HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix A - Annotated Public CommentsAPPENDIX A
Comment Catalogue
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
“STRONG’S YACHT CENTER – PROPOSED BOAT STORAGE BUILDINGS”
5780 WEST MILL ROAD – HAMLET OF MATTITUCK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
Chapter 1.1 Project Location
ID#Source Document Page Number Comment (Original)
1.1-1 Reed Super 7.10.23 7
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 boat
storage can be accomplished inland."
1.1-2 Save the Sound 7/10/23 2
The required removal of a forested, natural coastal feature, including nearly 135,000 cubic yards
of sand, to provide space-where otherwise there is none-along the waterfront for over two acres
of non-water-dependent, boat storage warehouses is testament that the site is wrong for this
type of development. The immediate area of the proposed project is important ecologically and
recreationally, as well as for maritime heritage; its immediate surroundings are protected,
maintained, or recognized by federal, state, regional, and local authorities: • In its Stewardship
Initiative, the US EPA's Long Island Sound Study lists Mattituck Creek as an Inaugural Stewardship
Site2 for its ecological and recreational significance.
• The US Fish and Wildlife Service lists Mattituck Inlet as a Significant Coastal Habitat. 3
• The project site lies immediately south and west of New York State-owned tidal wetlands.
• The project site adjoins the state-designated Mattituck Inlet Wetlands and Beaches Significant
Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, which is incorporated into Southold's Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program (LWRP).
• The project site is contiguous with Mill Road Preserve, owned by the Town of Southold.
1.1-3 Beth Lebowitz 7/9/23 2
A smaller issue but nonetheless problematic: There is lack of clarity as to ownership of Parcel
1000-106.-6-10 which is part of the Project parcel. This parcel is not listed on the Town of
Southold assessment roll.
Chapter 1.2 Project Description
ID#Source Document Page Number Comment (Original)
1.2-1
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Description 3
The DEIS states that “existing storage buildings would remain the same and a reconfiguration of the
staging areas and drydock storage is not proposed.” The DEIS fails to mention that the reason there
does not need to be a reconfiguration of the staging area is because the developer made
modifications to the existing haul out slip at the southern end of the property to accommodate larger
boats, while the Project is under SEQR review. On July 16, 2020, the Applicant applied for a wetlands
permit to replace an in-kind bulkhead and make a modification and extension to the southern haul
out slip. Comment letters from Save Mattituck Inlet, Save the Sound, and the Southold Planning
Board were submitted to the Southold Board of Trustees expressing concern about the apparent
segmentation of the review of the Project, which was and is, under review by the Planning Board. The
written comments were supplemented by verbal comments from representatives of the two former
organizations at the May 19, 2021 meeting of the Board of Trustees. The Southold Planning Board’s
memorandum to the Board of Trustees dated May 19, 2021 noted that the Planning Board was the
designated Lead Agency under SEQRA, and had issued a positive declaration for a project (the
proposed Project) which included aspects of the work the Board of Trustees was being asked to
approve. The Planning Board noted that it “is the determination of the Planning Board that portions
of the proposed work are connected to the whole action and, consequently, approving them could be
considered segmentation of the SEQR review process. This work, which includes the extension of the
travel lift and work associated with the travel lift extension, as well as any other new work, should not
be allowed to move forward until the SEQR process has been concluded.” In spite of this, the Board
of Trustees voted, inappropriately we believe, to approve all work in the application despite the public
comments, public letters, and the Planning Board’s written objection.
1.2-2
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Description 3 & 4
The Planning Board should also be cognizant of the fact the Project, as described in the DEIS, does not
appear to be the project the Applicant intends to build. First, the Applicant has indicated in other
venues that it is likely that the Project will be constructed in phases, with initial phase including only
one yacht storage building. The second building, would be constructed only if factors such as suitable
bank financing, and if interest rates and the price of steel come down.8 Second, the proposed water
line, which is touted in the DEIS as a Project benefit is, according to the Suffolk County Water
Authority scheduled for construction in May 2023, and will be in place independent of construction of
the Project.
1.2-3
Planning Board
Office Memorandum
7-10-23 7 Was a green/living roof for the buildings proposed or discussed?
1.2-4 Reed Super 7.10.23 14
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.
1.2-5 Reed Super 7.10.23 14
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 Al 4- 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.
1.2-6 Reed Super 7.10.23 14
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 Al 4-25 shall include an explanation of the need
for the proposed elevation of the floor of the boat storage buildings.
1.2-7
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/06/23 24 The DEIS doesn' t describe the Project timetable accurately or consistently.
1.2-8
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/06/23 24
The DEIS misleadingly states on page xxv that "the addition of stationary emission sources is not
proposed." But elsewhere it specifies that the storage buildings would be heated by propane, a source
of greenhouse gas emissions.
1.2-9 Joel Klein 7/3/23 1
In my prior comments I pointed out that the project, as described in the DEIS, is not the project the
Applicant intends to build. First, the Applicant has indicated in a variety of venues, including before
the Planning Board, that the Project will likely be constructed in phases, with the initial phase
including only one yacht storage building. The second building, would be constructed only if factors
such as the availability of suitable bank financing, and if interest rates and the price of steel come
down. This is never mentioned in the DEIS. It is not even presented as a possible alternative.
1.2-10
Jo-Ann Lechner
7/5/23 1
Adequately describe the property and the landscape, including its relevant elements, such as existing
structures, plant communities, wildlife, adjoining properties/resources.
1.2-11 Boscola 6/20/23 6
The DEIS fails to mention why "a reconfiguration of the staging areas and drydock storage is not
proposed." This is likely because on July 16, 2020, the developer applied for and received a wetlands
permit to replace an in-kind bulkhead while adding a modification/extension to the southern haul-out
slip. The Southold Planning Board, Save Mattituck Inlet, and Save the Sound, all objected to non-
allowable segmentation of the project.
1.2-12 Boscola 6/20/23 6
Per the Amended Final Scope, the DEIS is supposed to discuss other modifications necessary such as
plans for additional docks, and any new dock configurations, which it does not. Presently, the marina
holds 42 to 45 vessels, depending on length and beam. Only about 8 or 9 docks appear to be available
to hold a 60' vessel - where will the other 80 60' boats be staged in the water once dropped off for
storage or picked up in the spring? Refer to Attachment D to determine where 88 60' boats will sit in
the water. Even if spaced out, where would another 44 60' vessels be docked?
1.2-13 Boscola 6/20/23 6
The DEIS does not discuss how the facility in its current form, two haul-out slips and about 45 boat
slips, can haul and launch an additional 88 boats. At our February 8, 2020 meeting with Jeff Strong, we
asked this question. He said "Well, I'm relying on my team to get it done." That is not a sufficient
answer, or even a plan, and should be addressed in the DEIS to prevent further segmentation of
review.
a. At the June 5, 2023 Public Hearing, one of the developer's consultants referenced that boats
would be limited to two arriving each day. Per SYC's website as of June 6, 2023, the service
department is open six days a week. Assuming 88 yachts arriving twice daily for six days a week, it
would take just over seven weeks to fill just those two sheds (ignoring the boats already stored in the
existing sheds). Therefore, if the storage program were to commence on October 1st, owners would
need to begin bringing boats to SYC by mi-August, which is still prime summer boating time. Assuming
88 yachts will be departing in the Spring at the same rate, implies that launching would need to begin
late February if the sheds arc to be empty by April 15'11 (again, ignoring boats in the other sheds) at
which time it is possible that snow is still falling and therefore defeating the purpose of indoor
storage. The DEIS should describe the hauling and launching processes in more detail.
Chapter 1.3 Objectives and Benefits
ID#Source Document Page Number Comment (Original)
1.3-1
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Description 1
Section 1.3.1 of the DEIS (Objectives of the Proposed Project) states that “[c]limate-controlled
(heated) space is essential for maintaining electrical systems in the types of vessels to be
stored”(pp. ii, 14). This is both misleading and inaccurate. Not only is heated indoor storage
unnecessary, but indoor storage in general is unnecessary both to a vessel’s electrical system and
even the vessel in its entirety. Strong’s Marine is an authorized new boat dealer for manufacturers
such as Cruisers Yachts and Regal Boats. Strong’s is also a former dealer for Sunseeker Yachts. All
three manufacturers have debunked the developer’s claim that heated indoor storage is essential.
Regal Customer Service noted “The majority of Regal boats do spend their winters outside, and
seem to do very well.” Sunseeker noted “there are no issues with storing a Sunseeker outside in the
winter.” Lastly, Cruisers Yachts noted that their boats are built in Wisconsin and “may sit outside for
several months wrapped and winterized without issue” while waiting for delivery to their dealers.
When asked specifically about electrical systems, Cruisers Yachts noted “…as far as any additional
electrical concerns, you shouldn't be worried.”
1.3-2
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Description 1
Nowhere in the DEIS does the Applicant provide or discuss a demonstrated need for the Project.
The financial risks of undertaking the Project without a demonstrated need are those of the
Applicant and any financial supporters. However, if the Project proves to be financially non-viable, it
would also mean that the Town of Southold would incur all of the environmental
disruptions/devastation associated with Project construction without benefiting in any way from the
Project. This is of special concern since the Applicant has advised at least one adjacent property
owner that bank financing of the second of the two proposed storage buildings is contingent upon
demonstrating a 60% occupancy of the first building.
1.3-3
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Description 1
The DEIS states that “many of the yachts to be accommodated by the proposed action are
anticipated to be existing boats utilizing local waters[,] customers electing to store their yachts in a
climate-controlled facility closer to home rather and eliminates the need to relocate the vessel to
warmer climates for winter storage”[sic](pp. xxiv, 249-250). However, this assumption fails to take
into the account that many yacht owners choose to relocate their vessels to warmer climates during
winter months so they can be made available for revenue-generating winter charters. For example,
the M/Y Le Reve, pictured in DEIS Appendix M, and identified as typical of the vessels at SYC, is
currently available for winter charter in the Caribbean.3 This practice eliminates the need for winter
storage.
1.3-4
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Description 2
The DEIS also states that “The proposed action would keep those yachts that utilize local waters
during the peak season on Long Island rather than being transported to warmer climates in the
winter which would further support and revitalize the maritime and commercial hub in this area”
(DEIS p. 174). However, at a May 14, 2023 meeting of the Southold-Peconic Civic Association, the
Applicant indicated this was not the case.
1.3-5
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Description 2
The DEIS also states that it “is anticipated the boat owners would be existing customers who
currently dock at SYC or Strong’s Water Club, new yacht customers from the surrounding Southold
community, as well as other owners on Long Island, Westchester County, and in the States of
Connecticut and New Jersey” (pp. ii, xxviii, 20, 278); and that “a portion of these storage boat
customers may be existing clients of SYC or the Strong’s Water Club, boat owners within the Town,
while others are expected to be future boat owners from yacht sales by SYC or other brokers” (p.
312). DEIS Appendix M states that it “is anticipated new yacht customers would come from
Mattituck Inlet private docks, Greenport, Montauk, Mount Sinai, Port Jefferson, Huntington, Port
Washington, Westchester County, New York, Connecticut, and Northern New Jersey” (DEIS
Appendix M, p.24). The language in these statements is very imprecise, witness the use of the
words “many”, “anticipated”, “a portion”, and “may be”.
Approximately how many yachts/customers are anticipated to be existing customers who currently
dock at SYC?5 Approximately how many are customers at other Town of Southold facilities owned
by the applicant? How many new yacht customers are expected to take advantage of winter storage
at SYC? How many customers will be from outside Suffolk County or from outside New York State?
The answers to these questions go directly to accurately estimating tax revenue aspects of the
Project, as well as assessing whether aspects of the Project’s environmental impacts are merely
being moved from one location to another, or whether certain impacts will be intensified. This
information is not included in the DEIS.
1.3-6
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Description 2 & 3
The DEIS includes nothing to support or document a demonstrated need for the Project, other than
the Applicant’s assertions. Something more than “If I build it, they will come,” needs to be provided
to the Planning Board by the Applicant to demonstrate a need for indoor winter yacht storage, and
some basis for estimating the number and geographic distribution of anticipated customers.
1.3-7
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Public Benefit 6
There is very little public benefit to the proposed action. A meager amount of sales
tax is proposed to be collected from yacht storage and services (just $1,726 per
superyacht per year) 1, and little from increased property taxes (approx.
$30,000 increase in the first three years, from $59,000)2 or payroll taxes.
1.3-8
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Public Benefit 6
From a societal perspective, Southold Town will not benefit from this yacht storage. Rather, the
owners of superyachts from Westchester, Connecticut, or elsewhere out-of-of state would benefit,
since they would not have to bring their yachts down to Florida or the Caribbean for the winter.
New yachts over 100-feet long have an average price of $1 million per 3 .3 feet in length. In other
words, a100- foot yacht will, on average, cost more than $30 million, so the market is limited to the
very wealthy. Yachts in the 40-to-70-foot class cost up to $10 million, 5 and at 90 feet is in the $15
million range.
1.3-9
Annie Correal June 8
2023 Email 2
Absence of Market Demand Documentation: The DEIS fails to provide evidence supporting the
market demand for the proposed heated indoor yacht storage facilities. There is no substantiation
of the need for these facilities or their sustainability.
1.3-10
Annie Correal June 8
2023 Email 2
Non-Local Market Focus: The proposal primarily serves a non-local market, with potential customers
described by Jeff Strong, the developer, as affluent boat owners from outside the area. According to
a May 24, 2023 article in The New York Times, "The yacht storage facility, he said, will offer heated
indoor winter storage that fills a gap in the market for wealthy boaters from Hamptons communities
like Sag Harbor and Amagansett, as well as Westchester County and Connecticut." Earlier, Mr.
Strong was quoted in the Suffolk Times saying Mattituck was primarily intended as a link to his other
business holdings on Long Island: "Upon purchasing this site from the Pape family in 2016, Mr.
Strong told the Suffolk Times Strong's other locations in Southampton and Port Washington will
feed customers to the Mattituck site. "This project aims to draw business from outside the area and
to connect Mr. Strong's various investments around Long Island to Mattituck rather than benefiting
the local community.
1.3-11
Annie Correal June 8
2023 Email 2 & 3
Inflated Job Creation Claims: The economic benefits presented in the DEIS are overstated, as only 11
new positions are being created. Specific details about these jobs and whether Strong's Marine will
prioritize or train local residents for the positions are lacking.
1.3-12
Annie Correal June 8
2023 Email 3
Lack of Housing for Employees: The DEIS fails to address the pressing need for housing for
employees, who would put further pressure on the already stretched supply of housing in the area.
Existing members of the maritime industry - running commercial fisheries, sailboat charters, and
working as ferry captains- have children forced to live in basements, mobile homes or places not
zoned for residential use in order to remain in the area because of the severe lack of affordable
housing options. The economic gains of this project primarily benefit the owner of the firm and do
not address the actual needs of the local maritime industry.
1.3-13
North Fork
Environmental
Council 1
We do not see any public benefit to Southold residents in attracting out-of-town yacht owners to
store their boats in Mattituck. They will not be active recreational boaters in Mattituck in the
summer, their boats will only be stored there in the winter. This will benefit mostly the marina
owner and the yacht owners. The eleven pro-posed jobs do not outweigh the permanent damage to
our environment and community character that will surely result should this project be approved.
1.3-14
Mary Elizabeth
Guyton 7/8/23 3
There are multiple letter to the Planning Board from financial experts that question the lack of clear
analysis in the DEIS to the need vs benefit of the project. Many cite a lack of market analysis.
1.3-15
Mary Elizabeth
Guyton 7/8/23 3
Further to the question of need, communication from several boat manufacturers state that indoor
storage is not required and boats properly wrapped can be kept outside in the Northeast winter.
1.3-16
Mary Elizabeth
Guyton 7/8/23 3
More poignant, is a February 2020 Suffolk County staff report on the project that states "The
proposed use on site is consistent with water related uses though not water dependent due to the
fact that boat storage can be accomplished inland". The need for this project is unclear and
questions remain about the ways this warehouse yacht storage can benefit the North Fork public.
1.3-17 Nancy May 7/10/23 1
it is essential to recognize that there is no compelling need for this project. Our community does not
require two massive warehouses solely dedicated to luxury yachts.
1.3-18
Comments on DEIS
Strong Storage pt 2 1 Susan M. Norris: Is there a public benefit to this project?
1.3-19
Comments on DEIS
Strong Storage pt 2 2
Nancy and Stoirios Nikolis:
Why are we even considering spoiling this land and sea? To whose benefit will it be? Certainly not
the average citizens of the North Fork.
1.3-20 Jerry Adler 06/20/23 1
Notably, the DEIS refers in numerous places to "full-time" jobs but does not specify that they would
be "year-round." I would urge the Board to consider Mr. Strong's assertion carefully and with
skepticism. Obviously, a boat-storage shed doesn't require 11 full-time workers during the four to
six months a year when it is empty. Mr. Strong said these workers could be redeployed to Strong's
other locations during the boating season. According to Strong's website, the company has "a team
of more than 200 employees" at 13 locations across Long Island, so 11 workers would represent a
not-insignificant increment, perhaps five percent, to its total workforce. If there is enough work to
justify this expansion, why don't those jobs already exist? Or alternatively, would the new
employees be displacing workers now on the payroll?
1.3-21
William Albertini
7/9/23 1
Strong's proposal lacks substantial evidence to support the necessity of such expansive warehouses.
It fails to provide adequate justification as to why the existing 70,000 square feet of indoor storage
at Strong's Marine cannot meet the demand. While the owner has made verbal claims about
potential clientele, there has been no comprehensive market study or assessment of the proposal's
viability in relation to other winter storage options within the area or beyond. Mr. Strong has
mentioned connections to affluent boat owners in the Hamptons, Westchester, and Connecticut,
but there is no evidence indicating local demand from Southold Town residents, nor has he
presented any credible projections to substantiate his assertions of contributing to the tax base.
1.3-22 Linda Toga 7/8/23 1
Having heard and read many of the justifications for and against the project, we remain
unconvinced that the negative environmental impact, congestion and potential hazards to residents
of Southold are justified by the purported benefit to the community. The removal of a large number
of mature trees and vast quantities of soil poses unknown risks to the environment. The
deterioration of roadways and the constant noise and traffic from the construction site will have a
detrimental effect on the nearby residents of our community. And, as clearly illustrated by
misdirected truck carrying a yacht to Strong's Yacht Center last month, even after construction is
completed, Southold residents could very well suffer as huge yachts are transported through our
town. Jeff Strong makes a point of saying in his letter to the Suffolk Times that the truck and trailer
that caused traffic to come to a stand still and prevented people from leaving and emergency
vehicles from entering the area was "properly permitted, and was accompanied by a local
escort/pilot vehicle as required". Rather than assuring us that there will not be any ongoing risk to
Southold residents, Mr. Strong's statement highlights the fact that things can go very wrong even
when requirements are met. Why negatively impact the environment, put unnecessary stress on
our infrastructure and put our residents in harm's way to build a facility to store yachts that are
already being stored elsewhere?
1.3-23
Christine Rednel
7/9/23 2
In whose interest is this Strong's Marine proposed project? Who really benefits from it? Will the
small number of jobs (the developer remains vague on the nature of these jobs, part or full time,
year-round or seasonal) make up for what our community will lose? Will those 88 yacht owners who
will store their boats here stop long enough on their bi-annual visits make significant contributions
to our local economy or community? Likely not.
So what, or who, is this all for? So a developer can exercise his right to do with his land what he
wishes, regardless of the damage and danger to the environment and the cost to the community in
which we all live?
1.3-24 Joel Klein 7/7/23 2 & 3
The Applicant has pointed out that the Project will create jobs. However, the exact number and
types of jobs have not been consistently described during the SEQRA process....the Applicant has
not provided any basis for the number of jobs that would be created by the Project. The estimated
11 jobs mentioned in the DEIS are not based on any site specific calculation performed by the
Applicant or the Applicant's consultants. Instead, the DEIS relies solely on a projection from the
Marina Economic Impact Calculator. As noted in previous comments, the MEIC cannot be relied
upon for any projections because the model on which it is based was developed using data from
marinas with a totally different revenue stream distribution (fuel sales, repairs, storage fees, etc.)
than SYC. In addition, it is also clear that the DEIS is misleading when it refers to the new jobs as "full-
time," when in fact, they will be either part-time, seasonal, and or filled at locations other than the
Project site. Those other locations include the Applicant's properties in Southampton, East
Hampton, Port Washington, Freeport, and Fire Island. Obviously, the Town of Southold will, derive
little benefit from jobs at those locations.
1.3-25 Joel Klein 7/3/23 2, 3, & 4
According to the SEQRA Handbook, "'Purpose' is a goal or objective to be achieved. The purpose of
most privately sponsored projects is to make a profit from some development activity on their
property". According to the DEIS "the Applicant is responding to a market demand for larger boat
owners looking for local indoor winter storage" (DEIS pp. xxii,244 ). However, absolutely no basis,
other than the Applicant's assertion is presented in the DEIS to support this. No market studies
appear to have been conducted. The Applicant appears to be relying on his personal belief, and
anecdotal information. For example, at the June 5 public hearing the Applicant again stated "There
has historically been limited indoor storage in our region, but now the shortage has become
critical."... ...In fact, indoor heated storage is presently offered by at least two facilities in relatively
close proximity to Mattituck. These include Lighthouse Marina in Aquebogue, and Safe Harbor-
Pilot's Point Marina in Westbrook CT5. Are these facilities at capacity? Is the demand for indoor
heated storage a recent phenomenon? If not, why have there been no previous proposals to satisfy
the demand? These questions could have been addressed by a market study.
1.3-26 Joel Klein 7/3/23 4
It is also worth noting that several of the comments cited above were apparently solicited by the
Applicant. According to public records (including the 2023 Southold tentative assessment roll), of
the seven individuals quoted above, only two own property in Southold. Only one is a Southold
resident. Three live out-of-state (New Jersey and Connecticut). This is only of significance because at
the June 5 public hearing the Applicant refers to the " ... many Southold residents ... who have told
us they need it [indoor heated storage]" (Draft transcript p. 16 6). The DEIS states that "the
Applicant is responding to a market demand for larger boat owners looking for local indoor winter
storage." (DEIS p.244). As noted above, the DEIS contains no data to support this statement.
1.3-27 Joel Klein 7/3/23 4
At the June 5 hearing, a senior representative of the Applicant's consultant responsible for preparing
the DEIS stated: "I am told that Southold residents do utilize the yacht club, and the water club and
are expected to use the indoor storage service" (Kim Gennaro, Vice President, PW Grosser
Consulting) (Draft hearing transcript p.68). The preparers of the DEIS apparently relied solely on
what they were told by the Applicant as the basis for the DEIS's discussion of demand for the Project.
1.3-28 Joel Klein 7/3/23 4 & 5
No basis for concluding that there is a demand for indoor heated yacht storage is included in the
Project's Marina Economic Impact Analysis (DEIS Appendix E). At the April 15, 2023 meeting of the
Southold-Peconic Civic Association, the Applicant referred to "research studies that we have done"
that support the demand for the Project. It is incumbent upon the Planning Board to request that
the Applicant provide copies of these research studies so that the Board can independently
determine if there is, in fact, a "demand" for the Project. These studies were apparently not made
available to the preparers of the DEIS. This is especially important because the environmental
consequences that would result if, post Project construction, the assumed demand is not realized
and only a single storage building is constructed.
1.3-29 Joel Klein 7/3/23 6
According to the DEIS, "climate-controlled (heated) space, which is essential for maintaining
electrical systems in the types of vessels to be stored" (DEIS p.ii, 14). One commenter on the Project
has stated that "The marine industry, so important to the Long Island economy as one of the
boating capitals of the world, has grown exponentially in the larger watercraft sector, mainly due to
new technology in electronics ... Newer electronics require temperature- controlled storage, and
there is limited storage of this type in our region." (Chris Young 6-1-23)
Contrary to these statements, the need for heated storage is not supported by empirical data from
users of marine electronics (see Attachment 1 ), data from marine electronic manufacturers (see
Attachment 2), or the industry's trade association. According to Marine Electronics Journal, the
official journal of the National Marine Electronics Association, "the high brightness LCD panels used
in many of today's chartplotters and MFDs have typical operating temperature specification that
range from about -15°C to 55°C [5°F to 131°F) with storage temperatures from perhaps -30 to 40°C [-
22°F to 104°F) ... " (see Attachment 3).
1.3-30 Joel Klein 7/3/23 7
The Applicant has been storing yachts in unheated and outdoor storage for many years. The
Planning Board should enquire if he can document any damage to marine electronics resulting from
low temperatures.
1.3-31 Joel Klein 7/3/23 7
Mr. Levitt is not referring to the types of marine electronics (navionics) discussed above.
The idea that the Project is necessary to prevent damage to "televisions [and] satellite
boxes," on multi-million-dollar yachts should not justify a "need" for the Project.
1.3-32 Joel Klein 7/3/23 7
Although the DEIS does not specifically address the subject, several commenters have pointed out
that indoor heated storage would allow their yachts to be serviced during the winter, and that this
would facilitate the timely launching of vessel at the start of the boating season. This is certainly
"desirable", but it is not a necessity. It would be a convenience for a small number of yacht owners.
1.3-33
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 130
DONNA BOSCOLA:
Now my comment is -- now that the Suffolk County Water Authority has completed the water main
extension from Nagle's Drive to the entrance of the Strong's Yacht Center, there should no longer be
a mention of the fact that this is a project benefit. Since it was done independent of the project.
References to this benefit should be removed from the FEIS.
1.3-34
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 142
BRIDGET ELKIN:
While I respect the applicant's right to develop the subject property, I don't feel the project is in line
with our Town's vision as outlined in our LWRP. First, I would like to comment that the LWRP itself is
meant to be read and understood as a whole document. I encourage the Board to ask the applicant
to expand the benefits section on Page 16 of the DEIS to include the paragraph text that surrounds
the LWRP excerpts, eight quotes. New York's stated goal in preserving our working waterfront is to
advocate an equitable, resilient and healthy waterfront for all New Yorkers. This includes expanding
public access, enlivening the waterfront, supporting the existing working waterfront, improving
water quality, improving government oversight and increasing climate resilience. It is hard to
imagine a yacht storage operation will enliven our waterfront and improve our water quality. It is
certainly not going to increase climate resilience. And it does not support our existing and localized
working waterfront community. Where is the merit in improving a project that involves significant
environmental hardship and community disturbance to the benefit of out of area yacht owners?
1.3-35
Theresa Dilworht
6/30/23 2
The DEIS claims 11 full-time jobs will be created, but yachts arrive in autumn and leave in spring. If
year-round, these jobs will likely dislodge eleven seasonal summer jobs.
1.3-36
Theresa Dilworht
6/30/23 2 The water main was completed on May 27, 2023, unrelated to this proposal.
1.3-37
Theresa Dilworht
6/30/23 2 Upgrading an outdated septic system to current standards, while a societal benefit, is not significant.
1.3-38 Boscola 6/20/23 3
Now that the new public water line from the fire hydrant on Naugles Dr has been extended to the
Old Mill, references to a project benefit from the public water supply should be excluded. The water
supply extension, likely done in coordination with the Old Mill owner, should be deemed
independent of the project.
1.3-39
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 170
JOEL KLEIN:
Someone else tonight mentioned the fact that the proposed water line, which is identified in the
DEIS as one of the major benefits of the project, which in fact would benefit only two properties.
One of which is owned by Mr. Strong. The other being the Old Mill Inn was in fact completed
several weeks ago.
1.3-40
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 176
ANNIE CORREAL:
First, the economic benefits are overstated and not aligned with local needs. The market demand
for the proposed heated indoor yacht storage facilities is not documented or substantiated
anywhere in the DEIS. According to Mr. Strong's media interviews, it comprises wealthy boat
owners from outside the community who seek storage options for their luxury yachts. Mr. Strong
stated this clearly when he purchased the site. "Upon
purchasing this site from the Pape Family in 2016, Mr. Strong told the Suffolk Times, Strong's other
locations in Southampton and Port Washington will feed customers to the Mattituck site." He more
recently was quoted in the New York Times. "The yacht storage facility" he said, "will offer heated
indoor Winter storage that fills a gap in the market for wealthy boaters from Hampton's
communities, like Sag Harbor and Amagansett, as well as, Westchester County and Connecticut." "
Mr. Strong spoke today of only one or two local yacht owners. Quote, "they told us they need it."
In the DEIS, there is no actual market analysis that shows the need for large yacht storage or records
why Strong's existing indoor storage on the premises is insufficient to meet that demand.
1.3-41
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 178
ANNIE CORREAL:
Further, there is no documentation that the developer's customers will have any stake in the short
and long-term health of Mattituck Creek, and the community and will maintain their boats within
the standards required for safety and emissions. According to the DEIS, building the storage
facilities is a business venture that appears to be a gamble and a way to connect Mattituck to Mr.
Strong's other investments around Long Island.
1.3-42
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 180
MICHAEL LEVITT:
We've been both a vendor and customer working with Strong's in that time. Probably a different
type of item I'd like to bring up and address, which Jeffrey certainly touched on. Is we do see a fairly
substantial demand for heated storage here on Long Island. We wind up having traveled to New
Jersey and Connecticut many times. Because that does not exist here on the North Fork. Jeff
alluded to it when he spoke, but we see tremendous damage to the residential electronics used in a
lot of these larger vessels today. Television, satellite boxes, etcetera, do not enjoy 20 degree or
below weather, which does require either a relocation of these vessels to warmer water or
sometimes the removal and storage of this equipment, which causes breakage on its own.
1.3-43
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 182
STEPHEN BOSCOLA:
And you'll see my submission too, is that cruisers yachts are made in Wisconsin. And as you can
know, their climate is much colder than ours. And the manufacturers that Strong's represents
clearly have stated that heated storage is not essential for these boats. In fact, it's actually not even
necessary. And just wanted to note that, and we'll be including that in our submission, as well as,
you know, Jimmy Orioli, he brings his boat to Florida to go fishing. And, you know, some of these
other folks, they have no intention of the heated storage. So it's not essential. We'll address that in
our comments, but from the manufacturers, that's not my opinion, that's the manufacturers.
Sunseeker, Regal, Cruisers Yachts, built in Wisconsin, heated indoor storage is not essential, nor
required for boats. And I just want to get that on the record, please.
Chapter 1.4 Construction and Operation
ID#Source Document Page Number Comment (Original)
1.4-1
Lori Panarello
May 2015 2023
email 1
We feel that Strong's is vastly underestimating the length of time the project will take, and the
number of loads that will have to be removed both for sand mining, and then the construction of
the area and the buildings, failing to take into account the adverse effect on the residents' way of
life.
1.4-2
Audubon Society
5-26-23 93
Showing leadership in the environmental area, we suggest that the Town affirmatively require that
the new roof be equipped with solar panels, to eliminate the need for large propane storage tanks
that neighbors are concerned could potentially explode or fuel a fire.
1.4-3
William Smith &
Dennis Schrader
7/10/23 2
Furthermore, the project introduces risks such as accidents and construction collapses, including
the potential collapse of the hillside during construction.
1.4-4
Reed Super
7.10.23 13
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);
1.4-5
Jeremy Melissa
Rosen
06/06/23 1
The DEIS deliberately downplays the project's unavoidable impacts and conveniently omits crucial
details. It fails to provide a comprehensive timetable for construction and truck traffic, leaving
residents in the dark about the potential disruption to their daily lives. The excavation process and
the thousands of trucks navigating narrow roads in our residential area will undoubtedly result in
significant air and noise pollution, posing serious safety concerns.
1.4-6
Jeremy Melissa
Rosen
06/06/23 1
It lacks a clear plan with deliverables for excavation and construction, and fails to address
contingencies for foreseeable delays, including those mentioned by Mr. Strong, such as inflationary
pressures.
1.4-7
Petrina Engelke
7/9/23 1
The DEIS also mentions the creation of 11 jobs. That hardly makes a dent for the public, and the
DEIS does not explain the type of jobs. With yachts coming in for winter storage in the fall, leaving
in spring, my guess is this will only be seasonal work, or, if year-round, these workers will likely
replace the ones who work at Strong's in the summer. On top of that, anyone working for marine
businesses already has a hard time to find housing they can afford. The proposal does not address
accomodation for these employees.
1.4-8 Joel Klein 7/7/23 5 & 6
The DEIS also states that "the proposed action would create new jobs for the servicing of the larger
vessels to be stored on-site" (emphasis added) (DEIS p.178). According to DEIS Appendix M the
"repair, maintenance, fueling, washing, and detailing of boats would occur in the same manner as
they currently do on-site. Repair and maintenance will occur within the onsite buildings and/or at
the existing dock" (emphasis added) (DEIS Appendix M, p. 22). The DEIS also states that "Upon
arrival to SYC, only SYC employees would have access to the vessels inside the building for any
requested or required maintenance or repairs" (DEIS pp. xiii, 161 ). Based on reporting in the Suffolk
Times, this is a direct contradiction of a statement made by the Applicant during a Planning Board
work session. According to the Suffolk Times, Mr. Strong stated, in response to a question from
Planning Board member Eisenstein, that service work won't be done in those buildings specifically,
but holding more boats could potentially increase their staff. He went on to state that "It will
definitely enhance the need for painters, fiberglass people, technicians and those types of things."
The Planning Board needs the Applicant to explain this discrepancy.
1.4-9 Joel Klein 7/7/23 6
The DEIS also states that 'The proposed action is expected to generate approximately 11 new full-
time jobs for servicing of the boats in storage, most of which are expected to be local residents
experienced in the maritime industry" (emphasis added) (DEIS p. 312). The DEIS provides no basis
for this assumption. Its validity is weakened by the Applicant's statement that many of the new jobs
will be at non-Southold locations during part of the year.
1.4-10
Susan A Reeve
05/19/23 1
Where will the boats be put in & out of the water?
Where will the boats be fueled for storing?
1.4-11
Jo-Ann Lechner
7/5/23 1 Adequately describe the project and how it will be constructed.
1.4-12
Jo-Ann Lechner
7/5/23 1
Accurately describe the adverse environmental impacts of the project, during and post-
construction. Consider direct impacts (such as removals), secondary impacts (reasonably foreseen
results from direct impacts), and cumulative impacts.
1.4-13 Boscola 6/20/23 4
The Vibration Report has been carefully worded to refer to "nearby structures." Both the DEIS and
the Vibration Report are silent regarding vibration impacts to individuals outside, rather than inside,
residences. The Vibration Report does not explain what it means by "the construction site."
1.4-14 Boscola 6/20/23 4
As measured from the Site Development Plans in DEIS Appendix C, our home, 5106 West Mill Road,
actually abuts the Project site. As measured from the Site Development Plans the proposed
retaining wall will be less than 100' from our property line, approximately 150' from our actual
home on the lot, and even closer to our outside patio/pool area. These are all less than the 171 feet
stated in the Vibration Report.
1.4-15 Boscola 6/20/23 5
Vibration monitoring devices were assessed at locations that do nothing to assess nearby homes,
particularly ours at 5106 West Mill Rd or any home on North Drive.
1.4-16 Boscola 6/20/23 5
The DEIS states "Should two alerts confirmed to be due to truck vibration occur on the same day,
truck trips will be halted until additional data can be collected and mitigation can be implemented.
" This is not sufficient as the DEIS or Appendix R does not seem to disclose what is the mitigation
plan. Based on this statement, it seems that work will be stopped until more data is collected but
does not address specific steps other than stopping work temporarily. The DEIS needs to specify
steps in place to prevent potential damage from occurring and what the developer will do to
remedy damage to nearby structures or adjacent properties.
1.4-17
Theresa Dilworth
6/12/23 4
The DEIS states that the SYC's 85-ton boat lift cannot go up slopes. Perhaps this is true but should
be verified. A larger boat lift than 85-ton capacity may be able to go up slopes
Chapter 1.5 Permits and Approvals
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
1.5-1
Annie Correal June 8
2023 Email 2
Improper Extraction of Resources: Concerns have been raised regarding the potential exploitation of
valuable sand resources. The removal of the hillside could yield substantial profits from the sale of
sand (the DEIS states that 63 percent of the material has been identified as quality sand). Such
actions necessitate compliance with Mined Land Reclamation Permit regulations, which the proposal
currently lacks. The removal of lucrative sand by thousands of trucks would also lead to pollution,
damage roadways, and compromise the safety of nearby homeowners and the quality of life of the
community at large.
1.5-2
William Smith &
Dennis Schrader
7/10/23 2
this project sets a dangerous precedent for strip mining on private property. The owner has
exploited a regulatory loophole by incorporating sand removal into a construction project, bypassing
the requirement of obtaining a DEC permit. By disguising their intentions as necessary construction,
they evade the necessity of a Mined Land Reclamation permit from the DEC. However, there is no
substantial evidence demonstrating that this construction itself is truly essential for their business
operations or beneficial to the local community.
1.5-3
Mary Elizabeth
Guyton 7/8/23 3
The DEIS does not appropriately address the removal of sand and the question of sand mining. More
research and a transparent analysis into the sale of sand that will result from removing the hill is
necessary to assure the community that the sale of the sand is not untoward.
1.5-4 Reed Super 7.10.23 28
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."
1.5-5 Reed Super 7.10.23 30
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
1.5-6 Reed Super 7.10.23 47
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 proposed project. Accordingly,
the Planning Board should implement its substantive responsibilities under SEQRA by issuing a
Negative Findings Statement and denying the application.
1.5-7 Reed Super 7.10.23 54
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.
1.5-8 Reed Super 7.10.23 56
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.
1.5-9
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 130
FRANK UTAH:
This project is within the zoning. I know this has been repeated zoning guidelines and requires no
land use changes and has received a non-jurisdictional letter from the DEC. So if this project is to be
denied, so should so many others that will require land use chains, such as several hotels, battery
storage facilities and many other proposed buildings in our community. Especially those on Oregon
Road, which was deemed a Greenway years ago to preserve the natural landscape and serenity of
our farmland.
1.5-10
Comments on DEIS
Strong Storage pt 2 1
Joel Klein 1:
OPRHP's jurisdiction is limited to undertakings subject to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and/or Section 14.09 of the NYS Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law.
Their letter indicates that the review was undertaken in accordance with Section 14.09. However,
except for a possible future review by NYSDEC to confirm that the project qualifies for a NYSDEC
General Permit for Stormwater Discharge during Construction Activities (SPDES permit) no NYSDEC
action is required (DEIS pp. xliv, 21 ). No request for confirmation that the Project qualifies for a
General Permit is currently pending before NYSDEC. As a result, the Project is not currently subject to
review under Section 14.09. The OPRHP comments on the Strong's Yacht Storage Project (the
Project) are therefore advisory only and directed to NYSDEC in anticipation of future NYSDEC
involvement. The Town of Southold, as the designated Lead Agency under SEQRA-not OPRHP or
NYSDEC-has the ultimate responsibility to determine, as part of its SEQRA review, if the Project will
affect historic properties.
1.5-11
Joel Klein
6/21/23 4
Finally, it is noted that Ms. Sedgwick's letter is address to Charles Vandrei at NYSDEC, but concludes
with the statement that "Should you be unable to meet this condition, consultation with our office
will resume." Given that NYSDEC has no control over, and no way of ascertaining if, the project's
proponents will be able to comply with the condition, this sentence is confusing and needs
clarification.
1.5-12
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 138
STEVE MUDD:
It's been mentioned numerous times and tonight this property is an accepted use. It's owned for. I
know we got -- everybody's got a ways to go. I'm here to support this project.
1.5-13
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 78
REED SUPER:
The Board should issue a negative finding statement. Implementing SEQRA's substantive mandate.
It's not just a procedural law, it has a substantive mandate. And the Board should deny the
application on that basis.
1.5-14
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 79
PETER SWAN:
Much of the yacht center property has always been zoned Marine II Industrial, which cites among its
permitted uses. Boatyards for building, storing, repairing, renting, selling or servicing boats. In the
late 80's, the Town changed the zoning boundaries designed for a larger portion of the property
maritime to industrial. The wooded hill proposed to be developed was deliberately included within
the New Marina II zoning boundary. The building proposal is consistent with MII zoning and requires
no variances or approval. This project is in line with the goals of Southold's LWRP, which is Local
Waterfront Revitalization Plan, which identifies Mattituck Inlet as the most suitable location for new
or expanding water dependent commercial and industrial use in Southold Town. I strongly urge you
to approve the project that is consistent with the property zoning, aligns with the aims of the Town
and supports our Town's historic maritime character.
1.5-15
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 110
JAMES HINSCH:
When an individual or entity purchases a property, it comes with a specific zoning. That person or
organization has the right to develop that property within the limitations of that zoning.
1.5-16
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 111
DAVID BOFILL:
Conforming with present and clearly approved zoning, and the full support of agencies and the
LWRP, why are we here? Why are the present rights of this small business owner being challenged?
1.5-17
Super Law Group LLC
06/05/23 3
One of the involved agencies is the NYSDEC, for issuance of a tidal wetlands permit under the New
York State Tidal Wetlands Act. DEC issued a tidal wetlands permit on January 31, 2020, which was
premature because tidal wetlands permits ( and aspects of jurisdictional determinations) are
discretionary actions that must await completion of the FEIS and issuance of Findings Statements.
1.5-18
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 117
JENN HARTNAGEL:
I would like to address several deficiencies within the DEIS by beginning with the analysis of the
project's consistency with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Although the DEIS concludes that the
proposal is entirely consistent, I would like to offer several instances where we believe it's not. The
project is inconsistent with the natural resources and Environment Chapter, Goal One, protects soils
and geologic features. Specifically Objective 1.4, preserve the unique geological features of the
town. This project wholly removes a natural feature. It's gone. Therefore, how can it be consistent?
It is inconsistent. To support arguments for the excavation, there's been assertions that the entire
area set for removal is composed of dredge spoils and therefore somewhat not natural. On this
note, please, review the soil boring data contained in the Appendices and the DEIS and look at the
historical aerial photos, which prove that this just isn't the case.
1.5-19
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 118
JENN HARTNAGEL:
The proposal is also inconsistent with Goal Two (Town's Comprehensive Plan), to protect the upland
habitat and trees. Specifically Objective 2.1. Unfortunately, once it's removed, it's virtually
impossible to mitigate the effects of the loss of this much habitat in a single area. And therefore
offering to donate 50 very small trees to the Town and revegetate a small area is a nice gesture, but
is in no way considered true mitigation according to SEQRA standards.
1.5-20
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 118
JENN HARTNAGEL:
The proposal is inconsistent with Goal Two and Three of the Water Resources Section (Town's
Comprehensive Plan) to protect groundwater quality and surface water quality.
1.5-21
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 120
JENN HARTNAGEL:
SEQRA directs that the DEIS provide for a comparison of reasonable project alternatives at a level of
detail that is suitable for comparative assessment. The alternative section is lacking, and it provides
little analysis but rather describes why they aren't viable in order to bolster the support for the
proposed action. So we would ask that the alternatives be given an honest assessment. So that you
can fairly judge this project.
1.5-22
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 149
LOUISE HARRISON:
Potential adverse environmental impacts of this proposal on Mill Road Preserve should be a concern
for every Southold taxpayer. Found records show that when the preserve was purchased, it was to
remain in its natural state and be reserved for nature trails. A preserve paid for with the public's
money is supposed to provide benefits in perpetuity for the price. Adverse impacts of a
development project on an adjoining property that would harm the preserve should be completely
avoided. There is no acceptable level of destruction of this public resource by a private party. Even if
a hired consultant purports the long term impacts can be calculated to a highly specific numerical
value. Is the public expected to accept this asserted percentage of impact in perpetuity? Hikers will
need to avert their eyes
from artificial installations. Wildlife will lose habitat. This diminishes the public benefits intended by
Southold in creating the preserve.
1.5-23
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 157
DOUG COOPER:
I have nothing to gain or lose from this application, but I strongly support it.If we don't support other
people's rights, how can we expect them to support our rights? And this project, it's zoned for. It's a
legal use of the property and that should be respected.
1.5-24
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 172
BILL WITZKE:
And my main concern of why I want to approve this, is property rights. Plain and simple, right? It is
zoned from Marine II. It is zone --everything they're proposing is within the parameters of what's
allowed under the law.
1.5-25
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 175
JESSICA ROBERTS (Save the Sound Staff Attorney):
Additionally, the project offers little to no meaningful mitigation for significant adverse
environmental impacts. And finally, it is inconsistent with the LWRP's policies. As lead agency, you
are responsible for preparing the final EIS. And we are pleased to see that the Town has requested a
proposal to do this. Your subsequent SEQRA finding statement must rely on facts. Your findings
must demonstrate that you took a hard look at adverse impacts, evaluated mitigation, fully
described and compared your feasible alternatives and tested conformance with Southold's
Comprehensive Plan. Your decision must be consistent with the Town's LWRP. And to reach project
approval, you must prove that the public benefit of this proposal outweighs its many adverse
environmental impacts.
Chapter 2.1 Soils
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
2.1-1
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 2
The existing surface elevation of the area containing Tm soils is approximately 11 feet. The finished
floor elevation of proposed Storage Building No.2 is 10 feet. This raises a number of questions: Will
excavated Tm soils be treated differently from other soils types during excavation? Will excavation of
Tm soils below the 10 ft elevation be necessary because of their severe engineering limitations? If so,
to what depth? Will excavated Tm soils below 10 feet be replaced with fill suitable for construction?
No discussion of the significance of Tm soils is included in the DEIS or the geotechnical report prepared
for the Project (DEIS Appendix H).
2.1-2
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 2
The DEIS also states that the only portion of SYC property identified as having soils classified as “Fd”
(fill land, dredged material) (DEIS Appendix A, Figure 6) is a very small area along the west shore of
Mattituck Creek, east of the southernmost of the existing marina structures. Table 6 in the DEIS (Soil
Types Mapped on Subject Property) notes that Fd soils “are located outside of the area of disturbance
for the proposed action.” However, Figures C-100, C-101 and C-102 (COMMENT FIGURE SOILS-2) in the
Project geotechnical report label large areas in the southern and eastern portion of the Project area as
“Potential Dredge Spoils.”3 No explanation of how the boundaries of these areas were determined is
provided in the DEIS or DEIS Appendix H. Fd soils are the only soil type reported in the Project area for
which the DEIS does not include the corresponding USDA soil type description....
2.1-3
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 3
The northeast portion of the Project site is also shown on Figures C-100, C-101 and C-102 as “Potential
Dredge Spoils.” Boring B-6, is shown mapped in the geotechnical report as being located in the center
of the “potential dredge spoils” area in the northeast part of the Construction Excavation Area, under
the proposed location for Storage Building No. 1. The log for Boring B-6 does not note the presence of
“Potential Dredge Spoils”. It is unclear why this area was identified as containing dredged material.
Borings B-7 and B-8 were located along the southern edge of the site of proposed Storage Building No.
2. Both of these are located within an area shown on Figure C-102 in the geotechnical report as being
the center of the southerly area labeled as “Potential Dredge Spoils.” Neither of these logs notes then
presence of “Potential Dredge Spoils.”6
If the areas surrounding borings B-6, B-7, and B-8 do, in fact, contain dredge spoils, why was this not
indicated on the logs for these borings? What is the depth to the top of these deposits? How thick are
they? Will any of this material be excavated as part of the Project? If so, in what quantities? The last
question is especially important because according to the “Soil Type Breakdown of Cut Volume” tables
in both the geotechnical report (Appendix H) and the DEIS (Table 10, p.37), dredge spoils are not part
of the 135,000 CY of material that will be excavated from the Construction Excavation Area.7
2.1-4
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 3
The interpretation of the materials recovered in some borings as dredge spoil is problematic. Possible
uncertainty as to the classification of sediment recovered from Borings B-9, B-10 and B-11 is reflected
in the decision to refer to them as “potential” and “possible” dredge spoil. (References to Stratum 3 in
Tables 5 and 6 of the geotechnical report, however, do not include either qualifier).
2.1-5
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 3
The geotechnical report states that “PWGC believes that this material was deposited onsite as dredge
spoils as it was found where the spoils were suspected of being.” This is circular reasoning. No
discussion of why dredge spoil was expected in this area is provided.
2.1-6
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 4
The most significant basis for questioning whether the material observed in borings B-9, B-10, and B-11
is dredge spoil is the fact that the top of Stratum 3, in all three cases, is found at depths varying from
four to eight feet below ground surface. This begs the question: if Stratum 3 is in fact dredge spoil,
what is the material overlying it? Any such material could not have been deposited earlier than the
late nineteenth century when the first dredging of Mattituck Inlet occurred. If the overlying strata are
natural, then Stratum 3 cannot be dredge spoil.
2.1-7
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 4
Stratum 3 is also described in the geotechnical report as “generally found between EL. 0’ and El. +8’
NAVD88.” This means that they would be found below the maximum depth of excavation within the
Construction Excavation Area. However, if they are, in fact, found in the areas identified as containing
“Potential Dredge Spoils” as shown on geotechnical report Figures C-100, C-101, and C-102, this could
be of concern. It would mean that dredged spoil is present under the proposed locations of proposed
Storage Building No. 1, proposed Storage Building No. 2, and possibly segments of the proposed
retaining wall. The DEIS and the Appendix H both point out that the Stratum 3 “material was classified
as “SP” in accordance with the USCS10. This material is considered unsuitable for foundation bearing
based on the loose blow counts”
2.1-8
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 4
The DEIS also contains a disingenuous statement about the significance of the presence of Stratum 3.
It states “Stratums 3 and 4 are mostly located at elevations and locations outside the soil cut” (p.35). If
the area mapped as “Possible Dredge Spoil” is accurate, Stratum 3 soils are “outside the soil cut” only
if one interprets that to mean they will not be excavated because they are found below the limits of
excavation. They are, however, inside the horizontal limits of the Construction Excavation Area. In the
case of the northeast portion of the Construction Excavation Area (the area surrounding boring B-6)
“dredge spoils” may well be within the soil cut. However, as noted above, as the DEIS failed to include
information about the depth or thickness of possible dredge spoil in this area, it is impossible to
determine whether or not this is so.
2.1-9
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 5
This statement misrepresents and/or misinterprets the archeological assessment. That assessment
never states that “the eastern third of the subject property has been the subject of significant
alteration episodes occurring between 1962 and 2006.” It states only that “aerial photographs dated
1962 and 1978 (Figures 14, 15) show the gradual filling of an inlet in SYC’s southeast quarter” (p.6, also
p.11). This area corresponds to the area identified on the soil survey map (Figure 6 in DEIS Appendix A,
and Figure 19 in the archeological assessment) as “Tm” (tidal marsh) soils. As noted above, portions of
proposed Storage Building 2 will be located in an area of Tm soils.
2.1-10
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 5
There is also no evidence to support the statement that the “filling was under the direction of the
USACOE as part of their larger program to maintain the Mattituck Creek inlet and channel”. In fact, the
Batten and Kraus report cited in the DEIS (see above) states that the “earliest maintenance dredging
was performed in 1921 and again in 1923 (Ralston 1929)13. The disposal area for this dredging is not
known. Material was likely disposed offshore, to the east of the inlet”.
2.1-11
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 5
The DEIS’ claim that large amounts of dredge spoil is present in the Project area is also used to support
an unprovable contention that some aspects of the Project are necessary to correct actions of the
Army Corps of Engineers.
2.1-12
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 6 & 7
The DEIS notes that that the small area of USDA-mapped dredged material/fill (Fd soil) located in the
southeast part of the existing marina, outside the area that will be affected by construction for the
proposed Project, “coincide with fill episodes that are documented between 1962 and 1984” (p.23).
There is no evidence to support the claim that the Army Corps of Engineers ever deposited dredge
spoil in the Construction Excavation Area or any other part of the marina property.16,17 The notion
that there was an unrecorded disposal of dredge spoil by the Army Corps of Engineers in an elevated
upland area, which would likely have required the spoil to be pumped, is not credible. Combined with
the fact that any such disposal would have required the consent of the land owner, and that the ACOE
has a documented history of depositing dredge spoil from Mattituck Creek in low lying areas on the
east side of Mattituck Inlet, is additional evidence that the ACOE did not deposit dredge spoil in the
area west of the existing marina buildings.
2.1-13
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 7
Anecdotal information from local residents suggests that the former inlet area was filled by a previous
owner—not the ACOE. This is supported by a 1957 land survey that identifies a roughly 200 ft x 600 ft
area corresponding to the location of the former inlet as “Sand Filled” (COMMENT FIGURE SOILS-5).
Soil borings B-10 and B-11 were located in this area. This would suggest that all of the soil above what
the Project geotechnical report identifies as possible dredge spoil (Stratum 3) in the southeast portion
of the Construction Excavation Area is, in fact, dredge spoil or another type of fill, and not, as the
geotechnical report implies, naturally occurring material.
2.1-14
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 7
….It is clear that no testing of soils (sand) in the main body of the excavation area was undertaken.
This is significant….he DEIS had identified large parts of the southern and northeast portions of the
Construction Excavation Area as containing dredge spoil deposits. Dredge spoils are known to be of
concern because of the possibility that they may contain dangerous contaminants. The two locations
sampled and chemically tested were collected from west of the areas of “possible dredge spoil “as
shown on Figures C-100, C-101 and C-102in the geotechnical report (DEIS Appendix H). If these areas
are, in fact, dredge spoil, as the DEIS maintains, then samples from those areas should have been
included in the chemical testing protocol.
2.1-15
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 8
The boundary between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Excavation Areas as, shown on DEIS Appendix A Figure
6, is not consistent with the location of the boundary as shown on Site Development Plans (Appendix
C, Excavation Phasing Plan)
2.1-16
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Soils 8
Figure 6 in Appendix A includes a table indicating the total acreage and percentage of each soil type in
the AOI (Area of Interest). However, the AOI used to calculate these figures is the entire tax parcel on
which the Project will be located—not the area that will be directly affected by construction activities
(the “Project Area” as defined in the DEIS) which will be confined almost entirely to the portion of the
parcel zoned M-II. The AOI as defined in Figure 6 includes the entire portion of the parcel zoned R-80
as well as the M-II portion. The figures in the table included on Figure 6 are therefore inaccurate and
misleading as they do not reflect the actual Project Area.
2.1-17
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Slope Stability 1
The DEIS repeatedly concludes (pp. iv, 32, 37, 41, 79, 80, 86, 92, 290) that construction of the
proposed Evergreen retaining walls presents no slope stability concerns. It bases this conclusion on
the Geotechnical Assessment (DEIS Appendix H) prepared for the Project which states that “PWGC has
been informed that the permanent wall will be an Evergreen Wall system designed by the propriety
engineer. The wall designer has assumed a soil friction angle of 34°, cohesion of 0 psf and moist unit
weight of 125 pcf.” The “proprietary engineer” is presumably Evergreen Walls, Inc. However, the
Evergreen Wall report (DEIS Appendix H) was prepared by the project engineer (Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E.,
P.C.) and consists primarily of materials prepared by Evergreen Walls, Inc.
2.1-18
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Slope Stability 1
The reference to a soil friction angle of 34o is significant. In its discussion of slope stability the DEIS
states that “[p]rior to the installation of the permanent retaining wall system, the soil cut is
recommended to be sloped on 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) slope” (p.37). This is not accurate. The
Geotechnical Assessment actually recommends a “soil cut at a 1.5:1 horizontal:vertical slope or
shallower to prevent slope stability issues” (emphasis added)(DEIS Appendix H, PWGC Geotechnical
Memo).
2.1-19
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Slope Stability 2
The project Landscape Plan (Appendix C) does include a “Typical Slope Soil Stabilization” detail
prepared by the project engineer (COMMENT FIGURE SS-1). That detail indicates how erosion control
blankets will be installed on “2:1 (H:V) Slope Max.” The 2:1 slope equates to a 27o angle. That is
considerably shallower than the 34o figure used throughout the DEIS. While this would increase slope
stability, it has other serious negative implications. The shallower slope means that the limit of
excavation at the top of the slope bordering the retaining wall will be set farther back and closer to the
residence at 5106 Mill Road.3 It also means that the limit of excavation in this area may be incorrectly
depicted on project plans. If constructed as shown on Project plans, the potential for slope instability
may be considerably greater than the DEIS indicates. It also means that a much greater volume of
material will be needed to backfill behind the completed retaining wall. It also raises the question of
whether the total volume of material to be excavated for the Project has been underestimated.
2.1-20
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Slope Stability 2
As shown on the Project’s Landscape Plan (Appendix C), the horizontal distance between the
“landward edge of the bottom the proposed wall” and the “E.O [edge of] Area of Disturbance” at the
top of the excavation area for most of its length is approximately 40 feet. The change in elevation
between these points is approximately 40 feet (note the location of the 50-foot contour which runs
through the proposed planting area at the top of the wall). That yields an approximate 1:1 slope with
an approximate angle of 45o.
2.1-21
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Slope Stability 2
The DEIS adds additional ambiguity and confusion to the issue of slope stability when it states on p.285
that “Bank slopes would not exceed 1 on 3.” This presumably means a 3:1 H:V ratio which would
equate to an 18o slope.
2.1-22
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Slope Stability 2
The DEIS states that the “proposed Evergreen concrete retaining wall would improve slope stability as
it would correct existing slope failure due to the placement of dredge material within the Construction
Excavation Area” (p.290). As noted in other comments on soils, the placement of dredge material in
the portion of the existing SYC property where slope failure is occurring has not been demonstrated as
the cause of the slope failure in that area. To the contrary, local residents have long been aware that
the former property owner was engaged in the mining and selling of sand from this area, and
comments to this effect were submitted to the Planning Board in 2020. There is nothing precluding the
Applicant from undertaking slope stabilization measures in this area independent of the proposed
Project.
2.1-23
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Slope Stability 3
The DEIS notes that the Evergreen retaining wall will have “a safety factor of greater than 2.0, with 1.5
being the code minimum” (pp. ii, 6, 290). However, no information is included in the DEIS concerning
the safety factor of the bare slope that will be exposed for an extended period before the retaining
wall is constructed. This is of considerable concern since it is during this period that an approximately
40-foot high unvegetated sand slope will be exposed to the elements (prolonged rainfall and rapid
snow melt can contribute to slope failure) and be susceptible to catastrophic failure. Although
numerous slope stability analysis methods are available, none appear to have been used by the project
engineers.
2.1-24
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Slope Stability 3
Another slope stability issue has been ignored by the DEIS. The slope that will be supported by the
retaining wall is not the only steep slope that will exist during construction. During the Project’s Phase
1 excavation phase the haul road will extend into the Construction Excavation Area along the west side
of the excavation. It will be used throughout Phase 1 excavation. The Phase 1 excavation will create a
slope immediately east of the haul road that will gradually increase in height to a maximum of
approximately 30 feet in height (the bottom of the haul road will be at elev. 12, the top will be at
elev.42). The eastern edge of this portion of the haul road may be located as close as 3 feet from the
top of the temporary slope.6 The integrity of this slope could be compromised by vibration from the
passage of hundreds of fully loaded haul trucks going up, and unloaded trucks going down, into the
excavation area. A failure of this unsupported slope could compromise the portion of the haul road
inside the excavation area, rendering it unusable. Should such a failure occur when a vehicle is entering
or exiting the excavation area the conditions exist for a potential loss of human life.
2.1-25
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Slope Stability 3
Another factor relating to the stability of the temporary portion of the haul road within the
Construction Excavation Area is the fact that it will have to be continuously lengthened as the depth of
excavation continuously deepens. Given this, it seems unlikely that this portion of the haul road will be
composed of RCA. If it will be, as implied in the DEIS, a description of how this will be accomplished,
without interfering with the arrival and departure of haul trucks, is needed.
2.1-26
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Slope Stability 3
The revised DEIS states that “According to the project engineer, there are no slope issues for the haul
road” (pp. 18, 285). However, it is clear from the contexts in which this statement appears that it is
referring only to the portion of the haul road that will remain after the completion of construction, and
not the “temporary” portion located within the Construction Excavation Area shown on the Project’s
Excavation Phasing Plan (DEIS Appendix C).
2.1-27
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Slope Stability 4
The DEIS does not, as called for in the DEIS scope, discuss “the impact of timing in between each
phase, the threat of catastrophic soil loss and erosion if there is a pause in the project schedule due to
weather or other event . . .” It does not discuss the “potential catastrophic failure of the retaining wall,
in whole or in part and effect on adjacent properties.” The DEIS includes no discussion of methods to
mitigate for the possibility of slope failure. Instead, it merely concludes that there are no slope stability
concerns, and that adjacent properties will therefore not be affected.
2.1-28
Nelson Pope
Voorhis 6-26-23 6
The DEIS states that "[o]nce [the Evergreen Macro Gravity Retaining Wall System is] in place and
backfilled, seeding and use by bird species will promote growth in the trays that are built into the wall
to create a "green" wall over a period of two-to-three years." Please be specific as to how the design
will prevent erosion and sedimentation of adjacent tidal wetlands and surface waters or the creation
of dust if it will take birds 2 to 3 years to fully seed the area and establish sufficient growth? Please
indicate why the wall is not going to be fully seeded, planted and stabilized immediately after
construction?
2.1-29
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 7 How is the slope stabilized prior to the retaining wall being built?
2.1-30 Reed Super 7.10.23 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.
2.1-31 Reed Super 7.10.23 7
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."
2.1-32 Reed Super 7.10.23 9
The Planning Board Should Follow the Suffolk County Planning
Commission Recommendation to Prohibit the Proposed
Excavation and Thereby Disapprove the Application.
2.1-33 Reed Super 7.10.23 11
"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."
2.1-34 Nancy May 7/10/23 1
Moreover, the scale of excavation required for this project is entirely inappropriate given the area's
topography and soil composition, which consists of sand shores prone to erosion. It is important to
acknowledge the impact on erosion and access when considering sensible zoning regulations.
2.1-35 Reed Super 7.10.23 13
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.
2.1-36 Reed Super 7.10.23 14
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."
2.1-37 Reed Super 7.10.23 15 Like the County Report, the County's comment letter states that "No soils should be removed."
2.1-38
Save the Sound
7/10/23 12 & 13
the applicant, however, has failed to undertake borings to the full depth of proposed excavation to
establish that sudden faulting and structural disturbances associated with the slope and soil slumping
would not occur, posing potential adverse impacts on the preserve or Mattituck Creek's estuarine
organisms. The depth of soil borings performed for the DEIS was insufficient to prove absence of a clay
layer in the hill that might cause slippage and sudden mass soil movement. The borings were used
primarily to determine permeability of soils for proper placement of sanitary and stormwater
structures.
The FEIS should prove, through full depth soil borings, that proposed excavation of nearly 135,000 cu
yds material from the site's inherently unstable natural feature, a hill made of unconsolidated glacial
soils, would not pose a danger of a catastrophic collapse or slumping of sand during excavation.
Sudden movement of sediment into the waterway could harm a federal navigational channel, a NYS-
designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, tidal wetlands, and water quality- not to
mention property and people. The applicant must show there is no such danger posed by such
excavation, particularly since excavators and heavy equipment would be on site, working from the top
of the slope downward.
2.1-39 Reed Super 7.10.23 49
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 floodplain "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.
2.1-40
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 83
KEVIN MCALLISTER:
And obviously, we have a prominent glacial feature that abuts the western side of the shoreline.
Obviously, the point of the project area. You know, I can't help but think -- my first impression that
this project was more about sand mining than marina expansion. And we heard, you know, the team
talk about a monetary review or, you know, what the market bears, and I submit to you the lucrative
business of transporting this material off site from again, a glacial feature, which is prominent and
defined in Mattituck Creek is really problematic. Is it ending up in a conglomerate for cement or
elsewhere? You know, lastly, I just urge the Board, a sand mining operation should be a nonstarter.
Really in some instances, this is clearly a square peg in a round hole. And I just urge the Board give it
no more consideration. It's just inappropriate for the level of deforestation of the mother load of
glacial material that will be transported offsite. Lost to the system. And then obviously the impacts to
the ecology. So, you know, do the community of justice and please decline this.
2.1-41
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 89
CHRIS TALBOT:
Everybody in that area will be better off. One of the things that should be implemented on the site
would be a stone rip-wrap base at the exit and entrance to the site, which essentially just shakes the
wheels of the vehicle and gets all the sand from entering the roadway before it leaves the site. I have
seen it in the construction industry. Just about any large job where they do dewatering. Dewatering
on the site, not underground, but watering and keeping the dust down. These guys should be required
to have a water truck on site. If they are not able to handle it with their own water and irrigation, it
should be required as a condition of any approvals.
2.1-42
Christine Schmitt
04/28/23 1
Strip mining the property adjacent to a preserve and putting Mattituck Inlet at risk for a " Yacht
storage" facility does not make sense. Please remember the project to build a deep water harbor on
the property which is now the Hallockville State Park. They removed the cliff and supplied sand to build
the Connecticut Throughway for years. Don't allow this to happen again. Mattituck Inlet is much too
important to allow such destruction. At a time of rising sea levels, flattening a hillside and denuding it
of vegetation would be dangerous. This is a time to protect our waterfronts and harbors, not to put
them at risk. What kind of runoff into the inlet would this low lying, sandy area cause? How much
damage would be done to local roads. What are the traffic consequences? .
2.1-43
Terese Brady-
Mendez
05/12/23 1
The establishment of the two additional storage facilities requires the removal of 135,000 cubic yards
of sand (a cubic yard weighs approximately 2700 pounds) that will be sold to a Sand and Gravel
Company in Calverton, NY. At an approximate sales price of $25 per cubic yard, with this amount of
sand sold to a sand and gravel company, the income acquired by Strong's Marina would likely be over
$3,375,000. This represents approximately half of the cost of the construction $7,000,000 cited by Mr.
Strong at the community meeting held on Feb 27, 2023. The removal of this sand for monetary benefit
to Strong's Marina is unconscionable.
In addition, this plan would destroy the current bluff and bring the grade down by 40 feet to about 9
feet. With effects of climate change on sea rise, this would clearly endanger this proposed project, as
well as the residential areas and the Southold Town Mill Road Preserve that are adjacent to it.
2.1-44
Karin Waslo
04/25/23 1
In this instance, the applicant is trying to remove 135,000 cubic yards of
sand - which firstly should not be removed as it is a essential buffer and part of the woodlands and
preserved lands
behind it, but secondly should not be taken off the North Fork when we have erosion issues all along
the LI Sound
shoreline.
2.1-45 Boscola 6/20/23 3
The DEIS has not adequately addressed slope stability concerns. No discussion of methods to minimize
the possibility of slope failure is mentioned. Instead, it merely concludes that there are no slope
stability concerns, and that adjacent properties will therefore not be affected - this is insufficient.
2.1-46 Boscola 6/20/23 3
The DEIS does not contain information concerning the safety factor of the bare slope that will be
exposed for an extended period prior to the retaining wall being installed. Heavy rainfall over several
days can contribute to slope failure. The DEIS needs to include specific stability analysis
- this could put our home in serious jeopardy and the Planning Board needs to ensure this is addressed
with extreme precision.
2.1-47 Boscola 6/20/23 4
The DEIS does not, as required, discuss "the impact of timing in between each phase, the threat of
catastrophic soil loss and erosion if there is a pause in the project schedule due to weather or other
event ... " It does not discuss the "potential catastrophic failure of the retaining wall, in whole or in part
and the effect on adjacent properties." This was a specific comment we provided during the scoping
phase - it was not evaluated.
a. There is a chain reaction to the events proposed. Delays and unforeseen issues can extend the
excavation and construction periods thereby increasing the chance of slope instability.
b. What assurances do we have if there is a disruption in the wall (due to vibration from
construction or ongoing work at the property) and/or if there is a failure in the wall in subsequent
years? How do we ensure that this or the next property owner is responsible?
c. A performance bond must be considered to insure our home from damage or loss related to the
failure of the wall, which could render our home inhabitable.
2.1-48 Boscola 6/20/23 4
The DEIS does not address the potential impacts to the slope just north of the proposed retaining wall -
directly east of our home. Disruptions from slope cut, major excavation and associated vibrations, all
combined with weather and unforeseen project delays, could disrupt the rest of the slope northerly.
a. Our groundwater well is located on the northeastern portion of our property, just east of the
main house. Slope disruption could have impacts, both in the short and long terms, on our
groundwater. It is unclear if this was addressed in the groundwater study or if that study only
addressed removal of soils under the proposed buildings. This needs to be addressed clearly and
accurately.
2.1-49 Boscola 6/20/23 4
The DEIS seems to have conflicting infonnation when it comes to slope angles. The 2:1 slope would be
a 27° angle. That is much shallower than the 34° angle referenced throughout the DEIS. Though the
shallower slope means more stability, it also means that the limit of excavation at the top of the slope
by the retaining wall will be set back farther and closer to our property. This is not accurately
represented on the plans. If it is, then there could be stability issues. To reiterate, these slope concerns
are serious and need to be adequately addressed. We feel the Planning Department should hire a third
party to address the slope stability issues as the developer's consultants seem to be less than
forthright with the assessment.
2.1-50
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 168
JOEL KLEIN:
Several people have referred to the fact that the sand that's being removed is dredged spoil. That's
absolutely untrue. I've provided the Board with extensive comments, documenting that fact.
Apparently that originated with misinterpretation of an Army Corps of Engineers report by the project
consulting archeologists.
2.1-51
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 174
JESSICA ROBERTS (Save the Sound Staff Attorney):
The depth of soil borings was insufficient to prove the absence of a clay layer in the hill that might
cause slippage and sudden mass soil movement.
Chapter 2.2 Water
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
2.2-1
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Water Supply 1
No copy of the Applicant’s request to the SCWA is included. It is therefore unclear
whether the SCWA’s response was meant to apply only to the existing marina
facilities, or the Applicant’s property after the Project is constructed.
2.2-2
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Water Supply 1
The revised DEIS still indicates only that “consultations with the SCDHS are ongoing”
(DEIS p. vi, 76). No mention is made of the deficiencies noted in the SCDHS’ last
review dated June 16, 2022.
2.2-3
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Water Supply 2
The DEIS exaggerates the potential benefits of the water main extension proposed as
part of the Project….What the DEIS text and DEIS Table 12 fail to call out is that the 31
presently unconnected properties include several on the east side of Mattituck Inlet,
several properties on North Drive, vacant properties, agricultural lands, the Mill Creek
Preserve, and properties as distant as 1700 feet from the nearest point on the
proposed water line. 2 Clearly none of these would be able to, or reasonably desire
to, connect to public water as a result of the installation of the proposed water line.
Two properties that will be able to connect as a result of the new water line are the
Old Mill Restaurant and a residential property owned by the Applicant.
2.2-4
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Water Supply 3
The statement in the DEIS that “[A]s confirmed by SCWA, the extension of the public
water main would also allow for existing landowners to connect to the public supply
system, by request to the SCWA”
(p.73), is not accurate. SCWA has made no such confirmation. The SCWA’s October 20,
2017 correspondence (DEIS Appendix K) indicates only that the proposed water main
extension from Naugles Drive to the marina property would be necessary to service
the marina. The attached table only indicates which of the 41 tax parcels listed have
public water available and which are connected to public water. No evaluation of the
realistic ability of unserved parcels to connect once the Applicant completes the water
extension is included.
2.2-5
Nelson Pope Voorhis
6-26-23 1 & 2
The DEIS states that "based on SCDHS design flow factors of 0.00 gpd/SF for boat
storage and 0.06 gpd/SF for non-storage (bathrooms), potable water usage for post
development conditions would increase by 18 gpd from 1,058 gpd to 1,076 gpd." As
previously noted, the projections of 18 gpd seems quite low considering there would
be 11 new employees and an increased number of patrons utilizing the business's
services and both proposed warehouses include bathrooms. NPV reviewed Suffolk
County Department of Health Services' (SCDHS) "Project Density Loading Rates &
Design Sewage Flow Rates" and found there is no flow factor provided for boat
storage uses. How was the 18 gpd estimated? Additional information is requested to
determine the most appropriate multiplier to provide the best real world sewage flow
and water demand estimates: • Each proposed warehouse will include a 19' x 8' (152
SF) bathroom and two new sanitary systems are proposed, while one existing sanitary
system will be abandoned. Therefore, the required capacity to serve both existing and
future employees must be demonstrated.
• How many employees currently work at SVC? Are the existing employees full-time,
part-time or mixed?
• What types of jobs will the 11 new employees fill? (e.g., boat storage and
maintenance, office, or other roles?)
• Are the new employees full-time, part-time or mixed?
• Which building(s), or work areas will the 11 new employees be assigned to? Will they
all be involved with the new yacht storage operations?
• Indicate whether office space or any other dedicated space will be included in the
proposed buildings.
• Indicate the square footage of any other dedicated spaces in the proposed buildings.
• Will the existing or proposed restrooms be open to the public/patrons (i.e., yacht
owners and their friends and families) or is bathroom use strictly for employees?
2.2-6
Nelson Pope Voorhis
6-26-23 2
With regard to the 11 new employees, NPV believes that if the new employees' work
area is in, around or associated with the proposed buildings and their tasks involve
yacht storage and maintenance, then the projected flow rate for sanitary waste
should be based on 7.5 gpd per person based on full-time equivalent (FTE) estimates
or a volume determined by SCDHS as appropriate as expressed in a determination
letter from SCDHS. In addition, if any or all of the employees are assigned to existing
spaces and facilities, there will need to be an accounting of whether the flow
projections for those buildings absorb the flow from the additional employees and
patrons.
2.2-7
Nelson Pope Voorhis
6-26-23 2
Please provide a total peak water demand projection in total gallons per day for
existing and proposed flow based on total projected sanitary flow and water required
for boat washing, landscape irrigation and any other operations that require the use
of water.
2.2-8
Nelson Pope Voorhis
6-26-23 3
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?
2.2-9
Nelson Pope Voorhis
6-26-23 3
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.
2.2-10
Nelson Pope Voorhis
6-26-23 3
Page 45, under "Water Supply and Surrounding Wells," includes an SVC annual water
demand estimate of 1,058± gpd. Since activity at the yacht club is seasonal, what is
the estimated demand in gallons per day for water during the boating season? If
demand is greater, how does that affect the hydrologic analyses?
2.2-11
James Rich July 10
2023 Email 1
Water depths and silting from prop wash is very much a concern and not gotten the
attention it warrants
2.2-12
James Rich July 10
2023 Email 1
I don't personally believe that the reported water depths exist in Mattituck Inlet-
certainly they are greater than my experience s at Sterling Harbor in Greenport
2.2-13
Hannah Van Manen
June 2 2023 Email 1
I believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately
address the impact the project will have on Mattituck Inlet's water quality. I believe
that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately address
the impact the project will have on Mattituck Inlet's water quality.
2.2-14
Hannah Van Manen
June 2 2023 Email 1
The introduction of new sanitary systems so close to Mattituck Inlet is a major
concern, given the fact that the inlet already has shellfishing closures
<https://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/103483.html#12833> and advisories due to
bacteria impairment. Inadequate sanitary management on waterfront properties is a
common issue on the North Fork. How will the Planning Board ensure that these
surface and groundwater issues are not going to be made worse by this development?
2.2-15
Annie Correal June 8
2023 Email 1
Combined with the pollution generated by an additional 88 large boats for 12 weeks
each year, this stands to significantly escalate the toxicity levels of Mattituck Inlet. It is
crucial to protect these impaired waters and prevent further degradation, especially
considering Mattituck Inlet has been declared by the state to be a pathogen-impaired
watershed.
2.2-16
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 84
We do not think the DEIS adequately addresses the impact of removing this block of
native forested bluff would have on the aquifer and groundwater of the surrounding
human and animal community.
2.2-17
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 85
We think this discussion misses the boat (no pun intended). The removal of 4-5 acres
of bluff, soil and mature trees that slope down to Mattituck Inlet would have an
impact not only on the 40 or so private and public wells surrounding the area, 165 but
on the waters of Mattituck Inlet itself.
2.2-18
Audubon Society 5-
26-24 87
The DEIS did not address these impacts on the drinking water supply from removal of
the natural filtration provided by acres of forest. Not only that, the forest filtration
system would be replaced by impermeable surfaces. The new use of the land
increases pollutants such as diesel fuel, gasoline, propane, cleaning chemicals, paints,
etc. that would wash directly from the boatyard into the Mattituck Inlet, with no
filtration at all.
2.2-19 Reed Super 7.10.23 2
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 water
2.2-20 Reed Super 7.10.23 12
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.)
2.2-21 Reed Super 7.10.23 17
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.
2.2-22 Reed Super 7.10.23 27
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.
2.2-23 Reed Super 7.10.23 30
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.
2.2-24
Save the Sound
7/10/23 7
WATER QUALITY. The DEIS' description of forest loss throughout Southold in recent
decades should not be accepted as justification for what it tries to describe as minimal
additional destruction. Rather, the town should heed an urgent call to action for more
aggressive forest protection. The importance of native forests to ground- and surface
water quality throughout the town should not be underestimated. Drawing
unadulterated precipitation into the aquifer, forests protect the town's only source of
drinking water; along creeks and bays, forests help provide clean, fresh water to our
estuaries. The retention of native coastal oak-beech forest acreage along Mattituck
Creek is essential for protection and any future improvements of its water quality. No
other land use on the North Fork, nor any number of plantings of additional trees, can
provide this essential ecosystem service.
2.2-25 Reed Super 7.10.23 40
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.
2.2-26 Reed Super 7.10.23 42
Reducing the separation between wastewater and stormwater systems and the
groundwater table will harm water quality.
2.2-27 Reed Super 7.10.23 44
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.
2.2-28
Save the Sound
7/10/23 15
BOATING MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES. Boating maintenance activities are tightly
associated with a strong recreation community on Long Island Sound. They are
necessary for safe and functioning vessels for people to respectfully enjoy the
waterbody. These activities, however, can introduce pollutants to surface- and
groundwater, leading to serious environmental degradation. The FEIS should describe
hazardous material disposal and pollution response reporting to necessary authorities,
such as the local fire department and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation Region 1 spill response team.
2.2-29
Save the Sound
7/10/23 15 & 16
STORMWATER AND FILTRATION. The DEIS attempts to convince the reader there is
value in losing natural forest soil filtration of precipitation and replacing it with
engineered conveyance systems and leaching rings that would have less than
recommended separation distances from groundwater. This strains credulity. The DEIS
vastly undervalues the loss of 4.32± acres of high-quality Coastal Oak-Beech forest,
1.19± acres of successional southern hardwood forest, and 0.54± acre of successional
shrubland in their provision of forest ecosystem services, such as absorption and
filtration of precipitation in the immediate watershed of Mattituck Creek; protection
of soils and slopes; and protection of the creek from sedimentation associated with
soil disturbance and potential slope failure, especially during construction phases. For
instance, the document seems to celebrate a calculated small rise in groundwater that
it says would be achieved via rooftop collection of rainwater and conveyance to
drywells. This is not a gain in drinking water. It is mounding, which, if added to storm
surge -related rises in groundwater, could exacerbate interception of sanitary systems
and cause releases of pathogens. Stormwater impacts from the removal of mature
coastal forests and other native plant communities cannot be fully mitigated by
engineered systems. As one example, they are prone to failure from owner neglect.
2.2-30
Save the Sound
7/10/23 16
The ecological impact analysis states development activities, including the installation
of innovative alternative (I/A) onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) and new
stormwater drainage infrastructure would have the potential to improve surface
water quality. This statement is highly questionable given these installations are
directly tied to mitigation of adverse environmental impacts of development. These
measures are not replacements for a fully functioning coastal forest. Further, if the
applicant believes the site's existing systems are contributing to water quality
impairments, they simply should be replaced and not considered as mitigation for
ecosystem destruction
2.2-31
Save the Sound
7/10/23 16
Page viii of the DEIS seems to compare Mattituck Creek water quality to Long Island
Sound as a whole, including deeper waters. A comparable assessment would be to
consider water quality of embayments of Long Island Sound. This section states water
quality is good, but then goes on to note Suffolk County Department of Health data
show the water quality is relatively poor. The FEIS should address this discrepancy.
2.2-32
Save the Sound
7/10/23 16
The FEIS should discuss how progress toward the goal of reduction of Mattituck
Creek's nitrogen load, presented in the Suffolk County Subwatersheds Wastewater
Plan, could be achieved if this project were to be approved. Table 9-1 in the plan (p. 9-
16) shows only 34% achievable reduction through on-site wastewater management.
2.2-33
Comments on DEIS
Strong Storage pt 2 1
Susan M. Norris:
those of us who have wells may be adversely affected.
2.2-34
Comments on DEIS
Strong Storage pt 2 1
Nancy and Sotirios Nikolis:
Furthermore, these yachts will be washed on the premises, and the runoff will seep
into the Mattituck Inlet and eventually the Long Island Sound. This will affect our
marine life and, ultimately, our health once we eat the contaminated fish.
2.2-35
Group for the East
End 7/5/23 4
Additionally, the DEIS offers the use of I/A OWTS systems as a means of ground and
surface water mitigation to offset additional nutrient loading to Mattituck Creek (page
144). It should be noted that these systems are required by law and one of them (at
least) will eventually not be able to meet separation distances from groundwater due
to projected seas-level rise. Therefore, the use of the systems in the location they are
proposed should not be considered a mitigation measure.
2.2-36
Hannah Van Manen
June 2 2023 Email 1
I believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement( DEIS) does not adequately
address the impact the project will have on Mattituck Inlet's water quality.
Specifically, how exactly will stormwater be managed on the site, during and after
construction activities?
2.2-37
Hannah Van Manen
June 2 2023 Email 1
Inadequate sanitary management on waterfront properties is a common issue on the
North Fork. How will the Planning Board ensure that these surface and groundwater
issues are not going to be made worse by this development?
2.2-38
Donna Van Manen
June 8 2023 Email 1
I believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement( DEIS) does not adequately
address the impact the project will have on Mattituck Inlet's water quality.
Specifically, how exactly will stormwater be managed on the site, during and after
construction activities?
2.2-39
Donna Van Manen
June 8 2023 Email 1
Inadequate sanitary management on waterfront properties is a common issue on the
North Fork. How will the Planning Board ensure that these surface and groundwater
issues are not going to be made worse by this development?
2.2-40
Christine Rendel
7/9/23 2
Surface water pollution, disruption of groundwater wells, potential flooding, run-off
and erosion are clear concerns.
2.2-41
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 83
KEVIN MCALLISTER:
So my comments relate to the boating population that's increased. 88 boats. We talk
about they appear to be stealth in as far as a Spring launch. They're out the inlet and
they returned to the roost in December. The question is, who's handling the holding
tank waste upon return? I trust the Marine Center has pump-out facilities. And a
larger question, are these no discharge zones relative to Mattituck Creek or based on
a ratio of boating populace to pump-out facilities? So how does 88 boats affect that
boating population that rate -- ratio? That needs to be flushed out. That's a water
quality concern. My work in Defend H2O is really geared and focused toward
protection of coastal features. And obviously, we have a prominent glacial feature
that abuts the western side of the shoreline.
2.2-42
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 89
CHRIS TALBOT:
Going forward with the IA system, I think that's a huge benefit to the environment
down there. Getting all any groundwater or sewage that's going into a septic system,
might even be as accessible down there now, into an IA system, which everybody
across the East End, most Suffolk County is requiring them. And Suffolk County
Department of Waste Water Management is now fully on board. So that'll be a huge
benefit to the Mattituck Creek. I know, Save the Sound, Save Mattituck Inlet, but this
is actually a creek, which we're more talking about. Not the inlet.
2.2-43
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 119
JENN HARTNAGEL:
Eventually, as the DEIS makes note on Page 113 and page X or 10 of the Introductory,
the Climate Change Section, components of the sanitary system will eventually be
sitting in groundwater due to sea level rise. And that's documented in the DEIS. So
although this might not happen, you know, X number of years from now, these are
unavoidable impacts. And the DEIS makes no mention of who will be monitoring this
situation or enforcing upgrades and modifications or what the direct impacts of
discharge of wastewater into the groundwater are.
2.2-44 Phillip Van Manen 1
I believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately
address the impact the project will have on Mattituck Inlet's water quality.
Specifically, how exactly will stormwater be managed on the site, during and after
construction activities? The introduction of new sanitary systems so close to Mattituck
Inlet is a major concern, given the fact that the inlet already has shellfishing closures
and advisories due to bacteria impairment.
2.2-45 Phillip Van Manen 1
How will the Planning Board ensure that these surface and groundwater issues are not
going to be made worse by this development?
2.2-46 Randy Wade 7/3/23 1 A drainage plan accommodating only a 2" rain event is inadequate.
2.2-47 Randy Wade 7/3/23 1
The increase of sewage by only "18± gallons per day" does not reconcile with the
increase in workers.
2.2-48 Randy Wade 7/3/23 1
How will the new 88 yachts have "painting/antifouling" toxic products applied without
fouling the inlet and groundwater?
2.2-49 Joel Klein 7/3/23 2
Section 1.2 (Project Description) of the DEIS states that "As part of the proposed
action, a connection to the public water supply is proposed" (p.10), and "Upon
implementation of the proposed extension, there would be an opportunity for
existing landowners to connect to the public water supply system" (p.11 ).
The DEIS also states that "As part of the proposed action, an extension of the public
water main for connection to the SCWA is proposed (p. 73). It goes on to state that
"groundwater withdrawal from the site would decrease from 1,058± gpd to 218± gpd
upon implementation of the proposed action due to the public water supply
connection" (p.90).
DEIS section 1.3.2 (Benefits of the Proposed Project), states that Project benefits
include" ... providing the opportunity for surrounding properties with private water
wells to connect to the public water supply" (DEIS p.14 ). Section 1.3.2 goes on to
state: "Extension of the Public Water Main for Potential Connections by Other
Landowners. The proposed action includes an extension of the SCWA water main from
Naugles Drive by 765± feet to allow for the site to be served by the public water
supply system. The extension of the public water main would allow for existing
landowners to connect to the public supply system, by request to the SCWA.
Information was obtained from SCWA noting those properties that could connect, if
requested, and is included in Appendix K". I noted in my May 15 comments, in
addition to the Project site, only two properties would realistically benefit from
installation of the water line. One of these is owned by the Applicant, the other is the
Old Mill Inn. In fact, the "proposed" water line was installed in late May 2023 (see
attached photos). It cannot, and should not, be considered part of the Project. As a
result, any benefits that the DEIS claims will be derived from this aspect of the Project
should be excluded from consideration by the Planning Board.
2.2-50
North Fork Audubon
Society Board of
Directors
05/03/23 6
We do not think the DEIS adequately addresses the impact of removing this block of
native forested bluff
would have on the aquifer and groundwater of the surrounding human and animal
community. The
Amended Final Scope at page 8 requests analysis of the groundwater on site, the
contributions to the
aquifer, impact on drinking wells, etc.
2.2-51
Jo-Ann lechner
7/5/23 2
Billions have been spent to clean up the Sound pollution. This project will substantially
increase surface water pollution, disruption of groundwater wells, potential flooding,
run-off and erosion.
2.2-52 Karin Waslo 04/25/23 1
The discussion about the leaching fields near the aquifers possibly failing in the future
and the need for pumping
stations is worrisome. If this project should be approved I hope that the Board could
include the requirement of a
mandatory shutdown in perpetuity, until the remedial efforts have been completed,
the shallow drainage structures can
be developed, or whatever the future solutions may be.
2.2-53 Boscola 6/20/23 3
The DEIS states that "Article 6 of the SCSC limits the maximum permitted sanitary
discharge to on-site sewerage systems to 600 gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre). "
However, the site plan shows a 700 gallon I/ A system proposed. This discrepancy
should be addressed. Additionally, the DEIS states that the anticipated increase in
sanitary flow for this project is 18 gpd. It is unclear why such a large system is now
needed and why it is being installed closer to two of the residential homes. The new
system, if really needed, should be an in-kind replacement of the existing system or in
close proximity to it.
2.2-54
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 174
JESSICA ROBERTS (Save the Sound Staff Attorney):
Also, installing sewage, stormwater and fuel station infrastructure only 10 feet above
mean sea level could endanger water quality. Given storm intensification and climate
change, the project's placement of this infrastructure too close to fluctuating
groundwater levels and saltwater inundation is a recipe for water
2.2-55
Joyce Beckenstein
05/04/23 1
What guarantees does Strong offer that our issues with water runoff, sewage, land
erosion and flooding will
not be exacerbated by this construction?
2.2-56
Joel Klein 5/15/23
Water Supply 3
According to statements made by the Applicant, and confirmed in conversations with
the SCWA on April 19, he has already contracted with the Suffolk County Water
Authority to install the line. SWCA has advised that construction is scheduled for May
2023. Any public benefit resulting from the installation of the water line is not a
benefit that can be attributed to the Project.
2.2-57
Joel Klein 5/15/23
Water Supply 3
However, what the DEIS fails no note is that the SCWA water line will be available
independently of the Project (see above), and SCWA-water will be available for boat
washing purposes even if the Project is not approved. This means that the claim that
the Project will reduce local withdrawal is incorrect. In fact, the Project will result an
increase in total water usage of more than 20,000 gallons annually.
Chapter 2.3 Flooding and Climate
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
2.3-1
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Sea Levels, Climate
Change, and
Flooding 1
The DEIS has based its analysis of the adverse impact of sea level rise on a potential sea level rise of
16 inches by 2050 which, per 6 NYCRR 490 is considered a “medium”2 projection. The DEIS states
that “pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 490 . . . [this], is considered a reasonable analysis” (pp. ix, 110). This
language is misleading. Nothing in state regulations sets forth what constitutes a “reasonable”
analysis in regard to evaluating the impacts of sea level changes. What constitutes reasonable
analysis should be determined by the Planning Board—not the Applicant or his consultants.
2.3-2
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Sea Levels, Climate
Change, and
Flooding 2
No 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.
2.3-3
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Sea Levels, Climate
Change, and
Flooding 2
No mention is made in the analysis of how the 50-ton travelift to the south of Building 2, and the 85-
ton travelift east of Building 7, would be impacted by sea level rise.
2.3-4
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Sea Levels, Climate
Change, and
Flooding 3 & 4
The DEIS dismisses the anticipated future non-compliance of the Project’s new sanitary system. It
states that “in the 2050 condition, modifications to the leaching field could be implemented by
elevating and installing a pump station. However, the manufacturer lifespan of the I/A OWTS is 30
years, and thus, by the 2050s, new systems could be expected. Should the projections of sea level rise
be realized, the new systems to be installed would be required to comply with the regulations at that
time” (pp. x, 114). This is speculation as there is no guarantee that this issue would be addressed at
some unspecified time in the future. Furthermore, the analysis of the relationship between rising
groundwater and the proposed sanitary system only concludes that under, the single scenario
considered, the system would be non-compliant by 2050. This does not address when the system
would become non-compliant, which could be considerably sooner than 2050.
2.3-5
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Sea Levels, Climate
Change, and
Flooding 4
As noted above, the groundwater modeling performed for the Project is based on a single scenario. It
does not include worst case scenarios. It is unclear whether appropriate estimates of precipitation
increase over time were integrated into the model (see below). The groundwater report states that
“[P]recipitation records going back over the past 70 years show an average annual total precipitation
off 49 inches per year. . . [and that the] groundwater model [was] calibrated . . . based on the annual
average precipitation rate of 49 inches/year . . .” (DEIS Appendix L p.20). However, the source for this
this figure is not provided, and it does not appear to be consistent with data from NOAA for Suffolk
County (see below).
2.3-6
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Sea Levels, Climate
Change, and
Flooding 4
The DEIS states that “between 1940-2000 at New York (LaGuardia), which is also on the North Shore
of Long Island along the Long Island Sound similar to the location of the proposed action, the average
monthly precipitation was 3.97± inches” (p. 109).7 The choice to use the New York (LaGuardia) data is
also inappropriate, given that Suffolk County data is available.8 While the 1940-2000 data for New
York (LaGuardia) (COMMENT FIGURE SL-2a) shows no change in average annual precipitation over
time (0.0 in/decade), the comparable data set for Suffolk County (COMMENT FIGURE SL-2b) shows
that average annual precipitation is trending upward (+0.68 in/decade).
2.3-7
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Sea Levels, Climate
Change, and
Flooding 4 & 5
The DEIS, again citing NOAA data, goes on to state that “Since 2017, there has been an overall
downward trend in annual precipitation” (p.108). It is initially unclear why the DEIS preparers chose
2017 as the starting point from which the trend in the change of precipitation increase should be
measured. The NOAA data for the 2017-2021 period is shown in COMMENT FIGURE SL-3a. It does
show a downward trend in annual precipitation. However, a closer examination of the NOAA data
indicates that this is misleading. If one extends the period for which data is used to establish the
trend of change in precipitation by only one year—to 2016--the trend is seen to be increasing—not
decreasing as stated in the DEIS (COMMENT FIGURE SL-3b).6 In addition, according to Suffolk County
data displayed on the USGS National Climate Change Viewer9, 80% of 20 climate change models
predict that precipitation will be greater during the 2025-2049 period than during the 1981-2010
period.
2.3-8
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Sea Levels, Climate
Change, and
Flooding 5
The 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.
2.3-9
Nelson Pope
Voorhis 6-26-23 3
Second paragraph, p. 106 regarding sea level rise states that: "MHW at the subject property coincides
with the top of the bulkhead and was mapped at approximately 4.0±feet. Based on a 16-inch or
1.33±feet projection in the 2050s, MHW would be expected to increase to 5.3± feet AMSL. The
existing bulkhead ranges from 6.0± feet to 6.8± feet, and thus, would remain higher than MHW." The
first sentence seems to say that the existing bulkhead is at 4.0± feet, while the second sentence says
that it ranges from 6.0± feet to 6.8± feet. Please explain, correct or clarify the discrepancy.
2.3-10
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Storms
(Flooding) and Sea-
Level Rise (Climate
Change)8
The 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.
2.3-11
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Storms
(Flooding) and Sea-
Level Rise (Climate
Change)9
The project would remove 634 mature trees (over six inches diameter) and an unknown
number of immature trees and other vegetation, the roots of which are currently holding
down the soil and providing a buffer against storms and sea level rise.
2.3-12
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Flooding 10
The project would expose about five acres currently at high elevations and at low risk of flood
damage, to the same elevation and flood risk as the existing SYC boat storage structures. The existing
storage structures are in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) zone A, Special Flood
Hazard Area
2.3-13
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Flooding &
Wave Velocity
Damage 10
The FEMA High Risk Zone includes both Zone V and Zone A are in the FEMA High Risk Zone... The
difference is that V stands for "velocity" and there is risk of damage from wave velocity in addition to
flooding.
2.3-14
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Flooding 11
Excavating the bluff to 8-9 feet above sea level, the same height as the existing structure area, would
result in a much greater land area to be in the FEMA high risk flooding zone than currently. As a
community, we should be prohibiting development on high-risk flooding areas, not creating new
additional high-risk :flooding areas.
2.3-15
Annie Correal June
8 2023 Email 1
The proposal also involves the removal of a hillside that acts as a natural stormwater absorber,
leading to increased erosion and runoff.
2.3-16
Brian Withers May
11, 2023 Email 1
Why wreck the North Fork coastline? After all the water level of Long Island Sound is rising due to
climate change. In years to come if Strong's initial plan is enacted vast amounts of Mattituck Inlet may
be under siege due to the invasion of Long Island Sound waters. Nearby homes and properties on the
coastline could be severely damaged during storms, etc
2.3-17
Garrett Cutler July
9 2023 email 1
Our local surface waters have already been severely degraded due to our inaction on pollution
caused by sewage, septic systems, cesspools, and runoff. Examining Strong's DEIS, I have noticed that
the removal of the sand hillside to build the warehouses will increase stormwater runoff. Although
there is a plan to mitigate this runoff, it fails to adequately address shoreline erosion, increased storm
intensity and frequency and coastal flooding associated with climate change. It also fails to address
the runoff caused by the construction project itself.
2.3-18
Theresa Dilworth
July 10 2023 email 2
On April 1, 2020, the Suffolk County Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled meeting and
discussed the SYC matter. The summary of the meeting indicates that the Commission agreed with
the Staff Report dated March 25, 2020 which approved the project, but on two conditions. The first
condition is that "no soil is to be excavated and removed off site. It is questionable if the excavation
and removal of approximately 130,000 cubic yards of soil off site is necessary. The intended
excavation will create a bowl on site where storm flood waters from Mattituck Creek will surge into.
Building Improvements and infrastructure in the created flood plain (excavation) will only set up a
"repetitive economic loss" scenario into the future for the boat storage building owners." We
understand that the meeting summary and Staff Report were made available to the Town. They are
available on the Suffolk County Planning Commission website and are attached for reference.
Southold Town ignored this condition of approval; allowing the SYC proposal to move forward for the
last three and a half years as a bluff excavation and sand removal plan.
2.3-19
Theresa Dilworth
July 10 2023 email 3 & 4
On April 7, 2020, Andrew P Freleng, the Chief Planner of the Suffolk County Department of Economic
Development and Planning wrote a letter to the Town of Southold, attn: Brian Cummings. The letter
repeats verbatim much of the information contained in the Staff Analysis section of the Staff Report
dated March 25, 2020, and expands upon it. It states "It is questionable if the excavation and removal
of approximately 130,000 cubic yards of soil off site is necessary. Best management practice for site
design is to have balanced cut and fill for site development. No soils should be removed. This is not
the case here. The intended excavation will create a bowl on site where storm flood waters from
Mattituck Creek will surge into. Details shown on plans prepared by Young and Young last revised No.
20 2018 and referred from the Town of Southold Planning Board show elevation of the finished
excavation to be approximately 9-10 feet above mean sea level. Only a few feet above the base flood
elevation and would be susceptive, as are other areas of similar elevations, to surge and flooding
from category 2 hurricanes in the least."
2.3-20 Reed Super 7.10.23 10
"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,wastewater discharge and the
treatment of nitrogen containing effluent, periodic tidal flooding and groundwater 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.
2.3-21 Reed Super 7.10.23 45210
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: "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 affected by surges from
category 1 and 2 hurricanes at the existing marina and penetrating into the subject development site
at the southern end."
2.3-22 Reed Super 7.10.23 11
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 .
2.3-23 Reed Super 7.10.23 11
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.
2.3-24 Reed Super 7.10.23 12
It is not clear that, as designed, the existing waste and stormwater systems would function during
elevations of the groundwater table due to extreme climatic events."
2.3-25
North Fork
Environmental
Council 7/10/23 1
The DEIS proposes removing 4.5 acres of a coastal bluff. Coastal bluffs should never be removed,
especially on a property that is in a flood zone.
2.3-26 Reed Super 7.10.23 12
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.
2.3-27 Reed Super 7.10.23 12
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.
2.3-28 Reed Super 7.10.23 15
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.
2.3-29 Reed Super 7.10.24 16-17
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, its structures, infrastructure, and the boats stored there
(including fuel and other hazardous substances) at substantially higher risk of flooding.
2.3-30 Reed Super 7.10.23 24
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.
2.3-31
Save the Sound
7/10/23 2
By leveling a natural coastal feature and siting new buildings only 10 feet above mean sea level, more
of the applicant's site would be exposed to potential inundation from storm tides and sea level rise.
This could introduce pollutants to Mattituck Creek and Long Island Sound.
2.3-32 Reed Super 7.10.23 36
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.
2.3-33 Reed Super 7.10.23 37
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.
2.3-34
Save the Sound
7/10/23 14
The FEIS should ensure the latest climate change models are employed when (a) evaluating how
climate change would affect the viability of this project in the long-term, and (b) identifying its
impacts on sensitive resources.
2.3-35
Save the Sound
7/10/23 14
STORMWATER. The FEIS should address the effects of inundation on the proposed stormwater
collection system. The DEIS describes separation distances between the stormwater collection system
recharge structures and groundwater that are reduced from what are recommended or even
required. Groundwater potentially intercepting the stormwater system would flow within a matter of
one to two years to Mattituck Creek. The document should explain how the system can function
effectively during higher-than-normal tides and storm surge: • How would the system function when
marine waters cause groundwater to rise? Can these structures backflow to the surface or cause the
impermeable surfaces they are intended to drain to overflow?
• What substances from the marina would uncontrolled stormwater convey directly to Mattituck
Creek?
• What portions of the system might be immediately lost should the system be flooded and how long
would it take to remedy? What are the nitrogen and other pollution loads during this time?
2.3-36
Save the Sound
7/10/23 14
INUNDATION. The DEIS does not adequately describe the changes that may be expected from the
excavation, bringing site elevation down to a grade susceptible to increased flooding and coastal
seawater inundation risks. In its 2020 report, the Suffolk County Planning Commission stated "[t]he
intended excavation will create a bowl on site where storm flood waters from Mattituck Creek will
surge into." Changes to the site from excavation need to be accounted for in all statements pertaining
to all aspects of project elements that could be affected by flooding related to higher-than-expected
storm tides and storm surges. These should include, but not be limited to, boat activities, stormwater
drainage and treatment, onsite sanitary sewage treatment, and building structural integrity, storage
of propane, fuel, and hazardous materials, and risk to human life.
2.3-37
Save the Sound
7/10/23 14 & 15
Frequency. The DEIS treats climate change as something yet to come, when the applicant would
undertake upgrades, replacements, or repositioning of stormwater collection and sanitary waste
disposal systems, "as needed," at that time. It is unwise to depend on statistical models predicting
percentage chances that "100-year storms" may occur; our region has experienced storms with
concomitant surge that belie "once every hundred years" predictions. Without the proposed
excavation, no flooding could occur in areas now 43 to 51 feet above sea level in the foreseeable
future. The proposed excavation has the potential to place buildings, people, and water quality at
risk, even though the applicant has asserted the new buildings would withstand the flooding.
Inundation would not occur calmly, predictably, and incrementally from 2023 to 2050. There will be
extreme storms in between; more frequent severe weather is one of the hallmarks of climate change.
2.3-38 Reed Super 7.10.23 49
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.
2.3-39
Save the Sound
7/10/23 15
Geographic extent. Figure 24 in Appendix A, NYSERDA mapped sea level rise, showing predicted
flooding at 100-year interval after sea level rise of 18", can mislead a reader to assume flooding
impacts would not be as geographically extensive as they would be after excavation of the site down
to the proposed low elevation. The figure shows the land prior to excavation. It also does not
illustrate the concomitant rise in groundwater that would occur with an 18" rise in sea level. The
figure also shows the onsite wastewater treatment system to be outside of the flood zone. That
would not be the case once the site is excavated.
2.3-40
Save the Sound
7/10/23 15
GROUNDWATER RISE. Although groundwater rise is discussed in the DEIS as an expected outcome of
sea level rise as well as increased precipitation from climate change, the effects of temporary
groundwater rise, resulting from severe storm tides, on sanitary and stormwater systems also needs
to be evaluated. The environmental impacts on Mattituck Creek's water quality from potential
interception of sanitary and stormwater systems with groundwater, and their possible inundations,
should be a subject of serious discussion in the FEIS and not simply dismissed as events that may
happen many years to come, when the systems otherwise would be replaced, upgraded, or
repositioned.
2.3-41 Reed Super 7.10.23 49
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.
2.3-42
Save the Sound
7/10/23 15
The FEIS should describe potential impacts of site inundation in the flood zone on proper
containment of known hazardous materials.
2.3-43 Reed Super 7.10.23 50
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.
2.3-44 Reed Super 7.10.23 50
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.
2.3-45
Juan Micieli-
Martinez 7/9/23 1
This action will result in decreased coastal resilience. Collectively as an Island we must work together
to mitigate coastal resiliency and this will only accelerate those impacts.
2.3-46
Marian Lindberg
7/9/23 1
Approving an application that involves the cutting of over 600 trees would put the Town of Southold
at odds with these policies. As the Climate Action Plan states, "protection of forests, cropland, and
wetlands is critical for natural carbon sequestration and improves the resilience of communities." (p.
364)
2.3-47
Marian Lindberg
7/9/23 2
The trees would be cut to enable the nonessential, long-term use of massive amounts of energy to
store yachts in heated, cavernous buildings. In addition to that new long-term use of energy, the
construction process to clear the wooded acres, remove the bluffs, transport the sand, and erect the
buildings would use a great deal of energy in the short term-and, as the Climate Action Plan states,
"diesel trucks are one of the largest sources of local air pollution." (p. 159)
2.3-48
Marian Lindberg
7/9/23 2
The final Environmental Impact Statement must document that the Planning Board has considered
the policies articulated in the Climate Action Plan. It is difficult to see how an application to replace a
carbon sink with a carbon geyser can survive such scrutiny.
2.3-49
Petrina Engelke
7/9/23 1
Apart from the obvious adverse environmental impacts - from clearing 634 trees to removing habitat
for threatened and endangered species to the dangers of increasing runoff polluting the creek - the
yachts will use lots of resources, taking them away from our community. In particular, they will
burden our electric grid, because yachts of that type have entertainment systems that need to be
heated and run so they won't break over the winter. There is no mention of creating or using
renewable energy for this use in the DEIS. So we have to assume the storage facility will increase the
burning of fossil fuels, which exacerbate climate change. And as a community on the water, any
contribution to rising sea levels is an adverse environmental impact.
2.3-50
Christine Rendel
7/9/23 1
The Strong's Marine developer has argued that he has a right to develop his land and business as he
chooses, and many might agree with him. But I - and everyone who lives here in this beautiful place -
have an environmental right that I believe outweighs a developer's right. My right is a constitutional
right, enshrined by New York State after voters, by a margin of 2 tol, approved an amendment to the
Bill of Rights in the NYS constitution. Article 1 Section 19 reads in its entirety:
"Environmental Right. Each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful
environment."
What this developer proposes will destroy our healthful environment, negatively impact protected
wildlife, flora and fauna, and leave us at the mercy of a changing climate, rising sea levels, and
incessant noise.
2.3-51
Christine Rendel
7/9/23 2
Lowering a coastal elevation by 40' during unprecedented sea level rise sounds to experts unwise. At
the last town hall meeting, even the project engineers were unconvincing in their assurances of
climate resilience despite such a (an unnecessary) coastal disruption.
2.3-52
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 19
The DEIS uses cherry-picked and manipulated data to downplay the potential effects of
climate change - specifically sea-level rise and groundwater rise - on the Project.
2.3-53
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 19
The DEIS has minimized the risks of tidal flooding by using a "medium" projection for sea level rise (16
inches by 2050), rather than a more conservative "'high-medium" projection or a worst case "high"
projection (30-inches).
2.3-54
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 19
Graphics in the DEIS mapping projected flood risk onto the existing topography fail to take into
account that the new structures - both the storage buildings themselves and the Travelifts used to
bring boats up from the water - will be at substantially lower elevations above mean sea level (after
excavation) than their respective locations are today. The DEIS does not consider the possible effects
on the operation of the proposed facility if the Teravelifts are rendered unusable by coastal storm
surges or tidal flooding for any length of time.
2.3-55
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 19
The DEIS understates the risk that rising groundwater levels may pose to the Project, especially in
relation to the minimum required separation from sanitary system outflows.
2.3-56
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 19-20
The DEIS has not accurately assessed how future increases in precipitation could affect groundwater
levels. It uses cherry-picked precipitation data from 2017 to 2021 in an effort to show that annual
precipitation levels are decreasing. That is an inappropriately short - indeed, meaningless - timespan
to use; over even a slightly longer period, the opposite is true. This has compromised all of the
climate-change modeling done for the Project, including changes in groundwater levels over time.
2.3-57
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 131
DONNA BOSCOLA:
I would also like to point out that in a February 18, 2020 staff report, from Suffolk County Planning
Commission, the staff noted "no soils should be removed. 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 floodwaters from, Mattituck Creek will surge into." This staff
report was not referenced in the DEIS.
2.3-58
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 2
The existing SVC storage structures are in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
zone A, Special Flood Hazard Area, and excavating acres of bluff down to the same grade would
expose even greater areas to the risk of coastal flooding.
2.3-59
Betsy Kennedy
05/15/23 2
Lower ground levels contribute to higher water levels and the slowing down of the Gulf Stream
current has
contributed to higher sea levels and storm surges.
This project removes a 50 ' high "mound" of soil which currently and in the future protects the
residents and
community in the are
2.3-60
Jo-Ann Lechner
7/5/23 2
What will lowering a coastal elevation by ~40' during unprecedented sea level rise do to our
community.
2.3-61
Dr. Dianna K.
Padilla
05/12/23 1
Issues that have not been addressed or adequately addressed include:
1. Expected flooding with greatly reduced elevation.
Reducing the elevation near the shore to 1 O' above mean sea level means that on extreme tides and
any storm surges, this area would flood.
The regular high tide in this area is more than 3' above mean sea level and extreme high tide events
(king tides) are typically 5' above mean sea level. Storm surges at extreme high tides (full and new
moons) will result in extreme flooding. For example, the storm surge associated with winter storms is
regularly 3-5', while those associated with hurricanes are even higher, often 10' or more. Hurricanes
and large storms are expected to increase in frequency and intensity as climate changes, increasing
the risk of flooding, and pollution associated with flooding work areas.
2.3-62
Dr. Dianna K.
Padilla 05/12/23 1
2. Sea level rise is not addressed.
Sea level is rising, and rising at an increased rate. Sea level rise in this area is greater than in the US as
a whole. This will result in ever increasing frequencies of flooding the area where the elevation will be
dropped. This increase in sea level and flooding would likely impact all of the hydrology as well.
2.3-63
Dr. Dianna K.
Padilla 05/12/23 1
3. Hydrology modelling.
The reduction of the elevation of much of the area and increased risks of flooding and sea level rise
are not taken into account in the hydrology modelling that was conducted. The modeling that was
conducted does not include the change in elevation or consequences of floods.
2.3-64
Elizabeth Watson
05/01/23 44928
The project approach is not considering the effects of sea level rise. According the NOAA sea level rise
viewer, the footprint of the current buildings is only -4-5 feet above the current high tide
line. While the north shore of Long Island is less vulnerable to storm surge than the south shore, I
question the benefit of specifically removing such a large volume of sand, which makes this area of
new development so close to sea level, and which simultaneously has such a negative impact on
forest resources. Even if emissions are reduced drastically, sea level rise is going to continue to
increase. Given current rates of water level rise, (which are approaching 1 cm/ year at the nearest
tide gauge, if you consider the rate of rise of the high tide and not just mean sea level), it is important
to shift new developments away from those right adjacent to the coast and at such low elevations.
Buffers of natural land should be maintained where possible.
2.3-65
John McLane
05/11/23 2
As I understand it, excavation to support the proposed project would bring the proposed elevation of
the property to 1 0' above sea level. This may sound like a lot but I believe it would be insufficient in
the relative near-term. We own property at 1675 Wells Road, Peconic and with Trustee permission
had a dock built on Richmond Creek in 2017 accordance with then-existing governmental code. The
requirement was that the dock be 3 ft above mean high tide. In the subsequent 6 years, we have
found our dock to be underwater 2-3 times a year in the course of storms driven from the east or
northeast. The rate of rise in sea level is expected to increase over the next several years, and I
believe the project lacks long term environmental resiliency that would be prudent to consider.
2.3-66
Karin Waslo
04/25/23 1
The applicant wishes to place two new buildings at the 10' median sea level which gives him a way to
transport the
boats to storage but offers no protection when the water table rises above the predicted amounts in
the next decades.
The "100 year storm" criteria is probably under exaggerated and he will possibly be flooded much
sooner than anyone
predicts.
2.3-67
Toni Bryan
04/18/23 1
THE idea that the removal of 134,000 cubic yards of sand which constitutes a hillside bluff thereby
reducing the
elevation from 50 feet to 10 feet is being considered at a time when the soundfront bluff protection
has been identified as
of utmost importance is contradictory, let alone alarming.
2.3-68
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Sea Levels, Climate
Change, and
Flooding 1
In 2019 Suffolk County approved legislation that requires the county department of public works to
take sea level rise into consideration when planning major roadwork to alleviate flooding and prevent
future damage. Newsday has reported that this would apply to CR 48 in Southold which is part of the
Project truck route.
2.3-69
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Sea Levels, Climate
Change, and
Flooding 4
The DEIS scope requires the DEIS to “consider the effects of intensifying precipitation-- including
more seasonal precipitation and higher rates and more total precipitation during storms-- both during
construction and operation.” The DEIS is not responsive to this requirement.
The DEIS has not accurately assessed how future increases in precipitation could affect sea levels.
Chapter 2.4 Ecology
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
2.4-1
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 1
DEIS Appendix N conflates the Project “site” with the Project “Area” resulting in significant distortions in
the ecological analyses included in the DEIS. For example, Table 1, and a table included as part of Figure
EC-1 in the report, indicate that coastal oak-beech forest comprises 38.2 percent of the “site”. However,
the same figures clearly indicates that the portions of the M-2 portion of the “site”, (excluding the
paved/pervious3 surfaces associated with the existing marina structures) where the proposed storage
buildings and retaining wall will be constructed, is composed almost entirely of coastal oak-beech forest
2.4-2
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 2
Because it conflates the Project “site” with the Project area, the ecological report mischaracterizes the
land use history of the Project area
2.4-3
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 2
Another example of how the DEIS attempts to “dilute” the reader’s perception of Project impacts, by
treating the entire tax parcel on which the Project is located as the Project “site,” is through the use of
percentages.
2.4-4
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 3
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” (emphasis added) (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.
2.4-5
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 4
The DEIS ignores the fact that edge effects impacting the Preserve will not be limited to a small part of
the Preserve as claimed. The Project site and the Preserve form one ecosystem. The Project-induced
changes in microclimate, impacting flora and fauna, will permanently change the nature of the Preserve
and destroy the qualities it was created to preserve. Wildlife identified or expected in the Project Area, as
described in the DEIS and Appendix N, are also living in the Preserve. Destruction of the subject
property will, without a doubt, impact wildlife in the Preserve. Wildlife does not understand property
lines. The DEIS, Appendix N, and the Applicant in other venues, seek to minimize the extent of adverse
impacts to the Mill Road Preserve. Statements such as: “The area subject to new or enhanced edge
effects accounts for approximately 2% of the 18-acres of mature oak-beech forests in Mill Road
Preserve”; and “the magnitude of potential edge effects are expected to decrease over time due to the
proposed landscaping comprised of native deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs” (DEIS p. 137
Appendix p.26), ignore the fact that any impacts to publicly-owned, permanently preserved land is
unacceptable....This philosophy is also reflected in Southold’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan
(LWRP), which specifically mentions preserving areas around the inlet to ensure its critical natural
environment. Degradation of the Preserve to construct two massive yacht storage buildings is
inconsistent with stated and specific Town mandates and goals.
2.4-6
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 5 & 6
According to the DEIS, during the two-week-long clearing and grubbing site preparation phase “one truck
with 30-yard trailer would be used to remove ground-up debris 3 to 4 times per day” (DEIS p. 211). This
translates to a maximum volume of 1,200 CY of vegetative debris.8 Simple arithmetic and common
sense suggest that the actual volume of vegetative debris associated with the removal of 634 trees, and
their stumps and roots, plus an unknown number of smaller trees, shrubs and ground vegetation will
generate orders of magnitude greater volumes of debris....the DEIS has significantly underestimated the
volume of vegetative debris that will need to be removed from the Project Area, and has not evaluated
the impacts associated with removing cut trees from the Project Area. It also raises the possibility that
the Applicant has not disclosed that he intends to either sell the cut trees, or move them to the R-80
portion of the Project parcel.12 All of these possibilities are associated with environmental impacts that
have not been addressed in the DEIS.
2.4-7
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 6
DEIS Appendix H contains a report prepared by the Project engineer on the Evergreen wall proposed for
the Project. The report does not discuss the planting plan for the wall.
2.4-8
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 6 & 7
The DEIS does not mention how many planting trays will be or the total size of the planting area. A
confused description of the proposed wall plantings is included in the DEIS…...This description is
inconsistent with the description on p. 140 of the DEIS and the landscape schedule on the proposed
landscaping plan included in DEIS Appendix C.
2.4-9
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 7
Potential issues not addressed in the DEIS include the fact there is no mention of a maintenance plan,
covering irrigation, mulching or composting. Without irrigation and a maintenance plan, the plants will
likely die. In addition, there is no plan for replacement of plantings should they die, and there is no
performance bond for the Evergreen wall plantings. Should plantings die, the dead vegetation also
creates a fire risk.
2.4-10
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 7 & 8
Mitigation proposed in the DEIS to compensate for the loss 634 mature trees with heights up to 80-feet,
and an average diameter of 12.8-inches, plus an unknown number of smaller trees, will consist of
planting 95 4–5-foot-high pitch pine trees...The remaining 71 pitch pines would be located within a
27,333 sq ft (0.63-acre) planting area just beyond the top of the proposed Evergreen retaining wall.
According to the DEIS (p.250) and Appendix N (pp. 38-9) “[P]otential edge effects and habitat
degradation in the retained forests on the subject property and the Town of Southold Mill Road Preserve
will be minimized by [the 0.63-acre planting area and Greenwall plantings].” Pitch pines grow at a rate of
approximately one foot per year. Therefore, it would take between 50-70 years to reach the height of
many of the deciduous trees that have been removed. Pitch pines seem to have been selected because
of their relatively rapid growth rate which will facilitate a minimal reduction in the visual impact of the
Project on surrounding properties, including the Mill Road Preserve.16 They have not been selected
because of their appropriateness for mitigating the loss of oak/beech forest. Mature oak/beech forests
and their habitats provide substantially more benefits to wildlife than newly planted trees and shrubs.
Replacing more than 600 hardwood deciduous trees, with 71 coniferous trees is a significant qualitative
as well as quantitative impact.
2.4-11
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 7
as shown on proposed landscape plan (DEIS Appendix C), nine of these would be located around the
newly installed propane tanks located east of proposed yacht storage building No. 1. Fifteen would be
located along the southern site boundary, presumably to screen views from adjacent North Drive
properties. However, all but six of these appear to be at a much lower elevation than the nearby
residences, and appear to be situated in a manner that would screen only views of the propane tanks
planned for this area.
2.4-12
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 8
In the United States, including in Suffolk County, pitch pines are suffering and dying from the Southern
Pitch Pine Beetle, an invasive species considered to be one of the most destructive forest pests in the
country.17 Pitch pines are also being attacked by Pitch Canker. The possibility that these factors could
affect the viability of the proposed plantings is not considered in the DEIS. Furthermore, dead pitch pine
trees increase the risk of forest fires.
2.4-13
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 8
In addition to the 71 pitch pines, the 0.63 -acre planting area beyond the top of the retaining wall will
include 57 lowbush blueberry shrubs and 4,295 switchgrass plants. According to the DEIS, “Irrigation
supply is also proposed with the installation of automatic underground sprinkler systems with rain
sensors to serve new planting areas” (emphasis added) (DEIS pp. vi, 74). However, it is clear that the
“new planting areas” do not include the 0.63-acre area beyond the top of the proposed Evergreen
retaining wall, as no water source is available at the top of the retaining wall. Without irrigation, and a
maintenance plan (including replacement plantings), newly planted trees, shrubs, and grasses in this area
will likely die. The DEIS does not indicate if newly planted trees will be staked. It does not indicate if
mulching or compost, fertilization, or fencing to protect from deer browse, is planned. The Applicant has
not included a landscape performance bond as part of the Project.
2.4-14
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 8
The DEIS also states that the “Applicant will contribute 50 native trees (10-gallon container typical 1-inch
caliper, 5-6 feet tall) for installation at high-priority sites with the Town of Southold, as identified by the
Town Tree Committee, to enhance and beautify public grounds” (DEIS pp. iii, xxxiv, xxxv, 94, 43, 170, 177,
186, 310). This off-site attempt at compensatory mitigation does absolutely nothing to compensate for
the destruction of nearly 5.5 acres of forest habitat.
2.4-15
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 8
A more appropriate method of estimating the scale of required mitigation for the destruction of 634
large trees, rather than the arbitrary method used in the DEIS, would be the use of a formula developed
by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA).
2.4-16
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 9
The DEIS states that approximately 91 bird species were observed or expected to occur on the “site”.
This is a significant underestimate. According to Cornell’s Ornithological E Bird list compiled in January
2023, approximately 117 bird species have been observed in the neighboring Mill Road Preserve and in
the waters and along the beaches of Mattituck Creek.
2.4-17
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 9
The DEIS acknowledges that “Wildlife species that are most likely to be adversely impacted by the
proposed action, specifically the reduction in Coastal Oak-Beech forest habitats . . . include birds” (DEIS p.
137). However, it then attempts to minimize this by stating that bird species that are habitat generalists
are “unlikely to be adversely impacted by the proposed action, due to their general tolerance for human
activity” (DEIS pp. xiii, 137). It is absurd to suggest that the complete destruction of nearly five acres of
mature deciduous forest, and the accompanying construction noise impacts will be
“generally tolerated.” Noise generated by Project construction can also be expected to negatively impact
bird species. As the DEIS and Appendix N acknowledge....
2.4-18
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 9 & 10
The DEIS (pp. 131, 140) and DEIS Appendix N (pp.17, 33) state that “[N]o endangered, threatened, or rare
species or significant ecological communities were observed during the ecological surveys conducted”.
However, both documents refer to December 1, 2020 correspondence from the NY Natural Heritage
Program (Appendix A to DEIS Appendix N) which states that piping plovers have “been documented
nesting within 0.45 mile of the project site.” Neither document mentions that the same correspondence,
in relation to the piping plover, directs the Applicant to “contact the Permits staff at the NYSDEC Region 1
Office, Division of Environmental Permits.” Piping Plovers are also a Federally designated endangered
species and have been documented by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Fork
Audubon Society (NFAS) to be breeding, nes ng and foraging at nearby Breakwater Beach and at Bailie
Beach. Both NFAS and the Group for the East End have monitored and documented piping plovers on
these two sites for at least five years. The USFWS has documented Mattituck Creek side of Bailie Beach
as a significant foraging site for adult and fledgling Piping Plovers. Roseate Terns, another federally
designated endangered species have been documented foraging at that site. The DEIS and Appendix N
acknowledge that “Federal- and New York State-protected shorebirds such as piping plover and least
tern, nest on the nearby beaches adjacent to Mattituck Inlet and forage in appropriate tidal wetlands,
shoals and mudflats, and estuarine waters of Mattituck Creek” (DEIS p., Appendix N p.8). However,
neither document ascribes any significance to this fact, or considers how the Project might disrupt these
species. observed during the ecological surveys conducted”. However, both documents refer to
December 1, 2020 correspondence from the NY Natural Heritage Program (Appendix A to DEIS Appendix
N) which states that piping plovers have “been documented nesting within 0.45 mile of the project site.”
Neither document mentions that the same correspondence, in relation to the piping plover, directs the
Applicant to “contact the Permits staff at the NYSDEC Region 1 Office, Division of Environmental
Permits.” Piping Plovers are also a Federally designated endangered species and have been documented
by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
2.4-19
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 10
The DEIS and DEIS Appendix N both fail to note that federally endangered peregrine falcons, are
documented on the current Ornithology eBird list compiled on Cornell’s Ebird list as being observed in
the Mill Road Preserve and in the Mattituck Creek area.
2.4-20
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 10
The DEIS and DEIS Appendix N both fail to note that bald eagles, a NYS threatened species, are
documented on Cornell eBird, as being reported in the Mill Road Preserve and along Mattituck Creek.
Several local bird experts believe Mill Road Preserve and the subject site are suitable habitats for bald
eagle nesting. Eagles prefer to nest in living trees especially pines but will nest in deciduous trees which
are close to water. Bald Eagles do not migrate and start nesting in mid to late winter. That exactly
corresponds to proposed time the Project plans to conduct its forest clearance and site excavation.
2.4-21
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 10
Bird species observed in the Project vicinity that are listed under NYS status of Special Concern, and have
documented on the Cornell eBird list as being present in the Project vicinity include the common
nighthawk, common loon, horned lark, osprey, and sharp shinned hawk. Only the later two are
mentioned in the DEIS and Appendix N.
2.4-22
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 10 & 11
Both the DEIS and Appendix N acknowledge that the Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina), a New York
State Species of Special Concern, has been observed in the Project Area and is expected to be found in
any one of the vegetated upland habitats of the project parcel, and that they “are threatened by
development of their habitat” (Appendix N p. 19). The DEIS states that the Project will “avoid or
minimize” impacts to Eastern Box turtle by “conducting sweeps or surveys for box turtles prior to
commencement of clearing, grading, and excavation activities, and relocation of any observed turtles to
on-site areas that will not be disturbed. Silt fencing or other barriers will be installed around work areas
to prevent turtles from returning to construction areas” (Appendix N p.34). This statement is misleading
and inaccurate. The proposed “mitigation” is actually a danger to the Eastern Box Turtles survival. It
cannot be considered mitigation for the Project’s adverse impacts....
2.4-23
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 12
DEIS Appendix N, which is the basis for the statement in the DEIS that the NLEB is threatened, is dated
October 2022. However, the DEIS and Appendix N both neglect to mention that on March 23, 2022, more
than six months earlier, the USFWS issued a proposed regulatory change that would reclassify (uplist) the
NLEB from “threatened” to “endangered.” That reclassification took effect on March 31, 2023.
2.4-24
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 14
Since the Project involves impacts (e.g., forest clearance) to NLEB habitats, surveys must be conducted to
determine if the NLEB is present in the Project Area.29 Those surveys must be conducted prior to Project
approval and before any tree removal is permitted in the Project Area.30
2.4-25
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 14
The DEIS scope calls for ecological resources studies to be “detailed and undertaken over a multi-season
period (all four seasons) to properly assess potential impacts”. DEIS Appendix N indicates that ecological
surveys of the Project site took place on September 18, 2020; October 21, 2020; January 17, 2021; May
13, 2021; July 19-28; 2021; and August 24, 2021. Other than for the summer, the required four-season
study consisted of only a single day in each of the other three seasons.
2.4-26
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 14
The December 1, 2020 correspondence from the NY Natural Heritage Program also points out that “[F]or
most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted. We cannot provide a definitive
statement on the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural
communities. Depending on the nature of the project and the conditions at the project site, further
information from on-site surveys or other resources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological
resources”. This significant qualification is not included in the main DEIS text.
2.4-27
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 15
Appendix N, which accompanied the December 2021 version of the DEIS included the following
statement in its introduction to existing conditions: “A total of 122 vascular plant species were observed,
including 53 woody plants, 64 herbaceous plants, and three ferns (Table 2). Additionally, 91 birds, 20
mammals and three herpetiles were observed or are expected to occur on the site.” However, the
October 2022 version of Appendix N, which accompanies the revised November 2022 DEIS, has replaced
that statement with: A total of 105 vascular plant species were observed, including 49 woody plants, 53
herbaceous plants, and three ferns (Table 2). Additionally, 84 birds, 20 mammals and three herpetiles
were observed or are expected to occur on the site.” No explanation of this change, which would
seemingly reduce the magnitude of the Project’s impact on flora and fauna, is provided. The revised DEIS
failed to make the corresponding change. This is yet another example of the carelessness with which the
DEIS has been prepared.
2.4-28
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 15
A tree survey of all site trees greater than 6-inches in diameter (Appendix B to the DEIS Appendix N)
indicates that the loss of these forest areas will result in the clearing/removal of approximately 634 trees
(Table 7). However, the referenced appendix contains only a single relevant figure (TS-4). That figure
shows the locations of all large trees on the tax parcel associated with the Project. The accompanying
key, purports to identify each tree by specie. It is completely unreadable. It lists 31 species (by code) and
depicts them all in various shades of indistinguishable green. A detailed table, listing all of the trees to be
cut within the Project Area, by specie, diameter, and estimated height can be found in Appendix C to
DEIS Appendix S—the DEIS’ air quality analysis. The absence of a reference key to this very detailed and
relevant information in the both the DEIS, and its accompanying ecological report (Appendix N), hampers
a reader’s ability to evaluate this information.
2.4-29
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Ecology 15 & 16
Appendix N also contain discrepancies in its descriptions of noise impacts, significantly underestimating
the potential impact of Project-generated noise on wildlife: …...However, according to table in the
Project Acoustic Report (DEIS Appendix R), noise levels on North Drive during construction will be as high
as 74 dBA—not 66 dBA-- during tree removal/grubbing; 89 dBA—not 76 dBA during excavation phases;
and 84 dBA—not 71 dBA during building and drainage construction phases.
Together, the discrepancies noted here, are sufficient reason to challenge the validity of the ecological
analyses conducted for the Project.
2.4-30
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 7
The coastal oak-beech forest proposed to be destroyed is categorized as "rare" by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).9 The proposal would eliminate about 5 acres of this
forest outright and degrade the entire remaining 8+ acres through collateral impacts of forest edge
effects and fragmentation.
2.4-31
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 7
The trees proposed to be eliminated include white oak trees and American beech
trees, which have a life expectancy of 600 years and 400 years, respectively. These
trees will outlive us, or already have outlived us, by centuries. The Town of
Southold should not deprive future generations of the Southold community - our
children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren - of the benefits of these rare New
York forests, but rather should seek to preserve them.
2.4-32
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 45115
From an economic perspective, oak trees valuable in terms of producing oxygen, pulling carbon
monoxide out of the air, and acting as carbon sinks, storing, and sequestering carbon emissions from our
vehicles, providing fresh water, and other benefits.
2.4-33
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 8
An oak tree of 10-18 inches diameter or roughly 35 to 59 inches of circumference is estimated to produce
two tons of oxygen, store 0.7 tons of carbon, and produce 119 gallons of water per year.10 Multiplied by
634 trees, this would result in 1,222 tons of oxygen, 458 tons of carbon, and 75,368 gallons of water
produced per year. Multiplying it over the lifespan of the trees, which could be hundreds of years, the
positive benefits are enormous.
2.4-34
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 8
According to the American Forestry Association, a single tree provides $75 worth of erosion control, $75
worth of wildlife shelter, $50 of air pollution reduction, and $75 worth of air conditioning per year.
2.4-35
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 8
Data shows that protecting bird and other wildlife habitats increases the desirability of a community,
increasing real estate values for the entire community. Habitat that is good for birds is also good habitat
for people.
2.4-36
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 9
This soil and sand are not merely lifeless material to be carted away by thousands of 22-wheeler truck
trips. The soil is actually a "wood wide web" of millions of species of fungi and bacteria that live
symbiotically with the tree roots, swapping nutrients ( carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen, water, and
allelochemicals) between the soil and roots, forming a vast, interconnected web of organisms throughout
the woods.
2.4-37
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 9
The parcel contains Department of Environmental Protection (DEC) regulated wetlands. Although the
proposed project is an estimated 200' feet away from the wetlands and therefore not subject to direct
regulation by the DEC and Southold Town Code §275-12 regarding activities within I 00 feet of a wetland,
the enormity of this excavation project will likely cause negative impacts to the wetlands when rain,
wind, or storms wash the loosened and excavated soil and sand downslope into the wetlands.
2.4-38 45179
As a community, we should be protecting our wetlands. According to the U.S. government, wetlands
provide habitat for thousands of species of aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals. Wetlands are
valuable for flood protection, water quality improvement, shoreline erosion control, natural products,
recreation, and aesthetics.
2.4-39
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 10
Wetlands are among the most productive habitats on earth providing shelter and nursery areas for
commercially and recreationally important animals like fish and shellfish, as well as wintering grounds for
migrating birds. Coastal marshes are particularly valuable for preventing loss of life and property by
moderating extreme floods and buffering the land from storms; they also form natural reservoirs and
help maintain desirable water quality.
2.4-40
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 11
A short- and long-term effect of the proposal is the complete destruction of almost 5 acres of pristine
coastal oak-beech forest, and collateral damage to an additional 9 acres of coastal oak-beech forest
2.4-41
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 45242
c) The DEIS at page 120 quotes Edinger et al (2014)21 and states that this "ecological community has a
rarity ranking of G4 and S3 indicating that this community type is considered "apparently secure" globally
and "vulnerable" in New York State, i.e., vulnerable to disappearing from New York (but not currently
imperiled) due to rarity or other factors. - d) This statement is misleading; implies that the coastal
oak-beech forest is not rare. Coastal or maritime oak-beech forest has a ranking of S3 and is considered
"rare" in New York as currently defined by the DEC.
2.4-42
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 13
These rare oak-beech forests, located on north-facing bluffs, are remnants of the glaciers retreat 18,000
years ago. These untouched forests are part of our collective history, and all efforts should be made to
retain them.
2.4-43
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 13
According to the DEIS, all (100%) of the remaining 8 to 9 acres of the coastal oak-beech forest left
standing on the SYC parcel would be degraded through "forest edge effects".
2.4-44
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 13
The 5 acres of prime coastal oak-beech forest proposed to be removed are in the very heart of the 14-
acre section of the oak-beech forest, not at the edge. Removal of this centrally located portion of forest
will cause 100% of the remaining ring of coastal oak beech forest to be within 195' of a forest edge.
2.4-45
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 14
Certain species are adapted to living at forest edges, the classic example of which is the white-tailed deer
in North America.25 Forest edges overtaken by edge-dwelling white-tailed deer lead to even further
destruction of the native plant population, because the deer prefer to eat the native plant species.
Southold already has a major deer overpopulation problem (and tick problem) with the nation's highest
per capita deer population, an estimated six to ten times as many deer as the local ecosystem can
sustain,26 and so measures should be taken to reduce the deer population, not increase it.
2.4-46
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 14
After the growing deer populations eat much of whatever native plant species are left, there is more
room for invasive plants and trees to grow, reducing the number of native insects and caterpillars, which
reduce the number of native bird populations requiring caterpillars to eat, and so on, in a downward
spiral.
2.4-47
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 14-15
g. If that is not bad enough, according to the DEIS the "edge effect" results in an increase in invasive bird
species such as European starlings, house sparrows and brown-headed cowbirds. A rise in European
starlings can result in a reduction in native bird species for which they compete for nesting space - so can
lead to a decline in native cavity-nesters such as woodpeckers and flycatchers.
2.4-48
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 15
As described on page 26 of the ECIA, a section of the neighboring Southold Town Mill Road Preserve will
also be impacted by "forest edge effect" due to removal of trees on the SYC parcel.
2.4-49
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 15
Southold Town has a duty to protect the Town Preserve from these negative impacts. The Mill Road
Preserve was purchased using public funds.
2.4-50
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 15-16
c.) We agree with the detrimental impacts of "forest edge effect," but question why the 195- foot line of
demarcation is used as a hard and fast rule throughout the DEIS. The DEIS' assumption of 195 feet is
apparently from the ECIS, which at page 23 states: "Studies have found that the changes in microclimate
in forests (i.e., ambient light, air and soil temperatures, wind speed, relative humidity, etc.) occur up to
195' from the north- and east-facing forest edges. (Gehlhausen et al, 2000; Harper et al, 2005)." -
d.) We are not experts in this area, but our brief perusal of the topic indicates that there are many,
often conflicting, variables, and different types of edge effects; many factors need to be considered such
as climate, geography, tree species, tree height, etc.; and the 195' distance may be understated.
2.4-51
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 16
The microclimate of a forest is just one criterion. A U.S. Department of Agriculture report that cites both
Gehlhausen and Harper says that for microclimate impacts, edge effects were measured from 40'
minimum to 775' maximum. Bird response was impacted by forest edge effect from 150' to 1,000'.
Mammal response was observed from about 110' to 300'. Invasive plant response was observed from
about 20' to 300'. Nowhere is 195' mentioned as a rule of thumb.
2.4-52
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 16
According to one researcher, while the extent of edge effects on abiotic (non-living) conditions such as
temperature, humidity, wind, light, etc. might only reach up to 25 -50 meters into the forest, forest-
dependent species can be affected at much greater distances. For instance, mammals can be negatively
affected up to 400 meters into the forest, while the effect on beetles can reach up to 1 km,
demonstrating that edge effects could drastically reduce the amount of suitable habitat for forest-
dependent species.
2.4-53
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 20
As habitats become more fragmented, the remaining habitat patches (core areas) can become too small
to support species that need a large area to survive. So, while some suitable habitat may remain, it might
not be big enough to support all the species characteristic of that habitat type. Greater fragmentation
increases the distance between habitat patches, making it harder for individuals to move from one patch
to another. Potential movement routes can also be fragmented - e.g., by a road that cuts through a strip
of woodland. This leaves the remaining population in each habitat patch very isolated, which also leads
to inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity. Populations thus become more vulnerable and can be more
easily lost if a catastrophic event arises. Fragmentation also prevents individuals of the same species
migrating from other patches to replace the lost population.
2.4-54
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 20
Fragmentation of a forest can occur even when a single road is cut through a forest, splitting it into two
sections that insects and animals cannot easily cross. The fragmentation proposed here is the
construction of a Walmart-size pair of buildings along with parking, impermeable surfaces, etc. amid the
coastal oak-beech forest, not only removing five acres of habitat outright but making life harder in the
remaining acres
2.4-55
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 20-21
Limited to smaller, separated habitats, the quality of life in the fragmented portions would be severely
diminished even though the actual habitat of those surrounding areas
was not physically impacted. Eventually the populations in for the "forest edge" section and the
fragmented sections will dwindle.
2.4-56
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 23
Roughly two-thirds of the 634 trees proposed to be eliminated are oak trees - "keystone" trees which
form the stable base of complex, highly connected food webs. These vital species are called "keystone"
native plants because, like the keystones that supported ancient Roman arches, the ecosystems they
inhabit would collapse without them.
2.4-57
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 23
According to Dr. Doug Tallamy, Ph.D. entomologist at the University of Maryland and author of many
books, our native Long Island insects evolved over thousands of years with our native plants. Most insect
larvae (caterpillars) are very specific about which plant species they will feed on. Many people know the
story of the monarch butterfly caterpillar's dependence on milkweed plants, as an example. But the same
is true for many other insects and larval caterpillars. 97% of all birds ( excepting waterbirds) rear their
young exclusively on soft caterpillars, since baby birds are unable to digest seeds, berries, or full-grown
insects like adult birds can. So, with no native plants, there are no insect larvae caterpillars, birds cannot
raise their young. No caterpillars, no songbirds.
2.4-58
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 25
Our native oaks have developed survival adaptations to the long, dry summers. Primary to this survival is
the development and characteristics of its root system. When an acorn first sprouts, there is rapid root
development and very little growth above ground. This initial root is a taproot extending deep
underground for dependable moisture. The tree's first few years are focused on establishing a deep
sustaining root system. Once this has happened, greater foliage and above ground growth takes place. As
the oak grows, the tap root is outgrown by an extensive lateral root system that spreads horizontally out
from the trunk to and well beyond the drip line, sometimes as much as 90 feet.46 In some case oak roots
can extend to three times the size of the tree canopy.47 Most of the roots are within the upper three
feet of soil.
2.4-59
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 25
Oaks also help to manage our watersheds. Again, because of their large root systems, they hold water
better than those with tiny root systems, such as lawns. And, when it rains hard, the huge canopy of an
oak softens and filters the rain (25-100 gallons of water can cling to the leaves of a large oak tree) so it
doesn't compact the soil. Compacted soil doesn't absorb water as well, creating runoff. An oak's root
system absorbs much of the water
2.4-60
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 26
SYC' s report, the Ecological Conditions & Impact Analysis dated October 2022
ECIA"), acknowledges the benefits provided by the oak-beech forest which would be
lost if this project proceeds. At page 23, it states: " Ecosystem services provided by forests
include providing habitat for birds and other wildlife; maintaining groundwater and
surface water quality; soil and sediment stabilization; removal of air pollutants such as
nitrogen and sulfur oxides, ozone, volatile organic compounds ( VOCs), andparticulates;
atmospheric carbon uptake; and groundwater recharge. The loss of these S. 0 acres of
forest will result in a reduction of the ecological benefits and ecosystem services
provided by these forests and contributes incrementally along with other forest losses in
the Town and Mattituck Creek watershed to an overall loss of forest ecosystem services. "
2.4-61
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 27
White Oak acorns are a preferred food source for many mammals and larger birds. The tree provides
good cover for birds and mammals. Leaves persist longer than many deciduous trees, providing cover.
The twigs are used as nesting materials by both birds and mammals.
2.4-62
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 27
Due to the centuries it would take to replace mature oak trees, they are literally irreplaceable. The Town
should not approve of a plan to cut acres of this rare New York forest to be cut down.
2.4-63
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 28
The American beech is an important food source for many wildlife species. This tree supports 126
caterpillar species, including the early hairstreak, a rare species in need of conservation. The early
hairstreak caterpillar can only feed on the leaves of beech and beaked hazel; without those food sources,
the species would disappear. Trees that support many caterpillar species, in tum, provide more food
options for terrestrial birds who rely on caterpillars to rear their young. 56
2.4-64
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 28
e.) The early hairstreak butterfly is found in a narrow band from northern Wisconsin across southeastern
Canada to Maine and from there scattered through the Appalachian range from New England to northern
Georgia. It is considered one of the rarest of butterflies throughout its range and in several states and
provinces this species is critically imperiled. The habitat is mature deciduous and mixed woods containing
its host plants, American beech, and beaked hazelnut.
f.)More research needs to be done on the whether the early hairstreak is present at the SYC site on its
beech tree host.
2.4-65
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 28-29
As a nut-producing tree, beeches are also an important food source for many mammals and seed-eating
birds. Beechnuts are high in protein and fat, making them a high-quality source of nutrition. Bear, deer,
squirrels, chipmunks, foxes, blue jays, ducks, and more all utilize the fruit of American beech. If you see
claw marks in the smooth, thin beech bark and piles of broken branches, then you've evidence of where
bears have climbed to access the nuts.
2.4-66
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 29
Other tree species proposed to be eliminated from the SYC site, such as maples, black cherries, and
hickories are within the top eight Keystone Plant Genera in Eastern Temperate Forests in Ecoregion 8.
2.4-67
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 29
Red maple hosts about 300 species of caterpillars and provides food and dwelling for a variety of birds
and mammals. Furthermore, the Red Maple's early bloom time makes it an essential nectar and pollen
source for pollinators as they emerge in the spring.
2.4-68
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 29
Pignut hickory, a member of the walnut family, hosts over 200 species of caterpillars, provides food for
many songbirds and mammals, and has a lifespan of 200- 300 years.
2.4-69
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 29
One of North Fork Audubon Society's major concerns with the proposal is, of course, the detrimental
impact to bird populations. The Audubon Society's mission is to protect birds and the places they need,
today and tomorrow. The greatest global threat to birds is habitat loss and degradation.
2.4-70
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 29
The outright destruction and removal of acres of natural habitat, and degradation of many more acres
through "forest edge effect", will result in an irreparable damage to the already dwindling bird
population.
2.4-71
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 30
The DEIS at page x and at page 118, Existing Conditions, says that 91 bird species were observed or
expected at the SYC site. The ECIA at page 12 says that approximately 84 bird species were observed or
are expected to occur on the site. eBird, an app used by
birdwatchers to record their bird sightings, showed that at the adjacent Mill Road
Preserve, 72 birds had been seen there as of January 2023 and six months prior. The
ECIS and eBird lists largely overlapped, but some birds were on the eBird list and not on the ECIS list and
vice versa. With the two lists combined, the total bird species observed at the site was 89, of which 58
breed there (meaning they need those caterpillars to feed their young.)
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 30
Also, as John Wittenberg, a North Fork Audubon Society member, pointed out in his
May 15, 2023 email to the Planning Department, many of the DEIS's conclusions
reached concerning birds are based on the NYS Bird Atlas, a 20-year-old document.
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 31
b. The DEIS at page 131 states: "Consultations were undertaken with the New York Natural Heritage
Program (NYNHP) and in correspondence dated December 1, 2020, the NYNHP indicated the piping
plover (Charadrius melodus), a New York State threatened species, is the only_record of a known
occurrence of a rare or state-listed animal or plant or significant natural community on or in the vicinity
of the site (Appendix 1 in Appendix N of this DEIS). Piping plovers nest at Breakwater Beach located more
than 0.5 miles away on the west side of Mattituck Inlet. There is no breeding or foraging habitat for
piping plover present on the site." The DEIS at page 140 then concludes, "As such, there would be no
impacts to piping plover." - c. This statement is incorrect. First, as described in more detail below, the
piping plover is certainly not the only record of a known occurrence of a rare or state-listed animal or
plant on or in the vicinity of the site. According to our analysis, there have been observed or are likely to
be present not just one, but 20 rare or state-listed species of birds. There are five state-listed species of
bats. Instead of one species of amphibian, there could be up to six, and more research needs to be done.
There are not just one, but up to six species of turtles that could be impacted. There are an unknown and
unaddressed number of rare or state-listed plants, butterflies, and insects, that could be impacted.
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 31-32
The statement that "there is no breeding or foraging habitat for piping plover present on the site"
depends on the definition of "site". It is true that the Piping Plover would likely not forage in the oak-
beech forest area. However, the wetlands portion of the SYC parcel, about 200' away from the proposed
excavation site, is foraging habitat for the Piping Plover. They fly up and down both sides of Mattituck
Inlet to forage for freshwater and marine invertebrates, typically within about 16 feet of the water's
edge. They favor coastal beaches, sandflats, and mudflats that are exposed during low tide. Loose sand
from excavation could slide down into the wetland as a result from rain or storms and damage the
wetlands, ruining this foraging habitat.
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 32
Approximately 15-18 active Piping Plover nesting sites are monitored each year at locations on the Sound
and Peconic Bay sides of Southold Town, and Mattituck Inlet is always the most productive breeding site
on the North Fork. For this purpose, Breakwater Beach and Bailie Beach are considered part of the same
site.
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 32
Breakwater Beach is crowded with beachgoers, and the Piping Plovers might nest within dozens of feet of
the boardwalk and the lifeguard stand. However, Breakwater Beach is still the most productive breeding
ground for Piping Plovers on the North Fork. The reason for number of Piping Plover at this site is the
excellent feeding grounds in the mudflats nearby in Mattituck Creek.
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 33
The Piping Plover is not the only bird that needs to be addressed. In addition to
Endangered species, the other categories ( Threatened, Special ConceM63, and High
Priority Status of Greatest Conservation Need) appear to qualify as " New York
threatened species" or " state- listed animal or plant". Note, the DEC is proposing to revise
its lists and is evaluating all High Priority Species of Greatest Conservation Concern for
potential listing
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 33
The state-protected birds include those found on the actual SYC site as described in Table 21 of the DEIS
report, those documented on eBird as being recently observed at Mill Road Preserve, Mattituck Creek,
and other Mattituck locations, and those listed as being in Mattituck Creek according to the EPA-funded
2021 Mattituck Creek Marsh Conservation Report.
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 34
An eBird report generated indicated the observed presence of 117 birds in the eBird
"Hotspot" called Mattituck Creek Waterway Access site as of January 202 3. These are in addition to the
68 birds observed by eBird users at the Mill Road Preserve "Hotspot" site and the birds observed onsite
at the SYC property by the DEIS consultants. This list includes more waterbirds and shorebirds but also
significant overlap with the DEIS list and Mill Road Preserve eBird list. Of these, sixteen (16) species are
listed by the DEC as Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern species, and two are on the list of High
Priority Species of Greatest Conservation Need. An additional three are listed as high priority species by
other organizations besides the DEC, and one species was extirpated (locally extinct) in New York State
for 100 years but is making a comeback.
2.4-80
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 34
a.) According to eBird data, Roseate Terns have been documented on the North Fork, including 30
sightings at Breakwater Beach in Mattituck, one sighting at Bailie's Beach in Mattituck, and in Riverhead
on L.I. Sound. In the last 30 days (prior to April 15, 2023) the Roseate Tern was observed at Mattituck
Creek, according to eBird. - The DEIS has not addressed this Endangered bird.
2.4-81
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 35
Another Endangered bird species, according to the DEC, is the Peregrine Falcon, which we think would be
directly harmed by the SYC project. New York Threatened Species including the Bald Eagle and Northern
Harrier would also be impacted by the SYC project. New York Species of Special Concern including the
Cooper's Hawk, Northern Goshawk, Osprey, Red-Shouldered Hawk, and Sharp-Shinned Hawk would be
negatively impacted by the SYC proposal. These birds are in the group of birds known as raptors, birds of
prey, which generally eat either other birds, mammals, or fish.
2.4-82
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 35
c.) The Peregrine Falcon was not observed at the SYC site by the DEIS consultants.
- d.) In the last 30 days alone (prior to April 15, 2023) there were 15 sightings of Peregrine Falcons
recorded in eBird within a 30-mile radius of Mattituck Inlet. The closest sighting was less than 0.5 miles
west of Mattituck Inlet, between Bergen Avenue and Long Island Sound, at the end of March 2023.
Peregrine Falcons were also observed in the last 30 days at Southold School, Hallock State Park on Sound
Avenue in Laurel, Orient Beach State Park, and Indian Island State Park in Riverhead. Two observations
were made on different days by different people at Orient Point County Park, and two at EPCAL
(Grumman) in Calverton, with additional sightings at the Elizabeth Morton National Wildlife Refuge in Sag
Harbor, in Gardiner's Bay, and across the Sound on the Connecticut coast.
2.4-83
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 35-36
Going beyond the last 30 days, there were 29 recorded sightings of the Peregrine Falcon in eBird, from
Calverton to Orient Point from September 2017 to March 2023. Four of these were at a location in
Mattituck less than 0.5 miles west of Mattituck Inlet, while others were at sod farms in
Riverhead/Doctors' Path, Harbes Family Farm, and Peconic NY. For all of Suffolk County, eBird has
recorded 4,588 observations of the Peregrine Falcon, with 257 photographs uploaded.
2.4-84
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 36
The coastal oak-beech forest is an ideal habitat for this "Duck Hawk" since it is close to a waterway,
where they can prey on waterbirds. The tall trees on the bluff are an ideal high spot for them to observe
prey before swooping down for the kill. At Mattituck Creek, eBird has recorded the presence of 117 bird
species including 7 species of duck, 8 species of gull, 3 species of merganser, 3 species of loons, several
species of geese, and many other waterbirds and land birds that would be ideal prey for Peregrine
Falcons.
2.4-85
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 37
As this falcon has been observed multiple times in the vicinity, including several
times less than 0. 5 miles west, further research needs to be done into the DEC and
U.S. Fish & Wildlife regulations and prohibitions regarding destruction of
probable habitat.
2.4-86
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 37
a.) The Endangered Black Tern is not listed on the DEIS list of birds, nor on the eBird list at Mill Road
Preserve. - b.) According to eBird, it has been observed thousands of times in Suffolk County, mostly on
the south shore and South Fork.
2.4-87
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 37
"It has been observed twice at Breakwater Beach. Once was in June of 2020. The field notes indicate it
was seen as part of Group for the East End's plover/tern monitoring...The second observation was at
Breakwater Beach in August 2022."
2.4-88
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 38 The Short-Eared Owl is not listed on the DEIS list of birds, nor on the eBird list at Mill Road Preserve.
2.4-89
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 38
The nearby open agricultural areas and grasslands would be ideal hunting habitat. They (short-eared owl)
also hunt along fresh, salt, and brackish marshes and wetlands along coastal areas, where they target
shorebirds, terns, small gulls, and other seabirds. 67 Therefore, the Mattituck Creek area is potential
habitat.
2.4-90
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 38
According to eBird it (short-eared owl) has been observed 417 times and photographed 68 times in
Suffolk County. It has not been observed close to Mattituck Inlet but been observed almost 300 times in
Calverton, and at farm fields in Riverhead near Route 105, at Narrow River Road and other locations in
Orient, and on the South Fork.
2.4-91
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 38
The proposed destruction of habitat may also impact other DEC-listed bird species such as the
Endangered Golden Eagle. While the Golden Eagle is not on the eBird lists as having been sighted at Mill
Pond Preserve or at Mattituck Creek, there have been anecdotal sightings on the North Fork. It has been
observed and photographed in Mattituck along the L.I. Sound bluff: about 0.8 miles west of the SYC site,
and has been seen in Cutchogue and Greenport.
2.4-92
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 38
According to eBird data it has been observed elsewhere in Suffolk County 22 times, with 10 photographs
taken by three different individuals. Four of the photos were taken in November 2022 on the Montauk
Highway in Hampton Bays and four were taken in Calverton on April 10, 2023, with the other photos
taken in Setauket; and has been seen at the sod farms in Riverhead.
2.4-93
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 39
Like Bald Eagles and Ospreys, the oak-beech forests are an ideal place for Golden
Eagle habitat due to the large, tall trees that would be able to support the weight of
the nests. Also, the oak forests would be an ideal hunting location for squirrels,
rabbits, raccoons, and even young deer.
2.4-94
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 40
The Northern Harrier, with a DEC-listed status of Threatened, is not on the DEIS list of 90 or so birds.
However, it is on the eBird list of birds seen at the Mattituck Creek hotspot.
2.4-95
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 40
According to eBird, within 0.5 miles west of Mattituck Inlet, it has been seen about 80 times at Macari
Vineyards, Bergen Avenue, Cooper's Farm, and other Mattituck locations. it has been observed at
Breakwater Beach, Bailie's Beach, and the Mattituck Creek DEC Access. East of Mattituck Inlet, it has
been seen at Mill Lane, Soundview Avenue, Sea Aire Lane, and Landcraft Garden Foundation.
2.4-96
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 40
The Northern Harrier has been seen hundreds of times at the sod farms and other farms in Riverhead at
Osborne Ave., Edwards Ave., Roanoke Avenue, near Roanoke Vineyards, and near Route 105 in
Northville. It has been observed over 150 times at or near the North Fork Preserve on Sound Avenue in
Riverhead near Church Lane, and about the same number of times in the vicinity of Hallock State Park
and Hallockville Farm Museum; on Route 25 in Jamesport and Mattituck, at Laurel Lake in Laurel, at
Husing Pond Preserve, James Creek and Marratooka Pond to the south in Mattituck. Further east it has
been seen in Cutchogue at Elijah's Lane, Alvah's Lane, Oregon Road, and at points further east on the
North Fork.
2.4-97
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 40
Given the number of times it has been seen just west and just east of the SYC property, and at
Breakwater Beach, Bailie's Beach and Mattituck Creek, it seems very likely that the Northern Harrier is
present on the SYC property.
2.4-98
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 40
Bald Eagles, with a DEC-listed status of Threatened, are not on the list of 89 birds seen at the SYC parcel
but are on the eBird list of 117 birds observed at Mattituck Creek.
2.4-99
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 41
According to eBird, Bald Eagles have been seen across the North Fork including at Breakwater Beach in
Mattituck, Landcraft Garden Foundation in Mattituck, Hallock State Park on Sound Avenue in Laurel,
Husing Pond Preserve in Mattituck/Laurel, Laurel Lake Preserve, Oregon Road in Cutchogue, Downs Farm
Preserve in Cutchogue, and North Fork Preserve on Sound Avenue in Riverhead, among others.
2.4-100
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 41
In eBird, there have been over 11,000 sightings of Bald Eagles in Suffolk County, and of these, 4,137
recorded sightings from Calverton through Orient Point. These include 147 sightings at Hallock State
Park, 2 at the Hallockville Farm Museum, 7 at Mattituck locations east of Hallock Farm Museum, 98
observations within 0.5 miles west of Mattituck Inlet, 7 at Breakwater Beach, 2 at Cooper's Farm, 8 at
Mattituck Creek, 2 at the Love Lane boat launch at the south of Mattituck Creek, 8 to the immediate east
of Mattituck Creek, 18 at Marratooka Pond in Mattituck, and so forth.
2.4-101
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 41
Not recorded in eBird; they have been many additional times in the Mattituck Creek area. On April 16,
2023, alone, six Bald Eagles were seen in a single day along Mattituck Creek, likely three pairs competing
over territory. They have been seen flying along the bluff line in Mattituck along L.I. Sound between
Mattituck Inlet and Hallock State Park, on Old Sound Avenue near Factory Avenue in Mattituck, flying
above Route 48 in Cutchogue, and on the Main Road in Cutchogue near the Valero gas station, among
other locations.
2.4-102
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 42
According to the DEIS at page 126, of the 91 estimated total bird species observed or expected to live in
the SYC site, 58 bird species are expected to breed there. Among those expected to live year-round and
breed in the SYC oak-beech forest are the Cooper's Hawk, with a DEC status of Special Concern.
2.4-103
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 42
Cooper's Hawks have been documented over 3,100 times from Calverton through Orient Point, including
94 times at Hallock State Park, 22 times in areas just east of Hallock State Park, 3 times at Macari
Vineyards, 84 times less than 0.5 miles west of Mattituck Inlet, 5 times in other areas just west of
Mattituck Inlet such as the Captain Kidd Estates, four times at Mattituck Creek, four times at Cooper's
Farm, once at the former Waldbaum's supermarket plaza now known as Mattituck Marketplace, ten
times at Marratooka Pond, and dozens of other times around Mattituck.
2.4-104
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 42-43
The site's Coastal Oak-Beech forest provides suitable, but not optimal, nesting habitat due to the relative
absence of shrub cover. During the winter months, both species frequent residential areas to hunt for
songbirds at bird feeders and during any season, are expected to utilize the subject site as foraging
habitat. While the proposed action would result in a loss of foraging habitat and degradation of habitat
quality for Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), these species
would likely continue to hunt the human-tolerant songbirds and doves that could be expected on the
developed portion of the property and the remaining Coastal Oak Beech and successional woodlands.
2.4-105
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 43
The DEIS' conclusion is that the outright loss of habitat and degradation of remaining nesting and
foraging wooded habitat is something that the Cooper's Hawk will just have to live with. We disagree;
with the population springing back from the damage caused by DDT, we as a community should be
preserving these large tracts of deciduous forest for them.
2.4-106
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 43
Another DEC species of Special Concern is the Sharp-Shinned Hawk. The DEIS at page 127 (Table 21)
states that the Sharp-Shinned Hawk was not actually observed at the SYC site by the DEIS consultants but
was expected to be present. According to Table 21, it is expected to be a year-round resident of the SYC
property, but not expected to breed there
2.4-107
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 43
According to eBird data, the Sharp-Shinned Hawk has been observed at Mill Road Preserve, on West Mill
Road, at Mattituck Creek, at Breakwater Beach, and at Bailie Beach. It has been observed over 100 times
in Mattituck, about 70 of them within 0.5 miles west of Mattituck Inlet, and several times at Macari
Vineyards, and to the east of Mattituck Inlet at Landcraft Garden Foundation and Oregon Road. It has
seen over 100 times at North Fork Preserve, over 60 times at Hallock State Park and Hallockville Farm
Museum, and dozens of times at Long Creek, Busing Pond Preserve, and Manatooka Lake in Mattituck,
and many other locations across the North Fork.
2.4-108
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 45
This bird is not on the DEIS list, but is a DEC Species of Special Concern.
2.4-109
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 45
According to eBird, 21 of these were observed at Bailie Beach in Sept. 2021. The field notes say "2, 19
moving west."
2.4-110
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 45
It has been seen dozens of times at the Riverhead sod farms near Doctor's Path and Route 105, at the
Iron Pier Beach area, 8 times at the North Fork Preserve, 4 times at Hallock State Park, 14 times
immediately west of Mattituck Inlet including Cooper's Farm, at Bailie's Beach, on Westphalia Ave. just
south of Mattituck Inlet, and other Mattituck locations including Marratooka Lake, Mattituck High
School, Deep Hole Creek, and Long Creek. It has also been seen at Laurel Lake, in Cutchogue, Goldsmith
Inlet and other locations around the North Fork.
2.4-111
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 46 This bird (Red Shouldered Hawk) is not on the DEIS list but is a DEC Species of Special Concern.
2.4-112
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 46
According to eBird, the Red-Shouldered Hawk has been seen several times just west of Mattituck Inlet, in
the vicinity of Coopers Farm, as well as other locations around Mattituck such as Veteran's Memorial
Park. It has been seen 21 times at North Fork Preserve, at Laurel Lake Preserve, Hallock State Park,
Oregon Road, Arshamomaque Pond Preserve, and other locations on the North Fork.
2.4-113
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 46
It prefers an open subcanopy, which makes hunting easier. The open subcanopy of the SYC site would be
ideal habitat.
2.4-114
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 47
In 2020, there were 14 active Osprey nests in Mattituck Creek. According to the 2021 study Marsh
Conservation Planning for Mattituck Creek, Mattituck NY, for Mattituck Creek, 82 these 14 nests
produced 32 young.
2.4-115
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 48
According to Group for the East End, in 2022 there were 18 Osprey nests along Mattituck Creek.83 Two
new nests have been observed by North Fork Audubon in April 2023, so the current total is 20 nests,
although the site continues to be monitored as there may be more breeding pairs in the coming weeks.
2.4-116
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 48
According to Group for the East End, in 2022 there were 18 Osprey nests along Mattituck Creek. Two
new nests have been observed by North Fork Audubon in April 2023, so the cmTent total is 20 nests,
although the site continues to be monitored as there may be more breeding pairs in the coming weeks.
2.4-117
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 48
On Table 21, on page 128 of the DEIS' list of birds expected at the SYC site is the
American Woodcock, which is listed as breeding on the SYC site and as a year-round
resident. While not on the official DEC lists, the DEC states that it has been recognized
by other organizations as a species of concern, and so protecting it is a high priority.
2.4-118
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 49
b. According to eBird, there have been 486 American Woodcock sightings from Calverton east to Orient
Point. These include four in the Peconic River area in Riverhead, 91 at the North Fork Preserve on Sound
Avenue in Riverhead, 8 at Hallock State Park on Sound Avenue, 10 at locations within a mile west of
Mattituck Creek, one at Cooper's Farm, one at Mill Road Preserve, two on West Mill Road in Mattituck, 7
at other Mattituck locations, and about 150 sightings in Cutchogue, Peconic, Southold and Greenport.
2.4-119
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 49
The Willow Flycatcher and Wood Thrush are also listed as breeding at the SYC site on the DEIS list. As for
the Wood Thrush, "the destruction and fragmentation of forests are major factors in the species' decline.
Partners in Flight placed this thrush on its Yellow Watch List of declining birds, noting a 60-percent drop
in population between 1970 and 2014."
2.4-120
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 49
Many forest dwellers are year-round residents, for example the Downy Woodpecker, Hairy Woodpecker,
Red-Bellied Woodpecker, Red-Headed Woodpecker, and Northern Flicker. All these woodpeckers have
been observed at the SYC site by the DEIS consultants and by eBird users and listed as breeding at the
site, except the Red-Headed Woodpecker which has not been observed and which is on the DEC's list of
Special Concern species.
2.4-121
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 50
The DEIS' Table 21 on page 128 notes the presence of the Eastern Wild Turkey at the SYC - it was
observed there, it breeds there, and is a year-round resident.
2.4-122
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 51
All the above birds (listed on pages 29 - 50) and more are among the roughly 90 species that would lose
outright five acres of their natural habitat, with additional surrounding acreage degraded through forest
edge effects and fragmentation. Their sources of food, be it insects and caterpillars that live in the
destroyed forests, berries, leaves, nuts, etc. would be gone. Nesting areas and hiding areas would be
gone.
2.4-123
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 7
Page 337: What functions and values of the successional field would be degraded or lost with the burying
of vegetation with sand?
2.4-124
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 7
Please update the DEIS will all pertinent information regarding the use of the parcel by the NLEB. The
NLEB status is new information under SEQRA and may require a supplemental EIS.
2.4-125
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 52
According to the Southold Town Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, " Southold is
located on the Atlantic Flyway and its surface waters and adjoining wetlands and islands
serve as wintering grounds for many species of birds, breeding grounds for others,
resting stops for migrating species and permanent homes for resident species. "
2.4-126
James Rich July 10
2023 Email 1 Change of federal status for Northern Long Eared Bats has to be addressed moving forward
2.4-127
Hannah Van
Manen June 2 2023
Email 1
Additionally, I am concerned about the destruction of natural habitat as well as flora and fauna including
but not limited to shellfish, seagrass, trees, wetlands, and other natural resources. How will the Planning
Board weigh the public benefit of this project with the need to preserve natural resources in the midst of
climate change, threats to biodiversity, and erratic weather and flooding that is plaguing the North Fork?
2.4-128
CG Dinda July 9
2023 Email 1
Our very beautiful, yet fragile, environment is struggling to survive an inordinate number of crises--both
natural and man made. We may be unable to completely control the direction of nature, however, we do
have the ability to put our environment before needlessly destructive projects. Please consider the wise,
yet often considered a rather trite bit of advice. SAVE WHATS LEFT!
2.4-129 Annie Correal 1
This development will destroy a rare oak-beech forest, which serves as a habitat for threatened and
endangered species-the box turtle and the northern long-eared bat, among others.
2.4-130
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 42
LOUIS HARRISON:
The simplest and most obvious feature of this proposal, is there is no room for it on the site without
imposing severe unmitigated adverse environmental impacts. Your decision will be consequential. At
stake are the integrity of Mill Road Preserve, wildlife, Mattituck Creek, the clean water productive
maritime resources. We also highly value, and much more. As Lead Agency, you need to reach a
decision that's legally sustainable.
2.4-131
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 43
LOUIS HARRISON:
The DEIS obscures what it should illuminate. It strains credulity. For example, do you really believe that
a stormwater system emptying rainwater from giant metal rooftops into dry wells is superior to a forest's
ecosystem services? Because tree leaves give off water vapor? DEIS in this way, portrays forest loss as a
win.
2.4-132
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 43
LOUIS HARRISON:
The DEIS is deceptive about the extent of future sea level rise inundation on the site. And remember,
rising seawater lifts groundwater along the shore. Groundwater intercepting septic and stormwater
systems could affect Mattituck Creek's water quality in only
2.4-133
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 44
LOUIS HARRISON:
The DEIS misapplies Southold excellent coastal policies. Gives erroneous treatment to the Endangered
Species Act. Downplays the adverse effects on our public investment Mill Road Preserve in favor of
private gain. Ignores that Southold's native forests are the Town's best places for replenishing clean
ground water and
delivering untainted water to our creeks and bays. You can't -- you just can't rely on this document.
2.4-134
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 44
LOUIS HARRISON:
Please require the applicant to provide access to DEC's wildlife units so they can verify presence or
absence of endangered species on the property. A DEC Incidental Take Permit may be required.
2.4-135
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 44
LOUIS HARRISON:
Please request to the applicant consider public purchase of the property's native coastal Oak Beach Park
Forest,...
2.4-136
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 44
LOUIS HARRISON:
...and please prepare the final EIS yourselves using your own consultants.
2.4-137
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 47
BOB DELUCA:
It is simply impossible for this proposal to responsibly meet the environmental review and mitigation
requirements imposed on it and you, under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and your own
Comprehensive Plan. More specifically, given the ongoing development under the current zoning, the
fragile coastal nature of this parcel, the project's adjacency to preserve land, its direct impact on nearby
residences, the vulnerability of the site to future impacts and sea level rise, the extreme nature of site
preparation required and the proposals inescapable impacts associated with 160,000 tons site generated
sand and gravel, twisting through winding residential roads from Mattituck, and all points west.
2.4-138
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 48
BOB DELUCA:
The Planning Board need only look to its own files to see that when a similar proposal for two very large
boat storage buildings was attempted on this site two decades ago, the Board clearly indicated the
proposal was unacceptable due to its extensive excavation, its intrusion into residentially zoned areas, its
massing
of proposed structures, its vulnerable coastal location along the waterfront. That was June 8th of 2000.
Fast forward. 20 years, in the Planning Board can see nearly identical concerns raised by the Suffolk
Planning Commission.
2.4-139
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 49
BOB DELUCA:
Among its many goals, the Comprehensive Plan is unambiguously clear. The Town is to support the
protection of soil and geologic features. Exactly the opposite of the soil and features that this project will
erase, if it proceeds. It's also the Town policy now to protect upland habitat and trees. Exactly the
opposite of the 600 trees destroyed, if this project proceeds. And this Town policy to preserve the
quality of life in residential neighborhoods. And I'm sure you'll hear more about that from others. At the
end of the day, the Planning Board cannot make decisions that are inconsistent with its duly adopted
Comprehensive Plan. And if they are, what was the point in preparing it?
2.4-140
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 53-55
DEBORAH WETZEL / KAREN TESTA:
I believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not adequately address the mitigation
efforts to protect the eastern box turtle. According to table five of the DEIS, the box turtle has been
observed on site.
...
For all of the above stated reasons, the proposed mitigation efforts of conducting sweeps, surveying and
installing barriers to protect the eastern box turtle are ineffectual and absurd. They should not be
considered
mitigation for the impact -- for the adverse impacts of this proposed development.
2.4-141
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 59
PAUL PAWLOSWSKI:
Removing trees is a concern and it should be, and soil and sand. But let's put this in practical sense. This
is a 32 acre piece of property and they're looking to develop roughly two acres. Just over two acres,
100,000 square foot of buildings. That's the equivalent of adding a 3,000 square foot garage on a one
acre piece of property. So, no -- no, it's 7%. So yes, there is that annoyance of trucks going by and
construction and there's never a perfect application.
2.4-142
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 59
PEGGY LAUDER:
This proposal would directly destroy a natural bluff and directly or indirectly destroy all acres of a pristine
coastal Oak Beach Forest classified as rare by New York State. The proposal would eliminate about five
acres of the forest outright, and degrade the entire remaining eight plus acres through collateral impacts
of forest edge effects and fragmentation.
...
The project will create negative impacts on the neighboring Mill Road Preserve, Mattituck Creek,
Mattituck in Long Island Sound and the East End as a whole.
2.4-143
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 60
PEGGY LAUDER:
The DEIS addressed the environmental impact on one endangered bird species, the Piping Plover, and
states that they live over half a mile away on Breakwater Beach, who would not be adversely impacted.
But their foraging area extends up Mattituck Creek and even beyond. And besides the Piping Clover,
there are 13 other birds of protected status documented in the area.
2.4-144
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 61
PEGGY LAUDER:
The DEIS State said 122 species of plants exist on the site, but there's no analysis of how many of these
are on the New York State list of endangered and otherwise protected plants.
2.4-145
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 62
PEGGY LAUDER:
It (DEIS) also mentions one species of New York State protected Salamander that could be impacted by
this project. However, there might be up to six species. It doesn't address the hundreds of species of
butterflies, moths, bees, turtles and bats that may live in the Coastal Oak Beach Forest.
2.4-146
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 62
PEGGY LAUDER:
We urge the Town and Strong's to consider an alternative to preserve this Coastal Oak Beach Forest and
connect it to the neighboring Mill Road Preserve. Thank you.
2.4-147
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 65
THERESA DILWORTH:
So the DEIS says there's 20 species of mammals at the site, of which four are bat species. And that none
of the bats are endangered. The DEIS consultant did not make any on-site visits to check for bats. I made
on-site visits and I find -- I found nine species of bats, not four. In fact, I found all nine bat species that
are known to live in New York State.
2.4-148
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 66
THERESA DILWORTH:
So this device can detect the species of bats automatically. I mean within seconds.
...
It's very similar to the technology used in the Merlin Bird Identification App. For those of you who are
knowledgeable about bird watching. There's a very similar app, which is actually free that you just hold
up. You just hold it up, you record and it will tell you what bird species you're listening to. So it's very
similar to that.
2.4-149
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 68
KEVIN BYRNE:
Probably the second highest amount of property on the Mattituck Inlet is owned by Strong's Marine and
the Strong's family. So they have an equal, almost nearly equal interest and concern for the preservation
of the Mattituck Inlet.
...
We know the Inlet is being polluted by runoff water coming down and draining into the Inlet. We know
that the Inlet has issues with its bottom. It needs to be dredged.
...
I would ask you to consider what was mentioned earlier, about the history of the Strong's family. The
way they've dealt with the Inlet. The way they've handled their properties on the Inlet. The way they've
handled their properties on the Inlet. And I would also remind you or point out to you the Save the Inlet
and Save the Sound people, that if you decline this project, if you decide to not approve it, you will have
done nothing to Save
the Inlet.
2.4-150
Annie Correal June
8 2023 Email 3
Insufficient Study: The DEIS inadequately addresses the environmental impact of removing the sandhill
on Mattituck Creek, and understates the impact of erosion, increased runoff and elevated nitrogen
levels, including the potential loss of wetlands, and the effect on declining fish and shellfish populations.
The storm water plan in the DEIS fails to adequately account for increased rainfall and flooding as a result
of storm events related to climate change.
2.4-151
Annie Correal June
8 2023 Email 3
Inadequate Pollution Control Measures: The DEIS does not sufficiently address comprehensive pollution
control measures to manage an additional 88 large yachts, which will traverse Mattituck Creek for 12
weeks every year and pose risks to water quality, sediments, and biological resources. The addition of
these large vessels heightens the risk of contamination from petroleum products, including oil, fuel, and
chemical byproducts, as well as solvents and antifreeze. The DEIS does not sufficiently address the
increased need for comprehensive pollution control measures with the addition of these vessels,
including proper waste management, spill prevention and response plans. Additionally, the DEIS
overstates how many vessels are active in the marina and downplays the potential impact of 88
additional large vessels, which stand to significantly escalate boat traffic and the toxicity levels of
Mattituck Inlet, which has previously been declared by the DEC as a pathogen-impaired watershed. The
DEIS does not include information on exactly how long the yachts will remain in Mattituck Creek and how
they will be managed before and after being stored (there are only 45 slips at Strong's Marine). Further,
the addition of 88 more motorized large yachts will have a potential detrimental effect on the marine life
of nearby Long Island Sound.
2.4-152
Annie Correal June
8 2023 Email 3
Destruction of Native Forest: The project will result in the removal of 630 trees, including four acres of
native forest, significantly altering the scenic landscape and permanently degrading the area's character.
Donating trees to the town is insufficient as a mitigation measure and does not offset the loss of native
forest and the habitat it provides for dozens of species, including threatened and endangered species.
2.4-153
Annie Correal June
8 2023 Email 3 & 4
Endangered Species at Risk: The development threatens the habitat of at least two endangered species,
the box turtle and the long-eared bat and further study is needed to establish that construction will not
create higher mortality among both species. Additionally, increased boat traffic in and out of Mattituck
Creek would put at risk marine life, including sea turtles, which are at a high risk of injury and mortality
because of boat strikes. Four species of threatened and endangered sea turtles have appeared in larger
numbers in recent years in Long Island Sound. All four species of sea turtles (Atlantic green, loggerhead,
leatherback, and Kemp's ridley) are either threatened or endangered at the state and federal level.
Therefore, they are protected under the Endangered Species Act and New York State Environmental
Conservation laws and regulations. A comprehensive study is needed to assess and mitigate the impact
of an additional 88 large yachts on vulnerable sea turtles, which will be traveling into and out of
Mattituck Creek during key times in the turtles' migration cycle. The impact on endangered piping plovers
has also been understated in the DEIS, with insufficient study of the potential effects of excavation on
their nesting habits. (The ecology expert at the public hearing on 6/5 named "blasting" as a concern for
piping plovers and their nesting habits).
2.4-154
Annie Correal June
8 2023 Email 4
Lack of Independent Evaluation: The project's impact has not been independently evaluated by the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) of the state of New York.
2.4-155
Brian Withers May
11 2023 Email 1
Everyone, or almost everyone, in my neighborhood is against Stong's plan to kill 640 fully grown trees
and haul away a hill of sand (134,000 cubic yards of sand) by Mattituck Inlet. This will cause a disaster.
2.4-156
Lori Panarello May
15, 2023 email 1
In addition to the fact that 653 trees will be cut down, and an insufficient number will be replanted,
wildlife will be completely lost in and around the inlet...
2.4-157
Atsuko Shio May
11 2023 email 1
However, the inlet is currently facing significant threats, including erosion, pollution, and other
environmental pressures. The proposed expansion of Strong's storage buildings would only exacerbate
these threats, potentially causing irreparable harm to the fragile ecosystem of the inlet and surrounding
areas.
2.4-158
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 51
The May 2021 Marsh Conservation Planning Report for Mattituck Creek also provides
a source of threatened birds living at Mattituck Creek. Table 2 on page 10 provides a
"Partial List of Notable Mattituck Creek Bird Species as Identified from eBird, with a
Focus on Threatened and Endangered Species." There may have been changes from 2021
to 2023.
2.4-159
Lainie Doherty May
10 2023 email 1
With the proposed building of yacht storage at the inlet we are ALL very concerned about
overdevelopment in the area and the negative impact it will most certainly have on the wildlife and
environment.
2.4-160
L B Heit July 10
2023 email 1
The real bargain is how many old growth trees and tons of sand does one get to destroy to create a "job".
In the current proposal, the answer seems to be 52 old growth trees (plus tons of sand) per job. That is a
really bad deal for the environment and the Town of Southold.
2.4-161
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 53
The 2011 Long Island Sound Comprehensive Management Plan at page 26 also
recognizes the importance of the Atlantic Flyway and specifically mentions Mattituck
Creek as a stopover site for migrating birds.
2.4-162
Jim Casey July 4
2023 email 1 The damage to the wetlands, trees, fish and sea life would also be considerable.
2.4-163
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 54
The fact that Mattituck Creek is a valuable component of the Atlantic Flyway makes it
that much more imperative that the coastal oak-beech forest be preserved
2.4-164
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 54
The DEIS at page 123 lists 122 vascular plants located at the SYC site. The DEIS does
not address whether any of the plants are listed by the DEC as State-protected, that is
Endangered, Threatened, Rare, or Exploitably Vulnerable
2.4-165
Garrett Cutler July
9 2023 email 1
I am writing to express my deep concerns with Jeff Strong's plan to construct warehouses for large yachts
on Mattituck Creek. Living beside the creek for 26 years, I have witnessed its fragility and the decline in
habitat over time. I am particularly concerned over the potential effects of construction runoff and
increased boat traffic on the wetlands and marine life, particularly on the creek's shellfish. I have seen
firsthand the negative impacts of development, pollution, and invasive species on the clam population in
my hometown of Ipswich, Massachusetts. And I fear that our local shellfish population is at risk of
suffering the same fate.
2.4-166
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 54
The DEIS does not address whether any mushrooms are located at the SYC site
whose habitat would be destroyed by the removal and degradation of acres of coastal
oak-beech forest.
2.4-167
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 55 Both oak and beech trees are excellent host trees for mushrooms.
2.4-168
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 55
According to Mushroom Expert.com, many, many mushrooms are associated with
white oaks.
2.4-169
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 56 Many mycorrhizal mushrooms are associated with the American beech tree
2.4-170
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 56
Oak trees are arguably the most valuable host tree for butterflies because they support so many different
species of butterflies.
2.4-171
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 57 Oaks also support many moths that are an important food source for bats, birds, frogs, and other insects.
2.4-172
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 57
Beech trees are used as food plants by the larvae of over 100 Lepidoptera species ( order of insects
including butterflies and moths).
2.4-173
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 57
Both the American Beech (Fagus grandifolia) and native oaks (Quercus spp.) are in the 20 most valuable
species of woody plants in terms of their ability to support wildlife, according to Dr. Doug Tallamy
2.4-174
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 57 The DEIS does not address the potential impact on NY State-protected butterflies.
2.4-175
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 57
The destruction of these acres of oak-beech forest will result in the loss of habitat for an estimated 24
million to 2.4 billion insects.
2.4-176
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 58
The DEIS does not address the potential impact on NY state-protected insects.
2.4-177
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 58
b. Of these twenty mammal species, the DEIS at page 130 says there are four bat species likely to be
present at the site: Big Brown, Eastern Red, Little Brown, and Northern
Long-Eared.
c. Based on the use of ultrasound bat detection devices, at least nine bat species have been found on the
north side of the neighboring Mill Road Preserve, less than 100' south of the SYC site, as well as from a
neighboring property 10 feet north the SYC site. 107 The nine species include all nine species known to
exist in New York state. The additional five species detected not mentioned in the DEIS are the Indiana
Bat, the Tri-Colored Bat, the Eastern Small-Footed Bat, the Hoary Bat, and the Silver-Haired Bat.
2.4-178
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 58
In the period from May 6 through May 14, 2023, 4,388 bat echolocation calls were detected, of which
2,256 were auto-identified by the device's algorithms as belonging to one of the nine New York species,
averaging about 225 positive species identifications per evening. In the period from May 16 onward,
thousands more bat echolocation calls have been detected. Bat recordings will continue to be taken
nightly, and we suggest that the DEC be brought in to verify the recordings. Details regarding the bat
species detected and their numbers will be provided in a separate report.
2.4-179
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 59
However there appear to be at least 25 species of mammal (including the five additional bat species
detected). So instead of four bat species expected at the SYC site, with two species protected by New
York state, we detected all nine bat species known to exist in New York state, of which five are protected.
There may be additional mammals not listed in the DEIS present as well, but we did not study them.
2.4-180
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 59
The rare Indiana bat, on the federal Endangered List since 1967, was detected at the Mill Road Preserve
and at the neighbors' site 10 feet from the SYC property seven times in a
10-day period ending May 16. This bat, associated with upstate New York, New Jersey, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Midwest states, has not been previously thought to inhabit Long
Island, and so its presence on Long Island, if confirmed, would be an important discovery.
2.4-181
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 59
The Tri-Colored Bat was detected 22 times at the SYC site in the 10-day period. On September 13, 2022,
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service proposed that the Tri-Colored Bat's conservation status be changed to
Endangered.
2.4-182
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 60
We detected the Little Brown Bat 81 times in the IO-day period. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has
announced its intention to upgrade the Little Brown Bat under the Endangered Species Act.
2.4-183
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 60
The Eastern Small-Footed Bat was also observed at the SYC site, and it currently has a status of High
Priority Species of Greatest Conservation Need.
2.4-184
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 60
A letter to the Southold Planning Dept. written by Dr. Kristjen Mets 111 on May 12, 2023 notes that the
Northern Long-Eared Bat "eats mosquitos and local crop pests such as the European corn borer and corn
earworm. Bats are even documented to eat the newly invasive spotted lanternfly, which will eventually
reach the North Fork in the next few summers. The destruction of bat habitat will negatively impact the
Long Island ecosystems and promote the further spread of mosquitoes and agricultural pests."
2.4-185
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 61
The DEIS is outdated. It refers to the Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB) as Threatened. Its status is currently
Endangered.
2.4-186
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 61
The DEIS is outdated in that it refers to restrictions that applied when the NLEB's status was threatened.
Now that the NLEB has been listed as a Federal Endangered species, we understand that the restrictions
on tree-cutting and habitat removal will become more stringent at both the federal U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service level and the DEC level. Since the changes are so new, they need to be studied further.
2.4-187
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 61
The DEIS acknowledges that NLEBs were observed or expected within the SYC site's forest, forest edge,
and successional shrubland habitats and over the wetlands and surface waters of Mattituck Creek. At
page 129, the DEIS states: "The project site may provide habitat for these bat species during the summer
months and migration periods in the spring and autumn. There is growing evidence that northern long-
eared bat also overwinter on eastern Long Island, hibernating in human structures and foraging for
winter-flying moths when temperatures exceed 4°C
[39.2°F] (Hoff, 2019). During the summer months, bats are expected to forage within the site's forest,
forest edge, and successional shrubland habitats and over the wetlands and surface waters of Mattituck
Creek."
2.4-188
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 62
The NLEB has been detected on the neighboring Mill Road Preserve using handheld bat ultrasound
detection devices. Further studies should be done by qualified professionals. We urge the Planning
Department to require qualified bat biologists from the DEC and/or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to
study and verify the presence of Endangered and protected bat species on the SYC site.
2.4-189
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 62 DEIS INCORRECTLY STATES THAT NORTHERN LONG EARED BAT DOES NOT WINTER ON LONG ISLAND
2.4-190
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 62
We believe the DEIS incorrectly characterizes the NLEB as a migrating bat that only spends summers in
Long Island and does not overwinter here. (DEIS at page 129 says they migrate in spring and fall).
2.4-191
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 63 DEIS INCORRECTLY DESCRIBES WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME IMPACT ON NORTHERN LONG EARED BAT
2.4-192
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 63
a. As justification for cutting down deciduous forest habitat, the DEIS implies that the primary threat to
the NLEB is white-nose syndrome (fungal disease), rather than loss of summer habitat.
b. For Long Island, however, the opposite is true.
2.4-193
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 82
ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI:
There's a 24-inch storm drain that is under the City's control that runs straight out of a City through my
bulkhead. And every time it rains puts all of the runoff off Mattituck, off West Road. Straight over my
floating dock and into the water. It pumps all the pesticides and all the green grass, fake stuff that
people use on their lawns up and down the road. That's really something we could talk about if we want
to talk about Save Mattituck Inlet.
2.4-194
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 64 The DEIS states that white-nose syndrome kills bats... The white-nose syndrome does not directly kill bats.
2.4-195
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 64
while upstate New York NLEBs have suffered a 99% decline, mainly due to white nose syndrome, Long
Island bats have been virtually unaffected by white nose syndrome.
2.4-196
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 65 OAK AND OTHER DECIDUOUS FOREST IS PREFERRED HABITAT FOR NORTHERN LONG EARED BAT
2.4-197
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 69
With its tall trees, deciduous and oak forest structure including old growth and young
trees, and location close to wetlands, the SYC would appear to be a good habitat for these
endangered bats, which should not be destroyed. The DEIS' s mitigation proposal to cut
down and remove trees only in wintertime to minimize actual killing of this endangered
species ignores the fact that acres of its habitat would be permanently lost altogether.
2.4-198
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 69
As mentioned above, on September 13, 2022, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued a
Proposed Rule that the Tri-Colored Bat' s conservation status be changed to Endangered.
There was a public hearing on October 12, 2022; we understand the final Ruling would
be effective in September 2023. 131
2.4-199
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 70
The Little Brown Bat, like the Tri- Colored Bat, currently has a DEC status of High
Priority Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will propose to uplist this
bat to Endangered sometime in 2023. 132 We understand from the
DEC that it may be uplisted to Threatened not Endangered and the decision is expected in
September 2023.
2.4-200
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 70 30-YEAR OLD DATA USED TO DETERMINE IMPACTS ON AMPHIBIANS
2.4-201
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 70
The data from the NY Herpetological Atlas is between 25 and 33 years old and has not been updated
recently.
2.4-202
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 71
In New York, the Endangered Tiger Salamander is found only on Long Island with most of the known
breeding colonies restricted to the central Pine Barrens. In the absence of natural pools or ponds, it may
breed in man-made depressions filled with water. 135 Since the salamander spends most of its life
underground, it is hard to know for sure whether the Eastern Tiger Salamander is present at the SYC site.
2.4-203
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 71
Marbled Salamanders, a species of Special Concern, are found in or around deciduous woodlands.
However, water or moist areas are usually close by. These salamanders prefer dry, sandy-soiled habitats
and even rocky slopes, but they also may be found in wet, swampy soils. They usually hide under rocks
and logs on wooded slopes. 136 They breed on land and are also found in vernal pools. 137 Since they
move around only at night, it is possible that there are some Marbled Salamanders in these sandy-soiled,
wooded areas.
2.4-204
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 71-72
Four-Toed Salamanders are found in both moist and dry woodlands, as well as in wooded swamps.
Preferred sites include sandy, acidic deciduous woodlands adjoining red maple swamps. Based on this
habitat description (sandy, acidic, deciduous woodlands), the SYC could be a habitat for this High Priority
Species salamander.
2.4-205
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 72
The DEIS doesn't provide much commentary on these salamander species. Due to the potential presence
of these NY state-protected salamanders, more detailed and current research is necessary.
2.4-206
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 73
We consider this mitigation ludicrously inadequate. In the winter, from October to April, box turtles
hibernate, or more correctly, brumate, 141 by burrowing into loose soil, decaying vegetation, tree
stumps, or animal burrows. In other words the turtles would be hidden from view. Their winter burrows,
called hibernacula, are usually at least six inches deep, but can be as much as two to three feet deep,
particularly if they re-use existing animal borrows.142 Therefore "sweeps" conducted by merely walking
around on six acres will be ineffective.
2.4-207
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 73-74
Elsewhere in the DEIS, it is proposed that trees are cut down and removed only in winter, out of concern
for the Northern Long-Eared Bat. So, if tree-clearing and soil-removal activities occur in the winter to
protect the Northern Long-Eared Bat, there is a high risk of brumating Eastern Box Turtles being killed,
because they will be underground and undetectable.
2.4-208
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 74
Even when not brumating in the winter, the Eastern Box Turtles hide under loose leaf litter, or in
burrows, again up to 2-3 feet underground, to escape from the summer heat and to sleep comfortably at
night. 143 They wait patiently out of sight and come out to walk around only when the weather is good.
In the hot summer, they are active only at dusk and at dawn, except for egg-laying females. So, it is
unlikely that "sweeps" for the turtles would be effective in finding them, even in non-hibernating months.
2.4-209
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 74
Also, the DEIS at page viii and page 18 says that Eastern Box Turtles found during the "sweeps" would be
relocated to other areas not impacted by construction, and that "Silt fencing or other barriers would be
installed around work areas to prevent turtles from returning to construction areas." This is not an
acceptable solution as it ignores an important aspect of Eastern Box Turtle behavior. Box turtles have a
limited home range where they spend their entire life, ranging from 0.5 to 10 acres (usually less than 2
acres).144 Turtles spend their entire lives-which can span over a hundred years-in one small area and, if
moved, they will spend the rest of their life trying to get home. That means crossing through unfamiliar
territory and often dying in the process.
2.4-210
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 74
Not mentioned in the DEIS are the five species of sea turtle that live in Long Island Sound: Loggerhead,
Kemp's Ridley, Green, Leatherback, and Hawksbill. All five species are listed as either endangered or
threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Leatherback and Kemp's ridley turtles are listed as
endangered, while Green, Loggerhead, and Hawksbill turtles are listed as threatened.
2.4-211
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 75
The Kemp's Ridley, an Endangered Species, has often been found in the Mattituck area both east and
west of Mattituck Inlet. In 2016, five cold-stunned sea turtles were found within a few days at Bailie
Beach.147 Since turtles like warm water, it is very possible that they might swim deeper up Mattituck
Inlet near the SYC property.
2.4-212
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 75
Long Island Sound just offshore from Mattituck Inlet is actually a hotspot for sea turtle activity. See the
below map from the New York Marine Rescue Center, Riverhead, NY which shows the unusually high
concentration of sea turtle sightings in L.I. Sound near Mattituck Inlet.
2.4-213
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 76
The increased artificial lighting of an expanded SYC can also imperil the endangered sea turtles. Lighting
near the shore can cause hatchlings to become disoriented and wander inland, where they often die of
dehydration or predation, or get run over or drown in swimming pools.
2.4-214
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 76
We understand that there is a stand of Maritime Cedar Forest along the east side of Mattituck Inlet near
Bailie's Beach, that has been suffering from the effects of erosion, in part due to the wakes and waves
generated by supersized yachts.
2.4-215
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 82
The coastal oak-beech forest is rare and irreplaceable. No amount of money or the passage of time will
make up for this loss. Oak trees can take 100 years to attain maturity and can live to 600 years old.
2.4-216
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 82
The many acres of forest habitat for the Endangered Northern Long Eared Bat and numerous other bird,
plant and animal species, if destroyed, are irreplaceable.
2.4-217
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 83
The LISCMP's (Long Island Comprehensive Management Plan) Recommendation #1 ( out of a total of 50
recommendations) recognizes the Inlet's importance as an economic and maritime center. However, in
the same sentence, it also stresses the preservation of natural resources.
2.4-218
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 83
The New York State Department of State's Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Form describes
Mattituck Inlet as "irreplaceable".
2.4-219
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 84
c. Page 131 of the DEIS states "No endangered, threatened, or rare species or significant ecological
communities were observed during the ecological surveys conducted." In our opinion, this statement in
the DEIS does not adequately address the issue. As described earlier in this report, there are many
examples of species listed as endangered, threatened, special concern or with other protective status
observed on or near the site. New York threatened butterflies, moths and other insects were not
addressed in the DEIS, nor were rare plants, nor the "rare" status of the coastal oak-beech forest itself.
2.4-220
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Ecology 89
We do not think Southold Town should approve any plan which involves major environmental impacts,
including the following:
1. Eliminating a coastal oak-beech forest classified by New
York State as "rare",
2. Increasing the amount of land area or the number of structures in FEMA High-Risk Coastal Erosion
Zones,
3. Destroying acres of prime natural habitat of endangered or threatened species, or species of
environmental concern,
4. Causing great disturbance to the neighbors, and loss of community character.
2.4-221
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 88
MS. SHELLY:
I am very much against the destruction of Mattituck Inlet and the community is there against stealing the
homes and environment of many species of endangered and soon to be endangered, birds, mammals,
reptiles, butterflies, bees, and against destruction of our tree friends that supply us with fresh clean air,
shade and visual beauty.
2.4-222 Reed Super 7.10.23 2
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.
2.4-223 Reed Super 7.10.23 2
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.
2.4-224 Reed Super 7.10.23 8
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.
2.4-225 Reed Super 7.10.23 8
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.
2.4-226
Lucy Cutler 7/7/23
email 1
Strong's Yacht Center proposal now adds two more human-induced threats to the plovers and the health
of our environment: 88 mega yachts traversing a busy, narrow waterway and heated yacht storage
warehouses constructed by destroying a rare oak/ beech forested hillside. The result is likely to cause
stormwater runoff, worsening water pollution and eroding shorelines. These and many other adverse
impacts are not adequately addressed or mitigated in the DEIS.
2.4-227
Lucy Cutler 7/7/23
email 2
The DEIS does not mention that Federally endangered piping plovers and federally endangered roseate
terns nest and forage on Bailie Beach habitat as well as Breakwater Beach- both areas are in close
proximity to the project site.
(Ecological Analysis, page 17)
2.4-228
Lucy Cutler 7/7/23
email 2
The DEIS does not sufficiently document that Federally endangered peregrine falcons and bald eagles
have been regularly observed in the neighboring town-owned Mill Road Preserve and along Mattituck
Creek Inlet. According to birding experts in Southold Town, bald eagles could now, or will in the near
future, be nesting in one of the 634 trees slated for destruction. Of note, eagles prefer to nest in living
trees, including deciduous trees close to water. Bald eagles do not migrate. They begin nesting in mid to
late winter, exactly within the proposed timeline for tree removal and excavation on the subject site.
2.4-229
Lucy Cutler 7/7/23
email 2
The DEIS does not sufficiently document that other bird species listed under the NYS status of Special
Concern include the common nighthawk, common loon, osprey, sharp-shinned hawk and the horned lark-
all of which have been documented by Cornell Ebird lists in or near the project site.
2.4-230
Lucy Cutler 7/7/23
email 2
The DEIS fails to adequately consider the immediate and long-term threats posed to the entire bird
population on the project site, the adjacent Mill Road Preserve and Mattituck Creek. For the birds and
other wildlife, these areas are interconnected, not separate. The DEIS states that approximately 84 bird
species were observed or expected to occur on the project site. (Ecological Analysis, Page 11) but
according to Cornell's Ornithological E. Bird list compiled in January 2023, approximately 117 bird species
have been observed in the neighboring Mill Road Preserve and in the waters and along the beaches of
Mattituck Creek.
2.4-231
Lucy Cutler 7/7/23
email 2
The DEIS further states that bird species that are habitat generalists are "less likely to be adversely
impacted by the proposed action, due to their 'general tolerance for human activity.' (Ecological Analysis
page 27) It is absurd to suggest that the complete destruction of nearly five acres of mature deciduous
forest, and the accompanying construction noise impacts will be "generally tolerated.''
2.4-232
Lucy Cutler 7/7/23
email 2
The DEIS undercuts its assertion quoted in the preceding paragraph by acknowledging that "potential
noise levels during daytime construction hours over
[during] the 12-month construction period ... slightly overlap with the range of the chronic industrial
levels . . . that have been found to impact bird breeding
(productivity and are similar to the change in sound levels that have been found to adversely impact bird
community composition and abundance, foraging and nesting behavior, and body condition." (Ecological
Analysis, page 31)
2.4-233
William Smith &
Dennis Schrader
7/10/23 1
Northern long eared bats have been detected within a three-mile radius of the project site, and piping
plovers within a mile. While the owner claims he will clear trees during a time that will not disrupt the
roosting and nesting periods of these endangered species, no comprehensive plan or timeline has been
presented that will fully mitigate the effects of construction on these vulnerable creatures. Preserving
their habitat in its current state would be far more effective than attempting to implement safeguards
that are inherently flawed.
2.4-234
North Fork
Environmental
Council 7/10/23 1
The DEIS also proposes removing 634 trees, part of a rare coastal oak and beech forest. We do not
believe that planting new trees can mitigate the loss of old established trees on the site with roots that
stabilize and filter the soil and serve as a habitat for birds, Eastern Box Turtles, a Species of Special
Concern in New York, and the endangered Northern Long-Eared Bat.
2.4-235
Jennifer Murray
7/10/23 1
I am opposed to the Strong's Marine Development Project on Mattituck Inlet. I believe that the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately address the potential adverse impact on
multiple threatened and endangered shorebird species breeding and foraging at Mattituck Inlet (in
addition to increased boat traffic, no wake zone concerns, and shoreline degradation.)
2.4-236
Jennifer Murray
7/10/23 2
It is important to mention the federally threatened Least Tern also nests at Mattituck Inlet, and this
species will leave incubated nests and young each time a large vessel goes through the inlet. Too much
activity could not only lead to unviable eggs, nest failure, and predated young, it could cause site
abandonment, where the colony abandons the site completely, leaving eggs and young behind. lastly,
endangered Roseate Terns are found at Mattituck Inlet during migration, and increased traffic of large
yachts could deter Common and Roseate Terns from using this important resting site.
2.4-237
Jennifer Murray
7/10/23 2
The DEIS does not address the population recovery of the Bald Eagle, which can be found along the creek
year round. It is possible a Bald Eagle pair has nested this season within a few miles of the proposed
storage facility, Three pairs of eagles have recently been observed over Mattituck Creek engaged in a
territorial battle. Also not adequately documented is the presence of the recovering River Otter.
Deceased otters were documented in 2022 near Love Lane Boat Ramp and just east of Bailie Beach.
Otter's have been observed foraging in Mattituck Creek in Spring of 2023 .. I encourage further studies be
performed on the presence of above species and how this proposed storage facility could hinder the
population recoveries.
2.4-238 Reed Super 7.10.23 17
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).
2.4-239
Laura Klahre
7/10/23 1
I urge Southold Town to deny the permits needed to build yacht storage buildings along Mattituck Creek
abutting the 27-acre publicly owned Mill Road Preserve. The coastal oak-beech forest covering both
properties is considered a "vulnerable" forest type in New York State and among the wildlife it supports
is the northern long-eared bat (endangered). Northern long-eared bats use forested areas not only for
roosting, but also for foraging and commuting between summer and winter habitat. They emerge at dusk
to fly primarily through the understory of forest areas, feeding mostly on moths, flies, leafhoppers,
caddisflies and beetles. The bats catch these insects while in flight using echolocation or by using gleaning
behavior, catching motionless insects from vegetation.
The final rule reclassifying the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) from threatened to
endangered under the Endangered Species Act took effect on March 31, 2023. The northern long eared
bat is known to occur throughout much of New York State, including Oyster Bay in Nassau County and
the entirety of Suffolk County. As per the Final Rule, the USFWS is committed to reducing the impacts of
disease and protecting the survivors to recover the population. Because of the importance of the Long
Island sub-population, the NYS Department of Conservation is currently developing region-specific
guidance.
2.4-240
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 91
DAVE CHICANOVIC:
I am also a member or a committee member of the Southold Tree Committee. They've reached out to us
and they are going to assure us that there's going to be additional trees being put throughout the Town
of Southold, courtesy, because of the impact that they're affecting us one area. So you talk about getting
rid of some birds and things in one area. They'll be coming to another area in town. That's our mission.
The Tree Committee is to try to keep the way this looked 40 years ago, the same today. That's a
problem. Fortunately with the help of the Town Hall, we are getting better funding and we're able to do
more tree plantings on a yearly basis, which has been fantastic. But again, keeping this area the way we
want it, is a hard job.
2.4-241 Linda Mule 7/10/23 1
the project would cut down over 600 mature trees, which is a climate disaster and a totally unnecessary
destruction of North Fork forestation. To do that, and to excavate 135,000 cubic yards of sand, on the
banks of Mattituck Creek, next to the publicly owned Mill Road Preserve, just to build yacht storage
buildings, is an exercise in the privilege of rich people to ruin the land for the rest of us. This project
threatens the integrity of both the creek, because the contaminants from the boat winterization process
seep into the water, and the preserve, because the destruction of so many trees and the removal of so
much sand will destabilize the surrounding land.
2.4-242
Joni Friedman
7/10/23 1
There is not one iota of public or community benefit nor philanthropy in this project. Only the loss of yet
another landscape, the razing of a pristine ecological safe haven and the disruption of the lives of millions
of humans and animals for the rest of our lives here on the Northfork. The DEIS does not offer sufficient
mitigation as it relates to my concerns as they are short sighted projections with no adequate
comparison with projects already underway or completed. Anticipation of long term detrimental impacts
doesn't enter into this study.
2.4-243 Reed Super 7.10.23 29
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.
2.4-244 Reed Super 7.10.23 29
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."
2.4-245 Reed Super 7.10.23 30
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.
2.4-246
Save the Sound
7/10/23 4
Ecologically the two properties, one privately held and one owned by the public, need to be considered
as one ecosystem to understand their collective and interdependent value to Mattituck Creek and the
adverse impacts posed by the project. Wholesale removal of over four acres of the mature forest on the
applicant's property, a type considered vulnerable in New York, affects the resources belonging to the
public.
2.4-247
Save the Sound
7/10/23 4
Second, the DEIS underestimates the damage of edge effects, primarily because it appears to view them
as "once-and-be-done," rather than continually occurring over the long-term, potentially multiplying and
spreading. The former view may be handy for a developer seeking quick and definable mitigative
solutions, but precise assertions of how many feet into a forest one might find the adverse impacts of
soils drying, changes in soil invertebrate species, adverse effects on fungal relationships between forest
plants, and other edge effects are not so easily arrived at through models and formulae. The DEIS does
not discuss the ecological feedback mechanisms that would occur in nature and continue over long
periods of time.
2.4-248
Save the Sound
7/10/23 4 & 5
INVASIVE SPECIES. One adverse impact of nearby disturbance and opening of the canopy by tree
removals and excavation that can be severe, rapid, long-lasting, and capable of spreading over large
areas is the incursion of invasive species, which opportunistically take advantage of modified soils, added
sunlight, removals of established competitors, and changes in humidity. The western section of the
applicant's property is rife with potential seed stock of invasive plant species that could expand rapidly
into Mill Road Preserve should the proposed project be permitted. Should the aggressively invasive plant
species known to exist on the subject property's western end find conditions at the eastern end and near
Mill Road Preserve favorable because of disturbance and opening of the canopy, the long-term viability
of the forest in sustaining its composition and habitat for wildlife populations could be severely
threatened.
2.4-249
Save the Sound
7/10/23 5
Further, assigning new plantings on the proposed long, high retaining wall to birds, who are expected to
drop seeds into the wall's soil installations via their excrement, according to the DEIS, may be another
way of saying the applicant expects invasive species to take hold and does not intend to do any weeding.
Retaining walls, open to sunlight, hard to irrigate, and without the natural controls of native vegetation
and natural soil components, provide ready conditions for exotic plant invasions, whether aided by bird
poop or not.
2.4-250
Save the Sound
7/10/23 5
The FEIS should specify which plant and animal species are most likely to present the danger of invasion
and by what means the developer would provide mitigation. It is not sufficient simply to state that some
purported small percentage of impact would occur and that similar impacts have occurred in the past.
2.4-251
Save the Sound
7/10/23 5
WIND EXPOSURE. The proposed removal of 630+ mature trees on the applicant's property does more
than directly destroy coastal oak-beech forest classified by New York State as "vulnerable;" it has indirect
adverse impacts on the remaining forest, both on the project site and on public land, by exposing trees to
damage from wind events. Trees that have matured in open environments, such as the trees at the
eastern end of the project site, tend to be thicker and have stronger wood than those that develop in
forest interiors. They therefore are better able to withstand high winds, such as nor'easters. By contrast,
trees that develop in forest interiors, such as those in Mill Road Preserve near the boundary with the
Strong property, tend to grow taller and thinner; their wood is not as strong. They are much more subject
to damage from high winds. The proposed excavation and canopy opening would expose the trees of Mill
Road Preserve, as well as the remaining trees on the applicant's property, to damage and wind-throw.
The results of wind-throw include uprooting and subsequent drying of soil, which retards seedling growth
because of higher soil temperatures. Retarded seedling growth, in return, adversely affects the long-term
viability of a forest because regeneration is curtailed or prevented. The overall effect is to diminish
wildlife habitat and the many other ecosystem services of a native forest.
The developer's proposal to plant trees and shrubs in a strip along the top of a retaining wall is not
adequate mitigation for native forest hardwoods, dominated by keystone species such as oaks. Even
when mature, the plants would not offer the same food and protection to wildlife. At their maximum
height, they never would equal the size of the native hardwoods and cannot offer wind protection equal
to the original hardwoods.
2.4-252
Save the Sound
7/10/23 5 & 6
INCREASED LIGHT EXPOSURE. Night-time lighting at the new storage warehouses, attracting moths, for
instance, would be an attractive nuisance to bats and other insect predators such as screech owls. Even
with adherence to established dark sky standards, the new lighting would attract moths and cause
ambient light to be brighter at night than forest interiors. The edge of Mill Road Preserve closest to the
proposed warehouses no longer would be forest interior; it would be only about 100 feet away from an
opened up, massive, engineered, and lit-up set of structures. Night-time foraging by insect predators,
such as the federally endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), which the applicant's
consultant {at the hearing on June 5, 2023) conceded does use the property, and eastern screech owls
(Megascops asio), could be disrupted by outdoor lighting attending the massive warehouses.
2.4-253
Save the Sound
7/10/23 6
The FEIS should discuss more fully the adverse impacts of increased solar radiation and wind on the
natural forest litter layer, and consequent impacts on soil temperature, seedling regeneration, and
invertebrates and other soil dwelling animals, including burrowers. It should discuss how changes in
forest litter and soils would affect drought conditions in summer and depth of freeze events in winter,
over time, and how those conditions would affect the long-term viability of the forest.
2.4-254
Save the Sound
7/10/23 6
Biological invasions that can be expected from local seed sources and known animal invaders, in reaction
to ecosystem stress, should be discussed thoroughly.
2.4-255
Save the Sound
7/10/23 6
the FEIS should provide a serious discussion of how excavation, tree removal, opening of the canopy to
changes in light, temperature, and wind would affect tree growth, soil maintenance, and wildlife habitat
in the remaining forest community on the applicant's property as well as on the public's property.
2.4-256
Save the Sound
7/10/23 6
The FEIS also should recognize and describe that the expected "forest areas" that intersperse existing
buildings and houses should not be counted as acres of coastal oak-beech forest that would be retained
following construction. Those fragments would not be "forest;" rather, they would be small stands of
surviving trees, all subject to severe edge effects, whose future in the face of increased wind and solar
radiation may be in doubt.
2.4-257
Save the Sound
7/10/23 6
The DEIS incredibly asserts that forest edge effects of the proposed excavation and construction can be
"sealed off" with new plantings. Ecosystems cannot be sealed. They comprise the full set of all
interactions between organisms and the a biotic environment. This assertion of sealing off the project's
impacts from the remaining portions of forest is aligned with the one-and-done concept of planting a
new strip of plants along a new retaining wall and counting it as adequate "mitigation" for forest
destruction and all its attendant impacts.
2.4-258
Save the Sound
7/10/23 7
WILDLIFE HABITAT. There are glaring omissions of wildlife species using the coastal oak-beech forest on
the property and at Mill Road Preserve, such as documented occurrences of the New York State -listed
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus; endangered), the New York State -listed Bald Eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus; threatened), numerous other forest-dependent, area-sensitive bird species (see DEIS
comments submitted by North Fork Audubon Society and others), and common mammal species such as
the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans}, which occupies oak-dominated woods all over Long
Island. Despite its deficiencies, however, the DEIS does prove the forest provides important wildlife
habitat.
2.4-259
Save the Sound
7/10/23 7 & 8
Northern long-eared bat (endangered). Of particular importance is breeding, foraging, and resting habitat
for the endangered northern long-eared bat, as well as other bat species being documented in the forest
in spring and summer 2023 by North Fork Audubon and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC). In comments to the Planning Board by bat researcher Dr. Kristjan
Mets4, it was pointed out that: "habitat loss is a contributing factor for decline and can prevent
population recovery even in those bat colonies that are free of disease. The loss of roosts and foraging
habitat is expected to fragment colonies, increase travel distances, and result in a reduced survival rate
for pups and adult bats. Given the disastrous impact of white-nose syndrome, these bats are vulnerable.
Each additional perturbation will impede individual bats recovering from white-nose syndrome and
prevent populations from returning to stable abundances. As such, it is unacceptable for the DEIS to
state" loss of summer habitat is not recognized as a threat to the conservation of this species." The DEC
currently restricts tree clearing to December through February for protection of this endangered species;
tree-clearing regulations may change, however, as more is learned about the importance of Long Island
forests to this federally endangered species. Any changes in construction schedules must conform to
updated regulatory guidelines, which are under review.
2.4-260
Save the Sound
7/10/23 8
Other species. Further destruction of Southold's forest resources by implementation of the proposed
warehouse project would diminish habitat for Species of Greatest Conservation Need, breeding birds,
species requiring larger blocks of forest, reptiles, and amphibians. This would occur not only by outright
removal of forest and the underlying natural coastal hill-installing an inhospitable built environment in its
place-but also over time, in the remaining forest, through the feedback mechanisms at work as the forest
edge changes (discussed above). Even mobile species cannot simply relocate to other suitable locations.
Such assertions are misguided at best.
Nesting birds, for instance, having lost habitat or having been disturbed by construction activities, might
move temporarily to another forest, yet such a forest already would be occupied by breeding birds
already defending their territories. In other words, there would be no space for such birds to nest.
Habitat destruction here would lead to a net decline in the populations of those species.
2.4-261
Save the Sound
7/10/23 8
Eastern box turtle (woodland box turtle, Terrapene carolina carolina; Species of Special Concern).
Adverse impacts of the proposed excavation on the eastern box turtle would be severe. These turtles
hibernate underground and would be destroyed during tree removal, grubbing, and sand excavation,
now proposed for the winter months of December through February. They also would suffer the adverse
impacts of exposure during winter hibernation from tree throw and consequent root upheaval and soil
disturbances that would follow excavation, especially during nor'easters.
Turtle researcher Dr. Lisa Prowant5 has found the North Fork represents an important stronghold for this
turtle's otherwise dwindling statewide population, giving Southold's forest preservation high importance
to this species' survival in New York. The DEIS' proposed mitigation of rounding up turtles and penning
them shows little understanding of their life history. Dr. Prowant notes that box turtle surveys are very
difficult to conduct in the first place, and many turtles would be missed in the proposed "sweep" efforts.
Further, she notes that in one study, when 53 radio-tagged turtles trans located, 24.6% left the site and
28.3% died; this means more than half failed to establish in a new location. Relocations are not
recommended for two additional reasons: (a) Ranavirus or other diseases could be introduced to a
healthy population; and (b) eastern box turtles are very tied to the areas in which they are born, with
small home ranges: They try to "go home," putting them at risk of dying on roads or entering
inhospitable landscapes.
At this site, after construction, surviving individual turtles may find their way toward areas they used to
frequent, be met with the new retaining wall, move along the fence line, and die after dropping into the
marina yard. Fences can be protective of property and people yet be hazardous to wildlife.
2.4-262
Save the Sound
7/10/23 9
Amphibians. Amphibians have low mobility and cannot move to new locations or avoid habitat
destruction. They also cannot repopulate Long Island, since it is surrounded by salt water, in which they
cannot survive.
2.4-263
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 102
BETH LEBOWITZ:
In the community over the impact of the demolition of woods and hillsides. The wood in the hillside is
quite large. It's got 90 year old trees in it. It's not gonna be replaced by planting trees in Mattituck itself,
or even the 60 trees that the project has offered to replant. We're talking about hundreds of trees. But
the main issue here for tonight is that the -- significantly these impacts are not acknowledged in the DEIS.
2.4-264
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 113
MARK HAUBNER:
There's no benefit to the Town and its residence in destroying a 50 foot bluff in a flood hazard area.
Destroying 650 trees at a time in which clean air is becoming a luxury. Suffolk County is a non-
attainment district for the DEC for clean air. We never see clean air in Suffolk County anymore. So I'm
kind of concerned at the services that the trees provide in filtering pollution, as well as, providing oxygen,
as well as, the trucks and all the vehicle traffic that we've talked about. The loss of contiguous habitat is
much more negative. Has much more negative impact than anyone realizes. And I hope that's part of
the discussion within the DEIS, among you as well.
2.4-265
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 113
MARK HAUBNER:
And the footprint of the huge storage buildings, which are almost the size of Costco in Riverhead. Adding
impervious surfaces and parking areas are gonna double -- more than double the footprint of this. This
project to over eight acres. More than a quarter of the site and it's going to increase stormwater runoff.
I know they've got a stormwater management system proposed to handle a two inch rain event.
(Inaudible) that we're never going to see more than two inches of rain. Climate change demands more
stringent stormwater controls, especially in light of the Florida's recent 30-inch rain event in 24 hours.
We haven't seen a Category Three storm in a lot of years. I would question that. The calculations have
been already done for the runoff of that hillside, pre-excavation and that the Barren Hill is gonna provide
a different number than that.
2.4-266 Reed Super 7.10.23 43
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 L WRP 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
2.4-267 Reed Super 7.10.23 44
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.
2.4-268 Reed Super 7.10.23 48
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.
2.4-269 Reed Super 7.10.23 50
The DEIS admits that the "proposed action has a construction footprint of 6.5 1± 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 5.5 1 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.
2.4-270 Reed Super 7.10.23 51
"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.2 3). 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
2.4-271 Reed Super 7.10.23 51
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.
2.4-272 Reed Super 7.10.23 52
The proposed project would cause significant adverse environmental impacts to community character for
the reasons set forth above and in the comments of others.
2.4-273
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 117
MARGE MCDONNELL:
That unspoiled natural environment (Mill Road Preserve) is why the Town in 2002, saw fit to spend
roughly $900,000 in today's money, to establish the Mill Road Preserve. At the time, the Town Board
said "the purchase will serve to continue the sense of openness, special to this area of the Hamlet of
Mattituck specifically and the Town of southold in general." Clearly, the Town was making this entire
area a priority for protection for the enjoyment of the whole town. The Strong's property is directly
adjacent to and contiguous with the preserve. It is in fact one ecosystem. There is no reasonable
expectation that the boat storage project will not significantly negatively impact the preserve. Contrary
to what they say in the DEIS.
...
Not to mention, the sheer chaos and destruction of a massive construction project is utterly inconsistent
with the stated intent of the Town regarding preservation of this area.
2.4-274
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 118
MARGE MCDONNELL:
Changes to the forest, the microclimate, arrival of invasive plants, the negative impact of light
penetration, as a result of the removal of the forest. Disruption to the habitats, nesting areas and
environments of all these creatures. Not to mention, the sheer chaos and destruction of a massive
construction project is utterly inconsistent with the stated intent of the Town regarding preservation of
this area.
2.4-275 Reed Super 7.10.23 54
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.
2.4-276 Reed Super 7.10.23 59
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.
2.4-277 Reed Super 7.10.23 59
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.
2.4-278 Reed Super 7.10.23 59-60
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 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.
2.4-279 Reed Super 7.10.23 60
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.
2.4-280 Reed Super 7.10.23 60
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]projects 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.'m
2.4-281 Reed Super 7.10.23 60
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.
2.4-282 Reed Super 7.10.23 60
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.
2.4-283
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 125
ERIC MCCLURE:
The project is going to remove six acres of old mature hardwood forest. More than 630 trees, which
cannot be replaced. They won't be replaced. This town has dedicated itself to really preserving its
environment and buying back development rights, trying to preserve the environment in this town, and
has done an admirable job of that. This project would run directly counter to that type of thinking in this
town. And would destroy habitat needlessly for the comfort of climate controlled yacht storage.
2.4-284
Comments on DEIS
Strong Storage pt.2 1
Marla Wexler:
There will be an irreversible impact on the local ecology as a result of strip mining the hillside- the area is
a home to endangered species. In addition there will be over 630 trees removed and the amount of
newtrees proposed Is negligible and an insult to our community. The removal of all the trees will affect
wildlife and present a substantial increase in noise and pollution.
2.4-285
Comments on DEIS
Strong Storage pt.2 1
Susan M. Norris:
I worry that the woodlands wm be affected and there will be a decrease of wildlife in the area.
2.4-286
Comments on DEIS
Strong Storage pt.2 1
Nancy and Sotirios Nikolis:
Excavation of 134,000 cubic yards of sand to drop the current elevation to ten feet and then, in the place
of trees, erect two 45 ft. tall buildings, the footprint of a Home Depot, resulting in a total height of 55
feet, which is the equivalent of two five-story buildings is detrimental. This destruction of woodlands,
flora, and fauna would not only disrupt nature, but it would also cause slope instability, excessive runoff,
additional damage from vibration and noise, and air and water pollution.
2.4-287
Dr Lisa Prowant
4/13/23 1
They note that Eastern box turtles are a NY State Species of Special Concern, then go on to say that no
endangered, threatened, or rare species were observed during ecological surveys of the site. I wonder if
they are only talking about federally listed species there, because they do note that they found box
turtles on the site. I would assume box turtles are not only there, but there in relatively high density
because I have done surveys at two sites flanking Stong's Yacht Center (Inlet Pond County Park and Indian
Island County Parks) and I have data to suggest that the forks hold the some of the densest populations
of box turtles on Long Island.
2.4-288
Dr Lisa Prowant
4/13/23 1
They list the numbers of birds they found on the site, but failed to find (or survey) the bat species present
on the site, and considering the recent decline in bats, this is particularly concerning.
2.4-289
Dr Lisa Prowant
4/13/23 1
Their surveys are only presence/absence with no information about the population sizes, which could be
masking the impact the loss of this area could have on the local ecosystem. 1 am not sure what type of
assessment is required for this type of thing, but they admit in it that 3 species of special concern are on
the site, including box turtles. This calls into question how many of the birds they mention are migratory
birds and if any are under the protection of the migratory bird protection act.
2.4-290
Dr Lisa Prowant
4/13/23 1
They note that "wildlife species that are most likely to be adversely impacted by the proposed action,
specifically the reduction in coastal oak-beech forest habitats from 12.6 acres to 8.28 acres, include birds
or other wildlife that inhabit mature forests, forest interiors, or have large patch size requirements," and
then go on the mention that this is mostly birds, but box turtles are very philopatric and would definitely
be impacted by both the removal of the habitat and the noise pollution, so that section is missing.
2.4-291
Dr Lisa Prowant
4/13/23 1 & 2
Planting pitch pine trees is not suitable mitigation for removing a coastal oak-beech forest in my opinion;
first, those trees will take decades to mature, and second, there is no reason to believe the habitats
afterwards would be suitable for the species that lived in the oak-beech forests.
2.4-292
Dr Lisa Prowant
4/13/23 2
Box turtle surveys are very difficult to conduct, and many turtles will be missed in their
"sweep" efforts. I have conducted box turtle surveys on Long Island for many years and am an expert on
this. Their survey efforts will miss more turtles than they find, even if they hire experts. Humans are not
good at locating box turtles.
2.4-293
Dr Lisa Prowant
4/13/23 2
They plan to "relocate" turtles to another site, but the one study I know of that trans located turtles
found that of 53 radio-tagged turtles, 24.6% left the site and 28.3% died, meaning more than half failed
to establish in a new location (Cook, 2004). Additionally, they could be moving turtles with Rana virus or
another disease to a healthy population if they are not very careful about testing their health before
moving them. This measure is appreciated, but requires experts in the field, otherwise it is dangerous
and entirely ineffective.
2.4-294
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 134
NICHOLAS DEEGAN:
But this is personal for me is that I prefer the habitat for the -- and the trees through the, you know, of
the cliff side. And I will echo at McDonnell's that it is a special place up there with the middle road there,
preserve. And it's the best kept secret, I think inside the old town. So I would urge the Board to look
carefully at this and say, you know, preserve the habitat that we have because I think that's far more
important down the years. People coming to visit. And this is why they come out here or this is like that,
that you have there. And then, you know, I think that be -- and I have great respect for the Strong
Family. But I think their legacy would be enhanced if they say the hillside there, and found some other
way to do the project without it -- ruining the hillside of all that oak trees.
2.4-295
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 137
DENISE GOEHRINGER:
once this project starts, it can never be reversed. Never. Once that sand comes out, and those trees
come down, we're destroying something that can never, never be fixed. And I just hope that that is
taken into consideration, and I understand that he has property rights. And I think that's wonderful. But
trees are something that we need -- everybody needs for oxygen, which I think has been said, but it's just
concerns me.
2.4-296
Group for the East
End 7/5/23 4
Lastly, although the FLUPSY program (page 272) promotes positive economic and environmental
benefits, the program is currently in existence today, operating alongside the project site in its current
form. It should not be considered mitigation, it is not in addition to or an expansion of an action.
2.4-297
Kara Jackson
7/6/23 1
The environmental impact statement doesn't consider the impact from accidental spills from cleaning
and servicing chemicals from the yachts that would go into the ground, into the surface water of
Mattituck Inlet, and into the groundwater. In fall, winter and early spring, many migratory ducks
(including long tail ducks, mergansers, bufflehead, loons, grebes and more) use the inlet to rest recover
and find breeding partners before they head back north. Their fish and shellfish (not to mention our
own!) will be contaminated.
2.4-298
Kara Jackson
7/6/23 2
The environmental impact statement insufficiently addresses and downplays the negative consequences
that cutting down some 630 trees brings. Those trees clean and cool our air, purify our water and
importantly, buffer noise. The impact statement doesn't take into account the long-term quality of life or
effect of noise disturbance on wildlife or people.
2.4-299
Theresa Dilworth
6/12/23
4
Per page 322 of the DEIS, 612 mature trees of the coastal oak-beech forest would need to be removed as
compared to 634 trees under the main proposal, so this alternative involves the same very significant
negative impact to wildlife and ecological resources and to the neighboring Town preserve. As described
in more detail in North Fork Audubon Society's comment letter, the negative "edge effect" impact on the
Town preserve is likely much more than the 195' stated in the DEIS that might apply to non-biological
impacts (sun, wind, dehydration); the biological impacts on plants, animals, birds, insects, fungi, etc. has
been documented as applying for longer distances. Other environmental impacts, except for excavation
and removal of 131,961 cubic yards of sand, appear to be largely similar to the main proposal.
2.4-300
Annie Correal
06/08/23 1
the DEIS fails to provide adequate evidence that Strong's Marine has a long-term plan that mitigates the
serious effects of construction on the site and the addition of 88 or more very large yachts to the fragile
ecosystem of Mattituck Creek. This development will destroy a rare oak-beech forest, which serves as a
habitat for threatened and endangered species-the box turtle and the northern long-eared bat, among
others. The proposal also involves the removal of a hillside that acts as a natural stormwater absorber,
leading to increased erosion and runoff. Combined with the pollution generated by an additional 88 large
boats for 12 weeks each year, this stands to significantly escalate the toxicity levels of Mattituck Inlet.
2.4-301
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 141
STEVE GESSLER:
I spent a lot of time there over the past few years. It's pretty unique to the North Fork and quite unique
to the State of New York, and of that of the East Coast. I don't think it's worth the damage to destroy this
place. And the idea that people think or suggest that animals are simply gonna go someplace else or
birds are gonna go to trees that are planted someplace else, that's not based on science.
That's completely false.
2.4-302
Annie Correal
06/08/23 44960
Neglected Environmental Impacts on Mattituck Creek and Marine Life
• Insufficient Study: The DEIS inadequately addresses the environmental impact of removing the sandhill
on Mattituck Creek, and understates the impact of erosion, increased runoff and elevated nitrogen
levels, including the potential loss of wetlands, and the effect on declining fish and shellfish populations.
The storm water plan in the DEIS fails to adequately account for increased rainfall and flooding as a result
of storm events related to climate change.
•Inadequate Pollution Control Measures: The DEIS does not sufficiently address comprehensive pollution
control measures to manage an additional 88 large yachts, which will traverse Mattituck Creek for 12
weeks every year and pose risks to water quality, sediments, and biological resources. The addition of
these large vessels heightens the risk of contamination from petroleum products, including oil, fuel, and
chemical byproducts, as well as solvents and antifreeze. The DEIS does not sufficiently address the
increased need for comprehensive pollution control measures with the addition of these vessels,
including proper waste management, spill prevention and response plans. Additionally, the DEIS
overstates how many vessels are active in the marina and downplays the potential impact of 88
additional large vessels, which stand to significantly escalate boat traffic and the toxicity levels of
Mattituck Inlet, which has previously been declared by the DEC as a pathogen- impaired watershed. The
DEIS does not include information on exactly how long the yachts will remain in Mattituck Creek and how
they will be managed before and after being stored ( there are only 45 slips at Strong's Marine). Further,
the addition of 88 more motorized large yachts will have a potential detrimental effect on the marine life
of nearby Long Island Sound.
2.4-303
Annie Correal
06/08/23 3
Environmental Impact and Endangered Species
• Destruction of Native Forest: The project will result in the removal of 630 trees, including four acres of
native forest, significantly altering the scenic landscape and permanently
degrading the area's character. Donating trees to the town is insufficient as a mitigation measure and
does not offset the loss of native forest and the habitat it provides for dozens of species, including
threatened and endangered species.
• Endangered Species at Risk: The development threatens the habitat of at least two endangered species,
the box turtle and the long-eared bat and further study is needed to establish that construction will not
create higher mortality among both species. Additionally, increased boat traffic in and out of Mattituck
Creek would put at risk marine life, including sea turtles, which are at a high risk of injury and mortality
because of boat strikes. Four species of threatened and endangered sea turtles have appeared in larger
numbers in recent years in Long Island Sound. All four species of sea turtles (Atlantic green, loggerhead,
leatherback, and Kemp's ridley) are either threatened or endangered at the state and federal level.
Therefore, they are protected under the Endangered Species Act and New York State Environmental
Conservation laws and regulations. A comprehensive study is needed to assess and mitigate the impact
of an additional 88 large yachts on vulnerable sea turtles, which will be traveling into and out of
Mattituck Creek during key times in the turtles' migration cycle. The impact on endangered piping plovers
has also been understated in the DEIS, with insufficient study of the potential effects of excavation on
their nesting habits. (The ecology expert at the public hearing on 6/5 named "blasting" as a concern for
piping plovers and their nesting habits).
• Lack of Independent Evaluation: The project's impact has not been independently evaluated by the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) of the state of New York.
2.4-304
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 142
DIANA PADILLA:
There's lots of things that it (DEIS) just does not address that should be addressed:
• It does not addressed sea level rise. It does not address the increasing amount of storm surge and the
increased amount of rainfall that we're expected to see with ongoing climate change. All of those things
will impact the models that they have for hydrology and runoff and what's likely to happen. Once that
hillside is excavated and once all those trees are removed, that site will see increased flooding on a
regular basis.
• Other things that are not adequately addressed, is that in many cases, statements about mitigation, in
terms of planting trees or growing plants are overstated at best. And in other cases, just completely
inadequate for the kinds of things that this in this project will do.
• And I strongly urge the Planning Board to look carefully at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Look at the evaluations that have been placed in terms of its impact on the forest, on organisms, on the
shore and other things. And take that into account because natural resources belong to all of us. They
are a shared resource and all of this will impact the quality of the water in the creek. It will impact the
organisms that live there and impact all of us in real ways.
2.4-305
Beth Lebowitz
7/9/23 3
Hundreds of trees of large caliper and many hundreds more smaller trees, shrubs and grasses that help
retain a hillside from crumbling into the inlet will be removed. This lovely old beech and oak woods
currently provides enormous ecological benefit to the area. In addition to creating habitat for birds and
other wildlife, the trees act as a natural canopy - cleaning air and absorbing water from rain reducing
runoff into the inlet, feeding the aquifer with clean water, unlike water that drains with its pollution into
the aquifer through grass or other surfaces. This is not acknowledged as a unmitigated impact.
2.4-306
Juan Micieli-
Martinez 7/9/23 1
I am in opposition to this proposed action due to the loss of natural habitat, species impacts and adverse
effects that would be caused by such construction
2.4-307
Christine Rendel
7/9/23 1
The negative impact on the publicly-owned 27 acre Mill Road Preserve that is adjacent to the site is
undeniable.There are no adequate mitigation statements provided that will remedy the damage that is
proposed to the Preserve, the ancient beech forest, and the teeming wildlife and ecology of the area.
How can you contemplate strip-mining a hillside - an area that's home to endangered species and species
of concern - when you know that the damage you will do in the process cannot be mitigated and is
irreversible?
2.4-308
Theresa Dilworth
7/9/23 1
As support for my letter regarding bats dated July 3 sent to the Southold Town Planning Board and
Planning Department, I'd like to submit the attached email from Dr. Kristjan Mets. He is a doctoral
graduate of the Ecology and Evolution Department at Stony Brook University with extensive experience
working in bat research and conservation. He has worked with bat researchers on Long Island as well as
state agencies in New York, Missouri, and Arkansas.
He has also separately submitted a letter to the Town Planning Dept. received May 12, 2023 which
contains important information about the Northern Long-Eared Bat.
Dr. Mets reviewed the bat calls I recorded and concludes that the Northern Long-Eared Bat is present.
2.4-309
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 76
REED SUPER:
Although the applicants self-serving DEIS claims that the only significant impacts will be construction
noise and very little else, in fact, the project, if approved and implemented would cause significant
adverse environmental impacts in all nine areas that the Planning Board identified in the final scope, and
others.
After completing an FEIS, Board's next task will be a finding statement, in which the significant adverse
impacts -- really, all the impacts are weighed against the public need, if any, for the project and the public
benefits. Again, if any, of the project, which are both very minimal here. A vulnerable Coastal Oak Beach
Forest, 50 feet above sea level is not a place for a marine facility.
2.4-310
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 76
REED SUPER:
After completing an FEIS, Board's next task will be a finding statement, in which the significant adverse
impacts -- really, all the impacts are weighed against the public need, if any, for the project and the public
benefits. Again, if any, of the project, which are both very minimal here. A vulnerable Coastal Oak Beach
Forest, 50 feet above sea level is not a place for a marine facility. And certainly not for buildings to store
yachts so big and heavy, that they cannot be transported up the steep terrain. Leading the applicant to
propose not only clear cutting more than 600 mature trees from a forest that provides habitat for
endangered species and other species of special concern, but also excavating and hauling away the
forested hillside. In more than 4,000 truckloads. 4,000 trucks back.
2.4-311
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 77
REED SUPER:
Dropping the grade by 40 feet over nearly four acres and erecting a 900 feet long retaining wall. More
than 30 feet high to hold back that slope cut. This radical transformation of the upland topography and
ecology to serve a purported waterfront use is sheer folly. It is plainly inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, zoning, LWRP, as well as, environmental preservation and common sense. Because
the proposals very minimal public need and public benefit most certainly do not outweigh its enormous
environmental impacts. And the proposed action obviously does not avoid or minimize environmental
impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
2.4-312
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 91
SUSAN REEVE:
I have seen Long Island Sound go from a thriving, filled with life body of water to crap. It's nothing now
like it used to be. Mattituck Creek is one of a kind. And if you kill it, you can't get it back. And this
building is gonna do real bad stuff to that waterway. The life that's in there, you should go down there in
a kayak and float around for weeks at a time and fish. I've done that. The Striped Bass go up there and
they spawn. And not to mention Bluefish and all the birds. The ospreys, everything. Everybody's talking
about money and about the -- over the road and all that stuff. But what you're gonna do to the creek,
once you do it, you can't undo it. And you're gonna lose something that only you guys have.
2.4-313
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 16
Total removal of 5.51 acres of upland forest, including cutting down 634 mature trees and the
destruction of the associate wildlife habitat is not, as described in the DEIS, "forest disturbance," it is
forest/habitat destruction.
2.4-314
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23
Although the Project Area as defined in the DEIS is 6.51 acres, the ecological analysis in the DEIS treats
the entire 32.96 acres of the tax parcel as the "project site." This grossly distorts the ecological effects of
tree removal and excavation. DEIS Table 25 indicates that the Project will destroy 4.32 acres of coastal
oak beech forest and 1.19 acres of successional southern hardwoods, comprising 34.3 percent and 25.5
percent of the existing forest coverage respectively, as a percentage of the entire parcel. That allows the
DEIS to claim that "under the proposed action, approximately 66% of these site's trees greater than 12-
inches in DBH [diameter at breast height] will be preserved." That is, of course, a meaningless statistic:
why not make the denominator the entire Town? In fact, almost 100% of the trees within the "Project
Area" will be destroyed.
2.4-315
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 16
The DEIS acknowledges that "[s]one of the 8.28 acres of coastal oak beech forests and 3.48 acres of
successional forests that will be maintained under the proposed action will be adversely impacted by the
creation of new forest edges" (DEIS p. 134). This refers to parts of the Project land parcel outside the
Project Area, which makes it clear - although unacknowledged in either document - that the negative
ecological impacts associated with the edge effect will extend far beyond the limits of the Project Area.
2.4-316
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 16
The DEIS acknowledges that "[s]one of the 8.28 acres of coastal oak beech forests and 3.48 acres of
successional forests that will be maintained under the proposed action will be adversely impacted by the
creation of new forest edges" (DEIS p. 134). This refers to parts of the Project land parcel outside the
Project Area, which makes it clear - although unacknowledged in either document - that the negative
ecological impacts associated with the edge effect will extend far beyond the limits of the Project Area.
2.4-317
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 17
The ecological analysis claims that the "total area of the Mill Road Preserve that may be potentially
impacted by edge effects associated with the new clearing limit on the Strong's Yacht Center property is
approximately 0.38 acres." That is likely a gross underestimate. Forest edge effects will not be limited to
a small part of the Preserve. The Project site and the Preserve form one ecosystem. The Project-induced
changes in microclimate, impacting flora and fauna, will permanently change the ecology of the Preserve
and degrade the experience of visiting it. Wildlife identified or expected to be present in the Project Area,
as described in the DEIS and Appendix N, are also living in the Preserve. Wildlife does not recognize
property lines.
2.4-318
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 17
The rationale behind the acquisition of the property for the Mill Road Preserve makes clear that the
Town values this entire ecosystem. This rationale is also reflected in Southold's Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program, which specifically mentions preserving areas around the Inlet to ensure its
natural environment. Degradation of the Preserve for yacht storage buildings is inconsistent with explicit
Town mandates and preservation objectives. The investment made by Southold Town taxpayers will be
depreciated by the change in light, forest composition, and the probable introduction of invasive species.
There is simply no way to mitigate the dramatic alteration of the Preserve's landscape that will directly
result from the Project.
2.4-319
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 18
The DEIS does not mention that at least two federally-endangered bird species, the piping plover and the
roseate tern, are known to nest and forage on Breakwater Beach and Bailie Beach, both less than a mile
from the site, or that the federally-endangered peregrine falcon and the bald eagle have been observed
in the Mill Road Preserve and along Mattituck Inlet.
2.4-320
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 18-19
Both the DEIS and Appendix N acknowledge that the Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina), a New York
State Species of Special Concern, has been observed in the Project Area and is expected to be found in
any one of the vegetated upland habitats of the project parcel, and that they "are threatened by
development of their habitat." The DEIS offers as a mitigation a proposal to "sweeps or surveys for box
turtles prior to commencement of clearing, grading, and excavation activities, and relocation of any
observed turtles to on-site areas that will not be disturbed."
This proposal is inadequate at best. According to Karen Testa, founder and president of Turtle Rescue of
the Hamptons Inc., the Eastern Box Turtle hibernates underground from October through May. It lives in
underground burrows and in tree stumps. Every NY S species of turtle (aquatic and terrestrial) nests on
land and digs its undetectable nests approximately 6-12" underground. Eastern Box Turtles are elusive by
nature and their camouflage makes it almost impossible to find them in a natural setting. Therefore,
"sweeps or surveys" will not be effective.
They should not be considered mitigation for the Project's adverse impact to the Eastern Box Turtle.
2.4-321
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 19
The DEIS acknowledges that "the Project site may provide habitat for these bat species during the
summer months and migration periods in the spring and autumn." It neglects to mention that on March
23, 2022, more than six months before the Revised DEIS was filed, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service issued a proposed regulatory change that would reclassify the NLEB from "threatened" to
"endangered." That reclassification took effect on March 31, 2023. No surveys have been conducted to
determine if Northern Long-Eared Bats or other endangered or threatened species are in the Project area.
2.4-322
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 111
DAVID BOFILL:
Yes, the removal of 600
trees is a large number; however, less removal than what's presently allowed, right? Won't 75% of the
existing trees remain? And Strong's offering replant trees, right?
2.4-323
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 112
DAVID BOFILL:
Comparing the environmental impact of the proposed buildings, four toilets, two employee showers. If
we take that square footage and we put it in comparison to residential, that's 29 homes, 90 toilets,
hundreds of daily showers, laundry soap water. Not to mention a minimum of 60 additional cars using
our roads.
2.4-324
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 114
JAMES AIOLI:
Approximately 10 trees are taken down to put in a swimming pool. That's 500 trees per acre. It's
nothing compared. Yes. The 600 trees are a lot. I get it. But when you think about the number of pools
that are installed, swimming pools, the amount of trees that are taken down and thought nothing about
it, because everybody has the right to put a swimming pool in their backyard if it's zoned for it, which this
project is zoned for this.
2.4-325
Super Law Group
LLC
06/05/23 4
In the Final Scope and Full Environmental Assessment Form(" FEAF") Parts 2 and 3, the Planning Board
specifically identified potentially significant(" moderate to large") adverse environmental impacts to
Land, Surface Waters, Groundwater, Flooding, Air, Plants and Animals, Aesthetic Resources, Noise, and
Community Character.
Without proper supporting analyses, the inaccurate, self-serving DEIS prepared by Strong' s purports that
the only significant adverse environmental impact that would be caused by its project would be
construction noise. That is manifestly untrue. In fact, if approved and implemented, the proposed project
would cause adverse environmental impacts in the nine resource/impact categories identified as
potentially significant in the Final Scope, as well as others identified in public comments. This must be
corrected in the FEIS.
2.4-326 Eric McClure 7/5/23 2
The removal of six acres of forest, including more than four acres of high-quality Coastal Oak and Beech
forest and more than an acre of southern successional hardwood forest, should alone make this project a
non-starter. The forest is home to several dozen species of birds, as well as other wildlife, including the
Eastern Box Turtle, a declining species that is considered of special concern by New York State. The
clearing of trees will remove some 800,000 pounds of stored carbon. And this is just the estimated
impact within the project site. We have no idea what the impact of tree removal, sustained excavation,
and the construction of two large warehouses and an enormous retaining wall will have on the adjacent
Mill Road Preserve, the 27-acre town-owned natural area to the southwest of the proposed project. The
DEIS does not sufficiently address the potential impacts on Mill Road Preserve, and its flora and fauna,
nor are the proposed mitigations on the project site itself adequate, such as the haphazard relocation of
Eastern Box Turtles, for just one example.
2.4-327
Robin McCoy
06/05/23 1
We are deeply concerned about run-off, erosion, and the future pollution of the Inlet from increased
boat traffic. The
DEIS does not adequately address these concerns and the adverse environmental impacts of the project
both during and
after construction, or fully address the impact of removing both the sand hill and 600 trees. Moreover,
the DEIS fails to
offer a full plan for how the owner will mitigate any adverse effects of the project.
2.4-328
North Fork
Audubon Society
7/3/23 1
In summary, we conducted bat surveys from May 6 to June 28, 2023 in the coastal oak-beech forest on
adjacent properties immediately north and south of the SYC parcel. We recorded over 10,000 bat calls, of
which over 2,000 were from the five species regulated at the federal and New York state levels by the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
A total of 266 calls were detected from Northern Long-Eared Bats (NLEB), and 90 from Indiana bats. NLEB
and Indiana bats are both listed as Endangered at the federal and state level. 146 calls were from the Tri-
Colored Bat, which is proposed to be listed as Endangered at the federal and state level as of September
15, 2023. Over 1,600 calls were detected of Little Brown Bats, which have been proposed to be listed as
Endangered or Threatened by the end of 2023.
2.4-329
North Fork
Audubon Society
7/3/23 1 & 2
Due to the probable presence of Endangered species on the SYC site, we strongly suggest that Southold
Town (1) Require the Strong Yacht Center (SYC), as project sponsor, to submit a "Request for
Determination Whether Activity is Subject to Regulation", to the NY Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), pursuant to 6 CRR-NY 182.9. This determination is required because the project is
within the Town of Southold, which has been established as possible habitat for the Northern Long-Eared
Bat, and because field surveys within feet of the SYC property have indicated the probable presence of
Endangered and Threatened animal species protected by state law and regulation (Environmental
Conservation Law § 11- 0535 and 6 NYCRR Part 182). Because the proposed project may result in either
direct harm or disturbance to listed species, or reduce the amount or quality of occupied habitat, the SYC
project may result in an incidental "take" of an Endangered or Threatened species as defined in NYCRR
Part 182 and thus may require an incidental take permit. (2) Consider, as an alternative to (1), itself
requesting a Jurisdictional Determination from the DEC. As an entity with regulatory oversight over the
proposed activity, Southold Town may request a Jurisdictional Determination pursuant to 6 CRR-NY
182.9. It is noted that failure to ask the DEC for a Jurisdictional Determination does not remove the
subject activity from potential DEC regulation. 6 CRR-NY 182.9(a), and penalties may be enforced under 6
CRR-NY 182.16. (3) Require the applicant to request DEC veri.fi.cation of the presence or absence of
Endangered and Threatened species on the SYC parcel. The applicant should be required to verify the
Audubon Society's detection of Endangered and Threatened species through either requesting direct
observation by DEC staff using the DEC's own acoustic detection equipment and protocols, or by hiring a
consultant qualified to do so according to DEC specifications. In addition to acoustic detection, the
applicant should be requested to use mist-netting techniques to verify the presence of the species, and
to use radio-tracking methods to determine if any of the trees are roost trees or maternity roost trees.
(4) Require the applicant to develop a Habitat Conservation. Plan (HCP}. At the federal level, the project
is not funded by a federal agency and does not require federal permits. However, since the project may
have adverse effects to federally listed species or critical habitat, the USFWS requires landowners to
contact the local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). See
https://www.fws. v/service/habitat-
con crvation-1 lan§. "Non-federal entities must develop a conservation plan that meets specific
2.4-330
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 126
JOHN MARA:
600 trees will be removed. The landscape will be leveled. That has been there for generations. Using
about 800-900 trucks. Depositing a lot of sediment. I'm told by some experts that sediment will
endanger water more than boats. Sediment run off. So this is going to result in a tremendous
environmental.
2.4-331
Karen Testa
05/11/23 1
I believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately address the
mitigation efforts to protect the Eastern Box Turtle.
2.4-332
Karen Testa
05/11/23 1
The study states in order to minimize potential impacts to the Eastern Box Turtle,
sweeps or surveys for turtles will be conducted prior to commencement of clearing,
grading, and excavation activities and any observed turtles will be relocated to areas
that will not be disturbed. Silt fencing or other barriers will be installed around work
areas to prevent turtles from returning to construction areas."
These statements are misleading and inaccurate and a danger to the Eastern Box
Turtle's survival, and therefore should not be considered mitigation for the adverse
impacts of this proposed development.
All species of native turtles, including Eastern Box Turtles, hibernate underground from
October through May. They live in underground burrows and in tree stumps. Every NYS
species (aquatic and terrestrial ) of turtle nest on land and dig their undetectable nest
approximately 6-12" underground. Eastern Box Turtles are elusive by nature and their
camouflage makes it almost impossible to find them in a natural setting. Therefore,
sweeps and surveys should not be considered mitigation for the adverse impacts of this proposed
development.
2.4-333
Karen Testa
05/11/23 2
For all of the above stated reasons, the proposed mitigation efforts of conducting sweeps, surveying and
installing barriers to protect the Eastern Box Turtle, are ineffectual and absurd. They should not be
considered mitigation for the adverse impacts of this proposed development.
2.4-334
Jonathan Baker
05/18/23 1
I also recommended the planting of trees that maximize the sequestering of CO2 from the air, where
ever that is possible, to mitigate the removal of the 600+ trees. Examples are Silver Maple, London Plane,
Scarlet Oak and Horse Chestnut. The proposed evergreens are not that good at CO2 sequestration.
2.4-335
Jeremy Melissa
Rosen
05/16/23 1
We do not believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) adequately addresses the
irreversible impact the construction and subsequent water traffic will have on the local environment and
ecology. The damage to the trees and other native flora, the coastline, the cleanliness of the water, and,
importantly, the animals who have made the inlet their home for far longer than we, as humans, have
will simply be irreparable.
2.4-336
Mariella Ostroski
05/15/23 1
The DEIS at page 120 misleadingly implies that the coastal oak-beech forest is not rare; however it is
characterized by New York State as S-3, "rare" status.
2.4-337
John WittenBerg
05/15/23 1
As an avid bird watcher I am particularly concerned with the impact this project will have on the nesting
birds ,migratory and overwintering birds found on both the Strong Marina property and the Mill Road
Preserve.
Further in reading the revised DEIS I see that the basis for many of the conclusions reached concerning
the impact on birds is based on the last NYS Breeding Bird Atlas, a 20 year old document.
While understanding that not every species is endangered, at the current rate of habitat loss,predation
and
global warming, many of the birds on the list may be or already are ,species of special concern.
2.4-338
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 2
The DEIS at page 120 misleadingly implies that the coastal oak-beech forest is not rare; however
it is characterized by New York State as S-3, "rare" status.
2.4-339
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 3
The 4.59 acres of trees proposed to be eliminated are in the center of the rare coastal oak beech
forest, not at the edge, therefore leading to "forest edge effect" and fragmentation effects
that will degrade all the remaining 9 acres or so of coastal oak-beech forest, since 100%of the
remaining forest will be within 195' of the forest edge, according to the DEIS.
2.4-340
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 3
We agree that the remaining forest will be degraded due to forest edge effect, but we disagree
with the DEIS' use of the 195' number. While that might apply to certain non-biological impacts
like wind, sun, and humidity, studies have shown that impacts on living plants and animals go
much farther than 195' and even up to several thousands of feet. Therefore the impacts on the
neighboring 27 acre Southold Town preserve appear to be understated.
2.4-341
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 3
The DEIS at page 131 states: "Consultations were undertaken with the New York Natural
Heritage Program (NYNHP) and in correspondence dated December 1, 2020, the NYNHP
indicated the piping plover (Charadrius melodus), a New York State threatened species, is the
only record of a known occurrence of a rare or state-listed animal or plant or significant natural
community on or in the vicinity of the site. We think this statement is incorrect or misleading.
Based on the SVC consultant's own observations as well as data from eBird, there are 16
state-listed bird species observed or expected on or near the SVC property, and an additional 4
species with other high priority status.
2.4-342
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 3
Using the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) designations, E=
Endangered, T= Threatened, SC= Species of Special Concern, and HPSGCN = High Priority Species
of Greatest Conservation Need, the species found on or near the SVC property include the Piping
Plover (E), Peregrine Falcon (El, Roseate Tern (E), Golden Eagle (E ), Bald Eagle (T), Northern
Harrier (T), Least Tern (Tl, Common Tern (T), Cooper's Hawk (SC), Sharp-Shinned Hawk (SC),
Horned Lark (SC), Common Loon (SC), Common Nighthawk, (SC), Osprey (SC), American Black
Duck (HPSGCN), and Semipalmated Sandpiper (HPSGCN).
2.4-343
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 3
Four other bird species have high priority status as defined by other organizations: American
Woodcock, Willow Flycatcher, Wood Thrush. One, the Eastern Wild Turkey was extinct within
New York state for 100 years before being brought back fairly recently through conservation
efforts.
2.4-344
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 3
The DEIS at page 123 lists 122 vascular plants located at the SVC site. The DEIS does not address
whether any of the plants are listed by the DEC as State-protected, that is Endangered,
Threatened, Rare, or Exploitably Vulnerable.
2.4-345
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 3
There are over 950 species of mushrooms on Long Island, and there are currently bills in the
New York State Senate and Assembly to name a state mushroom. The DEIS does not address any
of the species of mushrooms that may be found in this oak-beech forest.
2.4-346
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 3
Oak and beech trees are known hosts for close to 1,000 species of butterflies and moths. The
DEIS does not address the butterflies and moths that may be on the DEC's lists of species that
are Endangered, Threatened,,Special Concern, and High Priority Species of Greatest Conservation
Concern.
2.4-347
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 3
The destruction of these acres of oak-beech forest is estimated to result in the loss of habitat
for an estimated 24 million to 2.4 billion insects. The DEIS does not address the species of insects
2.4-348
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 4
According to the DEIS four species of bat are expected at the site, of which one is Endangered
(Northern Long-Eared Bat or NLEB) and one is a High Priority Species of Greatest Conservation
Concern (Little Brown Myotis/Little Brown Bat). When the DEIS was written, the NLEB was
Threatened, but its status was upgraded to Endangered both at the Federal and New York State level
as of March 31, 2023. Therefore the DEIS needs to be updated. Stricter U.S. Fish & Wildlife protocols
have been enacted now that its status is Endangered, and stricter DEC rules will likely follow.
2.4-349
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 4
The DEIS at page 129 incorrectly states that the NLEB migrates to and from Long Island in the spring
and fall and does not overwinter on Long Island. That is not correct; in fact there is ample evidence
that the NLEB does stay year-round and over-winters on Long Island.
2.4-350
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 4
Studies on eastern Long Island have shown that bats prefer oak forests. The destruction of the oak beech
forest will remove an important food source (winter moths) for NLEB and other bats that
awake periodically in mid-winter to defecate, and seek water or food.
2.4-351
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 4
The DEIS at page 130 lists one species of salamander that may be present on the SYC property,
based on 30 year old data. There could potentially be up to six species present on eastern Long
Island, of which three are Endangered, Special Concern, or High Priority Species of Greatest
Conservation Need. Since many salamanders are nocturnal and/or spend most of their time
underground, it is hard to say whether the species exist at the SYC site and more study may be
needed.
2.4-352
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 4
The DEIS at page 132 discusses the Eastern Box Turtle, a Species of Special Concern in New York. At
page 141, it says 6.05 acres of its habitat would be destroyed outright. The mitigation proposal of
conducting "sweeps or surveys for box turtles prior to commencement of clearing, grading, and
excavation activities" is grossly inadequate. Out of concern for the Northern Long Eared Bat's
summer habitat, it is proposed (under no longer applicable Rule 4(d))that the tree removal activities
only occur in the winter months. But the cold-blooded Eastern Box Turtles are hidden and
hibernating underground in the winter months, at least six inches deep or below the frost line, and
may be up to two or three feet deep, if they use an abandoned mammal burrow for example. It
would be impossible to find turtles above ground in the winter and so a "sweep" would be useless.
2.4-353
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 4
Even in spring, summer, or fall, the turtles are often hidden underground or under leaf litter, and
would not be seen. In the summer they like to keep cool and stay inches underground, and would
often be seen only at dawn or dusk, outside of working hours, so it is unlikely that any SYC
construction workers would be available to see them.
2.4-354
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 4
The DEIS proposal is to relocate any "found" Eastern Box Turtles to "on-site areas that would not
be disturbed. Silt fencing or other barriers would be installed around work areas to prevent turtles
from returning to construction areas." This mitigation strategy is also sadly inadequate. Turtles have
a limited home range and spend their entire lives -which can span over 100 years - within a small
area. If moved, they will spend the rest of their life trying to get home. That means crossing through
unfamiliar territory and often dying in the process. They cannot adapt to new territories.
2.4-355
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 5
Not mentioned in the DEIS are the five species of sea turtle that live in Long Island Sound:
Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, Green, Leatherback, and Hawksbill. All five species are listed as either
endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Leatherback and Kemp's
Ridley turtles are listed as endangered, while Green, Loggerhead, and Hawksbill turtles are listed as
threatened. For NY DEC purposes, the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle, the Leatherback Sea Turtle, and the
Atlantic Hawksbill Sea Turtle are all listed as Endangered, the highest level of conservation concern.
The Green Sea Turtle and the Loggerhead Sea Turtle are listed as Threatened.
2.4-356
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 5
Kemp's Ridley, an Endangered Species, has often been found in the Mattituck area both east and
west of Mattituck Inlet. Since turtles like warm water, it is very possible that they might swim
deeper up Mattituck Inlet near the SVC property.
2.4-357
North Fork
Audubon Society
Board of Directors
05/03/23 6
Because of the numerous omissions in discussions of the plant and animal species that would be
impacted,
we do not think that the DEIS meets the standard set out in the Amended Scope document that states at
page 9: "Provide a complete description of the ecological communities represented in the forest and their
ecological relationships to those of the adjoining Town-owned preserve."
2.4-358
Eric McClure
05/15/23 2
The DEIS does not sufficiently address the potential impacts on Mill Road Preserve, and its flora and
fauna, nor are the proposed mitigations on the project site itself adequate, such as the haphazard
relocation of Eastern Box Turtles, for just one example.
2.4-359
Jo-Ann Lechner
5/7/23 1
Offer adequate mitigation for adverse environmental impacts. In my opinion there is no way to mitigate
all the environmental and contamination destruction this will cause.
2.4-360
Jo-Ann Lechner
5/7/23 1
Irreversible impact on local ecology as a result of strip mining the hillside - the area is a home to
endangered and species of concern.
2.4-361
Dr. Kristjan Mets
05/12/23 1
The DEIS inadequately addresses the project's impact
on the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). The statement is outdated in listing the species
as
threatened. The northern long-eared bat is now classified as endangered under the federal Endangered
Species Act and by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). This
reclassification ruling was made in November 2022 and has come into effect as of March 31, 2023. With
this ruling, there is a further imperative to protect the species from harm.
2.4-362
Dr. Kristjan Mets
05/12/23 1
The DEIS accurately identifies the disease white-nose syndrome as the primary driver of population
decline for the northern long-eared bat. However, habitat loss is a contributing factor for decline and can
prevent population recovery even in those bat colonies that are free of disease. The loss of roosts and
foraging habitat is expected to fragment colonies, increase travel distances, and result in a reduced
survival rate for pups and adult bats. Given the disastrous impact of white-nose syndrome, these bats are
vulnerable. Each additional perturbation will impede individual bats recovering from white-nose
syndrome and prevent populations from returning to stable abundances. As such, it is unacceptable for
the
DEIS to state "loss of summer habitat is not recognized as a threat to the conservation of this species."
2.4-363
Dr. Kristjan Mets
05/12/23 1
The environmental impact statement should provide particular information on how this project will affect
northern long-eared bats and how to ameliorate harm.
2.4-364
Dr. Dianna K.
Padilla 05/12/23 2
Impacts on the coastal wetland and saltmarsh.
Impacts of coastal flooding and reduced elevation, especially massive excavation
of sand and sediment just inland from the saltmarsh on the property (and
adjacent land) have not been assessed or considered. This marshland provides
habitat for a variety of species of concern in New York, including a variety of birds,
fish and invertebrates, including ribbed mussels, blue mussels, northern quahog
(hard clams) and horseshoe crabs. Excavation that has been proposed will result
in huge changes in sediment flow to the shore and the marsh, greatly impacting
the animals and plants that live there.
2.4-365
Dr. Dianna K.
Padilla 05/12/23 2
Carbon Sequestration due to Hard Clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) Farming
This property was part of a program by the Cornell Cooperative Extension to
grow seed clams in FLUPSYs (Floating Upweller Systems) for restoration
purposes to improve water quality in Long Island Bays. The program by CCE was
for three years and started in 2018. It has ended. Small juvenile clams produced
in FLUPSYs are maximally 15-20 mm (0.6 - 0.78"), far below the size used to
estimate carbon sequestration in shell. Survivorship of out planted clams is quite
low. No mention is made of how many clams are presently being reared in
FLUPSYs, or will be reared in the future, the electricity costs (and carbon costs)
of running the FLUPSYs, or the destination of these juvenile clams or how
survivorship to adult size would accounted for.
The amount of carbon sequestration accounted for here falls very short of what is
lost by the cutting of trees proposed.
2.4-366
Elizabeth Watson
05/01/23 1
The removal of 634 trees presents an adverse and irreversible impact to the environment, that is not
mitigated through the replanting of 95 trees and an additional 50 trees to be planted in Southold, or
other plantings. Mature trees on Long Island provide an especially valuable resource in terms of their
ability to mitigate runoff and sequester carbon. This project proposes to clear 634 trees, which are an
average size of 12.8" DBH. Using a US Forest Service-sponsored calculator, an oak tree of this size in the
project location expected to contain 1361 lbs, of carbon (ltools 2023), and thus it is expected that
removing these trees will result in the loss of almost a million pounds of carbon, or the emissions
equivalent to over 300 cars driven for one year (EPA 2023). A second important impact is the loss of the
runoff mitigation value of these trees. While I commend the project team in providing mitigation,
funneling roof runoff into a French drain does not completely mitigate for the reduction in tree
interception of rainfall of over 600 trees ( estimated at 1850 gallons intercepted / tree / year) and runoff
avoided (80 gallons/tree per year). Nutrient pollution is a huge issue on Long Island, where the
permeable soils and lack of wastewater infrastructure mean that runoff, even if funneled into the shallow
water table, enhances the rate of flow of nutrient laden shallow groundwater into coastal areas.
Enhancing flow rates so close to the coast means that there is less opportunity for natural nitrogen
treatment via denitrification.
2.4-367
Elizabeth Watson
05/01/23 2
Cumulative deforestation impacts to the Town of Southold are significant. To provide
context to current trends, I analyzed the extent of deciduous forest, evergreen forest, and mixed forest
in the Town of Southold using the National Land Cover Dataset in 1992 and 2016. I found that for
Southold, the area of forest cover declined from 31.7% in 1992 to 24.0% in 2016, a drop of%. In
contrast, for Suffolk County as a whole there was a less forest overall but the rate of change was
much smaller - forest cover declined from 5 .8% in 1992 to 5 .1 % in 2016.
2.4-368
Elizabeth Watson
05/01/23 2
Reliance on shellfish aquaculture as a way to mitigate effects of carbon storage loss through
forest Io1ndne;. Although it may seem as though shellfish carbon removes CO2 from the atmosphere,
the processing of calcification is actually often a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere (Ca2+
(aq) +
2HC03 -(aq) - CaCOJ(s) + CO2 + H20) (Frankignoulle et al. 1995). Whether the carbon dioxide
evolved from calcification is emitted to the atmosphere is a function of the pH and resulting calcium
carbonate state. In addition to potential carbon emissions associated with calcification, shellfish are
also animals and thus over their lifetime, emit carbon dioxide through organismal respiration. As
such, shellfish aquaculture - while it may in some locations contribute to carbon sequestration - is not
as a reliable mechanism as one might assume. For instance, a study of oyster culture in Daya Bay, in
southern China found 258 grams of carbon per square meter per year was sequestered via shell
formation, while 502 grams of carbon was emitted due to respiration and calcification (Han et al.
2017).
2.4-369
Terese Brady-
Mendez
05/12/23 1
The "ecological resources" described in the DEIS involves not only the removal of sand cited above, but
also the complete destruction of the 4.59 acres of primordial forest located on the proposed site. It is
estimated that this would result in the removal of 634 trees that stand between 50 and 80 feet tall.
Moreover, the removal of these trees would eliminate ecosystems for 105 species of plants, 89 species
of birds, 20 species of mammals, and 3 species of reptiles and amphibians, some of which are on federal
or State endangered, threatened, special concern and special conservation need lists.
2.4-370
John McLane
05/11/23 44928
I would like to also point out the extent of deforestation this project would have. It is well recognized
trees and forests are "the lungs of our planet." While I recognize each
development project is considered on its own merits, I am asking the Planning
Department and Planning Board take into consideration the extent of deforestation
across the entire Town of Southold in this and future planning applications. I am further
suggesting that in permitting projects such as this one or others in the future, the
Department or Board consider requiring an offsetting re-forestation project. I believe this could be
undertaken in collaboration with Group For The East End and/or Peconic
Land Trust.
2.4-371
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 148
LAWRENZO HEIT:
But what struck me was a few things that seemed to be not even discussed or brought up in the
environmental assessment. That is specifically they're bringing -- I believe it was 4,000 gallons of
propane. Why do they need propane? I'm gonna burn the propane. But where is the environmental
impact of producing all of that carbon footprint? The State of New York is now in the process of saying
you're not even allowed to put a stove
in new construction, but we're going to put in a, you know, a heated facility for boats that's going to burn
a tremendous amount of propane? And then the boats don't exist now here on Long Island. So
whatever emissions they generate were not included in that DEIS either. So I think that they're missing
pieces and the full impact because the project doesn't end when they finish the construction. We're still -
- they're still gonna be contributing to the environment in a negative way for many, many years.
2.4-372
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 150
LOUISE HARRISON:
The DEIS downplays destroying the New York State listed vulnerable Coastal Oak Beach Forest, with
which the preserve's forest is contiguous. The properties are connected ecologically. With destruction of
over five acres of forest, including more than 630 trees, the overall forest is reduced in size. What had
been a forest interior now would be at the remaining forests open edge. This will expose what was once
shady, dark and moist habitat for many forest species to increased solar radiation. Wind throw of more
trees. Drying of soils. Loss of habitat for scores of species, including some that are endangered. And a
rapid insurgence -- rapid insurgence of invasive plant and animal species, which favor disturbance. This
will change the preserves microclimate plants and wildlife and will harm crucial forest soils. Please take
seriously the potential adverse impacts on the Eastern Box Turtle.
2.4-373
Karin Waslo
04/25/23 1
The engineering form refers to a 32% loss of forest but doesn't address the fact that the endangered
Eastern Box Turtle is known to spend its entire life trying to return to their hatch site . See www.city
wildlife.org<http:// wildlife.org>.
No amount of netting or other man-made deterrents will keep them from trying.
2.4-374
Carrie Mullins
05/08/23 1
I believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately address the impact
on the local ecology, especially the removal of the 50' high bluff which would eliminate ecosystems for
105 species of plants, 26 species of trees, 89 species of birds, 20 species of mammals, and 3 species of
reptiles and amphibians. The species include several on the federal or NY State endangered, threatened,
special concern and special conservation need lists.
2.4-375
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 169
JOEL KLEIN:
Dr. Bowman has not presented an analysis of projects, the impact on ecology within the project area. He
has presented a report documenting impacts what he would term project site, but is in fact the project
tax parcel, including both the R-80 and MII zones. The result of this is on a percentage basis to diminish
the impression -- a significant by comparing number of trees destroyed over the entire project site, as
opposed -- the tax parcel as opposed to just within 6 acre project area. Not the 34 acre parcel.
2.4-376
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 173
JESSICA ROBERTS (Save the Sound Staff Attorney):
We are pleased to see our comments in the final amended scope, but this DEIS is a poor tool for decision-
making. It contains misleading and inaccurate information, and graphics. Does not describe adequate
mitigation and dismisses, ignores or denies a significant adverse environmental impacts. The document
has not changed our position. That the project is grossly inappropriate for the site. First of all, excavating
134,000 cubic yards of an inherently unstable natural feature poses the danger of a catastrophic collapse
or slumping during excavation. This could harm a Federal navigational channel. New York State
designated significant coastal fishing wildlife habitat, tidal wetlands and water quality.
2.4-377
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 174
JESSICA ROBERTS (Save the Sound Staff Attorney):
Secondly, removing over 630 mature trees and all understory vegetation from a state-listed vulnerable
forest ecosystem that protects Mattituck Creek is contiguous with the publicly owned Mill Road Preserve,
and provides habitat for endangered species would be irreversible. Planting individual trees is not
mitigation, and it cannot recreate a forest ecosystem.
2.4-378
Joyce Beckenstein
05/04/23 1
What guarantees does Strong's proposal-from its initial clearing of the site, to its permanence within the
environment, -offer residents that it will preserve and enhance the present and future wildlife, flora,
fauna
and sea life adjacent to the waterway. Specifically, how will the loss of approximately 493 trees and sand
removal hold harmless our our already compromised town-preserved habitat?
2.4-379
Toni Bryan
04/18/23 1
THE removal of 634 high quality native trees some 12 inches in diameter as a part of the permanent loss
of 4.32 acre of Coastal Oak and Beech Forest to be replaced with 1 inch caliper trees by the owner is
highly inadequate. The loss of the above trees and forested area is irreversible
2.4-380
Joel Klein 5/15/23
Ecology 1
Total removal of 5.51 acres of upland forest, including cutting down 634 trees and the destruction of the
associate wildlife habitat is not, as described in the DEIS, “forest disturbance,” it is forest/habitat
destruction.
2.4-381
Joel Klein 5/15/23
Ecology 6
The DEIS states that “Once in place and backfilled, seeding and use by bird species promote growth in the
trays that are built into the wall to create a “green” wall over a period of two-to-three years” (DEIS pp. ii,
6, 290). No evidence to support this claim is included in the DEIS. “Photographs of similar walls on Long
Island and throughout the world have been included in Appendix H to document the use of the wall and
the visual appearance of this wall type” (DEIS p. 290). However, one cannot expect the manufacturer to
include examples of wall planting failures. There are reports of green wall failures.1
2.4-382
Joel Klein 5/15/23
Ecology 12
The DEIS downplays the significance of the loss of NLEB habitat when it states that the “availability of
summer habitat is not limiting for northern long-eared bat. Accordingly, loss of summer habitat is not
recognized as a threat to the conservation of this species” (USFWS, 2016). This statement is technically
correct. However, it is taken out of context. Since white-nose syndrome has led to population declines
of 97-100% across most of its range, NLEB no longer occupy much of their suitable habitat. The species is
rare, and there is much more available habitat than areas actually containing this species.
Chapter 3.1 Plans
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
3.1-1
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 1
In Table 30 in the DEIS “Consistency Analysis with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan,” the DEIS has cherry-
picked items from the Comprehensive Plan to address as “relevant to the subject property” excluding
others that are inconsistent with the Project. Chapter 3 of the Plan identifies 13 goals associated with land
use and zoning. The DEIS Table 30 addresses only three of these. Among the goals not addressed, because
the Project appears to be inconsistent with it, is Land Use and Zoning Goal 10: “Continue to Preserve
Farmland and Open Space.” The Project will adversely impact the Town-owned Mill Road Preserve.
3.1-2
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 1
Community Character Goal 1: “Protect Scenic Resources.” The Project will have a large visual impact on a
key scenic resource of the Town and especially the hamlet, namely the view from the water and across the
water of Mattituck Inlet. It will greatly degrade the experience of visiting one of the natural heritage
treasures of the Town, the Mill Road Preserve, which it directly abuts. he visual impact assessment
included as part of the DEIS was not properly prepared, is rife with errors, and fails to accurately depict
both existing and proposed views. It cannot be used as a basis for evaluating the visual and aesthetic
impacts of the Project.
3.1-3
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 2
As noted elsewhere in the comments, questions have been raised about whether the Project site was
properly zoned for maritime use. It is not “at the water’s edge” but elevated approximately 40 feet above
the level of Mattituck Inlet and is presently inaccessible from the existing marina facility. The proposed
structures will likely be the largest buildings in Southold. They are not “in line with the existing scale of
development.” The visual simulations used to demonstrate how the Project “would blend with the existing
maritime-use buildings on-site” are, as noted in other comments, defective and misrepresent the post-
construction views of the Project site.
3.1-4
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 2
It is difficult to understand how the destruction of more than 600 mature trees, even with the proposed,
and clearly inadequate, “mitigation” is consistent with the goal to “Protect land-based natural resources
including agricultural soils and natural habitat for wildlife.”
3.1-5
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 3
The DEIS contain no data to support the assertion that the Project will “meet an unmet demand for indoor
heated winter storage of yachts on the east end of Long Island.” As noted in other comments, yacht
manufacturers have indicated that heated storage is not necessary. The DEIS itself, states that most
anticipated customers will from areas beyond the east end of Long Island. As detailed in other comments,
the DEIS has exaggerated the significance of any job creation and tax revenue benefits. 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.”
3.1-6
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 3
Although the DEIS describes how the Project plans to address this, the acknowledged increase in
stormwater runoff that the Project will create is not consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
If, as the Applicant has indicated (see comments on Project alternatives), it is possible that only one
storage building, but concrete floor slabs for two buildings, will be constructed, there will be a significant
increase in impervious surface area (more than one acre) on the Project site. This will result in a
significant increase in stormwater runoff.
3.1-7
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 4
The proposed structures will be located on what is now a forested area significantly elevated above
Mattituck Inlet and is not accessible from the existing SYC facility. The removal of more than 134,000
cubic yards of sand and the destruction of more than 600 trees is required to bring the Project site to the
same elevation as the existing SYC. The Project site is not
“consistent with the maritime character of the subject property and surrounding area.”
3.1-8
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 4
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.
3.1-9
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 4
The 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 comments. The quality of life in the residential
neighborhoods abutting the Project and along the Project truck route will be significantly damaged.
3.1-10
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 4 & 5
The Comprehensive Plan notes the importance of maritime industries to the character and economy of
Southold, establishing objectives of “protecting] the historic agricultural and maritime areas by
maintaining appropriate scales of development, intensity of use, and architectural style” and “preserving]
and encouraging] traditional uses defining the agricultural and maritime character of the area.” It specifies
under this category
“fishing-related industries, marine trades, marine biology, marinas, recreational boating support uses, and
related uses.” While the Project broadly fits under that description, it does nothing to enhance the
maritime character of the Town, the Hamlet, or the Inlet, which historically were built around commercial
and sport fishing and small-boat recreation by local residents — not servicing multi-million-dollar yachts.
The Project will consist of two enormous big-box structures with no visual appeal or interest or obvious
maritime function; its presence will do nothing to enhance the maritime character of the Town, any more
than would an Amazon warehouse on the same location. character of
3.1-11
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 5
No detailed response required. The Project is clearly inconsistent with the protection of natural heritage,
even with the inadequate mitigation proposed.
3.1-12
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 5
As noted above, the Applicant has not demonstrated that there is “an unmet demand for indoor and
heated winter storage of yachts on the east end of Long Island.” The Applicant has stated in public venues
that his customers are not individuals who transport their yachts to warmer clients during the winter.
3.1-13
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 6
the proposed water line is scheduled for construction in May 2023, independent of whether or not the
Project is approved. The Project will therefore not contribute to a reduction in groundwater drawdown. It
will result in an overall increase in water use. Realistically, only two property owners will be able to
connect to the new water line, one of whom is the Applicant.
3.1-14
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 6
The 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.
3.1-15
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 6
No response required. Clear-cutting 5.51 acres of forested hillside, resulting in the destruction of 634
mature trees and an undetermined number of younger trees is clearly inconsistent with the protection of
upland habitat and trees, even with the inadequate mitigation proposed.
3.1-16
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 7
The Project is clearly inconsistent with the protection of wildlife, even with the inadequate mitigation
proposed.
3.1-17
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 7
The DEIS downplays the potential effects of sea-level and groundwater rise on the Project site. As detailed
elsewhere in these comments, it uses conservative rather than worst-case projections of sea level rise to
predict future impacts. It also uses cherry-picked historic precipitation data to minimize the contribution
that increasing precipitation will have on groundwater/sea level rise.
3.1-18
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 7
Conformance 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.
3.1-19
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 8
The Applicant has exaggerated the number of new jobs that would be created, and has not indicated if
those jobs will be year-round positions. As noted in other comments, the DEIS does not documented a
demand for indoor climate-controlled storage, which yacht manufacturers have indicated is not necessary.
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.”
3.1-20
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 8
As noted in other comments, the DEIS has exaggerated the tax benefits of the Project. Even the limited
tax benefits for Southold cannot be accrued “[W]ithout Compromising the Unique Character of the Town.”
3.1-21
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 8
The “economic prosperity” derived from the Project, will largely accrue to the Applicant. The Project will
irreparably diminish and degrade the “high quality of life, the environment, and the unique character of
the surrounding community.”
3.1-22
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 8
The continued operation of the CCE program hosted by the Applicant is independent of Project approval.
The Applicant may choose to continue or discontinue hosting the program whether or not the Project is
approved.
3.1-23
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 1 & 2
The applicant’s consultants are substituting their own opinion for that of the community. No attempt was
made as part of the aesthetic analysis to solicit the opinions of property owners within the Project’s
viewshed, or recreational users of Mattituck Creek. As noted in comments on the adequacy of the visual
impact assessment completed for the Project, because of the significant flaws in that analysis (for
example, substituting renderings for photographs to present existing conditions and showing existing
structures as stark white when they are blue), any conclusions based on it must be considered suspect.
3.1-24
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 2
How much of the existing forest land would remain on the Project parcel is not relevant. The proposed
additional landscaping consists of small immature trees in no way comparable to the trees which will be
destroyed by the Project. No mention is made of the Project’s potential adverse impacts to presently
permanently preserved open space—the Mill Road Preserve. The Project is clearly inconsistent with Policy
1 in this regard.
3.1-25
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 2
As noted above, this is the opinion of the applicant’s consultants based on a faulty visual impact analysis.
The DEIS’ use of language suggests that it acknowledges that the visual setting will be altered, but only not
to an undefined significant extent in the opinion of the applicant’s consultants.
3.1-26
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 2
This statement is incorrect. As discussed in more detail in other comments on the proposed water main
extension, Table 12 is a list, prepared by the Suffolk County Water Authority, of land parcels located within
500 feet of the Project parcel indicating if a parcel has access to a public water supply and, if so, if the
parcel is connected. It is not a list of parcels that would be able to access public water if the proposed
water main connection is constructed. Only two parcels, one of which is owned by the Applicant, would be
able to realistically access public water post-Project construction—not seven.
3.1-27
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 3
The installation of an existing on-site sanitary system with an I/A OWTS to “reduce nitrogen loading and be
more protective of groundwater quality than continuing to utilize the existing conventional septic system.”
However, as noted elsewhere in the DEIS, in its discussion of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, the DEIS
notes that “as of Resolution No. 702-2020 adopted on October 16, 2020, I/A OWTS are required for new
or expanded single-family residences and new ‘other construction’ projects effective on July 1, 2021”
(emphasis added) (p.50). In other words, while replacement of the existing on-site sanitary system is
consistent with the LWRP, the Project is legally required to install an I/A OWTS. The replacement of the
existing system with an I/A OWTS is not contingent upon Project approval. The Planning Board should
determine if the applicant intends to replace the existing system even if the proposed Project does not
proceed.
3.1-28
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 3
The DEIS does not include any information demonstrating the existence of an “unmet demand.” The DEIS
notes elsewhere that the demand for “indoor heated winter storage of yachts” is not limited to the east
end of Long Island but rather, that the Project is intended to also serve “other owners on Long Island,
Westchester County, and in the States of Connecticut and New Jersey” (pp. ii, xxviii, 20, 278).
3.1-29
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 3 & 4
The preparers of the DEIS are clear that they are relying on the unsupported opinion of the Applicant.
There is no explanation as to why the default uses described by the Applicant would be less desirable. As
the DEIS notes, those uses are not inevitable if the Project is not approved, because they would require
special exception use permits which cannot be guaranteed. The discussion of the No-Build alternative in
the DEIS makes no mention of any of this. Nor does the DEIS of the impacts associated with the possibility
that the Project might become economically unviable. include any discussion
3.1-30
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 4
This statement is both incorrect and misleading. The Project will not result in the preservation of any
historic resource. In addition, while 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.
3.1-31
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 4
This statement is incorrect. 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 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.
3.1-32
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 4
Although OPRHP’s January 24, 2022 correspondence (DEIS Appendix T) indicated that, in their opinion, “no
additional archaeological investigation is needed,” a careful analysis of information in the archeological
survey reports prepared for the Project (DEIS Appendix T) suggests that this conclusion was premature.1 It
is the Planning Board, not OPRHP, that has ultimate responsibility for determining if potential impacts to
archeological sites have been adequately addressed.
3.1-33
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 4 & 5
As noted above, and in comments on the inadequacy of the visual impact assessment included in the DEIS,
this statement cannot be supported. The Project does nothing to enhance visual quality or protect scenic
resources. The DEIS acknowledges that the Project will have a visual impact, but qualifies this by saying
that the impact “would not be significant as depicted by the photo-simulations . . .” which, as noted in
other comments, are not just misleading, they were not properly prepared, and cannot be used to assess
visual impacts. As demonstrated in photographs accompanying these comments, the Project likely will
have a significant visual impact.
3.1-34
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 5
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.3 The Project does nothing to minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from
flooding and erosion.
3.1-35
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 5
While this aspect of the Project is consistent with the LWRP, it should be noted that 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.
3.1-36
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 6
The DEIS states that the “recommended separation distance to groundwater for sanitary leaching fields is
three feet” (emphasis added). This is actually a requirement of the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services. The DEIS has concluded that Proposed Sanitary System No. 2 and Drainage Leaching Field 3.0
would be separated from groundwater by exactly 3.0 feet (DEIS Table 17). In other words, the system, as
designed, would barely be compliant on day one of operation, and would become non-compliant should
there be any future increase in sea levels.
3.1-37
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 6
While this aspect of the Project is consistent with the LWRP, it should be noted that installation of smart
irrigation controls and rains sensors is not contingent upon Project approval. The Applicant could upgrade
the existing irrigation system now, and has chosen not to do so.
3.1-38
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 6 & 7
This statement in the DEIS acknowledges that that the Project will impact the forest edge. It is misleading
in that it does not indicate that it is the Town-owned Mill Creek Preserve that will be adversely impacted.
Although discussed elsewhere in the DEIS, the discussion of LWRP consistency 1) makes no mention of the
more than 600 trees with an average DBH of 12.8 inches, and estimated heights of 50- 80 feet, that will be
destroyed as part of the Project, and 2) fails to note that the “abundant” (86) pitch pines proposed to
offset this loss will be 4-5 foot high and only a few inches in diameter. The Proposed Landscape Plan in
Appendix C indicates that the planted area will be closer to 15 feet in width, rather than 20-30 feet, and
will consist of a single staggered row of new trees planted 13 feet on-center. This will do little to
“minimize light penetration into the new forest.”
3.1-39
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 7
This statement is misleading in that it refers only to the area “landward of the proposed retaining wall”
and does not represent total forest loss associated with Project construction. According to text and tables
in DEIS Appendix N (Ecological Conditions and Impact Report) and the DEIS (p.115) the Project parcel
contains 12.60 acres of coastal oak-beech forest and 4.67 acres of successional southern hardwoods. Both
Appendix N (Table 6) and the DEIS (Table 25) indicate that the Project will destroy 4.32 acres of the
former, and 1.19 acres of the latter. This equates to a loss of 5.51 acres. This loss would be somewhat
offset by new plantings along the forest edge at the top of the proposed retaining wall. The DEIS states
that these new plantings will cover 27,333 SF. This equates to 0.63 acres, giving a net loss of 4.88 acres in
forest area on the Project parcel.5 This significant loss of forest is not consistent with LWRP policy to
“protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold’s ecosystem.”
3.1-40
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 7
While not inconsistent with the LWRP, this proposed mitigation measure falls far short of compensating
for the loss of more than 600 mature trees. As described in the DEIS, the cost of installation will have to
be borne by the Town of Southold.
3.1-41
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 7 & 8
The DEIS indicates that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared in accordance
with the requirements and specifications of NYSDEC SPDES General Permit No. GP-0-20-001 and Chapter
236 "Stormwater Management” of the Southold Town Code. While a completed SWPP is not required as
part of the SEQRA process, there is at least one aspect of the Project that is of special concern because it is
possible that routine erosion and sediment control measures may not be able to adequately protect the
ecosystem from damage. A concrete washout area is shown on the Project’s erosion and sediment
control plan. It would be located just west of the southwest corner of existing marina building No. 8,
approximately 125 feet from Mattituck Creek. Given that the Project will require more than 5,000 cubic
yards of concrete to be delivered, a significant amount of washout water will be generated. NYSDEC
SPDES General Permit No. GP-0-20-001 prohibits the discharge of wastewater from concrete washout.6
Given the close proximity to Mattituck Inlet the Planning Board should require the applicant to
demonstrate that washout water would not be discharged or flow to Mattituck Creek. Until this can be
reasonably assured, the Project cannot be considered consistent with the LWRP.
3.1-42
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 8
The Applicant’s proposed mitigation falls far short compensating for the significant impacts on the local
ecosystem. Nothing in the proposed Project will “Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town
of Southold’s ecosystem.”
3.1-43
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 8
The 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.
3.1-44
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 8
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
3.1-45
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 9
The increase in yacht maintenance and repair work generated by the Project will be result in a
proportional increase in hazardous waste byproducts from those activities.
3.1-46
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 9
Rather than being “inapplicable,” the proposed action is inconsistent with Policy 9 as it does not provide
for “public use.” The DEIS states that the Project is responding to “an industry demand” by “expanding]
the business services of SYC . . .”, but includes no information to demonstrate the existence of the
“demand . . . on the east end of Long Island.” There is no aspect of providing “winter storage” that would
result in “recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold”.
3.1-47
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 9 & 10
The proposed Project is not consistent with Policy 10 as it does nothing to “protect the Town of Southold’s
water-dependent uses.” As noted above, the Applicant has provided no information to demonstrate the
existence of the “demand for heated storage on the east end of Long Island.” The Project location is
suitable only in that it is permitted under existing zoning.7 The location is not suitable from an
environmental perspective. The arrival and departure of large yachts via Mattituck Inlet can only have a
deleterious impact, however small, on the Inlet. The Project will do nothing to “Protect the Town of
Southold’s water-dependent uses.”
3.1-48
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 10
The 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.”
3.1-49
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 10 The proposed Project does not protect agricultural lands or advance this policy.
3.1-50
Joel Klein 5-15-23
LWRP Consistency 11
Policy 13 is not limited to “development,” it clearly refers to “use” as well. Project haul trucks will travel a
minimum of 135,000 miles (9000 trips x 15 miles). All trucks manufactured after 2014 are required to
have a fuel economy of at least 7.2 miles per gallon. This means that Project haul trucks, together with
other Project construction equipment will use approximately 15,000 to 20,000 gallons, or more, of diesel
fuel. This expenditure of energy resources for a Project designed to serve a very limited number of
individuals is not an
“appropriate use.”
3.1-51
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Zoning and Building
Code Issues 1
The DEIS correctly states that “[a]s excerpted from Section 280-54 of the Zoning Code, the intent of the M-
II zoning 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 bay fronts or the Long Island
Sound’” (p. xiv). However, the proposed Project location is not “waterfront”. Nor, given its elevation, does
it presently allow for “direct access” to marine or tidal waters.
3.1-52
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Zoning and Building
Code Issues 1
The DEIS also states that “[a]additionally, the proposed action requires the modification of land, soil,
topography, tree cover and soil material; however, the character of the subject property for maritime use
would be maintained. The existing pattern of maritime uses with residential uses landward of Mattituck
Creek and interspersed along the water’s edge would still be maintained” (p. xiv). This is circular
reasoning. The purpose of the “modifications” is not to maintain “the existing pattern of maritime use,”
but rather to transform the Project area, which in no way can currently characterized as suitable for
maritime use, given its elevation above Mattituck Creek, into an area that is compatible with M-II zoning.
3.1-53
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Zoning and Building
Code Issues 1
According to the DEIS, the “proposed action would occur primarily within the M-II zoning district of the
Town of Southold, with only a portion of the proposed project affecting the R-80 zoned portion”
(emphasis added) (p. xvi).1 This statement is contradicted in the next paragraph which states that the
“proposed development . . . would be entirely located on the M-II portion of the site” (emphasis added)
(pp. xiv, 163).
3.1-54
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Zoning and Building
Code Issues 1
The DEIS also states that “[o]verall, the subject property is a privately owned parcel situated within the M-
II zoning district of the Town of Southold and the objective of the Applicant is to develop the property in
accordance with the prevailing zoning regulations (P.295)” This is not accurate. As the DEIS acknowledges,
contradicting other DEIS statements, a portion of the Project will be located within an R-80 district. The
proposed Project is not a permitted use within an R-80 zone. The majority of the Project haul road will be
located within the R-80-zoned portion of the Project parcel. It is important to note that the haul is not a
temporary feature, but will become a permanent part of the Project as an emergency access road.
3.1-55
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Zoning and Building
Code Issues 2
The Town of Southold’s online tax parcel map indicates that parcel 106.-6-13.4 consists of 32.00 acres, and
parcel 1000-106.-6-10 consists of 0.08 acres (COMMENT FIGURE Z-1). The 2021 Southold Assessment roll
indicates that parcel 106.-6-13.4 includes 32.60 acres. Parcel 1000-106.-6-10 does not appear on the final
2021 Southold Assessment Roll. Suffolk County’s on-line Real Property Tax Map Viewer indicates that
parcel 106.-6-13.4 consists of 32.573 acres, and parcel 1000-106.-6-10 consists of 0.079 acres (COMMENT
FIGURE Z-2). Although minor, these discrepancies need to be resolved because they affect calculations
used to determine whether or not the Project conforms to bulk and dimensional requirements set forth in
the Southold Town Code.
3.1-56
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Zoning and Building
Code Issues 2
Parcel 1000-106.-6-10 is a rectangular parcel located adjacent to the SYC bulkhead fronting on Mattituck
Creek. It is part of an existing parking lot for SYC and contains several marked parking stalls. The
tax/ownership status of parcel 1000-106.-6-10, which the DEIS indicates is part of the Project property, is
unclear. As noted above, this parcel is not listed in the Southold assessment roll. The county tax map
indicates that the owner is “unknown.” Town of Southold records include at least one map that also
indicates the ownership as “unknown” (COMMENT FIGURE Z-3).2
3.1-57
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Zoning and Building
Code Issues 2
Under the heading “Project is Consistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan” (p.17), the DEIS states that
the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan adopted in September 2020 (2020 Comprehensive Plan) Land Use
Map (see Figure 4 in Appendix A) identifies the entirety of the subject property as commercial use;
however, as noted above, the subject property is split-zoned for M-II (16.46± acres) and R-80 (16.5±
acres).3 SYC operates entirely on the M-II zoned portion and the R-80-zoned portion of the subject
property is currently undeveloped.”
The DEIS correctly notes that the Project parcel is “split-zoned” (pp. 1, 2, 17, 142, 145, 147). The Southold
Town Comprehensive Plan notes that “[c]currently, the Town Code provides little guidance on how to
apply the bulk schedule in the case of split-zones.” It also calls for clarification of “the Town Code with
respect to split-zoned parcels and how the bulk schedule is applied” (Comprehensive Plan p.12). This is
particularly relevant with respect to the Project.
3.1-58
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Zoning and Building
Code Issues 3
DEIS Table 28 (Bulk and Dimensional Requirements of the M-II Zoning District) lists the Dimensional
Regulation Requirements for the M-II Zone. The maximum building height allowed in an M-II Zone is given
as 35 feet (Southold Town Code §280 Attachment 4). The proposed storage buildings will have a height to
eave of 39-ft 3-inches; a mean roof height of 42-ft 6-inches; and a top of ridge height of 45-ft 8-inches
(DEIS Appendix D).
Section 280-4 of the Southold Town Code defines building height as the “vertical distance measured from
the average elevation of the existing natural grade adjacent to the building, before any alteration or fill, to
the highest point of the roof for flat and mansard roofs and to the mean height between eaves and ridge
for other type roofs.” This definition contains several ambiguities which the developer is exploiting to
support the position that the proposed structures conforms to the requirements of the M-II zone.
First, it is unclear what “adjacent” means. The existing grade where the proposed storage buildings will be
constructed contains significant slopes and existing elevations vary by more than 30 feet. As a result, the
existing elevation of the area that could be considered “adjacent” varies considerably. The DEIS does not
indicate what elevation has been assumed to be the “average elevation of the existing grade.”
Second, and more significantly, the definition of building height calls for it to be measured “before any
alteration or fill.”4 The applicant proposes to erect the new structures after lowering the existing grade by
more than 35 feet. Using the Town Code definition of building height, this results in the proposed
structures actually having a negative height.
3.1-59
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Zoning and Building
Code Issues 3
Of interest is the fact that the “Alternate Plan” (Alternate 4) site plan included in DEIS Appendix V contains
a note, with quantified data, describing how building height under that plan was calculated. No
comparable note appears on the corresponding site plan for the proposed Project. This information is
essential for confirming that building height was properly calculated and that the proposed Project
conforms to bulk requirements relating to building height.
3.1-60
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Zoning and Building
Code Issues 3 & 4
There is also a question concerning the present status of the zoning of the Project parcel. In 1983 the
eastern portion of what is now the M-II portion of the Project site was zoned “light industrial.” The
western portion was zoned “residential.” As shown on COMMENT FIGURES Z-4 and Z-5, the boundary
between the two zones, as shown, is well to the east of the present boundary between the M-II and R-80
zones. Southold Local Law 1 of 1989 replaced what was formerly the “light industrial” designation with the
new M-II (Marine II) designation. The accompanying zoning map inexplicably relocated the boundary
between the R-80 and M-II zones several hundred feet to the west of its original location. The word
“inexplicably” is appropriate because the original zone boundary roughly corresponds to the top of the
existing bluff that separates the water adjacent portions of the parcel from the upland portion. There is
no way that any part of the upland portion of the parcel could, or can, be considered “water adjacent” or
suitable for water-related uses. No explanation for the zone boundary change can be identified in
Southold Town records. ... This issue bears directly on the issue of whether or not the proposed Project
conforms to, or can conform to, the appropriate zoning requirements. This issue needs to be addressed as
part of the environmental review of the Project, and must be resolved before any SEQR findings statement
can be prepared by the Planning Board.
3.1-61
Planning Board Office
Memorandum 7-10-23 3 & 4
Please discuss the proposed action to Policy 6 Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of
Southold ecosystem and if it meets any of the qualifiers listed below. A. Avoid adverse changes to the Long
Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that would result from impairment of ecological quality as
indicated by: 1. Physical loss of ecological components Physical loss is often the most obvious natural
resource impairment to identify. It usually results from discrete actions, such as filling or excavating a
wetland or clearing an upland forest community prior to development.2. Degradation of ecological
components
Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either as a direct loss originating within the
resource area or as an indirect loss originating from nearby activities. Degradation usually occurs over a
more extended period of time than physical loss and may be indicated by increased siltation, changes in
community composition, or evidence of pollution.
3. Functional loss of ecological components
Functional loss can be indicated by a decrease in abundance of fish or wildlife, often resulting from a
behavioral or physiological avoidance response. Behavioral avoidance can be due to disruptive uses that
do not necessarily result in physical changes, but may be related to introduction of recreational activities
or predators. Timing of activities can often be critical in determining whether a functional loss is likely to
occur. Functional loss can also be manifested in physical terms, such as changes in hydrology.
3.1-62
Planning Board Office
Memorandum 7-10-23 4
The loss of ecological components of the (Coastal Oak-Beech Forest and Successional Southern Hardwood
communities) will impact the Mattituck Creek watershed. How many acres of this forest type occur in the
Mattituck Creek watershed? How much is in the Town?
3.1-63
Planning Board Office
Memorandum 7-10-23 4
Please update the DEIS to reflect the protected status change of the Northern Long-Eared Bat to federally
endangered, and evaluate the action to Policy 6.4 Protect vulnerable fish, wildlife, and plant species, and
rare ecological communities of the L WRP.
3.1-64
Annie Correal June 8
2023 Email 2
Neglected Goals: The proposed project fails to fulfill key goals outlined in Southold Town's Vision
Statement, such as land preservation, protection of natural resources, efficient transportation, diverse
housing stock, and expanded recreational opportunities.
3.1-65
Annie Correal June 8
2023 Email 2
Unsuitable Architectural Design: The architectural design of the massive warehouses does not harmonize
with the existing character of Mattituck Inlet, diminishing its appeal to tourists, kayakers, fishermen, and
potential homebuyers.
3.1-66
Annie Correal June 8
2023 Email 2
Prioritization of Private Interests: The project prioritizes the needs of wealthy private yacht owners over
those of the public, hindering recreational activities including walking and bird-watching at Mill Road
Preserve and fishing, swimming and boating at the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation's Mattituck Creek and Long Island Sound.
3.1-67
Annie Correal June 8
2023 Email 2
Improper Extraction of Resources: Concerns have been raised regarding the potential exploitation of
valuable sand resources. The removal of the hillside could yield substantial profits from the sale of sand
(the DEIS states that 63 percent of the material has been identified as quality sand). Such actions
necessitate compliance with Mined Land Reclamation Permit regulations, which the proposal currently
lacks. The removal of lucrative sand by thousands of trucks would also lead to pollution, damage
roadways, and compromise the safety of nearby homeowners and the quality of life of the community at
large.
3.1-68 Reed Super 7.10.23 1
The proposed project conflicts with the purposes of Town Code, Chapter 280, Article XXIV, Site Plan
Approval.
3.1-69 Reed Super 7.10.23 2
The proposed project is clearly inconsistent in numerous respects with chapters, goals, and policies of the
Town's Comprehensive Plan.
3.1-70 Reed Super 7.10.23 2 The proposed project is inconsistent with the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (L WRP).
3.1-71 Reed Super 7.10.23 7
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.
Reed Super 7.10.23 7
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.
Reed Super 7.10.23 45115
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, 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.
Reed Super 7.10.23 8
Fifth, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (L WRP) Coordinator should recommend denial of the
site plan application because it is inconsistent with the Town's adopted L WRP, and the Planning Board
should adopt that recommendation and deny it on that basis. The proposed project is inconsistent with L
WRP 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.
Anne Sherwood
Pundyk 7/8/23 7
This project is being evaluated against many important community standards. For example, the
Comprehensive Plan where Goal 1 is to protect scenic resources. It is also being judged by its compliance
with the LWRP. The LWRP's Policy 3 is to enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout
the Town of Southold and its Policy 1 fosters a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that
enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes
beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. From a visual
standpoint, this project does not meet the goals of these important community guidelines.
Mary Elizabeth
Guyton 7/8/23 2
The LWRP provides that all "proposed marine-related water- dependent uses be encouraged at
appropriate locations on or near the coast and/or along creeks and bays where they do not negatively
impact on residential neighborhoods or the natural environment". I disagree this project complies with the
spirit of the LWRP
Mary Elizabeth
Guyton 7/8/23 2
The project is at odds with the Town's Comprehensive plan focuses on: WATER RESOURCES: Goal 5-
Protect Freshwater and Marine Habitats and LAND RESOURCES: Goal 1 Protect Soils and Geologic
Features; Goal 2- Protect Upland Habitat and Trees; Goal 3- Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
Mary Elizabeth
Guyton 7/8/23 2
This 2022 survey with over 1000 respondents identified the top priorities for local residents as:
preservation of natural habitat, rural character, farms and open space- the project description: the
removal of 630 mature trees, removal of hill of sand (134,000 cubic yards) and impact a 33-acre wooded
lot on Mattituck Inlet adjacent to Mill Road Preserve, a 25-acre public woodland and remove 630 mature
trees is not in line with what local residents want in their community.
Mary Elizabeth
Guyton 7/8/23 2
Comments at the May 15/June 5 meetings comment on outstanding zoning questions. I encourage the
town to further look into this issue to seek an answer to residents' questions
3.1-80 Nancy May 7/10/23 1
there are significant issues with the current zoning regulations, such as the location of the boundary
between R-80 and M-11 and the permissibility of storing such a large amount of fuel near tidal waters in
the M-11 zone.
3.1-81 Nancy May 7/10/23 1
it is important to evaluate compliances with the town code, especially regarding building height,
preservation of natural features, protection of habitat of wildlife and marine life and the potential threat
to endangered species, flood hazard areas, and other relevant factors. These considerations must align
with the Comprehensive Plan and the LWRP to ensure proper adherence.
3.1-82 Reed Super 7.10.23 16
The proposed project offends the very purpose and objectives of the Site Plan Approval article and
violates many of the high priority considerations.
3.1-83 Reed Super 7.10.23 16
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.
3.1-84 Reed Super 7.10.23 16
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.
3.1-85 Reed Super 7.10.23 17
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.
3.1-86 Reed Super 7.10.23 18
The Planning Board Should Disapprove the Application Because The Planning Board Should Disapprove the
Application Because Requirements of the Zoning Chapter of the Town Code.
3.1-87 Reed Super 7.10.23 18
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.
3.1-88 Reed Super 7.10.23 18
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.
3.1-89 Reed Super 7.10.23 19
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.
3.1-90 Reed Super 7.10.23 19
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 bay fronts 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.
3.1-91 Reed Super 7.10.23 20
The stated purposes of the MII district, i.e., to provide a water front 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.
3.1-92 Reed Super 7.10.23 20
the Planning Board should find that the proposed project violates Town Code§ 280-11 l(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
3.1-93 Reed Super 7.10.23 21
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(1).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.
3.1-94 Reed Super 7.10.23 21
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.
3.1-95 Reed Super 7.10.23 21
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,
3.1-96 Reed Super 7.10.23 21
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.
3.1-97 Reed Super 7.10.23 22
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. 8. 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.
3.1-98 Reed Super 7.10.23 22
The proposed project is inconsistent with the goal to protect and enhance the Town's natural resources
and environment.
3.1-99 Reed Super 7.10.23 22
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.
3.1-
100 Reed Super 7.10.23 23
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.
3.1-
101 Reed Super 7.10.23 23
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.)
3.1-
102 Reed Super 7.10.23 23
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
3.1-
103 Reed Super 7.10.23 23
The proposed project is inconsistent with the goal to prepare the Town for natural
hazards.
3.1-
104 Reed Super 7.10.23 24
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.
3.1-
105 Reed Super 7.10.23 24
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 R80 and should still be zoned R80 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.
3.1-
106 Reed Super 7.10.23 25
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.
3.1-
107 Reed Super 7.10.23 25
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.
3.1-
108 Reed Super 7.10.23 25
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.
3.1-
109 Reed Super 7.10.23 25
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.
3.1-
110 Reed Super 7.10.23 26
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.
3.1-
111 Reed Super 7.10.23 27
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.
3.1-
112 Reed Super 7.10.23 27
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.
3.1-
113 Reed Super 7.10.23 27-28
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
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."
3.1-
114 Reed Super 7.10.23 31
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.
3.1-
115 Reed Super 7.10.23 31
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.
3.1-
116 Reed Super 7.10.23 32
Even with the suggested mitigation measures this proposed action is not consistent with this goal of the
Comprehensive Plan.
3.1-
117 Reed Super 7.10.23 32
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.
3.1-
118 Reed Super 7.10.23 32
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.
3.1-
119 Reed Super 7.10.23 33
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.
3.1-
120 Reed Super 7.10.23 33
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 density 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.
3.1-
121 Reed Super 7.10.23 34
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.
3.1-
122 Reed Super 7.10.23 34
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.
3.1.12
3
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 104
BETH LEBOWITZ:
The DEIS is also very inaccurate about the zoning, and does not clearly demonstrate that the project
complies with the zoning.
...
The DEIS is inconsistent in its description of the applicable zoning because there is no clarity on the size of
the R-80 MII portions of the of the lot. The applicants bulk calculations are not accurate. A serious
underlying problem is that the boundary between the MII and R80 portions is uncertain. The zoning maps
accompanying the 1989 Southold Law, one, show the boundary between the maritime industrial and
residential districts was moved several 100 feet to the west of the previous location away from the edge
of the existing bluff. But there are no records of an official action authorizing this change. And the
associated zoning map with metes and bounds was never submitted to the county. This issue needs to be
addressed and resolved as part of the
3.1.12
4
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 105
BETH LEBOWITZ:
Another issue there is lack of clarity as to ownership of parcel, which is part of the project parcel. This
parcel is not listed on the Town of Southold's assessment role. The DEIS states that the building height of
the two warehouses is 4588 inches measured from ridge height to adjacent grade. According to the zoning
code, the maximum building height in an MII district is 35 feet. Therefore, these buildings would be non
complying with your zoning.
3.1-
125 Reed Super 7.10.23 37
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.
3.1-
126 Reed Super 7.10.23 38
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."
3.1-
127 Reed Super 7.10.23 40
Additionally, this L WRP 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 L WRP.
3.1-
128 Reed Super 7.10.23 42
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.
3.1-
129 Reed Super 7.10.23 43
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.
3.1-
130 Reed Super 7.10.23 52
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.
3.1-
131
Save the Sound
7/10/23 17
New York State's coastal management program, thus the approved Local Waterfront Revitalization
Programs (LWRP), requires agencies to advance coastal policies toward their logical conclusion, not
allowing one policy to override another.
The DEIS, however, cherry-picks the coastal policies with which it asserts its project is consistent and
ignores inconsistencies with the LWRP's other coastal policies. Approval of the proposed project,
therefore, would be inconsistent with Southold's LWRP policies. The subject proposal does not have
upland infrastructure to handle, or accomodate, two large yacht storage buildings totaling more than
100,000 sq. ft. and such a use conflicts with the use of the adjacent publicly owned Mill Road Preserve.
The project conflicts with the Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat; poses danger to tidal wetlands;
and poses harm to habitat of the endangered northern long-eared bat. other endangered and threatened
species, and species of concern. Save the Sound's step by step analysis of consistency of this project with
Southold's LWRP policies, using the Town's Policy Standards, is in Attachment B Table 1.
3.1-
132
Group for the East
End 7/5/23 2
The DEIS states (page 113), "The recommended separation distance to groundwater for sanitary leaching
fields is three feet. As such, should sea level rise occur as projected, the system would be non-compliant
with current design requirements. However, in the 2050 condition, modifications to the leaching field
could be implemented by elevating and installing a pump station. However, the manufacturer lifespan of
the /IA OWTS is 30 years, and thus, by the 2050s, new systems could be expected. Should the projections
of sea level rise be realized, the new systems to be installed would be required to comply with the
regulations at that time. "
Therefore, the wastewater system will eventually be in non-compliance with groundwater separation
distances and is in direct conflict with Goal 3, Object 3.5 (2) and Goal 7 of the Town of Southold
Comprehensive Plan. The DEIS should further examine the impacts of potential direct discharge of
wastewater into groundwater and discuss how this will be mitigated. As it stands right now, the DEIS
makes no mention of what entity will be monitoring this situation or enforcing upgrades or modifications
as this inevitable situation occurs.
3.1-
133
Group for the East
End 7/5/23 3
The 4+ acre site of proposed extensive excavation is a natural feature. It appears in historical photographs
and soil boring data provided in the appendices support this fact. The soil boring data provided in the DEIS
may point to deposition of dredged spoils on a small portion of the area, but in no way makes up the
entirety of the site and therefore excludes it from being considered a "natural feature." Therefore, the
proposed action is wholly inconsistent with Goal 1.
The excavation site is also populated with mature Coastal Oak-Beech forest and noted as "high quality"
within the DEIS (page 119) and by the applicant's consultant Dr. William Bowman at the public hearing
(June 5, 2023). The proposal calls for the clear cutting of over 600 mature trees that provide ecological
benefits and is adjacent to preserved land. Therefore, the proposed action is wholly inconsistent with Goal
2 and Objective 2.1 and 2.2.
3.1-
134
Group for the East
End 7/5/23 3
The Planning Board must consider the fact that the MIi zoning category was specifically identified in the
Town's comprehensive plan as needing a reexamination due to the intensity of use that can occur in this
zone, and the inconsistency with such use in areas of significant coastal sensitivity (such as that directly
affected by the subject application). Although the Town Board has not yet codified specific use changes to
the MIi zone, the SEQRA process provides the Planning Board with broad latitude to address such issues
through the imposition of substantial mitigation measures (including building size, scale and location),
overall project alternatives, and Negative Findings Statements, which conclude that the action proposed is
unable to achieve a level of environmental protection that is commensurate with the scale and magnitude
of potential impacts.
3.1-
135
Joel Klein
6/21/23 44960
Joel Klein 2:
There are numerous problems with this plan:
It includes setting a value of 0.12 PPV as the point at which an alert will be triggered. This is much too high.
"Strict construction vibration control limits for [landmark] buildings serve not only to eliminate the
possibility of immediate damage, but also to reduce future fatigue damage that may be caused by the
cumulative effects of both man and the environment."
As noted in the attached detailed comments, the 0.12 PPV is not a universally accepted threshold for
damage to historic properties. In addition, if an alert is triggered only after a reading 0.12 PPV is recorded,
it means that damage may have already occurred. In addition, the project's DEIS and the Vibration Report
(DEIS Appendix R) state that tests indicated that the PPV associated with haul truck movements on West
Mill Road is 0.007. If that is correct (which seems unlikely), there should be no problem with setting the
alert threshold at a much lower value than 0.12 PPV.
3.1-
136
Joel Klein
6/21/23 3
Joel Klein 2:
All components of the plan are designed to collect data for purpose of confirming that a specific
Project construction vehicle is not the cause of the alert. The plan should take the conservative approach,
and assume that any alerts are caused by Project vehicles. Given that during the six month long excavation
phases, a Project haul truck will be passing the Old Water Tower approximately every seven minutes,
there will not be sufficient time to determine whether or not a Project vehicle is responsible.
3.1-
137
Joel Klein
6/21/23 3
Joel Klein 2:
The last component of the plan is so vague as to be meaningless. It merely calls for truck trips
to be halted "until additional data can be collected and mitigation can be implemented." What
types of "additional data" are being referred to? What potential mitigation options are feasible?
Who will determine what data is collected and its adequacy? Who will determine what
constitutes adequate and appropriate mitigation? How will trucks in-route to the Project site be
notified that they should not proceed to the Project site? Will the Town of Southold be notified?
Who will have stop- and start-work authority?
3.1-
138
Annie Correal
06/08/28 44928
Failure to Fulfill Southold Town's Vision Statement
• Neglected Goals: The proposed project fails to fulfill key goals outlined in Southold Town's
Vision Statement, such as land preservation, protection of natural resources, efficient
transportation, diverse housing stock, and expanded recreational opportunities.
•Unsuitable Architectural Design: The architectural design of the massive warehouses does
not harmonize with the existing character of Mattituck Inlet, diminishing its appeal to
tourists, kayakers, fishermen, and potential homebuyers.
•Prioritization of Private Interests: The project prioritizes the needs of wealthy private yacht
owners over those of the public, hindering recreational activities including walking and birdwatching
at Mill Road Preserve and fishing, swimming and boating at the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation' s Mattituck Creek Waterway Access Site, sites
which will be obstructed by truck traffic and the construction project. These sites are crucial
public facilities in Southold Town, providing fully-accessible amenities for enjoying nature
and the waters of Mattituck Creek and Long Island Sound.
•Improper Extraction of Resources: Concerns have been raised regarding the potential
exploitation of valuable sand resources. The removal of the hillside could yield substantial
profits from the sale of sand ( the DEIS states that 63 percent of the material has been
identified as quality sand). Such actions necessitate compliance with Mined Land
Reclamation Permit regulations, which the proposal currently lacks. The removal of
lucrative sand by thousands of trucks would also lead to pollution, damage roadways, and
compromise the safety of nearby homeowners and the quality of life of the community at
large.
3.1-
139 Beth Lebowitz 7/9/23 1
The DEIS is very inaccurate about the Zoning and does not clearly demonstrate that the project complies
with the zoning. Most simply the DEIS is inconsistent in its description of the applicable zoning. In some
sections it refers to the entire parcel as being zoned M-11, but in others it acknowledges that part of the
parcel is zoned R-80. Because of these discrepancies, and a lack of clear presentation of the size of each
parcel, the applicants' bulk calculations are not precise or accurate.
3.1-
140 Beth Lebowitz 7/9/23 1 & 2
A serious underlying problem with the zoning is that the boundary between the M-11 and R-80 portions is
uncertain. The zoning maps accompanying the 1989 Southold Law 1 show the boundary between the
maritime/industrial and residential districts was moved several hundred feet to the west of its previous
location.The previous location logically followed the edge of the existing bluff. But there are no records of
an official action authorizing this change, or explaining the planning rationale for this change, and the
associated zoning map with metes and bounds was never submitted to the County. This issue needs to be
addressed as part of the environmental review of the project, and must be resolved. Typically applicants
with zoning lots with unclear boundary lines or where records of the official adoption of zoning
designation are incomplete or missing, are required to include with their proposal an application rectifying
the zoning. This should be done before any SEQRA findings statement can be prepared by the Planning
Board.
3.1-
141 Beth Lebowitz 7/9/23 2
Moreover, M-11 Zoning district rules as set forth in section 280-54 of the Zoning Code state that the
proposed development should have direct access to marine or tidal waterways. Given the site's elevation,
it does not, and is therefore non-conforming with the intent of M-11 zoning, whose purpose is to
"maintain the existing pattern of maritime use." Instead the site will have to be intensively modified to
make it suitable for the proposed use, which will disrupt the "existing pattern of uses including land, soil,
topography, tree cover and soil material."
3.1-
142 Beth Lebowitz 7/9/23 2
The DEIS does not clearly present the method for calculating the maximum building height of the two
proposed storage buildings. According to Zoning Code section 280-4 building height is to be measured
from adjacent natural grade. There is no clear indication how adjacent natural grade was calculated. This is
especially problematic given that the proposal involves lowering the grade by 30 feet, which is certainly
not intended by M-11 zoning. However, the DEIS does state that the proposed warehouse building height
is 45' 8" measured from ridge height to adjacent grade. According to the Zoning Code, the maximum
building height in an M-11 district is 35 feet. This is clearly not compliant with the bulk regulations in the
district or with its intent.
3.1-
143
Save Mattituck Inlet
05/05/23 5
The DEIS is inconsistent in its description of the applicable zoning. In some sections it refers to
the entire parcel as being zoned M-11, but in others it acknowledges that part of the parcel is
zoned R-80. Because of these discrepancies, the Applicant's bulk calculations are not precise or
accurate.
3.1-
144
Save Mattituck Inlet
05/05/23 6
The underlying problem is that the boundary between the M-11 and R-80 portions is
uncertain. The zoning maps accompanying the 1989 Southold Law 1 show the boundary
between the maritime/industrial and residential districts was moved several hundred feet to the
west of its previous location, which, logically, followed the edge of the existing bluff. But there
are no records of an official action authorizing this change, and the associated zoning map was
never submitted to the County. This issue needs to be addressed as part of the environmental
review of the project, and must be resolved before any SEQRA findings statement can be
prepared by the Planning Board.
3.1-
145
Save Mattituck Inlet
05/05/23 6
Contrary to the DEIS, the proposed development, given the site's elevation, does not
have direct access to marine or tidal waterways, as required by section 280-54 of the
Zoning Code.
3.1-
146
Save Mattituck Inlet
05/05/23 6
Contrary to the intent of M-11 zoning, whose purpose is to "maintain the existing pattern
of maritime use," the site will have to be intensively modified to make it suitable for the
proposed use, which will disrupt the "existing pattern of uses including land, soil,
topography, tree cover and soil material."
3.1-
147
Save Mattituck Inlet
05/05/23 6
There is lack of clarity as to ownership of Parcel 1000-106.-6-10 which is part of the
Project parcel. This parcel is not listed on the Town of Southold assessment roll.
3.1-
148
Save Mattituck Inlet
05/05/23 6
There is lack of clarity regarding the measurement of maximum building height of two
proposed storage buildings. Building height is to be measured from adjacent natural
grade per Zoning Code 280-4. However, the proposal involves lowering the grade by 30
feet.
3.1-
149
Save Mattituck Inlet
05/05/23 6
The DEIS states that the building height is given as 45' 8" measured from ridge height to
adjacent grade. According to the Zoning Code, the maximum building height in an M-11
district is 35 feet.
3.1-
150
Save Mattituck Inlet
05/05/23 6
The DEIS fails to address some of these objectives and misstates the impact of the
Project on others. In sum, the Project is inconsistent with the planning principles
intended to guide the Town into the future.
3.1-
151
Save Mattituck Inlet
05/05/23 7
The Comprehensive Plan sets as a goal to "revitalize Mattituck Inlet into a recreational and commercial
maritime hub." To revitalize a place is to bring it back to life, and it is hard to imagine any development
less likely to enliven a community than a giant warehouse, or two of them, which will stand empty for
much of the year. The storage buildings will have no obvious maritime function and do nothing to enhance
the maritime character of the Town, the Hamlet, or the Inlet, which historically were built around
commercial and sport fishing and small-boat recreation by local residents. We note that several
commercial fishermen spoke in favor of the Project at the May 15 Planning Board meeting, but none
explained how building the Project would help them, or how a denial of the Application would harm their
industry.
3.1-
152
Save Mattituck Inlet
05/05/23 7
The Comprehensive Plan also sets as a goal to "preserve, encourage, and continue to
support existing and future maritime uses as an important business sector within the
Town's economy." The DEIS claims the Project will advance that goal, but it fails to explain
how a warehouse for boats which will make one round trip to and from Long Island Sound each
year will do anything for the Town's economy
3.1-
153
Save Mattituck Inlet
05/05/23 7
Another goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to "protect the character of historic agricultural
and maritime areas by maintaining appropriate scales of development, intensity of
use, and architectural style." The DEIS asserts the Project meets this goal, without
mentioning that it would be larger than any existing development in Southold, and five times
the size of the proposed, now defunct, Brinkman's hardware store project on Main Road.
3.1-
154
Save Mattituck Inlet
05/05/23 8
The Comprehensive Plan establishes a goal to "reduce impacts from traffic" in
residential neighborhoods. The Project truck route includes several miles of residential
roads, along with heavily-used Sound Avenue which during the six-month excavation phase
will be traversed by a steady stream (eight or more trips an hour) of the heaviest trucks
permitted on New York State roads. The DEIS asserts that "impacts have been mitigated to
the maximum extent practicable," primarily by scheduling excavation during winter months,
but even if it begins on time in December, and adheres to its six-month timetable, it will run
into June. Construction of the Project clearly will be counter to the goal of reducing traffic
impacts.
3.1-
155
Save Mattituck Inlet
05/05/23 8
The LWRP establishes a goal to "provide for public access to, and recreational use of,
coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold." The DEIS
asserts this is "not applicable" to the Project, since Strong's Yacht Center serves a private
clientele. But it asserts that providing winter boat storage "supports an existing recreational use
within the Town. As such, while this policy is not applicable, the proposed action would be
consistent with the intent of this policy." As noted, the boats the Project is designed to house
may come from hundreds of miles away, be registered anywhere, and typically cost over $1
million. They are not what most people think of as recreational watercraft. Yachts of this class
may be owned by LLCs and run in part as businesses, with professional crews, chartered out
for portions of the boating season. To claim that providing a convenience to their owners is
"consistent with the intent" of a policy goal which specifically and repeatedly invokes the "public"
is, to say the least, stretching a point.
3.1-
156 Joel Klein 7/7/23 6
The Applicant went on to write that: "Our 16-acre waterfront property could receive development
approvals for a range of purposes outside of marine use." Given that the property is zoned Marine II (M-
11), it is unclear what types of proposals "outside of maritime use" could be approved since only maritime-
related uses are permitted in M-11 zones. The Applicant also wrote that the "trend has been to sell
[marinas] to private equity/marina conglomerates-often with different priorities than the longtime
marinas and shipyards they replace-or to sell to developers with residential or resort development in
mind." Is this a threat that the Applicant will do this if his proposal is not approved? It is at least misleading
since residential development is not permitted in M-11 zones.
3.1-
157
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 126
JOHN MARA:
And I wanted to briefly go over two points. The first is scale and the second is stewardship. First scale.
North Fork is a small quaint, unique. The inlet is also very small. Saturday at high tide, I went to the inlet
and I -- for people that haven't been there, I was able to throw a small stone halfway across the water.
And I'm no pitcher. Just to show you how small the inlet really is. And to think this is -- this is a massive,
massive project. Two
propane large buildings that are 100 times the size of the first floor of my house. 100 times.
3.1-
158
Terese Brady-Mendez
05/12/23 2
As noted above, the 2020 Southold Comprehensive Plan states that plans "be compatible with existing
community character while supporting and addressing the challenges of continued land preservation,
maintain a vibrant local economy, creating efficient transportation, promoting a diverse housing stock,
expanded recreational opportunities and protecting natural resources."
It is clear Strong's proposed project does not support continued land preservation nor does it expand
recreational opportunities of our residents, and eliminates a wide and important variety of natural
resources.
3.1-
159
John Rasweiler
6/29/23 1
Zoning of the proposed warehouse site. The currently approved zoning for the site is Marine II. I suspect
that when this zoning code was originally approved many years ago, the Town of Southold never
envisioned it would permit a massive, commercial scale, sand mining operation. This is clearly more than
digging a hole for a building basement or regrading a construction site. As actually stated by Strong's, the
removal and sale of sand from the site is going to fund a significant portion of the entire project. For that
to be permissible, I believe the site should be zoned LI (Light Industrial) or LIO (Light Industrial Park). Such
rezoning of the site would be inappropriate in the middle of an area otherwise zoned as R80.
3.1-
160
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 158
MEMBER AMELIA JEALOUS-DANK:
So you talk about the documented demand for storage of yachts. Where does it come from?
3.1-
161 Boscola 6/20/23 1
We have contacted the Town Board for clarification of revised, and we believe erroneous, zoning change
that occurred with the adoption of Local Law No.1-1989 and have not received a sufficient response.
When the town redrew its zoning map in 1989, the boundary between the R-80 and M-11 zones ofSCTM
#1000-106-13.4, located along the western side of Mattituck Creek, was shifted westward approximately
380' from its pre-1989 location. This moved the boundary westward over a the 50' elevated bluff, where it
had previously followed the contour of the base of the bluff. Had someone visited the property during the
rezoning process, they would have seen that the area west of the existing marina is not suitable for marina
expansion given the topography of the land. Had the map been properly circulated, residents could have
flagged it ahead of time. The fact that four residential homes already existed there by 1989 is a clear
indication that the property was, and intended to remain, zoned residential.
That boundary shift resulted in our home, one of the residential lots (SCTM #1000-106-13.7), becoming
surrounded by the M-11 zone. To date, we have been unable to confirm how there was a westward shift
of the boundary nor the exact metes-and-bounds of the new zone boundary. The prior zoning boundary IS
identifiable (refer to Attachment A) and should be reinstated. This is a significant deficiency and needs to
be addressed as it would render this project ineligible as currently proposed. Perhaps refer this to the ZBA?
3.1-
162 Boscola 6/20/23 1
Per Section 275-1 l(e) of Town Code, "Retaining walls are not permitted unless excessive erosion can be
demonstrated." The excessive erosion is being caused directly by the developer's actions, not by natural
occurrence. This self-imposed erosion should be considered as a reason for the Planning Board to reject
this massive and thus unnecessary retaining wall.
3.1-
163 Boscola 6/20/23 1 & 2
Per Section 280-lll(H) of Town Code, Prohibited uses in all districts, "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." 1. A
representative boat that Strong's Marine sells and seeks to store is a Cruisers 60' Cantius. Per
manufacturer specifications (Attachment G), this vessel holds 647 gallons of diesel fuel in its tanks. The
project calls for storing 88 like vessels, which translates to combined fuel oil capacity of,936 gallons.
2. Another representative vessel Strong's Marine sells is the Fairline 65' Phantom. Per Strong's website
(Attachment G), while only 5' larger than the Cruisers Cantius, the Phantom holds 1,103 gallons of fuel.
Assuming 80 of these Phantoms are stored, that is 88,240 gallons of fuel capacity. As proposed, this
project is not allowed to exist based on Section 280-lll(H).
a. These proposed buildings are less than 1,000' from both tidal waters and tidal wetlands so storing
nearly 3x-5x the amount of fuel is prohibited. Boats are encouraged to be stored with full fuel to reduce
condensation in the tanks; however, even if the boats are stored with empty tanks, the code restricts
capacity.
b. Since the DEIS contemplates these buildings as one project, they should be aggregated for the 20,000-
gallon capacity rule. The 8,000 gallons of propane associated with these buildings should also be counted
toward the capacity.
3.1-
164
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 169
JOEL KLEIN:
In regard to Mr. Strong's claims that he intends to build both buildings. Qualified that again tonight. This
came up. I asked him the same question at a meeting of the Southold Peconic Civic Association six weeks
ago. And he's recorded, and I have that in comments that have been submitted to the Board, his
statement that, well, it would really depend on the price of steel and construction materials coming down.
And as he said tonight, his intention is to put in -- excavate the sand, put in the retaining wall, build the
slab. However, last week, he was quoted in the New York Times as saying he intended to build both
buildings on the get (sic). So I don't know which project he's talking about. The Planning Board actually
reviewing project intends to build. It sounds like it's going to be one structure, which would involve
virtually all of the same environmental impacts, but a few benefits that do accrue, including property tax
advantages, employment would be half.
3.1-
165
Barbara Butterworth
05/04/23 1
Also, I wonder if Southold Town has the resources to adequately monitor the development of this complex
project to assure all plans are followed.
3.1-
166
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 2
Replacement and upgrading of the existing septic system is not contingent upon the approval of the entire
Project. The Applicant can undertake this improvement independent of Project approval.
3.1-
167
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 2
As noted in other comments, the water line is being constructed independent of the Project.
Groundwater benefits cannot be attributed to the Project.
3.1-
168
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 3
As noted in other comments, 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.
3.1-
169
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Comprehensive Plan 6
It is unclear why “illicit discharges” would ever have been considered as possibility for inclusion in the
Project. It should go without saying that the Project is expected to comply with the law.
Chapter 3.2 Human Health
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
3.2-1
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Human
Health Impacts 1
According to the DEIS the “repair, maintenance, fueling, washing and detailing of boats
would occur in the same manner as they currently do on-site. Repair and maintenance would
occur within the on-site buildings and/or at the existing dock” (emphasis added) (pp. xxvii,
279). This sentence is ambiguous in that it is unclear whether it means repair and
maintenance activities will continue to occur only within presently on-site buildings, or if on-
site buildings include the proposed storage buildings.
3.2-2
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Human
Health Impacts 1
The DEIS states that it “is noted that the proposed action would not alter the maximum
amounts of chemicals and antifouling paint stored onsite” (pp. xxviii, 279). The DEIS also
states that “[n]o changes to chemical storage nor chemical storage volumes are anticipated
as part of the proposed action” (p.90), and that the “proposed action would not require SYC
to modify its current quantities of chemicals stored onsite nor require additional chemicals
be stored on-site” (pp. xv, 190). However, other statements in the DEIS call these
statements into question.
The DEIS states that “new employees would be for the boatyard only and include positions
for boat maintenance, machinery operators, engine technicians, administrative, and wood
and fiberglass re-finishing personnel” (pp. xxviii, 20, 279) and “the proposed action would
create new jobs for the servicing of the larger vessels to be stored on-site,” (p.178). Many
(most?) of the newly created jobs would presumably be related to the servicing of boats
stored inside the new storage buildings. It is difficult to reconcile this with the statement
that the amount of chemicals stored on site will not increase. This inconsistency is also
supported by the fact that the scale of maintenance and repair activities will increase
significantly as a result of the proposed Project. This is evident from the fact that in 2020
SYC revenues from boat servicing totaled $1,262,936, but will increase more than 40% to an
estimated $1,800,000 in 2024 if the Project is completed. It is also noted that the Planning
Board also believed that the proposed Project would necessitate an increase in the volume
of chemicals stored on site. This is evident from the DEIS Scope requirement that the
applicant provide “an analysis on the chemicals stored and disposed on site and the potential
adverse impacts from the increase in volume of chemicals used and stored on site during the
proposed action” (emphasis added) (DEIS Scope p.11).
3.2-3
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Human
Health Impacts 1 & 2
A copy of SYC’s Article 12 permit is included in DEIS Appendix J. Condition 1 of the permit
states that “This site operating permit does not imply that each individual storage unit at the
site is in compliance with all applicable codes.” Permit Condition 3 states that the permit “is
limited to storage unit(s) listed on the latest renewal/invoice notice. That list is made a part
of this permit.” This information is not included with the copy of the Article 12 permit
included in the DEIS.
3.2-4
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Human
Health Impacts 2
DEIS Table 13 (and DEIS Appendix M Table 3) is a list of “On-Site Stored Chemicals for Boat
Maintenance, Repair and Detailing.” According to the SYC website,2 (COMMENT FIGURE -
HEALTH 1) on-site services offered by SYC include “Gelcoat Refinishing.” According a
manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS), Gelcoat is considered hazardous by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29
CFR 1910.1200).3 Gelcoat does not appear among the list (DEIS Table 13) of on-site stored
chemicals.
3.2-5
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Human
Health Impacts 3
The DEIS states that “The proposed action would not require SYC to modify its current
quantities of antifouling paint stored on-site as painting services would not be offered to
customers storing yachts in Buildings 9 and 10” [proposed storage buildings 1 and 2] (p.190).
However, no such statement in regard to Gelcoat refinishing services, or other maintenance
activities, is included in the DEIS.4 This is concerning since the DEIS states that new
employees hired if the Project proceeds will include “wood and fiberglass re-finishing
personnel.” The latter activity involves the use of Gelcoat.
3.2-6
Nelson Pope Voorhis 6-26-
23 3
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.
3.2-7
Lori Panarello May 15 2023
email 1
...there is a severe danger posed by the amount of propane and gasoline that will be housed
in those two giant storage containers...
3.2-8
Atsuko Shio May 11 2023
email
In addition to the environmental and economic concerns, I am also deeply worried about the
safety of the community's residents/children who frequently kayak/paddle in the narrow
inlet. Allowing larger boats into the area through the proposed expansion of Strong's storage
buildings creates a significant safety risk for these watercraft users. The increased traffic in
the inlet, combined with the limited space and narrow channels, could lead to serious
accidents and injuries. It is essential that we prioritize the safety of our community and take
action to prevent unnecessary risks to their well-being.
3.2-9
William Smith & Dennis
Schrader 7/10/23 2
it is evident that the presence of large yachts navigating the twisting waters of Mattituck
Creek poses significant dangers to kayakers, swimmers, and small boaters, including over
100 families who have homes along the waterway.
3.2-10
Mary Elizabeth Guyton
7/8/23 1 & 2
Exploration into the impact on the safety of the volunteer firefighters as well as neighboring
homes and the Mill Road preserve are of grave consequence. We are currently experiencing
the impact on our air quality of fires thousands of miles away- what impact would this type
of fire have on our North Fork air quality and our health?
3.2-11
Mary Elizabeth Guyton
7/8/23 2
As a kayaker I ask the Town Board to do further study on boater safety, especially the impact
on manual operators like kayaks and paddle boards who are particularly vulnerable. Despite
the current speed limit and "no wake" guidance- it can be challenging for paddlers of all ages
and skill level to currently negotiate the wakes of motorized boats. A study to understand
the impact of proposed barges and increase in large yachts is essential to gauge the risk to
boaters. Further, it will be important to understand if this increase in large vessels puts
paddlers at risk, what resources does the town's fire and rescue company have to rescue
victims?
3.2-12
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 100
CATHERINE CANADE:
I know that so many of my neighbors have written and spoken about how disruptive the
Strong's Project is going to be. And that's because we all use and value our outdoor space so
much. We love the North Fork because of its natural beauty, and the ability for us to enjoy
the outdoors is essential to our well-being.
3.2-13
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 106
LORI PANARELLO:
You people live in Cutchogue. You people live in Southold. You live in Greenport. I live on
West Mill Road. Every seven minutes there'll be a truck load of sand going down my block
and another one going back the other way to pick up more sand. If that isn't an
inconvenience to my lifestyle, to the lifestyle of the people in my neighborhood, I don't really
know what is.
3.2-14
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 122
PHOEBE PUNDYK:
As the consultant's helpful suggest -- And the consultant's helpful suggestion is that we stay
inside with our windows closed. So that we aren't bothered by the noise and the traffic,
which is quite absurd. I understand that the construction phase is considered to be
temporary. I also know that no project big or small stays on schedule. This one will be at
least a year long. At least. For a neighborhood that lives outside, it's not a brief or short
term inconvenience. It's a major change to our lifestyle. It a year or more of not being able
to safely walk is not just an -- it makes it impossible for this neighborhood to live the way in
the way that we have chosen. It will be detrimental to our physical and mental health. Will
isolate many of our neighbors. It will destroy the character of the neighborhood. We are
your neighbors. We are your community. Please consider the short term and long term
physical and mental toll that this will have on us all.
3.2-15 Jo-Ann Lechner 7/5/23 2
The warehouses will be heated by a total of 8,000 gallons of propane, in addition to the
hundreds of gallons of fuel each of the 88 yachts will hold in the buildings. How much more
air and water pollution will this add to our Towns.
3.2-16
Terese Brady-Mendez
05/12/23 2
During the construction phase of the proposed project, the entire neighborhood will be
affected by the number of pollutants that would be disbursed and would surely have
negative effects on neighbors with
existing respiratory or other environmentally sensitive ailments.
After this project's completion, neighborhood health concerns include enhanced fire safety
measures due to the use of propane tanks to heat the buildings that could explode, and
water pollution due to run-off or the discharge of marine petrochemicals into the inlet. Is the
town prepared to expand the nearby Departments with additional staffing and specialized
fire-fighting equipment? How will the water purity be closely and accurately monitored by
the Town?
3.2-17 Joyce Beckenstein 05/04/23 1
What guarantees assuage our fears that the heating requirements for the units will not pose
a significant fire
threat?
3.2-18 Boscola 6/20/23 12
We want to underscore the fire risk to neighboring homes, not just ours. Per Appendix P, " ...
access to the site would be provided via the existing driveway from West Mill Road ... ". That
existing driveway is the same one we use to access our home - that is how close we are. The
Fire Marshal recommended 150' for fire department access - our property is ~ 120' from the
edge of the north building. There is a wooded parcel with a home on North Drive that is ~83'
from the southern building as well as several other homes closely connected with trees.
Therefore, distance recommendation cannot be overlooked. In addition to our home, the
residents of neighboring North Drive appear to be completely ignored in the fire risk
assessment. North Drive could be needed by MFD to access the southern end of the
property and that needs to be evaluated for viability.
3.2-19 Atsuko Shio 05/11/23 1
I am also deeply worried about the safety of the community's residents/children who
frequently kayak/paddle in the narrow inlet. Allowing larger boats into the area through the
proposed expansion of Strong's storage buildings creates a significant safety risk for these
watercraft users. The increased traffic in the inlet, combined with the limited space and
narrow channels, could lead to serious accidents and injuries.
Chapter 3.3 Transport
ID#
Source
Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
3.3-1
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 1
Both the original December 2021 DEIS (p.197) and October 2021 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (DEIS Appendix O,
p.34) indicate that they utilized the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) report “Trip Generation” (10th
edition) (as called for in the DEIS Scope, p.25) in preparing the traffic analysis, which is described in the DEIS
as “a nationally accepted [sic] standard.” The ITE defines a “trip” as “a single or one-direction vehicle
movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site” (ITE 1976).
However, both the original TIS and DEIS consistently equate “trips” with round-trips when discussing
vehicular traffic. This leaves the impression that the number of “trips” is half of what it really is. The original
TIS and the DEIS employed this practice multiple times. As described below, the revised DEIS continues to
employ this deceptive wording.
3.3-2
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 2
“DEIS combines both directions when assessing the adverse impacts of a truck trip when in fact the total
number of trips is expected to be much greater and is not discussed in the document.
The Planning Board’s memo requests that the revised DEIS include a more accurate and detailed discussion
on the . . . “the total number of trucks per day that will travel over local and regional roads over the duration
of the project” (emphasis in original).
The revised DEIS continues to deceptively describe truck traffic in terms of round-trips rather than as one-
way movements as called for by the Planning Board (and the ITE):
3.3-3
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 3
The DEIS either a) underestimates the number of truck trips required to haul sand from the Project site
during the Excavation Phases, or b) fails to note that haul trucks would have to be overloaded to conform to
the number of estimated trips.
3.3-4
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 3
While the TIS states that “None of the trucks used in the construction of the project will . . . exceed the
weight limits established by State law” (DEIS p.78), it fails to note that special permits will be required that
will allow each Project haul truck to exceed the unpermitted maximum allowable weight limit by 27,000
pounds.
3.3-5
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 5
Project haul trucks loaded to their maximum allowable weight will not be able to carry, at most, more than
25 CY of sand. Removal of the sand during Excavation Phase 1 will therefore require a minimum of 4,920
round trips (9,840 total trips)—not the 4,100 trips stated in the DEIS. Excavation Phase 2 will require a
minimum of 480 round trips (960 total trips)—not the 400 trips stated in the DEIS.
The DEIS appears to have significantly underestimated the volume of construction truck traffic that will be
generated by the Project. Under the scenario of 80 truck trips per day, the number of Project haul trucks
travelling along Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road will be one every 7.5 minutes during Excavation Phases 1
and 2. If this must be increased to 96 trips per day in order to maintain the Project’s schedule, the interval
between trucks will be even smaller (approximately one every six minutes).
The Planning Board’s consultant (NPV), in their review of the original DEIS, noted that “[T]he basis for the
construction truck traffic analysis and potential construction duration is largely reliant on the use of large 30
yard trailers, therefore the feasibility of use of this equipment must be fully evaluated to determine if the
projected construction duration is reasonably analyzed” (NPV p. 4-5). The DEIS has not addressed this issue.
3.3-6
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 5
The DEIS and the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (Appendix O) employ inappropriate and misleading terminology
in their descriptions of the classification of existing and projected truck traffic. The DEIS and the TIS present
conclusions about the increase in construction traffic that are contradicted by raw data in the TIS. This data
is not discussed in the text of either document. Both documents ignore the true increase in heavy (tractor-
trailer) truck traffic (FhWA 10 vehicles) that will be associated with Project construction.
3.3-7
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 6
The Final Scope of Work for the DEIS calls for the traffic study to include information “on vehicle types that
would be using roadways in the project vicinity” (p.11); “vehicle types involved in the staging, clearing,
excavation, and site preparation [and] construction” (p.13); on “all specifications of the loaded and unloaded
trucks involved in the excavation and construction” (p.13), and “potential adverse impacts from all vehicle
trip types included in each phase and post construction, the wear and tear on roadways caused by vehicle
types” (p.13).
...
The revised TIS (DEIS Appendix O) includes in its appendices, sections titled “Vehicle Classification Studies.”
These appendices consist of detailed traffic counts, breaking down the counts into the Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA) 13-class vehicle classification system11,12. Significantly, the existence of this
information is mentioned in the DEIS, but the data is never discussed in any detail.13 Instead, the DEIS
ignores this data and combines all truck types (larger than pick-up trucks) into a single “heavy vehicle”
category, and never discusses truck traffic in terms of the FhWA vehicle classification system. As a result,
the DEIS contains numerous misleading statements about the nature of existing truck traffic and the severity
of the impacts associated with Project-related truck traffic.
3.3-8
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 7
Nowhere in DEIS or the TIS, including the sections of those documents entitled “Analysis of Construction-
Related Traffic Impacts” (DEIS p.216-217) and “Traffic Impacts from Construction” (TIS pp. 51-65) is there an
analysis of the extent to which “heavy” truck traffic (Class 5-13) and more importantly Class 9 and 10 truck
traffic—18- and 22-wheel tractor-trailers, would increase during the months-long construction period, or
what the impacts of this increase would be.
...
The percentages of total truck traffic described in the DEIS as “heavy vehicles” is derived by combining the
number of trucks in all truck classifications (classes 5-13), and ignores significant differences in the traffic
counts associated with individual vehicle classes. Virtually all delivery trucks, such as the box vans used by
FedEx and UPS, fall into Class 5 or Class 6, and are often categorized as “medium trucks”.14 However, all of
the trucks that will be used to haul sand from the Project site--22-wheel tractor-trailers with 6 axles--will be
considerably larger and heavier and will fall into vehicle classification 10 which are unambiguously
considered “heavy trucks”. (COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-1)
3.3-9
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 7
According to the DEIS and the TIS “analysis of the classification data from West Mill Road also indicated that
the trucks using the road were smaller than those using Cox Neck Road and Sound Avenue/North Road”
(DEIS p.201; TIS p.23). However, the DEIS fails to address the implications of this statement. During the one-
week long fall study period (November 4-10, 2021), a total of 21 trips (18 on weekdays) by trucks in classes 7-
13 were recorded on Cox Neck Road. This amounts to between 3 and 4 trips per day. The Project will cause
an approximately 2000% increase in this number. During the same period a total of 7 heavy truck trips (6 on
weekdays) were counted on West Mill Road, or an average of one trip per day. The Project will generate
almost 80 times this number.
3.3-10
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 7
The revised TIS does includes information about the nature of the traffic travelling West Mill Road on three
weekdays in August 2022:
...
This information, which clearly indicates how little truck traffic presently travels West Mill Road, and the
relatively small size of those vehicles, is NOT included in the revised main DEIS text.
3.3-11
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 8
The increase in the volume of heavy truck traffic generated by the Project, and continuing for up to seven
months, must be considered a significant negative impact affecting not only estimates of road damage, and
dangers to pedestrians and cyclists, but the general quality to life of residents along Cox Neck Road and West
Mill Road.
The DEIS states that “The vehicle classification counts indicated that heavy vehicles (trucks) as a percentage
of the traffic observed [on Sound Avenue in Riverhead] . . . was slightly more than 3 percent during the
winter months” (DEIS p.194-5; Traffic Study p.21). In fact, haul trucks from the Project will also cause a
significant increase in heavy truck traffic on Sound Avenue. Data from the vehicle classification study tables
in the traffic study indicate that just the trucks hauling sand from the Project, without regard to other
construction-related truck traffic, will result in an approximate 50 percent increase in week-day heavy truck
traffic on Sound Avenue during the winter.18 The impact will be even greater during the fall when haul
trucks from the Project will result in a more than doubling of heavy truck traffic on Sound Avenue.
3.3-12
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 9
The DEIS has misrepresented the qualitative nature of the truck traffic that will be generated by the Project
in a way that minimizes the severity of traffic impacts.
3.3-13
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 9
The DEIS contains no proper evaluation of the hazards posed by limited sight distances along Cox Neck Road,
West Mill Road, and Sound Avenue.
3.3-14
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 10
The DEIS fails to identify the actual sight distances at any point along the truck route, or whether they will
allow for adequate stopping sight distances for 107,000 pound 30-yard haul truck travelling at the speed
limit in either dry or wet pavement situations.
At a minimum, the DEIS and TIS should have evaluated the stopping distances for unloaded and fully-loaded
haul trucks in relation to locations with limited sight distances. The failure to do this is especially concerning
because, as cited above, the DEIS and TIS both note the existence of locations with significant curves that
should have warning signs.
3.3-15
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 10
East of Naugles Road the curve is also tight, and it will be difficult for the trucks to stay in lane” (emphasis
added) (DEIS p. 219; TIS p.77). Figure 8 of 12, in the Truck Turning Studies section of the Supplemental Data
Appendix of the TIS, clearly shows that trucks will NOT be able to stay in lane at this location. To overcome
this the DEIS and TIS propose “that flaggers be used to control traffic as truck [sic] pass through this area”
(DEIS p.219; TIS p.77). There are limited sight distances at this location. In the absence of an analysis of the
relationship between sight distance and truck stopping distance it is not possible to assess the effectiveness
of this as a mitigative measure.
3.3-16
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 10
The DEIS does state that “Flaggers will be uses for maintenance and protection of traffic at locations where
severe curves in the truck route or at intersections where turns are being made by Project trucks that may
require crossing of the yellow double barrier lines” (DEIS pp. xxxvi, xxxix, 229, 298). However, other than the
Naugles Road locations, no locations where flaggers will be deployed are identified. The DEIS notes that only
two “Flag Personnel” will be employed during the Project excavation phases (DEIS pp. xxx, 18, 212, 290)
suggesting that Naugles Road location is the only location where flaggers will be used.
3.3-17
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 11
Neither the DEIS nor the TIS address whether trucks making left-hand turns to exit the Project site via the
haul road will be able to stay in lane. COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-4 illustrates the difficulty that large haul
trucks have making turns onto Cox Neck Road.
3.3-18
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 11
The TIS includes a section dealing with roadway characteristics, but fails to mention that Sound Avenue is
marked with double-yellow no-passing lines for the entire length of the truck route, or discuss how this
could impact traffic on that road.
Other than mentioning the existence of the Route 58/Roanoke Ave traffic circle (DEIS p.218; TIS p.76), there
is no discussion of potential issues at this location. Although the revised TIS includes photographs
documenting road conditions along the entire truck route, no photograph of this key location is included.
Likewise, it was not included in the AutoTurn analysis.
3.3-19
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 11
The DEIS fails to take into account how non-Project vehicles travelling in excess of the posted speed limits
might affect potential construction impacts and overall safety once Project-related heavy truck traffic is
added to existing volumes.
3.3-20
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 12
The revised DEIS fails to adequately consider how weather conditions and time of day might affect traffic
safety.
Nowhere in the DEIS, or the TIS, is there an estimate of the number of days that the Project may be delayed
because of weather-related (or task delay) issues.
Nowhere in the DEIS or TIS is there a discussion of what, if any,
conditions would determine if the operation of Project haul trucks will be limited or suspended.
3.3-21
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 12
Nowhere in the DEIS or TIS is there a consideration of how adverse weather conditions might affect visibility
or stopping distances, especially in relation to the numerous limited-sight-distance locations along Cox Neck
and West Mill Road. . It can be assumed that wet or icy roadways will require (because of the reduced
coefficient of friction between the road surface and vehicle tires) that vehicle stopping distances will be
greater when such conditions are present.
3.3-22
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 13 There is no discussion in the DEIS as to how the lack of lighting might affect traffic safety.
3.3-23
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 13
The DEIS fails to adequately assess the potential for Project-related traffic accidents, and incorrectly
concludes that the potential for accidents along the Project truck routes will not increase as a result of the
Project. The DEIS is still inadequate in that it fails to provide accident data for the entire truck route.
The DEIS scope called for the DEIS to include accident data from “along the proposed truck routes”.
Although complete truck routes had not been identified at the time of scoping, the DEIS scope asks for
accident data for Cox Neck Road, West Mill Road, Sound Avenue, and Suffolk County Route 48 (p.11).
The DEIS fails to include accident data for the portions of the truck route along Sound Avenue (west of
Bergen Avenue), Northville Turnpike or County Route 58.
3.3-24
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 13
The TIS Supplemental Data Appendix includes a section identified as “NYSDOT Accident Verbal Descriptions”.
This section contains information from NYSDOT’s Accident Location Information System (ALIS) for the period
from 1/1/2019-12/31/2021. This supplements data in the original TIS for the 1/l/2017-6/30/2020 period.26
Unlike the original DEIS, the revised DEIS does not include details from this data. Instead, it refers readers to
the TIS Appendix entitled, “Accident Data” and the Supplemental Data Appendix of the TIS. Given the
importance of accident data in assessing safety concerns, the decision to eliminate this data from the main
DEIS text, (necessitating lay readers to refer to two separate technical appendices) is questionable.
3.3-25
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 14
According to the DEIS the “accident data obtained from the Police was largely duplicative of the data
originally obtained from NYSDOT” (p.202). Only one accident in police records is not included in the NYSDOT
data. However, it is noted that this is the only reported accident that involved a vehicle towing a boat
trailer. It does not appear to have been included in total number of accidents (48) noted in the DEIS and TIS.
3.3-26
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 14
While the DEIS and TIS both note that 38 accidents were associated with the intersection of Cox Neck Road
and Sound Avenue, no detailed information about these accidents is included in the text of either document.
Given that all Project truck traffic will have to negotiate this intersection, greater attention should have
been given to those accidents.
3.3-27
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 14
The DEIS states that “[T]here are no demonstrative conditions along [Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road] that
would indicate that the project volumes would increase the potential for additional [vehicular] accidents”
(pp. xviii, 229). This is a disingenuous statement and is not supported by data in the traffic study. The DEIS
ignores the fact that composition of the Project-related traffic will be significantly different than the
composition of existing traffic.
3.3-28
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 14
While it may be considered true that once the Project is completed it will generate “a small number of
additional vehicles,” the same cannot be said for the construction period. The implication that the addition
of large numbers of oversize, overweight construction vehicles, of a type that only rarely travel the proposed
Project truck routes, will not pose an increased risk of accidents is unsupportable.
3.3-29
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 15
It is noted that the original December 2021 DEIS and TIS concluded that “accident data . . . during the . . .
analysis period indicated that there are [sic] no indication Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road has any traffic
safety deficiencies” (p.196). While this conclusion appears to have been eliminated from the revised main
DEIS text, it still appears in the revised TIS (p.28). This seems to contradict the statements in the DEIS (p.191)
and the Traffic Study (p.12) (quoted above) that identify potentially dangerous locations along these roads.
3.3-30
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 15
No data is provided to support the statement that the “rate of accidents occurring at the [Cox Neck Road at
Sound Avenue/North Road intersection is not atypical for an intersection with similar volumes” (p.196).
Even if true, it has no bearing on how the accident rate might change with the Project’s massive increase in
heavy construction truck traffic, notably 22-wheel tractor trailers.
...
The DEIS notes (p.203) that there have also been no recently identified accidents in the vicinity of the
intersection of the proposed haul road and West Mill Road. It is hard to understand how historical accident
data pertaining to a presently non-existent intersection is relevant to what the accident potential will be
after the intersection is created.
3.3-31
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 15
The DEIS notes (p.203) that there have also been no recently identified accidents in the vicinity of the
intersection of the proposed haul road and West Mill Road. It is hard to understand how historical accident
data pertaining to a presently non-existent intersection is relevant to what the accident potential will be
after the intersection is created.
3.3-32
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 15
Although the DEIS scope (p.11) requires that the DEIS include accident data for Sound Avenue and Suffolk
County Route 48 in Riverhead, no accident data is included for the portions of the Project truck route in
Riverhead. No attempt was made to obtain information from NYSDOT or the Riverhead Police Department.
The potential for accidents along the Riverhead portions of the Project truck route was demonstrated in a
2018 accident in which a truck carrying sand overturned just east of the Project truck
route 27 (COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-9).
3.3-33
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 15
The DEIS and TIS should have included a crash prediction analysis study for the entire Project truck route,
with special emphasis on Cox Neck and West Mill Roads, and the intersection of Cox Neck Road and Route
48 (North Road)/Sound Avenue. Crash prediction models have been developed and methodologies are
described in detail in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO)
Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s (NCHRP)
Document 297 Intersection Crash Prediction Methods for the Highway Safety Manual.
3.3-34
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 16
The DEIS fails to adequately consider or evaluate the extent of road damage that will occur during the
construction phases of the Project, and does not include the information necessary for the Planning Board to
conduct its own evaluation.
3.3-35
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 16
ESAL values do not quantify how projected traffic loads will accelerate, or contribute to damage on existing
roads.
3.3-36
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 17 There are numerous problems with the pavement evaluation study which call its conclusions into question.
3.3-37
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 17
TPSE could have included as part of their analysis the procedures in the Manual’s Chapter 2 “Evaluation of
Existing Pavements”.
3.3-38
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 17
As noted above in the discussion of vehicle classifications, the DEIS (and the TPSE pavement evaluation
study) consistently lumped all truck traffic, regardless of vehicle classification, into a single group.
…...
As noted above in the section on vehicle classification, the increase in Class 10 traffic on West Mill Road
during Project construction will be on the order of 2000%. The increase on Cox Neck Road will be on the
order of 8000%. These increases are not taken into account in TPSE’s calculations. As a result, tables (items 8
and 9) in the TSPE analysis, which compare calculated increases in total ESAL values from the “no build
condition” to the “build condition” along Cox Neck and West Mill Roads underestimate the actual ESAL
increase.
3.3-39
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 18
Third, the new road construction model used by TPSE to calculate ESAL also requires that a “Truck
Equivalency Factor (avg ESAL per truck)”33 be included in the model. All of TPSE’s calculations employ a
Truck Equivalency Factor of 1.35—the default value in the calculation spreadsheet. According to the AASHO,
triple-axle sets like those on the 22-wheel tractor trailers that will used by the Project, will likely have a truck
equivalency factor closer to 1.66.
....
The use of the 1.35 default value in TPSE’s calculations has likely further resulted in an underestimate of the
ESAL increase associated with the Project.
3.3-40
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 18
Fourth, TPSE has assumed in their calculations that the construction year for the Project will be 2023, when
most construction take place in 2024, at the earliest.
3.3-41
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 18
Finally, TPSE’s calculations are based on the unsupported and erroneous assumption that Cox Neck and
West Mill Roads, and Sound Avenue, were constructed in accordance with the Town of Southold’s current
highway specifications (Chapter 161 of Town Code)35. They were not. They are not “engineered” roads as
reflected in the Planning Board’s concern with the “design and condition of the roads leading to the site.”
.....
TPSE should have taken sample cores along Cox Neck and West Mill Roads and Sound Avenue to determine
the actual structure of the pavement on those roads. They could also have enquired of the Southold and
Riverhead Superintendents of Highways if information on pavement thickness along the truck route was
available.
They did neither.
.....
Without knowing the actual existing pavement thickness along Town roads, it is not possible to determine if
existing pavement thickness will be able to support the ESAL increase associated with the large number
of 22-wheel tractor-trailer trips that the Project will generate.
3.3-42
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 19
The pavement evaluation included in the TIS should have included a Pavement (Present) Serviceability Index
(PSI) evaluation. PSI is a parameter that accounts for the loss in serviceability. It is obtained from
measurements of roughness and distress, e.g., cracking, patching and rut depth at a particular time during
the service life of the pavement.
3.3-43
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 20
The statement (item 13) in the TPSE pavement evaluation that “the roads along the designated truck route
are adequate to carry the expected project traffic” fails to take into account the current condition of local
roads, is based on multiple unsupported assumptions, and does not evaluate the extent to which local roads
will be damaged by Project-generated traffic.
....
In conclusion, the DEIS fails to adequately address the degree to which the Project will contribute to, and
accelerate, damage local roads.
3.3-44
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 21
The measures described in the DEIS to mitigate traffic impacts, including road damage, are inadequate,
vague, incomplete, and unacceptable as proposed.
3.3-45
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 21
In reality, the revised DEIS includes only a slightly elaborated discussion relating to the post-construction
treatment of road damage. It does not address means of lessening that damage during the construction
period. No additional details about traffic impact mitigation measures are included in the revised DEIS. It
does not address the possibility of reducing the number of trucks per day, as requested by the Planning
Board. The revised DEIS does include information on Project alternatives which it believes would reduce
traffic impacts (discussed below), but these are not part of the proposed Project.
3.3-46
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 21
The current posted speed limit is 30 mph. The DEIS and the TIS (DEIS Appendix O) claim that the “proposed
30 miles per hour maximum speed to be observed by Project trucks on Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road will
mitigate the concerns of the community” (DEIS p.218; TIS p.73). This assumption is not supported by any
data, and is incorrect.
3.3-47
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 22
There is no explanation of why, if the Applicant can require Project trucks to limit their speed to 30 mph on
Town roads, he cannot require a limit of 25 mph, or why this is an action that must be taken by the Town of
Southold.
3.3-48
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 22
The commitment to repair potholes and “roadway imperfections” is not adequately discussed.
….
The DEIS contains no description of how procedures to repair potholes will be implemented, even though
the DEIS scope calls for a discussion of this issue (p.14). No definition of the word “quickly” is provided. Does
this mean daily, weekly, or less frequently? How will work be completed during winter months when asphalt
plants are closed? Will temporary repairs be with “throw and go” asphalt?46 Will this work be completed by
Project personnel or subcontracted? When will repairs take place? If during work hours, will it interfere with
construction traffic (as well as non-Project traffic)? Or will it take place at night? These factors have not
been considered in evaluating traffic impacts.
3.3-49
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 23
The proposal to conduct pre- and post-construction surveys is appropriate. However, as worded, the DEIS is
unclear as to how it will be determined that damage is “due to construction.” Presumably, some damage will
result from non-Project vehicles accelerating damage when passing over areas damaged by Project vehicles.
3.3-50
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 23
The delay in resurfacing of Cox Neck Road until after Project construction is complete is understandable.
However, it also means that Cox Neck Road will continue to deteriorate, exacerbating traffic-generated
noise and vibration, and will continue to do so until Project construction is complete. That is not likely to
happen before 2025, if ever. In the meantime, Southold residents travelling on Cox Neck Road have to
endure continuously deteriorating road conditions.
3.3-51
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 23
The DEIS does NOT discuss the “specific provisions” of the offered corporate/performance guarantee as
called for in the DEIS scope. The Applicant must be required to provide a bond to ensure that road
restoration takes place. This is especially essential to ensure that roads will be repaired in the event that the
Project does not proceed beyond the excavations phases, is not completed, is indefinitely halted, halted for
an extended period, or if the Applicant (SYC) should declare bankruptcy. The Planning Board’s May 10, 2022
memo on the inadequacies of the December 2021 version of the DEIS stated that the discussion of
performance guarantees needs to include “all impacted roadways or Townships” (emphasis added). The DEIS
does not include any reference to performance guarantees discussed with the Town of Riverhead.
3.3-52
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 24
Referring to a location on West Mill Road, just north of Bergen Avenue, the DEIS and TIS both say: "“No
warning signs are posted for either north bound south bound traffic….."
….
The DEIS does NOT propose any mitigation to correct these unsafe conditions, presumably leaving that up to
the Town of Southold. This would also, presumably, be the responsibility of the Town. In the absence of a
commitment to carry out, or fund, the “suggested” measures, they cannot be considered mitigation.
3.3-53
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 24
No traffic control improvements are proposed as part of the Project. The only off-site traffic control
measure, committed to in the DEIS is the use of flaggers “for maintenance and protection of Traffic [sic] at
locations where severe curves in the truck route or at intersections where turns are being made by Project
trucks that may require crossing of the yellow double barrier lines”
...
The DEIS text is ambiguous as to whether the commitment to provide flaggers would also include all “severe
curves” where limited sight distances exist.48
3.3-54
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 25
Finally, the DEIS has proposed two Project alternatives, which are represented as having the potential to
reduce traffic-related impacts.
The first is “an alternative material mitigation plan . . . to reduce the volume of material to be removed from
the subject property by placing approximately 13,500 cy of material on the R-80-zoned parcel. This
alternative would reduce the number of truck trips along the Project route but would create other serious
negative impacts. It is not part of the proposed Project.
The second alternative presented as a means of reducing traffic impacts is an “Alternate Truck Route . . .
that would reduce the impact of trucks hauling material from the site. ...". It is unclear how this alternative
would “reduce the impact of trucks.” If employed, this Project alternative will only increase the number of
community residents impacted by the Project, because additional roadways will be incorporated into the
Projects truck route, while none would be eliminated.
3.3-55
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 25
The DEIS and TIS have not properly assessed, and underestimate, the number of truck trips required during
the Site Preparation/Clearing and Grubbing Phase of the Project.
3.3-56
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 25
According to the DEIS and TIS:
“[One] truck with 30-yard trailer will be used to remove ground-up debris 3 to 4 times per day …..".
This description fails to take into account that, during site preparation, a 1,454± foot crushed concrete haul
road would be constructed from the proposed Construction Excavation Area to West Mill Road. The
construction of the haul road is a prerequisite to all on-site work and would have to be completed during the
two-week long site preparation phase. The DEIS and TIS states that a “temporary haul road will be
developed in the first phase of the project” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.209; TIS p. 53).
....
This will necessitate a minimum (depending upon the weight of the crushed concrete) of 24 trips by 30 CY
haul trucks to the Project site during site preparation. This traffic does not appear to have been taken into
account in either the TIS (DEIS Appendix O) or the DEIS even though this was identified as an inadequacy by
the Planning Board in its review of the original DEIS.51 The Project construction schedule (DEIS Appendix F)
which lists Project construction vehicles required during each Project phase also fails to account for these
vehicles.
3.3-57
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 26
The DEIS implies that all vegetation cleared during the site preparation phase will be removed. This seems
unlikely.
Will the Project require the use of flat-bed trucks, in addition to feller-bunchers and haul trucks, to remove
vegetative debris?
If the trees being cut and removed from the Project Area are being moved (either off-site or to the R-80
portion of the Project parcel), or ground-up, a significant amount of truck traffic will be generated in excess
of the 80 trips (four round-trips per day for 10 days) claimed in the DEIS to remove the debris
created. The actual number will be closer to ten times that amount.
3.3-58
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 27 The DEIS has significantly underestimated the number of truck trips required during Phase 3 Construction.
3.3-59
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 28
Assuming 10 CY of concrete can be delivered during each round-trip, approximately 410 round-trips, or 820
total trips will be required to deliver the concrete required for the Project’s retaining wall foundations and
building floor slabs. This is more than four times the number stated in the DEIS.
3.3-60
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 28
It is also highly unlikely that concrete deliveries will be evenly spaced over the entire six months of the Phase
3 construction period. The DEIS is not only silent on this point, but fails to include concrete trucks on the
equipment list included in Appendix F.
3.3-61
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 28
In addition, the DEIS does not adequately describe the route that will be taken by concrete trucks.
Trucks delivering concrete to the Project will be traveling and impacting local roads other than those on the
truck route.
3.3-62
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 28
The DEIS needs to clarify the number of trips that will be required to deliver concrete, how traffic volumes
and associated traffic impacts evaluations may need to be changed, how the required number of trips by
concrete truck could affect estimates of road damage, and identify potential points of origin for concrete
needed for the Project.
3.3-63
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 28
A comprehensive analysis of potential traffic-related impacts on the portions of the traffic route between
Cox Neck Road and the Long Island Expressway has not been included in the revised DEIS.
3.3-64
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 29
The data was received from the NYSDOT and included weekday ATR volume and classification counts. he
additional data is included in the Appendix of this Report in the section entitled Supplemental Data” (TIS p.
16). However, it follows this with the statement that it “should be noted that the above AADT and the traffic
volume count data were not utilized for analysis purposes but were used to define peak periods of highway
traffic and are presented for informational purposes” (TIS pp. 16-17). In other words, these data were not
collected specifically for the Project. As a result, they are qualitatively and quantitatively different from the
data collected for the portions of the truck route in the Town of Southold.
3.3-65
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 29
Traffic count data obtained from NYSDOT is very limited.
…
Not only is this data very limited, in terms of the number of days sampled, it is confined to a single season,
rather than the four seasons required.
...
Vehicle classification data obtained from NYSDOT is very limited and covers the same dates and locations as
the traffic count data.
3.3-66
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 29
No intersection capacity analyses have been conducted. The intersection of Sound Ave and Northville
Turnpike often has traffic backups associated with left hand turns. No data has been included that would
allow for an assessment of how this situation might be exacerbated by the addition of Project traffic.
3.3-67
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 30 No accident data for portions of the truck route west of Cox Neck Road is included in the revised DEIS or TIS.
3.3-68
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 30
…
However, the percentage of “heavy vehicles” is derived from the fact that all vehicles in FHWA classifications
4-13 are included in the “heavy vehicle” category. This means that busses, and all trucks larger than pick-
ups, are combined. The net effect is to downplay the significance of increases in 18- and 22-wheel tractor
trailer traffic.
....
The addition of a minimum of 80 Project haul trucks per day on these roads will result in an increase in
tractor trailer traffic ranging from 76% on Sound Avenue, to 200% on Northville Turnpike. Additionally, the
number of tractor trailers travelling Old Country Road to the Long Island Expressway will more than double.
3.3-69
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 30
Nothing in the DEIS or TIS supports the conclusion that “Sound Avenue west of Cox Neck Road is well suited
to carry the site related construction traffic.” Nor is there any meaningful analysis of traffic impacts along
the portions of the Project truck route west of Cox Neck Road.
3.3-70
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 31
Limiting some truck traffic to weekdays will not significantly reduce the overall impact of Project traffic.
Given the severity of existing traffic issues on Sound Avenue during the summer and fall months, ANY
increase in traffic on Sound Avenue during the summer and fall months is unacceptable.
3.3-71
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 32
Other deficiencies and discrepancies in the DEIS and the Traffic Impact Study call into question its reliability
as a document that can be used for decision making.
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 32 Vehicle classification data is missing for Sunday 11-6-21;
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 32 Vehicle class data collected only hourly in winter, but quarter-hourly in other seasons;
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 32
The description of the proposed Project in the TIS indicates that there are eight existing buildings on site.
One of these is identified as Building 4 (One-story storage [169 SF]. Building 4 does not exist. It was
demolished in 2018 (DEIS p.2).
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 32
The revised DEIS (p.202) contains what appears to be a typographical error: “Twenty-eight (38) of the
accidents were associated with the intersection of Cox Neck Road at Sound Avenue/North Road.” A careful
reading of the text indicates that 38—not 28—is the correct number.
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 32 Page 27 of the revised TIS incorrectly identifies West Mill Road as “West Neck Road”.
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 32
Data in the TIS indicates a significant increase in the number of Class 7 and larger vehicles traveling Cox
Neck Road/West Mill Road during late spring (early June data) and summer (early August) over that during
the
winter and fall. Because vehicle classification recorders rely on axle counts to identify vehicle class, the high
numbers may reflect the large number of towed boat trailers and landscaper truck-trailer combinations
traveling these roads during these periods, rather than “heavy trucks.”
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 33
Conclusions in the DEIS are either not supported by the data (e.g. “there would be a minimal increase in
traffic from the development of the project”), or deal with post-construction operational impacts.
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 33
The revised DEIS states that “The construction of the project will generate a substantial amount of truck
traffic.” (p. xix). However, the DEIS also states that, “[C]onclusions were made regarding the traffic impact of
the development on the surrounding street network based on the data and facts gathered in [the TIS]” (DEIS
pp. xvii, 193; TIS p.8). While those conclusions may be appropriate as they apply to post-construction
operation of the Project, they should not be considered applicable to the construction phase.
3.3-80
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 33
It is obvious that almost all of the conclusions in both the DEIS and TIS relate to impacts associated with the
post-construction operation of the Project—not to the significant impacts during the construction period.
This de-emphasis of construction-related impacts seems to be based on the fact that the DEIS classifies
traffic impacts during Project construction as “short-term impacts. s.” It cites the SEQRA Handbook’s
description of short-term impacts as “the immediate and temporary results of an action, for example, noise,
dust, and truck traffic during construction of a building.”69 This is a cherry-picking of language in the SEQRA
Handbook, and does not take into account that the SEQRA Handbook makes it clear that short-term impacts
can be significant and need to be considered. The SEQRA Handbook is also clear that short-term impacts
must be considered “to the degree they are determined to be relevant and significant to an action”.
3.3-81
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Traffic 33
There is no question that the orders of magnitude increase in construction vehicles (including thousands of
trips by 22-wheel tractor trailers with a loaded weight of 107,000 pounds) traveling over local roads, ten
hours a day, for months on end, and the impact that will have on community residents, qualifies the “short-
term” increase in truck traffic as “significant.” The impacts associated with the increase in truck traffic over
the entire construction period can be considered short-term only because they are not permanent.
3.3-82
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 1
A major problem with both the DEIS and the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (DEIS Appendix O) is that they
consistently conflate, and fail to differentiate between, impacts associated with the extended construction
period, and impacts associated with Project operation after the completion of construction. This is apparent
throughout the discussion of impacts to bicyclists and pedestrians.
3.3-83
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 2
Although the Planning Board called for the revised DEIS to “fully evaluate the potential for impacts to
pedestrians along the entire construction route” (emphasis added), the revised DEIS and TIS do not discuss,
and contain no data relevant to, potential impacts to bicyclists and pedestrians along the portions of the
Project Truck Route in the Town of Riverhead.
3.3-84
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 2
The revised DEIS still fails to adequately address the original DEIS scope. It also fails to adequately address
the specific inadequacies identified by the Planning Board in the original DEIS. The DEIS scope calls for “study
and analysis in the DEIS during all four seasons on the use of the roadways (route) by user groups, including
potential adverse impacts on pedestrians walking (with strollers), jogging, biking and children waiting for the
school bus” (emphasis added).
3.3-85
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 2
In the original December 2021 DEIS, bicycle and pedestrian counts were made only in association with
intersection turning movements. This means that pedestrian counts were limited to
intersections/crosswalks, and do not accurately represent the number of pedestrians walking along the
Project truck route. In addition, both bicycle and pedestrian counts were limited to the 7:00 to 9:00 AM and
4:00 to 6:00 PM periods on three weekdays in 2021 (June 16, August 5, and November 4), and the 11:00 AM
to 2:00 PM period on three Saturdays in 2021 (June 19, August 7 and November 6).
...
The Saturday data is useless in evaluating impacts during the 5 ½ to 7 month-long excavation phase of the
Project because haul trucks, which will constitute the vast majority of construction traffic, will only be used
on weekdays. The three days of weekday data has very limited value as haul trucks will operate
continuously from 7 AM until 5 PM. As no data was collected between 8:45 AM and 4:00 PM on weekdays,
no data was collected for the hours during which most bicycle and pedestrian use would be expected.
3.3-86
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 2
No data was collected during winter months although the DEIS scope calls for four seasons of data. This
inadequacy has not been corrected in the revised DEIS.
3.3-87
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 2
The Planning Board’s consultant’s May 6, 2022 memo notes that the “timeframes for the various phases of
construction described . . . in the DEIS are not consistent with the time frames evaluated in the Traffic Study.
This should be corrected.” The revised DEIS has not addressed this issue. None of the pedestrian/bicycle
counts in the original DEIS were made in the mid-December thru May time frame which constitutes the
Project excavation phase when Project traffic volumes will be at their highest. The revised DEIS discusses and
provides additional data collected over only two days--Tuesday August 9 and Saturday August 13, 2022--not
for four seasons as called for. As with the data in the original DEIS, August is outside the period of the
Project construction phase when potential impacts will be at their greatest.
3.3-88
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 3
The DEIS refers readers to “Table 9 (Summary of Pedestrian and Bicycle Count Data, August 2022) in the TIS
which presents a daily summary of the pedestrians and bicycles counted at three locations along Cox Neck
Road/West Mill Road. As indicated in Table 9, the number of bicycles and pedestrians is very low during the
weekday” (DEIS p.220). What the DEIS does not say is that the data in Table 9 consists of only a single
weekday during a time of year when no Project construction is proposed.
3.3-89
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 3
Even if collected during the appropriate period, the amount of data collected would be inadequate to assess
impacts to bicyclists. The Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report 797: Guidebook on Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection found that “the error in estimating
average annual bicycle traffic from two-hour, 12-hour, or even one-week counts can be up to 40%” (TRB,
2015:7).
3.3-90
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 3
The DEIS also failed to take into account weather conditions. According the Transportation Research Board’s
Methods and Technologies for Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection, “Weather – Seasonality and
conditions affect traffic. Weather conditions should always be recorded (i.e., precipitation, temperature)”
(2014:22). The TRB report also notes that other studies have concluded that “there can be considerable
differences in bicycle volumes from one week to the next, both due to weather effects and the fact that
bicycle volumes are often relatively small. As a result, longer count durations are required to get good
results, compared to motorized vehicle counting. Short-term bicycle counts are not advised” (2014:24).
...
The temperature and wind conditions on August 9, 2022 suggest that bicycle/pedestrian counts on that day
would be atypically low.
3.3-91
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 3
The revised DEIS includes no additional data specifically addressing potential traffic impacts to “children
waiting for the school bus.” Language is unchanged from that in the original DEIS:
…
This entire paragraph is misleading and contains false statements. It reflects not only an attempt to
downplay the danger associated with increased truck traffic, but a failure to even attempt to obtain relevant
data upon which to base an analysis:
3.3-92
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 4
a.
no attempt appears to have been made to discuss this issue with the transportation department of the
Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School District. The District could have provided information on the actual
number of children and residences served along the truck route in Southold, and the location of designated
stops along the school bus route. Instead, the DEIS only notes that “some of the homes may generate
school-age children” (emphasis added);
3.3-93
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 4
b.
although the DEIS scope calls for a consideration of impacts along the entire Project truck route, it contains
no discussion of possible safety issues Project construction traffic may pose to children being picked up or
dropped-off in the Town of Riverhead. The Riverhead Central School District operates school buses along
Sound Ave beginning at Herricks Lane, and along Northville Turnpike. The District was not contacted during
DEIS preparation;
3.3-94
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 4
c.
the statement that “Due to the longer workdays of site construction, the drop-off will occur prior to
construction workers leaving the site” completely ignores the fact that the primary traffic danger is not from
end-of-day worker traffic, but is from construction phase trucks (especially haul trucks during the Excavation
phases) which will be operating during drop-off periods;
3.3-95
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 4
d.
the statement that “drop-offs may [emphasis added] encounter a truck removing or bring material to the
site” implies that such encounters are unlikely. Given the frequency of haul trucks (described inaccurately in
the DEIS as “up to 4 trucks per hour” (DEIS p. 221)1, (but actually more than twice that), students being
dropped off will almost certainly encounter these vehicles;
3.3-96
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 5
e.
... No analysis has been made of the effects of limited sight-lines along portions of the truck route which
correspond to school bus routes; or to what effect the requirement for haul trucks to stop frequently when
travelling behind school buses will have on the number of haul trucks which may be backed-up as a result;
3.3-97
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 5
f.
the DEIS states that “Students waiting to be picked up in the morning are expected to wait off the road,
usually in the driveways to their homes.”2 In fact, not all students waiting to be picked up along Cox Neck
Road, West Mill Road, and Sound Avenue, can be “expected” to wait in the driveways of their homes.
Several f) communal school bus pick-up locations exist along the haul truck route, which means students will
be walking from their homes to the pick-up location along the truck routes. This may be even more likely to
occur during inclement weather.3 Detailed information on where these pick-up locations are could have
been obtained from the school districts;
3.3-98
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 5
g.
describing the haul truck traffic headed towards the site as “occasional” is a clear attempt to downplay the
extent of potential impacts; and
3.3-99
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 5
h.
the statement “that similar activities take place every day within the Town on far busier roadways, such as
along Route 25” is not relevant to situation along Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road, which have narrower
travel lanes and road shoulders, and ignore those “far busier roadways” have wider travel lanes and wider
shoulders.
3.3-
100
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 5
No information is provided about the number or location of video recorders, or the fields of view captured
by each camera. As a result, it is impossible to independently evaluate count accuracy.
3.3-
101
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 6
The DEIS scope specifically calls for the collection of data on “pedestrians walking (with strollers) [and]
jogging”. No information on these user groups is provided in the DEIS or the TIS. Although not called for in
the scope, no information on individuals walking dogs is included.
3.3-
102
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 6
In the course of preparing the revised DEIS, the preparers have revised language in the “Impacts on
Pedestrian and Bicycle Use” section to deliberately downplay potentially significant impacts. The revised
language also fails to clearly correct inaccuracies noted by the Planning Board in the course of their
adequacy review. In addition, the DEIS text has selectively edited the text in the TIS to obfuscate impacts.
Language in the original DEIS reads as follows:
3.3-
103
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 7
The revised DEIS text, unlike the original DEIS and the revised Traffic Study, no longer references the months
during which Excavation phase haul trucks will be travelling on local roads. The revised DEIS text (unlike the
TIS text) can easily be taken to imply that the Excavation phase will be limited to the winter months when, in
fact only half of the Excavation phase occurs during that period. In addition, both documents, in the original
and revised versions, use language that fail to clearly indicate that approximately eight trucks per hour will
travelling along the Project’s truck route.
3.3-
104
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 7
For all of the above reasons, the conclusion in the DEIS that “Counts of pedestrian and bicycle usage along
Cox Neck Road/Mill Road indicated only minimal usage by pedestrians and bicycles” (pp. xviii and 226),
cannot be supported.
3.3-
105
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 7
In addition, the revised November 2022 DEIS fails to adequately address the inadequacies relating to
bicycle/pedestrian impacts identified by the Planning Board in the original December 2021 DEIS. Specifically,
it does not address the concerns of the Planning Board in regard to use of inappropriate time frames for data
collection, and the narrowness of the original sampling methodology.
3.3-
106
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 8
The DEIS notes that the Southold town roads that comprise the Project truck routes, Cox Neck Road and
West Mill Road, have a minimum paved width of 22 feet. The DEIS fails to note that along the entire length
of the truck routes north of Sound Avenue there is no fog line or paved shoulder.
...
In other words, the paved
surface width available to a bicyclist (or pedestrian) is effectively reduced to two feet (16 feet for the two
trucks + a conservative minimum of one foot between them + the required 3-foot safety zone = 20
feet—leaving two feet). This is not a safe condition. It should also be noted, that maintaining even the two-
foot-wide area for pedestrians and bicyclists, would require the near-side truck to cross the double-yellow
line into the on-coming traffic lane.
COMMENT FIGURE BICYCLES/PEDESTRIANS-1, 2, and 3 illustrate the narrowness of West Mill and Cox Neck
Roads, and demonstrate the potentially dangerous conditions created for pedestrians and bicyclists when
large vehicles try to pass one another. COMMENT FIGURE BICYCLES/PEDESTRIANS 4 illustrates how Project
haul trucks, because of narrow road conditions and deteriorated pavements, will create dangers for
pedestrians and bicyclists along West Mill and Cox Neck Roads.
3.3-
107
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 8
Neither document seems to understand the significance of the presence of “landscaping trucks.” These
vehicles don't just travel West Mill and Cox Neck Road. They frequently park for extended periods on those
roads while servicing customers (COMMENT FIGURE BICYCLES/PEDESTRIANS 5). This creates a hazard, not
only for pedestrians and bicyclists, but for vehicular traffic as well. That hazard will increase significantly
with addition of Project haul trucks which will have to cross into the oncoming traffic lane in order to pass.
Landscaping trucks parking on the road will be a regular feature of the traffic environment from the late
spring thru the following fall. This
period overlaps with the latter portion of the Project’s excavation phase when Project truck traffic will be at
its peak.
3.3-
108
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 9
Although the DEIS scope calls for an evaluation of “[l]occasions and width of shoulders along the route” no
information about this was included in the original December 2021 DEIS, despite its significance in regard to
pedestrian/bicyclist safety. The revised DEIS does contain information on shoulder width for those portions
of the truck route in the Town of Riverhead and along Sound Avenue in Southold. No information about
actual shoulder widths is provided for the portions of the truck route along Cox Neck Road and West Mill
Road. These concerns are especially acute when one considers that some pedestrians will be walking dogs.
3.3-
109
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 9
As noted above, no analysis has been made of the effects of limited sight-lines along portions of the truck
route. Although the DEIS (quoting the TIS) notes the existence of several dangerous locations, it provides no
quantitative or qualitative analysis of the dangers to pedestrians and bicyclists posed by the limited sight-
lines and narrow road widths at these locations.
3.3-
110
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 10
The DEIS contains no discussion of how any of the conditions described above impact bicyclist/pedestrian
safety. Until a detailed study is made of the relationship between limited sight-lines and the stopping
distance of loaded and unloaded Project construction vehicles, in all weather conditions, no proper
evaluation of construction traffic impacts to bicyclists and pedestrians (as well as vehicular traffic) can be
made.
3.3-
111
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 10
The DEIS attempts to minimize the impacts of Project construction traffic on bicyclists and pedestrians along
Cox Neck and West Mill Roads and concludes that “any motor vehicle will have to give way to pedestrians
and bicyclists using the road. In most cases, they [Project haul trucks] will be able to move over and pass the
slower moving bicycles and pedestrians” (DEIS pp. xviii and 226; TIS pp.73, 80). The DEIS does not indicate
that this can be done safely, especially along parts of the truck routes with limited sight distances.
Although the DEIS also notes that “Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road is marked with a double barrier line
separating opposing directions of traffic” (p.190) it fails to indicate the significance of this fact. The entire
truck route north of Sound Avenue/Route 48 is a designated no-passing zone.
3.3-
112
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 10
The revised DEIS and TIS note that along the Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road portion of the truck route only
one accident involving a pedestrian was identified in the five years of data examined. Given that the
qualitative nature of the traffic along this portion of the truck route will change significantly—from virtually
no large 5- and 6-axle vehicles to more than 80 trips by such vehicles per day—there is no basis for assuming
that the potential for accidents involving pedestrians/bicyclists will not also increase. There is no basis for
assuming that historical data is indicative of the likelihood of accidents during the Project construction
period.
3.3-
113
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 10
The greater part of the excavation phase of the Project will occur during winter months. No discussion is
provided as to how heavy truck traffic might affect pedestrian safety during snow events when visibility will
be reduced and road conditions may be slippery. While the number of pedestrians can be expected be low
during such periods, it will not be zero (dog walkers will be out in all weather conditions).
3.3-
114
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 11
No historical information on bicyclist/pedestrian accidents for the portions of the truck route west of Cox
Neck Road is included in the DEIS or the TIS.
3.3-
115
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 11
The DEIS scope calls for evaluation of “perceived safety from the perspective of the pedestrian or cyclist.”
Measures proposed in the DEIS to mitigate the impact of Project-related traffic and bicyclists and
pedestrians are unlikely to reduce, and may actually increase the actual, as well as perceived, safety of these
user groups.
3.3-
116
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 11
1. ...
As the current paved roadway width along portions of these roads is only 22-feet, this would leave only one
foot on either side of the paved area for bicycles and pedestrians. It seems that this recommendation is
actually designed to aid Project truck traffic at the expense of local residents walking, jogging, or bicycling in
this area.
3.3-
117
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 11
2. “High grass and any brush should be mowed and removed [by whom?] providing a walkable surface
where feasible” (DEIS pp. xxxvi, xxxix and 225). The DEIS fails to denote where these areas are located, or
what percentage of the Project truck route along Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road could be improved.
Photos of this portion of the truck route clearly demonstrate that this measure would result in only a
minimal improvement over existing
conditions;
3.3-
118
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 11
The authors of the DEIS and the Traffic Study do not seem to be aware that the speed limit along West Mill
Road is presently posted at 30 mph. The statement that limiting truck traffic to a 30-mph speed limit will
“assuage community concerns” (TIS p.73) is pure conjecture and has no basis in fact.
3.3-
119
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 12
While the revised DEIS and TIS provide descriptions of conditions relative to pedestrian and bicycle use along
the western portions of the truck route, little analysis of this information is provided, especially as it relates
to pedestrian and bicyclist safety. For example, the DEIS and TIS note that “Except between Northville
Turnpike and the vicinity of Oliver Street shoulders are one foot wide and do not accommodate either
pedestrians or bicyclists.” This would seem to suggest that an unsafe condition presently exists, but no
analysis of how this might be exacerbated by Project-related traffic—especially the large number of large 22-
wheelers.
3.3-
120
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 12
The DEIS (p.226) concludes that “[D]espite the relative narrowness of the road the small numbers of
additional vehicles the Project will generate during construction and after completion should not increase
the hazards to bicycles and pedestrians also using the road. . . The minor increase in truck trips in unlikely
to cause any additional problems.” This conclusion is not supported by the data in the DEIS or the TIS.
3.3-
121
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 12
The characterization of the increase in Project-generated traffic as “small” is not accurate.8 The statement
that “the project will generate a small number of additional vehicles” is misleading in that it combines all
classes of vehicles—from motorcycles to 22-wheel tractor-trailers into a single number. The same is true of
the characterization of the increase in truck trips as “minor.” In fact, there will be a very large and significant
increase in the number of large trucks, notably Class 10 vehicles (the Project’s six-axle haul trucks) traveling
the portions of the truck route in Southold Town.
...
The increase in truck traffic of the type associated with Project construction will effectively increase from
zero to more than 80 trips per day along Cox Neck and West Mill Roads. This is NOT a “minor” increase.
3.3-
122
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 13
Referring specifically to Cox Neck and West Mill Roads, the DEIS states that the “minor increase in truck trips
in unlikely to cause any additional problems” (DEIS xvii, 226). As noted above, the increase in truck traffic is
NOT “minor”. The conclusion that the increase in “truck traffic is unlikely to cause any additional problems”
is not supported by the data.
3.3-
123
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 13
The DEIS’ conclusion that the “addition of four trucks an hour in each direction would not create . . .
additional hazards not currently experienced by bicycles and pedestrians using the road” (p.211) is
unsupported and is, in fact, contradicted by available data.
3.3-
124
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Bikes and
Peds 13
Although called for in the DEIS scope, the DEIS contains no discussion of how pedestrian and cyclists might
“perceive” their safety when being passed by construction vehicles. The conclusion that the “proposed 30
mile per hour maximum speed to be observed by Project trucks on Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road will
mitigate concerns of the community” is not only not supported by any data in the DEIS—it is completely
untrue.
3.3-
125
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 1
The DEIS contains almost no information relating to how boat wakes that might be generated by the
increased marine traffic from the Project will affect the marsh areas or other shoreline areas in the Project
vicinity.
3.3-
126
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 1
The DEIS apparently acknowledges that the vessel wakes associated with the increased marine traffic the
Project will generate will have an adverse impact, but it makes no attempt to characterize or quantify the
impact. Environmental damage from boat wakes is cumulative—any increase in vessel traffic—no matter
how small--will result in an increase in impacts. The DEIS never addresses this. The DEIS notes that “no wake
zones reduce the potential for the erosion of marsh edges due to vessel wakes” (p.142). The DEIS is careful
to use the word “reduce”—not eliminate. It goes on to note that any reduction of potential impacts is
dependent upon enforcement of a 5-mph (no wake zone) by the USCG and the Town of Southold.
3.3-
127
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 1
...the DEIS contains no discussion of mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impacts resulting
from boat wakes. Instead, it merely cites §96-13 of Southold Town Code which requires that vessels operate
in accordance with posted 5-mph (no wake zone) signage.
...
"...There are ramifications such as speeding tickets, fines, and the revocation of license for failure to adhere
to speed limit." While true, the DEIS has not provided any information, such as violation records from the
Southold Town Police Department’s Marine Division, to evaluate the validity of their “expectation.”
3.3-
128
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 2
The DEIS has made no attempt to provide a quantitative, or even qualitative, analysis of the degree to which
Project-related boat wakes might increase coastal erosion and damage to marsh areas even though models,
such as the Army Corps of Engineer’s Vessel Wake Prediction Tool, could have been employed to estimate
potential damage.
3.3-
129
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 2
“[A]s explained in the table below, the maximum number of boats utilizing Mattituck Creek on a peak day is
approximately 547” (emphasis added) (p.13, Table 1). A footnote to Table 1 indicates that the 547 number is
based on an assumption that “all boats [that were estimated to be docked on Mattituck Creek] are in use.”
Employing this assumption results in an unsupported decrease in the percentage increase in marine traffic
attributable to the Project. In addition, as the DEIS itself notes, Project-related traffic will occur “at the
close of boating season (i.e., October-November), . . . [and] in the beginning of the boating season (i.e., April-
May)” (pp.278-279), not during the summer peak.
3.3-
130
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 3
No explanation for these changes is provided.3 Why has the original text been revised to suggest a less
severe potential impact to Mattituck Creek? The Applicant presumably is well aware of when boats arrive for
storage and depart. Why has this period been expanded by 50 percent, resulting in a reduction in the
number of boats arriving and departing each week? Why has the unit of measure of potential impact been
changed from “boats per day” to “percent increase in boat traffic”?
3.3-
131
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 3
The DEIS concludes that “The proposed action would not substantially increase vessel traffic within
Mattituck Creek” (p.142). However, this conclusion is based on three assumptions: first, that existing traffic
on any given day is always at peak levels; second, that Project-related traffic will add to existing traffic
volumes during the summer peak; and three, that the Project-related vessels adding to existing traffic are
similar in characteristics to the average vessel currently traveling on Mattituck Creek. None of these
assumptions is valid.
3.3-
132
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 3
Any increase in large vessel traffic entering and exiting Mattituck Creek also creates an increased potential
for accidents. In 2022, a 96-foot yacht ran aground east of Bailie Beach in Mattituck (COMMENT FIGURE
MARINE-1).
…
The DEIS fails to note that the increase in vessel traffic generated by the Project will also create an increased
potential for accidents.
3.3-
133
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 4
The DEIS’ analysis of existing traffic is also deficient in that it fails to take into account the fact that the
nature of the vessels accounting for the increase in boat traffic will be qualitatively and quantitatively
different from existing marine traffic. No quantified information on the sizes or types of vessels that
currently travel Mattituck Creek during different seasons is provided. The only data in the DEIS relating to
the types (size) of vessels that currently travel Mattituck Creek is limited to the 2020 yacht inventory at SYC
(DEIS Table 1, DEIS Appendix M Table 2).
3.3-
134
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 4
According to the DEIS “Based upon an average yacht size of 60 feet in length, it is estimated that
approximately 88 yachts could be stored within the proposed buildings”.
...
Table 4 in both the DEIS (p.20) and DEIS Appendix M (Typical Yachts to be Stored at SYC Under Proposed
Action) lists only yachts with lengths of 68, 77, and 86 feet in length. It is therefore unclear how the
assumed average size of the yachts which will be stored can be 60 feet. Similarly, the DEIS states that the
average beam of boats to stored will be 17± feet. However, according to DEIS Table 4, typical boats in
storage will have a beam of 17 feet 3 inches, 19 feet 6 inches, or 21 feet 3 inches.
3.3-
135
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts
…
These statements are confusing and seemingly inconsistent. Are the 40 vessels included in the 96? Are 96
vessels stored outdoors and an additional 40 stored indoors? Are 96 of the vessels “boats,” and 40 “yachts”?
3.3-
136
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 5
The DEIS creates further confusion in that in some places it makes a distinction between “boats” and
“yachts.” For example, DEIS Table 1, SYC’s 2020 yacht inventory, lists vessels up to 39 feet as “boats.” Larger
vessels are classified as “yachts.”
Adding still more confusion, the DEIS states that the “average yacht size during the 2020 season was 30±
feet to 49± feet, which made up 50 percent of the boats and yachts at SYC. Of the aforementioned boats and
yachts, approximately 45 were docked at SYC and the remaining were stored in the existing storage buildings
and dry docked on the marina property” (p. 3). This appears to be inconsistent with the statement in DEIS
Appendix M that the “marina accommodates boats and yachts 18-to-133± feet in length with the majority
between 40± feet to 60± feet. The typical yacht size is 50-to-86± feet in length”
(DEIS Appendix M p.14).
3.3-
137
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 5
Figures 4a-4e in DEIS Appendix M are photographs of “Typical Boats and Yachts at SYC”. Two of the three
photos are of the same vessel which has been identified as the M/Y Le Reve - a 110-ft Lazzara motor yacht.
This vessel would not be able to utilize the proposed indoor storage facilities because the existing 85-ton
travelift at SYC cannot accommodate this “typical” vessel.
3.3-
138
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 5 The DEIS has not addressed how the Project would impact kayakers and paddleboarders.
3.3-
139
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 5
The DEIS concludes that as “the vessel traffic would be comparable to existing conditions, it is not
anticipated the proposed action would alter the ability of personal watercrafts and non-motorized
watersports, such as kayaks and SUPs, to navigate within Mattituck Harbor” (p. xxii, 236). The only evidence
offered in support of this conclusion is the statement that “Viewpoints 12 and 13 in Appendix Q indicate
navigability within Mattituck Harbor is not impacted by larger vessels as they were taken from the
perspective of a kayak with a 95-foot yacht present adjacent to the existing SYC operations” (DEIS p. 236).
This is not evidence of anything. The larger vessels shown in the referenced photographs are motionless and
docked. They provide no evidence of how yachts travelling, up and down, and generating wakes, would
affect kayakers and paddleboarders.
3.3-
140
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Marine
Traffic Impacts 6
The DEIS states that “[B]ased on SYC data and publicly available data, approximately 2,000 boats, yachts,
commercial fishing vessels, government/public vessels, personal watercrafts, and kayaks and Stand-Up
Paddleboards (SUPs) are docked or use Mattituck Creek annually. It is estimated that approximately 547
boats are active in Mattituck Harbor on a peak season day” (pp. xxii, vii, 95, 236). DEIS Table 1 contains no
estimates of the number of personal watercraft, kayaks and Stand-Up Paddleboards (SUPs) that use
Mattituck Creek on a given day. Presumably, personal watercraft, kayaks, and SUPs constitute the balance
of the 2000 watercraft. However, neither the SYC nor the “publicly available data” are provided; nor is the
source(s) of the publicly available data.
3.3-
141
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 1
To give the Planning Board a clear picture of the cumulative impacts of the truck traffic for the entire
project, provide a table of total truck trips, including delivery trucks and the return of empty trucks for each
phase of the project, with a grand total of all expected truck trips.
3.3-
142
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 1
Provide a table or a graph of truck trips over time on a single sheet showing each phase and the expected
dates (on a weekly basis), assuming the project starts December 1st Show the phases at weekly intervals on
one axis and then the number of trucks in and out on a weekly basis on the other axis throughout the
project's timeline.
3.3-
143
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 2
How many materials delivery trucks will be delivering on-site during the retaining wall (block) and the slab
(wet cement) phase. This number should be included in the table/graph as truck traffic to/from the site.
3.3-
144
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 2
Did the traffic engineers drive the entire route to 1495 with a 55' truck or just the immediate route to Sound
Avenue? The DEIS mentions the route was driven on the side roads, but no mention of it once the trucks
meet Sound Avenue.
3.3-
145
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 2
Was the route to 1495 chosen with the full knowledge of how long it takes to maneuver a truck of that size
and weight? The traffic report doesn't seem familiar with local conditions, especially during the summer
months; even though the truck traffic will be during the week, not the weekend, we still have congestion
during the summer on weekdays.
3.3-
146
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 2 How long will it take to fill a 30' trailer during the excavation phase?
3.3-
147
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 2
How will the four trucks an hour during excavation be monitored? Is it possible there will be more than four
trucks an hour at some times during the work day?
3.3-
148
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 2
How will the damages to pavement, etc., that the applicant has said they would pay for be determined? Will
the extent of damages be determined by a third party other than the person reviewing the potholes on a
daily basis? Will money be put in escrow to make sure there is money available to pay for said damages if
they should occur?
3.3-
149
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 2
The 5-minute truck idling limit described at the public hearing may be challenging because the operators will
work through the winter, and heating the cab will be desirable by truck drivers as they wait in the queue.
How will a five-minute idling limit be monitored and enforced?
3.3-
150
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 2 Explain how the Flaggers are expected to perform their duties, and exactly what their duties will be.
3.3-
151
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 2
What safety measures will be provided for their visibility by drivers, especially those traveling west on Sound
Avenue, keeping in mind they are navigating the curves and hills in this section of the road? Describe any
extra measures to be taken during the winter when darkness will occur before the end of the work day.
3.3-
152
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 2 What authority do the Flaggers have to stop traffic?
3.3-
153
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 2
If Flaggers stop traffic, what warning will oncoming vehicles have of stopped traffic ahead? How will the risk
of rear-end accidents be reduced on this stretch of road where drivers do not expect stopped traffic?
3.3-
154
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 3 Will signage be posted on Sound Avenue warning of Flagger ahead?
3.3-
155
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 3
Why was Suffolk County Route 58 selected to access 14957 Was a route using Suffolk County Route 105 to
NYS 27 (Sunrise Highway) assessed? If not, why not?
3.3-
156
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 3
Provide a more comprehensive explanation of why the route that includes the Sound Avenue path to
Edwards Avenue and then to 1495 is not viable.
3.3-
157
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum
7-10-23 3
Additionally, has there been an analysis to divide the truck routes (once the trucks get to Sound Avenue) so
not all trucks travel the same major roads?
3.3-
158
James Rich July
10 2023 Email 1 Flaggers would work under whose legal authority?
3.3-
159
James Rich July
10 2023 Email 1 Flaggers under whose liability should an accident happen?
3.3-
160
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 40
JOEL KLINE:
The preparers of the DEIS should have known that the ITE defines a trip as a one way movement. As a
result, the DEIS implies that construction traffic volumes will be half of what they will actually be.
3.3-
161
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 40
JOEL KLINE:
The DEIS assumes that each truck hauling sand will be filled to its maximum 30 cubic yard capacity. It also
states that each truck has a maximum permitted loaded weight of 107,000 pounds. However; the geo-
technical report in the DEIS indicates that most sand from the project site weighs 3100 pounds per cubic
yard. Based on that information, each truck will be able to carry only 24 cubic yards of sand. Not 30.
Without exceeding the maximum allowable weight. This will require more truckloads per day, as many as,
one every 6 minutes, 10 hours a day, 5 days a week. For 6 months or longer.
3.3-
162
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 41
JOEL KLINE:
The traffic study includes a number of tables in very small type listing traffic count data according to the
FHWAs 13 truck size categories. However; the DEIS lumps all trucks bigger than pickups into a single heavy
truck category. Doing so, allows the DEIS to say that project truck traffic will not add significantly to existing
traffic. However; if one looks only at semi-tractor trailer traffic, it turns out that the project will cause an
approximately 8,000% increase in semi traffic on West Mill Road. On the basis of the traffic analysis alone,
the DEIS cannot be used as a basis for assessing project impacts.
3.3-
163
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 45
HARVEY ARNOFF:
Now, we have where we live 80 trucks a day. Go outside and take a look at the truck. Take a look at the
truck that's out there and ask yourself, would you want 80 more trucks than go buy your house regularly to
be in front of your house.
3.3-
164
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 45
HARVEY ARNOFF:
School buses. Nobody mentioned that. Nobody mentioned the fact that could be -- they could be put at
risk. The school buses are there every day. Five days a week. That's what they're doing.
3.3-
165
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 45
HARVEY ARNOFF:
They're talking about reducing the speed to 30 miles an hour. That's gonna invite people passing on a
double yellow line.
3.3-
166
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 46
HARVEY ARNOFF:
Now, this is gonna continue for six months. Approximately 14,000 trips in front of our house. Is that what
you want? Is that what you want to see this Town to do? Now, there's a simple solution to some of this. At
least I think it is. This all could be done at night. If in fact, the Board would bend in some way. There is no
way that this works in the daytime, that this works for our community. It could be done at night. It may
require some manipulation of code. It may require some manipulation otherwise. And it may cost, oh my
God, the applicants some more money. Let him use some of the substantial money that he's getting for all
the sale. Thank
you.
3.3-
167
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 57
PAUL PAWLOSWSKI:
Indoor storage of 100,000 square foot roughly, that's not a lot of boats in the real world. It's just not.
There's many more boats on in that inlet as we speak. And when you're factoring regular boats that are
being trailer in over many years to come versus ones that are coming by water, there's gonna be a lot more
traffic over the next 50 years.
...
The boats they're talking about, we're talking, it could be 60 boats. It could be 80 boats, but that's the boat
traffic. is -- you won't even notice in the real world. In the practical sense, you just won't. And luckily, and
while this is one of the headaches for this construction project, but when it comes to boat traffic, it's pretty
close to the inlet in the south. It's not further to the south.
3.3-
168
Lori Panarello
May 15 2023
email 1
...we are very concerned about the number of heavy and large trucks every day, all day, that will
undoubtedly speeding up and down our road every 7 minutes for more than a year, destroying the roadways
with insufficient money put aside for repair. The amount of noise, pollution, and disruption will be incredibly
dangerous and destructive to all of the residents in that area that use that road to walk, jog,walk dogs, push
baby strollers,and pullout of our driveways.
3.3-
169
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 81
ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI:
I think a lot worse things could be going on there. The first thing that I see is that there was a hotel -- 200
room, which is what it's zoned for. That would be 800 cars a day coming in and out. This traffic isn't a great
thing, but there -- it's only going to be six months of car traffic and big truck traffic.
...
If they were trying to add 60 more slips and increase boat traffic, that would be a very tough thing. That
would also, in fact, inflict a lot of damage on the waterway itself, but these are boats.
3.3-
170
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 84
ANGELA DEVITO:
There are 17 traffic lights at a traffic circle, at a hospital site, that will have to be maneuvered by these
massive trucks with their massive loads over time. The noise that will be generated by them will not only
disturb patients in that hospital, but will interfere directly with the ability of ambulances to get patients that
need care to those hospital, to those hospital services.
...
The impact of having these massive trucks who will have to stop and come to halt at 17 traffic lights as they
travel through our town is considerable. I would just ask at this point, I looked at the DEIS very briefly. Have
to admit that. And we were sort of an afterthought. A little footnote in there and we're not the impact on
us and the impact of this project should have been considered across the towns as a -- and as I said, as a
Norfolk project.
3.3-
171
Jim Casey July 4
2023 email 1
The residents in close proximity to the proposed site would come first. Their immediate quality of life would
be affected by the noise of the many large trucks carrying large loads on their small roads. The neighbors on
the roads leading to the site would also be touched by these trucks. Our roads would also suffer unnecessary
damage.
3.3-
172
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 88
MS. SHELLY:
Congestion will be created in one way. One way out roads. That the general public needs to communicate
to for their work, shopping and other needs. And which will interfere with school buses and getting the kids
to school on time. I was a bus monitor. And you have to get them on time. You -- there's no ifs, ands or
buts.
3.3-
173
William Smith
& Dennis
Schrader
7/10/23 2
Furthermore, we are deeply troubled by the potential impact of this proposal on the wider community. The
significant volume of sand-hauling trucks, which is inadequately addressed in the proposal, poses a threat to
traffic safety along the area's narrow, hilly, and winding roads. Insufficient information regarding the
duration of the sand-hauling activities, especially in the event of delays, further adds to my apprehension.
3.3-
174
North Fork
Environmental
Council 7/10/23 1
the DEIS proposes an immense increase in truck traffic that will damage the roads and impair the community
character not only of Southold, but the Town of Riverhead as well. We believe that Cox Neck Lane and West
Mill Road in Mattituck are inadequate to handle the truck traffic that is proposed, yet the applicant offers no
mitigation for the traffic and the DEIS states that "overall no significant adverse traffic impacts during
construction are anticipated."
3.3-
175
North Fork
Environmental
Council 7/10/23 1
The DEIS also notes on page 295 that along Sound Avenue, Northville Turnpike and Route 58 in Riverhead
there is "already existing significant truck traffic," that is "part of the existing conditions of these areas" as if
the additional truck trips don't matter. We believe a few thousand truck trips do matter, and they will
endanger bi-cyclists, school buses as well as pedestrians along the proposed truck routes in both Southold
and Riverhead.
3.3-
176
Joni Friedman
7/10/23 2
I have additional concerns about the significant increase in truck traffic and the dangerous impact it will have
on our local roads.
3.3-
177
Reed Super
7.10.23 25
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.
3.3-
178
Reed Super
7.10.23 26
The proposed project is also inconsistent with many goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan's
chapter on Transportation and Infrastructure
3.3-
179
Reed Super
7.10.23 26
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.
3.3-
180
Reed Super
7.10.23 52
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.
3.3-
181
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 119
RICK GAINOU:
...Mattituck Inlet was an industrial section at the north end of the inlet years ago. As full storage tanks and a
stone yard next to it. So for years and years and years that stone had to come in and it had to go out.
Somehow it went out in trucks, semi trucks. Straight dump trucks, anchor, trailers for the oil. Distributed
trucks for the road, oil and lo and behold, the roads are still there. And I don't know of any houses that fell
down. So trucking went on there for years and years and years. Nobody probably remembers it. And six
months of trucking is not gonna destroy the roads. I was in the road paving business for 40 years. Anything
that the trucks do to the roads can be fixed. The trucking route -- I don't know if it's been finalized, but you
have empty trucks go one way, full trucks go another way.
3.3-
182
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 123
BOB VANBOURORDE:
So, anyway, I'd just like to say that there'll be a lot of trucks going up and down the roads. But in a short
period of time, it will be a memory and it will be history.
3.3-
183
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 126
DOUG COOPER:
The gentleman just shortly
before who spoke of the oil terminal and
down on Neagle Drive around the corner
from Strong's. I remember that when it
was in operation and there was often
trucks, many trucks carrying fuel oil
out. It would come in by and be trucked
out with no detriment to the roads. To
speak of occasional maintenance. And
sand and gravel had a yard there.
3.3-
184
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 129
FRANK UTAH:
Although Mill Road is long overdue and I know that this has already been said, overdue for repairs. The
Strong's have agreed to partner with Southold Highway Department and repair of Mill Road. Any damage
that can be occurred.
3.3-
185
Comments on
DEIS Strong
Storage pt 2 1
Marla Wexler:
I live off of Cox Neck Road and I am concerned about the excessive traffic of having 80 haul trucks per day, 5
days a week for six months. Was a traffic study done? What about the noise level, vibration, pollution and
safety of
our roads?
3.3-
186
Comments on
DEIS Strong
Storage pt 2 1
Susan M. Norris:
The construction phase 1 is expected to take 6 months. That's 6 months full of traffic and noise, not to
mention the toll it will take on our roads.
3.3-
187
Comments on
DEIS Strong
Storage pt 2 1
Nancy and Sotirios Nikolis:
there will be a minimum of 80 haul trucks per day, 10 hours a day, five days a week for six months,
amounting to one every seven minutes. Road safety will be affected, which will cause hazardous conditions
for school children, pets, pedestrians, joggers, biking enthusiasts, other cars, motorcycles, etc. Wear and tear
on the roads will have to be repaired and maintained. Is the town prepared to spend additional funds on
such maintenance without raising property taxes?
3.3-
188
Comments on
DEIS Strong
Storage pt 2 1
Nancy and Sotirios Nikolis:
Truck traffic will negatively impact existing structures, houses, and especially old historic structures, which
remind us of our history and the North Fork's character.
3.3-
189
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 136
TOGUI TERCHIN:
I just want to draw your attention to Route 58, which is the -- a retail corridor, and the very popular one for
folks on our entire North fork, as well as, our South Fork, is the intended pathway for these tractor trailer
trucks. They would have to go around the rotary at the Peconic Bay Medical Center. I know that was
already mentioned as well. But please do keep that in your minds as you look at the impacts of this EIS. And
the other troubling spot was the turn on Northville Turnpike onto Sound Avenue and the reverse. It's a very
difficult spot. I know that you're focusing on your local roads here in Southold and rightly so. Please do
think about your neighbors in and around Riverhead. As the Planning Board, your task is risk management
and has already been, as has already been mentioned, the intensity of the tractor trailer trucks are not only
here but they're also with your neighbors in Riverhead.
...
And I finish with a question, which is, is there a way to support Strong's Marina with alternatives to this
currently very controversial project?
3.3-
190
Kara Jackson
7/6/23 1
The idea of Strong's Yacht Warehouse project bringing even more traffic including tractor trailers up and
down Cox Neck Road every seven minutes for "six months" (and realistically, likely more) is beyond
treacherous and absolutely detrimental to the quality of life of residents both along and off Cox Neck Road.
3.3-
191
Joel Klein
6/21/23 3
Joel Klein 2:
The project DEIS acknowledges that, using both the FTA and NHDOT guidelines, "it was determined that
historic structures needed to be more than 17 feet from the truck to be safe from damage." However, the
Old Water Tower will be within 12 feet of passing trucks.
3.3-
192 Patricia Wolbert 1
West Mill Road right now is in very serious need of maintenance. The road is crumbling in many places. With
the addition of the anticipated heavy duty usage on the road I can foresee our public road quickly
disintegrating. Last weekend a very serious situation evolved at the corner of Bergen Avenue and Cox Neck
Road. An oversized tractor trailer hauling a yacht tried to make a left turn from Bergen Avenue onto Cox
Neck Road at about 10:30pm. The tractor trailer was unable to make the turn and hung itself up across Cox
Neck Road closing the road to anyone who lived or traveled to or from Rosewood Estates, Breakwater Road
and the homes in the Capt. Kidd area, Jackson's Landing, homes down Bayview Avenue, residences on West
Mill Road, and homes on Naugles Drive. There was NO way for anyone to leave or return to this area, No
emergency vehicles could reach the area. The road was closed for about 2 hours. Many large trucks hauling
sand will be turning and traveling on these small roads not built for such heavy traffic. This is a very serious
incident that the planning board needs to consider.
3.3-
193
Theresa
Dilworth
6/12/23 1
I am majority owner of a vineyard off Northville Turnpike/Route 105, behind the L.I. National Golf course, on
the proposed truck route. Every fall we make multiple trips along Sound Avenue from Northville Turnpike in
Aquebogue west to Mattituck, bringing tons of grapes to Premium Wine Group, located at 35 Cox Neck Road
at the intersection of Sound Ave., directly on the proposed truck route. (Only on weekdays -weekends in the
fall are impossible due to Harbes traffic). Other vineyards such as the former Martha Clara Vineyard on
Sound Ave. (now RG NY Vineyard) also transport their grapes along that part of Sound Avenue to Premium
Wine Group. The 9,000 22-wheeler truck trips will surely slow things down for vineyards both east and west
of Cox Neck Road, turning into and out of Cox Neck Road.
I also have other business interests in Riverhead which require regular travel from Mattituck to Aquebogue
and Riverhead along Sound Avenue.
3.3-
194
Laurie Olinder
06/05/23 1
The impact to the traffic on Sound Avenue is another reason to stop this project. It would exacerbate an
already overcrowded and dangerous Sound Avenue.
3.3-
195
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 140
STEVE GESSLER:
Are you going to partner with the Town of Riverhead to repair the damage done to the roads as these giant
22 wheel vehicles are heading through Route 58, around the traffic circle, by the hospital? As others have
mentioned.
3.3-
196
Jeremy Melissa
Rosen
06/06/23 1
Moreover, the DEIS neglects to assess the impact of heavy trucks carrying sand on roads, historical
structures, and homes over an unspecified duration.
3.3-
197
Jeremy Melissa
Rosen
06/06/23 1
3.3-
198
Beth Lebowitz
7/9/23 3
Many of the speakers at the hearing addressed the negative effects of the trucks needed to remove the
sand, the vibration, damage to the roads, dangerous narrow areas where the construction trucks and a
school bus will have difficulty passing each other, the risk of vibration damage to homes and to historic
buildings along the route.
3.3-
199
Juan Micieli-
Martinez 7/9/23 1 I am concerned about the increased truck traffic that would be put onto Riverhead Town roads.
3.3-
200
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 9
MEMBER AMELIA JEALOUS-DANK:
My next question has to do with, where is the nearest New York State DEC Part 360 depo disposal site?
Which may be a traffic engineer question again. I'm not certain who would know that, but we make
reference to it repeatedly in the DEIS, but no specific location is noted. I want to know how far they have to
go with all this soil?
3.3-
201
Petrina Engelke
7/9/23 1
The DEIS seems to grossly overstate marine traffic in the creek in order to downplay the impact of 88 large
yachts (68-86 feet). The DEIS claims 547 active boats in the creed on a peak season day, how is that
supposed to work? Mattituck Inlet is about 1.8 miles (9,504 feet) long. Suppose those boats average a mere
30 feet, then, even if they somehow could sail touching one another aft to bow, the whole creek would be
filled with boats plus a long line at the entrance (547 boats x 30 feet= 16,410 feet). There is obviously much
less traffic in the creek, and in contrast to large yachts, those smaller boats make less noise and waves that
disturb the creek's peace and ecosystem.
3.3-
202
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 10
All of the construction traffic analyses presented in the DEIS are based on incorrect assumptions and/or
incomplete data. As a result, the DEIS significantly underestimates the degree to which project traffic will
affect the Towns of Southold and Riverhead.
3.3-
203
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 45210
We find that the DEIS consistently misstates and minimizes the amount of this traffic and the effects it will
have on the quality of life for residents, on local businesses, and on the condition of the Town and County
roads. It does this in part by defining "trips" as round trips to and from the site, whereas common sense and
the Institute of Transportation Engineers agree that the relevant statistic is one-way trips. The DEIS
definition has the effect of halving the apparent amount of truck traffic the Project will generate. The
Planning Board noted this numerical sleight-of-hand in the original DEIS, among the deficiencies it asked the
Applicant to correct. But the usage persists in the revised version filed in November 2022.
3.3-
204
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 11
The DEIS contains numerous errors and inconsistencies, but one in particular bears on the amount of truck
traffic the Project will generate. The DEIS (page 286) asserts: "It is anticipated that Phase 3 [construction]
would generate approximately 60 truck trips for the construction of
the retaining wall and an additional 101 truck trips for the two boat storage buildings (including trucks for
concrete foundation and material delivery)." Presumably, these are referring to round trips, like the other
references to truck movement in the DEIS, so those numbers should be doubled. But the DEIS Appendix U
contains a table with estimated concrete volumes for the building foundations (323 cubic yards) and the
floor slabs (3,759 cubic yards), totaling 4,082 cubic yards. Concrete mixing trucks generally carry around 1 0
cubic yards, so the concrete alone, leaving aside the other materials for the buildings and the precast
retaining wall, will require approximately 410 round-trips (or 820 total trips)- around four times the number
given in the body of the DEIS.
3.3-
205
Christine
Rendel 7/9/23 1
I am very concerned about traffic and safety on our local roads in the area.There will be a minimum of 80
haul trucks per day, 10 hours a day, 5 days a week for significantly longer than the proposed "6 months to a
year", amounting to one every 7 or 8 minutes between Mattituck and the LIE. Regardless of the accuracy of
the estimated excavation/haulage/construction period, it's impossible to deny pedestrian, cyclist, school bus
and resident concerns regarding safety on Cox Neck and West Mill roads as a result of this proposal. These
concerns apply to all who use the old, meandering and already damaged road. Further, there are no
pavements on these roads, and so walking, cycling - even just visiting your mail box - will be hazardous.
Imagine a large, laden truck barrelling down the narrow road every 8 minutes and no place to safely stand or
be off the road should a vehicle in another direction approach or pass. Mail carriers trucks and school buses
make frequent stops during the day, and laden trucks will frequently have to stop and idle.
3.3-
206
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 11
The revised DEIS fails to adequately consider or evaluate the safety risks to pedestrians, bicyclists and
schoolchildren boarding and disembarking from buses. It does not address the inadequacies identified by the
Southold Planning Board in the original DEIS, including a call to study "potential adverse impacts" on
bicyclists and pedestrians over all four seasons.
3.3-
207
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 12
Applicant has failed to address the inadequacy of the way pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the Project
truck route was counted in its original DEIS. None of the pedestrian/ bicycle counts in the original DEIS were
made in the mid-December through May time frame when Project traffic volumes will be at their highest.
The revised DEIS discusses and provides additional data collected over only two days--Tuesday August 9 and
Saturday August 13, 2022— not for four seasons, as called for. As with the data in the original DEIS, August is
outside the period of the Project construction phase when potential impacts will be at their greatest. The
data do not account for baby strollers, joggers or dog walkers, which present unique pedestrian risks.
3.3-
208
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 12
The revised DEIS includes no additional data specifically addressing potential traffic
hazards to children waiting for a school bus. Applicant provides no data on the actual
number of school-age children living in homes along the truck route. The DEIS asserts that the
traffic generated by workers leaving the site at the end of their shifts will fall outside of school
drop-off times, downplaying the much greater risk posed by haul trucks going to and from the
site, which will go on throughout the day.
3.3-
209
Save the
Mattituck Inlet
7/6/23 1
What is alarming is the fact that there was an escort car, which was supposed to make things safer, and it
failed. The developer has touted that his project will use a roaming safety vehicle. Will it be as effective (or
ineffective)? The developer cited "we have received numerous yachts by truck and trailer without incident."
Numerous, but not thousands. It is unclear if they were all the same size or if the traffic figures are once
again downplayed.
3.3-
210
Save the
Mattituck Inlet
7/6/23 1
Several of our neighbors were stuck in that traffic for an hour - there was nowhere to go, no detour. The
only alternative was for those traveling North on Cox Neck Road who could make a U turn but that would
not help if they lived on the other side of the accident. This was a prime example of our major concern about
traffic. A disruption of this size, especially at that intersection, provided an eloquent illustration of what can
be expected should a similar situation recur - no road-based emergency vehicles would be able to enter the
area and no cars would be able to leave.
3.3-
211
Save the
Mattituck Inlet
7/6/23 1
The developer's consultants have included Bergen Avenue in the revised truck route to mitigate traffic
impacts. The route is not suitable to have one yacht delivered by truck, even with an escort car, and will no
longer be used according to the developer. It is reasonable to assume that it would not be appropriate to
use it for the project haul trucks either and again calls into question the validity of the project's traffic study.
3.3-
212
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 100
CATHERINE CANADE:
The excavation of the hillside and transport of sand and construction material over 13 months is not an
insignificant issue. And it's not simply a temporary challenge as some have said. It is a fundamental change
to this neighborhood's way of life, and to the safety of those who live here. We have no sidewalks on West
Mill Road. So walking in our neighborhood is already challenging. We walk our dogs. We ride our bikes.
We push our strollers. We jog, walk. All along the edge of the road. There are spots that feel dangerous
already because of bends in the road or inclines that make it impossible for drivers to see us on the side of
the road and for us to see them. The blind curve where Breakwater meets West Mill is especially dangerous.
And so many drivers are already speeding well above the speed limit causing us to have to jump into the
grass and underbrush just to often get out of the way. Add to this truck, after truck. Undoubtedly speeding
and you have a fatal accident just waiting to happen. This is not an exaggeration. It's spelled out in the DEIS.
Tractor trailer traffic on Cox Neck and West Mill Roads will be 20 to 80 times greater than it is currently.
...
Sections of Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road comprising the truck route are as narrow as 22 feet in places.
And at points, the unpaved shoulder is blocked by utility poles, vegetation or landscapers trucks. (2) 8 feet
wide trucks passing in opposite directions with a narrow 1 foot space between them leaves a total of 5 feet
for pedestrians and bicyclists. 2.5 feet on each side. Far too little for safety. On behalf of all the adults,
teenagers and children who walk, run and ride their bikes in the neighborhood all year long, we ask you,
deny this application.
3.3-
213
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 107
LORI PANARELLO:
How are trucks gonna go down that road with all the activity that's already in those 22 feet? It just can't
happen. The fact that the roads are gonna be torn up and I have to drive my car down those roads every day,
they're gonna be a mess. That Strong says, "I'll fix them." But I have to live like that for two years.
3.3-
214
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 14
Even for its intended use, however, PPV is a crude standard for calculating expected impacts. In practice,
PPV values experienced during truck transits at various locations will depend on the specific model, weight
and condition of the equipment being used, and especially on road surfaces. The roads that will be used by
the Project's haul trucks are in far from perfect condition, and can reasonably be expected to deteriorate
further under the wheels of trucks weighing over 50 tons passing by thousands of times.
For these and other reasons, we believe it is necessary to retain an outside consultant to re-evaluate
potential risks to people and structures along the truck route.
3.3-
215
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 24-25
The DEIS stipulates that "[a]II trucks associated with the construction of the proposed action will be limited
to traveling at 30 mph on Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road and all neighboring roads.
The posted speed limit is 35 mph." The actual posted speed limit on West Mill Road is 30 mph.
3.3-
216
Eric McClure
7/5/23 1
While Strong's Yacht Center says that it will ensure that all trucks will have their Jake Brakes turned off, there
is absolutely no way to enforce that. Similarly, there is no way to enforce the promise that all trucks
associated with the project will travel no faster than 30 miles per hour on Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road
(the posted speed limit is 35 MPH). The same is true for the promise to deploy flaggers at curves or
intersections along the route. These proposed mitigations are all unenforceable, and should the project fall
behind schedule or lose a day here or there to weather conditions, they're almost certain to be ignored.
Anyone who's ever observed or experienced a large-scale construction project of this nature knows that
truck drivers do what they want to do when they want to do it.
3.3-
217
Eric McClure
7/5/23 1 & 2
The 4,100-plus trips made by fully laden 30-yard trucks will cause serious degradation to Sound Avenue, and
probably even more so the local roads along the route in Mattituck, especially since the excavation portion
of the project is planned to take place through the winter months, when freeze-thaw effects do the greatest
damage to asphalt
3.3-
218
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 121
PHOEBE PUNDYK:
Personally, I run the loop from West Mill to Breakwater Beach 12 months a year. When I'm out, I see my
neighbors. They're walking their dogs, riding their bikes, going on jogs.
...
My neighbors are spending time in West Mill Preserve. We live outside. This project would be a major
disruption to our lifestyle and it is the antithesis as to why we choose to live here, and it is a threat to our
safety. West Mill Road is tight. There is no shoulder. There are no sidewalks. We cannot safely use the
road if there are 18-wheelers driving in each direction all day long. No matter how slow they go.
3.3-
219
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 124
KATHERINE KENT:
As a resident of Sound Avenue, the number of tractor trailers already moving along Sound Avenue at high
speeds is alarming. Sound Avenue is an historic corridor. Not particularly a wide road with turns and hills. It
is lined with residential homes, wineries, small businesses and farms stands. As an agricultural area, our
farms are a huge draw for locals and many visitors. We regularly see families excited to pick their own fruit
and vegetables. Loading them in their trunk. Even picnicking by the back of their vehicles with children
close to the road. In the warmer months, we see groups of bicyclists riding along Sound Avenue as well.
Now throw in the mix of fast moving tractor trailers with heavy loads. Today I was running errands. Thinking
about the meeting and I thought, let me just -- let me just count how many tractor trailers I see. And within a
few minutes and a few miles, I counted 15 tractor trailers carrying loads, such as sod, fill and oil. This
combination of people not paying close attention to traffic and massive vehicles moving at fast speeds is a
dangerous combination. When does it stop? As a former Riverhead Councilwoman, I was part of a task force
where we discussed traffic and possible solutions to alleviate it. We made positive changes. Turning lanes
adjusted the timing of lights. Added traffic officers. But we must take into consideration the number of
massive vehicles that are -- we are allowing onto Sound Avenue, and the main road. The question at hand is
whether the benefits of this project outweigh the negative impacts to our quality of life for the greater good.
I think not. We must work together to protect the future of the North Fork for our children.
3.3-
220
Susan A Reeve
05/19/23 1
Sound Avenue and all the surrounding roads are barely able to handle the huge amount of traffic that
traverses now. It was a dirt farm road originally that became paved & was traveled by locals- now there are
huge trucks, traffic jams, and LOTS of noise and vibration. For the equipment to be brought to the site & the
materials removed will be a local nightmare as well as an ecological one- all surrounding houses, farms,
businesses will be negatively affected. So the route will come down Northville Turnpike to Sound Avenue &
make the tum to head East? Then again the MUCH heavier trucks that are full that need that tum to head
back
up Northville Turnpike? Has that been addressed? Those huge trucks make extremely wide turns- what about
oncoming traffic? What about human safety? What about the added costs to Riverhead (AND Mattituck)
taxes
for the upkeep & repair of the immense damage that will occur to the roads?
3.3-
221
Jonathan Baker
05/18/23 1
Aside from the wear and tear of the road surfaces of West Mill Road, Cox Neck Road, and Sound
Avenue, the great increase in semi-trailer traffic throughout the area, the greatly increased potential for
accidents with pedestrians who walk these roads for exercise as well as with general foot traffic and vehicular
traffic, there will be a great diminishment of air quality due to dirty diesel exhaust from the hauling trucks. I
foresee black clouds of diesel exhaust when the drivers downshift gears to power up the steep inclines out of
the construction site and at the sharp curve by the intersection of Breakwater Road and West Mill Road.
Truck hauling of this magnitude is definitely NOT a good idea and should NOT be allowed.
There is an alternate way to deal with the excavated soil and that is by removal by barge. I made this
recommendation when the plan was first published. It is a practical solution and a fair one for the people
living in the area.
3.3-
222
Erin McClure
05/15/23 1
The planned 8,200 trips by 30-yard trailer trucks
is an enormous number, especially considering that a 30-yard truck laden with sand weighs several dozen
tons. Cox Neck
Road and West Mill Road have areas of significant grade and pronounced turns, and the impact from these
truck trips
will be felt by residents and other road users.
3.3-
223
Erin McClure
05/15/23 1
While Strong's Yacht Center says that it will ensure that all trucks will have their Jake Brakes turned off, there
is
absolutely no way to enforce that. Similarly, there is no way to enforce the promise that all trucks associated
with the
project will travel no faster than 30 miles per hour on Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road (the posted speed
limit is 35
MPH). The same is true for the promise to deploy flaggers at curves or intersections along the route. These
proposed
mitigations are all unenforceable, and should the project fall behind schedule or lose a day here or there to
weather
conditions, they're almost certain to be ignored. Anyone who's ever observed or experienced a large-scale
construction
project of this nature knows that truck drivers do what they want to do when they want to do it.
3.3-
224
Erin McClure
05/15/23 44928
The 4,100-plus trips made by fully laden 30-yard trucks will cause serious
degradation to Sound Avenue, and probably even more so the local roads along the route in Mattituck,
especially since the excavation portion of the project is planned to take place through the winter months,
when freeze-thaw effects do the greatest damage to asphalt.
3.3-
225
Betsy Kennedy
05/15/23 1
The roads these tractor trailers will use were not designed by a civil engineer to accommodate the size or
weight of these vehicles with or without a load. The current roads were formed by horse drawn wagons and
carriages 100 years or more. There are no shoulders on the road making them eminently more dangerous
for people living on this road. Also, the additional traffic to the area since the increase of population due to
the epidemic is exponential.
3.3-
226
Shelley Helsel
05/15/23 1
Congestion will be created in one way-in, one-way out roads that the general public needs to commute for
their work, shopping, and other needs, and which will interfere with school buses getting the kids to school
on time.
3.3-
227
Jo-Ann Lechner
7/5/23 1
Our roads will not be safe for pedestrian, cyclist, and general road safety during the prolonged excavation
and construction periods.
3.3-
228
Jo-Ann Lechner
7/5/23 2
There will be a minimum of 80 haul trucks per day, 10 hours a day, 5 days a week for 6 months amounting to
one every 7 minutes between Mattituck and the LIE There will be a significant increase in truck traffic and
the dangerous impact it will have on our local roads. Even Riverhead has great concerns regarding the
additional pollution and the trucks using their roads. Who will pay for the reconstruction of roads which will
be impacted by these trucks?
Accordingly, based upon a review of the above, our community does not benefit by this project at all. The
only ones who benefits are the project owner, construction company and those who own yachts.
3.3-
229
Terese Brady-
Mendez
05/12/23 44928
According to the DEIS, the transportation of the removed sand, trees, and shrubs would require a 4-to- 5-
month caravan of 22-wheel trucks that when full would weigh 107,000 pounds. The schedule for these
trucks on a weekday basis would begin at 7:00 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m., meaning one truck would be used
for the drive to Calverton every 7 minutes. The promised temporary haul road connected to West Mill Road
would not eliminate the problems that will affect those living on Cox Neck Road, a two-lane country road
and would be disastrous for the normal traffic on it by affecting the safety of schoolchildren being picked up
and dropped off there every day. In addition, what about the safety of pedestrians, bicyclers, and
automobiles? And which entity would be responsible for any person and/or anything damaged as a result-
Southold Town or Strong's Marina?
Moreover, it is clear that this ongoing truck traffic on Route 48 and/or Route 25 would also significantly
disrupt traffic flows between Riverhead and Mattituck, and for towns further east of here. Traffic flow in our
neighborhoods has already become a problem that many of our town's residents abhor and this situation
does not deserve to be exacerbated.
3.3-
230
Allyson Matwey
05/10/23 1
I believe that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not adequately address the noise and
traffic pollution to
towns outside of your own, including Riverhead The DEIS does not offer sufficient mitigation as it relates to
my concerns because Riverhead was not included in any of the planning or decisions despite being a
thoroughfare for the truck traffic.
3.3-
231
Allyson Matwey
05/10/23 1
Further, I have additional concerns about the significant increase in truck traffic and the dangerous impact
it will have on our local roads.
3.3-
232
David A
Dilworth
04/23/23 1
The proposed trucking would be a disaster, disrupting our lives with of traffic, traffic delays, choked traffic
points, noise, dust, pollution, unsightly 22-wheelers. Too much rubber on the road! The charm of popular
farm stands and roadside dining would surely be smothered and their businesses drastically diminished. The
very road surfaces themselves, together with homesites, would take a continuous beating. These and all
other things considered, it is likely that not only the contemporary landscape and ambience but the historic
reputation of the North Folk will be damaged.
3.3-
233
Karin Waslo
04/25/23 2
as a resident who only occasionally finds herself on Route 48 into Riverhead, essentially using the same
route as
these 4100 tractor trailers ,it is hard to believe that they will be able to stay on schedule while creeping
along behind
farm vehicles, left-turners, and tourists. They won't make it to the drop off location on time ... and neither
will all the
other drivers who need to share those roads. This road is considered the "truck" route and these vehicles
may be
allowed on these roads but is it absolutely necessary to stress the Southold and Riverhead highway
departments and us
taxpayers with such wear and tear?
3.3-
234
Richard A
Wines 05/09/23 1
Sound Avenue is not a first-class road and is not engineered for this type of traffic. The
road surface is not smooth, but rather often somewhat bumpy. There is no base
beneath the pavement, leaving it susceptible to potholes from heavy truck traffic,
especially during spring thaw when truck traffic will be at its peak. Moreover, speeds
are often well in excess of the posted 45 mile-an-hour speed limit.
3.3-
235
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 155
GEORGE MAUL:
This is a large project. The environment that we live in has a lot of tourism. The Town of Southold has
trouble managing the tourism that we have now. Stretch of road from here to Mattituck this year, I've --
several times found myself in a line of cars that isn't moving. That's a new development for me. I've been
here 30 years. This project is a marine project, but it also represents a huge impact on the tourism of our
area.
3.3-
236
Peggy Litchhult
05/03/23 1
The location of Rosewood Drive is very dangerous, when making a left turn from Cox Neck Road onto
Rosewood the sight is very limited for an approaching car to see a vehicle making a turn or even worse on
the hill waiting to make that turn onto Rosewood. Over the years we have numerous amounts of children
going to school from Rosewood, and every year their was always a debate where the school bus would stop
to pick up and drop off the kids. I feel safety and the quality of life for the residents of this area of Mattituck
is in jeopardy!
The planning board also needs to take in consideration that Cox Neck Road does not have sidewalks, no
shoulders, so all the walkers, joggers and bikers would be in danger with additional traffic caused by 80
tractor trailers.
3.3-
237
Carolyn McCall
05/01/23 1
Of all the potential impacts on our environment, our safety, our quality of life, there is one figure
that stands out in my head: 9,000. Nine-thousand truck trips that will be required to excavate
and haul the sand from the project site. Nine-thousand. That's 40 trucks entering and exiting
the property Monday - Friday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m, five days a week, for six months, according to
Strongs' own statements. And 9,000 is just one aspect of this massive project.
3.3-
238
Joel Klein
6/23/23 2 & 3
Although called for in the DEIS scope, detailed four-season traffic data was never collected for the portion of
the Project's haul truck route within the Town of Riverhead. Instead, the DEIS Traffic Study (DEIS Appendix 0)
relies for its analyses entirely on a few days of data collected by NYSDOT in 2018 and 2019. In addition, as
pointed out in my May 15 comments, the volume of Project haul truck trips has been significantly
underestimated because the DEIS has assumed each truck load will be significantly heavier than permitted.
Finally, the Project's air quality analysis (DEIS Appendix S) assumed in its calculation of estimated on-road
vehicle emission rates (including Total PM2.5) that the Project's haul trucks will be "Class 7 4+Axle Single
Unit Dumpster/Hauler[s]" (DEIS Appendix 0, Table 4). That assumption is incorrect. The Project haul trucks
will be Class 6-or more-axle, single trailer vehicles-semi-trucks.
3.3-
239 Boscola 6/20/23 9
Members of our family and the community use what we call "the loop" (West Mill Rd to Breakwater Rd to
Naugles Dr.) for exercise and just being outdoors. These immediately local roads have typical widths of 22'
and portions of the truck route have tight curves and limited sight distances. The idea that over 9,000 dump
truck trips will be allowed in this area is a major danger. To dismiss these as "temporary" is extremely
shortsighted and puts our community members at risk. If a pedestrian, cyclist, motorist, or child traveling
to/from school is injured because of this project, then who will be liable?
3.3-
240 Boscola 6/20/23 9
Though not mentioned in the DEIS, the developer, in person and on his website, has touted "A roaming
safety vehicle will be deployed during tntck transport to ensure trucks are spaced out properly, and that
drivers adhere to area speed limits and take appropriate safety precautions. " Unclear why this is needed - is
it assumed the trucks will not follow the law or general safety precautions? Does this additional vehicle
running up and down the road not add more traffic? Will this car travel the entire truck route? How can one
vehicle monitor a truck every seven minutes along a truck route that is several miles long? What happens if
the trucks ignore this vehicle?
a. It is important that the Lead Agency review the developer's website as he is offering mitigation that is
not present in the DEIS. Why was this not included in the DEIS? Perhaps there is no intention of actually
following through with it.
3.3-
241 Boscola 6/20/23 9
The Planning Board's May 9, 2022 memo requests that the revised DEIS include a more accurate and
detailed discussion on the ... "the total number of trucks per day that will travel over local and regional roads
over the duration of the project". The revised DEIS has not addressed this concern and continues to
misleadingly misrepresent the increase in the number of truck trips that the Project will generate.
3.3-
242 Boscola 6/20/23 9
The DEIS either a) underestimates the number of truck trips required to haul sand from the Project site
during the Excavation Phases, or b) fails to note that haul trucks would have to be overloaded to conform to
the number of estimated trips. The maximum permitted weight of loaded haul trucks is 107,000 pounds. A
fully loaded 30 CY will likely exceed this weight and therefore must not be fully loaded. The DEIS does not
address the effects of not fully loading the trucks will have on the already tight schedule.
3.3-
243 Boscola 6/20/23 10
The DEIS attempts to downplay the project construction traffic, which will add to current truck traffic along
the route. It does this by treating all trucks larger than pick-ups as equivalent to the
22- wheel semi-tractor trailers. This should be re-evaluated as they are not the same truck (Attachment H).
3.3-
244 Boscola 6/20/23 10
The DEIS underestimates the number of concrete truck deliveries required for the foundations and floor
slabs for the two storage buildings. Typical concrete trucks described in the DEIS carry loads of 10 CY. The
DEIS states that 4,082 CY of concrete will be required. The DEIS estimates 89 full concrete trucks (which is
178 trips) - basic math does not support this calculation. This needs to be re-evaluated as the number of
trucks is closer to 408 (which is 816 trips). a. The DEIS does not discuss the truck route for the cement
trucks. Given the nearest cement plants are in Riverhead, it is likely that an excessive number of trucks will
need to travel through residential areas.
b. The DEIS does not discuss the timing of the cement trucks. The cement would need to be delivered and
poured in conjunction with the in-floor heating pipes. Additionally, even if the heating element is removed,
the cement would still need to be delivered and poured at the site in coordinated succession to avoid "cold
joints".
i. This tight convoy of cement trucks would have significant traffic and impacts as the weight per axle is
higher for cement trucks. The ESAL calculations should be performed to account for these trucks as well.
c. The staging of the large quantities of cement trucks, idling with their mixers spinning would create a
"hotspot" of exhaust fumes affecting air quality as well as significant noise impacts. These impacts should be
evaluated and mitigation should be proposed.
3.3-
245 Boscola 6/20/23 10
The DEIS states "All trucks associated with the construction of the proposed action will be limited to
traveling at 30 mph on Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road and all neighboring roads. The posted speed limit is
35 mph." This is inaccurate as the posted speed limit on West Mill Rd is 30 MPH. The traffic consultant's own
equipment was attached to the speed limit sign, yet the correct speed limit was not reflected in the DEIS
(Attachment F). It is now unclear if the trucks will travel at only the speed limit or if they will make an
attempt to drive at 25 MPH to maintain the -5 MPH spread.
3.3-
246 Boscola 6/20/23 10
At the Public Hearing on June 5, 2023, the developer's consultants remarked that full trucks leaving would
use Bergen Road to head west and that empty trucks coming in would use Cox Neck Road. This makes no
sense and underscores the fact that the consultants likely never visited the area.
a. To make a right turn on Bergen Road would require a truck of this size to swing wide into the
oncoming lane to avoid hitting a telephone pole at the corner (Attachment I). IF there is a car waiting to
make a turn, the truck may have to stop on a hill. That truck would then have to accelerate from a dead
stop, with a full load, creating even more noise and exhaust fumes.
b. Midway on Bergen Road is a 90-degree tum, which is cautioned as a "Dangerous Curve" (Attachment
I) - why would anyone direct tractor trailers loaded with over 100,000lbs of sand through this turn?
3.3-
247
Toni Bryan
04/18/23 1
That as a part of the project proposal on page xviii it states will be "a minor increase in truck trips" but on
page xix it states "it will generate a substantial amount of traffic".
3.3-
248
Joel Klein 5-15-
23 Historic
Structures 13
The Planning Board’s May 10, 2022 memo detailing inadequacies in the original DEIS states that the DEIS
must discuss “the impacts of vibration from loaded trucks on structures along the vehicle route(s)”. The
Planning Board’s consultant’s comments on inadequacies in the original DEIS also note that “The Traffic
study discusses the potential impact of vibrations from loaded trucks on structures along the vehicle route(s)
and concludes that the "only existing structure that may be susceptible to increased vibrations from trucks
would be the existing water tower located close to West Mill Road on adjoining property to the subject
property at the southwest corner." The basis for this conclusion is not clear. The setback distances of historic
homes along the construction route should be considered based on the extent and duration of proposed
heavy truck trips associated with the proposed action” (NPV p.6).
Chapter 3.4 Aesthetics
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
3.4-1
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 1 & 2
No ZVI is defined in the DEIS and no properly prepared viewshed map is included in the DEIS or supporting
appendices…..Rather than establishing the limits of the Project’s viewshed, the DEIS preparers made
unsupportable assumptions about what locations might be impacted, and limited their analyses to views
from those locations........the DEIS preparers limited their analysis of what they call the ZVI to a radius of
1,000 feet from the subject property....Because the Project’s ZVI and viewshed have not properly or
adequately identified the DEIS fails to adequately identify all potentially impacted visually sensitive
receptors as called for in the DEIS scope.
3.4-2
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 3
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to include a “Visual Impact Study that includes computer-generated
imagery for viewshed changes from Mattituck Creek and adjacent roadways (Applicant generated).” Rather
than prepare true photo-simulations for use in assessing visual and aesthetic impacts, DEIS Appendix Q
contains what are identified as “Proposed Action Renderings” (DEIS Appendix Q3 Figures A-1 – A-7, A-9 and
A-13). They purport to show existing and proposed views. They do not. The “existing” views are, in fact,
computer rendered images of the existing marine storage buildings and/or natural features superimposed
onto altered versions of original photographs. They are not, as described in the DEIS (pp.231-
233),“Photograph[s]”.
3.4-3
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 3
Pages 235-239 of the DEIS include descriptions of each “Photograph” and accompanying rendering in
Appendix Q. Each rendering is described as being from a numbered “Post Development Viewpoint.”
However, the viewpoint photos in Appendix Q deviate significantly from same images labeled “Existing
View[s]” shown on the corresponding Appendix Q renderings
3.4-4
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 4
location key maps on Figures A-1 – A-7, A-9, and A-13 [COMMENT FIGURE V-12A – V-12B], when compared
with the Viewpoint Key Map [COMMENT FIGURE V-13], confirms that each pair of images were supposedly
taken from the same vantage points with the viewer looking in the same direction. The images should
match. They clearly do not.
3.4-5
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 4 & 5
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to include “detailed visual renderings of the proposed action, and
alternative actions, to reflect how the development would be viewed from . . . any surrounding residential
development” (p.15). The DEIS preparers have chosen to interpret “surrounding” in as limiting a way as
possible. Only a single rendering (A-5), identified as being from the vantage point of a residence (5106 West
Mill Road) is included in the DEIS. It is unclear from exactly where on that property the photo used to
generate the rendering was taken. The existing and proposed views shown in rendering/simulation A-5
suffer all of the problems identified with the other simulations described above. The simulation is so poor
that it is impossible to determine even if the photograph on which it is based was taken during the foliate or
defoliate season—a critical factor in evaluating visibility. No unaltered photo from that location is included
anywhere in the DEIS. The conclusions in the DEIS that “[O]verall, the viewshed change is not significant”
(DEIS pp. xx, 237) and that “[U]nder post development conditions, the views would be similar” (pp. xx, 237),
cannot be substantiated. Nor can the Applicant’s assumption that “the top of the vegetation on the northern
portion of the Evergreen concrete retaining wall would aid in obscuring views onto the proposed buildings”
(p.237) (see also, below). No consideration seems to have been given to how the presence of a proposed six-
foot high black vinyl clad fence at the top of the Evergreen retaining wall would affect views towards the
Project, and the fence is not included in the rendering of the proposed view.
3.4-6
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 5
The DEIS scope (p.16) calls for the DEIS to Include “a visual rendering of a typical yacht to be stored in the
building as it would appear traveling south down the creek towards the marina from the perspective of a
person in a kayak on the creek headed north.” Appendix Q viewpoint photos 11A-11C, 12 and 13 do show
photos of yachts of various sizes as seen from a kayak on Mattituck Inlet. The largest of the vessels shown is
incorrectly described as a 95-footer. Three of the photos (11A-11C) show vessels at the entrance to
Mattituck Inlet with the breakwater in the background. The two remaining photos show what is identified as
the 95-foot (in reality 80-foot) yacht in front of the existing Strong’s marina facilities. Neither of those
photos has been modified to include a simulated representation of proposed Project facilities. None of the
photos satisfy the requirement specified in the DEIS scope.
3.4-7
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 6
All of the renderings included in Appendix Q include a note that reads “All renderings, color schemes, floor
plans, maps and displays are artists’ conceptions and are not intended to be an actual depiction of the
Project or its surroundings. Actual position of the Project on the property will be determined by the
approved site plan.” The creator of the images shown in these figures is, in effect, acknowledging their
inaccuracy, confirming that they cannot be used to properly assess the visual/aesthetic impacts of the
Project. They do not satisfy the DEIS scope requirements for “3D computer-generated imagery . . . to depict
post-development viewshed changes from Mattituck Creek and the adjacent roadway” (p.16).
3.4-8
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 6
none of the renderings/simulations, intended to show existing and proposed views from Mattituck Creek,
can be considered as having satisfied the DEIS scope requirement to provide “detailed visual renderings of
the proposed action [that] reflect how the development would be viewed from the waters of Mattituck
Inlet”
3.4-9
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 6
DEIS Appendix Q includes ten photographs from land-based viewpoints (Viewpoints 1-10) oriented towards
the existing Strong’s Yacht Club (SYC) facility. Four are from the east side of Mattituck Inlet and the
remaining six are from points on the west side, including three from historic properties. None of these
photos was used as the basis for a rendering depicting post-Project construction views. The DEIS says that
“All viewpoints under existing conditions and post-development, are included in Appendix Q of this DEIS”
(emphasis added) (p.231). This is incorrect. Twelve viewpoints (excluding viewpoints not oriented toward
the Project site) are discussed in the DEIS. Only nine renderings showing what are purported to be post-
development conditions are included in Appendix Q,
3.4-10
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 6 & 7
Viewpoint photos are accompanied by a location key map11. Only one of the viewpoint photos (Viewpoint
1) is described as being from a “private residence” (p.231). The location is not otherwise identified in the
DEIS text. However, the dominant foreground structure in the photograph is clearly not a residence. It
appears to be a garage. The view is toward the existing marina facilities on the opposite side of Mattituck
Inlet and cannot by any means be considered a “representative” view from a residence. Rather than
illustrating the view from the shoreline of the property so as to accurately represent views toward the
proposed Project location, the viewpoint is set well back from the shoreline....
3.4-11
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 7
The Viewpoint 2 photograph is described as a north facing view from North Drive, located immediately
south of the Project construction area. It is similar to Photograph 18 in Appendix Q which is described as
“View looking northeast at subject property from 800 North Drive.” Existing marina Building 814 (a 22,400
SF storage structure) is visible through a gap in the trees on the right side of both photos. Rendering/photo
simulation A-2 (Appendix Q) purports to show existing and proposed views from what the location key on
the rendering indicates is approximately the same location at the end of North Drive. The rendering of the
existing view bears no resemblance to either Viewpoint photograph 2, or Photograph 18 in Appendix Q.
3.4-12
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 7
Viewpoint 3 is not helpful in regard to assessing visual impacts. The Viewpoint Key Map indicates the
viewpoint is located on the east side of Mattituck Creek. The viewpoint photo is captioned “View from south
of SYC, facing north on Mattituck Creek towards SYC.” The viewpoint is actually located along what
Photograph 9 (a reciprocal view) in Appendix G calls an “internal” roadway at the marina. The viewpoint
photo is oriented away from the Project Construction Excavation Area, and potential views are blocked by
an existing marina building [COMMENT FIGURE V-28]. No actual photograph showing the correct existing
view from Viewpoint 3 is included in the DEIS.
3.4-13
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 8
The residence at 805 North Drive which is also directly south of the Project Construction Excavation Area,
and from which the proposed structures will be visible, was not selected as a viewpoint. The historic
resources survey report in DEIS Appendix T contains a photograph (D6) showing 805 North Drive from “the
south end of the CEA [Construction Excavation Area].” It is clear that the reciprocal view would contain
views of the proposed structures. 805 North Drive is called out multiple times in the DEIS’ noise analysis.
3.4-14
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 8
The viewpoint 4 photograph, is described as “View from most southern trail on Mill Road Preserve towards
SYC.” The DEIS text states that “[F]from this viewpoint, the woodland portion of the subject property is
visible” (p.232). The existing marina facility is not visible in this photo, which was taken during the defoliate
season in March, 2021. Figure A-4 in Appendix Q is a rendering purporting to show existing and proposed
views from the southern trail on the Mill Road Preserve. The Viewpoint Key Map and the location key on
Figure A-4 seem to indicate that the location and direction of the viewpoint photo and the photo/renderings
are the same. The two sets of images bear no resemblance to one another. It is possible that one or both are
incorrectly captioned. Figure A-4 is most likely based on the view from the northernmost trail in the
Preserve [COMMENT FIGURE V-5]. However, the perspective in the “existing view” also seems to be
incorrect in that the viewpoint seems to be excessively elevated.
3.4-15
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 8
Viewpoint 5 is described as the “view from 5106 West Mill Road towards SYC . . . facing south.” A red arrow
on the viewpoint photo indicates the location of the SYC. 5106 is a private residence located on an
effectively landlocked parcel within the marina parcel. It is located approximately 100 feet north of the
proposed Construction Excavation Area. The six largest trees shown in the photo, including one in the
immediate foreground, are marked with orange survey tape. These may be the larger trees (˃6-inch
diameter) mapped and scheduled to be cut as shown on Sheet TS-4 in DEIS Appendix N. If so, this means the
viewpoint photo was not taken from 5106 West Mill Road, but from a point at least 100 feet south of the
5106-property line. This also means that viewpoint 5 is located in an area scheduled for excavation and will
not exist once work in the Project’s construction area is finished.
3.4-16
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 9
Viewpoints 6, and 7, like viewpoint 5, are located within the existing marina parcel and are not helpful in
evaluating the Project’s visual impact. They may be views from within the Construction Excavation Area. If
so, the locations will not exist post-construction. These viewpoint photos cannot be used for assessing post-
construction views.
3.4-17
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 9
Nowhere in the DEIS is there a description of the methodology employed to generate the “proposed views”
shown in Appendix Q. That imagery forms the basis of much of the analysis in the DEIS text. There is thus
no way to assess the accuracy or inaccuracy of that imagery (although most of it appears to be inaccurate, as
discussed above). There is no indication in the DEIS that software specially designed for use in creating
visual simulations was employed. There is no mention of the type of photographic equipment used to take
the photographs on which the renderings/simulations are based. For example, cameras used should have
had a focal length between 28 and 35 mm (equivalent to between 45 and 55 mm on a standard 35mm film
camera). This focal length is the standard used in visual impact assessment because it most closely
approximates normal human perception of spatial relationships and scale in the landscape.
3.4-18
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 9 & 10
The DEIS puts forth the following conclusions based on the viewpoint photos, and the “existing view”
“photographs” and “proposed view” renderings: Rendering A-1 and Post Development Viewpoint 1 - “The
impact to the visual setting of the subject property would be minimal” (p.222). Rendering A-4 and Post
Development Viewpoint 4 - “The impact to the visual setting of the subject property would be minimal”
(p.223).
Rendering A-5 and Post Development Viewpoint 5 - “Overall, the viewshed change is not significant” (p.224).
Rendering A-3 and Post Development Viewpoint 3 - “The impact to the visual setting of the subject property
would be minimal” (p.223). The DEIS also concludes that “Although the views of the subject property would
be altered as a result of the proposed action, they would not be significant as depicted by the photo-
simulations, landscaping plans, and architectural elevations” (p.226). No definition of “significant” is
provided.
3.4-19
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 10
Given the many inaccuracies and inconsistencies noted in both the viewpoint photographs, the “existing”
view
“photographs”, and the “proposed view” renderings, any conclusions derived for using them as a basis of
analysis must be considered invalid.
3.4-20
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 10
Applicant indicates that the location of the proposed haul road has been moved to “mitigate potential
aesthetic impacts to the single family residence located at 4105 West Mill Road” (p.239). However, the DEIS
contains no information or analyses that indicate what new views would be generated from West Mill Road
looking east through the newly created, approximately 100-foot-wide haul road entrance
3.4-21
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 10
Applicant indicates that the location of the proposed haul road has been moved to “mitigate potential
aesthetic impacts to the single family residence located at 4105 West Mill Road” (p.239). However, the DEIS
contains no information or analyses that indicate what new views would be generated from West Mill Road
looking east through the newly created, approximately 100-foot-wide haul road entrance
3.4-22
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 11 & 12
Existing views of a vegetated hillside will be replaced by views, which will last for years, of a massive
concrete retaining wall….The DEIS contains numerous references to how the retaining wall will reduce visual
and aesthetic impacts, and even suggests that the wall will constitute an enhancement of existing views.
Unfortunately, the evaluations of the wall’s impact rely almost entirely on analysis of the faulty renderings
included in Appendix Q. For example, the DEIS concludes that as “illustrated on Renderings A-1, A-3, A-5,
and A-13 (and evaluated further below), the existing visual setting of the SYC operations at the water’s edge
with woodland landward in the background would be maintained” (pp. xxii, 235, 243)....because of the
inadequacy of the photosimulations, and because of the absence of other data, it is impossible to validate or
evaluate statements such as : “The proposed Evergreen concrete retaining wall . . . would also screen much
of the views of [proposed] Buildings 9 and 10’; “the proposed vegetation along the retaining wall would
create a green wall such that it would blend into the existing landscape” (pp. xxi, 239); the “proposed
Evergreen retaining wall will provide visual mitigation when it is vegetated. It will blend in with the
surrounding woodland and landscape” (pp. xxxvii, 240); the “proposed Evergreen concrete retaining wall is
designed to become a green wall that will blend with the landscape to soften views”(pp. xxxv, 187); and,
“proposed Evergreen retaining wall will provide visual mitigation when it is vegetated. It will blend in with
the surrounding woodland and landscape” (pp. xxxvii, 240)....elevation drawings included in Appendix D do
not include the retaining wall. The Evergreen Wall Report in Appendix H includes brochure photos of
installations around the world that give some indication of what the wall may look like. Those photos also
confirm that it will take years for wall plantings to fully establish themselves, and that they do not “blend
into the landscape.”
3.4-23
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 12
A principal component of the Applicant’s visual impact mitigation, is the installation of supplementary
plantings along the top of the retaining wall to create a “sealed edge” of vegetation (DEIS pp. xx, xxxvii, 235,
240). The DEIS describes the supplementary plantings as including “27,333± SF of native trees, shrubs and
groundcover along the new forest edge. This planted area is approximately 20-to-30 feet in width and will
include dense, multi-layered plantings (i.e., plants that at maturity will occupy understory, and canopy-
levels) with abundant conifer trees (86 pitch pine trees) to minimize light penetration into the new forest”
(pp. xxxiv, 136, 144, 170, 177, 310). This statement is incorrect.22 The DEIS concludes that the proposed
“supplemental plantings would retain the existing natural and visual features at the property” (pp. xx, 235).
A detailed review of the Proposed Landscape Plan in Appendix C indicates that the planted area will be
closer to 15 feet in width, rather than the 20-30 feet stated in the DEIS. According to the Landscape
Schedule on the landscape plan, 86 pitch pines,23 with a minimum 4-5 feet height, will be planted 13 feet
on-center, in a single staggered row within this area.24 As a visual screen, this cannot be considered
equivalent to the large wooded area which will be destroyed by the Project, and which currently constitutes
the southerly view from 5106 West Mill Drive.
3.4-24
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 12
The DEIS fails to address changes in night-time views that will be affected by the installation of new lighting
on both proposed and existing structures.
3.4-25
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 77
ANNE SHERWOOD PUNDYK:
The materials presented in the DEIS are in key respects, poorly prepared and omit information necessary to
determine the nature and full significance of the visual impact of this project, within the context of the
shoreline and community character of Mattituck, as required by the final scope of the DEIS. The information
the DEIS centers on, is the relationship of the existing buildings to the proposed buildings. Not the
relationship of the buildings to the project's natural setting.
...
So what they don't mention is the gaping hole behind all of these buildings, where the entire woodland
hillside has been removed.
3.4-26
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 78
ANNE SHERWOOD PUNDYK:
Furthermore, in the set of architectural drawings provided by the developer, there's no elevation showing
the topography. The buildings but no topography. We don't know exactly -- We won't -- can't determine
visually what those the change in elevation will look like. This is just one example.
3.4-27
Jim Casey July 4
2023 1
The negative aesthetics of these 50,000 square foot warehouses would affect the North Forkers and all
visitors whose eyes come in contact with them. I myself frequently walk on the east side of the creek and
would be one of these people.
3.4-28
Audubon Society
5-26-23 79
First, it is what the people of Southold Town want. Conserving bird habitats is what the people of the North
Fork desire and prioritize. Access to beautiful natural environments are among the main reasons people
move to the North Fork or want to remain here.
3.4-29
Audubon Society
5-26-24 94
To improve the viewshed of any new structures, particularly if visible from the Town Preserve or neighbor's
properties, the soil could be hilled against the side walls of the structures, which like the old "potato barns"
on farms, provide natural insulation and reduce the need for artificial heating and cooling. These soil slopes
could be vegetated with native plants. The soil walls together with the native plants would help hide much
of the walls from view.
3.4-30
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 88
MS. SHELLY:
The benefits of life and beauty in nature will be replaced with a flat out big unsightly hole, pure ugliness and
total community chaos.
3.4-31
Anne Sherwood
Pundyk 7/8/23 2
After carefully reviewing this section, I have determined that the written conclusion of this section, found on
page 239 of the DEIS, is not supported by the visual information provided by the developer. The section
concludes, "Although the views of the subject property would be altered as a result of the proposed action,
they would not be significant as depicted by the photo-simulations, landscaping plans, and architectural
elevations." There are a variety of ways this written conclusion is not supported by the visual information in
the DEIS. On page 14 of the Final Scope for the DEIS the developer is specifically required to, "determine if
and how scenic receptors [scenic views from Mattituck Creek, outdoor recreation facilities, historic
properties, etc.] would be affected. For two key examples, the scenic view from Mattituck Creek and from
the Mill Road Preserve, the visual information in the DEIS shows that the views will be significantly altered.
3.4-32
Anne Sherwood
Pundyk 7/8/23 3
Despite their decidedly motley, mismatched nature, the photos and photo simulations show that the
project's visual impacts to the views from Mattituck Creek - its removal of an entire hillside along Mattituck
Inlet, destruction of nearly 4 acres of native woodlands, construction of the two out-of-scale warehouse
buildings and a 875-foot long, and the 30 foot high retaining wall - will be very significant. Viewpoint #13 as
indicated on the "Viewpoints Key Map" in Appendix Q, is looking west across the inlet to the project site.
The text in the DEIS about this view narrowly centers on the the relationship of the existing buildings and
their building materials to the proposed buildings, not the relationship of the proposed project and buildings
to the project's expansive natural setting. It states, for example on page 239, "Buildings 7 and 8 would
effectively screen most of the proposed Buildings 9 and 10 from properties to the east of the subject
property."
In photograph of Viewpoint #13 from the "Viewpoints" section of Appendix Q showing the existing
conditions we can clearly see that the lush green treetop line of the of the woods makes a high, undulating
arc across the sky over the buildings and boats. This type of visual gesture along the skyline is a characteristic
and much beloved feature in the rural North Fork landscape.
In the "Proposed Action Renderings" of Viewpoint #13 in Appendix Q after the project's construction,
however, the gentle curve of the tree line is gone. Since the trees have all been cut down and the hillside
eradicated there is a vast, abrupt, unsightly jagged gap behind the buildings. The viewer's eye is now drawn
even more to the man-made structures including the two huge new warehouse buildings. The developer
appears to be trying to disguise this significant visual impact by not showing the full hillside in the existing
conditions photograph. While a true comparison in the renderings cannot be made, the visual information
provided gives an indication of the significance to the visual impact.
3.4-33
Anne Sherwood
Pundyk 7/8/23 4
A view of the Mill Road Preserve is presented in Viewpoint #4 in Appendix Q. This view is labeled as being
from "the most southern trail" of the Mill Road Preserve. The location of Viewpoint #4, however, does not
appear to be on the southernmost trail. It is not clear if the location on the Viewpoints Map Key is intended
as the view in question or another location on the southern end of the Mill Road Preserve. The descriptive
term "most southern trail" is not accurate. This point needs clarification by the developer.
3.4-34
Anne Sherwood
Pundyk 7/8/23 4 & 6
Furthermore, the written conclusion is not supported by the visual information. Here is the written
description on page 236 of the DEIS of the "before and after views" from Viewpoint #4:
"As shown in Photograph No. 4 (Appendix Q), the current view of the subject property is of the undeveloped
upland heavily forested area. The marina operations and Mattituck Creek are obscured by the forested area
and the topography. As depicted on Rendering A-4 in Appendix Q, the post development views would
consist of the woodland area of the subject property that would not be disturbed and a portion of the
western and southern far;ades and roof of Building 9, the roof and a portion of the southern fa<;ade of
Building 10, and a portion of the western fart;made of existing Building 8. The cover in the setback area
would remain. The impact to the visual setting of the subject property would be minimal." It is hard to know
where to begin to disqualify the stated conclusion that "The impact to the visual setting of the subject
property would be minimal." It would be difficult to imagine an impact that would be more significant. The
existing conditions photograph in Viewpoint #4, Appendix Q shows dense, native forest composed of a range
of different sized thriving trees, situated amongst the natural contours of the hillside. In Proposed View #4,
Appendix Q, the trees are all cut down, the flora and fauna are gone, the natural curves of the hillside are
removed and flattened to make way for over 100,000 square feet of metal and concrete industrial
structures. A comparison of the images shows that there is a potentially devastating visual impact to the
views from the preserve. The rendering of this view after the project is built, indicates that the visual impact
couldn't be more extreme. The views that would be destroyed here belong to those who are walking
through the publicly owned Mill Road Preserve. The visual impact available from this community resource
would be negative, severe and irreversible.
3.4-35
Anne Sherwood
Pundyk 7/8/23 6
In the set of architectural drawings provided by the developer there are elevations of the buildings, but no
drawings showing precisely the changes to the elevations of the topography in which the buildings will be
set. The excavation of the hillside is a significant component of this project. In this instance precise visual
information has been withheld. The 40-foot vertical change of the hillside due to the excavation of 134,000
cubic yards of sand is not included in the technical drawings.
3.4-36
Anne Sherwood
Pundyk 7/8/23 6
There is an unsupported claim that the proposed plantings will screen the project. The imagery created uses
a crudely employed Photoshop tool to replicate natural vegetation at an indeterminate time in the future. It
is impossible to know, based on the visuals provided, how the number and size of proposed plantings will
screen the large scale of the project. The images have been scrubbed of actual information. They are
simplified and do not accurately render the effects of excavation, the years it will take for the minimal plant
material to mature assuming they are properly maintained.
3.4-37
Anne Sherwood
Pundyk 7/8/23 7
Furthermore, the written conclusion is not supported by the visual information. Here is the written
description on page 236 of the DEIS of the "before and after views" from Viewpoint #4:
"As shown in Photograph No. 4 (Appendix Q), the current view of the subject property is of the undeveloped
upland heavily forested area. The marina operations and Mattituck Creek are obscured by the forested area
and the topography. As depicted on Rendering A-4 in Appendix Q, the post development views would
consist of the woodland area of the subject property that would not be disturbed and a portion of the
western and southern facades and roof of Building 9, the roof and a portion of the southern fa<;ade of
Building 10, and a portion of the western fart;ade of existing Building 8. The cover in the setback area would
remain. The impact to the visual setting of the subject property would be minimal." It is hard to know where
to begin to disqualify the stated conclusion that "The impact to the visual setting of the subject property
would be minimal." It would be difficult to imagine an impact that would be more significant. The existing
conditions photograph in Viewpoint #4, Appendix Q shows dense, native forest composed of a range of
different sized thriving trees, situated amongst the natural contours of the hillside. In Proposed View #4,
Appendix Q, the trees are all cut down, the flora and fauna are gone, the natural curves of the hillside are
removed and flattened to make way for over 100,000 square feet of metal and concrete industrial
structures. A comparison of the images shows that there is a potentially devastating visual impact to the
views from the preserve. The rendering of this view after the project is built, indicates that the visual impact
couldn't be more extreme. The views that would be destroyed here belong to those who are walking
through the publicly owned Mill Road Preserve. The visual impact available from this community resource
would be negative, severe and irreversible.
3.4-38
Anne Sherwood
Pundyk 7/8/23 7
The developer should be required to fully redo this section so that it complies with the requirements of the
FInal Scope of the DEIS. Despite the omissions and the crudely prepared "artist's renderings" the developer
has provided some indication of the visual impacts of the project. The full scale and nature of this negative
impact cannot be determined by the faulty information provided, but there is enough to show that this
impact is significant and in order to be fully understood should be completely detailed with properly
prepared visuals.
3.4-39
Mary Elizabeth
Guyton 7/8/23 3
The DEIS does not adequately address the impact of increased lighting at the proposed storage buildings.
We need to further understand how internal and external lighting for two oversized boat storage buildings,
that will each be 45' tall and standing 18' higher than an other building on the Strong's Yacht Center property
will have neighboring properties and the ecosystem.
3.4-40
Reed Super
7.10.23 24
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 assertions 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.
3.4-41
Reed Super
7.10.23 28
"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.'
3.4-42
Save the Sound
7/10/23 9
VISUAL IMPACTS. There are deceptive statements in various places in the DEIS concerning Mill Road
Preserve. For instance, "Views from most southern trail on Mill Road Preserve towards SVC: Under existing
conditions, the current view of the subject property is of the undeveloped upland heavily forested area. The
marina operations and Mattituck Creek are obscured by the forested area and the topography." While this
statement is true, the purpose of including it is unclear, since the applicant's property is north of the
preserve, and it is the users of the most northern trails on which the greatest construction, noise, and visual
impacts would occur. The DEIS then goes on to say, "Under post-development conditions, the views would
consist of the woodland area of the subject property that would not be disturbed and a portion of the
western and southern fac;:ades and roof of Building 9, the roof and a portion of the southern fac;:ade of
Building 10, and a portion of the western fac;:ade of existing Building 8. The cover in the setback area would
remain. The impact to the visual setting of the subject property would be minimal." Aside from the value
judgment stated above-minimalizing the visual impacts on a hiker expecting a natural forest experience yet
now seeing warehouses-the section is confusing: Is it still discussing views from the southern trail? Perhaps
introducing confusion was intended, since references to the southern trail of Mill Road Preserve are made
throughout the document. We sincerely hope the consultants do not suggest the adverse visual impacts
they find minimal would reach as far south into the public's property as the southernmost trail. If that were
the case, there is no justification for asserting impacts on the preserve or its users would be minimal; they
would be severe. The switch from discussing "undeveloped upland heavily forested area" to "woodland" is
perhaps telling. Forests and woodlands are not interchangeable terms. Post-construction, it certainly would
be easy for a hiker along the north trail to see through the sparse woodland remaining and have the roofs
and facades of the warehouses within view. It is unclear why the DEIS repeatedly refers to the southern trail
of Mill Road Preserve. Perhaps the consultant has little or no familiarity with the preserve's basic geography
and position abutting the applicant's property. If that is the case, the Planning Board should reject the DEIS'
statements about ecological edge effects, impacts on wildlife, and adverse effects on the preserve's users as
not credible.
3.4-43
Reed Super
7.10.23 41
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.
3.4-44
Anne Sherwood
Pundyk 7/9/23 1
"The view from the most southern trail of the Mill Road Preserve is shown in Viewpoint #4 in Appendix Q."
The location of Viewpoint #4 does not appear to be on the southernmost trail. It is not clear if the location
on the Viewpoints Map Key is intended as the view in question or another location on the southern end of
the Mill Road Preserve. The descriptive term "most southern trail" is not accurate. This is another point that
needs correction by the developer.
3.4-45
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/06/23 17
The DEIS does not mention how many planting trays will be built into the wall, or the total size of
the planting area. Potential issues not addressed in the DEIS include the lack of a maintenance
plan covering irrigation, mulching or composting.
3.4-46
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/06/23 20
The conclusion that there will be no significant visual impacts from the removal of an entire
hillside along Mattituck Inlet, destruction of nearly four acres of native woodlands adjacent to a
publicly owned nature preserve, the construction of two out-of-scale warehouse buildings and a
875-foot long, 30-foot high retaining wall is not supported in the Revised DEIS.
3.4-47
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/06/23 20
The written and visual information about the visual impact of the Project provided in the Revised
DEIS centers on the relationship of the existing buildings and their building materials to the
proposed buildings, not the relationship of the proposed project and buildings to the
project's natural setting.
3.4-48
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/06/23 20
The excavation of the hillside is a significant component of this
project and information has been withheld about its precise visual impacts. The vertical change
- let's call it the eradication - of the hillside due to the excavation of 134,000 cubic
yards of sand is not included in the technical drawings.
3.4-49
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/06/23 20
The DEIS does not use commonly accepted methods to define the Project's zone of visual influence or its
viewshed. It limits its analysis to a radius of 1,000 feet from the Project site, whereas it is obvious that
structures as tall as four-story buildings, with a combined area almost equal to the average size of a Home
Depot store, are potentially visible for miles. The NYDEC's Program Policy notes that "for larger scale actions
it is usually protective to use a five-mile radius to determine the area required to be considered for potential
visual impacts."
3.4-50
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/06/23 21
The DEIS fails to adequately identify all potentially impacted visually sensitive receptors as
called for in the DEIS Scope. Many residences that currently have views of the SYC and/or will
have views of the completed Project have not been included in the visual impact analysis.
3.4-51
Terese Brady-
Mendez
05/12/23 2
The beauty of the Mattituck Inlet cannot be denied. It is a haven for kayakers, fishermen, sea birds,
and small boat owners. The expansion of Strong's Marina to attract 60-foot yachts to the area would
completely ruin this precious harbor through the increase in loud, polluting luxury liners.
3.4-52 Boscola 6/20/23 2
The renderings provided by the developer's consultants are of the poorest quality. Per the DEIS "Due to site
topography, the proposed action requires soil and vegetation removal that would alter the tree line by
setting it back an additional 500± feet from the current condition" yet none of the before and after
renderings show a disturbance to the tree line - in fact not a leaf appears out of place - how is this possible?
These renderings are misleading and do not represent the existing condition. In fact, the disclaimer on the
renderings states "All renderings, color schemes, floor plans, maps and displays are artist's conceptions and
not intended to be an actual depiction of the project or its surroundings". We suspect that this was not done
because it would show how destructive the project is to the tree line and the viewshed. Since they cannot
accurately depict the existing condition or proposed conditions, the developer should be required to provide
actual photo simulations from multiple angles.
3.4-53 Boscola 6/20/23 2
No attempt appears to have been made to properly define the zone of visual influence (ZVI), or the
viewshed, associated with the proposed Project.
3.4-54 Boscola 6/20/23 2
It is important for the Lead Agency to also assess the visual impacts with the last two-three existing sheds
removed. As proposed, the project creates very tight turns with a large travel lift or hydraulic trailers. The
developer could find it much more efficient to remove those last sheds to make his hauling and launching
more efficient. The current renderings showing the new buildings effectively shielded from view behind the
old ones, even though we believe that will not be the case, could no longer be applicable and thus the huge
frontage of these new buildings will be even more in view.
3.4-55
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 5
In fact, according to the Viewpoint Key Map, Viewpoint 5 was located several hundred feet south of the
5106 West Mill Road property line. An examination of photos taken from 5106 West Mill Road by the
property owner [COMMENT FIGURES V-14 – V-26] and looking towards the south, southeast, and
southwest, towards the proposed Project Construction Excavation Area and the existing marina facilities,
show views that are quite different.
3.4-56
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 5
According to the key map, DEIS Figure A-13 (dated 11-01-21) shows views from the east, looking west from
Mattituck Creek. However, a rendering/simulation presented by the Applicant (and prepared by the same
individual who prepared the renderings/simulations in the DEIS) to the Mattituck Laurel Civic Association
and the Planning Board in 2020 (labeled A-9 and dated 1-28-2020), shows existing and proposed structures
in a totally different manner. In the earlier simulation, existing storage buildings are shown in light
silhouette, with the proposed buildings clearly visible through and behind them. The same situation applies
to six other renderings/simulations shown at the Applicant’s presentations to the Planning Board and the
Mattituck-Laurel Civic Association. In addition, all of the renderings/simulations in both sets show
backgrounds that have been altered. The differences between the two sets of renderings/simulations are
not a simple matter of updating to reflect Project changes. The differences in the manner in which the two
sets of renderings were prepared results in significantly different depictions of the Project’s potential visual
impact which, in turn, affects how those impacts are perceived by viewers.
3.4-57
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 8
The DEIS omits the fact that the existing views are a result of the past unauthorized removal of trees by the
Applicant in the site line between 5106 West Mill Road and the Project site.16 If one accepts the
questionable assertion that the viewshed change is “not significant,” one must also acknowledge that this is
only because of the Applicant’s past misdeed, and his failure to mitigate the result of his past action.
3.4-58
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 10
In addition, many of the viewpoints selected are useless for assessing visual impacts. This fact is
acknowledged in the DEIS which states that no renderings were prepared for viewpoints 8, 10, 11A, 11B,
11C, and 12 because the subject property “would not be visible” (pp.237, 238); there would be “no change
under the proposed action” (p.238); or the “view would remain the same as part of the post-development
views” (p.238).
3.4-59
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Visual 12
The Applicant’s 2020 presentations to the Planning Board and the Mattituck-Laurel Civic Association did
include what appear to be computer-generated 3D drawings showing what the vegetated wall might look
like [COMMENT FIGURE V-31]. These have not been included in the DEIS, although they clearly would be
helpful in assessing visual impacts.
Chapter 3.5 Community Character
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
3.5-1
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 51
MARIA FASULO:
One of the reasons I like to use Strong's is because they're a family business that is not gonna be taken over by
national companies that really take advantage of situations of boat owners. We have no recourse. I take --
even though I keep my boat in Greenport, I take it to be serviced from Mattituck. And one of the reasons I do
that is because the work is done right. They care about the customer. They care about the boat. And one of
the reasons we all enjoy being out here on the North Fork is because of the water. Whether you look at it or
whether you ride on it. And boating is a critical part of keeping the value of our community. And I believe that
Strong's with its commitment to the Town, to its community, will do the right things. And that's one of the
reasons they've done as much as they have trying to make sure this application is done properly. I believe that
with the right research and with the right community input, things can get done to help the owners of boats.
Having inside storage is really critical to keep the value of your boat also. It's very tough winters and it actually
takes away the value of our boats when they have to live through the winter outside. So keeping it inside,
being able to get work done over the Winter, so you don't lose valuable time in the Spring. So you can actually
get out on the water and enjoy it. This is about enjoying what's mostly around us out here. And that's the
water. And I believe Strong's helps us to do that. And does it in a very positive way.
3.5-2
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 85
JERRY ADLER:
And the DEIS presents this project as a means to ensure that tradition, which is a goal also of the 2020 Town
Comprehensive Plan, and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. This project is the wrong way to go
about it. It does nothing to enhance the maritime character of the town, the Hamlet or the inlet, which were
built around commercial and the sport fishing and small boat recreation by local residents. Not storing
multimillion dollar yachts. The project comprises two enormous sheds with no more visual appeal or apparent
maritime function than warehouses.
...
Enabling Mr. Strong to achieve the goal of ensuring the future of his property, the character of the town, and
his family's legacy without digging up an entire hillside in the process.
3.5-3 Linda Mule 7/10/23 1
This project is outsized and not at all in keeping with the rural charm and beauty of the North Fork and its
character.
3.5-4 Reed Super 7.10.23 24
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.
3.5-5
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 115
JOHN MCAULIFF:
I've spoken before the Planning Board, your counterparts in Riverhead, and I see planning boards as playing an
absolutely essential role in preserving the character of the East End. All you have to do is look west of
Riverhead and some parts of Riverhead even, but at least look west of Riverhead and you can see a lot of
development that was all done for good reasons. It was done because of the jobs it was done with promises
about considering the environment. It was always done because it was a step that was considered forward. I
think that it's -- it's very important in this project to consider not just the in special interests of the owner of
the people that will have jobs there, but of the larger community interest. And that you see yourselves as
playing a role of the defenders, the protectors of the East End.
3.5-6 Comments on DEIS Str 1
Marla Wexler:
The township should be concerned about the awful affect this will have on our community character. Two
industrial
style buildings will destroy the bucolic nature of the creek.
3.5-7 Kara Jackson 7/6/23 2
There is no environmental impact, modeling, analysis or engineering that takes into account the tremendous
loss of community peace and character when our natural places disappear.
3.5-8 Phoebe Pundyk06/06/1
Personally, I run the loop from west mill to breakwater beach 12 months a year. When I'm out, I see my
neighbors. They are walking their dogs, riding their bikes, going on jogs, picking up their kids from the school
bus stop. The neighborhood is home to young entrepreneurs having lemonade stands and selling girl scout
cookies. Friends walk to one another's houses. One neighbor walks that same loop every morning and
photographs the changes he sees every day. My neighbors are spending time in West Mill preserve.
We live outside.
This project would be a major disruption to our lifestyle. It is the antithesis as to why we choose to live here
and a threat to our safety.
West Mill road is tight. There is no shoulder and there are no sidewalks. We cannot safely use the road if there
are 18-wheelers driving in each direction all day long, no matter how slow they go.
3.5-9 Phoebe Pundyk06/06/2
I understand that the construction phase is considered to be temporary. I also know that no project, big or
small, stays on schedule. This one will be at least a year long. At least.
For a neighborhood that lives outside, that is not a brief or short-term inconvenience. It's a major change to
our lifestyle. A year or more of not being able to safely take a walk, is not just an inconvenience. It makes it
impossible for this neighborhood to live in the way we have chosen. It will be detrimental to our physical and
mental health; it will isolate many of our neighbors; it will destroy the character of the neighborhood.
3.5-10 Christine Rendel 7/9/2 1
When we bought our home in Shore Acres over 35 years ago, we did so in large part because of the peaceful,
bucolic area that has stayed quiet, safe and unspoilt. We came for community character. And when the public
land for the Mill Road Preserve was preserved forever by Southold Town, our neighborhood became, if
possible, an even more beautiful and restorative place in which to live and thrive. To walk daily up and down
Bayview Avenue, Cox Neck and West Mill Roads in safety, walking our dogs, listening to bird song, pausing
often to observe and reflect on nature and the peace and beauty that surrounds us, is a precious part of where
we live. In future, when I walk along our quiet little lane, instead of seeing the beautiful Mattituck Creek I'll
now look down on two industrial-style buildings, warehouses five times the size of the once-proposed
contentious Brinkman's Big Box store. This doesn't seem in keeping with the character of the community.
3.5-11 Joel Klein 7/7/23 6
The maritime sector is an important business sector within Southold's economy. However, as some
commentators have pointed out, that economy has historically been built around commercial fishing, sport
fishing and small boat recreation by local residents. In an opinion piece in the May 4, 2023 issue of the Suffolk
Times the Applicant wrote that his proposed project would "preserve] the North Fork's essential maritime
heritage." Business associated with large yachts, while a segment of Southold's maritime economy, is not part
of Southold's traditional maritime heritage. This is in stark contrast to business' such as Goldsmith's Boat Shop,
whose continuing contribution to Southold's maritime economy and heritage was highlighted in a recent
article in Newsday celebrating that business' centennial.
3.5-12
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 78
PETER SWAN:
This project will keep this property a commercial shipyard as it has been since 1961. This is important to the
historic maritime character of the town.
3.5-13
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 80
HAZEL KAHAN:
SMI is an organization of citizens who came together over shared concerns about the potentially disastrous
environmental impacts of the project on the delicate ecosystem of the inlet, and the surrounding uplands.
Inlet is the geographical heart and emotional center of our community.
3.5-14 Save Mattituck Inlet0613-14
The geotechnical report bases its findings on an analysis of peak particle velocities (PPV)
generated by the various activities associated with the project's excavation and construction.
This is an incorrect metric for calculating the disturbance to human beings (and presumably
other animals) who will be subjected to these impacts. The FTA Guidelines specify that PPV is
"related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings and is not used to evaluate human
response" (emphasis added).....
In other words, the standard cited in the Geotechnical Report is not appropriate for evaluating
impacts to the quality of life of "public and user groups" as required by the DEIS scope.
3.5-15
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 119
JENN HARTNAGEL:
Are the goals of the Town to allow the complete removal of natural features? The removal of woodlands to
create severe traffic and community character related impacts?
3.5-16 Swen Graham 05/08/2 1
I believe the that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement( DEIS) does not adequately address the traffic
impact, the impact of removing trees, and noise and
light pollution.
3.5-17 Randy Wade 7/3/23 2
The character of the upland area proposed to be made lowland, is currently adjacent to a nature preserve.
Without question this project will change the character of the preserve as others with expertise have testified.
What about the view of storage buildings from the water and opposite shores? How can this not depress the
value of other lands? And it will certainly diminish the enjoyment of those floating in the inlet.
3.5-18 Lori Panarello 05/15/2 1
We feel that Strongs is vastly underestimating the length of time the project will take, and the number of
loads that will have to be removed both for sand mining, and then the construction of the area and the
buildings, failing to take into account the adverse effect on the residents' way of life.
3.5-19
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 129
JEFF PUNDYK:
This could be a precedent setting development. One that paves the way for even more misguided land use
and further erosion, the character of our community. I ask that you consider the DEIS and not the developer.
3.5-20 Jennifer Anderson 05/1
I live a few miles from the proposed project site and I am very concerned about the short- and long-term
effects of this project to our community. This massive project does not fit with the character of Mattituck and
will devastate the natural ecosystem. The land will be forever striped away and we will lose the natural beauty
that makes Mattituck unique. There will be pollution, noise, traffic, wildlife loss, and fire hazards from all the
development. This project will not add any benefit to our community, but instead have a lifetime negative
environmental impact. The Strong's project will destroy one of our biggest main attraction of Mattituck. This
project does not belong in here.
3.5-21 Jo-Ann Lechner 7/5/23 2
There will be two industrial style buildings, five times the size of the proposed Brinkman's Big Box store,
impacting the view shed and bucolic nature of the area.
3.5-22 Terese Brady-Mendez0 3
The entire North Fork prides itself on its peaceful, rural, and pastoral character. Indeed, the passing of
the Town's Open Space Preservation Legislation in 2003 explicitly states that it should protect "Any
space or area characterized by natural scenic beauty or whose existing openness, natural condition or
present state of use, if retained, would maintain or enhance the conservation of natural or scenic
resources."
The approval of Strong's Marina project proposal would show that this legislation is being disregarded. In
addition, the presence of these monstrously sized SO-foot buildings probably will negatively affect the
home values in proximity to the proposed project, and certainly would have a deleterious effect on the
Mill Road Preserve which enhances our community through the beauty of the trails that residents and
visitors alike enjoy.
3.5-23
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 147
HENRY MARTIN RANDALL:
Storing yachts for billionaires has nothing to do with Long Island or Southold maritime heritage. It's called
warehousing. Warehousing yachts is a service that is not water dependent. Even though it is water related.
Dominating yacht warehouses on this site that have devastating environmental consequences. Ruining a
coastal forest. A coastal buffer zone is counterproductive to fish breeding grounds, which support water
quality, affecting marine industries and our maritime heritage. Please don't allow huge warehouses for large
yachts at Mattituck Inlet, which is an historic maritime center.
3.5-24
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 153
STEPHANIE VILLANI:
Strong's is not asking to build a hotel or a restaurant or condos. Their plan fits the zoning and the character of
the area. I live in the neighborhood.
3.5-25
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 155
GEORGE MAUL:
It doesn't seem to my mind to be serving residents of the Town of Southold. And I think that government of
the Town of Southold is supposed to serve the residents of the Town of Southold. Of Jeff Strong seems like a
really nice guy. He has a lot of friends, but this project is a lot of money. And the character of the North Fork
is more important than the money of one business.
...
I think the Comprehensive Plan is supposed to be about the balance of the rural nature of the North Fork, and
the economy of the North Fork. And I don't see any balance here in this project. It's just a lot of money.
That's all I have to say.
3.5-26 Jo-ann Lechner 05/04/1 It will change the character of the entire north shore of Mattituck.
3.5-27 Joyce Beckenstein 05 1
What guarantees the quality of life as traffic barrels down the only narrow conduit to and from the beach
from the North Road? This looping roadway from Cox Neck Road to Naugles and Breakwater Roads is a vital
source of exercise and pleasure for bikers, joggers and families who regularly walk dogs, take nature walks
with their kids, and access the existing beach and state water launch.
Chapter 3.6 Open Space
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
3.6-1 Reed Super 7.10.23 37
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.
3.6-2 Reed Super 7.10.23 43
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.
3.6-3 Reed Super 7.10.23 52
The proposed project would cause significant adverse environmental impacts to open
space and recreation because of its effects on Mill Road Preserve.
3.6-4
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 16
the DEIS mischaracterizes the land use history of the Project area. It asserts that "cleared land
associated with [former] agricultural and commercial marine uses accounted for approximately 58%
(19.1 acres) of the 32.96 acre property, describing the existing ecological community as "successional
habitats that have developed on the former agricultural lands," and therefore presumably of lesser
ecological value. In fact, as aerial photographs from the 1950s through 1984 show, except for the area
occupied by marina structures, almost all of the Project area is forested. The "successional habitats that
have developed on the former agricultural lands" are well west of the Project Area.
3.6-5 Jo-Ann Lechner 7/5/23 1
There will be a negative impact on publicly owned 27-acre Mill Road Preserve that is adjacent to the
site.
Chapter 3.7 Noise
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
3.7-1 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 1
Fifteen of the 18 tables in the original version of the Acoustic Report which contain data on
sound levels have been changed in the revised Acoustic Report. In a majority of these tables,
the revisions now show noise levels greater than those reported in the version of the report
originally submitted to the Planning Board. No explanation for these changes is provided. This
is obviously of concern, and should cause any reasonable person to question whether the new
data can be relied upon or used to evaluate the Project’s noise impacts.
3.7-2 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 1
Noise monitoring locations selected to establish ambient conditions appear to have been
poorly chosen, and the time of year during which data was collected was inappropriate.
3.7-3 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 1
To assess noise impacts related to on-site construction activities, the acoustic study selected
monitoring locations that do not appear to be appropriate for establishing ambient conditions.
...
In addition, it is likely, given noise at the existing facility, it is that noise, rather than ambient
noise where construction is proposed, that is being measured. While this data can be used to
predict and assess post-construction changes in noise, they cannot be used to assess impacts
associated with Project construction.
3.7-4 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 2
Significantly, no noise monitoring locations were situated within a) the Construction
Excavation Area, where most construction excavation noise will originate, b) in the vicinity of
any of the residences closest to the Construction Excavation Area, c) within, or along the
shared property line with, the Mill Road Preserve, or d) “the outdoor spaces of neighbors'
properties such as decks or back yards” as specifically called for in the DEIS scope. The failure
to collect information on existing conditions at these locations is a major failing. Instead, to
establish existing conditions “[A]round [the] Project Site, the acoustic study collected data at
three locations located along one of the Project’s truck routes. This data was clearly collected
to assist in assessing noise impacts associated with on-road traffic, and not noise generated
by on-site construction.
3.7-5 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 2
This means that the site preparation phase, and most of the excavation phases of the Project,
during which significant construction noise will be generated, will take place over the winter
months. This corresponds to the defoliate season, when deciduous trees on the Project site
and in immediately surrounding areas, including near nearby residences and the Mill Road
Preserve, will have lost their leaves, significantly reducing the degree to which trees will
provide a noise buffer between the sources of construction noise and nearby receptors. By
summer, when construction of the retaining wall and boat storage structures will begin, all
trees will have been removed from the site.
3.7-6 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 2
In general, surveys of background and ambient noise levels should be conducted over periods
of time which are representative of the times and days when the noise source will be
operational. This was not done in the case of the acoustic study for the Project. Existing
sound level readings used in connection with the noise analysis was derived through noise
monitoring performed between April 14, 2021, and May 3, 2021 and May 13 through May 23,
2021. These existing sound levels serve as the background sound levels for the area to be
incorporated into all noise predictions completed for the Project (DEIS p.240, Appendix R p.3).
Much of the construction proposed for the Project will occur during the fall and winter,
outside the seasonal period during which data was collected. In addition, during the period
when noise measurements were conducted, wind in trees may have resulted in the recording
of ambient noise levels greater than those that would exist during the proposed construction
period. This could have reduced the differential between ambient noise levels and modeled
noise levels during the Project construction period.
3.7-7 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 3
The DEIS and Appendix R identify 18 individual receiver (receptor) locations (R1-R18) for
which ambient noise levels, and noise levels during the various phases of Project construction,
were modeled/calculated.6 No actual measurement of ambient conditions at these receptors
was undertaken. Receptor locations include residences closest to the Project site, and
residences along one of the two proposed truck routes.7 This data is presented in Tables 5, 16
and 17 in Appendix R and duplicated in Tables 38, 39 and 40 in the DEIS.
3.7-8 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 4
The equipment types include loaders, excavators, dozers, water/fuel trucks, tub grinders,
woodchippers, feller-bunchers, skid steers, mini excavators, telescopic forklifts, and scissor
lifts. The only pieces of construction equipment (other than trucks) listed in these tables for
which a noise level is provided in the FTA Guidelines are loaders and dozers. Presumably,
noise levels for the other type of equipment came from the “library within SoundPlan.” As
that “library” is proprietary, there is no way to independently assess the bases for the
assigned noise levels.
The noise analysis failed to include all equipment types that will be used during Project
construction.
3.7-9 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 4
Two additional pieces of noise-generating equipment that will be used to construct the
Project are missing. The first of these are vibratory rollers which will be used during
construction of the Project’s retaining wall (discussed below). The second are the concrete
trucks that will provide the concrete for the retaining wall foundations and the floor slabs for
the new storage buildings.
3.7-10 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 5
Although the revised analyses in the Acoustic Report have been revised to include the noise
generated by woodchippers during operation, this raises the question as to whether the
reference noise levels associated with other equipment types reflect noise levels during
operation, or at idle.
3.7-11 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 5
As noted above, the Acoustic Report has relied in its analyses on generic reference noise level
data for various equipment types. However, actual noise levels within each equipment type
can vary depending upon size, model, engine type, and manufacturer within each equipment
type.15 Although the DEIS has identified the specific model of haul truck tractor that will be
used during the Project, it has not done so for other equipment types. For that reason, all of
construction noise level data in the DEIS and the Acoustic Report derived through modeling
should be treated as estimated and approximate, rather than precise, noise levels.
3.7-12 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 6
As noted above, the original December 2021 DEIS and Acoustic Report indicated that the
increase in noise levels during construction would be considerably less than is indicated in the
revised versions of these documents. However, those documents stated that “These
increases would be considered a significant and adverse impact, as defined by the NYSDEC
criteria” (emphasis added). The revised documents, which report even greater increases in
Projected noise levels no longer describe the increase in noise as “adverse.”
3.7-13 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 6
Both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report attempt to further qualify and downplay the
significance and severity of noise impacts during construction. The Acoustic Report (p.48)
states that “these [noise] increases are temporary only during construction” (emphasis
added). The SEQRA Handbook is clear that short-term (temporary) impacts, including noise
impacts, can be significant. The described impacts are temporary only in the sense that they
will not be permanent. Temporary in this case means 10-12 hours a day, six days a week, for a
period in excess of one year.
3.7-14 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 7 Construction noise levels during several phases of construction have been underestimated.
3.7-15 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 7
Vibratory rollers will be used during construction of the Project’s retaining wall. They are not
included in the equipment list in DEIS Appendix F. As a result, they are not included in Table
12 of the Acoustic Report (Construction Equipment Overall Sound Power Levels and
Utilization Factors for the Retaining Wall Phase). This means that the modeled noise levels
during retaining wall construction at the 18 Receivers/Receptors (almost all of which are
residences) shown in Tables 16 and 17 have been underestimated.
3.7-16 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 7
Concrete Trucks which will be required during the construction phase of the Project are
missing from the equipment list in Appendix F and from Table 12 in the Acoustic Report. As a
result, they are not included in Table 12 of the Acoustic Report (Construction Equipment
Overall Sound Power Levels and Utilization Factors for the Retaining Wall Phase). This means
that the modeled noise levels during both the retaining wall phase (when foundations for the
retaining wall will be constructed) and the construction phase (during construction of the
floor slabs for the new storage buildings) at the 18 Receivers/Receptors shown in Tables 16
and 17 have been underestimated.
3.7-17 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 7
The Applicant has submitted to the Planning Board an annotated copy of the Planning
Board’s determination of the original DEIS’ inadequacy. That document indicates only that
the revised DEIS has been “revised” to address this comment. However, the portion of
Section 3.7.2 of the revised DEIS entitled “Construction Noise Impacts” contains only minimal
revisions relating to the application of NYSDOT noise criteria. As discussed below, those
criteria have been misrepresented and misapplied.
3.7-18 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 8
As with construction noise, both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report attempt to qualify and
downplay the importance of this fact with the statement that “these increases are temporary
only during construction” (emphasis added). As noted above, the SEQRA Handbook is clear
that short-term (temporary) impacts, including noise impacts, can be significant.
3.7-19 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 8
Both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report also attempt to qualify and downplay the importance
of the Project noise increases with the statement that “the NYSDOT criteria are not
standards” (Acoustic Report p.48, DEIS pp. xxiv, 259). Table 2 in the Acoustic Report
(Recommended NYSDOT Criteria for Road Noise Levels) is based on a table in NYSDOT’s
Environmental Procedures Manual.19 The NYSDOT criteria are treated in the Acoustic Report
as recommended maximum exterior noise levels associated with various Activity Categories.
The maximum exterior noise level for Activity Category B, which includes residences, is 67
dBA. The residences at 1065, 1480 and 1525 West Mill Road, 155 Breakwater Road, and 2100
Cox Neck Road will be subject to traffic noise that exceeds NYSDOT recommended levels for
at least six months.
3.7-20 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 8
The Category B Activity Category was the only category employed by SoundSense in preparing
the Acoustic Report. Activity Category A includes “Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose” (Acoustic
Report p.6). The recommended maximum exterior noise level associated with Activity
Category A is 57 dBA. The Mill Road Preserve clearly falls within Activity Category A. The
Project-adjacent Mill Road Preserve is never discussed in the Acoustic Report.
3.7-21 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 8
Both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report attempt to further downplay the nature of the adverse
noise impact from Project construction truck traffic. They note that the projected noise levels
that will exceed NYSDOT recommendations refer to exterior noise levels, rather than interior
noise levels, and these exceedances will occur when “the majority of this period would see
most residents indoors and would minimize the impact to quality of life” (DEIS p. 259). This
ignores the fact that the period of highest construction traffic volume (the excavation phases)
will extend into June. The NYSDOT Manual (and Table 2 in the Acoustic Report) list an Activity
Category E which includes “recommended” interior noise levels for residences.
The above discussion is a misrepresentation of what the NYSDOT Manual actually says.20 If
one applies the 10 dB reduction in sound levels which the NYSDOT Manual says should be
used “unless there is firm knowledge that the windows are in fact kept closed almost every
day of the year” (see fn 18, below), then interior noise levels at the residences corresponding
to R10-R14 (and R15 and R16 as well) will, contrary to conclusion in the Acoustic Report and
the DEIS, exceed NYSDOT “recommended” noise criteria.
3.7-22 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 9
Significantly, the Town-owned Mill Road Preserve does not appear to have been identified as
a Receiver/Receptor location.21 As noted above, the Acoustic Study (DEIS Appendix R) never
even mentions the Preserve.
3.7-23 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 9
However, the DEIS Executive Summary, under the heading “Impacts to the Mill Road
Preserve” concludes that “construction noise would be of temporary nature and all noise
impacts would cease upon completion” (p. xxi). Additional language in the DEIS, contradicted
by its own data analyses, is even more extreme. In contradiction of all the data indicating that
the Preserve will be impacted by noise (as well as other factors) the DEIS (pp. xxiii-xxiv, 249)
states that “[T]he proposed action would not alter the public’s enjoyment of the Town-owned
preserve property during all phases of the action as there would be no new impact on Mill
Road Preserve from April to September 30, which is likely to be a time when the trails are
most frequently used.” This is false. The DEIS clearly states that the “[B]uilding Phase of the
project will begin in late Spring, early Summer of 2024 and last until the late Fall of 2024”
(DEIS p. 216).
3.7-24 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 10
In addition, no data is presented in either the DEIS or the Acoustic Study (DEIS Appendix R) to
support the claim that April to September 30 is likely to be a time when the Preserve trails are
most frequently used. No visitation data for the Mill Road Preserve is included in the DEIS.
The claim that the number of visitors from April thru September is “likely” to be meaningfully
different from other times of the year is conjecture. The idea that fewer people being
impacted equates to “no new impact” is absurd on its face.
3.7-25 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 10
Ambient conditions at the Mill Road Preserve as shown on Figures 3 and 6 in the Acoustics
Report (DEIS Appendix R) are mostly within (below) the 45 dBA contours for both peak hour
Leq and eight-hour Leq. However, Figures 10 -15 indicate that the eight-hour Leq sound levels
during the tree removal/grubbing phase, and the two excavation phases, will range from 55-
70 dBA, and that the peak hour Leq will exceed 70 dBA in some parts of the Preserve. This is
within, or exceeds, the 11-20 dBA increase that NYSDEC considers “very noticeable” to
“objectionable.” The DEIS does not mention this.
3.7-26 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 10
The DEIS conclusion that “[O]verall, based on the above, no significant adverse impacts
[including noise impacts] to Mill Road Preserve are anticipated” (DEIS pp. xxiii-xxiv, 249) has
no basis in fact, and is contradicted by data in the DEIS.
3.7-27 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 10
The DEIS does contain a discussion of how Project-related noise could impact wildlife (pp.139-
140). That discussion, taken nearly verbatim from DEIS Appendix N (Ecological Conditions and
Impact Report), is deficient in a number of regards. The discussion begins with the statement
that the “potential for the proposed action to generate noise from construction activities,
vehicular traffic, and operation of the proposed boat storage facility is analyzed in detail in the
Acoustic Report (see Appendix R).” This statement is only correct in that the Acoustic Report
discusses the potential for the proposed action to generate noise. The Acoustic Report never
discusses or mentions if or how Project-generated noise will impact wildlife.
3.7-28 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 11
According to the DEIS’ discussion of impacts to wildlife, and Appendix N,
“[U]under proposed build conditions, sound levels will not increase by more than 6 dBA above
existing conditions and, therefore, is consistent with “no impact” following NYSDEC standards
for impacts to human receptors. As there are no standards for wildlife, the human standards
were applied” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.139, Appendix N p.31).
There are multiple problems with this statement. First, NYSDEC guidance indicates that an
increase in noise level of 5-10 dB should be considered “intrusive” (see above). 24 Second,
the statement in the DEIS and Appendix N refers only to sound levels under “build
conditions.” For example: “Post-development, no significant adverse noise-related impacts
would result” (emphasis added) (p. xiii). The DEIS ignores the fact that noise associated with
Project construction will exceed the 6 dBA increase and is much more likely to
adversely impact wildlife surrounding the Project site. Third, the implied assumption that
noise impact standards for humans are appropriate for applications to wildlife is not
supported by any scientific evidence as numerous studies have concluded that sensitivity to
noise varies widely across taxa.25 Finally, both the DEIS and Appendix N misrepresent
NYSDEC’s “guidance” as “standards.” According to the NYSDEC “It is not the intention of this
guidance to require decibel limits to be established for operations where such limits are not
required by regulation.”26 The DEIS claim that an increase of up to 6bB “is consistent with ‘no
impact’ following NYSDEC standards” is false and misleading.
3.7-29 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 11
Both Appendix N and the DEIS (which duplicates the text in Appendix N) discuss only impacts
to avian species. There is no discussion, or even mention, of potential noise impacts to types
of fauna other than birds, such as large and small mammals and reptiles. The difficulties in
assessing these impacts does not excuse ignoring them.
3.7-30 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 12
“Mitigation measures to lessen the magnitude of short-term, noise-related impacts during
construction to neighbors are discussed in the Acoustic Report and include the use of white
noise back-up alarms rather than single, tone beeps; no use of Jake Brake mechanisms on
site; and use of dump trucks that meet USEPA Tier 4 standards. These mitigation measures
would serve to reduce potential impacts to birds and wildlife by decreasing high frequency
noise” (DEIS pp.140, 246, see also pp. xxxiv, 144; Appendix N
p. 32).
There is no scientific basis for assuming that limiting noise increases to daytime hours would
have a less severe impact on wildlife than a permanent increase. In addition, as discussed
above, the proposed “mitigation” measures are not, in fact, mitigation. The noise reductions
achieved by the proposed measures (decreasing high frequency noise) are no guarantee that
wildlife will not be significantly impacted by noise associated with Project construction.
3.7-31 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 13
Although the DEIS has provided information sufficient to establish that Project construction-
related noise will adversely impact wildlife, especially wildlife in the Mill Road Preserve, it fails
to clearly call this out. While the mitigation measures proposed may reduce potential noise
impacts to “birds and wildlife,” there is no evidence presented to suggest that they will, or
that they could be expected to reduce noise impacts to the point where they will not
adversely affect wildlife.
3.7-32 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 13
Finally, both the DEIS and Appendix N contain significant inconsistencies with information
presented in Appendix R. According to both the DEIS and Appendix N (different decibel
numbers shown in Appendix R vs Appendix N:
3.7-33 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 13
The language in the revised DEIS that relates to mitigation of noise impacts has not been
changed. No new or revised noise impact mitigation measures are proposed in the revised
DEIS. The revised DEIS still provides no meaningful and enforceable mitigation to address
noise impacts.
3.7-34 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 14
The DEIS and the Acoustic Report state, in relation to the Project’s noise reduction efforts,
that “all trucks utilized would be Tier 4 certified by U.S. EPA standards” (pp. xxii, xxxii, xxxv,
278; Acoustic Report pp. 20, 53). Tier 4 standards are intended to apply to emissions affecting
air quality, and do not directly relate to noise.29 In addition, Tier 4 diesel engine standards
apply to all post-2014 model year construction equipment. The Applicant is merely agreeing
to not use old trucks or equipment. The DEIS’ claim that having all Project trucks meet Tier 4
standards cannot be considered mitigation.
3.7-35 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 14
The DEIS contains more than a dozen references to the fact that the Applicant will limit the
use of Jake brakes as a noise mitigation measure. However, those references are inconsistent
and confused. The DEIS states that ““all trucks and drivers will be instructed to disengage all
Jake Brake mechanisms once turning on to Cox Neck Road from County Route 48” (pp. xxiii,
xxix, xxxv, xxxvi, 19, 246, 248,272, 278,281). This would seem to indicate that Jake brakes
would not be used by empty trucks traveling to the Project site. No mention is made of
prohibiting the use of Jake brakes by full trucks traveling from the Project site to County
Route 48. The Project acoustics report uses different language in regard to this matter stating
that “all contractors will be directed to disengage any Jake Brake system on incoming vehicles
once they turn onto Cox Neck Road from County Route 48” (emphasis added) (DEIS Appendix
R, p.16.) This needs to be clarified. Given the wording in the DEIS, clarification is also needed
as to whether or not Jake brakes will be used by haul trucks while they are using the on-site
haul road.
There will be no limitation on the use of Jake brakes on the Sound Avenue, Northville
Turnpike, and CR 58 portions of the Project truck route.
3.7-36 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 15
The DEIS states that “there would be no Jake Brake mechanisms on the site” (p.xxxii, 136,
139, 169). This is both a meaningless and incorrect claim. All haul trucks operating on site
likely will be equipped with Jake Brake systems. Other than trucks, the types of construction
equipment that will be used are never equipped with Jake brakes. The DEIS’ claim that all
trucks and drivers will be instructed to disengage all Jake Brake mechanisms once turning on
to Cox Neck Road from County Route 48 cannot be
considered mitigation.
3.7-37 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 15
It is also possible that any prohibition on the use of Jake brakes will be ineffective in reducing
noise. Truck, engine and equipment manufacturer studies have consistently found that
improperly muffled vehicles are the root cause of construction vehicle and equipment noise.
Vehicle operating sound levels have been shown repeatedly to be much higher for vehicles
with improper, defective or deteriorated mufflers. The drawback to a simple inspection is that
it may not catch all offenders. Improper, defective
or deteriorated mufflers that appear intact from the outside may be missed. Detecting these
cases requires a roadside noise test.
3.7-38 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 15
It should also be noted that any reduction of noise impacts derived from a prohibition on the
use of Jake brakes, will be offset to some degree by the loss of braking power and an increase
in haul truck stopping distance. This will result in an increased safety risk to vehicles, bicyclists
and pedestrians on West Mill and Cox Neck Roads, especially along portions of those roads
with limited sight distances.
3.7-39 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 15
The DEIS states that “in accordance with Town Code and indicated above, all construction
activities would be limited to Monday to Saturday from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. The excavation
phases with truck activity would be limited to Monday to Friday from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm as
“mitigation offered by the Applicant” (DEIS pp. xxiv, xxxi, 19, 259, 293). While this would at
first glance appear to be an accommodation, it is not. Since the total number of 22-wheel
tractor trailer truck trips required to haul sand from the site will remain constant, the only
effect of reducing truck activity during the construction phase by two hours per day, is to
increase the number of days during which the community will be subject to heavy haul truck
traffic impacts.
3.7-40 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 15
Finally, the DEIS attempts to exempt the Project from responsibility for creating adverse noise
impacts by claiming that “construction-related noise impacts would be limited to the times
and days specified, which are permitted by Town Code” and “the proposed project would
comply with the permitted times set forth in Chapter 180 of the Town Code (pp. xxii, xxiii, xxv,
246, also pp. xxxi, xxxvii, xxxix, 19, 248, 259, 293, 298). However, as the DEIS points out
(p.52), during those permitted times, Section 180-6 sets the maximum allowable noise level at
65 dBA. As the data included in Tables 39 and 40 demonstrate, this level will be exceeded at
many of the receiver/receptor locations listed in those tables.
3.7-41 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 16
The DEIS dismisses this concern by referencing Section 180-8 of the Town Code which
exempts construction activities from the standards in Section 180-6. Even though this blanket
exemption allows the Project to avoid violating local law in regard to noise generation, that is
not the same thing as saying Project-related noise impacts will not be significant.
3.7-42 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 16
Although the DEIS quotes Town Code Sections 180-5,180-6, and 180-8 in their entirety, it
makes no mention of Section 180-2 which states, in part: “[T]he existence of unreasonably
loud, unnecessarily disturbing or unusual noise within the Town has become
an increasingly significant problem during recent years. Such noise pollution which is
prolonged, unusual or unnatural in its time, place and use is harmful to the peace, welfare,
comfort, safety, convenience, good order and prosperity of the inhabitants of the Town of
Southold. It is the public policy and findings of the Town Board that every person is entitled to
noise levels that are not detrimental to life, health and the enjoyment of his or her property.”
3.7-43 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 16
Compliance with the Town of Southold’s Town Code is following the law. It cannot be
considered mitigation.
3.7-44 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 16
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to “Include protocols for monitoring of the noise level during
construction.” No noise monitoring protocols are provided in the DEIS or Appendix R.
3.7-45 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 16
…
However, the DEIS does not indicate whether or not the huge roll-up doors on the proposed
storage
buildings will be equipped with warning alarms that sound whenever the doors are operated.
Those
alarms can be as loud as 120dB.
3.7-46 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 17
“. . . construction noise levels are predicted to have an impact at the nearby Residences . . .
Nearby residences are predicted to be impacted by the construction for its duration”
(Acoustic Report p.3). The Acoustic Report attempts to obscure these findings by stating that
“the Town of Southold specifically exempts construction noise from the requirements in the
Noise Code” and “impact from construction is common for any construction project to occur,
whether it be commercial or residential, which is why it is commonly exempted from
municipal noise codes” (Acoustic Report p. 3). The fact that Project-generated noise levels will
not violate provisions of the Southold Town Code is not sufficient reason to ignore the fact
that Project-generated noise will adversely affect the quality of life of local residents. The
suggestion that just because noise impacts are associated with construction they can be
ignored, is absurd on its face.
3.7-47 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 17
In regard to the post-construction operation of the Project, Sound Sense concluded that “the
Build Condition is not expected to increase existing sound levels by more than 4 dBA, which
would constitute “No Impact” under the NYSDEC criteria” (Acoustic Report p.3). This is not
what the NYSDEC criteria say.
3.7-48 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 17
However, Table 1 in the Acoustic Report correctly notes, quoting from the NYSDEC criteria,
that a sound level increase of 3-6 dB has the “[P]otential for adverse noise impact in cases
where the most sensitive of receptors are present.” NYSDEC does not define what a “most
sensitive receptor” is. The Mill Road Preserve, which abuts the Project site, should have been
treated as a sensitive receptor. As noted above, the Acoustic Report never mentions possible
impacts to the Preserve.
3.7-49 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 17
Even if one accepts SoundSense’s conclusion that once the Project is in operation it will not
generate noise levels more than 4 dBA above existing noise levels, it is difficult to reconcile
their conclusion that this constitutes “no Impact” with a 2019 noise assessment prepared by
SoundSense which states that a change of 4-5 dB constitutes a “Perceivable and Significant”
change (emphasis in original). That same report also states that the “standard acoustic ruler is
that any sound that exceeds the background noise level by 5 dB(A) or more has the potential
to be an annoyance”.
3.7-50 Joel Klein 5-15-23 Noise Notes 17
The conclusion the Acoustic Report’s Executive Summary that “Analysis showed sound levels
are predicted to increase significantly during construction” (Acoustic Report p.3) is not
included in the DEIS.
3.7-51
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 1
The DEIS conclusion that there “are also no vibration impacts expected from soil excavation
or construction activities” (DEIS p. iv) is not supported by data in the DEIS, and is likely
incorrect.
3.7-52
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 1
In addition, the Planning Board’s consultant notes, in their May 6, 2022 memo, that the
original “DEIS does not adequately address the quality-of-life impacts associated with
significant noise (as well as dust and potential vibration) associated with the necessary
heavy construction trucks on local roadways. The applicant has provided no meaningful and
enforceable mitigation to address these impacts” (emphasis added) (p.4).
3.7-53
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 2
The assessment of vibration impacts in the original December 2021 DEIS relied on information
contained in the PWGC Geotechnical Engineering Memo Report (GEMR) prepared by PWGC
(DEIS Appendix H). However, the revised DEIS now contains an additional stand-alone
vibration analysis prepared by SoundSense (DEIS Appendix R) which is summarized in the
main body of the DEIS. These two studies contain contradictory information and conclusions
relevant to assessing the noise impacts of the Project. The GEMR has not been updated to
reflect the information in the new Acoustic Report, and the Acoustic Report never refers back
to the GEMR.
3.7-54
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 2
The DEIS does not adequately or correctly address how vibration impacts will affect the
quality of life for residents near the Project site or along the Project haul truck routes.
3.7-55
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 2
The Geotechnical Engineering Memo Report (GEMR) prepared by PWGC dated August 3, 2021
(DEIS Appendix H), devotes its final three text paragraphs to “Vibrations.” This discussion is
deficient and misleading, and contains inaccurate data. It does not constitute an adequate
basis for evaluating Project-specific impacts. It appears to be standard boilerplate language
and implies that vibration impacts associated with on-site construction activities (including
use of the on-site haul road) will not affect “nearby residential properties.” It does not
address vibration impacts associated with off-site traffic along the Project’s truck routes. This
is one of the noted inadequacies in the original DEIS.
3.7-56
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 2
The use of blasting standards ("US Bureau of Mines RI 8507") to evaluate construction traffic
impacts, or impacts from other non-blasting construction activities, is inappropriate. As at
least one vibration damage assessment expert has noted that “While there is much to be
learned about vibration effects from blasting studies,
.. . The all-too-common use of blasting vibration standard limits in construction settings other
than blasting is directly scientifically contradicted and creates a high probability of damage to
structures” (Ziegler nd)3.
...
The safe level criteria established for blasting are often applied to these situations with little
justification. Traffic is usually a steady-state source of low amplitude. Appropriate safe levels
would have to be lower than for blasting, which is relatively infrequent and of shorter
duration" (USBM 1980:72).
3.7-57
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 3
The GEMR does not address the effects of vibration associated with construction traffic
(primarily large loaded and unloaded haul trucks) along the Project’s proposed off-site truck
routes (West Mill Road and Cox Neck Road, Sound Avenue, Northville Turnpike, and County
Rt. 58).
3.7-58
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 3
In other words, the standard (ALTrans Transportation and Construction Guidance Manual)
cited in the GEMR is not appropriate for use in evaluating impacts to the quality of life of
“public and user groups” as required by the DEIS scope.
3.7-59
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 3
The one-size-fits-all “loaded truck”6 CALTrans PPV (Peak particle Velocity) standard of 0.076
in/sec should not be indiscriminately applied. Factors such as truck size, weight, suspension
type and characteristics, tire type and configuration, specific to the types of vehicles actually
proposed for use on the Project need to be identified before actual PPV values can be
established.
3.7-60
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 4
However, the DEIS goes on to dismiss concerns about truck traffic induced vibrations by
claiming that a) the “sandy soil that Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road lies upon is not conducive
to the transmission of vibrations created by trucks” (p.228), and b) the “Applicant would
commit to quickly repairing any potholes that appear in the roadway during the construction
activity to minimize the potential for vibrations that could affect existing structures.” The first
claim is problematic; the second is vague as no specific procedure is
identified.
3.7-61
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 5
The GEMR is cited as the basis for the conclusion in the DEIS that soils under the truck routes
are “not conducive to the transmission of vibrations created by trucks” (DEIS p. 224). In fact,
the geotechnical report says only that “the [onsite] soils of Stratum 28 are favorable for
limiting vibration effects” (emphasis added).9 However, other data in the GEMR suggest that
that statement is not completely accurate. Most of the near surface soils (Stratum 1), as
recorded in the boring logs in the GEMR, do indicate (because of associated blow-count
values less than 10), that they are loose or very loose, and therefore “favorable for limiting
vibration.”
...
THE GEMR concludes that “The medium dense to dense soils of Stratum 2 are favorable for
limiting vibration effects.” In fact, these higher density sands are less likely to attenuate
vibration effects than the “loose” soil found in Stratum 1.
3.7-62
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 5
Traffic-generated vibration will travel through near-surface soils. However, near-surface
Stratum 1 soils will be removed from the Project site during the early part of the Project’s
excavation phase. During much of the excavation phase, and all of the construction phase,
construction equipment, as well as haul trucks maneuvering within the Project site, will be in
direct contact with Stratum 2 soils which have a higher density, and are therefore more
conducive to transmitting vibration than near surface soils.
3.7-63
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 5
No information is presented in the DEIS concerning soil types underlying the Project truck
routes. Even if low-density sandy soils are present, no mention is made of the fact that the
dampening effect of sandy soils may be less during winter months (the Project excavation
phase, when most haul truck activity will take place) when frozen ground conditions may exist.
3.7-64
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 6
The GEMR (DEIS Appendix H) recommended orienting the proposed haul road in a manner
that could reduce vibration impacts and this appears to have been done. However, the DEIS
does not indicate that other recommendations to minimize vibration impacts have been
adequately considered. The GEMR recommends “[Reducing} vibrations by locating the haul
road at sufficient distances from nearby residences”. However, the GEMR does not indicate
what that distance should be. The GEMR also recommends “Selecting] a foundation system
for the Boat Storage Buildings that will produce minimal vibrations to construct. Other than
describing the foundations as concrete slabs, the DEIS is silent on this issue.
3.7-65
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 6
The DEIS states, in the context of discussing Phase 3 (Construction) activities, that “No fill
material is proposed” (p.34).
...
The GEMR suggests that some filling will be required, and notes that some fill may need to be
“compacted with a smooth-drum vibratory compactor, vibratory plate or Rammax trench
compactor”
…
The DEIS text does not mention vibration or noise impacts associated this activity, and the
DEIS never mentions the use of soil compacting equipment. Vibratory rollers are not included
on the list of equipment identified in the DEIS
3.7-66
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 7
The GEMR, however, recommends that “[C]compaction activities should be conducted under
full-time inspection.” This recommendation is not addressed in the DEIS.14 As a result, the
magnitude of vibration impacts during the construction period may have been
underestimated.
3.7-67
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 7
The Applicant has agreed to have haul trucks maintain a maximum speed of 30 mph along Cox
Neck Road/West Mill Road, as opposed to the posted 35 mph limit, as a means of reducing
vibration impacts. In fact, the posted speed limit along West Mill Road and most of Cox Neck
Road is 30 mph—not 35 mph. No mechanism is proposed to insure that posted speed limits
will be adhered to.
3.7-68
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 7
The Applicant has also proposed quickly repairing any potholes that appear in the roadway
during the construction activity to minimize the potential for vibrations that could affect
existing structures (DEIS pp. xxxvi, xxxix, 224-225, 228, 298). The problems, uncertainties, and
impracticalities of this have been discussed in comments concerning Project traffic impacts.
3.7-69
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 7
Finally, the DEIS notes that “vibrations of significant levels can be eliminated with avoiding
disruptive practices such as installation of driven piles or sheet pile installation”. However,
since the DEIS acknowledges that these types of processes are not proposed as part of the
Project, it is unclear how not doing something that is not proposed as part of the Project is
relevant.
3.7-70
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 7
The DEIS’ concludes that “there are no vibration impacts expected from soil excavation or
construction activities” (pp. iv, 38). This is contradicted numerous times in the DEIS when it
acknowledges 1) the need to orient the proposed haul road to mitigate potential vibration
impacts; 2) have construction trucks maintain distance from the historic Old Water Tower on
West Mill Road to minimize vibration impacts; 3) quickly make road repairs to “minimize the
potential for vibrations that could affect existing structures”; and 4) the medium to dense
soils on the Project site would limit vibration effects. “Mitigate” does not mean eliminate or
reduce to the point of no concern/no impact. Nor does “minimize” or “limit.”
3.7-71
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 7
The GEMR relies on inappropriate standards, and equally inappropriate generic estimates of
vibration generating sources such as trucks and construction equipment, to reach its
conclusions.
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 7
There are questionable aspects about the methodology used to collect and analyze the data
included in DEIS Appendix R (Vibration Report).
The Vibration Report states that it utilized methodology and data from FTA Guidelines and the
NHDOT Guidelines. however, there are problems with how both sets of guidelines were used
to assess vibration impacts to structures that might be affected by the Project.
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 8
This equation (Equation 3 in the Vibration Report) has been modified from the one given in
the FTA Guidelines methodology. The final exponent has been reduced from the 1.5 in the
FTA Guidelines to 1.1. The Vibration Report justifies this with the statement that “Long
Island’s unique soil structure typically attenuates vibration more effectively than many other
soils of geological areas” (DEIS Appendix R, p.10). This justification is not supportable. As
discussed above, in relation to the GEMR, while near-surface soils at the Project site do have
vibration attenuating characteristics, these soils will be removed during the early part of the
Project’s Excavation Phase. During much of the excavation phase, and all of the construction
phase, construction equipment, as well as haul trucks maneuvering within the Project site,
will be in direct contact with soils which have a higher density, and are therefore more
conducive to transmitting vibration. In addition, even if low-density sandy soils are present,
no mention is made of the fact that the dampening effect of sandy soils may be less during
winter months (the Project excavation phase, when most haul truck activity will take place)
when frozen ground conditions may exist. The modification of the equation has the effect of
minimizing the projected severity of potential impacts to nearby structures from truck-
generated vibration.
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 9
Table 5 in the Vibration Report, “Reference Data Utilized for Analysis,” indicates that a
reference PPV of 0.076 was taken from the FTA Guidelines. However, the Vibration Report
analysis indicates that the “loaded trucks” in the FTA Guidelines are equivalent to
“water/fuel” trucks. Those types of trucks generally weigh only a fraction of what the fully
loaded Project haul trucks will weigh. In addition, although the NHDOT Guidelines also note
that the FTA Guidelines use a reference value of 0.076, the NHDOT Guidelines cite other
studies that make it clear that this value is not a generally accepted constant.
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 9
The FTA Guidelines state that “[S]electing sites for an ambient vibration survey requires good
judgment. Sites selected to characterize a transit corridor should be distributed along the
entire project where potential for impacts have been identified” (emphasis added) (p.151).
The vibration analysis for the Project relies on information collected from only one location
(Location 4) along the entire Project truck route.
The FTA Guidelines also call for 4 to 10 passbys for each test. The language in the Vibration
Report
suggests that only a single pass was made for the test conducted as part of the test described
in the Vibration Report.
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 10
Because of the identified problems with the way that potential vibration damage to nearby
residences was assessed, the Planning Board should obtain the services of an outside
consultant to re-evaluate potential vibration impacts.
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 10
The preparers of the DEIS and the Vibration Report, although they cite the NHDOT Guidelines,
and rely on it for their assessment of potential vibration damage, failed to make use of the
construction vibration assessment procedure described in detail in those guidelines. “The
“Construction Vibration Assessment Table” (Appendix A, Table 1) in the NHDOT Guidelines
(COMMENT FIGURE VIBRATION-1) “can be routinely used by designers for determining if
vibration concerns exist and for evaluating the potential impact on a Project. The assessment
matrix described in Appendix A assigns a point score to ten different categories of data that
could potentially influence the impact of construction vibrations on a NHDOT project.
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 10
Applying the NHDOT assessment matrix to assess the severity of vibration impacts to
structures along the Project truck route results in a score of 215 to 313 based on the following
assigned values for structures located within 50 feet of the road.
For structures between 51 and 100 feet from the Project truck route, scores range from 161
to 259.
According to the NHDOT Guidelines, a point score of 300 to ˂400 is a “high impact.” A point
score of 200 to ˂300 is a “moderate impact. Many of the residences along West Mill and Cox
Neck Road are within 50 feet of the road edge, and many are within 100 feet.
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 11
As noted, the DEIS never meaningfully addresses the effects of construction-generated
vibration on the quality of life of residents near the Project site or along the Project haul truck
routes. The DEIS concerns itself almost exclusively with vibration impacts associated with
potential property damage. However, people are more sensitive in perceiving vibration than
houses are to damage from vibration. “The tolerance and reactions of humans to vibrations
are important when standards are based on annoyance, interference, work proficiency, and
health.”23,24 These levels are significantly lower than the building damage threshold levels
employed in the GEMR and the Vibration Report, and stated in the DEIS, to assess vibration
impacts.
3.7-80
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 12
Although the DEIS and the Vibration Report indicate numerous times that they relied on the
FTA Guidelines to prepare analyses of vibration impacts, they do not indicate that either the
ISO or ANSI standards referenced by the FTA were reviewed. Both documents have ignored
the FTA’s concerns regarding how vibration can impact quality of life because “annoyance
cannot always be explained by the magnitude of the vibration alone”.
3.7-81
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 12
The report, following FTA Guidelines “define[s] “frequent events as more than 70 events per
day and occasional events as between 30-70 events per day” It goes on to state that “[T]here
will be up to, but no more than, 40 truck trips per day during excavation, with a trip to and
from the site. Consequently, the frequent events category is appropriate and chosen since it
would be worse case scenario.” This is incorrect and misleading.
The Vibration Report has followed the inappropriate practice in the DEIS of considering each
round trip by a Project haul truck as a single “event.” As the Planning Board has noted, each
round trip is actually two trips—one inbound and one outbound from the Project site.29 The
true number of “events” per day is, therefore, actually 8030, qualifying the events as
“frequent.” The appropriate GBV impact level according to FTA Guidelines is, therefore, 72
VdB—not 75 VdB. This difference is significant.
3.7-82
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 13
Because the Vibration Report incorrectly classified the frequency of trucks passing residences
on West Mill Road as “occasional” it concluded that there would be no impact (the VdB values
of 74 and 73 are below the FTA Guidelines impact threshold of 75 for
occasional events). However, correctly classifying frequency of Project haul trucks passing
residences as “frequent” means that the impact threshold according to the FTA Guidelines is
lowered to 72VdB, and that vibration generated by Project haul trucks will exceed the impact
threshold.
3.7-83
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 13
Table 9 in the Vibration Report includes the nearest distances to the construction site, and the
distances to the center of the construction site, for the three residences closest to the Project
site. These residences are 800 and 805 North Drive, and 5106 West Mill Road. According to
the Vibration Report the “nearest distances to the construction site” for these three
residences are 175, 351 and 171 feet, respectively. Based on these distances, the Vibration
Report concludes that “[T]his indicates that there
will be no impact to nearby structures due to construction” (Vibration Report p.27). However,
the very next sentence qualifies this conclusion noting that “[T]here can be an increase in
vibration levels due to multiple pieces of construction equipment operating simultaneously”
(emphasis added) (Vibration Report p. 27). Given that it is highly unlikely that only a single
piece of equipment will be operating at any one time, the distances calculated by SoundSense
do not reflect what real conditions will be during construction.
3.7-84
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 14
Note that the language in the Vibration Report has been carefully worded to refer to “nearby
structures.” Both the DEIS and the Vibration Report are silent in regard to vibration impacts
to individuals outside, rather than inside, residences. The Vibration Report does not explain
what it means by “the construction site.” As measured from the Site Development Plans in
DEIS Appendix C, 800 and 805 North Drive, and 5106 West Mill Road, actually about the
Project site. As measured from the Site Development Plans the proposed retaining wall will be
less than 100 feet from the 5106 West Mill Road property line, and approximately 150 feet
from the residential structure on that lot, and even closer to the outside patio/pool area.
These are all less than the 171 feet stated in the Vibration Report.
3.7-85
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 14
Both the DEIS and the Vibration Report fail to discuss potential vibration impacts to visitors to
the West Mill Preserve. The preserve abuts the Project site, and is approximately 100 feet
from the location of the Project’s proposed retaining wall. That construction which will
require the use of vibratory rollers—the equipment which generates the highest vibration
levels.
3.7-86
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 14
FTA Guidelines state that 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible
and distinctly perceptible vibration, and at 85 VdB vibrations are tolerable only at infrequent
number of events per day. Neither the Vibration Report nor the DEIS has indicated whether or
not the 75 VdB level will be exceeded at residences close to the Project site, at residence
property lines, or at the West Mill Preserve, when multiple pieces of construction equipment
are operating simultaneously.
3.7-87
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 14
The conclusions in the DEIS and the Vibration Report (p.38) that “there are no vibration
impacts expected from soil excavation or construction activities” (DEIS p. 38), and that
“[A]analysis of the construction equipment has shown that there is no predicted impact to
any nearby neighbors’. . .” (Vibration Report p.3) are not supported by the data provided.
3.7-88
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 14
Vibration monitoring proposed by the Applicant is not sufficient to protect property and
residents
from construction-generated vibration impacts.
3.7-89
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 14, 15
“To ensure that vibration is responsibly managed, the Applicant has committed to
implementing a vibration monitoring plan during construction at the Project Site to . . . ensure
that ground-borne vibrations are not a disturbance to nearby neighbors (DEIS pp. xxxi, xxxii,
296, 306; Vibration Report
p.3).”
...
The proposed monitoring plan includes the installation of monitoring terminals at three as yet
undetermined locations.
...
There are problems with this plan. First, the monitoring locations are not identified.
However, Figure 13 in the Vibration Report does show possible locations. These possible
locations all appear to be at the Project site boundary, rather than at the closest sensitive
receptors (residences and the Mill Road Preserve). The number of monitoring locations, and
their locations, should be determined by the Planning Board, not left to the discretion of the
Applicant.
3.7-90
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 15
Second, the threshold PPV for property damage, and threshold VdB for indoor impacts not
have been calculated. In addition, the VdB threshold is not a single value. Threshold values
given in Table 2 of the Vibration Report for indoor ground-borne vibration vary for residences
from 72 VdB for frequent events, to 75 for occasional events, and 80 for infrequent events.
The monitoring plan requires that reference maximum PPV and RMS (VdB) for individual
pieces of equipment at the edge of the construction area be calculated so that threshold
vibration criteria can be calculated.
3.7-91
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 15
Third, given that much of the proposed construction activity (including the clearing and
grubbing, and excavation phases, as well as the construction phase) will involve mobile
equipment, it will be very difficult to correlate a measured vibration exceedance with a
particular piece of equipment operating at a particular location at a particular time. The fact
that multiple pieces of equipment are likely to be operating simultaneously is an additional
complication.
3.7-92
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 16
Fourth, the monitoring plan requires that a measured vibration exceedance be linked to
construction activities before any measures are taken to reduce vibration. No indication as to
how long this might take is provided. In the meantime, the activities generating the vibration
will continue.
3.7-93
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Vibration
Notes 16
Finally, there is no way to know in advance that the “appropriate measures, such as operating
fewer pieces of equipment or moving construction activities away from the construction area
boundary” (Vibration Report p.30) would result in reducing vibration levels below the
threshold criteria. The monitoring plan is silent as to what additional measures might be
available.
3.7-94
Planning Board Office
Memorandum 7-10-23 7
The noise/vibration consultant commented in the DEIS and at the meeting that the sand of
long island mitigates the vibrations in the soil and the distance of transmittance. Is that a
known, documented reduction or is it assumed based on the generic properties of sand?
3.7-95 Mary Elizabeth Guyton 7/8/23 2
Living along Mattituck Inlet for over 40 years, you come to understand that the creek
functions to carry, echo and elevate sound. The DEIS does not adequately address the ways
sound is elevated in the Inlet and there is no reference to further understanding the impact of
sound during the construction phase and more permanently for the process of lifting,
transporting and staging and storing of yachts as is planned. There is a solid body of evidence
to the negative impact of sound on humans and animals. More thorough analysis should be
undertaken to understand the ongoing impact of this increased and ongoing sound to
neighboring residents and ecology.
3.7-96
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 100
STEVE BOSCOLA:
The misstatements in this document (DEIS). Some of the claims made by the developer are
not only ludicrous, but they're also dangerous as they disregard the fact that we're in the
middle of this project. Literally. You've heard tonight, people saying, oh, if the vibration gets
out of control, we'll stop and reassess. What happens to the slope? There's no explanation.
The DEIS of a -- as was supposed to be in the scope, prolonged delays in excavation. Who
stabilizes the slope? Excess vibration will just stop work and reassess. Well, how long will that
take? The DEIS needs to disclose what that means for the slope stability that is 100 feet from
our home and feet from other homes as well.
3.7-97 Save the Sound 7/10/23 10
NOISE IMPACTS. DEIS Commenter Joel Klein 6has pointed out that, "[f]ifteen of the 18 tables
in the original version of the Acoustic Report which contain data on sound levels have been
changed in the revised Acoustic Report. In a majority of these tables, the revisions now show
noise levels greater than those reported in the version of the report originally submitted to
the Planning Board. No explanation for these changes is provided. This is obviously of
concern, and should cause any reasonable person to question whether the new data can be
relied upon or used to evaluate the Project's noise impacts." Mr. Klein's analysis of the noise
impacts associated with the proposed project is thorough, enlightening, and compelling. He
points out that, "[s]ignificantly, the Town-owned Mill Road Preserve does not appear to have
been identified as a Receiver/Receptor location ... the Acoustic Study (DEIS Appendix R) never
even mentions the Preserve. However, the DEIS Executive Summary, under the heading
'Impacts to the Mill Road Preserve' concludes that 'construction noise would be of temporary
nature and all noise impacts would cease upon completion' (p. xxi)."
3.7-98 Save the Sound 7/10/23 10 & 11
The address closest to the west side of the preserve is 2010 West Mill Road. This site would
be more subject to hauling/road noise than construction noise, which likely would be more
easily heard from within the preserve. During construction and with additional traffic,
according to Table 16, t 2010 West Mill Road, noise levels would rise from 44 to 69 dB
(increase of 25 dB. The DEIS uses 5106 West Mill Road, 800 North Drive, and 805 North Drive
as proxies for the preserve. During construction and with additional traffic, according to Table
16, • At 5106 West Mill Road, noise levels would rise from 44 dB to as high as 59 dB
(increase of 15 dB).
• At 800 North Drive, noise levels would rise from 44 dB to as high as 87 dB (increase of
43 dB).
• At 805 North Drive, noise levels would rise from 44 dB to as high as 84 dB (increase of
40 dB). These are not insignificant increases, and yet it should be clear these addresses cannot
be suitable proxies for forest areas adjoining proposed excavation and construction sites.
Impacts on the forest areas and users, therefore, may be much higher.
3.7-99 Save the Sound 7/10/23 11
The p. 31 narrative portion of DEIS' ecological report incorrectly states the increases in decibel
levels
(see Table 16), which is misleading. Those figures were in a previous version of the noise
analysis for this project (in the previous version it was labeled Table 15). The new figures
show that substantially higher noise levels would be expected. This lack of cohesion between
various assessments unfortunately is characteristic of the overall DEIS.
3.7-100 Save the Sound 7/10/23 11
The DEIS does not address noise impacts from sand hauling through the successional southern
hardwood area of the applicant's property on the preserve and its users. The terrain is not
completely flat; the roadbed, although expected to be fortified, nonetheless would not be as
smooth as asphalt pavement. Very loud noise would be expected to emanate from the
hauling traffic through this area and would be heard across the preserve's north boundary.
3.7-101 Save the Sound 7/10/23 11
Adverse impacts on people using Mill Road Preserve for quiet walks in the woods and on
wildlife would be severe with such noise impacts. We can conclude that the sounds of tree
felling, wood grinding, and subsequent hauling of waste material and sand on the adjoining
property would be particularly disturbing to users of Mill Road Preserve, even without
consideration of decibel level increases. Effects on wildlife species necessarily remain
undetermined; the acoustic studies assigned proxy locations instead of sampling within the
preserve itself. The FEIS should examine the adverse effects of noise from construction and
hauling, as well as the long-term adverse impacts of noise emanating from the new
warehouses, on wildlife using Mill Road Preserve.
3.7-102 Save the Sound 7/10/23 11 & 12
Examples of the adverse impacts of noise on wildlife include changing their spatial
distribution, deterring wildlife from important feeding and breeding areas, and interfering
with crucial biological functions, such as foraging success, predator avoidance, prey detection,
and communication within their local population. Daytime noise also may have adverse
effects on nocturnal wildlife needing sleep and increasing stress hormone levels.
Long-term or chronic noise impacts on wildlife might be species-specific, depending on the
lifespan of the animal. A chronic level to consider would be exposure throughout a significant
part of the lifespan of an animal, at regular enough intervals to have the potential of lasting
impacts. These can occur on individual or community scales. At the very least, the impacts of
noise on endangered and threatened species, and species of special concern, in Mill Road
Preserve and the remainder of the applicant's property (successional southern hardwood
forest and successional shrubland), should be considered in the FEIS.
3.7-103 Save the Sound 7/10/23 12
Metal rooftop noise. The DEIS does not consider the adverse environmental impacts of a
change not only of decibel level but also of noise type, especially concerning conversion of
forest to metal warehouse rooftops. The two proposed metal warehouses would have
rooftops totaling more than two acres in size. Rain on these rooftops likely would produce a
loud, unnatural, drumming or hammering noise that would disturb wildlife and people alike. A
walk in the rain in this highly valued nature preserve could produce an urban sound
experience, opposite the benefit residents and other hikers deserve.
3.7-104 Save the Sound 7/10/23 12
The omission of acoustic studies involving Mill Road Preserve as a receptor site is significant.
It is impossible to assess potential adverse impacts of tree felling, excavation, and
construction activities on wildlife and human users of the preserve without such conducting
studies. The Planning Board should consider elevated noise levels affecting a nature preserve
to be significant adverse environmental impacts under any circumstances.
3.7-105
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 123
ERIC MCCLURE:
I would not any longer be storing my boat and having it winterized at Strong's, because of the
enormous impact that Strong's Water Club from which I lived directly across Long Creek, was
imposing on our neighborhood. Specifically, our residence and my neighbor's residences with
excessive music and excessive -- an excessive number of events.
...
I have probably 300 recordings with a decibel meter and an iPhone of the excessive noise.
Well above the noise ordinance in the Town of Southold being generated from their property
from which they held about 90 live music events last year.
3.7-106 Kara Jackson 7/6/23 1
Strong's Yacht Warehouse Project will add tremendous noise and disturbance, not just from
the massive sand excavation project itself, the construction of the warehouses and the
ongoing maintenance, machinery and staff needed year-round to service the 80-foot yachts
and the heated warehouses themselves. That will never end.
3.7-107
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 8
MEMBER AMELIA JEALOUS-DANK:
Part of -- in the noise and vibration mitigation, you talked about the sand mitigating -- the
Long Island sand mitigating the vibrations in the soil, and therefore the distance of
transmittance. Is that a known documented mitigation or is that just an assumption based on
sand properties everywhere?
3.7-108
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 12
Noise from truck traffic, excavation and construction equipment is a major concern in
this residential area, which also includes an ecologically sensitive nature preserve. Both
the DEIS and the Applicant's Acoustic Report attempt to downplay the significance and
severity
of noise impacts during construction. The Acoustic Report (p.48) states that "these [ noise]
increases are temporary only during construction [ sic]," and points out that residents can stay
inside with the windows closed during the noisiest periods, which it claims, falsely, will fall in
the
winter. (The excavation phase will run until June, if there are no delays, and be followed by six
months of construction.)
3.7-109
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 86
LUMI ROLLEY:
And my concern for this project and is that -- Jeff -- that Strong's will pretty much follow
what they've done at their water club. Where, you know, where noise impacts will be within
zoning. And with that, you know, and slightly above. You know, of the allowable zoning. And
what happens eventually is that there's no monitoring, no compliance, no enforcement. So
the last 10 years since Jeff Strong has taken over the water club, we've been subjected to, you
know, every weekend. It's like -- it's like somebody has a house party going on right next to
you every weekend. And that affects us psychologically. It affects us. It affects the whole
environment. It affects the whole standard of living. In fact, my whole -- that one stretch,
every single rent -- every single rental property has been -- has turned over during those 10
years. You know, at least once. And this was not the case, the 10 years prior when I first
moved in my house. What I noticed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is that
there are some minor mitigations for noise impacts, but here's no -- nothing said about
monitoring. I think there's no -- you know, mitigations are also -- you can also identify if there
are issues of non-compliance, what is -- you know, what measures will be taken. None of that
has been identified. So given his track record or Strong's track record in my section of the
neighborhood, I really don't see that -- that -- anything that's identified in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. You know, that there's -- it doesn't really -- it's
meaningless. You know, it doesn't hold water.
3.7-110
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 106
LORI PANARELLO:
Somebody said before that there won't -- won't be such a big impact to the environment.
Birds will stay as long as the noise isn't that loud. It's ridiculous. They're building a
construction site. They won't in silence? Makes no sense at all.
3.7-111
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 13
The Acoustic Report, an appendix to the DEIS, reproduces a table of "Recommended Criteria
for Road Noise Levels" from the New York State Department of Transportation, which
recommends a maximum exterior noise level of 67 decibels in an area (" Activity Category B")
characterized by residences, schools, playgrounds and similar uses. This was the only one of
five "activity categories" covered in the Acoustic Report, to the exclusion of "Activity Category
A," which includes "lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and
serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the
area is to continue to serve its intended purpose." The recommended maximum exterior noise
level associated with Activity Category A is 57 decibels.
The Mill Road Preserve clearly falls within Activity Category A. The Project-adjacent Mill
Road Preserve is never discussed in the Acoustic Report. The main text of the DEIS asserts
that "the proposed action would not alter the public's enjoyment of the Town-owned preserve
property during all phases of the action as there would be no new impact on Mill Road
Preserve
from April to September 30, which is likely to be a time when the trails are most frequently
used." There are no data to back up this speculation about the experience of visitors to the
Preserve.
3.7-112
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 13
The DEIS never considers if or how Project-generated noise will impact wildlife, or for that
matter domestic animals, including pets. There is no mention of potential noise impacts to
types
of fauna other than birds, such as large and small mammals and reptiles.
3.7-113
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 13
Vibration
The DEIS does not adequately or correctly address how vibration impacts will affect the
quality of life for residents near the Project site or along the Project haul truck routes, or
the potential for damage to structures, including those of historic value.
It bases its conclusion that there are "no vibration impacts expected from soil excavation or
construction activities" on a geotechnical report (Appendix H) that uses a damage-threshold
vibration level intended for blasting activities, which are intermittent, rather than the much
lower
threshold that applies to vibration generated by truck traffic and construction equipment.
Because the DEIS incorrectly classifies the frequency of trucks passing residences on West Mill
Road as "occasional" it concluded that there would be no impact according to Federal Transit
Administration Guidelines. However, correctly classifying the frequency of Project haul
trucks passing residences as "frequent" - as often as eight times an hour - would
mean that vibration impacts would exceed the threshold of effects.
3.7-114
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 115
JAMES AIOLI:
Furthermore, the Tier Four trucks, which is an incredible feat that Jeff is actually gonna pull
off.I tell you, most people don't even know what a Tier Four engine -- diesel engine is. You go
to the pumpkin picking that happens in September and October, and you see all those trucks,
that all those cars that are waiting to get online. So for a Tier Four truck -- diesel truck, you
can't even hear it run. It's clean idle. It can idle all day long and they're not gonna do that.
It's really incredible. I don't know how he's gonna pull it off. Furthermore, these are all air ride
tractor trailers. Therefore with loaded, you won't even feel this truck going over the road
with air ride. Most people don't know this.
3.7-115 Eric McClure 7/5/23 2
Noise impacts from excavation and those associated with trucking out sand and soil have the
potential to be significant, with empty 30-yard trucks clanging their way down Cox Neck and
West Mill roads while the drivers pump their brakes, and fully loaded trucks straining back up
those roads in low gear.
3.7-116 Eric McClure 7/5/23 2
Construction will also be noisy, and noise from construction is exempt from the Town's noise
ordinance. The only limits on construction noise are those associated with the hours during
which construction is permitted, which is largely self-enforced.
3.7-117 Eric McClure 7/5/23 2
I have a great deal of experience with Strong's and noise, as I have the misfortune of living
directly across Long Creek from Strong's Water Club, which has been owned and operated by
Strong's since 2013. Given my experience, I can say with certainty that no proposed mitigation
for noise generation by the Strong's Yacht Center project should be believed. Though the
Town's noise ordinance outlines prohibitions against noise pollution and disturbing the "quiet,
comfort or repose" of persons occupying an adjacent property, we and our neighbors have
been subjected to a decade of intrusive, amplified music, both live and recorded, despite
hundreds of requests for relief and dozens of police reports of excessive noise. And while
Strong's is well aware of the effect its noise has on its neighbors, they've taken no action to
mitigate it, and have responded only by holding more and more events with amplified music. I
have hundreds of recordings of their noise exceeding the levels set by the Town's ordinance,
but nothing has ever been done to remedy the situation, by Strong's or the Town.
3.7-118
Erin McClure
05/15/23 2
Noise impacts from excavation and those associated with trucking out sand and soil have the
potential to be significant, with empty 30-yard trucks clanging their way down Cox Neck and
West Mill roads while the drivers pump their brakes, and fully loaded trucks straining back up
those roads in low gear. Construction will also be noisy, and noise from construction is
exempt from the Town's noise ordinance. The only limits on construction noise are those
associated with the hours during which construction is permitted, which is largely self-
enforced. While the DEIS claims that there will be no noise impacts from ongoing operation of
the proposed new storage buildings, there's plenty of reason to doubt that.
3.7-119
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 151
LOUISE HARRISON:
Consider Two noise effects on the Mill Road Preserve. The hammering -- I'm done.
Hammering, loud drumming of heavy rain on over two acres of metal rooftops adjoining the
preserve will disturb wildlife and people alike. A walk in the rain in this highly valued nature
preserve will produce an urban warehouse district experience --
3.7-120 Boscola 6/20/23 8
In response to the required comprehensive noise study, the original (December 2021) DEIS
included an Acoustic Report (DEIS Appendix R). The Planning Board and its consultant found
that the original DEIS had not adequately addressed noise issues. The revised DEIS and
accompanying Acoustic Report claim to have addressed the inadequacies in the original DEIS.
Fifteen of the 18 tables in the original Acoustic Report have changed in the revised Acoustic
Report. In most of these tables, the revisions now show noise levels greater than those
reported in the original version submitted to the Planning Board. This is obviously of concern,
and we question whether the new data can be relied upon as there is no explanation for
these changes.
3.7-121 Boscola 6/20/23 8
Noise monitoring locations selected to establish ambient conditions were poorly chosen. The
time of year during which data was collected was inappropriate as it does not reflect the
same time of year that excavation and construction are proposed. This matters for various
reasons.
3.7-122 Boscola 6/20/23 8
Given our proximity to the site, it is expected that we will be subjected to increased noise
levels deemed "very objectionable to intolerable" by the NYSDEC and in some cases, much
higher than allowable by Southold Town Code. The DEIS attempts to excuse the project from
responsibility by claiming that "construction-related noise impacts would be limited to the
times and days specified, which are permitted by Town Code" and "the proposed project
would comply with the permitted times set forth in Chapter 180 of the Town Code". However,
the DEIS points out (p.52), that during those permitted times, Section 180-6 of the Town Code
sets the maximum allowable noise level at 65 d.BA. The data in DEIS Tables 39 and 40
demonstrate, this level will be exceeded at many of the receiver/receptor locations listed in
those tables.
a. We do not agree that Tables 39 and 40 accurately assess our home at 5106 West Mill
Road. It seems impossible, given our proximity to the site versus some of the other listed
locations, that we would be subjected to fewer decibels of noise than others who are not as
close.
3.7-123 Boscola 6/20/23 8
The DEIS dismisses noise concerns by referencing Section 180-8 of the Town Code which
exempts construction activities from the standards in Section 180-6. Even though this blanket
exemption allows the project to avoid violating local law in regard to noise generation, that is
not the same thing as saying Project-related noise impacts will not be significant. The DEIS
makes no mention of Section 180-2 which states, in part: "Such noise pollution which is
prolonged, unusual or unnatural in its time, place and use is harmful to the peace, welfare,
comfort, safety, convenience, good order and prosperity of the inhabitants of the Town of
Southold. It is the public policy and findings of the Town Board that every person is entitled to
noise levels that are not detrimental to life, health, and the enjoyment of his or her property."
a. The noise will be absolutely unbearable and could impact our ability to be in our home.
We are home throughout the day during the hours of7am-5pm. Given the major impact to
traffic, it is reasonable to expect we would leave our home less frequently during those hours
to avoid the dangerous situation that would be on our roads. We suspect that other residents
in our age bracket would be affected similarly.
3.7-124 Boscola 6/20/23 9
It is worth noting that the Town of Southold Code Chapter 180 available on ecode.360.com no
longer includes Section 180-8 (refer to Attachment E). Is this on purpose?
3.7-125 Boscola 6/20/23 9
The DEIS states "the retaining wall would function as a sound barrier, largely containing the
noise within the graded area. " This is not substantiated. The proposed retaining wall is
concrete and therefore a reflector of sound, not an absorber of sound. a. The DEIS does
not discuss the noise impacts to neighboring homes from the as-proposed buildings for the
amplification of rainfall, thunder, and other weather or activity. Replacing two acres of soft
ground and tree buffer with over two acres of steel rooftops will have noise impacts that
should be addressed.
i. Additionally, the proposed constructed area would consist of metal buildings
surrounded on three sides by a concrete wall which will create a pit where sound will
reverberate rather than dissipate or be absorbed by a forest.
3.7-126 Boscola 6/20/23 9
As is typical with lots of construction projects during winter months, trucks and equipment
will often try to start their engines earlier than the allowable start time so that the excavators
etc are "ready to work" by the stated time. The DEIS does not discuss preparation for each
day and who will monitor to ensure starting early will not happen. The equipment will be out
of reach of an electrical source so block heaters will not be an option. The cold starts of these
machines will be loud, long, and full of exhaust fumes.
3.7-127 Toni Bryan 04/18/23 1
THAT said removal would require an ongoing, at the least, 6 month excavation and removal
process over local Mattituck roads by trucks that are much larger and heavier than trucks
currently traversing the roads. This work would occur 6 days a week, 10 hours per day. There
is nothing comparable in the area now. Will the amount of 4 Tier, white noise backup trucks
promised by Mr. Strong be available? Or will the noise be worse than projected.?
Chapter 3.8 Air Quality
ID#Source Document
Page
Number
3.8-1
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 1
3.8-2
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 2
3.8-3
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 3
3.8-4
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 3
3.8-5
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 4
3.8-6
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 4
3.8-7
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 4
3.8-8
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 5
3.8-9
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 5
3.8-10
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 5
3.8-11
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 5
3.8-12
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 5 & 6
3.8-13
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 6
3.8-14
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 6
3.8-15
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 6
3.8-16
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 7
3.8-17
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 7 & 8
3.8-18
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 8
3.8-19
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 8
3.8-20
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 8
3.8-21
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 9
3.8-22
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 9
3.8-23
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Air
Quality 9
3.8-24
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 49
3.8-25
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 130
3.8-26 Boscola 6/20/23 3
3.8-27 Boscola 6/20/23 3
3.8-28 Boscola 6/20/23 3
3.8-29 Boscola 6/20/23 3
Comment (Original)
The DEIS scope notes that the proposed “operation of heavy machinery and trucks on and off site over a
long duration of time . . . could result in moderate adverse impacts to local air quality” (p.18). The DEIS
fails to adequately address this concern. Its conclusion that “on-road vehicle emission generated from the
project construction would not have a significant adverse impact on air quality” (p.266), and that “no
significant adverse impacts from mobile off-road emissions would be expected” (p.268), are not
supported by the data provided. ... ...The air quality analysis indicates that, as required, it utilized USEPA’s
MOVES software to estimate “Total carbon dioxide (CO)[sic]3, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate
matter (PM-10)” (DEIS Appendix S, p. 7) for off-road vehicles. It is unclear as to whether it used MOVES to
calculate emissions from on-road vehicles (as called for by the DEIS scope) or relied solely on the USEPA’s
Diesel Emission Quantifier online tool to calculate the emissions from on-road construction vehicles.
...It is apparent that the VMT used to in the air quality analysis may have been significantly
underestimated. In addition, no actual VMT estimate for each vehicle type is provided, making it
impossible to verify analyses requiring this information….
...The DEIS needs to identify how many haul truck trips during the excavation phases of the Project will, or
will not, travel the entire length of the designated truck route between the Project site and the entrance
to the Long Island Expressway in Riverhead.
...The DEIS could and should have identified potential disposal locations. It does not.
The construction vehicle type that will have the greatest on-road VMT is the 30 CY dump trailers used to
haul sand from the Project site during the excavation phases. These vehicles are not Class 7 single unit
vehicles.7 Trucks with 30-cubic yard trailers, which is the vehicle type described most frequently in the
DEIS, will be Class 10 (6 or more axle, single trailer)8 vehicles. The air quality analysis has employed an
incorrect vehicle type as a basis for much of its emissions modeling.
...While the construction company’s commitment will certainly help reduce the volume of traffic traveling
to the Project site, there is no way to know if total emissions will be reduced. That assumption is only
valid if one fails to take into account how far each construction worker must travel to and from his/her
home to the carpool pick-up location.
Section 2.2 (Off-Road Mobile Emissions) of the Air Quality Study includes the following statements: “[A]s
indicated in Table 4 below, emission estimates are well within significant threshold values and, therefore,
the impact due to mobile off-road emissions would be less than significant” (emphasis added); and
“[E]mission rates were estimated for all of the off-road mobile construction vehicles anticipated to be
operating on site during each phase of the project. Detailed results are displayed in Appendix B and
summarized in Table 4” (emphasis added)(p.8). However, Table 4 (p.11) is titled
“Estimated On-Road Vehicle Emission Rates” (emphasis added). Table 4 is clearly correctly captioned and
the references to Table 4 in the text are incorrect.
On page 12 of Appendix S one finds the statement that “As indicated on Table 5 above, the anticipated
emission rates for each phase of the project are well within the annual Conformity De Minimis threshold,
therefore it can be concluded that on-road vehicle emission generated from the Project construction
would not have a significant adverse impact on air quality.” It is clear that reference should be to Table 4
as Table 5 is a list of construction area acreages.
Additional confusing editorial errors can also be found on page 7 and in Table 4.
The statement that “Areas of the United States where the ambient air does do not meet NAAQS are
considered nonattainment or maintenance areas. Currently, Suffolk County ambient air quality is within
NAAQS and, therefore, maintains attainment status for all criteria pollutants” (DEIS p.248, Appendix S p.2)
is incorrect. Suffolk County is presently a non-attainment area for ozone.
The DEIS, in numerous locations where air quality impacts are addressed, makes statements to the effect
that “all trucks utilized would be Tier 4 certified by U.S. EPA standards” (xxxix, 19, 140, 144, 173, 228, 259,
261, 274, 287, 293, 294, 299, 335). However, Tier 4 standards do not apply to on-road vehicles such as the
haul trucks to be used by the Project. According the Section Chief, Heavy Duty Vehicles, of the NYSDEC’s
Bureau of Air Resources “On-road vehicles don’t go by engine Tier, they go by engine model year
standards.”
The ambiguity between the use of the phrases “trucks” and “trucks and equipment” needs to be resolved,
especially in light of the possibly careless (?) wording of other statements in the DEIS. For example, the
DEIS states that “Tier 4 regulations are the strictest U.S. EPA emissions requirements for off-highway
diesel engines. As such, the use of all Tier 4 compliant trucks and equipment would further reduce
emissions of PM and NOx ensures that federal emission standards are being achieved” (pp. xxvi, 266).
This is not the same thing as saying that only Tier 4 trucks and equipment will be used. In other instances
the DEIS states that “the Applicant has committed to utilizing trucks and equipment that are all Tier 4
compliant” (p.266) and “SYC will mandate that all construction-related trucks be Tier 4” (pp. xxxvi, 228),
but a few pages later states that “the Applicant is committed . . .”
(emphasis added) (p.294). The latter phrase suggests a desire, rather than an obligatory commitment.
the statement that “[t]his analysis evaluates the potential impacts associated with trucks11 and
equipment that are equipped with engines that are Tier 3 or Tier 4 compliant for a conservative air quality
impact assessment approach . . . ” (pp.266), adds further confusion. If only Tier 4 trucks and equipment
will be used, why are Tier 3 vehicles includes in the analysis and, if they were, in what manner were they
included?
The DEIS contains no information relating to what type of heating equipment will be fueled by the
propane. Nor does it contain any information relating to how much propane would be consumed each
year. It is therefore impossible to calculate how air quality will be impacted by Project operation.
The DEIS also states that “existing buildings at SYC would continue to be heated using recycled engine
waste oil” (DEIS pp. 292)16….These emissions have not been included in the air quality analysis.
While hosting of the shellfish restoration program is certainly a laudable activity that contributes to
carbon sequestration, it is not mitigation of the carbon stock loss that will result from the Project.
It is inappropriate to measure net carbon sink loss by merely measuring the net change in the number of
trees. The 630-65019 trees that will be destroyed have an average DBH
(Diameter at Breast Height) of 12.8-inches (DEIS Appendix N, p.22), almost all of which are hardwoods ,
and most of which have an estimated height of 80 feet (Appendix C- Tree Removal Carbon Stock
Estimates, in DEIS Appendix S). These trees are in no way equivalent to the 4- to 5-foot-high softwoods,
only a few inches in diameter, that are being proposed as replacements. In other instances the DEIS states
that “the Applicant has committed to utilizing trucks and equipment that are all Tier 4 compliant” (p.266)
and “SYC will mandate that all construction-related trucks be Tier 4” (pp. xxxvi, 228), but a few pages later
states that “the Applicant is committed . . .”
(emphasis added) (p.294). The latter phrase suggests a desire, rather than an obligatory commitment.
The DEIS concludes its discussion of proposed supplemental planting with the statement that
“Accordingly, based on the above, no significant adverse air quality impacts would result from the
proposed action” (p.273)”. It is unclear whether this conclusion is meant to apply just to impacts resulting
from tree loss, or all air quality related impacts. In either case, the conclusion is not supported by the data
presented.
The DEIS also concludes that the size of the forest area to be cleared for the Project “is not considered to
be a significantly sized clearing area and, therefore, adverse impacts due to tree clearing/carbon stock
loss are considered negligible” (pp. xxvii, 272). No basis for this is provided.
At least two errors are evident in DEIS Appendix S’ discussion of carbon sequestration. In the first case,
Appendix S states that, “[S]tudies have estimated that >1% [of total forest carbon stock] is stored in dead
wood . . . “(p.17). However, Table 6 (p.17) indicates that it is “< 1%”. The latter figure is correct.22 The
second instance is found in Appendix S Table 7 (Carbon Storage Loss Estimates) which incorrectly totals
the estimated on-site loss of stored forest carbon. The table indicates the total as 3,402,604 lbs.
However, adding the individual totals for each carbon pool type results in a total of 3,411,603 pounds.
The DEIS is silent on the potential for fugitive dust to impact nearby residences,
particularly those in close proximity to the proposed haul road.
As a consequence of subsuming the PM2.5 data into the PM10 category, the DEIS has, in effect, hidden
the potential adverse impacts of PM2.5.
The conclusion in the DEIS and Appendix S that with “the implementation of [dust mitigation] measures,
there would be no adverse impacts created by dust generation and the resultant air quality impacts would
be avoided” (Appendix S p.14, DEIS p.269) is not supported by any of the information provided.
MEMBER AMELIA JEALOUS-DANK:
Who's monitoring the dust level? (During the removal of sand / construction phase).
Maybe it's a question you can provide an answer to before the end of this?
DONNA BOSCOLA:
The DEIS scientifically underestimates the amount of cement trucks required for this project. It states
that 89 cement trucks will be traveling to and from the site. When the actual number is closer to 400 full
trucks for a total of 800 trips. The DEIS does not state the route for these trucks either. More
importantly, the DEIS does not discuss the timing of these trucks as they are typically staged together.
Since concrete needs to be delivered and poured in succession without significant delays. The staging of
these trucks, which will be high idling to power the onboard mixers, will create a hotspot of exhaust
fumes, as well as, amplified noise from the combination of trucks running. The DEIS needs to discuss the
cement trucking process in detail, as that will impact all roadways and neighboring homes, and is now
downplayed.
The DEIS never discusses new and permanent emission sources associated with the Project. "The
proposed buildings would be heated but not cooled, with the heating source planned as radiant flooring
supplied by liquid propane gas (LPG). Each building would be serviced with two, 2, 000- gallon LPG tanks"
(DEIS p. 13, also pp. 161,292).
The DEIS contains no information relating to what type of heating equipment will be fueled by the 8,000
gallons of propane, nor does it contain any information relating to how much propane would be burned
each year.
The developer should provide a detailed calculation of how air quality will be impacted by the project
operation, especially since it is proposed directly next to residential areas.
The DEIS also states that "existing buildings at SYC would continue to be heated using recycled engine
waste oil" (DEIS pp. 292). This is misleading as per Table 13 in the DEIS as only the "Furnace in Shop" is
heated this way. The developer should discuss if there are plans to heat other buildings. Existing waste oil
burning does not appear to be addressed in the DEIS and, ifit will be used further, its impacts should be
addressed.
Chapter 3.9 Socio-Economic
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
3.9-1
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 1
It is unclear how state and county sales tax revenues would “benefit the Town’s economy”
as the Town of Southold will receive no direct benefit from these sales tax revenues.
3.9-2
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 1
According to that data, in 20242 combined total service and storage revenues would
increase by $1,033,904 over 2020 figures—not $1,760,000. The DEIS has proportionally
overstated the amount of sales tax revenues generated from these activities.
3.9-3
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 1
The DEIS is based on the premise that the Project will be constructed in a single phase over a
single construction season. No mention is made of constructing the Project in phases.
However, the applicant has admitted that bank financing for Building Two is contingent on
demonstrating 60% occupancy in Building One. There is no proven demand for this Project.
3.9-4
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 2
...Using the lower figure, and applying it to 88 yachts, yields a total annual for storage and
service of $987,800. This is very close to the projected revenue ($1,033,904) predicted by
the MEIC for 2024, and inconsistent with estimates in the DEIS.
3.9-5
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 2
In order for New York State to realize any new tax revenue from the increased storage and
service work related to the Project, each new boat at SYC would need to come from out of
state. Any new SYC customers from other New York marinas would have a net zero impact
on the New York State sales tax base. The same is true for Suffolk County.
3.9-6
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 2
Boat manufacturers typically specify territories for their dealers, so customers from out of
state, or in some cases the tri-state area, might not be allowed to buy a new boat from
Strong’s. This would also limit the market for winter storage and maintenance at SYC, since
buyers of late model boats under warranty typically bring them back to the dealer from
which they purchased it for warranty work. The DEIS is silent on how SYC will handle repairs
covered by warranties, which are charged back to the manufacturer. Since the boat owners
aren't paying, there is no sales tax to be collected from them. It is unclear if SYC will charge
sales tax to the manufacturers when seeking reimbursement for warranty work performed,
particularly since the manufacturers of the new boats that SYC sells are located outside of
New York State.
3.9-7
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 2
The DEIS repeatedly states that “[a]dditional sales tax would be generated by the expected
yacht sales by SYC.” This claim is unsubstantiated. The DEIS does not state how the addition
of two storage sheds will increase yacht sales. In fact, the DEIS states “two new buildings
(52,500 SF and 49,000 SF) will be for the sole purpose of indoor, heated storage for larger
vessels (i.e., yachts)” and does not mention anything about displaying boats for sale, or
marketing boats for sale, while stored inside these warehouses.
3.9-8
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 2 & 3
The DEIS also fails to provide the number of boats sold each year and instead only provides a
dollar figure of SYC Revenue from Boat Sales of “$16,000,000” (DEIS Table 48, p. 278)7. This
is very misleading to the average reader of the DEIS who might assume that $16,000,000 of
boat sales at the local sales tax rate of 8.625% would generate $1,380,000 in sales tax. It
would not. Boat sales in New York State are taxable only up to the sale price of $230,000
per boat – any amount in excess of $230,000 is exempt from New York State sales tax.8
Additionally, in cases where SYC is in fact the "tri-state dealer" (NY-NJ-CT) (COMMENT
FIGURE ECONOMICS -2) for certain boat brands, and is able to sell boats to customers
outside of NYS, any sales of new or used boats to buyers from New Jersey or Connecticut
will result in no sales tax revenue for NYS at all.
3.9-9
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 3
Using “SYC” inconsistently throughout the DEIS to refer to both the Strong’s Yacht Center
and Strong’s affiliated entities often results in the obfuscation and misrepresentation of data
presented in the DEIS.
3.9-10
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 3 & 4
The Town of Southold will derive almost no benefit from increased property tax revenues
from the Project. The DEIS states that the “proposed action represents a continued
investment of the applicant into the Town of Southold, which over the last eight years, has
included property investments that have contributed nearly $300,000 into the Town’s land
preservation trust via the 2 percent real estate transfer tax (pursuant to Chapter 17 – Article
IV. Community Preservation Fund).”
It is unclear how the Applicant’s paying of legally required real estate transfer taxes is
relevant to the proposed Project. The proposed Project will not generate any funds for the
Town’s land preservation trust. The applicant’s past payment of these taxes in no way
constitutes a mitigative measure for the proposed Project, as the context in which it is made
implies. The 2022 taxable value of the property is $49,680. The full market value according
to the 2022 Final Assessment Roll is $7,097,143.9 The actual tax bill for the 2022-2023 fiscal-
year is $75,335.30.10,11 According to the Southold Board of Assessors (DEIS Appendix E,
correspondence dated June 25, 2021), the increase in assessed value of the property would
be $41,000. However,the Project would be eligible for a 485-b Business Investment
Exemption for ten years. As a result, the estimated increase in property taxes for the first 3
years would be $32,234, Year 4 would be $37,677. These numbers are equivalent to the
combined property taxes paid by just a handful of average single-family Southold residences.
3.9-11
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 5
It is unclear from this if the reference to full-time employees refers to year-round full-time
employees, or if the number of full-time weekday employees varies seasonally. It is also
unclear if the anticipated 11 new employees will be year-round or seasonal, as well as full-
time employees.
3.9-12
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 5
Jobs figures generated by the MEIC include both full-time and part-time jobs. The DEIS’ main
text fails to note this. In addition, the MEIC’s significant overestimate of the number of
existing jobs calls into question its appropriateness for use in assessing the Project’s
potential economic impacts.
3.9-13
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 6
The MEIC model is based on information from 42 commercial marinas in the U.S., spread
over seven regions of the U.S. (Atlantic-North, Atlantic-South, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes,
Pacific-North, Pacific-South, and Central). Only four of these marinas are located in the
Northeast. It is clear from the MEIC-generated data reproduced in Appendix E that SYC is
atypical when compared to the marinas used to create the MEIC model. As presented in
Appendix E, and repeated in DEIS Table 48, in 2020 SYC generated 85.72% of its revenues
from boat sales, 0.92% from fuel sales, 0% from the lease revenue and 0% from the “all
other” category. These figures are significantly different from the regional revenue
percentages of 4.8%, 18%, 13.3% and 45.8% respectively, used by the MEIC to construct the
algorithm used to generate its calculations.
3.9-14
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 6
The economic multipliers used by the MEIC to calculate indirect and induced job numbers,
state and local tax impacts, and federal tax impacts are all based on how revenues are
distributed between nine activity categories.18 The atypical distribution of revenue sources
for SYC, compared to all the marinas used to generate the economic multipliers employed
by the MEIC, strongly suggest that the data derived from the MEIC to evaluate the Project’s
economic impact may be seriously flawed and inaccurate to an unknown degree.
3.9-15
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 6
The DEIS states that “The proposed action is expected to generate approximately 11 new
full-time jobs for servicing of the boats in storage, most of which are expected to be local
residents experienced in the maritime industry. There is a resultant beneficial impact of
additional employment and wages for the local population” (p.312). No basis for the claim
that new jobs would be filled by “local” residents is presented in the DEIS. The DEIS also
provides no definition of who it defines as a “local resident.” This is significant as jobs filled
by non-Southold residents will provide little in the way of economic benefits to the Town of
Southold.
3.9-16
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 6
The DEIS does not indicate if newly created positions will be filled immediately, or over a
potentially much longer unspecified period of time. This is of special concern as the
Applicant has indicated that the two proposed storage buildings may not be constructed at
the same time.
3.9-17
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Employment and
Economic Impacts 6
According to the DEIS (p.15), the “types of jobs to be created include boat maintenance,
machinery operators, engine technicians, wood and fiberglass re-finishing personnel, and
administration. The salary ranges for the new full-time positions could be expected from
approximately $50,000 to $125,000”, but does not provide a more detailed breakdown. This
information is not responsive to the DEIS scope requirement that the DEIS include
information “by job description, salary benefit levels, etc.” This suggests that newly created
jobs may be filled by non-Southold residents. These employees are unlikely to relocate to
Southold, as many of the jobs will fall within the income limits that would qualify the
employee for affordable housing. The need for affordable housing for employees in the
Southold maritime industry has been of special concern to Town residents.19 The Project is
likely to exacerbate the already significant demand for affordable/workforce housing in
Southold.
3.9-18
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 3
The DEIS states that “at the recommendation of the Southold Fire Marshal, a Fire Safety Plan
has been developed by SYC [Strongs Yacht Club] to provide hazard locations, utility and
water supply information, and emergency procedures for its employees. A copy of this Fire
Safety Plan is included in Appendix P” (p.190, see also p. xv). Appendix P contains what is
titled “Proposed Fire Safety Plan” (emphasis added). It is dated September 21, 2021 and
consists of two pages of bulleted items and two maps. The plan included in Appendix P is
not a fire safety plan for the proposed Project:
3.9-19
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 3
The fire safety plan included in Appendix P is not applicable to the proposed Project. In
addition, it appears that the fire safety plan (existing and/or proposed) may not even comply
with the OSHA’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Shipyard Employment
regulations set forth at 29 CFR 1915.1502 or with other components of various fire codes.
3.9-20
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 3
Section 3.9.3 of the DEIS states that “[F]urthermore, as evaluated in Section 3.9.2 [impacts
associated with ignitable sources] of this DEIS, the proposed [fire safety] plan was submitted
to the Mattituck Fire Department and no potential service issues were identified (p.190).
This is misleading as it appears that a copy of the fire safety plan in Appendix P was never
submitted to the fire department.
3.9-21
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 4
According to NFPA 113 Chapter 18 ((Fire Department Access and Water Supply), Section
18.5.3, “Fire hydrants shall be provided for buildings other than detached one- and two-
family dwellings in accordance with both of the following: (1) The maximum distance to a
fire hydrant from the closest point on the building shall not exceed 400 ft (122 m). (2) The
maximum distance between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500 ft (152 m)”. The new hydrant
proposed as part of the project (which will be the only hydrant available to service both the
existing marina and the proposed Project structures) will be located approximately 800 feet
(straight-line distance) from the nearest part of proposed Storage Building No. 1, and even
farther from proposed Storage Building No. 2. In addition, Suffolk County Department of
Health Services (SCDHS) has recommended “the installation of an additional fire hydrant at
the end of the line” (DEIS Appendix J).
3.9-22
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 5
No information was included in the original, December 2021, DEIS to indicate that minimum
“fire flow”14 requirements for the proposed Project would be met.15 The revised DEIS
contains a Water Design Report (in DEIS Appendix J) which does discuss fire flow. It states
that the “water supply system has been designed for a maximum fire flow of 1,500 GPM
with a total head loss of 29 PSI.” An accompanying table indicates water main service flows
and pressures, including “Pressure Downstream @ Building.” The “Building” is not
identified. This information was not available to either the Southold Fire Marshall, or the
Mattituck Fire Department, at the time they prepared their comments on the Project.
3.9-23
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 5
The Water Design Report also states that “The farthest connection is approximately 2,000 ft
from the existing water main in Naugles Road and PWGC has performed design calculations
to ensure that adequate pressure will be provided at this connection point.” However, it is
unclear where that
“farthest connection” is. The proposed hydrant would be located less than 1,000 ft from the
existing water main in Naugles Road. The proposed water service line will extend as far as
the bathroom in proposed Boat Storage Building No. 2, which is approximately 2,000 ft.
away, but there is no indication that a fire department hose connection will be located
there. In its last review of the Project, dated June 16, 2022 (see DEIS Appendix J), the SCDHS
noted that information submitted by the Applicant “do not show fire separated from
domestic service.” As noted above, the SCHDS also recommended “the installation of an
additional fire hydrant at the end of the line.”
3.9-24
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 5
According to IFC16 Appendix B (Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings) Section B103.1 “[T]he
fire chief is authorized to reduce the fire-flow requirements for isolated buildings or a group
of buildings in rural areas or small communities where the development of full fire-flow
requirements is impractical.” The Planning Board needs to either confirm that fire flow
requirements will be met, or that the fire chief has exercised his authority to reduce the
required fire flow. In the latter case, the Planning Board should determine what Project
modifications/alternatives, such as adding hydrants or standpipes, could satisfy fire flow
requirements. If pumping water from Mattituck Creek, or use of existing on-site wells, is
anticipated as part of any fire response plan the potential environmental impacts should
have been addressed in the DEIS. They are not.
3.9-25
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 6
There is no discussion in the DEIS relating to the possible need for standpipes. Section
3604.2 of the New York State Fire Code requires that “Marinas and boatyards shall be
equipped throughout with standpipe systems in accordance with NFPA 303. Systems shall be
provided with hose connections located such that no point on the marina pier or float
system exceeds 150 feet (15 240 mm) from a standpipe hose connection.” No existing or
proposed standpipes are indicated on Project plans , although plans do indicate that water
lines will be extended to service bathrooms in each of the proposed storage buildings.
3.9-26
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 6
On June 17, 2021 the Applicant’s consultant requested comments on the Project from the
Mattituck Fire Marshal, and the Fire Marshal responded on June 24, 2021 (DEIS Appendix P).
In addition to noting a number of standard code requirements, the Fire Marshal specifically
stated that “Fire Department access shall be provided within 150 feet of all portions of the
exterior walls of all buildings”. The proposed Project site plan will not allow for adequate
access to the north side of proposed Storage Building No. 1, and the east sides of both
proposed Storage Building No. 1 and proposed Storage Building No. 2, as the distance
between these structures and the adjacent proposed retaining wall will be only 10 feet .
3.9-27
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 6
In addition, according to the Mattituck Fire Department, fire apparatus “need to park out of
collapse zones of buildings, this would be approximately 30 feet . . .”20 The distance
between the two proposed storage buildings is 60 feet. This means that if both structures
were involved in a fire, fire apparatus would be required to enter the collapse zone.
3.9-28
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 6 & 7
Given the heights of the proposed storage buildings, it is likely that aerial ladder trucks may
need to be employed in the event of a fire. According to the New York State Fire Code ,
“Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet
(4572 mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion
thereof.” According to the DEIS, although “the Fire Marshal recommended a 150-foot Fire
Department access area from all exterior walls of the two proposed buildings . . . the
Mattituck Fire Department’s [July 27, 2021] correspondence (explained above) was accepted
by the Fire Marshal as adequate for not providing the recommended access area” (p.283).
There is no evidence that this is the case. There is nothing in the Fire Marshal’s response
indicating he has accepted the failure to provide adequate fire department access to all
sides of the proposed structures.
3.9-29
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 7
The DEIS is non-responsive to the Southold Fire Marshal’s comment that a sprinkler system
is required and must meet code requirements….There is nothing in the DEIS indicating that
these questions have been answered. Although there presumably (?) will be one, no
mention of a sprinkler system is included in the DEIS’ Project description, and no sprinkler
system is shown on the Project’s utility plans (DEIS Appendix C).
3.9-30
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 8
The DEIS states that “based on the above-described coordination with both the local fire
department and Town Fire Marshal, the proposed action would not create any potential fire
safety issues” (p.283). This seemingly definitive statement is not supported by the “above-
described coordination.” As noted, the Fire Marshal raised several issues that have not been
adequately addressed.
3.9-31
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 8
although the fire department indicated that it “has the capability to handle any fire situation
on the proposed plan,” that is not the same thing as saying that the plan does not create any
new potential fire safety issues beyond those that may currently exist at the marina.
3.9-32
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 8
NFPA 303.7.2.1.5 states that “Where a boat is to be dry-stored for the season or stored
indoors for an extended period of time . . . the following precaution shall be taken: . . .
Permanently installed fuel tanks shall be stored at least 95 percent full.” The DEIS never
discusses the potential hazard associated with the large volume of fuel that would present
on vessels being stored.
3.9-33
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 8 & 9
According to the DEIS, a “haul road would be constructed from the proposed Construction
Excavation Area to West Mill Road, as shown on the Excavation Phasing Plan and Haul Road
Plan in Appendix C. This haul road would be used for the entirety of Phase 1 and would
remain as an emergency access road post-construction (pp. xxx, 18, 34) . . . for use by police,
fire, or ambulance vehicles, as necessary” (p.288, see also pp. ii, xiv, 163, 209, 212, 217, 222,
285). The referenced Haul Road Plan does not show the eastern terminus of the haul road,
or how close it will come to the proposed storage buildings. However, the “Aerial Overly”
graphic in DEIS Appendix C does [COMMENT FIGURE F7]. The haul road would allow fire
apparatus to come close to the Project site at the top of the retaining wall, but “[T]here
would be no access for vehicles or personnel past that point” (p.18, 285). As the DEIS notes,
the haul road “could be used to direct water down from higher elevation onto a structure
fire.” However, no readily available water source exists to service that location. Firefighters
would have to rely on tanker trucks.28 Fire department access roads require 20 ft of
unobstructed width.29 The proposed haul road will be only 16 ft wide for most of its length.
In addition, the haul road would not provide adequate turn-around space for fire apparatus
as required by code .
3.9-34
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 9
The Project includes the installation of four 2000-gallon propane tanks.31 Although the DEIS
mentions that it will comply with 2020 NYS Fire Code and National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 58 as they relate to the liquid propane gas (LPG) tanks proposed for the
Project, it never discusses, or even mentions, Chapter 36 (Marinas) of the New York State
Fire Code , or NFPA 303 (Fire Protection Standard for Marinas and Boatyards). Chapter 7 of
NFPA 303 deals specifically with berthing and storage.
3.9-35
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 9
Even when installed according to code and properly maintained, propane tanks still present
a danger. On rare occasions, propane tank explosions can occur from the pressure of the
propane tank reaching higher than the pressure that the tank can safely vent, causing the
tank to burst open. This can occur if the structure adjacent to the tanks (e.g., the proposed
storage buildings) is on fire. This kind of explosion is called a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor
Explosion (BLEVE). The DEIS should have addressed this possibility and evaluated the
potential impact, and the ability of the Mattituck Fire Department to adequately respond.
3.9-36
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 9 The DEIS makes no mention of how often the propane tanks would require refilling.
3.9-37
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 10
….no consideration is given to the possibility the proposed protection would be adequate to
protect against impact from an 85-ton travelift transporting yachts to and from the
proposed storage buildings.
3.9-38
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 10
According to the DEIS, yacht repair and maintenance activities would occur within the on-
site buildings and/or at the existing dock. Those activities are planned to occur inside the
proposed storage buildings and will include potential ignition sources. Given that stored
yachts will be generally have full fuel tanks, a substantial fire risk will be created.
3.9-39
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety 10 & 11
The DEIS fails to take into account potential fire hazards associated the presence of lithium
batteries on boats and yachts that will be stored in the proposed storage buildings. Lithium-
ion batteries located on yachts in the proposed storage buildings not only present a possible
ignition source, they would create special problems if involved in the fire department’s
response to any fire within the proposed buildings.
3.9-40
Joel Klein 5-15-23 Fire &
Public Safety
The DEIS has failed to address impacts associated with delays in emergency response times
to locations located along the Project truck routes, especially to locations along West Mill
and Cox Neck Roads. The more than 10,000 truck tips generated by the Project during the
six-month-or-more-long excavation phase means that it is likely that at least one Project
haul truck will be travelling on those roads at all times during that period. Research shows
that traffic slows down fire trucks and EMS vehicles arriving at the scene of an emergency,
and increases the average monetary damages from fires.
3.9-41
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 45
HARVEY ARNOFF:
I'd like to just deal with something a little different. I'm not being technical tonight. Let's be
real. What this application is about is sacrificing the good of many for the very, very few.
3.9-42
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 56
PAUL PAWLOSWSKI:
As a North Fork town, don't we wanna support a working waterfront? Especially one that's
been there for many, many years. And hopefully for many more to come. Isn't that the
whole point of most of that inlet? As a working waterfront? Don't we want to support new
jobs?
...
I could see a lot of other things done at that property that would be much more significant
impact environmentally speaking, if Strong's weren't the applicant before us.
...
So I just wanna say, I hope the short term concerns don't outweigh the long term goals of
improving and creating a working waterfront.
3.9-43
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 63
STEVE BAKTIDY:
(Inaudible) was a disaster before the Strong's went in and took it over. Mattituck Inlet
Marine as well was a disaster. Everything -- everything that they touch, they make beautiful.
They make it nice. They make it proper and they bring value to the community. So in no
doubt in my mind that if he does this project. He's gonna make it look beautiful. And he's
gonna bring value to the area and to the property. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.
3.9-44
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 70
KEVIN WINES:
They started with one property. And now I've lost track. Okay. There's a lot. But that
speaks to the longevity of Strong's and the longevity of where this project can lead. And
most importantly, it provides jobs for someone like myself to move back to this area and
raise our children and raise a family where we can afford to live. Affordable Housing is
great, but it means nothing if we don't have a job and a career to sustain that livability.
3.9-45
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 71
PAUL ROMANELLI:
This is a business that is trying to land clear to put up and grow their own business, which
really helps this economy. We -- I don't think anybody realizes how large the marine
economy is out here on all aspects. It's not just rich people with boats. It's smaller people
with boats. They're creating 14 jobs. But that's just 14 jobs from Strong's. Those boat
owners, the people that repair those boats, all live, work out here. Those boat owners will
visit our stores, our restaurants, buy supplies out here. So the economy from that is much
bigger.
...
And I wanna make sure that everybody understands the short term effect of clearing this
land and those trucks will help improve in the long term the Mattituck Inlet and the
businesses that are there, as well as, the businesses that go through here.
3.9-46
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 73
JAMES HINSCH:
I've known this Strong family for over 40 years. They're people of integrity with a
commitment to the North Fork and its maritime history. They're ambitious people. They're
not reckless people.
...
Yacht storage for vessels of this size is currently going on at this facility. This is not a new
use. The Town's own local waterfront plan calls for expanded use at this location. One of
the Strong's concerns about the future of our community is a properly trained workforce.
Jeff has been in communication with our local school districts to encourage students to
consider a career in the marine industry. Many of our youth need to leave Town to seek
employment. This project will result in more better paying jobs in our community. There
will be an increase in revenue for the Town, State and County. In terms of property and
sales tax collected. The project will help ensure that this location remains a working
boatyard. Over the last few years, we've seen many businesses on the North Fork, sell to
large out of town corporations. This is one of our own family owned businesses, who are
not selling to outside interests, but see a need in their industry and want to expand their
capacity to meet that need.
3.9.47
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 78
TERRI BOYLE ROMANELLI:
I am here to ask the Board to support this project and support the businesses and economic
development in our community. And I'm going to read some of the goals from our
Comprehensive Plan that support our economic development. And you will see that this
project with Strong's, supports all of them.
Goal One, encourage new and facilitate the growth of existing business sectors that pursue
stable and sustainable employment. We know that Strong's does that.
Two, promote economic development that ensures an adequate tax base without
compromising the unique character of the Town. We all know that we are an agricultural
and maritime town and we have always been a tourist town. And the tourists that they
bring to this community help our farms and our businesses thrive.
Preserve, encourage and continue to support existing and future maritime uses as an
important business sector within the Town's economy. And they certainly do that. And I'm
asking the Board to show your support for Strong's and show you support for economic
development in our town that will enable us to continue to thrive.
3.9.48
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 88
MS. SHELLY:
This action is nothing more than an act of financial greed, personal gain and lack of regard
for humanity and Mattituck wildlife land and community.
The Strong's should not be allowed to destroy this site on Mattituck Inlet or any other place
on the north or south shore.
3.9.49
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 89
PHIL KARLIN:
And there's twenty some odd -- full-time commercial fishermen, (inaudible) on Strong's to
service our boats, store our boats. And they're at -- we'd have to travel 25-30 miles to get
more. If we break down, we have to get to. So it's very important that this project goes
through.
...
But it's important that for us as commercial fishermen to support our families.
3.9-50 Reed Super 7.10.23 11
[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.
3.9-51
Mary Elizabeth Guyton
7/8/23 1
It is difficult to conceptualize the amount of flammable material that will be added to the
site with this proposed project. Boats are built from flammable fiberglass, lithium batteries
and stored full of gasoline. In addition, heating the facility will use 8,000 gallons of propane.
Of interest, Costco will only sell one small BBQ tank at a time because of its ability to
explode and destroy a home. Is our small Mattituck Volunteer Fire Department and other
neighboring squads equipped to fight this type of fire? Recent Boat storage fires have been
in the news because their size, speed and heat. I encourage the Town Planning Board to
require an independent fire review and an analysis that collaborates with volunteer local fire
departments to assess the true risk, state of current equipment and training of Mattituck
and neighboring fire departments to respond and put out a fire of this magnitude.
3.9-52
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 92
JOHN SINNING:
So indirectly, Strong's, not only are they providing jobs at the marina, they're running a
number of other jobs of commercial fishermen, out of (inaudible) and like other people have
said here, I believe that Strong's will do the right thing with their property.
3.9-53 Reed Super 7.10.23 26
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.
3.9-54 Reed Super 7.10.23 26
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."'
3.9-55
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 94
ERIC SCHIEBLER:
It provides opportunities for so many of us in the industry to extend our season. A very
important amount of money that we don't otherwise see from November to say, you know,
March.
...
Bringing revenue to all of the communities around here and add that number of people from
other places. I mean, from Connecticut, from Rhode Island. The indoor storage is very, very
hard to come by in this area. To have that kind of facility, be able to bring that revenue into
the area, to the restaurants, to the hotels, to the bed and breakfast, all the different facilities
around. It just adds value to the whole entire program.
3.9-56
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 98
STEVE MARESCT:
Marinas are disappearing on the east end, either through being sold to developers or just
you being priced out. Middle class is being priced out and my particular marina was bought
up by some rich person. It went up 220%. Now I'm keeping my boat at Strong's Marina for
the Summer or well, I hope so. Hope that this marina is able to expand, able to maintain
working people to maintain our boats.
3.9-57
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 99
STEVE BOSCOLA:
Yet this proposed project would upend our lives and our neighbors lives for 12 months or
more all day, five days a week. And for what, who really benefits the 15 jobs that were
down to 11, which are now 13? What if they're actually five? What if none? The DEIS
doesn't explain when these people will be hired. Is it after the first building? The second
building? What if no buildings get built and there are no jobs as people on the Board have
asked during some of the work sessions? What will these people do all Summer long when
these boats are gone?
3.9-58
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 101
JAMES KAMINSKY:
Southold Town historically has had a very seasonal economy. In the Summer, there's lots of
work. Lots of jobs. In the Winter, those jobs dry up. People are scrounging to find work in
the Winter. These buildings will do exactly the opposite. It will open up work for the
Winter. All the employees of Strong's that they're going to hire, they will have jobs.
Contractors like myself and others that come in and work there, will have jobs in the Winter.
We can expand. We can hire more people.
3.9-59 Reed Super 7.10.23 34
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."'
3.9-60 Reed Super 7.10.23 35
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
3.9-61 Reed Super 7.10.23 35
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 ("L WRP").....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.
3.9-62 Reed Super 7.10.23 36
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.
3.9-63
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 107
PAUL SILANSKY:
Please be reminded that private property owners have the rights to acquire property.
Exclusively deploy it for any legitimate use and dispose of it as they see fit. Further, be
reminded that owners enjoy the right and freedom to exercise their property rights without
harassment through the 5th and 14th amendments to
the constitution.
3.9-64
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 107
PAUL SILANSKY:
Five years in counting to obtain a building permit is excessive bureaucratic and very costly.
Just in the last two years, inflation has run wild.Driving up the cost of steel and other
building and landscape materials. Inflating the cost of labor and services. And now the
perverse inflation of the cost of credit through rising Fed rates makes it extremely
burdensome to finance any project under Title Six DEC State Environmental Quality Review.
General Rule 617.3, agencies must carry out the terms and requirements of this part with
minimal procedural and administrative delay where feasible for combined and consolidated
pre-proceedings and must expedite all SEQRA proceedings in the interest of a prompt
review. Five years and turning into six and possibly seven cannot be construed as prompt.
3.9-65
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 111
JEFF PUNDYK:
I'd like to add a very real risk of starting this project and not finishing it. Given the threat of
recession, rising interest rates, supply chain issues, instability of banks, volatility of demand
for the service. There's the risk that the project starts, but never gets completed. Virtually
all of our clients, the leading companies in the world are planning for these threats. There's
no mention of any of this in the DEIS. In this scenario, we get all the downsides of the
project and none of the upsides. We're left with a hole in the ground.
3.9-66
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 112
JEFF PUNDYK:
According to the DEIS, we can expect a few benefits. You've heard up to 11 jobs. But DEIS
not specify the nature of these jobs. It's fair to assume that they are seasonal and primarily
low wage. Nor does the DEIS guarantee that these jobs will go to North -- a property tax is
one of the upsides of project. But the project would be eligible for the tax exempt tax
exemption for 10 years. As a result, the estimated increase in property taxes for the first
three years would be about $32,000, and year four would be about $37,000. These
numbers are roughly for three homeowners paying tax. Just putting on my Deloitte hat,
balance sheet for this project is really clear. The risks are outweighed.
3.9-67 Reed Super 7.10.23 47
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.
3.9-68
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 120
RICK GANOU:
The Strong's bought the Mattituck Marina and Shipyard that was once a thriving dealership
for yachts and service yard. And sort of went into decline from previous owner. The
Strong's have refurbished the marina. Their sheds are full. They would like to build more
sheds so they can store more boats there. Mattituck Inlet is the only service yard. The next
one closest is Glen Cove Brewery Yard in Glen Cove. So in between Northport, there are no
real service yards, just boats. So that certainly feels a need for the boating community of
which I am a member and a licensed captain in the last 10 years.
...
Other marina store boats not real close to us. That's why this is a needed project and it's
just to keep their marina competitive with others in the Long Island Sound, New England
area.
3.9-69
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 122
BOB VANBOURORDE:
I'm a big believer in property rights. I know that this project would be First Class. I feel that
it will be an asset to Southold Town and the impact. I think will be a lot less than most
people fear. People have an aversion to change. Nobody ever wants change.
3.9-70
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 127
DOUG COOPER:
I can barely remember it that much of that land up there was farmed and where the
preserve is, that was all farmland, much of it. Things change and that's all that is happening.
Now, I am a strong believer in property rights and if the property is zoned for this, it should
be allowed. Yes, there's gonna be some mitigation and controls on it. That's
understandable. But it should be allowed to continue. The Harbor is the only safe harbor
from Port Jeff or further east or further west around to Greenport on Long Island. It's a
working harbor. It's important for the fishermen. Important for the community. I strongly
urge this project.
3.9-71
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 130
FRANK UTAH:
Like to remind everybody, COVID has changed many things and many aspects of all our daily
lives. Especially due to the influx of many outsiders who have fled congested areas for more
serene way of life. At what expense. And the most unfortunate change COVID has brought
in the absence is the absence of common sense, as this project compared to the other
buildings, land use changes and constant traffic, is by far, comparison to detriment to quality
of life.
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 132
ANNE MURRAY:
According to the DEIS, it appears that in order to accommodate boats of billionaires, the
residents of Southold must accept the loss of a coastal bluff, the loss of a forest of over 600
mature trees in the 5.5 acre area, and the destruction of a wildlife habitat for birds, box
turtles and the endangered northern long eared bat. We must endure months of heavy
traffic with trucks making over 9,000 trips, hauling sand and debris from the site, over our
already crowded roadways, which are sure to damage the roads and pollute our air.
According to a survey recently conducted by the North Fork Civics of Southold, residents
value the preservation of natural habitats, rural character, farms and open space in
Southold. Their two big biggest concerns right now are the cleanliness of the bays and the
sound and overdevelopment. This project goes against everything Southold residents said
they want.
Jeff Pundyk
06/14/23 1
The proposal by Strong's Marine to build a warehouse to store yachts is based on the
premise that there is market demand on the North Fork for such storage, yet there is no
evidence in the DEIS of such demand.
The DEIS says: "The objective of the proposed project is to provide SVC with the ability to
provide indoor, climate-controlled winter storage for larger vessels. Climate-controlled
(heated) space is essential for maintaining electrical systems in the types of vessels to be
stored.
Currently, the larger boats that utilize local waters in the peak season are being transported
to warmer climates in the winter months due to a lack of adequate storage in the Town of
Southold and across Long Island."
Is that correct? The DEi offers no evidence.
Jeff Pundyk
06/14/23 1
The Planning Board should require a true market demand study to be conducted by an
independent consultant. Without it, the DEIS is incomplete.
Hannah Van Manen
06/02/23 1
I am concerned about the destruction of natural habitat as well as flora and fauna including
but not limited to shellfish, seagrass, trees, wetlands, and other natural resources. How will
the Planning Board weigh the public benefit of this project with the need to preserve natural
resources in the midst of climate change, threats to biodiversity, and erratic weather and
flooding that is plaguing the North Fork?
Public Hearing Transcript
May 15, 2023 139
RANDY WADE:
Just today I saw in the paper that Suffolk County has a new bike trails. It's like bike and hike
maps for different towns. And people have talked about how very nice Mr. Strong is, and
how wonderful it is that he's creating jobs, but we don't have the housing for more jobs. But
what we do want to have is tourism. That is not dependent on motor vehicles and driving to
your boat and driving anywhere. And so this kind of looking for places to hike and get there
from the train that could be the future of tourism. And it'll help the downtown -- you know,
economy of the businesses in downtown. So I hope you reject this.
Donna Van Manen
06/08/23 1
I am concerned about the destruction of natural habitat as well as flora and fauna including
but not limited to shellfish, seagrass, trees, wetlands, and other natural resources. How will
the Planning Board weigh the public benefit of this project with the need to preserve natural
resources in the midst of climate change, threats to biodiversity, and erratic weather and
flooding that is plaguing the North Fork?
Annie Correal
06/06/23 1
It appears that there is no community-driven market demand for the proposed storage
facilities, and that a prime area that has been preserved from large development by the
town and enjoyed and cared for by dozens of tax-paying families would be irrevocably
altered for the sake of a single business owner and his out-of-town clientele.
Annie Correal
06/06/23 2
Lack of Evidence of Local Market Demand
•Absence of Market Demand Documentation: The DEIS fails to provide evidence supporting
the market demand for the proposed heated indoor yacht storage facilities. There is no
substantiation of the need for these facilities or their sustainability.
• Non-local Market Focus: The proposal primarily serves a non-local market, with potential
customers described by Jeff Strong, the developer, as affluent boat owners from outside
the area. According to a May 24, 2023 article in The New York Times, "The yacht storage
facility, he said, will offer heated indoor winter storage that fills a gap in the market for
wealthy boaters from Hamptons communities like Sag Harbor and Amagansett, as well as
Westchester County and Connecticut." Earlier, Mr. Strong was quoted in the Suffolk Times
saying Mattituck was primarily intended as a link to his other business holdings on Long
Island: "Upon purchasing this site from the Pape family in 2016, Mr. Strong told the Suffolk
Times Strong's other locations in Southampton and Port Washington will feed customers to
the Mattituck site." This project aims to draw business from outside the area and to connect
Mr. Strong's various investments around Long Island to Mattituck rather than benefiting the
local community.
3.9-80
Annie Correal
06/06/23 2
Overstated Economic Benefits to the Community
•Inflated Job Creation Claims: The economic benefits presented in the DEIS are overstated,
as only 11 new positions are being created. Specific details about these jobs and whether
Strong's Marine will prioritize or train local residents for the positions are lacking.
• Lack of Housing for Employees: The DEIS fails to address the pressing need for housing
for employees, who would put further pressure on the already stretched supply of housing
in the area. Existing members of the maritime industry - running commercial fisheries,
sailboat charters, and working as ferry captains- have children forced to live in basements,
mobile homes or places not zoned for residential use in order to remain in the area
because of the severe lack of affordable housing options. The economic gains of this
project primarily benefit the owner of the firm and do not address the actual needs of the
local maritime industry.
3.9-81 Jeremy Melissa Rosen 1
The DEIS grossly underestimates the unavoidable consequences of this project, particularly
the devastating effect it will have on the property values of homes along Mattituck Creek.
Currently, boat traffic in the creek is seasonal and manageable, consisting mostly of small
and medium-sized vessels. However, the introduction of large luxury yachts, which will
congest the marina twice a year for several weeks, will drastically alter the picturesque
character of the inlet. This excessive influx of boats, which is grossly understated by the
developer, will severely limit the recreational opportunities for kayakers, fishermen, and
swimmers. Furthermore, the project's sole beneficiaries are the developer and his
associates, while it fails to provide the public with increased waterfront access or attract
more tourists to benefit a wider range of local businesses.
3.9-82
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 3
The DEIS asserts this need for additional indoor boat storage in the region, without offering
supporting data. There are a number of boatyards offering winter storage on or near Long
Island Sound, including at Port of Egypt; South Jamesport; Branford, Connecticut, and
various locations on the South Fork; the Strong's Yachts website proclaims "Indoor storage is
available for yachts up to 100 ft. in Strong's Yacht Center's 7 indoor storage buildings."
3.9-83
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 3
Among the questions unaddressed in the DEIS are these:
Approximately how many yachts/customers are anticipated to be existing customers
who currently dock at SYC?
Approximately how many are customers at other Town of Southold facilities owned by
the Applicant?
How many new yacht customers are expected to take advantage of winter storage at
SYC?
How many customers will be from outside Suffolk County or from outside New York
State?
The answers to these questions are relevant to estimating the Project's effect on tax
revenues and the broader environmental impacts of the Project. This information is not
included in the DEIS.
3.9-84
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 4
Nowhere in the DEIS does the Applicant provide or discuss a demonstrated need for the
project. The DEIS states that climate-controlled (heated) space is essential for maintaining
electrical systems in the types of vessels to be stored. This is not the opinion of the
manufacturers of the boats and yachts sold by Strong's Marine. Section 1.3.1 of the DEIS
(Objectives of the Proposed Project) states that "[c]limate-controlled (heated) space is
essential for maintaining electrical systems in the types of vessels to be stored." (pp. ii, 14).
This is both misleading and inaccurate. Not only is heated indoor storage unnecessary, but
indoor storage in general is unnecessary to maintain a vessel's electrical system, or even the
vessel in its entirety.
3.9-85
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 5
The DEIS does not provide data to show that revenue from the Project is necessary to
subsidize
the Strong's Yacht Center operation. Strong's is not making a hardship claim. Ryan Strong, in
the March 9, 2020 Planning Board meeting, said his family is "selling boats and yachts 19 to
133
feet and continue[s] to have a good business."
3.9-86
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 5
Nowhere in the DEIS does the Applicant provide or discuss a demonstrated need for the
Project.
3.9-87 Petrina Engelke 7/9/23 1
Please do the numbers for the project's projected tax income for Southold through sales and
property taxes, which is listed as a "public benefit" in the DEIS. Sales tax currently is at
8.63%, and after state and county got their share, Mattituck receives 0.38%. For this project,
let's assume 20,000 dollars of sales per yacht for storage and services. That comes down to
76 dollars per yacht. If an amount like that counts as public benefit, we are in big trouble.
3.9-88
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 8
The DEIS states that "the proposed action is expected to increase tax revenue to the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, and the State of New York ... Based on an average cost of $20,000
per boat for service and storage annually, and an expected 88 yachts to be stored on site, the
approximately $1,760,000 would generate an additional $151,800 annually in sales tax.
Additional sales tax would also be generated by the expected increase in yacht sales by SYC.
This projected increase in sales tax from boat sales is $322,575" {DEIS p. 15). It is unclear how
state and county sales tax revenues would "benefit the Town's economy" as the Town of
Southold will receive no direct benefit from these sales tax revenues.
3.9-89
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 9
This information is inconsistent with information included in DEIS Appendix E (Marina
Economic
Impact Analysis and Tax Revenue Projections). Appendix E includes copies of data input by
the
Applicant into the Marina Economic Impact Calculator (MEIC). According to these data, in
2024
combined total service and storage revenues would increase over 2020 figures by
$1,033,904 -
not $1,760,000. The DEIS has proportionally overstated the amount of sales tax revenues
generated from these activities.
3.9-90
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 9
The DEIS repeatedly states that "[a]additional sales tax would be generated by the
expected yacht sales by SVC." This claim is unsubstantiated. The DEIS does not state how
the addition of two storage sheds will increase yacht sales. In fact, the DEIS states "two new
buildings (52,500 SF and 49,000 SF) will be for the sole purpose of indoor, heated storage for
larger vessels (i.e., yachts)" and does not mention anything about displaying boats for sale, or
marketing boats for sale, while stored inside these warehouses.
3.9-91
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 9
The DEIS also fails to provide the number of boats sold each year and instead only provides a
dollar figure of SYC revenue from Boat Sales of "$16,000,000" (DEIS Table 48, p. 278). This is
very misleading to the average reader of the DEIS who might assume that $16,000,000 of
boat
sales at the local sales tax rate of 8.625% would generate $1,380,000 in sales tax. It would
not.
Boat sales in New York State are taxable only up to the sale price of $230,000 per boat -
any amount in excess of $230,000 is exempt from New York State sales tax.
3.9-92
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 10
The Applicant has continually misrepresented to the public the number of jobs that
the Project would create. A fact sheet widely circulated by the Applicant, and posted on
his web site until April 23, 2023, states that the Project will create "at least 15 new full- time,
year-round career opportunities for local residents." ( Italics added.)
In a statement made at the April 15, 2023 meeting of the South old- Peconic
Civic Association, the Applicant again stated that the Project would create 15 jobs.
Contrariwise, the DEIS claims "an additional 11 full-time positions are expected to be
created." [ italics added] On April 23, 2023 the Applicant revised his web site to indicate the
Project would create only 11 jobs. The DEIS nowhere stipulates the jobs would be
year-round," and there is reason to doubt it. Even assuming there would be enough
repair and maintenance work on the boats in storage to employ 11 full-time workers,
the buildings are expected to be empty during the boating season, almost half the
year.
3.9-93 Christine Rendel 7/9/23 2
The warehouses will be heated by a total of 8,000 gallons of propane, in addition to the
hundreds of gallons of fuel each of the 88 yachts will hold in the buildings. How can we even
consider this is safe? A fire would be a disaster. And with the proximity of the Preserve and
ancient beech forest and the increasing temperatures and across-state increase in forest
fires, this project seems to me even more reckless. If there were an explosion or big fire, the
only fire truck and heavy equipment access to the site is West Mill Road. There is no
significant reliable access via narrow North Drive.
3.9-94
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 81
HAZEL KAHAN:
Instead, the DEIS demonstrates that the negative consequences associated with the project
far outweigh the benefits of heated indoor storage space for a handful of wealthy yacht
owners from outside our area. The 11 perhaps seasonal jobs which may or may not go to
Southold residents, and the relatively small increase the Town will receive in property tax
revenue. You've heard from other speakers that the project will excavate an entire hillside,
destroying more than 600 mature trees. Creating a vast eyesore visible to boaters and to
residents on both sides of the inlet and imperiling the Town's treasure. One of the Town's
treasures, a publicly owned Mill Road Preserve. The physical and moral and -- the physical
and mental well-being of new -- of near nearby residents will be subjected for the best part
of a year to intolerable levels of traffic noise, air pollution and vibrations from all the things
that have already been discussed. And along roads, small roads that have been shared with
bicyclists, joggers, schools, school buses and visitors to break water and a route that will
continue along Sound Avenue, Northville Turnpike and Oak Country Road, past popular
farms stands, wineries and historical sites and attractions.
...
The project fails to demonstrate any overriding public benefit or show compliance with
Souhtold's LWRP or Comprehensive Plan.
3.9-95
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 90
CHRIS TALBOT:
You know, about a dozen years ago, the Town Board implemented a Economic Development
Committee. And what it looked at was the environment of our businesses around town.
And we looked at the entire town. And you know, large providers of jobs is Peconic Landing,
East End Long Island Hospital. And then you got the taxpayer funded schools, but Strong's
Marine, I think would probably be in the 200 range. And I think that that's a huge thing. You
don't have people transmitting or transporting to Mattituck and other locations from great
3.9-96
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 94
RON JOHNSON:
So if you have a $10 million boat, you're gonna spend, you know, a million dollars a year
maintaining that boat. Captain, blah, blah, all of this stuff. Fuel. Jeff doesn't get all of it, but
he pays the taxes for what he gets. So I think you're benefiting in taxes if nothing else.
3.9-97
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 94
JAN NICHOLSON:
Financial markets, the economy, our bodies, society, living cooperative, flora and fauna and
a rainforest, and a coastline drank -- graced by an embankment of forest, tides and winds. In
essence, all of these are interdependencies that evolved with time. We don't necessarily
see the interconnections within them. Until one element dies or we destroy it.
...
My point is you just sometimes don't imagine what the connections are. The proposal at
hand, gouging out a bluff is a brutal thing to do. We cannot know what all the effects might
be. The DEIS is an attempt to assess them, but we can't be sure that its judgments are all
going to be correct. We can't be sure that it's going to intuit every connection. So for what
would we be taking the risk of a misjudgment or some connection would
be overlooked. We are taking that risk to accommodate one already thriving local business
to serve some hyper wealthy people who don't necessarily live here. I think when you just
look at the big picture from 30,000 feet up, we know two things for sure. That the proposal
is brutal, and that the benefits, the social and economic benefits, if you listen to them, are
trivial.
3.9-98
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 97
JOEL CORSO:
It's a small little section we're looking at. What 6.5 acres? As far as trees being taken down,
it's a small number again. It's only what, something 600 trees out of 2400 that are still
there. And when you look at what -- how nature regenerates itself very quickly. I've always
said that, you know, when men don't exist on this planet anymore, nature is gonna take over
within a few years.
...
I look over at the marina -- marinas, Sag Harbor Marinas. And, you know, there are boats
coming in there that dock overnight. And they're coming from the South Fork because it's a
lot cheaper to do business on the North Fork. Now we should be getting some of that
economic benefit. You know, the town is going to get a tax, you know, a tax increase there.
And, you know, one of the thing, you know, it's zoned. You know, we've heard this over and
over. That this is property that is zoned and it's still again, a very relatively small piece.
...
You really didn't, you know, feel the effect of all of these trucks coming in and out. It's -- I
don't know. I just -- I just think the project has been demonized. I give Strong's a pat on the
back for the amount of work they put into this project. To try and address all of these
issues. You know, they're -- - they're not here to, you know, destroy the North Fork.
They've only enhanced it. In all of their projects.
3.9-99
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 104
TOM SCALIA:
The economic development portion of the DS that I read, it states that -- it shows the payroll
for the Strong's. It shows how much money they pay in taxes, commercial tax base. The
Southold economy is extremely important. The economy of the Southold Town is extremely
important. When I look at the Community Preservation Fund, that's -- that's the balance
between purchase of a new, real property and that's loads money over to community
preservation of the environment. I did a little investigation. I looked at all the Strong's
properties that they've purchased over the years to expand their business. I come to -- if
my calculations are correct, they've commuted over $300,000 into the Community
Preservation Fund for years in Southold Town, including Southampton Town and East
Hampton. If the Mill Pond Preserve was purchased for $461,000, according to my
calculations, the Strong's have single handedly paid for 65% of it in their purchases and
expansion of the business. I ask that -- as Joe said a few minutes ago, this project has been
demonized.
3.9-100
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 104
TOM SCALIA:
The impacts of the environment is gonna be there, but I don't think it's as significant as what
they're being made out to be. The jobs that are gonna be created by this project, they're
talking about 11 to 12 jobs that are gonna be created. That's not insignificant for all the kids
who are graduating from the local high schools and looking to stay in the area. Work in their
hometown and live here. I can tell you that first hand, because my son works for Strong's.
He's worked for six summers for Strong's. He was headed out of town after he graduated
college. He was headed out to Colorado to find a job in a different field. And Jeff Strong
offered him a job, a well paying job, salaried position with benefits, and he can stay in his
hometown. His mother is thrilled. His girlfriend is thrilled and his father is thrilled that he's
staying here. Don't underestimate the economic advantage to growing businesses in
Southold Town.
3.9-101
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 106
LORI PANARELLO:
We talk about the fact that there really isn't a threat to the fire. 8,000 gallons of propane
and at least 100 gallons of gasoline and 88 boats, they can put that fire out? I don't want to
live there to see that happen. If they can put it out, I hope I'm not there to see it.
3.9-102
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 109
BRANDON STILL:
I just want to speak on the opportunity that Strong has given to me with them. The job that
they gave to me. I was able to bring my daughter here. Raised -- I raised her from four years
old. Graduated high school. She works at the Animal Shelter right down the road. And I
support the project. 11 jobs that it's gonna create. If they can help 11 people like they
helped me, then I support it.
3.9-103 John Rsaweiller 7/6/23 1
As this is not a rare or minor problem, I must again question whether the "fire suppression
system" proposed for Strong's warehouses or our local fire departments would be up to the
challenge of fighting such fires.
3.9-104
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 110
JAMES HINSCH:
Secondly, I think we need to be reminded of the financial benefits. Several commercial
fishermen spoke at the last meeting about the value of access to services on the inlet.
Specifically mentioned the services that are provided at the Yacht Center. This project will
result in the addition of year round well paying jobs. Considering that most of the jobs that
are added to our Town are generally in the hospitality industry. Frequently seasonal, part-
time and usually don't pay well. We should not discount the economic value.
3.9-105
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 112
DAVID BOFILL:
...has anybody realized the huge opportunity to collect millions of out-of-state sales tax
dollars? The sales tax dollars that our state would not typically see to collect. Bonus
revenue that will find its way to our local municipality for police, for our roads, our schools,
our teachers. Again tax free revenue that would not have ordinarily been received. In
closing, should this application be denied? I see the declination as prejudice against the
marine industry and the local small business. It is the right of a Strong Family to develop the
property that they own, that they pay the taxes on, in the manner that conforms with the
framework of our present, in-place zoning codes and with the present support of the LWRP
and the agencies.
3.9-106 Defend H2O 7/6/23 2
, the addition of 88 large scale vessels in a waterbody with increasingly limited boating space
is a threat to water quality. Moreover, it's misleading to categorize the addition of 88 vessels
as having a negligible impact.
Eighty eight vessels is a significant increase (>25%) in the number of boats utilizing Mattituck
Creek and will very likely result in the degradation of water quality. Increased turbidity, fuel
spills and illegal sewage discharges are the likely consequences of the expanded marina
activity.
3.9-107 Defend H2O 7/6/23 2
the significant jump in numbers could create a scenario where there is no longer compliance
with NDZ sewage management standards. The federal vessel sewage No-Discharge Zone
designation is based on an adequate number of pumpout facilities for the estimated boating
activity {b.ttpsj.lwww,go\liofo,go\l/contentlpkg/FA-2011-Q9-08/pdft
.2U.ll::22J l.JJJQ.t1i:p..ag.e.:=1J A thorough review of boating activity and NDZ compliance is
warranted. Regulations aside, water quality will be degraded without an adequate number
of pumpout facilities servicing Mattituck Creek .
3.9-108 Defend H2O 7/6/23 2
The DEIS purported benefit of increased groundwater recharge is a false proposition. Soil
depth to groundwater is fundamental to biological treatment and recharge. Separation,
separation and separation. Groundwater from runoff (toxic chemicals) groundwater from
sewage releases and separation from marine waters.
Optimum conditions for the protection of the groundwater resources.
The notion that multi-acre deforestation and excavation of an estimated 134,000 cubic
yards of a glacial deposit is a positive action for groundwater recharge and the environment
is patently false.
3.9-109
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 116
JAMES AIOLI:
I am one of the people that is looking forward to this project. I do. I take my boats south
every year. I spend 4,000 gallons of fuel just to get it to Florida. Because I don't have a place
here to store it in the wintertime. We talked about the amount of fuel that you need to put
in a boat, but we don't need that. It's a heated indoor storage. I don't have to fill my boat. I
don't have the condensation problem because it's heated indoor storage.
3.9-110
Phillip Van Manen
06/02/23 1
I am concerned about the destruction of natural habitat as well as flora and fauna including
but not limited to shellfish, seagrass, trees, wetlands, and other natural resources. How will
the Planning Board weigh the public benefit of this project with the need to preserve natural
resources in the midst of climate change, threats to biodiversity, and erratic weather and
flooding that is plaguing the North Fork?
3.9-111
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 127
JOHN MARA:
Second, stewardship. My question was, will the owners represent the Mattituck community
or will they cater to the needs of the yacht owners? Well, I have a little bit of experience.
For the past 2 to 3 years, I've been writing e-mails perhaps 10, to the president of the
Mattituck-Laurel Civic Organization. Noise from rock bands as late as 10:00 P.M.,
emanating from the marina, I can hear the words and lyrics to the songs in my house with all
the doors and windows closed. I can hear the words from Jeremiah was a Bullfrog.
Everything over and over and over again, at 10:00 P.M., and the next day is a workday. To
these e-mails, I've received zero. Zero response. And I can only conclude from that, that the
entertainment needs of out-of-state visitors is put ahead of the comfort of local residents.
3.9-112
Josh Brand
05/18/23 1
It was said the project will provide 11 jobs.
Jobs are good and impactful, but these jobs are seasonal.
What will those 11 people do once the boats are in the water?
3.9-113
Jeff Pundyk
05/15/23 1 The risks of this project are well documented - and the DEIS does little to mitigate them.
3.9-114
Jeff Pundyk
05/15/23 1
In addition to the concerns about the environment, the impact on Mill Road Preserve, truck
traffic during the construction period, fire safety, the degradation to community character,
I'd like to add the very real risk of starting and not finishing the project. Given the threat of
recession, rising interest rates, supply chain issues, the instability of banks, volatility of
demand for the service, there's the risk that the project starts but never gets completed.
Virtually all of our clients - the leading companies across the world - are planning for these
threats. None are addressed in the DEIS.
3.9-115
Jeff Pundyk
05/15/23 44928
So, what's in it for the community, us investors?
According to the DEIS we can expect a few benefits:
• Up to 11 jobs - the DEIS does not specify the nature of these jobs, but it's fair to
assume that they are seasonal and primarily low-wage. Nor does the DEIS guarantee
that these jobs would go to North Fork residents.
• Sales tax - there is no direct benefit to Southold from state sales tax
• Property taxes -- the project would be eligible for a 485-b Business Investment
Exemption for ten years. As a result, the estimated increase in property taxes for the
first 3 years would be $32,234, Year 4 would be $37,677. These numbers are roughly
what 3 homeowners pay in property taxes.
The balance sheet for this project is clear; the risks far outweigh the rewards.
3.9-116
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 132
THERESA DILWORTH:
I focused on Pages 278 and 282 of the DEIS, Tables 48 and 51 and the sales tax projections.
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think the Strong's are going to make money, but rather
will lose about a half a million dollars a year for 20 years. Some of my observations are,
Number One, Strong's main business is buying and selling new and preowned boats. About
85% of the
business. In 2020, the Strong's made $16 million from boat sales out of a total of $17.3
million. In 2024, they project $18.7 million in boat sales out of a total of $21.4 million. Their
other lines of business are small service merchandise sales, fuel sales and boat storage. Boat
storage is only 3% of their business. Even assuming they get to the full 88 super yachts,
which could
take years, this new line of business will only result in a 1.9% increase in revenues. It can't be
said that the Strong Yacht Center needs this new market to survive.
...
The Strong's need to bring down the cost of their project tremendously in order to be
financially feasible. I suggest Alternative Six, where they raise the roof height of their two
existing steel sheds and perhaps also slightly increase their length and their width. They
appear to have some room to expand on all four sides of their existing two buildings.
3.9-117
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 136
JIM GROENEVELD (CFO of Strong's Marine speaking on behalf of ALFRED W. COOK):
Repainted sheds are attractive from the water and shows that the marina is well
maintained. By purchasing a new boat lift and replacing the bulkhead, Strong's is keeping
the inlet safe. They provide quality service and dockage. There is very limited MII
waterfront property for accommodating the boating industry on the North Shore. Mattituck
Inlet is the only harbor for 50 miles on the North Shore between Port Jefferson and Orient.
The trend seems to be that people are purchasing larger vessels that need special
accommodations. Strong's storage project is a necessity for the North Shore boaters, as well
as, the East End boaters. Strong's improvements have been responsible and their
workmanship, dependable. Strong's Marine Storage building project would be another asset
to Mattituck Inlet. I fully support the project encourage Southold Town Planning Board to
approve the project.
3.9-118
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 138
GREG WILLIAMS:
In Southold Town, which is roughly 33,350 acres, Marine MII, we have 111 acres of that in
town. It's not even a percent. That needs to be built out to create jobs and strengthen our
economy. So people can stay here and work and make a living. In Southold Town, if you
combine the commercial and industrial properties, it's 2.4% of the acreage. Of that 33,000
acres, Southold Town has done a great job. We preserved over 11,000 acres to stop, you
know, preserve open space. Keep farms working. With every project and every growth,
there's growing pains. And this is going to be a strain on the community. I acknowledge
that.
...
This will create jobs. This will also bring more business to our business community. The
applicant bought the property with MII zoning and property rights, and those rights should
be honored.
3.9-119
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 140
JERRY ADLER:
I would urge every members of the Board to look carefully at the DEIS, which refers to 11
full-time jobs, but does not anywhere specify that they will be year round jobs. And ask
yourselves whether a facility that will be empty for half the year is going to provide full-time
jobs for -- full-time career jobs for 11 residents.
3.9-120
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 141
JOHN COSTELLO:
We need in Southold Town, waterfront jobs. We need those jobs. They're being taken by
condominiums and multi-cars and people. And that -- that's -- that is contrary to the plans
that were here originally in Southold.
3.9-121 Jim Blackley 05/11/23 1
Full disclosure: I owned (happily past tense) a fairly sizable boat and kept it at Strongs
Mattituck for indoor storage.
I understand demand for indoor storage likely exceeds capacity.
That said, I'll also note that many of the boats stored with mine were south-shore/Montauk
or Connecticut based
vessels. Point being that they are not part of the North Fork community - merely transient
storage. Which is good for
Strong and family I guess, but doesn't do much for the rest of us.
3.9-122
Terese Brady-Mendez
05/12/13 3
It is clear there will be negative social impacts on our community for the reasons stated
above.
Economically, there seems to be no positive outcomes aside from the possible increase in
taxes that
Strong's would be required to pay. The DEIS states:
"Based on the Southold Assessor the proposed action would increase property taxes by
approximately
$59,450 based on the 2020-21 tax rate. Sales tax revenue is also projected to increase by
approximately
$151,800 annually from the storage and boat repair, maintenance and/or upgrade services
performed by Strong's staff. Additional sales tax of approximately $322,575 is projected to
be generated by increased yacht sales by Strong Yacht Club."
Thus, Strong's taxes will increase by $533,825 (based on 2020-21 rates). Is it a responsible
position for
Southold Town's Planning Board to approve this project due solely to an increase in tax
revenue, despite its being contrary to the crucial needs and historic culture of our Mattituck
community?
3.9-123 John McLane 05/11/23 1
The proposed project of storing large yachts is a service that addresses the needs of
residents outside of Southold. In public forums Mr. Strong has stated the yachts would
likely be owned by residents of towns and communities further west of Southold Town
and the North Fork in general. So as I look at the proposal, while it admittedly benefits
the property owner, the business operation does not address a business or economic or
housing need within the Southold community it impacts.
3.9-124
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 152
STEPHANIE VILLANI:
This is about allowing a business owner to improve his property to better service customers.
And Strong Marine provides services that we need.
They do not only serve yacht owners. They serve the commercial fishermen, recreational
fishermen, boaters who live here and boaters from out of state.
They support the clam boats that are -- work with Cornell's Receding Project as well. Marine
businesses are an important part of the North Fork and the Town
needs to support a working waterfront.
3.9-125 John Rasweiler 6/29/23 1
I question if such systems or our local fire departments will be capable of containing interior
fires caused by battery system failures?
3.9-126
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 157
DOUG COOPER:
It's gonna provide jobs and some good paying jobs. It's going to increase our tax base. And
jobs and tax base is what we need in this Town. We don't have enough commercial
businesses to help pay the taxes. And they pay most of the taxes.
3.9-127
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 160
MEMBER AMELIA JEALOUS-DANK:
So of the 11 new employees that you have during the six months or seven months that you'll
be moving boats in and out, that seems fairly reasonable that they'll have full-time
employment. What happens the rest of the year? What will they be doing?
3.9-128 Boscola 6/20/23 6 & 7
The DEIS claims the project is "expected to generate approximately 11 new full-time jobs for
servicing of the boats in storage" but does not specify further. It provides no basis for the
claim that they expect these jobs will go to local residents. This is the key public benefit and
needs to be elaborated much further. a. In his February 27, 2020 letter to the community,
the developer stated the project would hold "50 additional yachts per building" and "at least
fifteen new full-time career jobs". But, after reducing the number of boats proposed for
storage by 12% to 88, the headcount was disproportionately reduced by 27% to 11. The DEIS
should discuss if these 11 jobs will be filled immediately or if gradually assuming the
buildings are occupied over time.
b. Lastly, as was a direct request from the Planning Board, there is no mention of what
these employees' jobs will entail once the boats have left for the summer and the sheds are
empty. Perhaps they are laid off. Though a vague description was given at the June 5, 2023
Public Hearing, detailed job specs should be provided.
3.9-129 Boscola 6/20/23 7
The DEIS states the project "is also expected to increase tax revenue to the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, and the State of New York. " The projected figures are based on
market assumptions rather than the developer's own financials so it is difficult to assess the
accuracy.
a. The DEIS claims that each of the 88 boats will spend roughly $20,000 each, resulting in
NYS Sales Tax revenue of $151,800 annually. This claim is exaggerated and unsubstantiated
as this assumes all 88 boats will be coming from out of state. Any boat that is already from
within New York State (NYS) and attracted to this storage facility will be largely a net zero to
the NYS Sales Tax base, except for incremental spending, if any.
1. Important to note that if the developer cannot fill these sheds, he could be
encouraged to offer substantial discounts to boat owners in exchange for their storage
contract (think heated storage for the same price as non-heated or even outside storage).
Therefore, spending could be even less.
b. The DEIS is projecting additional boat sales generating $322,575 but does not disclose
how that is determined. It also fails to disclose that the NYS Sales Tax cap on boats is
$230,000 of the purchase price ( or $19,837 in tax revenue). This estimates that 16
additional high dollar value boats will be sold but is unclear how having heated indoor
storage directly translates to more sales, or what sales are even attributed to this location.
3.9-130
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 178
ANNIE CORREAL:
Strong's Marine states in the DEIS that the yacht storage facilities will improve the local
economy by creating jobs, but the DEIS provides no specific information about the character
of and qualifications for these jobs. The revised DEIS indicates that 11 new jobs will be
generated. Some of them connected to expanding a parking lot. There's no explanation of
what sorts of jobs will be connected to the expansion of a parking lot to 57 stalls. There's no
documentation in the DEIS of whether these jobs require special skills and training. Whether
these jobs will be offered to local residents first, and whether such training will be offered
to local residents. Likewise, there's no written documentation.
3.9-131
Public Hearing Transcript
June 5, 2023 181
MICHAEL LEVITT:
You know, we do look at the heated storage is a driver of business, which allows us to
operate effectively in Mattituck through the Winter, which is something we don't do in the
colder sheds, worker safety, shorter days, temperature-wise. Also damage to the boats. We
can't really drill and work in fiberglass in those temperatures without creating spider cracks,
and gel coat and other damage to the vessels. So we have to wait for warmer weather,
which causes a bit of a springtime rush, where it allows us not to take work we would take
on when the vessels are moved to Florida. Driving those dollars off of Long Island. Really
the additional heated working areas in Mattituck brings us the ability to work throughout
the Winter, service those clients and service our existing clients in a better way. So we look
at adding this kind of facility to Long Island, especially in the North Fork,
as a major addition to the economy.
3.9-132 Jo-Ann Lechner 05/04/23 1
please take into account the long-term effects, its negative impact on the community and
our waterways with no discernible benefit to the people who have lived in this town for
many years and paid taxes.
3.9-133
Joyce Beckenstein
05/04/23 1
What guarantees do we have that the intrusions of commercial warehouses on our bucolic
rural landscape
will not significantly impact the value of our homes?
3.9-134
Joyce Beckenstein
05/04/23 2
What guarantees that Strong's will compensate taxpayers for the cost of maintaining roads,
additional police
oversight to regulate traffic etc.?
3.9-135
Joyce Beckenstein
05/04/23 2
As I understand it, Strong's
expected clientele is mostly comprised of non- Southold Town residents. I don't believe any
reasonable person
believes that this commercial facility will benefit anyone in our environment besides the
Strong family.
3.9-136 Toni Bryan 04/18/23 1
This indoor storage is preferable per Mr.Strong to in- water winter storage. This is what is
cited as "industry demand". This "industry demand" is driving motivation for the project.
Sixty to 80 foot yachts might be used on the Long Island Sound but they may also be used
elsewhere some distance away in other waters. They would return, however, to Mattituck
Inlet, by water, as they are too large to be moved over land and subsequently hauled and
stored in the planned buildings. Does this constitute the expansion of waterfront activities
and the access of recreational opportunities as one goal of the Comprehensive plan?- page
xxii If so, it serves only a niche group.
3.9-137 Toni Bryan 04/18/23 44928
THAT even the positive economic benefits claimed in the proposal are questionable as the
language is marked by non concrete terms such as "approximately 17 full time staff", an
additional 11 are "expected" and the salary range of $50,000- $125,000 "could be
expected". Is that salary range for a part time employee (working in the proposed sheds)
realistic? THAT the benefit of extending the Suffolk County Water Main from Naugles Drive
is also questionable. Appendix K is out of date and difficult to understand as to how many
households might be eligible to hook up. The cost of doing so is substantial to the
homeowner.
3.9-138 Boscola 6/20/23 11
The DEIS often states "the proposed plan was submitted to the Mattituck Fire Department
("MFD '') and no potential service issues were identified." This inconsistently repeated
statement in the DEIS is not true according to Appendix P where the now ex-Chief of MFD
("Chief') qualified his statement noting the additional fire hydrant needed.
3.9-139 Boscola 6/20/23 11
The DEIS states "the Fire Marshal recommended a 150-foot Fire Department access area
from all exterior walls of the two proposed buildings, and a fire safety plan. However, the
Mattituck Fire Department's correspondence (explained above) was accepted by the Fire
Marshal as adequate for not providing the recommended access area" - where did it say this
in the Chiefs letter which was written about one month .after. the Fire Marshal's letter?
Where is the acceptance by the Fire Marshal evidenced?
3.9-140 Boscola 6/20/23 11
The DEIS inconsistently refers to the temporary haul road as also a permanent road for fire
access. This dubious haul road is mentioned in the letter to the Chief, but it is not shown on
the plans in Appendix P. It is not clear if the Chief was able to determine if the haul road
could even serve as a viable fire access route. This needs to be vetted extensively as the
developer is touting this as part of his fire safety mitigation.
3.9-141 Boscola 6/20/23 11
The plans shown to the Chief in Appendix P do not show the specific construction plans and
elevations of the buildings. Can the MFD reach the top of the buildings? Do they have the
equipment to cut a hole in the roof to fight the fire?
3.9-142 Boscola 6/20/23 11
The DEIS does not mention fire suppression at all. Only Appendix P notes its existence but
does not give specifics on the fire suppression system to be used in the buildings. This needs
to be evaluated in detail as different types of sprinklers can have different firefighting
effects, particularly when it comes to timing and placement.
3.9-143 Boscola 6/20/23 11
The four 2000-gallon propane tanks proposed, even when installed according to code and
properly maintained, present a danger. During a fire event a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor
Explosion (BLEVE) is possible. The DEIS should have addressed this possibility and evaluated
the potential impact.
3.9-144 Boscola 6/20/23 11
The DEIS ignores the quantity of fuel stored in the anticipated 88 boats and should evaluate
how many gallons an average 60' boat holds. Marinas typically encourage boats to top off
their fuel tanks to prevent moisture from accumulating in the fuel so the evaluation should
assume the majority of boats will have full fuel tanks. It should also discuss how many
gasoline vs diesel powered boats are expected to be stored as they have different
combustion impacts in a fire.
3.9-145 Boscola 6/20/23 11
The DEIS repeatedly states that "the proposed action would not require SYC to modify the
total volume to be stored as the current volume of chemicals is sufficient to service the
yachts to be stored in Buildings 9 and 10. " It is unclear how the addition of 88 60' yachts
would not require an increase in chemicals (many of which are flammable and therefore are
fire accelerants).a. Boats typically have their engine oil changed each season. The marina
currently stores 160 gallons of engine oil on site per Table 13 in the DEIS. Adding 88 more
vessels, each with two engines, would require a significant amount of engine oil. If not, then
perhaps the marina is currently storing too much volume of chemicals/hazardous materials
relative to the number of boats on site - the math does not add up and needs to be
reevaluated, not just for fire risk.
3.9-146 Boscola 6/20/23 12
The Chiefs letter should be considered stale at this point as it is nearly two years old.
Apparatus and number of firefighters at MFD could be different than two years ago. The
current Chief and the members of the department should be given an opportunity to review
the full plans, not just what the consultants wanted them to see, and then opine.
Neighboring departments should also be given a chance to review the plans and confer with
MFD as other departments could be called upon for mutual aid assistance during a large-
scale fire.
Chapter 3.10 Construction
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
3.10-1 Reed Super 7.1023 52
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.
3.10-2 Joel Klein 6/28/23 2
...It is clear from this data that the DEIS has significantly underestimated the number of truck
loads/truck trips that will be required to remove excavated sand from the Project site. The data also
suggests that the maximum amount of sand that can be expected to be removed in any one truck load
is even less than the 24-25 CY indicated in my original comments, possibly because each truck will not
be loaded to its absolute maximum theoretical capacity. The "back of an envelope" calculations
apparently used to calculate the number of haul truck trips noted in the DEIS is another example of the
carelessness with which the DEIS was prepared.
3.10-3 Joel Klein 6/28/23 2
I would also note that, in stark contrast to the DEIS, Mr. Testa is careful to distinguish between truck
loads (26,000) and truck trips (52,000): "we loaded and removed over 26,000 truck loads which equals
52,000 truck trips." The DEIS repeatedly equates "total trips" with truck loads, resulting in perception
that the number of truck trips is half what it will actually be.
3.10-4 Joel Klein 6/28/23 4
...None of these provisions has been incorporated in the Strong' Yacht Storage Project as described in
the DEIS. The DEIS does mention that there will be an on-site safety supervisor present during all
phases of the Project (pp. xxx, xxxi, 18, 19,212,213 287). However, the duties and responsibilities of this
individual are not described in any detail, but seem to be very limited. The DEIS states that "After
installation of the haul road, a temporary guard booth (5-foot by 5-foot) would be placed proximate to
the ingress/egress. Its purpose would be to house a staff member responsible for directing incoming
trucks, employees, and inspection of exiting trucks to ensure all loads are covered. Should the
pandemic still be a concern, the staff member would direct drivers and employees of proper site safety
protocols" (DEIS p.286, also pp. xxx, 19, 286). The DEIS also states: "Upon entry into the property, a
security booth would be located on the east side of the temporary haul road to house a site manager
responsible for directing trucks to the Construction Excavation Area, inspecting exiting vehicles, and
enforcing safety protocols" (p. 288, 289, 291, 334 ). It is unclear from these statements if the "on-site
safety manager," the "staff member," and site manager are the same individual, but the context
suggests that they are. The defined responsibility of this individual seems to consist only of ensuring
that out-going loads are covered, and if the pandemic is still a concern, advising employees of proper
site safety protocols.
3.10-5
Public Hearing
Transcript
June 5, 2023 162
MEMBER AMELIA JEALOUS-DANK:
Final question. You are proposing
to construct both buildings at the same
time? Not a phased construction?
Chapter 3.11 Archeology
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
3.11-1
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)1 & 2
The Phase 1A and Phase 1B reports for the Project are considered here together. This is because a
significant amount of information which should have been incorporated into the Phase 1A survey is,
instead, included in the Phase 1B report. This information, which is significant, was apparently not
3.11-2
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)2
The Phase 1B report notes that the DEIS scope for the Project calls for the archeological sensitivity of the
“direct impact areas within the Project Site” to be evaluated. The qualifier “direct” does not appear in the
DEIS scope. While it is true that Phase 1B investigations are generally confined to “direct” impact areas,
possible misinterpretations of both environmental data and land use history, discussed below, resulted in
portions of the “direct impact area” being inappropriately excluded from investigation during the initial
Phase 1B investigations.
3.11-3
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)2 & 3
The Phase 1A report presents both historic map and aerial photo evidence to support a conclusion that a
small, and since filled, inlet to Mattituck Creek, existed into, the Project’s Construction Excavation Area
(CEA). The report notes that this corresponds to the current location of existing marina Bldg. 8. The report
concludes that the fill was “gradually” placed between 1962 and 1978. This is incorrect. A 1957 surveyor’s
map of the property identifies a roughly 200 ft x 600 ft area corresponding to the location of the former
inlet as “Sand Filled”. Anecdotal information from local residents suggests that the former inlet area was
filled by a previous owner—not the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Additionally, both the 1957 survey
(COMMENT FIGURE ARCHEOLOGY-1), and a 1931 survey (COMMENT FIGURE ARCHEOLOGY-2) suggest that
the “inlet”
(labeled as “Basin”) extended considerably farther west into the CEA, well beyond the area occupied by
Bldg. 8. southeast of, and possibly intruding slightly
3.11-4
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)3 & 4
The report author notes that she observed spoil piles along the east side of the CEA, and goes on to say
that “[T]he origin of the spoil is unknown but historic documents indicate that dredge spoil has been
deposited on the floodplain and in valley locations particularly on the west side of Mattituck Creek by the
US Army Corps of Engineers (Morgan et al. 2005, Friends 1986)”. This conclusion is unfounded and likely
incorrect... ...The Phase 1A report’s questionable conclusions in regard to the existence of large quantities
of dredge spoil within the Project area, which is on the west side of Mattituck Inlet, was used to support a
decision to inappropriately exclude a significant portion (much larger than just the area of the former inlet)
of the Project site from subsurface testing.
3.11-5
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)4
The section of the Phase 1A report describing walkover observations of the CEA (Construction Excavation
Area) claims that “The PWGC 2021 geotechnical bores clearly distinguish dredge spoil layers in Bores B9,
B10, and B11 (Figure 20)”. In fact, the author of the PWGC geotechnical report (in DEIS Appendix H) was
uncertain in regard to the classification of sediment recovered from bores as dredge spoil; witness the
decision to refer to them in boring logs as “potential” and “possible” dredged spoil. The Phase 1A report
goes on to say that, “Overall, the soil layers above the dredge spoils generally agree with the CpE texture
description (see comments on Geology and Soils) and represent erosion sediments from upslope.” In fact,
the USDA description of CpE soils (Warner et al. 1975) included in the Phase 1A report, describes them as
“glaciofluvial deposits.” Such deposits would result from a considerably different formative process than
would be associated with “erosional sediments”
3.11-6
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)5
No consideration is given to the possibility that archeological site types other than occupation sites (e.g.
short-term camps) might be present. Of special concern is the possibility that burial sites could be present.
This possibility is especially relevant because the Project area included a topographic high point in close
proximity to major water bodies (Mattituck Inlet and Long Island Sound). This is the type of setting
associated with the well-known prehistoric Orient-period burial sites located east and west of the Project
area in Orient and Jamesport (Ritchie 1959, 1969).
3.11-7
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)5
...it also concluded that no subsurface testing needed to be undertaken in areas believed to be covered by
dredge spoil, and in fact, the Phase 1B survey did not test in those areas. The likelihood that significant
volumes of dredge spoil are, in fact, present within the CEA is unlikely for the many reasons mentioned
above and in comments on the portions of the DEIS dealing with soils an in DEIS Appendix H. However,
even if the Phase 1A report is correct in its conclusion that is no reason for excluding supposed areas of
dredge spoil from archeological testing. In all cases Project-related excavation will extend below the
supposed levels of presumed dredge spoil.17 This means that there is a potential for intact ground
surfaces and archeological remains to be present below any dredge spoil deposits.
3.11-8
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)6
The final sentence of the Phase 1A report text reads: “If NYSHPO accepts this recommendation [to limit
Phase 1B work to the area delineated on Figure 20 of the Phase 1A report], a Phase 1B work plan will be
submitted that outlines the exact locations that will be subject to systematic shovel testing” (p.14).
However, it appears that Phase 1B work was carried out without a work plan being submitted.
3.11-9
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)6
The field methods employed appear to have been consistent with accepted archeological practice and the
standards. However, the excavation of shovel test pits (STPs) was initially “restricted to areas with less
than 15% slope and without known evidence of 20th century dredge spoil dumping” (p.7). While the
elimination of areas of steep slopes is appropriate, eliminating areas from testing solely because they were
believed to be covered with dredge spoil was not.
3.11-10
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)6
Areas of “potential dredge spoil” (emphasis added) are shown on Figure 20 in the Phase 1A report. They
are not shown on any of the graphics in the Phase 1B report. Figure 7 in the Phase 1B report shows the
location of planned and excavated STPs. Inexplicably/inconsistently, a significant number (approximately
20 out of a total of 70) of these are shown as having been excavated within the northeast portion of the
CEA in an area designated on Figure 20 in the Phase 1A report as an area of “potential dredge spoils.” The
soils profiles associated with these STPs are described in Appendix D (Stratigraphy Summary) and are
recorded as showing O, A, B, and E horizons typical of undisturbed soils. No evidence of the presence
dredge spoil is indicated.
3.11-11
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)7
No STPs were excavated within the southwest portion of the Project’s Construction Excavation Area. While
a portion of this area does have steep slopes, and was properly excluded from subsurface testing, detailed
topographic data shown on Project site plans indicates that much of the area is relatively level and should
have been tested during the initial Phase 1B survey.
3.11-12
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)7
The Phase 1B report concludes that “No further archaeological work is recommended for the Strong’s
Yacht Center – Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, 5780 W. Mill Road (NYOPRHP 21PR04396) project.” Given
the deficiencies described above, notably the failure to adequately test all of the areas that will be affected
by Project construction, this conclusion was premature.
3.11-13
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)7
...The report on the supplemental fieldwork is confusing, contains numerous errors and omissions , and
possible misinterpretations. These may have resulted in OPRHP’s incorrectly concluding that no additional
archeological investigation is necessary.
3.11-14
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)8
This conclusion is not supported by the data. The stratigraphic descriptions of excavated STPs in Appendix
D (but not the report text) record that “Fill,” or “Fill/Dredge” was found in STPs 113, 114, 117-122, and 126-
129. The report never discusses the criteria used to determine why a deposit should be identified as
“dredge,” or what the distinction is between “dredge” and “fill” (all dredge deposits are fill, but not all fill is
dredge). All of these STPS are located within an area that historic aerial photographs show as a former inlet
off of Mattituck Creek. The Phase IA report concluded that this inlet was filled by dredge spoil sometime
between 1962 and 1978. However, the 1957 survey map of the Project parcel notes that the area
corresponding to the former inlet is “sand filled” (COMMENT FIGURE ARCHEOLOGY-1).
3.11-15
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)8
All of the STPs with strata recorded (Table D-1) as having “fill/dredge” deposits are recorded as showing
those deposits being found from 7 to a maximum of 90 cm (36 in) below the surface. (“STPs in deep
dredge spoil were excavated to the maximum depth possible based on soil conditions, typically 32 in.
(80 cm) below ground level” p.9). The presence of near-surface dredge spoil or fill is inconsistent with
boring log data.
3.11-16
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)8
Borings B-9, B-10 and B-11 are the only borings made within what appears to be area of the former inlet.
Those borings show the top of the “Potential Dredge Spoil” at 4.0 ft, 4.5 ft and 8.0 ft below ground surface,
respectively. As archeological STPs were terminated above those depths, they never encountered the
stratum identified in the geotechnical report as “Potential Dredge Spoil”. This discrepancy is not mentioned
in the Phase IB supplemental report. Nor is mention made of the fact that the presence of traces of shell
noted in geotechnical borings appears to have been a criterion for the geotechnical report classifying a
stratum as “Potential Dredge Spoil.” No mention is made of shell being present in any STPs excavated
during the Phase IB investigation.
3.11-17
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)8 & 9
Historic period artifacts were found in ten STPs. The report states that most “artifacts were found in low
concentrations, typically one or two per STP, and were not retained for analysis” (p.11). This statement
raises several concerns. An artifact density of one or two per STP is not a “low” density. In some contexts it
would be considered high. More important is the density and distribution of positive STPs. In this case, as
shown on Figure 6 of the supplemental Phase 1B report, all but one of these is clustered within an area
approximately 150 ft in diameter in the southwest corner of the Construction Excavation Area. In fact,
adjacent STPs 112 and 113 contained artifacts including glass, metal, ceramics and bricks, possibly dating as
early as the mid-nineteenth century. This is more than half of all the artifacts found. These were all
recovered from what the supplemental report identifies as Stratum 3 (varying from 17-36 cm [7-14 in]
below the surface). Although the supplemental report interprets these deposits as fill, both are located
adjacent to, but outside of, the area shown on aerial photos (Figure 5) as the location of the former inlet.
Given that the deposit may pre-date the date of the earliest map consulted during background research , it
is possible that the deposits are associated with a 19th century structure of unknown function. The
location, adjacent to the former inlet would have been a possibly desirable location for a variety of
structure types.
3.11-18
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)9
It is also possible that the authors of the supplemental report are correct in interpreting the deposit as
evidence of dumping. However, given the limited areal extent of the deposit, and the possibly tight time
frame (based on the limited artifact identifications) of the deposit, it is possible that the deposit represents
a single dumping episode which could have archeological significance because it would represent a single
point in time, or, represent dumping by a single individual/family over a period of time—in effect, an
archeological time capsule. No attempt was made to more precisely define the limits of the historic
deposit....
3.11-19
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)9
The second point of concern is the statement that at least some artifacts “were not retained for analysis.”
The report contains no discussion of the criteria used to determine which artifacts would be retained, and
which discarded. Only one photograph in the report illustrates artifacts, and that photo shows only some
of the artifacts from only a single STP. The three (complete?) bricks found in STP 113 are neither
illustrated nor described.24 The three corroded nails recovered from STP 113 are included in Photograph
4. However, it is impossible to confirm from the photo if these nails are, in fact, square nails, as they are
described in Table 2.3. Square nails pre-date 1850 when they were largely supplanted by machine cut nails
with rectangular, not square, shank cross-sections.
3.11-20
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Archeology)9
In the absence of additional investigation, including supplemental background research (e.g. a title search
of the property associated with historic artifact deposit, and supplemental map research
[which should have been conducted as part of the Phase IA investigation]), and/or a Phase II field
investigation (including the excavation of a limited number of larger test units in the vicinity of STPs 112
and 113) it is not possible to determine that the Project will not affect a significant archeological site.
3.11-21
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)1
Additional relevant information is included in a vibration report (included in DEIS Appendix R) which was
not part of the original DEIS, and in the Supplemental Data Appendix included in the Traffic Impact Study
(TIS) included in DEIS Appendix O. The HRS (DEIS Appendix T) has not been updated to include this
information.
3.11-22
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)1
The HRS inappropriately substituted the use of adjacent parcels (including parcels immediately opposite
the Project site on the east side of Mattituck Inlet) as the study area for defining impacts to historic
structures, rather than using the Project’s viewshed—the area within which the project will be visible. The
HRS should not have been undertaken until after the “detailed visual impact analysis for the action,
including (dimensional relief and color of site structures existing and proposed) identification of the
Project's zone of visual influence (ZVI)” had been completed, as called for in the DEIS scope.
3.11-23
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)2
The HRS is not a substitute for a comprehensive survey of the ZVI (and possibly different Areas of Potential
Effect (APE) associated with vibration, noise, lighting, and air quality) by a qualified architectural historian.
3.11-24
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)2
because the HRS may not have adequately identified all historically significant properties within the Areas
of Potential Effect for visual and traffic impacts (including noise and vibration), it may have compromised
other visual, acoustic, and lighting studies being carried out for the Project which must take into account
the presence of “sensitive receptors”, which are defined to include historic properties.
3.11-25
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)2
No Project-specific field survey by a qualified architectural historian (defined as an individual who satisfies
the Secretary of the Interiors professional qualification standards in architectural history)2 was undertaken
for the Project. Instead, the HRS author chose to rely almost exclusively on pre-existing file data and
limited field visits. As a result, the HRS contains extensive commentary on numerous structures which
appear highly unlikely to be considered historic (but which should, however, be considered in the separate
visual assessment being completed for the Project). In at least one case (200 East Mill Road) a property is
included in the visual impact analysis even though the HRS notes that the SHPO has determined it does not
qualify as a “historic property.” One property, the Mill Road Preserve, although it may be affected by the
Project, is not even a structure.
3.11-26
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)2
The HRS makes only limited use of historic cartography, although this type of data is essential in evaluating
the historic significance of structures. The HRS does include reproductions of portions of historic maps
dating from 1902-1904 (HRS Figure 7), 1904 (HRS Figure 8), 1947 (HRS Figure 12) and 1956 (HRS Figure 13),
but in all cases the portions provided do not include the southern and western portions of the Project haul
truck route along West Mill Road, Cox Neck Road, and Sound Avenue.3 The absence of a more
comprehensive cartographic study is concerning.
3.11-27
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)2
Both the HRS and the archeological reports fail to mention the 1838 NOS T-sheet (T sheet 55) which shows
the locations of some of the structures discussed in the HRS as well as then-existing land cover….
3.11-28
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)3
The HRS also fails to reference the readily available Beers’ 1873 Atlas of Long Island, which shows structure-
level detail.
3.11-29
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)3
The HRS’ attempts to evaluate Project impacts to historic properties was premature. The evaluation was
done prior to delineation of an accurate viewshed, and without making use of other data sets
(traffic, vibration and noise impact studies also required by the DEIS scope in addition to the visual
analysis). The result is a superficial and inaccurate document that should not be used to evaluate property-
specific impacts, or as a basis for designing mitigation measures.
3.11-30
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)3
The Executive Summary of the HRS implies (p.2) that analysis of Project impacts to historic structures could
be limited to “three unevaluated structures listed in OPRHP’s Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS)
within approximately 1000 feet of the project area” referred to in the DEIS Scope. (These three structures
are discussed below). There is no basis for this, and it does not appear that that was the Planning Board’s
intent. Rather, the three structures were called out, after being brought to the Board’s attention during the
scoping process, and because Part 1 of the Applicant-prepared Environmental Assessment Form (AEF) for
the Project answered “NO” to the question “[h]ave additional archaeological or historic site(s) or resources
been identified on the project site?” Additionally, at the time of scoping the Applicant had not clearly
identified specific off-site haul truck traffic routes—an important factor in considering if historic structures
could be affected by noise and vibration from Project-related truck traffic.
3.11-31
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)3
The HRS Executive Summary also notes that “The Town Final Scope (4/5/21) recognized four indirect
effects that might result from the implementation of the Project. These effects are changes in air quality,
noise, vibration, and viewshed (setting)” (emphasis added) (HRS p. 2). The HRS fails to adequately address
these potential impacts. The revised DEIS includes as part of a new vibration assessment, a discussion of
potential vibration-related impacts to historic structures. There is no indication that the Applicant’s
cultural resources consultant was involved in the preparation of that report.
3.11-32
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)3 & 4
The Planning Board’s DEIS Scope never refers to “changes in air quality, noise, vibration, and viewshed” as
“indirect”….Visual, vibration, and noise impacts directly related to Project construction and operation are
not indirect effects. They are all caused by the action (in this case construction of the Project), and occur
at the time of the action (and in the case visual impacts continue beyond the construction phase). They do
not occur later in time....The repeated references the Project’s potential visual, vibration and noise impacts
to historic structures as being “indirect” may create a false impression in the reader of both the HRS and
DEIS that indirect impacts are somehow less significant than “direct” impacts.
3.11-33
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)4
The HRS Executive Summary concludes by stating “The only direct impacts outside of SYC will occur on or
along W. Mill Road and include the main water line, its associated hydrant, and the Stabilized RCA
[Recycled Concrete Aggregate] Shoulder (see Figure 4)” (HRS p.3). This is inaccurate. The HRS fails to
define the separate Areas of Potential Effect (APEs) associated with visual, vibration and noise impacts, and
has assumed that only properties on land parcels abutting the Project site, or located along the east side of
Mattituck Inlet directly across the inlet from the Project site, need to be considered when analyzing
potential impacts to historic properties. As a result, the HRS failed to consider impacts associated with off-
site truck routes (which have the potential to generate significant noise and vibration impacts)6, or
potential visual impacts (which will be permanent) to properties other than those on abutting parcels, or
directly across Mattituck Inlet from, the Project site.
3.11-34
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)4
HRS Table 1 includes a column entitled “Part, Possible Effects.” Under this heading, only the existing SYC is
identified as being subject to a direct effect. All other properties (except for the three called out in the
DEIS scope which contain the notation “Town Scope” in this column) are classified as either
“Adjacent, Indirect” or “Indirect Only.” No explanation of these classifications is provided, although one
interpretation is that the HRS has concluded that all of the properties listed, except for SYC, will possibly be
only indirectly affected by the Project.
3.11-35
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)5
the decision to limit the HRS to a consideration of potential visual impacts (as well as other types of
impacts) to these structures is inappropriate, and inconsistent with recognized principles for conducting
historic structure surveys and impact assessments.
3.11-36
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)5
There is no indication in the HRS that any attempt was made to identify the actual viewshed (or ZVI)
associated with Project. The HRS should not have been completed until after the visual impact study had
defined the Project viewshed and ZVI (which corresponds to the APE for visual impacts). The failure to
make use of a properly defined viewshed means that the Project may visually impact historic structures
not identified in the HRS.
3.11-37
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)5
HRS Chapter 2 discusses methods and results. It starts by defining the study area as a “one-mile buffer
around the Project parcel”. In fact, the study area appears to either have been considerably smaller, or the
survey of structures within the study area was incomplete. Numerous residences within one mile of the
Project site—and within the Project’s viewshed (e.g., 465 Harbor View Avenue) are not included in the
HRS8.
3.11-38
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)6
HRS Chapter 2 goes on to note that the Project site was visited on four separate occasions by the HRS
author. It does not indicate that other areas within the Project’s various APEs were visited although the
inclusion of photos of structures outside the Project site (Appendices D, E, and F) suggests that it was.
Those photos, while potentially helpful in evaluating the historic significance of previously unevaluated
structures are, with a single exception, useless for purposes of evaluating visual impacts. This is because
they are views of the structures, rather than views from the structures that would include potential views
of the completed Project.
3.11-39
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)6 & 7
The G.H. Fisher House (15 East Mill Road) remains unevaluated by the SHPO as of March 2023. However, it
was identified in 1985 as a historic structure by the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities
(SPLIA)(now Preservation Long Island). A 2012 resurvey of the Fisher House for the Southold Historic
Preservation Commission notes that “[D]espite alterations, house contributes to maritime landscape and
historic viewshed of Mattituck creek area.”11 The HRS never directly addresses potential visual impacts to
the G.H. Fisher House. Instead, it only states, in apparent contradiction of the comments on the 2012
survey form, that the “building is not oriented to the creek but rather to the south and east” (HRS p.19)
and that “there is no indication that the building was purposefully sited because of its view to the west”
(HRS p.20).
Significantly, neither of the two photos of the G.H. Fisher House included in the HRS (HRS Photos E7 and
E8) show views from the property looking towards the SYC Project area. As a result, it is impossible to
assess potential visual impacts to this property using the data in the HRS. However, this property is clearly
within the Project viewshed and does have views towards the Project. 12 In addition, the 2012 survey data
was never submitted to the SHPO.13 The SHPO’s July 29, 2021 letter stating that they have “no
building/above ground historic resources concerns” also states that that conclusion was based on the
information in the HRS, which as noted, is incomplete and possibly deceptive in regards to the G.H. Fisher
House.14 It is incumbent upon the Planning Board to ensure that its “hard look” at Project impacts
includes an evaluation of the Project’s visual impact on the G.H. Fisher House.
3.11-40
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)7
HRS Table 3 also includes the Jackson Water Tower located at 880 West Mill Road (NYOPRHP USN
10310.000347). This six-story brick tower is a prominent local feature. It is included in both the 1985 SPLIA
survey and the 2012 resurvey sponsored by the Town of Southold. It is listed in the SHPO’s Building-
Structure Inventory as “unevaluated.” However, neither the HRS nor the DEIS discuss possible visual
impacts to the Tower, which is located approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the Project site, and 200 feet
west of the Project truck route. It was presumably, and inappropriately, excluded from analysis because it
is not on a parcel adjacent to the Project site. The Project will likely be visible from the upper levels of the
Jackson Water Tower.15 The Jackson Water Tower is included in Ostroski’s Water Towers of the North
Fork of Long Island, which is cited in the HRS. The DEIS fails to evaluate the historic significance of the
Jackson Water Tower or consider if or how would be visually impacted by the Project.
3.11-41
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)7
There is one additional inaccuracy in HRS Table 3. The property listed in Table 3 as “Mattituck Creek Tide
Mill (Old Mill Restaurant)” (NYOPRHP USN 10310.000348) is listed as having an “undetermined” status.
OPRHP/SHPO revised that status to “eligible” for the State and National Registers of Historic Places
(S/NRHP) on October 14, 2021, subsequent to the preparation of the HRS.
3.11-42
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)7
Although HRS Chapter 2 discusses impacts, it does not include, or attempt to apply, the corresponding
criteria for evaluating impacts that are also set forth in Federal and State regulations
3.11-43
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)8
Many of the properties listed in HRS Table 1 are twentieth century residences which, by virtue of their age,
are not included in the existing historic structure inventories used to prepare the HRS. It is also possible
that additional structures in this category, which are not located on parcels abutting the Project site, are
within the undefined viewshed/Zone of Visual Influence. The HRS does not identify, or evaluate these
properties. The HRS makes no mention of any attempt to contact the Southold Historic Preservation
Commission or the Southold Town Historian, to determine if they believe that any of the inventoried
properties less than 50 years old are “an integral part in the architectural landscape of the town and . . .
worthy of preservation.”
3.11-44
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)8
The HRS also dismisses from consideration several properties because “the building does not meet the
minimum-age requirement for the S/NRHP” (800 and 805 North Drive, and 2010 West Mill Road). The 50-
year criterion is generally used in preparing historic structure surveys, especially for State and Federally
licensed and funded projects, but it is not an absolute requirement (36 CFR 60.4). As the HRS itself notes,
the Southold Historic Preservation Commission does not feel bound by this criterion in evaluating historic
significance, and there is no requirement that the Planning Board limit its concerns historic structures less
than 50 years old.
3.11-45
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)8
There is a second reason why more recent structures should have been identified and included in the HRS.
Unmentioned in the HRS is the fact that the Southold Town Code states that one of the purposes of the
Historic Landmarks Preservation Law of Southold Town is “[M]aintaining visual compatibility with the
historic character of neighboring properties in public view”........The visual impact assessment prepared for
the Project (DEIS Section 3.4 and DEIS Appendix Q), apparently relied upon the HRS to identify all
structures that contribute to community character. The failure of the HRS to do so means that the
assessment in the DEIS of the Project’s visual impacts to community character, and to individual non-
historic properties, is also defective.
3.11-46
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)9
HRS Chapter 2 (text and tables) includes a discussion of the parcel at 1900 West Mill Road. This is the
Town-owned Mill Road Preserve. As the HRS notes, this property abuts the Project area. It is unclear why
the Mill Road Preserve is discussed in the HRS as it is not a historic property. However, the DEIS scope calls
for an analysis of “the adverse impacts related to . . . changes in view-sheds . . . and alteration of a sense of
place from this project on the public's enjoyment of the Town owned preserved property during all phases
of the action.” The HRS states that “a rendering prepared for the Project shows that the roofs of new SYC
Bldgs. 9 and 10 will be visible from the northwest quadrant of the [Preserve’s] perimeter path.” A copy of
the rendering is not included in the HRS. However, a copy is included in DEIS Appendix Q (Figure A-4). It
demonstrates that the Project will significantly affect the view from this location.
3.11-47
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)9
The HRS states that 4900 West Mill Road is “historically linked to the A. F. Robinson holding
located at 4255 W. Mill Road. This association is documented on the Hyde (1902-1909) Suffolk County
map.” A copy of the relevant portion of that map is included as HRS Figure 7. This residence clearly satisfies
the 50-year criterion, but no evaluation of its possible historic significance is provided (as called for in the
DEIS Scope). The HRS goes on to state that the house “is not within the viewshed of the CEA [Construction
Excavation Area] or the Phase 1 temporary haul road” (HRS p.17). It appears that because the author of the
HRS was unable to see the house from the presently wooded Project site, it was assumed that the
completed Project would not be visible from the house. No consideration was given to what the view
would be post-construction.
3.11-48
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)9
In regard to 80 and 100 East Mill Road, the HRS concludes that these parcels are “used commercially and
[their] function will not be impaired by the Project” (emphasis added) (HRS p. 20). It is unclear how this is
relevant to assessing the Project’s visual impact. It also unclear whether these properties should be
considered “historic”.
3.11-49
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)9 & 10
In regard to 200 (Kings Dock) and 220 East Mill Road the HRS notes that these structures are “oriented to
the creek. The residence’s viewshed is toward the creek and the west side floodplain and bluff.” These
properties will clearly be within the Project viewshed. Inexplicably, the HRS contains photos showing the
views of these properties from the Project site, as if it is the Project site that would be affected by the
presence of structures on those properties, rather than the other way around. The HRS does not contain
photos from these properties looking towards the Project area that would allow the nature and degrees of
the actual visual impact to be assessed. While the HRS notes OPRHP/SHPO has determined that 200 East
Mill Road does not satisfy S/NRHP eligibility criteria, no information regarding the historic significance (or
lack thereof) of 220 East Mill Road is included in the HRS.
3.11-50
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)10
In regard to 220 East Mill Road, the HRS only states that the “the house here has been present since 1962 .
. . [and] is oriented to the creek. The residence’s viewshed is toward the creek and the west side floodplain
and bluff” (HRS p.20). The house is more than 50 years old, but no evaluation as to whether or not it is
“historic” is included in the HRS.
3.11-51
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)10
750 East Mill Road is a building/structure complex on a 26+ acre estate known as Fox Hill. Because
“[T]his residence appears from a distance to have been sited on the valley terrace to purposefully allow
view of the creek and valley as a whole. Because of its elevation, its viewshed will be affected by the
Project” Photograph F12 in the HRS shows the view from the CEA towards 750 East Mill Road. That
structure is clearly visible. It is obvious that the view from 750 East Mill Road which now includes the
existing marina and the wooded bluff top, will be replaced by views of the existing marina and the
proposed massive storage buildings. The HRS apparently dismisses the significance of this by claiming that
“the proposed SYC buildings will be similar to to [sic] those in the current marina complex”
(emphasis added) (HRS p.25). No evaluation as to whether or not Fox Hill is “historic” is included in the
HRS, as required by the DEIS Scope.
3.11-52
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)10
There several significant problems with the way the HRS characterizes 220 and 750 East Mill Road. First,
although acknowledging that views from two properties will be “affected,” it attempts to dismiss the visual
impact by qualifying it with the statement: “but the proposed SYC buildings will be similar to . . . those in
the current marina complex.” This is not accurate. Each of the proposed new structures to be erected on
the Project site is more than twice the size (52,500 sq ft and 49,000 sq ft) of the largest of the existing SYC
structures (22,425 sq ft). Also significant is the fact that the proposed new structures will be taller, and will
replace an existing hill which will be mined away.
3.11-53
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)10
The HRS describes the residence at 3293 Grand Avenue as “relatively new.” Presumably it has no historic
significance and it is unclear why it was included in the HRS
3.11-54
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)10
In regard to 3331 Grand Avenue: the HRS (p.21) states that “persons on the parcel would have a view of
SYC Bldgs. 7 and 8. The cabins and main building, however, are oriented away from the creek and west side
of the valley” (emphasis added). The use of the future tense is confusing as Bldgs. 7 and 8 are existing
structures. No mention is made of how the proposed storage buildings would affect views from this parcel.
3.11-55
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)10 & 11
In regard to 3329 Grand Avenue; “. . . there is a clear view of the west side of the valley and SYC Bldgs. 7
and 8 from the lawn between the garage and residence.” As with 3331 Grand Avenue, the HRS fails to note
that in both cases views from these two properties will include the two new massive structures included in
the Project. No evaluation as to whether or not it is “historic” is included in the HRS.
3.11-56
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)11
The HRS does state that “It is of note that the Town’s ‘Town Register of Historic Landmarks’ (10/18/2017)
does not list” [the three properties]
(emphasis added). This is clearly an attempt to diminish the historic significance of these properties and
reflects unfamiliarity with the Southold’s requirements for landmark listing, one of which is property owner
consent—something not required for S/NRHP eligibility. As noted above, subsequent to preparation of the
HRS, the Old Mill Restaurant has been determined to satisfy S/NRHP eligibility criteria. The two other
properties remain classified as “unevaluated” by SHPO as of April 2023.
3.11-57
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)11
The HRS states that “the Old Mill retains no functional mill elements.” While it is true the mill cannot carry
out its original function, at least one important original element associated with that function—the main
mill wheel shaft—is extant and prominently visible. It is also possible that other intact elements of the
original mill machinery exist under the mill. The HRS author never examined the interior of the Old Mill.
The HRS states that there “is no HAER [Historic American Engineering Record] for the Old Mill. This is
incorrect. While it is true that no on-line accessible records are available, the Old Mill was noted by HAER
in 1974 and is discussed in HAER’s Long Island: An Inventory of Historic Engineering and Industrial Sites.
3.11-58
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)12
The Assessment, Conclusions and Recommendations section of the HRS begins by noting that the three
properties specifically called out in the DEIS scope because “they are considered important in the Town of
Southold. Each is listed on the Town inventory and the Town had their descriptions updated in 2012
(Tweedie 2012a-c). As such, they possess local significance.” This is a strange way to evaluate historic
significance, as there is no necessary correlation between being listed in an inventory and being historically
significant. For example, the existing SYC buildings, which have no historic significance (a conclusion of the
HRS), are listed in the SHPO’s Building-Structure Inventory, but as “not S/NRHP eligible”.19 Additionally, it’s
fallacious to assume (as noted above) that these are the only three properties of concern to the Town of
Southold
3.11-59
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)12
The HRS also inappropriately dismisses from concern “residences that do not front to the creek or west
valley slope.” There is no basis for this for several reasons. First, merely because the Project will only be
visible from the rear of a property does not mean that the property will not be visually impacted. Second,
views of a property from the front, may now include views of the Project. Given the proposed size of the
buildings, their finished elevations above ground, and the fact that what is now a wooded hill will be
replaced by two massive boat storage buildings, views of, as well as from, these properties will be
significantly different. This is apparent even in the misleading renderings of the proposed Project
submitted to the Southold Planning Board (DEIS Appendix Q).
3.11-60
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)12
Even the limited attempts to evaluate visual impacts are misleading and inaccurate. For example, as
noted, the HRS discounts views from the rear of a property; fails to consider views of a property that may
include views of the Project, and inaccurately describes proposed Project buildings as “similar to . . . those
in the current marina complex.” It fails to even mention changes to the Project’s background views caused
by the removal of a large stand of trees. No attempt has been made to consider the effects of seasonality
on views. (Visual impacts during the foliate and defoliate seasons can be significantly different and bear
directly on estimating the severity and duration of impacts). The limited impact analysis included in the
HRS will not permit the Planning Board to adequately consider or evaluate the impacts of the Project on
historic structures.
3.11-61
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)12 & 13
The DEIS does not adequately or appropriately discuss potential visual impacts to historic properties.
Potential impacts have apparently been largely dismissed on the basis of July 21, 2021 correspondence
from OPRHP which states that “[W]e have reviewed the submission received on July 6, 2021, including the
Reconnaissance Level Historic Resources Survey dated July 2021. Based on that review, the OPRHP has no
building/above ground historic resources concerns.”20 information. OPRHP issued their comments on the
basis of the HRS alone.21 Specifically, some potentially significant historic properties were omitted from
the analysis. In addition, it does not appear that visual simulations showing post-construction views from
historic properties within the (incorrectly defined) Project viewshed, were ever submitted to OPRHP.
Because of the numerous issues with the methodology employed to assess visual impacts, the Planning
Board, which has ultimate responsibility for evaluating impacts—not OPRHP--needs to carefully examine
this issue. While due consideration should be given to OPRHP’s comments, their initial conclusion was
based on incomplete, inaccurate and misleading
3.11-62
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)13
Unlike visual impacts, which are limited to the Project viewshed, potential impacts to historic structures
from vibrations generated by Project traffic, especially 22-wheel tractor trailers weighing more than 50
tons, may occur along the entire Project truck route. The DEIS fails to identify all historic properties which
could be impacted by Project construction traffic.
3.11-63
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)13
The HRS states that “indirect affects [sic] were considered for the existing SYC buildings/structures as direct
impacts will occur within the marina.” In other words, the only vibration concerns considered in the HRS
were those related to the Applicant’s existing, non-historic, on-site structures. OPRHP/SHPO reviewed the
photos of the existing SYC structures and determined that none of them are S/NRHP eligible.
3.11-64
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)14
Although the OPRHP/SHPO July 29, 2021 letter stating that they have “no building/above ground historic
resources concerns” it also states that that conclusion was based on the information in the HRS. However,
as of April 2023, no information has been submitted to the OPRHP/SHPO about historic structures located
along the Project truck route in Riverhead, and in Southold west of Cox Neck Road.
3.11-65
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)14
In response to the concerns raised by OPRHP/SHPO in their April 8, 2022 correspondence, and the Planning
Board’s requirement that impacts to historic structures located along the truck route be evaluated, the
Applicant has submitted to the Planning Board a new vibration impact analysis which is included in DEIS
Appendix R.22 According to the DEIS the “Vibration Report identified all the potential significant historical
structures along the proposed truck route and determined their distance from the truck route roadway”
(emphasis added) (DEIS p.224). This claim is not supported by the data included in the DEIS, including its
appendices.23
3.11-66
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)14
No recent comprehensive historic structures survey was carried out for the portions of the Project truck
route west of Cox Neck Road in Southold, or along the portion of the truck route in the Town of Riverhead.
3.11-67
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)14
The preparers of the DEIS, the HRS, the Vibration Report and the Traffic Impact Study, all failed to
determine if any historic properties, other than those shown on the GIS-generated maps in CRIS, exist
along the Project truck route. Of special concern is the fact that the Town of Riverhead’s Historic
Preservation Commission was never contacted. Riverhead maintains its own list of Town Landmarks and
Historic Districts.24
3.11-68
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)14
No mention is made anywhere in the DEIS, or any of its appendices, that Sound Avenue in Riverhead was
designated an Historic Corridor by the New York State legislature in 1975.25 The Town of Riverhead
Comprehensive Plan (2003) states that “Riverhead possesses a variety of important scenic and historic
resources, ranging from expansive views of working agricultural landscapes; to scenic roadways like Sound
Avenue” (emphasis added) (2003:5-9).
3.11-69
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)15
Of the 32 historic structures listed in Table 726, and shown on accompanying figures, only six are discussed
in the HRS (DEIS Appendix T). The remaining 26 properties in Table 7 appear to consist only of those listed
in OPRHP’s CRIS. Of these, four are in the Town of Southold, and 22 are in the Town of Riverhead.
Information on the Southold properties was recorded in 1985. Information on the Riverhead properties
was recorded in 1974 as part of the research done for a potential Northville Historic District.27 Given that
properties older than 50 years of age may potentially meet the criteria for historic designation, relying on
data that is between 38 and 49 years old is problematic. A survey should have been undertaken by a
qualified architectural historian, not acoustic engineers, to determine if any additional potentially historic
properties are located along the truck route.
3.11-70
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)15
The Aldrich Jackson House at 6175 Sound Avenue in Mattituck is not included in Table 7. It is listed in the
OPRHP/SHPO Building Structure Inventory (10310.000385) as having an “undetermined” State/National
Register of Historic Places status. It is setback less than 200 feet from Sound Avenue. The S/NRHP eligibility
of this structure should have been determined—as required by the DEIS scope.
3.11-71
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)15
The Eugene Hallock House, a designated Town of Riverhead Landmark, is located at 6142 Sound Avenue,
not 6038 Sound Avenue. It is mislocated on Vibration Report Figure 6. It is also approximately 50 feet
from the Sound Avenue Road surface, not the 74 feet stated in Table 7.
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)15 & 16
The Old Hallock Homestead is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places (COMMENT
FIGURE HISTORIC-2). Table 7 and Vibration Report Figure 6 indicate it is only eligible for listing. It is located
at 6038 Sound Avenue, not 5976 Sound Avenue. It is misidentified as the Eugene Hallock House. The Old
Hallock Homestead is one of several historic structures located at the Hallockville Museum Farm—a
designated Town of Riverhead Landmark. Also located at the Hallockville Museum Farm are three
additional historic structures—the Hudson House (located approximately 75 feet from the Sound Avenue
road surface), the Cichanowicz House (located less than 50 feet from the Sound Avenue road surface), and
Aunt Francis Washhouse (which is setback approximately 200 feet from Sound Avenue). All three are
missing from Table 7.
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)16 The Daniel Wells House is located at 5120 Sound Avenue, not 5004 Sound Avenue as indicated on Table 7.
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)16 The Hallock Luce House is listed in Table 7 as being located at 4778 Sound Avenue. It has been demolished.
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)16
The Northville Academy (Congregation Church Parish Hall) (currently the Long Island Buddhist Meditation
Center) is located at 5268 Sound Avenue, not 5284 Sound Avenue (a different structure). It is 25 feet—not
63 feet as indicated in Table 7, from the Sound Avenue Road surface.
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)16
Table 7 in the Vibration Report lists the distance of each listed property from the Sound Avenue road
surface. As noted above, several of these measurements are inaccurate. With only a few exceptions, it
appears that these distances were determined through the use of Google Earth, rather than actual
measurements taken in the field (Vibration Study p.25). This has introduced a false perception of
precision. This is important because potential vibration impacts are directly related to the distance
between the vibration source (haul trucks travelling along the truck route) and nearby sensitive receptors
(all structures, including all historic properties).
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)16
The numerous errors in Table 7 and the accompanying figures in the Vibration report could have been
avoided had a qualified architectural historian conducted a survey of the portions of the Project truck route
in Riverhead.
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)16
The HRS calls out four historic properties in Southold that “could be indirectly affected by the construction
of the main water line, the associated hydrant, or by project truck traffic”. Presumably, the HRS is referring
to vibration impacts. A fourth property, the Jackson Water Tower, may also be affected by Project-
generated vibration, but is not discussed in the HRS or the DEIS.
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)17
....These statements are not supported by any data, and are very misleading. There will be an orders-of-
magnitude increase in the number of trucks, of the same type as the Project-related haul trucks, using
West Mill Road. In addition, these trucks will be significantly heavier. When loaded, they will weigh an
estimated 107,000 ponds. It is empirically obvious to anyone regularly traveling West Mill Road that the
number of comparable trucks using that road in no way approaches the numbers that will during the year-
long construction period. There is no way of knowing to what extent traffic has already impacted the
Water Tower as no structural evaluation of this property over time has ever been undertaken. The HRS,
the TIS and the DEIS discuss potential mitigation to deal with vibration impacts to this property. The
inadequacy of the proposed mitigation is discussed below.
3.11-80
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)18
Robinson-D’Aires House. This property is located at 4225 West Mill Road.31 The HRS states that the
“main house is well-elevated above both W. Mill Road and Naugles Road and, for this reason, is not likely
to be affected by vibration effects in the same manner as buildings might be on the same elevation” (HRS
p.22). Note that this statement does not indicate that this property (OPRHP USN 10310.000347) will not be
affected by vibration, only that it will not be affected “in the same manner” as other properties.
3.11-81
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)18
Jackson Water Tower. The Jackson Water Tower located at 880 West Mill Road is listed in Table 3 of the
HRS, but is not discussed. This six-story brick tower is a prominent local feature. It is included in both the
1985 SPLIA survey and the 2012 resurvey sponsored by the Town of Southold. It is listed in the SHPO’s
Building-Structure Inventory as “unevaluated.” The Jackson Water Tower is located approximately 0.5
miles southwest of the Project site, and 200 feet west of the Project truck route. It was presumably
excluded from analysis in the HRS because it is not on a parcel adjacent to the Project site. No
consideration is given in the HRS, DEIS, or Vibration Report, to the fact that the Jackson Water Tower may
affected by vibration generated by the large haul trucks traveling along the Project truck route. It is well
established that the vibration threshold levels for damage to historic masonry structures, especially
towers, because of their height and rigidity, are well below the threshold for non-historic frame
structures.32
3.11-82
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)19
According to the Vibration Report, “[N]o frequency analyzer and accelerometer measurements were
collected at the Water Tower and Building to be able to collect readings along the unimpeded path through
the soil to best determine the existing conditions” [sic] (p.6). This explanation is unclear, and does not
adequately explain why no vibration levels were recorded at the location of the historic property most
likely to be damaged by Project truck traffic. In addition, pavement condition is a factor in determining
peak particle velocity (PPV) generated by truck traffic. As the DEIS acknowledges, “[A] pothole or
roughness due to alligator cracking or some other pavement roughness would increase the likelihood that
vibrations will be created” (DEIS p. 224). As no ambient data was collected at the point where West Mill
Road passes the water tower, there is no basis for comparing existing conditions with conditions that will
exist during Project construction.
3.11-83
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)19 The DEIS has not properly or adequately assessed potential vibration impacts to historic properties.
3.11-84
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)19 & 20
First, the FTA Guidelines do not specifically reference a PPV (Peak Particle Velocity) of 0.12 in/sec as a
damage threshold for historic structures. A single table in the FTA Guidelines, “Construction Vibration
Damage Criteria” associates a value of 0.12 in/s with “[B]uildings extremely susceptible to vibration
damage.”35 The FTA Guidelines do not explain how this threshold value was derived. The NHDOT
Guidelines also cite the 0.12 in/sec PPV as the vibration damage threshold for “extremely fragile historic
buildings” (p.12). However, the source for this is the FTA Guidelines. In effect, the Vibration Report is
relying on a single source to justify use of the 0.12 in/sec PPV as a damage threshold. That threshold is not
universally accepted. There is no commonly accepted standard for vibration limits to protect historic
buildings.
3.11-85
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)20 & 21
The preparers of the DEIS, although they cite the NHDOT Guidelines, and rely on it for their assessment of
potential damage to historic structures, failed to make use of the construction vibration assessment
procedure described in detail in those guidelines. “The “Construction Vibration Assessment Table”
(Appendix A, Table 1) in the NHDOT Guidelines Applying the NHDOT assessment matrix to assess the
severity of vibration impacts to historic structures adjacent to the Project truck route results in a score of
more than 350 for locations 50 feet or less from passing haul trucks, a score of more than 300 for locations
between 51 and 100 feet, and a score of more than 250 for locations from 101 to 200 feet from the
vibration source. According to the NHDOT Guidelines, a point score of 300 to ˂400 is a “high impact.” A
point score of 200 to ˂300 is a “moderate impact. Sixteen of the 32 historic structures listed in Vibration
Report Table 7 are listed as being less than 50 feet from the truck route road surface. An additional 12
historic properties (not including two additional properties not listed in Table 7 and described above) are
listed as being between 50 and 100 feet away. (As noted above, the actual number is higher because the
DEIS has not accurately identified the distances of some historic structures from the adjacent roadway).
3.11-86
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)21
As described above, the vibration study carried out for the Project collected information on ambient
conditions at four locations. Location 4 was located along West Mill Road. According to the Vibration
Report, ambient readings were collected for only 10 minutes. The report goes on to state that at
“Location 4, traffic regularly passed on Cox Neck Road [West Mill Road?] during the data collection period.
During the data collection, it was noted that passenger vehicles, construction vehicles, delivery trucks, and
trucks all travel on the local roads currently, which cause low levels of vibration transmission into nearby
structures” (p.8). However, the Vibration Report does not indicate how many vehicles of each type passed
by the monitoring locations during the 10-minute period. This is another instance in which the significant
change in character/size/weight/number of the Project vehicles that will travel along the truck route
during construction has been ignored. While the statement may be appropriate in reference to post-
construction operations, it should not be uncritically accepted in regard to impacts during Project
construction.
3.11-87
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)22
The vibration analysis also assumes that data collected and analyzed in regard to historic properties
located along Cox Neck and West Mill Roads is applicable to historic structures located along Sound
Avenue. There is no reason to assume this is correct. Road conditions, the speed of Project-related
construction traffic, the cumulative effects of Project traffic and existing traffic, and soil conditions
between the source of vibration and the receptor, are all likely to be different along the Riverhead portions
of the Project truck route.
3.11-88
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)22 & 23
There are problems with the way that vibration data was collected and analyzed that call the conclusions in
the DEIS into question. The vibration analysis uses two equations ,44 from the FTA Guidelines to
determine the “safe distances at which construction vibration would no longer be a concern for structural
damage or disturbance to occupants inside a structure both for truck traffic and operating construction
equipment” (Vibration Report p.11). The Vibration Report indicates that the first of these equations has
been modified (the final exponent has been reduced from the 1.5 in the FTA Guidelines to 1.1). The
Vibration Report justifies this with the statement that “Long Island’s unique soil structure typically
attenuates vibration more effectively than many other soils of geological areas” (p.10). While true, the
analysis has failed to take into account that vibration attenuation is lower in frozen soil, or that most
Project haul-truck traffic will be during the winter months. The NHDOT Guidelines (p.29) note that “frozen
soil attenuates less than thawed soil.” The decision to modify the equation in the FTA Guidelines is
therefore questionable. The modification of the equation minimizes the severity of potential impacts to
nearby structures from truck-generated vibration.
3.11-89
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)23
Both equations require the use of a “source reference vibration level at 25 feet” (PPVref and Lvref). Table
5 in the Vibration Report, “Reference Data Utilized for Analysis,” indicates that a reference PPV of 0.076
was taken from the FTA Guidelines. However, the Vibration Report analysis indicates that the “loaded
trucks” in the FTA Guidelines are equivalent to “water/fuel” trucks. Those types of trucks generally weigh
only a fraction of what the fully loaded Project haul trucks will weigh. In addition, although the NHDOT
Guidelines also note that the FTA Guidelines use reference value of 0.076, the NHDOT Guidelines cite other
studies that make it clear that this value is not a generally accepted constant.
3.11-90
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)23
The FTA Guidelines state that “[S]electing sites for an ambient vibration survey requires good judgment.
Sites selected to characterize a transit corridor should be distributed along the entire project where
potential for impacts have been identified” (emphasis added) (p.151). The vibration analysis for the
Project relies on information collected from only one location (Location 4) along the entire truck route.
3.11-91
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)23
The FTA Guidelines also call for 4 to 10 passbys for each test. The language in the Vibration Report suggests
that only a single pass was made for the test.
3.11-92
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)23 & 24
The DEIS has underestimated the potential damage to historic structures from Project truck traffic. The
Vibration Report concludes that “it is anticipated that the minimum distance from trucks to meet the
criteria [required to cause no damage to historic structures] would be 17 feet” (DEIS pp. 224, 295, Table
52; Vibration Report p.13, Table 6). Using data from the on-site truck study, the analysis concluded that
that distance is 2 feet (DEIS p. 296; Vibration Report p.13). Empirical data indicates that that this conclusion
is incorrect. The Old Hallock Homestead, located considerably farther from Old Sound Avenue than 17 feet
(COMMENT FIGURE - HISTORIC-2), had its plaster ceiling collapse as a result of traffic-generated
vibration.48
3.11-93
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)24
The Vibration Report also states that “[A]ll the data collected during the site visit is well below the
threshold at which vibration would cause damage to a historic structure, which would be 0.12 in/sec. This
conclusion was tested against the worst-case scenario using the reference data and calculation
methodology presented in the FTA guidelines” (Vibration Study p.3). However, this is clearly at odds with
the statement in the same paragraph that reads “[T]he worst-case conclusion was that there is a potential
impact from truck traffic to the historic Water Tower and Building located at 3380 W Mill Road in
Mattituck, NY.”
3.11-94
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)24
The DEIS discusses potential impacts to historic structures several times. In the section on “Heavy Vehicle
Traffic Induced Vibrations” it states that “the distance trucks needed to be from historic structures and
residential structures in order to not damage those structures was two feet . . . In summary, the Vibration
Study found that the truck traffic generated by construction of [sic] would not cause damage to either
potentially historic structures along the truck route” (DEIS p. 224). If one accepts this, then no historic
properties more than two feet away from a 107,000-pound, fully loaded, 22-wheel tractor trailer travelling
at 30 mph (and even faster along Sound Avenue) would be affected. This strains credulity—witness the
damage to the Old Hallock Homestead. The DEIS in the section on “Construction-Related Vibration
Impacts” repeats the two-foot number in three places, but also cites the 17-foot distance derived from FTA
Guidelines (DEIS p. 295, 296, Table 52). This will certainly be confusing to readers of the DEIS.
3.11-95
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)24
The likelihood that Project truck traffic will generate vibrations that will damage the historic Water Tower
and Accessory Building at 3380 West Mill Road is NOT a "worst case" scenario—it is a near-certain
scenario, and that is the reason OPRHP/SHPO request a construction protection plan for this property. HRS
Photos D9-D11 show the water tower and the accessory building give some indication of the property’s
deteriorated condition. More detailed photos (FIGURE HISTORIC-3) clearly show the very deteriorated
condition of the water tower’s concrete foundation (severe cracks and spalling) and iron components
(broken and severely oxidized). The DEIS’ conclusion that this property is unlikely to be impacted by
vibrations from trucks passing it at a distance of 12 feet (or that they could come within two feet), defies
common sense.
3.11-96
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)24
The DEIS, in contradiction of its own data, states and falsely concludes that “It was determined that the
Project trucks would not cause vibrations that would impact adjacent historical structures . . . “(DEIS pp.
xix, 227) and “using the data collected near the project site, there is no predicted impact to any nearby
historic structures from truck traffic” (DEIS p. xxxi, xxxii, 296, 306).
3.11-97
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)24 & 25
According to the DEIS, as “evaluated in . . . Section 3.11 (Archaeological and Cultural Resources), the
proposed action would not result in significant adverse . . . vibration impacts associated with construction-
related activities . . . “(emphasis added) (DEIS p. 249). As noted above, the HRS barely touched on the
subject of vibration impacts. The “no predicted impact” statements cited above are, in this statement,
replaced with a conclusion that “no significant adverse impacts” will occur. What would constitute a
“significant” or “adverse” impact is not defined.
3.11-98
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)25
As noted above, the DEIS scope is quite clear that potential noise impacts to historic structures need to be
addressed in the DEIS. Although the HRS makes several references to the need to address noise impacts
HRS pp. 2, 19, 21) it never actually does so.
3.11-99
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)25
As noted above, the HRS identifies four properties that “could be indirectly affected by the construction of
the main water line, the associated hydrant, or by project truck traffic”. These are the properties discussed
above in regard to vibration impacts. However, only one of these properties, the Robinson-D’Aires house,
is a residence where “construction of the main water line, the associated hydrant, or by Project truck
traffic” may create potentially adverse noise impacts. According to the HRS this “historic property . . . is
well-elevated above both W. Mill Road and Naugles Road and, for this reason, is not likely to be affected by
vibration effects in the same manner as buildings might be on the same elevation” (HRS p. 22). However,
noise impacts are often perceived to be greater at locations uphill from the noise source.
3.11-100
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)25
The HRS does not address potential noise impacts to properties located along the truck route west of Cox
Neck Road. The DEIS does not indicate if the Applicant has committed to avoiding the use of Jake brakes
along this portion of the Project truck route.
3.11-101
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)25
Additional information relevant to assessing noise impacts to historic properties is included in Appendix R
of the revised DEIS. An earlier version of the Acoustic Report in Appendix R was included in the original
December 2021 version of the DEIS. That report is dated November 30, 2021, months after the HRS was
prepared.49 The HRS should not have been prepared until noise data was available.
3.11-102
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)25
Only one identified historic property—the Hallock Museum Farm--is open to the public.50 Potential noise
impacts would primarily affect individual residential structures and their occupants. Those impacts are
addressed in comments describing how noise impacts will affect quality of life and community character.
3.11-103
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)26
The only mitigation proposed in the HRS is for the Water Tower and Accessory Building at 3380 West Mill
Road. The HRS recommends that “orange cones or other prominent markers should be placed at the south
end of the stabilized RCA shoulder during the construction period” (HRS p.17). As shown on the plan for
the temporary on-site haul road (HRS Figure 4) the proposed RCA shoulder would end approximately 50
feet north of the Water Tower site. According to the DEIS, the purpose of the orange cones is “to ensure
that the construction trucks will maintain distance from the Water Tower and Building at 3380 West Mill
Road to minimize vibration impacts” (DEIS pp. xxxvi, xli, 300, 308). It is unclear exactly how the placement
of traffic cones more than 50 feet away from the Water Tower would mitigate vibration impacts from
Project construction vehicles. Given that the water tower is within feet of the paved roadway, in order to
have any meaningful reduction of impact, the restricted distance between the water tank and passing
traffic would require the closing or significant narrowing of one lane of traffic.
3.11-104
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)26
The Applicant-proposed Construction Protection Plan for the Water Tower at 3380 West Mill Road, and the
Old Mill Inn/Restaurant, recommended by OPRHP/SHPO, is inadequate and does not even address
concerns about the Old Mill Inn.
3.11-105
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)27
It includes setting a value of 0.12 PPV as the point at which an alert will be triggered. This much too high.
“Strict construction vibration control limits for [landmark] buildings serve not only to eliminate the
possibility of immediate damage, but also to reduce future fatigue damage that may be caused by the
cumulative effects of both man and the environment.”53
As noted above, the 0.12 PPV is not a universally accepted threshold for damage to historic properties. In
addition, if an alert is triggered only after a reading 0.12 PPV is recorded, it means that damage may have
already occurred. In addition, the DEIS and the Vibration Report state that tests indicated that the PPV
associated with haul truck movements on West Mill Road is 0.007. If that is correct (which seems unlikely),
there should be no problem with setting the alert threshold at a much lower value than 0.12 PPV.
3.11-106
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)27
All components of the plan are designed to collect data for purpose of confirming that a Project
construction vehicle is not be the cause of the alert. The plan should take the conservative approach, and
assume that any alerts are caused by Project vehicles. Given that during the six-month long excavation
phases, a Project haul truck will be passing Monitoring Location 4 approximately every seven minutes,
there will not be sufficient time to determine whether or not a Project vehicle is responsible.
3.11-107
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)28
The last component of the plan is so vague as to be meaningless. It merely calls for truck trips to be halted
“until additional data can be collected and mitigation can be implemented.” What data? What mitigation?
Who will determine what data is collected? Who will determine what constitutes adequate and
appropriate mitigation? How will trucks in-route to the Project site be notified that they should not
proceed to the Project site? Will the Town of Southold be notified? Who will have stop- and start-work
authority?
3.11-108
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)28
The DEIS acknowledges that, using both the FTA and NHDOT guidelines, “it was determined that historic
structures needed to be more than 17 feet from the truck to be safe from damage,” (DEIS pp.224, 295).
However, the historic water tower at 3380 West Mill Road will be 12 feet away from passing trucks. The
construction protection plan, because it is reactive, rather than proactive, fails to propose any meaningful
measures to protect this historic property.
3.11-109
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Cultural
Resources
(Historic
Structures)28
No site-specific procedure for dealing with potential vibration impacts to the Old Mill Inn/Restaurant is
included in the plan, in spite of the fact that OPRHP/SHPO specifically called out concerns about this
property.
3.11-110 28
DEIS Table 30 (analysis of Project consistency with the Town of Southold’s Comprehensive Plan states that
“[I]t is further noted that 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 (see Section 3.11.2 and Appendix T of this DEIS).”
DEIS Table 31 (analysis of Project consistency with the Town of Southold’s Local Waterfront Revitalization
Plan) (LWRP) 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 1A 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).
Both of the above statements are incorrect and misleading....
3.11-111
The DEIS mentions an April 8, 2022, letter from Nancy Herter of the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation. Has there been further correspondence or developments in this
regard since that date? If so, please submit correspondence, and address any outstanding issues
accordingly.
3.11-112
Reed Super
7.10.23 39-40
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 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.
3.11-113
Comments on
DEIS Strong
Storage pt 2 1
Joel Klein 1:
it is my professional opinion that the CPP described in DEIS Appendix R will not adequately protect the Old
Water Tower at 3380 West Mill Road (a National Register of Historic Places-eligible property), from
damage from construction truck traffic associated with the Project. It is also my professional opinion that
impacts to historic properties located along Sound Avenue have not been properly evaluated. The OPRHP
letter contains nothing indicating any basis for its conclusions, other than indicating that it relied on the
analyses in the Vibration Report. The letter itself consists only of a single boilerplate paragraph, followed
by two sentences dealing with Project impacts. The Planning Board should request a more detailed
explanation of how OPRHP reached its conclusions.
3.11-114
Comments on
DEIS Strong
Storage pt 2 2
Joel Klein 1:
As I indicated in my letter to OPRHP, I believe that it is possible to adequately mitigate potential adverse
impacts to the Old Water Tower through implementation of a properly prepared CPP. However,
implementation of the proposed CPP will not come remotely close to avoiding or minimizing anticipated
adverse impacts to "the maximum extent practicable" as called for by SEQRA. This issue must be addressed
in the Project's Final Environmental Impact Statement.
3.11-115
Comments on
DEIS Strong
Storage pt 2 2
Joel Klein 1:
The Vibration Report relies entirely on the use of PPV as a metric for evaluating the potential for project-
associated vibration to impact structures. According to a 2012 National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) report, frequency-based damage thresholds are more appropriate than PPV-based
thresholds for evaluating potential vibration-induced damage to historic structures. The Vibration Report
(p. 4) indicates that data was collected using a Bruel & Kjaer Model 2250L Frequency Analyzer. However,
no frequency data is included in the report. It is unclear whether the individual instrument used to collect
data was equipped with supplemental frequency analysis software. Vibration frequency data should have
been taken into consideration in evaluating potential vibration impacts to historic structures.
3.11-116
Joel Klein
6/21/23 1
Joel Klein 2:
The CPP, as described, will not, in my professional opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of scientific
certainty, adequately ensure that at least one historic property, the Water Tower and Building at 3380 W
Mill Road (USN Number: 10310.001551) will not be damaged or destroyed by activities associated with the
referenced project.
3.11-117
Joel Klein
6/21/23 44928
Joel Klein 2:
The CPP is also seriously flawed. There are two principal reasons for this. First, the CPP is based on the
fallacious assumption that, even without mitigative measures of any kind, the Old Water Tower will not be
affected by vibrations associated with project-related truck traffic. If OPRHP accepted this premise, then
there would be no need for a CPP in the first place. Second, the CPP does not address the potential for
adverse impacts other than vibration to adversely affect the Old Water Tower-specifically the possibility
that a truck could accidently come in direct contact with the Old Water Tower. It fails to mention, that the
project's cultural resource consultant has acknowledged the potential for non-vibration impacts, and
recommended that "prominent markers such as orange cones ... be placed at the south end of the
stabilized RCA shoulder during the construction period to ensure that the construction truck maintain
distance from the [Old Water Tower]".
3.11-118
Joel Klein
6/21/23 2
It is worth noting that the Vibration Report also concludes that the NRHP-listed Old Hallock Homestead,
located along the proposed truck route, approximately 45 feet from the edge of Sound Avenue, another
non-engineered two-lane road, will not be affected by vibration generated by project-related truck traffic.
That conclusion is refuted by direct empirical evidence. The plaster ceiling of the Old Hallock Homestead
has previously collapsed as a result of traffic generated vibration (personal communication from Richard
Wines, Hallockville Museum Farm). It is clear that the assumptions regarding the vibration damage
threshold distances (17 feet using FTA criteria which are intended for use on mass-transit projects, and 2
feet according to the Acoustic Reports on-site study), employed in developing the CPP, are incorrect.
3.11-119
Joel Klein
6/21/23 4
I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that July 29, 2021 your office issued a letter stating
that "We have reviewed the submission received on July 6, 2021, including the Reconnaissance Level
Historic Resources Survey dated July 2021. Based on that review, the OPRHP has no building/above ground
historic resources concerns." That letter was issued before the project's truck route through the Town of
Riverhead had been identified. The Acoustic Report recently submitted to OPRHP also contains an
evaluation of potential project impacts to historic structures along the project's truck route in Riverhead.
The list of structures included in the Vibration Report appears to have been based solely on information
from OPRHP's CRIS. That data contains misidentifications and incorrect locations for some properties. The
CRIS data is also based primarily on information recorded in 1974 as part of the research done for a
potential Northville Historic District. Given that properties older than 50 years of age may potentially meet
the criteria for State and/or National Register eligibility, relying on data that is 49 years old is problematic.
A survey should have been undertaken by a qualified architectural historian, not acoustic engineers, to
determine if any additional potentially historic properties are located along the truck route.
3.11-120
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 14
The inventory of historic properties that could be affected by the Project was not properly conducted and
is incomplete. The DEIS significantly underestimates the potential for traffic-induced vibration damage to
historic structures along the Project truck route in Southold and Riverhead.
3.11-121
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 14
Vibration from Project truck traffic is likely to damage both Old Mill Inn and the Old Water Tower at 3380
West Mill Road. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has determined both structures are eligible
for the State and National Registers of Historic Places. SHPO has requested a Construction Protection Plan
be prepared. The plan in the DEIS is inadequate and includes no meaningful protocols for protecting
historic properties or mitigating damage that might occur. It does not address potential impacts to the Old
Mill Inn. The SHPO has not reviewed the plan proposed in the DEIS
3.11-122
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 14
The archeological survey of the Project site
failed to properly evaluate a potential historic period archeological site in the Project area.
3.11-123
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 14
This conclusion -that a historic property would be unaffected by the
passage as little as two and a half-feet away from a fully-loaded, six-axle tractor-trailer traveling
30 miles per hour (or faster along Sound Avenue), as often as eight times an hour -strains
credulity, and flies in the face of the documented damage to the Old Hallock Homestead.
3.11-124
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 25
The survey of historical structures along the truck route incorrectly lists the address of the Eugene Hallock
House, the Old Hallock Homestead, Northville Academy and the David Wells House (incorrectly called the
Daniel Wells House), among others. The correct addresses are in the list of Riverhead Town Landmarks
prepared by the Riverhead Landmarks Preservation Commission in 2017. The DEIS might plausibly have
been relying on conflicting map data, but the Table in Figure 6 in the Traffic Study gives addresses for some
of the same buildings in the range of approximately 97 Sound Ave. to 113 Sound Ave., which bear not even
a passing resemblance to the actual house numbers, which are in the 4000, 5000 and 6000 range.
3.11-125
Town of
Riverhead
05/23/23 1
3. On May 1, 1975, Sound Avenue was designated a "scenic and historic corridor" by the New York
State Senate and Assembly (Senate Bill S.5814, Assembly Bill A.8189), which, in part, ensured that "its
historic, scenic, and cultural resources, and its natural beauty shall be preserved and protected for the
benefit and enjoyment of the people of the state." (Senate-Assembly Act attached herewith)
4. The DEIS does not include any type of engineering analysis of Sound Avenue in order to determine
whether or not the existing roadway's construction can adequately bear the traffic from construction
vehicles weighting in excess of 53 tons.
3.11-126
Terese Brady-
Mendez
05/12/23 3
The review of the construction area of the proposed extension of the marina yielded the following
information:
"As indicated in the reconnaissance-level historic resources report "the three inventoried properties hold
SHPO Unique Site Numbers (USNs) and their eligibility for the State/National Registers of Historic Places
(S/NRHP) is presently listed as Undetermined. The properties are:
1. Robinson-D' Aires House (USN 10310.000347) at 4255 West Mill Road,
2. Old Mill Restaurant (USN 10310.000348) at 5775 West Mill Road, and
3. Old Water Tower (USN 10310.000349) on Suffolk County Tax Parcel 1000-106-6-4.1 (West
Mill Road)"
It makes clear here that Strong's has no regard for three local properties eligible for State/Nation Registers
of Historic Places. Once again, it is apparent that this expansion will have a deleterious effect on the
important sites that add historical value to our area.
3.11-127
Richard A Wines
05/09/23 1
Consultants for the applicant have done a poor job of assessing the impact of that traffic on historic
resources, and often either mis-identify the location of resources or cite incorrect distances from the
pavement.
3.11-128
Richard A Wines
05/09/23 1
For instance, the Hallockville Museum's Old Homestead, dating to 1765 or earlier, is
incorrectly identified as the Eugene Hallock house 45 feet back from Sound Avenue.
However, it is actually only 30 feet from the pavement edge when I measured it on the
ground. The Homestead is a fragile resource that, due to its proximity to the road, has
previously suffered damage from road vibrations.
3.11-129
Richard A Wines
05/09/23 1
Similarly, the other most significant of the many historic resources along Sound Avenue,
the former Northville Academy/Parish Hall and now the LI Buddhist Meditation Center at
5268 Sound Avenue (address incorrect in report), is actually only 25 feet from the
pavement, not 63 feet as indicated in the consultant's report.
3.11-130
Richard A Wines
05/09/23 1
The consultants report also does not mention the historically Black community on
Northville Turnpike, with its Fleltcher Booker Homestead at 1185 Northville Turnpike, a
town-designated landmark.
3.11-131
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Historic
Structures 16
The Old (Frame) Water Tower. This property (OPRHP USN 10310.000349) is located at 5670 West Mill
Road. It is described in the DEIS (p.4) as a single-family residence. It is presently listed in SHPO/OPRHP
records as having an “undermined” S/NRHP eligibility status. Although required by the DEIS Scope, the HRS
makes no attempt to apply S/NRHP eligibility criteria to this property. It indirectly attempts to address the
question of integrity through a very brief discussion of how the structure has been modified. The HRS
concludes that “The Old Water Tower could be indirectly affected by the construction of the main water
line, the associated hydrant which will be positioned about 40 ft. (12 m.) northwest of the building’s
northeast corner, and Phase 2 construction traffic” (p.24). The Frame Water Tower was included in the
vibration study (see below) that was conducted after the HRS was prepared.
3.11-132
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Historic
Structures 17
The Old Mill Inn/Restaurant. The HRS concludes that the “Old Mill Restaurant might be indirectly affected
by the construction of the main water line, and Phase 2 construction traffic. It would be less likely to be
affected by the construction of the proposed water hydrant which is proposed to be located on the west
side of W. Mill Road north of the Old Water Tower” (HRS p.23). As noted, above the Old Mill Inn (OPRHP
USN 10310.000348) was determined to be S/NRHP eligible subsequent to the preparation of the HRS. The
Old Mill Inn/Restaurant was included in the vibration study (see below) that was conducted after the HRS
was prepared because of concerns raised by OPRHP.
3.11-133
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Archeology 4
Surprisingly little attention is given in the Phase 1A report to the prehistoric context associated with the
Project area. Specific prior archeological investigations conducted in the general Project area vicinity in
advance of planned development projects are discussed, as are three previously recorded Native American
archeological sites. However, discussion of the broader archeological context is limited to a single
sentence in a standard archeological reference (Ritchie 1980) which states only that its discussion of Long
Island is “exceptionally brief.”
Chapter 4.0 Other Required Sections
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
4.0-1 Reed Super 7.10.23 10
"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."
4.0-2 Reed Super 7.10.23 56
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.
4.0-3 Reed Super 7.10.23 56
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.
4.0-4 Reed Super 7.10.23 58
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.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.
4.0-5 Reed Super 7.10.23 58
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.
4.0-6
Save the Sound
7/10/23 20
We recommend including consideration of the proposed haul road through the R-80 portion of the
property as having potential to further a future residential development proposal. The necessarily
fortified, planned haul road likely cannot be removed satisfactorily for forest mitigation; the applicant
proposes to keep it for future emergency egress. The permanence of this road through the successional
southern hardwood forest would enable numerous activities facilitating development, such as access
for additional test wells and simple driving tours for prospective buyers or builders. In several public
settings we have heard the applicant state that residential development might be a consequence of a
denial of the present warehouse proposal.
4.0-7
Save the Sound
7/10/23 20
The sale of sand for future development should not be ignored. Although the immediate consequence
of sale is financial compensation to the applicant, there is a reason sand is such a marketable
commodity. The FEIS should recognize that sand further purveyed by the (as yet unknown) recipient of
the applicant's excavated material would be used for development.
4.0-8
Save the Sound
7/10/23 20
Town planners and town board members have referred to the proposed project as one of the largest
the town has had to consider, if not the largest. Approval of this project, with all its attendant adverse,
unmitigable environmental impacts, might appear to lower the standard for future reviews. Future
large-magnitude projects proposed in Southold would be viewed through the lens of precedent.
Growth inducement is germane to the DEIS review and appears to be top of mind among members of
the public.
4.0-9
Save the Sound
7/10/23 21
The losses of a geologic feature and a natural forest community cannot be mitigated; they would be
permanent. Consumption of a great amount of fossil fuel during development and post-development,
for propane heating of buildings, constitutes irretrievable loss. Should slope failure occur during
excavation, with consequent sedimentation in the tidal wetland, the loss of marsh could be
unmitigable. Sand is a highly valuable natural resource that would be permanently lost once it is
excavated and sold to a purveyor in the land development supply chain.
4.0-10
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 2
the DEIS is misleading, internally inconsistent, and rife with inaccuracies and omissions.
Many of its conclusions are based on assumptions unsupported by data.
4.0-11
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 2
It does not fully comply with
the final DEIS Scope, even after revisions following the Planning Board's determination that an earlier
version was inade, .q uate.
4.0-12
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 21
The DEIS Scope requires the DEIS to "discuss the threat of fire and explosion on site from all
ignitable sources" and "Include the evaluation of potential fire hazards, and if the Mattituck Fire
Department (MFD) is adequately equipped to respond to a fire at the site" (p.23). The Scope
notes that this "is of special concern given the size of the structures and the combustibles within
the stored boats."
The DEIS has not adequately addressed this concern.
4.0-13
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 21
The DEIS has not adequately addressed the possibility that the MFD may not have sufficient
equipment and personnel, even with assistance from other fire departments, to control a major
fire at the Project site.
4.0-14
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 22
The DEIS does not mention installing sprinkler systems or standpipes. A June, 2021 letter from
Southold Fire Marshal James Easton to Applicant's environmental consultant, specified that:
"An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13." Section 3604.2
of the New York State Fire Code requires that: "Marinas and boatyards shall be equipped
throughout with standpipe systems in accordance with NFPA 303. Systems shall be provided
with hose connections located such that no point on the marina pier or float system exceeds 150
feet ... from a standpipe hose connection."
4.0-15
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 22
The Project's four 2000-gallon propane tanks, even when installed according to code and
properly maintained, will still present a danger. During a fire event, a Boiling Liquid Expanding
Vapor Explosion (BLEVE) is possible. The DEIS should have addressed this possibility and
evaluated the potential impact and the ability of the MFD to adequately respond.
4.0-16
Save Mattituck Inlet
06/05/23 22
The DEIS does not consider the fire risk from lithium-ion batteries aboard the stored vessels.
Increasingly, these batteries are used to power onboard equipment, tenders and personal
watercraft such as Jet-Skis. In the time since the original DEIS was prepared, lithium-ion battery
fires have emerged as a significant fire risk, and the DEIS should not be accepted without a
consideration of their risks.
4.0-18
Jo-Ann Lechner
7/5/23 1 Adequately describe loss of irretrievable resources
Chapter 5.0 Alternatives
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
5.0-1
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Alternatives 2
DEIS Appendix U contains correspondence from H & L Contracting (H&L) to the Applicant. According to
that correspondence, H&L “investigated very thoroughly with at least 4 different barge companies the
possibility of removing approx. 135,000 yards of sand or any significant portion of this amount by barge
from your Strong’s Yacht Center marina on Mattituck Inlet in relation to your proposed building project. .
. . Unfortunately, all of the barge companies came back with the same answer, the inlet is not deep
enough nor wide enough to safely accommodate the size barges that would be required for this
project.” No correspondence or other record of the Applicant’s request to H&L, is included in the DEIS. It
is therefore not possible to know what, if any, Applicant specified constraints were provided to
H&L....Given the absence of supporting documentation, it is not possible to determine if those
companies were given specific parameters to include in their feasibility evaluations, or if they limited
their evaluations to barges of a particular size and draft....
5.0-2
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Alternatives 2
The DEIS states that as “outlined in Table 33 in Section 2.2.4 of Appendix M [Boat Vessel Study], the
drafts of the boats/yachts range from approximately 5-feet-11-inches to 6-feet-8-inches.” The apparent
reference is to Table 4 in DEIS Appendix M (Typical Yacht Types to be Stored at SYC Under Proposed
Action) in DEIS Appendix M. That table lists the draft of 86-foot Sunseeker yachts (the largest boats listed
in the table) as 6-feet-5 inches, not 6-feet-8-inches.
5.0-3
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Alternatives 3
No detailed chart including water depth soundings for Mattituck Creek is included in Appendix M. Figure
2, dated 4-8-2020, employs a scale of 1” = 400’. No source for the figure is provided, and it is not
suitable for determining actual water depths within Mattituck Creek.4 H&L apparently did a detailed
draft sounding study that was provided to the Applicant (and presumably his consultants) but this
information is not included in the DEIS.
5.0-4
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Alternatives 3
there two areas immediately north of SYC with depths greater than 25 feet and at high tide would be
approximately 30 feet, providing substantial draft for the yachts typically serviced by the existing
marina” (p. 56). By the same token, it is apparent that barges with 10-foot drafts could navigate the
inlet at high tide but, without explanation, this alternative was not considered in the DEIS. No
consideration, or explanation for why it was not considered, is given to the feasibility of limiting barge
operations to periods of higher tide when vessel draft might not be of concern.
5.0-5
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Alternatives 3
The second reason provided by H&L for why the barge alternative is not feasible is they are “very
concerned about the sharp S turns as you enter the Inlet first and second bends, these are very tight and
would not allow the width or depth necessary to safely navigate these areas.” This is certainly a
legitimate concern. However, as with concerns about vessel draft, it is unclear if this concern is based
upon the sizes of the barges used in H&L’s analysis, or if the concern could be eliminated through the
use of smaller barges.
5.0-6
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Alternatives 4
it appears that the evaluation of this (on-site cement plant) alternative failed to take into account the
fact that an on-site concrete batch plant would eliminate the need for the delivery of concrete to the
Project. According to the DEIS, 89 truck deliveries by concrete trucks will be necessary to provide the
concrete for foundations and floor slabs for the two boat storage buildings (pp. xxx, 19). Concrete trucks
generally carry approximately 10 CY of material per load.5 Assuming 10 CY trucks are used, the 89 truck
deliveries would therefore be transporting approximately 890 CY of concrete to the Project site for
foundations and floor slabs. This is far less concrete than the 4082 CY specified in DEIS Appendix U.
Assuming 10 CY of concrete can be delivered during each round-trip, approximately 410 round-trips, or
820 total trips will be required to deliver the concrete required for the Project’s retaining wall
foundations and building floor slabs. This is more than four times the number stated in the DEIS. The
DEIS has not considered the extent to which the reduction in concrete-truck trips would offset the
disadvantages of an on-site concrete plant.
5.0-7
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Alternatives 4 & 5
Note should be taken of the DEIS’ reference to the “existing slope failure” behind Buildings 7 and 8. The
preferred Project alternative would eliminate this concern because the affected area would no longer
exist. However, the no-action alternative does not address the environmental consequences of the
Applicant continuing to fail to address this concern.
5.0-8
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Alternatives 5
Alternative 4 would have significant visual impacts because the tops of the proposed structures would
be at elevations of more than 70 feet. However, the DEIS’ discussion of Alternative 4 neglects to
adequately address a significant advantage of this alternative over the proposed plan. The DEIS states
that “the grading program for this Alternate Plan would result in approximately 2,939 CY of cut material
for export off-site” (p.317). Under the proposed plan 134,921 CY of cut material would have to be
removed—46 times the amount required by Alternative 4. The significant reduction in the amount of
sand that would be exported would be associated with a proportional reduction in the amount of truck
trips along local roads, and a corresponding reduction in damage to local roads, and noise and vibration
impacts, as compared to the preferred alternative. DEIS Table 53 (Comparative Analysis of Proposed Plan
and Alternatives), although it provides comparative data on traffic impacts after the Project is
completed, does NOT include information on construction phase traffic.
5.0-9
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Alternatives 5
According to the DEIS (p.318), Alternative 4 “would realize a cost savings of approximately $750,000
with the reduction in cut material and elimination of the Evergreen concrete retaining wall.” It is
impossible to evaluate the relative significance of this amount since nowhere in the DEIS the total cost of
construction of the proposed Project mentioned.
5.0-10
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Alternatives 5
The DEIS asserts the result would be the elimination of “450 trucks from the excavation phase, which
would reduce the excavation phase by 11.25 days or approximately two weeks” (p. 336). This is
incorrect, and underestimates the major advantage of this alternative. The 450 trucks referred to in the
DEIS actually refers to round-trips. The actual reduction in the number of truck trips would be 900 at a
minimum.
5.0-11
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Alternatives 6
The discussion of Alternative 7 also fails to note that the reduction in the number of truck trips would
also be associated with changes in noise, vibration, and air quality impacts.
5.0-12
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Alternatives 6
Table 9 in DEIS Appendix N “Proposed Changes in Ecological Community Coverages Under Alternate Plan
7” requires clarification. For example, it is unclear how this alternative would result in a 126.2% increase
in “Buildings & Paved/Pervious Surfaces” over existing conditions; or a 695.8% increase in “Mowed Lawn
with Trees & Landscaping.” The full ecological impacts of this alternative have not been adequately
evaluated.
5.0-13
Nelson Pope
Voorhis 6-26-23 2
Alternative 7: Alternative Material Mitigation Plan: Please further describe the area where the 13,500 CY
(12 inches) of soil would be placed. Is it flat? Will it be used to fill a topographic depression? Is it on a hill
or on a slope? Also, the area of soil placement under Alternative 7 is described as an area vegetated with
successional shrubland. What specific types of vegetation are present and are there any rare plants at
that location that may be affected? How much land will be cleared to accommodate the soil? How far is
the soil placement area from streets and property lines? The soil should be at least as far from the
property lines as the property's required yard setbacks. Please indicate in the DEIS that any soil that is
retained onsite will be clean uncontaminated soil.
5.0-14
Nelson Pope
Voorhis 6-26-23 2 & 3
One of the primary impacts from the project is the significant volume of soil to be removed and the
associated truck traffic. A letter dated June 24, 2021, was sent to SVC from H&L Contracting. The letter
states that H&L reached out to four different barge companies asking about the feasibility of utilizing
barges to export excess soil from the site and that these companies had indicated that it was not
possible, based on an anticipated draft of 10 feet and limited depth and width ("S" curves) along the
creek. Please provide the bases, essential information, and calculations if any to demonstrate that ten
feet of draft would be needed during low tide and that Mattituck Creek is too shallow to accommodate
loaded barges that may have less draft. Indicate the sizes (length, width, etc.) of the barges that would
be used and if there are alternatives such as smaller barges (with more frequent but smaller shipments)
that might be accommodated by the Creek. How much soil/ weight do the barges carry? How does the
loading of the barges affect its draft (e.g., ton/foot of draft)? How do (to what extent do) daily tidal
cycles affect the depth of the creek and hours per day that operations could be undertaken? Could
barges be used with proper scheduling? How many barges would be needed? Where would barges be
offloaded and what would be the route taken for final disposal, reuse or stockpiling? Would soil be
covered to prevent siltation of the creek? Are there other alternatives or mitigations to lessen the
impact of soil excavation and export?
5.0-15
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 5 What is the draft of this 84ft vessel shown in the photo when loaded and unloaded?
5.0-16
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 5 What four barge companies were contacted?
5.0-17
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 5 Did the four barge companies that were contacted reply in writing? If so, please provide their responses.
5.0-18
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 5
What information was presented to the barge companies regarding the water depths at Mean High
Water (MHW)?
5.0-19
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 5
Was the alternative for using barges to move the excavated soil modeled during high tide periods? Why
does it appear that the high tide depths were omitted from the barge navigability discussion? Can barges
operate mid to high tides when the water depth is greater?
5.0-20
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 5 Could several barges be loaded with material and depart during high tides?
5.0-21
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 5 What is the increase in the draft from a loaded and unloaded barge with materials?
5.0-22
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 5
Is there an option to use shorter, self-powered barges, loaded with less material, with more frequent
trips? If so, were the potential impacts of this option explored?
5.0-23
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 5 What length barges could be used to safely navigate the radii of the inlet curves?
5.0-24
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 5
Was a schematic showing the radii of the curves in the inlet produced to illustrate the feasibility of barge
navigation?
5.0-25
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 6
The above information and that presented on page 60 of the DEIS conflicts with the claim that barges
cannot safely navigate the inlet/creek due to water depth. The presentation of water depths differs
using two different data sets for assessing the navigability of the inlet for barges versus yachts. The
water depths used for the barges were presented as Mean Low Low Water (MLL W) as outlined in The
Boat Study Proposed Boat Storage Buildings report prepared by P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc, and
included as Appendix Min the DEIS. The water depths to assess the navigability of the large yachts used
Mean High Water (MHW). Consequently, the DEIS concludes that water depths to operate barges safely
are inadequate, but adequate for large yachts, pointing out that there is a substantial draft for the yachts
typically serviced by the existing marina. If the average water depth at high tide is 14' -15 ', shouldn't
that be sufficient for clearance? There should be a daily window unidentified between high and low tide
to get the barges in and out of the inlet.
5.0-26
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 6
Can yachts navigate the inlet/creek at low tide? It is difficult to understand how a 133 '+ yacht could
navigate the inlet/creek and a barge could not. Could you explain this further?
5.0-27
Planning Board
Office
Memorandum 7-
10-23 7
Mattituck Inlet is a federal waterway, and as such, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is
responsible for routine dredging. In 2013-2014 the ACOE dredged the inlet which widened and
deepened the inlet channel to about 15 feet below mean low tide, a total of 100,000 cubic yards was
removed. How does this affect the operation of the barges during all tide cycles?
5.0-28
Hannah Van
Manen June 2
2023 Email 1 I support the Planning Board rejecting this project and finding a better alternative.
5.0-29
Brian Withers May
11, 2023 Email 1
Why not change the jplan and allow Strong's to build their buildings further south in Mattituck Inlet on
land that would not require such a huge removal of trees and sand. Strong's could donate the land they
wanted to use initially to the nearby town park near the entrance to the Inlet. This is a win-win plan that
would benefit everyone concerned.
5.0-30
Theresa Dilworth
July 10 2023 email 2
A second condition of the County's approval was investigating the alternative of constructing buildings in
their existing locations without soil excavation and removal, in an expanded Full Environmental
Assessment Form (FEAF). Building at the existing grade lessens the repetitive economic loss concern and
also addresses the functionality of the waste and storm water systems proposed. See the adopted report
of the Suffolk County Planning Commission for further details on this alternative.
The Southold Town Planning Dept. and Planning Board omitted this item when it filed the FEAF in August
2020. The FEAF was signed by Mark Terry as preparer and by Donald J. Wilcenski as responsible officer in
the lead agency, both signatures dated August 11, 2020. A copy is on the Southold Town Planning
Department website.
5.0-31
Theresa Dilworth
July 10 2023 email 44961
As a consequence of being omitted from the FEAF, the County's conditions - no soil removal and
investigate building in the existing location - were missing from the applicant's Draft Scope and Final
Scope documents and discussed in just a single paragraph in the DEIS, on page 336. One paragraph of a
DEIS containing thousands of pages including Appendices is inadequate - definitely not the "hard look"
required under the case law. SEQRA always requires review of less environmentally damaging
alternatives - and not simply because Suffolk County Planning Commission approval is conditional upon
such review. SEQRA requires a lead agency to "act and choose alternatives which, consistent with social,
economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize or avoid
adverse environmental effects."...... The DEIS inadequately discusses an explicit alternative not requiring
soil excavation and removal put forth by an involved agency with concurrent jurisdiction to review and
approve the action. Accordingly, it is difficult to fathom why the Planning Dept. even considered the DEIS
to be "complete" and "suitable for public review and comment" at this time.
5.0-33
Audubon Society 5-
23-26 89
The Town could choose to take Alternative 1, No-Action, and simply reject the proposal, due to the
profoundly negative environmental impacts.
5.0-34
Audubon Society 5-
23-27 89
In our view, the Town should reject Alternative 2, barge removal, since it results in the same
environmental impacts as the main proposal, although it mitigates the trucks traveling by road. It is more
of a mitigation strategy than an alternative. We understand the applicant has rejected this alternative.
5.0-35
Audubon Society 5-
23-28 89
Alternative 3, building on another parcel, was rejected by the applicant. However perhaps if the Town
were to approve a subdivision of the property and purchase the coastal Oak Beech forest portion for
adding onto the Town Preserve, this may provide funds sufficient to cause the applicant to reconsider
building the project on a different parcel.
5.0-36
Audubon Society 5-
23-29 90
In our opinion the Town should reject Alternative 4, since it involves eliminating the rare coastal oak-
beech forest, with all the accompanying impacts on wildlife. In addition, this Alternative 4 is not feasible
for the applicant either, since the supersized yachts cannot be lifted to such high locations with existing
equipment, and they cannot be trailered there.
5.0-37
Audubon Society 5-
23-30 90
In our opinion the Town should reject Alternative 5, simply making the new buildings a wee bit smaller,
since similar amounts of rare coastal oak-beech forest would need to be removed, and similar amounts
of sand excavated, with similar negative impacts on wildlife, and similar enlargement of a land area
subject to FEMA High Hazard Coast Erosion Risk. In addition, the applicant does not consider this
Alternative to be feasible since it is not cost-effective.
5.0-38
Audubon Society 5-
23-31 90
In our opinion, the Town should reject Alternative 7. It has all the negative environmental impacts of the
main proposal (rare forest removal, sand excavation, wildlife habitat loss, enlarging land areas in the
FEMA High-Risk Coastal Flooding Zones, loss of community character) but is even worse from an
environmental perspective since it would involve dumping 10% of the sand elsewhere on the parcel
causing ecological disturbance to additional acres of the Successional Scrub land area.
5.0-39
Audubon Society 5-
23-32 90
In our opinion, the Town should reject Alternative 8. It has all the negative environmental impacts of the
main proposal (rare forest removal, sand excavation, wildlife habitat loss, enlarging land areas in the
FEMA High-Risk Coastal Flooding Zones, community character) while making traffic worse not only one
local road, but two. It is more of a partial traffic mitigation strategy than a real alternative but would
make traffic worse and cause wear and tear on an additional local road.
5.0-40
Audubon Society 5-
23-33 91
With respect to the eight current DEIS alternatives, we think the only environmentally viable options are
Alternative One (No-Action), and Alternative 6, and two variations thereon described below. There may
be other options available besides the eight options, that should be thoughtfully analyzed and
considered by the SYC team and Southold Town.
5.0-41
Audubon Society 5-
23-34 91
We think the Town would be justified in applying Alternative One and rejecting the proposal outright, in
view of the profoundly negative environmental and community impacts that would result. While an
outright rejection is rare, this proposal is extraordinary. It should be rejected on the grounds that it
requires complete elimination of 4.59 acres of bluff. No one should be allowed to remove a natural land
feature of that size from their property.
5.0-42
Audubon Society 5-
23-35 91
The Town could also consider a variation on the No-Action alternative, that is, rejecting the proposal due
to the profoundly negative environmental impacts, combined with an offer to buy the approximately 15
acres of coastal oak-beech forest. The property would need to be subdivided, and funds would need to
be allocated. The preserved land could then be added onto Mill Road Preserve, the contiguous Town
Preserve, thus ensuring that this forest habitat would be available for future generations of flora and
fauna and future human generations. The financial payment to the applicant would help offset the
rejection of the proposal and could assist the applicant to buy another property in a less ecologically
sensitive location.
5.0-43
Audubon Society 5-
23-36 91
This may also be viable - reconfiguring the existing waterfront storage buildings to accommodate larger
yachts, while constructing new buildings for smaller boats in a less ecologically sensitive part of the
parcel. Alternative 6 avoids expansion of land area in the FEMA High Risk Coastal Erosion Zone, avoids
new structures on the High Risk Coastal Erosion area, reduces impacts on the wetlands and waterway,
avoids destruction of rare New York forest, does not destroy a bluff of up to 60' high that provides
natural protection from sea level rise and flooding, does not require excavation of 181,000 tons of sand
and trucking it for months through the neighborhood streets, and does not require a 87 5' concrete
retaining wall. We think Alternative 6 deserves deeper consideration. This alternative is hardly discussed
in the DEIS - just one small paragraph on page 336, whereas the other alternatives are discussed in detail
for multiple pages.
5.0-44 92
Alternative 6A: Reconfiguration or Reconstruction of Existing Buildings For Larger Yacht Storage, and
New Buildings for Smaller Boats, Combined with Preservation of the Coastal Oak-Beech Forest. Like
Alternative 6 but combined with the Town offering to buy the approximately 15 acres of coastal oak-
beech forest. The property would need to be subdivided, and funds would need to be allocated. The
preserved land could then be added onto the contiguous Town Preserve, Mill Road Preserve, thus
ensuring that this forest habitat would be available for future generations of flora and fauna and future
human generations. The financial payment to the applicant would assist the applicant to construct the
smaller boat buildings in a less ecologically sensitive area.
5.0-45
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 92
Under a variation of Alternative 6, the Town could consider approving a plan to raise the roof height and
door height of SYC's existing storage buildings to accommodate larger yachts, without enlarging the
existing structure's footprint.
5.0-46
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 93
To provide storage space for smaller boats, the Town could consider allowing storage sheds to be
built on the residential-zoned portion of the land, which has already been degraded by historic
agricultural practices, and which is currently overrun by invasive plants such as Oriental
bittersweet and Japanese multiflora rose, and less valuable trees like black locust. While these
acres would be negatively impacted by outright loss of wildlife habitat, and degradation through
forest edge effects and fragmentation, the environmental impact would be much less than
removing the mature and rare coastal oak-beech forest.
5.0-47
Save the Sound
7/10/23 9
The best outcome for water quality protection and other ecosystem services provided by the forested
areas on this property would result from the Town of Southold expediting subdivision of the remainder
of the property from the present marina facility, and then offering to purchase the forested portion for
open space preservation and adding it to Mill Road Preserve public holding. The FEIS should consider this
as an alternative to the proposed action under the "No Action" alternative.
5.0-48
Save the Sound
7/10/23 20
We strongly suggest the FEIS present public acquisition possibilities in its discussion of the No Action
Alternative. The applicant might recoup a significant reward if the coastal oak-beech forest were
acquired by Southold, or preserved in a joint purchase with other public or not-for-profit entities, for
addition to Mill Road Preserve. This alternative not only would prevent the numerous adverse
environmental impacts posed by the project, but would expand the public space, permanently protect
habitat for wildlife, and provide long-term watershed protection for Mattituck Creek and Long Island
Sound.
5.0-49
Save the Sound
7/10/23 20
We note the applicant has spoken publicly about alternatives to the project involving residential or hotel
development as well as possible sale to a large marina corporation. If these options are being
considered, they should have been presented as alternatives to the proposed action in the DEIS. Without
more detail on these choices, the public cannot respond adequately in the review process. At this time,
we must consider them merely as tactics to sway public opinion.
5.0-50
Group for the East
End 7/5/23 4
SEQRA requires that, "the description and evaluation of each alternative should be at the level of detail
sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed." The DEIS must include this
level of detail in its discussion of alternatives. Simply stating that an alternative is not desired
economically by the applicant does not rise to the level of analysis that's intended by the SEQRA process.
The DEIS should be amended to include a further analysis of alternatives in order to objectively and fairly
judge the proposed action and alternatives with the goal to arrive at the least environmentally impactful
project.
5.0-51
Kara Jackson
7/6/23 2 There is an alternative: conserve this land, buy it with the flourishing Community Preservation Fund.
5.0-52
Theresa Dilworth
6/12/23 2
The Draft EIS' s discussion of reasonable alternatives is weak. 6 NYCRR§ 617.9( b)( 5) of the SEQR
Regulations states that an EIS must provide" a description and evaluation of a range of reasonable
alternatives at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives
discussed." Page 117 of the SEQRA Handbook says that" the need to discuss alternatives will depend on
the significance of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. The greater the
impacts, the greater the need to discuss alternatives."' The project is a Class I action under SEQRA since
it is adjacent to a Town nature preserve, and Southold Town has identified significant adverse
environmental impacts to Land, Surface Waters, Groundwater, Flooding, Air, Plants and Animals,
Aesthetic Resources, Noise, and Community Character. Therefore, a much more robust analysis of
alternatives is needed than provided in the applicant' s DEIS.
5.0-53
Theresa Dilworth
6/12/23 2
The applicant proposed hauling away excavated sand by barges instead of trucks. The applicant
contacted one contractor for a quote, contained on page 234 of the Supplemental Data Appendix to the
Traffic Impact Study, and was told that the available barges were too deep to fit in the shallow waters of
Mattituck Inlet and were too wide to negotiate the S-curves of the Inlet.
Contacting just one vendor should not be considered sufficient effort. Barges come in many different
types, shapes, sizes, drafts, and widths. The applicant should contact additional freight hauling
companies, for example the ones that commonly haul freight down narrow winding waterways. If
smaller barges are needed and more barge trips, so be it. The applicant has plenty of experience with
water vessels, and should be expected to conduct a more thorough search for suitable barge sizes.
The one contractor who was contacted provided no details about the sizes and shapes of their available
barges other than the need for a minimum of IO' draft. There is no additional information in the DEIS on
the size of barges that would be required, the number of barges, their cost, timing, and other factors to
help the Planning Department assess the feasibility of this alternative.
5.0-54
Theresa Dilworth
6/12/23 3
The SEQR regulations specifically suggest that other parcels owned by the same private applicant be
considered within the alternatives. It is not, however, considered reasonable for a private applicant to be
required to purchase a new parcel. Page 6 of the SEQRA Handbook states that "For example, private
applicant site alternatives should be limited to parcels owned by, or under option to, a private applicant.
To demand otherwise would place an unreasonable burden on most applicants to commit to the control
of sites which they do not otherwise have under option or ownership."
The DEIS even quotes, but then misapplies, the New York law on this issue. The DEIS at page 316 states:
617.9(b)(5)(v) specifically states that for private applicants, alternatives may be limited to sites that the
sponsors own or have under a purchase option.
(emphasis added)
The DEIS contains no discussion of other parcels that the applicant owns or may have under a purchase
option, and their potential suitability for this project "at a level of detail sufficient to permit a
comparative assessment".
5.0-55
Theresa Dilworth
6/12/23 3
The DEIS discussion, which is 3 paragraphs long, is deficient in that it contains no discussion of the
acreages, zoning, or other features of any other waterfront parcels owned by the applicant in enough
detail to assess their suitability as alternative sites. The alternative site would need access to the water.
However, it is not necessary that the storage buildings be on the waterfront, but they could be hundreds
of feet deeper inland.
If there is no boat lift at the other sites, a second boat lift could be procured, as necessary. There is no
discussion of what such a boat lift might cost, such that a comparison can be made to the costs and
environmental impacts of removing 634 mature trees, excavating and trucking 134,900 cubic yards of
sand, and building a 875' retaining wall.
5.0-56
Theresa Dilworth
6/12/23 4
Under this alternative, the existing storage buildings #6,# 7 and# 8 would be reconstructed to raise their
roofs to accommodate the larger yachts. The DEIS at page 217 confusingly says that the door heights of
the existing storage buildings are 24' and would have to be raised by 11', yet the renderings contained in
Appendix Q state that the overall heft,of the existing storage buildings is 24'. See Photo 1. The correct
dimensions need to be ascertained.
5.0-57
Theresa Dilworth
6/12/23 5
Alternative 5, Construct Smaller Building(s) with Less Excavation
The DEIS does not go into any more detail, for example how much smaller or why it would be
economically unfeasible.
5.0-58
Theresa Dilworth
6/12/23 6
This Alternative #6 needs to be fleshed out well beyond a single paragraph. The cost and feasibility of
reconstructing the roof height and increasing the door height, demolishing or repurposing the old steel
roofs, constructing new roofs, selling scrap metal, and other factors, all should be discussed and weighed
against the costs and environmental impacts of the current proposal.
5.0-59
Theresa Dilworth
6/12/23 8
The ECIA at page 42 also contains an Alternative 7 which was discussed by SYC's consultant P.W. Grosser
at the June 5, 2023 public hearing, but is not contained in the DEIS. Alternative 7 is described as follows:
Alternate Plan 7 (Alternative Material Mitigation Plan). An alternative material mitigation plan has been
evaluated to reduce the volume of material to be removed from the subject property by placing
approximately 13,500 cy of material on the R-80-zoned parcel. The resultant impact on transportation
would be the elimination of 450 trucks from the excavation phase, which would reduce the excavation
phase by 11.25 days or approximately two weeks (as the proposed excavation phase would occur
Monday-Friday only). The material would be placed within an 8.60-acre portion of the successional
shrubland located on the R-80 zoned parcel. Fill would be placed at a depth of approximately 12 inches
above the
existing grade throughout the 8. 60-acre placement area.
It is not clear why this Alternative is in the ECIA but not in the DEIS. Also, it is not clear why only 10% of
the excavated material would be placed on the R-80 zoned parcel. Why only 10%? Why couldn't 100% of
the excavated material be placed on the R-80 zone parcel?
5.0-60
Beth Lebowitz
7/9/23 3 Finally, the alternatives to the proposal required in a DEIS are barely considered and are inadequate.
5.0-61
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 5
Jeff Strong, in a recent column in the Suffolk Times, invokes the prospect that Strong's Yacht Center, or a
portion of it, could be sold to "marina conglomerates" or developed for non- maritime uses. He writes
that "as a fourth-generation marine business with deep roots in this community, we are invested in the
property's historic maritime character. The expansion we propose will secure its future as a thriving
waterfront shipyard for generations to come." This alternative is not discussed in the DEIS.
5.0-62
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 22
The DEIS fails to accurately characterize or discuss the possible alternatives to the Project as proposed.
Some of the alternatives, such as the "alternative material mitigation plan" (spreading a small portion of
the excavated material on the R-80 portion of Applicant's property) would have a marginal effect on the
Project's impacts and will not be discussed here, except to point out that the DEIS miscalculates the
number of truck trips that will be eliminated under that alternative. Others, such as the use of barges
rather than trucks to remove the excavated material, are not adequately discussed in terms of the
reduced impacts on the roads, air quality, noise and vibration.
5.0-63 Boscola 6/20/23 7
The DEIS states that as part of Alternative 4, "the height of the doors on the existing indoor storage
buildings are approximately 24 feet, and thus, roof heights would need to be increased by approximately
11 feet to comply with the maximum height requirement in the M-II zoning district. " This is misleading
as there is no obligation to comply with a maximum height requirement.
5.0-64 Boscola 6/20/23 7
The DEIS states that as part of Alternative 6, "This alternative includes the reconfiguration or
reconstruction of existing buildings for larger boat storage, which would impact the storage capacity for
smaller boats (less than 40 feet)" and that "Upon implementation of this alternative, SYC would be
required to significantly decrease or eliminate service to smaller vessels. " This appears to be a veiled
threat that smaller boats would be pushed away, though likely to the other Strong marina down the
creek, and thus this is not a viable alternative. The Strong's Marine website notes "this 16-acre facility
[SYC} offers 45 slips and 7 indoor storage buildings to accommodate yachts to 110 ft. " It seems there is
already capacity for larger boats and since the ad does not suggest "boats only 40' -110 "' this alternative
does not make any sense.
5.0-65
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Alternatives 1
According to the April 27, 2023 issue of the Suffolk Times: After attending the Applicant’s April 25 open
house at the Mattituck library, one Mattituck resident told the paper that “[t]he more I listen, the more I
think it [the Project] makes a lot of sense because, quite frankly, it’s a pretty valuable piece of property
they can sell and would be developed . . . There’d be more kids going to school, garbage, sewage … I
think I’d rather have this than a bunch of houses that could be up for rent or Airbnb.” This is not, as the
Applicant has apparently suggested to Southold residents, a realistically possible alternative. Residential
dwellings are not permitted in M-II zones within which the Project is located, per Section 280-55 of the
Southold Town Code. Housing is not, as the Applicant has indicated, a legally permissible alternative use
of the Project Area. Housing on two-acre lots is permitted, and will continue to be permitted, on the R-
80 portion of the Project parcel beyond the limits of the Project Area. Claiming that housing is a viable as-
of-right alternative is at best, misleading and deceptive. In addition, construction of the Project haul
road, which will become a permanent emergency access road, would, in fact, facilitate the development
of new housing on the R-80 portion of the Applicant’s property.
5.0-66
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Alternatives 5
The statement that the “unconsolidated materials behind the upland slope face . . . were deposited by
the USACOE” being the cause of the existing slope failure cannot be supported.6 This is another instance
of the DEIS being used to divert responsibility for existing site conditions onto another party.
5.0-67
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Alternatives 6
It is unclear how this would “reduce the impact of trucks.” According to the DEIS, the “advantage of the
proposed Alternate Truck Route Plan is that it halves the number of truck trips on Cox Neck Road where
there are more residential homes fronting on the road. The departing trucks will use Bergen Avenue
which has less than half the number of homes fronting the road. It reduces the number of truck trips on
Cox Neck Road but does increase the number on Bergen Avenue” (emphasis added) (DEIS p. 338;
Appendix N, TIS p. 88)
Although some residences will be subjected to fewer truck pass-bys, if employed, this Project alternative
will also increase the total number of residences impacted by the Project.
5.0-68
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Alternatives 7
This alternative may actually be the Project the Applicant contemplates constructing—not the single-
phase Project upon which the entire DEIS is premised. The Applicant made initial reference to the fact
that bank financing of the second proposed storage building was dependent upon a demonstrated 60%
occupancy of the first building at a meeting with David Boscola, Donna Boscola, and Stephen Boscola at
the Strong’s Yacht Center office on February 8, 2020.8 Stephen Boscola raised this concern to the
Planning Board at a March 9, 2020 meeting of the Planning Board and this is noted in the minutes of that
meeting. The Applicant and his legal counsel were present and, although they had the opportunity to do
so, did not object to, or contradict, Mr. Boscola’s statement. The Applicant has also stated in other public
venues that it is not certain that both storage buildings would be constructed at the same time. This
alternative would result in environmental impacts significantly different from those described in the
DEIS. Construction traffic impacts would be essentially unchanged; the destruction of more than 600
trees would still be required; impacts to wildlife would be unchanged, as would impacts to the Mill Road
Preserve. In contrast, the few benefits the Project offers including jobs and property tax revenues would
be significantly reduced in scale.
It is imperative that the Planning Board confirm that the Applicant’s proposal involves construction of
the Project in a single phase over a single construction season.
5.0-69
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Alternatives 7
Use of Larger-Capacity Haul Trucks (Considered by the Applicant but Not Included in the DEIS)
This alternative has been suggested, and rejected, by the Project Applicant, but is not discussed in the
DEIS. The Applicant maintains on his website for the Project a “Fact Sheet”10 that states that the
“number of trips, and the timeline, could be reduced by removing the sand in 40-yard loads. We have
chosen to remove the sand in 30-yard loads because this weight can be appropriately handled on local
roads.”
Chapter 6.0 Undetermined
ID#Source Document
Page
Number Comment (Original)
6.0-1
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Lighting 1
The DEIS has not adequately or properly addressed the impacts of new lighting proposed as part of the
Project. The DEIS limits its discussion of lighting impacts that would be created by the Project to a few
paragraphs and sentences, portions of which are repeated throughout the DEIS
6.0-2
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Lighting 1
The DEIS also states that “[T]o mitigate light trespass and glare, all lighting will be shielded and directed
downwards at an intensity compliant with Chapter 172 of the Town Code (Outdoor Lighting)” (pp. xxxvii, 12,
163, 240). This implies that conformance to the Town Code equates with “no impact” and “mitigation.” It
does not.
6.0-3
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Lighting 1
The DEIS does not indicate if the proposed lighting will operate from dusk to dawn, or will equipped with
motion detectors.
6.0-4
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Lighting 1 & 2
Contrary to claims in the DEIS, no photometric analysis has been performed…..A true photometric analysis
focuses on how the light from the fixture surrounds the area of coverage.4 In addition to the information
referenced in fn4 (below), the portions of the Details sheet in Appendix C dealing with lighting include only a
lighting schedule which indicates the number of each type of lighting fixture planned for the Project, their
lumen5 rating, profile drawings for the two types of pole mounted fixtures proposed (COMMENT FIGURE L-1).
Nothing on the Details sheet “demonstrates that the proposed design would not result in any off-site or
trespass lighting.
6.0-5
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Lighting 2
The DEIS claims that “Additionally, the proposed site lighting has been designed to illuminate the subject
property in an efficient manner that would minimize nuisances from light intensity, glare and light trespass”
(emphasis added) (p.234)”. Note the use of the word “minimize.” This would seem to directly conflict with
the previous statement that the Project “would not result in any off-site or trespass
lighting.” In fact, the Applicant stated in his April 6, 2023 version of the Project fact sheet (and earlier
versions) posted on his website that “Impacts to ecological habitat in Mill Road Preserve, such as increased
light in the forest, may occur.”6 That statement was removed from the current version of the fact sheet
dated April 23, 2023.
6.0-6
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Lighting 2
The analysis of lighting impacts is especially important because existing light levels on the Project site cannot
be compared to post-construction light levels. This is because the new lighting will be installed at a lower
elevation than the existing ground surface. In addition, no attempt has been made to measure existing
artificial light levels. The amount of new lighting to be installed as part of the Project is considerably greater
than existing lighting. No existing lighting is shown on the site plans included in DEIS Appendix C.
6.0-7
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Lighting 2
Will an increase in light levels be visible from adjacent properties and other properties within the Project’s
undefined viewshed?
6.0-8
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Lighting 3 To what extent will sky glow be increased by the new/additional lighting associated with the Project?
6.0-9
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Lighting 3
Will residences with views towards the Project (including those on the east side of Mattituck Inlet) have night-
time views of the new storage buildings, or changed views of existing marina facilities as a result of the new
lighting?
6.0-10
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Lighting 3
DEIS Appendix N (Ecological Survey) concludes that “no adverse impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitat are
expected to result from new outdoor lighting associated with the proposed action” (DEIS Appendix N p.33).
The identical conclusion is included in the DEIS (pp. xiii, 140, 174). This conclusion is apparently based entirely
on the fact that the “proposed lighting shall be dark skies-compliant” and the unsupported claim that
“downward directed lighting [will result] in no increase in light levels beyond the limit of the proposed
buildings, access roads, and parking surfaces” (DEIS pp. xiii, 140, 174; Appendix N p. 33). It is unclear whether
the “no adverse impact” conclusion is based on the opinion of the Applicant’s ecology consultant, or the
Applicant’s Project engineer. Who is quoting whom? Which party is relying on the other? In any case, the
lighting levels shown on the detail sheet in DEIS Appendix C, do not include post-construction lighting levels
beyond the limits of the Project area.
6.0-11
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Lighting 3
All of the new lighting proposed for the Project will be LED fixtures. Some of the characteristics of LEDs can
influence the effect of artificial light on wildlife. White LEDs generally contain short wavelength blue light.
Short wavelength light scatters more readily than long wavelength light, contributing more to sky glow. Most
wildlife is sensitive to blue light.
6.0-12
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Schedule 1 The DEIS contains conflicting and confusing information concerning the scheduling of the Project….
6.0-13
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Schedule 2 The DEIS has not adequately addressed concerns regarding potential weather and task delays. ….
6.0-14
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Schedule 3
Under the maximum time period described in the DEIS for the excavation phases, it would end in mid-July,
2024. However, if these time frames have been underestimated, as seems likely, because the number of
haul truck trips has been underestimated, or if the start date of the Project is delayed for any reason, then
haul truck traffic will be traveling on local roads during the summer or even fall. These are the periods that
experience the highest traffic volumes along the Project truck route, notably along Sound Avenue, and there
are long-standing well documented community concerns about summer and fall traffic. ANY increase in
traffic on Sound Avenue during the summer and fall constitutes a significant adverse environmental impact.
6.0-15
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Schedule 3
Many of the analyses in the DEIS (notably traffic) are based upon a Project start date4 in early December
2024. A December or January Project start date will be the only Project start date that would result in the six
months of Excavation Phase haul truck traffic avoiding the peak summer/fall traffic season on Sound Avenue.
If the December 2023 start date cannot be met, then the Project start should be delayed until December
2024. Should this happen, much of the data in the DEIS will have aged to the point that it cannot be used.
This is especially true in regard to traffic and economic impacts.
6.0-16
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Schedule 3 & 4
The proposed Project schedule calls for Phase 3 (Construction) to “occur over approximately 6 months with a
commencement date of May 2024. During Phase 3, it is expected that work would be performed 6 days per
week (Monday-Saturday) with time limited to 7:00 am to 7:00” (DEIS p. 19). Should there be any delay in the
start of Phase 3, resulting in construction taking place between October thru early March, some portion of
each workday will occur after sundown. For example, in early December, sunset in Mattituck is as early as
4:21 PM. This is more than 2.5 hours before the end of the proposed work day. In the absence of lighting the
work area, construction would have to halt at the onset of darkness. This would result in the lengthening of
the overall Project schedule. Alternatively, temporary lighting could be used to allow construction to
continue after dark. This possibility, with its attendant lighting impacts is not addressed in the DEIS.
6.0-17
Joel Klein 5-15-23
Project Schedule 4
Another potential cause of a delay is the fact that the Northern Long-Eared Bat (NLEB), an endangered
species, may be present in the Project area. For this reason, the DEIS has proposed as mitigation that all tree
clearing activities (destruction of LLEB habitat) be conducted, in accordance with USFWS and NYSDEC
requirements be conducted between December 1 and February 28.5 For that reason, any delay of Project
start past February 28 would require a delay until the following December 1.
6.0-18
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Public Need 5
a. There is no public need for the proposed action. Unlike, for example, the need for affordable housing to
retain younger and older year-round residents and essential workers on the North Fork, or the public demand
for regulation of short-term vacation-type rentals, there is no public outcry or demand within the community
for superyacht storage.
6.0-19
Audubon Society 5-
26-23 Public
Opinion
(Perception of
project Need)7
Southold Town residents will not benefit from this project, but rather the opposite.
A recent survey of over 1,000 respondents from a coalition of five of the North
Fork civic associations indicates that over 90%of the respondents chose their top priorities for Town
government as being preservation of natural habitats, rural
character, farms, and open space. "Respondents value the areas' natural
beauty and rural character and the quality of l(fe they offer. They are most
concerned about the impact of overdevelopment on the quality of life and well loved
character of Southold Town."
6.0-20
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 39
JOEL KLEIN:
...many of the conclusions in the DEIS are either not supported by the accompanying data or actually
contradicted by the data collected by the applicants consultants.
6.0-21
Hannah Van
Manen June 2
2023 Email 1 I am worried that the parcels of land untouched by development are dwindling, and this is not right.
6.0-22
Annie Correal June
8, 2023 Email 1
As a resident of Mattituck who has studied the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), I wish to
express my firm belief that this project is not aligned with Southold Town's Vision Statement and does not
benefit the community.
While Jeff Strong may be a popular figure, his plan for Mattituck Inlet fails to meet the town's goals and
carries serious short- and long-term consequences for residents and visitors, ranging from construction-
related air and noise pollution and heavy truck traffic congesting and damaging our narrow roads, to the
permanent degradation of our most prized assets undeveloped land adjacent to a 27-acre town-owned
preserve and a fragile waterway containing wetlands and salt marshes. It appears that there is no community-
driven market demand for the proposed storage facilities, and that a prime area that has been preserved
from large development by the town and enjoyed and cared for by dozens of tax-paying families would be
irrevocably altered for the sake of a single business owner and his out-of-town clientele. Additionally, the
DEIS fails to provide adequate evidence that Strong's Marine has a long-term plan that mitigates the serious
effects of construction on the site and the addition of 88 or more very large yachts to the fragile ecosystem of
Mattituck Creek.
6.0-23
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 41
JOEL KLINE:
The underestimating of traffic impacts also means that the project's schedule impacts the pedestrians and
bicyclists, road damage impacts, noise impacts, vibration impacts, impacts the historic structures. Air quality
impacts and impacts on emergency response times have all been underestimated. Thank you.
6.0-24
Theresa Dilworth
July 10 2023 email 3
The April 1, 2020 Suffolk County Planning Commission meeting summary contains requests for further
information. It states that "Staff deem the referral to be incomplete and noted that the referral will not be
reviewed until certain information is submitted through the offices of the municipal referring agency."
Further information is submitted through the offices of the municipal referring agency." Further information
requested included "channel depths at the mouth and course of Mattituck Creek particularly in the off shore
location creekward of the shoreline of Strong's Yacht Center," "the typical type and size of boats to be
serviced by the 'yacht center' as a result of the proposed new storage buildings" "the necessity to excavate
soils at the subject location" , "an explanation of the need for the proposed elevation of the floor of the boat
storage buildings," and "clarification on Town of Southold protection of wetland regulations with respect to
issues of soil erosion and sedimentation from clearance, grading, excavation or other disturbance of steeply
sloped soils to be held by retaining walls on adjacent areas to tidal wetlands." On April 2, 2020, the Suffolk
County Planning Commission officially requested this further information in a letter to Elizabeth Neville,
Southold Town Clerk. The letter is on the Southold Town Planning Department's website in the Subject File
and is attached here. The information requested essentially mirrors that of the meeting summary dated April
1, 2020, and requests: (a) channel depths at the mouth and course of Mattituck Creek particularly in the off
shore location creekward of the shoreline of Strong's yacht center; (b) information regarding the typical type
and size of boats to be serviced by the yacht center including maximum beam, draft, weight, and length, (c)
the necessity to excavate soils at the subject location, and (d) further clarification of the Town of Southold
wetland protection regulations. The Town does not appear to have provided the information to the Suffolk
County Planning Commission for over three years.
6.0-25
Suffolk County
Planning
Department 4/1/20 3 & 4
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.
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.
6.0-26 Reed Super 7.10.23 2
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.
6.0-27 Reed Super 7.10.23 8
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.
6.0-28 Reed Super 7.10.23 25 The proposed project is inconsistent with the hamlet-specific goals and objectives.
6.0-29
Save the Sound
7/10/23 2 & 3
The DEIS does not present mitigation for the numerous adverse environmental impacts that would result
from approximately four acres of forest ecosystem destruction, harm to Mill Road Nature Preserve, sand
excavation, materials hauling through the two North Fork towns, construction activities, and, finally, the
buildings as installed. Some of the potential adverse impacts are unmitigable. The document's analysis of
alternatives to the proposed action is inadequate.
6.0-30
Save the Sound
7/10/23 3
The DEIS lacks full adherence to the required scope, and contains numerous mistakes, inconsistencies, false
assertions, and misleading information. It should not be used as a tool for decision making.
6.0-31
Save the Sound
7/10/23 3
One recurring and troublesome issue with the DEIS is its loose and sometimes interchangeable references to
areas on the property, such as "site," "project site," and "construction site." The most immediate result of
unclear definitions is they cause confusion over measurements. Just one example is in assessing the
percentage of trees to be removed or remaining/planted-the DEIS should specify whether such numbers refer
to the whole property, the project site, or the area of excavation. By counting trees that would remain in the
portion of the site not zoned for the proposed project, where such a project should not proceed, it obscures
the 100% removal of trees in the actual excavation zone and confuses the reader as to what percentage
might remain In the designated "project area." A proposed haul road in the area outside the construction
zone further complicates a reviewer's ability to gauge impacts. The FEIS should clearly label the areas of the
property where the project work would be undertaken and use those same place names in the narrative so
adverse impacts can be properly evaluated.
6.0-32 Reed Super 7.10.23 27
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
6.0-33
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 97
SAL MESSINA:
I know this environmental thing is big. You always hear it. Environmental, environmental, environmental. I
understand that we have to be sensitive
....
So I don't know -- I just wanted to let that out that as time goes on, there are different needs and there's
solutions to everything. So I hope you guys will consider that.
6.0-34
Save the Sound
7/10/23 4
First, no area of the publicly owned Mill Road Preserve should suffer the adverse impacts of a private
undertaking. The preserve was bought with taxpayer dollars and is maintained for the people of Southold,
present and future, for its ecosystem services, and for wildlife. A single family or company's profit cannot be
justification for harming a valuable public resource, at any level.
6.0-35
Save the Sound
7/10/23 9
People enjoy hiking in the varied and interesting terrain of Mill Road Preserve, year-round. The DEIS' assertion
that use is primarily between April and September remains unsubstantiated yet might serve the applicant's
attempt to minimalize the impacts of excavation, construction activities, and warehouse siting on preserve
users.
6.0-36
Save the Sound
7/10/23 12
We recommend the Planning Board again refer the proposed project and all relevant SEQRA documents to
the SCPC prior to preparing your Findings Statement.
6.0-37
Public Hearing
Transcript
May 15, 2023 131
BETH DUMBLIS:
That is private property. No, I don't live across from that, but I believe as a private property owner, they have
a right do what they wanna do with their land. I know if I want to build something more in my property, it has
to conform to the Town's Code. I think they are a good steward of their property.
6.0-38
Comments on DEIS
Strong Storage pt 2 1
Nancy and Sotirios Nikolis:
these yachts will be stored with fuel, making the chance of a building fire a real possibility without ample
firefighting resources available due to limited road access and fire stations in the region. This will pose an
additional hazard to our area's remaining natural resources and homes.
6.0-39
Comments on DEIS
Strong Storage pt 2 1
Toni Bryan:
At the June 5th planning Board meeting, Jeff Strong explained that the much stated "industry demand"as
found in the DEIS for this project resulted from
the difficulty in securing insurance for the said yachts in Florida (proposed to utilize the indoor heated winter
storage buildings, if built) This is due to the frequency of hurricanes.
What is to prevent a similar occurrence on the East End? It wasn't too long ago that some homeowners had
difficulty securing insurance here if their homes were located by the water.
Mr. Strong stated it is his intention to build both buildings, but if the market changes or softens and costs
increase, he may only build one-after all the trees are cut, sand removed and hauled and cement poured.
Both these issues seem speculative.
6.0-40
Group for the East
End 7/5/23 4
The Lead Agency should require the DEIS to describe the enforcement and monitoring mechanism of every
single proposed mitigation measure to ensure that the measures are taking place and working throughout the
life of the proposed action's construction phase and beyond. Without such explanation and detailed
monitoring mechanism, the proposed measures may become meaningless and not function to truly mitigate
the environmental impacts they were intended to address.
For instance, what entity will monitor the following proposed mitigation measures for various portions of
construction or excavation? 1) That all trucks will be equipped with "white noise" back-up alarms, all trucks
will be U.S. EPA certified Tier 4, and the Jake Brake mechanisms will be disengaged (page 352).
2) What entity will monitor the proposed seeding and subsequent stewardship of the "green wall" to ensure
that the native plant species remain native and that invasive species do not overtake new plantings with the
opportunity to spread and further impact preserved land. Relying on wildlife to seed an area is unreliable as
described here: "Three sections of the Evergreen concrete retaining wall would be filled with topsoil to allow
for seeding by wildlife" (page 166).
3) Who will be monitoring the proposed "wildlife" sweeps prior to land clearing and excavation (page 145)?
6.0-41
Group for the East
End 7/5/23 4
Further, several proposed mitigation measures offered in the DEIS should not be considered
"mitigation" measures. Many of them are in existence today as the site consists in its current form, are
required by statues and/or are not proposed to be secured by covenant or codification.
For instance, Section 2.4.3 Proposed Mitigation, states, "Approximately 8.28 acres of Coastal Oak Beech
forests on the subject property (approximately 66 percent of the existing 12.60± acres) will be retained. These
remaining Coastal Oak-Beech forests retain 70 percent of the site's oak (Quercus sp.), American beech (Fagus
grandifiolia), red maple (Acer rubrum), hickory (Carya sp.), and sassafras
(Sassafras albidum) trees" (page 143). Even if these trees were retained, there is nothing in the DEIS that
covenants them for protection in perpetuity and the retention of trees cannot mitigate the loss of others.
6.0-42
Joel Klein
6/21/23 1
Joel Klein 2:
Ms. Sedgwick's conclusion appears to based entirely upon the conclusion in the Vibration Report that the
more than 10,000 trucks, half of which will have a loaded weight of approximately 107,000 pounds
(exceeding the maximum allowable interstate highway truck weight of 80,000 pounds), traveling at 30 mph
over a non-engineered two-lane local road, can pass as close as two feet from the already structurally
compromised Water Tower (see attached photos) without causing any damage. The absurdity of the
Vibration Report's conclusion should be obvious, as it is to anyone who has actually observed the structure in-
person.
The Vibration Report itself has serious technical flaws which are described in the attached detailed comments
6.0-44
Kara Jackson
7/6/23 1
The environmental impact statement doesn't take into account the detriment to Southold Town's own
investment in Mill Road Preserve if this project goes through. The loss of tourism, patronizing of local
businesses by visitors down the Cox Neck and more. Birdwatching, also known as birding, is one of the fastest
growing hobbies in North America. According to a US Fish and Wildlife Survey, the percentage of Americans
who watch birds for fun has doubled, and now includes 20% of all U.S. residents. Who wants to come to
watch birds in a polluted inlet or a clear-cut forest?
6.0-45
William Albertini
7/9/23 1
the proposed project is both wasteful and destructive, disregarding potentially less impactful alternatives. The
unnecessary heating of entire storage sheds could be avoided if proper winterization of vessels' systems is
ensured. Temporary enclosures can be utilized for work on individual boats requiring a heated environment.
Moreover, exploring solar options for heating should be a priority.
6.0-46
William Albertini
7/9/23 1
instead of resorting to excavation for the new storage shed, Mr. Strong could consider building on higher
ground and constructing an overhead track hoist to facilitate lifting and moving vessels directly from the haul-
out basin to the new shed, thereby bypassing the need for travel lifts that are unsuitable for inclined ramps.
The excavation plan seems designed to exploit a loophole that permits developers to evade the requirement
of a mining permit when removing sand for construction projects. This valuable sand, locally known as "bank
sand" - because you take it straight to the bank! - would serve to finance Mr. Strong's project. Additionally,
there is no guarantee that requests to dredge the inlet to accommodate larger vessels will not emerge post-
construction.
6.0-47
William Albertini
7/9/23 1
Mr. Strong fails to address how the addition of nearly 100 very large yachts in such a confined waterway will
not endanger small boaters, kayakers, and swimmers. He overlooks the irrevocable changes that these
vessels will impose on the inlet, affecting the current users. It is imperative to consider the potential risks to
local recreation and acknowledge the lasting impacts this proposal may have on future generations.
6.0-48
Rob Buchanan
7/8/23 1
If the expansion proposal by Strong Marine were to be approved, it would exacerbate all of these problems.
Bulldozing acres of forest and carting off an entire hillside--a hillside that's been there since the last Ice Age--
will only hasten the decline of Inlet's water quality, diminish the area's ecological diversity, and forever alter
the town's geographical and cultural heritage. Furthermore, the annual arrival, docking, and departure of 80
megayachts--yachts that are by any common-sense measure too large for a diminutive waterbody like the
lnlet--will destroy the on-water experience of everyone else who uses it.
6.0-49
Beth Lebowitz
7/9/23 2 & 3
My concerns regarding this development extend beyond the lack of compliance with the zoning regulations
and are many. Most important are environmental concerns shared by many neighbors in the community over
the impact of the construction of such large buildings that require the demolition of woods and the hillside
sited over the inlet. There were to my count over 40 speakers over the two public hearings who spoke
knowledgeably about the impact on the water, on the roads and houses of traffic, noise and vibration, on
birds, bats, small animals, water quality in the inlet and aquifer and trees and plants. These impacts are not
acknowledged in the DEIS.
6.0-50
Beth Lebowitz
7/9/23 3
The applicant would substitute for the removal of an entire hillside of woods that took 90 years to grow to
their maturity, a retaining wall of enormous size- close to 900 feet long and 40 feet high. As everyone knows
who has driven on a highway- retaining walls work except at the edges where dirt, shrubs, small trees and
rocks slide down around the ends especially after rain. They certainly don't replace woods scenically or
ecologically.
6.0-51
Petrina Engelke
7/9/23 1
The DEIS completely omits a "public need" section. I think this is the most important consideration at all. We
don't need yacht storage, period. For the benefit of a doubt, let's look at what the DEIS lists as "public
benefits".
6.0-52 Joel Klein 7/7/23 3 In addition to job creation, the DEIS fails to consider that the Project has the potential to induce job losses....
6.0-53 Joel Klein 7/7/23 4
The SEQRA Handbook states "EISs should be written in plain language that can be read and understood by all"
(p.98). The discussion of economic impacts as they relate to job creation falls far short of this standard. The
FEIS must clearly explain how the job-creation estimate was derived; how many of those jobs will be full-time-
year-round at the Project site; and what the total number of full-time-equivalent positions will be created at
SYC and other Strong's locations in and out of the Town of Southold. It must also take into account potential
job losses that can be attributable to the Project, and which would offset new jobs.
6.0-54
Save Mattituck
Inlet
06/05/23 20
The collection of visual materials presented in the Revised DEIS listed above is in key
respects poorly prepared and omits information needed to determine the precise nature
and full significance of the visual impact of this project within the context of "shoreline
and community character of Mattituck Inlet environs" as stated in and required by the
Final Scope of the DEIS.
6.0-55
Susan A Reeve
05/19/23 1
If you look at the bulkheads from the water side, there is significant damage done by the constant traffic
adding
more traffic to the Creek will cause increasing damage to manmade structures, not to mention the
natural creek structure. Many of the boats that will be stored in the facilities will be coming in & out of the
Creek to be stored.
6.0-56 Joel Klein 7/3/23 7
The DEIS contains no mention of the Applicant's anticipated Project cost. This information must be made
available to the Planning Board, because it bears directly upon the Project's economic viability and the
Applicant's conflicting statements as to whether the Project will be constructed in one or more phases. This
information is also essential for the proper evaluation of project alternatives. In discussing Alternative 2:
Alternate Material Removal Plan, the DEIS states that "the financial cost associated with [on-site batch] plant
operations, has been determined not feasible" (pp. xlii,315) In discussing Alternative 4: Construct Proposed
Storage Building(s) Without Excavation, the DEIS states that "SVC would realize a cost savings of
approximately $750,000 with the reduction in cut material and elimination of the Evergreen concrete
retaining wall"
(p.318). In discussing Alternative 5: Construct Smaller Building(s) With Less Excavation, the DEIS states that
"the construction cost would not make this an economically viable plan for the Applicant" (pp. xliv,335).
Without knowing the basis for the Applicant's estimate of the total cost of the Project, it is not possible to
evaluate the unsupported claims of the Applicant relating to the financial non-viability of the alternatives
considered in the DEIS. The Applicant has made several public statements to the effect that the estimated
Project cost will be approximately $7,000.000. At the April 15, 2023 meeting of the Southold-Peconic Civic
Association the Applicant stated that "It's a very expensive project and, if and when its gets approved, we
don't know what things will cost, but it's at least a $7,000,000 project for sure."
In a May 2023 interview with the New York Times, Mr. Strong is reported to have said "it will cost him more
than $5 million to clear the hill, truck out the sand and then build the two 45-foot tall storage sheds ... " This
lack of clarity as to the total cost of the Project should be of concern.
6.0-57 Joel Klein 7/3/23 8
According to the Fact Sheet posted on the Applicant's web site "As is typical with construction projects with
an excavation component, the removed material will be sold, and the proceeds used to support the project's
cost. The anticipated value of the sand is less than 10% of the cost of the project."
Of the 135,000 CY of material excavated as part of the Project, approximately 85,000 CY is classified in the
DEIS (Appendix H) as being of "Excellent Quality as Sand Commodity. An additional 44,000 CY is classified as
"Fair to Poor Quality as Sand Commodity. DEIS Appendix H also calculated the weight of each cubic yard of
sand at the Project site to be 1.55 tons/CY for sand classified as "Excellent" and 1.49 tons/CY sand classified as
"Fair to Poor.
There is a considerable variation in the value of sand, which may account for the broad range in value
mentioned in the New York Times article. Highly populated areas such as Long Island are experiencing a gravel
and regional sand shortage, which has led to a considerable increase in price. According to Statista, a leading
provider of market and consumer data, the average price of construction sand per metric ton in the United
States in 2022 was around $11. Using that metric, just the approximately 197,300 tons of potentially
marketable sand from the Project site is conservatively worth approximately $2.17 million. That is
considerably more than 10 percent of the Project cost as claimed by the Applicant.
The fact that the true value of the sand excavated from the Project site is almost certainly considerably more
than the Applicant has indicated, gives credence to the concerns that profiting from "mining" sand from the
Project site is a principal Project objective. As noted above, the Applicant has indicated that constructing only
a single storage building, rather than two as described in the DEIS. This would mean that construction costs
would be considerably lower and that the sale of sand would offset a much larger percentage of project
construction costs, significantly increasing the Applicant's profits at the expense of unnecessary (excavating a
larger area than required for a single structure) environmental damage.
The Planning Board must obtain from the Applicant more detailed information relating to demand for the
Project, and Project cost and financing, before it can justifiably claim that it has taken a "hard look" at the
environmental impacts of the Project.
6.0-58
Betsy Kennedy
05/15/23 1
The report itself is very technical and not that comprehensible to regular people. The community wants to
have answers on the immediate and Future effects of this project on their lives and safety.
6.0-59
Betsy Kennedy
05/15/23 1
Fire- storage of 8,000 gals of propane in 4 storage tanks and the addition of full fuel tanks in yachts. Problem:
The east end of Long Island relies solely on volunteer fire departments. There are not enough departments to
handle the intensity of a fire caused by these tanks and the fuel (gasoline) on this site. Any fire would be
devastating for the entire North Fork at best.
6.0-60
Jo-Ann Lechner
7/5/23 1
Provide documents that provide accurate, useful information to the lead agency on the extent of adverse
impacts on the environment. Is it not readable and easily understood as to the descriptions of the land,
project, adverse impacts, and mitigation?
6.0-61
Joel Klein
05/15/23 1
As the attached detailed comments make clear, there appears to have been an almost complete lack of cross-
discipline communication during the preparation of the DEIS for the Strong's Yacht Storage Building Project.
Much of the information in the DEIS has been taken almost verbatim from the DEIS' technical appendices
with no attempt to reconcile contradictory information and conclusions between the various appendices. In
some instances, the language in technical appendices has been softened to minimize the perception of
impact severity. This is most readily apparent in regards to traffic impacts, but it extends to areas such as
noise and vibration impacts, impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists, pavement damage, air quality impacts,
impacts to the natural environment, and impacts to historic properties. The result is a document rife with
incomplete, inaccurate, outdated, inconsistent and misleading information. More importantly, the result is a
document which cannot be used as the basis for any kind of decision making regarding the actual
environmental impacts that will result from construction of this project.
6.0-62
Jo-Ann Lechner
7/5/23 2
What is the cost to our community with increased noise level and light pollution during and after 630 trees
removed, 134,000 cu yds of sand removed, and 2 huge warehouses built
6.0-63
Russell H. Bates
05/11/23 1
I would note that I believe that
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) fails to adequately address the ecological
damages the proposed project will cause, the risk of significant fire and explosion in my
neighborhood, significant noise & light pollution across the river- from my home, the impact
on the osprey nests and other habitats on my property, the impact of this business and the
mega-yachts they want to attract on our fragile water quality, and the impact of these massive
unwarranted storage facilities on the character of our community. The DEIS provides limited
explanation or mitigation to these risks. How can the Planning Board ignore these risks?
6.0-64
Karin Waslo
04/25/23 44928
the installation of this retaining wall sounds like a Herculean effort but may ultimately look nothing like the
natural
landscape it is replacing. Full time maintenance and regular replanting will be needed to keep this structure
intact until nature takes over the space again. Heavy rainfall and we are seeing these days will thwart the
efforts. This should be a reason to deny the removal of the hillside,
6.0-65
Theresa Dilworth
6/30/23 1
The DEIS does not contain a "public need" section - it is omitted. Yet this is the most important consideration
of all.
6.0-66 Joel Klein 6/23/23 1
At the May 15, 2023 public hearing on the referenced project, I submitted extensive comments critical of the
project's DEIS, including its discussion of air quality impacts. Those comments did not address the issue of
environmental justice. Although environmental justice was not specifically called out in the DEIS scope as a
potential issue, it still needs to be addressed. As discussed in greater detail below, portions of the Project's
haul-truck route pass through Potential Environmental Justice Areas (EJAs) (Figure 1, attached) and a
Disadvantaged Community Area (DCA) in the Town of Riverhead. Diesel emissions from the Project's
thousands of haul truck trips through Riverhead will impact air quality. This could create related health issues
that may potentially contribute to area residents being exposed to a disproportionate level of adverse
environmental impacts....
6.0-67 Boscola 6/20/23 5
The DEIS states that "climate-controlled (heated) storage is essential for maintaining the electrical systems in
the types of vessels to be stored." This is false and not the opinion of a sample of manufacturers of the larger
boats sold by Strong's Marine (see Attachment C).
a. Strong's Marine is a dealer for Cruisers Yachts, which are built in Wisconsin. Per their email, these boats
often sit outside in cold temperatures waiting for delivery.
b. Regal Boats' email acknowledges that many of their customers do not store inside (heated or not) and
thus recognize no impact or detriment to the boats.
6.0-68 Boscola 6/20/23 5
The DEIS is required to include data about stored boat ownership. It states only that the Applicant anticipates
"many" or "a portion" of his customers "may be" or are "anticipated" to come from existing customers, boat
owners and future boat owners, who are local, from other parts of New York State, Connecticut and Northern
New Jersey. The DEIS does not estimate how many Southold residents will use the new facility.
6.0-69 Boscola 6/20/23 5 & 6
The DEIS states "the existing buildings would be reconstructed with higher roofs to accommodate larger
boats. The lower-elevation buildings would also be modified for radiant heating, which is an important
component for the types of vessels to be stored indoors." As noted previously, heated storage is not an
important component for vessel storage. Further, the demand for "larger boats" is extremely vague. The DEIS
does not give specifics of the boats currently stored at the facility. Instead, DEIS Table 4 shows "Typical Yachts
to be Stored" which is inaccurate, as can be seen in Attachment D herein - the facility clearly stores far more
than only three types/models of boats. The developer appears to be cherry picking three examples that might
best fit his argument. Additionally, Table 4 shows draft but not overall height of vessels out of the water.
Draft is the amount of water the vessel needs so to not run aground while in the water - it does not help
assess how much clearance it would need for indoor storage. It is unclear what style the boats are -express
boats or flybridge boats. Multiple types should be evaluated and counted, using actual factory specifications
with photographic evidence (factory brochures/spec sheets) as proof, since their height requirements can
vary significantly. The need for these unnecessarily tall buildings is not proven. a. At our February 8, 2020
meeting with Jeff Strong, he noted new boats that have pod drives require greater height out of the water.
Based on his advertised sales listings, however, many of the vessels he sells have outboard motors, requiring
substantially lower clearance.
b. As noted previously, a representative vessel for storage at this property is a Cruisers 60' Cantius. Per
manufacturer specifications (Attachment G), this vessel has a bridge clearance of 16'9" and a draft of2'.
Adding together, that gives an estimate height out of the water at 18'9" (could be slightly less given some
overlap at the waterline).
6.0-70 Boscola 6/20/23 6
Additionally at that February 9, 2020 meeting, Jeff Strong disclosed to us that he has bank financing for the
first building and once he can demonstrate 60% occupancy in the first building, the bank will lend him the
money for the second building. This speaks to lack of proven demand as well as a contradiction to the
construction schedule in the DEIS. The Planning Board should be aware that the developer could artificially
inflate the occupancy by shifting boats between his neighboring locations. The construction schedule should
be updated or provide multiple schedule scenarios.
6.0-71 Boscola 6/20/23 7
The DEIS states "the proposed action within the Project Area is consistent with the over-60-year history of
maritime use of the property." The Project Area is defined as "the Project Area includes is limited to the 6. 51
±acres" (page 284 ). With the typographical error present, it is unclear exactly what constitutes the Project
Area. Regardless, the DEIS statement is false as the prior zoning was (and perhaps still is) residential and the
land has been unused/untouched. Additionally, a residential subdivision was proposed for this area in
1989/1990 and the adjacent property to the site is our residential home, which neighbors two other homes
to the north. To label the area as having a "history of maritime use" is inaccurate and misleading.
6.0-72
Theresa Dilworth
6/12/23 1
It does not appear as if the Riverhead Town government, or Aquebogue, Riverhead or Calverton civic
associations, or the general population were made sufficiently aware of this project; they should be allowed
to voice their concerns.