,such as
nor'easters. By contrast,trees that develop in forest interiors,such as those in Mill Road Preserve near
the boundary with the Strong property,tend to grow taller and thinner;their wood is not as strong.
They are much more subject to damage from high winds.The proposed excavation and canopy opening
would expose the trees of Mill Road Preserve, as well as the remaining trees on the applicant's property,
to damage and wind-throw.The results of wind-throw include uprooting and subsequent drying of soil,
which retards seedling growth because of higher soil temperatures. Retarded seedling growth, in return,
adversely affects the long-term viability of a forest because regeneration is curtailed or prevented.The
overall effect is to diminish wildlife habitat and the many other ecosystem services of a native forest.
The developer's proposal to plant trees and shrubs in a strip along the top of a retaining wall is not
adequate mitigation for native forest hardwoods, dominated by keystone species such as oaks. Even
when mature,the plants would not offer the same food and protection to wildlife. At their maximum
height,they never would equal the size of the native hardwoods and cannot offer wind protection equal
to the original hardwoods.
INCREASED LIGHT EXPOSURE. Night-time lighting at the new storage warehouses,attracting moths,for
instance,would be an attractive nuisance to bats and other insect predators such as screech owls. Even
Save the Sound comments 6
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
with adherence to established dark sky standards,the new lighting would attract moths and cause
ambient light to be brighter at night than forest interiors.The edge of Mill Road Preserve closest to the
proposed warehouses no longer would be forest interior;it would be only about 100 feet away from
an opened up,massive,engineered,and lit-up set of structures. Night-time foraging by insect
predators,such as the federally endangered northern long-eared bat(Myotis septentrionalis),which the
applicant's consultant(at the hearing on June 5,2023)conceded does use the property, and eastern
screech owls(Megascops asio), could be disrupted by outdoor lighting attending the massive
warehouses.
The above are only some of the adverse edge effects downplayed or missing from the DEIS, particularly
regarding impacts on Mill Road Preserve.The HIS should discuss more fully the adverse impacts of
increased solar radiation and wind on the natural forest litter layer,and consequent impacts on soil
temperature,seedling regeneration,and invertebrates and other soil dwelling animals, including
burrowers. It should discuss how changes in forest litter and soils would affect drought conditions in
summer and depth of freeze events in winter,over time,and how those conditions would affect the
long-term viability of the forest. Biological invasions that can be expected from local seed sources and
known animal invaders,in reaction to ecosystem stress,should be discussed thoroughly. In short,the
FEIS should provide a serious discussion of how excavation,tree removal,opening of the canopy to
changes in light,temperature,and wind would affect tree growth,soil maintenance,and wildlife
habitat in the remaining forest community on the applicant's property as well as on the public's
property.
Previous edge effects on Mill Road Preserve, discussed in the DEIS, are not relevant to this project's
review.Southold purchased the preserve in 2002,valuing the land in the condition in which it was at
that time.Adverse effects from this project on the preserve and the rest of the coastal oak-beech forest
are what are relevant.
The FEIS also should recognize and describe that the expected "forest areas"that intersperse existing
buildings and houses should not be counted as acres of coastal oak—beech forest that would be retained
following construction.Those fragments would not be"forest;" rather,they would be small stands of
surviving trees, all subject to severe edge effects,whose future in the face of increased wind and solar
radiation may be in doubt.
The DEIS incredibly asserts that forest edge effects of the proposed excavation and construction can be
"sealed off"with new plantings. Ecosystems cannot be sealed.They comprise the full set of all
interactions between organisms and the abiotic environment.This assertion of sealing off the project's
impacts from the remaining portions of forest is aligned with the one-and-done concept of planting a
new strip of plants along a new retaining wall and counting it as adequate"mitigation"for forest
destruction and all its attendant impacts.
Save the Sound comments 7
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
IMPACTS ON ESSENTIAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY FOREST
WATER QUALITY.The DEIS' description of forest loss throughout Southold in recent decades should not
be accepted as justification for what it tries to describe as minimal additional destruction. Rather,the
town should heed an urgent call to action for more aggressive forest protection.The importance of
native forests to ground-and surface water quality throughout the town should not be
underestimated. Drawing unadulterated precipitation into the aquifer,forests protect the town's only
source of drinking water; along creeks and bays,forests help provide clean,fresh water to our estuaries.
The retention of native coastal oak—beech forest acreage along Mattituck Creek is essential for
protection and any future improvements of its water quality. No other land use on the North Fork, nor
any number of plantings of additional trees, can provide this essential ecosystem service.
WILDLIFE HABITAT.There are glaring omissions of wildlife species using the coastal oak—beech forest on
the property and at Mill Road Preserve,such as documented occurrences of the New York State-listed
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus,endangered),the New York State-listed Bald Eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus;threatened), numerous other forest-dependent, area-sensitive bird species(see DEIS
comments submitted by North Fork Audubon Society and others), and common mammal species such as
the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans),which occupies oak-dominated woods all over Long
Island. Despite its deficiencies, however,the DEIS does prove the forest provides important wildlife
habitat.
Northern long-eared bat(endangered). Of particular importance is breeding,foraging, and resting
habitat for the endangered northern long-eared bat, as well as other bat species being documented in
the forest in spring and summer 2023 by North Fork Audubon and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC). In comments to the Planning Board by bat researcher Dr. Kristjan
Mets4, it was pointed out that:
"habitat loss is a contributing factor for decline and can prevent population recovery even in
those bat colonies that are free of disease.The loss of roosts and foraging habitat is expected to
fragment colonies, increase travel distances, and result in a reduced survival rate for pups and
adult bats. Given the disastrous impact of white-nose syndrome,these bats are vulnerable. Each
additional perturbation will impede individual bats recovering from white-nose syndrome and
prevent populations from returning to stable abundances.As such,it is unacceptable for the
DEIS to state" loss of summer habitat is not recognized as a threat to the conservation of this
species."
The DEC currently restricts tree clearing to December through February for protection of this
endangered species;tree-clearing regulations may change,however,as more is learned about the
4 Dr.Kristjan Mets is doctoral graduate of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at Stony Brook University. Dr.
Mets has extensive experience working in bat research and conservation and has studied the impacts of the fungal
disease white-nose syndrome on North American bat populations. He has worked with fellow conservationists and
bat researchers on Long Island as well as in state agencies in New York, Missouri,and Arkansas.
Save the Sound comments 8
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
importance of Long Island forests to this federally endangered species.Any changes in construction
schedules must conform to updated regulatory guidelines,which are under review.
Other species. Further destruction of Southold's forest resources by implementation of the proposed
warehouse project would diminish habitat for Species of Greatest Conservation Need, breeding birds,
species requiring larger blocks of forest, reptiles, and amphibians.This would occur not only by outright
removal of forest and the underlying natural coastal hill—installing an unhospitable built environment in
its place—but also over time, in the remaining forest,through the feedback mechanisms at work as the
forest edge changes (discussed above). Even mobile species cannot simply relocate to other suitable
locations.Such assertions are misguided at best.
Nesting birds,for instance, having lost habitat or having been disturbed by construction activities, might
move temporarily to another forest,yet such a forest already would be occupied by breeding birds
already defending their territories. In other words,there would be no space for such birds to nest.
Habitat destruction here would lead to a net decline in the populations of those species.
Eastern box turtle(woodland box turtle, Terrapene carolina carolina;Species of Special Concern).
Adverse impacts of the proposed excavation on the eastern box turtle would be severe.These turtles
hibernate underground and would be destroyed during tree removal,grubbing,and sand excavation,
now proposed for the winter months of December through February.They also would suffer the
adverse impacts of exposure during winter hibernation from tree throw and consequent root upheaval
and soil disturbances that would follow excavation,especially during nor'easters.
Turtle researcher Dr. Lisa Prowant' has found the North Fork represents an important stronghold for
this turtle's otherwise dwindling statewide population,giving Southold's forest preservation high
importance to this species'survival in New York.The DEIS' proposed mitigation of rounding up turtles
and penning them shows little understanding of their life history. Dr. Prowant notes that box turtle
surveys are very difficult to conduct in the first place,and many turtles would be missed in the proposed
"sweep" efforts. Further,she notes that in one study,when 53 radio-tagged turtles translocated, 24.6%
left the site and 28.3%died;this means more than half failed to establish in a new location. Relocations
are not recommended for two additional reasons: (a) Ranavirus or other diseases could be introduced to
a healthy population; and (b)eastern box turtles are very tied to the areas in which they are born,with
small home ranges:They try to"go home," putting them at risk of dying on roads or entering
inhospitable landscapes.
At this site, after construction,surviving individual turtles may find their way toward areas they used to
frequent, be met with the new retaining wall, move along the fence line, and die after dropping into the
marina yard. Fences can be protective of property and people yet be hazardous to wildlife.
s Dr. Prowant holds a Ph.D.in Ecology and Evolution from Stony Brook University. Her letter was submitted to the
Planning Board via email to Mark Terry on March 10,2023,and also accompanies our letter as ATTACHMENT A.
Save the Sound comments 9
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
Amphibians. Amphibians have low mobility and cannot move to new locations or avoid habitat
destruction.They also cannot repopulate Long Island,since it is surrounded by salt water, in which they
cannot survive.
It is a simple fact that destruction of habitat provided by the coastal oak—beech forest on the project
site cannot be mitigated.
The best outcome for water quality protection and other ecosystem services provided by the forested
areas on this property would result from the Town of Southold expediting subdivision of the
remainder of the property from the present marina facility,and then offering to purchase the forested
portion for open space preservation and adding it to Mill Road Preserve public holding.The HIS
should consider this as an alternative to the proposed action under the"No Action"alternative.
ADVERSE IMPACTS ON MILL ROAD PRESERVE
People enjoy hiking in the varied and interesting terrain of Mill Road Preserve,year-round.The DEIS'
assertion that use is primarily between April and September remains unsubstantiated yet might serve
the applicant's attempt to minimalize the impacts of excavation, construction activities, and warehouse
siting on preserve users.
VISUAL IMPACTS.There are deceptive statements in various places in the DEIS concerning Mill Road
Preserve. For instance,
"Views from most southern trail on Mill Road Preserve towards SYC: Under existing conditions,
the current view of the subject property is of the undeveloped upland heavily forested area.The
marina operations and Mattituck Creek are obscured by the forested area and the topography."
While this statement is true,the purpose of including it is unclear,since the applicant's property is north
of the preserve, and it is the users of the most northern trails on which the greatest construction, noise,
and visual impacts would occur.The DEIS then goes on to say,
"Under post-development conditions,the views would consist of the woodland area of the
subject property that would not be disturbed and a portion of the western and southern fagades
and roof of Building 9,the roof and a portion of the southern fagade of Building 10,and a
portion of the western fagade of existing Building 8.The cover in the setback area would remain.
The impact to the visual setting of the subject property would be minimal."
Aside from the value judgment stated above—minimalizing the visual impacts on a hiker expecting a
natural forest experience yet now seeing warehouses—the section is confusing: Is it still discussing views
from the southern trail? Perhaps introducing confusion was intended, since references to the southern
trail of Mill Road Preserve are made throughout the document.We sincerely hope the consultants do
not suggest the adverse visual impacts they find minimal would reach as far south into the public's
Save the Sound comments 10
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
property as the southernmost trail. If that were the case,there is no justification for asserting impacts
on the preserve or its users would be minimal;they would be severe.
The switch from discussing"undeveloped upland heavily forested area"to"woodland" is perhaps
telling. Forests and woodlands are not interchangeable terms. Post-construction, it certainly would be
easy for a hiker along the north trail to see through the sparse woodland remaining and have the roofs
and facades of the warehouses within view.
It is unclear why the DEIS repeatedly refers to the southern trail of Mill Road Preserve. Perhaps the
consultant has little or no familiarity with the preserve's basic geography and position abutting the
applicant's property. If that is the case,the Planning Board should reject the DEIS' statements about
ecological edge effects, impacts on wildlife,and adverse effects on the preserve's users as not credible.
NOISE IMPACTS. DEIS Commenter Joel Klein 'has pointed out that,
"[f]ifteen of the 18 tables in the original version of the Acoustic Report which contain data on
sound levels have been changed in the revised Acoustic Report. In a majority of these tables,
the revisions now show noise levels greater than those reported in the version of the report
originally submitted to the Planning Board. No explanation for these changes is provided.This is
obviously of concern,and should cause any reasonable person to question whether the new
data can be relied upon or used to evaluate the Project's noise impacts."
Mr. Klein's analysis of the noise impacts associated with the proposed project is thorough, enlightening,
and compelling. He points out that,
"[s]ignificantly,the Town-owned Mill Road Preserve does not appear to have been identified as
a Receiver/Receptor location ...the Acoustic Study(DEIS Appendix R) never even mentions the
Preserve. However,the DEIS Executive Summary, under the heading'Impacts to the Mill Road
Preserve' concludes that'construction noise would be of temporary nature and all noise impacts
would cease upon completion' (p.xxi)."
The address closest to the west side of the preserve is 2010 West Mill Road.This site would be more
subject to hauling/road noise than construction noise,which likely would be more easily heard from
within the preserve. During construction and with additional traffic, according to Table 16,t 2010 West
Mill Road, noise levels would rise from 44 to 69 dB (increase of 25 dB.
6 Joel Klein holds a Ph.D.and is a registered professional archaeologist. Dr. Klein has submitted detailed comments
on all aspects of the DEIS to the Planning Board.He worked for more than 40 years to work as an environmental
consultant involved in the preparation and review of hundreds of environmental impact statements for and by
private developers,and federal,state and local government entities. His specialized area of expertise is cultural
resources impact assessment;as a discipline lead for one of the largest engineering firms in the world, however, he
worked closely with,and sometimes supervised,experts in a variety of disciplines,including scientists and
engineers.
Save the Sound comments 11
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
The DEIS uses 5106 West Mill Road,800 North Drive,and 805 North Drive as proxies for the preserve.
During construction and with additional traffic, according to Table 16,
• At 5106 West Mill Road, noise levels would rise from 44 dB to as high as 59 dB(increase
of 15 dB).
• At 800 North Drive, noise levels would rise from 44 dB to as high as 87 dB(increase of
43 dB).
+ At 805 North Drive, noise levels would rise from 44 dB to as high as 84 dB(increase of
40 dB).
These are not insignificant increases, and yet it should be clear these addresses cannot be suitable
proxies for forest areas adjoining proposed excavation and construction sites. impacts on the forest
areas and users,therefore, may be much higher.
The p. 31 narrative portion of DEIS' ecological report incorrectly states the increases in decibel levels
(see Table 16),which is misleading.Those figures were in a previous version of the noise analysis for this
project (in the previous version it was labeled Table 15).The new figures show that substantially higher
noise levels would be expected.This lack of cohesion between various assessments unfortunately is
characteristic of the overall DEIS.
The DEIS does not address noise impacts from sand hauling through the successional southern
hardwood area of the applicant's property on the preserve and its users.The terrain is not completely
flat; the roadbed, although expected to be fortified, nonetheless would not be as smooth as asphalt
pavement.Very loud noise would be expected to emanate from the hauling traffic through this area and
would be heard across the preserve's north boundary.
Adverse impacts on people using Mill Road Preserve for quiet walks in the woods and on wildlife would
be severe with such noise impacts.We can conclude that the sounds of tree felling,wood grinding, and
subsequent hauling of waste material and sand on the adjoining property would be particularly
disturbing to users of Mill Road Preserve,even without consideration of decibel level increases. Effects
on wildlife species necessarily remain undetermined;the acoustic studies assigned proxy locations
instead of sampling within the preserve itself.The FEIS should examine the adverse effects of noise
from construction and hauling,as well as the long-term adverse impacts of noise emanating from the
new warehouses,on wildlife using Mill Road Preserve.
Examples of the adverse impacts of noise on wildlife include changing their spatial distribution,
deterring wildlife from important feeding and breeding areas, and interfering with crucial biological
functions, such as foraging success, predator avoidance, prey detection, and communication within their
local population. Daytime noise also may have adverse effects on nocturnal wildlife needing sleep and
increasing stress hormone levels.
Long-term or chronic noise impacts on wildlife might be species-specific,depending on the lifespan of
the animal.A chronic level to consider would be exposure throughout a significant part of the lifespan of
an animal, at regular enough intervals to have the potential of lasting impacts.These can occur on
Save the Sound comments 12
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
individual or community scales.At the very least,the impacts of noise on endangered and threatened
species,and species of special concern,in Mill Road Preserve and the remainder of the applicant's
property(successional southern hardwood forest and successional shrubland),should be considered
in the FEIS.
Metal rooftop noise.The DEIS does not consider the adverse environmental impacts of a change not
only of decibel level but also of noise type,especially concerning conversion of forest to metal
warehouse rooftops.The two proposed metal warehouses would have rooftops totaling more than two
acres in size. Rain on these rooftops likely would produce a loud, unnatural, drumming or hammering
noise that would disturb wildlife and people alike.A walk in the rain in this highly valued nature
preserve could produce an urban sound experience, opposite the benefit residents and other hikers
deserve.
The omission of acoustic studies involving Mill Road Preserve as a receptor site is significant. It is
impossible to assess potential adverse impacts of tree felling,excavation,and construction activities
on wildlife and human users of the preserve without such conducting studies.The Planning Board
should consider elevated noise levels affecting a nature preserve to be significant adverse
environmental impacts under any circumstances.
POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS OF SAND EXCAVATION
The applicant's site rises sharply from behind the existing marina buildings,from approximately 8 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL)to over 50 feet AMSL.An uncontained, uncontrolled excavation scar from
previous sand removal remains visible.
The Suffolk County Planning Commission (SCPC) provided comments to the Planning Board on February
18, 2020.These comments are in the DEIS record.The SCPC noted their jurisdiction was determined by
the proximity of the proposed project to Mattituck Creek.SCPC's report noted a"Shoreline
Resource/Hazard Consideration"in its checklist and identified slope variability from 3 to 35%, based
solely on soil map data.We recommend the Planning Board again refer the proposed project and all
relevant SEQRA documents to the SCPC prior to preparing your Findings Statement.
In its initial review,the SCPC recommended approval of the project subject to the condition that"[n]o
excavated soil shall be removed off site." It continued,"[i]it is questionable if the excavation and
removal of approximately 130,000 cubic yards of soil off site is necessary."
In our own scoping comments to the Planning Board,we cautioned that"[w]ithout 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." Heavy rain events that might occur during excavation could exacerbate the potential for
unexpected sloughing or slumping.The scope for the DEIS reflects our concern;the applicant, however,
has failed to undertake borings to the full depth of proposed excavation to establish that sudden
Save the Sound comments 13
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
faulting and structural disturbances associated with the slope and soil slumping would not occur,
posing potential adverse impacts on the preserve or Mattituck Creek's estuarine organisms.
The depth of soil borings performed for the DEIS was insufficient to prove absence of a clay layer in the
hill that might cause slippage and sudden mass soil movement.The borings were used primarily to
determine permeability of soils for proper placement of sanitary and stormwater structures.
The FEIS should prove,through full depth soil borings,that proposed excavation of nearly 135,000 cu
yds material from the site's inherently unstable natural feature,a hill made of unconsolidated glacial
soils,would not pose a danger of a catastrophic collapse or slumping of sand during excavation.Sudden
movement of sediment into the waterway could harm a federal navigational channel, a NYS-designated
Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat,tidal wetlands,and water quality—not to mention property
and people.The applicant must show there is no such danger posed by such excavation, particularly
since excavators and heavy equipment would be on site,working from the top of the slope downward.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF LOWERED ELEVATION COUPLED WITH SEA LEVEL RISE
ON WATER QUALITY
The Suffolk County Planning Commission's 2020 report, cited above,states,
"Because of the subject action's location proximate to Mattituck Creek, matters related to
coastal process become important. Issues such as storm water runoff from site,waste water
[sic] discharge and the treatment of nitrogen containing effluent, periodic tidal flooding and
ground water swelling are particular for this site and application. Moreover,the principles of
"Climate Change" puts forth the notion of rising seas level, more frequent and severe and
frequent storm events including more violent storm surges."
It further states,
"The subject property is within the 100 year and 500 year flood plain.The subject property is
situated in a Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)flood zone A with a base flood elevation set at 7 feet above mean sea level. Based on the
extreme topographic change behind the existing buildings the flood zone stops at the existing
retaining walls.The Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes(SLOSH) model applicable
for the subject site demonstrates the subject property to be effected [sic] by surges from
category 1 and 2 hurricanes at the existing marina and penetrating into the subject
development site at the southern end." [emphasis added]
And,
"It is not clear that,as designed,the existing waste and storm water[sic] systems would
function during elevations of the groundwater table due to extreme climatic events." [N.B. In the
Save the Sound comments 14
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
context in which it was written,"existing"systems refers to"as designed" (the plans for the proposed
development),not the systems currently serving the marina.]
Save the Sound shares this concern. Climate change and sea level rise (SLR)are scientifically proven.The
DEIS does not deny this; it chooses a "medium" scenario for SLR of 16 inches by 2050 as the basis for its
analysis.The FEIS should ensure the latest climate change models are employed when(a)evaluating
how climate change would affect the viability of this project in the long-term,and(b)identifying its
impacts on sensitive resources.
STORMWATER.The FEIS should address the effects of inundation on the proposed stormwater
collection system.The DEIS describes separation distances between the stormwater collection system
recharge structures and groundwater that are reduced from what are recommended or even required.
Groundwater potentially intercepting the stormwater system would flow within a matter of one to two
years to Mattituck Creek.The document should explain how the system can function effectively during
higher-than-normal tides and storm surge:
• How would the system function when marine waters cause groundwater to rise?Can these
structures backflow to the surface or cause the impermeable surfaces they are intended to drain
to overflow?
• What substances from the marina would uncontrolled stormwater convey directly to Mattituck
Creek?
• What portions of the system might be immediately lost should the system be flooded and how
long would it take to remedy?What are the nitrogen and other pollution loads during this time?
INUNDATION.The DEIS does not adequately describe the changes that may be expected from the
excavation, bringing site elevation down to a grade susceptible to increased flooding and coastal
seawater inundation risks. In its 2020 report,the Suffolk County Planning Commission stated "[t]he
intended excavation will create a bowl on site where storm flood waters from Mattituck Creek will surge
into." Changes to the site from excavation need to be accounted for in all statements pertaining to all
aspects of project elements that could be affected by flooding related to higher-than-expected storm
tides and storm surges.These should include, but not be limited to, boat activities,stormwater drainage
and treatment, onsite sanitary sewage treatment,and building structural integrity,storage of propane,
fuel, and hazardous materials, and risk to human life.
Frequency.The DEIS treats climate change as something yet to come,when the applicant would
undertake upgrades, replacements,or repositioning of stormwater collection and sanitary waste
disposal systems, "as needed," at that time. It is unwise to depend on statistical models predicting
percentage chances that"100-year storms" may occur;our region has experienced storms with
concomitant surge that belie"once every hundred years" predictions.Without the proposed excavation,
no flooding could occur in areas now 43 to 51 feet above sea level in the foreseeable future.The
proposed excavation has the potential to place buildings, people, and water quality at risk,even though
the applicant has asserted the new buildings would withstand the flooding.
Save the Sound comments 15
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
Inundation would not occur calmly, predictably,and incrementally from 2023 to 2050.There will be
extreme storms in between; more frequent severe weather is one of the hallmarks of climate change.
Geographic extent. Figure 24 in Appendix A, NYSERDA mapped sea level rise,showing predicted
flooding at 100-year interval after sea level rise of 18",can mislead a reader to assume flooding impacts
would not be as geographically extensive as they would be after excavation of the site down to the
proposed low elevation.The figure shows the land prior to excavation. It also does not illustrate the
concomitant rise in groundwater that would occur with an 18" rise in sea level.The figure also shows
the onsite wastewater treatment system to be outside of the flood zone.That would not be the case
once the site is excavated.
GROUNDWATER RISE.Although groundwater rise is discussed in the DEIS as an expected outcome of
sea level rise as well as increased precipitation from climate change,the effects of temporary
groundwater rise, resulting from severe storm tides,on sanitary and stormwater systems also needs to
be evaluated.The environmental impacts on Mattituck Creek's water quality from potential interception
of sanitary and stormwater systems with groundwater,and their possible inundations,should be a
subject of serious discussion in the FEIS and not simply dismissed as events that may happen many years
to come,when the systems otherwise would be replaced, upgraded, or repositioned.
ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS
BOATING MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES. Boating maintenance activities are tightly associated with a
strong recreation community on Long Island Sound.They are necessary for safe and functioning vessels
for people to respectfully enjoy the waterbody.These activities, however, can introduce pollutants to
surface-and groundwater, leading to serious environmental degradation.The FEIS should describe
hazardous material disposal and pollution response reporting to necessary authorities,such as the local
fire department and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 1 spill
response team.
The FEIS should describe potential impacts of site inundation in the flood zone on proper containment
of known hazardous materials.
STORMWATER AND FILTRATION.The DEIS attempts to convince the reader there is value in losing
natural forest soil filtration of precipitation and replacing it with engineered conveyance systems and
leaching rings that would have less than recommended separation distances from groundwater.This
strains credulity.
The DEIS vastly undervalues the loss of 4.32±acres of high-quality Coastal Oak-Beech forest, 1.19±acres
of successional southern hardwood forest, and 0.54±acre of successional shrubland in their provision of
forest ecosystem services,such as absorption and filtration of precipitation in the immediate watershed
of Mattituck Creek; protection of soils and slopes;and protection of the creek from sedimentation
associated with soil disturbance and potential slope failure,especially during construction phases.
Save the Sound comments 16
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
For instance,the document seems to celebrate a calculated small rise in groundwater that it says would
be achieved via rooftop collection of rainwater and conveyance to drywells.This is not a gain in drinking
water. It is mounding,which, if added to storm surge-related rises in groundwater, could exacerbate
interception of sanitary systems and cause releases of pathogens.
Stormwater impacts from the removal of mature coastal forests and other native plant communities
cannot be fully mitigated by engineered systems.As one example,they are prone to failure from owner
neglect.
I/A SYSTEM AS MITIGATION.The ecological impact analysis states development activities,including the
installation of innovative alternative (I/A)onsite wastewater treatment systems(OWTS)and new
stormwater drainage infrastructure would have the potential to improve surface water quality.This
statement is highly questionable given these installations are directly tied to mitigation of adverse
environmental impacts of development.These measures are not replacements for a fully functioning
coastal forest. Further, if the applicant believes the site's existing systems are contributing to water
quality impairments,they simply should be replaced and not considered as mitigation for ecosystem
destruction.
Page viii of the DEIS seems to compare Mattituck Creek water quality to Long Island Sound as a whole,
including deeper waters.A comparable assessment would be to consider water quality of embayments
of Long Island Sound.This section states water quality is good, but then goes on to note Suffolk County
Department of Health data show the water quality is relatively poor.The FEIS should address this
discrepancy.
The FEIS should discuss how progress toward the goal of reduction of Mattituck Creek's nitrogen load,
presented in the Suffolk County Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan,could be achieved if this project
were to be approved.Table 9-1 in the plan (p.9-16)shows only 34%achievable reduction through on-
site wastewater management.
CONSISTENCY WITH TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LOCAL WATERFRONT
REVITALIZATION PROGRAM (LWRP)
Save the Sound's analysis of the proposed project,which follows,demonstrates that approval would
not be consistent with Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program(LWRP).
Save the Sound comments 17
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
The project does not advance all the Town's coastal policies; nor is it consistent with most of them. Our
analysis of the consistency of the proposed project with individual coastal policy standards is in
ATTACHMENT B,Table 1.
Approval by the Planning Board of the proposed project:
• would be inconsistent with LWRP Policies 1 through 8;
• would be inconsistent with Policy 10;and
• would not adequately advance Policy 11.
LWRP Policies 9, 12, 13, and portions of Policy 11 would not be applicable to the proposed project.
New York State's coastal management program,thus the approved Local Waterfront Revitalization
Programs(LWRP), requires agencies to advance coastal policies toward their logical conclusion, not
allowing one policy to override another.
The DEIS, however,cherry-picks the coastal policies with which it asserts its project is consistent and
ignores inconsistencies with the LWRP's other coastal policies.Approval of the proposed project,
therefore, would be inconsistent with Southold's LWRP policies.
EXPLANATION. New York State's Coastal Consistency Manual'states, on p. 15: "One of its important
purposes,and that which most distinguishes the consistency provisions of the NYCMP [New York Coastal
Management Program]from traditional regulatory and other decision-making standards, is the
requirement that activities comply with and be conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable
coastal policies.This is to ensure that multiple coastal policy objectives are advanced to achieve
comprehensive benefits,rather than advancing one or more policies or objectives to the detriment of
others. For example,while several coastal policies compete with others and competing policies often
apply in a wide range of circumstances,the objective through consistency is to ensure that multiple
coastal policies are advanced by avoiding conflicts between individual policies.This is different than
traditional single purpose environmental or development permit programs, because it is
comprehensive,and all applicable policies are required to be adhered to." [emphasis original]
References in the LWRP to the requirement for ensuring that maritime uses are compatible with natural
resources and ecological systems stem from New York Law,Executive Article 42: Waterfront
Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways,which established the State's coastal
management program and local programs(in part):
Resler,Steven C.(2010). New York Coastal Management Program Consistency Manual-A Practitioner's Guide to
Implementing New York's Coastal Management Program Through Federal,State and Municipal Consistency
Provisions. New York State Department of State,Albany,New York.92 pp.
Save the Sound comments 18
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
"As to the content of a local waterfront revitalization program,the Department of State
guidelines are based on Sections 912,915.4 and 915.5 of the Act. First, all local programs must
be consistent with and work towards the achievement of the policies contained in Section 912."
Section 912 states, in part:
"§912. Declaration of policy.
It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state of New York within the coastal areas and
inland waterways:
(1).To achieve a balance between economic development and preservation that will permit the
beneficial use of coastal resources,while preventing the loss of living marine resources and
wildlife, diminution of open space areas or public access to the waterfront,shoreline erosion,
impairment of scenic beauty,or permanent adverse changes to ecological systems."
§915.5 states, in part:
"5.The secretary shall approve any local government waterfront revitalization program as
eligible for the benefits set forth in section nine hundred sixteen of this article if he finds that
such program will be consistent with coastal policies and will achieve the waterfront
revitalization purposes of this article. In making such determination,the secretary shall find that
the program incorporates each of the following to an extent commensurate with the particular
circumstances of that local government:
"a.The facilitation of appropriate industrial and commercial uses which require or can benefit
substantially from a waterfront location, such as but not limited to waterborne transportation
facilities and services,and support facilities for commercial fishing and aquaculture.
b.The increased use of and access to coastal waters and the waterfront for water-related
activities such as boating,swimming,fishing,walking and picnicking.
c.The promotion and preservation of scenic, historic,cultural and natural resources as
community amenities and tourist designations.
d.The strengthening of the economic position of the state's major ports and small harbors.
e.The redevelopment of deteriorated or formerly developed waterfronts through the re-use of
existing infrastructure and building stock and the removal of deteriorated structures and
unsightly conditions that have negative effects upon the waterfront area and adjacent
neighborhoods, and appropriate new development.
f.The application of local aesthetic considerations in the design of new structures and the
redevelopment of waterfront sites.
g.The protection of sensitive ecological areas,including but not limited to dunes,tidal and
freshwater wetlands,fish and wildlife habitats,and the protective capability of coastal land
features.Such protection will assure [sic]that land use or development will not affect such
areas." [emphasis added]
"h.A statement identifying those elements of the program which can be implemented by the
local government, unaided, and those that can only be implemented with the aid of other levels
of government or other agencies.Such statement shall include those permit, license,
certification or approval programs,grant, loan,subsidy or other funding assistance programs,
facilities construction and planning programs which may affect the achievement of the
waterfront revitalization program.
Save the Sound comments 19
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
i.The establishment of a comprehensive harbor management plan and the means for its
implementation." [emphasis added]
The Southold Town Comprehensive Plan (February 2020) reinforces this. Objective 5.1 in the
Comprehensive Plan states,
"Maintain consistency with the policies adopted under the Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program.The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP)was prepared in 2004, and
provides strategies to encourage and protect the waterfront areas of the Town. It emphasizes
the importance of coastal zone and traditional maritime uses in terms of the commercial and
recreational qualities of the Town.The LWRP also recommends waterfront access and water-
dependent/water-enhanced uses, and provides an array of information relating to coastal and
town-wide resources.The Town should be consistent with all policies adopted under this
program,as it pertains to all future development and maritime uses." [emphasis added]
The Comprehensive Plan(on pp. 14 and 18) recommends the town "update and implement"the Harbor
Management Plan. Page 21 of the Comprehensive Plan mentions the Mattituck Creek Harbor
Management Plan that is incorporated into the LWRP and further states,
"...such Harbor Management Plans should address appropriate economic development policies
including the avoidance of investment in high hazard areas subject to coastal flooding,wave
action,storm surge,and sea level rise. In turn,this will provide for appropriate development
and uses, maintain water quality,and allow for the efficient use of the water uses and natural
resources." [emphasis added].
The LWRP itself, in Section IV-5, sets forth objectives for the Southold Harbor Management Plan,
including the following:
"Ensuring that upland infrastructure is adequate to handle waterfront activities,
and that the use of the waterfront does not significantly conflict with other
adjacent land uses [emphasis added];
0 Identifying conflicts between maritime activities and the natural coastal
environment, including water quality,shellfish beds,significant coastal fish and
wildlife habitats,wetlands,critical environmental areas, and habitats of rare and
endangered species..."
The subject proposal does not have upland infrastructure to handle, or accommodate,two large yacht
storage buildings totaling more than 100,000 sq ft, and such a use conflicts with the use of the adjacent
publicly owned Mill Road Preserve.The project conflicts with the Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife
Habitat; poses danger to tidal wetlands; and poses harm to habitat of the endangered northern long-
eared bat,other endangered and threatened species,and species of special concern.
Save the Sound's step-by-step analysis of consistency of this project with Southold's LWRP policies,
using the Town's policy standards,is in ATTACHMENT B,Table 1.
Save the Sound comments 20
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DEIS
GROWTH INDUCEMENT
We recommend including consideration of the proposed haul road through the R-80 portion of the
property as having potential to further a future residential development proposal.The necessarily
fortified, planned haul road likely cannot be removed satisfactorily for forest mitigation;the applicant
proposes to keep it for future emergency egress.The permanence of this road through the successional
southern hardwood forest would enable numerous activities facilitating development,such as access for
additional test wells and simple driving tours for prospective buyers or builders. In several public
settings we have heard the applicant state that residential development might be a consequence of a
denial of the present warehouse proposal.
The sale of sand for future development should not be ignored.Although the immediate consequence
of sale is financial compensation to the applicant,there is a reason sand is such a marketable
commodity.The FEIS should recognize that sand further purveyed by the(as yet unknown) recipient of
the applicant's excavated material would be used for development.
Town planners and town board members have referred to the proposed project as one of the largest the
town has had to consider, if not the largest.Approval of this project,with all its attendant adverse,
unmitigable environmental impacts, might appear to lower the standard for future reviews. Future
large-magnitude projects proposed in Southold would be viewed through the lens of precedent.Growth
inducement is germane to the DEIS review and appears to be top of mind among members of the public.
ALTERNATIVES
We strongly suggest the FEIS present public acquisition possibilities in its discussion of the No Action
Alternative.The applicant might recoup a significant reward if the coastal oak—beech forest were
acquired by Southold,or preserved in a joint purchase with other public or not-for-profit entities,for
addition to Mill Road Preserve.This alternative not only would prevent the numerous adverse
environmental impacts posed by the project, but would expand the public space, permanently protect
habitat for wildlife,and provide long-term watershed protection for Mattituck Creek and Long Island
Sound.
We note the applicant has spoken publicly about alternatives to the project involving residential or hotel
development as well as possible sale to a large marina corporation. If these options are being
considered,they should have been presented as alternatives to the proposed action in the DEIS.
Without more detail on these choices,the public cannot respond adequately in the review process.At
this time,we must consider them merely as tactics to sway public opinion.
Save the Sound comments 21
Stnong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage DE|S
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS
The losses of a geologic feature and a natural forest community cannot be mitigated;they would be
permanent.Consumption of a great amount of fossil fuel during development and post-development,
for propane heating of buildings, constitutes irretrievable loss.Should slope failure occur during
excavation,with consequent sedimentation in the tidal wetland,the loss of marsh could be unmitigable.
Sand is a highly valuable natural resource that would be permanently lost once it is excavated and sold
to purveyor in the land development supply chain.
Thank you for the opportunities the Planning Board has afforded the public in reviewing the Strong's
yacht warehouse project.We know that Southold is unique on Long Island. Development projects that
threaten its delicate natural environment must be reviewed with the highest levels of scrutiny and
respect for current and future generations,We appreciate your careful attention to our comments and
those of our colleagues and fellow citizens who put a high value on Long Island Sound.
Sincerely,
YaZt�. VOA-t/��_
Louise Harrison
Long Island Natural Areas Manager
ATTA[HMENTA—LetterfromDr. LisaProxvant
ATTACHMENT B—Tab|e 1
1r(',0LVER,,5V0CKT0N1
rf,
April 131h, 2023
To whom it may concern;
I am an Assistant Professor of Biology at Culver-Stockton College in Canton, MO. I have a
Bachelor of Arts in Biology from Benedictine College, a Master of Science in Biological
Sciences from Fort Hays University, and a PhD in Ecology and Evolution from Stony Brook
University, which I completed in 2021. My dissertation work at Stony Brook was on Eastern box
turtle conservation in NY.
This letter concerns the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Strong's Yacht Center-
Proposed Boat Storage Buildings. I have read the Ecological Conditions and Impact Analysis for
the project and have several notable concerns,which I detail below.
1. They note that Eastern box turtles are a NY State Species of Special Concern, then go on to
say that no endangered, threatened, or rare species were observed during ecological surveys
of the site. I wonder if they are only talking about federally listed species there, because they
do note that they found box turtles on the site. I would assume box turtles are not only there,
but there in relatively high density because I have done surveys at two sites flanking Stong's
Yacht Center(Inlet Pond County Park and Indian Island County Parks) and I have data to
suggest that the forks hold the some of the densest populations of box turtles on Long Island.
2. They list the numbers of birds they found on the site, but failed to find(or survey)the bat
species present on the site, and considering the recent decline in bats, this is particularly
concerning.
3. Their surveys are only presence/absence with no information about the population sizes,
which could be masking the impact the loss of this area could have on the local ecosystem. I
am not sure what type of assessment is required for this type of thing,but they admit in it
that 3 species of special concern are on the site, including box turtles. This calls into
question how many of the birds they mention are migratory birds and if any are under the
protection of the migratory bird protection act.
4. They note that "wildlife species that are most likely to be adversely impacted by the
proposed action, specifically the reduction in coastal oak-beech forest habitats from 12.6
acres to 8.28 acres, include birds or other wildlife that inhabit mature forests, forest interiors,
or have large patch size requirements," and then go on the mention that this is mostly birds,
but box turtles are very philopatric and would definitely be impacted by both the removal of
the habitat and the noise pollution, so that section is missing.
5. Planting pitch pine trees is not suitable mitigation for removing a coastal oak-beech forest in
my opinion; first, those trees will take decades to mature, and second, there is no reason to
One College Hill, Canton, MO, 63435 - (573) :: .00
a
CULVEx-srocxTov
believe the habitats afterwards would be suitable for the species that lived in the oak-beech
forests.
6. Box turtle surveys are very difficult to conduct, and many turtles will be missed in their
"sweep" efforts. I have conducted box turtle surveys on Long Island for many years and am
an expert on this. Their survey efforts will miss more turtles than they find, even if they hire
experts. Humans are not good at locating box turtles.
7. They plan to "relocate" turtles to another site, but the one study I know of that translocated
turtles found that of 53 radio-tagged turtles, 24.6% left the site and 28.3% died, meaning
more than half failed to establish in a new location (Cook, 2004). Additionally, they could
be moving turtles with Ranavirus or another disease to a healthy population if they are not
very careful about testing their health before moving them. This measure is appreciated, but
requires experts in the field, otherwise it is dangerous and entirely ineffective.
I did extensive field work on Long Island over the course of several years. During that period, I
repeatedly heard from locals that they are finding box turtles much less frequently than they had
in the past. This is anecdotal evidence that turtles are declining on Long Island. There is
quantitative evidence that box turtles are declining rapidly in other parts of their range,which is
the reason they are listed as Vulnerable by the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN). In fact, they have declined more than 30% in the last 50 years (van Dijk, 2011).
It is thousands of decisions just like this one that are driving the habitat loss responsible for the
extreme loss of species on the planet in recent decades. We are currently losing species at a rate
only seen in Earth's history during the mass extinction events. Long Island has very few natural
areas left; I urge you not to destroy another one for some boat storage.
Thank you,
Dr. Lisa Prowant
Assistant Professor of Biology
Culver-Stockton College
Cook,R.P.2004. Dispersal,home range establishment, survival,and reproduction of translocated eastern box
turtles, Terrapene c. carolina.Applied Herpetology. 1(3-4):197-228.doi:
10.1163/157075403323012197
van Dijk,P.P.2011.Terrapene carolina.The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2011:
e.T21641A97428179.http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.201 i-1.RLTS.T21641A9303747.en
rn
uaic c
C u > -0ia) _y V > -0ia+ V u > -0 Y u
+a+ a E - =- p a a -0 ='' p a 0 a •D O
N •O CL 7 C a 5 O d C a O p_ 7 C a
C a- 3 0 L a ro O -0a 3 o a,
u E 3 3 3
a o a c
1' a Y c n a cu
a c v a N ojF
p o Y• CO> =oo -0 en =a
NYc
EO n D C M C a> ¢ E L O @ CONC
aj
M K a OO -p a L u — L E
N — NC a> Wa >
C � o U Os0
ai m o noa
� ` a, _� " v L o ° a u E A c t Y =_ a x 3 o
a m v c on u `-' a N z i v 3 o c 3 a > o en
> L 3 L `o c Y o o Y a > a Y
° > E .� 3 '� p ^ +` > eo•� a m m Len
a !D L a C L U O a „' U C ..O a+ a a — a
E N YL aUL °° CL = o no v a n � .E. > Y^
00 T V L Y l0 U 7 O :F
E E 3 0 c y m =' E o t m o v E °c° n a o L v
o f o a ° o c c y L N o m,E u aE -0 +L_ y ¢ w
a+ p C a vi O a ❑ E 0 — '_' p a O W C Y ?�. a '6
r_ p = a,F_+ 2 E •r, 3 O Y'H L L C `� > C
N Y > E M a of ~ L to a M a
O Y n a c ° c N O p m n Y 3 0 c a a a m N >
V .E v vu O o t c m > s > -E 3 l7 aui a`) u c `° �° >
c aao) o a ate' m o .� w m « v 3 o ` m c 3 N o
o v L O a L u o E Y > O a a o_•V ,., a m L p.
a +' O E a M O_ c U at +' O. l v C M �n +t+ 00 MbD
-6
u t�6 m > o p l� Y O d F N fl_U N 'vNi C Y `� N (9 t y N
N c a � a m a Z2/� ; m c E E o m w `° c c u n
VI -0 L Y r E L p a Y p = IA a L O fy
a F i
a
M a 3 s m v aci 'u m > L c c -�- dim v o Ln n can `m L m
u u o vi fe a E a= a u -p � c Y!n W Q '^ E m a c o x o a v o
>' Y y C E C aa+ a — Sn V C E L C YO L —Cu
in o •u Y O re Y a Y O O m C •V � y �n _ �n �,
a n m a>i a u o a c a > ^ 0 3 = u 3 a o o +o-
ou
3 v m a�i o v o rYao c o o n > .3 = c u a
L a m v
> a 0 O Y a C OD u a a a ro m u
fo U 7 a u C a > ! C U E C T y a+ >.F a a T � Q Y
(p a p vl •a a U ,. U O U a L !� • N N L '� C y -p
0 s E M :L 0 M Q w O O '^ v m 0 O a v v v m c
++ � . _0OY o aCL o CL NLa u ¢ a Ea- o_ 3 vin c m ._
....................................m_.,....,..,_.......,. ................................... __. ................ ...._.........._...................._
O w
Vf O a
L
Min 0 N O O Y {-
Q
Y m v c 0 ti
N 7 a u w 9 u u w 3 U
U. 11Z
C M y O C aN+ L.+ Y O C O O'CL
7 it O
Qj
m c G a .0 a L > 0° on O a
W) M i VI CA iri w v Q C a ` N u t
vs 3 a a a
a F ai m O o c 3 `° ;a }° u p N t
`-' a Q E a c u y° R c c aci u +, 3
CO CL r ai y o y o r p ° 9 " :: ac,
c f' fV`O V N t N i U U C n>L ;; N O. a
E t N E O M m E N w = u m n 3 �° R >
Qj
u w c > M E aNi o c a c°- M m ,° v > a
a c c E m v a o ° L m m w m r
++ f0 > 3 w ` > L C +ate u v �• C C 7 r O
v x Aj w E aoi 'c° M y a o t .La. a E w m 3 ;° Q 3 v
C F o c c u N a a a c r ;� o Q F m o
u C u +, o a u > a s
O O f' U U C N p y y QJ E C N a+ Q a a+ p
O. N C u 0 a L a •E ui O. > > aa+ •> > a C u 0
in a m
m •N M t a M C. a C X i � '_ aa+ V aV.r a C U t C t
C N v�•i O � c M >. O a.. �n en ro On O v
v a a m a > 3 ° a a` ° v m > > �u r a
W C LL fYCO coi y :_' .q Q v M C aL d U C L v `'' L 70 `i' .�
2 Q E f0 'O a N C N U Q N �n W .-. M .. IA U >
-._.........._........................................................�,,...�.__.. ...—.,....„,...W._..............................,......,..,.....,,..,,...m................,�..,....... �...............................�...,—...........................................
Q V O
~Q S Z .-i N rn
H 9 ._o�...___..,.,•..ww�._._._....................................................„........._.... .w_..._.....___.........._._........•.,.w__.mmmmmmm.._w_..,,,._.. ..,. .,,..•_...._�.»..,»._.w... ..........�.�.._................
c
U > Fw+ .-
aw+ w O n O
n O` a 7 C d
N
u d m 3 c 3
0 Co O w
c` vi C O m Y w
v 'O a c
"
C m M u �""� 7 d m
va
L L .+ -0 a fTl Q vl OC '^ w t
N N 3 C C _ V) OCa N > U
m m C O 'O Q O
C w 7
E O d ° ru
w f0 v1
w Lu O w
> z O -O Y y L w lu
L w �C `1
•O n c 0 > a) Y y Y Q m Y
w w m m Y n c a o -u v v
C N y c m O Y —
o E c w 7 c c g w 7o = ,7 Ym
w N 7 m o m a - m
E u, m a o c u N u w m v a
w '� a m Y m V w v 3 o
O .. w L 7 in N Y O O
V L m > w O m C w > u —
Y a1 w m
a 3 E c Y a a) m Y N m m o 0
E of w U N Y •C N r, al H oa yY L
O L O 7 O C > s y w
-O U- d C-L m O >
C o Q u U 9 r w Y
m 3 .� !i •� w m ,C O
> '� L O Q v 7 m L ° v a) O r
u Q- u m m `Q 3 Y v
v , 3 - a o c 0 L C) u
w a 'a •w 7 �- m Ln Q ',
in w w O Q w 0 .�.. w 7
w u °. Y c E a v > E in
-0 to Q O _a o Q na o ai 'c w
> .� c w
C U L U C a Y O O vwi O
N w Y a= Ou as >. w
7 w w U Y `F u E
O C , O w m C O w L w w 7 0
3 0 3 n r o d n F ¢ w E S c
o a
+. u -D '^ C YO O cwi O
H a aw. Y 3 Y L
o c 7 u w
C .On Y a) `.G w a C +L+ L
w
L m C 7 U G
in a a v m a u w 7 w Y o
`a a ' c o L Q m
c ° a o, ° °;G G u ac C
m o� 3 3 > x a o cv a s v r ° o
o
u N 3 a o m w u t + E w •E U L m c u v
d o ar +_> u twa o rya a 3 a E 3 �, oo c c o c 3 m
'a'.. C L > N � ' w vj of L a) .v N Ou 'r+ m V1
a
m a° a a a 3 0 aa0i t a g a ` m ? 3 m 7 c v y -
w o o ao _u o c v> .o a c o o c S, •e v m E ? v o N
^ u .h o e m m 70 - } m 'tia w > c w Y > ti v m
wt_Ti pa,' _ > v1cz ° o a m w, r
u c m o v E! m - c_ ° '
0 X Ca o
ua cL > Q wa h a n mooc u U.) N
u o• a o
Qj ' YOO O C
N O F d o
w
•� O h G a) a a) �' in 7 N yam„ h Q a Y h a O Y 7 C L y m O u N
n a h o In
w o y o v n > a> =a u a v m � �^ '� 3 a c) a) w m d m
a a, w w o- C 3 '3 0 o `a ° v c ! a s o c Q v_ Q v E m e N r c E eo
Qj i C v a y u o 1° o o u ° E o m v u o ° @ 0w E v > v
C ,h Q. d cCwj13
Q � N aC N a 3 J V a O. N u Q y C `� v u L C OO v .ti G
w N 4i > ri wo N > > c l� a O �i v� �c O 4 m Uy cri E m - m J cc
C
a° Z
v
Y of
tj
aci u > s N
w o v p
, o n c a
O a o 3 c Y
u - 3
v
-Moa=
0 m y c E Vn 'n 3
3 ° °c° m w3: v °' •cL c
C O ` u > V
E a v o x u m Y m 0 u v 3
.m a) p N .7 N iJ m O. C v d
a) Y ry m
Oai
+L-' 0 c 0 Q N ; m
O � O Co L 0 v�i O- O T ', p
o m m E m c o v �.+ � N o 0
p v a o °
CL a) '� a E .� o Y Q Q c m v CL
0 c vmi °
O a Ec
45 -00 v ' NwG N 0 a) — TN J m Y
u >
m do a .� p > > .p m
C X > a) c u ^ E T a y f0 a) L Y Y
:tfv v
a`) a) .o . > > m Cu.0
C Y
E c ° y m ° E c 0 >.� -
° v a) " aooi m y v a n m c m o
u ° o �c CL °c oo v a m ° ° ° 0 0 0 ' oa
0 �• bD•,c7, t M U cp u v m c
L p u p_ u u r c x x m
E L ° m w ° n c c A .- u m a) — Y
O a) L OD O Oj= OD C 0D fY1 H a is
0 � m Y A m O
L T
o v c y c v, Cu a•` U of o N '^
L u u Y i, m C O O L p m aj
a) n 3 c OD m a a
o o v E c 3
L E v Y
° m $ c Y v u aj c o ao E v p O
c U O L L a1 Q1 C a) aL-• U L
v ° Qj
o ° c n Y 3 fl. >
a) v oD v
m c M m V m OCO T 1) OD-0 > O � o c
CL
a 3 m
N O a) N N •� t'"a 3p O m v y L N N vYi
t > c a c v c Y Q d u E Y (n a) v
........ _ ..,, ..www.Nw.................. ..........www.. �
�n G `) T N a0 N Ch G ° u
a O 7 E •� H •.G v m C m V
m U L v u u 3 c
CU m ` m p m x Y u° •p ate. m Cu +' F O
, Cu +. O aJ a) •in Oj D_ a) bD C O O L L m O O_ ` of
in p c � '^ Ch > O m w •,^ N a CO O. N a) C V c L E aJ U
O •° °c L Gl u3i y oD-00 CL G O ° i N p N C .O tYa i1
E v ° G F ° E L cm x m c > o�i ° m > fO 0 m
Fm. CL
.c O p u m 3 C OD +O+ U 'r+ a) j a) w N N Gl '^ °. N i 0
+-' of aJ O 3 'C
U O Om0 'a v >O L O. OD C a) t aNi L 0 O V Q in
Y ° 7 7 a) m m `ti iJ W v O in
1 aao 'O C 30 V O f�0 c 7 7 j U Y d w V N y +' m
O `ti _ m err a) ° ° 'L •= G O v v a, m > w •c
m m ° O m E D U v C n O vOl a N C O a0 U L o 10 — ° > L
> N a 3 YO O m er •�+ m p N p y m v " Q O O Y '�
d E c ° Y � .° ^ Y m 'Y E o a) v n `a h .o 0 0 1O 0 0 °
C �n in a) ` O ` - u u v y v m O W v C oD 0) O •F, a+ u w c
c E �' o o e ° >^ ° E °� v o n m Y - 3 ai O M m
m Nbo Y O O C t c H L v m w 3 O C O L v C 75
Y
x m 7 'T..• a+ Y w O G O — u E > C N Ol O ° N OO 7 L a) > O p3 L
F C Y G N v a) O C m C E 'L v G U G y1 v > in O m H oD
m ,� v u > o v N a) u OD err ° ° a; > u, -O O_m a c v t
u nD c v °a ° m o ate) o o c o c 9 X y 0 v c o o '� M Y _c
a c v o Y4,5
a° c ami N v Q c Q)) v N m a) Q.� o a, o > °a ° c 0 v `° �' c (D 0 •c
3 v E a c err ° a00i m e Cu°D `m u c G v a o � O o v m o v ;? m
o c b�_ o v > Qj
f0 w e ai c �° a) a>i }' ,°� c° a ° `�' ° c r v •m E
err ° ° E ^ v E m c o w er o ate, N Y oOJ 3 0 0 o E a
> N d -O m 0 D N vOi 0 7 C
L 7 aJ ° c N O N m a) w m O G l = m a) L O —
H L m Q �O -G ci m T C0 ��--i L OD N O O_ u 0_U O a ++ R Z O_ U V a N LL O —
T
u �
a Z
u
C
aJ
N
•N
C
O
u
a,
to
VI N ° Y al L M N 'C
a-, L ' -
m .- y., :,U:. d ,�- C
F a1 'N t m m O 7 `l
c *' � o c S -0m
3 Lti-° 0 3 o c m -
C 4J a+ F, C O
0 L T m C u ++ L N C
0 co -0 `o -p r m 3 0 0
c .r, v N v 3 = co o
° a,
U_ _a w m •0 u O E �_ V m N
00 u O N N a) •r+ yv N,, -0 C
.0 m
r. c c ap�•p, -0Oc C
.1 C wa 7O a
-O m 0
L0a0 O ° S� -0 w N-0w - c u
m C
Yv E
C 'T••, N L m O m al E L v u O U
E v v v a>i a Q E m
O > -, O m O -p C C Y N C
u N E N rmo c N o -0 m v 0 m
ra v m p 0 3 >cu
v
L > vi Y aN+ 7 u o E N a.0
a= C L v Y a) 0 0 0 0 N E j
CL n m - a u N N U U
N N N m N 7 aJ G) u 0 L 0 0
a1 aal., w •C y C - m aJ = �-, T
v v v o �uo o ncn 0 3 v �,; E ° E
u o v aai > v c E L E = a c
N m V aJ O a+ �v,, L N O
' C O C u o aJ Y O 5 N Y N E 'T-,
a ar Y m x E 0 ar m N L m
L �' aui Y 3 a o aci
v 3 m o o N
'a c 0 E
p "O O Q Y L al O C O +'
fl.L L O m COL Y 0 c N > VI
N
ai a a v L aJ Y m 0 _
m O C �-' u a m
F_ Zi t� n +' +m w aX 3
C
C >
0 3 m y 2 m E 0 u E
a v c v a o 0 N v G
"m0 OU i=.a C V1 Y >, N L lJ YI r a
° 3 c a E E T-0 w °i 3 a
° 0 oa c 10 a o m ° m E En
° o m c a N o c m 3 o a c 0 c N o u 3 o v
Y O +' 'F, N 7 h 3 !_' >. O '(p M. m m 7 O G C E aJ O C U m aJ
o aui g .2 a g ° °0 c v °Q o °�' c o - 3
a° c -0 t :: o Q'C m ° ac, o c - a 0 3 c
+' w r m u m in a Y +`+ O 7 `ti G E O u u1 C1 �^ C O O
c vi H 3 ar a v m 0 c 'o o v - c c Y Y O >Q L
> E N v ° a m o u 3 C to v F c o `a T . =_ 3 - u m - a a
m E t, O 0 v 3 o c > o " ° M u -0 -0 > > E 'oa 3 > °u r3 a
OOC o V O H o C v Oa O vNi w �- O pCp 0 0 3 CL 0 O O O a� a`� axi .i
c ^ a c a v ° v o to to X v c .N a 3 -' •m c u o aNi o -0 mt c
m C C - lu L O U a1 C N ra O 0 m G vi O a+ •p L Oa L a m 3 E
Y u a = ° c a 3 o c o N c a ° v
F m E Ul c °° o °' E v m y ar c n a c c Q m a 7 p ° o,
3 m ; `^ � o .. G ar ° 0 U N N E o o ° °a._ o E i m 0 o
V E i u C a kG yU�t C ` C a+ m c •r—r al C .r—'� ` _O m L
'� YO ++ ` U a0+ Q E T 1 — Ca :3 dd y N T+ aJ Q C O O F' a-, m y w C r 3
a }`aj u a a; v v c r ° E .N a m v m v N c a o
U1 m 0 C L 0 W a sN_. a N mal rya 'C al .E c v U. v m ° c 0 O
v u > o a> > A , o o a u 'c 3 o v o 0 o c v 'm a` ° o 0
° ca a �cwa aao �� a � � o ° Q � oQ iv Ea2ma a
m
n 3 E oc ui u cd 3 rvi u .� oo .0 - N m ui E Q �, a. ' m u u . ai . ui
>
u C
O Z
a
T C
�o
C u j aw V
w O a ^ O o
N fl m c a
e a m 3 o Y
�
c 3
cli n L a E
V a O C ` C Q1
O N a_I m m u a m T N
v N vc acm
au cn +! o o w a
wu m OQ. Q' y
m w 00 a C N Q) n C Q1 NL
N a) -,E E — _ 'H a1 y U O U
J y w
Vm U O O @ w E +, O m v 3 Y
ro O to in a E v N N 0 7
w e w > to c v c m 3 r
L as L m C a m�" O O pma m M Y
C N N �' X iJY 5 Y a1 >� m Ql L m ymy aL- m
c C Q a1 Q O m0 m L L ON C H 1-a N >,
u v +
= 3
o c c c w o u v > c
"~" a N N a O Y j O C 0.1
m Q Y
E v v a 3 v m y m N ° `° E o a a c E v
C m c y Z u a Y +,
N w a o E u
E 3 m c Q� o c �e
�O a s y c i c > c o ocn 2 v m
v o 3
c 3 n a w e ° eco w 0 u = v o v "� `m > aci
V �? u ° 3 y °' L z v o v n vai �_ m E fO
m .... V m m >•.0 -u L Y a Y E N w mCL
a ° a E w .c w c n y w u 3 L `° (u > L w Y y
C N U p = Y L .�^.. �... Y y L a C w Gl m y d 0 a+ 3
E - E m n >, c > c o a w .E m o o (v a n c S w m o-
N�.n � 3 _G
E c "m E t m ma °
w
— ow c O C 4T m
o o cQ u * 0Q
m m
Y_ o mc to o '`4 >.a >. flmo e$ do O u uc° a °c c
o c o c o � 0 o o o o r z 3m
c
a ma maa - awn ao. w > 3 > e
',.
w� 0 c= _ ...........__ w.__._. .—
y
o w o
Y w c w y N Y a o 3 t L ,Gw v
3 aJ L u C m C O ♦+ a+ w W m w
CS C w v 0 3 G QJ
N QJ S GmD Ql L O> yOO L ` •� L
V _ N -c Q. O
a O CO YU ba N N
v 3 E E `. « w — c o E
o a 3 o y ro a m y w ° N ° —
C 5 O O C a c C > N � m iri-0 i v m � C a vi r -0 O` 0
v 'r+ a y m p u imi a s C a7 Y m Q O u w E u O .+ C a" N m N
s. m Gv o u c o nu —' Qy, 3 � v E c E oo u m _ � c —'
oQ� aw fl w Ewuw � _ � mo � '3oo Qy' v � � c � �
n rnt E v w ° r� L a w w y w c c o o .o v
•N w aw+ c u ~ �y `.'_- tt —M > `1 � h u O 3 ]� n� >.
> 01 T v3 0 > i2 T o n a L„ �_ n c a o E m c m t 3iz, EO m
d « c 3 o m '= c ° c �' 2i a Y w v o w > m o v u N
L L c uw a _ O O +-' — O
Q V •O .0 N > aJ -(u a s w O m O w a.+ -0 a! y .0 E +�
O Q.p 'L m fi u w a O C m w uui v' '� L 3 m Qj to
_ aJ
tco ja Qi is " L N 3 3 > a m N m a m m 5 H 6 O E Y
X C m `� C N y `o Oy O'L a ti a v N C Q v L m t *' O N C C
w 3 O N i w F c N v n " = v u a' w
F M m O O T m — a+ E i Q ym., w 'r+ ? a+ C U E lD 4! �^ O a
T O w N N C a) O a7 N a C N 3 w 3 w w � O y O O
O. O +-� p u ` O Z O N y M m C ow O � +� E '� u m -5 w w CMCUb vyi .�^ O
CO. aL+ (U 3 u O 13 N aa) m O O N nQ y > N H w O T o a u o � O O C
+, E u v w m y w c u z c w = 'c 15 > u .01. '^ a m a u — Qi
D. G w Y c v 0 .L.+ y 0 w u 3 >' Ou F a O .c
o .2 o v 'm w � « '� c w c E m E F2 o � E u c > n. c > o o > .N �
a o c E o o w c 3 c w w o v c 3 a' N 3 Q u o a >- n
uaivQ o c nri o voi u ° FL � Ln �� � ° -0 uLnn z �° F ¢ a Qu, ' a
o
a° Z m
V
C
Y N
N 0
.N N
C 00
p N
u
_.._................................ . ........................wwww....www.....wwww...ww_........_.� .____..........._......... �
M to v G 3 8 ^ C = Y y O y
C 'O vyi O v O r-I a H _ O N v V C m v
p J E u chi cu a v 0 ONL1 C -° Yp v '0 ° c ,� 7 O 'u; C U O y Q
N u
o ami J^ 3 0 3 tT 3 � ` c-0 v o Y
v n '" v v y c v m ° G a E c v C H E �, v N LL ° - v N v
M M m � v on G o „ L E „- O m L m > • v v u o E c w
` a r n m �j > E u° oo u^ a°i °N' v L > 6 Y " c ° '� t
y Y v G
vN, J o v .Q f0 o y :G M y (v " a 10 yo o M o o ° api
L a0+ O ° t E m > E G O .0 C -O v •C E > -O L N Y 3 m LL ° C Y C L 3[
m V N C N OL Y O v v J+ C L _ 00-O M 00 Y v
`7 � �° w O N w N E X -° n N m +, N m O — Y v u V1 O -O v u Q o
m o 3 'F v ,� O v v °' ° y 3 o v '� O °' o c 'L c u u tC
° w o aci " �e ai o U76
_a on on n v o ° X ° v Y +: a u w C ^
y -° �1 L m J L A E a, toC N m O Y O Y N m O
',. O Y ?j ` a m U y U Y OD V C m 3 Y y C C m E m x 7 L m Y v -O `D
N= -O -O C J v Y m m u C C 3 O N N C O V y, `J N L C p
° � GfO � E � U3va ° � � 3 vao ° p° � L3o3m� �� m ri
C 'T>+ m p C y J L E L J N V m j C y O C >, �J vi c.� N > N C O N J 2 C
7 C �' N m — 1+ O ~ N v f0 00 O O ° u N O L m m �n OE .0 ?) T
E ° M o f (U x r M L a v > > °y' m ° °u' c Y y0 a v 0 ai 3 U m
Ln
COJ a C N Y L N y YO N Y y 'O v 00 N m a X I m U N E °1 m O 0 y a
x v oo m m �/1 c u % r v m o v m v c °1 G a ^ v °u O E cu C :t
y `- C N 3 Z O am+ O L C G Q m C ° j O
O C vi m -0 OD w N L N U.� Y 7 m J O O a 0 O O L
O O _ > J ; 3 ° " E Z o C = L o 0°LO ' N m •ru5 Q v O 41 > m G1 += N ' L
M a f c � v v m N M •N °N' o o m am, ' °x �a U ° o o FL- ° * E
— o m E u m
Y ° > 3 u u � ° O o v 3 m m > N v C Y v E Y u v 000 m Y m e o
Y v m y J L C a m y C v — — G O y m Ll 'O L a 9 N N
N U O j t' v a N -6 Y L >• m L ?i m N N C J >_° m N '� N ° L -O
m E R C J = U L `1 O _ 00 N N +L+ .� w C 00 `1 O d 00
T E J 3 v m 0 N C u ' v a v a c t o v m o c � 3 6 L Q'
Y w m O y v m 00 c :M, J >, m a m
>' J Gl 3 J v O m •N w m m - O' > v Q O ° C �v L v U a+ .O N N L
v = u N O - L > N 3 m m 3 a`i c E N a ° 'E c .� v > o L u C m aJ v
.>6 : m m > c = ° > aL� Y o — v u � M v a J N m v v v C m u Q o is 3
O O m L L N J ° 00 V a 7 7 a 7 v N F L L
M 3 N m E v y m — •3 an a m 3 °• X c c '� o O-o L x v N a ro
Q1 L N a v N N O Z N v N N U m 'F+ O � Y N 3 Y v E N J Y L N
O N O N •O L L L O O U m EO 7 cu
fYp U C m m L O v C U Y
3 3 w > Y > o H y Y > u H L L F m u m — a v w n v� y Vl o E v H a a m n m
_.. .......................w......__. — ..___w w...._..........__.._......_m . ......... .............
tka
v v C v
M - `o `� O U m c in p! fN0 C .Q N J o
j m ° -O u C u C u N 'C N w u O M u U O U
C O• yJ p N C V Y N C �" v O T N L N v
m m y c c 5 o y o o J C v � -0 Y °
m u v N J O m vl C - (o Gl y c c v
N u N a U '> - v O > m Y CI V > 0 N N m a m
u 0 7 O1 C v m m O '�+ '�+ CO '^ 'i •00 'O H u m v C a p
O O O > � >, O ° m •�' J m U — O Y m C O Y O J c
N v •F. C L v •� •O .m C m O .0 C Y N C E p O
h m E v m X v o v v o � o°u- E c>u ° aVi o o �° c O Y o m
> ,.N CL O N v +' > v m .r_' C L '> u C C_ m y O .p fL0 vNi T N m vi E C >y C pCp G V O C v m L C O E v L O +� N N N E ° v C C
0 3 > v m t v o a o -0 E v ,, Y >o m L J ° a v '� c
G. m W> C L y C C E a m O m O L C N N Nbo-0 7 C °
C O a v 3 E m n °U p > Qj C N i L C C O' L •a_>+ , N C E m C 'U U C
W m •O u > m > m C O m v a •CC to � OOO O -a E O '6 n OV fl. 00 m w N O
v U d N C C E J U u J d Y L i1 G O C O yam, O J J — J C y O O N
m 00._ N — m E u O O m 0 C
a > c .°0 M J c E o � y v N a E 'o o v N c u m v v U to o
c o = o m c u m E o .E c v w E Lo v c v o — v m 00 cu_ a E c c
M G N ° •� U N O U U Y O N m L v m a m
m J O N O N u GJ v v C J y N v m pi N U y m _ L
X E vmi Lp > O C BO O m > -O U O �i m •00 O •F, 7 v J m
~ E O tJ.� �' '^ m u y 0 u N' O Q vi > LL uJi N j v p v > 0 N w N vyi CL
O
> N O U. u O ,n 'in Go O N "- > L v U m '� J V j vOi m ° -O Y
V m u C O J T G N m m u N O m N L v J �n a V C v
a L ° G , c L mto
cmi G° o u a c v `� «. H c ° y c a3i ° > r
U v coo o v o a L •3 L u v m e y c N v
o m m o `o o u ° °1 o ya °u' c 1 M a 0 c o (ui w `o o a =
N -p U L O U O f0 'r+ L a.. G L L •� N v J v v
p C v N C Y 'F+ 7 7 U '� J N v C >. •� O 3 m E L u y ;� N L u N
v L
•�+ Q 00 L m OD v Y — LL C L >•-0 >. U v y >0_ E u L J of d' J a. Y C m L ++ J
V a v = N v E O J w L v L i Y L p O m O m 0 O ° a
M 7 N O v m O '-P '� a M lY O a L a O - a Cd 4 a4 u W 3 to L N > m y a a 3 C Z
...............M..M.....•,��,..............,.....,.....................,.,.....................�............................,..•.,...,...,...,...,,.w.,.,.........,,,A,,... ..........�,.............,,.,......,........,...............................................................,.,.,.,.. Y
........... r
0 3
ao Z z
u
c
v
N
0
C
0
U
a
Y UJ N v m p
7 v o c a o m ° v 0 3
C1 O w a L +m+ N
° u LL 7 .�' C O Q O C o0 N `J
z p '� N "= m '� o Y
L i m YO NO C m j C U O
Y L m +-' L m O Ul o U1 0 O
X >
to Y E O y i1 O v .� +L. L O lO
c C •C >OOMWm w vi O CO Gl 7 m
m u a Q ° L C u a o m r Y
N 2 w Y O 7 2L C G1
GJ vi Ij m v 7 +' O a m a OU O O
O N c O c -r-'1 v 7 Q c 6E U
m 3 L 7 E Y L O w E '� 7
Y L a Y
N C m� N `1 �� fY0 umi O �
m `, 7 a N m O Y U v 0 j C
LL N -0 U 'o a V Y Y Y O
a+ t N Gl L p +' a N
c m L Y w m Y Y Ol N Gl LJ N
E O E O O >• 7 7 N Q w N L T N
t£� N o occN m � O
m m Q
z � u `
u W v e m o oO
o
y L 7 3 C m O a 3 Q
7 c a N m (Ua
Y m
m N N Y
� �n U
m L 7 C O LL C `1
Y a)
W Q N GJ IYn m am_+ IN/1 r a t Q
m E u t y c v 7 'N v m Y
'Or
N v
w N ry *' U p v a c a o N
00 C L O c j OO Y •> W C v w m y
C m c C 00 N U a, a
O VI O N C to N C O L c c > Y
J E N C 7 a+ — c O L O U
E -c v 3 m a °° - - m o m to Y
�J N w p m c L LL .c m
L J O I L Gl 7 O Y OJ c >
O aj
D Y F �p L C N U1 Q vi c O N
z (U .S >p ,� O -0 C L O � p u
Y O Y N U N
F Lid 3 v `m ° v a a Y L
- w
-Fav v O O m
U N 5 L i i w H N C C L Ul
Y O m 00 vOi '� N O Y L O
C L u c vi > L yN, c OYO
p i N �n in C T v E U O 3 Ei Y c m O O c O U
L � 7 E L p 7 + p m oa + - Y ry
m 0 E N N C N °u N C N Q 7-rz ++ C O u Gl N m V N O m
m Ol N am+ C w N 00 v?i f0 c m 'a a)
L Vl L c tL
� CO c 'n a N C U vi U >. j m O N in Y U 4- C •F+ L
am+ 7 t E i O u 7 dD Gl O` 7 aj C o O Q LL Y O p m u m L C a N
of E u m 3 e0 E m c m n •� p p o m Q 3 c a s
> x v L v y, o E w c 7 .. u o v j r u Y c E v v v o `° C 7
E v .� L m o o w o u v a y c n m Y m m c oO m u
o o v c Y v `—' °° aO v 10 N Y° a °, o ° m ELL c a w 7 L a c
rU '~ E L aO+ C +u+ U u i Q C 41 O m Q a+ L C ~ 7 L m N v H y c L
c '�Y N 0 0 m 00 N 7 .� O I C O - O C Y m O in N a
m E F, O > 0 0 u m u n v m w L ° N U- a CD 7 Y 0 N H
y O Gl °V 2 Q m Q OU N 2 Y c U c Gl N G ° C ro m m m c m a N V
a Y Y —
,w += p m m O 0 O V v a O 0 3 OD U m .^-� O c N N d L
C O E v U C c a Oc0 00 c O j U Y G1 V1 y _N Q c C V Y y m Q C > 7
C w O m 0! N w u) L a O m m Y
m O m N N U +T+ •T+ N C O (D ID N n 0 p a ._ rp u c C �' C a
m O C p Q C Y Y Y OO Y Y C C � y N O = 5 2 CP U Y j E, m COL
F Y m - 7 to 7 C C w p u T Or v m u m Y S O N E ,.mr m
>, O c m h0 E N a m ° 7 +' C L i m C 7 Ol c 7 U 00 a m
O mC L a r' N E E E GU - m > > ° c V1 m L Y - O C N L m 7
`o '� °u u T r=o 00 c a m x '� ro N O�i m = Y c L
a m u 3 u > U o v f0 O� u v p m m c 2 s O N m N Oi
w C N w N cmi a �1 O GJ X am+ C > Q U E V m VI O C N E N O a m a N N N N C
m i L 61 ` on 0GJ >,0 m G1 .0 m — 7 4 7 tw O " N 3 N T O L C C c
¢> .0 O u E O p r>° L `m tw 3 m C E i �°' N aai a •`m-' E F O E 3 c cLi - - fO O Y 0 N
F. o v $ m v o •� o ¢ C v Oc N C o L c o m m 7 Omi L m ar u v Q
rn E ro u Oi n � m E �o v E c ui u 'O .4 r� Lox Li H m u L - t/°1 0C H w 3 v 3 ¢ Oxi
a
O
O z
a
u
C
GJ
a+
N
'N
C
O
u
c
d
E
E
O
u
,. ..._.............N,,,,.....,_...�....._..............3.,.....,_._ __..........................._...
N O
O y Y v 7 0 vi
_ N Y
d o .
L a c 3 y c o -mfO o 2
o' + Yu
w
'A O
a ° a — +m' y.
C n >
uOO F Lca
Y�'
remticNuv ° 9�tl O w N to O L V `.ti N N '�L c 4 a'+ a aU V `F u ` N O O O yl O
N O 'FO. L d p L N L N �^ 7 _ L v1 w Y O w C N Y i` '0 'F+ ° O.
ao > + v 3 ° L 'D a + ° c _v c c o Q Y° - y N ,° v m E
N. tJ
V O U c •v�i i O to u �' L A N vi a Q 0 F+ O y i j N N 0 nJ w
O E m a ry v v ° a 3 3 - t � c o o o Q= o v v aYs N N a n ao
r �' c v ° E o v L ° n > a� .F v aci Y a m � L a c a f0 m aEi
C C -G U �>, Y Y y to U L L U c v to O O1 -p Y
> • N nl O -a O .� L — ,aNJ •+�.+ C 3 f15 fU a ° yL.. _ N awn
a on v n° v v �` ° 0 3 o ° > n ° v L aai v o L v u
_� f0 E N f00 v� O N C EL bo > On L L yA,, to L v N N n �' N N O a Y N f6
a s on L v o . E U - u :L L *� Lon� 03 o c `° °� '' a a Y c v " ^ ° o
N 00 vi C a30 •aa C C > .'r•' >-Qj p Q c ° t N O p 0 a>+ N C G > ° C On C E O c L
7 > Y as T m _ a >. O L a6 On C ` O O Y
U N L p- L y0,, •• i o � N t� Q > C (D .� 'L Q v •N a6 ° w U "O
p On O ° aL G p hn n1 >O L 2 c v O Y �n u@ >T 5 v l u fO a V .c x � O C a c o > c 'm ` as Y Z, Y a o _ " ._ > � u v a .. v a ao
O hn C O C Y In O L O N C N F .0 >' c L v N o N N aU
a C f6 L a O N !0 Y (9 L L a fID C N (O C Ol O L C Y c N N .O
v F m ., L i, N iL, u u , 3 a a a� p - o a _ 3 Y p a ao o a m ° a� E
aj
au `° fO ° a� ` ° ° ° c o v c a°Di s chi v>a u m ° "- v v o Lon °0 co cf0i c 'O O = ._ on u on c an L r- v 0 G O 'N
�c ro ro N d o in S z in � a a u R L L v II u n v a o F .? o
p a = E YO N fah w Q .•i L L N 2 a t0 Ci a U I— 3 N O 0 = f0 A H N
in 0 N ti
T
u C
O Z
a
a
c
d
N
,N
C
0
u
M
c
E
E
0
u
a) ai
Y am+ y0 �T' C aJ N c m y a) f` Y O O T Y a
f! t `1 7 Y O L "O }: .FO+ C N voi C 30 L OD C C gym.. C u y0 m N p
'p (m.) �^ C C al a) m a+ G w G �1 O a) 7 p -0
-0 5 o > aci L aTi E c o 3 n m e v m o f u ° n o
C '� L V 'p w L 7 OU p.H m C O �1 7 v a+ 7 N >' Y L n E C'�
p n al in 'u �n — u _ c L m al -0 V t' aJ D U +' O a) y ` N m p ❑
c E p n ,a) c v c a O m a) m fO a y c Q m > °tea m e o
+' ar T 7 on a, 3 oa m v L bD Q ° 7 v u v G p m n m y O o m EQj ❑
ro m m o c Y L m cL o ai aci o 3 � m a) ou u m 3 0 � v 2 `m v c a o v v
> u T u v L o o` a m m E n s o '� aui n .E a Y E r E o u ? v c a o ❑
a _ c E Y L C '� o �a .� p N O L O m ` c. v d�_ iYn a) C O Y m Q vi W G.
L 0a'p U vl O N a+ o = L m N L O 7 V a) 7 a+ •� C O U i t' i C U ++ N O
m m o G m G 00 oa m ra 3 cca 7 a) c a) n .E +L L Y — a7+ oN 'N a) o o o a E n
> L m m n a) G a) 7 m y a) °a m = c — o m > E m 0 a u G
W al w C (m.1 C U > aJ n C > C C a) L � a) f>a L VI:r.Ei ❑
W r- O O tl0 N m a) — i a) o o al L p O V N L V O G E t
C l 'F� C T U 7 y N m C C N :v C y of ra Y •f0 7 y_ Vo `7 in a) N ()cL
C O YO m '�, G .> m '� +N+ aJ v 7 m •� N Y U aa)+ E Z Y L a1 O
m > m s u y o 0 0 0 u u c Q °' .� c E o u ar n
+� `1 m u U o G a) O O N c V — c aJ m �n 7 a+ v� m ro+ O > C o ++
X p U n n Y o f v L Y a p - a) 7 0 p >
- w o v Y v E ;g O 'E' m o v 7 a, 0 m ❑ c
F t U V p0 OL tm+ G L 3 a) N L al N C C y0 a/ m fro L O 0a G n 0 a) U a) a)
>. ++ m 'pa 7 w n O �^ aL+ O y aL+ -6 E a) +� m m `� t� r+ G m n
p a1 m O a N E u ++ t W L m N O C O ++ n a) y L]. a1 7 m O Q C m
;t m N L U '� ` C L w L r'' 1 � n N O O
a v aj o�= � c o a N o m e a m v c c .L — ` u cu u m io .� r _
y a1 m i m �n 7 n m -0 O m O C O
u
3 m o v 7 a, p m o °'p Y p > °_G° '� m�G- v o v o E ` E v o v a v
O 00 U m C u E y n U OD aJ mc
O ate+ Q Oa'O �" .a)+ L L y a! O G ' a) t n 3 = p
U i v a) tF L m n u -o T m C a) n n 0 n n L m m $'+ U p "O N j
La ar o E y y L a) N Y 7 c x E c a) E L E o L n E 7 a) Y L v ` m c ❑ �+
w - a) H -p >i y in .— a) aJ L — N a) u F m _ e-I c N u n M m Cp
u C
O Z
a
T
u
' C
OJ
s+
N
VI
C
O
V
C
W
E
O
u
> Am ca >
N v OU - .: a E °" m y c c o o c `'a ._ °Y' c u
c N ra ui E c ° ° 7a •- `.L- ce a} 'L v i ... ro x
� r Ei o ac, v E >' }' c c a"t v aE, •5 >v °
+• a+ L Q C to .O ° E Y �D ° N ''' Gt CT CS' a L C„
T ',,h C }N' v f0 N L N aL-+ C c N CO h +�. Cy
L a�i (0 C f0 L {9 v L t L ° ir.. L Cl L 1,3 o E O
vi nJ L N Y }�+ ° U N N ° h ° 3 �' 7 Q
a° E v c v y v n' o >a ° [' v a o aL, `° a o > ° v s
c - �6 5 `Y° o N y E CL > C c m 4 � v u u 3 > u
D > v_ ° v w e o m c v `cn
a u, o v 3
m v v > o ° Y-' c '� o v v° R "cc,
= a a N a ° 3 ° v
d N > w c m ° o ° e
z ° c —° ra- `° C ° ° •N v chi 00 = ° c ° F= ° ° ' c v
C ° •� to N w o ra Nv u ``� a`, ` o •a;� +' c
m L ° ' > N O Y M Y ° v nJ L E L 0 ° r ° •� v
vE aci m co v N +' v c o ° o L ^ In E ° > c
•• i8 U L ° H ° Y
F 3 a N Q m'r+ N w O C U d ° C Rl L a v (0 m O r
u a ° M. c °1 .o om m Y Y w II t ° c a c v° = E E +j v c ocn
• w ° V ° ° U o U a U Y f0 � U = ° Y C i.+ C Y L = CJ ° v Y N VI
a° E e u v c c cu CL E E r- Q c ,m, 3 3o v 3 ° c m m vu °
c c c en - _ -P N c c E c u L o u an u t- a _ y v a .- v o v c v
o -0 o o aci E °c° m'v 'N o E y v +'' n=' a n 3 a c = v o N g
° o M o o s N F a>i c v 'N °o c m aui ° E o f c'i 3 ° ° r-co 0 cua v > 0 =
_ '3 � Q m u c a ° v > u n w n cLi L M (� 3 ° C6 o d '� Q aYi U n oc c°i U
E war ram u °u u �i 6 -6 m u nri .£ 0- w mcegL° Qcm iti .° yr 3 ra m axi u `o
T
u_ O
•O Z
a
T
V
L
a
a+
N
L
0
U
a+
L
a
E
E
0
° Val 7 N Ga a C ` �
O t`
o m o
u > c0 L C a C C O N mID
p
v ° ° E c ` a 0
° o E � a °
V Y Y L u _ a u
m — a u a IV
V a a ° m Jm+ m a R Y O N 3 �' C •N pap O
ILO 3 ° N (L9 Y m L 3 a a N .pC_n vi cc 7 "� N a s V C `Q
(A v -0 o v v � o Q c ?; o c c a a Cu v o
u a 3 a > aL+ IY_O Vmi tYa O. C a a Y m m v N O y u r w N N
`o ami a o c u - � r o g $ It
o Y v m a
O. m C a L N L t O_ c (CD `' _ > _ H N N aJ a O y m
5 �_ to �' - m > a Q. m w a p m a O ;L aL+ N 3 c
_ c
m N ? p C O �F-' N ya, �' -° � � m N a p a 00 Y 3 O '6 � � � � O m
> E m m ° C .6 a i O i — O G a c a� O m A a s vY
a N a >. �' co a i N N umi O L 7 v v a `1 C vi ut O •� '^ O
u '�+ = vpi O C m OO a C >'a *' a _° 00 m 4 C v O t F '�+ ca+p 4 m M �
a =_ .o a ya .� a N u
m E u r a+O m O m a m C m a `J a ` v L a of m OYl j L a a 3 N a L C
.. `° c N u aYi 3 a�i :� m a v LL ° o v 3 v o u a E 4 � a v a'
m v N c 3 o N > > pn N a - c a E `o a N a o
H L m a ° o N 3 v ° ° c c '- m u a 3 o a c 0 a 0 m c Y N
T > O a O Y a F' ° a +' m t x a m m H N m C F, m I? O L L Y C y10 0 0 C m
m 0 v a a 7 m N u y, „� u m N > }
a u m 0. m •C w O ? +' C L �. O a =a• 'c C a °i OJ H m a m �+
'O m O N a p0 p_ 'r+ p0 m N N O — a Y O C U 7 ;� a .m w pp C Vf V x C 0 3 a vi
O. N C p0 C C E F,, > a 3 N .0 �". pi'. m Y m 3 a O c y m a O C
C m m E C f6 N �+ p C m N C > Y a C > a) >, LS a G a O Z N
� o .r � �� cNo � � ya � aNaa � uacY � yc > � * ou " � � ^
•C .p 7 N C a v u0•_ Y -o a m > i a c a 0 p Gr a 0 0 a
> o 3 m L 0 0 0 o L 0 m pp m ° c a cc c ° a, 3 o a N a a v
V O -0 N 2i m O i d L N L m w pC0 N L a 4 c N tt p '_^ YO N C N
C a m O 7 a _ v C a = o C l m L Y > O..
ni aaii Io -d 3 a s ai 3 m in 3 3 0 m o I�o .. H n > �+
T
u G
O Z
a
> n
V y a) Y V U
am+ aJ p -O
N .O O. 7 C a .° CL
m 3 3 a s
C a u a_ m
ar
L E m
O on
'O aLm+ O C aJ
O
m -Ep w 3 p
L m U L y L
al a) m
o >_ v a
N 7 bo
Q 7 �= O ° m
O m T
O
N n L Y L 7N :5 Omo N
y D w v c
G i O G m
O 7 .0 m L ° d
y v a
3 > u Y ai
u p o n m 7 w
` a 7
c y 2 E E �5 '3 m
N O N N -07
E E o Y Y Q
E 7 0 � c > u 'u O
L
N CD Oi n al >- v O c
•� 7 a ?-0 Q 7:� O to
O y 7 a -q C
0 Y C C v7i O C , E
N ` O V yO u N N C
N y al N ly/1 X w (U
L 'O O
c E wu
c 6m a) m L 'j G 7 �
>. a1 m
� U aL�+ � L
F � 3 L L
Vp y m
N 2 O a c >0 O (0 O Q
.� p_ u c = Jr m LL ?� G .y
p o 3 t 'i (D o0
V C, O Y U N f�0 L Y
O Lr X m c L m O N
a an i c y °u O O. vV = a
www_.. .,.........�www_..mm_..ww.,_._,._.. ,,......... 4,5
-0 C .
O 7 y U ',, W
x p a w z ;� E m 3 u Y c a t > v 7 N
N a N L _ 7 y .Q O C 7 f0 a O a C O m
L !_'' �_ U m Q C L O .F p Z E C N 3
m m o_ N aJ y ILO O m C vi `� N > a N O N E O cn •� OD C •O
C Z (U In 'U > o L L aL+ v a) ° 'O a a) N -0 O : O 3 0 A-- C N
° a� Z + ,v m G p v v m 3 v ro u c y v > 3 N
W C �' w �_ ar L ar v " a, w N v > u E 3 G „ > u v u
> i Or N OOp C a) E IF aJ yO al O •F—' aO+ m 'p0 i O 0 C O ` C C C
ar 2 `m c v ayi = u Y a '° ° c o u w ar v o — :°
.O G aJ N u y al aJ vyi a/ aJ m i C E aJ �' ° p O, t N N V L r-' •C N
a 7 W C G G m E - 'L L L 7 a '� t Y L L U_ O
O m E G G L E N = N a > t al M N
a�i Q N U a L v bo ° L° u 0 7 m + ar v 3 a v N
> G 3 N m ° o ° Y " E E N u ° v io E y .°- �° ,tea E N ° o
ar v a ar .0 u a N ar ar o , u u E 10 c a m m o c o m y
al U vi C: N v `1 a c O. ° •�—� C m u 'Oa O w 3 O '^ •m N C y=, O N aJ
N Q C 'p l� N m .�°, -O N j ;�' N u � p u 0 al y C a) ol '6 '& m u a1 — N
m al y 3 f0 U aL+ C N L U E 7 aJ p > u v o O U O m d j 0o C C t
X E ,+_T+ a s vmi d m OU w N O O c N m i ° E a O C j m M N U L C C
G c a m oc '^ o u m 'L a
F 7 7 a L z w oo 0 `o E o — L m oa G � o 0 0 5 v .G o `n - c u :° ° C W
`T' E E c v z v�ai Y 'oa v m °a ° v v o w E " `p j C � m
o + m o ar � + — G Q aci
a OO a , fLa C dal m m p O N O Y N y, C O ,+_T+ y m C a Q n'Tp.
u E u `o u 3 u a, G L m Y Y
U E ! r -P al a1 a-0 N y N .2 ` E O al N N y m 7 ai 7 .E Y C C Y_ w a) N N N
w m o 2 m > ° ° o > o E v •> > o c E a +' aui > ° E a °D ° E
—°O o y > m v > - Q a ? a` am, ° `n o°C ? v a` '7 v E ` ° p LU n o •cc e
W d Q ei YJ F N O M v7i U r4 L N N v7i Y M 'O C °u vyi w a n U O U L
u
c� O
0 Z n L
T Y co
C
al -
5 o° z
0 O 0 L 3 u
� c
E 00 Y Y O
v v v O 3 p 0 �^ � v
C_ Y t v Y _ C (p O f'
E aci o N v
>.-0 s `0 OL 3 a
a, v C f6 r O M -0 Q v
v CL M E oa U O v p
v c v c > c v u w a >
v « >0 3 L aL+ E ° -a a
Lj v 0 v E
C y 'Q 0 � N O C O c O >
c L E o -0 0 3 v E °7 0 v
M _ M M v inL E E OL
u 'o76 .0 m v Y o v ^ ar a10
E o Ll v di v c ., y GJ
Y °
c v c Y^ c a m u
CL
v o
> v O o 0 O_
c v M a 3 > E A c ° +
v _ Y E o '" m f0 0 '- p u u
E v E m v m v E m ° o
w
CM
O 10 �C tvJ t0 Y MO 0 Q v+ U V1
u .L r0 N c v v E E E - v >
.N.. j (uN !^ Y = 3 �••. it ° H •�'�+
w = o c
c O E E „ v
�+ ei O vOi L ra Y 0 L L Y
O 7
m c v v v w c U Y c
M O 0 cu
u E Ga Ly N O v
OD O C N M vO
v i
O ME a fa O v"i v p L O L v
3 u E L Y y v c u >
a oL Q C L m : 3 c v a) Q m
m O N m v c E o o a m
3 °
M c v v 0 c Y O « ro >'
3 p_C O j 01 -O .0 E Y v � � 0 �
n O - v
C C N N O O N C '� 7 7
N
Yvvi DO p Y v 2 N j !� c p M O1 n v
Q v v O v 'fp a y u v N
c u ._ v iD ar E v E d o - w >
h v
m
E r 0 p c c c L rc0 O c p m r
v o v, ° a °' o °N' o ° O W o u c $ 'o
a o E ° L E.. E a o a 0_ vA
O
_ .2 y o
L G Q
L L UJ 0a aJ H L a! 'n
16 O j
N Y > rn c (u Q �+ •> u yj
-0 �s o v a •° -
w' p .2L v :w m a3i c � L c a a v aL � v v_N tLLn v u 3 o (u
v 3 U �'u .0Y v v v av, C co ~ Qi ut 0 Q L `ti >• w 2 N
a -0 a o c o o ar ° E a 'o a CL p > c o y
N + o O o g O E v a Q c u
« C L° ° �° O O ''' O fC = = Q v N Loa Y N C 7
v c O` Q) L L O m c C G y 1- N V a 7 c fC O
41 N a E 0 Y 0 •Q a) U1 ° Q L 0 Q Q v 0 a' O Q i
OC '^ O U O. .�+ « v' "� E rfl v 'n Q Q O 2 0 L u v +'
o M •' ° a3iw lu '� v a o f6 o f v ai 3 E u x v n ° N v JCL N °
c 0 ° v Y E L Q ,c n c c o a n m a, -0 0 ar A
axi in 3 m 6° °3 E u E m o 7E o v c ate, -C E a - `o �'
~ W y v O C v 0 N U v 3 H = N C v N aL.+ h a) C` Q C v u 0 N
y v �N v O a O L 0 _° v N L L v C `.ti a 0 w C v N 7 _u
•O p w O. Ol C Q h Y to O Q a=.., O v 3 w lcR L L O �_ y ,"�, a°, �n v N v 0 d
n a m `o Y ° o rn m ro o c a " 3 , "= o E c v •° a
m e ^ rho 3 y c '� OC° °�° c U p O Y 3 > a = .°' a t m > 3 c ° v
> a a v a, ._' > Q v v o u ` 'si z ; a a a °�' Q ° 3 E 5 M v v F •a ar
v o a a, n_ .p a u - 3 Q N c m 9 a . c a a a c-
c, N o m
w co a Q � 3 F m m cd r n rri 'D ti -Q `c ao v 00 o. rc0 ¢ 8 a r °a E ry 3 rri o a` 3
a° Z en
Y C C
c u m � al O ei
u > Y
N N O -O •� O cr
N p Q > C p_p
c a` CL
3 u : a
u '3 0
cu
72
cu
N W T Y N L
C
'I,C p O N m > j m
C = 0a i •O O` E E 2a) Y
O r 00 N O 7 3 L L u 0 N O C L L C L L 0 0 s+ a) •N
Q; � :n T m c y a o fYi, 'o uYi Yo io E +L+ m
? C N t C L C U a) r C O aa+ a1 o Y N U L ++ E
C
a t, o v +� 3 v a, ° m 3 ° a 3 ° o 0 0
L ° a u a+ a c
a) Q N Y a) Y Y a Y O vOi O' _ H C Cl) L 6
O y ~ - �O +L.+ p > aj
E N tD O M r7 CO L N
Z U
W -0
a)a) O a 3 a c m u o n a c a 3 > E N u E _� E m a) °3 v
3 p a i U n O 7 w a+ O _ C _ C - ° O a-I L n
' 2 G >L m Y al t' v 0 tUp Y 0 0 0 0 O T Y
Vmi d o = m o c m v 0. m .> m a, > N a) > v01 v c Q c f0 a)
a. ai G o o -a o °' c n._ u u c u c U m �• •- v >
c C +� W O. c c - o c v �c c a) Y c N a v a) a)
m n
°° 3 c L Y a) > c > ^ 1 m o U m io U f0 m ° c " > t
E
a « c m y V o 0 o m T v T a T Y a o Y v
o v ° °
v 3 on Y v v Q m > ° i m c 5 cca c c
u 3 c ,� v c a V L L' o ° m M.
o u V Y a u Y v o oa c m ar
m m v 3 c H V Y O N +' > y u - c u - c u m c L
> o o m _ c 3 u - Y c
fa LL C CO 4 L YO - 3 y Y T U Y ? Y N L L n c 'C'
ct a) Q m y � o Y m a) - 3 pc Q } c Cl. c c 3 > >
m o Y v E E c n Y ai E a ,� p a' ° m m m
v � u � N a c .� v > m -a a) m v m U c LL > L u
° o ar `o u .° u o c ° Y ° Y ° to
p L , `� p d 7 aL) O N C 3 3 m O O O C L Y
3 + a T 3 E c N Y W v 3 u o 3 u 0 S o w o M v c
fa m 3 •u N n m C. vi O 0. o N YO .V � O c tC: (9 !Ca Y m m y fa lYn ° - L '� 'j0
> ai 0 CO > a) a a) N p c n 0 0 3 C > L > L > oa N ar `
O ; U n O Y O i 7 C p_vi d O 7 N C ° 1 O C O2 C i OL a) C O N Y a)
n v Y a a, n u ❑ _^ CL 3 0 o a v m a v m n vN m �°- - Y
t�v W 7 y `a° c m m v c °1 i9 oC0 s t Y m ° m O f0� ` r
u c -C C U O O a) C o V V N y U Q V U V a a) U V a) a) u X p LL > m U
a) a) N m a) M Q al V .- Q._ aJ N - V N L0 N Y N .V a1 aU Y ,V a)
aal a '6 Of U O2 N a) L a L 7 7 O i L O O n o O O` n 0 O N N L m L
CL 'a 3 om CL O Q N - H m � O_ i+ Y n u Y u 4. Q 7 O. LL n ° Q CL c w Y E n
ar N o ar _^ `o
a) 'N O Lpa
,uO Y m u m a m c c E m �.. ar o ,� v
m a y d m F a a s u, �, o m
E a o m m ° o aa; E o- � o °
v a o `o `o v do 0 n1? y E w E v c a a o "u tea, c o
CL
m a y y ar c N ,r V « v o F > E Qj
N °i ❑ c 'p
C c iii N c O N N -° m M m � i ❑ C aJ ,�), ❑ W 'N O U C
Qj
yYmj m 'm'' CO « j C N O fCa t+ y 0 0y) a w v � _"' G p �° p_ ° m y C
o
a ❑ ^ E ° >N° c
o ai a3i o
-c m > o a c ma
a ac a v n a) m ° v -0av
'a a a ❑ a ro
mEE u >w
w a c m v ° °N) c L c ° = u am u v E ❑ Q w a E w o c o o c E 3
w d N +' c o p u u 3 3 o m a +� E t o, u -❑ ' v aci 4� u
c 3 c `) zs L a) c 3 r 3 ° & u` c - o ° m u ° °
L � � O C i
Mu o m o - c M y C V ❑ ❑ t O N L a) N 3 � a+ G '❑
° ar a p eo v ❑ w w u c m o, 3 3 0 ° ° p t 3 a, c c ° m c V O
M 3 Y N N 0) C m m a) m w C U = U C O - u❑ aJ 0 � L aJ }' a) m z Er ° O N a,,..
Fo a4) v c m o ° aci 3 3 � o $ g .°' a o 3 coca ° Q u
v m - - c , m p ° a) W a u, N x a, +-� � E ❑ t 3 °) 'c •N v o c
uo 3 " m w u v s c o = u c v •`-' = v 3 .. v o +. o ° a) Q o
r `-) -cl
L o m 3 ^ ' ❑ t E > a a 3 ❑ ❑ 'F v o v u
x ° V L G; �T,'-0 E o w •u " U Q) c ❑,= `❑ ° t„ ❑ Q L 4; Q•F, n
o a a` a) 3 L o > v E 7 d 3 . = x a) ❑ C u u Y °N)
'^ w E 3 a; 3 2 c - m a " a n ° E ❑ ° ° o
o00 > `� a o m ° .0 a c v o a o N ❑ o $ a v o N a u o m t 'o` .c
o c `� a a Q v a 3 0 '� w E v o ar o v o m a n E
d N K O LL m N E A 7 E N a7 Q i � f� i a1 m U la °U � � .--I N a5 (Y7 O V LI1
V O
O Z O
a .�
V
C
r
N
'N
C
O
u
m •p N aN'' Y N c
L C N U U
a' o C — do 4 n • E m m 12
> s c m ° * m C L L - •E � m M o v - v 3 °w-' a'
m v o c v o m ° Da m Y m > 3 n m 'm v 0 N N o
V C G vi V a+ �a C O' `' N m C m OD O N m
a' O c 'i•C m O O O = C m L d '� -E a' .�—�' C 7 m m
OD p a1 ON u al Y aJ >' v '.p -� Y +"• Y aL.+ ON 00 — m �"• L n ai aJ
N `m v a' cu n Y f 0 a ani 3 3 " o ar °N' �o c LL - y c
3 ai
m C O O m vmi 7 O N O X L M 3 y Q Nm mYm •TCa`-'• c —N C-,
C
m UO UL
V mL n
a= YO cY m m O r0 ao m C m o mC
y
M s C
+ u N
N `—° 5 aJ m L " Y 7 m C O O >— aL+ U n N m o +•
OD ° +L+ � �= N m (- ° .p - 0) a) ', 7 7 m N ,E C u u n Ul of
c N L N o p m 3 °
+' a a 3 c 3 °CL o c in > a v _u a' r- m a r- m s. 76,
al 'O C m m al O U �' E p_ w N ° N L u V L C m a ° m O OD +L+ L C
E um o ° a aJ mp E E *- aci aa, a o `n
E o v °�' C N s o o . r :° 3 N N o v aci .V a, v o o f
° CL o ' m y 'a o a' N E u °' m e c v a, GO n E a, E u L Y N
u p_U p n Y G —ram a+ p �-+ al O0 to N a' Y C C n OD O o m �
m m ^ �' o v m ac' u c = E c N o u m v n u n m ,m v aui
L 7 L L m G ¢ O O m C 0_` al L OG m += C C U L m '
~ y > m DD -° Of C Y cmi C N w OD °u O m m N N m O u 'r+ o
u N G c m v o E c s m v 3 - - > n
m N 7 O p ti c .+m_'' O ° j Y a' m G' 3 ° O ° U N On N L Q cam.'
y r c p 3 m N m o a� 3 a+ m m N
L V O 3 al U N Ul a+ L am+ ` c U N V Y u � m C N a u -u a+ `' O
y' s?+ L ° :3 N L Y — ++ m 4Z ` N G O C _° E al c = tY.l a' Y G 0 O o
m ° 3 u a V m a->' t M- °u ., a' au' v 3 3 a rca m +' o +' Y N m
U E N 3 7 m m "O 7 p � > O O ai L a Y C u C v j Y
E m n o Y v � a' ° `o c m u u o 3 3 3 u ` tl0 E `-° m p
O L m ?� O m y N L.L � m N > u a N al O N y m •V c N y m O
C; C a v m ° > o E o E 2 m +' m = m � m E � m � .o Y 3 c v
O G m O a+ Y O ` m > tw al L a' 'i
u u a L v ° O coo m O > ° m aui sa' O v ° vY c aCi `--� Y u t
• a' p t' m n a v u .� V .c O o m 'v� N a m v m m m m m 'p n
a° vn °c3 ammva"i3a"i � M c ¢ E � � YYQx aim
__....ww_._._........___m.......w.w__.
Qj
y m c `, a a a c
p cO 1 0 CO O O O
C Y
N f0 C -m Y N N Y ° u 3 OD ` S L u N m O C - U 5 a s
3 7 c % C O m v C E v m N `ti ❑ O Q 3 i O
C p E O u 7 m m fl- GO �.t j Y N a C ``.0 X vmi °
a h
m C O 7 U O N t a' C N w u 3 u a' C a+ N ❑ ° U U al �_ al L
wl O V N w a' Q r E �' +-' a❑.. C in Z E C aJ O h at.� •O ❑ h �w"' n m
�+ '....................... N ON m y C > (u CL 0 = m O Q C O C a�i C a j m aL.+ u C 'a > m
3 n Y v ' a 0 or 3 `o a m -
d O m Y .am_' O (7 > vOi Y O li Y Y h u m aL.. C -u`Y C a O` .0
a' n o u 7 H v w 3 m y � Z 2i a a' as c aN+ _ ❑ E ❑ w
3 c t `c aoi �-' m a `o c E u y N °1 a h c E ° '� a, o. ° s
ate+ Y c .6 ° c v m'> c v v0 E `_' - m .x v c "a, a a`, a > m
v �> c t Y m a o v o l7 ac, c 3 Y ° L ° ° t 3 u E c o a ° a ac'
r v m f0 Y " 3 v r E v v c a ti a ate' w m a. a c Q 2 a , m `0 3 a� G E
m a`) C O 7 W 2 7' N Y O ° a=j U j i 7 = t ❑ 4 U j 0 ` aaj 3 �0 a' y 0
�+ r+ m n �n �' N lJ u U v a C ;❑ U C a+ U O C :p in N ❑ aJ a' U L
t O G m N p CT OJ ❑ C ❑ a.. '01J 7 N G al 7 >
d E m o + a CU
� � � � amvO3v a� � woa ,°, Nrac � acocmaC � rv�
N V •� N al ` a' C > > O N O a O � O 7 .0 C a i N C a ° N H L s am+
aO m Qj
Y vvi +L' i' l� a CL lJ o - c � 3 0 C = w y m p p ❑ C a £ N y C ate., u u m
ac' fm v °J o o 0 u m � v L � o v c o u � u o o m d ` o ac, v E `❑ E �� E � 3 3 0
-p 'p u +� m v O E � O +• n ❑ ❑ N °: C ❑ Q- "O ❑ a .2 C .c a. 0 O. N N
O N O u 3 Cl OD G! " 'F_+ m Y O N C Y Q, O` O` Q N F G 'yi' N ° ° N 41 .� N 'G ° am+ °' EO
c an' C c c o M m .c o > °' v w v m a 'c ° mo o aai w v m a � t o w O N N u
ko -a � u m 45 322 av' o '� l7QU uari a' C� = EQ uam a - 3Qa Q � �i m
u C
O Z
a
T
u
IC
Q1
N
•N
C
O
u
c
d
E
E
0
u
_...... c
N '� -O �n aL+ m N O U Y m O m O
++ p C •N O Q L aJ C m -O ;F+ �j ` C N F Y
N 7 v v `u m e
d c v c all 3 GJ t
ar O in a _ n ,�v, c p ,�
v a v E _ E °c '° ° c o m L Q E v a o
u as u 0_ > v c m o u _ 3 m m o c ar u
N G a+ N E. N O mO w0 LO QQ. v 08 C O' vl •z C L V 7 aL+ •�+
fNt V N N m 5. +O+
Or ?i m` m O q C 3
G F m V u GJ aN•
U m m V L
m O N i N ++ E L N L O C C m vt Luf R to F O Q E N 'O 3 C m
3 ' v u e p - 7 m '� o ai c g c m N o c m c o
a Q, i m a ar u > N N v +' O a 00 m `o c N m m
�^ � Y m c m u@ o > On c Q)
°' "� a O C v; a� v °�CL m e bfl f° ui v m c `m aEi 7 ar
C „"� Qi O N N O t3 T m C O aJ � m Y Z3 v w 21 O X C to L W OC `q H -0
m o N v y o� 'u a m c 'm N m E m -, Y ai p c +. N - u � c
X G L h C = O N m T N E •� aJ hD t=q F O. .N N Y Y O 7 O a 3 c f0 m L O m
y ED 7 O a O G o Q, .E •C O 7 3 - N c •�-+ - p f0 Y m 3 L q u O c m L N 0 -0
N c °� 3 '3 •� m "- u Q v �' v Q' 'u° E ar u v m 7
° ° ^ '_ ' E wo a c w o v Im u c a t v E � Y o .0 w m y QN' o c ° L c
a u o E v oo to° to m
0 O G O N G N q 3 — C C C N O �O C Q cu aL1 vi O1 L C 7 O x N 7 Y L C
O. G L O •C Y C Li m m a) C rFa ,-% q C y N Y al 0_ E L 7 m Y 3 L
o a v a u E v w to v .— -° n y n° a v 3 3 ° °0. Y u v CU N y o
iEi
U m N m ate+ m t O.= Q L 7 `� 3 C 3 O W V am1 EO C O_:L••• U m Y t[E
�. a a Q t a > O m Y O_ x Y 7 O o O O_
3 e u u m v r -0 3 O m fli ai o 0 � u o c t m rri u m rI W e 0 3 o v
T
u O
O Z
a
T
Y
C
al
a+
VI
C
u
c
m.............. E............... E
0
u
a,
Y m L
7 w �
C iC y
`J lc+m 7 a) = U 3 C Y in aJ 7
�n _O O Y C ` cu L G = E w- O u m N 7
O vEi O `�— L U
t �! w -6 U i+ LL N H Y w m
c t C v v c ar m y E a
m -C O c m u ar c m i° .m u c o
y� vi H fC6 d a Q aY' a CO O c y :2 c
y aJ c `1 a v m C C 7 U m L 7 C N 7 . ro m
V 7 m °' a@ 0 3 6 C •+, v3 C Y OD m H a L cu aJ m
o c E ai a m c ° at C a1 7 Y 3
O O c c a o v 3 c v u c v C
OD u aJ oa O
c aJ bo C 7 .0 rm 7 'G a fn u O Y .` 7 L Y ;F
m Y ar m arc c c o ?� m 6 ° 7 m d v
a 0 m m E a m a, n c � m m - E � m �
ar ro � 2L E E ° `—° ac +� L - c c uL
oe � `o o v a ° a o c v ,� m y m cu `o
c o oCo.E m -2 u Q Y - m c c 3 7 N
c a O >a m C c a, ° v 7 >Y a, wo Y - ON � ar
.m. ;m a, Y L m v a c E ° `O u H o y m 2 3 c
u vt Y 7 _
O O O m a 0 �a L c O v Y m v .�+ O" m 7
c ro
> > car w c o ❑° ° c�'� c c u" aEi �% Y m o
EE E o "a, m e fO c a
a m v c m M cu
o = a F Y S L c $ c 3 c o
E " E Cl .� c o �° L _ v E c > c v
tai w C U a if E (moo Y ° v7i O U u >
y c o �`o LL E ` �o o L t w v '� E o
qj
c m v -O c E a a` m w .� > > 7 > _ c c -
rm- E m x m Ou Ou Q t ao v` F 3 2 a, 0 m L i r- 6 r- '�_8 oo
T
Li �
O Z
a
u Y > U
Gl C Y a
� Q
Q U �q
u o > z
ai a
to
U C N 3 w -r O C
Q C L ai
U N m N O
Gl N
E N 1v o m C 0 O m
O N v ` Y
7 +O+ -00 O L u 00 w O
U O N •N v L
av+ C c-I w N >`G in E U
3 o z °°�° o n ±' >
G/ Gl o L O. :� c 0 C W
O r' N O in N Q r
>cu U .00 - YO
M C L O O t0 f0
.-i 3 v 0 o N a
Y O O N
E ° o4J N >' o v M. T 7 T (Y`0 C
X ni Q 7 0 N 0
0 o N > °' '"' a c w e 7
a v a o a
v E U m u '� o � v c v y Q
C N •F N � '� IO .� C 30 C m
vCL
> a m v N > > o
U m E V L U1
O Y
C N Y w > W Y C >
'O O m L C �_ 0Y1 'O M" Q
7 c O Gl 7 >~ w
CL
O p 7 = 7 E m
= N O vi Y O
3 0 -M v E 1 OR
N 3 3 0 0
> ° E > o a> ; w > 0
O •N m 0 0. 7 O tG > O 7 ci
0
CL v a a w C a �o a-Fa
°p
Q+' 7 Q C O Q•� C Q C N
fy 7 co u O � L+
u v MOO O u J pp O u O two u two T
N i v v C N E `1 Ol W u
O m O > R C N cv O EO u O `u •p
d E v a o E a u v a v a
oo N c
L ° c
y c - c C v v,
v v c 01 ra o 0 ° °�
5 o w a G ° L L° v u Y u 3 w
o c �, t N °, a, o u o a .c
m a ° w h m $ m � v -T o ° u c °
c 0 L m 10 w o w v '` c n v m C + c o *' r
GJ N 7
N o c o E c v c v °��.a ° a, N ° a, °° v0�
>, 01 'r+ 'r+ N u y .p to F C N N C -E 'G N C U C Ol Q
c w u a a C o °°.0 c o, E E '° r° Q•N Y ° v c o c o
0 a -0 " '° a Y E E E v ° a>i .` u > a m a y 3
�+ E Ln y H N '` ` C N O ro u E 7 -0 u On EO E Vr o
c to m c c c m m y E c C 0
a ? o m 10 r aci v E c a c ° °u '` v o u°'i v a, r
o°e o � E i �o r o v 2 E ° a o °n �' m L m L r w m z o 0
N v c w N ° m E w c m m v , N Y " E c U
m 3 c ate+ E c O yt, Gl > 0 p E 0 0 N C,� u 'O � V .p 0 =
cu ate+ OD E :F N N = O O C U Q O.'y -1 N O u O ° f0
10 -d , G vi U c = L O E L Q s ; `O E ° u N vUi C W Q U E C m
�o .L. .t. d .N. c a c +`>s w v v a o > E o °' m `o a; o
c 7 u a o 7 c ;e F c ° h Y 0 — v = c L m o o a, c
�0 a w '� ton �o c t ° °: C 'u a u °' v Cu v .a o u c E -2 �c m
w = N o a'm a+ v p .c o 0 0 °`' a'�. E m c o au, ° E
0 0 m W e a` ° c o o O o c E o01) ° h ° E a E to
� a ° o v a p y
0 3 a, '" '� N 3 '`m "" a, a` v s a a E f0 o ° o ° u E o M `m a` w v a` u o
a H w '�•I E .�-i H E -i V- Q Q.�c-i COU °u > Co a� a r1 c °u � m ri c <j : a
u C
O Z ati N
a N ''
u
C
0!
N
N z
C
O
U
OJ
c w QJ
C N QJ
>
3 M O - a0 E >
zx c vOi c L
a, E E r -0 -0Y
s Y m '3 N o
Y
in N vi CU Y W -p 3 >
F 0 v E E m 3 E m
X O U C u w 6
u a, a m 0 -0 c0
C f0
C.- O O c two 20
tw F u w o C m >
1 3 X •" 0
Y QJ y OJ W ��
Y . C m O cn
c v
O W `F O N O Y 7
1
U o N = N Y c 3
O
c 3 Q m v E 0
:2 � G1 "O �a 0 Q fQ C
j C C N •� a.� N m
0 o E o n -0 -
M p
_ N
4 E ° 0. M ny v 7
Io o O
U L o o m 3 v
a° o ~ n' (U
o v `n Y u
C v� CO (0 c ` I O
o 3 c c
C U c N c
C cCC M X .0 v �••1 U O
E G > f0 N f0 M u
E v p a V m
v Y N0 M ! a
s
H Ln .9E
m 3 ._
v u;
c
mT m 0
00 y > u
` C w C
-E c E 0
N C O
0
c aL,+ N 0 N
pn O r N
H C 0y On Q O 1
T E �Ysm
V
v o
M � N w7 Y E VI Q� 7
H cOl N t o
d V E 'm C l Y Y G :R
—y c m pn a v Gl C O 0 m N
C m a t O N E
v N E a 0 E
C � ar c a v o v a) on m _
mN H r A u f0 �••' f0 C 7
X f0 N d -0C O `� Y G1 m O >
a _
_V O 7 cu N -0 v Y O o O- C
a N u c _ w 0
O a upi YO �i N m c - J'
a y c o 0 v v f0 a
o fi E E o a n o v
E O ` p O L p E N Y > on
p M �, U v 7 aj
L Ou m rho
a E .M-i aXiQ a ° �r �imui 6
T
d
o z m
no SV b4
...
ro u p 7HE July 5, 2023 _ ...I
East End Chairman Donald Wilcneski & Members
.�ttii own
of the Planning Board Planning Board
Town of Southold
54375 Route 25
Robert S.DeLuca j Southold, NY 11971
PRESIDENT
Re: Public Comments- Draft Environmental Impact Statement
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
Katherine Leahy Birch (SCTM# 1000-106-6-10 & 13)
CHAIR 1
Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board,
William Ryall
VICE CHAIR On behalf of Group for the East End, please accept the following comments and
recommendations pertaining to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Susan Abdalla for the proposed action.
Kimberly Allan
Lou Bevilacqua Summary Statement
W.Marco Birch The proposed action represents the complete destruction of a geologic natural
Kristen Briner feature that provides ecological benefit. The methods required to construct the
Andrew Goldstein proposed action have far reaching negative implications on community character
Stuart Goode and traffic for the Town of Southold and beyond. The proposed action is
Nestor Gounaris inconsistent with a number of goals and objectives of the Southold Town
John F.Shea Comprehensive Plan and the Alternative section of the DEIS did not fully develop
Kimberly smith Spacek a range of reasonable alternatives that were objectively analyzed and presented in
order to meet the "hard look" test required by SEQRA. Many of the mitigation
Marisa van Bokhorsr ' measures offered within the DEIS should be re-examined or removed as they
Mary Walker should not be considered "mitigation" measures at all. .i. m-� D
Donna Winstonm r, � � �.�
P.O,Box 1792 We offer the following specific comments as they relate to the analysis provided in
Southold,NY 11971 the DEIS.
P.O.Box 569
Bridgehompton, NY 11932 ) y
Although the DEIS concludes that the project is consistent with the Town's
631.765.6450 comprehensive plan, we offer several major instances where it is not.
GroupfortheEastEnd.org liii!
The project is inconsistent with the following sections within Chapter 6 - "Natural
Resources and Environment":
Water Resources (page 12-15)
Goal 3:Protect Surface Water Quality
Objective 3.5 -Avoid and minimize non-point pollution of coastal waters.
G)Site, upgrade, and manage on-site disposal systems to achieve maximum pollutant
control through the integration and required use of 11A OWTS or future technologies that reduce or
eliminate nitrogen from wastewater.
2) Protect surface and groundwater against contaminates and other pollutants by
keeping septic effluent adequately separated from groundwater.
Goal 7:Adapt to the Effects of Climate Change and Rising Sea Levels
Discussion:
The DEIS states(page 113), "The recommended separation distance to groundwater for sanitary
leaching fields is three feet. As such, should sea level rise occur as projected, the system would be
non-compliant with current design requirements. However, in the 2050 condition, modifications to the
leaching field could be implemented by elevating and installing a pump station. However, the
manufacturer lifespan of the 11A OWTS is 30 years, and thus, by the 2050s, new systems could be
expected. Should the projections of sea level rise be realized, the new systems to be installed would be
required to comply with the regulations at that time."
Therefore, the wastewater system will eventually be in non-compliance with groundwater separation
distances and is in direct conflict with Goal 3, Object 3.5 (2) and Goal 7 of the Town of Southold
Comprehensive Plan. The DEIS should further examine the impacts of potential direct discharge of
wastewater into groundwater and discuss how this will be mitigated. As it stands right now, the DEIS
makes no mention of what entity will be monitoring this situation or enforcing upgrades or
modifications as this inevitable situation occurs.
The proposed action is inconsistent with the following goals and objectives of the Land Resources
(page 22-26 &39)section of Chapter 6.
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 fields and woodland 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:
A) Retain and add indigenous plants to maintain and restore values of upland ecological
communities.
B) Protect existing indigenous plants from loss or disturbance to the extent practical.
D)Reduce adverse impacts on upland habitats due to development.
E)Mitigate impacts of new development where avoidance of impacts is not practicable.
Mitigation includes:
1)Avoidance of potential adverse impacts, including:
a)Avoiding ecologically sensitive areas
b) Scheduling activities to avoid vulnerable periods in life cycles or the
creation of unfavorable environmental conditions
c) Preventing fragmentation of intact upland habitat areas.
2)Minimization of unavoidable potential adverse impacts, including.
a))Reducing scale or intensity of use or development
b) Designing projects to result in the least amount of potential adverse
impact
c) Choosing alternative actions or methods that would lessen potential
impact
Discussion:
The 4+ acre site of proposed extensive excavation is a natural feature. It appears in historical
photographs and soil boring data provided in the appendices support this fact. The soil boring data
provided in the DEIS may point to deposition of dredged spoils on a small portion of the area, but in no
way makes up the entirety of the site and therefore excludes it from being considered a "natural
feature." Therefore, the proposed action is wholly inconsistent with Goal 1.
The excavation site is also populated with mature Coastal Oak-Beech forest and noted as "high
quality" within the DEIS (page 119) and by the applicant's consultant Dr. William Bowman at the public
hearing (June 5, 2023). The proposal calls for the clear cutting of over 600 mature trees that provide
ecological benefits and is adjacent to preserved land. Therefore, the proposed action is wholly
inconsistent with Goal 2 and Objective 2.1 and 2.2.
The DEIS also does not address Objective 2.1 D. Included in Chapter 3 "Land Use and Zoning."
Objective 2.1 D. -Marine Zoning Update—Evaluate the uses and bulk schedule of the marine zoning
districts (MI& Mll) to ensure they continue to support the goals of the Town.
The marine zoning districts provide a means of access to the water through both public and
private facilities. These zoning districts were created to ensure there is ample public access to
the water, while balancing the need to protect the fragile environment of the shorelines and
waterbodies. Consult the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program document, incorporated by
reference into this plan, for specific recommendations, and conduct new analyses of the
existing marine zoning, permitted uses and the bulk schedule.
Discussion:
The Planning Board must consider the fact that the MII zoning category was specifically identified in
the Town's comprehensive plan as needing a reexamination due to the intensity of use that can occur
in this zone, and the inconsistency with such use in areas of significant coastal sensitivity (such as that
directly effected by the subject application). Although the Town Board has not yet codified specific use
changes to the MII zone, the SEQRA process provides the Planning Board with broad latitude to
address such issues through the imposition of substantial mitigation measures (including building size,
scale and location), overall project alternatives, and Negative Findings Statements, which conclude
that the action proposed is unable to achieve a level of environmental protection that is commensurate
with the scale and magnitude of potential impacts.
Alternatives Section
SEQRA requires that, "the description and evaluation of each alternative should be at the level of detail
sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed."The DEIS must include
this level of detail in its discussion of alternatives. Simply stating that an alternative is not desired
economically by the applicant does not rise to the level of analysis that's intended by the SEQRA
process. The DEIS should be amended to include a further analysis of alternatives in order to
objectively and fairly judge the proposed action and alternatives with the goal to arrive at the least
environmentally impactful project.
M re d tig Lion and EnforcqrtrMent of MWl g ion Measures
The Lead Agency should require the DEIS to describe the enforcement and monitoring mechanism of
every single proposed mitigation measure to ensure that the measures are taking place and working
throughout the life of the proposed action's construction phase and beyond. Without such explanation
and detailed monitoring mechanism, the proposed measures may become meaningless and not
function to truly mitigate the environmental impacts they were intended to address.
For instance, what entity will monitor the following proposed mitigation measures for various portions
of construction or excavation?
1)That all trucks will be equipped with "white noise" back-up alarms, all trucks will be U.S. EPA
certified Tier 4, and the Jake Brake mechanisms will be disengaged (page 352).
2) What entity will monitor the proposed seeding and subsequent stewardship of the "green wall" to
ensure that the native plant species remain native and that invasive species do not overtake new
plantings with the opportunity to spread and further impact preserved land. Relying on wildlife to seed
an area is unreliable as described here: "Three sections of the Evergreen concrete retaining wall would
be filled with topsoil to allow for seeding by wildlife" (page 166).
3) Who will be monitoring the proposed "wildlife" sweeps prior to land clearing and excavation (page
145)?
Further, several proposed mitigation measures offered in the DEIS should not be considered
"mitigation" measures. Many of them are in existence today as the site consists in its current form, are
required by statues and/or are not proposed to be secured by covenant or codification.
For instance, Section 2.4.3 Proposed Mitigation, states, "Approximately 8.28 acres of Coastal Oak-
Beech forests on the subject property(approximately 66 percent of the existing 12.60±acres) will be
retained. These remaining Coastal Oak-Beech forests retain 70 percent of the site's oak(Quercus sp.),
American beech (Fagus grandifiolia), red maple (Acer rubrum), hickory(Carya sp.), and sassafras
(Sassafras albidum) trees"(page 143). Even if these trees were retained, there is nothing in the DEIS
that covenants them for protection in perpetuity and the retention of trees cannot mitigate the loss of
others.
Additionally,the DEIS offers the use of I/A OWTS systems as a means of ground and surface water
mitigation to offset additional nutrient loading to Mattituck Creek(page 144). It should be noted that
these systems are required by law and one of them (at least) will eventually not be able to meet
separation distances from groundwater due to projected seas-level rise. Therefore, the use of the
systems in the location they are proposed should not be considered a mitigation measure.
Lastly, although the FLUPSY program (page 272) promotes positive economic and environmental
benefits, the program is currently in existence today, operating alongside the project site in its current
form. It should not be considered mitigation, it is not in addition to or an expansion of an action.
Conclusion
It is inconceivable that the nearly 1,000-page DEIS(including appendices) concluded that the
proposed action creates no negative environmental impacts. The SEQRA process was never
intended to be a layer of required, bureaucratic paperwork that applicants wade through on the
way toward an approval within the review process. The Planning Board, as Lead Agency, has
the authority to deny a project that does not sufficiently mitigate environmental harm, choose a
reasonable development alternative that balances environmental protection alongside social
and economic need, and impose conditions outside of its traditional areas of jurisdiction to
avoid or mitigate environmental harm. We implore the Planning Board to require that the
applicant develop a meaningful alternative which avoids the removal of the site's geologic
feature and attendant mining operation, and substantially mitigates the critical environmental
and community related planning impacts that have been identified. In the absence of such a
design modification, the Planning Board should move to issue a negative Findings Statement
and deny the project as proposed.
Thank you for reviewing our comments. Please contact me should you have any comments or
questions. I can be reach at bd luca@e t nde�nvir�qnment�org
Sincerely,
- -
Robert S. DeLuca
President
From: Terry, Mark S U 1:),
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 9:58 AM " 14MT
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strong's Marina proposal
Jtfl 202
!.. �&aWifltown
Planning Board
From: Perry Schaffer<pschaffer@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday,June 30, 2023 11:15 AM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Strong's Marina proposal
I live in Southold, Kenneys Road. I have been closely following the debate regarding the proposal for Strongs Marina. I
am against the proposal to build these two giant warehouses for giant yachts. I do not see it as a benefit to the
community. I hope a use can be found that is more consistent with the area, environmentally friendly and legitimately
beneficial to the community.Thank you.
Perry Schaffer
c: 646.483.5004
https.1 Ginktr.ee Schaffer,
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.
Lynn A. Decker and Carole Ann Myavec
547 Third Street
Greenport, NY 11944 r
July 5, 2023 S V b T
FF
RECEIVEP
To: Southold Town Planning Board """
Att: Brian Cummings and Mark Terry p
o6Ri6Fd—own ..._.!
Re: Strong's Marione Proposal Planning Board
Gentlemen:
We are residents of Greenport writing in support of Mattituck residents who are endeavoring to halt
the actions of Strong's Marine. We respectfully request that this e-mail be read into the minutes of
the upcoming meeting concerning this issue.
It is ludicrous to think Strong's proposal is to the benefit of the community and that it will have no
environmental, emotional or physical impact on the area—let alone the fact that ALL of us here on the
east end will be victim to the ramifications of the horrific truck traffic and road condition deterioration
this project will cause. To jeopardize so many individuals and so many ecological and natural resources
for the satisfaction and profit of one family/business is an egregious affront to what preservation and
responsible development are supposed to be about for ALL who live here. The project is just plain
irresponsible and self-serving. This waterway belongs to everyone on the east end and should not be
given over to one family or entity to develop for their own personal gain.
Defenders of Strong's proposed plan insist the family has been here for generations and are good
neighbors and stewards of the land, the marine environment and the community as a whole. This may
have been true at one time, but in our opinion, it feels like it is currently an empty argument in light of
what Strong's is proposing. Generations change and so do visions of those bearing a name. At this
point, it seems to appear this current generation is showing little respect and concern for those around
them as they eye growth and profit—not on what it means to be a good neighbor, a thoughtful
proponent of the natural resources and beauty and wildlife of the area, and the impact their personal
gains will have on so many others.
We don't know what variances or exceptions may be involved in granting Strong's vision—but if ANY
are required, it clearly should be sending an alarm that this project is ill-conceived and inappropriate and
should be denied.
Thank you for your attention to our thoughts.
Sincerely,
Lynn A. Decker and Carole Ann Myavec
Su b-f
P9µm�{% ' !T .µRG. MC
RECE�_.......__._......ry...............V.E..D
JUI 1 0 2023
July 6,2023 90-6t-c00, "'T-o` "
Planning Board
Dear Mr.Terry, _ -
I'm writing to express my concern for the proposed Strong's yacht storage warehouses for a number of
reasons, many of which are not adequately studied,expressed or otherwise acknowledged in the draft
environmental impact statement.
My family has lived on Cox Neck Road and Meday Avenue for four generations.We have seen a lot of
changes to the once-bucolic area, most notably the massive rate of traffic increase up and down Cox
Neck Road.The simple act of getting our mail,from our mailbox on Cox Neck Road, is treacherous as
cars and trucks zoom past at speeds of 50mph or more.We cannot safely mow the grass or rake the
leaves along that side of the road.And walking or biking to Breakwater beach,these days, is hazardous
due to the high volume and speed of vehicles, poor road condition and lack of sidewalks along the route.
Residents like us have truly"had it"when it comes to the volume of traffic up and down this road. It's
constant,day and night,too fast and extremely dangerous.And the town has repeatedly ignored our
pleas for stop signs, police speed monitoring and other measures to request more safety on this road.
• The idea of Strong's Yacht Warehouse project bringing even more traffic including tractor
trailers up and down Cox Neck Road every seven minutes for"six months" (and realistically,
likely more)is beyond treacherous and absolutely detrimental to the quality of life of
residents both along and off Cox Neck Road.
Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project will add tremendous noise and disturbance, not just from the massive
sand excavation project itself,the construction of the warehouses and the ongoing maintenance,
machinery and staff needed year-round to service the 80-foot yachts and the heated warehouses
themselves.That will never end.And it will also cause serious damage to the already threatened water
quality and nature that hangs in the balance.
In my lifetime (four decades and change), irreparable damage has already been done to the local
environment here. My dad used to rake clams in Mattituck Creek. My kids don't know the feeling of
creek muck squishing between their toes because the clams are too few,and those left are not safe to
eat.
• The environmental impact statement doesn't consider the impact from accidental spills from
cleaning and servicing chemicals from the yachts that would go into the ground,into the
surface water of Mattituck Inlet,and into the groundwater. In fall,winter and early spring,
many migratory ducks(including long tail ducks,mergansers, bufflehead, loons,grebes and
more) use the inlet to rest recover and find breeding partners before they head back north.
Their fish and shellfish(not to mention our own!)will be contaminated.
If this project goes through, it will be death by the 2,000th cut down Cox Neck Road. Recently,the
construction of the ultra-luxury"Oasis at Mattituck"development destroyed where Indigo buntings
used to flitter in the grasslands; or the"Estates at Royalton,"that had once filled the air with the sweet
smell of hay and the whinny of horses.All these places are gone,and the loss of nature,wild places and
community character is tremendous.
As a kid, I picked the most juicy and sweet peaches from the farm that is a strip mall at Cox Neck and Rt.
48. My kids don't know what it's like to have fresh peach juice running down their chins. My siblings and
I used to find box turtles in the woods and wetlands.There are hardly any turtles left here,or frogs or
snakes—my kids see them at the Riverhead aquarium now.And one of my most cherished memories,
sitting on the porch with my grandmother and listening to the call of bobwhites in the fields will be
replaced by the endless ruckus of tires on pavement.
• There is no environmental impact,modeling,analysis or engineering that takes into account
the tremendous loss of community peace and character when our natural places disappear.
Strong's yacht warehouse project is an inequitable benefit for few. It doesn't consider the intangible toll
on so many people.What about the rest of us,who don't benefit from this project?We lose the mature
trees,the vista,the wildlife,the birds. It's the quiet people who have lived in modest homes here for
generations--we all lose tremendously.We don't have yachts.We have kayaks where we've paddled
peacefully for decades. My family,friends and I love walking at Mill Preserve and enjoy the birdsong and
what is special about the East End. I've spent many quiet winter mornings here,enjoying the glistening,
ice-covered leaves in the field of locust trees.And in early spring, I've watched the bright green beech
leaves emerge under a crystal blue sky.And in fall,the preserve is bathed in the most beautiful orange
light.Who wants to take a peaceful walk only to be halted halfway by a view into an industrial area?
• The environmental impact statement insufficiently addresses and downplays the negative
consequences that cutting down some 630 trees brings.Those trees clean and cool our air,
purify our water and importantly,buffer noise.The impact statement doesn't take into
account the long-term quality of life or effect of noise disturbance on wildlife or people.
We are losing this, piece by piece, community by community the community character that has defined
the North Fork to those who have the backing,finance and louder voices to push us aside stating it's
progress.Who is going to want to come to the East End if it looks and feels crowded, loud, busy and
over-run with trucks and warehouses? In a rapidly developing world,today's youth can identify over
1,000 corporate logos but fewer than 10 plants and animals native to their own backyard.We need
nature not only for our physical but also our mental health.
• The environmental impact statement doesn't take into account the detriment to Southold
Town's own investment in Mill Road Preserve if this project goes through.The loss of tourism,
patronizing of local businesses by visitors down the Cox Neck and more. Birdwatching,also
known as birding, is one of the fastest growing hobbies in North America.According to a US
Fish and Wildlife Survey,the percentage of Americans who watch birds for fun has doubled,
and now includes 20%of all U.S.residents.Who wants to come to watch birds in a polluted
inlet or a clear-cut forest?
There is an alternative: conserve this land, buy it with the flourishing Community Preservation Fund.This
project doesn't benefit the local community. Our community.The entire North Fork. It favors the few
and chisels away at the little we have left here. Please consider the next generation of children and give
them the chance to have some semblance of an understanding of what is so special about the East End.
-Kara Jackson,V generation resident; daughter of Yvonne Grobert, 75 Meday Avenue, Mattituck.
From: Terry, Mark S t;bf
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 9:56 AM P d14-!n M r- C
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strong's Yacht Center Project RECEIVED
566tl'old l awn
Planning Board
From:tacopatty@optonline.net<tacopatty@opton line.net> p(o . — (p - 10 t L 3 .q
Sent:Thursday,July 6, 2023 11:54 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strong's Yacht Center Project
Dear Sirs:
I am a 40+ year resident of West Mill Road in Mattituck who thoroughly enjoys the peace and quiet
and escape this area affords us to the chaos you encounter once you arrive on Sound Avenue.
I have followed the interviews, articles, and letters to the editor [in Suffolk Times] and feel obligated to
voice my concerns of the Strong's Yacht Center project.
First and foremost, the planning board should base their decision on what is right for the residents of
Southold Town and NOT on the reputation of the Strong family.
West Mill Road right now is in very serious need of maintenance. The road is crumbling in many
places. With the addition of the anticipated heavy duty usage on the road I can foresee our public
road quickly disintegrating.
Last weekend a very serious situation evolved at the corner of Bergen Avenue and Cox Neck Road.
An oversized tractor trailer hauling a yacht tried to make a left turn from Bergen Avenue onto Cox
Neck Road at about 10:30pm. The tractor trailer was unable to make the turn and hung itself up
across Cox Neck Road closing the road to anyone who lived or traveled to or from Rosewood
Estates, Breakwater Road and the homes in the Capt. Kidd area, Jackson's Landing, homes down
Bayview Avenue, residences on West Mill Road, and homes on Naugles Drive. There was NO way
for anyone to leave or return to this area, No emergency vehicles could reach the area. The road was
closed for about 2 hours. Many large trucks hauling sand will be turning and traveling on these small
roads not built for such heavy traffic. This is a very serious incident that the planning board needs to
consider.
Please carefully review all of the issues before making a decision that will forever change our area
and town and impact our safety.
Respectfully,
Patricia M Wolbert
i
1590 West Mill Road, Mattituck, NY
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
z
From: Terry, Mark S V
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 9:54 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin P L�w1 j, sC
Subject: FW:Trapped in Breakwater area RECEIVED
JUL 10 2023
' a6a-thol lawn .
From:Ann Boor<annsboor@gmail.com> Planning Board
Sent: Friday,July 7, 2023 10:17 AM f /_ _ (0 _
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us> V l® 1
Subject:Trapped in Breakwater area
We moved to Mattituck five years ago, and it didn't take too long to realize that there was only one way to leave our
area. Out Mill Rd/Cox Neck Rd. If we cannot get past there to reach Westphalia or 48, we are trapped unless we can
reach Bergen.June 30 we could not. No doctors, hospitals,emergency vehicles,trains, plaines. You name it.We are
aging, and beginning to question the ability to age in place here.The Strong's Marina project is just part of the problem.
We need a back door exit, hundreds of us do or we are trapped.There is another option. In the new Oasis subdivision,
there could be access to what is now a private road. It is a private road that leads to Bergen, another way out. I
understand that the road is currently private, but in five years,we have seen plenty of examples of where the Town
does what it thinks is best(think hardware store--and when is that new, must needed park coming?)This additional exit
is something that demands eminent domain.We have been very concerned about this, and now we have seen it
happen. Literally trapped, no exit, no way to a hospital or an ambulance to us, We ask the Town planning board to put
this in the mix of consideration.This is a very dangerous, scary situation.
By the way,we've been calling/writing all this time about poor cell service in the area.Another danger. Last we heard, a
year ago, supposedly that got handed out to Verizon and T Mobile. Is the Town following up? Because I don't think
they're coming! Another dangerous situation at home, on the road,wherever you are in Southold unless you happen to
be by a rare short cell tower.
I look forward to your updates
Ann Boor
230 Linda Rd
Mattituck
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:S3 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strong's Marina expansion, Mattituck Inlet
RECEIV
2023
..E
i5
From:William Albertini<balbertini@me.com> 10 Sent:Sunday,July 9, 2023 11:27 AM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us> L
Subject:Strong's Marina expansion, Mattituck Inlet g Board
To the Southold Town Planning Board..
y
I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding Strong's Marine's proposal to construct indoor heated yacht
storage on Mattituck Creek.As a tax-paying homeowner in Mattituck with extensive boating experience and a previous
client of the marina under its former ownership, I believe it is crucial for the local community's interests to be
considered, and I urge you to reject this proposal.
First and foremost, Strong's proposal lacks substantial evidence to support the necessity of such expansive warehouses.
It fails to provide adequate justification as to why the existing 70,000 square feet of indoor storage at Strong's Marine
cannot meet the demand. While the owner has made verbal claims about potential clientele,there has been no
comprehensive market study or assessment of the proposal's viability in relation to other winter storage options within
the area or beyond. Mr.Strong has mentioned connections to affluent boat owners in the Hamptons,Westchester, and
Connecticut, but there is no evidence indicating local demand from Southold Town residents, nor has he presented any
credible projections to substantiate his assertions of contributing to the tax base.
Secondly,the proposed project is both wasteful and destructive, disregarding potentially less impactful alternatives.The
unnecessary heating of entire storage sheds could be avoided if proper winterization of vessels' systems is ensured.
Temporary enclosures can be utilized for work on individual boats requiring a heated environment. Moreover, exploring
solar options for heating should be a priority.
Thirdly, instead of resorting to excavation for the new storage shed, Mr.Strong could consider building on higher ground
and constructing an overhead track hoist to facilitate lifting and moving vessels directly from the haul-out basin to the
new shed,thereby bypassing the need for travel lifts that are unsuitable for inclined ramps.The excavation plan seems
designed to exploit a loophole that permits developers to evade the requirement of a mining permit when removing
sand for construction projects.This valuable sand, locally known as"bank sand" -because you take it straight to the
bank! -would serve to finance Mr.Strong's project. Additionally,there is no guarantee that requests to dredge the inlet
to accommodate larger vessels will not emerge post-construction.
Lastly, Mr. Strong fails to address how the addition of nearly 100 very large yachts in such a confined waterway will not
endanger small boaters, kayakers, and swimmers. He overlooks the irrevocable changes that these vessels will impose
on the inlet, affecting the current users. It is imperative to consider the potential risks to local recreation and
acknowledge the lasting impacts this proposal may have on future generations.
I implore you to carefully consider the fact that Mr.Strong is leveraging his local ties and attempting to divide the
community in order to push through a proposal that exclusively benefits him and a select few employees.This project
poses significant short-term issues, such as increased traffic and noise,for a considerable portion of the community.
1
Moreover, it presents substantial long-term consequences for generations to come, including environmental damage
and risks to local recreation.
While Mr. Strong represents his own business interests, it is your responsibility to represent us,the town residents, as
well as the town's children and grandchildren. I trust that you will fulfill your duty and make the right decision.
Best regards,
Bill Albertini
balbertini_ me.corn
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
2
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 9:53 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strong's Marine Yacht Storage Project
Svb-P
From: LINDA AURIEMMA<laurie6656@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday,July 9, 2023 4:14 PM P
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us> RECEIVED
Subject: Fwd: Strong's Marine Yacht Storage Project F.....'_
,I U L j 0 20231
°ft)6d Touvn .._.,
Planning Board
+ 13 •�
Begin forwarded message:
From: LINDA AURIEMMA<iaUrie665f M gop.cor >
Date:July 9, 2023 at 4:12:23 PM EDT
To: brian,c Wwnn sou.�th d.n .0
Subject:Strong's Marine Yacht Storage Project
To the Planning Board:
We see virtually no public benefit from this project and irreparable harm to the residents of the town of
Southold and the environment if this development is allowed to move forward.
We are not anti-business but this construction will only benefit the Strong family&the out-of-town
Megayacht owners.The scope/size of these 2 storage buildings is obscene &the construction, increased
truck&large boat traffic will inflict permanent misery in our town.
Please do not let this happen. Say NO.
Sincerely,
Linda & Paul Auriemma
460 Fred Street
New Suffolk, NY
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.
ub>
From: Michaelis,Jessica MT L
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 9:22 AM
7R�"
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strong's Marina Proposal, Mattituck NY
Ju. .Planning Board
From: Barbara Farr<bfarruse@aol.com> 10 b- — G — %O +, 13.4
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:16 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica<jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strong's Marina Proposal, Mattituck NY
Dear Southold Town Planning Board, I have been following the debate between Strong's Marina and
the community members of Mattituck and surrounding communities regarding the proposal to build
two huge heated storage units for the housing of yachts off-season, and the associated planned
removal of a hillside that is currently home to wildlife and serves as a shore-line barrier to a beloved
and ecologically significant nature preserve.
I wonder how many people will be actually casting up or down votes on this proposal at the end of the
day? Six, eight, ten, fifteen, twenty? And I wonder how many voices in opposition will it take from the
community, in order for the proposed project to be rejected? One hundred? One thousand? Five
Thousand?
While I live in an adjacent community and am not a neighbor that will be directly affected by the loss
of the natural parcel of woodlands or the stream of dump trucks going by my home for six months, I
am very aware that one of my neighbors could easily hatch a similar proposal for a commercial
venture, and I could find myself in the same boat (pun intended).
While the folks in Mattituck aren't my direct neighbors, they are my neighbors, in that our
neighborhood communities are intertwined here on the North Fork. I feel their pain and frustration.
Besides the fact that it's very likely I will be directly affected by the stream of dump trucks, whenever I
attempt to venture west of Mattituck and Riverhead, or return through Riverhead and Mattituck. And I
just can't imagine how beat-up the roadways are going to get.
But most troubling is the thought of the loss of the woodlands and an entire hillside. For what? To
provide a haven for wealthy people to heat their luxury yachts during the cold winter months? I would
venture that there are people living here on the North Fork who are unable to provide adequate heat
for their families during the cold winter months. What type of a community are we?
It's a certainty that the entire planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming and glacial
melting, and that will bring an irreversible rise in sea levels and more intense hurricanes and
nor'easter storms to Long Island. We are on the front lines here.
The idea that ownership of a parcel of real estate gives the owner an unbridled right to develop and
do as they please in the interest of economic gain is a concept that has been dying a hard death over
the past century or so. Unbridled development is how we've gotten into this mess in the first place.
1
As a philosophical concept, and as hard reality, we are only stewards of the land, for future
generations and all of biological life.
I can imagine a different resolution here. Perhaps there's a better location for these storage units
than on this particular parcel. Perhaps the Strongs could explore a partnership or joint venture with
another local marina, located away from a residential or natural area, where these storage units
would not be so different from existing structures. I can think of a few possibilities that I drive by, both
east and west of Mattituck.
And with respect to the specific parcel of wooded hillside, it seems to me that this debate has
identified a network of community members that would be in favor of a purchase for preservation,
think this type of approach would ultimately be a win-win for all concerned, and we could all go
home at the end of the day and feel good about ourselves and our community.
Best regards,
Barbara Farr, Esq.
Cutchogue, NY
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
z
From: Lanza, Heather
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 9:09 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Cc: Cummings, Brian A.;Terry, Mark
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong Marine proposal for Mattituck Creek--public comment
From: Rob Buchanan<avironvoile@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday,July 8, 2023 11:45 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>;
Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us>
Cc: Russell,Scott<Scott.Russel l@town.southo Id.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong Marine proposal for Mattituck Creek--public comment
Dear Southold Town Planning Department and Planning Board,
As a small-boat mariner and an advocate for water quality and public access, I'd like to offer my perspective on Strong
Marine's proposal for Mattituck Inlet.
The Inlet is one of Southold Town's most valuable natural assets--the largest wetlands complex and the only natural
harbor and protected anchorage on the Sound side of the North Fork. Its shores are already'built out' with waterfront
homes and private marinas, and its waters are crowded with docks and mooring fields.The cumulative result of this
development is poor water quality, reduced habitat, and less space for public recreation.
If the expansion proposal by Strong Marine were to be approved, it would exacerbate all of these problems. Bulldozing
acres of forest and carting off an entire hillside--a hillside that's been there since the last Ice Age--will only hasten the
decline of Inlet's water quality, diminish the area's ecological diversity, and forever alter the town's geographical and
cultural heritage. Furthermore,the annual arrival, docking, and departure of 80 megayachts--yachts that are by any
common-sense measure too large for a diminutive waterbody like the Inlet--will destroy the on-water experience of
everyone else who uses it.
Private property rights are important, and the Strong family's desire to expand their business is understandable. But
their business is built on the back of a fragile and ecologically significant public space that's unique in Southold Town.
Any thoughtful observer knows the Inlet cannot take much more development, let alone the kind of industrialization
that this proposal represents, without suffering irreparable damage. Please put the interests of the public and the
environment first, and say no.
p Q SU bf-
Rob Buchanan f"L _
305 Fifth StreetRECEIVED
rt
917 656Greenp07285 0 2023
Planning Board
10(0 . - !o - 1O4- 3Ll
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:08 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Strong proposal] RECEIVED
E JUL
-----Original Message----- Soufho--i a -(ow'n
From:johnson@chass.utoronto.ca <johnson@chass.utoronto.ca> Planning Board
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 8:50 AM 1
To: Michaelis,Jessica<jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> ` ��• ` n ♦' [�
Subject: [Fwd: Strong proposal] '
We write to add our voices to the opposition to the Strong proposal,which will be disruptive and destructive of the
essential qualities of the North Fork.
Robert and Laura Johnson
430 Koke Drive
Southold
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
SV bf
PB HL , MT, Bc Mc
�.. ._...
July 9, 2023
a
TO: Southold Planning Board 6 6 '6
RE: Strong's Marinas Warehouse Buildings DEIS Planning Board
r. - i 0 4- 13 ,
Statement Submitted by Beth Lebowitz, 465 Harbor View Avenue, Mattituck
Planning Board Members:
My name is Beth Lebowitz. My husband and I are residents of Mattituck at 465
Harbor View Avenue on the east side of the Inlet. We have a direct and wide view
from our house, deck and backyard of the Old Mill and the marinas, boat docks
and outdoor boat storage on the inlet including Strong's current storage buildings
and the site of the proposed development.
The DEIS for this project demonstrated seriously inadequate treatment of the
zoning, the environmental impacts and the alternatives.
I am a city planner by profession and I worked in the Zoning Division of the NYC
Department of City Planning for many years, the last 11 as deputy director and
director before I retired in 2019. 1 also worked in the Economic Development
Division of the Planning Department, working on industrial, and commercial
revitalization development plans, and in capital budget and infrastructure
planning among other areas, should you think that all of us who are concerned
about and opposed to this project are simply anti-development.
The DEIS is very inaccurate about the Zoning and does not clearly demonstrate
that the project complies with the zoning. Most simply the DEIS is inconsistent in
its description of the applicable zoning. In some sections it refers to the entire
parcel as being zoned M-11, but in others it acknowledges that part of the parcel is
zoned R-80. Because of these discrepancies, and a lack of clear presentation of
the size of each parcel, the applicants' bulk calculations are not precise or
accurate.
A serious underlying problem with the zoning is that the boundary between the
M-11 and R-80 portions is uncertain. The zoning maps accompanying the 1989
Southold Law 1 show the boundary between the maritime/industrial and
residential districts was moved several hundred feet to the west of its previous
Iocation.The previous location logically followed the edge of the existing bluff.
But there are no records of an official action authorizing this change, or
explaining the planning rationale for this change, and the associated zoning map
with metes and bounds was never submitted to the County. This issue needs to
be addressed as part of the environmental review of the project, and must be
resolved. Typically applicants with zoning lots with unclear boundary lines or
where records of the official adoption of zoning designation are incomplete or
missing, are required to include with their proposal an application rectifying the
zoning. This should be done before any SEQRA findings statement can be
prepared by the Planning Board.
Moreover, M-II Zoning district rules as set forth in section 280-54 of the Zoning
Code state that the proposed development should have direct access to marine
or tidal waterways. Given the site's elevation, it does not, and is therefore non-
conforming with the intent of M-II zoning, whose purpose is to "maintain the
existing pattern of maritime use." Instead the site will have to be intensively
modified to make it suitable for the proposed use, which will disrupt the "existing
pattern of uses including land, soil, topography, tree cover and soil material."
A smaller issue but nonetheless problematic: There is lack of clarity as to
ownership of Parcel 1000-106.-6-10 which is part of the Project parcel. This
parcel is not listed on the Town of Southold assessment roll.
The DEIS does not clearly present the method for calculating the maximum
building height of the two proposed storage buildings. According to Zoning Code
section 280-4 building height is to be measured from adjacent natural grade.
There is no clear indication how adjacent natural grade was calculated. This is
especially problematic given that the proposal involves lowering the grade by 30
feet, which is certainly not intended by M-II zoning.
However, the DEIS does state that the proposed warehouse building height is 45'
8" measured from ridge height to adjacent grade. According to the Zoning Code,
the maximum building height in an M-II district is 35 feet. This is clearly not
compliant with the bulk regulations in the district or with its intent.
My concerns regarding this development extend beyond the lack of compliance
with the zoning regulations and are many. Most important are environmental
concerns shared by many neighbors in the community over the impact of the
construction of such large buildings that require the demolition of woods and the
hillside sited over the inlet. There were to my count over 40 speakers over the
two public hearings who spoke knowledgeably about the impact on the water, on
the roads and houses of traffic, noise and vibration, on birds, bats, small animals,
water quality in the inlet and aquifer and trees and plants. These impacts are not
acknowledged in the DEIS.
Currently the site consists of a wooded hillside. The proposal starts with the
excavation of 135,000 cubic yards of sand out of the hillside to create a site close
enough to the water for storage of very large yachts in two 45' tall buildings
totaling 100,000 square feet. The resulting buildings would occupy an enormous
footprint on the former hillside at about 10 feet above the level of the water.
Hundreds of trees of large caliper and many hundreds more smaller trees,
shrubs and grasses that help retain a hillside from crumbling into the inlet will be
removed. This lovely old beech and oak woods currently provides enormous
ecological benefit to the area.
In addition to creating habitat for birds and other wildlife, the trees act as a
natural canopy - cleaning air and absorbing water from rain reducing run off into
the inlet, feeding the aquifer with clean water, unlike water that drains with its
pollution into the aquifer through grass or other surfaces. This is not
acknowledged as a unmitigated impact.
The applicant would substitute for the removal of an entire hillside of woods that
took 90 years to grow to their maturity, a retaining wall of enormous size- close to
900 feet long and 40 feet high. As everyone knows who has driven on a
highway- retaining walls work except at the edges where dirt, shrubs, small trees
and rocks slide down around the ends especially after rain. They certainly don't
replace woods scenically or ecologically.
The proposed development site is adjacent to the Mill Road Nature Preserve.
The woods adjacent to the preserve provide a natural transition area where
shrubs spring up and provide a protective border area for wildlife.
Many of the speakers at the hearing addressed the negative effects of the trucks
needed to remove the sand, the vibration, damage to the roads, dangerous
narrow areas where the construction trucks and a school bus will have difficulty
passing each other, the risk of vibration damage to homes and to historic
buildings along the route.
Finally, the alternatives to the proposal required in a DEIS are barely considered
and are inadequate.
Protecting natural areas generally occurs to towns after so much damage is done
that the protections can only secure a small portion of what should have been a
large legacy for future generations. New York City developed a set of special
zoning regulations for Natural Areas which were mapped in large swathes of
Staten Island and sections in the Bronx. One of the main issues addressed was
development on steep slopes, including limits on tree removal and imposing
requirements to replace trees. Hillsides are protected by special rules limiting
development to portions of the property that are not steep, in so far as feasible,
and by reducing the footprint of a development that by necessity intrudes on a
steep portion of a property in exchange for greater height. Excavation of the sort
envisioned here was prohibited precisely because it damaged natural features
and endangered the buildings below. Given how precious the natural
environment is to North Forkers it would seem imperative to protect the hillsides
and the woods here - especially adjacent to equally significant waterways.
There is much to be concerned about in this proposal and it does not in any way
express the best use of this property according to any of the guidelines set forth
in the Town of Southold plan or zoning
Statement submitted by Beth Lebowitz
July 9, 2023
From: Michaelis, Jessica
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 8:1S AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project F g 1 ` �
RECEIVED
10 2023
,.U....
From: Meredith Ritter<meredithritter46@gmail.com> " ¢�ut� o'I` ]=own"""
Sent:Saturday,July 8, 2023 2:26 PM Planning Board
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project �V(�j • — !O 13`
My name is Meredith Ritter and I reside on Middle Road in Calverton, NY. I am aware of the many objections to this
project that have been put forth by Southold residents, and I concur with their assessments of this proposed
construction.
Major developments on our beautiful North Fork create major problems for those who live and work here. These yacht
warehouses will cause irrevocable damage to the environment and to the peaceful lifestyle of all Northforkers. The
Green Amendment to the New York State Constitution states that"every resident of NY State has the right to clean air
and water and a healthful environment." This project will have a negative impact on all.
Please reject this proposal,and protect your town.
Respectfully,
Meredith Ritter
Foxwood Village
Calverton, NY 11933
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
i
JEAN SC1 WEIBISH
200 Walnut Place
Mattituck, NY
631-655-5034
��� lh� lcrtll�c°c��lr�,
July 8, 2023
To. %v bf
Mark Terry, Assistant Torun Planning Director RECEIVED
o- J
and � _6 los�...
tFoi '� w
Jessica Michaelis, Senior Office Assistant Planning Board
Re: Comment on Strong's Yacht Center Boat Storage project DEIS
The following points are meant for ZBA area variance applications, but to me
they address relevant issues related to the Strong's application and its DEIS.
Grosser Consulting Inc. does what it can to convince the PB that the proposed
Mill Road project is consistent with "Community Plans and Studies" (§3.1 of the
DEIS), itemizing the permitted uses for the parcel under the Town's Zoning
Code, while tiptoeing past what must be done to the property to make it viable
for ANY uses in either the R-80 or the M II zone. It makes much of jobs (too
few), tax revenue (with multiple years of tax breaks), the need for storing yachts
(not for anyone local to the North Fork), while minimizing the environmental
and community ramifications. So, I put it to the Town and to the Planning
Board:
1) Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the
neighborhood and/or a detriment to nearby properties occur?
2) Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by a feasible
alternative?
3) Is the application's "ask" substantial?
4) Would the application have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood?
5) Is the difficulty with the scope of the project self-created?
In addition to considering the above questions, I encourage the PB to think
about how this application could be mitigated to minimize the substantial
adverse impact.
As the proposed Strong's Yacht Center project stands, I am adamantly against
it.
Sincerely,
Jean Schweibish
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 8:15 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin Svbf
Subject: FW: Strong's Yacht Warehouses DEIS. H L, MT, 13c,mc
RECEIVED
JUL 10 2023
From: Diana Horowitz<diana.horowitz@gmail.com> ouzo
Sent: Sunday,July 9, 2023 12:13 AM Planning Board
Subject:Stron 's Yacht DEIS. Y 06' — �o -.. i�µWWt'
To: Michaelis,Jessica <essica.michaelis@town.southold.n us>
g 3.y
The natural environment of the North Fork is endangered by projects such as this that cater to wealthy visitors and
tourists. Destroying this natural wonder to store yachts is an outrage.As well, it should be considered illegal due to
threatening the integrity of the creek and the preserve and harming the habitats of engendered species. I join with all
the voices being raised against this project to implore the Town of Southold to refuse to authorize this terrible
destruction, which would also set a horrific precedent for other North Fork communities.
Diana Horowitz
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
Juan Micieli-Martinez
295 Newton Ave.
Riverhead, NY 11905
g► 1-'4 L M ► ..j.S C, M C.
9th July 2023 .....m. .........
I JUL 10 2023
Mark Terry, Brian Cummings, and Heather Lanza �c
L .....-_
�affi Town.w..,...,
Southold Town Planning Department Planning Board
54375 Route 25 .
P.O. Box 1179 Q _. a `�' 3-L'
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Sir or Madam,
Greetings, I am a Riverhead resident and am writing today in opposition to:
Strong's Yacht Center, LLC Proposed Boat Storage Buildings to be
constructed at 5780 West Mill Road, Mattituck Inlet
I am in opposition to this proposed action due to the loss of natural habitat,
species impacts and adverse effects that would be caused by such construction.
This action will result in decreased coastal resilience. Collectively as an Island we
must work together to mitigate coastal resiliency and this will only accelerate
those impacts. Additionally, I am concerned about the increased truck traffic that
would be put onto Riverhead Town roads,
Thank you for your consideration
Respectfully,
Juan E. Micieli-Martinez
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 8:16 AM S V -
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strong's Yacht Center project ?u o k4 L 1 MT 9 C
I..,.._.__,._....... ......................_.RECEIVED_
Q
LJ L 1 0 1,023
From: linda Imtogalaw.com <linda@lmtogalaw.com> _._.. 6 fF " O—W
Sent:Saturday,July 8, 2023 6:14 PM Planning Board
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Strong's Yacht Center project 10(O ' - - Q + 3 . Li
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed construction of additional storage facilities at the
Strong's Yacht Center location. Having heard and read many of the justifications for and against the project, we remain
unconvinced that the negative environmental impact, congestion and potential hazards to residents of Southold are
justified by the purported benefit to the community.The removal of a large number of mature trees and vast quantities
of soil poses unknown risks to the environment.The deterioration of roadways and the constant noise and traffic from
the construction site will have a detrimental effect on the nearby residents of our community.And, as clearly illustrated
by misdirected truck carrying a yacht to Strong's Yacht Center last month, even after construction is completed,
Southold residents could very well suffer as huge yachts are transported through our town.Jeff Strong makes a point of
saying in his letter to the Suffolk Times that the truck and trailer that caused traffic to come to a stand still and
prevented people from leaving and emergency vehicles from entering the area was"properly permitted, and was
accompanied by a local escort/pilot vehicle as required". Rather than assuring us that there will not be any ongoing risk
to Southold residents, Mr.Strong's statement highlights the fact that things can go very wrong even when requirements
are met. Why negatively impact the environment, put unnecessary stress on our infrastructure and put our residents in
harm's way to build a facility to store yachts that are already being stored elsewhere?
We steadfastly and loudly say no to this project and urge the Town to deny the proposal to build additional storage at
the Strong's Yacht Center
Linda M.Toga
Andrew E.Toga
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 8:16 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strongs Yacht Warehouse DEIS SV bf-
14 LLj Mr . i
-----Original Message----- �.....w_......., ......_......-..�.._......_-.._....
From: Gocanes<gocanes@optonline.net>
23
Sent: Sunday,July 9, 2023 4:03 PM8"W �j
I
To: Michaelis,Jessica<jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> --96jt-F6RF1'>�mrrv.__
Subject: Strongs Yacht Warehouse DEIS / Planning Board
Gordon Gecko was wrong,greed is not good I V • " G — 10 i- 3
This project benefits one family and not the community. How many local residents have the need or desire for this
facility. Not only does Mattituck not need this facility,there is no demand for it.The Strongs are hoping to create the
need for it,which would not be the local community. Go to Strongs during one of their boat shows and mingle.Theses
are the people the Strongs are hoping to attract.They are not"Mattituck" people.They are what a local paper said are
infiltrating our area and are creating "The Hamptons 2.0."This is what has already started out here,just look at the
houses that have been built since the pandemic.And these people don't appreciate or love Mattituck.Some are raping
Mattituck of its charm. Buying small quaint homes, knocking them down and putting up the biggest possible McMansion
they can, and selling to another weekend warrior who thinks Mattituck is cute. Mattituck is losing its character and
history fast. I know eventually it will, but allowing projects like this will just speed up the process. During all of the public
hearings, the rule was supposed to be talking about the legality of the project.Yet most of the people that supported
the project,just said what a wonderful family they are and would do "the right thing". I personally know that the Strongs
family personally went to local businesses and asked them to speak on their behalf. A lot of these people didn't come
out to speak in support the project because they truly believed in the project,they did so because the were asked and
maybe felt slightly pressured. While a majority of the people who spoke against it, had valid legal arguments. One of the
best arguments against it, stated that the previous owners (Tate family) had tried to do the same thing many years ago
with the same plan and the board decided against it. What has changed?Why is it now ok? 13 full time jobs doesn't
override the destruction of nature, degradation of character or the inconvenience that the community will bear.
Sean Mc Carthy
Hide Away Estates, Mattituck.
Resident of the creek since 81
Sent from my Mad
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Michaelis, Jessica
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 8:17 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Comments on Visual Impact - Strongs Marine Yacht Warehouse Project
SVbp
P B_1-t-M T, (3 ( MC
From:Anne Sherwood Pundyk<annesherwoodpundyk@gmail.com> - ~EIV~ ...-.._.. °-E
Sent:Sunday,July 9, 2023 6:09 PM JW j 0 2023
To: Michaelis,Jessica 1 dy L
Sub ect: Re: Comments onlVisual l Impact-StrongsuMarine Yacht Warehouse Project 96Jt-Fi6" Town
Planning Board
Dear Jessica, kM . - (o - l0 k 1 3 .Li
I have found an additional error in section 3.4 Aesthetic Resources, page 229 of the Revised Draft Environmental
Impact Statement(DEIS)for Strong's proposed Yacht Warehouse Project in Mattituck dated November 2022. Please
include this message in the public comments along with my comments submitted July 8, 2023.
On page four of my comments submitted July 8, 2023, 1 use the language from the DEIS as follows:
"The view from the most southern trail of the Mill Road Preserve is shown in Viewpoint#4 in Appendix Q." The location
of Viewpoint#4 does not appear to be on the southern most trail. It is not clear if the location on the Viewpoints Map Key
is intended as the view in question or another location on the southern end of the Mill Road Preserve. The descriptive
term "most southern trail" is not accurate. This is another point that needs correction by the developer.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Sherwood Pundyk
annepundyk.com
@anne sherwood.pundyk
Artsy
On Sat,Jul 8, 2023 at 5:35 PM Anne Sherwood Pundyk<annesherwood sand k mail.com>wrote:
Dear Jessica,
Could you please confirm your receipt of my attached statement concerning the visual impact
section of the DEIS for Strong's Marine Yacht Warehouse Project?
Please add my comments to the public files for this project.
Thank you,
Anne
i
Marian E. Lindberg, Esq.
11 Whitney Lane/P.C). Box 761
VVe|nscott NY1I975
July 9, 3O23
^%V bp
Southold Town Planning Board
S3095 Main Road F�
Southo|d, NY11971 RECEIVED
c/o Mark Terry, Assistant Town Planning Director
and Jessica Michaelis,Senior Office Assistant
Jessica.Michaelis@town.southold,12y.us Planning Board
Re: �N~^ — ( — 10
Dear Members of the Planning Qoard:
| attendedthehearingsinK4ayand]uneandappredatetheopportunity1msubnnitvvritten
comments on this important matter affecting the future of eastern Long Island and New York
State. I have been involved in land preservation efforts in Southold and frequently visit the
Town for social and recreational reasons.
I agree with many of the concerns about the proposed yacht center expressed at the hearings
and will focus my comments on the conflicts between Strong's proposal and New York's climate
policies as articulated in the Climate Action Council Scoping Plan (Climate Action Plan).After
years of study by experts, the plan was adopted in December 2022 as our State's framework for
addressing climate change and protecting residents from its many adverse impacts.
The Climate Action Council determined that New York cannot meet its 2050 goal of net zero
emissions through renewable energy and efficiency alone. According tothe Climate Action Plan,
15% of the solution must come from additional sequestration of carbon by trees. Accordingly,
the State seeks the reforestation of 1.7 million acres by 2040 (p. 372). Local governments are
called upon to work with the State to "clearly address afforestation or reforestation" (p. 383)
andtohe|p "keepforestsasfmrests...assomnospossib|e" because "forestssequesterandstmre
much more carbon than any other land use in New York." (pp. 3G8-69).
Approving an application that involves the cutting of over 600 trees would put the Town of
Southold at odds with these policies.As the Climate Action Plan states, "protection of forests,
cropland, and wetlands is critical for natural carbon sequestration and improves the resilience
of communities." (p. 364) Emphasizing the role that local governments must play,the Climate
Action Plan states:
To ensure zero-emissions electricity while increasing sequestration to reach net zero by
2050, local governments will be challenged with balancing these different types of land
use. Smart growth and local clean energy siting assistance, paired with other land use
strategies to protect natural and working lands will be necessary immediately and in
the long term to help communities meet local needs while balancing land use priorities
and pressures. (CAP, 365, emphasis added)
The Climate Action Plan makes it clear that there would be a climate benefit to preserving the
acres of forest on the Strong property(not to mention numerous co-benefits such as
biodiversity and wildlife habitat). If the Town allows the trees to be cut,the climate impact is
not simply the carbon they will release and the loss of the trees' continued absorption of
carbon, but the tremendous generation of new GHG emissions that would unleashed. The trees
would be cut to enable the nonessential, long-term use of massive amounts of energy to store
yachts in heated, cavernous buildings. In addition to that new long-term use of energy,the
construction process to clear the wooded acres, remove the bluffs,transport the sand, and
erect the buildings would use a great deal of energy in the short term—and, as the Climate
Action Plan states, "diesel trucks are one of the largest sources of local air pollution." (p. 159)
It should also be noted that yachts,when not in storage, are not an energy-efficient means of
transportation of the sort urged by the Climate Action Plan.A yacht uses a significant amount of
energy, especially when operating on its generator(s), even if a Ships Energy Efficiency
Management Plan is in place.
In our climate-changing world, it is patently against the community's interest and the State's
climate policies to replace forestland with heated storage for yachts, especially when the yachts
would not belong to local residents, but would be coming from Westchester and Connecticut,
piloted by Strong's staff, according to the applicant's representatives.
The final Environmental Impact Statement must document that the Planning Board has
considered the policies articulated in the Climate Action Plan. It is difficult to see how an
application to replace a carbon sink with a carbon geyser can survive such scrutiny.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
mze" 5. .4"amf
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 8:17 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin Sub -r-
Subject: FW: Strong's Yacht Warehouses DEIS
-----Original Message-----
p�. m
From:John Rooney<jpr3261761@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday,July 9, 2023 9:06 PM Planning Board
To: Michaelis,Jessica <Jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> . �
Subject:Strong's Yacht Warehouses DEIS 04 �' 10 +4- 1 3 . W
As a resident of Southold for 25 years, I oppose the Strong's proposal. Our environment cannot be sacrificed for the
benefit of a few. It is wrong for the future of us all. John P Rooney,Southold.
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: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 8:17 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Comment for Strong's Yacht Warehouses Proposal DEIS
SVb•P
PBHL. MTV BC Mc
RE CE IV E rLNJ
From: Petrina Engelke<petrina.engelke@gmail.com> Wj 0
2023
Sent:Sunday,July 9, 2023 10:09 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> U �
Subject: Comment for Strong's Yacht Warehouses Proposal DEIS Planning Board
Dear members of the Southold Town Planning Board, O� •µ ca 16 + 3
I am writing you to comment on the draft environmental impact statement(DEIS)for the Strong's Yacht Center
proposed boat storage project in Mattituck. I love Strong's and I am happy to see a marina continuously in local hands,
and I appreciate that if the weather turns bad on Long Island Sound,we can turn into the creek with our 30 foot sailboat
and dock at Strong's as transients. However, I see no public need for the proposed yacht storage and hardly any public
benefits, but on the other hand, a bunch of adverse environmental impacts. Here are my thoughts in detail:
1)The DEIS completely omits a "public need" section. I think this is the most important consideration at all.We don't
need yacht storage, period. For the benefit of a doubt, let's look at what the DEIS lists as"public benefits".
2) Please do the numbers for the project's projected tax income for Southold through sales and property taxes, which is
listed as a "public benefit" in the DEIS.Sales tax currently is at 8.63%, and after state and county got their share,
Mattituck receives 0.38%. For this project, let's assume 20,000 dollars of sales per yacht for storage and services.That
comes down to 76 dollars per yacht. If an amount like that counts as public benefit, we are in big trouble.
3)The DEIS also mentions the creation of 11 jobs.That hardly makes a dent for the public, and the DEIS does not explain
the type of jobs. With yachts coming in for winter storage in the fall, leaving in spring, my guess is this will only be
seasonal work, or, if year-round, these workers will likely replace the ones who work at Strong's in the summer. On top
of that, anyone working for marine businesses already has a hard time to find housing they can afford.The proposal
does not address accomodation for these employees.
4)The DEIS seems to grossly overstate marine traffic in the creek in order to downplay the impact of 88 large yachts (68-
86 feet).The DEIS claims 547 active boats in the creed on a peak season day, how is that supposed to work? Mattituck
Inlet is about 1.8 miles(9,504 feet) long. Suppose those boats average a mere 30 feet,then,even if they somehow could
sail touching one another aft to bow,the whole creek would be filled with boats plus a long line at the entrance (547
boats x 30 feet= 16,410 feet).There is obviously much less traffic in the creek, and in contrast to large yachts,those
smaller boats make less noise and waves that disturb the creek's peace and ecosystem.
5) Apart from the obvious adverse environmental impacts-from clearing 634 trees to removing habitat for threatened
and endangered species to the dangers of increasing runoff polluting the creek-the yachts will use lots of resources,
taking them away from our community. In particular,they will burden our electric grid, because yachts of that type have
entertainment systems that need to be heated and run so they won't break over the winter.There is no mention of
creating or using renewable energy for this use in the DEIS.So we have to assume the storage facility will increase the
burning of fossil fuels, which exarcabate climate change. And as a community on the water, any contribution to rising
sea levels is an adverse environmental impact.
t
I hope you take my comments into consideration,thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Petrina Engelke
Petrina Engelke
1116 Main Street
Greenport;NY 11944
ATTENTION:This email came from`an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
2
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 8:18 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin SV b f
Subject: FW: Strong's Marine Development Project
From: christine rendel <crendel@me.com>
Sent:Sunday,July 9, 2023 11:56 PM _foul T
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us> Planning Board
Cc: Michaelis,Jessica<jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. 1 Q(o . (p +1 3
<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strong's Marine Development Project
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe that the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement(DEIS) does not adequately address the following:
ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHT
The Strong's Marine developer has argued that he has a right to develop his land and business as he chooses, and many might
agree with him. But I-and everyone who lives here in this beautiful place-have an environmental right that I believe
outweighs a developer's right. My right is a constitutional right,enshrined by New York State after voters, by a margin of 2
tot, approved an amendment to the Bill of Rights in the NYS constitution.Article 1 Section 19 reads in its entirety:
"Environmental Right. Each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment."
What this developer proposes will destroy our healthful environment, negatively impact protected wildlife,flora and fauna,
and leave us at the mercy of a changing climate, rising sea levels, and incessant noise.
TRAFFIC AND SAFETY
I am very concerned about traffic and safety on our local roads in the area.There will be a minimum of 80 haul trucks per day,
10 hours a day, 5 days a week for significantly longer than the proposed "6 months to a year",amounting to one every 7 or 8
minutes between Mattituck and the LIE. Regardless of the accuracy of the estimated excavation/haulage/construction period,
it's impossible to deny pedestrian, cyclist,school bus and resident concerns regarding safety on Cox Neck and West Mill roads
as a result of this proposal.These concerns apply to all who use the old, meandering and already damaged road. Further,
there are no pavements on these roads, and so walking,cycling- even just visiting your mail box-will be hazardous. Imagine
a large, laden truck barrelling down the narrow road every 8 minutes and no place to safely stand or be off the road should a
vehicle in another direction approach or pass. Mail carriers trucks and school buses make frequent stops during the day, and
laden trucks will frequently have to stop and idle.
COMMUNITY CHARACTER
When we bought our home in Shore Acres over 35 years ago,we did so in large part because of the peaceful, bucolic area that
has stayed quiet,safe and unspoilt.We came for community character. And when the public land for the Mill Road Preserve
was preserved forever by Southold Town, our neighborhood became, if possible, an even more beautiful and restorative place
in which to live and thrive.To walk daily up and down Bayview Avenue, Cox Neck and West Mill Roads in safety,walking our
dogs, listening to bird song, pausing often to observe and reflect on nature and the peace and beauty that surrounds us, is a
precious part of where we live. In future,when I walk along our quiet little lane, instead of seeing the beautiful Matittuck
Creek I'll now look down on two industrial-style buildings,warehouses five times the size of the once-proposed contentious
Brinkman's Big Box store.This doesn't seem in keeping with the character of the community.
1
MILL ROAD PRESERVE
The negative impact on the publicly-owned 27 acre Mill Road Preserve that is adjacent to the site is undeniable.There are no
adequate mitigation statements provided that will remedy the damage that is proposed to the Preserve,the ancient beech
forest, and the teeming wildlife and ecology of the area. How can you contemplate strip-mining a hillside-an area that's
home to endangered species and species of concern-when you know that the damage you will do in the process cannot be
mitigated and is irreversible?
FIRE
The warehouses will be heated by a total of 8,000 gallons of propane, in addition to the hundreds of gallons of fuel each of the
88 yachts will hold in the buildings. How can we even consider this is safe? A fire would be a disaster. And with the proximity
of the Preserve and ancient beech forest and the increasing temperatures and across-state increase in forest fires,this project
seems to me even more reckless. If there were an explosion or big fire,the only fire truck and heavy equipment access to the
site is West Mill Road.There is no significant reliable access via narrow North Drive.
WATER QUALITY
Surface water pollution,disruption of ground water wells, potential flooding, run-off and erosion are clear concerns.
CLIMATE RESILIENCE
Lowering a coastal elevation by 40'during unprecedented sea level rise sounds to experts unwise.At the last town hall
meeting,even the project engineers were unconvincing in their assurances of climate resilience despite such a (an unecessary)
coastal disruption.
COMMUNITY BENEFIT
In whose interest is this Strong's Marine proposed project?Who really benefits from it? Will the small number of jobs (the
developer remains vague on the nature of these jobs, part or full time,year-round or seasonal) make up for what our
community will lose?Will those 88 yacht owners who will store their boats here stop long enough on their bi-annual visits
make significant contributions to our local economy or community? Likely not.
So what,or who, is this all for?So a developer can exercise his right to do with his land what he wishes, regardless of the
damage and danger to the environment and the cost to the community in which we all live?
This issue before us may be local, but we've all seen this before,the churning up of our forests, our roads,the loss of wildlife
and tranquility.
Let us make no mistake:once we've lost it, it's gone,and there's no going back. Ever.And size will set precedent on our
Fork. Approval would make it so much easier for the next obscene mega development to be approved.
In conclusion, I've read the DEIS, and nowhere do I find a compelling community reason why this project should be approved.
I'm opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. Respectfully, I support the Planning Board
rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Sincerely,
Christine Rendel
PS I would like my email to be part of the public record
2
From: Michaelis, Jessica
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 8:18 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet- Opposition Letter
From: Lena Koropey<lenakoropey@danielgale.com>
Sent:Sunday,July 9, 2023 9:10 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet-Opposition Letter
Dear Southold Town Planning Board:
This letter serves to oppose the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. As a resident of
Mattituck, my street overlooks Mattituck Inlet, Strong's Marine current warehouses and the site of the
proposed new development. If the objective of the new development is to provide storage for eighty yachts,
perhaps there is another location that is zoned more accordingly/favorably for such a warehouse that would
be less degrading to the environment?
Do the storage warehouses need to be built along the fragile ecosystem that is our inlet itself?
Considering storage facilities,thoughts of Amazon warehouses and personal storage warehouses come to
mind. These types of warehouses are typically inland. Perhaps it would be feasible, easier and more cost
effective for Strong's Marine to simply transport the eighty yachts to an inland destination once a year rather
than permanently disrupt a natural waterfront habitat solely for storage purposes?
The inlet and its surrounding areas are preserved, sacred spaces. We need to do all we can to protect them
and mitigate environmental risky endeavors, especially considering that there may be other viable, less risky
and less degrading options available for yacht storage. �V b
Thank you for your consideration and support. T G M�
RECEIVE
Best regards, o._......._. ... _.. ...w.__.. _..�._w.._
JUL
Lena ,,,_
n..
Planning Board
Lena Koropey I 0(a - — — I .� 3 L)
Licensed Real Estate Salesperson
Daniel Gale Sotheby's International Realty
+1 646-248-0976
LenaKoro eDanlelGale.com
www.DanielGale.com a ent Lena-koro e
i
Real Estate Board of NY (REBNY)
NINJA Trained Agent
httDs-//www.linkedin.com in le a
htt s: www.sotiebvsrealtv.com/eng/```sell-with-U$
Notice: Daniel Gale Sotheby's International Realty does not make requests for wire transfers via email; nor does the firm
attempt to obtain confidential information through email including bank account numbers, credit card details, social
security numbers, or other similar personal data. If you receive an email that appears to be from our company and
requests that you wire funds or reveal confidential information,email fraud may be involved. Please do not respond to
the message,and contact us immediately at: fraudalerts daniei aie.com or 800.942.5334.ATTENTION:This email came
from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails.
z
From: Michaelis, Jessica
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 8:19 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Marine Mattituck Inlet Proposal
F B L. MT 5c,
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Heus<rgheus@mac.com>
Sent: Saturday,July 8, 2023 1:18 PM U 10
To: Michaelis,Jessica<jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>; Michaelis,Jessica
<jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong's Marine Mattituck Inlet Proposal tt _ Manning Board .
Southold Town Planning Board- 1 v a + 3
As residents who live on the Mattituck Inlet and interact with the aquatic environment daily, my family and I are very
strongly opposed to the proposed expansion of Strong Marine's yacht storage facility and marina.
The proposed project is a disaster for many reasons. It is outside the character of the inlet community, it is not of
longterm economic benefit to the neighborhood (only the developers), and it is not environmentally sound planning. it
also simply creates a wealth gap storage facility which is antithetical to the community nature of our town.
The inlet is very busy as it is and needs no further traffic or impact to its physical environment. Please stop this project
from moving forward for once and for all for the future of Southold.
Thank you.
Richard Heus
rgheus@mac.com
310-466-4452
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Monday,July 10, 2023 8:16 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Information for manual ID of northern long-eared bat presence
Attachments: KMets_MattitucklDs.docx
Su b-P
From:Theresa Dilworth<tiwworth@northforkaudubon.org>
Sent:Sunday,July 9, 2023 7:31 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> �ouo t w.....
Subject: Fwd: Information for manual ID of northern long-eared bat presence Planning Board
Jessica:
104P. - (v 3 . y
As support for my letter regarding bats dated July 3 sent to the Southold Town Planning Board and Planning
Department, I'd like to submit the attached email from Dr. Kristjan Mets. He is a doctoral graduate of the Ecology and
Evolution Department at Stony Brook University with extensive experience working in bat research and conservation. He
has worked with bat researchers on Long Island as well as state agencies in New York, Missouri, and Arkansas.
He has also separately submitted a letter to the Town Planning Dept. received May 12, 2023 which contains important
information about the Northern Long-Eared Bat.
Dr. Mets reviewed the bat calls I recorded and concludes that the Northern Long-Eared Bat is present.
Best regards,
Theresa Dilworth,Treasurer
North Fork Audubon Society
65275 County Rte.48
Greenport, NY 11944
631-477-6456
httJ northforkaudubon.or
---------- Forwarded message---------
From: Kristjan Mets<kristian.mets mail.com>
Date: Sat,Jul 8, 2023 at 1:48 PM
Subject: Information for manual ID of northern long-eared bat presence
To:Theresa Dilworth<tilworth northforkaudubon.or >
Hi Theresa,
I apologize for taking so long to go through the bat call data. I know the deadline is coming up for public comments, so I
wanted to send you some information to at least confirm that northern long-eared (Myotis septentrionalis, MYSE) bat is
present in the areas where you were recording.The DEC should come to this conclusion as well but let me know if you
need a more detailed write-up and thorough catalog of the recordings you've sent.
I
I looked for search phase calls in the recordings.These are calls that are longer and less rapid, with typically ten or fewer
calls per second.These are the most distinctive between species and allow for the best differentiation.
In New York, northern long-eared bat can make similar calls to little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus, MYLU), eastern small-
footed bat(Myotis leibii, MYLE), and Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis, MYSO). I'll use the four-letter codes since that's what
gets labelled in software.
Spectrogram
showing a typical ultrasonic
navigational pulse f or the
nine bat species found in
New York Skate. Image credit_
Kathleen McDaniel of ERM, on
environmental consulting firm. kHz
Hoary Big • r •
Silver-haired red brown
The differences in the calls can be seen in this example slide taken from a public presentation. One difference is in the
characteristic frequency(fc), which is the frequency of the primary call at its lowest slope.The fc for MYSE and MYLU are
both in the 40 kHz range, while it tends to be a little higher for MYSO and especially MYLE.The key difference for MYSE
calls is the steepness of the call; it extends into higher frequencies of above 60kHz and has a shorter duration.
MYLU have longer search calls with a duration over 7ms. Shorter calls can thus be ruled out as MYLU. MYLE have a
higher fc, so calls that extend to around 40kHz can be ruled out for MYLE. MYSO calls typically don't extend into high
frequencies.Though, as you know, MYSO is also endangered.
2
Little Bros (Myotis lucifui
`m
� N
3
�Mk 'OOYSE Call
Shapeo.
--------------...... ------ ------------
40
134
12p
fi4
110';
106
1Gq`
94`
05
84
ra.'
le
be,
ae
46
poi
3a-
3
Call
from r rr. ""
;fir; f2 14 13 1i 17 2b 2? 24 29 34 31=
FM sweep may be nearly linear makingfc difficult 1
Shaped like MYEV and MYTH but distinguished by 1
Quiet but consistent calls
These are some examples of how MYLU and MYSE calls can be differentiated.
Given this, I can point to some recordings that are clearer in quality and have the specific characteristics of MYSE calls.
These are calls that were automatically ID'd by the software as MYSE, but I've manually verified:
4
1
HE El .►.
20230521_200126\MYOSEP_20230521_204107
01
rr r is „r, /
20230521_200126\MYOSEP_20230521_204131
5
Sao
20230523_195263\MYOSEP_20230524_011941
20230523_195263\MYOSEP_20230524_025743
6
lil '-1 7 1
20230526_200650\MYOSEP_20230526_204558
20230602_194601\MYOSEP_20230602_205350
These samples include calls from multiple days and both recording locations. Note that the time axis on these images
will be slightly different.These calls make me very confident that you are recording northern long-eared bat, though the
DEC may need physical confirmation from a mist-net survey.That would be outside my capabilities. However, if it would
be useful to get the full manual ID list with a write-up, let me know. I hope this will be useful for the comments to the
planning board.
Best regards,
Kristjan
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
8
JOEL KLEIN, �Phwwa .D., RPA
. .. . .......... �. .. ....W w. .
635 Lloyds Lane,Mattituck,New York 11952 !Su b-P
July 7, 2023 f B 1 H L I M
Southold Town Planning Board RECEIVED
54375 Main Road
UL ° 3
Southold, NY 11971
PO Box 1179
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Planning Board
PROPOSED STRONG' S YACHT STORAGE BUILDINGS
5780 WEST MILL ROAD I — — O + 3
MATTITUCK, NY 11952
TAX MAP NUMBER: 106.-6- 10 & 13. 4
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
Members of the Southold Town Planning Board:
At the May 15, 2023 public hearing on the referenced project, I submitted extensive comments
critical of the project's DEIS. Subsequently in a variety of public forums, including the June 5,
2023 public hearing, additional information has become available that requires me to augment
and elaborate on the comments I submitted relating to the DEIS' project description, its
discussion of the need for the project, and its discussion of project alternatives.
Small Business Status
At least two commentors on the DEIS have indicated that they support the proposed project
because they support local small business. It should be noted that Strong's Yacht Center is
NOT a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA). One
commenter's statement that"small businesses [are defined as those] employing less than 500
workers" (Chris Young 5-15-23) has no basis in fact. Strong's Yacht Center falls within NAICS
Code 713930 (Marinas). The Marina Economic Impact Calculator used by the DEIS to estimate
the project's economic impacts is based on data from businesses falling under NAICS Code
714930. As of October 1, 2022, US SBA Size Standards define small business' failing under
Code 713930 as those with average annual receipts of less than $11,000,000. Average annual
receipts/revenue is generally calculated as total receipts/revenue or total income plus cost of
goods sold (including all affiliates, if any) over the latest completed five (5)fiscal years divided
by 5 (13 CFR 121.104)The number of employees is not a factor in determining small business
status for marinas.
According to the data included in DEIS Appendix E, total annual revenues for Strong's Yacht
Center are as follows:
2023: $20,040,000 (projected?)
2022: $19,340,000 (projected?)
2021: No data provided'
2020: $18,665,566
2019: $16,645,000
2018: $15,400,000
These numbers place Strong's Yacht Center's revenues well above the allowable maximum for
small business status.
Net Job Creation
The Applicant has pointed out that the Project will create jobs. However, the exact number and
types of jobs have not been consistently described during the SEQRA process. As I pointed out
in my May 15 comments, a Project Fact Sheet on the Applicant's web site dated April 6, 2022
states that the Project will create "at least 15 new full-time, year-round career opportunities for
local residents". In a statement made at the April 15, 2023 meeting of the Southold-Peconic
Civic Association, the Applicant again stated that the Project would create 15 jobs, and that that
would be "a big deal."
However, the original DEIS, dated December 2021, states that"11 full-time positions are
expected to be created." That number remained unchanged in the revised November 2022
DEIS which says that: "the proposed action would generate 11 additional jobs." The Applicant
did not correct the information on his posted Fact Sheet until April 23, 2023 when it was revised
to indicate that the Project will create "approximately 11 new full-time, year-round career
opportunities for local residents" (emphasis added).2
The DEIS also states that"There are currently 17 full-time staff at SYC, and upon
implementation of the proposed action, the Applicant expects to create an additional 11
positions to reach a total of 28 employees" (p.2O3)3. This is misleading, and apparently is the
result of a misinterpretation of data derived from Marina Economic Impact Calculator(MEIC)
results (DEIS Appendix E). According to the Applicant's self-reported data included as part of
the MEIC analysis, the combined number of full-time and part-time employees at Strong's Yacht
Center has been as follows:
1 "For 2021,the Applicant has advised that 2020 numbers are similar. . .." (DEIS pp.xxix,280).
2 According to a report in the October 22,2018 issue of the Suffolk Times:"Planning board member Mary Eisenstein
asked the applicants how many jobs this may create".The response was that"right now,there are about a dozen
full-time employees.With the addition of these two storage buildings,that number could increase to 25 to 30 on a
full-time basis."This exchange apparently took place during the Planning Board's October 15, 2018 work session.
3 The DEIS adds additional confusion to this issue when it states that"the projected direct impact is 60 jobs"(pp.xxix,
280). As explained above,the"60"number actually represents the total number of direct jobs,including part-time
jobs,that the MEIC estimates will exist if the Project is constructed and operates at full capacity.
2024 - 60 (see DEIS Table 49))
2023 - 52
2022—51
2021 - no data provided'
2020 -49 (see also, DEIS Table 46)
2019-48
2018-45
Because the MEIC uses a combined full-time/part-time jobs number in its calculations, its
estimate of jobs created also combines full-time and part-time jobs. The 11 jobs created number
represents the MEIC's calculation based on an increase from 49 jobs in 20204 to 60 in 2024.
The 11 jobs created clearly include both full-time and part-time positions, with most falling into
the latter category.5
At the June 5, 2023 Public Hearing the Applicant's consultant again misrepresented the
Project's job generation benefit; "Economically, the project has the direct impact of 11 new full-
time jobs".5
At the same June 5 public hearing, the Applicant (Mr. Jeff Strong)was asked by Planning Board
member Amelia Jealous-Dank:
"So of the 11 new employees that you have during the six months or seven
months that you'll be moving boats in and out, that seems fairly reasonable that
they'll have full-time employment. What happens the rest of the year?What will
they be doing?"
The Applicant responded by saying:
"So I'll answer that, but I'll give you a little context first. Currently, we have 135
full-time employees since we've owned the place in 1992. Even during the
recessions, we never had one layoff. Not one. We kept them and paid them out
of our pocket because we believe it's a way to attract people and it gives us a
competitive advantage by getting extremely talented people. Also why we pay
matching 401 k, profit sharing and health benefits. So that's the context of it."
This would seem to be inconsistent with the fact that on April 10, 2020 Strong's Yacht Center,
LLC was approved for a $191,671 loan (Loan#1998857108) under the Small Business
Administration's Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)which resulted in the retention of 14 jobs.
4 DEIS Table 46 also shows 49"direct"jobs at SYC in 1920.The numbers shown in Tables 46 and 49 for indirect and
induced jobs are also very exaggerated because they represent combined full-time and part-time jobs. The DEIS
makes no attempt to translate these numbers in to the more meaningful full-time equivalent(FTE)number.
5 Only 17 of the 49 jobs at SYC in 2021 were full-time.
6 The Applicant's consultant also stated that"The DEIS had a lower number but that was from 2021." That is
incorrect, the original November 2021 DEIS also estimated 11 jobs would be created.
That loan, and accrued interest, which was identified as being entirely for payroll, was
subsequently forgiven. Additional PPP loans were made to Strong's Marine, LLC ($935,000, 59
jobs retained)), Strong's Water Club and Marina ($185,500, 11 jobs retained), and Strong's
Marine of Southampton Management, LLC ($171,600, 11 jobs retained). All were subsequently
forgiven.'
The Applicant continued his response to Planning Board member Jealous-Dank:
"We would see these 11 jobs as being no different than what we've done since
1992 for what is now currently 135 full-time jobs. What do they actually do? We
own a good amount of properties. This being one of them. Things on the
waterfront need a lot of maintenance. So when we have down time, when they're
not working on customers, they're able to help whether it be dock work or fixing.
Just again,just my son Ryan is here. He heads up improvements and repairs for
us. There's a never-ever ending list. So they get shifted to do what we call
internal maintenance work instead of customer pay work."
It is clear from this that the estimated 11 jobs will not be filled on a year-round basis at the
Project site.
In summary, the Applicant has not provided any basis for the number of jobs that would be
created by the Project. The estimated 11 jobs mentioned in the DEIS are not based on any site-
specific calculation performed by the Applicant or the Applicant's consultants. Instead, the DEIS
relies solely on a projection from the Marina Economic impact Calculator. As noted in previous
comments, the MEIC cannot be relied upon for any projections because the model on which it is
based was developed using data from marinas with a totally different revenue stream
distribution (fuel sales, repairs, storage fees, etc.)than SYC. In addition, it is also clear that the
DEIS is misleading when it refers to the new jobs as "full-time,"when in fact, they will be either
part-time, seasonal, and or filled at locations other than the Project site. Those other locations
include the Applicant's properties in Southampton, East Hampton, Port Washington, Freeport,
and Fire Island. Obviously, the Town of Southold will, derive little benefit from jobs at those
locations.
In addition to job creation, the DEIS fails to consider that the Project has the potential to induce
job losses.
According to the DEIS "Currently, the larger boats that utilize local waters in the peak season
are being transported to warmer climates in the winter months due to a lack of adequate storage
in the Town of Southold and across Long Island." This ignores the fact that some owners are
"snow-birds," splitting their time between northern waters in the summer and southern areas,
especially Florida and the Caribbean, during the winter. These yacht owners have no reason to
avail themselves of winter storage because they use their yachts year-round. Some owners
send their yachts to southern waters to make them available for charter which creates a
revenue stream and eliminates the need for winter storage. It also keeps their captains
employed on a year-round basis. Some owners presumably do send their yachts south because
7 http,/J .f0der 1p 1y.0r/ y fleck r�cat per rr
they believe their vessels require winter storage if they choose not to send them south. This
scenario also results in their captains being employed year-round. It is this latter group that the
Project is intended to serve.
The large yachts that are planned for storage in the new buildings are, according to the DEIS
"typically captained (i.e., the owner does not drive the boat)" (DEIS p.20). The DEIS also states
that approximately 90 percent of the yachts arriving for winter storage would be "handled by
SYC staff or for-hire captains and the remaining 10 percent being owner-operated (i.e., the
yacht owner drives the vessel)" (DEIS p.205, DEIS Appendix M p.24). Appendix M expands on
this:
"The types of vessels that are expected to be stored at SYC are new or recent
model yachts with values ranging from $1M to $10M. These types of vessels are
serviced and maintained professionally throughout the season. Due to the sizes
and insurance requirements, these types of yachts are also typically captained by
licensed USCG captains that are fully trained, experienced, and capable of
maneuvering these types of vessels (i.e., the majority of yacht owners do not
captain their own vessels)" (p.48).
Yacht owners that employ captains require their services year-round if the vessel is in service
on a year-round basis. However, if yacht owners in the Project's target population refrain from
sending their yachts south during the winter because indoor heated storage is now available at
SYC, they will not require the services of captains on a year-round basis. In other words, every
captained yacht that was previously sent south for the winter and would now be placed in winter
storage would result in each full-time captain's position being changed to an approximately half-
time (six months annually) position. Even if only 25 percent of the 88 yachts proposed for
storage have captains whose positions would be reduced from full-time to approximate half-time
status, that would result in the loss of 11 full-time equivalent positions.
The SEQRA Handbook states "EISs should be written in plain language that can be read and
understood by all" (p.98). The discussion of economic impacts as they relate to job creation
falls far short of this standard. The FE1S must clearly explain how the job-creation estimate was
derived; how many of those jobs will be full-time-year-round at the Project site; and what the
total number of full-time-equivalent positions will be created at SYC and other Strong's locations
in and out of the Town of Southold. It must also take into account potential job losses that can
be attributable to the Project, and which would offset new jobs.
Nature of Created Jobs
In addition to its confusing discussion of the number of jobs to be created, the DEIS is also
confusing/vague/contradictory regarding the nature of those jobs. According to the DEIS "The
types of jobs to be created include boat maintenance, machinery operators, engine technicians,
wood and fiberglass re-finishing personnel, and administration. The salary ranges for the new
full-time positions could be expected from approximately $50,000 to $125,000" (DEIS p. 15).
Given that at least some of these positions will actually be part-time or seasonal (see above),
those salaries are actually annualized numbers and may not reflect actual annual incomes for
the new positions.
The DEIS also states that"the proposed action would create new jobs for the servicing of the
larger vessels to be stored on-site" (emphasis added) (DEIS p.178). According to DEIS
Appendix M the "repair, maintenance, fueling, washing, and detailing of boats would occur in the
same manner as they currently do on-site. Repair and maintenance will occur within the onsite
buildings and/or at the existing dock" (emphasis added) (DEIS Appendix M, p. 22). The DEIS
also states that"Upon arrival to SYC, only SYC employees would have access to the vessels
inside the building for any requested or required maintenance or repairs" (DEIS pp. xiii, 161).
Based on reporting in the Suffolk Times, this is a direct contradiction of a statement made by the
Applicant during a Planning Board work session. According to the Suffolk Times, Mr. Strong
stated, in response to a question from Planning Board member Eisenstein, that service work
won't be done in those buildings specifically, but holding more boats could potentially increase
their staff. He went on to state that"It will definitely enhance the need for painters, fiberglass
people, technicians and those types of things." The Planning Board needs the Applicant to
explain this discrepancy.
The DEIS also states that"The proposed action is expected to generate approximately 11 new
full-time jobs for servicing of the boats in storage, most of which are expected to be local
residents experienced in the maritime industry" (emphasis added) (DEIS p. 312). The DEIS
provides no basis for this assumption. Its validity is weakened by the Applicant's statement that
many of the new jobs will be at non-Southold locations during part of the year.
Maritime Economy and Maritime Heritage
The maritime sector is an important business sector within Southold's economy. However, as
some commentors have pointed out, that economy has historically been built around
commercial fishing, sport fishing and small boat recreation by local residents. In an opinion
piece in the May 4, 2023 issue of the Suffolk Times the Applicant wrote that his proposed
project would "preserv[e] the North Fork's essential maritime heritage." Business associated
with large yachts, while a segment of Southold's maritime economy, is not part of Southold's
traditional maritime heritage. This is in stark contrast to business' such as Goldsmith's Boat
Shop, whose continuing contribution to Southold's maritime economy and heritage was
highlighted in a recent article in Newsday celebrating that business' centennial.'
The Applicant went on to write that: "Our 16-acre waterfront property could receive development
approvals for a range of purposes outside of marine use." Given that the property is zoned
Marine II (M-II), it is unclear what types of proposals"outside of maritime use" could be
approved since only maritime-related uses are permitted in M-II zones.
The Applicant also wrote that the "trend has been to sell [marinas] to private equity/marina
conglomerates—often with different priorities than the longtime marinas and shipyards they
replace—or to sell to developers with residential or resort development in mind." Is this a threat
that the Applicant will do this if his proposal is not approved? It is at least misleading since
residential development is not permitted in M-11 zones.
e�7 t f/ rwa+rear wv ����Yar gg o- 4 aca.,,,,dF'li-�of a A fah,- r -sY� a sea atria— rat nrwa�j. �d�a 1
The Applicant concluded by stating that"This proposal will ensure our 16-acre waterfront
property remains a working shipyard for future generations." Is the Applicant implying that
approval of his project is necessary for that to happen?
Sincerely,
Joel I. Klein, Ph.D., RPA
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Friday,July 7, 2023 2:09 PM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: W: Strong Storage Facilities
----- . ou�hold Taws
Original Message-----
From: susan Bloom <susanilenebloom@gmail.com> Planning Board
Sent: Friday,July 7, 2023 2:08 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica<jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> V
Subject: Strong Storage Facilities
Dear Ms. Michael is,
On behalf of my husband Steven D. Bloom andd myself, I want to register our opposition to the above project. Is is bad
environmentally, makes no sense economically, destroys woodlands,clogs our waterways and roads with large polluting
yachts and is totally contrary to the way of live we all have been working hard to preserve.A comparison of the property
rights of the Strong family with the health, safety, and environment and culture of our community easily leads to the
conclusion the proposal should be rejected.
Respectfully,
Susan Bloom- Laurel
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
A MATTI
W_._1__*
July 6, 2023 QQ
Mr. Mark Terry,Assistant Town Planning Director U L..,. ., ...�T C
Town of Southold Planning Department
54375 Main Road
Southold,NY 11971 �....—_.�..�.....__....__.w_w....�,.�_..
m
Re: Strong's Storage Buildings—Traffic Safety L. to Mown --
Plannin9 Board
(Dear Mr. Terry,
Qb 'O........._.... L
— — 'I' 3 . 1
As you are likely aware, on June 30, 2023 at about 10pm, a large tractor trailer carrying a yacht to the
Strong's Yacht Center became stuck at the intersection of Bergen Avenue and Cox Neck Road(see photos
attached). While some would like to downplay this event and brush it off as a simple mistake,we would
like to highlight the fact that there is a major issue when access to and from an entire neighborhood of well
over 100 homes is blocked off.
In his July 6,2023,Letter to the Editor of the Suffolk Times,the developer,Mr. Strong,via his Director of
Marketing,offered no explanation for the incident other than to say it was a mistake and that it was corrected
going forward. He tried to cover potential criticism of his proposal by saying this truck was much larger
than the thousands of tactor tailers his project requires. Though the project haul trucks will be smaller in
length and width,they will still be about 3x heavier(a 42'Cruisers Cantius is 28,469 lbs). What is alarming
is the fact that there was an escort car,which was supposed to make things safer,and it failed. The developer
has touted that his project will use a roaming safety vehicle. Will it be as effective (or ineffective)? The
developer cited"we have received numerous yachts by truck and trailer without incident." Numerous,but
not thousands. It is unclear if they were all the same size or if the traffic figures are once again downplayed.
The developer's letter goes on to thank those community members who helped direct traffic. Our question
is: direct traffic to where? Several of our neighbors were stuck in that traffic for an hour — there was
nowhere to go,no detour. The only alternative was for those traveling North on Cox Neck Road who could
make a U turn but that would not help if they lived on the other side of the accident. This was a prime
example of our major concern about traffic. A disruption of this size, especially at that intersection,
provided an eloquent illustration of what can be expected should a similar situation recur—no road-based
emergency vehicles would be able to enter the area and no cars would be able to leave. Thankfully,Friday's
accident was nothing more than an inconvenience. Next time it might not be something that can be fixed
with an apology in the local paper.
We hope the Planning Board and Department take note of this sobering example of what could happen
should thousands of tractor trailers and hundreds of cement trucks descend on a small neighborhood. The
developer's consultants have included Bergen Avenue in the revised truck route to mitigate traffic impacts.
The route is not suitable to have one yacht delivered by truck, even with an escort car, and will no longer
be used according to the developer. It is reasonable to assume that it would not be appropriate to use it for
the project haul trucks either and again calls into question the validity of the project's traffic study.
Sincerely,
SAVE MATTITUCK INLET
Save Mattituck Inlet ♦ P.O. Box 592 ♦ Mattituck, NY 11952 ♦ www.SaveMattitucklnlet.com
Attached photos of the traffic incident—June 30,2023
� gpp
i
/
/
/ °N
Attached photos of the traffic incident—June 30,2023
i
d-
m
Attached photos of the traffic incident—June 30,2023
4
o
N
p
r
N ,.
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 9:02 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project
sub-P
REC
From: loisokongs@aol.com <loisokongs@aol.com> r1JUL
- . ._._
Sent: Friday,July 7, 2023 7:29 AM 7
To: Michaelis,Jessica <•essica.michaelis@town.southold.n us> „
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project
Planning Board
To All Those Who Are Concerned: 04• - to - 10 + 13.��
I am writing to you to inform you of my opposition of this project that Strong's Marina is attempted to
do. I cannot believe in this day and age, they are blatantly planning to destroy the environment in our
area. The removal of hundreds of trees, the excavation of sand and building of storage areas for
boats, a luxury item, is sinful. There is no need for this. It serves no purpose other than greed.
Furthermore, with the removal of the sand, it would have to go through other towns and cause
damage to buildings and roads that are along the route. It is a selfish, inconsiderate act and should
not be allowed to proceed.
Lois Leonard
43 Fox Chaser Place
Aquebogue, NY 11931
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
i
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Friday,July 7, 2023 8:37 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strong's Yacht Warehouse DEIS S Vb f
P6 H L MT c.
From:Thomas Halaczinsky<thomas@archipelagoproductions.tv>
Sent:Thursday,July 6, 2023 9:17 AM ��� ;'' " own._-.�
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> Planning Board
Subject:Strong's Yacht Warehouse DEIS O + 11 . u
To whom it may concern, '1
I am an avid boater and a full time resident of Greenport New York. I am objecting to the construction of the above
warehouses first and foremost for environmental reasons.The construction of a warehouse of that size will irrevocably
affect the biodiversity of the land not only locally but for the entire east end.One of the attractions of boating in the
archipelago of the Eastern Long Island Sound is the pristine nature and it's wealth of species to be found here.
While I am found of Strong's Marine services, I am not convinced that this warehouse will have the desired economical
effect on the local level. In fact it may turn out to be contra productive, since it shifts the service away from local
mariners to owners of for the region and waters oversized boats who will take advantage of storages that they would
fiercely object to in their back yards.
It appears to be a short term gain long term lost equation.
I urge the town of Southold to reject the application,
Regards,
Thomas Halaczinsky
Thomas Halaczinsky
Director and CEO
Archipelago Productions LLC
347 985-6885 (cell)
archi ela o roductions.ty
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Michaelis,Jessica Su b-P
Sent: Friday,July 7, 2023 8:36 AM P W
To: Westermann, Caitlin •- 't
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Vote No on Strong's proposal
J U
-----Original Message----- Planning Board
From: Nancy Mcdonald <nancymcd1124@gmail.com> ���, �. G _ p + 13 4
Sent:Thursday,July 6, 2023 7:12 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Vote No on Strong's proposal
We should not ignore the foreshadowing many Southold town residents experienced first hand this past weekend when
the trailer headed to Strong's Yacht Center could not navigate our roads.
I would call it divine intervention. Let's not ignore the message. Southold needs to vote for ALL the residents of OUR
town and not for one family or for those out-of-towners looking to store their oversized yachts here.
Nancy McDonald
500 Center St
Mattituck, NY 11952
917 699-1342
Nancymcd1124@gmail.com
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
From: Michaelis, Jessica
Sent: Friday,July 7' 2O238:36AK4
To: VVesternnann' Caitlin L1 y`
Subject: FVV: Strongs marine ' � — ' � ' ' '��
RECEIVED
-----Original Message---
From: Nancy Leskody<trimb|es@op1on|ine.net>
Sent:Thursday,July 6, 2D234:54PK8 Planning Board
To: Michaelis,Jessica<jessica.rnichae|is@tovvn.southo|d,ny'ua> {��y_ _ � ~~ \ /l �~ °��
' `~ �
Subject: Strongsnmahme
Hi Jessica
|just wanted tV let you know I'm against the Strongs marina project.Thank you, Nancy
Sent from nancyLeskody
Thnlb|esnursery
3O985RT25
[utchmgue,Nexv York 1193S
631-734-6494
trinnb|es@optmn|ine.net
Closed onTuesday
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emoai|s.
1
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Friday,July 7, 2023 8:33 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Yacht Warehouses DEIS. v6-P
P6. �.! M.Tw QG,
4
From:S. R.<brdiecat@yahoo.com> JUL 0 7 2023
Sent:Thursday,July 6, 2023 4:07 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> r uthold Town "
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong's Yacht Warehouses DEIS. o ...MPlanning Board..__
Again- I BEG you to NOT allow this to be done! U(0
I was at the meeting &spoke after having sent an email previously-
This is a unique creek/waterway/area. I reiterate-you have a one of a kind area that will be destroyed if you allow those
warehouses to be built. Once it's gone, you won't be getting it back.
The future of the ONE remaining waterway in this area with the unique life & atmosphere is in YOUR hands- if you ruin it,
YOU will be responsible. PLEASE save it for future generations!
Thank you.
Susan A. Reeve
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
VD
.w..... .. . .....�...._w_... July 6 2023
JUL
906t`h6T6T6 ri__..,.".
Dear Planning Board Members: Planning Board
This is a follow up to my email of June 29th in which 1 raised serious concerns about future fire risks in
the proposed storage buildings for Strong's marina project. As I noted, it seems inevitable that there will
be increasing pressure going forward to equip boats with lithium battery storage systems.
Media reports of two fire firefighters tragically killed within the past 24 hours, while battling a large
blaze aboard a car-carrier vessel in the Port of Newark, reemphasized to me the difficulty of safely
fighting such fires in enclosed spaces amidst tightly-packed vehicles or boats. In this case,there were
apparently no electric vehicles on board: however, lithium storage batteries in electric vehicles were
very much involved in other vessel fires in recent years.These were extremely difficult to fight and
frequently resulted in massive economic losses.
• httos://www.seatrade-maritime.coi)2/gasualty ship in un re cared-lithiummbatte -fires
Yacht fires are not a rarity, and in some cases lithium batteries in gear stored on board (e.g.,'electrified
surfboards)were apparently responsible.
• htt : www.lithiumsafe.com batte -fire-safer -marine
• htt as://www.su er achtnews.com o p erations_37rrr-andiamo-ablaze-in-miami
As this is not a rare or minor problem, I must again question whether the "fire suppression system"
proposed for Strong's warehouses or our local fire departments would be up to the challenge of fighting
such fires.
My understanding is that firefighters are still struggling to find effective methods for dealing with EV
fires out in the open. Many of the proposed techniques would clearly be difficult or impossible to
employ in the crowded confines of yacht storage warehouses (see: htt s: www,evfiresafe.con, ev-fire-
suor)ression-methods). Furthermore,for many years electrified boats will likely be intermingled with
others carrying combustible fossil fuels in their tanks.
Requiring the removal of lithium storage batteries from all yachts to be stored in Strong's warehouses
might be viewed as a potential solution to this problem; however,the marine shipping industry has
found it impossible to get full and honest disclosure of hazardous materials in shipping containers.There
are always folks who do not abide by the rules.
Sincerely yours,
John J. Rasweiler IV
P.O. Box 1032
3150 Vanston Road
Cutchogue, NY 11935
iohn.rasweiler.iv mail.com
From: Michaelis, Jessica
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 2:56 PM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project
zub�
P Q H�!.mmM._r! ..Q..c , m C
From: srolston@optonline.net<srolston@optonline.net>
Sent:Thursday,July 6, 2023 2:52 PM _.
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> JUL 0 6 2023
Subject:Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project .
J 5outh6-d to rn
Planning Board
Dear Ms. Michaelis 1.�� ...�_._..,.,___.�_.......�......, ._. �
(v 1 +- 13
I learned through the Long Island Sierra Club FB page that there is a proposal to build the captioned
warehouse in your beautiful town of Mattituck. I live 80 or so miles away but we are all affected. First,
I understand over 600 mature trees will be taken down, in addition to the construction of new
roadways to get to the shore. Long Island, like most of our world, is losing our magnificent canopy of
trees as a pace which is not sustainable. We need to preserve every single tree on Long Island.
Planting new trees will take a generation to replace the cooling effect. We do not have 30 years. We
are in a climate crisis and need each tree now to help us breathe and to protect our shorelines.
Also, my wife and I enjoy escaping to the North Fork for peace and quiet and the ability to see
multiple stars at night. I understand a Yacht Yard will require security lights. We don't need to light up
the sky any more than we have. Please help preserve our quiet spaces and have the Strong's people
find commercial property which already exists. Please do not give up one inch of shoreline to a few
wealthy Yacht Owners. They can find Yacht warehouses already operating and upgrade there, as
needed. Don't spoil our precious wild spaces.
Thank you for doing your bit to preserve this beautiful island and its clean waterways.
Sincerely,
Steve Rolston
Baldwin, NY
mobile: 917 589 4451
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2023 2:39 PM
To: Westermann, Caitlin v V
Subject: FW: Strong's Storage Facilities ?D J L I MT1 QC. MC
R,E-C-E-IVE-D
J JL
SentFrom.Thursday,July 6 Paul Ahern u2 0 2 3 21300 PMO@gmail.com> .w �i it '`Fown.—
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> Planning Board
Subject: Strong's Storage Facilities U(o , �j ( Q �-- 13 , LI
Dear Jessica-
As a resident of Greenport and a Board member of Save the Sound, I can state definitively that Mattituck Inlet will suffer
environmentally if the proposed project moves forward.
Save the Sound restores and protects marshlands and tidal ecosystems throughout the greater LI watershed region, and
has been doing this for many years.The inlet is precious and critical for plant and animal habitat and operates as a
organic system where injury in any part affects the whole.
We must preserve what working ecosystems are left in our Town. Please do not approve the plan,there must be
alternative options for Strongs continued growth.
Thank you.
Paul Ahern
Paul Ahern
a Lila 6ern100 mail.com '
406-500-1014
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
defend
H20
July 6, 2023 SU b-p
Via Email ( ) pg M-ri QC M C
RECEIVED
Southold Town Planning Board
c/o Mark Terry JW
Assistant Town Planning Director L--'-5-6—u K61d-"ow6--
Town of Southold Planning Board
C� .....__.
54375 Route 25 � Q� , _ 10 � 13
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Strong's Yacht Center Expansion Project
Dear Mr. Terry,
Thank you for receiving written comments pursuant to the subject project application.
write to expand on comments I provided during the June 5 Public Hearing on the matter.
am founder and president of Defend H2O, a Sag Harbor based coastal conservation
organization dedicated to clean water and habitat protection on Long Island. I am qualified to
speak on environmental impacts based on deep academic training and over 35 years of
professional experience working in natural resources protection.
Experience germane to the project includes extensive training in dredge and fill permitting in
South Florida. Marina siting and marina expansion projects included. I led successful
campaigns to designate the Peconic Bay Estuary and South Shore Estuary Reserve as No-
Discharge Zone (NDZ) waterbodies and provided guidance to NYSDEC when seeking the
Long Island Sound designation. Lastly, I have advanced training in coastal processes, a
scientific discipline highly relevant to the excavation of a prominent glacial feature within the
Mattituck Creek watershed.
I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and identified deficiencies
in addressing water quality impacts and inaccuracies representing the post construction
implications to groundwater resources.
With best management practices implemented, excavation and construction activities should
not pose a direct threat to water quality in Mattituck Creek. However, the addition of 88 larger-
scale vessels in a waterbody with increasingly limited boating space is a threat to water
quality. Moreover, it's misleading to categorize the addition of 88 vessels as having a
negligible impact.
Eighty eight vessels is a significant increase (>25%) in the number of boats utilizing Mattituck
Creek and will very likely result in the degradation of water quality. Increased turbidity, fuel
spills and illegal sewage discharges are the likely consequences of the expanded marina
activity.
And of greater impact, the significant jump in numbers could create a scenario where there is
no longer compliance with NDZ sewage management standards. The federal vessel sewage
No-Discharge Zone designation is based on an adequate number of pumpout facilities for the
estimated boating activity ( -
- 29 1). A thorough review of boating activity and NDZ compliance is
warranted. Regulations aside, water quality will be degraded without an adequate number of
pumpout facilities servicing Mattituck Creek.
The DEIS purported benefit of increased groundwater recharge is a false proposition. Soil
depth to groundwater is fundamental to biological treatment and recharge. Separation,
separation and separation. Groundwater from runoff (toxic chemicals) groundwater from
sewage releases and separation from marine waters.
Optimum conditions for the protection of the groundwater resources.
The notion that multi-acre deforestation and excavation of an estimated 134,000 cubic yards
of a glacial deposit is a positive action for groundwater recharge and the environment is
patently false.
Rapidly rising waters, an increasingly evident phenomenon for Long Island's three estuaries.
NYSDEC has projected a medium-range sea level rise of 11-21 inches by the 2050's. The
transformation of the coastal zone will be environmentally adverse if natural resources are not
protected for long-term sustainability.
Loss of critical intertidal habitat from rapidly expanding shoreline hardening, seawater
intrusion of fresh water supplies, increasing sewage contamination from coastal inundation:
just a few of the unintended consequences from poor land use activities.
After learning the details of the proposal, I couldn't help but think that sand mining is the
principle reason behind the project. Years of experience working in permitting and
enforcement excavation activities, and recognition of the cost of sand on a concrete-thirsty
Long Island has shaped my perspective on the matter.
Excavation of a prominent natural protective feature to accommodate nearly four acres of
structure and hardscape in an expanding marine waterbody is counterintuitive to sustaining
coastal resources and coastal living.
Groundwater quality, quantity, watershed health and the sustainability of the coastal zone in
the face of climate change will only be protected if we commit to forward-thinking
management decisions.
Defend H2O urges the Southold Planning Board to decline the application as proposed.
Thank you for your consideration to these comments.
Respectfully yours,
w'W.rµ;wiwYW M i:wr
l �
Kevin McAllister
Founder & President
P.O. Box 2557, Sag Harbor, NY 11963 - 631-599-9326 - mac.waterwarrior@icloud.com - www.defendH2O.org
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2023 12:40 PM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's expansion SVb'F
From: Doris Brautigan <dbrautigan@icloud.com> JUL ] 2023
Sent:Thursday,July 6, 2023 10:35 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> Southold down
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong's expansion Planning Board
Dear Ms. Michaelis, 10
Please add our names to the opponents of the expansion of Strong's Marina. The cost of the environmental impact is
massive and for what reason? To store yachts that belong to people who do not live in the community?
Thank you,
Doris Brautigan and Robert Eisnstat
1305 3rd St.
New Suffolk, NY 11956
917-318-9492
Website
.... ..w...�r u t F ��"�Ir Ir a r�����
�9 a
Instagram
r P" l ml.!t0r,,t r 1'1 0 LJ-/
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2023 12:39 PM Sv b-P
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strong's Yacht Warehouses DEIS PU L I MT, Bc, MC
-----Original Message----- ••---• ..
From: Laura Lessard <lauralessard@optonline.net> fanning down
Piann�ng Board
Sent:Thursday,July 6, 2023 12:39 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica<jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> 1040• — (v — to 4- 1 3 Lf
Subject: Strong's Yacht Warehouses DEIS
To Whom it May Concern,
The proposal to build on this precious pristine site is a total misuse of the treasures this island holds.There are already
so many of our waterways that are extremely developed and could accommodate this project without any impact.The
amount of shoreline on Long Island that is NOT overdeveloped is dwindling and it needs to be protected.
Sincerely,
Laura Lessard
St.James, LI
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: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2023 9:12 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin $Vbf
Subject: FW: Strong's Yacht Warehouse DEIS MT
�...__ ._ .__ ......._.._,w E.
JJ
From: MaryLaura Lamont<woodpink59@gmail.com> � � odrlo !n
Sent:Thursday,July 6, 2023 9:08 AM Planning Board
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> t O� . _ ... + 3
Subject: Strong's Yacht Warehouse DEIS
Please do not approve this awful project as it will completely destroy the ecosystem of this area-by destroying
the forest and wetlands of the area, and thereby destroying all animals and birds dependent on the area. This is
massive destruction for money and only money at the cost of what is left of the natural environment-so little
actually,but so important to preserve it.
Stop this terrible construction/destruction for the sake of what is left of the natural area. Much environmental
life,which is more important than money for the few, is worth it.
MaryLaura Lamont
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2023 8:54 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong project boat storage comment
Q Svb-'
-----Original Message----- I '� MC
From: Nancy Erber<nancycadet@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday,July 5, 2023 7:08 PM
To: Michaelis, Jessica<jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> X �N'��,,..0 .
_"
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong project boat storage comment
Dear Ms Michaelis,
Planning Board
ID G - !O + 113.E
I'd like to submit comments on the proposed project.
I live on Dean Drive and I value the water quality and the environmental protections that a complete and accurate DEIS
provides. I know that in order to build storage buildings that will be 101,500 square feet, 630 mature trees will be cut
down and a large amount of sand must be moved (approximately 135,000 cubic yards). We know that trees sequester
carbon and are essential to maintaining an ecological balance. Is it really necessary to cut down all those trees? And
what will be the impact on the community of all that sand removal and construction: trucking, traffic, air pollution,
disturbance of shoreline species and native plantings, etc?
This construction work will take place adjacent to the Mill Road Preserve.This preserve shows Long Island as it used to
be: a coastal oak—beech forest. Even the site for the proposed yacht storage is classified as a "vulnerable"forest by New
York State.
We know that this construction project is located on Mattituck Creek. I doubt that the construction and loss of native
habitat will benefit the water quality,the salt marsh and the wildlife nesting there:terns, osprey,warblers, hawks,owls,
and piping plovers.You know how hard we are trying to restore that endangered species—the plovers .
Let's make sure the project developers check all the boxes and submit a complete and accurate DEIS. It's crucial in this
climate emergency that any removal and disturbance of coastal vegetation be carefully examined and the ones that
don't measure up are denied approval.
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Lanza, Heather
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 8:52 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strongs Marine - Indoor Storage Proposal
Svb-P
PB, HL, MT, 6 Ci Mc
RECEIVEU
From:Josh Rosen <JoshR@Stellar-Alliance.com> J`L ) 0
Sent:Wednesday,July 5, 2023 1:18 PM
To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southoId.ny.us> bout odd Town
Subject:Strongs Marine- Indoor Storage Proposal Planning Board
10(0• - (O - 10 + � 3• y
Dear Ms. Lanza,
I received your information through Strongs Marine and am writing to support the initiative for additional indoor storage
space at their facility.
I purchased a 50' Fairline in Spring'22 and keep the vessel in New Rochelle during the warmer months. For the winter
season, despite being about 75 miles from my summer slip, I moved the vessel over to Strongs for indoor winter
storage. I also had all my winter repairs and service work performed there. There is limited indoor storage for yachts
around the Long Island sound cruising area, and in particular heated indoor storage.
The advantages of heated, indoor storage are numerous and significant. The hull is protected from the elements
throughout the Winter. Shrink wrap,which rubs the gelcoat throughout the winter, is not required further protecting
the vessel. Electronics, batteries and engines do not endure the cold,which extends their life. Rubber and other hose
connections do not become brittle from the cold and changing temperature,which reduces future maintenance and
repairs. The inside of the vessel remains dry which eliminates the mildew caused by the dampness from a non-climate-
controlled environment, keeping the interior and fabrics/mattresses fresh and clean.
Since the pandemic, boating in general has experienced a resurgence and I hope Strongs Marine will be able to keep up
with the increased demand, especially for indoor, heated storage.
Please feel free to reach out to me if I can provide any further information that could be helpful when making your
planning decisions.
Sincerely,
Josh Rosen
917-930-2084
MV "Rosie"
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
i
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2023 8:51 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin 'Sub;
Subject: FW: Strings marina PQ H L M� G me
ECEIVED
JUL70
-----Original Message----- Sc�Ith6 Fd—T-o,�vn
From: ejbreuer(null)<ejbreuer@aol.com> Nanning Board
Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2023 8:49 AM I�(p............. _......_.. U
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> 0 + 13 • l
Subject:Strings marina
As a resident of Southold I can not believe the town would approve an environmental disaster like the proposed marina
project. Business interests should not be able to override destructive impacts on the environment. Eileen Breuer
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.
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2023 8:38 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW:Against the proposed development
Subs
PB 14L P T- 1
RECEIVED
-----Original Message-----
JUL.
From:April Gornik<aprilgornik@me.com> d ._�:catlaµeavbrr..mm
Sent: Wednesday,July 5, 2023 4:46 PM Planning Board
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> 106 . .. 10
+ 13•L4
Subject: Against the proposed development
Dear Ms. Michaelis,
I hope you do not mind hearing from someone on the south fork, but the idea of this boat storage development sets
such a bad precedent and example for the east end, I would like to voice my opposition to it. Surely another site can be
found that does not necessitate the removal of such a large swath of vulnerable forest.
Yours sincerely,
April Gornik
61 Fresh Pond Rd.
Sag Harbor, NY 11963
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
RECEIVED
1 jug..
....1...9 Mawr►._..
Planning Board
1�fo . - w -- 10 + 13.y
I'm writing to express my strong opposition to this building proposal, which will inevitably cause heavy
damage to our precious and increasingly fragile environment.The project would involve removal of
hundreds of mature oak and beech trees, well over a hundred thousand cubic yards of sand,and
destruction of the habitat of rare and/or beautiful wild animals.
Over my 76 years of life on this, possibly unique, planet, I've seen endless and accelerating damage to
our natural environment,to the point it is becoming almost unrecognizable. Each individual action is
motivated by convenience,greed and "practicality" but the cumulative adverse impact is rarely
considered.
The site abuts and will adversely impact a beautiful nature preserve, so necessary to our psychological
well-being. Southold Town has a good reputation for environmental protection which would be
shattered by the approval of this unfortunate project.
Paul Adams
paul.adams@stonybrook.edu
From: Lanza, Heather
Sent: Thursday,July 6, 2023 8:30 AM sty b�
To: Westermann, Caitlin pg 1 N L I MT y C
Subject: FW: Strongs marine 1
JW....
From:Chris Pia <pia.chris@gmail.com> fnning To Boara+r
Pl annin d
d
Sent:Wednesday,July 5, 2023 3:30 PM
To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us> NO. — (p — 10 4..
Cc: Nicole Evers<Nicole@strongsmarine.com>
Subject:Strongs marine
To the Southold Planning Board:
I am writing to express my support of the Strong's Marine yacht storage project.As a Southold Town
waterfront resident and owner of multiple local businesses including a farm on Long Island Sound, 1
believe Strong's should be permitted to develop on their property in accordance with zoning and
local/state regulations. My understanding is that these plans require no variances, nor do they require
DEC permitting since the project is far from the water.Jeff Strong and his family have built a thriving
business on the North Fork that employs many people, and they have a history of improving properties in
our region, while enhancing the communities around them—1 believe the some thing will happen with
this project.
I am not a customer of Strong's, so 1 have no vested interest in this proposal. But I do feel strongly that
the town should support this growing business and permit them to proceed with their project which
complies with the property's zoning and all regulations.
Christopher Louis Pia
CEO Pia Capital Mgmt
Breeze Hill Farm & Preserve
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.
t.
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Wednesday,July 5, 2023 3:27 PM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Comment on DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Storage Building
Attachments: Email from Jeff Strong 110814.pdf
JUL
From: Eric McClure<emcclure@rolley.com>
� ��am.a�hold`i'own
Sent: Wednesday,July 5, 2023 2:44 PM Planning Board
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>; Michaelis,Jessica
<jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> 0 0 4- 3 .L'
Subject:Comment on DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Storage Building
Dear Ms. Michaelis,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Strong's Yacht Center's proposed storage building expansion project.
The project is fundamentally incompatible with the site for which it's being proposed, as is clearly underscored by the
need to cut down more than 600 mature hardwood trees and to excavate and truck out more than 130,000 cubic yards
of sand and soil, resulting in the permanent loss of more than six acres of rich ecological habitat.At a time when our
community is facing the cascading effects of climate change, the last thing we should be doing is removing forest for the
storage of multi-million dollar yachts for millionaires.
In addition, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)fails to adequately address numerous issues, especially in
the subject areas of transportation, ecological resources, and noise.
Transportation
I have a fair amount of experience in transportation issues, having served since 2017 as Executive Director of
StreetsPAC,a New York State-and New York City-registered political action committee and advocacy organization
focused on the safety of road users, especially pedestrians and cyclists.The planned 8,200 trips by 30-yard trailer trucks
is an enormous number, especially considering that a 30-yard truck laden with sand weighs several dozen tons. Cox Neck
Road and West Mill Road have areas of significant grade and pronounced turns,and the impact from these truck trips
will be felt by residents and other road users.
While Strong's Yacht Center says that it will ensure that all trucks will have their Jake Brakes turned off, there is
absolutely no way to enforce that. Similarly,there is no way to enforce the promise that all trucks associated with the
project will travel no faster than 30 miles per hour on Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road (the posted speed limit is 35
MPH).The same is true for the promise to deploy flaggers at curves or intersections along the route.These proposed
mitigations are all unenforceable, and should the project fall behind schedule or lose a day here or there to weather
conditions,they're almost certain to be ignored. Anyone who's ever observed or experienced a large-scale construction
project of this nature knows that truck drivers do what they want to do when they want to do it.
Furthermore,we know that the Town of Riverhead, while it has no jurisdiction over this project, has expressed serious
concerns about trucks serving the project traveling on Sound
Avenue: htt s: suffolktimes.timesrevie .corn 2023 C34 Rverhead-town-concerned-with-traffic-that-could-he
enerated-b _ ac t-store p. ro"ect at-strop s-marine-in-mattituck Their concerns are well founded.The 4,100-plus
trips made by fully laden 30-yard trucks will cause serious degradation to Sound Avenue, and probably even more so the
local roads along the route in Mattituck, especially since the excavation portion of the project is planned to take place
through the winter months, when freeze-thaw effects do the greatest damage to asphalt.
Ecological Resources
The removal of six acres of forest, including more than four acres of high-quality Coastal Oak and Beech forest and more
than an acre of southern successional hardwood forest, should alone make this project a non-starter.The forest is home
to several dozen species of birds, as well as other wildlife, including the Eastern Box Turtle, a declining species that is
considered of special concern by New York State.The clearing of trees will remove some 800,000 pounds of stored
carbon. And this is just the estimated impact within the project site.We have no idea what the impact of tree removal,
sustained excavation, and the construction of two large warehouses and an enormous retaining wall will have on the
adjacent Mill Road Preserve, the 27-acre town-owned natural area to the southwest of the proposed project.The DEIS
does not sufficiently address the potential impacts on Mill Road Preserve, and its flora and fauna, nor are the proposed
mitigations on the project site itself adequate, such as the haphazard relocation of Eastern Box Turtles, for just one
example.
Noise
Noise impacts from excavation and those associated with trucking out sand and soil have the potential to be significant,
with empty 30-yard trucks clanging their way down Cox Neck and West Mill roads while the drivers pump their brakes,
and fully loaded trucks straining back up those roads in low gear. Construction will also be noisy, and noise from
construction is exempt from the Town's noise ordinance.The only limits on construction noise are those associated with
the hours during which construction is permitted,which is largely self-enforced. While the DEIS claims that there will be
no noise impacts from ongoing operation of the proposed new storage buildings, there's plenty of reason to doubt that.
I have a great deal of experience with Strong's and noise, as I have the misfortune of living directly across Long Creek
from Strong's Water Club, which has been owned and operated by Strong's since 2013.Given my experience, I can say
with certainty that no proposed mitigation for noise generation by the Strong's Yacht Center project should be believed.
Though the Town's noise ordinance outlines prohibitions against noise pollution and disturbing the "quiet, comfort or
repose" of persons occupying an adjacent property, we and our neighbors have been subjected to a decade of intrusive,
amplified music, both live and recorded, despite hundreds of requests for relief and dozens of police reports of excessive
noise. And while Strong's is well aware of the effect its noise has on its neighbors,they've taken no action to mitigate it,
and have responded only by holding more and more events with amplified music. I have hundreds of recordings of their
noise exceeding the levels set by the Town's ordinance, but nothing has ever been done to remedy the situation, by
Strong's or the Town.
Strong's has externalized and imposed its commercial activity on our adjacent R-40-zoned neighborhood, and it's highly
likely that it will do the same at Strong's Yacht Center. When I notified Strong's in the fall of 2014 that I could no longer
in good conscience have them store or maintain my boat,which I had purchased from them in 2004,Jeff Strong wrote
back to say that they were within the parameters of the noise ordinance, had taken steps to mitigate the noise (which
was not true), and essentially, that the previous owners didn't care about making money,which really seems to be the
bottom line. I've attached that email exchange with Mr. Strong as an exhibit.
The Strong's Yacht Center property is zoned Marine II, as is the Strong's Water Club property, which has become,
effectively, a concert venue with an accessory marina and restaurant.Without stronger prohibitions against noise,
there's no telling what the impacts could be at Strong's Yacht Center.
Summary
In short,there is no compelling need for the proposed project that begins to outweigh the negative impact that it would
have on the Town of Southold's environment.The significant construction impacts, especially the creation of several
thousand heavy truck trips,the irreversible ecological destruction, and other negative effects are not remotely offset by
2
the creation of fewer than a dozen permanent jobs.This town has been serious about preserving the its precious
ecosystems, and allowing this project to go forward would directly contravene those worthy efforts. Surely if one were
to poll residents of Southold Town about what they think is important, creating more storage space for fancy yachts
would not rate in the top 1,000 concerns, while preserving mature hardwood forest would likely be near the very top.
The Southold Town Planning Board should reject the expansion of Strong's Yacht Center.
Sincerely,
Eric McClure
435 Westview Drive#864
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.
3
From: Jeff Strong Jeff@strongsmarine.com
Subject: Neighbors Music Concerns
Date: November 8,2014 at 7:04 AM
To: Emcclure@rolley.com
Cc: Ryan Strong Ryan@strongsmarine.com, Peter Donovan peterd@strongsmarine.com
Good Morning Eric,
Thank You for responding to us.We very much appreciate knowing why you are not rejoining us this winter as we value our
relationship with you very much.We do appreciate our many years of being able to service your boats needs.
As to your concerns about the too frequent music and events.....We have tried to be sensitive to our neighbors needs by having the
music aimed facing from the bulkhead to the south direction so it carries over our property.In addition we have sampled the
surrounding properties with decibel meters to be sure they are within the towns noise codes and we end the events before the
timelines the town prescribes.
All that being said,clearly it is a major change from the previous owner who basically had no events,music or customers.
I am sorry that this has affected our relationship as clearly that is not our desire.Many of our neighbors have joined us at our events
and have found them to bring the community together in a Family oriented way and be very enjoyable.We would hope you might
consider joining us in the future and get a flavor of how Family oriented they are.
Eric,Thank You again for writing and don't hesitate to reach out to us in the future if there is anything we can do for you.
Warm Regards,
Jeff Strong
President
From:Eric McClure[mailto:emcclure@rolley.com]
Sent:Friday,November 07,2014 4:35 PM
To:Bill Burrows
Subject:Re:Sea Hunt winterization
Thanks.
I've always been satisfied with the service department. However,in case anyone asks,the opening of Strong's Water Club and its far-
too-frequent live music and events that regularly disturb our peace and quiet in Brower's Woods(and often violate the town's noise
code)make it impossible for me to continue the relationship.
—Eric
From: Lanza, Heather
Sent: Wednesday,July 5, 2023 2:12 PM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW:June 30 th Trucking incident - letter to the editor-from Jeff Strong
Attachments: Jeff Strong letter to the editor 7.3.23.docx Q MT ` C
RECEIVED
Comments on DEIS. Include the email below and the attachment with it.
From:Jeff Strong<Jeff@strongsmarine.com>
Sent: Wednesday,July 5, 2023 12:23 PM Planning Board
To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us> my , — (o _ Q +
Cc: Charles Cuddy<charlescuddy@opton line.net>; Kim Gennaro<kgennaro@pwgrosser.com>
Subject:June 30 th Trucking incident- letter to the editor-from Jeff Strong
Good Day Heather,
I hope you had an enjoyable 4 th of July I I
We had an incident with a very long truck with a 13 foot wide boat on Friday evening June 30 th. Please see the attached
letter I wrote with the facts of the situation.
Wanted to be sure you,your Team and the Planning Board were aware of this. Please Imk if any questions.
Thank You,
Jeff Strong
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bridget Rymer< ,rLdy m G wexorn>
Date:July 3, 2023 at 12:07:26 PM EDT
To:Steve Wick<smwick timesrevew.com>
Cc:Jeff Strong<a ; � c . .i°.i .:`..� .b° >
Subject: letter to the editor-from Jeff Strong
Hi Steve: hope you're doing well.
We just submitted a letter to the editor from Jeff—concerning an incident that happened over the
weekend with a truck trailering a yacht heading to the Yacht Center. I've attached a copy to this email as
well for your reference.
Thanks and happy Fourth of July,
Bridget
1
To the Editor:
Last Friday evening,June 30th, a truck and trailer delivering a yacht from Wisconsin to the Strong's Yacht
Center was incorrectly directed by its escort/pilot vehicle to turn off Sound Ave. onto Bergen Ave.When
attempting to make a left turn onto Cox Neck Rd.from Bergen Ave.,the truck and its trailer became
stuck, blocking local traffic for more than an hour. Sincere gratitude to the Southold Police Department
for managing the incident, and many thanks to our caring neighbors: Doug Cooper,who helped dislodge
the truck and trailer with his tractor, and the kind volunteers who helped direct traffic as the vehicle was
being moved.The driver was then able to return to Sound Ave. and take the approved route,turning at
Cox Neck Rd.to successfully deliver the vessel to the Yacht Center.
As residents and local business owners,we take our responsibilities to our neighborhood seriously. We
apologize for the inconvenience this incident caused to community residents and those leaving the
evening's Greek Festival.
Since we opened Strong's Yacht Center in 2016, we have received numerous yachts by truck and trailer
without incident.This vehicle was properly permitted, and was accompanied by a local escort/pilot
vehicle as required;the problem arose when the driver was incorrectly directed onto Bergen Ave. We
have addressed this matter with all involved to assure that trucks delivering yachts will exclusively be
directed onto Cox Neck Rd.
Our proposal to build additional storage facilities at Strong's Yacht Center involves trucking sand from the
site along these roads. It is important to note that the trucks with trailers we've proposed for removing
sand are significantly smaller in both length and width than the vehicle involved in this weekend's
incident. Trucks/trailers proposed for sand carting are 53' long and 8' 6" wide--the truck attempting to
make the turn from Bergen Ave. was 80' long, carrying a 42' long, 13'wide boat. In connection with our
project proposal, we have done extensive studies demonstrating the safety of the size and type of
trucks/trailers we propose navigating these roads.
Sincerely,
Jeff Strong
President, Strong's Marine
$v6f
' l_ MjctM C.
EIVED
�_........._ .._ ................ ....... ....w_....
Planning Board -North Fork
�D�p • — rp _ 10 4- 13 . Ll AUDUBON SOCIETY
July 3, 2023
To: Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Planning Department
The enclosed Bat Acoustical Survey supplements our comments dated May 26, 2023 on
ecological issues relating to the Strong Yacht Center(SYC)proposal.
In summary, we conducted bat surveys from May 6 to June 28, 2023 in the coastal oak-beech
forest on adjacent properties immediately north and south of the SYC parcel. We recorded over
10,000 bat calls, of which over 2,000 were from the five species regulated at the federal and New
York state levels by the U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service(USFWS) and New York Department of
Environmental Conservation(DEC).
A total of 266 calls were detected from Northern Long-Eared Bats (NLEB), and 90 from Indiana
bats.NLEB and Indiana bats are both listed as Endangered at the federal and state level. 146
calls were from the Tri-Colored Bat, which is proposed to be listed as Endangered at the federal
and state level as of September 15, 2023. Over 1,600 calls were detected of Little Brown Bats,
which have been proposed to be listed as Endangered or Threatened by the end of 2023.
We are in the process of having the recordings vetted by the DEC's bat biologists; by Michael
Fishman, a well-known bat expert and consultant; and by Dr. Kristjan Mets, a SUNY Stony
Brook Ph.D. biologist. Surveys will be ongoing through the fall and into the early winter.
Due to the probable presence of Endangered species on the SYC site,we strongly suggest that
Southold Town:
(1) Require the Strong Yacht Center(SYC), as project sponsor, to submit a"Request for
Determination Whether Activity is Sub"eet to Regulation 5', to the NY Department of
Environmental Conservation(DEC), pursuant to 6 CRR-NY 182.9. This determination is
required because the project is within the Town of Southold, which has been established as
possible habitat for the Northern Long-Eared Bat, and because field surveys within feet of
the SYC property have indicated the probable presence of Endangered and Threatened
animal species protected by state law and regulation(Environmental Conservation Law §11-
0535 and 6 NYCRR Part 182). Because the proposed project may result in either direct harm
or disturbance to listed species, or reduce the amount or quality of occupied habitat, the SYC
project may result in an incidental "take" of an Endangered or Threatened species as defined
in NYCRR Part 182 and thus may require an incidental take permit.
1
(2) Consider, as an alternative to (1), itself requesting a Jurisdictional Determination from the
DEC.As an entity with regulatory oversight over the proposed activity, Southold Town may
request a Jurisdictional Determination pursuant to 6 CRR-NY 182.9.
It is noted that failure to ask the DEC for a Jurisdictional Determination does not remove the
subject activity from potential DEC regulation. 6 CRR-NY 182.9(a), and penalties may be
enforced under 6 CRR-NY 182.16.
(3) Require the applicant to re. nest DEC verification of the presence or absence of
Endangered and Threatened species on the SYC parcel. The applicant should be required
to verify the Audubon Society's detection of Endangered and Threatened species through
either requesting direct observation by DEC staff using the DEC's own acoustic detection
equipment and protocols, or by hiring a consultant qualified to do so according to DEC
specifications. In addition to acoustic detection, the applicant should be requested to use
mist-netting techniques to verify the presence of the species, and to use radio-tracking
methods to determine if any of the trees are roost trees or maternity roost trees.
(4) Require the applicant to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan PP P . At the federal level,
the project is not funded by a federal agency and does not require federal permits. However,
since the project may have adverse effects to federally listed species or critical habitat, the
USFWS requires landowners to contact the local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office to
develop a Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP). See t7,ttp�-//www,wf�vs , ,/s,erv„ce/habitat-
c a?n gw-vatu,a z pµ di . "Non-federal entities must develop a conservation plan that meets
specific requirements as identified in the Endangered Species Act(ESA), apply for an
incidental take permit, and, once issued, implement the project as specified in their permit.
Working with the Service,the potential applicant develops an HCP that assesses the likely
impacts on target species from the proposed project,the steps that will be taken to minimize
and mitigate those impacts, and how the steps will be funded. The plan also identifies any
alternatives that could avoid the incidental take and the reasons why those alternatives are
not being chosen. The applicant then applies to the Service for an incidental take permit."
We appreciate your addressing this matter.
Very truly yours,
Theresa Dilworth, Esq., Treasurer
North Fork Audubon Society
2
A1:;DUBON SOCaIE"FY
North Fork Audubon Society
65275 County Rte. 48
Greenport, NY 11944
Bat Acoustical Recordings: Report
Theresa Dilworth, Board Member & Treasurer, July 3, 2023
Three acoustical surveys were undertaken to examine the presence of bat species in the coastal
oak-beech forest at West Mill Road, at locations just north and south of the proposed Strong
Yacht Center(SYC)project.
BAT CALLS DETECTED: Over 10,000 total bat calls were recorded from May 6 to June 28,
2023, usually a few hundred calls per night. Bat calls may be from separate bats or there may be
multiple calls per night from the same bat(s). Over 2,000 bat calls, or about 20% of all calls,
were detected from the five species regulated by federal and New York conservation agencies
(U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and New York Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC)). The other 80% were from non-protected species.
A total of 266 calls were detected from Northern Long-Eared Bats (NLEB), and 90 from Indiana
bats. Both NLEB and Indiana bats are listed as Endangered at the federal and state level. 146
calls were from the Tri-Colored Bat, which is proposed to be listed as Endangered at the federal
and state level as of September 15, 2023.
BAT SPECIES DETECTED: All nine species known to exist in New York State were
detected. The first five listed below are those with protected status. Further details on the
conservation status can be found later in this report.
l. Indiana Bat—Myotis sodalis
2. Northern Long-Eared Bat—Myotis septentrionalis
3. Little Brown Bat—Myotis lucifugus
4. Small-Footed Bat-Myotis leibi
5. Tri-Colored Bat—Perimyotis subflavus
6. Big Brown Bat—Eptesicus.fuscus
7. Eastern Red Bat—Lasiurus borealis
8. Hoary Bat—Lasiurus cinereus
9. Silver-Haired Bat—Lasionycteris noctivagans
1
Summary of findings:
May 6- May 16- June 9-
May 14 June 2 June 28
...._..........�.__..._..._.. �...............w_ ._....... _..__. n._ _.._........
TOTAL
ID Latin Name Common Name ALL DAYS Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3
No I D _3......._..n _ _......._
w.w. _............._..........._.w....�ww____ __._m..�._�.___w.. �_.. ..._._.. ,724 2,057 1,242 425
Noise, w_.._._..............................�...... w � __ _ _
NotI D'd....___.. _ ..................�... . �www.............�.�.. _ __85 ...... 75_..__..10 _.._.._..1_.
LASBOR Lasiurus borealisµ-- - Eastern Red -� W,_,_2,841 . 266 1,197 -rt1,378
LASCIN Lasiurus cinereusWw.. Hoary mWWWWWW W www_ �1,070 -MM 699m W286 - 85
LASNOC Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-Haired www 448 213 137 - mm mm 98
EPTFUS Eptesisius fuscus Big Brown 3,735 934 1,501 1,300
MYOLUC Myotis lucifugus Little Brown 1,622 81 i_w 933 608
MYOSEP Myotis septentrionalis Northern Long-Eared 266 31 185 50
MYOLEI Myotis leibi Small-Footed 11 3 7 1
SOD _ _wwwwww_. ....-............
MYO Myotis soda Indiana 90 7 54 29
p
PERSUB Perimyotis subflavus MMaamm TriColored 146 22 Mww-m 74 50
TOTAL inc. No ID and
not ID'd 14,039 4,388 5,626 4,025
_wwww TOTAL ID'd BATS ONLY 1_0,229 -W2,256 4,374 3,599m
Protected bats � -� 2,135 wwwA144Mµ� 1,253. www738�
Protected bats%of
total ID'd bats 21% 6% 29% 21%
ACOUSTIC EQUIPMENT USED: Handheld bat detection devices Echometer Pro and
Echometer Touch 2 were used. Both utilize the same software and algorithms but the Pro has a
better microphone. Both were used at factory settings with no adjustments to any settings
including Auto-ID sensitivity, trigger sensitivity, trigger window, trigger length, gain, or sample
rate. Factory settings include filtering out noise. The recording mechanism is triggered upon
hearing an ultrasonic sound within a certain range. The GPS feature identifies the location of
each bat call. The date and time of each recording is also captured.
AUTO-ID FEATURE:
The Auto-ID feature, used for both devices, analyzes the bat recordings using hardware, software
and proprietary algorithms and provides the most likely bat species, as well as a second choice
that can be manually chosen by the user. No bats of the second choice were manually chosen.
If the algorithm could not detect a bat species, it provides a result of"No ID". Over 3,700 of the
14,000 detections were "No ID".
2
If the algorithm did not identify the bat call, it provides a"Not Identified" so that the user can
manually identify it later. Of the 86 "Not Identified", none of such calls were identified later.
The Auto-ID function is not 100% accurate, and can misidentify calls, for example, if multiple
bats are calling at once, and it can confuse the frequencies of search phase calls (when the bat is
exploring its environment) with approach phase calls (when the bat has located prey) and feeding
buzzes (when the bat closes in to feed).
Because the Auto-ID feature is not 100% reliable, it is not advisable to rely solely on the Auto-
ID function as proof that the species exists. Rather, each bat call sonogram needs to be vetted
both visually and aurally by a human being knowledgeable about bat calls. We have requested
the following individuals to vet the bat tali recordings:
1. New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)'s bat biologists. Likely
two individuals, Chip Hamilton and Casey Pendergast.
2. Michael Fishman, a renowned bat expert and consultant with Edgewood Environmental
Consulting.
3. Dr. Kristjan Mets, Biology Ph.D. from SUNY Stony Brook.
OTHER EQUIPMENT USED: Other equipment was used to hold the acoustic device higher in
the air to get better readings, closer to the bats with less ground noise. During the first survey,
methods 1,2 and 3 were used. In the second survey, methods 4, 5 and 6 were used. In the third
survey, only methods 5 and 6 were used.
1. Held in the hand above head while standing or walking
2. Mounted on a selfie-stick and held above head while standing or walking
3. Positioned upright within a container on top of a fencepost
4. Mounted on 4' high tripod
5. Mounted on 10' pole attached to tripod/stand
6. Mounted on 25' bamboo pole
LOCATIONS SURVEYED:
1. 5106 West Mill Road, Boscola residence. Locations were approximately 10, away from
the border of Strong property and 160' feet from the north edge of the proposed
construction site.
• swimming pool deck
• swimming pool fence
• parking area
• bottom of driveway
2. Mill Road Preserve, 2221 West Mill Road. The locations at the north and northeast side
of the Red Trail are estimated at 0' to 100' from the border of the Strong parcel. Other
areas within the preserve are farther away yet within the same contiguous coastal oak-
beech forest habitat.
3
• Northeast side of Red Trail, and off trail up to border of Strong property
• North side of Red Trail
• South side of Red Trail at deer exclosure
• Other areas on Red Trail between the parking lot and the north/northeast side of Red
Trail
DATES: May 6, 2023 through June 28, 2023
1. Survey#1: May 6 to May 14
2. Survey#2: May 16 to June 2
3. Survey #3: June 9 to June 28
RESULTS:
Total all surveys:
May 6- May 16- June 9-
May....14 tune June 28
.................._.. w_...._ .m............vw..........ww......._w _.._ ...................................�. .,..........._.........w_........-......................_... .. ._. .........._._._u_.........
TOTAL
ID Latin Name Common Name ALL DAYS Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3
No ID _wwww .__ 3,724 2,057 1,242 425
w_ _�w..... ......._._. ...............
Noise
Not iD`d�M.. _....._ _... ..W...�..........m__. .............M,,,,,,,,,,,m _.._.._wwwww,��_...... ..................................... ��.. .........._..$s..�.�.-..w.
.....�....��� ��w�.....�� �..
.................ww_._._.........._........�..�_..._..�....�..�.......... _..._w..............._.................................................�.�.�...._......,.,w..... .............� �.�.� .......�..............r..w............ ,_ .�.�.�.�...............�..�..............._..... .......
LASBOR Lasiurus borealis Eastern Red 2,841 266 1,197 1,378
�Hw.oary�.... ..._........ ..._.M.............1�ww� v....ww.. � ww w_ww _...._ 85
LASCI N _ _ m ....M.,... .._ __..........._M._....M.M....M.
Lasiurus c�nereus Hoar . 070 699 286 8
.................. _.... .. .. _.M__wwwwwww__....__�.g _.... ................._.__.M.m............ .w...�...._-................_._..._..... 213 _.w..137 I...............s$..
LASNOC ILasionycteris noctiva ans Silver-Haired 448
_..__mm... ..M_ 1,300
EPTFUS Eptesisius fuscusY YBig Brown .3,735 934 1501......�
MYOSEP Myotis septentrionalis _ NotrthernnLon 31g Eared . 266 . 185 50
Brown 1,622 81 933 608
MYOLEI Myotis leibi Small-Footed 11 3 { 7 1
. ............ _ ....,,....�, _ ._._....................... � .... ....� _ ... ._ 29
MYOSOD Myotis sodalis yyµµ q Indiana 90 7 54 w„ µ
PERSUB Perimyotis subflavus Tri-Colored 146 22 74 50
TOTAL inc. No ID and
not Il3'd 14,039 4,388 5,626 4,025
�......w ..........................._.......... ............ .........D'd..
TOTAL
.BATS ONLY 10,229w 2,256 _ 4,374
m.._.M.M.3,599Hw
.Protected bats..__........, w�.�.._2,13...... .... 144 1,253.. 38
..6%"
Protected bats% of
.... _.. _...
.�........,�_.._..w.... � total
..LD'd.bats
..._...�.�.... .. 21°l0 2996 21%i. .. ��__...._ ...
4
Survey#1: May 6 to May 14,2023.
In the first survey we used the Echometer Touch 2 at the Boscola residence and the Echomoter
Pro at Mill Road Preserve. Detectors were only used for a couple hours each night and not left
out overnight. At the Boscola residence, the detector was put on top of a post at the pool fence
about 10' from the border of the Strong property. At Mill Road Preserve, the detector was hand-
held or on a selfie stick and recordings were made while standing and/or walking the route from
the parking lot on the southwest side up the Red Trail to the northeast side of the preserve, along
the north border of the preserve, off the trail to the border of Strong's property up to the"No
Trespassing" sign, and back the same way.
Boscola Mill Rd Total both
ID code Latin name residence Preserve locations
No ID 622 1,435 2,057
Noise 0 0 0
Not ID'd 33 42 75
TOTAL 655 1,477 2,132
1 LASBOR Lasiurus borealis Eastern Red 66 200 266
2 LASCIN Lasiurus cinereus Hoary 259 440 699
3 LASNOC Lasionycteris noctivagan:Silver-Haired 71 142 213
4 EPTFUS Eptesisius fuscus Big Brown 277 657 934
5 PERSUB Perimyotis subflavus Tri-Colored 12 10 22
6 MYOLUC Myotis lucifugus Little Brown 13 68 81
7 MYOSEP Myotis septentrionalis Northern Long-Eared 11 20 31
8 MYOLEI Myotis leibi Small-Footed 3 3
9 MYOSOD Myotis sodalis Indiana - 7 7
Total inc. No ID and
Not ID'd 1,364 3,024 4,388
TOTAL BATS ONLY 709 1,547 2,256
Protected bats 36 108 144
Protected bats%of
total 5.1% 7.0% 6.4%
5
Survey#2: May 16 to June 2, 2023
In the second survey, the detectors were left out all night till the batteries ran out. Most
detections were at the Boscola residence at four different locations, either the pool fence on top
of the fence post,the pool fence mounted on a 25' pole, the parking area mounted on a 10' pole,
the pool deck on a tripod, and the bottom of the driveway on a tripod. Both detectors were used
at the Boscola residence, switching each night among the locations. A few readings were taken at
Mill Road Preserve, from a 25' pole mounted at the deer exclosure fence area. We summarized
the findings separately from the Echometer Pro and Echometer Touch 2.
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
ID Latin Name Common Name PRO TOUCH 2 ALL DAYS
No ID 800 442 1,242
Noise _._...........................__ ._....... _. _..........
_..............M.. .ww__.v �.......w �O 0 ._w.wwww__....�.__
....... ,. w ........... ........................_ _ ............
Not ID'd 10 0 10
1 LASBOR Lasiurus borealis Eastern Red 468 729 1,197
_.................................... ... _ . �w w ._................. . .w .. ___
2 LASCIN Lasiurus cinereus Hoary 127 _.. 159 _ 286
_ w „
3 LASNOC Lasionycteris noctivagan Silver Haired 104 33 137
_. _.._.. ......... .-.....g ........_ _w.._ ,.-..._....................... � _. ..... ......._.
4 EPTFUS Eptesisius fuscus Bi Brown 643 858 1,501
5 MYOLUC Myotis lucifugus Little Brown 286 647 933
w6 MYOSEP Myotis septentrionalis Northern Long-Eared 98 87 185
7 MYOLEI _ Myotis leibi Small-Footed 4 3 7
8 MYOSOD Myotis sodalis Indiana 22 32 54
9 PERSUB Perimyotis subflavus Tri-Colored 23 wwwwwwww.. m51 74
TOTAL inc. No ID and
not ID'd 2,585 3,041 5,626
.._w_... ........_.._.._.. _wwww_._. __...................._.............. _ww_....................
TOTA _.,..
L ID'd BATS ONLY 1,775 2,599 4,374
.. .__ .w ._...................�...�..�.www .�w..w.-Protected bats w......_.. .. 433 820 ........ 1,253
�.. .. ................... _. . w ww. ...........w..._.... _�....... ....
Protected bats%of
total ID'd bats 24% 32% 29%
6
Survey#3: June 9 to June 28, 2023
The third survey was similar to the second, but most detections were at the Boscola residence at
two different locations: the pool fence mounted on a 25' pole, and the parking area mounted on a
10' pole/tripod. A few readings were taken at Mill Road Preserve, from a 25' pole mounted at
the deer exclosure fence area. There were some rainy evenings within this period and the bat
detectors were not put out. We summarized the findings separately for the Echometer Pro and
Echometer Touch 2.
.............. ................. .. ........
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
Name Common Name Latin I PRO TOUCH 2 ALL DAYS
D N
...................-———-
iNoID 83 342 425
...........Noise _— ........................... .......... ......................
.............. ..............-...............
Not I D'd 1 0 IL
Eastern Red 474 904 1,378
-------------
'!�'�sm�R Lasiurus borealis
2 LASCIN Lasiurus cinereus Hoary 14 71 85
............................... .............................._'............................
.....................
3 LASNOC Lasionycteris noctivagano Silver-Haired 46 52 98
.....'................ ............. .................. —------- ....... ...............
4 EPTFUS Eptesisius fuscus Big Brown 545 755 1,360
...............
5 IVIYOLUC Myotis lucifugus Little Brown 90 q MMMM 518 608
6 MYOSEP Myotis;septentrionalis Northern Long-Eared 1 49 so
............
7 IVIYOLEI Myotis leibi Small-Footed 0 1 1
.............
8 MYOSOD Myotis sodalis Indiana 1 28 29
............. ........... -------—
9 PERSUB Perimyotis subf1avus Tri-Colored 20 30 50
...................... ................
TOTAL inc. No ID and
not
_ ............ I D'd 1,275 2,750 4,025
__.._._____..TOTAL ID'd BATS ONLY1,191 2,408 ......3,57
......................... ........ ......... ......... ....... -
Protected bats 112 626 738
...........
Protected bats%of
total 1 9% 26% 21%
......................... ....................
7
PROTECTED BAT SPECIES
Indiana Bat (My{sl sod6is
Federal status: Endangered since 1967
New York State Status: Endangered
/\
"Or
�
y. . . . .«°/
Photo credit, Michigan Nature Association
g±..LL»i(\man mae.wor�zesycom�a2 jn6±na-±/
8
Northern Long-Eared Bat(Myotis septentrionalis)
Federal status: Endangered since March 31, 2023
New York State Status: Endangered since March 31, 2023
YI fi I it� lip 'I .
i
r
IJ'aw oo,a ,
Ili,
w
P 8
Photo credit, Suffolk Times article dated February 5, 2018
For an article on Northern Long-Eared Bats on Long Island, see
.: ° LfcLlktirTies.tgmesreyLew.coryi , 1 bats c-wants-c c
9
Tri-Colored Bat(Perimyotis subflavus)
Federal status: U.S. Fish& Wildlife Services proposed on September 14, 2022 to list as
Endangered one year later, as of September 15, 2023
New York State Status: same as federal. Currently listed as High Priority Species of Greatest
Conservation Need.
,
�
V
of y,
i�
i
Photo credit Maryland.gov
htt s:jZLnr.maryIand.povLWiIdlife,/Pa es lants wildlife�t Blt-typgsllq Colored-Batas x
10
Little Brown Bat(Myotis lucifugus)
Federal status: Proposed in September 2022 to be listed as either Endangered or Threatened and
currently under review by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and a ruling is expected by the end of
2023.
New York State Status: Same as federal. Currently listed as High Priority Species of Greatest
Conservation Need.
Y �
n�
�,. .r oxn rr�re�la p'WpMoi "� F
r
1'NY%,rPy%i%t ,
�Nr�arYiarn 3f✓// �Ouf� � fl�i 'ry, �3I1 �„r
� ar
ra r iaa� � n / a a/ ✓ll
J u1w�i
� ara�/i %iill�twati�drt rfr a
/w taro r �..........
A r�,
eL
f' /// 7��ai III�y
p r WIN11 Jfli / ��
r�
r
Sri l 'i
JJIl'%GJI�/1�
aarJ�✓mari" / ,��a �j/'� J -:>/9�J� i�l l� �g1��4�1 /r�,%�r�/,�' /''1 / i� r /n ,a �"' o �'�' %�t'II�N,%�rr,r n w � l �,;<,,<..
o J rr i ✓1Fua 1 �i�61d fir'/,r� �i I 'i ,�r I�
Photo credit Mass.gov
jjj2 . WN. ass.'ov nows s eCe - iLfl �,h 9d G, -k s-own—b t
11
Eastern Small-Footed Sat(Myotis leibi)
Federal status: Proposed for listing as federally Endangered or Threatened in 2013, but not
listed.
New York State Status: Special Concern species.
oa
Photo credit Ontario.ca
ttw ,ontu.aca1ser�scall�.. cd rn otns.. czorµ° rty
12
svbf'
RECEIVED
JU 1 2023
._ w,
9autl��a �m�t� n
TO: Southold Town Planning Board Planning Board
FROM: Randy Wade, P.O. Box 5, Greenport, NY. 11944 vision4meme
DATE: July 3, 2023
RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement:
Strong's Yacht Center - Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
The basis for even proceeding with SEQR implies that the Town Board might consider
approving an Excavation Permit based upon a ludicrous business model. This project
should have been nipped in the bud from the start.
The zoning code includes multiple references showing intent to protect the character
and value of neighborhoods, to protect public health, to avoid pollution of inlets and
specifically that: "the most restrictive or that imposing the highest standards shall
govern."
It is unconscionable to accept that a 50' bluff should be reduced to 10' in order to create
out-of-character storage buildings for fancy Connecticut yachts that will be seaworthy
but need a pampering indoor heated storage when not in use.
How will Southold benefit from these owners driving to their yachts or having them
delivered to CT and taking them elsewhere? How will the health of the inlet and
groundwater benefit from the current stormwater discharging through 50' of filtering soil
and sand on the bluff being brought down to 10'?
A drainage plan accommodating only a 2" rain event is inadequate.
How will storing "four 2,000-gallon LPG tanks" close to the inlet to heat 88 yachts be
something the Town Board would even contemplate?
The increase of sewage by only 18± gallons per day" does not reconcile with the
increase in workers. Are these yachts to be worked on? How will the new 88 yachts
have "painting/antifouling" toxic products applied without fouling the inlet and
groundwater? Currently "Mattituck Creek is seasonally uncertified for shellfishing from
May 1 to December 31 by the NYSDEC." Is the goal a year-round closure? Only
sewage treatment from boat tanks is addressed.
The 11/22 Draft EIS did not address the inadequacies of the 5/22 memo. If the FEIS
does not as well, it should be rejected. This project should have been rejected from the
get-go to save the applicant's time and money as well as Town Government's and avoid
the anxiety imposed upon the entire community.
The following excerpts from Town Code provide ample reasons to have rejected this
plan however the DEIS makes it even more clear.
236-3. Stormwater Management chapter:
§236-2 Statutory authorization/and conflicts with other laws.
A. Statutory authorization. This chapter is enacted pursuant to § 10 of the Municipal
Home Rule Law to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of Town
citizens through land use regulations intended to control flooding, erosion or
sedimentation within the entire Town.
B. Conflict with other laws. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this
chapter shall be minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health,
safety and welfare. Whenever the requirements of this chapter are at variance with the
requirements of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SPDES
general permits for construction activities (GP-0-10-001) and for stormwater discharges
from MS4s (GP-02-02), as amended or revised, and the corresponding regulations, the
most restrictive or that imposing the highest standards shall govern.
§236-3 Findings of fact.
It is hereby determined that:
A. Land development activities and associated increases in site impervious cover often
alter the hydrologic response of local watersheds and increase stormwater runoff rates
and volumes, flooding, stream channel erosion, or sediment transport and deposition;
B. Stormwater runoff contributes to increased quantities of water-borne pollutants,
including siltation of aquatic habitat for fish and other desirable species, and may
adversely affect aquatic organisms through changes in temperature and salinity,
C. Clearing and grading during construction tends to increase soil erosion and add to
the loss of native vegetation necessary for terrestrial and aquatic habitat,
D. Improper design and construction of stormwater management practices can increase
the velocity of stormwater runoff, thereby increasing stream bank, shoreline and bluff
erosion and sedimentation;
E. Impervious surfaces allow less water to percolate into the soil, thereby decreasing
groundwater recharge and stream base flow,
F. Substantial economic losses can result from these adverse impacts on the waters of
the Town;
G. Stormwater runoff, soil erosion and nonpoint source pollution can be controlled and
minimized through the regulation of stormwater runoff from land development activities;
H. The regulation of stormwater runoff discharges from land development activities in
order to control and minimize increases in stormwater runoff rates and volumes, soil
erosion, stream channel, shoreline and bluff erosion, and nonpoint source pollution
associated with stormwater runoff is in the public interest and will minimize threats to
public health and safety,
236-4.B. Controlling, restricting or prohibiting activities which alter natural drainage
systems, floodplains, stream channels and natural protective features, including, but not
limited to, wetlands, bluffs, dunes, beaches, natural protective features, which contribute
to the accommodation of floodwaters and retention of sediment;
C. Clearing and grading during construction tends to increase soil erosion and add to
the loss of native vegetation necessary for terrestrial and aquatic habitat,
Ch. 228.1. Soil Removal- Legislative declaration.
The regulation and control of the general regrading of land, extraction and removal of
earth products and other excavations is necessary to protect and to prevent serious and
irreparable damage to the public health, safety and general welfare as well as to make
effective the general purposes of comprehensive planning and zoning.[1]
Ch. 228.2.J. The creation of other deterrents to the coordinated and harmonious
physical development of the Town of Southold.
B. (6) The use will not change the established character of the neighborhood nor
depress the value of other lands generally in such neighborhood.
The character of the upland area proposed to be made lowland, is currently adjacent to
a nature preserve. Without question this project will change the character of the
preserve as others with expertise have testified. What about the view of storage
buildings from the water and opposite shores? How can this not depress the value of
other lands?And it will certainly diminish the enjoyment of those floating in the inlet.
JOEL1. KLEIN, Ph.D.,����� ����ma��a�W���.�.����mm�������������������������ww���������mm��������o�����������.............
635 Lloyds Lane,Mattituck,New York 11952 Q U
July 3, 2023 P� "I. ��M
Southold Town Planning Board _ __. ..._ _........._RECV ._
54375 Main Road JUL.PO Box 1179 0 15 2023
Southold, NY 11971 µ0a [ rm
Planning Board
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT t I 1 O, + 13.
PROPOSED STRONG' S YACHT STORAGE BUILDINGS �O w
5780 WEST MILL ROAD
MATTITUCK, NY 11952
TAX MAP NUMBER: 106.-6- 10 & 13. 4
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS RELATING TO THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION, NEED
AND DEMAND FOR THE PROJECT, AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Members of the Southold Town Planning Board:
At the May 15, 2023 public hearing on the referenced project, I submitted extensive comments
critical of the project's DEIS. Subsequently in a variety of public forums, including the June 5,
2023 public hearing, additional information has become available that requires me to augment
and elaborate on the comments I submitted relating to the DEIS' project description, its
discussion of the need for the project, and its discussion of project alternatives.
Project Description
In my prior comments I pointed out that the project, as described in the DEIS, is not the project
the Applicant intends to build. First, the Applicant has indicated in a variety of venues, including
before the Planning Board, that the Project will likely be constructed in phases, with the initial
phase including only one yacht storage building. The second building, would be constructed
only if factors such as the availability of suitable bank financing, and if interest rates and the
price of steel come down. This is never mentioned in the DEIS. It is not even presented as a
possible alternative.
The Applicant made initial reference to the fact that bank financing of the second proposed
storage building was dependent upon a demonstrated 60% occupancy of the first building at a
meeting with David Boscola, Donna Boscola, and Stephen Boscola at the Strong's Yacht Center
office on February 9, 2020. Stephen Boscola raised this concern to the Planning Board at a
March 9, 2020 meeting of the Planning Board and this is noted in the minutes of that meeting.
The Applicant and his legal counsel were present and, although they had the opportunity to do
so, did not object to, or contradict, Mr. Boscola's statement.
At the April 15, 2023 meeting of the Southold-Peconic Civic Association, the Applicant was
asked if both storage buildings would be constructed at the same time. In response he said:
"We don't know the answer to that question fully right now. The main driver of
that is if, and when, this ever gets approved. Just like you've seen several
projects that finally get approved that the developer chose to pull out of the
project altogether. Some of that was driven by the fact that the costs have just
gone through the roof dramatically. So, I can't factually speak to that. I can say
this—that our desire would be to do both buildings at the same time. If for some
reason we weren't to do both buildings at the same time the retaining wall . . .
would all have to be done at the same time. We more than likely would do the
cement work at the same time. Or worst-case scenario, we would erect one
building and then let a little bit of time elapse, and then do the second building.
But it could very well be that if, hopefully, interest rates drop, prices of steel come
back in line, we would do both buildings at the same time."
The May 24, 2023 issue of the New York Times, in an article entitled "A Fight Over Yachts is a
Battle for the Soul of the North Fork" quotes the Applicant as stating that"We're confident
there's market demand for us to add another 88 yachts, and when it comes to funding, we could
absolutely do both buildings right from the get-go."'
At the June 5 public hearing, the Applicant (Mr. Jeff Strong)was asked by Planning Board
member Amelia Jealous-Dank: "You are proposing to construct both buildings at the same
time? Not a phased construction?" (Draft transcript p.162).
The Applicant responded by saying:
"That is correct. In fairness, some people have asked that question to me and
the way we're absolutely proposing it that way. But we're also business people
and we're realist. So if the world were to crash, right, which we're all hopeful that
--we would for sure do the excavation. We would for sure do the 100% retaining
wall. We would for sure do all the cement work for two buildings, and would for
sure do one building. So all of that, I can say with 100% assurity, it's not about
being able to afford it, it's a matter of severity of what goes on in the world. So
would we be prepared to build the second building?Absolutely be financially
prepared. I'm not gonna tell you that if the world were to, beyond its knees, that
we would commit to building, erecting the second building at the same time. That
just wouldn't be prudent, but we would absolutely do all the other work that I said.
The infrastructure work, the evergreen retaining wall, the pads. All versions of
infrastructure work. Our desire would be to do the entire project at one time"
(Draft transcript pp.162-163).
The inconsistency between the DEIS and the Applicant's contradictory statements should be
cause for great concern. The environmental impacts of a one-building vs a two-building project
are significant. Under the one-building scenario construction traffic impacts would be essentially
unchanged; the destruction of more than 600 trees would still be required; impacts to wildlife
would be unchanged, as would impacts to the Mill Road Preserve. In contrast, the few limited
project benefits, including property tax revenues to the Town of Southold and job creation,
would be significantly lower under the one-building scenario. This will be especially important
htt s://www,n rues.cram/202 /05/241realestatgF chts-north-fork ton -i land.litml
during the Planning Board's requirement under SEQRA to balance environmental impacts
against social and economic considerations when preparing is findings statement for the project.
Proposed Water Line
Section 1.2 (Project Description) of the DEIS states that "As part of the proposed action, a
connection to the public water supply is proposed" (p.10), and "Upon implementation of the
proposed extension, there would be an opportunity for existing landowners to connect to the
public water supply system" (p.11).
The DEIS also states that"As part of the proposed action, an extension of the public water main
for connection to the SCWA is proposed (p. 73). It goes on to state that"groundwater
withdrawal from the site would decrease from 1,058± gpd to 218±gpd upon implementation of
the proposed action due to the public water supply connection" (p.90).
DEIS section 1.3.2 (Benefits of the Proposed Project), states that Project benefits include ". . .
providing the opportunity for surrounding properties with private water wells to connect to the
public water supply" (DEIS p.14). Section 1.3.2 goes on to state:
"Extension of the Public Water Main for Potential Connections by Other
Landowners. The proposed action includes an extension of the SCWA water
main from Naugles Drive by 765±feet to allow for the site to be served by the
public water supply system. The extension of the public water main would allow
for existing landowners to connect to the public supply system, by request to the
SCWA. Information was obtained from SCWA noting those properties that could
connect, if requested, and is included in Appendix K".
I noted in my May 15 comments, in addition to the Project site, only two properties would
realistically benefit from installation of the water line. One of these is owned by the Applicant,
the other is the Old Mill Inn.
In fact, the "proposed"water line was installed in late May 2023 (see attached photos). It
cannot, and should not, be considered part of the Project. As a result, any benefits that the
DEIS claims will be derived from this aspect of the Project should be excluded from
consideration by the Planning Board.
Purpose of the Project, and Demand for the Project
According to the SEQRA Handbook, "'Purpose' is a goal or objective to be achieved. The
purpose of most privately sponsored projects is to make a profit from some development activity
on their property". According to the DEIS "the Applicant is responding to a market demand for
larger boat owners looking for local indoor winter storage" (DEIS pp. xxii,244). However,
absolutely no basis, other than the Applicant's assertion is presented in the DEIS to support
this. No market studies appear to have been conducted. The Applicant appears to be relying on
his personal belief, and anecdotal information. For example, at the June 5 public hearing the
Applicant again stated "There has historically been limited indoor storage in our region, but now
the shortage has become critical."
At the public hearings on the Project DEIS, and in written comments, a number of individuals
have indicated that they believe there is a need for indoor heated storage. For example:
"As a yacht owner of a Princess Y722, there are no options for heated indoor
storage in the northeast" (Robert Whitcomb, 6-28-2023);
"I write to you as a New York resident and the owner of a Fairline Squadron. As
you know, it is exceedingly challenging to find appropriate winter storage for such
a vessel" (Victor J. Dasaro, 6-29-23);
"I am one of the people that is looking forward to this project. I do. I take my
boats south every year. I spend 4,000 gallons of fuel just to get it to Florida.
Because I don't have a place here to store it in the wintertime" (James Orioli 6-5-
3023)3;
"As a yacht owner, I can attest to the need for local indoor heated boat storage
for larger, taller craft like mine" (John Pappas, 6-2-23);
"I have been a boat owner for the last 30 years and have had the opportunity to
store my boats at several different marinas. In the last 7 years, I have been
storing my boat (52 Viking Sportfish) indoors (climate controlled)for the winter
months. Based on my experience, having stored in "covered storage" and
outdoor yard storage; climate controlled indoor storage is the very best option"
(Christian Mcinnis, 6-30-23);
"Many people take their vessels south because there are limited indoor storage
facilities available to them" (Mark Pasterick, 6-30-23).
"The indoor storage is very, very hard to come by in this area" (Eric Schiebler,
May 15, 2023 public hearing).
Five of these commentors state that there are "no options"for winter storage, that its
"exceedingly challenging" to find winter storage, "attest to the need for local indoor heated boat
storage," or that "there are limited indoor storage facilities available." (Note, however, that one
commentor states that she has been storing her boat at an indoor heated facility for seven
years). In fact, indoor heated storage is presently offered by at least two facilities in relatively
close proximity to Mattituck. These include Lighthouse Marina4 in Aquebogue, and Safe
Harbor-Pilot's Point Marina in Westbrook CT5. Are these facilities at capacity? Is the demand for
'According to Princess Yachts, "Heated storage is nice to have but not a need to have." (Personal
communication from Thomas Collins, Technical Manager-Europe, Princess Yachts, 6-26-23).
3 Mr. Orioli's name is misspelled in the draft hearing transcript as"Aioli."
4 bggLt66MA2iahttiouseniarina.com/max-annelfuhlbrugge-2./
e fttt sfChm rinas.corra�localions"safe-tartaor iEots oint. Indoor over-winter yacht storage facilities in Connecticut
also have an advantage over those in New York because"by law,fees charged for storing or mooring
indoor heated storage a recent phenomenon? If not, why have there been no previous
proposals to satisfy the demand? These questions could have been addressed by a market
study.
It is also worth noting that several of the comments cited above were apparently solicited by the
Applicant. According to public records (including the 2023 Southold tentative assessment roll),
of the seven individuals quoted above, only two own property in Southold. Only one is a
Southold resident. Three live out-of-state (New Jersey and Connecticut). This is only of
significance because at the June 5 public hearing the Applicant refers to the " . . . many
Southold residents . . . who have told us they need it [indoor heated storage]" (Draft transcript
p. 166). The DEIS states that"the Applicant is responding to a market demand for larger boat
owners looking for local indoor winter storage." (DEIS p.244). As noted above, the DEIS
contains no data to support this statement.
At the June 5 hearing, a senior representative of the Applicant's consultant responsible for
preparing the DEIS stated: "I am told that Southold residents do utilize the yacht club, and the
water club and are expected to use the indoor storage service" (Kim Gennaro, Vice President,
PW Grosser Consulting) (Draft hearing transcript p.68). The preparers of the DEIS apparently
relied solely on what they were told by the Applicant as the basis for the DEIS's discussion of
demand for the Project.
DEIS Appendix M states that it"is anticipated new yacht customers would come from Mattituck
Inlet private docks, Greenport, Montauk, Mount Sinai, Port Jefferson, Huntington, Port
Washington, Westchester County, New York, Connecticut, and Northern New Jersey" (DEIS
Appendix M, p.24). However, in the May 24, 2023 issue of the New York Times cited above,
Mr. Strong told the Times that"The yacht storage facility . . .will offer heated indoor winter
storage that fills a gap in the market for wealthy boaters from Hamptons communities like Sag
Harbor and Amagansett, as well as Westchester County and Connecticut." No mention is made
of Southold or other North Fork communities.
The Planning Board should not make any decisions based on the Applicant's unsupported
claims about a public demand for the Project, especially since the Applicant's consultants who
prepared the DEIS also failed to independently confirm that a demand exists. The Planning
Board should also consider that the Project would apparently disproportionately benefit non-
Southolders to the environmental detriment of the residents of Southold and Riverhead.
No basis for concluding that there is a demand for indoor heated yacht storage is included in the
Project's Marina Economic Impact Analysis (DEIS Appendix E). At the April 15, 2023 meeting of
the Southold-Peconic Civic Association, the Applicant referred to "research studies that we have
done" that support the demand for the Project. It is incumbent upon the Planning Board to
request that the Applicant provide copies of these research studies so that the Board can
independently determine if there is, in fact, a "demand" for the Project. These studies were
apparently not made available to the preparers of the DEIS. This is especially important
noncommercial boats are. . .tax-exempt from October 1 through May 31 (CGS§ 12-407(a)(2)(M)).
htt ,fl ,c a.ct. ovY2020/r t_ 02020- _ 102. df
because the environmental consequences that would result if, post Project construction, the
assumed demand is not realized and only a single storage building is constructed.
Need for the Project
Project"need" is distinct from project"demand." According to the SEORA Handbook, "'need' is
a lack of something required, desirable, or useful. The need for an action may be public, private,
or a combination of both." In addition, the purpose and need section of an EIS should include a
justification of why the project must be implemented. The justification should be as
comprehensive and specific as possible.
The Project is based on the premise that"larger boat owners [are] looking for local indoor winter
storage." Irrespective of demand for this amenity(discussed above), is there truly a "need"for
it? There is abundant data indicating that there is not.
In my May 15 comments, I included copies of information provided by several yacht
manufacturers indicating that that they did not believe indoor heated storage is necessary:
"Strong's Marine is an authorized new boat dealer for manufacturers such as
Cruisers Yachts and Regal Boats. Strong's is also a former dealer for
Sunseeker Yachts. All three manufacturers have debunked the developer's
claim that heated indoor storage is essential. Regal Customer Service noted
`The majority of Regal boats do spend their winters outside, and seem to do very
well.' Sunseeker noted `there are no issues with storing a Sunseeker outside in
the winter.' Lastly, Cruisers Yachts noted that their boats are built in Wisconsin
and "may sit outside for several months wrapped and winterized without issue"
while waiting for delivery to their dealers. When asked specifically about
electrical systems, Cruisers Yachts noted `...as far as any additional electrical
concerns, you shouldn't be worried.'
According to the DEIS, "climate-controlled (heated)space, which is essential for maintaining
electrical systems in the types of vessels to be stored" (DEIS p.ii, 14). One commentor on the
Project has stated that"The marine industry, so important to the Long Island economy as one of
the boating capitals of the world, has grown exponentially in the larger watercraft sector, mainly
due to new technology in electronics. . . Newer electronics require temperature- controlled
storage, and there is limited storage of this type in our region." (Chris Young 6-1-23)
Contrary to these statements, the need for heated storage is not supported by empirical data
from users of marine electronics (see Attachment 1), data from marine electronic manufacturers
(see Attachment 2), or the industry's trade association. According to Marine Electronics Journal,
the official journal of the National Marine Electronics Association, "the high brightness LCD
panels used in many of today's chartplotters and MFDs have typical operating temperature
specification that range from about-150C to 550C [5°F to 131 OF] with storage temperatures from
perhaps -30 to 40°C [-220F to 1040F] . . ." (see Attachment 3).
Attachment 2 is a sampling of temperature range tolerances for a sampling of marine
electronics from the four largest manufacturers of this equipment as listed in product
specifications. The lowest safe storage temperature ranges for marine electronics range from
-200C to -400C (-4°F to-400F). These low temperatures are extremely rare for Long Island. The
last time a temperature below-200C [-4°F] was recorded at MacArthur Airport(Ronkonkoma) or
r
Patchogue was in 1958. Temperatures below-250C [-130F] have been recorded only once since
1938.
As noted in the Marine Electronics Journal, the outdated belief that heated indoor storage is
required to protect the marine electronics found on yachts is based on experience with older
equipment that was more susceptible to temperature extremes. In preparing its FEIS the
Planning Board must decide if the significant environmental consequences associated with the
Project are outweighed by the "perceived," rather than true need for indoor heated storage for
large yachts.
The Applicant has been storing yachts in unheated and outdoor storage for many years. The
Planning Board should enquire if he can document any damage to marine electronics resulting
from low temperatures.
At the June 5, 2023 public hearing Mr. Michael Levitt also commented on the need to protect
the electronic devices on yachts from cold weather. Mr. Levitt operates "a marine electronics,
home and commercial, audio/visual and computer networking business." He stated:
"we see tremendous damage to the residential electronics used in a lot of these
larger vessels today. Television, satellite boxes, etcetera, do not enjoy 20 degree
or below weather, which does require either a relocation of these vessels to
warmer water or sometimes the removal and storage of this equipment . . ."
(Draft hearing transcript p.181).
Mr. Levitt is not referring to the types of marine electronics (navionics)discussed above.
The idea that the Project is necessary to prevent damage to "televisions [and] satellite
boxes," on multi-million-dollar yachts should not justify a "need"for the Project.
Although the DEIS does not specifically address the subject, several commentors have pointed
out that indoor heated storage would allow their yachts to be serviced during the winter, and that
this would facilitate the timely launching of vessel at the start of the boating season. This is
certainly"desirable", but it is not a necessity. It would be a convenience for a small number of
yacht owners.
Project Cost
The DEIS contains no mention of the Applicant's anticipated Project cost. This information must
be made available to the Planning Board, because it bears directly upon the Project's economic
viability and the Applicant's conflicting statements as to whether the Project will be constructed
in one or more phases. This information is also essential for the proper evaluation of project
alternatives.
In discussing Alternative 2: Alternate Material Removal Plan, the DEIS states that"the financial
cost associated with [on-site batch] plant operations, has been determined not feasible" (pp.
xlii,315) In discussing Alternative 4: Construct Proposed Storage Building(s)Without
Excavation, the DEIS states that"SYC would realize a cost savings of approximately $750,000
with the reduction in cut material and elimination of the Evergreen concrete retaining wall"
(p.318). In discussing Alternative 5: Construct Smaller Building(s)With Less Excavation, the
DEIS states that"the construction cost would not make this an economically viable plan for the
Applicant" (pp. xliv,335). Without knowing the basis for the Applicant's estimate of the total cost
r ,
of the Project, it is not possible to evaluate the unsupported claims of the Applicant relating to
the financial non-viability of the alternatives considered in the DEIS.
The Applicant has made several public statements to the effect that the estimated Project cost
will be approximately$7,000.000. At the April 15, 2023 meeting of the South old-Peconic Civic
Association the Applicant stated that"It's a very expensive project and, if and when its gets
approved, we don't know what things will cost, but it's at least a $7,000,000 project for sure."
In a May 2023 interview with the New York Times, Mr. Strong is reported to have said "it will
cost him more than $5 million to clear the hill, truck out the sand and then build the two 45-foot-
tall storage sheds . . ."This lack of clarity as to the total cost of the Project should be of concern.
According to the New York Times,
"Some residents of Mattituck have accused Mr. Strong of a bait-and-switch,
suggesting his goal is not long-term profit from the storage of yachts, but
immediate gain from the sale of the valuable sand."
When mining is legitimately a part of a construction project, it is exempt from NYSDEC's
jurisdiction and the builder is not required to get mining permits. Nor is NYSDEC oversight
required. The mining of sand under the guise of a construction project is not unprecedented. In
2010 a company began removing large volumes of sand from a site in Yaphank as part of a
proposed greenhouse project. Although concrete foundations were poured in 2012, and removal
of sand continued, no further development of the project took place. In response to a 2016
complaint, in 2019 NYSDEC fined the developer$1.3 million. That is far less than the value of
the excavated sand.
Also, according to New York Times,
High-quality sand is a valuable natural resource that can sell for between $15
and $50 per cubic yard, meaning Strong's Marine could net between $2 million
and more than $6 million after leveling the hillside. When questioned about the
potential profit, Mr. Strong said the sand was not worth more than $1.5 million,
and he expected the removal and trucking alone to cost him about$1 million."
According to the Fact Sheet posted on the Applicant's web site "As is typical with construction
projects with an excavation component, the removed material will be sold, and the proceeds
used to support the project's cost. The anticipated value of the sand is less than 10% of the cost
of the project."
Of the 135,000 CY of material excavated as part of the Project, approximately 85,000 CY is
classified in the DEIS (Appendix H) as being of"Excellent Quality as Sand Commodity. An
additional 44,000 CY is classified as"Fair to Poor Quality as Sand Commodity. DEIS Appendix
H also calculated the weight of each cubic yard of sand at the Project site to be 1.55 tons/CY for
sand classified as "Excellent" and 1.49 tons/CY sand classified as "Fair to Poor.
There is a considerable variation in the value of sand, which may account for the broad range in
value mentioned in the New York Times article. Highly populated areas such as Long Island are
experiencing a gravel and regional sand shortage, which has led to a considerable increase in
price. According to Statista, a leading provider of market and consumer data, the average price
of construction sand per metric ton in the United States in 2022 was around $11. Using that
metric,just the approximately197,300 tons of potentially marketable sand from the Project site is
,.
conservatively worth approximately$2.17 million. That is considerably more than 10 percent of
the Project cost as claimed by the Applicant.
The fact that the true value of the sand excavated from the Project site is almost certainly
considerably more than the Applicant has indicated, gives credence to the concerns that
profiting from "mining" sand from the Project site is a principal Project objective. As noted
above, the Applicant has indicated that constructing only a single storage building, rather than
two as described in the DEIS. This would mean that construction costs would be considerably
lower and that the sale of sand would offset a much larger percentage of project construction
costs, significantly increasing the Applicant's profits at the expense of unnecessary (excavating
a larger area than required for a single structure) environmental damage.
The Planning Board must obtain from the Applicant more detailed information relating to
demand for the Project, and Project cost and financing, before it can justifiably claim that it has
taken a "hard look" at the environmental impacts of the Project.
Sincerely,
Joel I. Klein, Ph.D.,
w r
0i
Wry I
q
M
oy %I
New hydrant
_7
✓ii%/„
51
M
� r
II
rr � i ��I �N I�l�'�� ✓
/r✓i fir
,Ir,?„»nd ���ar�trrwayG r � ��$^�">� �r W r �rig r/✓
r
a
✓ �»r.�n✓�»o i J " �o. w cur
Ay/1'rmw,!a Y /l,»yG'GiEO,.»„�, 1 - _ram,„., a ", "�,',.v "
Note the evidence of the new water line installation trench running along West Mill Road from
the new hydrant towards Naugles Drive (lower left photo). Note the evidence of the installation
trench running towards the Old Mill Inn and SYC (lower right photo)
ATTACHMENT 1
Comments from The Hull Truth Boating Forum relating to concerns about low temperatures on
marine electronics
Leaving Electronics on boat in Cold
htt s:/I w ,thehulltruth.Gom/marine-elect,ronics-forum/9910 7-leave -electronics-beat-cold.htmli
"I just installed 2 Simrad units over this past weekend...well next week temp is supposed to be
in the low 20s overnight but upper 40s during the day...they are not flush mounted and can be
removed if I need to ....do I need to pull them out or they will be OK?Thanks." (03-01-2019)
Responses
• 1 can promise you that the units are tested at much lower(and higher)temps than you may
experience. Worry about something else. (03-01-2019)
• Where I have my boat we typically have around -25C (-1317) every winter. I have never
removed any equipment, and I haven't had any issues. (03-01-2019)
• 1 am located in R1...It's cold all winter; Flush mounted MFD's, NMEA network, etc.; I
disconnect everything except my Pro Mariner on board charger from the batteries (batteries
stay in boat); I plug in the Pro Mariner for a few hours every 2 weeks. Never any problems
with all electronics, i.e., radio, engine gauges, AIC receiver, MFD's, digital GPS, FF, etc.
(03-01-2019)
• The first thing that may break are LCD's when the "liquid"freezes and breaks the glass
around it. We did some testing at work with one device down to -50 deg C. It did not break.
But, this varies by brand. I'd say that-30 deg will almost never hurt any electronics. IF we
are not talking about icing. that's a different story.... (03-01-2019)
• Its not the cold that harms electronics, it's the heat, do not let it get too hot, that is where the
harm is done (03-01-2019)
• I can promise you that the units are tested at much lower(and higher)temps than you may
experience. Worry about something else. (03-01-2019)
• What he said. The operating temperature range and non-operating temperature range are
likely printed in your owner's manual under Technical Specifications. Simrad usually puts
them in the "Installation Instructions" - such as this from the NSS-evo3:
Environmental
Operating Temperature Range -150C to +55°C (5°F to 131OF)
Storage Temperature -200C to +60°C (4°F to 140°F)
• Biggest limiting factor is the operating temperature. Some units should not be powered on in
temps below a certain threshold. But they will survive being at that temperature no problem,
most everything nowadays will self thermal protect and powerdown on their own when a
temperature threshold is exceeded. It is safe to leave the electronics in the boat. Just be
mindful of their temp when powering on. Let them warm up to above say 40* or something
first. (03-02-2019)
Electronics in Winter
htt s;// ,thel ulltrutti.com/marine-•electronics-forum/1251912-electronics-winter.htmi
"Does anyone pull their electronics from boat before cold winter hits in Seattle area? I store boat
outdoors with cover on it and have hard top. Not sure if they can survive the cold and moisture.
Ive got the Lowrance HDS 12 and 9 gen 3. (11-21-2022)
Responses
• Looked up the specs for the Lowrance HDS 12 gen 3 and I don't think I would worry about it
h Rom://� .Iowrgncq..com/'lowrance/t . .s ecifications
Operating Temperature Ranges°F to 131°F (-15°C to 55°C)
Storage Temperature Range-40°F to 1850F (-40°C to 85°C)
• I leave mine in, and it routinely gets to minus 40 here. No issues with the boat electronics--
wish I could say the same about the vehicle electronics, haha. Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
(11-22-2022)
I've had all Lowrance generations since 2007 and all Simrad generations since 2011. 1 live in
Norway at a higher latitude than Anchorage, I don't remove any electronics during winter
storage, I haven't had any issues. (11-24-2022)
Electronics in Winter
lltt s://www,thehulitruth.com/marine- lectronics-forum/325159-electronics-winter.htmi
Is it bad to leave electronics on a boat in winter storage? I have flush mount stuff that can't be
readily removed. The boat is stored under shrink wrap but outside in low temps.
Responses
• We have temperatures around -20 F every winter over here. I leave all my stuff in the boat. I
have Raymarine, Furuno and Lowrance equipment with LCD's. Location: Norway (01-13-
2011)
• Most are rated from 0 F to 140 F, which is usually operating temperatures, storage will be
lower, but most don't say. In NJ you will be virtually never (maybe 1x every 20-30 years) be
under 0 F, so I wouldn't worry about it. Location: Long Island, NY (01-13-201
1 '.
ATTACHMENT 2
Simrad A2004 networked auto pilot
Operating Temperature Range-25'C to+659C(-13°F to+149°F)
Storage Temperature-40°C to+85°C(-40oF to+185°F)
Simrad NSO evo3S Navigation System
Operating Temperature Range-15'C to+559C(5°F to+131°F)
Storage Temperature-20°C to+60°C(-4°F to+140°F)
Raymarine Raychart 425 chartplotter
Operating Temperature Range-10°C to+70°C(°F to 9F)
Storage Temperature-20°C to+70°C(°F to 9F)
Raymarine 170S Instrument pack with Wind, Depth, and Speed transducers
Operating Temperature Range-25°C to+55°C(-13°F to 131°F)
Storage Temperature-30°C to+70°C(-22°F to 158°F)
Garmin AIS 800 Blackbox Transceiver
Operating Temperature Range-15°C to+55°C(5°F to 131°F)
Storage Temperature-20DC to+75°C(-4°F to 167°F)
Garmin GSD 26 CHIRP Professional Sonar Module
Operating Temperature Range-15°C to+70°C(5'F to 158°F)
httr)s,Hstatic.garmin.com/pumac/GSD 26 Install PN. df
Furuno DRS4D-NXT/DRS2D-NXT Solid State Doppler Radar
Operating Temperature Range-25°C to+50°C(-13°F to IF)
htt s�// .furuno.com/ ecial/en/radar/drs4d-nxt/#S ecification
Furuno GP-1971 F GPS/WAAS Chart Plotter with Chirp Fish Finder
Operating Temperature Range-15°C to+55°C(5°F to 131°F)
https:Lwww,furuno.com/files/Brochure/412/Lipload/GP 1 71 F- N. df
ATTACHMENT 3
Temperature Sensit�rityr
I
r
Y
l
1
1
I
I
i
d
�f
Marine Electronics Journal 19:6 (November/December 2009)
From: Michaelis,Jessica V b-P
Sent: Wednesday,July 5, 2023 8:58 AM P13 I- I r,
in
Subject: W: Strong yacht(warehouse project ._,..I V wwm ��
� 9 Y p J �'
f
.... IL 0 5 2023
--5 e d..mI,ra.._
Vvrti
Planning Board
+ 13• 9
Jessica Michaelis,Senior Office Assistant Southold Town Planning Department
54375 NYS Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Phone: 631-765-1938
Email:JessicaM@southoldtownny.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: mike Slade<mikeslade1435@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,July 3, 2023 7:19 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Strong yacht warehouse project
I wish to voice my opposition to the proposed project. It is not in keeping with the area's scale and overall development.
It would destroy a large natural space. It would not benefit local residents and its creation would cause immense
damage and inconvenience to those along the route the trucks must follow. Please do not permit this to spoil our
community's special character.
Michael S Slade, Cutchogue
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: Michaelis,Jessica Sub-P
Sent: Wednesday,July 5, 2023 8:58 AM PSI H L/ MT) SC
To: Westermann, Caitlin � EIVED
Subject: FW: Strongs yacht warehouse project
" UatnOI'dMTown
Planning Board
Jessica Michaelis, Senior Office Assistant Southold Town Planning Department
54375 NYS Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Phone: 631-765-1938
Email:JessicaM@southoldtownny.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: beverly vlcek<bvb1011@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday,July 3, 2023 8:08 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica<jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Strongs yacht warehouse project
This project should not be allowed to proceed. It will be a detriment to the environment and to our community and only
benefits a few wealthy outsiders who could care less about that affect, as long as their stereo systems are kept warmll
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
Sv6-F
RECEIVED
P� ► I-t 1� ► NI i G�M�
90U_ _0 :l o""Wn
Dear Southold Town Planning Board, Planning Board
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet.
believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately
address the unknown and irrevocable negative impact that this project will have on
Mattituck inlet, the natural habitat, and the community. DEIS does not offer
sufficient mitigation as it relates to my concerns of the preservation of Mattituck
Inlet and the wild habitant. I believe this project will be a detriment to my
neighborhood as a long-term resident near the Inlet, with the destruction of
woodlands and the wild habitant.
Further, I have additional concerns that this project will result in increased air and
water pollution, unknown public safety hazards from potential fires from toxic
flammable materials, the increased traffic congestion from the trucks that may also
affect historical buildings.
support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Sincerely,
Jeannette O'Keefe
P.S. I would like my email to be part of the public record
7 RECEZvd
Dear Southold Town Planning Board, -S70 if 0—Td—own
Planning Board
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe that the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately address many of my concerns.
The DEIS DOES NOT:
1.Adequately describe the property and the landscape, including its relevant elements,such as
existing structures, plant communities,wildlife,adjoining properties/resources.
2.Adequately describe the project and how it will be constructed.
3.Accurately describe the adverse environmental impacts of the project,during and post-
construction. Consider direct impacts (such as removals),secondary impacts (reasonably foreseen
results from direct impacts), and cumulative impacts.
4. Offer adequate mitigation for adverse environmental impacts. In my opinion there is no way to
mitigate all the environmental and contamination destruction this will cause.
5.Adequately describe loss of irretrievable resources
6. Provide documents that provide accurate, useful information to the lead agency on the extent of
adverse impacts on the environment. Is it not readable and easily understood as to the descriptions
of the land, project, adverse impacts, and mitigation?
7.Allow the lead agency to make a rational decision on the acceptability of adverse impacts of this
project and the mitigation offered that is based on the information in the DEIS.
8. Provide any benefit to the overall general public. The general public will be adversely impacted
by environmental destruction.
-that imact will this have on Our neighbors:
1. Safety-Our roads will not be safe for pedestrian,cyclist, and general road safety during the
prolonged excavation and construction periods.
2. Mill Road Preserve-There will be a negative impact on publicly owned 27-acre Mill Road Preserve
that is adjacent to the site.
3. Local Ecology- Irreversible impact on local ecology as a result of strip mining the hillside—the
area is a home to endangered and species of concern.
4. Community character-There will be two industrial style buildings,five times the size of the
proposed Brinkman's Big Box store, impacting the view shed and bucolic nature of the area.
5. Fire-The warehouses will be heated by a total of 8,000 gallons of propane, in addition to the
hundreds of gallons of fuel each of the 88 yachts will hold in the buildings. How much more air and
water pollution will this add to our Towns.
6. Water Quality- Billions have been spent to clean up the Sound pollution. This project will
substantially increase surface water pollution,disruption of ground water wells, potential flooding,
run-off and erosion.
7. Climate Resilience-What will lowering a coastal elevation by-40' during unprecedented sea
level rise do to our community.
8. Noise& Light Pollution -What is the cost to our community with increased noise level and light
pollution during and after 630 trees removed, 134,000 cu yds of sand removed, and 2 huge
warehouses built
9.Traffic-There will be a minimum of 80 haul trucks per day, 10 hours a day,5 days a week for 6
months amounting to one every 7 minutes between Mattituck and the LIE There will be a significant
increase in truck traffic and the dangerous impact it will have on our local roads. Even Riverhead
has great concerns regarding the additional pollution and the trucks using their roads.Who will pay
for the reconstruction of roads which will be impacted by these trucks?
Accordingly, based upon a review of the above,our community does not benefit by this project at
all. The only ones who benefits are the project owner,construction company and those who own
yachts.
The lead agency should prepare its own FEIS (Final EIS) using an independent contractor.
Please reject this project.
Respectfully,
Jo-Ann Lechner
1415 Marlene Lane
Mattituck, NY
From: Lanza, Heather S v b-P
Sent: Friday,June 30, 2023 9:30 AM P51 HL, 1 r 6 C M C
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: Strongs Storage Building Project Support -•- --
Comments on Strongs DEIS 55_uffibW Tovan
Planning Boar d
From: Mark Pasterick<mpasterick@hotmail.com> �� — — r a
Sent:Tuesday,June 27, 2023 4:42 PM •
To: Nicole Evers<Nicole@strongsmarine.com>; Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Strongs Storage Building Project Support
Hi Heather,
Nicole Evers reached out to me as a yacht owner, to provide some feedback on the impact to LI Sound
boaters, if a large winter storage was available to them. I've been a boat owner/captain for 25+years. I've
owned ten vessels between 30 and 60 feet. I'm meticulous in my maintenance and would love an in-door
storage winter facility.
Here are some of my thoughts;
• Many people take their vessels south because there are limited indoor storage facilities available to
them.
o By taking them South, they are able to get annual maintenance or vessel 'punch list' (items that
need fixed or replaced) quicker versus waiting until the weather in warm enough to get the
items resolved.
o If the facility were available, not only would the owners save money, they'd also be able to get
the work completed locally which would aid the marina, as well as ensure that if there were call
backs, the local marina would be able to perform the work. This would also boost the local
economy as workers would not head south for work.
• They would prefer to take them South versus winterizing them and either storing in the water or on
the hard.
o Marinas have limited ground storage and storing them in the water is risky as well as very
expensive.
• .Vessels stored indoors would be "launch ready" sooner, which would make owners happy.
These are just quick thoughts that came to me. I currently have a 59-foot power vessel and I'd use the facility.
Feel free to reach out to me via email or my cell 551-655-5440.
Regards,
Mark Pasterick
i
From: Lanza, Heather
Sent: Friday,June 30, 2023 9:29 AM t-
To: Westermann, Caitlin L 1.1 M (2,
Subject: FW: Strongs Heated Storage initiative ' E/''""E T 1�/E D
`._.........._.t..,._-...._........1.._.V......_.. V
Comments on DEIS for Strongs
....
r�Fff TO n.........,
From:Christian McInnis<chris@mcinnisinc.com> g
P annin Boar
Sent:Tuesday,June 27, 2023 2:52 PM 06 0 i r I
..... ............
To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southo Id.ny.us>
Cc: nicole.anderson.ext@boehringer-ingelheim.com
Subject: [SPAM] -Strongs Heated Storage initiative
Hi Heather, my name is Chris McInnis and I wanted to send you a note regarding the proposed indoor storage facilities
at Strongs Water Club. I have been a boat owner for the last 30 years and have had the opportunity to store my boats at
several different marinas. In the last 7 years, I have been storing my boat (52 Viking Sportfish) indoors (climate
controlled) for the winter months. Based on my experience, having stored in"covered storage" and outdoor yard
storage; climate controlled indoor storage is the very best option. Over the winter, I am able to get a lot of work done
that normally wouldn't get completed in the very short spring months. There are a couple of important facts here that
need further context.
Indoor, climate-controlled storage provides the yard year-round service to its customers resulting in customers getting
launched in time for our very short boating season. Imagine trying to get 400+boats launched between March and
April, along with everyone's individual work/repair orders -per boat. Its impossible and usually results in lost time and
money, not only for the customer, but also for the marina. As I am sure you're aware, qualified labor is hard to find and
keeping skilled labor for a 4-month season is a huge challenge. It would be beneficial for yards to be able to offer year-
round work to these skilled individuals. Mechanics, yard technicians, machine operators, as well as office staff would
all have steady work year-round to provide service to their customers. I know that my marina had to hire more
technicians during the winter months to keep up with the inside work orders. I should also mention that indoor climate-
controlled storage eliminates: shrink wrapping (thousands of yards of plastic waste), winterizing engines/water
systems, and cold weather damage to electronics. As far as demand, I waited almost two years to get my boat stored
inside a climate-controlled facility.
I ask you to please consider some of these benefits when deciding to approve indoor storage facilities at Strongs Water
Club. I have been visiting Strongs Water Club for years now and I would love to be able to have this option at this
beautiful marina.
There is nothing more important to your local economy than local businesses being able to thrive and hire from your
community.
Respectfully,
Chris McInnis
Christian McInnis Save Contact
President
A Better Way to Hire, A Better Way to Manage
Phone: (203) 876- 2110
Email: chris.mcinnis@mcinnisinc.com
1
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 9:09 AM S U _
To: Westermann, Caitlin -)° L I M ,MC
Subject: FW: Strong's Yacht Center RECEIVED
JUN 30 2023
From: Dilworth,Theresa <Theresa.Dilworth@mmc.com> ,
Sent: Friday,June 30, 2023 9:08 AM Planning Board
To: Michaelis, Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> _ /
Ll
Subject: re: Strong's Yacht Center (O/� ' to �� �� '
To: Southold Town Planning Dept. and Planning Board
Below is a letter to the Editor I wrote to the Suffolk Times, published in the June 29, 2023 edition of the paper.
I'd also like it to be considered as a comment with respect to the SYC DEIS.
Thank you
Theresa Dilworth
3755 Hallock Lane
Mattituck
From: Dilworth, Theresa
Sent: Sunday,June 25, 2023 5:37 PM
To: swick@timesreview.com
Subject: Letter to the Editor re: Strong's Yacht Center
Dear Editor:
Re: the Strong Yacht Center proposal, SEQRA requires weighing (1) "public need and benefits, including social
and economic considerations" against (2) "significant adverse environmental impacts." In the Findings step,
the Town must weigh and balance both elements.
"Public need" applies to projects satisfying a societal need, such as health care facilities, housing for the
elderly, or new industry in an area of high unemployment. A sponsor of a proposed residential subdivision
might demonstrate public need for additional housing. In Hudson River Fisherman's Assn v. Williams, public
need for a drinking water supply outweighed harm to fish life.
The DEIS does not contain a "public need" section - it is omitted. Yet this is the most important consideration
of all.
For "public benefits", the DEIS lists (1) sales taxes, (2) property taxes, (3 job creation, (4) upgrading an old
septic system, and (5) neighbors' ability to connect to a new water main.
1
Of the 8.63% sales tax, 4% benefits the state and 4.25% benefits the county. Only 0.38% benefits Mattituck,
the local municipality. At$20,000/yacht in service and storage fees (assuming storage customers service their
yachts), the benefit to Mattituck is $76 per yacht, or$6,688 total per year.
Abatements reduce the property tax to $29,725 for the first three years, increasing to $59,450 in the 11th
year. I personally pay over$24,000 in property taxes on a five-bedroom, 3.3 acre residence in Mattituck.
The DEIS claims 11 full-time jobs will be created, but yachts arrive in autumn and leave in spring. If year-round,
these jobs will likely dislodge eleven seasonal summer jobs.
The water main was completed on May 27, 2023, unrelated to this proposal..
Upgrading an outdated septic system to current standards, while a societal benefit, is not significant.
In conclusion, public need is nonexistent and public benefits are paltry.
Theresa Dilworth
T l ii ; rn ad, inc,ll.ac1ir[ra any L rrrray r,rntair[
nfrawria,iwri llhal is r:onfi er�.,l c:ir l'ukdr,:,r,`ed "Ih se riir:°,fiil is
rfl(er6ded sr:alrol;r fr:ar the use of V,e LCi a c)[r� �t vv as n iterir:ed r(_) l:ae
Dddt'e, ,&`J li tw.Aa rc.cc.wfd fl-ii.; e.r.riail :,md ai,e riot .ari
e.arv,r rai a(,' ro ,iva di•sP:rba.rlirarr r;r,l:av n r)r aSE"r far°
:rrfirrrr r' f 4lii .� �;r°r°re,a�l rai it°rf�°,,�°rrre:�f.iwai rsrrrrlalre'd w0hln it an", C;ar`rrliflJ�9t��rr.�
ym,i [r@vmr ^ i..r c(ewr�d ri r,i RX, r:r[r a.,ra ii� �ur,r�li<,alt:aly
�ral:aly fw 11<<:; s ndri:°or w a e..r'r� ail rain(] .a! r�a (aa� �iaifar.,�e: lfly
d kr [ ° .alf (:'Opp s r�.'rf IliFl.al "11E �arfe�d irwfr,t}..ir° r witty arly rw{ il,.� ,,fl. ac ii i n-r ntt';",
� � Yf�w r�arir„
rr)rrii /r:mr rx
2
From: John Rasweiler <'ohn.rasweiler.iv@ mail.com>
Sent: Thursday,June 29, 2023 3:54 PM RECEIVED
To: Michaelis,Jessica _.....n_..__.,..._...._....._. .....,., ..
Subject: Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project
Dear Planning Board Members: 11.1-1—f „W Planning Board
I (0
I wish to express two concerns about this proposed project that have not been adequately addressed elsewhere to my
knowledge:
Zoning of the proposed warehouse site. The currently approved zoning for the site is Marine 11. 1 suspect that when
this zoning code was originally approved many years ago,the Town of Southold never envisioned it would permit a
massive, commercial scale, sand mining operation.This is clearly more than digging a hole for a building basement or
regrading a construction site. As actually stated by Strong's,the removal and sale of sand from the site is going to fund a
significant portion of the entire project. For that to be permissible, I believe the site should be zoned LI (Light Industrial)
or LIO (Light Industrial Park). Such rezoning of the site would be inappropriate in the middle of an area otherwise zoned
as R80.
Future fire risks in the storage buildings. Given the increasing pressure to electrify vehicles, it seems inevitable that the
same transformation will also soon be undertaken with boats.See:
«� htt s: www.bloomber .com news 'articles 2023-0G-29 orschem 911-electric-s eedboat-2024-based-on-
macan-suv-likel -costs-Fi55-
000?accessToken=e JhbGci0UJ Uzi 1 Nils InRScCl6lk JXVCJ9.evJzb3VvY2UiOiJTdW'JzY3J DYmVv R2 I m dGVkQXJOaWNs
ZSl lmlhdCl5MTY40DA2N`M1MCwiZ wlioxN' 4Ni xMTUwLCJhcnRpY2:KIS,WQiOiJSWDBWOUdEVOxVNijzwMSisI
mJ`b25uZWNOSW iOil3MDY2RUY NDdBM`UOMD 10DdERkEOMUU3 OODh J9. MZ` kOtRPG 9 dolMN
HdGcluFtiPK 9n F mdMm 8
That would mean the proposed storage buildings at the marina may increasingly have to accommodate vessels with
lithium battery storage systems.Although Strong's has indicated that the buildings will be equipped with "fire
suppression systems", I question if such systems or our local fire departments will be capable of containing interior fires
caused by battery system failures? Lithium ion battery explosions are now the third most frequent cause of fires in NYC
(htt s: www.n r.or 2023 03 11 1162732820 e-bike-scooter-lithium-ion-batte -fire). Furthermore,for many years,
boats with such systems may be closely intermingled with others containing tanks of flammable fuels.
Finally, it should be noted that high risk EV fires have been found to be caused by the exposure of lithium ion batteries
to salt water(htt s: www.ctif.or news coast- uard-issues-saft -alert-avoid-Coadin evs-salt-water dame e-ships).
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Sincerely yours,
John J. Rasweiler IV
P.O. Box 1032
3150 Vanston Road
Cutchogue, NY 11935
1
From: Lanza, Heather
Sent: Thursday,June 29, 2023 2:32 PM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Marine Comments on DEIS
� I M T 3C,1TC
IRECEgMessage ._ ..._... ..... ..........._..._....... .. .,.
-----Ori Original -----
From:VicGmail<vjdasaro@gmail.com> AM 2 9 2023
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 6:17 PM
To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong's Marine Planning Board
60 - r4
Dear Ms. Lanza,
I write to you as a New York resident and the owner of a Fairline Squadron. As you know, it is exceedingly challenging to
find appropriate winter storage for such a vessel. Heated storage facilities make repair work possible during the winter
months and would facilitate summer boating on the Long Island Sound. I imagine employment opportunities would be
bolstered by such a setting as well. It is clear to me that high -paying jobs would be associated with such a facility.
With the difficulty of finding this type of storage in the area, many yacht owners are driven to send their boats further
south.This new initiative by Strong's Marine would provide an excellent opportunity to keep our business in the area. I
hope you will be receptive to their plans.
Please feel free to contact me for any information I can provide.
Yours truly,
Victor J. Dasaro, DVM
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
RAYMOND FEDYNAK
155 FAY COURT. MATTITUCK, NY 11952 Sub-F
631-298-8958
a
Date: June 22, 2023 �....... .......... ...�. �.. , .1,1
A
Town of Southold --. w6ffi l T6_ �__
P.O. Box 1179 Planning Board
Southold, New York 11971
- � - Zo
Attn: Donald Wilcenski, Chair, Southold Planning Board 106 • e- 13 .9
Heather Lanza, Planning Director
Dear Mr. Wilcenski and Ms. Lanza;
I am writing to you about the proposed Strong's Storage Facility project on on Mattituck Inlet .
The proposal to create Strong's Storage Facility to just provide heated winter storage for up to
88 yatchs in two buildings 45 foot tall and approximately 50,000 square feet each is a threat to
the Mattituck community. Mattituck Inlet is not a very wide water way and is not meant to
handle for huge number of large boat traffic. The removal of approximately 8 acres of forested
hillside land which also borders a Town Nature Preserve would also drastically change
Mattituck Inlet forever.
I am against his project for the following reasons,which are specifically addressed in the
Southold Town Comprehensive Plan.
Not only does it not conform to Southold's Town Plan but,caters to wealthy yatch owners
from Long Island, Connecticut,Westchester and other areas.These yatch owners would just
have park their yatchs for the winter in the places they have been using before.This project
just destroys the reason why many of us residents retired to the North Fork. Destroying the
our green space does not preserve the soul of the North Fork. Our soul has already been
threaten when tourists use our two-lane roads,spring,summer fall and winter ignoring traffic
signs and pedestrians. We also do not know how much more equipment is needed to remove
these yatchs to and from the inlet to storage sheds. Mr. Strong is all ready the owner of many
marinas and Boat and Yatch Showrooms here on Long Island.To quote"The New York Times,
Sunday issue of May 28, 2023"1 "This is a Battle for the Soul of the North Fork".
Thank you for providing an opportunity for residents to express their serious concern over this
project.
Sincerely,
JACQUELINE FEDYNAK
155 FAY COURT. MATTITUCK, NY 11952
631-298-8958 S V
Date: June 22, 2023 RECEIVED
a
Town of Southold 29 20231!
P.O. Box 1179 6Ut o d Torn
Southold, New York 11971 Planning Board
Attn: Donald Wilcenski, Chair, Southold Planning Board I O�
Heather Lanza, Planning Director
Dear Mr. Wilcenski and Ms. Lanza;
I am writing to you about the proposed Strong's Storage Facility project on on Mattituck Inlet .
The proposal to create Strong's Storage Facility to just provide heated winter storage for up to
88 yatchs in two buildings 45 foot tall and approximately 50,000 square feet each is a threat to
the Mattituck community. Mattituck Inlet is not a very wide water way and is not meant to
handle for huge number of large boat traffic. The removal of approximately 8 acres of forested
hillside land which also borders a Town Nature Preserve would also drastically change
Mattituck Inlet forever.
I am against his project for the following reasons, which are specifically addressed in the
Southold Town Comprehensive Plan.
Not only does it not conform to Southold's Town Plan but,caters to wealthy yatch owners
from Long Island, Connecticut,Westchester and other areas.These yatch owners would just
have park their yatchs for the winter in the places they have been using before.This project
just destroys the reason why many of us residents retired to the North Fork. Destroying the
our green space does not preserve the soul of the North Fork. Our soul has already been
threaten when tourists use our two-lane roads,spring,summer fall and winter ignoring traffic
signs and pedestrians.We also do not know how much more equipment is needed to remove
these yatchs to and from the inlet to storage sheds. Mr.Strong is all ready the owner of many
marinas and Boat and Yatch Showrooms here on Long Island.To quote"The New York Times,
Sunday issue of May 28,2023"."This is a Battle for the Soul of the North Fork".
Thank you for providing an opportunity for residents to express their serious concern over this
project.
Sincerely,
S0b-F
From: Lanza, Heather c'
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 1:20 PM
To:
'pl�
lin
Subject. W: He tedn6 attStora a Building �u�....
S Lcrrati a"d.T6
Strongs Storage Buildings Comments on the DEIS Planning Board
Iolo . - ( - 10 ...+ 13 . 9
From: Nicole Evers<Nicole@strongsmarine.com>
Sent: Wednesday,June 28, 2023 11:00 AM
To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us>
Cc:whitcombr@whitsons.com
Subject: FW: Heated Boat Storage Building
Heather,
I am forwarding you this email on behalf of Robert Whitcomb, cc'ed on this email.
Thank you,
Nicole Evers
From: Robert E.Whitcomb<whitcornbr hitsons.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2023 9:32 PM
To: Nicole Evers<Nicole stron smaririe.corn>; Ryan Strong<R an stron smarine.com>; Drew Attaway
<DrewA strori srnarine. om>
Subject: Heated Boat Storage Building
Dear Nicole,
I understand Strongs is in the process of securing permits for the construction of a new heated boat storage facility. I
applaud this action as the marine market is presently under served for indoor storage.
As a yacht owner of a Princess Y72,there are no options for heated indoor storage in the northeast.The reason this is
important to boat owners, heated storage eliminates the need of having the boat shrink wrapped and winterized.This is
better for the environment and reduces costs for all as well. In addition, it allows Strongs to work on the boats during
inclement weather thereby deploying its labor force more efficiently. I have several friends with larger yachts that would
be willing to make use of this new facility.
Please feel free to share this communication with the officials at Southold Planning Board regarding your application,
Good luck in this endeavor!
Bob Whitcomb
Get Outlook for iOS
1
JOEL 1. KLEIN, Ph.D., wP ���m� owwww �� � .w �.. u
635 Lloyds Lane,Mattituck,New York 11952
Svbf-
June 28, 2023
Southold Town Planning Board RECEIVED
54375 x Main
Road
PO Bo
� j ..
Southold, NY 11971
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Manring Bo rr,i,'.
PROPOSED STRONG' S YACHT STORAGE BUILDINGS
5780 WEST MILL ROAD
MATTITUCK, NY 11952
TAX MAP NUMBER: 106.-6- 10&13.4
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS RELATING TO TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND SITE SAFETY
Members of the Southold Town Planning Board:
On May 15, 2023 1 submitted extensive comments critical of the DEIS for the referenced project.
Since that submittal, additional information has been entered into the public record at two public
hearings, and in writing. On June 6, 2023, Dominic Testa of Frog Hollow Industries, submitted
written comments which appear to be intended to support the Applicant's contention that the
Project can be constructed in an environmentally acceptable manner. According to Mr. Testa,
Frog Hollow Industries "will be working with Benimax, Inc. on the excess material removals from
the proposed Strongs Yacht Storage project". In fact, the information provided by Mr. Testa
confirms and reinforces my comments demonstrating that the DEIS has significantly
underestimated to volume of 22-wheel haul truck traffic that will be required to transport
excavated sand from the Project site, and as a result, the DEIS has significantly underestimated
Project impacts relating not just to traffic, but to pedestrians and bicyclists, pavement damage,
air quality, noise, vibration, and historic properties.
Mr. Testa also states that"In our[his] opinion, it is possible to remove offsite safely and
efficiently the volumes and quantities of materials proposed with little or no impact to
surrounding communities and neighbors." This opinion is not supported by any accompanying
evidence, and is, in fact, contradicted and rendered irrelevant by other data provided by Mr.
Testa.
Haul Truck Traffic Volume
In my May 15 comments, I pointed out that the Project's Geotechnical Report (DEIS Appendix
H) determined that the approximately 43,851 CY (cubic yard) of Stratum 1 sand to be excavated
from the Project site weighs 110 pcf(pounds per cubic foot) or 2,970 pounds per CY, and the
approximately 84,852 CY of Stratum 2 sand to be excavated weighs 115 pcf, or 3,105 pounds
per CY. Together, these two strata account for 96 percent of the sand that will be excavated
and transported. Put another way, each CY of Stratum 1 sands weighs 1.485 tons and each CY
of Stratum 2 sands weighs 1.55 tons. Based on these figures the maximum volume of Stratum
1 sand that can be carried by any one haul truck is 25 CY—not the 30 CY stated in the DEIS.
The maximum volume of Stratum 2 sand that can be carried is 24 CY—not the 30 CY stated in
the DEIS'
The comment from Mr. Testa states that"during our start up period of Mid-April to May 3, 2021,
we loaded and removed 132,059 tons, on 3962 trucks." Based on this, each truck load
contained 33.33 tons per truck load. Using a conservative value of 1.5 tons per cubic yard, this
means that each truck load contained approximately 22.22 CY of excavated material. This is far
less than the assumed 30 CY per load used in the Strongs Yacht Storage Project DEIS to
evaluate impacts.
Mr. Testa's comments also note that"The attached table marked ESSR-21 Tons Summary
identifies the number of tons removed and the number of trucks required to move the tons
calculated."According to Table ESSR-21, between April 2021 and June 2022, a total of
877,550.82 tons of material was removed in 26,101 loads. This equates to approximately
585,034 CY of material, or approximately 22.41 CY/load.
It is clear from this data that the DEIS has significantly underestimated the number of truck
loads/truck trips that will be required to remove excavated sand from the Project site. The data
also suggests that the maximum amount of sand that can be expected to be removed in any
one truck load is even less than the 24-25 CY indicated in my original comments, possibly
because each truck will not be loaded to its absolute maximum theoretical capacity. The "back
of an envelope" calculations apparently used to calculate the number of haul truck trips noted in
the DEIS is another example of the carelessness with which the DEIS was prepared.
I would also note that, in stark contrast to the DEIS, Mr. Testa is careful to distinguish between
truck loads (26,000) and truck trips (52,000): "we loaded and removed over 26,000 truck loads
which equals 52,000 truck trips." The DEIS repeatedly equates "total trips"with truck loads,
resulting in perception that the number of truck trips is half what it will actually be.
The "Similar"Project
Mr. Testa's comments deal exclusively with Frog Hollow Industries record and experience in
regard to involvement with "a recently completed . . . similar project for the NY City Bureau of
Water Supply (NYC DEP BWS) in Valhalla, NY." His opinion that excavated material can be
transported from the Strong's Yacht Storage project site"with little or no impact to surrounding
communities and neighbors" is based on his experience with the BWS project.
Although not specifically identified, it is clear that the BWS project site referred to is the BWS'
Eastview Site.2 The Eastview Site is the location of the BWS' Catskill/Delaware Ultraviolet Light
Disinfection Facility Project completed in 2012.1 It is also the location of portions of the
'According to the revised DEIS,"The empty weight of the Project haul vehicles will be 32,500 pounds and the Gross
Vehicle Weight of the vehicles is anticipated to be 107,000 pounds'(DEIS p.220). If the empty weight of the Project
haul vehicles is 32,500 pounds,then the weight of the load on each vehicle cannot exceed 74,500 pounds(107,000
-32,500),or 37.25 tons—equivalent to 24.8 CY.
2 The incident report included in Mr.Testa's comment the project site as the"Eastview Soil Stockpile, 15 Walker
Road,Valhalla, NY."
3 Fatt aa//�/IW N g OV/Site'rt �tlg!t�catskill- Lrlaware-ulti v6oletFight-cli�infegti nq._.-facilitag
Pate
proposed Kensico-Eastview Connection Project.4 The former project resulted in the stockpiling
of large amounts of excavated material at the Eastview Site. That material was removed in
preparation for construction of the latter project.
Mr. Testa uses the Eastview excavated material removal project as a basis for comparison with
the removal and transport of material from the Strong's project site. The two projects are in no
way "similar" in regard to their"impact to surrounding communities and neighbors."
Mr. Testa states, as noted above, that""during our start up period of Mid-April to May 3, 2021,
we loaded and removed 132,059 tons, on 3962 trucks." He goes on to note that"That's nearly
the entire Strong's Project, loaded and hauled in a five week start up period!" Mr. Testa is
careful to note that his "similar" project involved only the loading and removal—not excavation—
of material from the Eastview Site. The reason for this is that the material being removed was
already stockpiled on the site. It was this factor that contributed to the ability to remove the
material as quickly as described. The time period required for the removal of material from the
Strongs Project site is constrained by how quickly material can be excavated.
The 132,059 tons described by Mr. Testa as being removed from the Eastview site equates to
only approximately 88,000 CY. That is far from being "nearly the entire Strong's Project,"which
will require the removal of approximately 135,000 CY of material.
Were the 3962 truck loads of excavated material, equating to 7924 trips, to travel the truck route
identified for the Strong's Yacht Storage Project, over a five-week period that would equate to
317 trips per day—or one truck trip every two minutes, ten hours per day, five days per week.
The data in Table ESSR-21 attached to Mr. Testa's comments also indicates that the volume
(tons)of excavated material removed, and the number of associated truck loads, varied
significantly from month to month. In January 2022 only 13686 tons/389 loads were transported.
No material is reported as having been removed in February 2022. This strongly suggests that
winter weather impacted the ability to remove soil—possibly because it was frozen. This is
significant since the excavation and transport of excavated sand from the Strong's Yacht
Storage Project site will take place during the winter months.
The nature of the communities surrounding the Eastview and Strong's project sites are also
significantly different, as are the nature of associated truck routes. "The area immediately
surrounding the Eastview Site contains a mix of commercial office buildings, [13] residences,
and institutional facilities owned by[Westchester] County"' (Figure 1, attached). The qualitative
differences between the community associated with the Eastview Site and the community
surrounding the Strong's project site are obvious.
The truck routes associated with the Eastview and Strong's projects are also qualitatively and
quantitively different. The former consists of well-constructed streets and roads lined almost
exclusively with commercial and industrial uses, over a distance of approximately 1.5 miles from
4, g L/W� m.._'n, C.ggV/Site/d / bout/ken,Baca-(ta 1yi,w-c�nnec8!g . a9
s k tt ff :rr vCan e /d Lgownlga ipgf/e!vironment�af-reviews/c t kill-dq!gware-qltraviolet-l_icLlit-di nfection-
Lar.flia. 4-t3 ire tibortaq der tf
the project site to the entrance to the Cross-Westchester Expressway (1-287). Approximately
two-thirds of that distance is along a 5-lane portion of NYS Rt 9A. There is virtually no
pedestrian traffic along this route which is serviced by numerous bus routes. Not a single
residence is located along this presumed route.
In contrast, the truck route associated with the Strong's Yacht Storage Project is almost 15
miles long from the Project site to the entrance to the Long Island Expressway (1-495). Nine of
the 15 miles are along non-engineered roads passing through areas consisting primarily of
residences, farms, and associated agricultural activities. This portion of the route is utilized by
both pedestrians and bicyclists. The portion of the route along Sound Avenue is a designated
bike route. The remaining six miles along CR 58, is highly trafficked and lined with commercial
establishments. The route includes 17 signalized intersections between Northville Turnpike and
1-495.
Safety Concerns
As noted above, Mr. Testa states that"it is possible to remove offsite safely and efficiently the
volumes and quantities of materials proposed . . ." Note the use of the qualifying word
"possible." In fact, Mr. Testa's comments include portions of an on-site incident report
describing an accident at the Eastview Site. While a single on-site accident over the course of
many months is not unusual in itself, what is significant is the response to the incident. After the
incident it was concluded that
"With the creation of a strong Environmental Health and Safety Plan (EHASP)
truck routes, driver behavior and site operations can be controlled to allow for the
removals of excess materials without detrimental effects to the community.
Additionally, Benimax Inc. is proposing to install a load out weighment system to
ensure that all truck loads are within legal weight limits on duly permitted trucks
operated by Benimax.
The weighment system will allow for transaction reports, scale summaries and
trip data, so that any truck or load can be tracked from load out to final
destination, and working with the on board GPS systems that all Benimax trucks
are equipped with, we can track truck routes, driver operation and vehicle speeds
so that drivers are held accountable while operating on local roads."
None of these provisions has been incorporated in the Strong' Yacht Storage Project as
described in the DEIS.
The DEIS does mention that there will be an on-site safety supervisor present during all phases
of the Project (pp. xxx, xxxi, 18, 19, 212, 213 287). However, the duties and responsibilities of
this individual are not described in any detail, but seem to be very limited. The DEIS states that
"After installation of the haul road, a temporary guard booths (5-foot by 5-foot)
would be placed proximate to the ingress/egress. Its purpose would be to house
6 At the completion of Phase 2,the temporary guard booth would be removed.
a staff member responsible for directing incoming trucks, employees, and
inspection of exiting trucks to ensure all loads are covered. Should the pandemic
still be a concern, the staff member would direct drivers and employees of proper
site safety protocols" (DEIS p.286, also pp. xxx, 19, 286).
The DEIS also states:
"Upon entry into the property, a security booth would be located on the east side
of the temporary haul road to house a site manager responsible for directing
trucks to the Construction Excavation Area, inspecting exiting vehicles, and
enforcing safety protocols" (p. 288, 289, 291, 334).
It is unclear from these statements if the"on-site safety manager," the "staff member," and site
manager are the same individual, but the context suggests that they are. The defined
responsibility of this individual seems to consist only of ensuring that out-going loads are
covered, and if the pandemic is still a concern, advising employees of proper site safety
protocols.
Balancing of Impacts vs Benefits
Finally, it should be noted that the"similar" project described by Mr. Testa differs in another
significant aspect. As the Planning Board is well aware, according to the SEQRA Handbook
"There can be cases in which proposed privately sponsored projects would result
in unavoidable or unmitigated adverse environmental impacts. Agencies must
then balance those adverse environmental impacts against social, economic, and
other essential considerations to make their SEAR findings" (p.114).
As noted above, Mr. Testa's "similar" project--the Eastview excavated material removal
project—was associated with both the Catskill/Delaware Ultraviolet Light Disinfection Facility
Project and the Kensico-Eastview Connection Project. The environmental impact statements for
both of those projects, prepared by NYC Department of Environmental Protection, concluded
that those projects would result in "significant traffic impacts." This was balanced against the
fact that both projects were mandated by the USEPA to ensure that safe drinking water would
continue to be provided to more than nine million people in New York. In contrast, the already
identified significant environmental impacts associated with the Strong's Yacht Storage Building
Project should be balance against the fact that its purpose is to benefit a handful of high wealth
individuals.
Sincerely,
Joel I. Klein, Ph.D., RPA
FIGURE 1
October 2014. The Eastview Soil Stockpile Site (center) as it appeared after construction of the
Catskill/Delaware Ultraviolet Light Disinfection Facility (lower right).
SQbf
NA NELSON POPE VOORHIS I... t� .... :TI_ .!: . C
environmental•land use•planning RECEIVED
�..�... ...._....._..................._._.m_.�.
o
96�ffi_6l Tar r .
MEMORANDUM Planning Board
...
— to
To: Town of Southold Planning Board l Ula
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: June 26, 2023
NPV No: 08265
Re: Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings-DEIS Substantive Review
Nelson Pope Voorhis, LLC("NPV") in association with Nelson + Pope Engineers, Architects, Surveyors("N+P") has
reviewed the revised November 2022 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for the Strong's Yacht
Center boat storage buildings proposed 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 accuracy, reasonableness and reliability
of the information, methods, analyses, and conclusions contained in the DEIS and to request additional
information and/or recommend additional mitigation where possible to prevent or minimize
environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable; 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."
Per our agreement with the Town, NPV's primary responsibilities for this DEIS review include consideration of
hydrology, hydrogeology and associated factors (e.g., groundwater, surface waters, wetlands, soils, and
topography). Nelson & Pope's (N+P's) primary focus is on traffic and transportation related impacts, analyses,
and mitigations.
Based on our review of the DEIS submission, NPV and N+P recommend that additional information, analyses
and/or clarification be provided in the Final EIS as follows.
HYDROLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY
Comments:
1. The DEIS states that "[b]ased on SCDHS design flow factors of 0.00 gpd/SF for boat storage and 0.06
gpd/SF for non-storage (bathrooms), potable water usage for post-development conditions would
increase by 18 gpd from 1,058±gpd to 1,076±gpd."As previously noted,the projection of 18 gpd seems
quite low considering there would be 11 new employees and an increased number of patrons utilizing the
business's services and both proposed warehouses include bathrooms. NPV reviewed Suffolk County
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 Substantive Review
Department of Health Services'(SCDHS)"Project Density Loading Rates&Design Sewage Flow Rates"and
found there is no flow factor provided for boat storage uses. How was the 18 gpd estimated?Additional
information is requested to determine the most appropriate multiplier to provide the best real world
sewage flow and water demand estimates:
• Each proposed warehouse will include a 19'x 8'(152 SF)bathroom and two new sanitary systems
are proposed, while one existing sanitary system will be abandoned. Therefore, the required
capacity to serve both existing and future employees must be demonstrated.
• How many employees currently work at SYC?Are the existing employees full-time, part-time or
mixed?
• What types of jobs will the 11 new employees fill?(e.g., boat storage and maintenance,office,or
other roles?)
• Are the new employees full-time, part-time or mixed?
• Which building(s), or work areas will the 11 new employees be assigned to? Will they all be
involved with the new yacht storage operations?
• Indicate whether office space or any other dedicated space will be included in the proposed
buildings.
• Indicate the square footage of any other dedicated spaces in the proposed buildings.
• Will the existing or proposed restrooms be open to the public/patrons (i.e., yacht owners and
their friends and families)or is bathroom use strictly for employees?
2. With regard to the 11 new employees, NPV believes that if the new employees'work area is in,around or
associated with the proposed buildings and their tasks involve yacht storage and maintenance, then the
projected flow rate for sanitary waste should be based on 7.5 gpd per person based on full-time equivalent
(FTE)estimates or a volume determined by SCDHS as appropriate as expressed in a determination letter
from SCDHS. In addition,if any or all of the employees are assigned to existing spaces and facilities,there
will need to be an accounting of whether the flow projections for those buildings absorb the flow from
the additional employees and patrons.
3. Please provide a total peak water demand projection in total gallons per day for existing and proposed
flow based on total projected sanitary flow and water required for boat washing, landscape irrigation and
any other operations that require the use of water.
4. Alternative 7: Alternative Material Mitigation Plan: Please further describe the area where the 13,500 CY
(12 inches) of soil would be placed. Is it flat?Will it be used to fill a topographic depression? Is it on a hill
or on a slope? Also,the area of soil placement under Alternative 7 is described as an area vegetated with
successional shrubland. What specific types of vegetation are present and are there any rare plants at
that location that may be affected? How much land will be cleared to accommodate the soil? How far is
the soil placement area from streets and property lines? The soil should be at least as far from the
property lines as the property's required yard setbacks. Please indicate in the DEIS that any soil that is
retained onsite will be clean uncontaminated soil.
5. One of the primary impacts from the project is the significant volume of soil to be removed and the
associated truck traffic. A letter dated June 24, 2021, was sent to SYC from H&L Contracting. The letter
states that H&L reached out to four different barge companies asking about the feasibility of utilizing
barges to export excess soil from the site and that these companies had indicated that it was not possible,
based on an anticipated draft of 10 feet and limited depth and width ("S" curves) along the creek. Please
provide the bases, essential information, and calculations if any to demonstrate that ten feet of draft
would be needed during low tide and that Mattituck Creek is too shallow to accommodate loaded barges
that may have less draft. Indicate the sizes (length, width, etc.) of the barges that would be used and if
there are alternatives such as smaller barges (with more frequent but smaller shipments)that might be
accommodated by the Creek. How much soil/weight do the barges carry? How does the loading of the
barges affect its draft (e.g., ton/foot of draft)? How do (to what extent do) daily tidal cycles affect the
depth of the creek and hours per day that operations could be undertaken? Could barges be used with
N P y Page 2 of 6
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
DEIS Substantive Review
proper scheduling? How many barges would be needed? Where would barges be off loaded and what
would be the route taken for final disposal, reuse or stockpiling? Would soil be covered to prevent
siltation of the creek? Are there other alternatives or mitigations to lessen the impact of soil excavation
and export?
6. The groundwater model used by project consultants predicts a groundwater travel time of 4 to 4.5
years from the western boundary of the proposed excavation area to Mattituck Creek based on a particle's
expected curvilinear path from 40 feet below the water table to the Creek. How was this depth and path
determined? Based on the County's time of groundwater travel map,the time of travel is more likely 2-3
years and would be less where drainage and sanitary systems are proposed. If a volatile organic compound
or other chemical that is lighter than water is released into the ground wouldn't this pollutant remain at
the interface of the water table and vadose zone and reach the creek much sooner, especially if it is from
the septic systems or leaching galleys? If so,what would be the time of travel of a VOC to the Creek?
7. The last paragraph in Section 4, p. 28 of the Groundwater Modeling Report indicates that over the next
few decades sea level is expected to rise by 16±inches and groundwater beneath the proposed excavated
area would be expected to rise 1.31 feet but there is no indication of if or how, in conjunction with the
proposed project,this would impact nearby wells.
8. Page 45, under"Water Supply and Surrounding Wells,"includes an SYC annual water demand estimate of
1,058±gpd. Since activity at the yacht club is seasonal,what is the estimated demand in gallons per day
for water during the boating season? If demand is greater, how does that affect the hydrologic analyses?
9. Second paragraph, p. 106 regarding sea level rise states that: "MHW at the subject property coincides
with the top of the bulkhead and was mapped at approximately 4.0±feet.Based on a 16-inch or 1.33±feet
projection in the 2050s, MHW would be expected to increase to 5.3±feet AMSL. The existing bulkhead
ranges from 6.0±feet to 6.8±feet, and thus, would remain higher than MHW." The first sentence seems
to say that the existing bulkhead is at 4.0±feet, while the second sentence says that it ranges from 6.0±
feet to 6.8±feet. Please explain, correct or clarify the discrepancy.
10. The DEIS discusses fire prevention requirements for the proposed LPG tanks. LPG is known to be relatively
clean, however, based on the discussions in the DEIS, it is not stated definitively whether the new LPG
above ground storage tanks and their future contents are subject to the standards and requirements of
Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Please provide a direct response as to whether the tanks
(LPG) are subject to these requirements or not, and why it is, or isn't subject to Article 12 requirements.
If it is, how the storage facilities will comply or not comply, and any mitigation proposed.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
1. Planning Board memo, Comment#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.
The Applicant Engineer did not provide any mitigations. It is stated in the revised Traffic Study that
"The comparison of the impact of the projected truck traffic is minimal on all the proposed truck
routes except for West Mill Road which showed an increase in Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL)
loading with a 11.14 percent increase and Bergen Avenue, if it is used as an alternative the truck
route (See later Section: Alternate Routing of Haul Material). While the increased ESAL loadings by
percentage are significant, the significance is due to the existing light traffic volumes found on the roads.
The number of ESAL loads projected to occur on West Mill Road are approximately one tenth of those
projected to occur on Cox Neck Road. TSPE,as part of the pavement evaluation,also examined the ability
of Town of Southold standard pavement section with 1.5 inches of top,2.5 inches of binder and 4.0 inches
of stone or recycled concrete base will support the expected loads from the project truck traffic".
N P V Page 3 of 6
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
DEIS Substantive Review
The following table is a summary of truck traffic impact on the study roadways:
Future Condition-With proposed
Existing Conditions project
Increased %Increase WHeavy
Heavy Heavy Heavy in Heavy Vehicle%
Route AADT* Vehicle% Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles w/Increase
�w ......... ............. ........�w .__............ .w.� _ _w................... ._._...w__........................_._...
West_Mill Road 413 4.60% 19 80 421% 23.97%
Cox Neck Road 2,393 6.50% 156 80 1 51% . w_..
9.86
Sound Avenue 16,262 5.88% 956 80 8% 6.37%
.............._. _........__.. ._... ...... �w w........_..ww_..... — ._ww_......._... ._. _m
CR 43 6218 7.84% 487 80 16% 9.12%
CR 58 24,585 7.60% 1,868 80 .........w
4% 7.92
*AADT:Annual Average Daily Traffic
In the response, include a column in the table for Vehicle Volumes to include the Adjusted Heavy Truck
Volume Percentage.
From the review of this table,the proposed project will increase truck traffic on West Mill Road by 421%
and on Cox Neck Road by 51%. This represents a significant increase in the amount of truck traffic on
West Mill Road and Cox Neck Road will add significant adverse impacts affecting the quality of life,
community character,and Town's infrastructure along said route.
2. NPV Comment#20,Section 3.10.2: Adequacy of 20 CY vs.30 CY trucks given the outcome of the AutoTurn
analysis. 20.b.i Based on the anticipated volume,the truck traffic due to use of a 20CY truck compared
to the 30CY truck will increase by approximately 1.5+/-times in order to complete the required volume
of trucking. From a numerical standpoint,the increased trips would negatively impact the community and
further degredate the Town's roadway infrastructure,due to the increased trips.
Traffic and Transportation Comments
3. Based on the AutoTURN Truck Movements supplied by Stonefield Engineering& Design, we find that the
existing roadway geometry will not accommodate the WB-50 trucks at the following locations:
• West Mill Road 90deg Turn (West of Naugles Drive)—Heading to the Site
• Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road at Bergen Ave
• West Mill Road at
• Bergen Ave 90deg Turn (North of Arbor Lane)
• Bergen Ave at Sound Avenue
The existing conditions and roadway geometry will not allow for safe and/or proper vehicular access along
the above mentioned roadways.These roadways may be impassable by pedestrians, bicyclists, and/or other
vehicles due to the inadequate remaining available road width, specifically around existing sharp curves or
intersecting roadways.
3.a.Concern at existing roadway curves may require the proposed truck traffic to encroach over the full
barrier/ double yellow center line and/or edge of pavement at the following locations, making these
segments of road impassable for other users:
N P y Page 4 of 6
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
DEIS Substantive Review
• West Mill Road 90deg Turn(West of Naugles Drive)—Heading away from the Site
• West Mill Road North of Bergen Avenue—Traveling in either direction
3.b. The width of the roadways(of concern)vary as follows:
• West Mill Road-20FT+/-
• Cox Neck Road-24FT+/-
• Bergen Ave-22FT+/-
• Northville Tnpk-32FT+/-
Additional concern has been raised on the Town's single lane,two-way roadways that do not allow for
safe maneuvering of opposing vehicular traffic, bicycle traffic,and/or pedestrian use.
3.c. Based on the turning analysis, existing roadway width, geometry and curvature of the roadway, it is the
Nelson + Pope traffic engineer's opinion that bicycle and pedestrian traffic would not be safely
accommodated during these truck trips.
4. TSPE provided ESAL calculations based on the requested 5-year design lift and anticipated truck traffic
volumes,which appear to provide a numerical value for review,however does not utilize the correct truck
traffic data. .Although it does not reflect a true representation of what the Town's roadway standards are
capable of handling, at the least, the pavement evaluation report shall be re-run to reflect the correct
Heavy Vehicle Percentage based on inclusion of the proposed truck trips. This may not affect roadways
with higher AADT values as much but will dramatically affect the local roadways with low AADT volumes.
It is anticipated that the numbers may still fall within an acceptable range, however, it should be noted
more accurately for analysis and reporting purposes. The ESAL calculation method utilizes the NYSDOT
Pavement Materials evaluation which may be argued to be equivalent to the local municipal roadway
materials, however, cannot be guaranteed. NYSDOT Material standard specifications and requirements
typically exceed the Towns Standards and/or Specifications based on the higher level of magnitude a state
road may hold over a local Town road (with respect to traffic volumes and use). It does appear that the
general Town's standard roadway pavement section would meet the required design calculations with
respect to general depth of material; 6" Base+2.5" Binder+ 1.5"Top. However, it should be noted that
no existing pavement cores were performed to confirm the existing roadway section, and that some of
the existing roadways may already be nearing the end of their lift cycle. Any additional heavy traffic
imposed on a roadway nearing the end of its life cycle may be more susceptible to maintenance issues
and possible subgrade infrastructure damage,which may require more extensive repairs. It may be in the
best interest of the Town to require a maintenance agreement for the affected roadways during this time
of additional heavy trucking.
OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS
As previously noted, NPV and N+P's focus was on hydrology (groundwater, surface waters, wetlands) and
associated or interrelated factors that affect hydrology(soil,topography,drainage,etc.),and traffic.Nevertheless,
some additional issues were noted during the normal course of the review that should be addressed.
1. The DEIS indicates that the proposed haul road will be between 16 and 30-feet-wide. Is this wide enough
for two 30-yard trucks to pass one another in areas that are 16 feet wide?NPV supports limiting the width
of the road as proposed to limit clearing and disturbance,but the process for managing conflicts between
incoming and outgoing trucks should be discussed.
N P V Page 5 of 6
Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
DEIS Substantive Review
2. The DEIS states that "[o]nce [the Evergreen Macro Gravity Retaining Wall System is] in place and
backfilled,seeding and use by bird species will promote growth in the trays that are built into the wall to
create a "green" wall over a period of two-to-three years." Please be specific as to how the design will
prevent erosion and sedimentation of adjacent tidal wetlands and surface waters or the creation of dust
if it will take birds 2 to 3 years to fully seed the area and establish sufficient growth? Please indicate why
the wall is not going to be fully seeded, planted and stabilized immediately after construction?
3. The vibration analysis indicates that it is based on Federal Transportation Authority (FTA) and New
Hampshire Guidelines.Does the State of New York(NYSDOT)have its own guidelines for vibration analyses
or are the New Hampshire Guidelines the best available?
4. The DEIS mentions an April 8, 2022, letter from Nancy Herter of the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation. Has there been further correspondence or developments in this
regard since that date? If so, please submit correspondence, and address any outstanding issues
accordingly.
5. Page ii of the DEIS states: "Due to the height and length of the expected boats to be stored, the existing
buildings at SYC cannot be used. Specifically, the height of the doors on the existing buildings are
approximately 24 feet. The current yachting market is producing both longer and taller vessels with the
height of a typical yacht at 351 feet. The proposed buildings would be constructed with door and ceiling
heights capable of accommodating such vessels." Page xix also states that the "proposed height of the
buildings would be 39 feet-3 inches from grade to the eaves and 45 feet-8 inches from grade to the top of
ridge. The mean roof height is 42 feet-6 inches." However, the "General Layout" plan indicates that
proposed building heights will be "<35 feet." The described building heights and needs are inconsistent
with buildings that are<35 feet in height.The DEIS and site plans must be consistent.
6. Page ii states: "The proposed two storage buildings would be placed to the west of existing Buildings 7 and
8 and are depicted as proposed Building 9 and Building 10 on the site plans." Some of the site plans,
however, identify the proposed buildings as Buildings 9 and 10 while some identify them as Buildings 1
and 2. One example in the text is on page ix which describes Building 1 as a residence,while some of the
plans show Building 1 as one of the proposed yacht storage buildings.
N P V Page 6 of 6
JOEL aI. KLEIN, Ph.D.,woRP
635 Lloyds Lane,Mattituck,New York 11952 V
CAM C
June 23, 2023 RECEIVED
Southold Town Planning Board
AP
54375 Main Road
PO Box 1179 '-
Southold, NY 11971 Planning Board
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED STRONG' S YACHT STORAGE BUILDINGS
5780 WEST MILL ROAD
MATTITUCK, NY 11952
TAX MAP NUMBER: 106.-6- 10 & 13. 4
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND AIR
QUALITY IMPACTS
Members of the Southold Town Planning Board:
At the May 15, 2023 public hearing on the referenced project, I submitted extensive comments
critical of the project's DEIS, including its discussion of air quality impacts. Those comments did
not address the issue of environmental justice. Although environmental justice was not
specifically called out in the DEIS scope as a potential issue, it still needs to be addressed. As
discussed in greater detail below, portions of the Project's haul-truck route pass though
Potential Environmental Justice Areas (EJAs) (Figure 1, attached) and a Disadvantaged
Community Area (DCA) in the Town of Riverhead. Diesel emissions from the Project's
thousands of haul truck trips through Riverhead will impact air quality. This could create related
health issues that may potentially contribute to area residents being exposed to a
disproportionate level of adverse environmental impacts.'
On December 31, 2022, after the DEIS was submitted to the Planning Board, Governor Hochul
signed a cumulative impacts bill (S.8830/A.2103D) into law. The new law amends SEQRA to
require the consideration of both long- and short-term effects of any proposed action "on
disadvantaged communities, including whether the action may cause or increase a
disproportionate or inequitable or both disproportionate and inequitable pollution burden on a
disadvantaged community (DAC)." Note the inclusion of"short-term"effects. The law became
effective this month.
The DEIS scope calls for"[e]stimated emission rates for particulate matter(PM) [to] be
computed and compared to USEPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)for PM2.5
1 In March of 2022,the Town of Riverhead Planning Board,as part of its SEQRA review of a proposed project,
determined that the response from the project applicant to EJA concerns was unacceptable. (That determination
was based on comments prepared by its consultant—Nelson,Pope Vorhees. The same consultant employed by
the Town of Southold to assist in the review of the Strong's Yacht Storage Project).
and PM10" (p.19). Both the DEIS and Appendix S correctly note that"PM2.5 is of special
concern since the smaller size of these particles allow them to enter deeper into the human
respiratory tract and damage lung tissue." PM2.5, short-term exposures (up to 24-hours
duration) have been associated with premature mortality, increased hospital admissions for
heart or lung causes, acute and chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, emergency room visits,
respiratory symptoms, and restricted activity days."2 Emissions from diesel fuel produce much of
the PM2.5 pollution found in outdoor air. It has recently been reported that particulate air
pollution on Long Island is exceeding the World Health Organization's 2021 air quality standards
(5 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5).3 Data came from five air quality monitoring stations
on Long Island, including one in Riverhead. Riverhead exceeded World Health Organization
guidelines by 1 to 2 times.4
The DEIS does not mention the historically Black community on Northville Turnpike, with its
Fletcher Booker Homestead at 1185 Northville Turnpike, a Town of Riverhead-designated
landmark.5 The Project's truck route passes directly through this area. This community lies
within Census Block Group 361031698003, which is 53.25% minority. 30.46% of its households
fall below the poverty level. Immediately to the north, also transected by Northville Turnpike, is
Census Block Group 361031699012, which is 47.27% minority. Both Census Block Groups are
designated Potential Environmental Justice Areas.
Both Census Tract 36103169800 (the area within which Census Block Group 361031698003 is
located) and Census Tract 36103169901 (the area within which Census Block Group 361031699012
is located)are also designated DACs. Within both Census Tracts hospital emergency department
visits are higher than 64% of census tracts statewide, and COPD visits are higher than 87% of
census tracts statewide.6
The DEIS does not include a discussion of potential environmental justice concerns, especially as
they relate to air quality impacts associated with diesel emissions from the Project's haul trucks.
Even though these concerns primarily relate to residents of the Town of Riverhead, the Southold
Planning Board, as lead agency under SEQRA, is still obligated to address them. However, the data
included in the DEIS cannot, without significant supplementation, be used to evaluate air quality
impacts, and associated health impacts to residents along the Project truck route in Riverhead.
Although called for in the DEIS scope, detailed four-season traffic data was never collected for the
portion of the Project's haul truck route within the Town of Riverhead. Instead, the DEIS Traffic
Study (DEIS Appendix O) relies for its analyses entirely on a few days of data collected by NYSDOT
in 2018 and 2019. In addition, as pointed out in my May 15 comments, the volume of Project haul
truck trips has been significantly underestimated because the DEIS has assumed each truck load
........................................e.. ......__..................._....................
4 The baseline PM 2.5 standard for the US Environmental Protection Agency is 12 micrograms per cubic meter.
5 The Fletcher Booker Homestead is located 1185 Northville Turnpike. It was constructed in 1939,and received
landmark designation in 2007.
6 ' a g�Mj �. a l.:lt. rit .rt !
will bm significantly heavier than permitted. Finally, the air quality analysis (OBSAppendix
S) assumed in its calculation of estimated on-road vehicle emission rates (including Total PM2.5)
that the Project's haul trucks will be "Class 7 4+Axle Single Unit Dumpster/Hauler[s]" (DEIS
Appendix [>. Table 4). That assumption isincorrect. The Project haul trucks will beC|mao1OG-np
mone-a*1g. eing|etroi|grvehidgo--sgm|-truoka.
The DEIS currently being considered by the Planning Board needs to be revised and supplemented
to address its failure to address environmental justice concerns. In addition, the failure of the DE|S
to adequately evaluate potential air quality impacts (a pre-requisite to addressing environmental
justice ooncerns)' must beaddressed.
Sincerely,
-
�Joel |. Klein, Ph.O., RpA
Pa�as
U
N
v
u T,.
a
v
`o
t ,� uuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuu�uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuul VVVVVVu'V'u uu
� i IIIII�� vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvr
cr
`- I V u I YYY vv
•"ti i i VV�wvv � uuuuu vV '
��um uu�u�ii i IIIIIIIIIII uuuu uuuuu ���� uv vvvvi
pppppp uuuuu
I� �II i i VUVyV00VVVV0VVVVV I���������
� i VVV��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
w<»
°"' IIIIIIII Y�' ,IIIIIII up
III
w
5
r
0
c z
d
c
m
J
� IVlyhl��V�: GI
r
� I
i
r~~
y ! �
trt
r �
ui Ct]
w
rt/
LL
A 501(C)3
The Stirling, Harbor Foundation Inc.
June 23, 2023 RECEIVED
.....
C
JU
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building Planning
Board
54375 Route 25 Planning Board
P.O. Box 1179 0� CO y
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Southold Town Planning Department,
I am writing in comment to the proposed shipyard expansion put forward by Strong's
Marine of Mattituck.
The Stirling Harbor Foundation is a recently formed organization dedicated to the
preservation and education of classic maritime vessels, skills and knowledge. We keep
a number of vessels with Wooden Boatworks in both Southold and Greenport,and Safe
Harbor, Greenport.
Due to lack of adequate storage facilities,we must also keep four of our vessels just to
the North at Pilot's Point Shipyard in Connecticut. Our Foundation typically spends
over$300,000 per winter at that boatyard but would much prefer to use facilities along
` the North fork of Long Island.
I am concerned with the environmental impact of the particular proposed project.
,However,I strongly support the activities of-Strong's Marine as a local and longstanding
business of excellent standing. Furthermore, I see a need for an increase in actual
working boatyards over private marinas. And I can directly attest to a significant
customer base ready to use any facilities constructed in a considered and
environmentally conscious manner.
Sincerely yours,
Jeff Truelove, for
338 SECOND ST. GREENPORT, NY 443-798-5192 JEFF@SHFSAILING.ORG
June 191h, 2023
Attn: Southold Town Planning Board - Mark Terry
I am writing to you to say I am against the proposed Strongs Marine two storage
buildings. My name is Tom Riecker and I have lived in Mattituck my entire life, the past
67 years. I have recently retired and could have lived any place in the United States, but I
chose to stay here because I love Mattituck.
There are so many things that are wrong with this proposal. For example, when
we drive around our neighborhood and our neighbors cut down one or two trees on
their property you notice it right away. It does not look good for Mattituck; trees make
the property and the neighborhood. Strongs wants to clear cut 634 mature trees. That is
ludicrous and unnecessary. Back in 2002 the Town of Southold spent $466,000 of
tax-payers money to purchase Mill Road Preserve. If this proposal goes through that
preserve will be ruined. That is wrong and a waste of tax-payers money.
I take walks around the block with my grandson on West Mill Road. If this
proposal goes through there will be thousands of trips of tractor trailers going by us on
the road we enjoy walking on. That is nuts and you are endangering the lives of your
residents.
I am a boat owner and fisherman. I fish with my grandson on Mattituck Creek. If
this proposal goes through, I will then need to watch out for large Yachts passing my
small boat on a creek that is already very narrow. This is thoughtless and dangerous.
The marina already stores and maintains yachts—there is no need for this huge
proposal. This will affect the quality of life for the residents and the character of
Mattituck—our charming small town. This project will not be done on time, as they
never are, and will affect the residents for years and the wildlife for eternity. If you pass
this proposal, you will change the face of Mattituck forever. Please, I beg you, do not
pass this proposal.
Thank you,
S b-F Tom Riecker
Pg, N ►-� L M7 11G
......_..........._.w_..µ....w_..... ..... .,...
J 1�e 1 0
Planning Board
13,9
s U bp
Pf)._,_.H L I Mt, Q G
RE"CEIVE-D
June 2, 2023 JUN 2 3 2023
�.............� �sliz� 'down......
Planning Board
To the Southold Town Planning Board: �.rD`.�, (o — co �, i 3 y
I have lived near the property that's now Strong's Yacht Center for over 40 years. I am also a
yacht owner.
As a neighbor, I've witnessed Strong's execute significant ongoing improvements to this
property after years of decline. They replaced the bulkhead, which has reduced the potential
for harmful road runoff into the inlet;they upgraded the docks to make them safer;they
painted the buildings and have generally cleaned up the property for a pleasing look that has
improved the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, Strong's has pushed to do more regular
maintenance dredging to improve the quality of water in the inlet. From my perspective, I trust
the business to execute their plans responsibly, and to continue to enhance our community.
As a yacht owner, I can attest to the need for local indoor heated boat storage for larger,taller
craft like mine.There's growing demand for storage here in part because Florida's growing
hurricane risks and related increase in insurance rates—if you can even obtain insurance! -
have made bringing yachts to Florida for the winter much more onerous.There is simply not
enough temperature-controlled storage for yachts in our region, and Strong's proposed storage
will help to meet this need.
I believe the town should be supporting small businesses on the waterfront and allowing them
to flourish, rather than large public companies that can afford high powered lawyers. I fully
support this proposal and I urge you to approve the Strong's Marine Storage Building project.
Since ely,
John Pa a
Mattituck
are Modeo&5�i+
5106 West Mill Road•P.O.Box 587 •Mattituck,NY 11952
June 20,2023 Sv b;
Town of Southold Planning Board FBI l [VIt Gt M
54375 Main Rd
..:
CEIVED
P.O. Box 1179
�..� .....:.........
...-.............�,. ..:.....
Southold,NY 11971 J U N 2 3 2023
Re: Strong's Storage Buildings—SCTM#: 1000-106-6-10, 13.4 Sut -oa on
Planning Board
Members of the Planning Board and Department,
We are hereby commenting on the Strong's Marine yacht storage building project which proposes major
excavation and construction a mere 120' from our property. Our family has been Mattituck residents since
1961. Our house was built in 1972 and is our only residence, occupying it year-round.
After reviewing the DEIS we can tell you that our initial concerns about this project are not only confirmed
but heightened further. The risks to our home,health, safety, and quality of life are incredibly significant.
Below we wish to highlight substantial flaws in the DEIS,of which we are sure many community members
will also voice, as well as major concerns we have about this project that need to be addressed. A project
of this magnitude is not suitable for this area,and we are summarizing several of our concerns here:
ZONING
We have contacted the Town Board for clarification of revised, and we believe erroneous, zoning change
that occurred with the adoption of Local Law No.1-1989 and have not received a sufficient response. When
the town redrew its zoning map in 1989,the boundary between the R-80 and M-II zones of SCTM#1000-
106-13.4, located along the western side of Mattituck Creek, was shifted westward approximately 380'
from its pre-1989 location. This moved the boundary westward over a the 50' elevated bluff,where it had
previously followed the contour of the base of the bluff. Had someone visited the property during the
rezoning process, they would have seen that the area west of the existing marina is not suitable for marina
expansion given the topography of the land. Had the map been properly circulated, residents could have
flagged it ahead of time. The fact that four residential homes already existed there by 1989 is a clear
indication that the property was,and intended to remain, zoned residential.
That boundary shift resulted in our home, one of the residential lots (SCTM #1000-106-13.7), becoming
surrounded by the M-II zone. To date,we have been unable to confirm how there was a westward shift of
the boundary nor the exact metes-and-bounds of the new zone boundary. The prior zoning boundary IS
identifiable(refer to Attachment A)and should be reinstated. This is a significant deficiency and needs to
be addressed as it would render this project ineligible as currently proposed. Perhaps refer this to the ZBA?
Per Section 275-11(e) of Town Code, "Retaining walls are not permitted unless excessive erosion can be
demonstrated." The excessive erosion is being caused directly by the developer's actions, not by natural
occurrence. This self-imposed erosion should be considered as a reason for the Planning Board to reject
this massive and thus unnecessary retaining wall.
Per Section 280-111(H)of Town Code,Prohibited uses in all districts, "Storage ofpetroleum products.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, storage facilities with a total combined capacity of
more than 20,000 gallons, including all tanks, pipelines, buildings, structures and accessory equipment
Page 1 of 27
designed, used or intended to be used for the storage of gasoline, fuel oil, kerosene, asphalt or other
petroleum products, shall not be located within 1,000 feet of tidal waters or tidal wetlands."
1. A representative boat that Strong's Marine sells and seeks to store is a Cruisers 60' Cantius. Per
manufacturer specifications(Attachment G),this vessel holds 647 gallons of diesel fuel in its tanks.
The project calls for storing 88 like vessels,which translates to combined fuel oil capacity of 56,936
gallons.
2. Another representative vessel Strong's Marine sells is the Fairline 65' Phantom. Per Strong's
website (Attachment G), while only 5' larger than the Cruisers Cantius, the Phantom holds 1,103
gallons of fuel. Assuming 80 of these Phantoms are stored,that is 88,240 gallons of fuel capacity.
a. These proposed buildings are less than 1,000' from both tidal waters and tidal wetlands so
storing nearly 3x-5x the amount of fuel is prohibited. Boats are encouraged to be stored
with full fuel to reduce condensation in the tanks; however, even if the boats are stored
with empty tanks, the code restricts cgpacity.
b. Since the DEIS contemplates these buildings as one project,they should be aggregated for
the 20,000-gallon capacity rule. The 8,000 gallons of propane associated with these
buildings should also be counted toward the capacity.
As proposed,this project is not allowed to exist based on Section 280-111(I).
VISUAL IMPACTS
The renderings provided by the developer's consultants are of the poorest quality. Per the DEIS "Due to
site topography, the proposed action requires soil and vegetation removal that would alter the tree line by
setting it back an additional 5001 feet from the current condition" yet none of the before and after
renderings show a disturbance to the tree line—in fact not a leaf appears out of place—how is this possible?
These renderings are misleading and do not represent the existing condition. In fact,the disclaimer on the
renderings states "All renderings, color schemes,floor plans, maps and displays are artist's conceptions
and not intended to be an actual depiction of the project or its surroundings". We suspect that this was
not done because it would show how destructive the project is to the tree line and the viewshed. Since they
cannot accurately depict the existing condition or proposed conditions,the developer should be required to
provide actual photo simulations from multiple angles.
No attempt appears to have been made to properly define the zone of visual influence (ZVI), or the
viewshed, associated with the proposed Project.
Please refer to Attachment B contained in this letter for actual photos of current views of the proposed
project area. For our home, views looking south and southeast will be directly impacted by replacing the
natural forest with the broad side of two 375' long,55' tall buildings.
It is important for the Lead Agency to also assess the visual impacts with the last two-three existing sheds
removed. As proposed,the project creates very tight turns with a large travel lift or hydraulic trailers. The
developer could find it much more efficient to remove those last sheds to make his hauling and launching
more efficient. The current renderings showing the new buildings effectively shielded from view behind
the old ones, even though we believe that will not be the case, could no longer be applicable and thus the
huge frontage of these new buildings will be even more in view.
Page 2 of 27
AIR QUALITY
Given our home's proximity to the proposed project, and the fact that propane is to be burned all winter to
heat the buildings, air quality is of great concern.
1. The DEIS never discusses new and permanent emission sources associated with the Project. "The
proposed buildings would be heated but not cooled, with the heating source planned as radiant
flooring supplied by liquid propane gas (LPG). Each building would be serviced with two, 2,000-
gallon LPG tanks"(DEIS p. 13, also pp. 161, 292).
2. The DEIS contains no information relating to what type of heating equipment will be fueled by the
8,000 gallons of propane,nor does it contain any information relating to how much propane would
be burned each year.
3. The developer should provide a detailed calculation of how air quality will be impacted by the
project operation,especially since it is proposed directly next to residential areas.
4. The DEIS also states that "existing buildings at SYC would continue to be heated using recycled
engine waste oil" (DEIS pp. 292). This is misleading as per Table 13 in the DEIS as only the
"Furnace in Shop"is heated this way. The developer should discuss if there are plans to heat other
buildings. Existing waste oil burning does not appear to be addressed in the DEIS and,if it will be
used further, its impacts should be addressed.
GROUNDWATER
The DEIS states that "Article 6 of the SCSC limits the maximum permitted sanitary discharge to on-site
sewerage systems to 600 gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre)." However,the site plan shows a 700 gallon
I/A system proposed. This discrepancy should be addressed. Additionally, the DEIS states that the
anticipated increase in sanitary flow for this project is 18 gpd. It is unclear why such a large system is now
needed and why it is being installed closer to two of the residential homes. The new system, if really
needed, should be an in-kind replacement of the existing system or in close proximity to it.
Now that the new public water line from the fire hydrant on Naugles Dr has been extended to the Old Mill,
references to a project benefit from the public water supply should be excluded. The water supply
extension, likely done in coordination with the Old Mill owner, should be deemed independent of the
project.
SLOPE STABILITY
Given our proximity,which is at or near the highest elevation of the area, slope stability has been a major
concern from the start of this proposal.
1. The DEIS has not adequately addressed slope stability concerns. No discussion of methods to
minimize the possibility of slope failure is mentioned. Instead, it merely concludes that there are
no slope stability concerns, and that adjacent properties will therefore not be affected — this is
insufficient.
2. The DEIS does not contain information concerning the safety factor of the bare slope that will be
exposed for an extended period prior to the retaining wall being installed. Heavy rainfall over
several days can contribute to slope failure. The DEIS needs to include specific stability analysis
— this could put our home in serious jeopardy and the Planning Board needs to ensure this is
addressed with extreme precision.
Page 3 of 27
3. The DEIS does not, as required,discuss"the impact of timing in between each phase,the threat of
catastrophic soil loss and erosion if there is a pause in the project schedule due to weather or other
event . . ." It does not discuss the "potential catastrophic failure of the retaining wall, in whole or
in part and the effect on adjacent properties." This was a specific comment we provided during the
scoping phase—it was not evaluated.
a. There is a chain reaction to the events proposed. Delays and unforeseen issues can extend
the excavation and construction periods thereby increasing the chance of slope instability.
b. What assurances do we have if there is a disruption in the wall (due to vibration from
construction or ongoing work at the property) and/or if there is a failure in the wall in
subsequent years? How do we ensure that this or the next property owner is responsible?
c. A performance bond must be considered to insure our home from damage or loss related
to the failure of the wall,which could render our home inhabitable.
4. The DEIS does not address the potential impacts to the slope just north of the proposed retaining
wall — directly east of our home. Disruptions from slope cut, major excavation and associated
vibrations, all combined with weather and unforeseen project delays, could disrupt the rest of the
slope northemly.
a. Our groundwater well is located on the northeastern portion of our property,just east of
the main house. Slope disruption could have impacts,both in the short and long terms,on
our groundwater. It is unclear if this was addressed in the groundwater study or if that
study only addressed removal of soils under the proposed buildings. This needs to be
addressed clearly and accurately.
5. The DEIS seems to have conflicting information when it comes to slope angles. The 2:1 slope
would be a 27' angle. That is much shallower than the 34' angle referenced throughout the DEIS.
Though the shallower slope means more stability, it also means that the limit of excavation at the
top of the slope by the retaining wall will be set back farther and closer to our property. This is not
accurately represented on the plans. If it is,then there could be stability issues. To reiterate,these
slope concerns are serious and need to be adequately addressed. We feel the Planning Department
should hire a third party to address the slope stability issues as the developer's consultants seem to
be less than forthright with the assessment.
VIBRATION
The conclusions in the DEIS and the Vibration Report(p.38)that"there are no vibration impacts expected
from soil excavation or construction activities" (DEIS p. 38), and that "[,4]nalysis of the construction
equipment has shown that there is no predicted impact to any nearby neighbors'. . ."(Vibration Report p.3)
are not supported by the data provided.
1. The Vibration Report has been carefully worded to refer to "nearby structures." Both the DEIS
and the Vibration Report are silent regarding vibration impacts to individuals outside, rather than
inside,residences.The Vibration Report does not explain what it means by"the construction site."
2. As measured from the Site Development Plans in DEIS Appendix C, our home, 5106 West Mill
Road, actually abuts the Project site. As measured from the Site Development Plans the proposed
retaining wall will be less than 100' from our property line, approximately 150' from our actual
home on the lot,and even closer to our outside patio/pool area. These are all less than the 171 feet
stated in the Vibration Report.
Page 4 of 27
3. Vibration monitoring devices were assessed at locations that do nothing to assess nearby homes,
particularly ours at 5106 West Mill Rd or any home on North Drive.
The DEIS states "Should two alerts confirmed to be due to truck vibration occur on the same day, truck
trips will be halted until additional data can be collected and mitigation can be implemented." This is
not sufficient as the DEIS or Appendix R does not seem to disclose what is the mitigation plan. Based on
this statement, it seems that work will be stopped until more data is collected but does not address specific
steps other than stopping work temporarily. The DEIS needs to specify steps in place to rp event potential
damage from occurring and what the developer will do to remedy damage to nearby structures or adjacent
properties.
It is worth noting that vibrations are felt in and around our home when a large aircraft flies overhead. That
lasts only a few seconds. Despite what the developer's consultants have concluded,it seems highly unlikely
that we would not have impacts related to multiple excavators and dump trucks,operating collectively,five
days a week,most of the day, for months on end.
PROJECT NEED & ECONOMICS
Nowhere in the DEIS does the developer provide or discuss a demonstrated need for the project.Our family
has been in the boat business since 1961, having purchased, built and operated the now Strong's Yacht
Center from 1961 through 1984. Never has there been a need for heated indoor storage. It is purely a
luxury just as with other vehicles.
1. The DEIS states that"climate-controlled(heated)storage is essential for maintaining the electrical
systems in the types of vessels to be stored." This is false and not the opinion of a sample of
manufacturers of the larger boats sold by Strong's Marine(see Attachment C).
a. Strong's Marine is a dealer for Cruisers Yachts, which are built in Wisconsin. Per their
email,these boats often sit outside in cold temperatures waiting for delivery.
b. Regal Boats' email acknowledges that many of their customers do not store inside(heated
or not)and thus recognize no impact or detriment to the boats.
2. The DEIS is required to include data about stored boat ownership. It states only that the Applicant
anticipates "many" or "a portion" of his customers "may be" or are "anticipated" to come from
existing customers, boat owners and future boat owners, who are local, from other parts of New
York State,Connecticut and Northern New Jersey.The DEIS does not estimate how many Southold
residents will use the new facility.
3. The DEIS states"the existing buildings would be reconstructed with higher roofs to accommodate
larger boats. The lower-elevation buildings would also be modified for radiant heating, which is
an important component for the types of vessels to be stored indoors." As noted previously,heated
storage is not an important component for vessel storage. Further, the demand for"larger boats"
is extremely vague. The DEIS does not give specifics of the boats currently stored at the facility.
Instead, DEIS Table 4 shows"Typical Yachts to be Stored"which is inaccurate,as can be seen in
Attachment D herein—the facility clearly stores far more than only three types/models of boats.
The developer appears to be cherry picking three examples that might best fit his argument.
Additionally, Table 4 shows draft but not overall height of vessels out of the water. Draft is the
amount of water the vessel needs so to not run aground while in the water—it does not help assess
how much clearance it would need for indoor storage. It is unclear what style the boats are —
express boats or flybridge boats. Multiple types should be evaluated and counted, using actual
factory specifications with photographic evidence (factory brochures/spec sheets) as proof, since
Page 5 of 27
their height requirements can vary significantly. The need for these unnecessarily tall buildings is
not proven.
a. At our February 8,2020 meeting with Jeff Strong,he noted new boats that have pod drives
require greater height out of the water. Based on his advertised sales listings, however,
many of the vessels he sells have outboard motors,requiring substantially lower clearance.
b. As noted previously, a representative vessel for storage at this property is a Cruisers 60'
Cantius. Per manufacturer specifications (Attachment G), this vessel has a bridge
clearance of 16'9"and a draft of 2'. Adding together,that gives an estimate height out of
the water at 18'9"(could be slightly less given some overlap at the waterline).
4. The DEIS fails to mention why"a reconfiguration of the staging areas and drydock storage is not
proposed." This is likely because on July 16, 2020, the developer applied for and received a
wetlands permit to replace an in-kind bulkhead while adding a modification/extension to the
southern haul-out slip. The Southold Planning Board, Save Mattituck Inlet, and Save the Sound,
all objected to non-allowable segmentation of the project.
5. Per the Amended Final Scope,the DEIS is supposed to discuss other modifications necessary such
as plans for additional docks, and any new dock configurations, which it does not. Presently,the
marina holds 42 to 45 vessels, depending on length and beam. Only about 8 or 9 docks appear to
be available to hold a 60' vessel—where will the other 80 60' boats be staged in the water once
dropped off for storage or picked up in the spring? Refer to Attachment D to determine where 88
60'boats will sit in the water. Even if spaced out,where would another 44 60'vessels be docked?
6. The DEIS does not discuss how the facility in its current form,two haul-out slips and about 45 boat
slips,can haul and launch an additional 88 boats. At our February 8,2020 meeting with Jeff Strong,
we asked this question. He said "Well, I'm relying on my team to get it done." That is not a
sufficient answer, or even a plan, and should be addressed in the DEIS to prevent further
segmentation of review.
a. At the June 5,2023 Public Hearing,one of the developer's consultants referenced that boats
would be limited to two arriving each day. Per SYC's website as of June 6, 2023, the
service department is open six days a week. Assuming 88 yachts arriving twice daily for
six days a week, it would take just over seven weeks to fill just those two sheds(ignoring
the boats already stored in the existing sheds). Therefore, if the storage program were to
commence on October I", owners would need to begin bringing boats to SYC by mi-
August, which is still prime summer boating time. Assuming 88 yachts will be departing
in the Spring at the same rate, implies that launching world need to begin late February if
the sheds are to be empty by April 15'�'(again, ignoring boats in the other sheds)at which
time it is possible that snow is still failing and therefore defeating the purpose of indoor
storage. The DEIS should describe the hauling and launching processes in more detail.
7. Additionally at that February 9,2020 meeting,Jeff Strong disclosed to us that he has bank financing
for the first building and once he can demonstrate 60% occupancy in the first building, the bank
will lend him the money for the second building. This speaks to lack of proven demand as well as
a contradiction to the construction schedule in the DEIS. The Planning Board should be aware that
the developer could artificially inflate the occupancy by shifting boats between his neighboring
locations. The construction schedule should be updated or provide multiple schedule scenarios.
8. The DEIS claims the project is "expected to generate approximately 11 new full-time jobs for
servicing of the boats in storage" but does not specify further. It provides no basis for the claim
Page 6 of 27
that they expect these jobs will go to local residents. This is the key public benefit and needs to be
elaborated much further.
a. In his February 27, 2020 letter to the community, the developer stated the project would
hold "50 additional yachts per building" and "at least fifteen new full-time career jobs".
But, after reducing the number of boats proposed for storage by 12%to 88,the headcount
was disproportionately reduced by 27% to 11. The DEIS should discuss if these 11 jobs
will be filled immediately or if gradually assuming the buildings are occupied over time.
b. Lastly, as was a direct request from the Planning Board,there is no mention of what these
employees'jobs will entail once the boats have left for the summer and the sheds are empty.
Perhaps they are laid off. Though a vague description was given at the June 5,2023 Public
Hearing, detailed job specs should be provided.
9. The DEIS states the project "is also expected to increase tax revenue to the Town of Southold,
Suffolk County, and the State of New York." The projected figures are based on market assumptions
rather than the developer's own financials so it is difficult to assess the accuracy.
a. The DEIS claims that each of the 88 boats will spend roughly $20,000 each, resulting in
NYS Sales Tax revenue of $151,800 annually. This claim is exaggerated and
unsubstantiated as this assumes all 88 boats will be coming from out of state. Any boat
that is already from within New York State(NYS)and attracted to this storage facility will
be largely a net zero to the NYS Sales Tax base,except for incremental spending,if any.
i. Important to note that if the developer cannot fill these sheds, he could be
encouraged to offer substantial discounts to boat owners in exchange for their
storage contract (think heated storage for the same price as non-heated or even
outside storage). Therefore, spending could be even less.
b. The DEIS is projecting additional boat sales generating $322,575 but does not disclose
how that is determined. It also fails to disclose that the NYS Sales Tax cap on boats is
$230,000 of the purchase price (or $19,837 in tax revenue). This estimates that 16
additional high dollar value boats will be sold but is unclear how having heated indoor
storage directly translates to more sales, or what sales are even attributed to this location.
10. The DEIS states "the proposed action within the Project Area is consistent with the over-60 year
history of maritime use of the property." The Project Area is defined as"the Project Area includes
is limited to the 6.51 f acres"(page 284). With the typographical error present,it is unclear exactly
what constitutes the Project Area. Regardless,the DEIS statement is false as the prior zoning was
(and perhaps still is)residential and the land has been unused/untouched. Additionally,a residential
subdivision was proposed for this area in 1989/1990 and the adjacent property to the site is our
residential home, which neighbors two other homes to the north. To label the area as having a
"history of maritime use"is inaccurate and misleading.
ALTERNATIVES
The DEIS states that as part of Alternative 4, "the height of the doors on the existing indoor storage
buildings are approximately 24 feet, and thus, roof heights would need to be increased by approximately
11 feet to comply with the maximum height requirement in the M-II zoning district." This is misleading as
there is no obligation to comply with a maximum height requirement.
The DEIS states that as part of Alternative 6, "This alternative includes the reconfiguration or
reconstruction of existing buildings for larger boat storage, which would impact the storage capacity for
Page 7 of 27
smaller boats(less than 40 feet)"and that "Upon implementation of this alternative,SYC would be required
to significantly decrease or eliminate service to smaller vessels." This appears to be a veiled threat that
smaller boats would be pushed away, though likely to the other Strong marina down the creek, and thus
this is not a viable alternative. The Strong's Marine website notes "this 16-acre facility[SYC/ offers 45
slips and 7 indoor storage buildings to accommodate yachts to 110 ft." It seems there is already capacity
for larger boats and since the ad does not suggest"boats only 40'-110"'this alternative does not make any
sense.
NOISE
In response to the required comprehensive noise study, the original (December 2021) DEIS included an
Acoustic Report(DEIS Appendix R). The Planning Board and its consultant found that the original DEIS
had not adequately addressed noise issues. The revised DEIS and accompanying Acoustic Report claim to
have addressed the inadequacies in the original DEIS.
Fifteen of the 18 tables in the original Acoustic Report have changed in the revised Acoustic Report. In
most of these tables,the revisions now show noise levels greater than those reported in the original version
submitted to the Planning Board. This is obviously of concern, and we question whether the new data can
be relied upon as there is no explanation for these changes.
I. Noise monitoring locations selected to establish ambient conditions were poorly chosen. The time
of year during which data was collected was inappropriate as it does not reflect the same time of
year that excavation and construction are proposed. This matters for various reasons.
2. Given our proximity to the site, it is expected that we will be subjected to increased noise levels
deemed"very objectionable to intolerable"by the NYSDEC and in some cases, much higher than
allowable by Southold Town Code. The DEIS attempts to excuse the project from responsibility
by claiming that "construction-related noise impacts would be limited to the times and days
specified, which are permitted by Town Code"and "the proposed project would comply with the
permitted times set forth in Chapter 180 of the Town Code". However,the DEIS points out(p.52),
that during those permitted times, Section 180-6 of the Town Code sets the maximum allowable
noise level at 65 dBA. The data in DEIS Tables 39 and 40 demonstrate,this level will be exceeded
at many of the receiver/receptor locations listed in those tables.
a. We do not agree that Tables 39 and 40 accurately assess our home at 5106 West Mill Road.
It seems impossible, given our proximity to the site versus some of the other listed
locations,that we would be subjected to fewer decibels of noise than others who are not as
close.
3. The DEIS dismisses noise concerns by referencing Section 180-8 of the Town Code which exempts
construction activities from the standards in Section 180-6. Even though this blanket exemption
allows the project to avoid violating local law in regard to noise generation, that is not the same
thing as saying Project-related noise impacts will not be significant. The DEIS makes no mention
of Section 180-2 which states, in part: "Such noise pollution which is prolonged, unusual or
unnatural in its time,place and use is harmful to the peace,welfare, comfort, safety, convenience,
good order and prosperity of the inhabitants of the Town of Southold. It is the public policy and
findings of the Town Board that every person is entitled to noise levels that are not detrimental to
life,health, and the enjoyment of his or her property."
a. The noise will be absolutely unbearable and could impact our ability to be in our home.
We are home throughout the day during the hours of 7am-5pm. Given the major impact to
traffic, it is reasonable to expect we would leave our home less frequently during those
hours to avoid the dangerous situation that would be on our roads. We suspect that other
residents in our age bracket would be affected similarly.
Page 8 of 27
4. It is worth noting that the Town of Southold Code Chapter 180 available on ecode.360.com no
longer includes Section 180-8 (refer to Attachment E). Is this on purpose?
5. The DEIS states "the retaining wall would function as a sound barrier, largely containing the noise
within the graded area." This is not substantiated. The proposed retaining wall is concrete and
therefore a reflector of sound,not an absorber of sound.
a. The DEIS does not discuss the noise impacts to neighboring homes from the as-proposed
buildings for the amplification of rainfall,thunder,and other weather or activity. Replacing
two acres of soft ground and tree buffer with over two acres of steel rooftops will have
noise impacts that should be addressed.
i. Additionally, the proposed constructed area would consist of metal buildings
surrounded on three sides by a concrete wail which will create a pit where sound
will reverberate rather than dissipate or be absorbed by a forest.
6. As is typical with lots of construction projects during winter months, trucks and equipment will
often try to start their engines earlier than the allowable start time so that the excavators etc are
"ready to work"by the stated time. The DEIS does not discuss preparation for each day and who
will monitor to ensure starting early will not happen. The equipment will be out of reach of an
electrical source so block heaters will not be an option. The cold starts of these machines will be
loud,long, and full of exhaust fumes.
TRAFFIC & SAFETY
Members of our family and the community use what we call "the loop" (West Mill Rd to Breakwater Rd
to Naugles Dr.)for exercise and just being outdoors. These immediately local roads have typical widths of
22' and portions of the truck route have tight curves and limited sight distances. The idea that over 9,000
dump truck trips will be allowed in this area is a major danger. To dismiss these as"temporary"is extremely
shortsighted and puts our community members at risk. If a pedestrian,cyclist,motorist, or child traveling
to/from school is injured because of this project,then who will be liable?
1. Though not mentioned in the DEIS, the developer, in person and on his website, has touted "A
roaming safety vehicle will be deployed during truck transport to ensure trucks are spaced out
properly, and that drivers adhere to area speed limits and take appropriate safety precautions."
Unclear why this is needed— is it assumed the trucks will not follow the law or general safety
precautions? Does this additional vehicle running up and down the road not add more traffic? Will
this car travel the entire truck route? How can one vehicle monitor a truck every seven minutes
along a truck route that is several miles long? What happens if the trucks ignore this vehicle?
a. It is important that the Lead Agency review the developer's website as he is offering
mitigation that is not present in the DEIS. Why was this not included in the DEIS? Perhaps
there is no intention of actually following through with it.
2. The Planning Board's May 9, 2022 memo requests that the revised DEIS include a more accurate
and detailed discussion on the . . . "the total number of trucks per day that will travel over local
and regional roads over the duration of the project". The revised DEIS has not addressed this
concern and continues to misleadingly misrepresent the increase in the number of truck trips that
the Project will generate.
3. The DEIS either a)underestimates the number of truck trips required to haul sand from the Project
site during the Excavation Phases, or b) fails to note that haul trucks would have to be overloaded
to conform to the number of estimated trips. The maximum permitted weight of loaded haul trucks
is 107,000 pounds. A fully loaded 30 CY will likely exceed this weight and therefore must not be
Page 9 of 27
fully loaded. The DEIS does not address the effects of not fully loading the trucks will have on the
already tight schedule.
4. The DEIS attempts to downplay the project construction traffic, which will add to current truck
traffic along the route. It does this by treating all trucks larger than pick-ups as equivalent to the
22-wheel semi-tractor trailers. This should be re-evaluated as they are not the same truck
(Attachment H).
5. The DEIS underestimates the number of concrete truck deliveries required for the foundations and
floor slabs for the two storage buildings.Typical concrete trucks described in the DEIS carry loads
of 10 CY. The DEIS states that 4,082 CY of concrete will be required. The DEIS estimates 89 full
concrete trucks (which is 178 trips)—basic math does not support this calculation. This needs to
be re-evaluated as the number of trucks is closer to 408 (which is 816 trips).
a. The DEIS does not discuss the truck route for the cement trucks. Given the nearest cement
plants are in Riverhead, it is likely that an excessive number of trucks will need to travel
through residential areas.
b. The DEIS does not discuss the timing of the cement trucks. The cement would need to be
delivered and poured in conjunction with the in-floor heating pipes. Additionally, even if
the heating element is removed,the cement would still need to be delivered and poured at
the site in coordinated succession to avoid"cold joints".
i. This tight convoy of cement trucks would have significant traffic and impacts as
the weight per axle is higher for cement trucks. The ESAL calculations should be
reperformed to account for these trucks as well.
ii. The staging of the large quantities of cement trucks, idling with their mixers
spinning would create a"hotspot"of exhaust fumes affecting air quality as well as
significant noise impacts. These impacts should be evaluated and mitigation
should be proposed.
6. The DEIS states"All trucks associated with the construction of the proposed action will be limited
to traveling at 30 mph on Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road and all neighboring roads. The posted
speed limit is 35 mph." This is inaccurate as the posted speed limit on West Mill Rd is 30 MPH.
The traffic consultant's own equipment was attached to the speed limit sign, yet the correct speed
limit was not reflected in the DEIS (Attachment F). It is now unclear if the trucks will travel at
only the speed limit or if they will make an attempt to drive at 25 MPH to maintain the -5 MPH
spread.
7. At the Public Hearing on June 5,2023,the developer's consultants remarked that full trucks leaving
would use Bergen Road to head west and that empty trucks coming in would use Cox Neck Road.
This makes no sense and underscores the fact that the consultants likely never visited the area.
a. To make a right turn on Bergen Road would require a truck of this size to swing wide into
the oncoming lane to avoid hitting a telephone pole at the corner(Attachment I). IF there
is a car waiting to make a turn,the truck may have to stop on a hill. That truck would then
have to accelerate from a dead stop,with a full load,creating even more noise and exhaust
fumes.
b. Midway on Bergen Road is a 90-degree turn, which is cautioned as a"Dangerous Curve"
(Attachment I)—why would anyone direct tractor trailers loaded with over 100,000lbs of
sand through this turn?
Page 10 of 27
FIRE
The DEIS is severely deficient in its assessment of fire related risks. While we have confidence and respect
for our local firefighters,this risk is absolutely terrifying to us. Points to be addressed:
I. The DEIS often states "the proposed plan was submitted to the Mattituck Fire Department
("MFD') and no potential service issues were identified." This inconsistently repeated statement
in the DEIS is not true according to Appendix P where the now ex-Chief of MFD ("Chief')
qualified his statement noting the additional fire hydrant needed.
2. The DEIS states"the Fire Marshal recommended a 150 foot Fire Department access area from all
exterior walls of'the two proposed buildings, and afire safety plan. However, the Mattituck Fire
Department's correspondence (explained above) was accepted by the Fire Marshal as adequate
for not providing the recommended access area"—where did it say this in the Chief s letter which
was written about one month after,the Fire Marshal's letter? Where is the acceptance by the Fire
Marshal evidenced?
3. The DEIS inconsistently refers to the temporary haul road as also a permanent road for fire access.
This dubious haul road is mentioned in the letter to the Chief, but it is not shown on the plans in
Appendix P. It is not clear if the Chief was able to determine if the haul road could even serve as
a viable fire access route. This needs to be vetted extensively as the developer is touting this as
part of his fire safety mitigation.
4. The plans shown to the Chief in Appendix P do not show the specific construction plans and
elevations of the buildings. Can the MFD reach the top of the buildings? Do they have the
equipment to cut a hole in the roof to fight the fire?
5. The DEIS does not mention fire suppression at all. Only Appendix P notes its existence but does
not give specifics on the fire suppression system to be used in the buildings. This needs to be
evaluated in detail as different types of sprinklers can have different firefighting effects,particularly
when it comes to timing and placement.
6. The four 2000-gallon propane tanks proposed,even when installed according to code and properly
maintained, present a danger. During a fire event a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion
(BLEVE) is possible. The DEIS should have addressed this possibility and evaluated the potential
impact.
7. The DEIS ignores the quantity of fuel stored in the anticipated 88 boats and should evaluate how
many gallons an average 60' boat holds. Marinas typically encourage boats to top off their fuel
tanks to prevent moisture from accumulating in the fuel so the evaluation should assume the
majority of boats will have full fuel tanks. It should also discuss how many gasoline vs diesel
powered boats are expected to be stored as they have different combustion impacts in a fire.
8. The DEIS repeatedly states that "the proposed action would not require SYC to modem the total
volume to be stored as the current volume of chemicals is sufficient to service the yachts to be
stored in Buildings 9 and 10." It is unclear how the addition of 88 60' yachts would not require an
increase in chemicals(many of which are flammable and therefore are fire accelerants).
a. Boats typically have their engine oil changed each season. The marina currently stores 160
gallons of engine oil on site per Table 13 in the DEIS. Adding 88 more vessels, each with
two engines, would require a significant amount of engine oil. If not, then perhaps the
marina is currently storing too much volume of chemicals/hazardous materials relative to
Page 11 of 27
the number of boats on site —the math does not add up and needs to be reevaluated, not
just for fire risk.
9. The Chiefs letter should be considered stale at this point as it is nearly two years old. Apparatus
and number of firefighters at MFD could be different than two years ago. The current Chief and
the members of the department should be given an opportunity to review the full plans, not just
what the consultants wanted them to see,and then opine. Neighboring departments should also be
given a chance to review the plans and confer with MFD as other departments could be called upon
for mutual aid assistance during a large-scale fire.
We appreciate the members of the Mattituck Fire Department and want them to be safe. After reviewing
the disconnect between the DEIS and Appendix P, the question should be asked why did the developer's
consultants not show the MFD the full proposal and seemingly downplay the project?
We want to underscore the fire risk to neighboring homes,not just ours. Per Appendix P,"...access to the
site would be provided via the existing driveway from West Mill Road...". That existing driveway is the
same one we use to access our home—that is how close we are. The Fire Marshal recommended 150' for
fire department access — our property is —120' from the edge of the north building. There is a wooded
parcel with a home on North Drive that is—83' from the southern building as well as several other homes
closely connected with trees. Therefore, tl�di,¢ nce recommendation cannot be overlooked. In addition
to our home, the residents of neighboring North Drive appear to be completely ignored in the fire risk
assessment. North Drive could be needed by MFD to access the southern end of the property and that needs
to be evaluated for viability.
The developer has admitted that this project will be a nuisance. He has told us firsthand that"You shouldn't
have built your house here", has offered to buy our home,has advised we move our deck from the southern
side of our house to the eastern side, and has admitted to us that he would not want this project in his own
backyard. He began cutting down the forest illegally on March 29,2017, has performed dock work at his
Water Club location at lam under the cover of night, and has dredged further north than the SYC wetland
permit allowed for during the bulkhead replacement and travel lift extension (calls were made to the DEC
but they arrived too late).
A "good steward" of the area and a self-proclaimed "good neighbor"would recognize that this project is
out of touch with the area and damaging to neighbors — it is too big, too disruptive, too environmentally
detrimental,and too dangerous. If the developer wants to safeguard the property from future development,
while caring about the community,then he should consider selling it for preservation.
The Planning Board/Department,as Lead Agency,should use extreme caution and skepticism when looking
at this proposal and should absolutely prepare their own FEIS. Even the Suffolk County Planning
Commission noted that"No soils should be removed. "and"It is questionable if the excavation and removal
of approximately 130,000 cubic yards of soil off'site is necessary. The intended excavation will create a
bowl on site where storm flood waters from Mattituck Creek will surge into."(Feb 18,2020, Staff Report)
If you need to do this much site preparation,then you have the wrong site. The facts are there—this project
needs to be rejected.
Sincerely,
Donna M.Boscola David W. Boscola
Page 12 of 27
ATTACHMENT A
Last Approved Site Plan for the subject property 1984—still the current approved in the Town files
S
W
,v,w t w.wiR.R,
CCCC
� r
t
A
w
k v
�.w
4
f
_
rv„
i
i
u
' a
" k
° .Aao
�, d�irAs
h �a�B nx [r
nw. I
�""» �' � TOWN r =
_
� A
A
M47TIYU HOLDING CO
a w f AY WATTITUCK
w
iOwN OF 90UTNOLtl wG.
NEW YARN
t kWCW4' ..,,....,....,..,...,......m,,..,..�,...'„«.,..., w.
...,
MINA"ER AVENUE
YOUNG M. YOUNG RIVEPME WEw dpA
D iarD}u x W8W�9,M5 xnx R
�.Drtxm w,W:r exD rzsu
iA0 'W3M RaF xD xU vE OR
Page 13 of 27
ATTACHMENT A(Con't)
Survey Map from Young&Young—41'revision, last dated Aug 17, 1989 and marked as received by the
Planning Board on Feb 26, 1990. Updated"Marine II"zoning moniker noted
AP
It
k'
r
R
x
@
.�
4 "°w SIrEnrA
I TOTAL AREA=33.9 aACRES
2. TOTAL NO.OF:ATS^15
3 ZONING USE DISTRICM
RESIDEN nAL LOW DEWWW A'
, MARINEIV
7 2r"°�aw*., � '� _"; "+. LEMGT'FI OF ROAD -9fiD"w
P,
e� b d,
� sb; c'� m1� Tp xF A"nanu&u'o p°,IIT-nrtt'wan, II Vu'oa;
� d
STANDARD / YIELD
' SUBDIVISIONSKETCH PLAN
MATTITUCK HOLDING CO.'
� u � AT MATTITUCK
�a
mo TOWN OF SOUTHOLCJ
"✓ Y ARi p n+^
SUFFOLK CO.,NY
:Sxht .Inero N✓wa� £'ar/f 6';F'.ur rvrs�qr 6 G"g L��i .."»4
� bfSC M IOtlY M
SGLY_�I'o I00 N.P'MYr HLMMH1k MnXA PMkM,tkIHm
Page 14 of 27
ATTACHMENT B
i
t
3,
ua
i
View from the project side towards the north looking at 5106 West Mill Road on March 29,2017,.
Page 15 of 27
ATTACHMENT L(con't)
/%/ �J�� (• � � / do � 1 ���
r �
e" rmov,
View from 5106 West Mill Road deck looking southeast
/
7 Pear,
u
r �
View from 5106 West Mill Road deck looking south
Page 16 of 27
ATTACHMENT B (con't)
f I�� `«�✓ (� f� f� � � i✓R�U
6
•;r
Views from 5106 West Mill Road second story looking southeast towards Project site
k f li
i lrr(G
l' li
P �4
r.
Nr"" ��
t'
k,
r
L � /
Y
Nvl
View from driveway of 5106 West Mill Road looking southwest towards proposed haul road and
proposed Storage Building No. 1
Page 17 of 27
ATTACHMENT B(con't)
:"p jf �j� ✓ �.�i
i��
��A.
ur
r /rr 6�l/p rye
nrjR� p ;
r
r�� �� ✓°u � r „7r� �/ff Rf o✓
S
�' (�'" /irk� m�� fJ ✓/,�°ray � ��
✓ 1
a n i
I��iudx�i���i7�ra��f'�r✓lava � n� � � �l✓r�rv,��a. � "?.., C� ��irv%;.. i i
View from driveway of 5106 West Mill Road looking south towards proposed haul road and proposed Storage
Building No. 1
a r� rt � ✓ i r
u 1 i
rYjl a( ✓ f���»j�%�� 4 :� � a �7/
r ,� � r � p�e1 l✓� y�'✓ r � ,�� �
,f rp„ /✓�� i W r ,�� K✓ H /j/�i��
f
I
t
� tt/Hf 1✓ r�y PG �,
� R/d/4✓f0 n � �///,�
r
i sd:l ,g m,ov /riiA(uviGi
View from driveway of 5106 West Mill Road looking southwest towards proposed haul road and
proposed Storage Building No. 1
Page 18 of 27
ATTACHMENT B(con't)
y rr "
/
' �� � "� �� / ,��1'�i � �/ ✓U r/fir/�/r / /�// / � � ���0 eswr" � '.r r:M.
1
V
�r M
View from Knollwood Lane looking west towards Strong's Yacht Center(April 2021)
i' i //////i// ri ✓/,//ir/rig r%r///i // / ///i///% r r/. '"�mr �r
i
i fu ' I
View from Knollwood Lane looking west towards Strong's Yacht Center, slightly zoomed in(April
2021). Note the top of the elevation and the proximity to 5106 West Mill Road to the North. The two
proposed storage buildings would undoubtedly be visible from this vantage point.
Page 19 of 27
ATTACHMENT C
Email confirmation from boat manufacturers of which Strong's Marine is (or was)a dealer.
Cruisers Yachts
John Ferfecki <JohnF@cruisersyachts,com>
Tue 12 51 W,
-7p
Good Morning7--.7 -J-that wuOd riot be a probiern at alt The boats ore buit in Wisconsin and after tP#oy are NAR
they are shdink wrapped arrd Omcfxf mitsk3e,Do rat on the dea�rship fty my sit o ido for several rnorAhs,
wrapped and winterized vvithm;t issue,'Fhe Wy addkior,4 thiN we=Ud recommeM to do when the bOat is
winterizedar4 sly4lk Veappod outside is to keep a cotioe of paid of'D-a h Rid'irside of tt*toat am in OV)
a rqine room to 1,46p keep some of the M,, sSWFO undercontroi,But as far as arty adcrffioivt electrirV concerm,yov,
shouidn't be worried,
If you have any other questions Oease foolfreato reach outto me directy,
Y A
John F-orf ark i
804 P*ca r StY&O-n conto,W%10 t 52,0.&3&6382
TtNs zWmsajv 5 a FRIVLEGI-1)& bon.9 you Aetj noz f1he#,)WVvkTd taf4kmt,;irww d')not rawx
cq yur aso es"aml iJdScknqj LNG to rAhtiv.Pkmw.w IxOy the wv,rde;of omur to tus vnossagsand twen
"rmwvoifly deklo it k4yn iiiursystirv,thank yuuHH
You have a new Service/Parts Request,
First Name.
Last Narne:E',""'.
Email Address i....... ........
Phone-
Zip Codw j--773
Country: US
Job Title:
Hull Identification Number.
Year:
Cruisers Model: 50 Cantius
Message*I just sold my Se,,a Ray and am liking the Cruisers brand, specific-ally the 50 Cantius,
I'm in New England and looking at a slightly used 50' in Texas, I wanted to check with,this
factory regarding layup Wicid. 9 this boat was properly winterized but stored outside in New
England, not in a he,ated indoor shed,would there, be any expected damage to the electrical
system with seasonal temperature fluctuations?Would it be ok to continue to store this boat
outside (sh.inkwrapped.)in to winter months? Thanks, .... ..........
Page 20 of 27
ATTACHMENT C (con't)
Regal 42 Grande Coupe
You replied an I hu 2p2412022 I 2.:58 PM
Customer Service<customer.service@regalboats.com>
Thu 2/24/2022.1128 AM
To: Yo u
T)ear r--..
The majwity of Regal boats do spend th6r winters outside,and wem to do Very wee,
Respecrfd regards,
Sup Roes6ager
Regal Curioiner Service
Fro=
Sent-Tuesday,Febi-6iryU-12'022 12.25 PIA
To:rLu-'L
Subject:Regal 42 Grande Coupe
Dear Regal Team,
I just sold my Sea Ray and am liking the Regal brand,specifically the 42 Grande Coupe. I'm in
New England and looking at a barely used 2020 in Ontario Canada. I wanted to check with the
factory regarding IaVup period. If this boat was property winterized but stored outside,not in a
heated indoor shed,would there be any expected damage to the electrical system with
seasonal temperature fluctuations? Would it be ok to continue to store this boat outside
(shinkwrapped)in the winter months?
Thanks,
Rep�y Foinemrd
Sunseeker Predator 55 EVO
Charlie Stackhouse<cstackhouse@bosuns.com>
IeVed U23r2022 9:03 A,%1
Hi
Your inquiry regarding the Predator 55 was routed to me as Bosun's Marine,a One Water Yacht Group
company,is the New England Sunseeker dealer. I wasn't aware there was a used 55 available in Mass,
although we just sold a new 2021 model at the Miami Boat Show,and that boat was here in MA last
summer All that said,there are no issues with storing a Sunseeker outside in the winter,as long as the
systems are properly winterized,and the boat is protected(shrink wrap). if it turns outwe're talking
about the same boat,the recent purchase is contingent on financing approval,and I can certainly let you
know if the deal falls through, We also have a new 2022 model arriving a couple ofweeks.
Please give me a call if you have any additional questions or would like to discuss Sunseeker in general,
they are amazing boats!
All the best,
Charlie Stackhou5e
Page 21 of 27
ATTACHMENT D
Strong's Yacht Center—Sept 2020 (not in DEIS from Developer's website)
Poi
� F
� D
Strong's Yacht Center—May 2023 (NY Times)—only about 2-3 "yachts"over 60'
R
" s
w
',�ry iiy r i fJ
r
„,am,�'u,...l��,
Page 22 of 27
ATTACHMENT E
:51 Lc '' ^,,.;.., ! ,. €,,.. rya i ILK.04r 0 SSxr a�;,,3 ,,.�,,. ..r P4'"�TMu � ,�.��';�.
�a �c ,r _ e "C''.
search nn—
Chapter 180 Noise, Prevention of
§ 1 80 i Title.
§180-2 Purpose. >
§ 180-3 Statutory authorization. j
§ '180-4 Definitions.
§ 18 -S General prohibition.
§180--6 Standards,
§180-7 Prohibited noises;evidence of violation, ;'y*
;"n a � e-';:sr•P i rt cr and Cc-]' „I0
a? l,_.Y. , e TM,. " 9n . ,ovi .�, �.i�tifu.� _,.�i"'ra','..l".6_,�...,i ul :ke,s J n ,mf_� xT'f 5` kl d...,,,
° .� .,,. r�. ��, �„ ,;,,, ..rr poi i
-°� ,s" ,<ri ire v of,if . _i a ;��:��.. .,anC mi.7ch has r, ?n -I . . Page 23 of 27
ATTACHMENT F
« �
. .. � �
Photo taken Nov¥ 2z1(Not inD§%
&ems a27
ATTACHMENT G
Cruisers Yachts 60' Cantius Manufacturer's Specifications
hgp
//www.c tiisci,ygKLil§..j om ntius/60-cantius
DEALERLOC�
<-,R(ASEPNS YACHTS HOME YACHTS COMPANY VID L E0 MERCHAt
wr
SPECIFICATIONS
LOA, 1,624m
BzA M 16"d"hn
Rr k1g, ffop of,Mast Ugh 16 1), 5,1
Gkaft 6u00Vxmd
Fu,AC3pxWV 64/gW244fl
Water Capadtv 149 pU564
W,Wlt ca ,Jty
We,�Vjn- Dry 53,CX,)D kmr 2 4040 kr
Fairline 65' Phantom Manufacturer's Specifications
fil q Y,[dhl r)l 11/1-0,1/pl al W,
KEY SPECS
LENGTH BEAM
65'4' 17'2"
W
iIKIDU U "'V 1(
WA[I
/OW 11
VP,1:1 R AC Y ors
OW,VWOW
Page 25 of 27
ATTACHMENT H
Below is a 22-wheel dump body tractor trailer(May 15,2023)
Gi re
I
ti
o wro a
Below is an Amazon delivery truck. The DEIS regards these as the same"truck"as above. They are
clearly not the same. This is another attempt to downplay and obfuscate the public.
"m
,,.,,
Page 26 of 27
ATTACHMENT I
,I L
r U �' i✓ri✓JI// ,
��� i'jii����/�r'����/G, r�l��i i�� ✓%rfa�4�0� ��JI
e
^ r
u�7XGN l tn��a��„��„�"'' l„ r ti ✓r (� 71�..l J �'e����Uhl/��J� f/y%°�'/ /✓
W� !��?�,w v� rr�� rr4„i�''�r "�w'l M�a��✓�/ �i�,�^Y w"�q ,r✓ f7 �1.,�>� r� Jil�!/����f U �/�I�'t%nor%�� .;n / / ��� r
v"� �� o,o;,,,�p, �:,.�� p✓,,,,, K'�1rti✓�a.�n �a'!,y PA yr ///k✓�/`��.;)�/ r. rr � � ,� lli;.,a�p ;: ;%
r ( � y'w,-,�4i�" dfiq "�' 'v��.i;��IJ ii����� ✓i�r1��%�r r �/ ��/���,�'� �°�,�i�l /�i �i!;�'`� t✓��.
✓ JP� y ,,,;� '� o �✓ A>�/i��>aj/r///�r�r�r �1�✓r�y����;, / d t ;fa'�/�°�t �u3J rJ„�,�W �y�l/9l�ii ra,
id � s �� /e�/n� 1(�%:"�%%��„�'/1�/,r 1r"'✓di°`� l;n,, ✓'„'i� .�, o �)„f�.r�r�P 2 ti'.�/^�1,r1�u�f 6dC^ �,1�,NL.,�l! ��i i rrv�f L,� l��!
��u ,. .,om.� rw m�m;r�r ,, (� w.ti,✓ �i/,�.G�l�/k✓i�,� o r0,�,m, � r
Picture of telephone pole, leaving no room for a tight turn, corner of Bergen Road and Cox Neck Road
(June 2023)
r
i I, � /wrap+/r� �m�,✓/,,. / ���i '!r %�!�'fl � y N ^y � � y iW�Jn
"GIOp r i r r
✓ ���f�, au( fl � � r �
�� � r ,t �l '�,ei I I<«r,��i��i!i�%�,�„� �/c✓,,, od��,i� „�„ „/s✓���„ u� rk, a 4
Dangerous Curve sign on Bergen Road(June 2023)
Page 27 of 27
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Thursday,June 22, 2023 2:35 PM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. - Public Comment
RECEIVE
Jessica Michaelis, Senior Office Assistant
C)
Southold Town Planning DepartmentUj
54375 NYS Route 25
1 i
P.O. Box 1179 56u66(6 7`0vv
Southold,NY 11971Planning Board
Phone: 631-765-1938
Email:JessicaMksoutholdtownny.gov
From: Marla Wexler<marlawex3@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday,June 22, 2023 11:22 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. - Public Comment
Dear Southold Planning Board,
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe that the Draft Environmental
Statement(DEIS)does not adequately address my concerns about the local ecology and water quality.
There will be an irreversible impact on the local ecology as a result of strip mining the hillside-the area is a home to
endangered species. In addition there will be over 630 trees removed and the amount of newtrees proposed Is negligible and
an insult to our community.The removal of all the trees will affect wildlife and present a substantial increase in noise and
pollution. Water quality will be affected.
The township should be concerned about the awful affect this will have on our community character.Two industrial
style buildings will destroy the bucolic nature of the creek. I doubt that the Planning Board would ever
approve a Big Box store at that location.
I live off of Cox Neck Road and I am concerned about the excessive traffic of having 80 haul trucks per day, 5 days a week for
six months. Was a traffic study done?What about the noice level,vibration, pollution and safety of
our roads?
I support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Sincerely,
Marla Wexler
365 Royalton Row
Mattituck, NY 11952
P.S. I would like m y email to be part of the public record.
i
SUSAN M. NORRIS
V.
May 2,2023 ED
JU
d l.......
Dear Southold Planning Board, Firjrrr .,tnw n
PlanningBoard
This note is being written to express my opposition to
Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck
Inlet.
My concern is that the project could have a negative
environmental impact on the inlet and I feel that the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not
adequately address my concerns.The construction
phase 1 is expected to take 6 months.That's 6 months
full of traffic and noise, not to mention the toll it will
take on our roasts.is there a pule benefit to this
project?
1 worry that the woodlands will be affected and there
will be a decrease of wildlife in the area. In addition,
those of us who have wells may be adversely affected.
We need to take a step back and seriously consider
the impact that continued development will have on
our ecological system,landscapes and waterways and
on our quality of life.
Let's do our best to preserve what we have-
Sincerely, � ,,
'6 [% /,60'W O-,
Susan M. Dorris
585 STEWART AVENUE
SUITE 510
GARDEN CITY, NEF'YORK 11530
T: 516-222-1971 F: 516-222-1972
sub-P
9J- H L, M T C"(C
RECEIVED
Nancy and Sotirios Nikolis "
1805 Cox Neck Rd fl,.JN 221 2023
Mattituck, NY 11952 '96aFdfa Town
June 20, 2023 ... Planning Board
( - I + I3 . �
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
We are opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on the Mattituck inlet.The expansion will
forever negatively change the landscape, ecosystem, sea traffic, road traffic, and the economy of
Mattituck and the Town of Southold. We believe the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) does
not adequately address our concerns. We are not environmental scientists, but if one simply looks at this
project, its scope, and its effects on the many existing interacting forces,the overall environment will
suffer. No mitigation will positively affect the delicate natural balance once it is disrupted.The expansion
of the marina by building two large yacht storage buildings will harm Mattituck Inlet and the surrounding
area for ages to come.
The site is four acres of forest,with over 630 mature trees. Excavation of 134,000 cubic yards of sand to
drop the current elevation to ten feet and then, in the place of trees,erect two 45 ft.tall buildings,the
footprint of a Home Depot, resulting in a total height of 55 feet, which is the equivalent of two five-story
buildings is detrimental.This destruction of woodlands,flora, and fauna would not only disrupt nature,
but it would also cause slope instability, excessive runoff, additional damage from vibration and noise,
and air and water pollution.
In addition,there will be a minimum of 80 haul trucks per day, 10 hours a day,five days a week for six
months, amounting to one every seven minutes. Road safety will be affected, which will cause hazardous
conditions for school children, pets, pedestrians,joggers, biking enthusiasts, other cars, motorcycles, etc.
Wear and tear on the roads will have to be repaired and maintained. Is the town prepared to spend
additional funds on such maintenance without raising property taxes?Truck traffic will negatively impact
existing structures, houses, and especially old historic structures, which remind us of our history and the
North Fork's character. Furthermore,these yachts will be washed on the premises, and the runoff will
seep into the Mattituck Inlet and eventually the Long Island Sound.This will affect our marine life and,
ultimately, our health once we eat the contaminated fish.
In addition, these yachts will be stored with fuel, making the chance of a building fire a real possibility
without ample firefighting resources available due to limited road access and fire stations in the region.
This will pose an additional hazard to our area's remaining natural resources and homes.Just recently, in
the news, a fire at a suburban Chicago boat storage warehouse caused millions of dollars in damage to
the building and yachts stored inside on February 3, 2023. Thirty-three fire units and about 100
firefighters from fire departments responded to the scene and spent 6.5 hours battling the flames before
controlling the blaze.The fire began at about 8 p.m. on February 2 at the Bay Marine boat warehouse,
which stored 60 to 70 yachts.The fire caused $40M in damages to 50 vessels. In comparison, if the
Strong's Marina project goes through, it will store up to 88 yachts-essentially setting up a disaster
waiting to happen.
Consider what has happened to much of Long Island because of overdevelopment.At one time,
beautiful pine barrens used to cover two-thirds of the Eastern part of Long Island. Our drinking water
was one of the most pristine in the nation. Over time, piney woods were bull-dozed to give way to
McMansions and malls.Zoning boards were influenced by developers, whose main concern was their
financial success. Now much of our drinking water is polluted with nitrates, petroleum, and pesticides,
requiring filtration systems to help keep it clean. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to cancers,
autoimmunity, infertility, and learning problems. Not to mention our traffic situation is horrendous, as
each of us has frequently experienced the stress of traffic on Long Island. If we don't learn from these
past mistakes of overdevelopment,they will just keep happening again and again.Such
overdevelopment is being proposed in the Mattituck inlet area.
Our community values the preservation of natural habitats and coastal resilience. It is our right to
preserve and protect our environment from money-focused entrepreneurs like Strong's Marina. It's our
natural resources that draw people to our region.This is the beautiful area where we have raised our
children. Why are we even considering spoiling this land and sea?To whose benefit will it be?Certainly
not the average citizens of the North Fork.
Thank you in advance for considering our concerns. We hope for a favorable decision in the rejection of
Strong's proposal.The preservation of Mattituck Inlet will be passed down through the ages. Please
don't let the legacy of our generation be the destruction of our remaining beautiful resources on the
North Fork.
Sincerely,
Nancy Nikolis
Sotirios Nikolis
�129 Korn
P.S. We would like our email addresses to be part of the public record.
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Thursday,June 22, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strongs S v bf�
�� L MT QC MC
For mail. RECEIVED
Thank you,
J L)
i .' Soai—t f,io1d row n_.._.
.Jessica Michaelis, Senior Office Assistant Planning Board
Southold Town Planning Department
54375 NYS Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Phone: 631-765-1938
Email: iKK,S% c l d)southoldtownny.gov
From:Johnny<unclejohnny1313@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday,June 21, 2023 3:43 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Strongs
After attending the 1 st public hearing in Southold Town Hall, I'd like to say I am 100% against
this project, The DEIS was the subject and many speakers who think this project is good for the strong
family seemed like they were asked to come and help the best they could. For one thing I'm sure
Strongs is a well run company and they do service there customers very well as I heard many say.
The thing is this meeting was about the DEIS which was hardly brought up by there speakers.
Those who spoke against the project spoke from the heart and had very good facts against the DEIS.
I believe the spokesman who talked about the 8000 trucks full of sand thru Riverhead did not do justice.
Have either of you ever been to Lollies Hut, which is about 30 feet off route 58 on the North side
(which full trucks may go bye) there neighbor is just 10 feet from the sidewalk. If you have or have not
driven the trailer route you'll see homes along the route closer then what was presented at the 1 st public
hearing. Once again if this project were to go thru I still don't understand how a barge could not be used.
Have you ever scene the vessels stored inside the inlet that belond to United Riverhead terminal,they leave
and enter the inlet at all tides and have a deep draw. I just don't believe the sand cannot betaken by barge.
I could go on a lond chat about this project and will stop with this
Please do not let Strongs dig into the earth and take away 8000 trucks of sand, they are doing very well
as we speak boating is an expensive hobby and fun and the strong team profits very well from them every
year.
John Cullen
ps I'm still 100% against this project,
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Lanza, Heather
Sent: Thursday,June 22, 2023 9:37 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's/Mattituck Inlet Proposal
13 H MT 5C M C
From:toni bryan <tbryan355@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday,June 22, 2023 9:30 AM RECEIVED
To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us> J(P l 2 2 2023
Cc:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us> 5ou�hoid.m --�-�.-..�.
...,_ J°�own
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong's/Mattituck Inlet Proposal / Planning Board
Dear Ms. Lanza and the Planning Board, — � to t �3 • L,
Please consider these points in regard to the DEIS and Strong's Proposal at The Mattituck Yacht Center.:
At the June 5th planning Board meeting,Jeff Strong explained that the much stated "industry demand"as found in the
DEIS for this project resulted from
the difficulty in securing insurance for the said yachts in Florida (proposed to utilize the indoor heated winter storage
buildings, if built)This is due to the frequency of hurricanes.
What is to prevent a similar occurrence on the East End? It wasn't too long ago that some homeowners had difficulty
securing insurance here if their homes were located by the water.
Mr.Strong stated it is his intention to build both buildings, but if the market changes or softens and costs increase, he
may only build one-after all the trees are cut, sand removed and hauled and cement poured.
Both these issues seem speculative.
In a June 10th article in the East End Beacon, Beth Young characterizes the community as "divided" over this project.
Obviously,the outcome is very important to many residents both in Mattituck, near the site, and in other parts of
Southold and Riverhead Towns. It is not merely NIMBY-ism, not in my backyard.
It is acknowledged that the Strong family has successfully operated their marinas. I truly hope Jeff Strong will reconsider
his plan, as is, and seek some alternative that will not divide his community. He will not be any less successful if he
does.
Toni Bryan
355 Rose Lane
Mattituck
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
JOEL I. KLEIN, Ph.D., RP
63 5 Lloyds Lane,Mattituck,New York 11952 S V b-P
June 21, 2023 EMT I aC me
Southold Town Planning Board
54375 Main Road R.�._.-�..,�......�I..�.____.._�-_...��
PO Box 1179 J U
Southold, NY 11971ui9 " Cu"n
Planning Board
PROPOSED STRONG'S YACHT STORAGE BUILDINGS
5780 WEST MILL ROAD
MATTITUCK, NY 11952
TAX MAP NUMBER: 106.-6-10&13.4
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS RELATING TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES
Members of the Southold Town Planning Board:
On May 26, 2023 the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP),
acting as the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued a letter concluding that the
referenced project"will have no Adverse Impact on historic resources". That opinion was based
on the condition that the Construction Protection Plan (CPP) described in the Vibration Report
prepared for the project (DEIS Appendix R)will be implemented. On June 21, 2023 1 submitted
the attached request to OPRHP requesting that that conclusion be reviewed based on the
information included as part of that request.
OPRHP's jurisdiction is limited to undertakings subject to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and/or Section 14.09 of the NYS Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Law. Their letter indicates that the review was undertaken in accordance with Section 14.09.
However, except for a possible future review by NYSDEC to confirm that the project qualifies for
a NYSDEC General Permit for Stormwater Discharge during Construction Activities (SPDES
permit) no NYSDEC action is required (DEIS pp. xliv, 21). No request for confirmation that the
Project qualifies for a General Permit is currently pending before NYSDEC. As a result, the
Project is not currently subject to review under Section 14.09. The OPRHP comments on the
Strong's Yacht Storage Project (the Project) are therefore advisory only and directed to
NYSDEC in anticipation of future NYSDEC involvement. The Town of Southold, as the
designated Lead Agency under SEQRA—not OPRHP or NYSDEC—has the ultimate
responsibility to determine, as part of its SEQRA review, if the Project will affect historic
properties.
As I have described in my June 21 letter and attachment sent to OPRHP, it is my professional
opinion that the CPP described in DEIS Appendix R will not adequately protect the Old Water
Tower at 3380 West Mill Road (a National Register of Historic Places-eligible property), from
damage from construction truck traffic associated with the Project. It is also my professional
opinion that impacts to historic properties located along Sound Avenue have not been properly
evaluated. The OPRHP letter contains nothing indicating any basis for its conclusions, other
than indicating that it relied on the analyses in the Vibration Report. The letter itself consists only
of a single boilerplate paragraph, followed by two sentences dealing with Project impacts. The
Planning Board should request a more detailed explanation of how OPRHP reached its
conclusions.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the preparers of the CPP have no training or expertise
in the evaluation of acoustic/vibratory impacts to historic structures. My professional opinions
are based on decades of experience evaluating impacts to historic properties, including acoustic
impacts, such as the vibration impacts of concern in this case. I also have extensive experience
in the preparation of CPPs; the review of CPPs for federal, state and local government
agencies; and the direction of post-construction damage assessments for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's Office of Enforcement. 1 have been qualified as an expert witness in
these areas in judicial proceedings in New York, New Jersey and Florida.
As I indicated in my letter to OPRHP, I believe that it is possible to adequately mitigate potential
adverse impacts to the Old Water Tower through implementation of a properly prepared CPP.
However, implementation of the proposed CPP will not come remotely close to avoiding or
minimizing anticipated adverse impacts to "the maximum extent practicable" as called for by
SEQRA. This issue must be addressed in the Project's Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Finally, in addition to the concerns raised in my original comments submitted to the Planning
Board on May 15, there is another comment 1 wish entered into the record. The Vibration Report
relies entirely on the use of PPV as a metric for evaluating the potential for project-associated
vibration to impact structures. According to a 2012 National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) report, frequency-based damage thresholds are more appropriate than PPV-
based thresholds for evaluating potential vibration-induced damage to historic structures. The
Vibration Report (p. 4) indicates that data was collected using a Bruel & Kjaer Model 2250L
Frequency Analyzer. However, no frequency data is included in the report. It is unclear whether
the individual instrument used to collect data was equipped with supplemental frequency
analysis software. Vibration frequency data should have been taken into consideration in
evaluating potential vibration impacts to historic structures.
Sincerely,
Joel I. Klein, Ph.D., RPA
JOEL 1 KIXIN Ph.D., RT`A
63 5 Lloyds Laoe.Mattituck,New York 11952
June 21. 2U23
Nancy Herter, Ph.O.
Director, Technical Preservation Bureau
NYS Office of Parks, FlaonaoUmn and Historic Preservation
PO Box 10S.
Waterford, NY1218G
RE: STRONG" S YACHTCENTER — PROPOSED YACHT STORAGE BUILDINGS
5780 WEST MILL ROAD, MATTUTUCK, NY11952 (SUFFOLKCOUNTY)
21PRO4396
Dear Dr. Herter:
On May 26, 2023 Robyn Sedgwick of your staff issued a letter indicating that after a review of
the Vibration Report prepared for the referenced project, vvhichinc|udssaConotrucUon
Protection Plan, that"the project, aadeocribmd. vviUhavenoAdvenoe |mpaotonhimtorioor
archaeological resources conditioned upon the Construction Protection Plan (CPP) being
implemented ao described in the Vibration Rapmrt.^ Uammwriting tm request that your office
review the basis for that conclusion based on the information provided here, and
recommend the preparation of a revised CPP that is responsive to the concerns
identified below.
ThmCPP (referred booaa "Construction Protection and Vibration Monitoring Plan") included in
the Vibration Report was prepared in response to an April 8, 2022 letter from you indicating that
OPRHP "has concerns regarding potential impacts to historic architectural resources as a result
of vibrations from construction vehicles [and] recommends the preparation and implementation
of Construction Protection Plan for . . . the Water Tower and Bui|ding, 3380 VVmmt Mill
Road . . ." The CPP. mo described, will not, innmy professional opinion, based upon a
reasonable degree of scientific certainty, adequately ensure that at least one historic property,
the Water Tower and Building at338OVV Mill Road (USN Number: 1O310.O01551)will not be
damaged or destroyed by activities associated with the referenced project.
Ms. Sedgwick's conclusion appears to based entirely upon the conclusion in the Vibration
Report that the more than 10,000 trucks, half of which will have a loaded weight of
approximately 107,000 pounds (exceeding the maximum allowable interstate highway truck
weight of 80,000 pounds), traveling at 30 mph over a non-engineered two-lane local road, can
pass as close as two feet from the already structurally compromised Water Tower(see attached
photos)without causing any damage. The absurdity of the Vibration Report's conclusion should
be obvious, as it is to anyone who has actually observed the structure in-person.
The Vibration Report itself has serious technical flaws which are described in the attached
detailed comments. The CPP is also seriously flawed. There are two principal reasons for this.
First, the CPP is based on the fallacious assumption that, even without mitigative measures of
any kind, the Old Water Tower will not be affected bv vibrations associated with project-related
truck traffic. |fOPRHP accepted this pnmrnima, than there would be no need for CPP in the
first place. Second, the CPP does not address the potential for adverse impacts other than
vibration to adversely affect the Old Water Tower—specifically the possibility that a truck could
accidently come in direct contact with the Old Water Tower. It fails to mention, that the project's
cultural resource consultant has acknowledged the potential for non-vibration impacts, and
recommended that"prominent markers such as orange cones . . . be placed at the south end of
the stabilized RCA shoulder during the construction period to ensure that the construction truck
maintain distance from the [Old Water Tower]".
It is worth noting that the Vibration Report also concludes that the NRHP-listed Old Hallock
Homestead, located along the proposed truck route, approximately 45 feet from the edge of
Sound Avenue, another non-engineered two-lane road, will not be affected by vibration
generated by project-related truck traffic. That conclusion is refuted by direct empirical evidence.
The plaster ceiling of the Old Hallock Homestead has previously collapsed as a result of traffic-
generated vibration (personal communication from Richard Wines, Hallockville Museum Farm).
It is clear that the assumptions regarding the vibration damage threshold distances (17 feet
using FTA criteria which are intended for use on mass-transit projects, and 2 feet according to
the Acoustic Reports on-site study), employed in developing the CPP, are incorrect.
The bare-bones CPP included as Section 3.6.17 of the Vibration Report (the CPP is not a
stand-alone document) is not designed to protect anything. Rather, it is designed only to
determine if project-related truck traffic is creating vibrations which could result in damage to the
Water Tower, or was the cause of damage which is later found to have occurred.
The CPP relies on alerts being sent to "the acoustic consultant and construction management
team . . . if an exceedance is measured" (Vibration Report p.30). "Exceedance" presumably
refers to an exceedance of"the criteria for no impact, 0.12 in/sec for historic structures."The
monitoring and construction protection plan for monitoring location 4 (the Water Tower at 3380
West Mill Road) is described—in its entirety--as follows:
"-Arrival and departure times for all trucks to be loaded and leaving with building
materials should be logged by the construction management team. All scheduled
traffic must occur within defined work hours.
- Should an alert be triggered at Vibration Monitoring Location 4, the time of the
alert should be correlated with the arrival times of all trucks coming to the Project
Site.
- If it is confirmed that exceedance is due to operation of a truck associated with
the construction, truck operators will be required to reduce speeds near the
Water Tower and Building so that vibration is reduced. All drivers are to be
notified of any speed restrictions.
- Should two alerts confirmed to be due to truck vibration occur on the same day,
truck trips are to be halted until additional data can be collected and mitigation
can be implemented" (DEIS pp. xli [twice], 301, 307, 308; Vibration Report p. 30).
There are numerous problems with this plan:
It includes setting a value of 0.12 PPV as the point at which an alert will be triggered. This is
much too high. "Strict construction vibration control limits for [landmark] buildings serve not only
to eliminate the possibility of immediate damage, but also to reduce future fatigue damage that
may be caused by the cumulative effects of both man and the environment."'
As noted in the attached detailed comments, the 0.12 PPV is not a universally accepted
threshold for damage to historic properties. In addition, if an alert is triggered only after a
reading 0.12 PPV is recorded, it means that damage may have already occurred. In addition,
the project's DEIS and the Vibration Report (DEIS Appendix R) state that tests indicated that the
PPV associated with haul truck movements on West Mill Road is 0.007. If that is correct (which
seems unlikely), there should be no problem with setting the alert threshold at a much lower
value than 0.12 PPV.
All components of the plan are designed to collect data for purpose of confirming that a specific
Project construction vehicle is not the cause of the alert. The plan should take the conservative
approach, and assume that any alerts are caused by Project vehicles. Given that during the six-
month long excavation phases, a Project haul truck will be passing the Old Water Tower
approximately every seven minutes, there will not be sufficient time to determine whether or not
a Project vehicle is responsible.
The last component of the plan is so vague as to be meaningless. It merely calls for truck trips
to be halted "until additional data can be collected and mitigation can be implemented." What
types of"additional data" are being referred to? What potential mitigation options are feasible?
Who will determine what data is collected and its adequacy? Who will determine what
constitutes adequate and appropriate mitigation? How will trucks in-route to the Project site be
notified that they should not proceed to the Project site?Will the Town of Southold be notified?
Who will have stop- and start-work authority?
The project DEIS acknowledges that, using both the FTA and NHDOT guidelines, "it was
determined that historic structures needed to be more than 17 feet from the truck to be safe
from damage." However, the Old Water Tower will be within 12 feet of passing trucks. The CPP,
because it is reactive, rather than proactive, fails to propose any meaningful measures to
protect this historic property, even though a number of pro-active measures to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate likely potential damage could have been proposed. Protective measures could, for
example, include:
• the placement of Jersey barriers along the road edge in front of the Old Water Tower;
• requiring project construction traffic to not exceed a speed set lower than that currently
posted within a given distance of the Old Water Tower, and installing an electronic radar
(driver feedback) sign to warn drivers if they are exceeding the specified speed limit;
• re-surfacing of the roadway (West Mill Road) in the vicinity of the Old Water Tower
immediately prior to the start of construction;
• pre- and post-construction structural evaluations to determine if damage has occurred
during the construction period;
• active monitoring of changes in structural integrity ranging from the use of reticular
monitors, glass tell-tails, and/or displacement transducers, to determine if the tower's
concrete block foundations, the wooden superstructure, or the Accessory Building are
being damaged;
1 Konon,Walter and John R.Schuring. Vibration Criteria for Historic and Sensitive Older Buildings. Paper presented at the
1983 meeting of the American Society of Civil Engineers,Houston,TX.
• stabilizing the structure in-place in accordance with a plan prepared by a structural
engineer;
• conducting a documented dismantling of portions of the structure before the start of
construction, and re-assembling it post-construction;
• carrying out a HAER Level II recordation in advance of construction to insure that in the
event that structure is irreparably damaged or destroyed, that a record of its existence is
maintained.
Some of these would, of course, require the consent of the owner of the property.
I do believe that a No Adverse Effect determination for the project, at least in regard to
the Old Water Tower and Accessory Building at 3380 West Mill Road, is possible, if
conditioned upon implementation of a well-designed CPP. However, the proposed CPP
does not provide for adequate protection of any of the historic properties located within the Area
of Potential Effect associated with the Strong's Yacht Storage Buildings Project.
I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that July 29, 2021 your office issued a letter
stating that "We have reviewed the submission received on July 6, 2021, including the
Reconnaissance Level Historic Resources Survey dated July 2021. Based on that review, the
OPRHP has no building/above ground historic resources concerns."That letter was issued
before the project's truck route through the Town of Riverhead had been identified. The
Acoustic Report recently submitted to OPRHP also contains an evaluation of potential project
impacts to historic structures along the project's truck route in Riverhead. The list of structures
included in the Vibration Report appears to have been based solely on information from
OPRHP's CRIS. That data contains misidentifications and incorrect locations for some
properties. The CRIS data is also based primarily on information recorded in 1974 as part of
the research done for a potential Northville Historic District. Given that properties older than 50
years of age may potentially meet the criteria for State and/or National Register eligibility,
relying on data that is 49 years old is problematic. A survey should have been undertaken by a
qualified architectural historian, not acoustic engineers, to determine if any additional potentially
historic properties are located along the truck route.
Finally, it is noted that Ms. Sedgwick's letter is address to Charles Vandrei at NYSDEC, but
concludes with the statement that"Should you be unable to meet this condition, consultation
with our office will resume." Given that NYSDEC has no control over, and no way of
ascertaining if, the project's proponents will be able to comply with the condition, this sentence
is confusing and needs clarification.
Sincerely,
p/
A
I
Joel I. Klein, Ph.D., RPA
cc: Mark Terry (Southold Planning Dept)
Charles Vandrei (NYSDEC)
Water Tower and Building, 3380 West Mill Road, Mattituck, NY (USN Number: 10310.001551)
off/ H r // ir/ ' i t
7�11 wd YN Pld 6� U � y „ �✓ ��� � I,
�v
11 Al
,771,77
.�...........
,.,rvu,
�%'r 1��� ray � '�✓1
i/n, p w/ - r" '9l0�fy,
fifif / !
1 , /f �ir f
ar
l
On
i /1�
r.
N
u
N
7 � w�
Iu
�Po
ATTACHMENT TO JUNE 21, 2023 CORRESPONDENCE FROM JOEL KLEIN, PH.D., RPA TO NANCY
HERTER, PH.D. (OPRHP)
Comments concerning a report prepared by Sound Sense entitled: VIBRATION REPORT
Vibration Existing Conditions and Expected Impacts:Strong's Yacht Center—5780 West Mill
Road—Mattituck, NY, November 3, 2022
To analyze current background vibration levels the Project's vibration consultant installed four
accelerometers at locations near the Project site. Locations 1 and 2 were at the Old Mill Inn/
Restaurant and the Frame Water Tower(5670 West Mill Road). Location 4 is the nearest to the
Old Water Tower and Accessory Building at 3380 West Mill Road, but it is more than 900 feet
away.' According to the Vibration Report, "[N]o frequency analyzer and accelerometer
measurements were collected at the Water Tower and Building to be able to collect readings
along the unimpeded path through the soil to best determine the existing conditions" [sic] (p.6).
This explanation is unclear, and does not adequately explain why no vibration levels were
recorded at the location of the historic property most likely to be damaged by Project truck
traffic. In addition, pavement condition is a factor in determining peak particle velocity (PPV)
generated by truck traffic. As the project DEIS acknowledges, "[A] pothole or roughness due to
alligator cracking or some other pavement roughness would increase the likelihood that
vibrations will be created" (DEIS p. 224). As no ambient data was collected at the point where
West Mill Road passes the Old Water Tower, there is no basis for comparing existing conditions
with conditions that will exist during Project construction. It should also be noted that the
condition of West Mill Road is so poor that it has been scheduled for resurfacing since 2021.
That work has been postponed by the Southold Highway Superintendent, because the
proposed project, if approved, it would necessitate another resurfacing.
According to the Vibration Study, anticipated/predicted vibration levels were determined for
each structure along the project's truck route utilizing methodology and data from the Federal
Transportation Authority's 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual("FTA
Guidelines") and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation's 2012 Ground Vibrations
Emanating from Construction Equipment("NHDOT Guidelines"). The former is designed to deal
primarily with proposed mass transit projects.
According to the Vibration Report (Appendix R in the project's DEIS), using the methodology
(equations) in the FTA and NHDOT guidelines, the "threshold at which vibration would cause
damage to a historic structure, [is] 0.12 in/sec" [inches per second] (Vibration Report p.3). The
Vibration Report goes on to state that, based on the FTA and NHDOT guidelines, "for any
potential damage to historic structures, worst-case scenario calculations conclude that a
minimum distance of 17 feet would be required from the roadway surface."The Vibration Report
also concludes that"based on the vibration data collected near the Project Site, the distance
would be 2 feet." However, there are problems with how the analyses in the Acoustic Report
' Location 4 is the only location along the truck route for Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction. It is unclear why no
accelerometer was placed at the location of the water tower. This is especially concerning as two of the other three
locations were selected specifically to assess vibration levels at the Old Mill Inn and the Frame Water Tower(not to
be confused with the Old Water Tower at 3380 West Mill Road)located near the entrance to String's Yacht Center.
uses both sets of guidelines to assess vibration impacts to historic structures that might be
affected by the Project.
First, the FTA Guidelines do not specifically reference a PPV (Peak Particle Velocity) of 0.12
in/sec as a damage threshold for historic structures. A single table in the FTA Guidelines,
"Construction Vibration Damage Criteria" associates a value of 0.12 in/s with "[B]uildings
extremely susceptible to vibration damage."2 The FTA Guidelines do not explain how this
threshold value was derived. The NHDOT Guidelines also cite the 0.12 in/sec PPV as the
vibration damage threshold for"extremely fragile historic buildings" (p.12). However, the source
for this is the FTA Guidelines. In effect, the Vibration Report is relying on a single source to
justify use of the 0.12 in/sec PPV as a damage threshold. That threshold is not universally
accepted and, as noted above, is highly dependent upon road conditions. There is no commonly
accepted standard for vibration limits to protect historic buildings.
A 2012 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report, which provides a
comprehensive summary of the available literature, cites more than 20 sources for vibration
limits for historic buildings, with limits as low as 0.08 in/sec.3,4 The NCHRP report recommends
a conservative screening distance of 500 feet for all but blasting activity, and conservative
thresholds for potential damage of 0.2 in/sec for transient and 0.1 in/sec for continuous
vibrations. A Federal Highway Administration report gives a PPV value of 0.10 from traffic as the
threshold for structural damage for all buildings.
The NCHRP report also states frequency-based damage thresholds are more appropriate than
PPV-based thresholds for evaluating potential vibration-induced damage to historic structures.
The Vibration Report (p. 4) indicates that data was collected using a Bruel & Kjaer Model 2250L
Frequency Analyzer. However, no frequency data is included in the report. It is unclear whether
the individual instrument used to collect data was equipped with supplemental frequency
analysis software. Vibration frequency data should have been taken into consideration in
evaluating potential vibration impacts to historic structures.
The preparers of the Vibration Report, although they cite the NHDOT Guidelines, and rely on it
for their assessment of potential damage to historic structures, failed to make use of the
construction vibration assessment procedure described in detail in those guidelines. "The
"Construction Vibration Assessment Table" (Appendix A, Table 1) in the NHDOT Guidelines
2 FTA Guidelines,Table 7-5 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria, p.186.The FTA Guidelines do not define what
types of structures are included in this category. However,the NHDOT Guidelines include in this category
structures containing medical and dental offices, hospitals,medical research labs, computer chip manufacturing,
and other manufacturing with sensitive equipment.
3 NCHRP 25-25/Task 72, Current Practices to Address Construction Vibration and Potential Effects to Historic
Buildings Adjacent to Transportation Projects(2012), prepared by Wilson, Ihrig&Associates, Inc., ICF
International, and Simpson,Gumpertz&Heger, Inc. See also,Johnson,Arne and Robert Hannen(2015),
Vibration Limits for Historic Buildings and Art Collections,Journal of Preservation Technology 46(2-3):68-74.
4 The NHDOT Guidelines(p.12, Figure 10)also reference a study that found that 0.08 should be the threshold for
vibration damage to historic structures. The vibration analysis in the DEIS chose to ignore this.
Rudder, F.F., Jr., Engineering "guidelines for thl�Analysis of Traffic-In bused Vibration,"Fedemr Highway
Administration Report No. FH1/A>�\-RD-78-1E:6, Fe bruair( 1978
.,can be routinely used by designers for determining if vibration concerns exist
and for evaluating the potential impact on a project. The assessment matrix
described in Appendix A assigns a point score to ten different categories of data
that could potentially influence the impact of construction vibrations on a NHDOT
project. The total point score from adding the ten categories is used to determine
the level of impact at a site from vibrations emanating from a specific type of
construction activity" (NHDOT Guidelines p.17).6
Applying the NHDOT assessment matrix to assess the severity of vibration impacts to historic
structures adjacent to the Project truck route results in a score of more than 350 for locations 50
feet or less from passing haul trucks, a score of more than 300 for locations between 51 and
100 feet, and a score of more than 250 for locations from 101 to 200 feet from the vibration
source. According to the NHDOT Guidelines, a point score of 300 to <400 is a "high impact."A
point score of 200 to <300 is a "moderate impact. Sixteen of the 32 historic structures listed in
Vibration Report Table 7 are listed as being less than 50 feet from the truck route road surface.
An additional 12 historic properties (not including two additional properties not listed in Table 7
and described above) are listed as being between 50 and 100 feet away.
The field study described in the Vibration Report collected information on ambient conditions at
four locations. Location 4 was located along West Mill Road. According to the Vibration Report,
ambient readings were collected for only 10 minutes. The report goes on to state that at
"Location 4, traffic regularly passed on Cox Neck Road [West Mill Road?] during the data
collection period. During the data collection, it was noted that passenger vehicles, construction
vehicles, delivery trucks, and trucks all travel on the local roads currently, which cause low
levels of vibration transmission into nearby structures" (p.8). However, the Vibration Report
does not indicate how many vehicles of each type passed by the monitoring locations during the
10-minute period. The Vibration Report ignores the significant change in the
character/size/weight/number of Project vehicles that will travel the truck route during the six
month-long excavation phase of project construction. While the statement may be appropriate
in reference to post-construction operations, it should not be uncritically accepted in regard to
impacts during Project construction. In fact, it is estimated that the number of semi-tractor-trailer
trucks (18 and 22-wheelers)traveling West Mill Road and passing within 12 feet of the Old
Water Tower during the six months of project construction will be 80 times greater than at
present.
6 The ten categories are 1-Type of Construction Activity/Equipment/Energy Input from Activity;2-Attenuation(decay)
of peak particle velocity;3-Displacement; Densification&Settlement;4-Distance from Vibration Source;5-Type of
Vibration;6-Duration of Construction Activity;7-Type of Structure;8-Condition/Age of Structure;9-Vibration
Sensitive Equipment/Vibration Sensitive Manufacturing Process;and 10-Sensitivity of Population.
The vibration analysis also included the collection of"On Site Truck Data" including
measurements at Location 4:
"Given Long Island's unique soil structure, it was important to collect vibration
readings of truck activity near the Project Site to determine the level of vibration
transmission into any nearby residential and historic structures. To facilitate this,
measurements of a truck like the ones to be used during the excavation of the
site were measured at 25 feet from the road surface to be comparable to the data
presented in the FTA Guidelines, which are presented in Table 5. Vibration data
from a Peterbilt 389 2020 edition dump truck . . . passing by Locations 1-4 was
collected. The dump truck was loaded with 39 tons of sand/dirt at the time of the
readings, which is equivalent to 28-29 yards of material. . . I The truck operator
was directed to operate the trucks as he would during normal conditions and
operation. For Locations 1 and 2, this meant passing by at 10-15 mph. The truck
operator conveyed that these slow speeds were necessary due to the decline
coming into Strong's Yacht Center from West Mill Road, as well as the curve at
the bottom of the hill entering Strong's Yacht Center. Data was collected with the
trucks both entering and leaving Strong's Yacht Center. Data was also collected
from trucks moving northbound and southbound at Location 4 with the truck
passing at 35 mph, which is the speed limit on W Mill Road"8 (p.9).
Table 4 in the Vibration Report ("Vibration Readings Collected from Truck Passbys at the
Project Site") indicates that the PPV recorded at Location 4 was 0.007 for southbound trucks on
West Mill Road, and 0.006.9 At Locations 1 (Old Mill Inn/Restaurant) and 2 (Frame Water Tower
at 5670 West Mill Road), both near the entrance to SYC, a frequency analyzer and
accelerometer were used to measure existing traffic vibration levels. During the on-site truck
test PPV readings varied from 0.002 to 0.007. Based on these measurements, the Vibration
report concludes that"vibration levels measured at all locations are below the 0.12 in/sec which
would be necessary to cause damage to a historic structure, as previously stated as classified
by FTA Guidelines" (Vibration Report p.8).
There are problems with the way that vibration data was collected and analyzed that call the
conclusions in the DEIS into question. The vibration analysis uses two equations10,11 from the
FTA Guidelines to determine the "safe distances at which construction vibration would no longer
be a concern for structural damage or disturbance to occupants inside a structure both for truck
traffic and operating construction equipment" (Vibration Report p.11).
7 The Acoustic Report does not indicate the source of the sand used to load the test truck.According to the
geotechnical report prepared for the Project(DEIS Appendix H)one ton of sand from the Project Area will weigh
between 2,970 and 3,105 pounds per CY. If trucks were actually loaded with 28-29 CY of sand from the Project
Area,the weight of the sand would be between 41 and 46 tons,not the 39 tons stated in DEIS'Vibration Report
(Appendix R, p.30).
8 The speed limit at Location 4 is actually 30 mph.
9 These readings are so low that their accuracy is highly suspect.
10 The first of these equations(Equation 3)is PPVequip=PPVref*(251D)1.1
11 The second equation is Lv.distance=Lvref-30 log(D/25)+1
The Vibration Report indicates that the first of these equations has been modified (the final
exponent has been reduced from the 1.5 in the FTA Guidelines to 1.1). The Vibration Report
justifies this with the statement that"Long Island's unique soil structure typically attenuates
vibration more effectively than many other soils of geological areas" (p.10). While true, the
analysis has failed to take into account that vibration attenuation is lower in frozen soil, or that
most Project haul-truck traffic will travel the truck route during the winter months. The NHDOT
Guidelines (p.29) note that"frozen soil attenuates less than thawed soil." The decision to modify
the equation in the FTA Guidelines is therefore questionable. The modification of the equation
minimizes the severity of potential impacts to nearby structures from truck-generated vibration.
Both equations require the use of a "source reference vibration level at 25 feet" (PPVref and
Lvref). Table 5 in the Vibration Report, "Reference Data Utilized for Analysis," indicates that a
reference PPV of 0.076 was taken from the FTA Guidelines. However, the Vibration Report
analysis indicates that the "loaded trucks" in the FTA Guidelines are equivalent to "water/fuel"
trucks. Those types of trucks generally weigh only a fraction of what the fully loaded Project
haul trucks will weigh. In addition, although the NHDOT Guidelines also note that the FTA
Guidelines use reference value of 0.076, the NHDOT Guidelines cite other studies that make it
clear that this value is not a generally accepted constant.12,13,14
The FTA Guidelines state that"[S]electing sites for an ambient vibration survey requires good
judgment. Sites selected to characterize a transit corridor should be distributed along the entire
project where potential for impacts have been identified" (emphasis added) (p.151). The historic
property vibration impact analysis conducted for the Project relies on information collected from
only one location (Location 4) along the entire truck route.
The FTA Guidelines also call for 4 to 10 passbys for each test. The language in the Vibration
Report suggests that only a single pass was made for the test.
The Vibration Report concludes that"it is anticipated that the minimum distance from trucks to
meet the criteria [required to cause no damage to historic structures]would be 17 feet" (DEIS
pp. 224, 295, Table 52; Vibration Report p.13, Table 6). Using data from the on-site truck study,
the analysis concluded that that distance is 2 feet (DEIS p. 296; Vibration Report p.13).
Empirical data indicates that that this conclusion is incorrect. The Old Hallock Homestead,
located considerably farther from Old Sound Avenue than 17 feet, had its plaster ceiling
collapse as a result of traffic-generated vibration.15
12 Final Environmental Impact Statement by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration
and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Permanent WTC Path Terminal in Borough of Manhattan,
New York County, Chapter 10: Noise and Vibration, May 2005.This document reports loaded trucks have a PPV of
0.85 at 5 feet,0.30 at 10 feet, 0.11 at 20 feet, and 0.06 at 30 feet.
13 Report on the Pre-Design Studies of Noise and Ground Vibration for N.W.L.R.S., City of Calgary(Oct. 1986),
Appendix C,Vibration Study,Antelope Valley Roadway Project,University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. This
document reports heavy trucks have a PPV of 0.25 at 30 meters(99 feet).
14 Readings compiled from Study of Vibrations due to Construction Activities on Haleakala, LeEllen Phelps,
Mechanical Engineering Group, Document TN-0113, Revision A,ATST(Advanced Technology Solar Telescope),
Appendix Q:Vibration Study, July 8,2009.This document reports large semi-trucks have a Max PPV of 0.010 at
50 feet, 0.0475 at 75 feet,and 0.010 at 150 feet.
15 Personal communication from Richard Wines, Hallockville Museum Farm.
The Vibration Report also states that"[A]II the data collected during the site visit is well below
the threshold at which vibration would cause damage to a historic structure, which would be
0.12 in/sec. This conclusion was tested against the worst-case scenario using the reference
data and calculation methodology presented in the FTA guidelines" (Vibration Study p.3).
However, this is clearly at odds with the statement in the same paragraph that reads "[T]he
worst-case conclusion was that there is a potential impact from truck traffic to the historic Water
Tower and Building located at 3380 W Mill Road in Mattituck, NY."
The project's DEIS discusses potential impacts to historic structures several times. In the
section on "Heavy Vehicle Traffic Induced Vibrations" it states that "the distance trucks needed
to be from historic structures and residential structures in order to not damage those structures
was two feet . . . In summary, the Vibration Study found that the truck traffic generated by
construction of[sic] would not cause damage to either potentially historic structures along the
truck route" (DEIS p. 224). If one accepts this, then no historic properties more than two feet
away from a 107,000-pound, fully loaded, 22-wheel tractor trailer travelling at 30 mph (and even
faster along Sound Avenue) along non-engineered roads, would be affected. This strains
credulity—witness the damage to the Old Hallock Homestead.
The likelihood that Project truck traffic will generate vibrations that will damage the historic
Water Tower and Accessory Building at 3380 West Mill Road is NOT a "worst case" scenario—
it is a near-certain scenario, and that is presumably the reason OPRHP/SHPO requested a
construction protection plan for this property. Recent photos of the Old Water Tower and its
accessory building clearly show the very deteriorated condition of the water tower's concrete
foundation (severe cracks and spalling) and iron components (broken and severely oxidized).
The conclusion that this property is unlikely to be impacted by vibrations from trucks passing it
at a distance of 12 feet(or that they could come within two feet), defies common sense.
Reproduced from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation's 2012 Ground Vibrations
Emanating from Construction Equipment("NHD(JTGuide|ines^)
Table
Attenuation(decay)of cohesixT S 711S Cohesive Cohesi;',e Cohesive Cohesive Soils
peak parbcle velocity Very sell to Safi soils soils soils Rod to very hard
VeTy loose Non-cohesive Non-coliesive Non-cohesive soils
CD-4 blm� soils soils very dense
Veryd. Dense Sail Med3jam deme Loose soil SOA v-ery hDose,
Source 7W_
Type of Vibration SiWje L,40ated eveM tweradnew and Steady-state,
1huatiou of Constntcficn 5 no-outes or less Longer than 5 Loniger dm I Langer dnn om Longu dmn me
hour
Condition/Age of Excellent coudinm Good coadmow Fair conMiazi; FaircDadition., Poor condinos,
Structure less dua 10 years old� nauwhaulme many cracks; many cracks-, mw 100 years old
Yews Did cousvac ted after constructed pnor
Vibration Sensitive No�ibmaou sensadve Honie of fice Smaill badness, Large bimwss Medical)researk
Processes or
famoy house(s)
29
Theresa Dilworth
3755 Hallock Lane
Mattituck,NY 11952
June 12, 2023
Sub-P
Mark Terry,Brian Cummings, and Heather Lanza
Southold Town Planning Dept. pL'., TI CM C
Town Hall Annex Building RECEIVED
..._.,_
54375 Route 25 ............... ._.................a. ...
P.O. Box 1179 JUN 2 12023
Southold,NY 11971
. 9caiaao'�`+ ' dn ....._
Planning Board
Strong's Yacht Center, LLC's Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
5780 West Mill Road,Mattituck Inlet
Dear sirs and madam:
This letter comments on the "reasonable alternatives"contained in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement(DEIS) dated Dec. 2022.
I have lived in Mattituck for 30 years on a private road which exits onto Sound Avenue, 8/10ths
of a mile west of Cox Neck Road. Sound Avenue is the only means of entering and exiting my
home, so I would be impacted by the daily truck traffic expected.
I am majority owner of a vineyard off Northville Turnpike/Route 105,behind the L.I.National
Golf course, on the proposed truck route. Every fall we make multiple trips along Sound Avenue
from Northville Turnpike in Aquebogue west to Mattituck,bringing tons of grapes to Premium
Wine Group, located at 35 Cox Neck Road at the intersection of Sound Ave., directly on the
proposed truck route. (Only on weekdays—weekends in the fall are impossible due to Harbes
traffic). Other vineyards such as the former Martha Clara Vineyard on Sound Ave. (now RG NY
Vineyard) also transport their grapes along that part of Sound Avenue to Premium Wine Group.
The 9,000 22-wheeler truck trips will surely slow things down for vineyards both east and west
of Cox Neck Road, turning into and out of Cox Neck Road.
I also have other business interests in Riverhead which require regular travel from Mattituck to
Aquebogue and Riverhead along Sound Avenue. It does not appear as if the Riverhead Town
government, or Aquebogue, Riverhead or Calverton civic associations, or the general population
were made sufficiently aware of this project; they should be allowed to voice their concerns.
1
Reasonable Alternatives
The Draft EIS's discussion of reasonable alternatives is weak. 6 NYCRR§617.9(b)(5) of the
SEQR Regulations states that an EIS must provide"a description and evaluation of a range of
reasonable alternatives at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the
alternatives discussed."Page 117 of the SEQRA Handbook says that"the need to discuss
alternatives will depend on the significance of the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action. The greater the impacts, the greater the need to discuss alternatives."' The
project is a Class I action under SEQRA since it is adjacent to a Town nature preserve, and
Southold Town has identified significant adverse environmental impacts to Land, Surface
Waters, Groundwater, Flooding, Air, Plants and Animals,Aesthetic Resources,Noise, and
Community Character. Therefore, a much more robust analysis of alternatives is needed than
provided in the applicant's DEIS.
A. Alternative 2 the Alternative Material Removal flan—The applicant proposed
hauling away excavated sand by barges instead of trucks. The applicant contacted one
contractor for a quote, contained on page 234 of the Supplemental Data Appendix to the
Traffic Impact Study, and was told that the available barges were too deep to fit in the
shallow waters of Mattituck Inlet and were too wide to negotiate the S-curves of the Inlet.
Contacting just one vendor should not be considered sufficient effort. Barges come in
many different types, shapes, sizes, drafts, and widths. The applicant should contact
additional freight hauling companies, for example the ones that commonly haul freight
down narrow winding waterways. If smaller barges are needed and more barge trips, so
be it. The applicant has plenty of experience with water vessels, and should be expected
to conduct a more thorough search for suitable barge sizes.
The one contractor who was contacted provided no details about the sizes and shapes of
their available barges other than the need for a minimum of 10' draft. There is no
additional information in the DEIS on the size of barges that would be required, the
number of barges, their cost, timing, and other factors to help the Planning Department
assess the feasibility of this alternative.
B. Alternative 3 Constructina Proiect on Another Site—Under 6 NYCRR
§617.9(b)(5)(v), "the range of alternatives may include, as appropriate, alternative sites",
as well as alternative technology, alternative scale or magnitude, alternative design,
alternative timing, alternative use, and alternative types of action.
The applicant says he owns eight sites, as stated verbally at the June 5, 2023 public
hearing and reported in the June Bch edition of the Suffolk Times. The "Locations"page
of Strong's Marine websitez shows photographs of 13 locations—(1)Mattituck Bay, (2)
Water Club and Marina, (3)Yacht Center, (4)Mattituck Main Road, (5)Windamere, (6)
htt s. erm is e' operations df se rharidbook, dfwv
hat s. raw strop sniarine.corn stron s Iocation
2
Strongs at Broadwater Cove, (7) Southampton Showroom, (8) Southampton Peconic Bay
Marina, (9) Southampton Shinnecock Bay Marina, (10) Strong's at Harbor Marine, East
Hampton, (11) Port Washington, (12) Strong's at Grover's Freeport, and (13) Atlantique
Marina. Based on the photos, all but two of them are on the water and many contain
docks. Seven of the locations are currently providing storage.
The SEQR regulations specifically suggest that other parcels owned by the same private
applicant be considered within the alternatives. It is not,however, considered reasonable
for a private applicant to be required to purchase a new parcel. Page 6 of the SEQRA
Handbook states that"For example,private applicant site alternatives should be limited
to parcels owned by, or under option to, a private applicant. To demand otherwise would
place an unreasonable burden on most applicants to commit to the control of sites which
they do not otherwise have under option or ownership."
The DEIS even quotes,but then misapplies,the New York law on this issue. The DEIS at
page 316 states:
617.9(b)(5)(v) specifically states that for private applicants, alternatives may be
limited to sites that the sponsors own or have under a purchase option.
(emphasis added)
The DEIS contains no discussion of other parcels that the applicant owns or may have
under a purchase option, and their potential suitability for this project"at a level of detail
sufficient to permit a comparative assessment".
The DEIS at page 318 dismisses this alternative in two sentences, saying "The
construction of the proposed storage buildings on another parcel is not feasible for the
Applicant as the operation to support the storage of yachts (i.e., existing docks, boat lift,
staffing, maintenance, and service equipment) are located at SYC. Furthermore, the
proposed project is designed to attract large yachts that can only enter and exit by water,
and thus, another site equipped with the infrastructure required is not feasible for this
applicant."
The DEIS discussion,which is 3 paragraphs long, is deficient in that it contains no
discussion of the acreages, zoning, or other features of any other waterfront parcels
owned by the applicant in enough detail to assess their suitability as alternative sites. The
alternative site would need access to the water. However, it is not necessary that the
storage buildings be on the waterfront,but they could be hundreds of feet deeper inland.
If there is no boat lift at the other sites, a second boat lift could be procured, as necessary.
There is no discussion of what such a boat lift might cost, such that a comparison can be
made to the costs and environmental impacts of removing 634 mature trees, excavating
and trucking 134,900 cubic yards of sand, and building a 875' retaining wall.
Also, the applicant stated in the public hearing on June 5 that SYC moves employees
around to do different jobs at different locations as required. Therefore, staffing at a
3
particular SYC site among 13 sites should not be an issue. In this regard, in some public
documents the applicant says he has 200 employees, and in other documents, 135
employees.
C. alternative 4 Construct Proposed Storage Buildings Without Excavation—
The DEIS devotes 20 pages to this alternative—pages 316 through 335. It proposes
constructing two new buildings of 101.500 square feet on the upper M-II portion of the
parcel at elevations of 37 to 38 feet above sea level.
Under this alternative,the existing storage buildings #6,#7 and#8 would be reconstructed to
raise their roofs to accommodate the larger yachts. The DEIS at page 217 confusingly says
that the door heights of the existing storage buildings are 24' and would have to be raised by
11', yet the renderings contained in Appendix Q state that the overall heft,of the existing
storage buildings is 24'. See Photo 1. The correct dimensions need to be ascertained.
The DEIS states that the SYC's 85-ton boat lift cannot go up slopes. Perhaps this is true but
should be verified. A larger boat lift than 85-ton capacity may be able to go up slopes.
The smaller boats would be trailered to the new buildings at the higher elevation via a new
internal road on the SYC property. This alternative would require some slope stabilization
and 2,939 cubic yards of cut material for export off-site—just 2%of the material to be
removed under the main proposal.
Per page 322 of the DEIS, 612 mature trees of the coastal oak-beech forest would need to be
removed as compared to 634 trees under the main proposal, so this alternative involves the
same very significant negative impact to wildlife and ecological resources and to the
neighboring Town preserve. As described in more detail in North Fork Audubon Society's
comment letter, the negative"edge effect" impact on the Town preserve is likely much more
than the 195' stated in the DEIS that might apply to non-biological impacts (sun, wind,
dehydration); the biological impacts on plants, animals,birds, insects, fungi, etc. has been
documented as applying for longer distances. Other environmental impacts, except for
excavation and removal of 131,961 cubic yards of sand, appear to be largely similar to the
main proposal.
This alternative does involve destroying 612 mature trees in the heart of a coastal-oak beech
forest designation as"rare"within New York state.' However, this alternative does not
involve gouging out close to five acres of a bluff which is a natural protective feature, does
not create risk of loose sand running-off into the wetlands, does not increase the area within
the FEW,high-risk flooding zone, and does not involve carting away over 181,000 tons of
sand on public roads with significant impacts of dust,noise, traffic, etc. Due to the less
harmful environmental impact on the Southold, Riverhead and Calverton communities, it
seems like a better alternative that the main proposal.
httr)s://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/""lands forests df�fata4 df
4
D. Alternative 5 Construct Smaller Building(s)with less Excavation -
This alternative is covered in one paragraph on page 335 of the DEIS. "This alternative
would include a reduction in the size of the two proposed buildings in order to reduce the
volume of material to be cut and removed from the site. However, the proposed concrete
and Evergreen concrete retaining wall would still be required and the construction cost
would not make this an economically viable plan for the Applicant."
The DEIS does not go into any more detail, for example how much smaller or why it
would be economically unfeasible.
It appears that this is the only alternative for which the applicant included an alternate site
plan drawing.
E. ,Alternative 6. Reconfiguration or Reconstruction of Existing Buildings On-Site for
Lar er Boat Storage—This alternative was discussed in just one paragraph on page 336
of the DEIS. The Town should not accept a single paragraph as meeting the SEQRA
requirement of"a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the
alternatives discussed."
The roof height of SYC's current storage buildings is purported to be 24'high. The
applicant wants a roof height of 45'.
At Albertson's Marine on Route 25 in Southold just west of Port of Egypt, the steel
storage sheds have a 42' height, and the doors are 24' high, according to a conversation
with the owner. The width is 90' and the length is 200' for total square footage of 18,000.
See photos 2 and 3.
At Port of Egypt on the north side of Route 25 in Southold, there is a large steel storage
shed that appears to be at least the same height as the Albertson's building,but the style
of roof is more of a shed roof than a gabled roof. See photos 5 and 6. SYC's existing
steel sheds are therefore much shorter in roof height than comparable boat storage
businesses. It is not known what zoning district applies to the Albertson's and Port of
Egypt buildings.
Albertson's Marine building has four levels of boat racks inside for storing smaller boats.
See photo 4. Inside the Port of Egypt building, there is at least one section with two
levels of storage, and another section with three levels of storage. See photo 7. The
DEIS does not mention whether SYC currently has small boats stored on racks, and if so,
how many levels high.
The two largest of SYC's existing steel storage buildings,buildings#7 and#8, are 250'
long each and approximately 60' wide each with total square footage of 30,000'. Strong's
existing building#6 is 179' by 60' for a square footage of 10,786. Page 315 of the DEIS
states that "SYC currently accommodates yachts measuring 18 to 133t in length, with the
5
typical yacht size being 50 to 86±feet in length. The proposed two boat storage buildings
would be able to store a total of 88 yachts based on an average boat size of*60±feet in
length and 17±feet in beam for the winter months only. These boat storage buildings
would be able to accommodate boats 50-86±feet maximum in length."
If SYC were permitted to raise the roof height of its existing buildings #6, 97 and#8 to
45' high, the higher roof would allow for both superyacht storage as well as the flexibility
to provide more small boat storage using racks. The DEIS says there would be room to
store large yachts in those reconfigured buildings, but that smaller boats would need to be
stored elsewhere, for example by trailering up the hill to a new building on the R-80
zoned part of the parcel. Trailering smaller boats a short distance to a different part of the
parcel does not seem like an inconvenience.
This Alternative#6 needs to be fleshed out well beyond a single paragraph. The cost and
feasibility of reconstructing the roof height and increasing the door height, demolishing
or repurposing the old steel roofs, constructing new roofs, selling scrap metal, and other
factors, all should be discussed and weighed against the costs and environmental impacts
of the current proposal.
Alternative 6 eliminates or mitigates most of the main proposal's negative environmental
impacts. There would be little or no impact on the bluff, a natural protective feature
against sea level rise and climate change. There will be less impact on surface waters and
neighboring wetlands. Keeping the mature forest intact would allow continued natural
filtration of the groundwater and aquifer. There would be no enlargement of areas in a
FEMA High-Hazard flooding zone. There would be minimal impact on the rare New
York coastal oak-beech forest, and minimal impact on other flora and fauna. Adverse
impacts from noise and dust would be greatly reduced. There would be a huge decrease
in truck traffic during the construction phase. Impacts on the adjacent Town preserve
would be minimized.
The applicant would be able to improve his private property, increase the size of his
buildings, and expand his waterfront business activities,but in a manner that greatly
reduces the negative environmental impacts.
I would suggest the following variations on Alternative 6:
a. Reconstruct and raise the roof height of existing building#3, as well as#6,#7,
and#8. Building#3 is a one-story building of 22,230 square feet.
b. Make better use of the currently unutilized space between existing buildings#3
and#6 between#6 and#7, and between#7 and#8.
c. Consider lengthening building#6 to the north and south.
d. Consider joining buildings#7 and#8 into a single building to better utilize the
open space between them.
e. Get rid of building#5 which is just a small 541 square foot shed,to better utilize
the open space between buildings#3 and#6.
6
f. Consider slightly widening all the buildings #3, #6, #7 and#8 to the east and
west. When widening to the east, consideration would need to be given to the
needed working areas between building and waterfront. When widening to the
west,there appears to be some room,possibly 20 to 30 feet,before reaching the
bottom of the bluff. Expanding the width of buildings #6,#7 and#8 by 10' to the
east and 20' feet to the west, for example, would gain at least 20,370 square feet
of floor space, not including additional floor space if currently unutilized space
between the buildings is added in. (Building#6,#7 and#8 length of
250+250+179 feet x 30'). It is possible that access from the west side of the
building would be lost if the buildings backed up right against the bluff. It is noted
that part of building#8 is already less than 100' from the wetlands.
g. Consider a small, such as 20', excavation of the bluffs easternmost face to create
room to further widen buildings#6,#7 and#8. A further widening of these three
buildings by 20' in a westward direction would gain another 13,580 square feet
(250+250+179 x 20') of floor space, again not including potential addition of
currently unutilized square footage between the buildings. While many in the
community would be opposed to defacing and removing any part of the bluff, a
small amount such as 20' would not take down too many trees at the top of the
bluff. This forest removal would occur at the edge of the coastal oak-beech forest
and therefore would minimize "forest edge effect" damage to the remainder of the
forest. Also, the edge of bluff being carved away would be a farther distance from
the Town preserve than the current proposal. Also, it would not necessarily set a
precedent for future developers to remove bluffs, since this would not be for new
structures but an expansion of pre-existing structures.
h. The reconstruction and expansion of existing waterfront buildings should provide
enough storage space for SYC for both large yachts, and many more smaller boats
on racks. If additional storage for small boats is deemed necessary, then it should
be built on the R-80 zoned part of the parcel. It should be accessible by the public
road rather than creating new roads through the forest, which creates wildlife
habitat fragmentation.
i. Besides alternative sites, the SEQRA regulations say that alternative technologies
be considered. I would suggest the use of solar panels on all reconstructed new
roofs on heated buildings. This would reduce the burning of fossil fuels,reduce
truck deliveries, and alleviate the community's concerns about potential propane
fires and explosions.
j. Another idea/alternative to be considered is subdividing the parcel, along with the
Town's acquisition of the coastal oak-beech forest on the M-II portion of SYC's
parcel and adjoining it to Mill Road preserve. SYC could consider making a
charitable donation to the Town of such parcel, or the Town could consider
buying it, or a combination.
k. Besides alternative sites and technologies, the SEQRA regulations suggest
considering alternative scale or magnitude, alternative design, alternative timing,
alternative use, and alternative types of action. My comments above address
alternative site, scale or magnitude, design, and use.
7
F. Another Alternative mentioned bv SYC's Consultants in the Public Hearing,Spread
10% of the Excavated Sand onto the R-80 Zoned section of the Parcel
The DEIS only has six Alternatives, but the Ecological Conditions & Impact Analysis
("ECIA") contains eight alternatives.
Page 40 of the ECIA, is as follows : "Alternate Plan (Minimum Fill Export Alternative)
which includes the as-of-right construction of two boat storage buildings (52,500 square
feet and 49,000 square feet, respectively) on the higher elevation areas on the western
portion of the M-H zoned area without the cut/removal of 135,000 cubic yards of
substrate necessary to bring the site to El. 10.0. This Alternative requires a net cut/fill of
2,984 cubic yards. Under this Alternative, existing Buildings 7 and 8 (15,076 SF and
22,245 SF, respectively would be increased in height to accommodate large boats. "
(I believe this Minimum Fill Export Alternative has been renamed Alternative 4 in the
DEIS, with the current Alternative 4 also adding in reconstruction and increasing the roof
height of existing building#6, not just#7 and#8.)
The ECIA at page 42 also contains an Alternative 7 which was discussed by SYC's
consultant P.W. Grosser at the June 5, 2023 public hearing, but is not contained in the
DEIS. Alternative 7 is described as follows: Alternate Plan 7(Alternative Material
Mitigation Plan). An alternative material mitigation plan has been evaluated to reduce
the volume of material to be removed from the subject property by placing approximately
13,500 cy of material on the R-80-zoned parcel. The resultant impact on transportation
would be the elimination of 450 trucks from the excavation phase, which would reduce
the excavation phase by 11.25 days or approximately two weeks (as the proposed
excavation phase would occur Monday—Friday only). The material would be placed
within an 8.60-acre portion of the successional shrublands located on the R-80 zoned
parcel. Fill would be placed at a depth of approximately 12 inches above the
existing grade throughout the 8.60-acre placement area.
It is not clear why this Alternative is in the ECIA but not in the DEIS. Also, it is not clear
why only 10%of the excavated material would be placed on the R-80 zoned parcel. Why
only 10%?Why couldn't 100% of the excavated material be placed on the R-80 zone
parcel?
It is common practice for landowners who grade their land to move the excess soil to
another location on their same property.
Furthermore, Suffolk County Planning Department has already stated that the excavated
soil should not be removed from the parcel, in its Staff Report dated February 18,2020,
which contained the following two conditions:
1. No excavated soil shall be removed off site. It is questionable if the excavation and
removal of approximately 130,000 cubic yards of soil off site is necessary. The
intended excavation will create a bowl on site where storm flood waters from
8
Mattituck Creek will surge into. Building Improvements and infrastructure in the
created flood plain (excavation) will only set up a "repetitive economic loss"
scenario into the future for the boat storage building owners.
Z An alternative development approach shall be investigated in an expanded Full
Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) that would construct the proposed boat
storage buildings in the same locations at or near the existing grade and not
excavate. Building at the existing grade lessens the repetitive economic loss
concern and also addresses the functionality of the waste and storm water systems
proposed. See the adopted report of the Suffolk County Planning Commission for
further details on this alternative.
A copy of the Suffolk County Planning Department report is contained at the end of this
letter.
Very truly yours,
Theresa Dilworth
9
PHOTOS
.blew lauildln
45' max to peak
i
c �
w �
!,yq
xi tin building 24
E ' � x i s t i r
gto peak
l%i/ii
Photo 1.
SYC rendering of proposed buildings from poster at Strong's Open House April 25, 2023, also
contained in Appendix Q of the DEIS. It states that the total height of the existing buildings is
24'. However, elsewhere in the DEIS it states that the existing door height is 24'.
It is also noted that the building in the back is supposed to be 45'high, almost twice as tall as the
24'building but is not represented as such in the rendering.
10
[ rf �11r f
11r�r ��Jrr rfttl� Jrrl ��
,I ,' r
/O��j rr) YI f r rlJ 1 J�
it r ��frr r �'.rJgifl✓ It qi� � 1 >`ryr ��L� t 1,r(� �j1 D, r�f ; r j
fib "fJ �fljr�����1rbr�lf���Ij ,�V�Y � r� r �flilr fif1r �" 1D :�� rr dpi
nr �G � 1,�;, �� ,NI➢; �l
IYl,�O��Vd1'J�'�
r
ar/��/l�l 4;fS�ri✓r/� � '. air
Photo 2.
Albertson's Marine building, 90'x 200', on the north side of the Main Road in Southold,just
west of the Port of Egypt. According to the owner, the building is 42'high and the doors are 24'
high.
11
N !i
� //r
l ���ill,l
� it
ICI
yy
I,J,c / % 24' existing
f�,i
N� >iu i�� I �� � /i SYC height
r
r�� t t
`� ;` " 60.4 or 60.5
I f
f J 7 G
current SYC
; � ��h� �( �������'� �t �I�� , I err, building width
�d
SYC's existing buildings are shorter and smaller than Albertson's Marine building
Photo 3.
Comparison ofAlbertson's Marine building compared to Strong's existing building. Assumes
24'overall height of Strong building, compared to 24'door height ofAlbertson's building.
12
j /
t
i
1
r
�I
/
1�
Photo 4.
Interior ofAlbertson's Marine building, with smaller boats stacked on racks,four boats high.
13
iiri 'a /rr Wiz•or :; r/i /i�„�,.,o% Jr�17�fU/ // iOVA!
� as//� / , , �,!,,,,,, /fir✓r�� ,�� r
/�t
�
%✓/ �//i
% /
vllr�
r
ti
r/r�' r v drri /� � ✓ i�, it
Photo 5.
Port of Egypt storage building on north side of Main Road, east of Albertson's and east of Alure
Restaurant.
14
� J/rifjr/1 i(r� r f �✓ rr, /,�rrrj�;/l �Jr%�%f��li''d/ir/%
5l J�/�J�y�,E Ya�ffr� /�; i,�f �?i;�°G��� !/ /�i !/ %`/ r r„�i r, r:� rf��rrr 1�!i�!G �/�l//✓9v r
�,��/!nf��,, Irk' i7 r ( y '�I y ✓ f f/ r r r %%//i �j r,.. I r/fJ/ /r,G� '�'1'r' // l ri r r/��f
J i�(yye�q � �� r , J(.1 / Il i !/�.'i v0 ll/ /! /:� y ,rrJ /�../�r/// ri /✓r�% /����
r/ I
1 i� V
I / f
rt
"' dim.. roru✓tw rm+ r�dre!mrvmmeroaran.,�f�.,.w«.wm�a�mum�ma w*N 1010'w maxima m
Photo 6.
Port of Egypt boat storage building, unknown height, showing different roof style. The sliding
doors come all the way to the full height of the front wall.
15
14��; Vi i uu itil III I �
rr a
' r
/� ri� ,,,ypa it Prprryl�J�it /� R
� r / / �Li% i r r / 1� r Y i� r� ✓
Photo 7.
Interior of Port of Egypt building showing two levels/floors. In another section (too dark to take
a photo) they had three levels.
16
IIIIII
�i
�! I
I
/�ruY G
0
poi
a
r
r r
r;;,�///Ir r/1%i r ri r�i�%���I�9���rrr /ri✓U/// /i lNrrlry
ili I tY
m
�r ��� 9a i�r •;N'r dip / ( ° f w"°li rlrhy�1G�,�� ���� t '� �
,if WJNO
ff
��.,� �af'O�uwlrJ'j r�; r��rrr/�f�, ��`��,yr�r9��i''�lh; ✓��r(1�����Tf,,,,; � ���,�i��, ". "" r;��°��i �'� ^�%��
Photo 8.
Photo showing both the Port of Egypt building in the right foreground and Albertson's Marine
building in the left background, both on the north side of the Main Road in Southold.
17
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
Steve Bellone
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Natalie Wright Department or Economic Development and Planning
Commissioner Division of Planning and Environment
STAFF REPORT
SECTIONS A14-14 THRU A14-24 OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Applicant: Strongs Yacht Center
Municipality: Town of Southold
Location: Terminus of Mill Road approximately 400 feet east of Nau les Road
Received: 2/18/2020
File Number: SD-20-01
T.P.I.N.: 1000 10600 0600 010000
Jurisdiction: within 500 feet of Mattituck Creek
ZONING DATA
• Zoning Classification MII and R80
• Minimum Lot Area (Sq Ft): 80000
• Section 278: NA
• Obtained Variance: NA
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
• Within Agricultural District: No
• Shoreline Resource/Hazard Consideration: Yes
• Received Health Services Approval: No
• Property Considered for Affordable Housing Criteria: No
• Property has Historical/Archaeological Significance: Yes
• Property Previously Subdivided: No
• Property Previously Reviewed by Planning Commission: No
o Map Yield: NA
• SEQRA Information: Yes
• SEQRA Type Unlisted
• Minority or Economic Distressed No
SITE DESCRIPTION
• Present Land Use: Marina
• Existing Structures: Four 1 story metal buildings; 2 story frame building;
1 story frame house, 7 garages, pool and shed
• General Character of Site: rolling
• Range of Elevation within Site: 10-70 feet above MSL
• Cover: wooded, gravel/asphalt/concrete and buildings.
• Soil Types Carver, Plymouth and Riverhead associations.
• Range of Slopes (Soils Map): 3-35%
• Waterbodies of Wetlands: Mattituck Creek
Suffolk County Planning Commission 1 3/25/2020
NATURE OF SUBDIVISION/ NATURE OF MUNICIPAL ZONING REQUEST
• Type: site plan
• Layout: linear
• Area of Tract (Acres): 32.9559
• Yield Map: NA
o No. of Lots: 1
o Lot Area Range (Sq. Ft.): 1 lot=32.9559 ac
• Open Space (Acres): 22.59
ACCESS
• Roads: Public
• Driveways: private
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
• Stormwater Drainage
o Design System: catch basins- leaching pools
o Recharge Basins: no
• Groundwater Management Zone: IV
• Water Supply: public
• Sanitary Sewers: septic tank and leaching pools
PROPOSAL DETAILS
OVERVIEW
Applicants seek Town of Southold Planning Board Site Plan approval for the construction of
101,500 SF of boat storage in two one-story buildings (52,500 SF [Bldg. 1.] and 49,000 SF
[Bldg. 2.]) plus associated site "improvements" including grading, storm water drainage, water
supply, and sewage disposal. In addition, traditional concrete and evergreen retaining walls,
French drains, two locations for duel 2,000 gallon Liquid Propane above ground storage tanks
and a six foot high black vinyl clad chain link fence along the top of the proposed evergreen
retaining wall is proposed.
The new storage buildings are to be added to an existing boat yard and building complex with
an existing gross floor area of 62,245 SF (now or formerly known as Strong's Yacht Center). It
is presented by the applicant to the Town Planning Board that approximately 3.9 acres of the
site will be physically disturbed.
The proposed boat yard expansion is located on a parcel 32.6 acres in area in the MII (Marine
District) and R-80 (Residential-low density) zoning districts. An out parcel and several out
buildings take access from a 20' right-of-way at the north end of the site. As noted the parcel
is "split zoned". The westerly portion of the site is in the R-80 zone. The proposed development
site is located on the south side of Mill Road approximately 100 feet east of Naugles Road at
Mattituck and is to be only on the south-east side of the lot in the Marine District. The limit of
clearing is roughly along the zoning boundary and approximately 120 feet south of the out
parcel.
The residentially zoned western-portion of the site is not to be developed with the exception of
a construction access road noted below.
According to referral materials to the Suffolk County Planning Commission from the Town of
Southold Planning Board, the proposal includes the construction of a "haul road"from Mill
Road eastward across the residentially zoned and wooded area of the property for the
excavation and removal of approximately 130,000 cubic yards of soil off site.
Suffolk County Planning Commission 2 3/25/2020
The proposed haul road, according to referral materials, will be constructed prior to the
commencement of excavation and construction activities. No planned route across the parcel
is provide in referral materials to the Suffolk County Planning Commission (plans prepared by
Young and Young last revised Nov. 20 2018).
The subject development property is bound on the west by Mill Road (Town road). To the
north the site is adjacent to a detached dwelling on a low density lot and the terminus of Mill
Road. The subject lot is adjacent to Mattituck Creek to the east and Town of Southold owned
undeveloped land and detached residential dwellings to the south.
The zoning pattern in the area is predominantly residential (R-40 and R-80)with several
Marine District properties along Mattituck Creek.
Potable water is to be supplied by the Suffolk County Water Authority via a water main
extension of 765 feet along Mill Road. In addition, according to referral materials to the Suffolk
County Planning Commission from the Town of Southold Planning Board, approximately 1,665
gpd of sanitary liquid waste is proposed to be directed to a conventional subsurface sewage
disposal system.
Onsite below grade storm water management structures are intended for the expansion of the
proposed boat storage area
Total parking required by Town of Southold zoning law is not shown on the site plan or
referenced in any materials referred to the Commission and is anticipated to require a variance
from the Town. The area around the proposed boat storage buildings is to be stone blend
and/or gravel as is typical throughout the existing development.
The total area of buffers (approximately 23 acres) is contained mostly on the R-80 residentially
zone portion of the site and a small area north of proposed Building 1 between it and the out
parcel.
The proposed project site is situated over Hydro-geologic Management Zone IV. The subject
parcel is not located in the Southold Special Groundwater Protection Area (SGPA). The site is
not located in a Suffolk County Pine Barrens Zone. The development site is not located in a
State designated Critical Environmental Area. The property is however, listed in the NYS
Heritage Area— Long Island Heritage Area. The site has tidal wetlands on site along Mattituck
Creek at the southern end of the property and is likely to be regulated by the Town of Southold
and the NYS DEC. The subject property is within the 100 year and 500 year flood plain.
The subject property is situated in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)flood zone A with a base flood elevation set at 7 feet above mean
sea level. Based on the extreme topographic change behind the existing buildings the flood
zone stops at the existing retaining walls. The Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from
Hurricanes (SLOSH) model applicable for the subject site demonstrates the subject property to
be effected by surges from category 1 and 2 hurricanes at the existing marina and penetrating
into the subject development site at the southern end.
STAFF ANALYSIS
GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW CONSIDERATIONS: New York State General Municipal Law,
Section 239-1 provides for the Suffolk County Planning Commission to consider inter-
community issues. Included are such issues as compatibility of land uses, community
character, public convenience and maintaining a satisfactory community environment.
Suffolk County Planning Commission 3 3/25/2020
The proposed construction of the two boat storage buildings are within the MI zoning district
along Mattituck Creek. The proposed use on site is consistent with water related uses though
not water dependent due to the fact that boat storage can be accomplished inland. As
existing, the subject property that is to include this action is adequately buffered from existing
residential uses to the south. Issues related to compatibility of land use or community
character may arise from the creation of construction access to Mill Road for the excavation
and removal of soil from site.
LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS: The Town of Southold 2019
Master Plan update recommended commercial use of the subject site. For the Maritime District
the 2019 Draft Comprehensive Plan references the 2005 LWRP for specific recommendations.
The LWRP appears to recommend residential for this site but is extremely supportive of Water
dependent, related and enhanced uses.
It is the belief of the staff that the application is consistent with local plan recommendations.
However, it is apparent that the current zoning pattern on site is indicative of the extent of the
marine activities existing and into the future that should be permitted.
SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GUIDELINE CONSIDERATIONS:
The Suffolk County Planning Commissions has identified six general Critical County Wide
Priorities that include:
1. Environmental Protection
2. Energy efficiency
3. Economic Development, Equity and Sustainability
4. Housing Diversity
5. Transportation and
6. Public Safety
These policies are reflected in the Suffolk County Planning Commission Guidebook
(unanimously adopted July 11, 2012). Below are items for consideration regarding the above
policies:
Suffolk County Planning Commission Jurisdiction over this application is triggered by the
project sites proximity to Mattituck Creek. It rises to a regionally significant project by
Commission definition as it is located in one of the five East End towns and proposes the
construction of more than 50,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Because of the subject action's location proximate to Mattituck Creek, matters related to
coastal process become important. Issues such as storm water runoff from site, waste water
discharge and the treatment of nitrogen containing effluent, periodic tidal flooding and ground
water swelling are particular for this site and application. Moreover, the principles of"Climate
Change" puts forth the notion of rising seas level, more frequent and severe and frequent
storm events including more violent storm surges.
As indicated above "boat storage" is not a water"dependent" use. While "related"to water,
boat storage is often accommodated inland away from the waterfront. It is the belief of staff
that storage of boats on site is not essential but is related and enhances the functionality of the
operations on site.
It is questioned by Suffolk County Planning Commission staff if the excavation and removal of
approximately 130,000 cubic yards of soil off site is necessary. Best management practice for
site design is to have balanced cut and fill for site development.
Suffolk County Planning Commission 4 3/25/2020
No soils should be removed. This is not the case here. The intended excavation will create a
bowl on site where storm flood waters from Mattituck Creek will surge into. Details shown on
plans prepared by Young and Young last revised Nov. 20 2018 and referred to the Suffolk
county Planning Commission from the Town of Southold Planning Board show elevation of the
finished excavation to be approximately 9 feet above mean sea level. Two feet above the
base flood elevation and would be susceptible, as are other areas of similar elevations, to
surges and flooding from category 2 hurricanes in the least.
While this could be considered beneficial to the area for additional flood water storage during
storm events, the fact that there is proposed to be building Improvements and infrastructure in
the created flood plain (excavation)will only set up a "repetitive economic loss" scenario for the
boat storage building owners going into the future.
It is not demonstrated in the referral materials to the Suffolk County Planning Commission from
the Town of Southold Planning Board that there has been much consideration to the Climate
Change/sea level rise, SLOSH or flood zone issues. As noted above, conventional
subsurface sewage disposal systems and onsite below grade storm water management
structures are intended for the expansion of the proposed boat storage area. Details shown on
plans prepared by Young and Young last revised Nov. 20, 2018 and referred to the Suffolk
county Planning Commission from the Town of Southold Planning Board suggests that the
elevation of the water table during normal groundwater conditions would be 3 feet below the
bottom of the drainage rings. Test hole data from only two test holes provided on the plans
referred to the Commission noted above show depth to water to be 6.4 feet to 7.6 feet below
existing grade. It is not clear that, as designed, the existing waste and storm water systems
would function during elevations of the groundwater table due to extreme climatic events.
An alternative development approach would be to construct the proposed boat storage
buildings in the same locations at or near the existing grade and not excavate down to
elevation 9. This would require an access road at an appropriate slope from between any
two of the existing storage building to the top of the boat storage building footprint. One such
design could, for example, be from between metal storage buildings 7 and 8 and southerly
behind building 8 and curl northward to the building envelope. This route runs along the less
steeply sloped parts of the site and can mitigate excavation issues. Building at the existing
grade lessens the repetitive economic loss concern and also addresses the functionality of the
waste and storm water systems proposed.
The proposed haul road could still be the temporary construction route and left for emergency
access to the site after construction. Opportunities would exist that would warrant the
utilization of storm water treatment through natural vegetation and green methodologies. This
alternative should be investigated fully.
Significant buffering of Mill Road and properties to the south of the new boat storage buildings
would be appropriate for this alternative as would "Dark Sky" lighting techniques utilized on
site. This is an important mitigation to lessen lighting impacts to the roadway right-of-way and
single family housing to the south of the proposed boat storage buildings.
Application materials referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission from the Town of
Southold regarding the consideration of energy efficiency indicate little consideration. The
applicants should be encouraged to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission
Guidebook particularly with respect to energy efficiency and incorporate where practical
elements contained therein.
No trip generation or traffic study information was provided in referral materials to the Suffolk
County Planning Commission. The applicant should be encouraged to begin/continue
dialogue with the Town of Southold.
Little discussion is made in the petition to the Town and referred to the Commission on public
Suffolk County Planning Commission 5 3/25/2020
safety and universal design.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the Site Plan referral from the Town of Southold Planning Board to the Suffolk
County Planning Commission for"Strong's Storage Buildings" proposing the construction of
101,500 SF of boat storage in two one-story buildings (52,500 SF [Bldg. 1.] and 49,000 SF
[Bldg. 2.]) plus associated site "improvements" including grading, storm water drainage, water
supply, and sewage disposal; with the following condition and comments:
Condition:
1. No excavated soil shall be removed off site. It is questionable if the excavation and
removal of approximately 130,000 cubic yards of soil off site is necessary. The
intended excavation will create a bowl on site where storm flood waters from Mattituck
Creek will surge into. Building Improvements and infrastructure in the created flood
plain (excavation)will only set up a "repetitive economic loss" scenario into the future
for the boat storage building owners.
2. An alternative development approach shall be investigated in an expanded Full
Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)that would construct the proposed boat
storage buildings in the same locations at or near the existing grade and not excavate.
Building at the existing grade lessens the repetitive economic loss concern and also
addresses the functionality of the waste and storm water systems proposed. See the
adopted report of the Suffolk County Planning Commission for further details on this
alternative.
Comments:
1. Review by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services is warranted for the
proposed treatment of project wastewater and the applicant should be directed to
begin/continue dialogue with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
2. It is not clear that, as designed, the existing waste and storm water systems would
function during elevations of the groundwater table due to extreme climatic events. The
applicant should be encouraged to investigate Innovative Onsite Alternative Waste
Water Treatment Systems (IO/AWTS)including shallow drainage and wetland treatment
systems.
3. The applicant should be encouraged to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission
publication Managing Stormwater-Natural Vegetation and Green Methodologies and
incorporate into the proposal, where practical, design elements contained therein.
4. "Dark Sky" lighting techniques should be utilized on site.
5. The applicant should be encouraged to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission
Guidebook particularly with respect to energy efficiency and incorporate where practical,
any elements contained therein including commercial rooftop solar etc..
6. No trip generation or traffic study information was provided in referral materials to the
Suffolk County Planning Commission.
Suffolk County Planning Commission 6 3/25/2020
7. The applicant should review the Planning Commission guidelines particularly related bo
public safety and incorporate into the proposal, where practical, design elements
contained therein.
8. The applicant should review the Planning Commission guidelines particularly related to
universal design and incorporate into the pnoposa|, where pnaobom|, design elements
contained therein.
N
r
ar a
ae 4,
�rvM
ter/ d
p4� ry no
r� t
�
Proposed 1 Story
Boat Storage Bldg
S2,S00 SF
� nn
yiw
Proposed 1 Storybd ,` rcM1, fed , x
Boat Storage Bldg
49,000 SF
M19
WOO
� �
_n
� mo
+n N
°" eye"'�� �.cw 1..,r�wr,~fi�" .•,.�r, �n�,,r.�r»� '�;X
1
Seale (In Feet .nGw„Q�;G�
0 200
Suffolk County Planning Commission 8 3/25/2020
"n ""A l'J m'G,4 w ""7k'�V� � .l+M.)a�� ......
c ql
0
2
1
low
< 18
a.
a
01
;
CL
R�
v_
IL
Ouv4wy,
LU
I e� ,
K �
W
w
Suffolk County Planning Commission 9 3/25/2020
From: Michaelis,Jessica
Sent: Tuesday,June 20, 2023 3:28 PM
To: Westermann, Caitlin
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Yacht warehouse project -- comment on DEIS
RECEI5 v b-F
..__ ww_.. __µ.....m_w_...._.._D
�G EKG J U
From:Jerry Adler<jadler9999@gmail.com> " tautolcl°down
Sent:Tuesday,June 20, 2023 3:14 PM Planning Board
To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong's Yacht warehouse project--comment on DEIS
In response to remarks at the June 5 Planning Board public meeting to consider the application by Strong's Yacht
Center, my comments follow.
Jerry Adler
465 Harbor View Ave.
Mattituck, NY 11952
>Responding to a question from a Planning Board member, Jeff Strong stipulated that the 11 "full-time"jobs the
Project would create would also be"year-round" (rather than seasonal)jobs. Notably, the DEIS refers in numerous
places to "full-time"jobs but does not specify that they would be "year-round." I would urge the Board to consider Mr.
Strong's assertion carefully and with skepticism. Obviously, a boat-storage shed doesn't require 11 full-time workers
during the four to six months a year when it is empty. Mr. Strong said these workers could be redeployed to Strong's
other locations during the boating season. According to Strong's website, the company has "a team of more than
200 employees" at 13 locations across Long Island, so 11 workers would represent a not-insignificant increment,
perhaps five percent, to its total workforce. If there is enough work to justify this expansion, why don't those jobs
already exist? Or alternatively, would the new employees be displacing workers now on the payroll?
>One person who spoke in favor of the application compared opponents to a "lynch mob."This was a highly
inappropriate and offensive characterization of citizens expressing their views on a matter of public interest. As a
resident of Southold, I was proud of the civil tone of the overwhelming majority of speakers on both sides, and I urge
the Board to reject this insulting remark.
>Many speakers invoked "property rights" in support of Mr. Strong's purported right to develop his property, subject
only to the Town zoning ordinance. If the only issue were whether the Project is a permitted use in an M-II zone,
there would be nothing to discuss; clearly it is, (leaving aside the separate question of the accuracy and validity of
the map on which the application is based). The Planning Board was meeting precisely because, as a matter of law,
it has the obligation to weigh the purported benefits of the project against the negative impacts; and as a matter of
good polity, a project of this size and prominence, which if built will be one of the largest structures in the Town,
cannot be allowed to proceed without a thorough vetting. Mr. Strong knew this when he bought the property. His
rights are not being infringed. I urge the Board to exercise the utmost care and discretion in evaluating this proposal,
whose demonstrable negative impacts far outweigh its modest and speculative benefits.
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
i
To the Southold Planning Board,
The proposal by Strong's Marine to build a warehouse to store yachts is based on the premise
that there is market demand on the North Fork for such storage, yet there is no evidence in the
DEIS of such demand.
The DEIS says: "The objective of the proposed project is to provide SYC with the ability to
provide indoor, climate-controlled winter storage for larger vessels. Climate-controlled (heated)
space is essential for maintaining electrical systems in the types of vessels to be stored.
Currently,the larger boats that utilize local waters in the peak season are being transported to
warmer climates in the winter months due to a lack of adequate storage in the Town of
Southold and across Long Island."
Is that correct?The DEI offers no evidence.
In public meetings and in the press, Mr. Strong has cited anecdotal evidence of demand but no
market studies.
We are being asked to trade off a significant feature of our local environment and undergo a
hardship during construction on faith that the project is meeting a need for storage here.
I'm Managing Director at Deloitte,the world's biggest consulting firm. Before that I spent 10
years at McKinsey, another global consulting firm.There is no scenario where any of our clients
would undertake a project of this scale on speculation.
There are tried and true methods for understanding demand, and specifically the demand for
this niche service in this particular place. Who,specifically, makes up this market, and what is
the likelihood of storing their boats here? A proper study will answer this question as well as
look at scenarios going forward, including the impact of changes to the economy on demand
and the prospects for demand over time.
Once we know the real nature of the demand, we can have a more informed discussion about
whether the project justifies the destruction.
The Planning Board is being asked to make a decision that has irreversible implications for the
town and its residents. Let's see what the demand for this project really looks like before we
end up with a "white elephant" where an important ecosystem once lived.
The Planning Board should require a true market demand study to be conducted by an
independent consultant. Without it, the DEIS is incomplete. SV t>r
B T L BC , Ni C
Jeff Pundyk RECEIVED
M attit uck r_......_....__w_._._.._.,.._,._......I'll
._ ,
(Please include this in the public record) JUtt^ j 4 2023
L .. 6-6'fh !d4 Town.. ..
Planning Board 11
#"rle
www.davebofill.com
Strongs Marine Hearing, June 5t', 2023
My name is Dave Bofill and I address this Board as a 50 year eastern Long Island
resident, local marine business owner and Vice President of the New York Marine
Trades Association.
In addition, I'm a 15 year North Fork resident, the majority in Nassau Point... and a proud
parent to one of our Southold Town Police Officers. Clearly, I have a vested interest in
our North Fork, our neighborhood, our environment, and our future.
And for the record, Strong's Marine and Dave Bofill Marine are often DIRECT
competitors.
My appearance tonight is one of concern, based on what appears to be the apparent
prejudice against our local small business, more specifically the Marine Industry.
Conforming with present and clearly approved zoning, and the full support of the LWRP,
why are we here?Why are the present rights of this small business owner being
challenged?
Yes, the removal of 600 trees sounds like a large number, however less removal than
what's presently allowed, right? Won't 75% of the existing trees remain, and Strong
offering to replant trees?
North of this project there are several hundred homes, with more presently being built.
Why is it OK for their trucks to been running all day?And now there's a problem with
Strong requesting the same?
Comparing the environmental impact of the proposed storage buildings (with 4 employee
toilets and two employee showers) VS the same sq ft in residential above average
homes; that's 29 homes, 90 toilets, hundreds of daily showers, laundry soap water, not
to mention a minimum 60 additional cars using our roads? What a bonus to our
environment!
And talking about bonus, has anybody realized the HUGE opportunity to collect millions
of out of town sales tax dollars? Tax dollars that our State would not typically see to
collect? Bonus revenue that will find its way to OUR local municipality? For our Police,
our roads, our schools and teachers?Again, tax revenue that would not have ordinarily
been received. Svb�p
P8_1 "�jf!T BMc
RECEN.E.D
1598 County Road 39,Southampton,NY 11968• (631) 283-3444 J(J 13 2 023
13 Mill Dam Road,Huntington,NY 11743 • 63I 923-2041 _wn
• ( ( ) ... Planning "o._n .
128 Shore Road, Glen Cove,NY 11542 516)200-9900
Board
Jtw� www.davebofill.com
eol�.
z
Strongs, June 5th, 2023 Page 2
In closing, should this application be denied, I see the declination as prejudice against
the Marine Industry and local Small Business. It is the right of the Strong Family to
develop the property that they own and pay taxes on, in the manner that conforms with
the framework of our present, in place zoning codes, and with the present support of
LWRP.
While it MUST be acknowledged that this activity will come as an inconvenience to
certain neighbors, please realize that the trucks running will commence in December.
For the neighbors concerned about walking their children, or jogging, aren't these
activities rare during the months of December, January, February and even into March?
As a side note, aren't we lucky to have Strongs to execute this project? Why? Strong is a
local resident who has a vested interest in our community and our environment... and
remember, the Strong family resides on that waterway and as a whole, they have a
proven record of overall capability and respect.
Re, pLCtftflly,
Da id R. Bofill
D, ve Bofill Marine, Inc.
1598 County Road 39
6outham pton, NY 11968
631-283-3444
1598 County Road 39,Southampton,NY 11968 -(631)283-3444
13 Mill Dam Road,Huntington,NY 11743 -(631)923-2041
128 Shore Road,Glen Cove,NY 11542-(516)200-9900
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Friday,June 9, 2023 12:55 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Mattituck Inlet project S V
P � '-C 8, Ian
RECEIVED
-----Original Message-----
From: Hannah Van Manen<hrvm426@aol.com> " "S,&6'thWd'Town
Sent: Friday,June 2, 2023 1:23 PM Planning Board..
To: Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us> _ G
Subject: [SPAM] -Mattituck Inlet project
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe that the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) does not adequately address the impact the project will have on
Mattituck Inlet's water quality. Specifically,how exactly will stormwater be managed on the site, during and
after construction activities?The introduction of new sanitary systems so close to Mattituck Inlet is a major
concern, given the fact that the inlet already has shellfishing closures
<https://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/103483.html#12833> and advisories due to bacteria impairment.Inadequate
sanitary management on waterfront properties is a common issue on the North Fork. How will the Planning
Board ensure that these surface and groundwater issues are not going to be made worse by this development?
Additionally, I am concerned about the destruction of natural habitat as well as flora and fauna including but
not limited to shellfish, seagrass, trees, wetlands, and other natural resources. How will the Planning Board
weigh the public benefit of this project with the need to preserve natural resources in the midst of climate
change, threats to biodiversity, and erratic weather and flooding that is plaguing the North Fork?
I am worried that the parcels of land untouched by development are dwindling, and this is not right.
I support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Thank you.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/aol-news-email-weather-
video/id646100661>
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source.Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Friday,June 9, 2023 12:55 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Protest against The Boat Storage Facility in Mattituck Inlet.
S„ b;
RECEIVE
e----------Ori Original Message g
From: Laurie Olinder<laurieolinder@gmail.com>
a'rflSaNla+ n
Sent: Monday,June 5,2023 12:56 AM Planning Bard
To: Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us> _,. .
Subject: [SPAM] -Protest against The Boat Storage Facility in Mattituck Inlet. ' _ b -' [ �'...' 3• �`�
Dear Mr. Terry,
I have been a home owner on the North Fork since 2001.The natural quality of life there is very important. I
feel the proposal for the boat storage facility in Mattituck Inlet would very negatively impact the entire area.
Environmentally it would be a disaster. The loss of habitat is going on at an alarming rate& The very reason
the Northfork is such a beautiful place would be destroyed by
this project. The impact to the traffic on Sound Avenue is another reason to stop this project. It would
exacerbate an already overcrowded and dangerous Sound Avenue.
We have been going to this magnificent inlet for many years- where we begin our annual cross the sound
Relay Swim from Mattituck to Connecticut.
It's heart breaking and just plain stupid to destroy this environmentally important and beautiful part of the
Northfork.
I hope to attend the June 5th Meeting.
Sincerely,
Laurie Olinder
516 Sound Shore Road
Riverhead, NY 11901
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Friday,June 9, 2023 12:54 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Warehouse Project
C , M C
RECEIVED
----- g' g ��� 2 ..From: Phoebe Pund k< hoebe and k@ mail.com>
Y p p y g � � .,,.. ' _....
Original Message �
aoutlodd "own
Sent: Tuesday,June 6, 202310:35 AM Planning Board
To:Terry,Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong's Warehouse Project �Ol`J • �� +
Please add these comments to the public record:
I live just down the road from where the project will be. I want to talk about our neighborhood.
Our neighborhood lives outdoors,year round.
Personally, I run the loop from west mill to breakwater beach 12 months a year. When I'm out,I see my
neighbors. They are walking their dogs, riding their bikes, going on jogs,picking up their kids from the school
bus stop. The neighborhood is home to young entrepreneurs having lemonade stands and selling girl scout
cookies. Friends walk to one another's houses. One neighbor walks that same loop every morning and
photographs the changes he sees every day. My neighbors are spending time in West Mill preserve.
We live outside.
This project would be a major disruption to our lifestyle. It is the antithesis as to why we choose to live here
and a threat to our safety.
West Mill road is tight. There is no shoulder and there are no sidewalks. We cannot safely use the road if there
are 18-wheelers driving in each direction all day long,no matter how slow they go.
I
And, the consultant's helpful suggestion that we stay inside with our windows closed so we aren't bothered
by the noise and traffic is absurd.
I understand that the construction phase is considered to be temporary. I also know that no project,big or
small, stays on schedule. This one will be at least a year long. At least.
For a neighborhood that lives outside, that is not a brief or short-term inconvenience. It's a major change to
our lifestyle. A year or more of not being able to safely take a walk, is not just an inconvenience. It makes it
impossible for this neighborhood to live in the way we have chosen. It will be detrimental to our physical and
mental health;it will isolate many of our neighbors;it will destroy the character of the neighborhood.
We are your neighbors.We are your community.Please consider the short term and long term physical and
mental toll that this will have on us all.
-Phoebe Pundyk
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source.Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
2
From: Terry, Mark is V
Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 12:53 PM H11 ` �1/`� 6C
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison .....
�
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strongs Marine
J �
�oE9f7it 671Nfj`..
Plannin Oar
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Donna Van Manen<dvmanen3@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday,June 8, 2023 12:30 PM
To: Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] - Strongs Marine
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe that the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) does not adequately address the impact the project will have on
Mattituck Inlet's water quality. Specifically,how exactly will stormwater be managed on the site, during and
after construction activities?The introduction of new sanitary systems so close to Mattituck Inlet is a major
concern, given the fact that the inlet already has shellfishing closures
<https://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/103483.html#12833>and advisories due to bacteria impairment.Inadequate
sanitary management on waterfront properties is a common issue on the North Fork. How will the Planning
Board ensure that these surface and groundwater issues are not going to be made worse by this development?
Additionally, I am concerned about the destruction of natural habitat as well as flora and fauna including but
not limited to shellfish, seagrass, trees,wetlands, and other natural resources.How will the Planning Board
weigh the public benefit of this project with the need to preserve natural resources in the midst of climate
change, threats to biodiversity, and erratic weather and flooding that is plaguing the North Fork?
I am worried that the parcels of land untouched by development are dwindling, and this is not right.
I support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donna VanManen
25 Hickory Road
Southold
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Friday,June 9, 2023 7:59 AM ��V b-P To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison µt. / r M 6T i 6C I mC-
Subject: FW: Letter regarding Strong's Marine Prop. few tt'
RE"QE"I,
ED
U 9 ...�
._ Southold Town
From:Annie Correal<anniecorreal@gmail.com> Planning Board
Sent:Thursday,June 8, 2023 8:14 PM (Q_6 . — 6 ,- ( o t t 3. L,I
To: Cummings, Brian A.<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Letter regarding Strong's Marine Proposal for Mattituck Inlet
Dear Members of the Southold Town Planning Board,
I am writing to voice my opposition to Strong Marine's proposed construction of two 50,000-square-foot
heated yacht storage facilities on Mattituck Inlet. As a resident of Mattituck who has studied the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), I wish to express my firm belief that this project is not aligned
with Southold Town's Vision Statement and does not benefit the community.
While Jeff Strong may be a popular figure, his plan for Mattituck Inlet fails to meet the town's goals and
carries serious short- and long-term consequences for residents and visitors, ranging from construction-
related air and noise pollution and heavy truck traffic congesting and damaging our narrow roads, to the
permanent degradation of our most prized assets—undeveloped land adjacent to a 27-acre town-owned
preserve and a fragile waterway containing wetlands and salt marshes. It appears that there is no
community-driven market demand for the proposed storage facilities, and that a prime area that has
been preserved from large development by the town and enjoyed and cared for by dozens of tax-paying
families would be irrevocably altered for the sake of a single business owner and his out-of-town
clientele.
Additionally, the DEIS fails to provide adequate evidence that Strong's Marine has a long-term plan that
mitigates the serious effects of construction on the site and the addition of 88 or more very large yachts
to the fragile ecosystem of Mattituck Creek. This development will destroy a rare oak-beech forest, which
serves as a habitat for threatened and endangered species the box turtle and the northern long-eared
bat, among others. The proposal also involves the removal of a hillside that acts as a natural stormwater
absorber, leading to increased erosion and runoff. Combined with the pollution generated by an
additional 88 large boats for 12 weeks each year, this stands to significantly escalate the toxicity levels of
Mattituck Inlet. It is crucial to protect these impaired waters and prevent further degradation, especially
considering Mattituck Inlet has been declared by the state to be a pathogen-impaired watershed.
Before delving into specific areas of concern, I ask you, as the board entrusted with safeguarding
Southold Town, to critically evaluate the purported benefits of this proposal for the broader community.
The following is a list of specific issues identified in the proposal.
Failure to Fulfill Southold Town's Vision Statement
• Neglected Goals: The proposed project fails to fulfill key goals outlined in Southold Town's
Vision Statement, such as land preservation, protection of natural resources, efficient
transportation, diverse housing stock, and expanded recreational opportunities.
1
• Unsuitable Architectural Design: The architectural design of the massive warehouses does
not harmonize with the existing character of Mattituck Inlet, diminishing its appeal to
tourists, kayakers, fishermen, and potential homebuyers.
• Prioritization of Private Interests: The project prioritizes the needs of wealthy private yacht
owners over those of the public, hindering recreational activities including walking and bird-
watching at Mill Road Preserve and fishing, swimming and boating at the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation's Mattituck Creek Waterway Access Site, sites
which will be obstructed by truck traffic and the construction project. These sites are crucial
public facilities in Southold Town, providing fully-accessible amenities for enjoying nature
and the waters of Mattituck Creek and Long Island Sound.
• Improper Extraction of Resources: Concerns have been raised regarding the potential
exploitation of valuable sand resources. The removal of the hillside could yield substantial
profits from the sale of sand (the DEIS states that 63 percent of the material has been
identified as quality sand). Such actions necessitate compliance with Mined Land
Reclamation Permit regulations, which the proposal currently lacks. The removal of
lucrative sand by thousands of trucks would also lead to pollution, damage roadways, and
compromise the safety of nearby homeowners and the quality of life of the community at
large.
Lack of Evidence of Local Market Demand
• Absence of Market Demand Documentation: The DEIS fails to provide evidence supporting
the market demand for the proposed heated indoor yacht storage facilities. There is no
substantiation of the need for these facilities or their sustainability.
• Non-local Market Focus: The proposal primarily serves a non-local market, with potential
customers described by Jeff Strong, the developer, as affluent boat owners from outside
the area. According to a May 24, 2023 article in The New York Times, "The yacht storage
facility, he said, will offer heated indoor winter storage that fills a gap in the market for
wealthy boaters from Hamptons communities like Sag Harbor and Amagansett, as well as
Westchester County and Connecticut." Earlier, Mr. Strong was quoted in the Suffolk Times
saying Mattituck was primarily intended as a link to his other business holdings on Long
Island: "Upon purchasing this site from the Pape family in 2016, Mr. Strong told the Suffolk
Times Strong's other locations in Southampton and Port Washington will feed customers to
the Mattituck site." This project aims to draw business from outside the area and to connect
Mr. Strong's various investments around Long Island to Mattituck rather than benefiting the
local community.
Overstated Economic Benefits to the Community
• Inflated Job Creation Claims: The economic benefits presented in the DEIS are overstated,
as only 11 new positions are being created. Specific details about these jobs and whether
Strong's Marine will prioritize or train local residents for the positions are lacking.
• Lack of Housing for Employees: The DEIS fails to address the pressing need for housing
for employees, who would put further pressure on the already stretched supply of housing
in the area. Existing members of the maritime industry — running commercial fisheries,
sailboat charters, and working as ferry captains—have children forced to live in basements,
mobile homes or places not zoned for residential use in order to remain in the area
because of the severe lack of affordable housing options. The economic gains of this
project primarily benefit the owner of the firm and do not address the actual needs of the
local maritime industry.
Neglected Environmental Impacts on Mattituck Creek and Marine Life
• Insufficient Study: The DEIS inadequately addresses the environmental impact of removing
the sandhill on Mattituck Creek, and understates the impact of erosion, increased runoff
and elevated nitrogen levels, including the potential loss of wetlands, and the effect on
declining fish and shellfish populations. The storm water plan in the DEIS fails to
2
adequately account for increased rainfall and flooding as a result of storm events related to
climate change.
Inadequate Pollution Control Measures: The DEIS does not sufficiently address
comprehensive pollution control measures to manage an additional 88 large yachts, which
will traverse Mattituck Creek for 12 weeks every year and pose risks to water quality,
sediments, and biological resources. The addition of these large vessels heightens the risk
of contamination from petroleum products, including oil, fuel, and chemical byproducts, as
well as solvents and antifreeze. The DEIS does not sufficiently address the increased need
for comprehensive pollution control measures with the addition of these vessels, including
proper waste management, spill prevention and response plans. Additionally, the DEIS
overstates how many vessels are active in the marina and downplays the potential impact
of 88 additional large vessels, which stand to significantly escalate boat traffic and the
toxicity levels of Mattituck Inlet, which has previously been declared by the DEC as a
pathogen-impaired watershed. The DEIS does not include information on exactly how long
the yachts will remain in Mattituck Creek and how they will be managed before and after
being stored (there are only 45 slips at Strong's Marine). Further, the addition of 88 more
motorized large yachts will have a potential detrimental effect on the marine life of nearby
Long Island Sound.
Environmental Impact and Endangered Species
• Destruction of Native Forest: The project will result in the removal of 630 trees, including
four acres of native forest, significantly altering the scenic landscape and permanently
degrading the area's character. Donating trees to the town is insufficient as a mitigation
measure and does not offset the loss of native forest and the habitat it provides for dozens
of species, including threatened and endangered species.
• Endangered Species at Risk: The development threatens the habitat of at least two
endangered species, the box turtle and the long-eared bat and further study is needed to
establish that construction will not create higher mortality among both species. Additionally,
increased boat traffic in and out of Mattituck Creek would put at risk marine life, including
sea turtles, which are at a high risk of injury and mortality because of boat strikes. Four
species of threatened and endangered sea turtles have appeared in larger numbers in
recent years in Long Island Sound. All four species of sea turtles (Atlantic green,
loggerhead, leatherback, and Kemp's ridley) are either threatened or endangered at the
state and federal level. Therefore, they are protected under the Endangered Species Act
and New York State Environmental Conservation laws and regulations. A comprehensive
study is needed to assess and mitigate the impact of an additional 88 large yachts on
vulnerable sea turtles, which will be traveling into and out of Mattituck Creek during key
times in the turtles' migration cycle. The impact on endangered piping plovers has also
been understated in the DEIS, with insufficient study of the potential effects of excavation
on their nesting habits. (The ecology expert at the public hearing on 6/5 named "blasting"
as a concern for piping plovers and their nesting habits).
• Lack of Independent Evaluation: The project's impact has not been independently
evaluated by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) of the state of New
York.
Considering these concerns, I urge you, as the board responsible for safeguarding town land and
the well-being of residents, to prevent the advancement of this project. Allowing it to proceed
would diminish our quality of life and harm an irreplaceable asset—Mattituck Creek and its shores.
You have the opportunity to make a lasting impact by rejecting Strong Marine's proposal and
instead focusing on preserving the natural beauty of this area for future generations. I implore you
to make the right choice.
Sincerely,
Annie Correal
3
/%/ /
/ / /i/
To whom it may concern:
After attendingthe meeting on 5/15/23 but not being able to stay, I am writing in su a of tiie ro dsed stron s %% %%g � g y g PI � p
Yacht Center project. The proposed project is within the zoned land use and they hay+ aet}/right to move forward %%
with expanding a marine business in a marine zone,Every Strongs property,has been an improvement to";the land
they have acquired, and there is no reason to believe that this will be an excephan'Starting/7�+ith Dave and Doff%,
Strongs has endured as a family run business for generations on the North Fork, and following changing boating
habits they have moved into selling and maintaining larger vessels. Providing indoor storage will further their
„,
business and/le ac ';of ood>stewaarris
g, y hx forth+waterg%weyall ove.fIt
l
i
o
phase there o►nll be,increased traffics;but this"is not forever,There are tar er:t�ks xnovtnr , ooc�s tlif� out/t�c� ��i���///��/
end every day,on these roads`Aftei the buildings`are complete,,,/
atterns in;thearea�uill refito norma�s� ee r„rrrrr///P
storage buildings will°"not be frequented by boat owners, if at all,pnce boats are stored Any extra fraffic,wilLbe//;i//////„o// / o;
from employes and skiiied craftsman who would be servicing the boats, much Tess than aftheVA
"developed in other ways like,ahotel.Any additional boat traffic' an the inlet will not negatively 1mpa�Mattituok �/
Inlet,We are talking about nice,newer,vessels, many with reduced'emission ratings as opposed to
technology. The waterway can handle any additional volume"of vessels that these buildings would store%and being
close to the mouth of the inlet means lesg;' raveling,th>'ough the inlet.
i
Yes to the project' /o%
Rich P r
etrowsla i,
ijii
/r r /i
i
/ r
r ,
/l
,i rr/
rr /
9
i
I 1 li
June 5, 2023
Dear Board,
My name is Jamie Privitar, I am the owner and operator of East Bay Detailing. I am writing this
letter in support of the proposed property improvements at Strong's Yacht Center.
We are a local business providing detailing and cleaning services, on boats and yachts, for over
25 years. We have been working with the Strong's family for over 22 years, and they have
become an important part of our business.
Working outdoors on boats, in the northeast climate, is a difficult thing to do and it's hard to
stay on schedule. Staying on schedule is the key to running any successful business, and that
becomes a very difficult thing to do when the boats are large. The winters here are long and the
spring is short, so much of the work needed to be done cannot be done for a large part of the
year. Not being able to provide service to our customers, hurts not only the customers, but the
it also prevents our businesses from being able to keep our employees year-round, and this can
have a negative impact on the whole community.
We have grown with Strong's Marine these past 22 years, and are proud to be a part of the
team. The proposed buildings will allow for the sustainability of the Yacht Center, its employees
and its sub-contractors, like me. Please consider this project.
S U b�
Sincerely,
RECEIVEQ
Jamie Privitar ,p..iQ� °Q °Q
East Bay Detailing, inc.
Plarnning Beard
to +l 3 • LI
St0 b f
Subject: RE: Strongs Marina
fit_ P'I T B G MC
�. ._...�.M ED
. ._.�,
From: Dominic Testa< orni:isc LggLi, [Lq��y:i om> JUN 0 8 Z023
Sent:Tuesday,June 6, 2023 5 58 PM
To: Lanza, Heather<heath r[ r arr w rukho6 .ny.: >
._ _ r � .� [, [ � ��[ri Ord
Cc: Nicole Evers<Nico,L st�ra, nrqu .con > q .
Subject: [SPAM]-Strongs Marina i , _ (o 10 + 1 3 , y
Written Comments to Town of Southold Planning Board
Frog Hollow Industries, Construction Managers,will be working with Benimax, Inc.on the excess material removals from
the proposed Strongs Marina project,subject of recent Town of Southold Planning Board Hearings.
In our opinion, it is possible to remove offsite safely and efficiently the volumes and quantities of materials proposed
with little or no impact to surrounding communities and neighbors.
This is evidenced by the fact that we recently completed a similar project for the NY City Bureau of Water Supply(NYC
DEP BWS) in Valhalla, NY.
Between April 2021 and June 2022,we loaded and transported in excess of 875,000 tons of excess material from a BWS
site in preparation for construction of a new treatment facility.
The attached table marked ESSR-21 Tons Summary identifies the period,the number of tons removed and the number
of trucks required to move the tons calculated.
As an example,during our start up period of Mid-April to May 3, 2021,we loaded and removed 132,059 tons,on 3962
trucks.
That's nearly the entire Strongs Project, loaded and hauled in a 5 week start up period!
Over the course of the Valhalla project,we loaded and removed over 26,000 truck loads which equals 52,000 truck trips
(round trip)through the surrounding community.
This was accomplished with-
• No recordable incidents from local residents
r No recordable incidents from surrounding and neighboring businesses or college campuses
« No recordable incidents from the local municipality, County or State Government agencies
0 No recordable incidents relating to site operations failures from the Client(NYC DEP BWS)
• 1 recordable incident(incident report attached EHS#1)on Sept 7, 2021 involving a truck/truck collision on-site
4 k� �r��mgi2k:d V6en i�or::'I'lenta .corri>
From R� !��at�... ����i ��ft�����r �e: n:m� l. �ar:�<..._, ._,._....�....�..,_..
Sent:Thursday,September 9,2021 12:42 PM
To: Dominic;Solarik, Eva
Subject:Incident Report in E-Builder
1
Hi Dominic/Eva,
Please see attached incident report as is stands right now,to go to the next step I have to submit and will loose the
opportunity to make edits in some of the fields. If you could review and let me know if you have any comments/edits I
will make them. We will then have to identify root causes/contributing factors and the corrective actions for them. For
those I will more than likely call Dominic to discuss and throw out ideas. Maybe we can do a conference call or put me
on speaker phone so we all can chat,whatever works for everyone........Also, please send me the DEP incident report
when received and I will attach it to our report.
Thanks,
Kim
o Its important to note that by Sept 7, 2021, over 450,000 tons were loaded and removed(tons scale
summary start of project to Sept 7, 2021 is attached)
o From Sept 7 to job completion,there were no other recordable incidents
o From Sept 7 to job completion,400,000 additional tons were loaded and removed
o The site was monitored by local and county police agencies as well as by NYC DEP Police Bureau-there
were no recordable incidents by any police agency
With the creation of a strong Environmental Health and Safety Plan(EHASP)truck routes, driver behavior and site
operations can be controlled to allow for the removals of excess materials without detrimental effects to the
community.
Additionally, Benimax Inc. is proposing to install a load out weighment system to ensure that all truck loads are within
legal weight limits on duly permitted trucks operated by Benimax.
The weighment system will allow for transaction reports,scale summaries and trip data, so that any truck or load can be
tracked from load out to final destination,and working with the on board GPS systems that all Benimax trucks are
equipped with,we can track truck routes, driver operation and vehicle speeds so that drivers are held accountable while
operating on local roads.
Finally,shown below is a load out diagram.
Rather than bringing the excess material out to the truck,we propose to bring the truck to the material,thus eliminating
the need for off road trucks and extra "Yellow Iron"equipment on site.
Ideally,in the volume and quantities that are being proposed,the equipment list would include:
• Load out by Payloader or Excavator(1)
• Small 2"d payloader for end of day clean up
• Water truck for dust control
• Service truck(pick up)for Maintenance and Protection of Traffic(MPT) duties, equipment service, utility etc
2
SfiA Mom Brswn
.. ¢1"61 a&rr uD!MCa:e
4
., Puy,,, 0r ,
.y... .er Bus.kz.t
V., ...... . .�, ... .„ cylinder
....,..... ,.... ..... ............
f.
NY-ern drrxterisaons[srirn(
NCDveralllength 12,8M
B Overall width { 4210
C>v, height' t(to toy of lur¢rere` 7 dD4Y... w erall height R,,.
"� .. D Overallg, t(to top of c�b) � S 290
F Ground clearance 1365. .
9qt
F Ground clearance 780
'" ..
0 Tail swing radius
L Track
F[7 r ck Length an ground fw4YP7 @
W
wrdth 600
[=n�
M Width of crawler 3,900
(a) (b)
oo
Pile c°
3
0� U�'�°� �i°r[1UCk
6
4
Wheelloader
For reference purposes, please feel free to contact:
NYC DEP BWS Facility Supervisor
Joseph Spagnuolo
914-593-7400 Facility Control Room
914-593-7500 Facility Main Number
646-265-9026 cell
NYC DEP BWS Operations Manager
3
Rich Ventura
914-593-7400 Facility Control Room
914-593-7500 Facility Main Number
917-635-0379 cell
NYC DEP BWS Construction Managers
AECOM
125 Broad Street, 141h Floor
New York, NY 10004, USA
212-377-8400
aecom.com
John J.Clifford,P.E.Senior Program Manager
917-856-0709
'ohn.chfford aecom.corn
THANKYOU,
DOMINIC TESTA
FROG HOLLOW INDUSTRIES
Construction Managers
NY CITY DEP CAT/DEL UV Plant ESSR-21
15 Walker Rd.Valhalla,NY 10532
NY STATE WEIGHMASTER CERTIFCATE#606573
NY CITY BUSINESS INETGRITY COMMISSION REG.#503994
ominkc@ flowIndCorn;
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
4
NVC
Environmental
EHS Incident (EHS-1) - 1 Protection
Project: Eastview Soil Stockpile Project Number:
Removal
Process EHS-I-1 Overall Due Date:
Document:
Current Workflow Lead CMEHSO Classify and Step Due Date:
Step: Assign
Subject:. BEDC Incident-Tractor Trailer
Damage-Release-09.07.21
Status: Submitted
Reporting Information
Select Event
Category: Motor Vehicle
Severity Estimate:
Incident
Originated From
Inspector Daily
Report:
Notifications
Assignment ***Upon Assignment the following will be notified***
Notification: All incidents:
CM EHSO,CM EHSO Lead,Construction Manager,DEP Accountable Manager,DEP EHS
Director/Chief,DEP EHS Regional Manager,DEP OEHS Assistant Commissioner,DEP Ops Bureau
Liaison,DEP Ops EHS Director,DEP Ops Facility Manager,DEP Ops Plant Chief,DEP Portfolio
Manager,Resident Engineer
Individual Kim Shutty Accountable Hoffman,Jonathan
Reporting the Manager Name:
Event:
Company of Bidwell Environmental,LLC Accountable
Individual Manager
Reporting Contact
Incident: Information:
Email of Event kshutty@bidwellenvironmental.com Project
Contact Person: Commitment:
Event Information
Location of Event: Eastview Stockpile-15 Walker Road,Valhalla,NY
Date of Event: 09.07.2021
Time of Event: Approximately 1145
Description of the
event in detail Trucks were lined up on the loop haul road waiting to be loaded with soil from the
(attach additional Eastview Soil Stockpile A section of the loop road is on an incline. A 10 wheeler
documents as (Kenworth)that was parked waiting in line to be loaded on the incline rolled into the
needed): trailer truck(Peterbilt)behind them. The impact dented the front of the trailer truck and
pierced the radiator. The trucks relocated off the loop haul road. It was observed that
the trailer truck was leaking antifreeze.
Speedy dry and absorbent pads were deployed immediately from a nearby spill kit.
Approximately 1-2 gallons of antifreeze leaked on to speedy dry,absorbent pads,and
soil.
NYCDEP Police were called to report the incident. DEP Police responded(Officer Tamay
&Officer Gill)to the site,accessed the damage and release,and interviewed both
drivers. A DEP Police report will be generated.
NYSDEC was notified by Fox Hollow Industries. NYSDEC Spill#2105456.
The driver of the truck that was struck indicated that they had a slight headache and
light-headed feeing,however,they did not want to go to a medical facility for
observation/evaluation.
An investigation into the incident is underway.
Was a DEP
employee injured No
or directly
involved in this
incident?:
Name of Person Company 1:
Injured 1:
Type of Injury 1: Body Part 1:
Description of
Injuries 1:
Name of Person Company 2:
Injured 2:
Type of Injury 2: Body Part 2:
Description of
Injuries 2:
Name of Person Company 3:
Injured 3:
Type of Injury 3: Body Part 3:
Description of
Injuries 3:
Name of Person Company 4:
Injured 4:
Type of Injury 4: Body Part 4:
Description of
Injuries 4:
Name of Person Company 5:
Injured 5:
Type of Injury 5: Body Part 5:
Description of Other People
Injuries 5: Injured:
Name of the
medical facility
where the injured
person(s)was
taken:
Location of the
medical facility
where the injured
person(s)was
taken:
Injury
Classification: Non-Injury Incident
How Many Lost
Work Days:
Immediate Actions Taken
Actions The incident was reported to the Frog Hollow Project Manager,the Resident Engineer,
Immediately and on site EHS personnel. Speedy dry and absorbent pads were deployed immediately
Implemented at upon observation of the release. NYCDEP Police and NYSDEC were notified. NYCDEP
the Time of BEDC Accountable Manger was notified.
Incident or Near Interviews were conducted with both truck drivers.
Miss:
Investigation Team Members
Investigation Dominic Testa-Project Manager
Leader:
Investigation Fox Hollow Industries
Leader Company:
Other Kim Shutty/Bidwell Environmental-Environmental Health&Safety Officer
Investigation Team Eva Solarik/AECOM-Resident Engineer
Members/
Company:
w �
a
cl
N
J • •x wr
Q Q)
"••" 88
a
uj
bps �
LL
0
ZO
� 0
L z _
a wzt U- d.
�SC ui > 4�
w
C �tCi o
NYC DEP ESSR-21
CAT/DEL SOIL REMOVAL PROJECT
15 WALKER RD. VALHALLA, NY
PERIOD, TONS 'LOADS
Apr-21 May-21 132059.130 3962
Jun-21 Jun-21 147452.66 4299
Jul-21 Jul-21 93932.98 2706
Aug-21 Aug-21 88963.52 2663
Sep-21 Sep-21 39711.71 1176
Nov-21 Nov-21 27433.64 792
Dec-21 Dec-21 104423.32 2980
Jan-22 Jan-22 13686.47 389
Mar-22 Mar-22 65573.13 1869
Apr-22 Apr-22 59187.68 1879
May-22 May-22 98505.58 3171
Jun-22 Jun-22 6621 215
87 550 20 2610,E
sU b�
NIT, a C pre-
From: Lanza, Heather
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:11 AM
To: Westermann, Caitlin J UN 8' w
Cc: Terry, Mark ;
Subject: FW:To the Southhold Town Planning Board S � f 1 g ����t.dlhoi .i owru ..
Planning Board
From: Nicole Evers<Nicole@strongsmarine.com>
Sent:Wednesday,June 7, 2023 1:40 PM
To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: FW:To the Southhold Town Planning Board
Dear Heather and Mark,
1 was asked to forward this letter below on behalf of Alfred Cooke.
Thank you,
Nicole Evers
Strongs Marine
From: a c ooke. ghjju om<awco a e1 rna rwr,rn>
Sent: Monday,June 5, 2023 11:21 AM
To: Nicole Evers<N.icoreeu@strop smanne.co
Subject:To the Southhold Town Planning Board
TO the Southhold Town Planning g Board
June 3, 2023
The Cooke family has been a waterfront neighbor and a customer of Mattituck Inlet Marina, now Strong's Yacht Center,
since 1964.
Strong's Marine has revitalized two marinas on the Inlet.The improvements have been accomplished with a positive
effect on the community and the environment.The repainted sheds are attractive from the water, and shows the
marina is well maintained. By purchasing a new boat lift and replacing the bulkhead, Strong's is keeping the Inlet safe.
They provide quality service and dockage.
There is very limited M2 waterfront property for accommodating the boating industry on the North Shore. Mattituck
Inlet is the only harbor for 50 miles on the North Shore, between Port Jefferson and Orient.The trend seem to be that
1
people are purchasing larger vessels that need special accommodation.Strong's Storage Project is a necessity for North
Shore boaters as well as East End boaters.
Strong's improvements have been responsible and their workmanship dependable.Strong's Marine Storage Building
Project would be another asset to Mattituck Inlet. I fully support the project and encourage Southold Town Planning
Board to approve the project.
Sincerely,
Alfred W. Cooke
Sent from my Wad
2
From: Terry, Mark
~»�� L�
Sent: VVednesdo}\June 7' 2OZ3411 PPMwu '
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Po|nneh.Allison ?8 ( HL / MT- / l3(Z/ /,-\ C
Subject: RW: OE|S for Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat St rago-Bu4cf"19
R EQ__EIVED
From:Jamie Rosen ^jamnie.mo.rosen@gnnai|.com» Planning Board
Sent:Tuesday,June 6, 2O239:47PK4
To:Terry, Mark<nnark.tern/@toxvn.southo|d.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.curnnoings8Dtovvn.southo|d.ny.us>
Subject: Re: DE|S for Stnmng's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
Having had more time to research since the initial hearing, please add this letter to my initial one--or use it instead.
Thank you.
***
To the Southold Town Planning Board:
As a taxpayer and a resident of Mattituck, residing on the inlet, I strongly object to the proposed yacht-storage facility by
Strong's Marine.This project is nothing short of a bait and switch for new arrivals to the area, and it fails to acknowledge
the true impact it will have on our community.
The DEIS grossly underestimates the unavoidable consequences of this project, particularly the devastating effect it will
have on the property values of homes along Mattituck Creek. Currently, boat traffic in the creek is seasonal and
manageable, consisting mostly of small and medium-sized vessels. However,the introduction of large luxury yachts,
which will congest the marina twice a year for several weeks,will drastically alter the picturesque character of the inlet.
This excessive influx of boats,which is grossly understated by the developer, will severely limit the recreational
opportunities for kayakers,fishermen, and swimmers. Furthermore,the project's sole beneficiaries are the developer
and his associates, while it fails to provide the public with increased waterfront access or attract more tourists to benefit
a wider range of local businesses.
The DEIS deliberately clownplays the project's unavoidable impacts and conveniently omits crucial details. it fails to
provide a comprehensive timetable for construction and truck traffic, leaving residents in the dark about the potential
disruption to their daily lives.The excavation process and the thousands of trucks navigating narrow roads in our
residential area will undoubtedly result in significant air and noise pollution, posing serious safety concerns. Moreover,
the DEIS neglects to assess the impact of heavy trucks carrying sand on roads, historical structures, and homes over an
unspecified duration. It lacks a clear plan with deliverables for excavation and construction, and fails to address
contingencies for foreseeable delays, including those mentioned by Mr.Strong, such as inflationary pressures.This
oversight further demonstrates the lack of consideration for the flow of tourists to our area,directly impacting the
vitality oflocal businesses.
|tis imperative that the Southold Town Planning Board acknowledges the true implications of this project. | urgeyoutm
reject this proposal and protect the interests of the community. Let us not be deceived by empty promises and the
interests ofa select few. Our town deserves better.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Melissa Rosen (Janoie)
z
25 East Side Avenue
Mattituck, NY 11952
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 5:44 PM Jamie Rosen <'amie.m.rosen mail.com>wrote:
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
As residents of Mattituck who live on Mattituck Inlet, we are writing to voice our opposition to the Strong's
Marina Development Project on Mattituck Inlet.
We moved to Mattituck in November 2021. We were drawn to the area for its sheer beauty, the peacefulness
of the inlet, and what we observed as a healthy coexistence of man and nature. We pinch ourselves daily for
having ended-up in such a magical place where birds are our soundtrack and sunsets are our entertainment.
We do not believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) adequately addresses the
irreversible impact the construction and subsequent water traffic will have on the local environment and
ecology. The damage to the trees and other native flora, the coastline, the cleanliness of the water, and,
importantly, the animals who have made the inlet their home for far longer than we, as humans, have will
simply be irreparable. Once this damage is done, there is no turning back.
Further, we have additional concerns about the significant increase in traffic and the dangerous impact it will
have on our local roads, pedestrian safety, and our overall community.
As individuals and a community, we have the ability to effect change for good and to ensure that the beauty of
Mattituck inlet is something we continue to enjoy for generations to come. For this reason, we support the
Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Melissa Rosen (Jamie) & Geoffrey Greene
25 East Side Avenue
Mattituck, NY 11952
2
June 5, 2023 S V L
Southold Town Planning Board V H L M ( QG Mc
54375 Main Road
� L .
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971 ...............- ..M_........_. .... ..........
.JUN 0 6 2023
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT L....,,.5&R__ _..,,,.,_,,,
`ho� '" wn
PROPOSED STRONG'S YACHT STORAGE BUILDINGS Planning Board
5780 WEST MILL ROADw �
MATTITUCK,NY 11952
TAX MAP NUMBER: 106:6-10&13.4
Members of the Southold Town Planning Board:
This letter and attachments constitute Save Mattituck Inlet's(SMI)comments on the yacht storage
buildings project(the Project) being proposed for construction on a land parcel adjacent to Mattituck
Inlet.
SMI is an organization of citizens who came together over shared concerns about the potentially
disastrous environmental impacts of the Project on the delicate ecosystem of the Inlet and the
surrounding uplands.Together,we found a larger purpose to ensure that the community's voice is heard,
advocating for transparent and responsible developments that take into account the impact on the
economy,the ecology and the local quality of life.The Inlet is the geographical heart and emotional
center of our community.That is why more than 3,500 neighbors and friends have signed a petition to
"Stop the irreversible environmental destruction that would result from the Storage Buildings project at
Strong's Yacht Center!"
As these comments demonstrate,the DEIS prepared by the Applicant fails to show that the proposed
Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the hamlet,on the Town of Southold and
neighboring communities including Riverhead. On the contrary,the DEIS demonstrates that the
negative consequences associated with the Project far outweigh its few benefits.The Project will
provide heated indoor storage space, an amenity for a handful of wealthy yacht owners from out of the
area; it will create as many as 11 jobs,some of which may be seasonal,which may or may not go to
Southold residents; and it will provide a relatively small increase in property tax revenue to the Town.All
of that is assuming the entire project is in fact built,which as we show, is an assumption open to
question.
o The Project involves excavating an entire hillside and destroying more than 600 mature
trees, erecting a vast eyesore visible to boaters and to residents on both sides of the
Inlet,and imperiling the scenic and ecological values of one of the Town's treasures,the
publicly owned Mill Road Preserve. For the better part of a year, or longer, the Project
will create intolerable conditions for nearby residents in the form of traffic, noise,air
pollution and vibration,from excavation and construction on the site itself, and from a
constant stream of 50-ton trailer dump trucks along narrow residential roads shared
with bicyclists,joggers,schools pool buses and visitors to Breakwater Beach — and
whose route will continue along Sound Avenue, Northville Turnpike and Old Country
Road, past popular farm stands,wineries and historic sites and attractions.
We will show that besides failing to adequately address major environmental concerns or address
them at all,the DEIS is misleading,internally inconsistent,and rife with inaccuracies and omissions.
Many of its conclusions are based on assumptions unsupported by data. It does not fully comply with
the final DEIS Scope,even after revisions following the Planning Board's determination that an earlier
version was inadequate.The Project fails to demonstrate any overriding public need or public benefit
or show compliance with Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan or the Southold
Comprehensive Plan.
The DEIS purports to show that the Project's environmental impacts are insignificant or can be
adequately mitigated. We believe we can show the opposite to be true. Proposing to mitigate the
destruction of an 80-foot-tall oak tree by replacing it with a five-foot-tall pine tree in a 10-gallon pot is
preposterous.Asking the Planning Board to accept this as adequate is insulting.
In summary,the DEIS does not present an adequate basis for the Planning Board to prepare its required
findings, per the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA).The DEIS needs substantial revision
and/or supplementation before the Planning Board,as lead agency,can prepare a Final Environmental
Impact Statement. An essential step is to retain an objective third-party consultant to assist and advise
the Planning Board in evaluating the Project. Based on the DEIS in its current form,the only action the
Board can reasonably take is a negative findings statement and disapproval of the Project.
Stephen Boscola and Anne Sherwood Pundyk, co-chairs
On behalf of Save Mattituck Inlet
We've organized our comments into three main categories:
• Broad Rationale
• Construction-related Effects
• Permanent Impacts
I Broad Rationale
Purpose and Nature of Project
The DEIS states: "The objective of the proposed project is to provide SYC with the ability to
provide indoor, climate-controlled winter storage for larger vessels ... Currently, the larger boats
that utilize local waters in the peak season are being transported to warmer climates in the
winter months due to a lack of adequate storage in the Town of Southold and across Long
Island."
The rationale is muddled at best.
The DEIS asserts this need for additional indoor boat storage in the region, without offering
supporting data. There are a number of boatyards offering winter storage on or near Long Island
Sound, including at Port of Egypt; South Jamesport; Branford, Connecticut, and various
locations on the South Fork; the Strong's Yachts website proclaims "Indoor storage is available
for yachts up to 100 ft. in Strong's Yacht Center's 7 indoor storage buildings."
Among the questions unaddressed in the DEIS are these:
Approximately how many yachts/customers are anticipated to be existing customers who
currently dock at SYC?
Approximately how many are customers at other Town of Southold facilities owned by
the Applicant?
How many new yacht customers are expected to take advantage of winter storage at
SYC?
How many customers will be from outside Suffolk County or from outside New York
State?
The answers to these questions are relevant to estimating the Project's effect on tax
revenues and the broader environmental impacts of the Project. This information is not
included in the DEIS.
3
Jeff Strong, responding at a recent community meeting to a question about owners sending their
boats south for the winter, directly contradicted the DEIS: "That's not our customer, not what
these are built for. Our average size is roughly a 60-foot yacht. Those generally don't travel
down South ... generally they stay in the Northeast."
Essential?
Nowhere in the DEIS does the Applicant provide or discuss a demonstrated need for the
project. The DEIS states that climate-controlled (heated) space is essential for maintaining
electrical systems in the types of vessels to be stored. This is not the opinion of the
manufacturers of the boats and yachts sold by Strong's Marine.
Section 1.3.1 of the DEIS (Objectives of the Proposed Project) states that "[c]limate-controlled
(heated) space is essential for maintaining electrical systems in the types of vessels to be
stored." (pp. ii, 14). This is both misleading and inaccurate. Not only is heated indoor storage
unnecessary, but indoor storage in general is unnecessary to maintain a vessel's
electrical system, or even the vessel in its entirety.
Strong's Marine is an authorized new boat dealer for manufacturers such as Cruisers Yachts
and Regal Boats and in the past has been a dealer for Sunseeker Yachts. All three
manufacturers dispute the claim that heated indoor storage is essential. Regal Customer
Service noted: "The majority of Regal boats do spend their winters outside, and seem to do
very well." Sunseeker noted "there are no issues with storing a Sunseeker outside in the
winter." Cruisers Yachts noted that their boats are built in Wisconsin and "may sit outside for
several months wrapped and winterized without issue"while waiting for delivery to their dealers.
When asked specifically about electrical systems, Cruisers Yachts noted "... as far as any
additional electrical concerns, you shouldn't be worried."
Limited value to other businesses
The DEIS asserts that the Project will support"the importance of and reliance upon the maritime
industry in the Town by providing overwintering storage for larger vessels." Clearly, the maritime
industry in the Town would be in sad shape if it had to rely on "overwintering storage for larger
vessels." The yachts which will be stored there will make one trip a year from the mouth
of the Inlet to the Strong's facility, a distance of less than a mile, and one trip back.
Strong's provides a pick-up and delivery service, so there is no reason to think the
owners will even set foot in the Town.
The DEIS, as required by law, discusses various alternative approaches to constructing the
Project. Notably absent from these alternatives is the possibility of constructing the
Project in stages. Jeff Strong has raised this possibility himself, in a meeting on Feb. 8, 2020,
with David, Donna and Stephen Boscola, at which he stated that financing for the second of the
two proposed buildings was contingent on achieving a certain level of occupancy for the first.
Stephen Boscola described this conversation at a public meeting of the Planning Board on
March 9, 2020, at which Applicant and his attorney were present and did not object.
Obviously this alternative would mean extending the duration of the construction-related impacts
to quality of life (of traffic, noise, vibration, air pollution etc.) indefinitely perhaps but, almost
certainly into a second year. It is imperative that the Planning Board confirm that the
Applicant's proposal involves construction of the entire Project in a single phase over a
single construction season.
Still more risk
But there is an even more troubling implication to the contingent status of funding for the
Project. The Project was conceived more than three years ago, in a very different
economic climate. Interest rates have gone up greatly since then, and even since the fall of
2022 when the Revised DEIS was prepared. They could change again before, or even during,
the construction phase, calling the viability of the Project into question. Any development runs
this risk, of course, but uniquely in the case of this Project, the Applicant has an opportunity to
secure a return on his investment without completing construction. Applicant's plans call for
excavating 135,000 cubic yards of material, most of it high-quality sand, which is conservatively
valued at up to $2 million. Whatever the Applicant's stated, or real, intentions are, he may have
an incentive to stop, or at least pause, construction once the excavation is complete—
conceivably leaving behind a denuded, unsightly and geologically unstable bluff.
Jeff Strong, in a recent column in the Suffolk Times, invokes the prospect that Strong's Yacht
Center, or a portion of it, could be sold to "marina conglomerates" or developed for non-maritime
uses. He writes that "as a fourth-generation marine business with deep roots in this community,
we are invested in the property's historic maritime character. The expansion we propose will
secure its future as a thriving waterfront shipyard for generations to come." This alternative is
not discussed in the DEIS.
The DEIS does not provide data to show that revenue from the Project is necessary to subsidize
the Strong's Yacht Center operation. Strong's is not making a hardship claim. Ryan Strong, in
the March 9, 2020 Planning Board meeting, said his family is "selling boats and yachts 19 to
133 feet and continue[s] to have a good business."
Nowhere in the DEIS does the Applicant provide or discuss a demonstrated need for the
Project.
Zoning
There is a significant question whether the project conforms to existing zoning.
The DEIS is inconsistent in its description of the applicable zoning. In some sections it refers to
the entire parcel as being zoned M-II, but in others it acknowledges that part of the parcel is
zoned R-80. Because of these discrepancies, the Applicant's bulk calculations are not precise or
accurate. A maritime industrial use is not allowed in an R-80 zoning but the Applicant does not
appear to have requested a variance for this portion of the lot. At least a portion of the proposed
5
haulage road, which will be maintained after construction for emergency access to the Project,
appears to lie within the R-80 zone.
The underlying problem is that the boundary between the M-II and R-80 portions is
uncertain. The zoning maps accompanying the 1989 Southold Law 1 show the boundary
between the maritime/industrial and residential districts was moved several hundred feet to the
west of its previous location, which, logically, followed the edge of the existing bluff. But there
are no records of an official action authorizing this change, and the associated zoning map was
never submitted to the County. This issue needs to be addressed as part of the environmental
review of the project, and must be resolved before any SEQRA findings statement can be
prepared by the Planning Board.
• Contrary to the DEIS, the proposed development, given the site's elevation, does not
have direct access to marine or tidal waterways, as required by section 280-54 of the
Zoning Code.
• Contrary to the intent of M-II zoning, whose purpose is to "maintain the existing pattern
of maritime use," the site will have to be intensively modified to make it suitable for the
proposed use, which will disrupt the "existing pattern of uses including land, soil,
topography, tree cover and soil material."
• There is lack of clarity as to ownership of Parcel 1000-106.-6-10 which is part of the
Project parcel. This parcel is not listed on the Town of Southold assessment roll.
• There is lack of clarity regarding the measurement of maximum building height of two
proposed storage buildings. Building height is to be measured from adjacent natural
grade per Zoning Code 280-4. However, the proposal involves lowering the grade by 30
feet.
• The DEIS states that the building height is given as 45 8" measured from ridge height
to adjacent grade. According to the Zoning Code, the maximum building height in an M-II
district is 35 feet.
Comprehensive Plan/Community Character and LWRP
The DEIS, as required, discusses the Project's adherence to the Town's 2020 Comprehensive
Plan and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Both of these documents broadly set
forth the goal of maintaining and enhancing the natural environment of Southold Town, the
quality of life of its residential neighborhoods, and its distinctive culture which reflects its
maritime and agricultural heritage.
The DEIS fails to address some of these objectives and misstates the impact of the
Project on others. In sum, the Project is inconsistent with the planning principles
intended to guide the Town into the future.
Many of these points are addressed in other sections of these Comments, including those
treating economic development; noise, vibration and traffic impacts on quality of life; the ecology
of the Inlet and the surrounding uplands; and visual and esthetic impacts. This section will
summarize these and other relevant issues.
Goals
In Table 30, the DEIS has cherry-picked items from the Comprehensive Plan to address as
"relevant to the subject property," excluding others that are inconsistent with the Project. For
example, Chapter 3 of the Plan identifies 13 goals associated with land use and zoning. The
DEIS Table 30 addresses only three of these. Among the goals not addressed, because the
Project appears to be inconsistent with it, is Land Use and Zoning Goal 10: "Continue to
Preserve Farmland and Open Space." The Project will adversely impact the Town-owned Mill
Road Preserve. Another example is Community Character Goal 1: "Protect Scenic Resources."
The Project will have a large visual impact on a key scenic resource of the Town and especially
the Hamlet, namely the view from the water and across the water of Mattituck Inlet. It will greatly
degrade the experience of visiting the Mill Road Preserve, one of the natural heritage treasures
of the Town. .
The Comprehensive Plan sets as a goal to "revitalize Mattituck Inlet into a recreational and
commercial maritime hub." To revitalize a place is to bring it back to life, and it is hard to
imagine any development less likely to enliven a community than a giant warehouse, or two of
them, which will stand empty for much of the year. The storage buildings will have no
obvious maritime function and do nothing to enhance the maritime character of the
Town, the Hamlet, or the Inlet, which historically were built around commercial and sport
fishing and small-boat recreation by local residents. We note that several commercial
fishermen spoke in favor of the Project at the May 15 Planning Board meeting, but none
explained how building the Project would help them, or how a denial of the Application
would harm their industry. The Applicant is not building this facility to store fishing
boats.
The Comprehensive Plan also sets as a goal to "preserve, encourage, and continue to
support existing and future maritime uses as an important business sector within the
Town's economy." The DEIS claims the Project will advance that goal, but it fails to explain
how a warehouse for boats which will make one round trip to and from Long Island Sound each
year will do anything for the Town's economy. On the contrary, the Comprehensive Plan notes
that although "the Inlet is historically tied to the commercial offerings of Love Lane and
surrounding areas ... the connections are underutilized. Few boaters make it as far as Love
Lane, especially out-of-towners."A storage facility that owners will visit at most two times a year
obviously contributes nothing to the economy of the Hamlet.
Another goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to "protect the character of historic agricultural
and maritime areas by maintaining appropriate scales of development, intensity of
use, and architectural style." The DEIS asserts the Project meets this goal, without
mentioning that it would be larger than any existing development in Southold, and five times
the size of the proposed, now defunct, Brinkmann's hardware store project on Main Road.
Applicant claims that "the proposed action would expand in line with the existing scale of
7
development on the subject property." There are eight buildings on the property, totaling
70,260 square feet. The Project as a whole would be 50 percent larger than the existing
development on the property. Each of the two new buildings would be more than twice as
large as the largest existing building, which is 22,425 square feet. They would also be much
taller.
The Comprehensive Plan establishes a goal to "reduce impacts from traffic" in
residential neighborhoods. The Project truck route includes several miles of residential
roads, along with heavily-used Sound Avenue which during the six-month excavation phase
will be traversed by a steady stream (eight or more trips an hour) of the heaviest trucks
permitted on New York State roads. The DEIS asserts that"impacts have been mitigated to
the maximum extent practicable," primarily by scheduling excavation during winter months,
but even if it begins on time in December, and adheres to its six-month timetable, it will run
into June. Construction of the Project clearly will be counter to the goal of reducing traffic
impacts.
The LWRP establishes a goal to "provide for public access to, and recreational use of,
coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold." The DEIS
asserts this is "not applicable" to the Project, since Strong's Yacht Center serves a private
clientele. But it asserts that providing winter boat storage "supports an existing recreational use
within the Town. As such, while this policy is not applicable, the proposed action would be
consistent with the intent of this policy."As noted, the boats the Project is designed to house
may come from hundreds of miles away, be registered anywhere, and typically cost over$1
million. They are not what most people think of as recreational watercraft. Yachts of this class
may be owned by LLCs and run in part as businesses, with professional crews, chartered out
for portions of the boating season. To claim that providing a convenience to their owners is
"consistent with the intent" of a policy goal which specifically and repeatedly invokes the "public"
is, to say the least, stretching a point.
Economy and Employment
The DEIS exaggerates the economic benefits of the Project. It overestimates the tax
revenue it will generate and does not adequately document estimates of its job creation.
Tax Revenue
The DEIS states that"the proposed action is expected to increase tax revenue to the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, and the State of New York ... Based on an average cost of$20,000
per boat for service and storage annually, and an expected 88 yachts to be stored on site, the
approximately $1,760,000 would generate an additional $151,800 annually in sales tax.
Additional sales tax would also be generated by the expected increase in yacht sales by SYC.
This projected increase in sales tax from boat sales is $322,575" (DEIS p. 15). It is unclear how
state and county sales tax revenues would "benefit the Town's economy" as the Town of
Southold will receive no direct benefit from these sales tax revenues.
This information is inconsistent with information included in DEIS Appendix E (Marina Economic
Impact Analysis and Tax Revenue Projections). Appendix E includes copies of data input by the
Applicant into the Marina Economic Impact Calculator(MEIC). According to these data, in 2024
combined total service and storage revenues would increase over 2020 figures by $1,033,904
— not $1,760,000. The DEIS has proportionally overstated the amount of sales tax revenues
generated from these activities.
Projected revenue of$20,000 per boat is a vague target. Competing indoor storage in
Connecticut is charged at $7.50/sq ft. A 60-ft boat akin to what SYC sells is 16 feet wide,
yielding a storage footprint of 960 feet, which would equate to $7,200 for inside winter storage.
Winterizing costs for the same boat using the competing prices would be approximately $2,525
for a total (pre-tax) of$9,725. De-winterizing costs in the springtime could vary but would be
approximately $1,500, since newer fiberglass boats no longer require major woodwork repairs,
exterior hull painting, etc. Total storage bill would then be $11,225 pre-tax which is a little more
than half of the $20,000 estimate. Using the lower figure, and applying it to 88 yachts, yields a
total annual for storage and service of$987,800. This is very close to the projected revenue
($1,033,904) predicted by the MEIC for 2024.
The DEIS repeatedly states that"[a]dditional sales tax would be generated by the
expected yacht sales by SYC." This claim is unsubstantiated. The DEIS does not state
how the addition of two storage sheds will increase yacht sales. In fact, the DEIS states "two
new buildings (52,500 SF and 49,000 SF) will be for the sole purpose of indoor, heated storage
for larger vessels (i.e., yachts)" and does not mention anything about displaying boats for sale,
or marketing boats for sale, while stored inside these warehouses.
The DEIS also fails to provide the number of boats sold each year and instead only provides a
dollar figure of SYC revenue from Boat Sales of"$16,000,000" (DEIS Table 48, p. 278). This is
very misleading to the average reader of the DEIS who might assume that $16,000,000 of boat
sales at the local sales tax rate of 8.625% would generate $1,380,000 in sales tax. It would not.
Boat sales in New York State are taxable only up to the sale price of$230,000 per boat any amount in excess of$230,000 is exempt from New York State sales tax.
The full market value according to the 2022 Final Assessment Roll is $7,097,143. The actual tax
bill for the 2022-2023 fiscal-year is $75,335.30..According to the Southold Board of Assessors
(DEIS Appendix E, correspondence dated June 25, 2021), the increase in assessed value of the
property would be $41,000. However, the Project would be eligible for a 485-b Business
Investment Exemption for ten years. As a result, the estimated increase in property taxes
for the first three years would be$32,234, Year 4 would be $37,677. These numbers are
equivalent to the combined property taxes paid by just a handful of average single-family
Southold residences.
9
Jobs
The Applicant has continually misrepresented to the public the number of jobs that
the Project would create. A fact sheet widely circulated by the Applicant, and posted on
his web site until April 23, 2023, states that the Project will create "at least 15 new full-time,
year-round career opportunities for local residents." (Italics added.)
U s./st o r r � 0 .c Q_m a _sitslir a es R / __2%62 S " UL_Hdd!n9w0JAg tMfa
(Yp2 1 _ . In a statement made at the April 15, 2023 meeting of the South old-Peconic
Civic Association, the Applicant again stated that the Project would create 15 jobs.
Contrariwise, the DEIS claims "an additional 11 full-time positions are expected to be
created." [italics added] On April 23, 2023 the Applicant revised his web site to indicate the
Project would create only 11 jobs. The DEIS nowhere stipulates the jobs would be
"year-round," and there is reason to doubt it. Even assuming there would be enough
repair and maintenance work on the boats in storage to employ 11 full-time workers,
the buildings are expected to be empty during the boating season, almost half the
year.
II Construction-related Effects
Traffic
All of the construction traffic analyses presented in the DEIS are based on incorrect
assumptions and/or incomplete data. As a result, the DEIS significantly underestimates
the degree to which project traffic will affect the Towns of Southold and Riverhead.
The Project will transform what is now a lightly-trafficked residential neighborhood into a
construction site for a minimum of a year. Of particular concern to residents is the
excavation of the hillside, which will require transporting 135,000 cubic yards of sand and soil,
plus additional large quantities of vegetation, to a site west of Riverhead. This is projected to
require almost 10,000 trips by 22-wheel tractor-trailer dump trucks over a period of six to
seven months. That will be followed by a six-month construction phase, which will require
hundreds of additional trips to bring concrete and other materials to the site. The dump trucks
will have a loaded weight of 107,000 pounds. The maximum weight allowed on 1-495 without a
special permit is 80,000 pounds. Recognizing the hazards heavy trucks can pose, the Town has
imposed (Local Law 260-26) a limit of 8,000 pounds on through-truck traffic on Peconic Bay
Boulevard, which is not part of the Project truck route but traverses similar neighborhoods.
We find that the DEIS consistently misstates and minimizes the amount of this traffic and
the effects it will have on the quality of life for residents, on local businesses, and on the
condition of the Town and County roads. It does this in part by defining "trips" as round trips
to and from the site, whereas common sense and the Institute of Transportation Engineers
agree that the relevant statistic is one-way trips. The DEIS definition has the effect of halving
the apparent amount of truck traffic the Project will generate. The Planning Board noted this
numerical sleight-of-hand in the original DEIS, among the deficiencies it asked the Applicant to
correct. But the usage persists in the revised version filed in November 2022. Project haul
trucks carrying sand from the site will pass every residence and business along the entire truck
route, including West Mill and Cox Neck Roads, Sound Avenue, Northville Turnpike, and CR 58,
approximately once every seven minutes, 10 hours a day, five days a week, for at least six
months.
The DEIS contains numerous errors and inconsistencies, but one in particular bears on the
amount of truck traffic the Project will generate. The DEIS (page 286) asserts: "It is anticipated
that Phase 3 [construction] would generate approximately 60 truck trips for the construction of
the retaining wall and an additional 101 truck trips for the two boat storage buildings (including
trucks for concrete foundation and material delivery)." Presumably, these are referring to round
trips, like the other references to truck movement in the DEIS, so those numbers should be
doubled. But the DEIS Appendix U contains a table with estimated concrete volumes for the
building foundations (323 cubic yards) and the floor slabs (3,759 cubic yards), totaling 4,082
cubic yards. Concrete mixing trucks generally carry around 10 cubic yards, so the concrete
alone, leaving aside the other materials for the buildings and the precast retaining wall, will
require approximately 410 round-trips (or 820 total trips)—around four times the number given
in the body of the DEIS.
The DEIS also attempts to minimize the apparent increase in truck traffic attributable to the
Project by including in its count of current truck traffic all vehicles larger than pick-ups. This
elides the difference between a school bus or a delivery van and the Project's six-axle haul
trucks. Tractor-trailer traffic on Cox Neck and West Mill Roads will be 20 to 80 times
greater than it is currently.
The DEIS claims that "the intersection of Sound Avenue at Cox Neck Road and North Road (CR
48)where site-related vehicles either exit Sound Avenue onto Cox Neck Road or enter onto
Sound Avenue from Cox Neck Road is the only roadway where traffic control and potential
vehicle conflict points might impede traffic flow." The person who wrote that clearly has never
been stuck in the westbound lane of Sound Avenue behind a truck attempting to turn left onto
Northville Turnpike—much less a six-axle haul truck weighing over 50 tons.
The revised DEIS fails to adequately consider or evaluate the safety risks to pedestrians,
bicyclists and schoolchildren boarding and disembarking from buses. It does not address
the inadequacies identified by the Southold Planning Board in the original DEIS, including a call
to study "potential adverse impacts" on bicyclists and pedestrians over all four seasons. It
emphasizes the (relatively) small number of vehicle trips by workers going to and from the site
during construction, and the even smaller amount of traffic from employees of the marina after
completion, in asserting that "the small numbers of additional vehicles the project will generate
during construction and after completion should not increase the hazards to bicycles and
pedestrians also using the road...." This overlooks the enormous increase in heavy truck traffic
the Project will generate during the clearing and excavation phases .
11
Applicant has failed to address the inadequacy of the way pedestrian and bicycle traffic along
the Project truck route was counted in its original DEIS. None of the pedestrian/bicycle
counts in the original DEIS were made in the mid-December through May time frame
when Project traffic volumes will be at their highest. The revised DEIS discusses and
provides additional data collected over only two days--Tuesday August 9 and Saturday August
13, 2022—not for four seasons, as called for. As with the data in the original DEIS, August is
outside the period of the Project construction phase when potential impacts will be at their
greatest. The data do not account for baby strollers, joggers or dog walkers, which present
unique pedestrian risks.
The revised DEIS includes no additional data specifically addressing potential traffic
hazards to children waiting for a school bus. Applicant provides no data on the actual
number of school-age children living in homes along the truck route. The DEIS asserts that the
traffic generated by workers leaving the site at the end of their shifts will fall outside of school
drop-off times, downplaying the much greater risk posed by haul trucks going to and from the
site, which will go on throughout the day.
The sections of Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road comprising the truck route are as narrow as
22 feet in places. At various points the unpaved shoulder is blocked by utility poles or
vegetation, making them unusable by pedestrians or bicyclists. Two eight-foot-wide haul trucks
passing in opposite directions, with a narrow one-foot space between them, leave a total of five
feet for pedestrians and bicyclists. The minimum safe clearance between a vehicle and
non-vehicular traffic, as specified by Suffolk County local law, is three feet, leaving just two feet
of pavement available to a bicyclist or pedestrian (or less than zero, if there is foot or bicycle
traffic in both lanes).
Noise and Vibration
Noise from truck traffic, excavation and construction equipment is a major concern in
this residential area, which also includes an ecologically sensitive nature preserve. Both
the DEIS and the Applicant's Acoustic Report attempt to downplay the significance and severity
of noise impacts during construction. The Acoustic Report (p.48) states that "these [noise]
increases are temporary only during construction [sic]," and points out that residents can stay
inside with the windows closed during the noisiest periods, which it claims, falsely, will fall in the
winter. (The excavation phase will run until June, if there are no delays, and be followed by six
months of construction.)
The SEQRA Handbook is clear that short-term (temporary) impacts, including noise
impacts, can be significant. Temporary in this case means 10 hours a day, beginning at 7
a.m., Mondays through Fridays (plus Saturdays for equipment maintenance and
preparation)for a period in excess of one year.
The Acoustic Report, an appendix to the DEIS, reproduces a table of"Recommended Criteria
for Road Noise Levels"from the New York State Department of Transportation, which
recommends a maximum exterior noise level of 67 decibels in an area ("Activity Category B")
characterized by residences, schools, playgrounds and similar uses. This was the only one of
five "activity categories" covered in the Acoustic Report, to the exclusion of"Activity Category
A," which includes "lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and
serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the
area is to continue to serve its intended purpose." The recommended maximum exterior noise
level associated with Activity Category A is 57 decibels.
The Mill Road Preserve clearly falls within Activity Category A. The Project-adjacent Mill
Road Preserve is never discussed in the Acoustic Report. The main text of the DEIS asserts
that"the proposed action would not alter the public's enjoyment of the Town-owned preserve
property during all phases of the action as there would be no new impact on Mill Road Preserve
from April to September 30, which is likely to be a time when the trails are most frequently
used." There are no data to back up this speculation about the experience of visitors to the
Preserve.
The DEIS never considers if or how Project-generated noise will impact wildlife, or for that
matter domestic animals, including pets. There is no mention of potential noise impacts to types
of fauna other than birds, such as large and small mammals and reptiles.
Vibration
The DEIS does not adequately or correctly address how vibration impacts will affect the
quality of life for residents near the Project site or along the Project haul truck routes, or
the potential for damage to structures, including those of historic value.
It bases its conclusion that there are "no vibration impacts expected from soil excavation or
construction activities" on a geotechnical report (Appendix H)that uses a damage-threshold
vibration level intended for blasting activities, which are intermittent, rather than the much lower
threshold that applies to vibration generated by truck traffic and construction equipment.
Because the DEIS incorrectly classifies the frequency of trucks passing residences on West Mill
Road as "occasional" it concluded that there would be no impact according to Federal Transit
Administration Guidelines. However, correctly classifying the frequency of Project haul
trucks passing residences as "frequent" —as often as eight times an hour—would
mean that vibration impacts would exceed the threshold of effects.
The geotechnical report bases its findings on an analysis of peak particle velocities (PPV)
generated by the various activities associated with the project's excavation and construction.
This is an incorrect metric for calculating the disturbance to human beings (and presumably
other animals) who will be subjected to these impacts. The FTA Guidelines specify that PPV is
"related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings and is not used to evaluate human
response" (emphasis added).
13
The FTA Guidelines considers human response as a non-trivial issue. "[J]ust like for noise,
people annoyed by vibration may experience a variety of negative responses .... Some public
health experts feel that severe forms of annoyance should be considered as a legitimate
environmental issue affecting the well-being and quality of life of the population exposed to
environmental agents."
In other words, the standard cited in the Geotechnical Report is not appropriate for evaluating
impacts to the quality of life of"public and user groups" as required by the DEIS scope.
Even for its intended use, however, PPV is a crude standard for calculating expected
impacts. In practice, PPV values experienced during truck transits at various locations will
depend on the specific model, weight and condition of the equipment being used, and especially
on road surfaces. The roads that will be used by the Project's haul trucks are in far from perfect
condition, and can reasonably be expected to deteriorate further under the wheels of trucks
weighing over 50 tons passing by thousands of times.
For these and other reasons, we believe it is necessary to retain an outside consultant to
re-evaluate potential risks to people and structures along the truck route.
Historic Structures
There are additional considerations related to historic structures near the Project site and along
the Project truck route. The inventory of historic properties that could be affected by the
Project was not properly conducted and is incomplete. The DEIS significantly
underestimates the potential for traffic-induced vibration damage to historic structures along the
Project truck route in Southold and Riverhead.
Vibration from Project truck traffic is likely to damage both Old Mill Inn and the Old Water
Tower at 3380 West Mill Road. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has
determined both structures are eligible for the State and National Registers of Historic Places.
SHPO has requested a Construction Protection Plan be prepared. The plan in the DEIS is
inadequate and includes no meaningful protocols for protecting historic properties or mitigating
damage that might occur. It does not address potential impacts to the Old Mill Inn. The SHPO
has not reviewed the plan proposed in the DEIS. The archeological surrey of the Project site
failed to properly evaluate a potential historic period archeological site in the Project area.
In the section on "Heavy Vehicle Traffic Induced Vibrations" the DEIS states that"the distance
trucks needed to be from historic structures and residential structures in order to not damage
those structures was two feet. In summary, the Vibration Study found that the truck traffic
generated by construction of[sic] would not cause damage to either potentially historic
structures along the truck route nor would the trucks cause damage to residential structures
either.[sic]" (DEIS p. 224). This conclusion —that a historic property would be unaffected by the
passage as little as two and a half-feet away from a fully-loaded, six-axle tractor-trailer traveling
30 miles per hour(or faster along Sound Avenue), as often as eight times an hour—strains
credulity, and flies in the face of the documented damage to the Old Hallock Homestead. The
Old Hallock Homestead, located considerably farther from Old Sound Avenue than 17 feet, had
its plaster ceiling collapse as a result of traffic-generated vibration.
Air Quality
The air quality analysis employed a number of questionable, and likely incorrect,
assumptions to estimate air quality impacts from on-road mobile emissions during the
construction phases of the Project. The air quality report prepared by Applicant's consultants
refers on Page 7 to "Total carbon dioxide (CO) ... " Confusing carbon dioxide with carbon
monoxide is a mistake so basic as to call into question the professionalism and care with which
this document was prepared.
Table 4 in the same document presents "Estimated On-Road Vehicle Emission Rates." It lists
vehicles in three categories: passenger cars, passenger trucks, and "Class 7 4+Axle Single
Unit Dumpster/Hauler." This excludes the great majority of vehicles that will be used in the
excavation and construction phases, which are also the largest and have the greatest fuel
consumption, and therefore, emissions: six-axle tractor-trailer dump trucks, which are Class 10
vehicles. Class 7 vehicles, which include passenger buses and garbage trucks, have a gross
weight of 26,000 to 33,000 pounds. The 30-cubic-yard haul trucks to be used in the Project will
weigh 107,000 pounds loaded. The U.S. Department of Energy does not break out Class 10 as
a separate category in calculating fuel economy, but includes them in Class 8—all trucks of
more than 33,000 pounds—and lists their fuel usage as approximately five miles per gallon.
The DEIS incorrectly states that the Project will create no new stationary emission
sources. The proposed storage buildings will be heated by propane, a source of
greenhouse gas emissions.
Soils
The DEIS does not properly or adequately describe the soils in the Project area.
Data in the DEIS suggest that tidal marsh soils may be present within the footprint of at least
one of the proposed storage buildings. This material poses engineering constraints and may
require additional excavation and backfill to support the weight of the construction. The DEIS
does not include a plan for addressing this contingency.
III Permanent Impacts
Ecology
The DEIS Scope notes that"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
15
residential and commercial development, with their attendant sanitary system and stormwater
impacts."
According to the DEIS, the "proposed action has a construction footprint of 6.51 t acres [and will
result] in the physical disturbance and permanent loss of 4.32t acres of high-quality Coastal
Oak-Beech forest, 1.19t acres of southern successional hardwood forest, and 0.54t acre of
successional shrubland (see Table 25, as excerpted from Table 6 of the Ecological Report)"
Total removal of 5.61 acres of upland forest, including cutting down 634 mature trees and
the destruction of the associate wildlife habitat is not, as described in the DEIS, "forest
disturbance," it is forest/habitat destruction.
Although the Project Area as defined in the DEIS is 6.51 acres, the ecological analysis in
the DEIS treats the entire 32.96 acres of the tax parcel as the "project site." This grossly
distorts the ecological effects of tree removal and excavation. DEIS Table 25 indicates that
the Project will destroy 4.32 acres of coastal oak-beech forest and 1.19 acres of successional
southern hardwoods, comprising 34.3 percent and 25.5 percent of the existing forest coverage
respectively, as a percentage of the entire parcel. That allows the DEIS to claim that "under the
proposed action, approximately 66% of these site's trees greater than 12-inches in DBH
[diameter at breast height]will be preserved." That is, of course, a meaningless statistic: why
not make the denominator the entire Town? In fact, almost 100% of the trees within the
"Project Area" will be destroyed.
Land Use
In a similar manner, the DEIS mischaracterizes the land use history of the Project area. It
asserts that "cleared land associated with [former] agricultural and commercial marine uses
accounted for approximately 58% (19.1 acres) of the 32.96 acre property, describing the existing
ecological community as "successional habitats that have developed on the former agricultural
lands," and therefore presumably of lesser ecological value. In fact, as aerial photographs from
the 1950s through 1984 show, except for the area occupied by marina structures, almost all of
the Project area is forested. The "successional habitats that have developed on the former
agricultural lands" are well west of the Project Area.
The DEIS notes that the proposed tree removal will create new forest edges, which have
substantial environmental effects, including "higher ambient light levels, air and soil
temperatures, and wind speed; and lower relative humidity and soil moisture ... than forest
interiors [which] foster proliferation of invasive plant species and changes to the observed plant
community ... [increased summer heat and drought stress to trees and vegetation due to higher
temperatures." The DEIS acknowledges that"[s]ome of the 8.28 acres of coastal oak beech
forests and 3.48 acres of successional forests that will be maintained under the proposed action
will be adversely impacted by the creation of new forest edges" (DEIS p. 134). This refers to
parts of the Project land parcel outside the Project Area, which makes it clear—although
unacknowledged in either document—that the negative ecological impacts associated
with the edge effect will extend far beyond the limits of the Project Area.
Mill Road Preserve
The 27-acre Town-owned Mill Road Preserve abuts the southwest corner of the Project land
parcel. The Preserve and the Project parcel share an approximately 100-foot-long border. The
Town of Southold paid close to $900,000 (adjusted for inflation) to purchase the Preserve, which
was intended "to continue the sense of openness special to this area of the hamlet of Mattituck,
specifically, and the Town of Southold in general." Clearly, the Town was making this area a
priority for protection for the entire Town. The Project directly contravenes this goal. There is no
way that the Project as proposed will not dramatically and permanently diminish the
qualities of the landscape and the area specifically prized and valued by the Town of
Southold.
The ecological analysis claims that the "total area of the Mill Road Preserve that may be
potentially impacted by edge effects associated with the new clearing limit on the Strong's
Yacht Center property is approximately 0.38 acres." That is likely a gross underestimate. Forest
edge effects will not be limited to a small part of the Preserve. The Project site and the
Preserve form one ecosystem. The Project-induced changes in microclimate, impacting flora
and fauna, will permanently change the ecology of the Preserve and degrade the experience of
visiting it. Wildlife identified or expected to be present in the Project Area, as described in the
DEIS and Appendix N, are also living in the Preserve. Wildlife does not recognize property lines.
The rationale behind the acquisition of the property for the Mill Road Preserve makes clear that
the Town values this entire ecosystem. This rationale is also reflected in Southold's Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program,which specifically mentions preserving areas around
the Inlet to ensure its natural environment. Degradation of the Preserve for yacht storage
buildings is inconsistent with explicit Town mandates and preservation objectives. The
investment made by Southold Town taxpayers will be depreciated by the change in light, forest
composition, and the probable introduction of invasive species. There is simply no way to
mitigate the dramatic alteration of the Preserve's landscape that will directly result from the
Project.
Retaining Wall
The Project includes the construction of an Evergreen Macro Gravity Retaining Wall System, a
pre-cast concrete structure 875 feet long and at least 30 feet high, topped by a six-foot fence.
The DEIS states that"[p]ortions of the retaining wall would be vegetated for a visually appealing
wall that serves to blend with the landscape." "Visually appealing" is debatable at best—the
planted noise-abatement walls alongside sections of 1-495 are no one's idea of scenery—but it
is hard to imagine that this structure will "blend with the landscape" of wooded natural bluffs to
the north and south —even allowing for the two to three years that the DEIS optimistically
claims will be needed for the "native ground vegetation, shrubs and small trees" to fill in to
create a "green wall."
The DEIS does not mention how many planting trays will be built into the wall, or the total size of
the planting area. Potential issues not addressed in the DEIS include the lack of a maintenance
plan covering irrigation, mulching or composting. Without irrigation and a maintenance plan, the
17
plants will likely die. There is no plan for replacement of plantings should they die, and there is
no performance bond for the Evergreen wall plantings.
Bird Population at Risk
The revised DEIS fails to adequately consider or evaluate the immediate and long-term threats
posed to the bird population on the Project site, and the surrounding area including the adjacent
Southold Town-owned Mill Road Preserve, and Mattituck Creek. The revised DEIS is
inaccurate, incomplete and misleading. The DEIS states that approximately 91 bird species
were observed or expected to occur on the site. This is a significant underestimate. According to
Cornell's Ornithological E Bird list compiled in January 2023, approximately 117 bird species
have been observed in the neighboring Mill Road Preserve and in the waters and along the
beaches of Mattituck Creek.
The DEIS acknowledges that"Wildlife species that are most likely to be adversely
impacted by the proposed action, specifically the reduction in Coastal Oak-Beech forest
habitats . . . include birds" (DEIS p. 137). However, it then attempts to minimize this by stating
that bird species that are habitat generalists are "unlikely to be adversely impacted by the
proposed action, due to their general tolerance for human activity." It is absurd to suggest that
the complete destruction of nearly five acres of mature deciduous forest, and the accompanying
construction noise impacts will be "generally tolerated." Noise generated by Project construction
can also be expected to negatively impact bird species.
The DEIS acknowledges that"potential noise levels during daytime construction hours over
[during] the 12-month construction period . . . slightly overlap with the range of the chronic
industrial levels . . . that have been found to impact bird breeding productivity and are similar to
the change in sound levels that have been found to adversely impact bird community
composition and abundance, foraging and nesting behavior, and body condition."
Endangered species
The DEIS does not mention that at least two federally-endangered bird species, the piping
plover and the roseate tern, are known to nest and forage on Breakwater Beach and Bailie
Beach, both less than a mile from the site, or that the federally-endangered peregrine falcon and
the bald eagle have been observed in the Mill Road Preserve and along Mattituck Inlet.
Both the DEIS and Appendix N acknowledge that the Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina),
a New York State Species of Special Concern, has been observed in the Project Area and is
expected to be found in any one of the vegetated upland habitats of the project parcel, and that
they "are threatened by development of their habitat." The DEIS offers as a mitigation a
proposal to "sweeps or surveys for box turtles prior to commencement of clearing, grading, and
excavation activities, and relocation of any observed turtles to on-site areas that will not be
disturbed."
This proposal is inadequate at best. According to Karen Testa, founder and president of Turtle
Rescue of the Hamptons Inc., the Eastern Box Turtle hibernates underground from October
through May. It lives in underground burrows and in tree stumps. Every NYS species of turtle
(aquatic and terrestrial) nests on land and digs its undetectable nests approximately 6-12"
underground. Eastern Box Turtles are elusive by nature and their camouflage makes it almost
impossible to find them in a natural setting. Therefore, "sweeps or surveys" will not be effective.
They should not be considered mitigation for the Project's adverse impact to the Eastern Box
Turtle.
In its August 10, 2020 Positive Declaration, the Planning Board noted that "the Northern
long-eared bat" (Myotis septentrionalis), a listed, federally-threatened species under Section
4(d) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 could potentially occur on the parcel. The
clearing of 3.94 acres of woodland habitat could result in large, adverse impacts to the
protected species." The DEIS Scope calls for the DEIS to identify "animal species listed as
endangered, threatened, and of special concern (or with other protective status), . . . and
suitability of habitat as roosting or summary foraging habitat for protected New York State and
Federally-protected bat species . . . and measures to reduce potential impacts."
The DEIS acknowledges that "the Project site may provide habitat for these bat species during
the summer months and migration periods in the spring and autumn." It neglects to mention that
on March 23, 2022, more than six months before the Revised DEIS was filed, the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service issued a proposed regulatory change that would reclassify the NLEB
from "threatened" to "endangered." That reclassification took effect on March 31, 2023. No
surveys have been conducted to determine if Northern Long-Eared Bats or other endangered or
threatened species are in the Project area.
Climate Change
The DEIS uses cherry-picked and manipulated data to downplay the potential effects of
climate change—specifically sea-level rise and groundwater rise—on the Project.
The DEIS has minimized the risks of tidal flooding by using a "medium" projection for sea level
rise (16 inches by 2050), rather than a more conservative "'high-medium" projection or a worst
case "high" projection (30-inches).
Graphics in the DEIS mapping projected flood risk onto the existing topography fail to take into
account that the new structures— both the storage buildings themselves and the Travelifts used
to bring boats up from the water—will be at substantially lower elevations above mean sea level
(after excavation) than their respective locations are today. The DEIS does not consider the
possible effects on the operation of the proposed facility if the Teravelifts are rendered unusable
by coastal storm surges or tidal flooding for any length of time.
The DEIS understates the risk that rising groundwater levels may pose to the Project, especially
in relation to the minimum required separation from sanitary system outflows.
The DEIS has not accurately assessed how future increases in precipitation could affect
groundwater levels. It uses cherry-picked precipitation data from 2017 to 2021 in an effort
to show that annual precipitation levels are decreasing. That is an inappropriately short
19
— indeed, meaningless—timespan to use; over even a slightly longer period, the
opposite is true. This has compromised all of the climate-change modeling done for the
Project, including changes in groundwater levels over time.
Visual Impact
The collection of visual materials presented in the Revised DEIS listed above is in key
respects poorly prepared and omits information needed to determine the precise nature
and full significance of the visual impact of this project within the context of"shoreline
and community character of Mattituck Inlet environs" as stated in and required by the
Final Scope of the DEIS.
The conclusion that there will be no significant visual impacts from the removal of an entire
hillside along Mattituck Inlet, destruction of nearly four acres of native woodlands adjacent to a
publicly owned nature preserve, the construction of two out-of-scale warehouse buildings and a
875-foot long, 30-foot high retaining wall is not supported in the Revised DEIS.
The written and visual information about the visual impact of the Project provided in the Revised
DEIS centers on the relationship of the existing buildings and their building materials to the
proposed buildings, not the relationship of the proposed project and buildings to the
project's natural setting. The Revised DEIS states, for example, "Buildings 7 and 8 would
effectively screen most of the proposed Buildings 9 and 10 from properties to the east of the
subject property." What about the entire wooded hillside that has been removed to make way for
these buildings? Orienting the buildings with their short sides facing the Inlet—which is
necessary in any case, because that's where the doors will be—minimizes the head-on view of
the Project from and across the water, but boats coming up and down the Inlet, and residents
along both sides of the Inlet to the north and south will have views of the Project buildings' long
sides.
In the set of architectural drawings provided by the Applicant there are elevations of the
buildings, but no drawings showing precisely the changes to the elevations of the topography in
which the buildings will be set. The excavation of the hillside is a significant component of this
project and information has been withheld about its precise visual impacts. The vertical change
— let's call it the eradication —of the hillside due to the excavation of 134,000 cubic
yards of sand is not included in the technical drawings.
This is just one example of the deficiency of the DEIS. The DEIS does not use commonly
accepted methods to define the Project's zone of visual influence or its viewshed. It limits its
analysis to a radius of 1,000 feet from the Project site, whereas it is obvious that structures as
tall as four-story buildings, with a combined area almost equal to the average size of a Home
Depot store, are potentially visible for miles. The NYDEC's Program Policy notes that"for larger
scale actions it is usually protective to use a five-mile radius to determine the area required to
be considered for potential visual impacts."
The DEIS fails to adequately identify all potentially impacted visually sensitive receptors as
called for in the DEIS Scope. Many residences that currently have views of the SYC and/or will
have views of the completed Project have not been included in the visual impact analysis.
Existing views of a vegetated hillside will be replaced by views of a massive concrete
retaining "green"wall, nearly 900 feet long, topped by a six-foot fence. The wall "will
provide visual mitigation when it is vegetated," a process that will take two to three
years, according to the DEIS. "It will blend in with the surrounding woodland and landscape."
There is no way to evaluate this statement, since the DEIS does not include renderings of the
finished wall, but it is difficult to envision how an engineered vertical structure, holding plants in
concrete trays, could "blend in"with the natural woodlands that characterize the western shore
of the Inlet north and south of the Project site.
Fire and Public Safety
The DEIS Scope requires the DEIS to "discuss the threat of fire and explosion on site from all
ignitable sources" and "Include the evaluation of potential fire hazards, and if the Mattituck Fire
Department (MFD) is adequately equipped to respond to a fire at the site" (p.23). The Scope
notes that this "is of special concern given the size of the structures and the combustibles within
the stored boats."
The DEIS has not adequately addressed this concern. Reports of recent fires at large indoor
boat storage and service facilities, and a 2019 fire at Strong's Water Club and Marina in
Mattituck, highlight the need to ensure that a fire at the Project can be contained by the
MFD and does not create health hazards to the community.
Recent fires at boat storage facilities illustrate some of these risks. A fire in 2023 at an indoor
boat storage/marina facility in Virginia required the response of more than 50 firefighters from
eight volunteer fire departments, in part because the boats were stored with fuel aboard and
were made of flammable fiberglass. A HAZMAT team was needed to deal with toxic substances
and control fire water runoff along the shore.
The DEIS has not adequately addressed the possibility that the MFD may not have sufficient
equipment and personnel, even with assistance from other fire departments, to control a major
fire at the Project site. A February 2022 fire at a boat storage warehouse in Illinois required
about 100 firefighters from departments in three counties more than 6.5 hours to bring under
control. A March 2023 fire at a marina indoor boat storage facility in Seattle required a "total of
14 fire engines, five ladder trucks, [a] fire boat . . . and additional support units . . . consisting of
approximately more than 100 personnel."
A Risk of Toxic Fumes
As the Boat US Foundation notes: "Today's fiberglass/composite boats burn very quickly, and
produce large volumes of toxic smoke that is equally as dangerous." Burning fiberglass fumes
21
include styrene (a suspected carcinogen), methyl ethyl ketone, and phosgene. All are
considered hazardous air pollutants.
The DEIS does not mention installing sprinkler systems or standpipes. A June, 2021 letter from
Southold Fire Marshal James Easton to Applicant's environmental consultant, specified that: "An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13." Section 3604.2 of
the New York State Fire Code requires that: "Marinas and boatyards shall be equipped
throughout with standpipe systems in accordance with NFPA 303. Systems shall be provided
with hose connections located such that no point on the marina pier or float system exceeds
150 feet ... from a standpipe hose connection."
The Project's four 2000-gallon propane tanks, even when installed according to code and
properly maintained, will still present a danger. During a fire event, a Boiling Liquid Expanding
Vapor Explosion (BLEVE) is possible. The DEIS should have addressed this possibility and
evaluated the potential impact and the ability of the MFD to adequately respond.
According to the DEIS, yacht repair and maintenance activities would occur within the on-site
buildings and/or at the existing dock. If those activities are planned to occur inside the proposed
storage buildings, they will include potential ignition sources. Given that yachts will be stored
with their fuel tanks, a substantial fire risk will be created.
The DEIS does not consider the fire risk from lithium-ion batteries aboard the stored vessels.
Increasingly, these batteries are used to power onboard equipment, tenders and personal
watercraft such as Jet-Skis. In the time since the original DEIS was prepared, lithium-ion battery
fires have emerged as a significant fire risk, and the DEIS should not be accepted without a
consideration of their risks.
Alternatives
The DEIS fails to accurately characterize or discuss the possible alternatives to the
Project as proposed. Some of the alternatives, such as the "alternative material mitigation
plan" (spreading a small portion of the excavated material on the R-80 portion of Applicant's
property) would have a marginal effect on the Project's impacts and will not be discussed here,
except to point out that the DEIS miscalculates the number of truck trips that will be eliminated
under that alternative. Others, such as the use of barges rather than trucks to remove the
excavated material, are not adequately discussed in terms of the reduced impacts on the roads,
air quality, noise and vibration. But we wish to address in particular alternatives that have
been raised by the Applicant in public venues and by residents and commenters in the
press.
The DEIS briefly discusses the "no-action" alternative, which would leave the site unchanged.
It dismisses the idea because it "does not achieve the objectives of the Applicant" to realize the
economic potential of its property. SYC has the right to pursue a return on its investment,
subject to the law and oversight by the Southold Planning Board. We would note only that the
Applicant does not claim, and there is no reason to assume, that it is under economic pressure
to develop the site in this way, or in any way. Applicant has pursued a successful business
at SYC for many years, and could continue to operate in this way into the foreseeable
future. Strong's is not making a hardship claim here. The Project is being driven by a desire to
achieve a maximum return, not by necessity.
But some Town residents appear to believe that the "no-action" alternative is tantamount to
developing the site for another use, in particular, a residential subdivision or hotel. That is
understandable: in public comments, Applicant has raised this possibility. As the Board is aware,
the Project site is zoned for maritime uses (except for a small portion whose zoning is disputed,
per our Zoning comments). Residential development on the M II Project site is not an option.
Residential development however would be permitted as of right on the western half of the
property. That portion of the parcel is zoned R-80 and could accommodate as many as seven
ot e�dwellings on two-acre lots. But this could happen with or without approval of the
Project. There is no either/or here. If anything, approval of the Project would facilitate residential
development on the R-80 portion of the parcel, by providing access to West Mill Road via the
haul road to be built for construction, and subsequently maintained for emergency access to the
storage buildings.
The "no-action" alternative that is not discussed in the DEIS is the granting of a
conservation easement on some or all of the Project site and/or the remainder of the
parcel. As noted, the Town already owns Mill Road Preserve, whose value would be greatly
enhanced if the adjacent property were protected. The Peconic Land Trust and Suffolk County
have programs to purchase development rights to preserve open space and environmentally
sensitive land. The DEIS gives no indication these alternatives were considered.
The DEIS does not discuss the alternative of constructing one storage building at a time, with
the second contingent on achieving a stated level of occupancy in the first. Applicant has
privately acknowledged this possibility, which would shorten the initial construction period
slightly, but would mean a second round of disruption to the neighborhood a year or more later.
The DEIS discussion of using barges to move sand off the site is cursory at best. It asserts that
the Inlet is too shallow and/or narrow in spots to permit barging, based on a one-page letter
summarizing the findings in a consultant's report. The specific parameters used to make this
determination are not specified. The feasibility of limiting barging to hours of high tide is not
considered. The use of shallow-draft barges is dismissed, based on the summary conclusions of
four (unidentified) barge companies. In view of the enormous impacts that the trucking plan will
impose on the Town (and the Town of Riverhead), Applicant must be required to provide a
thorough reconsideration of the barging alternative before this Project can be approved.
Errors and Omissions in Applicant's DEIS
The DEIS and its supporting studies and reports contain numerous errors and omissions, calling
into question the care with which they were prepared and the professionalism of the Applicant's
consultants. We identify some of them here:
23
The DEIS doesn't describe the Project timetable accurately or consistently. Page 284
states: "Phase 1 of the excavation, which would remove 123,OOOt CY of material from a 3.79t
acre area, would take 5 to 6 months and commence in mid-December 2023. Phase 2 of the
excavation, which would remove 12,OOOt CY of material would commence on or around May
2023 [sic]." Obviously May 2024 was intended. Even overlooking what is presumably a typo, the
timetable on pages 18 and 19 is impossible by even the most optimistic assumptions. The
minimum time specified for Phase 1 is five months from mid-December 2023— i.e. until
mid-May 2024. Phase 2 is budgeted at 2 to 4 weeks, meaning at a minimum it would run until
the end of May, which in turn pushes construction, Phase 3, into June. The very next paragraph
begins: "Phase 3 would occur over approximately 6 months with a commencement date of May
2024." This represents a (relatively minor, although real) issue in that many of the calculations of
excavation and construction impacts are premised on work being done during specific times of
the year. If excavation runs even a few weeks longer—or even if it falls at the limit of the "5 to
6 month"window the DEIS specifies—the 50-ton haul trucks will be traversing Sound Avenue
as summer(i.e. berry-picking season) gets underway.
The larger significance is that the Board is being asked to rely on the claims and
promises in a document that contradicts itself within a few sentences.
Elsewhere, on page 248, the DEIS refers to "construction, which is anticipated to commence in
mid-December 2023 and be completed in October 2024...... That is a span of 10 months, which
cannot be reconciled with any of the other timetables in the document. Page xxix states "The
proposed project would be completed in approximately 13 months based upon construction
activities being undertaken for five or six-day work weeks based upon the phase."
The DEIS discussion of air-quality impacts stipulates in numerous places that"all trucks utilized
would be Tier 4 certified by U.S. EPA standards." FA , M p �
strta dui en and other off-road vehicles, not the Project's haul and delivery trucks
which will be using Town roads. For emissions purposes, on-road vehicles are classified by the
New York State DEC by engine model year.
The air quality report prepared by Applicant's consultants refers on Page 7 to "Total carbon
dioxide (CO)..." CO is, of course, the chemical formula for carbon monoxide, not carbon
dioxide. Presumably this is an innocent error, but it is a disconcerting one in a report by
consultants who are presumed experts in pollution control.
The DEIS misleadingly states on page xxv that "the addition of stationary emission sources is
not proposed." But elsewhere it specifies that the storage buildings would be heated by
propane, a source of greenhouse gas emissions. The plans call for four propane tanks of 2,000
gallons each, but on page 161 it specifies "four (4) LPG tanks for each building[i.e., eight
altogether, emphasis added] with a total capacity of 8,000 gallons."
The DEIS stipulates that"[a]ll trucks associated with the construction of the proposed action will
be limited to traveling at 30 mph on Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road and all neighboring roads.
The posted speed limit is 35 mph." The actual posted speed limit on West Mill Road is 30
mph.
The survey of historical structures along the truck route incorrectly lists the address of the
Eugene Hallock House, the Old Hallock Homestead, Northville Academy and the David Wells
House (incorrectly called the Daniel Wells House), among others. The correct addresses are in
the list of Big . . a-L..aDA"i L1,$ prepared by the Riverhead Landmarks Preservation
Commission in 2017. The DEIS might plausibly have been relying on conflicting map data, but
the Table in Figure 6 in the Traffic Study gives addresses for some of the same buildings in the
range of approximately 97 Sound Ave. to 113 Sound Ave., which bear not even a passing
resemblance to the actual house numbers, which are in the 4000, 5000 and 6000 range.
The issues in these comments must be addressed in any Final Environmental Impact
Statement. SMI believes that the revised DEIS is so defective that its deficiencies cannot be
easily remedied without extensive further study. If the Planning Board is forced to rely on the
information and analyses in this DEIS alone, it must conclude its SEQRA responsibilities
with a negative findings statement and a denial of the proposed Project.
Save Mattituck Inlet
June 5, 2023
25
S v b�
From: Terry, Mark � 1 . ...r. T.,i.wC. ..M.�`
Sent: Tuesday,June 6, 2023 9:46 AM RE EIVED
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: Stron 's Warehouse Project P 0 '
� 9 J ��.G
nutnolc �,0VV 1
Planning Board
to(a - (a - laws- Iry3•y
From:Jeff Pundyk<jeff@pundyk.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 6, 2023 7:38 AM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Strong's Warehouse Project
June 6, 2023
I'd like to focus on what's actually at issue. The character of the Strong family is not in dispute. The character
of the community is what's at stake.
Throughout the public meetings we've heard nice stories about the Strong family, none of which we doubt. I
assume that the point of the stories is that we can take it on faith that the Strongs will do the right thing.
But we don't have to take it on faith. It's all written down by the developer in the DEIS. That's what's so great
about this process—it takes the guesswork out of things. There is absolutely no ambiguity about the scope of
this project. The size of the buildings, the amount of sand to be removed,the number of trucks, the number
of trees coming down,the proximity to public space, the disruption during construction to the neighborhood
and to surrounding towns, and the lasting impact once the project is done is all spelled out in the DEIS.
The question isn't what is going to happen. The question is do we care?
And the question isn't whether the Strong family are good people. The question is what would we think of
the exact same proposal if it came from somebody else?What would we think if it came from somebody from
outside of our community?
This could be a precedent setting development, one that paves the way for even more misguided land use and
further erosion of the character of our community.
I ask that you consider the DEIS, not the developer.
Jeff Pundyk
Mattituck
(please add this to the public record)
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Chris caraftis <chrisc278@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,June 5, 2023 2:33 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: [SPAM] - Strongs yacht center project
I live on Mattituck inlet for 46 years and I think Strongs should be allowed to put up storage buildings on his
property because he bought a marina and it's to provide a service that his customers are asking for.They
employ people and a good sales and property tax for the town and the schools ATTENTION:This email came
from an external source.Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected
emails. S u bP
P H -R,E Q I EIVE
..I
)N 0 6 2023
Planning Board_
p � �3 . �-I
To the Editor,
Real estate reporter Debra Kamin did a poorjob portraying the story of the Strong's Marine project on
Mattituck Inlet(A Fight Over Yachts Is a Battle for the Soul of the North Fork, May 24th). Left out is the
support for the project from farmers,fishermen, marine workers, marina clients and the Chairman of the
Mattituck Park District.
Strong's has been a great neighbor to the local fishermen, providing marine parts and equipment,
services like hauling and bottom painting, and a safe haven in a storm (we moved our boat to Strong's
floating docks as Hurricane Sandy blew in). Strong's also provides many good jobs for locals and has
worked with Cornell Cooperative Extension on a clam restoration project for over 20 years. Local
government needs to support the remaining marine businesses in the area, which are in jeopardy as the
real estate developer sharks move in (two local marinas in Southold Town were recently sold to out-of-
towners).This is crucial to maintaining the character and culture of our area.
Opponents of this project are grasping at straws to shut it down any which way they can by citing sand
mining or exploding propane tanks or endangered bats—truly laughable stuff. In fact,the marina owner
is within his rights to improve his property(he doesn't even require a variance).
This local business provides services that are needed. Perhaps the environmentalist opponents
themselves like to eat local fish and shellfish?Or they might need assistance with boat maintenance,
transportation, or access to the Inlet?Strong's Marine provides services to plenty of regular folks, not
just yacht owners.There will be plenty of opportunity in the coming years for opponents to organize
against development as the North Fork goes the way of the Hamptons.
Alex and Stephanie Villani
F/V Blue Moon— Fishmongers at GrowNYC Greenmarkets for 32 years
Matlituck, NY pQ, ... T ......8. ,. .M RECEIVED
Address:
1735 Breakwater Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
631-298-4036 home phone ^ Plannncg Boa
516-383-3143 cell phone G'--_°• ..1P-�, �-.-
106 . - 6 - I o + 13 -q
To the Editor,
Having run a commercial fishing business out of Mattituck Inlet for decades,we'd like to speak up for
Strong's Marine as they present their new project at Mattituck Marina.
As stewards of the environment(and most fishermen are, believe it or not), we hate to see removal of so
much wooded hillside, but the flip side is that support of our local marine businesses is crucial to
maintaining the character and culture of our area.
Strong's has been a great neighbor to the local fishermen, providing marine parts and equipment,
services like hauling and bottom painting, and a safe haven in a storm (we moved our boat to Strong's
floating docks as Hurricane Sandy blew in).Strong's also provides many good jobs for locals.
If we want to enjoy local fish and shellfish, have continued access to our marine environment, and keep
the ecosystem as clean and healthy as possible, we need to support the businesses and workers that
know most about it and can coexist with it in a sustainable way.There is no substitute for the traditional
knowledge of our local waters.
We think there is room for compromise on both sides in approving Strong's project.They seem to have
gone above and beyond in making their plan available to the public and trying to ameliorate traffic and
damage to roads while the project is under construction. Isn't a marina a logical place to store boats?We
would rather support a longtime local business looking to expand to provide necessary services rather
than giant new houses or hotels.
Sv b-P
Alex and Stephanie Villani L ! " C N,
F/V Blue Moon .., W...� ..�_..._� .� ._....� � 1
RECEIVED
Matdtuck
JU
0
66ftl rP -1'" rt
Planning Board
l0 . -- � - Ip + l3. Ll
To the Editor,
Anne Sherwood Pundyk and Jeff Pundyk have done quite a job misrepresenting the Strong's Marine
project on Mattituck Inlet.Their recent letter to the editor of the Beacon imagines several outcomes that
will likely never happen.
Your article of May 16th on the Southold Town Planning Board hearing did a much better job showing
both sides of the issue, with comments from farmers,fishermen, marine workers, marina clients and the
Chairman of the Mattituck Park District supporting the project and speaking for the property owner's
rights to proceed.
Funny, I didn't see the Pundyks and Stephen Boscola protesting the truck traffic last summer when
several large houses were built on Stanley Road. I didn't see them protesting the even larger
McMansions built on Royalton Row off Cox Neck Road. And I didn't hear them asking questions about
the renovation of the Old Mill Inn, which is directly ON the Inlet.They should change the name of their
group from "Save Mattituck Inlet"to "Stop Strong's," as stopping this project seems to be the only issue
they care about. We have yet to see any positive action from them on actually maintaining the Inlet.
Shutting down this project will affect many marine-related businesses on the North Fork and many
people's livelihoods.A working waterfront is part of the character and tradition of the area; once that is
gone no one from Manhattan or Montauk can recreate it—that specialized knowledge is lost forever.
Supporting this longtime business is vital,and I for one would like to see this marina remain within the
purview of a local family.
Hopefully the Planning Board will consider the entire community's concerns on this issue and not be
swayed by the speculation of the loudest, shrillest commentators.The Board should consider the big
picture and work to "save what is left" of our traditional marine industry as the North Fork changes.
Stephanie Villani
Mattituck S v,b�F
NT )C I M C
�....�. ,__.__..._....,_....._..-.�____ ._�
J
_ 6
Planning Board
l0( . - -
C mil. +.._ ....�
S ub-P
L- MT, f3c MC
From: Amy Greenberg <amygreenberg@optonline.net> REC
To: MohaelsJJesscaune S, 20233:31 PM ����4� �. ." ""°..w"�
Subject: Strings storage buildings application
Planning Board
Planning Board of Southold Town
tOG 6 - to4- i3 q
I am a long time resident of Mattituck and strongly oppose the Strongs yacht storage building proposal.
The destruction of our small town with major truck loads of traffic,deforestation,noise pollution and
dangerous traffic conditions is just what this community doesn't need!
All of this is proposed to accommodate non residents with large sums of money so one business and its few
employees can benefit.
Please take into consideration the greater good of our community!!!
Preservation and thoughtful planning can be difficult but now is the time to listen to the residents you you
represent.
Sincerely
Amy Greenberg
1620 pike st
Mattituck
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source.Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
subs
F54-R EMT f3G L-M
RECEIVED
UN 520
6/5/2023
Paul Silansky __ Planning Board .......
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Southold Planning Board - Public Hearing on Private Property Improvements
A critical component of our Nation's Freedom is private property law that owners are free to
exclusively deploy their private property for any legitimate use without harassment through the
5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.These exclusive private rights extend to the Sky
above and Minerals below.
This improvement request satisfies legitimate use criteria by falling within zoning use guidelines
and local laws subject to SEQRA review as determined by Southold Town Authority.
The Planning Board has done well in moderating these proceedings, as demonstrated in prior
meetings, by intervening when ad-hominem comments become apparent. It would then also be
appropriate to moderate the property-use-rights boundary when over-reaching comments as to
speculative use of private property, denial of legitimate use, or other attacks on the property-
use-right itself are indicated.
Freedom is not without limits. Freedom ends when we infringe on others' rights so I would
encourage the Planning Board through moderation at hearings to maintain Respect for Private
Property Rights that are fundamental to Liberty itself while discussing the SEQRA part and
associated mitigation.
Thank You,
Cordially,
Paul-5d4 s 4
860-305-7985
SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC
June 5, 2023 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2355, ext. 1
Via Electronic Mail EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com
Town of Southold Planning Board M'r
54375 Main Road ��1.- -•_ J._-.. --f_u..
Southold,NY 11971 RECEIVED
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, FJ"W' O 5 02'3
Proposed Strong's Yacht Storage Buildings }
5780 West Mill Road, Mattituck, NY 11952 Planning Board
Tax Map Number: 106.-6-10 & 13.4 �~ � � -� -
Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board:
This firm represents Save Mattituck Inlet in connection with proposal by Strong's Yacht
Center to develop two yacht storage buildings of 52,500 and 49,000 square feet and associated
infrastructure on a 33-acre parcel west of Mattituck Creek/Inlet which is zoned Marine 11 (M-11)
and Residential Low-Density A (R-80). We intend to comment further on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement("DEIS")by July 10, commenting in more detail. We are
writing now regarding the role and responsibilities of the Planning Board as lead agency under
the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA").
As a preliminary matter, it should be obvious to everyone that a vulnerable coastal oak-
beech forest at least 50 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) is not an environmentally suitable
location for a marine facility, and most certainly not for the buildings proposed by Strong's to
store yachts up to 86 feet in length. Two simple facts reveal the sheer folly of the proposal: As
the applicant admits, the size and weight of these boats prevent them from being transported via
traditional boat trailer and vehicle,yet the 85-ton travel lift is also not capable of transporting
them from the inlet to buildings located up a steep slope 50 or more feet above the water. Thus,
the applicant's proposed boatyard expansion entails not only clear-cutting more than 600 mature
trees from a forest that provides habitat for endangered species and other species of special
concern, but excavating and hauling away the hillside, dropping the grade by 40 or more feet so
that 88 yachts could be transported there by travel lift and stored in two buildings, each with a
one-acre-plus footprint. This radical transformation of the upland topography and ecology to
serve a purported waterfront use is plainly inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan,Zoning
Code, Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, environmental preservation, and common sense.
In this letter, we address the following SEQRA topics:
1. The Final EIS (p.2)
2. Correction, Revision, and Supplementation(p.2)
3. Timing(p.3)
4. Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts (p.4)
5. Public Need and Public Benefits, If Any (p.4)
6. Responses to Comments (p.6)
7. Findings Statement(p.6)
8. SEQRA's Substantive Mandate (p.8)
222 BROADWAY, 22ND FLOOR - NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038
TEL: 212-242-2355 FAX: 855-242-7956 www.superlawgroup.com
Planning Board
June 5, 2023
Page 2
A. Responsibilities of the Planning Board under SEQRA
SEQRA allows an applicant, at its option,to prepare a DEIS.' But now that the Planning
Board has determined that the DEIS prepared by Strong's consultant is adequate for public
review, the division of responsibility changes. The Planning Board itself must either prepare the
Final Environmental Impact Statement("FEIS") or cause it to be prepared.' Whether the
Planning Board utilizes Planning Department staff, an outside consultant, or anyone else to
prepare it, the SEQRA regulations make clear that: "The lead agency is responsible for the
adequacy and accuracy of the final EIS."3 The Planning Board is also responsible for the
Findings Statement(discussed below), which is a critically important part of the SEQRA
process.
1. The Final EIS
The FEIS must include the following components:
• The DEIS;
• Any necessary corrections, revisions, or supplementations to the DEIS. All
substantive revisions and supplements to the DEIS must be specifically indicated
and identified as such in the FEIS;
• Copies or a summary of all substantive comments received, indicating their
source (written or hearing); and
+ The Planning Board's responses to substantive comments.4
We understand that the Planning Board has issued an RFP to hire a consultant to assist
the Board in preparing the FEIS. The Planning Board should be as transparent as possible about
the consultant selection process.
2. Corrections,Revision, and Supplementation
The FEIS must contain any needed supplements and revisions (including corrections) to
the DEIS.' The Planning Board may require a supplemental EIS analyzing specific significant
adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the DEIS that arise
from changes proposed for the project; newly discovered information; or a change in
6 NYCRR§ 617.9(a)(1).
z 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(a)(5).
3 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(b)(8). See also SEQR Handbook(4th Ed. 2020)published by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC"), at 136 ("The lead agency may. . . consult
with other involved agencies, or with outside consultants,but this in no way reduces the responsibility of
the lead agency for the final product.").
a 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(b)(8).
s 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(b)(8).
Planning Board
June 5, 2023
Page 3
circumstances related to the project.6 The decision to require preparation of a supplemental EIS,
in the case of newly discovered information, must be based upon the importance and relevance
of the information; and(b)the present state of the information in the EIS. If a supplement is
required, it must be subject to the full procedural requirements for a DEIS (e.g., a comment
period) except that a second scoping process is not required.7
Whether or not a supplemental EIS is required, the Planning Board must determine
whether revisions to the DEIS are needed and make those revisions.' Since the Planning Board
is responsible for the accuracy of the FEIS,9 the revisions and/or the supplements must include
all necessary corrections.
As has been explained in public comments on May 15 and in writing, Strong's DEIS is
riddled with errors and inconsistencies. The Planning Board must correct all these, and any
others that are identified by the public, involved agencies,the Board, planning staff, or the
outside consultant once hired. In addition, public comments to date have identified the need for
additional studies. These should be conducted as part of a supplemental DEIS, so that the public
and involved agencies have an opportunity to comment on them.
One of the involved agencies is the NYSDEC, for issuance of a tidal wetlands permit
under the New York State Tidal Wetlands Act. DEC issued a tidal wetlands permit on January
31, 2020, which was premature because tidal wetlands permits (and aspects of jurisdictional
determinations) are discretionary actions that must await completion of the FEIS and issuance of
Findings Statements. As explained in the Final Scope, "Additional review from the NYSDEC
tidal wetlands permitting agency may be required."10 Because NYSDEC remains an involved
agency, and may be required to rescind and/or modify the tidal wetlands permit and
jurisdictional determination, the Planning Board should take steps to ensure that DEC
participates in the SEQRA process.
3. Timing
Preparing an adequate and accurate FEIS will take time. The SEQRA regulations
provide that SEQRA's time periods may be extended by mutual agreement between a project
sponsor and the lead agency, with notice to all involved agencies.l� Many of SEQRA's time
periods are extremely short, and it is typically in an applicant's interest to agree to extend them.
Moreover, even in the absence of agreement by the applicant, SEQRA's maximum time frames
are not mandatory. Lead agencies are required only to complete each step within a reasonable
time: "Courts have generally held that the time frames contained in SEQR are `directory,' not
mandatory. . . . [T]he time frames exist to provide guidance on what is a reasonable time
necessary to complete a step of the review,but [except for the maximum time period to issue a
6 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(a)(7).
6 NYCRR§ 617.9(a)(7).
s 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(b)(8).
9 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(b)(8).
10 Final Scope,Feb. 8,2021,at 3.
" 6 NYCRR§ 617.3(i).
Planning Board
June 5, 2023
Page 4
final scope] there is no provision for default if the time frames are exceeded."12
Furthermore, the SEQRA regulations explicitly provide that the lead agency may
unilaterally extend the nominal time period(i.e., 45 days after the close of the hearing) for
completing an FEIS if. (a) it is determined that additional time is necessary to prepare the
statement adequately, or(b)problems with the proposed action requiring material
reconsideration or modification have been identified.i3 Here, additional time is unquestionably
necessary to prepare the FEIS adequately. Additionally, there are problems with the proposed
action requiring material reconsideration and modification.
4. Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment
The heart of any EIS is its "statement and evaluation of the potential significant adverse
environmental impacts at a level of detail that reflects the severity of the impacts and the
reasonable likelihood of their occurrence."14
In the Final Scope and Full Environmental Assessment Form("FEAF") Parts 2 and 3, the
Planning Board specifically identified potentially significant("moderate to large") adverse
environmental impacts to Land, Surface Waters, Groundwater, Flooding,Air, Plants and
Animals, Aesthetic Resources,Noise, and Community Character.15
Without proper supporting analyses, the inaccurate, self-serving DEIS prepared by
Strong's purports that the only significant adverse environmental impact that would be caused by
its project would be construction noise. That is manifestly untrue. In fact, if approved and
implemented, the proposed project would cause adverse environmental impacts in the nine
resource/impact categories identified as potentially significant in the Final Scope, as well as
others identified in public comments. This must be corrected in the FEIS.
5. Public Need and Public Benefits,if Any
SEQRA requires every EIS to describe the proposed action's "purpose, public need and
benefits, including social and economic considerations."16 Like all other aspects of the FEIS, the
Planning Board is responsible for the accuracy of this section. Following completion of the
FEIS, the Planning Board must decide whether the proposed project's significant adverse
environmental impacts are outweighed by the public need for the project, if any, and any public
benefits from the project.
Importantly,under SEQRA,the "purpose" of a proposed project is legally distinct from
12 SEQR Handbook at 154. In contrast, agencies may not reduce SEQRA's minimum time frames
because that"could limit public participation. . . [which] is a vital component of SEQR review." Id.
" 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(5)(ii).
14 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(b)(5)(iii).
15 Final Scope,Feb. 8,2021, at 5.
16 N.Y.Env. Conservation Law("ECU) § 8-0109(2)(a); 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(b)(5)(1).
Planning Board
June 5, 2023
Page 5
any "public need and benefit"it might have, as explained in NYSDEC's SEAR Handbook:
"Purpose" is a goal or objective to be achieved. The purpose of most privately
sponsored projects is to make a profit from some development activity on their
property. . . .
"Need"is a lack of something required, desirable, or useful. The need for an action
may be public,private,or a combination of both. Public need may apply to publicly
or privately sponsored projects that satisfy a societal need. . . .
"Benefit" is something that promotes well-being. The benefits of an action relate
to satisfaction of need. . . .17
As the SEQR Handbook further explains:
In reaching a decision on whether to undertake, fund, or approve an action that is
the subject of an EIS,each involved agency is required to weigh and balance public
need and other social, economic, and environmental benefits of the project against
significant environmental impacts. [¶]
Thus, for an agency to approve an action with potential to create a significant
environmental impact, or to adversely affect important environmental resources,
the agency must be able to conclude that the action that the agency will approve,
including any conditions attached to that approval, avoids or minimizes anticipated
adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable, or that public need and benefit
outweigh the identified environmental impact. [¶]
Where public need and benefit cannot be shown to outweigh the environmental
impacts of a project, the agency may be compelled to deny approvals for the
action.18
"This balancing process must be documented in the written SEQR findings that each
involved agency is required to make for a project that has been the subject of an EIS."19
Accordingly, if an EIS understates environmental impacts or overstates the public benefits and
need of a proposed project, the lead agency will lack a sound basis on which to undertake the
balancing process required by SEQRA and make the written findings statement required by
Section 617.11 of the SEQRA regulations.
The SEAR Handbook goes on to explain that:
[C]ompatibility with zoning should not be confused with public need. Sponsors of
many privately proposed actions may be able to demonstrate their compatibility
with such indicators of public development intent as locally adopted land-use plans,
"SEQR Handbook at 113.
�$SEQR Handbook at 114(emphasis added).
19 SEQR Handbook at 114.
Planning Board
June 5, 2023
Page 6
zoning ordinances, historic districts, and agricultural districts. To demonstrate
public need, however, the sponsor must also show what element of need a proposed
project will satisfy. For example, the sponsor of a proposed residential subdivision
could demonstrate public need for additional housing. . .20
Here, as public comments have explained, there is no overriding public need for, or
public benefit to be gained from, developing two one-acre-plus buildings and associated
infrastructure to store 88 yachts up to 86 feet in length near Mattituck Inlet.
6. Responses to Comments
In the FEIS, the Planning Board must respond to all substantive public comments
received.21 The form letters that merely say"I am writing to express my support for the Strong
family's proposal" and similar comments at the public hearings can and should be ignored as
they are not substantive and have no significance under SEQRA.
7. Findings Statement
One of the most important parts of the SEQRA process is the Findings Statement.
After completing the FEIS, the Planning Board must afford a reasonable time period, not
less than 10 days, for the public and involved agencies to consider the FEIS, and then the
Planning Board must issue a written Findings Statement.22 The Planning Board cannot render a
decision on the project application unless and until it has issued its Findings Statement.23
The Planning Board's SEQRA Findings Statement must do all of the following:
(1) Consider the relevant environmental impacts, facts and conclusions disclosed
in the final EIS;
(2) Weigh and balance relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and
other considerations;
(3) Provide a rationale for the agency's decision;
(4) Certify that the requirements of SEQRA have been met; and
(5) Certify that consistent with social, economic and other essential
considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available,the action is
one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum
extent practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or
20 SEQR Handbook at 115(emphasis added).
2' 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(b)(8)
22 6 NYCRR § 617.11(a)-(b).
23 6 NYCRR§ 617.11(c).
Planning Board
June 5, 2023
Page 7
minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions
to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable.`
The SEAR Handbook provides valuable guidance on the purposes and content of
Findings Statements, and the range of possibilities for that important document:
« Positive I-j11,�.i11g _ q t: "A positive findings statement means that,
after consideration of the final EIS, the project or action can be approved,
and the action chosen is the one that minimizes or avoids environmental
impacts to the maximum extent practicable. For an action that can be
approved, an agency's findings statement must articulate that agency's
balancing of adverse environmental impacts against the needs for and
benefits of the action."25
• fiJfe tg ire f a,; gs....,5,14cment: "If the action cannot be approved based on
analyses in the final EIS, a negative findings statement must be prepared,
documenting the reasons for the denial." '
• Distinct „betrn between. findings„ , clt r.. .ra ��*: Any findings that
the Planning Board may also need to make in connection with a site plan or
other approvals "are not the same as, nor may they substitute for, SEQR
findings."27
• Distin if 11 between SE l .Cw!�� n;s Aid decision,on.._p 4tiogs. The
SEQRA findings are also not the same as the decision on the proposed
action, but they "are the basis for decisions on an action. An agency may
choose to include the findings statement as part of its decision; however, a
findings statement by itself does not constitute a decision. Also, a decision
alone will not satisfy the SEQR requirement for findings.1128
• Relat nljji between_ QM._ Finding rlci,cf cc sion. cln ap l�aatt n . "An
agency must not . . . approve any part of an action if it cannot support
positive findings and demonstrate, consistent with social, economic, and
other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives, that
the action: Minimizes or avoids adverse environmental impacts to the
maximum extent practicable, and, [i]ncorporates into the decision those
mitigation measures identified in the SEQR process as practicable. 129
24 6 NYCRR§ 617.11.
25 SEQR Handbook at 145.
26 SEQR Handbook at 145.
27 SEQR Handbook at 146.
28 SEQR Handbook at 146.
29 SEQR Handbook at 147.
Planning Board
June 5, 2023
Page 8
• WpighIng._a._ar�al�t'� Ili need and larlcfi�t
environnl it.—at �npa ts. "[E]ach involved agency is required to weigh and
balance public need and other social, economic, and environmental benefits
of the project against significant environmental impacts. Thus, for an
agency to approve an action with potential to create a significant
environmental impact, or to adversely affect important environmental
resources, the agency must be able to conclude that the action that the
agency will approve, including any conditions attached to that approval,
avoids or minimizes anticipated adverse impacts to the maximum extent
practicable, or that public need and benefit outweigh the identified
environmental impact. Where public need and benefit cannot be shown to
outweigh the environmental impacts of a project, the agency may be
compelled to deny approvals for the action."30
In sum, the SEAR Handbook explains that "Using SEQR findings as a basis for
conditions ensures that SEQR is not just a procedure, but instead, that the information gathered
by the environmental review process will affect agency decisions."'
8. SEQRA's Substantive Mandate
The role of SEQRA findings to ensure that the results of environmental review actually
affect agency decisions reflects the fact that SEQRA is not merely a procedural law. Instead, the
statute mandates that:
"Agencies . . . shall act and choose alternatives which, consistent with social,
economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable,
minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects, including effects revealed in the
environmental impact statement process."32
Here, it is the No-Action Alternative that minimizes or avoids adverse environmental
impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Neither the proposed project(with or without
mitigation measures) nor the other alternatives do so.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Please add this letter to the public
record.
Sincerely,
Reed W. Super
30 SEQR Handbook at 114(emphasis added). This text was also quoted above under"Public Need and
Public Benefits, if Any,"but we repeat it here due to its importance to the Findings Statement.
31 SEQR Handbook at 148.
32 N.Y. ECL§ 8-0109(1)(emphasis added).
Planning Board
June 5, 2023
Page 9
cc (via email):
Planning Department
Town Attorney Paul DeChance
Save Mattituck Inlet
Michaelis,Jessica
SUbF
From: Terry, Mark 14L vMC
Sent: Monday,June 5, 2023 1:59 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: Strong Marina's Plan to build Storage for 88 yachts
Planning Board
From: Marla Wexler<marlawex3@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,June 5, 2023 1:26 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strong Marina's Plan to build Storage for 88 yachts
I am writing in opposition to the proposed plan by Strong Marina to build 88 yacht storage units. I do feel that this
will benefit our community and in fact it will be detrimental. I am very concerned about the environmental impact
It will have on both the land and waterways.
I purchased a home in Royalton Estates off of Cox Neck Road in Mattituck last year.. It is a quiet cut de sac.
I do not want 18 wheelers driving down our residential roads. This will negatively impact my quality of life.
Please vote NO.
Sincerely,
Marla Wexler
365 Royalton Row
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.
1
Michaelis,Jessica
wb-p
From: Terry, Mark p R M
Sent: Monday,June 5, 2023 10:46 AM � r-� I-1 -r . r,... ` - I C
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison RECEIVED
Subject: FW:Yacht Project on Mattituck Inlet -
,.0 UN
906't°1 oid Town
Planning Board
From: Robin McCoy<robinmccoyl@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,June 5, 2023 8:56 AM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Cc: mark alberici<mark_alberici@hotmail.com>
Subject:Yacht Project on Mattituck Inlet
Dear Mr.Terry and Mr.Cummings:
We are writing to express our opposition to the project proposed by Strong's Marine to build two oversized boat storage
buildings on Mattituck Inlet. We bought a home on the Inlet three years ago and have become members of the
community paying property taxes and contributing to the local economy.
Accepting a proposal like this one would put the profit motives of one company and its customers—who are not local
residents—over the interests of community members and taxpayers who have invested in preserving this corner of Long
Island for our children and generations to come.
Not only is there no benefit to us as locals from this project;there has not been adequate evidence that the project will
not cause deleterious effects to the health of our air and the Inlet water as the construction of the storage buildings and
the luxury-yacht traffic get underway.
We are deeply concerned about run-off, erosion, and the future pollution of the Inlet from increased boat traffic.The
DEIS does not adequately address these concerns and the adverse environmental impacts of the project both during and
after construction, or fully address the impact of removing both the sand hill and 600 trees. Moreover,the DEIS fails to
offer a full plan for how the owner will mitigate any adverse effects of the project.
We have a young daughter who is about to enter the first grade.We greatly enjoy kayaking, wading and exploring the
inlet and appreciate how many life forms thrive in the preserved areas on its shores.We wish as members of this
community to be protected from the negative effects of heavy construction and motorized yachts and expect you—as
those charged with upholding our rights—to fulfill your duty to protect our health.
Finally,we are very concerned about the heavy truck traffic of 4,500 trucks along an already congested route from
Riverhead to Mattituck.And we fear that the industrial character of the yacht storage will diminish the natural beauty of
the place we invested in, and negatively impact property values.We feel that the business goals of the owner of Strong's
Marine are being put above the quality of life of those of us who actually sustain the area.
Respectfully,
Mr. & Mrs. Mark Alberici
678-467-1776
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
u
From: Terry, Mark VR, J-Mr-f_..&C M
Sent: Monday,June 5, 2023 10:45 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison _...., :...... ... ......
Subject: FW: Strong's Marina on Mattituck Creek
aiofi rower ....
Planning Boai..d
From: Brooks McEwen <brmcewen@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,June 5, 2023 10:24 AM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strong's Marina on Mattituck Creek
Mr.Terry and Mr. Cummings,
I am a resident of Mattituck. I am against the Strong Marina Boat Storage project..
I am concerned about what impact the new storage building will have on the ecology of the North Fork. I am worried
about the strip mining of the hillside and what results it will have on the natural habitat for wildlife and vegetation.
I believe the positive aspects of the boat storage project will NOT be offset by the ruining of the hillside and what
that means to the environment. I also believe allowing the destruction of the area will open the door to more projects
like this.
Starting with the sale of the sand, this storage facility does very little if anything to benefit our beautiful natural
community.
Sincerely,
Brooks McEwen
950 Luptons Point Rd
Mattituck, NY11952
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,June 5, 2023 8:38 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica sub
Cc: Westermann, Caitlin FPS I H L 1 MT, 8 , M C
Subject: FW: Strongs Marine Development Project _- -...�... . . �- - ' I
RECEIVED
*Mark may have also sent this.* HA 0 5 2023
...... o6N6ri cr c�....
From: riffle92@aol.com <riffle92@aol.com> Planning Board
Sent: Sunday,June 4, 2023 10:13 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us> to + 3 .�
Cc: Cummings, Brian A.<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strongs Marine Development Project
Sirs:
attended the planning board meeting on May 15, 2023 and plan to attend again on June 5. 1 am a
resident and voter in Mattituck, and I am strongly against the proposed project at Strong's marina on
Mattituck Creek. I heard nothing at the meeting that would justify the huge negatives that this project
creates for the town and for the environmental concerns that we all face going forward.
I was disturbed by how disingenuous the Strong's team of experts were in presenting many of the
facts, such as the time frame for hauling the sand that will be excavated from the site. Based on other
attendees' reports and research, accounting for the volume and weight of the sand and the carrying
capacity of each truck...it seems clear that this project will go on much longer than projected, with the
accompanying extra damage to the roadway, the environment and the peace of local residents. It
seems beyond belief that the town would entertain a project with such a profoundly negative and
permanent impact on Mattituck Creek and the residents of Southold town.
am also a boater, and have kept my boat at Strong's Marina in the past. While I may agree with
many who spoke in defense of the Strong family at the last meeting, personal testimonials should
have absolutely no bearing on the EIS and the willingness of the town to allow this project to move
ahead.
Both I and my immediate neighbor went before the planning board within the last 2 years for
construction projects at our homes on Deep Hole Creek. My neighbor had to completely restructure
and re-orient his project to preserve 2 mature oak trees .
personally had to redesign my plans for a small extension, costing me over 6 months in time and
incurring significant additional costs because the project brought my house slightly closer to the water
by virtue of a curve in the shoreline of our creek. The board's rejection was based on their concern
with any construction effecting the immediate marine ecology. Our family shares the environmental
concerns that motivated the planning board's decision; we redid our plans to comply, as well as
voluntarily installing an IA septic system as we support the town in their goal to protect and preserve
our vital watershed.
How in the world would excavating 130,000 + cubic yards of sand from a bluff on Mattituck Creek,
installing an 845 foot concrete retaining wall nearly adjacent to a critical nature preserve, and
1
removing a half-acre of mature forest in any way align with the town's mandate to preserve and
protect .
I urge the board to do the right thing and reject this ill-conceived and destructive project that helps so
few and hurts so many. At the very least, the town should enlist an independent agency to perform an
EIS for them.
Greenlighting this proposal would expose a double standard by the planning board of breathtaking
proportion!
Sincerely
Scott Rosen
Lori Goeders Rosen
Mattituck, NY
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
2
Westermann, Caitlin
From: Cummings, Brian A. S ut;�
Sent: Monday,June 5, 2023 8:38 AM ► I W �C �1,f
To: Michaelis, Jessica .°" `'`
Cc: Westermann, Caitlin [ikE-C E I V E D
Subject: FW:June 5th meeting re: DEIS
I AM 0 5 2023
I� �
�i,... out�tio.�..
For mail, please. Planning Board
-----Original Message----- . — G — 10 13 . q
From: Betsy Kennedy<mutb536@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday,June 2, 2023 6:07 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:June 5th meeting re: DEIS
To:the Southold Town Planning Board
From: Betsy Kennedy
I politely ask that the board members keep the meeting to its purpose: Reviewing the environmental impacts of
proposed plan and not get sidetracked by friends of the Strong family and their business practices. No one has a problem
with their existing businesses on the inlet. We just don't agree with this project no matter who proposes it.
This is about environmental impact, now and especially in the future. Not the distant future, but what's expected in the
near
The Town of Southold says they promote conservation and protecting our town from over development.Apparently,
there was a project proposed just like this one (20)years ago and it was denied.
Was that Planning board looking to the future and what affect on the community this project would create. I would like
to think so.
Will you? It's Environmental not personal, look to the near and distant future of our community.
Thank you, regards, Betsy Kennedy
Sent from my iPad
1
Michaelis,Jessica
From: Jill Weber <jillweber18@gmail.com> b
Sent: Friday,June 2, 2023 10:54 AM °°" °�
To: Michaelis,Jessica RECEIVED
..,.
Subject: [SPAM] - Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project j
JUN 2 2.023
I .... t
Dear Ms. Michaelis, u + i -.
Planning Board
-
I am a representative of the Long Island group of the Sierra Club, the nation's largest environmental advocacy
organization, committed to preserving our threatened natural resources. There are over 6000 members of the
organization on Long Island,many of whom live in Mattituck, Southold and other areas on the North Fork.
We are very disturbed to learn about Jeff Strong's desire to remove over 600 trees and millions of pounds of
sand to make way for luxury yachts on the edge of Mattituck's tidal inlet. The plan is out of scale with the area,
and we fear that if this project were to move forward, similar developments will surely follow. The destruction
of established habitat cannot be corrected by the planting of 185 new trees, as proposed by Mr Strong.It takes
many years for trees to become mature enough to provide the food and shelter already available to the animals
and birds living on the property. In addition and just as concerning, the proposal will negatively impact the
wildlife and flora in the adjacent 27 acre Mill Road Reserve.
Established forests and successful habitats are precious commodities on Long Island,where they are already
battling the effects of climate change, extreme storm events, drought,wetland destruction and
overdevelopment.We ask that the Southold Planning Board reject Mr Strong's proposal and stand with
residents and visitors who love the natural environment and care about the preservation of habitat for the next
generation.
Sincerely,
The Sierra Club
Long Island Group
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
1
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Friday,June 2, 2023 1:46 PM �B� �L MT 13C
To: Michaelis, Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: [RECEIou
yw_ Planning Board
From: Phillip Van manen<vanmanenphillip@yahoo.com> . .. ,. '
Sent: Friday,June 2, 2023 1:41 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe that the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement(DEIS) does not adequately address the impact the project will have on Mattituck Inlet's water quality.
Specifically, how exactly will stormwater be managed on the site, during and after construction activities?The introduction
of new sanitary systems so close to Mattituck Inlet is a major concern, given the fact that the inlet already has shellfishing
closures and advisories due to bacteria impairment. Inadequate sanitary management on waterfront properties is a
common issue on the North Fork. How will the Planning Board ensure that these surface and groundwater issues are not
going to be made worse by this development?
Additionally, I am concerned about the destruction of natural habitat as well as flora and fauna including but not limited to
shellfish, seagrass, trees, wetlands, and other natural resources. How will the Planning Board weigh the public benefit of
this project with the need to preserve natural resources in the midst of climate change, threats to biodiversity, and erratic
weather and flooding that is plaguing the North Fork?
am worried that the parcels of land untouched by development are dwindling, and this is not right.
I support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Phillip J.Van Manen
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
S v b-F N _
Michaelis,Jessica �' r
From: Emily Tobey <emilytobey@me.com> RECE
VED
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 7:50 AM �........�....... ._.... ...�.........- ..
To: Michaelis, Jessica (JN 0 2 2023
Subject: Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project
Planning Board
To Southold Town planning board:
I am a Mattituck resident and am writing to register my strong opposition to the proposed Strong's Yacht
Warehouse Project. This massive facility will have enormous negative consequences for the natural
environment, our community, and the unique quality of the North Fork.
This project will have an irreversible impact on local ecology as a result of strip mining the hillside—the area
is a home to endangered and species of concern.
In addition, I am very concerned about noise and air pollution, fire danger, water pollution, and debasement of
our bucolic community character. All of this for no benefit to the community. This project serves ultra wealthy
yacht owners from the South Fork, Connecticut, and Westchester- not residents of the North Fork, and it
serves Strong's Marina. Period.
Further, I have additional concerns about the significant increase in truck traffic for the duration of the project
and the dangerous impact it will have on our local roads.
There is virtually no good reason to allow this project to move forward, and countless reasons to deny it.
If you approve this project, there will be many more like it that will also seek approval on the grounds that this
one was allowed.
Please reject this project. Save our precious and rare North Fork environment and community. There is no
reversing the destruction this project will cause.
Thank you,
Emily Tobey
4465 Wickham Ave
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
Is
RECEI
June 1, 2023 ,J N 1 2023d
I
To the Southold Town Planning Board: �M.. ....p!......ning Board
The marine industry, so important to the Long Island economy
as one of the boating capitals of the world, has grown
exponentially in the larger watercraft sector, mainly due to new
technology in electronics. As a small craft boat owner, I too
benefit from these advances in technology: improvements
needed for the large boats get scaled down for the smaller boats
resulting in safer boating for all. The ongoing technology
upgrades made across all industries benefit all of us everyday in
our electric cars, appliances, phones etc. These advancements ,
coupled with our region's ideal geography, have driven the
popularity of boating and the importance of this industry to the
Long Island economy.
Newer electronics require temperature-controlled storage, and
there is limited storage of this type in our region. Identifying this
opportunity, Strong's Marine has proposed developing heated
indoor storage for larger yachts. I have read many articles
written on the pros and cons of this project. Valid concerns have
been raised concerning trees, sand removal and road damage;
Strong's has exhaustively addressed these important issues by
way of the many professional studies contained in the DEIS.
Ultimately, I believe this project will provide needed support to
the growth of Long Island's boating industry, a pillar of our local
economy, and should be approved.
This project would bring at least 11 full-time, career positions to
Southold-along with supporting the businesses of local and
regional marine contractors. It is important to recognize that
advancements in technology have created and will continue to
create more skilled jobs, so important to us living and working
on Long Island. Without this growth in the boating industry and
other technology- driven industries, Long Island will be mostly
dependent on service-type jobs which are important but typically
do not pay the same wage of a skilled worker with computer and
programming training.
Please let us not foreetwhat happened to manv households on
Lone Island when Grumman and all its supoort com,t)anies left
the Island in the 1990's with the scale down of the defense
industries.
Sincerely,
Chris Young
470 Willis Creek Drive
Mattituck, NY 11952
516 903 0668
S
From: Katherine Dovlatov <k.dovlatov@gmail.com> ,_ ' , L 19 LC i y1�
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 10:39 AM .w ,.,.
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Michaelis, Jessica RECEIVED
Subject: Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project ° 0 2
µ umold Town'"",,,,.
Dear Ms Michaelis Planning Board
I've only been a full time resident of the North Fork for 6+years, but even to me it is evident that the storage facility
proposed by Mr Strong goes against the character and nature of this beautiful part of NY. In addition to being
destructive,this project adds value only to Mr Strong and his family.
Please reconsider the town's position on this matter.
Katherine Dovlatov
Laurel, NY
Katherine Dovlatov
k.dovlatov mail.com
New York+1-646-288-5921
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
e
From: Eric Wertheimer <ewertheimer@me.com>
EIVED
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 9:27 AM .. W. ..._
To: Michaelis,Jessica0
1
Subject: Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project
i
Sa Uta�o d 1,own
Hainning Board
I am writing to register my disapproval,as a Mattituck resident,of the proposed Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project. It
will be detrimental to so many, and to our precious environmental resources. Please reject this project.
Thank you,
Eric Wertheimer
4465 Wickham Ave
Mattituck
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
6
TO . „ RIVERHEAD
YVETTE M.AGUTAR,TOWN SUPERVISOR 200 Howell Avenue,Riverhead,NY 11901
° Tel:(631)727-3200/Fax:(631)727-6712
4 w t w drive' h ¢ .
May 23,2023
Southold Town Planning Board
PO Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
RECEIVED
RE: Comments on Strong's Yacht Proposed Boat Storage Buildings DEIS
5780 West Mill Road, Mattituck, NY MAY 2 5 2023 f
SCTM Nos. 1000-106-10 & 13.4
sbbt:°ublei '"w"n ...,
Dear Sir or Madam: Board_.... ...-.-.,,.n r)i n. . .........._.—
The Riverhead Town Board and the Riverhead Planning Department have reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), submitted to the Southold Town Planning Board in
furtherance of the site plan application known as Strong's Yacht Center—Proposed Boat Storage
Buildings.
While the majority of the impacts associated with the project are specific to the Town of Souhtold,
and are well within the purview of the Southold Town Planning Board to address, the Town of
Riverhead, as an interested agency under SEQRA offers the following comments for the Board's
consideration as it continues with the environmental review, and preparation of a Final
Environmental Impact Statement:
1. The DEIS states that construction vehicles, laden with earthen material, weighting in
excess of approximately 107,000 pounds (53.5 tons), will travel westbound along Sound
Avenue from the Riverhead-Southold town line,then southbound onto Northville Turnpike
(Suffolk County Route 43), then westbound onto Old Country Road (County Route 58),
and on to the Long Island Expressway entrance ramp at the west end of CR58.
2. The DEIS states that excavation and exportation(Phase 1 Excavation)of these materials is
expected to last between five and six months, with an expected daily trip generation of 80
total truck trips (40 entering, 40 exiting), resulting in a total of approximately 8,200 truck
trips over the duration of Phase 1 Excavation.
3. On May 1, 1975, Sound Avenue was designated a "scenic and historic corridor" by the
New York State Senate and Assembly(Senate Bill S.5814,Assembly Bill A.8189),which,
in part, ensured that"its historic, scenic, and cultural resources, and its natural beauty shall
be preserved and protected for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the state."
(Senate-Assembly Act attached herewith)
4. The DEIS does not include any type of engineering analysis of Sound Avenue in order to
determine whether or not the existing roadway's construction can adequately bear the
traffic from construction vehicles weighting in excess of 53 tons.
21Pagc (W
S. The impacts from the proposed construction traffic have the potential to impose significant
damage to the Sound Avenue right-of-way, and cause the Town of Riverhead to incur
additional expense to repair any damage to said right-of-way.
The Town of Riverhead would ask the Southold Town Planning Board to strongly consider the
inclusion of the following information in a Final Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed
action:
1. The applicant performs and include coring samples of the Sound Avenue right-of-way, at
various locations along the proposed route of travel, in order to determine whether the
roadway construction is of sufficient nature to safely handle the burden imposed by the
construction related traffic. The location of coring samples should be coordinated with
both the Town of Riverhead Highway Superintendent, and the Riverhead Town Engineer.
2. That construction traffic along Sound Avenue be coordinated in such a way as to have the
smallest potential impact to seasonal traffic volumes.
3. That if an engineering analysis of the roadway construction of Sound Avenue finds the
roadway unable to support the imposed loads from construction traffic, that an alternate
route, possibly New York State Route 25, be considered as the proposed route of
construction related traffic.
Sincerely,
NJ&be?aq nsat/
46<. Yvette A,guiar
Supervisor
Timothy I bard Frank Beyrodt
Councilman Councilman
Kenneth Rotl�well Bob Kern
Councilman Councilman
A copy of this letter was sent to:
Dennis Noncarrow, Southold Town Clerk(via email)
Heather Lanza, Southold Town Planning Department Director(via email)
Mark Terry, Assistant Southold Town Planning Department
..emu,.. .,�....-...—7,
rtu I qX,
i.
0
.,p
.. tx
°
• x
1975-1976 Rpggg tlLr Ses
x." M1 1, 1975 C3 Lu
ad i ` . "1 p llrlTl� •lizltX'IDrtata by Sen, IGI'lX°11 Nbr1 sc;ul haicctawnal �,
�: caa°alaraaal paiaLral, auaaV sa°laeaa lnintaafi Lai late a aaaaaaratitte^al Ili the Cure-
.., u�.
�.. . . .�a;aL aaw^a„e`rtaaaa„raal •. a '• " .'.
.x
a"ti MLt.l:&: till � - a
k "
Tea d\ ll1C14`- � 1;d1 l'aetaa°�aNhaa�t:al bti t;c)S111C`l`i`I3P; giV•]tClfAl;ti--at
-.aeyaaa::tt tier,tv, Oktrpm---Vil;ul,;lalcC ataali t�,Nerra:el taa Lhe `awniuiitla•r
x aau Lthull t,ifmaxaala .
F
N ACT
p'. eCr'ttlt�t tn' � ,. ,�. ° • .. _
. ` 9uff3l oa�a t�a it tr,notr and Veit
° ^It9 s�.4�flon end frt�l�urma,
American bicentennial � .
tlon of Uv., ;
Cata�i d , nL� flee of l_uttt lttlontl In the alttt�;`�. _... .__.
�.• Tenn ROV61olon
17w piloplr of thr ,.ihlee of.N'ous Kook, reptaaxwitte'at a'ati Scsul/; saasct
!sa' raatala J
tect cica°aa d fraPttaaa .a :.-
� .
1 • li� h^a9.w�a-+.aw �,l4sa llww.LLt�eaaaal 1%l'aiasal;c.,tir aaa�a�trl ^ eaaaatr
Sound a%
tit It's l oll with State 1�
V £ l to of aaaaa taaa;i aaµltla C°as arat,rF
Road twweatit e raa in C.w tartvw aaf Soutliraw, c,la Lary or �aaXllaailt l�
r4 AMaared to ha�aa swenac.°ataXtl histaaaac votatt ill SLat'taalla a,°aaaaaate,ant iP:� "
w lai Laaa^lti +ceaaaa.,and aaaitaaa�al ;^er�raaaawab�,and its aa,at rift beaut,y.Shull
(I x laa at� axaRaa aaartaa as tla l,Xaaatat' J
� the
a l a to cl lc aa, aaaicR a as"ca amaa aat aad°
people aif t.l;�Male,
x
t'"a1•a.a,Me • 'amaa�c n btln. ,
. w
•
x.wx»
ZM
ri
ox Al
_
, � N
`
0. ww
�. + "�,''".o:.Y w"� ''M „C3" t3" as �A«1 t�, ..h. firs f+�7 t*9 h:.. µ '• ,- "
,� .L �.] tw. "..3 u9 a,Ky •1 �'n "r.a•. ,.�",t� C7" t�l ..� �.1 ^w •iro e„.a'''
c
Aw ca. 21
x•..ry yr Na" ._».
•
.w -w 6 • 'tip .. w. '4 M ,..' C
> yy,
,. Fra ..n 'A• ...". GY �.Y q '� F 'may .« b� ...
From: Terry, Markl�r
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 12:28 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica, Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Re: Strong's Storage Building RII I Q I.E-TVIIE'D
t
Planning Boarr.:1
-----Original Message----- -m..... ._ w _.... ._a mm .
From:John Marra <johnmarramd@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday,April 23, 2023 6:25 AM
To: Cummings, Brian A.<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] - Re: Strong's Storage Building
On Wed,Apr 19, 2023 at 7:01 AM John Marra <johnmarramd@gmail.com<mailto:johnmarramd@gmail.com>>wrote:
Dear Mr.Terry and Mr. Cummings,
This letter is an effort to encourage the planning board to deny permission to further develop Mattituck Inlet by
Strong's Marina.
I live close to the Marina, and I wish to continue to live here as a North Fork Resident forever. However,the new
proposal to re-develop this beautiful natural preserve takes away a distinguishing feature of the North Fork, and removes
what I love about this area.
This expansion will remove hundreds of trees, hundreds of thousands of sand, and this will require several
thousands of dump truck loads. It will lead to an incredible change in the ecosystem,views,water quality, boat traffic,
noise, pollution,and kayaking.All of this would allow for approximately only a dozen more jobs.
There is no upside to this project. Furthermore, Strong's Marina has put the entertainment needs of out of state
visitors ahead of the comfort of our local residents. I have issued noise complaints from rock bands playing outdoors at
the Marina as late as 10 PM, even on Sundays,for years,with zero response from the Marina.
I urge the planning board to deny the expansion of Strong's Marina, as it will diminish the environment and our
peaceful way of life. It reflects a dangerous trend, especially important now as our country moves toward electric
vehicles and lower carbon footprints, in every way possible.
Please deny this expansion, and represent the community,the environment,our beautiful waterways, our views,
our unique way of life on the North Fork, and not represent big business.
Thank you..
Sincerely,
John F. Marra MD
1
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 12:27 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison ' -.. �.
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - proposed Strong's Boat Storage Plot RECEIVED
MAY 2 3 202D
96LAFi0kr9 Tawr7
-----Original Message----- _. Planning� _. _..
� 3aardW_____.
From: krissch@aol.com <krissch@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 6:07 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] - proposed Strong's Boat Storage Plot
Dear Sirs:
Strip mining the property adjacent to a preserve and putting Mattituck Inlet at risk for a "Yacht storage"facility does not
make sense. Please remember the project to build a deep water harbor on the property which is now the Hallockville
State Park. They removed the cliff and supplied sand to build the Connecticut Throughway for years. Don't allow this
to happen again. Mattituck Inlet is much too important to allow such destruction. At a time of rising sea levels,
flattening a hillside and denuding it of vegetation would be dangerous. This is a time to protect our waterfronts and
harbors, not to put them at risk. What kind of runoff into the inlet would this low lying, sandy area cause? How much
damage would be done to local roads. What are the traffic consequences? .
Please do not allow strip mining of this area.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely„
Christine Schmitt
Calverton, NY
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 12:26 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
S„a°f
�. _
..
-----Original Message----- � � ,
From:Swen Graham <swengraham@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 9:53 AM �;66— h6idl Iavv'rr -
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terr @town.southold.n .us> l„an,u� ng Board
Y Y Y �
Subject: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe the that the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement(DEIS) does not adequately address the traffic impact,the impact of removing trees, and noise and
light pollution.
I support the planing board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Sincerely,
Swen Graham
4615 Westphalia Rd.
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.
1
From: Terry, Mark <,.
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 12:25 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri,Allison RECEIVED
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Save Mattituck Inlet "
Y 2 3 Z023
Nanning Board
-----Original Message-----
From: Maureen Fritch<reenyruns@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:38 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Save Mattituck Inlet
Mr Terry
As a resident on the inlet I cannot believe that the planning board is giving any approval on moving this project forward.
Have you personally experienced the inlet and its serenity.The inlet is visited by many with small boats and canoes from
all over the eastern seaboard.These visitors, some coming every summer season as tradition,state how beautifully
unique this inlet is. It is a hidden jewel.
This project is based on one person's greed for wealth and a lack of consideration for his neighbors.
You have heard this statement over and over.This project is too large for the inlet. It is not an appropriate location.
I will be attending the next hearing.
Please reconsider giving this project any further momentum.
Maureen Fritch
975 Westview Drive
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: Terry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 12:25 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center - Proposed Boat Storage Buildingsgy�'� ��". �
RECEIVED
D
-----Original Message-----
From: Lainie Doherty<lainiedoherty@gmail.com> ° � asffi� �)Ed l ovtiin�,..�.�
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 6:16 PM _ P a nuunoung Board
To: Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Cc: Save Mattitucklnlet<savemattituckinlet@gmail.com>
Subject: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
Hello,
Three years ago my family and I purchased a home in Mattituck across from the Mill Road Preserve. For many years we
traveled to the North Fork with the hope of one day living there. We purchased the home to make an escape from the
city because in Mattituck we found a place of untouched natural beauty that we truly cherish. We walk to the beach and
ride bikes knowing that the roads are safe with very little traffic.
With the proposed building of yacht storage at the inlet we are ALL very concerned about overdevelopment in the area
and the negative impact it will most certainly have on the wildlife and environment. We are appealing to you to please
consider denying this proposed change.
Thank you for your consideration..
Regards,
Lainie Doherty.
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 12:24 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storaa e Buildings
E
-----Original Message----- ,,... AY 23 3 (N
From. Atsuko Shio<atshio@gmail.com> " :'1010 P° wivFF,w.._
Sent:Thursday, May 11,2023 10:30 AM
PIarunung Board
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@tow o rthofd: y: -- -••--.—.
Subject: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
Dear Southold Town Planning Board Members,
I am writing to express my strong support for efforts to save Mattituck Inlet, and to voice my opposition to the proposed
expansion of Strong's yacht storage buildings in Mattituck.As a concerned citizen and environmental advocate, I believe
that both issues are closely intertwined, and that preserving the natural beauty and ecological health of our community
is of the utmost importance.
Mattituck Inlet is a vital part of the local ecosystem, providing essential habitat for a variety of marine species. It also
serves as an important recreational area for fishing, boating, and other water-based activities. However,the inlet is
currently facing significant threats, including erosion, pollution, and other environmental pressures.The proposed
expansion of Strong's storage buildings would only exacerbate these threats, potentially causing irreparable harm to the
fragile ecosystem of the inlet and surrounding areas.
I urge you to take swift action to address these threats and protect Mattituck Inlet for future generations.This could
include implementing measures to reduce pollution and erosion, increasing public awareness and education about the
importance of protecting the inlet, and collaborating with local environmental groups and other stakeholders to develop
a comprehensive conservation plan. Additionally, I urge you to deny the proposed expansion of Strong's storage building
expansion, as it would be detrimental to the health and well-being of our community and the natural environment.
Saving Mattituck Inlet is not just an environmental issue—it is also a social and economic issue.The inlet supports a
thriving local fishing industry and provides recreational opportunities for residents and visitors alike. By protecting this
important resource and opposing the expansion of Strong's yacht storage buildings, we can ensure that future
generations can enjoy the many benefits that it provides.
In addition to the environmental and economic concerns, I am also deeply worried about the safety of the community's
residents/children who frequently kayak/paddle in the narrow inlet. Allowing larger boats into the area through the
proposed expansion of Strong's storage buildings creates a significant safety risk for these watercraft users.The
increased traffic in the inlet, combined with the limited space and narrow channels, could lead to serious accidents and
injuries. It is essential that we prioritize the safety of our community and take action to prevent unnecessary risks to their
well-being.
I thank you for your attention to these important matters, and I look forward to your continued leadership in preserving
and protecting Mattituck Inlet and our community as a whole.
Sincerely,
1
Atsuko Shio (Living in Mattituck)
atshio@gmail.com
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
z
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 12:24 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri,Allison
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Marine Yacht Project
MAY 2 3 Z023
aa �k0G To'w'n
-----Original Message----- MM Planning Board
From: Stephanie Bail<stephaniebail@icloud.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 11, 2023 9:33 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong's Marine Yacht Project
Dear Mr.Terry,
We do not support the Strong's Marine Yacht Storage project for the following reasons.
1.) We are concerned about the 80 large haul trucks that will travel between Sound Avenue 10 hours a day for several
months.This will worsen traffic conditions on roads in Southold and Riverhead. It will also cause general safety issues for
automobiles, school buses, bike enthusiasts and pedestrians.
2.)The project will produce little in the way of community benefits and appears to be highly speculative.
3. ) It also appears that this proposed project will produce unnecessary damage to the the local environment.
4.) It further appears that this project will contribute to excessive stress and damage to Sound Avenue.
We hope that this project is rejected by the Town of Southold.
Very truly yours,
Sid Bail
President
Wading River Civic Association
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 12:24 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri,Allison RECEIVED
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Stop overdevelopment of Mattituck Inlet MAY 2
gym...
SO' :.:,i Ew()&d I omen.....
.. __Planning Board_�.�. .
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Withers<brianwith@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 2:54 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Stop overdevelopment of Mattituck Inlet
Dear Mr.Terry:
My family and I live at 485 Raccoon Road in Mattituck. Our home is very near to Mattituck Inlet. We are against the
proposed Strong's Marine Storage Building Project. We don't want it to be built by Stong's or anyone else. The reasons
we have against this project are as follows: it will destroy the North Fork coastline and may damage land further inland
because as you know the Long Island Sound surface is rising due to climate change. The North Fork already has a
disaster waiting to happen at Hashamomuck Pond further east in Southold. Why create another disaster at Mattituck
Inlet? Why not instead propose to Strongs another plan. Let Strong's build its project further south on Mattituck Inlet
on unoccupied land that no one is using. In this way build their plan will still be built on another piece of property that
doesn't require the destruction of hundreds and hundreds of trees and the removal of so much sand that will hurt the
coastline of the North Fork,and Strongs can donate the land on which they want their initial plan to be built on to the
town park next to that property. This will lead to a win-win result for Strongs and for Southold Township. Hundreds of
residents in Southold will be pleased with this result. Thank you very much for listening to my revised plan. I hope and
pray that you enact it. Sincerely yours, Brian Withers
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 12:23 PM �' I--
To: Michaelis, Jessica; Palmeri,Allison RECEIVED
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strongs project i —
MAY 2 3 Z(12",11�1
Planning Board
-----Original Message-----
From:gsr52558@aol.com<gsr52558@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2023 6:08 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Strongs project
Hi my name is Gary Rosenbaum, I'm a physician in practice in Riverhead for the past 32 years, I lived in Dix Hills for many
years and witnessed the destruction of the forests that surrounded my neighborhood, please don't allow this horrible
project to be approved,there will be more loss of forest and wildlife. Sincerely, Gary S Rosenbaum MDPC
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 12:22 PM sala�,
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison tbrc
Subject: FW: [SPAM] RECEIVED
-
...
MAY 2 3 2()23
r L"it, o"J,d :I"own___..,
-----Original Message----- Planning Board
From:toni bryan <tbryan355@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2023 7:46 AM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Cc: Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -
I am writing again regarding my concern about the Strong's Marina Project. I attended the Planning Board Public
Meeting this past Mon May 15.As expected,there was a large turnout of opposing views.
As per your outline,the meeting was to adhere to issues regarding the DEIS as prescribed by NY State SEQRA law. For the
most part,those who oppose the proposal spoke to the environmental changes, loss of animal habitat and trees,
potential water quality decline,traffic noise and safety,and disruption to the quality of life for those residing on the truck
haul route in both Southold and Riverhead Towns.
Those in favor of the proposal were for the most part business people who support business growth and land rights. In
addition, there were members of the community that attested to Jeff Strong's record as a good employer, business
owner and marine service provider.Those opinions strayed from discussion of the DEIS.The commercial fishermen that
commented did speak to the marine industry use of the Mattituck Inlet and Strong's presence on the creek providing the
needed services of haul out and repair. But those services can continue without the addition of the proposed yacht
storage buildings. As can his service and storage of boats presently.The expansion is apart from his current operations. It
is an expansion he is choosing that will not affect the present and vital commercial marine industry use of the Inlet. Or
the present recreational marine and boating use of the Inlet.
It seems as if this matter is"either/or"-either you are for business rights and development and anti-conservation or for
the environment and anti-business.That is too simplistic and an affront to both the DEIS process and the Planning
Board's responsibility to the Town of Southold.
Whether one owns 1/4 acre of land or 100 acres of land we are constrained by zoning laws and impacts to our neighbors.
That seems to have been forgotten.The land is zoned partly for marine and partly residential use.The rumor of hotels,
condominiums and housing is muddling the proposal and serves no purpose and confuses the issue and the public.
Toni Bryan
355 Rose Lane
Mattituck
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Terry, Mark
To: Michaelis, Jessica; Palmeri,Allison Planning Board
Subject: FVV [SPAM] - D8S for Stnong'sYacht Center - Pnopospd DoatStorage Buildings
-----Original Message---
Fronm: Peter Nesgos<pe1ernesgos@gnnai|,corn>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2O23 5:17PKX
To:Terry, Marh<mark.1erry@toxvn.southu|d.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <briam.cunnmnings@tmvxn,southo|d.ny.us>
Subject: |SPAK8l -DE|SforStnong'sYachtCenter- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
To: Town of Southold, Planning Department
As residents nfK8atituck for more than 15 years, xve wish to express our grave concerns regarding the environmental
and social impacts mf the proposed development of the Strong'sMarine Storage Building Project.
We urge you, as officials responsible for the planning and development of our community,to carefully evaluate this
proposed Project from the perspective of retaining the health,safety and well-being of our Town and the North Fork.
Thank you for this opportunity to express our views on the serious consequences to our community of this proposed
project.
Peter and Carolyn Nesgos,
Matb1uch
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected ennai|s.
�
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 12:21 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri,Allison
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- proposed boat storage buildings
sJ)D* .. �w _ ....
RECEIVED
-Original Message-----
From: Michael Getches<mike@researchmaterial.net> ut:`i6"I'd"T"6:ivri.....
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 4:19 PM "banning Board
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] - DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- proposed boat storage buildings
Dear Brian and Mark,
My name is Michael Getches and I am a resident of Mattituck. I live here full time with my wife,4 year old daughter and
10 month old son. I am writing in vehement opposition of Strong's proposed boat storage buildings. Simply put, it is a
dangerous precedent to irrevocably alter a cherished habitat and recreation area for the, more than likely,short term
whims of the privileged few. Living on breakwater road we already deal with a frightening influx of high powered and
absurdly expensive vehicles racing down our"quiet" road during the summer.So much so, it is too dangerous for my
children to play in our front yard.This is a complex and layered issue, but it is also extremely simple.A choice between
what is right and money. Please put the kibosh on this dastardly over reach by Strong's.
Thank you for your time,
Michael Getches
Michael Getches
www.researchmaterial.net
(631)413-9951
Sent From The Field
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Terry, Mark S�bF
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 12:20 PM
To: Michaelis, Jessica; Palmeri,Allison RECEIVED
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Opposition to Strongs project [` —m
MAY
Planning Board
-----Original Message-----
From: Lori Panarello<lori.panarello@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 12:55 AM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: [SPAM] -Opposition to Strongs project
My name is Lori Panarello and my wife's name is Catherine Canade.We live at 1065 West Mill Rd. in Mattituck directly on
the route to the Strongs project.
In addition to the fact that 653 trees will be cut down, and an insufficient number will be replanted,wildlife will be
completely lost in and around the inlet,there is a severe danger posed by the amount of propane and gasoline that will
be housed in those two giant storage containers,we are very concerned about the number of heavy and large trucks
every day, all day,that will undoubtedly speeding up and down our road every 7 minutes for more than a year,
destroying the roadways with insufficient money put aside for repair.The amount of noise, pollution, and disruption will
be incredibly dangerous and destructive to all of the residents in that area that use that road to walk,jog,walk dogs, push
baby strollers,and pullout of our driveways.
We feel that Strongs is vastly underestimating the length of time the project will take, and the number of loads that will
have to be removed both for sand mining, and then the construction of the area and the buildings,failing to take into
account the adverse effect on the residents'way of life.
Please do not allow this to happen.
We moved to the North Fork 10 years ago to live the lifestyle that was promised by the beauty of this area and we feel
that this project will not only strip it away but it will lead to other similar projects and ultimately destroy what Mr.Strong
says he is trying to uphold. When is enough money enough?
When we attended the Strongs information evening at the Mattituck Laurel library a short time ago, on behalf of Save
the Mattituck Inlet it was clear to us that the Strongs are minimizing the impact on the environmental and on the
surrounding neighborhoods, in order to maximize the profit for their own family and their company.This goes against
everything that the North Fork stands for.We strongly oppose this project and feel it is a commercial project taking place
in a residential community. For all Mr.Strong's assertions that this will "be over in no time at all"we highly doubt that
Mr. Strong would move this project onto Wickham where he lives and have the project disrupt him, his family and
neighbors the way ours will be.
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
Date: , _RECEIVED
MAY 2 3 2023
soutii"'O'i'c'il 10
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director Planning Board
Southold Town Planning Department .......
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature
M
Name
Address A� m 0
City State Zip z
Phone — /
Email ;
�vbC,
......
From: Carol A. Owens <carolaowens@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 4:57 PM ,,,I
To: Michaelis, Jessica MAY 2 3 2023.
Subject: Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project
° �����i•�oi�J.rown ..,.
Planning Board
As a 27 year resident and long standing member of the North Fork Audubon Society, I have participated in
many educational and recreational activities that explore habitats such as the woodlands at Hallock State Park
Preserve and coastal nesting areas for birds. I am writing in support of protecting Mattituck Inlet which holds
a delicate balance of environmental and historical importance and contains 630 mature trees that shelter
hundreds of species of endangered birds and wildlife. I thank the Town Planning Department in advance for
taking into consideration that now is the time to continue to defend and protect an important environmental
resource for the entire North Fork.
Carol Owens
1800 Town Harbor Lane
Southold NY
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
.Vu a Rei "'�,w 111 Manor Lane, P.O. Box 5,Jamesport, NY 11947
M WEI, all&= www.turtlerescueofthehamptons.org
631.779.3737
1
it
May 9 l, 2023 "
ra
Mark Terry, Assistant Town Planning Director
Fl�ann�rg Board
�r��BP.uIiP'YP�U aQdG"a. „
Brian Cummings, Planner
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
I am writing to express my opposition to Strong's Yacht Center development project. I
believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately
address the mitigation efforts to protect the Eastern Box Turtle.
Terrepene Carolina/Eastern Box Turtle is listed as a New York State Species of Special
Concern. According to Table 5 of the DEIS Ecological Study, the Eastern Box Turtle has
been observed on site and is expected to be found in any one of the vegetated upland
habitats of the project site.
Proposed Mitigation:
The study states °in order to minimize potential impacts to the Eastern Box Turtle,
sweeps or surveys for turtles will be conducted prior to commencement of clearing,
grading, and excavation activities and any observed turtles will be relocated to areas
that will not be disturbed. Silt fencing or other barriers will be installed around work
areas to prevent turtles from returning to construction areas."
These statements are misleading and inaccurate and a danger to the Eastern Box
Turtle's survival, and therefore should not be considered mitigation for the adverse
impacts of this proposed development.
All species of native turtles, including Eastern Box Turtles, hibernate underground from
October through May. They live in underground burrows and in tree stumps. Every
NYS species (aquatic and terrestrial ) of turtle nest on land and dig their undetectable
nest approximately 6-12" underground. Eastern Box Turtlers are elusive by nature and
their camouflage makes it almost impossible to find them in a natural setting. Therefore,
sweeps and surveys should not be considered mitic, ,batp�nf�r�t aver gim� tsfh00 e
proposed development. momst noble attribute of man." -- enarier-Darwin
Turtle Rescue of the Hamptons,Inc.is a 501(c)(3)Non-profit Organization founded in 2012
Scanned with CamScanner
Fencing and other barriers will not stop the Eastern Box Turtle's strong instinct to return
to its nesting and feeding habitat. Turtles will instinctively travel along a barrier
perimeter to find a weakened spot or small opening. If turtles cannot find an opening,
they will likely dig under the proposed fencing or worse, become entangled, leading to
injury and possible death. Turtles will also follow the fencing line, which could lead to
public roadways and vehicular traffic leading to injury and possible death. Therefore,
fencing or other barriers should not be considered mitigation for the adverse impacts of
this proposed development.
For all of the above stated reasons, the proposed mitigation efforts of conducting
sweeps, surveying and installing barriers to protect the Eastern Box Turtle, are
ineffectual and absurd. They should not be considered mitigation for the adverse
impacts of this proposed development.
Please use your authority to reject the DEIS and find a better alternative.
Turtles are one of the most endangered organisms in the world!
Sincerely,
Karen Testa President,
Turtle Rescue of the Hamptons
P.S. 1 would like my email to be part of the public record of Southold Town
Scanned with CamScanner
SUM-
From: S. R. <brdiecat@yahoo.com> �. �: ... . �.i:� .....
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 10:34 AM E .EI "°,?D
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: [SPAM] - Strong Marina Expansion `i I ,
To Whom It May Concern- Pl annln() Boaird
I am writing concerning the expansion plans being considered for Strong's Marina.
I am VERY familiar with Mattituck Creek-I fish the creek every summer,have had my boat in a nearby
marina, (&am planning to again), and have spent much of my life visiting areas of the creek. I also launch at
the State Launch.
This creek is pristine-it's one of the VERY FEW tributaries of Long Island Sound that has an amazing,
diverse amount of life. It all depends on the surrounding woods,hills, etc.for it's continued health as a
tributary-and is very fragile,in my opinion. I have seen boats of all sizes going up & down the creek-some of
them behaving, others going faster than I thought they needed to. I have also seen&stopped a boat that had
air lock'& was spewing fuel all the way up the creek-the boat operator stopped the boat&fixed the problem
&returned to Strong's Marina,leaving a length of pollution.He said he'd call it in-this was years ago.
If you look at the bulkheads from the water side, there is significant damage done by the constant traffic-
adding more traffic to the Creek will cause increasing damage to manmade structures,not to mention the
natural creek structure.Many of the boats that will be stored in the facilities will be coming in&out of the
Creek to be stored.
Where will the boats be put in&out of the water?
Where will the boats be fueled for storing?
Now I'll address the huge increase in traffic-
Sound Avenue and all the surrounding roads are barely able to handle the huge amount of traffic that
traverses now. It was a dirt farm road originally that became paved &was traveled by locals-now there are
huge trucks, traffic jams, and LOTS of noise and vibration.For the equipment to be brought to the site&the
materials removed will be a local nightmare as well as an ecological one- all surrounding houses, farms,
businesses will be negatively effected. So the route will come down Northville Turnpike to Sound Avenue&
make the turn to head East?Then again the MUCH heavier trucks that are full that need that turn to head back
up Northville Turnpike?Has that been addressed? Those huge trucks make extremely wide turns-what about
oncoming traffic?What about human safety?What about the added costs to Riverhead (AND Mattituck) taxes
for the upkeep & repair of the immense damage that will occur to the roads?
Long Island Sound has gone from a lively, wonderful, animal filled body of water to what long-time locals
call "the Dead Sea"-it NEEDS healthy creeks like Mattituck Creek to maintain/slow down the continuing
destruction to it's remaining life.Destroying the woods &adding traffic to the area will be detrimental all the
way around. The Creek is only as pristine as it is now BECAUSE of the surrounding land&trees.
1
Is money more important than ecology?Than the animals that will be effected/destroyed by the work on
these buildings&traffic it ensues?Than the neighborhood peace&quiet?Than the wear&tear on the roads,
structures,farms&people?Than the ecological health of the Creek&Sound?
I'm begging you to NOT allow this to go through.The cost will be overwhelming, all the way around.You
will be losing an important area of your town that will not be fixable. The Mattituck Creek& all the joy it
brings will be lost to future generations-permanently.
Thank you for your consideration.
Susan A. Reeve
4074 Sound Ave.
Riverhead, NY 11901
PS-I am directly related to Hallock,Tuthill, Corwin, Aldrich,Bergen....... and have NUMEROUS ancestors
buried in Mattituck Cemeteries.I grew up knowing the Hallock ladies- sat behind "Aunt"Ella every week in
Sound Avenue Church,visited their house as a young child. My family has been here since the 1600s. My
history has deep connections to the Mattituck area. Please consider that as a (small)right to speak out on this
matter. Thank you.
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
2
,"M-
'cbricem;
110 w4om it may
After adendijig the,
'm', 4,
Az
'ne
Macht Center project, prppo$, 'MecvW'wlthjftA*
"I'll 7 7,
j/7, 7,7 77,
�,man MAnb
ex'p*�ding'' usialess,f, folzo
5f
4avo
7,77%
Q`
filb /MEN
Stroogs,�, AL tW' i
'en o,; oospa �','d WIAINX�41
2 81111��
0
habits they,fiai� tflovedin'ta' w"i ll'oof"Will W,
5 u`aF
From: Josh Brand <josh bra ndx@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 4:58 PM To: Michaelis,Jessica � �I
VED
Subject: [SPAM] - Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project
MAY
V
i ovvn
Dear Members of the Planning Board, Nanning Bo ard:i
I was present at the meeting on May 15th and am writing to urge you not to go forward withStrong s Yac it
Warehouse Project.
The environmental damage will be significant and irreversible and it will change the character of the area we
all love so dearly.
And to what end?
To house yachts in heated enclosures for 6 months a year?
Yachts?
If a person is rich enough to afford a yacht,wouldn't it follow that that person will want to live near his yacht?
And build a residence of enormous proportions which, as we see, is already changing the face of the East End.
Or fly his private jet or helicopter from his home in Connecticut to the East End when he wants to visit his
yacht.
It was said the project will provide 11 jobs.
Jobs are good and impactful,but these jobs are seasonal.
What will those 11 people do once the boats are in the water?
This project is about competing interests,but the interests are not equivalent.
The beauty and character of the East End is what makes it a place people want to live and where people want
to visit.
Will they come to see the yachts?
The East End houses a very delicate ecosystem, and not only environmentally.
But, as importantly, with the diverse people who live in the East End.
Do we really need a project that primarily benefits one family and does great harm to the vibrant and diverse
community that already exists here.
This project may result in some economic advantage to a few,but it will change the beauty and character of
what makes this a place we all love and cherish.
Sincerely,
Josh Brand
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source.Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
1
From: Jonathan Baker <jbakerjonathan@aim.com> RE ,fit_ [ Af D
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 8:42 PM
To: Michaelis, Jessica h "Y" 19 2 U 2
Subject: [SPAM] - Strong's Marina Project -
;(,uCi iglu ,a CM[I
Planning Board
I would like to share with you my concern regarding the hauling of excavated soil from the subject proposed
project. Aside from the wear and tear of the road surfaces of West Mill Road, Cox Neck Road, and Sound
Avenue,the great increase in semi-trailer traffic throughout the area, the greatly increased potential for
accidents with pedestrians who walk these roads for exercise as well as with general foot traffic and vehicular
traffic, there will be a great diminishment of air quality due to dirty diesel exhaust from the hauling trucks. I
foresee black clouds of diesel exhaust when the drivers downshift gears to power up the steep inclines out of
the construction site and at the sharp curve by the intersection of Breakwater Road and West Mill Road.
Truck hauling of this magnitude is definitely NOT a good idea and should NOT be allowed.
There is an alternate way to deal with the excavated soil and that is by removal by barge. I made this
recommendation when the plan was first published. It is a practical solution and a fair one for the people
living in the area. Please make this happen!
I also recommended the planting of trees that maximize the sequestering of CO2 from the air, where ever that
is possible, to mitigate the removal of the 600+trees. Examples are Silver Maple, London Plane, Scarlet Oak
and Horse Chestnut. The proposed evergreens are not that good at CO2 sequestration.
Other than these two objections, I see no reason not to approve the project.
Respectfully,
Jonathan Baker
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
IVED
Submission Without a Cover Letter R. mm.
r
�t�
""r o
r
kNd'af`B qk�� �OMI
Sender:
Plam"nmiu rigBoard
.�...._
Subject: Sinn
SCTM#: 1000 - IOU- U- I O A \S,+
Date: s)(c)I a3
Comments:
DocuSign Envelope ID:30E18D57-7E61-4FO9-AC6E-BC3EO58Fl340
5/9/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
DocuSioned by.
Signature ��
...
Jim Terry
Name
540 Halls Creek Drive
Add ress
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
Phone
JIM@TERRYCONTRACTING.COM
Email
DocuSign Envelope ID:7E586D13-AD4D-4C91-139BA-137A58459FA23
5/10/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Docu�� "d by:
Signature ;tt. S
ami e Sant TaT6o
Name
3745 Nassau point road
Address
Cutchogue ny 11935
City State Zip
Phone
KOHAKUPOINT@YAHOO.COM
Email
DocuSign Envelope ID:197FC011-A0C4-44D0-956D-EE145D141 13136
5/6/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature
Scott E gett "
Name
685 track ave
Address
Cutchogue Ny 11935
City State Zip
6312554028
Phone
scott@nfwoodworks.com
Email
DocuSign Envelope ID:3EA81524-03A5-47B3-9834-A65AA85BD663
5/8/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
_CtertaStlprnmd 6y:
Signature
JAMES STOLPINSKI
Name
5455 Indian Neck Lane
Address
Peconic NY 11958
City State Zip
9179524117
Phone
12023@msn.com
Email
DocuSign Envelope ID:B01FB1315-F10E-45FA-9960-8FD81E87C296
5/7/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
DocuSiamd by:
Signature
Joseph Mazza
Name
280 Basin Rd, Southold, NY 11971
Address
Southold Ny 11971
City State Zip
914-216-1861
Phone
Email jmazbpp@aol .com
DocuSign Envelope ID:7CD39AA3-E392-4925-BFA5-5DF935700E2D
5/6/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Dacuftrwd byw
Signature Pvao�s
3oep Pra a
Name
425 Birch Drive
Address
Laurel NYS 11948
City State Zip
7183442581
Phone
Email jgpradas@yahoo.com
DocuSign Envelope ID:516F7A3A-BD69-4E9C-9116-92A862FCADE2
5/8/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
DocuSione d by:
Signature f " V W
Stephen D Mudd
Name
39695 County Rd 48
Address
Southold NY 11971
City State Zip
631 765-1248
Phone
Email muddvyd@aol .com
Qt
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Sign atur
Name .
F
Address
City State _zip
Phone �-:2�\
Ema i I
a.�
STRONG, S
aff
To: Southold Town Planning Board TOW III—
Dt: 5.16.2023 Planning Board
Re: Strong's Building Proposal SYC .. .._.m.._..................... ........_..,........,........... _....
Good day. I have worked for the Strong's family for 18 years. As a transplant from
Queens, I have been very fortunate to build my career with the Strong's family of marinas.
In those years, I have seen the growth of Strong's from two marinas, when I began, to the
seven locations today. As that growth has happened, I have seen more passion from Jeff
Strong when relating to his hometown of Mattituck. He has never lost sight of the town
he loves and how to maintain the environment he grew up in.
Jeff Strong has always been focused on protecting the town in any way possible. He
allows scallopers to dock at his marinas in the off season, at a nominal cost, basically
covering the insurance required while they dock with Strong's. He has partnered with
Cornell Cooperative to continue the growth of Kelp, FLUPSY and clams. They run their
research out of the Strong's Yacht Center docks with no charge incurred. Jeff Strong
allows it just because he believes in protecting and growing the environment. Can anyone
name another marina that is as active in environmental studies? None that I am aware of.
Shows the commitment of the Strong's family to protecting the area that we all love and
care for.
Successful businesses always grow when given the opportunity. While the
inconvenience of the short-term needs of the project will impact the local community, in
the grand scope of the project, Strong's always gives back more than it takes.
It would be far easier for the Strong's family to sell the 10-15 acres of unused property
to a real estate developer, who will build housing developments that will affect the
neighbors far more than the one year of construction. Increasing the drainage run-off
into the inlet. Jeff chose not to do that as that it would not be the "right" thing to do for
the community of Mattituck. He would rather add additional labor opportunities for the
youth of the town, year-round, full-time positions. Continuing the long history of this
town. Ensuring its future. What more can be expected of the local businesses other than
continuing the growth of Mattituck in a meaningful and responsible way.
Best Regards,
William Bartesch
General Manager
2400 CAMP MINEOLA RD MATTITUCK, NY 11952
MATTITUCK SOUTHAMPTON PORT WASHINGTON FREEPORT FIRE ISLAND
I:iE- COIBAI Z- V PVASL4-F ® CRUISERS YACHTS VJ FA I R L.I N E
'AUTHORIZED TO SELL GRADY-WHITE &COBIA IN NASSAU COUNTY &5 BOROUGHS
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 8:15 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica; Palmeri, Allison Subs
g p g Buildings
Subject: FW: DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- Pro Proposed Boat Storage B � mm
'l E IV E*
�; qp)
k MAY 16
Npy 2
From:Jamie Rosen<jamie.m.rosen@gmail.com> P�anrilng Board
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 5:44 PM .....,.._ .... -
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
As residents of Mattituck who live on Mattituck Inlet, we are writing to voice our opposition to the Strong's
Marina Development Project on Mattituck Inlet.
We moved to Mattituck in November 2021. We were drawn to the area for its sheer beauty, the peacefulness
of the inlet, and what we observed as a healthy coexistence of man and nature. We pinch ourselves daily for
having ended-up in such a magical place where birds are our soundtrack and sunsets are our entertainment.
We do not believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) adequately addresses the irreversible
impact the construction and subsequent water traffic will have on the local environment and ecology. The
damage to the trees and other native flora, the coastline, the cleanliness of the water, and, importantly, the
animals who have made the inlet their home for far longer than we, as humans, have will simply be
irreparable. Once this damage is done, there is no turning back.
Further, we have additional concerns about the significant increase in traffic and the dangerous impact it will
have on our local roads, pedestrian safety, and our overall community.
As individuals and a community, we have the ability to effect change for good and to ensure that the beauty of
Mattituck inlet is something we continue to enjoy for generations to come. For this reason, we support the
Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Melissa Rosen (Jamie) & Geoffrey Greene
25 East Side Avenue
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.
1
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 8:15 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri,Allison n ,m f
Subject: FW: Strong Yacht Center(SYC) proposal public hearing. „�w " _ ...:,,
MAY I ray 2023
�Mji rro ld 'i Ovvr,.. .
-.4-',Iacmi..rc�.r.".����Board
........ .....�...
From: Mariella Ostroski<mostroski2@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 5:47 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strong Yacht Center(SYC) proposal public hearing.
Dear Mr.Terry and Mr.Cummings,
I am writing to register my opposition to the Strong Yacht Center(SYC} proposal to build two large storage buildings for
supersized yachts at 5780 West Mill Road, Mattituck, NY. Your wisdom, acknowledging the results of overburdening the
environment and our community cannot be undervalued. The responsibility for the Town of Southold lies with you in
preserving its rural character and using every influence and educated experience you have at your disposal is essential to
effect an outcome that serves the greater community.
Southold Town should not allow anyone to destroy acres of coastal bluff. Bluffs are part of Long Island's natural history
going back to the glacial era. Coastal flooding is sure to be the outcome of excavating the bluff.
The DEIS at page 120 misleadingly implies that the coastal oak-beech forest is not rare; however it is characterized by
New York State as S-3, "rare" status.
Southold Town should reject this proposal out of hand. It would be destructive to the SYC property and the roads used
to fulfill this proposal. The losers will be the community at large and should not be sacrificed for the benefit of one.
Respectfully,
Mariella Ostroski
855 Brigantine Drive,
Southold, NY 11971
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
RECEIVE--,
r � � 19
From: Terry, Mark y "oudic) ci 1..own
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 8:13 AM -.........�Gaa��ui:�� m.11:,��:°�� ....a.__.. .,
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri,Allison
Subject: FW: DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- proposed boat storage buildings
From:Alexandra Getches<alexandra.getches@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 5:33 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- proposed boat storage buildings
Dear Brian & Mark,
I am a resident of Mattituck, mother of two and owner of a local habitat garden design business and am writing you
today to implore you to please stop the proposed development of strong's yacht center.Our natural resources are so
valuable and finite and we must take care to ensure the native plant habitat,old growth forests and waters of Long
Island are preserved and protected. If anything,we need to be working harder to restore them, rather than further harm
them.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best,
Alexandra
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
Terry, Mark
Sent From: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 8:13 AM n µ a
To: Michaelis, Jessica; Palmeri,Allison ;
Subject: FW: Strong's project !'
nnna EnYniYd uc)wn !
Rarnro ng Board
From: linda Imtogalaw.com <linda@lmtogalaw.com>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 9:43 AM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strong's project
From: linda Imtogalaw.com
Sent:Sunday, May 14, 2023 8:06 AM
To: mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us
Subject:Strong's project
We are writing to express our strenuous opposition to Strong's proposed plan to clear cut acres of wooded land, remove
well over 100,000 cubic yards of soil and totally destroy the natural topography and ecosystem of the area simply to
house yachts owned by people who likely do not live in our community.At this time,the yachts in question are clearly
being stored elsewhere. Why destroy a large area of pristine forest that is home to countless species, some of which are
endangered, make the area around Mattituck Inlet more susceptible to damage from climate change, and increase both
air and light pollution in our town by granting permission to a single business to proceed with a plan that is contrary to
the goals of preserving open space, natural habitats and the rural character of Southold?
We urge you to vote against the Strong's marina project.
Andrew E.Toga and Linda M.Toga
2425 Mill Creek Drive,Southold, NY
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
Fro
Terry, Mark
Sent. Monday, May 15, 2023 3:43 PM
To: Michaelis, Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: Strong Marina Project
MAY 1 6 Z023
Boar d
From:John Wittenberg<john.w.wittenberg@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 2:07 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strong Marina Project
I have been both a part time and full time resident of Southold Town since 1980. During that time I have seen many
changes both good and bad.
After reading about the project I can see no benefit to our community in going forward with it.
The Strong Marina project will upend the quality of life for those who live close by, and have a negative impact on the
flora and fauna both on the land where the construction will take place and on the adjacent Public Preserve.
As an avid bird watcher I am particularly concerned with the impact this project will have on the nesting birds,migratory
and overwintering birds found on both the Strong Marina property and the Mill Road Preserve.
Further in reading the revised DEIS I see that the basis for many of the conclusions reached concerning the impact on
birds is based on the last NYS Breeding Bird Atlas, a 20 year old document.
While understanding that not every species is endangered, at the current rate of habitat loss,predation and
global warming, many of the birds on the list may be or already are,species of special concern.
We need to stop this project. We need to preserve this land for the future of our children.
John Wittenberg
ohn.w.wittenber mail.com
wwwJohn,witt nber studio.com
917.225.3893
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 3:40 PM � "+
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison R-E-CEIVED'
Subject: FW: Strong's Marine Yacht Warehouse Project
023
fl t7ir:r, � :W-r-]',
:r ..,.
e�
_.,..... _...w�.nn Board
From: Harriet Kaufman <harrietkaufman@mac.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 14, 2023 5:58 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strong's Marine Yacht Warehouse Project
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe that the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately address the environmental
consequences of this project. In addition the negative impact of increased truck traffic will be a
disaster for the North Fork.
I support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Sincerely,
Harriet Kaufman
PO Box 950, Cutchogue, NY 11935
P.S. I would like my email to be part of the public record
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.
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 3:40 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: Please stop development of Strongs Marine Warehouse
" . a
EIV
-----Original Message----- i...a._ ._ _ _.....,
From: Bill<tornmkat@opton line.net> MP 16 2023
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2023 8:23 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us> S o�d rovvn
Subject: Please stop development of Strongs Marine WarehouseR "ng r�a �i
1 P p �"Ir�r7i�1._.....-. __..__,....
Dear Mr.Terry and Members of the Planning Board,
We are writing to you about our concerns regarding the plans for Strongs Marina to build a giant marine warehouse on
natural land.This development will destroy the homes and habitats of many local wildlife, marine life and birds who
need this area to survive.
We bought a home in Cutchogue about five years ago with plans to retire here.The nature and rural feel of the North
Fork communities is what drew us here. Both of us were born and raised our family in Nassau County.We were wanting
to escape the noise pollution and hectic lifestyle for something calm and beautiful. Since we have purchased our home
we are seeing more and more clearing of the beautiful landscape that brought us here.The overly sized storage will
destroy the natural beauty and bring the pollution we are trying to escape.
There must be another alternative that would be far less destructive of our special neighborhood and save the homes
and wildlife who reside here.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Christine &William Davison
300 Birch Lane, Cutchogue
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.
tt
R E m ,
May 15 2023
souu�'r ak'I "�°"awn"
To the Southold Town Planning Board, r B spur ruck ����
rd
_. ... ._.a _.....g ._..-- ...w
I live on West Mill Road,just down the road from Strongs proposed yacht warehouse project.
That makes me an investor in the project. In fact,the entire North Fork is being asked to
invest. We would be investing our quality of life,our public safety on local roads,our
climate resilience,our property values,and our future as this development threatens to tip
our delicate ecological balance.
Professionally I am a Managing Director at Deloitte,the world's largest accounting and
professional services firm. At Deloitte we are trained to look at risk versus reward.The risks of
this project are well documented-and the DEIS does little to mitigate them. In addition to
the concerns about the environment,the impact on Mill Road Preserve,truck traffic during
the construction period,fire safety,the degradation to community character, I'd like to add
the very real risk of starting and not finishing the project. Given the threat of recession, rising
interest rates,supply chain issues,the instability of banks,volatility of demand for the
service,there's the risk that the project starts but never gets completed. Virtually all of our
clients-the leading companies across the world-are planning for these threats. None are
addressed in the DEIS.
In this scenario,we get all of the downsides of the project and none of the upside.We are left
with a hole in the ground.
Let's look at that upside as outlined in the DEIS. Potential customers-wealthy people from
outside of the North Fork--get a heated place to warehouse their yachts.The Strong family
see a business opportunity here. Personally, I'm dubious about the viability of the business,
but they see something.
So,what's in it for the community, us investors?
According to the DEIS we can expect a few benefits:
• Up to 11 jobs-the DEIS does not specify the nature of these jobs, but it's fair to
assume that they are seasonal and primarily low-wage. Nor does the DEIS guarantee
that these jobs would go to North Fork residents.
• Sales tax-there is no direct benefit to Southold from state sales tax
• Property taxes--the project would be eligible for a 485-b Business Investment
Exemption for ten years. As a result,the estimated increase in property taxes for the
first 3 years would be$32,234,Year4 would be$37,677. These numbers are roughly
what 3 homeowners pay in property taxes.
The balance sheet for this project is clear;the risks far outweigh the rewards.
I support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Jeffrey Pundyk
Mattituck
C
Planning Board
o
May 3,2023
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Attn: Mark Terry, Brian Cummings
Dear sirs:
The purpose of this letter is to express our opposition to the Strong Yacht Center(SYC) proposal to build
two large storage buildings for supersized yachts at 5780 West Mill Road,on Mattituck Inlet. We
understand the proposal includes:
• removing 4.59 acres of a coastal bluff that is up to 60' high, with construction impacting about 6
acres total
• removing 634 mature trees, mostly oak, of 50-80 feet average height and diameters of 6"to 39"
• excavating 134,900 cubic yards (364 million pounds or 182,143 tons) of dirt and sand,destroying
the bluff,to bring the grade down to about 9 feet
• building an 875 foot long concrete retaining wall estimated 40-50 feet high to hold back the rest
of the bluff,
• hauling the sand and dirt to Calverton with 22-wheeler trucks, each weighing 107,000 pounds
full,totaling 9,000 truck trips on narrow local roads in six months;the trucks would go west on
Sound Ave to Northville Turnpike and Route 105 south, then proceed west onto Route 58
through the traffic circle to Tanger Mall,
• an undetermined number of truck trips to haul away an estimated 9 million pounds of wood or
logs from cutting down the oak and other trees, and to carry materials to build the retaining
wall,
• constructing two steel buildings for supersized yacht storage-one 52,500 sq. ft. and 49,000 sq.
ft. and each 48' high,
• installing 8,000 gallons of propane storage tanks,
• installing heating systems,septic systems, roads, etc., and
• expanding the parking lot to 57 cars.
1
�r
Ra �
p
H�
a ,
. x K
r-
�i��T'
r
y�x
,r
i� ruuu
t � qq
V. I�IIww
J
of
V'
��/.;iru � / � � � 1/��f P�✓/„ � � /�%�i/%�///�//���J��rll/i i.,�I'%rl ri. ,ri i....,
^�",R,,/.� a ,✓ice.., f,; ,,�,�f��lf � // ,� - �/ ,�/�ir /e >, „' a/f//�'�lfr/���,Ili�/f %/�.
✓v xw° �IWUW"�/%/%/<i '� hl �r,N+.. �/fQi/�%u(�'�Ir i�/ r/r���t/�/�l �� � /I ul �� ��4
Photo of 22 wheel, six-axle truck. Total loaded weight proposed is 107,000 pounds per truck
Among our many concerns are the following:
1. Southold Town should not allow anyone to obliterate acres of coastal bluff. Bluffs are part of
Long Island's natural history going back to the glacial era.
2. The existing SYC storage structures are in the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)
zone A, Special Flood Hazard Area, and excavating acres of bluff down to the same grade would
expose even greater areas to the risk of coastal flooding.
3. The DEIS at page 120 misleadingly implies that the coastal oak-beech forest is not rare; however
it is characterized by New York State as S-3, "rare" status,
4. The oak species on the property have a life expectancy of 400-600 years,and the beech trees
400 years.
5. Oak trees in particular are considered a "keystone" species,which harbor hundreds of species of
capterpillars on which 97%of the bird population other than seabirds depend to feed their
young, as well as sustaining the entire forest ecosystem, The oak forest also provides other
benefits such as maintaining groundwater and surface water quality;soil and sediment
stabilization; removal of air pollutants such as nitrogen and sulfur oxides, ozone,volatile organic
compounds(VOCs), and particulates;atmospheric carbon uptake; and groundwater recharge.
2
6. The 4.59 acres of trees proposed to be eliminated are in the center of the rare coastal oak-
beech forest, not at the edge,therefore leading to "forest edge effect" and fragmentation
effects that will degrade all the remaining 9 acres or so of coastal oak-beech forest,since 100%
of the remaining forest will be within 195' of the forest edge, according to the DEIS.
7. We agree that the remaining forest will be degraded due to forest edge effect, but we disagree
with the DEIS' use of the 195' number. While that might apply to certain non-biological impacts
like wind,sun, and humidity,studies have shown that impacts on living plants and animals go
much farther than 195' and even up to several thousands of feet.Therefore the impacts on the
neighboring 27 acre Southold Town preserve appear to be understated.
8. The DEIS at page 131 states:"Consultations were undertaken with the New York Natural
Heritage Program (NYNHP)and in correspondence dated December 1,2020,the NYNHP
indicated the piping plover(Charadrius melodus), a New York State threatened species,is the
only record of a known occurrence of a rare or state-listed animal or plant or significant
natural community on or in the vicinity of the site.We think this statement is incorrect or
misleading. Based on the SYC consultant's own observations as well as data from eBird,there
are 16 state-listed bird species observed or expected on or near the SYC property, and an
additional 4 species with other high priority status.
9. Using the New York Department of Environmental Conservation(DEC) designations, E_
Endangered,T=Threatened, SC=Species of Special Concern, and HPSGCN= High Priority
Species of Greatest Conservation Need,the species found on or near the SYC property include
the Piping Plover(E), Peregrine Falcon (E), Roseate Tern (E), Golden Eagle (E), Bald Eagle (T),
Northern Harrier(T), Least Tern (T), Common Tern (T), Cooper's Hawk(SC), Sharp-Shinned Hawk
(SC), Horned Lark(SC), Common Loon (SC), Common Nighthawk, (SC),Osprey(SC),American
Black Duck (HPSGCN),and Semipalmated Sandpiper(HPSGCN).
10. Four other bird species have high priority status as defined by other organizations:American
Woodcock, Willow Flycatcher,Wood Thrush. One,the Eastern Wild Turkey was extinct within
New York state for 100 years before being brought back fairly recently through conservation
efforts.
11. Mattituck Inlet is an important stop on the Atlantic Flyway, which runs along the east coast from
Canada through South America and serves as wintering grounds for many species of birds,
breeding grounds for others, resting stops for migrating species and permanent homes for
resident species.
12. The DEIS at page 123 lists 122 vascular plants located at the SYC site.The DEIS does not address
whether any of the plants are listed by the DEC as State-protected,that is Endangered,
Threatened, Rare, or Exploitably Vulnerable.
13. There are over 950 species of mushrooms on Long Island, and there are currently bills in the
New York State Senate and Assembly to name a state mushroom.The DEIS does not address any
of the species of mushrooms that may be found in this oak-beech forest.
14. Oak and beech trees are known hosts for close to 1,000 species of butterflies and moths.The
DEIS does not address the butterflies and moths that may be on the DEC's lists of species that
are Endangered,Threatened,.Special Concern, and High Priority Species of Greatest
Conservation Concern.
15. The destruction of these acres of oak-beech forest is estimated to result in the loss of habitat for
an estimated 24 million to 2.4 billion insects. The DEIS does not address the species of insects
3
16. According to the DEIS four species of bat are expected at the site,of which one is Endangered
(Northern Long-Eared Bat or NLEB) and one is a High Priority Species of Greatest Conservation
Concern (Little Brown Myotis/Little Brown Bat). When the DEIS was written,the NLEB was
Threatened, but its status was upgraded to Endangered both at the Federal and New York State
level as of March 31, 2023.Therefore the DEIS needs to be updated. Stricter U.S. Fish&Wildlife
protocols have been enacted now that its status is Endangered,and stricter DEC rules will likely
follow.
17. The DEIS at page 129 incorrectly states that the NLEB migrates to and from Long Island in the spring
and fall and does not overwinter on Long Island.That is not correct; in fact there is ample evidence
that the NLEB does stay year-round and over-winters on Long Island.
18. The DEIS at page 131 incorrectly states that loss of summer habitat is not a threat to the NLEB; but
rather the white-nose syndrome (fungal disease)is the biggest threat to the bats. In upstate New
York, 99/10 of the NLEB has been wiped out by the WINS fungus, but the populations on Long Island
and other coastal locations like Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket have remained constant even
after the introduction of the WNS disease in 2011, probably due to milder winter temperatures.
Long Island is actually a safe haven within New York state for these bats.
19. Studies on eastern Long Island have shown that bats prefer oak forests.The destruction of the oak-
beech forest will remove an important food source (winter moths)for NLEB and other bats that
awake periodically in mid-winter to defecate, and seek water or food.
20. The DEIS at page 130 lists one species of salamander that may be present on the SYC property,
based on 30 year old data.There could potentially be up to six species present on eastern Long
Island,of which three are Endangered,Special Concern, or High Priority Species of Greatest
Conservation Need.Since many salamanders are nocturnal and/or spend most of their time
underground, it is hard to say whether the species exist at the SYC site and more study may be
needed.
21. The DEIS at page 132 discusses the Eastern Box Turtle, a Species of Special Concern in New York.At
page 141, it says 6.05 acres of its habitat would be destroyed outright.The mitigation proposal of
conducting"sweeps or surveys for box turtles prior to commencement of clearing,grading,and
excavation activities" is grossly inadequate. Out of concern for the Northern Long Eared Bat's
summer habitat, it is proposed (under no longer applicable Rule 4(d))that the tree removal
activities only occur in the winter months. But the cold-blooded Eastern Box Turtles are hidden and
hibernating underground in the winter months,at least six inches deep or below the frost line, and
may be up to two or three feet deep, if they use an abandoned mammal burrow for example. It
would be impossible to find turtles above ground in the winter and so a "sweep"would be useless.
22. Even in spring,summer,or fall,the turtles are often hidden underground or under leaf litter, and
would not be seen. In the summer they like to keep cool and stay inches underground, and would
often be seen only at dawn or dusk, outside of working hours, so it is unlikely that any SYC
construction workers would be available to see them.
23. The DEIS proposal is to relocate any"found" Eastern Box Turtles to"on-site areas that would not be
disturbed.Silt fencing or other barriers would be installed around work areas to prevent turtles
from returning to construction areas."This mitigation strategy is also sadly inadequate.Turtles
have a limited home range and spend their entire lives—which can span over 100 years-within a
small area. If moved,they will spend the rest of their life trying to get home.That means crossing
through unfamiliar territory and often dying in the process.They cannot adapt to new territories.
4
24. Not mentioned in the DEIS are the five species of sea turtle that live in Long Island Sound:
Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, Green, Leatherback, and Hawksbill.All five species are listed as either
endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Leatherback and Kemp's
Ridley turtles are listed as endangered, while Green, Loggerhead,and Hawksbill turtles are listed as
threatened. For NY DEC purposes,the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle,the Leatherback Sea Turtle,and the
Atlantic Hawksbill Sea Turtle are all listed as Endangered,the highest level of conservation concern.
The Green Sea Turtle and the Loggerhead Sea Turtle are listed as Threatened.
25. Kemp's Ridley, an Endangered Species, has often been found in the Mattituck area both east and
west of Mattituck Inlet.Since turtles like warm water, it is very possible that they might swim
deeper up Mattituck Inlet near the SYC property.
26. Long Island Sound just offshore from Mattituck Inlet is a hotspot for sea turtle activity.See the
below map from the New York Marine Rescue Center, Riverhead, NY which shows the unusually
high concentration of sea turtle sightings in L.I. Sound near Mattituck Inlet.
im/ �,ii, it rrrol
r/// r;./ ri,,,%i / �/if J>// /�/����/�f / i�ri�f/ ,%i//�Jrl��,, -, r :./ ,r.', is✓i r GY / ,
a„
f
W M,'
, � o
f
5
27. The increased artificial lighting of an expanded SYC can also imperil the endangered sea turtles.
Lighting near the shore can cause hatchlings to become disoriented and wander inland,where they
often die of dehydration or predation,or get run over or drown in swimming pools. Lights onshore
also discourage females from nesting.
Because of the numerous omissions in discussions of the plant and animal species that would be impacted,
we do not think that the DEIS meets the standard set out in the Amended Scope document that states at
page 9: "Provide a complete description of the ecological communities represented in the forest and their
ecological relationships to those of the adjoining Town-owned preserve."
We do not think the DEIS adequately addresses the impact of removing this block of native forested bluff
would have on the aquifer and groundwater of the surrounding human and animal community.The
Amended Final Scope at page 8 requests analysis of the groundwater on site,the contributions to the
aquifer, impact on drinking wells, etc. Unfortunately,contaminants in many groundwater and surface water
sources exceed national health and safety standards. Nonpoint source pollution is the leading cause of
these water-quality problems. Fertilizers, herbicides,and pesticides from agricultural uses and lawns,oils,
salts and antifreeze from parking lots and roads, and sediment from croplands,construction sites and
eroding streambanks can enter bays, inlets, marshes,and other waterways unabated when permanent
vegetation is absent from upland areas.The problems are spilling over into our coastal marine estuary
ecosystems.Tree roots are an important mechanism for absorbing nutrient pollution before it reaches our
waters and are the most effective land cover for maintenance of water quality. Water from a forest is
much cleaner than water from urban or agricultural land.Any forests, but particularly those along
waterways, act as filters to filter out pollutants before they enter aquifers below ground or into the
waterways themselves.
Moreover,there is no public need for the proposed action. In contrast to,for example,the need for
affordable housing to retain younger and older year-round residents and essential workers on the North
Fork, or the public demand for regulation of short-term vacation-type rentals,there is no public outcry or
demand within the community for superyacht storage.
There is very little public benefit to the proposed action.A meager amount of sales tax is proposed to be
collected from yacht storage and services(just$1,726 per superyacht per year),and little from increased
property taxes(approx.$30,000 increase in the first three years,from $59,000)or payroll taxes. On the
other hand,there would be a huge public detriment in terms of the damage to the natural environment
and community character.
From a societal perspective,Southold Town will not benefit from this yacht storage. Rather,the owners of
superyachts from Westchester,Connecticut,or elsewhere out-of-of state would benefit,since they would
not have to bring their yachts down to Florida or the Caribbean for the winter. New yachts over 100-feet
long have an average price of$1 million per 3.3 feet in length. In other words, a 100-foot yacht will,on
average,cost more than $30 million,so the market is limited to the very wealthy.Yachts in the 40-to-70-
foot class cost up to$10 million, and at 90 feet is in the$15 million range.
Southold Town residents will not benefit from this project, but rather the opposite.A recent survey of over
1,000 respondents from a coalition of five of the North Fork civic associations indicates that over 90%%of the
respondents chose their top priorities for Town government as being preservation of natural habitats, rural
6
the quality of life they offer.They are most concerned about the impact of overdevelopment on the quality
of life and well-loved character of Southold Town."
A petition against this proposal,sponsored by the Save Matt ituck Inlet.com group, has gathered more than
3,100 signatures.
Alternatives Including Land Preservation
The DEIS describes eight alternatives, but we will discuss four that we think are environmentally feasible,
two of which involve preservation of the—15 acres of rare coastal oak-beech forest.Although not directly in
the Planning Department's purview,we urge the Town of Southold to seriously consider preserving the 15
acres of forest and adding it onto the adjacent Mill Road Preserve.
We do not think Southold Town should approve any plan which involves major environmental impacts,
including the following:
a. Eliminating a coastal oak-beech forest classified by New York State as"rare",
b, Increasing the amount of land area or the number of structures in High-Risk Coastal Erosion Zones,
c. Destroying acres of prime natural habitat of endangered or threatened species,or species of
environmental concern, and/or
d. Causing great disturbance to the neighbors, and loss of community character.
Alternative 1.,No Action Letter.The Town could simply reject the proposal in its entirety, due to the
profoundly negative environmental and community impacts. While an outright rejection is rare, this
proposal is extraordinary. It should be rejected on the grounds that it requires complete elimination of 4.59
acres of a 50'-60' high bluff. No one should be allowed to remove a natural land feature of that size from
their property.
Alternative 1A•No Action Letter Combined with Preservation of the Coastal teak-Beech Forest.The Town
could reject the proposal in its entirety, due to the profoundly negative environmental and community
impacts,and also offer to buy the approximately 15 acres of coastal oak-beech forest.The property would
need to be subdivided, and funds would need to be allocated. The preserved land could then be added
onto Mill Road Preserve,the adjacent Town Preserve, ensuring that this forest habitat would be available
for future generations of flora and fauna as well as future human generations.The financial payment to the
applicant would help offset the rejection of the proposal and could assist the applicant to buy another
property in a less ecologically sensitive location.
Alternative 6:Reconfi oration or Reconstruction of Existin Bduildin s For Lar er Yachtht Stow a and New
Buildings for Smaller Boats.This alternative was afforded just one scant paragraph on page 336 of the
DEIS. It would involve raising the roof height of the existing storage buildings and increasing the height of
the doors. The existing buildings'footprint would not change; they would simply become taller.The Town
could consider approving a plan to raise the roof height and door height on just one of SYC's existing
storage buildings at a time. If the first building is at least 60%occupied, which we understand is a bank
requirement before they finance a second building, the Town could approve the reconfiguration of the
second building.
7
Showing leadership in the environmental area,the Town could affirmatively require that the new roof be
equipped with solar panels,eliminating the need for large propane storage tanks that could potentially
catch fire.Solar panels will also reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels and reduce the amount of future
truck deliveries of propane fuel into the site.The site is ideally situated for solar panels on the roofs, since
they have unobstructed sunshine on all sides.
The smaller boats would then need to be housed in newly constructed buildings on the residentially zoned
part of the parcel.This section is already degraded from agriculture and is overrun with invasives such as
Oriental bittersweet and Japanese multiflora rose and less valuable early successional trees and shrubland.
While many trees would need to be cut down,the environmental impact would be less than the original
proposal. For the roof of any newly constructed buildings,the Town should also require the use of solar
panels, to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. The Town should require that a large basement be dug for the
new buildings,so that their above-ground height is much reduced. Being partially underground will also
provide natural insulation, providing natural cooling in the summer, and reduce the need for artificial
heating in the winter.
To improve the viewshed of any new structures, particularly if visible from the Town Preserve or neighbor's
properties,the soil could be hilled against the side walls of the structures, like the old "potato barns" on
farms, providing natural insulation and reducing the need for artificial heating and cooling. These soil
slopes could be vegetated with native plants.The soil walls together with native plants would help hide
much of the walls from view.A building material other than steel could be used, if more environmentally
appropriate.
Yternative iA.Reconfl uratior►or Recorwstruction of ' istin Buildu`n For l ar er yacht Stora a and New
Buildings for Smaller Boats Combined'with Preservation of the Coastal Oak-Beech Forest.Similar to
Alternative 6 but combined with the Town offering to buy the approximately 15 acres of coastal oak-beech
forest.The property would need to be subdivided, and funds would need to be allocated.The preserved
land could then be added onto the contiguous Town Preserve, Mill Road Preserve,thus ensuring that this
forest habitat would be available for future generations of flora and fauna as well as future human
generations.The financial payment to the applicant would assist the applicant to construct the smaller boat
buildings in a less ecologically sensitive area.
More background and details on these points, including citations, can be found in our separate, longer,
written submission.
We appreciate the opportunity to make our voices heard.
Very truly yours.
North Fork Audubon Society
Board of Directors
8
Peggy Lauber,Board Member&President
Theresa Dilworth,Board Member&Treasurer
Cassle Kanz,Board Member&Secretary
ASImmen, nd M ber
f
Ellen Birenbaum,Board Member
Mlml Fahs,Board Member
Paula'Ma ,Board Me
4��
AL�Z�4
Helen Hooke,Board Member
twtC t. on�oit l7
Colleen Mel ,Board Member
9
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 8:14 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica; Palmeri,Allison
Subject: FW: Comment on DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Storage Building
4"
Attachments: Email from Jeff Strong 110814.pdf ._�...._....� ,:�.'� �•.. . ....�5'��-���...
R. 'EIVE
MAY 16 2023
From: Eric McClure<emcclure@rolley.com> FIlacan ng Board
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 5:36 PM ..__..a..,._ .. _._.
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Comment on DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Storage Building
Dear Mr.Terry and Mr. Cummings, and Southold Town Planning Board,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Strong's Yacht Center's proposed storage building expansion project.
The project is fundamentally incompatible with the site for which it's being proposed, as is clearly underscored by the
need to cut down more than 600 mature hardwood trees and to excavate and truck out more than 130,000 cubic yards
of sand and soil, resulting in the permanent loss of more than six acres of rich ecological habitat.At a time when our
community is facing the cascading effects of climate change, the last thing we should be doing is removing forest for the
storage of multi-million dollar yachts for millionaires.
In addition,the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)fails to adequately address numerous issues, especially in
the subject areas of transportation, ecological resources,and noise.
Transportation
I have a fair amount of experience in transportation issues, having served since 2017 as Executive Director of
StreetsPAC, a New York State-and New York City-registered political action committee and advocacy organization
focused on the safety of road users, especially pedestrians and cyclists.The planned 8,200 trips by 30-yard trailer trucks
is an enormous number,especially considering that a 30-yard truck laden with sand weighs several dozen tons. Cox Neck
Road and West Mill Road have areas of significant grade and pronounced turns, and the impact from these truck trips
will be felt by residents and other road users.
While Strong's Yacht Center says that it will ensure that all trucks will have their Jake Brakes turned off, there is
absolutely no way to enforce that.Similarly,there is no way to enforce the promise that all trucks associated with the
project will travel no faster than 30 miles per hour on Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road (the posted speed limit is 35
MPH).The same is true for the promise to deploy flaggers at curves or intersections along the route.These proposed
mitigations are all unenforceable, and should the project fall behind schedule or lose a day here or there to weather
conditions,they're almost certain to be ignored. Anyone who's ever observed or experienced a large-scale construction
project of this nature knows that truck drivers do what they want to do when they want to do it.
Furthermore,we know that the Town of Riverhead,while it has no jurisdiction over this project, has expressed serious
concerns about trucks serving the project traveling on Sound
Avenue: htt s: suffolktimes.timest•eview.com 2023 04 rverhead-town-concerned-with-traffic-that-could-be-
enerated-b - acht-story e ro"et-at strop s marine-in-maktituck Their concerns are well founded.The 4,100-plus
trips made by fully laden 30-yard trucks will cause serious degradation to Sound Avenue, and probably even more so the
1
local roads along the route in Mattituck, especially since the excavation portion of the project is planned to take place
through the winter months,when freeze-thaw effects do the greatest damage to asphalt.
Ecological Resources
The removal of six acres of forest, including more than four acres of high-quality Coastal Oak and Beech forest and more
than an acre of southern successional hardwood forest,should alone make this project a non-starter.The forest is home
to several dozen species of birds, as well as other wildlife, including the Eastern Box Turtle,a declining species that is
considered of special concern by New York State.The clearing of trees will remove some 800,000 pounds of stored
carbon.And this is just the estimated impact within the project site. We have no idea what the impact of tree removal,
sustained excavation, and the construction of two large warehouses and an enormous retaining wall will have on the
adjacent Mill Road Preserve,the 27-acre town-owned natural area to the southwest of the proposed project.The DEIS
does not sufficiently address the potential impacts on Mill Road Preserve, and its flora and fauna, nor are the proposed
mitigations on the project site itself adequate, such as the haphazard relocation of Eastern Box Turtles,for just one
example.
Noise
Noise impacts from excavation and those associated with trucking out sand and soil have the potential to be significant,
with empty 30-yard trucks clanging their way down Cox Neck and West Mill roads while the drivers pump their brakes,
and fully loaded trucks straining back up those roads in low gear. Construction will also be noisy, and noise from
construction is exempt from the Town's noise ordinance.The only limits on construction noise are those associated with
the hours during which construction is permitted,which is largely self-enforced.While the DEIS claims that there will be
no noise impacts from ongoing operation of the proposed new storage buildings,there's plenty of reason to doubt that.
I have a great deal of experience with Strong's and noise, as I have the misfortune of living directly across Long Creek
from Strong's Water Club,which has been owned and operated by Strong's since 2013.Given my experience, I can say
with certainty that no proposed mitigation for noise generation by the Strong's Yacht Center project should be believed.
Though the Town's noise ordinance outlines prohibitions against noise pollution and disturbing the "quiet, comfort or
repose" of persons occupying an adjacent property,we and our neighbors have been subjected to a decade of intrusive,
amplified music, both live and recorded, despite hundreds of requests for relief and dozens of police reports of excessive
noise.And while Strong's is well aware of the effect its noise has on its neighbors,they've taken no action to mitigate it,
and have responded only by holding more and more events with amplified music. I have hundreds of recordings of their
noise exceeding the levels set by the Town's ordinance, but nothing has ever been done to remedy the situation, by
Strong's or the Town.
Strong's has externalized and imposed its commercial activity on our adjacent R-40-zoned neighborhood, and it's highly
likely that it will do the same at Strong's Yacht Center.When I notified Strong's in the fall of 2014 that I could no longer
in good conscience have them store or maintain my boat,which I had purchased from them in 2004,Jeff Strong wrote
back to say that they were within the parameters of the noise ordinance, had taken steps to mitigate the noise (which
was not true), and essentially, that the previous owners didn't care about making money,which really seems to be the
bottom line. I've attached that email exchange with Mr.Strong as an exhibit.
The Strong's Yacht Center property is zoned Marine 11, as is the Strong's Water Club property, which has become,
effectively, a concert venue with an accessory marina and restaurant. Without stronger prohibitions against noise,
there's no telling what the impacts could be at Strong's Yacht Center.
Summary
In short,there is no compelling need for the proposed project that begins to outweigh the negative impact that it would
have on the Town of Southold's environment.The significant construction impacts, especially the creation of several
thousand heavy truck trips,the irreversible ecological destruction, and other negative effects are not remotely offset by
2
the creation of fewer than a dozen permanent jobs.This town has been serious about preserving the its precious
ecosystems, and allowing this project to go forward would directly contravene those worthy efforts.Surely if one were
to poll residents of Southold Town about what they think is important, creating more storage space for fancy yachts
would not rate in the top 1,000 concerns, while preserving mature hardwood forest would likely be near the very top.
The Southold Town Planning Board should reject the expansion of Strong's Yacht Center.
Sincerely,
Eric McClure
435 Westview Drive#864
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.
3
i
ca
c w U
O > L 0
c a)
> t E cd (n
C c a) .0 3
7 L L O O O
o >,+- c >, j = O
a) .0 -0 -0 U •.
Ua) a) cna o � m
cd a O > >, cc
L
a) cd c � c c
3 (n a) > L .� O N O
w O > O O O CD 3: c �•>
-O -0 td a)
o a) L L = Cl) cz a) CIS N
CD rn () 7 L � Q)
c a) 3 c E co o
.L 0 O +' 3 C L as L Cv
a) rn >1 c
3 : O � c aa)i O r_ C Qv
°, CD � o a) O o� °
E 4) n o p
C
>O '
>E Z a) a) UL O a)
U co CD
ON - co
a) O O � as cd
C ' 0 cd p
0 i a) COOO
C Fn cd L C
cO a)
E cdc m0c cn � cac`d > >.—
rn b > o s a 3a>i CD c (D cd rn
o
o •- 3 c 4) a) cr
�M c>d � c `) � cv c � v
co •L C O O a) U C
(aj O a) S 3 o o c c o
a)
a) Tm o a)
a) a) 3 � o ..
a c >' C6 N > cO O .�' 00 N a
c Y � cccd = u" E L oho"
as CO a) 0 >, Q �+ cO cO � = O L
p cd E aa)) cc m c`d .E � m c
U i a) +� 3
C a) `— a) a) O O O
O L O C -0 L ULL } a) U cd
CL a) U = EO � E N
a) i +=
a) U 7 U N L $ O> co U c cd
CL i E o 0 cn +>+ CZ L >+ -O l a)
E C- +• L cn cd C 0 '� ±' a) a)
E a C .. " L O ()
_ O U ._
O CD O O �, 7 CC C LL C
O > 'a Cr-0a) O N E m -0 @) M N s O
U C O j a0i E cd L O � c N c cn +. U
a) L ' L a) E 7 U C cO 7 O a) cn O
c cd OYL O O cd U � +' L C
cd E 60 L O U (d - O C) T Nn CD E a) a)
Eu, Q o) > > a) _a vrn� N a) of
� aO O E .. LLB a) ivy— Of� 3 -O O
3 }
c () L v) �- L >' � —' O c c c
co -92
oc — - 0E3U ca o0L o � L 3 )
E -0m MoUU a) U .. .. m ., �, Fn 0 .
@jU � Uo c C � ow °) 0 c� LE .S ca ECIS � _� •- � U
� .V O N >' (CO Q C- >+ E c a) C O T L ca 7 > U E C-
� N p W 4) Cl) .0 C 3 cd � O O O C O
cii cA (� U a) a) > .
�2C c c) ` •3 0 " c c •c } UZ 3cA a) — .
C i N 0 O C Q U 0) C rL� O •0 Y (a a) U C a)
O .i. 7 C +�
-0 O (n O O L 7 E � �' a) ` cO a) C c c c m � CO O cd
N _aJ > U c 2 Y O A U 7 •C cO 0 O � r0 O W W = L) Y —�' N U
L E CA _ cd
y 'o O E >. o t � 'v) � a) E v c tecn a) O c °� -0 cd m '� -0 W
Z Z W C3 F- Q E v=i cO Q ccd v W IL ti U I� CO F- U
E i + V
O 0) w
U.
Cl)
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 3:25 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: DEIS Strong's Marine development project on Mattituck Inlet
R,ECEIVED
-----Original Message-- - a
From: Betsy Kennedy<mutti536@gmail.com> ( � �
Sent: Monday,May 15,2023 3:24 PM , n t6o'W I own.......
To: Cummings,Brian A.<bria .cummings@towri.southold.ny.us> Plan 7y Board
r
Subject: DEIS Strong's Marine development project on Mattituck Inlet
To: Southold Town Planning Board
From: Betsy Kennedy
Old Sound Ave., Mattituck
My take on the DEIS coming from a background in Sustainable Building (NYIT-NY Institute of Technology)
The Hollis Institute-sustainable building, design, and living and other...
Issues:
The report itself is very technical and not that comprehensible to regular people. The community wants to
have answers on the immediate and Future effects of this project on their lives and safety.
I will comment briefly on 3 (three)issues
Fire- storage of 8,000 gals of propane in 4 storage tanks and the addition of full fuel tanks in yachts.
Problem: The east end of Long Island relies solely on volunteer fire departments. There are not enough
departments to handle the intensity of a fire caused by these tanks and the fuel (gasoline) on this site. Any fire
would be devastating for the entire North Fork at best.
Traffic:Hugh tractor trailers weighing tons on their own and then increasing the tonnage when hauling the
soil out of the area.
The roads these tractor trailers will use were not designed by a civil engineer to accommodate the size or
weight of these vehicles with or without a load. The current roads were formed by horse drawn wagons and
carriages 100 years or more. There are no shoulders on the road making them eminently more dangerous for
people living on this road. Also,the additional traffic to the area since the increase of population due to the
epidemic is exponential.
Flooding: sea level rise is not the only factor for flooding. Population growth contributes by the extraction of
water from the ground.
The removal of water for drinking etc. leaves a hollow area which allows the ground to sink/fall into. Heavy
buildings also contribute to this lowering of the ground level.
1
Lower ground levels contribute to higher water levels and the slowing down of the Gulf Stream current has
contributed to higher sea levels and storm surges.
This project removes a 50' high"mound" of soil which currently and in the future protects the residents and
community in the are.
These are things that have not been addresses along with other important environmental issues for the
community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Betsy Kennedy
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.
2
NI ...�.
Date: t� 1 a3 MN( 1 6 2023
ki-"own
_...................Pf ann ng Boas. .... .
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature
Name 146i
Address / 5 �J I
City State zip
Phone &S I 8 Y8 3599
Email
-R-, 'E' ' C-, ,E---f-,,V-E-D-
Date: ..
Y 16 2023
PPanningBoa d
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director I
Southold Town Planning Department ...
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature
Name 4I
Address} .
City C State Zip
P h o n e �2(6', 20 �� .
Email r +.. ° .... . �.
...
R" ED "
Date: E
MAY 16 2023
Planninu�� ..d� c¢'� .
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director Board
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely, `"
Signature
Name '
Address
city State Zip
Phone w �,
Email e ' �"
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 10:11 AMREC
E
To: Michaelis,Jessica
i..
Subject: FW: Stop Mattituck inlet
loWn
Board
From: D'vora Gopman <dvoragopman@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 14, 2023 1:43 PM
To:Cummings, Brian A.<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>; Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Stop Mattituck inlet
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe that the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately address the ecological impact and the
quality of life impact to local residents. The DEIS does not offer sufficient mitigation as it relates to
my concerns for the ecological impact.
Further, I have additional concerns about the significant increase in truck traffic and the dangerous
impact it will have on our local roads.
I support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Sincerely,
D'vora Gopman
P.S. I would like my email to be part of the public record
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, May 15, 2023 10:11 AM
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
� � 11
From:Jennifer Anderson <jenniferbanderson@hotmail.com> � � , VE�
Sent:Sunday, May 14, 2023 10:41 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us> M P 16, H I
Subject: DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings -
a, �91O� d
�() a�u��w::I oc�V�e"u
Dear Southold Town Planning Board, m
I am writing in opposition to the Strong's proposed marine development project on the Mattituck Inlet. I live a
few miles from the proposed project site and I am very concerned about the short- and long-term effects of
this project to our community. This massive project does not fit with the character of Mattituck and will
devastate the natural ecosystem. The land will be forever striped away and we will lose the natural beauty
that makes Mattituck unique. There will be pollution, noise, traffic, wildlife loss, and fire hazards from all the
development. This project will not add any benefit to our community, but instead have a lifetime negative
environmental impact. The Strong's project will destroy one of our biggest main attraction of Mattituck. This
project does not belong in here. I implore you to not allow this development to happen in our
community. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Anderson
840 Rosewood 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.
i
From: Lanza, Heather
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 9:33 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: Stron s Yacht Center building project- letter of support
C O'
Incoming mail for Strongs.
MAY 16 ZR3
;I rnusii��o�j ovv n...,..
To the Southold Planning Board: � g
Our family as many families living on the North Fork have witnessed the Strong Marine business blossom over three
generations. The Strong brand has been synonymous with boating and water recreation on Long Island for over three
generations.
Their plans for the two boat storage buildings meet all of the Town of Southold permitting requirements. Furthermore
the two buildings will provide new jobs and increase the 125 existing Strong East End full time jobs approximately
10%. Certainly the 88 boats in storage will create other support jobs throughout our community on the East End.
It is noted by the SBA that small businesses account for 62%of all new jobs in the USA. It is probable that the North Fork
business community is comprised of close to 100%small businesses(defined as employing less than 500 workers).This
warehousing project, meeting all permitting requirements,should not be waylaid by a group having agendas perhaps
NIMBY like.
All attempts have been made to assuage the myriad of objections and hopefully this completed project will one day be
an example of how a community can mutually work together for future generations.
Chris Young
470 Willis Creek Drive
Mattituck NY 11952
1
REC'EII'VIE_...
May 15, 2023 � �... .
Soila����HQcG..a ri .._
Planning Board
To the Southold Town Planning Dept.
Concerning the Strong Yacht Center Project
As a North Fork resident, animal lover, and all-around nature lover, I am very much
against the destruction of Mattituck Inlet and the communities thereof-- against
stealing the homes and environment of many species of endangered and soon-to-be
endangered birds, mammals, reptiles, butterflies, and bees, and against the destruction
of our tree friends that supply us with fresh clean air, shade, and visual beauty.
Congestion will be created in one way-in, one-way out roads that the general public
needs to commute for their work, shopping, and other needs, and which will interfere
with school buses getting the kids to school on time.
The benefits of life and beauty and nature will be replaced with a flat-out big unsightly
hole - pure ugliness and total community chaos.
In my opinion Mr. Strong and any of his affiliates that agree with his actions are only
performing this dastardly deed in their own financial interest, and possible hidden
motives.
This action is nothing more than an act of financial greed, personal gain and lack of
regard for humanity and Mattituck wildlife, land and community. The Strongs should not
be allowed to destroy this site on Mattituck Inlet or any other place on the North or
South Forks.
Shelley Helsel
1600 Bay Avenue#7
East Marion, NY 11939
RECEIV
MAY 16 2023
I
Sour, icild 7"ow n
To the Editor, Plann ng lBoard
Having run a commercial fishing business out of Mattituck Inlet for decades,we'd like to speak up for
Strong's Marine as they present their new project at Mattituck Marina.
As stewards of the environment(and most fishermen are, believe it or not),we hate to see removal of so
much wooded hillside, but the flip side is that support of our local marine businesses is crucial to
maintaining the character and culture of our area.
Strong's has been a great neighbor to the local fishermen, providing marine parts and equipment,
services like hauling and bottom painting, and a safe haven in a storm (we moved our boat to Strong's
floating docks as Hurricane Sandy blew in).Strong's also provides many good jobs for locals.
If we want to enjoy local fish and shellfish, have continued access to our marine environment, and keep
the ecosystem as clean and healthy as possible, we need to support the businesses and workers that
know most about it and can coexist with it in a sustainable way.There is no substitute for the traditional
knowledge of our local waters.
We think there is room for compromise on both sides in approving Strong's project.They seem to have
gone above and beyond in making their plan available to the public and trying to ameliorate traffic and
damage to roads while the project is under construction. Isn't a marina a logical place to store boats?We
would rather support a longtime local business looking to expand to provide necessary services rather
than giant new houses or hotels.
Alex and Stephanie Villani
F/V Blue Moon
Mattituck
now
From: d713k@aol.com ������ °°�"
IVED
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 2:34 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: Today's public hearing on Strong's Marina MAY .1 6 2G'4?1,
sCf V nP ".710 V 0MfiM
To Whom It May Concern: Rlri, h.' ..._ 2a'rc ..ww..___.
s
My name is Mark D. King and I reside at 200 East Mill Road, Mattituck, NY. I live directly across Mattituck Creek from
Strong's Yacht Center. Strong's have always been good and respectful neighbors. I have been a commercial fisherman
for 50 years and Strong's still accommodates me with my yearly maintenance allowing me to work on my own vessel.
They (Strong's) employ many local people and have respect for our community. I personally have no issue with their
desire to construct storage buildings. In a three mile radius of my residence there are many large buildings, east on
Oregon Road, south on Cox Lane and west to the intersection on Route 48 and Depot Lane. Those sizable buildings
have been approved and I believe Strong's should also be approved.
Thank you for time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark D. King
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
E E EP
MAI' 16 1' 2
�46UAh(,,:d ..I"ovvl __ua
JOEL I. KLEIN, Ph.D,,, RPA ��la�°°"°'�'� Board
635 Lloyds Lane,Mattituck,New York 11952
May 15, 2023
Southold Town Planning Board
54375 Main Road
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED STRONG'S YACHT STORAGE BUILDINGS
5780 WEST MILL ROAD
MATTITUCK, NY 11952
TAX MAP NUMBER: 106.-6-10& 13.4
Members of the Southold Town Planning Board:
I have been a full-time Mattituck resident since retiring nine years ago from my prior community
in Westchester County where I served for ten years as a member of the local planning board.
Before I retired, I devoted more than 40 years to work as an environmental consultant involved
in the preparation and review of hundreds of Environmental Impact Statements for, and by,
private developers, and federal, state and local government entities. Although my specialized
area of expertise is cultural resources impact assessment, as a discipline lead for one of the
largest engineering firms in the world, I worked side-by side with scientists and engineers (in
some cases supervising them) expert in a variety of disciplines. I understand the importance of
collaboration among the disciplines when preparing fact-based documents upon which
decisions must be made. As the attached detailed comments make clear, there appears to
have been an almost complete lack of cross-discipline communication during the preparation of
the DEIS for the Strong's Yacht Storage Building Project.
Much of the information in the DEIS has been taken almost verbatim from the DEIS' technical
appendices with no attempt to reconcile contradictory information and conclusions between the
various appendices. In some instances, the language in technical appendices has been
softened to minimize the perception of impact severity. This is most readily apparent in regards
to traffic impacts, but it extends to areas such as noise and vibration impacts, impacts to
pedestrians and bicyclists, pavement damage, air quality impacts, impacts to the natural
environment, and impacts to historic properties. The result is a document rife with incomplete,
inaccurate, outdated, inconsistent and misleading information. More importantly, the result is a
document which cannot be used as the basis for any kind of decision making regarding the
actual environmental impacts that will result from construction of this project.
Sincerely,
F
Joel I. Klein, Ph.D., RPA
RECEIV
., .. _ ..
From: Reed Super <reed @superlawgroup.com> "outno1c_"I ow_.ri.
Sent•• Monday, May ...w..
y 8, 2023 4;53 PM .........W_Planning Board anywwmwm m
To: Lanza, Heather,Cummings, Brian A.;Terry, Mark; Michaelis,Jessica
Cc: Andie Altchiler
Subject: July 10, 2023 deadline for written comments on Strong's Marine DEIS
Hello Heather, Mark, Brian, and Jessica,
I hope you are all doing very well.
My office is in the process of being retained to submit written comments on the Strong's Marine DEIS. We have been
relying on the July 10, 2023 deadline publicly noticed in the April 12, 2023 Environmental Notice Bulletin, based on the
Planning Department's ENB SEQRA Notice Publication Form, and we will submit written comments by July 10, as I expect
will many others.
We understand that some community members have heard or been told that there is a different deadline, possibly
related to a June 5 work session.
To avoid further confusion in the community, it would be very helpful if you can--at the May 15 public hearing and
otherwise -- make clear to the public that written comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted until July 10, 2023.
Thanks so much,
Reed Super
Notice of Acceptance of Draft EIS and Public Hearing
Suffolk County - The Town of Southold Planning Board, as lead agency, has accepted a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Strongs Yacht Center. A public hearing on the Draft
EIS will be held on May 15, 2023 at 6:01 p.m. at the Town of Southold Town Hall Meeting
Room. Written comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted until July 10, 2023. The Draft EIS is available
from the Town of Southold Town Planning Board Office; Town of Southold Laserfiche System; the
Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold Libraries and on line
at: hft s://www,southoldtownn ov/270/Environmental-Im act-Statements.
The action involves a site plan is for the proposed construction of two (2) buildings for boat storage, one at
52,500 square foot and the other at 49,000 square foot, located on 32.6 acres in the M-II and R-80 Zoning
Districts where there are 69,245 square foot of existing boatyard buildings. The project is located at 5780
West Mill Road in Mattituck, Town of Southold, New York.
Contact: Mark Terry, Town of Southold 54375 NYS Route 25 Southold NY' 11971, Phone: (631) 765-
1938, E-mail: Mark.Ter town.southold.n .us.
httt)s://www.dec.nv.eov/etib/20230412 notl_html
1
Reed W.Super
SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC
222 Broadway, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10038
(212) 242-2273 (direct)
(212) 242-2355 (main)
(646) 345-9658(mobile)
(855) 242-7956(fax)
reed su erlaw rou .com
www.su erlaw rou .com
*** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *** This e-mail is from Super Law Group, LLC, a law firm, and may contain information
that is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or distribute the e-mail or any
attachments. Instead, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments. Thank you.
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
2
IRC. 1;z 3 11
?Yy
Lk
—(Ogw—L L
-Y6'LAI
0 Novi �M�L CY
WL CA-ly no OnAnn
L
fj T VAX. COY,0L-'MLW'-'-e-ec
oxe'v
Ff ET C E
Q0 A
anning Board
03 iv Ctz&j-e- Ac c�Cx' AWAWAj
�3
06 A� Acc L
->
TV-owl 0
JUN!" sky (R
RECEIVEI").
,�61ut ion ..T",o wi i,
Dear Southold Town Planning Board, L_'.
Vn sir c Board'
I am a doctoral graduate of the Ecology and Evolution Department at Stony Brook University with
extensive experience working in bat research and conservation. I have studied the impacts of the fungal
disease white-nose syndrome on North American bat populations. I have worked with fellow
conservationists and bat researchers on Long Island as well as state agencies in New York, Missouri, and
Arkansas.
I am writing in regard to the November 2022 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
development operations of Strong's Yacht Center.The DEIS inadequately addresses the project's impact
on the northern long-eared bat(Myotis septentrionalis).The statement is outdated in listing the species as
threatened.The northern long-eared bat is now classified as endangered under the federal Endangered
Species Act and by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC). This
reclassification ruling was made in November 2022 and has come into effect as of March 31,2023. With
this ruling,there is a further imperative to protect the species from harm.
The DEIS accurately identifies the disease white-nose syndrome as the primary driver of population
decline for the northern long-eared bat. However, habitat loss is a contributing factor for decline and can
prevent population recovery even in those bat colonies that are free of disease.The loss of roosts and
foraging habitat is expected to fragment colonies, increase travel distances, and result in a reduced
survival rate for pups and adult bats. Given the disastrous impact of white-nose syndrome,these bats are
vulnerable. Each additional perturbation will impede individual bats recovering from white-nose
syndrome and prevent populations from returning to stable abundances.As such, it is unacceptable for the
DEIS to state"loss of summer habitat is not recognized as a threat to the conservation of this species."
The environmental impact statement should provide particular information on how this project will affect
northern long-eared bats and how to ameliorate harm.As the DEIS describes,the Mattituck Inlet is
suitable habitat for the northern long-eared bat during the summer foraging season as well as the
migration and breeding period in autumn.The NYSDEC's resource maps confirm that northern long-
eared bats forage in the Town of Southold. Therefore, it is essential to consider the impact of this project
on the northern long-eared bat and its habitat.
I wish to note what "foraging"means regarding the northern long-eared bat and Long Island as a whole.
The bat is an insectivore that eats small, flying insects.These insects include mosquitoes and local crop
pests such as European corn borer and corn earworm. Bats are even documented to eat the newly invasive
spotted lanternfly,which will inevitably reach the North Fork in the next few summers. The destruction of
bat habitat will negatively impact the Long Island ecosystems and promote the further spread of
mosquitoes and agricultural pests.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I hope that you will take into account the serious impact
of this project on the endagered northern long-eared bat and its North Fork habitat.
Sincerely,
A6Aiu
Dr. Kristjan Mets
kristjan.mets@gmail.com
5jb4 c,
From: Jbsouthold <jblackley4@optonline.net> RECEIVED
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:48 PM
To: Terry, Mark MAY 12 202,E
Subject: Strongs ..
�.�rrd..n���hdr.i"f own
Nanning Board
Mr.Terry,
I'm pretty confident you're being inundated with pro and con emails specific to Strong's proposed construction project.
Can't be fun.
While I'm not a "generational" north forker, I've owned here (New Suffolk,Southold)for 20+years and summered for 35
years before I purchased our first home.
Not material except to note that I've had a few occasions to appear before the Southold town council/board. The one
aspect I've always appreciated is the ubiquitous application of the rules of the day. Rich, poor, modest, extravagant-the
process was and is always consistent.
Frankly that's all one can ask of a town government. And I'm thrilled to see the current debate.
I understand Mr. Strong is in some measure the "company store"and my observation is he's generally been a pretty good
neighbor.
That said -there is a point where the aspiration is out of scale regardless of past history& performance.
believe that's what you/town faces with this project at this point. It's just to large for the community.
Full disclosure: I owned (happily past tense) a fairly sizable boat and kept it at Strongs Mattituck for indoor storage.
I understand demand for indoor storage likely exceeds capacity.
That said, I'll also note that many of the boats stored with mine were south-shore/Montauk or Connecticut based
vessels. Point being that they are not part of the North Fork community- merely transient storage.Which is good for
Strong and family I guess, but doesn't do much for the rest of us.
When it's all said and done I'd ask that the Strongs project be scaled to fit the environment.
And as with all of these projects-it sets a precedent for the next large-scale endeavor. And they will surely show up.
Best regards,
Jim Blackley
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
R.'E"CEIV"
„N,w
X( 1 2 202.E
May '11, 2023
i..i�VrcCd 'I'cr non .w...
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
Plrer,rinir7y Board
As a full-time resident of Mattituck, registered voter, and property taxpayer who resides
across the river from the proposed site, I am writing again in strong opposition to the
Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. Quite frankly, I do not
understand why you have not already rejected this proposal as it will have so many adverse
consequences for our community, brings no risk-adjusted net economic benefit to the
community, and is opposed by a vast rnajority of the residents on the inlet. Rejecting it would
seem to be the role of a planning board. These concerns are not NIMBYism but rather your
citizens voicing significant concerns over preserving the ecology of the inlet.
With regard to the upcoming meeting of the Planning Board, I would note that I believe that
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)fails to adequately address the ecological
damages the proposed project will cause, the risk of significant fire and explosion in my
neighborhood, significant noise & light pollution across the river from my home, the impact
on the osprey nests and other habitats on my property, the impact of this business and the
mega-yachts they want to attract on our fragile water quality, and the impact of these massive
unwarranted storage facilities on the character of our community. The DEIS provides limited
explanation or mitigation to these risks. Plow can the Planning Board ignore these risks?
And let's be clear here, the only economic benefit will be to the owners of the marina, not the
hamlet, city or its residents, all of whom will absorb significant risks and costs. I would remind
the Planning Board of the massive national consolidation of marinas through mergers and
acquisitions and note that if you grant this project, you will have significantly increased the
value of the property and wealth of the owners at the detriment of the city and its citizens.
Seen , . .. . ,._. , , pe f , �Aa4C4 ., �.. 5 4
, ..
fl."..�. and i"1Up L"t�1C
for more
details on marina consolidation in the US. In the meantime, we will have absorbed fire,
ecological, traffic, noise & light, and many other risks,
Further, I have additional concerns about the significant increase in truck traffic and the
dangerous impact it will have on our local roads.
I support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Kind regards,
Russell H. Bates
Mattituck, NY
PostScript. I would like my email to be part of the public record.
StonyBrook University ""R,, . . .
Y
. _
Department of Ecology and Evolution
May 12, 2023
P anriing Board
To whom it may concern; .w_.. -.... .__. ...m.__ .. -_ _........_
I am a Full Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at Stony Brook
University, and Joint Professor in the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. My
expertise is marine and freshwater ecology, and coastal ecology in general. I have 2
bachelor's degrees in Biological Oceanography and Zoology (U Washington), a MS in
Zoology/Ecology (Oregon State University)and a PhD in Zoology/Ecology (U Alberta),
and was a postdoctoral researcher at Cornell University. I previously held positions of
Assistant and Associate Professor with tenure at the University of Wisconsin Madison in
Zoology and the Limnology and Oceanography Program. I was a Program Director at
the National Science Foundation, and am an elected Fellow of the American Association
for the Advancement of Sciences.
This letter concerns the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Strong's Yacht
Center - Proposed Boat Storage Buildings. The DEIS as presented falls short of
what is needed and required.
Issues that have not been addressed or adequately addressed include:
1. Expected flooding with greatly reduced elevation.
Reducing the elevation near the shore to 10' above mean sea level means that
on extreme tides and any storm surges, this area would flood.
The regular high tide in this area is more than 3' above mean sea level and
extreme high tide events (king tides) are typically 5' above mean sea level.
Storm surges at extreme high tides (full and new moons) will result in extreme
flooding. For example, the storm surge associated with winter storms is regularly
3-5', while those associated with hurricanes are even higher, often 10' or more.
Hurricanes and large storms are expected to increase in frequency and intensity
as climate changes, increasing the risk of flooding, and pollution associated with
flooding work areas.
2. Sea level rise is not addressed.
Sea level is rising, and rising at an increased rate. Sea level rise in this area is
greater than in the US as a whole. This will result in ever increasing frequencies
of flooding the area where the elevation will be dropped. This increase in sea
level and flooding would likely impact all of the hydrology as well.
3. Hydrology modelling.
The reduction of the elevation of much of the area and increased risks of flooding
and sea level rise are not taken into account in the hydrology modelling that was
conducted. The modeling that was conducted does not include the change in
elevation or consequences of floods.
STONY BROOK,NEW YORK 11794-5245 TEL: 631-632-8600 FAX:631-632-7626
4. Impacts on the coastal wetland and saltmarsh.
Impacts of coastal flooding and reduced elevation, especially massive excavation
of sand and sediment just inland from the saltmarsh on the property (and
adjacent land) have not been assessed or considered. This marshland provides
habitat for a variety of species of concern in New York, including a variety of
birds, fish and invertebrates, including ribbed mussels, blue mussels, northern
quahog (hard clams) and horseshoe crabs. Excavation that has been proposed
will result in huge changes in sediment flow to the shore and the marsh, greatly
impacting the animals and plants that live there.
5. Carbon Sequestration due to Hard Clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) Farming
This property was part of a program by the Cornell Cooperative Extension to
grow seed clams in FLUPSYs (Floating Upweller Systems) for restoration
purposes to improve water quality in Long Island Bays. The program by CCE
was for three years and started in 2018. It has ended. Small juvenile clams
produced in FLUPSYs are maximally 15-20 mm (0.6 - 0.78"), far below the size
used to estimate carbon sequestration in shell. Survivorship of out planted clams
is quite low. No mention is made of how many clams are presently being reared
in FLUPSYs, or will be reared in the future, the electricity costs (and carbon
costs) of running the FLUPSYs, or the destination of these juvenile clams or how
survivorship to adult size would accounted for.
The amount of carbon sequestration accounted for here falls very short of what is
lost by the cutting of trees proposed.
Sincerely,
Dr. Dianna K. Padilla, Professor
Department of Ecology and Evolution
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245
Dianna.Padilla@stonybrook.edu
S ubF
RE-CEITIVIED
Stony Book University 0(Jt''h0e d 16.wnPlanning Board
._
College ofArts and Sc 1'ences ......
Department of Ecology and Evolution
1 May 2023
To Whom it May concern,
I am an Associate Professor at Stony Brook University in New York. Prior to 2023, I was an
Assistant(2014-2020), then tenured Associate Professor of Environmental Science(2020-2023) at
Drexel University in Philadelphia, as well as a Senior Scientist at the Academy of Natural Sciences
in Philadelphia,with the Patrick Center of Environmental Science, an applied environmental research
center founded by Ruth Patrick. I received my PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, and
worked for the US EPA from 2011 to 2014. My research lab focuses on applied coastal ecology
research,includes trainees at the high school through post-doe level, and is supported by research
funding from the NSF,NOAA, and the EPA. I was a Fulbright-Garcia Robles Scholar in 2019, and
have received recognition for my work as a scientist and teacher through my employers, and from
professional organizations.
I am writing with the respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Strong's Yacht Center
-Proposed Boat Storage Buildings. The DEIS as presented falls short of what is needed and required.
I have four main concerns:
(1) The removal of6 4 trees presents are adverse and irreversible impact to the elivironment,
that is not mitigated through the replanting of 95 trees and an additional 50 trees to be planted in
Southold, or other plantings. Mature trees on Long Island provide an especially valuable resource in
terms of their ability to mitigate runoff and sequester carbon. This project proposes to clear 634 trees,
which are an average size of 12.8"DBH. Using a US Forest Service-sponsored calculator, an oak
tree of this size in the project location expected to contain 1361 lbs, of carbon(Itools 2023), and thus
it is expected that removing these trees will result in the loss of almost a million pounds of carbon, or
the emissions equivalent to over 300 cars driven for one year(EPA 2023). A second important
impact is the loss of the runoff mitigation value of these trees. While I commend the project team in
providing mitigation, funneling roof runoff into a French drain does not completely mitigate for the
reduction in tree interception of rainfall of over 600 trees (estimated at 1850 gallons intercepted/tree
/year)and runoff avoided(80 gallons/tree per year).Nutrient pollution is a huge issue on Long
Island,where the permeable soils and lack of wastewater infrastructure mean that runoff, even if
funneled into the shallow water table, enhances the rate of flow of nutrient laden shallow
groundwater into coastal areas. Enhancing flow rates so close to the coast means that there is less
opportunity for natural nitrogen treatment via denitrification.
(2)The project approach is not considering the effects of sea level rise. According the NOAA
sea level rise viewer,the footprint of the current buildings is only—4-5 feet above the current high
tide line. While the north shore of Long Island is less vulnerable to storm surge than the south shore,
I question the benefit of specifically removing such a large volume of sand,which makes this area of
new development so close to sea level, and which simultaneously has such a negative impact on
STONY BROOK,NEW YORK 11794-5245 TEL: 631-632-8600 FAX:631-632-7626
forest resources.Even if emissions are reduced drastically, sea level rise is going to continue to
increase. Given current rates of water level rise, (which are approaching 1 cm/year at the nearest tide
gauge, if you consider the rate of rise of the high tide and not just mean sea level),it is important to
shift new developments away from those right adjacent to the coast and at such low elevations.
Buffers of natural land should be maintained where possible.
(3) Cumulative deforestation impacts to the'['own of Southold are significant. To provide
context to current trends, I analyzed the extent of deciduous forest, evergreen forest, and mixed forest
in the Town of Southold using the National Land Cover Dataset in 1992 and 2016. I found that for
Southhold,the area of forest cover declined from 31.7%in 1992 to 24.0%in 2016, a drop of 24%. In
contrast, for Suffolk County as a whole there was a less forest overall but the rate of change was
much smaller-forest cover declined from 5.8% in 1992 to 5.1%in 2016.
(4) Reliance on shellfish a uaculture as a way to mitigate effects of carbon store ye loss throe h
forest logging, Although it may seem as though shellfish carbon removes CO2 from the atmosphere,
the processing of calcification is actually often a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere(Ca2+(aq)+
2HCO3 (aq)--+CaCO3(,)+CO2+H2O)(Frankignoulle et al. 1995). Whether the carbon dioxide
evolved from calcification is emitted to the atmosphere is a function of the pH and resulting calcium
carbonate state. In addition to potential carbon emissions associated with calcification, shellfish are
also animals and thus over their life time, emit carbon dioxide through organismal respiration. As
such, shellfish aquaculture-while it may in some locations contribute to carbon sequestration-is not
as a reliable mechanism as one might assume. For instance, a study of oyster culture in Daya Bay,in
southern China found 258 grams of carbon per square meter per year was sequestered via shell
formation,while 502 grams of carbon was emitted due to respiration and calcification(Han et al.
2017).
Sincerely, rr'' ,'
W G
Elizabeth Watson
Associate Professor
Department of Ecology&Evolution
Stony Brook University
References
Han, Tingting, Rongjun Shi, Zhanhui Qi, Honghui Huang, Qingyang Liang, and Huaxue Liu.
"Interactive effects of oyster and seaweed on seawater dissolved inorganic carbon systems:
Implications for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture."Aquaculture Environment Interactions
9 (2017): 469-478.
Itools. 2023. Tools for Assessing and Managing Forests and Community Trees.
https://www.itreetools.org/
Frankignoulle, M.,Pichon, M., & Gattuso, J. P. (1995). Aquatic calcification as a source of
carbon dioxide. In Carbon Sequestration in the Biosphere: Processes and Prospects(pp.
265-271). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
USEPA. 2023. Greenhouse gas equivalencies calculator. https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-
gas-equivalencies-calculator#results
550 Knollwood Lane
Mattituck, NY 11952
May 12, 2023
Mr. Brian Cummings
Planner
Southold Town Planning Board �`,11`
53095 Route 25 � �.�
1
Southold, NY 119711„'v°V'
Re:Strong's Marina Project Proposal/DEIS ( ann�ng Board
DearMr. Cummings: .�. ................_._.__.._....�._�...�........_._............._._.,
As a 30+year-round resident and property owner in Brower's Wood in Mattituck, I am writing to object
vehemently against the proposed project by Strong's Marina. After reading the most recent DEIS that
was submitted to the Planning Board in November of 2022,there are a significant number of issues that
are highly objectionable,which are highlighted below.These issues run counter to the Southold Town's
2020 Comprehensive Plan that clearly states:
"The 2020 Comprehensive Plan was prepared to "shape future updates to the Town Code and policy
decisions regarding the appropriate use of the Town's resources"and future planning shall be
compatible with existing community character while supporting and addressing the challenges of
continued land preservation, maintain a vibrant local economy, creating efficient transportation,
promoting a diverse housing stock,expanded recreational opportunities, and protecting natural
resources."
• Soils and Topography
The establishment of the two additional storage facilities requires the removal of 135,000 cubic yards of
sand (a cubic yard weighs approximately 2700 pounds)that will be sold to a Sand and Gravel Company
in Calverton, NY. At an approximate sales price of$25 per cubic yard,with this amount of sand sold to a
sand and gavel company,the income acquired by Strong's Marina would likely be over$3,375,000. This
represents approximately half of the cost of the construction$7,000,000 cited by Mr.Strong at the
community meeting held on Feb 27, 2023. The removal of this sand for monetary benefit to Strong's
Marina is unconscionable.
In addition,this plan would destroy the current bluff and bring the grade down by 40 feet to about 9
feet.With effects of climate change on sea rise,this would clearly endanger this proposed project,as
well as the residential areas and the Southold Town Mill Road Preserve that are adjacent to it.
. Ecological Resources
The "ecological resources"described in the DEIS involves not only the removal of sand cited above, but
also the complete destruction of the 4.59 acres of primordial forest located on the proposed site. It is
estimated that this would result in the removal of 634 trees that stand between 50 and 80 feet tall.
Moreover,the removal of these trees would eliminate ecosystems for 105 species of plants, 89 species
of birds,20 species of mammals, and 3 species of reptiles and amphibians, some of which are on federal
or State endangered, threatened,special concern and special conservation need lists.
•Transportation and Construction-Related Impacts
According to the DEIS, the transportation of the removed sand,trees,and shrubs would require a 4-to-
5-month caravan of 22-wheel trucks that when full would weigh 107,000 pounds.The schedule for these
trucks on a weekday basis would begin at 7:00 a.m.and end at 5:00 p.m., meaning one truck would be
used for the drive to Calverton every 7 minutes.The promised temporary haul road connected to West
Mill Road would not eliminate the problems that will affect those living on Cox Neck Road,a two-lane
country road and would be disastrous for the normal traffic on it by affecting the safety of
1
schoolchildren being picked up and dropped off there every day. In addition,what about the safety of
pedestrians, bicyclers, and automobiles?And which entity would be responsible for any person and/or
anything damaged as a result—Southold Town or Strong's Marina?
Moreover, it is clear that this ongoing truck traffic on Route 48 and/or Route 25 would also significantly
disrupt traffic flows between Riverhead and Mattituck,and for towns further east of here.Traffic flow in
our neighborhoods has already become a problem that many of our town's residents abhor and this
situation does not deserve to be exacerbated.
• Consistency with Community Plans and Studies and Open Space and Recreation
As noted above,the 2020 Southold Comprehensive Plan states that plans "be compatible with existing
community character while supporting and addressing the challenges of continued land preservation,
maintain a vibrant local economy, creating efficient transportation,promoting a diverse housing stock,
expanded recreational opportunities and protecting natural resources."
It is clear Strong's proposed project does not support continued land preservation nor does it expand
recreational opportunities of our residents, and eliminates a wide and important variety of natural
resources.
• Human Health
During the construction phase of the proposed project,the entire neighborhood will be affected by the
number of pollutants that would be disbursed and would surely have negative effects on neighbors with
existing respiratory or other environmentally sensitive ailments.
After this project's completion, neighborhood health concerns include enhanced fire safety measures
due to the use of propane tanks to heat the buildings that could explode, and water pollution due to
run-off or the discharge of marine petrochemicals into the inlet. Is the town prepared to expand the
nearby Departments with additional staffing and specialized fire-fighting equipment? How will the water
purity be closely and accurately monitored by the Town?
• Aesthetic Resources
The beauty of the Mattituck Inlet cannot be denied. It is a haven for kayakers,fishermen, sea birds, and
small boat owners.The expansion of Strong's Marina to attract 60-foot yachts to the area would
completely ruin this precious harbor through the increase in loud, polluting luxury liners. Unbelievably
enough,the existing Marina is currently advertising for additional boats as seen in the photos below:
.
it
..
, DOCKAGE '
AVAILABLE "
ROM SYACHTS
m&k
r
63T. .r7?q it
k,5H114 w, y�d%
Photo
March
at Strong's Marina Photo taken on March 20, Photo taken at Strong's Marina
On arch 6,2023. 2023 outside of Handy Pantry. On May 8,2023.
Since Strong's is still advertising that they have space available for boat storage for this year(2023), how
can they possibly justify the need for two additional gigantic storage facilities? It flies in the face of
reason!
2
•Community Character
The entire North Fork prides itself on its peaceful, rural,and pastoral character. Indeed,the passing of
the Town's Open Space Preservation Legislation in 2003 explicitly states that it should protect "Any
space or area characterized by natural scenic beauty or whose existing openness, natural condition or
present state of use, if retained, would maintain or enhance the conservation of natural or scenic
resources."
The approval of Strong's Marina project proposal would show that this legislation is being disregarded.
In addition,the presence of these monstrously sized 50-foot buildings probably will negatively affect the
home values in proximity to the proposed project,and certainly would have a deleterious effect on the
Mill Road Preserve which enhances our community through the beauty of the trails that residents and
visitors alike enjoy.
Social and Economic Impacts
It is clear there will be negative social impacts on our community for the reasons stated above.
Economically,there seems to be no positive outcomes aside from the possible increase in taxes that
Strong's would be required to pay. The DEIS states:
"Based on the Southold Assessor the proposed action would increase property taxes by approximately
$59,450 based on the 2020-21 tax rate.Sales tax revenue is also projected to increase by
approximately$151,800 annually from the storage and boat repair, maintenance and/or upgrade
services performed by Strong's staff.Additional sales tax of approximately$322,575 is projected to be
generated by increased yacht sales by Strong Yacht Club."
Thus,Strong's taxes will increase by$533,825 (based on 2020-21 rates). Is it a responsible position for
Southold Town's Planning Board to approve this project due solely to an increase in tax revenue,despite
its being contrary to the crucial needs and historic culture of our Mattituck community?
• Archaeological and Cultural Resources
The review of the construction area of the proposed extension of the marina yielded the following
information:
"As indicated in the reconnaissance-level historic resources report"the three inventoried properties
hold SHPO Unique Site Numbers(USNs) and their eligibility for the State/National Registers of Historic
Places (S/NRHP) is presently listed as Undetermined.The properties are:
1. Robinson-D'Aires House (USN 10310.000347)at 4255 West Mill Road,
2. Old Mill Restaurant(USN 10310.000348)at 5775 West Mill Road,and
3.Old Water Tower(USN 10310.000349)on Suffolk County Tax Parcel 1000-106-6-4.1 (West
Mill Road)"
It makes clear here that Strong's has no regard for three local properties eligible for State/Nation
Registers of Historic Places. Once again, it is apparent that this expansion will have a deleterious effect
on the important sites that add historical value to our area.
Finally, it is clear to me and to most of us in this community that there is a multiplicity of reasons to
disapprove Strong's Marina's project proposal. To do otherwise would be an insult to the people in the
surrounding community and to the North Fork region in general. I unhesitatingly and strongly urge the
Southold Town Planning Board to reject Strong's Marina's proposal without reservation. Thank you.
Sincerely,
' �-
Terese Brady-Mendez
3
Subs
From: eileen t mcguire <etmcguire@yahoo.com>
Thursday, y ..
To: John McLane, Terry, Mark; Cummings, Brian A. REC-EI,V E,D
Subject: Re: Comments Re: Strong's Marina Project Y
Soul-NTiold
This is great. Planning Board
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Thursday, May 11, 2023, 5:14 PM, John McLane <john_t mclane@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Terry and Mr. Cummings,
am writing to object to the proposed yacht storage project in Mattituck after reading the
Environmental Impact Statement regarding this project. While I am not in a position to
critique the technical aspects of the report/statement, I do want to comment on some of
the subjective aspects of it.
Community Benefit
The proposed project of storing large yachts is a service that addresses the needs of
residents outside of Southold. In public forums Mr. Strong has stated the yachts would
likely be owned by residents of towns and communities further west of Southold Town
and the North Fork in general. So as I look at the proposal, while it admittedly benefits
the property owner, the business operation does not address a business or economic or
housing need within the Southold community it impacts.
When I consider this idea against the environmental impact on Southold and the
broader North Fork communities, I believe the project's environmental disruption far
outweighs the limited benefits to the Southold community. I recognize Mr. Strong has
economic development rights with regard to this property, but I would ask that he
pursue a project that more closely aligns with the economic needs of this community.
I would also ask that you consider the results of the North Fork Civics survey conducted
last summer which highlights what resident find attractive about Southold Town and
what they are concerned about. The proposed project runs against the preferences of
the Southold community from a number of perspectives highlighted by this survey. A
link to the survey is attached below, and a pdf file of the survey results is attached to
this note.
Deforestation/Climate Impact
I would like to also point out the extent of deforestation this project would have. It is
well-recognized trees and forests are "the lungs of our planet." While I recognize each
development project is considered on it's own merits, I am asking the Planning
Department and Planning Board take into consideration the extent of deforestation
across the entire Town of Southold in this and future planning applications. I am further
suggesting that in permitting projects such as this one or others in the future, the
Department or Board consider requiring an offsetting re-forestation project. I believe
1
this could be undertaken in collaboration with Group For The East End and/or Peconic
Land Trust.
Sea Level Rise
As I understand it, excavation to support the proposed project would bring the proposed
elevation of the property to 10' above sea level. This may sound like a lot but I believe it
would be insufficient in the relative near-term. We own property at 1675 Wells Road,
Peconic and with Trustee permission had a dock built on Richmond Creek in 2017
accordance with then-existing governmental code. The requirement was that the dock
be 3 ft above mean high tide. In the subsequent 6 years, we have found our dock to be
underwater 2-3 times a year in the course of storms driven from the east or
northeast. The rate of rise in sea level is expected to increase over the next several
years, and I believe the project lacks long term environmental resiliency that would be
prudent to consider.
am confirming I am a resident at 2590 Wells Road, Peconic, NY 11958
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.
John McLane
917 767 9213
z
The North Fork Civics of Southold
A coalition of Civic Associations from Southold Town
EMAIL: info@nfciy cs.org
THE NORTH FORK CIVICS ANNOUNCES RESULTS FROM TOWN WIDE SURVEY
OF PRIORITIES AND CONCERNS of SOUTHOLD TOWN RESIDENTS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 11, 2022
Contact: driannebenner@gmail.com, maggiemerri1125@gmail.com
The North Fork Civics of Southold, a coalition of civic groups from the hamlets of Southold Town, re-
cently asked all residents to respond to a survey to determine what they value about their hamlets and
what their concerns are for the future—particularly in light of recent rapid changes in population and
increased number of proposed developments.The three main survey questions asked residents to re-
flect on and prioritize what they value most about where they live, what concerns them most, and
where the Town Government should focus in the next two years.
The charts attached tell the story: respondents value the area's natural beauty and rural character and
the quality of life they offer. They are most concerned about the impact of overdevelopment on the
quality of life and well-loved character of Southold Town. The cleanliness of the bays and Long Island
Sound; drinking water quality and quantity; traffic and deer management were also top areas of con-
cern for many residents.
An overwhelming majority- over 90 percent of the respondents- said their top priorities for Town
government were preservation of natural habitats, rural character,farms, and open space. This indi-
cates a strong belief that Town government should continue to work to preserve land and step up ef-
forts to limit overdevelopment—top respondents concerns include increases in subdivisions, house
size, and new hotels. Other issues residents wanted the Town Government to focus on included: man-
agement of deer and tick-borne disease;facilitating affordable housing and maintaining low real estate
taxes.
The survey results are a snapshot of issues on the minds of a cross-section of Town residents. Afforda-
ble housing, hotel development and house size are issues that the Town government and community
members have actively debated this year. Many of the topics chosen as top priorities are intertwined
with others that may have received less attention.
The survey was online June 5 through July 31, with hard copies available at local libraries throughout
Southold Town. Over 1,000 residents completed the survey, with 70% responding that the North Fork
is their primary residence. Respondents varied in age from 18 to over 80 with just over half in the 50 to
70 year old range. Results were tallied for the Town of Southold as a whole and were also broken down
by individual hamlets so that each civic association can discuss concerns specific to them. The full
presentation of the survey is available on the North Fork Civics website, nfcivics.org.
The opportunity to leave comments allowed residents to expand on their priorities and concerns. Sam-
ples of these comments are below:
"Recent overdevelopment boom-too big houses, new hotels,too much traffic on weekends. Becoming like the
Hamptons(ugh)."-Cutchogue Resident
"Lack of affordable housing and employment opportunities are major issues making it impossible for our children
to stay in the community where they grew up."-Mattituck-Laurel Resident
"Very seriously concerned about gigantic houses which destroy the visible,old character of our Town and all of
Southold Town,and Mattituck"-New Suffolk Resident
"Deer population is out of control and grow every year. Lyme disease needs to be stopped and deer are vermin
that need to be controlled."-Orient Resident
"Stop skirting around Airbnb situation. There are at least 10 of these in my neighborhood all renting short term-
in other words,weekends only. It's time Southold Town took control of this situation by imposing the restrictions
and start heavily fining these people. It has contributed to lack of affordable housing and decline of neighbor-
hoods as we are living next to mostly unfriendly strangers who have no interest in the community."-East Marion
Resident
"Really concerned about rising water levels,removal of trees, not respecting the natural beauty."— Greenport
Resident
"Promote mixed use development in town/village centers,plan carefully and thoughtfully for climate resilient
communities(natural systems often provide more protection than man made systems),enforce your regulations
(gently but firmly)and strive to expand/enhance both job and housing opportunities(since they are inextricably
linked).Good luck!"-Fishers Island Resident
"Many positive changes have occurred over the last 30 years. It is most important that the beauty and character
of the North Fork be maintained and that preserving that character is a top priority. That means some hard choic-
es about housing,development and traffic control. Kudos to all of those who have helped to maintain open space
and agriculture."-Southold-Peconic Resident
The results of the survey will serve as a foundation for setting priorities for the hamlet civic groups.
The North Fork Civic associations will use this information to better serve their communities by pre-
senting educational and informative programs about areas of concern, and organize volunteer groups
to research, discuss and propose solutions.They also plan to share the results with Southold Town Su-
pervisor Russell and the Town Board.
Attached Charts:
Please rate how important these local characteristics of your
hamlet are to you
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
' 'I ... .
Quality of Life P &Essential
Natural Beauty Very Important
Access to Outdoor Activities Somewhat Important
r
rr Not At All Important
Neighborhood Safety 4N'H010U ERGnIIIIVVIUII�IIG4 i
Rural Character I
Agricultural Community
Sense of Community
Historic Character 1� y�l➢4Q�1�111
Walkability fI�UIVIVIVI�I�IUIIU __
Schools V1II1110IIUIIVV1fI �.
Avail.of Public Transp. Pk
Percentages of respondents who picked these characteristics as their top 3.
Southold Town
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
.• c a° , 1
' 0 � * &-
'`
Please rate your level of concern about these issues in your hamlet
now and in the future
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cleanliness of Bays and LI Sound s uti�ifWillmiuii to k1WfIWlliNtuifmu Illfiu
rn Extremely Concerned
Overdevelopment(C Quality Residential)
�faW p�'
Drinking y Very Concerned
kfaf �mMmPmW9mWP �, Somewhat Concerned
Traffic
Prolif.of Deer&Tick-Borne Diseases !ffml o Not At All Concerned
Sustainabilty of Volunteer Fire Dept
Sea Level Rise and Climate Resiliency MM"I Ny
Lack of Affordable Housing
Noise(i.e.landscape equipment,etc.)
Homes used for Short-Term Rental f gFlilt i
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety UPll dflif
Aviation Noise UI"
Storm Preparedness V & .
Decline of Intergenerational Community MRS ytlm
Crime XXNWMMM u
Lack of Employment Opportunities itui�Ptuiul� fioioirrvI IUM"
Percentages of respondents who picked these concerns as their top 3.
Southold Town
50%
45%
40%
35%
30% �.
25% I
20%
15% _.
10% . .
0°i M, IRA
°
0 Irk" C
r .,eca41
�10 q 01
"SP5 e40
a
ut
Please rate how important you think it is for the Southold Town Government
to focus on each of the following in the next two years
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Preservation of Natural Habitats wwuwwwwwuwiw�wwwmslwnuoumuw�wmmwuwimiwiwwnnw^,w uuwiimi uuu umw
Preservation of Forms and Open Space a °J Essential
Preservation of Rural Character mawwwwwwimnmuwm�ww.,. W wµ
Limit New Subdivisions Very Important
Limit Size&Number of New Hotels nxipwauiw wniwmsi awaaans ¢ Somewhat Important
Limit House Size s ^onus' uiwl�cwa�!�ni�i.. s t
Management of Deer Population and Ticks m49 dNot At All Important
Enforce the lbwn Codes
Maintain Low Real Estate Taxes iiewiio
Update Zoning wuw
Plan for Effects of Climate Change lwiww siromrow w siowu roronms ww
Preservation of Historic Character
Introduce'Traffic Calming Measures wauamwsuuw iwimu. .. ;f n i�
Enforce Short-Term Rental Regulations �s Dews wwiow¢
Facilitate More Affordable Housing ii mmiwuwmiuw�'wronw& r a u
Retain Younger People with Living Wage Jobs suwusllwwmsswusx..... sWMWs'A
Regulate Tree Removal vwmuuuuwusuwsultmu a V.
Expand the Bicycle Network ' WWWw'w's Mr_. p ..t areaw
Improve Services for Youth and Seniors ss'"011mi' - - w - t - n
101
Improve Services for the Underserved GWAWMWmwmf0 t -q --- w
Improve Public Transportation ONNOWNW00 p.
Attract New Business wMANOM w w -� iiwwwim,
Percentages of respondents who picked these areas as the top 3 the Southold Town
government should work on in the next two years
Southold Town
35%
30%
25%
20%
15% t
10%
5% p
0%
r 0 F 0#
1� 5 d, A
�, " , tip' IQy�
Michaelis,Jessica
From: Terry, Mark '
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 8:37 AM ,
To: Michaelis, Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
R "-,
Subject: FW: Strong's Storage Buildings MAY I 12023Namij ,
Board
...�.,,,...,,......w
From:The Matweys<brodwey@optonline.net>
Sent:Wednesday, May 10, 2023 6:43 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Cc: Cummings, Brian A.<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strong's Storage Buildings
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe that the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately address the noise and traffic pollution to
towns outside ofyour own, including Riverhead. The DEIS does not offer sufficient mitigation as it relates to
my con ce rn s because Riverhead was not included in any of the planning or decisions despite being a
thoroughfare for the truck traffic.
Further, I have additional concerns about the significant increase in truck traffic and the dangerous impact
it will have on our local roads.
I support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Sincerely,
Allyson Matwey
P.S. I would like my email to be part of the public record
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
REC
.... ., .. ..PI
5/15/2023 �� Aw r
Paul Silansk
Y cwn
Cutchogue, NY 11935 Nanning Board
Southold Planning Board-Public Hearing on Private Property Improvements
Five years ago Strongs Marine had completed many small incremental "clean-up" improvements to their
then recently purchased Yacht Center Marina and were now ready to fully realize their vision to offer
complete services including expanded storage to satisfy Client demand.
Five years ago Applicant Strong's Marine was but a building permit away from potentially realizing a
return on the risk they took investing in the purchase of expensive property zoned for Marine-II uses.
Five years later they find themselves still embroiled in the court of public opinion concerning their
exercise of Private Property Use Rights which have been respected by most citizens since the time of
George Washington with establishment of the Patent Office making the property stake official.Some
mistakenly believe their property rights extend as far as they can see or imagine, indeed into others
private property, back yards, and even how they use it.... Please be reminded that Private Property
Owners have the rights to acquire property, exclusively deploy it for any legitimate use, and dispose of it
as they see fit. Further be reminded that owners enjoy the right and freedom to exercise their property
rights without harassment through the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.Websites
containing mis-leading photos, opposition letter templates,speculative opinion presented as facts, and
over-reaching protests concerning property use(s),that target specific private property, harass the
owner's lawful exercise of exclusive private property legitimate use rights being disrespectful to the
owner(s),client base they serve, public, and property law.
Five years and counting to obtain a building permit is excessive, bureaucratic, and very costly due to the
delay of business revenue and burden of approval-associated costs impacting both the owners and
Southold Taxpayers.Just in the last 2 years inflation has run wild driving up the cost of steel and other
building and landscaping materials, inflating the cost of labor and services,and now the perverse
inflation of the cost of credit through rising Fed rates makes it extremely burdensome to finance any
project.
Please be reminded that under TITLE 6. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION,
CHAPTER VI. GENERAL REGULATIONS, PART 617. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW(SEAR)
617.3 General rules:
"(h) Agencies must carry out the terms and requirements of this Part with minimum procedural and
administrative delay, must avoid unnecessary duplication of reporting and review requirements by
providing,where feasible,for combined or consolidated proceedings,and must expedite all SEQR
proceedings in the interest of prompt review".
Five years turning into six and possibly seven cannot be construed as "prompt" and potentially
represents a "taking" of rights which under federal law requires compensation.
Five years later it remains this property was approved for Marine-II uses accepting the environmental
impacts of said zoning classification.
Five years later it remains the decision on the legitimate use of this property was made upon approval of
its Marine-II zoning classification.
Five years later it remains that this building application satisfies all zoning guidelines.
Five years later it remains this building permit request satisfies all Southold Building Permit requirements
without the need for any variance request.
Five years later it remains this improvement plan respects all existing Southold Town ordinances.
In Closing:
Five years ago Strong's Marine Operations were evaluated in all aspects by Marina Industry Experts
achieving an Industry-wide coveted rating in the Top 100 out of 3,500 Marinas Nation-wide. Coming in at
#5 within the Top 100 recognized their expertise gleaned over 4 generations,the Strong's Family respect
for community,and respect for the sensitive environment they interact with on a day-to-day basis.
Additionally,they engage in peer reviews on a regular basis inviting 20 other Marina Managers from
around the country to tour their facilities and provide feedback as to best-practice improvements.The
Strong's Marine Team are among the best of the best and most well suited to implementing this most
passive Marine-ll use (storage) improvement project.You can expect all valuable input obtained from
communication with the community to be leveraged in obtaining the best possible result.
Cordially,
Paul Silansky
Cutchogue, NY 11935
860-305-7985
RECEIVED
From: D Dilworth<dd9414@aol.com> MAY 0
23
To: mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; . . _ .....i,
� �a�l°a.c�i�"Ge���^n
brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us> Planning Board
Sent:Sunday,April 23, 2023 at 11:35:52 AM EDT
Subject: opposition to SYC trucking proposal
Dear Sirs:
RECIPE FOR ROAD RAGE
Let me here address the specific component of the SYC development proposal re trucking of sand in a
total of 80 30-cubic yard trucks traveling the route each weekday passing a single point 9,600 times over
a six-month period (in phase one),then 400 trips or 800 trucks in phase two,and 322 trucks in phase
three, [Final May 9, 2022 Summary of Inadequate Sections: Draft Environment Impact Statement—
these numbers slightly updated in the DEIS dated December 2022 ].
The said proposal is a recipe for personal road rage as well as the justified moral indignation of the
North Folk community. I am personally absolutely dependent on smooth sailing along Sound Avenue,
which is my only possible travel route,from Greenport to Baiting Hollow--to live my life,to perform
and accomplish my necessary and chosen aims--and I recognize the same dependence in the case of
my countless fellow-citizens. The proposed trucking would be a disaster, disrupting our lives with traffic,
traffic delays,choked traffic points, noise, dust, pollution, unsightly 22-wheelers.Too much rubber on
the road! The charm of popular farm stands and roadside dining would surely be smothered and their
businesses drastically diminished. The very road surfaces themselves,together with homesites,would
take a continuous beating. These and all other things considered, it is likely that not only the
contemporary landscape and ambience but the historic reputation of the North Folk will be damaged.
To conclude again in personal perspective, I have serious negative anticipations and reservations about
the viability of the SYC sand-trucking proposal.
Sincerely yours,
David A. Dilworth
Updated language from page xxx of the DEIS dated December 2022:
Phases 1 and 2: Excavation
Phase 1 would occur over approximately 5 to 6 months with a commencement date of mid-December
2023. During Phase 1, approximately 123,000 CY of material would be excavated and removed via the
temporary haul road. Based on 30 CY trucks, Phase 1 would generate 4,100 total trips. With 40 trucks
available per day for material removal and time limited to 7:00 am to 5:00 pm five days per week
(Monday to Friday), Phase 1 could be completed in 5 months. Also, during this phase,the following
equipment would be used on-site:two payloaders,two excavators,one fuel truck/water truck, and two
bulldozers.All equipment with exception to the fuel truck/water truck would remain on-site. Each would
be assigned an operator and additional staff on-site would include the construction manager, site safety
supervisor,two flagmen, and four laborers.On Saturday's and after 5:00 pm on weekdays,on-site
activity would be vehicle and machinery maintenance and planning for the following workday or
Monday for a 7:00 am start.
Phase 2 would be up to 1 month (2 to 4 weeks)with a commencement date of May 2024. During Phase
2, approximately 12,000 CY of material would be excavated and removed via the existing access
driveway to SYC. Based on 30 CY trucks, Phase 2 would generate 400 total trips.With 40 trucks available
for material removal and time limited to 7:00 am to 5:00 pm five days per week(Monday to Friday),
Phase 2 could be completed in 2 weeks.All of the equipment detailed in Phase 1 above would remain
on-site with the same staff.At the completion of Phase 2,the temporary guard booth would be
removed, and the access would be gated to prevent unauthorized entry.
Phase 3:Construction
Phase 3 would occur over approximately 6 months with a commencement date of May 2024. During
Phase 3, it is expected that work would be performed 6 days per week(Monday-Saturday)with time
limited to 7:00 am to 7:00 pm in accordance with §180-6 Prevention of Noise—Standards of the Town
Code. During Phase 3,the construction of the retaining wall,two buildings(Total Gross Floor Area [GFA]:
101,500 SF), parking area,and all infrastructure(drainage,water supply and 2 sanitary systems)would
be undertaken. It is anticipated that 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.A similar guard booth would be situated along
the existing internal driveway to direct incoming deliveries and employees,to inspect exiting vehicles,
and to enforce safety protocols.
From: Cerezo, Mara
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 3:42 PM
To: Palmeri,Allison; Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Strong's Marina development project on Mattituck Creek
j, � &
[REC
IVED
For Incoming Mail. (FYI-This went to the SPAM Folder.) " --" .-. _.
-----Original Message-----
From: Karin Waslo<kbwaslo@gmail.com> _..m1
ut ho6sJ..,°1`ow+rn
Sent: Tuesday,April 25, 2023 9:12 PM -Planning Board �
To: Lanza, Heather<heather.la nza @town.southold.ny.us>
Cc:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>;
Cerezo, Mara <marac@southoldtownny.gov>
Subject: [SPAM] -Strong's Marina development project on Matlituck Creek
To the Southold Planning Board
Regarding the Strong's Marina Project on Matbtuck Creek, 1 read the DEIS version 3.22.2023 found on the town website,
and would like draw your attention to the Executive Summary in order to consider the following points:
1. Excavation and removal of 50' hillside Page X! of the Executive Summary
-the removal of this naturally occurring land formation seems excessive and unnatural. Every decision the Town of
Southold is faced with always involves retaining the natural beauty of the town,good use of existing natural resources,
and preservation of open land. In this instance, the applicant is trying to remove 135,000 cubic yards of sand -which
firstly should not be removed as it is a essential buffer and part of the woodlands and preserved lands behind it, but
secondly should not be taken off the North Fork when we have erosion issues all along the LI Sound shoreline.
2. Flooding and Climate change- Page IX of the Executive Summary
-The applicant wishes to place two new buildings at the 10' median sea level which gives him a way to transport the
boats to storage but offers no protection when the water table rises above the predicted amounts in the next decades.
The "100 year storm" criteria is probably under exaggerated and he will possibly be flooded much sooner than anyone
predicts.
3.:Leaching Fields/Pumping Stations- Page X of the Executive Summary
-The discussion about the leaching fields near the aquifers possibly failing in the future and the need for pumping
stations is worrisome. If this project should be approved 1 hope that the Board could include the requirement of a
mandatory shutdown in perpetuity, until the remedial efforts have been completed,the shallow drainage structures can
be developed, or whatever the future solutions may be.
4. Forest reduction and effect on Wildlife-Pages XII and XI11 of the Executive Summary
The engineering form refers to a 32% loss of forest but doesn't address the fact that the endangered Eastern Box
Turtle is known to spend its entire life trying to return to their hatch site .See www.city wildlife.org<http://wildlife.org> .
No amount of netting or other man-made deterrents will keep them from trying.
5. Retaining wall installation after 50' hillside removed.- Page X1 of the Executive Summary
-the installation of this retaining wall sounds like a Herculean effort but may ultimately look nothing like the natural
landscape it is replacing. Full time maintenance and regular replanting will be needed to keep this structure intact until
1
nature takes over the space again. Heavy rainfall and we are seeing these days will thwart the efforts. This should be a
reason to deny the removal of the hillside,
6.Volume of traffic-Section XV
-as a resident who only occasionally finds herself on Route 48 into Riverhead, essentially using the same route as
these 4100 tractor trailers,it is hard to believe that they will be able to stay on schedule while creeping along behind
farm vehicles, left-turners, and tourists. They won't make it to the drop off location on time ... and neither will all the
other drivers who need to share those roads.This road is considered the "truck" route and these vehicles may be
allowed on these roads but is it absolutely necessary to stress the Southold and Riverhead highway departments and us
taxpayers with such wear and tear?
In closing, I would like to add that I was at the meeting at Southold Peconic Civic Association on April 15,:2023 where Mr.
Jeff Strong admitted that the customers he was hoping to attract were not local to the North Fork, rather they would be
from Connecticut, Westchester, and the South Fork. Why aren't those towns providing such services to their residents?
Essentially these boat owners don't want this type of storage structure in their backyards but would be happy to see it
sitting on the beautiful waterways of Mattituck Inlet. I concur that I wouldn't want it in my backyard either; I hope you
agree!
Thank you for taking time to read this email. Your work on behalf of us residents is greatly appreciated.
sincerely,
Karin Waslo
540 Longview Lane
Southold, NY 11971
Kbwaslo@gmail.com<mailto:Kbwaslo@gmail.com>
(516) 456-4045
Sent from my Pad
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
2
Winds Way Farm RECEIVE�.
73 Winds Way _..
PO 1470
Jamesport NY 11947
farm.com Planning richard@windswayfarm.com d y g Boar w....
' Nancy Gilbert
Richard Wines
May 9, 2023
To: Southold Planning Board
Re: Strong's Marina Yacht Storage: Impact on Riverhead
I am writing this as a board member (and past president) of the Hallockville Museum
Farm and chair of the Riverhead Landmarks Preservation Commission. We are very
concerned about the impact that heavy truck traffic from this project will have on the
Town of Riverhead and its historic resources. First of all, let me note that three-quarters
of the approximately 13 mile truck route from the excavation site to the LIE is in
Riverhead. Moreover, over 5 miles of the route in the Sound Avenue Scenic and
Historic Corridor established by the state legislature in 1976, which starts at the
intersection of Route 48 and Sound Avenue.
Consultants for the applicant have done a poor job of assessing the impact of that traffic
on historic resources, and often either mis-identify the location of resources or cite
incorrect distances from the pavement.
For instance, the Hallockville Museum's Old Homestead, dating to 1765 or earlier, is
incorrectly identified as the Eugene Hallock house 45 feet back from Sound Avenue.
However, it is actually only 30 feet from the pavement edge when I measured it on the
ground. The Homestead is a fragile resource that, due to its proximity to the road, has
previously suffered damage from road vibrations.
Similarly, the other most significant of the many historic resources along Sound Avenue,
the former Northville Academy/Parish Hall and now the LI Buddhist Medition Center at
5268 Sound Avenue (address incorrect in report), is actually only 25 feet from the
pavement, not 63 feet as indicated in the consultant's report.
The consultants report also does not mention the historically Black community on
Northville Turnpike, with its Fleltcher Booker Homestead at 1185 Northville Turnpike, a
town-designated landmark.
Sound Avenue is not a first-class road and is not engineered for this type of traffic. The
road surface is not smooth, but rather often somewhat bumpy. There is no base
beneath the pavement, leaving it susceptible to potholes from heavy truck traffic,
especially during spring thaw when truck traffic will be at its peak. Moreover, speeds
are often well in excess of the posted 45 mile-an-hour speed limit.
hope these factors impacting your Riverhead neighbors can be taken into
consideration when evaluating the suitability of this project.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
gym. .-
Richard A. Wines
cc: Riverhead Town Supervisor
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:15 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: Comments on Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Yacht Storage Buildings at Mattituck
Inlet 'S�.X .__..._.,.._ ,__.._ ...... _ .
RECEIVED
MAY 19 Z022,
....... � _ _..._J
r ��thot d�I'6r' n
From:Carrie Vasios Mullins<carrie.vasios@gmail.com> Planning Board
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:59 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Comments on Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Yacht Storage Buildings at Mattituck Inlet
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe that the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately address the impact on the local ecology,
especially the removal of the 50' high bluff which would eliminate ecosystems for 105 species of plants, 26
species of trees, 89 species of birds, 20 species of mammals, and 3 species of reptiles and amphibians. The
species include several on the federal or NY State endangered, threatened, special concern and special
conservation need lists.
We have a critical need to maintain undeveloped sites to support native species. The site would not only clear
high-quality forest but shrub, a landscape once thought unimportant but which has been shown to support a
myriad of life including birds, bees, and butterflies. Clearing these for the storage of super yachts is not only
out of character with the North Fork but devastating to our landscape.
I support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
Sincerely,
Carrie Mullins
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
From: Terry, Mark . . ". ... :. . `.
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 8:56 AM RECEIVED
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: Strongs proposal MAY 109,
outhok. N°own
Planning Board
From: Nancy Butkus<nancy.butkus@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 6, 2023 8:50 AM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strongs proposal
I'm writing to voice my opposition. Here's a project that will be of no benefit to the community—the only beneficiaries
are yacht owners and the Strong family.And the habitat loss, in the face of so much environmental damage, is
immeasurable. It's time to stop harmful development,and stop bowing to the idea of property rights as a sacred idea.
Please help to save our natural resources and small town way of life. For ourselves and future generations.ATTENTION:
This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or
unexpected emails.
1
From: Terry, Mark Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 8:49 AM mS�
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison RECEIVED
Subject: FW: strong's storage .....
1Y
Hani,-i ng Board
-----Original Message-----
From: megan barron<meganbarron2018@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2023 9:04 AM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: strong's storage
Dear Mark,
I would like to add my voice to many others in opposition to this project. I know you very much care about protecting
trees(among other things!) and ask you to please do all you can to prevent the proposed removal of hundreds of them
in order to create large storage units in the Matbtuck Inlet. If we don't act now with the environmental knowledge we
have,who will?
Thank you,
Megan Barron
Greenport
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Monday, May .....� .:.,.�� .
8, 2023 8:48 AM
To•• Michaelis,Jessica, Palmeri, Allison �
Subject: FW: Strong's Yacht Storage Proposal ,.
Y 09 °20
OW, ....
ro
r�r:
-----Original Message----- 43��ar�� __..._. .
From:sharon <dragondazy@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2023 8:49 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Strong's Yacht Storage Proposal
Hello,
As a resident of Cutchogue, I'm writing to express my deep concerns and strong disagreement of the proposed Yacht
storage unit being considered in Mattituck.
My concerns include the environmental impact of this project. The north fork is a small area and is under continuous
pressure for development. There is a tipping point when the north fork will no longer be a desirable place to live due to
increased traffic, pollution, loss of wildlife habitat, decreased community character and water quality. Simply stated,the
more we build,the less habitat and the more pressure there is on our fragile environment negatively impacting our
water,air,fragile ecological balance, and character as a bucolic farming community.
The pressure for development will never end. It's up to town government to stand strong with our values and listen to
the residents who value their quality of life.
Please say NO to this project and to any similar projects that will likely come on its tail.
With gratitude,
Sharon Kelly
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 8:35 AM
To: Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: Comment on DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
RECEIIV.ED
VAY
From:Jan Nicholson <nicholsonjan@outlook.com>
c:a.atho Town
Sent:Tuesday, April 25, 2023 10:49 PM Nanning Board
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us> � -µ �-
Subject:Comment on DEIS for Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
April 25, 2023
Mr. Mark Terry
Assistant Town Planning Director
Southold Planning Department
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Mr.Terry,
The Strong's Marina proposal for the west side of Mattituck Inlet would be a brutal thing to do to the shoreline. The
case against can rest right there.
But one should recognize the possibility that it would set a new bar for the aspirations of future applicants. If we don't
want to see over-sized,ground-destroying development up and down the Inlet,we must not do it the first time.
Thank you for noting these comments and including them with those of others living on the North Fork.
Sincerely,
Jan Nicholson
7940 Indian Neck 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.
1
Submission Without a Cover Letter
S,Xv
Sender: '(�M kv'60e � �'K . ,_ u.
MAY 0 9 2(123
Subject: Plaming�Board
.
SCTM#: 1000 - `O` p - U-10 4-
Date: 51 0�� 6(OCAJ'
Comments:
`0 1 execs oA SpP.&I
Date: �/z
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature
Name
Address -7
City State Zip
Phone f
Email ad. Cam
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature
Name
Address b +
City Mate zip l _.
Phone—
Email tc+ j, "
DocuSign Envelope ID:B0829023-FD05-41A1-9929-F06B44596623
5/5/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Docuftned by:
SignatureFOw as P"w
Thomas Poher
Name
125 willis creek drive
Address
mattituck ny 11952
City State Zip
Phone
TOMP@PCRICHARD.COM
Email
DocuSign Envelope ID:89884F82-B832-49B0-95E2-333FD21BEF4B
5/1/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
6ia cuSigrwd by*.
Signature AA
9o5er "Pr 1emann
Name
2935 Pine Tree Road
Address
Cutchogue Ny 11935
City State Zip
Phone
Email rfriemann@aol .com
DocuSign Envelope ID:A5AF7E65-AD14-40FA-98F3-DA9BEE8FA23B
5/5/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
LrncuSlgrwd by:
Signature pdk6a Nk
Patricia me le
Name
1140 Deep Hole Drive
Address
Mattituck Ny 11952
City State Zip
1 631 335 6073
Phone
Email tricia.melel3@gmail .com
DocuSign Envelope ID:9CCBC463-1C18-46E9-860C-A321813D647A
4/25/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Docv75 ftdbys
Signature
James Papdopeaulos
Name
4175 Ole Jule Lane
Add ress
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
Phone
Email Jtpapadopoulosl3@gmail .com
DocuSign Envelope ID:BB68DB5E-4271-41AF-B8F1-62FF152756D7
4/25/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department;
am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
D",j3Mgrwd by:
Signature '
3oi1n I ws"inning
Name
2500 Grand Ave
Address
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
Phone
Email jsinningjr@gmail .com
DocuSign Envelope ID:3ABBC946-CAE1-4FB7-A2F2-F290FBDB1FEF
4/24/2023
Dater
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:.
am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
G9lIznauftfwd by:
Signaturer°uI ��
John 1Ti otff
Name
3770 Wickham Avenue
Address
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
917-593-3554
Phone
Email ELLIOTTJF@ME.COM
Date: r
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature
Name
Address �� }
City State Zip
Phone IS
Email
�m
DocuSign Envelope ID:631C2106-EBEB-43F9-A4CF-D9CE1034F4D2
4/22/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
UovuS4ned by:
Signature fjww� a-ge
Edward Gatto
Name
275 Bayer Road
Address
Mattituck New York 11952
City State Zip
Phone
Email edward.gatto22@gmail.com
!RECE
JOSEPH & NortEEN TusA
Say
800 Noirm DRivE Pian na n�� a
MArrrrucs,NY 11952 _..._. .. .."
March 1,2020
BY HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Sal Messina
General Manager
Strong's Yacht Center
5780 West Mill Rd.
Mattituck,NY 11952
Re:
Dear Mr.Messina:
As you and Mr. Strong know, my wife and I have purchased the property 800 North
Drive adjacent to Strong's Yacht Center from Mr. and Mrs. DeMaula. We are apprised of the
project proposed by Strong's to build new storage facilities that is currently under submission
and consideration by the Town of Southold. As presently proposed, we do not oppose approval
of the project.
Very truly yours,
Joseph S.Tusa
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 8:02 AM RECEIVED
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: Strong's Marine Project
PWanni€ g Board
From: plitchhult@aol.com <plitchhult@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 6:54 PM
To:Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Strong's Marine Project
Dear Mr. Terry,
I am a 45 year resident of Rosewood Drive. If your not sure where Rosewood Drive is, it's
located in Mattituck, a small paved private road maintained by the 17 residents.
The road is off of Cox Neck Road slightly NORTH of Bergen Ave., on a HILL with a
CURVE. I am writing to you again to oppose the Strong's Marine Storage Building Project
on the Mattituck Inlet. This project shouldn't be allowed to move forward for so many
reasons.
The entrance to Rosewood Drive just experienced a renovation of a property that
boarders It. It entailed endless tractor trailers loaded with dirt, boulders, landscaping
materials and plants.
The noise was endless and the damage to Rosewood Drive was costly to it's owners.
Since the residents of Rosewood just experienced a smaller project compared to Strong's
Marine 80
trucks a day, 5 days a week amounting to one truck every 7 minutes is unacceptable and
truly unfair to all the residents in this area of Mattituck.
The location of Rosewood Drive is very dangerous, when making a left turn from Cox
Neck Road onto Rosewood the sight is very limited for an approaching car to see a
vehicle making a turn
or even worse on the hill waiting to make that turn onto Rosewood. Over the years we
have numerous amounts of children going to school from Rosewood, and every year their
was always
a debate where the school bus would stop to pick up and drop off the kids. I feel safety
and the quality of life for the residents of this area of Mattituck is in jeopardy! The planning
board also
needs to take in consideration that Cox Neck Road does not have sidewalks, no
shoulders, so all the walkers, joggers and bikers would be in danger with additional traffic
coursed by 80
tractor trailers.
1
This project would bring nothing but headaches to the residents effected by this project,
removal of trees and sand with the replacements of over-sized boat storage buildings
breaks my heart.
This disturbance to the area will have nothing but a negative impact on wildlife, water
quality with the potential flooding, run off and erosion.
Many weekends during the pandemic the inlet was my weekly sanctuary, a place to watch
the sunset and enjoy nature. Why do you want to disturb this beautiful place? For 88
yachts!!
Let's preserve what we have. I support the planning board rejecting this project.
Sincerely,
Peggy Litchhult
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
z
E
a
May 1, 2023
I. a
I'llanning Board
Dear Mr. Terry, Mr. Cummings and Southold Town Board,
I was heartened to see the Town Board proceed with caution by requiring a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Strong's Yacht Center proposal. But I am disheartened to think that
the project might move forward.
Of all the potential impacts on our environment, our safety, our quality of life, there is one figure
that stands out in my head: 9,000. Nine-thousand truck trips that will be required to excavate
and haul the sand from the project site. Nine-thousand. That's 40 trucks entering and exiting
the property Monday - Friday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m, five days a week, for six months, according to
Strongs' own statements. And 9,000 is just one aspect of this massive project.
I am equally concerned about the loss of community character that the project— if allowed to
proceed—would have. Southold Town has many landowners like the Strongs who can profit
from the sale or development of their land. Many such landowners have chosen not to do so,
have chosen instead to preserve land, to preserve community character, to preserve our fragile
environment. I know it must be hard to walk away from big bucks, but once we allow those
trucks to start, there's no turning back.
Thank you for your consideration of our community's concerns.
Carolyn McCall
10230 New Suffolk Avenue
Cutchogue
cmcca112@mac.com
May 1, 2023
Heather Lanza, Planning Director R,ECFI\/EP,
Mark Terry, Assistant Director
Southold Planning Department
Southold New York OM m"
N annk"q Board
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
I am writing to raise concerns about the proposed development by Strongs Marina on Mill Rd.
I understand that the project meets the zoning requirements of MII zoning and has gotten a
fairly clean bill of health from the SEQRA. So the project is allowable on the site as proposed.
My question is, even though it may be allowable, is it right to so so?
Is it right to so significantly disrupt the environment (hillside and tree removal),
Is it right to expend an incredible amount of energy to remove 134,000 cu yds of a hillside,
Is it right to encourage the use of very large boats through the provision of new storage space,
boats cost likely cost a million. "An average 70-meter luxury yacht will burn around 130 gallons
per hour with the engines running, while the amount increases significantly when the ship is
moving, https://planm8.io)",
Is it right to build structures that use LPG —thousands of gallons, to heat very large boats,
Is it right to build projects that significantly alter our local environment while far exceeding the
needs of the North Fork,
Is it right to significantly increase road traffic and possibly damage and increase the chance of
accidents when this is virtually no benefit to the community affected?
I think we are all too aware of the damage climate change is bringing to our environment,.
Mega projects like this undermine efforts to address the challenge of climate change.
Also, I wonder if Southold Town has the resources to adequately monitor the development of
this complex project to assure all plans are followed.
Therefore, even though this project may be allowable, I do not think it is right to proceed.
Thank you,
Barbara Butterworth
12030 New Suffolk Ave
Cutchogue
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 10:34 AM ��
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Palmeri, Allison
Subject: FW: Rationale for disapproval of Strongs marina extension
-----Original Message-----
From:marie lisa truglio<lisa.trugliol@outlook.com>
Sent: Saturday,April 29,2023 3:56 PM
To: Terry,Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject:Rationale for disapproval of Strongs marina extension
This little inlet already been disturbed and disrupted by all the new builds surrounding it. Lots have been
clear cut promoting erosion and topsoil loss to runn off into the inlet. One of the builds clear cut every tree on
a 45 degree natural grade. if a drain is not erected at the curb, large amounts of sediment including fertilizers
and pesticides will run directly into the marine wetland ecosystem we call the inlet. We can also expect
flooding on the road causing traffic to being jams. If Mattituck inlet is disturbed on a larger scale, this
ecosystem will collapse.
Mattituck Resident
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
n
MAY , . i���.,
i
Dear Southold Town Planning Board, 196 Lit"°0 0 n
Nanning I;fioard
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I
believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately
address the impact of the project on the local ecology, especially its effect on
water quality.
This project flies in the face of all the work the community and state have done to
clean up the Sound and ignores the delicate balance our waterways are already
maintaining as water levels rise and land erodes. It will change the character of
the entire north shore of Mattituck.
Further, I have additional concerns about the significant increase in truck traffic
and the dangerous impact it will have on our local roads.
As you consider this project, please take into account the long-term effects, its
negative impact on the community and our waterways with no discernable benefit to
the people who have lived in this town for many years and paid taxes.
I support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better
alternative.
Sincerely,
Jo-Ann Lechner
Mattituck
P.S. I would like my email to be part of the public record
From: Terry, Mark
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 10:41 AM ........._.. . _.._ .._.... ...M
To: Michaelis, Jessica; Palmeri,Allison
Subject: FW: Strong's DEIS response
MAY
i
a :it io, i 6b vv r7,
Planning Board
-----Original Message-----
From: optonline<joybeck@optonline.net>
Sent: Thursday,May 4, 202310:19 AM
To: Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>;Cummings,Brian A.
<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: Strong's DEIS response
Dear Mr. Terry and Mr. Cummings,
I write to you in advance of the May 15 hearing regarding Strong Marina's plans to build two new storage
facilities on Mattituck Inlet because I am unable to attend that upcoming meeting. I believe and take seriously
the warnings of scientists and environmentalists that this plan will ecologically and aesthetically decimate
what little is left of our pristine wetlands and woodlands. So will it likely upend the character and quality of
our lives. I urge the board to carefully consider and be accountable for the following potential impact of this
proposal:
1. What guarantees does Strong's proposal—from its initial clearing of the site, to its permanence within the
environment,—offer residents that it will preserve and enhance the present and future wildlife,flora, fauna
and sea life adjacent to the waterway. Specifically, how will the loss of approximately 493 trees and sand
removal hold harmless our our already compromised town-preserved habitat?
2. What guarantees does Strong offer that our issues with water runoff, sewage,land erosion and flooding will
not be exacerbated by this construction?
3. What guarantees assuage our fears that the heating requirements for the units will not pose a significant fire
threat?
4. What guarantees the quality of life as traffic barrels down the only narrow conduit to and from the beach
from the North Road?This looping roadway from Cox Neck Road to Naugles and Breakwater Roads is a vital
source of exercise and pleasure for bikers,joggers and families who regularly walk dogs, take nature walks
with their kids, and access the existing beach and state water launch.
5. What guarantees do we have that the intrusions of commercial warehouses on our bucolic rural landscape
will not significantly impact the value of our homes?
6.What guarantees that Strong's will compensate taxpayers for the cost of maintaining roads, additional police
oversight to regulate traffic etc.?
Strong's already claims three commercial sites in Mattituck and owns other sites throughout Long Island.
There is also a NY State boat launch, and a town launch along the North Road.Thus do I believe Mattituck
offers more than its fair share of boating amenities to the boating community. As I understand it,Strong's
expected clientele is mostly comprised of non-Southold Town residents. I don't believe any reasonable person
believes that this commercial facility will benefit anyone in our environment besides the Strong family.I urge
the board to weigh all these issues against the larger responsibility our leaders have to protect our eco-system
and the community residents who work hard to preserve the quality of life we hold so dear.
Thank you for considering my concerns in this matter.
Sincerely,
Joyce Beckenstein
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
2
DocuSign Envelope ID:CAE83DE0-E073-427A-9804-47382EBC13DB
4/21/2023 RECEIVED
Date:
V k�a ,
F
Srja tt jo 'Uovwrire mm
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director NanirJng Board
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
CDo a geed by:
rl-
Signature
Dona d Boy e
Name
2800 Camp Mineola Road
Address
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
(201)394-1548
Phone
Email donboyle006@mac.com
DocuSign Envelope ID:204650BE-0D2D-4499-A706-45A01 EEA3CD9
4/21/2023 R,ECEIVED_ ._
Date: MAY 23
M'ou rtr�0a )VVP1 ..J
�� Planning�., Beard Heather M. Lanza,AICP, PlanningDirector .....
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signed by
SignatureFZt iw"',
Mic ae`i iacone
Name
270 Park Ave Ext
Address
Mattituck ny 11952
City State Zip
5182655490
Phone
Email mikeg@albanyfoam.com
DocuSign Envelope ID:9DADC39B-2305-4F7B-9BA6-86BBB74F3934
4/21/2023 ...: M
QEIV,ED
Date: Y 0 4 2023
uair0i "4" il.....
Narrrrirrg Boar.d.. .
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director W
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
r1p�uGn�mc�byr,
Signature
josph`Lemerise
Name
195 Eastwood Drive
Address NY 119355
Cutchogue StateZip
City
631-298-9334
Phone
jlemerise@hotmail .com
Email
Date: v E
MAY 0 4 2073
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, PlanningDirector
k.. a �a�.�unk�l"..i®ten
.. _.,�.. nin ,� n.._. .., ...._..
Southold Town Planning Department Eia g Bon
„
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sinc ely,
Signature
Name
Address
.. .. _�City .�� � � State i��Zip
Phone
Email -S �G12 /97
DocuSign Envelope ID:8C234B1D-B8DD-4E1C-A136-913DA7A2ACA6
RECEIVED-
4/21/2023
Date: -
Plannijig Board_....... .
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
to build two new yacht
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
[locCUjSdp dby:
Signature MO+w 4S
Marvin Vu Pls
Name
18 Millstone Lane 11935
Address New York
Cutchogue State---Zip
City
917-453-1149
Phone
MVULPIS@HOTMAIL.COM
Email
DocuSign Envelope ID:D6693A1 D-6D77-4E77-8FF5-28EE9547B283
RECEIVED
4/18/2023
Date: MAY 014. 2023
a.._
Planinn g Board
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director "
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
muuS d by:
Signature via l
Davi d Heitel
Name
695 Robinson Lane
Address
Peconic NY 11958
City State Zip
415-309-4249
Phone
dheitel@comcast.net
Email
DocuSign Envelope ID:6FDCDC2D-3FA3-4E51-86F1-324D5FODD717
4/19/2023 REC °-
Date:
MAY 4 2023
.�"(will
......
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director Planning Board
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Wir:
�i:7 Signature �)J`
Bob wNh welf an ..
Name
4780 Ole Jule Ln
Address
Mattituck NY 11962
City State Zip
Phone
Email whelanrh@gmail .com
DocuSign Envelope ID:D86F63C6-11D7-489F-9CB7-465E54E36032
RECEIVED 4/20/2023
G
Date: Y 4 G
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director �Planinirtrg Board mmV
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
DocuSigned by.
Signature (,(�,vt5{ap(u,v Qus{tw
Christopher Austin
Name
915 Bungalow Lane
Address
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
631.466.0124
Phone
Email austin.chri@gmail .com
DocuSign Envelope ID:E44AE066-C78E-4B71-B18F-5A844020E085
E.
Date: 4/21/2023 A'1( 042023
l.„...
rrlI't'h"6iul u0rw
Planning Board
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director _.._...............w.._. . . _,
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
OocaSftnawd by.-
Signature F/� -
Philip cammann
Name
1500 Deep Hole Drive
Address
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
5167682088
Phone
INSLPLUSC@OPTONLINE.NET
Email
onoumign Envelope ID:A*14948o-SC5s-47ol
4/17/2O23
Date: vo
Heather K8. Lanza,AUCP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
p.[). Box ll79
Southold, NYll97l
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at5trono/s Yacht Center mn West K8U\ Road in K8att|tucn.
Yours Sincerely,
ooeuftmd
DocuSign Envelope ID:40BA24C0-46A8-4294-AB1C-02549D8D5C53
REE
4 17 2023 Q ,,..
Date: MAX
.... S��6fi-o d I oven
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director _ Pk-----je card
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
DoauBN ttl dby:
Signature r p '6
IUIFOO�RMPhi ip Dipippo
Name
2240 Ruth Road
Address
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
5169417994
Phone
Email philipdipippo@gmail .com
DocuSign Envelope ID:343009EB-5EOB-470E-8FDF-4B39AEA6992B
4/17/2023 _. ..
Date: MAY 0 4 2023
....... 66tt:'iold Iawn
Planning Board
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Dorauftned by:
Signature
Neil '51'chanor icz
Name
Neal J Cichanowicz
Address 2100 Indian Neck Lane
Peconic NY 11958
City State Zip
6313757879
Phone
Email tigercapt1992@gmail .com
DocuSign Envelope ID:E90B7C5E-8F34-4628-9E29-FOADCE2EBC8D
4/17/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Docu$Ww4bw
Signature '"
Andrew McGowan
Name
P.O. Box 1205
Address
Southold NY 11971
City State Zip
631-655-7003
Phone
Email ajmcgowan3@icloud.com
REC
Date: G.�.. _ m.. ,.
MAY 0 4 2023
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director fop as i i—i Bca�.:ir l
Southold Town Planning Department
... . .�. ...
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
19
Signature //A40Name ZC 14r Cp
Address f +. G
City State Zip
Phone 2 1 z
Email
� ..w.
RE 1
ED
Date:
lwwiro....
Heather M. Lanza AICP Planning Director N ..ring Board
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature
Name k"-C)w
Address
City State zip
Phone f& 2 7/1' 6 �Q
Email
IC,
4/18/23,11:08 AM Gmail-(no subject)
Gmail _ ? p, rSX YI.A..����('� .��.�. toni bryan <tbryan355@gmail.com>
RECEIV
(no subject) APR 2 5 7,02
toni bryan <tbryan355@gmail.com> L.'...aoa ii 1d "0vVr1 .m_ Tue,Apr 18, 2023 at 11:07 AM
Draft To: mark.terry@town.southold Planning Board
Good morning Mr.Terry,
I have read, as best I could, the revised DEIS for the Strong's Marine Yacht Center. In addition, I attended the
Mattituck Laurel Civic Association presentation in February via zoom and more recently the Southold Peconic Civic
Association in person meeting this past Saturday-April 15th. Members of Save the Mattituck Inlet and Jeff Strong were
there to inform the public and answer questions.
I am struck with the sheer magnitude of this project. It is a daunting task you have before you as the lead agency for
this project. Please consider the following concerns I have as a 38 year resident of the area- Rose Lane off Naugles
Drive.
THE removal of 634 high quality native trees some 12 inches in diameter as a part of the permanent loss of 4.32 acre
of Coastal Oak and Beech Forest to be replaced with 1 inch caliper trees by the owner is highly inadequate. The loss of
the above trees and forested area is irreversible
THE idea that the removal of 134,000 cubic yards of sand which constitutes a hillside bluff thereby reducing the
elevation from 50 feet to 10 feet is being considered at a time when the soundfront bluff protection has been identified as
of utmost importance is contradictory, let alone alarming.
THAT said removal would require an ongoing, at the least,6 month excavation and removal process over local
Mattituck roads by trucks that are much larger and heavier than trucks currently traversing the roads.This work would
occur 6 days a week, 10 hours per day. There is nothing comparable in the area now.Will the amount of 4 Tier,white
noise backup trucks promised by Mr. Strong be available?Or will the noise be worse than projected.?
That as a part of the project proposal on page xviii it states will be"a minor increase in truck trips"but on page xix it states
"it will generate a substantial amount of traffic".
THAT,the almost 3 mile loop around Naugles Drive,West Mill Road, Breakwater Road (passing Cooper's Farm)and
returning to Naugles has become a"track of sorts"to the enjoyment and recreation of pedestrians and cyclists alike. To
require those walking leave the pavement to walk in the grass,which unfortunately is permitted to get quite tall before
mowing, in order to avoid a haul truck is dangerous and inconvenient. The"S" curve traveling Southwest where West Mill
intersects Breakwater and Cox Neck is quite sharp and is easily termed a"blind curve" . It already presents a problem to
motorists and pedestrians.Add to that the now many landscape trucks parked on the sides of the projected haul truck
path, loading and unloading their equipment. This will necessitate the maneuvering of the haul trucks around any vehicle
parked on the roadside.The identified truck path is a residential area from the proposed site to Sound Ave.
THAT the 2 massive sheds, if constructed,would serve as heated storage for large yachts.This indoor storage is
preferable per Mr.Strong to in-water winter storage.This is what is cited as"industry demand".This"industry demand"is
driving motivation for the project. Sixty to 80 foot yachts might be used on the Long Island Sound but they may also be
used elsewhere some distance away in other waters. They would return, however,to Mattituck Inlet, by water, as they
are too large to be moved over land and subsequently hauled and stored in the planned buildings. Does this constitute
the expansion of waterfront activities and the access of recreational opportunities as one goal of the Comprehensive
plan?-page xxii If so, it serves only a niche group. Mattituck Inlet is unique in comparison to the other ports of the
Northshore of the Sound. None extend for 2 1/2 miles inland. In and of itself,the Inlet/Creek is a scenic, natural treasure.
To potentially harm it by run off and the loss of habitat for the hundreds of trees and wildlife upland is extreme and
undesirable.The removal of the Super Fund sight and Tar Tanks some years ago accomplished that goal by the creation
of a town passive park by the west breakwater. The sale of Peterson's Marina and the creation of the State Boat ramp
accomplished those goals also.
THAT even the positive economic benefits claimed in the proposal are questionable as the language is marked by
non concrete terms such as"approximately 17 full time staff',an additional 11 are"expected"and the salary range of
$50,000-$125,000"could be expected". Is that salary range for a part time employee(working in the proposed sheds)
realistic?
https:Hmail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=4e965e4ac4&view=pt&search=drafts&permmsgid=msg-a:r-8452459476126331485&dsqt=l&simpl=%23msg-a:r-... 1/2
4/18/23,11:08 AM Gmail-(no subject)
THAT the benefit of extending the Suffolk County Water Main from Naugles Drive is also questionable.Appendix K is
out of date and difficult to understand as to how many households might be eligible to hook up.The cost of doing so is
substantial to the homeowner.
As citizens and stewards of the land we must recognize that these environmental impacts and changes are
irreversible.Groundwater may be finite.
Why not desalinate? Propane is highly flammable and a natural resource. Why not install solar panels on the roofs?
Time and again we vote on proposals to save open space. Mr. Strong is a very successful businessman. On that we can
all agree. But has he shown that the DEIS is the best it can be for Southold Town and the Mattituck Inlet in particular? Or
that only he and a small group of yacht owners would benefit from this project?
Sincerely,
Toni Bryan
355 Rose Lane
Mattituck, N.Y.
https://mall.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=4e965e4ac4&view=pt&search=drafts&permmsgid=msg-a:r-8452458476126331485&dsqt=1&simp1=%23msg-a:r-... 2/2
Submission Without a Cover Letter S, 1 ,
RECE
_. .. : . ED
Sender: fY1oky�2
Subject:
�..�...�.....�...,m�.Pf a r�r:i r��e� Board..�.�.�.�..W...w..._.
SCTM#k: 1000 - 1 b�Q ." lQ ` �-
Date: 4�0-15I
Comments:
°\
DocuSign Envelope ID:2F5371F8-E5C5-46DA-B399-36AB28256561
4/11/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
D"uS na M by:
Signature 3°i w Scapa
Jason Scalia
Name
875 crown land lane
Address
Cutchogue NY 11935
City State Zip
Phone
Email Jason@strongsmarine.com
DocuSign Envelope ID:B5AAB47D-1B6A-48C8-9C95-1400F4DED2DD
4/9/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Oocuftneed�by.
Signature to
Laura Mazzeo
Name
1600 Ruth Rd.
Address
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
631-298-5343
Phone
Email lbmazzeo@optonline.net
DocuSign Envelope ID:910E8D5E-DCA5-4865-9BOA-ACDDF4302658
4/13/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature E/F
Tim hlcburne
Name
300 Olivia lane
Address
Cutchogue Ny 11935
City State, Zip
631-445-0222
Phone
mcburnie222@icloud.com
Email
DocuSign Envelope ID:7143E628-C7D1-4122-BA7B-AB71CA21DD70
4/14/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
inlfiaeulSiga M by:
Signature v-�4 6&,aa hwic,j
bavi d d c anInuowi cz
Name
39160 Route 25 P.O.Box 160
Address
Peconic NY 11958
City State Zip
631 7347923
Phone
Email creativeenvdesign@yahoo.com
DocuSign Envelope ID:C4562EAA-51A7-4E94-9C55-AE2E7D6A448B
4/13/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
DocuSigned by.
7.
Signaturer-t';1141"13 VZW U-
Angelo tepnoski
Name
200 Broad st
Address
Greenport Ny 11944
City State Zip
5166582831
Phone
Email greenportdock@yahoo.com
DocuSign Envelope ID:889152AC-8BFF-4276-8039-0780C5B72770
4/13/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
OUB
Signature J
BARBARA TALBOT
Name
1665 Bray Avenue
Address
laurel ny 11948
City State Zip
Phone
Email talbotb@optonline.net
DocuSign Envelope ID:A432A3B5-284E-4DBC-BAA4-9D83EB349CD4
4/13/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
unuSion d by:
SignatureP
Chi p "cee _
Name
1525 wunneweta road
Address
cutchogue new york 11935
City State Zip
516-662-2327
Phone
Email redchip@aol .com
DocuSign Envelope ID:529DOB19-8968-4CCD-A1AB-ABD7C98E9E1F
4/13/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Doeuft"d by:
Signature37
Lisa C ee a...
Name
1525 wunneweta road
Address
Cutchogue NY 11935
City State Zip
516-642-6850
Phone
Email winechipMgmai1 .com
DocuSign Envelope ID:16D31B80-FE32-4F2F-A11E-6C7986F76541
4/13/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Datuftrwd by:
Signature 0
KimMtMlnes
Name
15905 main rd
Address
Mattituck Ny 11952
City State Zip
Phone
wineskm@aol .com
Email
Submission Without a Cover Letter RECEIVED
APR 18 2023
Sender: ('(1u N Oe .Planning Beard ..
Subject: S-"rv(\35
SCTM#: 1000 - ��� _ _ i3,4-
Date: 41\, I apa�)
Comments: \
DocuSign Envelope ID:D02995A6-F88D-4D1 F-A863-48BA9F0K82D
4/5/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:
Signature kai�In, rhos �n,t l.�.t
Marten Romanelli
Name
2433 Camp Mineola Road
Address
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
516-903-6878
Phone
martin@burts.com
Email
DocuSign Envelope ID:42C390A2-4782-4539-A1DF-C305E2451ECE
4/7/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature
Doug C:abra
Name
127 Bay Ave
Address
Greenport Ny 11944
City State Zip
Phone
Email dcabral@exlrg.com
DocuSign Envelope ID: 18EE6A2C-39ED-40D0-9E47-5C590DC17E3C
4/5/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
LPoactrnr•Signature
_.
Peter Young
Name
2700 Bay Ave
Address
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
6312523580
Phone
Email yuriyoung@optonline.net
DocuSign Envelope ID: 18920D05-4CEA-4B90-B621-A006D350184D
4/6/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
OocuSigned by:
Signature
Ri Cl Lard gokanson
Name
1635 Nokomis Rd
Address
Southold NY 11971
City State Zip
Phone
Email Coins@optonline.net
DocuSign Envelope ID:7E97C1DF-DB7E-4432-9E8A-89C259693F80
4/5/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
LD a by
( ;
Signature �--` Y [J
Chris Young
Name
Chris J Young
Address
470 Willis Creek Drive NY 11952
City State Zip
Phone
Email cyoung2114@gmail .com
DocuSign Envelope ID:387CF4F5-4F5F-4D4B-A82A-4669FOEOA37A
4/5/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
D"uS br.
Signature 7 '1
David Ha linen
Name
2850 Reeve Rd
Address
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
Phone
Email dhallinan@siyachts.com
DocuSign Envelope ID:F988D312-E3B6-4E36-B61A-49BE5412C010
4/6/2023
Date:
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
o0cuWaned by,
Signature
mz��k
Don Suter
Name
1150 Dean Drive
Address
Cutchogue NY 11935
City State Zip
908-285-0903
Phone
vesail@aol .com
Email
Submission Without a Cover Letter
S-k,aF
Sender: Map 'Sex-,,6m
Subject: � U .��..,...�. ���r..°� B:...�or ...,-_,.�.�..-
SCTM#: 1000 - �1-
Date: 41 I(D` 9?j
Comments:
o� �uP �
DocuSign Envelope ID:223605F4-EE30-404A-8A74-C810E0287844
3/27/2023
Date: I"I" 1 023
-J
" i d
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Us4aw by:
Signature i al*
...
t�arir �sa�r� .
Name
1700 Ole Jule Lane
Address
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
Phone
Email lmcd@optonline.net
Date: AFIR 10 2023
...i
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director "� .nr�n - (.'�"um " '
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature I
a ,
Name a
Address 4� Poq v2
City fy� vt U M c e:. State J�J zip .9.
Phone 3 Jr-
Email /`�
ovoueign Envelope ID:m
J/JO/Z0Z]
Date:
OW I
Heather W1. Lanza, AJCP Planning Director Nanrdng Board
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.[>. Box 1l79
Southold, NY1197l
Tm the Southold Town Planning Department:
| am writing to express nny support for the Strong tanni|»'s proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Docuftwdw'
r,,,K
Signature
Dean chorn
N@nn8
PO Box 1017
Address
Southold m, 119/1
City -State Zip
831'804-8593
Phone
Email dlel30optunline'net
oocuSion Envelope ID:
]/29/ZO33
Date:
HeatherW1. Lanoa, A|C[� Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
64375 Route 35
P.O. Box 1173
Southold, NY1197l
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
| onn writing to express nny support for the Strong farni|«'s proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
oc , 9ne by:
SignGtUme
Jim GroeneVe
Name
25OVVi||immubunghDrive
Address
Southold NY 11971
City -State Zip
Phone
Email jim0strongsmarine'cum
2-3 Date:
APR 23
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director � � ',°� `tip" d
Southold Town Planning Department . ..
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Po
Signature
Name 60 C
r
Addressn
City - Ur% State Zip _��
Phone
Email ve, ". r°
Date: Ell
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning DirectorBo ard
Southold Town Planning Department ...M_.� "UdKming
..
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature
Namel"
Address ( D
City L,� 1� State //. f zip
Phone — ..
Email /�4. crifs-i
DocuSign Envelope ID:AE580667-1A07-4298-AD70-68FCF9265BE3
4/1/2023
Date:
PR 0 2221
f Heather M. Lanza,AIC g Planning P larirlin- Board
Director � -
Southold Town Planning Department
µw. _.",_...,........ .
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
adby:
14
Signature
9, , .Edgard Mazzeo
Name
1600 Ruth Road
Address
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
Phone
Email emazzeo@optonline.net
DocuSign Envelope ID:F678A425-3537-4A6F-977C-CEA37298C33D
4/4/2023
Date:
APR 1. 0) 202
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director V�riiui�u�
�� BoardBoard�
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold-Town Planning Department:.
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
p:Wo uftned by:
Signature tts w
Pau Wi s erg
Name
4095 Ole Jule Lane
Address
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
Phone
daw4@aol .com
Email
DocuSign Envelope ID:C20A5765-8DA1-4B12-8B54-798OE75FF577
Ij
APR . 0 2023
Date: 3/22/2023 °w. Cap `r E`0wh
F)IwInirig Board—
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
D by,
Signature ,._.
Thomas Scalia
Name
875 Crown Land Lane
Address
Cutchogue NY 11935
City State Zip
631-786-6920
Phone
Email tscalia@albertsonrealty.com
DocuSign Envelope ID:F8132D182-1902-479D-BDEB-01 FAEA1328505
4/3/2023 APR' 0 Z023 �
Date:
Nani niinig Board
Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
L1da:zaSSga edby:
Signature E ksew
Bi 1 r i s � rg
Name
Address
City State Zip
Phone
Email wwiIsberg@yahoo.com
..ice ry. ,.4� py�/ � ...
r nF N %inr �pl medr
Date: 2
:. 023
I ! `
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director lh,i
rd
Southold Town Planning Department m�.� BaNur`... 0
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature 4 /
Name C,V/j c ✓,?&N0c.J5lL<
Address � SAL 7/1112 L
City 16 Ll
State &Y ° Zip
Phone -- 7 2J =C
Email '` Vj t a0MY9/J0W5:/c
DocuSign Envelope ID:A14D142l3-23AA-46E8-A5D6-CE8D111802D3
re -""—
3/27/2023
Date: R 1 0 2023
i
P _Boar c
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director . .-_...e_..
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
CM�saSN�P�d by:
Signature
games `l ` ert
Name
1100 Route 48
Address
Mattituck
City NY 11952
631-902-1105 State Zip
Phone
Email )gilbert@royreeve.com
DocuSign Envelope ID:29A55000-7432-4841-A484-7FAE64880E58
Date: 4/3/2023 R-E-
E I EIIIIDAPR I 0 2
I
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director OUh:OAS I )Vvuuu...
Southold Town Plannin g D Nlardrui Ilia
epartment m-••-----
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
Signature by.�
Walter Peterson
Name
Address
City State Zip
Phone
Email wkpeter@optonline.net
DocuSign Envelope ID:OAA32A24-El5E-4FE9-8392-1 FFD8FCF294D
RECEDIED
3/22/2023 APR 02
Dates a J�
Planning Board
Heather M. Lanza,AICP, Planning Director
Southold Town Planning Department
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
To the Southold Town Planning Department:
I am writing to express my support for the Strong family's proposal to build two new yacht
storage buildings at Strong's Yacht Center on West Mill Road in Mattituck.
Yours Sincerely,
DowSlaned by:
Signature Grfa !�l(,�laM,
GREG WILLIAMS
Name
Country Time Cycle 6955 Main Road
Address
Mattituck NY 11952
City State Zip
631-298-8704
Phone
Email gregwsouthold@gmail .com