Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAlternatives comments Rev8 FINAL-jkPage | ALTERNATIVES-1 Rev 8 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The DEIS Scope, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, identified six project alternatives to be included in the DEIS. These were discussed in the original December 2021 DEIS. The revised November 2022 DEIS has incorporated two additional alternatives.1 Five of the eight alternatives are considered in these comments. Two other alternatives, that were not identified called out in the DEIS Scope or discussed in the DEIS, but which have been proposed by the Applicant in other venues, are also discussed. These are: 1) the phased construction of the Project, and 2) the use of larger-capacity haul trucks to transport excavated sand from the Project site. As-of-Right (No-Action Alternative) (Alternative 1) According to the SEQRA Handbook: “For many private actions, the no action alternative may be simply and adequately addressed by identifying the direct financial effects of not undertaking the action . . .” (p.120). This is not addressed in the DEIS. No claim is made that the Applicant, his company, his employees, the Town of Southold, or Southold residents, would suffer a financial hardship under the no- action alternative. The DEIS describes the No-Action Alternative as “leaving the site as it currently remains, absent the proposed action and the continuation of the site as a full-service marina with boat sales and maintenance services of SYC (DEIS p.315). However, in other venues, the Applicant has indicated that an As-of-Right version of the No-Action alternative is also a possibility. 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. 1 The two new alternatives are Alternative 7 (Alternative Material Mitigation Plan) and Alternative 8 (Alternative Routing Plan). Page | ALTERNATIVES-2 Rev 8 Alternative Material Removal Plan(s) (Alternative 2) Use of Barges 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. For example, were barge types (bulk cargo, hopper) or sizes specified (exactly what size barge is the barge “required for this project”?), was a limit placed on the number of barge trips required per given unit of time (days, weeks, months), was a limit placed on the total number of barge trips, was consideration given to limiting barge operations to periods of higher tides? No documentation of the responses from any of the four barge companies, including their names, has been included in the DEIS. This is concerning since H&L indicates that each company “investigated very thoroughly.” 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. H&L indicates that one of the reasons that the barge alternative is not feasible is that barges “would need a bare minimum of 10 foot of draft at low tide.”2 However, as noted above, no mention is made of the barge size and associated draft requirements used to make this determination. Barges with drafts, when loaded, of as little as 7.5 feet are available. It is possible that the companies contacted by H&L responded as they did because they do not have lower-draft barges in their fleets. The DEIS states that as “outlined in Table 3 3 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. The marina currently accommodates yachts up 2 According to the DEIS, “[O]verall, average channel depths at low tide are in the 9-to-10 feet range with most areas significantly deeper than that (p.60). However, according to DEIS Appendix Q “A tide swing graph from https://tides.mobilegeographics.com7 shows that the average daily tide swing from low tide to high tide on Mattituck Inlet is 5 feet or slightly greater. As such, average depths are approximately 14-to-15 feet at high tide.” 3 The DEIS has misidentified the relevant table. The correct reference is to Table 4 in Section 2.2.4 of Appendix M. Page | ALTERNATIVES-3 Rev 8 133± feet in length which could have greater drafts. The DEIS also notes that vessels in the commercial fishing fleet that docks along Mattituck Creek “have greater channel depth requirements with greater drafts (i.e., 7 feet typical drafts)” (p.60). “Inlet soundings at low tide were performed by H&L Contracting LLC for Mattituck Creek from the inlet at Long Island Sound to SYC on April 8, 2020 to document the various depths of the inlet and creek (see Figure 2). It is noted that the soundings were performed to determine whether suitable depths existed for barging of cut materials from the project site” (Appendix M p.8). 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. As noted above (fn 2), the DEIS also states that the “tidal range for Mattituck Creek is approximately five feet. At low tide, depths adjacent to SYC average between 9-to-10 feet within the channel. At high tide, the average depths range from 14-to-15 feet. As noted above, there 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. 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. The feasibility of the barge alternative has not been adequately explored. The Planning Board must independently evaluate the barge transport alternative and cannot rely on unsupported assertions made in the DEIS that this alternative is not feasible. 4 The June 24, 2021 correspondence from H&L Contracting to the Applicant states that H&L “did a very detailed draft soundings from the inlet entrance to your marina. Those draft findings I emailed you on 4-10-2020” (DEIS Appendix U). It seems likely Figure 2 in Appendix M is from, or is based on data from, H&L. Page | ALTERNATIVES-4 Rev 8 On-Site Cement Plant “During preparation of the DEIS and in response to a Planning Board Member meeting held on-site, the option to install a cement plant on-site to eliminate the need to transport the excavated material off- site was investigated” DEIS pp. xlii, 315). The DEIS goes on to conclude that because the amount of sand required to provide the Project’s requirement for 5,345 CY of concrete is only 1,604 CY, the reduction in the number of truck trips required for sand removal would not be significantly reduced. It goes on to conclude further that “potential impacts that arise with on-site processing including dust and noise generation, as well as the financial cost associated with plant operations, has been determined not feasible” (DEIS pp. xlii, 315). However, it appears that the evaluation of this 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. Construct Proposed Storage Building(s) Without Excavation (Alternative 4) According to the DEIS, “Similar to the proposed action, this alternative would require slope stabilization measures to correct existing slope failure behind Buildings 7 and 8, which has occurred due to the erosion of the upland slope and presence of unconsolidated materials behind the upland slope face that were deposited by the USACOE [US Army Corps of Engineers] as part of past dredging projects (see historic topographic maps and Chapter 2 Environmental and Historic Contexts] of the Phase 1A Archaeological Survey in Appendix T)” (p.317). 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 5 The DEIS does not provide information concerning the exact size or weight of concrete trucks that may be used. The revised DEIS states only that “Concrete will arrive at the site in single unit concrete trucks with a minimum of 3 axles and 10 tires. The concrete trucks will be no larger than those used for pouring concrete for the construction of single-family homes and residential pools” (p. 220). Page | ALTERNATIVES-5 Rev 8 exist. However, the no-action alternative does not address the environmental consequences of the Applicant continuing to fail to address this concern. 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. 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. 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. Alternative Material Mitigation Plan (Alternative 7) This alternative would “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 material would be placed within the Successional Shrubland area at a depth of approximately 12 inches and setback approximately 20 feet from the Successional Southern Hardwoods” (DEIS p.336). 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.7 6 See comments on soils. 7 The consistent conflation of trips with round-trips was identified by the Planning Board in their comments as an inadequacy in the original DEIS. In addition, the 450 truck-loads of sand that would no longer have to be moved off-site assumes that each truck would be filled with 30 CY of material. It is likely that, to avoid exceeding each truck’s MGVW, each load would be less than 30 CY. That would increase the number of off-site truck trips actually eliminated, and the advantage of this alternative. Page | ALTERNATIVES-6 Rev 8 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. Residences in proximity to the area where the fill would be placed would be most likely to be affected. The DEIS has not adequately identified the advantages and adverse impacts associated with this alternative. As a result, the Planning Board has not been provided with the information necessary to properly evaluate this alternative. 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. Alternative Routing Plan (Alternative 8) “An Alternate Truck Route has been developed that would reduce the impact of trucks hauling material from the site. This alternative split arriving empty trucks from departing trucks carrying excavated material on the south segment of Cox Neck Road” (DEIS p. 225). “Arriving trucks would follow the original Truck Route plan, making a left turn from east bound Sound Avenue onto north bound Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road. Departing trucks hauling material from the site would utilize West Mill Road/Cox Neck Road and then turn west onto Bergen Avenue to Sound Avenue” (DEIS pp. xliv, 225, 338; Appendix N, TIS, p.88). 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. The Phased Construction Alternative (Proposed by Applicant but Not included in the DEIS) The phased construction of the Project includes the construction of a single storage building in a first phase, and a second phase including construction of a second storage building later in time. 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% Page | ALTERNATIVES-7 Rev 8 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.9 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. 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.”11 In fact this is not, and never was, a viable alternative. Haul trucks carrying loads of 40 CY of sand would be well above the maximum allowable weight under any special permit that might be issued 8 Personal communication from Stephen Boscola. 9 In a statement made at the April 15, 2023 meeting of the Southold-Peconic Civic Association, the Applicant was asked if both storage buildings would be constructed at the same time. In response he said: “We don’t know the answer to that question fully right now. The main driver of that is if, and when, this ever gets approved. Just like you’ve seen several projects that finally get approved that the developer chose to pull out of the project altogether. Some of that was driven by the fact that the costs have just gone through the roof dramatically. So, I can’t factually speak to that. I can say this—that our desire would be to do both buildings at the same time. If for some reason we weren’t to do both buildings at the same time the retaining wall . . would all have to be done at the same time. We more than likely would do the cement work at the same time. Or worst-case scenario, we would erect one building and then let a little bit of time elapse, and then do the second building. But it could very well be that if, hopefully, interest rates drop, prices of steel come back in line, we would do both buildings at the same time. 10 https://strongsmarine.com/assets/images/pdf/4.6.22%20SYC%20building%20project%20fact%20sheet.pdf. This fact sheet is dated April 6, 2022. The same statement also appeared in an earlier version of the fact sheet dated February 10, 2022. It is no longer included in the April 23, 2023 version. 11 This is another example of the Applicant attempting to present misleading information to the public. Trucks carrying a 40-CY load would exceed the maximum allowable gross vehicle weight even for trucks with an overweight permit. The idea that 30- CY loads “can be appropriately handled on local roads” is refuted by statement in the DEIS which outlines Applicant- proposed measures to mitigate damage to local roads. Page | ALTERNATIVES-8 Rev 8 by NYSDOT. As noted elsewhere in these Comments, the DEIS fails to adequately address or consider the impacts of even the 30-yard trucks Applicant intends to use.12 12 As noted elsewhere in these Comments, the DEIS fails to adequately address impacts of even the 30 CY capacity haul trucks the Applicant intends to use. The suggestion that a totally non-viable alternative is possible, is another example of the Applicant’s distribution of false and misleading information about the Project.