HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/27/1993 TRUSTEES SUPERVISOR
John M. Bredemeyer, III, President p�0 COG SCOTT L. HARRIS
Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President
Henry P. Smith y Town Hall
John B. Tuthill $ 53095 Main Road
William G. Albertson y p�� P.O. Box 1179
Telephone (516) 765-1892 Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BRICK COVE SCOPING SESSION
APRIL 27, 1993
PRESENT WERE: John M. Bredemeyer III, . President
Henry Smith, Trustee
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
Bob Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
Bruce Anderson, Consultant
Merlon Wiggon, Consultant
Howard Zehner
Frank & Inga Flynn
Sherry Johnson, N.F. Env. Council
Ann Lowry
Meeting began at 5:30 p.m.
JOHN M. BREDEMEYER: We are in possession of a scoping outline
of Mr. Anderson. We have agency comments from the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services, which was received April
19. We have a notice updating positive declaration from the
SEQRA repository of the DEC which we received April 16. We have
scoping outline revisions requested by Peconic Associates,
Inc. We have comments from the Senior Planner, Valerie Scopaz
dated April 22, for our scoping session outline. Mr. Flynn
you have comments you would like . to bring forward?
MR. FLYNN As a preliminary I can scarcely see how these
involved agencies can make comment without having full knowledge
of the legal and other aspects 'of this application.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Is that reduced to writing so that we can have
the Town Attorney's look at it?
MR. FLYNN: I 'm just saying this off the top of my head
because I didn't see them. My comments are apt to be somewhat
lengthy, but I think they should be considered in the context of
the numerous meetings and conferences you have with the
applicant and they. . .
MR. BREDEMEYER: Since you do have lengthy comments, I ' ll ask
the clerk then to transcribe them.
Board of Trustees 2 April 27, 1993
MR. FLYNN: In the effort I assure you I 'm going to read from
this. . .
MR. BREDEMEYER: Can we have a copy of that?
MR. FLYNN: Yes.
MR. BREDEMEYER: I 'm trying to be absolutely inclusive, I don't
want to leave anything out that you might say.
MR. . FLYNN: I ' ll read directly from this. My vision isn't the
best, so if I make a few errors, you' ll understand.
" I am making this statement because I have decided to prove
fruitless to have my consultants to appear at this time. The
expertise of my planners and environmentalists and attorney have
been consistently disregarded by this Board. It has only been
the courts which have paid attention to and given weight to
their conclusions. Accordingly I am holding this experts in
abeyance.
As the Public should know, I have brought seven legal actions
against the Town pertaining to this matter. The courts have
ruled in my favor and five of these proceedings withheld
judgement on two as premature.
Despite this demonstration of the courts disapproval .of the
Town' s actions, I look out my window and see a completed
expanded operational marina.
Lest it be thought that I brought these actions as the result of
some individual aberrant behavior, I would call .to your
attention the following. . . .
'The Suffolk County Planning Department opposed the expansion of
the marina.
The Southold Town Board stated that it couldn't be convinced
that the project would not inflict substantial damage on the
environment. The Southold Baymen's Association opposed the
expansion as being harmful. to Sage Cove as a ,very productive
source of shellfish.
Various civic groups including the NFEC opposed the project.
The positions taken by the CAC are inconsistent to . say the
least. The first time around the CAC voted unanimously
against the marina .expansion. In fact the council's chairman,
Dr. Garrell as well as Jean Marina opposed the project so
strongly that as a result the Town Board dismissed them from the.
Council. So much for independence and impartiality.
The second time around, it was reported at Trustee's Hearing
that the vote was close. I checked and the vote was actually
Board of Trustees 3 April 27, 1993
five opposed to the project, one in favor, and one abstaining.
This constitutes a close vote?
Surprise! On the occasion of the next vote, the CAC
reportedly voted unanimously in favor of the project. What
transpired in the interim to bring about such a complete
reversal?
The Trustees have consistently refused to classify Sage Cove as
a critical environmental area. This despite the fact that the
marina is located within 500 feet of Peconic Bay.
It is of no little interest that the Trustees have declared the
portion of Ashamomaque Pond bordering on Route 25 and
approximate to Sage Cove to be a critical environmental area,
but excluded Sage Cove from this classification.
The actions of the Trustees aside, inclusion of the Bay and all
its tributaries and estuaries as critical environmental areas of
the Peconic Bay estuary to define the ground rules this time
around.
When the Trustees issued their latest negative declaration, they
had knowledge of an environmental report by consultants in
connection with the proposed map of Harborview landings owned
by the Frendolph Corporation. The Harborview property
includes the bulk of the underwater land and..Sage Cove as well
as the largest portion of its perimeter.
The owners ofHarborview Landings acting ethically and to their
own detriment, conceded that the cove and its surrounding upland
was ecologically fragile and was the habitat of endangered
species. They proposed to leave their underwater land and its
abutting uplands "forever wild" . As a matter of fact, Mr. .
Rudolph, one of the principals of Harborview Landings .stated
to me that a meeting held in my attorney's office, his concerns
for the effects of the expansion of the marina on the
environment and on the. value of his property.
In spite of this background, and the testimony of other experts,
the courts have found that the trustees have ignored the
provisions of SEQRA. The requirements of the Coastal Management
Program, the New York Department of States's Marina Criteria
and the Marina Best. Management Practices recommended by the
Peconic NEP CAC must now be considered.
The question arises, WHY have SEQRA regulations been ignored?
Perhaps the reason lies in the chairman' s disparaging
description of the cove as an old clay pit. Does he not know
that it has not been a clay pit for some sixty years? The
change of name. from Young' s Marina to Brick Cove Marina is yet
another attempt at denigrating the area,
Board of Trustees 4 April 27, 1993
The chairman has also disparaged Sage Cove as not being a
natural body of water. The definition of, natural is: "created
by an act or force of nature". Sage Cove has been a natural
body for close to sixty years. If it isn't, neither are Fire
island Inlet, Moriches Inlet or any other of the innumerable
storm created water bodies.
In any event, should the chairman not know, SEQRA draws no
distinction between natural and artificial. wetlands.
In view of the above, the actions of the Board of Trustees may
well be explained in the light of the chairman' s agenda, as
stated to me, in the course of which he planned to remove the
moorings from other town creeks and concentrate them in Sage
Cove.
The Trustees have consistently viewed' Sage Cove as being the
private domain of the marina owner to be used as he sees fit.
The various reports submitted to, and approved by, the Trustees
and property rights of the owners of the majority os Sage Cove's
underwater land as well as the surrounding upland. The marina
owner has title to only approximately 22% of the Cove' s
underwater land. He owns only a small fraction of the
surrounding upland which is, except for the marina's spot
zoning, also zoned for low density residential use.
As a measure of the detrimental impact of the: marina expansion
"for the benefit of the owner of such property and the detriment
of of other owners" , the relative values of all properties
surrounding the Cove can be deduced from their assessments.
The marina assessment of $28,000 - is only 16% of that of the
assessments of all the property around the Cove.
As a matter of fact, the assessments of my residence, combined
with that of only two neighbors facing the marina across the
Cove, exceed the marina assessment by 20%.
As evidence of further inequity in the treatment afforded the
marina owner, all his piers and docks are, and have been
unassessed.
Not only have the Trustees permitted the expansion of the piers
by approximately 100%, but they have permitted extensive
dredging, which will certainly have adverse effects on the
Cove' s environment, now and in the future, and the changes in
water flow and increased exposure to southerly tidal .forces and
storms will inflict consequential damages on the neighboring
residential properties.
Under date of May 18, 1990, Judge Daniel F. Luciano granted
Henry Weismann and I a preliminary injunction against the
respondent Board of Trustees, Board of Appeals and Planning
Board as well as Howard Zehner . and Dorothy Zehner as
Board of Trustees 5 April .27, 1993
intervenors which restricted the marina to install floating and
removable docks, with no additional installation of permanent
fixtures, which will accommodate the same number of boats as
were accommodated prior to any work in furtherance of the
proposed expansion, for boats of the same size as were
previously accommodated.
The judge concluded that "there would be irreparable injury
if such permanent expansion were permitted in the absence of
adequate environmental .or wetland review" .
The court, by its decision of January 15, 1993, has concluded
that there has been no such adequate review to date. It follows
that the judge has concluded that the actions of the Trustees
and others have, by action or inaction, inflicted irreparable
injury on Henry Weismann and myself.
We are confronted with a fully expanded marina accommodating
boats up to 55 feet in length, far larger than previously
accommodated, and an extensively dredged basin. All this was
done, as the judge has ruled in his consecutive decisions,
without compliance by the Trustees with the provisions of SEQRA.
The judge has ruled that the whole review process must start
anew. How do the Trustees propose to rectify their previous
errors?
While the supervision of this project was purportedly the
responsibility of the Trustees, the owner has among other things:
Twice violated the judges stop work order.
Demolished docks. and installed new docks and. related
improvements without permits from the Building Department.
Dredged outside his property' s boundaries and on the property of
others, as confirmed by Bay Constable Dzenkowski.
Attempted to widen and grade Sage Boulevard on the property of
others and to dispose of debris in freshwater wetlands, again
confirmed by Constable Dzenkowski.
As recently as April 9th, (Good Friday) the owner brought in
three units of construction equipment and worked all day. This
was almost three months after Judge Luciano's most recent
decision. Constable Dzenkowski brought these operations to. a
halt on April 10.
Judging by the duration of his dredging operations, and my
estimates of daily yardage, I believe he has far exceeded the
cubic yardage his permit allowed.
As evidence of his disregard for his site plan permit, and of
his presumption that the Trustees will once more give him carte
blanche to continue his operations, the owner has kept a hopper
I
Board of Trustees 6 April 27, 1993
barge used in his dredging operations moored to the outside of
his most northerly dock. The barges beam far exceeds the 15
feet setback to the pierhead and, as a result, not only is
commercial dredging equipment stored in the marina, but the
storage is, in part, on residentially zoned property.
By these actions, the owner has indicated his contempt for
regulations; and the Trustees, for whatever reasons, an
inability or unwillingness to enforce them.
The Trustees issued a "de facto" conditioned negative
declaration on September 26, 1991. There were thirty plus
conditions attached. . Such a conditional declaration is contrary
to SEQRA regulations for Type I actions so stated by Judge
Luciano in his January 15, 1993 decision.
The effect of .this decision is to nullify all existing permits
and to require a proper Environmental Impact Statement which
would examine and take a hard look at all the areas which could
have potential negative impact on the environment.
As a result of the Trustee action, the marina was expanded and
operated for the 1992 season without valid permits.
Even had the declaration been proper, many of the conditions
still have not been met. The Trustees have improperly permitted
the operation during the 1992 season, and the,,owner has started
use of the expanded facility for the 1993 season. Certain of
the stipulated site improvements have not been made even as of
this late date. It is apparent that the Trustees exercised no
supervision over the owner and his actions.
Particularly egregious is the. fact that the marina operated
throughout the 1992 season, and. has started the 1993 season
without Health Department approval for its sewage disposal
system. A conference regarding this installation was held at
the department only as recently as last Thursday, April 22,
1993. I am told by the department that no permit has been
granted for the pump-out facility to date.
Despite the fact that any knowledgeable board would have known
that conditional declarations are illegal, and with knowledge
that proceedings challenging their action had been initiated on
February 10, 1992, the Board arrogantly issued a permit on June
30, 1992 for the construction of additional piers and 350 cubic
yards of additional dredging.
The January 15, 1993 decision of Judge Luciano held that the
marina is located in a "Critical Environmental Area of the
Peconic Bay Estuary" a fact that the Trustees had heretofore
never been willing to concede. He also held: "while the
environmental assessment purporting to support the negative
declaration this case gives the appearance of having reviewed
all areas of environmental concern. . . " (emphasis supplied) .
Board of Trustees 7 April 27, 1993.
The decision also stated: "the court concluded that a reasoned
articulation in support of a negative declaration which does not
address the specific allegations of adverse environmental
significance cannot be deemed sufficient" .
The Trustees have been effectively been put on notice by the
court that the casual broad brush .treatment provided by the
Trustee's reviewer will not be tolerated the next time around.
The court expects a reasoned elaboration reflecting a "hard
look" at matters of environmental concern to be part of the
record.
Evidence of the chairman's prejudice in this matter is provided
in his letter to the .Suffolk Times dated February 18, 1993. He
has displayed his antipathy to me to an extent that constitutes
extreme prejudice and skirts the basis of libel.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Mr. Flynn, if you would like me to recuse
myself from this process I would commend you to write a formal
complaint to the Town Attorney' s office. This is not the place
for this. I don't believe anyone is here to impugn the
character of anyone else. We're here to seek information.
MR. FLYNN: Well this is information pertinent to the this
whole proceeding. I consider this a star chamber proceeding and
I.'m putting on the record why I consider it. I. have one page in
addition to this and I 'd like permission to proceed.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Are you suggesting that our attempt to hold the
scoping session is in some way a nonintervention to -the intent
of the State Environmental Review Act? If it's so I wish you to
provide an addendum or to more formally say so. This form is to
secure information for everyone in the Town to participate.
MR. FLYNN: What I am saying is the information is being
gathered and processed in a clouded manner based upon the
previous actions of the Trustees and upon your personal
animosity to me.'
MR. BREDEMEYER: I don't hold any animosity to you, I ' ll say it
to anyone, I don't hold any animosity.
MR. FLYNN: Well you spread throughout the Town of Southold- a
declaration in the paper that in five instances that reflected
on my character. And I would like. to respond to that at this
time.
MR. BREDEMEYER: This is not the purpose for this meeting.
MR. . FLYNN: Another words, you don't want the public to hear.
MR. BREDEMEYER: No, why don' t you come to a regular meeting and
air your grievance right at a regular meeting when you' ll have
Board of Trustees 8 April 27, 1993
more more public present, and I can assure you I ' ll even invite
the press.
MR. FLYNN: Oh I intend to provide this information to the
press. Normally a persons statements are not interrupted. I
have to bow to your powers as chairman, but I object to them.
Now let me bypass .this particular aspect. Now we start with the
scoping session. The legal notice for the scoping session
merely serves to underscore the enormity of the actions and lack
of actions by the Trustees in this matter. This session is
expos facto. The expanded marina exists. The damage has been
done. How do the Trustees propose to recreate conditions as
they existed. How, for example do the Trustees propose to
replace some 2,900 c.y. of dredge spoil? . In short, how do the
Trustees propose to create a level plain field? How do the
Trustees propose to create a status quo ante, as a necessary
basis to consider the effects on the environment resulting from
this project. To propose that the same organization prepare the
DEIS as planned and engineered the expanded marina, would be
ludicrous if it were not indicative of the matter in which this
whole application had been treated by the Trustees. Can an
impartial DEIS be anticipated under these conditions? To have
a DEIS reviewed by a, reviewer whose previous efforts have been
criticized and rejected by the court practically guarantees
future litigation. In view of all the above, two actions are
indicated. Firstly, the marina facilities have been extended
contrary to the provisions of SEQRA and without either
demolition or building permits. The improvements should be
summarily removed and Christopher D. Kelley, Esq. has so
notified the town. Secondly, the Trustees have demonstrated
throughout either incompetence or bias in favor of the
applicant. In either case the Trustees have demonstrated that
they are unfit to be the lead agency in this matter and I demand
that they relinquish this status to more competent and impartial
hands. That' s the intent of my statement.
MR. BREDEMEYER: I. suggest if there's additional that you wish
to bring to the attention of the Town Attorney that you do so.
I °hold no ill will to you, however I felt very strongly about
the condition you put the Clerk of the Board in.
MR. FLYNN: But you don't commit me to respond. You just
brought up this. May I respond?
MR. BREDEMEYER: Please.
MR. FLYNN: I had incorporated that among my comments, I ' ll
have to find it here. And this incidentally was incorporated in
a response to a Miss Waxberger, equal time to comment, I think
it was February ll, ' in the Suffolk Times.
"I stand accused of having brought the chairman's secretary to
tears. He was not there to witness the circumstances.
Board of Trustees 9 April 27, 1993
At my attorneys request I had marked and requested copies of
certain documents required for trial purpose. Despite the fact
that I .was a known litigant, I was told I would have to wait
five days .for the copies. I deliberately waited till the sixth
day and requested my copies. I was told they were not available
and I could not be assured when they would be.
It was not denied that the copies had been promised to me. I
then demanded them and stated 'I had no intention of leaving .
until I obtained the copies as promised.
The Secretary then. became distraught and retreated to the Town
Attorney' s office. I followed and repeated by demands. It was
agreed the copies had been promised to me and the result was
that the Assistant Town Attorney worked out a compromise with my
attorney.
The Chairman's letter has publicly tarred me as the villain of
the peace, when, for all I know, the Secretary was told not to
provide me with the copies I required.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Mr. Flynn, do you have any additional
comments that you'd like us to consider?
MR. FLYNN: If you' ll permit me. to make then, or. I' ll have to
make them at the next hearing.
MR. BREDEMEYER: No, I ' ll let you make additional comments and
you' ll just continue with your early presentation, that you
seemingly accuse. . . .
MR. FLYNN: You prohibited me from responding to your comments
about me and my actions. May I' follow through on this?
MR. BREDEMEYER: Please.
MR. FLYNN: I ' ll have to go back in here and find where I was
interrupted. In response to these items as sited in your letter.
"I am not the only person to have sued the Trustees in the
last five years. I dare say many more would have done so were
it not for the expense and the frustration resulting from seeing
taxpayer' s money used to defend the often illegal action of
applications. In my case., in two of the three actions brought
against the Trustees in the last three years, Henry C. Weismann,
Esq. was my co-petitioner. Actions were decided in our favor
in all these instances.
The implied full support of the CAC over the period is also
deceptive. The CAC has voted on the marina on three separate
occasions. The CAC's first note was unanimously opposed. Its.
Chairman, Dr. Garrell, and Mrs. Mariner we dismissed from the
council because of their outspoken opposition.
Board of Trustees 10 April 27, 1993
At a later hearing before the Trustees, the results of a second
vote were discussed and the impression left that the vote was
close. . I checked and the fact is that of the seven members,
five were opposed to the project, one in favor and one
Abstaining. Hardly a close vote.
While it is maintained that the last vote was unanimously in
favor of the marina expansion, the complete reversal of opinion
raises questions as to motivation and influence.
Finally under published date of February 18, 1993, the Chairman
stated the matter was before the courts. The fact is that Judge
Luciano had rendered his decision on January 15, 1993 .
As to the comments of Ruth Oliva and Freddie Wachsberger in
their Equal Time submission printed in the Suffolk Times Edition
of February 11, 1993, who is actually misrepresenting the
facts.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Mr. Flynn, out of deference to your
consistent questioning of the professionalism of this Board,
which is your right, I was. wondering would your feel more
comfortable with another Town agency such as the Planning Board
being lead agency. It is my understanding you've never
litigated the DEC, Army Corps, or the State Coastal Consistency
Provisions such that all the permitting resides within Town
Hall. I-'m wondering if you'd feel more comfortable with the
Planning Board with in this process, you would say so now, and
possibly have your attorney's and yourself amplify such a
position in writing. We could conceivable turn over lead agency
to another Town Board.
MR. FLYNN: On balance, .I feel the atmosphere that built up
between me and the Trustees, of course I' ll consult with my
attorney, but I 'm sure he' ll agree.
MR. BREDEMEYER: I would a future meeting or meeting of the
Board I would ask the Board to take that into consideration.
Is there anyone else who wishes to add any comment to the record
with respect to the scoping outline?
MS. SHERRY JOHNSON: I currently serve as Program Director of
the North Fork Environmental Council. Just a quick question
before I outline of my comments. Should the scenario that you
just outlined with Mr. Flynn happen, what would be the
relevance of this meeting? Would the entire process start over
again?
MR. BREDEMEYER: We would have to seek an opinion of Council
also. If Mr. Flynn would follow up in writing requesting
same, I would think he would have to do so rather quickly. It
would be implicit that he would get back to us rather quickly
'cause we would have to consider it and we would have
essentially had a claim on his part that we're not qualified to
Board of Trustees 11 April 27, 1993
continue with Lead Agency if we were to accept such a claim. We
would have to notify all involved agencies and I suspect pick
another lead and pursue into SEQRA. That agency would have to
conduct a scoping session.
MS. JOHNSON: I would not expect comments from any agency to
change the matter who would change lead agency in the matter. I
do apologize for not being quite up to speed on the
application. I did speak before the Trustees, I believe back in
October of 1991, and urged you to do a full environmental review
of the project at that time. The NFEC does feel that
Conklin Point or at least whatever remains of it, is
undeveloped, is a very extremely sensitive environmental area
and we were pleased that the Planning Board did give
Harborview Landing a Type I and will review that project,
should it ever be reactivated or whatever and financial problems
be resolved. We would expect that Sage Cove didn't always
something this marina project should have had the same review
and we're glad that its now getting that. The North Fork
Environmental Council would like see the following issues
addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement which is
to be prepared for the Brick Cove Marina.
1. Description of proposed action.
We would like to see a description of the existing,
unimproved road, which is located off-site, as well as a
description of the wetlands adjacent to road included,
We would like to see the public need for the project
discussed and include a discussion on existing marinas and dock
space available within the Town.
2. Environmental Setting
a) Under water resources.
We would like a complete description of the site
including off-site wetlands, their relations to Peconic Bay,
Ashamomack Pond and Conklin Point.
We would like to see the project impact on wetlands, both
fresh and tidal discussed, describe the drainage scheme and
runoff control measures.
We'd like groundwater discussed, projected water
consumption and water conservation plans. Details of the
pump-out station, and discuss on possible methods that will be
employed to to enforce the use of the pump-out station.
We'd like the sanitary system described.
We'd like to see a discussion on the infringement of
marina operations on adjacent property owner.
Board of Trustees 12 April 27, 1993
b) Dredging
As for the dredging, gathered from the discussion here
today, it may or may not have already been completed or at least
started. We would like to have seen a complete discussion of
the dredging including the time of year that it would take place
and when its spoils would be placed. Have a discussion on any
impacts that the dredging would have had or will have on
shellfishing and wildlife.
c) Landscaping
We would like the DEIS to include the specialty of the
species and species that require little or no fertilization
and/or irrigation to use on site.
As for the fuel dock, we would like discussion on the
impacts to wildlife and water quality from any potential fuel
spills. We would like to see the tanks described, including
size and construction. Discussion on compliance with all
applicable regulations regarding fuel storage.
3 . Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
List all wildlife present on this site and in adjacent
areas. Include any endangered species present, describe their
habitat needs and discuss the role, if any, that Sage Cove plays
in attracting and maintaining Conklin Point as--a viable
wildlife habitat. Discuss the Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitat
designation of Conklin Point.
List any rare plants found on-site or in adjacent areas.
Discuss shellfishing opportunities existing in Sage Cove,
include historical information. Include cumulative impacts on
shellfishing and water quality from the proposal. to use Sage
Cove for mooring additional boats, both from the Harborview
Landing project and by Town permit.
4. Land Use and Zoning
Discuss any and all planning initiative that apply to this
site. Include the US/UK Stewardship Exchange Program and its
recommendations for Southold, particularly their recommendations
regarding the Peconic Bay and tourism. Include the benefits of
ensuring that water quality is maintained or enhanced so that
multiple uses (shellfishing and boating) can co-exist.
Discuss the BT CAMP Study and its recommendations. Also
discuss Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan and how
this project complies with these initiatives.
Discuss the Peconic' s inclusion in. the National Estuary
Program.
9 `
Board of Trustees 13 April 27, 1993
5. Traffic
Discuss access to the site.
Discuss existing traffic conditions on Route 25. Discuss
current traffic generated by facility and any projected increase
in traffic. Discuss the current conditions and capacity of Sage
Boulevard. Discuss the need for improvements to. Sage Boulevard
to handle both Brick Cove traffic and potential traffic from
Harborview Landing. Include improving the road to meet Town
Code specifications, costs, impacts to adjacent wetlands,
drainage and runoff contaminate plans.
6. Describe work that has been completed, to date, to achieve
the proposed expansion. Discuss any mitigation measures that
. can or should be taken to correct or prevent any adverse impacts
from occurring.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
MR. FLYNN: Mr. Chairman, if I understand you correctly, you
would like an authoritarian simple letter from me saying that I
petition you to relinquish lead agency status and assign it to
the Planning Board, is that what' s required?
MR. BREDEMEYER: If that's what you'd like, you seem to have
laid a case for it here.
MR. FLYNN: You made the suggestion. And I. accepted.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Then I suggest you do it. I. suggest you give
us a letter to give it consideration. Is there anyone else who
wishes to address .the Board in this scoping outline?
MERLON WIGGIN: I have my comments in writing.
"Suggestion in the introduction to the Scoping Outline that
specific reference be made to:
1. The original proposed project.
2.. The present status to include the work done to date.
3. The proposed complete project.
The outline should require that the environmental impacts of the
work already accomplished'as a short term evaluation and
comparison with the projected long term.
The outline should also address the alternative 'of reverting the
site to its original configuration to include all impacts pro
and con of environmental, economics, etc.
Board of Trustees 14 April 27, 1993
Add in the Table of Contents and the Summary language regarding
the format of the D.E.I.S. , e.g. :
Original Proposal
Present Facilities (As in place)
Ultimate Proposed Plan
Items A, B, C, D & E should be summarized for all three
situations as above and done in the context of. "where the
project is at" .
I.II A - Description of the Proposed Action needs to be separated
into Past Action (Proposed in ) ; Accomplished to Date;
and Remaining Actions proposed.
I.II C - Design and Layout needs to delineate what was originally
proposed, accomplished to date, and still proposed.
D - Construction and Operation needs to delineate what was
originally proposed, accomplished to date and still proposed.
E - Approvals needs to delineate what was originally
proposed, accomplished to date, and still proposed.
IV - Environmental Setting - Groundwater - (a) only - eliminate
(b) as not germain.
V and VI - Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Measures should be sub-divided into Originally Proposed;.
Accomplished; and Ultimately Proposed. Included in the
originally proposed and accomplished should be data available
that has shown environmental impacts, or lack of (where they can
be identified) regarding actions already taken. This type of an
evaluation is significantly more accurate and meaningful than
that of only proposed actions.
VIII Alternatives - again, make comparisons between
originally proposed and present. One of the alternatives must
be the all restoring of the site to its original configuration,
including resultant economic loss and environmental impacts from
its accomplishment.
IX - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources -
Identify the ones that have already been committed to and
compare with those projected.
X - Growth Inducing Aspects - Include those that have already_
occurred.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Any other comments?
MR. ANDERSON: I have a question. The purposes is to look at
the outline, and see if the outline is right and Valerie
submitted something here and I just have one question on page 2,
Board of Trustees 15 April, 27, 1993
which is the "applicant should be asked to provide sufficient
information in the DEIS . to prove that his access is legal" .
What specifically are you requesting?
MS. SCOPAZ: Whatever information he. feels is affectable.
MR. ANDERSON: What would prove that his access is legal.
MS. SCOPAZ: In other words, if you right of way access of
some else' s property you have some legal documentation to that
effect whenever that may be.
MR. ANDERSON: You deed power or something the deed says you
have access over said.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Mr. Flynn, would it be possible that we could
have that note from you for our meeting on Thursday and we' ll
discuss it at our Work Session?
MR. FLYNN: Well I 'm a very poor typist, but I' ll come up with
something.
MR. BREDEMEYER: OK, if there be no further comments at this
time, we will close the information gathering and let the record
show there was no quorum of the Board of Trustees, that its the
understanding of those gathering information that a quorum
meeting of the Board of Trustees will consider all the
information. gathered and that other additional-'information that
may be forthcoming from Mr. Flynn. I 'd like to put a deadline
on it for all concerned on a letter from yourself, Mr. Flynn.
And I know you may seek legal counsel and it may be up but I
would think that we would want to get all the information in no
later than our regular meeting which will be scheduled for May
27th.
MR. ANDERSON: For what? The scoping?
MR. BREDEMEYER: In other words, Mr. Flynn I assume will have
a note for us to consider on Thursday, and then we move in to
discussing collating all this, but there is serious question
here whether we should even consider staying on as lead and I
want to discuss .that but I want it in writing from Mr. Flynn.
I 'm in deference to his severe statements.
TRUSTEE SMITH: This is just a suggestion.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Right. We are not going to take it, but in
deference to his very severe statements, I want the whole Board
to discuss this at a meeting. The Work Session is at 6: 00 p.m.
and it will be between 6 .& 7 p.m. Now if the Board decided it
appropriate to continue on in its position as lead agency we
would go on at that meeting to collate this record and have the
Board consider it themselves and add any additional comments
they might have. And then approve this as a scoping outline
Board of Trustees 16 April 27, 1993
and move forward in directing the preparation of a draft
environmental impact statement.
MR. FLYNN: Excuse me, I don' t quite understand about the
comments that should be made as to adequacy, of at least my
opinion, the adequacy of any scoping session conducted. In
other words, to what extent is it gonna comply .with the full
outline provided by SEQRA regulations here. This check list, in
other words, I don't know to what extent you are going to
emphasize certain portions of this an eliminate other portions.
Without burdening you, unnecessarily, can I . get a preliminary
copy to check against my copy here?
MR. BREDEMEYER: It' s my understanding we're gonna take the
scoping outline of Mr. Anderson and all the comments here and
append them together and that is going to be the direction for.
the DEIS in this matter. There are any number of ways that a
lead agency can go in preparing a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. In some cases they don' t even have to' hold
scoping, it's optional, and merely allow a person to bring an
application to perform the draft. The burden for the approval
of. the draft and actually writing a final impact statement, the
burden lies with a lead agency.
MR. FLYNN: Well I don.'t want to throw down the gaunt with Mr.
Chairman, but if Mr. Anderson prepares this, it virtually
guarantees future litigation.
MR. BREDEMEYER: So be it, I guess the Board will have to
consider- your request and I appreciate you honesty.
MR. FLYNN: I 've never been less than honest with you.
MR. BREDEMEYER: We will have to act accordingly. Like I said,
scoping is. optional, we're trying to- do this to be inclusive
and we're trying to get our bearings straight and do this job
properly.
MR. FLYNN: One final question. How do you propose to prepare
a scoping analysis, as you call it, of the property which is
already approved and to which the damage has already been done?
How do you measure the scope?
MR. ANDERS.ON: First of all, a scoping outline has already
been prepared, and that was noticed in the paper. So presumably
you read the paper, saw the legal ad, you came in, you were able
to look at the draft -scoping outline which has been on file
for a month. Now regardless of, you must understand, the
Trustees haven't Pos. Dec'd. anything yet. The applicant
has elected to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on
his own initiative. The purpose of this meeting, and the
purpose of the scoping, is to make the Environmental Impact
Statement as complete as possible so everyone can understand the
full nature of the project including its associated impacts.
Board of Trustees 17 April 27, 1993
Now I must say that in order to determine whether or not you
believe the scope is adequate for the project, you must first
read it, and its obvious that you have not.
MR. FLYNN: I have not, and frankly I was not aware that it
was available, as I had other concerns, but that' s no excuse for
not reading it.
MR. ANDERSON: Now the scoping outline itself is based
exactly, precisely upon the appendix found in the SEQRA
document. The format is the same. . . . .
MR. FLYNN: The document is the same?
MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely.
MR. FLYNN: I presume I can still check your outline.
MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely.
MR. BREDEMEYER: And there will be any number of public comments
here. This is the process you have directed through the courts
that we do, and. ... .
MR. ANDERSON: The Trustees have not required an impact
statement, the Trustees, my belief is appealing the decision.
MR. FLYNN: The court has required an impact statement of the
Trustees.
MR. ANDERSON: Which is on appeal. Meaning that the Trustees do
not have to cause a positive declaration. What the applicant
has said is, " we want to prepare an impact statement" . So all
can understand our project, its' impacts, and so forth. so that
is why we're here.
MS. SCOPAZ: Can I ask just one question? I think I would
find it helpful if we went through the draft scoping outline
that you've prepared. That was my understanding that it was a
draft outline to be used a spring board for a discussion, and go
through it line by line, to make clear what we're asking the
applicant, and as we go through it the suggestions the other
agency could be incorporated into it, in other words making it
clear we want the applicant all the questions that we have put
on the table. And then to issue a revision of this that makes
it clearer that the comments of the other agencies are included
so that there's a record in the file that this scoping outline
is inclusive, so that there' s no question in anybody's mind
that, when I was just. looking over the Trustees draft, that
we're working off an inclusive document that includes the
comments of all the coordinating agencies.
MR. ZEHNER: Valerie, with do respect, I don't think we could
possibly, in a reasonable time, I can see, three, four hours, to
Board of Trustees 18 April 27, 1993 .
do what your suggesting to bring this to play, everything that
required.
MS. SCOPAZ: We could do it within an hour, I 've .done them
before. We could quickly go through it.
MR. ZEHNER: Another way to go, would be for Merle has
comments.
Bruce had planned to look at any comments including from North
Fork Environmental Council and Mr. Flynn had he had any
pertaining to scoping and incorporate them. Its our job to
incorporate your comments into the scoping outline so that we
cover them, so we can take each one into account. That's a
future job that we have to do. If we're gonna do a good job,
we' ll have to not only do your comments, but everyone else' s
here and we're_ gonna have a lot of discussion about this. I
don't know if this is the place to' do it.
MR. BREDEMEYER: I've got to say that I think the process would
be a lot neater and tighter, it's easier to put everything in
that we received, and I guess I had perceived that this being
handled a little differently. The scoping outline coming
directly out of the SEQRA handbook that Bruce had drawn up. And
by advertising a scoping session was to get the comments in
and then collate them.
MS. SCOPAZ: I have to say I misunderstood that because the
comments came from me rather than the Planning Board and the
reason for that was that we thought that you were just
circulating it as a draft and that it would be used to be as a
discussion. That misunderstanding of ours is not exactly the
Planning Board doestheir scoping session, a little bit
differently.
MR. BREDEMEYER: You sit down and go through .item by item on the
check list?
MS. SCOPAZ: Yes, what we do is go item by item and then we
make reference to all the other agency comment to make it clear
so as to make no confusion as to what exactly we ask.
MR. WIGGIN: Jay, can I make a suggestion, in light of Valerie' s
comments? We've got some input that I made. Mr. Flynn has
yet to review it. Could we ask Mr. Flynn to: make comments to
the outline as soon as possible after he reviews it, which he
has not done yet.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Well that might be fair, 'cause for everyone to
try to digest it, Ms. Johnson had an extremely list of her own
which may already in large part be included in Mr. Andersons'
list that many of them would simply fit together and I haven/t
seen what you have submitted, I haven't seen the Health Dept.
.report. And to be honest with you Valerie I really haven' t had
a chance to read it.
Board of Trustees 19 April 27, 1993
MR. WIGGIN: Because of the importance we're having the outline,
that is going to be the guide that will be specifically used to
prepare an impact statement.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Particularly if the Trustees say "gee, maybe we
don' t want to do the lead in light of Mr. Flynns' comments,
there' s a possibility the Board. . . . .
MR. WIGGIN: I 'd like to see the comments in incorporated and
then a second scoping. session held. I think it would be a
little premature to say this is the only scoping session.
MR. ANDERSON: My intention was simply gather the information to
day, put it into the outline, which is on computer, and then go
over it on Thursday, and adopt it or not adopt it.
MR. BREDEMEYER: We're not gonna be in a position to do it
Thursday.
MR. FLYNN: By way of explanation, someone might expense the
previous scoping session. to my attention, everything that was
discussed point by point from the outline at the session.
That' s what I anticipate today.
MR. BREDEMEYER: I 'm prepared to do it this evening. I 'm not up
to speed.
MR. ZEHNER: The scoping outline as I understand it from
SEQRA is all inclusive. It' s just a matter of making sure that
we respond to areas that your interested in.
MR. BREDEMEYER: I ' ll ask the whole Board to consider a letter
from Mr. Flynn, and we may set up another special meeting to
do this. In the meanwhile I would ask Mr. Anderson to try to
mesh all the comments we have and will at least for purposes of
the discussion, we' ll make a point of notifying those parties
who are here now, since we have other agency comments. We' ll
make sure we notify Mr. Flynn and North Fork Environmental
Council. Is the other lady representing herself?
MS. JOHNSON: No, that was Ann Lowry our President.
MR. BREDEMEYER: If there are no further comments. . . .
MR. ZEHNER: Can I just ask where this stands then. With due
respect, we did give notice and people did respond. Now are you
limiting until Thursday to receive any more information. Is
Thursday your latest date now, for Mr. Flynn to supply
information if he chooses to?
MS. JOHNSON: Did you say May 28th?
MR. BREDEMEYER: May 27th. That' s a regular monthly meeting,
we would set it up as a work session.
Board of Trustees 20 April 27, 1993
MR. ANDERSON: Jay, can I suggest this? In the effort in
getting this process moving. The applicant has elected to do
this, and at his own initiative why not allow me to take the
comments that have been submitted thus far and corporate them
into the outline that is already on the table and give a
presentation on Thursday's meeting at let's say 20 or 30
minutes, or we go over it and if there is something missing that
is obviously, has to be there that isn't there we can amend it
at that time. But if we get involved in the semantics of how
the outline should be and if we get involved in very small
items, what you may wind up with is a process that is so
complicated that no one can wade through it. The . purpose of the
impact statement is not. to be overly exhausted but to simply to
give a clear picture of what nature of the project is, what it's
impacts are, what is proposed in mitigation of those impacts and
what the alternatives are. As we all know through this very
lengthy process much of this work has already been done.
MR. ZEHNER: Yes, it's just a matter of compiling it. Could I
make one more comment and see if Bruce agrees with me? Regard
to lead agency, It' s my thinking, with due respect to the
Planning Board that the sensitive activity here is around the
water, the marshes, or any aquatic life we have, or plant life,
it seems to me that the Trustees who were originally lead agency
should remain as lead agency for all the obvious reasons. It' s
just my humble opinion.
MR. WIGGIN: The outline of SEQRA says "once a lead agency has
been established you don't normally change that. "
MR. BREDEMEYER: The reasons for being a lead agency are very
specific. The most compelling I thought was the very
professional presentation that Ms. Johnson gave. She was
dealing with facts and figures, and probably 90% of what she
asked dealt with wetland related impacts. And that would be
very compelling. Where we don't have the DEC involved and a DEC
Permit at this time where you'd say it should be between a Town
agency or a State . Agency. But I'm just gonna bring it up for
the Board, I think out of fairness we' ll look at it. OK, I
would say if Mr. Anderson wants to bring together the package
for review Thursday night, Mr. Flynn, if .he would like to be
here to listen '.and comment on it, maybe that would get it off
center 'cause otherwise we're gonna be conducting a review of
a reviewing document infinitely. We're gonna be just chasing
this thing around. And then if there's some problems. I 'm sure
Mr. Flynn will have a chance 'cause we' ll have all the
materials now to be looking it over and make notes on it, so he
can comment on it.
MR. ZEHNER: Does he have a copy right now of the March 25th
outline?
Board of Trustees 21 April 27, 1993
MR. BREDEMEYER: Ok, if that's understood, we' ll proceed.
We' ll try to make it the first item of business, unless the
clerk tells me we have something else.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Respectfull.V Submitted By:
Diane J.lerbert
Clerk, Brd. of Trustees
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
DATE �5 M3 HOURS
`^' er own of outh d