Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout#8027-Strongs public comments A. Pundyk received 8-7-25 tC0 1 Ar�- 81 eqh/ August 7, 2025 Received Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals AUG 0 7 2025 54375 Main Rd P.O. Box 1179 Zoning Board of Appeals Southold, NY 11971 Re: Strong's West Mill, LLC #8027 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Members of the Board, I am Anne Sherwood Pundyk and I live at 1185 West Mill Road in Mattituck, which is less than a mile from the the Strong's Marine Yacht Storage Warehouse project. I am a co-chairperson of the Steering Committee for Save Mattituck Inlet which I helped found five years ago. Save Mattituck Inlet is a community group who came together through our shared concerns over the potential impact of the planned Strong's Marine Yacht Storage Project. Together, we found a larger purpose to ensure that the community's voice is active in the oversight of development of and around the Inlet by advocating for transparent and responsible development that considers the impact on the economy, the ecology and the local quality of life. While the developer has recently submitted a second, revised version of the project, the irreversible, negative impacts to the environment and the community remain. Moreover, the developer has consistently attempted to disembody the proposed construction from the land and our community. The most recent examples can be found on Page 2 of the Area Variance Application in item Number 1, he states that the building will not produce an undesirable change in the CHARACTER of the neighbor[hood] or a detriment to nearby properties if granted. Also, on Page 2, Number 4 he asserts in response to the statement that "The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because, "When erected the building, in and of itself, will not cause physical or environmental harm." I would like to remind the Zoning Board that in 2020 the Town of Southold Planning Board made a positive declaration of significance for this project and it was the subject of an extensive environmental review under the New York State SEQRA laws. Our group's efforts resulted in historic levels of community participation in the review by Southold Town. Hundreds of people attended and spoke at the public hearings and more than 1,000 pages of comments were submitted on the project's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The overwhelming majority of comments were in opposition to the project and pointed out the flaws, omissions, and inaccuracies of the DEIS. I am submitting with this statement, the cover letter from our organization that summarizes the innumerable negative impacts of this project. This week the Southold Town Planning Board is considering how to move forward on the SEQRA review of the revision to the proposed project. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was completed in May 2024. It says, "The conclusions presented in the FEIS represent the Lead Agency's assessment of the significant environmental impacts that will result from the implementation of the Proposed Action. More specifically, the FEIS highlights he impacts that have been identified in the DEIS and that are not able to be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable, and cannot be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, including construction traffic and the noise and tract impacts it will induce." With respect to the excavation required to be done before any construction the FEIS states that, "The cutting and excavation proposed here would replace a resilient natural bluff well rooted mature forest and reduce the existing elevation by approximately 40 feel, creating a bowl at approximately 10 feet Above Mean Sea Level that would be susceptible to storm surges. This has the potential to create flooding concerns and is antithetical to the intentions of costal resiliency and flood protections." The latest proposal does nothing to mitigate any of these issues. I know that today you are looking at the height of the building, which is problematic on its own, but I don't see how you can consider it disassociated from the rest of the project or make a judgement while the whole project is under SEQRA environmental review. Under no circumstances should any variances be granted on this property, especially while a SEQRA process is underway and the Town Board is examining zoning throughout the Town. Thank you, Anne Sherwood Pundyk 1185 West Mill Road Mattituck, NY 11952 annesherwood and k mail.com (917) 612-1863 May 15, 2023 Southold Town Planning Board 54375 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED STRONG'S YACHT STORAGE BUILDINGS 5780 WEST MILL ROAD MATTITUCK,NY 11952 TAX MAP NUMBER: 106:6-10&13.4 Members of the Southold Town Planning Board: This letter and attachments constitute Save Mattituck Inlet's ("SMI") comments on the yacht storage buildings project (the "Project") being proposed for construction on a land parcel adjacent to Mattituck Inlet. SMI is a community group that came together through our shared concerns over the potentially disastrous environmental impacts of the Project. The Inlet is a significant piece of Mattituck, the entire North Fork, and the Long Island Sound Region. For generations it has supported a delicate ecosystem— that is why more than 3,300 neighbors and friends have signed a petition to "Stop the irreversible environmental destruction that would result from the Storage Buildings project at Strong's Yacht Center!" After an extensive review, SMI has concluded that the DEIS prepared by the Applicant fails to demons'frate that the proposed Projec`f will not have a significant adverse impadt on the Town of Southold and surrounding communities. In fact, as our detailed comments demonArate, the DEIS documents that the devas`fating environmental consequences associated with the Projec.`f far outweigh its few limited benefits of a small increase in property tax revenue, a limited number of potential jobs created for individuals who are unlikely to be Town residents, and a luxury for a handful of wealthy individuals. In addition to failing to adequately address, or address at all, major environmental concerns, we believe the DEIS to be misleading and rife with inaccuracies. Many of the conclusions in the DEIS are either unsupported by any meaningful data, or are based on unsupportable assumptions. In many cases the DEIS and its appendices are internally inconsis`fent. Many sections of the DEIS do not comply with the final DEIS scope, even after having been revised in response to the Planning Board's determination that an earlier version was not adequate for public review. Sections of the DEIS that generally do follow the scope fail to provide the data or analyses that the Planning Board will need to evaluate the Projed's environmental impact and proposed mitigation measures. Notably, the DEIS fails to demongtrate any overriding public need for, or public benefit from, the Projed. The Projed is moR certainly not consisftent with either Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan or the Southold Comprehensive Plan. Save Mattituck Inlet . P.O. Box 592 • Mattituck, NY 11952 . www.SaveMattituckiniet.com The DEIS falsely recommends that the Planning Board find the Project's environmental impacts are insignificant or can be adequately mitigated. Such conclusions are not supported by the underlying facts and analyses. The DEIS is most certainly not adequate for the Planning Board to use in preparing its required findings statement, per the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The DEIS needs substantial revision and/or supplementation before the Planning Board, as lead agency, can complete the FEIS for which it is now responsible. A third-party consultant must be retained to assist the Planning Board in evaluating these and any other counter-intuitive conclusions reached by this DEIS. Based on the DEIS as is, the only decision the Board can make is a negative findings statement and disapproval of the Project. SMI's detailed comments on the DEIS are attached. The following items briefly summarize what we believe to be some of the significant concerns that need to be addressed: COMMENT SUMMARIES TRAFFIC IMPACTS. All of the construction traffic analyses presented in the DEIS are based on incorrect assumptions and/or incomplete data. As a result, the DEIS significantly underestimates the degree to which Project traffic will affect the Towns of Southold and Riverhead. T 1. The traffic analysis has assumed that each outbound haul truck will be filled to a maximum 30 cubic yard (CY) capacity. The Project geotechnical report states that sand from the Project site weighs between 2,970 and 3,105 pounds per CY. This is considerably more than the approximately 2,500 pounds per CY used in the traffic analysis. As a result, haul trucks will, at maximum, be able to transport loads no larger than 25 CY without exceeding the maximum allowed road weight of 107,000 pounds. T 2. The maximum permitted weight of loaded haul trucks is 107,000 pounds. By comparison, the maximum permitted weight on Interstate highways is 80,000 pounds. The maximum permitted weight on Peconic Bay Blvd in Southold and Riverhead is 8,000 pounds. T-3. The DEIS persists in referring to round-trips as "total" trips. The Institute of Transportation Engineers defines a "trip" as a one-way movement. The number of haul truck trips during the Project's excavation phases, based on the DEIS'assumptions, is 9,000—not the 4,500 repeatedly mentioned in the DEIS. However, if a haul truck can carry only 25 CY loads,the number of trips will be more than 10,000. T 4. Project haul trucks will pass by every residence and business along the entire truck route, including West Mill and Cox Neck Roads, Sound Avenue, Northville Turnpike, and CR 58, approximately once every 7 minutes 10 hours a day,five days a week,for at least six months. T-5. The DEIS attempts to minimize the degree to which Project construction traffic will add to current truck traffic along the truck route. It does this by treating all trucks larger than pick-ups as equivalent to the Project's 22-wheel semi-tractor trailers. Semi-truck traffic on Cox Neck and West Mill Roads will be 20 to 80 times greater than it is currently. T 6. The DEIS contains no proper evaluation of the hazards posed by limited sight distances along Cox Neck Road,West Mill Road,and Sound Avenue. T 7. The DEIS fails to adequately consider how weather conditions and time of day will affect traffic safety. 12 T-8. The DEIS fails to adequately assess the potential for Project-related traffic accidents, and incorrectly concludes that the potential for accidents along the Project truck routes will not increase as a result of the Project. The DEIS does not include accident data for the Riverhead portions of the truck route. T 9. The DEIS does not adequately consider, or evaluate, the extent of road damage that will result from Project construction, and does not include the information necessary for the Planning Board to conduct its own evaluation. The DEIS' pavement evaluation fails to take into account the current condition of local roads and is based on multiple unsupported assumptions. The Generalized Fourth Power Law, used to estimate road damage, indicates that each loaded haul truck leaving the Project site will have the same effect on project roads as more than 6,500 2-axle vehicles. The DEIS contains no detailed description of how procedures to repair potholes will be implemented. T-10. The DEIS estimates that 89 concrete truck deliveries will be required for the foundations and floor slabs for the two proposed yacht storage buildings. Concrete trucks of the size described in the DEIS carry concrete loads of 10 CY. However, the DEIS says that 4,082 CY of concrete will be required. That translates to more than 400 loads or 800 trips—not 178. Because of their weight, concrete trucks will contribute significantly to damage to local roads. T 11. No traffic counts were made for the Riverhead portions of the traffic study. Although four seasons of data was required, the data for Riverhead includes only five days of NYSDOT data, all collected during a single season. DANGERS TO BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS.The DEIS fails to adequately consider or evaluate the safety risks to pedestrians, bicyclists and schoolchildren boarding buses. It has also failed to adequately address the inadequacies identified by the Southold Planning Board in the original December 2021 DEIS. The conclusion that "the small numbers of additional vehicles the project will generate during construction and after completion should not increase the hazards to bicycles and pedestrians also using the road..." is not supported by the data in the DEIS or the TIS. For example: BP-1. The revised DEIS fails to address the inadequacy of the pedestrian and bicycle traffic counts along the Project truck route from the original DEIS. None of the pedestrian/bicycle counts in the original December 2021 version of the DEIS were made in the mid-December thru May time frame which constitutes the Project excavation phase —a time when Project traffic volumes will be at their highest. The revised DEIS discusses and provides additional data collected over only two days in August--not for four seasons as called for. As with the data in the original DEIS, August is outside the period of the Project construction phase when potential impacts will be at their greatest. The data does not account for baby strollers, joggers or dog walkers, which are routinely observed in the Project area and present unique pedestrian risks. BP-2. The revised DEIS includes no additional data specifically addressing potential traffic hazards to "children waiting for the school bus." Applicant provides no data on the actual number of school-age children living in homes along the truck route. The DEIS asserts that the traffic generated by workers leaving the site at the end of their shifts will fall outside of school drop-off times, downplaying the significant risk posed by haul trucks going to and from the site, which will go on throughout the day— including during school pick up and drop off. BP-3. Portions of the truck route along Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road have a width of 22 feet. At various points the unpaved shoulders are blocked by utility poles, landscaping trucks or vegetation 13 making them unusable by pedestrians or bicyclists. Two eight-foot-wide haul trucks passing in opposite directions, will require one truck to cross into oncoming traffic in order to maintain a safe distance while passing pedestrians and allowing for the Suffolk County required three foot minimum for bicyclists. VIBRATION IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION. The DEIS concludes that there "are also no vibration impacts expected from soil excavation or construction activities" (DEIS pp. iv, 38) and "[A]nalysis of the construction equipment has shown that there is no predicted impact to any nearby neighbors'. . ." (DEIS Appendix R p.3),which is not supported by data in the DEIS. VIB-1. The geotechnical report in DEIS Appendix H uses a damage-threshold vibration level intended for blasting activities, rather than the much lower threshold that applies to vibration generated by truck traffic and construction equipment. Because the DEIS incorrectly classifies the frequency of trucks passing residences on West Mill Road as "occasional" it concluded that there would be no impact according to FTA Guidelines. However, correctly classifying the frequency of Project haul trucks passing residences as "frequent" means that the impact threshold according to the FTA Guidelines is lowered to 72VdB.This exceeds the FTA impact threshold. VIB-2. The vibration analysis in DEIS Appendix R has made unsupportable changes to the equations used to calculate vibration impacts. It also fails to consider that multiple pieces of construction equipment will be operating simultaneously VIB-3. The DEIS ignores how vibration can impact quality of life. "Annoyance" cannot always be explained by the magnitude of the vibration alone. Humans (and potentially pets and wild animals) can experience adverse effects at levels of vibration too small to cause damage to structures. The non-stop nature of the truck traffic exacerbates this concern. IMPACTS ON THE ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT. The DEIS exaggerates the economic benefits of the Project. It overestimates the tax revenue it will generate and does not adequately document its job creation estimates. EE-1. The DEIS states that the Project will generate $151,800 in State and County sales tax revenues which will support Southold's economy. This is based on an unsupportable assumption that the new facilities will operate at 100%capacity. Southold will receive no direct benefit from sales tax revenues. EE-2. The DEIS fails to note that the tax exemptions will result in the Project generating only about $32,000 a year for the first three years—about the same as three average Southold homes. Property taxes will not reach their maximum for ten years. EE-3. The DEIS claims the Project will generate 11 full-time jobs but does not specify if these will be year-round or what these employees' jobs will entail once the boats have left for the summer. It provides no basis for the claim that they will go to Southold residents. It also does not note whether these 11 jobs will be filled immediately or if gradually assuming the buildings are occupied over time. PROJECT DESCRIPTION, PURPOSE AND NEED PD-1. Nowhere in the DEIS does the applicant provide or discuss a demonstrated need for the Project. The DEIS states that climate-controlled (heated) space is essential for maintaining electrical systems in the types of vessels to be stored. This is not the opinion of the manufacturers of the boats and yachts sold by Strong's Marine. 14 PD-2. The DEIS is required to include data about stored boat ownership. It states only that the Applicant anticipates "many" or"a portion"of his customers "may be" or are "anticipated"to come from existing customers, boat owners and future boat owners, who are local, from other parts of New York State, Connecticut and Northern New Jersey. The DEIS does not estimate how many Southold residents will use the new facility. PD-3. The DEIS fails to mention why "a reconfiguration of the staging areas and drydock storage is not proposed."The reason is that on July 16, 2020,the Applicant applied for and received a wetlands permit to replace an in-kind bulkhead and make a modification and extension to the southern haul-out slip.The Southold Planning Board, Save Mattituck Inlet, and Save the Sound, all objected to non-allowable segmentation of the project. FIRE AND PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACTS AND CONCERNS.The DEIS was required to discuss the threat of fire and explosion on site from all ignitable sources, include an evaluation of potential fire hazards, and determine if the Mattituck Fire Department (MFD) is equipped to respond to a fire at the site. The DEIS does not adequately address these items. As proposed,the project does not include adequate fire safety measures, and will constitute an unnecessary and unacceptable safety risk to the community and the environment. FS-1. No Fire Safety Plan for the proposed Project is included in the DEIS. The Fire Safety Plan for the existing facility included in the DEIS is defective and inadequate. FS-2. Although the MFD has not raised concerns,there appear to be many aspects of the project that do not conform to fire codes. Given the response requirements documented for many recent indoor boat storage facilities, it is clear that MFD, even with mutual aid, could have a difficult time responding to a fire event. FS-3. The Fire Marshal stated that the Project must allow for Fire Department access within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of all project buildings. Project plans do not conform to fire code requirements relating to road and turnaround requirements. FS-4. The Project's haul road will be converted into a permanent emergency fire access. That road, as described and depicted in the DEIS, cannot directly access the Project site. No water source is located along the road or at its terminus severely limiting its usefulness. FS-5. The Project's four 2000-gallon propane tanks, even when installed according to code and properly maintained, present a danger. During a fire event a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion (BLEVE) is possible. The DEIS should have addressed this possibility and evaluated the potential impact, and the ability of the MFD to adequately respond. FS-6. According to the DEIS, yacht repair and maintenance activities would occur within the on-site buildings and/or at the existing dock. If those activities are planned to occur inside the proposed storage buildings, they will include potential ignition sources. Given that yachts will be stored with fuel in their onboard tanks, a substantial fire risk will be created. FS-7. Neither the DEIS, nor the MFD, nor the Southold Fire Marshall have considered the fire risk associated with the fact that stored vessels may have lithium-ion battery-powered equipment. 15 HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS H-1. The DEIS states that the Project would not alter the amounts of chemicals and antifouling paint, that no changes to storage volume of these substances are anticipated and no modification to stored quantities would be necessary. The DEIS also states that the Project would create new jobs for the servicing of the larger vessels to be stored on-site. This additional work-load would presumably require an increase in the amount of chemicals used on-site. The DEIS does mention that Strongs Marine provides a Gelcoat refinishing service. Gelcoat, a hazardous material, is not included in the list of hazardous chemicals stored on-site. LIGHTING IMPACTS L-1. The DEIS does not include a meaningful photometric analysis. No isolux contour diagram showing areas of equal illuminance has been prepared. No comparison of existing and post-construction conditions is included, making it difficult to evaluate the degree to which light emissions will increase. L-2. Lighting impact questions unaddressed in the DEIS include: will an increase in light levels be visible from adjacent properties and other properties within the Project's undefined viewshed?To what extent will sky glow be increased by the new/additional lighting associated with the Project? Will residences with views towards the Project (including those on the east side of Mattituck Inlet) have night-time views of the new storage buildings, or altered views of existing marina facilities, as a result of the new lighting? L-3. The DEIS has not adequately addressed potential lighting impacts to wildlife.The DEIS concludes that Project lighting will not adversely impact wildlife. This is supported only by the statements that the "proposed lighting shall be dark skies-compliant" and that "downward directed lighting [will result] in no increase in light levels beyond the limit of the proposed buildings, access roads, and parking surfaces." No data supporting this is included in the DEIS. MARINE TRAFFIC IMPACTS MT-1. Although required, the DEIS contains no information relating to how boat wakes possibly generated by yachts arriving and departing the Project site could affect marsh areas or coastal erosion. MT 2. The conclusion that the Project will not substantially increase vessel traffic within Mattituck Creek is based on the assumption that existing traffic on any given day is always at peak levels; that project-related traffic will add to existing traffic volumes during the summer peak; and that the project- related vessels adding to existing traffic are similar in characteristics to the average vessel currently traveling on Mattituck Creek. None of these three assumptions is valid. MT 3. The DEIS has not addressed how the Project would impact kayakers and paddleboarders. NOISE IMPACTS. The Planning Board found that the original DEIS did not adequately address noise issues. In the revised Acoustic Report, 15 of the 18 tables show greater noise levels.This raises questions about the reliability of the new data and how it is used to evaluate Project noise impacts. No explanation for these significant changes in modeled ambient noise conditions is provided. 16 N-1. Noise monitoring locations selected to establish ambient conditions were poorly chosen,and the time of year during which data was collected was inappropriate. N-2. The noise analysis failed to include all equipment types that will be used during Project construction and relies on generic equipment noise levels rather than noise levels associated with specific makes and models of equipment. N-3. Construction noise levels during several phases of construction have been underestimated, N-4. Sound levels at some residences along the Project truck route are higher than recommended by the NYSDOT. N-5. Some nearby residences will be subjected to increased noise levels deemed "very objectionable to intolerable" by the NYSDEC and in some cases, higher than allowable by Southold Town Code. N-6. The DEIS conclusion that the Project will have no significant adverse impacts to Mill Road Preserve has no basis in fact. N-7. The DEIS never considers if or how Project-generated noise will impact wildlife. There is no mention of potential noise impacts to types of fauna, other than birds, such as large and small mammals and reptiles. N-8. Language in the December 2021 version of the DEIS has not been revised to address the Planning Board's concerns about the inadequacy of the Applicant's proposed noise mitigation measures. N-9. Compliance with the noise regulations in Southold's Town Code is not"mitigation", as claimed. N-10. The DEIS does not include required protocols for monitoring of the noise level during construction. PROJECT SCHEDULE CONCERNS PS-1. The DEIS contains conflicting and confusing information concerning the start dates for each phase of the Project(clearing,excavation, construction)and the duration of each phase. PS-2. The Planning Board notes in its review of inadequacies in the December 2021 version of the DEIS, that the DEIS did not adequately address how potential weather and task delays would be addressed. The revised DEIS has not meaningfully addressed this concern. PS-3. If the Project start is delayed, or Project phases are not completed as planned, construction traffic could extend into the summer and fall peak-traffic seasons, resulting in an even greater environmental impact. SEA LEVEL CHANGE. The DEIS uses cherry-picked and manipulated data to downplay the potential effects of sea-level and groundwater rise on the Project. SL-1. The DEIS has underestimated the risks of tidal flooding by using a "medium" projection for sea level rise, rather than a more conservative "'high-medium" projection or worst case "high" projection (30-inch rise), representing a "worst-case"scenario. � 7 SL-2. Graphics in the DEIS showing projected flood risk onto existing topography, fail to take into account that the new structures—both the storage buildings themselves and the Travelifts used to bring boats up from the water—will be at substantially lower elevations above mean sea level than they are at present. SL-3. The DEIS understates the risk that rising groundwater levels may pose to the Project, especially in relation to the minimum required separation from sanitary system outflows. SL-4. The DEIS has not accurately assessed how climate change will contribute to future increases in precipitation. It uses cherry-picked precipitation data to indicate that annual precipitation levels are decreasing, when the opposite is true. This has compromised all of the climate-change modeling done for the Project, including changes in groundwater levels over time. SLOPE STABILITY SS-1. The DEIS has not adequately addressed slope stability concerns. It includes no discussion of methods to minimize the possibility of slope failure. Instead, it merely concludes that there are no slope stability concerns,and that adjacent properties will therefore not be affected. SS-2. The DEIS notes that the Project's Evergreen retaining wall will have "a safety factor of greater than 2.0,with 1.5 being the code minimum." However, no information is included in the DEIS concerning the safety factor of the bare slope that will be exposed for an extended period before the retaining wall is constructed. SS-3. The DEIS does not, as required, discuss "the impact of timing in between each phase, the threat of catastrophic soil loss and erosion if there is a pause in the project schedule due to weather or other event . . ." It does not discuss the "potential catastrophic failure of the retaining wall, in whole or in part and the effect on adjacent properties." SOILS. The DEIS does not properly or adequately describe the soils in the Project area. S-1. Data in the DEIS suggests that tidal marsh soils may be present within the footprint of at least one of the proposed storage buildings. This material poses engineering constraints and may require additional excavation and backfill to support the weight of the construction. The DEIS does not include a plan for addressing this contingency. S-2. The DEIS assumes—possibly incorrectly--that large portions of the Project Area consist of dredge spoil deposited by the Army Corp of Engineers. S-3. If large quantities of dredge spoil are present, the DEIS fails to consider that they may be contaminated. The very limited chemical testing performed is not adequate to determine if a hazard risk does or does not exist. WATER SUPPLY. The DEIS leaves some unanswered questions about the water supply to the site and overstates the potential benefits of its proposed water line extension. WS-1. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services raised questions about the adequacy of the water supply to the Project.The DEIS states that"consultations with the SCDHS are ongoing." Ig WS-2. The DEIS identifies 31 properties that could potentially connect to public water supply as a benefit of the Project's proposed water-main extension.The actual number of properties (other than the Project site)that would realistically be able to connect is two—one of which is owned by the Applicant. W-3. The proposed water line is not actually part of the Project.According to public statements made by the Applicant, he has already contracted with the Suffolk County Water Authority to install the line, and has stated that construction is scheduled for May 2023. Any public benefit resulting from the installation of the water line is not a benefit that can be attributed to the Project. W-4. "The proposed application is subject to a SCDHS Board of Review variance to vary the design flow factor for the storage buildings to consider employee usage rather than building area." This is a contradiction of information being distributed by the Applicant which states that "No Variances are Required." AIR QUALITY IMPACTS.The air quality analysis employed a number of questionable, and likely incorrect, assumptions to estimate air quality impacts from on-road mobile emissions during the construction phases of the Project. AQ-1. The air quality analysis has employed an incorrect vehicle type as a basis for much of its emissions modeling, assuming that vehicle types contributing to emissions will be passenger cars, passenger trucks, and single unit short-haul construction vehicles. The vast majority of Project construction vehicles will be 22-wheel tractor-trailer haul trucks. AQ-2. The DEIS has underestimated the number of Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) a key component in estimating impacts from mobile emission sources such as the Project haul trucks. AQ-3. The DEIS indicates that supplemental planting will mitigate carbon stock loss. This is very misleading as it assumes that the trees that will be lost are equivalent to the trees that will be planted. They are not. It is inappropriate to measure net carbon sink loss by merely measuring the net change in the number of trees. AQ-4. The DEIS suggests that hard-clam farming presently occurring on the Project parcel should be considered carbon stock loss mitigation for the Project. However, this activity is part of existing conditions at the Project parcel. It cannot be considered Project mitigation. AQ-5. The DEIS does not address the potential for fugitive dust to impact nearby residences, particularly those in close proximity to the proposed haul road. AQ-6. The DEIS has failed to accurately calculate or explain the degree to which PM2.5 (very small particulate matter of special concern because of its potential to damage lung tissue)will be generated by Project-associated vehicles. AQ-7. The DEIS incorrectly states that the Project will create no new stationary emission sources. The burning of large quantities of propane to heat the proposed storage buildings will contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. CULTURAL RESOURCES/HISTORIC PROPERTIES � 9 CR-1. Vibration from Project truck traffic is likely to damage both Old Mill Inn, and the Old Water Tower at 3380 West Mill Road. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has determined both are eligible for the State and National Registers of Historic Places. CR-2. The SHPO has requested a Construction Protection Plan be prepared. The plan in the DEIS is inadequate and includes no meaningful protocols for protecting historic properties or mitigating damage that might occur. It does not address potential impacts to the Old Mill Inn. The SHPO has not reviewed the plan proposed in the DEIS. CR-3. The inventory of historic properties that could be affected by the Project was not properly conducted and is incomplete. CR-4. The DEIS significantly underestimate the potential for traffic-induced vibration damage to historic structures along the Project truck route in Southold and Riverhead. CR-5. The DEIS fails to evaluate the historic significance of the Jackson Water Tower or consider if or how it would be visually impacted by the project. CR-6. The archeological survey of the Project site failed to properly characterize or evaluate a potential historic period archeological site in the Project area. ALTERNATIVES ALT 1. The DEIS relies on a one-page consultant's letter, reporting second-hand information, as the basis for rejecting the use of barges rather than trucks to remove sand from the Project site. It does not consider the use of smaller and shallower draft barges to remove the sand. ALT 2. The alternative routing plan using Bergen Avenue for some truck traffic does not reduce traffic impacts as claimed. It actually increases the number of affected households. ALT 3. The DEIS never considers the fact that the Applicant has indicated in other venues, as early as February 8,2020 and as recently as April 15, 2023, that both storage buildings may not be built at the same time,or that the second building may never be built. ZONING Z-1. The existing zoning map on which the Project relies, shows an incorrect location for the boundary between the M-II (Maritime II) and R-80 (Residential) portions of the Project parcel. The correct location for this boundary is several hundred feet west of that shown per the last recorded metes and bounds in the Town files. This places the Project on the R-80 portion of the parcel, where it would not be permitted. Z-2. The Project's "temporary" haul road has become a permanent emergency access road, although it will not provide access to the new storage buildings. As a component of a commercial facility, it may not be allowable in an R-80 zone. VISUAL 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. 10 V-1. The DEIS does not properly define either the Project's zone of visual influence (ZVI), or its viewshed. The procedure used to define the area visually impacted by the Project does not conform established methods. V-2. The DEIS fails to adequately identify all potentially impacted visually sensitive receptors as called for in the DEIS scope. Many residences that currently have views of the Strong's Yacht Center ("SYC") and/or will have views of the completed Project have not been included in the visual impact analysis. V-3. The DEIS fails to properly assess how post-construction views of the Project will be different from existing views. Inaccurate architectural renderings, rather than photographs, have been used to depict existing conditions. Photos supposedly from the same locations as the renderings show views very different from those in the renderings. V-4. The architectural renderings which reportedly depict post-construction views are not true photosimulations. They have not been prepared in accordance with accepted methods used to assess visual impacts and present highly inaccurate depictions of post-construction views. V-S. Existing views of a vegetated hillside will be replaced by views of a massive concrete retaining wall,which will last for years. LWRP CONSISTENCY. The Project is not consistent with any of policies in Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. The DEIS sets forth misleading or incomplete information and analyses in an attempt to demonstrate the opposite. Some instances are noted below. More complete and detailed information is included in the attached main body of comments. LW-1. The removal of 5.51±acres of the existing forested land including more than 600 large trees, and moving the existing tree line back approximately 500± feet, is not consistent with LWRP Policy 1 to preserve open space. LW-2. Project haul truck traffic endangers historic structures along the entire truck route. This not consistent with LWRP Policy 2 calling for the preservation of historic structures. LW-3. The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 3 calling for the enhancement of visual quality and the protection of scenic resources. LW-4. The DEIS acknowledges that the Project will impact the forest edge. It does not indicate that this a reference to the Town-owned Mill Road Preserve. The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 6 which calls for the protection and restoration of the quality and function of the Town of Southold's ecosystem. LW-S. The Project includes a new emission source (unmentioned in the DEIS) which will burn propane to heat the new yacht storage buildings. It does not address the impact of burning thousands of gallons of diesel oil by Project haul trucks. The Project is inconsistent with LWRP Policy 7 which calls for the protection and improvement of air quality in the Town of Southold. LW-6. The Project location is not suitable from an environmental perspective. The Project is inconsistent with LWRP Policy 10 calling for the promotion siting of new water-dependent uses in "suitable" locations. � 11 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY.The Project conflicts with many of the goals in the Southold Town 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Some instances are noted below. More complete and detailed information is included in the attached main body of comments. CP-1. Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan sets as a goal to "promote economic development that ensures an adequate base without compromising the unique character of the town." The DEIS exaggerates the economic benefits of the Project. It overestimates the tax revenue it will generate and does not adequately describe the nature of the 11 jobs it claims will be created. CP-2. The Comprehensive Plan recommends steps to "preserve, encourage, and continue to support existing and future maritime uses as an important business sector within the Town's economy."The DEIS claims the Project will advance that goal, but it fails to explain how a warehouse for boats which will make one round trip to and from Long Island Sound each year will do anything for the Town's economy. On the contrary, the Comprehensive Plan notes that although "the Inlet is historically tied to the commercial offerings of Love Lane and surrounding areas ... the connections are underutilized. Few boaters make it as far as Love Lane, especially out-of-towners." The location of the Project, closer to the mouth of the Inlet than the head, will do nothing to advance that goal, especially as these boats will largely be "delivered" by a captain, not a boatload full of potential consumers. CP-3. Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan establishes as Town-wide goals the protection of "scenic resources, cultural resources, and natural heritage." The Project will have a large visual impact on a key scenic resource of the Town and especially the hamlet, namely the view from the water and across the water of Mattituck Inlet. It will greatly degrade the experience of visiting one of the natural heritage treasures of the Town,the Mill Road Preserve,which it directly abuts. CP-4. Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan establishes goals of "protect[ing] groundwater quality" and "adapt[ing] to the effects of climate change and rising sea levels." The DEIS uses cherry-picked data to downplay the potential effects of sea-level and groundwater rise on the Project. CP-S. Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan establishes a goal of "protect[ing] upland habitat and trees." Clear-cutting 5.51 acres of forested hillside, resulting in the destruction of more than 600 mature trees and an undetermined number of younger trees, and the removal of a natural hillside and its replacement by a concrete retaining wall are obviously incompatible with this objective. CP-6. Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the importance of maritime industries to the character and economy of the Town, establishing objectives of"protect[ing] the character of historic agricultural and maritime areas by maintaining appropriate scales of development, intensity of use, and architectural style" and "preserv[ing] and encourag[ing] traditional uses defining the agricultural and maritime character of the area." It specifies under this category "fishing-related industries, marine trades, marine biology, marinas, recreational boating support uses, and related uses." While the Project broadly fits under that description, it does nothing to enhance the maritime character of the Town, the Hamlet, or the Inlet, which historically were built around commercial and sport fishing and small-boat recreation by local residents — not servicing multi-million-dollar yachts. The Project will consist of two enormous sheds with no visual appeal or interest or obvious maritime function; its presence will do nothing to enhance the maritime character of the Town, any more than an Amazon warehouse on the same location would do. ECOLOGY IMPACTS 12 E-1. Total removal of 5.51 acres of upland forest, including cutting down 634 trees and the destruction of the associate wildlife habitat is not, as described in the DEIS, "forest disturbance," it is forest/habitat destruction. E-2. A total of 634 mature trees with heights up to 80-feet, and an average diameter of 12.8-inches, plus an unknown number of smaller trees, will be cut down. This is almost all of the trees in the Project Area. E-3. The forest ecosystem of the Project parcel, together with the contiguous Town-owned Mill Road Preserve, is the last relatively large block of native forest supplying clean groundwater to Mattituck Inlet that has not been converted to farmland or interrupted by residential and commercial development, with their attendant sanitary system and stormwater impacts. E-4. By conflating the 38-acre project "site" with the 6.5-acre Project Area, the DEIS and the ecological report mischaracterize the land use history of the Project area, and inaccurately describe the relative disturbance of hardwood forest vs successional scrubland. E-5. Planting 71 4-5-foot-high pitch pine trees within a 0.63-acre planting area just beyond the top of the proposed Evergreen retaining wall (and donating to Southold 50 1-inch caliper trees in 10-gallon containers) is not adequate mitigation for destroying 5.51 acres of mature forest. E-6. The destruction of 5.51 acres of forest will create new forest edges resulting in an "edge effect" affecting more than 8 acres of forest in areas beyond the limits of the Project Area, including the Mill Road Preserve. Edge effects include higher ambient light levels, air and soil temperatures, and wind speed; and lower relative humidity and soil moisture. These changes foster proliferation of invasive plant species. E-7. The 27-acre Town-owned Mill Road Preserve abuts the southwest corner of the Project land parcel. The DEIS ignores the fact that edge effects impacting the Preserve will not be limited to a small part of the Preserve as claimed. There is no way that the Project will not dramatically and permanently diminish the qualifies of the landscape and the area specifically prized and valued by the Town of Southold. E-8. The DEIS uses inaccurate, incomplete and or misleading data to evaluate the immediate and long-term threats posed to the bird population on the Project site, and the surrounding area including the adjacent Southold Town-owned Mill Road Preserve, and Mattituck Creek. E-9. The DEIS fails to adequately address potential Project impacts to threatened and endangered species, including Peregrine Falcons, Bald Eagles, Piping Plovers, Northern Long-Eared Bats, and Eastern Box Turtles. The DEIS does not propose adequate, or in some cases viable, mitigation to address these impacts. E-10. The DEIS makes no mention of an irrigation or maintenance plan for either the proposed 0.63- acre planting area, or the proposed Evergreen retaining wall. SMI's more detailed comments are attached. The issues and concerns in these comments must be addressed in any Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Planning Board. SMI believes 1 13 that the revised DEIS, as submitted, is so defective that its deficiencies cannot be easily remedied without extensive further study and investigations. If the Planning Board is forced to rely on the information and analyses in this DEIS alone, it must conclude its SEQRA responsibilities with a negative findings statement and a denial of the proposed Project. Sincerely, SAVE MATTITUCK INLET Anne Sherwood Pundyk Stephen Boscola Co-Chair Co-Chair 14