Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/28/1993 ' 1 TRUSTEES o S�FF01/r SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, III, President �� �pG SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President Henry P. Smith ti Town Hall John B. Tuthill - 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson y �� P.O. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 1993 PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Vice President Henry P. Smith, Trustee William G. Albertson, Trustee John B. Tuthill; Trustee Jill M. Doherty, Clerk ABSENT WAS: John M. Bredemeyer, III, President WORKSESSION: 6: 00 P.M. CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Thursday, Dec. 2, 1993 at 8: 00 a�m, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: Monday, Dec. 6, 1993 at 7: 00 p.m. WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES:k ' ' Regular meeting of September 30, 1993 : TRUSTEE. SMITH moved,,to='approve,, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES .: I . MONTHLY REPORT: Trustees monthly report for September 1993 : A check for. $,2,136.15 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on. the Town Clerk' s Bulleting Board for review. III . AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: 1. GASTON CRIBLEZ requests an Amendment to his Storm Damage Permit #81-3-2 to replace bulkhead with 18" instead of il Board of Trustees 2 October 28, 1993 inkind/inplace. Applicant has DEC Permit to replace within 18" . Applicant also requests a waiver of fees as this was storm damage. Located Robinson Road, Southold. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the Amendment and waiver the fee, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 2. JON KERBS requests an Amendment to Permit #1951 to add a 4 ' X 48 ' float in an "L" shape to the existing 30' X 30' catwalk leading to 8' X 30' ramp to 67' X 4' float. Located Riley Ave. , Mattituck. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table until Dec. 2, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 3 . Karen Oxholm on behalf of SELMA JACOBSON- requests a Waiver to construct a ramp leading to house as per plan. Located Lake Drive, Southold. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to table due to non-inspection, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 4. En-Consultants on behalf of .S. HAEGAN BAYLES requests a Waiver. to construct secondary retaining wall at the base of the bluff as per map dated 9/22/93. Located Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to' approve the Waiver, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 5. CAROL FOEHR requests a Waiver to place fence on property line down to water. Located Smith Road, Southold. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to table until a survey is obtained, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES V. ASSESSMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: 1. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of W.L: LYONS BROWN., III ' requests permit for construction of a 4.' X 100' dock to be constructed 4' above grade. Applicant also requests a statement of jurisdiction under Chapters 97 & 37 to construct a one family dwelling, sanitary system, garage, driveway, retaining wall, patio, stonewall, pool and decking as per map of Chandler, Palmer & King survey dated 9/29/93. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table until inspection of Board, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES Z. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of ELOISE TORRANCE ET-AL requests a permit to install a "boulder barrier" approx. 120 ' in length along shoreline damaged during the storm of Dec. 1992. Boulders shall be placed on filter fabric along the bottom of the eroded bank at a point approx. 6' landward of MHW line and, if possible, continuous and contiguous with neighbor to south. As per plans dated 3/29/93 . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE SMITH. seconded. ALL AYES yZ Board of Trustees 3 October 28, 1993 TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to go off the regular agenda, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to go on Public, Hearings, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:'- THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF: FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS„IF POSSIBLE 7: 20 p.m. - In the matter of En-Consultants on behalf of BARBARA CIEPLINSKI to construct a timber dock consisting of a 4' X 100 ' fixed elev. ( 3 ' X 6" above grade of marsh) walkway; a 3 ' X 16' ramp and a 6 ' X 20' float secured by ( 2) 9' pilings. Located Orchard Lane, Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have anyone here who is in favor of the project? Do I have anyone who would like to speak against the project? Does the Board have any comments? BRUCE LOUCKA: You have comments from the CAC, we Ok'd it with some stipulations on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me read them. "Recommend approval with stipulations. CAC recommends approval provided. the project does not block the navigation of adjacent neighbors and the' walkway is elev. 4' above grade of marsh" . I don't think that would be a problem there. If there are no further comments do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion on the application? TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion that we approve this application with the stipulations of the CAC'. TRUSTER ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES 7:21 p.m. - In the matter of En-Consultants on behalf of RUSSELL MC CALL to remove approx. 2,000 c.y. of fill, concrete and other debris dumped in marsh by previous owner. Present owner seeks to restore disturbed area to former condition as a marsh and to re-establish tidal flow via presently blocked drains to marsh to east. Located New Suffolk Ave. , New Suffolk. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have anyone here who would like to comment in favor of this application? Do I have anyone here who would like to speak against the application? BRUCE:LOUCKA: We. OK'd it but we requested that he have somebody like. . . . .we talked about that at the assessment. Board of Trustees 4. October 28, 1993 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: "CAC recommends t0 consult the Cornell Cooperative Extension or an environmental consultant to provide assistance and knowledge to reestablish the marsh quickly and in an environmentally sound way" . I did speak with Mrs. Mc Call whose son bought the property and is the 'applicant and they do want to do it properly. I think this is a worthy project. This is a real problem there. It was filled in years ago, in fact, there were culverts underneath that road, they rotted out, to service the marsh to the east. So if I have no further comments from the Board or the audience, I' ll entertain a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I ' ll take a motion on the project. TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion we approve the project as per CAC recommendations. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES 7 : 23 p.m. - In the matter of En-Consultants on behalf of FRANCIS X. SMITH requests a permit to construct a stairway on face of bluff over bulkhead and outer beach. It will consist of a 4' X 8' platform, 4' X 25' steps, a 4' X 8' walkway and a 5' X 5' platform with 3 ' X 8' steps. Located 1315 North Parish Drive, Southold. TRUSTEE'KRUPSKI: Do I have anyone here who would like to comment on the application? Does the Board have any comment? CAC recommended the approval without any further comment. if there's no further comments, I' ll take a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion on the application? TRUSTEE. SMITH: I make a motion we approve as per- applicants request. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES 7:25 p.m. - In the matter of En-Consultants on behalf of JOYCE. % R. ANDERSON requests a permit to extend existing southerly return by 101 , construct new 20 ' northerly return, replace tie-rods and deadmen in existing bulkhead and backfill with 25 +/- c.y. of clean sand fill to be trucked in from upland source and delivered over owner' s property. Also remove and replace an existing 4' X 8' staircase. Locate 2625 Bayshore Road, Greenport. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have any comment in favor of this application? Do I have anyone here to speak against the application? "CAC recommends approval provided a 10 ' native vegetative buffer be maintained" . If there are no further comments I ' ll entertain a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would someone like to make a motion? TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion we approve WITH CAC comments. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 5 October 28, 1993 7 : 27 p.m. - In the matter of Costello Marine on behalf of MARY LAND BAIZ requests permit to resheath approx. 102' of existing timber jetty, extend inshore 24' landward and backfill scoured void area with approx. 64 c..y. of clean fill from approved source. Located Bay Home Road, Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? GEORGE COSTELLO: It' s pretty much an inshore continuing of an existing jetty. If you made an inspection you would see at the last couple of high tides it was washed out around. the back side of it. She just wants to retain the upland section. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I ask you a question? What's an approved source of clean fill? MR. COSTELLO: Upland source, landfill or just plain sand. It's just got to be approved by DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: OK. Thanks. Is there anyone here to speak against the application? CAC "recommended approval without comment. Does the Board have any other comment? Can I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: So moved. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTER KRUPSKI: Notion on the application? TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion we approve the application. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES 7:29 p.m. - In the matter of En-consultants on behalf of NUNNAKOMA WATERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ,- to` construct a timber retaining wall 170 +/- l.f. overall (including returns) generally at or above line of apparent high water and backfill with 170 +/- c.y. of clean sand to be trucked in from upland source. Wall is necessary to prevent further loss of land and protect road lying close to eroded bank which provides access to marina and beach for members of the association. Existing docks will be unusable due to loss of fill and shoaling of dockage area. Located Wampum Way, Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I. have anyone here to speak in favor of this application? ED DE REEDER: I represent the committee in charge of this thing. There are consultants here that can handle technical questions that you may have. These are neighbors and property owners here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone here who would like to speak against this application? BRUCE LOUCKA: You have comments on that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommended approval. Does the Board have any comments on that? TRUSTEE SMITH: I recommend we close the hearing. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Motion? TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion we approve the application. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL' AYES Board of Trustees 6 October 28, 1993 7: 31 p.m. - In the matter of GOLDSMITH'S MARINA (.held over from last month' s meeting) . Permit for a temporary sea plane ramp as per drawing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : CAC recommends approval only for a temporary Permit' of two years since the applicant describes the project as temporary, the permit should only reflect the approval only for a limited time. If after the two year period the applicant still wishes to have the ramp available he would have to reapply for a permanent permit. We have the drawing we asked for with the site plan with the location and diagram. Do I have anyone here to speak in favor of the ramp? Do I have anyone here to speak against the ramp? I 'd just like to add some comment and for discussion of the Board. My personal feeling on this is. . . .I don't understand the nature of a temporary ramp when it's probably gonna be in place for a long enough period to kill the marine vegetation underneath it. To me if. your gonna grant something like this you might as well make it a permanent structure. I_ don't understand the need for something that's temporary. I would much rather see something like that fabric. I think a copy of the fabric manufacturer "Geo Web" . . . I would much rather see something like that placed in there on a permanent basis where the marsh could grown through. And if the ramp is used once or twice a year, it wouldn' t damage the marsh at all. And at least he would have use of the ramp but it wouldn't mean any loss of the wetland and he wouldn't have that structure sitting there. BRUCE LOUCKA: That' s pretty much what we decided. It' s there and yet something temporary would cover up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if the rest of the Board approves. TRUSTEE SMITH: I 'd like to make a motion we approve it before this marsh comes back in the spring, that this structure where the marsh can grown through it, be installed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With the same dimensions. Wait, we have to close the hearing. Is there any Ifurther discussion? MR. FLYNN: In effect, is the Board maintaining that a sea plane is a boat? TRUSTEE SMITH: A sea plane when it's on the water is a boat. MR. FLYNN: A sea plane when it'slon the water is neither .registered nor documented as a boat. It is subjected to the rules of the road. But when one detects the definition of a sea plane has no correlation to a boat. There were. ancient flying boats which haven' t been used in the last 30 or 40 years to my knowledge, but by any reasonable definition by inquiries that I 've made a sea plane does not constitute a boat. And as such it is not a conforming use as a marina. And further it sets a very 'bad precedence for the Town which has already resisted the construction of one form and in lieu of that looms the potential for numerous other small airports at the sites of every marina in this community. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Do we have any other comment? I ' ll entertain a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 7 October 28, 1993 TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Could we possibly find out from our attorney on zoning. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the M-2 zoning? TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: If there' s a question on wether it is a boat or a plane we' ll have an answer. TRUSTEE SMITH: It's my understanding that the Coast Guard recognizes that when it's on the water it' s- a boat. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Well let' s get it official. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: "The purpose of an M-2 district is to provide a waterfront location for a wide range of water dependent water related uses. Which are those uses which require or benefit from direct access and or location in marine or tidal waterways in which in general are located on major waterways open bay fronts or Long Island Sound" . That' s the definition of the code. So Bill, you think you have problem with the zoning matter or you don't want to approve it just as a ramp? TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: I'd like to get a little more clarification before voting. And if it's not gonna be built for another month it won' t make a difference. Mr. Flynn has raised a question that I think perhaps we should. answer. TRUSTEE SMITH: My motion stands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have a second on Henry' s motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do they have a regular boat ramp on the site? TRUSTEE SMITH: No, they have a travel lift, a little thing that lifts small out of the water. Peter, your a Coast Guardsman, sea plane, when it' s on water, is it a boat or plane? PETER: Boat. TRUSTEE SMITH: And it' s subject to all Coast Guard regulations. Speed, lights, safety, life preservers. There's your answer. MR. FLYNN: That' s exactly what I said. It maneuvers as a boat on the water but is not classified as a boat. This is basic English, a sea plane. is not a boat by any definition. And you can look up your definition or you can look up your current edition of the unexpedited Webster's dictionary and you' ll find that to be the case as your code recommends that you do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually the application doesn't say it' s a boat it says sea plane. MR. FLYNN: If that ramp is actually intended to have an alternative use for launching boats, than I suggest you make a survey of that property and find out whether there's sufficient parking to accommodate both the boats that are on the premises and those that would be accommodated by that ramp including double parking for at least for the towing vehicle and the trailer which would be attended there too. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: He didn' t say anything for using it other than a sea plane. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No it says small boats. But if he' s launching it from his own marina I don't see where he has to provide for double parking for boats for his own marina. His equipment is on the marina. Why would he have to provide extra parking for his own equipment. MR. FLYNN: Well first of all the code provides for it and secondly it's a practical matter. Those people who are Board of Trustees 8 October 28, 1993 launching boats in and out typically have a trailer with them. So as a. result of that is you need at least two parking places for every boat launched. TRUSTEE SMITH: This is not a public boat ramp. MR. FLYNN: I know it isn't. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He' s got his equipment on the property. Why would he need additional parking for that equipment? MR. FLYNN: I think you misunderstand me. I 'm not talking about his equipment. I 'm taking about the trailers that would be attended to the customers coming in to launch boats from the site. It would become in. effect a off-profit boat launch ramp. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That' s assuming that' s true. But we have no information to back that charge. MR. FLYNN: You merely have the statement that it is to be used alternatively for launching boats. Now, what boats are they. Is there a facility already on the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was none on the survey that was provided US. TRUSTEE SMITH: I have a motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's no second on the motion. There's no motion. It' s lost. Is there another motion? TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Table for one month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And? TRUSTEE SMITH: What are you gonna table for one month for, Bill? TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: To answer a couple of questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which one? TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: I 'd like to study it a little bit myself. I 'd like to take that tape and listen to it- myself. TRUSTEE SMITH: It' s up to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you table it, you have to have to table it for something specific. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: I' ll abstain. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have a motion but it was lost. Now I thought you were in the process of- making another motion to look into something. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: I 'm not satisfied with the terms. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're not satisfied with the amount of information provided. But why don't you make a motion to look into whatever specific area you want to look at? I don't want to say "OK there's some opposition, we' ll table it" . That' s not fair to the applicant. If there' s something specific that' s not adequate on the application, that's fine. Let' s look into it, and then make a decision yes or no. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: The thing came up because the question was whether the sea plane is not a boat or not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, not whether its a boat or not. I don't care whether it's a boat, a train or a car. I think the problem is whether a sea plane is allowed use in a marina.. The repair and maintenance of the sea plane, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Mr. Goldsmith doesn't even have that as a public access to warrant needing two parking places for each? TRUSTEE SMITH: No that's a zoning matter. Board of Trustees 9 October 28, 1993' TRUSTEE SMITH: All the guy is asking for is ramp to haul the sea plane out so he could wash it so he doesn' t get marine growth on his plantoons. TRUSTEE SMITH: I make my motion again, the same motion. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Abstain. 7: 49 p.m. - In the matter of BRICK COVE MARINA to modernize and improve marina operations from 91 previous boat slips to 138 boat slips on site formally known as Young' s Marina, 12.5 acres in size of which 4. 2 acres are owned underwater land. Also, the action includes improvement of parking areas, landscaping, marina head pump-out facilities, installation of a paved washdown platform with sediment and oil separation system, a storm drain interception system for the parking area, and relocation and improvement of the existing on-site sanitary system. The improvements to the marina also include dredging of approx. 2900 c.y. , 350 cubic yards of slope dredging and approx. 550 c.y. at the basin entrance to the marina inside the basin. Located Sage Blvd. Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As a matter of public interest, the majority of this project is complete. Do I have any comments in favor of this application? BILL LEVERAGE: The applicant is here along with his representatives and have been studying this matter since 1987. Mr. Wiggin added to your reading material the last few months very substantially, and this document is heavier_ than my lawnmower at home. I 'm sure you have it in detail. I 'm not going to stand or add upon that.. We're gonna sit on the DEIS that has been repaired subject to any comments or inquiries that may be made by the audience, since the. focus is to make and take a hard look and do anything to assist in that process. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments in favor of this application? Is there anyone here to speak against this application? LINDA LEVY: I have read that, and we have, despite the length, we do have a lot of problems with it. We don't think that the hard look that is required has happened yet. I have something to give you and I' ll go over it with you briefly. The major points we had problems with. The first problem we have has to do with the access. The site does not have adequate access from the Main Road. The right-of-way called "Sage Boulevard," is barely sixteen feet wide. This is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass each .other. In case of emergency, an ambulance or fire engine would not be able to safely pass any vehicles evacuating the site. At sixteen feet, the road is substandard and could not be taken over by the Town without improvements. The right-of-way is surrounded on both sides by wetlands. Therefore, any widening of the road would have a significant environmental impact and must be addressed. Neither the issue of access nor the environmental impact of any necessary widening have been addressed in the DEIS. Board of Trustees 10 October 28, 1993 In addition, no current traffic study has been submitted of the impact on the already hazardous Route 25 (Main Road) . The fact that the right-of-way is shared by the Sage property is also not addressed. This second parcel, if developed, would add a significant traffic burden to the right-of-way and therefore the access to the marina. A traffic study is a necessary part of this EIS and should be included. Land Use and Zoning. This site is zoned as Marine II. The DEIS states (Section IV, P.73) that the use of this site as. a marina "is in conjunction with both the Town Southold Master Plan, Zoning, and. the US/UK Stewardship Program" . In fact, the zoning category of Marine II led to a suit against. the Master Plan and reconsideration of this category is part of the charge of the US/UK Stewardship Task Force,, which has not yet made its final recommendation. This particular site is an example of the problems of the Marine II zone. . . .all other zoning within a quarter mile of the site. is either R:-40 or R-80. Therefore, the Marine II zoning of this parcel can be considered spot-zoning. While the existing zoning allows for this use, the fact that it is currently under examination for possible code changes should be examined and addressed. Sanitation System. The applicant states that the ultimate disposal of the waste removed from boats by the pump-out stations still to be determined. The "present plan" for which they are seeking Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval calls for disposal in the on-site septic systems. The applicant goes on to state (Section V, p.10) , "Neither of the three disposal methods are regarded as causing potentially large impacts" . This is .a disingenuous statement. Disposal of this waste in the on-site septic system would certainly have an impact as it would result in increased nitrogen loading. (Please also note that as of this date, the Department of Health has not issued any approvals for the sanitary system) . Impact on Property Values. The applicant maintains that the site will not affect property values in the surrounding area, based on a statement from the Town Assessor. This is not the expert opinion needed for such a statement. Only an independent appraiser can judge as to the potential impact on property values. . . .regardless of whether the Town would change its assessment of the properties. Impact on Shellfish. The applicant states that "Impacts to shellfish are not regarded as significant because the portions to be dredged do not support important or large concentrations of shellfish" . (Section V, p. 13) . This is based on examining the spoil from dredging already completed. However, this spoil came from an area which had already been disturbed. All that Board of Trustees 11 October 28, 1993 analysis can tell us is that shellfish are not abundant in areas that have been developed as marinas. A "Hard Look". The DEIS is filled with general .statements as to the lack of negative impacts which are not proved in any way. Examples of such statements: "Negative impacts resulting from the .temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil are not important" . (Section V, p. 3) . "There are no important negative impacts associated with landscaping" . (Section V, p. 5) . "The value of vegetation to wildlife is extremely limited throughout most of the project area" . (Section IV, p.40) . "The probability of the impact occurring, as well as its duration is small" . (In reference to storm water-. runoff, Section V, p.16) . "The potentially small adverse impact is ultimately viewed as positive" . (Section V; p. 11) . Perhaps the attitude of the applicant in taking negative environmental impacts into account is best stated in the constantly repeated refrain, "All improvements to the present facility are consider to have positive impacts. . . " Section V, p.16) . Such generalizations cannot possibly be considered adequate in an Environmental Impact Statement. Alternatives. The applicant dismisses alternative designs in the following manner, "The only practical time to review alternate boat slip layouts is prior to start of construction" . (Section VIII, p.l) . This. project is at its present stage of construction due to permits issued without adequate review. The applicant is stating that because the work was done before the completion of an EIS, he should not be asked to look at alternatives which might be 'suggested as the result of the belated. EIS. The burden to take a hard look and mitigate potential adverse impacts remains, regardless of the current stage of construction. Finally, we are concerned that the SEQR process has been violated in the continued granting of permits and ongoing construction of this project. In Section 617.3 (a) ( 2) , the law clearly states that the applicant may not " . . . .commence the action unless and until all requirements of this Part have been fulfilled" . The New York State Supreme Court has ruled that SEQR requirements have not been fulfilled; therefore no construction should have been permitted to proceed. This. DEIS was ordered by the NYS Supreme Court to provide a "hard look" as required by the laws of our State. The document now submitted is woefully inadequate. We respectfully request- that the Southold Trustees not accept this Draft Environmental Impact Statement until these inadequacies are properly addressed. Sincerely, Linda Levy, Southold Coordinator, North Fork Environmental Council. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone else have any comments? FRANK FLYNN: I have some comments to make which are uncharacteristically succinct. I had originally tended to be Board of Trustees 12 October 28, 1993 represented by my attorney and consultant at tonight' s hearing, however, my most recent conference resulted in their convincing me that there appearance before this tribunal would be a waste of their time and my money. I consider an appearance before this Board constitutes nothing less than star chamber proceeding. A proceeding designed. to masquerade as impartial but merely going through the actions toward a foreordained conclusion. Ln my opinion this Boards decisions have been politically motivated rather than based upon the concerns of the environment or the law. This . Board consistently demonstrated its bias in favor of the applicant by actions which are in conflict with SEQRA,, DEC regulation, and Southold' s own code. Among its most obvious transgressions the Board has permitted the applicant to flout regulations by operating the fully expanded marina or at least the last two seasons without a Department of Health Permit. Contrast this if you will, with the treatment accorded the typical residential property owner. A more resent outrage is the Trustees role, in permitting extensive dredging outside the applicants property boundaries. and on the land of others. This without public notice, or hearing based upon a disingenuous statement by the applicant. ' The owner of record of the property for the last 23 years that he has newly discovered the shoal. Rather than recite a whole list of infractions all known and condoned by the Trustees, I shall rely in my attorney to continue his preparation of a record, which will enable me to pursue all matter of legal recourse available. In conclusion I echo the time honored phrase. "Twill see you in court! " TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments against the application? Do we have any other comments from the audience? MR. TOHILL: Getting to the particulars of what Ms. Levy has read, the first issue that. she raised was you, as the Trustees, should somehow become involved in the question of access for the Main Road down to the marina. The marina by the way, has been there for 43 years which may exceed the age of Ms. Levy. I don' t know, and I don' t expect her to agree or disagree on that but it may exceed her age. That issue has been raised I think 3 times now by Mr. Flynn through his attorney in the Supreme Court. It has not been successful so far in any of those three efforts and I think (could not hear him due to interference of noise) none the less that issue relates to the section of the New York Town Law or Kinny' s Town Law which is Section 280A and if anyone reads it, and I know their counsel has because they said it. 3 times in court proceedings, the only board that has jurisdiction with respect to that issue is its own Board of Appeals of this Town. This Board has no jurisdiction. So you can rest free of any claim that you have done something despicable by not impounding an actual issue. As a practical matter the applicant, plans no widened road way from the Main Road to this property so there' s no need to worry about. disturbing wetlands if there is. . . . . . 'cause in. our lifetime neither Mr. Zehner nor anyone else that's here is gonna widen the road, we' ll never ask to do that. With respect to traffic study there is an existing use as I've mentioned has Board of Trustees 13 October 28, 1993 been there for 43 years, .there is no existing traffic problem that has been raised ever. in this building or from any of the board in the last 6 years administrative or regulatory review with respect to that roadway or cars or. trucks that are using that roadway. We are not planning to change the use or expressly permitted of the zoning ordinance when that use was expressly permitted ordinance and the Board has to have a suit. We have to assume that they knew what they were doing. To the extend that anyone knows of anything wrong with the traffic and nothing was dealt I mean specifically then you're not at fault and we are not at fault if we don't. . . . (interference of noise) On the issue. of spot zoning, again, you know, and everybody here knows, that spot zoning is not one of the sins that you can be accused of committing. If someone wants to argue that they can go to the Town Board, and in fact I think they did, and they have even gone to court. On the sanitary system, the complaint was that the applicant is going to change the existing sanitary system, relocate it landward away from its present troublesome location and then, cause all of the boat owners to use it at the place for locating any sanitary waste. Now, I heard that "criticism" not certain how this Board should respond. If the complainant wants us not to get the Health Department approval which has been pending all the time the regulatory has been going on, then I 'm afraid we are not going to listen to her. We intend to get Health Dept. approval for the sanitary system. I.f she is proposing that we leave what' s there now, which might be considered troublesome, we're not going to do that either. We are going to relocate landward, the existing sanitary system. ' If she says that we should not use the sanitary system in order to act as a pump out facility then we disagree with her again. We intend to use it as a pump 'out facility and we intend to do exactly what this Board once recommended as a condition of permit approval with the litigation. In other words I don' t know what the point -was, I lost tract of it after she said "and, with respect to the sanitary system" because nothing made any sense. I 'd like to turn the floor over. to Merl Wiggin. MR. WIGGIN: One problem with the sanitary system was the relocation of the existing sanitary system 100 feet more away from the existing surface waters. This has been proven wonderful. This is on the same basis if everybody does this as well if you want the whole basin approved. Some of these surface water, tests or water quality exists on the west side of the basin are a problem and not a problem on the east side of the basin. Another comment was made about the disturbed site. The whole site- was disturbed. That was a mining operation for clay for brick. It' s all been disturbed over that period `of time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else? MR. 'ZEHNER: I'm the owner of the property. I would like to take note that we received a total of 14 permits since 1987 plus 5 additional work amendments to those permits and from 6 different government agencies. All these government. agencies are project and approved those permits. (Shuffling of papers, cannot hear Mr. Zehner) We did outside studies. on plant and Board of Trustees 14 October 28, 1993 wildlife. And we found no significant impact by ,our outside agencies on wildlife or plant life. Last item. We could have gone for a much more, expansion than we did for our project. (unable to hear Mr. Zehner) . MR. BILL LEVERAGE: I know you guys are aware of this, but everybody should be aware that in doing this project, we are farther behind environmentally now .than we would be if Mr. Flynn hadn't constantly sued on it. We have gone ahead with the permit requirements that were put out by you fellows. And have completed almost all of them on the project, and that the project is virtually done in the water and the upland portion remains to be done, the thing that held it up, the part that is important, the drainage and sewage thing, had been slowed down by the constant problems that we had in court. Some of the things that had been done that I think there is no negative impact and perhaps a positive impact on the area is that the two areas that were originally sited as having a problem upland are cleaned up they're done, shipped out, burned and whatever they do with it at a tremendous expense. We put in a new buried water distribution system, Health Dept. approved so that we could keep our regular sanitary facilities open during the winter. It used to have to be shut down. Now we have year round sanitary facilities on the property. Portable pump out stations have been working- for two years. You have been getting your reports on the fact that we are pumping out. We have gotten tremendous cooperation from the people in the place. All the heads are sealed off. Last year on a monthly basis we did water quality testing and Mr. Flynn can look at them. For some time we have used the Southold stop program for all our toxins and stuff like that. We were probably one of the earlier people to start recycling and again we've gotten good cooperation from the people who come in. All the waste oil that' s on the property is collected by us and shipped out at our expense to a certified reprocess throughout the Island. We don't use any toxic antifreeze on the place. We use non-formaldehyde head chemicals. Every boat in the place has oil absorbent material in the bilges, so that when you pump the bilge water out the oil is trapped in the oil sorbs and the water only comes out. So basically that's where we stand. If this keeps going on the way it is, I don't know how long it' s gonna be before we get everything else done. We're going as fast as we can and we're sorry that we have this constant problem with Mr. Flynn and I think all the environmental groups ought to take a look at this. -I come from 8 years of running a big marina on the Chesapeake and we went through the Chesapeake Bay Estuary program down there. It was a very good program and one of the things that was a key note to that program was that when they re-align what you could do on property on the water in order to make it viable they talked in all cases on intensification say where a location was proper to start with, the operation was there so you could get the boats out of the creeks into the marina where the sewage could be properly pumped and oil absorbs could be put in. I think the environmental groups should think about that when they constantly try to drag these things out. Board of Trustees 15 October 28, 1993 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is .there anyone else who would like to comments? RICHARD RALYEA: I kept my boat in the marina for three years and I 'm also a LYCO contract. I 've done quite a bit of contract work there. So from both views as a contractor and boater they have done a nice job and done nothing but improvements and the improvements are set all upland and I don' t see .how that could do anything but improve the marina and the environment. They were very careful about the pump outs and boaters. It' s areal nice operation and I think it' s good for Southold. People come from up the Island and even New Jersey to keep they're boats there. They spend a lot of money, at the restaurants, wineries, shopping locally. We' re a waterfront community so I think it' s a very positive environment for Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else who would like to speak? Anyone else who would like to speak. LINDA LEVY: I 'd just like to point out that the DEIS is to take a hard look. The NFEC is not saying that they are not, doing nice things over there, that its not a clean operation, that they' re not trying to make some mischief. This is not about what is happening right there right now, but this about the DEIS statement that was charged to take a hard look. When it is completely ignored any negative impact whatsoever, if you were to believe this DEIS there is not a single negative thing that could ever be thought of with conjunction with this marina. And our complaint is with this DEIS that is not taking a hard look and that. is what we are expecting to see. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any one else? MR. FLYNN: I '.d like to make a short comment. There was mention of the ecological environmental studies made. 'They were made on the site. I don' t know if this board is aware that 800 of the underwater land and 20-25 times the area of the upland is owned by others and should be considered in terms of the impact. Both on the environment and the value of the surrounding properties. What respect to the environment, our view certainly disinterested parties since they no longer own the Sage Estate, conducted an environmental study. of the area? And to. their credit and to their detriment they found that the upland and areas of that little estuary and baymans or whatever you want to call it was the habitat of endangered and threatened species. That's somewhat at odds with this DEIS and I think its a matter well worthy of further investigation. Actually the Trustees have or should have had access to the harborview study before any of this permits were issued. Now with respect to permits, there was an original hearing to this project, then the Trustees amended and increased the operations without the additional hearings and- many of these amendments were made subsequent to the court decision which required the DEIS. I hardly think that constitutes. whatever it may be argued the marginal legality that such a thing may be; I hardly think that demonstrates a proper respect for the environment on a part of the Trustees. Now in respect to the Department of Health, it is clear both in the DEC regulations and the Southold Board of Trustees 16 October 28, 1993 Town Code, that prior to this expansion a permit was required of the Dept. of Health. And the reason has nothing to do, well it' s partially to do, with the fact that the present system is located within 100 feet of the bulkhead or high water line whatever you want to define it, but more to the point it' s required because of the -expansion of the marina. Now it may very well be that on Aug. 6 the size of the boats in this marina average in the neighborhood of 28 feet, but the docking plan in that marina includes boars up to. ,55 feet. If you were to project the capacity needed as the Dept. of Health has, they are in doubt when or where any excess capacity can be located. Now this has been going on for over two years, its been stated that this has quoted by the Dept. of Health, if there is not a problem with this property, why hasn't a permit been granted? I think that' s also a verbal appeal for an investigation by this Board. Now your talking in terms of road studies and the fact that they are not required. The increased capacity of the marina certainly is going to dictate additional road traffic. The primary owner the theme owner is this property is the Sage Estate. What has happened here is that this marina has grown from its original 14 boat capacity to the present capacity which is stated as 138 boats. That' s 'a 10 boat increase. The fact of the matter is that the Sage property would be having eventual development of the Sage property,which certainly would be adversely affected financially by the expansion of this marina but it would also be affected by the overburdening of this right-of-way. Now with respect to this right-of-way and it should be a matter of prime concern to this board is the health, safety and welfare of the community. I don't. know whether you are aware of it or not but New York State Law permits vehicles 8 1/2 feet in width without any requirement or permit. It is obvious that two vehicles of that width cannot pass on a right-of-way which is only 16 feet in width. And it constitutes the equivalent of a house or a driveway 740 feet in length with no cross roads or turnouts. So access to what is potentially a dangerous site in terms of. . . . .you must be aware of marina fires and that result there from. The question of public vehicles, safety vehicles, fire department, police department, etc. . . .despite their casual response to the DEIS, I suggest they might not even be aware of the requirements of the Transportation Dept. for width of vehicles They could not safely pass on that right-of-way. And were there to be a problem the prime owner of this right-of-way would be cut off from access to Route 25 . The total development of this property is also a matter to. be considered. Were you to think in terms of the Sage property, I don't know what the ultimate development would be but it would certainly be several houses. But .more to the point the question of perhaps the indicated load from the marina could be adduced from an analysis from the Dept. of Health's figures. The Dept. of Health in computing their sanitary requirements figures two persons. per boat, 138 boats, 276 people. An no question about that they told me themselves. Were to use LILCO's figures where they compute somewhere over 3, persons per household, you would have an equivalent of Board of Trustees 17 October 28, 1993 approx. 90 households in this ratio. Added to that is the Sage property. For the life of me I can't see how this question of access could be dismissed lightly because even in the smallest of the major subdivisions approved in this Town, there has to be an alternative means of access. There is none for this property, nor is there for the Sage property, which in effect is a dead end. With further respect to the road studies there was reference and reliance placed, I believe, on the. previous road study that was done in 1986. I suggest if you will that you examine this. Because that study indicated that there would be road movements, vehicular movements over a 24 hour period at approx. intervals of 37 seconds. Now if that is not overburdening the right-of-way, I don' t know what possibly could. One further reference is ,absolutely factual. The selective method of supplying the appendices to this study is hardly forthright. - There' s a reference made there to close studies conducted. Again I think it was 1986. The quote is that they have only selected Section 6 as a summary. Were the actual summary to be read, and. I think it is advisable under the circumstances you do so, it says that the study was only conducted on two days. It was conducted during a period when the winds were prevailing from the north and the northwest and there were no winds at all. And finally that it was non-determinative. That they made recommendations for additional studies to be conducted that were never conducted. So' in effect there is a quotation, as I recall it in I think appendix 2, where Mr. Bredemeyer made comment to the effect that he was not impressed by the size . or the weight of the submission. I believe at that time it was our submission. . I_ submit that that statement prevails in spades with. respect to. this DEIS. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to comment on the DEIS. Would the Board like to make a comment? I 'll entertain a motion to close the hearing, TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I' ll entertain a motion to go off the public hearings. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES Recessed for 5 minutes V. ASSESSMENTS/ENV.IRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: 1. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of W. L. LYONS BROWN, III request permit for construction of a 4' X 100' dock to be constructed 4' above grade. Applicant also requests a statement of jurisdiction under Chapter 97 & 37 to construct a one family dwelling, sanitary system, garage, driveway, . retaining wall, patio, stonewall, pool and decking as per map Chandler, Palmer & King survey dated 9/29/93. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to table, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES , Board of Trustees 18. October 28, 1993 2. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of ELOISE TORRANCE ET-AL requests a permit to install a "boulder barrier" approx. 120' in length along shoreline- damaged during the storm of Dec. 1992. Boulders shall be placed on filter fabric along the bottom of the eroded bank at a point approx. 6' landward of MHW line and, if possible, continuous with neighbor to south. As per plans dated 3/29/93 . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 3. Peconic Associates on behalf of ,NARROW RIVER MARINA requests a permit to replace 83 ' of bulkhead and extend bulkhead 34' . Extend floating dock to new bulkhead location. remove damaged bulkhead and fill to water depth of 4' . Relocate existing floating docks and. pilings. Replace and relocate 30 ' of wave break and replace 50' of bulkhead (wave break) . Install 1 1/2' X 8' finger piers. Note: Reconfigured layout equals 12 slips, replacing existing 14 slips all per survey and plan dated January 18, 1993. Located Narrow River Road, Orient. TRUSTEE SMITH moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 4. Proper-T Services on behalf of JANET T. SWANSON requests a permit to construct 61' overall by 3 ' wide stairs with landing at top and landing in middle section; to. replace, in new location, storm-damaged existing stairs. Located 1995 Ryder Farm Lane, Orient. TRUSTEE TUTHILL moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE. ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 5. Costello Marine on behalf of," DAVID FRENCH requests a permit for a 4' X 100' fixed timber dock and (4) 2-pile dolphins. Located Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. TRUSTEE TUTHILL moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 6. ANGELA RADOVIC.' requests a permit to construct earth berm and place new lawn as per plan of Doroski Nursery, Inc. , received October 21, 1993. Located 2060 Clearview Ave. , Southold. TRUSTEE SMITH moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 7. Costello Marine on behalf of ANTHONY & VIOLET TAMBURRINO requests a permit to extend existing bulkhead return 10' landward and fill void with 3-4 c.y. of clean fill. Located 85 Waters Edge Way, Southold. TRUSTEE' ALBERTSON moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 8. Young and Young Land Surveyors on behalf of ,FREDERICK W. COLLIGAN requests a permit to raise the existing bungalow approx. 3 ' and securing it to a new pile foundation. Located 520 Park Ave. Ext. , Mattituck. Board of Trustees 19 October 28, 1993 TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 9. STEPHEN BUCZAK-`requests a permit to construct a one family dwelling with associated sanitary system and pool with a 40' buffer. Located Willis Creek Drive, Mattitdck. TRUSTEE SMITH moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 10. Ford Swick on behalf of SUZANNE SWICK requests a permit to construct a one family dwelling as per survey dated March 15, 1993 . Located Route 25, East Marion. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to table until Dec. inspection, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES VI. RESOLUTIONS: 1. Board to set public hearings for the Dec. 6, 1993 regular meeting for those applications that are Type II and/or have received a negative declaration. TRUSTEE TUTHILL moved to approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 2 JOHN GANTLY requests an extension on permit #3943 to replace existing bulkhead to expire Sept. 6, 19.94. Located 9680 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE TUTHILL moved to approve the extension, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 3 . PAULINE ISRAEL requests an extension on permit #3952 to construct dock to expire Oct. 4, 1994. Located Gull Pond, Greenport. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approve the extension, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 4. Richard Lark on behalf{ of JOHN CONFORTI , requests a grandfather permit for a 5' X 70' dock with a 3 ' X 16 ' ramp in Mattituck Creek. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approve the grandfather permit, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 5. Costello Marine on behalf of BRUCE AND BARBARA BEANY requests a grandfather permit to replace 2 1/2' X 30' fixed timber dock, a 30' X 14' ramp, a 6' X 20' floating dock with pipe support pilings. Located 1750 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the grandfather permit, TRUSTEE SMITH SECONDED. ALL AYES 6. ROBERT GUARRIELLO requests a Grandfather Permit to replace inkind/inplace 130' +/- of bulkhead. - Located Budd' s Pond Road, Southold. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve Grandfather Permit, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES } ti Board of Trustees 20 October 28, 1993 7. En-Consultants on behalf of GUS WADE to construct a one family dwelling.= Findings and decision on the final Environmental Impact Statement. Located East Road, . Cutchogue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI read resolution: The. following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on Thursday, October 28, 1993 : WHEREAS, Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for an action know as Gustave Wade ( "Action") and was accepted by the Southold Board of Trustees ( "Trustees") , AND WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the .Action, AND WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact. Statement was ,prepared and accepted by the Trustees, AND WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Statement ( "EI'S" ) revealed that the environmental impacts stemming from the proposed septic system will have an undue adverse environmental impact upon wetlands and surface waters of Eugene's Creek and will preclude the Trustees from restoring their adjacent lands to their original condition, AND WHEREAS, the EIS revealed that the mobilization and demobilization of heavy equipment will adversely effect tidal wetlands the Action will adversely effect shellfish, other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation. and the natural habitats thereof, AND WHEREAS, the EIS revealed that adequate fire protection to the proposed dwelling is impossible and therefore, the proposed project will adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the applicant and any future inhabitants; AND WHEREAS, a Findings Statement has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is consistent with the standards. set forth in Chapter 97 of the Town Code, NOW BE IT resolved, that the Findings Statement is hereby accepted, AND, BE. I.T FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Findings Statement be filed with all Involved Agencies and the Applicant, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Southold Town Board of Trustees Deny the application of Gustave Wade without prejudice" . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion was made that the Southold Trustees deny without prejudice the application, TRUSTEE. TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 8. EDWARD FERGUS - Board to reduce catwalk by one_ set of piles. The dock at the present length blocks passage for any other boat. Located North Bayview Road, Southold. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to meet with Mr. Fergus to inspect, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 9. PLOCK PROPERTY - Report from Chris Pickerill - Approve plan for replanting. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 10. DONALD TUTHILL - 45 ' buffer from top of bank Board of Trustees 21 October 28, 1993 r TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH moved to adjourn at 10:10 p.m,. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded... ALL AYES Respectfull Submitted By: Diane J. Herbert Clerk, Board of Trustees RECEIVED AND FILED By THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE /�/���3 HOUR 3;q6 Town Clerk, Town of Southold