HomeMy WebLinkAboutvisual impact notes Rev10 rev - FINAL - jkPage | Visual-1 Rev.10
VISUAL AND AESTHETIC IMPACTS
The visual impact assessment included as part of the DEIS was not properly prepared, is rife with errors,
and fails to properly depict both existing and proposed views. It cannot be used as a basis for evaluating
the visual and aesthetic impacts of the Project.
No attempt appears to have been made to properly define the zone of visual influence (ZVI), or the
viewshed, associated with the proposed Project.
The DEIS scope (p.15) requires the Applicant to identify the Project's zone of visual influence (ZVI), and
perform viewshed analyses. As generally defined, a zone of visual influence is the area from which a
development or other structure is theoretically visible (e.g. up to a certain distance from the development
or other structure). A viewshed includes all surrounding points that are in line-of-sight with a location and
excludes points that are beyond the horizon or obstructed by terrain and other features (e.g., buildings,
trees). Conversely, it can also refer to the area from which an object can be seen. No ZVI is defined in the
DEIS and no properly prepared viewshed map is included in the DEIS or supporting appendices.
According to the DEIS: “To evaluate the existing viewshed of the subject property and the surrounding area,
site and area visits were conducted by PWGC . . . [and] photographs from various vantage points were taken
to illustrate the existing viewshed from select properties adjacent to and within the subject property’s zone
of visual influence (ZVI), as required by the Amended Final Scope” (DEIS pp. 229-231). 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. It is clear from
this that the Project’s viewshed was never defined 1.
Establishing a ZVI, and preparing a map of a Project’s viewshed is routinely done for environmental
assessments and generally involves using readily available computer software2. Alternatively, line-of-sight
mapping as described in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC) Program
Policy Assessing and Mitigating Visual and Aesthetic Impacts could have been employed. The NYSDEC’s
Program Policy includes “a standardized method for evaluating the significance of visual impact within the
context of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR).” In addition to the NYSDEC procedure, there
1 The failure to properly identify a ZVI or viewshed for the Project has also created significant problems in regard to evaluating the
Project’s visual impacts on historic properties. The definition of the Project’s ZVI and viewshed should have been a pre-requisite to
assessing Project impacts to historic structures.
2 A viewshed analysis could have been performed using one of many GIS programs, such as ArcGIS Pro, GRASS GIS, QGIS (viewshed
plugin), SAGA GIS (Visibility), ArcMap or ERDAS IMAGINE. A viewshed is created from a digital elevation model (DEM) by using an
algorithm that estimates the difference in elevation from one cell (the viewpoint cell) to the next (the target cell). To determine the
visibility of a target cell, each cell between the viewpoint cell and target cell is examined for line of sight. Where cells of higher
value are between the viewpoint and target cells the line of sight is blocked. If the line of sight is blocked then the target cell is
determined to not be part of the viewshed. If it is not blocked then it is included in the viewshed.
Page | Visual-2 Rev.10
are numerous long-established visual impact assessment procedures3 that could have been employed by the
Applicant and his consultants, but were not, in spite of the fact that the DEIS scope requires the Applicant to
provide “a detailed visual impact analysis for the action.”
In addition to not properly defining the limits of the ZVI or a project viewshed, the DEIS preparers limited
their analysis of what they call the ZVI to a radius of 1,000 feet from the subject property (p.231)4. They
provide no basis for this limitation. 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” (NYSDEC 2019:8). The NYSDEC does note that a smaller radius may be appropriate for some
projects and that the recommended five-mile radius is derived from a US Forest Service study. The study
classifies five miles as a “background distance.” Alternatively, it classifies anything from 0 – 0.5 miles as
“foreground” within which a viewer is able to perceive details of an object with clarity [and from within
which] surface textures, small features, and the full intensity and value of color can be seen on foreground
objects. The limited analysis presented in the DEIS fails to meet even this minimum distance threshold.
An example of how the failure to properly delineate the Project’s viewshed and the failure to define an
adequate ZVI is apparent in COMMENT FIGURE V-1 which shows the view from 465 Harbor View Avenue on
the east side of Mattituck Creek. The existing marina and the location of the proposed storage buildings are
clearly visible. This property has a direct line of sight to the Project area and is clearly within the Project
viewshed. The property is approximately 3,000 feet from the Project area—more than 2,000 feet beyond
the limit of the ZVI used in the visual impact analysis, and well beyond the arbitrary ZVI limit used to prepare
the DEIS. The residence at 465 Harbor View Avenue is one of several within the Project viewshed that is not
considered in the DEIS.
At least one other structure, the historic Jackson Water Tower, located approximately 0.5 miles from the
Project site is likely within the Project viewshed (the Project site is likely visible from the upper levels of the
tower). It is highly likely that other properties have also been improperly excluded from analyses. 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.
The DEIS fails to properly assess how post-construction views of the Project will be different from existing
views.
3 See for example, Bureau of Land Management (1980), Visual Resource Management Program, U.S. Government Printing Office;
U.S. Forest Service (1974), National Forest Landscape Management, USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 462; U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1981); U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Instruction Report EL-88-1, Visual Resources Assessment Procedure for US Army Corps of Engineers (Smardon 1988); and
Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002).
4 The DEIS scope notes that several historic properties are located within 1,000 feet of the Project site, but clearly that was never
intended to imply that visual analyses should be limited to that distance since visual impacts can also affect non-historic
properties.
Page | Visual-3 Rev.10
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 5 for use in assessing visual and aesthetic impacts, DEIS Appendix Q
contains what are identified as “Proposed Action Renderings”6 (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]”. The superimposed images show the existing buildings as stark white, which they are not.
They are blue. The proposed views use these same altered images and add computer generated images of
the proposed new storage facilities. However, the proposed structures are shown in blue, to match the true
color of the existing facilities. The resulting unrealistic artificial contrast results in the existing structures
appearing more prominent than they really are and diminishes the prominence of the proposed structures.
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 [COMMENT FIGURES V-2 – V-10].7 The
5 Examples of properly prepared photosimulations prepared for other projects submitted to the Southold Planning Board are shown
on COMMENT FIGURE V-11.
6 The renderings in Appendix Q are all labeled as having been created by “Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C.” The firm is identified in the
DEIS as the “project architect” (pp. xix, 6, 11, 162, 173, 235, 290, 309). The firm principal, Jeffrey Butler, is not a Registered
Architect (RA) or Registered Landscape Architect (RLA). Another employee of the firm, Daniel Butler, is an RA. The Proposed
Landscape Architecture Plan was also prepared by Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C, and bears Jeffrey Butler’s PE seal. Under Section 7322
of Article 148 (Landscape Architecture) of the New York State Education Law “Only a person licensed or otherwise authorized to
practice under this article shall practice landscape architecture or use the title ‘landscape architect’".
Architectural elevation drawings (Appendix D) were prepared by Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C., but are unsealed. According to the
Guidelines for Professional Engineering Practice in New York State “The seal and signature of a licensee on a document indicates
that the licensee takes professional responsibility for the work and to the best of the licensee’s knowledge and ability, the work
represented in the document is accurate, in conformance with applicable codes at the time of submission and has been prepared in
conformance with normal and customary standards of practice and with a view to the safeguarding of life, health, property and
public welfare”.
7 Viewpoint photograph 1 (Comment FIGURE V-2) prominently features a large outbuilding in foreground along with a large pile of
wooden pallets. A small portion of Mattituck Creek is visible in the middle ground, and some existing marina structures are visible
in the distance on the west side of the creek. In contrast, the Figure A-1 viewpoint showing “existing” conditions appears to be
situated in Mattituck Creek. The view is dominated by existing marina structures. The two views, supposedly from the same
viewpoint bear no resemblance to one another.
Viewpoint photograph 2 (COMMENT FIGURE V-3) bears no resemblance to DEIS Figure A-2. The former shows a dense forest
during the defoliate season. The latter shows five large foreground trees in full leaf. It is also unusually dark compared to the actual
photograph of the same location.
Viewpoint photograph 3 (COMMENT FIGURE V-4) is titled “View from south of SYC, facing north on Mattituck Creek towards SYC.”
The accompanying description reads “This viewpoint depicts the views of SYC from the south. From this viewpoint, Mattituck
Creek, select dock slips and the bulkhead are visible. To the west of the bulkhead, the eastern façade of Building 8 is visible along
with the southern portion of Building 7. Upland of Buildings 7 and 8, the woodland portion of the subject property is visible”
(p.232). This description does not match the Viewpoint 3 photograph in Appendix Q which was clearly not taken from Mattituck
Creek. Dock slips and the bulkhead are not visible. In contrast, the Figure A-3 “photograph” does appear to approximate the
Page | Visual-4 Rev.10
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.
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
existing view from Viewpoint 3. In another glaring inconsistency, the existing conditions “photograph” from the same viewpoint
included as “Figure A-10 Alternate” in Appendix V (Alternate Site Plans and Renderings) includes non-existent vegetation behind
the existing marina structures that is not shown on Figure A-3 in Appendix Q.
Viewpoint photograph 4 (COMMENT FIGURE V-5) shows a wooded area during the defoliate season. In contrast, the Figure A-4
viewpoint “photograph” (existing view from southern trail on Mill Road Preserve) showing “existing conditions” shows a view
dominated by existing marina structures. The supposed existing view shown Figure A-4 bears no resemblance to any view from the
Mill Road Preserve.
Viewpoint photograph 5 (COMMENT FIGURE V-6) bears no resemblance to DEIS Figure A-5. The former shows a forest during the
defoliate season overlooking barely visible existing marina structures at a much lower elevation. The latter shows large foreground
trees overlooking the tops of stark white marina structures. It is also unusually dark compared to the actual photograph of the
same location. The result is an enhancement of the contrast between the forest and the structures making the latter seem much
more prominent. In fact, the structures are blue—not white.
Viewpoint photograph 6 (COMMENT FIGURE V-7) shows a wooded area during the defoliate season. In contrast, the DEIS Figure A-
6 viewpoint “photograph” showing “existing conditions” shows a large open area in the foreground, and a distant tree line. What
appears to be a post-construction simulation of the proposed Evergreen retaining wall is shown on the right side of the
“photograph,” indicating that this is not an “existing” “view”. Figure A-6 also shows a lattice frame electric transmission line tower
extending above the distant tree line. No tower is visible in Viewpoint photograph 6, supposedly taken from the same location.
Viewpoint photograph 7 (COMMENT FIGURE V-8) shows a wooded area during the defoliate season. In contrast, the DEIS Figure A-
7 viewpoint “photograph” showing “existing conditions” shows a foreground with a few trees, including evergreens; a middle
ground dominated by an existing marina structure, and Mattituck Creek and the east shore of the creek in the distance. The two
images, although supposedly the view from the same viewpoint, bear no resemblance to one another.
Viewpoint photograph 9 (COMMENT FIGURE V-9) shows the open area at the end of West Mill Road in front of the Old Mill Inn (to
left, not visible). The marina office is in the center middle ground, and the Frame Water Tower dominates the right side of the
photo. None of these features is visible in Figure A-6 which is dominated by existing marina structures, incorrectly shown in white.
The existing and proposed views shown on DEIS Figure A-9 appear to be identical.
Viewpoint photograph 13 (COMMENT FIGURE V-10) is dominated by a large yacht and several smaller vessels with partial views of
existing marina structures behind them. Figure A-13, the “existing view” “photograph” is an obviously different photo. No vessels
are visible and the background tree line is markedly different. A third version of the existing view from the same viewpoint is
presented as the existing view “photograph” (Figure A-9 Alternate) in Appendix V. In that image the relative difference in height
between the existing buildings, and the background landform and vegetation, is clearly not the same as in Figure A-13 in Appendix
Q although both should be the same
Page | Visual-5 Rev.10
anywhere in the DEIS 8. The conclusions in the DEIS that “[O]verall, the viewshed change is not significant”
(DEIS pp. xx, 237) and that “[U]nder postdevelopment 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.
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.
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.9 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.
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
8 The DEIS states that “Immediately adjacent to the south of Building 1 on the subject property is a private two-story residence
(5106 West Mill Road) (see Photograph No. 15)” (p.230). In fact, photograph 15 [COMMENT FIGURE V-27] is a view from the end of
the residence’s long driveway, and the home itself is only visible in the distance. No separate view from the residence looking
towards the Project site is provided.
9 The yacht identified as a 95-footer in the Viewpoint 11C photo is actually an 80-footer. Although the Project description states that
vessels serviced by the proposed Project will “average” 60-feet, according to the DEIS “Upon implementation of the proposed
action, the boat storage buildings would be used to store larger boats/yachts, up to 86 feet in length” (p.19), and that “the marina
accommodates boats and yachts 18-to-133± feet in length” (p.20). The revised version of DEIS Appendix M has added photos
(Figures 4a-d) of “Typical Boats and Yachts at SYC.” The vessels shown in these photos have lengths of 65, 76, 105, 110, and 116
feet.
Page | Visual-6 Rev.10
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.
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). Given the
problems identified above, 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” (p.16).
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 properties10. 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,
Viewpoint photos are accompanied by a location key map 11. Only one of the viewpoint photos (Viewpoint 1)
is described as being from a “private residence” (p.231)12. The location is not otherwise identified in the
10 The Old Mill Inn (Viewpoint 9), the Robinson-D’Aires House at 4255 West Mill Road (Viewpoint 8), and the Old Water Tower at
3380 West Mill Road (viewpoint 10).
11 The location key map is difficult to use because of the convention it uses to show the point from which each photo was taken and
the direction of the view. Rather than representing each location with a dot, a large rectangle (scaling out to more than 100 feet
on a side, in some cases) containing the viewpoint number is used. In addition, the Viewpoint Key Map in Appendix Q is
inexplicably marked “Map not to scale”, making it difficult to determine the precise location of the viewpoints. This could have
been avoided by recording the GPS coordinates of viewpoints, as is standard practice for visual assessments.
12 The Viewpoint 1 photo in Appendix Q appears to be the same as Photograph 25 in Appendix G. Photograph 24 in Appendix G is
approximately the same view from a slightly greater distance. The captions of both photos identify the views shown as being
from a “single family residence” and include arrows indicating the location of “the proposed action” on the opposite side of
Mattituck Creek. The parcel is identified as a single-family residence on Southold assessment rolls.
Page | Visual-7 Rev.10
DEIS text13. 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. A photograph (COMMENT
FIGURE V-32) taken from approximately the same location along the east side of Mattituck Inlet, but from
an unobstructed viewpoint, more accurately represents the view from properties on the east side of the
inlet.
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 8 14 (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.
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.
13 A photograph (E10) taken from what appears to be essentially the same position (it may be a better resolution version of the
same photo) is included in the historic resources survey (DEIS Appendix T). That photo is captioned “200 E. Mill Road support
building looking W/SW (Field Photograph CSW_P325035, 03/25/21)”.
14 Page 2 of the DEIS states that the “seven buildings located on the subject property are identified on the site development plans as
follows:
o Building 1: one-story residence (1,610 square feet [SF])
o Building 2: two-story office (2,702 SF)
o Building 3: one-story storage (17,320 SF)
o Building 5: one-story storage (341 SF)
o Building 6: one-story storage (10,786 SF)
o Building 7: one-story storage (15,076 SF)
o Building 8: one-story storage (22,425 SF)
The DEIS goes on to note that “SYC maintains a different building numbering system. This DEIS uses the building numbers assigned
on the site development plans”. This creates significant confusion for anyone attempting to read and understand the DEIS.
The Project site plans (Development Plans) in DEIS Appendix C include building numbers for the existing structures shown as
unexplained numbers within circles. Confusing the situation is the fact that proposed structures are labeled as Buildings 1 and 2.
The DEIS refers to them as Buildings 9 and 10 (p. xx). Also of note is the fact that Strong’s “different numbering system” is used to
identify buildings in SYC’s Fire Safety Plan (DEIS Appendix P) (e.g., Bldg. 5 in the Fire Safety Plan is otherwise referred to as Bldg. 7
in the DEIS.
Page | Visual-8 Rev.10
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.
The viewpoint 4 photograph15, is described as “View from most southern trail on Mill Road Preserve towards
SYC.” The DEIS text states that “[F]rom 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.
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 land-locked 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. COMMENT FIGURES V-19 – V-26 are
photos, taken by the property owner, of existing views from 5106 West Mill Road looking towards the
Construction Excavation Area. Existing marina facilities are visible in the photos taken from Comment
Viewpoints 5 and 8.
The DEIS concludes that “Overall, the viewshed change [from 5106 West Mill Road towards SYC] is not
significant”, and notes that “[U]nder existing conditions, the current view of the subject property is the roofs
of Buildings 7 and 8 and Mattituck Creek beyond. Under post-development conditions, the views would be
similar. Views of portions of the roofs of Buildings 7 and 8 would remain. All woodland area between the
property line and edge of disturbance would remain” (pp. xx, 237). 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
15 Viewpoint Photo 4 is reproduced in DEIS Appendix G as “Photograph No. 31: View of West Mill Preserve [sic] from southernmost
trail facing northeast towards SYC. (Photograph taken 3-25-2021).”
Page | Visual-9 Rev.10
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.
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.
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 17. 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 35 mm 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.18
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-3 and Post Development Viewpoint 3 - “The impact to the visual setting of the
subject property would be minimal” (p.223).
16 On March 29, 2017 a complaint was filed with the Town of Southold alleging that trees were being cut on the Applicant’s property
without required Town approvals. The same day the Investigation Unit of the Office of the Town Attorney issued a stop work
order to the Applicant. Although the investigation report noted that “further investigation” was required, it also notes, without
explanation, that the file was closed. The visual impact to 5106 West Mill Road is evident in photographs taken at the time
(COMMENT FIGURES V29 and V30).
17 “With the ever-growing public involvement in design procedure and policy-making and the demand for more objective
presentation of design proposals, traditional simulation methods (drawings. renderings etc.) are increasingly challenged. A good
simulation must be accurate both physically and visually. Ordinary computer-aided design (CAD ) representations (wire-frame,
shaded models) are often questioned for lack of visual accuracy . . .” H. Shang (1992) “A method for creating precise low-cost
landscape architecture simulations — combining computer-aided design with computer video-imaging techniques” Landscape and
Urban Planning 22:11-16.
18 Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects (CEIWEP). 2007. Appendix D: A Visual Impact Assessment Process
for Evaluating Wind-Energy Projects. In, Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, pp. 349-376. National Research Council,
National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Page | Visual-10 Rev.10
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).
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.
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. 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).
The DEIS also discusses proposed measures to mitigate adverse visual/aesthetic impacts resulting from the
construction of the Project. For example, the 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 19 (see DEIS Appendix G, Photograph 42).
The proposed haul road will also visually impact 5106 West Mill Road, a single-family residence. The haul
road will be set back approximately 250 feet from the pool (the nearest structure)20 on that property to
“mitigate” visual impacts the Project. The DEIS concludes that “it is not expected that the haul road and
construction vehicles would have a significant adverse aesthetic impact on this single-family residence.” As
noted, the DEIS does not define what it considers to be a “significant” visual impact, nor does it include
information sufficient to allow an independent evaluation to be made. It is clear that the analysis in the DEIS
assumes that views of the haul road could be of concern. It completely fails to address that the most
significant visual impact associated with the haul road will be views of the frequent heavy truck traffic using
the haul road during the months-long construction phases 21, which corresponds with the defoliate season,
significantly reducing the moderating effect of the vegetated buffer between 5106 West Mill Road and the
19 This does not include the stabilized RAC shoulder to be constructed on the east side of West Mill Road, immediately south of the
haul road entrance. The haul road itself is shown on the Haul Road Plan (Appendix C) as being 16 – 30 feet wide.
20 The DEIS fails to mention that the haul road will be less than 200 feet from the residence property line.
21 Noise and vibration generated by traffic along the haul road can also be expected to impact 5106 West Mill Road. Also
unmentioned is the fact that the “Temporary Stockpile Area” shown on the Excavation Phasing Plan (Appendix C) will likely be
visible from 5106 West Mill Road. The maximum height of the stockpile area as shown on the Erosion & Sediment Control Pan
(Appendix C) is 15 feet.
Page | Visual-11 Rev.10
haul road. This can be seen in photographs taken by the property owner [COMMENT FIGURES V-25 and V-
26]. No photographs illustrating views from 5106 West Mill Road looking towards the proposed haul road
are included in the DEIS.
Existing views of a vegetated hillside will be replaced by views, which will last for years, of a massive
concrete retaining wall.
The largest, and potentially most visually significant, feature included in the Project besides the two
proposed boat storage buildings, is “a concrete retaining wall of approximately 875 feet in length and
varying height [that] will be installed to the north and west of the proposed boat storage buildings” (p. iv,
xxxii, 41). The height of the wall “ranges from 20± feet to 30± feet” (pp.12-13 also pp. 40-41). The bottom
elevation of the retaining wall “would be approximately 20 feet AMSL and reach a maximum top elevation
of 50 feet AMS” (p.110, also p.118).
The Applicant indicates that construction of this massive concrete retaining wall is necessitated by the
Applicant’s removal of 135,000 CY of sand, and that it “will provide visual mitigation when it is vegetated”
(p.240). 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).
The DEIS concludes, at multiple places, without having conducted any community surveys, that “[P]ortions
of the retaining wall would be vegetated for a visually appealing wall that serves to blend with the
landscape” (pp. iv, xxxii, 41, 86). This statement is the Applicant’s own opinion, and the DEIS is presuming to
speak for the community. It does not.
Again, 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).
The DEIS states that the “proposed Evergreen concrete retaining wall would be constructed with planting
trays that will require approximately two-to-three years before establishment of a “green” wall that will
then blend into the landscape” (p.310). The retaining wall plantings are intended to soften views of the wall
as seen from the south and east, especially from Mattituck Creek. However, it is impossible to evaluate how
Page | Visual-12 Rev.10
successful this will be because of the unsuitability of the photo simulations included in the DEIS. In addition,
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.”
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.
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.
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.
22 As indicated, the DEIS says at least six times that 86 pitch pine trees will be planted at the top of the retaining wall. The Proposed
Landscape Plan (DEIS Appendix C) indicates that only 71 pitch pines will be planted in this area. The original version of DEIS
Appendix N (Ecological Conditions Report) also stated that 86 pitch pines would be planted. The revised version has lowered the
number from 86 to 71.
23 These 86 trees are the majority of the 135 trees to be planted as part of the Project to mitigate the destruction of 634 mature
trees in other parts of the Project area.
24 Although the area at the top of the retaining wall is not technically in a “buffer zone,” it should be noted that the DEIS does cite
§280-94 of the Southold Town Code which states in regard to buffer areas that “As a minimum, the planting shall consist of a
double row of trees six feet in height planted at intervals of 10 feet on center.”
Page | Visual-13 Rev.10
The DEIS states only 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).
Page | Visual-14 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-1
View from 465 Harbor View Avenue, Mattituck, NY, c.2020 (not in DEIS).
Page | Visual-15 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-2
DEIS Viewpoint 1 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-1 (View #1) “Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-16 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V3
DEIS Viewpoint 2 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-2 (View #2) “Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-17 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-4
DEIS Viewpoint 3 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q). This is clearly not the view from Viewpoint 3. No photograph from
Viewpoint 3 is included in the DEIS.
DEIS Figure A-3 (View #3) “Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-18 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-5
DEIS Viewpoint 4 (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-4 (View #4) “Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-19 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-6
DEIS Viewpoint 5 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-5 (View #5) “Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-20 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-7
DEIS Viewpoint 6 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-6 (View #6)“Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-21 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-8
DEIS Viewpoint 7 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-7 (View #7) “Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-22 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-9
DEIS Viewpoint 9 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-9 (View #9) “Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-23 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-10
DEIS Viewpoint 13 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-13 (View #13)“Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-24 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-11
The Property from Main Street – EXISTING CONDITIONS
View facing north, from the south side of Main Road, across from the Property
The Property from Main Street – POST-CONSTRUCTION PHOTOSIMULATION
View facing north, from the south side of Main Road, across from the Property
Page | Visual-25 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-12A
Page | Visual-26 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-12B
Page | Visual-27 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-13
Page | Visual-28 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-14
Comment Photo Viewpoint Locations and Mill Road Preserve and trail system (Comment Viewpoints 1-4)
(https://tos.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7e08bb30ee414abf887b17320d409b3c
Comment Photo Viewpoints 5-12 from 5106 West Mill Road
Page | Visual-29 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURES V-15 and V-16
View from the Mill Road Preserve looking north (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 1)
View from the Mill Road Preserve looking towards the southeast – 805 North Drive in very close proximity
(COMMENT VIEWPOINT 2)
Page | Visual-30 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURES V-17 and V-18
View from Northern part of the Mill Road Preserve at property line looking east – existing marina structures
visible between the trees. (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 3)
View from the Preserve at property line – 805 North Drive to right (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 4)
Page | Visual-31 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURES V-19 and V-20
View from 5106 West Mill Road deck looking southeast (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 5)
View from 5106 West Mill Road deck looking south (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 6)
Page | Visual-32 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURES V-21 and V-22
View from 5106 West Mill Road deck looking towards the southwest (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 7)
View from 5106 West Mill Road second story looking southeast towards existing marina structures
(COMMENT VIEWPOINT 8)
Page | Visual-33 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURES V-23 and V-24
Views from 5106 West Mill Road second story looking southeast towards Project site (COMMENT
VIEWPOINT 9)
View from driveway of 5106 West Mill Road looking southwest towards proposed haul road and proposed
Storage Building No. 1 (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 10)
Page | Visual-34 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURES V-25 and V-26
View from driveway of 5106 West Mill Road looking south towards proposed haul road and proposed
Storage Building No. 1 (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 11)
View from driveway of 5106 West Mill Road looking southwest towards proposed haul road and proposed
Storage Building No. 1 (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 12)
Page | Visual-35 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-27
Photograph 15 (DEIS Appendix G)
Page | Visual-36 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE -V28
DEIS Appendix G Photograph No. 10: “View of boat storage in the southeast corner of SYC with forested area south of
subject property beyond, facing south. (Photograph taken 9-22-2020)”.
DEIS Appendix Q. “Viewpoint 3 (Existing Conditions) View from south of SYC, facing north on Mattituck Creek towards
SYC
Page | Visual-37 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-29
View towards the SE from 5106 West Mill Road on March 29, 2017. Existing marina structures and Mattituck Creek
visible in disatance (Comment Viewpoint 3A)
Page | Visual-38 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-30
View towards the north towards 5106 West Mill Road on March 29, 2017. (Comment Viewpoint 4A)
Page | Visual-39 Rev.10
FIGURE V-31
Applicant prepared image – NOT PART OF DEIS
Applicant prepared image – NOT PART OF DEIS
Page | Visual-40 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-31
Source: East End Beacon (April 8, 2023)
https://www.eastendbeacon.com/spotlight-on-strongs-boat-storage-buildings-at-several-upcoming-
meetings/