Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubject File CHARLES R. CUDDY Attorney at Law 445 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901. Mailing Address: Tel:(631)369-8200 PO Box 1547 Fax: (631)369-9080 Riverhead,NY 11901 e-mail:charlescuddy@optonline.net September 21, 2026 K3,N�1 o� L G 7 V c i. Hand Delivered G1�`=,C��f`mil\_� C���' James Rich, Chairman Town of Southold 'ISEP 1, 1 202 6a 54375 Main Road i, r;;;'1,4 i Southold, NY 11971 pia"NIi,"G Goa-, Re: Strong's Yacht Center Dear Chairman Rich: Enclosed are ten copies of the Applicant's response to the comments and presentation by H&H at the Planning Board's meeting of August 20, 2026 together with a Full EAF Part 1. We would be pleased to further discuss this matter with the Board and are prepared to submit a Supplemental EIS. We thank you for this opportunity and look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC:dme Enclosures c: Heather Lanza, Planning Director OPACC I R-P September 17,2026 SEP I" I Z926 SOUTHOLD TOWN James H.Rich 111,Chairman and PLANNING BOARD Members of the Planning Board,Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 Southold,New York 11971 Re: Response to H&H Comment Letter dated August 20, 2026 Amended Site Plan Application Strong's Yacht Center- Proposed Boat Storage Building 5780 West Mill Road, Mattituck,Town of Southold,Suffolk County, NY Dear Chairman Rich and Board Members: As the environmental consultants to Strong's Yacht Center,LLC.,the Applicant,we have reviewed the August 20, 2026 Memorandum prepared by Hardesty & Hanover (H&H). As requested, we are submitting a revised Full EAF-Part 1 to address H&H comments.We are also submitting responses to H&H comments below. HgWonse to R&H-Summary oLN-laterials Reviewed H&H begins its comment letter with a summary of the materials reviewed,including: •A Site Plan Application Form dated 7118124;and ®An LWRP Consistency Assessment Form dated 7119124, and •A Full EAF Part 1 Form dated 7119124;and ®A Revised Site Plan (13 sheets)dated 7119124;and •A Tree Removal Plan dated 1011124;and ®A Proposed Landscaping Plan (2 sheets)dated 1011124;and ®A Floor Plan and Building Elevations Plan (3 sheets)dated 1011124. While acknowledged later in its comment letter that the amended site plan application was revised in 2025,1 it is unknown why H&H cited the 2024 documentation and why the comments were issued over 14 months after filing and over five (5) months after the ZBA decision. Also, for the purpose of understanding why the amended site plan was modified between July 2024 and July 2025, the Southold Fire Marshal requested a larger perimeter around the boat storage I"The Town of Southold received a revised plan dated July 19,2024,and an amended revised site plan on July 16, 2025 [the 'Amended Revised Site Plan']. Review of the Amended Revised Site Plan was halted when the project was referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation based on the proposed height of the building. Once the issue was determined not to require a variance for building height on March 5, 2026,the �� review of the Amended Revised Site Plan was renewed:' BOHEMIA - [MANHATTAN - SARATOGA SPRINGS n IMOiNTICELLO e SYRACUSE PAGC -WI NOW10N eN II)15� 1Y ,I NG building for a wider fire lane. Accordingly, the July 202S amendment was a direct response to the request from the Southold Fire Marshal. !Le§VoLnses taLJ& Project Cara ar°ison Narrative H&H includes a"Project comparison"narrative and table in its comment letter,to wit: The original application submitted in 2018 proposed 101,500 SF of boat storage area to be contain in two buildings (Building No. 1 at 52,500 SF& Building No. 2 at 49,000 SF). The Amended Revised Site Application now proposes one yacht storage building, which is 62,310 SF in size. The revisions to the proposal have resulted in changes to various metrics as a result (Le. area of disturbance, tree clearing,etc.). Key differences in the application are summarized in the table below and only accountfor how the application analyzed in the revised 2022 DEIS and the Amended Revised Site Application are represented in their respective submission materials and does not account for potential flaws in representations in those submissions. The comparison table included in the H&H Memo is an abbreviated version of the comparison table provided in the EAF Amended July 11,202S,which is included below.It is noted that the items in Itt were not included in H&H's table, and the items in Yellow were incorrectly represented in H&H's table. Page 2 of 20 r PAGC flau� rri1,1cPiu t CE(04PAI1NG Excerpted Table from EAF Amended July 11 2025(Revised EAF Data included in Rem Current Modified Site Prior Modified Site Prior Action(DEIS) Change from Prior Plan(April 2025) Plan(July 2024) Action and Current Site Plan(April 20 5 Number of Proposed Buildings 1 1 2 Elimination of 1 building Gross Floor Area(GFA)of New 62,310 SF 65,100 SF 101,500 SF GFA reduced by 39,190 SF Buildin Construction 39%reduction in GFA i^1 fl4i1i _i 53 Yachts 56 Yachts 88 Yachts Reduced by 32 yachts 39%reduction inyachts) Total Excavation Required 83,650±CYM 70,000±CY 135,000±CY Reduced by 51,350±CY (38%reduction in material Est.Truck Trips for Excavation(30 5,578±truck trips 4,666±truck trips 9,000±truck trips Reduced by 3,424 truck CYtrucks) (2,789±trucks)-FULL (2,333±trucks) (4,500±trucks)-FULL trips(38%reduction)- TRUCKS TRUCKS FULL TRUCKS *Revised to include truck trips assuming full loads,24 CY and 1.5 6,972±truck trips 11,250±truck trips Reduced by 4,278±truck CY of material.in each truck during (3,486 trucks)-24 CY (5,62S±trucks)--24 CY trips-24 CY Load excavation phase. Load Load Reduced by 6,846±truck 11,1.54±truck trips 18,000-±truck trips trips-15 CY Load (5,577±trucks)-1S CY (9,000±trucks)-15 CY Load Load Construction Duration(Excavation 3.5(full trucks) 2.9-3.4 months(full Total 6-7 months(full Reduction of 51,350 CY of Phase/Construction Phase) trucks)/5 months trucks) excavated material and less one building *Revised to consider 30 CY,24 CY and 15 CY of materials in each 4.25 months(24 cy of 7 months(24 cy of Full'I'rucks-Reduction of truck during excavation phase, material in each truck) material in each truck) 2-3 months 2.4 cy Trucks-Reduced by 7 months(IS cy of 11,25 months(15 cy of 2.75 months material in each truck) material in each truck) 1.5 cy Trucks-Reduced by 4.25 months Construction Phase:5 Construction Phase:6 Construction Phase: months months Reduced by 1 month Page 3 of 20 r,0�I 16 IN;;,M r, i q,,j igiG Current Modified Site Prior Modified Site Prior Action(DEIS) Change from Prior Plan(April 2025) Plan(July 2024) Action and Current Site Plan(April 2025) Project Area(overall land area 5.15±acres 4.99±acres 6.51±acres Reduced by 1.36±acre affected by the project) (21%reduction) (land 3.33±acres 3.36±acres 4.59±acres Reduced by 1.26±acres d area to be excavated to accommodate (27%reduction) a FFE 10ftforboatstoragd Area of Coastal Oak-Beech Forest to 2.85±acres 2.74±acres 4.32±acres Reduced by 1.47±acres be Removed (34%reduction -477 trees 444 trees 634 trees Reduction by 157 trees (25%reduction) I k 1 1,931 trees 1,964 trees 1,774 trees Increased by 157 trees (9%increase) $i 103 trees 102 trees 135 trees Reduced by32 trees(24% reduction) dldd 9±gpd(Based upon 152 9±gpd(Based upon 18±gpd(Based upon 304 Reduced by 9 gpd SF x 0.06 gpd/SF 152 SF x 0.06 gpd/SF SF x 0.06 gpd/SF[density (50%reduction) [density load]) [density load]) load]) Water Demand for Boat Washing 220±gallons/year/boat 220± 220±gallons/year/boat Reduced by 21 gallons per (Service prior to/after storage) (or 32 gallons per day gallons/year/boat (or 53 gallons per day for day) for the 53 yachts) (or 34 gallons per day the 88 yachts) (39%reduction) for the 56 yachts) 4- 358±gpd for the 302±gpd for the 437±gpd for the Reduced Increased by irrigation season irrigation season irrigation season 135±gpd (31%reduction Source of Potable Water SCWA�(-.termain SCWA(water main SCWA(water main No change I extension completed) extension completed) extension com2leted) Pro posedSanital WasteS)��tems I OWTS I OWTS I OWTS No LO A change1-1 Ctl 2-2,000-gallon tanks 2-2,000-gallon tanks 4-2,000-gallon tanks Reduced by 2 LPG tanks W,V (50%reduction) 205.9 ft 147.2 It 178 ft 147.2 ft 135 ft 105 ft Increased setback by 70.9 ft/42 ft (52%increase in setback/40%increase in f setback) Page 4 of 20 EII'!!S�iii�{E�ltRl.OPVifGC w!:iG ;i)`IS;tJIRG Current Modified Site Prior Modified Site Prior Action(DEIS) Change from Prior Plan(April 2 02 5) Plan(July 2024) Action and Current Site Plan(April 2025 ifs 198.1 ft 202 ft 121.7 ft Increased setback �ItNO �tOf -klf � r"�j by 76.40 ft (63%increase in setback) Notes: (1) As the proposed building was shifted for a wider fire lane per the recommendations from the Southold Fire Marshal,more cut is required for the construction of the proposed building.Thus,more material would be excavated when compared to the prior modified site plan(July 2024);however,it would still be less than the prior action(DEIS). (2) The revised site plan decreases potential impacts to the 27-acre Town of Southold Mill Road Preserve by increasing setbacks from both the proposed boat storage building and clearing limits to the preserve boundary.As shown in the comparative summary table above, the minimum setback between the building and the Mill Road Preserve has increased from 135 feet(prior action)to 205.9 feet(current modified site plan[April 2025]). Additionally,the modified site plan indicates that the limit of clearing would be 147.2 feet from the Mill Road Preserve boundary at its closest point,compared to 105 feet for the prior action.The total area of the Mill Road Preserve that may be potentially impacted by edge effects associated with the new clearing limit for the current modified site plan is approximately 0.16 acres(6,969 SF)of the 27-acre Mill Road Preserve compared to 0.38 acres(16,419 SF)for the prior action. This reduced area subject to new or enhanced edge effects accounts for approximately 0.9%of the 18-acres of mature oak-beech forests in Mill Road Preserve. Thus, the current modified site plan would not be expected to have significant adverse impacts on the forest habitat quality of the Mill Road Preserve. Page 5 of 20 g @ 'PRgPMUVM;UJIN"FAfNa I 7 iAPN16 The H&H comparison table also includes the following note: "This data summarizes what has been presented by the Applicant in the revised 2022 DEIS and in the Amended Revised Site Plan and does not accountforflaws orerrors identified in the FEIS Notice of Completion filed on 516124 or in this document." Of concern with this note is the indisputable fact that, the FEIS that was prepared by H&H and accepted by the Town Planning Board, did not correct any of the so noted "flaws or errors" with differing analyses,but merely responded with conclusory statements that such flaws or errors were made.As the preparer of the FEIS, it was incumbent upon H&H to respond to public comments with substantive data and to prepare modified analyses where they deemed the DEIS to include flawed or incorrect analysis. At no point during FEIS preparation was the applicant's professional team consulted or requested for assistance in modifying analyses or clarifying analyses.Accordingly,there is no quantitative data presented to compare the proposed mitigation plan to the DEIS plan.Moreover, the lack of substantive analysis was never corrected despite receipt of public comments on same. It must be recognized that the amended site plan application includes a mitigation plan that responds to public and agency comments on the DEIS despite the applicant's inability to offer any responses or amended analyses to the comments received. Rather, there appears to be a bias towards receiving such a mitigation plan.Following H&H's comparative table is the following paragraph: The Amended Revised Site Application has been reviewed in the context of the large adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated as identified in the FEIS adopted by the Lead Agency in May 6, 2025. It is important to note that the comparison of the Amended Revised Site Plan to the proposal detailed in the revised 2022 DEIS is limited by the information made available in the Amended Revised Site Application. The information provided is not at the level of detail provided or analyzed in the DEIS.It is also important to note that a reduced scale alternative was identified in the scoping document for the DEIS;however, the DEIS described the reduced alternative as not being financially viable and did not provide additional analysis. Therefore, the reduced scale of the Amended Revised Site Application cannot easily be compared to any supporting analysis provided with the DEIS. First, of particular interest are the items that H&H omitted from their key comparison table, which were highlighted in"in the excerpted table included above.Below are the items that were omitted from the H&H table: ® Number of Yachts to be Stored ® Construction Excavation Area(land area to be excavated to accommodate a FFE 10 ft for boat storage) ® Tree Clearing(>6-inch Diameter) ® Existing Trees to Remain (>6-inch Diameter) ® New Trees to be Planted On-Site ® Additional Water Demand and Sanitary Waste Generation from Non-storage (bathrooms) ® Irrigation Demand ® Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) for Radiant Heating ® Setback Distance of New Building to Mill Road Preserve Boundary/Limit of Clearing Distance to Mill Road Preserve Boundary ® Setback Distance of New Building to SCTM No. 1000-106-6-13.7 Boundary Page 6 of 20 PAGC EWHONNENfAl s CONSTON6 All of the above items were raised in the FEIS,and therefore,it is not understood why these items and the associated reductions achieved with the proposed mitigation plan were omitted from H&H's table. Second,this EAF is not intended to provide the level of detail as a DEIS;however,H&H disregards the reduction of excavation area,volume of cut,tree removal, habitat clearing, etc.that is achieved with the proposed mitigation plan. Finally, regarding H&H's statement: "It is also important to note that a reduced scale alternative was identified in the scoping document for the DEIS;however,the DEIS described the reduced alternative as not being financially viable and did not provide additional analysis. Therefore, the reduced scale of the Amended Revised Site Application cannot easily be compared to any supporting analysis provided with the DEIS."The proposed mitigation plan was not included in the DEIS in its current form,but H&H is correct in that the DEIS evaluated two smaller buildings which was not feasible for the applicant.The proposed mitigation plan with one building and reduction of all impacts has been offered by the applicant in order to provide yacht storage,though not the number preferred,as it became apparent through the FEIS process that the DEIS plan was received unfavorably by H&H and the Planning Board. Furthermore, the comparison table provided by the applicant with the Revised EAF (and included herein) did in fact provide a comparison of impacts to the DEIS action.It is unclear why this was interpreted as insufficient to evaluate the proposed mitigation plan. Responses to H&H EAF Comments ® C.3.a - Zoning - R-80 should be added as a zoning district listed as there is clearing and construction of a haul road proposed through the portion of property in the R-80 zoning district. R-80 Zoning District added to EAF. ® C.4.d- Parks- In response to the question regarding the parks that serve the project site, the answer provided states that this question is not applicable because the project site is a maritime use. However, the revised 2022 DEIS noted that `Building 1' on the project site contained a private one-story residence with a garage where the marina manager resides. The applicant should revise this response to list the surrounding parks that serve the project site. The EAF included the following response to this question. "N/A - Project site is a maritime use (marina and related maintenance/repair) that has existed for over 60 years and was formerly known as"Mattituck Inlet Marina and Shipyard:'EAF has been revised to:N/A-Project site is a maritime use(marina and related maintenance/repair) that has existed for over 60 years, formerly known as "Mattituck Inlet Marina and Shipyard,"with one existing manager residence that will not be modified. The purpose of this question is to understand how a proposed action will impact the current capacity of the recreational resource. As this proposed action does not impact the residence of the existing manager, there are no impacts to the public parks that the manager may utilize. ® D.2.a.ii- Construction - The calculation of 3.4 -4.03 months assumes 30CY trucks at full load. For reasons elaborated upon later in this document and in the FEIS,it is our understanding that the 30CY trucks would not be able to carry full loads due to the weight of the material being hauled and the weight restrictions described in the revised 2022 DEIS. The Applicant should verify that the information presented in the EAF is correct. Page 7 of 20 OPAGC 111VIR IM PHAt @,WISIAWK, Revised per the calculations included later in this letter.Also, the response to D.2.m.i has been revised to reflect the number of trucks expected during the excavation phase. As explained in the DEIS,the applicant has agreed to limit excavation activities to 7:00 am to 5:00 pm during weekdays only. The construction phase would occur Monday through Saturday with various hours between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm pursuant to§180- 6 Prevention of Noise-Standards of the Town Code. ® D.2.d-Septic- The calculation for liquid waste generated of 9 gallons per day(gpd),should be verified by the Applicant. The calculation was questioned in the FEISwhen the proposal included two buildings instead of one and was 18 gpd. The DEIS did not adequately justify the proposed 18 gpd estimate. The most recent correspondence with the SCDHS (DEIS Appendix J), dated January 26, 202Z includes a Notice of Non-Conformance and a request for additional information. The DEIS states that consultations with the SCDHS are ongoing and that the Application has requested a variance from design flow standards. A similar statement was included in the FEIS although H&H was advised that the SCDHS granted the variance on September 14,2 02 3. Also, the EAF Attachment indicated: "See the attached correspondence and covenant language from the SCDHS, which confirms granting of the variance from the Board of Review on September 14, 2023 for a density load of 0 gpd/SF for boat storage. The application for permit for the two (2) I/A ®WTS (one of which would serve as a replacement system for the current individual on-site sanitary system that serves the office, marina and other SYC buildings) requires the filing of the covenant language, final site plan,and SEQR determination:In other words,the covenant can only be filed after the SEQR determination is issued. As for the volume of 9 gpd, the EAF conservatively took half of the projected 18 gpd as the proposed plan went from two buildings to one building.Based on the SCDHS factor of 0.06 gpd/sf for non-storage use (bathrooms),the increase is actually LESS THAN 4 gpd. ® D.2.e - Impervious Surface - The answer includes an asterisk, but it is not clear what it is in reference to.Also, the calculation describes only what is new and does not describe the proposed total impervious surfaces in relation to project site. The asterisk in the red box(also in other places in the prior EAF)were included to note the changes made from the initial EAF dated 7/19/24.These red boxes with asterisks have been removed. ® D.2.f-Fuel Storage-This answershould beyes and the proposed heating system and fuel storage for the heating system should be described. EAF has been modified to YES and includes that radiant heating is proposed from Liquid Propane Gas(LPG). Page 8 of 20 H'ti ir`f �.ti�'t i"1.�81Nu� IN�Util�lG OPAGC • D.2.i-Construction-The applicantshould confirm there will be no release of air pollutants from the open-air excavation of 83,650 CYofsand during construction. There will be no release of air pollutants from open-air excavation of sand during construction.Erosion and sedimentation controls,including dust mitigation,would be undertaken;however,this question in the EAF is to determine the need for air quality permits. • D.2.m.ii- Grading - The answer should be yes and the changes to topography due to excavation and the proposed tree clearing should be described. This is inaccurate. This EAF question is as follows: "Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen?"The existing trees do not serve as a noise barrier, nor does the existing topography. The excavation of material to place the proposed building at HE 10 ft does not result in the loss of a noise barrier.Rather,the placement of the building into the evergreen retaining wall actually functions as a noise barrier.See the Noise Analysis provided in Section 3.7 of the DEIS and Acoustic Report in Appendix R of the DEIS. • D.2.n.ii- Grading - The answer should be yes and the changes to topography due to excavation and the proposed tree clearing should be described. This is inaccurate. This EAF question is as follows: "Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen?"As indicated above, the proposed building will be placed at FFE 10 ft and set in to the adjacent evergreen retaining wall.This comment also disregards the photometric plan(Sheet 7 of 13) filed with the application. Also, the proposed action includes lighting that would be dark skies-compliant (shielded and downward-directed) that will result in no increase in light levels beyond the limit of the proposed buildings, access roads, and parking surfaces. Finally, all lighting would at an intensity compliant with Chapter 172 of the Town Code (Outdoor Lighting),comply with the lighting standards set forth in§172-5, and would be subject to the review and approval of the Town of Southold Building Department. • D.2.p - Fuel Storage - The applicant should confirm the capacity of the proposed propane storage tank for the proposed heating system is below 1,100 gallons. The proposed propane storage tank described in the revised 2022 DEIS was larger and any revision to the storage tank has not been specified in the Amended Revised Site Application. EAF has been modified to YES and includes that radiant heating is proposed from two (2) Liquid Propane Gas(LPG)tanks-2,000 gallons each. • E.2.f-Slope- The applicant has responded not for the Proposed Action site but"within project area only"which is an area that has not been defined. The slopes for the Project Area were provided, which is consistent with the slope information provided in the DEIS.The Project Area for the proposed mitigation plan is Page 9 of 20 ;1`.i"P�Nl,�tlt�4l,lrlt R7'v3 7!7;1!;Ii1t} @PAW 5.15± acres. It is unclear how providing slopes for the remainder of the site (i.e., that area of the property not affected by the proposed action)is relevant. • E.2.n.iii-Habitat- This has not been filled out completely or correctly. It is our understanding that this question refers to the extent of the community or habitat in acres on the project site and the degree to which that habitat will be reduced on the project site. EAF response was auto generated by the NYSDEC EAF Mapper.The EAF has been revised to indicate that the habitats/communities noted do not exist on-site based upon the field surveys conducted by William Bowman, PhD.The note at the bottom of the page summarizes the habitats/communities present on-site. • E.2.e.iii - Historic Structures - The description of the Old Water Tower provided is not an adequate response to the question. The EAF has been revised to re-state the description from the DEIS,as follows:"The Old Water Tower(USN 10310.000349)no longer functions as such.It reportedly was re-done to serve as a rental residence and the interior accoutrements have been removed.Similar to the proposed action, the proposed mitigation plan will include the same vibration mitigation measures included in the DEIS and accepted by OPRHP. These measures include.(1)Prominent markers,such as orange cones, will be placed at the south end of the stabilized shoulder during the construction period to ensure that the construction trucks will maintain distance from the Water Tower and Building at 3380 West Mill Road to minimize vibration impacts;and(2) Vibration monitoring terminals will be installed at four locations and monitored through all phases of construction. The locations of the terminals have not been determined;however,one of the four locations will be installed as close as possible to the foundation of the Water Tower and Building. The following specific procedures would be followed for the protection of the Water Tower and Building. (a) Arrival and departure times for all trucks to be loaded and leaving with building materials will be logged by the construction management team. All scheduled traffic must occur within defined work hours;(b)Should an alert be triggered, the time of the alert will be correlated with the arrival times of all trucks coming to the project site;(c) If it is confirmed that exceedance is due to operation of a truck associated with the construction, truck operators will be required to reduce speeds near the Water Tower and Building so that vibration is reduced. All drivers are to be notified of any speed restrictions; and(d) Should two alerts confirmed to be due to truck vibration occur on the same day, truck trips will be halted until additional data can be collected and mitigation can be implemented." • E.2.g - Archeology - This answer should be yes and should describe the findings of the Supplemental Phase 1B Archeological Assessment dated January 7,2022. This is not accurate and the response remains as"No." First, it must be recognized that the EAF Mapper Results indicate no archaeological resources. Second,the investigations performed on the site concluded no evidence of use by Indian Nations peoples are present and there were no intact historic-era occupation zones found. By correspondence dated January 24, 2022 (included in Page 10 of 20 ggr H>i i3 1di£cRiP1U C)NANN,i Appendix T of the DEIS),OPRHP agreed with the findings and found that,based on the supplemental Phase IB archaeological investigation, no archaeological sites were identified, and no additional archaeological investigation is needed. This correspondence was provided in the Amended Site Plan submission to the Town. As such, the opinion of H&H does not surpass the NYSDEC EAF Mapper Results, the determination of OPRHP and the field work results of the professional archeologists. 1ga)onses to II&II Comparative A a Iysis of P evic�usly Identified Sagtl ;Eicamt Adversq Ir�� acts Comment: The FEIS identified that, among other deficiencies in the estimation of construction related traffic,the revised2022 DEIS and the Traffic Impact Study state that the construction truck traffic would not exceed weight limits established by State law and would comply with New York State Vehicle and Traffic law regarding the size of vehicles and the permissible weight of vehicles. The revised 2022 DEIS presented that the excavation of approximately 135,000 cubic yards of material would require 4,500 truckloads meaning 9,000 truck trips, 80 truck trips a day and an average of 8 truck trips an hour. However, the maximum allowable gross vehicle weight (MGVW)for trucks traveling most interstate highways in New York is 80,000 pounds. The DEIS states that the weight of the haul trucks proposed for construction is 32,500 pounds and the Gross Vehicle Weight of the vehicles is anticipated to be 107,000 pounds and there is no mention in the DEIS to the need for Divisible Load Overweight Permit obtained from the NYSDOT. Additionally, if the maximum weight of the haul trucks is assumed to be 107,000 pounds as stated in the DEIS, the weight of the trucks themselves is 32,500 pounds as stated in the DEIS, then the 30 cubicyards of material would need to weigh less than 74,500 pounds,or no more than 2,483 pounds per cubic yard. Response: As indicated in the DEIS, the construction schedule, including equipment types and estimated truck loads,were developed in coordination with Red Rock Industries,Inc.,a general contracting company located in Plainview,NY. The DEIS included Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) analyses (see TSPE Pavement Evaluation Report in the Supplemental Data Appendix of the TIS) for all roads along the proposed truck route in order to evaluate the potential post-development impact of the projected construction vehicles on roadway surfaces (i.e.,the potential for damage). In the absence of a maximum weight requirement in the Town, the ESAL analyses included pavement thickness, relevant codes, and projected construction data to evaluate the impacts. That analysis determined that the roads of Town of Southold are adequate to handle the additional construction traffic. Notwithstanding same, the New York State limit of 80,000 lbs. for those trucks without Type 7 Permitsz is acknowledged. If adhering to the maximum allowable gross truck weight in New York State of 80,000 pounds,the projected duration of excavation would be as follows: 2 The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Type 7 (172) permit is a statewide divisible load overweight permit designated as"Large Through Truck Restricted"for vehicles with at least six axles and a minimum wheelbase of 36.5 feet. Weight and Configuration Limits: Maximum Gross Weight: Up to 107,000 pounds; Minimum Axles: At least 6 axles; Minimum Wheelbase: 36.5 feet; Maximum Steering Axle: 22,400 pounds; Any Other Single Axle: 25,000 pounds; Tandem Axle Group: 48,000 pounds; Tridem Axle Group: 58,000 pounds; Quad Axle Group: 63,000 pounds, See: Page 11 of 20 Excavation Duration with 80,000 lb.limit • Gross Weight Limit: 80,000 lb./truck • Truck Weight: 32,000 lb./truck • Excavation Material:80,000-32,000 = max 48,000 lb./truck • Volume Limit: max 30 CY/truck • Weighted Average Density of Material: 3,073 lb./CY (based on latest available Geotechnical Report) • Material Volume Per Truckload: o 48,000 lb._3,073 lb./CY 15.61 CY/truck- 15 CY for calculation purposes • Total Truckloads Required: o 83,650 CY+ 15 CY/truck= 5,577 trucks • Total Truck Trips: o 5,577 trucks x 2 trips/truck= 11,154 total truck trips • Timeline: o 11,154 truck trips+ (8 truck trips/hour x 10 hours/day x 5 days/week) �-- 28 weeks Seven(7)-month excavation period based on 5 days per week (Applicant voluntary offered to eliminate earthwork on Saturdays in the DEIS and continues to offer this mitigation measure.Time period would reduce to 23 weeks [or approximately less than 6 months] if excavation occurred on Saturdays) Excavation Duration with 107,000 lb.limit(NYSD®T Type 7 Permit) Trucks may surpass the 80,000-pound weight limit with Type 7 Permits. Assuming same and the maximum of 107,000 lbs.permitted (see footnote below),the calculations are as follows: • Material Volume Per Truckload: o 24 CY/truck • Total Weight Per Truck: o (3,073 lb./CY x 24 CY/truck) + 32,000 lb./truck= 105,752 CY (Type 7 Permit Max: 107,000 lb./truck) • Total Truckloads Required: o 83,650 CY- 24 CY/truck= 3,486 trucks • Total Truck Trips: o 3,486 trucks x 2 trips/truck= 6,972 total truck trips • Timeline: o 6,972 truck trips_ (8 truck trips/hour x 10 hours/day x 5 days/week) � 17.4 weeks 4.25 months excavation period based on 5 days per week (Applicant voluntary offered to eliminate earthwork on Saturdays in the DEIS and continues to offer this mitigation measure.Time period would reduce to 14.5 weeks[or approximately 3.5 months] if excavation occurred on Saturdays) Page 12 of 20 @PAW OIROI.i.1f71tEd' KEfIW'i&CONSIMIN6 It is noted that trucks with Type 7 permits currently operate throughout the Town of Southold.When comparing the duration of excavation with trucks at 80,000 lbs. versus trucks at 107,000 lbs., the difference is approximately 9.5 weeks.As a short-term impact of any construction project,the impact is temporary and mitigation measures are included to address the related impacts of construction activities.These are not long-term unmitigated impacts as stated by H&H. Further note that the applicant is willing to implement the load option that is preferred by the Planning Board,although the shorter duration is preferred. Comment:In the Geotechnical Report(DEISAppendix H),Table 6 states that Stratum 1(Reddish-Brown Fine Sand) will account for approximately 43,851 cubic yards excavated material and Stratum 2 (Tan Medium Sand)will account for approximately 84,852 cubicyards of excavated material. Together,these two strata represent 96 percent of the excavated material to be removed from the Site. Table 1 in the same document provides information on the weight of the sands found at the Project site.According to Table 1 in the Geotechnical Report,Stratum 1 sands from the Project Area weigh 110 pounds per cubic foot or Z970 pounds per cubic yard, and Stratum 2 sands weigh 115 pounds per cubic foot, or 3,105 pounds per cubicyard.Both would exceed the maximum of2,483 pounds per cubicyard needed to keep a truck carrying 30 cubic yards below the maximum weight of 107,000 pounds as stated in the DEIS. The Revised Amended Site Application does not include a revised Geotechnical Report addressing the revised excavation area or what percentages of Strata 1 &2 are now present in the excavated material. But the revised FEAF Part 1 and comparative narratives provided as attachments still base the excavation truck traffic calculations on full30CY truck loads which likely underestimates the number of construction truck trips. It is important to note that assuming the trucks would not exceed the 107,000 pounds stated in the DEIS, the trucks could hold 25CYof stratum 1 at one time or 24CY of stratum 2 at one time and if the haul trucks were made to comply with the State restrictions of 80,000 pounds, this would be even less. Response. The Geotechnical Report(DEIS Appendix H),dated August 3, 2021,provided a breakdown of the cut volume based on the Excavation Phasing Plan dated July 1, 2020,within Table 6 in the report.PWGC has prepared an update to Table 6,below,for the purpose of addressing this comment. This version of Table 6 is based on the phasing and excavation extents delineated in the Excavation Phasing Plan dated April 8,2025. Page 13 of 20 @PACC "W "QN'rl.`ITA3 EMItiEEMM&UNSIRFI (i Revised Table 6—Soil Type Breakdown of Cut Volume i 1 i i 1 1 Stratum 1:Reddish-Brown Fine 14,210 5,163 19,373 Fair to Poor Sand Stratum 2:Tan Medium Sand 53,851 7,437 61,288 Excellent Stratum 3:Grey Sand w/Shells, 0 0 0 Fair Dredge Spoils Stratum 4: Organic Clay 0 0 0 Poor Stratum 5:Dense Sand and 889 0 889 Fair Gravel Stratum 6:Uncontrolled Fill w/ 2,100 0 2,100 Poor Debris Total 71,050 12,600 03,650 The Geotechnical Report did not provide a recommended unit weight for Stratum 6 in Table 1 as Stratum 6 was identified through visual observation only and was not collected or characterized during the geotechnical investigation. PWGC recommends that truck load calculations use a unit weight of 110 pound per cubic foot for the purposes of estimating truck loads for Stratum 6. The above calculations of construction truck trips considers this unit weight. Comment: The Revised Amended Site Application identifies 83,650 CY of excavated material to be removed from the Site over the course of 2.9-3.4 months.Assuming 30CY truck loads, which for reasons stated above is unlikely,this would require Z,789 truckloads of material to be removed resulting in 5,578 truck trips.Assuming 12 weeks,at 6 days a week,Monday-Saturday,10 hour days,5,578 truck trips over 72 days would be approximately 77.5 truck trips a day with an average of 7.75 truck trips per hour. Comparing the Amended Revised Site Application to the revised 2022 DEIS, construction truck traffic would be 5,578 truck trips over 12 weeks, 77.5 truck trips a day, 7.75 trucks per hour,compared to 9,000 truck trips over22 weeks, 80 truck trips a day, 8 trucks per hour.However, these calculations are based on the information provided in the FEAF Part 1 and assume full 30CY truck loads which is not likely based on weight restrictions. Therefore,it is expected that the number of truck trips will begreater than what is described here or that the weight of the trucks would exceed what is described. Response: See the above analysis. Also, as noted in the DEIS, the applicant has agreed to limit excavation activities to 7:00 am to 5:00 pm during weekdays only.Therefore,the calculations of construction trucks for excavation is based upon 5 days per week.If the excavation phase were to take place 6 days per week,as permitted in the Town Code,the duration would decrease as demonstrated above. Page 14 of 20 OPAGC Comment: The DEIS Alternatives 2 and 7 that analyzed reducing the excavated material needing removal from the Site or alternative modes of transportation for the removal of excavated material have not been updated by the Applicant with the revised submission. However, the alternative mode of transportation investigated was the use of barges along the Mattituck Inlet and was deemed infeasible by the Applicant in the revised 2022 DEIS and the method for reducing the amount of excavated material needing transportation from the Site would require additional ecological impacts on the site. This was estimated to be 13,500 CY of material and increasing the area of disturbance by 8.6 acres in the revised 2022 DEIS but comparative analysis for the Amended Revised Site Application has not been provided. Response: It is unclear why Alternatives that were presented in the DEIS are to be revised as part of the Amended Site Plan Application.Alternative 2 includes the use of barging for material removal to eliminate the use of roadways for truck transport of materials off-site. As stated in the DEIS, "each of the four barging companies advised that the depths of Mattituck Inlet are not adequate for the types of barges required for material removal.Specifically,the barges need a minimum of 10 feet draft at low tide to avoid hitting the inlet floor bottom and damaging the barge.As indicated in Section 2.2.1 of this DEIS and illustrated in the Mattituck Inlet soundings performed for SYC (see Appendix M), the average depth of draft at low tide is five (5)-to-seven (7) feet.Additionally, the existing sharp S turns upon entering the Inlet on the first and second corner bends are very tight and would not allow the width or depth necessary to safely navigate these areas,Accordingly,the barging of material is not a viable alternative for the proposed action." It is unclear why H&H assumes the reduction in excavation material has any resultant effect on the required draft for a barge or the existing S turns in the Inlet. Alternative 2 also looked at on-site processing with an on-site concrete plant.As indicated in the DEIS, "Through consultations with LI Precast, it was determined that the total concrete volume for the proposed project (i.e., for the cement in the retaining wall, floor slabs and foundations) is limited to 5,345 CY, of which the total volume of sand in the concrete is limited to 30 percent or 1,604 CY (see Appendix U [of the DEIS])." It is unclear why the proposed mitigation plan should require the applicant to reconsider an on-site concrete plant. Alternative 7 included an alternative material mitigation plan that included a reduction in the volume of material to be removed from the subject property by placing approximately 13,500 cy of material on the R-80-zoned parcel. This would result in a reduction of trucks requiring off-site material removal. If this is a feasible option for the Town, the applicant would be willing to consider this alternative. Comment:Construction traffic of theAmended Revised Site Plan would have an impact on traffic along the haul truck route, noise and vibration at the Site and along the haul truck route, and these impacts would also affect the community character, the public use of open spaces,and quality of life. The number of proposed truck trips has been reduced from the proposal analyzed in the revised 2022 DEIS,but since the construction timeline has also been reduced it still proposes 5,578 truck trips over 72 days which would be approximately 77.5 truck trips a day with an average of 7.75 truck trips per hour. The errors, unaddressed in the Amended Revised Site Plan, in the estimation of truck trips and weight suggest that either the number of truck trips required for excavation would be higher than what has been represented or that the weight of those trucks would be higher than what has been represented and so the noise and vibration impacts of those trucks would be greater. Page 15 of 20 @) PAW Response: As indicated in the calculations above,limiting weight to 80,000 lbs.per truck would include loads of 15 CY,resulting in 5,577 trucks for excavation.5,577 trucks would be 11,154 truck trips.Assuming 8 truck trips/hour, 10-hour workdays and 5 days per week, total duration is approximately 28 weeks (140 days or 7 months). Utilizing trucks with Type 7 Permits allows weights of 107,000 lbs. per truck.At this weight, loads would include 24 CY of material,resulting in 3,486 trucks for excavation.3,486 trucks would be 6,972 truck trips.Assuming 8 truck trips/hour, 10-hour workdays and 5 days per week, total duration is approximately 17.4 weeks (87 days or 4.25 months). The DEIS evaluated fully loaded trucks (9,000 trips) over six-to-seven months. The traffic, acoustic and vibration analyses also considered the entire truck route. Regarding the H&H statement that: "these impacts would also affect the community character, the public use of open spaces, and quality of life' This same statement is within the FEIS. As this firm explained in correspondence to the Planning Board dated May 29, 2024,the DEIS included analyses to identify the potential construction-related impacts and identified mitigation measures to reduce impacts.While this information was dismissed by H&H as part ofthe FEIS preparation,it is imperative that the technical reports and analyses prepared in accordance with the Final Scope issued by the Planning Board be considered by the consultant. The DEIS also included mitigation measures that would be implemented during construction, and the same measures would be implemented for the proposed mitigation plan. Response to H&H Section entitled "Next Steps for the SEORA Process" Comment: Once the additional information has been provided in the updated EAF and the Planning Board has evaluated the reductions in the site plan, the Lead Agency will need to decide if the Proposed Action has been reduced enough to move forward. The Amended Revised Site Plan reduces the total amount of excavated material by 38%but also reduces the construction timeframe by 34.591o, resulting in drop from 80 to 77.5 daily truck trips during the excavation phase, Misrepresentations of maximum truck weight and capacity identified in the FEIS, and unaddressed and unchanged in the Amended Revised Site Plan,suggest that these numbers are low and that the daily truck trips required during the excavation phase to maintain the represented time frame would need to be higher,or that the excavation phase would require a longer time frame.Alternatively, if the haul trucks were to be loaded beyond the weight capacity identified in the revised 2022 DEIS, it would suggest that the noise and vibration impacts of the excavation phase would be greater than what was analyzed in the revised 2022 DEIS and greater than what the FEIS identified as an unmitigated significant adverse impact. If it is determined that the Amended Revised Site Plan has been reduced enough to move forward with the revised plans, the flawed and incomplete analysis identified in the FEIS will need to be addressed. The Lead Agency would then initiate the processfor a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(SEIS)pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. If, in the Planning Board's opinion as Lead Agency, the Proposed Action has not been reduced enough to advance the Amended Revised Site Plan, the Planning Board is in a position to prepare the SEQRA Findings based on the record that has been presented in the DEIS and FEIS and the revised EAF and current application materials. Page 16 of 20 PAGC Response: It is necessary to address the various topics that are raised here. DEIS Analyses vs.Proposed Mitigation Plan The H&H Summary above focuses on the total amount of excavated material and its impacts on construction timeframe,truck trips,noise and vibration in determining whether the proposed action "has been reduced enough to move forward." First, the DEIS addressed, among other things, the potential noise and vibration impacts and included a robust mitigation plan to avoid significant adverse impacts during excavation and construction. The DEIS analyses were based on: ■ 135,000 cy of material removal/2 Buildings ■ fully loaded trucks ■ excavation period of 6 to 7 months ■ construction period of 6 months The proposed mitigation plan includes: ■ 83,650 cy of material removal/1 Building ® fully loaded trucks, and reduced loads of 24 CY (107,000 lb. trucks) and 15 CY (80,000 lb. trucks) ® excavation period of 3.25 months (fully loaded),4.25 months (24 CY) or 7 months (15 CY) ® construction period of 5 months Accordingly,the noise and vibration impact analyses would not be greater for the proposed mitigation plan. Also, the reduction in excavation material and the associated reduction in truck trips and duration presented above clearly show differences in a matter of weeks.This is a short-term impact that ceases once excavation and construction are completed. The proposed mitigation measures that were included in the DEIS (for the protection of roadways, public safety, circulation, etc.) must also be considered. Project has been"Reduced Enough"to Proceed to a Supplemental EIS H&H has suggested that the Planning Board would proceed to a supplemental EIS if the proposed action "has been reduced enough to move forward."This is not a threshold recognized in SEQRA.The decision to proceed with a supplemental EIS is addressed in§617.9(a)(7): 7 Supplemental EISs. i. The lead agency may require a supplemental EIS, limited to the specific significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS that arise from: a, changes proposed for the project; b. newly discovered information;or c, a change in circumstances related to the project. Page 17 of 20 OpAcnic ii. The decision to require preparation of a supplemental EIS, in the case of newly discovered information, must be based upon the following criteria: a. the importance and relevance of the information;and b. the present state of the information in the EIS. iii. If a supplement is required, it will be subject to the full procedural requirements of this subdivision except that scoping is not required. Based on the regulations, requiring a Supplemental EIS from the Project Sponsor for the proposed mitigation plan is appropriate when the proposed project changes may result in one or more significant adverse environmental impacts that were not addressed in the original EIS see SEAR Handbook p. 137,item 21.This topic is specifically addressed in the SEQR Handbook,p. 138,Item 5: 5. How does a lead agency determine that a supplemental EIS is required? When a lead agency is evaluating whether to prepare a supplement,itshould examine if changes in the project, newly discovered information, or a change in circumstance have the potential to result in any new, previously undisclosed, or unevaluated impacts that may or may not have a significant adverse impact. DEC's EAF workbooks provide guidance for determining the magnitude, importance, and significance of an impact. This evaluation may take the form of a comparative memorandum. For more complex changes, DEC recommends the evaluation be further supported by use of a revised EAF when making this determination. Should the lead agency determine that a supplemental EIS is required, it must then follow the full SEQR procedures, including completion of a revised EAF. As indicated above and summarized in Table 1 herein,the proposed mitigation plan with its reduction in excavation area and volume, and reduction in the number of buildings from two (2) to one (1), responds to all impact items evaluated in the DEIS. The problem that arises here is,while the DEIS included technical reports and analyses based on the Final Scope,the FEIS responses included statements that were patently false,factually inaccurate,and misleading.The responses seemed to suggest a limited review of the DEIS and its appendices, or a true lack of understanding of the project.Pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617.9(b)(8),"A final EIS must consist of the following: the draft EIS, including any revisions or supplements to it; copies or a summary of the substantive comments received and their source (whether or not the comments were received in the context of a hearing);and the lead agency's responses to all substantive comments..:'The FEIS filed by the Planning Board did not include any revisions or supplements to the DEIS analyses. If a supplemental EIS is to be required of the applicant,the following is required to be provided to the project sponsor: (1)EAF Parts 2 and 3;and(2)the specific significant adverse environmental impacts that were not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS. Project has not been"Reduced Enough"and Can Proceed to Findings Regarding the H&H statement that if the project has not been"reduced enough,"the Planning Board must consider the final EIS in its Findings Statement. There is no basis for this in SEQRA. Rather, in accordance with §617.9(a)(7) and the guidance offered by the NYSDEC in its SEQR Handbook (included above), the Planning Board is to evaluate whether the proposed mitigation plan has the potential to result in any new,previously undisclosed, or unevaluated impacts that may or may not have a significant adverse impact. Page 18 of 20 PAGC {' r 'itliiz 1 lima?: )'StIUi?Ui When deciding to move to a Findings Statement,the requirements at 6 NYCRR§617.11 apply and the Findings Statement must: 1, consider the relevant environmental impacts,facts and conclusions disclosed in the final EIS; 2, weigh and balance relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and other considerations; 3,provide a rationale for the agency's decision; 4. certify that the requirements of this Part have been met;and 5, certify that consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable. (§617.11[d]) If the Planning Board were to proceed to a Findings Statement,the prior correspondence of this firm dated May 29, 2024 and the submission of same date by Brown, Altman & DiLeo, LLP needs to be considered. In closing,it is imperative that the Planning Board recognize that Strong's Yacht Center,as the project sponsor, is a participant in the SEQRA process and has invested nearly ten years3 into its proposal to construct indoor yacht storage.The project sponsor spent nearly three (3)years attending Planning Board work sessions and addressing staff comments before the Planning Board issued a Positive Declaration. The project sponsor then went on to hire ten (10) expert firms and professionals4 to prepare a DEIS, and three (3) revisions to the DEIS were made under the direction of its then consultant, Nelson,Pope&Voorhis (NPV). After the DEIS Hearing,the Planning Board elected to switch its planning consultant from NPV to H&H solely for preparation of the FEIS. Given the thousands of pages of technical reports, plans and analyses that NPV recommended as part of the Final Scope and reviewed as part of the DEIS acceptance phase,it is still unknown why NPV was replaced mid-way in the process,5 Regardless of the reason for this decision, the FEIS was prepared by H&H without any input from the project 3 Pre-Application Meeting with Planning Board was held on August 30,2017 4 P.W.Grosser Consulting(environmental and planning consultant),Young&Young Engineering(site engineering), Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C. (transportation engineer), TSPE Engineering (pavement analyses),Stonefield Engineering(transportation engineer),Land Use Ecological Services (ecological services), SoundSense (noise and vibration consultants), Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C. (structural engineer),Carol S.Weed,MA,RPA(project archaeologist),and ACME Heritage Consultants (archaeological field work) s It is also noted that,based on the published consultant proposals submitted to the Town in response to the RFP for FEIS services,the H&H proposed fee was the highest of the three firms that submitted proposals.H&H-$99,930,AKRF-$97,500,and NPV- $74,200. Page 19 of 20 tIVld PIT;li 11 ifi`f$�it(I ti sponsor6 or its consultants.In this firm's experience in the Town of Southold with projects requiring EISs and where NPV served as the consultant to the Town, the preparation of the FEIS has always been performed by this firm in collaboration with NPV. In this process, it was H&H that solely prepared the FEIS. This firm would welcome the opportunity to assist H&H in its review of the proposed mitigation plan in order to satisfy the requirements of SEQRA and in consideration of the work performed by the project sponsor and its consultants.If the Planning Board is to require a supplemental EIS,we request that H&H consider the full requirements under SEQRA, the direction offered by the NYSDEC in its SEQR Handbook,and the DEIS in its entirety. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Respectfully, P.W. Grosser Consulting Kim Gennaro-Oancea,M.S.,AICP CEP Vice President enc. CC. Charles R.Cuddy,Esq. Jeff Strong,Strong's Yacht Center 6 As set forth by the NYSDEC in its SEQR Handbook(p. 64, Item 1),project sponsors are responsible for the following: Preparing a draft EIS.Alternatively, the applicant may request that the lead agency, at the expense of the applicant, prepare the draft EIS(but the lead agency has no obligation to do so); Submitting and revising, as needed, a draft EIS for acceptance by the lead agency for public review; Providing additional information during public review if required by the lead agency. (This may, in limited circumstances, require preparation of a supplemental EIS);Participating, as appropriate, in a SEQR hearing on the draft EIS, if one is held;Assisting the lead agency in answering substantive questions raised during the public review period that must be responded to in the final EIS; Preparing additional elements of the final EIS,as may be required by the lead agency;(emphasis added) Page 20 of 20 Full Environmental Assessment Form C� �[] ICC4) Part.1 -Project and Setting j E P f, 1 2 0 Z SOLITHOLD TO4Vtf Instructions for Completing Part 1 Pt.ANNIPtG BOARD Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or fimding, are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to frilly respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information;indicate whether missing information does not exist, or is not reasonably available to the sponsor;and,when possible,generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A&B. In Sections C,D&E,most items contain an initial question that must be answered either"Yes"or"No". If the answer to the initial question is"Yes",complete the sub-questions that follow. If the answer to the initial question is"No",proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the applicant or project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part lis accurate and complete. A.Project and Applicant/Sponsor Information. Name of Action or Project: Revised Site Plan for Strong's Yacht Center-Proposed Boat Storage Building Project Location(describe, and attach a general location map): 5780 West Mill Road,Hamlet of Mattituck,Town of Southold Brief Description of Proposed Action(include purpose or need): The proposed action includes a revised site plan for the Strong's Yacht Center(SYC)application for boat storage.The proposed action includes the construction of one,62,310 SF boat storage building to the west of the existing buildings on-site. Approximately 83,650±CY of material would be removed for the placement of the proposed building at FFE 10 ft. The material removal would occur in two phases:Phase 1 -71,050±CY and Phase 2-12,600± CY.Upon implementation of the proposed action,the M-II zoned portion of the site utilized by SYC would be modified from 7 to 8 buildings,increasing the total GFA from 70,260±SF to 131,310±SF(represents a 89±percent expansion). Similar to the prior proposed action,a temporary haul road is proposed for construction for material removal,an evergreen concrete retaining wall would be constructed,as would the extension of the existing internal driveway to access the proposed building with pervious stone blend pavement and the creation of 23 new parking stalls. It is also noted that the setback distance of the proposed building to Mill Road Preserve would be 205.9±feet.See the attachment for a comparison of project data for the prior action and this revised site plan. Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone:631-709-1108 Strong's Yacht Center,LLC. E-Mail: tell@strongsmarine.com Address:5780 West Mill Road City/PO:Mattituck State: NY Zip Code:11952 Project Contact(if not same as sponsor;give name and title/role): Telephone:(631)369-8200 Charles Cuddy,Esq.,Project Attorney E-Mail: charlescuddy@optonline.net Address: P.O.Box 1547 City/PO: State: Zip Code: Riverhead NY 11901 Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO: State: Zip Code: Page 1 of 13 f B.Government Approvals B. Government Approvals,Funding,or Sponsorship. ("Funding"includes grants, loans,tax relief,and any other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s) Application Date Required (Actual or projected) a. City Counsel,Town Board, mYes❑No Southold Board of Trustees-LWRP Consistency July 2024 or Village Board of Trustees and Wetlands Permit b. City,Town or Village mYes❑No Southold Planning Board-Site Plan Review and July 2024 Planning Board or Commission Approval c.City,Town or ❑YesmNo Village Zoning Board of Appeals d. Other local agencies mYes❑No Highway Supt.-Review temporary road apron July 2024 (Haul Road) e. County agencies mYes❑No SCDHS-Variance(granted),Water SCDHS-July 2018/Variance granted Sept. Supply/Sanitary Disposal,SCPC Referral 14,2023.Site Plan Mod.to be filed 7/2025 f.Regional agencies ❑YesmNo g. State agencies mYes❑No Modification of NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Permit, July 2024(Wetlands Permit modification) NYSDEC SPDES General Permit SPDES prior to construction h.Federal agencies ❑YesmNo i. Coastal Resources. i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? mYes❑No ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? m Yes❑No iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? ❑YesmNo C.Planning and Zoning C.I.Planning and zoning actions. Will administrative or legislative adoption,or amendment of a plan, local law,ordinance, rule or regulation be the ❑Yes®No only approval(s)which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? • If Yes,complete sections C,F and G. • If No,proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1 C.2.Adopted land use plans. a.Do any municipally-adopted (city,town,village or county)comprehensive land use plan(s)include the site ®Yes❑No where the proposed action would be located? If Yes,does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action mYes❑No would be located? b.Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district(for example: Greenway; mYes❑No Brownfield Opportunity Area(BOA);designated State or Federal heritage area;watershed management plan; or other?) If Yes,identify the plan(s): NYS Heritage Areas:Ll North Shore Heritage Area c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, ❑YesmNo or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? If Yes,identify the plan(s): Page 2 of 13 1 C.3. Zoning a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. ®Yes❑No If Yes,what is the zoning classification(s)including any applicable overlay district? Marine II District and R-80 b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? ®Yes❑No c.Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? ❑Yes®No If Yes, i. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? CA.Existing community services. a.In what school district is the project site located? Mattituck-Cutchogue UFSD b.What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? Southold Police Department c. Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? Mattituck Fire Department(Consultations undertaken and service ability confirmed in correspondence dated July 27,2021) d. What parks serve the project site? N/A-Project site is a maritime use(marina and related maintenance/repair)that has existed for over 60 years formerly known as"Mattituck Inlet Marina and Shipyard,"with one existing manager residence that will not be modified. D.Project Details D.I.Proposed and Potential Development a.What is the general nature of the proposed action(e.g.,residential, industrial,commercial,recreational;if mixed, include all components)? Maritime commercial use(boat storage) b. a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 32.96± acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 5.17± acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 32.96± acres c.Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? ®Yes❑No i. If Yes,what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units(e.g., acres,miles,housing units, square feet)? % 86± Units: gross floor area(GFA) d.Is the proposed action a subdivision,or does it include a subdivision? ❑Yes®No If Yes, i. Purpose or type of subdivision?(e.g.,residential, industrial,commercial;if mixed,specify types) ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? ❑Yes❑No iii. Number of lots proposed? iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum Maximum e. Will the proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? ®Yes❑No i. If No,anticipated period of construction: months ii. If Yes: • Total number of phases anticipated 3 • Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) 10 month 2025 year • Anticipated completion date of final phase 6 month 2026year • Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases: Phases 1 and 2 includes the excavation of materials and regrading.Phase 3 includes the construction of the retaining wall one building parking and all infrastructure(drainage,water supply and 2 I/A OWTS). Page 3 of 13 f.Does the project include new residential uses? ❑Yes®No If Yes,show numbers of units proposed. One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family four or more Initial Phase At completion of all phases g.Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction(including expansions)? ®Yes❑No If Yes, i.Total number of structures 1 ii. Dimensions(in feet)of largest proposed structure: <35 feet height; 186 feet width; and 335 feet length iii. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: 62,310 square feet h.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any ❑Yes®No liquids,such as creation of a water supply,reservoir,pond, lake,waste lagoon or other storage? If Yes, i. Purpose of the impoundment: ii. If a water impoundment,the principal source of the water: ❑ Ground water❑Surface water streams ❑Other specify: iii. If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source. iv. Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: million gallons;surface area: acres v. Dimensions of the proposed darn or impounding structure: height; length vi. Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure(e.g.,earth fill,rock,wood,concrete): D.2. Project Operations a.Does the proposed action include any excavation,mining,or dredging,during construction,operations,or both? ZYes❑No (Not including general site preparation,grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) If Yes: i.What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? Modification of topography to accommodate maritime building ii. How much material(including rock,earth,sediments,etc.)is proposed to be removed from the site? • Volume(specify tons or cubic yards): 83 650±cubic yards(CY) • Over what duration of time? 3.5 months-7 months(depends on load-see Table 1 in Attachment) iii. Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged,and plans to use,manage or dispose of them. *See bottom of page. iv. Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? ❑YesW]No If yes,describe. v. What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? 3.33± acres vi. What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? 2.69± acres vii. What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? 38± feet viii. Will the excavation require blasting? ❑YesZNo ix. Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of,or encroachment ❑YesZNo into any existing wetland,waterbody,shoreline,beach or adjacent area? If Yes: i. Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected(by name,water index number,wetland map number or geographic description): *Topsoil would be stripped from the excavation area and stockpiled on the site for use during site restoration. Stockpiled topsoil would be stabilized with temporary vegetation to prevent dust and erosion.Sand and gravel would be excavated with the excess material loaded into dump trailers for removal from the site.All excess soils will be transported to a registered or permitted facility in accordance with NYSDEC Part 360 or local site for re-use.The ultimate location is driven by market conditions and the local need. Page 4 of 13 I ii. Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland,e.g. excavation,fill,placement of structures,or alteration of channels,banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities,alterations and additions in square feet or acres: iii.Will the proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? ❑Yes❑No If Yes,describe: iv. Will the proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? ❑Yes[—]No If Yes: • acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: • expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion: • purpose of proposed removal(e.g. beach clearing,invasive species control,boat access): • proposed method of plant removal: • if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used,specify product(s): v. Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: c.Will the proposed action use,or create a new demand for water? mYes❑No If Yes: i. Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: 399±' gallons/day ii. Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? mYes❑No If Yes: • Name of district or service area: Suffolk County Water Authority(SCWA) • Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? mYes❑No • Is the project site in the existing district? m Yes❑No • Is expansion of the district needed? ❑YesmNo ** • Do existing lines serve the project site? m Yes❑No iii. Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? ❑Yes EZ]No ** If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: • Source(s)of supply for the district: iv. Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? ❑YesmNo If,Yes: • Applicant/sponsor for new district: • Date application submitted or anticipated: • Proposed source(s)of supply for new district: v. If a public water supply will not be used,describe plans to provide water supply for the project: vi. If water supply will be from wells(public or private),what is the maximum pumping capacity: gallons/minute. d.Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? mYes❑No If Yes: i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: 9± gallons/day ii. Nature of liquid wastes to be generated(e.g.,sanitary wastewater,industrial;if combination,describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of each): Sanitary wastewater iii. Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? ❑Yes mNo If Yes: • Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: • Name of district: • Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? ❑Yes❑No • Is the project site in the existing district? ❑Yes❑No • Is expansion of the district needed? ❑Yes❑No *Includes 9±gpd for bathrooms,32±gpd for boat washing(service prior to/after storage),and 358±gpd for the irrigation season. **Water Supply-Note that the SCWA water main extension to the subject property has been completed. Page 5 of 13 • Do existing sewer lines serve the project site? ❑Yes❑No • Will a line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? ❑Yes❑No If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: iv. Will a new wastewater(sewage)treatment district be formed to serve the project site? ❑Yes®No If Yes: • Applicant/sponsor for new district: • Date application submitted or anticipated: • What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? V. If public facilities will not be used,describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposed receiving water(name and classification if surface discharge or describe subsurface disposal plans): Innovative/Alternative On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems(I/A OWTS)to be installed vi. Describe any plans or designs to capture,recycle or reuse liquid waste: e.Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff,either from new point ®Yes❑No sources(i.e.ditches,pipes,swales,curbs,gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater)or non-point source(i.e. sheet flow)during construction or post construction? If Yes: i. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel? Square feet or 1.45± acres(impervious surface) Square feet or 32.96± acres(parcel size) ii. Describe types of new point sources. The proposed building(62,310 SF) iii. Where will the stormwater runoff be directed(i.e.on-site stormwater management facility/structures,adjacent properties, groundwater,on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? Installation of on-site leaching pools and French drains which includes the use of pervious gravel as stormwater management methods to accommodate and recharge stormwater runoff from 4.93±acres • If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: • Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? ❑Yes®No iv. Does the proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces,use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? ®Yes❑No f. Does the proposed action include,or will it use on-site,one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel ®Yes❑No combustion,waste incineration,or other processes or operations? If Yes, identify: i.Mobile sources during project operations(e.g.,heavy equipment,fleet or delivery vehicles) Existing travelift will continue to be used to transport yachts from water to proposed new storage building ii. Stationary sources during construction(e.g.,power generation,structural heating,batch plant,crushers) Construction equipment iii. Stationary sources during operations(e.g.,process emissions, large boilers,electric generation) 2-2,000 gallon tanks for Liquid Propane Gas(to be used for radiant heating) g.Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f(above),require a NY State Air Registration,Air Facility Permit, ❑Yes®No or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit? If Yes: i. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet ❑Yes❑No ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year) ii. In addition to emissions as calculated in the application,the project will generate: • Tons/year(short tons)of Carbon Dioxide(CO2) • Tons/year(short tons)of Nitrous Oxide(N20) • Tons/year(short tons)of Per fluorocarbons(PFCs) • Tons/year(short tons)of Sulfur Hexafluoride(SF6) • Tons/year(short tons)of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons(HFCs) • Tons/year(short tons)of Hazardous Air Pollutants(HAPs) Page 6 of 13 h.Will the proposed action generate or emit methane(including,but not limited to,sewage treatment plants, ❑Yes®No landfills, composting facilities)? If Yes: i. Estimate methane generation in tons/year(metric): ii.Describe any methane capture,control or elimination measures included in project design(e.g., combustion to generate heat or electricity,flaring): i. Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes,such as ❑Yes®No quarry or landfill operations? If Yes:Describe operations and nature of emissions(e.g.,diesel exhaust,rock particulates/dust): j.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial ❑Yes®No new demand for transportation facilities or services? If Yes: i. When is the peak traffic expected(Check all that apply): ❑Morning ❑Evening ❑Weekend ❑Randomly between hours of to ii. For commercial activities only,projected number of truck trips/day and type(e.g.,semi trailers and dump trucks): iii. Parking spaces: Existing Proposed Net increase/decrease iv. Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? ❑Yes❑No v If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads,creation of new roads or change in existing access,describe: vi. Are public/private transportation service(s)or facilities available within''/2 mile of the proposed site? ❑Yes❑No vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electric ❑Yes❑No or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii. Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing ❑Yes❑No pedestrian or bicycle routes? k.Will the proposed action(for commercial or industrial projects only)generate new or additional demand ®Yes❑No for energy? If Yes: i. Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: Would be less than 120/208 Volt 3-Phase 4-wire 2,000 amp service ii. Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project(e.g.,on-site combustion,on-site renewable,via grid/local utility,or other): PSEG Long Island iii. Will the proposed action require a new,or an upgrade,to an existing substation? ❑Yes®No 1.Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply. i. During Construction: ii. During Operations: • Monday-Friday: 7:00 AM-5:00 PM • Monday-Friday: 8:00 AM-4:30 PM • Saturday: 7:00 AM-5:00 PM • Saturday: By Appt.Only • Sunday: • Sunday: • Holidays: • Holidays: *Using the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report "Trip Generation" (loth edition) Land Use Code 420, Marina, which is based on the on the number of berths,there would be no change in traffic generation due to the project as the number of berths the marina provides is proposed to remain the same (i.e., 40 berths). SYC anticipates up to 8 new permanent positions at the subject property associated with the new building which will create some new traffic. It is assumed that all 8 new employees would work weekday business hours and as such, they are likely to create 8 entering trips in the morning and 8 exiting trips in the evening. This is a small number of additional trips and would not substantially increase traffic above present levels or result in substantial new demand for transportation facilities or services. Page 7 of 13 m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, ®Yes❑No operation, or both? If yes: i. Provide details including sources,time of day and duration: Excavation and Construction-related activities Monday-Saturday,7:00 AM-5:00 PM for 3.5 to 7 months for Excavation Phase and 5 months for Construction Phase ii. Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? ❑Yes®No Describe: n.Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? ®Yes❑No If yes: i. Describe source(s), location(s),height of fixture(s),direction/aim,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: 14-foot light poles and wall mounted building sconces All lighting would be shielded and directed downwards at an intensity compliant with Chapter 172 of the Town Code(Outdoor Lighting) ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? El Yes®No Describe: o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? ❑Yes®No If Yes,describe possible sources,potential frequency and duration of odor emissions,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: p. Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum(combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons) ®Yes❑No or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? If Yes: i. Product(s)to be stored Liquid Propane Gas ii. Volume(s) 2-2,000 g per unit time Per Season (e.g.,month,year) iii. Generally,describe the proposed storage facilities: LPG used for radiant heating only in the storage building.LPG to be used only in the storage season. q.Will the proposed action(commercial,industrial and recreational projects only)use pesticides(i.e.,herbicides, ®Yes ❑No insecticides)during construction or operation? If Yes: i. Describe proposed treatment(s): In accordance with NYCRR Part 325 and Environmental Conservation Law(ECL)Article 33 Pesticides,SYC is a registered Pesticide Business with the NYSDEC as it provides commercial aquatic antifouling paint application services. Aquatic antifouling paints are used on vessel hulls, boat bottoms, structures and other marine surfaces to inhibit the growth of aquatic organisms. ii. Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? ❑ Yes ®No r. Will the proposed action(commercial or industrial projects only)involve or require the management or disposal ® Yes []No of solid waste(excluding hazardous materials)? If Yes: i. Describe any solid waste(s)to be generated during construction or operation of the facility: • Construction: 8-yd dumpster ~0.8 tons per week(unit of time) • Operation : 1/2 of 8-yd dumpster --0.4 tons per week (unit of time) ii. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste: • Construction:All cardboard and plastic to be recycled through Town of Southold. • Operation: All cardboard and plastic are recycled through the Town of Southold.Old batteries are recycled with a local company. Engine oil that is not reused is recycled with a local company. iii. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site: • Construction: Dumpster would continue to be emptied as needed by licensed private carter.All cardboard and plastic to be recycled through Town of Southold. • Operation: Dumpster is emptied weekly by a licensed private carter.All cardboard and plastic are recycled through the Town of Southold. Old batteries are recycled with a local company.Engine oil that is not reused is recycled with a local company. Page 8 of 13 s.Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? ❑ Yes® No If Yes: i. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site(e.g.,recycling or transfer station,composting,landfill,or other disposal activities): ii. Anticipated rate of disposal/processing: • Tons/month,if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment,or • Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment iii. If landfill,anticipated site life: years t. Will the proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation,treatment,storage,or disposal of hazardous❑Yes®No waste? If Yes: i. Name(s)of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated,handled or managed at facility: ii. Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated tons/month iv. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? ❑Yes❑No If Yes:provide name and location of facility: If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility: E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action E.l.Land uses on and surrounding the project site a.Existing land uses. i. Check all uses that occur on,adjoining and near the project site. ❑ Urban ❑ Industrial ® Commercial ® Residential(suburban) ❑ Rural(non-farm) ❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture ® Aquatic ® Other(specify):Recreational open space(Mill Road Preserve) ii. If mix of uses,generally describe: b.Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Land use or Current Acreage After Change Covertype Acreage Project Completion (Acres+/-) • Roads,buildings,and other paved or impervious 2.62± 4.07± +1.45 surfaces • Forested oastaOak-Beech Fores 17.27±(12.60±/4.67±) 13.10±(9.75±/3.36±) -4.17 Southern Successional Hardwood • Meadows,grasslands or brushlands(non- 10.83± 10.25± -0.58 agricultural,including abandoned agricultural) • Agricultural 0 0 0 (includes active orchards,field,greenhouse etc.) • Surface water features 0 0 0 (lakes,ponds,streams,rivers,etc.) • Wetlands(freshwater or tidal) 0.63± 0.63± 0 • Non-vegetated(bare rock,earth or fill) 0.29± 0 -0.29 • Other Describe: Gravel/Lawn and Landscaping 1.08±/0.24± 3.48±*/1.43± +2.40/+1.19 *Includes 0.67±acre of haul road to remain post-development. Page 9 of 13 v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? ❑Yes®No • If yes,DEC site ID number: • Describe the type of institutional control(e.g.,deed restriction or easement): • Describe any use limitations: • Describe any engineering controls: • Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? ❑Yes❑No • Explain: E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a.What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? 700+ feet below grade surface b.Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? ❑Yes❑No If Yes,what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? % c.Predominant soil type(s)present on project site: Carver and Plymouth sands(CpE) 60+/- Plymouth Loamy Sands(PIC) 40+/-% d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: 1.0-2.5± feet above mean sea level(AMSL) e. Drainage status of project site soils:® Well Drained: 100%of site ❑ Moderately Well Drained: %of site ❑ Poorly Drained %of site f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: ® 0-10%: 50 %of site(within project area only) ® 10-15%: 4 %of site(within project area only) ® 15%or greater: 46 %of site(within project area only) g.Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? ❑Yes®No If Yes,describe: h. Surface water features. i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies(including streams,rivers, Yes❑No ponds or lakes)? ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? W]Yes❑No If Yes to either i or ii, continue. If No,skip to E.2.i. iii. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, mYes[--]No state or local agency? iv. For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site,provide the following information: • Streams: Name Classification • Lakes or Ponds: Name Classification • Wetlands: Name Tidal Wetlands,Federal Waters,Federal Waters,... Approximate Size • Wetland No.(if regulated by DEC) v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired ®Yes❑No waterbodies? If yes,name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: Name-Pollutants-Uses:Mattituck Inlet/Cr,Low,and tidal tribs—Pathogens—Shellfishing i.Is the project site in a designated Floodway? ❑Yes oNo j. Is the project site in the 100-year Floodplain? W]Yes❑No k.Is the project site in the 500-year Floodplain? OYes❑No 1.Is the project site located over,or immediately adjoining,a primary,principal or sole source aquifer? W]Yes❑No If Yes: i. Name of aquifer:Sole Source Aquifer Names:Nassau-Suffolk SSA Page 11 of 13 in. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: `See bottom of page n.Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? ®Yes❑No If Yes: i. Describe the habitat/community(composition,function,and basis for designation): Maritime Beach,Marine Intertidal Gravel/Sand Beach ii. Source(s)of description or evaluation: —Auto-generated Response by EAF Mapper.Habitats do not exist on-site See bottom of page iii. Extent of community/habitat: • Currently: 75.63, 170.02 acres • Following completion of project as proposed: N/A-Not Present acres • Gain or loss(indicate+or-): 0 acres o.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as ®Yes❑No endangered or threatened,or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? If Yes: i. Species and listing(endangered or threatened): Northern Long-eared Bat,Piping Plover p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare,or as a species of ❑Yes®No special concern? If Yes: i. Species and listing: q.Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting,trapping,fishing or shell fishing? ®Yes❑No If yes,give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: No impact expected-SYC is a designated host for the CCE Marine Program for shellfish restoration E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site a.Is the project site, or any portion of it,located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to ❑Yes®No Agriculture and Markets Law,Article 25-AA,Section 303 and 304? If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? ❑Yes®No i. If Yes: acreage(s)on project site? ii. SOUrce(s)of soil rating(s): c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to,a registered National ❑Yes®No Natural Landmark? If Yes: i. Nature of the natural landmark: ❑Biological Community ❑ Geological Feature ii. Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: d.Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? ❑Yes®No If Yes: i. CEA name: ii. Basis for designation: iii. Designating agency and date: *According to Dr.William Bowman of Land Use Ecological Services,the site provides habitat for wildlife species inhabiting both early successional habitats and mature forest patches including approximately 84 bird species, short-tailed and masked shrews, opossum, various bats including northern long-eared bat, woodchuck, meadow vole, white-footed mouse, pine mouse, raccoon, gray squirrel, cottontail, chipmunk, white-tailed deer, redback salamander, eastern box turtle,and eastern garter snake. **Ecological surveys were conducted at the subject site by Dr. William Bowman of Land Use Ecological Services on various dates in 2020 and 2021. The existing ecological conununities present at the site include Coastal Oak-Beech Forests;successional habitats that have developed on former agricultural lands, including southern successional hardwood forests and successional shrublands; a small tidal wetland area associated with Mattituck Creek; and anthropogenic cover types such as mowed lawn with trees and landscaping,buildings,and paved and pervious road and parking surfaces. Page 12 of 13 e.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district ®Yes❑No which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? If Yes: i. Nature ofhistoric/archaeological resource: ❑Archaeological Site OH1storic Building or District ii. Name:Eligible property:MATTITUCK CREEK TIDE MILL(OLD MILL RESTAURANT),Eligible property:Water Tower and Building iii. Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: Old Mill Restaurant was a tide-powered grist mill that began operation in 1821.0Id Water Tower no longer functions as such-See bottom of page('). f.Is the project site,or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ❑YesONo archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory? g.Have additional archaeological or historic site(s)or resources been identified on the project site? ❑Yes[Z]No If Yes: i.Describe possible resource(s): ii. Basis for identification: h.Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal,state,or local ❑Yes ONo scenic or aesthetic resource? If Yes: L Identify resource: ii. Nature of,or basis for,designation(e.g.,established highway overlook,state or local park,state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.): iii. Distance between project and resource: miles. i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers ❑YesONo Program 6 NYCRR 666? If Yes: i. Identify the name of the river and its designation: ii. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? ❑Yes❑No F.Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal,please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G. Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. Strong's Yacht Center,LLC Applicant/Sponsor Name Attn:P.W.Grosser Consulting,Inc as Environmental Consultant Date 7/19/2024;Revised 7/11/2025,Second Rev.8-27-26 Signature !��' �4 Title Vice President Kim Gennaro-Oancea,NLS.,AICP CEP *The Old Water Tower(USN 10310.000349)no longer functions as such.It reportedly was re-done to serve as a rental residence and the interior accoutrements have been removed. Similar to the proposed action,the proposed mitigation plan will include the same vibration mitigation measures included in the DEIS and accepted by OPRHP.These measures include:(1)Prominent markers,such as orange cones,will be placed at the south end of the stabilized shoulder during the construction period to ensure that the construction trucks will maintain distance from the Water Tower and Building at 3380 West Mill Road to minimize vibration impacts;and(2)Vibration monitoring terminals will be installed at four locations and monitored through all phases of construction. The locations of the terminals have not been determined;however,one of the four locations will be installed as close as possible to the foundation of the Water Tower and Building.The following specific procedures would be followed for the protection of the Water Tower and Building:(a)Arrival and departure times for all trucks to be loaded and leaving with building materials will be logged by the construction management team.All scheduled traffic must occur within defined work hours;(b)Should an alert be triggered,the time of the alert will be correlated with the arrival times of all trucks coming to the project site;(c)If it is confirmed that exceedance is due to operation of a truck associated with the construction,truck operators will be required to reduce speeds near the Water Tower and Building so that vibration is reduced.All drivers are to be notified of any speed restrictions;and(d)Should two alerts confirmed to be due to truck vibration occur on the same day,truck trips will be halted until additional data can be collected and mitigation can be implemented. PRINT FORM I Page 13 of 13 EAT Mapper Summary Report Monday, July 8, 2024 6:14 PM Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental assessment form(EAF).Not all questions asked in the EAF are pt answered by the EAF Mapper.Additional information on any EAF question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC,you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order to obtain data not provided by the Mapper.Digital data is not a - substitute for agency determinations. 4: Ecutir. tit. Klrl•a.t,r �TanJ�i:� Y' ,1«, t«.rri't Itr � �' To`r9nda ' � tt�mitt,n Aibanp _ i c a t„n ui, I Inf rt IC' 4EI it] 1 r 'E r -1E-,€ - tl HERE rIr I l ra r'I p 11 r f:CS E 11 (' I C Ilauw 11 �. I fUa_rl F r _fli f 1F11 rl P'Iu r Ir r r 4 t1 r r ja E 'i Itr� r i III I il;il-�hC���'�_`.'� �I�C kr n'al i i Ili it"I t r Pzi 1 r t t r 'ir I ti i C � C f a� t Iswt, t rah In! r t I ,�I�tl it,:, E5ri-HE _.r I i ,}.�-_ B.i.i [Coastal or Waterfront Area] Yes _ B.i.ii [Local Waterfront Revitalization Area] Yes C.2.b. [Special Planning District] Yes - Digital mapping data are not available for all Special Planning Districts. Refer to EAF Workbook. C.2.b. [Special Planning District- Name] NYS Heritage Areas:Ll North Shore Heritage Area E.1.h [DEC Spills or Remediation Site- Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Potential Contamination History] Workbook. E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site- Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Listed] Workbook. E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site- Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Environmental Site Remediation Database] !Workbook. E.1.h.iii [Within 2,000'of DEC Remediation No Site] E.2.g [Unique Geologic Features] No E.2.h.i [Surface Water Features] Yes E.2.h.ii [Surface Water Features] Yes E.2.h.iii [Surface Water Features] Yes- Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. E.2.h.iv [Surface Water Features-Wetlands Tidal Wetlands, Federal Waters Name] E.2.h.v [Impaired Water Bodies] Yes E.2.h.v [Impaired Water Bodies- Name and Name- Pollutants- Uses:Mattituck Inlet/Cr, Low, and tidal tribs— Pathogens— Basis for Listing] Shellfishing E.2.i. [Floodway] No E.2.j. [100 Year Floodplain] Yes E.2.k. [500 Year Floodplain] Yes Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report 1 E.2.1. [Aquifers]' _ Yes E.2.1. [Aquifer Names] Sole Source Aquifer Names:Nassau-Suffolk SSA E.2.n. [Natural Communities] Yes E.2.n.i [Natural Communities- Name] Maritime Beach, Marine Intertidal Gravel/Sand Beach E.2.n.i [Natural Communities-Acres] 75.63, 170.02 E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species] Yes E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species - Northern Long-eared Bat, Piping Plover Name] E.2.p_[Rare Plants or Animals] No E.3.a. [Agricultural District] No E.3.c. [National Natural Landmark] No E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area] No E.3.e. [National or State Register of Historic Yes- Digital mapping data for archaeological site boundaries are not Places or State Eligible Sites] available. Refer to EAF Workbook. E.3.e.ii [National or State Register of Historic Eligible property:MATTITUCK CREEK TIDE MILL (OLD MILL RESTAURANT), Places or State Eligible Sites- Name] Eligible property:Water Tower and Building E.3.f. [Archeological Sites] No E.3.i. [Designated River Corridor] No Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report 2 Revised Site Plan for Strong's Yacht Center-Proposed Boat Storage Building FEAF-Part 1 Attachment Comparative Summary of Revised Site Plan vs Prior Action The following table summarizes the changes from the current modified site plan(April 2025),the prior modified site plan(July 2024)and the prior action evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact statement(DEIS)revised November 2022. Current Modified Site Prior Modified Site Prior Action(DEIS) Change from Prior Action Plan(April 2025) Plan(July 2024) and Current Site Plan (April 2025 Number of Proposed Buildings 1 1 2 Elimination of 1 building Gross Floor Area(GFA)of New 62,310 SF 65,100 SF 101,500 SF GFA reduced by 39,190 SF Building Construction (39%reduction in GFA) Number of Yachts to be Stored(Est.) 53 Yachts S6 Yachts 88 Yachts Reduced by 32 yachts (39%reduction in yachts) Total Excavation Required 83,650±CYM 70,000±CY 135,000±CY Reduced by 51,350±CY (38%reduction in material) Est.Truck Trips for Excavation(30 5,578±truck trips 4,666±truck trips 9,000±truck trips Reduced by 3,424 truck CY trucks) (2,789±trucks)-FULL (2,333±trucks) (4,500±truths)-FULL trips(38%reduction)- TRUCKS TRUCKS FULL TRUCKS *Revised to include truck trips assuming full loads,24 CY and 15 cy 6,972±truck trips 11,250±truck trips Reduced by 4,278±truck of material in each truck during (3,486 trucks)-24 CY (5,625±trucks)-24 CY trips-24 CY Load excavation phase. Load Load Reduced by 6,846± truck 11,154±truck trips 18,000± truck trips trips-15 CY Load (5,577±trunks)-15 CY (9,000± trucks) - 15 CY Load Load 1 Current Modified Site Prior Modified Site Prior Action(DEIS) Change from Prior Action Plan(April 2025) Plan(July 2024) and Current Site Plan _(April 2025 Construction Duration(Excavation 3.5(full trucks) 2.9-3.4 months(full Total 6-7 months(full Reduction of 51,350 CY of Phase/Construction Phase) trucks)/5 months trucks) excavated material and less one building *Revised to consider 30 CY, 24 CY and 15 CY of materials in each truck 4.25 months(24 cy of 7 months(24 cy of Full Trucks-Reduction of during excavation phase. material in each truck) material in each truck) 2-3 months 24 cy Trucks-Reduced by 7 months(IS cy of 11.25 months(15 cy of 2.75 months material in each truck) material in each truck) 15 cy Trucks-Reduced by 4.25 months Construction Phase:5 Construction Phase:6 Construction Phase: months months Reduced by 1 month Project Area(overall land area 5.15±acres 4.99±acres 6.51±acres Reduced by 1.36± acre affected by theproject) 21%reduction Construction Excavation Area(land 3.33±acres 3.36±acres 4.59±acres Reduced by 1.26± acres area to be excavated to accommodate (27%reduction) aFFE10 ' brboatstora e Area of Coastal Oak-Beech Forest to 2.85±acres 2.74±acres 4.32±acres Reduced by 1.47±acres be Removed 34%reduction Tree Clearing(>6-inch Diameter) 477 trees 444 trees 634 trees Reduction by 157 trees 25%reduction Existing Trees to Remain(>6-inch 1,931 trees 1,964 trees 1,774 trees Increased by 157 trees Diameter) (9%increase New Trees to be Planted On-Site 103 trees 102 trees 135 trees Reduced by 32 trees(24% reduction) Additional Water Demand and 9±gpd(Based upon 152 9± gpd (Based upon 18±gpd(Based upon 304 Reduced by 9 gpd Sanitary Waste Generation from SF x 0.06 gpd/SF 152 SF x 0.06 gpd/SF SF x 0.06 gpd/SF[density (50%reduction) Non-storage bathrooms [density load [density load load Water Demand for Boat Washing 220±gallons/year/boat 220± 220± gallons/year/boat Reduced by 21 gallons per (Service prior to/after storage) (or 32 gallons per day for gallons/year/boat (or 53 gallons per day for day)(39%reduction) the 53 yachts) (or 34 gallons per day the 88 yachts) for the 56yachts) Irrigation Demand(from existing on- 358± gpd for the 302± gpd for the 437± gpd for the Reduced Increased by 135± site wells) irrigation season irrigation season irrigation season gpd 3 1%reduction Source of Potable Water SCWA (water main SCWA (water main SCWA (water main No change extension com feted) extension completed) extension completed) Proposed Sanitary Waste Systems [ A OWTS I A OWTS [ A OWTS No change 2 Current Modified Site Prior Modified Site Prior Action(DEIS) Change from Prior Action Plan(April 2025) Plan(July 2024) and Current Site Plan (April 2025 Liquid Propane Gas(LPG)for 2-2,000 gallon tanks 2-2,000 gallon tanks 4-2,000 gallon tanks Reduced by 2 LPG tanks Radiant Heating 50%reduction Setback Distance of New Building 205.9 ft/147.2 ft 178 ft/147.2 ft 135 ft/105 it Increased setback by 70.9 to Mill Road Preserve ft/42 ft Boundary/Limit of Clearing (52%increase in Distance to Mill Road Preserve setback/40%increase in Boundary(') setback) Setback Distance of New Building 198.1 ft 202 ft 121.7 ft Increased setback by 76.40 to SCTM No.1000-106-6-13.7 ft Boundary 63%increase in setback Notes: (1) As the proposed building was shifted for a wider fire lane per the recommendations from the Southold Fire Marshal,more cut is required for the construction of the proposed building.Thus,more material would be excavated when compared to the prior modified site plan(July 2024);however,it would still be less than the prior action(DEIS). MThe revised site plan decreases potential impacts to the 27-acre Town of Southold Mill Road Preserve by increasing setbacks from both the proposed boat storage building and clearing limits to the preserve boundary.As shown in the comparative summary table above,the minimum setback between the building and the Mill Road Preserve has increased from 135 feet(prior action)to 205.9 feet(current modified site plan[April 2025]). Additionally, the modified site plan indicates that the limit of clearing would be 147.2 feet from the Mill Road Preserve boundary at its closest point,compared to 105 feet for the prior action.The total area of the Mill Road Preserve that may be potentially impacted by edge effects associated with the new clearing limit for the current modified site plan is approximately 0.16 acres(6,969 SF)of the 27-acre Mill Road Preserve compared to 0.38 acres(16,419 SF)for the prior action. This reduced area subject to new or enhanced edge effects accounts for approximately 0.9%of the 18-acres of mature oak-beech forests in Mill Road Preserve. Thus,the current modified site plan would not be expected to have significant adverse impacts on the forest habitat quality of the Mill Road Preserve. 3 Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHSI See the attached correspondence and covenant language from the SCDHS, which confirms granting of the variance from the Board of Review on September 14, 2023 for a density load of 0 gpd/SF for boat storage. The application for permit for the two (2) I/A OWTS(one of which would serve as a replacement system for the current individual on-site sanitary system that serves the office,marina and other SYC buildings)requires the filing of the covenant language,final site plan,and SEQR determination. Cultural Resources See the attached correspondence from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) demonstrating the subject property and prior action have been reviewed, have received a Determination of No Impact on archaeological resources,and a Determination of No Impact on historic resources with the implementation of the Construction Protection Plan (which would also be implemented for this modified project).The Construction Protection Plan is included in Appendix R of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,Revised November 2022 for the prior action. Fire Protection See the attached correspondence from the Southold Fire Marshal and Mattituck Fire Department demonstration prior review and the determinations that the site can be serviced and review of the site plan by the Town.It is noted that correspondence was sent to both the Southold Fire Marshal and Mattituck Fire Department on November 19,2024 to advise of the July 2024 modified site plan from two buildings to one building. In correspondence dated December 9, 2024 the Mattituck Fire Department indicated that the department has the"capability to handle any fire situation on the proposed plan."As the current modified site plan(April 202 5)includes a similar one building layout with a smaller footprint,it is assumed that the Mattituck Fire Department would still be able to service the building during a fire situation.Through further consultations with the Southold Fire Marshal in January-February 2025,the Fire Marshal recommended that the proposed building be shifted further into the bluff side and that more separation distance be provided between the proposed building and retaining wall. Thus, the current modified site plan(April 2025) responds to such comments. 4 sec 50 Jiv as . o �o� In 4 �. k NNi ..3 "ram waternue 10 Awl 4 t. a , m �r - Rea� .�- 6'p SL as ° �� u �oAA ewe 2 ese - ��� e o � 4 of IL' � z w ?s LEGEND t M a x. , O' Figure • • • • Site Feet Boundary . 's Yacht Center 1 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 :1 West Mill Road Mattituck, NY Document Path:W;\P,oject,\S Z\STR\DEIS\maps\FIGOI_Sit,Location.mxd +'r Sources:1.ESersice Layer Credits:Sources:B,J,HERE,Garmins USGS,lo-unap,INCREMENT P,NRCar,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri Korea,Es,i(Thailand),NGCC,(c)Ope,,St,eetM,p contributors,and the CIS UserCommunity !P,W:: naWJq;Inc Source.Esrt,DigitalGloba,GeoEy,,Earth5tar Geographies,CNES/Airlms US,USDA,USGS,A—GRID,IGN,and the GIS User Community SPECIAL LANGUAGE 2. The DECLARANT appeared before the Board of Review of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services requesting a variance for the use of a hydraulic load rate for proposed general industrial buildings which does not comply with the standards as required by Article 6, Section 760-604, paragraph A.2 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, and the Board of Review of the County of Suffolk Department of Health Services granted a variance by letter dated September 14, 2023, attached hereto as Schedule _ and made part hereof, provided a covenant is filed. The DECLARANT, its successors, heirs, or assigns, agrees: a. As a condition for the approval by the DEPARTMENT of such application, DECLARANT covenants that the parcels known as Suffolk County Tax Map numbers --____-_— and _ -__- as outlined in plans prepared by and dated , on file with the DEPARTMENT, shall, by title, be forever deeded together to form one common parcel and shall never be deeded or conveyed independently of each other. The aforementioned tax parcels have been merged for density purposes under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Furthermore, the DECLARANT agrees that there shall be no subdivision of the merged parcel without DEPARTMENT approval. b. As a further condition of approval by the DEPARTMENT of the application, the DECLARANT covenants that a water line easement for the benefit of neighboring Suffolk County Tax Lot number 1000-106.00-06.00-013.007 (Tax Lot 13.7) will be provided upon request from the property owner of Tax Lot 13.7. The easement area shall be in a mutually agreed upon location and as close as possible to the right-of- way serving Tax Lot 13.7. The easement shall allow for the purpose of placement, installation, maintenance, repair, inspection and replacement of the water tines. The cost of installation, maintenance and repair of said water lines and to restore the area to its original condition after installation, maintenance, repair, inspection and C10-18-0010 10/13/23 replacement of such service utilities shall be borne solely by the party, their heirs, successors and/or assigns, which shall be granted the easement. c. As a further condition of approval by the DEPARTMENT of the application, DECLARANT covenants that the 61,205 sf of existing storage and 101,196 sf of proposed storage will be limited to the storage of boats only and the space will not be utilized by any employee or any person except for placement and removal of the stored boats and/or routine maintenance of utilities, boat storage equipment and/or storage racks, The boat storage areas shall not be used for any other purpose. d. As a further condition of approval by the DEPARTMENT of the application, DECLARANT covenants that the boat storage areas shall not contain plumbing of any type except for piping associated with the fire protection system or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAQ system. The boat storage areas shall be permitted to have an HVAC system only to the extent necessary for the preservation of stored boats. e. As a further condition of approval by the DEPARTMENT of the application, DECLARANT covenants that any change of use of any of the buildings on the parcel shall require the property owner to submit an application to the DEPARTMENT for approval. C10-18-0010 10/13/23 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK 0111*111"'i"'."'ll-E EDWARD P. ROMAINE SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES GREGSON H. PIGOTT, MD, MPH Commissioner THOMAS WOLPERT, P.E., YOUNG & April 3, 2024 YOUNG Notice#: 13 400 OSTRANDER AVE RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 STRONG'S YACHT CENTER Tax Map: 1000106000600010000 Record ID: C10180010-ZEC Notice of Incomplete Application THOMAS WOLPERT, P.E., YOUNG &YOUNG , This office has reviewed your application for the above referenced project. The following will be required prior to any further processing of the application for approval to construct: (1) Preliminary approval of this application is pending completion of covenants as per the BOR Determination — covenant package and special language previously uploaded to portal. (2) Update site plan to account for the storage area of the buildings at 0.04 gpd/sf in the density calculations and utilize 0.00 gpd/sf for the storage areas when hydraulically sizing the sanitary systems for existing and proposed buildings on the site. (3) Approval from the Office of Pollution Control for the proposed abandonment of existing sanitary structure(s) is required; contact Nicole Johnson at 631-854-2533 for requirements. (4) Submit a Town of Southold Wetlands permit or non-jurisdiction letter. (5) Submit a SEQRA Determination from Town. (6) Submit revised plans with PE signatures/seals. To avoid delays in the processing/approval of your application, paperwork and documents should be submitted using the online portal. Electronic submission will ensure priority processing. Please note that alterations of surveys/plans must. be made by a licensed design professional or surveyor and be properly certified. Photocopies of documents and penciled in corrections are not acceptable. Please do not hesitate to call (631) 852- 5700 with any questions. t DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY-OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 360 Yaphank Avenue,Suite 2C,Yaphank, NY 11980 Page 1 of 2 Pill alt` (631)852-5700 1 Fax(631)852-5755 Regards, Adrian Casillas Assistant Public Health Engineer CC: STRONG'S YACHT CENTER DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY-OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 360 Yaphank Avenue,Suite 2C,Yaphank, NY 11980 Page 2 of 2 (631)852-5700 1 Fax(631)852-5755 N�wvaRK Parks Recreation STATE OF OPPORTUNITY. and Historic Preservation KATHY HOCHUL ERIK KULLESEID Governor Commissioner January 24, 2022 Mr. Charles Vandrei Agency Historic Preservation Officer NYS Environmental Conservation Division of Lands and Forests 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-4255 Re: DEC Strong's Yacht Center— Proposed Boat Storage Buildings 5780 W Mill Rd, Mattituck, Suffolk County, NY 11952 21 PR04396 Dear Mr. Vandrei: Thank you for requesting the comments of the Division for Historic Preservation of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). We have reviewed the submitted materials in accordance with the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (Section 14.09 of the New York Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law). These comments are those of the Division for Historic Preservation and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources. We have reviewed the report of the supplemental Phase IB archaeological investigation (No. 22SR00015) and no archaeological sites were identified. It is OPRHP's opinion that no additional archaeological investigation is needed. Please note that OPRHP is still evaluating the project's potential to impact historic architectural resources. If further correspondence is required regarding this project, please refer to the OPRHP Project Review (PR) number noted above. If you have any questions, please contact me via email. Sincerely, Tim Lloyd, Ph.D. Scientist -Archaeology timothy.Iloyd@parks.ny.gov via e-mail only New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Division for Historic Preservation,Peebles Island, PO Box 189,Waterford, New York 12188-0189 (518)237-8643^https://parks.ny.gov/shpo New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation KATHY HOCHUL ERIK KULLESEID Governor Commissioner May 26, 2023 Charles Vandrei Agency Historic Preservation Officer NYS Environmental Conservation Division of Lands and Forests 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-4255 Re: DEC Strong's Yacht Center— Proposed Boat Storage Buildings 5780 W Mill Rd, Mattituck, Suffolk County 21 PR04396 Dear Charles Vandrei: Thank you for your continued consultation with the Division for Historic Preservation of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). We have reviewed the submitted materials in accordance with the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law). These comments are those of the Division for Historic Preservation and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources. We have reviewed the submission received on May 8, 2023, including the Vibration Report— which includes the Construction Protection Plan —dated November 3, 2022. Based on that review, it is the OPRHP's opinion that the project, as described, will have No Adverse Impact on historic or archaeological resources provided the following condition is met: • The Construction Protection Plan will be implemented as described in the Vibration Report. Should you be unable to meet this condition, consultation with our office will resume. If you have any questions, you can call or e-mail me at the contact information below. Sincerely, c Robyn Sedgwick Historic Site Restoration Coordinator e-mail: robyn.sedgwick i3arks.nygov cc: M. Terry—Town of Southold CRIS List -- New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Division for I-listoric Preservation,Peebles Island, PO Box 189,Waterford, New York 12188-0189 (.518)237-8643 a https://parks.ny.gov/shpo 9 Chief �� �. Seoretaxy JAMES COX JR. a BRIAN WILLIAMS First Ac i�t.ant Chief Treasurer ROBERT M.HAAS 4 THERESA WELLS Second A�si.gtant Chief Sergeant-at-Arms STEVEN F.FICNER - 'f ROBERT SHAW Aq Chaplain JAMES L.MURPHY 1973 31974 MATTITUCH FIRE DEPARTMENT December 9, 2024 PWGC Attn: Kim Gennaro-Oancea 630 Johnson Ave Suite 7 Bohemia, NY 11716 Re: Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings 5780 Mill Rd, Mattituck NY 11952 Dear Ms. Gennaro-Oancea, The Mattituck Fire Department Chiefs have reviewed the proposal of the one additional building with fire suppression systems and nearby additional propane tanks. Mattituck Fire Department has the capability to handle any fire situation on the proposed plan with the additional hydrant that is being installed. If you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me at 631-603- 4571. Sincerely, James R Cox Jr Chief of Department Mattituck Fire Department P.O.Box 136 • 1000 Pike Street e Mattituck,NY 11952-0666 Main(631) 298."33 - Fax(631)298-1904 - Chiefs(631)298-8852 - Fax(631)298-8858 w ww.mattituckfd.org PAG C CLUENT DRIVEN SOLUTIONS MEMORANDUM Date: November 19,2024 To: Mattituck Fire Department,Attn:Fire Chiefs Chief James Cox (jcox@mattituckfd.com), Chief Robert Haas (bhaas@mattituckfd.com), and Chief Steve Ficner(sficner@mattituckfd.com) From: Kim Gennaro-Oancea,AICP CEP,Vice President Subject: Application for New Boat Storage Building at Strong's Yacht Center This firm is serving as environmental consultant to the Strong's Yacht Center(SYC),which is seeking approval from the Town of Southold Planning Board for the development of a new boat storage building(65,100 square feet)at its existing facility located at 5780 Mill Road in the hamlet of Mattituck.In 2021,SYC had an application to develop two boat storage buildings(total gross floor area: 101,500 SF)and,at that time,this firm consulted with the Mattituck Fire Department to solicit comments and confirm its ability to service the proposed development.By letter dated July 27,2021,former Chief Ed Rittberg of the Mattituck Fire Department indicated that the Mattituck Fire Department"has the capability to handle any fire situation on the proposed plan with the additional hydrant that is being installed." (copy enclosed). The purpose of this correspondence is to advise the Department of the project modification from two buildings to one building,and to secure an updated opinion on the ability to serve the development. As with the original project scope, a new hydrant would be installed, and the proposed building would be equipped with fire warning and fire suppression systems. Access to the SYC property is from the eastern terminus of West Mill Road and as part of the proposed development,the existing internal driveway would be extended for vehicular access to the proposed new building.Also,a temporary haul road from West Mill Road across the undeveloped lands to the SYC property would be installed for use during construction and would remain in place for emergency access,if required.As such,access to the site would be provided via the existing driveway from West Mill Road and emergency access from the higher elevation would be available from the haul road off Mill Road.The haul road would be gated to prevent unauthorized access.Finally,a Fire Safety Plan would be developed for the modified plan, which would provide hazard locations, utility and water supply information,and emergency procedures for its employees.A copy of the site plan is enclosed. We respectfully request your comments in writing, particularly related to the Department's capability to service the new building. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call or email me at kgennaro@pwgrosser.com or the applicant,Jeff Strong at jeff@strongsmarine_com. Thank you. cc: Jeff Strong Charles Cuddy,Esq. David Altman,Esq. 631.589.6353 WWW.PWGROSSER.COM • PWGC.INFO�a PWGROSSER.COM BOHEMIA • MANHATTAN • SARATOGA SPRINGS • MONTICELLO • SYRACUSE • SHELTON, CT PAG C MEMORANDUM Date: November 19,2024 To: Bob Fisher,Southold Fire Marshal (robert.fisher@townsouthold.nv.us) From: Kim Gennaro-Oancea,AICP CEP,Vice President Subject: Application for New Boat Storage Building at Strong's Yacht Center This firm is serving as environmental consultant to the Strong's Yacht Center(SYC),which is seeking approval from the Town of Southold Planning Board for the development of a new boat storage building(65,100 square feet)at its existing facility located at 5780 Mill Road in the hamlet of Mattituck.In 2021,SYC had an application to develop two boat storage buildings (total gross floor area: 101,500 SF)and,at that time,this firm consulted with the Southold Fire Marshal to solicit comments.By letters dated June 24,2021 and August 19,2021 from James Easton,former Southold Fire Marshal,determined the emergency access to be adequate(in coordination with the Mattituck Fire Department) and recommended a Fire Safety Plan. In response to same,a Fire Safety Plan was developed. Copies of the reply letters and prior Fire Safety Plan are enclosed. As with the original project scope, a new hydrant would be installed, and the proposed building would be equipped with fire warning and fire suppression systems. Access to the SYC property is from the eastern terminus of West Mill Road and as part of the proposed development,the existing internal driveway would be extended for vehicular access to the proposed new building.Also,a temporary haul road from West Mill Road across the undeveloped lands to the SYC property would be installed for use during construction and would remain in place for emergency access,if required.As such,access to the site would be provided via the existing driveway from West Mill Road and emergency access from the higher elevation would be available from the haul road off Mill Road.The haul road would be gated to prevent unauthorized access. Finally, the Fire Safety Plan will be modified for the one building plan.A copy of the site plan is enclosed. The purpose of this correspondence is to request any further comment on the project modification from two buildings to one building.Please note that we have also notified the Mattituck Fire Department of this modification and have requested their comments as well. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call or email me at kgennaro@pwgrosser.com or the applicant,Jeff Strong at Leff strongsmarine.com. Thank you. cc: Jeff Strong Charles Cuddy,Esq. David Altman,Esq. 631.589.635�3 _ WW•PWGROSSER.CONUI • PWGC.INFOCcilPWGROSSER.COM BOHEMIA • MANHATTAN • SARATOGA SPRINGS • MONTICELLO • SYRACUSE • SHELTON, CT k Chief Secretary LD RITTBERG BRIAN WILLIAMS First Assistant Chief 'freasurer JAMES COX JR. THERESA WELLS Second Assistant Chief Ser-eant-at-Arms ROBERT M.HAAS ROBERT SHAW + Chaplain xar1evfNYstate JAMES L.MURPHY Fireman of the Year 1973 &1974 MATTITUCK FIRE July 27, 2021 PWGC Attn: Kim Gennaro-Oancea1 630 Johnson Ave Suite 7 I i JUL 3 ( 2021 I�f° Bohemia, NY 11716 ! HL Re: Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings 5780 Mill Rd, Mattituck NY 11952 Dear Ms. Gennaro-Oancea, The Mattituck Fire Department Chiefs have reviewed the proposal of the two additional buildings with fire suppression systems and nearby additional propane tanks. Mattituck Fire Department has the capability to handle any fire situation on the proposed plan with the additional hydrant that is being installed. If you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me at 631-949- 9991. Sincerely, Ed Rittberg Chief of Department Mattituck Fire Department P.O. Box 136 a 1000 Pike Street ® Mattituck,NY 11952-0666 Main (631) 298-8833 • Fax(631)298-1904 • Chiefs(631)295-8552 • Fax (631) 298.8808 Www.mattltL1Ckfd.0rV - � i ',� n 1� � � .. � � � � L � �ou�tg��gunu} / � `s1. -" � �� � �\�� I %� � �I�t t o / /� __ / - / �. - � / :� f � / 4� �/ ' ' �i e / r � •�_�`J fib � '.v. c,.:cv ,� ,; 7� '' � - w � _, - .., _. _ ' _ __ i _._.__. � i � _ � r �� --. .6 � .._....,., ,. � _- - � -"'' U STRONGS YAGHT�GENTER L'm I ....` j 1� _,.. � MAP J � FF __ % __ � i Y _ •r Q , S y ¢ i O I .� � n- � I � _ .._ .'� 2 z ., _ .. _ _ _ ... ...a> .._ , �g1lFFo(xc Town Hall Annex Telephone (631) 765-1802 54375 Main Road m> Fax (631) 765-9502 P. O. Box 1179 jamese@southoldtownny.gov Southold,NY 11971-0959 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE MARSHAL Kim Gennaro-Oancea, Vice President P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc. 630 Johnson Ave, Suite 7 Bohemia,NY 11716 June 24, 2021 Re: Strong's Yacht Center—Proposed Boat Storage Buildings 5780 Mill Rd, Mattituck Fire Safety Evaluation Fire hazards common to these type of occupancies include poor storage practices, obstruction of fire sprinklers by stock, lack of inspection, testing and maintenance of fire protection equipment, electrical hazards, improper housekeeping, etc. Many of these hazards can be addressed during the building design phase, the proper maintenance of electrical/mechanical/fire protection equipment, and frequent fire safety inspections. The protection of the building and its occupants is achieved by using both passive and active fire protection features. Proper design, installation and maintenance of passive and active fire protection systems are best ways to safeguard the property, its occupants and first responders from a fire event. Passive fire protection is achieved by protecting the essential building structural elements from the effects of heat and fire in an effort to eliminate or delay fire spread and structural failure/collapse. Steps can be taken during the design process to maximize passive fire protection by including appropriate types of building materials, fire rated assemblies, opening protectives and through-penetration protection. Having properly designed and maintained paths of egress provide building occupants a safe and efficient way to leave the building in the event of an emergency. Active fire protection systems are the suppression and detection systems that detect, alert building occupants and control a fire. These systems include but are not limited to automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire detection systems and smoke/heat removal systems. Special care should be taken during the design process of these systems as the size of the buildings and occupancy type will trigger specific requirements. In addition to a balance between passive and active fire protection, here are some specific items that should be visited in an effort to manage the risk of a fire event: • Adhere to requirements of the 2020 NYS Fire Code Chapter 32: High-Piled Combustible Storage. 1 o Operating Permits obtained after periodic fire safety inspections are required by building code. o Identify the commodity classification of material(s) being stored to ensure the applicable safety features are provided. • Approved"NO SMOKING" signs shall be conspicuously posted in accordance with Section 310 of the 2020 NYS Fire Code. • Provide fire protection features as required by Table 3206.2 of the 2020 NYS Fire Code. • An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13. Design of the sprinkler system should include but is not limited to: o Evaluation of water supply—is the capacity/location adequate for firefighting efforts. o What are the area(sq. ft.) limitations of the sprinkler system? o What is the hazard level of the building? Classification of commodities? o What are the specific design features required found in Chapters 12, 15, 17 and 20? • Per NFPA, when a boat is to be dry-stored for the season or stored indoors for an extended period of time, the following precautions should be taken: o The vessel shall be inspected for any hazardous materials or conditions that could exist, and corrective action shall be taken. o Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) cylinders, reserve supplies of stove alcohol or kerosene, and charcoal shall be removed from the premises or stored in a separate, designated safe area. o All portable fuel tanks shall be removed from the premises or emptied and, if emptied the cap shall be removed and the tank left open to the atmosphere. • Per NFPA, where boats are stored in multilevel racks, either inside or outside, for seasonal storage or for in-out operation, the following precautions should be taken: o Drain plugs shall be removed (in sprinklered buildings). o Batteries shall be disconnected or the master batter switch turned off. o Fuel tank valves shall be closed. o Repairs to boats that are on racks in a dry storage building shall be prohibited. o The charging of batteries shall be prohibited in a dry storage building. o Open flame heaters shall not be used in boat storage areas. o The use of portable heaters in boat storage areas shall be prohibited. o No unattended electrical equipment shall be in use aboard boats. o Class I flammable liquids shall not be stored in an indoor boat storage area. o Work performed on boats stored indoors shall be performed by qualified personnel. o Facility management shall maintain control over all personnel access to storage facilities. • Propane tanks should be installed, separated and protected from vehicle impact as required in NFPA 58. • Fire Department access shall be provided within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of all buildings. • Although not required by code for this occupancy, it is recommended a fire safety plan be developed and trained upon by employees. 2 • Building owners should ensure that inspection, testing and maintenance of fire protection and life safety systems are conducted in accordance with NYS Fire Code and applicable NFPA standards. Please feel free to contact me with any additional comments/concerns. Regards, Ya'rwe';' tea Dom, James Easton Fire Marshal Town of Southold 3 gUfF0lKpp„ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD e 4y �. FIRE MARSHAL Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1802 Fax (631) 765-9502 Email iamese@southoldtownny.gov Kim Gennaro-Oancea, Vice President P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc. 630 Johnson Ave, Suite 7 Bohemia,NY 11716 August 19, 2021 Re: Strong's Yacht Center—Proposed Boat Storage Buildings 5780 Mill Rd, Mattituck Fire Safety Evaluation Dear Ms. Gennaro-Oancea: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 4, 2021 as well as Chief Rittberg's letter dated July 27, 2021. I am in agreement with Chief Rittberg that emergency access is adequate. A Eire safety plan is recommended however not required by Code for these occupancies. Please feel free to contact me with any additional comments/concerns. Regards, James Easton Fire Marshal Town of Southold Southold Town Planning Board Work Session —August 24, 2026 — Page 2 4:00 P.M. — Applications _..................... ........ _ ........ ......... ................ .......... Project Name: Strong's Storage Buildings SCTM#: 1000-106.-6-10 & 13.4 ...... ....... Location: 3430 Mill Road, Mattituck .. _ ........ Description: This Amended Revised Site Plan is for the proposed construction of one (1) 62,310 sq. ft. building for boat storage located on 32.6 acres in the Mil and R-80 Zoning Districts where there is 69,245 sq. ft. of existing boatyard buildings. ........ ........_ ....... Status: Pending ........ ...... ...... Action: Update .. .. ........ ....... ....... ..... ......... ..... Attachments: Staff Report .... ................................._ ...._.. ....... ...................................... .................................... ........ ............................... . ...... ......................................... ........ .. ....... ..... Project Name: Hampton Oyster Co. Agricultural SCTM# 1000-117. 7-32 Building_......................................... ._ .....__....... ...... .......................... .................. Location: 1000 First Street, New Suffolk . ......... ... ....... ...._.... . . ........... ............. ........................ .......................................... Description. This agricultural site plan is for the proposed construction of a 1,120 sq. ft. equipment storage building for aquaculture operations (no basement) on 0.25 acres in the Mll Zoning District.. ... _ ........................................... .....__ ......... ............_ .... . ......... ............................ ........ . .. ......... ......................................... Status.......... .. . ........ _ ......... .......... ................._ ........ _.. ................. Action: Referral Review ........ ............... .... ......... .. .... ._ . Attachments. Staff Report ......... _ ........ __......... ................... ......... ............................................. ........... _ ___ ............ ........ ............... ............... ................................ Project Name: Southold Free Library Parking SCTM#: 1000-61.-1-15.2 & 15.5 ........ .. _ ....................................................... ........ ..................... ............. ._ ...... ... Location: 53745 NYS Route 25, 690 Traveler Street, Southold ......._ ...... Description: This amended site plan is for the proposed merger of two adjacent lots (SCTM#1000-61.-1-15.2 & 15.5) and the construction of a pocket park with improvements to include: new parking, accessible pathways, new stairs and retaining walls, a stone amphitheater, seating and landscaped areas, a shaded activity space, lighting, irrigation, utilities, and a storage shed on 1.28 acres (after merger) in the HB Zoning District. ..... .... ..... ____. ............. .. .................. Status: Pending .... ......._ Action: Referral Review .... Attachment ................................................... ___ .. ............ ...... ._ ....... _ ........ .............. ....................................................... ..... . ......... . ....... ........ .. ...._ ........... ., Project Name: North Shore Windows SCTM#. 1000-102.-6-22 ............... ......... ......._ .................. __........................................................... ....... ....... ..... ....... Location: 28970 Main Road, Cutchogue ....... ........ . ..... Description: This Site Plan proposes alterations to an existing commercial building to change the second-floor use from storage to offices on a ±0.45-acre parcel in the HB Zoning District. ........ ....... ........ .--...... ......... ........ ......................... Status: . _Pending ..... Action: Review Revised Plans ._.... ...._ .... ....................... .... ...... .... . Attachments Staff Report Southold Planning Department Staff Report Site Plan Application Work Session —Update Summary Date August 24, 2026 Prepared By: Brian Cummings I. Application Information Project Title: Strong's Boatyard Buildings Applicant: Strong's Yacht Center Date of Submission: July 20, 2018; July 16, 2025 Tax Map Number: 106.-6-10 & 13.4 Project Location: 5780 West Mill Road Hamlet: Mattituck Zoning District: Split R— 80 / Marine II (M-II) II. Description of Site Type of Site Plan: Commercial Acreage of Project Site: ±32 acres (MII @ ±15.3ac + R80 @ ±16.7ac) Building Size Ill. Application Overview and Timeline • The original proposed action included construction of two one-story buildings- 52,500 SF and 49,000 SF—for indoor winter storage of larger yachts up to 86 feet in length, with associated improvements including driveways and parking areas, water supply, sewage disposal, site grading and drainage, landscaping and lighting. • March 13, 2023: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) dated December 2021, revised November 2022, was prepared and accepted as complete and adequate for public review by the Planning Board, as Lead Agency. • May 6, 2024: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was prepared by the Planning Board and the Notice of Completion filed. The conclusions presented in the FEIS represent the Lead Agency's (Planning Board) assessment of significant environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of the proposed action. More specifically, the FEIS highlights impacts identified in the DEIS that are not able to be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable, and cannot be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. • The Planning Board then began to prepare the SEQRA Findings Statement. The Findings were halted in anticipation of a revised Site Plan application to be submitted by the Applicant. 1 • July 16, 2025: The Applicant submitted a revised plan dated July 19, 2024 ("Amended Revised Site Plan") • Original 2018 application: 101,500 SF of yacht storage in two buildings: Building No. 1: 52,500 SF • Building No. 2: 49,000 SF o Amended Revised Site Plan: One yacht storage building totaling 62,310 SF. • September 19, 2025: pursuant to §280-131(N) the Planning Board hired a technical consultant, Hardesty & Hanover, to assist with the review of the Amended Revised Site Plan. The Planning Board required the applicant to deposit funds into escrow. • Review of the Amended Revised Site Plan was halted due to non-payment of the required technical consultant fee and when the project was referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for an interpretation based on the proposed height of the building. • March 5, 2026: The issue was determined to not require a variance for building height. • March 31, 2026: the applicant submitted $25,000 to initiate the SEQRA review process of the Amended Revised Site Plan with regard to the Planning Board's Technical Consultant. • August 20, 2026: Strong's Yacht Center Revised Site Plan Submission Comparison provided to the Planning Board from the Technical Consultant, Hardesty & Hanover. IV. Items to Consider 1 . Review the staff update and comparison document prepared by Hardesty & Hanover. The technical consultant is available to provide clarification and answer any questions the Board may have. 2. Consider the Site Plan Comparison and potential next steps. Decisions do not have to be made today; this application can be brought back to the next available work session for further discussion. 2 Westermann, Caitlin From: Cummings, Brian A. Sent: Friday, August 21, 2026 11:40 AM To: Westermann, Caitlin Cc: Palmeri, Allison Subject: FW: Strongs Comparison Memo - Final Draft Attachments: Strong Storage Amended Revised Site Plan Application comparision memo.pdf For mail, please. Brian Cummings Aris _(C,C 'CI Senior Planner Southold Town Planning Board 54375 NYS Route 25 souriloLL) TOWN Southold, NY 11971 PLANNING BOARD (631)765-1938 .°��aF soury�`a 4y��NNYY.�� From: Malcolm Simpson <msimpson@hardestyhanover.com> Sent:Thursday, August 20, 2026 1:42 PM To: Cummings, Brian A. <brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>; Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us> Cc:Sarah Brown <sbrown@hardestyhanover.com> Subject:Strongs Comparison Memo - Final Draft Hello all, Attached you will find the final draft of our memo summarizing the comparison of the Amended Revised Site Plan and the SEQRA process for the Strongs Storage Application. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Malcolm Simpson, AICP Planner / 1501 Broadway, New York,NY10036 e: rn>irn�s�r� c�n<:ir�fE�lyfr,.�rit>v�r.co�T7 o: 646.428.8641 www.hardestvhanover.com D<;if;r4,d to Amaze, !dIIIH&H Eric ineered to Last ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. i 11, lhe.odomf eand Ave,' gate:2016 South Sty e,iAlY 1,05011 4.967.6`40 JH&H ,vw;✓.trrrdestvrar:cr✓er.co:n MEMORANDUM GPI M� r) To: Heather Lanza, AICP, Town Planning Director SOUTHOLD TOWN Date: August 20, 2026 n _.t,IA�` °AR° F Subject: Strong's Yacht Center Revised Site Plan Submission Comparison As requested, we have reviewed the Amended Revised Site Plan Application submission materials received by the Lead Agency in July 2025 for the Strong's Yacht Center Project. The submission materials reviewed are as follows: • A Site Plan Application Form dated 7/18/24; and • An LWRP Consistency Assessment Form dated 7/19/24; and • A Full EAF Part 1 Form dated 7/19/24; and • A Revised Site Plan (13 sheets) dated 7/19/24; and • A Tree Removal Plan dated 10/1/24; and • A Proposed Landscaping Plan (2 sheets) dated 10/1/24; and • A Floor Plan and Building Elevations Plan (3 sheets) dated 10/1/24. Project Overview Previously, the Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings (the "Proposed Action") included the construction of two, one-story buildings of 52,500 SF and 49,000 SF for the purpose of providing indoor winter storage of larger yachts, up to 86 feet in length.A Draft Environmental Impact Statement("DEIS") dated December 2021, revised November 2022, was prepared and accepted as complete and adequate for public review by the Planning Board, as Lead Agency, on March 13, 2023 (the "revised 2022 DEIS"). The FEIS was prepared by the Planning Board, and the Notice of Completion was filed on May 6, 2024. The Town Planning Board then began to prepare the SEQRA Findings Statement (the "Findings"). The Findings were halted in anticipation of a revised Site Plan application to be submitted by the Applicant. The Town of Southold received a revised plan dated July 19, 2024, and an amended revised site plan on July 16, 2025 (the "Amended Revised Site Plan"). Review of the Amended Revised Site Plan was halted when the project was referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation based on the proposed height of the building. Once the issue was determined not to require a variance for building height on March 5, 2026, the review of the Amended Revised Site Plan was renewed. The following comparison of the application materials and recommendations has been prepared for the Lead Agency's review with respect to the continuation of the SEQRA review process. Project Comparison The original application submitted in 2018 proposed 101,500 SF of boat storage area to be contain in two buildings (Building No. 1 at 52,500 SF & Building No. 2 at 49,000 SF). The Amended Revised Site Application now proposes one yacht storage building, which is 62,310 SF in size. The revisions to the proposal have resulted in changes to various metrics as a result (i.e. area of disturbance, tree clearing, etc.). Key differences in the application are summarized in the table below and only account for how the application analyzed in the revised 2022 DEIS and the Amended Revised Site Application are represented in their respective submission materials and does not account for potential flaws in representations in those submissions. Comparison of Impacts Original Plan Current Plan Percent Change Disturbed Area 6.51 acres 5.17 acres -20.6% Cut 135,000 CY 83,650 CY -38% Building Area 101,500 SF 62,310 SF -39% Total Construction 13 months 8.4 months -35.4% Duration Excavation Duration 5.5-6.5 months 2.9-3.4 months -47.7% Total Excavation 9,000 5,578 -38% Truck Trips Average Excavation 8 7.75 -3% Trucks Per Day Mature Tree 634 477 -24.8% Removal Coastal Oak-Beech 4.32 acres 2.85 acres -34% Forest Clearing Southern Successional Forest 1.19 acres 1.31 acres +10.00% Clearing Note:This data summarizes what has been presented by the Applicant in the revised 2022 DEIS and in the Amended Revised Site Plan and does not account for flaws or errors identified in the FEIS Notice of Completion filed on 5/6/24 or in this document. The Amended Revised Site Application has been reviewed in the context of the large adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated as identified in the FEIS adopted by the Lead Agency in May 6, 2025. It is important to note that the comparison of the Amended Revised Site Plan to the proposal detailed in the revised 2022 DEIS is limited by the information made available in the Amended Revised Site Application. The information provided is not at the level of detail provided or analyzed in the DEIS. It is also important to note that a reduced scale alternative was identified in the scoping document for the DEIS; however, the DEIS described the reduced alternative as not being financially viable and did not provide additional analysis. Therefore, the reduced scale of the Amended Revised Site Application cannot easily be compared to any supporting analysis provided with the DEIS. SEQRA Process As previously noted, the SEQRA process for the Project was suspended at the development of a Finding Statement for the previously proposed project. As the next steps in the process, the Revised Amended Site Plan Application will need to be evaluated by the Planning Board, as Lead Agency. An updated EAF has been submitted as part of the Amended Revised Site Plan application materials. Based on our review of the updated EAF, the following comments need to be addressed: C.3.a—Zoning- R-80 should be added as a zoning district listed as there is clearing and construction of a haul road proposed through the portion of property in the R-80 zoning district. C.4.d—Parks- In response to the question regarding the parks that serve the project site, the answer provided states that this question is not applicable because the project site is a maritime use. However, the revised 2022 DEIS noted that `Building 1' on the project site contained a private one- story residence with a garage where the marina manager resides. The applicant should revise this response to list the surrounding parks that serve the project site. D.2.a.ii—Construction - The calculation of 3.4 —4.03 months assumes 30CY trucks at full load. For reasons elaborated upon later in this document and in the FEIS, it is our understanding that the 30CY trucks would not be able to carry full loads due to the weight of the material being hauled and the weight restrictions described in the revised 2022 DEIS. The Applicant should verify that the information presented in the EAF is correct. D.2.d — Septic - The calculation for liquid waste generated of 9 gallons per day (gpd), should be verified by the Applicant. The calculation was questioned in the FEIS when the proposal included two buildings instead of one and was 18 gpd. The DEIS did not adequately justify the proposed 18 gpd estimate. The most recent correspondence with the SCDHS (DEIS Appendix J), dated January 26, 2022, includes a Notice of Non-Conformance and a request for additional information. The DEIS states that consultations with the SCDHS are ongoing and that the Application has requested a variance from design flow standards. D.2.e— Impervious Surface-The answer includes an asterisk, but it is not clear what it is in reference to. Also, the calculation describes only what is new and does not describe the proposed total impervious surfaces in relation to project site. D.2.f— Fuel Storage-This answer should be yes and the proposed heating system and fuel storage for the heating system should be described. D.2.i—Construction -The applicant should confirm there will be no release of air pollutants from the open-air excavation of 83,650 CY of sand during construction. D.2.m.ii- Grading -The answer should be yes and the changes to topography due to excavation and the proposed tree clearing should be described. D.2.n.ii - Grading -The answer should be yes and the changes to topography due to excavation and the proposed tree clearing should be described. D.2.p — Fuel Storage - The applicant should confirm the capacity of the proposed propane storage tank for the proposed heating system is below 1,100 gallons. The proposed propane storage tank described in the revised 2022 DEIS was larger and any revision to the storage tank has not been specified in the Amended Revised Site Application E.2.f— Slope - The applicant has responded not for the Proposed Action site but"within project area only" which is an area that has not been defined. E.2.n.iii — Habitat - This has not been filled out completely or correctly. It is our understanding that this question refers to the extent of the community or habitat in acres on the project site and the degree to which that habitat will be reduced on the project site. E.2.e.iii — Historic Structures - The description of the Old Water Tower provided is not an adequate response to the question. E.2.g—Archeology-This answer should be yes and should describe the findings of the Supplemental Phase 1 B Archeological Assessment dated January 7, 2022. With the revisions of the EAF, the Planning Board can evaluate the Amended Revised Site Plan Application and determine if previous concerns that were raised by the Board regarding the size and the scale of the project have been adequately addressed by the new proposal. The FEIS also identified both flawed or incomplete analysis as well as significant adverse impacts that could not be mitigated. If the SEQRA process moves forward based on the Amended Revised Site Plan, these issues would need to be readdressed. Comparative Analysis of Previously Identified Significant Adverse Impacts Please note that this section does not provide a comparative analysis of all of the environmental topic areas of the DEIS and FEIS. It focuses on the unmitigated, significant adverse impacts identified in the FEIS document which were related to the excavation stage of construction. These included traffic, noise, and vibration impacts associated with the 30CY haul trucks proposed to remove the excavated material. The Amended Revised Site Plan materials did not contain any new technical reports to be able to make a detailed comparison beyond the information provided in the "Comparison of Impacts" table in this memorandum. The FEIS identified that, among other deficiencies in the estimation of construction related traffic, the revised 2022 DEIS and the Traffic Impact Study state that the construction truck traffic would not exceed weight limits established by State law and would comply with New York State Vehicle and Traffic law regarding the size of vehicles and the permissible weight of vehicles. The revised 2022 DEIS presented that the excavation of approximately 135,000 cubic yards of material would require 4,500 truckloads meaning 9,000 truck trips, 80 truck trips a day and an average of 8 truck trips an hour. However, the maximum allowable gross vehicle weight (MGVW) for trucks traveling most interstate highways in New York is 80,000 pounds. The DEIS states that the weight of the haul trucks proposed for construction is 32,500 pounds and the Gross Vehicle Weight of the vehicles is anticipated to be 107,000 pounds and there is no mention in the DEIS to the need for Divisible Load Overweight Permit obtained from the NYSDOT.Additionally, if the maximum weight of the haul trucks is assumed to be 107,000 pounds as stated in the DEIS, the weight of the trucks themselves is 32,500 pounds as stated in the DEIS, then the 30 cubic yards of material would need to weigh less than 74,500 pounds, or no more than 2,483 pounds per cubic yard. In the Geotechnical Report (DEIS Appendix H), Table 6 states that Stratum 1 (Reddish-Brown Fine Sand) will account for approximately 43,851 cubic yards excavated material and Stratum 2 (Tan Medium Sand) will account for approximately 84,852 cubic yards of excavated material. Together, these two strata represent 96 percent of the excavated material to be removed from the Site. Table 1 in the same document provides information on the weight of the sands found at the Project site. According to Table 1 in the Geotechnical Report, Stratum 1 sands from the Project Area weigh 110 pounds per cubic foot or 2,970 pounds per cubic yard, and Stratum 2 sands weigh 115 pounds per cubic foot, or 3,105 pounds per cubic yard. Both would exceed the maximum of 2,483 pounds per cubic yard needed to keep a truck carrying 30 cubic yards below the maximum weight of 107,000 pounds as stated in the DEIS. The Revised Amended Site Application does not include a revised Geotechnical Report addressing the revised excavation area or what percentages of Strata 1 & 2 are now present in the excavated material. But the revised FEAF Part 1 and comparative narratives provided as attachments still base the excavation truck traffic calculations on full 30CY truck loads which likely underestimates the number of construction truck trips. It is important to note that assuming the trucks would not exceed the 107,000 pounds stated in the DEIS, the trucks could hold 25CY of stratum 1 at one time or 24CY of stratum 2 at one time and if the haul trucks were made to comply with the State restrictions of 80,000 pounds, this would be even less. The Revised Amended Site Application identifies 83,650 CY of excavated material to be removed from the Site over the course of 2.9-3.4 months. Assuming 30CY truck loads, which for reasons stated above is unlikely, this would require 2,789 truckloads of material to be removed resulting in 5,578 truck trips. Assuming 12 weeks, at 6 days a week, Monday-Saturday, 10 hour days, 5,578 truck trips over 72 days would be approximately 77.5 truck trips a day with an average of 7.75 truck trips per hour. Comparing the Amended Revised Site Application to the revised 2022 DEIS,construction truck traffic would be 5,578 truck trips over 12 weeks, 77.5 truck trips a day, 7.75 trucks per hour, compared to 9,000 truck trips over 22 weeks, 80 truck trips a day, 8 trucks per hour. However, these calculations are based on the information provided in the FEAF Part 1 and assume full 30CY truck loads which is not likely based on weight restrictions. Therefore, it is expected that the number of truck trips will be greater than what is described here or that the weight of the trucks would exceed what is described. The DEIS Alternatives 2 and 7 that analyzed reducing the excavated material needing removal from the Site or alternative modes of transportation for the removal of excavated material have not been updated by the Applicant with the revised submission. However, the alternative mode of transportation investigated was the use of barges along the Mattituck Inlet and was deemed infeasible by the Applicant in the revised 2022 DEIS and the method for reducing the amount of excavated material needing transportation from the Site would require additional ecological impacts on the site. This was estimated to be 13,500 CY of material and increasing the area of disturbance by 8.6 acres in the revised 2022 DEIS but comparative analysis for the Amended Revised Site Application has not been provided. Construction traffic of the Amended Revised Site Plan would have an impact on traffic along the haul truck route, noise and vibration at the Site and along the haul truck route, and these impacts would also affect the community character, the public use of open spaces, and quality of life. The number of proposed truck trips has been reduced from the proposal analyzed in the revised 2022 DEIS, but since the construction timeline has also been reduced it still proposes 5,578 truck trips over 72 days which would be approximately 77.5 truck trips a day with an average of 7.75 truck trips per hour. The errors, unaddressed in the Amended Revised Site Plan, in the estimation of truck trips and weight suggest that either the number of truck trips required for excavation would be higher than what has been represented or that the weight of those trucks would be higher than what has been represented and so the noise and vibration impacts of those trucks would be greater. Next Steps for the SEQRA Process Once the additional information has been provided in the updated EAF and the Planning Board has evaluated the reductions in the site plan, the Lead Agency will need to decide if the Proposed Action has been reduced enough to move forward. The Amended Revised Site Plan reduces the total amount of excavated material by 38% but also reduces the construction timeframe by 34.5%, resulting in drop from 80 to 77.5 daily truck trips during the excavation phase. Misrepresentations of maximum truck weight and capacity identified in the FEIS, and unaddressed and unchanged in the Amended Revised Site Plan, suggest that these numbers are low and that the daily truck trips required during the excavation phase to maintain the represented time frame would need to be higher,or that the excavation phase would require a longer time frame.Alternatively, if the haul trucks were to be loaded beyond the weight capacity identified in the revised 2022 DEIS, it would suggest that the noise and vibration impacts of the excavation phase would be greater than what was analyzed in the revised 2022 DEIS and greater than what the FEIS identified as an unmitigated significant adverse impact. If it is determined that the Amended Revised Site Plan has been reduced enough to move forward with the revised plans, the flawed and incomplete analysis identified in the FEIS will need to be addressed.The Lead Agency would then initiate the process for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SETS) pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. If, in the Planning Board's opinion as Lead Agency, the Proposed Action has not been reduced enough to advance the Amended Revised Site Plan, the Planning Board is in a position to prepare the SEQRA Findings based on the record that has been presented in the DEIS and FEIS and the revised EAF and current application materials. Please let us know if you have any further questions or would like to discuss this memorandum in more detail. Malcolm M. Simpson, AICP Planner Sarah L. Brown, AICP Associate, Principal Planner CHARLES R.CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRIFFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD,NEW YORK Mailing Address: TEL: (631)369-8200 P.O.Box 1547 FAX: (631)369-9080 Riverhead,NY 11901 E-mail: charlescuddy@optonline.net March 30, 2026 Sv� Heather Lanza, Planning Director Pa+ HL'1 gG/ me Planning Department7MAR ,312026 Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 SOUTHOLD]OWN PLANNING BOARD Re: Strong' s Yacht Center Dear Ms . Lanza: Enclosed is a check payable to the Town of Southold in sum of $25, 000 . 00 to initiate the SEQRA process . Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC:dmc Enclosure CHARLES R.CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRIFFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD,NEW YORK �Mgili,i"ALrq:s�: TEL: (631)369-8200 P.O. Box 1547 FAX: (631)369-9080 Riverhead.,NY 11901 October 24, 2025 E-mail: charlescuddy@optonline.net M Q�T., E_ HAND DELIVERED Heather Lanza, AICP OCT 2 $ 2025 Town Planning Director ; ,.�,n . SOU i H`OLI+ r„�':;,+14 54373 Main Road PLANNING AOARD Southold New York 11971 Re: S trong s Yacht Center 5780 West Mill Road, Mattituck, New York SCZ`M No. 1000-106 . 00--06. 00-10&13 . 44 Dear Ms . Lanza: I received your note dated September 19, 2025 and forwarded it to my client . We were both surprised, not at the request but that the total could reach $100, 000 . 00 or more ' Since the same firm that previously completed the SEQRA analysis is being retained the request seems extraordinary. This is the same site with one storage building instead of two. This is a comparative analysis by a firm which should be entirely familiar with the proposal and impacts it may have. Under the circumstances the outside amount should not be greater than $50, 000 . 00 . Not parenthetically, based on H&H' s hourly fee schedule they would have to spend hundreds of hours to reach $100, 000 . 00". Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC: dmc OFFICE LOCATION: � MAILING-ADDRESS.- Town Hall Annex ", P.O. Box 1179 54375 'State Route 25 � Southold, NY 11971 (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) Southold NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 ww v.southoldtownny-gov o PLANNING BOARD OFF'ICE TOWN OF SOUTH:OLD September 19, 2025 Charles Cuddy Esq. P.C . Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re Strong's Storage Buildings 5780 West Mill Read, Mattituck SCTM#1000-100.-0-10 & 13.4 Dear Mr. Cuddy: Pursuant to Town Code Section 230-131 N, the Planning Board has hired a technical consultant, Hardesty & Hanover, to assist with the review of the Strongs application. Attached is their scope of work and hourly billing rates. The Town Board has authorized up to $100,000 for this work for this stage of the review. Note that the $100,000 figure is an estimate, and that may need to be increased in the future depending on the complexity of the review going forward. The Planning Board is requiring an escrow amount of$25,000 to be submitted and maintained over the course of this project. The consultant will bill us monthly. We will provide copies of those invoices to you, and request a replenishment of the $25,000 when it falls below $6,250. Please submit $25,000 at your earliest convenience so we are able to move forward with our review. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call this office at (631) 755-1933 Respectfully, Heather Lanza, AICP Town Planning Director % Z," N ILIN ADDRESS: ,d m PLANNINGBOARD MEMBERS P.O. Box. 1179 JAM ES H.RICH H III Southold, Y 119�71 Chairman OFFICE LOCATION MIA JEALOUS-DANK ANI IT Town lull.Annex. PIERCE f.AFFE T"Y � 54375 State Route 25 . MARTIN H.SIDOR (oor. Main Ed. Youngs Ave.)L OT ALD.J. TIL ENSI �ry �Fufll Southold T 1Y NIV,11 mmt Telephone: 631765-1938 www.southoldtownny.gov PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN of SQUTHoLD August 4, 2025 Sarah Brown, AICP, Associate, Principal Planner Hardesty & Hanover 411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206 South :ye,NY 10580 Re Request for Proposal to Provide Technical Assistance for the trong's Storage �ui.lding Site Plan Application Dear Ms. Brown: The Southold Town Planning Board is seeking technical assistance with the review of the site plan application referenced above, including the Mate Environmental Quality Review. The application has been revised since it was last reviewed by your company. PROJECT OVERVIEW Location: 5780 West Mill Road, Mattituck, NY, SCTM No.: 1000-106.-6-10 & 13.4 The site plan application before the Planning Board has been changed from the original that your firm reviewed previously. It is now for the proposed construction of one building for boat storage, instead of two. The parcel. remains the same at 32.6 acres in the MII and -80 Zoning Districts where there are 69,245 sq. ft. of existing boatyard buildings. For the original application, there was a Draft Enviromnental. Impact Statement (DEIS) entitled. Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings (dated as last revised in November, 2022) that was accepted and reviewed.. A.Final Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by your firm in May, 2024 .Page .I RFP—Strongs Storage Building And although the Findings were largely drafted for the original application, they were not adopted because the applicant notified the Board that they would be revising their plans, and wanted the revised plans to be reviewed instead. We have now received the revised plans and are seeking an estimate of the cost for your company to provide the following: 1. Review and compare the original application with the revised application and provide guidance to the Planning Board on the best course of action and next steps with regard to SEQRA. 2. Assist with SEQRA scoping. 3. Review an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and provide comments on whether it is adequate for public review. 4. Provide support as needed at the public hearing for the EIS. 5. Review and organize relevant and substantive public comments on the EIS. 6. Prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement: a. First Draft b. Make any revisions necessary after Planning Board& Planning staff review c. Final Draft 7. Assist with the preparation of Findings. The previous application and the current application are available for review online on the Town's Laserfiche/Weblink system at the following address: .,3,8.,8.228,,�'Webl,.""if'lk/B,ro'wse.a,.iL),x,"'licl=l'0,35,'79,6&"dbjd,=.O&t,- qp_ -4- ....................... ........ Please respond at your earliest convenience with a detailed work plan and cost estimate for each task. Upon receipt, we will work with you to prepare a contract and seek authorization from the Town Board to execute the contract. Please feel free to call 63 1- 765-1938 with any questions. Respectfully, Heather Lanza,, AICP Town Planning Director Page 2 CHARLES R. CUDDY Attorney at Lave 445 Gri ing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 Mailing Address: Tel: (631)369-8200 PO Box 1547 Fax:(631)369-9080 Riverhead,NY 11901 e-mail:charlescuddy@optonline.net :S v-P J6 ' July 16, 2025 P13 j H L i M0100 I L3C#1"'01 HAND DELIVERED James Rich Chairman ' JUL 17 2025 and Planning Board Members Ton of Southold SOUTHOLD TOWN PlAf4NIN,G BOARD PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 .e: Stron 's 'Ya.cht Center-Amended Revised Site Plan Lear Chairman Rich and Planning Board Members: We have amended the revised site plan,principally to reflect a wider fire lane(total 20 feet)behind the storage building. In this connection the square footage ofthe building has been reduced to 62,310. This amended plan results in a reduction In the original submission with respect to the sand removal 3 %, in the total building area by 39% and tree removal by 25%. This is more particularly set forth on the attached Schedule of Changes. As noted previously the storage of water dependent yachts as now 3 as opposed to 88 in the original submission. For review by the Planning Board we now enclose: 1. Application for Site Plan Approval 2. LWRP Consistency Assessment For . Full Environmental Assessment Form with Part I attachment 4. Applicant Transactional Disclosure Form 5. Applicant's Affidavit . Agent Authorization Form 7. Nine (9) sets of site plans . Nine (9) sets of landscape plans 9. Nine (9) sets of building elevation We would appreciate the board continuing its review of the Application. In particular we request a SEQRA. determination so that we may proceed with the Application before the .honing:Board of Appeals. Very truly yours, Charles R. Muddy CRC:d n.c Enclosures pp..� o SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD JUL 17 2025 SITE PLAN APPLICATION FORMSOUTHOLD TOWN RD PLANNING Site Plan Name and Location Site Plan Name: Strong's Yacht Center Application Date: 7 and Suffolk County Tax:Map#1000-_. 106 - 06 - w 10 CTM#sl 1000-106-06--13.44 Street Address- 5780 West Mill Road Hamlet: Mat t ituck Distance to nearest intersection: 10 0' East of au 'le s :Road Marine II (M-I I) Type of Site Plan: New XX Amended :Residential Zoning District Residential Law Density A(R.-80) wnersl e l Con,tact'Infor"Matlon Please list name, mai' hh-e.5.�, and l og e nu below.7 p ram,'s west Mill LLC Property Owner t mmmm�, mmmmmmmmmmm ..... Street 5780 West Mill Road City Mat t ituck State NY .p 119,52 Home Telephone 6 31-2 9 8-4 4 8 0 Other. ,c ,t Strang's Yacht Center LLC p pl­,i Street 5780 West Mill Road 0t,y Ma.ttituck State NY Z,],,p 11952 Home Telephone,- 631-298-4480 other Applicant's Agent orRepresentative: Contact Persons * Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. Street 445 Grif f ing Avenue City Riverhead State NY � 11901 Office Telephone,_ 6 31-3, 9-8 20 Other *Unless otherwise req'LMSted, correspondence will be sent only to the contact.person.noted here. ...........Site Plan App l i cati on Fonn 2118112010 Site Data Proposed construction type- x New Modification of Existing Structure Agricultural --- Change of use Property total acreage or square footage: 32.9559 aC, P hwl. Site Plan build-out acreage or square footage: 6 2,3 10 Is there an existing or proposed Sale of Development Rights on the property? Yes No X Ifyes, explain: ........... Does the parcel(s) meet the Lot Recognition standard in Town Code §280-9 Lot Recognition.9 Y X N If"yes", explain(and attach any necessary documentation-title report, subdivision approval, etc.) Building Department Notice of Disapproval Date:, 4 f 28 / 2025 Is an application to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals required? Yes x No If yes, have you submitted an application to the ZBA? Yes X No ,—,,, If yes, attach a copy of the application packet. --- ................... Show all uses proposed and existing. Indicate which building will have which use. If more then one use is proposed per building, indicate square footage of floor area per use, (attached) List all existin g pro pert y uses',', Residential, commercial List all proposed property uses,," Residential, commercial Other accessory uses,,: Existing lot coverage: Proposed lot coverage: 19 % Gross floor area of existing structure(s): 70,260 sq. ft. Gross floor area of proposed structure(s):,. 62,310 Partin g Space Data: 4 of existing spaces,- 9 of,proposed spaces: 57 Loading Berth: Yes No - o,indse Ex'ls,,t,,I.i,,i,,�6y'lan�ds,cape coverage: n/a Proposed landscape age cover -,—,,, .................... % ........... Wetlands: Is this property, within 500' of a wetland area? Yes X No May be ......................................................................... .................. the undersigned, certify that all the above information is true. Signature of Pre parer: Date:— 2 Site Plan Application Fori-pi 21.18,Aa 0 SCHEDULE OF CHANGES AMENDED REVISION REVISED PLAN ORIGINAL PLAN SAND REMOVAL V AL 3 8% (83fi50) 48% (705000.00) 135,000 TREE REMOVAL AL 25% (477) 3 0% (444) 6 BUILDING AREA 39%a (62,3 10) 35% 5,100 101,500 Sq.Ft. AC HT STORAGE 53 56 88 Southold, Plann*inl! Pe-Aartm,ent Applicant Transactional Disclosure Form The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of town officers and employees. The purpose of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. Your Name: Strong, Jeffrey Last,First,middle initial unless you are applying in the name ofsomeone else or other entity, such as a company. If so., indicate the otherperson's or company Ys name. Nature of Application: (Check all that apply) Subdivision or Re-subdivision Site Plan X Other(Please name other activity) Do you personally or through your company, spouse,sibling,parent orehild)have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship includes by blood,marriage or business interest. "Business interest"means a business,including a partnership,in which the to officer or employee has even a partial ownership of or employment by)a corporation in which the to officer or employee owns more than 5%of the shares. Yes No x If you answered"Yes"complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of the person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant)and the to of or employee. Either check the appropriate line A through D and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent or child is(check all that apply): A.the owner of greater than 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(when the applicant is a corporation),- B. the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a noncorporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation); C. an officer,director,partner or employee of teapplicant;or D.the actual applicant Description of Relationship: Submittedthis ay of Signature. Print Name Jeffery Strong Disclosure Form . PPLYLAl 1 I S AFFED r 11 APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT T STATE OF NEW YOR K COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Jeffrey Strong being duly sworn,, deposes and says that he resides at 1095 Westview Drive, Matt.ituck, New York in.the State of New York, and that he is the owner of property located at 1000-106-06--10 and T' uW " , , or that he is the t - Member ofthe trvn 's tc tenter LLC (Title) (Specify whether Partnership or Corp.) and said Corporation is the owner of the above property, which is hereby making a Site Plan application;that there are not existing structures or improvements on the land which are not shorn on the Site Plan;that the title to the entire parcel, including all rights-of-way,has been clearly established and is shown on said Plana that no part of the Plan inf-inges upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned bath as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans submitted, as approved,will not be alter or changed in any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be installed in strict accordance with the plan as approved by the Planning Board. Signed Owner Sind. (Partn,,,e o o prat r and Title) Sworn to me this day of NotaryJ uOlic HARL�S,,�, dp CUDDY Notgry Pubti State of Nei,York No.02CUS872225 Strong's Yacht Center 5780 West Mill Road Mattituck, NY 1195 2 1, Jeffrey Strong, Member of Strong's Yacht Center, LLC.,, hereby authorize Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. and David N. Altman, Esq. to act as attorneys and agents, and Young Associates and P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc.,, to act as agents, to handle all necessary work involved with the site plan application process for properties at 5780 West Mill Road, Mattituck, New York SCTM #1000-106-06-10 and 1000-106-06-13.4, with the Southold Town Planning Board Strong's Ya1c,bt Center, By: Jel Sworn to before me this day of July, 2025 ,LLU I 'll Ablarry' Public Penise A Cuddy Notary Public State oft' ew York No.011,CU6178,519 Suffolk County A 0, "1 ComissionExpres Dec. 3,20 Q-11 r. ilk V� IMF "y'Y4 ojU all, H � n fk eri J f , Ol «.IM to d ". � � r '" ,ew +a � �r �W b e W..y��y��, 7 ww'N M r « V e Af NIA i l �m���dN. nm W• mmrc ,,,' d w MM 4�,�+wow �e �m a aYr- P,mrrte'M�,wwm+.nmmmn� �w' vu mu uvnu.r.�M.ummnw"mY upo„aAmV'fXmm^ a, wn 0,1Yc ,r'AA �� b IMIL +f', i'ek' A 1 r. "*i,�.," •,r I f MIS �'"�' �'�"�, c 1!Y � w � �r � ;� CA I y fr pW n IIl�i �u p �w�' w•� ry�d �µ���,'�' � w "y If"-i r'�� �, „� i, a "-,w.,e�„ �" ,W,°d��M{��,�. ��� "�,flry�' �,.A;.' vyy���yi�; �W" f�, �"1 �� �wWMf��✓+uyrm wilW'L.�, uv���.k.b,��uu.'"weer all V,P�d'XM "�mmmmm �N� �,�. M9^^'�V. �,� Jr uu�i xyr< 'iW�+sm`r`9➢.� YY4rvHYe q II II A � m ,u w,w�wb o 11 b a� 1,ATIf 4A It ryy b r � `O b `', "b MNWr r. A • 17 N f i 1i # ` 4 " Loon Of'Sedon:.jout, east of a Road jr at t ge titue Site 3 ,955 acres, -- bo t storage c�� 1+� acres �—�� zone ...... ewft bnd usesMari,na, vacaut, ftevWzones t ° Ma In (Kroll) ................. 2. If r . o �o � has b filed with t Town of, rol fitoMHwiUS o bfimfione, ' r Namt a Yacht enter of appfipmnto, (b) ttitucks NY 11952 (c) T4ephoftnmba-,AreaCode( (d) APPficaflon m r,Wiff ft aWon be&e*vn&rftkeA, * Or Mmvg by;&shft or Ti s , �Yes T(O If ye�, 'Sub r ttor 01 bow,C by te n , c support the Policim3p."Ide an,PmPosaloat,mmagemen't athslt,wm f r %wh Pon Incempet _WMreqvke that the f of t churacters teffiient use �� of� coastal 'Pli? Open space�,makeslevwWatilon jaIM, mizes, e yes n No E], Not ApplIC-4, 10 M act �c t cte tip e, 1 o p,r,oj a c a use of a tc astal for the Storage c ot boa t�s Mimi m pol iq 1,.]?jrOtOct,md preserve reso uma of the Town o out�►OM '' � through ar es Xo Not Applicable I oil There ,e,, g2o..,kw=1 llb;Ls't t-I jag± Ate. I Rr. '_.aSjcmP._212gA"l t - t t would be adverlseLy !!!E b bhp Er2jecto a,sbwU if Owsw , quith"ty and �pretect,sallijo resources throughout the Town of Southoldl. Lw'RP Sem"olum' ''o-Pad' 'es Pages 16 throt07 fo,r evaluation CdIteriS *yes No NotApplicable li F h Z Me, VX011122'ed jij� RU $��e resourlees of the Totm of ISOUltholde u ergrbwd The, project w , , have no limp act on Visual 4a'iti g; 01 011 Oil- � ,1111,11 2 5 agricultural, LM4,o open space and natures gut°°Ce' from Molding and erosion.SeeLV ,fl''O'n,in, raga,S iffiramO16,for '`es No NotAppgable MOM Ova arl floor a tioa of W one boat r W s t, Uj,"='Z'jj' I 'OMNI Ill.0011to MI f looAkI.Il evowlAn. oil Ol ORGY and� e w.ater quality and m the Town of Southold.See-L Section through,21 for evaluation criteria Myes IV6 []Not l ble roll A- 10n, senal q4,O&O , o , �y �. There are �a ieut,� �� s ub'j4'c IIIIIII low J sum ifss 'p,ougy 6,,,,, P'rotect md witore the qu ftmedon of the TOVM Of'SOuthOld LWRP ecosystems, o t Coasta Fbh god Wildlife yes No []Not amble The bas, "b iiii,ftal-IMd to J.i w Mill function, of the of Southold, Y Mill �N NNittliml:tIng tauce and baybalala,* where proj le 4 u o's, 11 ba P, ead of clear �a � a ,R wwww 14 J� Wool id-Mbid,ill s in the 'down of Southold. See LMW Swfi0n M for 91 Yes' El P`o Not ApPlICAble The csecl set �e � e n all.........gggmx Tom. of Southolde e i �o, ba Tom of'Sloothold ftow, solid MAW, and bMWOUS 34 thriough 38 for ya No Not Appiicable Jill =Ie-,or t ........... JIM he :rCM� � �t hazardoUs, st$ JsUetati011 vlth4n the Towu of Bout ild tuvaud rgenaflowl use of, See LYM Section iui—Pondeq P490,38,thrsag,4 46 Ibr Md020OU crite Yes[:1 No NotAppliable M I W 'fie e+ct has been i� to rolvid for the �� nceime� t of arcce s to , and recre� � o r use of, a a �eT this act of t l dIN M COST POLICIES pongy 1,(Lp"tect $,"old's waftrwfteudatIuses and promoft,oft of now, wat"4vem" hwt am k suftaMe ko, &zwo, ScOLVMP SWOOD PdWb;Pages 47 duw mO 56 for o Yes El No sotAmmoble !�= as woo mommm MR ...........— osq,I'Ly, 1� Pwmute SotwbMAI' D wo'of'ov*g madne momm,In I V ULUT lid"P 57,Mmiu& 'r evWWation,CW*' Orb and ToM waft �p q.. i y * �, .o It [I Yes El No lqotA lip ORONO& 04 .......... .. ............. 040%NOWONOWN 11 Jill illjlllllll o t To"of& �, 'SeeLNW, Sw*lm,Ig, p#qWjesj*ft"62 swap"" rl '+ If. Not a, gr P woo. does wt Stet la� 3d ' .,9�P° ........ ,gyp. ..... ... _.. d O M I pionty, U. t e anrop*ft ISO od dove%"wt of CtSOMY "d miBWAI MOO,a& See polejeq pago 65*no&68 for evakation Yes [] o NotAppUmble IDA � ° Revised 7/10/2025 � , D By t V. PMAM Amen&don 811105 �FL Full En vzronmen tal A ssessmen t Form Part 1 -Project and► 'ettln, JUL 172025 S00"HOLD TOWN Instructions for Completing Part 1 PLANt4I N O 50 A R Part I is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification, Complete Part I based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information;indicate whether missing information does not exist, or is not reasonably available to the sponsor;and,when possible,generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A&B. In Sections+ ,D&E,most items contain an initial question that must be answered either",Yes"or"No". If the answer to the initial question is"Yes",complete the sub-questions that follow. If the answer to the initial question is"No",proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the applicant or project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part I is accurate and complete. A.Project and Applicant/Sponsor Information. Name of Action or Project: Revised Site Plan for Strong's Yacht Center-Proposed Boat Storage Building �mm Project Location(describe,and attach a general location map): 5780 West Mill Road,Hamlet of Mattituck,Town of Southold :Brief Description of Proposed Action include purpose or need): The proposed action includes a revised site plan for the Strong's Yacht Center(SYC)application for boat storage.The proposed action includes the construction of one,62,310 SF boat storage building to the west of the existing buildings on-sine. Approximately 83,650f CY of material would be removed for the placement of the proposed building at FFE 10 ft. The material removal would occur in two phases:Phase 1 -71,050±CY and Phase 2-12,600t CY.Upon implementation of the proposed,action,the M-11 zoned portion of the site utilized by SYC would be modified from 7 to 8 buildings,increasing the total GFA from 70,260t SF to 1 1, 10±SF(represents a 89t percent expansion),, Similar to the prier proposed action,a temporary haul road is proposed for construction for material removal,an evergreen concrete retaining wall would be constructed,as would the extension of the existing internal driveway to access the proposed building with pervious stone blend pavement and the creation of 23 new parking stalls.It is also noted that the setback distance of the proposed building to Mill Read Preserve would be 205.9t feet.See the attachment for a comparison of project data for the prior action and this revised site plan. Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone: 631-709-1108 Strong's'Yacht Center,LLC. E-Mail: jeff@strongsmarine.com Address:57801est Mill Road „„ +:o u ity/P J:Mattituck. State: Zip p Cod e: 11952 Project Contact(if not same as sponsor; � � p r;give name and title/role: Telephone:(631)369-8200 Charles Cuddy, Esq.,Project Attorney E-Mail: charlescuddyoptonline.net Address: P.O.Box 1547 City/PO: State: Zip Code Riverhead NY 11901 Property Owner if not same as sponsor): Telephone: mmmm w.wWW. .W. ry E-Mails: Address: + ity/Pt : Mate: Zip Code: Page 1 of 1 B. Government Approvals B.Government Approvals,Funding,or Sponsorship. ("Funding"includes grants,loans,tax relief,and any other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity If Yes-.Identify Agency and Approval(s) Application Date Required (Actual or projected) a.City Counsel,Town Board, 0YesF_1No Southold Board of Trustees-LWRP Consistency July 2024 or Village Board of Trustees and Wetlands Permit .................. b.City,Town or Village 0yesF_1N0 Southold Planning Board-Site Plan Review and July 2024 Planning Board or Commission Approval c.City,Town or E:]Yes[Z]No t Village Zoning Board of Appeals d.Other local agencies OYes[::]No Highway Supt.-Review temporary road apron July 2024 (Haul Road) e.County agencies 0YesF_1No SCDHS-Variance(granted),Water SCDHS-July 2018 Variance granted Sept. Su sal,SCPC Referral 2023.Site Plan Mod.to be fled 7/2025 I/Sanita,a Dispo f.Regional agencies [:]YesVINo g. State agencies OYesMNo Modification of NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Permit, July 2024(Wetlands Permit modification) NYSDEC SPIDES General Permit S PD ES prior to construction h.Federal agencies [:]Yes[Z]No i. Coastal Resources. i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area,or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? ®Yes[3No ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? 0 YesFINo iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? 0 Yes21No C. Planning and Zoning G.I.Planning and zoning actions. Will administrative or legislative adoption,or amendment of a plan,local law,ordinance,rule or regulation be the F_1Yes W1No only approval(s)which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? 0 If Yes,complete sections C,F and G. 0 If No,proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part I C.2.Adopted land use plans. a.Do any municipally-adopted (city,town,village or county)comprehensive land use plan(s)include the site EZ]YesF-lNo where the proposed action would be located? If Yes,does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action [Z]YesF-lNo would be located? b.Is the site of the proposed action within.any local or regional special planning district(for example:Green ay; OYes[:]No Brownfield Opportunity Area(BOA);designated State or Federal heritage area;watershed management plan; or other?) If Yes 5 identify the plan(s): NYS Heritage Areas:L1 North Shore Heritage Area ........ .......... c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, F-lYes[Z]No or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? If Yes, identify the plan(s): ............__-------- Page 2 of 13 C.3. Zoning a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. [Z]YesE]No If Yes,what is the zoning classification(s)including any applicable overlay district? —Marine II District ............. b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? W]Yes[ ]No c.Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? MYes[Z]No If Yes, i. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? C.4.Existing community services. a.In what school district is the project site located? Mattituck-CuLcho I-- I b.What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? Southold Police Deoartment ------ c.Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? Mattituck Fire D�gHrtrnent(Consultations undertaken and service aOi!Lityqonfirn2e,g,in comes ondence dated July.?T 2Q?I,) ................. d.What parks serve the project site? NIA-Pao e n as'Wattiklck a,ma-rdinip-tis _Ls ge Cm ............. Inlet Marina and Shipyard" ................ D.Project Details D.I.Proposed and Potential Development a.What is the general nature of the proposed action(e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial,recreational;if mixed,include all components)?Maritime commercial use(boat storage) b.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 32.96± acres ..........................' b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 5.17t acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 32.96± acres c.Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? ®YesF_1 No i. If Yes,what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units(e.g.,acres,miles,housing units, square feet)? % 86± Units: gross floor area(GFA) df Is the proposed action a subdivision,or does it include a subdivision? FlYes QT,;o If Yes, i. Purpose or type of subdivision?(e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial;if mixed,specify types) ­_M ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? F]YesEJNo iii. Number of lots proposed? iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum ....... Maximum e.Will the proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? OYes[_1No i� If No,anticipated period of construction: months ii, If Yes: Total number of phases anticipated 311, Anticipated commencement date of phase I (including demolition) 10 month 2025 year Anticipated completion date of final phase 6 month 2026year Generally describe connections or relationships among phases,including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases: .......... Phases I and 2 includes the excavation of rnatefials and rpgfa 'netudes,the construction of the retgininwall.one bui�pldDingl rg�di .�Pha�se 3,1 parXinq end al]-as Kin 11 infrastructure(drainage,water supply and 2 I/A OVVTS). NO Page 3 of 13 f.Doe I s the project in I clude new residential uses? nYes VINo If Yes,show numbers of units proposed. One Family Two F Three Family yllipj,,e,Family(Lour or more Initial Phase At completion of all phases g.Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction(including expansions)? 2]YesnNo If Yes,, i.Total number of structures 1 ii. Dimensions(in feet)of largest proposed structure: <35 feet height;, 186 feet width-, and 335 feet length iii. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: 62,310,square feet h.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any E]YesVINo liquids,such as creation of a water supply,reservoir,pond,lake,waste lagoon or other storage? If'Yes, L Purpose of the impoundment: ---------- ii. If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: F-1 Ground water❑Surface water streams nOther specify: ............... ... iii. If other than water,identify the type of impounded1containedliquids and their source. iv. Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: million gallons;surface area: acres v. Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: height; I length vi. Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure(e.g.,earth fill,rock,wood,concrete): D.2. Project Operations a Does the proposed action include any excavation,mining,or dredging,during construction,operations,or both? Des I` o (Not including general site preparation,grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) If Yes: i.What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? Modification of tape qLaphy to qc q ii. How much material(including rock,earth,sediments,etc.)is proposed to be removed from the site? 0 Volume(specify tons or cubic yards): 83,650±cubic yards(CY) 0 Over what duration of time? 3.4-4.03 months based_yp_pr�30 C,YPtr truck iii. Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged,and plans to use,manage or dispose of them. *See bottoMm cif oage. "-.iv. -1 1—there............be'-o""nsite de watering or processing.of excavated materials? Y e s No Ifyes,describe, ................ .......................... v. What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? 3.33±-acres vi. What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? 2.69±acres vii. What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? 3 8± feet mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm viii. Will the excavation require blasting? ElyesW] To Lr. Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: ............... b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of,increase or decrease in size of,or encroachment QYesZNo into any existing wetland,waterbody,shoreline,beach or adjacent area? If Yes: i. Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected(by name,water index number,wetland map number or geographic description): .,........................... .... .......... .......................... ............................................................................. ............ *Topsoil would be stripped from the excavation area and stockpiled on the site for use during site restoration. Stockpiled topsoil would be stabilized with temporary vegetation to prevent dust and erosion.Sand and gravel would be excavated with the excess material loaded into dump trailers for removal from the site.All excess soils will be transported to a registered or permitted facility in accordance with NYSDEC Part 360 or local site for re-use.The ultimate location is driven by market conditions and the local need. Page 4 of 13 ii. Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland,e.g.excavation,fill,placement of structures.,or alteration of channels,banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres: -------------------------­-----------iii.Will the proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? E]YesE]No If Yes,describe iv. Will the proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? M YesFINo If Yes: acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed.- expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion:, purpose of proposed removal(e.g.beach clearing,invasive species control,boat access): mmmmmmmmmm proposed method of plant removal, -------- if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used,specify product(s):. v. Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: c.Will the proposed action use,or create a new demand for water? ®Yes EJNo If Yes: i. Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: 399±*,gallons/day H. Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? ]Yes ONo If Yes: • Name of district or service area: Suffolk Coun,t u r ....... ,,y.Water A tho • Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? 21 Yeses No Is the project site in the existing district? ®Yeses No 01 Is expansion of the district needed? M Yeses No Do existing lines serve the project site? 91 Yesr-1 No iii. Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? EJYes WINo If Yes: Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ........ Source(s)of supply for the district: ..... ....... iv. Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? F1 Yes® o If,Yes: • Applicant/sponsor for new district: ....... • Date application submitted or anticipated: 0 Proposed source(s)of supply for new district: v. If a public water supply will not be used,describe plans to provide water supply for the project: ......... ............ vi.If water supply will be from wells(public or private),what is the maximum pumping capacity: gallons/minute. d.Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? 0 Yes EDNo If Yes: i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: 9± gallons/day H. Nature of liquid wastes to be generated(e.g.,sanitary wastewater,industrial;if combination,describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of each): ................. �ita wastewater ............... ................. iii. Will the proposed action.use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities`? MYes If Yes: 0 Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: ...... 0 Name of district: 0 Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? El Yes ONo 0 Is the project site in the existing district? M Yes E:]No 0 Is expansion of the district needed? M Yes E]No *Includes 9±gpd for bathrooms,32±gpd for boat washing(service prior to/ storage),and 358±gpd for the irrigation season. "Water Supply- tot the SCWA water main extension tothe subject property has been completed. Page 5 of 13 ---------- Do existing sewer lines serve the project site? [:]YesE]No • Will a line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? Fl Yes nNo If Yes: Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ........... iv. Will a new wastewater(sewage)treatment district be formed to serve the project site? nYesONo If Yes: Applicant/sponsor for new district: Date application submitted or anticipated: • What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge?............................. ------ v. If public facilities will not be used,describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project,including specifying proposed receiving water(name and classification if surface discharge or describe subsurface disposal plans): .1pli Q &t el eM N t� VV is w ter y M__kt Vi. Describe any plans or designs to capture,recycle or reuse liquid waste: e.Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff,either from new point 0Y`es n No sources(i.e.ditches,pipes,swales,curbs,gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater)or non-point source(i.e.sheet flow)during construction or post construction? If Yes: i. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel? Square feet or 1.45± acres(impervious surface) Square feet or 32.96± acres(parcel size) ii. Describe types of new point sources. The proposed building(62,310 SF) iii. Where will the stormwater runoff be directed(i.e.on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties, groundwater,on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? Installation of on-site leachIng,pools and French drains which includes the ULg f _ft(yiou�rvrvry ravel as storm,wate,,L92g,, a to r''a _n_ggment methpq§�....... ........................................................................................................................................ accommodate and recharge stormwater runoff from 4.93±acres .......... ............. If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: ..... Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? n Yes2l No iv. Does the proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces,use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? OYesnNo f. Does the proposed action include,or will it use on-site,one or more sources of air emissions,including fuel 0Yes No combustion,waste incineration,or other processes or operations? If Yes,identify: i.Mobile sources during project operations(e.g.,heavy equipment,fleet or delivery vehicles) ii. Stationary sources during construction(e.g.,power generation,,structural heating,batch plant,crushers) W. stationary s`ou­_r`ces,during operations(e.g.,process emissions,large b'o...............hers,electric generation) g.Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f(above),require a NY State Air Registration,Air Facility Permit, Yes I` or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit? If Yes: i. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet MYes F]No ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year) ii. In addition to emissions as calculated in the application,the project will generate: Tons/year(short tons)of Carbon Dioxide(CO2) Tons"year,(short tons)of Nitrous Oxide(N20) • T ol's I ,�year(short tons)of Perfluorocarbons(PFCs) Tons,/Year(short tons)of Sulfur Hexafluoride(SF6) • ... 'Tons/year(short tons)of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons(HFCs) r T I"ons/year(short tons)of Hazardous Air Pollutants(HAPs) Page 6 of 13 h. Will the proposed action generate or emit methane(including,but not limited to,sewage treatment plants., FlYesONo landfills,composting facilities)? If Yes: i. Estimate methane generation in tons/year(metric): ii.Describe any methane capture,control or elimination measures included in project design(e.g.,combustion to generate heat or electricity,flaring): ........................................................................ i.Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes,such as n esO No quarry or landfill operations? If Yes:Describe operations and nature of emissions(e.g.,diesel exhaust,rock particulates/dust): ........................ j.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial n eso No new demand for transportation facilities or services? If Yes: i, When is the peak traffic expected(Check all that apply): ❑Morning El Evening nWeekend r_1 Randomly between hours of to ii. For commercial activities only,projected number of truck trips/day and type(e.g.,semi trailers and dump trucks): iii, Parking spaces: Existing, Proposed Net increase/decrease iv. Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? ElYes F]No v. If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads, creation of new roads or change in existing access,describe'.." vi. Are public/private transportation service(s)or facilities available within 1/2mile of the proposed site`s nYesF]No vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid,electric F]Yesn No or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii.Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing nYes[:]No pedestrian or bicycle routes? k. Will the proposed action(for commercial or industrial projects only)generate new or additional demand ®YesE]No for energy? If Yes: i. Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: Would be less than 120/208 Volt,3-Phase,4-wire,2,000 arnp_s2,rvice ii. Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project(e.g.,on-site combustion,on-site renewable,via grid/local.utility,or other): _11PISEG L0n1g_!sla[1d,_ I iii. Will the proposed action require a new,or an upgrade,to an existing substation? []Yes®No 1.Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply. i. During Construction: ii. During Operations: 0 Monday-Friday: .......__7:00 AM-5:00 PM 0 Monday-Friday: 8:00 AM-4.30 PM 0 S aturd ay: 7:00 AM-5:00 PM Saturday: By Apt.Only 0 Sunday: I Sunday: ........ 0 Holidays: nnn Holidays: OWN ml *Using the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report "Trip Generation" (10th. edition) Land Use Code 420, Marina, is is based on the on the number of berths,there would be no change in traffic generation due tote project as the number of berths the marina provides is proposed to remain the same (i.e., 40 berths), SYC anticipates up to 8 new permanent positions at the subject property associated with the new building which will create some new traffic. It is assumed that all 8 new employees would work weekday siness rs s , t r i l to create enterin and 8 exiting trips in the evening. This is a small bu hou and as uchhey ae lkey 8 g trips in the morn i ng - number of additional trips and would not substantially increase traffic above present levels or result in substantial new demand for transportation facilities or services. Page 7 of 13 in.Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, 0 Yes No operation,or both? If yes: i. Provide details including sources,time of day and duration: Excavation and Constructi n-related activities Monda -Saturd 7:0-0-AM- m PM for 2.9­,3.4�n r Excavation Phase and 5,months,for 0 ifiep J_yn y' day, ionths fb y q Construction Phase ..................... ii. VJTfi'the p_r_op'o_­s_e_d action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? rl'Yes ONo Describe: n. Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? 0 Yes©No If yes: i. Describe source(s),location(s),height of fixture(s),direction/aim,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: 11 4-foo lAh,t,p L I Ale,�and wall-mougted,buildigg.scontes.AIL!M)ftwould be shielded and directed,downwards at an,(gte0§jft �SqMp le the Town Code(Outdoor Lighting) ii. W­111 proposed..............................—action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? El Yes 0 No Describe: ...................... o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? F1 Yes V1 No If Yes,describe possible sources.,potential frequency and duration of odor emissions,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: ...................... —---------- ....... ...... p.Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum(combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons) El Yes 0 No or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? If Yes: i. Product(s)to be stored ii. Volume(s) per unit time— (e.g.,month,year) iii. Generally,describe the proposed storage facilities: ............... q.Will the proposed action(commercial,industrial and recreational projects only)use pesticides(i.e.,herbicides, 0 Yes E]No insecticides)during construction or operation? If Yes: L Describe proposed treatment(s): In accordance with NYCRR Part 325 and Environmental Conservation C ILa rticl Psti o,, Y istgred Pesticide.ill�'s a Business with the N`YSDE *t des commercial plicat, ,,C alS�,,=il Ulln i io,n services. _yatic antifouli 'I paints are used 7 t ap �Ltic;nfi' --—— "'­.................­.............".1 �n — on vessel hulls, boat bottoms, structures and other marine surfaces to inhibit the growth of aquatic organisms. ......................... ............. ii. Will_th_e2"_roposed action—use 1"""ntegrated Pest Mann Practices? El Yes V3No r.Will the proposed action(commercial or industrial projects only involve or require the management or disposal 0 Yes (3,'No of solid waste(excluding hazardous materials)? If Yes: i. Describe any solid waste(s)to be generated during construction or operation of the facility: I*, Construction: 8-yd dump ter -0.8 tons per .............week(unit of time) • Operation 1/2 of 8-yd dumpster. .4 tons per week (unit of time ..................................................."­_............-....0— 11 1 U. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste: • Construction:All cardboard and lactic to be recycled through Town of,�Cuttiold. • Operation: „ill cardboard and,pLasfic_, LtLec 01 e e y!;!edwfth a local ng,Lne _y Town of Southold.Old batteries are 'T _gLq�m a�,q -�E I ........... oil that is not reused is recycled with a local company. iii. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on • Construction: py_p [,,would continue to b�eMp ied, aqer,AJLLE�EqqAof and, lastic to b�er qyg�d � ....................................through Town of Southold. • Operati n: Qy!T I�'ed weekt,( ?y lfqe9$, Rqy��arter.All cardboard and p asfic are recycled throu of Southold. Old batteries,are recycled with albca]company.Engine oil that is not reused is,recycle with a local company, .......... ........... Page 8 of 13 s.Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? n Yes 0 No If Yes: i. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site(e.g.,recycling or transfer station,composting,landfill,or other disposal activities). n. Anticipated rate of disposal/processing: Tons/month,if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment.,or Tonsihour,if combustion or thermal treatment iii. If landfill,,anticipated site life: years t.Will the proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation,,treatment,storage,or disposal of hazardous nYesoNo waste? If Yes: i. Name(s)of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated,handled or managed at facility:.............................. ............................... ........... ............ .............. ii. Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ................ M.Specify amount to be handled or generated tons/month iv. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: ............................................................................ �.n ...... ­­­­­ �Y�es �No­� V. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at existing offsite hazardous waste facility? If Yes:provide name and location of facility:, -—---------- If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility: E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action E.1.Land uses on and surrounding the project site a.Existing land uses. i. Check all uses that occur on,adjoining and near the project site. F1 Urban n Industrial ® Commercial 0 Residential (suburban) © Rural(non-farm) n Forest © Agriculture 0 Aquatic Other(specify):Regreationgi open s g a "Mal Roa Pr-eseryqj..... ii. If mix of uses,generally describe: b.Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Land use or Current Acreage After Change Covertype Acreage Project Completion (Acres L"";�7 Roads,,buildings,and other paved or impervious surfaces 2.62± 4.07± +1.45 Forested(C s u dw 17,,27±(12,60± 4.67±) 13.10±(9.75-+ 3.36±) -4.17 Sol"J"t"h9m' ' uo lie .11,11"t Meadows,grasslands or brushlands(non- 10.83± 10-25± -0.58 agricultural, including abandoned agricultural) ---—--------- Agricultural 0 0 0 (includes active orchards,field,greenhouse etc.) Surface water features 0 0 (lakes,ponds,streams,rivers,etc.) 0 Wetlands(freshwater or tidal) 0.63± 0.63± 0 Non-vegetated(bare rock,earth or fill) 0.29± 0 -0-29 Other Describe: Gravel/Lawn and Landscaping 1.08±/0.24± 3,48±*/1.43+ +2.401+1.19 *Includes 0.67±acre of haul road to remain post-development. Page 9 of 13 c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? 0YesF_1No L If Yes:explain: Project site includes a marina where community members dock and service thffil ersonal boats d.Are there any facilities serving children,the elderly,people with disabilities(e.g.,schools,hospitals,licensed nYesEZ]No day care centers,or group homes)within 1500 feet of the project site? If Yes, i. Identify Facilities: ...................................................................................... e.Does the project site contain an existing dam? MYesW]No If Yes: i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment: • Dam height: feet • D am length: ........... feet • Surface area: acres Volume impounded: gallons OR acre-feet U. Dam's existing hazard classification: iii. Provide date and summarize results of last inspection: ................ ........ f,Has the project site ever been used as a municipal,commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, 0Yes0No or does the project site adjoin property which is now,or was at one time,used as a solid waste management facility? If Yes: L Has the facility been formally closed? 0 YesF] No If yes,cite sources/documentation: ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility: ............ .................................................................................. ............W. Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: ........... ....... g.Have hazardous wastes been generated,treated and/or disposed of at the site,or does the project site adjoin MYesONo property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat,,store and/or dispose of hazardous waste? If Yes: i. Describe waste(s)handled and waste management activities,including approximate time when activities occurred: h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site,or have any MYesW1 No remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? If Yes: i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site FlYesE]No Remediation database? Check all that apply: F] Yes—Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): W.W, --------- n Yes—Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): F1 Neither database ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities,describe control measures: W. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Rernediation database? OYesONo If yes,provide DEC ID numbers): iv. If yes to(i),(ii)or(iii)above,describe current status of sites : ...................................................................... Page 10 of 13 v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? MYesg]No 0 If yes,DEC site ID number: ....... ........................ 0 Describe the type of institutional control(e.g.,deed restriction or easement): 0 Describe any use limitations-, 0 Describe any engineering controls: 0 Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? nYesnNo o Explain: --------- E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a.What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? 700±feet below grade surface b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? FlYesVINo If Yes,what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? ............... % -——------- ...... c.Predominant soil type(s)present on project situ Carver and Plymouth sands(CpE) 60+/-% Plymouth Loamy Sands(PIC) 40+/-% % d.What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: 1.0-2.5± feet above mean sea level(AMSL) e.Drainage status of project site sails.® Well Drained: 100%of site © Moderately Well Drained: of site © Poorly Drained _%of site f.Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: V] 0-10%: 50 %of site(within project area only) ® 10-15%: 4 %of site(within project area only) ® 15%or greater: 46 %of site(within project area only) g.Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? F]YesVINo IfYes,describe:........................................................ h. Surface water features. i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies(including streams,rivers, W]YesnNo ponds or lakes)? ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? EZ]YesnNo If Yes to either i or ii,continue. If No,skip to E.2.i. iii. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, VI Yes[]No state or local agency? iv. For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site,provide the following informatiow, 0 Streams: Name Classification 0 Lakes or Ponds: Name Classification Wetlands: Name Tidal Wetlands,Federal Waters,Federal Waters'.., Approximate Size • Wetland No. if regulated'by BE6.............. v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired 91 yes E]No waterbodies? If yes,name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: Name-Pollutants-Uses:Mattituck Inlet/Cr,Low,and tidal Cribs—Pathogens—Shellfishing i.is the project site in a designated Floodway? [:]Yesg]No j.Is the project site in the I 00-year Floodplain? ®Yes[:]No k.Is the project site in the 500-year Floodplain? W]Yes[:]No 1.Is the project site located over,or immediately adjoining,a primary,principal or sole source aquifer? VIYes El No If Yes: i. Name of aquifer:Sole Source Aquifer Names:Nassau-Suffolk SSA ........................................ ........ ............. .................................................................. ----------.................................. Page I I of 13 m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: ------- *See bottom of page n.Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? Yes[:]No If Yes: i. Describe the habitat/community(composition,function,and basis for designation): Maritime Beach,Marine Intertidal Gravel/Sand Beach ii. Source(s)of description or evaluation: **See bottom of iii. Extent of community/habitat: 0 Currently: 75.63, 170.02 acres 0 Following completion of project as proposed: — acres a Gain or loss(indicate+or acres o.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as YesFINo endangered or threatened,or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? If Yes: i. Species and listing(endangered or threatened):, Northern Long-eared Bat,Piping Plover p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare,or as a species of esNo special concern? If Yes, i. Species andst p ....................... q.Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting,trapping,fishing or shell fishing? OYes[:]No If yes,give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use.., brim act expected-SYC is a desi,gpated host for the CCE Marine Prgaram for shellfish restoration. E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site a.Is the project site,or any portion of located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to [JYesVJNo Agriculture and Markets Law,Article 25-AA,Section 303 and 304? If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: —------ b.Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? E]Yesg]No i. If Yes: acreage(s)on project site? ...... ii, Source(s)of soil rating(s): c. Does the project site contain all or part of,or is it substantially contiguous to,a registered National O Yes[ZNo Natural Landmark? If Yes: i. Nature of the natural landmark: F1 Biological Community Geological Feature ii. Provide brief description of landmark,including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: .............................. ....... ...................................................................... ................ ——-------------- d.Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? F]Yesg]No If Yes: i. CEA name: ............ ii. Basis for designation: ....... iii. Designating agency and date: ----- ........... ....... *According to Dr.William Bowman of Land Use Ecological Services,the site provides habitat for wildlife species inhabiting both early successional habitats and mature forest patches including approximately 84 it species, short-tai-led and masked shrews, opossum, various bats including northern long-earedbat, woodchuck,, meadow vole, white-footed mouse, pine mouse, raccoon, gray squirrel, cottontail, chipmunk, white-tailed deer, redback salamander, eastern box turtle,and eastern garter snake, "Ecological surveys were conducted at the subject site by Dr, William Bowman of Land Use Ecological Services on various dates in 2020 and 2021, The existing ecological communities present at the site include Coastal Oak-Beech Forests;successional habitats that have developed on former agricultural lands, including southern successional hardwood forests and successional shrublands; a small tidal wetland area associated with Mattituck Creek; and anthropogenic cover types such as mowed lawn with trees and landscaping,buildings,and paved and pervious road and parking surfaces. Page 12 of 13 I e.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district ®Yes[]No which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? If Yes: i. Nature of historic/archaeological resource: El Archaeological Site W]Historic Building or District ii. Name:Eligible property:MATTITUCK CREEK TIDE MILL(OLD MILL RESTAURANT), Eligible property:Water Tower and Building ............. iii. Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: ww�Old Mill Restaurant was a e- 19rist mill that began operation in 1821I.Old Water Tower no lonqer functions as suc����q�,nce .............................. f.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ©'Yes V1No archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory? ............... bYesoNo g.Have additional archaeological or historic site(s)or resources been identified on the project site? If Yes: i.Describe possible resource(s): ii. Basis for identification: h.Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal,state,or local MYesoNo scenic or aesthetic resource? If Yes: i. Identify resource- ii. Nature of,or basis—for,designation(—e.g.,-e—stabli established highway overlook,state or local park,state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.): ........... iii. Distance between project and resource: miles. i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild,Scenic and Recreational Rivers FlYesoNo Program 6 NYCRR 666? If Yes: L Identify the name of the river and its designation: .......... ii. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? nYesnNo ............... F.Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal,please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G. Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. Strong's Yacht Center,LLC Applicant/Sponsor NameAttn:RW.Grosser Consulting,Inc as Environmental Consultant Date 7/19/2024;Revised 7/11/2025 KSlgliattue Title Senior Environmental Planner------------ Katelyn Kaim,AI PRINT FORM Page 13 of 13 EAF Mapper Summary Report Monday, July 8, 2024 6:14 PM Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental assessment form(EAF),.Not all questions asked in the EAF are answered by the EAF Mapper.Additional information on any EAF question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks,, Although T, 3 the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC,you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order Al to obtain data not provided by the Mapper,Digital data is not a substitute for agency determinations. o41 71 frA, rl A I b an ri Za ER,E (3 a 4 J11"1`4-17''E1,111' 1,0 110 "IN," Evi I (i-P,E E I T P [%r-,', E J E i,E� F C", ri z 7 r m F,q E f II,-i r F Sr 1,f`�I a t,f t 11, 7' 'T If-t,- 71 Ovl g I, a -k 7,6 P11 G B.i.i [Coastal or Waterfront Area] Yes B.i.ii [Local Waterfront Revitalization Area] Yes C.2.b. [Special Planning District] Yes -Digital mapping data are not available for all Special Planning Districts. Refer to EAF Workbook. C.2.b. [Special Planning District- Name] NYS Heritage Areas:Ll North Shore Heritage Area E.1.h [DEC Spills or Remediation Site- Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Potential Contamination History] Workbook. E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site- Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Listed] Workbook. E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site- Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Environmental Site Remediation Database] Workbook. E.1.h.iii [Within 2,000'of DEC Remediation No Site] E.2.g [Unique Geologic Features] No E.2.h.i [Surface Water Features] Yes E.2.h.ii [Surface Water Features] Yes E.2.h.iii [Surface Water Features] Yes- Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. E.2.h.iv [Surface Water Features -Wetlands Tidal Wetlands, Federal Waters Name] E.2.h.v[Impaired Water Bodies] Yes E.2.h.v[Impaired Water Bodies- Name and Name- Pollutants-Uses:Mattituck Inlet/Cr, Low, and tidal tribs—Pathogens— Basis for Listing] Shellfishing E.2.i. [Floodway] No E.2j, [100 Year Floodplain] Yes E.2.k. [500 Year Floodplain] Yes Full Environmental Assessment Form -- EAF Mapper Summary Report E.2.1. [Aquifers] Yes E.2.1. [Aquifer Names] Sole Source Aquifer Names:Nassau-Suffolk SSA E.2.n. [Natural Communities] Yes E.2.n.i [Natural Communities-Name] Maritime Beach, Marine Intertidal Gravel/Sand Beach E.2.n.i [Natural Communities-Acres] 75.537 170.02 E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species] Yes E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species- Northern Long-eared Bat, Piping Plover Name] E.2.p. [Rare Plants or Animals] No E.3.a. [Agricultural District] No E.3.c. [National Natural Landmark] No E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area] No E.3.e. [National or,State Register of Historic Yes-Digital mapping data for archaeological site boundaries are not Places or State Eligible Sites] available. Refer to EAF Workbook. E.3.e.ii [National or State Register of Historic Eligible property:MATTITUCK GREEK TIDE MILL(OLD MILL RESTAURANT), Places or State Eligible Sites-Name] Eligible property'Water Tower and Building E.3.f. [Archeological Sites] No E.3.i. [Designated River Corridor] No Full Environmental Assessment Form- EAF Mapper Summary Report 2 Revised Site Plan for Strong's Yacht Center-Proposed Boat Storage Building FEAF-Part I Athashimu,Un The following table summarizes the changes from the current modified site plan(April 2025),the prior modified site plan(July 2024)and the prior action evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact statement(DEIS)revised November 2022. Current Modified Site Prior Modified Site Prior Action(DEIS) Change from Prior Action Plan(April 2025) Plan(July 2024) and Current Site Plan Number of Proposed Buildings 1 1-1 2 Elimination of 1 building, Gross Floor Area(GFA)of New 2,3 65,100 SF 101,500 SF GFA reduced by 39,190 SF Buildin Construction J39%reduction in. Number of Yachts to be Stored(Est.) 53 Yachts 56 Yachts 88 Yachts Reduced by 32 yachts (39%reduction ,in lac is Total Excavation Required 83,650±CYM 70,000±CY 135,000±CY Reduced by 51,350±CY (38%reduction in 2at�eria�.... Est. Truck Trips for Excavation 5,576±truck trips 4,666±truck trips 9,000±truck trips Reduced by 3,424 truck (Assumes 30 CY trucks) (2,788± truck trips in (2,333± truck trips in (4,500±truck trips in and trips (38% reduction in and out and out I .--.1-2.U� truck,L_pj ..................................... Construction Duration (Excavation 3.4-4.03 months/5 2.9-3.4 months/5 5.5-6.5 months/6 months Reduced by 2.1-2.47 Phase/Construction Phase) months months months/1 month (47%reduction/16% reduction Project Area(overall land area 5.15±acres 4.99±acres 6.51±acres educed by 1.36± acre _yfff cted by thUr21Eqt1 21,%reductionL ..................... Construction Excavation Area and 3.3 3±acres 3.36±acres 4.59±acres Reduced by 1.26± acres area to be excavated to accommodate (27%reduction) aFFE10 Lorb coat star gggl ............. Area of Coastal Oak-Beech Forest to 2.85±acres 2.74±acres 4.32±acres Reduced by 1.47±acres be Removed (34%reduction) Tree Clearing(>6winch Diameter) 77trees 444 trees 634,trees Reduction by 157 trees red op Existing Trees to Remain(>6winch 1,931 trees 1,964 trees 1,774 trees Increased by 157 trees Diameteri increase New Trees to be Planted On-Site 103 trees 102 trees 135 trees Reduced by 32 trees(24% reduction) Additional Water Demand and 9 g p,d B ased upon 152 9± gpd (Based upon 18±gpd(Based upon 304 Reduced by 9 gpd, Sanitary Waste Generation from SF x 0.06 gpd/SF 152 SF x 0.06 gpd/SF SF x 0.06 gpd/SF[density (50%reduction) Non-storage(bathroomsl ensit�..loa dD Idensityload]) load],)........... _�d ................. Water Demand for Boat Washing 220±gallons/year/boat 220± 220± grallons/year/boat Reduced by 21 gallons per (Service prior tolafter storage) or 32 gallons per day for gallons/year/boat or 53 gallons per day for day)(39%reduction) the 53 yachts) (or 34 gallons per day the 88 yachts) forth e ac�ts Irrigation Demand(from existing on- 358± gpd for the 302± gpd for the 437± gpd for the Reduced Increased by 135± site wells) irrigation season irrigation season irrigation seasoWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWmn gpd 1 reduction). Source of Potable Water ater main SCWA (water main SCWA (water main No change extension co m fete extension co m extension com lete d 2leted) 2,'S Pro used Sanity 'Waste S stems I/A OWTS ��S ���"I/A OWTS o c e Liquid Propane Gas(LPG)for 2-2,000 gallon tanks 2-2,000 gallon tanks 4-2,000 gallon tanks Reduced by 2 LPG tanks Radiant Heating 5Q!�p reduction) Setback Distance of New Building 205.9 ft/147.2 ft 178 ft 147.2 ft 135 ft/105 ft Increased setback by 70.9 to Mill Road Preserve ft/42 ft Boundary/Limit of Clearing (52%increase in Distance to Mill Road Preserve ,set back/40%increase in Boundary(2) setback) Setback Distance of New Building .1 ft 202 ft 121.7 ft Increased setback by 76.40 to SCTM No.1000-106-6-13.7 ft Boundary -[[63%increase in setback) 'Notes: (1)As the proposed building was shifted fur-ther into the bluff side per recommendations from the Southold Fire Marshal,more cut is required for the construction oft e proposed building.Thus,more material would be excavated when compared to the prior modified site plan(July 2024);however,it would still be less than the prior action(DEIS). (2)The revised site plan decreases potential impacts tothe 27-acre Town of Southold Mill Road Preserve by increasing setbacks from of the proposed boat storage building and clearing limits tote preserve boundary.As shown in the comparative summary table above,the minimum setback between the building and the Mill Road Preserve has increased from 135 feet(prior action)to 205.9 feet(current modified site plan[April 20251). Additionally, the modified site plan indicates that the limit of clearing would be 147.2 feet from the Mill Road Preserve boundary at its closest point,compared to 105 feet for the prior action.The total area of the Mill Road Preserve that may be potentially impacted by edge effects associated with the new clearing limit for the current modified site plan is approximately 0.16 acres(6,969 SF)ofthe 27-acre Mill Road Preserve compared to 0.38 acres(16,419 SF)for the prior action. This reduced area subject to new or enhanced edge effects accounts fora roxi ately 0.9%of the 18-acres of mature oak-beech forests in Mill Road Preserve. Thus,the current modified site plan would not be expected to have significant adverse impacts on the forest habitat quality of the Mill Road Preserve. 2 aY res It See the attached correspondence and covenant language from the SCDHS, which confirms granting of the variance from the Board of Review on September 14,2023 for a density lead of 0 gpd/SF for boat storage. The application for permit for the two (2) I/A►(OwTS(one of which would serve as a replacement system for the current individual on-site sanitary system that serves the office,marina and ether S'YC buildings)requires the filing of the covenant language,final site plan.,and SEQ,R determination. Cultural Resources See the attached correspondence from the New York State {Office of Parks, Recreation and. Historic Preservation C OPR.HP) demonstrating the ,subject property and prior action have been reviewed, have received. a Determination of No Impact on archaeological resources,and a Determination of No Impact on historic resources with the implementation of the Construction Protection Plan (which would also be implemented for this modified project).The Construction Protection Plan is included in Appendix R of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,Revised November 2022 for the prior action. Fire Protection See the attached correspondence from the Southold Fire Marshal and Mattituck Fire Department demonstration prior review and the determinations that the site can be serviced and review of the site plan by the Town.It is noted that correspondence was sent to bath the Southold Fire Marshal and Mattituck Fire Department on November 19,2024 to advise of the July 2024 modified site plan from two buildings to one building. In correspondence dated December 9, 2024 the Mattituck fire Department indicated that the department has the"capability to handle any fire situation on the proposed plan."As the current modified site plan(April 2025)includes a similar one building layout with a smaller footprint,it is assumed that the Mattituck Fire Department would still be able to service the building during a fire situation.Through further consultations with the Southold Fire Marshal in January-February 2025,the Fire Marshal recommended that the proposed building be shifted further into the bluff side and that more separation distance be provided between the proposed building and retaining wall.Thus,the current modified site plan(April 2025)responds to such comments. 3 Ir �' i r lr �vu r % r tin � tirn.; GY l�n a� o f fir" ,s r f , r 7 r r r r ri i �r r� ^ w,r�✓„w lwNx�',�f'� r N4 Y llo n;^ 041 wo Stir i 6 s U" r N r� svI iN ,I Jr � v f c l� LEGEND Figure 1 - Site Location M a p Site Boundary Feet Strong's Yacht Center 0 11000 2,000 31000 41000 51000 5780 West Mill Road Mattituck, NY Document Path- ,\Projccts\5.\STR\DFIS\maps\HGO] Site t.oc:ariorl,rwo(d S uurres.1,,EServozz tayzr,Cr�dut.s.Sz rcrs.Csi,HERE,Carrr�nA ISCS,Ume^.rn ajp,INCREMENTPa Nfmna EsriJapan,lAICIp BGnhOa(Hcrp,Kc"E�u EsH UrGcu,Lsu�"�unrrd� b��C���� z�r�Rur_CCdUaIb rrtuuaIuHi im:mI id.Fi_(5 Us lnY r�,.iCrrrrlllrVt[( EsH,HERE,Garrmr n,(c)C pcnStrcetMap conrributors,and the CIS user c.esrrmun qi 630.�x,� Source B6,DigitaQ¢SOr be,GcoEye,Ear-thszar Geo raphics,C:NES/Mrlbus DS,USDA,USGS,Ae:roGRID,I I I,and the GIS User Community Pro rrmn I SuffcA a County Tax ParcO Datum NYS GIS C'IParinghcmusen:(data provided by Suffolk crumyt i SPECIAL LANGUAGE 2. The DECLARANT appeared before the Board of Review of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services requesting a variance for the use of a hydraulic load rate for proposed general industrial buildings which does not comply with the standards as required by Article 6, Section 760-604, paragraph A.2 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, and the Board of Review of the County of Suffolk Department of Health Services granted -a variance by letter dated September 14, 2023, attached hereto as Schedule and made part hereof, provided a covenant is filed. The DECLARANT, its successors, heirs, or assigns., agrees: a. As a condition for the approval by the DEPARTMENT of such application, DECLARANT covenants that the parcels known as Suffolk County Tax Map numbers and as outlined in plans prepared by and dated on file with the DEPARTMENT, shall, by title, be forever deeded together to form one common parcel and shall never be deeded or conveyed independently of each other. The aforementioned tax parcels have been merged for density purposes under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Furthermore, the DECLARANT agrees that there shall be no subdivision of the merged parcel without DEPARTMENT approval. b. As a further condition of approval by the DEPARTMENT of the application, the DECLARANT covenants that a water line casement for the benefit of neighboring Suffolk County Tax Lot number 1000-106.00-06.00-013.007 (Tax Lot 13.7) will be provided upon request front the property owner of Tax Lot 13.7, The easement area shall be in a mutually agreed upon location and as close as possible to the right-of- way serving Tax Lot 13.7. The casement shall allow for the purpose of placement, installation, maintenance, repair, inspection and replacement of the water lines. The cost of installation,, maintenance and repair of said water lines and to restore the area to its original condition after installation, maintenance, repair, inspection and C10-18-0010 10/13/23 replacement of such service utilities shall be borne solely by the party, their heirs, successors and/or assigns, which shall be granted the easement. c. As a further condition of approval by the DEPARTMENT of the application,, DECLARANT covenants that the 61,205 sf of existing storage and 101,196 sf of proposed storage will be limited to the storage of boats only and the space will not be utilized by any employee or any person except for placement and removal of the stored boats and/or routine maintenance of utilities, boat storage equipment and/or storage racks. The boat storage areas shall not be used for any other purpose. d. As a further condition of approval by the DEPARTMENT of the application, i1cation, DECLARANT covenants that the boat storage areas shall not contain plumbing of any type except for piping associated with the fire protection system or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning CHVAC) system. The boat storage areas shall be permitted to have an HVAC system only to the extent necessary for the preservation of stored boats. e. As a further condition of approval by the DEPARTMENT of the application, DECLARANT covenants that any change of use of any of the buildings on the parcel shall require the property owner to submit an application to the DEPARTMENT for approval. C10-18-0010 10/13/23 COUNTY OF SU FFOLK EDWARD P. ROMAINE SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES GREGSON H. PIGOTT, MD, MPH Commissioner THOMAS WOLPERT, P.E., YOUNG & April 3, 2024 YOUNG Notice#: 13 400 OSTRAN DER AVE RIVERH EACH, NY 11901 STRONG'S YACHT CENTER Tax Map: 1000106000600010000 Record ICE: C10180010-ZEC Notice ° . n to iAaion THOMAS WOLPERT, P.E., YOUNG & YOUNG , This office has reviewed your application for the above referenced project. The following will be required prior to any further processing of the application for approval to construct: (1) Preliminary approval of this application is pending completion of covenants as per the BOR Determination — covenant package and special language previously uploaded to portal. (2) Update site plan to account for the storage area of the buildings at 0.04 gpd/sf in the density calculations and utilize 0.00 gpd/sf for the storage areas when hydraulically sizing the sanitary systems for existing and proposed buildings on the site. (3) Approval from the Office of Pollution Control for the proposed abandonment of existing sanitary structure(s) is required; contact Nicole Johnson at 631-854-2533 for requirements, (4) Submit a Town of Southold Wetlands permit or non-jurisdiction letter. (5) Submit a SEQRA Determination from Town. (6) Submit revised plans with PE signatures/seals. To avoid delays in the processing/approval of your application, paperwork and documents should be submitted using the ww .li sae oftal. Electronic submission will ensure priority processing. Please note that alterations of surveys/plans must be made by a licensed design professional or surveyor and be properly certified. Photocopies of documents and penciled in corrections are not acceptable. Please do not hesitate to call (631) 852- 5700 with any questions. DIVISION I LIT _OFFICE OF WASTEWATER 360 Yaphank Avenue, i ,Yaphank, NY 11980 Page 1 of ( 1)852-5700 1 Fax( 31)85 2-S S.S Regards, Adrian Casillas Assistant Public Health Engineer CC: STRONG'S YACHT CENTER DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY-OFFICE „ 360 Yaphank Avenue,Suite 2C,Yaphank, NY 11980 ( 51 52-5700 1 Fax 51), 52-5755 ����2�f� NEWYORK STATE OF Parks, Recreation, OPPORTUNITY_ and Historic Preservation KATHY HOCHUL ERIK KULLESEID Governor Commissioner January 24, 2022 Mr. Charles Vandrei Agency Historic Preservation Officer NYS Environmental Conservation Division of Lands and Forests 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-4255 Re: DEC Strong's Yacht Center—Proposed Boat Storage Buildings 5780 W Mill Rd, Mattituck, Suffolk County, NY 11952 21 PR04396 Dear Mr. Vandrei:, Thank you for requesting the comments of the Division for Historic Preservation of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). We have reviewed the submitted materials in accordance with the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (Section 14.09 of the New York Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law). These comments are those of the Division for Historic Preservation and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources. We have reviewed the report of the supplemental Phase 113 archaeological investigation (No. 22SR00015) and no archaeological sites were identified. It is OPRHP's opinion that no additional archaeological investigation is needed. Please note that OPRHP is still evaluating the project's potential to impact historic architectural resources. If further correspondence is required regarding this project, please refer to the OPRHP Project Review (PR) number noted above. If you have any questions, please contact me via email. Sincerely, ............ Tim Lloyd, Ph.D. Scientist-Archaeology timothy.Iloyd@parks.ny.gov via e-mail only New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Division for Historic Preservation,Peebles Island,PO Box 189,Waterford, New York 12188-0189 (518)237-8643-https://parks.ny.gov/shpo New York.State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation KATHY HOCHUL ERIK KULLESEID Governor Commissioner May 25, 2023 Charles Vandrei Agency Historic Preservation Officer NYS Environmental Conservation Division of Lands and Forests 525 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-4255 Re: DEC Strong's Yacht Center-- Proposed goat Storage Buildings 5730 W Mill Rd, Mattituck, Suffolk County 21 PR04395 Dear Charles Vandrei Thank you for your continued consultation with the Division for Historic Preservation of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). We have reviewed the submitted materials in accordance with the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1930 (Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law). These comments are those of the Division for Historic Preservation and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources. We have reviewed the submission received on May 3, 2023, including the Vibration Report-- which includes the Construction Protection Plan --dated November 3, 2022. Based on that review, it is the OPRHP's opinion that the project, as described, will have No Adverse Impact on historic or archaeological resources provided the following condition is met: The Construction Protection Plan will be implemented as described in the Vibration Report. Should you be unable to meet this condition, consultation with our office will resume. If you have any questions, you can call or e-mail me at the contact information below. Sincerely, Robyn Sedgwick Historic Site Restoration Coordinator e-mail: rob n.sed wick arks.n . ov cc: M. Terry--Town of Southold CRIS List New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Division for Historic Preservation,Peebles Island,P0 Box 189,Waterford, York 1213 -0139 518 237-3 3•https-Hparks.ny.gov/shpo Ir 1 Chief Secretary JA► ES COX JR. BRIAN WILLIAMS First Assistant Chief f Treasurer ROBER'T`M.HA.AS TI-ERESA WELLS , % ms ,, Sr-rgeant-at-.Ai Second �i tt Chief ,�, 1 Rt�BER'T SI3A� S .L.)■ N.i'r FI C NERr Chaplain JAMES L.MURPHY ,`° 191 1741 UCK FIRE M*'qATTI o DEPARTMENT December 9, 2024 PWG C Attn: Kim Gennaro-oancea 530 Johnson Ave ;quite 7 Bohemia, NY 1171 Re: Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings 5730 Mill rid, Mattituck NY 11952 Gear Ms. Gennaro-( ancea, The Mattituck Fire Department Chiefs have reviewed the proposal of the one additional building with fire suppression systems and nearby additional propane tanks. Mattituck Fire Department has the capability to handle any fire situation on the proposed plan with the additional hydrant that is being installed. If you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me at 6311-603- 4571. Sincerely James R Cox ,Jr Chief of Department Mattituck Fire Department P.O.Box 136 1000 Pike Street • Mattituck,NY 11952-0+66+6 Main.(631)298-8833 - Fax(631)298-1994 • Chiefs(631) 298-8852 - Fax(631)298-8858 www.matti*tur,kf(i.org RAnC CLJeN-r,,DR1VEzN SOLUTIONS MEMORANDUM Date: November 19,2024 To Mattituck Fire Department,Attn:Fire Chiefs Chief James Coy ifo l�a'.� , Chief Robert Haas (�' a and Chief Steve Ficner se @gym 9. From: Kim Gennaro-Oancea,AICP CEP",Mice President Subject: Application for New Peat Storage Building at Strong's Yacht Center This firm is serving as environmental consultant to the Strong's Yacht Center(SYC),which is seeping approval from the Town of Southold Planning Board for the development of a new boat storage building(65,100 square feet)at its existing facility located at 5780 Mill Road in the hamlet of Mattituck.In 2021,SYC had an application to develop two boat storage buildings(total gross floor area: 101,500 SF)and,at that time,this firm.consulted with the Mattituck Fire Department to solicit comments and confirm its ability to service the proposed development.By letter dated July 27,2021,former Chief Ed Rittberg of the Mattituck Fire Department indicated that the Mattituck Fire Department"has the capability to handle any fire situation on the proposed plan with the additional hydrant that is being installed." (copy enclosed). The purpose of this correspondence is to advise the Department of the project modification from two buildings to one building,and to secure an updated opinion on the ability to serge the development. Aswith the original project scope, a new hydrant would be installed, and the proposed building would be equipped with fire warning and fire suppression systems. Access to the SYC property is from the eastern terminus of West Mill Road and as part of the proposed development,the existing internal driveway would be extended for vehicular access to the proposed new building.Also,a temporary haul road from vilest Mill Road across the undeveloped lands to the SYC property would be installed for use during construction and would remain in place for emergency access,if required.As such,access to the site would be provided via the existing driveway from West Mill Road and emergency access from the higher elevation would be available From the haul road off Mill Read.The haul road would be gated to prevent unauthorized access.Finally,a Fire Safety Plan would be developed for the modified plan, which would provide hazard locations, utility and water supply information,,and emergency procedures for its employees.A copy of the site plan is enclosed. We respectfully request your comments in writing, particularly related to the Department's capability to service the new building. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call or email me at cQ ;or the applicant,Jeff Strang at ip Thank you. cc, Jeff Strong Charles Cuddy,Esq. David.Altman,Esq. ---------------------------- Emu= I----------- .................................................. Yt r r -I r w s • i .. +631.589.6 353 PIGC.INECI PWGCISSI11 BOHEMIA - MA.NHATTAN - SARATOGA. SPRINGS • MO TICELLO - SYR.ACUSE • SHELTON, CT 1 T III O�iI Il ltl a IUb n 111 E n N MEMORANDUM Date: November 19,2024 To Bob Fisher,Southold Fire Marshal From: Kim Gennaro-Oancea,AICP CEP,vice President Subject: Application for New Boat Storage Building at trong's Yacht Center This firm is serving as environmental consultant to the Strong's Yacht Center(SC),which is seeking approval from the Town of Southold Planning Board for the development of a new beat storage building(65,100 square feet)at its existing facility located at 5780 Mill Road in the hamlet of Mattituck.In 2 02 1,SYC had an application to develop two boat storage buildings(total gross floor area: 101,500 SF)and,at that time,this firm consulted with the Southold Tire Marshal to solicit comments.By letters dated June 24,2021 and.August 19,2021 from James Easton,former Southold Tire Marshal,determined the emergency access to be adequate(in coordination with the Mattituck Tire Department) and recommended a Tire Safety Plan.In response to same,a Tire Safety Plan was developed. Copies of the reply letters and prier Fire Safety Plan are enclosed. As with the original project scope, a new hydrant would be installed, ,and the proposed building would be equipped with fire warning and fire suppression systems. Access to the SYC property is from the eastern terminus of West Mill Road and as part of the proposed development,the existing internal driveway would be extended for vehicular access to the proposed new building.Also,a temporary haul road from lest Mill Road across the undeveloped lands to the SYC property would be installed for use during construction and would remain in place for emergency access,if required.As such,access to the site would be provided via the existing driveway from West Mill Road and emergency access from the higher elevation would be available from the haul road off Mill Road.The haul road would be,gated to prevent unauthorized access. Finally,the Fire Safety Plan will be modified for the one building plan.A copy of the site plan is enclosed. The purpose of this correspondence is to request any further comment on the project modification from two buildings to one building.Please note that we have also notified the Mattituck Fire Department of this modification and have requested their comments as well. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call or email me at keennam Nss'1 X0 or the applicant,Jeff Strong at je marne.cm,. Thank you. cc: Jeff Strong Charles Cuddy,Esq. David Altman,Esq. ---- ------------- ------------ i� w aT... ,e w PWGROSSER.COM T � PWGC.INFO +631.589.6353 � 1 @ BOHEMIA • MANHATTAN • SARATOGA SPRINGS MONTICELLO • SYRACUSE • SHELTON, CT i i i Chief Secretary ED RITTBERG BRIAN WILLIAMS :First Assistant Chief '1.-ensurer THERESA WELLS v Second Assistant Chief Sergeant-at-Aiinns R ►B RT i' . �" ;u f; ROB RT SHAW " Chaplain `m`. JA ES L.: LURPHY ArMsdta,n te Y_ 1973 197 MATTITUCK FIRE DEPARTMENT July 27, 2021 +{�,��^+GC \\17 PY I n IW iIIV Attn: Kim Gennaro-uancea � 030 Johnson Ave quite 7 JUL 2021 Bohemia, NY 11716 Re. Strong's Yacht Center Proposed Boat Storage Buildings m° m , Y 5780 Mill Rd, Mattituck NY 11952 Dear Ms. Gennaro-Oancea, The Mattituck Fire Department Chiefs have reviewed the proposal of the two additional buildings with fire suppression systems and nearby additional propane tanks. Mattituck Fire Department has the capability to handle any fire situation on the proposed plan with the additional hydrant that is being installed. If you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me at 031-949- 9991. Sincerely, r Ed Rittberg Chief of Department Mattituck Fire Department P.O.Box 136 1000 Pike Street • Mattituck,NY 1195.E-066 Main (631)29S-88 3 - Fax(6 9 -19 - Chiefs( 8-SS - 631) 298-88538 www.n-tattituckfd-orcr L mlr. w tld u/r�mve mr=x r.-r...�,�eM r 9 n.. �rtwu'" � mmmmwm�imanm �......�a.. nm.W.✓u...w..�,.,a.m�� rti ..,,m'r_no in w rn.u.:w n�nrmm:.�rvr•rme m,,,�rnm 'rrvm^i�.��m nw-.....e..d,�...+3 e� ��goorvmnm minimwxw M1�Yi'q`�d�4�'i� � . 4 N„p,u „� bI, 41u �V �xmm mmmmm'mmmmxmwrvdx ' V 4 W�'�5wy� �I.AI�eII.J M1N �� J�b� rv"'A4,14'u.rti�n Hww MM+uY.m Am yµ�'n MW I I �Ib f �y G e V" Iu I yv G xr u ° r ? fr � Md if f it�6 ��Q b i� wei® d�d IN� � a NJt V ro rmma N�' w ��,dair- UM u@Vvrt oc Yv"'V-4{M'+M s W �I ry ! d, M � NO" m x r gyp( Ile uw vm»'rw. f f I� 6 �b.. °log �`i i A Mw olll4 uTAUS w w`, & y Ui 'IV o. W N T P ,, �„ v✓ ,�Nga�r a l{N �" �U ^�t a�m' �.r;,.we«� w�+,d r wm�mv¢ _ a Y r r ur,�;^»w6y„„„�, )e >u z,.���„x e "�° �'I � � 4.�6 a.MN AN , 1 q Ilk w,w. . Xd" Cv" A a r " P� 7r &h�ow� ce, c , Nf���w,mnnn�'as .N., , p Nm. w< �.-� tl �~n :� �°a ,�ovmri 7y�u wu "XI r r v � ..If 84 k Irl"N e"ip i P / 6 6 s m i� 7 V r�rd d.We �us.n "IV rc°�.{Ruud V�rsua�✓r.�� `" ' � �'� � �F .wwe ,/,.Ty __ n«<N N,,,,,,, µuµu x ter" �.�d.................���„�„........N�NN�NN����NN��������N�����������������������,��. .... � .........�_._....._.___�_..�,NNz�d<<<� xw�w�������w��,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,�,�,,..........._ ayw, ,® 01 Town Hull Annex �`� , Telephone 631 765-1.802 54375 Main:Road Fax (631.) 765-9502 tln P. o. Bow 1.179 r'v jameseCsoutholdtownny.gov Southold,NY 11971-0959 �;�n ��,yt TOWN of SOUTHOL D BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE MARSHAL Kim Gennaro-Oancea, 'dice President P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc. 630 Johnson Ave, Suite 7 Bohemia,NY 11716 June 24, 2021. .e: Strong's Yacht Center—Proposed Boat Storage Buildings 5780 Mill Rd, Mattituck. Fire Safety Evaluation Fire hazards common to these type of occupancies include poor storage practices, obstruction of fire sprinklers by stock, lack of inspection, testing and maintenance of fine protection equipment, electrical hazards, improper housekeeping, etc. Many of these hazards can be addressed during the building design phase, the proper maintenance of electrical/mechanical/fire protection equipment, and frequent fire safety inspections. The protection of the building and its occupants is achieved by using both passive and active fire protection features. Proper design, installation. and maintenance of passive and active fire protection systems are best ways to safeguard the property, its occupants and first responders from a fire event. Passive fire protection is achieved by protecting the essential building structural elements from. the effects of heat and fire in an effort to eliminate or delay fire spread and structural failure/collapse. Steps can be taken during the design process to maximize passive fire protection by including appropriate types of building materials, fire rated assemblies, opening protecti es and through-penetration protection. Having properly designed and maintained paths of egress provide building occupants a safe and efficient way to leave the building in the event of an emergency. Active fire protection systems are the suppression and detection systems that detect, alert building occupants and control a fire. These systems include but are not limited to automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire detection systems and smoke/heat removal systems. Special care should be taken during the design process of these systems as the size of the buildings and occupancy type will trigger specific requirements. In addition to a balance between passive and active fire protection, here are some specific items that should be visited in an effort to manage the risk of a fire event: Adhere to requirements of the 2020 NYS Fire Code Chapter 2: High-Piled Combustible Storage. 1. • Operating Permits obtained after periodic fire safety inspections are required by building code. • Identify the commodity classification of material(s)being stored to ensure the applicable safety features are provided. 10 Approved "NO SMOKING" signs shall be conspicuously posted in accordance with Section 310 of the 2020 NYS Fire Code. Provide fire protection features as required by Table 3206.2 of the 2020 NYS Fire Code. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13. Design of the sprinkler system should include but is not limited to: • Evaluation of water supply—is the capacity/location adequate for firefighting efforts. • What are the area(sq. ft.) limitations of the sprinkler system? • What is the hazard level of the building.? Classification of commodities? • What are the specific design features required found in Chapters 12, 15, 17 and 20? Per FPA, when a boat is to be dry-stored for the season or stored indoors for an extended period of time,the following precautions should be taken: • The vessel shall be inspected for any hazardous materials or conditions that could exist, and corrective action shall be taken. • Liquefi ed petroleum gas (LPG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) cylinders, reserve supplies of stove alcohol or kerosene, and charcoal shall be removed from the premises or stored in a separate, designated safe area. • All portable fuel tanks shall be removed from the premises or emptied and, if emptied the cap shall be removed and the tank left open to the atmosphere. Per NFPA I either inside or outside, for ,, where boats are stored in multilevel racks seasonal storage or for in-out operation, the following precautions should be taken: o Drain plugs shall be removed in sprinklered buildings). o Batteries shall be disconnected or the master batter switch turned off. o Fuel tank valves shall be closed. o Repairs to boats that are on racks in a dry storage building shall be prohibited. o The charging of batteries shall be prohibited in a dry storage building. o Open flame heaters shall not be used in boat storage areas. o The use of portable heaters in boat storage areas shall be prohibited. o No unattended electrical equipment shall be in use aboard boats. o Class I flammable liquids shall not be stored in an indoor boat storage area. o Work performed on boats stored indoors shall be performed by qualified personnel. o Facility management shall maintain control over all personnel access to storage facilities. Propane tanks should be installed, separated and protected from vehicle impact as required in NFPA. 58. Fire Department access shall be provided within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of all buildings. Although not required by code for this occupancy, it is recommended a fire safety plan be developed and trained upon-by employees. 2 Building owners should ensure that inspection, testing and maintenance of fire protection and life safety systems are conducted in accordance with NYS Fire Code and applicable NFPA standards. Please feel free to contact me with any additional comments/concerns. Regards, Yaxrw� 6tA0,01V James Easton Fire Marshal Town of Southold TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FIRE MARSHAL jr c IGPA IGM v,r "own Hall Annex 54375 Main.Road P. 0. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Telephone(631) 765-1 02 Fax 631) 765-9502 Email Kim ennaro-Oancea,vice President P.W. Grosser Consulting,Inc. 630 Johnson.Ave, Suite 7 Bohemia,NY 11716 August 19,2021 .e: Strong's Yacht Center--Proposed:Boat Storage Buildings 5780 Mill Rd,Mattituc :dire Safety Evaluation Dear Ms. Cennaro-Oancea: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 4, 2021 as well as Chief l ttberg's letter dated.July 27,2021. �1, am in agreement with Chief R.ittberg that emergency access is adequate. A fire safety plan is recommended however not required by Mode for these occupancies. Please feel free to contact me with any additional comments/concems. Regards, yew� James Easton Fire Marshal Town of Southold LOT RECOGNMON DOCUMENTATION 1. Property Card 2. 1981 Tay.Map +r'L q3 r AL SOUI H. -0__LD`�---- PERTY 'WORD CA -D 1:3.4-T, �O=- 'Wi N 0 F Ro z V ? � .: VILLAGE OWNER STREET DI1T* IUI- LOT _ s OWNER N E AcR.. FORMER � - - s • - - f GOMM 1"ta TYPE OF BU l.LDI NG r . • .rr. I � L - - �.�� SEAS. - LAND IMPS TOTAL CRATE REMARKS d h sqw .) - .jjcp#v j&r ?tole p 4 y, 0 w-0 - _ - - . AXY A `+ ' - 3 r AL -41/6 a Aa 5-0.j!2.0, 1 /I_44 it 17 n_ '&V�4 5 9 ' li��-�_ ., I - 40 , _. n e _ i &3.:: 4p _ f �._. �� I - _ _.. • + E # a TiflableFRONTAGE TEI 1 ��* r v DEP ipw)�0 TH --MeQJ ow 422" 3/aL �-.3 -2 110 House Plat BULKHEAD _ — - T_ Total F 2,2 SEE SEC 10.099 SEC,N F4A{c} _ MATCH _ LINE A C11 Lt;E H MA LIB . 21. FOR PARCEL ' O= 4 } e opt Jo etw is f T� z V-&. 3L} t4 ou 1-7 to 4= 24 - ` 2T �£ i hit" _• _ c= xs' �� neat tia.,. 4 T C] i - . _ t 321 It4st scat A 50 6)$ Its g ' t 47 A g ttv � al V Nor tt VIVO Q $ +tom _ 17 t ;� It /x VO c a E_ tat t I 25 V- %ii 2O tat tvt itI .' c tI � i � " s i - tea 3t { 4t 2e} 4 a ° 5 tss. tt tw to 19. 26.9A(c) 23.2 A{c) ?,4 fit' a, tom. t 5 t 6 y 3 tte} pet t 3 - oat tom' :. a a ttzx 6.3 R tT gatV xl* ' tsit 1.5 A(C) w IF • ° ULCO 27 t SIN e 2 d ti A 14 ) 2 z- o 29.3A(c) t ttr sp o A z . 12.2A(e) kst 6fj t 5P{al- tam m - Von .- F $ taw Q to ea ti taT 6 2a=1a' gar a 3 } )t tSS t O ) ) c 1 mot. VIP t7 s 011 6. 4 2.1 ta(c) m � g 14 R{t) t 197.8 lot 12 c) . £ t.iA(c 2 z 9.1 A(c) $ - sA s e 1S{c}t tct 7.7 '� � s r 42 DA{c) IJ4( _ I.OAA{a) � .e l� 1 iR c) so FOR PARCEL NO., *` d 7.6 , ` a ' I _ SEE SEC. NO < Qr 24 �._ �-� 105-01-003.1 1.I q(c } 11.0 A(c}NOTME A(c} 2. c mot{ LB A{c) 21 ,62 MAINTENANCE,ALTERATION,SALE OR - a �. t=O - < DISTRIBUTION OF ANY PORTION OF THE -t -t - _ 1) tl o SLWMLK COUNTY TAX MAP IS PROHIBITED t= {tfi- W WITHOUT WRRTEN PERMISSION OF THE cs.40 REAL PROPERTY TAX SEROCE AGENCY - .4 to to o g 2.O A(c) rt tt i _ ! to., at t tom, FOR PARCEL NO. 1 IA() 3 )5, NO= SEE SEC. -03Q.11 3.2A(c} t4 - = A(c} r SEC 1 o. #f A`1 _Via- - I _. A It 1.2 MATCH LINE 52.2 La _ UN LE55 DRAWN �..- � ALL PRO PER'i 7F3 - � SEE SIG NO.€13 I.4A(c) ARE WTHIN THE FOLLOW- DISTRICTS: ' 13 ttit- € SCHOOL SEWER '" � -- - � 00 30 LIG}{T `IS WATER FARK Tt R - COUNTY t}F SUFP�}LK sEcnOH NO. Legend KEY asAP - -_ -_- - - - -4 aF SrJUTFt.{}LD _. Property of R W Line Cavnry Line Firs District Line --F---Hydront District Line-_.H_--avbdi-rision Lot N. (34) - MICHAEL BAKER,JR. EammanOwnx T TawnLine Wet-District Line tit' Real Property Tax Service Agency GE OF N.Y-P.E.3.141Z `� __ -_.Iy---- Via*;=t 1 --'R'--Did Dimension 099 r�i 106 CeasaltFng Eitpineer S-bdivisitat Lott Lino...�,..���Villoge Live ______Light District Lime --.L-®Block Na IP Scaled Dimansion STs IDS t 107 -- -SCALE 2N FEET - -- (` -- X Rcihood 61or.:ELiotit P"DistrictLiae - CQUtIf Center ------RI --_ Rochester.Penns lranla �p-� `Ata. 23 Dead Ater T2Rid1 Y .._.I�� Od5TR1CT NO. School Districtt'ne SewerDiser`rtitte '-°".SwtN (21 ColatlatedArva 12A(cr Ii3 Riverhead,L.�. t4ew York ggO)D M.-y- e i -�5p•!__ -.--S-_.- - - } i ` Date At lei RL..+=�.I Y 1L't;1t OFFICE LOCATION: H = + MAILING ADDRESS Town Hall Annex 4 P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 O ff' Southold,NY 11971 (cor. Main Rd.&Youngs Ave.) Telephone: 631-765-1938 Southold,NY www.southoldtownny.gov PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Accounting From: Planning Department Date: March 31, 2026 Re: Check The attached check is a Consultant Escrow Fee for the project review listed below. Please deposit into B691 Deferred Revenue Account. Thank you. Applicant/Project Tax Map# Amount Check Date/No. Name &Type Consultant DEIS Review for 106.-6-10 & 3/27/26 #22242- Strong's Yacht Center Boat 13.4 $25,000.00 Strong's Marine LLC Storage Buildings Site Plan CEW