Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence File MATTITUCK INLET December 2,2024 Sv b- P13m,aN Via email Mr.James H. Rich III,Chairman RECEIVED Southold Town Planning Board 7 — -- N'--� 54375 Main Road,P.O. Box 1179 DEC0 2 2024j Southold,NY 11971 RE: Strong's Storage Buildings Revised Application Planning Board SCTM#: 1000-106-6-10, 13.4 _ .._............._. ....v _M.............. ..._ Dear Chairman Rich and Members of the Planning Board, Following the letter from our attorney, Reed Super, dated July 29, 2024, we wish to highlight several inconsistent and, at times misleading, statements presented in the developer's revised application for the public record: Application 1. Parking—there are existing parking spaces and proposed parking spaces—the applicant fails to distinguish between the two. 2. Landscaping Details—how is the"proposed coverage 57.2%"calculated? Full li"ttvironmetrtctl,4ssessmetit Form Fi At C 3. Zoning b—applicant checked"no", however,per the FEIS, this should be examined given the quantity of fuel storage being proposed. This includes the two 2,000-gallon propane tanks D.1. Proposed and Potential Development b—applicant notes the total acreage to be physically altered is 4.99 acres, however in the original application that same figure was one acre less at 3.9 acres. Given the project is supposed to be scaled back,how has the altered area increased by 28%? D.2. Project Operations a(ii)—applicant noted in the original application that 130,000 cy of material to be removed from the site over 3 months. Current application shows 70,000 cy to be removed over the same period at 30 cy per truck. Using 30 cy per truck is a known falsehood and was to be addressed in the FEIS. a(iii)—applicant does not define what"excess soils"means,nor disclose when it will be transported off site and to where. d(i)—applicant notes that liquid waste generation to be 9 gal/day, compared with 1,165 gal/day in the prior application. With a 35%reduction in building size and a 36%reduction in boats stored, how does that translate to a 99%reduction in waste? Save Mattituck Inlet ♦ P.O. Box 592 ♦ Mattituck, NY 11952 ♦ www.SaveMattitucklnlet.com f—applicant notes"NO"sources of air emissions, including fuel combustion,yet still proposes to heat the building by burning propane supplied from a combined 4,000-gal capacity tank(s). This "no"also covers heavy equipment,where an oversized diesel-powered travel lift will be used more so if building is constructed. g(ii)—structure height is NOT less than 35 ft. j—applicant notes use of the ITE I Oh edition for Trip Generation, citing number of berths as the basis for traffic generation, however the 10' edition excludes marinas. Therefore, any trip generation would be an increase. n(ii)—applicant notes there will be NO removal of existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier, however,the project will be removing 4 acres of forest by cutting down 444 mature trees >6"diameter that provide considerable light barriers. p — applicant notes NO bulk storage of petroleum over 1,100 gallons, however is proposing associated storage of 4,000 gallons of propane as well as approximately 36,232 gallons of diesel fuel in the stored vessels (56 boats x 647 gal capacity each). Additionally, as noted in section D.2.(q),antifouling bottom paint is used annually on vessels. A 60'vessel requires—3.5 gallons of bottom paint,which is an additional 196 gallons and thus more than the 185 noted in D.2.(p). r — Does not include vegetative debris associated with project site clearing, which will be significantly greater than the quantities listed. E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site o and p—applicant notes NO species of plant or animal listed by NYS as rare or of concern. We refer to the July 8,2024,memo from Southold Town Assistant Planner Director,Mark Terry,citing far more rare or vulnerable animal species present at or around the site. E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site e—The EAF confuses the old water tower(which functions as a current residence opposite the Old Mill Restaurant)with the Old Water Tower and Aux building on West Mill Rd. which is close to the proposed haul road and adjacent to the proposed truck route. It is the latter that has been determined NRHP-eligible h — applicant states the site is NOT within five miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal,state,or local scenic or aesthetic resource however this is untrue. Mattituck Inlet is a Federal waterway,Mattituck Creek Waterway Access Site is a NYS park, and the site borders the locally designated Mill Road Preserve LWRP Consistency Mr.Terry's review of LWRP Coastal Consistency submitted July 8,2024,lists four LWRP policies to which the prior project does not adhere. The new proposal continues all of those same policy violations and in no way becomes consistent with the LWRP. As the FEIS noted,the visual impact assessment prepared for the former version of the project was seriously flawed. There is no basis for the claim that the project"will have no impact on visual qualities..." Additionally,the revised project does nothing to preserve or protect historic and archeological resources. The answer to this question should be"NO". 2 Fire Safety The applicant references correspondence from the Mattituck Fire Department and the Southold Fire Marshall from 2021,however the issue of fire safety should be revisited with the current plan. Water Dependency The applicant continues to rely on a seemingly negotiated notation by the Suffolk County Planning Commission that this project is a water dependent usage. The property at its present form is not water-dependent given its significant elevation above sea level. Only by drastically changing the hillside and reducing the grade by—77%does it become"waterfront". Given the"average"vessel size of 60',this means that some vessels to be stored will be less than 60' and therefore not water dependent based on the applicant's definition. Should no vessel over 60' end up being stored in this building, then declaring it was water dependent was entirely false. Given there has been no specifics on the guaranteed vessels to be stored, the project should be regarded as water related or water enhanced. We want to reiterate our appreciation,and that of the community,for the careful consideration taken by the Planning Department and Planning Board. We know this has been a tiresome and lengthy process and your adherence to SEQRA has been exemplary. We hope you continue to approach this revised application with the same level of consideration. Respectfully, SAVE MATTITUCK INLET,INC. Ste ien M.Boscola Anne Sherwood Pundyk Co-Chair Co-Chair cc: Southold Town Planning Department 3 if; lf, jug : Y; , IVIATTITUCK21 I UHSUYtt10.1ER W QaJMNA11:gC dVi November6', 2024Iud The Southold Town Planning Board 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY. 11971 To whom it may concern: I am writing this letter is support of Strong's Marine in regards to their revised Building Project Application at their Strong's Yacht Center property in Mattituck, at 5780 West Mill Road, by the Old Mill Inn. This project has been under consideration for well over 5 years, and their latest proposal takes into considerations the concerns that were previously addressed and reduces the scope of its entirety by at least 35%of their original requested application. Strong's Marine's solid history of being a long respected and integral part of the Mattituck area, combined with their fastidious and meticulous care of all of their properties, and their living and having raised their children across the creek from where this project is being proposed,we have to believe that they will continue to be good and considerate neighbors as well as an approachable and caring business in our community. We believe that with all this taken into consideration, this application should be approved, and that Strong's Marine has our full support. Thank you, Terry ane President Mattituck Chamber of Commerce �:'�. Pp ix 1 0.,,16, NlatYtC c k: NY 11 )Y". q (. # August 8, 2024 Dear Heather Lanza: (This is a copy of the letters i have submitted to the Planning Board Members) I have read the Strong's Yacht Center's revised proposal that you received on July 19, 2024, and am writing to strenuously object to your acceptance of their new proposal. This revision does not eliminate any of the concerns that have been raised regarding its initially filed proposal over four years ago. As a long-time Mattituck resident, I strongly believe that Strong's proposal is neither necessary nor warranted because of the deleterious effects it will have on our community and its bucolic character for the following reasons: * Strong's proposed excavation and removal of 70,000 cubic yards of sand and soil will cause destruction of over 444 indigenous trees and 2.74 acres of coastal oak-beech forest to be removed. This will have an extremely negative effect on the current topology as well as the wildlife that currently inhabit the area and depend on this forest for survival. The removal of this sand and soil will also require a massive concrete retaining wall that would damage the peaceful aesthetic of the area. Please keep in mind that Strong's revised proposal still abuts Southold Town's Mill Road Preserve that offers two walking trails on its 27 acre area and has been described on Yelp by a recent visitor as"The morning sun glistens down on the preserve floor making you feel like you are in heaven..." and who rated the Preserve with 5 stars. * Construction traffic would have an enormously adverse impact not only the ecology but also on the surrounding community's residents and their children due to the constant traffic,vibration,and noise generated by the removal of the proposed excavation and removal of trees. Moreover,the proposed 9,332 two-way truckloads will create daily driving obstructions for local community residents and will pose extreme safety hazards for the area's children who will be riding buses to and from school each day. *The revised proposal does not clearly address the adjustments that will be made regarding the septic system for the two proposed 500 and 700 gallon septic tanks. *The revised proposal does not address the disruption of ground water,flooding, run off and erosion, nor regarding the effects on surface water pollution, project wastewater and storm water systems, due to the impact of sea water rise and increased climatic events expected due to climate change. * Finally,there is absolutely no reason to accept or approve the revised proposal to expand Strong's Waterclub Marina,given the fact that they are constantly advertising on Wickham Road and Route 58 that there obviously have been and currently are signs that Stong's has dockage and storage available as can be clearly seen in the recent photographs below and on the following page: This photo was taken on July 14,2024: ;,. ? RECEIVED ~Srrton S 5I KOr`s S Sout o Town OL DOCKAGE Planning Board wi'u�sii AVAILABLE n;'w 6J1�2 8O7Ay 39 CALL TODAY . 631-298-4739 This photo was taken on August 20,2024: gT��nos `WINO"NL\" 7 � Slltr+`qS I � �T�X101 WINTER STORAGE OOCKA6E - AVAILABLE LL\t Tpp"v This photo was taken on August 30,2024: �4 ... Svlv ••••• 1i1N1/{I Finally,since I have lived for over 30 years on a street that terminates on Mattituck Creek, I have seen the various ways in which both local residents and visitors use this waterway for making a living as well as for the pure enjoyment of kayaking and birdwatching a variety of ducks, cormorants, herons,as well as other waterfowl, and especially the yearly osprey populations. I can assure you that the stream of huge boats already coming and going from Strong's Marina is simply not a major attraction. For all of these reasons, I entreat you to refuse acceptance of and deny approval of the proposed revised application for Strong's Yacht Center in Mattituck at your scheduled meeting on August 9, 2024. Respectfully yours, IU4�, &Ott-A6t, Terese Brady-Mendez 550 Knollwood Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 VEP .. m� 024 L5_ r1ath6iF,Town Planning Board p August 5, 2024 rou EaC} �� Chairman James Rich III J I & Members of the Planning Board Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Robert S.DeLuca Southold, NY 11971 PRESIDENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Re: Strong's Yacht Center, Revised Application (July 19, 2024) Katherine Leahy Birch Dear Chairman Rich and Members of the Planning Board, CHAIR William Ryall On behalf of Group for the East End, please consider the following comments VICE CHAIR and recommendations regarding the Strong's Yacht Center revised site plan application. Thank you in advance for your careful attention to this matter. Susan Abdollo Kimberly Allan Require the Preparation-of a SEIS Lou Bevilacqua After careful review of the newly submitted, revised application, a Supplemental W. Marco Birch Environmental Impact Statement (SETS) pursuant to SEQRA is both warranted Kristen Briner and needed to properly and thoroughly examine the potential large-scale Andrew Goldstein impacts that the revised application may have. We implore the Planning Board Stuart Goode to continue its due diligence and adhere properly to SEQRA. Nestor Gounaris John F Shea SEQRA Section 617.9(7)(i) states that a SEIS is warranted if met by the following Kimberly Smith Spacek conditions: Marisa van Bokhorsi Mary Walker (i) The lead agency may require a supplemental EIS, limited to the Donna Winston specific significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS that arise from: (a) changes proposed for the project, Southold, NY 11971 P.O Box 1 (b) newly discovered information;or 71 (c)a change in circumstances related to the project. P.O.Box 569 Bridgehampton,NY 11932 The revised application (July 19, 2024) illustrates major changes to the original 631 7656450 application including but not limited to, revised building location and size, limits GroupfortheEastEnd.org of clearing, amount of excavation, number of truck trips generated, number of yachts able to be stored, as well as changes to fuel storage being stored onsite. As such, this information serves as a minimum for the justification for a SETS. Require a Formal Scoping Process With a Public Hearing Although a formal Scoping process is not required pursuant to SEQRA (617.9(7)(iii)), it remains optional, as described in the SEQRA Handbook 4' Edition, "The lead agency may choose to conduct scoping (which remains optional for supplemental EISs),"(p. 139). It is especially pertinent that the Planning Board opt to require Scoping and schedule a public hearing once the Draft Scope is complete. This application has garnered substantive public concern and comments, which have contributed to the thorough review of the project thus far. We strongly advise that the Planning Board continue to provide for a transparent and participatory process, conduct Scoping, and include a public hearing upon completion of the Draft Scope. Consideration of Alternatives at a Level of Detail Sufficient for Comparative Assessment Too often the Alternatives section of the DEIS is treated as an afterthought and not analyzed, assessed, and properly described as SEQRA Section 617.9(b)(5)(v) states, "The description and evaluation of each alternative should be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed." In this case, the SEIS should orovide.th ,,pp�cart n tyAca r qtaire„thy levelo;f analy ._th at aEQR� ,dictat wrhgrw nWy Lnj Item tivgs that were not uffic ent q-q withinAhe DEIS, We strongly recommend that each alternative described in the DEIS and any new alternatives brought to light during the Scoping phase meet the aforementioned SEQRA section's regulations. The entire purpose of the Alternatives section is to thoroughly examine a side-by-side transparent examination of the proposal and alternatives to understand the environmental impacts and arrive at a conclusion that most appropriately avoids environmental impact to the maximum extent practicable. This cannot occur if the alternatives are not thoroughly analyzed. Thank you for considering our recommendations. We look forward to continuing to participate in the review of this project. Please feel free to reach out if you have any comments or questions. I can be reached at jhrtraageltgrcl.gLyirr.rtrrit.or . Sincerely, Jenn Hartnagel Director of Conservation Advocacy SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC WRITERS DIRECT DIAL: 212-242-2355, ext. 1 July 29, 2024 EMAIL: reed@superlawgroup.com Via email RECEIVED Mr. James H. Rich III, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board JUL 3 ( 2024 54375 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 6a560 1"own Southold,NY 11971 Planning Board Re: Stron 's Yacht Center Devised Site Plan Application and Forthcoming SEIS SEQRA Process Dear Chairman Rich and Members of the Planning Board: On behalf of Save Mattituck Inlet, I am writing regarding the SEQRA process for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(SEIS) on the new site plan application submitted by Strong's Yacht Center on July 19, 2024. To begin with, further environmental review in the form of an SEIS is undoubtedly necessary, as Strong's attorney recognized in his cover letter for the new application. Below, we explain what lead agencies may and must do in overseeing an SEIS for a changed project, and what we believe the Planning Board should do for this application. In sum, and as further discussed below: 1, An SEIS must follow virtually all of the same rules and procedures as for a DEIS/FEIS (including public comment). Further, a lead agency may conduct a supplemental scoping process and hold public hearings on a draft scope and on a draft SEIS, which the Planning Board should do here. II. In the FEIS for the original application, the Planning Board identified three categories of significant impacts that were not avoided, minimized, or mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. As to numerous other impacts,the FEIS stated that(a) the DEIS's methodology and/or analysis was flawed, inconsistent, or otherwise inadequate, but(b) the Board does not need definitive answers on those topics due to there being other significant adverse impacts that are not avoided, minimized, mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. For the SEIS, the Planning Board should now require correction of the flawed analyses in each section, so that the Board's post-SEIS FEIS and findings statement can reach a definitive conclusion on the significance, avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of each adverse environmental impact. III. In addition to the newly proposed building for 56 large yachts, the SEIS should also analyze a new alternative: Alternative 9, which would involve RECONFIGURATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS ON-SITE FOR LARGER BOAT STORAGE AND RELOCATION OF SMALLER BOAT STORAGE TO ANOTHER SITE OWNED BY THE APPLICANT. That alterative, which would be a win-win-win for the Town, environment, and applicant, should be evaluated and considered. 222 BROADWAY, 221\D FLOOR • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 TEL: 212-242-2355 • www.superlawgroup.com Southold Town Planning Board July 29, 2024 Page 2 I. SEQRA PROCEDURES FOR SEIS Section 617.9(a)(7) of the SEQRA regulations provides that an SEIS can be required, at any time, to address significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the prior EIS that arise from(a) changes proposed for the project; (b) newly discovered information; or(c) a change in circumstances related to the project. Here,there are clearly changes proposed for the project, and there may also be newly discovered information and/or changed circumstances, as well as significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the prior DEIS or FEIS. Thus, an SEIS can and should be required before the Planning Board can make any decision on the new site plan application. Section 617.9(a)(7) also provides that the SEIS is"subject to the full procedural requirements of section 617.9(a) . . . except that scoping is not required." These full procedural requirements for the Planning Board to follow include: • The lead agency should document its assessment of the impacts that are the basis for requiring the SEIS,preferably using a Full EAF FEAEJ;' • The lead agency must prepare and file a Notice of Intent to prepare an SEIS, that is, a Positive Declaration • If the SEIS is prepared by the applicant, the lead agency must review the Draft SEIS to determine All th ?:it„l _rl le ,lJcrte rW�r.lal review; • Once the Draft SEIS is accepted, the lead agency must notice and provide a Public Comment Period; • The lead agency must respond to comments, prepare a Final SEIS or revised FEIS including comments plus responses, and file a Notice of Completionn of the document; and • The lead agency and all other involved agencies must then make their Findings and Decisions,on the application. See 6 NYCRR § 617.9(a)(1)-(7); see also DEC's SEAR Handbook, p. 139. The applicant submitted Part II of the FEAF on July 19, The Planning Board should complete Parts II and III. In so doing,the Planning Board(with the assistance of its consultant) should identify all the categories in which a"moderate to large impact"may occur,as requested by Part II. This is a task for the Lead Agency,not the applicant. Southold Town Planning Board July 29, 2024 Page 3 While a formal scoping process and public hearings are not mandatory, they are highly recommended and should be conducted in the circumstances presented here, for the following important reasons: • A scoping document should be prepared and adopted because: o SEQRA requires the final scope to be used to determine whether the Draft SEIS is "adequate with respect to scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review." 6 NYCRR § 617.9(a)(2), (a)(7)(iii). Having an updated scope that is tailored to the SEIS will aid the Planning Board in determining whether the SEIS accomplishes everything intended; and o The main reason for this SEIS is not just new information in one or two impact categories, but a new site plan application that changes the project. This is effectively a new project and should have a new scope. • A public hearing should be conducted on the Draft Scope, before the Planning Board accepts it as a Final Scope, and a public hearing should also be conducted on the Draft SEIS because: o Public participation is a crucial component of the SEQRA process; o The Planning Board held such public hearings on the prior site plan application and should do no less now; and o There is enormous public interest and concern involving the proposed project, as evidenced by the prior public written and oral comments. Because the revised application proposes the same basic project, albeit smaller,the SEIS should analyze all of the environmental impact categories that were in the Amended Final Scope and the DEIS/FEIS. The extent to which any impacts may be reduced by the revised proposal is a topic that must be analyzed by technical consultants using appropriate methodologies (as further discussed below). That cannot be merely assumed or surmised. II. SUBSTANCE AND ADEQUACY OF SEIS As you know, the FEIS for the original application identified three categories of significant impacts that"cannot be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable, and [are] not able to be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable."' See FEIS, Sections 3.3 z The FEIS often referred to these are"large"impacts. To avoid potential confusion,future documents should use the SEQRA term"significant"in this context. While the FEAF Part II asks whether a "moderate to large impact"may occur,in an EIS the determination should be whether impacts are "significant." Southold Town Planning Board July 29, 2024 Page 4 (Transportation); 3.7 (Noise); and 3.10 (Construction). The significance, avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of these three major categories of impacts need to be studied in the SES for the newly proposed site plan. Furthermore, as to the many other environmental impacts, the FEIS stated that the DEIS's data, methodology, and/or analysis was flawed, inconsistent, or otherwise inadequate, but that the Planning Board, as lead agency, "does not need definitive answers" on those topics due to the other significant adverse impacts that are not avoided,minimized, or mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Those flawed and incomplete analyses include but are not limited to the following(all emphases added): • "The DEIS . . . does not include sufficient information to demonstrate that the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact as a result of lighting,particularly as it relates to impacts associated with community character, aesthetics, and ecology." FEIS Section 1.2,p.7 • "The ambiguity of the project construction schedule, and how it relates to other impacts identified in the FEIS,makes the determination of no significant impacts difficult." Id. • "[I]t cannot be confirmed[based on the DEIS] that any portion of the sand removal does not require a permit. The normal requirement for this permit is anything over 750 cubic yards." Id. at 1.5,p.14 • "The question of whether or not this[project/violates Town Code§ 280- 111(H)because it would store more than 20,000 gallons of petroleum would need further evaluation." 1.5,p.15. • "Without additional boring samples, it cannot be determined whether or not there is the need for more excavation to provide the improvement required for foundation bearing . . . This would further increase the impacts associated with the removal of excavated material . . . ,these impacts are already both severe and understated. With the information provided, the full extent of adverse impacts associated with what is labeled as Tin[tidal marsh] soils . . . cannot be determined." 2.1,pp.16-17 • "There are several discrepancies and deficiencies in the DEIS analysis and geotechnical report regarding Fd[filled land, dredged material] soils and soils labeled`Potential Dredged Spoils' or `Stratum 3.' This is of particular concern because all these classifications have engineering limitations and are shown to be where the storage buildings are proposed to be located. There is not enough information provided and the information provided is often contradicted or not explained." 2.1,p.17 • "The extent of significant impacts regarding soil, excavation,and slope stabilization cannot be fully determined from the information provided in the DEIS and supporting documentation." 2.1, p.19 • "The DEIS does not address the management of slopes during the excavation phases or the timing between excavation phases when slopes would be exposed. To determine that all impacts have been avoided or minimized or mitigated to the maximum extentpracticable, more information about slope stabilization would be necessary." 2.1,p.20 Southold Town Planning Board July 29, 2024 Page 5 • "There is not enough information with respect to soil erosion and sedimentation from clearance, grading, excavation, and other disturbances on adjacent surface waters and tidal wetlands. The DEIS presents ambiguity regarding the slope of the cut during the excavation phases." 2.1,p.21 • "The DEIS does not accurately represent the status of correspondence with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS) or the Suffolk County Water Authority(SCWA) . . . The DEIS has not adequately justified the proposed 18 gpd[potable water usage] estimate."2.2, p.22-23 • "The DEIS has missing information related to the modeling of water usage,ground water flow, and the impacts of excavation and sea level rise on ground water." 2.2,p.23 • "The DEIS has overrepresented the benefits of the mitigation measures proposed and underrepresented the value lost in the analysis provided on impacts and mitigation measures for lost forest areas and the value of water storage,water infiltration, and water filtration,excavation and the associated impacts to the water table and soil erosion, and the increased intensity of maritime industrial use of the water and water adjacent areas." 2.2,p.24 • "There is no information provided in the DEIS on existing pump out capabilities or capacity and how that would be impacted by the Proposed Action. There is no information provided in the DEIS on contingencies for accidental or unauthorized dumping of sewage. Without the noted information, it cannot be determined that the Proposed Action will not exceed current capacities, therefore resulting in impacts[to]the surrounding waters." 2.2,pp.26-27 • "The methodology used in the evaluation of flooding impacts and impacts associated with climate change and sea level rise use moderate sea level rise estimates and is overly selective in the choice of historic precipitation data." 2.3,p.27 • "There appear to be several major deficiencies in the methodology presented for the ecological impacts analysis conducted in the DEIS that would suggest that the impacts associated with the project would be more significant than they are presented to be in the conclusions of the DEIS." 2.4,pp.28-29 • "The analysis presented in the DEIS does not fully consider the impacts of the Proposed Action on the ecology of the Project Site and adjacent area and does not accurately describe the ecological value of what would be disrupted or destroyed. ... The Proposed Action represents a significantly higher impact to the local ecology than any other development in the wooded uplands for the last 60+years. The physical impacts, edge effects to adjacent ecosystems, and noise of construction may potentially disrupt or destroy the surrounding ecosystems. Without a bat survey to evaluate the presence of the endangered species on or adjacent to the Site,the full impacts to endangered species cannot be determined." 2.4,p.30 • "The DEIS does not provide sufficient information on the existing operations regarding the storage and use of chemicals on Site and how the Proposed 88 yachts would be integrated into these operations." 3.2,p.36 • "The DEIS contains deficient,vague or missing analysis with respect to impacts to the marine traffic including motorized and unmotorized vessels,kayakers,paddleboarders, and impact to Southold Town Planning Board July 29, 2024 Page 6 marshes from boat wakes[,] makfing/a determination of no significant impacts with respect to them impossible." 3.3,p.40 • "The methodology for the visual impact analysis is inherently flawed and any conclusions of non- impact based upon this methodology cannot be relied upon. The scope requires the defining of a Zone of Visual Influence(ZVI)which should include a viewshed mapping analysis to determine the area within the existing viewshed of the Development Area, at which point viewpoint and photosimulation locations could be determined." 3.4,p.40 • "The analysis and conclusions of the visual impacts rely upon the narrative that the visual nature of the Site is that of a maritime use and that the Proposed Action will continue to have the visual nature of a maritime use. This ignores the fact that the area in which the development is proposed is currently 40 feet higher in elevation with a mature hardwood forest across over 4.3 acres, a successional hardwood forest over an acre, and associated successional shrublands. The visual impact of the Proposed Action is not the maintenance of an existing maritime aesthetic,but the destruction of an elevated natural forested aesthetic and its replacement with over 100,000 square feet of industrial maritime warehouse. . . . The DEIS visual impact analysis fails to deliver what was required in the scoping document and instead presents an unsubstantiated and dubious narrative of no visual impact that cannot be relied upon." 3.4,p.41 • "The DEIS presents that there would be no significant impacts to open spaces;however, this conclusion relies upon a narrative supported by unsubstantiated assumptions." 3.6,p.43 • "The air quality impact analysis presented in the DEIS does not provide the detail required to verify the conclusions it presents." 3.8,p.46 • "There are inherent flaws in the methodology of the archeological impact analysis provided in the DEIS. . . . The area of potential impact is poorly defined in the HRS,and it utilizes inherently flawed methodology. The conclusions of the HRS are based on an inaccurate"Area of Potential Effect"that only includes abutting parcels and focuses on `direct impacts' that inappropriately exclude the direct impacts associated with visual,noise,and vibration impacts." 3.11,pp.51-54 As those 23 examples show, while many of the adverse environmental impacts of the project are significant,the FEIS determined that—for the vast majority of them—the DEIS's analyses "cannot be relied upon," "do not include sufficient information to demonstrate that the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact," its suggestions of no-significant-impact are "unsubstantiated,"the impacts are"more significant than presented,"the extent of their significance cannot be determined based on the information provided, and/or it cannot be determined that all impacts have been avoided or minimized or mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. For the SEIS, the Planning Board should require correction of the flawed analyses in each section, so that the Board's post-SEIS FEIS and findings statement can reach a definitive conclusion on the significance, avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of each adverse environmental impact. No project approval can be granted, or even considered, under SEQRA, Southold Town Planning Board July 29, 2024 Page 7 if there are potentially additional significant impacts that have not been avoided or minimized or mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. See N.Y. Env. Cons. Law("ECU) § 8-0109(8). As DEC explains in the SEQR Handbook: "An agency must not . . . approve any part of an action if it cannot support positive findings and demonstrate, consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives, that the action: Minimizes or avoids adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and, [i]ncorporates into the decision those mitigation measures identified in the SEQR process as practicable." SEAR Handbook at 147. For those reasons, the unreliable, insufficient, and unsubstantiated analyses should be corrected. The Planning Board should not, and cannot, accept any claims by the applicant that adverse environmental impacts are insignificant or fully mitigated when, in fact, the evidence shows that they are significant and not fully mitigated, or where insufficient analysis has been done to determine their significance or mitigation. Notably, the amended application still involves radical transformation of the upland topography and ecology by destroying a mature forest that provides valuable habitat for endangered species and other species of special concern, excavating and removing a hill, dropping the grade from 50+ feet above sea level to—10 feet, erecting a retaining wall over 30 feet high to hold back the slope cut in the newly created flood"bowl," and trucking large volumes of excavated earth in thousands of truck trips through local roads in Southold and Riverhead, among other impacts. Even if reduced in scale, those impacts remain and cannot be ignored. In addition, SEQRA requires every EIS to describe the proposed action's "purpose, public need and benefits, including social and economic considerations." ECL § 8-0109(2)(a); 6 NYCRR § 617.9(b)(5)(1). The FEIS found that the "DEIS lacks sufficient detail on jobs estimated to be created. . . . there are methodological errors . . . used to estimate the economic benefits of the Proposed Action" and the "DEIS analysis of socio-economic impacts overvalues the benefits of estimated sales tax revenue and employment in the Town." FEIS Sections 1.3,p. 11-12, 3.9, pp. 48-49. A proper analysis of the public benefits, if any, of the revised proposed project is also necessary to complete the SEQRA process because, as DEC explains in the SEAR Handbook: "Where public need and benefit cannot be shown to outweigh the environmental impacts of a project, the agency maybe compelled to deny approvals for the action." SEAR Handbook at 114 (emphasis added). Furthermore, "[t]his balancing process must be documented in the written SEQR findings that each involved agency is required to make for a project that has been the Southold Town Planning Board July 29, 2024 Page 8 subject of an EIS." Id. Accordingly, if an EIS understates environmental impacts or overstates the public benefits and need of a proposed project, the lead agency will lack a sound basis on which to undertake the balancing process required by SEQRA and to make the written findings statement required by Section 617.11 of the SEQRA regulations. For those reasons, the public need and benefits section of the EIS, including social and economic considerations, should also be corrected and rendered adequate in the completion of the SEIS or FEIS. III. NEW ALTERNATIVE TO BE ANALYZED IN SEIS The SEIS should also include analysis of a new alternative,which would be a variation on Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 in the DEIS and would eliminate—not merely reduce—both the deforestation and excavation. DEIS Alternative 6 was entitled"RECONFIGURATION OR RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS ON-SITE FOR LARGER BOAT STORAGE." The DEIS stated that,because Alternative 6 would displace smaller vessels from those existing buildings, it would not be feasible for the applicant"unless additional buildings can be constructed. . . for smaller vessels." DEIS p. 336 (emphasis added). While that discussion contemplated construction of small-vessel storage buildings on the upland portion of the site, new or renovated buildings for storage of small vessels could instead be explored on other boatyard properties owned by the applicant, for example, at Strong's Water Club &Marina location on Mattituck Creek(2255 Wickham Ave.), its Mattituck Bay location(2400 Camp Mineola Rd.), or one of the applicant's other marine properties. This new alternative could be called"RECONFIGURATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS ON-SITE FOR LARGER BOAT STORAGE AND RELOCATION OF SMALLER BOAT STORAGE TO ANOTHER SITE OWNED BY THE APPLICANT." It should be analyzed in the SEIS as a no-deforestation,no excavation alternative to the newly proposed single yacht storage building. Analyzing such an alternative in an SEIS (or revised DEIS) is entirely appropriate under SEQRA and would serve the purposes and policy goals of that environmental protection statute, while also providing the vessel storage that the applicant seeks. SEQRA requires lead agencies to "choose alternatives which, consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations,to the maximum extent practicable, minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects, including effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process." ECL § 8- 0109(l). In order for a lead agency to choose between or among a proposed project and the range of alternatives, an EIS must contain"a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor." 6 NYCRR § 617.9(b)(5)(v) (emphasis added). A proper alternatives analysis cannot be conducted if all or most of the alternatives are deemed infeasible and not analyzed. As noted above, reconfiguration of existing on-site buildings is already the subject of Alternative 6,which is an alternative required by the Amended Final Scope. However, the DEIS dedicated only a single paragraph to that alternative and did not analyze its logistics or compare Southold Town Planning Board July 29, 2024 Page 9 it to the proposed project, because the applicant unilaterally deemed it infeasible unless other buildings are constructed for smaller boats. See DEIS p. 336. DEIS Alternative 4 ("CONSTRUCT PROPOSED STORAGE BUILDING(S)WITHOUT EXCAVATION"),which was also required by the Amended Final Scope, included"modifications of the existing Buildings 6, 7 and 8 for increased roof height such that large vessels could be accommodated in these lower elevation buildings." DEIS p. 317. The applicant deemed that alternative feasible, but by constructing buildings for smaller vessels on top of the hill, it would require significant deforestation and thereby adversely affect species, their habitat, and the neighboring Mill Road Preserve, in a similar manner as the proposed project. DEIS Alternative 3 ("CONSTRUCT PROJECT ON ANOTHER PARCEL"),which was also required by the Amended Final Scope,was also not analyzed in the DEIS beyond a few short sentences. The SEQRA regulations, however, specifically contemplate that alternative sites—for all or a portion of a project—are one type of alternative that can be considered in a DEIS and FEIS. Section 617.9(b)(5)(v)provides that: "The range of alternatives may also include, as appropriate, alternative: (a) sites; . . ." For a project proposed by the government itself, alternative sites are routinely analyzed in an EIS (because they possess power of eminent domain). Alternative sites are also appropriate for certains projects proposed by private applicants, as the SEQRA regulations provide: "Site alternatives may be limited to parcels owned by, or under option to, a private project sponsor" 6 NYCRR § 617.9(b)(5)(v) (emphasis added). Two notable aspects of that regulation are that, first, the use of the word"may"indicates that, even for a private sponsor,the site alternatives do not have to be so limited: a site not owned by or under option to the applicant may be included in the range of alternatives. Second, applying the limitation means that sites owned by the applicant are appropriate for inclusion. The SEAR Handbook(p. 118) says the same thing: "for private applicants, alternatives may be limited to sites that the sponsors own." Despite this, the DEIS argued, incorrectly, that an alternative site location is "not appropriate." Curiously, the DEIS quotes those same two items of authority-6 NYCRR § 617.9(b)(5)(v) and SEAR Handbook p. 118—in a misguided attempt to support its argument. But the regulation and Handbook plainly state that alternative sites owned by the applicant are appropriate for the range of alternatives. The DEIS's discussion of Alternative 3 also failed to recognize that the applicant owns other marina/boatyards,where it stores and services boats, in Mattituck and elsewhere on the East End.3 Notably, the Planning Board in its FEIS has already determined that the DEIS's analysis of Alternative 3 failed to sufficiently support its suggestion that alternative sites are inappropriate or infeasible. Specifically, on page 57 in the Alternatives section (Section 5.0), the FEIS states as follows: 3 While one of Strong's Mattituck locations is on the Peconic Bay side, small boats can be trailed or navigated to a boatyard for winter storage. Southold Town Planning Board July 29, 2024 Page 10 Comments 5.0-54; 5.0-55.Missing analysis from the alternatives section including discussion of alternative sites owned by the Applicant. Response: The analysis of alternative sites owned by the Applicant is not sufficient to deem it inappropriate or unfeasible as the DEIS represents it to be. Accordingly, the SEIS should analyze an alternative that places a component of the project on another site owned by the applicant, as discussed herein. Absent such an analysis, the EIS's "range" of"feasible" alternatives,which is required by Section 617.9(b)(5(v), is not really a range at all and lacks the"description and evaluation"also required by that regulation. Other than the no-action alternative (which is required in every DEIS), the applicant's DEIS claimed that only Alternative 4 is feasible and, for that reason, did not evaluate Alternatives 3 or 6, or any alternative such as the one proposed here. The DEIS's alternatives and the new alternative proposed here can be summarized and compared as follows: ..................... ........� ..._� ALT. SUBSTANCE OF DEIS S FEIS CONCLUSION EFFECT ON NO. ALTERNATIVE PLAN TREATMENT (IF ANY) ENVIRONMENT 3 Construct on another parcel DEIS argues, Rejects DEIS's Avoids impacts contrary to analysis,finding it identified in 617.9(b)(5)(v),that insufficient to deem DEIS/FEIS alternative sites are alternative sites inappropriate and inappropriate or _ infeas le eai .57 4.w._._._._ Reconfigure existing bldgs. 6, Feasible(p. 313) Avoids 7, 8 for large yachts;construct excavation,but new bldgs. for small boats on deforestation and forested hill ecological impact still occur 6 Reconfigure existing bldgs. 6, Feasible,but only if Eliminates _..... both 7, 8 for yachts ONLY additional buildings excavation and are constructed for impacts on small boats(p. 336) forest/ecology; (displaces small boats,which can be _www_____.__._w....�......._www�.._.._ ..�......w.......... w.......__ w.w_... ..._ �..�._...._._.._.._........._...,.ww_w...._._._.... ..........�.w_____._................�_.._w____ rel o.cate _ __ New Reconfigure existing bldgs. 6, n/a n/a Eliminates both 119" 7, 8 for yachts AND construct excavation and or expand bldgs. for small impacts on boats on another site owned by forest/ecology; applicant (relocates small _ ........... .. _w.w.w._w_ boats) ...___W..__m�.w_. ww .�.... .........-.......... _....... ............. ..... ._ . ......... 4 The DEIS also contains Alternative 1 (the no-action alternative),Alternative 2 ("Alternate Material Removal Plan,Including Barge Transport and On-Site Processing");Alternative 5 ("Construct Smaller Southold Town Planning Board July 29, 2024 Page 11 In sum,we recommend that the SEIS should be required to describe and evaluate, as part of the range of alternatives, a new alternative that would reconfigure existing on-site buildings 6, 7, and/or 8 to accommodate the 56 large yachts that the applicant now wants to store,5 as well as constructing or expanding buildings on another site owned by applicant to accommodate any smaller boats that are displaced from the SYC location. Studying it as part of SEQRA's environmental review process would provide the Planning Board with more information on which to base its decision. Studying that alternative does not, of course, commit the Board or the applicant to anything, other than providing, analyzing, and publicly presenting relevant facts and data for evaluating the application and its effects. As Lead Agency, it is for the Planning Board to determine the scope and adequacy of the DEIS and to take responsibility for the FEIS, and thus this is the Board's decision to make. (As noted, absent a new alternative, there will be a range of feasible alternatives evaluated in the EIS.) To comply with SEQRA, the Draft and Final SEIS should analyze the new alternative (and all feasible alternatives) in depth. SEQRA requires an EIS (whether a DEIS or SEIS)to "provide[] the public and involved agencies with the necessary information to evaluate project impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures." 6 NYCRR § 617.9(a)(2), (a)(7)(iii). Further, "[t]he description and evaluation of each alternative should be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives [to either other and to the proposed project]." 6 NYCRR § 617(b)(5)(v). The DEIS devoted 20 pages to the analysis of Alternative 4 (which the applicant deemed feasible) and less than a page on each of the other alternatives. New Alternative 9 should have a lengthy discussion and analysis, not a truncated one. In the end, this alternative could be a win-win-win for the community, the environment, and the applicant,because, if implemented, it would eliminate the deforestation and excavation, while still providing the large yacht storage sought by the applicant. The applicant's lawyer's July 19 letter quoted the Suffolk County Planning Commission's recommendation that"the applicant and the Town further consider an alternative thar would allow for increased boat storage in a way that eliminates or significantly reduces the amount of require excavation." Strong's submitted a new application that reduces excavation. The alternative recommended here would eliminate excavation(and deforestation) consistent with the SCPC's recommendation and the concerns of many Town residents and local environmental organizations. Building(s)With Less Excavation"). The DEIS states that"Alternatives 2, 3, 5 and 6 are not feasible for the Applicant." DEIS p. 313. In addition,while they do not appear in the Amended Final Scope,or even in the DEIS's Table of Contents(p. iii),the DEIS also contains discussions of an Alternative 7 ("Alternative Material Mitigation Plan"—i.e.,place approximately 13,500 cy of material on the R-80- zoned parcel)and Alternative 8 ("Alternative Routing Plan"—i.e.,use Bergen Avenue for outgoing trucks and Cox Neck Lane for incoming trucks). DEIS pp. 336-339. 5 It might be the case that only a portion of buildings 6, 7 and 8 are needed to accommodate 56 yachts, and that some smaller boats will also fit in one or more of those buildings. This can be explored in the SEIS. Southold Town Planning Board July 29, 2024 Page 12 Thank you for your consideration. Naturally,you may want to consult the Town Attorney as to any of the legal issues discussed above. Sincerely, Reed Super cc (via email): Planning Department Town Attorney Save Mattituck Inlet