HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/14/1991 y.
O��g�FFO��cQ
TRUSTEES may► oy
John M.Bredemeyer,III,President ca SUPERVISOR
Henry P. Smith,Vice President M SCOTT L.HARRIS
Albert J.Krups1d,Jr. Gy • ��
John L. Bednos1d,Jr. 'jJQl �a0 Town Hall
John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971
Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES .
NOVEMBER 14, 1991 .
PRESENT WERE: John M. Bredemeyer,. III, President
Henry P. Smith, Vice-President
Albert J. Krupski, Jr. Trustee
John L. Bednoski, Jr. , Trustee
John B. Tuthill, Trustee
WORKSESSION: 6:00 P.M.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: Thursday, December 12, 1991 at 7P.M. '
WORKSESSION: 6:00 P.M.
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Thursday, December 5, 1991 at 8: 00 A.M.
I . MONTHLY REPORT:
Trustees monthly report for October 1991: A check for $4,363 . 53
was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office for the General Fund.
II . PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES:
1. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JOSEPH CORNACCHIA
request to amend permit application to provide for the dredging
of the channel at south end of the lagoon so that it opens to
Shelter Island Sound. Located Kimberly Lane, Southold.
A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE
BEDNOSKI to accept the amendment to the application. ALL. AYES.
2. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of RENATO STARCIC
request amendment to permit #3926 to allow the outer 56 lf. of
fixed walk to be 2' from bottom of decking to MHW rather than
41 . Located on ROW off Oaklawn Ave. , Southold.
''Boa`rd of Trustees 2 November 14,1991
I
A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI. and seconded by TRUSTEE
BEDNOSKI to approved amendment to this permit. ALL AYES.
3 . THOMAS GRALTON - Trustee. Smith request this matter be
held until he gets to the meeting.
A motion was made by TRUSTEE TUTHIL and seconded by TRUSTEE
BEDNOSKI to move .TRUSTEE SMITH' s request.
AYES: TUTHILL, BEDNOSKI, BREDEMEYER. ABSTAIN: KRUPSKI.
4. John Bertani on behalf of WI'LLIAM AHMUTY request a
waiver to add 10' to rear waterside of an existing residence.i
Located at Bayshore Road, Greenport.
A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE ]
TUTHILL to grant a waiver provided that the applicant provides
drywells to contain roof runoff and a debri fence at or near
the bulkhead. ALL AYES.
I
5. Frank DeNicolo, Jr. on behalf of ROBERT MCGUIRE request
a waiver to construct 24' X 24' garage attached to existing
house. Located on North Parish Drive, Southold.
After a discussion a motion .was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and
seconded by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI to deny waiver and request a full
permit. The Board feels a need for a landscape plan, drywells
on both sides of the garage and a better haybale line. (The
Board has to many questions) . ALL AYES.
I
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
i
No Hearings.
I
V. ASSESSMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS:
1. Proper-T Permit Services on ',behalf of JOSEPH CORNACCHIA
to construct. 3'08+/- l.f. of bulkhead within 18" of existing
functional bulkhead and maintenance dredge 3900 +/- c.y. of
material from naturally filled channel to depth of 4 ' below MAW
including under foot bridge. Located at Kimberly Lane, Southold.
After discussion a motion was made by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI and '
seconded by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI to table the application for updated
information and to see if bulkhead can be placed
inkind/inplace. ALL AYES.
VI . RESOLUTIONS:
1. Board to set the following public hearings for the December
12, 1991 regular meeting:
a. Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Dragutin
Gobic to construct a 3 1/2' X 50 ' catwalk, 32" X 20'
aluminum ramp, 6' X 20' float dock and (2) 2-pile support
dolphins subject to receipt of letters from the adjoining
neighbors approving project. Located Hobart' Lane,Southold.
b. Orr Associates on behalf- of EUGENE BECHTLE request
permit for the construction of a 3' X 138' catwalk, 3 ' X'
I
i
!Board of Trustees 3 November 14,1951
I
12' ramp and a 4 ' X 12' float. Located 2120 Bungalow Lane,
Mattituck.
A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI. and seconded by TRUSTEE,
BEDNOSKI set the above applications for public hearings next !
month as long as all information is in. ALL AYES.
2 . ANNETTE CAMPBELL request grandfather permit for a 4' X 180'
dock 2 ' above MHW as indicated on application. Located at
Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue.
A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE '
i
BEDNOSKI to approve application. . , ALL AYES.
3 . Board to review Bruce Anderson's report on field inspection
of October 3, 1991 and revised survey submitted by applicantli
dated October. 9, 1991 with regard to the application of DONNA
MCDONALD located at Bayview Road; . Southold.
A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE ,
BEDNOSKI to approve report of Bruce ,Anderson and revised survey
of applicant which brings project out of Trustee jurisdiction.
ALL AYES.
(TRUSTEE SMITH ARRIVED)
4. Board to review Bruce Anderson' s report dated July 1, 15,91
with regard to the subdivision application of THOMAS MONSELL
LOCATED AT Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and sec.onded .by TRUSTEEI
BEDNOSKI to table approval of report. Trustee Krupski. will talk
to Mr. Anderson with regard to the description of property.
ALL AYES.
5. BRICK COVE MARINA: A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI !and
seconded by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI to move this matter to the end of
meeting because of the length of review. ALL AYES.
VII. MOORINGS/DUCK BLINDS:
1. ANTE LONIC request offshore/onshore stake with pulley for
a 15' rowboat in order to get to boat at mooring #895 located
Goose Creek subject to receipt of. $78.00 annual fee for mooring
and if approved $22.50 annual fee for stake.
A motion was made by .TRUSTEE SMITH and seconded by TRUSTEE
KRUPSKI to approve stake. ALL AYES.
This will close area for anymore stakes.
I
2. KEITH BRINKMAN request mooring in East Creek for a 23 '
Penn Yan with a mushroom anchor. Access: Permission from
mother-in-law, property located at 1075 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue.
A motion was made by TRUSTEE SMITH and seconded by TRUSTEE
TUTHILL to approve mooring with no less than 100 pound
mushroom. ALL AYES.
l
r I
'-Board of Trustees 4 . November 14,1991
II
3 . JAMES FOGARTY request duck blind in West Creek. Access
Town Road. (See next request) .
4. CARL VAIL III request duck blind' in West Creek in same
location requested by James- Fogarty." -Both applied same day.
Carl has had his duck blind in this .location for six years.
James has also been hunting there for several years.
- I
After discussion a motion was made by TRUSTEE SMITH and seconded
by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI to grant approval to Carl Vail III subject
to getting permission from Mr. Wickham and maintained and remove
at end of season. ALL AYES.
A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE
SMITH to table the application .of James Fogarty and put on
waiting list. ALL AYES.
THOMAS GRALTON AND OTHERS request amendment to permit #3845 to
add 2 ' 6" X 10' ramp and 4' X 16 ' float to a 4 ' X 12' dock.
Located at Stillwater Ave. , Cutchogue.
After a discussion with all the property owners, 8 for and 1
against, a motion was made by TRUSTEE SMITH. and seconded. by
TRUSTEE TUTHILL to deny waiver and request full application as
amendment is to big to grant on a grandfather permit for this,
particular area. To coordinate with DEC and Army Corp. ROW
situation.
AYES: SMITH,. TUTHILL, BREDEMEYER.
NAY: BEDNOSKI
ABSTAIN: KRUPSKI.
BRICK COVE MARINA: The following was read into the record and
discussed prior to approval;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
Bruce Anderson
i
Environmental Consultant
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
October 29 , 1991
John Bredemeyer, President
Southold Board of Trustees I
Town Hall
P. 0 . Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Brick. Cove Marina
Dear Mr. Bredemeyer,
I
As you are aware, I attended both the meetings on Brick
Cove marina in which the Board declared a negative
declaration and held a public hearing. I have considered
all comments raised in connection with this project and can
find no comments which .support a reversal of the Board' s
finding of negative declaration .for the Brick Cove Marina !
Project.
The Board should be aware that the EAF process is one
that is designed to "help applicants and agencies determine
in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be
significant. ' The Board should also be aware that the
evaluation of the project through the EAF process does not
require that the evaluator be an expert in all areas . i
In considering the comments raised in opposition of the
project, I can understand some of the confusion expressed in
connection with the EAF forms. The issue of the size of the
wetlands is one such area. The EAF Part 1 estimated the
size of the wetlands to be 0. 1 acres. This estimate is
based on the area of vegetated tidal wetlands. Underwater',
lands was not considered, but there presence should be
obvious. ' Impacts to underwater lands including associated)
wildlife were examined� in detail in both the EAF part 2 and
part 3 process. Those, analyses indicated that the impacts
to underwater lands were not sufficiently important as to
require an Environmental Impact Statement .
i
Concerns expressed regarding boat storage were likewise
expressed.. It is my opinion the impacts associated with
boat storage are neither significant nor important. It is
inconceivable that the, storage -of boats would effect to a
significant and important degree the ecology of the
surrounding environments and the environment itself. This '
includes the aesthetics of the site as most of the, boats
would be stored in the southern portion of the parcel and ;-
475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 :(516) 765-4071
I
V , • ' '.. � � III
the landscaping of the parcel would soften visual impacts to
the site.
The issue of the width' of the canal , creek, or bay
fronting the property of 1 to 2 miles as submitted by the
applicant in the application form for wetlands permit '
referred to the distance across Southold Bay. The EAF form
Part 1 indicates the size of Sage Basin. This should not
have been a source of confusion as the parcel is located� on
a peninsula.
The issue of traffic as addressed in the EAF. process
represents disagreement from those opposed to the project
and the analysis I submitted for the Board' s consideration.
Traffic impacts resulting from the project are not expected
to be significant because the actual usage of boats in
marinas as reflected in parking is quite limited. The
attached Exhibit 1 demonstrates parking needs of marinas,
which is directly related to traffic, to 'be quite limited.
Therefore, traffic impacts resulting from the project as !,
proposed are not considered to be. significant.
I
The issue of increased community services resulting;
from the project as proposed is most directly clarified by
materials provided in Exhibit 2. These materials indicate
that police and fire' service to the property resulting from
a previously proposed project which was of greater scale 'land
intensity than as currently proposed will not increase to a
significant degree.
�I
In summary, I believe that a reasoned elaboration on
the potential impacts resulting from the project was made.
I can find no basis for reversing the Board' s negative
declaration for the Brick Cove Project.
Sincerely,
I
Bruce Anderson
I
I
i
I
475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071.
Exhibit l
475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071
�ry Y,v v
.s4�4
�FC1O'4j'�.
ABSTRACT 119l i4;gk�
US National Automobile Parking & Marina Use SurONJ988
Neil W. Ross '41��^r
President
International Marina Institute
Wickford,Rhode Island
During the 1988 summer boating season,the International Marina Institute conducted a national
survey in the United States of public and private marina facilities to ascertain the levels of boat
use and the number of automobiles parked in the marinas.
Surveys were conducted on three summer days,all with good boating weather conditions
reported. The first count was on the predicted highest use day during the three day!July 4th ;
weekend, and two non holiday August days: a high use weekend day and a normal'weekday.
Marinas were asked to make three counts on the July 4th weekend: morning, midday,and late
aftemoon/early evening. Based on the preliminary returns which showed the mid-day to be the
highest usage, the two days in August were counted in mid-day for comparison. To;determine
the level of boat use,counts wen made of empty slips, moorings and dry racks,plus counts of
boats which had people aboard on moorings and in slips. At the same time, all vehicles parked
in the marina were counted.
One hundred and sixty-nine facilities participated in 25 states and the Virgin Islands using a
standard self survey form. Of these, 156 were private for profit facilities, 3 were non-profit
clubs, and 10 were government owned(5 local,4 staie, 1 federal Wility). Total storage capacity
(slips.moorings do dry racVWA storage) was 36,303 boats,with the average facility with 224; the -
largest marina had 938 boats;, 91% were filled to seasonal capacity, with most empty slips
reserved for transients; average boat population was 38% sail,62% power, 73 boats ramps
were reported; 11 full time employees average. The national average estimate reported was 3
people on each boat used
Parking capacity totaled 33,254; the average facility had 236 auto spaces; 25 had restaurants
present. The highest use day,;as predicted,was July 3rd with the highest usage count at
midday with preliminary analysis showing 40% of the boats in use or occupied; compared to
the August weekday use rate of 4%, and 12% an the weekend Without subtracting car
parking for the restaurants; the July peak midday auto parking ratio was .44 car/boat storage
capacity, and.89 cauboat used(ft 40%); August weekday ratios were .07 car/boat capacity,
and .7 car/boat used(0); August weekend ratios were .2 car/boat capacity, and.75 car/boat
used (12%).
Some variables remain to be calculated and the ratios may change somewhat due to differences
in region,boat sizes, dry rack storage, sail to power mix,restaurant, 6 month vs 12 boating
season length,or slip rental rates.
Patterns of use were found to be similar to other previous studies done in individual marinas.
However, the significance of this study.was to quantify on a broad national base for the first
time that auto parking sumdards.which exceed one car for every nvo boats are excessive in
most sites.
{
q
n in Marinas �a��E
111
Auto ' ,yk�•
� soNsp�
by
Neil W. Ross
Marine Recreation & Boating Industry Specialist
Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service
University of Rhode Island
'How many parking spaces for cars are needed for each boat kept in a marina?'
is a simple question which seems to have caused confusion among both marina
owners and permit agencies. No United States national standard for marinas
has,been established on the ratio of parked car spaces to boats. In a
discussion with Clinton Chamberlainl (author of Marinas - Recommendations
for Design. Construction & Management. Volume I published in 1983 by National
Marine Manufacturers Association2; now writing Volume II) he recommends as
an industry guideline one auto parking space per two boat slips (0.5 cars/boat
ratio).
In 1969 the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Small Craft Harbors
Manual3 recommended 1 .5 to 2. 5 auto parking spaces per slip, especially when
a restaurant is present. The basis of their ratio was not explained, but ASCE
may be, in my opinion, the source of the two cars per boat•'old rule of thumb'.
However, such high parking standards convert valuable income producing land
Into nonprofitable overhead cost. People �spend money, cars don't.
Southern New England marina owners have long been telling me that on many
summer weekends almost all weekdays (except around July Ith, or a local
coastal festival or boat show) they have observed that 25% or less of the boats
are used, and thus requiring parking for two cars per slip is excessive. On
most days of the boating season, marinas are filled w,th empty boats and few
cars.
From my observations, I suspect that similar patterns exist throughout the ,
nation. In September 1977, 1 organized an aerial photographic survey of all
the marinas and docks in Rhode Island as part of a 208 Marinas Task studyq for
the RI Statewide Planning Program (purpose: to count as many boats at dock as
possible, not empty slips). From the photos we were not surprised to find
very few cars parked on the low use days. As a follow-up, a recommendation
was made for a high use-day count to determine actual boat use.
In fact, on Labor Day, 1978, an aerial photo survey of Rhode Island's marinas
was done by Clarkson Collins and published in the Recreational Boating in RI's
Coastal Waters: A Look Forwards- The Rhode island's average car count
represented 0.33 cars per slip or mooring for a higi,-use day; well under
ASCE's 1 .5-2.5 cars per slip and below Chanberlain's 0.5 ratio. Collins
recommended that the state Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC) use
0.5 cars/slip figure as a.liberal guide for marina construction permits
(instead, the state Coastal Resources Management Programb regyures 0.75
parking space for each boat). Similarly, a 1984 Lake Erie Access Studv7, of
boat ramps and marinas in Ohio, estimated that only 40% of the boats in
marinas were in use on peak days.
These actual counts in Rhode Island and Ohio suggest that requirements of one
parking space or more per slip for most marinas may be unrealistic. One
marina owner wrote to me suggesting, 'if pesistent lack of parking spaces and
overcrowding occurs, It is the responsibility of the marina/restaurant to
remedy same by providing more spaces on or off property, or reducint the
number of seats or slips. Make it a condition of the general business permit.'9
Obviously each case must be measured separately for its own traffic
attraction. For example, when a restaurant or other traffic generating
feature Is present, then add parking spaces. For those few peak parking days
per year, most marinas have surplus boat storage, repair areas and lawns
which can be pressed Into short term service.
When discussing the need for parking, also considered the need to minimize
stormwater run-off into the marine environment from parking areas. In
general, run-off is a major source of a variety of contaminants into the
nation's waterways. To reduce run-off from parking spaces in marinas it. is
.r'
recommended that paving of parking areas be avoided and that porous surfaces
be encouraged.8 Crushed stones or shells, .grassy swales, settling ponds and
other vegetative buffers are effective in decreasing run-off. Alsoi why do.
cars need to be parked near the bulkhead? In many locations consider
providing convient off-loading. zones near pierheads and have cars parked away
from the shore. Allow people, not cars, to have use of the foreshore to spend
money shopping, eating, socializing and enjoying the marina view.
Based on what is known about what actually happens with marina use (and the
standards listed below), one car for every two boats seems adequate
as a national guideline.
..................................................................................................................................................................
Recently adopted minimum auto parking/boat berth regulations:
California(1980) 10
0.60 parkllig spaces/recreational boat
2.00 parking spaces/commercial fishing boat
1.000 foal, furthest distance from any berth to parking
9x20 feet space dimension
Large visual expanses of asphalt parking are to be avoided; use planter
islands or strips encouraged
New Jersey(1962) 11
0.6-0.8 parking spaces/boat slip
500-600 feet furthest distance from head of pier to parking
Main parking area set back from waterfront for appearance and safety
Parking areas can be used for winter storage
Rhode Island(190)6
0.75 parking space/each boat '
0.6 parking spaces/ per employee
300 sq.ft grea per space
New South Wales,Australia(1985) 12
0.6 parking spaces/wet berth
0.2 parking spaces/dry storage berth
0.5 parking spaces/marine employee
0.2 parking spaces/swing mooring licensed to marina !
0.15-0.2 parking spaces/swing mooring licensed to public I
300 meter (984 ft) maximum distance from any berth.to parking
remote (off-site)parking may be used if insufficient waterfront land
parking area cannot detract from visual appeal of marina
...........................
Author's Nole: This brief paper is a working discussion of this important'lssue. Readers are invited by the
author to send references to other relevant studies and comments to him at:
Marine Advisory Service
University of Rhode Island
Narragansett; Rhode Island 02802
l
References
1 . Chamberlain, W. Clinton J. Personal communications. November 21 1984
and June 28, 1985.
2. Chamberlain, W. C. J. 1983. Marinas - Recommendations for Design
Construction andManagement, Volume I. National Marine Manufacturers
Association, Inc. , Chicago.
3. Task Committee on Small Craft Harbors. 1969. Report on Small Craft
Harbors. .American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. p. 17.
4. Johns, W. E. , N. W. Ross, et al. 1978. Areawide Water Quality
Management Plan, Preliminary Evaluation, Marinas Task prepared for RI
Statewide Planning Program, Providence. Raytheon Co. , Portsmouth.
Chapter IV, pp 1-14.
5. Collins, C. and S. Sedgwick. 1979. Recreational Boating in Rhode Island's
Coastal Waters: A Look Forward. University of Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Center, Narragansett. Marine Technical Report 75,
pp. 55-56.
6. Olsen, S. and G. L. Seavey. Amended June 28, 1983. The State of Rhode
Island Coastal Resources Management Proaram. University of Rhode
Island Coastal Resources Center. p. 71 .
7. Office of Outdoor Recreation Services. July 1984. Lake Erie Access
Study. Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
8. Chmura, G.L. and N:W. Ross. 1978. The Environmental Impacts of
Marinas and Their Boats. University of Rhode Island Marine Advisory
Service. pp. 4-6.
9. Kingman, T.W. Fobruary 25, 1985. Kingman Marine, Inc. , Cataumet, MA.
10. State of California. 1980. Layout and Design Guidelines for Small Craft
Berthing Facilities. CA Department of Boating & Waterways,
Sacramento. p. 10.
1 . Rogers, Golden & Happern. 1982. Developina a Marina In New Jersey: A
Handbook. NJ Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
Coastal Resources. p. 48.
12. New South Wales. 1985 interim edition. Marina Guidelines. NSW Public
Works Department, Fishing/Tourist Port Advisory Committee, Sydney,
Australia. Section 7. 19. 1 .
Exhibit 2
475 Rambler Road Southold NY 11971 516 765-4071.
HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS
1
O
�}�' H.DANIEL WINTERS
C..E-Of POLICE
f �
O • t
A7 r�
s.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWN -OF SOUTHOLD
PECONIC. NEW YORK. 11958
TELE►14ONE
EMERGENCYDIAL1111 28 Ja11Uar 1
ADMINISTRATIVE:. 1:765.2600 y� 986
:17344022
Mr. Joseph Fischetti
P.O. Box 616
Southold,New York 11971 Re: Southport Development
Youngs Marina
Greenport,New York
Dear Mr. Fischetti:
Pursuant to your inquiry, please be advised the construction of a motel at
Youngs Marina, Greenport would not have an adverse impact on the work load of the
Southold Town Police Department. In the past we have experienced a minimum of
complaints and problens with other motels in Southold Town and I can see no reason
why a motel at Youngs Marina would be any different.
If I can be of further assistance to you please feel free to contact me.
Very yours,
H Daniel Winters
Chief of Police
,a
HDW/w
a
1 is
2-116
w CONSULTING`ENGINEERS
HENDER$ON AND BODWELL ;
Q� 7
f W �
0�
C '~
fMPp41S
tAr:h j, 1r56
Joseph Aschett, ,;r. P.E.
r o Box 616
Southold, N Y
11971
Mr. Joseph Aschetti a r:
i
In reply to your letter of janua_y 29 th, re: 3"outhport Lev-
elopement, Young's :Sarin, Greenport,:IY.
Construction of the ei:;hty (90) room I•;otel and expansiono: the
aarania will not ;cruse any unJue harishi;, on the Creenrort Are De.;.art-
Bent.
yours ty.Lly.
Laul�ua_�
�C/rc Chief ; een:.o.t -I-A �c,a—t1Ent
e'
NAR 5 M
dl
3-4
TRUSTEES
John M.Bredemeyer,III,President czt . ¢ SUPERVISOR
Henry P. Smith,Vice President , ., SCOTT L. HARRIS
Albert J.Krupski,Jr. day
John L.Bednoski,Jr. ®� ,���� Town Hall
John B.Tuthill 53095 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971
Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BRICK COVE MARINA
RESPONSE COMMENTS OF SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES
November 14, 1991
Response to report of Larry .Penny, Environmental Consultant
dated September 25, 1991:
Page 2, Paragraph 1 - alludes to material submitted to the
Trustee file by Board consultant, Bruce Anderson and alleges
they were not made available for review or distribution. Mr.
Penny is alluding to the , Environmental Assessment report of
Bruce Anderson of September 24, 1991 which was reviewed by the
Board IN TOTO at our September 26, 1991 public meeting, which
was attended by Mr. Penny. Even if the Board were obligated to
distribute this material prior to reviewing it, it would not be
an official document of this Board until approved, denied or
otherwise passed on by this Board.
Page 2, Paragraph 2 - with respect to Mr. Penny' s comment, "the
instant file is thin and the materials hardly sufficient" seems
to point to the notion that the pendency and quality of a review
is directly proportional ,, to its mass in pounds or kilograms.
The Board feels that with a thicker document the only relation
that can safely be ascertained from its heavier weight would
seem to be a waste of forest products and paper, hardly what we
would expect would curry favor with environmentalists.
Mr. Penny, an ardent and well known biologist-naturalist then
goes on to state "SEQRA anticipates. that such large actions as
the one proposed when placed in an estuary setting will
significantly harm the environment" . SEQRA only commands that
we treat an action on our type I list or in a CEA as a type I
action. SEQRA requires we carefully review - a LEAF and adhere to
type I procedures as a lead agency, as we have done.
Page 3, Paragraph 1 - Although detailed in the Bruce Anderson
report of September 24, 1991, we affirm that we consider the
wetland areas as set forth in LEAF Part one 'A. 2 as accurate and .
representative of what is standard practice, further supported
by the fact that our wetlands ordinance is principally a
Brick Cove Marina 2
"Vegetative Code" and that ECL Article 25. imposes no criteria on
SEQRA or this Board and that underwater areas of the project
site are accurately described in the submissions to the Board.
Page 3, Paragraph 2 - The Trustees have reviewed the fact that
the site is poorly drained and after reviewing the SEQRA
analysis of Mr. Anderson, and the drainage plans for this site,
are confident the systems planned are adequate and substantially
beneficial to any proposed marina related activity.
Page 3, Paragraph 3 - Mr. Penny' s assertion that hunting,
fishing and shellfishing opportunities will be foreclosed is
entirely inaccurate and relies on conclusions. purposefully drawn
from misleading information he presents. He alleges water
quality degradation in the entirety of Sage Basin since 1986.
In fact the closure of Sage Basin to shellfishing . in 1990 was
based on public health protection presumptions of discharge of
sewage; which are fully discussed in mr. Anderson reports as
being mitigated through proper controls such as pump outs,
tagging "Y" valves, etc. f Absent such mitigation as considered
in this project, the basin will always be closed to
shellfishing. Based on the Boards experience in these matters
we expect to have all but the marina proper opened to
shellfishing through our close and cooperative relationship with
the shellfish control authority, the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) . . . We have .produced
prior permits which have. achieved this goal in the marina
setting. Although Mr. Penny chooses to compare Sage Basin to
Mattituck Creek he fails to discuss what we know from empirical
testing of Mattituck Creek water by ourselves and NYSDEC and
that most of the contamination there results from runoff from
roads, cattle and horse farms in addition to unregulated boat
and marina activity. The water at the entrance to Sage Basin
was tested by NYSDEC for the last three years under "worst
case" conditions of warm' weather, Ebbing and/or low tide, after
heavy rains so as to be indicative of the water quality inside
the interior of the basin. These tests revealed that historic
marina operations (and other activities) here did not transect
the "in water" quality .standards of the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program. The marina is clean but a potential health
problem in relation to shellfish, the mitigation offered and
reviewed by the Board is ', considered a positive and very
substantial aspect of the proposal.
As far as the Boards experience with hunting opportunities ( one
Board member is a NYSDEC ,hunter safety instructor) we .can
safely state that there are .little or no 'hunting. opportunities
to foreclose because firearms discharge laws prevent such
activity here. As far. as the Boards experience with fishing
opportunities here (one Board member commercially fishes) we
would expect an increase !in water access to. fishing grounds and
possible improvements to ,eel and flounder on the site based -on
our personal .experience with dredge sites in creeks such as
this.
Brick Cove Marinas, 3 E
Page 4, Paragraph 2 - Mr.. Penny, as a well known biologist in
this bio-region (which be correctly identifies as unique) , fails
to even postulate what endangered or threatened species exist on
our use the site. In addition to supporting the conclusions of
Mr. Andersons report, two members of the Board of Trustees hold
Baccalaureate degrees from major universities with significant
course work in botany; are fully capable of using tools which as
dichotomous plant keys and guides and have never seen any
questionable species on site during the Boards numerous visits
there. The Board may however wish to require an Osprey nesting
platform for the site. One member of our Board is an Osprey
lover who has participated in and is familiar with Osprey
research having appeared' in several popular films on the subject
aired on National Educational Television. He feels the marina
environment here will not negatively impact the Osprey should
the expansion be completed.
Page 4, Paragraph 3 - The Board members do not believe that
ambient noise levels will. increase for this site as a result of
an increase of activity associated with this expansion but may
wish to review whether the marina requires engine mufflers and
provides for language in leases requiring sailboat halyards to
be tied-off.
The closing comments of Mr. Penny continue to confuse
"in-water"/actual water quality with the highly protective
public health closures of shellfish lands recently enforce by
the NYSDEC in their capacity as the state shellfish control
authority under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program
guidelines. This is akin to blighting the reputation of a
person who has had a blood transfusion by claiming they have
Aids without the knowledge of a blood test The subtle
difference is of course that mitigation may even eliminate
potential injury to this site.
We agree with Mr. Penny that we are at the crossroads in in the
Peconic Estuary' s history; our Board was created 315 years ago
to manage common lands .in the Town specifically for the
protection of common rights in underwater land waters, fish and
fowl. This site, as private land with underwater land
ownership, was seriously, scoured as a brick factory. As a
recovered estuary we believe it will be preserved substantially
with the mitigations offered. Nothing we have seen in Mr.
Penny' s report of September 25, 1991 is deemed meritorious of a
DEIS or any change in the , SEQRA status of the project.
Report of Larry Penny of ,October 17, 1991
1. Claims that the marina expansion will render the bottom
unfit for shellfish grow �out contradict Mr. Penny' s assertion
that the area is productive shellfish land in that the area was
previously cut and dredged when it was a clay mine for a brick
j
Brick Cove Marina r
4
yard. In' the intervening years the area has improved to what
the Trustees now regard as a poor shellfishing area based their
personal observation and knowledge of the area. We agree with
the finding of few shellfish of Mr. Anderson and prior surveys
conducted in the area. The survey of William Leverage, dated
October 17, 1991 is commensurated with what we have seen in
numerous visits to the site , i.e. little shellfishing goes on
here. The Board is on solid. ground when it states NYSDEC
sampling at the entrances to this Basin is within SA water
quality conditions.
2. Item two enforces and endorses Mr. Penny' s report of
September 25, 1991. WE DO NOT ENDORSE that report as having a
factual basis.
3 . The Southold Town Code Section 97-28 .is believed by this
Board to be the appropriate bench mark .and activator for
discussions under SEQRA already concluded by this Board. We
support Mr. Andersons analysis.
4. Again we must re-iterate this Board has no obligation under
ECL 25, albeit very similar to Town Code Chapter 97. In regard
to minute cumulative impacts the. Board has a history under its
Andros Patent powers and. relationship with the Town Board
which will enable it to promptly act as we have in the past
should some unforeseen problem such as a dangerous bio-toxin
like TBT be associated with this or any marina in the future
in Southold. Noted for the record is our ban on TBT which
predated state action in� this area.
5. Several members of the Board regularly operate vessels
greater than 25' in length and in their experience do not
anticipate any significant siltation effect to be seen with
vessels operating at safe speeds in the depths proposed for this
site. The U.S.C.O.E. and the N.Y.S.D.E.C. are particularly
cautious in granting discharge permits when silting may be a
problem in construction activities. They have already granted
such permits for this site.
6. The SEQRA review of , a project is not designed to be an
exhaustive compendium of research. Mr. Andersons shellfish
survey seems to support the -experience of the Board concerning
shellfish resources here: They are few and. far between. The
marina property is private land which we do not anticipate
affecting any adjoining shellfish -lands any more negatively than
currently .is the case. The basin will continue to be a viable
place for fish, Crustacea and all manner of birds. Slight and
relatively minor changes ' in animal .habits in the deeper waters
of a dredged basin are to be expected, such, as an .increase in
4
Brick Cove Marina 5
the frequency of use by the diving ducks;. mergansers or
goldeneye ducks in the Winter as they prefer depths in excess
of 4 feet to dive for
food. The mitigation di�scussed. by Mr. Anderson and encouraged
by this ,Board of not disturbing intertidal -and. high marsh
areas will result in little or no loss of habitat for king
fishers, sandpipers, rails, herons, dabbling ducks, loons and
grebes. Mr. Penny is apparently unaware of the essentially
forgiving nature of the marine environment with respect to
anthropogenic impacts. Since this site proposes to control all
potential sewage discharges as well as control surface run off
there should be no direct BOD loading of the Basin, which
would be undesirable.
7 . We no not feel Mr. Penny is qualified to discuss navigation
or such things as drag. The Board has reviewed the proposal
with respect to Mr. Aridersons environmental review and we
believe that the type of docks proposed will substantially
reduce frictional water losses. The experienced boaters on the
Board have navigated this channel with several large vessel' s
and have never occasioned any problem entering or leaving the
Basin or marina area. We do not share Mr. Penny' s
interpretation of the code as to these matters. We believe
substantially affecting . navigation or flow of water to mean that
"a prudent mariner would' have to change his or her course or
line of travel or would physically see a change in the tidal
flow of a stream as a direct result of the proposed activity.
We do not anticipate a problem such as this.
8. Again we do not share Mr. Penny' s interpretation of the
Code as to "change the course of any channel or natural movement
or flow of any waters. We believe the natural flow for this
site will remain largely the same based on the large amount of
vertical structure already on site which will convert to
horizontal structure and' the stable configuration of the inlet
which was the subject of; prior approvals of this Board,
NYSDEC, USCOE.
9. Unequivocally,. this project as proposed fully stabilizes
all lateral land features. Permit conditions of NYSDEC and
USCOE setting bottom slopes and requiring preservation of
existing natural vegetation are all stabilizing features.
10. We believe Mr. Penny is unqualified to speak at all to the
issues of health, safety and general welfare of our' ditizens.
The police and fire departments have already found no problem
with larger projects proposed for this site. As previously
discussed, Mattituck Creek' s shellfish closures are indeed much
more closely .related to the kind of abuse seen in Easthampton, .
where Mr. Penny lives and works. The existing marina on site is
Brick Cove Marina
viewed by this Board as a credible steward of the estuary by
virtue of the independent water analysis of the NYSDEC which
has shown no marina related problems to date.
Although long term impacts might be considered. substantial if
reviewing a de novo application for a 138 boat marina where no
history of operations exists, there is nothing. that this Board
has encountered in reviewing this and prior lengthy
DEIS/FEIS reports for larger projects proposed for the site
which -would alarm us at ,all in such areas as traffic and
safety. Should other uses be considered which are not
traditional for this site, then this argument would bear serious
consideration by this Board and possibly others.
Mr. Penny' s final comments are not generally. note worthy as they
are unsupported opinions,. This Board is however of their own
opinion that this site is' unusual in being derived from a
seriously impacted historic clay mining center and not at all
similar to our native creeks and underwater lands. As such, we
do not believe a modest 'expansion at Brick Cove Marina (no
matter how it is tallied) can be compared with or be a precedent
for the public lands under our control which remain as the
largely undredged, fully vegetated, broad alluvial, wind, rain
and tidally drive estuaries not unlike the time this Board was
created over 315 years ago. We believe the- new National
Shellfish Sanitation Program guidelines . are a call to action and
are a valuable threshold to embrace for this historic Board. We
fail to appreciate Mr. Penny' s apparent attempt to confuse them,
especially knowing he is, a well respected environmental official
of another Eastern Long Island Town, a former resident and
employee of Southold.
Letter of Christopher Kelley of October 16, 1991
Page 2, Paragraph 3 - The Trustees do not believe there has been
any short sitedness in discussing the groundwater issues
surrounding this site. . We stand by the LEAF and Mr. Anderson' s
report.
Page 2, Paragraph 4 - The activities already surrounding the
marina and neighboring homes are expected to have had a prior .
effect on the migratory birds in this cove. We stand by Mr.
Anderson' s report.
Page 2, Paragraph 5 - The Trustees are fully aware of this cove
as a shellfish producing area. It. can only be reopened to
shellfish with the cooperation of this marina through the
pending permit process or through blanket legislation which
appears unlikely at thistime.
Page 2, Paragraph 6 - .We - do not contend to know why boats in,
large numbers will appear beautiful to one person and ugly to
Brick Cove Marina 7
another. Our review is under the Towns wetland ordinance and
this ordinance has little to do with the aesthetics of an
existing marina site.
Page 2, Paragraph 7 - The Trustees agree with all reports to
date which concur with their own observations that traffic is
not a problem for this site.
Page 2, Paragraph 8 - We stand by Mr. Andersons report with
respect to small to moderate impacts on circulation, biological
Productivity and ecology of Sage Basin.
Page 2, Paragraph 9 - Discharge of sewage to subsurface disposal
systems greater than 75" from waters edge are substantially
beyond the jurisdiction ;of this Board. This Board has directed
the Bay Constable and made investigations. and complaints to the
county Health Dept. and ,NYSDEC to effect compliance over
failing subsurface sewage systems at other marinas in Southold,
but has never had a complaint on this facility. We regularly
include permit languagelto effect compliance and enforcement.
We do not appreciate that this concern is important. From our
experience marina operators run very visible operations and are
usually very cooperative' in maintaining their sanitary
facilities.
Page 3 - In response to Mr. Kelley' s conclusions; this Board
does not see anything in; his letter which points to any failing
on our part to honestly embrace SEQRA. We can assure him, that
the Board would not entertain any discussion on the alternative
of placement of docks on the bayside of this property in any
environmental report, even if court mandated. The notion is on
face value beyond comprehension. Southold Bay in this area is
well known for its finfish and shellfish populations which
should be left alone save for monitoring and harvesting. Our
experience with Bay sited docks leads us to believe they are
more prone to severe storm and Winter damage and will likely
result in the need for continuing dredge operations over time.
The Board of Trustees and conservation council of Southold are
usually. very cautious over projects and have required many
impact statements for activities in Southold. our experience
and review to date for this site further support our position
that a DEIS is not necessary here. There is consensus on our
Board that the emotional and legal barrage 'of Mr. Kelley' s
clients is damaging our appreciation of SEQRA as a valuable tool
to protect the' environmenit: We believe our obligations to the
people of Southold have been met in this process despite. the
negative cloud surrounding one of his clients. The Chairman of
this Board does not believe the upset and disruption one of MR.
Kelley' s clients caused the clerk to the Board concerning
photocopies last year, was ever met with a sincere apology.
Such behavior is no less polluting the human and social
environment of a small Town than an unforeseen impact on its
Brick Cove Marina 8
physical environment. The Board believes it has made no serious
omissions this time around.
TRUSTEES ���
John M.Bredemeyer,III,President o �. SUPERVISOR
Henry P. Smith,Vice President ,� SCOTT L.HARRIS
Albert J.Krupski,Jr.
John L.Bednoski,Jr. ®1 ��� Town Hall
John B.Tuthill ' 53095 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971
Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BRICK COVE MARINA
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 97-28 (wetlands-standards)
These findings, in addition to those of Bruce Anderson;
consultant to the Board, 1which were fully considered, reviewed
and approved on September 26, 1991 concluding SEQRA for this
action and the subsequent . reports of October 19, 1991 and .
November 5, 1991 .of Bruce Anderson, are to be considered as the
basis of our determination in this matter.
97-28A - The project as proposed will not substantially
adversely affect the wetlands of the Town because all the
commonly accepted standard mitigative strategies have been
considered, innovative construction of docks in proposed,
affects of activities surrounding the construction and operating
phases have been considered and reflected on, and all vegetated
wetlands on site- will be undisturbed.
97-28B - The project as proposed will not substantially cause
damage from erosion, turbidity and siltation because the Board
has carefully considered and requested operational and
structural attributes of , this project such as vegetative
buffers, low dredge slopes and. bucket dredging which will have
only minimal affects on siltation, turbidity and erosion.
97-28C - The project will not cause any substantial intrusion of
saltwater into freshwaters of the Town by virtue of the soil
conditions of the site as disclosed in the environmental review
of the project.
97-28D - The proposed operations will not substantially
adversely affect fish, , shellfish or other beneficial marine
organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural
habitat there of because ',all impacts as disclosed in the SEQRA.
review are small, the Board has been to the - site numerous
occasions and .is familiar with its marine resources, and the
Board has successfully prevented and or reopened closed
shellfish areas in Southold by similar mitigation and
enforcement methods to those proposed for this site.
c.`.
I
97-28E - The project as proposed and evaluated will not
substantially increase the damage of flood and storm damage
because no major coastal barriers or structures are considered
for this site and the proposed site improvements are. actually
believed to reduce impediments to flow in the harbor.
97-28F - The proposed project will not likely affect the
navigation or flow of tidal waters in the area as this area is
already an operational marina which has not been subject of
navigation problems. Dock layout is orderly and provides
sufficient channels for maneuvering and water flows in the area
are not expected to be substantially altered because of
innovative floating docks which greatly reduce vertical supports.
97-28G - The proposed project will not substantially change the
course of any channel and the natural flow of waters is expected
to change little from the -present state, as no substantial
change to the tidal inlet was approved by a prior wetlands
permit issued for the area and the natural movement of waters
will not likely be impeded or changed on account of minimal
dredging, maintenance of; existing shoreline features and
elimination of many vertical dock supports.
97-28H - The project as proposed will not substantially weaken
the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity as all load
bearing angled land surfaces will remain vegetated with
indigenous plant species., and all sub marine slopes conform to
the standard protective and
required by USCOE and
NYSDEC; and no new bulkheading is proposed for this site.
97-28I - The project as proposed will not likely otherwise
adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the
people of the Town because: police and fire protection needs
will not be affected greatly, traffic associated with marinas is
not considered a problem for such expansion of boat numbers, the
potential of reopening previously closed shellfish lands is
great thus reducing public health risks and the concurrent
environmental controls on the site will ensure safe swimming and
fishing in Sage Estuary.
j
l
rd ' ddl� �a `r A~117-e of -
`G A:'/yt7,4 ITOWN OF SOUTHOLD
�Q o
/1?`t lG 4�h, awe/
L� 'o oep OY 2 vet o n yf� l /�vl X&c, j,--7 4r-`'ri p7 ;-
*{,ar v Joe a Lm col�fi
d
T�C )ggz 7 e?r « c000pe �
cr AG���ov,1► cl� .�,�!e�-f AY/•tea e
1hrs t Ol Awe /.� v f6i Aawole crive"oe a -r
r
Cla.r�•v����s 4 cl'v c /jt C/l 14 �`y m �f 7�v•QE"�
I"
114 Gi p
dw
el
ik L
.
Bruce Anderson dEnvironmental Consultant
SOUTHpLD
November 5 ,
John Bredemeyer , President
Southold Board of Trustees
Town Hall
P. 0. Box 1179
Southold , NY 11971
Re: Brick Cove Marina
Dear Mr. Bredemeyer,,
The following are recommended permit conditions for the
above referenced project. It is realized that there are
many permit conditions already imposed on the proposed
project by the DEC and additional conditions of approval
will likely be imposed on the proposed relocation of the
septic system by SCDHS .
' Permit Conditions
1- The temporary stockpiling of spoil resulting from
dredging shall be limited to the '.'Temporary Spoil Disposal
And Dewatering Location" as designated on the survey
prepared by Peconic Surveyors , P. C. , last amended September
18 , 1991 .
2- Lateral movement of spoil shall be controlled by the
placement of haybales placed end to end and firmly staked
into place along the boundaries of the "Temporary Spoil
Disposal And Dewatering Location" as designated on the
survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors , P. C. , last amended
September 18 , 1991. Haybales shall remain in place until
spoil is
3- All power washing of boat bottoms shall be limited to
the washdown platform as depicted on the survey prepared by
Peconic Surveyors P. C. , last amended September 18 , 1991.
4- The overflow of the catchment provided as part of the
washdown platform shall �e directed to the stormwater
control improvements along the western shorefront of the
parcel.
5- Haybales shall be placed end to end - and firmly staked :s�j a•S �'
into place along the ',western shorefront of the parcel
adjacent to Sage Basin at the onset of stormwater runoff
improvements and left in place until stormwater control
475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 .(516) 765-4071
j
improvements are in p',lace and soils on the upland portion of
the site are suitably, stable.
�I
6- All proposed landscaping within 75 feet of mean high
water shall be of species native to Long Island as to
preclude the necessity of fertilizer and biocide
application.
7- The marina shall continue to provide clean restrooms
Ava�labie aperr 24 hour a day for the use of marina patrons .
V 11111
8- A boat pumpout facility shall be installed and
maintained for the collection of boat wastes for the use of
all boaters docked at� Brick Cove Marina and vessels coming
to same. The marina may charge a fee for the use of the
pumpout as to cover its costs of purchase and operation.
9- All boats docked at the marina having fixed installed
toilets shall also be, equipped with holding tanks which
permit the collection and pumpout of boater waste. .
3MAA'--�-I SYGW-,,A
10- All seacocks ofA''y" valves shall be in closed position
and sealed by means of suitable tag with serial number.
,_s .,, , b
pvsztzoTr-and,--re—tagged.
1$ Logs shall be maintained of the use of the pumpout
facility and shall indicate for each boat having been
serviced; the date of ' pumpout ; the name of the employee
servicing pumpout; the vessel registration number; the
volume of pumpout; and serial number of !'y" valve seal tag'.
Logs shall be made available to the Trustees a-n4 Bay
Constables fe- random, inspection,, f/
Z - !✓rn"a l�,d",
1393 The applicant shall erect signs promoting the use of
the pumpout facility. as per DEC permit condition.
i
140 Collected boat waste shall be disposed at the scavenger
treatment plant at Greenport, or other scavenger waste
treatment plant, or in the relocated septic system on site.
The Marina shall maintain records including receipts from
treatment plants if appropriate, or date ' and volume of
pumpout if disposed in an on-site septic system.
Sincerely,
475 Rambler.Road, Southold, NY 11971, (516) 765-4071
TRUSTEES
SUPERVISOR
John M.Bredemeyer,III,President
Henry P. Smith,Vice President Ca SCOTT L.HARRIS
W i"" '� •�
Albert J.Krupski,Jr.
John L.Bednoski Jr. '°�� . y' Town Hall
_ John B.Tuthill
} '�' 53095 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Telephone(516)765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN,TRUSTEES Southold,New York 11971
Fax(516)765-1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
November 15, 1991
Merlon Wiggin
Peconic Associates
One Bootleg Alley
P.O. Box 672
RE: Brick Cove, Marina
SCTM #1000-57-1-38..3,
Dear Mr. Wiggin:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of
Trustees on November 141, 1991 at their regular meeting;
Whereas, the Trustees have concluded SEQRA in this action on
September 26, 1991 having completed our second and thorough
SEQRA process for this site;
Whereas, the Board of Trustees as an operating entity was
created over 315 years ago to help manage the Towns common
natural resources;
Whereas, the Town Board has chosen this Board to steward its
wetlands ordinance for the people;
Whereas, the Board of Trustees has reviewed the instant proposal
in light of the standards set forth in the wetlands ordinance;
Whereas, this Board has considered all relevant comments raised
in this application process including but not limited to:
complete application process, SEQRA process, (including
Environmental Assessment) , comments on the. LEAF and SEQRA
process, wetlands ordinance, public hearing and meeting
discussions;
Whereas, the Board of Trustees policy of visiting sites of
proposed project led to atleast 5 on site visits by the entire
Board to this location;;
Therefore be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of
Trustees approve the wetlands permit in the .matter of the
.Brick Cove Marina 2
application of BRICK COVE MARINA by Peconic Associates on behalf
of Southold Bay Associates, map dated as amended September 18,
.1991, with the following permit conditions:
1. The temporary stockpiling of spoil resulting from
dredging shall be limited to the "Temporary Spoil Disposal and
Dewatering Location" as ,designated on the survey prepared by
Peconic Surveyors, P.C. , last amended September 18, 1991.
2. Lateral movement of spoil shall be controlled by the
placement of haybales placed end to end and firmly staked into
place along the boundaries of the "Temporary spoil disposal and
dewatering location" aspdesignated on the survey prepared by
Peconic Surveyors, P.C. , last amended September 18, 1991.
Haybales shall remain in place until spoil is removed.
3 . All power washing of boat bottoms shall be limited to
the washdown platform as depicted on the survey prepared by
Peconic Surveyors P.C. , : last amended September. 18, 1991.
4. The overflow of the catchment provided as part of the
washdown platform shall 'be -properly plumbed with "T' s"
directed to the stormwater control improvements along the
western shore front of the parcel.
5. Haybales shall be placed end to end and firmly staked
with two stakes into place along the western shore front of the
parcel adjacent to Sage, Basin at the onset of stormwater
control improvements are in place and soils on the upland
portion of the site aresuitably stable.
6. All proposed landscaping within 75 feet of mean high
water shall be of species native to Long Island as to preclude
the necessity of fertilizer .and biocide application.
7. The marina shall continue to provide clean restrooms
available 24 hours a day for the use of the marina patrons.
8. A boat pumpout facility shall be installed and
maintained for the collection of boat wastes for the use of all
boaters docked at Brick: Cove Marina and vessels coming to same.
The marina may charge a fee for the use of the pumpout as to
cover. its costs of purchase and operation.;
9. All boats docked at the marina having fixed installed
toilets shall also be equipped with holding tanks which permit
the collection and pumpout of boater waste..
10. All seacocksiof sanitary system"Y" valves shall be
in closed position and sealed by means of suitable tag with
serial number.
11. Logs shall be maintained of use of the pumpout
facility and ,shall indicate for each boat having been serviced; .
:Brick Cove Marina C 3
the date of pumpout; the name of the employee servicing
pumpout; the vessel registration number; the volume of
pumpout; and serial number of "Y" valve seal tag.
12. Logs shall be ,made available to the Trustees, Bay
Constables and any federal, state or local public health,
environmental or building code enforcement official requesting
same on any unanounced inspection.
13 . The applicant shall erect signs promoting the use of
the pumpout facility as per DEC permit condition.
14. Collected boat waste shall be disposed at the
scavenger treatment plant at Greenport, or other scavenger waste
'treatment plant, or in the relocated septic system on site. The
marina shall maintain records including receipts from treatment
plants if appropriate, or date and volume of pumpout if disposed
in an on-site septic system.
15. The marina shall install an osprey nesting platform at
a mutually agreed location of Mr. Bruce Anderson,, consultant to
the Board.
16. Specific language in the leases of prospective marina
patrons shall include provisions to control engine noise with
mufflers and secure alI loose halyards with proper tie. offs or
face loss of marina privileges.
17. Docks proposed as the innovative floating design shall
be maintained with the same functional attributes as described
in the literature. submitted to the file.
18. All other governmental permit conditions shall be
adhered to.
19. All operations subject this permit shall be concluded
in one continuous action of as short a duration as possible
without endangering per these permit conditions or the
general environment, excepting that an operating pumpout station
must be in service by April .15, 1992 on site and all "Y"
valve/toilet restrictions/toilet signage and toilet sealing
activities of marina patron boat heads must commence immediately.
20. The Trustee office shall be notified within 5 days of
completion of DREDGE ACTIVITIES.
21. A survey by a licensed surveyor or engineer shall show
the completed dredge area depths at not more than 1' (one foot)
increments of elevation as soundings in 20 locations. throughout
the dredged area. . Said survey shall be submitted within 90 days
of the completion of dredge activities.
22. The marina shall perform concurrent water quality , ,
monitoring of. Sage. Basin with grab samples collected. at minimum
.I
Brick Cove Marina 4
water once monthly from; April thru October by an approved public
or private laboratory for total and fecal coliforms according to
the National Shellfish Sanitation Program guidelines and the
appropriate testing methods recognized by the state shellfish
control authority (NYSDEC) . at minimum, said samples shall be
taken on ebbing/low tide and have accompanying data sheets
denoting time of sampling, location, tidal cycle and weather for
the previous 24 and 48 hours and any other information
consistent with NYSDEC shellfish regulations. Samples shall
be collected at the following locations:
One at the inlet entrance.
One within the confines of the marina but greater than 50'
from shore.
One at a written designated location of Bruce Anderson
Environmental Consultant, which may be changed annually.
One at the entrance to the bulkheaded canal at Southold
Shores.
One at a written designated location within the project
area by Larry Penny, Environmental consultant, which may be
changed annually. Should Mr. Penny not elect a site an
additional site of Mr. Anderson's choice shall be sampled.
23. Once annually in the fall of the year the surficial
bottom sediments underlying the sites described in condition
number 23 shall .be sampled and tested by a certified laboratory
according to EPA/Standard Methods for the minimum of the
following heavy metals -sometimes associated with marina
operations: Copper, Zinc, Nickel, -Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, Tin,
Chrome.
23a. The Board will review .all test results after the
first year and may elect to continue the sampling program.
24. The Trustees, may, upon the finding of any National
Estuary Program final report which identifies: limiting
. nutrient(s) , trace element(s) , a chemical or biological
process(s) directly associated with marina activities as causing
or contributing to the 'Brown Tide (Anorexia anophagefferens)
or other positively identified undesirable marine organisms,
cause a hearing to be held pursuant to Chapter 97 at which time
additional environmental mitigation shall ,be considered for the
site including but not limited to requiring increased water
quality monitoring, environmental controls. and absent any
alternative control method reduction in the size and number of
vessels to a lower limit of 95 (the number which was established
by the prior certificate of occupancy) .
25. There shall not be more than 138 boats on the site
exclusive of .prams or dinghies or unmotorized rowboats.
ABr1ck Cove Marina 5
26 . A copy of the water quality data and pumpout log shall
be provided to the Trustees at the end of the boating season
during the calendar year in which it is collected.
27 . No additional costs associated with setting up the
water quality monitoring program for this site shall accrue to
the Town.
28. Only "non-toxic" Anti-freeze shall be used on site.
29. Inspections pursuant to Chapter 97 and this permit
shall be performed by the Board or Bay Constable upon 24-48
hours notice for:
a. Installation of haybale and dredge spoil retentive
features ( 2 inspections) .
b. supervision of dredge operations ( 5 inspections) .
C. Installation of parking lot drainage prior to closing
up construction ( 1 inspection) .
d. Inspection of operating pumpout facility for first
year (2 inspections, one unscheduled) .
E. Inspection of all signage and boat lease additions ( 1
inspection) .
F. Inspection of removal of old sanitary system ( 1
inspection) .
g. Final dredge and dock installation inspection ( 1
inspection) .
NOTE: Wherein more than one activity may be inspected or
reviewed in a single visit, the applicant may request in
writing a return of any remaining fees upon the completion
of the project.
Total fees for 13 inspections at $35.00 per inspection = $455. 00
30. The Board at its discretion may annually charge the
operation for one inspection at the prevailing inspectional fee
rate in order to offset ongoing expenses to the Town in
monitoring the pumpout. compliance and sampling requirements of
this permit.
31. A copy of these permit c e.
RECEIVED AND TIL ED B"x
THE SOUTHOLD TO�'�114 CL�;K
Vote of the Board: All Ayes.
DATE ( (a Iq�, HOUR
iown.Clerk, Iow'n�` ouf