HomeMy WebLinkAboutReed Super 7.10.23 Submission SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273
July 10, 2023 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com
Via email
Mr. James H. Rich III, Vice-Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
54375 Main Rd
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Comments on Strong's Yacht Center DEIS and Site Plan Application
Dear Mr. Rich and Members of the Planning Board:
On behalf of Save Mattituck Inlet, we submit the following regarding the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) and site plan application for the Strong's Yacht Center
proposed boat storage buildings:
(1) Comments on the DEIS and site plan application,with Attachments A—E (all in the
same PDF with this cover letter); and
(2) A request, pursuant to Town Code § 280-146(D), that the Planning Board ask the
Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to: (a) determine the exact location of the R80/MII
district boundary on Strong's property in light of the issues raised in the April 2022
Boscola letter attached to the request; and (b) interpret Town Code § 280-111(H)
regarding the storage of petroleum products as it applies to the application. If the
Planning Board has any doubts about either matter, a ZBA determination may be of
assistance (the request is a separate PDF).
The following is a brief summary of the many reasons, explained in more detail in the
attached comments, why the Planning Board should deny the application, after it prepares a
complete, accurate, and adequate Final Environmental Impact Statement: (FEIS):
1. Upon initial referral from the Planning Board, the staff of the Suffolk County
Planning Commission issued a report highly critical of the application and recommended that the
Planning Board prohibit the proposed excavation of 135,000 cubic yards. The Commissioners
deemed the referral to be incomplete thereby requiring the Planning Board to submit the
requested materials to the County when complete and "resolved to generally agree with the
staff report." The Planning Board's legal authority to override Suffolk County Planning
Commission actions and recommended conditions is very limited and, because the
environmental issues raised by the County are closely related to environmental goals and
objectives at the Town level, the Planning Board should prohibit the proposed excavation and
deny the application.
2. The proposed project conflicts with the purposes of Town Code, Chapter 280,
Article XXIV, Site Plan Approval.
222 BROAD NvAY, 22ND FLOOR • NENvYORK, NENvYORK 10038
TEL: 212-242-2355 • www.superlawgroup.com
Southold Town Planning Board
July 10, 2023
Page 2
3. The proposed project is inconsistent with the purposes and permitted uses set
forth in Town Code, Chapter 290, Article XIII regarding the MII district and is prohibited under
Town Code § 280-111(H)because it would store more than 20,000 gallons of petroleum
products within 1,000 feet of tidal waters.
4. The proposed project is clearly inconsistent in numerous respects with chapters,
goals, and policies of the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposed project is inconsistent with the Town's Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program(LWRP).
6. The State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA) authorizes agencies to
deny a project to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts. This is often referred to as
SEQRA's "substantive mandate." The proposed project could have many highly significant
adverse environmental impacts, but there is no overriding public need for, or public benefit from,
the project. The Planning Board should issue a Negative Findings Statement and deny the
application on that basis.
7. The applicant's DEIS needs substantial revision and/or supplementation and
additional public notice and comment on the new studies and reports before the Planning
Board, as lead agency, can complete the FEIS that it will be responsible for. This must be done
before any of the above decisions can be made.
S. As the applicant's biologist acknowledges, the project site provides habitat for
endangered species that are expected to be present there. Protection of all state- and federally-
listed threatened and endangered species and other species of special concern and their habitats,
as well as full compliance by the applicant and all involved agencies with the state and federal
Endangered Species Acts and regulations, are of paramount importance. Once an endangered
species is extirpated, it's gone forever.
Thank you for your attention to these issues of critical importance to the citizens of the
Town of Southold and for your continued close scrutiny of the proposed project.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Reed Super, Esq.
Ethan Baer, legal intern
cc (via email):
Planning Department
Town Attorney
Southold Town Planning Board
July 10, 2023
Page 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
Suffolk County Planning Commission
NYSDEC
Save Mattituck Inlet
Save the Sound
North Fork Audubon
Group for the East End
Turtle Rescue of the Hamptons
Joel Klein
Comments
on
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement
dated November 2022
for
Strong's Yacht Center — Proposed Boat Storage Buildings
and
Application of Strong's Yacht Center
for Site Plan Approval
pursuant to Chapter 280 of Town Code
submitted to
Town of Southold Planning Board
By
Reed W. Super, Esq.
Ethan Baer, legal intern
Super Law Group, LLC
222 Broadway, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10038
212-242-2355, ext. 1
reedgsuperlawgroup.com
on behalf of
Save Mattituck Inlet
Dated: July 10, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
COMMENTS ON SITE PLAN APPLICATION 4
1. SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4
2. CHAPTER 280, ARTICLE XXIV (SITE PLAN APPROVAL) 11
3. OTHER CHAPTER 280 SECTIONS 13
4. INCONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 16
5. INCONSISTENCY WITH LWRP 33
COMMENTS ON DEIS AND SEQRA RELATED ISSUES 40
6. SEQRA SUBSTANTIVE MANDATE 40
7. SEIS AND FEIS 50
8. ENDANGERED SPECIES 54
CONCLUSION 56
INTRODUCTION
These comments along with the attachments are submitted on behalf of our client, Save
Mattituck Inlet,' regarding (1) the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement("DEIS"),
dated November 2022, for Strong's Yacht Center—Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, prepared
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"); and (2) the application of
Strong's Yacht Center for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article XXIV of the Town of Southold
Town Code (hereinafter, "Town Code").
We appreciate the Planning Board's continued careful consideration of the highly
significant adverse environmental and land-use impacts and repercussions that this proposed
project would have on the Hamlet of Mattituck, the Town of Southold, and the entire County.
We urge the Planning Board and the Planning Department, as well as your outside consultants
and the Town Attorney, to carefully consider these comments in your ongoing review of, and
decisions regarding, the proposed project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As discussed herein, the Planning Board should deny the application for site plan
approval because the exceedingly damaging proposed project cannot be approved consistent with
numerous mandatory requirements of State, County, and Town law.
Many of the application's glaring inconsistencies with adopted policies and plans stem
from the applicant's request for permission to radically transform the upland topography and
ecology near Mattituck Creek/Inlet. Clear-cutting more than 600 mature trees from a vulnerable
coastal oak-beech forest that sits 50+ feet above mean sea level ("AMSL") and provides habitat
for threatened and endangered species and other species of special concern would obviously
cause severe and irreversible environmental consequences, not only on the immediate site but
also on the neighboring Mill Road Preserve. The adverse impacts of excavating and hauling
away the hillside would then reverberate through the County all along the proposed truck route.
Destroying the forest and its valuable habitat, dropping the grade by 40+ feet, digging and
removing nearly 135,000 cubic yards of sand and earth from 4.59 acres in more than 4,000
truckloads (creating more than 8,000 truck trips each way), and then erecting a 900-foot-long
retaining wall more than 30 feet high to hold back the slope cut is an absurd approach to
constructing buildings, each with a one-acre-plus footprint, to store the 88 yachts that Strong's
hopes to transport to and from the water by travel lift.
For obvious reasons, the applicant's drastic proposal violates a panoply of Town-wide
and hamlet-specific policies and plans and cannot be approved under State, County, and Town
' Save Mattituck Inlet, established in 2020 by a group of local residents, seeks to protect and preserve Mattituck
Inlet and the surrounding ecosystem. The group understands 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. For more
information, see https://savemattituckinlet.com/
1
law, for the following reasons, which are summarized here and elaborated in more detail below:
First, upon referral from the Town, Strong's site plan application has been initially
reviewed by the Suffolk County Planning Commission and its staff, which recommended, among
other things, that the Planning Board impose the mandatory condition that"No soils should be
removed"because "[t]he intended excavation will create a bowl on site where storm flood waters
from Mattituck Creek will surge into." Pursuant to the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the
Planning Board may not override a decision by the Suffolk County Planning Commission to
disapprove an application or to approve it with modifications or conditions unless a
supermajority i.e., all four voting members of the Planning Board considering this application
votes to do so and explains its reasons. Because the County's initial recommendation to
prohibit the excavation of 135,000 cubic yards of earth were correct and based on the facts and
applicable laws and regulations, there is no sound basis on which the Planning Board could or
should override such a recommendation. The County initial review did not, however, result in
the Planning Commission taking action on the referred application because the Commissioners
voted in 2020, on an 11-1 vote, that the application was incomplete. Thus, a complete
application, including the materials specifically requested by the Suffolk County Planning
Commission, will have to be submitted to the County, before the Planning Commission can act
on it, in accordance with State and County law. The County's action will affect the Planning
Board's decision-making process and its decision on the application. Following the County's
action, the Planning Board should vote to disapprove the application. Furthermore, many of the
issues at the County level are related to goals and objectives at the Town level, which the
Planning Board must also assess for consistency or inconsistency before making a decision on
the proposed project.
Second, the Planning Board should deny the site plan application because the proposal
conflicts with the purposes of the Town of Southold Town Code, Chapter 280, Article XXIV
Site Plan Approval, including those set forth in Town Code §§ 280-128, 280-129(D), (H), and
(J), regarding conservation of natural features, bluffs, woodlands, large trees, unique plant and
wildlife habitats, flood hazards areas, wildlife breeding areas, respect for existing grades, and
avoiding unnecessary excavation.
Third, the Planning Board should vote to deny the site plan application because it is
inconsistent with the purposes and permitted uses set forth in Town Code Chapter 280, Article
XIII regarding the Marine II district, and the proposed project would violate Town Code § 280-
111(H)'s prohibition of storage facilities containing more than 20,000 gallons of petroleum
products within 1,000 feet of any tidal waters. In the event the Planning Board harbors any
doubt about the exact location of the boundary between the R80 an MII districts on the site
(which has been questioned by a family whose property is surrounded by the applicant's) or
about the interpretation and application of Section 280-111(H) to this proposal, Town Code §
280-146 authorizes the Planning Board to ask the Zoning Board of Appeals for a determination
of one or both issues. We have submitted herewith a separate request that the Planning Board
ask the ZBA to make one or both of those determinations.
Fourth, the Planning Board should vote to deny the site plan application because it is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in numerous respects including the chapters, goals,
2
and policies addressing zoning, protection and enhancement of the Town's natural resources and
environment, protection of open space, provision of parks and recreational opportunities,
preparing the Town for natural hazards, protecting the Town's character, reducing traffic
congestion and improving traffic safety, among many others.
Fifth, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Coordinator should
recommend denial of the site plan application because it is inconsistent with the Town's adopted
LWRP, and the Planning Board should adopt that recommendation and deny it on that basis.
The proposed project is inconsistent with LWRP policies regarding community character and
scenic resources in the coastal zone, minimization of losses from flooding and erosion,
protection of water quality, protection of the Town's ecosystem, recreational uses of public
lands, and the suitability of locations for water-dependent or water-related uses, among others.
Sixth, the Planning Board should issue a Negative Findings statement and deny the
application pursuant to SEQRA's substantive mandate. SEQRA authorizes local agencies to
deny a project to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts. This proposal will cause
significant adverse environmental impacts in many resource categories. Moreover, there is no
overriding public need for, or public benefit from, the project. In the absence of such need and
benefit that could outweigh the significant impacts, there is no basis for the Planning Board to
approve the project.
Seventh, before making any of the above determinations, there must be a Final
Environmental Impact Statement("FEIS")prepared and adopted by the Planning Board in full
compliance with the SEQRA statute and regulations. The applicant's DEIS needs substantial
revision and supplementation and additional public notice and comment on the new studies
and reports in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("SEIS") before the Planning
Board, as Lead Agency, can complete the FEIS that it is responsible for.
Eighth, as the applicant's biologist acknowledges, the project site provides habitat for
endangered species that are expected to be present there. Protection of all state- and federally-
listed threatened and endangered species and other species of special concern and their habitats,
as well as full compliance by the applicant and all involved agencies with the state and federal
Endangered Species Acts and regulations are of paramount importance.
These issues are explained further below.
3
COMMENTS ON SITE PLAN APPLICATION,
INCLUDING FATAL INCONSISTENCIES WITH
ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES, AND SUFFOLK
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REQUIREMENTS
AFFECTING THE PLANNING BOARD'S DECISION MAKING
State, County, and Town laws govern the Planning Board's decision-making process and
its substantive decision on any application for site plan approval. The Planning Board, after
review of an application and full compliance with all procedural requirements, has three options:
(a) approve the site plan as submitted; (b) approve the site plan with modifications, conditions,
and/or restrictions that the Planning Board deems necessary; or(c) disapprove (i.e., deny) the site
plan. N.Y. Town Law § 274-a(2)(a), (4); Town Code §§ 280-127 to 280-131. County laws and
regulations add additional requirements. The Planning Board should vote to disapprove the site
plan for all of the following reasons and should make the explicit findings discussed below.
1. The Planning Board Should Follow the Suffolk County Planning
Commission Recommendation to Prohibit the Proposed
Excavation and Thereby Disapprove the Application.
The Suffolk County Administrative Code ("County Admin. Code") Section A14-25,
entitled "Referral of certain site plans to Planning Commission,"requires each village in Suffolk
County having jurisdiction to approve site plans, before taking final action, to refer to the County
Planning Commission any site plan which would affect any real property lying within 500 feet of
various geographical features, including the Atlantic Ocean, Long Island Sound, any bay in
Suffolk County, or estuary of any of the foregoing bodies of water. County Admin. Code § A14-
25(A)(6).
The Planning Board has made a referral, in February 2020, and the Suffolk County
Planning Commission then issued a staff report, analysis, and recommendations, dated March 25,
2020, which the Commissioners considered at their April 1, 2020 meeting. See Attachments A
and B, hereto.Z The County Admin. Code provides that where the County Planning Commission
recommends that the Town Planning Board disapprove a site plan or approve it with changes or
conditions, the Planning Board has two choices. It may either"amend the proposed action in
accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendations and adopt it in the ordinary
course of municipal business or decline to adopt any one of the recommendations of the Planning
Commission and adopt the action as originally proposed, but only upon an affirmative vote of a
majority plus one of the entire membership of the referring hodv in a resolution that explicitly
2 The March 25,2020 report and April 1,2020 are also available at:
https://ww-w.suffolkcopplyny.gov/Portals/0/formsdocs/planning/scplanningcommission/2020/Strongs°/`2OStaff`/`20
Report.pdf and
https://ww-w.suffolkcountyny.gov/Portals/0/formsdocs/planning/scplanningcommission/2020/Commission°/`20Mtg
%20 Summary%204-1-2020%20FINAL%2010-26-20.pdf.
4
sets forth its reasons for not adopting the Planning Commission's recommendations." County
Admin. Code § A14-25(D)(2) (emphasis added);' see also § A14-25(D)(3) (similar
supermajority requirement where County Planning Commission renders a report recommending
disapproval of the site plan).'
The Suffolk County Planning Commission's March 25, 2020 staff report("County
Report,"Attachment A, hereto) contains numerous facts, concerns and considerations, analyses,
and recommendations that are highly relevant, procedurally and substantively, to the Planning
Board's review, decision-making process, and decision on the site plan application.
As to the County Planning Commission's role under state law, the report notes that "New
York State General Municipal Law, Section 239-1 provides for the Suffolk County Planning
Commission to consider inter-community issues . . . such . . . as compatibility of land uses,
community character, public convenience and maintaining a satisfactory community
environment." Report at 3.
It also explains that "Suffolk County Planning Commission Jurisdiction over this
application [under the County Admin. Code] 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." Id. at 4. Importantly:
"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' put[] forth the notion of
rising seas level, more frequent and severe and frequent storm events including
more violent storm surges."
Id.
Under "Proposal Details / Overview," the County report notes the following facts that are
highly significant to these flooding, coastal resiliency, storm surge, sea level rise, climate
change-related, and water pollution issues, impacts, and concerns:
County Admin. Code §A14-25(D)(2)provides in full: "If the Planning Commission renders a report
recommending changes in a proposed municipal zoning action and approving the action with such changes,the town
or village that referred the proposal may,unless §A14-18 or A14-21 applies,amend the proposed action in
accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendations and adopt it in the ordinary course of municipal
business or decline to adopt any one of the recommendations of the Planning Commission and adopt the action as
originally proposed,but only upon an affirmative vote of a majority plus one of the entire membership of the
referring body in a resolution that explicitly sets forth its reasons for not adopting the Planning Commission's
recommendations."
'County Admin. Code §A14-25(D)(3)provides in full: "If the Planning Commission renders a report disapproving
a site plan,the town or village involved may,unless §A14-18 or A14-21 applies,approve the site plan as originally
proposed,but only upon an affirmative vote of a majority plus one of the entire membership of the referring body in
a resolution that explicitly sets forth its reasons for rejecting the Planning Commission's report."
5
"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."
Id. at 3.
Under "Staff Analysis," the report explains why the excavation of 130,000+ cubic yards
of soil should not be permitted for this project in light of flooding, coastal resiliency, storm
surge, sea level rise, climate change-related, and water pollution issues, impacts, and concerns
and therefore, the site plan application should not be approved as proposed:
"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.
No soils should he removed. This is not the case here [i.e.,as proposed by Strong's].
The intended excavation will create a howl 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 susceptihle, as are other areas of
similar elevations, to surges and flooding from category 2 hurricanes in the least.
. . . [T]he 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.
[¶] . . . [C]onventional 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
6
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."
Id. at 4-5 (emphasis added).
At its public meeting, the Suffolk County Planning Commission, by an 11-1 vote,
"resolved to generally agree with the staff report." Suffolk County Planning Commission, April
1, 2020 Minutes ("Planning Commission Minutes,"Attachment B, hereto) at 4.
The analysis of the Suffolk County Planning Commission staff, agreed with by the
Commissioners, is highly pertinent to the Planning Board's site plan review. By excavating a
4.59-acre hillside near Mattituck Creek, and thereby lowering the grade of what is now an upland
forest from 50+AMSL to —10 AMSL, the applicant would, in the County's words, "create a
bowl on site where storm flood waters from Mattituck Creek will surge into,"making this
"created flood plain"highly susceptible to flooding and storm surges.
The deep excavation will also dramatically reduce or eliminate the needed separation
between groundwater and the wastewater and storm water systems, preventing them from
functioning properly during elevations of the groundwater table. (While the report refers to
conventional septic systems, that same is true for I/A systems, which reduce nitrogen but also
discharge to the vadose zone directly above the groundwater table.)
The applicant's proposal represents the very antithesis of coastal resiliency and proper
planning for sea level rise, flooding, and the other anticipated impacts of climate change. While
New York State and Long Island decisionmakers and communities are seeking to build away
from the shoreline (or, for structures or infrastructure that must be at the shoreline, raising their
elevation well above the flood zone), the applicant's proposal to lower the grade by 40+ feet,
convert a hillside upland into flood plain, and locate new structures and equipment there in 2023
and beyond is an anachronistic absurdity.
These environmental issues, which will prevent the Suffolk County Planning
Commission from recommending approval of the project as proposed, are also some of the many
reasons why the Planning Board should disapprove the application.
Furthermore, the Suffolk County Planning Commission staff report explained that, unlike
boat slips at marinas, the storage of boats is not a water dependent use, it is merely a water
related use, which need not be located at or near at location Strong's proposes:
"The proposed use on site is consistent with water related uses though not water
dependent due to the fact that hoat storage can he accomplished inland."
7
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 hoats on site is not essential . . . ."
County Report at 4.
County Planning Commission staff noted further, that "[b]uilding at the existing grade
[would] lessen[] the repetitive economic loss concern and also address[] the functionality of the
waste and storm water systems proposed." Id. at 5. However, as Strong's DEIS has made clear
the project cannot simply be modified to build the proposed yacht warehouses at the existing
grade at same location proposed because the size and weight of these mega-yachts 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 Mattituck Inlet to buildings located up a steep slope 50 or
more feet above the water. See, e.g., DEIS p. xliii ("the large boats cannot be transported via
road (either internally at SYC or public road)because the length and weight of such boats require
the vessels to be lifted directly from the water and hauled via the 85-ton travelift on relatively
flat grades") (emphasis added); see also id. at ii, 5-6. Furthermore, building the proposed
structures at the existing grade would cause the destruction of the fragile, coastal oak-beech
forest that provides valuable habitat to many important species. Thus, such alternative would not
address those critically important adverse impacts. Accordingly, implementing the County
recommendation that "No soils should be removed" (County Report at 5)necessitates denial of
the site plan application.
At the conclusion of the County Report, the "Staff Recommendation"was that the
Suffolk County Planning Commission should resolve in favor of"Approval of the Site Plan
referral from the Town of Southold Planning Board . . . with the following condition[s]:
"l. No excavated soil shall he 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."
County Report at 6 (emphasis added).
8
At its April 1, 2020 public meeting, the Suffolk County Planning Commission did not
take action on the referral because it found the referral, and the application, to be incomplete.
Specifically, other than "resolv[ing] to generally agree with the staff report" (as noted above),
"[a]fter deliberation the Commission . . . 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"passed by an 11-1 vote of the
Planning Commissioners. Planning Commission Minutes at 4. The minutes further explain the
nature of the incompleteness:
"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.
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."
Id. at 3-4.
On April 2, 2020, the Suffolk County Planning Commission sent the Planning Board(via
the Town Clerk) a copy of the Commission's April 1, 2020 resolution and advised the Planning
Board that "referral will not be reviewed until the [requested] information is submitted through
the offices of the municipal referring agency. See Attachment C, hereto. (The resolution and its
cover letter appear in the Town Laserfiche file.)
9
Additionally, on April 7, 2020, in response to a SEQRA coordination notice from the
Town Planning Department, the staff of the Suffolk County Planning Commission included the
preliminary staff comments on, and analysis of, the incomplete application from the County
Report in a comment letter to the Planning Department. See Attachment D, hereto. (This letter
also appears in the Town Laserfiche file.) Like the County Report, the County's comment letter
states that "No soils should be removed."
Accordingly, once there is a complete application that includes all of the information
needed necessary by the Suffolk County Planning Commission, the Planning Board must submit
it to the Planning Commission for its action and recommendations as required by the County
Administrative Code and N.Y. General Municipal Law § 239-1. Presumably, a Final EIS will be
necessary before this referral and County action can be accomplished. At that time, the Suffolk
County Planning Commission's action, i.e., approval, disapproval, or approval with
modifications and/or conditions (such as staff's recommendation that no excavation occur and no
soils be removed), may dictate what decision the Planning Board can make on the site plan
application.
Moreover, the issues raised by the Suffolk County Planning Commission and its staff are
all the subject of important plans, policies, and requirements under Town law, as discussed
below. The Planning Board should follow the recommendation of County staff to prohibit
excavation of the upland and the senseless and needless creation of a floodplain "bowl"next to
Mattituck Inlet.
10
2. The Planning Board Should Disapprove the Application Because
the Proposed Development Violates Purposes, Objectives,
Considerations of Chapter 280, Article XXIV (Site Plan
Approval) of the Town Code.
Article XXIV (Site Plan Approval) of Chapter 280 (Zoning) of the Town Code sets forth,
among other things, the purpose and objectives for Planning Board review of proposed site plans
in the Town of Southold. The overarching purposes of Article XXIV are to "encourage good
design and to: Protect the established character and value of the adjoining properties, both public
and private, and of the neighborhood in which they are located; Secure safety from fire,flood
and other dangers and provide adequate light, air and convenience of access; and Mitigate the
environmental impacts of new development on the land, air and water resources." Town Code §
280-128 (emphasis added). Furthermore, all developments must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Development Plan, which provides extensive further considerations the Planning
Board must follow. Town Code § 280-129(1).
More specifically, the Town Code states that the Planning Board, when considering site
plans, "shall take into consideration the public health, safety and welfare, the economic impact
and the comfort and convenience of the public in general and the residents of the immediate
neighborhood in particular." Town Code § 280-129. Additionally, it gives high priority to: "(1)
The conservation of all natural features on and adjacent to the site, including but not limited to
natural drainage courses, fresh- and saltwater wetlands and marshes, dunes, hluffs, beaches,
escarpments, woodlands, large trees, unique plant and wildlife habitats,flood hazard areas and
wildlife breeding areas; (2) The protection of groundwater and surface water from contamination
by pollutants; and(3) The protection of air quality." Town Code § 280-129(D) (emphasis
added).
Regarding grading and drainage, "all site developments shall respect existing grades on
site and on adjoining sites to avoid unnecessai v excavation or filling and . . . all stormwater
runoff generated on site [must] be retained on site in an environmentally acceptable manner."
Town Code § 280-29(H) (emphasis added).
The proposed project offends the very purpose and objectives of the Site Plan Approval
article and violates many of the high priority considerations. The Town Code uses the term
"shall" to mandate full consideration by the Planning Board of the goals and objectives listed in
Article XXIV when reviewing and taking action on a site plan. Thus, the environmental and
related factors set forth in Article XXIV must be considered in the context of all site plan
reviews in the Town, apart from any state law requirements under SEQRA.
As discussed above in the context of the County requirements and below in the DEIS
section of these comments, the proposed site plan, if approved and implemented, would cause
numerous highly significant adverse environmental impacts on the site, the neighboring preserve,
the Town, and other communities in Suffolk County. These same impacts warrant disapproval
under Chapter 280, Article XXIV of the Town Code. Excavating 135,000 cubic yards of sand
from a hill within the 100-year floodplain, and lowering the grade by 40+ feet obviously does not
respect existing grades on site and avoid unnecessary excavation. It would also put the property,
11
its structures, infrastructure, and the boats stored there (including fuel and other hazardous
substances) at substantially higher risk of flooding. Destruction of a valuable, fragile forested
area by clear-cutting approximately 634 mature trees and eliminating the habitat they provide
obviously does not conserve all natural features on and adjacent to the site, including but not
limited to woodlands, large trees, unique plant and wildlife habitats, and wildlife breeding areas
on the site and at Mill Road Preserve (which will experience adverse forest edge effects).
Lowering the grade by 40+ feet and thereby placing wastewater and stormwater systems close to
the water table does not protect groundwater and surface water from contamination by pollutants.
Accordingly, the Planning Board should find that the proposed site plan is not consistent
with the purpose and objectives set forth in Town Law §§ 280-128, 280-129(D), (H), and(J),
among others and should deny the site plan application on that basis.
12
3. The Planning Board Should Disapprove the Application Because
the Project Is Inconsistent with Other Purposes, Objectives, and
Requirements of the Zoning Chapter of the Town Code.
In addition to Article XXIV regarding site plans, the proposed project is also inconsistent
with other aspects of Chapter 280.
The purposes of the Zoning Chapter include, among others, "enhancement of the
appearance of the Town of Southold as a whole, particularly its open and rural environment,"
"development of land in such a way as to produce the most appropriate use of lands . . . and to
preserve the natural and scenic qualities of open lands," "protection of the subsurface water
supply and surface waters," and "protection and enhancement of the coastal environment."
Town Code § 280-2. The proposed project is inconsistent with all of these purposes.
Article XIII of Chapter 280 explains that the "purpose of the Marine II (MII) District is to
provide a waterfront location for a wide range of water-dependent and water-related uses, which
are those uses which require or benefit from direct access to or location in marine or tidal waters
and which, in general, are located on major waterways, open bayfronts or the Long Island
Sound." Town Code § 280-54. Subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board, boatyards
for the storage of boats are a permitted use in the MII district. Town Code § 280-55(a)(5). But
the proposed project is not consistent with this purpose or the permitted uses for the reasons
explained below.
Town Code § 280-111, entitled "Prohibited uses in all districts,"prohibits the storage of
more than 20,000 gallons of petroleum products within 1,000 feet of tidal waters or tidal
wetlands: "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 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." Town Code § 280-111(H). The proposed project is
prohibited by this provision because the yacht storage buildings (alone or cumulatively with
other petroleum products on site)would store more than 20,000 gallons of fuel within 1,000 feet
of tidal waters and tidal wetlands.
The Planning Board should find that the proposed project is inconsistent with the
purposes of the Town's Zoning Chapter and inconsistent with particular sections for the
following reasons:
First, it appears that the boundary between the R80 district and MII district(previously, a
Business district) on this site was inadvertently and erroneously moved 380 feet to the west in
1989 when the MII designation was first created. On this issue, please see Attachment E, hereto,
which is an April 22, 2022 letter with attachments to the Town Board, with copies to the
Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, from the Boscola family, whose home and
residential lot off of West Mill Road is surrounded on all four sides by the Strong's property,
which details the relevant zoning history of the site since 1957.
13
The current zoning was put into place in 1989 with the adoption of Local Law No. 1-
1989; since then, little change has been made. See Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 3, p. S. When the
Town redrew its zoning map in 1989, the boundary between the R80 and MII zones of SCTM
#1000-106-13.4, located along the western side of Mattituck Creek, was shifted westward
approximately 380 feet from its pre-1989 location. There is no record of why this westward shift
of the boundary occurred. It appears that the map was erroneously drawn with the boundary
inadvertently shifted 380 feet to the west.
As shown in the November 1989 letter from the Planning Board that is reproduced in
Exhibit V to the April 2022 Boscola letter, the Planning Board understood nearly one year after
the passage of Local Law No. 1 that the R80 zone was still intact on the portion of the property
that Strong's storage buildings are proposed to be built. Thus, the boundary did not shift
westward with the adoption of Local Law No. 1. Likewise, a Survey/Subdivision Map excerpt
from Young & Young—4th revision, last dated August 17, 1989, and marked as received by the
Planning Board on February 26, 1990, shows the same thing. See Exhibit VI to the April 2022
Boscola letter contained in Attachment E, hereto. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the Town
Board intended to include the upland portion of the site, up a steep incline from the waterfront,
within the RII district rather than the R80 district. Notably, the other properties that are zoned
MII do not include such uplands, but only relatively narrow swaths of land along the shoreline.
Where there is uncertainty as to the location of a district boundary or the meaning of a
provision of the Zoning Chapter, the Town Code authorizes the Planning Board to request an
interpretation and determination from the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA"). Pursuant to the
Town Code § 280-146(D)(2), on request by any Town board, the ZBA can make a determination
of the exact location of any district boundary shown on the Zoning Map.' Accordingly, along
with these comments we are submitting a separate request that the Planning Board ask the ZBA
to determine the exact location of the R80/MII boundary on SCTM #1000-106-13.4.
If the ZBA determines, as we believe it should, that the land on which the yacht storage
buildings are proposed is actually in an R80, rather than an MII, district then the site plan cannot
be approved because boat storage facilities are not a permitted use in an R80 zone. Town Code §
280-13.
Second, even assuming that the land on which the yacht storage buildings are proposed is
in an MII district, the proposed project is inconsistent with the purposes of that district. As noted
above, the "purpose of the Marine II (MII) District is to provide a waterfront location for a wide
range of water-dependent and water-related uses, which are those uses which require or benefit
from direct access to or location in marine or tidal waters and which, in general, are located on
major waterways, open bayfronts or the Long Island Sound." Town Code § 280-54. The upland
portion of the site, however, does not currently have direct access to marine or tidal waters for
the use that Strong's proposes. As the DEIS makes clear, the size and weight of the mega-yachts
that Strong's hopes to store prevents them from being transported via traditional boat trailer and
5 Specifically, Town Code §280-146(D)provides that the Zoning Board of Appeals"shall have the following
powers: . . . Interpretations: . . .on request of any Town officer,board or agency,to. . . : (1)Determine the
meaning of any provision in this chapter or of any condition or requirement specified or made under the provisions
of this chapter[or] (2)Determine the exact location of any district boundary shown on the Zoning Map."
14
vehicle, yet the 85-ton travel lift is also not capable of transporting them from Mattituck Inlet to
buildings located up a steep slope 50 or more feet above the water. See, e.g., DEIS p. xliii ("the
large boats cannot be transported via road (either internally at SYC or public road)because the
length and weight of such boats require the vessels to be lifted directly from the water and hauled
via the 85-ton travelift on relatively flat grades") (emphasis added); see also id. at ii, 5-6.
The stated purposes of the MII district, i.e., to provide a waterfront location for uses
which require or benefit from direct access to marine or tidal waters, are not served where the
location is an upland forest on steep slopes that is not capable of receiving the intended yachts at
its current elevation(with or without modest grading), but must instead be radically transformed
from an upland forested hillside to an excavated flood plain bowl. The MII district is designed to
serve only those marine-related uses that can be viably located on a site that can accommodate
them without massive changes to the physical landscape. Land zoned MII should not need to be
completely transformed for a water related use to be achieved.
Third, the Planning Board should find that the proposed project violates Town Code §
280-111(H) because the 88 yachts that Strong's proposes to store in the proposed buildings
would contain more than 20,000 gallons of fuel within 1,000 feet of tidal waters. As noted at the
June 5, 2023 public hearing, the fuel tanks in those boats must be stored full.
To the extent that the Planning Board harbors any doubt about the interpretation of Town
Code § 280-111(H) and its application in this context, we have included in the separate
document submitted herewith a request that the Planning Board, pursuant to Town Code § 280-
146(D)(1), ask the ZBA to determine the meaning of Town Code § 280-111(H).
15
4. The Planning Board Should Disapprove the Application Because
the Project Is Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter 280, Article XXIV of the Town Code provides that developments proposed in a
site plan cannot be approved unless they are found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Town Code § 280-129(J).6 The DEIS's claim that the development is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan is obviously erroneous in that its consistency discussion cherry picks only a
few very general Comprehensive Plan policies, while omitting any mention or analysis of the
major goals and objectives that the project is plainly inconsistent with.
The Comprehensive Plan's Vision Statement, which guides the entire process of
comprehensive planning and consistency, states: "Future planning shall be compatible with
existing community character while supporting and addressing the challenges of continued land
preservation, maintaining a vibrant local economy, creating efficient transportation, promoting a
diverse housing stock, expanding recreational opportunities and protecting natural resources."
Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 1. The proposed development is inconsistent with the Vision
Statement because it would not protect community character, would develop land providing
valuable habitat rather than preserve it, destroy important natural resources, harm recreational
opportunities in the neighboring preserve, and add little to the local economy.
Beyond the Vision Statement, the Comprehensive Plan is comprised of 13 chapters, each
of which has its own goals and objectives. Additionally, each hamlet has specific goals that are
incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's proposal is plainly inconsistent with
many of these specific goals and objectives, as discussed below.
Chapter 3: Land Use and Zoning
The DEIS's discussion of purported consistency with the Land Use and Zoning chapter
of the Comprehensive Plan is plainly erroneous. The DEIS touches on only 3 out of 13 goals,
makes little to no mention of the objectives used to accomplish those goals, and provides cursory
and non-credible arguments, highlighting only potential positives and glossing over the negative
aspects of the project. It should also be noted that some of goals have entire chapters associated
with them and, to the extent that the DEIS addresses them at all, it does so in relation to another
chapter but not as a part of the land use goals.
These are the goals in the Land Use and Zoning chapter of the Comprehensive Plan that
are applicable to this proposed action:
Goal 2: Review and Update Zoning Town-Wide
Goal 4:Improve Traffic Congestion and Safety
Additionally,pursuant to N.Y.Town Law§272-a(11)(a),all town land use regulations must be in accordance
with the comprehensive plan. Moreover,N.Y. Town Law§263 provides that zoning ordinances must be made in
accordance with a comprehensive plan.
16
Goal 5: Protect the Town Character
Goal 6: Protect and Enhance the Town's Natural Resources and Environment
Goal 7: Economic Prosperitv
Goal 10: Continue to Preserve Farmland and Open Space
Goal 12: Prepare the Town for Natural Hazards
Goal 13: Provide Qualitv Parks and Recreation Opportunities in the Town
The Planning Board should find that the proposed project is inconsistent with all of those
goals and deny the application on that basis, as discussed for each Land Use and Zoning goal
here (grouped by topic, rather than in number order):
Goal 2: Review and Update Zoning Town-Wide
The main aim of this goal is to "ensure that the existing zoning is appropriately located,
uses are of the appropriate scale and intensity for the location, and all are consistent with the
other goals of this plan." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 3, p. S. As discussed above, the purported
location of the MII district on this site is not appropriately located because it is an upland area
separated from the waterfront by steep slopes. Because of that, the use is not consistent with the
other goals in the plan. Asking the ZBA to determine the precise, proper location of the MII
district boundary would further this goal.
Goal 6:Protect and Enhance the Town's Natural Resources and Environment
The proposed project is inconsistent with the goal to protect and enhance the Town's
natural resources and environment.
The plan explains that "[t]he importance of managing and preserving Southold's natural
resources while promoting responsible user experiences is paramount in maintaining the quality
of life within the Town." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 3, p. 14. The plan's associated objectives
are: (i)protecting groundwater and surface water quality and quantity; and (ii) protecting land-
based natural resources including agricultural soils and natural habitat for wildlife. Id. Chapter
6, "Natural Resources & Environment" goes into more depth on the goals and objectives.
Clear-cutting more than 600 fully-grown trees in a fragile coastal oak-beech forest that
provides valuable habitat for a number of species, including threatened and endangered species
and other species of special concern, is inconsistent with these goals and objectives. So is
lowering the grade and thereby reducing the separation between wastewater and stormwater
systems and the groundwater table. Planting 95 new (young)pitch pine trees obviously does not
render the project consistent with this aspect of the Comprehensive Plan.
17
All of these unanswered questions and discrepancies illustrate that the DEIS could not
have possibly claimed the proposed action would have no significant impact on groundwater
quality. It is clear that much revision is needed, and a much more thorough analysis is needed to
determine consistency with this goal.
Goal 10: Continue to Preserve Farmland and Open Space
The proposed project is inconsistent with the goal to continue to preserve farmland and
open space.
Goal 10 is a highly relevant goal (which the DEIS completely avoids mentioning). The
Comprehensive Plan provides that "Southold's character is created in large part by its open
spaces, including farmland, natural lands, and parks. Protecting these assets has long been a goal
of the Town. Land preservation priorities include retaining large blocks of uninterrupted
farmland, and preserving environmentally sensitive lands and woodland. Lands for recreation
and public gathering are also important." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 3, p. 14. Importantly, the
Comprehensive Plan unambiguously says the character of Southold is created in large part by its
open spaces. The DEIS asserts that the character of the area will be maintained, but this is
obviously not the case where an entire 4.59-acre hill would be excavated and replaced with 1-
acre-plus warehouses situated in an enormous "bowl" in place of the upland forest that stretches
over the environmentally sensitive Mill Road Preserve and portions of the property. The portion
of the forest on the preserve will also suffer negative "edge effects" (i.e., trees and other habitat
that were nearer to the center of the forest become the edge of the forest, where they are less
protected and do not thrive.)
The applicant would have the Planning Board entirely disregard preservation priorities
like preserving environmentally sensitive lands and woodlands, and preserving lands for
recreation. The Planning Board should not do so.
Goal 13:Provide Quality Parks and Recreation Opportunities in the Town
The proposed project is inconsistent with the goal to provide quality parks and recreation
opportunities.
The Comprehensive Plan discusses the importance of maintaining its existing parklands.
The proposed project is clearly inconsistent with this goal as it will adversely affect Mill Road
Preserve.
Goal 12:Prepare the Town for Natural Hazards
The proposed project is inconsistent with the goal to prepare the Town for natural
hazards.
Another critically important land use goal (also completely disregarded by the DEIS) is
Goal 12. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that"Southold Town is subject to natural hazards,
18
including hurricanes, flooding, and sea level rise, which can imperil human lives, property, and
the environment." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 3, p. 15.
As the Suffolk County Planning Commission and its staff explained in their 2020 report,
lowering the elevation from 50+ feet AMSL to —10 feet AMSL in an area within the 100-year
flood plain that is susceptible to hurricanes and storm surges clearly does not prepare the Town
for natural hazards. To the contrary, the project proposes to create a constructed flood plain
"bowl" into which the waters of Mattituck Creek will flow during large storms and then to locate
new structures, infrastructure, equipment and yachts filled with fuel into that flood plain which
is precisely the opposite of proper preparation for nature hazards, climate change, and sea level
rise. This proposed project would make the area more susceptible to hurricanes, flooding, and
sea level rise which is plainly inconsistent with this goal.
Goal 5:Protect the Town Character
The proposed project is inconsistent with the goal to protect the Town character.
As noted above, the overarching goal of the Comprehensive Plan is that Southold should
retains much of its small-town character and maintains a high quality of life by preserving and
increasing the Town's scenic, cultural, and natural resources. Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive
Plan, "Community Character" goes into more detail regarding goals and objectives.
The DEIS states that "The subject property has been an established maritime use for 60
years and is zoned accordingly." DEIS p.169. It further states that other Marine II districts
nearby have similar characteristics of the subject property. Both of those assertions are
misleading half-truths that miss the point. While part of the subject property has been zoned and
used for maritime purposes for decades, the part of the property that would be developed under
the site plan, the hillside at 50+ feet AMSL, is not presently used, and has never been used, for
maritime purposes. It is forest used by numerous species as habitat. It was zoned RSO and
should still be zoned RSO due to its upland location (as discussed above). Moreover, the other
MII districts that are located nearby do not have a similar rise in elevation and are more
appropriately situated for MII-permitted land uses.
The DEIS also claims that the "proposed action would expand in line with the existing
scale of development . . . and would not be visibly obtrusive to users of Mattituck Creek." DEIS
p. 169. These dubious assertations are also unsupportable. The proposed one-acre-plus
structures will likely be among the very largest in the entire Town, and the visual simulations
used to demonstrate how the Project "would blend with the existing maritime-use buildings on-
site" are, as noted in comments by others, such as Joel Klein, defective and misrepresentative of
the post-construction views of the project site. Those simulations need to be redone properly in
an SEIS or the FEIS.
The proposed project is inconsistent with this goal as it will not maintain the Town's
small-town character and high quality of life by preserving and increasing its scenic, cultural,
and natural resources.
19
Goal 4:Improve Traffic Congestion and Safety
The proposed project is inconsistent with the goal to reduce traffic congestion and
improve traffic safety because it would require more than 8,000 truck trips to haul away 135,000
cubic yards of earth from the excavated hillside.
The Comprehensive Plan states: "Traffic congestion and pedestrian safety are priority
issues for residents. Increases in tourism have meant an increase in traffic in Southold. Speeding,
whether it be through a hamlet center or down a quiet side street, is a complaint heard from
residents all over Town." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 3, pp. 13-14. Two objectives used to
achieve that overarching goal are: "Find solutions to the traffic problems experienced during the
summer and fall busy seasons" and "Protect the safety of pedestrians by finding ways to calm
traffic, especially where roads such as State Route 25 pass through areas with a concentration of
pedestrian activity, such as hamlet centers." Id. p. 14.
The DEIS makes no mention of this goal or whether the proposed project is consistent
with this goal. Other public commenters have discussed the myriad shortcomings in the DEIS's
transportation analysis.
The Planning Board should find that the proposed project is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan's traffic goals due to the extremely large number of large truck trips to and
from the site, through the Town and Riverhead, that it would require.
Mattituck/Laurel Land Use and Zoning Goals/Issues
The proposed project is inconsistent with the hamlet-specific goals and objectives.
The Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3, also has the individualized goals for each of the
hamlets in the Town of Southold. "Mattituck/Laurel residents have expressed a vision that
includes preserving farmland and open spaces, retaining the character of the hamlets, and
improving traffic safety and pedestrian access in and near the hamlet center." Comprehensive
Plan, Ch. 3, p. 33. There is no plausible reading of the vision for Mattituck that the proposed
project could be consistent with. The proposed project damages open spaces, alters the character
of the hamlet, and worsens traffic safety. The DEIS also makes no mention of this hamlet-
specific goal.
For the same reasons that the project violates the Town-wide goals and objectives, the
Planning Board should find that it is inconsistent with the hamlet-specific vision and goals.
Goal 7: Economic Prosperity
The purpose of this goal is to "facilitate the growth of existing businesses, and encourage
new businesses for stable and sustainable employment." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 3. p. 14.
Economic prosperity is covered more in depth in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan.
20
In the context of this goal, the DEIS again makes the incorrect and misleading claim that
the maritime use has existed on site for over 60 years, when the site of the yacht warehouses has
not been devoted to such use. DEIS p. 171. A main reason why it has not been used for yacht
storage or other maritime use in the past is because the land is not suitable for such use. It is
only through the applicant's proposal to transform the topography and lower uplands to near-sea
level that it can be rendered suitable for the purpose Strong's proposes. The Comprehensive
Plan does not intend for the landscape to be radically altered and a 4.59-acre area of hillside to be
hauled away in order to achieve a modicum of economic benefit.
Nor would the proposed project do much, if anything, to boost the local economy. The
DEIS claims that this project seeks to "meet an unmet demand for indoor heated winter storage
of yachts on the east end of Long Island." DEIS p. 171. However, the DEIS has not conducted a
market study to demonstrate the purported need and are making that assertion without support.
(More on this below in the context of SEQRA).
The DEIS also overstates the potential benefit, if any, of the proposed project on job
creation and tax revenues. DEIS p. 171. The DEIS states that 11 full-time positions are
expected to be created, which is not a substantial number, especially compared to the enormous
adverse environmental effects and the adverse effect on the community. Additionally, as noted
by other commenters, "there will be only a minimal increase in net sales tax revenues to New
York State. Property taxes during the first three years of Project operation will be a mere
$32,234, and will not reach their maximum for ten years. The numerous large environmental
impacts during construction, and the permanent damage to the natural environment that will
remain after Project construction are not consistent with `maintaining a high quality of life, the
environment and the unique character of the surrounding community."' See J. Klein Comments
p. 50 of 327.
Chapter 4: Transportation and Infrastructure
For similar reasons, the proposed project is also inconsistent with many goals and
objectives in the Comprehensive Plan's chapter on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Transportation Goals:
This chapter is similar to Goal 4 in the Land Use and Zoning Chapter. The DEIS's
discussion of consistency for this chapter only addressed two out of five infrastructure goals and
did not address any of the eight transportation goals. Three relevant transportation goals from
Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan are: Goal 1: Reduce Traffic Congestion During Peak
Tourist Season; Goal 2: Reduce Future Traffic Congestion Due to Development; and Goal 3:
Increase Pedestrian, Cyclist, and Traffic Safety. Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 4, pp. 18-21.
For the reasons given above and in the comments of others, the proposed project is
inconsistent with all of those goals.
21
Infrastructure Goals:
Regarding the infrastructure Goal 1, the DEIS states "The proposed action would
increase the total impervious surface area from 2.62± acres to 4.98± acres. Accordingly, there
would be a resultant increase in the volume of stormwater runoff generated on the subject
property." DEIS p. 171. Increasing impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff is not consistent
with the infrastructure goal.
Discussing Goal 2, the DEIS states: "The proposed action includes the replacement of an
existing individual on-site sanitary system with an I/A OWTS . . . the proposed action is in
keeping with this goal of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan." DEIS p. 171. However, as another
commenter noted, "the replacement of the existing on-site sanitary system with an I/A OWTS,
can be accomplished independent of the Project. Project approval is not necessary to foster this
goal." J. Klein Comment p. 50 of 327. It is certainly not necessary, and not a suitable trade-off,
to destroy a forested hillside and reduce the distance between water infrastructure and the
groundwater table, in order to replace conventional sanitary systems with I/A OWTS. That
should be done just about everywhere, whether or not there is new development.
Chapter 5: Community Character
The proposed project is also inconsistent with many goals and objectives in the
Comprehensive Plan's chapter on Community Character.
Goal 1:Protect Scenic Resources
The Comprehensive Plan's first goal in the Community Character chapter is to "Protect
Scenic Resources," explaining further that "the Town's scenic quality is one of its most important
economic and social assets of the Town." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 5, p. 1. Once again, the
DEIS completely avoids even mentioning this goal.
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to "avoid or minimize the impacts of structures or
activities that introduce visual interruptions to important scenic resources." The proposed
project is the antithesis of this goal. Its visual interruption to the forest that spans Mill Road
Preserve and the property and to the area surrounding Mattituck Creek will be adverse and
significant.
Goal 2:Protect Cultural Resources
Objective 2.4 (B) and(C) in Chapter 5 provide, respectively: "Protect the character of
historic agricultural and maritime areas by maintaining appropriate scales of development,
intensity of use, and architectural style;" "Preserve and encourage traditional uses defining the
agricultural and maritime character of the area." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 5, p. 10 (emphasis
added). While Mattituck Creek is an important maritime area, this proposed project is not
consistent with the goal and objectives stated above. The proposed structures will be located in a
forested area elevated 40+ feet higher than the rest of the Marine II district. In order for the
22
project to go forward as planned, the removal of 4.59 acres of material and removal of more than
600 trees is needed. That is not "maintaining appropriate scales of development."
Additionally, "the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)
has reviewed the proposed action and a determination of no impact upon cultural resources
(historic and archaeology)has been issued." DEIS p. 172. As another commenter has explained,
"The statement in the DEIS is untrue. OPRHP has expressed concern about possible impacts to
historic structures and has requested the Applicant to prepare a Construction Protection Plan for
the Old Mill Inn and the historic Water Tower on West Mill Road. As discussed elsewhere in
these comments, the plan prepared by the Applicant is inadequate. It has not been submitted to
OPRHP as of April 2023. OPRHP has not reviewed, or been asked to review, the Project's
impacts to historic properties located along the Riverhead portions of the Project's truck route."
J. Klein Comments p. 51 of 327.
Goal 3:Preserve Quality of Life in Residential Neighhorhoods
"The DEIS describes the Project's plans to mitigate impacts from construction traffic, site
lighting, noise, and visual impacts." However, "[t]he very fact that mitigation of these impacts is
required, demonstrates that the Project is not consistent with the goal to `Preserve Quality of Life
in Residential Neighborhoods.' The inadequacy of the proposed mitigation measures has been
detailed in these (i.e., Joel Klein's) comments. The quality of life in the residential
neighborhoods abutting the Project and along the Project truck route will be significantly
damaged." J. Klein Comments p. 51 of 327.
Goal 4:Protect Natural Heritage
The Comprehensive Plan describes natural heritage, in the context of this chapter, stating
that it "consists of landscapes and waterscapes of outstanding universal value in terms of
ecology, conservation, or natural beauty. Natural Heritage includes not only the typical natural
resources of flora, fauna, and agricultural soils, but also the idea of the working landscape."
Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 5, p. 12.
Objectives 4.1 and 4.2 are particularly relevant to this proposal:
"Objective 4.1
Elevate and preserve the Town's natural heritage through
preservation of the working landscapes and waterscapes and the
people who interact with them.
A Protect agricultural lands in Southold Town.
B Provide for and support the commercial and recreational use of
Southold Town's marine ecosystems.
23
C I Audit the Southold Town Code to ensure consistency with
adopted plans and programs.
D I Amend current regulations to further support agriculture and
maritime uses.
E I Identify and preserve the Town's flora and fauna."
"Objective 4.2
Protect and restore ecological quality throughout Southold Town.
A I Protect vulnerable fish, wildlife, and plant species, and rare
ecological communities.
B I Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long
Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary, and Town waters.
C I Avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic
Bay ecosystems that would result from impairment of ecological
quality."
Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 5,p. 13.
The DEIS claims that the maritime use is consistent with these objectives. It is not.
Transforming the upland topography and destroying its ecological functioning in order to
facilitate boat storage is not consistent with these aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive plan, in Objective 4.1, highlights the importance of both supporting use of the
marine ecosystems and preserving the Town's flora and fauna. It is nonsensical that this
proposal could achieve that objective when construction of the proposal would destroy the
Town's flora and fauna.
The proposal is clearly inconsistent with these objectives.
Goal 5:Protect the Unique Character of the Individual Hamlets
The DEIS claims that the proposed action is consistent with this goal, but the applicant
misunderstands the goal. It is without question that the Mattituck Inlet and Creek are an
important maritime area, as stated many times in all of the relevant land use plans. All of the
plans seek to support suitable, sustainable, environmentally-friendly maritime uses. But just
because the proposed action is a water-related use does not mean it is consistent with the goals
promoting maritime activity. This proposal, in order to be achieved, would transform and
devastate the characteristics of the land, making it more susceptible to flooding, harming
environmentally sensitive areas, and adversely affecting the public use of Mill Road Preserve.
This is not consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, even with regards to
"supporting maritime use."
24
Chapter 6: Natural Resources & Environment
The Comprehensive Plan includes a total of 15 goals for Natural Resources &
Environment chapter, including 5 water resource goals and 10 land resource goals. As discussed
in various parts of the Comprehensive Plan, preserving and managing the natural resources of the
Town is essential to maintaining quality of life. Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 6, p. 1.
For the reasons discussed above, the proposed project is not consistent with these goals.
And, as discussed below, the DEIS has not conducted a proper analysis of the significant adverse
impacts on natural resources and the environment.
Water Resources:
Goal 1: Conserve Water Quantity
The DEIS claims, incorrectly, that the project is consistent with this goal. It claims "the
total potable water demand of SYC . . . would be served entirely by the SCWA through a water
main extension to be funded by SYC. This would decrease the amount of water being
withdrawn on-site via private wells. This water main extension would give the seven property
owners, identified in Table 12 and discussed in Section 2.2.1 of this DEIS, with the ability to
connect to public water but remain served by private wells the opportunity to connect to SCWA
and further decrease the amount of water being withdrawn from the aquifer." DEIS p. 175.
However, according to Joel Klein and other local residents, the proposed water line has
already been constructed. This construction occurred independent of whether the proposed
action will be approved. Therefore, the proposed action will not contribute to a reduction in
groundwater drawdown. Moreover, "only two property owners will be able to connect to the
new water line, one of whom is the Applicant." J. Klein Comment p. 53 of 327.
Goal 5:Protect Freshwater and Marine Habitats
As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, the "NYSDEC regulates tidal and freshwater
wetlands at the state level pursuant to Article 24 and Article 25 of the Environmental
Conservation Law." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 6,p 16. Accordingly, "any proposed
development activities near these wetland systems require permits from both the NYSDEC
Bureau of Environmental Protection(for freshwater wetlands) and the Southold Board
of Trustees." Id.
The DEIS states that "the proposed action has also been reviewed and approved through
the issuance of a Tidal Wetlands Permit from the NYSDEC." DEIS p. 176. However, SEQRA
prohibits responsible agencies like DEC from issuing a tidal wetlands permit(or any other
discretionary permit)unless and until the lead agency (the Town of Southold Planning Board)
has completed a FEIS and DEC has issued its SEQRA findings statement. NYSDEC acted
See, e.g., 6 NYCRR§§ 617.3(a) ("No agency involved in an action may. . . approve the action until it has
complied with the provisions of SEQR."), 617.11(c) ("No involved agency may make a final decision to. . .approve
25
outside of its legal authority and issued a permit prematurely. As the Final Scope indicates, DEC
may need to rescind and reconsider or otherwise modify the prematurely issued permit.
Moreover, there is no mention if the applicant has received the permit from the Southold Board
of Trustees, who also must wait until the FEIS is completed. The fact that the proposed action
has a premature tidal wetlands permit, issued prior to SEQRA compliance, does not mean that
the project is consistent with this goal in the Comprehensive Plan.
Objective 5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan is to "identify, protect and enhance quality of
coastal habitats." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 6, p. 18. To that end it states, "Large areas of
adjacent lands that previously provided a buffer for wetlands have been physically lost to
development or functionally lost through changes in land use, including inappropriate or
incompatible landscaping. These losses and impairments to the wetlands and their functions
cumulatively have impacted the Town's ecosystem." Id. Moreover, "adjacent lands that provide
buffers to wetlands must be maintained and enhanced, and where appropriate, re-established.
These buffers are necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the Town's wetlands." Id. This
proposed action would destroy another buffer for wetlands especially considering the excavation
of the hill would be an "inappropriate [and] incompatible" change in the land. The excavation of
an important buffer area, the removal of over 600 trees and vegetation, and the large-scale
construction in an environmentally sensitive area is clearly not consistent with this goal.
Land Resources:
Goal 1:Protect Soils and Geologic Features
The Comprehensive Plan lists three objectives that are particularly relevant to
determining the proposed action's consistency with this goal. They are as follows:
"Objective 1.2: Avoid environmentally sensitive soils in the development
design process.
Objective 1.3: Continue to work with the Natural Resource Conservation
Service in soil conservation practices.
Objective 1.4: Preserve the unique geologic features of the Town through
avoidance and/or minimization of impacts from development and natural
disasters."
Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 6, p. 24.
The DEIS states: "While the landform would be modified, the proposed development
includes structural stabilization to correct existing slope failure due to the placement of dredge
material. As indicated in Section 2.1.3 of this DEIS, mitigation measures have been incorporated
into the proposed design, including erosion and sedimentation controls that would be undertaken
or disapprove an action that has been the subject of a final EIS,until the time period provided in subdivision(a)of
this section has passed[i.e.,a reasonable time period(not less than 10 calendar days)after completion of the FEIS]
and the agency has made a written findings statement.").
26
prior to and during construction. Also, site clearing, grubbing, and stripping would be performed
during dry weather conditions to prevent excessive rutting and the mixing of organic debris with
the underlying soils."
Joel Klein noted that "[t]he existing slope face where slope failure is occurring will cease
to exist as part of the Project. The existing slope face will be removed. The proposed `structural
stabilization to correct existing slope failure' is the construction of an 875 ft-long, 30+ foot-high
concrete retaining wall in an entirely different location. As noted in other comments, there is
almost no basis for assuming that the existing slope failure is the result of previous placement of
dredge material." J. Klein Comment p. 53 of 327. Whatever the source of the slope failure,
"[t]he project would remove over 181,000 tons of sand and soil from an area of about 5 acres
wide and up to 60 feet tall, thereby removing a bluff and surrounding land that provides
protection to inland areas from storms and sea level rise." North Fork Audubon Society
comment, p. S.
Even with the suggested mitigation measures this proposed action is not consistent with
this goal of the Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 2:Protect Upland Habitats and Trees
The proposed action is clearly not consistent with the goal to protect upland habitats and
trees. The project would remove approximately 634 mature trees and the applicant's biological
consultant acknowledges there will be adverse "edge effect" impacts on Mill Road Preserve from
the action. The DEIS simply discusses the proposed mitigation actions and makes no statement
about whether the proposed action is consistent with this goal.
To achieve Goal 2 the Comprehensive Plan guides the Town, in part, to: "Protect existing
indigenous plants from loss or disturbance to the extent practical;" "Avoid fragmentation of
upland ecological communities and maintain corridors to facilitate the free exchange of
biological resources within and among communities;" "Avoid permanent adverse change to
ecological processes that provide values to the residents of the Town and the region."As an
example, "Natural storm and flood mitigation by maintaining the floodplain and tidal wetlands in
the natural state;" and "Mitigate impacts of new development where avoidance of impacts is not
practicable." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 6, pp. 24-25.
As previously discussed, the Suffolk County Planning Commission criticized the
applicant's excavation plan and staff recommended attaching a condition of"no excavation" to
the proposed action. The loss of 600-plus mature trees, removal of 4.59 acres of material, and
increased vulnerability to storms and flooding all stem from the proposed excavation. The
objectives listed above discuss protecting loss or disturbance "to the extent practical" or
mitigating impacts where "avoidance of impacts is not practicable."With regard to the proposed
action, avoidance of the impacts is practicable, and it is practical to protect from the loss and
disturbance without having to implement these mitigating measures, merely by disapproving the
absurdly impractical proposal. The proposed action is clearly not consistent with this goal in the
Comprehensive Plan.
27
Goal 3:Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
The Comprehensive Plan identifies that habitat destruction, alteration, and fragmentation
are one of the most significant threats to the loss of biodiversity in New York. Comprehensive
Plan, Ch. 6, p. 27. The proposed action would have those very effects. As the DEIS admits,
"[t]he decreased habitat availability associated with the loss of 32 percent of the site's forest
habitat would likely decrease the abundance and diversity of the plant and wildlife species that
utilize the site. . . . Wildlife species that would be most likely adversely impacted by the
proposed action, specifically the reduction in Coastal Oak-Beech forest habitats from 12.60±
acres to 8.28± acres, include birds or other wildlife that inhabit mature forests, forest interiors, or
have large patch size requirements." DEIS p. 177.
Again, by the DEIS's own admission, the proposed action is clearly inconsistent with this
goal.
Goal 7:Adapt to the Effects of Climate Change and Rising Sea Levels
The Comprehensive Plan states: "Sea level rise, warming waters, and changes in storm
patterns will affect our coastal dynamics. The Town has adapted to coastal hazards (storms, tidal
surges, flooding, and erosion) throughout time; however, currently an unprecedented high
densitv of residential structures and infrastructure is located in potential hazard areas."
(emphasis added).
Lowering an area within a 100-year flood zone from 50+ feet AMSL to —10 feet AMSL
and building massive structures in that area is no way to "adapt" to the effects of climate change
and rising sea levels. The Suffolk County Planning Commission discussed this issue in its report
and recommendations, explaining that:
"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."
County Report p. 3.
The County Report goes on to say:
"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
28
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."
[T]he fact that there is proposed to be building [i]mprovements 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."
Id.
The County Planning Commission clearly recognized the adverse impacts stemming from
the excavation. It is clear the proposed action is not consistent with this goal.
Goal 10: Reduce Light Pollution
The DEIS states, "the proposed site lighting plan has been designed in accordance with
Chapter 172 of the Town Code (Outdoor Lighting). As such, the proposed action would be
consistent with this goal." DEIS p. 178.
However, "[c]onformance with the Town Code will not `reduce light pollution.' The
Comprehensive Plan states that the objective of this goal is to revise the Town Code to address
LED technology. The Project includes LED lighting. The Project will increase the amount of
light emitted from the presently-forested and unlit portions of the Project site." J. Klein
Comment p. 54 of 327.
Chapter 7: Economic Development
This Comprehensive Plan chapter deals with the economic outlook for the Town of
Southold. It is important to note, however, that the Comprehensive Plan does not suggest that
economic development should not come at the expense of all of the other goals in the other
chapters. Indeed, the economic development chapter itself recognizes that, "The rural character
and agricultural use of much of its land together with the vitality of the hamlet centers represent
the current character of the Town." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 7, p. 1.
Goal 1: Encourage New and Facilitate the Growth of Existing Business Sectors that Pursue
Stable and Sustainable Employment
The DEIS states that the "proposed project seeks to expand the business services of SYC
to meet an unmet demand for indoor and heated winter storage of yachts on the east end of Long
Island." DEIS p. 178. However, the DEIS overstates the value of the benefits the proposed
action might produce. The proposed action will only create 11 jobs and it is unclear if these will
be "stable and sustainable" employment. Additionally, "the Project will `facilitate the growth of
SYC,' but it has not been demonstrated how the construction storage for large pleasure yachts
will result in `provide continued support to the maritime industry within the Town of Southold."'
J. Klein Comment p. 55 of 327.
29
Goal 2:Promote Economic Development that Ensures an Adequate Tax Base Without
Compromising the Unique Character of the Town
While the proposed action may slightly increase the tax base (as would any taxable
entity's project), this cannot be accomplished at this site without compromising the unique
character of the Town. Maritime uses are a part of the character of Southold; however, this
project will irreparably diminish and degrade the "high quality of life, the environment, and the
unique character of the surrounding community." Moreover, having to entirely transform the
landscape in order to make the land viable for maritime use means that the land is not
appropriate for maritime use to begin with.
Goal 4:Preserve and Encourage Industries that Support Existing and Future Agriculture and
Aquaculture Uses
The DEIS states: "The subject property is a designated host for the CCE Marine Program
for shellfish restoration. As a host, SYC has an executed MOU [Memorandum of Understanding]
with the CCE [Cornell Cooperative Extension] Marine Program to support CCE's involvement
with the LISRP [Long Island Shellfish Restoration Project], inclusive of housing FLUPSY in
dockside areas that are used by CCE for shellfish harvesting." DEIS p. 179.
However, "[t]he continued operation of the CCE program hosted by the Applicant is
independent of Project approval." J. Klein Comment p. 55 of 327. The proposed project has
nothing to do with aquaculture, and, in any event,we understand that the FLUPSY work with
Cornell has ended.
Goal 5:Preserve, Encourage, and Continue to Support Existing and Future Maritime Uses as
an Important Business Sector within the Town's Economy
The first objective to achieve this goal is to, "Maintain consistency with the policies
adopted under the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 7, p. 20.
As will be discussed in depth in the next section, the proposed project is inconsistent with the
policies of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program ("LWRP").
The Comprehensive Plan states, "Mattituck Inlet is an important economic,
environmental, and recreational resource in the hamlet of Mattituck. Located just north of the
hamlet center, Mattituck Inlet runs two miles into the North Fork from Long Island Sound and is
the only harbor on the 50±mile stretch between Port Jefferson and Orient Point. As such,
Mattituck serves as an important maritime location with the Inlet being a popular destination for
boaters. The hamlet's accessibility to water, in addition to a designated anchorage, a Town park
and boat ramp, marinas, and maritime uses located close to the hamlet center make it a key
economic driver." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 7, p. 23.
This proposed action will irreparably degrade the environment. As stated before, having
to completely change the landscape in order to make the land viable for maritime use means that
the land is not appropriate for maritime use to begin with. It is not consistent with this goal.
30
Chapter 10: Land Preservation
Goal 2, Open Space, of this chapter seeks to, "Continue to preserve lands with high-
quality natural resources, including wetlands, watersheds, shorelines, significant trees and
woodland, and wildlife habitat; those lands with recognized scenic values; and smaller parcels
that could provide for village greens or neighborhood pocket parks."
The proposed action is clearly inconsistent with this goal and this chapter. The proposal
harms lands with high-quality natural resources, degrades lands with scenic values, and harms
the Mill Road Preserve. The DEIS completely avoids discussing consistency with this chapter.
The project is not consistent with this chapter and its goals.
Chapter 12: Natural Hazards
The Comprehensive Plan provides this list of natural hazards for Southold Town and
explains that planning and preparing for natural hazards can and will help save lives and
property.
Flooding (coastal, riverine, flash, urban)
Nor'easters (extra tropical cyclones, including severe winter low-pressure
systems)
Severe Winter Storms (heavy snow, blizzards, ice storms)
Coastal Erosion
Severe Storms (windstorms, thunderstorms, hail, tornados)
Hurricanes (tropical cyclones, tropical storms, tropical depressions)
Sea Level Rise
Drought
Extreme Temperature
Wildfire
Moreover, "The National Flood Insurance Program is predicting an increase in flooding
frequency; as strong storms occur more often, coastal inundation will be more frequent, and sea
levels will continue to rise." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 12, p. 1.
The proposed project will make the subject property and the land surrounding it more
vulnerable to many of the hazards listed in the Comprehensive Plan.
31
"To minimize potential damage to structures in vulnerable areas, the National Flood
Insurance Program identified those areas most vulnerable to flooding. These areas are
collectively known as the Special Flood Hazard Area and are predicted to have a one percent
likelihood of flooding in any given year(see Figure 12.1). The Special Flood Hazard Area is also
the area likely to flood during a 6- to 8-inch storm surge (as was experienced in Southold during
Hurricane Sandy in 2012)." Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 12. p 3. "Coastal flooding causes erosion,
which is another significant natural hazard for Southold. Erosion of the shoreline can also be
caused by the normal processes of wind, currents, and wave action. Coastal erosion leads to loss
of property and structures, and potentially hazardous conditions for waterfront landowners." Id.
The subject property is within a "Special Flood Hazard Area." As the probability of
flooding continues increasing, leading to an increased risk of coastal erosion, it is nonsensical to
suggest that lowering the elevation of the subject property from 50+ feet AMSL to —10 feet
AMSL, is consistent with this chapter. It is obviously not consistent.
Chapter 13: Parks & Recreation
This is another chapter that the DEIS fails to evaluate, likely due to the obvious
inconsistency with the goals of the chapter. Goal 2, Maintain Existing Facilities and Grounds,
states, "Enhance utilization of existing park lands, open spaces, beaches, and recreational
facilities through ongoing maintenance, stewardship, and facility improvement." Comprehensive
Plan, Ch. 13,p. 5.
The proposed action will harm Mill Road Preserve through adverse edge effects, which is
clearly inconsistent with enhancing utilization of park lands.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency Conclusion
The conclusion reached in the DEIS regarding the proposed action's consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan demonstrates, at best, a complete lack of understanding of the goals and
objectives outlined within it, and at worst, a blatant disregard for those goals and objectives.
Based on the reasons stated above, it is evident that the proposed action is fundamentally
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore, the site plan should be disapproved on
that basis.
32
5. The Planning Board Should Disapprove the Application Because
the Proposed Project Is Inconsistent with the Town's LWRP.
The LWRP Coordinator should recommend denial of the site plan application because it
is inconsistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program("LWRP")' and the Planning
Board should adopt that recommendation.
Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review, of the Town Code requires that when
reviewing applications for actions within the coastal area, such actions must be consistent with
the LWRP policies and procedures. Moreover, "no action in the coastal area shall be approved,
funded or undertaken by an agency without such a determination."
"[T]he waterfront revitalization policies and their associated standards [ ] are to be used
in guiding appropriate development and actions for the Town of Southold. They consider the
economic, environmental, and cultural characteristics of Southold. The policies are
comprehensive, and reflect existing laws and authority regarding development and
environmental protection, including that of the Peconic Estuary Program's Comprehensive
Coastal Management Plan. Taken together, these policies and their associated standards are used
to determine the appropriate balance between economic development and preservation that will
permit beneficial use of and prevent adverse effects on Southold's coastal resources." LWRP
Sec. III - 1.
"The waterfront revitalization policies of the Town of Southold are a local refinement of
the Long Island Sound Regional Coastal Management Program Policies that apply throughout
the Long Island Sound region. These policy statements implement the State's 44 coastal policies
as far as they are applicable within the Town of Southold. Each policy statement is followed by a
brief explanation of the situation in Southold and the intent of the policy. This is followed by a
set of policy standards. The policies are organized under four headings: developed coast;
natural coast;public coast; and working coast. Upon adoption of the Town of Southold LWRP,
the policies will become the basis for consistency determinations made by local, state and federal
agencies for actions affecting Southold's coastal area." LWRP Sec. III - 1.
The complete categorized list of LWRP policies is as follows:
Developed Coast Policies
Policy 1: Foster 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.
As the LWRP explains,it was prepared and approved in accordance with provisions of the Waterfront
Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways Act(Executive Law,Article 42)and its implementing
Regulations(19 NYCRR 601). Federal concurrence on the incorporation of the Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program into the New York State Coastal Management Program as a routine program change was obtained in
accordance with provisions of the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972(P.L. 92-583),as amended,and its
implementing regulations(15 CFR 923).
33
Policy 2: Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold.
Policy 3: Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of
Southold.
Natural Coast Policies
Policy 4: Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion.
Policy 5: Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold.
Policy 6: Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold's ecosystem.
Policy 7: Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold.
Policy 8: Minimize environmental degradation in the Town of Southold from solid waste and
hazardous substances and wastes.
Public Coast Policies
Policy 9: Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands,
and public resources of the Town of Southold.
Working Coast Policies
Policy 10: Protect the Town of Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new
water-dependent uses in suitable locations.
Policy 11: Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Town of Southold.
Policy 12: Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold.
Policy 13: Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources.
The proposed project is not consistent with these policies, as discussed in more detail
immediately below.
Policy 1: Foster 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.
This policy is intended to "foster a development pattern that provides for beneficial use of
the environmental, historical, and cultural coastal resources of the Town of Southold while
maintaining and building on its traditional economic base." LWRP Sec. III - 3. "The primary
components of the desired development pattern are: strengthening the hamlets as centers of
34
activity, maintaining a clear sense of separation between hamlet centers and the countryside,
encouraging water- dependent uses to concentrate in existing locations of maritime activity,
enhancing stable residential areas, and preserving agriculture, open space and environmentally
sensitive coastal resources. Development that does not reinforce the traditional land use pattern
of the Town of Southold would result in a loss of the community and landscape character of
Southold." (emphasis added)Id.
The Suffolk County Planning Commission report noted that boat storage is not a water-
dependent use, rather it is a water-related use because it can be and often is achieved inland(so
long as the inland site is at a grade and location capable of receiving boat transportation). While
portions of the applicant's site is in a maritime area, this comment letter, and others, have
frequently mentioned the incongruity of the MII district extending up a steep hill to an area that
is at 50+ feet AMSL. The DEIS says, "The proposed action would expand in line with the
existing scale of development on the subject property." DEIS p. 181. That is patently untrue.
All of the previous development of the site occurred on or near the waterfront without having to
undertake a massive excavation on 4.59 acres of land. Moreover, the proposed structures are
significantly larger than the other structures on the subject property.
Additionally, this LWRP policy intends to ensure that preserving open space and
environmentally sensitive coastal resources are key considerations when fostering development.
This proposed project does not enhance the community character, does not minimize the adverse
effects of development, and does not preserve open space and environmentally sensitive coastal
resources. Moreover, "According to the applicant, this investment in additional Yacht storage
would ensure this marina continues to operate for many years to come as a working marina and
not succumb to the pressures of transitioning to residential with private waterfront use, or a hotel,
motel or restaurant development which are all permitted by special exception use permit." DEIS
p. 181. The marina has continued to operate for a number of years without any disturbance.
There is no evidence that denying the proposal would make Strong's existing marina
unprofitable. This unfounded assumption should not be the basis to approve of harmful
development that is clearly inconsistent with this policy of the LWRP.
Policy 2:Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold.
The DEIS states, "There are no known historic or archaeological resources on or adjacent
to the subject property that would be adversely impacted by the proposed action. A Phase IA and
Phase 1B was conducted on the subject property and the NYS OPRHP has issued a
determination of no impact upon cultural resources (see Section 3.11.2 and Appendix T of this
DEIS)."
In fact, "[w]hile no historic properties are "on or adjacent" to the Project site, two
properties eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places—the Old
Mill Restaurant and the Old Water Tower—may be adversely affected by vibration from Project-
associated construction truck traffic." J. Klein Comment p. 142 at 327. Additionally, "The
OPRHP correspondence in Appendix T (labeled "Historic Signoff SHPO" dated July 29, 2021
indicated that OPRHP had not yet completed its review of the archeological studies prepared for
the Project. On January 24, 2022, OPRHP advised the NYSDEC that it was `still evaluating the
35
project's potential to impact historic architectural resources.' On April 8, 2022, OPRHP advised
they have `concerns regarding potential impacts to historic architectural resources as a result of
vibrations from construction vehicles' (DEIS Appendix T). As of March 2023, OPRHP has not
indicated that their concerns have been addressed."Id.
The Planning Board has the responsibility to ensure that the potential impacts to
archeological sites have been adequately addressed. The applicant has not shown that the
proposed development is consistent with this policy.
Policy 3:Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of
Southold.
,,The intent of this policy is to protect and enhance the visual quality of the Town of
Southold as well as to improve the quality of deteriorated areas and other negative visual
elements. The preservation of the aesthetic, historic, and scenic character of the Town is critical
to the continuance of its attraction and economic vitality as a year-round waterfront community."
LWRP Sec. III - 5. The DEIS states that, "The proposed action would not have a significant
adverse impact on the visual quality or scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold."
DEIS p. 181. This is incorrect. As the DEIS goes on to admit, "the views of the subject property
would be altered as a result of the proposed action." Id.
As noted in other comments, the visual impact assessment is wholly inadequate. The
simulations were not properly prepared and as such, should not be used to determine whether the
proposed action is consistent with this goal. Once again, the Planning Board is responsible for
ensuring consistency with this policy. More importantly the Planning Board is responsible for the
FEIS and needs to make sure that the visual impact assessment is conducted properly. The
applicant has not demonstrated consistency with this policy.
Policy 4:Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion.
"The intent of this policy is to protect life, structures, and natural resources from flooding
and erosion hazards throughout the Town of Southold. The policy reflects state flooding and
erosion regulations and provides measures for reduction of hazards and protection of resources."
LWRP Sec. III - 10. When discussing areas of low bluffs or dunes, the LWRP says,
"Development should be minimized within these areas, with structures set back from the low
bluffs or dunes, existing houses should be moved back where possible, and native plantings used
to protect the bluffs and dunes. Hard shoreline protection structures should only be allowed when
a property is in danger, and no other alternative will save the structure." Id. at 9. With regards to
areas of high bluffs, "Few erosion protection structures are found in areas of high bluffs,
allowing the shoreline to erode naturally. If hard structures are built in these areas, this dynamic
would change. The hard structures would cause an overall increase in the rate of erosion as the
shoreline tries to come into equilibrium with the loss of sand source. Development should be
minimized within these areas, with structures set back from the bluffs, existing houses should be
moved back where possible, and native plantings used to protect the bluffs. Hard shoreline
protection structures should only be allowed when a property is in danger, and no other
alternative will save the structure." Id.
36
The intent is to protect from flooding and erosion hazards, not to create a higher risk of
those hazards. Additionally, there is an LWRP emphasis that, "Natural protective geologic
features provide valuable protection and should be protected, restored and enhanced. Destruction
or degradation of these features should be discouraged or prohibited." LWRP Sec. III - 12.
Lowering the subject property from 50+ feet AMSL to !10 feet AMSL in a 100-year
flood zone and then putting structures there where they are more at risk of flood damage is
clearly inconsistent with this policy. Moreover, the proposed project would be destroying
natural protective features, which the LWRP expressly says not to do. The DEIS's assertion that
the proposed project is consistent with this policy demonstrates a flagrant disregard for the intent
of the policy. The proposed project is plainly inconsistent with this policy.
Policy 5:Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold.
Reducing the separation between wastewater and stormwater systems and the
groundwater table will harm water quality.
While the applicant touts the I/A OWTS systems it intends to install, "replacement of the
existing septic system with an I/A OWTS is not contingent upon Project approval. The applicant
could install an I/A OWTS system now, and has chosen not to do so." J. Klein Comment p. 143
of 327.
Policy 6:Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold's ecosystem.
The LWRP recognizes the importance of protecting the various ecosystems of the Town
of Southold. "Certain natural resources that are important for their contribution to the quality and
biological diversity of the Town's ecosystem have been specifically identified by the State of
New York for protection. These natural resources include regulated tidal and freshwater
wetlands; designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats; and rare, threatened, and
endangered species." LWRP Sec. III - 20. "In addition to specifically identified discrete natural
resources, the quality of the Town's ecosystem also depends on more common, broadly
distributed natural resources, such as the extent of forest cover, the population of overwintering
songbirds, or benthic communities. These more common natural resources collectively affect the
quality and biological diversity of the Sound ecosystem."Id.
Included in this policy is the goal to, "Avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound
and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that would result from impairment of ecological quality as
indicated by: Physical loss of ecological components; Degradation of ecological components;
and Functional loss of ecological components." Id. at 20-21. Additionally, the LWRP says to
adhere to measures like, "Avoid fragmentation of ecological communities and maintain corridors
to facilitate the free exchange of biological resources within and among communities." Id. at 21.
Moreover, the LWRP says, "Where destruction or significant impairment of habitat values
cannot be avoided, minimize potential impacts of land use or development through appropriate
mitigation. Use mitigation measures that are likely to result in the least environmentally
damaging feasible alternative." Id. at 24.
37
The DEIS claims, incorrectly, that the project would be consistent with this policy, while
only discussing mitigating the edge effect and erosion and sedimentation control measures. The
DEIS fails to mention in this context the loss of habitat for any of the species that are understood
to inhabit the site, including but not limited to the endangered Northern Long-Eared Bat, or the
fact that the edge effect, impacting the Town-owned Mill Road Preserve, will still occur even
with mitigating measures. The proposed project is clearly inconsistent with this goal.
Policy 7:Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold
The DEIS, once again, cherry picks what information it wishes to say regarding this
policy. It states: "The Air Quality Report (see Appendix S) concluded that long-term air quality
impacts would be inconsequential as the addition of stationary emission sources is not proposed
and vehicular traffic due to the implementation of the proposed action would be minimal." DEIS
p. 182. "Additionally, the existing CCE FLUPSY units would continue to operate as part of the
proposed action. This program has a beneficial impact on carbon sequestration and therefore
improves the water and air quality of the Town of Southold.As such, the proposed action would
be consistent with the intent of this policy."Id. Again, we understand that the FLUPSY work at
the site (which was never a component of this project) has ended.
Moreover, "[t]he Air Quality Report also concluded that short-term air quality impacts
,may occur during the excavation phase of the project.' The statement that stationary emission
sources are not proposed is incorrect. The proposed storage buildings will be heated by propane.
Although the heating source is not identified in the DEIS, one will be required, and it will be an
emission source." J. Klein Comment p. 146 of 327. "DEIS Table 31 makes no reference to the
fact that because the Project will destroy more than 600 mature trees, with an associated loss of
sequestered carbon, it will have an adverse effect on air quality. The DEIS states that `the
projected 1.5 million clams harvested annually [from the CCE FLUPSY units] have the potential
to sequester 9,680 lbs. [less than 5 tons] of carbon' (p.273). However, in discussing LWRP
consistency no mention is made of the loss of more than 350 tons of sequestered carbon as a
result of forest clearing, or the fact that the carbon sequestration associated with operation of the
CCE FLUPSY units affects only carbon in seawater and has no effect on air quality. The
proposed Project will adversely affect air quality in the Town of Southold."Id.
As such, the proposed project is not consistent with Policy 7.
Policy 9:Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters,public lands,
and public resources of the Town of Southold.
The DEIS states, "This policy is not applicable to the proposed action as the existing
marina is for private membership to utilize the facilities, which would remain as part of the
proposed action."As such, the DEIS claims the proposed project is consistent with this policy.
However, the Planning Board needs to also consider the adverse effects on Mill Road
Preserve. Mill Road Preserve is land held by the Town for use by its residents and the project
will harm that public resource.
38
Policy 10:Protect the Town of Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new
water-dependent uses in suitable locations.
The DEIS first mischaracterizes the proposed action as being a water-dependent use. As
mentioned by the Suffolk County Planning Commission, boat storage is a water-related use since
it will occur, and often occurs, somewhat inland. The DEIS next makes the unsubstantiated
claim that the proposed action is responding to unmet industry demand. Lastly, the DEIS claims
the "proposed development is a suitable location for such use as it is an expansion of an existing
maritime use, and it is zoned for such use." DEIS Sec. III - 46.
While the proposed development is in a Marine II district, the proposed development is
not in a suitable location. If the location was suitable, there would be no need to excavate 4.59
acres of materials in order to make the proposed development viable. The proposed action is not
consistent with this policy because the location is not suitable for the proposed development
without completely altering the land, causing a plethora of environmental harms.
Policy 11:Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Town of Southold.
The DEIS states, "SYC is a designated host for the CCE Marine Program for shellfish
restoration and hosts 8 FLUPSY units. . . SYC is committed to being a FLUPSY host through
2030. These clams aid in the enhancement and restoration of the shellfish fishery within the
Town of Southold and subsequently Long Island."DEIS Pg. 183.
However, "[t]he DEIS contains no documentation of the Applicant's commitment to the
Cornell Marine Program through 2030. Appendix C (Memorandum of Understanding Between
Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) of Suffolk County and Strong's Yacht Center [June 5,
2019])9 to DEIS Appendix M (Boat Vessel Study) is clear in that the applicant `has the right to
terminate [the] agreement for any reason.' The agreement itself indicates that it terminated on
December 1, 2020. The proposed Project does not include any provision for increased support of
the shellfish restoration program, which is totally independent from the proposed Project, and
which would presumably continue even if the Project does not proceed. The Project does nothing
to `Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Town of Southold."' J. Klein
Comment p. 148 of 327.
Policy 12:Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold.
The proposed Project does not protect agricultural lands or advance this policy.
LWRP Consistency Conclusion
Based on the reasons stated above, it is evident that the proposed action is fundamentally
inconsistent with the LWRP, and therefore, the LWRP Coordinator and the Planning Board
should make that finding, and the site plan should be disapproved on that basis.
39
COMMENTS ON DEIS AND RELATED SEQRA ISSUES
This section of this comment letter addresses two fundamental aspects of SEQRA as it
applies to the proposed project. First, we discuss SEQRA's "substantive mandate,"which
authorizes and requires lead agencies to deny the application for any project such as Strong's
yacht storage proposal whose adverse environmental effects are not outweighed by social or
economic benefits. Second, we discuss the need for substantial revision and/or supplementation
of the DEIS before an FEIS can be adopted by the Planning Board and before any decision can
be made on the site plan application.
6. The Planning Board Should Issue a Negative SEQRA Findings
Statement and Deny the Application Pursuant to SEQRA's
Substantive Mandate.
SEQRA has both a procedural component and a substantive component. The procedural
component includes the familiar obligations of a lead agency to prepare a scoping document,
DEIS, and FEIS, to issue public notices, and to accept and respond to public comments, etc.
That process is designed to inform the public and other involved agencies about proposed actions
which may significantly affect the quality of the environment and to assist the agencies in their
decision making.
But the law also has a critically important substantive mandate that governs the decisions
lead agencies make upon their completion of the process. The SEQRA statute requires 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."
N.Y. Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL") § 8-0109(1) (emphasis added). Accordingly,
for a lead agency to approve a proposed action, it must be able to make, and actually make "an
explicit finding . . . that consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to
the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental
impact statement process will be minimized or avoided." ECL § 8-0109(8).
Likewise, the SEQRA regulations explain that "[t]he basic purpose of SEQR is to
incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the existing planning, review and
decision-making processes of state, regional and local government agencies. . . ." 6 NYCRR §
617.1(c); see also Neville v. Koch, 79 N.Y.2d 416, 426 (1992). ("SEQRA's goal [is] to
incorporate environmental considerations into the decision making process . . . .").
The SEAR Handbook issued by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation ("DEC") explains further:
"An agency must not . . . approve any part of an action if it cannot support
positive findings and demonstrate, consistent with social, economic, and
40
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."
"[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 henefit cannot he shown to outweigh the environmental impacts of a
project, the agency may he compelled to deny approvals for the action."10
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."11
New York courts have also frequently made clear that SEQRA authorizes agencies to
deny a project to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts.12
As explained above, in the comments submitted by many other stakeholders, and in the
following subsections, the proposed project would cause numerous significant adverse
environmental impacts and there is no overriding public need for, or public benefit from, the
v SEQR Handbook at 147.
0 SEQR Handbook at 114(emphasis added).
" SEQR Handbook at 148.
12 See, e.g.,Matter of Town of Henrietta v. N.Y. State Dept. ofEnvtl. Conservation, 76 A.D.2d 215,221-222 (4th
Dep't 1980) ("The statute cannot be construed as merely procedural or informational since it states that all
approving agencies involved in an action must actually consider the EIS and formulate a decision on the basis of all
the adverse environmental impacts disclosed therein(ECL 8-0109, subd 2). Since SEQRA requires an approving
agency to act affirmatively upon the adverse environmental impacts revealed in an EIS(ECL 8-0109, subds 1, 8),an
EIS filed pursuant to SEQRA must also be recognized as not a mere disclosure statement but rather as an aid in an
agency's decision making process to evaluate and balance the competing factors. Furthermore, SEQRA's legislative
history supports a broad construction of its provisions. . . . The information provided by the impact statement thus
allows State and local officials intelligently to assess and weigh the environmental factors,along with social,
economic and other relevant considerations in determining whether or not a project or activity should be approved or
undertaken in the best over-all interest of the people of the State(NY Legis Ann, 1975,pp 438-439). SEQRA
therefore requires a decision maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project). See also Matter of Orchards Assoc. v.Planning
Bd. of'N. Salem, 114 A.D.2d 850(2d Dep't 1985); WEOKBroadcasting Corp. v.PlanningBd. ofLloyd, 165 A.D.2d
578, 584(3rd Dep't 1991); Roosevelt Jslanders forResponsihle Southtown Dev. v.Roosevelt Island Operating
Corp.,291 A.D.2d 40, 54(1st Dep't 2001).
41
proposed project. Accordingly, the Planning Board should implement its substantive
responsibilities under SEQRA by issuing a Negative Findings Statement and denying the
application.
a. There Is No Public Need for the Proposed Project, Nor Would it Produce a
Public Benefit.
Every EIS, whether draft or final, must contain a description of the project's "purpose,
public need and benefits, including social and economic considerations." ECL § 8-0109(2)(a); 6
NYCRR § 617.9(b)(5)(1). Importantly, under SEQRA, the "purpose" of a proposed project is
legally distinct from any "public need and benefit"it might have, as the SEAR Handbook
explains:
"`Purpose' is a goal or objective to be achieved. The purpose of most privately
sponsored projects is to make a profit from some development activitv on their
propertv. . . .
`Need' is a lack of something required, desirable, or useful. The need for an action
maybe public,private, or a combination of both. Public need may apply to puhlicly
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. . . .1113
[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, zoning
ordinances, historic districts, and agricultural districts. To demonstrate puhlic 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 . . . ."14
The DEIS repeatedly makes the assertion that the proposed action is "responding to a
market demand for larger boat owners looking for local indoor winter storage." See generally
DEIS. There are no studies pointed to or nothing to back up that assertion. Simply repeating
that there is a demand for this project is not nearly enough to demonstrate the public need for this
proposed action. As other commenters have explained, there is no need in the Town for storage
of 88 yachts up to 85 feet in length at this location.
'' SEQR Handbook at 113-114(emphasis added).
4 Id.at 115 (emphasis added).
42
b. The Proposed Project Would Cause Numerous Significant Adverse
Environmental Impacts.
Every EIS must contain a"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." 6 NYCRR § 617.9(b)(5)(111).
In the Final Scope, Positive Declaration, 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.
Final Scope, Feb. 8, 2021, at 5.
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 inaccurate. 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
many others. This must be corrected in the FEIS through revision and/or supplementation, as
discussed further below.
The DEIS evaluated the following issues:
• Soils and Topography
• Water Resources
• Flooding and Climate Change
• Ecological Resources
• Consistency with Community Plans and Studies
• Human Health
• Transportation
• Aesthetic Resources
• Community Character
• Open Space and Recreation
• Noise
• Air Quality
• Social and Economic Impacts
• Construction-Related Impacts
• Archaeological and Cultural Resources
The proposed project would cause significant adverse environmental impacts in all or the
vast majority of these resource categories, including but not limited to Soils and Topography,
Flooding and Climate Change, Water Resources, Ecological Resources, Inconsistency with
Adopted Community Plans, Transportation(i.e., traffic), Community Character, Open Space and
Recreation, and Construction-Related Impacts, as discussed in the following subsections (as well
as in the comments of many others):
43
Soils and Topography
The proposed project would cause significant adverse environmental impacts to soils and
topography because it would radically transform the site's topography, turning a hillside into a
flood plan "bowl."
As admitted by the DEIS, "The proposed action would result in the disturbance of soils
for removal of material for regrading, building foundations, drainage and sanitary waste
infrastructure, utility installation, pervious parking areas, and landscaping. Based upon the
preliminary site plan and site data provided by the project engineer, the total land area to be
disturbed is approximately 6.51 acres. The disturbance of soils for construction and regrading
activities increases the potential for erosion and sedimentation." DEIS p. 32. The DEIS then
recommends that the Planning Board should conclude that "no significant adverse impacts
associated with on-site soils, or from the disturbance of the site would be expected." DEIS p. 40.
The analysis is based, in part, on proposed retaining wall. However, excavating 135,000 cubic
yards of material from 4.59 acres of materials and completely clearing out a natural bluff to
create a bowl into which flood waters will flow is itself a significant adverse impact, with or
without a retaining wall. The loss of soil and changes to the landscape is clearly harmful to the
wildlife and makes the subject property more at risk of flooding and erosion. The DEIS ignores
the no excavation condition recommended by the Suffolk County Planning Commission staff and
improperly claims that there will be no significant adverse impacts.
Flooding and Climate Change
The proposed project would cause significant adverse environmental impacts related to
flooding and climate change because it would increase the site's susceptibility to flooding and
climate-related impacts.
NYSDEC's science-based sea-level rise projections are incorporated into regulations by
codified at 6 NYCRR Part 490 (Projected Sea-level Rise). The intent of Part 490, as excerpted
from § 490.1 —Purpose, is:
"[t]his Part establishes science-based projections of sea-level rise for New York
State's tidal coast, including the marine coasts of Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester
counties and the five boroughs of New York City, and the main stem of the Hudson
River, north from New York City to the federal dam at Troy."
The DEIS uses conservative rather than worst-case projections of sea level rise to predict
future impacts. See J. Klein Comment p. 54 at 327. "The DEIS has based its analyses on a
potential sea level rise of 16 inches (or 1.33± feet)by 2050 which, per 6 NYCRR 490 is
considered a `medium' 2 projection. The DEIS considers this `reasonable.' A more conservative
analysis using a `High-medium' projection assuming a sea level rise of 21 inches, or a `high'
projection of 30 inches, representing a possible `worst-case' scenario should have been used.
While these alternate scenarios are noted in the DEIS (p.105, Table 16) they are excluded from
analyses." J. Klein Comment p. 143 of 327.
44
Moreover, "[n]o mention is made in the analysis of how the proposed new boat storage
buildings would be affected by sea level rise. The references to Figure 24 in DEIS Appendix A
are misleading. That figure is a reproduction of a Mapper-generated graphic showing the
assumed 18-inch sea level rise/100-year occurrence scenario. Figure 24 shows the approximate
location of the proposed boat storage buildings as asterisks. According to Figure 24, these
locations would be unaffected by sea level rise. This is misleading and contradicts the DEIS text.
The DEIS states that `sea level rise with storm inundation were evaluated at the subject property,
under the post-development condition' (emphasis added) (pp. ix, 107). However, the Mapper
graphic, on which Figure 24 is based, depicts existing elevations and does not take into account
the fact that the post-construction elevations of the marked locations will be up to 40 feet lower
than the elevations used by the Mapper to generate Figure 24." J. Klein Comment p. 186 at 327.
Further, "[t]he DEIS' multiple attempts to characterize the trend in annual precipitation
as decreasing when, in fact the data indicates the opposite, have compromised all of the climate-
change modeling done for the Project, especially as it relates to impacts to changes in
groundwater levels over time." J. Klein Comment p. 189 of 327. Moreover, the DEIS states that
there are no flooding impacts expected. Multiple public comments and the Suffolk County
Planning Commission report demonstrate that that is not the case. Lowering a natural bluff from
50+ feet AMSL to —10 feet AMSL in a 100-year flood zone susceptible to hurricanes and storm
surges will clearly cause significant adverse flooding impacts.
Water Resources
As discussed above, the proposed project would cause significant adverse environmental
impacts to water resources due to, among other things, flooding and the reduction in separation
between wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and the groundwater table.
Ecological Resources
As discussed above, the proposed project would cause significant adverse environmental
impacts to ecological resources because, among other things, it will destroy a mature, fragile,
coastal oak-beech forest and the habitat it provides to many species, including species of special
concern.
The DEIS admits that the "proposed action has a construction footprint of 6.51±acres
[and will result] in the physical disturbance and permanent loss of 4.32± acres of high-quality
Coastal Oak-Beech forest, 1.19± acres of southern successional hardwood forest, and 0.54± acre
of successional shrubland (see Table 25, as excerpted from Table 6 of the Ecological Report)."
DEIS p.133. Total removal of 5.51 acres of upland forest, including cutting down 634 trees and
the destruction of the associate wildlife habitat is not "forest disturbance,"it is forest/habitat
destruction.
The destruction of almost six acres of forest will create new forest edges resulting in an
adverse "edge effect." DEIS Appendix N notes the negative aspects of forest edges, including:
"higher ambient light levels, air and soil temperatures, and wind speed; and lower relative
humidity and soil moisture . . .than forest interiors. . . These changes . . . particularly increased
45
light levels, foster proliferation of invasive plant species and changes to the observed plant
community due to differences in plant recruitment and survivorship. . . [I]ncreased summer heat
and drought stress to trees and vegetation due to higher temperatures . . ." (Appendix N pp.34-
35).
Both the DEIS and its Appendix N state that the
"new forest edge will likely result in an intensification of the existing edge effects
at the site, likely resulting in colonization and increased growth of invasive plant
species and reduction in habitat quality for nesting songbirds, and increased
abundance of predators and invasive competitors. In addition, the proposed project
may result in increased numbers of invasive birds, such as European starling
(Sternus vulgaris), house sparrow (Paras domesticus), and brown-headed cowbird
(Molothrus ater), as these birds thrive in habitats created by humans and often nest
on or in buildings."
DEIS p.136, Appendix N p .24.
"Both the DEIS and Appendix N also acknowledge that `Some 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,
Appendix N p.23). However, both fail to indicate that they are referring to the portion of the
Project land parcel beyond the limits of the Project Area. In other words, they do not call out the
fact that that the negative ecological impacts associated with the edge effect will extend far
beyond the limits of the Project Area." J. Klein Comment p. 58 of 327. Moreover, the DEIS
understates the edge effect impacts to the Town owned Mill Road Preserve
Additionally, the DEIS understates the effects of the removal of 600+ trees. The DEIS
states repeatedly that the removal will be mitigated by the planting of new trees. See generally
DEIS. However, the DEIS never discusses that the new trees take years and years to mature and
get to the same level of function as the trees that will be removed. With the proposed mitigating
measures, it would take between 50-70 for the new trees to reach the height of many of the trees
proposed to be removed. J. Klein Comment p. 62 of 327. Moreover, the pitch pines will never
provide the habitat that the existing coastal oak-beech forest presently does. The DEIS admits
that, "The decreased habitat availability associated with the loss of 32 percent of the site's forest
habitat would likely decrease the abundance and diversity of the plant and wildlife species that
utilize the site." DEIS p. 137. As discussed elsewhere, there are a number of endangered and
threatened species that will be harmed by this loss of habitat. The DEIS understates the impacts
to these species as well.
The proposed project would cause significant adverse environmental impacts to
ecological resources.
46
Inconsistencies with Adopted Community Plans
The proposed project would cause significant adverse environmental impacts due to its
inconsistencies with adopted community plans, including the Comprehensive Plan and the
LWRP. These are considered adverse environmental impacts under SEQRA.
Community Character
The proposed project would cause significant adverse environmental impacts to
community character for the reasons set forth above and in the comments of others.
Transportation
The proposed project would cause significant adverse environmental impacts related to
transportation, specifically traffic, because of the 8,000 truck trips in and out of the site.
Open Space and Recreation
The proposed project would cause significant adverse environmental impacts to open
space and recreation because of its effects on Mill Road Preserve.
Construction-Related Impacts
The proposed project would cause significant adverse construction-related environmental
impacts because of the truck traffic, noise, dust and other impacts that the community would
suffer during construction.
C. The Planning Board Should Issue a Negative Findings Statement.
The SEQRA regulations require that, after completing an 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. 6
NYCRR§ 617.11(a)-(b). The Planning Board cannot render a decision on the project application
unless and until it has issued its Findings Statement. 6 NYCRR § 617.11(c).
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
47
(5) Certify whether, 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.
6 NYCRR § 617.11.
The SEAR Handbook provides valuable guidance on the purposes and content of
Findings Statements, and the range of possibilities for that important document:
• Positive Findings Statement: "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."15
• Negative findings statement: "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."16
• Distinction between SEQRA findings and other findings: 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.-17
• Distinction between SEQRA findings and decision on applications. 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."1R
• Relationship between SEQRA Findings and decision on applications. "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
SEQR Handbook at 145.
SEQR Handbook at 145.
SEQR Handbook at 146.
" SEQR Handbook at 146.
48
maximum extent practicable, and, [i]ncorporates into the decision those
mitigation measures identified in the SEQR process as practicable."19
Weighing a project's public need and benefit (if any) against adverse
environmental impacts. "[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 henefit cannot he shown to
outweigh the environmental impacts of a project, the agency may he
compelled to deny approvals for the action."20
The Planning Board should issue a Negative Findings statement, finding that the action
cannot be approved based on analyses in the FEIS and documenting the reasons for the denial,
including that, after consideration of the FEIS, the proposed project does not minimize or avoid
environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that, based on the Planning
Board's balancing of adverse environmental impacts against the needs for and benefits of the
action, the need and benefit, if any, does not outweigh the significant adverse environmental
impacts.
d. The Planning Board Should Deny the Application Pursuant to SEQRA's
Substantive Mandate.
Based on the Negative Findings Statement, the Planning Board should vote to disapprove
the site plan application.
y SEQR Handbook at 147.
21 SEQR Handbook at 114(emphasis added). This text was also quoted above,but we repeat it here due to its
importance to the Findings Statement.
49
7. The DEIS Requires Substantial Supplementation in an SEIS and
(Following Public Comment on the SEIS), Revision in an FEIS to
he Prepared by the Planning Board's Consultant and Eventually
Issued by the Planning Board, which is Responsible for its
Accuracy and Adequacy.
While SEQRA allows an applicant, at its option, to prepare a DEIS,21 the Planning Board
itself must either prepare the Final Environmental Impact Statement("FEIS") or cause it to be
prepared Even when the Planning Board utilizes an outside consultant to prepare it as is
will be done for this FEIS the SEQRA regulations make clear that: "The lead agency is
responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the final EIS.1123
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.24
As noted, the FEIS must contain any needed supplements and revisions (including
corrections) to the DEIS.2' 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 circumstances related to the proiect.26 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
21 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(a)(1).
22 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(a)(5).
23 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.").
24 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(b)(8).
25 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(b)(8).
26 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(a)(7).
50
DEIS (e.g., a comment period) except that a second scoping process is not required.Z'
When reviewing the issue of whether an SEIS should have been prepared, courts look
carefully at any alleged inadequacies, "scrutinizing the draft and final EIS for discussion of the
issues in question and searching the record for evidence that a potentially significant adverse
effect is involved.112' The omission of a required item from the DEIS cannot be cured simply by
including the item in the final EIS, given lack of public notice and comment for revisions as
ion.29 Newly discovered information encompasses more than just
opposed to supplementat
intonation that was unknown when the DEIS was prepared. It also includes information that was
omitted from the DEIS. It is the Planning Board's responsibility to evaluate (based on expert advice)
the accuracy and adequacy of the DEIS and to provide a rational basis for its decision whether to
require a supplemental EIS.
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. These should be conducted as part of a supplemental DEIS, so
that the public and involved agencies have an opportunity to comment on them.
Whether or not a supplemental EIS is required, the Planning Board must determine
whether revisions to the DEIS are needed and make those revisions.30 Since the Planning Board
is responsible for the accuracy of the FEIS,31 the revisions and/or the supplements must include
all necessary corrections.
The need for additional studies, revisions, and supplementation is apparent. The DEIS
lacks many different studies that are essential to conducting a proper SEQRA review.
Additionally, the analysis in the DEIS is inadequate. Too many crucial elements are missing
and, as discussed in the sections above, the DEIS cherry-picks information and does not take a
hard look at the impacts of the proposed project. The Planning Board, as lead agency, is
responsible for the FEIS and these inadequacies must be addressed.
First, as pointed out by the Planning Board's consultant Nelson Pope Voorhis ("NPV"),
there are a number of discrepancies and issues with the groundwater modeling used in the DEIS.
Additionally, there are a lot of unanswered questions because of the inadequacy of the modeling
the DEIS did. The following quotes are from the NPV comments dated, June 26, 2023:
27 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(a)(7).
28 Environmental Impact Review in New York-Gerrard,Ruzow&Weinberg(Matthew Bender 2022)Chapter 3,
Section 13[d].
29 See Webster Assoc. v. Town of Webster, 59 N.Y.2d 220,228(1983) ("the omission of a required item from a draft
EIS cannot be cured simply by including the item in the final EIS").
30 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(b)(8).
3 6 NYCRR§ 617.9(b)(8).
51
"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?"
"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."
"Page 45, under "Water Supply and Surrounding Wells, "includes an SYC annual
water demand estimate of 1,058+ god. 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?"
"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
approximately4.01 feet. Based on a16-inch or 1.33feet 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 4.01feet,while the second
sentence says that it ranges from 6.0$ feet to 6.8 feet. Please explain, correct or
clarify the discrepancy."
"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."
Furthermore, these additional studies are needed:
• A four-season traffic study of the portion of the truck route in Riverhead. This
was not done although the scope clearly calls for it.
52
• A new pavement damage study that includes taking cores in the road to determine
road profiles (composition and thickness).
• A description and analysis of the truck route the concrete trucks will take. The
route is unlikely to be the same as the haul truck route given the location of batch
plants in the area. The number of concrete truck deliveries was significantly
underestimated.
• Survey for presence of Northern Long-eared Bat on the property or Mill Road
Preserve in December-February. The survey results must be analyzed by
NYSDEC or their approved consultant.
• A public need study to determine the market for the yacht storage facilities.
In addition, many analyses should be redone to reflect the higher haul truck counts indicated (or
that will be indicated) in comments:
- Traffic
- Impacts to Pedestrians
-Air quality
- Pavement damage (after the new data collection mentioned above)
-Vibration
-Noise
- Impacts to historic structures
-Visual impact studies should be redone with proper methodologies.
The Planning Board should require extensive supplementation, revision, and correction of
the EIS's analysis and conclusions before and in the process of preparing an FEIS, before issuing
a findings statement and making a decision on the application.
53
8. The Planning Board and the Landowner Have an Obligation to
Protect Threatened and Endangered Species.
The Planning Board must consider obligations arising pursuant to the New York State
Endangered Species Act, 6 NYCRR Part 182, and the federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C.
§§ 1531-1544. Since there are multiple species that are threatened, endangered, or of special
concern that have habitat on the subject property, it is imperative that the Planning Board ensures
that the statutes are properly followed.
"The [Endangered Species Act] generally prohibits the 'take' of any members of
endangered animal species, defining 'take' as 'to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."' Sierra Club v. U.S. Army
Corps ofEng'rs, 803 F.3d 31, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting 16 U.S.C. §§ 1532(19),
153 8(a)(1)(13)). "`[H]arm' in the Act's definition of`take' means an act which actually kills or
injures wildlife and that such act may include `significant habitat modification or degradation
where it actually kills or injures wildlife' by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, or sheltering." Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtvs.for a
Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 690. Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act § 9(a)(1)(B), it is
unlawful for any person to "take" any listed species.
The DEIS begins its section on endangered species by saying, "No endangered,
threatened, or rare species or significant ecological communities were observed during the
ecological surveys conducted." DEIS p. 131. However, the section goes on to admit the
expected presence of two endangered species, the Northern Long-eared Bat and Sharp-shinned
Hawk, as well as two species of special concern, the Eastern Box Turtle and Cooper's Hawk.
The NYSDEC relies on mapping of endangered, threatened and rare species, and species of
special concern, by the New York Natural Heritage Program(NYNHP). Save the Sound
requested the NYNHP consult the map for the area including the project site. On July 7, 2023,
Nicholas Conrad of the NYNHP reported in an email that "the Strong's Yacht Storage Proposed
Boat Storage project is within 3 miles of a few confirmed summer observations of Northern
long-eared bat. The bat locations are 2.5 to 3 miles away from the project site." Michelle
Gibbons, NYSDEC Regional Wildlife Manager, told Save the Sound that Region 1 is regulating
locations within three miles of the sites shown on the NYNHP maps. In addition, Strong's
ecological consultant, Dr. Charles Bowman, testified on June 5, 2023, hearing that NLEBs are on
the subject property.
The North Fork Audubon Society has been documenting field observations of nine bat
species detected on the border of the Strong's Property and Mill Road Preserve. An independent
bat researcher, Dr. Kristjan Mets, is analyzing the acoustic recordings performed by North Fork
Audubon Society and concluded the NLEB was detected at the boundaries of the Strong's site.
More analyses of the acoustic recordings for other species are underway. Included in North Fork
Audubon Society's list is another endangered species of bat, the Indiana Bat. In addition to the
species listed as federally endangered, there are species that are considered endangered in New
York, like the Piping Plover, that also rely on the subject property as habitat. The 600+ trees that
the proposed action is planning to remove are components of a coastal oak-beech forest
54
classified as "vulnerable"by the New York State Forest Management Plan. As documented, this
forest contains prime bird and wildlife habitat for these endangered species.
Additionally, the Eastern Box Turtle is a species of special concern and a species of
greatest conservation need. During the winter, they burrow and would be undetectable to the
workers supposedly attempting to herd them up and contain them in special pens. This is an
unworkable and inadequate mitigating measure that will not ensure the protection of the Eastern
Box Turtle. Further, tree felling, grubbing, and sand hauling in the winter months, as planned to
avoid the NLEB, would unearth and destroy these turtles, which nest underground in the very
forest the applicant proposes to remove.
There is a series risk concern that the NLEB and the other endangered and threatened
species could be harmed ("taken") by the proposed action. Winters in Suffolk County are
becoming shorter and warmer due to climate change. Because of that fact, the NLEB could
potentially be there in February or earlier. Limiting the cutting of trees to the months of
December through February is not an adequate mitigating measure to ensure the protection of the
NLEB. Moreover, as DEC has explained, "[p]rojects that are intended to convert forest to other
land uses have a greater impact on NLEB than projects that allow for the regeneration and
retention of forests on the landscape. With the exception of Suffolk County, trees are not
currently a limiting resource for NLEB. However, the species also uses forests of all types for
feeding. When forest is converted to another use, these areas no longer provide any benefit to
NLEB.1132
Replacing 600+ fully grown trees with newly planted trees will harm the habitat of all of
these different species. Additionally, changing the entire landscape by excavating 4.59 acres of
materials will also harm the species habitat. While certain mitigating measures have been
proposed, this is not enough to absolve the Planning Board and Strong's of their obligations
under the State and Federal endangered species statutes. The full scope of the harm to these
endangered species is not yet fully known. More study should be conducted and the full extent
of the harm needs to be revealed to comply fully with these statutes.
Pursuant to, 6 NYCRR § 182.9, we recommend making request to DEC for a
determination as to whether the proposed activity is likely to result in the take or taking of any
endangered or threatened species.33 Additionally, the federal Endangered Species Act also
prohibits the applicant from"taking" and threatened or endangered species. The Planning Board
has responsibility to ensure that endangered and threatened species are properly protected and
that the applicable statutes are followed.
32 https://,N-w-w.dec.ny.gov/animals/I06090.html
33 Any person proposing an activity or any entity with regulatory oversight over a proposed activity may request a
determination from the department as to whether the proposed activity is likely to result in the take or taking of any
species listed as endangered or threatened in this Part and is therefore subject to regulation under this Part. Failure
to ask the department for such a determination does not remove the subject activity from the potential for regulation
under this Part. 6 NYCRR§ 182.9
55
CONCLUSION
We thank the Planning Board for its consideration of these comments. We are available
to discuss any of them at your convenience.
56
Attachment A
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
Y }s
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 Naugles 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 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 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 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.
Suffolk County Planning Commission J 3/25/2020
i
1 F
1
J
7�' 2
_, ¢ 1'h1aP4W h
pp f RFJ Wk
KPi4-• F , l 5
A IA
If i
j� aya
t �
T w'a
Proposed 1 Story Al
Boat Storage Bldg ;. r '
..ipF. 52,500 SF
�n Its
Proposed 1 Story ...;T
Boat Storage Bldg
f
49,000 SF
f YPJIFF
„%Q — F
I t25
+yY,iII 'FA
;-Q9 A PrNgF
Scale (in Feet) IK•eGA+ O� },[fes.
200
Suffolk County Planning Commission $ 3/25/2020
O'IeSIM W1nV vv CE ZY B nom"P...S Nrppiwypp�py7Nuplyaa�r6uw1s i00Z05 dtlIP%Y1WJu��MN Ae6�IS t00Z RS1� KAd�S-ZL
/ 2 O V O
Y N« O O N
Q fid. o O c 0 O
NM0N
WUoN6
d
(1) 'a
'a
Q a N 00 Z
C v' Q p)O l0
Jo X 2
0
a
0
O - c0
i
J Of'2 O
v �yc 5� °o
Q o
w �
m o
SNS CV Z
t
U
U)
i
r
v z -
0 0
o pQ Y
a
T w
WO
U1 Z LL O
S N
}
�v
7
/62 ob )rtw
o
co
M' 0 I
O
I I
Z U I
� w
Q N
O
N ^^L
I.L L.L
W 3
� - U MIN
N
LU isf
co 9 9a
°-Its
Suffolk County Planning Commission 9 3/25/2020
Attachment B
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
�R m�
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 Planning@suffolkcountyny.gov. 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 ■ 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,11th FI ■ P.O.BOX 6100 ■ HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 ■ (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 A14-25 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 ■ 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,11th FI ■ P.O.BOX 6100 ■ HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 ■ (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 that the 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 ■ 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,11th FI ■ P.O.BOX 6100 ■ HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 ■ (631)853-5191
Meeting Summary (continued) April 1, 2020
Section A14-14 thru A14-25 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code (continued)
• 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 ■ 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,11th FI ■ P.O.BOX 6100 ■ HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 ■ (631)853-5191
Attachment C
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK RECEIVED
k
J l.,� 0 1 yry� pr� �,�,�, y Gin.
! ".,1'
e
SouthOd 1'0114,n
1 � Rlannong f3oa- rd
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
from the Town of Southold entitled, "Strongs Yacht Center" referred to it pursuant to Section
A14-14 thru A14-25, 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. Freleng. Chief Planner
APF/cd Division of Planning and Environment
cc.: Heather Lanza, Director of Planning
H.LEE DENNISON BLDG a 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,4th FI a P.O.BOX 6100 m HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 n (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]) 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.
SCPC Stormwater Publication Icktfrflvmrwuffaikcounyyy i ri vl yawl l C purl krroi7�tn�ld�a�&iralira� �,1caar e ul`or c1r r r3cPho ci ( LIL
* SCPC Guidebook IalAt�„H era y a[ rriiultyllyJs /Podi fC ,/QIgamY�ti?i,u 'AfPublicatw,rnVSCPC��ro°fekrle l�?a�.�df
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�.,�.. .. . ............ .................�.�wu.�_.
Large X
CASEY, JENNIFER....- �..
R -Town of Huntington X
CHARTRAND, MATTHEW -Town of Islip X
SAMUEL—Town of Babylon X
CONDZELLA, JOHN —Town of Riverhead X
ESPOSITO, ADRIENNE -Villages over 5,000 X
. ._ .._ ..��....� ��, e�....m.a ...
FINN, JOHN -Tow n of Smithtown X
GERSHOWITZ, KEVIN G.-At Large X
KAUFMAN, MICHAEL - Villages under 5,000 X
.... ......�.. . MICHAEL .. .... ......... ........
KELLY, —Town of Brookhaven X
KITT, ERROL—At Large.� .... _. ._..... ........................._ ..�
X
O EHEAD, NICHOLAS —Town of Shelter he ....
M R X
Island
VACANT, -Town of East Hampton
McCarthy, Thomas, -Town of Southold X
VACANT -Town of
f Southampton
Motion: Commissioner McCarthy Present: 12
Seconded: Commissioner Anderson Absent: 1
Voted: 12
Recused: 0
Absent: 1
DECISION Incomplete
Attachment D
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK C -....
APR 2
2020
* ' - Panning Board
Steven Bellone
SUFFOLK COUNTY 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 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 sever storm
events including more violent storm surges.
H.LEE DENNISON BLDG to 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,11th FI a P.O.BOX 6100 a HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 a (631)853-5191
2. Certain detailed information is lacking that would make environmental quality review of the
potential adverse impacts of the proposed action thorough and complete.
3. "Boat storage" is not a water"dependent"use. While"related"to water,boat storage is often
accommodated inland away from the waterfront. Storage of boats on site is not essential but
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
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.
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 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 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 designed, the existing waste and storm water systems would function during
elevations of the groundwater table due to extreme climatic events.
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 off shore location creek-ward of the shoreline of Strong's Yacht Center.
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 m 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,11th FI a P.O.BOX 6100 m HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 2 (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,
;2 2
By Christine DeSalvo
Andrew P. Freleng, Chief Planner
Division of Planning and Environment
APF/cd
H.LEE DENNISON BLDG ■ 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HWY,11th FI a P.O.BOX 6100 a HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 a (631)853-5191
Attachment E
mo�466&5M4
5106 West Mill Road•P.O. Box 587 • Mattituck,NY 11952
April 20, 2022
The Honorable Scott Russell, Supervisor
Honorable Members of the Town Board
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold,NY 11971
Re: Zoning Issues Surrounding SCTM#1000-106-13.7
or 5106 West Mill Road, Mattituck
Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board,
We are reaching out to you to request clarification of a substantially impactful, and we believe erroneous,
zoning change that occurred with the adoption of Local Law No.l-1989. When the town redrew its zoning
map in 1989, the boundary between the R-80 and M-11 zones of SCTM#1000-106-13.4, located along the
western side of Mattituck Creek, was shifted westward approximately 380 feet from its pre-1989 location.
To date, we have been unable to confirm why there was a westward shift of the boundary. That shift
resulted in a residential lot (SCTM #1000-106-13.7) —which is our home —becoming surrounded by the
M-11 zone.
Pursuant to New York Town Law §264-1, "Every zoning ordinance and every amendment to a zoning
ordinance(excluding any map incorporated therein)adopted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall
be entered in the minutes of the town board; such minutes shall describe and refer to any map adopted in
connection with such zoning ordinance or amendment." After submitting a FOIL request to the Southold
Town Clerk for copies of these documents, we were advised that they could not be located/provided.
Attached to this letter is documentation, including a timeline, in support of our position that the current
Town zoning map is incorrect and should be corrected to reflect what we believe to be the correct boundary
between the R-80 and M-11 zones on tax lot#1000-106-13.4.
We are aware of the proposed industrial project on the lot that surrounds our home, and want to remind the
Town Board that pursuant to Southold Town Law §280-8(D), since no construction has been started, no
ground story framework has been completed within six months, and an entire building has not been
completed within one year,then there is no legal basis to dismiss this challenge under §280-8.
Lastly, we want to highlight to the Town Board that the purpose of the comprehensive zoning under
Southold Town Law§280-2 is for,among other things,"The maximum protection of residential and historic
areas" (§280-2E), "The enhancement of the appearance of the Town of Southold as a whole, particularly
its open and rural environment" (§280-2G), and "The protection and enhancement of the coastal
environment" (§280-2K). We are requesting that you undertake a formal review of the zoning boundaries
within tax lot#1000-106-13.4.We believe that as a result of that review you will conclude that the existing
Town zoning map needs to be revised to reflect the pre-1989 boundary between the R-80 and M-IT zones.
Sincerely,
s
Wo .4 osco a David W. Boscola
cc: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Planning Board
Page 1 of 9
ATTACHMENT A
Timeline of Events Relating the Zoning of Tax Parcel
1. April 9, 1957 Original Zoning Map (Exhibit 1)
a. Map in place reflects original zoning for what was known as Mattituck Inlet Marina and
today is Strong's Yacht Center.
2. January 26, 1960—Public Hearing—Zoning Change#1
a. Prior owner of the surrounding property, Frederick R. Ketcham,requests a zoning change
for an expansion to the south of the Business zone of the waterfront parcel located
between Mattituck Creek and the sloped hillside to the west.
b. Zoning change requested to be"roughly 150' from the shoreline"and"still has 7 or 8
acres to the west of that which he is willing now to leave in its present condition
[Agriculture and Residential] and probably that is the better method"
c. A copy of the revised zoning map is included in the public hearing minutes (Exhibit II).
The map is officially updated and reflected on survey maps and site plans in the town
files until 2000. These documents do not reflect the 1989 zone boundary change.
3. October 31, 1961 —property is sold to Mattituck Holding Co, of which Bill Boscola is a member
4. February 1972 Boscola Family home built by Bill Boscola
a. The home is constructed on a portion of the surrounding parcel and officially carved out
of the overall plot. This was done within the R-80 zone. The lot is currently SCTM#
1000-106-13.7 (our home today)
5. November 16, 1984—Last Approved Site Plan(Exhibit Ill)
a. The last boat storage shed is constructed at the marina within the commercial/light
industrial zone portion of lot#1000-106-13.4.
b. Correct zoning boundary is reflected on the last approved site plan for the property—which
as is still the site plan in effect as April 18, 2022.
6. January 1989—Local Law No.1 is passed.Boundary between R-80 and M-II zones relocated 380'
west on Town zoning reap (Exhibit IV)
7. August 6, 1989—Subdivisions
a. Mattituck Holding Co. and the Town of Southold were still in discussions regarding
various proposed subdivisions of the subject parcel.
b. These discussions began in 1986 and continued through late 1993.
8. November 6, 1989—Town acknowledges R-80 zoning still intact(Exhibit V)
a. Planning Board Letter noting a lot within the subject parcel,part of the subdivisions, is
located in the R-80 zone nearly one year after Local Law No. 1
9. February 26, 1990—Subdivision Map (Exhibit VJ)
a. The standard subdivision map still reflects the zoning referenced prior to 1989,received
by the Planning Department
(cont'd next page)
Page 2 of 9
ATTACHMENT A(CONT'D)
10. July 1995 —We purchase our home—approximately two years after the subdivision stalled
a. Given the above facts,there was no reason to believe that there were any changes to the
zoning of the lot surrounding our lot.
b. We used the latest survey map from Young&Young dated August 17, 1989 (received by
Planning Board Feb 26, 1990), as our reference at the time of purchase (Exhibit 1)
c. It is reasonable to assume that we would have used Young&Young to survey the property
and it is further reasonable to expect that we would have received a nearly exact map as
the one presented here.
d. As such, our reasonable reliance on the survey map located in the Town files with the R-
80/M-11 line drawn as reflected in Exhibit VI, should be given significant weight in this
fact pattern — particularly since it was more than one year after Local Law No. 1 was
adopted.
Remainder of page intentionally left blank—Exhibits follow
Page 3 of 9
EXHIBIT I
Exccrpt from Zoning Map of April 1957
b �
- - 8
-moi r
l�
Subiect Parcel
i
Page 4 of 9
EXHIBIT 11
Zoning Mupreflecting the documented approved change in 1960 (boundary line enhanced inblue)
MAP OF L-A%rqj
mi
91
41
Page 5uf9
EXHIBIT III
Last Approved Site Plan for the subject property 1984—still the current approved in the Town files
��,✓r� ai[4.e � Ja' IIP
f� 1
1 �
-- _ - .-
ZONING BOI.VryARYLINE
_ '-_ •`",` --- ,'fir r� r Ir
".-----•---- .AP OVFD BY
PLANNINC,101-OD
VA TOWN O�
• -.-."___ ". f�} { - ;`. !e PAT: -
J
An ' sr.a Fw ns ar a
If, moi' n' ia
Aye 9 MATTITtJCK HMDIMG CG '
AT MATTMUCK ox1Y,. N.r
Y TOWN OF SOUTHOLD KW2:
SVFFOLK MUNTV',NEW TORN ra0. a-b.1
1 ......, .. p 7f
c•V•••••••a°e•'P•x'�6�w::w•eir X00 oSTIUKOlp A>J[MlE
YOUNG a YOUNG s==AMW TORK
�r 0.M O.KssiDxK�lxa.lCK
nxD.✓<hD p,r"e od.x.s iel..E NO as.M ,
- ni.RDW. 0.LAO A RVCMK
i ucens.+b•�Rr a
Page 6 of 9
�P t� _ � - ��• "_- -�t� � �__t_ - t' , ill
r r v
EXHIBIT IV
Except of Post-1989 Zoning Map after Local Law No.I is passed
f
■ • • • i •
• j
r
't r
l i l
I
ZONING
111 Is
Portion of:
Sheet A
•
A�JAMJAM IL IM
TOWN QF SOUVH(MD
SUFFOLK .
Page 7 • .
r
PL �N%[ ;G BOARD OFFICE
TUti'• 01 5()L,MOLD
:,Yr I
.r". t, r1: . z 1
Sot Ozi
n,-,
r _
III_---I`1t1 Cl.
C _-r::F10Ec, L
h r... `.IT, a- arc -a L: anc0 it .}r..:.. , r;. ( ll':_.
) 1
ucI__. :7 }i.. :1:?-C= _ .. :�.. i..:t'._ t1)Q P I.i11-ITll.':a
it_ � - _ :d ,r =, .:��• ____ ,_ttFva �t� .,, 'i � _ e.nt_i - e' �- ic�::l f__gym ,-_.__t�
t C t l I :C' l
C 1 :�. :i w _ �t ;�r:r,.i:��-- . ..rl firms^: .`. l i Tlx:
;t1 U r`i ,ti'ill
- VA 1 'IIL
irM___I y
EXHIBIT VI
Survey/Subdivision Map excerpt from Young&Young—4'h revision, last dated Aug 17, 1989 and
marked as received by the Planning Board on Feb 26, 1990. Updated"Marine II"zoning moniker noted
� v
lit
SITE :AJA
JP
+ x'., •gyp ff
fit
r
F"�II�----- 1. TOTAL/dN--'a,•13 S}ACM
3. ZQNPGG WW 01&7q%TS' '
g C FE SIOCN74AI 41X*DD0TYW
as w 4 I •u i MMNE' '
LEhGTNBrftmaII5i$0'••
1 P �
rY A�Rmmdai-F Lim
a 6 iy
STANDARD/ YIELD
SUBDIVISION SKETCH FLANAT MATTITUCK
{
"AOL% MA7rITUCK HOLDING CQ
wur F
IMF
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
JJ SUFFOLK CO,MY
4-0
w.R-aaw s�..N. • itµrt i'aL.i
Page 9 of 9
SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2273
July 10, 2023 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com
Via email
Mr. James H. Rich III, Vice-Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
54375 Main Rd
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Comments on Strong's Yacht Center DEIS and Site Plan Application
Dear Mr. Rich and Members of the Planning Board:
On behalf of Save Mattituck Inlet, we respectfully request that the Planning Board refer
two matters to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). First, pursuant to Town Code § 280-
146(D)(2), the Planning Board should ask the ZBA to make a determination of the exact location
of a district boundary shown on the Zoning Map. Second, pursuant to Town Code § 280-
146(D)(1), the Planning Board should ask the ZBA to make a determination of the meaning of
Town Code § 280-111(H) and its application to Strong's Yacht Center's site plan application and
proposed project.
Town Code § 280-146(D)(1)(2) states that the ZBA is authorized, "on request of any
Town . . . board . . . to decide any of the following: (1) Determine the meaning of any provision
in this chapter or of any condition or requirement specified or made under the provisions of this
chapter. (2) Determine the exact location of any district boundary shown on the Zoning Map."
Regarding Town Code § 280-146(D)(2), the MII zoning was put into place in 1989 with
the adoption of Local Law No. 1-1989 and, since then little change has been made. See
Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 3, p. S. When the Town redrew its zoning map in 1989, the boundary
between the R80 district and MII district (previously, a business district) of SCTM #1000-106-
13.4, located along the western side of Mattituck Creek, inexplicably shifted westward
approximately 380 feet from its pre-1989 location. There is no record of why this westward shift
of the boundary, as drawn on the zoning map, occurred. It appears to have been an inadvertent
error in the creation of the 1989 map. As seen in the attached April 2022 letter from the Boscola
family and its attachments, the Planning Board, nearly one year after the passage of Local Law
No. 1, acknowledged that the R80 district on the parcel still included the land that had been
zoned R80 prior to 1989.
The shift of the boundary westward, uphill, makes that portion of the district not
appropriately located and the intended uses of the MII district not viable absent massive changes
to the physical landscape (i.e., to bring the grade closer to sea level). We believe that the ZBA
should make a determination that the exact location of the R80 boundary is, in fact, in the same
location as it was pre-1989 and was not moved westward in the 1989 zoning action.
222 BROAD NvAY, 22ND FLOOR • NENvYORK, NENvYORK 10038
TEL: 212-242-2355 • www.superlawgroup.com
Southold Town Planning Board
July 10, 2023
Page 2
Regarding the requested determination under Town Code § 280-146(D)(1), Town Code §
280-111(H) states: "Storage of petroleum 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 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." Strong's Yacht Center has
already made clear that the 88 yachts to be stored in the two proposed buildings would need to be
stored with full fuel tanks. Therefore, there would be more than 20,000 gallons of petroleum
products stored within 1,000 feet of tidal wetlands. The ZBA can determine if the proposed boat
storage with full fuel tanks qualifies as "storage of petroleum products" and if Town Code § 280-
111(H) applies to the project.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Reed Super, Esq.
Ethan Baer, legal intern
cc (via email):
Planning Department
Town Attorney
Zoning Board of Appeals
Suffolk County Planning Commission
NYSDEC
Save Mattituck Inlet
Save the Sound
North Fork Audubon
Group for the East End
Turtle Rescue of the Hamptons
Joel Klein
Attachment
mo�466&5M4
5106 West Mill Road•P.O. Box 587 • Mattituck,NY 11952
April 20, 2022
The Honorable Scott Russell, Supervisor
Honorable Members of the Town Board
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold,NY 11971
Re: Zoning Issues Surrounding SCTM#1000-106-13.7
or 5106 West Mill Road, Mattituck
Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board,
We are reaching out to you to request clarification of a substantially impactful, and we believe erroneous,
zoning change that occurred with the adoption of Local Law No.l-1989. When the town redrew its zoning
map in 1989, the boundary between the R-80 and M-TT zones of SCTM#1000-106-13.4, located along the
western side of Mattituck Creek, was shifted westward approximately 380 feet from its pre-1989 location.
To date, we have been unable to confirm why there was a westward shift of the boundary. That shift
resulted in a residential lot (SCTM #1000-106-13.7)—which is our home —becoming surrounded by the
M-11 zone.
Pursuant to New York Town Law §264-1, "Every zoning ordinance and every amendment to a zoning
ordinance(excluding any map incorporated therein)adopted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall
be entered in the minutes of the town board; such minutes shall describe and refer to any map adopted in
connection with such zoning ordinance or amendment." After submitting a FOIL request to the Southold
Town Clerk for copies of these documents, we were advised that they could not be located/provided.
Attached to this letter is documentation, including a timeline, in support of our position that the current
Town zoning map is incorrect and should be corrected to reflect what we believe to be the correct boundary
between the R-80 and M-11 zones on tax lot#1000-106-13.4.
We are aware of the proposed industrial project on the lot that surrounds our home, and want to remind the
Town Board that pursuant to Southold Town Law §280-8(D), since no construction has been started, no
ground story framework has been completed within six months, and an entire building has not been
completed within one year,then there is no legal basis to dismiss this challenge under §280-8.
Lastly, we want to highlight to the Town Board that the purpose of the comprehensive zoning under
Southold Town Law§280-2 is for,among other things,"The maximum protection of residential and historic
areas" (§280-2E), "The enhancement of the appearance of the Town of Southold as a whole, particularly
its open and rural environment" (§280-2G), and "The protection and enhancement of the coastal
environment" (§280-2K). We are requesting that you undertake a formal review of the zoning boundaries
within tax lot#1000-106-13.4.We believe that as a result of that review you will conclude that the existing
Town zoning map needs to be revised to reflect the pre-1989 boundary between the R-80 and M-IT zones.
Sincerely,
AN_�
Donna M. Boscola David W. Boscola
cc: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Planning Board
Page 1 of 9
ATTACHMENT A
Timeline of Events Relating the Zoning of Tax Parcel
1. April 9, 1957 Original Zoning Map (Exhibit 1)
a. Map in place reflects original zoning for what was known as Mattituck Inlet Marina and
today is Strong's Yacht Center.
2. January 26, 1960—Public Hearing—Zoning Change#1
a. Prior owner of the surrounding property, Frederick R. Ketcham,requests a zoning change
for an expansion to the south of the Business zone of the waterfront parcel located
between Mattituck Creek and the sloped hillside to the west.
b. Zoning change requested to be"roughly 150' from the shoreline"and"still has 7 or 8
acres to the west of that which he is willing now to leave in its present condition
[Agriculture and Residential] and probably that is the better method"
c. A copy of the revised zoning map is included in the public hearing minutes (Exhibit II).
The map is officially updated and reflected on survey maps and site plans in the town
files until 2000. These documents do not reflect the 1989 zone boundary change.
3. October 31, 1961 —property is sold to Mattituck Holding Co, of which Bill Boscola is a member
4. February 1972 Boscola Family home built by Bill Boscola
a. The home is constructed on a portion of the surrounding parcel and officially carved out
of the overall plot. This was done within the R-80 zone. The lot is currently SCTM#
1000-106-13.7 (our home today)
5. November 16, 1984—Last Approved Site Plan(Exhibit Ill)
a. The last boat storage shed is constructed at the marina within the commercial/light
industrial zone portion of lot#1000-106-13.4.
b. Correct zoning boundary is reflected on the last approved site plan for the property—which
as is still the site plan in effect as April 18, 2022.
6. January 1989—Local Law Not is passed Boundary between R-80 and M-II zones relocated 380'
west on Town zoning reap (Exhibit IV)
7. August 6, 1989—Subdivisions
a. Mattituck Holding Co. and the Town of Southold were still in discussions regarding
various proposed subdivisions of the subject parcel.
b. These discussions began in 1986 and continued through late 1993.
8. November 6, 1989—Town acknowledges R-80 zoning still intact(Exhibit V)
a. Planning Board Letter noting a lot within the subject parcel,part of the subdivisions, is
located in the R-80 zone nearly one year after Local Law No. 1
9. February 26, 1990—Subdivision Map (Exhibit VJ)
a. The standard subdivision map still reflects the zoning referenced prior to 1989,received
by the Planning Department
(cont'd next page)
Page 2 of 9
ATTACHMENT A(CONT'D)
10. July 1995 —We purchase our home—approximately two years after the subdivision stalled
a. Given the above facts,there was no reason to believe that there were any changes to the
zoning of the lot surrounding our lot.
b. We used the latest survey map from Young&Young dated August 17, 1989 (received by
Planning Board Feb 26, 1990), as our reference at the time of purchase(Exhibit 1)
c. It is reasonable to assume that we would have used Young&Young to survey the property
and it is further reasonable to expect that we would have received a nearly exact map as
the one presented here.
d. As such, our reasonable reliance on the survey map located in the Town files with the R-
80/M-11 line drawn as reflected in Exhibit VI, should be given significant weight in this
fact pattern — particularly since it was more than one year after Local Law No. 1 was
adopted.
Remainder of page intentionally left blank—Exhibits follow
Page 3 of 9
EXHIBIT I
Excerpt from Zoning Map of April 1957
s�rw
1' SOewO v/L� Avg_
Q
' r�• I
Subiect Parcel _ J
.41 4 a
Existing, Business Zoninr,
tn
�jj
ROAD
� w
tr
� o
Page 4 of 9
EXHIBIT 11
Zoning Mupreflecting the doounncn(cdapproved change in 1960 (boundary line enhanced inblue)
m MAP OF L-A%rqj
mi
91
41
Page 5uf9
EXHIBIT III
Last Approved Site Plan for the subject property 1984—still the current approved in the Town files
��,✓r� ai[4.e � Ja' IIP
f� 1
1 �
-- _ - .-
ZONING BOI.VryARYLINE
_ '-_ •`",` --- ,'fir r� r Ir
".-----•---- .AP OVFD BY
PLANNINC,101-OD
VA TOWN O�
• -.-."___ ". f�} { - ;`. !e PAT: -
J
An ' sr.a Fw ns ar a
moi' n' ia
Aye 9 MATTITtJCK HMDIMG CG '
AT MATTMUCK ox1Y,. N.r
Y TOWN OF SOUTHOLD KW2:
SVFFOLK MUNTV',NEW TORN ra0. a-b.1
1 ......, .. p 7f
c•V•••••••a°e•'P•x'�6�w::w•eir X00 oSTIUKOlp A>J[MlE
YOUNG a YOUNG s==AMW TORK
�r 0.M O.KssiDxK�lxa.lCK
nxD.✓<hD p,r"e od.x.s iel..E NO as.M ,
- ni.RDW. 0.LAO A RVCMK
i ucens.+b•�Rr a
Page 6 of 9
EXHIBIT IV
Except of Post-1989 Zoning Map after Local Law No.l is passed
r v
Q
w
u
ti
t
� Q R ca An Boundai,
t
r
!VT ot
v
Portion of:
Sheet A
ZONING MAP I&IWO
�oMK �� a�
SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK
MMTER FLAN UPDATE �+no wF'rMk� yT��aprouRr•�vcd�t+l�maaWrt7- omnw M.n raw
Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT V
Planning Board acknowledges zoning of the parcel as R-80-Nov 1989 (subsequent to Local Law No. 1)
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road �, ?`1► .�
P.O. Box 1 179 `-'► ' 0�
Southold. New York 1 1971
TELEPHONE
(516)765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
November 6, 1989
Henry Raynor
P.O. Drawer A
Jamesport, New York 11947
RE: Proposed Set Off for
Katherine Ebert
SCTM# 1000-106-6-13.3
Dear Mr. Raynor,
The Planning Board has reviewed the submission for the
above mentioned proposal.
The lot to be set off is in the R80 zone, which requires a
minimum lot size of 80,000 square feet. As the proposed lot is
only 41,182 square feet in area, the Planning Board can not
proceed until such time that an area variance is granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Please note also that if an area variance is granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Board will require that
revised maps be submitted showing the entire parcel from which
the 41,182 square foot parcel is to be set off.
Upon submission of a positive determination from the Zoning
Board of Appeals and revised maps, the Planning Board will
proceed with their review.
truly yours
:etZ�XOrlowslEi
, Jr. ,
Chairman
Page 8 of 9
EXHIBIT VI
Survey/Subdivision Map excerpt from Young &Young—4'h revision, last dated Aug 17, 1989 and
marked as received by the Planning Board on Feb 26, 1990. Updated"Marine II"zoning moniker noted
� v
lit
SITE :AJA
JP
+ x'., •gyp ff
fit
r
F"�II�----- 1. TOTAL/dN--'a,•13 S}ACM
3. ZQNPGG WW 01&7q%TS' '
g C FE SIOCN74AI 41X*DD0TYW
LEhGTNBrftma 5i$0'••
1 P �
rY A�Rmmdai-F Lim
a 6 iy
STANDARD/ YIELD
SUBDIVISION SKETCH FLANAT MATTITUCK
{
"AOL% MA7rITUCK HOLDING CQ
wur F
IMF
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
JJ SUFFOLK CO,MY
4-0
w.R-aaw s�..N. • itµrt i'aL.i
Page 9 of 9