Feis Volume I

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. 80-85-

0147. 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 Description
CIP Capital Improvement Program
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
ECL Environmental Conservation Law
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPOD, EPODs Environmental Protection Overlay District(s)
FedEx Federal Express
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
HA Harbor Area Zone
HML Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Law
HMP Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan
HOA Homeowner’s Association
HSG Hydrologic Soils Group
ILUC Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
LLC Limited Liability Company
LWRP Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NYCRR New York Codes Rules and Regulations
NYS New York State
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSSMDM New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual
P.C. Professional Corporation
RP Resource Protection Zone
RSM RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC
SEQR State Environmental Quality Review
SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act
SPDES State Pollution Discharge Elimination System
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
UPS United Parcel Service
WD 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 Final Environmental Impact Statement
1.0 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
2.0 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: 71 spaces

9 townhouse style units x 2.0 spaces/unit: 18 spaces
103 docks x 0.6 spaces/dock: 62 spaces
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: 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
3.4 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
Town of Irondequoit Planning Board during their meeting of March 23, 2009 are
noted as PB xx.xx.
4
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
4.06 24 Alternatives Rebecca Ott Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
4.07 25 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
5.07 29 Public Safety Michael Caccamise Ridge Culver Fire District
5.08 30 General Comment Michael Caccamise Ridge Culver Fire District
6.01 31 Newport Road David Bradia 61 Mooring Line Dr
7.01 34 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
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.
11.01 43 Newport Cove Harlan Brody Friends of Irondequoit Bay
12.01 43 Access Cheri Evershed Irondequoit Planning Board
5

Table 1
12.02 44 Density Cheri Evershed Irondequoit Planning Board
12.03 45 Lot Coverage 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
12.10 48 Parking Cheri Evershed Irondequoit Planning Board
12.11 49 Newport Road Cheri Evershed Irondequoit Planning Board
12.13 51 Zoning Cheri Evershed Irondequoit Planning Board
12.14 51 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
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

Table 1
19.01 68 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
22.01 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
23.09 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.
26.10 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.
26.15 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.
7

Table 1
26.24 96 DEIS Acceptance Christopher J. Enos Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
27.01 99 Stormwater Peggy Norry NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
27.07 104 Adopted Plans 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
27.12 106 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
27.19 108 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 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 4.01 115 Visual Impact Thomas Wolf 1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
PH 4.02 115 Alternatives Thomas Wolf 1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
8

Table 1
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 5.07 118 Alternatives Christopher J. Enos Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.10 119 Density Christopher J. Enos Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.13 120 Views Christopher J. Enos Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.15 121 Access Christopher J. Enos Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.17 121 Accessory Use Christopher J. Enos Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.20 122 EPODS 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 7.05 126 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

Table 1
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 5.01 134 Number of Slips Robert Spatola Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 5.02 135 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 5.09 138 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 6.11 151 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
10
Comment List by Topic

Table 2
5.04 28 Access Michael Caccamise Ridge Culver Fire District
12.01 43 Access Cheri Evershed Irondequoit Planning Board
26.15 92 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
PH 2.03 112 Accessory Use John Kaufman 249 Hoffman Road
PB 1.04 128 Accessory Use Cheri Evershed Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.04 149 Accessory Use Peter Wehner Irondequoit Planning Board
4.02 21 Adopted Plans Rebecca Ott Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
17.02 57 Adopted Plans Irondequoit Conservation Board Irondequoit Conservation Board
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
22.06 76 Alternatives Lewis Vallone & Robert Hazelton 212 Baycrest Drive
24.01 81 Alternatives Ralph Pascale 40 Mooring Line Dr.
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

Table 2
PB 3.01 132 Alternatives Michael Palermo Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.01 132 Alternatives Jay Ricci Irondequoit Planning Board
PH 2.05 114 Alternatives John Kaufman 249 Hoffman Road
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
4.11 27 Boat Slip Transference Rebecca Ott Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
PH 2.04 113 Boat Slip Transference John Kaufman 249 Hoffman Road
17.06 59 Boat Storage Irondequoit Conservation Board Irondequoit Conservation Board
PB 6.07 150 Boat Storage Peter Wehner Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 4.06 133 Building Clearance Jay Ricci Irondequoit Planning Board
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 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
3.03 19 Construction Traffic Jack Buttino 42 Mooring Line Dr.
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
12

Table 2
17.17 67 Density Irondequoit Conservation Board Irondequoit Conservation Board
23.01 77 Density Lois Buttino 42 Mooring Line Drive
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
5.02 28 Driveways Michael Caccamise Ridge Culver Fire District
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 93 EPODS Christopher J. Enos Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
PH 5.20 122 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
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
PB 6.03 149 Lot Coverage Peter Wehner Irondequoit Planning Board
PH 2.02 112 Mitigation John Kaufman 249 Hoffman Road
11.01 43 Newport Cove Harlan Brody Friends of Irondequoit Bay
PB 7.05 153 Newport Cove Andrew Hintenach Irondequoit Planning Board
12.08 48 Newport Cove Docks Cheri Evershed Irondequoit Planning Board
13

Table 2
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.
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.
12.11 49 Newport Road Cheri Evershed Irondequoit Planning Board
15.01 55 Newport Road Charles Hall 309 Bay Front La., German Village HOA
20.01 71 Newport Road John Papponetti LaBella Assoc. - Town Engineer
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
PB 1.05 128 Newport Road Cheri Evershed Irondequoit Planning Board
14

Table 2
PB 6.08 151 Newport Road Peter Wehner Irondequoit Planning Board
17.05 59 Number of Slips Irondequoit Conservation Board Irondequoit Conservation Board
PB 2.06 131 Number of Slips Raymond McDonald Irondequoit Planning Board
PB 6.06 149 Number of Slips Peter Wehner 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.
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 Property Values Lois Buttino 42 Mooring Line Drive
27.13 106 Protection of Waters Peggy Norry NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
5.07 29 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
27.16 107 Soils Peggy Norry NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
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
15

Table 2
PB 7.04 152 Stormwater Andrew Hintenach Irondequoit Planning Board
13.02 53 Taxes Gary Skillman 20 Tuliptree Lane
22.05 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
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
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
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
12.16 52 Visual Impact Cheri Evershed Irondequoit Planning Board
PH 4.01 115 Visual Impact Thomas Wolf 1096 Glen Edith Dr., Webster
4.09 26 Wetlands Rebecca Ott Irondequoit Land Use Coalition
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
PH 5.02 116 Zoning Christopher J. Enos Bay Tree Homeowners Assoc.
16
_______________________________________________________
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
3.02 Comment
• 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
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 A9-
12). 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 one-
way 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
• Traffic during the construction phase would be monitored and controlled. (pg
1, 3 ¶)
19
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
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 I-
35-37, 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 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 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
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 “Multi-
family (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, 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). 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 in-
season 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
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
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
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
__________________________________________________________
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

surface.
be addressed.

31
accident.



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
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 weather-
33
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

surface.
be addressed.

34
accident.



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-lane-
only 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
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
__________________________________________________________
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
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
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

surface.
be addressed.
39

accident.



40
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

surface.
be addressed.

41
accident.



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
__________________________________________________________
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 §235-
31(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
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.

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
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 §235-
33 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, single-
family 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
the WD Waterfront Development District are set by Town Code §235-

33.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 §235-
33.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
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 decision-
making. Instead, in order to be objectionable, a project must clearly
47
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.
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
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 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

49

surface.
be addressed.

accident.

50



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
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
_______________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________
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

surface.
be addressed.

55
accident.



__________________________________________________________
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
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
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
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
parking and boat storage. The project sponsor has stated that off-
season 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
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 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 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. 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
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
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
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 man-
made methods and techniques will be used to mitigate the use of
62
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
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
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.


surface.
be addressed.

accident.

65


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
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
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

surface.
68
be addressed.

accident.

approximately 1999/2000; however references are made to the need for

69

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
70

surface.
be addressed.

accident.

71



__________________________________________________________
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
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
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
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.


surface.
be addressed.

accident.
74



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
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
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
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
78
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.


surface.
be addressed.

79
roadway, in the vicinity of where the accident occurred.Based on review
accident.



23.09 Comment
The plan for public use of the marina – parking issues. (pg 1, 10¶)
80
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
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.


surface.
be addressed.

82
accident.



__________________________________________________________
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
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
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.


surface.
be addressed.
85

accident.



Refer to the response to comments 3.03, 19.01 and 20.01.
86
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
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
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.

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
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
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. §235-
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.
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
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
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

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
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 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).
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. §235-
94
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
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
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 §235-
33.C(2).
2. Allocation of public and private boat slips are discussed in response to

comments 26.12 and PH 5.11.
97
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
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.
__________________________________________________________
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
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 224-
M4, 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
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
however, need to be provided to describe when, how, and exactly where this will
be done. (p 3, 5¶)
Response
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
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
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 up-
gradient 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
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.
27.11 Comment
In addition to woody vegetation preservation, the site plan should preserve non-
landscaped 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
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
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
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
temporary dockage and minor services for a fee. Additionally, the

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
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
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 in-
season 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
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.

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
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 multi-
story 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
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
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 non-
resident 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.
113
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
______________________________________________________
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
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 §235-
34.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
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
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
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
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
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
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 §235-
34.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 slip-
owners 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
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
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
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
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 multi-
family 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 §235-
32(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
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 A1-
28. (pg 46, L 8)
Response
The referenced letter is included in Attachment A1 of the FEIS, page A1-
28.

123

surface.
be addressed.

accident.

124



__________________________________________________________
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.
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
project density.
125
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
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
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
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
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
__________________________________________________________
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 non-
environmental 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
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 condominium-
style/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
approval.
This topic is also addressed in the DEIS at Section 4.1.2.
130
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 as-
needed 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
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.
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

6.01.
PB 4.02 Comment
Density of the development. (pg 2, ¶ 8a)
Response
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 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
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 multi-
family 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
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

cited the private Newport House “boat docking facility” as providing
“public access to the Bay.” LWRP at IV-14. Additionally, the Planning
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
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
PB 5.06 Comment
The road stability is an issue. (pg 2, ¶ 13f)
Response

surface.
be addressed.

136

accident.



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
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. Alternative A – No Action
B. Alternative B – Private Marina and/or Restaurant (Master Plan)
C. Alternative C – Townhomes and Condo-Style Units (Modified Plan)
D. Alternative D – Townhomes
E. Alternative E – Residential Plan consistent with EPOD, WD Zoning,
LWRP and Irondequoit Bay Management Plan
Alternative A – “No Action”
138
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
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
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
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
• 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
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 non-
resident 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
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
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
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
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
ALTERNATIVE A B C D E PROPOSED
Residential Development
Private Marina Townhomes and Condo‐Style Townhomes and Condo‐Style
Description No Action Townhomes consistent with (EPODS, WD
with Restaurant Units (Modified Plan) Units with Nautica
zoning, LWRP, HMP)
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
The number of units should be
able to absorb the
Total Number of Units N/A N/A 54 45 56
development costs and still be
marketable
Grading impacts isolated to the Minor fill required for the Significant grading and Less fill required for the Fill required for the

Soils and Topography No change SE corner with retaining walls proposed grading along the earthwork for garages and proposed grading along the proposed grading along the
adjacent to south slope northside of Newport Road driveways northside of Newport Road northside of Newport Road
Impervious Area
3.35 3.50 2.79 3.28 TBD 2.88
(acres)
Green space
43% 41% 53% 44% TBD 51%
(% of Total)
Improvements for the Enhanced stormwater Enhanced stormwater Enhanced stormwater Enhanced stormwater

Stormwater No improvements
redeveloped areas only quality measures quality measures quality measures quality measures
Minor filling to keep Minor filling to keep Minor filling to keep Minor filling to keep

Floodplains No change No change buildings above the 100‐year buildings above the 100‐year buildings above the 100‐year buildings above the 100‐year
floodplain floodplain floodplain floodplain
Decreased imperviousness Decreased imperviousness
Increased imperviousness Decreased imperviousness Decreased imperviousness
Wetlands No change with significant wetland with significant wetland
additional wetland impacts with slight wetland benefits with wetland benefits
benefits benefits
Increased imperviousness
Decreased imperviousness with Decreased imperviousness with Decreased imperviousness with Decreased imperviousness with
Irondequoit Bay No change with some additional Bay
significant Bay benefits slight Bay benefits Bay benefits significant Bay benefits
impacts
A slight increase in Decrease in A slight decrease in Decrease in Decrease in
impervious surfaces will have a impervious surfaces will impervious surfaces will have a impervious surfaces will impervious surfaces will
Vegetation No change
minimal impact to vegetation benefit the vegetation of the minimal benefit to vegetation benefit the vegetation of the benefit the vegetation of the
of the area. area. of the area. area. area.
A notable increase in A notable increase in the
A slight decrease in A minor increase in An increase in the available
greenspace will provide available habitats will provide
Wildlife No change habitats will have minimal habitats will have minimal habitats will provide benefits to
benefits to the wildlife of the benefits to the wildlife of the
impact to wildlife of the area. impact to wildlife of the area. the wildlife of the area.
area. area.
Additional road loadings
Additional road loadings Additional road loadings Additional road loadings Additional road loadings
associated with restaurant
Newport Road No change associated with the residential associated with the residential associated with the residential associated with the residential
operation and expanded
development development development development
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
Increase utility demand
Increase utility demand Increase utility demand Increase utility demand Increase utility demand
associated with the restaurant
Utilities No change 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
Increased demand for Slight increases in demand for
emergency services, emergency services, emergency services,
Community Services No change emergency services, emergency services,
minor if any increase in increase in student minor if any increase in
no student enrollment increase student enrollment.
student enrollment. enrollment. student enrollment.
Building Height (feet) 39 39 41 31 TBD 53
Lower building heights
Continued off season boat Off season boat storage and Multiple townhouse TBD, The building height Four condominium‐style
without clubhouse building
Visual Impacts storage and deteriorating 12K sf boat storage warehouse buildings overlap and restrict and location will effect views buildings increases the view of
expands views over the
Newport House with "new" Newport House the views of the Bay from the south. the Bay between the buildings
proposed project
Limited public access with Limited public access with Gated community with pass Gated community with pass Gated community with pass Gated community with pass

Access monitoring by marina monitoring by marina code or keycard code or keycard code or keycard code or keycard
employees employees for safety and security for safety and security for safety and security for safety and security
Yes, if the residential
Meets the Objective of the
No No Yes No development is similar to the Yes
Project Sponsor
proposed project or Alt. C
Existing marina operation is Historically, restaurant Increased building costs will An alternative that deserves

A viable alternative that A viable alternative that
Viability marginally successful in return operations have not been limit unit marketability and consideration if similar to the
deserves consideration deserves consideration
on the resources invested successful ignore the condo buyer proposed project or Alt C
Table 3
148
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
Response
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).

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
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. Off-
season storage of trailers and boats within the common surface parking
lots will not be allowed.
150
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
__________________________________________________________
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
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
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
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
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 Developments-

Table 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
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
Community center, pool Community center, pool

Amenities Community center, pool Pool Community center
tennis courts tennis courts
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
B-
EXISTING GRADE
N
IO
CT
EXISTING
BOARDWALK
SE
287.1
283.3
279.3
275.0
270.0
265.1
260.6
257.3
255.6
254.2
253.3
252.9
251.4
EXISTING LINE OF SIGHT SECTION A-A
SCALE:
HORIZ. 1" = 40'
VERT. 1" = 40'
EXISTING GRADE
SECTION
A-A
EXISTING
BOARDWALK
LOCATION SKETCH
NOT TO SCALE
287.1
283.3
279.3
275.0
270.0
265.1
260.6
257.3
255.6
254.2
253.3
252.9
251.4
PROPOSED LINE OF SIGHT SECTION A-A
SCALE:
HORIZ. 1" = 40'
VERT. 1" = 40'
3 LANE TRAFFIC 3 LANE TRAFFIC

(WEST BOUND) (EAST BOUND)
ELEV. = 313.0 (±)
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
WATER ELEV. = 246.0 (±) WATER ELEV. = 246.0 (±)

287.1
283.5
276.9
274.5
271.2
263.2
254.3
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
EXHIBIT 1
(585) 458-3020
Date: 6/9/2009 CE#224-LOS
E1
EXHIBIT E2
TOWN OF
IRONDEQUOIT
BLDG BLDG BLDG

102 103 104
BLDG
101
22
4
5
16
12
GRANITE
CURB
20.1
'
14.1'
EMERGENCY VEHICLE
TURNAROUND EXHIBIT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
EXHIBIT 2
SURVEYING
217 LAKE AVENUE

ROCHESTER, NEW YORK
Date: 8/21/2009 CE#224-TURN

14608
(585) 458-3020
E2
EXHIBIT E3
E3 - 1
E3 - 2
E3 - 3

Feis Volume I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feis Volume I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Newport Marine Club

500 Newport Road

Project Sponsor / Applicant:

RSM Irondequoit Bay Development, LLC

Town of Irondequoit Planning Board

November 23, 2009

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

Public Meeting held on DEIS: March 9, 2009

Contact Person: Anthony Favro

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

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

Figure 1 Development Density (units/acre) .............................................. 156

Figure 2 Elevations of Bayfront Structures ............................................... 157

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

A1 Written comments received by the Town of Irondequoit ......................... A1-1

A2 Transcript of the Town of Irondequoit Planning Board SEQR Public Hearing,

A4 Letter dated February 19, 2009 from Costich Engineering, P.C.

A6 Phase II – Environmental Site Assessment Data Report, Day Environmental,

A7 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Permit No. 80-85-

A8 Correspondence associated with Newport Road ..................................... A8-1

A9 Town of Irondequoit Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 2010-2015 dated

A10 Town of Irondequoit Town Board Resolution (8A.2009-3) ..................... A10-3

Article IX – Town Code - Waterfront Development (WD) District –

Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Law (HML) September 16, 2008–

Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan (HMP) November 2003 –

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Project Description

1.2 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental

2.0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.0 CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.1 DEIS Section 2.1.2 Public Need and Objectives Based on

Change the first sentence which reads,

To read, “The proposed development consisting of four (4) multifamily buildings

3.3 DEIS Section 2.3.3 Parking

47 condominium style units x 1.5 spaces/unit: 71 spaces

3.4 DEIS Section 6.4 Alternative D – Townhouse Style Units (See

To read, “A total of seventy-six (76) parking spaces would be available to boaters

Change the notation which reads, “Irondequoit Bay”.

To read, “Newport Cove”.

3.6 DEIS Appendix C, Irondequoit Creek Watershed Stormwater

To read, “Development will entail demolition of the existing pavement and

4.0 SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

The following comments/questions were submitted by involved and interested

Comment List by Number

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.