Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/17/1991-S TRUSTEES O�� co SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, III, President h'� G'y� SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice PresidentCA Henry R Smith Town Hall John B. Tuthill �,y �� 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson 0,( �`a� P.O. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING BRICK COVE MARINA OCTOBER 17, 1991 PRESENT WHERE: John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Albert J. Krupski, Jr. , Vice-President Henry P. Smith, Member John L. Bednoski, Jr. Member John B. Tuthill, Member CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We will go to # II RESOLUTIONS: 1. Board to set a special meeting for October 31, 1991 at 4 p.m. on the Andros Patent. A motion was made by TRUSTEE SMITH and seconded. -by TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER to set October 31, 1991 for. a special meeting to meet with the Riverhead Town Trustees regarding the Andros Patent. All Ayes. Noted for record bad day and time for Trustee Krupski and Trustee Bednoski, will try to attend. 2. Board to authorize Chairman to purchase refreshments -for after the October 31, 1991 meeting. A motion was made by TRUSTEE TUTHILL and seconded by TRUSTEE SMITH to authorize the Trustees to purchase not more than 3 gallons of apple cider and 3 dozens doughnuts for refreshments after the October 31, 1991 meeting. ALL AYES. 3 . Board to authorize the purchase of a message machine for the office. A motion was made by TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER and seconded by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI to purchase an answering machine for a price not to exceed $100.00 for use at such times as when the clerk and Jim McMahon cannot be in the office as per the request of the Planning and Zoning Boards. ALL AYES. Board of Trustees 2 October 17, 1991 special Meeting 4. Board to approve a dredge. spoil site for the . Koke,/Cornnachia projects. A motion was made by TRUSTEE SMITH and seconded by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI whereas, the Southold Town Trustees are concerned with the prompt execution by NYSDEC of Tidal Wetland permits in the matter of the applications of KOKE/Cornnachia, we hereby resolve to approve placement of dredge spoil on Trustee lands, abridgement of the rights of the free access or navigation of ,Town waters and subject to the special requirement that the channel beneath the foot bridge on the Cornnachia property be re-opened and that no spoil be placed in same. ALL AYES. 5. HAROLD CASIN request amendment to permit #996 to add. 6 ' X 30 ' catwalk to permit. . A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE TUTHILL to approve amendment. ALL AYES. 6. BERTRAM WALKER request grandfather permit for 130' +/- of bulkhead and to replace in-kind/in-place same. A motion was made by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI to approve grandfather application. The Board gives permission to replace in-kind/in-place the bulkhead. Approx. 130' . ALL AYES. I. 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 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: 05 P.M. - Pursuant to NYCRR Part 617 and Article 8 of the . ECL the Southold Town Trustees as Lead Agency in the Type I action (Negative Declaration of 9/26/91) in the matter of the application of Peconic Associates on behalf of Southold Bay Associates for the action known as Brick Cove Marina to improve, modernize, and enlarge existing marina (138 slips) . Improvement to include a more efficient slip layout and the addition of environmental improvements that include pump-out station, interception of stormwater runoff, landscaping, dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards of material from the shoal areas and the relocation of an existing septic system 100 feet landward of mean high water. The time is now 7:10. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MERLON WIGGIN: I am Merlon Wiggin for the applicant. inaudible due to maps being opened. . .we are very proud of the work that has been done to mitigate every reasonable impact on Board of Trustees 3 October 17, • 1991 special Meeting the expansion of the marina. Some of the highlights which I am sure you have all been aware of, there has probably been more details put on this. than some projects that have full blown . environmental impact statements. There is no bulkheading work being done. It is all existing bulkhead. I am just trying to hit some of the highlights here. There is a lot of effort being taken to not damage or touch the wetlands. This is one of the few projects that has gone to the great extent to control and prevent surface runoff from going back into the basin. This has been from you people, we have had. many examples from the State. Surface runoff is a potential degradation to water quality. We hope this sets an example to the rest of the people that surrounds Sage Basin to do the same type of thing to help improve the water quality. There• is very stringent controls being done on the heads in the boats. 100% requirement of all users of the marina are to sign agreements. There will be no discharge overboard. They will seal "Y" valves. DEC has looked at this and say that this is an example where perhaps they will not have to close a marina because of the boats with heads. They are going to monitor the water very carefully. In fact they are considering based on the history of the use this control. It is a practice to contract and reduce the time that . the marina will be closed in the Summer season. The pumpout facility is being reviewed by the Health Department and the Trustees. These things in summary have had a lot of effort .gone in to make sure that this project has no impact on the. environment. In fact the 'over all summary as reviewed by you people is definitely going to be an improvement over what is presently existing. All projects like this are in compliance with the New York State Coastal Zone Management policies. I will quickly summarize. The first policy in the state is to restore and revitalize unutilized water front areas. So it is certainly-unutilized and partly deteriorating water front areas. Priority should begin with water dependent uses. A marina is certainly a water dependent use. Policy number two, when you decide where to put these water dependent uses, you should make special consideration of what is there for in place facilities. It makes specific reference to water, electricity. This site has both of those already in place. One main thing that they put out and emphasize is that a water dependent use has to have. access to navigable channels. This certainly has access to Peconic Bay. It is one of the better protected marina site in Southold Town., . . .That is just a quick summary of the things in the State Coastal Policies. If you have any questions of me, I will be glad to help answer them. The owner and manager are both here. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have one question. On the map here it says perpetual deeded navigational right-of-way. Is that the right-of-way for the Brick Cove property or is that the right-of-way for any adjacent? MERLON WIGGIN: That is for Sage Basin. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems to show a boundary. What are the outer limits of that boundary? Board of Trustees 4 October 17, 1991 special Meeting HOWARD ZEHNER: . . .This right-of-way is exclusively for me. It is to get to a parcel that I .purchased in this corner right here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: O.K. I see. I just wondered how it effects these lots here. HOWARD ZEHNER: I would like to add to Merl' s comments on the positive aspects of this marina expansion. Just a quick back round. Greg Young had the marina for twenty years. . . I had the marina for twenty years. I sold the marina March of 1990. I am working with Merlon Wiggin now as consultant for the marina people as authorized by the present owners. I am working with them to expedite this process. The old process started in January 1986. It was finally completed in January of 1990. At which time we received all our permits. On May 18, 1990 a judge rendered a decision that specifically stated that the Board of Trustees and. Planning Board did not follow the proper procedure and some detail of SEQRA. As Merl mentioned no bulkheading, no wetland disturbance, no upland development except for -parking and drainage. Which is a Planning Board item. We are getting a pump out station, a wash down catch basin. The marina owns the inlet and will maintain the same for flushing and navigation. It is a unique thing ,when the marina owns the: inlet. Basin dredging to 6 ' will increase flushing. We, are getting speed limit signs. ' We are getting parking and drainage controls. Parking and landscaping. The marina expansion is limited by fact, by note, by stipulation to 138 boats, .no more. The marina designed manual guidelines which suggest 160-40' boats could be put in this 4 acre marina water area. . .The stronger new docks will minimize boat brake away and subsequent property damage during a hurricane. . .new docks have a better appearance then the older docks. All the docks use separated pontoon floatation rather than continuous styrofoam for better near surface flushing. . .Dock lighting will consist of low 13 watt lights with translucent lenses mounted 3 ' pedestals. There will also be non-glare ramp lights at the head of each dock. The increased boat capacity for 138 boats will allow for more efficient marine , operation with full time employees. The present operation requires part-time employees with layoffs, hence difficulty keeping good help. The expansion also helps the local economy by employment and additional real estate taxes. . .Maureen Davidson DEC did coliform counts for 4 Summers from 1988 to 1991. . .results were as computed by Jay Bredemeyer in my presence from this- data, the total coliform results resulted in #9. The requirement is less than 70. The fecal coliform results where 4 and the requirement is less than 14-. Both counts are well below the requirement. In conclusion, two things. Sage Basin has been . and will continue to be, with added controls, a pollution free body of water. The only foreseeable problem that I can see, . this is personal, . . .from residential sewer systems on the basin. However the DEC has closed .all marina surroundings until they, the DEC, update their information and more marinas can perform the pumpout stations and-record keeping and so .forth. The Marina has operated at a lose for two Summer seasons with only 38 slips compared to 95 previously. Thank you. Board of Trustees 5 October 17, 1991 special Meeting TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? JAY THOMPSON: My name is Jay Thompson: I live out here in Greenport. I have kept my boat there for some 1.2 or 1.4 years. During the economic confusion and the lack of permits I removed my boat from there. We did not know what was happening for such a long period of time. I am one of many who thoroughly enjoyed the marina under the management .of Bill Leverich. I have .been back many times to see what is going 'on, what is happening. I keep my boat right here in Greenport. It moved a matter of 5 miles. One thing I don't think has been stressed in the passed, it is a very family oriented marina. They have never encourage transients. There has been no advertisement of soundings or anything of this nature to encourage people to come visit for the weekend. It has .always been a family marina and. because of that people are very conscious of the cleanliness of the water. It is not unusual to see a boat come in and tie up 'and see someone from that boat go swimming directly into the basin. If you do that, you are very conscious of your neighbors and you- - are very careful yourself. I hope if there is any questions, you ask me. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? BILL LEVERICH: I am Bill Leverich, the current General Manager down there. I think everyone has gone over pretty much ' what the permit is going to provide and the way the specific new positive environmental improvements. I would just like to say that I have. been in the marina business for 20" years. I have been an environmentalist the whole time and I take the environment very seriously. Since we have been at Brick Cove we have done everything in our power to run the place reasonably to . protect the environmental asset. Which is the big asset down ,there. It is what the boaters want. . .we have eliminated any use of any kind of fertilizers or pesticides on the property. We have all biologically sound products which we sell and use on the boats. We try to keep our heads kept up and clean so people will just assume use them then use-the ones on the boats. We demand that everybody has an holding tank. We encourage everybody to keep there "Y" valves closed. As of issuance of this permit we are going to seal them. . . we have given permission for the Bay Constable to monitor this no, discharge program. We try very hard to do things right. It has been difficult. . . with. the small amount of slips. . .Environmentally sound long range program for the the community. . . (detailed general use and repair capacity of marina) . I think in issuing this permit, it is really the only way that local government really has to upgrade or to force the upgrading of the existing facilities. . .In closing, I hope you issue the permit for this project. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? BRUCE LOUCKA: Do you have our. . . ? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we have the comments of the Conservation Advisory Council which did endorse this project on Board of Trustees 6 October 17, 1991 special Meeting re-submission and re-evaluation. They where brief. Is there anyone who wishes to speak against the application? CHRIS KELLEY: I have some new written comments to hand in. CHRISTOPHER KELLEY -Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley. I . just submitted written comments both from myself and Larry Penny, who could not be here. I previously commented on the SEQRA Process. We have litigated on that once before and we may have to again. The issue here is really is what the -threshold is in requiring a DEIS. As you know this is a Type I action. It is in a critical environmental area and that threshold is consequently very low. If the action may have a significant impact on the environment, then a environmental impact statement must be done. The - increase in boat density here is very significant. Adding boats to this area is like adding houses to a; residential community. You are adding that much more intensive use and potential to release pollutants into the cove. This is a small cove. We do not feel that a adequate look has been taken at mitigation or at alternatives. That is really the .heart of the SEQRA process and what benefits this Board could have from an environmental impact statement. What alternatives that would further mitigate this project? Things that might be looked at is putting all or some of the docks on the exterior of the cove rather then packing these extra boats in the cove. Another potential alternative is just a less intense increase in the number of boats. The environmental issue that is the most significant is the water quality issue. The comments need to be fully addressed in. a full environmental impact statement. . .it is .ironic that a statement was made that there is an environmental benefit to increase marina . activity in a small coves and creeks. I don't believe that in second.. I don't believe that you believe that. It is unfortunate that the way government works is that that is the only time in which. marinas are forced to go back and clean up their act, if you will. The mitigations offered are all things that that marina or any marina can be doing without the need for increase. . .That is something that this Board should look at. whether they should regulate marinas as they exist, not 'only when they come in for expansion. If you check you will find you do have the power to regulate that way. In closing I would just ask that you reconsider your decision to issue a negative declaration on this. The courts has once told you that the negative declaration done previously was not legally sufficient. I think the Board is treading on thin ice if it chooses to go that route again, specially on the type I status. Which we• didn't have in the prior litigation. I ask you to take your time on this and consider the environmental impacts, reconsider the negative declaration and I seriously urge you to require an environmental impact statement. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else here who wishes to . speak against this application? MARGARET BROWN: My name is Margaret Brown. I am here for two people tonight. First of all I would like to read you a letter from the Save the Peconic Bays Inc. from President Jean C. Lane. Board of Trustees 7 October 17, 1991 special Meeting It has come to our attention that a large marina expansion is contemplated in Sage Creek, a tributary of the Peconic estuary system. Our organization has addressed this proposal before with regard to adverse environmental impacts. The situation in the estuary has not improved. In fact, the , second prolonged episode of the Brown Tide this past summer indicates that the estuarine waters are severely stressed. Therefore, we caution that more intense development on the shoreline can -only further add to the pollution problems. Sage Cove has been a productive shellfish area and such areas are economic assets to the Town and the region. This shellfish. area will be closed automatically as are all' areas. in proximity to large marinas. We suggest you investigate the data collected by the Town of East Hampton with regard to marina impacts in low flushing, confined areas. We recommend that you undertake similar studies of the tributaries in Southold. Town, .identifying the potential revenues from shellfish and weighing this against the tax revenues and other income from. marinas versus the cost of the services the Town must provide to the marinas and the cost of the ensuing pollution clean-up. The Town and its residents might be better served by less intense development in this area. Most certainly, the estuarine waters would be better served by no additional pollution. We also question whether these. boat slips are needed. We suggest you also survey" the needs of your residents' to make sure they are necessary. Save the Peconic Bays hopes you will carefully weigh environmental impacts and economic impacts before making any decision to allow marina expansion in confined areas. Now speaking as a private citizen with absolutely no vested interest, even in the waterfront because I live in the middle of Hog Neck which is no water front. I am interested in the whole North Fork since I first moved here, which was 17 1/2 years ago. Last Summers UK/US visit heighten my 'interest and also my alarm for our future. Not particularly on this marina. In . fact I am ignorant about this marina. From a general point of view the Town itself is on the brink of making some very major and important decisions about how we are going to be in the future. . . the special things about our North Fork that really make us be something to come to for tourism and everything else. . .great care should be taken on this project and any subsequent projects. . .doubling the size the boat slips is not necessarily a good thing to do there. I commend the people who have done the research and presented a positive picture. I can't help it and be impressed with how concerned they are for the environment. I think you all need to think about, the over all picture and weigh that with what we have left to spend in terms of our natural open spaces. Thank your , very much. Board of Trustees 8 October 17, 1991 special Meeting TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who .wishes to speak against this proposal? . GEORGE STARKE: My name is George Starke. I live in Southold. I thought a while ago a marina in Mattituck put in for a application for expansion and was turned down. I thought this kind of set up thing where you just can't expand marinas anymore. I am a boater. I have beeri.. a boater all my life. I have been in marinas where in the morning you wake up and it is a mess floating all over the place. These marinas had pumping stations, signs and everything else. When things are going on at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, nobody is walking on shore to go to the john. I can't see why we should expand everything and the first thing that we are worried about is "is it going to pollute?" . If there is any chance at all of it .polluting, .then don't expand it. Than is simple enough. That is all I have to say. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who. wishes to speak against this application? GAIL STARKE: I am Gail Starke. I am a resident of Southold. . . We liver very close to the Sage Basin. . .The birds and the wild life take advantage of the beautiful situation that we now have. I am concerned that adding anything to this natural environment that we have been able to preserve here in Southold has to be considered very, very carefully. I just ask you to consider to a much greater degree the increasing of any marina facility or perhaps at least increasing to a lesser. degree that you are considering at this moment in time. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak against this application? MR. FLYNN: For the record my name is F.M. Flynn. Resident of Southold and owner of under water land on the Sage Estuary. Obviously the applicant and its consultants have dealt with the Trustees over a period of years. Submitted plans and have discussed matters. I can' t possibly enter the critiqueon the assessment form and the application within a five minute period. However, I would like to detail some of my objections as quickly as possible. The time has long since come with respect to this application to call a spade a spade. . .This is an area which RPPW (the Town's Planning Consultants) considered ecologically so sensitive that the .undeveloped areas of both up land and underwater should be preserved as open space._ In the early stages of this application- process the Suffolk County Planning Department recommended that no expansion of the marina. Currently the Regional Planning Board and the Suffolk County Planning Department Master Plan classifies the entire area including the marina site as low density cluster developement. It might be of interest that Assembly Sawicki in preparing a video for the Save The Bayschose to be photographed in the pristine environment of Sage Basin. Finally, I would like to say for those people who might not be aware of it, that the entire bottom of Sage Basin are classified by New York State as tidal wetlands. Board of Trustees 9 October 17, 1991. special Meeting As to a description of the property involved; it is a spot - zoned interior parcel surrounding by 200 hundred acres or more of low density residential land. Of particular interest. . .this property has . no frontage on a public road. Sole access is by 1750' +/- Right-of-Way with no intersections. This ROW is not adequate to transport the vehicles permitted by the New York State Department of- Transportation commercial traffic and emergency vehicles cannot pass on this. ROW. . . This was originally a 14 boat marina. . .The increase of this piers , represents a 5500 over what was there originally and based on the Planning Boards short perspective. The previous owner also secured a permit. for a pool and tennis use on. a parcel delineated as approximately two and a half acres. The previous owner applied for a change of zone prior to the master plan. . .miraculously that area surrounding. the cove and under the cove, which RPPW said should be preserved as open space because of its ecological sensitivity, all of. a sudden was re-mapped for M-II use. Possibly the most permissive and, destructive- use in the Town's Zoning categories. The Town Board, in its. wisdom, said that there was the probability of environmental damage and required an EIS. Rather peculiarly about this time when the application was in for a change of zone the then owner advertised in the New York .Times that he was offering the property -for sale with an approval for eighty four motel units. This is rather peculiar thing., I think perhaps the back round of who issued any approval for motel units prior to the rezoning should be investigated. At any rate the application was withdrawn. The property was rezoned by the. Master P1an. . ..Mr. Bredemeyer, in his comments to me, based his plan on the contention that the Sage Estuary is not a natural creek. . .The definition of natural creek or. any other natural phenomena is something created by nature. If Sage basin is not natural, neither is Fire Island inlet, Moriches inlet etc. . . In the environmental law it make no' difference. All property has to be treated the same environmentally. The interference. with nature has been entirely by the marina. The Marina owns only approximately only 20o water surface, but has treated in the past and continues to desire to treat the entire estuary as its domain. The original and natural channel into the Sage Estuary wasclosed and filled. The westerly channel is not the natural. The action was based upon the conveyance to the marina owner of that strip of land facing the bay which is rip-rap and extends westerly from the marina property toward the existing channel. In my opinion. . .that conveyance was- illegal. Since he conveyed land under water of the Peconic Bay. . .If I read the plan correctly they purpose to install a new bulkhead in that area. I have heard statements to the effect that there are being no bulkheads to be built. The marina has and purposes to dredge deeper than the depth of the receiving body ,of water contrary to State standards. I can't go into the entire 41 points nor all the marina criteria. . .This entire application and review process has be characterized by the submission by false, misleading and inaccurate data, designed to mis-lead the various reviewing agencies. The first instance is at the width Board of Trustees 10 October 17, 1991 special Meeting of the body of water facing the marina is characterized as one to two miles. . .that is the distance of the .bay frontage to Shelter Island. The distance -of Sage Cove is measured in terms of several hundred feet. The effect of this type . of application is that the reviewing agencies, in effect, say that there is no big deal. 'Here we are talking about a marina on one to two miles of width. The second instance is that the marina capacity will be increase by 45%. . . The capacity of a marina is measured in terms of the length of the piers. The applicant purposes to double the length of these piers, which means a 100% expansion.. The count for 138 boats is based on a specific, . .boat sizes. If pour purposed piers accommodated 8 - 300 ' boats the marina size would be reduced 90%. Has anyone of the Trustees examined the applicants docking plan? It provides for 60 ' and 50 ' boats with an average size of 40 ' . There is concern expressed among the Trustees for dockage space for residence of Southold. I submit that there are very few residence of Southold who own 50 and 60 foot boats. Those that do usually have their own dockage. Approximately 75% of boat owners in any given marina do not . reside in the Town. of Southold. Which means in effect that we would -destroy Sage Basin for the benefit those people who don't live here. The economics of marina operation are such, if you don't have a customer for a 60`' boat and you have 'a slip wide enough to accommodate the 60' boat obviously you accommodate two 30 ' boats. The end result is just what I said, that this represents at least 1.00% expansion. Dockage plan—he intends to introduce over 5000 l.f. of boats, over 1 mile .of boats into the confined area of Sage Cove. I might also add: that the Sage Basin is delineated by a series of sand bars at the marina area Is extremely constrained. 95% of boats cannot pass in the purposed channel. . .the larger boats would occupy the channel. . .Another factor to be considered here with respect- to this marina operation is. .MII Zoning of Town of Southold the. applicant could accommodate as many as 1000 rack stored boats for launching into 'the confined area of Sage Estuary. Essentially defining of negative impact is based on the analysis of Bruce Anderson. I question in .how much attention he paid to the property itself or to the application. He states that the area of the Sage Estuary is 14.6 acres. Had he done a minimum analysis and consulted the readily available documents, .he would have realized that Brick Cove claims the ownership of a water surface of 4.2 in acres and that the Friendolph property is specifically stated to be 11.551 acres. Immediately we have 15.75 acres without including the approximately 4 acres which belongs to other owners in the estuary, including myself. . . rather than. his 14.5 acres there is probably closer to 19 or 20 acres of water surface area in the estuary. . .There. are four other properties in the Sage Estuary, 'one of which has no boats at all and the others to the best of my knowledge have a mooring or perhaps two boats at most. There are certainly not 15 other slips in the Sage Estuary. This does not mean a lot in terms of numbers, but it reflects very much on the quality of the analysis done by Mr. Anderson. The same careless. . .additued prevails for all area calculations. The boat project area is Board of Trustees 11 October 17, 1991 special Meeting sited as 12. 47 acres there has apparently been a growth in the area of the property since my copy of the previous survey indicates that was approximately 11.5 acres. . .it is claimed that 5.58 acres of the claimed 8.27 acres of up land is. forest. You gentlemen have 'all been on that property. I question if Mr. Anderson had is eyes opened. He is maintaining that 700 of the up land there is forested. Wetlands are stated as 0.1 acres. As you know all of the bottom plus portions of the perimeter are classified by the state as tidal wetlands and' the area of wetlands is closer to 5 acres. It is also stated that there are no un-vegetated areas. I personally- would questioned where approximately 100 boats are stored in the Winter time. . .the requirement for the storage is overlooked. The area for the pool and tennis club is stated as 0.41 acres whereas the permit requires approximately 2.5 acres. Finally it is stated that 100a of the site is poorly drained. In this application a prevision is made. for only a portion of the property as contrasted with the 0 runoff that the Town requires for any such projects. . .How does he propose to install the properly operated septic tank and leaching pools in. . .certainly some of the waste generated can be classified as industrial waste in terms of paint cans, machine parts, scrap wood, etc. There is no mention of this. . .where is the proof that no endangered or threaten species exist? The area of the abutting property is right with endangered or threaten species. Many feed in the Sage Estuary. This does not provide the community or .neighborhood facilities in the ordinary sense of the term, this is a commercial enterprise with largely non-resident patrons.' It lies within 500 feet of the Peconic. . .I would also mention that in the previous sampling of the bottom silt revealed metallic residues. Now again, to prove the lack of care with which this analysis was made, it is stated that the area to be develope is 7.17 acres and to remain undeveloped is 5. 3 acres. That of course totals to 12. 47 acre entire area claimed. Of the 7.17 acres 4.2 acres are water surface, which. allows 2.97 acres of up land improvements. The pool and tennis club requires approximately 2.5 acres and the States recommendation for the off season storage of boats indicates an area approximately equal to the water surface area. Which in this instance would be approximately 4 acres. The total upland 'is 9.47 acres, plus or minus. The total available is 8.27 acres which means rather the a surplus of an excessive 5 acres, you have a deficiency in area of 1. 2 acres. You will note that these figures do not include the loss of land utility based upon the required set backs. As I mentioned the estimated winter storage area is based upon State criteria. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Flynn, if I may. Who's State criteria? Is that coming out of Department of State. MR. FLYNN: I can supply you with that, but I am sure you already have it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I may already have, but I'm just not making the connection. t MR. FLYNN: I have heard comments here about the Coastal Management Program. It was very selective. I went over where I -n 5 Board of Trustees 12 October 17, 1991 special Meeting found at least 16 points where this marina development is grossly at odds. with the recommendations of the State. Among them is the question of scale. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How do you account for the consistency approval from the Department of State? MR. FLYNN: You know and I know that the DEC and the Department of State would have been mislead by this application, thinking it based on one or , two miles of water front. . Secondly, I hate to say but you know its true,that the bureaucrats who just assume approve anything the somebody else was the lead agency on without taking any kind of action what so ever. I have said many times that the DEC in particular is an agency whose time has come and gone and they do absolutely nothing to protect the environment. As I have said the expansion as. previously detailed is 100% not 450. The larger proposed structure is 400' in length. It is one of these docks. The parking proposed is 133 spaces. We all know that if you have .a 60' boat, 5.0' boat, 25 ' boat you are apt to entertain and you are going to need more than one space per boat. There is no prevision for the pool and tennis members, .nor for the store, nor for the employees. As I noted previously, this is an interior parcel with no frontage. How can a negative declaration be issued for such a property, which is completely nonconforming and cannot meet the requirements of any form of site review. It is stated. that nothing is required here by way zoning approval., It does require a variance and it requires a site plan approval. . .this a commercial or industrial use and is certainly not compatible with the' surrounding low density, residential land. Emergency service demand will certainly be increased when you potentially double the number of boats there and store them in the Winter time up land with full tanks as recommended by the Coast Guard. Creating a potentially hazardous condition which the Southold Zoning admits to exist in the direct proximity to motels and hotels.. The road is not adequate for the present commercial traffic let alone any increase. Proposed boat storage of many more then 1100. of petroleum products and will create the hazard of fire explosion and the creation of hazardous gases. The impact on the aesthetics has been completely ignored. S.I. Associates consultants to the Town; referred to' the upland storage of boats. as an eyesore. Certainly this is adverse aesthetic influence on the surrounding residential property._ In conclusion, it appears that there will be no adverse .impact on the environment because Bruce Anderson says so. Doubling the -size of the marina has no impact on the environment because Bruce Anderson says so. Obviously, 50 to 60 foot boats maneuvering in such a small area has no impact because Bruce Anderson says so. Introducing 5000 l.f. of boats has no impact on the area again because Bruce Anderson. ' Construction of the bulkhead has no impact despite the statements of Mr. Anderson. Area ambience and aesthetics are not impacted because Mr. Anderson says so. There will .be no rise in ambient noise levels because Mr. Anderson says so. This despite the fact that you are introducing larger boats in closer proximity to improved residential property. There will be no creation of hazards Board of Trustees 13 October 17, 1991 special Meeting because Mr. Anderson says - so. I think if any of you gentlemen have read of marina .fires, explosions and loss of life, but Mr. Anderson .says this type of operation will introduce no hazards to the area eventhow the area virtually unaccessible to modern emergency vehicles. No effect on the marine resources because Mr. Anderson says so. I have personally taken the numbers of and seen as many as five or six clamers working the area at one time. Many of them have told me they virtually have earned a living in that area. Believe it or not I have seen them in the off season clamming within the confines of the marina. This is the same Bruce Anderson that has made the critical judgement for the Trustees who didn't bother to make any proper calculations as to the estuary area, investigate the Southold Shores Marina, the boat. slips in the area, etc. He was manifestly wrong with his calculation of description site area. Was apparently unaware of the requirements for the pool and tennis club and made no prevision what so ever for the off season yard storage for particularly large boats. I might add many owners of large boats who have their own private dockage facilities look to marinas to, store .their boats in the off season.. It is very likely that there will be more boats on shore then in the water. My final conclusion is that I question how the Trustees can take his report seriously? Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak against this application? Inga Flynn: I am Inga Flynn. Ten years ago my husband and I built house on the estuary of Sage Cove and the DEC. told us at that time that we had to build 75 ' away .from- the water. In addition we had to be 35' from our property to the shore line alone. We could touch any trees, any vegetation and leave everything in. a natural state because of the pristine condition of the Sage Estuary. I think that today, ten years later, we are much more aware of our environment. I think you gentlemen must know it by the great increase of work load you have in looking at our environment today then ten years ago. I think that our environment is so much more protected today, but reading the application you have 'accepted I am .very much surprised that you are not of the same oppinion. Today I have Osprey sitting the trees teaching their young how to fish from my property. I am upset that you are accepting an application where it says that the next shore line is one or two miles away. Well, the next shore line from my property to the subject property is something like a couple of hundred feet away. I think it is very upsetting that an application like that is accepted and I do think that this application should be returned.. It should be properly cleared out thatthe working area of the marina is on a sensitive estuary. I also received today in the mail from Assemblyman Sawicki a questionnaire. He constantly questions the people in the Town of Southold on the environmental. .. The number one rank of. all. the answers, the most important question people- have to answer says .the protection of our waters and shorelines, shellfish and finfish. This is not only the neighbors around the cove, the North Fork Environmental groups, the Save the Bays, these are Board of Trustees 14 October 17, 1991 special Meeting the people of the Town of Southold writing to Mr. Sawicki with their concerns. You are sitting there and give this big project a negative consideration is absolutely unbelievable. I only hope that in this election time the people in Southold think a little bit different and not only battle around our garbage but think about our environment and help protect our. environment and how to protect our open space. And listen to the county planning for the Town, listen to the projections and recommendations of the U.K. and do not make any discission before a comprehensive plan by this Town has been made. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak against this application? MS. JOHNSON: My name is Sherry Johnson and here tonight representing the North Fork Environmental Council regarding the application of Brick Cove .Marina. It has been the position of" the North Fork Environmental Council to expose the expansions of our marinas on the bays while we are waiting for the results and recommendations—study being done by Suffolk County Health , Department. Further, it has also been our position that when any of these application do come along we have requested that a full environmental review process take place under SEQRA. I do have to agree with everything that Mr. Flynn said about the EAF. I was very disappointed about the information contained in it. I don't think that a hard look was given. The areas of traffic. There is going to be 36 vehicles per hour. That is a trip every two minutes of solid waste. The information was inadequate. We all know that the land fill may be closing. We have a McDonalds issue which has got a similar process with there solid waste. Wild life: We do have a site here that is between two significant coastal habitat's. That is Conklins Point and Port of Egypt Island. You don't know how important. this is to the species that use those two habitats. I really don' t think a hard look was given and I urge you to reopen the process and rescind the negative dec. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak Against this application. Any members of the Board wish to comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: I would just like to let everyone know that the marina was there existing.. We here all the time that they don't community marinas. They say put the boat in a commercial marina. People want to bring their boats into the creeks. They want to put applications into get it dredge. What do we here? "This is no place for the boat, put it in the marina". We get people that we give mooring permits and the homeowners get very upset. "How come you put this in front of my house?, that belongs in a marina" . Now we got someone who wants to put marina in here and as far as I can see we have done a lot of work with these people. We have made this thing as clean as possible and it is there. It is not a new marina going in. It is going to create jobs for people. It is going to create taxes for the Town. Now everybody 'is saying they don't want a marina. Where are people going to go with boats? I here that people that are not living in this town are going to use the marina. Hey, you got restaurants if you wait .for the people of Board of Trustees 15 October 17, 1991 special Meeting Southold that live- here to use these restaurants, they would go broke. We sell pumpkins and farms stands along side of the road if we had to sell just to people who live here in Southold, they would never make it. We need these people from outside to survive in this town. You don't want boats in front of peoples houses. They don't want to dredge a creek. They say put them in a marina and now we get a chance to put in a .marina and you say you don't want a marina. It is very confusing to me. That all I got to say. TRUSTEES BREDEMEYER: Any other comments from the Board? MRS. FLYNN: I would like to say that we do know that only thirty five percent of the people -in Southold use marinas. . Now there are seventy five percent of the boats slips available now. We don't need more. TRUSTEE SMITH: We got 20 thousand people in this town. That is five thousand people. I don't think we have five thousand boats in the marinas. . MRS. FLYNN: This is a statement made the marina owners themselves, this is on regard. . .I also wanted to say that even the Village of Greenport have a tremendous amount of dockage that they come to dine here and wine here. There is enough to gain additional docking and mooring space available in the village. TRUSTEE SMITH: The Village is not a permanent mooring space for their boats. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe Mr. Leverich can tell us, do you have figures on resident population verse out of town for the marina as it runs presently? Just curious. MR. LEVERICH: We are about twenty five percent resident and the rest are out of town. MRS. FLYNN: Exactly what I said. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: One more brief comment from anyone who might wish and then we will. conclude the hearing. . MR. FLYNN: . . .people who come to marinas, generally those 75 percent who do not reside in the Town of Southold, do not spend that much money in the Town of Southold. They are here to enjoy their boats and utilize them as much as possible during the course of the day. Most of them .bring their food and beverage supplies with them. Because they are cheaper to the west. Most of them buy their marina supplies to the west at the various discount houses which exist there. So there, is. very. little spent on the local economy except for fuel. As far as the creation of jobs is concerned apparently there is the intent to sacrifice the entire Sage Estuary for the creation for two additional jobs which would probably be seasonal at best. Finally, very little (changed tape) with respect to taxes, where you to investigate my modest residents pays almost half as much taxes as the entire marina. That is the question of economics in a nutshell. MR. LEVERICH: I am sure they will rectify that when- we put the new slips in the area. MR. FLYNN: Just a minute. I don't think they will rectify anything because I called this .to the attention of the Assessor that the Port of Egypt owned property here that was being used Board of Trustees 16 ' October 17, 1991 special Meeting for marina operation and. it was assessed for years and may very well still be assessed as vacant residential land. So don't be sure .that the Assessor in this Town is going to look on anybody or everybody technically. JOE LARUSSO: I would just like to make a comment. A comment was made tonight about the EPA and the conservation people. I have spent a lot of time in the last fifteen years securing permits for various types. I have never met a group of people that are 'more concerned about the environment then the people from the State Conservation Departments. These people are all motivated by there love of the environment in general. They can make it very difficult for people at times and they have made it difficult for me many times. The only thing that keeps me from going crazy sometimes .securing a permit, is that these people are driven to that degree. I just want to make that comment. Sometimes people use this, it depends on what side of the coin they are on. That was just an observation I made. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any more comments? MS. STARKE: It seems to me that the comments made by Mr. Smith and by others, we need more marinas; people are, looking where to put there boats and so on. Has a comprehensive study been done as to the number boats slips available, number of people that use them. . .there is a great deal more that has to be researched before we can arbitrarily say we have to increase a particular marina by hundred percent. One of the questions that several people raised, was perhaps we seek other alternatives. We are not opposed to the marina remaining Ias it is. or perhaps a small expansion. What we are opposed. to is the hundred percent expansion that Mr. Flynn addressed in terms. of the storage and many of the other issues involved with it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just for your information, the Board has started as of this last summer a comprehensive review on sanitary practices and types of boats that are on our Town regulated moorings. The Board, as Mr. Smith has said, has had a very extensive and. recently an extremely hostile atmosphere surrounding trying to, maintain a balance of protecting shellfish in. particular and allowing residents of the Town access to the waters. We had a very pointed, a very controversial hearings over boats, a plan to reorganized moorings in Gull Pond. Which was an attempt to improve navigation and start to bring in 'more environmental controls. The residence told us in no uncertain terms they didn't want us sticking our nose in their business with reorganizing the mooring field. They used every conceivable argument, including the fact that we hadn't had an environmental study to organize and provide navigation safety. They said put them in commercial marinas and that is not the first. We have small residential community marinas which we now are working very hard to try to control boat waste. We have basically develope a policy that we will not approve projects if it is- going to result in additional shellfish land closures beyond the confines of the marina. We have been successful to date and the DEC is impress with our track record. The Town of Southold develope a protective shellfish area on Fishers Island to protect grow out areas, the first in the County. It was done Board of Trustees 17 October 17, 1991 special Meeting with this office negotiating and working with the people to develope those rules. Although we don't have a comprehensive Town wide study yet, this Board has members that simply that don't have the time to do that. When you have to prepare for hearings and environmental reviews of the extent that we have to for this project, there simply will not be the time to do a studyourselves like we would like to. We have the experience. We have the feel for the people. When Henry said that the .people are coming in and saying put it in commercial marinas, we are hearing it. MS. STARKE: Sure, it is like .I don't want a group home in my backyard. TRUSTEE SMITH: "As long as I got mine" we got to stop this. MS. STARKE: That is right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The bottom. line for our Board though recently has been the shellfish issue. We have been using. that as a clear cut guideline it is based on protecting. shellfish from potential discharges. It is not merely a read out of current environmental degradation. ' At least the people who are . handling the federal program to date say that there are other problems in the boat dischargers with fluids and surface areas and bottoms and such. They believe that the primary problem- right now, which is solvable and eminently doable if we all work on is the sanitation thing. We are trying. There are studies and there are studies. In some sense, I think the Board does a good job in working with the people and working step by step. It would be a very costly study to bring in data Town wide. People read studies different ways. We would be, in here arguing about the contents of the study, just as we are arguing about the contents of an environmental review. It becomes very contentious and ultimately somebody here has to make a discission based on the facts. as they see them--and their philosophy. MS. JOHNSON: Have you reviewed Maureen Davidson letter of September 11., regarding the shellfish closure? , TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. MS. JOHNSON: You are aware of her statement? Regarding "once the marina is expanded and the total number of boats increases, the requirement to close the area will also increase". TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is right. However, the additional conversations I have had with here tend to soften this area substantially. The fact is that the DEC has very little discretion to ply what is known as his professional judgement until there is performance record obtained by these marinas. MS. JOHNSON: In other words you have to let the pollution in. . . TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is not the case. The Board has not approached it in that fashion. The Board. has approached this with other marinas. One example is- Narrow River Marina in Orient. Which is clearly the most sensitive marina. We as a part of a dredge project there, ,where the basin has silted largely from runoff and agricultural siltation, we required a no heads restrictive covenant, it would run with the land as a condition of their approval. Which they did take. We wrote into it specific language that allows accessing of the facility Board of . Trustees 18 October 17, 1991 special Meeting by public health and environmental official such that the Bay Constable or the DEC can directly access boats. We went in this summer and under the terms of the permit we sent out the Bay Constable. Clearly we got a report back as to the compliance rate for this and the DEC is starting to realize that there are legal tools. If the Town takes the shellfish enforcement seriously, you can do this. They are not in a position on a marina at this scale .to do anything but impose the ten percent rule. They have not seen a permit for use they deal with us a. group of politician, if you will and they ."It sounds wonderful, but we have not seen anything. " We can talk about. no heads or "Y" valves or whatever, but unless it comes done as a permit restriction they are going to have to, stick by, the national shellfish sanitation guidelines of, the minimum of the ten percent rule. History is now changing in that when we put in the restrictive covenants and the requirements they are going back and they are reducing the area closures. They don't the statutory authority to have the closures. We have taken these steps. The water quality has. been found to generally .good. They don't have the authority to continue the closures. They have no choice. There is no way to get around it. The good will or the good intentions of individuals have to be cast in permanent requires that are enforceable. We have done it through restrictive covenants and inspections by the .law enforcement. That is what we intend to do in the future. . Anyone else wish to speak for or against this application. Seeing no other people interested to speak I take a motion to close this hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES. JOSEPH LARUSSO: Cutchogue Harbor Marina. Here is the information in compliance with your request. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Did you get the information on the underwater grant that you had? MR. LARUSSO: No we where unable to find it. This is a pre-existing situation here. The only proof that .we .have is in a form of a survey. I would assume that that information. . . TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I may be in the deed. Did you talk to your surveyor? It was just a concern that we know the history and what specific rights where granted for under land is very important. for us to' be making discissions as to what goes on down there. MR. LARUSSO: In my letter I am requesting that maybe you assist us in finding that information. I should reside in the Town Hall is that not true. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If not in the County Clerks Office. MR. LARUSSO: We will examine that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are in possession of a petition from the residence which will probably result in an additional request of the Health Department to review the subsurface sanitary system. I have not .had a chance to respond to that. With what you have here, I .will probably be bringing this as a work discussion item Board of Trustees 19 October 17, 1991 special Meeting for the Board of Trustees in the near future. We will try to put something together for the sake of you and the residents. We have not had a chance to do much yet. There is an under water grant there that the marina has some rights to. It is just referenced on the survey of Van Tuyl. , We don't know what it really entails. MR. LARUSSO: We are obviously just as interested in that as you are. Now I will be a little more energetic in finding that then. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Van Tuyl may be able to help you directly. Is there anything positive to report. I know you have been trying to work with. . . MR. LARUSSO: Well, as far as I am concerned—we, myself and my partners as owners of this marina, we feel we are not there to create any problems with the neighbors. Any reasonable request that is made of use, we immediately respond to and we enfact take some kind of a positive step. In our. opinion, everything we have done has been positive steps. Marianne (Huntington) spoke about water leaks.. when we bought the place, I don't know if. you yourself John have any idea of what it was like prior to us purchasing it. There where water leaks all over the place: The electric was ready to kill people. The bulkheads where falling down. There was existing fuel tanks that where on the verge of contamination, etc. Of course, the Board of the Health mandated that the tanks be removed by January 1. That is something we had to comply with. Every step we have taken, has been a positive step. We put 'some lighting in. Yes, .it offended Marianne. We redirected the lighting so. . . MARIANNE HUNTINGTON: No you didn't that is the point. Had you done that perhaps we would have. . . MR. BREDEMEYER: Anyhow lets not go through that here. (everyone talking at once) MR. LARUSO: I said to Marianne at the last meeting "by the way there where a group of people from the Fleet Neck Organization that everybody was' quite satisfied with what went down with the exception of Marianne. At the end of the meeting I said to Marianne "Marianne did we do anything positive?" She said no. . I must throw my hands up at that time. . . .I am in the right direction. . . MR. BREDEMEYER: Let me intercede before we. . .My question is this, you heard Mr. Kelly say something that I thought was kind of important tonight even though he said things I didn't agree with. One thing he did say is that there is nothing to keep a marina from doing positive things like a pump out or such things like that. I suggest you go out in the hall and .you both get home alive tonight. MR. LARUSO: I am not into slugging it out with ladies. John, let me just say this to you, so you can get a feeling for me as a human being. I will cooperate in ways that go over and above the call of duty. Dave Prager knows me for how_many years Dave? MR. PRAGER: 15, 20 years.. MR. LARUSO: I have been boating all my life. I was born and. raised in the on East Chester Creek. I am an environmentalist Board of Trustees 2'0 October 17, 1991 special Meeting and I am boating person. I am a licensed captain. I was a navigator in the Navy on a submarine. I love the ocean, I love the sea, I love the bays. I am in no way advocating destruction of them. We have to leave something for our future. I am not trying to grandstand here. I am telling you how I feel as a . person. I live on a pristine marine environment in Strongs ,. Neck in Setauket. I .know what we are talking about here. Pump out stations.. . . MR. PRAGER: Excuse me Joe. If you look at the property as it was before, I am sure someone on this Board has seen, it; TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have all been out there. MR. PRAGER: And you look at it is now. The motif of the area, has it been change? Do we still keep the rural look? The family type thing? Are we putting up sheds? Are we putting up . fences with razor wire on it? We are not that type of marina. We are not that type of people. We are trying blend in with the community. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then can I ask a questions of Mrs. Huntington? What is the problem here tonight? MRS. ,HUNTINGTON: I live across the street from the marina. I have a boat and I have it the marina. The marina has existed in that area for 75 years. No one is arguing the fact that location is a marina. I enjoy the fact that that is a marina. What violates me is the things like the cesspools that, are to close to the bulkheads. We talked about the water leaks. There . have been fresh water leaks that come out. Not just drip,drip,drip, pouring water. They have been. on since May. Everyone talking at once. MR. PRAGER: We had .a brake in a water line. I live in Setauket. The people alerted me approximately 6 o'clock, this is a matter of police record, I was there within 45 minutes to an hour. Matter was further discussed in hall is this project was not on agenda. Trustees will review material received. Meeting was adjourned at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted by; eoa l M. Thorp, Clerk RECEIVED AND FILED BY Yrd of Trustees THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE C���ga HOUR!I :L1,5A Town Clerk, Town of Sou�Oid