Feis Volume I
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Feis Volume I as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 71,246
- Pages: 170
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume I
Proposed Project: Newport Marine Club
Project Location: 500 Newport Road Town of Irondequoit Monroe County, New York
Project Sponsor / Applicant: RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC
Lead Agency: Town of Irondequoit Planning Board Town of Irondequoit Town Hall 1280 Titus Avenue Rochester, New York 14617
November 23, 2009
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS)
PROPOSED NEWPORT MARINE CLUB TOWN OF IRONDEQUOIT, MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK
Positive Declaration Issued:
June 23, 2008
Public Scoping Session Held:
July 23, 2008
Final Scope Accepted:
August 11, 2008
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Accepted by Planning Board:
February 10, 2009
Public Meeting held on DEIS:
March 9, 2009
Contact Person:
Anthony Favro Town of Irondequoit Planning and Zoning Office 1280 Titus Avenue Rochester, New York 14617 Phone: (585) 467-8840
ii
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT NEWPORT MARINE CLUB
TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I 1.0
Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 1
2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Statement .............................................................. 2
3.0
Corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement .................................... 2
4.0
Substantive Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Responses................................................................................................. 3 Tables Table 1
Comment List by Number .............................................................. 5
Table 2
Comment List by Topic................................................................ 11
Table 3
Alternative Comparison ............................................................. 148
Table 4
Comparable Waterfront Developments ........................................ 156
Figures Figure 1
Development Density (units/acre) .............................................. 156
Figure 2
Elevations of Bayfront Structures ............................................... 157
Exhibits Exhibit 1
Line of Sight from Newport Road .................................................. E1
Exhibit 2
Emergency Vehicle Turnaround at Newport Marine Club .................. E2
Exhibit 3
Photo – Simulation (Mooring Line Drive) Alternative C .................... E3 Volume II
Appendices A1
Written comments received by the Town of Irondequoit ......................... A1-1
A2
Transcript of the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board SEQR Public Hearing, March 9, 2009 .................................................................................. A2-1
iii
A3
Notes from a Town of Irondequoit Planning Board meeting of March 23, 2009................................................................. A3-1
A4
Letter dated February 19, 2009 from Costich Engineering, P.C. to the Town of Irondequoit and the Ridge Culver Fire District.................. A4-1
A5
Letter dated August 17, 2009 from the Office of Fire Marshall and Ridge Culver Fire District............................................................................. A5-1
A6
Phase II – Environmental Site Assessment Data Report, Day Environmental, Inc. dated May 2007.......................................................................... A6-1
A7
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Permit No. 80-850147. Install seasonal floating docks .................................................. A7-1
A8
Correspondence associated with Newport Road ..................................... A8-1
A9
Town of Irondequoit Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 2010-2015 dated 6/5/2009 ......................................................................................... A9-1
A10
Town of Irondequoit Town Board Resolution (8A.2009-3) ..................... A10-3
iv
ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation CIP DEIS ECL EIS EPOD, EPODs FedEx FEIS HA HML HMP HOA HSG ILUC LLC LWRP MS4 NYCRR NYS NYSDEC NYSSMDM P.C. RP RSM SEQR SEQRA SPDES SWPPP UPS WD
Description Capital Improvement Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Conservation Law Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Protection Overlay District(s) Federal Express Final Environmental Impact Statement Harbor Area Zone Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Law Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan Homeowner’s Association Hydrologic Soils Group Irondequoit Land Use Coalition Limited Liability Company Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System New York Codes Rules and Regulations New York State New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual Professional Corporation Resource Protection Zone RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC State Environmental Quality Review State Environmental Quality Review Act State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan United Parcel Service Waterfront Development
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Article IX – Town Code - Waterfront Development (WD) District – www.ecode360.com/?CustId=IR0059 Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Law (HML) September 16, 2008– www.irondequoit.org/images/PublicWorks/harborlaw.pdf Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan (HMP) November 2003 – www.newportyc.org/IBHMP2005/index.html Master Plan for the Town of Irondequoit New York – Adopted December 1985 www.irondequoit.org/content/view/254/833 Town of Irondequoit Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Adopted April 21, 1988 www.irondequoit.org/content/view/296/1096
v
Newport Marine Club
1.0
Final Environmental Impact Statement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1
Project Description
The proposed action is the redevelopment of the former Newport House and Marina property on the west bank of Irondequoit Bay at 500 Newport Road in the Town of Irondequoit, Monroe County, New York. The project sponsor, RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC, proposes to construct four (4) multi-level buildings containing forty-seven (47) for sale residential condominium style units, nine (9) townhome style units in three (3) buildings, and a separate stand alone clubhouse, the “Nautica”, and to maintain the existing one-hundred eighty-seven (187) dock slips (84 for residents, 93 for outside users, 10 for visitors). The project is located in the Waterfront Development District (WD). The project requires a preliminary and final site plan approval, the issuance of Environmental Protection Overlay Permits (EPOD) and the issuance of a Special Use Permit, all from the from the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board, and State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) and freshwater wetland permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The project will also obtain a map amendment from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for filling a small area of the property. The project has been classified as an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and subjected to coordinated review. The Lead Agency is the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board, which has made a Positive Declaration that there could be some significant environmental impacts associated with the project. 1.2
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (State Environmental Quality Review [SEQR]), the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board, as SEQR Lead Agency, has declared that the proposed Newport Marine Club may have a significant impact on the environment and required that the project sponsor, RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC., prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The purpose of the EIS is to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was accepted by the Town Planning Board on February 10, 2009 for review by all involved and interested agencies and the public. The Town Planning Board held a public meeting on the DEIS at the Town Hall on March 9, 2009 to allow the public to comment on the submitted DEIS for the project. The Newport Marine Club Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) includes any clarifications and/or supplements to the DEIS, summaries and copies of the substantive comments and their source, and the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board’s responses to all substantive comments. This FEIS incorporates the complete DEIS by reference. Multiple alternatives have been evaluated and the potential impacts of these alternatives have been discussed in the DEIS and the FEIS. The project proposal remains with (47) condominium style units, (9) townhome style units and a separate clubhouse facility.
1
Newport Marine Club
2.0
Final Environmental Impact Statement
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Newport Marine Club was submitted by the project sponsor, RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC to the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board, as SEQR Lead Agency, in December 2008. The DEIS was accepted for public review by the Town Planning Board on February 10, 2009 and a public meeting in the DEIS was held March 9, 2009. The DEIS shall form part of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and is incorporated by reference.
3.0
CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 3.1
DEIS Section 2.1.2 Public Need and Objectives Based on Community Development Plans, page 2–2, fourth paragraph.
Change the first sentence which reads, “19A Improve and expand public access opportunities on Irondequoit bay Creek”. To read, “19A Improve and expand public access opportunities on Irondequoit Bay Creek”. 3.2
DEIS Section 2.2.3 Existing Zoning and Proposed Use, page 2–13, fourth paragraph.
Change the first sentence which reads, “The proposed development consisting of four (4) multifamily buildings and three (3) buildings of townhouse units results in an average density of 56 units per 5.8 acres, which equals 9.7 units/acre.”, To read, “The proposed development consisting of four (4) multifamily buildings and three (3) buildings of townhouse units results in an average density of 56 units per 5.9 acres, which equals 9.5 units/acre”. 3.3
DEIS Section 2.3.3 Parking
Change page 2-14, “Table 2 – Required Parking Space Count” to read as follows: 47 condominium style units x 1.5 spaces/unit: 9 townhouse style units x 2.0 spaces/unit: 103 docks x 0.6 spaces/dock: TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED:
71 spaces 18 spaces 62 spaces 151 spaces
Change page 2-15 which reads, “The provided space count available for public use should be decreased by nine spaces to 175 spaces to account for the nine excess spaces provided for the townhouse units”. To read, “The garage parking assigned for the condominium style units and the townhouse style unit, along with the driveway parking of the townhouse style units should not be considered as available parking for nonresident slip owners or guests. Available parking for non-resident slip owners is 68 spaces while 62 spaces are required by Town Code”.
2
Newport Marine Club
3.4
Final Environmental Impact Statement
DEIS Section 6.4 Alternative D – Townhouse Style Units (See Exhibit 6D), page 6-4, second paragraph.
Change the last sentence which reads, “67 parking spaces would be available to boaters”. To read, “A total of seventy-six (76) parking spaces would be available to boaters under this alternative”. 3.5
DEIS Exhibit 1, Drawing Nos., 224-M2 Site Plan, 224-M3 Utility Plan, 224-M4 Grading and Stormwater Pollutant Prevention Plan, 224-M6 Lighting and Landscaping Plan, 224-M7 Demolition and Erosion Control Plan in the upper left side of the drawing.
Change the notation which reads, “Irondequoit Bay”. To read, “Newport Cove”. 3.6
DEIS Appendix C, Irondequoit Creek Watershed Stormwater Management Plan, Section II, Existing and Proposed Site Characteristics, page 5, second paragraph.
Change the first sentence which reads, “Development will entail demolition of the existing pavement and walkway, construction of nine townhouse style condominiums along the southern portion of the site and 12 bayside condominium units in 3 multi-unit buildings. 4.6 acres of the site will be disturbed during construction activity.” To read, “Development will entail demolition of the existing pavement and walkway, construction of nine townhouse style condominiums along the southern portion of the site and 47 bayside condominium units in 4 multi-unit buildings. Four point two (4.2) acres of the site will be disturbed during construction activity”. 4.0
SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RESPONSES The following comments/questions were submitted by involved and interested agencies and the public during the Newport Marine Club Draft Environmental Impact Statement public review period, which included a public hearing held March 9, 2009. The Town of Irondequoit Planning Board, as Lead Agency, determined that the following comments/questions to be substantive in nature and incorporated them into the Final Environmental Impact Statement. This section includes summaries of all of all verbal and written substantive comments, along with Lead Agency responses for each. The Lead Agency’s responses are shown in “bold text” below each comment. Copies of the written comments, and a copy of a transcript from the March 9, 2009 public hearing is included in Appendix A1 and A2. Appendix A3 contains notes from a Planning Board meeting of March 23, 2009. Comments are listed in numeric order under (Table 1) and sorted by topic (Table 2) Written comments are prefixed by the number xx.xx, comments during the SEQR public hearing are prefixed by PH xx.xx and verbal comments from the
3
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Town of Irondequoit Planning Board during their meeting of March 23, 2009 are noted as PB xx.xx.
4
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Number Table 1
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
1.01
17
DEIS Availability
Mary Maggio
Public Member
2.01
17
Construction Schedule
Al Jaehn
Webster
3.01
17
Building Heights
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
3.02
18
Newport Road
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
3.03
19
Construction Traffic
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
4.01
20
Density
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.02
21
Adopted Plans
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.03
22
Access
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.04
23
Access
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.05
23
Density
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.06
24
Alternatives
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.07
25
Views
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.08
26
Views
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.09
26
Wetlands
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.10
27
Accessory Use
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.11
27
Boat Slip Transference
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
5.01
27
Turnaround
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.02
28
Driveways
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.03
28
Building Clearance
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.04
28
Access
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.05
29
Roadway Loadings
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.06
29
Building Clearance
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.07
29
Public Safety
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.08
30
General Comment
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.09
30
General Comment
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
6.01
31
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
6.02
32
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
6.03
33
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
7.01
34
Newport Road
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
7.02
35
Newport Road
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
7.03
36
Newport Road
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
7.04
36
Turnaround
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
8.01
37
General Comment
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
9.01
37
Access
Daniel and Barbara Robertson
66 Baycrest Drive
9.02
38
Access
Daniel and Barbara Robertson
66 Baycrest Drive
10.01
38
General Comment
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
10.02
39
Newport Road
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
10.03
41
Newport Road
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
10.04
42
Newport Road
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
11.01
43
Newport Cove
Harlan Brody
Friends of Irondequoit Bay
12.01
43
Access
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
5
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Number Table 1
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
12.02
44
Density
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.03
45
Lot Coverage
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.04
46
Density
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.05
46
Bay Offsets
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.06
47
Steep Slope
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.07
47
Views
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.08
48
Newport Cove Docks
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.09
48
Lot Coverage
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.10
48
Parking
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.11
49
Newport Road
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.12
51
Parking
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.13
51
Zoning
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.14
51
Alternatives
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.15
52
Alternatives
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.16
52
Visual Impact
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
13.01
53
Views
Gary Skillman
20 Tuliptree Lane
13.02
53
Taxes
Gary Skillman
20 Tuliptree Lane
14.01
54
Alternatives
Tom Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
14.02
54
Alternatives
Tom Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
14.03
54
Alternatives
Tom Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
15.01
55
Newport Road
Charles Hall
309 Bay Front La., German Village HOA
16.01
56
Steep Slope
Ralph Pascale
40 Mooring Line Dr.
17.01
57
Rare and Endangered Species
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.02
57
Adopted Plans
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.03
58
Invasive Species
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.04
59
Newport Cove Docks
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.05
59
Number of Slips
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.06
59
Boat Storage
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.07
60
Accessory Use
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.08
61
Parking
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.09
61
Building Heights
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.10
62
Environmental Improvements
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.11
62
Fertilizer
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.12
63
EPODS
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.13
63
Stormwater
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.14
64
Wetlands
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.15
64
Traffic
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.16
66
Landscaping
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.17
67
Density
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
18.01
67
Parking
Carol Palmeri
50 Mooring Line Dr.
18.02
67
Animal Impacts
Carol Palmeri
50 Mooring Line Dr.
18.03
68
Turnaround
Carol Palmeri
50 Mooring Line Dr.
6
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Number Table 1
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
19.01
68
Newport Road
Marty Piecuch
Irondequoit Dept. of Public Works
19.02
70
Newport Road
Marty Piecuch
Irondequoit Dept. of Public Works
20.01
70
Newport Road
John Papponetti
LaBella Assoc. - Town Engineer
21.01
72
Newport Road
Wade Daley
LaBella Assoc. - Town Engineer
21.02
72
Newport Road
Wade Daley
LaBella Assoc. - Town Engineer
22.01
73
Newport Road
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
22.02
73
Newport Road
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
22.03
75
Animal Impacts
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
22.04
75
Views
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
22.05
76
Taxes
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
22.06
76
Alternatives
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
23.01
77
Density
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.02
77
Building Heights
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.03
77
Property Values
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.04
78
Bay Offsets
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.05
78
Stormwater
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.06
78
Fertilizer
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.07
78
Newport Road
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.08
79
Newport Road
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.09
80
Parking
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.10
81
Steep Slope
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
24.01
81
Alternatives
Ralph Pascale
40 Mooring Line Dr.
25.01
81
Newport Road
Vincent Patene
359 Bay Front Lane North
26.01
83
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.02
84
Views
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.03
84
Earth Disturbance
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.04
85
Newport Road
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.05
87
Construction Traffic
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.06
87
Construction Schedule
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.07
88
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.08
88
Parking
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.09
89
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.10
89
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.11
90
Adopted Plans
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.12
91
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.13
91
Adopted Plans
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.14
92
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.15
92
Access
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.16
93
EPODS
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.17
94
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.18
94
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.19
95
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
7
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Number Table 1
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
26.20
95
Views
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.21
95
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.22
96
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.23
96
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.24
96
DEIS Acceptance
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.25
97
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
27.01
99
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.02
100
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.03
100
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.04
101
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.05
102
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.06
103
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.07
104
Adopted Plans
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.08
104
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.09
105
Vegetation
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.10
105
Bay Offsets
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.11
105
Vegetation
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.12
106
Wetlands
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.13
106
Protection of Waters
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.14
106
Alternatives
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.15
107
Construction Schedule
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.16
107
Soils
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.17
107
Marina Operations
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.18
108
Marina Operations
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.19
108
Parking Garage Air Quality
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
28.01
108
Newport Road
Laura Fischer
73 Mooring Line Dr.
PH 1.01
109
Alternatives
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 1.02
109
Traffic
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 1.03
109
Newport Road
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 1.04
110
Marina Operations
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 1.05
110
Marina Operations
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 1.06
111
Alternatives
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 2.01
111
Adopted Plans
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
PH 2.02
112
Mitigation
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
PH 2.03
112
Accessory Use
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
PH 2.04
113
Boat Slip Transference
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
PH 2.05
114
Alternatives
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
PH 3.01
114
Density
Patty Brody
277 Bay Front Lane North
PH 3.02
114
Density
Patty Brody
277 Bay Front Lane North
PH 4.01
115
Visual Impact
Thomas Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
PH 4.02
115
Alternatives
Thomas Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
PH 4.03
115
Alternatives
Thomas Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
8
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Number Table 1
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
PH 5.01
115
Taxes
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.02
116
Zoning
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.03
116
Parking
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.04
117
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.05
117
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.06
117
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.07
118
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.08
118
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.09
119
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.10
119
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.11
119
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.12
120
Parking
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.13
120
Views
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.14
120
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.15
121
Access
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.16
121
Access
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.17
121
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.18
122
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.19
122
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.20
122
EPODS
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.21
123
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 6.01
123
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
PH 7.01
125
Newport Road
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.02
125
Density
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.03
126
Newport Road
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.04
126
Newport Road
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.05
126
Traffic
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.06
127
Traffic
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PB 1.01
127
Alternatives
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 1.02
128
Turnaround
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 1.03
128
Newport Cove Docks
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 1.04
128
Accessory Use
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 1.05
128
Newport Road
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.01
129
Alternatives
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.02
130
Soils
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.03
131
Construction Inspection
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.04
131
Construction Schedule
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.05
131
Town Involvement
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.06
131
Number of Slips
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.07
132
General Comment
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.08
132
Construction
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 3.01
132
Alternatives
Michael Palermo
Irondequoit Planning Board
9
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Number Table 1
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
PB 4.01
132
Alternatives
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.02
133
Density
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.03
133
Newport Cove Docks
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.04
133
Parking
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.05
133
General Comment
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.06
133
Building Clearance
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.07
134
Newport Road
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.08
134
Newport Road
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.01
134
Number of Slips
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.02
135
Accessory Use
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.03
135
Number of Slips
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.04
135
Accessory Use
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.05
136
Newport Cove Docks
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.06
136
Newport Road
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.07
137
Newport Road
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.08
138
Newport Road
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.09
138
Turnaround
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.01
138
Alternatives
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.02
149
Density
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.03
149
Lot Coverage
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.04
149
Accessory Use
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.05
149
Parking
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.06
149
Number of Slips
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.07
150
Boat Storage
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.08
151
Newport Road
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.09
151
Views
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.10
151
Alternatives
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.11
151
Landscaping
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.01
152
Building Heights
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.02
152
Density
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.03
152
Views
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.04
152
Stormwater
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.05
153
Newport Cove
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.06
153
Building Heights
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.07
154
Density
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
10
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Topic Table 2
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
4.03
22
Access
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.04
23
Access
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
5.04
28
Access
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
9.01
37
Access
Daniel and Barbara Robertson
66 Baycrest Drive
9.02
38
Access
Daniel and Barbara Robertson
66 Baycrest Drive
12.01
43
Access
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
26.15
92
Access
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.15
121
Access
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.16
121
Access
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
4.10
27
Accessory Use
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
17.07
60
Accessory Use
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
26.01
83
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.09
89
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 2.03
112
Accessory Use
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
PH 5.17
121
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.18
122
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PB 1.04
128
Accessory Use
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.02
135
Accessory Use
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.04
135
Accessory Use
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.04
149
Accessory Use
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
21
Adopted Plans
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.02 17.02
57
Adopted Plans
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
26.11
90
Adopted Plans
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.13
91
Adopted Plans
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
27.07
104
Adopted Plans
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
PH 2.01
111
Adopted Plans
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
4.06
24
Alternatives
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
12.14
51
Alternatives
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.15
52
Alternatives
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
14.01
54
Alternatives
Tom Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
14.02
54
Alternatives
Tom Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
14.03
54
Alternatives
Tom Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
22.06
76
Alternatives
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
24.01
81
Alternatives
Ralph Pascale
40 Mooring Line Dr.
26.07
88
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.21
95
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.22
96
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.23
96
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.25
98
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
27.14
106
Alternatives
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
PB 1.01
127
Alternatives
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.01
129
Alternatives
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
11
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Topic Table 2
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
PB 3.01
132
Alternatives
Michael Palermo
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.01
132
Alternatives
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.01
138
Alternatives
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.10
151
Alternatives
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PH 1.01
109
Alternatives
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 1.06
111
Alternatives
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 2.05
114
Alternatives
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
PH 4.02
115
Alternatives
Thomas Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
PH 4.03
115
Alternatives
Thomas Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
PH 5.07
118
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.08
118
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.09
119
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
18.02
67
Animal Impacts
Carol Palmeri
50 Mooring Line Dr.
22.03
75
Animal Impacts
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
12.05
46
Bay Offsets
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
23.04
78
Bay Offsets
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
27.10
105
Bay Offsets
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27
Boat Slip Transference
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
113
4.11 PH 2.04 17.06 PB 6.07
Boat Slip Transference
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
59
Boat Storage
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
150
Boat Storage
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
5.03
28
Building Clearance
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.06
29
Building Clearance
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
133
Building Clearance
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.06 3.01
17
Building Heights
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
17.09
61
Building Heights
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
23.02
77
Building Heights
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
PB 7.01
152
Building Heights
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.06
153
Building Heights
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.08
132
Construction
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.03
131
Construction Inspection
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
2.01
17
Construction Schedule
Al Jaehn
Webster
26.06
87
Construction Schedule
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
27.15
107
Construction Schedule
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
PB 2.04
131
Construction Schedule
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
Construction Traffic
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
3.03
19
26.05
87
Construction Traffic
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.24
96
DEIS Acceptance
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
1.01
17
DEIS Availability
Mary Maggio
Public Member
4.01
20
Density
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.05
23
Density
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
12.02
44
Density
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Topic Table 2
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
12.04
46
Density
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
17.17
67
Density
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
23.01
77
Density
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
26.10
89
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.14
92
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
114
Density
Patty Brody
277 Bay Front Lane North
PH 3.01 PH 3.02
114
Density
Patty Brody
277 Bay Front Lane North
PH 5.10
119
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.21
123
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 7.02
125
Density
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PB 4.02
133
Density
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.02
149
Density
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.02
152
Density
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.07
154
Density
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
Driveways
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.02
28
26.03
84
Earth Disturbance
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
17.10
62
Environmental Improvements
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.12
63
EPODS
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
26.16 PH 5.20
93
EPODS
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
122
EPODS
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
17.11
62
Fertilizer
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
23.06
78
Fertilizer
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
5.08
30
General Comment
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.09
30
General Comment
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
8.01
37
General Comment
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
10.01
38
General Comment
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
PB 2.07
132
General Comment
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.05
133
General Comment
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
17.03
58
Invasive Species
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.16
66
Landscaping
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
PB 6.11
151
Landscaping
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.03
45
Lot Coverage
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.09
48
Lot Coverage
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.03
149
Lot Coverage
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
27.17
107
Marina Operations
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.18
108
Marina Operations
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
PH 1.04
110
Marina Operations
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 1.05
110
Marina Operations
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 2.02
112
Mitigation
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
11.01 PB 7.05 12.08
43
Newport Cove
Harlan Brody
Friends of Irondequoit Bay
153
Newport Cove
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
Newport Cove Docks
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
48
13
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Topic Table 2
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
17.04
59
Newport Cove Docks
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
26.17
94
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.05
117
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.06
117
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.14
120
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PB 1.03
128
Newport Cove Docks
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.03
133
Newport Cove Docks
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.05
136
Newport Cove Docks
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
3.02
18
Newport Road
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
6.01
31
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
6.02
32
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
6.03
33
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
7.01
34
Newport Road
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
7.02
35
Newport Road
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
7.03
36
Newport Road
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
10.02
39
Newport Road
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
10.03
41
Newport Road
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
10.04
42
Newport Road
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
12.11
49
Newport Road
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
15.01
55
Newport Road
Charles Hall
309 Bay Front La., German Village HOA
19.01
68
Newport Road
Marty Piecuch
Irondequoit Dept. of Public Works
19.02
70
Newport Road
Marty Piecuch
Irondequoit Dept. of Public Works
20.01
71
Newport Road
John Papponetti
LaBella Assoc. - Town Engineer
21.01
72
Newport Road
Wade Daley
LaBella Assoc. - Town Engineer
21.02
72
Newport Road
Wade Daley
LaBella Assoc. - Town Engineer
22.01
73
Newport Road
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
22.02
73
Newport Road
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
23.07
78
Newport Road
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.08
79
Newport Road
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
25.01
81
Newport Road
Vincent Patene
359 Bay Front Lane North
26.04
85
Newport Road
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
28.01
108
Newport Road
Laura Fischer
73 Mooring Line Dr.
PH 1.03
110
Newport Road
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 6.01
123
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
PH 7.01
125
Newport Road
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.03
126
Newport Road
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.04
126
Newport Road
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PB 1.05
128
Newport Road
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.07
134
Newport Road
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.08
134
Newport Road
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.06
136
Newport Road
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.07
138
Newport Road
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
14
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Topic Table 2
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
PB 5.08
138
Newport Road
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.08
151
Newport Road
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
17.05
59
Number of Slips
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
26.12
91
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.18
94
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.19
95
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.04
117
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.11
119
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.19
122
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PB 2.06
131
Number of Slips
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.01
134
Number of Slips
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.03
135
Number of Slips
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.06
149
Number of Slips
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.10
48
Parking
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.12
51
Parking
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
17.08
61
Parking
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
18.01
67
Parking
Carol Palmeri
50 Mooring Line Dr.
23.09
80
Parking
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
26.08
88
Parking
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.03
116
Parking
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.12
120
Parking
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PB 4.04
133
Parking
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.05
149
Parking
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
27.19
108
Parking Garage Air Quality
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
23.03
77
27.13
106
5.07
29
Property Values
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
Protection of Waters
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
Public Safety
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
17.01
57
Rare and Endangered Species
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
5.05
29
Roadway Loadings
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
Soils
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.16
107
PB 2.02
130
Soils
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.06
47
Steep Slope
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
16.01
56
Steep Slope
Ralph Pascale
40 Mooring Line Dr.
23.10
81
Steep Slope
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
17.13
63
Stormwater
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
23.05
78
Stormwater
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
27.01
99
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.02
100
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.03
100
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.04
101
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.05
102
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.06
103
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
15
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Topic Table 2
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
27.08
104
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
PB 7.04
152
Stormwater
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
Taxes
Gary Skillman
20 Tuliptree Lane
13.02 22.05
53 76
Taxes
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
PH 5.01
115
Taxes
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PB 2.05
131
Town Involvement
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
17.15
64
Traffic
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
PH 1.02
109
Traffic
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 7.05
126
Traffic
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.06
127
Traffic
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
5.01
27
Turnaround
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
7.04
36
Turnaround
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
18.03
68
Turnaround
Carol Palmeri
50 Mooring Line Dr.
PB 1.02
128
Turnaround
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.09
138
Turnaround
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
27.09
105
Vegetation
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.11
105
Vegetation
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
Views
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.07
25
4.08
26
Views
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
12.07
47
Views
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
13.01
53
Views
Gary Skillman
20 Tuliptree Lane
22.04
75
Views
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
26.02
84
Views
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.20
95
Views
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.13
120
Views
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PB 6.09
151
Views
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.03
152
Views
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
52
Visual Impact
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
115
Visual Impact
Thomas Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
Wetlands
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
12.16 PH 4.01 4.09
26
17.14
64
Wetlands
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
27.12
106
Wetlands
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
12.13
51
Zoning
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
116
Zoning
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.02
16
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
_______________________________________________________ Mary Maggio, Public member 1.01 Comment I attended the board meeting yesterday [February 11, 2009] where a “missing” section of the DEIS was discussed. I believe it was Section 41? Could you tell me what it was supposed to contain, and where and when copies of the DEIS will be available. Thank you. (pg 2, 1 ¶) Response There was no missing section of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Town of Irondequoit Planning Board accepted the DEIS on February 20, 2009 after weeks of deliberations by the Board. Therefore, copies of the document dated prior to February 20, 2009 may not have been complete. The “Official” accepted copies of the DEIS are available at the Town Hall, Town libraries, on the Town of Irondequoit website and other locations. The availability of the complete, accepted DEIS was publicly announced. __________________________________________________________ Al Jaehn, Webster 2.01 Comment I am in favor of this project. I Bay has always been a recreation area and should never have been designated a “wetland”. This project will bring jobs and attract people of higher means. These folks are needed to revitalize our shrinking brain base. Let’s not study this thing to death while investors go elsewhere. If it’s “shovel ready”, I say start digging. (pg 1, 5 ¶) Response This is an opinion of the commenter. No response is necessary. __________________________________________________________ Jack Buttino, 42 Mooring Line Drive 3.01 Comment The five Mooring Line Drive neighbors that support the project met privately with Steve Mancini (RSM Development) and based on his comments: •
The building heights have been lowered. (pg 1, 6 ¶)
Response Alternative C provides a reduction in the total number of residential units and modifies the condominium style buildings number 103 and 104 to lower the building height by approximately 12 feet at the front setback. This alternative should be considered as an appropriate compromise to the proposed plan in that it takes into account many of the comments from the Planning Board and the public.
17
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.02 Comment The five Mooring Line Drive neighbors that support the project met privately with Steve Mancini (RSM Development) and based on his comments: •
The bend in Newport Road would be cutout, prior to construction, and he would build a 15 foot retainer wall. (pg 1, 6 ¶)
Response The project sponsor must have been misunderstood. The intended statement was that a possible alternative to improve the geometry of Newport Road was that a retaining wall could be constructed to allow an alignment change to the roadway. However, this would not be part of the project, and is a separate action that may be addressed by the Town pursuant to a review and determination of necessity. The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. 18
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. See response to comment 19.01. 3.03 Comment The five Mooring Line Drive neighbors that support the project met privately with Steve Mancini (RSM Development) and based on his comments: •
Traffic during the construction phase would be monitored and controlled. (pg 1, 3 ¶)
19
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response Correct, traffic along Newport Road would be maintained, monitored and controlled during the heavy construction phase of the project. This would most likely occur during the site improvement phase between spring and fall of the first year of construction. The passage of construction vehicles during peak periods may be difficult due to vehicular speed, size and truck equipment maneuvering. Heavy construction traffic will be controlled by limiting heavy construction vehicles traveling along the northern edge of Newport Road and limiting the roadway to one way along the south side of the road during working hours for a couple of months. Two-way traffic would be restored at the end of each work day. Traffic control could consist of temporary traffic signals or flagmen. This would most likely occur during extensive earthwork, concrete, or asphalt paving operations were occurring. This would not preclude access to the site for delivery trucks to drop off building materials, but is intended to mitigate the structural loading of Newport Road during intensive site construction operations. __________________________________________________________ Rebecca Ott, Irondequoit Land Use Coalition (ILUC) 4.01 Comment Irondequoit Town Code 235-47.F. (2) states: “No permit to undertake any regulated activity within an EPOD shall be issued by the Planning Board unless the net buildable site area and maximum allowable dwelling units are less than or equal to the calculated value under the site capacity calculation worksheet”. ILUC believes the meaning of this section is clear…. Notwithstanding the Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, ILUC is particularly concerned that this project, which is proposed to be built on land containing steep slopes, woodlots, and wetland buffer zones is requesting a density far above what the law allows. (pg 1, 1 ¶) Response Paragraph (1) of that same Town Code §235-47.F provides that the site capacity worksheet is only required for an “application for land subdivision.” The Newport Marine Club project does not include an application for land subdivision, so paragraph 2 does not apply. While the Applicant provided a site capacity worksheet for the DEIS as requested by the Planning Board, the calculations under the worksheet are not relevant to the calculation of density. The proposal minimizes construction into any pristine or undeveloped areas of the site minimizing impacts to steep slopes, woodlots and wetland buffers. Steep slopes, woodlots and wetland buffer areas will not be significantly impacted by the development because the project will be constructed primarily on areas which have been previously disturbed and improved. As set forth at DEIS 2.5.2.1, the site meets the density requirements set forth at Town Code §235-33.A, which for a “multifamily dwelling, apartment building or other similar use,” is “4,000 square feet per dwelling unit,” while for “a townhouse, single-family attached dwelling, row house or other similar use… a minimum area of 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit” is required. Town Code §235-33.A(2,3). The project 20
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
provides 4,000 square feet of site area per condominium style units and 6,000 square feet of site area for townhouse units. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the requirement of the Town Code. 4.02 Comment The Applicant repeatedly asserts that the project is in harmony with the Town’s Master Plan and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). These assertions are false in a number of respects, including public access, loss of the visual resources of the area because of the building density and building height, and proximity of the multistory buildings to the water’s edge. This project also fails to meet the density structures of the Waterfront Development District zoning. (pg 1, 1 ¶) Response Review of the text of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) and the Master Plan reveal that the Project is consistent with these plans. While the LWRP called for increased utilization of public-owned lands for access to the Bay, it targeted lands that were already publicly owned, including not only the Newport Landfill, but also the Irondequoit Creek Wetlands, Bay Park West, State-owned land at the northwest corner of the Bay, and the Bay Outlet Park, not privately-owned land. LWRP at I35-37, III-22-27. According to the LWRP, “Bay Park West and the recently purchased Isaac Property immediately to the north constitute the Town’s most significant opportunity for providing the public with a water-related recreational facility on Irondequoit Bay.” LWRP at I-35. Further, the Newport Landfill was identified as a potential site for public access, including an overlook and a fishing pier. LWRP at I-36, III-28, V-7, V-9, V-28. The State-owned land was identified as a potential site for 500 berths due to its accessible location, and the Bay Outlet Park as a boat launch site. LWRP at I-36, V-12, V-17, V-24, V-25, V-29. However, the LWRP, prepared in 1988, specifically recognized that “[p]rovision of greater public access to the Bay” was “proposed for the site of the Newport House, through the private development of a boat docking facility,” and that this was “considered appropriate given the fact that the site of the Newport House is one of the few locations on Irondequoit Bay that contains sufficient space to accommodate parking requirements and will also not require excessive dredging.” LWRP at IV14. Thus, the original development of the Newport House private marina was deemed appropriate to give limited public access to the paying public across private property as granted to marina members and their guests. The Project will keep the marina in operation, and thus allow the public to continue to rent slips to gain access to the Bay. With respect to visual resources, the LWRP recognized and encouraged enhancement of the south and north ends of the Bay as the best locations for public to access scenic resources. LWRP at I-30, III-30. Bay Park West was also identified as location for good views for the public. LWRP at I-30. Newport was found to be less accessible to the public for views. LWRP at I-30. The Harbor Management Plan (HMP) only recognized Newport Road as a point having scenic value for the public, and the road
21
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
will remain open to the public, even though the Newport Marine Club remains as private property. (HMP at 45-46). The LWRP encouraged uses like the Project “that are enhanced by a waterfront location.” LWRP at III-7. The Plan specifically recommended enactment of Waterfront Development District zoning, including “Multifamily (High Rise Residential Development),” for the Newport Road area. LWRP at III-5, V-8, V-47. Thus, a development like the Project was specifically envisioned by the LWRP, and it was never slated for public access beyond allowing the public to rent spaces in a private marina. Likewise, the Town’s Master Plan recognized that the site will be the focus of development, and states that “low to moderate density clustered residential development appears to be the most appropriate development approach” for the site, with clusters of 75-100 units. Master Plan at 92, 94. The Plan called for zoning the site as part of a “waterfront development district to preserve future land use flexibility.” Master Plan at 96. It suggested the area be used for “development of a variety of housing types to meet that changing needs of Irondequoit’s older population.” Master Plan at 95. In contrast, the Newport Landfill was proposed for public recreation. Master Plan at 96, 99. Under the Waterfront Development District zoning that was enacted in accord with the LWRP and Master Plan, the Project is allowed by Special Permit. Town Code §235-32.A. As set forth at DEIS 2.5.2.1, the site meets the density requirements set forth at Town Code §235-33.A, which for a “multifamily dwelling, apartment building or other similar use,” is “4,000 square feet per dwelling unit,” while for “a townhouse, singlefamily attached dwelling, row house or other similar use… a minimum area of 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit” is required. Town Code §235-33.A(2,3). Furthermore, as set forth at DEIS 2.5.2.2, the site meets the setback requirements set forth at Town Code §235-33.B, including those applicable to the multi-story condominium buildings. 4.03 Comment There can be no doubt that the gated community and marina will drastically reduce the number of people who can enjoy this property when compared to the number of visitors to the Newport House when it was operated as a restaurant, a use specifically recommended in the Master Plan. ILUC is extremely disappointed that Applicant has reneged in his previous agreement to allow general public pedestrian access to this valuable waterfront site. The requirement of owning an expensive dwelling or renting an expensive boat slip in no way meets the goal of improved and increased public access. (pg 1, 1 ¶) Response Unobstructed access to the Newport Marine Club by the general public will not be allowed. The Newport property is private property that is not open to unrestricted general public access. While the use of the property has most recently been for commercial purposes, pedestrian access has only been allowed for marina tenants and restaurant patrons. 22
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Unfettered pedestrian access to the Newport Marine Club will be limited, for safety, security and liability reasons, to residents and slip-owners that possess a pass-card or guests, who are accompanied by an individual with a pass-card. The development will provide a safe and secure facility for its residents and marina users. Unaccompanied strangers will not be allowed on the property. There have been recent instances of disorderly conduct and vandalism caused by intruders at the current marina operation, which has little access control. Therefore, for the safety and security of the general public and for the safety and security of the residents of the Newport Marine Club, it has been determined that public access onto their property will be limited by utilizing a gated community with a pass-card system. Liability issues are also a concern, since a lawsuit could occur if someone is injured on the property. The project will allow restricted access to the shore through the purchase or rental of boat slips by non-resident boat owners. The marina will allow public access for members of the general boating public to stop for servicing and temporary dockage. Also see response to comments 9.01 and 12.01. 4.04 Comment If the Applicant continues to insist that the general public will not even be allowed to have pedestrian access, ILUC suggests that the Town require a payment by the Applicant to the Town of Irondequoit as mitigation for the loss of general public access. (pg 2, 1 ¶) Response The Newport property is private property that is not open to unrestricted general public access. While the use of the property has most recently been for commercial purposes, pedestrian access has only been allowed for marina tenants and restaurant patrons. Additional discussion on pedestrian access is included in the responses to comments 4.03, 9.01, 12.01 and PH 5.15. Since there is no general unrestricted public access on the site today, the project would not cause a loss of access, and requiring the developer to pay for the loss of pedestrian access would have no basis. Unrestricted public pedestrian access is typically limited to public properties such as the Newport Landfill, Irondequoit Creek Wetlands, Bay Park West and the Bay Outlet Park, as noted in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). 4.05 Comment Independent of the question of whether density should be limited in EPODs, the proposed development is anything but low to moderate density. It utilizes virtually every available square foot of the parcel to satisfy the bulk lot requirements for the requested 56 units. Of the proposed 56 units, 47 units, i.e. 84% of them, have the lowest bulk lot requirements permitted in the Waterfront Development District. ILUC believed this has to be considered high density by anyone’s definition. (pg 2, 3 ¶)
23
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The proposed development does comply with the density requirements as stipulated in the Town Code. Section 235-31.B of the Town Code states, “The Waterfront Development (WD) District permits low to moderate density residential development…” Section 235-33A stipulates that minimum lot areas be established at 4,000 square feet for each multifamily dwelling and townhomes shall have a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit. The total lot area exceeds the minimum lot area requirements per dwelling unit, which is further discussed under Section 2.5.2.1 of the DEIS. (Minimum site area required 252,044 square feet and site area provided 254,680 square feet). Therefore, if the project meets the lot and bulk area requirements of the Town Code, then it could be concluded that, the project meets the definition of a low to moderate density development. This is consistent with typical definitions of medium density as up to 12 units per acre (Reference: “Growing Cooler” Urban Land Institute, page 19, Figure 2-2). Multi-family dwellings, apartment buildings, townhouses and other similar uses are allowed subject to the issuance of a special permit by the Town Planning Board in the Waterfront Development (WD) zoning district. Further, there are other multi-family waterfront properties within the Town which have higher densities than what is proposed for the Newport Marine Club (see Table 4.4 – Comparable Waterfront Developments). Therefore, the proposed Newport Marine Club, which meets the allowable use, bulk density requirements for moderate density as prescribed in the Town Code, and has a density which is less than other waterfront properties in the Town. See the response to comment PB 7.07 for additional discussions on the project density. 4.06 Comment It is ILUC’s position that the all-townhouse Alternative D mentioned on p. 6-4 of the DEIS represents a plan that more nearly approaches, although does not reach the definition of “low to moderate density”. Furthermore, in contradiction to the assertion that Alternative D allows 45 units, we believe that, assuming the Marina is included and the same 1.5 boat slips per housing unit as in the present proposal, approximately 39 townhouses would be allowed. (pg 2, 4 ¶) Response Alternative D, with approximately 45 townhouse units, would equate to a density of 7.6 units per acre, which is less than the Bay Village or the Westage Waterfront developments. The Town Code specifically states that the Waterfront Development District provides for “low- to moderate-density residential development,” Town Code §235-31.B. The density of this or any other alternative is not conditioned solely on the number of boat slips. The proposal calls for an allocated 1.5 slips per dwelling unit, or a total of 84 slips to be reserved for the 56 dwellings (condominium-style and townhouses) of the Newport Marine Club. This would leave 103 slips available for the non-resident boater use. If the ratio was left the same, 56 townhouses could be accommodated. And if, thirty-nine (39) townhouses were developed they would equate to 58.5, say 59 slips, reserved for the marina, which would then leave 128 slips available for non-resident boater use. One of the marketing aspects of this project is for the residents of the Newport Marine Club to have boat 24
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
access and dockage where they reside. At 1.5 slips per unit, the marina could actually accommodate 124 residential units, but no one is suggesting this level of density. 4.07 Comment The large size, high density and extreme heights of the multistory buildings severely reduce the onsite and offsite desirable views associated with this site. The view from the Bay is also severely compromised by the extreme size of the multistory buildings (see Applicant’s DEIS Volume 1, Exhibit 3E (4) and 3E (5)). Offshore from the east, a large portion of the western tree line is totally obscured by the immense bulk of the multistory buildings. (pg 2, 5 ¶) Response The original two condominium buildings had flat roofs, and were changed to four separate buildings to promote views by the five houses at the top of the hill. This was suggested by members of the Planning Board. The Planning Board also suggested that sloped roofs would be preferable to flat roofs, in order to create a more residential look. To keep the sloped roof low, a gambrel look allowed a low slope to the roof, keeping the roof more in proportion to the building. The “western tree line” is not a known feature on the site. There are no designated significant State or Federal aesthetic resources at the site. Onsite, offsite and bay front views to and from the property will change with the development of the Newport Marine Club. The site is privately owned and public access will be limited to residents, marina members and their guests. The residential use of the property will preclude unrestrictive public access to onsite Bay viewing. Public access to Bay views are described in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program which recognized and encouraged enhancement of the south and north end of the Bay as the best locations for the public to access scenic resources. The Harbor Management Plan only recognized Newport Road, a public right-of-way, as a point having scenic value. HMP at 45-46. The road will remain open to the public, and offsite views from the roadway will be available. Views from Newport Road to the northeast will be somewhat restricted by the proposed residential buildings. Views to the east will remain open but change from views of the strictly commercial Newport House restaurant, parking and boat storage to that of a more residential use. The view of the property and the Bay from the rear of the Mooring Line Drive residences will be changed from what presently exists. Foliage restricts the views from this vantage point from spring to fall, but during the winter months, after the leaves have fallen, the Bay becomes more visible. The proposed development will not impact the woodlots that inhibit the existing Mooring Line Drive views, but during the winter months the views of the Bay will be somewhat restricted by the proposed buildings. Photo simulations of the existing and the proposed views are provided in Exhibit 3 of the DEIS. Exhibit 3 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) provides additional photo simulations from the Mooring Line Drive perspective, if Alternative C were implemented. This new exhibit includes the elimination of the proposed Nautica building and the reduction in the building height of condominium buildings 103 and 104 along the Bay frontage. These modifications are 25
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
consistent with the discussion of Alternative C. The reduction in the building heights and footprint under this alternative will serve to mitigate the diminished Bay views from Mooring Line Drive. The overall change from a strictly commercial use to more of a residential use will change the offsite and bay front views of the property, and many may consider these changes an enhancement. 4.08 Comment In § 4.7.1.2, the mitigation section for views, states the orientation and spacing of the units “allow views of the Bay, Bay Bridge and the Marina”. This statement is specious at best; if one is more than 18° off the centerlines between Buildings 102, 103 and 104, the buildings completely cut off views to the north between the buildings. (pg 2, 6 ¶) Response Assuming this is in regard to the five houses on the hill, the original two buildings were cut into four buildings as suggested by the Planning Board in order to facilitate some views from these properties. It is a relatively narrow view because the four condominium buildings are a good distance away from those homes. The condominium- style buildings labeled 101, 102, 103 and 104 provide visual breaks between the buildings, increasing the available views to Irondequoit Bay. The impacts of the residential development will also be offset by the removal of the Newport House restaurant, which is in disrepair and will significantly open up the views from the property to the east. 4.09 Comment This application places the entire building envelopes of all four of the multistory buildings within the 300 foot wetland buffer and substantial portions of the building envelopes within the 100 foot wetland buffer. ILUC contends that the best practices dictate that wetland buffers must be enforced. The absolute bare minimum requirement must be that no building in this project be situated closer to the waterline than the present non-conforming location of the Newport House. The entire mitigation section §4.2.3.2 totally ignores the fact that all the multistory buildings of this project encroach into the wetland buffer zone. (pg 3, 2 ¶) Response The site has already been developed within the 100 and 300-foot wetland buffers, so it is too late to avoid disturbance of the buffer area. However, as set forth in DEIS Section 4.2.3, impacts on the wetland and buffer area will be reduced by the project. There will be an increase in the amount of greenspace and a decrease in the amount of impervious surfaces, decreasing the amount of uninterrupted stormwater runoff to the cove. Additional grass will be decompacted, which will also help preserve the wetlands by slowing overland flow velocity and allowing filtration and infiltration, improving stormwater quality. The project sponsor will obtain an ECL Article 24 freshwater wetlands permit from NYSDEC, and comply with any permit conditions.
26
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.10 Comment The Accessory Uses Section §2.4.2.2 on page 2-21 discusses operations of the Nautica and states that the Nautica can be reserved for private parties open to guests of members. The DEIS should state the capacity of the Nautica for private parties, the hours during which private parties can be booked and what parking arrangements will be provided for the non-resident guests at these private parties. (pg 3, 4 ¶) Response The Nautica will be open to the residential homeowners, boaters and their guests only. The sponsor of the condominium project (to which the Nautica is an accessory use) has the right to impose rules of operation by way of By-Laws, in order to limit the use of the Nautica to those two groups as well as to impose rules and regulations concerning hours of operation, guest policies, reservations for use of the room and so on. In response to comment 17.07, a sample of proposed rules is provided. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. The seating capacity of the Nautica is estimated at approximately 76 people. The Home Owners Association will determine the available times and number of people that can attend a private party. Off-season use (October - April) use of the Nautica may be less restrictive than inseason use of the facility. Guest parking will be reserved and be provided on-site. Additional discussion on this topic is included in the response to comment PH 2.03. 4.11 Comment With regard to the Marina operation, ILUC urges the Planning Board to set conditions such that any slip originally assigned to the condominium residents can never be sold, sublet, gifted or in any other way made available to the public without providing for increased parking for the “public” slips. (pg 3, 5 ¶) Response The project sponsor has stated that boat slips assigned to the residents of the Newport Marine Club will not be reallocated in the future based on terms set forth by the projects Home Owners Association bylaws. 103 slips will be available for nonresident boaters. The project proposes to provide parking spaces which will support the usage of the nonresident boat slips. The Planning Board has reviewed the parking space calculations and has determined that parking has been adequately addressed. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. See Section 3.3 of the FEIS.
__________________________________________________________ Michael L. Caccamise, Ridge Culver Fire District Fire Commissioner 5.01 Comment Turning radius of proposed roadways doesn’t give us access with our quint. We need 61’0’’ turning radius. “502.3.4”. (pg 1, 1 ¶)
27
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The project sponsor met with Michael Caccamise and other representatives of the Ridge-Culver Fire District and the Town on February 13, 2009 after the receipt of this comment, and discussed this and other comments, and ways to reasonably accommodate the requests of the Fire District. This comment has been addressed in a letter from Costich Engineering, P.C. (the Applicant’s engineer) to the Ridge-Culver Fire District dated February 19, 2009, a copy of which is included in Appendix A4. Section 1 of the letter concludes that there is adequate room for the quint to turn around at the eastern end of the site. The Fire District has concluded that there would be, “no obstruction to hinder Fire apparatus while turning around”. See Appendix A5 and memo dated August 17, 2009. 5.02 Comment Roads into buildings off the main roadway are only 18’0’’ wide. Not wide enough for setup of our quint. Outrigger setup width is 18’8’’. (pg 1, 2 ¶) Response The response to this comment is referenced in a letter from Costich Engineering, P.C. dated February 19, 2009, and is included in Appendix A4. The response to this comment is included as item number 2, indicating that the driveways have been widened from 18 to 20 feet. 5.03 Comment Roads to building width are too close for a quint to setup and access the 90° point of the basket swing. We need at least 50’6” from the farthest outrigger to the face of the building. If not, there is a large blank spot that would not be accessible by ladder operations. Total width between buildings #103 to #104 is only 45 feet apart. (pg 1, 3 ¶) Response Unlike almost all the homes in Irondequoit, the four gambrel condominiums are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems, including a 2-hour separated parking garage, smoke and fire alarms, and fire doors, etc. The buildings will be constructed and furnished with equipment which will limit the spread and expansion of a fire, while providing emergency routes for residents to exit the buildings. These measures justify the offsets and driveway geometry between the buildings. Emergency access under Alternative A – No Action and Alternative B – Private Marina and Restaurant will provide three-sided building access by fire fighting apparatus, while the residential alternatives, Alternative C – Modified Plan, Alternative D – Townhomes and the Proposed Plan all limit building access to a minimum of one building wall. 5.04 Comment You cannot access both sides of the condo buildings. Between building #102 and #103, there are changes in elevations as steps are shown. We could not get an aerial device in if needed. Water side would also be an issue with ground ladder only access being above a 40 foot ladder due to elevation. (pg 1, 4 ¶)
28
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The project sponsor has provided the flowing information regarding access and fire safety. Access between the condominium style buildings and 102 and 103 and along the waterfront will be limited. Vehicle access in these areas is limited due to the constraints of the site. Limited access will be offset by the mitigation measures to be employed in the building construction. All construction will meet the Building and Fire Code requirements of New York State. The condominium style buildings will also be equipped with automatic sprinkler systems, smoke and fire alarms, fire wall separations, fire stairs and protected corridors. Fire preventative measures that will be implemented into the building construction will offset the need to provide 360° vehicular access to all the condominium style buildings. 5.05 Comment Roads must be built to substantiate a load of 73,000 pounds for aerial units. (pg 1, 5 ¶) Response The private roads on the site can and will be designed for this load. 5.06 Comment There are no provisions to get a quint or other fire apparatus out of this complex. No turn around shown. We would have to back out equipment past the access gate into the complex to the designed turn around point. This design traps our equipment and manpower at a scene with no points of turning around equipment. They are putting 5 pounds in a pound bag. We need room to operate safely. (pg 1, 6 ¶) Response This comment has been addressed in a letter from Costich Engineering, P.C. (the Applicant’s engineer) to the Ridge-Culver Fire District dated February 19, 2009, a copy of which is included in Appendix A4. Section 1 of the letter concludes that there is adequate room for the quint to turn around at the eastern end of the site. Exhibit 2 of the FEIS includes a drawing entitled “Emergency Vehicle Turnaround Exhibit” which shows the turning, movement of the firefighting equipment. The Fire Marshall and the fire District have confirmed that this meets their requirements and there should be no hindrance in vehicle movements. (See Appendix A5 for a memo from the Fire Marshal and the Fire District, dated August 17, 2009). 5.07 Comment What about the rule of thumb that we should have a collapse zone of 1-1/2 times the height of a building during a fire situation? Equipment and manpower are trapped between buildings at 45”-0” of space. These buildings are proposed over 50’-0” in height, which should give us 75’-0” of space between structures. (pg 2, 1 ¶) Response The design of the proposed buildings will be in conformance with the New York State Building Code and the Fire Protection Code. The 29
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
buildings will be equipped with automatic sprinkler systems, smoke and fire alarms, fire wall separations, fire stairs and protected corridors. The fire preventative measures that will be implemented into the buildings will minimize t the potential for the collapse of the structures. This will allow the buildings to be placed closer together. 5.08 Comment We would also like to review the fire districts involvement in reviewing and commenting on this and other developments in our district before they are approved and built. This involvement must be shared between the Town and the fire districts so that everyone is prepared when called upon in time of emergency. There are various letters attached to the report from IPD, IVA and others that address a November 6, 2008 letter concerning this project, we find that unfortunately it was addressed and delivered to 1300 Titus Avenue in care of the Fire Marshal’s office. This letter eventually got to the fire district, but wasn’t in time for us to respond back in a timely manner with our thoughts and review of the proposed project. May I suggest that a permanent review process be put in place with all Town fire departments that projects are reviewed by the fire districts? Although we have no legal process to block upcoming project within Town districts, I believe that it’s in everyone’s best interest that safety must be out #1 priority. All of our fire districts have different equipment and manpower requirements to provide emergency service when called upon. We must know that we are allowed to provide this service I an efficient and fast manner when called upon, and that projects are built with this in mind. We can’t be hindered by access or design. (pg 2, 2 ¶) Response The review process between the Town departments and the fire district for future development will be the responsibility of the Town and the fire district. The Applicant has and will continue to include the Fire Marshal’s office and the fire district in the review of plans for the development of the Newport Marine Club. (See letter dated February 19, 2009 from Costich Engineering, P.C. to the Town of Irondequoit and the Ridge Culver Fire District in Appendix A4). 5.09 Comment The Fire Marshal’s office is doing and has done a great job within this town concerning past and ongoing projects, but I believe that the more eyes the better when it comes to reviewing upcoming projects. We are all human and an item might be overlooked or missed by 1 person, but picked up by various reviewers. (pg 2, 3 ¶) Response Additional discussion on this topic is included in the letter dated February 19, 2009 and included as Appendix A4.
30
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
__________________________________________________________ David Bradia, 61 Mooring Line Drive 6.01 Comment We the undersigned, residents of Mooring Line Drive, have grave concerns regarding the possibility for structural failure of Newport Road of the “RSM Newport Project” is to proceed as currently proposed. Certainly our Irondequoit Highway Department is aware of the continual erosion along the northwest edge of the road over the past several years, as they have continued to patch that side of the road as needed. This has all occurred during recent years when there has been a minimal amount of traffic using Newport Road, resulting from the closure of the Newport House Restaurant and Marina. With the expectation that heavy construction vehicles will be traveling up and down the road during the RSM construction phase, we have every reason to expect major deterioration or catastrophic failure of the road unless the road is redesigned or the infrastructure upgraded. We feel this is essential not only in anticipation of the heavy construction vehicles, but also with the much greater traffic to be expected up and down Newport Road as new residents move into the Newport town houses and condominiums. (pg 1, 1 ¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 31
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. Refer to the response to comment 19.01. 6.02 Comment Unless RSM is required to cover the cost of Newport Road reconstruction before beginning work on their projects, we believe that the real estate taxes to be paid 32
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
by the new townhouse and condominium residents will be more than offset by the major expense that the Town will incur when almost certain failure of the road requires extensive reconfiguration. As we expect you are aware, it is not uncommon for other municipalities to require developers to bear the cost of road reconstruction, installation of traffic lights, sidewalks, etc., as a condition of approval for their proposed construction. Response The proposed Newport Marine Club is not responsible for the maintenance and repairs to Newport Road. Newport Road is a public right-of-way which is operated and maintained through the Town of Irondequoit Highway Department. Public roadways throughout the Town are operated, maintained and funded by all of the taxpayers and not individual entities. Some land development projects impact the transportation system more than others. In some instances additional travel lanes, traffic signals or other highway improvements are funded by developers. These improvements are not arbitrarily mandated by the Town, but are deemed to be necessary to offset additional traffic that is associated with the development. In this instance, the Newport Marine Club will increase the amount of traffic along Newport Road, but the amount of traffic can be easily accommodated by the existing roadway. In fact, previous operations along Newport Road including the Town landfill and the Newport House restaurant generated considerably much more traffic than what will occur with the proposed project. In conclusion, RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC, is not liable for the reconstruction of Newport Road; nor does the development reach the threshold that would necessitate additional travel lanes, traffic signals or other highway improvements. 6.03 Comment At the very least, if the Town of Irondequoit is unwilling to require RSM to pay for the reconstruction of Newport Road, we suggest requiring a multi-million dollar bond to be posted by the developer to protect the Town against all of the possible scenarios if and when road failure occurs. After all, since the Newport Road is the only way to and from our homes, we would be faced with possible life and death situations if, in case of emergencies, neither fire trucks, ambulances, nor police vehicles had access to our homes on Mooring Line Drive. If Newport Road became impassible, heavy litigation expense for our Town could be expected when we are unable to travel to our places of employment and suffer loss of income. Response The applicant cannot be held legally responsible for any and all repairs to a public facility which is owned, operated and maintained by the Town of Irondequoit. Granted, if damages to the roadway occur, during the heavy construction phase of the project, which are directly attributable to the construction operation for the project then the Applicant will be liable to make necessary repairs. Any upgrades, repairs or improvements to Newport Road are the responsibility of the Town. Newport Road is a single access point bayside roadway with fairly steep grades. The Town recognizes the importance of operating and maintaining this access under all circumstances, including weather33
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
related situations. RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC cannot be held financially liable for the maintenance of a public road. __________________________________________________________ Laura and Marc Fischer, 73 Mooring Line Drive 7.01 Comment First and foremost, we are very disturbed the Town of Irondequoit appears to be interested in moving along this project without taking a serious look at the impact this project has on the narrow and treacherous road leading down to the site. Currently, it is eroding away right before everyone’s eyes and the Town of Irondequoit merely performs “band-aid” maintenance. The road needs to be widened at a minimum of six feet, at least, at the turn that has already caused one unfortunate death. (pg 1, 2¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the 34
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. 7.02 Comment Also, our delivery personnel (postal, newspaper, UPS, and FedEx) have all at one time been unable to access our development when the weather gets hazardous. This will only intensify when we are asked to spend years living with single-laneonly access to our homes during the development phase. In addition, we have witnessed our children’s school bus have trouble negotiating the turn when conditions turn icy. Vehicles often slide down the road sideways during winter months. (pg 1, 4¶) 35
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The vast majority of heavy construction vehicles will be using Newport Road during the initial stages of the construction project. These vehicles will be performing earthwork operations, and providing stone, gravel, concrete and asphalt for the site improvements during the spring, summer or fall. This work would last approximately two months, during which one-way traffic would be implemented and maintained along Newport Road. During working hours of the construction, traffic access by all vehicles including postal, newspaper, UPS, FedEx and emergency responders will be allowed at all times but would be limited to one way during times of heavy construction traffic. Emergency responders would always have priority over construction traffic. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restriction as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. Also, see response to comment 3.03 and 19.01. 7.03 Comment Kathy Callon at the East Irondequoit School Transportation Department was unaware of the limited access the bus will have for multiple school years. What is the plan for school bus and delivery employees to reach homes? Will the bus and trucks be able to even turnaround? (pg 2, 2¶) Response School buses will pick up students (if there are any) at the gate, like is done at Mooring Line Drive. The project sponsor is committed to constructing a vehicle turnaround for buses, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, public works and other vehicles at the entrance to the Newport Marine Club. The turnaround has been shown on the site plans for the project included in Exhibit 1 of the DEIS. 7.04 Comment On another note, we are in support of RSM having a gated community. This would help minimize the unnecessary traffic on this already unsafe road. We would suggest that RSM be responsible for providing an aesthetically pleasing turn-around for buses, emergency vehicles and excess traffic at the entrance of the future Newport Marine Club. (pg 2, 3¶) Response Based on the information obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. The Newport Marine Club is a gated community and there will be need for a vehicle turnaround at the entrance to the development. The project sponsor is committed to constructing a vehicle turnaround for buses, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, public works and other vehicles at the entrance to the Newport Marine Club. The turnaround has been shown on the site plans for the project included in Exhibit 1 of the DEIS. Also refer to comment 19.01.
36
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
__________________________________________________________ Jack Buttino, 42 Mooring Line Drive 8.01 Comment Only a week ago I sent you a letter expressing the concerns of five (5) Mooring Line Drive neighbors regarding the RSM/Newport project. If you recall, I made it clear that a number of us support the project, based on our meeting with Steve Mancini (pg 1, 4¶) Response The letter is included in comment no. 3 of Appendix A1, (page A1-4). __________________________________________________________ Daniel and Barbara Robertson, 66 Baycrest Road 9.01 Comment During the early informational meetings, the developer was asked whether or not this would be a gated community or whether pedestrian access would be allowed. The developer replied that while it was expected to be a gated community, pedestrian access would be allowed. In the current plan, on page 2-22, section 2.4.2.3, under “Access” it states, “sidewalks will also provide pedestrian access with a pass card”. The last four words of this sentence seem to negate the prospect of pedestrian access, and with this in mind, we would like to know: • • • • •
Did this issue come up in last night’s meeting? Did the developer describe whether this pass card would only be available to residents of the Marine Club? If this issue did not come up, is there a way to get an answer to this question? Does the Planning Board consider pedestrian access to be important to this project? Does the Planning Board have the authority to define pedestrian access as a condition of its approval? (pg 1, 2¶)
Response • The topic of pedestrian access did come up during the meeting of March 10, 2009, and at that time, the Applicant clarified their position on pedestrian access. (See response to comment 4.03). •
Unobstructed access to the Newport Marine Club by the general public will not be allowed. The Newport property is property that is not open to unrestricted general public access. While the use of the property has most recently been for commercial purposes, pedestrian access has only been allowed for marina tenants and restaurant patrons. Unaccompanied strangers will not be allowed on the property. There have been recent instances of disorderly conduct and vandalism caused by intruders at the current marina operation, which has little access control. Therefore, for the safety and security of the general public and residents of the Newport Marine Club, it has been determined that public access onto their property will be limited by utilizing a gated community with a pass-card system. Liability issues 37
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
are also a concern, since a lawsuit could occur if someone is injured on the property. The pass-card would be available to residents and boat slip users of the Newport Marine Club. Guests would be allowed access as long as they were accompanied by a pass-card holder. Guests who are pedestrians could call from a phone at the front gate to obtain access from a pass-card holder. •
This question has been included in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and answers are included in this response.
•
The Newport Marine property is private property and public pedestrian access is best suited for public lands. Pedestrian access for residents, slip owners and their guests will be available through the pass-card system. See the second bullet of this response.
•
The Planning Board does not have the authority to mandate or require that the Applicant provide unlimited public pedestrian access on or across their private property. The Applicant has the same rights as any other private property owner, and to require that this property becomes part of the public domain becomes a land taking by the government. This cannot occur unless there is adequate justification and compensation.
9.02 Comment Living as we do on Baycrest Drive, we walk down to the Bay on a majority of days, and expect that pedestrian traffic from non-residents of the Marine Club would be light. As a quality of life issue, we believe that this is a reasonable request from the developer, and would continue the long-standing practice of public access to this specific part of Irondequoit Bay. Response Pedestrian access to Irondequoit Bay from Newport Road will be limited to residents, slip owners and guests. The site is private property that is not open to unrestricted general public access. While the use of the property has most recently been used for commercial purposes, pedestrian access has only been allowed for marina tenants and restaurant patrons. Recent activities at the marina, which has limited physical barriers, include incidents of littering, disorderly conduct and vandalism. A fence, gate and pass card system will be installed to limit landside access to the site and to provide a safe and secure location for the residents, slip owners and guests. __________________________________________________________ Paul and Kathy Bonsignore, 59 Mooring Line Drive 10.01 Comment We support the development of the Newport Marina site by RSM Development. This site has been an eyesore over the last several years. (pg 1, 1¶)
38
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The applicant has submitted a variety of potential development alternatives that should serve as an enhancement to the Newport parcel that the commenter refers to. 10.02 Comment We have grave concerns regarding the potential for structural failure of Newport Road if the “RSM Newport Project” is to proceed as currently proposed. The Irondequoit Highway Department is aware of the continual erosion along the northwest edge of the road over the past several years, as they have continued to patch that side of the road as needed. This has all occurred during recent years when there has been minimal traffic utilizing Newport Road, as a result of the closure of the Newport House Restaurant and Marina. With the expectation that heavy construction vehicles will be traveling up and down the road during the RSM construction phase, we have every reason to expect a major deterioration or catastrophic failure of the road unless the road is redesigned or the infrastructure upgraded. We feel it is essential not only in anticipation of the heavy construction vehicles, but also with the much greater traffic volume to be expected to Newport Road as new residents move into the Newport townhomes and condominiums.(pg 1, 2¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed.
39
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road.
40
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
10.03 Comment Other issues are the blind curves and narrow width of Newport Road. Newport becomes a one lane road during the winter season. We would like to see Newport Road widened about 4 to 6 feet and the blind curves removed. A well designed retaining wall would need to be constructed into the hillside of Newport Road. If designed properly, this would maintain the safety of Newport Road for all. (pg 1, 2¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no
41
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. Refer to the response to comment 19.01. 10.04 Comment Our belief is, RSM would be willing to take on the upgrade to Newport Road as described and that they should be required to cover the cost of Newport Road reconstruction before beginning work on their project. (pg 1, 3¶) Response The road shows some degradation under its current configuration and traffic loading. The configuration of the road is preexisting. The project is not likely to have any significant impact on the road. Any need to redesign the existing road is a separate issue that will be addressed by the Town. Refer to the response to comment 6.03 and 19.01.
42
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
__________________________________________________________ Harlan Brody, Friends of Irondequoit Bay 11.01 Comment Construction of multi-story condos at the edge of the cove will cast shadows over the cove waters, generate soil erosion, noise and light during the long construction period and afterwards. This will have a negative impact on this important resource. (pg 2, 3¶) Response Given the angle of the sun during late spring, summer, and early fall months (the most productive months with respect to aquatic vegetation growth and aquatic life activity), the shadows cast from the buildings should have little effect. Currently the south shore of Newport Cove consists of large trees which are closer to the water’s edge and are more likely to cast shadows. Additional shadows are currently cast by existing docks and boats. There will not be significant erosion on the natural wooded slope south of Newport Cove as no activity is proposed in that natural area. Erosion that may result from construction activities will be minimized and mitigated through erosion control measures required by NYSDEC. __________________________________________________________ Cheri Evershed, Irondequoit Planning Board Member 12.01 Comment The developer has changed their position on incorporating pedestrian access on the site, restricting vehicular traffic since the May 12th, 2008 meeting when they agreed to incorporate this use. The district is designed to promote and encourage public access, in my opinion gating and only allowing condo residents or dock renters in to see the water is not encouraging or promoting public access. (pg 3, 3¶) Response The Waterfront Development District (WD) is defined in Town Code §235-31(A) as having the following purpose: “… to provide a suitable character and stable environment for the establishment and maintenance of water-dependent and/or water-enhanced uses and activities along the shorelines of Lake Ontario and Irondequoit Bay. The district is also designed to protect the unique and sensitive environmental features that exist along the lake and bay shorelines and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare. The district is also designed to promote and encourage public access to the shoreline appropriate water-oriented recreational uses within the shore zone and other appropriate water-oriented development within the shore zone.” The purpose of the district includes many goals set forth in Code §23531(B), including the following: “(13) To promote the maintenance and/or extension of public access to the shore zone where practical and feasible and where such access relates to and is compatible with the primary purpose of the proposed development or activity.” 43
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The proposed residential development is a change from the commercial uses that presently exist on the property. This change from commercial use to a primarily residential use will still promote and encourage residents, slip owners and guests’ access and water-related recreational use of the Bay. Condominium and townhouse residents, as well as boat slip users will utilize the bay shore for their water-related activities. The project will allow restricted access to the shore with the utilization of dock slips by non-resident boat owners. The general boating public may utilize the marina services at the site for fueling, etc. The development also includes the construction and sale of 56 residential units on the property which do not exist today. The residents of these units will have access to Irondequoit Bay year round. Unobstructed access to the Newport Marine Club by the general public will not be allowed. The Newport property is private property that is not open to unrestricted general public access. While the use of the property has most recently been for commercial purposes, pedestrian access has only been allowed for marina tenants and restaurant patrons. Unaccompanied strangers will not be allowed on the property. There have been recent instances of disorderly conduct and vandalism caused by intruders at the current marina operation, which has little access control. Therefore, for the safety and security of the general public and residents of the Newport Marine Club, it has been determined that public access onto their property will be limited by utilizing a gated community with a pass-card system. Liability issues are also a concern, since a lawsuit could occur if someone is injured on the property. The Planning Board does not have the authority to mandate or require that the Applicant provide unlimited public pedestrian access on or across their private property. The Applicant has the same rights as any other private property owner, and to require that this property become part of the public domain, becomes a land taking by the government. This cannot occur unless there is adequate justification and compensation. The new residential development, along with the continuing operation of the marina will provide residents, slip owners and guests’ access opportunities to the waterfront, which presently do not exist today. (See response to comments 4.03 and PH 5.15) 12.02 Comment 47 Condos require 4,000 sq. ft. = 188,000 sq. ft. 9 Townhomes require 6,000 sq. ft. = 54,000 sq. ft. 62 Parking spots for non-resident parking at 162 feet = 10,044 Total = 252,044 Add Nautica – 2,200 sq. ft. Gas shack – 280 sq. ft. Grand Total = 254,524 sq. ft. of structures. Not counting the road or any EPOD.
44
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
There has been no subtraction of any land for steep slopes, woodlots, 100 foot wetland buffer and flood plain. The massive buildings encroach all of these. 5.9 acres = 254,680 square feet so they are using over 25,524 sq. ft. the difference is 156 feet not counting the road or any EPOD. (pg 3, 5¶) Response The calculation for the density of townhomes and condominium-style units is based upon a total lot area, without reserving or discounting roads, or Environmental Protection Overlay Districts. Town Code §23533 provides “Lot and Bulk Requirements,” and states in subparagraph A (2) that “No new principal building or structure will be used as a multifamily dwelling, apartment building or other similar use shall hereafter be erected on any lot in any Waterfront Development (WD) District unless such lot shall have a minimum area of 4,000 square feet per dwelling unit.” Further, subparagraph 235-33.A(3) states that “No new principal building or structure to be used as a townhouse, singlefamily dwelling, row house or other similar use shall hereafter be erected on any lot in any Waterfront Development (WD) District unless such lot shall have a minimum area of 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit.“ There is no lot size adjustment required for accessory structures, roads or EPODs. The other principal use for the property is the marina. There are no set lot area requirements for the marina, but there are parking requirements necessary for public dock leasing. The total area required is based upon a total of 62 parking spaces at 9 feet wide x 18 feet long, or 162 square feet each, for a total of 10,044 square feet for parking. Thus, the required lot area for the development is 252,044 square feet, while 254,680 square feet is available. Therefore the project meets the “Lot and Bulk” requirements of the Town Code. Accessory structures, roads and EPODs are not deducted from the “Lot and Bulk” requirements for the Waterfront Development (WD) District. 12.03 Comment The comparison that this present plan uses less green space than is presently being used is very misleading. Existing parking lot areas with no structures compared to the proposed 50 foot buildings that totally impact views and are being built on environmentally sensitive areas are very different. The proposed site coverage is nowhere similar to what presently exists. (pg 4, 3¶) From the WD District #12 to protect waterfront areas against congestion as much as possible by regulating the density of population and intensity of land use and by requiring the provision of open areas for rest and recreation wherever practicable. (pg 4, 4¶) Response The amount of greenspace in the project will increase from the present conditions. The existing site contains approximately 42% green area and the proposed development will contain approximately 51% green area. The removal of paved parking areas and the replacement with buildings, driveways, sidewalks and landscaped areas will only positively impact environmentally sensitive areas. Site coverage is assumed to imply ground coverage. The ground coverage requirement for lots within 45
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
the WD Waterfront Development District are set by Town Code §23533.D(1), which set that maximum ground coverage of all principal and accessory buildings, parking areas and other impervious surfaces shall not exceed 75% of the total lot area. Therefore, the Code does not make a distinction between buildings and parking lots. The existing site has ground coverage of 58% and the proposed development has ground coverage of 49%. Therefore, there would be a net decrease in the lot percentage occupancy, making the proposed development a “greener” site. 12.04 Comment This development cannot be considered low to moderate density with these calculations. If the developer is using 100% of the land, wouldn’t that be classified high density? This density is high in my opinion and the WD district specifically allows low to moderate density. A low to moderate build would not use all available acreage. Development of the remainder of this parcel, including the foreshore of the Bay and the wooded, steep slopes, should be prohibited and left in its natural state. (pg 4, 5¶) Per the Site Capacity Worksheet: Base Site Area = 5.85 acres Total EPOD Protection Land = 4.40 acres Gross Buildable Site Area = 1.45 acres No subtraction of road or parking Response The Irondequoit Town Code specifically states that the Waterfront Development District provides for “low- to moderate-density residential development.” Town Code §235-31.B. The project complies with the bulk density requirements for this district set forth in Town Code §23533.A, and with the allowable uses set forth in Town Code §235-32, and thus is what the Town Board prescribed as “moderate” density. This is consistent with typical definitions of medium density as up to 12 units per acre. Additional discussion on the project density is included in the response to comments 4.05 and PB 7.07. Much of the Newport Marine Club land area will not be disturbed. Slopes along the southern portion of the property will not be disrupted. Wooded areas in the northwest and southeast corners of the site will be maintained and the buffer adjacent to the cove area near the northwest corner of the site will also remain undisturbed. In total, approximately 29% of the project site will be left undisturbed by the proposed Newport Marine Club development. 12.05 Comment Condo buildings 103 and 104 are only 30 feet from the water’s edge which is much too close to the water’s edge. The wetland buffer in this area is 100 feet. The existing Newport building is approximately 60 feet from the water’s edge. (pg 5, 2¶) Response Buildings number 103 and 104 are located on the northeastern corner of the property in areas that are presently paved and reserved for parking 46
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
and boat storage. The Town Code §235-33.B(2)(a) requires that the front setback for buildings be a minimum of 25 feet. The proposed project exceeds the required front setback, from the water’s edge, for waterfront developments. The project site is encumbered by a 100 foot buffer along the Irondequoit Bay and a 300 foot buffer along Newport Cove. These areas have been stipulated by the NYSDEC as “Freshwater Wetland Adjacent Areas” and any activity within these areas is limited under permits issued by the NYSDEC. The project will only occupy portions of the buffer areas which have been previously paved or disturbed. Undeveloped portions of the Bay and the Cove and the natural woodlots will neither be disturbed nor physically impacted. Greenspace will be increased and possible sources of non-point pollution will be controlled or eliminated. Stormwater quantity will be diminished and stormwater quality will be increased. Therefore any impact that the project will have on the adjacent area will contribute to the wetlands preservation, protection and conservation. Prior to any construction the Applicant must first obtain a Freshwater Wetlands Permit from the NYSDEC and meet all permit requirements. 12.06 Comment Townhouse #1 is only 15 feet from the property line and much too close to the toe of the slope. All of the single-unit townhouses should be located at least 25 feet from the toe of slope and a deed restriction against any cutting into the steep slope be included. (pg 5, 3¶) Response Townhouse #1 is to be located 25 feet north of the toe of the slope and is not within the angle of repose for the slope. At the toe of the slope at the south line of the westernmost townhouse building, there will be additional soils placed to stabilize the area. It is in the Applicant’s best interest to be assured that the slope along the south property line remains stable. If the slope fails, it would have serious effects to the proposed development and to the properties along Mooring Line Drive. To impose a deed restriction against cutting into the slope is not recommended. Steep slope protection along the south end of this property might be better approached through the site plan, special permit, or EPOD permit process. 12.07 Comment In my opinion from reviewing the code (Commenter’s letter references Sections 235-33c, #2 and #4 of the Town Code) and seeing the pictures of the visual impact of the large condo style buildings I do think that the buildings are way too tall. We are supposed to be protecting scenic views and preserve the aesthetic integrity of the waterfront and this plan as presented does not do this. (pg 6, 1¶) Response The first portion of this comment is an opinion of the commenter. It should be noted that Alternative C (Modified Plan) includes condominium-style buildings which are approximately 12 feet shorter. Mere visibility of a project proposal is not the threshold for decisionmaking. Instead, in order to be objectionable, a project must clearly 47
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
interfere or reduce the public’s enjoyment or appreciation of an inventoried resource. There are no designated significant State or Federal aesthetic resources at the site. 12.08 Comment Some of the docks are in the Resource Protection Zone where docks are discouraged by law. I question how this use is pre-existing and grandfathered. The use of this property in this plan has vastly changed to a gated residential community, marina and club house. This is quite different from the pre-existing restaurant/marina. (pg 6, 3¶) Response The docks and slips that are in question have been approved by the Town of Irondequoit and have been permitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in Permit no. 80-85-0147. The Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan recommends the continuing operation of all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. The HMP also calls for increasing the number of dock slips on the Bay to increase access for the public, not decreasing spaces. The westernmost docks also restrict traffic into Newport Cove, which is designated by the HMP as a Resource Protection Area, and thus helps to protect this more sensitive area. Additional discussion on docks is provided in the response to comments 26.19; PH 5.11; PB 2.06; and PB 6.06. Further, the change in use from restaurant/marina to a residential use/marina will be more compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 12.09 Comment From the Irondequoit Town Code – Accessory Structure – 235.13.1 Accessory structures and uses SHALL be included in the calculation of lot coverage and shall not occupy more than the maximum permitted. I’d like to know when the Nautica was designated an accessory use. (pg 6, 4¶) Response The Nautica has been included in the calculation for “lot coverage” (i.e., site coverage and ground coverage). The proposed plan has a lot coverage of 49% while the maximum permitted lot coverage is 75% (See response to comment 12.03). The Nautica is considered an accessory use, which is further discussed in the response to comments 17.07 and 26.09. 12.10 Comment The Nautica does need to be figured into the calculations. Parking and employee parking need to be considered even if the Nautica is accessory. (pg 6, 5¶) Response The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding parking and boat storage. Parking for the accessory use in the Nautica is not considered a parking generator. In that the Nautica supports the residential and marina uses on the site, and that access to the building 48
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
will be limited to homeowners, boaters and their guests only, there is no independent parking demand for this building. Parking requirements have been taken into account for the residential and marina uses for the project and the project exceeds the parking requirements for these primary uses. Therefore, parking for the Nautica has already been taken into account in the parking calculations associated with the residential and marina uses. See response to comment 17.07. The Nautica will be open to the residential homeowners, boaters and their guests only. The sponsor of the condominium project (to which the Nautica is an accessory use) has the right to impose rules of operation by way of By-Laws, in order to limit the use of the Nautica to those two groups as well as to impose rules and regulations concerning hours of operation, guest policies, reservations for use of the room and so on. In response to comment 17.07, a sample of proposed rules is provided. The Nautica will have a potential capacity of approximately 76 occupants. If the Nautica was reserved by one resident, the premise would be that there would be 75 guests. Assuming vehicle occupancy of two guests per vehicle, this would equate to a parking space demand of approximately 38 spaces. The available common area parking spaces total 68 spaces, therefore the project provides sufficient parking to allow for guest parking of the Nautica was utilized almost entirely by guests. The common area parking also services the non-resident slip owners. Therefore the times in which private parties may be booked and the number of guests at the party must be coordinated to account for the non-resident slip owners. Private parties may be limited during peak boating periods such as summer holiday weekends of Memorial Day, July 4th and Labor Day, while off-season use for private parties between October 1 and April 1 may not have as many restrictions. The determination of the restrictions relative to private parties at the Nautica will be made by the Homeowners Association. There will be no specific segregation of guest parking or non-resident slip owner parking at the site, other than that for handicap accessibility. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 12.11 Comment I do have concerns about the integrity of Newport Road. This proposed development is so intense the road design will be subject to potential failure. Is the developer willing to have money secured in case a failure occurs during construction? (pg 6, 6¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The
49
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital 50
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. 12.12 Comment There are only 175 parking spaces. Therefore the project exceeds the minimum required parking space requirements by the Code of the Town of Irondequoit. (pg 6, 7¶) Response The project provides 175 parking spaces (excluding the 9 additional spaces provided by the townhouse units) while the total of 151 parking spaces are required. Therefore, the project exceeds the required parking spaces by 24 spaces (See Section 3.0, Corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement paragraph 3.3). 12.13 Comment Why isn’t there any zoning variance discussed in the DEIS? (pg 6, 8¶) Response No zoning variance is discussed in the DEIS because no variances are contemplated for the project as proposed nor are variances contemplated for any suggested alternative. 12.14 Comment Describe and evaluate a residential development alternative consistent with EPOD and WD zoning, LWRP, and Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan. The Planning Board asked for this alternative plan and the developer has not provided us with one. I would like to see a plan that conforms with EPOD, WD Zoning, LWRP and Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan this plan does not conform with any of these. This is something that the Planning Board did request prior to the DEIS. (pg 7, 1¶)
51
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response A description of an alternative that meets with the EPOD, WD zoning, LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan is described under Section 6.5 of the DEIS. The analysis of this alternative is consistent with the proposed project, as well as Alternatives C (Modified Plan) and Alternative D (townhomes), which are residential developments, all of which would maintain the marina operations consistent with the LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan. All of the uses are acceptable uses as listed under WD zoning, and the proposed development would occur in previously disturbed and improved areas of the site, minimizing impacts to environmentally sensitive areas or EPODs. Additional discussion on this topic can be found in the response to comment PB 6.01. 12.15 Comment I don’t think that the alternatives have been explored nearly enough. I would like to see much more information regarding Alternative C, D and E. These 3 alternatives hardly have any substantive information included in the DEIS. Response Alternatives are further explored in response to comment PB 6.01 of the FEIS. 12.16 Comment In conclusion it is my opinion that this development does not conform with EPOD, WD zoning, LWRP or the Bay Harbor Management Plan. There is also no request for any variances. I am not opposed to a residential development on this site but I do object to the intensity of this proposal. A 4-story condo building, 55 feet high, 30 feet from the water’s edge, the use of all available land does not make this allow to moderate build. These structures would dominate the waterfront and change the character of the surroundings. This plan would set a new precedent on the waterfront. This application should be held to the same standard that other applications are. I would love to see a scaled down project that would conform to the EPOD. WD Zoning, LWRP and the Bay Harbor MP. (pg 7, 5¶) Response Much of this comment is an opinion of the commenter. A description of an alternative that meets with the EPOD, WD zoning, LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan is described under Section6.5 of the DEIS. The analysis of this alternative is consistent with the proposed project, as well as Alternatives C (Modified Plan) and Alternative D (townhomes), which are residential developments, all of which would maintain the marina operations consistent with the LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan. All of the uses are acceptable uses as listed under WD zoning, and the proposed development would occur in previously disturbed and improved areas of the site, minimizing impacts to environmentally sensitive areas or EPODs. Additional discussion on this topic can be found in the response to comment PB 6.01.
52
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
_______________________________________________________ Gary Skillman, 20 Tuliptree Lane 13.01 Comment The design of the condominiums and Townhomes is not in keeping with all other building structures on the Bay. The only way the plan achieves marginally enough parking spaces is to build their structures on stilts above the parking. This raises the height of the buildings so that they will look like four mini skyscrapers compared to all other residential properties on the Bay. A true eyesore. (pg 1, 8¶) Response Underground parking is parking largely out of sight. The garages are enclosed by masonry walls. Some of those walls are entirely underground, some are partially underground, and because the garage level of buildings 103 and 104 must be above flood level, is entirely out of ground at the east/northeast end. For buildings 101 and 102, since they are on ground level about 20’ higher, and have no flood plain problems, the garage is mostly underground and out of sight. A majority of this comment is an opinion of the commenter. There are many other condominium and townhouse development along Irondequoit Bay and Lake Ontario. (See Section 4.2 – Comparable Waterfront Developments of the DEIS). The project provides parking spaces which are in excess what is required under the Town Code, since parking for 184 vehicles is proposed, while only 151 parking spaces are required. 13.02 Comment The Draft statement says… “These properties provide the opportunity for the Town of Irondequoit to expand its tax base and enhance its image”. This is a joke if the Town allows the new properties to become condominiums with the inherent tax advantages of that classification. As a resident of Irondequoit, I object that these new homes will be paying less than half in real estate taxes based on their assessed value. Further in the plan it points out that 92 slips will be available to the public and that… “The Board of Managers of the condominium association will oversee the operations of the Marina”. That implies to me that the operation of the marina portion of the project will also enjoy the benefits of reduced real estate taxes. Not a good deal for Irondequoit! (pg 2, 2¶) Response The project proposes a use which is similar to other waterfront developments in the Town, including the Westage, Bay Point and Bay Village developments. A revised tax assessment for the property will be made by the Town Assessor and will be based on prevailing acceptable practices.
53
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
__________________________________________________________ Tom Wolf, 1096 Glen Edith Drive, Webster 14.01 Comment Mr. Wolf said that he is a bay resident and will have a view of the project from across the water and is very concerned about the massive condo buildings that are offensive to the residential character of the bay. He said that Alternative D is not explored on the DEIS and is dismissed with little justification and no facts. He would like to see at least the same amount of detail and visuals on it as Alternative C. (pg 1, 8¶) Response Alternative D (Townhouse style units) has been more fully described in the response to comment PB 6.01, which more fully discusses the effects, including visual impacts that this alternative would have on natural and human resources. 14.02 Comment All alternatives appear to be hastily drawn with only three paragraphs devoted to this section (I might add that this is a key SEQR requirement). Response Alternative discussion has been supplemented in the response to comment PB 6.01. 14.03 Comment If the Applicant argues that Alternative D is not economically viable then he should be required to present the complete economic or financial analysis that supports his claim. The economic/financial assumptions for this alternative, compared to the base case, could then be explained by the Planning Board so they can reach their own conclusions about the Alternative D’s viability. (pg 2, 3¶) Response The Applicant has not stated that the Alternative D is not economically viable, but has stated that this alternative is “less viable.” The assumptions for this statement are supported by the increased development cost associated with the townhouse alternative, and because with approximately 20% fewer units, the cost per unit would be higher than that of a mixed condominium-style and townhouse development. While a fiscal impact analysis may be included in an EIS, regulations clearly do not require the evaluation of fiscal impacts as part of the review of environmental impacts. The economic information provided is included to respond to comments and to show the regional impact of the project. Economics is also provided in some cases to provide information relative to the viability of the project or other alternatives.
54
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
__________________________________________________________ Charles Hall, Esq., German Village Home Owners Association 15.01 Comment Having experienced a landslide in our own German Village and enduring the three year, million dollar repair project that occurred there, we speak from personal experience on the dangers and fragility of the entire proposed development project. A major concern is in the event of another catastrophic road fracture or cave-in, who would bear the fiscal responsibility for the exorbitant repairs? We feel that at an absolute minimum, a letter of perpetual credit be established by the builder for the upkeep, maintenance and preventative maintenance on the existing road which will be required to protect the inhabitants of the Mooring Line Drive as well as the new established condos. (pg 1, 4¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. 55
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. __________________________________________________________ Ralph Pascale, 40 Mooring Line Drive 16.01 Comment Please enter the Supreme Court of the State of New York Decisions, Index No. 2006/10479 into the record along with the attached Zoning Law Section 235-52 EPOD2 – Steep Slopes Protection District for the Planning Board’s review. (pg 1, 1¶)
56
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The referenced documents have been included in Appendix A1 on pages A1-57 through A1-67. __________________________________________________________ Irondequoit Conservation Board 17.01 Comment Does this Applicant have permission from the NY National Heritage Program to list the rare and endangered species in the area of the project? If not, the Applicant must secure all copies that have been distributed. This is sensitive information that is not meant to be released to the public. The Conservation Board recommends that all species names and location maps be removed from the DEIS and not be included in the Final EIS. (pg 1, 2¶) Response Given the species of concern identified by NY Natural Heritage, public disclosure of this information was approved by Mr. Nicholas Conrad at NY Natural Heritage Program in Albany, NY. 17.02 Comment This proposed project is gated community that, by its very nature, limits public access. Currently, the area has two points of public access as a restaurant and marina. The Conservation Board requests further clarification of the definition of “public access” and how it is harmony with the various planning documents for the area (e.g. Irondequoit Bay Harbor Front Management Plan, LWRP, Town Master Plan, etc.) (pg 1, 3¶) Response The LWRP defines public access as “the ability and right of the public to reach and use public coastal lands and waters.” LWRP at III-23. The Newport property has always been privately owned and never provided unfettered public access to the Bay. The restaurant does not fit the definition of public access, and was not identified as a point of public access by the LWRP. However, the LWRP specifically recognized that “[p]rovision of greater public access to the Bay” would be provided at Newport “through the private development of a boat docking facility.” LWRP at IV-14. The Project continues this public access by allowing the public to rent 93 boat slips at the Marina. Likewise, the Harbor Management Plan envisions public access as the ability of the public to partake in recreational activities, development of trails, and public acquisition of property. HMP at x, 61. The Plan encourages protecting existing private recreational uses (like the Marina at the site) where utilities, parking and access are available without a significant impact on the Bay’s resource value. Id. Rather, the Plans encourage private development of the Newport site in line with the proposed Project. The Master Plan called for zoning the site for waterfront development and use of the area for “a variety of housing types to meet that changing needs of Irondequoit’s older population.” 57
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Master Plan at 95, 96. The LWRP encouraged uses like the Project “that are enhanced by a waterfront location,” LWRP at III-7, and recommended enactment of Waterfront Development District zoning, and allowing “Multi-family (High Rise Residential Development),” for the Newport Road area. LWRP at III-5, V-8, V-47. Under the Harbor Management Plan, Harbor Areas like the Central Harbor area encompassing Newport are recommended to provide “public access, safe refuge, transient berthing and economic development opportunity.” Harbor Management Plan at 74. The Project is consistent with the goal of economic development for the Harbor Area. The Marina also provides safe refuge and transient berthing, and since it is not an exclusive club, it is open to the public for seasonal docking. The Plans identify other locations for public access. The Harbor Management Plan identifies the North Harbor area for public access, where “facilities for public access to the water, including two boat launches, transient docking for the Sea Breeze area and a public mooring area” are proposed, along with a Sea Breeze boardwalk. HMP at xv, 63, 79. This Plan also recommends consideration of Irondequoit Bay Park West for a marina, HMP at xvi, 75, and public access at LaSalle’s Landing, including trails and a boardwalk. HMP at 82, 85. The Newport Landfill was proposed by all three of the Plans for public recreation, (such as an overlook and a fishing pier). HMP at 95; LWRP at I-36, III-28, V-7, V-9, V-28; Master Plan at 96, 99. The Applicant has abandoned plans to acquire and develop portions of the Landfill site. Accordingly, the Town is free to develop this area into a public park, and provide public views of the Bay, and water access for canoes and fishermen. Thus, the Project is consistent with the HMP, LWRP and the Town Master Plan. The Landfill and other sites designated for public access can still be developed for the public. 17.03 Comment Since this area is relatively free of invasive species, the Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to prepare and execute an effective plan to prevent or minimize the introduction of invasive species that often invade a site during construction. (pg 1, 4¶) Response No invasive species are expected to colonize Newport Cove or Irondequoit Bay (other than what may already exist) as a result of this proposal, or change the vegetative makeup currently characterizing the site’s natural wooded slopes. The proposed location of the Newport Marine Townhouse development currently supports a small stand of invasive common reed (Phragmites australis) and Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum). Development of the site will result in the elimination of these existing invasive species. Once the development is completed, landscape maintenance practices will be utilized that will mitigate the colonizing of other invasive species.
58
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
17.04 Comment The DEIS states that the pre-existing docks are grandfathered. The Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to cite specific regulatory/law language that supports that conclusion. If the docks are not grandfathered then this is a good time to reevaluate the number and location of docks and it may be desirable to require the removal of some docks that are encroaching on the environmentally sensitive cove area. (pg 1, 5¶) Response The docks are permitted by NYSDEC Permit no. 80-85-0147. See response to comments 12.08, 26.18 and 26.19. The recommended amount of dockage in the Central Harbor area (Newport Marina) is 217 berths while Newport Marine’s capacity is 187. 17.05 Comment Section 2-17 speaks to boats per units; however, it does not appear that accessory craft such as jet skis or other small boats (e.g., sailboats, motor boats, etc.) are addressed. The Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to address this concern. (pg 1, 6¶) Response Whoever is assigned a dock slip may use it to store a motorboat, sailboat or personal watercraft at their option. The number of water craft allowed in any one slip is restricted only by the size of the water craft. Smaller vessels may be able to dock more than one vessel per slip for instance; two jets skis, but larger water craft may require two or more slips, such as a wide beam cruiser or a catamaran. 17.06 Comment The Conservation Board recommends the Applicant be required to address the issue of storage of watercraft on the property (out of the water). Storage of boats in parking spaces will reduce the number of spaces available for vehicles and may not allow for adequate quantity of spaces. (pg 2, 1¶) Response The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding parking and boat storage. The project sponsor has stated that offseason on-site surface storage of watercraft will not be allowed at the Newport Marine Club. Provisions will have to be made by the boaters for storage of their equipment during the off-season. Temporary boat parking and storage for maintenance, transference or other related reasons will be transitory and brief (three days or less). Some parking spaces may be occupied by watercraft on a temporary basis. The available parking spaces for non-resident boaters and guests will be monitored daily. If parking space demand exceeds the available parking spaces while there is temporary boat parking, then the boat owners will be notified to remove their watercraft from the common parking areas as soon as possible. Boat launching in the spring and boat pull out during the fall will have the highest occurrence of temporary boat parking. These times will be strictly examined and closely coordinated with the marina operations to minimize temporary boat parking. Residents with small watercraft, which do not use a slip, may launch or pull out their watercraft on an as needed basis. If the watercraft is removed, it shall 59
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
be stored in a parking space associated with the condominium or townhouse style units or removed offsite. The Newport Marine Club will make any adjustments in their rules or bylaws to assure those residents, slip owners and their guests have sufficient onsite parking. 17.07 Comment Nautica: The Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to clarify when and who will establish the rules regarding the use of this facility (e.g., how will the number of guests be limited to the available parking spaces?) Also, the appropriate agency should determine the status of this building (e.g., accessory building?) (pg 2, 2¶) Response The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding the rules and use of the Nautica. The Nautica will be open to the residential homeowners, boaters and their guests only, and will not operate independently from the two uses to which it is accessory. The sponsor of the condominium project (to which the Nautica is an accessory use) has the right to impose rules of operation by way of ByLaws, in order to limit the use of the Nautica to those two groups as well as to impose rules and regulations concerning hours of operation, guest policies, reservations for use of the room and so on. The following sample of proposed rules will address areas of concern, including parking. Since access to the Nautica is limited to homeowners, boaters and their guests only, there is no independent need for parking. 1.
Only boaters, homeowners and their guests may use the Nautica. Guests must be accompanied by their host at all times.
2.
Access to the Nautica will be by electronic card or key fob only to insure no use by the general public.
3.
The hours of operation of the Nautica during boating season (May 1st through October 1st of each year) will be as follows: Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays – 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; Tuesdays through Thursdays – 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.; Closed Mondays for food and beverage service. Bathroom facilities will be accessible by electronic card or key fob at all times.
Off season (October 1st to May 1st of each year) The Nautica will be open and available solely to homeowners and their guests and on weekends only – Friday, Saturday and Sunday from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. for food and beverage service. Bathroom facilities will be accessible by electronic card or key fob at all times. The number of guests allowed at the Nautica will be imposed as part of the rules of operation and bylaws of the Homeowners’ Association (HOA). Applications for reserving the Nautica for private parties will need to be submitted and approved by the HOA. Parking to be allocated for guests of the Nautica will be determined by the HOA. The HOA will take into account the time of the event, the potential number of guests, and the vehicle occupancy rate, other parking demands from the boat slip owners and their guests, and other parking constraints, to arrive at 60
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
an estimated available parking space count. If the available parking spaces exceed the estimated potential parking space demand, then the event could be refused. If there is a parking space shortage, alternative parking arrangements will need to be implemented. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 17.08 Comment The Conservation Board recommends that a better definition of “other surface parking” be provided in the Final EIS. (pg 2, 3¶) Response The definition of other surface parking is the parking which is available along the perimeter of the main driveway which bisects the property and parking spaces available at the terminus of the driveway as it reaches the Nautica and Irondequoit Bay. 17.09 Comment The Conservation Board still has serious concerns about the building heights and negatively impacted sight lines for those living in the area and to boaters. It does not appear that the proposed height and size of the condominium buildings fit into the current nature of structures on the bay and are out of character. The Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to cite how this project conforms to the various plans that address development on the Bay and in the Town. (pg 2, 4¶) Response There is a wide variety of building styles and sizes along the shoreline and on the bluffs, which surround Irondequoit Bay. The majority of the structures are for residential use with some recreational/commercial uses intermixed. The character of the building structures varies from contemporary residential structures such as the homes along Mooring Line Drive and the townhomes of the Bay Point development to period structures such as the Newport Yacht Club located within the Birds and Worms Hotel, which is more than 50 years old. The size of the structures around the Bay vary significantly from one-story, single family cottages to multifamily 3 – 4 story homes and condominiums. The buildings will be contemporary with more of a colonial and seaside village look. Refer to the response to comment PB 7.07 where other similar developments such as Bay Village and Pay Point are discussed. The proposed condominium style structures associated with the project are 3-story structures with a basement area that will be utilized as a garage. The Bay Village condominiums are 4-story buildings which are 260 feet long and over 42 feet tall, while the Newport Marine Club buildings are approximately 145 feet long and 52 feet tall. The mass of the proposed Newport Marine Club condominium buildings are less than other buildings which border Irondequoit Bay. The overall elevation of the Newport Marine Club structures will be less than other buildings which border Irondequoit Bay (See Figure 2 – Elevations of Bayfront Structures) of the FEIS.
61
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Planning Board believes that Irondequoit Bay has a vast variety of natural and man-made structures which impact the sight lines on the Bay. The project conforms to the various development plans for the Bay and the Town, as discussed in Section 2.12 of the DEIS and in the responses 4.02; 17.02; 26.11; 26.13; 27.07 and PH 2.01 of the FEIS. 17.10 Comment The Conservation Board recommends that their Applicant consider creating a green area on the roofs of the buildings or the Nautica and consider other environmentally ameliorating techniques to help mitigate the development of this compact site. (pg 2, 5¶) Response Green roofs for the buildings as an environment technique to mitigate against a natural resource impact is not feasible for this project, although other “green” techniques and programs will be implemented. The dialogue regarding the architecture of the buildings have been previously discussed and it was concluded that gable or sloped roofs are preferred for a residential development over a flat roof, which is more representative of a commercial building. A green roof system is typically associated with flat roofs and would not be a feasible alternative under this project. It should be noted that the site will be greener than what presently exists. The design of the stormwater management system does employ the use of an underground filter which will settle and filter the stormwater from the site prior to reconnecting to the discharge piping network. This addition will actually improve the stormwater quality as it discharges to the Bay. Other environmentally sound practices and materials will be implemented in the design and the construction of the project including energy efficient HVAC building systems, soil decompaction improving stormwater permeability and rigorous soil and erosion control barriers. Practices that will be implemented for the project, that will minimize environmental impacts include, protecting natural habitats, stormwater quantity and quality improvements, water efficient landscaping, energy efficiency, construction waste management, recycled and regional material use, increased ventilation and use of low emitting materials. 17.11 Comment The use of 1,000 pounds of fertilizer per year (4 times the manufacturer’s requirements) to maintain the grounds seems excessive. Are there more natural methods that could be used to maintain the area and has the Applicant determined what the environmental impact of that amount of fertilizer will be on the area? The Board recommends that the Applicant investigate more natural methods to maintain the area or, at the least, follow the manufacturer’s recommendation of fertilizer use. (pg 2, 6¶) Response The Applicant does not anticipate any circumstance to use 1,000 pounds of fertilizer a year. The Applicant has indicated that natural and manmade methods and techniques will be used to mitigate the use of 62
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
fertilizer at the project site. These measures include utilizing a natural non-phosphorous fertilizer, plant species that are tolerant and native to the project site, installation of an enhanced stormwater management system, and the retention of a licensed certified fertilizer applicator with experience in maintaining waterfront properties to perform the landscape services. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 17.12 Comment As a result of this project the number of people that will be permanently living in the area will increase greatly as compared to the previously transient population that used the area. The Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to address how the environmentally sensitive areas will be protected. (pg 2, 7¶) Response The proposed development will result in an increase in green space (from that which currently exists) that will allow for greater stormwater infiltration into the soils. The redevelopment of the site will eliminate runoff of oils and greases that currently take place with the boat storage activities. Further, stormwater runoff from the buildings will be collected, piped, and treated by sand filters before entering the Bay. No additional impacts are expected to the site’s environmentally sensitive areas. No impacts are proposed for the site’s natural wooded slopes and activity in and around Newport Cove and Irondequoit Bay will not change appreciably from that which currently exists. 17.13 Comment Stormwater Management – Several stormwater management structures are proposed for the site. These only work well when they are maintained properly. The Conservation Board recommends that any approved plans include requirements that these structures to be inspected and maintained at the appropriate frequency and, if not done by the Home Owners Association (or other responsible entity), the Town has the authority to complete the work and charge the HOA. (pg 2, 8¶) Response The stormwater management facilities include inlets, piping, manholes, sand filters and maintenance of these facilities will be by the Newport Marine Club Homeowners Association. An Operation, Maintenance and Management Inspection Checklist, along with a Stormwater Control Facility Maintenance Agreement is included in Appendix III of the Stormwater Management Plan for the Newport Marine Club. The Stormwater Management Plan is located in Volume II of the DEIS under Appendix C. Paragraph number 9 of the Stormwater Control Facility Maintenance Agreement gives the Town the ability to take corrective measures in order to maintain the stormwater facilities if the Homeowners Association defaults in the construction or maintenance of the facilities.
63
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
17.14 Comment The Conservation Board still has concerns about the proximity of the development to the wetlands buffer zones. Not only is most of the development within the 300 foot buffer but also much of it is in the 100 foot buffer. The Conservation Board recommends that the Planning Board use its authority to require that the condominium buildings be set back further from the water’s edge especially the western most building which comes very close to the sensitive area of the cove. (pg 2, 9¶) Response An ECL Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit application will be submitted to NYSDEC for authorization of all work within the NYS regulated adjacent areas to wetland RE-1. Although situated within the NYSDEC-regulated 300’ wetland adjacent area, disruption to the natural vegetation within the wooded north slope and impacts to Newport Cove are anticipated to be minimal. The proposed buildings will occupy only portions of the wetland adjacent area that are already disturbed by preexisting development. Procedures to be implemented to protect the wetlands and Newport Cove include, soil erosion mitigation measures comprised of permanent and temporary structures and practices; storm drainage improvements including water quality treatment; alternative practices including the suggested implementation of rain gardens; and finally the change in use from an open parking lot with potential petroleum runoff to building roofs and site landscaping should have a net positive effect on the wetlands and Newport Cove. 17.15 Comment While traffic patterns and usages were listed in Section 3-11, it appears that the study addresses the concerns only in terms of historical seasonal use. The Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to address the increased traffic flow due to year-round permanent residences, provide more factual information regarding the integrity of the road and potential impact of construction traffic on it. (pg 3, 1¶) Response There are two separate topics within this comment, one revolves around the number of vehicles travelling along Newport Road and the other topic requests additional information regarding the structural stability of Newport Road, especially during construction traffic loading. The traffic study included counts taken while the marina was in operation during May and June of 2008. The impact that this development will have on the number of vehicles traveling along Newport Road is included in the Transportation Impact Analysis which is included in Volume II, Appendix D of the DEIS and at DEIS Section 4.4.1.1. The change in the amount of traffic north of Mooring Line Drive will increase from a total of 10 to 59 vehicles during a Saturday peak hour. Previously, when the restaurant was in operation, it is estimated that up to 230 vehicles would travel this portion of the roadway. This analysis assumes a year round usage of the commercial restaurant and 64
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
the year round use of the residences of the proposed project. The proposed project will increase traffic along Newport Road from the existing volumes, but they will be considerably less than the traffic volumes that existed during the operation of the restaurant. The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of 65
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. 17.16 Comment The Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to develop a detailed landscaping plan including which trees will be removed and which ones will remain and more specification regarding post-construction landscaping. The plan should be of appropriate scale to discern the details. (pg 3, 2¶) Response As part of the site plan review process, a more detailed landscaping plan will be submitted for approval by the Planning Board. It will specify which trees will be removed and which ones will remain and more specification regarding post-construction landscaping. The plan will be of appropriate scale to discern the details. The goal of the landscaping plan would be to protect and maintain as many specimens of significant trees or tree stands as possible. Existing trees will be located, identified, sized and their condition noted. The process for protecting the existing critical trees is outlined under section 4.1.2.2 of the DEIS on page 4-5. There may be some individual trees that will require removal based upon the site layout and grading. An extensive landscaping plan would be developed which would include 66
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
many new trees and plantings. Tree removals would be offset by a comprehensive landscape plan, appropriate for an upscale development. 17.17 Comment In summary, the Board believes that the overall project is too sensitive for the size of the property at hand and that attempts by the Applicant to reduce the overall development have not been adequate. The site capacity worksheet shows that only 1.45 acres of the 5.9 total acres are available for development. (pg 3, 3¶) Response The first portion of this comment is an opinion of the commenter. With regard to the site capacity worksheet, the project sponsor provided this analysis as requested by the Town Planning Board only for comparison purposes, and not as a requirement for the proposed project. Town Code §235-47.F(1) provides that the site capacity worksheet is only required for an “application for land subdivision.” The proposal, now before the Planning Board, does not include an application for subdivision. __________________________________________________________ Carol Palmeri, 50 Mooring Line Drive 18.01 Comment On one occasion, as we could not enter Mooring Line drive, as cars blocked the entrance, I had to exit our car and walk a distance to our home. Some of the wildlife at night in the dark can be scary to say the least. How many similar situations could arise from the congestion that would arise from the density of vehicular traffic which would arise from the Newport Club Plan? As a child, I remember being told that after a wedding reception at the Newport House in the 1940’s, a wedding guest died in an auto accident on Newport Road. Fresh in my mind is another life lost just a few years back, by going over the embankment on Newport Road. (pg 1, 3¶) Response The Applicant has proposed a residential/marina use. The prior commercial restaurant/party house use has been discontinued. There would be no foreseeable instances when parking would occur along Newport Road with the present proposal. Unrestricted access for the various homeowners must be provided at all times. Therefore, the parking congestion and restrictions that occurred previously would not take place with the proposed project. 18.02 Comment Hunters will no longer have to “thin out” the deer population. The wildlife common to this area will be diminished, if not completely eliminated with time. (pg 1, 5¶) Response The deer population and wildlife common to this area will not be drastically effected by the Newport Marine Club development. The existing site is extensively developed with parking lots, boat storage 67
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
areas and the existing Newport House. The proposed project will be located in areas which have been previously developed. The parking lots, storage areas and buildings are not considered a natural habitat for deer or other animals. Therefore, there should be little impact on the wildlife in the area. There has been no deer culling in this area of Irondequoit for at least 30 years. 18.03 Comment In 1995, our children could not receive bus service on Bay Knoll Road. We were told there was not enough room in the cul-de-sac for buses to compete the turn to exit in the winter. How then will bussing be possible now, that is, if busses are even able to gain access to this development? (pg 1, 6¶) Response School buses will pick up students (if there are any) at the gate, like is done at Mooring Line Drive. The project sponsor is committed to constructing a vehicle turnaround for buses, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, public works and other vehicles at the entrance to the Newport Marine Club. The turnaround has been shown on the site plans for the project included in Exhibit 1 of the DEIS. __________________________________________________________ Marty Piecuch, DPW Commissioner/Highway Superintendent 19.01 Comment There has been a great deal of discussion recently relative to existing and future safety and structural stability of Newport Road Hill. Newport Road Hill is the next area slated for improvements, regardless of the potential redevelopment of the Newport Marina. In April or May 2009, we expect the Town Board to adopt the 2009-2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which we anticipate will include approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road Hill in 2010 or 2011. (pg 1, 1¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for 68
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000; however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more 69
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. 19.02 Comment In the event of redevelopment of the Newport Marina property, the DPW would also endorse temporary measures, sponsored by the developer to limit heavy construction vehicles from traversing the north edge of the roadway. This could be accomplished by establishing one-way traffic along the south side of the road during project construction. (pg 1, 2¶) Response The Applicant plans to utilize this option, as discussed in response to comment 3.03, which would comply with the recommendation of the Town’s engineers, LaBella Associates, P.C. __________________________________________________________ John Papponetti, LaBella Associates, P.C. 20.01 Comment On March 18, 2009, I investigated the slope/road stability of a section of Newport Road in the Town of Irondequoit. There is some concern about the impacts that the construction traffic of the Newport Marine Club redevelopment will have on the stability of the road. (pg 1, 1¶) During my field investigation, I found two locations where pavement failures exist. These failures consist of pavement cracking and settling, and are considered minor in nature (pg 1, 3¶) The pavement failures that were noted are indications that there is some instability of the downhill slope. (pg 1, 5¶) Although these failures are minor in nature, I recommend limiting the number of repetitive construction vehicle wheel loads along the northern edge of the road in the area of the steep downhill slope. This can be accomplished by installing temporary concrete barriers or construction barrels along the edge of the road in this area. This would reduce the available roadway width; only allowing one-way traffic. Installing temporary traffic control signals would assist in controlling the flow of traffic. (pg 2, 2¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development.
70
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to 71
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
approximately 1999/2000; however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. __________________________________________________________ Wade Daley, LaBella Associates, P.C. 21.01 Comment LaBella Associates has conducted a site visit to determine existing conditions of the guide rail at the above referenced location. Based on our site visit we have identified the following non-standard features and deficiencies). (See comment 21 on page A1-79 for a listing of guide rail deficiencies). (pg 1, 1¶) Based on our field evaluation of the existing guide rail system, we recommend that a properly designed guide rail system be installed to address the above noted deficiencies. (pg 2, 1¶) Response The project is not likely to have any significant impact on the road. Any upgrade of the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. See response to comments 7.01 and 19.01. 21.02 Comment In addition to addressing guide rail needs, the following safety improvements should also be considered: •
Evaluation of appropriate signing for the corridor (advisory speed, curve, hill).
•
Evaluation of the roadway alignment and pavement super-elevation. (pg 2, 5¶)
72
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response Improvements to the road are not part of the project, and would be a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. See the response to comments 7.01 and 19.01. __________________________________________________________ Lewis Vallone and Robert Hazelton, 212 Baycrest Drive 22.01 Comment There are several reasons why this plan should not be approved. It is a fire hazard. Newport Road is very unsafe, worn out and not able to realistically be safely improved without extreme reconstruction of surrounding wild land and sloping properties. No one has addressed this issue – not the Town and not the builder. Remember the California fires where hundreds of homes were destroyed. These proposed condos will be inaccessible on 3 sides, making it very difficult to fight fires. Sparks could be blown up to Mooring Line drive and then possibly Baycrest Drive, endangering and/or destroying many homes. (pg 3, 5¶) Response The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding fire safety. Unlike most Irondequoit homes and the homes on Mooring Line Drive, the four condominium buildings are sprinklered and alarmed (see response to comment 5.03). Code requires that even attic space have dry head sprinklers. Roofing material must be Class A by code, and because any house fire on Mooring Line Drive could cause sparks dropping on these roofs. The condominium buildings will be constructed and furnished with equipment and materials which will limit the spread and the expansion of a fire and comply with all applicable building and fire codes. The fire district has been consulted and they are confident that they can adequately respond to a fire at the Newport Marine Club. (Attached in Appendix A1 on page A1-2525A1-2525 is a copy of a letter from the fire district and in Appendix A5 is a memo from the Fire Marshal and fire district regarding the project. 22.02 Comment Traffic on Newport Road will be greatly increased, and this road is not good enough to handle this increased traffic. (pg 3, 5¶) Response The impact that this development will have on the number of vehicles traveling along Newport Road is included in the Transportation Impact Analysis which is included in Volume II, Appendix D of the DEIS and discussed at DEIS Section 4.4.1.1. The change in the amount of traffic north of Mooring Line Drive will increase from a total of 10 to 59 vehicles during a Saturday peak hour. Previously, when the restaurant was in operation, it is estimated that up to 230 vehicles would travel this portion of the roadway. This analysis assumes a year round usage of the commercial restaurant and the year round use of the residences of the proposed project. The capacity of Newport Road is approximately 1,500 vehicles per hour, while the estimated traffic volume for the road is 59 73
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
vehicles per hour. Therefore, the roadway has sufficient capacity to meet the projected increase in traffic. The proposed project will increase traffic along Newport Road from the existing volumes, but they will be considerably less than the traffic volumes that existed during the operation of the restaurant. The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident.
74
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000; however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. 22.03 Comment The natural habitat of the marina will be destroyed, driving out many animals that make this area their home. (pg 3, 5¶) Response It is not expected that there will be adverse effects to the existing marina habitat. The proposed development is not expected to have an additional impact on any of the site’s current natural habitats. The Newport Marine development will occupy only areas of the site on land that are currently developed including the marina, existing building, and extensive parking areas that accommodate boat storage. These developed areas currently do not provide significant wildlife habitat 22.04 Comment It will absolutely ruin the view of the bay and lake for the homes on Mooring Line Drive. (pg 3, 5¶)
75
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response This is an opinion of the commenter. The project will offset the visual impacts of a surface boat storage facility during October to April and replace this use with a residential waterfront village-themed development with extensive landscaping. There are existing trees and bushes along the southern portion of the Newport Marine Club which buffer the views to the north during the spring, summer and fall. Photo simulations from Mooring Line Drive reveal that some sightlines will be impacted, but Irondequoit Bay and the Bay Bridge are still visible from other vantage points. Further, parking lots and boat storage with their blue tarps and wood supports, which exist today, will no longer be visible. See Exhibit 3 of the DEIS for simulated views from Mooring Line Drive. 22.05 Comment The consensus of the people against this project is that the extra tax money the town will receive is the deciding factor, not what is best for the area. (pg 3, 5¶) Response This is the opinion of the commenter, and is noted. However, the Planning Board intends to be diligent in considering all of the relevant information and concerns regarding the project when completing this FEIS, adopting findings, and in the final decision to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the project 22.06 Comment Possible better uses of the area might be the creation of a public park or fixing up the marina to add a moderately upscale restaurant. (pg 3, 5¶) Response The creation of a public park has not been considered because it does not meet with the goals of the Applicant, nor does this alternative meet with the recommendations of the Town Master Plan of the LWRP. However, the adjacent Town-owned Newport Landfill was identified as a potential site for public recreational uses, including an overlook and a fishing pier, LWRP at I-36, III-28, V-7, V-9, V-28, and was previously proposed by the Town for use as a park. The development of an upscale restaurant on the property has been evaluated as Alternative B – Private Marina and/or Restaurant, and is further discussed under the response to comment PB 6.01. The development of a restaurant on the property has been discounted because it does not meet with the goals and capabilities of the project sponsor. The recent history of the site has shown that restaurant uses have not been supported to the point in which they remain economically viable. The Newport House and Glen Edith restaurants have recently closed. The restaurant alternative does not avail itself to the benefits of the proposed project including smaller parking areas, aesthetically pleasing architecture, residential versus commercial use, neighborhood capability, improved stormwater quantity and quality and decompaction of onsite soils. The Applicant’s goal, the business viability, and the lost
76
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
benefits of the proposed project have eliminated the restaurant use as an alternative for this development. __________________________________________________________ Louis Buttino, 42 Mooring Line Drive 23.01 Comment The density of this project. (pg 1, 2¶) Response Refer to the response to comment 4.05 for discussion on the proposed density. 23.02 Comment The height of the proposed townhouses/condominiums. (pg 1, 3¶) Response The height of the proposed townhomes is in conformance with the Town Code. Building heights for the condominium-style building are at the discretion of the Town Planning Board and come under the provisions of Town Code §235-33.C(2), which provides no specific height limit: “Maximum building height for multifamily dwellings, apartment buildings or other similar uses shall be determined by the Town Planning Board during the special use permit review and approval process and shall be based on a visual analysis of the site prepared and submitted by the Applicant as part of that review. The Town Planning Board shall be empowered to establish maximum princip[al] building heights and locations in order to preserve the aesthetic integrity of waterfront areas and protect any scenic views or vistas identified in the visual analysis.” And for townhomes, Town Code §235-33.C(3) states: “Maximum building heights for townhomes, single-family attached dwellings, row houses, or other similar uses shall not exceed 35 feet.” The proposed project includes condominium-style buildings with a height of 53 feet and the townhomes are approximately 31 feet. The existing Newport House is approximately 39 feet high. Therefore, the proposed condominium buildings are higher than the Newport House and the townhomes are lower than the Newport House. The condominium-style buildings and the townhouse style buildings comply with the Town Code. 23.03 Comment The potential decrease in the value of my property. (pg 1, 4¶) Response The change in use from a commercial marina and restaurant with associated traffic, noise and odors, and impacts to a primarily residential use will most likely have fewer negative impacts to the neighborhood. The project proposes an exclusive development which is more in harmony with the adjacent residential developments. 77
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
23.04 Comment The proximity of the proposed properties to the water’s edge (25 feet). (pg 1, 5¶) Response The proximity of the proposed buildings to the water’s edge is discussed in the response to comment 12.05. 23.05 Comment The plan for any storm sewer drainage and water control. (pg 1, 6¶) Response Stormwater drainage has been reviewed and considered in the overall design of the project. The intended improvements consist of inlets, manholes, piping, filters and distribution piping. The details of the system are included in the site plans, included in Exhibit A of the DEIS and the hydraulic design which is included under the Stormwater Management Plan for the Newport Marine Club as Appendix C in Volume II of the DEIS. The proposed project will have a positive impact on the receiving waters of the Bay by decreasing the quantity of runoff and improving the water quality through filtering. 23.06 Comment The potential for landscape fertilization run-off into the bay causing an increase in algae. (pg 1, 7¶) Response The potential for fertilizer to runoff into the Bay is discussed in the DEIS under Section 4.2.4.2 and in response to comment 17.11. 23.07 Comment The traffic for construction vehicles on a narrow roadway (Newport Road) over a possible four year period. (pg 1, 8¶) Response The developer will agree to the recommendation in the LaBella Associates, P.C. letter dated March 20, 2009 which states that, “the construction phase of the project will limit the number of repetitive construction traffic vehicle loads on the northern edge of the roadway by installing temporary construction barriers along the north side of Newport Road and limit traffic to one-way along the south side or uphill side of Newport Road. Traffic control will be provided through the use of flagmen or temporary traffic signals. The heavy construction traffic would most likely occur during the spring, summer of fall of the first year of the construction project. Heavy construction traffic would occur during working hours (generally Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) for a couple of months. Two-way traffic would be restored at the end of each work day. The temporary measures implemented along Newport Road will help to mitigate the impacts associated with the construction vehicles. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval.
78
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
23.08 Comment The potential damage to the road due to this increase in heavy traffic – will the builder be liable? (pg 1, 9¶) Response The Applicant is not liable for pre-existing damages to the public road. The Applicant could be liable for damages to the roadway directly attributable to the construction operations for the project. The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road.
79
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred.Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000; however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. 23.09 Comment The plan for public use of the marina – parking issues. (pg 1, 10¶)
80
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response Town Code §235-34.A(2)(A) requires 0.6 parking spaces per boat slip for the public use of the marina. The project provides for more than the required parking spaces for the marina operation. The required parking is 62 spaces, while the project provides 68 surface parking spaces. 23.10 Comment The potential for land erosion due to digging of a steep slope. (pg 1, 11¶) Response Soils and the surrounding topography of the site are stable and should remain stable during the construction at the site. The Applicant proposes to limit disturbance to only those areas needed for the establishment of building pads and driveways. Retaining walls and building foundations will be constructed to minimize the impacts to sloped areas. Measures which will be implemented to control soil erosion at the site will include establishment of vegetation as soon as practicable, placing fill at the base of the slope to Baytree Subdivision, and the installation of a stormwater collection and conveyance system. __________________________________________________________ Ralph Pascale, March 20, 2009 24.01 Comment Please help to keep the focus on a Townhouse Plan that would not radically change the character of the Irondequoit Bay neighborhood, as would the all Condo Plan as submitted. (pg 3, 2¶) Response The proposed plan is not an all condominium plan, but rather includes a mix of residential uses, including townhomes and condominium-style units. All townhouses are certainly an option, as discussed under Alternative D and further described in the response to comment PB 6.01. The Townhouse Plan would look more like a tract subdivision of townhouses, as opposed to the proposal, which is a balanced village with a variety of forms. Not all of the four condominium buildings will be the same exact color, some have a variety of details. The proposed plan, Alternative C and Alternative D all propose residential developments, which would be a change in character for the Newport neighborhood from one that is primarily commercial to one that would be primarily residential. __________________________________________________________ Vincent Patane, 359 Bay Front Lane North 25.01 Comment Having experienced a landslide in our own German Village and enduring the million dollar repair project that occurred in our back yards in German Village for over the last three years, I speak from personal experience on the dangers and fragility of the entire proposed development project. Another major concern is in the event of another catastrophic road fracture or cave-in, who would bear the fiscal responsibility for the exorbitant repairs? We feel that at an absolute 81
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
minimum, a letter of perpetual credit be established by the builder for the upkeep, maintenance and preventative maintenance on the existing road which will be required to protect the inhabitants of their community as well as the new established townhouses. (pg 1, 2¶) Response The Applicant is not liable for pre-existing damages to the public road. The Applicant could be liable for damages to the roadway directly attributable to the proposed construction operations. The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no 82
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000; however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. __________________________________________________________ Christopher J. Enos, Bay Tree Homeowners Association 26.01 Comment The Dock and Marina would be owned and operated by a commercial enterprise. At the Public Hearing for the DEIS, the Applicant hinted that it might be willing to eliminate the separate Nautica Building by combining it into one of the four large, multi-family buildings. That proposal was not extensively explored in the DEIS. (pg 3, 5¶)
83
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The proposal that eliminates the Nautica building through combining the use into the condominium style buildings is referenced as Alternative C. This alternative is discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. 26.02 Comment There is no apparent justification for introducing new man-made views that will, in part, obliterate pre-existing vistas. Nor is there any precedent for the introduction of a New England style village into this Irondequoit Bay Neighborhood. (pg 4, 1¶) Response The “New England” style is a way of describing the look. The Applicant proposed a village option, but was asked to break it up so views between buildings could occur. The gambrel roof was a change which helped get away from the original flat roof (as requested by the Planning Board) yet keep the ridge low. Pittsford has a New England look, as do many New York villages, so the look is consistent with typical styles in the area. There is no designated significant State or National aesthetic resources at the site. Newport Road was mentioned in the Irondequoit Harbor Management Plan as an area from which views have critical scenic value. HMP at 45 46. Views from Newport Road will remain and be enhanced by the removal of the Newport House restaurant. The proposed multifamily and townhouse residential uses, along with the existing marina use are allowed in the Waterfront Development (WD) district. There is no need for precedent for any residential architectural style for any development in the Town of Irondequoit, whether it be Greek, Roman, contemporary, traditional, modern rustic or in this case, a New England-style village. Therefore, public viewing of the Bay will be available from Newport Road and the proposed architectural style for the development needs no precedent. 26.03 Comment The existing site consists of 5.85 acres by calculation. Notably, the Develop has consistently rounded this figure upwards to 5.9 acres. Approximately 4.6 acres of the site will be disturbed during construction activity. See, Volume II, Appendix C-1, Developer’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and Page 5. However, the developer has alternately indicated that only 4.2 acres will be disturbed. See, Volume II, Appendix C-1, Developer’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and Page 4. (pg 4, 2¶) Response References to the project site area as 5.85 and 5.9 acres in the DEIS were for clarification only and were not intended to be misleading or circumvent any legal requirement. There is a discrepancy in the narrative of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan quantifying the amount of disturbed area on the site during construction. The correct amount of disturbed area should be approximately 4.2 acres. Page 5 of the SWPPP shall be revised to reflect this change.
84
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
26.04 Comment The Developer has submitted a Transportation Impact Analysis in connection with this DEIS. That Analysis included a review of traffic accidents for the most recent three year period, and traffic counts for subject intersections on Thursday May 3, EPOD1, 2007 and Saturday, June 2, 2007, after the closing of the Newport House Restaurant. The analysis concludes that the increase in traffic volumes due to the Project “will not reduce the level of service of the intersections of Newport Road with East Ridge Road, Bay Knoll Road, Bay Crest Drive or Mooring Line Drive”. Volume II, Appendix D Transportation Impact Analysis, March 2008. However, that analysis does not make any reference to the impending 5 year period of construction. Although the analysis makes gratuitous reference to the Town of Irondequoit Capital Improvement Program as potentially mitigating the “substandard” geometry of the roadway, there appears to be no plan for the stabilization of the road during the five year construction era, nor is there any analysis for any alternative plan for residents of access roads in the event of road failure. Notably, significant road failures have occurred in similar Bay slope roadways within the last ten years (e.g. Point Pleasant Road/Schnackel Drive). (pg 4, 4¶) Response The construction of the Newport Marine Club is estimated to extend for five years with the majority of the heavy construction vehicles limited to site construction which will extend for about two months. The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed.
85
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000; however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. Refer to the response to comments 3.03, 19.01 and 20.01.
86
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
26.05 Comment The contractor should provide a loaded ten-wheel truck or similar heavy construction equipment for the proof-rolling. Rework or replace areas that rut, weave, quake, or are otherwise deemed unsuitable. Id., at page 7. Again, it is not known how the movements of these vehicles would affect the stability of the roadway, and such is not addressed in the DEIS. Nor, is the visual sight and sound impact of these construction processes over a five year period addressed in any way. (pg 5, 6¶) Response The loaded ten-wheel dump truck is proposed to be utilized to test the bearing capacity of the soils at the Newport site prior to constructing any improvements including roads, driveways and buildings. The stability of Newport Road was discussed in the letter from Foundation Design, P.C. to RSM Development dated November 11, 2008 and included as Exhibit 4A of the DEIS. A comparison of the loadings to Newport Road was made between the time that the restaurant was in operation and the existing conditions with the restaurant closed. The stability of Newport Road should not be drastically affected by construction vehicles during the building phase of the project. The history of Newport Road has shown that it has performed as a logging road, a solid waste disposal route, as access to an operating restaurant and marina and as a construction route for home builders. During this time, construction vehicles, garbage trucks and snowplows have utilized the roadway, while the roadway has remained stable. Some minor pavement failures attributed to the failure of downhill slopes was referenced in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch dated March 20, 2009 (Appendix A1, pg A1-79, 5 ¶).Construction processes associated with the project will be temporary. The visual impacts associated with the construction of the site will have little impact on the views from adjacent properties. The vast majority of the site construction will occur during the spring, summer and fall, which is the timeframe in which the existing buffer areas of trees and woodlots have their heaviest foliage. The existing shrubbery will mitigate visual impacts during temporary construction. Noise impacts associated with the construction of the project will be mitigated by ensuring that construction operation is in compliance with the Noise Ordinance of the Town of Irondequoit, Town Code §160-10 Construction Activities. This ordinance limits excessive noise at the property limits between the hours of 10:00 p.m. one day to 7:00 a.m. the following day on any day of the week. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 26.06 Comment “While piles will fairly short (i.e. 15 feet to 35 feet long) they will be rigid enough to drive through obstruction in in-place fill and not require dewatering such as would be necessary with drilled shafts (caissons). Excavate test pit(s) prior to pile driving…” Id., at page 10. Presumably, the pile driving would not take place over the entire five year construction period. (pg 6, 2¶) Response Correct, the proposed pile driving would not occur over five years. The recommendation for pile foundations are for a portion of building 87
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
number 103, all of building number 104, and the Nautica building. The duration to complete this activity would probably be weeks and not years. The construction would occur fairly early in the construction schedule, after demolition and prior to building pad construction. The piles would probably be installed at one time in order to eliminate the need for equipment setup and pile driving multiple times. 26.07 Comment There is no analysis provided by Foundation Design to include any of the alternatives that were required by the Board to be considered. While it may be inferred that a smaller building would require less excavation or less pile driving, that is not part of the evidence submitted to this Board. While it might be presumed that lesser amount of construction might mean a lesser impact on the access road over a lesser period of time than five years, such is not now in evidentiary form for this Board’s consideration. (pg 6, 6¶) Response The impacts that would be associated with the various alternatives, including soils and Newport Road are discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. The change in use of the property from a commercial to a residential use is much more relevant to the impact on the structural stability of Newport Road than the heavy construction phase of the project. The relatively short duration of the construction phase of this project has a considerably less impact on Newport Road, than if there was a successful operating restaurant on the site. These comparisons were discussed in Section 4.4.3.1 and Exhibit 4A of the DEIS. The construction and full build-out of the Newport Marina Club is estimated to occur over five years, but the vast majority of the site work will occur during the construction season for no more than a few months. See response to comment PB 2.04 for a more detailed description of the proposed construction schedule. 26.08 Comment A. Parking Docks, and Intensity: They have since modified the dwelling unit/boat slip ratio in favor of the residential units from 1.0/unit recommended in the Harbor Management Plan to 1.5 slips per unit, thus avoiding provision of additional required parking for the extra public slips per the Harbor Management Law requirements and made provision for only five employee parking spaces for the Nautica, where besides parties, food service and some sales even minor boat maintenance and repair work might also be undertaken according to the DEIS. (Note that this minor repair and maintenance use does not appear to have been revealed during prior public hearings). (pg 7, 4¶) Response The number of boat slips available to the residential units has been estimated at 1.5 slips per unit to account for the typical waterfront homeowner. An extensive analysis and the experience of the Applicant have determined that many of the purchasers of the residential units will have more than one watercraft. Detailed analysis of the 1.5 slips per unit allocation is located in Section 2.3.4 of the DEIS. Studies on other water body studies, including Honeoye Lake and Canandaigua Lake, were referenced in the DEIS.
88
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The proposed project assigns 84 docks for residential use, while providing the required parking for the remaining publicly available 103 slips at the marina. Parking for the marina has been provided in excess of what is required by Town Code, and no variances are needed. The allocation of parking for a marina use does not imply additional parking by employee. The ratio of 0.6 parking spaces per boat slip required by Town Code §§235-34.A(2)(A) and 235-79 includes any employee use. Harbor Management Law §III.B(3) merely references 0.8 parking spaces per berth as one of these criteria that is used to designate harbor areas, and does not establish a new legal parking requirement. The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding boat maintenance activities at the project site. Some of the boat maintenance activities which may be provided at the marina include oil, gas, waste pump-out, cables, bumpers, lines, sails, fuses, batteries, winches, pulleys, rails, etc. These are mostly minor maintenance and repairs that are similar to the activities that occur at the marina today, and were never hidden from review. 26.09 Comment The Nautica is clearly a Principal Use/Structure housing marine related activity and staff for one of the two separate specially permitted uses sought here, to wit: the marina. In fact, the docks are considered accessory structures in the Town’s Zoning Law and were permitted as part of the Newport Marina. Not considering it a Principal Use/ Structure could potentially call permissibility of the public docks into question. (pg 7, 5¶) Response First, as the comment suggests, the proposed docks are one of the two specially permitted uses proposed for this project. Pursuant to the application and pursuant to Town Code §235-32.A(11) however, the docks are in fact a Principal Use of the property; the other Principal Use is for residential use pursuant to Section 235-32.A(5). Likewise, as noted above, the Nautica is nothing more than an accessory use to the two Principal Uses of the property. “Accessory structure” is defined as a “use that is subordinate and customarily incidental to and on the same lot as the principal use or occupancy of a building or lot,” which is “subordinate and/or lesser in area.” Town Code §235-4.B. Being limited to use by homeowners, boaters and their guests, and providing only limited services to those users at best, the Nautica does not stand alone as a Principal Use of the property and has no separate “membership.” The Applicant would not operate the Nautica without the residents and marina members to use it. The project is not open to the general public and the Nautica consequently cannot serve the functions of any of the Principal Uses as described in the Code. Its sole purpose is as an amenity to those utilizing the Principal Uses of the property. With regard to the Nautica, see response to comment 17.07. 26.10 Comment The DEIS continues to understate the permitted dwelling development density and required lot area for the proposed project by underestimating space required 89
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
for each parking space (162 sf. v/s 300 sf. As would actually be the case for those spaces that are not accessed directly of the road), by not providing required number of parking spaces, by using a lower than required parking ratio of 0.6 space/slip for the public docks (which does not meet the 2008 Harbor Management Law requirement of 0.8 parking acres/boat slip), by not subtracting sufficient area for parking for the public docks and related uses, and by overstating the available lot area (5.9 v/s 5.85 acres). (pg 7, 6¶) Response The project has taken the parking space area, the number of parking spaces and the lot area into account during the project design and development. The area of parking space is defined in §235-77.G of the Town Code which defines a parking space as an area of 9 feet by 18 feet or 162 square feet, which is consistent with the calculations for the bulk density within a Waterfront Development (WD) District. Parking space requirements are set forth in Town Code §§235-34.A(2)(A) and 235-79, which require that 0.6 parking spaces per berth be provided at docking facilities. Harbor Management Law §III.B(3) merely references 0.8 parking spaces per berth as one of these criteria used to designate harbor areas. It is not a legal requirement, and there has been no amendment to the zoning law in this regard. Reference to the lot area as 5.9 or 5.85 acres in the DEIS was for simplicity in the context of the discussion. The project complies with the bulk density requirements of the Town. 26.11 Comment It should be noted that whenever the requirements of applicable local laws differ, the stricter standards have to prevail. The 2008 Management Law requirements are stricter than those of the WD Zone (for land use as well as parking) and must, therefore be complied with. The current plan DEIS totally ignores these facts, and relies only on the 1985 Master Plan (which encouraged public access to the Bay) and the WD Zone. Neither the Plan nor the DEIS has identified a single zoning variance that may be required for the current plan to meet the local laws, since it is relying upon its own interpretation of the following. (pg 7, 6¶) Response The Harbor Management Plan does not require 0.8 parking spaces per dock slip. Rather, the Plan recognizes that the Town of Irondequoit Zoning Law only requires 0.6 parking spaces per slip, see Town Code §235-34.A(2)(A), consistent with the recommendations of the Irondequoit Bay Coordinating Committee, HMP at 53. Harbor Management Law §III.B(3) merely references 0.8 spaces per berth as one of three criteria that was used to designate the Harbor Areas. It is not a legal requirement, and there has been no amendment to the Zoning Law in this regard. Moreover, in total there are 184 parking spots for 187 docks, nearly a 1:1 ratio. The Harbor Management Law only applies to “structures and activities on Irondequoit Bay,” and not on the land. Harbor Management Law §I.B(2). It establishes a Water Surface Map to govern use of the water, Harbor Management Law §II.A(1), but not a map for land uses, which remain governed by the Zoning Law. 90
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
26.12 Comment Allocation of Dock Slips: The transfer of additional dock slips to the residential condos by raising their ratio to 1.5 slips/dwelling unit from 1.0 slips/dwelling in the original Plan appears to be another ploy used by the Applicant to meet the minimum lot area requirement. However, this interpretation makes the current Plan even more inconsistent with the Harbor Management Plan, since that Plan specifies a maximum of one boat slip per dwelling unit in zones where multifamily residential uses are permitted. (pg 8, 3¶) Response The Harbor Management Law set 1.0 slip per dwelling as the standard for single-family residential parcels in Nearshore Areas, not multi-family sites in Harbor Areas. HML §III.B(2)(a)(ii). This standard does not apply to the Newport site. Rather, the Harbor Management Plan calls for, and the Harbor Management Law sets, the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, in excess of the current Newport Marina capacity of 187 HMP at 75. HML §III.B(3)(d)(ii). Zoning Law sets the number of piers, docks or wharves for each waterfront development lot used for multifamily, townhouse or condominium purposes at one structure per residential unit. §23532(c)[12] and it also states that under a commercial use, the construction of more than three structures is subject to the determination of the Town Planning Board. §235-32(c)(14)(c)[13]. The existing docks may exceed these regulations, but they have been approved and permitted and will remain under the Newport Marine Club development. The assignment of dock space is not a “ploy.” The Applicant has excess parking, and thus could shift the assignment of some of the existing 187 docks from dwelling units to private rental at the Marina without impacting the density of dwelling units. However, based on its experience with waterfront buyers, and the data from other water bodies cited in DEIS 2.3.4, the Applicant has assigned 1.5 docks for each residential unit to meet the anticipated needs of unit owners. 26.13 Comment The majority of the existing docks on the property are located in HA Zone (some remaining are in a RP-Resource Protection Zone, where docks are prohibited by law). HA is a Harbor Zone where the goal is to encourage expansion of public boat docks and access and other water dependent commercial enterprises, such as restaurants and Marinas and not a reduction or elimination of such uses. Notably, Residential use is not called for in the Harbor Management Plan and Law in the HA zones. (pg 8, 4¶) Response The HMP sets the Newport Marina in a HA, Harbor area zone. This area is recommended for the continuing operation of boating harbors to respond to the demand for recreational boating opportunities on Irondequoit Bay. The proposed Newport Marine Club will continue the operation if the marina and will therefore follow the recommendation of the HMP. A Resource Protection (RP) area has also been designated in the area of the Newport Cove which is adjacent to the project site. Resource 91
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Protection areas are areas in which the natural resources of Irondequoit Bay are to be protected. Recommendations regarding boat storage in RP areas include that “If permitted, dock slips storage in RP areas in Resource Protection Areas would be limited based upon the proximity to significant habitat areas and their potential impact on environmental features”, HMP at 74. The project does not include any changes to the docking facilities at the site, which has permits for the existing docks. The Harbor Management Plan recognizes that the LWRP “provides guidance for the landside development in the Bay ecosystem,” while the HMP “addresses the regulation and use of the water surface.” HMP at viii. Thus, the Harbor Management Plan is not directed to land use planning like the LWRP. The LWRP designates the Site as an “Opportunity Area” for residential uses. LWRP at IV-13. Further, it encourages uses “that are enhanced by a waterfront location.” LWRP at III-7. However, the Harbor Management Plan does peripherally address land uses, encouraging development that is compatible with the Bay and the surrounding area. HMP at 60. While the Plan recommended a change in zoning in certain limited areas, it did not recommend any change in the current Waterfront Development District zoning, HMP at 80, which allows the new residential development. Town Code §235-32.A. The Harbor Management Law does not regulate land uses, which is covered by the Zoning Law. Under the Harbor Management Plan, Harbor Areas like the Central Harbor area encompassing Newport are recommended to provide “public access, safe refuge, transient berthing and economic development opportunity.” Harbor Management Plan at 78. The Project is consistent with the goal of economic development for the Harbor Area. The Marina also provides safe refuge and transient berthing, and since it is not an exclusive club, it is open to the public for seasonal docking. The Harbor Management Plan and the Harbor Management Law set the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, in excess of the current capacity of 187, which will not be reduced. HML §III.B(3)(d)(ii); HMP at 75. So, the same quantity of boats – 187 -- will have access to the Bay as before. 26.14 Comment The available site area (5.85) acres is, therefore, still short of the minimum zoning requirements and leads to understatement of the average dwelling density on the site and an erroneous conclusion that it is moderate density development pursuant to the WD zoning requirements. (pg 8, 5¶) Response Refer to the response to comment 4.05 for discussion on the proposed density. 26.15 Comment Public Access/EPOD Compliance: The Applicant has, once again, circumvented the issue of increased and enhanced public access to water’s edge (both physical and visual) throughout this document. (pg 8, 6¶) 92
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The Applicant provided a narrative regarding public access in Section 2.4.2.3 “Access,” page 2-22 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Additional discussions are included in response to comments 4.03 and 12.01. A discussion regarding the onsite and offsite views is included in Section 4.7.1 “Visual Resources” of the DEIS. Visual access to the water’s edge is also discussed in response to comments 4.07 and 22.04. 26.16 Comment The site plans do not fully comply with the EPOD requirements and lot area, parking ratios and density standard adopted by the Town. No attempt is made to increase or enhance public access to the waterfront. Private, gated access and four large structures are replacing the open views (visual access) and physical access to the water’s edge previously provided by the semi-public marina and restaurant uses. (pg 8, 6¶) Response The plans for the Newport Marine Club do comply with the EPOD requirements, lot area, parking ratios and density requirements of the Town of Irondequoit. Public access and views have also been taken into account in the planning and design of the project, and the number of boats with access to the Bay will not change. Environmental Protection Overlay Districts (EPOD’s) are land use districts established by the Town of Irondequoit the purpose of which is described in § 235-41(A) of the Town Code. “The purpose of environmental protection overlay districts established in this article is to provide special controls over land development located in sensitive environmental areas within the Town of Irondequoit. These districts and the regulation associated within them are designed to preserve and protect unique environmental features within the Town, as much as possible, including but not limited to wetlands, steep slopes, flood plains and woodlots”. The proposed plan complies with the EPOD purpose in that the design of the project has accounted for the preservation and protection of the sites environmental features as much as possible. A description of EPOD’s and how the project will comply with the special provisions of EPOD’s is discussed in Section 2.5.2.4 of the DEIS. Development permits are required for EPOD districts and the developer will be applying for these permits. Additional discussion regarding EPOD’s is included in the response to comment PH 5.20. Lot area and density requirements for the development are contained in Section § 235-33.A of the Town Code in which multi-family dwellings are required to have a minimum of 4,000 square feet per dwelling unit and townhouses must have a minimum of 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Both of these requirements have been met, as further detailed in Section 2.5.2.1 of the DEIS. The project exceeds Town Code requirements for the number of parking spaces required for the development. A detailed discussion is included in Section 2.3.3 of the 93
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
DEIS. Section 2.4.2.3 of the DEIS and response to comments 4.03; 4.04 and 9.01 discuss the topic of access for the project. The impacts to the visual resources are discussed in Section 4.7.1 of the DEIS and in response to comments 4.07; 12.07; 26.02 and PB 6.09. The DEIS and the FEIS provide a substantial discussion on the views and access implications associated with the development. 26.17 Comment “Grandfathered Docks”: The DEIS also dismisses the HMP recommendation about restrictions on location of docks in the Resource Protection (RP) Zone, where 33 of their boat slips are located, by simply stating that it is a pre-existing use. The DEIS does not call for their removal nor does it identify any variances that might have to be obtained to maintain them. (pg 8, 7¶) Response The docks and slips that are in question have approved by the Town of Irondequoit and have been permitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in Permit no. 80-85-0147(Appendix A7). The Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan recommends the continuing operation of all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. The HMP also calls for increasing the number of dock slips on the Bay to increase access for the public, not decreasing spaces. The westernmost docks also restrict traffic into Newport Cove, which is designated by the HMP as a Resource Protection Area, and thus helps to protect this more sensitive area. Additional discussion on docks is provided in the response to comments 26.19; PH 5.11; PB 2.06 and PB 6.06. Further, the change in use from restaurant/marina to a residential use/marina will be more compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 26.18 Comment Overall, the number of docks that have been installed here would not be permitted under recently enacted zoning that determines the number of docks in terms of waterfront frontage. (pg 9, 1¶) Response The docks are allowed under the Town Code. The Harbor Management Law set the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, in excess of the current capacity of 187. HML §III.B(3)(d)(ii). The Harbor Management Law (HML) sets the dock capacity of multifamily residential sites in “Near Shore Areas” under §IIIB (2)(a)(iii) on page 20. This standard is not relevant to the proposed project. The Newport Marine Club is not within a “Near Shore Area” but, in a “Designated Harbor Area” in which the HML sets the regulated docking capacity to 217 boats. HML §III.B(3)(d)(ii). Zoning Law sets the number of piers, docks or wharves for each waterfront development lot used for multifamily, townhouse or condominium purposes at one structure per residential unit. §23594
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
32(c)[12] and it also states that under a commercial use, the construction of more than three structures is subject to the determination of the Town Planning Board. §235-32(c)(14)(c)[13]. The existing docks may exceed these regulations, but they have been approved and permitted and will remain under the Newport Marine Club development. In addition, the Harbor Management Plan recommends continuing all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. 26.19 Comment It is respectfully submitted, then, that this Board is not constrained to place reasonable limitations on the expansion in use of these premises solely by reason of the pre-existence of these docks. They may be old docks, but they are not “grandfathered”. Their continued existence, in whole or in part, may be conditioned upon this Board’s determination as to whether they fit into the overall reasonable use of this parcel. (pg 9, 3¶) Response Refer to the response to comment 26.18. 26.20 Comment Also, the DEIS makes no distinction between parking areas that are open and offer magnificent views of the Bay and the new development, with numerous structures, some over 50 feet tall. This is a veiled attempt to minimize the plan’s visual impacts and its impact on these sensitive areas, DEIS Exhibit 3(E). (pg 9, 5¶) Response The open parking areas on the Newport Marina are private property and not public property. The utilization of the parking areas is limited to marina uses and their guests; it is not intended for unrestricted public access. The LWRP recognizes and encourages enhancement of the south and north ends of the Bay as the best locations for the public to access scenic resources. There are no designated significant State or Federal aesthetic resources at the site. Views from Newport Road mentioned in the HMP (at 45-46) will be maintained and enhanced by the removal of the Newport House restaurant. Any negative visual impacts of the proposed project would be offset by the enhancement of public access at publicly owned lands at the north and south ends of the Bay and at the Newport Landfill as planned, and the continuing public access along Newport Road. The Newport Marine Club will improve the waterfront vista by the removal of a boat storage yard and its replacement with an upscale waterfront residential development. 26.21 Comment The Board received one alternative (Alternative C) that the Developer” recommends for serious consideration”. This alternative was illustrated with a modified site plan with some alternate building illustrations (Exhibit 6B). However, there is no extensive treatment or discussion afforded to this Alternative other than general references to some indefinite lowering of building heights, the elimination of the Nautica building; and, an indefinite decrease in the number of units. (pg 10, 2¶)
95
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response Buildings 103 and 104 were reduced from 12 units to 11 units and the height of those buildings was reduced by one story at the water’s edge. The Nautica building was omitted and placed within the garage level of building 104. This opens a vista to the Bay that does not presently exist due to the existing Newport House. The project has been reduced from an original 72 units to 54 units. Alternative C is discussed in Section 6 of the DEIS and also in the response to comment PB 6.01. 26.22 Comment The Board received another alternative (alternative D) that was accompanied only by a sketch plan. Again, the Developer provided little discussion relative to this alternative, other that it would be for townhouses only with a reduction in the number of residential units. The DEIS indicates that some of the views from interior townhouses would be limited, without reference to the near obliteration of the nine interior townhouse/condominiums as are cited in the main proposal. The Developer acknowledges that the plan is “somewhat random”. (pg 10, 3¶) Response Alternative D (Townhomes) is further discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. Townhouses under the present proposal have been angled and skewed to allow for views of the Bay to the north and east from many vantage points at the proposed townhomes. 26.23 Comment Finally, the Board was told by the Developer at page 6-4 that, “the proposed action is already consistent with EPOD, WD Zoning, LWRP and Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan”. Accordingly, no other alternative was offered. (pg 10, 4¶) Response Alternative E (Residential Development) is discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. The proposed project, Alternative C and Alternative D are all residential projects which meet the code requirements and recommendations of EPODs, WD zoning, the LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan. 26.24 Comment It is respectfully recommended that the Irondequoit Planning Board not accept the current DEIS as an FEIS for SEQR purposes, since the Board had been provided with misleading, misstated, or insufficient information and data upon which it must rely in making this very important determination. (pg 10, 5¶) Response The DEIS has been accepted by the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board on February 10, 2009. The remaining comments are an opinion by the commentator and no response is necessary.
96
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
26.25 Comment We recommend that the Board, with the assistance of staff, carefully study, interpret and consider the goals and objective of all applicable waterfront plans and zoning requirements and seek an Alternative Plan with: 1. An appropriate dwelling density given the lot’s size and environmental constraints with building heights to minimize their visual impacts on surrounding parcels and community views from Newport Road. 2. Allocation of private and public boat slips based on the goals and standards prescribed in the Harbor (HA) and Resource Protection (RP) Zones per the official Water Surface Zoning Map and the 2008 Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Law. 3. Assignment of an adequate number of parking spaces based on the Harbor Management Law to service them. 4. Building location and their mass and heights reduced so as to remove structures from the EPOD areas and to minimize their visual impacts on sensitive natural site featured and resources. 5. Removal or reduction in the number and size of current docks that are encroaching into the Newport Cove (It is mislabeled as Irondequoit Bay on many of the maps in the DEIS and should be corrected) a Resource Protection (RP) Zone, to provide and enhance protection to Newport Cove. 6. Increased and enhanced public pedestrian access to the water’s edge and protection of views of the Bay, the water’s edge and the Route 104 Bridge from Newport Road and the adjoining Town property and other lands. 7. Some form of public access to the water’s edge, so the public could continue to enjoy the Bay views that are historically important to the community and which currently define and enhance its character. (pg 10, 6¶) Response The proposed project meets the goals and objectives of waterfront plans and the Town of Irondequoit zoning requirements. All alternatives required under the Scope approved by the Planning Board were examined, and the Applicant is not required to propose new alternatives at this stage. 1. The dwelling density of the proposed project complies with the bulk density calculations which are outlined in Section 2.5.2. “Town of Irondequoit Zoning,” page 2-25 of the DEIS. Density is further discussed under response to comments 4.05 and PB 7.07. Building heights for multi-family dwellings shall be determined by the Town Planning Board during the special use permit review and approval process. View and vistas will be assessed by the Town Planning Board in their deliberation to establish the building heights for the project. These provisions are outlined under the Town Code in §23533.C(2). 2. Allocation of public and private boat slips are discussed in response to comments 26.12 and PH 5.11.
97
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
3. The ratio of 0.6 parking spaces per boat slip required by Town Code §§235-34.A(2)(A) and 235-79 includes any employee use. Harbor Management Law §III.B(3) merely references 0.8 parking spaces per berth as one of these criteria that is used to designate harbor areas, and does not establish a new legal parking requirement. The Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan does recognize that the required 0.6 parking spaces required in the Town Code is consistent with the recommendations of the Irondequoit Bay Coordinating Committee HMP at 53. 4. The proposed buildings, mass and height have been modified to minimize their visual effects and to minimize the impact to the environmental protection districts. A conceptual plan, which was reviewed by the Planning Board, included two condominium-style buildings along the north property line of the site. This concept was criticized as being too massive with little available Bay view’s south of the site. Four smaller buildings with multiple gaps between the buildings provide additional views of the Bay from the south. Alternative C (Modified Plan) proposes a 12-foot drop in the building height to further limit the visual impacts of the buildings. The reduction in building size and height has minimized the visual impacts to the site. Locations of the buildings are in areas which have been previously disturbed which will diminish any detrimental effects to the EPOD areas of the property. 5. This would be inconsistent with the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan (see response to comment PB 6.06). Newport Cove is part of Irondequoit Bay. 6. The LWRP defines public access as “the ability and right of the public to reach and use public coastal lands and waters.” LWRP at III-23. The Newport property has always been privately owned and never provided unfettered public access to the Bay. The restaurant does not fit the definition of public access and was not identified as a point of public access by the LWRP. However, the LWRP, prepared in 1988, specifically recognized that “[p]rovision of greater public access to the Bay” was “proposed for the site of the Newport House, through the private development of a boat docking facility,” and that this was “considered appropriate given the fact that the site of the Newport House is one of the few locations on Irondequoit Bay that contains sufficient space to accommodate parking requirements and will also not require excessive dredging.” LWRP at IV-14. Thus, the original development of the Newport House private marina was deemed appropriate to give limited public access to the paying public across private property as granted to marina members and their guests. The project will keep the marina in operation, and thus allow access for purchase or rental of the remaining 93 dock spaces available to the general public on first come basis to gain access to the Bay. Pedestrian access will be provided to the gated development through the use of a pass-card, key fobs, or pass-code for residents, slip tenants and their guests.
98
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
7. Under the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan, Harbor Areas like the Central Harbor Area encompassing Newport are recommended to provide “public access, safe refuge and transient berthing and economic development opportunity,” HMP at 74. The project is consistent with the goal of economic development for the Harbor Area. The Marina also provides safe refuge and transient berthing and since it is not an exclusive club, and it is open for limited access by the general public through the purchase or rental of a slip for seasonal docking. The project is consistent with plans for public access and will continue to provide limited access to the Bay through the existing Marina. See the response to comment 27.17. The Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan only recognized Newport Road as a point having scenic value for the public and the road will remain open to the public. HMP at 45-46. See response to comment 4.02. __________________________________________________________ Peggy Norry, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 27.01 Comment At a minimum the project must comply with the performance standards in the Department’s “NYSDEC SPDES (State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) General Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Construction Activity, Permit No. GP-0-08-001, “dated April 2008. This already issued permit requires that any proposal clearly demonstrate why they cannot meet the standards applying to a new project before using the standards for a redevelopment project contained in the General Permit. The DEIS claims that the stormwater standards for new development cannot be met; however, the justification is weak. Also approval of the stormwater management system for this site will be required from the Town or Irondequoit as this is within an “MS4 Community” as described in the General Permit. (pg 3, 1¶) Response The redevelopment of the Newport site from a commercial to residential use provides the opportunity for the conservation of natural resources through the redevelopment of a site with an increase in green area, along with the utilization of the existing services and infrastructure. The project will meet the requirements of NYSDEC SPDES general permit for Stormwater Discharge from Construction Activity, Permit GP-0-08-00. The project will provide an opportunity to improve existing stormwater discharges and to reduce pollutant loadings. Stormwater standards for new development cannot be satisfied at this site. Sensitive areas such as steep slopes and woodlots limit the available area for the installation of wetlands or open channels. The elevation of the existing drainage infrastructure, high groundwater elevations and the water levels of the Bay limit the available elevation head necessary for the design and operation of other stormwater management practices, such as ponds. Infiltration practices for stormwater treatment have also been reviewed, and the underlying soils do not meet the criteria for the implementation of this alternative. 99
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Therefore, a sand filter system has been proposed for the development. Sand filters are suitable where limited land is available, where the elevation head or difference is minimal and where the soils are unacceptable for infiltration. Therefore, the criteria for redevelopment projects have been utilized for the design of the stormwater management facilities. Soil decompaction has also been integrated into the proposed plan. The decompaction of the soils would mitigate the compressed soils under the existing parking areas and allow for enhanced rainfall permeability into the soil layers. The system is within the Town of Irondequoit an (MS4 community) and this issue will be reviewed during the site plan approval process. 27.02 Comment Review of the Grading and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Drawing 224M4, indicates that it is likely that rainfall which does not infiltrate around Buildings 101 -104, or is not collected in the stormwater management system, would likely sheet flow toward the sensitive cove without additional treatment. (pg 3, 3¶) Response The Utility Plan, Drawing 224-M3, provides invert elevations for field inlets for the collection of runoff down slope of Buildings 102 through 104. The Grading and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Drawing 224-M4, contains an area delineated by dotted lines as an area to remain undisturbed and left in its natural state north and east of Building 101. Review of this drawing shows that the undisturbed area extends around the buffer zone. In addition, Detail Sheet 224-M13 provides profiles of the proposed French drain trenches, D-1A, D-1B and D-2. The French drains provide a surface area of approximately 1,600 square foot to infiltrate any sheet flow runoff that occurs down slope of the field inlets through the topsoil and into the stone trenches. The methods employed to capture stormwater sheet flow before it reaches Newport Cove includes decompaction of the onsite soils to promote infiltration, the replacement of parking lots which sheet flow to the Bay with driveways, and buildings connected to an underground stormwater conveyance and treatment system and a perimeter swale/trench to intercept sheet flow before it reaches the Cove. These measures will minimize the stormwater sheet flow towards the Cove and the Bay. The proposed development would capture and treat 83% of the contributing drainage area while 17% would sheet flow towards the Cove and the Bay. The quantity and quality of the stormwater associated with this site will improve. (See response to comment 27.07) 27.03 Comment More alternatives need to be investigated and discussed in further detail to address these concerns. Are there any other technologies that would be suitable for this situation? Alternatives should be discussed and justification included for 100
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
the selected methods. Providing for onsite infiltration as a means for stormwater treatment appears to be an option if greater setback were provided between Buildings 101 – 104 and the cove. A rain garden design would be one means of achieving treatment of sheet flow prior to discharge to the cove area. (p 3, 4¶) Response Alternatives to the proposed stormwater management plan have been investigated with the following conclusions. The Standard Management Practices (SMP) Physical Feasibility Matrix Table 7.2 located on page 7-6 of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (NYSSMDM) has been used as guidance for the selection of the stormwater management practice. Ponds and wetlands were investigated and were rejected for the following reasons: (1) the drainage areas of the site, 1 acre and 5 acres, are much smaller than the required drainage areas for these practices; and (2) the required 6 to 8 foot head could not be provided. The pocket pond and pocket wetland were also considered and were rejected. Ponds and wetlands are not suggested to be included in jurisdictional waters including wetlands. This limits the available area and location on the property to place a pocket pond or pocket wetland to a small area in the southeast corner of the property. This location is limited by woodlots and available elevation head which make these practices impracticable. The Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey did show promise for the design of infiltration practices in the Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) Type “B” soils mapped as present on site. Further investigation of subsoil conditions by Foundation Design, P.C. revealed variable areas of fill ranging in depth from zero to 23 feet below the surface on this previously disturbed site. See DEIS Volume II Appendices for the Newport House Club, Newport Road Irondequoit, New York Geotechnical Evaluation, December 2007; Table No. 2, page 8 for a summary of fill depths and elevations. The required elements for infiltration in Section 6.3.1 (NYSSMDM) require that infiltration practices cannot be located in fill soils that are present on this site. Section 6.3.1 also states that the bottom of the infiltration must be separated by at least three feet vertically from the seasonally high water table. Locations for infiltration would be designed down slope from development where there would not be the separation to meet this required element. An open depression is proposed along the northern perimeter of buildings 101 and 102. This area will be utilized for a rain garden installation practice, by limiting the contributing drainage area to 1,000 square feet or less. Therefore the most acceptable practice available for water quality treatment for this project was determined to be filtering. 27.04 Comment The DEIS states that decompaction will be done for green areas. Staff supports this as a means to improve infiltration particularly in and around areas which have been compacted for parking or boat storage areas. Additional details,
101
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
however, need to be provided to describe when, how, and exactly where this will be done. (p 3, 5¶) Response The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding decompaction. The two-phase application of (1) deep ripping and (2) decompaction (deep sub-soiling), is most practical on flat, gentle and moderate slopes. These practices will be applied to the areas of existing broken pavement and around the new clubhouse on land that was previously compacted by the existing structure. Both deep ripping and decompaction will be completed only when the soil material is moderately dry to moderately moist. Phase I, deep ripping, will be scheduled to follow the removal of the existing asphalt parking and structure, cut and fill for the condominium and townhome pads and the Nautica but prior to utility installation. Topsoil will be applied to the denuded areas following utility installation when the building pads are complete. Phase II, decompaction (deep sub-soiling), will be completed at this time. Please note that the entire site is scheduled to be final graded and permanently stabilized at one time. Future individual building construction will create smaller disturbances that will be subject to site specific erosion and sediment control including stockpile temporary stabilization, a stabilized lot entrance, inlet protection where required and silt fence perimeter protection. Areas that will not contain proposed buildings will remain undisturbed to the maximum extent possible and should retain the benefits of restored soil porosity and permeability. A” heavy duty” agricultural-grade, deep ripper will be used for the first phase: the lateral and vertical fracturing of the mass of exposed and compressed subsoil, down and through, to the bottom of impact between 20 and 24 inches below the surface prior to the replacement of the topsoil layer. (Any oversize rocks or fill material that is uplifted to the subsoil surface during the deep ripping phase will be removed.) Like the heavy-duty class implemented for the first phase, the decompaction (deep sub-soiling) of Phase II will be conducted with the heavy-duty version of the deep sub-soiler. More preferable is the angled-leg variety of deep sub-soiler. It minimizes the inversion of the subsoil and topsoil layers while laterally and vertically fracturing the upper half of the previously ripped subsoil layer and all of the topsoil layer by delivering a momentary, wave-like “lifting and shattering” action up through the soil layers as it is pulled. Decompaction of the soils on the site will provide surface water infiltration and limit overland stormwater flow toward the cove and the Bay. The implementation of these practices will be incorporated into the final site plans and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 27.05 Comment The proposed stormwater collection system method for stormwater treatment is a sand filter. Sand filters can be an effective means to address water quality 102
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
concerns; however, they require regular maintenance in order to be effective. How will maintenance of the sand filter system be accomplished? How often will it be done? Who will be responsible? Who will pay for it? The responsibility and operation/maintenance for this system should be specifically described. (pg 3, 6¶) Response The sand filter practice was chosen because it is not dependent on infiltration into the onsite soils and the water table is fairly shallow. Regular maintenance will be provided to ensure effective operation of the filters. Appendix III of the SWPPP, in the Draft DEIS, was taken from the current version of the Design Manual and describes the timing of maintenance inspections. Specific maintenance operations described below will be included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan operation manual. The water level will be monitored and recorded periodically to ensure proper drainage through the sand filter. For the first year, monitoring will be quarterly and after every large storm. If the sand filter is performing as designed, monitoring will be twice yearly. If not, the maintenance section below will be applicable. Maintenance and the associated costs will be the responsibility of the Newport Marine Club Homeowners Association. Routine maintenance includes raking the filter medium and removal of surface sediment and trash. These maintenance chores will need to be accomplished by manual labor rather than mechanical means. Sand filters are designated as confined spaces and require compliance with confined space entry safety procedures. Accumulated trash and large debris should be removed every 7 to 14 days. The top layer will be raked to break up surface clogging four (4) times per year. The top 3 to 4 inches of the filter medium should be replaced on an annual basis or more frequently if draw down does not occur within 36 hours of a storm event. The removed media can usually be disposed in a landfill. The concrete structure will be inspected for cracking and spalling annually in the spring. As outlined in Section 196-27C1 of the Town Code, the Town, as an MS4, will require a maintenance agreement be in place between the facility owner and the Town of Irondequoit, and recorded in the office of the Monroe County Clerk as a deed restriction on the property. The Agreement will include: 1. All maintenance easements required to access and inspect the stormwater management practices. 2. Procedures and scheduling to be followed to perform routine maintenance as necessary to ensure proper functioning of the stormwater management practice. 3. Identification of the parties responsible for the proper maintenance of al stormwater treatment practices. 4. Plans for periodic inspections by the owners, or their designated agent, to ensure proper performance of the facilities. 27.06 Comment The project proposes incorporating some of the parking for the condominiums underneath the 4 large buildings. It is unclear how drainage systems for this 103
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
parking will be collected and treated prior to discharging to Irondequoit Bay. (p 4, 2¶) Response Floor drains in the parking areas underneath the condominiums will be connected to the sanitary sewer system. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 27.07 Comment The DEIS document does not sufficiently address the recommendations from or compliance with the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan as it relates to stormwater runoff concerns. For example, the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan says (II.C.2.2) “…. Implementation of stormwater runoff management measures (mitigation of impervious surfaces), both for new development and as retrofits to already developed areas, is a priority”. (p 4, 3¶) Response Limiting and mitigating pollutant loads conveyed by stormwater runoff into Irondequoit Bay is/has been a priority in design considerations for the Newport Marine Club project. The project conforms to the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan, reducing the volume of the stormwater runoff discharging into the Bay through a reduction in impervious area. Stormwater quality is also provided through the utilization of sand filters to treat the stormwater before it enters the watershed. Stormwater quantity reduction and quality enhancements will improve stormwater discharge to the Bay. The Harbor Management Plan calls for submission of Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plans for new development, and compliance with SPDES General Permit No. GP-93-06, in an effort to minimize erosion and sediment transport into the Bay, mitigate the effects of increased stormwater pollutant loads, and prevent discharge of pollutants from storage and maintenance facilities. HMP at 88. The engineering plans for the Project comply with these requirements. Best management practices have been adopted to prevent pollution from storage and maintenance facilities. 27.08 Comment The DEIS describes modification to the existing off-site Newport Road stormwater discharge outflow as part of this project. Department staff is supportive of upgrading this storm drain outfall, but continue to be concerned about the design. The proposal of placing rocks in a plunge pool terminating well upgradient of the edge of Newport Cove will likely cause erosion at the pool, allow sheet flow to the cove, and have the potential for significant erosion over time. (p 4, 4¶) Response Addition of turf reinforcement matting below the plunge pool is proposed to filter sheet flow below the plunge pool. In addition to erosion control, matting will provide some additional water quality improvements because the turf reinforcement mat promotes vegetative growth that helps to reduce runoff velocities, thereby allowing the sediment and 104
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
attached pollutants to settle from the slower moving water. The pollutants would then be exposed to sunlight and biologic processes that naturally occur in the soil and vegetation interstitial zone. The project sponsor is completing these improvements on a portion of the system that is owned, operated and maintained by the Town. 27.09 Comment The project sponsor’s consultants have identified two woodlot areas on the project site. Department staff recommends that these woodlots be maintained intact without any physical disturbance or “maintenance” activities commonly proposed to address esthetic concerns at “high quality” residential developments. Buildings should be located far enough from these areas or sufficiently buffered from landscaped areas such that trees will not be deemed a safety hazard and require removal or trimming. (pg 4, 5¶) Response Specifics for individual trees will be addressed in the site plan review process. Ultimately, buildings will be sited to minimize disturbance or the loss of significant trees. 27.10 Comment The area identified as “Existing 225’ x 50’ Shaping and Planting Buffer Zone” was established as a mitigation area by the previous owner. This area has never achieved the ultimate wetland/wildlife buffer zone benefits envisioned when proposed. Some upgrading and replanting of this area may be required by the Department. As noted above, it will be required that this area be left in a completely natural state without “maintenance” or disturbance. (pg 4, 6¶) Response The developer is willing to address this issue and upgrade this buffer consistent with the project plan as may be required by NYSDEC. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 27.11 Comment In addition to woody vegetation preservation, the site plan should preserve nonlandscaped shrub vegetation wherever possible to serve as both wildlife habitat and provide water quality benefits by reducing sheet flows from the project site. Also, the project is expected to take several years to complete. Temporary seeding and mulching should be incorporated into appropriate phases in order to handle wet rainy periods and prevent compromises to water quality. (pg 4, 7¶) Response Comments noted and these requirements will be incorporated appropriately. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan included in Appendix C of the DEIS describes the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be incorporated during the construction of the project. Temporary seeding is a practice that has been designated as a major activity of the plan.
105
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
27.12 Comment Irondequoit Bay is Class B water and a Class 1 Freshwater Wetland. An Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands permit is required for this project. As part of the review, our agency expected that the DEIS would show how this project meets permit issuance standards. This was not done. The project sponsor will be required to clearly demonstrate compliance with 6NYCRR Part 663 requirements for activities that will be conducted upon freshwater wetlands or adjacent areas. (pg 5, 1¶) Response An Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit Application will be submitted to NYSDEC and will include a complete description on how the project meets NYSDEC permit issuance standards. The project sponsor will be required to obtain an ECL Article 24 Freshwater Wetland permit before proceeding with any site work and will comply with all permit conditions. 27.13 Comment The outfalls for the sand filter discharges and Newport Road stormwater discharge system may require fill below the mean high water level of Irondequoit Bay. If this is the case an Article 15 Protection of Waters Permit will be required. (pg 5, 2¶) Response No new outfalls from the proposed storm sewer system are proposed. The design will incorporate the existing weep holes and discharge outlets located in the break wall. Stormwater collected in the new storm sewer system will be conveyed to the proposed French drain trenches and then to the existing stone trenches adjacent to the break wall. Therefore, no Article 15 Protection of Waters Permit will be necessary. 27.14 Comment A more thorough alternatives analysis needs to be done. Some of these alternatives will have significantly less impact on natural resources, however, they lacking significant detail compared to the preferred alternative. Any further exploration of these alternatives should address the previously mentioned concerns about stormwater and wetlands buffer habitat preservation. For example, in Alternative C, the orientation of Building 101 addresses many of the previous concerns about the woodlot, steep slope, and existing buffer planting area adjacent to the cove. Alternative D features townhomes which provides less density. These factors in part address concerns previously expresses as it relates to proximity of development to the Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area. (pg 5, 3¶) Response Alternatives and their representative impacts to the stormwater and wetlands buffer habitat preservation are more fully discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. In this section, impacts to natural features such as soils, stormwater and wetland buffer habitat preservation (wetlands, Irondequoit Bay, vegetation and wildlife) are evaluated for five alternatives. Alternative C does minimize many of the concerns that were previously expressed.
106
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
27.15 Comment It has come to our attention that demolition of existing Newport House restaurant may have begun. Part 617.3 of SEQR says, “A project sponsor may not commence any physical alteration related to an action until the provisions of SEQR have been complied with”. SEQR has not been completed; therefore, please be aware that no demolition work or further alteration of the project site should be allowed until the SEQR process is completed. (pg 5, 4¶) Response This is not accurate. No demolition has occurred of the existing Newport House restaurant structure. There has been ongoing maintenance and minor alterations to the building to maintain the building structure and to secure the facility from vandals. The building provides restroom facilities for the marina facility, and will remain in its present condition until the SEQR process has been completed. 27.16 Comment Staff has expressed concerns about the “debris-laden soils” referred to in the DEIS and potential for having historical contamination from the marina operations. It is unclear from the description in the reports if this has been adequately evaluated. (pg 5, 6¶) Response The Applicant retained Day Environmental consultants in early 2007 to perform environmental site assessments at the project site. As part of the study, 35 soil borings and 9 monitoring wells were installed and assessed. Samples were taken and laboratory analysis was conducted. The environmental report concluded that there were no significant environmental impacts found. The results of the study are contained in a report entitled Phase II, Environmental Site Assessment for 500 Newport Road, dated May 2007, by Day Environmental for RSM Development, LLC. (A copy of the report is included as Appendix A6) 27.17 Comment The document contradicts itself as it relates to marina operation, particularly boat painting activities. Page 3-13 says, “Boat painting areas will be located away from the water’s edge and designed to prevent runoff”. Will there be boat painting activities on site or not? Our preference is that no boat painting or major boat maintenance be done at this site. However, if proposed or allowed, a NYS SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities Permit (GP-0-06-002) may be required. (pg 5, 6¶) Response The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding boat maintenance activities at the project site. To the extent there is minor boat touch up painting or maintenance and permits are required, the Applicant will obtain and comply with any required NYSDEC permits. No significant changes in current marina operations are planned. The Marina will provide launching, haul-out, dockage, fueling, wastewater pump out, and minor painting and servicing of boats of the Newport Marine Club residents and non-residents (slip owners and transient boaters). The general boating public may be able to obtain 107
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
temporary dockage and minor services for a fee. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 27.18 Comment Also wash water is a consideration. Pressure washing and boat wash water is not permitted without the above mentioned Multi-Sector Permit. Any wash water would need to be directed to a holding tank or tied in to the sanitary system. (pg 6, 2¶) Response To the extent there is pressure washing and permits are required, the Applicant will obtain and comply with any required NYSDEC permits. No significant changes in current marina operations are planned. The Marina does provide boat washing services. The wash water from these operations is currently and will be directed to the sanitary sewer. The existing NYSDEC permit for the construction of the docks at the site, permit number 80-86-0078 general condition 13, states that “All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of the wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels, solvents, lubricants, epoxy coatings, redi-mix concrete, lechate or any other environmentally contaminating materials associated with the project”. The Applicant has and will continue to abide by the conditions of the permit. 27.19 Comment Although not a significant concern with regard to direct authority of the Department, staff noted there was no mention of venting or provisions for exhaust fans in the below-grade garages. This could be a health concern to residents if not appropriately considered. (pg 6, 3¶) Response This issue will be well documented in the Buildings Construction Set. Bausch & Lomb has just completed a project that has a similar parking situation. In that case, the concern was addressed by a direct vent system consisting of a vent, fan, and carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide sensors. A similar configuration would be used for this project. __________________________________________________________ Laura Fischer, 73 Mooring Line Drive 28.01 Comment Thank you for including this in the file. With 14 homes in the Bay Tree Homeowners Association, not all have signed Ralph Pascale’s letter. I know at least 4 homes that are not represented by this correspondence. We are concerned about the road and believe the Town of Irondequoit has the incentive to protect everyone’s interest. (pg 2, 1¶)
108
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The Town plans to address their road, as set forth in response to comments 3.02, 3.03, 7.01 and 19.01. __________________________________________________________ Irv Spalding at 6 Bay Knoll Road PH 1.01 Comment So what we would – what I think is going to be best for this area is your item number B or number 2. I believe on the schedule that you had and that is to have the marina plus a beautiful upscale restaurant, something like the Virtu Restaurant that’s up on Exchange Boulevard, part of Corn Hill Development. (pg 15, L 4) Response This is an opinion of the commenter. No response is necessary. PH 1.02 Comment Now, as far as having a high density unit down here at Newport, think of the additional traffic that would be here. You already have your tenants going to and from work every day. Your boaters for 92 contract boating slips would be going back and forth. You would have all your emergency vehicles, your fire, ambulance, gas tank trucks in the summer for filling the marina, rescue vehicles, mail, UPS deliveries, snowplows, boats and trailers, newspaper deliveries and last but not least school buses loaded with children going down that bank , going down that steep road winter and summer.(pg 16, L 9) Response The proposed Newport Marine Club will increase traffic along Newport Road but it will not reduce the level of service at the East Ridge Road, Bay Knoll Road, Bay Crest Drive or Mooring Line Drive intersections. The existing roadway has excess capacity in order to accommodate the proposed development. Refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis included in Volume II, Appendix D of the DEIS, for additional information. PH 1.03 Comment Now, I can just envision a school bus coming up or going down and having some vehicle there sliding into it or going over the bank. (pg 17, L 3) Response The Town plans to address their road, as set forth in response to comments 7.01 and 19.01. School buses will pick up any students at the gate, like is done at Mooring Line Drive. The project sponsor is committed to constructing a vehicle turnaround for buses, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, public works and other vehicles at the entrance to the Newport Marine Club. The turnaround has been shown on the site plans for the project included in Exhibit 1 of the DEIS.
109
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PH 1.04 Comment Now, one other thing too is there was a picture of an aerial view of the Newport Marina and area and it showed ninety boats being stored there. Eighty of those spaces will be taken up by the proposed new building and ten of the boats are not even on the property. So what’s going to happen when you have a hundred and eighty seven boats down there? Where are they going to be stored winter and summer? (pg 17, L 14) Response Boats will be stored off-site in the winter, during the summer the boats will be docked. There will be some temporary boat parking and storage for maintenance, transference or other related reasons which will be transitory and brief (3 days or less). Onsite parking demand will be monitored closely by the Newport Marine Club to be assured that there is sufficient onsite parking for residents, slip owners and guests. If temporary boat parking infringes upon the vehicle parking demand, then the boats will be relocated. Residents with small watercraft may opt to launch and pull out their watercraft on a daily basis. This will be allowed as long as the watercraft is not stored in a common area surface parking space. The boat launch ramp will remain as part of the marina and dockage facility. The use of the facility will be by the residents, slip owners and transient boaters (public seeking safe refuge, transient berthings, or minor maintenance) of the Newport Marine Club. The marina will allow access from the water by members of the general boating public for fueling, servicing and temporary dockage. Daily inseason use of the boat launch facility will be available. There may be emergency measures taken to assist visiting boaters, in which the launch may be utilized. Landside private access will be available to residents, slip-owners and their guests through the use of a pass card system. The Newport area is private property. Unfettered access by the general public is not allowed today, nor will it under this development. Refer to the response to comments 4.03 and PH 5.15 for more discussion on access. PH 1.05 Comment Now, that’s going to make it very difficult as far as having practical use of the park, the co-called Newport Park – that would be the so-called Forever Wild Newport Park, which is over the landfill that was there some time ago. (pg17, L17) Response The use of the Town property, immediately west of the proposed project site, has been discussed in previous studies including the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Pan (HWP) at 95, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) at I-36, III-28, V-7, V-9,V-28 and the 110
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Town Master Plan at 96 and 99. All of these plans suggested that the landfill property be utilized as a public recreation area. PH 1.06 Comment Now, should there be a plan to benefit the people rather than just one person I think would be absolutely advisable and would be an asset to the Town and something that could be approved by the people and by the builders and the construction people that are building in the vicinity. (pg 18, L 17) Response The project will not benefit just one person. The Newport Marine Club will provide 56 upscale waterfront residences to people who desire access to Irondequoit Bay for boating, water sports, and other recreational activities. The Marina will offer 93 boat slips for rent to the general public. The housing and recreational opportunities provided for will benefit more than just one person. While a fiscal impact analysis may be included in an EIS, regulations clearly do not require the evaluation of fiscal impacts as part of the review of environmental impacts. The economic information provided is included to respond to comments and to show the regional impact of the project. The Applicant has stated that the development of the property will provide economic stimulus to region. Jobs will be provided during the construction of the project. Site and building construction will employ a variety of trades including carpenters, masons, electricians, plumbers, equipment operators, laborers, roofer, etc. Regional business trade will increase through the purchase of construction materials, along with commercial and retail establishments that will be visited by the construction workers and the new residents. All of this commercial trade will generate sales tax revenues. The property itself will undergo reassessment and additional Town, County and school taxes will be collected on the property. The impacts of the project will improve the local economy. The project will provide environmental benefits to the area by decreasing the amount of impermeable surfaces, decompaction of the existing soils, providing improved stormwater quality through filtering, while retaining the sensitive slopes, woodlots, and wetlands. The environmental benefits of the project will promote and provide improved water quality to Irondequoit Bay and to everyone who utilizes this resource. __________________________________________________________ John Kaufman, 249 Hoffman Road PH 2.01 Comment The DEIS repeatedly asserts that the project is in compliance with EPOD, Waterfront Development Zoning, LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan.
111
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
ILUC disputes these assertions in the areas of public access, building density, loss of visual resources and proximity of the multi-storage building to the water’s edge. (pg 20, L 12) Response The project is consistent with EPOD requirements, Waterfront Development Zoning, LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan, as detailed in response to comments 4.02 and 17.02. The project does not contain a multi-storage building. The comment may have been mis-documented and the commenter may have meant multistory buildings. There will be some visual impacts if the project is developed. This discussion is included in the response to comment 4.07. Setbacks to the water’s edge are discussed in the response to comment 12.05. PH 2.02 Comment In several cases the mitigation section is incomplete, missing and/or nonresponsive to the problems. (pg 20, L 20) Response The Draft Environmental Impact statement for the Newport Marine Club was reviewed and deemed complete by the Irondequoit Planning Board on February 10, 2009. The mitigation section, Section 4.0 – “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation” was part of the complete DEIS. “Incompleteness, missing, and/or nonresponsive to problems” is too vague to respond to further. Specific comments are necessary so that a response could be prepared. PH 2.03 Comment The accessory uses section states that the Nautica will be available for rental by members for private parties open to outside guests. ILUC believes that more details need to be provided concerning the guest capacity of the Nautica, the times at which parties can be booked and what parking arrangements will be made is significant numbers of outside guests do come in to the private parties. (pg 21, L 7) Response The Nautica will be open to the residential homeowners, boaters and their guests only. The sponsor of the condominium project (to which the Nautica is an accessory use) has the right to impose rules of operation by way of By-Laws, in order to limit the use of the Nautica to those two groups as well as to impose rules and regulations concerning hours of operation, guest policies, reservations for use of the room and so on. In response to comment 17.07, a sample of proposed rules is provided. Also refer to the response to comment 12.10 The Nautica will have a potential capacity of approximately 76 occupants. If the Nautica was reserved by one resident, the premise would be that there would be 75 guests. Assuming vehicle occupancy of 112
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
two guests per vehicle, this would equate to a parking space demand of approximately 38 spaces. The available common area parking spaces total 68 spaces, therefore the project provides sufficient parking to allow for guest parking of the Nautica was utilized almost entirely by guests. The common area parking also services the non-resident slip owners. Therefore the times in which private parties may be booked and the number of non-resident guests at the party must be correlated to account for the non-resident slip owners. For instance, if there are 20 vacant parking spaces during a weekday, and a member wishes to have a gathering with ten other guests, then the HOA may allow the event to take place at the Nautica. Private parties may be limited during peak boating periods such as summer holiday weekends of Memorial Day, July 4th and Labor Day. While off-season use for private parties between October 1 and April 1 may not have as many restrictions. The determination of the restrictions relative to private parties at the Nautica will be made by the Homeowners Association. There will be no specific segregation of guest parking or non-resident slip owner parking at the site, other than that for handicap accessibility. Resident condominium and townhome owners will be required to utilize the available garage parking and driveway parking spaces associated with their homes. Placing a restriction on the number of guests that a resident may have at their home based on the number of parking spaces at the development is a rule that is somewhat extreme and places an undue hardship on the residents of the Newport Marine Club. The residents should have the ability to invite guests to their homes without restrictions, just like any other multi-family or single family homeowner. The Newport Marine Club Home Owner’s Association will impose rules and regulations concerning the use of the Nautica and will monitor the parking demands of the development to be assured that there is adequate parking available on site. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. PH 2.04 Comment With regard to the marina operation we suggest that the Planning Board set conditions such that any slip that is originally assigned to the residents – the one point five slips that Mr. Goldman referred to - cannot be turned into public slips so that an additional parking problem is created by these slips going public. (pg 21, L 16) Response The boat slips assigned to the residents of the Newport Marine Club will not be able to be reallocated in the future. The residents of the Newport Marine Club will not be able to transfer or sublet their boat slip to nonresident boaters. This will be enforced though the Homeowner’s Association and will limit the available slips for non-resident boaters to 103 slips, 10 of which are reserved for visitors. The Planning Board has reviewed the parking space calculations and has determined that parking has been adequately addressed. See Section 3.3 of the FEIS. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 113
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PH 2.05 Comment Those are our main concerns with this. I was intrigued by the references to the - I think it was the C alternative. I would like to see more detail around that. That seems like there’s potential for some improvements there. Thank you. (pg 21, L 23) Response Alternative C (Modified Plan) is further described in the response to comment PB 6.01. __________________________________________________________ Patty Brody. 277 Bay Front Lane North PH 3.01 Comment The book can’t hold enough information to consider the amount of impact that a development of this density, this saturation, is going to have on every single person who lives and uses that Bay in the Town of Irondequoit, Penfield and in Webster. It is huge, and it is setting a precedent which you need to consider in your impact statement. Because what’s going to happen is if this kind of development is allowed, it will set a precedent for what will happen in the future. (pg 22, L 22) Response Refer to the response to comment 4.05 for a discussion on the proposed project density. PH 3.02 Comment The one next door to where I live, Point Pleasant Circle I think - - Point Pleasant Estates it’s called, is a very well done community. I don’t want to live next door to condominiums. I have a private home. I have an individual home. But if it had to be built, boy, that would be an example for you to follow. It is not a dense development. It is a well thought out spacious area. It’s spread out along the acreage. It’s not piled into a corner. (pg 24, L 3) Response It is believed that the commenter is referring to the Bay Point development. A description of this community, its density and a comparison to the proposed project are included in the response to comment PB 7.07, Table 4 and Figure 1.
114
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
______________________________________________________ Thomas Wolf. 1096 Glen Edyth Drive, Webster PH 4.01 Comment I’ve said this before and I’ll quickly reiterate it. The buildings proposed are massive and they’re offensive to the residential character of the Bay. (pg 26, L 21) Response Opinions of scale are subjective. To describe this project as massive, as seen from across the total width of Irondequoit Bay, is one point of view. PH 4.02 Comment There are only three paragraphs in that section. There’s only one it looks rather hastily drawn layout of where those townhomes would be on the parcel. There are no visuals. There’s no similar kind of structure provided and it appears that that alternative is dismissed with little justification and no facts. With regard to the document, I was disappointed in Section 6.4 Alternative D which is the Townhouse style proposal. I believe that the alternative could offer the best solution to the scenic impact that the current proposal has on the residential character of the Bay where people live. (pg 26, L 25) Response Alternative D (Townhomes) is discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. PH 4.03 Comment So my request to the Board is that you ask the developer to further develop that alternative so that it can be presented as a true alternative for your consideration. It should at least give the same amount of detail and presentation as you see in alternative C. (pg 27, L 15) Response The response to comment PB 6.01 discusses all the suggested alternatives in detail. __________________________________________________________ Christopher J. Enos, Bay Tree Homeowners Association PH 5.01 Comment Well, we see some statements – I respectfully submit gratuitous statements – about what taxes are going to be there for people and all that good stuff and I respectfully submit that’s really not a proper part of the DEIS. (pg 34, L 2) Response The SEQRA regulations state, at 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §617.1(c), “The basic purpose of SEQR is to incorporate the consideration of environmental 115
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
factors into the existing planning, review and decision making processes of state, regional and local government agencies at the earliest possible time.” While a fiscal impact analysis may be included in an EIS, regulations clearly do not require the evaluation of fiscal impacts as part of the review of environmental impacts. The economic information provided is included to respond to comments and to show the regional impact of the project. Economics is also provided in some cases to provide information relative to the viability of the project or other alternatives. PH 5.02 Comment Zoning ordinarily is not a part of a SEQR analysis. You don’t really look at zoning per se. Ordinarily, zoning requirements are something that is for a later time when you talk about site plans and setbacks and things of that nature. In this case, I guess they are because the zoning in question a large part deals with the environment and there’s some case law to support that as well. (pg 34, L 20) Response The context of the speaker’s comment is not particularly clear. Assuming the speaker is referring to compliance with zoning restrictions (site plan, setbacks, etc to use the speaker’s example) the speaker is correct in that SEQRA analysis examines compliance with setbacks and other zoning requirements to a lesser extent than it does the physical impact a project will have on the land and potential environmental impacts. In this case especially, where the proposed uses are (specially) permitted uses and do not require zoning variances, SEQRA analysis is focused upon the physical and environmental impacts of the project. Nonetheless, compliance with zoning requirements is discussed in the DEIS. PH 5.03 Comment I respectfully submit that as we have shown before some of the conclusory statements particularly with regard to parking, one and a half boat slips per unit, and some of these things really are rather conclusory and are really not supported by any real evidence. (pg 35, L 5) Response The analysis of parking space requirements and boat slip allocation is found on specific reference materials. Parking space requirements have been analyzed in Section 2.3.2 – Parking, of the DEIS. The project provides a number of parking spaces which exceeds the required number of spaces by code. (Additional discussions are included in Section 3 – Correction to the Draft Environmental impact Statement in paragraph 3.3). The number of boat slips to be allocated to the residences of the project has been set at 1.5 slips per unit and is collaborated with the studies along Honeoye Lake and Canandaigua Lake. The evidence that supports the parking requirement is included in Town Code §23534.A(2)(b)(2), and §235-34.A(2)(a) while the boat slip allocation is consistent with the Honeoye Lake Watershed Task Force 2005 and the Canandaigua Lake Peak Boat Usage Inventory and Carrying Capacity Analysis (3rd Draft Overlay 2008).
116
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PH 5.04 Comment There is, again, evidence with regard to Canandaigua Lake where this Applicant also had a similar application, but there’s no real hard evidence to support why on Irondequoit’s Bay where we have a Harbor Management Law that’s been adopted that calls for a different standard in terms of boat slips than Canandaigua Lake why in the world we would adopt alone and a half boat slips per unit. Response The assignment of one and one half boat slips per residential unit is approximate. This allocation is based upon the estimated demands of the residents of the Newport Marine Club who may wish to reserve dockage for their use. The propensity of boat owners with larger and larger boats requires that slips be provided that may take up more than one or even two or more standard size boat slips. This along with residents multiple water craft, justifies the allocation of 1.5 slips per unit. Additional discussion on the allocation of boat slips is provided in the response to comments 26.12; PH 5.19 and PB 5.01. PH 5.05 Comment Again, I propose that we can submit some law in this regard with regard to whether or not a bunch of docks some of which are now identified in a recently adopted law as being located in an improper location are proper to remain there particularly whereas here we’re not just having a continuation of that, but we’re expanding the overall use of the parcel. (pg 36, L 14) Response The docks are located in a permitted location. Under the Harbor Management Plan, boat storage is discouraged, but dock, slip and mooring development in resource protection areas can be permitted. HMP, page xiv. “If permitted, dock, slip and mooring development in resource protection areas would be limited based upon the proximity to significant habitat areas and their potential impact on environmental features”. HMP, page XIV. The Newport Marina is such an area. The overall use of the public marina will be limited in that the Newport residences will occupy approximately 84 of the 187 docks presently available to the public for rent. Therefore, the intensity of the use open to the public will diminished. The overall marina traffic intensity will decrease from the restaurant/marina to the residential/marina uses. PH 5.06 Comment Again, one of the conclusory statement that I saw in there that intrigued me a lot as well, well, you know that little cove is real sensitive and the bay plan says we shouldn’t put docks there, but you know what, our docks there protect that cove, and it was kind of interesting. There is no evidence to show that someone is going to drive a cigar boat or something into that cove if they take the docks out. It was a conclusory statement. (pg 37, L6). Response Boat traffic into Newport Cove is restricted by the existing docks.
117
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Harbor Management Plan recommends continuing all existing and fully approved docks. HWP at 71, the existing docks have been permitted and approved by both the Town and the NYSDEC. Therefore, the existing docks and slips are in conformance with the HMP. The docks and slips are further discussed in response to comment PB 6.06. PH 5.07 Comment Again, I would agree with the previous speaker Mr. Wolf that this Board asked for alternatives to be explored not so they could dismiss them out of hand, but so they could be explored. (pg 38, L 3) Response Alternatives are discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. PH 5.08 Comment But eventually though, I did find the one page with regard to Alternative D. I don’t know how long it took to draw it up, but respectfully I submit to this Board that it is not something that can be dismissed out of hand. The Applicant’s own statement says, well, it’s not as viable. I believe fifty six units or something. It would not be as viable as some of the others. Why not? Why isn’t it viable? Where do you get that from? (pg 38, L12) Response While a fiscal impact analysis may be included in an EIS, regulations clearly do not require the evaluation of fiscal impacts as part of the review of environmental impacts. The economic information provided is included to respond to comments and to show the regional impact of the project. Economics is also provided in some cases to provide information relative to the viability of the project or other alternatives. The Applicant has stated that, the development of the property must take into account the number of units and the cost of development. The costs associated with land development, building and infrastructure are typically spread across all of the proposed units. If the number of dwellings is decreased the development cost per unit would increase. The proposed project proposed 56 units while Alternative D – Townhomes proposed 45 units. This equals to approximately a 20% decrease in the number of units. Alternative D is also eliminates the condominium style residential unit, which is a market that RSM Irondequoit Bay Development is seriously pursuing. There are many people who are looking for a condominium style residence, located on a single level, which are compact, upscale and have the recreational opportunities available at the Newport Marine Club. Construction cost for the townhouse style units would also be much higher per unit that that of the condominium style. Therefore, 118
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative D – Townhomes is less viable due to the fewer number of units, the style of the units and the construction cost per unit. Additional discussions including Alternative D have been supplemented in the response to comments PB 2.01 and PB 6.01. PH 5.09 Comment You have basically a bird’s eye view from a satellite of a bunch of little boxes on the parcel, but it didn’t say anything about really what this Board is looking for on alternative D and I respectfully submit that should be further explored. (pg 38, L 23) Response Alternative D (Townhomes) is discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01 PH 5.10 Comment We ask that you seek an appropriate dwelling density given the lot size and environmental constraints and building heights to minimize the visual impacts on the surrounding parcels and the community views from Newport Road. (pg 40, L 7) Response Refer to the response to comments 4.02 and 4.05 for a discussion on the proposed project density. PH 5.11 Comment We ask that there be an allocation of the private and public boat slips based upon the goals and standards prescribed in the harbor and resource protection zones for the official water surface zoning map in the 2008 Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Law. (pg 40, L 12) Response The Project is consistent with the Harbor Management Law, which sets the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, in excess of the current Marina capacity of 187. HML §III.B(3)(d)(ii). The Law does not require an allocation between private and public boat slips. The Harbor Management Law (HML) sets the dock capacity of multi-family residential sites in “Near Shore Areas” under §IIIB (2)(a)(iii) on page 20. This standard is not relevant to the proposed project. The Newport Marine Club is not within a “Near Shore Area” but, in a “Designated Harbor Area” in which the HML sets the regulated docking capacity to 217 boats. HML §III.B(3)(d)(ii). Further, preexisting permitted docks are grandfathered, and it would be unconstitutional to require their removal. See Smith v. Board of Appeals of Town of Islip, 202 A.D.2d 674, 609 N.Y.S.2d 912 (2nd Dept.1994); Town of Islip v. Modica Associates of NY 122, LLC, 45 A.D.3d 574, 846 N.Y.S.2d 201 (2nd Dept. 2007).
119
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PH 5.12 Comment We ask that there be an assignment of an adequate number of parking spaces based upon the Harbor Management Law to service them. (pg 40, L 17) Response The Harbor Management Plan does not require 0.8 parking spaces per dock slip. Rather, the Plan recognizes the Town of Irondequoit Zoning Law only requires 0.6 parking spaces per slip, see Town Code §23534.A(2)(a), consistent with the reference of the Harbor Management Plan, (HMP, page 53). Harbor Management Law § III .B (3) merely references 0.8 spaces per berth as one of three criteria that is used to designate harbor areas. The HMP also recommends 30 car-trailer spaces and 10 single spaces per launch ramp. These requirements are likely intended for large public marinas open to the general public for launching and retrieving boats, such as a public launch. This project and the associated launch ramp are intended primarily for the use of slipowners and residents. Parking for slip-owners and residents has been provided into the proposed plans. The HMP is not a legal requirement and there has been no amendment to the zoning law in this regard. PH 5.13 Comment We ask that building location and their bulk and heights be made so that as to remove structures from the EPOD areas and to minimize their visual impacts on the sensitive natural sight features and resources. (pg 40, L 20) Response The proposed buildings will be constructed in previously disturbed areas of the site. There is no requirement to remove buildings from EPOD areas. The project has taken sensitive environmental areas into account and has minimized intrusion in woodlots, steep slopes, wetlands and floodplains. The Applicant will seek to obtain EPOD permits for all construction within the EPOS areas. Mere visibility of a project proposal is not the threshold for decision making. Instead, in order to be objectionable, a project must clearly interfere or reduce the public’s enjoyment or appreciation of an inventoried resource. The public will be able to enjoy the views from Newport Road to the Bay, which is the only relevant critical scenic view mentioned in the HMP (at 45-46). Some viewing angles will be restricted while others will be enhanced by the removal of the Newport House restaurant (see Exhibit 1). There is no designated significant State or National aesthetic resources at the site. The Newport Marine Club will change the waterfront vista through the removal of a boat storage yard and its replacement with an upscale waterfront residential development, and some may consider this an enhancement to the property. PH 5.14 Comment We ask for a removal or reduction in the number and size of the current docks that are encroaching into the Newport Cove mislabeled Irondequoit Bay on some of the maps and the RP portion of that zone to provide enhanced protection to the cove. I think it’s actually the south cove. (pg 40, L 25)
120
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The reduction and or removal of the docks that are adjacent to Newport Cove and the resource protection area have not been considered because the docks have been permitted by the NYSDEC, they have been determined not to pose a significant environmental hazard and they comply with the recommendations of the HMP. In issuing a Wetlands Permit for the installation of the floating docks, NYSDEC determined that their use and location did not pose a significant environmental impact. The HMP recommends that 217 berths be provided in the Central Harbor while the marina provides for 187, therefore a reduction in the number of berths would be opposed to the goals of the HMP. HMP at 61. For these reasons along with the goal to provide public access to the Bay, the reduction and removal of the docks have not been considered. See response to comments 26.19; PH 5.11; PB 2.06 and PB 6.06. PH 5.15 Comment We ask that you have increased and enhanced public pedestrian access to the water’s edge, the protection of views of the Bay, the water’s edge and the Route 104 Bridge for Newport Road and the adjoining Town property and other lands. (pg 41, L 7) Response The Newport area is private property. Unfettered access by the general public is not allowed today, nor will it under this development. Pedestrian access to the water’s edge across the Newport Marine Club private property will be available for residents, slip owners and guests. The general boating public may utilize the marina services for fueling, etc. The property is to be developed as a privately gated residential community. Pedestrian access to the property will be provided as discussed in Section 2.4.2.3 of the DEIS and also in response to comments 4.03 and 12.01. PH 5.16 Comment We ask that you have some form of public access to the water’s edge so the public can continue to enjoy the Bay views that are historically important to the community and to define and enhance its character. (pg 41, L 12) Response Controlled public access to the water’s edge is available on this privately owned property by residents of the Newport Marine Club or by marina members and their guests. The request for unlimited, unfettered public access on or through this private property is discussed in response to comments 4.03; 9.01; and 12.01. PH 5.17 Comment Again, of the remaining alternatives, one is basically they take the building which is the Nautica Building and they say, “Well, this is an accessory building and therefore we don’t really have to count it”. (pg 41, L 17) Response Please see response to comments 17.07 and 26.09. As noted above, the Nautica is an accessory use (as defined by Town Code §235-4.B) to the 121
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
two Principal Uses use of the property. The Nautica provides limited services for homeowners, boaters and their guests only and does not cater to the general public. As services are limited to owners and/or users of the property and can only be considered an amenity for the Principal Uses, the Nautica can only be considered an accessory use. PH 5.18 Comment Because if they had to count that as a twenty-five hundred square foot building with part potential and restaurant use and all that, that would have a separate allocation for parking which again would require them to reduce the remaining portion of the development. (pg 41, L 22) Response Please see response to comments 17.07 and 26.09. As noted, the Nautica is an accessory use (as defined by Town Code §235-4.B) to the two Principal Uses use of the property. The Nautica provides limited services for homeowners, boaters and their guests only and does not cater to the general public. As services are limited to owners and/or users of the property and can only be considered an amenity for the Principal Use. The Nautica can only be considered an accessory use, and a separate allocation for parking spaces is not required or warranted. PH 5.19 Comment You have to go to our law that’s otherwise on the books. Not that the Harbor Management Law isn’t our law, but the other portions of our law define multifamily residential use and there’s no specific standard of one and a half boat slips or anything like that. (pg 43, L 10) Response The Harbor Management Law sets the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, but no limit on the number of slips per dwelling unit in the Central Harbor Area. HML §III.B(3)(d)(ii). The Zoning Law sets limits on the number of docks for single-family developments, multi-family and commercial uses in the Waterfront Development District, under Town Code §23532(C)(14)(c)[11][12][13]. For multifamily, townhouse and condominium use, one dock per residential unit is allowed. The existing docks have been approved and permitted and will not be altered under the proposed Newport Marine Club development. Refer to the response to comment 26.18. Rather, the Applicant has allocated 1.5 slips per dwelling unit based upon its experience with waterfront buyers, and the data from other water bodies cited in DEIS 2.3.4. PH 5.20 Comment So when we look at that law which is recently adopted and we say, “Well, if the legislative purpose of that law is to protect the resources of the Bay and of the purpose of Environmental Protection Overlay Districts is to protect the resources of steep slopes, coastal erosion and all those concerns, what has the developer offered you in the way of evidence to show you can just ignore that and allow him to put his buildings in? (pg 43, L 20)
122
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The Town Planning Board has reviewed the project in great detail and the project sponsor has provided substantial information regarding the development. The Planning Board determined that the project possibly could have a significant impact on the environment, and required that an environment impact statement be provided, published and comments received. This SEQRA process and the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is evidence that the project sponsor and the Town of Irondequoit have taken the environmental impacts to natural and human resources into account. When the SEQRA process is complete, the Planning Board can consider the EPOD permit application for the project. The Applicant believes that the project complies with EPOD requirements, but ultimately the Planning Board must act on the application. PH 5.21 Comment Take the Nautica and put it in Building 104 and we’ll go with that, “it still leaves four giant buildings out there unlike anything you’ve got now and it appears to be an overly intense use of the parcel given everything else that’s on the Bay, given the Environmental Protection Overlay Districts and given the Harbor Management Plan and given all the environmental concerns. Where is the justification for that? (pg 45, L 6) Response Much of this comment is an opinion of the commenter. The analysis of the EPODs and the Harbor Management Plan are included in Sections 2.5.2.4 and 2.1.2.2 of the DEIS and in the response to comments 4.02; 17.02 and 27.07. The density of the project is discussed in the response to comment 4.05. Building heights are discussed under the response to comment 3.01; 17.09 and 23.02. __________________________________________________________ David Bradia, 61 Mooring Line Drive. PH 6.01 Comment I would like to share with you an open letter that the majority of the residents on Mooring Line Drive are sending to the Supervisor. The commenter then reads into the record a letter dated March 9, 2009 and included in Appendix 1 on page A128. (pg 46, L 8) Response The referenced letter is included in Attachment A1 of the FEIS, page A128. The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development.
123
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to 124
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. __________________________________________________________ Donald Potter, 131 Valley Circle PH 7.01 Comment The first drawback for this development is the road giving access to it. It’s obviously a dangerous road and throughout all these hearings it seems that the developer has not made any reference to that issue. As I recall there’s never been anything prior about the density of the traffic and the fixtures of the road and so on. (pg 49, L 12) Response The project is not likely to have any significant impact on the road. Any upgrade of the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The Town has included $1,000,000 in the 2010 - 2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Newport Road improvements. See response to comment 7.01. PH 7.02 Comment The other aspect that has an effect on the environment is the density of the project itself. It occupies too much area of the land that is available there. (pg 49, L 20) Response Refer to the response to comment 4.05 for a discussion on the proposed project density.
125
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PH 7.03 Comment Now, their statement goes on to show at some places its 20 feet wide and others 24 and they make a reference. They refer to a posted sign there that limits he traffic to 15 miles per hour and this is a sign , I believe , that comes just before a 90 degree turn in the road where you can’t see anything else on the road until you’ve made that turn. Now, that’s a serious shortcoming for vehicles that are going to be using this road in spite of what the impact statement says that the traffic of the restaurant was much greater than it will be of this project. (pg 50, L 21) Response The horizontal curve in Newport Road has been posted with a traffic warning sign of 15 miles per hour. The reduced speed allows the motorist to observe oncoming traffic while allowing for adequate reaction time to make any necessary adjustments. This geometry is not ideal and could be improved with the realignment of the roadway or by reducing the visual barriers along the upslope or southern edge of Newport Road. Any need to redesign the existing road is a separate issue that will be addressed by the Town. Some preventative measures have already been undertaken by the Town; had this not happened the condition of the pavement surface of Newport Road would be considerably worse. The Town has included $1,000,000 in the 2010 – 2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Newport Road improvements. Refer to the response to comments 3.03, 7.01, 19.01 and 20.01 for additional discussion regarding Newport Road. PH 7.04 Comment Well, I have difficulty agreeing with that and the statistics that they have presented are either not supported for that conclusion or they’re inaccurate and I can’t tell which it is, but the statistics just do not support that being a safe road. (pg 51, L 9) Response One indicator to determine the safety of a particular roadway is to obtain accident data from the local police, motor vehicle or highway department. This analysis was conducted and it was determined that there was one reported motor vehicle accident that occurred along Newport Road within the past three years. This accident occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and Ridge Road and it was weather related. Therefore, based on the information obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to substantiate that the roadway is unsafe. Another indicator of the safety of the roadway is the structural stability of the driving surface. These topics are more fully discussed in the response to comment 19.01. PH 7.05 Comment For example, some place I think in the transportation Section 4.4 that deals with transportation is says that the development will bring a slight increase in vehicle traffic to thirty-three vehicles per minute in the morning to forty eight vehicles per minute in the p.m. and increase to fifty-four vehicles in Saturday.
126
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Now, this is dealing just with a minute. These statistics are just with a minute that it will be increased. (pg 51, L 18) Response The DEIS discusses traffic impacts in Section 4.4.1.1 on page 4-17 and in the Traffic Impact Analysis included in Volume II, Appendix D of the DEIS. In this discussion the additional trips associated with the project is estimated at 33 vehicles per hour during the morning peak hour, 48 vehicles during the weekday afternoon peak hour and 54 vehicles during the Saturday peak hour. The statistics are based upon peak hour, not vehicles per minute. The traffic associated with the proposed development will be significantly less than what occurred while the Newport House restaurant was in operation. The roadway has excess capacity in order to accommodate the proposed development with no discernable reduction in the level of service. PH 7.06 Comment In the section of it in mitigation of that it states that the capacity of the two lane road is fifteen hundred vehicles per hour and that constitutes an estimate of seventy to eighty vehicles a minute per hour. In one of the statements it says the road has excess capacity. That’s hard to believe that that road has excess capacity and there’s no need to deal with a capacity increase. (pg 52, L 4) Response Section 4.4.1.2 – Mitigation of the DEIS states that the capacity of a two lane roadway is 1,500 vehicles per hour while the proposed traffic along Newport Road will be between 70 to 80 vehicles per hour after the development. Therefore, there is an excess capacity of 1,400 plus vehicles per hour. The traffic associated with the proposed development will be significantly less than what occurred while the Newport House restaurant was in operation and will not have a significant impact on the streets in the area. __________________________________________________________ Irondequoit Planning Board Meeting, March 23, 2009 Cheri Evershed, Irondequoit Planning Board PB 1.01 Comment Townhomes alternatives should be explored with additional information regarding EPODS and the impact. (pg 1, ¶ 5a) Response Alternative D (Townhomes) is discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. The impacts to soils (steep slopes), wetlands, floodplains and vegetation (woodlots) are discussed. The design of this alternative would be limited to previously disturbed areas with negligible impacts to steep slopes and woodlots.
127
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PB 1.02 Comment Is there room for buses and a turnaround? (pg 2, ¶ 9a) Response Yes, there is room for busses and a turnaround at the end of the project and at the entrance to the Newport Marine Club development. The turnaround area has been shown on the left side of the site plan for the project, drawing number 224-M2, included in Exhibit 1 of the DEIS. PB 1.03 Comment Are the docks grandfathered? Can we limit the docks due to the change in use? (pg 2, ¶ 11a) Response Yes. The Applicant has vested rights to the permitted and preexisting docks. In addition, the Harbor Management Plan recommends continuing all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. See also response to comments 26.18 and 26.19. There is no real change of use. There is a private marina operating on the site now, and it will continue to operate under the proposed project. PB 1.04 Comment Is the Nautica a principle or an accessory use? Who makes this determination? I believe that the Nautica is a principle use. (pg 2, ¶ 11b) Response Please see response to comments 17.07 and 26.09. As noted, the Nautica is an accessory use (as defined by Town Code §235-4.B) to the two Principal Uses use of the property. The Nautica provides limited services for homeowners, boaters and their guests only and does not cater to the general public. As services are limited to owners and/or users of the property and can only be considered an amenity for the Principal Uses, the Nautica can only be considered an accessory use. PB 1.05 Comment There was a letter from a neighbor listing modifications to Newport Road including a retaining wall and lower building heights. This was not discussed in the draft. Why wasn’t this discussed? Will it be discussed in the FEIS? (pg 3, ¶ 15a) Response This letter was not identified so this comment cannot be responded to. However, as indicated in response to comments 3.02 and PB 6.01, the Town is planning improvements to Newport Road and Alternative” C” reduces the building height.
128
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
__________________________________________________________ Raymond McDonald, Irondequoit Planning Board PB 2.01 Comment The economic viability of the alternatives should be more fully developed. (pg 1, ¶ 6a) Response Under SEQRA the EIS is primarily an environmental analysis document which would not include purely economic interests. However, impacts which may have certain socio-economic implications may be considered. Examples would include changes to existing patterns of population concentration, distribution, growth, existing community or neighborhood character, and especially a community’s infrastructure and associated costs. SEQRA anticipates that such socioeconomic effects would be taken into account in the balancing of both environmental and nonenvironmental factors that should precede a governmental decision. Regarding the economic viability of alternatives, under 6 N. Y.C.R.R. §617.9 (b)(5)(v), the format of the draft EIS must include "a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor." Thus, the project sponsor is not required to fully disclose the economics of each alternative related to cost or profit to the applicant, but only those that are relevant to socio-economic impacts or to the feasibility of alternatives considering the project sponsor’s capabilities and objectives. Accordingly, the project sponsor has provided the following information to assist in the assessment of alternatives with respect only to these requirements. The economic information provided is in response to comments and to assess whether or not the project or alternatives are reasonable and feasible. The sponsor is a developer and builder of upscale residential properties that wishes to fulfill a market demand for waterfront living opportunities in the Town of Irondequoit. Two of the five alternatives, the ”No Action” Alternative A and the Private Marina and Restaurant – Alternative B do not meet the goals and capabilities of the project sponsor, so therefore an economic viability of these alternatives have not been fully developed. Past history has shown that restaurant operations at this location and other locations on the Bay (Glen Edith) have not proven economically viable. The “No Action” alternative has been in effect for a number of years, but the economic viability of this operation has been marginal at best. This leaves the residential alternatives. The proposed alternative contains a mix of condo-style units and townhouse style units. The townhouse-style units would command a higher sales price due to the construction costs associated with each unit while the condominium-style units would cost somewhat less. The total sales prices of dwelling units would need to recoup the development costs associated with the project. Therefore, the fewer number of units the higher the selling price per unit. The developer wishes to target a market with selling prices above $250,000, which equates to the upper 17% of all owner occupied homes in the Town of Irondequoit. Homes valued above $500,000 limits the market to approximately 2% of the total homes in Irondequoit, or an approximate ten-fold decrease in the potential market availability. Therefore, to be economically viable, it would be necessary to price the units at a level that could be supported 129
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
in the market while at the same time providing a reasonable return on the resources expended by the project sponsor. The proposed project along with Alternative C (Modified Plan) provides the ability to provide waterfront living with membership to a private marina while keeping the costs of the land, development costs and infrastructure costs at a level that would allow the units to be competitively priced for the market. The development of an all-townhome project (Alternative D) would increase the building and infrastructure cost while decreasing the number of units. The building construction cost for the townhouse units would be considerably more than that of condominium-style units. Therefore, the development costs per unit would be higher for the all-townhouse alternative and thus require higher sale prices, which would make the project less competitive with other developments, and render this alternative less viable and marketable than the condominiumstyle/townhouse mix proposed and modified under Alternative C. See response to comment PB 6.01 for additional discussions. PB 2.02 Comment Soil erosion is a concern. (pg 2, ¶ 10a) Response Soil erosion is a temporary construction occurrence that will be mitigated through a multitude of temporary and permanent measures. Soil erosion control practices to be implemented as part of the project include, stabilized construction entrances and turnarounds, protection and preservation of vegetative areas outside of the construction limits, storm inlet protection, silt fence barriers, manufactured silt barriers, temporary and permanent seeding or sod, stone stabilization, jute mesh, dust control and permanent landscape plantings. Permanent structural measures such as storm sewers and retaining walls mitigate potential soil erosion occurrences. Storm sewers collect and transport stormwater in a controlled fashion that minimizes overland flow and soil erosion. Retaining walls provide a hard vertical surface at locations where there exists significant grade changes. By installing retaining walls, steep soil slopes are minimized which in turn reduces soil erosion. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which is included as Appendix C of the DEIS provides a sequence for the implementation of the erosion control measures. The Applicant will be required to obtain and maintain a permit from the NYSDEC for the stormwater discharges throughout the construction phase of the project. As part of the conditions of the permit, periodic inspections must be made by certified inspectors who will visit the site and report on the measures employed, and the devices installed that limit soil erosion. If changes or additional work needs to be implemented, the Applicant will be made aware of these deficiencies and the necessary adjustments will be made. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. This topic is also addressed in the DEIS at Section 4.1.2.
130
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PB 2.03 Comment Who will inspect the construction to insure compliance? (pg 2, ¶ 10b) Response Building construction will be overseen by the Town of Irondequoit Building Department. The owner will retain an independent agency to perform testing/inspections as required by building code. The Town Engineer will inspect dedicated storm and sanitary improvements. The project sponsor will also employ a construction supervision and retain a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPSEC) for the construction inspection during earth disturbance, and an engineer to inspect other construction activities. Other inspections and compliance will be provided by testing labs and material certifications. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. PB 2.04 Comment What is the timeframe for the project? (pg 2, ¶ 10c) Response The intended timeframe for construction of the project is approximately five years. The first year would include the start and completion of the majority of the site improvements during the spring, summer or fall. The Nautica, condominium-style building number 104 and the easternmost townhouse building would follow immediately after the completion of the site improvements. Building construction would continue on an asneeded basis to complete the individual buildings based on condominium and townhouse sales. By year number five it is anticipated that all buildings would be complete and occupied. PB 2.05 Comment We need to be proactive on this development. (pg 2, ¶ 10d) Response The Town of Irondequoit has been diligent in their comprehensive review of this proposal. PB 2.06 Comment Maybe we should look into eliminating dock space. (pg 2, ¶ 10e) Response This would be inconsistent with the Harbor Management Plan, which recommends continuing all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. Rather, the HMP sets the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, in excess of the current Newport Marina capacity of 187. HMP at 75. The Plan recommends increasing dock slips on the Bay to increase access for the public, not decreasing spaces. HMP at xi, 61, 76, 79, 80-82, 84. In addition, elimination of docks would be contrary to the LWRP, which cited, “Provision of greater public access to the Bay is also proposed for 131
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
the site of the Newport House, through the private development of a boat docking facility.” LWRP at IV-14. The LWRP is discussing the development of a private boat docking facility. The citation seems to note that a private boat docking facility enhances public access to the Bay. The boat docking facility has been developed and is an integral part of the property. It is the Applicant’s opinion that eliminating dock space would be an encroachment on the permitted use of the property and would be contrary to the HMP and the LWRP. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. PB 2.07 Comment Comments from the Ridge Culver Fire Department and the DEC should be addressed. (pg 2, ¶ 10f) Response Comments to the Ridge Culver Fire District and the NYSDEC have been included in this FEIS. Refer to the comment list on pages 5 through 10 for the location of the comments and responses. PB 2.08 Comment Who will take responsibility for the construction of this project? (pg 2, ¶ 10g) Response The project will be constructed through the project sponsor, RSM Irondequoit Bay Development LLC, which will take the ultimate responsibility for the construction of the project. __________________________________________________________ Michael Palermo, Irondequoit Planning Board PB 3.01 Comment Alternatives B, C, D whatever etc. are twisted and the alternatives should not be imposed on the Applicant. (pg 1, ¶ 4a) Response The alternatives are not to be imposed on the Applicant, but instead are to be assessed and provide an “evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor.” 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §617.9(b)(5)(v). __________________________________________________________ Jay Ricci – Irondequoit Planning Board PB 4.01 Comment Alternative D – Townhomes should be more fully explored, kind of glossed over. (pg 1, ¶ 2a ) Response
132
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative D (Townhomes) is discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. PB 4.02 Comment Density of the development. (pg 2, ¶ 8a) Response Refer to the response to comment 4.05 for a discussion on the proposed project density. PB 4.03 Comment Could the project lose 20 slips in the cove to protect the cove? (pg 2, ¶ 8b) Response A reduction in the number of slips to protect the Cove is not proposed. The Applicant has a permit to operate these slips and the slips also conform to the HMP. Additional discussion on this topic can be found in the response to comment 26.19; PH 5.11 and PB 6.06. PB 4.04 Comment Parking review of the development. (pg 2, ¶ 8c) Response Additional information regarding the parking space requirements is included in the response to comments 12.12; 23.09; 26.08 and PH 5.03. PB 4.05 Comment Fire Department comments. (pg 2, ¶ 8d) Response Comments from the Ridge Culver Fire District have been included in this FEIS as response to comments 5.01 through 5.09. PB 4.06 Comment Adequate space between the buildings for fire protection. (pg 2, ¶ 8e) Response Adequate space is provided. Further, unlike almost all the homes in Irondequoit, the four gambrel condominiums are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems, including the 2-hour separated parking garage, smoke and fire alarms etc. The driveways accessing the underground parking are not roads, and are not meant to be occupied by the quint. See Appendix A4 and A5 for correspondence relative to fire protection and access.
PB 4.07 Comment 133
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Newport Road may be one-way during construction, with flagmen or traffic signals. (pg 2, ¶ 14a) Response Correct, traffic along Newport Road would be maintained, monitored and controlled during the heavy construction phase of the project. This would most likely occur during the site improvement phase between spring and fall of the first year of construction. The passage of construction vehicles during peak periods may be difficult due to vehicular speed, size and truck equipment maneuvering. Heavy construction traffic will be controlled by limiting heavy construction vehicles traveling along the northern edge of Newport Road and limiting the roadway to alternating one-way along the south side of the road during working hours for a couple of months. Two-way traffic would be restored at the end of each work day. Traffic control could consist of temporary traffic signals or flagmen. This would most likely occur during extensive earthwork, concrete, or asphalt paving operations were occurring. This would not preclude access to the site for delivery trucks to drop off building materials, outside of the project work hours, but is intended to mitigate the structural loading of Newport Road during intensive site construction operations. PB 4.08 Comment There are many vehicles using Newport Road today, including refuse and snow plows. (pg 3, ¶ 14b) Response Historical use of the road has provided a wide variety of loadings in which the roadway has performed adequately. It is not anticipated that the construction of the Newport Marine Club would place any loadings on the roadway which have not been imposed previously. __________________________________________________________ Robert Spatola, Irondequoit Planning Board PB 5.01 Comment The docks are an issue and the 1.5 docks per unit is also a problem. (pg 2, ¶ 13a) Response The Applicant views the docks as not being a problem, but rather an asset for the Project. The docks give an opportunity for members of the public to access the Bay. The Applicant has allocated 1.5 slips per dwelling unit based upon its experience with waterfront buyers, and the data from other water bodies cited in DEIS 2.3.4. The docks are consistent with the Harbor Management Plan, which recommend as the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217 (in excess of the current capacity of 187), HMP at 75, and Harbor Management Law §III.B(3)(d)(ii). In addition, the Harbor Management Plan recommends continuing all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. Moreover, elimination of 134
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
docks would be contrary to the LWRP, which cited the private Newport House “boat docking facility” as providing “public access to the Bay.” LWRP at IV-14. The Zoning Law does not set a limit on the number of docks for a multifamily development. Town Code §235-32.C(14)(c)[11]. PB 5.02 Comment The Nautica is a business and will create additional traffic. (pg 2, ¶ 13b) Response Please see response to comments 17.07; 26.09 and PH 5.17. As noted, the Nautica provides limited services for homeowners, boaters and their guests only and does not cater to the general public. Thus no additional traffic will be created as a result of the existence of The Nautica on the property as an accessory use, as defined by Town Code §235-4.B. Services are limited to owners and/or users of the property and can only be considered an amenity for the Principal Uses, it is not a “business” as the comment suggests. PB 5.03 Comment There should be fewer docks. (pg 2, ¶ 13c) Response This would be inconsistent with the Harbor Management Plan, which recommends continuing all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. Rather, the HMP recommends a capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, in excess of the current capacity of 187. HMP at 75. The Plan recommends increasing dock slips on the Bay to increase access for the public, not decreasing spaces. HMP at xi, 61, 76, 79, 80-82, 84 In addition, elimination of docks would be contrary to the LWRP, which cited the private Newport House “boat docking facility” as providing “public access to the Bay.” LWRP at IV-14. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. PB 5.04 Comment The Nautica is stand-alone or is it included in the buildings? I’ve seen both. (pg 2, ¶ 13d) Response In accordance with the original proposal submitted and subject to this examination in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Nautica was originally proposed as a separate, stand alone structure. As required, the Applicant has submitted alternatives to the proposed project for review, one of which (Alternative C) incorporates the Nautica into one of the proposed residential buildings. PB 5.05 Comment The docks in the cove should be removed. (pg 2, ¶ 13e) 135
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response There is no plan to remove any docks at this time. A discussion on the removal of docks is included in the response to comments 17.04; 26.17; PH 5.05 and PB 4.03. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. PB 5.06 Comment The road stability is an issue. (pg 2, ¶ 13f) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review 136
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. Refer to the response to comments 3.02, 3.03, 7.01 and 19.01. PB 5.07 Comment The construction vehicles traveling the road will have an impact. (pg 2, ¶ 13g) Response The construction vehicles are not anticipated to have any significant impact. See response to comment PB 5.06 above.
PB 5.08 Comment
137
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The width of the road is substandard, even though it is a Town road. (pg 2, ¶ 13h) Response The pavement widths along Newport Road are within the accepted standards for local urban streets. The American Association of State Highway Transportation officials recommends pavements widths of 20 feet minimum. The existing pavement widths along Newport Road have been measured at 20 to 24 feet wide. The roadway “feels” somewhat narrow due to the many horizontal curves and the multiple obstructions immediately adjacent to the pavement edge. Any upgrade of the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The Town has included $1,000,000 in the 2010 2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Newport Road improvements. See response to comments 3.02, 7.01 and 19.01. PB 5.09 Comment Is a turnaround available at this gated community? (pg 2, ¶ 13i) Response There will be a turnaround available. A turnaround area has been shown on the left side of the site plan for the project, drawing number 224-M2, which is included as Exhibit 1 of the DEIS. __________________________________________________________ Peter Wehner, Irondequoit Planning Board PB 6.01 Comment All alternatives should be treated with the same weight. (pg 1, ¶ 3a) Response Alternatives are discussed under Section 6.0 of the Newport Marine Club Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated February 10, 2009. This portion of the Environmental Impact Statement discusses other potential developments will add to this alternative discussion by looking at potential environmental impacts of each alternative and access their relative impacts across all of the proposed alternatives. A discussion relative to the economic viability of the alternatives is included in the summary of this response and the response to comment PB 2.01. The alternatives to be assessed include: A. B. C. D. E.
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
A – No Action B – Private Marina and/or Restaurant (Master Plan) C – Townhomes and Condo-Style Units (Modified Plan) D – Townhomes E – Residential Plan consistent with EPOD, WD Zoning, LWRP and Irondequoit Bay Management Plan
Alternative A – “No Action” 138
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative A of the “No Action” alternative leaves the site as is without any changes or new development. The site is presently utilized as a marina for both slip renters and the public for pump-out, fueling and minor maintenance. A wood frame structure, the Newport House, has been abandoned and is no longer being utilized. The “No Action” alternative would intend to reopen the Newport House restaurant and maintain the marina operation. Impacts to the natural resources would be minimized with the “No Action” alternative. Changes to the topography, of the site would remain. Parking areas from the abandoned Newport House Restaurant and other parking areas available for boat storage during the off-season would remain. Stormwater runoff from the site would continue to flow overland across the slopes and the parking lots into either the adjacent surface waters or be captured by the underground storm drainage system that discharges through the sheet pile wall into the Bay. The 100-year floodplain for Irondequoit Bay has been recently adjusted to elevation 251 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There would be no impacts to the floodplain if the “No Action” alternative was adopted. Irondequoit Bay and the adjacent wetlands would not be affected by Alternative A. Irondequoit Bay and the adjacent wetlands would continue to be influenced by the existing marina operation and the stormwater runoff associated with the marina parking lots and pavements. The proposed stormwater runoff quantity reductions and quality improvement proposed for the project will not be available under the “No Action” alternative. Vegetation and wildlife would not be significantly altered. The existing trees, bushes, grasses, and other vegetation would continue to be viable. Wildlife associated with the fish, waterfowl and turtles from the Bay and the wetlands would continue, along with beavers, muskrat, mice, deer, raccoons, fox, skunk, chipmunks, garter snakes, frogs, toads and salamanders. There would be no further development of the property and the site would continue as the marina operation that presently exists at the site. There would be no environmental impacts to the human resource component of the “No Action” alternative. The effects this alternative would have on the structural aspect of Newport Road, development density, parking requirements, utility services, community services, and public access would be negligible. Traffic associated with the operation of the marina and the restaurant would be increased with the re-opening of the restaurant. The amount of traffic would be approximately the same as what existed previously. The impacts to the structural integrity of Newport Road would have some slight impact with the additional loadings on the roadway structure. This could be considered no additional appreciable environmental impact, because it is an existing permitted use which has presently been suspended but could reopen at anytime. Parking and site density impacts would also have no impact. The parking lots presently exist on-site along with the restaurant building. Therefore no changes in the site or environmental impacts would be associated with the “No Action” alternative. Utilities and community services are adequate and readily available. The restaurant and the marina would not place any 139
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
additional demands on the utility infrastructure or the community services of the Town that haven’t already been provided previously. The restaurant building is a non-descript dominant building which is in need of considerable repair. If the Newport House were to remain closed, the structure would continue to deteriorate with peeling paint, leaking roofs, damaged siding and cracked foundations. The structure would become unstable and eventually collapse. During this process, the structure would negatively impact the views of the site. Vandalism, dumping and other unauthorized disturbances would continue to be a potential problem. The loss of the Newport House limits the dining options and employment opportunities of the population in that area. The recent history of the site has shown that restaurant uses have not been supported to the point in which they remain economically viable. The marina operates as a boat storage facility during the off season and would continue. Views of the boat storage and the Newport House would have no additional visual impacts to the community. Access to the site is restricted and monitored by the staff of the marina to be assured that safety and security is maintained. Security and oversight would continue under the “No Action” alternative, with additional staff needed during peak boating periods. The “No Action” alternative, Alternative A, would have no significant environmental impacts to the natural or human resources of the community. This alternative is the existing condition option which does not promote any new development at the site. There would be no changes to the environmental impacts on the project site, than what exist today. The views of the existing dilapidated Newport House restaurant and the associated large parking lots and aesthetically unappealing outdoor boat storage areas will continue under the “No Action” alternative. The proposed project along with Alternatives B (Private Marina and/or Restaurant, Alternative C (Modified Plan) and Alternative D (Townhomes) all propose for the removal of the existing Newport House building and its replacement with a new restaurant or residential building(s). Larger parking lots would continue under Alternative B but would be eliminated under the other alternatives. Extended outdoor boat storage would be eliminated. Therefore the “No Action” alternative eliminates the possible visual improvement associated with the removal of the Newport House, elimination of extended outdoor boat storage and the removal of large parking lots. Benefits from an improved stormwater quality and quantity treatment would not be realized under Alternative A. Stormwater presently is collected in storm sewers or runs off the surface of the present site into Irondequoit Bay. The proposed project and residential alternatives, Alternatives C and D all reduce the impervious surface area, which would decrease the amount of stormwater, while permanent structures would provide for water quality improvements. These opportunities would be lost under the “No Action” alternative.
140
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternatives C, D and E along with the proposed project provide the opportunity to decrease the existing pavement area and provide the opportunity to decompact the existing soils, decreasing runoff and decreasing stormwater quantity. The proposed project along with Alternatives B, C, D and E all propose new building construction on the site which would eventually lead to property reassessment and additional property tax revenues. Soil decompaction and increased property tax revenues would not be available under the “No Action” alternative. Emergency access to the building access under this alternative would allow access to three sides of the building, similar to some of the buildings under the proposed project. This alternative does not meet the project sponsors goal to provide an upscale waterfront residential opportunity to the Irondequoit market area. Alternative B – Private Marina and/or Restaurant Alternative B includes the redevelopment of the site into a new private marina and a new restaurant. Marina use would be increased with the development of an enclosed boat storage facility. The enclosed boat storage facility would be constructed to provide boating opportunities to individuals by allowing daily access of rack stored boats. The boat owners would launch their boats and return them to the storage facility on a daily basis. This would preclude the use of slips for overnight dockage while providing recreational opportunities. The existing docks, pavements and utilities would remain under this alternative. There would be some minor utility relocations and driveway expansions, which are shown on the plans of Exhibit 6A of the DEIS. The restaurant would be reconstructed within the Newport House footprint for dining opportunities. Some environmental impacts to the natural resources would be expected under this alternative. The soils and topography of the site would be impacted with the development of the buildings and additional parking facilities. The boat storage facility could be a building of 15,000 square feet or greater. The soils on site would likely remain but the impervious area would be much larger. Stormwater quantity and quality would be significantly impacted with the additional parking and building areas. Stormwater could in turn affect the wetlands and Irondequoit Bay which receive the discharge from the site. The floodplain of Irondequoit Bay would most likely remain without any change with the new buildings located outside of the 100-year flood elevation. Wildlife and vegetation would be affected with the loss of habitat and greenspace attributed to the expanded building and parking areas. Human resources would also be affected through the development of Alternative B. Higher utilization of the marina and the redevelopment of a restaurant would increase traffic along Newport Road. The traffic increase would approximate what were previously a party house/restaurant and a marina. There would be no increase to the density of the site. This alternative does not include any residential 141
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
dwelling units. Parking and community services could have a potential impact with the land storage of boats; the number of boaters that could utilize the marina at any one time may dramatically increase. An increase in the numbers of boaters would increase the demand for parking spaces. Renewed restaurant operations would also increase the demand for parking spaces. Emergency response calls would most likely be impacted under this alternative. Accessibility by emergency responders would be similar to the proposed project, with building access to three sides of the buildings. The need to respond to a vast variety of calls for police, fire and emergency medical incidents would increase under a successful commercial marina and restaurant operation. Utility demands would be slightly greater than what presently exist today. The restaurant operation would have the most impact with an increased demand for water and sanitary sewer services. The boat storage facility would be a fairly large warehouse style structure which would dominate the view of the Newport property. Uncontrolled access to the site would not be allowed with a private marina operation. A gate and key card or similar type of controlled access would be appropriate to secure the site for the users of the private marina. Alternative B would have some environmental impact to the resources of the area. Natural and human resources would be affected with greater impacts to the stormwater, parking and available community services. The end result would be similar to the previous uses of the site, which have been abandoned due to changing market demands and increased competition. Alternative B has been discounted as a viable alternative for a variety of reasons. The alternative could have potential negative impacts to the stormwater from the site, increased parking demands and additional demands placed on emergency services. The alternative does not avail itself to the benefits of the proposed project, including smaller parking areas, residential versus commercial uses, neighborhood capability, improved stormwater quantity and quality, and decompaction of onsite soils. Finally, this alternative has been discounted due to the goals and capabilities of the project sponsor, along with the viability of restaurant operations on the Bay. The project sponsor is a developer of fine residential communities not the operator of restaurants. The sponsor wishes to develop a project which is consistent with Town zoning, and provides residential waterfront opportunities to the community. Alternative C – Townhomes and Condo-Style Units (Modified Plan) This modified plan has been generated in response to public and Board comments that have been received regarding the proposed project. The significant modifications that have been made include: •
Elimination of the stand alone Nautica building and incorporated the use in Building 104.
•
Elimination of two condominium style units from a total of 47 condominium style units and 9 townhouse style units to 45 condominium style units and 9 townhouse style units.
142
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
•
Orientation and rotational changes to the condominium style units to increase setbacks from the water’s edge and to provide additional buffering.
•
Lowering of the building height on building no. 103 and 104 along the lot front or along the Bay by one story of 12 feet.
Alternative C will have some environmental impacts to the natural and human resources of the area. The topography and soils will be impacted by the construction of the buildings associated with this residential development. Mitigation efforts will include the implementation of enhanced erosion and sediment control measures, and larger and enhanced green areas. The amount of soils required to bring the site to the proposed elevations under this alternative would be less than the proposed project. Stormwater would be controlled similar to the proposed project with a series of storm sewers to collect overland flows which would then be directed to a sand filter and through a perforated pipe encased in granular soils which would connect to the discharge weeps in the sheet pile break wall. A reduction in the impervious area along with the removal of the Nautica building would have positive stormwater effects over the proposed project. Floodplains, wetlands and Irondequoit Bay impacts would be consistent with the proposed project as described in the DEIS. Wetlands would be minimally impacted by the change in use from a commercial use property to more of a residential use property. Buffer impacts would be minimized with the proposed changes in the orientation of the buildings which would conserve vegetation and limit intrusion into the natural areas adjacent to Newport Cove and Irondequoit Bay. The impacts to Irondequoit Bay would be minimal. The maintenance of the landscaped areas and the continuing marina operations will continue with no impact to the adjacent surface waters. This alternative would be developed within the previously developed areas of the site similar to the proposed alternative. The impacts to the surrounding vegetation will be negligible because the proposed development lies within previously disturbed areas. There should be no change in the effects to the wildlife in the area. Construction will not occur at the docks and slips and no changes in the natural undisturbed areas will be made. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to the terrestrial or marine wildlife in the area. Traffic impacts associated with the alternative include approximately 45 more vehicles over the existing Newport Road traffic during a Saturday peak hour but less than the estimated 230 vehicles which could occur under Alternative B. The addition of residential uses to the site will add some small incremental increase in the amount of traffic along Newport Road but not as much as occurred during the times that the restaurant and party house was in operation. Other impacts include, higher residential density, smaller open parking areas, increased utility use, (water and sewer use would increase approximately 21,000 gallons/day, over the existing rates and would be slightly higher than the 19,000 gallon/day which could occur under Alternative B) slight increase in the demands for community services, visual impacts associated with building construction and demolition, and access modification associated with a change in use. The traffic capacity and structural impacts to Newport Road will be negligible. A detailed analysis was included in the DEIS in Appendix A and Exhibit 4A. The results of which concluded that the 143
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
proposed traffic would have a considerably smaller (40% less) impact on the loadings on the roadway than what previously existed when the restaurant was open. Therefore, there will be some minor roadway impacts to Newport Road associated with Alternative C over the present use of the property but nothing comparable to what existed previously. Residential density will increase under this alternative. The proposed alternative includes 45 condominium style units and 9 townhouse style units which do not exist today. This equates to a density of (54 units/5.9 acres) or 9.2 units per acre. The proposed project proposes a total of 56 residential units or 9.5 units per acre. Garage parking for Alternative C will consist of condominium parking for 80 vehicles and 18 parking spaces for the townhouse style units for a total of 98 garage parking spaces. Surface parking would consist of townhouse driveway parking for 18 vehicles and surface lot parking for an additional 75 vehicles. Total available parking would be 191 spaces. The required parking under Town Code for this alternative would be 45 condominium style residential units x 1.5 parking spaces per unit or 68 parking spaces. The nine (9) townhouse style units would require 2.0 parking spaces per unit or 18 parking spaces and lastly the parking associated with the nonresident dock owners (187 docks – 81 docks (residents) = 106 docks for commercial marina) and 106 docks x 0.6 parking spaces/dock = 64 spaces. Therefore the total required parking spaces would be 68 condominium spaces, 18 townhouse spaces and 64 marina spaces for a total of 150 required parking spaces. The available parking spaces exceed the required number of parking spaces by 41 spaces (191 -150) parking spaces. Non-resident public parking will be limited to the common area surface lot parking area which totals 75 parking spaces. It is not anticipated that public users would park within the townhouse unit driveways unless they were guests of the townhouse owners. There would be an increased demand on the utility and community services associated with the Alternative C over the “No Action” - Alternative A. The impacts to the utilities and the community services can easily be assimilated into the existing infrastructure and services. Elimination of the proposed Nautica building and its integration into building number 104 will eliminate a structure along the eastern side of the property to allow for additional views of the Bay and the water’s edge. The proposed condo-style units building height under Alternative C would be lower than the proposed project. The condominium style units would be 41 feet tall at the building frontage and the townhouse style units would be 31 feet tall. The overall effect of reducing the number of structures and the change in the orientation and offsets of the buildings and the reduction on building height will allow for enhanced views of the Bay as compared to the proposed project. Access to the site will be by pass card at this proposed gated community. This will be consistent with the proposed project. Alternative C includes the development of an upscale residential development in land which is presently being utilized as a commercial use. The change in use under Alternative C is similar but not as concentrated as the proposal. Impacts to the natural and human resources will be minor and can be easily mitigated. This alternative takes into account many of the concerns that have been brought up under the project review.
144
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative D – Townhomes Alternative D consists of the development of a residential community that consists exclusively of townhome style units. The buildings would be similar to the townhouse units suggested under the current proposal with parking below, at grade, and two living levels above with a total building height of 31 feet. The total number of townhomes that could be constructed under this option could include approximately 45 townhomes with 76 parking spaces available for non-resident boaters. The environmental impacts of this alternative are consistent with other residential development alternatives. Natural resources would be slightly impacted including, soils and topography, stormwater, floodplains, wetlands, Irondequoit Bay, vegetation and wildlife. The topography of the site would be impacted with the grading and construction of buildings and parking area throughout the site. Stormwater quantity will be decreased slightly from the existing conditions by a decrease in the impervious area by approximately 5%. Wetlands and Irondequoit Bay impacts would be minimized with decrease in the impervious area on the site and the addition of stormwater management facilities. Minor filling of the lot along the northeast corner between the boardwalk and the buildings will be necessary to ensure that the buildings are constructed outside of the floodplain. Vegetation and wildlife will be minimally impacted with the change in use from commercial to residential, green areas, and buffer areas will be maintained which will allow the existing vegetation and wildlife to continue to prosper. Newport Road will see some additional loadings associated with the residential use. The amount of additional loading would be less than what one would expect under Alternative C. Alternative D estimates a loading ±20% less than the proposed project strictly based on the lower residential density. Alternative D proposes that the total number of residential units at 45 plus or minus. This would equate to a density of 7.6 units per acre which is less than half of the density of the existing Bay Village development. Townhouses suggested under Alternative D would most likely include lower level parking for two vehicles and driveway/visitor parking for two other vehicles at each townhouse unit. Surface parking for 76 vehicles would provide adequate parking spaces for the 119 boat slips available for non-resident boaters. Under this alternative, 72 parking spaces would be required by Town code. Additional demands on utilities and community services would be associated with this residential development. The impacts to the utility infrastructure and the community services will be minimal and can be met with the present facilities and organizations. Views from the Bay towards the site will be influenced by the townhouse buildings along the shoreline. Even with the buildings being not quite as tall, the number and location of the buildings would dominate the viewshed. Access to the townhouse development would be through a gate which would provide safety and security to the residents and boaters at the Newport Marine Club.
145
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative E – Residential Plan consistent with EPOD, WD Zoning, LWRP and Irondequoit Bay Management Plan Under this alternative, the Applicant was asked to provide an alternative that, “Describes and evaluates a residential development alternative consistent with EPOD and WD zoning, LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan”. Environmental Protection Overlay districts envelop a majority of the Newport Marine Club property. Town Code under Article XI EPODs, states that, “The Applicant shall also submit a site capacity worksheet with any application for land subdivision to the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board”. §235-47G (1). The Applicant has prepared parts A through E of the worksheet as requested by the Planning Board and it is included as Exhibit 2(H) of the DEIS. The net buildable site area based upon the worksheet is 1.45 acres, while the existing Newport House, marina, and parking areas encompass an area of approximately 3.35 acres. The Newport Marine Club would not be an economically viable project if the area restrictions associated with the capacity worksheet were imposed on the project. The limitations associated with the building area are not applicable to this proposal because it does not entail the subdivision of land. Summary The proposal put forth by the project sponsor is for the development of Newport Marine Club with four condominium style buildings with forty seven (47) residential units and nine (9) townhomes in three (3) separate buildings. The environmental impacts associated with this development is more fully explored in the DEIS. Emergency access under Alternative A – No Action and Alternative B – Private Marina and Restaurant will provide three-sided building access by fire fighting apparatus, while the residential alternatives, Alternative C – Modified Plan, Alternative D – Townhomes and the Proposed Plan all limit building access to a minimum of one building wall. The economic viability of the project is a major factor for the project sponsor. While actual dollars and cents figures are speculative construction costs, including costs of materials, have fluctuated greatly in the recent past and other construction cost, sales and marketing information are proprietary, a discussion of the economic viability of the project and alternatives follows here. The proposed project (47 units in the four main buildings and nine units in the townhouse style buildings) has been designed, and will endure, market pressures. The availability of the different residential styles within the project creates a buffer against increases in costs or adjustments in the market for either of the housing types. Similarly, Alternative C (which has two less units in the four main buildings and an attached “Nautica”) has similar economic characteristics. Alternative C
146
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
represents the project sponsors’ best efforts to conform to the comments received through the application and SEQR process. The other alternatives are economically challenged in different ways. Alternative D (45 townhouse style units) would result in increased site development costs (broader site disturbance than the proposed plan or Alternative C) and construction costs, as well as decreased return in that there are 11 less units than the proposed plan and nine less units than the Alternative C. Alternative D would demand a higher average price per unit, and this is a much riskier proposition for a successful project. Inquiries from potential residents to the project sponsor indicate that there is a substantial demand for the style of units contained in the four main buildings. Alternative A (the “no action” alternative) does not involve any initial capital investment (but would require continuing maintenance expense); however, the economic return from the existing marina is insufficient to sustain the property. Alternative B (new restaurant and boat warehouse) would entail a substantial economic investment, but historical trends have indicated that a restaurant operation is not sustainable on the site. The proposed Newport Marine Club, Alternative C (Modified Plan) and Alternative D (townhomes) are three residential developments which correspond to the requirements of and Environmental Protection Overlay Districts (EPODs) and Waterfront Development (WD), the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan (HMP). In conclusion, the plans which provide for a mixture of units in the four main buildings and the nine townhouse style units are economically viable alternatives. For the reasons set forth above, alternatives A, B and D fall short of the mark economically and are inconsistent with the interest shown in the use of the property to date. The alternatives described above and the proposed project are summarized and compared in Table form and attached as Table 3 of this FEIS.
147
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON ALTERNATIVE
A
B
C
D
E
PROPOSED
Description
No Action
Private Marina with Restaurant
Townhomes and Condo‐Style Units (Modified Plan)
Townhomes
Residential Development consistent with (EPODS, WD zoning, LWRP, HMP)
Townhomes and Condo‐Style Units with Nautica
Number of Condo‐Style Units
N/A
N/A
45
0
TBD
47
Number of Townhome Units
N/A
N/A
9
45
TBD
9
Total Number of Units
N/A
N/A
54
45
The number of units should be able to absorb the development costs and still be marketable
56
Soils and Topography
No change
Grading impacts isolated to the SE corner with retaining walls adjacent to south slope
Minor fill required for the proposed grading along the northside of Newport Road
Significant grading and earthwork for garages and driveways
Less fill required for the proposed grading along the northside of Newport Road
Fill required for the proposed grading along the northside of Newport Road
Impervious Area (acres)
3.35
3.50
2.79
3.28
TBD
2.88
Green space (% of Total)
43%
41%
53%
44%
TBD
51%
Stormwater
No improvements
Improvements for the redeveloped areas only
Enhanced stormwater quality measures
Enhanced stormwater quality measures
Enhanced stormwater quality measures
Enhanced stormwater quality measures
Floodplains
No change
No change
Minor filling to keep buildings above the 100‐year floodplain
Minor filling to keep buildings above the 100‐year floodplain
Wetlands
No change
Increased imperviousness additional wetland impacts
Decreased imperviousness with significant wetland benefits
Decreased imperviousness with slight wetland benefits
Irondequoit Bay
No change
Increased imperviousness with some additional Bay impacts
Vegetation
No change
Wildlife
No change
A slight decrease in habitats will have minimal impact to wildlife of the area.
Newport Road
No change
Additional road loadings associated with restaurant operation and expanded marina operations
Density (Units/acre)
N/A
N/A
9.2
7.6
TBD
9.5
Parking (Total Spaces)
315
315
191
256
TBD
184
Utilities
No change
Community Services
No change
Increased demand for emergency services, no student enrollment
Building Height (feet)
39
39
41
31
Visual Impacts
Continued off season boat storage and deteriorating Newport House
Off season boat storage and 12K sf boat storage warehouse with "new" Newport House
Lower building heights without clubhouse building expands views over the proposed project
Multiple townhouse buildings overlap and restrict the views of the Bay
TBD, The building height Four condominium‐style and location will effect views buildings increases the view of from the south. the Bay between the buildings
Access
Limited public access with monitoring by marina employees
Limited public access with monitoring by marina employees
Gated community with pass code or keycard for safety and security
Gated community with pass code or keycard for safety and security
Gated community with pass code or keycard for safety and security
Gated community with pass code or keycard for safety and security
Meets the Objective of the Project Sponsor
No
No
Yes
No
Yes, if the residential development is similar to the proposed project or Alt. C
Yes
Viability
Existing marina operation is marginally successful in return on the resources invested
Historically, restaurant operations have not been successful
A viable alternative that deserves consideration
Increased building costs will limit unit marketability and ignore the condo buyer
An alternative that deserves consideration if similar to the proposed project or Alt C
A viable alternative that deserves consideration
Minor filling to keep Minor filling to keep buildings above the 100‐year buildings above the 100‐year floodplain floodplain Decreased imperviousness with wetland benefits
Decreased imperviousness with significant wetland benefits
Decreased imperviousness with Decreased imperviousness with Decreased imperviousness with Decreased imperviousness with significant Bay benefits slight Bay benefits Bay benefits significant Bay benefits
Decrease in A slight decrease in A slight increase in Decrease in impervious surfaces will impervious surfaces will have a impervious surfaces will impervious surfaces will have a minimal impact to vegetation benefit the vegetation of the minimal benefit to vegetation benefit the vegetation of the area. of the area. area. of the area. A notable increase in greenspace will provide benefits to the wildlife of the area.
Decrease in impervious surfaces will benefit the vegetation of the area.
A notable increase in the A minor increase in An increase in the available available habitats will provide habitats will have minimal habitats will provide benefits to benefits to the wildlife of the the wildlife of the area. impact to wildlife of the area. area.
Additional road loadings Additional road loadings Additional road loadings Additional road loadings associated with the residential associated with the residential associated with the residential associated with the residential development development development development
Increase utility demand Increase utility demand Increase utility demand Increase utility demand Increase utility demand associated with the restaurant associated with the residential associated with the residential associated with the residential associated with the residential operation and expanded development development development development marina Slight increases in demand for Slight increases in demand for Slight increases in demand for Slight increases in demand for emergency services, emergency services, emergency services, emergency services, minor if any increase in increase in student minor if any increase in increase student enrollment. student enrollment. student enrollment. enrollment.
Table 3
148
TBD
53
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PB 6.02 Comment Review the density of the development. (pg 1, ¶ 7a) Response Refer to the response to comment 4.05 and PB 7.07 for a discussion on the proposed project density. PB 6.03 Comment The footprint of the buildings and land mass impacted. (pg 1, ¶ 7b) Response The footprint of each of the condominium-style buildings are approximately 11,000 square feet and the townhouse buildings are approximately 4,000 square feet each. The Nautica’s footprint is approximately 2,200 square feet. The total land mass impacted or the ground coverage of the impermeable surfaces would be 2.88 acres or 49%, while the maximum allowable surface area is 75% impermeable. The total amount of land to be disturbed includes green areas which will be regarded, top soiled and landscaped. The total amount of disturbed area on the site is estimated at 4.2 acres. Wetlands and steep slopes along the south property line and woodlots in the southeast and northwest corner of the site will not be affected. PB 6.04 Comment Is the Nautica truly an accessory use or is this a principle commercial use? (pg 1, ¶ 7c) Response As noted above, the Nautica is an accessory use (as defined by Town Code §235-4.B) to the two Principal Uses use of the property. The Nautica provides limited services for homeowners, boaters and their guests only and does not cater to the general public. As such it is in no way a “principal commercial use” as the comment suggests. Services are limited to owners and/or users of the property only and The Nautica can only be considered an accessory amenity for the Principal Use. PB 6.05 Comment Review of the parking required for the site. (pg 1, ¶ 7d) Response Additional information regarding the parking space requirements are included in the response to comments 12.12; 23.09; 26.08 and PH 5.03. PB 6.06 Comment Number of boat slips required, can slips be removed? This alternative is not mentioned in the Alternatives. Can the last of the finger docks be removed? (pg 1, ¶ 7e)
149
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response This would be inconsistent with the Harbor Management Plan, which recommends continuing all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. Rather, the HMP sets the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, in excess of the current Newport Marina capacity of 187. HMP at 75. The Plan recommends increasing dock slips on the Bay to increase access for the public, not decreasing spaces. HMP at xi, 61, 76, 79, 80-82, 84. Further, the Applicant has vested rights to the preexisting permitted docks, so they are grandfathered, and it would be unconstitutional to require their removal. See Smith v. Board of Appeals of Town of Islip, 202 A.D.2d 674, 609 N.Y.S.2d 912 (2nd Dept.1994); Town of Islip v. Modica Associates of NY 122, LLC, 45 A.D.3d 574, 846 N.Y.S.2d 201 (2nd Dept. 2007). In addition, elimination of docks would be contrary to the LWRP, which cited, “Provision of greater public access to the Bay is also proposed for the site of the Newport House, through the private development of a boat docking facility.” LWRP at IV-14. The LWRP is discussing the proposed development of a private boat docking facility that did not exist on the property at the time of the report in 1988. The citation notes that a private boat docking facility enhances public access to the Bay. The boat docking facility has been developed and is an integral part of the property. Eliminating dock space would be an encroachment on the permitted use of the property and would be contrary to the HMP and the LWRP. PB 6.07 Comment Parking for boat trailers. (pg 2, ¶ 7f) Response The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding parking and boat storage. Parking of boat trailers at the project site will be allowed on a brief transitory basis. The highest occurrence of trailer and boat parking will occur during the spring boat launching and during the fall boat pull out. These times will be strictly examined and coordinated with the marina operations to minimize temporary boat parking. If parking space demand exceeds the available parking spaces, then the trailer owners will be notified to remove their trailers as soon as possible. The Newport Marine Club will make any adjustments in their rules or bylaws to assure that residents slip owners and their guests have adequate onsite parking. The boat launch ramp and hoist will continue to be in operation for the proposed marina use. The use of the ramp may be utilized on a daily basis while in season. Off-season use of the ramp will be limited. Offseason storage of trailers and boats within the common surface parking lots will not be allowed.
150
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PB 6.08 Comment Roadway and public impacts. (pg 2, ¶ 7g) Response Roadway impacts are discussed throughout the FEIS. Refer to the response to comments 6.01, 7.01, 7.03, 12.11, 19.01, 26.04 and PB 5.07. PB 6.09 Comment More discussion on the views and exhibits and evidence of the visual impact. (pg 2, ¶ 7h) Response Additional discussion on the aesthetic impacts on the project is included in response to comments 4.07, 4.08, 12.07, 13.01, 22.04, 26.02, 26.20 and PH 5.13. Exhibit E1 includes a diagram for the line of sight expected under the present conditions from Newport Road and the proposed development. PB 6.10 Comment More discussion on the alternatives. (pg 2, ¶ 7i) Response The response to comment PB.6.01 discusses all the suggested alternatives in detail. PB 6.11 Comment I would like them to consider native species of plants and turf grasses that are water tolerant and need less fertilizer. (pg 3, N ¶ 17a) Response The Applicant indicates that the landscape plan will incorporate native trees and shrubs typically found around the Bay environment, and less maintenance intensive grasses. Typical trees may include: sugar maple (Acer Saccahrum), Red Oak (Quercus Rubra), Yellow Birch (Betula Alleghaniensis), Northern Hemlock (Tsuga Occidentalis), White Pine (Pinus strobes), etc. Shrubs may include: serviceberry (Amelanchier Canadesis), Winterberry (Ilex Verticillata), Flowering Dogwood (Cornus Foemina), Choke Cherry (Prunus Virginiana), and grasses such as Orchard Grass (Dactylis Glomerata), Common Reed (Phragmites Australis) and American Beachgrass (Ammophila Breviligulata). Turf areas would consist of Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium Perenne), Red Fescue (Festuca Rubra) and Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa Pratensis).
151
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
__________________________________________________________ Andrew Hintenach – Irondequoit Planning Board PB 7.01 Comment Building height is an issue. (pg 3, ¶ 16a) Response The proposed height of the townhomes/condominiums is not in conflict with the requirements of Town Code. Building heights for the condominium-style building are at the discretion of the Town Planning Board and come under the provisions of Town Code §235-33.C(2), which provides no specific height limit: “Maximum building height for multifamily dwellings, apartment buildings or other similar uses shall be determined by the Town Planning Board during the special use permit review and approval process and shall be based on a visual analysis of the site prepared and submitted by the Applicant as part of that review. The Town Planning Board shall be empowered to establish maximum princip[al] building heights and locations in order to preserve the aesthetic integrity of waterfront areas and protect any scenic views or vistas identified in the visual analysis.” And for townhomes, Town Code §235-33.C(3) states: “Maximum building heights for townhomes, single-family attached dwellings, row houses, or other similar uses shall not exceed 35 feet.” The proposed project includes condominium-style buildings with a height of 53 feet and the townhomes are approximately 31 feet. The existing Newport House is approximately 39 feet high. Therefore, the proposed condominium buildings are higher than the Newport House and the townhomes are lower than the Newport House. PB 7.02 Comment The density of the development should be more fully developed. (pg 3, ¶ 16b) Response Refer to the response to comment 4.05 for a discussion on the proposed project density. PB 7.03 Comment The viewshed discussion needs additional work. (pg 3, ¶ 16c) Response Additional discussion on the views is included in the response to comments 4.07; 4.08; 12.07; 13.01; 22.04; 26.02; 26.20 and PH 5.13. PB 7.04 Comment The stormwater impacts of the development must be fully addressed, including phosphorus, fertilizer use, collection, treatment, sand filters, sheet runoff and alternative methods such as rain gardens. (pg 3, ¶ 16d) 152
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response Comments have been received regarding stormwater impacts associated with phosphorous and fertilizer use, the stormwater management system which provides collection, treatment and sand filters, the potential for overland flow and the utilization of alternate methods such as rain gardens. Fertilizer use for the project will be only as recommended by the manufacturer and be limited to non-phosphorous types. The stormwater management system has been designed to collect, transport and treat the stormwater runoff prior to discharging into the Bay. Review and approval of the SWPPP will be necessary by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a permit for the project. Overland flow from grass and from landscaped areas will be mitigated by providing a perimeter French drain adjacent to the boardwalk and north of buildings 101 and 102 to collect and filter the stormwater before it enters the Bay. Impervious areas will be collected and treated through the stormwater management system, which includes a settling pool and sand filtration. The proposed utilization of rain gardens as an alternative method is limited by the contributing drainage area, which must be 1,000 square feet or less. The townhouse and the condominium-style buildings are approximately 4,000 and 11,000 square feet respectively. Therefore, the utilization of a rain garden for the large roof areas and roof leaders of the buildings would not be appropriate. However, rain gardens, as an alternative practice, will be utilized for sheet flow that may be entering the cove or Bay. See response to comment 27.03. PB 7.05 Comment Impacts to the cove and boat use at the cove must be discussed further. (pg 3, ¶ 16e) Response Boat usage of Newport Cove will not change as a result of this development. The Cove is currently accessible by watercraft from Irondequoit Bay, but is limited to smaller boats by virtue of its shallow depths and the existing docks. There will be no change in the current dock configuration. Additional threats to the Cove from what currently exists are not foreseen. PB 7.06 Comment A comparison model must be provided to get a feel for the building height. What is the height of the Corn Hill Landing buildings? Is there an approximate comparison model that we could use for the building height? (pg 3, ¶ 16f) Response The Architects emailed to the chairman of the Planning Board sections and dimensional heights for the Corn Hill Landing project and the recently completed Mills at High Falls, since they were the Architects for both projects. They were sent in March, 2009.
153
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comparative building heights and/elevations which includes recent multi-residence buildings at Corn Hill Landing (49 feet) and the Mills at High Falls (51 feet). The proposed condominium-style buildings at the Newport Marine Club are 53 feet high and the townhomes are at 31 feet high. PB 7.07 Comment The density of the project should be more fully discussed along with relationships of the other multi-family developments on the Bay in Irondequoit and other Towns. (pg 3, ¶ 16g) Response Other multi-family developments are discussed below - Comparable Waterfront Developments. Also, refer to the response to comment 4.05 for a discussion on the proposed project density. Comparable Waterfront Developments In an effort to review the relative human resource impacts that the Newport Marine Club may have on the environment, a comparative analysis of similar waterfront uses has been performed. This analysis will primarily review the relative density of four multi-family developments three of which are in the Town of Irondequoit (Bay Point, Bay Village and Westage) and one in the Town of Webster (Stoney Point). Information was provided from the Town of Irondequoit Assessor’s office and other readily available sources. Description Bay Point Townhomes are located immediately north of Ides Cove and 0.75 miles north of the Irondequoit Bay Bridge along the western shore of Irondequoit Bay at the intersection of Pleasant Avenue and Bay Point Circle. Bay Point townhomes are in building clusters of 2 to 3 units each with a total building area of approximately 4,200 to 5,000 square feet each. A community club house and in ground pool is available for the development. Bay Village Condominiums are located approximately 1.2 miles south of the Irondequoit Bay Bridge along the western shore of Irondequoit Bay at the terminus of Bay View Road and Bay Village Drive. Bay Village condominiums consist of four four-story buildings of 24 to 37 units for each building with approximately 1,200 to 1,400 square feet for each unit. Tennis courts, a community center, and a pool are available at the site. Westage at the Harbor is an apartment complex located along the shore of Lake Ontario and approximately 300 feet east of the Genesee River. The development is located at the end of St. Paul Boulevard at Third Street. The Westage at the Harbor is a complex of fourteen buildings of 21 to 32 units per each building with approximately 750 to 950 square feet for each unit. A pool and office is available for the residents.
154
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Stoney Point development is a mixed use residential development which includes townhouses and single family detached dwellings. For this analysis we will only concentrate on the townhouse portion of the development. The townhouse buildings are in clusters of 2 to 5 units each with first floor areas of approximately 1,750 to 5,000 square feet for each. A pool, tennis courts and a community center are available for the resident’s. Stoney Point Development is located along the east shore of Irondequoit Bay approximately 0.6 miles southeast of the Irondequoit Bay Outlet in the Town of Webster. The site is north of Admiralty Way and includes Midship Circle, Marina Circle, Ensign Drive and North Cove Drive. All of the referenced developments have dockage available for boating activities. Analysis The relative density of four waterfront properties along with the proposed project were calculated based upon the total number of dwelling units and the total lot area of the project. The analysis is summarized in Comparable Waterfront DevelopmentsTable 4.4 and in Development Density (units/acres) Figure 1. Summary The proposed Newport Marine Club has a density which is more than the Bay Point and the Stoney Point developments, but is less than the Bay Village or Westage developments. The average density of the four existing referenced developments (11.1 units per acre) is more than what is proposed by RSM Irondequoit Bay Development for the Newport Marine Club (9.5 units per acre). Additional discussion relative to project density is included in the response to comment 4.05.
155
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
COMPARABLE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENTS Development
Bay Point
Bay Village
Westage
Stoney Point
Newport
Street
Pleasant Ave
Bay View Road
St. Paul Blvd.
Admiralty Way
Newport Road
Town
Irondequoit
Irondequoit
Irondequoit
Webster
Irondequoit
Unit Area (square feet)
4,200-5,000
1,200-1,400
750-950
1,750-5,000
1,600-2,400
Amenities
Community center, pool
Community center, pool tennis courts
Pool
Community center, pool tennis courts
Community center
Dockage
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lot Area (acres)
9.3
8.2
6.9
29.3
5.9
Units
16
129
162
96
56
Density (units/acre)
1.7
15.7
23.5
3.3
9.5
Table 4
Figure 1
156
157
EXHIBIT E1
B BSE CT IO N
EXISTING GRADE
251.4
252.9
253.3
254.2
255.6
257.3
260.6
265.1
270.0
275.0
279.3
283.3
287.1
EXISTING BOARDWALK
EXISTING LINE OF SIGHT SECTION A-A SCALE: HORIZ. 1" = 40' VERT. 1" = 40'
EXISTING GRADE
SECTION A-A EXISTING BOARDWALK
LOCATION SKETCH
251.4
252.9
253.3
254.2
255.6
257.3
260.6
265.1
270.0
275.0
279.3
283.3
287.1
NOT TO SCALE
PROPOSED LINE OF SIGHT SECTION A-A SCALE: HORIZ. 1" = 40' VERT. 1" = 40'
3 LANE TRAFFIC (WEST BOUND)
3 LANE TRAFFIC (EAST BOUND)
ELEV. = 313.0 (±)
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
WATER ELEV. = 246.0 (±)
254.3
263.2
271.2
274.5
276.9
283.5
287.1
WATER ELEV. = 246.0 (±)
LINE OF SIGHT SECTION B-B SCALE: HORIZ. 1" = 40' VERT. 1" = 40'
CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING SURVEYING
217 LAKE AVENUE ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14608 (585) 458-3020
EXHIBIT 1 Date: 6/9/2009
CE#224-LOS E1
EXHIBIT E2
TOWN OF IRONDEQUOIT
BLDG 102 BLDG 101
BLDG 103
BLDG 104
3 8 22 5
4
16
12
GRANITE CURB ' 20.1
14.1'
CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING SURVEYING
217 LAKE AVENUE ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14608 (585) 458-3020
EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNAROUND EXHIBIT EXHIBIT 2 Date: 8/21/2009
CE#224-TURN E2
EXHIBIT E3
E3 - 1
E3 - 2
E3 - 3
Proposed Project: Newport Marine Club
Project Location: 500 Newport Road Town of Irondequoit Monroe County, New York
Project Sponsor / Applicant: RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC
Lead Agency: Town of Irondequoit Planning Board Town of Irondequoit Town Hall 1280 Titus Avenue Rochester, New York 14617
November 23, 2009
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS)
PROPOSED NEWPORT MARINE CLUB TOWN OF IRONDEQUOIT, MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK
Positive Declaration Issued:
June 23, 2008
Public Scoping Session Held:
July 23, 2008
Final Scope Accepted:
August 11, 2008
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Accepted by Planning Board:
February 10, 2009
Public Meeting held on DEIS:
March 9, 2009
Contact Person:
Anthony Favro Town of Irondequoit Planning and Zoning Office 1280 Titus Avenue Rochester, New York 14617 Phone: (585) 467-8840
ii
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT NEWPORT MARINE CLUB
TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I 1.0
Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 1
2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Statement .............................................................. 2
3.0
Corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement .................................... 2
4.0
Substantive Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Responses................................................................................................. 3 Tables Table 1
Comment List by Number .............................................................. 5
Table 2
Comment List by Topic................................................................ 11
Table 3
Alternative Comparison ............................................................. 148
Table 4
Comparable Waterfront Developments ........................................ 156
Figures Figure 1
Development Density (units/acre) .............................................. 156
Figure 2
Elevations of Bayfront Structures ............................................... 157
Exhibits Exhibit 1
Line of Sight from Newport Road .................................................. E1
Exhibit 2
Emergency Vehicle Turnaround at Newport Marine Club .................. E2
Exhibit 3
Photo – Simulation (Mooring Line Drive) Alternative C .................... E3 Volume II
Appendices A1
Written comments received by the Town of Irondequoit ......................... A1-1
A2
Transcript of the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board SEQR Public Hearing, March 9, 2009 .................................................................................. A2-1
iii
A3
Notes from a Town of Irondequoit Planning Board meeting of March 23, 2009................................................................. A3-1
A4
Letter dated February 19, 2009 from Costich Engineering, P.C. to the Town of Irondequoit and the Ridge Culver Fire District.................. A4-1
A5
Letter dated August 17, 2009 from the Office of Fire Marshall and Ridge Culver Fire District............................................................................. A5-1
A6
Phase II – Environmental Site Assessment Data Report, Day Environmental, Inc. dated May 2007.......................................................................... A6-1
A7
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Permit No. 80-850147. Install seasonal floating docks .................................................. A7-1
A8
Correspondence associated with Newport Road ..................................... A8-1
A9
Town of Irondequoit Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 2010-2015 dated 6/5/2009 ......................................................................................... A9-1
A10
Town of Irondequoit Town Board Resolution (8A.2009-3) ..................... A10-3
iv
ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation CIP DEIS ECL EIS EPOD, EPODs FedEx FEIS HA HML HMP HOA HSG ILUC LLC LWRP MS4 NYCRR NYS NYSDEC NYSSMDM P.C. RP RSM SEQR SEQRA SPDES SWPPP UPS WD
Description Capital Improvement Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Conservation Law Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Protection Overlay District(s) Federal Express Final Environmental Impact Statement Harbor Area Zone Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Law Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan Homeowner’s Association Hydrologic Soils Group Irondequoit Land Use Coalition Limited Liability Company Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System New York Codes Rules and Regulations New York State New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual Professional Corporation Resource Protection Zone RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC State Environmental Quality Review State Environmental Quality Review Act State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan United Parcel Service Waterfront Development
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Article IX – Town Code - Waterfront Development (WD) District – www.ecode360.com/?CustId=IR0059 Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Law (HML) September 16, 2008– www.irondequoit.org/images/PublicWorks/harborlaw.pdf Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan (HMP) November 2003 – www.newportyc.org/IBHMP2005/index.html Master Plan for the Town of Irondequoit New York – Adopted December 1985 www.irondequoit.org/content/view/254/833 Town of Irondequoit Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Adopted April 21, 1988 www.irondequoit.org/content/view/296/1096
v
Newport Marine Club
1.0
Final Environmental Impact Statement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1
Project Description
The proposed action is the redevelopment of the former Newport House and Marina property on the west bank of Irondequoit Bay at 500 Newport Road in the Town of Irondequoit, Monroe County, New York. The project sponsor, RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC, proposes to construct four (4) multi-level buildings containing forty-seven (47) for sale residential condominium style units, nine (9) townhome style units in three (3) buildings, and a separate stand alone clubhouse, the “Nautica”, and to maintain the existing one-hundred eighty-seven (187) dock slips (84 for residents, 93 for outside users, 10 for visitors). The project is located in the Waterfront Development District (WD). The project requires a preliminary and final site plan approval, the issuance of Environmental Protection Overlay Permits (EPOD) and the issuance of a Special Use Permit, all from the from the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board, and State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) and freshwater wetland permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The project will also obtain a map amendment from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for filling a small area of the property. The project has been classified as an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and subjected to coordinated review. The Lead Agency is the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board, which has made a Positive Declaration that there could be some significant environmental impacts associated with the project. 1.2
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (State Environmental Quality Review [SEQR]), the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board, as SEQR Lead Agency, has declared that the proposed Newport Marine Club may have a significant impact on the environment and required that the project sponsor, RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC., prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The purpose of the EIS is to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was accepted by the Town Planning Board on February 10, 2009 for review by all involved and interested agencies and the public. The Town Planning Board held a public meeting on the DEIS at the Town Hall on March 9, 2009 to allow the public to comment on the submitted DEIS for the project. The Newport Marine Club Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) includes any clarifications and/or supplements to the DEIS, summaries and copies of the substantive comments and their source, and the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board’s responses to all substantive comments. This FEIS incorporates the complete DEIS by reference. Multiple alternatives have been evaluated and the potential impacts of these alternatives have been discussed in the DEIS and the FEIS. The project proposal remains with (47) condominium style units, (9) townhome style units and a separate clubhouse facility.
1
Newport Marine Club
2.0
Final Environmental Impact Statement
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Newport Marine Club was submitted by the project sponsor, RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC to the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board, as SEQR Lead Agency, in December 2008. The DEIS was accepted for public review by the Town Planning Board on February 10, 2009 and a public meeting in the DEIS was held March 9, 2009. The DEIS shall form part of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and is incorporated by reference.
3.0
CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 3.1
DEIS Section 2.1.2 Public Need and Objectives Based on Community Development Plans, page 2–2, fourth paragraph.
Change the first sentence which reads, “19A Improve and expand public access opportunities on Irondequoit bay Creek”. To read, “19A Improve and expand public access opportunities on Irondequoit Bay Creek”. 3.2
DEIS Section 2.2.3 Existing Zoning and Proposed Use, page 2–13, fourth paragraph.
Change the first sentence which reads, “The proposed development consisting of four (4) multifamily buildings and three (3) buildings of townhouse units results in an average density of 56 units per 5.8 acres, which equals 9.7 units/acre.”, To read, “The proposed development consisting of four (4) multifamily buildings and three (3) buildings of townhouse units results in an average density of 56 units per 5.9 acres, which equals 9.5 units/acre”. 3.3
DEIS Section 2.3.3 Parking
Change page 2-14, “Table 2 – Required Parking Space Count” to read as follows: 47 condominium style units x 1.5 spaces/unit: 9 townhouse style units x 2.0 spaces/unit: 103 docks x 0.6 spaces/dock: TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED:
71 spaces 18 spaces 62 spaces 151 spaces
Change page 2-15 which reads, “The provided space count available for public use should be decreased by nine spaces to 175 spaces to account for the nine excess spaces provided for the townhouse units”. To read, “The garage parking assigned for the condominium style units and the townhouse style unit, along with the driveway parking of the townhouse style units should not be considered as available parking for nonresident slip owners or guests. Available parking for non-resident slip owners is 68 spaces while 62 spaces are required by Town Code”.
2
Newport Marine Club
3.4
Final Environmental Impact Statement
DEIS Section 6.4 Alternative D – Townhouse Style Units (See Exhibit 6D), page 6-4, second paragraph.
Change the last sentence which reads, “67 parking spaces would be available to boaters”. To read, “A total of seventy-six (76) parking spaces would be available to boaters under this alternative”. 3.5
DEIS Exhibit 1, Drawing Nos., 224-M2 Site Plan, 224-M3 Utility Plan, 224-M4 Grading and Stormwater Pollutant Prevention Plan, 224-M6 Lighting and Landscaping Plan, 224-M7 Demolition and Erosion Control Plan in the upper left side of the drawing.
Change the notation which reads, “Irondequoit Bay”. To read, “Newport Cove”. 3.6
DEIS Appendix C, Irondequoit Creek Watershed Stormwater Management Plan, Section II, Existing and Proposed Site Characteristics, page 5, second paragraph.
Change the first sentence which reads, “Development will entail demolition of the existing pavement and walkway, construction of nine townhouse style condominiums along the southern portion of the site and 12 bayside condominium units in 3 multi-unit buildings. 4.6 acres of the site will be disturbed during construction activity.” To read, “Development will entail demolition of the existing pavement and walkway, construction of nine townhouse style condominiums along the southern portion of the site and 47 bayside condominium units in 4 multi-unit buildings. Four point two (4.2) acres of the site will be disturbed during construction activity”. 4.0
SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RESPONSES The following comments/questions were submitted by involved and interested agencies and the public during the Newport Marine Club Draft Environmental Impact Statement public review period, which included a public hearing held March 9, 2009. The Town of Irondequoit Planning Board, as Lead Agency, determined that the following comments/questions to be substantive in nature and incorporated them into the Final Environmental Impact Statement. This section includes summaries of all of all verbal and written substantive comments, along with Lead Agency responses for each. The Lead Agency’s responses are shown in “bold text” below each comment. Copies of the written comments, and a copy of a transcript from the March 9, 2009 public hearing is included in Appendix A1 and A2. Appendix A3 contains notes from a Planning Board meeting of March 23, 2009. Comments are listed in numeric order under (Table 1) and sorted by topic (Table 2) Written comments are prefixed by the number xx.xx, comments during the SEQR public hearing are prefixed by PH xx.xx and verbal comments from the
3
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Town of Irondequoit Planning Board during their meeting of March 23, 2009 are noted as PB xx.xx.
4
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Number Table 1
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
1.01
17
DEIS Availability
Mary Maggio
Public Member
2.01
17
Construction Schedule
Al Jaehn
Webster
3.01
17
Building Heights
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
3.02
18
Newport Road
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
3.03
19
Construction Traffic
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
4.01
20
Density
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.02
21
Adopted Plans
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.03
22
Access
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.04
23
Access
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.05
23
Density
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.06
24
Alternatives
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.07
25
Views
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.08
26
Views
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.09
26
Wetlands
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.10
27
Accessory Use
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.11
27
Boat Slip Transference
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
5.01
27
Turnaround
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.02
28
Driveways
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.03
28
Building Clearance
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.04
28
Access
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.05
29
Roadway Loadings
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.06
29
Building Clearance
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.07
29
Public Safety
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.08
30
General Comment
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.09
30
General Comment
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
6.01
31
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
6.02
32
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
6.03
33
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
7.01
34
Newport Road
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
7.02
35
Newport Road
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
7.03
36
Newport Road
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
7.04
36
Turnaround
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
8.01
37
General Comment
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
9.01
37
Access
Daniel and Barbara Robertson
66 Baycrest Drive
9.02
38
Access
Daniel and Barbara Robertson
66 Baycrest Drive
10.01
38
General Comment
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
10.02
39
Newport Road
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
10.03
41
Newport Road
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
10.04
42
Newport Road
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
11.01
43
Newport Cove
Harlan Brody
Friends of Irondequoit Bay
12.01
43
Access
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
5
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Number Table 1
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
12.02
44
Density
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.03
45
Lot Coverage
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.04
46
Density
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.05
46
Bay Offsets
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.06
47
Steep Slope
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.07
47
Views
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.08
48
Newport Cove Docks
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.09
48
Lot Coverage
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.10
48
Parking
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.11
49
Newport Road
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.12
51
Parking
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.13
51
Zoning
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.14
51
Alternatives
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.15
52
Alternatives
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.16
52
Visual Impact
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
13.01
53
Views
Gary Skillman
20 Tuliptree Lane
13.02
53
Taxes
Gary Skillman
20 Tuliptree Lane
14.01
54
Alternatives
Tom Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
14.02
54
Alternatives
Tom Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
14.03
54
Alternatives
Tom Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
15.01
55
Newport Road
Charles Hall
309 Bay Front La., German Village HOA
16.01
56
Steep Slope
Ralph Pascale
40 Mooring Line Dr.
17.01
57
Rare and Endangered Species
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.02
57
Adopted Plans
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.03
58
Invasive Species
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.04
59
Newport Cove Docks
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.05
59
Number of Slips
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.06
59
Boat Storage
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.07
60
Accessory Use
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.08
61
Parking
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.09
61
Building Heights
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.10
62
Environmental Improvements
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.11
62
Fertilizer
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.12
63
EPODS
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.13
63
Stormwater
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.14
64
Wetlands
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.15
64
Traffic
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.16
66
Landscaping
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.17
67
Density
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
18.01
67
Parking
Carol Palmeri
50 Mooring Line Dr.
18.02
67
Animal Impacts
Carol Palmeri
50 Mooring Line Dr.
18.03
68
Turnaround
Carol Palmeri
50 Mooring Line Dr.
6
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Number Table 1
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
19.01
68
Newport Road
Marty Piecuch
Irondequoit Dept. of Public Works
19.02
70
Newport Road
Marty Piecuch
Irondequoit Dept. of Public Works
20.01
70
Newport Road
John Papponetti
LaBella Assoc. - Town Engineer
21.01
72
Newport Road
Wade Daley
LaBella Assoc. - Town Engineer
21.02
72
Newport Road
Wade Daley
LaBella Assoc. - Town Engineer
22.01
73
Newport Road
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
22.02
73
Newport Road
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
22.03
75
Animal Impacts
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
22.04
75
Views
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
22.05
76
Taxes
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
22.06
76
Alternatives
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
23.01
77
Density
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.02
77
Building Heights
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.03
77
Property Values
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.04
78
Bay Offsets
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.05
78
Stormwater
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.06
78
Fertilizer
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.07
78
Newport Road
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.08
79
Newport Road
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.09
80
Parking
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.10
81
Steep Slope
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
24.01
81
Alternatives
Ralph Pascale
40 Mooring Line Dr.
25.01
81
Newport Road
Vincent Patene
359 Bay Front Lane North
26.01
83
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.02
84
Views
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.03
84
Earth Disturbance
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.04
85
Newport Road
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.05
87
Construction Traffic
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.06
87
Construction Schedule
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.07
88
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.08
88
Parking
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.09
89
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.10
89
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.11
90
Adopted Plans
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.12
91
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.13
91
Adopted Plans
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.14
92
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.15
92
Access
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.16
93
EPODS
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.17
94
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.18
94
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.19
95
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
7
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Number Table 1
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
26.20
95
Views
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.21
95
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.22
96
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.23
96
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.24
96
DEIS Acceptance
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.25
97
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
27.01
99
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.02
100
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.03
100
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.04
101
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.05
102
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.06
103
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.07
104
Adopted Plans
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.08
104
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.09
105
Vegetation
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.10
105
Bay Offsets
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.11
105
Vegetation
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.12
106
Wetlands
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.13
106
Protection of Waters
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.14
106
Alternatives
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.15
107
Construction Schedule
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.16
107
Soils
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.17
107
Marina Operations
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.18
108
Marina Operations
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.19
108
Parking Garage Air Quality
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
28.01
108
Newport Road
Laura Fischer
73 Mooring Line Dr.
PH 1.01
109
Alternatives
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 1.02
109
Traffic
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 1.03
109
Newport Road
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 1.04
110
Marina Operations
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 1.05
110
Marina Operations
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 1.06
111
Alternatives
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 2.01
111
Adopted Plans
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
PH 2.02
112
Mitigation
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
PH 2.03
112
Accessory Use
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
PH 2.04
113
Boat Slip Transference
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
PH 2.05
114
Alternatives
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
PH 3.01
114
Density
Patty Brody
277 Bay Front Lane North
PH 3.02
114
Density
Patty Brody
277 Bay Front Lane North
PH 4.01
115
Visual Impact
Thomas Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
PH 4.02
115
Alternatives
Thomas Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
PH 4.03
115
Alternatives
Thomas Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
8
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Number Table 1
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
PH 5.01
115
Taxes
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.02
116
Zoning
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.03
116
Parking
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.04
117
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.05
117
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.06
117
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.07
118
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.08
118
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.09
119
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.10
119
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.11
119
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.12
120
Parking
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.13
120
Views
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.14
120
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.15
121
Access
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.16
121
Access
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.17
121
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.18
122
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.19
122
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.20
122
EPODS
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.21
123
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 6.01
123
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
PH 7.01
125
Newport Road
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.02
125
Density
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.03
126
Newport Road
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.04
126
Newport Road
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.05
126
Traffic
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.06
127
Traffic
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PB 1.01
127
Alternatives
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 1.02
128
Turnaround
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 1.03
128
Newport Cove Docks
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 1.04
128
Accessory Use
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 1.05
128
Newport Road
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.01
129
Alternatives
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.02
130
Soils
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.03
131
Construction Inspection
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.04
131
Construction Schedule
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.05
131
Town Involvement
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.06
131
Number of Slips
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.07
132
General Comment
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.08
132
Construction
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 3.01
132
Alternatives
Michael Palermo
Irondequoit Planning Board
9
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Number Table 1
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
PB 4.01
132
Alternatives
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.02
133
Density
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.03
133
Newport Cove Docks
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.04
133
Parking
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.05
133
General Comment
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.06
133
Building Clearance
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.07
134
Newport Road
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.08
134
Newport Road
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.01
134
Number of Slips
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.02
135
Accessory Use
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.03
135
Number of Slips
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.04
135
Accessory Use
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.05
136
Newport Cove Docks
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.06
136
Newport Road
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.07
137
Newport Road
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.08
138
Newport Road
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.09
138
Turnaround
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.01
138
Alternatives
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.02
149
Density
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.03
149
Lot Coverage
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.04
149
Accessory Use
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.05
149
Parking
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.06
149
Number of Slips
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.07
150
Boat Storage
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.08
151
Newport Road
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.09
151
Views
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.10
151
Alternatives
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.11
151
Landscaping
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.01
152
Building Heights
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.02
152
Density
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.03
152
Views
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.04
152
Stormwater
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.05
153
Newport Cove
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.06
153
Building Heights
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.07
154
Density
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
10
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Topic Table 2
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
4.03
22
Access
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.04
23
Access
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
5.04
28
Access
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
9.01
37
Access
Daniel and Barbara Robertson
66 Baycrest Drive
9.02
38
Access
Daniel and Barbara Robertson
66 Baycrest Drive
12.01
43
Access
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
26.15
92
Access
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.15
121
Access
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.16
121
Access
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
4.10
27
Accessory Use
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
17.07
60
Accessory Use
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
26.01
83
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.09
89
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 2.03
112
Accessory Use
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
PH 5.17
121
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.18
122
Accessory Use
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PB 1.04
128
Accessory Use
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.02
135
Accessory Use
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.04
135
Accessory Use
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.04
149
Accessory Use
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
21
Adopted Plans
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.02 17.02
57
Adopted Plans
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
26.11
90
Adopted Plans
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.13
91
Adopted Plans
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
27.07
104
Adopted Plans
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
PH 2.01
111
Adopted Plans
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
4.06
24
Alternatives
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
12.14
51
Alternatives
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.15
52
Alternatives
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
14.01
54
Alternatives
Tom Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
14.02
54
Alternatives
Tom Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
14.03
54
Alternatives
Tom Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
22.06
76
Alternatives
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
24.01
81
Alternatives
Ralph Pascale
40 Mooring Line Dr.
26.07
88
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.21
95
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.22
96
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.23
96
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.25
98
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
27.14
106
Alternatives
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
PB 1.01
127
Alternatives
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.01
129
Alternatives
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
11
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Topic Table 2
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
PB 3.01
132
Alternatives
Michael Palermo
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.01
132
Alternatives
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.01
138
Alternatives
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.10
151
Alternatives
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PH 1.01
109
Alternatives
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 1.06
111
Alternatives
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 2.05
114
Alternatives
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
PH 4.02
115
Alternatives
Thomas Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
PH 4.03
115
Alternatives
Thomas Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
PH 5.07
118
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.08
118
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.09
119
Alternatives
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
18.02
67
Animal Impacts
Carol Palmeri
50 Mooring Line Dr.
22.03
75
Animal Impacts
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
12.05
46
Bay Offsets
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
23.04
78
Bay Offsets
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
27.10
105
Bay Offsets
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27
Boat Slip Transference
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
113
4.11 PH 2.04 17.06 PB 6.07
Boat Slip Transference
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
59
Boat Storage
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
150
Boat Storage
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
5.03
28
Building Clearance
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.06
29
Building Clearance
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
133
Building Clearance
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.06 3.01
17
Building Heights
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
17.09
61
Building Heights
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
23.02
77
Building Heights
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
PB 7.01
152
Building Heights
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.06
153
Building Heights
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.08
132
Construction
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 2.03
131
Construction Inspection
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
2.01
17
Construction Schedule
Al Jaehn
Webster
26.06
87
Construction Schedule
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
27.15
107
Construction Schedule
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
PB 2.04
131
Construction Schedule
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
Construction Traffic
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
3.03
19
26.05
87
Construction Traffic
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.24
96
DEIS Acceptance
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
1.01
17
DEIS Availability
Mary Maggio
Public Member
4.01
20
Density
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.05
23
Density
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
12.02
44
Density
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Topic Table 2
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
12.04
46
Density
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
17.17
67
Density
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
23.01
77
Density
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
26.10
89
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.14
92
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
114
Density
Patty Brody
277 Bay Front Lane North
PH 3.01 PH 3.02
114
Density
Patty Brody
277 Bay Front Lane North
PH 5.10
119
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.21
123
Density
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 7.02
125
Density
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PB 4.02
133
Density
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.02
149
Density
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.02
152
Density
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.07
154
Density
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
Driveways
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.02
28
26.03
84
Earth Disturbance
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
17.10
62
Environmental Improvements
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.12
63
EPODS
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
26.16 PH 5.20
93
EPODS
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
122
EPODS
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
17.11
62
Fertilizer
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
23.06
78
Fertilizer
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
5.08
30
General Comment
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
5.09
30
General Comment
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
8.01
37
General Comment
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
10.01
38
General Comment
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
PB 2.07
132
General Comment
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.05
133
General Comment
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
17.03
58
Invasive Species
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
17.16
66
Landscaping
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
PB 6.11
151
Landscaping
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.03
45
Lot Coverage
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.09
48
Lot Coverage
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.03
149
Lot Coverage
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
27.17
107
Marina Operations
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.18
108
Marina Operations
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
PH 1.04
110
Marina Operations
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 1.05
110
Marina Operations
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 2.02
112
Mitigation
John Kaufman
249 Hoffman Road
11.01 PB 7.05 12.08
43
Newport Cove
Harlan Brody
Friends of Irondequoit Bay
153
Newport Cove
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
Newport Cove Docks
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
48
13
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Topic Table 2
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
17.04
59
Newport Cove Docks
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
26.17
94
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.05
117
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.06
117
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.14
120
Newport Cove Docks
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PB 1.03
128
Newport Cove Docks
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.03
133
Newport Cove Docks
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.05
136
Newport Cove Docks
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
3.02
18
Newport Road
Jack Buttino
42 Mooring Line Dr.
6.01
31
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
6.02
32
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
6.03
33
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
7.01
34
Newport Road
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
7.02
35
Newport Road
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
7.03
36
Newport Road
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
10.02
39
Newport Road
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
10.03
41
Newport Road
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
10.04
42
Newport Road
Paul and Kathy Bonsignore
59 Mooring Line Dr.
12.11
49
Newport Road
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
15.01
55
Newport Road
Charles Hall
309 Bay Front La., German Village HOA
19.01
68
Newport Road
Marty Piecuch
Irondequoit Dept. of Public Works
19.02
70
Newport Road
Marty Piecuch
Irondequoit Dept. of Public Works
20.01
71
Newport Road
John Papponetti
LaBella Assoc. - Town Engineer
21.01
72
Newport Road
Wade Daley
LaBella Assoc. - Town Engineer
21.02
72
Newport Road
Wade Daley
LaBella Assoc. - Town Engineer
22.01
73
Newport Road
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
22.02
73
Newport Road
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
23.07
78
Newport Road
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
23.08
79
Newport Road
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
25.01
81
Newport Road
Vincent Patene
359 Bay Front Lane North
26.04
85
Newport Road
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
28.01
108
Newport Road
Laura Fischer
73 Mooring Line Dr.
PH 1.03
110
Newport Road
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 6.01
123
Newport Road
David Bradia
61 Mooring Line Dr
PH 7.01
125
Newport Road
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.03
126
Newport Road
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.04
126
Newport Road
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PB 1.05
128
Newport Road
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.07
134
Newport Road
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.08
134
Newport Road
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.06
136
Newport Road
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.07
138
Newport Road
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
14
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Topic Table 2
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
PB 5.08
138
Newport Road
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.08
151
Newport Road
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
17.05
59
Number of Slips
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
26.12
91
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.18
94
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.19
95
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.04
117
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.11
119
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.19
122
Number of Slips
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PB 2.06
131
Number of Slips
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.01
134
Number of Slips
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.03
135
Number of Slips
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.06
149
Number of Slips
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.10
48
Parking
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.12
51
Parking
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
17.08
61
Parking
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
18.01
67
Parking
Carol Palmeri
50 Mooring Line Dr.
23.09
80
Parking
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
26.08
88
Parking
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.03
116
Parking
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.12
120
Parking
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PB 4.04
133
Parking
Jay Ricci
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.05
149
Parking
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
27.19
108
Parking Garage Air Quality
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
23.03
77
27.13
106
5.07
29
Property Values
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
Protection of Waters
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
Public Safety
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
17.01
57
Rare and Endangered Species
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
5.05
29
Roadway Loadings
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
Soils
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.16
107
PB 2.02
130
Soils
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
12.06
47
Steep Slope
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
16.01
56
Steep Slope
Ralph Pascale
40 Mooring Line Dr.
23.10
81
Steep Slope
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
17.13
63
Stormwater
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
23.05
78
Stormwater
Lois Buttino
42 Mooring Line Drive
27.01
99
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.02
100
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.03
100
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.04
101
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.05
102
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.06
103
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
15
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comment List by Topic Table 2
Comment No.
Page No.
Topic
Commenter
Affiliation/Residence
27.08
104
Stormwater
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
PB 7.04
152
Stormwater
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
Taxes
Gary Skillman
20 Tuliptree Lane
13.02 22.05
53 76
Taxes
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
PH 5.01
115
Taxes
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PB 2.05
131
Town Involvement
Raymond McDonald
Irondequoit Planning Board
17.15
64
Traffic
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
PH 1.02
109
Traffic
Irv Spalding
6 Bay Knoll Road
PH 7.05
126
Traffic
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
PH 7.06
127
Traffic
Donald Potter
131 Valley Circle
5.01
27
Turnaround
Michael Caccamise
Ridge Culver Fire District
7.04
36
Turnaround
Laura and Marc Fisher
73 Mooring Line Dr
18.03
68
Turnaround
Carol Palmeri
50 Mooring Line Dr.
PB 1.02
128
Turnaround
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.09
138
Turnaround
Robert Spatola
Irondequoit Planning Board
27.09
105
Vegetation
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.11
105
Vegetation
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
Views
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.07
25
4.08
26
Views
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
12.07
47
Views
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
13.01
53
Views
Gary Skillman
20 Tuliptree Lane
22.04
75
Views
Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton
212 Baycrest Drive
26.02
84
Views
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
26.20
95
Views
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.13
120
Views
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PB 6.09
151
Views
Peter Wehner
Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 7.03
152
Views
Andrew Hintenach
Irondequoit Planning Board
52
Visual Impact
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
115
Visual Impact
Thomas Wolf
1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
Wetlands
Rebecca Ott
Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
12.16 PH 4.01 4.09
26
17.14
64
Wetlands
Irondequoit Conservation Board
Irondequoit Conservation Board
27.12
106
Wetlands
Peggy Norry
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
12.13
51
Zoning
Cheri Evershed
Irondequoit Planning Board
116
Zoning
Christopher J. Enos
Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.02
16
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
_______________________________________________________ Mary Maggio, Public member 1.01 Comment I attended the board meeting yesterday [February 11, 2009] where a “missing” section of the DEIS was discussed. I believe it was Section 41? Could you tell me what it was supposed to contain, and where and when copies of the DEIS will be available. Thank you. (pg 2, 1 ¶) Response There was no missing section of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Town of Irondequoit Planning Board accepted the DEIS on February 20, 2009 after weeks of deliberations by the Board. Therefore, copies of the document dated prior to February 20, 2009 may not have been complete. The “Official” accepted copies of the DEIS are available at the Town Hall, Town libraries, on the Town of Irondequoit website and other locations. The availability of the complete, accepted DEIS was publicly announced. __________________________________________________________ Al Jaehn, Webster 2.01 Comment I am in favor of this project. I Bay has always been a recreation area and should never have been designated a “wetland”. This project will bring jobs and attract people of higher means. These folks are needed to revitalize our shrinking brain base. Let’s not study this thing to death while investors go elsewhere. If it’s “shovel ready”, I say start digging. (pg 1, 5 ¶) Response This is an opinion of the commenter. No response is necessary. __________________________________________________________ Jack Buttino, 42 Mooring Line Drive 3.01 Comment The five Mooring Line Drive neighbors that support the project met privately with Steve Mancini (RSM Development) and based on his comments: •
The building heights have been lowered. (pg 1, 6 ¶)
Response Alternative C provides a reduction in the total number of residential units and modifies the condominium style buildings number 103 and 104 to lower the building height by approximately 12 feet at the front setback. This alternative should be considered as an appropriate compromise to the proposed plan in that it takes into account many of the comments from the Planning Board and the public.
17
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
3.02 Comment The five Mooring Line Drive neighbors that support the project met privately with Steve Mancini (RSM Development) and based on his comments: •
The bend in Newport Road would be cutout, prior to construction, and he would build a 15 foot retainer wall. (pg 1, 6 ¶)
Response The project sponsor must have been misunderstood. The intended statement was that a possible alternative to improve the geometry of Newport Road was that a retaining wall could be constructed to allow an alignment change to the roadway. However, this would not be part of the project, and is a separate action that may be addressed by the Town pursuant to a review and determination of necessity. The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. 18
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. See response to comment 19.01. 3.03 Comment The five Mooring Line Drive neighbors that support the project met privately with Steve Mancini (RSM Development) and based on his comments: •
Traffic during the construction phase would be monitored and controlled. (pg 1, 3 ¶)
19
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response Correct, traffic along Newport Road would be maintained, monitored and controlled during the heavy construction phase of the project. This would most likely occur during the site improvement phase between spring and fall of the first year of construction. The passage of construction vehicles during peak periods may be difficult due to vehicular speed, size and truck equipment maneuvering. Heavy construction traffic will be controlled by limiting heavy construction vehicles traveling along the northern edge of Newport Road and limiting the roadway to one way along the south side of the road during working hours for a couple of months. Two-way traffic would be restored at the end of each work day. Traffic control could consist of temporary traffic signals or flagmen. This would most likely occur during extensive earthwork, concrete, or asphalt paving operations were occurring. This would not preclude access to the site for delivery trucks to drop off building materials, but is intended to mitigate the structural loading of Newport Road during intensive site construction operations. __________________________________________________________ Rebecca Ott, Irondequoit Land Use Coalition (ILUC) 4.01 Comment Irondequoit Town Code 235-47.F. (2) states: “No permit to undertake any regulated activity within an EPOD shall be issued by the Planning Board unless the net buildable site area and maximum allowable dwelling units are less than or equal to the calculated value under the site capacity calculation worksheet”. ILUC believes the meaning of this section is clear…. Notwithstanding the Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, ILUC is particularly concerned that this project, which is proposed to be built on land containing steep slopes, woodlots, and wetland buffer zones is requesting a density far above what the law allows. (pg 1, 1 ¶) Response Paragraph (1) of that same Town Code §235-47.F provides that the site capacity worksheet is only required for an “application for land subdivision.” The Newport Marine Club project does not include an application for land subdivision, so paragraph 2 does not apply. While the Applicant provided a site capacity worksheet for the DEIS as requested by the Planning Board, the calculations under the worksheet are not relevant to the calculation of density. The proposal minimizes construction into any pristine or undeveloped areas of the site minimizing impacts to steep slopes, woodlots and wetland buffers. Steep slopes, woodlots and wetland buffer areas will not be significantly impacted by the development because the project will be constructed primarily on areas which have been previously disturbed and improved. As set forth at DEIS 2.5.2.1, the site meets the density requirements set forth at Town Code §235-33.A, which for a “multifamily dwelling, apartment building or other similar use,” is “4,000 square feet per dwelling unit,” while for “a townhouse, single-family attached dwelling, row house or other similar use… a minimum area of 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit” is required. Town Code §235-33.A(2,3). The project 20
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
provides 4,000 square feet of site area per condominium style units and 6,000 square feet of site area for townhouse units. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the requirement of the Town Code. 4.02 Comment The Applicant repeatedly asserts that the project is in harmony with the Town’s Master Plan and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). These assertions are false in a number of respects, including public access, loss of the visual resources of the area because of the building density and building height, and proximity of the multistory buildings to the water’s edge. This project also fails to meet the density structures of the Waterfront Development District zoning. (pg 1, 1 ¶) Response Review of the text of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) and the Master Plan reveal that the Project is consistent with these plans. While the LWRP called for increased utilization of public-owned lands for access to the Bay, it targeted lands that were already publicly owned, including not only the Newport Landfill, but also the Irondequoit Creek Wetlands, Bay Park West, State-owned land at the northwest corner of the Bay, and the Bay Outlet Park, not privately-owned land. LWRP at I35-37, III-22-27. According to the LWRP, “Bay Park West and the recently purchased Isaac Property immediately to the north constitute the Town’s most significant opportunity for providing the public with a water-related recreational facility on Irondequoit Bay.” LWRP at I-35. Further, the Newport Landfill was identified as a potential site for public access, including an overlook and a fishing pier. LWRP at I-36, III-28, V-7, V-9, V-28. The State-owned land was identified as a potential site for 500 berths due to its accessible location, and the Bay Outlet Park as a boat launch site. LWRP at I-36, V-12, V-17, V-24, V-25, V-29. However, the LWRP, prepared in 1988, specifically recognized that “[p]rovision of greater public access to the Bay” was “proposed for the site of the Newport House, through the private development of a boat docking facility,” and that this was “considered appropriate given the fact that the site of the Newport House is one of the few locations on Irondequoit Bay that contains sufficient space to accommodate parking requirements and will also not require excessive dredging.” LWRP at IV14. Thus, the original development of the Newport House private marina was deemed appropriate to give limited public access to the paying public across private property as granted to marina members and their guests. The Project will keep the marina in operation, and thus allow the public to continue to rent slips to gain access to the Bay. With respect to visual resources, the LWRP recognized and encouraged enhancement of the south and north ends of the Bay as the best locations for public to access scenic resources. LWRP at I-30, III-30. Bay Park West was also identified as location for good views for the public. LWRP at I-30. Newport was found to be less accessible to the public for views. LWRP at I-30. The Harbor Management Plan (HMP) only recognized Newport Road as a point having scenic value for the public, and the road
21
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
will remain open to the public, even though the Newport Marine Club remains as private property. (HMP at 45-46). The LWRP encouraged uses like the Project “that are enhanced by a waterfront location.” LWRP at III-7. The Plan specifically recommended enactment of Waterfront Development District zoning, including “Multifamily (High Rise Residential Development),” for the Newport Road area. LWRP at III-5, V-8, V-47. Thus, a development like the Project was specifically envisioned by the LWRP, and it was never slated for public access beyond allowing the public to rent spaces in a private marina. Likewise, the Town’s Master Plan recognized that the site will be the focus of development, and states that “low to moderate density clustered residential development appears to be the most appropriate development approach” for the site, with clusters of 75-100 units. Master Plan at 92, 94. The Plan called for zoning the site as part of a “waterfront development district to preserve future land use flexibility.” Master Plan at 96. It suggested the area be used for “development of a variety of housing types to meet that changing needs of Irondequoit’s older population.” Master Plan at 95. In contrast, the Newport Landfill was proposed for public recreation. Master Plan at 96, 99. Under the Waterfront Development District zoning that was enacted in accord with the LWRP and Master Plan, the Project is allowed by Special Permit. Town Code §235-32.A. As set forth at DEIS 2.5.2.1, the site meets the density requirements set forth at Town Code §235-33.A, which for a “multifamily dwelling, apartment building or other similar use,” is “4,000 square feet per dwelling unit,” while for “a townhouse, singlefamily attached dwelling, row house or other similar use… a minimum area of 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit” is required. Town Code §235-33.A(2,3). Furthermore, as set forth at DEIS 2.5.2.2, the site meets the setback requirements set forth at Town Code §235-33.B, including those applicable to the multi-story condominium buildings. 4.03 Comment There can be no doubt that the gated community and marina will drastically reduce the number of people who can enjoy this property when compared to the number of visitors to the Newport House when it was operated as a restaurant, a use specifically recommended in the Master Plan. ILUC is extremely disappointed that Applicant has reneged in his previous agreement to allow general public pedestrian access to this valuable waterfront site. The requirement of owning an expensive dwelling or renting an expensive boat slip in no way meets the goal of improved and increased public access. (pg 1, 1 ¶) Response Unobstructed access to the Newport Marine Club by the general public will not be allowed. The Newport property is private property that is not open to unrestricted general public access. While the use of the property has most recently been for commercial purposes, pedestrian access has only been allowed for marina tenants and restaurant patrons. 22
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Unfettered pedestrian access to the Newport Marine Club will be limited, for safety, security and liability reasons, to residents and slip-owners that possess a pass-card or guests, who are accompanied by an individual with a pass-card. The development will provide a safe and secure facility for its residents and marina users. Unaccompanied strangers will not be allowed on the property. There have been recent instances of disorderly conduct and vandalism caused by intruders at the current marina operation, which has little access control. Therefore, for the safety and security of the general public and for the safety and security of the residents of the Newport Marine Club, it has been determined that public access onto their property will be limited by utilizing a gated community with a pass-card system. Liability issues are also a concern, since a lawsuit could occur if someone is injured on the property. The project will allow restricted access to the shore through the purchase or rental of boat slips by non-resident boat owners. The marina will allow public access for members of the general boating public to stop for servicing and temporary dockage. Also see response to comments 9.01 and 12.01. 4.04 Comment If the Applicant continues to insist that the general public will not even be allowed to have pedestrian access, ILUC suggests that the Town require a payment by the Applicant to the Town of Irondequoit as mitigation for the loss of general public access. (pg 2, 1 ¶) Response The Newport property is private property that is not open to unrestricted general public access. While the use of the property has most recently been for commercial purposes, pedestrian access has only been allowed for marina tenants and restaurant patrons. Additional discussion on pedestrian access is included in the responses to comments 4.03, 9.01, 12.01 and PH 5.15. Since there is no general unrestricted public access on the site today, the project would not cause a loss of access, and requiring the developer to pay for the loss of pedestrian access would have no basis. Unrestricted public pedestrian access is typically limited to public properties such as the Newport Landfill, Irondequoit Creek Wetlands, Bay Park West and the Bay Outlet Park, as noted in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). 4.05 Comment Independent of the question of whether density should be limited in EPODs, the proposed development is anything but low to moderate density. It utilizes virtually every available square foot of the parcel to satisfy the bulk lot requirements for the requested 56 units. Of the proposed 56 units, 47 units, i.e. 84% of them, have the lowest bulk lot requirements permitted in the Waterfront Development District. ILUC believed this has to be considered high density by anyone’s definition. (pg 2, 3 ¶)
23
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The proposed development does comply with the density requirements as stipulated in the Town Code. Section 235-31.B of the Town Code states, “The Waterfront Development (WD) District permits low to moderate density residential development…” Section 235-33A stipulates that minimum lot areas be established at 4,000 square feet for each multifamily dwelling and townhomes shall have a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit. The total lot area exceeds the minimum lot area requirements per dwelling unit, which is further discussed under Section 2.5.2.1 of the DEIS. (Minimum site area required 252,044 square feet and site area provided 254,680 square feet). Therefore, if the project meets the lot and bulk area requirements of the Town Code, then it could be concluded that, the project meets the definition of a low to moderate density development. This is consistent with typical definitions of medium density as up to 12 units per acre (Reference: “Growing Cooler” Urban Land Institute, page 19, Figure 2-2). Multi-family dwellings, apartment buildings, townhouses and other similar uses are allowed subject to the issuance of a special permit by the Town Planning Board in the Waterfront Development (WD) zoning district. Further, there are other multi-family waterfront properties within the Town which have higher densities than what is proposed for the Newport Marine Club (see Table 4.4 – Comparable Waterfront Developments). Therefore, the proposed Newport Marine Club, which meets the allowable use, bulk density requirements for moderate density as prescribed in the Town Code, and has a density which is less than other waterfront properties in the Town. See the response to comment PB 7.07 for additional discussions on the project density. 4.06 Comment It is ILUC’s position that the all-townhouse Alternative D mentioned on p. 6-4 of the DEIS represents a plan that more nearly approaches, although does not reach the definition of “low to moderate density”. Furthermore, in contradiction to the assertion that Alternative D allows 45 units, we believe that, assuming the Marina is included and the same 1.5 boat slips per housing unit as in the present proposal, approximately 39 townhouses would be allowed. (pg 2, 4 ¶) Response Alternative D, with approximately 45 townhouse units, would equate to a density of 7.6 units per acre, which is less than the Bay Village or the Westage Waterfront developments. The Town Code specifically states that the Waterfront Development District provides for “low- to moderate-density residential development,” Town Code §235-31.B. The density of this or any other alternative is not conditioned solely on the number of boat slips. The proposal calls for an allocated 1.5 slips per dwelling unit, or a total of 84 slips to be reserved for the 56 dwellings (condominium-style and townhouses) of the Newport Marine Club. This would leave 103 slips available for the non-resident boater use. If the ratio was left the same, 56 townhouses could be accommodated. And if, thirty-nine (39) townhouses were developed they would equate to 58.5, say 59 slips, reserved for the marina, which would then leave 128 slips available for non-resident boater use. One of the marketing aspects of this project is for the residents of the Newport Marine Club to have boat 24
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
access and dockage where they reside. At 1.5 slips per unit, the marina could actually accommodate 124 residential units, but no one is suggesting this level of density. 4.07 Comment The large size, high density and extreme heights of the multistory buildings severely reduce the onsite and offsite desirable views associated with this site. The view from the Bay is also severely compromised by the extreme size of the multistory buildings (see Applicant’s DEIS Volume 1, Exhibit 3E (4) and 3E (5)). Offshore from the east, a large portion of the western tree line is totally obscured by the immense bulk of the multistory buildings. (pg 2, 5 ¶) Response The original two condominium buildings had flat roofs, and were changed to four separate buildings to promote views by the five houses at the top of the hill. This was suggested by members of the Planning Board. The Planning Board also suggested that sloped roofs would be preferable to flat roofs, in order to create a more residential look. To keep the sloped roof low, a gambrel look allowed a low slope to the roof, keeping the roof more in proportion to the building. The “western tree line” is not a known feature on the site. There are no designated significant State or Federal aesthetic resources at the site. Onsite, offsite and bay front views to and from the property will change with the development of the Newport Marine Club. The site is privately owned and public access will be limited to residents, marina members and their guests. The residential use of the property will preclude unrestrictive public access to onsite Bay viewing. Public access to Bay views are described in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program which recognized and encouraged enhancement of the south and north end of the Bay as the best locations for the public to access scenic resources. The Harbor Management Plan only recognized Newport Road, a public right-of-way, as a point having scenic value. HMP at 45-46. The road will remain open to the public, and offsite views from the roadway will be available. Views from Newport Road to the northeast will be somewhat restricted by the proposed residential buildings. Views to the east will remain open but change from views of the strictly commercial Newport House restaurant, parking and boat storage to that of a more residential use. The view of the property and the Bay from the rear of the Mooring Line Drive residences will be changed from what presently exists. Foliage restricts the views from this vantage point from spring to fall, but during the winter months, after the leaves have fallen, the Bay becomes more visible. The proposed development will not impact the woodlots that inhibit the existing Mooring Line Drive views, but during the winter months the views of the Bay will be somewhat restricted by the proposed buildings. Photo simulations of the existing and the proposed views are provided in Exhibit 3 of the DEIS. Exhibit 3 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) provides additional photo simulations from the Mooring Line Drive perspective, if Alternative C were implemented. This new exhibit includes the elimination of the proposed Nautica building and the reduction in the building height of condominium buildings 103 and 104 along the Bay frontage. These modifications are 25
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
consistent with the discussion of Alternative C. The reduction in the building heights and footprint under this alternative will serve to mitigate the diminished Bay views from Mooring Line Drive. The overall change from a strictly commercial use to more of a residential use will change the offsite and bay front views of the property, and many may consider these changes an enhancement. 4.08 Comment In § 4.7.1.2, the mitigation section for views, states the orientation and spacing of the units “allow views of the Bay, Bay Bridge and the Marina”. This statement is specious at best; if one is more than 18° off the centerlines between Buildings 102, 103 and 104, the buildings completely cut off views to the north between the buildings. (pg 2, 6 ¶) Response Assuming this is in regard to the five houses on the hill, the original two buildings were cut into four buildings as suggested by the Planning Board in order to facilitate some views from these properties. It is a relatively narrow view because the four condominium buildings are a good distance away from those homes. The condominium- style buildings labeled 101, 102, 103 and 104 provide visual breaks between the buildings, increasing the available views to Irondequoit Bay. The impacts of the residential development will also be offset by the removal of the Newport House restaurant, which is in disrepair and will significantly open up the views from the property to the east. 4.09 Comment This application places the entire building envelopes of all four of the multistory buildings within the 300 foot wetland buffer and substantial portions of the building envelopes within the 100 foot wetland buffer. ILUC contends that the best practices dictate that wetland buffers must be enforced. The absolute bare minimum requirement must be that no building in this project be situated closer to the waterline than the present non-conforming location of the Newport House. The entire mitigation section §4.2.3.2 totally ignores the fact that all the multistory buildings of this project encroach into the wetland buffer zone. (pg 3, 2 ¶) Response The site has already been developed within the 100 and 300-foot wetland buffers, so it is too late to avoid disturbance of the buffer area. However, as set forth in DEIS Section 4.2.3, impacts on the wetland and buffer area will be reduced by the project. There will be an increase in the amount of greenspace and a decrease in the amount of impervious surfaces, decreasing the amount of uninterrupted stormwater runoff to the cove. Additional grass will be decompacted, which will also help preserve the wetlands by slowing overland flow velocity and allowing filtration and infiltration, improving stormwater quality. The project sponsor will obtain an ECL Article 24 freshwater wetlands permit from NYSDEC, and comply with any permit conditions.
26
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.10 Comment The Accessory Uses Section §2.4.2.2 on page 2-21 discusses operations of the Nautica and states that the Nautica can be reserved for private parties open to guests of members. The DEIS should state the capacity of the Nautica for private parties, the hours during which private parties can be booked and what parking arrangements will be provided for the non-resident guests at these private parties. (pg 3, 4 ¶) Response The Nautica will be open to the residential homeowners, boaters and their guests only. The sponsor of the condominium project (to which the Nautica is an accessory use) has the right to impose rules of operation by way of By-Laws, in order to limit the use of the Nautica to those two groups as well as to impose rules and regulations concerning hours of operation, guest policies, reservations for use of the room and so on. In response to comment 17.07, a sample of proposed rules is provided. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. The seating capacity of the Nautica is estimated at approximately 76 people. The Home Owners Association will determine the available times and number of people that can attend a private party. Off-season use (October - April) use of the Nautica may be less restrictive than inseason use of the facility. Guest parking will be reserved and be provided on-site. Additional discussion on this topic is included in the response to comment PH 2.03. 4.11 Comment With regard to the Marina operation, ILUC urges the Planning Board to set conditions such that any slip originally assigned to the condominium residents can never be sold, sublet, gifted or in any other way made available to the public without providing for increased parking for the “public” slips. (pg 3, 5 ¶) Response The project sponsor has stated that boat slips assigned to the residents of the Newport Marine Club will not be reallocated in the future based on terms set forth by the projects Home Owners Association bylaws. 103 slips will be available for nonresident boaters. The project proposes to provide parking spaces which will support the usage of the nonresident boat slips. The Planning Board has reviewed the parking space calculations and has determined that parking has been adequately addressed. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. See Section 3.3 of the FEIS.
__________________________________________________________ Michael L. Caccamise, Ridge Culver Fire District Fire Commissioner 5.01 Comment Turning radius of proposed roadways doesn’t give us access with our quint. We need 61’0’’ turning radius. “502.3.4”. (pg 1, 1 ¶)
27
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The project sponsor met with Michael Caccamise and other representatives of the Ridge-Culver Fire District and the Town on February 13, 2009 after the receipt of this comment, and discussed this and other comments, and ways to reasonably accommodate the requests of the Fire District. This comment has been addressed in a letter from Costich Engineering, P.C. (the Applicant’s engineer) to the Ridge-Culver Fire District dated February 19, 2009, a copy of which is included in Appendix A4. Section 1 of the letter concludes that there is adequate room for the quint to turn around at the eastern end of the site. The Fire District has concluded that there would be, “no obstruction to hinder Fire apparatus while turning around”. See Appendix A5 and memo dated August 17, 2009. 5.02 Comment Roads into buildings off the main roadway are only 18’0’’ wide. Not wide enough for setup of our quint. Outrigger setup width is 18’8’’. (pg 1, 2 ¶) Response The response to this comment is referenced in a letter from Costich Engineering, P.C. dated February 19, 2009, and is included in Appendix A4. The response to this comment is included as item number 2, indicating that the driveways have been widened from 18 to 20 feet. 5.03 Comment Roads to building width are too close for a quint to setup and access the 90° point of the basket swing. We need at least 50’6” from the farthest outrigger to the face of the building. If not, there is a large blank spot that would not be accessible by ladder operations. Total width between buildings #103 to #104 is only 45 feet apart. (pg 1, 3 ¶) Response Unlike almost all the homes in Irondequoit, the four gambrel condominiums are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems, including a 2-hour separated parking garage, smoke and fire alarms, and fire doors, etc. The buildings will be constructed and furnished with equipment which will limit the spread and expansion of a fire, while providing emergency routes for residents to exit the buildings. These measures justify the offsets and driveway geometry between the buildings. Emergency access under Alternative A – No Action and Alternative B – Private Marina and Restaurant will provide three-sided building access by fire fighting apparatus, while the residential alternatives, Alternative C – Modified Plan, Alternative D – Townhomes and the Proposed Plan all limit building access to a minimum of one building wall. 5.04 Comment You cannot access both sides of the condo buildings. Between building #102 and #103, there are changes in elevations as steps are shown. We could not get an aerial device in if needed. Water side would also be an issue with ground ladder only access being above a 40 foot ladder due to elevation. (pg 1, 4 ¶)
28
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The project sponsor has provided the flowing information regarding access and fire safety. Access between the condominium style buildings and 102 and 103 and along the waterfront will be limited. Vehicle access in these areas is limited due to the constraints of the site. Limited access will be offset by the mitigation measures to be employed in the building construction. All construction will meet the Building and Fire Code requirements of New York State. The condominium style buildings will also be equipped with automatic sprinkler systems, smoke and fire alarms, fire wall separations, fire stairs and protected corridors. Fire preventative measures that will be implemented into the building construction will offset the need to provide 360° vehicular access to all the condominium style buildings. 5.05 Comment Roads must be built to substantiate a load of 73,000 pounds for aerial units. (pg 1, 5 ¶) Response The private roads on the site can and will be designed for this load. 5.06 Comment There are no provisions to get a quint or other fire apparatus out of this complex. No turn around shown. We would have to back out equipment past the access gate into the complex to the designed turn around point. This design traps our equipment and manpower at a scene with no points of turning around equipment. They are putting 5 pounds in a pound bag. We need room to operate safely. (pg 1, 6 ¶) Response This comment has been addressed in a letter from Costich Engineering, P.C. (the Applicant’s engineer) to the Ridge-Culver Fire District dated February 19, 2009, a copy of which is included in Appendix A4. Section 1 of the letter concludes that there is adequate room for the quint to turn around at the eastern end of the site. Exhibit 2 of the FEIS includes a drawing entitled “Emergency Vehicle Turnaround Exhibit” which shows the turning, movement of the firefighting equipment. The Fire Marshall and the fire District have confirmed that this meets their requirements and there should be no hindrance in vehicle movements. (See Appendix A5 for a memo from the Fire Marshal and the Fire District, dated August 17, 2009). 5.07 Comment What about the rule of thumb that we should have a collapse zone of 1-1/2 times the height of a building during a fire situation? Equipment and manpower are trapped between buildings at 45”-0” of space. These buildings are proposed over 50’-0” in height, which should give us 75’-0” of space between structures. (pg 2, 1 ¶) Response The design of the proposed buildings will be in conformance with the New York State Building Code and the Fire Protection Code. The 29
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
buildings will be equipped with automatic sprinkler systems, smoke and fire alarms, fire wall separations, fire stairs and protected corridors. The fire preventative measures that will be implemented into the buildings will minimize t the potential for the collapse of the structures. This will allow the buildings to be placed closer together. 5.08 Comment We would also like to review the fire districts involvement in reviewing and commenting on this and other developments in our district before they are approved and built. This involvement must be shared between the Town and the fire districts so that everyone is prepared when called upon in time of emergency. There are various letters attached to the report from IPD, IVA and others that address a November 6, 2008 letter concerning this project, we find that unfortunately it was addressed and delivered to 1300 Titus Avenue in care of the Fire Marshal’s office. This letter eventually got to the fire district, but wasn’t in time for us to respond back in a timely manner with our thoughts and review of the proposed project. May I suggest that a permanent review process be put in place with all Town fire departments that projects are reviewed by the fire districts? Although we have no legal process to block upcoming project within Town districts, I believe that it’s in everyone’s best interest that safety must be out #1 priority. All of our fire districts have different equipment and manpower requirements to provide emergency service when called upon. We must know that we are allowed to provide this service I an efficient and fast manner when called upon, and that projects are built with this in mind. We can’t be hindered by access or design. (pg 2, 2 ¶) Response The review process between the Town departments and the fire district for future development will be the responsibility of the Town and the fire district. The Applicant has and will continue to include the Fire Marshal’s office and the fire district in the review of plans for the development of the Newport Marine Club. (See letter dated February 19, 2009 from Costich Engineering, P.C. to the Town of Irondequoit and the Ridge Culver Fire District in Appendix A4). 5.09 Comment The Fire Marshal’s office is doing and has done a great job within this town concerning past and ongoing projects, but I believe that the more eyes the better when it comes to reviewing upcoming projects. We are all human and an item might be overlooked or missed by 1 person, but picked up by various reviewers. (pg 2, 3 ¶) Response Additional discussion on this topic is included in the letter dated February 19, 2009 and included as Appendix A4.
30
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
__________________________________________________________ David Bradia, 61 Mooring Line Drive 6.01 Comment We the undersigned, residents of Mooring Line Drive, have grave concerns regarding the possibility for structural failure of Newport Road of the “RSM Newport Project” is to proceed as currently proposed. Certainly our Irondequoit Highway Department is aware of the continual erosion along the northwest edge of the road over the past several years, as they have continued to patch that side of the road as needed. This has all occurred during recent years when there has been a minimal amount of traffic using Newport Road, resulting from the closure of the Newport House Restaurant and Marina. With the expectation that heavy construction vehicles will be traveling up and down the road during the RSM construction phase, we have every reason to expect major deterioration or catastrophic failure of the road unless the road is redesigned or the infrastructure upgraded. We feel this is essential not only in anticipation of the heavy construction vehicles, but also with the much greater traffic to be expected up and down Newport Road as new residents move into the Newport town houses and condominiums. (pg 1, 1 ¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 31
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. Refer to the response to comment 19.01. 6.02 Comment Unless RSM is required to cover the cost of Newport Road reconstruction before beginning work on their projects, we believe that the real estate taxes to be paid 32
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
by the new townhouse and condominium residents will be more than offset by the major expense that the Town will incur when almost certain failure of the road requires extensive reconfiguration. As we expect you are aware, it is not uncommon for other municipalities to require developers to bear the cost of road reconstruction, installation of traffic lights, sidewalks, etc., as a condition of approval for their proposed construction. Response The proposed Newport Marine Club is not responsible for the maintenance and repairs to Newport Road. Newport Road is a public right-of-way which is operated and maintained through the Town of Irondequoit Highway Department. Public roadways throughout the Town are operated, maintained and funded by all of the taxpayers and not individual entities. Some land development projects impact the transportation system more than others. In some instances additional travel lanes, traffic signals or other highway improvements are funded by developers. These improvements are not arbitrarily mandated by the Town, but are deemed to be necessary to offset additional traffic that is associated with the development. In this instance, the Newport Marine Club will increase the amount of traffic along Newport Road, but the amount of traffic can be easily accommodated by the existing roadway. In fact, previous operations along Newport Road including the Town landfill and the Newport House restaurant generated considerably much more traffic than what will occur with the proposed project. In conclusion, RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC, is not liable for the reconstruction of Newport Road; nor does the development reach the threshold that would necessitate additional travel lanes, traffic signals or other highway improvements. 6.03 Comment At the very least, if the Town of Irondequoit is unwilling to require RSM to pay for the reconstruction of Newport Road, we suggest requiring a multi-million dollar bond to be posted by the developer to protect the Town against all of the possible scenarios if and when road failure occurs. After all, since the Newport Road is the only way to and from our homes, we would be faced with possible life and death situations if, in case of emergencies, neither fire trucks, ambulances, nor police vehicles had access to our homes on Mooring Line Drive. If Newport Road became impassible, heavy litigation expense for our Town could be expected when we are unable to travel to our places of employment and suffer loss of income. Response The applicant cannot be held legally responsible for any and all repairs to a public facility which is owned, operated and maintained by the Town of Irondequoit. Granted, if damages to the roadway occur, during the heavy construction phase of the project, which are directly attributable to the construction operation for the project then the Applicant will be liable to make necessary repairs. Any upgrades, repairs or improvements to Newport Road are the responsibility of the Town. Newport Road is a single access point bayside roadway with fairly steep grades. The Town recognizes the importance of operating and maintaining this access under all circumstances, including weather33
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
related situations. RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC cannot be held financially liable for the maintenance of a public road. __________________________________________________________ Laura and Marc Fischer, 73 Mooring Line Drive 7.01 Comment First and foremost, we are very disturbed the Town of Irondequoit appears to be interested in moving along this project without taking a serious look at the impact this project has on the narrow and treacherous road leading down to the site. Currently, it is eroding away right before everyone’s eyes and the Town of Irondequoit merely performs “band-aid” maintenance. The road needs to be widened at a minimum of six feet, at least, at the turn that has already caused one unfortunate death. (pg 1, 2¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the 34
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. 7.02 Comment Also, our delivery personnel (postal, newspaper, UPS, and FedEx) have all at one time been unable to access our development when the weather gets hazardous. This will only intensify when we are asked to spend years living with single-laneonly access to our homes during the development phase. In addition, we have witnessed our children’s school bus have trouble negotiating the turn when conditions turn icy. Vehicles often slide down the road sideways during winter months. (pg 1, 4¶) 35
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The vast majority of heavy construction vehicles will be using Newport Road during the initial stages of the construction project. These vehicles will be performing earthwork operations, and providing stone, gravel, concrete and asphalt for the site improvements during the spring, summer or fall. This work would last approximately two months, during which one-way traffic would be implemented and maintained along Newport Road. During working hours of the construction, traffic access by all vehicles including postal, newspaper, UPS, FedEx and emergency responders will be allowed at all times but would be limited to one way during times of heavy construction traffic. Emergency responders would always have priority over construction traffic. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restriction as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. Also, see response to comment 3.03 and 19.01. 7.03 Comment Kathy Callon at the East Irondequoit School Transportation Department was unaware of the limited access the bus will have for multiple school years. What is the plan for school bus and delivery employees to reach homes? Will the bus and trucks be able to even turnaround? (pg 2, 2¶) Response School buses will pick up students (if there are any) at the gate, like is done at Mooring Line Drive. The project sponsor is committed to constructing a vehicle turnaround for buses, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, public works and other vehicles at the entrance to the Newport Marine Club. The turnaround has been shown on the site plans for the project included in Exhibit 1 of the DEIS. 7.04 Comment On another note, we are in support of RSM having a gated community. This would help minimize the unnecessary traffic on this already unsafe road. We would suggest that RSM be responsible for providing an aesthetically pleasing turn-around for buses, emergency vehicles and excess traffic at the entrance of the future Newport Marine Club. (pg 2, 3¶) Response Based on the information obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. The Newport Marine Club is a gated community and there will be need for a vehicle turnaround at the entrance to the development. The project sponsor is committed to constructing a vehicle turnaround for buses, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, public works and other vehicles at the entrance to the Newport Marine Club. The turnaround has been shown on the site plans for the project included in Exhibit 1 of the DEIS. Also refer to comment 19.01.
36
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
__________________________________________________________ Jack Buttino, 42 Mooring Line Drive 8.01 Comment Only a week ago I sent you a letter expressing the concerns of five (5) Mooring Line Drive neighbors regarding the RSM/Newport project. If you recall, I made it clear that a number of us support the project, based on our meeting with Steve Mancini (pg 1, 4¶) Response The letter is included in comment no. 3 of Appendix A1, (page A1-4). __________________________________________________________ Daniel and Barbara Robertson, 66 Baycrest Road 9.01 Comment During the early informational meetings, the developer was asked whether or not this would be a gated community or whether pedestrian access would be allowed. The developer replied that while it was expected to be a gated community, pedestrian access would be allowed. In the current plan, on page 2-22, section 2.4.2.3, under “Access” it states, “sidewalks will also provide pedestrian access with a pass card”. The last four words of this sentence seem to negate the prospect of pedestrian access, and with this in mind, we would like to know: • • • • •
Did this issue come up in last night’s meeting? Did the developer describe whether this pass card would only be available to residents of the Marine Club? If this issue did not come up, is there a way to get an answer to this question? Does the Planning Board consider pedestrian access to be important to this project? Does the Planning Board have the authority to define pedestrian access as a condition of its approval? (pg 1, 2¶)
Response • The topic of pedestrian access did come up during the meeting of March 10, 2009, and at that time, the Applicant clarified their position on pedestrian access. (See response to comment 4.03). •
Unobstructed access to the Newport Marine Club by the general public will not be allowed. The Newport property is property that is not open to unrestricted general public access. While the use of the property has most recently been for commercial purposes, pedestrian access has only been allowed for marina tenants and restaurant patrons. Unaccompanied strangers will not be allowed on the property. There have been recent instances of disorderly conduct and vandalism caused by intruders at the current marina operation, which has little access control. Therefore, for the safety and security of the general public and residents of the Newport Marine Club, it has been determined that public access onto their property will be limited by utilizing a gated community with a pass-card system. Liability issues 37
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
are also a concern, since a lawsuit could occur if someone is injured on the property. The pass-card would be available to residents and boat slip users of the Newport Marine Club. Guests would be allowed access as long as they were accompanied by a pass-card holder. Guests who are pedestrians could call from a phone at the front gate to obtain access from a pass-card holder. •
This question has been included in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and answers are included in this response.
•
The Newport Marine property is private property and public pedestrian access is best suited for public lands. Pedestrian access for residents, slip owners and their guests will be available through the pass-card system. See the second bullet of this response.
•
The Planning Board does not have the authority to mandate or require that the Applicant provide unlimited public pedestrian access on or across their private property. The Applicant has the same rights as any other private property owner, and to require that this property becomes part of the public domain becomes a land taking by the government. This cannot occur unless there is adequate justification and compensation.
9.02 Comment Living as we do on Baycrest Drive, we walk down to the Bay on a majority of days, and expect that pedestrian traffic from non-residents of the Marine Club would be light. As a quality of life issue, we believe that this is a reasonable request from the developer, and would continue the long-standing practice of public access to this specific part of Irondequoit Bay. Response Pedestrian access to Irondequoit Bay from Newport Road will be limited to residents, slip owners and guests. The site is private property that is not open to unrestricted general public access. While the use of the property has most recently been used for commercial purposes, pedestrian access has only been allowed for marina tenants and restaurant patrons. Recent activities at the marina, which has limited physical barriers, include incidents of littering, disorderly conduct and vandalism. A fence, gate and pass card system will be installed to limit landside access to the site and to provide a safe and secure location for the residents, slip owners and guests. __________________________________________________________ Paul and Kathy Bonsignore, 59 Mooring Line Drive 10.01 Comment We support the development of the Newport Marina site by RSM Development. This site has been an eyesore over the last several years. (pg 1, 1¶)
38
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The applicant has submitted a variety of potential development alternatives that should serve as an enhancement to the Newport parcel that the commenter refers to. 10.02 Comment We have grave concerns regarding the potential for structural failure of Newport Road if the “RSM Newport Project” is to proceed as currently proposed. The Irondequoit Highway Department is aware of the continual erosion along the northwest edge of the road over the past several years, as they have continued to patch that side of the road as needed. This has all occurred during recent years when there has been minimal traffic utilizing Newport Road, as a result of the closure of the Newport House Restaurant and Marina. With the expectation that heavy construction vehicles will be traveling up and down the road during the RSM construction phase, we have every reason to expect a major deterioration or catastrophic failure of the road unless the road is redesigned or the infrastructure upgraded. We feel it is essential not only in anticipation of the heavy construction vehicles, but also with the much greater traffic volume to be expected to Newport Road as new residents move into the Newport townhomes and condominiums.(pg 1, 2¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed.
39
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road.
40
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
10.03 Comment Other issues are the blind curves and narrow width of Newport Road. Newport becomes a one lane road during the winter season. We would like to see Newport Road widened about 4 to 6 feet and the blind curves removed. A well designed retaining wall would need to be constructed into the hillside of Newport Road. If designed properly, this would maintain the safety of Newport Road for all. (pg 1, 2¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no
41
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. Refer to the response to comment 19.01. 10.04 Comment Our belief is, RSM would be willing to take on the upgrade to Newport Road as described and that they should be required to cover the cost of Newport Road reconstruction before beginning work on their project. (pg 1, 3¶) Response The road shows some degradation under its current configuration and traffic loading. The configuration of the road is preexisting. The project is not likely to have any significant impact on the road. Any need to redesign the existing road is a separate issue that will be addressed by the Town. Refer to the response to comment 6.03 and 19.01.
42
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
__________________________________________________________ Harlan Brody, Friends of Irondequoit Bay 11.01 Comment Construction of multi-story condos at the edge of the cove will cast shadows over the cove waters, generate soil erosion, noise and light during the long construction period and afterwards. This will have a negative impact on this important resource. (pg 2, 3¶) Response Given the angle of the sun during late spring, summer, and early fall months (the most productive months with respect to aquatic vegetation growth and aquatic life activity), the shadows cast from the buildings should have little effect. Currently the south shore of Newport Cove consists of large trees which are closer to the water’s edge and are more likely to cast shadows. Additional shadows are currently cast by existing docks and boats. There will not be significant erosion on the natural wooded slope south of Newport Cove as no activity is proposed in that natural area. Erosion that may result from construction activities will be minimized and mitigated through erosion control measures required by NYSDEC. __________________________________________________________ Cheri Evershed, Irondequoit Planning Board Member 12.01 Comment The developer has changed their position on incorporating pedestrian access on the site, restricting vehicular traffic since the May 12th, 2008 meeting when they agreed to incorporate this use. The district is designed to promote and encourage public access, in my opinion gating and only allowing condo residents or dock renters in to see the water is not encouraging or promoting public access. (pg 3, 3¶) Response The Waterfront Development District (WD) is defined in Town Code §235-31(A) as having the following purpose: “… to provide a suitable character and stable environment for the establishment and maintenance of water-dependent and/or water-enhanced uses and activities along the shorelines of Lake Ontario and Irondequoit Bay. The district is also designed to protect the unique and sensitive environmental features that exist along the lake and bay shorelines and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare. The district is also designed to promote and encourage public access to the shoreline appropriate water-oriented recreational uses within the shore zone and other appropriate water-oriented development within the shore zone.” The purpose of the district includes many goals set forth in Code §23531(B), including the following: “(13) To promote the maintenance and/or extension of public access to the shore zone where practical and feasible and where such access relates to and is compatible with the primary purpose of the proposed development or activity.” 43
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The proposed residential development is a change from the commercial uses that presently exist on the property. This change from commercial use to a primarily residential use will still promote and encourage residents, slip owners and guests’ access and water-related recreational use of the Bay. Condominium and townhouse residents, as well as boat slip users will utilize the bay shore for their water-related activities. The project will allow restricted access to the shore with the utilization of dock slips by non-resident boat owners. The general boating public may utilize the marina services at the site for fueling, etc. The development also includes the construction and sale of 56 residential units on the property which do not exist today. The residents of these units will have access to Irondequoit Bay year round. Unobstructed access to the Newport Marine Club by the general public will not be allowed. The Newport property is private property that is not open to unrestricted general public access. While the use of the property has most recently been for commercial purposes, pedestrian access has only been allowed for marina tenants and restaurant patrons. Unaccompanied strangers will not be allowed on the property. There have been recent instances of disorderly conduct and vandalism caused by intruders at the current marina operation, which has little access control. Therefore, for the safety and security of the general public and residents of the Newport Marine Club, it has been determined that public access onto their property will be limited by utilizing a gated community with a pass-card system. Liability issues are also a concern, since a lawsuit could occur if someone is injured on the property. The Planning Board does not have the authority to mandate or require that the Applicant provide unlimited public pedestrian access on or across their private property. The Applicant has the same rights as any other private property owner, and to require that this property become part of the public domain, becomes a land taking by the government. This cannot occur unless there is adequate justification and compensation. The new residential development, along with the continuing operation of the marina will provide residents, slip owners and guests’ access opportunities to the waterfront, which presently do not exist today. (See response to comments 4.03 and PH 5.15) 12.02 Comment 47 Condos require 4,000 sq. ft. = 188,000 sq. ft. 9 Townhomes require 6,000 sq. ft. = 54,000 sq. ft. 62 Parking spots for non-resident parking at 162 feet = 10,044 Total = 252,044 Add Nautica – 2,200 sq. ft. Gas shack – 280 sq. ft. Grand Total = 254,524 sq. ft. of structures. Not counting the road or any EPOD.
44
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
There has been no subtraction of any land for steep slopes, woodlots, 100 foot wetland buffer and flood plain. The massive buildings encroach all of these. 5.9 acres = 254,680 square feet so they are using over 25,524 sq. ft. the difference is 156 feet not counting the road or any EPOD. (pg 3, 5¶) Response The calculation for the density of townhomes and condominium-style units is based upon a total lot area, without reserving or discounting roads, or Environmental Protection Overlay Districts. Town Code §23533 provides “Lot and Bulk Requirements,” and states in subparagraph A (2) that “No new principal building or structure will be used as a multifamily dwelling, apartment building or other similar use shall hereafter be erected on any lot in any Waterfront Development (WD) District unless such lot shall have a minimum area of 4,000 square feet per dwelling unit.” Further, subparagraph 235-33.A(3) states that “No new principal building or structure to be used as a townhouse, singlefamily dwelling, row house or other similar use shall hereafter be erected on any lot in any Waterfront Development (WD) District unless such lot shall have a minimum area of 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit.“ There is no lot size adjustment required for accessory structures, roads or EPODs. The other principal use for the property is the marina. There are no set lot area requirements for the marina, but there are parking requirements necessary for public dock leasing. The total area required is based upon a total of 62 parking spaces at 9 feet wide x 18 feet long, or 162 square feet each, for a total of 10,044 square feet for parking. Thus, the required lot area for the development is 252,044 square feet, while 254,680 square feet is available. Therefore the project meets the “Lot and Bulk” requirements of the Town Code. Accessory structures, roads and EPODs are not deducted from the “Lot and Bulk” requirements for the Waterfront Development (WD) District. 12.03 Comment The comparison that this present plan uses less green space than is presently being used is very misleading. Existing parking lot areas with no structures compared to the proposed 50 foot buildings that totally impact views and are being built on environmentally sensitive areas are very different. The proposed site coverage is nowhere similar to what presently exists. (pg 4, 3¶) From the WD District #12 to protect waterfront areas against congestion as much as possible by regulating the density of population and intensity of land use and by requiring the provision of open areas for rest and recreation wherever practicable. (pg 4, 4¶) Response The amount of greenspace in the project will increase from the present conditions. The existing site contains approximately 42% green area and the proposed development will contain approximately 51% green area. The removal of paved parking areas and the replacement with buildings, driveways, sidewalks and landscaped areas will only positively impact environmentally sensitive areas. Site coverage is assumed to imply ground coverage. The ground coverage requirement for lots within 45
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
the WD Waterfront Development District are set by Town Code §23533.D(1), which set that maximum ground coverage of all principal and accessory buildings, parking areas and other impervious surfaces shall not exceed 75% of the total lot area. Therefore, the Code does not make a distinction between buildings and parking lots. The existing site has ground coverage of 58% and the proposed development has ground coverage of 49%. Therefore, there would be a net decrease in the lot percentage occupancy, making the proposed development a “greener” site. 12.04 Comment This development cannot be considered low to moderate density with these calculations. If the developer is using 100% of the land, wouldn’t that be classified high density? This density is high in my opinion and the WD district specifically allows low to moderate density. A low to moderate build would not use all available acreage. Development of the remainder of this parcel, including the foreshore of the Bay and the wooded, steep slopes, should be prohibited and left in its natural state. (pg 4, 5¶) Per the Site Capacity Worksheet: Base Site Area = 5.85 acres Total EPOD Protection Land = 4.40 acres Gross Buildable Site Area = 1.45 acres No subtraction of road or parking Response The Irondequoit Town Code specifically states that the Waterfront Development District provides for “low- to moderate-density residential development.” Town Code §235-31.B. The project complies with the bulk density requirements for this district set forth in Town Code §23533.A, and with the allowable uses set forth in Town Code §235-32, and thus is what the Town Board prescribed as “moderate” density. This is consistent with typical definitions of medium density as up to 12 units per acre. Additional discussion on the project density is included in the response to comments 4.05 and PB 7.07. Much of the Newport Marine Club land area will not be disturbed. Slopes along the southern portion of the property will not be disrupted. Wooded areas in the northwest and southeast corners of the site will be maintained and the buffer adjacent to the cove area near the northwest corner of the site will also remain undisturbed. In total, approximately 29% of the project site will be left undisturbed by the proposed Newport Marine Club development. 12.05 Comment Condo buildings 103 and 104 are only 30 feet from the water’s edge which is much too close to the water’s edge. The wetland buffer in this area is 100 feet. The existing Newport building is approximately 60 feet from the water’s edge. (pg 5, 2¶) Response Buildings number 103 and 104 are located on the northeastern corner of the property in areas that are presently paved and reserved for parking 46
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
and boat storage. The Town Code §235-33.B(2)(a) requires that the front setback for buildings be a minimum of 25 feet. The proposed project exceeds the required front setback, from the water’s edge, for waterfront developments. The project site is encumbered by a 100 foot buffer along the Irondequoit Bay and a 300 foot buffer along Newport Cove. These areas have been stipulated by the NYSDEC as “Freshwater Wetland Adjacent Areas” and any activity within these areas is limited under permits issued by the NYSDEC. The project will only occupy portions of the buffer areas which have been previously paved or disturbed. Undeveloped portions of the Bay and the Cove and the natural woodlots will neither be disturbed nor physically impacted. Greenspace will be increased and possible sources of non-point pollution will be controlled or eliminated. Stormwater quantity will be diminished and stormwater quality will be increased. Therefore any impact that the project will have on the adjacent area will contribute to the wetlands preservation, protection and conservation. Prior to any construction the Applicant must first obtain a Freshwater Wetlands Permit from the NYSDEC and meet all permit requirements. 12.06 Comment Townhouse #1 is only 15 feet from the property line and much too close to the toe of the slope. All of the single-unit townhouses should be located at least 25 feet from the toe of slope and a deed restriction against any cutting into the steep slope be included. (pg 5, 3¶) Response Townhouse #1 is to be located 25 feet north of the toe of the slope and is not within the angle of repose for the slope. At the toe of the slope at the south line of the westernmost townhouse building, there will be additional soils placed to stabilize the area. It is in the Applicant’s best interest to be assured that the slope along the south property line remains stable. If the slope fails, it would have serious effects to the proposed development and to the properties along Mooring Line Drive. To impose a deed restriction against cutting into the slope is not recommended. Steep slope protection along the south end of this property might be better approached through the site plan, special permit, or EPOD permit process. 12.07 Comment In my opinion from reviewing the code (Commenter’s letter references Sections 235-33c, #2 and #4 of the Town Code) and seeing the pictures of the visual impact of the large condo style buildings I do think that the buildings are way too tall. We are supposed to be protecting scenic views and preserve the aesthetic integrity of the waterfront and this plan as presented does not do this. (pg 6, 1¶) Response The first portion of this comment is an opinion of the commenter. It should be noted that Alternative C (Modified Plan) includes condominium-style buildings which are approximately 12 feet shorter. Mere visibility of a project proposal is not the threshold for decisionmaking. Instead, in order to be objectionable, a project must clearly 47
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
interfere or reduce the public’s enjoyment or appreciation of an inventoried resource. There are no designated significant State or Federal aesthetic resources at the site. 12.08 Comment Some of the docks are in the Resource Protection Zone where docks are discouraged by law. I question how this use is pre-existing and grandfathered. The use of this property in this plan has vastly changed to a gated residential community, marina and club house. This is quite different from the pre-existing restaurant/marina. (pg 6, 3¶) Response The docks and slips that are in question have been approved by the Town of Irondequoit and have been permitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in Permit no. 80-85-0147. The Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan recommends the continuing operation of all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. The HMP also calls for increasing the number of dock slips on the Bay to increase access for the public, not decreasing spaces. The westernmost docks also restrict traffic into Newport Cove, which is designated by the HMP as a Resource Protection Area, and thus helps to protect this more sensitive area. Additional discussion on docks is provided in the response to comments 26.19; PH 5.11; PB 2.06; and PB 6.06. Further, the change in use from restaurant/marina to a residential use/marina will be more compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 12.09 Comment From the Irondequoit Town Code – Accessory Structure – 235.13.1 Accessory structures and uses SHALL be included in the calculation of lot coverage and shall not occupy more than the maximum permitted. I’d like to know when the Nautica was designated an accessory use. (pg 6, 4¶) Response The Nautica has been included in the calculation for “lot coverage” (i.e., site coverage and ground coverage). The proposed plan has a lot coverage of 49% while the maximum permitted lot coverage is 75% (See response to comment 12.03). The Nautica is considered an accessory use, which is further discussed in the response to comments 17.07 and 26.09. 12.10 Comment The Nautica does need to be figured into the calculations. Parking and employee parking need to be considered even if the Nautica is accessory. (pg 6, 5¶) Response The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding parking and boat storage. Parking for the accessory use in the Nautica is not considered a parking generator. In that the Nautica supports the residential and marina uses on the site, and that access to the building 48
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
will be limited to homeowners, boaters and their guests only, there is no independent parking demand for this building. Parking requirements have been taken into account for the residential and marina uses for the project and the project exceeds the parking requirements for these primary uses. Therefore, parking for the Nautica has already been taken into account in the parking calculations associated with the residential and marina uses. See response to comment 17.07. The Nautica will be open to the residential homeowners, boaters and their guests only. The sponsor of the condominium project (to which the Nautica is an accessory use) has the right to impose rules of operation by way of By-Laws, in order to limit the use of the Nautica to those two groups as well as to impose rules and regulations concerning hours of operation, guest policies, reservations for use of the room and so on. In response to comment 17.07, a sample of proposed rules is provided. The Nautica will have a potential capacity of approximately 76 occupants. If the Nautica was reserved by one resident, the premise would be that there would be 75 guests. Assuming vehicle occupancy of two guests per vehicle, this would equate to a parking space demand of approximately 38 spaces. The available common area parking spaces total 68 spaces, therefore the project provides sufficient parking to allow for guest parking of the Nautica was utilized almost entirely by guests. The common area parking also services the non-resident slip owners. Therefore the times in which private parties may be booked and the number of guests at the party must be coordinated to account for the non-resident slip owners. Private parties may be limited during peak boating periods such as summer holiday weekends of Memorial Day, July 4th and Labor Day, while off-season use for private parties between October 1 and April 1 may not have as many restrictions. The determination of the restrictions relative to private parties at the Nautica will be made by the Homeowners Association. There will be no specific segregation of guest parking or non-resident slip owner parking at the site, other than that for handicap accessibility. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 12.11 Comment I do have concerns about the integrity of Newport Road. This proposed development is so intense the road design will be subject to potential failure. Is the developer willing to have money secured in case a failure occurs during construction? (pg 6, 6¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The
49
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital 50
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. 12.12 Comment There are only 175 parking spaces. Therefore the project exceeds the minimum required parking space requirements by the Code of the Town of Irondequoit. (pg 6, 7¶) Response The project provides 175 parking spaces (excluding the 9 additional spaces provided by the townhouse units) while the total of 151 parking spaces are required. Therefore, the project exceeds the required parking spaces by 24 spaces (See Section 3.0, Corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement paragraph 3.3). 12.13 Comment Why isn’t there any zoning variance discussed in the DEIS? (pg 6, 8¶) Response No zoning variance is discussed in the DEIS because no variances are contemplated for the project as proposed nor are variances contemplated for any suggested alternative. 12.14 Comment Describe and evaluate a residential development alternative consistent with EPOD and WD zoning, LWRP, and Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan. The Planning Board asked for this alternative plan and the developer has not provided us with one. I would like to see a plan that conforms with EPOD, WD Zoning, LWRP and Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan this plan does not conform with any of these. This is something that the Planning Board did request prior to the DEIS. (pg 7, 1¶)
51
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response A description of an alternative that meets with the EPOD, WD zoning, LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan is described under Section 6.5 of the DEIS. The analysis of this alternative is consistent with the proposed project, as well as Alternatives C (Modified Plan) and Alternative D (townhomes), which are residential developments, all of which would maintain the marina operations consistent with the LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan. All of the uses are acceptable uses as listed under WD zoning, and the proposed development would occur in previously disturbed and improved areas of the site, minimizing impacts to environmentally sensitive areas or EPODs. Additional discussion on this topic can be found in the response to comment PB 6.01. 12.15 Comment I don’t think that the alternatives have been explored nearly enough. I would like to see much more information regarding Alternative C, D and E. These 3 alternatives hardly have any substantive information included in the DEIS. Response Alternatives are further explored in response to comment PB 6.01 of the FEIS. 12.16 Comment In conclusion it is my opinion that this development does not conform with EPOD, WD zoning, LWRP or the Bay Harbor Management Plan. There is also no request for any variances. I am not opposed to a residential development on this site but I do object to the intensity of this proposal. A 4-story condo building, 55 feet high, 30 feet from the water’s edge, the use of all available land does not make this allow to moderate build. These structures would dominate the waterfront and change the character of the surroundings. This plan would set a new precedent on the waterfront. This application should be held to the same standard that other applications are. I would love to see a scaled down project that would conform to the EPOD. WD Zoning, LWRP and the Bay Harbor MP. (pg 7, 5¶) Response Much of this comment is an opinion of the commenter. A description of an alternative that meets with the EPOD, WD zoning, LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan is described under Section6.5 of the DEIS. The analysis of this alternative is consistent with the proposed project, as well as Alternatives C (Modified Plan) and Alternative D (townhomes), which are residential developments, all of which would maintain the marina operations consistent with the LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan. All of the uses are acceptable uses as listed under WD zoning, and the proposed development would occur in previously disturbed and improved areas of the site, minimizing impacts to environmentally sensitive areas or EPODs. Additional discussion on this topic can be found in the response to comment PB 6.01.
52
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
_______________________________________________________ Gary Skillman, 20 Tuliptree Lane 13.01 Comment The design of the condominiums and Townhomes is not in keeping with all other building structures on the Bay. The only way the plan achieves marginally enough parking spaces is to build their structures on stilts above the parking. This raises the height of the buildings so that they will look like four mini skyscrapers compared to all other residential properties on the Bay. A true eyesore. (pg 1, 8¶) Response Underground parking is parking largely out of sight. The garages are enclosed by masonry walls. Some of those walls are entirely underground, some are partially underground, and because the garage level of buildings 103 and 104 must be above flood level, is entirely out of ground at the east/northeast end. For buildings 101 and 102, since they are on ground level about 20’ higher, and have no flood plain problems, the garage is mostly underground and out of sight. A majority of this comment is an opinion of the commenter. There are many other condominium and townhouse development along Irondequoit Bay and Lake Ontario. (See Section 4.2 – Comparable Waterfront Developments of the DEIS). The project provides parking spaces which are in excess what is required under the Town Code, since parking for 184 vehicles is proposed, while only 151 parking spaces are required. 13.02 Comment The Draft statement says… “These properties provide the opportunity for the Town of Irondequoit to expand its tax base and enhance its image”. This is a joke if the Town allows the new properties to become condominiums with the inherent tax advantages of that classification. As a resident of Irondequoit, I object that these new homes will be paying less than half in real estate taxes based on their assessed value. Further in the plan it points out that 92 slips will be available to the public and that… “The Board of Managers of the condominium association will oversee the operations of the Marina”. That implies to me that the operation of the marina portion of the project will also enjoy the benefits of reduced real estate taxes. Not a good deal for Irondequoit! (pg 2, 2¶) Response The project proposes a use which is similar to other waterfront developments in the Town, including the Westage, Bay Point and Bay Village developments. A revised tax assessment for the property will be made by the Town Assessor and will be based on prevailing acceptable practices.
53
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
__________________________________________________________ Tom Wolf, 1096 Glen Edith Drive, Webster 14.01 Comment Mr. Wolf said that he is a bay resident and will have a view of the project from across the water and is very concerned about the massive condo buildings that are offensive to the residential character of the bay. He said that Alternative D is not explored on the DEIS and is dismissed with little justification and no facts. He would like to see at least the same amount of detail and visuals on it as Alternative C. (pg 1, 8¶) Response Alternative D (Townhouse style units) has been more fully described in the response to comment PB 6.01, which more fully discusses the effects, including visual impacts that this alternative would have on natural and human resources. 14.02 Comment All alternatives appear to be hastily drawn with only three paragraphs devoted to this section (I might add that this is a key SEQR requirement). Response Alternative discussion has been supplemented in the response to comment PB 6.01. 14.03 Comment If the Applicant argues that Alternative D is not economically viable then he should be required to present the complete economic or financial analysis that supports his claim. The economic/financial assumptions for this alternative, compared to the base case, could then be explained by the Planning Board so they can reach their own conclusions about the Alternative D’s viability. (pg 2, 3¶) Response The Applicant has not stated that the Alternative D is not economically viable, but has stated that this alternative is “less viable.” The assumptions for this statement are supported by the increased development cost associated with the townhouse alternative, and because with approximately 20% fewer units, the cost per unit would be higher than that of a mixed condominium-style and townhouse development. While a fiscal impact analysis may be included in an EIS, regulations clearly do not require the evaluation of fiscal impacts as part of the review of environmental impacts. The economic information provided is included to respond to comments and to show the regional impact of the project. Economics is also provided in some cases to provide information relative to the viability of the project or other alternatives.
54
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
__________________________________________________________ Charles Hall, Esq., German Village Home Owners Association 15.01 Comment Having experienced a landslide in our own German Village and enduring the three year, million dollar repair project that occurred there, we speak from personal experience on the dangers and fragility of the entire proposed development project. A major concern is in the event of another catastrophic road fracture or cave-in, who would bear the fiscal responsibility for the exorbitant repairs? We feel that at an absolute minimum, a letter of perpetual credit be established by the builder for the upkeep, maintenance and preventative maintenance on the existing road which will be required to protect the inhabitants of the Mooring Line Drive as well as the new established condos. (pg 1, 4¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. 55
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. __________________________________________________________ Ralph Pascale, 40 Mooring Line Drive 16.01 Comment Please enter the Supreme Court of the State of New York Decisions, Index No. 2006/10479 into the record along with the attached Zoning Law Section 235-52 EPOD2 – Steep Slopes Protection District for the Planning Board’s review. (pg 1, 1¶)
56
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The referenced documents have been included in Appendix A1 on pages A1-57 through A1-67. __________________________________________________________ Irondequoit Conservation Board 17.01 Comment Does this Applicant have permission from the NY National Heritage Program to list the rare and endangered species in the area of the project? If not, the Applicant must secure all copies that have been distributed. This is sensitive information that is not meant to be released to the public. The Conservation Board recommends that all species names and location maps be removed from the DEIS and not be included in the Final EIS. (pg 1, 2¶) Response Given the species of concern identified by NY Natural Heritage, public disclosure of this information was approved by Mr. Nicholas Conrad at NY Natural Heritage Program in Albany, NY. 17.02 Comment This proposed project is gated community that, by its very nature, limits public access. Currently, the area has two points of public access as a restaurant and marina. The Conservation Board requests further clarification of the definition of “public access” and how it is harmony with the various planning documents for the area (e.g. Irondequoit Bay Harbor Front Management Plan, LWRP, Town Master Plan, etc.) (pg 1, 3¶) Response The LWRP defines public access as “the ability and right of the public to reach and use public coastal lands and waters.” LWRP at III-23. The Newport property has always been privately owned and never provided unfettered public access to the Bay. The restaurant does not fit the definition of public access, and was not identified as a point of public access by the LWRP. However, the LWRP specifically recognized that “[p]rovision of greater public access to the Bay” would be provided at Newport “through the private development of a boat docking facility.” LWRP at IV-14. The Project continues this public access by allowing the public to rent 93 boat slips at the Marina. Likewise, the Harbor Management Plan envisions public access as the ability of the public to partake in recreational activities, development of trails, and public acquisition of property. HMP at x, 61. The Plan encourages protecting existing private recreational uses (like the Marina at the site) where utilities, parking and access are available without a significant impact on the Bay’s resource value. Id. Rather, the Plans encourage private development of the Newport site in line with the proposed Project. The Master Plan called for zoning the site for waterfront development and use of the area for “a variety of housing types to meet that changing needs of Irondequoit’s older population.” 57
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Master Plan at 95, 96. The LWRP encouraged uses like the Project “that are enhanced by a waterfront location,” LWRP at III-7, and recommended enactment of Waterfront Development District zoning, and allowing “Multi-family (High Rise Residential Development),” for the Newport Road area. LWRP at III-5, V-8, V-47. Under the Harbor Management Plan, Harbor Areas like the Central Harbor area encompassing Newport are recommended to provide “public access, safe refuge, transient berthing and economic development opportunity.” Harbor Management Plan at 74. The Project is consistent with the goal of economic development for the Harbor Area. The Marina also provides safe refuge and transient berthing, and since it is not an exclusive club, it is open to the public for seasonal docking. The Plans identify other locations for public access. The Harbor Management Plan identifies the North Harbor area for public access, where “facilities for public access to the water, including two boat launches, transient docking for the Sea Breeze area and a public mooring area” are proposed, along with a Sea Breeze boardwalk. HMP at xv, 63, 79. This Plan also recommends consideration of Irondequoit Bay Park West for a marina, HMP at xvi, 75, and public access at LaSalle’s Landing, including trails and a boardwalk. HMP at 82, 85. The Newport Landfill was proposed by all three of the Plans for public recreation, (such as an overlook and a fishing pier). HMP at 95; LWRP at I-36, III-28, V-7, V-9, V-28; Master Plan at 96, 99. The Applicant has abandoned plans to acquire and develop portions of the Landfill site. Accordingly, the Town is free to develop this area into a public park, and provide public views of the Bay, and water access for canoes and fishermen. Thus, the Project is consistent with the HMP, LWRP and the Town Master Plan. The Landfill and other sites designated for public access can still be developed for the public. 17.03 Comment Since this area is relatively free of invasive species, the Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to prepare and execute an effective plan to prevent or minimize the introduction of invasive species that often invade a site during construction. (pg 1, 4¶) Response No invasive species are expected to colonize Newport Cove or Irondequoit Bay (other than what may already exist) as a result of this proposal, or change the vegetative makeup currently characterizing the site’s natural wooded slopes. The proposed location of the Newport Marine Townhouse development currently supports a small stand of invasive common reed (Phragmites australis) and Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum). Development of the site will result in the elimination of these existing invasive species. Once the development is completed, landscape maintenance practices will be utilized that will mitigate the colonizing of other invasive species.
58
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
17.04 Comment The DEIS states that the pre-existing docks are grandfathered. The Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to cite specific regulatory/law language that supports that conclusion. If the docks are not grandfathered then this is a good time to reevaluate the number and location of docks and it may be desirable to require the removal of some docks that are encroaching on the environmentally sensitive cove area. (pg 1, 5¶) Response The docks are permitted by NYSDEC Permit no. 80-85-0147. See response to comments 12.08, 26.18 and 26.19. The recommended amount of dockage in the Central Harbor area (Newport Marina) is 217 berths while Newport Marine’s capacity is 187. 17.05 Comment Section 2-17 speaks to boats per units; however, it does not appear that accessory craft such as jet skis or other small boats (e.g., sailboats, motor boats, etc.) are addressed. The Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to address this concern. (pg 1, 6¶) Response Whoever is assigned a dock slip may use it to store a motorboat, sailboat or personal watercraft at their option. The number of water craft allowed in any one slip is restricted only by the size of the water craft. Smaller vessels may be able to dock more than one vessel per slip for instance; two jets skis, but larger water craft may require two or more slips, such as a wide beam cruiser or a catamaran. 17.06 Comment The Conservation Board recommends the Applicant be required to address the issue of storage of watercraft on the property (out of the water). Storage of boats in parking spaces will reduce the number of spaces available for vehicles and may not allow for adequate quantity of spaces. (pg 2, 1¶) Response The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding parking and boat storage. The project sponsor has stated that offseason on-site surface storage of watercraft will not be allowed at the Newport Marine Club. Provisions will have to be made by the boaters for storage of their equipment during the off-season. Temporary boat parking and storage for maintenance, transference or other related reasons will be transitory and brief (three days or less). Some parking spaces may be occupied by watercraft on a temporary basis. The available parking spaces for non-resident boaters and guests will be monitored daily. If parking space demand exceeds the available parking spaces while there is temporary boat parking, then the boat owners will be notified to remove their watercraft from the common parking areas as soon as possible. Boat launching in the spring and boat pull out during the fall will have the highest occurrence of temporary boat parking. These times will be strictly examined and closely coordinated with the marina operations to minimize temporary boat parking. Residents with small watercraft, which do not use a slip, may launch or pull out their watercraft on an as needed basis. If the watercraft is removed, it shall 59
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
be stored in a parking space associated with the condominium or townhouse style units or removed offsite. The Newport Marine Club will make any adjustments in their rules or bylaws to assure those residents, slip owners and their guests have sufficient onsite parking. 17.07 Comment Nautica: The Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to clarify when and who will establish the rules regarding the use of this facility (e.g., how will the number of guests be limited to the available parking spaces?) Also, the appropriate agency should determine the status of this building (e.g., accessory building?) (pg 2, 2¶) Response The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding the rules and use of the Nautica. The Nautica will be open to the residential homeowners, boaters and their guests only, and will not operate independently from the two uses to which it is accessory. The sponsor of the condominium project (to which the Nautica is an accessory use) has the right to impose rules of operation by way of ByLaws, in order to limit the use of the Nautica to those two groups as well as to impose rules and regulations concerning hours of operation, guest policies, reservations for use of the room and so on. The following sample of proposed rules will address areas of concern, including parking. Since access to the Nautica is limited to homeowners, boaters and their guests only, there is no independent need for parking. 1.
Only boaters, homeowners and their guests may use the Nautica. Guests must be accompanied by their host at all times.
2.
Access to the Nautica will be by electronic card or key fob only to insure no use by the general public.
3.
The hours of operation of the Nautica during boating season (May 1st through October 1st of each year) will be as follows: Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays – 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; Tuesdays through Thursdays – 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.; Closed Mondays for food and beverage service. Bathroom facilities will be accessible by electronic card or key fob at all times.
Off season (October 1st to May 1st of each year) The Nautica will be open and available solely to homeowners and their guests and on weekends only – Friday, Saturday and Sunday from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. for food and beverage service. Bathroom facilities will be accessible by electronic card or key fob at all times. The number of guests allowed at the Nautica will be imposed as part of the rules of operation and bylaws of the Homeowners’ Association (HOA). Applications for reserving the Nautica for private parties will need to be submitted and approved by the HOA. Parking to be allocated for guests of the Nautica will be determined by the HOA. The HOA will take into account the time of the event, the potential number of guests, and the vehicle occupancy rate, other parking demands from the boat slip owners and their guests, and other parking constraints, to arrive at 60
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
an estimated available parking space count. If the available parking spaces exceed the estimated potential parking space demand, then the event could be refused. If there is a parking space shortage, alternative parking arrangements will need to be implemented. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 17.08 Comment The Conservation Board recommends that a better definition of “other surface parking” be provided in the Final EIS. (pg 2, 3¶) Response The definition of other surface parking is the parking which is available along the perimeter of the main driveway which bisects the property and parking spaces available at the terminus of the driveway as it reaches the Nautica and Irondequoit Bay. 17.09 Comment The Conservation Board still has serious concerns about the building heights and negatively impacted sight lines for those living in the area and to boaters. It does not appear that the proposed height and size of the condominium buildings fit into the current nature of structures on the bay and are out of character. The Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to cite how this project conforms to the various plans that address development on the Bay and in the Town. (pg 2, 4¶) Response There is a wide variety of building styles and sizes along the shoreline and on the bluffs, which surround Irondequoit Bay. The majority of the structures are for residential use with some recreational/commercial uses intermixed. The character of the building structures varies from contemporary residential structures such as the homes along Mooring Line Drive and the townhomes of the Bay Point development to period structures such as the Newport Yacht Club located within the Birds and Worms Hotel, which is more than 50 years old. The size of the structures around the Bay vary significantly from one-story, single family cottages to multifamily 3 – 4 story homes and condominiums. The buildings will be contemporary with more of a colonial and seaside village look. Refer to the response to comment PB 7.07 where other similar developments such as Bay Village and Pay Point are discussed. The proposed condominium style structures associated with the project are 3-story structures with a basement area that will be utilized as a garage. The Bay Village condominiums are 4-story buildings which are 260 feet long and over 42 feet tall, while the Newport Marine Club buildings are approximately 145 feet long and 52 feet tall. The mass of the proposed Newport Marine Club condominium buildings are less than other buildings which border Irondequoit Bay. The overall elevation of the Newport Marine Club structures will be less than other buildings which border Irondequoit Bay (See Figure 2 – Elevations of Bayfront Structures) of the FEIS.
61
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Planning Board believes that Irondequoit Bay has a vast variety of natural and man-made structures which impact the sight lines on the Bay. The project conforms to the various development plans for the Bay and the Town, as discussed in Section 2.12 of the DEIS and in the responses 4.02; 17.02; 26.11; 26.13; 27.07 and PH 2.01 of the FEIS. 17.10 Comment The Conservation Board recommends that their Applicant consider creating a green area on the roofs of the buildings or the Nautica and consider other environmentally ameliorating techniques to help mitigate the development of this compact site. (pg 2, 5¶) Response Green roofs for the buildings as an environment technique to mitigate against a natural resource impact is not feasible for this project, although other “green” techniques and programs will be implemented. The dialogue regarding the architecture of the buildings have been previously discussed and it was concluded that gable or sloped roofs are preferred for a residential development over a flat roof, which is more representative of a commercial building. A green roof system is typically associated with flat roofs and would not be a feasible alternative under this project. It should be noted that the site will be greener than what presently exists. The design of the stormwater management system does employ the use of an underground filter which will settle and filter the stormwater from the site prior to reconnecting to the discharge piping network. This addition will actually improve the stormwater quality as it discharges to the Bay. Other environmentally sound practices and materials will be implemented in the design and the construction of the project including energy efficient HVAC building systems, soil decompaction improving stormwater permeability and rigorous soil and erosion control barriers. Practices that will be implemented for the project, that will minimize environmental impacts include, protecting natural habitats, stormwater quantity and quality improvements, water efficient landscaping, energy efficiency, construction waste management, recycled and regional material use, increased ventilation and use of low emitting materials. 17.11 Comment The use of 1,000 pounds of fertilizer per year (4 times the manufacturer’s requirements) to maintain the grounds seems excessive. Are there more natural methods that could be used to maintain the area and has the Applicant determined what the environmental impact of that amount of fertilizer will be on the area? The Board recommends that the Applicant investigate more natural methods to maintain the area or, at the least, follow the manufacturer’s recommendation of fertilizer use. (pg 2, 6¶) Response The Applicant does not anticipate any circumstance to use 1,000 pounds of fertilizer a year. The Applicant has indicated that natural and manmade methods and techniques will be used to mitigate the use of 62
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
fertilizer at the project site. These measures include utilizing a natural non-phosphorous fertilizer, plant species that are tolerant and native to the project site, installation of an enhanced stormwater management system, and the retention of a licensed certified fertilizer applicator with experience in maintaining waterfront properties to perform the landscape services. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 17.12 Comment As a result of this project the number of people that will be permanently living in the area will increase greatly as compared to the previously transient population that used the area. The Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to address how the environmentally sensitive areas will be protected. (pg 2, 7¶) Response The proposed development will result in an increase in green space (from that which currently exists) that will allow for greater stormwater infiltration into the soils. The redevelopment of the site will eliminate runoff of oils and greases that currently take place with the boat storage activities. Further, stormwater runoff from the buildings will be collected, piped, and treated by sand filters before entering the Bay. No additional impacts are expected to the site’s environmentally sensitive areas. No impacts are proposed for the site’s natural wooded slopes and activity in and around Newport Cove and Irondequoit Bay will not change appreciably from that which currently exists. 17.13 Comment Stormwater Management – Several stormwater management structures are proposed for the site. These only work well when they are maintained properly. The Conservation Board recommends that any approved plans include requirements that these structures to be inspected and maintained at the appropriate frequency and, if not done by the Home Owners Association (or other responsible entity), the Town has the authority to complete the work and charge the HOA. (pg 2, 8¶) Response The stormwater management facilities include inlets, piping, manholes, sand filters and maintenance of these facilities will be by the Newport Marine Club Homeowners Association. An Operation, Maintenance and Management Inspection Checklist, along with a Stormwater Control Facility Maintenance Agreement is included in Appendix III of the Stormwater Management Plan for the Newport Marine Club. The Stormwater Management Plan is located in Volume II of the DEIS under Appendix C. Paragraph number 9 of the Stormwater Control Facility Maintenance Agreement gives the Town the ability to take corrective measures in order to maintain the stormwater facilities if the Homeowners Association defaults in the construction or maintenance of the facilities.
63
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
17.14 Comment The Conservation Board still has concerns about the proximity of the development to the wetlands buffer zones. Not only is most of the development within the 300 foot buffer but also much of it is in the 100 foot buffer. The Conservation Board recommends that the Planning Board use its authority to require that the condominium buildings be set back further from the water’s edge especially the western most building which comes very close to the sensitive area of the cove. (pg 2, 9¶) Response An ECL Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit application will be submitted to NYSDEC for authorization of all work within the NYS regulated adjacent areas to wetland RE-1. Although situated within the NYSDEC-regulated 300’ wetland adjacent area, disruption to the natural vegetation within the wooded north slope and impacts to Newport Cove are anticipated to be minimal. The proposed buildings will occupy only portions of the wetland adjacent area that are already disturbed by preexisting development. Procedures to be implemented to protect the wetlands and Newport Cove include, soil erosion mitigation measures comprised of permanent and temporary structures and practices; storm drainage improvements including water quality treatment; alternative practices including the suggested implementation of rain gardens; and finally the change in use from an open parking lot with potential petroleum runoff to building roofs and site landscaping should have a net positive effect on the wetlands and Newport Cove. 17.15 Comment While traffic patterns and usages were listed in Section 3-11, it appears that the study addresses the concerns only in terms of historical seasonal use. The Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to address the increased traffic flow due to year-round permanent residences, provide more factual information regarding the integrity of the road and potential impact of construction traffic on it. (pg 3, 1¶) Response There are two separate topics within this comment, one revolves around the number of vehicles travelling along Newport Road and the other topic requests additional information regarding the structural stability of Newport Road, especially during construction traffic loading. The traffic study included counts taken while the marina was in operation during May and June of 2008. The impact that this development will have on the number of vehicles traveling along Newport Road is included in the Transportation Impact Analysis which is included in Volume II, Appendix D of the DEIS and at DEIS Section 4.4.1.1. The change in the amount of traffic north of Mooring Line Drive will increase from a total of 10 to 59 vehicles during a Saturday peak hour. Previously, when the restaurant was in operation, it is estimated that up to 230 vehicles would travel this portion of the roadway. This analysis assumes a year round usage of the commercial restaurant and 64
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
the year round use of the residences of the proposed project. The proposed project will increase traffic along Newport Road from the existing volumes, but they will be considerably less than the traffic volumes that existed during the operation of the restaurant. The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of 65
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. 17.16 Comment The Conservation Board recommends that the Applicant be required to develop a detailed landscaping plan including which trees will be removed and which ones will remain and more specification regarding post-construction landscaping. The plan should be of appropriate scale to discern the details. (pg 3, 2¶) Response As part of the site plan review process, a more detailed landscaping plan will be submitted for approval by the Planning Board. It will specify which trees will be removed and which ones will remain and more specification regarding post-construction landscaping. The plan will be of appropriate scale to discern the details. The goal of the landscaping plan would be to protect and maintain as many specimens of significant trees or tree stands as possible. Existing trees will be located, identified, sized and their condition noted. The process for protecting the existing critical trees is outlined under section 4.1.2.2 of the DEIS on page 4-5. There may be some individual trees that will require removal based upon the site layout and grading. An extensive landscaping plan would be developed which would include 66
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
many new trees and plantings. Tree removals would be offset by a comprehensive landscape plan, appropriate for an upscale development. 17.17 Comment In summary, the Board believes that the overall project is too sensitive for the size of the property at hand and that attempts by the Applicant to reduce the overall development have not been adequate. The site capacity worksheet shows that only 1.45 acres of the 5.9 total acres are available for development. (pg 3, 3¶) Response The first portion of this comment is an opinion of the commenter. With regard to the site capacity worksheet, the project sponsor provided this analysis as requested by the Town Planning Board only for comparison purposes, and not as a requirement for the proposed project. Town Code §235-47.F(1) provides that the site capacity worksheet is only required for an “application for land subdivision.” The proposal, now before the Planning Board, does not include an application for subdivision. __________________________________________________________ Carol Palmeri, 50 Mooring Line Drive 18.01 Comment On one occasion, as we could not enter Mooring Line drive, as cars blocked the entrance, I had to exit our car and walk a distance to our home. Some of the wildlife at night in the dark can be scary to say the least. How many similar situations could arise from the congestion that would arise from the density of vehicular traffic which would arise from the Newport Club Plan? As a child, I remember being told that after a wedding reception at the Newport House in the 1940’s, a wedding guest died in an auto accident on Newport Road. Fresh in my mind is another life lost just a few years back, by going over the embankment on Newport Road. (pg 1, 3¶) Response The Applicant has proposed a residential/marina use. The prior commercial restaurant/party house use has been discontinued. There would be no foreseeable instances when parking would occur along Newport Road with the present proposal. Unrestricted access for the various homeowners must be provided at all times. Therefore, the parking congestion and restrictions that occurred previously would not take place with the proposed project. 18.02 Comment Hunters will no longer have to “thin out” the deer population. The wildlife common to this area will be diminished, if not completely eliminated with time. (pg 1, 5¶) Response The deer population and wildlife common to this area will not be drastically effected by the Newport Marine Club development. The existing site is extensively developed with parking lots, boat storage 67
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
areas and the existing Newport House. The proposed project will be located in areas which have been previously developed. The parking lots, storage areas and buildings are not considered a natural habitat for deer or other animals. Therefore, there should be little impact on the wildlife in the area. There has been no deer culling in this area of Irondequoit for at least 30 years. 18.03 Comment In 1995, our children could not receive bus service on Bay Knoll Road. We were told there was not enough room in the cul-de-sac for buses to compete the turn to exit in the winter. How then will bussing be possible now, that is, if busses are even able to gain access to this development? (pg 1, 6¶) Response School buses will pick up students (if there are any) at the gate, like is done at Mooring Line Drive. The project sponsor is committed to constructing a vehicle turnaround for buses, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, public works and other vehicles at the entrance to the Newport Marine Club. The turnaround has been shown on the site plans for the project included in Exhibit 1 of the DEIS. __________________________________________________________ Marty Piecuch, DPW Commissioner/Highway Superintendent 19.01 Comment There has been a great deal of discussion recently relative to existing and future safety and structural stability of Newport Road Hill. Newport Road Hill is the next area slated for improvements, regardless of the potential redevelopment of the Newport Marina. In April or May 2009, we expect the Town Board to adopt the 2009-2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which we anticipate will include approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road Hill in 2010 or 2011. (pg 1, 1¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for 68
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000; however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more 69
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. 19.02 Comment In the event of redevelopment of the Newport Marina property, the DPW would also endorse temporary measures, sponsored by the developer to limit heavy construction vehicles from traversing the north edge of the roadway. This could be accomplished by establishing one-way traffic along the south side of the road during project construction. (pg 1, 2¶) Response The Applicant plans to utilize this option, as discussed in response to comment 3.03, which would comply with the recommendation of the Town’s engineers, LaBella Associates, P.C. __________________________________________________________ John Papponetti, LaBella Associates, P.C. 20.01 Comment On March 18, 2009, I investigated the slope/road stability of a section of Newport Road in the Town of Irondequoit. There is some concern about the impacts that the construction traffic of the Newport Marine Club redevelopment will have on the stability of the road. (pg 1, 1¶) During my field investigation, I found two locations where pavement failures exist. These failures consist of pavement cracking and settling, and are considered minor in nature (pg 1, 3¶) The pavement failures that were noted are indications that there is some instability of the downhill slope. (pg 1, 5¶) Although these failures are minor in nature, I recommend limiting the number of repetitive construction vehicle wheel loads along the northern edge of the road in the area of the steep downhill slope. This can be accomplished by installing temporary concrete barriers or construction barrels along the edge of the road in this area. This would reduce the available roadway width; only allowing one-way traffic. Installing temporary traffic control signals would assist in controlling the flow of traffic. (pg 2, 2¶) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development.
70
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to 71
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
approximately 1999/2000; however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. __________________________________________________________ Wade Daley, LaBella Associates, P.C. 21.01 Comment LaBella Associates has conducted a site visit to determine existing conditions of the guide rail at the above referenced location. Based on our site visit we have identified the following non-standard features and deficiencies). (See comment 21 on page A1-79 for a listing of guide rail deficiencies). (pg 1, 1¶) Based on our field evaluation of the existing guide rail system, we recommend that a properly designed guide rail system be installed to address the above noted deficiencies. (pg 2, 1¶) Response The project is not likely to have any significant impact on the road. Any upgrade of the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. See response to comments 7.01 and 19.01. 21.02 Comment In addition to addressing guide rail needs, the following safety improvements should also be considered: •
Evaluation of appropriate signing for the corridor (advisory speed, curve, hill).
•
Evaluation of the roadway alignment and pavement super-elevation. (pg 2, 5¶)
72
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response Improvements to the road are not part of the project, and would be a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. See the response to comments 7.01 and 19.01. __________________________________________________________ Lewis Vallone and Robert Hazelton, 212 Baycrest Drive 22.01 Comment There are several reasons why this plan should not be approved. It is a fire hazard. Newport Road is very unsafe, worn out and not able to realistically be safely improved without extreme reconstruction of surrounding wild land and sloping properties. No one has addressed this issue – not the Town and not the builder. Remember the California fires where hundreds of homes were destroyed. These proposed condos will be inaccessible on 3 sides, making it very difficult to fight fires. Sparks could be blown up to Mooring Line drive and then possibly Baycrest Drive, endangering and/or destroying many homes. (pg 3, 5¶) Response The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding fire safety. Unlike most Irondequoit homes and the homes on Mooring Line Drive, the four condominium buildings are sprinklered and alarmed (see response to comment 5.03). Code requires that even attic space have dry head sprinklers. Roofing material must be Class A by code, and because any house fire on Mooring Line Drive could cause sparks dropping on these roofs. The condominium buildings will be constructed and furnished with equipment and materials which will limit the spread and the expansion of a fire and comply with all applicable building and fire codes. The fire district has been consulted and they are confident that they can adequately respond to a fire at the Newport Marine Club. (Attached in Appendix A1 on page A1-2525A1-2525 is a copy of a letter from the fire district and in Appendix A5 is a memo from the Fire Marshal and fire district regarding the project. 22.02 Comment Traffic on Newport Road will be greatly increased, and this road is not good enough to handle this increased traffic. (pg 3, 5¶) Response The impact that this development will have on the number of vehicles traveling along Newport Road is included in the Transportation Impact Analysis which is included in Volume II, Appendix D of the DEIS and discussed at DEIS Section 4.4.1.1. The change in the amount of traffic north of Mooring Line Drive will increase from a total of 10 to 59 vehicles during a Saturday peak hour. Previously, when the restaurant was in operation, it is estimated that up to 230 vehicles would travel this portion of the roadway. This analysis assumes a year round usage of the commercial restaurant and the year round use of the residences of the proposed project. The capacity of Newport Road is approximately 1,500 vehicles per hour, while the estimated traffic volume for the road is 59 73
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
vehicles per hour. Therefore, the roadway has sufficient capacity to meet the projected increase in traffic. The proposed project will increase traffic along Newport Road from the existing volumes, but they will be considerably less than the traffic volumes that existed during the operation of the restaurant. The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident.
74
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000; however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. 22.03 Comment The natural habitat of the marina will be destroyed, driving out many animals that make this area their home. (pg 3, 5¶) Response It is not expected that there will be adverse effects to the existing marina habitat. The proposed development is not expected to have an additional impact on any of the site’s current natural habitats. The Newport Marine development will occupy only areas of the site on land that are currently developed including the marina, existing building, and extensive parking areas that accommodate boat storage. These developed areas currently do not provide significant wildlife habitat 22.04 Comment It will absolutely ruin the view of the bay and lake for the homes on Mooring Line Drive. (pg 3, 5¶)
75
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response This is an opinion of the commenter. The project will offset the visual impacts of a surface boat storage facility during October to April and replace this use with a residential waterfront village-themed development with extensive landscaping. There are existing trees and bushes along the southern portion of the Newport Marine Club which buffer the views to the north during the spring, summer and fall. Photo simulations from Mooring Line Drive reveal that some sightlines will be impacted, but Irondequoit Bay and the Bay Bridge are still visible from other vantage points. Further, parking lots and boat storage with their blue tarps and wood supports, which exist today, will no longer be visible. See Exhibit 3 of the DEIS for simulated views from Mooring Line Drive. 22.05 Comment The consensus of the people against this project is that the extra tax money the town will receive is the deciding factor, not what is best for the area. (pg 3, 5¶) Response This is the opinion of the commenter, and is noted. However, the Planning Board intends to be diligent in considering all of the relevant information and concerns regarding the project when completing this FEIS, adopting findings, and in the final decision to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the project 22.06 Comment Possible better uses of the area might be the creation of a public park or fixing up the marina to add a moderately upscale restaurant. (pg 3, 5¶) Response The creation of a public park has not been considered because it does not meet with the goals of the Applicant, nor does this alternative meet with the recommendations of the Town Master Plan of the LWRP. However, the adjacent Town-owned Newport Landfill was identified as a potential site for public recreational uses, including an overlook and a fishing pier, LWRP at I-36, III-28, V-7, V-9, V-28, and was previously proposed by the Town for use as a park. The development of an upscale restaurant on the property has been evaluated as Alternative B – Private Marina and/or Restaurant, and is further discussed under the response to comment PB 6.01. The development of a restaurant on the property has been discounted because it does not meet with the goals and capabilities of the project sponsor. The recent history of the site has shown that restaurant uses have not been supported to the point in which they remain economically viable. The Newport House and Glen Edith restaurants have recently closed. The restaurant alternative does not avail itself to the benefits of the proposed project including smaller parking areas, aesthetically pleasing architecture, residential versus commercial use, neighborhood capability, improved stormwater quantity and quality and decompaction of onsite soils. The Applicant’s goal, the business viability, and the lost
76
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
benefits of the proposed project have eliminated the restaurant use as an alternative for this development. __________________________________________________________ Louis Buttino, 42 Mooring Line Drive 23.01 Comment The density of this project. (pg 1, 2¶) Response Refer to the response to comment 4.05 for discussion on the proposed density. 23.02 Comment The height of the proposed townhouses/condominiums. (pg 1, 3¶) Response The height of the proposed townhomes is in conformance with the Town Code. Building heights for the condominium-style building are at the discretion of the Town Planning Board and come under the provisions of Town Code §235-33.C(2), which provides no specific height limit: “Maximum building height for multifamily dwellings, apartment buildings or other similar uses shall be determined by the Town Planning Board during the special use permit review and approval process and shall be based on a visual analysis of the site prepared and submitted by the Applicant as part of that review. The Town Planning Board shall be empowered to establish maximum princip[al] building heights and locations in order to preserve the aesthetic integrity of waterfront areas and protect any scenic views or vistas identified in the visual analysis.” And for townhomes, Town Code §235-33.C(3) states: “Maximum building heights for townhomes, single-family attached dwellings, row houses, or other similar uses shall not exceed 35 feet.” The proposed project includes condominium-style buildings with a height of 53 feet and the townhomes are approximately 31 feet. The existing Newport House is approximately 39 feet high. Therefore, the proposed condominium buildings are higher than the Newport House and the townhomes are lower than the Newport House. The condominium-style buildings and the townhouse style buildings comply with the Town Code. 23.03 Comment The potential decrease in the value of my property. (pg 1, 4¶) Response The change in use from a commercial marina and restaurant with associated traffic, noise and odors, and impacts to a primarily residential use will most likely have fewer negative impacts to the neighborhood. The project proposes an exclusive development which is more in harmony with the adjacent residential developments. 77
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
23.04 Comment The proximity of the proposed properties to the water’s edge (25 feet). (pg 1, 5¶) Response The proximity of the proposed buildings to the water’s edge is discussed in the response to comment 12.05. 23.05 Comment The plan for any storm sewer drainage and water control. (pg 1, 6¶) Response Stormwater drainage has been reviewed and considered in the overall design of the project. The intended improvements consist of inlets, manholes, piping, filters and distribution piping. The details of the system are included in the site plans, included in Exhibit A of the DEIS and the hydraulic design which is included under the Stormwater Management Plan for the Newport Marine Club as Appendix C in Volume II of the DEIS. The proposed project will have a positive impact on the receiving waters of the Bay by decreasing the quantity of runoff and improving the water quality through filtering. 23.06 Comment The potential for landscape fertilization run-off into the bay causing an increase in algae. (pg 1, 7¶) Response The potential for fertilizer to runoff into the Bay is discussed in the DEIS under Section 4.2.4.2 and in response to comment 17.11. 23.07 Comment The traffic for construction vehicles on a narrow roadway (Newport Road) over a possible four year period. (pg 1, 8¶) Response The developer will agree to the recommendation in the LaBella Associates, P.C. letter dated March 20, 2009 which states that, “the construction phase of the project will limit the number of repetitive construction traffic vehicle loads on the northern edge of the roadway by installing temporary construction barriers along the north side of Newport Road and limit traffic to one-way along the south side or uphill side of Newport Road. Traffic control will be provided through the use of flagmen or temporary traffic signals. The heavy construction traffic would most likely occur during the spring, summer of fall of the first year of the construction project. Heavy construction traffic would occur during working hours (generally Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) for a couple of months. Two-way traffic would be restored at the end of each work day. The temporary measures implemented along Newport Road will help to mitigate the impacts associated with the construction vehicles. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval.
78
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
23.08 Comment The potential damage to the road due to this increase in heavy traffic – will the builder be liable? (pg 1, 9¶) Response The Applicant is not liable for pre-existing damages to the public road. The Applicant could be liable for damages to the roadway directly attributable to the construction operations for the project. The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road.
79
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred.Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000; however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. 23.09 Comment The plan for public use of the marina – parking issues. (pg 1, 10¶)
80
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response Town Code §235-34.A(2)(A) requires 0.6 parking spaces per boat slip for the public use of the marina. The project provides for more than the required parking spaces for the marina operation. The required parking is 62 spaces, while the project provides 68 surface parking spaces. 23.10 Comment The potential for land erosion due to digging of a steep slope. (pg 1, 11¶) Response Soils and the surrounding topography of the site are stable and should remain stable during the construction at the site. The Applicant proposes to limit disturbance to only those areas needed for the establishment of building pads and driveways. Retaining walls and building foundations will be constructed to minimize the impacts to sloped areas. Measures which will be implemented to control soil erosion at the site will include establishment of vegetation as soon as practicable, placing fill at the base of the slope to Baytree Subdivision, and the installation of a stormwater collection and conveyance system. __________________________________________________________ Ralph Pascale, March 20, 2009 24.01 Comment Please help to keep the focus on a Townhouse Plan that would not radically change the character of the Irondequoit Bay neighborhood, as would the all Condo Plan as submitted. (pg 3, 2¶) Response The proposed plan is not an all condominium plan, but rather includes a mix of residential uses, including townhomes and condominium-style units. All townhouses are certainly an option, as discussed under Alternative D and further described in the response to comment PB 6.01. The Townhouse Plan would look more like a tract subdivision of townhouses, as opposed to the proposal, which is a balanced village with a variety of forms. Not all of the four condominium buildings will be the same exact color, some have a variety of details. The proposed plan, Alternative C and Alternative D all propose residential developments, which would be a change in character for the Newport neighborhood from one that is primarily commercial to one that would be primarily residential. __________________________________________________________ Vincent Patane, 359 Bay Front Lane North 25.01 Comment Having experienced a landslide in our own German Village and enduring the million dollar repair project that occurred in our back yards in German Village for over the last three years, I speak from personal experience on the dangers and fragility of the entire proposed development project. Another major concern is in the event of another catastrophic road fracture or cave-in, who would bear the fiscal responsibility for the exorbitant repairs? We feel that at an absolute 81
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
minimum, a letter of perpetual credit be established by the builder for the upkeep, maintenance and preventative maintenance on the existing road which will be required to protect the inhabitants of their community as well as the new established townhouses. (pg 1, 2¶) Response The Applicant is not liable for pre-existing damages to the public road. The Applicant could be liable for damages to the roadway directly attributable to the proposed construction operations. The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no 82
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000; however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. __________________________________________________________ Christopher J. Enos, Bay Tree Homeowners Association 26.01 Comment The Dock and Marina would be owned and operated by a commercial enterprise. At the Public Hearing for the DEIS, the Applicant hinted that it might be willing to eliminate the separate Nautica Building by combining it into one of the four large, multi-family buildings. That proposal was not extensively explored in the DEIS. (pg 3, 5¶)
83
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The proposal that eliminates the Nautica building through combining the use into the condominium style buildings is referenced as Alternative C. This alternative is discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. 26.02 Comment There is no apparent justification for introducing new man-made views that will, in part, obliterate pre-existing vistas. Nor is there any precedent for the introduction of a New England style village into this Irondequoit Bay Neighborhood. (pg 4, 1¶) Response The “New England” style is a way of describing the look. The Applicant proposed a village option, but was asked to break it up so views between buildings could occur. The gambrel roof was a change which helped get away from the original flat roof (as requested by the Planning Board) yet keep the ridge low. Pittsford has a New England look, as do many New York villages, so the look is consistent with typical styles in the area. There is no designated significant State or National aesthetic resources at the site. Newport Road was mentioned in the Irondequoit Harbor Management Plan as an area from which views have critical scenic value. HMP at 45 46. Views from Newport Road will remain and be enhanced by the removal of the Newport House restaurant. The proposed multifamily and townhouse residential uses, along with the existing marina use are allowed in the Waterfront Development (WD) district. There is no need for precedent for any residential architectural style for any development in the Town of Irondequoit, whether it be Greek, Roman, contemporary, traditional, modern rustic or in this case, a New England-style village. Therefore, public viewing of the Bay will be available from Newport Road and the proposed architectural style for the development needs no precedent. 26.03 Comment The existing site consists of 5.85 acres by calculation. Notably, the Develop has consistently rounded this figure upwards to 5.9 acres. Approximately 4.6 acres of the site will be disturbed during construction activity. See, Volume II, Appendix C-1, Developer’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and Page 5. However, the developer has alternately indicated that only 4.2 acres will be disturbed. See, Volume II, Appendix C-1, Developer’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and Page 4. (pg 4, 2¶) Response References to the project site area as 5.85 and 5.9 acres in the DEIS were for clarification only and were not intended to be misleading or circumvent any legal requirement. There is a discrepancy in the narrative of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan quantifying the amount of disturbed area on the site during construction. The correct amount of disturbed area should be approximately 4.2 acres. Page 5 of the SWPPP shall be revised to reflect this change.
84
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
26.04 Comment The Developer has submitted a Transportation Impact Analysis in connection with this DEIS. That Analysis included a review of traffic accidents for the most recent three year period, and traffic counts for subject intersections on Thursday May 3, EPOD1, 2007 and Saturday, June 2, 2007, after the closing of the Newport House Restaurant. The analysis concludes that the increase in traffic volumes due to the Project “will not reduce the level of service of the intersections of Newport Road with East Ridge Road, Bay Knoll Road, Bay Crest Drive or Mooring Line Drive”. Volume II, Appendix D Transportation Impact Analysis, March 2008. However, that analysis does not make any reference to the impending 5 year period of construction. Although the analysis makes gratuitous reference to the Town of Irondequoit Capital Improvement Program as potentially mitigating the “substandard” geometry of the roadway, there appears to be no plan for the stabilization of the road during the five year construction era, nor is there any analysis for any alternative plan for residents of access roads in the event of road failure. Notably, significant road failures have occurred in similar Bay slope roadways within the last ten years (e.g. Point Pleasant Road/Schnackel Drive). (pg 4, 4¶) Response The construction of the Newport Marine Club is estimated to extend for five years with the majority of the heavy construction vehicles limited to site construction which will extend for about two months. The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed.
85
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000; however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. Refer to the response to comments 3.03, 19.01 and 20.01.
86
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
26.05 Comment The contractor should provide a loaded ten-wheel truck or similar heavy construction equipment for the proof-rolling. Rework or replace areas that rut, weave, quake, or are otherwise deemed unsuitable. Id., at page 7. Again, it is not known how the movements of these vehicles would affect the stability of the roadway, and such is not addressed in the DEIS. Nor, is the visual sight and sound impact of these construction processes over a five year period addressed in any way. (pg 5, 6¶) Response The loaded ten-wheel dump truck is proposed to be utilized to test the bearing capacity of the soils at the Newport site prior to constructing any improvements including roads, driveways and buildings. The stability of Newport Road was discussed in the letter from Foundation Design, P.C. to RSM Development dated November 11, 2008 and included as Exhibit 4A of the DEIS. A comparison of the loadings to Newport Road was made between the time that the restaurant was in operation and the existing conditions with the restaurant closed. The stability of Newport Road should not be drastically affected by construction vehicles during the building phase of the project. The history of Newport Road has shown that it has performed as a logging road, a solid waste disposal route, as access to an operating restaurant and marina and as a construction route for home builders. During this time, construction vehicles, garbage trucks and snowplows have utilized the roadway, while the roadway has remained stable. Some minor pavement failures attributed to the failure of downhill slopes was referenced in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch dated March 20, 2009 (Appendix A1, pg A1-79, 5 ¶).Construction processes associated with the project will be temporary. The visual impacts associated with the construction of the site will have little impact on the views from adjacent properties. The vast majority of the site construction will occur during the spring, summer and fall, which is the timeframe in which the existing buffer areas of trees and woodlots have their heaviest foliage. The existing shrubbery will mitigate visual impacts during temporary construction. Noise impacts associated with the construction of the project will be mitigated by ensuring that construction operation is in compliance with the Noise Ordinance of the Town of Irondequoit, Town Code §160-10 Construction Activities. This ordinance limits excessive noise at the property limits between the hours of 10:00 p.m. one day to 7:00 a.m. the following day on any day of the week. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 26.06 Comment “While piles will fairly short (i.e. 15 feet to 35 feet long) they will be rigid enough to drive through obstruction in in-place fill and not require dewatering such as would be necessary with drilled shafts (caissons). Excavate test pit(s) prior to pile driving…” Id., at page 10. Presumably, the pile driving would not take place over the entire five year construction period. (pg 6, 2¶) Response Correct, the proposed pile driving would not occur over five years. The recommendation for pile foundations are for a portion of building 87
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
number 103, all of building number 104, and the Nautica building. The duration to complete this activity would probably be weeks and not years. The construction would occur fairly early in the construction schedule, after demolition and prior to building pad construction. The piles would probably be installed at one time in order to eliminate the need for equipment setup and pile driving multiple times. 26.07 Comment There is no analysis provided by Foundation Design to include any of the alternatives that were required by the Board to be considered. While it may be inferred that a smaller building would require less excavation or less pile driving, that is not part of the evidence submitted to this Board. While it might be presumed that lesser amount of construction might mean a lesser impact on the access road over a lesser period of time than five years, such is not now in evidentiary form for this Board’s consideration. (pg 6, 6¶) Response The impacts that would be associated with the various alternatives, including soils and Newport Road are discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. The change in use of the property from a commercial to a residential use is much more relevant to the impact on the structural stability of Newport Road than the heavy construction phase of the project. The relatively short duration of the construction phase of this project has a considerably less impact on Newport Road, than if there was a successful operating restaurant on the site. These comparisons were discussed in Section 4.4.3.1 and Exhibit 4A of the DEIS. The construction and full build-out of the Newport Marina Club is estimated to occur over five years, but the vast majority of the site work will occur during the construction season for no more than a few months. See response to comment PB 2.04 for a more detailed description of the proposed construction schedule. 26.08 Comment A. Parking Docks, and Intensity: They have since modified the dwelling unit/boat slip ratio in favor of the residential units from 1.0/unit recommended in the Harbor Management Plan to 1.5 slips per unit, thus avoiding provision of additional required parking for the extra public slips per the Harbor Management Law requirements and made provision for only five employee parking spaces for the Nautica, where besides parties, food service and some sales even minor boat maintenance and repair work might also be undertaken according to the DEIS. (Note that this minor repair and maintenance use does not appear to have been revealed during prior public hearings). (pg 7, 4¶) Response The number of boat slips available to the residential units has been estimated at 1.5 slips per unit to account for the typical waterfront homeowner. An extensive analysis and the experience of the Applicant have determined that many of the purchasers of the residential units will have more than one watercraft. Detailed analysis of the 1.5 slips per unit allocation is located in Section 2.3.4 of the DEIS. Studies on other water body studies, including Honeoye Lake and Canandaigua Lake, were referenced in the DEIS.
88
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The proposed project assigns 84 docks for residential use, while providing the required parking for the remaining publicly available 103 slips at the marina. Parking for the marina has been provided in excess of what is required by Town Code, and no variances are needed. The allocation of parking for a marina use does not imply additional parking by employee. The ratio of 0.6 parking spaces per boat slip required by Town Code §§235-34.A(2)(A) and 235-79 includes any employee use. Harbor Management Law §III.B(3) merely references 0.8 parking spaces per berth as one of these criteria that is used to designate harbor areas, and does not establish a new legal parking requirement. The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding boat maintenance activities at the project site. Some of the boat maintenance activities which may be provided at the marina include oil, gas, waste pump-out, cables, bumpers, lines, sails, fuses, batteries, winches, pulleys, rails, etc. These are mostly minor maintenance and repairs that are similar to the activities that occur at the marina today, and were never hidden from review. 26.09 Comment The Nautica is clearly a Principal Use/Structure housing marine related activity and staff for one of the two separate specially permitted uses sought here, to wit: the marina. In fact, the docks are considered accessory structures in the Town’s Zoning Law and were permitted as part of the Newport Marina. Not considering it a Principal Use/ Structure could potentially call permissibility of the public docks into question. (pg 7, 5¶) Response First, as the comment suggests, the proposed docks are one of the two specially permitted uses proposed for this project. Pursuant to the application and pursuant to Town Code §235-32.A(11) however, the docks are in fact a Principal Use of the property; the other Principal Use is for residential use pursuant to Section 235-32.A(5). Likewise, as noted above, the Nautica is nothing more than an accessory use to the two Principal Uses of the property. “Accessory structure” is defined as a “use that is subordinate and customarily incidental to and on the same lot as the principal use or occupancy of a building or lot,” which is “subordinate and/or lesser in area.” Town Code §235-4.B. Being limited to use by homeowners, boaters and their guests, and providing only limited services to those users at best, the Nautica does not stand alone as a Principal Use of the property and has no separate “membership.” The Applicant would not operate the Nautica without the residents and marina members to use it. The project is not open to the general public and the Nautica consequently cannot serve the functions of any of the Principal Uses as described in the Code. Its sole purpose is as an amenity to those utilizing the Principal Uses of the property. With regard to the Nautica, see response to comment 17.07. 26.10 Comment The DEIS continues to understate the permitted dwelling development density and required lot area for the proposed project by underestimating space required 89
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
for each parking space (162 sf. v/s 300 sf. As would actually be the case for those spaces that are not accessed directly of the road), by not providing required number of parking spaces, by using a lower than required parking ratio of 0.6 space/slip for the public docks (which does not meet the 2008 Harbor Management Law requirement of 0.8 parking acres/boat slip), by not subtracting sufficient area for parking for the public docks and related uses, and by overstating the available lot area (5.9 v/s 5.85 acres). (pg 7, 6¶) Response The project has taken the parking space area, the number of parking spaces and the lot area into account during the project design and development. The area of parking space is defined in §235-77.G of the Town Code which defines a parking space as an area of 9 feet by 18 feet or 162 square feet, which is consistent with the calculations for the bulk density within a Waterfront Development (WD) District. Parking space requirements are set forth in Town Code §§235-34.A(2)(A) and 235-79, which require that 0.6 parking spaces per berth be provided at docking facilities. Harbor Management Law §III.B(3) merely references 0.8 parking spaces per berth as one of these criteria used to designate harbor areas. It is not a legal requirement, and there has been no amendment to the zoning law in this regard. Reference to the lot area as 5.9 or 5.85 acres in the DEIS was for simplicity in the context of the discussion. The project complies with the bulk density requirements of the Town. 26.11 Comment It should be noted that whenever the requirements of applicable local laws differ, the stricter standards have to prevail. The 2008 Management Law requirements are stricter than those of the WD Zone (for land use as well as parking) and must, therefore be complied with. The current plan DEIS totally ignores these facts, and relies only on the 1985 Master Plan (which encouraged public access to the Bay) and the WD Zone. Neither the Plan nor the DEIS has identified a single zoning variance that may be required for the current plan to meet the local laws, since it is relying upon its own interpretation of the following. (pg 7, 6¶) Response The Harbor Management Plan does not require 0.8 parking spaces per dock slip. Rather, the Plan recognizes that the Town of Irondequoit Zoning Law only requires 0.6 parking spaces per slip, see Town Code §235-34.A(2)(A), consistent with the recommendations of the Irondequoit Bay Coordinating Committee, HMP at 53. Harbor Management Law §III.B(3) merely references 0.8 spaces per berth as one of three criteria that was used to designate the Harbor Areas. It is not a legal requirement, and there has been no amendment to the Zoning Law in this regard. Moreover, in total there are 184 parking spots for 187 docks, nearly a 1:1 ratio. The Harbor Management Law only applies to “structures and activities on Irondequoit Bay,” and not on the land. Harbor Management Law §I.B(2). It establishes a Water Surface Map to govern use of the water, Harbor Management Law §II.A(1), but not a map for land uses, which remain governed by the Zoning Law. 90
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
26.12 Comment Allocation of Dock Slips: The transfer of additional dock slips to the residential condos by raising their ratio to 1.5 slips/dwelling unit from 1.0 slips/dwelling in the original Plan appears to be another ploy used by the Applicant to meet the minimum lot area requirement. However, this interpretation makes the current Plan even more inconsistent with the Harbor Management Plan, since that Plan specifies a maximum of one boat slip per dwelling unit in zones where multifamily residential uses are permitted. (pg 8, 3¶) Response The Harbor Management Law set 1.0 slip per dwelling as the standard for single-family residential parcels in Nearshore Areas, not multi-family sites in Harbor Areas. HML §III.B(2)(a)(ii). This standard does not apply to the Newport site. Rather, the Harbor Management Plan calls for, and the Harbor Management Law sets, the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, in excess of the current Newport Marina capacity of 187 HMP at 75. HML §III.B(3)(d)(ii). Zoning Law sets the number of piers, docks or wharves for each waterfront development lot used for multifamily, townhouse or condominium purposes at one structure per residential unit. §23532(c)[12] and it also states that under a commercial use, the construction of more than three structures is subject to the determination of the Town Planning Board. §235-32(c)(14)(c)[13]. The existing docks may exceed these regulations, but they have been approved and permitted and will remain under the Newport Marine Club development. The assignment of dock space is not a “ploy.” The Applicant has excess parking, and thus could shift the assignment of some of the existing 187 docks from dwelling units to private rental at the Marina without impacting the density of dwelling units. However, based on its experience with waterfront buyers, and the data from other water bodies cited in DEIS 2.3.4, the Applicant has assigned 1.5 docks for each residential unit to meet the anticipated needs of unit owners. 26.13 Comment The majority of the existing docks on the property are located in HA Zone (some remaining are in a RP-Resource Protection Zone, where docks are prohibited by law). HA is a Harbor Zone where the goal is to encourage expansion of public boat docks and access and other water dependent commercial enterprises, such as restaurants and Marinas and not a reduction or elimination of such uses. Notably, Residential use is not called for in the Harbor Management Plan and Law in the HA zones. (pg 8, 4¶) Response The HMP sets the Newport Marina in a HA, Harbor area zone. This area is recommended for the continuing operation of boating harbors to respond to the demand for recreational boating opportunities on Irondequoit Bay. The proposed Newport Marine Club will continue the operation if the marina and will therefore follow the recommendation of the HMP. A Resource Protection (RP) area has also been designated in the area of the Newport Cove which is adjacent to the project site. Resource 91
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Protection areas are areas in which the natural resources of Irondequoit Bay are to be protected. Recommendations regarding boat storage in RP areas include that “If permitted, dock slips storage in RP areas in Resource Protection Areas would be limited based upon the proximity to significant habitat areas and their potential impact on environmental features”, HMP at 74. The project does not include any changes to the docking facilities at the site, which has permits for the existing docks. The Harbor Management Plan recognizes that the LWRP “provides guidance for the landside development in the Bay ecosystem,” while the HMP “addresses the regulation and use of the water surface.” HMP at viii. Thus, the Harbor Management Plan is not directed to land use planning like the LWRP. The LWRP designates the Site as an “Opportunity Area” for residential uses. LWRP at IV-13. Further, it encourages uses “that are enhanced by a waterfront location.” LWRP at III-7. However, the Harbor Management Plan does peripherally address land uses, encouraging development that is compatible with the Bay and the surrounding area. HMP at 60. While the Plan recommended a change in zoning in certain limited areas, it did not recommend any change in the current Waterfront Development District zoning, HMP at 80, which allows the new residential development. Town Code §235-32.A. The Harbor Management Law does not regulate land uses, which is covered by the Zoning Law. Under the Harbor Management Plan, Harbor Areas like the Central Harbor area encompassing Newport are recommended to provide “public access, safe refuge, transient berthing and economic development opportunity.” Harbor Management Plan at 78. The Project is consistent with the goal of economic development for the Harbor Area. The Marina also provides safe refuge and transient berthing, and since it is not an exclusive club, it is open to the public for seasonal docking. The Harbor Management Plan and the Harbor Management Law set the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, in excess of the current capacity of 187, which will not be reduced. HML §III.B(3)(d)(ii); HMP at 75. So, the same quantity of boats – 187 -- will have access to the Bay as before. 26.14 Comment The available site area (5.85) acres is, therefore, still short of the minimum zoning requirements and leads to understatement of the average dwelling density on the site and an erroneous conclusion that it is moderate density development pursuant to the WD zoning requirements. (pg 8, 5¶) Response Refer to the response to comment 4.05 for discussion on the proposed density. 26.15 Comment Public Access/EPOD Compliance: The Applicant has, once again, circumvented the issue of increased and enhanced public access to water’s edge (both physical and visual) throughout this document. (pg 8, 6¶) 92
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The Applicant provided a narrative regarding public access in Section 2.4.2.3 “Access,” page 2-22 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Additional discussions are included in response to comments 4.03 and 12.01. A discussion regarding the onsite and offsite views is included in Section 4.7.1 “Visual Resources” of the DEIS. Visual access to the water’s edge is also discussed in response to comments 4.07 and 22.04. 26.16 Comment The site plans do not fully comply with the EPOD requirements and lot area, parking ratios and density standard adopted by the Town. No attempt is made to increase or enhance public access to the waterfront. Private, gated access and four large structures are replacing the open views (visual access) and physical access to the water’s edge previously provided by the semi-public marina and restaurant uses. (pg 8, 6¶) Response The plans for the Newport Marine Club do comply with the EPOD requirements, lot area, parking ratios and density requirements of the Town of Irondequoit. Public access and views have also been taken into account in the planning and design of the project, and the number of boats with access to the Bay will not change. Environmental Protection Overlay Districts (EPOD’s) are land use districts established by the Town of Irondequoit the purpose of which is described in § 235-41(A) of the Town Code. “The purpose of environmental protection overlay districts established in this article is to provide special controls over land development located in sensitive environmental areas within the Town of Irondequoit. These districts and the regulation associated within them are designed to preserve and protect unique environmental features within the Town, as much as possible, including but not limited to wetlands, steep slopes, flood plains and woodlots”. The proposed plan complies with the EPOD purpose in that the design of the project has accounted for the preservation and protection of the sites environmental features as much as possible. A description of EPOD’s and how the project will comply with the special provisions of EPOD’s is discussed in Section 2.5.2.4 of the DEIS. Development permits are required for EPOD districts and the developer will be applying for these permits. Additional discussion regarding EPOD’s is included in the response to comment PH 5.20. Lot area and density requirements for the development are contained in Section § 235-33.A of the Town Code in which multi-family dwellings are required to have a minimum of 4,000 square feet per dwelling unit and townhouses must have a minimum of 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Both of these requirements have been met, as further detailed in Section 2.5.2.1 of the DEIS. The project exceeds Town Code requirements for the number of parking spaces required for the development. A detailed discussion is included in Section 2.3.3 of the 93
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
DEIS. Section 2.4.2.3 of the DEIS and response to comments 4.03; 4.04 and 9.01 discuss the topic of access for the project. The impacts to the visual resources are discussed in Section 4.7.1 of the DEIS and in response to comments 4.07; 12.07; 26.02 and PB 6.09. The DEIS and the FEIS provide a substantial discussion on the views and access implications associated with the development. 26.17 Comment “Grandfathered Docks”: The DEIS also dismisses the HMP recommendation about restrictions on location of docks in the Resource Protection (RP) Zone, where 33 of their boat slips are located, by simply stating that it is a pre-existing use. The DEIS does not call for their removal nor does it identify any variances that might have to be obtained to maintain them. (pg 8, 7¶) Response The docks and slips that are in question have approved by the Town of Irondequoit and have been permitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in Permit no. 80-85-0147(Appendix A7). The Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan recommends the continuing operation of all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. The HMP also calls for increasing the number of dock slips on the Bay to increase access for the public, not decreasing spaces. The westernmost docks also restrict traffic into Newport Cove, which is designated by the HMP as a Resource Protection Area, and thus helps to protect this more sensitive area. Additional discussion on docks is provided in the response to comments 26.19; PH 5.11; PB 2.06 and PB 6.06. Further, the change in use from restaurant/marina to a residential use/marina will be more compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 26.18 Comment Overall, the number of docks that have been installed here would not be permitted under recently enacted zoning that determines the number of docks in terms of waterfront frontage. (pg 9, 1¶) Response The docks are allowed under the Town Code. The Harbor Management Law set the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, in excess of the current capacity of 187. HML §III.B(3)(d)(ii). The Harbor Management Law (HML) sets the dock capacity of multifamily residential sites in “Near Shore Areas” under §IIIB (2)(a)(iii) on page 20. This standard is not relevant to the proposed project. The Newport Marine Club is not within a “Near Shore Area” but, in a “Designated Harbor Area” in which the HML sets the regulated docking capacity to 217 boats. HML §III.B(3)(d)(ii). Zoning Law sets the number of piers, docks or wharves for each waterfront development lot used for multifamily, townhouse or condominium purposes at one structure per residential unit. §23594
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
32(c)[12] and it also states that under a commercial use, the construction of more than three structures is subject to the determination of the Town Planning Board. §235-32(c)(14)(c)[13]. The existing docks may exceed these regulations, but they have been approved and permitted and will remain under the Newport Marine Club development. In addition, the Harbor Management Plan recommends continuing all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. 26.19 Comment It is respectfully submitted, then, that this Board is not constrained to place reasonable limitations on the expansion in use of these premises solely by reason of the pre-existence of these docks. They may be old docks, but they are not “grandfathered”. Their continued existence, in whole or in part, may be conditioned upon this Board’s determination as to whether they fit into the overall reasonable use of this parcel. (pg 9, 3¶) Response Refer to the response to comment 26.18. 26.20 Comment Also, the DEIS makes no distinction between parking areas that are open and offer magnificent views of the Bay and the new development, with numerous structures, some over 50 feet tall. This is a veiled attempt to minimize the plan’s visual impacts and its impact on these sensitive areas, DEIS Exhibit 3(E). (pg 9, 5¶) Response The open parking areas on the Newport Marina are private property and not public property. The utilization of the parking areas is limited to marina uses and their guests; it is not intended for unrestricted public access. The LWRP recognizes and encourages enhancement of the south and north ends of the Bay as the best locations for the public to access scenic resources. There are no designated significant State or Federal aesthetic resources at the site. Views from Newport Road mentioned in the HMP (at 45-46) will be maintained and enhanced by the removal of the Newport House restaurant. Any negative visual impacts of the proposed project would be offset by the enhancement of public access at publicly owned lands at the north and south ends of the Bay and at the Newport Landfill as planned, and the continuing public access along Newport Road. The Newport Marine Club will improve the waterfront vista by the removal of a boat storage yard and its replacement with an upscale waterfront residential development. 26.21 Comment The Board received one alternative (Alternative C) that the Developer” recommends for serious consideration”. This alternative was illustrated with a modified site plan with some alternate building illustrations (Exhibit 6B). However, there is no extensive treatment or discussion afforded to this Alternative other than general references to some indefinite lowering of building heights, the elimination of the Nautica building; and, an indefinite decrease in the number of units. (pg 10, 2¶)
95
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response Buildings 103 and 104 were reduced from 12 units to 11 units and the height of those buildings was reduced by one story at the water’s edge. The Nautica building was omitted and placed within the garage level of building 104. This opens a vista to the Bay that does not presently exist due to the existing Newport House. The project has been reduced from an original 72 units to 54 units. Alternative C is discussed in Section 6 of the DEIS and also in the response to comment PB 6.01. 26.22 Comment The Board received another alternative (alternative D) that was accompanied only by a sketch plan. Again, the Developer provided little discussion relative to this alternative, other that it would be for townhouses only with a reduction in the number of residential units. The DEIS indicates that some of the views from interior townhouses would be limited, without reference to the near obliteration of the nine interior townhouse/condominiums as are cited in the main proposal. The Developer acknowledges that the plan is “somewhat random”. (pg 10, 3¶) Response Alternative D (Townhomes) is further discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. Townhouses under the present proposal have been angled and skewed to allow for views of the Bay to the north and east from many vantage points at the proposed townhomes. 26.23 Comment Finally, the Board was told by the Developer at page 6-4 that, “the proposed action is already consistent with EPOD, WD Zoning, LWRP and Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan”. Accordingly, no other alternative was offered. (pg 10, 4¶) Response Alternative E (Residential Development) is discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. The proposed project, Alternative C and Alternative D are all residential projects which meet the code requirements and recommendations of EPODs, WD zoning, the LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan. 26.24 Comment It is respectfully recommended that the Irondequoit Planning Board not accept the current DEIS as an FEIS for SEQR purposes, since the Board had been provided with misleading, misstated, or insufficient information and data upon which it must rely in making this very important determination. (pg 10, 5¶) Response The DEIS has been accepted by the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board on February 10, 2009. The remaining comments are an opinion by the commentator and no response is necessary.
96
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
26.25 Comment We recommend that the Board, with the assistance of staff, carefully study, interpret and consider the goals and objective of all applicable waterfront plans and zoning requirements and seek an Alternative Plan with: 1. An appropriate dwelling density given the lot’s size and environmental constraints with building heights to minimize their visual impacts on surrounding parcels and community views from Newport Road. 2. Allocation of private and public boat slips based on the goals and standards prescribed in the Harbor (HA) and Resource Protection (RP) Zones per the official Water Surface Zoning Map and the 2008 Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Law. 3. Assignment of an adequate number of parking spaces based on the Harbor Management Law to service them. 4. Building location and their mass and heights reduced so as to remove structures from the EPOD areas and to minimize their visual impacts on sensitive natural site featured and resources. 5. Removal or reduction in the number and size of current docks that are encroaching into the Newport Cove (It is mislabeled as Irondequoit Bay on many of the maps in the DEIS and should be corrected) a Resource Protection (RP) Zone, to provide and enhance protection to Newport Cove. 6. Increased and enhanced public pedestrian access to the water’s edge and protection of views of the Bay, the water’s edge and the Route 104 Bridge from Newport Road and the adjoining Town property and other lands. 7. Some form of public access to the water’s edge, so the public could continue to enjoy the Bay views that are historically important to the community and which currently define and enhance its character. (pg 10, 6¶) Response The proposed project meets the goals and objectives of waterfront plans and the Town of Irondequoit zoning requirements. All alternatives required under the Scope approved by the Planning Board were examined, and the Applicant is not required to propose new alternatives at this stage. 1. The dwelling density of the proposed project complies with the bulk density calculations which are outlined in Section 2.5.2. “Town of Irondequoit Zoning,” page 2-25 of the DEIS. Density is further discussed under response to comments 4.05 and PB 7.07. Building heights for multi-family dwellings shall be determined by the Town Planning Board during the special use permit review and approval process. View and vistas will be assessed by the Town Planning Board in their deliberation to establish the building heights for the project. These provisions are outlined under the Town Code in §23533.C(2). 2. Allocation of public and private boat slips are discussed in response to comments 26.12 and PH 5.11.
97
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
3. The ratio of 0.6 parking spaces per boat slip required by Town Code §§235-34.A(2)(A) and 235-79 includes any employee use. Harbor Management Law §III.B(3) merely references 0.8 parking spaces per berth as one of these criteria that is used to designate harbor areas, and does not establish a new legal parking requirement. The Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan does recognize that the required 0.6 parking spaces required in the Town Code is consistent with the recommendations of the Irondequoit Bay Coordinating Committee HMP at 53. 4. The proposed buildings, mass and height have been modified to minimize their visual effects and to minimize the impact to the environmental protection districts. A conceptual plan, which was reviewed by the Planning Board, included two condominium-style buildings along the north property line of the site. This concept was criticized as being too massive with little available Bay view’s south of the site. Four smaller buildings with multiple gaps between the buildings provide additional views of the Bay from the south. Alternative C (Modified Plan) proposes a 12-foot drop in the building height to further limit the visual impacts of the buildings. The reduction in building size and height has minimized the visual impacts to the site. Locations of the buildings are in areas which have been previously disturbed which will diminish any detrimental effects to the EPOD areas of the property. 5. This would be inconsistent with the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan (see response to comment PB 6.06). Newport Cove is part of Irondequoit Bay. 6. The LWRP defines public access as “the ability and right of the public to reach and use public coastal lands and waters.” LWRP at III-23. The Newport property has always been privately owned and never provided unfettered public access to the Bay. The restaurant does not fit the definition of public access and was not identified as a point of public access by the LWRP. However, the LWRP, prepared in 1988, specifically recognized that “[p]rovision of greater public access to the Bay” was “proposed for the site of the Newport House, through the private development of a boat docking facility,” and that this was “considered appropriate given the fact that the site of the Newport House is one of the few locations on Irondequoit Bay that contains sufficient space to accommodate parking requirements and will also not require excessive dredging.” LWRP at IV-14. Thus, the original development of the Newport House private marina was deemed appropriate to give limited public access to the paying public across private property as granted to marina members and their guests. The project will keep the marina in operation, and thus allow access for purchase or rental of the remaining 93 dock spaces available to the general public on first come basis to gain access to the Bay. Pedestrian access will be provided to the gated development through the use of a pass-card, key fobs, or pass-code for residents, slip tenants and their guests.
98
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
7. Under the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan, Harbor Areas like the Central Harbor Area encompassing Newport are recommended to provide “public access, safe refuge and transient berthing and economic development opportunity,” HMP at 74. The project is consistent with the goal of economic development for the Harbor Area. The Marina also provides safe refuge and transient berthing and since it is not an exclusive club, and it is open for limited access by the general public through the purchase or rental of a slip for seasonal docking. The project is consistent with plans for public access and will continue to provide limited access to the Bay through the existing Marina. See the response to comment 27.17. The Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan only recognized Newport Road as a point having scenic value for the public and the road will remain open to the public. HMP at 45-46. See response to comment 4.02. __________________________________________________________ Peggy Norry, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 27.01 Comment At a minimum the project must comply with the performance standards in the Department’s “NYSDEC SPDES (State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) General Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Construction Activity, Permit No. GP-0-08-001, “dated April 2008. This already issued permit requires that any proposal clearly demonstrate why they cannot meet the standards applying to a new project before using the standards for a redevelopment project contained in the General Permit. The DEIS claims that the stormwater standards for new development cannot be met; however, the justification is weak. Also approval of the stormwater management system for this site will be required from the Town or Irondequoit as this is within an “MS4 Community” as described in the General Permit. (pg 3, 1¶) Response The redevelopment of the Newport site from a commercial to residential use provides the opportunity for the conservation of natural resources through the redevelopment of a site with an increase in green area, along with the utilization of the existing services and infrastructure. The project will meet the requirements of NYSDEC SPDES general permit for Stormwater Discharge from Construction Activity, Permit GP-0-08-00. The project will provide an opportunity to improve existing stormwater discharges and to reduce pollutant loadings. Stormwater standards for new development cannot be satisfied at this site. Sensitive areas such as steep slopes and woodlots limit the available area for the installation of wetlands or open channels. The elevation of the existing drainage infrastructure, high groundwater elevations and the water levels of the Bay limit the available elevation head necessary for the design and operation of other stormwater management practices, such as ponds. Infiltration practices for stormwater treatment have also been reviewed, and the underlying soils do not meet the criteria for the implementation of this alternative. 99
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Therefore, a sand filter system has been proposed for the development. Sand filters are suitable where limited land is available, where the elevation head or difference is minimal and where the soils are unacceptable for infiltration. Therefore, the criteria for redevelopment projects have been utilized for the design of the stormwater management facilities. Soil decompaction has also been integrated into the proposed plan. The decompaction of the soils would mitigate the compressed soils under the existing parking areas and allow for enhanced rainfall permeability into the soil layers. The system is within the Town of Irondequoit an (MS4 community) and this issue will be reviewed during the site plan approval process. 27.02 Comment Review of the Grading and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Drawing 224M4, indicates that it is likely that rainfall which does not infiltrate around Buildings 101 -104, or is not collected in the stormwater management system, would likely sheet flow toward the sensitive cove without additional treatment. (pg 3, 3¶) Response The Utility Plan, Drawing 224-M3, provides invert elevations for field inlets for the collection of runoff down slope of Buildings 102 through 104. The Grading and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Drawing 224-M4, contains an area delineated by dotted lines as an area to remain undisturbed and left in its natural state north and east of Building 101. Review of this drawing shows that the undisturbed area extends around the buffer zone. In addition, Detail Sheet 224-M13 provides profiles of the proposed French drain trenches, D-1A, D-1B and D-2. The French drains provide a surface area of approximately 1,600 square foot to infiltrate any sheet flow runoff that occurs down slope of the field inlets through the topsoil and into the stone trenches. The methods employed to capture stormwater sheet flow before it reaches Newport Cove includes decompaction of the onsite soils to promote infiltration, the replacement of parking lots which sheet flow to the Bay with driveways, and buildings connected to an underground stormwater conveyance and treatment system and a perimeter swale/trench to intercept sheet flow before it reaches the Cove. These measures will minimize the stormwater sheet flow towards the Cove and the Bay. The proposed development would capture and treat 83% of the contributing drainage area while 17% would sheet flow towards the Cove and the Bay. The quantity and quality of the stormwater associated with this site will improve. (See response to comment 27.07) 27.03 Comment More alternatives need to be investigated and discussed in further detail to address these concerns. Are there any other technologies that would be suitable for this situation? Alternatives should be discussed and justification included for 100
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
the selected methods. Providing for onsite infiltration as a means for stormwater treatment appears to be an option if greater setback were provided between Buildings 101 – 104 and the cove. A rain garden design would be one means of achieving treatment of sheet flow prior to discharge to the cove area. (p 3, 4¶) Response Alternatives to the proposed stormwater management plan have been investigated with the following conclusions. The Standard Management Practices (SMP) Physical Feasibility Matrix Table 7.2 located on page 7-6 of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (NYSSMDM) has been used as guidance for the selection of the stormwater management practice. Ponds and wetlands were investigated and were rejected for the following reasons: (1) the drainage areas of the site, 1 acre and 5 acres, are much smaller than the required drainage areas for these practices; and (2) the required 6 to 8 foot head could not be provided. The pocket pond and pocket wetland were also considered and were rejected. Ponds and wetlands are not suggested to be included in jurisdictional waters including wetlands. This limits the available area and location on the property to place a pocket pond or pocket wetland to a small area in the southeast corner of the property. This location is limited by woodlots and available elevation head which make these practices impracticable. The Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey did show promise for the design of infiltration practices in the Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) Type “B” soils mapped as present on site. Further investigation of subsoil conditions by Foundation Design, P.C. revealed variable areas of fill ranging in depth from zero to 23 feet below the surface on this previously disturbed site. See DEIS Volume II Appendices for the Newport House Club, Newport Road Irondequoit, New York Geotechnical Evaluation, December 2007; Table No. 2, page 8 for a summary of fill depths and elevations. The required elements for infiltration in Section 6.3.1 (NYSSMDM) require that infiltration practices cannot be located in fill soils that are present on this site. Section 6.3.1 also states that the bottom of the infiltration must be separated by at least three feet vertically from the seasonally high water table. Locations for infiltration would be designed down slope from development where there would not be the separation to meet this required element. An open depression is proposed along the northern perimeter of buildings 101 and 102. This area will be utilized for a rain garden installation practice, by limiting the contributing drainage area to 1,000 square feet or less. Therefore the most acceptable practice available for water quality treatment for this project was determined to be filtering. 27.04 Comment The DEIS states that decompaction will be done for green areas. Staff supports this as a means to improve infiltration particularly in and around areas which have been compacted for parking or boat storage areas. Additional details,
101
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
however, need to be provided to describe when, how, and exactly where this will be done. (p 3, 5¶) Response The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding decompaction. The two-phase application of (1) deep ripping and (2) decompaction (deep sub-soiling), is most practical on flat, gentle and moderate slopes. These practices will be applied to the areas of existing broken pavement and around the new clubhouse on land that was previously compacted by the existing structure. Both deep ripping and decompaction will be completed only when the soil material is moderately dry to moderately moist. Phase I, deep ripping, will be scheduled to follow the removal of the existing asphalt parking and structure, cut and fill for the condominium and townhome pads and the Nautica but prior to utility installation. Topsoil will be applied to the denuded areas following utility installation when the building pads are complete. Phase II, decompaction (deep sub-soiling), will be completed at this time. Please note that the entire site is scheduled to be final graded and permanently stabilized at one time. Future individual building construction will create smaller disturbances that will be subject to site specific erosion and sediment control including stockpile temporary stabilization, a stabilized lot entrance, inlet protection where required and silt fence perimeter protection. Areas that will not contain proposed buildings will remain undisturbed to the maximum extent possible and should retain the benefits of restored soil porosity and permeability. A” heavy duty” agricultural-grade, deep ripper will be used for the first phase: the lateral and vertical fracturing of the mass of exposed and compressed subsoil, down and through, to the bottom of impact between 20 and 24 inches below the surface prior to the replacement of the topsoil layer. (Any oversize rocks or fill material that is uplifted to the subsoil surface during the deep ripping phase will be removed.) Like the heavy-duty class implemented for the first phase, the decompaction (deep sub-soiling) of Phase II will be conducted with the heavy-duty version of the deep sub-soiler. More preferable is the angled-leg variety of deep sub-soiler. It minimizes the inversion of the subsoil and topsoil layers while laterally and vertically fracturing the upper half of the previously ripped subsoil layer and all of the topsoil layer by delivering a momentary, wave-like “lifting and shattering” action up through the soil layers as it is pulled. Decompaction of the soils on the site will provide surface water infiltration and limit overland stormwater flow toward the cove and the Bay. The implementation of these practices will be incorporated into the final site plans and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 27.05 Comment The proposed stormwater collection system method for stormwater treatment is a sand filter. Sand filters can be an effective means to address water quality 102
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
concerns; however, they require regular maintenance in order to be effective. How will maintenance of the sand filter system be accomplished? How often will it be done? Who will be responsible? Who will pay for it? The responsibility and operation/maintenance for this system should be specifically described. (pg 3, 6¶) Response The sand filter practice was chosen because it is not dependent on infiltration into the onsite soils and the water table is fairly shallow. Regular maintenance will be provided to ensure effective operation of the filters. Appendix III of the SWPPP, in the Draft DEIS, was taken from the current version of the Design Manual and describes the timing of maintenance inspections. Specific maintenance operations described below will be included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan operation manual. The water level will be monitored and recorded periodically to ensure proper drainage through the sand filter. For the first year, monitoring will be quarterly and after every large storm. If the sand filter is performing as designed, monitoring will be twice yearly. If not, the maintenance section below will be applicable. Maintenance and the associated costs will be the responsibility of the Newport Marine Club Homeowners Association. Routine maintenance includes raking the filter medium and removal of surface sediment and trash. These maintenance chores will need to be accomplished by manual labor rather than mechanical means. Sand filters are designated as confined spaces and require compliance with confined space entry safety procedures. Accumulated trash and large debris should be removed every 7 to 14 days. The top layer will be raked to break up surface clogging four (4) times per year. The top 3 to 4 inches of the filter medium should be replaced on an annual basis or more frequently if draw down does not occur within 36 hours of a storm event. The removed media can usually be disposed in a landfill. The concrete structure will be inspected for cracking and spalling annually in the spring. As outlined in Section 196-27C1 of the Town Code, the Town, as an MS4, will require a maintenance agreement be in place between the facility owner and the Town of Irondequoit, and recorded in the office of the Monroe County Clerk as a deed restriction on the property. The Agreement will include: 1. All maintenance easements required to access and inspect the stormwater management practices. 2. Procedures and scheduling to be followed to perform routine maintenance as necessary to ensure proper functioning of the stormwater management practice. 3. Identification of the parties responsible for the proper maintenance of al stormwater treatment practices. 4. Plans for periodic inspections by the owners, or their designated agent, to ensure proper performance of the facilities. 27.06 Comment The project proposes incorporating some of the parking for the condominiums underneath the 4 large buildings. It is unclear how drainage systems for this 103
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
parking will be collected and treated prior to discharging to Irondequoit Bay. (p 4, 2¶) Response Floor drains in the parking areas underneath the condominiums will be connected to the sanitary sewer system. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 27.07 Comment The DEIS document does not sufficiently address the recommendations from or compliance with the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan as it relates to stormwater runoff concerns. For example, the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan says (II.C.2.2) “…. Implementation of stormwater runoff management measures (mitigation of impervious surfaces), both for new development and as retrofits to already developed areas, is a priority”. (p 4, 3¶) Response Limiting and mitigating pollutant loads conveyed by stormwater runoff into Irondequoit Bay is/has been a priority in design considerations for the Newport Marine Club project. The project conforms to the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan, reducing the volume of the stormwater runoff discharging into the Bay through a reduction in impervious area. Stormwater quality is also provided through the utilization of sand filters to treat the stormwater before it enters the watershed. Stormwater quantity reduction and quality enhancements will improve stormwater discharge to the Bay. The Harbor Management Plan calls for submission of Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plans for new development, and compliance with SPDES General Permit No. GP-93-06, in an effort to minimize erosion and sediment transport into the Bay, mitigate the effects of increased stormwater pollutant loads, and prevent discharge of pollutants from storage and maintenance facilities. HMP at 88. The engineering plans for the Project comply with these requirements. Best management practices have been adopted to prevent pollution from storage and maintenance facilities. 27.08 Comment The DEIS describes modification to the existing off-site Newport Road stormwater discharge outflow as part of this project. Department staff is supportive of upgrading this storm drain outfall, but continue to be concerned about the design. The proposal of placing rocks in a plunge pool terminating well upgradient of the edge of Newport Cove will likely cause erosion at the pool, allow sheet flow to the cove, and have the potential for significant erosion over time. (p 4, 4¶) Response Addition of turf reinforcement matting below the plunge pool is proposed to filter sheet flow below the plunge pool. In addition to erosion control, matting will provide some additional water quality improvements because the turf reinforcement mat promotes vegetative growth that helps to reduce runoff velocities, thereby allowing the sediment and 104
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
attached pollutants to settle from the slower moving water. The pollutants would then be exposed to sunlight and biologic processes that naturally occur in the soil and vegetation interstitial zone. The project sponsor is completing these improvements on a portion of the system that is owned, operated and maintained by the Town. 27.09 Comment The project sponsor’s consultants have identified two woodlot areas on the project site. Department staff recommends that these woodlots be maintained intact without any physical disturbance or “maintenance” activities commonly proposed to address esthetic concerns at “high quality” residential developments. Buildings should be located far enough from these areas or sufficiently buffered from landscaped areas such that trees will not be deemed a safety hazard and require removal or trimming. (pg 4, 5¶) Response Specifics for individual trees will be addressed in the site plan review process. Ultimately, buildings will be sited to minimize disturbance or the loss of significant trees. 27.10 Comment The area identified as “Existing 225’ x 50’ Shaping and Planting Buffer Zone” was established as a mitigation area by the previous owner. This area has never achieved the ultimate wetland/wildlife buffer zone benefits envisioned when proposed. Some upgrading and replanting of this area may be required by the Department. As noted above, it will be required that this area be left in a completely natural state without “maintenance” or disturbance. (pg 4, 6¶) Response The developer is willing to address this issue and upgrade this buffer consistent with the project plan as may be required by NYSDEC. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 27.11 Comment In addition to woody vegetation preservation, the site plan should preserve nonlandscaped shrub vegetation wherever possible to serve as both wildlife habitat and provide water quality benefits by reducing sheet flows from the project site. Also, the project is expected to take several years to complete. Temporary seeding and mulching should be incorporated into appropriate phases in order to handle wet rainy periods and prevent compromises to water quality. (pg 4, 7¶) Response Comments noted and these requirements will be incorporated appropriately. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan included in Appendix C of the DEIS describes the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be incorporated during the construction of the project. Temporary seeding is a practice that has been designated as a major activity of the plan.
105
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
27.12 Comment Irondequoit Bay is Class B water and a Class 1 Freshwater Wetland. An Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands permit is required for this project. As part of the review, our agency expected that the DEIS would show how this project meets permit issuance standards. This was not done. The project sponsor will be required to clearly demonstrate compliance with 6NYCRR Part 663 requirements for activities that will be conducted upon freshwater wetlands or adjacent areas. (pg 5, 1¶) Response An Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit Application will be submitted to NYSDEC and will include a complete description on how the project meets NYSDEC permit issuance standards. The project sponsor will be required to obtain an ECL Article 24 Freshwater Wetland permit before proceeding with any site work and will comply with all permit conditions. 27.13 Comment The outfalls for the sand filter discharges and Newport Road stormwater discharge system may require fill below the mean high water level of Irondequoit Bay. If this is the case an Article 15 Protection of Waters Permit will be required. (pg 5, 2¶) Response No new outfalls from the proposed storm sewer system are proposed. The design will incorporate the existing weep holes and discharge outlets located in the break wall. Stormwater collected in the new storm sewer system will be conveyed to the proposed French drain trenches and then to the existing stone trenches adjacent to the break wall. Therefore, no Article 15 Protection of Waters Permit will be necessary. 27.14 Comment A more thorough alternatives analysis needs to be done. Some of these alternatives will have significantly less impact on natural resources, however, they lacking significant detail compared to the preferred alternative. Any further exploration of these alternatives should address the previously mentioned concerns about stormwater and wetlands buffer habitat preservation. For example, in Alternative C, the orientation of Building 101 addresses many of the previous concerns about the woodlot, steep slope, and existing buffer planting area adjacent to the cove. Alternative D features townhomes which provides less density. These factors in part address concerns previously expresses as it relates to proximity of development to the Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area. (pg 5, 3¶) Response Alternatives and their representative impacts to the stormwater and wetlands buffer habitat preservation are more fully discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. In this section, impacts to natural features such as soils, stormwater and wetland buffer habitat preservation (wetlands, Irondequoit Bay, vegetation and wildlife) are evaluated for five alternatives. Alternative C does minimize many of the concerns that were previously expressed.
106
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
27.15 Comment It has come to our attention that demolition of existing Newport House restaurant may have begun. Part 617.3 of SEQR says, “A project sponsor may not commence any physical alteration related to an action until the provisions of SEQR have been complied with”. SEQR has not been completed; therefore, please be aware that no demolition work or further alteration of the project site should be allowed until the SEQR process is completed. (pg 5, 4¶) Response This is not accurate. No demolition has occurred of the existing Newport House restaurant structure. There has been ongoing maintenance and minor alterations to the building to maintain the building structure and to secure the facility from vandals. The building provides restroom facilities for the marina facility, and will remain in its present condition until the SEQR process has been completed. 27.16 Comment Staff has expressed concerns about the “debris-laden soils” referred to in the DEIS and potential for having historical contamination from the marina operations. It is unclear from the description in the reports if this has been adequately evaluated. (pg 5, 6¶) Response The Applicant retained Day Environmental consultants in early 2007 to perform environmental site assessments at the project site. As part of the study, 35 soil borings and 9 monitoring wells were installed and assessed. Samples were taken and laboratory analysis was conducted. The environmental report concluded that there were no significant environmental impacts found. The results of the study are contained in a report entitled Phase II, Environmental Site Assessment for 500 Newport Road, dated May 2007, by Day Environmental for RSM Development, LLC. (A copy of the report is included as Appendix A6) 27.17 Comment The document contradicts itself as it relates to marina operation, particularly boat painting activities. Page 3-13 says, “Boat painting areas will be located away from the water’s edge and designed to prevent runoff”. Will there be boat painting activities on site or not? Our preference is that no boat painting or major boat maintenance be done at this site. However, if proposed or allowed, a NYS SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities Permit (GP-0-06-002) may be required. (pg 5, 6¶) Response The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding boat maintenance activities at the project site. To the extent there is minor boat touch up painting or maintenance and permits are required, the Applicant will obtain and comply with any required NYSDEC permits. No significant changes in current marina operations are planned. The Marina will provide launching, haul-out, dockage, fueling, wastewater pump out, and minor painting and servicing of boats of the Newport Marine Club residents and non-residents (slip owners and transient boaters). The general boating public may be able to obtain 107
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
temporary dockage and minor services for a fee. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 27.18 Comment Also wash water is a consideration. Pressure washing and boat wash water is not permitted without the above mentioned Multi-Sector Permit. Any wash water would need to be directed to a holding tank or tied in to the sanitary system. (pg 6, 2¶) Response To the extent there is pressure washing and permits are required, the Applicant will obtain and comply with any required NYSDEC permits. No significant changes in current marina operations are planned. The Marina does provide boat washing services. The wash water from these operations is currently and will be directed to the sanitary sewer. The existing NYSDEC permit for the construction of the docks at the site, permit number 80-86-0078 general condition 13, states that “All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of the wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels, solvents, lubricants, epoxy coatings, redi-mix concrete, lechate or any other environmentally contaminating materials associated with the project”. The Applicant has and will continue to abide by the conditions of the permit. 27.19 Comment Although not a significant concern with regard to direct authority of the Department, staff noted there was no mention of venting or provisions for exhaust fans in the below-grade garages. This could be a health concern to residents if not appropriately considered. (pg 6, 3¶) Response This issue will be well documented in the Buildings Construction Set. Bausch & Lomb has just completed a project that has a similar parking situation. In that case, the concern was addressed by a direct vent system consisting of a vent, fan, and carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide sensors. A similar configuration would be used for this project. __________________________________________________________ Laura Fischer, 73 Mooring Line Drive 28.01 Comment Thank you for including this in the file. With 14 homes in the Bay Tree Homeowners Association, not all have signed Ralph Pascale’s letter. I know at least 4 homes that are not represented by this correspondence. We are concerned about the road and believe the Town of Irondequoit has the incentive to protect everyone’s interest. (pg 2, 1¶)
108
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The Town plans to address their road, as set forth in response to comments 3.02, 3.03, 7.01 and 19.01. __________________________________________________________ Irv Spalding at 6 Bay Knoll Road PH 1.01 Comment So what we would – what I think is going to be best for this area is your item number B or number 2. I believe on the schedule that you had and that is to have the marina plus a beautiful upscale restaurant, something like the Virtu Restaurant that’s up on Exchange Boulevard, part of Corn Hill Development. (pg 15, L 4) Response This is an opinion of the commenter. No response is necessary. PH 1.02 Comment Now, as far as having a high density unit down here at Newport, think of the additional traffic that would be here. You already have your tenants going to and from work every day. Your boaters for 92 contract boating slips would be going back and forth. You would have all your emergency vehicles, your fire, ambulance, gas tank trucks in the summer for filling the marina, rescue vehicles, mail, UPS deliveries, snowplows, boats and trailers, newspaper deliveries and last but not least school buses loaded with children going down that bank , going down that steep road winter and summer.(pg 16, L 9) Response The proposed Newport Marine Club will increase traffic along Newport Road but it will not reduce the level of service at the East Ridge Road, Bay Knoll Road, Bay Crest Drive or Mooring Line Drive intersections. The existing roadway has excess capacity in order to accommodate the proposed development. Refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis included in Volume II, Appendix D of the DEIS, for additional information. PH 1.03 Comment Now, I can just envision a school bus coming up or going down and having some vehicle there sliding into it or going over the bank. (pg 17, L 3) Response The Town plans to address their road, as set forth in response to comments 7.01 and 19.01. School buses will pick up any students at the gate, like is done at Mooring Line Drive. The project sponsor is committed to constructing a vehicle turnaround for buses, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, public works and other vehicles at the entrance to the Newport Marine Club. The turnaround has been shown on the site plans for the project included in Exhibit 1 of the DEIS.
109
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PH 1.04 Comment Now, one other thing too is there was a picture of an aerial view of the Newport Marina and area and it showed ninety boats being stored there. Eighty of those spaces will be taken up by the proposed new building and ten of the boats are not even on the property. So what’s going to happen when you have a hundred and eighty seven boats down there? Where are they going to be stored winter and summer? (pg 17, L 14) Response Boats will be stored off-site in the winter, during the summer the boats will be docked. There will be some temporary boat parking and storage for maintenance, transference or other related reasons which will be transitory and brief (3 days or less). Onsite parking demand will be monitored closely by the Newport Marine Club to be assured that there is sufficient onsite parking for residents, slip owners and guests. If temporary boat parking infringes upon the vehicle parking demand, then the boats will be relocated. Residents with small watercraft may opt to launch and pull out their watercraft on a daily basis. This will be allowed as long as the watercraft is not stored in a common area surface parking space. The boat launch ramp will remain as part of the marina and dockage facility. The use of the facility will be by the residents, slip owners and transient boaters (public seeking safe refuge, transient berthings, or minor maintenance) of the Newport Marine Club. The marina will allow access from the water by members of the general boating public for fueling, servicing and temporary dockage. Daily inseason use of the boat launch facility will be available. There may be emergency measures taken to assist visiting boaters, in which the launch may be utilized. Landside private access will be available to residents, slip-owners and their guests through the use of a pass card system. The Newport area is private property. Unfettered access by the general public is not allowed today, nor will it under this development. Refer to the response to comments 4.03 and PH 5.15 for more discussion on access. PH 1.05 Comment Now, that’s going to make it very difficult as far as having practical use of the park, the co-called Newport Park – that would be the so-called Forever Wild Newport Park, which is over the landfill that was there some time ago. (pg17, L17) Response The use of the Town property, immediately west of the proposed project site, has been discussed in previous studies including the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Pan (HWP) at 95, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) at I-36, III-28, V-7, V-9,V-28 and the 110
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Town Master Plan at 96 and 99. All of these plans suggested that the landfill property be utilized as a public recreation area. PH 1.06 Comment Now, should there be a plan to benefit the people rather than just one person I think would be absolutely advisable and would be an asset to the Town and something that could be approved by the people and by the builders and the construction people that are building in the vicinity. (pg 18, L 17) Response The project will not benefit just one person. The Newport Marine Club will provide 56 upscale waterfront residences to people who desire access to Irondequoit Bay for boating, water sports, and other recreational activities. The Marina will offer 93 boat slips for rent to the general public. The housing and recreational opportunities provided for will benefit more than just one person. While a fiscal impact analysis may be included in an EIS, regulations clearly do not require the evaluation of fiscal impacts as part of the review of environmental impacts. The economic information provided is included to respond to comments and to show the regional impact of the project. The Applicant has stated that the development of the property will provide economic stimulus to region. Jobs will be provided during the construction of the project. Site and building construction will employ a variety of trades including carpenters, masons, electricians, plumbers, equipment operators, laborers, roofer, etc. Regional business trade will increase through the purchase of construction materials, along with commercial and retail establishments that will be visited by the construction workers and the new residents. All of this commercial trade will generate sales tax revenues. The property itself will undergo reassessment and additional Town, County and school taxes will be collected on the property. The impacts of the project will improve the local economy. The project will provide environmental benefits to the area by decreasing the amount of impermeable surfaces, decompaction of the existing soils, providing improved stormwater quality through filtering, while retaining the sensitive slopes, woodlots, and wetlands. The environmental benefits of the project will promote and provide improved water quality to Irondequoit Bay and to everyone who utilizes this resource. __________________________________________________________ John Kaufman, 249 Hoffman Road PH 2.01 Comment The DEIS repeatedly asserts that the project is in compliance with EPOD, Waterfront Development Zoning, LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan.
111
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
ILUC disputes these assertions in the areas of public access, building density, loss of visual resources and proximity of the multi-storage building to the water’s edge. (pg 20, L 12) Response The project is consistent with EPOD requirements, Waterfront Development Zoning, LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan, as detailed in response to comments 4.02 and 17.02. The project does not contain a multi-storage building. The comment may have been mis-documented and the commenter may have meant multistory buildings. There will be some visual impacts if the project is developed. This discussion is included in the response to comment 4.07. Setbacks to the water’s edge are discussed in the response to comment 12.05. PH 2.02 Comment In several cases the mitigation section is incomplete, missing and/or nonresponsive to the problems. (pg 20, L 20) Response The Draft Environmental Impact statement for the Newport Marine Club was reviewed and deemed complete by the Irondequoit Planning Board on February 10, 2009. The mitigation section, Section 4.0 – “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation” was part of the complete DEIS. “Incompleteness, missing, and/or nonresponsive to problems” is too vague to respond to further. Specific comments are necessary so that a response could be prepared. PH 2.03 Comment The accessory uses section states that the Nautica will be available for rental by members for private parties open to outside guests. ILUC believes that more details need to be provided concerning the guest capacity of the Nautica, the times at which parties can be booked and what parking arrangements will be made is significant numbers of outside guests do come in to the private parties. (pg 21, L 7) Response The Nautica will be open to the residential homeowners, boaters and their guests only. The sponsor of the condominium project (to which the Nautica is an accessory use) has the right to impose rules of operation by way of By-Laws, in order to limit the use of the Nautica to those two groups as well as to impose rules and regulations concerning hours of operation, guest policies, reservations for use of the room and so on. In response to comment 17.07, a sample of proposed rules is provided. Also refer to the response to comment 12.10 The Nautica will have a potential capacity of approximately 76 occupants. If the Nautica was reserved by one resident, the premise would be that there would be 75 guests. Assuming vehicle occupancy of 112
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
two guests per vehicle, this would equate to a parking space demand of approximately 38 spaces. The available common area parking spaces total 68 spaces, therefore the project provides sufficient parking to allow for guest parking of the Nautica was utilized almost entirely by guests. The common area parking also services the non-resident slip owners. Therefore the times in which private parties may be booked and the number of non-resident guests at the party must be correlated to account for the non-resident slip owners. For instance, if there are 20 vacant parking spaces during a weekday, and a member wishes to have a gathering with ten other guests, then the HOA may allow the event to take place at the Nautica. Private parties may be limited during peak boating periods such as summer holiday weekends of Memorial Day, July 4th and Labor Day. While off-season use for private parties between October 1 and April 1 may not have as many restrictions. The determination of the restrictions relative to private parties at the Nautica will be made by the Homeowners Association. There will be no specific segregation of guest parking or non-resident slip owner parking at the site, other than that for handicap accessibility. Resident condominium and townhome owners will be required to utilize the available garage parking and driveway parking spaces associated with their homes. Placing a restriction on the number of guests that a resident may have at their home based on the number of parking spaces at the development is a rule that is somewhat extreme and places an undue hardship on the residents of the Newport Marine Club. The residents should have the ability to invite guests to their homes without restrictions, just like any other multi-family or single family homeowner. The Newport Marine Club Home Owner’s Association will impose rules and regulations concerning the use of the Nautica and will monitor the parking demands of the development to be assured that there is adequate parking available on site. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. PH 2.04 Comment With regard to the marina operation we suggest that the Planning Board set conditions such that any slip that is originally assigned to the residents – the one point five slips that Mr. Goldman referred to - cannot be turned into public slips so that an additional parking problem is created by these slips going public. (pg 21, L 16) Response The boat slips assigned to the residents of the Newport Marine Club will not be able to be reallocated in the future. The residents of the Newport Marine Club will not be able to transfer or sublet their boat slip to nonresident boaters. This will be enforced though the Homeowner’s Association and will limit the available slips for non-resident boaters to 103 slips, 10 of which are reserved for visitors. The Planning Board has reviewed the parking space calculations and has determined that parking has been adequately addressed. See Section 3.3 of the FEIS. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. 113
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PH 2.05 Comment Those are our main concerns with this. I was intrigued by the references to the - I think it was the C alternative. I would like to see more detail around that. That seems like there’s potential for some improvements there. Thank you. (pg 21, L 23) Response Alternative C (Modified Plan) is further described in the response to comment PB 6.01. __________________________________________________________ Patty Brody. 277 Bay Front Lane North PH 3.01 Comment The book can’t hold enough information to consider the amount of impact that a development of this density, this saturation, is going to have on every single person who lives and uses that Bay in the Town of Irondequoit, Penfield and in Webster. It is huge, and it is setting a precedent which you need to consider in your impact statement. Because what’s going to happen is if this kind of development is allowed, it will set a precedent for what will happen in the future. (pg 22, L 22) Response Refer to the response to comment 4.05 for a discussion on the proposed project density. PH 3.02 Comment The one next door to where I live, Point Pleasant Circle I think - - Point Pleasant Estates it’s called, is a very well done community. I don’t want to live next door to condominiums. I have a private home. I have an individual home. But if it had to be built, boy, that would be an example for you to follow. It is not a dense development. It is a well thought out spacious area. It’s spread out along the acreage. It’s not piled into a corner. (pg 24, L 3) Response It is believed that the commenter is referring to the Bay Point development. A description of this community, its density and a comparison to the proposed project are included in the response to comment PB 7.07, Table 4 and Figure 1.
114
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
______________________________________________________ Thomas Wolf. 1096 Glen Edyth Drive, Webster PH 4.01 Comment I’ve said this before and I’ll quickly reiterate it. The buildings proposed are massive and they’re offensive to the residential character of the Bay. (pg 26, L 21) Response Opinions of scale are subjective. To describe this project as massive, as seen from across the total width of Irondequoit Bay, is one point of view. PH 4.02 Comment There are only three paragraphs in that section. There’s only one it looks rather hastily drawn layout of where those townhomes would be on the parcel. There are no visuals. There’s no similar kind of structure provided and it appears that that alternative is dismissed with little justification and no facts. With regard to the document, I was disappointed in Section 6.4 Alternative D which is the Townhouse style proposal. I believe that the alternative could offer the best solution to the scenic impact that the current proposal has on the residential character of the Bay where people live. (pg 26, L 25) Response Alternative D (Townhomes) is discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. PH 4.03 Comment So my request to the Board is that you ask the developer to further develop that alternative so that it can be presented as a true alternative for your consideration. It should at least give the same amount of detail and presentation as you see in alternative C. (pg 27, L 15) Response The response to comment PB 6.01 discusses all the suggested alternatives in detail. __________________________________________________________ Christopher J. Enos, Bay Tree Homeowners Association PH 5.01 Comment Well, we see some statements – I respectfully submit gratuitous statements – about what taxes are going to be there for people and all that good stuff and I respectfully submit that’s really not a proper part of the DEIS. (pg 34, L 2) Response The SEQRA regulations state, at 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §617.1(c), “The basic purpose of SEQR is to incorporate the consideration of environmental 115
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
factors into the existing planning, review and decision making processes of state, regional and local government agencies at the earliest possible time.” While a fiscal impact analysis may be included in an EIS, regulations clearly do not require the evaluation of fiscal impacts as part of the review of environmental impacts. The economic information provided is included to respond to comments and to show the regional impact of the project. Economics is also provided in some cases to provide information relative to the viability of the project or other alternatives. PH 5.02 Comment Zoning ordinarily is not a part of a SEQR analysis. You don’t really look at zoning per se. Ordinarily, zoning requirements are something that is for a later time when you talk about site plans and setbacks and things of that nature. In this case, I guess they are because the zoning in question a large part deals with the environment and there’s some case law to support that as well. (pg 34, L 20) Response The context of the speaker’s comment is not particularly clear. Assuming the speaker is referring to compliance with zoning restrictions (site plan, setbacks, etc to use the speaker’s example) the speaker is correct in that SEQRA analysis examines compliance with setbacks and other zoning requirements to a lesser extent than it does the physical impact a project will have on the land and potential environmental impacts. In this case especially, where the proposed uses are (specially) permitted uses and do not require zoning variances, SEQRA analysis is focused upon the physical and environmental impacts of the project. Nonetheless, compliance with zoning requirements is discussed in the DEIS. PH 5.03 Comment I respectfully submit that as we have shown before some of the conclusory statements particularly with regard to parking, one and a half boat slips per unit, and some of these things really are rather conclusory and are really not supported by any real evidence. (pg 35, L 5) Response The analysis of parking space requirements and boat slip allocation is found on specific reference materials. Parking space requirements have been analyzed in Section 2.3.2 – Parking, of the DEIS. The project provides a number of parking spaces which exceeds the required number of spaces by code. (Additional discussions are included in Section 3 – Correction to the Draft Environmental impact Statement in paragraph 3.3). The number of boat slips to be allocated to the residences of the project has been set at 1.5 slips per unit and is collaborated with the studies along Honeoye Lake and Canandaigua Lake. The evidence that supports the parking requirement is included in Town Code §23534.A(2)(b)(2), and §235-34.A(2)(a) while the boat slip allocation is consistent with the Honeoye Lake Watershed Task Force 2005 and the Canandaigua Lake Peak Boat Usage Inventory and Carrying Capacity Analysis (3rd Draft Overlay 2008).
116
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PH 5.04 Comment There is, again, evidence with regard to Canandaigua Lake where this Applicant also had a similar application, but there’s no real hard evidence to support why on Irondequoit’s Bay where we have a Harbor Management Law that’s been adopted that calls for a different standard in terms of boat slips than Canandaigua Lake why in the world we would adopt alone and a half boat slips per unit. Response The assignment of one and one half boat slips per residential unit is approximate. This allocation is based upon the estimated demands of the residents of the Newport Marine Club who may wish to reserve dockage for their use. The propensity of boat owners with larger and larger boats requires that slips be provided that may take up more than one or even two or more standard size boat slips. This along with residents multiple water craft, justifies the allocation of 1.5 slips per unit. Additional discussion on the allocation of boat slips is provided in the response to comments 26.12; PH 5.19 and PB 5.01. PH 5.05 Comment Again, I propose that we can submit some law in this regard with regard to whether or not a bunch of docks some of which are now identified in a recently adopted law as being located in an improper location are proper to remain there particularly whereas here we’re not just having a continuation of that, but we’re expanding the overall use of the parcel. (pg 36, L 14) Response The docks are located in a permitted location. Under the Harbor Management Plan, boat storage is discouraged, but dock, slip and mooring development in resource protection areas can be permitted. HMP, page xiv. “If permitted, dock, slip and mooring development in resource protection areas would be limited based upon the proximity to significant habitat areas and their potential impact on environmental features”. HMP, page XIV. The Newport Marina is such an area. The overall use of the public marina will be limited in that the Newport residences will occupy approximately 84 of the 187 docks presently available to the public for rent. Therefore, the intensity of the use open to the public will diminished. The overall marina traffic intensity will decrease from the restaurant/marina to the residential/marina uses. PH 5.06 Comment Again, one of the conclusory statement that I saw in there that intrigued me a lot as well, well, you know that little cove is real sensitive and the bay plan says we shouldn’t put docks there, but you know what, our docks there protect that cove, and it was kind of interesting. There is no evidence to show that someone is going to drive a cigar boat or something into that cove if they take the docks out. It was a conclusory statement. (pg 37, L6). Response Boat traffic into Newport Cove is restricted by the existing docks.
117
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Harbor Management Plan recommends continuing all existing and fully approved docks. HWP at 71, the existing docks have been permitted and approved by both the Town and the NYSDEC. Therefore, the existing docks and slips are in conformance with the HMP. The docks and slips are further discussed in response to comment PB 6.06. PH 5.07 Comment Again, I would agree with the previous speaker Mr. Wolf that this Board asked for alternatives to be explored not so they could dismiss them out of hand, but so they could be explored. (pg 38, L 3) Response Alternatives are discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. PH 5.08 Comment But eventually though, I did find the one page with regard to Alternative D. I don’t know how long it took to draw it up, but respectfully I submit to this Board that it is not something that can be dismissed out of hand. The Applicant’s own statement says, well, it’s not as viable. I believe fifty six units or something. It would not be as viable as some of the others. Why not? Why isn’t it viable? Where do you get that from? (pg 38, L12) Response While a fiscal impact analysis may be included in an EIS, regulations clearly do not require the evaluation of fiscal impacts as part of the review of environmental impacts. The economic information provided is included to respond to comments and to show the regional impact of the project. Economics is also provided in some cases to provide information relative to the viability of the project or other alternatives. The Applicant has stated that, the development of the property must take into account the number of units and the cost of development. The costs associated with land development, building and infrastructure are typically spread across all of the proposed units. If the number of dwellings is decreased the development cost per unit would increase. The proposed project proposed 56 units while Alternative D – Townhomes proposed 45 units. This equals to approximately a 20% decrease in the number of units. Alternative D is also eliminates the condominium style residential unit, which is a market that RSM Irondequoit Bay Development is seriously pursuing. There are many people who are looking for a condominium style residence, located on a single level, which are compact, upscale and have the recreational opportunities available at the Newport Marine Club. Construction cost for the townhouse style units would also be much higher per unit that that of the condominium style. Therefore, 118
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative D – Townhomes is less viable due to the fewer number of units, the style of the units and the construction cost per unit. Additional discussions including Alternative D have been supplemented in the response to comments PB 2.01 and PB 6.01. PH 5.09 Comment You have basically a bird’s eye view from a satellite of a bunch of little boxes on the parcel, but it didn’t say anything about really what this Board is looking for on alternative D and I respectfully submit that should be further explored. (pg 38, L 23) Response Alternative D (Townhomes) is discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01 PH 5.10 Comment We ask that you seek an appropriate dwelling density given the lot size and environmental constraints and building heights to minimize the visual impacts on the surrounding parcels and the community views from Newport Road. (pg 40, L 7) Response Refer to the response to comments 4.02 and 4.05 for a discussion on the proposed project density. PH 5.11 Comment We ask that there be an allocation of the private and public boat slips based upon the goals and standards prescribed in the harbor and resource protection zones for the official water surface zoning map in the 2008 Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Law. (pg 40, L 12) Response The Project is consistent with the Harbor Management Law, which sets the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, in excess of the current Marina capacity of 187. HML §III.B(3)(d)(ii). The Law does not require an allocation between private and public boat slips. The Harbor Management Law (HML) sets the dock capacity of multi-family residential sites in “Near Shore Areas” under §IIIB (2)(a)(iii) on page 20. This standard is not relevant to the proposed project. The Newport Marine Club is not within a “Near Shore Area” but, in a “Designated Harbor Area” in which the HML sets the regulated docking capacity to 217 boats. HML §III.B(3)(d)(ii). Further, preexisting permitted docks are grandfathered, and it would be unconstitutional to require their removal. See Smith v. Board of Appeals of Town of Islip, 202 A.D.2d 674, 609 N.Y.S.2d 912 (2nd Dept.1994); Town of Islip v. Modica Associates of NY 122, LLC, 45 A.D.3d 574, 846 N.Y.S.2d 201 (2nd Dept. 2007).
119
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PH 5.12 Comment We ask that there be an assignment of an adequate number of parking spaces based upon the Harbor Management Law to service them. (pg 40, L 17) Response The Harbor Management Plan does not require 0.8 parking spaces per dock slip. Rather, the Plan recognizes the Town of Irondequoit Zoning Law only requires 0.6 parking spaces per slip, see Town Code §23534.A(2)(a), consistent with the reference of the Harbor Management Plan, (HMP, page 53). Harbor Management Law § III .B (3) merely references 0.8 spaces per berth as one of three criteria that is used to designate harbor areas. The HMP also recommends 30 car-trailer spaces and 10 single spaces per launch ramp. These requirements are likely intended for large public marinas open to the general public for launching and retrieving boats, such as a public launch. This project and the associated launch ramp are intended primarily for the use of slipowners and residents. Parking for slip-owners and residents has been provided into the proposed plans. The HMP is not a legal requirement and there has been no amendment to the zoning law in this regard. PH 5.13 Comment We ask that building location and their bulk and heights be made so that as to remove structures from the EPOD areas and to minimize their visual impacts on the sensitive natural sight features and resources. (pg 40, L 20) Response The proposed buildings will be constructed in previously disturbed areas of the site. There is no requirement to remove buildings from EPOD areas. The project has taken sensitive environmental areas into account and has minimized intrusion in woodlots, steep slopes, wetlands and floodplains. The Applicant will seek to obtain EPOD permits for all construction within the EPOS areas. Mere visibility of a project proposal is not the threshold for decision making. Instead, in order to be objectionable, a project must clearly interfere or reduce the public’s enjoyment or appreciation of an inventoried resource. The public will be able to enjoy the views from Newport Road to the Bay, which is the only relevant critical scenic view mentioned in the HMP (at 45-46). Some viewing angles will be restricted while others will be enhanced by the removal of the Newport House restaurant (see Exhibit 1). There is no designated significant State or National aesthetic resources at the site. The Newport Marine Club will change the waterfront vista through the removal of a boat storage yard and its replacement with an upscale waterfront residential development, and some may consider this an enhancement to the property. PH 5.14 Comment We ask for a removal or reduction in the number and size of the current docks that are encroaching into the Newport Cove mislabeled Irondequoit Bay on some of the maps and the RP portion of that zone to provide enhanced protection to the cove. I think it’s actually the south cove. (pg 40, L 25)
120
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The reduction and or removal of the docks that are adjacent to Newport Cove and the resource protection area have not been considered because the docks have been permitted by the NYSDEC, they have been determined not to pose a significant environmental hazard and they comply with the recommendations of the HMP. In issuing a Wetlands Permit for the installation of the floating docks, NYSDEC determined that their use and location did not pose a significant environmental impact. The HMP recommends that 217 berths be provided in the Central Harbor while the marina provides for 187, therefore a reduction in the number of berths would be opposed to the goals of the HMP. HMP at 61. For these reasons along with the goal to provide public access to the Bay, the reduction and removal of the docks have not been considered. See response to comments 26.19; PH 5.11; PB 2.06 and PB 6.06. PH 5.15 Comment We ask that you have increased and enhanced public pedestrian access to the water’s edge, the protection of views of the Bay, the water’s edge and the Route 104 Bridge for Newport Road and the adjoining Town property and other lands. (pg 41, L 7) Response The Newport area is private property. Unfettered access by the general public is not allowed today, nor will it under this development. Pedestrian access to the water’s edge across the Newport Marine Club private property will be available for residents, slip owners and guests. The general boating public may utilize the marina services for fueling, etc. The property is to be developed as a privately gated residential community. Pedestrian access to the property will be provided as discussed in Section 2.4.2.3 of the DEIS and also in response to comments 4.03 and 12.01. PH 5.16 Comment We ask that you have some form of public access to the water’s edge so the public can continue to enjoy the Bay views that are historically important to the community and to define and enhance its character. (pg 41, L 12) Response Controlled public access to the water’s edge is available on this privately owned property by residents of the Newport Marine Club or by marina members and their guests. The request for unlimited, unfettered public access on or through this private property is discussed in response to comments 4.03; 9.01; and 12.01. PH 5.17 Comment Again, of the remaining alternatives, one is basically they take the building which is the Nautica Building and they say, “Well, this is an accessory building and therefore we don’t really have to count it”. (pg 41, L 17) Response Please see response to comments 17.07 and 26.09. As noted above, the Nautica is an accessory use (as defined by Town Code §235-4.B) to the 121
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
two Principal Uses use of the property. The Nautica provides limited services for homeowners, boaters and their guests only and does not cater to the general public. As services are limited to owners and/or users of the property and can only be considered an amenity for the Principal Uses, the Nautica can only be considered an accessory use. PH 5.18 Comment Because if they had to count that as a twenty-five hundred square foot building with part potential and restaurant use and all that, that would have a separate allocation for parking which again would require them to reduce the remaining portion of the development. (pg 41, L 22) Response Please see response to comments 17.07 and 26.09. As noted, the Nautica is an accessory use (as defined by Town Code §235-4.B) to the two Principal Uses use of the property. The Nautica provides limited services for homeowners, boaters and their guests only and does not cater to the general public. As services are limited to owners and/or users of the property and can only be considered an amenity for the Principal Use. The Nautica can only be considered an accessory use, and a separate allocation for parking spaces is not required or warranted. PH 5.19 Comment You have to go to our law that’s otherwise on the books. Not that the Harbor Management Law isn’t our law, but the other portions of our law define multifamily residential use and there’s no specific standard of one and a half boat slips or anything like that. (pg 43, L 10) Response The Harbor Management Law sets the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, but no limit on the number of slips per dwelling unit in the Central Harbor Area. HML §III.B(3)(d)(ii). The Zoning Law sets limits on the number of docks for single-family developments, multi-family and commercial uses in the Waterfront Development District, under Town Code §23532(C)(14)(c)[11][12][13]. For multifamily, townhouse and condominium use, one dock per residential unit is allowed. The existing docks have been approved and permitted and will not be altered under the proposed Newport Marine Club development. Refer to the response to comment 26.18. Rather, the Applicant has allocated 1.5 slips per dwelling unit based upon its experience with waterfront buyers, and the data from other water bodies cited in DEIS 2.3.4. PH 5.20 Comment So when we look at that law which is recently adopted and we say, “Well, if the legislative purpose of that law is to protect the resources of the Bay and of the purpose of Environmental Protection Overlay Districts is to protect the resources of steep slopes, coastal erosion and all those concerns, what has the developer offered you in the way of evidence to show you can just ignore that and allow him to put his buildings in? (pg 43, L 20)
122
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response The Town Planning Board has reviewed the project in great detail and the project sponsor has provided substantial information regarding the development. The Planning Board determined that the project possibly could have a significant impact on the environment, and required that an environment impact statement be provided, published and comments received. This SEQRA process and the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is evidence that the project sponsor and the Town of Irondequoit have taken the environmental impacts to natural and human resources into account. When the SEQRA process is complete, the Planning Board can consider the EPOD permit application for the project. The Applicant believes that the project complies with EPOD requirements, but ultimately the Planning Board must act on the application. PH 5.21 Comment Take the Nautica and put it in Building 104 and we’ll go with that, “it still leaves four giant buildings out there unlike anything you’ve got now and it appears to be an overly intense use of the parcel given everything else that’s on the Bay, given the Environmental Protection Overlay Districts and given the Harbor Management Plan and given all the environmental concerns. Where is the justification for that? (pg 45, L 6) Response Much of this comment is an opinion of the commenter. The analysis of the EPODs and the Harbor Management Plan are included in Sections 2.5.2.4 and 2.1.2.2 of the DEIS and in the response to comments 4.02; 17.02 and 27.07. The density of the project is discussed in the response to comment 4.05. Building heights are discussed under the response to comment 3.01; 17.09 and 23.02. __________________________________________________________ David Bradia, 61 Mooring Line Drive. PH 6.01 Comment I would like to share with you an open letter that the majority of the residents on Mooring Line Drive are sending to the Supervisor. The commenter then reads into the record a letter dated March 9, 2009 and included in Appendix 1 on page A128. (pg 46, L 8) Response The referenced letter is included in Attachment A1 of the FEIS, page A128. The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development.
123
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to 124
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. __________________________________________________________ Donald Potter, 131 Valley Circle PH 7.01 Comment The first drawback for this development is the road giving access to it. It’s obviously a dangerous road and throughout all these hearings it seems that the developer has not made any reference to that issue. As I recall there’s never been anything prior about the density of the traffic and the fixtures of the road and so on. (pg 49, L 12) Response The project is not likely to have any significant impact on the road. Any upgrade of the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The Town has included $1,000,000 in the 2010 - 2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Newport Road improvements. See response to comment 7.01. PH 7.02 Comment The other aspect that has an effect on the environment is the density of the project itself. It occupies too much area of the land that is available there. (pg 49, L 20) Response Refer to the response to comment 4.05 for a discussion on the proposed project density.
125
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PH 7.03 Comment Now, their statement goes on to show at some places its 20 feet wide and others 24 and they make a reference. They refer to a posted sign there that limits he traffic to 15 miles per hour and this is a sign , I believe , that comes just before a 90 degree turn in the road where you can’t see anything else on the road until you’ve made that turn. Now, that’s a serious shortcoming for vehicles that are going to be using this road in spite of what the impact statement says that the traffic of the restaurant was much greater than it will be of this project. (pg 50, L 21) Response The horizontal curve in Newport Road has been posted with a traffic warning sign of 15 miles per hour. The reduced speed allows the motorist to observe oncoming traffic while allowing for adequate reaction time to make any necessary adjustments. This geometry is not ideal and could be improved with the realignment of the roadway or by reducing the visual barriers along the upslope or southern edge of Newport Road. Any need to redesign the existing road is a separate issue that will be addressed by the Town. Some preventative measures have already been undertaken by the Town; had this not happened the condition of the pavement surface of Newport Road would be considerably worse. The Town has included $1,000,000 in the 2010 – 2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Newport Road improvements. Refer to the response to comments 3.03, 7.01, 19.01 and 20.01 for additional discussion regarding Newport Road. PH 7.04 Comment Well, I have difficulty agreeing with that and the statistics that they have presented are either not supported for that conclusion or they’re inaccurate and I can’t tell which it is, but the statistics just do not support that being a safe road. (pg 51, L 9) Response One indicator to determine the safety of a particular roadway is to obtain accident data from the local police, motor vehicle or highway department. This analysis was conducted and it was determined that there was one reported motor vehicle accident that occurred along Newport Road within the past three years. This accident occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and Ridge Road and it was weather related. Therefore, based on the information obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to substantiate that the roadway is unsafe. Another indicator of the safety of the roadway is the structural stability of the driving surface. These topics are more fully discussed in the response to comment 19.01. PH 7.05 Comment For example, some place I think in the transportation Section 4.4 that deals with transportation is says that the development will bring a slight increase in vehicle traffic to thirty-three vehicles per minute in the morning to forty eight vehicles per minute in the p.m. and increase to fifty-four vehicles in Saturday.
126
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Now, this is dealing just with a minute. These statistics are just with a minute that it will be increased. (pg 51, L 18) Response The DEIS discusses traffic impacts in Section 4.4.1.1 on page 4-17 and in the Traffic Impact Analysis included in Volume II, Appendix D of the DEIS. In this discussion the additional trips associated with the project is estimated at 33 vehicles per hour during the morning peak hour, 48 vehicles during the weekday afternoon peak hour and 54 vehicles during the Saturday peak hour. The statistics are based upon peak hour, not vehicles per minute. The traffic associated with the proposed development will be significantly less than what occurred while the Newport House restaurant was in operation. The roadway has excess capacity in order to accommodate the proposed development with no discernable reduction in the level of service. PH 7.06 Comment In the section of it in mitigation of that it states that the capacity of the two lane road is fifteen hundred vehicles per hour and that constitutes an estimate of seventy to eighty vehicles a minute per hour. In one of the statements it says the road has excess capacity. That’s hard to believe that that road has excess capacity and there’s no need to deal with a capacity increase. (pg 52, L 4) Response Section 4.4.1.2 – Mitigation of the DEIS states that the capacity of a two lane roadway is 1,500 vehicles per hour while the proposed traffic along Newport Road will be between 70 to 80 vehicles per hour after the development. Therefore, there is an excess capacity of 1,400 plus vehicles per hour. The traffic associated with the proposed development will be significantly less than what occurred while the Newport House restaurant was in operation and will not have a significant impact on the streets in the area. __________________________________________________________ Irondequoit Planning Board Meeting, March 23, 2009 Cheri Evershed, Irondequoit Planning Board PB 1.01 Comment Townhomes alternatives should be explored with additional information regarding EPODS and the impact. (pg 1, ¶ 5a) Response Alternative D (Townhomes) is discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. The impacts to soils (steep slopes), wetlands, floodplains and vegetation (woodlots) are discussed. The design of this alternative would be limited to previously disturbed areas with negligible impacts to steep slopes and woodlots.
127
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PB 1.02 Comment Is there room for buses and a turnaround? (pg 2, ¶ 9a) Response Yes, there is room for busses and a turnaround at the end of the project and at the entrance to the Newport Marine Club development. The turnaround area has been shown on the left side of the site plan for the project, drawing number 224-M2, included in Exhibit 1 of the DEIS. PB 1.03 Comment Are the docks grandfathered? Can we limit the docks due to the change in use? (pg 2, ¶ 11a) Response Yes. The Applicant has vested rights to the permitted and preexisting docks. In addition, the Harbor Management Plan recommends continuing all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. See also response to comments 26.18 and 26.19. There is no real change of use. There is a private marina operating on the site now, and it will continue to operate under the proposed project. PB 1.04 Comment Is the Nautica a principle or an accessory use? Who makes this determination? I believe that the Nautica is a principle use. (pg 2, ¶ 11b) Response Please see response to comments 17.07 and 26.09. As noted, the Nautica is an accessory use (as defined by Town Code §235-4.B) to the two Principal Uses use of the property. The Nautica provides limited services for homeowners, boaters and their guests only and does not cater to the general public. As services are limited to owners and/or users of the property and can only be considered an amenity for the Principal Uses, the Nautica can only be considered an accessory use. PB 1.05 Comment There was a letter from a neighbor listing modifications to Newport Road including a retaining wall and lower building heights. This was not discussed in the draft. Why wasn’t this discussed? Will it be discussed in the FEIS? (pg 3, ¶ 15a) Response This letter was not identified so this comment cannot be responded to. However, as indicated in response to comments 3.02 and PB 6.01, the Town is planning improvements to Newport Road and Alternative” C” reduces the building height.
128
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
__________________________________________________________ Raymond McDonald, Irondequoit Planning Board PB 2.01 Comment The economic viability of the alternatives should be more fully developed. (pg 1, ¶ 6a) Response Under SEQRA the EIS is primarily an environmental analysis document which would not include purely economic interests. However, impacts which may have certain socio-economic implications may be considered. Examples would include changes to existing patterns of population concentration, distribution, growth, existing community or neighborhood character, and especially a community’s infrastructure and associated costs. SEQRA anticipates that such socioeconomic effects would be taken into account in the balancing of both environmental and nonenvironmental factors that should precede a governmental decision. Regarding the economic viability of alternatives, under 6 N. Y.C.R.R. §617.9 (b)(5)(v), the format of the draft EIS must include "a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor." Thus, the project sponsor is not required to fully disclose the economics of each alternative related to cost or profit to the applicant, but only those that are relevant to socio-economic impacts or to the feasibility of alternatives considering the project sponsor’s capabilities and objectives. Accordingly, the project sponsor has provided the following information to assist in the assessment of alternatives with respect only to these requirements. The economic information provided is in response to comments and to assess whether or not the project or alternatives are reasonable and feasible. The sponsor is a developer and builder of upscale residential properties that wishes to fulfill a market demand for waterfront living opportunities in the Town of Irondequoit. Two of the five alternatives, the ”No Action” Alternative A and the Private Marina and Restaurant – Alternative B do not meet the goals and capabilities of the project sponsor, so therefore an economic viability of these alternatives have not been fully developed. Past history has shown that restaurant operations at this location and other locations on the Bay (Glen Edith) have not proven economically viable. The “No Action” alternative has been in effect for a number of years, but the economic viability of this operation has been marginal at best. This leaves the residential alternatives. The proposed alternative contains a mix of condo-style units and townhouse style units. The townhouse-style units would command a higher sales price due to the construction costs associated with each unit while the condominium-style units would cost somewhat less. The total sales prices of dwelling units would need to recoup the development costs associated with the project. Therefore, the fewer number of units the higher the selling price per unit. The developer wishes to target a market with selling prices above $250,000, which equates to the upper 17% of all owner occupied homes in the Town of Irondequoit. Homes valued above $500,000 limits the market to approximately 2% of the total homes in Irondequoit, or an approximate ten-fold decrease in the potential market availability. Therefore, to be economically viable, it would be necessary to price the units at a level that could be supported 129
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
in the market while at the same time providing a reasonable return on the resources expended by the project sponsor. The proposed project along with Alternative C (Modified Plan) provides the ability to provide waterfront living with membership to a private marina while keeping the costs of the land, development costs and infrastructure costs at a level that would allow the units to be competitively priced for the market. The development of an all-townhome project (Alternative D) would increase the building and infrastructure cost while decreasing the number of units. The building construction cost for the townhouse units would be considerably more than that of condominium-style units. Therefore, the development costs per unit would be higher for the all-townhouse alternative and thus require higher sale prices, which would make the project less competitive with other developments, and render this alternative less viable and marketable than the condominiumstyle/townhouse mix proposed and modified under Alternative C. See response to comment PB 6.01 for additional discussions. PB 2.02 Comment Soil erosion is a concern. (pg 2, ¶ 10a) Response Soil erosion is a temporary construction occurrence that will be mitigated through a multitude of temporary and permanent measures. Soil erosion control practices to be implemented as part of the project include, stabilized construction entrances and turnarounds, protection and preservation of vegetative areas outside of the construction limits, storm inlet protection, silt fence barriers, manufactured silt barriers, temporary and permanent seeding or sod, stone stabilization, jute mesh, dust control and permanent landscape plantings. Permanent structural measures such as storm sewers and retaining walls mitigate potential soil erosion occurrences. Storm sewers collect and transport stormwater in a controlled fashion that minimizes overland flow and soil erosion. Retaining walls provide a hard vertical surface at locations where there exists significant grade changes. By installing retaining walls, steep soil slopes are minimized which in turn reduces soil erosion. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which is included as Appendix C of the DEIS provides a sequence for the implementation of the erosion control measures. The Applicant will be required to obtain and maintain a permit from the NYSDEC for the stormwater discharges throughout the construction phase of the project. As part of the conditions of the permit, periodic inspections must be made by certified inspectors who will visit the site and report on the measures employed, and the devices installed that limit soil erosion. If changes or additional work needs to be implemented, the Applicant will be made aware of these deficiencies and the necessary adjustments will be made. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. This topic is also addressed in the DEIS at Section 4.1.2.
130
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PB 2.03 Comment Who will inspect the construction to insure compliance? (pg 2, ¶ 10b) Response Building construction will be overseen by the Town of Irondequoit Building Department. The owner will retain an independent agency to perform testing/inspections as required by building code. The Town Engineer will inspect dedicated storm and sanitary improvements. The project sponsor will also employ a construction supervision and retain a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPSEC) for the construction inspection during earth disturbance, and an engineer to inspect other construction activities. Other inspections and compliance will be provided by testing labs and material certifications. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. PB 2.04 Comment What is the timeframe for the project? (pg 2, ¶ 10c) Response The intended timeframe for construction of the project is approximately five years. The first year would include the start and completion of the majority of the site improvements during the spring, summer or fall. The Nautica, condominium-style building number 104 and the easternmost townhouse building would follow immediately after the completion of the site improvements. Building construction would continue on an asneeded basis to complete the individual buildings based on condominium and townhouse sales. By year number five it is anticipated that all buildings would be complete and occupied. PB 2.05 Comment We need to be proactive on this development. (pg 2, ¶ 10d) Response The Town of Irondequoit has been diligent in their comprehensive review of this proposal. PB 2.06 Comment Maybe we should look into eliminating dock space. (pg 2, ¶ 10e) Response This would be inconsistent with the Harbor Management Plan, which recommends continuing all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. Rather, the HMP sets the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, in excess of the current Newport Marina capacity of 187. HMP at 75. The Plan recommends increasing dock slips on the Bay to increase access for the public, not decreasing spaces. HMP at xi, 61, 76, 79, 80-82, 84. In addition, elimination of docks would be contrary to the LWRP, which cited, “Provision of greater public access to the Bay is also proposed for 131
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
the site of the Newport House, through the private development of a boat docking facility.” LWRP at IV-14. The LWRP is discussing the development of a private boat docking facility. The citation seems to note that a private boat docking facility enhances public access to the Bay. The boat docking facility has been developed and is an integral part of the property. It is the Applicant’s opinion that eliminating dock space would be an encroachment on the permitted use of the property and would be contrary to the HMP and the LWRP. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. PB 2.07 Comment Comments from the Ridge Culver Fire Department and the DEC should be addressed. (pg 2, ¶ 10f) Response Comments to the Ridge Culver Fire District and the NYSDEC have been included in this FEIS. Refer to the comment list on pages 5 through 10 for the location of the comments and responses. PB 2.08 Comment Who will take responsibility for the construction of this project? (pg 2, ¶ 10g) Response The project will be constructed through the project sponsor, RSM Irondequoit Bay Development LLC, which will take the ultimate responsibility for the construction of the project. __________________________________________________________ Michael Palermo, Irondequoit Planning Board PB 3.01 Comment Alternatives B, C, D whatever etc. are twisted and the alternatives should not be imposed on the Applicant. (pg 1, ¶ 4a) Response The alternatives are not to be imposed on the Applicant, but instead are to be assessed and provide an “evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor.” 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §617.9(b)(5)(v). __________________________________________________________ Jay Ricci – Irondequoit Planning Board PB 4.01 Comment Alternative D – Townhomes should be more fully explored, kind of glossed over. (pg 1, ¶ 2a ) Response
132
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative D (Townhomes) is discussed in the response to comment PB 6.01. PB 4.02 Comment Density of the development. (pg 2, ¶ 8a) Response Refer to the response to comment 4.05 for a discussion on the proposed project density. PB 4.03 Comment Could the project lose 20 slips in the cove to protect the cove? (pg 2, ¶ 8b) Response A reduction in the number of slips to protect the Cove is not proposed. The Applicant has a permit to operate these slips and the slips also conform to the HMP. Additional discussion on this topic can be found in the response to comment 26.19; PH 5.11 and PB 6.06. PB 4.04 Comment Parking review of the development. (pg 2, ¶ 8c) Response Additional information regarding the parking space requirements is included in the response to comments 12.12; 23.09; 26.08 and PH 5.03. PB 4.05 Comment Fire Department comments. (pg 2, ¶ 8d) Response Comments from the Ridge Culver Fire District have been included in this FEIS as response to comments 5.01 through 5.09. PB 4.06 Comment Adequate space between the buildings for fire protection. (pg 2, ¶ 8e) Response Adequate space is provided. Further, unlike almost all the homes in Irondequoit, the four gambrel condominiums are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems, including the 2-hour separated parking garage, smoke and fire alarms etc. The driveways accessing the underground parking are not roads, and are not meant to be occupied by the quint. See Appendix A4 and A5 for correspondence relative to fire protection and access.
PB 4.07 Comment 133
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Newport Road may be one-way during construction, with flagmen or traffic signals. (pg 2, ¶ 14a) Response Correct, traffic along Newport Road would be maintained, monitored and controlled during the heavy construction phase of the project. This would most likely occur during the site improvement phase between spring and fall of the first year of construction. The passage of construction vehicles during peak periods may be difficult due to vehicular speed, size and truck equipment maneuvering. Heavy construction traffic will be controlled by limiting heavy construction vehicles traveling along the northern edge of Newport Road and limiting the roadway to alternating one-way along the south side of the road during working hours for a couple of months. Two-way traffic would be restored at the end of each work day. Traffic control could consist of temporary traffic signals or flagmen. This would most likely occur during extensive earthwork, concrete, or asphalt paving operations were occurring. This would not preclude access to the site for delivery trucks to drop off building materials, outside of the project work hours, but is intended to mitigate the structural loading of Newport Road during intensive site construction operations. PB 4.08 Comment There are many vehicles using Newport Road today, including refuse and snow plows. (pg 3, ¶ 14b) Response Historical use of the road has provided a wide variety of loadings in which the roadway has performed adequately. It is not anticipated that the construction of the Newport Marine Club would place any loadings on the roadway which have not been imposed previously. __________________________________________________________ Robert Spatola, Irondequoit Planning Board PB 5.01 Comment The docks are an issue and the 1.5 docks per unit is also a problem. (pg 2, ¶ 13a) Response The Applicant views the docks as not being a problem, but rather an asset for the Project. The docks give an opportunity for members of the public to access the Bay. The Applicant has allocated 1.5 slips per dwelling unit based upon its experience with waterfront buyers, and the data from other water bodies cited in DEIS 2.3.4. The docks are consistent with the Harbor Management Plan, which recommend as the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217 (in excess of the current capacity of 187), HMP at 75, and Harbor Management Law §III.B(3)(d)(ii). In addition, the Harbor Management Plan recommends continuing all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. Moreover, elimination of 134
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
docks would be contrary to the LWRP, which cited the private Newport House “boat docking facility” as providing “public access to the Bay.” LWRP at IV-14. The Zoning Law does not set a limit on the number of docks for a multifamily development. Town Code §235-32.C(14)(c)[11]. PB 5.02 Comment The Nautica is a business and will create additional traffic. (pg 2, ¶ 13b) Response Please see response to comments 17.07; 26.09 and PH 5.17. As noted, the Nautica provides limited services for homeowners, boaters and their guests only and does not cater to the general public. Thus no additional traffic will be created as a result of the existence of The Nautica on the property as an accessory use, as defined by Town Code §235-4.B. Services are limited to owners and/or users of the property and can only be considered an amenity for the Principal Uses, it is not a “business” as the comment suggests. PB 5.03 Comment There should be fewer docks. (pg 2, ¶ 13c) Response This would be inconsistent with the Harbor Management Plan, which recommends continuing all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. Rather, the HMP recommends a capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, in excess of the current capacity of 187. HMP at 75. The Plan recommends increasing dock slips on the Bay to increase access for the public, not decreasing spaces. HMP at xi, 61, 76, 79, 80-82, 84 In addition, elimination of docks would be contrary to the LWRP, which cited the private Newport House “boat docking facility” as providing “public access to the Bay.” LWRP at IV-14. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. PB 5.04 Comment The Nautica is stand-alone or is it included in the buildings? I’ve seen both. (pg 2, ¶ 13d) Response In accordance with the original proposal submitted and subject to this examination in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Nautica was originally proposed as a separate, stand alone structure. As required, the Applicant has submitted alternatives to the proposed project for review, one of which (Alternative C) incorporates the Nautica into one of the proposed residential buildings. PB 5.05 Comment The docks in the cove should be removed. (pg 2, ¶ 13e) 135
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response There is no plan to remove any docks at this time. A discussion on the removal of docks is included in the response to comments 17.04; 26.17; PH 5.05 and PB 4.03. Additionally, the Planning Board may impose additional restrictions as a condition of Final Site Plan approval. PB 5.06 Comment The road stability is an issue. (pg 2, ¶ 13f) Response The condition of Newport Road is discussed in Section 3.4 of the DEIS and a Transportation Impact Analysis was provided by the Applicant as Appendix D of the DEIS. This analysis assessed the road conditions as well as the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. The present surface condition of Newport Road is generally acceptable with some minor asphalt cracking and settlement. If these surface conditions become more significant, the Town would perform preventative measures to sustain the viability of the roadway. The project is not likely to have any significant impact to the roadway’s surface. There may be areas of the road that would benefit from widening. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis the existing roadway meets an accepted design standard; “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) for a “Local Urban Street”. This statement is based only on review of the main criteria for the posted speed of 25 mph and the posted advisory speed of 15 mph at one curve. The criteria evaluated were minimum sight distance, maximum grade, minimum horizontal curve radius, cross slope, width, and clearance to obstacles. However, the existing roadway does not meet the current Town standards for roads in the Town Code, §204-45, nor does it meet NYSDOT standards. This includes variances in the guiderail design from current NYSDOT standards as noted in the memorandum from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 21 on page A1-79. The topography of the area may limit the extent, and practicality, to which any deficiencies can be addressed. The accident history of the road is also discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Accident information was obtained from the Irondequoit Police Department addressing the years 2003 thru 2005 (Per the Applicant’s engineer, the most recent 3 years of available data at the time of the DEIS development and in compliance with accepted traffic study procedures). During this period the Newport House was in operation and there was only one accident, which occurred at the intersection of Newport Road and East Ridge Road. A fatal accident did occur approximately 10 years ago when a single vehicle ran off the road. At the time of this accident, there was no guiderail along the northwest roadside slope. Guiderail has since been installed along the section of roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred. Based on review 136
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
of this information, Newport Road has not shown an unusual number of motor vehicle accidents to conclude that the road is unsafe. There is no information to indicate that the width of the road caused the fatal accident. The most significant concern is areas of the roadway where the pavement cracking and settlement are indicative of some instability of the down gradient slope. Two of these areas are identified and discussed in a letter from LaBella Associates, P.C. to Marty Piecuch, Commissioner of Public Works dated March 20, 2009 and included in Appendix A1 as comment No. 20 on page A1-76. Any structural issue with the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The documentation included in Appendix A8 demonstrates that the Town has been aware of the instability conditions on Newport Road and has been working toward a project to rectify the problem. The earliest documentation appears to date back to approximately 1999/2000, however references are made to the need for repairs back to as early as 1996. This has culminated in a project to provide approximately $1,000,000 in improvements for Newport Road in 2010 or 2011 which has been included in the Town 2009- 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) included as Appendix A9 (Refer to page A912). This CIP was recently adopted by the Town. Refer to the resolution at the August Town Board Meeting, (resolution 8A2009-3) which is also included as Appendix A10. The Town has had to address structural problems in several of the steeply sloped roads leading down to the Bay. These projects were prompted by failures, and hence were “reactive” rather than “proactive” in addressing slope instabilities. This reactive approach often costs more in the long run and puts the Town at risk for legal action. In the case of Newport Road, the Town is taking a proactive approach by planning a project to correct the instabilities before a failure occurs. The Town has had to the budget funds for this proactive project. As recommended in the LaBella letter, the Applicant has agreed to limit heavy construction loading to the southern half of the road during intensive site construction operations while maintaining alternating oneway traffic in order to mitigate the structural loading of these unstable down gradient areas at the northern edge of the road. Refer to the response to comments 3.02, 3.03, 7.01 and 19.01. PB 5.07 Comment The construction vehicles traveling the road will have an impact. (pg 2, ¶ 13g) Response The construction vehicles are not anticipated to have any significant impact. See response to comment PB 5.06 above.
PB 5.08 Comment
137
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The width of the road is substandard, even though it is a Town road. (pg 2, ¶ 13h) Response The pavement widths along Newport Road are within the accepted standards for local urban streets. The American Association of State Highway Transportation officials recommends pavements widths of 20 feet minimum. The existing pavement widths along Newport Road have been measured at 20 to 24 feet wide. The roadway “feels” somewhat narrow due to the many horizontal curves and the multiple obstructions immediately adjacent to the pavement edge. Any upgrade of the existing road is a separate action that will be addressed by the Town. The Town has included $1,000,000 in the 2010 2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Newport Road improvements. See response to comments 3.02, 7.01 and 19.01. PB 5.09 Comment Is a turnaround available at this gated community? (pg 2, ¶ 13i) Response There will be a turnaround available. A turnaround area has been shown on the left side of the site plan for the project, drawing number 224-M2, which is included as Exhibit 1 of the DEIS. __________________________________________________________ Peter Wehner, Irondequoit Planning Board PB 6.01 Comment All alternatives should be treated with the same weight. (pg 1, ¶ 3a) Response Alternatives are discussed under Section 6.0 of the Newport Marine Club Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated February 10, 2009. This portion of the Environmental Impact Statement discusses other potential developments will add to this alternative discussion by looking at potential environmental impacts of each alternative and access their relative impacts across all of the proposed alternatives. A discussion relative to the economic viability of the alternatives is included in the summary of this response and the response to comment PB 2.01. The alternatives to be assessed include: A. B. C. D. E.
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
A – No Action B – Private Marina and/or Restaurant (Master Plan) C – Townhomes and Condo-Style Units (Modified Plan) D – Townhomes E – Residential Plan consistent with EPOD, WD Zoning, LWRP and Irondequoit Bay Management Plan
Alternative A – “No Action” 138
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative A of the “No Action” alternative leaves the site as is without any changes or new development. The site is presently utilized as a marina for both slip renters and the public for pump-out, fueling and minor maintenance. A wood frame structure, the Newport House, has been abandoned and is no longer being utilized. The “No Action” alternative would intend to reopen the Newport House restaurant and maintain the marina operation. Impacts to the natural resources would be minimized with the “No Action” alternative. Changes to the topography, of the site would remain. Parking areas from the abandoned Newport House Restaurant and other parking areas available for boat storage during the off-season would remain. Stormwater runoff from the site would continue to flow overland across the slopes and the parking lots into either the adjacent surface waters or be captured by the underground storm drainage system that discharges through the sheet pile wall into the Bay. The 100-year floodplain for Irondequoit Bay has been recently adjusted to elevation 251 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There would be no impacts to the floodplain if the “No Action” alternative was adopted. Irondequoit Bay and the adjacent wetlands would not be affected by Alternative A. Irondequoit Bay and the adjacent wetlands would continue to be influenced by the existing marina operation and the stormwater runoff associated with the marina parking lots and pavements. The proposed stormwater runoff quantity reductions and quality improvement proposed for the project will not be available under the “No Action” alternative. Vegetation and wildlife would not be significantly altered. The existing trees, bushes, grasses, and other vegetation would continue to be viable. Wildlife associated with the fish, waterfowl and turtles from the Bay and the wetlands would continue, along with beavers, muskrat, mice, deer, raccoons, fox, skunk, chipmunks, garter snakes, frogs, toads and salamanders. There would be no further development of the property and the site would continue as the marina operation that presently exists at the site. There would be no environmental impacts to the human resource component of the “No Action” alternative. The effects this alternative would have on the structural aspect of Newport Road, development density, parking requirements, utility services, community services, and public access would be negligible. Traffic associated with the operation of the marina and the restaurant would be increased with the re-opening of the restaurant. The amount of traffic would be approximately the same as what existed previously. The impacts to the structural integrity of Newport Road would have some slight impact with the additional loadings on the roadway structure. This could be considered no additional appreciable environmental impact, because it is an existing permitted use which has presently been suspended but could reopen at anytime. Parking and site density impacts would also have no impact. The parking lots presently exist on-site along with the restaurant building. Therefore no changes in the site or environmental impacts would be associated with the “No Action” alternative. Utilities and community services are adequate and readily available. The restaurant and the marina would not place any 139
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
additional demands on the utility infrastructure or the community services of the Town that haven’t already been provided previously. The restaurant building is a non-descript dominant building which is in need of considerable repair. If the Newport House were to remain closed, the structure would continue to deteriorate with peeling paint, leaking roofs, damaged siding and cracked foundations. The structure would become unstable and eventually collapse. During this process, the structure would negatively impact the views of the site. Vandalism, dumping and other unauthorized disturbances would continue to be a potential problem. The loss of the Newport House limits the dining options and employment opportunities of the population in that area. The recent history of the site has shown that restaurant uses have not been supported to the point in which they remain economically viable. The marina operates as a boat storage facility during the off season and would continue. Views of the boat storage and the Newport House would have no additional visual impacts to the community. Access to the site is restricted and monitored by the staff of the marina to be assured that safety and security is maintained. Security and oversight would continue under the “No Action” alternative, with additional staff needed during peak boating periods. The “No Action” alternative, Alternative A, would have no significant environmental impacts to the natural or human resources of the community. This alternative is the existing condition option which does not promote any new development at the site. There would be no changes to the environmental impacts on the project site, than what exist today. The views of the existing dilapidated Newport House restaurant and the associated large parking lots and aesthetically unappealing outdoor boat storage areas will continue under the “No Action” alternative. The proposed project along with Alternatives B (Private Marina and/or Restaurant, Alternative C (Modified Plan) and Alternative D (Townhomes) all propose for the removal of the existing Newport House building and its replacement with a new restaurant or residential building(s). Larger parking lots would continue under Alternative B but would be eliminated under the other alternatives. Extended outdoor boat storage would be eliminated. Therefore the “No Action” alternative eliminates the possible visual improvement associated with the removal of the Newport House, elimination of extended outdoor boat storage and the removal of large parking lots. Benefits from an improved stormwater quality and quantity treatment would not be realized under Alternative A. Stormwater presently is collected in storm sewers or runs off the surface of the present site into Irondequoit Bay. The proposed project and residential alternatives, Alternatives C and D all reduce the impervious surface area, which would decrease the amount of stormwater, while permanent structures would provide for water quality improvements. These opportunities would be lost under the “No Action” alternative.
140
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternatives C, D and E along with the proposed project provide the opportunity to decrease the existing pavement area and provide the opportunity to decompact the existing soils, decreasing runoff and decreasing stormwater quantity. The proposed project along with Alternatives B, C, D and E all propose new building construction on the site which would eventually lead to property reassessment and additional property tax revenues. Soil decompaction and increased property tax revenues would not be available under the “No Action” alternative. Emergency access to the building access under this alternative would allow access to three sides of the building, similar to some of the buildings under the proposed project. This alternative does not meet the project sponsors goal to provide an upscale waterfront residential opportunity to the Irondequoit market area. Alternative B – Private Marina and/or Restaurant Alternative B includes the redevelopment of the site into a new private marina and a new restaurant. Marina use would be increased with the development of an enclosed boat storage facility. The enclosed boat storage facility would be constructed to provide boating opportunities to individuals by allowing daily access of rack stored boats. The boat owners would launch their boats and return them to the storage facility on a daily basis. This would preclude the use of slips for overnight dockage while providing recreational opportunities. The existing docks, pavements and utilities would remain under this alternative. There would be some minor utility relocations and driveway expansions, which are shown on the plans of Exhibit 6A of the DEIS. The restaurant would be reconstructed within the Newport House footprint for dining opportunities. Some environmental impacts to the natural resources would be expected under this alternative. The soils and topography of the site would be impacted with the development of the buildings and additional parking facilities. The boat storage facility could be a building of 15,000 square feet or greater. The soils on site would likely remain but the impervious area would be much larger. Stormwater quantity and quality would be significantly impacted with the additional parking and building areas. Stormwater could in turn affect the wetlands and Irondequoit Bay which receive the discharge from the site. The floodplain of Irondequoit Bay would most likely remain without any change with the new buildings located outside of the 100-year flood elevation. Wildlife and vegetation would be affected with the loss of habitat and greenspace attributed to the expanded building and parking areas. Human resources would also be affected through the development of Alternative B. Higher utilization of the marina and the redevelopment of a restaurant would increase traffic along Newport Road. The traffic increase would approximate what were previously a party house/restaurant and a marina. There would be no increase to the density of the site. This alternative does not include any residential 141
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
dwelling units. Parking and community services could have a potential impact with the land storage of boats; the number of boaters that could utilize the marina at any one time may dramatically increase. An increase in the numbers of boaters would increase the demand for parking spaces. Renewed restaurant operations would also increase the demand for parking spaces. Emergency response calls would most likely be impacted under this alternative. Accessibility by emergency responders would be similar to the proposed project, with building access to three sides of the buildings. The need to respond to a vast variety of calls for police, fire and emergency medical incidents would increase under a successful commercial marina and restaurant operation. Utility demands would be slightly greater than what presently exist today. The restaurant operation would have the most impact with an increased demand for water and sanitary sewer services. The boat storage facility would be a fairly large warehouse style structure which would dominate the view of the Newport property. Uncontrolled access to the site would not be allowed with a private marina operation. A gate and key card or similar type of controlled access would be appropriate to secure the site for the users of the private marina. Alternative B would have some environmental impact to the resources of the area. Natural and human resources would be affected with greater impacts to the stormwater, parking and available community services. The end result would be similar to the previous uses of the site, which have been abandoned due to changing market demands and increased competition. Alternative B has been discounted as a viable alternative for a variety of reasons. The alternative could have potential negative impacts to the stormwater from the site, increased parking demands and additional demands placed on emergency services. The alternative does not avail itself to the benefits of the proposed project, including smaller parking areas, residential versus commercial uses, neighborhood capability, improved stormwater quantity and quality, and decompaction of onsite soils. Finally, this alternative has been discounted due to the goals and capabilities of the project sponsor, along with the viability of restaurant operations on the Bay. The project sponsor is a developer of fine residential communities not the operator of restaurants. The sponsor wishes to develop a project which is consistent with Town zoning, and provides residential waterfront opportunities to the community. Alternative C – Townhomes and Condo-Style Units (Modified Plan) This modified plan has been generated in response to public and Board comments that have been received regarding the proposed project. The significant modifications that have been made include: •
Elimination of the stand alone Nautica building and incorporated the use in Building 104.
•
Elimination of two condominium style units from a total of 47 condominium style units and 9 townhouse style units to 45 condominium style units and 9 townhouse style units.
142
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
•
Orientation and rotational changes to the condominium style units to increase setbacks from the water’s edge and to provide additional buffering.
•
Lowering of the building height on building no. 103 and 104 along the lot front or along the Bay by one story of 12 feet.
Alternative C will have some environmental impacts to the natural and human resources of the area. The topography and soils will be impacted by the construction of the buildings associated with this residential development. Mitigation efforts will include the implementation of enhanced erosion and sediment control measures, and larger and enhanced green areas. The amount of soils required to bring the site to the proposed elevations under this alternative would be less than the proposed project. Stormwater would be controlled similar to the proposed project with a series of storm sewers to collect overland flows which would then be directed to a sand filter and through a perforated pipe encased in granular soils which would connect to the discharge weeps in the sheet pile break wall. A reduction in the impervious area along with the removal of the Nautica building would have positive stormwater effects over the proposed project. Floodplains, wetlands and Irondequoit Bay impacts would be consistent with the proposed project as described in the DEIS. Wetlands would be minimally impacted by the change in use from a commercial use property to more of a residential use property. Buffer impacts would be minimized with the proposed changes in the orientation of the buildings which would conserve vegetation and limit intrusion into the natural areas adjacent to Newport Cove and Irondequoit Bay. The impacts to Irondequoit Bay would be minimal. The maintenance of the landscaped areas and the continuing marina operations will continue with no impact to the adjacent surface waters. This alternative would be developed within the previously developed areas of the site similar to the proposed alternative. The impacts to the surrounding vegetation will be negligible because the proposed development lies within previously disturbed areas. There should be no change in the effects to the wildlife in the area. Construction will not occur at the docks and slips and no changes in the natural undisturbed areas will be made. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to the terrestrial or marine wildlife in the area. Traffic impacts associated with the alternative include approximately 45 more vehicles over the existing Newport Road traffic during a Saturday peak hour but less than the estimated 230 vehicles which could occur under Alternative B. The addition of residential uses to the site will add some small incremental increase in the amount of traffic along Newport Road but not as much as occurred during the times that the restaurant and party house was in operation. Other impacts include, higher residential density, smaller open parking areas, increased utility use, (water and sewer use would increase approximately 21,000 gallons/day, over the existing rates and would be slightly higher than the 19,000 gallon/day which could occur under Alternative B) slight increase in the demands for community services, visual impacts associated with building construction and demolition, and access modification associated with a change in use. The traffic capacity and structural impacts to Newport Road will be negligible. A detailed analysis was included in the DEIS in Appendix A and Exhibit 4A. The results of which concluded that the 143
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
proposed traffic would have a considerably smaller (40% less) impact on the loadings on the roadway than what previously existed when the restaurant was open. Therefore, there will be some minor roadway impacts to Newport Road associated with Alternative C over the present use of the property but nothing comparable to what existed previously. Residential density will increase under this alternative. The proposed alternative includes 45 condominium style units and 9 townhouse style units which do not exist today. This equates to a density of (54 units/5.9 acres) or 9.2 units per acre. The proposed project proposes a total of 56 residential units or 9.5 units per acre. Garage parking for Alternative C will consist of condominium parking for 80 vehicles and 18 parking spaces for the townhouse style units for a total of 98 garage parking spaces. Surface parking would consist of townhouse driveway parking for 18 vehicles and surface lot parking for an additional 75 vehicles. Total available parking would be 191 spaces. The required parking under Town Code for this alternative would be 45 condominium style residential units x 1.5 parking spaces per unit or 68 parking spaces. The nine (9) townhouse style units would require 2.0 parking spaces per unit or 18 parking spaces and lastly the parking associated with the nonresident dock owners (187 docks – 81 docks (residents) = 106 docks for commercial marina) and 106 docks x 0.6 parking spaces/dock = 64 spaces. Therefore the total required parking spaces would be 68 condominium spaces, 18 townhouse spaces and 64 marina spaces for a total of 150 required parking spaces. The available parking spaces exceed the required number of parking spaces by 41 spaces (191 -150) parking spaces. Non-resident public parking will be limited to the common area surface lot parking area which totals 75 parking spaces. It is not anticipated that public users would park within the townhouse unit driveways unless they were guests of the townhouse owners. There would be an increased demand on the utility and community services associated with the Alternative C over the “No Action” - Alternative A. The impacts to the utilities and the community services can easily be assimilated into the existing infrastructure and services. Elimination of the proposed Nautica building and its integration into building number 104 will eliminate a structure along the eastern side of the property to allow for additional views of the Bay and the water’s edge. The proposed condo-style units building height under Alternative C would be lower than the proposed project. The condominium style units would be 41 feet tall at the building frontage and the townhouse style units would be 31 feet tall. The overall effect of reducing the number of structures and the change in the orientation and offsets of the buildings and the reduction on building height will allow for enhanced views of the Bay as compared to the proposed project. Access to the site will be by pass card at this proposed gated community. This will be consistent with the proposed project. Alternative C includes the development of an upscale residential development in land which is presently being utilized as a commercial use. The change in use under Alternative C is similar but not as concentrated as the proposal. Impacts to the natural and human resources will be minor and can be easily mitigated. This alternative takes into account many of the concerns that have been brought up under the project review.
144
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative D – Townhomes Alternative D consists of the development of a residential community that consists exclusively of townhome style units. The buildings would be similar to the townhouse units suggested under the current proposal with parking below, at grade, and two living levels above with a total building height of 31 feet. The total number of townhomes that could be constructed under this option could include approximately 45 townhomes with 76 parking spaces available for non-resident boaters. The environmental impacts of this alternative are consistent with other residential development alternatives. Natural resources would be slightly impacted including, soils and topography, stormwater, floodplains, wetlands, Irondequoit Bay, vegetation and wildlife. The topography of the site would be impacted with the grading and construction of buildings and parking area throughout the site. Stormwater quantity will be decreased slightly from the existing conditions by a decrease in the impervious area by approximately 5%. Wetlands and Irondequoit Bay impacts would be minimized with decrease in the impervious area on the site and the addition of stormwater management facilities. Minor filling of the lot along the northeast corner between the boardwalk and the buildings will be necessary to ensure that the buildings are constructed outside of the floodplain. Vegetation and wildlife will be minimally impacted with the change in use from commercial to residential, green areas, and buffer areas will be maintained which will allow the existing vegetation and wildlife to continue to prosper. Newport Road will see some additional loadings associated with the residential use. The amount of additional loading would be less than what one would expect under Alternative C. Alternative D estimates a loading ±20% less than the proposed project strictly based on the lower residential density. Alternative D proposes that the total number of residential units at 45 plus or minus. This would equate to a density of 7.6 units per acre which is less than half of the density of the existing Bay Village development. Townhouses suggested under Alternative D would most likely include lower level parking for two vehicles and driveway/visitor parking for two other vehicles at each townhouse unit. Surface parking for 76 vehicles would provide adequate parking spaces for the 119 boat slips available for non-resident boaters. Under this alternative, 72 parking spaces would be required by Town code. Additional demands on utilities and community services would be associated with this residential development. The impacts to the utility infrastructure and the community services will be minimal and can be met with the present facilities and organizations. Views from the Bay towards the site will be influenced by the townhouse buildings along the shoreline. Even with the buildings being not quite as tall, the number and location of the buildings would dominate the viewshed. Access to the townhouse development would be through a gate which would provide safety and security to the residents and boaters at the Newport Marine Club.
145
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative E – Residential Plan consistent with EPOD, WD Zoning, LWRP and Irondequoit Bay Management Plan Under this alternative, the Applicant was asked to provide an alternative that, “Describes and evaluates a residential development alternative consistent with EPOD and WD zoning, LWRP and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan”. Environmental Protection Overlay districts envelop a majority of the Newport Marine Club property. Town Code under Article XI EPODs, states that, “The Applicant shall also submit a site capacity worksheet with any application for land subdivision to the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board”. §235-47G (1). The Applicant has prepared parts A through E of the worksheet as requested by the Planning Board and it is included as Exhibit 2(H) of the DEIS. The net buildable site area based upon the worksheet is 1.45 acres, while the existing Newport House, marina, and parking areas encompass an area of approximately 3.35 acres. The Newport Marine Club would not be an economically viable project if the area restrictions associated with the capacity worksheet were imposed on the project. The limitations associated with the building area are not applicable to this proposal because it does not entail the subdivision of land. Summary The proposal put forth by the project sponsor is for the development of Newport Marine Club with four condominium style buildings with forty seven (47) residential units and nine (9) townhomes in three (3) separate buildings. The environmental impacts associated with this development is more fully explored in the DEIS. Emergency access under Alternative A – No Action and Alternative B – Private Marina and Restaurant will provide three-sided building access by fire fighting apparatus, while the residential alternatives, Alternative C – Modified Plan, Alternative D – Townhomes and the Proposed Plan all limit building access to a minimum of one building wall. The economic viability of the project is a major factor for the project sponsor. While actual dollars and cents figures are speculative construction costs, including costs of materials, have fluctuated greatly in the recent past and other construction cost, sales and marketing information are proprietary, a discussion of the economic viability of the project and alternatives follows here. The proposed project (47 units in the four main buildings and nine units in the townhouse style buildings) has been designed, and will endure, market pressures. The availability of the different residential styles within the project creates a buffer against increases in costs or adjustments in the market for either of the housing types. Similarly, Alternative C (which has two less units in the four main buildings and an attached “Nautica”) has similar economic characteristics. Alternative C
146
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
represents the project sponsors’ best efforts to conform to the comments received through the application and SEQR process. The other alternatives are economically challenged in different ways. Alternative D (45 townhouse style units) would result in increased site development costs (broader site disturbance than the proposed plan or Alternative C) and construction costs, as well as decreased return in that there are 11 less units than the proposed plan and nine less units than the Alternative C. Alternative D would demand a higher average price per unit, and this is a much riskier proposition for a successful project. Inquiries from potential residents to the project sponsor indicate that there is a substantial demand for the style of units contained in the four main buildings. Alternative A (the “no action” alternative) does not involve any initial capital investment (but would require continuing maintenance expense); however, the economic return from the existing marina is insufficient to sustain the property. Alternative B (new restaurant and boat warehouse) would entail a substantial economic investment, but historical trends have indicated that a restaurant operation is not sustainable on the site. The proposed Newport Marine Club, Alternative C (Modified Plan) and Alternative D (townhomes) are three residential developments which correspond to the requirements of and Environmental Protection Overlay Districts (EPODs) and Waterfront Development (WD), the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) and the Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan (HMP). In conclusion, the plans which provide for a mixture of units in the four main buildings and the nine townhouse style units are economically viable alternatives. For the reasons set forth above, alternatives A, B and D fall short of the mark economically and are inconsistent with the interest shown in the use of the property to date. The alternatives described above and the proposed project are summarized and compared in Table form and attached as Table 3 of this FEIS.
147
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON ALTERNATIVE
A
B
C
D
E
PROPOSED
Description
No Action
Private Marina with Restaurant
Townhomes and Condo‐Style Units (Modified Plan)
Townhomes
Residential Development consistent with (EPODS, WD zoning, LWRP, HMP)
Townhomes and Condo‐Style Units with Nautica
Number of Condo‐Style Units
N/A
N/A
45
0
TBD
47
Number of Townhome Units
N/A
N/A
9
45
TBD
9
Total Number of Units
N/A
N/A
54
45
The number of units should be able to absorb the development costs and still be marketable
56
Soils and Topography
No change
Grading impacts isolated to the SE corner with retaining walls adjacent to south slope
Minor fill required for the proposed grading along the northside of Newport Road
Significant grading and earthwork for garages and driveways
Less fill required for the proposed grading along the northside of Newport Road
Fill required for the proposed grading along the northside of Newport Road
Impervious Area (acres)
3.35
3.50
2.79
3.28
TBD
2.88
Green space (% of Total)
43%
41%
53%
44%
TBD
51%
Stormwater
No improvements
Improvements for the redeveloped areas only
Enhanced stormwater quality measures
Enhanced stormwater quality measures
Enhanced stormwater quality measures
Enhanced stormwater quality measures
Floodplains
No change
No change
Minor filling to keep buildings above the 100‐year floodplain
Minor filling to keep buildings above the 100‐year floodplain
Wetlands
No change
Increased imperviousness additional wetland impacts
Decreased imperviousness with significant wetland benefits
Decreased imperviousness with slight wetland benefits
Irondequoit Bay
No change
Increased imperviousness with some additional Bay impacts
Vegetation
No change
Wildlife
No change
A slight decrease in habitats will have minimal impact to wildlife of the area.
Newport Road
No change
Additional road loadings associated with restaurant operation and expanded marina operations
Density (Units/acre)
N/A
N/A
9.2
7.6
TBD
9.5
Parking (Total Spaces)
315
315
191
256
TBD
184
Utilities
No change
Community Services
No change
Increased demand for emergency services, no student enrollment
Building Height (feet)
39
39
41
31
Visual Impacts
Continued off season boat storage and deteriorating Newport House
Off season boat storage and 12K sf boat storage warehouse with "new" Newport House
Lower building heights without clubhouse building expands views over the proposed project
Multiple townhouse buildings overlap and restrict the views of the Bay
TBD, The building height Four condominium‐style and location will effect views buildings increases the view of from the south. the Bay between the buildings
Access
Limited public access with monitoring by marina employees
Limited public access with monitoring by marina employees
Gated community with pass code or keycard for safety and security
Gated community with pass code or keycard for safety and security
Gated community with pass code or keycard for safety and security
Gated community with pass code or keycard for safety and security
Meets the Objective of the Project Sponsor
No
No
Yes
No
Yes, if the residential development is similar to the proposed project or Alt. C
Yes
Viability
Existing marina operation is marginally successful in return on the resources invested
Historically, restaurant operations have not been successful
A viable alternative that deserves consideration
Increased building costs will limit unit marketability and ignore the condo buyer
An alternative that deserves consideration if similar to the proposed project or Alt C
A viable alternative that deserves consideration
Minor filling to keep Minor filling to keep buildings above the 100‐year buildings above the 100‐year floodplain floodplain Decreased imperviousness with wetland benefits
Decreased imperviousness with significant wetland benefits
Decreased imperviousness with Decreased imperviousness with Decreased imperviousness with Decreased imperviousness with significant Bay benefits slight Bay benefits Bay benefits significant Bay benefits
Decrease in A slight decrease in A slight increase in Decrease in impervious surfaces will impervious surfaces will have a impervious surfaces will impervious surfaces will have a minimal impact to vegetation benefit the vegetation of the minimal benefit to vegetation benefit the vegetation of the area. of the area. area. of the area. A notable increase in greenspace will provide benefits to the wildlife of the area.
Decrease in impervious surfaces will benefit the vegetation of the area.
A notable increase in the A minor increase in An increase in the available available habitats will provide habitats will have minimal habitats will provide benefits to benefits to the wildlife of the the wildlife of the area. impact to wildlife of the area. area.
Additional road loadings Additional road loadings Additional road loadings Additional road loadings associated with the residential associated with the residential associated with the residential associated with the residential development development development development
Increase utility demand Increase utility demand Increase utility demand Increase utility demand Increase utility demand associated with the restaurant associated with the residential associated with the residential associated with the residential associated with the residential operation and expanded development development development development marina Slight increases in demand for Slight increases in demand for Slight increases in demand for Slight increases in demand for emergency services, emergency services, emergency services, emergency services, minor if any increase in increase in student minor if any increase in increase student enrollment. student enrollment. student enrollment. enrollment.
Table 3
148
TBD
53
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PB 6.02 Comment Review the density of the development. (pg 1, ¶ 7a) Response Refer to the response to comment 4.05 and PB 7.07 for a discussion on the proposed project density. PB 6.03 Comment The footprint of the buildings and land mass impacted. (pg 1, ¶ 7b) Response The footprint of each of the condominium-style buildings are approximately 11,000 square feet and the townhouse buildings are approximately 4,000 square feet each. The Nautica’s footprint is approximately 2,200 square feet. The total land mass impacted or the ground coverage of the impermeable surfaces would be 2.88 acres or 49%, while the maximum allowable surface area is 75% impermeable. The total amount of land to be disturbed includes green areas which will be regarded, top soiled and landscaped. The total amount of disturbed area on the site is estimated at 4.2 acres. Wetlands and steep slopes along the south property line and woodlots in the southeast and northwest corner of the site will not be affected. PB 6.04 Comment Is the Nautica truly an accessory use or is this a principle commercial use? (pg 1, ¶ 7c) Response As noted above, the Nautica is an accessory use (as defined by Town Code §235-4.B) to the two Principal Uses use of the property. The Nautica provides limited services for homeowners, boaters and their guests only and does not cater to the general public. As such it is in no way a “principal commercial use” as the comment suggests. Services are limited to owners and/or users of the property only and The Nautica can only be considered an accessory amenity for the Principal Use. PB 6.05 Comment Review of the parking required for the site. (pg 1, ¶ 7d) Response Additional information regarding the parking space requirements are included in the response to comments 12.12; 23.09; 26.08 and PH 5.03. PB 6.06 Comment Number of boat slips required, can slips be removed? This alternative is not mentioned in the Alternatives. Can the last of the finger docks be removed? (pg 1, ¶ 7e)
149
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response This would be inconsistent with the Harbor Management Plan, which recommends continuing all existing and fully approved docks. HMP at 71. Rather, the HMP sets the capacity of the Central Harbor Area, which includes the Newport Marina, as 217, in excess of the current Newport Marina capacity of 187. HMP at 75. The Plan recommends increasing dock slips on the Bay to increase access for the public, not decreasing spaces. HMP at xi, 61, 76, 79, 80-82, 84. Further, the Applicant has vested rights to the preexisting permitted docks, so they are grandfathered, and it would be unconstitutional to require their removal. See Smith v. Board of Appeals of Town of Islip, 202 A.D.2d 674, 609 N.Y.S.2d 912 (2nd Dept.1994); Town of Islip v. Modica Associates of NY 122, LLC, 45 A.D.3d 574, 846 N.Y.S.2d 201 (2nd Dept. 2007). In addition, elimination of docks would be contrary to the LWRP, which cited, “Provision of greater public access to the Bay is also proposed for the site of the Newport House, through the private development of a boat docking facility.” LWRP at IV-14. The LWRP is discussing the proposed development of a private boat docking facility that did not exist on the property at the time of the report in 1988. The citation notes that a private boat docking facility enhances public access to the Bay. The boat docking facility has been developed and is an integral part of the property. Eliminating dock space would be an encroachment on the permitted use of the property and would be contrary to the HMP and the LWRP. PB 6.07 Comment Parking for boat trailers. (pg 2, ¶ 7f) Response The project sponsor has provided the following information regarding parking and boat storage. Parking of boat trailers at the project site will be allowed on a brief transitory basis. The highest occurrence of trailer and boat parking will occur during the spring boat launching and during the fall boat pull out. These times will be strictly examined and coordinated with the marina operations to minimize temporary boat parking. If parking space demand exceeds the available parking spaces, then the trailer owners will be notified to remove their trailers as soon as possible. The Newport Marine Club will make any adjustments in their rules or bylaws to assure that residents slip owners and their guests have adequate onsite parking. The boat launch ramp and hoist will continue to be in operation for the proposed marina use. The use of the ramp may be utilized on a daily basis while in season. Off-season use of the ramp will be limited. Offseason storage of trailers and boats within the common surface parking lots will not be allowed.
150
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
PB 6.08 Comment Roadway and public impacts. (pg 2, ¶ 7g) Response Roadway impacts are discussed throughout the FEIS. Refer to the response to comments 6.01, 7.01, 7.03, 12.11, 19.01, 26.04 and PB 5.07. PB 6.09 Comment More discussion on the views and exhibits and evidence of the visual impact. (pg 2, ¶ 7h) Response Additional discussion on the aesthetic impacts on the project is included in response to comments 4.07, 4.08, 12.07, 13.01, 22.04, 26.02, 26.20 and PH 5.13. Exhibit E1 includes a diagram for the line of sight expected under the present conditions from Newport Road and the proposed development. PB 6.10 Comment More discussion on the alternatives. (pg 2, ¶ 7i) Response The response to comment PB.6.01 discusses all the suggested alternatives in detail. PB 6.11 Comment I would like them to consider native species of plants and turf grasses that are water tolerant and need less fertilizer. (pg 3, N ¶ 17a) Response The Applicant indicates that the landscape plan will incorporate native trees and shrubs typically found around the Bay environment, and less maintenance intensive grasses. Typical trees may include: sugar maple (Acer Saccahrum), Red Oak (Quercus Rubra), Yellow Birch (Betula Alleghaniensis), Northern Hemlock (Tsuga Occidentalis), White Pine (Pinus strobes), etc. Shrubs may include: serviceberry (Amelanchier Canadesis), Winterberry (Ilex Verticillata), Flowering Dogwood (Cornus Foemina), Choke Cherry (Prunus Virginiana), and grasses such as Orchard Grass (Dactylis Glomerata), Common Reed (Phragmites Australis) and American Beachgrass (Ammophila Breviligulata). Turf areas would consist of Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium Perenne), Red Fescue (Festuca Rubra) and Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa Pratensis).
151
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
__________________________________________________________ Andrew Hintenach – Irondequoit Planning Board PB 7.01 Comment Building height is an issue. (pg 3, ¶ 16a) Response The proposed height of the townhomes/condominiums is not in conflict with the requirements of Town Code. Building heights for the condominium-style building are at the discretion of the Town Planning Board and come under the provisions of Town Code §235-33.C(2), which provides no specific height limit: “Maximum building height for multifamily dwellings, apartment buildings or other similar uses shall be determined by the Town Planning Board during the special use permit review and approval process and shall be based on a visual analysis of the site prepared and submitted by the Applicant as part of that review. The Town Planning Board shall be empowered to establish maximum princip[al] building heights and locations in order to preserve the aesthetic integrity of waterfront areas and protect any scenic views or vistas identified in the visual analysis.” And for townhomes, Town Code §235-33.C(3) states: “Maximum building heights for townhomes, single-family attached dwellings, row houses, or other similar uses shall not exceed 35 feet.” The proposed project includes condominium-style buildings with a height of 53 feet and the townhomes are approximately 31 feet. The existing Newport House is approximately 39 feet high. Therefore, the proposed condominium buildings are higher than the Newport House and the townhomes are lower than the Newport House. PB 7.02 Comment The density of the development should be more fully developed. (pg 3, ¶ 16b) Response Refer to the response to comment 4.05 for a discussion on the proposed project density. PB 7.03 Comment The viewshed discussion needs additional work. (pg 3, ¶ 16c) Response Additional discussion on the views is included in the response to comments 4.07; 4.08; 12.07; 13.01; 22.04; 26.02; 26.20 and PH 5.13. PB 7.04 Comment The stormwater impacts of the development must be fully addressed, including phosphorus, fertilizer use, collection, treatment, sand filters, sheet runoff and alternative methods such as rain gardens. (pg 3, ¶ 16d) 152
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response Comments have been received regarding stormwater impacts associated with phosphorous and fertilizer use, the stormwater management system which provides collection, treatment and sand filters, the potential for overland flow and the utilization of alternate methods such as rain gardens. Fertilizer use for the project will be only as recommended by the manufacturer and be limited to non-phosphorous types. The stormwater management system has been designed to collect, transport and treat the stormwater runoff prior to discharging into the Bay. Review and approval of the SWPPP will be necessary by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a permit for the project. Overland flow from grass and from landscaped areas will be mitigated by providing a perimeter French drain adjacent to the boardwalk and north of buildings 101 and 102 to collect and filter the stormwater before it enters the Bay. Impervious areas will be collected and treated through the stormwater management system, which includes a settling pool and sand filtration. The proposed utilization of rain gardens as an alternative method is limited by the contributing drainage area, which must be 1,000 square feet or less. The townhouse and the condominium-style buildings are approximately 4,000 and 11,000 square feet respectively. Therefore, the utilization of a rain garden for the large roof areas and roof leaders of the buildings would not be appropriate. However, rain gardens, as an alternative practice, will be utilized for sheet flow that may be entering the cove or Bay. See response to comment 27.03. PB 7.05 Comment Impacts to the cove and boat use at the cove must be discussed further. (pg 3, ¶ 16e) Response Boat usage of Newport Cove will not change as a result of this development. The Cove is currently accessible by watercraft from Irondequoit Bay, but is limited to smaller boats by virtue of its shallow depths and the existing docks. There will be no change in the current dock configuration. Additional threats to the Cove from what currently exists are not foreseen. PB 7.06 Comment A comparison model must be provided to get a feel for the building height. What is the height of the Corn Hill Landing buildings? Is there an approximate comparison model that we could use for the building height? (pg 3, ¶ 16f) Response The Architects emailed to the chairman of the Planning Board sections and dimensional heights for the Corn Hill Landing project and the recently completed Mills at High Falls, since they were the Architects for both projects. They were sent in March, 2009.
153
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Comparative building heights and/elevations which includes recent multi-residence buildings at Corn Hill Landing (49 feet) and the Mills at High Falls (51 feet). The proposed condominium-style buildings at the Newport Marine Club are 53 feet high and the townhomes are at 31 feet high. PB 7.07 Comment The density of the project should be more fully discussed along with relationships of the other multi-family developments on the Bay in Irondequoit and other Towns. (pg 3, ¶ 16g) Response Other multi-family developments are discussed below - Comparable Waterfront Developments. Also, refer to the response to comment 4.05 for a discussion on the proposed project density. Comparable Waterfront Developments In an effort to review the relative human resource impacts that the Newport Marine Club may have on the environment, a comparative analysis of similar waterfront uses has been performed. This analysis will primarily review the relative density of four multi-family developments three of which are in the Town of Irondequoit (Bay Point, Bay Village and Westage) and one in the Town of Webster (Stoney Point). Information was provided from the Town of Irondequoit Assessor’s office and other readily available sources. Description Bay Point Townhomes are located immediately north of Ides Cove and 0.75 miles north of the Irondequoit Bay Bridge along the western shore of Irondequoit Bay at the intersection of Pleasant Avenue and Bay Point Circle. Bay Point townhomes are in building clusters of 2 to 3 units each with a total building area of approximately 4,200 to 5,000 square feet each. A community club house and in ground pool is available for the development. Bay Village Condominiums are located approximately 1.2 miles south of the Irondequoit Bay Bridge along the western shore of Irondequoit Bay at the terminus of Bay View Road and Bay Village Drive. Bay Village condominiums consist of four four-story buildings of 24 to 37 units for each building with approximately 1,200 to 1,400 square feet for each unit. Tennis courts, a community center, and a pool are available at the site. Westage at the Harbor is an apartment complex located along the shore of Lake Ontario and approximately 300 feet east of the Genesee River. The development is located at the end of St. Paul Boulevard at Third Street. The Westage at the Harbor is a complex of fourteen buildings of 21 to 32 units per each building with approximately 750 to 950 square feet for each unit. A pool and office is available for the residents.
154
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Stoney Point development is a mixed use residential development which includes townhouses and single family detached dwellings. For this analysis we will only concentrate on the townhouse portion of the development. The townhouse buildings are in clusters of 2 to 5 units each with first floor areas of approximately 1,750 to 5,000 square feet for each. A pool, tennis courts and a community center are available for the resident’s. Stoney Point Development is located along the east shore of Irondequoit Bay approximately 0.6 miles southeast of the Irondequoit Bay Outlet in the Town of Webster. The site is north of Admiralty Way and includes Midship Circle, Marina Circle, Ensign Drive and North Cove Drive. All of the referenced developments have dockage available for boating activities. Analysis The relative density of four waterfront properties along with the proposed project were calculated based upon the total number of dwelling units and the total lot area of the project. The analysis is summarized in Comparable Waterfront DevelopmentsTable 4.4 and in Development Density (units/acres) Figure 1. Summary The proposed Newport Marine Club has a density which is more than the Bay Point and the Stoney Point developments, but is less than the Bay Village or Westage developments. The average density of the four existing referenced developments (11.1 units per acre) is more than what is proposed by RSM Irondequoit Bay Development for the Newport Marine Club (9.5 units per acre). Additional discussion relative to project density is included in the response to comment 4.05.
155
Newport Marine Club
Final Environmental Impact Statement
COMPARABLE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENTS Development
Bay Point
Bay Village
Westage
Stoney Point
Newport
Street
Pleasant Ave
Bay View Road
St. Paul Blvd.
Admiralty Way
Newport Road
Town
Irondequoit
Irondequoit
Irondequoit
Webster
Irondequoit
Unit Area (square feet)
4,200-5,000
1,200-1,400
750-950
1,750-5,000
1,600-2,400
Amenities
Community center, pool
Community center, pool tennis courts
Pool
Community center, pool tennis courts
Community center
Dockage
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lot Area (acres)
9.3
8.2
6.9
29.3
5.9
Units
16
129
162
96
56
Density (units/acre)
1.7
15.7
23.5
3.3
9.5
Table 4
Figure 1
156
157
EXHIBIT E1
B BSE CT IO N
EXISTING GRADE
251.4
252.9
253.3
254.2
255.6
257.3
260.6
265.1
270.0
275.0
279.3
283.3
287.1
EXISTING BOARDWALK
EXISTING LINE OF SIGHT SECTION A-A SCALE: HORIZ. 1" = 40' VERT. 1" = 40'
EXISTING GRADE
SECTION A-A EXISTING BOARDWALK
LOCATION SKETCH
251.4
252.9
253.3
254.2
255.6
257.3
260.6
265.1
270.0
275.0
279.3
283.3
287.1
NOT TO SCALE
PROPOSED LINE OF SIGHT SECTION A-A SCALE: HORIZ. 1" = 40' VERT. 1" = 40'
3 LANE TRAFFIC (WEST BOUND)
3 LANE TRAFFIC (EAST BOUND)
ELEV. = 313.0 (±)
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
WATER ELEV. = 246.0 (±)
254.3
263.2
271.2
274.5
276.9
283.5
287.1
WATER ELEV. = 246.0 (±)
LINE OF SIGHT SECTION B-B SCALE: HORIZ. 1" = 40' VERT. 1" = 40'
CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING SURVEYING
217 LAKE AVENUE ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14608 (585) 458-3020
EXHIBIT 1 Date: 6/9/2009
CE#224-LOS E1
EXHIBIT E2
TOWN OF IRONDEQUOIT
BLDG 102 BLDG 101
BLDG 103
BLDG 104
3 8 22 5
4
16
12
GRANITE CURB ' 20.1
14.1'
CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING SURVEYING
217 LAKE AVENUE ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14608 (585) 458-3020
EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNAROUND EXHIBIT EXHIBIT 2 Date: 8/21/2009
CE#224-TURN E2
EXHIBIT E3
E3 - 1
E3 - 2
E3 - 3
Related Documents
Feis Volume I
July 2020 4
Volume I, No I
May 2020 16
Case Digests Volume I
May 2020 10
Volume I, No Ii
May 2020 12
Rhi Volume I
May 2020 6