Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/18/2006 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTH OLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING MOORINGS MINUTES Wednesday, July 18, 2006 7:00 PM Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee John Holzapfel, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Cusack, Environmental Technician Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 RECEIVED I-rfh.d /IJ ~9- ~- /141 OCT 3 2006 ~aM).t2 ~ Soutliold T(,\,:o Clerk Board of Trustees 2 TRUSTEE KING: Thanks for coming out tonight, everybody. We're here, this is a public informational meeting on the new mooring plan. We're here to listen to you. We want to listen to your comments, any suggestions. It's a draft, I don't know if you have copies, we have plenty of copies of the draft. It's just about a year to the day we had our first mooring meeting. And it was a disaster because everybody thought this is a new law it was going to take effect, and it wasn't the case. That's not the case. It wasn't the case then, it's not the case now. This is a work in progress. It's going to take a while. Dave Bergen has been the ring leader on this thing. He's had a lot of meetings, he's spent a lot of time meeting with people, and after I get through, I think I'll just turn the meeting over and you can handle some of the questions and answers. This is one of the things we're working on. We're also working on revising the shellfish code, Chapter 77, it really hasn't been revised since the 1930s. So there's been a lot of changes in fisheries management we're looking to address so the town can be a lot more compatible to some of July 18, 2006 2 Board of Trustees 3 July 18, 2006 the state regulations. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We hope to have a public hearing. We're hoping to have an informational meeting on shellfish in August. TRUSTEE KING: We also have a new pump-out boat. I don't know how many people it's been dealing with, maybe you can give us a little more information on that too, Dave. We have been busy. So with that, I think I'm going to turn it over to you, Dave. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Just briefly, yes, we're very proud of the fact that we have a pump-out boat that the Town purchased with the assistance of state and county grant money. Hopefully there will be some marketing of it in the newspaper this week. But it did get delivered last week. It was out in the waters last weekend and Ron, who has been hired as our captain of the vessel did start servicing boats out there. So it's there and it's available and we're very happy we made that available to you. Just briefly, Jim had indicated that the meeting started approximately a year ago on this, and I believe there were three informational meetings last summer where residents came in to address the draft that was proposed by the Trustees at that time. 3 Board of Trustees 4 This draft had been obtained in several different ways. There had been a study done of different mooring and anchorage drafts of different towns on Long Island. Also, Cornell was involved in the development, they had gotten assistance from Cornell Extension, so they assisted with the development of that draft. The information from those meetings was recorded, and what I did was in February took that information, because a lot of it was repeat information from the different meetings we received, came back to the Trustees, we incorporated some of those changes from those meetings into a new draft. Then what I had proposed we set up a task force of individuals from across the town to assist in really dissecting this draft, this latest draft and to come up with suggestions. And what I did was I looked geographically across the town for participants to be on this task force as well as people from boating, whether they were in yacht clubs, boating associations, commercial marine industry, et cetera, and the individuals got together in this room one evening a couple months ago and really did a lot of work, they really pulled this thing apart in a lot of directions and made substantial recommendations to the July 18, 2006 4 Board of Trustees 5 July 18, 2006 Trustees. And several of the members of that group are here tonight. I know Peter Young was not there, but was a member of the task force. Chris Sherwalter down front, Pete McGreevey over here, Jack Slattery in the back, have I missed anybody at all? Don, Pat, thank you, Pat, Pat Douglas. What I did was I then put that information together, took it back to the Trustees and we again took many suggestions from this task force and incorporated it into what you have seen into the next draft. I then had that draft placed on a Town's web site. I sent it to the newspaper asking them to please do an article, and I was very pleased that they did an article last week to help generate public interest. So this is all the work that preceded this meeting tonight. We also received input from the state with Bill Sharp who's an attorney for the state of New York. He just happened to grow up and went to South old High School with me, which was kind of interesting, but we have Bill Sharp involved from the state. Steve Riztler from the state, so we also sought input from the different agencies that might have some input or say into this matter. So that gets us to tonight. Now there was a couple letters that we received and 5 Board of Trustees 6 July 18, 2006 if the people are here tonight, I won't bother reading their letters because they can of course represent themselves. Is Larry here from Southold? MR. TUTHilL: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And Jim Branigan from Orient; are you here? MR. JOHNSTON: That's a hard copy of what David was talking about. TRUSTEE BERGEN: what Jim had basically stated he was from Orient and he wanted to state that he was not in favor of this legislation for several reasons. Number one he felt it was -- I'm just summarizing -- he felt it was an extra bureaucratic legislation that was unnecessary; that mooring fields could be self managed. He felt that there had not been or there had been insufficient public input into the proposed legislation and our government should not impose new regulations upon us. I talked to Jim the other day about his letter, and, like I said, he said he was going to be here tonight so we'll give him a couple minutes. Bill Baxter I don't believe is here. Bill just in a synopsis wrote a letter saying that he wanted to commend us for an outstanding job in revising the mooring. It was very different and dramatically different from last year's, and he had a few 6 Board of Trustees 7 July 18, 2006 minor suggestions that we can offer into the record if nobody else brings it up. Then we received a letter today from Richard Wasserman; is Richard here? And Claire Neuwelt? Basically they were saying they lived in Peconic Bay over between Robinson Lane and Smith Road, and they were asking us -- number one, they were saying they were in favor of the mooring regulations because their situation was people were not residents are mooring boats in front of their property close to where they are swimming, and their children and grandchildren are swimming, and they're very concerned that these people don't seem to care that even though they are not residents, they don't care about riparian rights, and they're going to keep their moorings there even though they have asked them to please move their moorings. They're further concerned about pollution from the petroleum; it causes a health issue for people swimming in our beaches. With that, we want to go ahead and open this up to comments and suggestions from the audience. One caveat, what the Trustees have done this year is instituted a policy where we're limiting public input to five minutes or less; we're doing that so everybody that wants to speak has the opportunity to speak and people don't capitalize on the time 7 Board of Trustees 8 July 18, 2006 to run this into a 7:00 to midnight meeting. So we're going to ask people to please limit your comments to five minutes or less so we can keep this meeting going in a forward direction. So with that, there's nothing else from up here. TRUSTEE KING: Just for me to get a quick feel for what's going on here, how many think it's a good idea to have a mooring plan? How many think it's a bad idea? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That doesn't surprise me because people come out -- I work for the county, and I know that people come out when they're upset about something, they don't come out when they're in favor of something. So that doesn't surprise me. Let's go ahead and open it up. Yes, sir. MR. MOONEY: James Mooney, Peconic. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So everybody realizes, this is being taped tonight so we can keep a record of the comments. But I just want to let everybody know that it is being tape recorded tonight. MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, could you spell your name? MR. MOONEY: M-O-O-N-E-Y. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you very much. MR. MOONEY: To piggy back off of Larry Neuwelt and Richard Wasserman, they are our neighbors. We have lived out 8 Board of Trustees 9 July 18, 2006 here, my family and I, on and off the water, we're currently waterfront property owners right now. I have a two year old child and a four year old son who swims in the waters in front of our house. Twenty feet off of our waters we have power boats that come in and out of there, and there's going to be -- listen, I appreciate the environmental impact, I'm all for it, this is the smartest piece of proposal I have seen come out of here in a long time. I'm in complete agreement with this. It's like the wild west out there, there are no rules or regulations. I have spoken to the bay constable. There's nothing they can do. You have a power boat 20 feet off my beach where my two and four year old daughter and son swim. It's only a matter of time before there's a very serious fatal accident. I think this thing has to be passed. If gas is four dollars a gallon and they can't afford 50 bucks for a permit, you know, I mean, I'm being honest. I don't want to lose my child or anyone else's child out there. We've spoken to certain people. have been to power squadron courses when I was 14. There is no courtesy out there anymore, there is no neighborly consideration. These are my neighbors who are in front of our homes with their boys starting up a 250 horsepower engine that's going to chew up somebody and the impact on 9 Board of Trustees 10 July 18, 2006 the environment, I implore you -- and I know this issue is inflaming everybody on both sides -- but I'm sure there is a common ground as to a designated mooring area. I would love to see boats out there, not 20 feet off my beach, not powerful power boats. We have a handful of bay constables, by the time I call them, the infraction is gone. There's no enforcement. We really, really need something in place and I'm only here for my children, and I mean, for other people. Let's enjoy our waters at this time and the uncivil manners that some of these boaters have today, we need rules and we need regulations just like we do on our highways. You know there is road rage on the waters, there are BWls, there's a lot of stuff going on out there today, and I asked you people, this has a lot of common sense out here, you can tweak it, you can do what you want, but we need rules and we need regulations, particularly in our bay. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir. MR. WEBB: Ted Webb, good evening, Ted Webb, W-E-B-B, I live have two questions that I think are simple questions that I pose to you, and over the past year or so, I have asked this question of a number of people, chatted with Jill about it when she was running for this office, talked to Kenny Poliwoda about it when he was still a member in Orient. I 10 Board of Trustees 11 July 18, 2006 of this Board. John and I have chatted about it. And the one question, and I must admit to being parochial right now, I'm concerned about Orient Harbor, and I'm sure that the gentleman who spoke before me has legitimate concerns about where he resides, but what he describes is not a problem in Orient Harbor. My first question is why, I've read the drafted legislation, and the closest I can come to an answer is the statement that refers to the fact that it can impair the fragile -- underline can -- impair the fragile marine environment in the surrounding town waters and threaten safe navigation. I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that is not a problem in Orient Harbor therefore why would we be discussing regulating Orient Harbor? It may be a problem in Jockey Creek, it may be a problem in James Creek up in Mattituck and other areas of Southold town, and I support efforts to control those areas, in fact, somebody a few weeks ago made what I think a very good suggestion, perhaps we should focus on a pilot project in an area of the town that is impacted, severely impacted by these issues. See how it works, identify issues, identify the problems, work it out and bring it back to the Town as a whole to see if there's something that has value for all of us. 11 Board of Trustees 12 July 18, 2006 So my first question to you is why in Orient Harbor. In fact, it's interesting to note, I have had various size boats in Orient Harbor for the better part of half a century, I know that makes me sound pretty old but it's true -- going back to the 1950s and '60s -- and I can remember a time when we had 12 Pershof S boats in the Harbor and an equal number of Lightenings. We had a Lightening fleet, we had Comet sailboats and many of us had little wooden lap straight barber boats with the biggest engine you could have in those days, which was either 15 or 25 horse, and we thought they went fast in those days. The other day I counted the number of boats moored in Orient Harbor and I think I counted 26. Maybe a couple were out, but I would say there are less than 30 boats in the harbor now, and I would submit to you that 50 years ago there were double that number. The history of the Orient Harbor is an interesting one. We have an historic wharf that goes back to the 1800s. In those days, three masted schooners came into Orient Harbor and after that steam boats like the Shinnecock and others used to come in delivering passengers from New York City. When I was a kid we used to call it the potato dock, potato trucks would come out on the docks and unload their potatoes; they would be graded and 12 Board of Trustees 13 July 18, 2006 shipped off down the coast. So it has a very interesting history. I also would submit to you if there is a problem in Orient Harbor and there very may well be, vantage point there's very little evidence of eel grass and I don't see fiddler crabs around any more, but I submit to you that it's not those moorings that we have had down there for a number of years but perhaps runoff from Village Lane that goes directly out into the Harbor. There is a real concern that I have about road runoff, perhaps we have polluted our bay and harbors with some of the chemicals that have been used on some of the farms over there, but let us not penalize those who have dropped a mooring in the harbor over the years. My second question is, has anybody done an analysis to the cost benefit to the Town of Southold, because I notice again, under 34-10, there are 10 or 12 things that you would be required to do by your own legislation, adopt permit procedures, assign mooring sites, improve enforcement, insure protection and restoration in reopening shellfish beds, establish guidelines facilitate removal of abandoned moorings, more and more and more, where are you going to get the money to pay for this? Perhaps the mooring permit fees 13 Board of Trustees 14 July 18, 2006 will cover those costs, but again, I submit to you that you may be looking at more mooring police, doesn't sound to me like the town constables can enforce all this. There will be calls from irate people in the community, hey somebody's violating the law right off my dock, when are you coming to take care of it. So you're definitely going to need more personnel, you'll need more support personnel in the office to deal with all of these issues. What is the cost benefit, and especially going down the road two three and four years from now. If somebody could answer those questions with reasonable answers, I think I might even be able to support this legislation. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Yes, sir. MR. MilLIS: Hi, my name is Walter Millis, I live in Orient, M-I-l-l-I-S. I am opposed to this legislation, first; and second, and I fear that it's probably going to get rammed down my throat anyway, I have some suggestions about changing this document itself. First of all, I am opposed because I consider it unnecessary, I live in Orient, as I said, I have had a mooring in Orient Harbor for many, many years. My father had a mooring in Orient Harbor before me, and indeed, the guy who lived in my house in the 1850s had a mooring in 14 Board of Trustees 15 July 18, 2006 Orient Harbor. There has never been any of these problems that you cite. There's been no interference with navigation, there is no interference with the marine environment that anybody knows anyway. Nobody's ever said anything about any problems, nobody's ever said about access problems. It's been there, we have regulated it ourselves, we've taken care of it, and it's worked. And I don't think we have any need to regulate anything that works just fine. So that's my first point, this is unnecessary and I'll leave it at that. The current mooring code and the assumption you're going to make me put up with it anyway, the law is intended to enforce existing mooring permits. I mean, why do you go through the current process of having moorings if you don't enforce them now. You say in Paragraph 34-12: No person shall place any moorings in Town waters or in public land or adjacent to Town waters in the Town of South old without first obtaining a permit. Okay, you say the same thing at least once more. You talk about pollution in several places, for example, in 34-13 Chapter E, you say no person shall anchor any vessel in any public lands at the end of any Town highway in the Town of Southold established by the Trustees as a restricted area. In the next, 34-15 Paragraph 15 Board of Trustees 16 C, no person shall moor or place any vessel in any public land in the end of any Town highway in the Town of Southold in an area established by the Trustees as a restricted area. You give me the impression as I read this that it's a pay stub job, nobody's actually sat down and read it. Why do you have to say this stuff twice? Which is why I don't have very much faith in it. In 34-16, mooring assignments general rules for Town waters, you talk about all moorings must be within the water side boundary -- what's that? 34-18 Paragraph C, the whole dimensions applicable to each class of vessel and vessel type shall be used for configuring a mooring area grid that accommodates vessels having a wide range of dimensions. I think what you mean is make the grid big enough so you can have several sizes of boat in it but it's a little confusing. I mean, what classes of vessel are you talking about? It's the only time you have mentioned class of vessel. I really won't go on except for the mooring equipment regulations. Where you say under recommended dimensions you specify the length of the water line with boat and you specify the size of the anchor, 100 pounds, you call it the diameter of the mushroom anchor. It's not the diameter, it's the weight; is that correct? July 18,2006 16 Board of Trustees 17 July 18, 2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. MilLIS: It just gives me the impression that nobody has sat down and read this, therefore it's hard to on have any faith in it. I won't go on, I sympathize with Mr. Branigan, and I agree with him. And I certainly sympathize with the gentleman from Peconic who's got a boat which apparently is right on top of the beach, and I don't know if it wouldn't be possible to give the bay constable authority to at least regulate some of this stuff without having to go through all of this nonsense. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One point of information with regard to the tackle, that whole area with regard to the size of the anchors, the tackle and all of that that came out of the Chapman's Guide, that is kind of a universal guide that's used by municipalities that we have -- I looked at it before I came over here, they don't specify anchor size, they specify weight, you're exactly right. Yes, sir? MR. SPEllMEIR: My name is Walter Spellmeir, I'm also from Orient, I don't have a boat. I have lived there most of my life, actually all my life in summers. Mooring arrangements all over Southold are working reasonably well; if boats are too close the owners work it out themselves perhaps at times with a little help from their friends. I must say at this 17 Board of Trustees 18 July 18, 2006 point that your records for handling staked lots at Hallock's is abysmal. Your administrators say they are all assigned, but anyone who uses that boat ramp area can readily see most are never used -- the whole summer long, year after year, but I'm 65 on the list. Are these staked lots being given to people out of town? I mean, I'd like to know who was paying the money and letting them sit idle, but I don't think you administer that very well, so I doubt you could administer anything else. Why should the taxpayers think you will do better doing the whole town's moorings when you can't handle Hallock's? We have moorings all over this place and they seem to be handled pretty well, I don't hear of any great problems but what I do hear is people are not obeying -- using good sense on boats. You see people sitting on the front of boats, speed boats, you hear about six or seven kids going out -- they had life preservers on, fortunately the guy who owned the boat knew how to swim, but I don't know of any regulation that says the guy who's in charge of the boat has to know how to swim, but if he couldn't, we would have had about six drowned kids on our hands in this town. That's where I think the constables should be doing their work. It seems to me the problems that people are talking about mooring in the wrong place, 18 Board of Trustees 19 things like that, your constable should have the authority to take care of it to get boats out of these areas, you don't need these big mooring regulations. My point of view, and what this man was talking about in Peconic Bay, people racing around, that has nothing to do with moorings. I think this is a tax pure and simple. I think what Ted Webb had to say, you're going to spend a lot of money on this, you're going to provide a lot of jobs, maybe that's what you want to do, more employment. It would be better for marine constables to police in the waterways, make sure all boaters have life vests in sufficient numbers, make sure boats are not overloaded, make sure boats stay out of dangerous areas, make sure jet skis don't go all over the place in swimming areas, are launched from swimming areas, et cetera. I'm more concerned about people's lives are protected on the water, and I think Southold Town has a responsibility to do that rather than moorings. Moorings are not broken, don't fix it. Should the Trustees vote on this, I consider very misguided regulation, and certainly what Walter Millis had to say, it does look -- I haven't had a chance to look at it but I'll take his word for it, and the things he had to say, July 18, 2006 19 Board of Trustees 20 it looks like it's not been very well thought-out and edited and properly read, but if you do vote on it, I as a taxpayer want a roll call, a recorded vote roll call so that each of us know exactly how each one of you vote on this measure, then we'll know who's looking out for us and who isn't. And also, you say there's a big group of people here came, how many people raised there hands that they are in favor of this? May be one or two, the rest said they weren't, and then you say as a county employee, that well, that's just the way it is, you only get the people who object out, vast majority you imply are in favor of it, that's alii have to say, thank you very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify how, if this was to evolve and move forward and become local law, what would happen is the Trustees obviously would have to support this, then it goes to the Town Board. The Town Board would then be the agency to hold a public information, public hearing, just like they would on any proposed legislation. The Town Board would then vote for implementation or non-implementation. just wanted to make that point clear so everybody understands that. Yes? MR. WERTNER: My name is Ed Wertner, and I live in Southold. And I just wanted to say this is probably one of July 18, 2006 20 Board of Trustees 21 July 18, 2006 the best pieces of legislation, fairest things that I could have read. I didn't finish reading it. When I moved to my waterfront property, I put a mooring in Corey Creek because there was nothing there and the guy said, well, where's your permit, so I took it out, I put it in state waters off of someplace in Greenport, I can't think of the name of it. One of the things that always bugged me that I always told the Trustees is that here I am paying taxes, I have waterfront property and there's two moorings there and I'm 24 on the waiting list. There's no boats there, totally unfair, there's plenty of mooring space in that whole area for at least 35, 40 boats to be put in there spread out throughout all the creeks. I want to say this is great, it's fair, because people are taking advantage of it. I understand probably people don't want their boats or other people's boats in front of their yard, and as a boater and a person who loves this town, I think it's great and I hope I get a permit somewhere. And the state water where I do have the mooring there's a couple people I know there I go out there and I use it and I pay the high price of dockage in Greenport, but I go out where I put it and there's constant battles with other people. Other people infringing and putting their moorings close to mine. And they see you 21 Board of Trustees 22 July 18, 2006 there, they're dropping moorings all over the place, people are actually fighting with each other, some people even cut moorings loose, really a bad situation. And this I think will put a stop to it and be a fair answer to everybody. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir? MR. THOMASON: My name is jay Thomason, Bayshore Road, Greenport. When we get into 34-23, mooring maintenance, it is recommended that the mooring shall be inspected yearly, moorings must be raised and inspected every three years. That is a cost to me of $666 per year. John Costello quoted a price to take out a helix mooring for me of $1,000, to put it back is $1,000 divided by three is $666 a year. Is John here? Also attached to a helix mooring I put in a hazlit, which is a nine foot long giant rubber band which acts as a shock absorber to the boat. So therefore, the mooring line you use is larger than one inch but it is not nylon. Now they're recommending the new theory is you put in a shock absorber, the hazlit to that, the advantage to the hazlit, which John may have told you, it floats, which means you are not scrubbing the bottom of all grass because you can put the hazlit directly to the helix. I called the president of the hazlit company; he was kind 22 Board of Trustees 23 July 18, 2006 enough to call me back within two hours. He said that every town that has passed a law on moorings has made the exception of the removal of the hazlit, it's not mentioned in here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. WERTNER: Then I called down to Boat U.S. and Boat U.S. also called me back today. They were a little concerned. They got a little excited when they heard about the removal of the hazlit. They also told me that all moorings should be the hazliUhelix screw, that's their feeling. He asked if you want to put in a mushroom, you pay a 15 percent premium over the helix, they'll put that in writing, if you want it. If you want the president of the helix telephone number, I'll give it to you; if you want Boat U.S.'s number, I'll give it to you. I also think that a mooring is safer if left alone. It's the chain and the swivel, which is the problem. If you and I were caught digging 600 holes in the bay every two years, they would put me in jail, and you'd get to join me if you went with me. Now you're demanding that we dig 600 holes. And when you talk about a 35 to 39 foot boat, do you know the size of the hole you're going to dig with a 700 pound mooring? And then you're going to sit there and drag it around the bay trying 23 Board of Trustees 24 July 18, 2006 to get it to settle back down in again. I think this whole thing of inspection should be left to the insurance companies. Mother nature does an excellent job, she did it last fall in October, she cleaned out a lot of weak moorings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we're trying to avoid is that same situation as last fall. MR. WERTNER: But you think that man can inspect better than mother nature? Be serious. Right now there are a total increase in the whole Pipe's Cove, which is several square miles. I counted the boats again, as I did last year, we're up a total of six moorings, but I looked at the moorings, two-thirds of them are empty. What happened was in anticipation of the rule they put them in. Then I mentioned to one man the moorings should be more offshore, and a local resident told me very quickly, some people like to wade to their boats, well, that ends that doesn't it? That's walking distance five feet of water on small boats. The storm last fall removed four or five of the larger boats. They have not come back, the mooring may be but they're not. I looked around yesterday, I figured on a Monday the boats should be there. Then I noticed that my neighbors are doing an odd thing, they have a mooring, they 24 Board of Trustees 25 July 18, 2006 put their boats up at Port of Egypt, they're pulled out of the water, they're put back in the following weekend. Which means, for an inspector who comes in Monday to Friday, he will not see anyone on the mooring, assume it's an abandoned mooring because it's not used during the week, then they come back, they keep their boats in for a few hours maybe overnight, maybe a few nights, they're gone, there are four empty moorings in front of my house right now, but there will be three boats there next weekend. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify, many of the points you made are absolutely correct and this is why getting this information is great. I'm just one Trustee, but one of the things we want to do is address the helix issue, because I agree with you 100 percent regarding the helix mooring, and the stability and how great they are, also how expensive they are, but I agree with you there has to be something done in here to address helix moorings. The issue of inspection that was one of the critical issues that the task force worked on because in the previous draft, it said that the owners would have to have their hold inspected every year at their expense, and we have amended that saying we're asking that you folks -- the owners -- take the responsibility to have them inspected yearly as an option, 25 Board of Trustees 26 July 18, 2006 but we're asking them to be pulled every three years, this is regular mushroom anchors to be looked at so the tackle primarily -- you're absolutely right, it's the tackle that fails more than the mushroom anchor, you're absolutely right on that, and I know speaking from the New Suffolk area when all those boats broke loose last October in that storm, which was terrible, it did massive amounts of damage to boats, damage to property owners where those boats ended up on, it was all tackle that gave in every case. So it's absolutely right that the tackle is the primary issue. MR. WERTNER: Inspection could be by diving. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could be, absolutely. I saw a hand up over here, yes? MR. KRUPSKI: AI Krupski, Cutchogue, I just want to make a brief comment, I'm back and forth between the land preservation meeting down the hall. I wanted to say that I did actually read the mooring and anchoring draft as I'm sure the whole Board did. We worked on this for over a year, we got a draft from the Department of State, we completely reworked it. It certainly needs more work, it's taken a lot of time and any comments are certainly appreciated. I had a few little comments, but I'll save them for 26 Board of Trustees 27 July 18, 2006 another time or I'll submit them in writing to the Board. The one concern I had is one complaint I've been getting lately in Cutchogue Harbor, and it doesn't really address this, which are live-aboards, people spending weeks, months, much of the summer living on a boat in the bay. There's a prohibition against houseboats in town now, but if somebody can drop anchor in the bay and live there for free all summer, I think it's going to be a big problem, and I think that should be addressed in here. TRUSTEE KING: Thanks, AI. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, AI, yes. There are presently two live-aboards that have taken up residency in New Suffolk off the beach. Other comments, yes, sir? MR. SLATTERY: John Slattery, West Cove Road in Cutchogue. I support the draft mooring proposal, and I do so as a person who is not generally in favor of added rules and regulations. With all due respect to the folks from Orient, the situation at our end of the bay is in fact different. We live on the west side of Nassau Point looking out on Horse Shoe Cove and New Suffolk about a mile away. have some examples of what has happened in of the past. There have been several abandoned derelict boats left at mooring or anchor off New Suffolk or Nassau 27 Board of Trustees 28 July 18, 2006 Point. Ultimately, those boats have wound up on somebody's beach and at least in two cases, they have been abandoned to such an extent that the Town had to move in and remove the boats from the beach, impound them, store them and pay all of those fees. Aside from the expense to the Town, such a derelict and open waters represents a night time danger to navigation. I fear that someone is going to get hurt. With no rules and a lack of common sense, moorings are being dropped indiscriminately. As an example, a 40 plus foot black hulled sailboat shows up at a mooring a quarter of a mile offshore. That boat represented a hazard for the entire season last year as it was not lighted at night in violation of navigation Rule 30 and 33. By the way, in more than three months with people on board, not a single pump-out. In the past few years a number of moorings in Horseshoe Cove and off New Suffolk has grown exponentially as has the size of the mooring area. Mooring fields are not marked and the boats are not lighted at night; again, a violation of navigational Rule 30. So the establishment of marked mooring fields, marked and plotted, would warn mariners and remove the requirements to have anchor lights and that makes designated mooring fields a good thing. So let's look at the past two weeks. Each member of 28 Board of Trustees 29 July 18, 2006 the Board has a picture of a Catalina 22 sailboat that I took last Saturday. Notwithstanding the use of a telephoto lens, that boat is a quarter mile offshore. It's unlighted at night, it has an expired registration sticker, which I'm not concerned about today, I'm concerned about the night time navigation hazard because it is on the approach to two Harbors one Wickham's Creek and the other to the Fisherman's Beach Channel. The ignorant owner has created a maritime hazard and our government is powerless to do anything. What do I mean by that? Well, if we address this issue, if you address this issue or the bay constable does, then he or she has to address every boat in every harbor that's sitting there at night unlit. And I don't think the bay constable should be required to sort all that out. I submit that we need regulations to provide answers to address these questions: What are the current risk to mariner's safety with unlighted boats and moorings sprinkled across the bay in open water? There is nothing to prevent a boat from being moored anywhere in Peconic Bay save a channel. It's pretty wide bay. Why should some marinas be allowed to turn our bay into a revenue stream by renting moorings? How will the bay constable identify unregistered boats that blow up on to our beaches? No stickers, no owner name, no 29 Board of Trustees 30 July 18, 2006 registration, can't track them. How will the Town deal with the reappearance of the 40 foot boat that was moored in open waters and never pumped out? How will the Town deal with the Catalina 22 that is sitting out there right now in open water? So for all of us who don't like rules and regulations, unless we can answer the questions I posed, and I'm sure there are others, we should get behind this proposed legislation, clean it up and put it into law. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir? MR. MCGREEVEY: Don McGreevey, Mattituck. I have one question, I don't know whether you still propose mooring fields in Long Island Sound, because I do see that the commercial fields have been dropped from the legislation. Another point of contention with me is that in your preamble you state that the Trustees have authority under the laws of New York, 1881 Chapter 695, I don't see that written here anywhere. This legislation was put in in 1881 and it stated Queens County and Suffolk County and certain towns therein, which we would assume would be Southold. I wondered why there was no Nassau County. Well, Nassau County didn't exist then. So I don't know if this is an enforceable law, and if it is, it's the Town Board's 30 Board of Trustees 31 jurisdiction, not the Trustees. I think that should be changed in the beginning of the preamble. That's all, thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, just to clarify regarding the legality issue, we did get a ruling from an attorney for the state that said that the Town does have the ability to regulate these mooring fields until half-way across the bay. They did say because they're state waters and in some cases, and some people know this already, leases of underwater areas for oystering that we should obtain approval from the county and the state as to these particular locations of the mooring fields. He did not see any problem with obtaining that permission from the state. He can only speak for the state, but I did want to address that because it is a very important issue, the legality. With Long Island Sound last year, I remember attending these, and the Trustees said there was no intention of establishing mooring fields in the sound because I think it is quote -- I think the quote was made -- anybody that keeps a boat in the sound is insane because of it being wide open to all the elements from anywhere to the east from the west in a northerly direction, and I don't see that there's any intention right now of establishing mooring fields in the July 18, 2006 31 Board of Trustees 32 July 18, 2006 sound. I do know that there is a group of individuals that have established what they consider a small mooring field, I believe around the Town launching ramp in Southold and that would have to be addressed in some way. Very valid point. Other comments? MR. JUNGBLUT: I'm Larry Jungblut, J-U-N-G-B-L-U-T, from Southold. First I want to make sure that it goes on record that this amendment is only applying to bay waters and harbors and not to creeks. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Just so people know there are already mooring regulations in effect in the creeks. MR. JUNGBLUT: Which are much more severe than these. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Costs they are but as far as limitations -- MR. JUNGBLUT: But as far as in the bay, I'm in favor of mooring fields whether or not there's a fee for it or not. My concern is mostly in Southold Bay. Right now the only marked mooring that everybody knows about is the Coast Guard mooring. Each year you go out and they're not close to shore, they are out in the bay and there's more and more moorings, along with lobster pots and other things. But also on the record as far as some of the other items in here, you do state in Paragraph 34-14 (d) that temporary anchored overnight vessels shall have an operational holding 32 Board of Trustees 33 tank. My concern is if somebody comes over with a 13 foot Whaler or dinghy or something like that, what's going to be the regulation there? We spoke about that, Dave. 34-15 (a) states that there shall be no mooring within 50 feet of any dock channel pier or other boat docking. And as I mentioned, I think it should be marked channels because frequently if you consider a channel deeper water, you could be right up along shore and you might not be 50 feet away from the channel itself until it's a marked channel. 34-15 (e) allows for rafting up to three vessels on a single mooring, but there's no time constraint. This can go all summer long, which is not necessary. 34-17 (a) requires quite a bit of information for the permit. Usually your registration or your bill of sale or so forth has a lot of the information. You have five or six paragraphs what you want. 34-22 gives recommended tackle designs. I may have been corrected because I didn't look in the latest Chapman, but I know the earlier versions of Chapman did not have extent of designs as required by here. Again, you say it's only your recommendation, it's not required. 34-23 states mooring must be raised and inspected once every three years, questions are, who performs the July 18, 2006 33 Board of Trustees 34 July 18, 2006 inspection; what are the pass-fail requirements; and what documentation must be filed or maintained? Finally, 34-25 (b) states moorings that are not used for 30 days per year are subject to being revoked. That's quite severe because a mooring owner, as stated before, may only use it on weekends; there may be an illness that he can't have it in the water. The boat may be laid up and he may not maintain the 30 days. It also conflicts with 34-17 (f) which says if it's unoccupied for a year, you may lose it. So those are some recommendations that need to be corrected. But I think my primary concern is going out at night in areas where I think it's open water and there are moorings starting to pop up. Orient in the harbor that's no problem, it's away from everything, people don't go back and forth. If you're going up to Plum Gut you're a away from that area so there's no problem with the field there, and there's probably other areas where you can have mooring fields but not out in the open water, which is allowed today. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, Larry, yes, Larry and I did have a conversation about the information that he put in writing to us, and I did agree with several of the points that Larry made that there needed to be some clarification of some 34 Board of Trustees 35 July 18, 2006 things, so thank you very much. Yes, sir? MR. SCHULTHEIS: Good evening, my name is Jerry S-C-H-U-L-T-H-E-I-S, I live in New Suffolk at the entrance to Schoolhouse Creek. I'd like to take this opportunity to commend the Trustees for this legislation. I think it's something that's very important and I think it's something that's needed. The issue of the mooring fields though, bring other issues to bear that I think need to be addressed as well. Living right at the entrance of Schoolhouse Creek, one of the observations that I continually make is I see the dinghies going out to the moorings which have no respect for the speed limits. They're speeding, they're speeding through the creek. They're speeding through the mooring fields and the anchorages. Also there's no delineation of where the channel is as you go out further. If I look at most of the other channels coming into the creeks in the town, the Town places a five mile per hour speed limit buoy in those channels. There is none in New Suffolk, and the volume of traffic is quite large compared to other creeks. And the question I would ask is why is there not a five mile per hour speed limit buoy in New Suffolk? And that's going to be compounded more with the mooring fields because you 35 Board of Trustees 36 need a five mile per hour limit in the moorings in the vicinity of the mooring field itself, so that five mile per hour limit has to extend out to the mooring field and through the anchorages. So I think enforcement of the speed law is an important thing that has to be addressed. The number of moorings off New Suffolk in Cutchogue Harbor is growing almost at an exponential rate. There's more and more of them. Two or three years ago they were only on the north side of the channel coming out of the creek, now they're on the south side as well. The other challenge we have is we're beginning to see more and more dinghies left at the end of Town roads where people use them to get out to the boats. They leave their dinghy there and they feel free to trespass on the existing properties right next to that property where the dinghies are. So I think there needs to be some provision made for where the dinghies can be kept. One of the things that might be worth considering is the establishment of a launch service. I once kept a boat on a mooring in Port Jeff Harbor and it was a launch service that took the people out to their boats and brought them back. That would eliminate the problem with the dinghies. Also, there are real problems with the live-aboards July 18, 2006 36 Board of Trustees 37 July 18, 2006 off of New Suffolk. There are two boats that have been there. One of them, probably three or four years, comes back every summer, another one for two years. You never see them go anywhere, you never see them pumped out. What happens to the waste on those boats? It's got to go someplace, and it's going into the bay. The legislation allows for mooring permits for residents and nonresidents. I did a little quick research and most cases are the towns limit their docks and their moorings strictly to residents of the town, and I would ask why we are allowing nonresidents to have the moorings as well. And there's been some comment in the recent newspaper article about the cost of the mooring, I think $50 is a tremendous bargain. A family of four can probably spend $50 and go out to McDonalds and go out to for dinner one night. If you wanted to get a dock for your boats, an 18 foot boat is probably going to cost you a minimum of $2,000 for the summer. A simple thing like bottom paint which goes on the bottom of the boat is $150 to $180 a gallon. There's tremendous expensive items and $50 in my mind seems like a minimal fee. One comment regarding the mooring field, if you go out to Deering Harbor, the entire mooring area there has got 37 Board of Trustees 38 July 18, 2006 five mile per hour speed limit buoys around it so people know there's a five mile per hour limit there. There's extra legislation, extra expense there, but at least it's letting people know what the requirements are. I would hazard to guess that most people driving boats today don't know the rules of the road, don't know where they can go, at what speed, so it's a real challenge. To sum up, I'd like to commend you for the legislation. I think it's well overdue. I think it's necessary. I've seen many boats wash ashore in New Suffolk. It's all in the type of tackle they use. I've seen people go out and drop a concrete block in the water and expect that's going to hold the boat in a storm. So I would like to commend if you for the work. And thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Just one piece of information to address, just one thing you brought up that I've heard a lot from people. They want to know why some channels are marked and some channels are not marked by the Town, because I inquired, the only channels or inlets that the Town can mark are those approved by the Coast Guard as navigable channels. So, for example, in Schoolhouse Creek, that is not on that list. So those channel markers are maintained 38 Board of Trustees 39 July 18, 2006 by I believe the shipyard in there and not by the Town. know people have asked why certain creeks have Town marks and channel markers and some don't, and that's because the Coast Guard states which ones you can put markers in and some you can't. Yes? MS. LAGOU: My name is Laura Lagou, and I'm from Orient. Here we have about 120 signatures. I'd like to read it to you, it's addressed to the Board of Trustees. "The Town Trustees have proposed legislation to regulate moorings in Southold waters. Each of us opposes the sweeping proposition that requires permits and fees for each mooring and regulates placement size and maintenance for the moorings. Persons are subject to fines and incarceration for noncompliance whether willful or not. There is insufficient amount of information available as to the need and impact of such regulation on Southold waters. No studies have been conducted regarding the necessity for such an unwieldy bureaucratic mechanism. It's environmental subsequences, impact on navigation, requisite parking, resulting vehicular traffic and water access by members of the public. "As responsible boaters and citizens, we insist that 39 Board of Trustees 40 each of our Town Trustees stop any further action on the proposed legislation until some necessity or benefit of it is established." So I would like to hand this to you (handing). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll take it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. DOUGLAS: Pat Douglas, from Orient. I also served on the task force. The problems that have been raised tonight most of them will not be solved by mooring regulations. No discharge -- not a function of mooring. The lights are not a function of the mooring. In fact, I know of a case two summers ago where a fish trap, legal, permitted and lit was run into by a boater and destroyed. Just because you have a light doesn't mean someone's going to avoid you. I think as written, this is going to cause more problems than it solves. It's going to be a logistical nightmare to enforce and really until you define where the moorings are going to be, we really shouldn't discuss any of this because that is going to determine how many permits are going to be needed, who is going to qualify for permits, and that's going to be a rodeo when that comes to everybody lining up for it because obviously there's going to be a limited number. You're going to define a field, there's July 18, 2006 40 -~ Board of Trustees 41 July 18, 2006 going to be a limited number in it, and it's not going to be who has got a mooring there already, it's going to be who is there to get the application first. And it's going to be a zoo. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. MilLIS: Walter Millis from Orient. I've been listening to all of these comments, and really, I sympathize with the guy that's got a boat moored off his beach that's too close to where his children swim; the mooring fields are not marked, that's a problem, people are speeding through them and dinghies are scattered around on the shore; the Iive-aboards are probably not pumping out the way they should, none of these are mooring problems. These are problems of enforcement of existing law. And it would seem to me that instead of getting involved in this you try to figure out some way to empower the bay constable to enforce the existing law and solve some of the problems that we're hearing. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. OOOL: My name is Linten 0001, I'm from Orient also, and I am amazed at the number of problems that you folks have in New Suffolk and Cutchogue and maybe Mattituck. In the past we have had up to 50 boats moored in Orient Harbor, right 41 Board of Trustees 42 July 18, 2006 now there are 26. The problem is diminishing in our harbor. And I happen to agree with some of the people, you need to figure out how to enforce the existing laws first before you bring on a whole new set of laws. One of the things that amazes me is that several people here have talked about a large boat up in New Suffolk that hasn't had a pump-out in two years. If they know about it, why doesn't the bay constable know about it? Why doesn't the code enforcement officer know about it? So what they have been saying is until you enforce the existing laws that you have, don't saddle us with other laws that the people who are supposed to enforce the laws can't possibly cope with because they can't cope with what's already there. Now, in Orient we have ways of enforcing our own laws and solving the problems that exist. If somebody's too close, we ask them to move. If they don't move, their boat gets hit by another boat by accident. So those things were worked out. I know it's tongue-in-cheek, but really for the most part, most people have boats that are worth quite a bit of money, so you don't really want to have the other boats banging into each other because it causes a cost for both of them. The problem is usually solved by a discussion one way 42 Board of Trustees 43 July 18, 2006 or another by a phone call or by a note on the boat. I understand that you have a problem in other parts of the town, but this is a shotgun approach, and, like several people have said, we have code enforcement officers, they work Monday through Friday. We have bay constables that work all the time, but they're not necessarily working at night, when you do have some other problems, and the fact that several people here have said that we have boats that are moored out here without any lights, again, that's code enforcement. Those are laws already on the books like Pat Douglas said, those are things that should be taken care of. Take care of those first, then get to the moorings, but certainly, let's take care of what the problems are now that are existing out there. Then if the mooring situation gets to be so onerous, you've already got a start on it, but you've got to come to grips with some of the other problems first because if you don't, this is just going to be worthless. The value it will be the value of the paper it's written on. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For clarification, the Trustees have gone to the bay constable and informed the bay constables and asked the bay constables to please address those live-aboards, so I don't want people to think that the 43 Board of Trustees 44 July 18, 2006 Trustees have done nothing about it. The requests have been made for them to deal with it. MR. LEARY: I'm Ed Leary and I live in Southold, L-E-A-R-Y. One thing I wanted to say was I support the person earlier that said all moorings probably don't have to be pulled every few years. I am in favor of diving and inspecting them. I did a lot of work on City Island with the club I belong to there, and that's the way we did it. Because I do agree the idea of pulling up a mooring, dragging it around, trying to put it back in the same position will definitely cause more damage, and you can really check moorings by diving. One other thing in reading this, which is the first time I sort of read through this, I quite often -- the wording is the Board shall establish locations for moorings, the Trustees shall consider optimum use for space available; the clerk of the Trustees shall notify the permitee by First Class mail, et cetera, but in 34-19 (a) it says the Town Board may designate mooring areas for the placement of moorings by boat yards marinas, yacht clubs or boating associations, and I'm wondering why the words may and not shall; is there a reason behind that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was going to say that's often a word 44 Board of Trustees 45 July 18, 2006 that we are switching, I mean it's often a very special word that's considered one way or another and that will certainly be taken into consideration. MR. LEARY: I'm not sure what you're saying to me. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm saying to me it's always ironic that one word can be so important in legislation and it will certainly be something that we consider when we're revising this. MR. LEARY: So there's some confusion about whether you will be designating mooring areas more for clubs and organizations or -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It could very well be that that was a mistake that needs to be corrected. It's something we need to look at. It's a very legitimate point. MR. LEARY: Because that word's vague to me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is what I mean about all comments are appreciated. You hear comments from all directions that help this document evolve, absolutely. MR. LEARY: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of the recommendations I'm going to take to the Trustees is to consider this diving as a way of inspection. I think it's a very good point and much more cost efficient and it gets the job done. Excellent idea. I 45 Board of Trustees 46 July 18, 2006 know it was also brought up by a gentleman over here. Yes, sir. MR. BAXTER: William Baxter from Cutchogue. I presume you all have a copy of my presentation? I left them in the office. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, the letter. I referred to it at the beginning of the meeting tonight, so yes. MR. BAXTER: I will not go over it in detail at this point for the purposes of saving time, but the issue I brought up last year still remains that so much of the waterfront in the town of Southold is open bay front and the moorings are so scattered. I think I may have mentioned to you last year that I started in Laurel and went up to Paradise Point and counted the moorings outside the anchorage areas, there's one every 540 feet, 200 yards, so that's a real question whether open bay front, Long Island Sound frontage, frontage long Orient up to Orient Point needs any regulation, so just take another hard look at that if you wouldn't mind. The progress from the original draft is simply amazing. You have done a great job, as Dave mentioned earlier, listening to suggestions, and for the most part any suggestions I would have now are rather minor, most of them 46 Board of Trustees 47 July 18, 2006 relate to timing, the timing is very harsh, seven days to do something, 30 days to do something else. You can't get a plumber in seven days. You can't get a an electrician in seven days. A mooring contractor with his equipment over in the south shore, it's just not going to happen. Also, the renewal period is rather critical, it's 60 days at the end of the year. Many people who have moorings, have boats are summer residents, they're back west in New Jersey, Garden City wherever, down in Florida, they're gone by November 1 st. It would be a hardship or they may not get proper notification if you limit this to that 60 day renewal period. There are other issues in there which I have covered where you go out and inspect and you find if your inspecting boat is out there November or December, well, a lot of people don't go back out into the water until May. So you say you're going to put a notice on the mooring, or you put a notice on the mooring in December or January that's not in compliance, who's going to see that for a couple months? So take a hard look, as my letter suggests, at various issues of timing. There's another about blanket liability where you're asking the boat owner to sign off, guarantee, totally blanket liability for any damage his boat does. I suggest 47 Board of Trustees 48 July 18, 2006 that rather than asking the owner to guarantee that no damage would happen, that it's safe -- which is another danger word -- that the owner reasonably should guarantee or warrant that it's adequate for X size boat. If he's got a 26 foot boat, he says my mooring is adequate for that size boat. I'm not a lawyer, but I know enough that a lot of people don't want to guarantee safety or this unlimited liability for damage. You say you're responsible for any damage, well, kick that around with a lawyer. The other issue is going to jail, 15 days in jail and $1,000 fine for each offense. Each day that someone is in noncompliance is an offense. So in 10 days it's a $10,000 fine or 150 days in jail? I mean it's hard enough to get the town residents behind this but to threaten people with jail because they haven't complied with a rather innocuous mooring regulation I think is way, way inappropriate and overkill and unnecessary. A $250 fine four days is $1,000. You don't need any more than that. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments? Yes, sir? AUDIENCE MEMBER: I was up here before, I just want to say I watched your town cops run around in the boat and enforcing the laws, and I've seen them on many occasions and I've 48 Board of Trustees 49 July 18, 2006 actually called them because of jet skis and many other people have, and maybe it's time to write this law and go hire somebody else to help maintain this law and help the police also with the carelessness of boaters. Okay, that's all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir, in front. MR. WEBB: Thank you, I spoke before, Ted Webb. It's clear to me from listening to all the testimony that there are real problems in the western portion of our town. And I am sympathetic to them, but again, I speak to my concerns about the harbor where I reside and under 34-10 U) there's one other concern that I have and that's in reference to requiring appropriate public or private access to the mooring. Currently in Orient Harbor there are a couple of ways of accessing your mooring, one is if you belong to the Orient Yacht Club, you can use the dinghy or launch service or you can rent from the Orient Wharf Company a slip and use a boat to get out to your mooring, or if you're a land owner, of course you can access a mooring from your property. But now I'm wondering if among these rules that you would have to require appropriate public or private access. Now I started thinking, there's a street in Orient called Skippers Lane; at the foot of Skippers Lane there's a 49 Board of Trustees 50 dock that ends in the bay right near this mooring field. If you have to require public access to a mooring field, what would prevent the Town from perhaps putting some floating docks down on Skippers Lane, opening up to the public, appropriating 20 more moorings out there, there's space for it, there's plenty of space out in Orient Harbor. I think the impact on our community is quite obvious. So that particular piece also concerns me, and I hope other people as well. Finally, I draw the analogy that if there is an issue on Route 48, a lot of accidents caused at a particular intersection and it's determined that you need a traffic stop light, would it automatically mean that we should put a stop light at every single intersection between Mattituck and Orient Point? I suspect not. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir? MR. SPELLMEIR: I'm Walter Spellmeir, I think some people have said you ought to figure out whether or not the mooring fields are where they ought to be. I think also you ought to figure out exactly what the constables are allowed to do under the current regulations and maybe get the current regulations changed so that they can take care of a lot of July 18, 2006 50 Board of Trustees 51 July 18, 2006 these problems that are non mooring problems that have been discussed tonight, which I think you ought to seriously think of excluding those areas -- well, not all the yacht clubs, they seem to have the issue well in hand. I think they should be left alone, I think you should address, as Ted Webb said, where the problem is, address that. That's alii have to say. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir? MR. THOMASON: Jay Thomason, Greenport. Why not put a limit on what's called non-Southold residents who come to the town, like the first 250 could get moorings and after that they would have to get on a waiting list. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir. MR. LENHERT: Rob Lenhert, Cutchogue. I have a few issues with the whole mooring code and one of the few things, you guys have seen me here before you, I'm a local contractor, architect, and I know what the Trustees do, and their workload. Who is going to implement this, and who in the office is going to take care of this? Because you have a long list of requirements. Now I know what it takes to file a permit for construction project, it could take weeks, months and just getting a hearing takes time; is this going to clog up the office even more? 51 Board of Trustees 52 July 18, 2006 My second issue, can multiple vessels use a mooring if they're owned by the same owner? I own more than one boat, I have a mooring. So if I register one and the next boat shows up there for any reason at all, am I now in violation? The other question I have, I buy a new boat, do I lose my mooring? I come in now with a new application, new boat, do I lose my mooring? And the 30 days, the 30 days is kind of harsh. If I want to go cruising for 30 days, do I lose my spot? I have a sailboat, I'm a racing sailor. My boat often goes off to regattas for more than 30 days. It spends the winter in Florida. I could be away. Am I going to lose my mooring? And the other problem I have is the fines and imprisonment. So now that I'm in violation of the mooring code, am I going to be pulled out of my house one night to go to jail or when I come back from my 30 day cruise, when I clip on, am I going to be arrested? That's basically the problems I have, and I hope you can address them. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one point of information regarding the fines and/or jail time. Obviously, I hope everybody understands that's at the discretion of the judge, that is not at the discretion of the Trustees. What the penalty is 52 Board of Trustees 53 that somebody's going to receive for a summons is not going to be given by the Trustees but by a judge. So I think those people understand that. To follow up on an issue that I have heard multiple times that is, how this is going to be done in the office and how the office staff is going to be able to absorb this work load. We have taken this into consideration when talking about preparing a budget. Because we know that we're going to have to add on probably a part time person at least for the first year to assist with the implementation because the first year, if this goes into effect, if this is even approved by the Town Board and if this goes into effect, we know that first year there's going to be a tremendous volume of applications that are going to come in. After that first year it will start to dwindle down. We know that first year it's going to be a tremendous amount of work. And also as far as the bay goes, one of the responsibilities of the pump-out boat operator is going to be to go around and look at the mooring fields and document not for purposes of enforcement, but document the moorings because people have asked how are you going to track the moorings; who is going to keep track of them; who is going July 18, 2006 53 Board of Trustees 54 July 18, 2006 to be doing this. That's one of the things the pump-out boat is going to do since he's going to be going through the mooring fields on a regular basis, servicing the boats there. So I just want people to know that we have thought about these issues in advance. Yes, sir? MR. TUTHill: I'm Larry Tuthill from Greenport. I would just like to mention one thing, that all of these moorings should be abandoned during hurricane warnings. There's too many boats that land up on the beach after hurricanes, and there's no reason for leaving them out there during a hurricane. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Yes, sir? MR. OOOL: Linten 0001 again. What if you have more than one boat, can you get more than one mooring? If you have a dock out there and you have a boat tied to the dock and the other boat is too large to go in or it's too shallow, how do you handle that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of the questions was, can you have a dock and a mooring because there's a lot of people that have docks that aren't in depths deep enough to handle the boats that they have, and yes, you'll notice our people that saw last year's draft one of the changes, it's made in the draft that's out there right now, it doesn't limit a person to a 54 Board of Trustees 55 July 18, 2006 mooring or a dock; you are permitted to have both. And yes, there would be options for multiple boats for the same owner for the same mooring, so an individual like this gentleman up front said if he has two, three boats, maybe he has two on dry dock on land, if he wants to slip it out to that mooring, he's the owner of all three, he produces certification that he's the owner of all three. MR. DOOL: What if he wants to have all three boats in the water at the same time? Let's say he has a cruising boat, a lobster boat and (inaudible boat)? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Your question is could he have three moorings, and under the proposed legislation, yes. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I want to concur with Mr. Tuthill on what he brought up, one of the biggest problems we have in Orient Harbor is if there is a hurricane and people don't get their boats off the moorings, and those of us who live along the waterfront have in the past, have had boats on their houses, in their houses, or around their houses. That is an issue that he brought up that is very important to certain areas. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's important to us also because like I said, last year that wasn't even a hurricane in October and there are many boats up on the beach that caused significant 55 Board of Trustees 56 July 18, 2006 damage both to the boats, to the beach, to the environment and to private property owners. So personally, I am agreeing that if you have a boat at a mooring, I think all the boats should be removed from moorings unless they're in a very safe, hurricane harbor, so to speak, should be removed, I agree. As a boat owner I would never keep my boat on a mooring in a hurricane. Sometimes you have no choice, you're not around and all of a sudden a hurricane hits. Other comments, suggestions? Yes, sir? MR. MCGREEVEY: Peter McGreevey, Mattituck, and I was also on the task force as Dave knows and a few others in walking through this legislation. In addition to just echoing a general opposition to legislating moorings in the bay as a concept, although it's come a long way from the original proposal we saw last year, I still read this and think to the large measure, you're legislating yourself into a box. Primary reason is, and it was spoken of here earlier, you've got a lot of tools already on the books. One of my concerns with the mooring proposal that we have is the abandoned mooring rule. That was allegedly done for two reasons. Reason one was to move along the waiting list, reason two was, if I understand 56 Board of Trustees 57 July 18, 2006 correctly, was to prevent live-aboards. The Town already has a no live-aboards law, then enforce it. That's number one. Someone's speeding too close to your beach, that's an enforcement issue. No discharge zone, that's an enforcement issue; the whole bay is already a no discharge zone. You know this already, it's not a mooring issue. These issues are covered in laws we already have that we don't need to see again twice. On the issue of jurisdiction for this. I know we have the memorandum from Bill Sharp. I would advise you have that converted from a memorandum to an opinion. A memorandum doesn't hold nearly the weight you're going to get from an actual AG office opinion that will be pUblished state-wide. Fees, problem with the fee structure, as you know, I have a mooring in Mattituck inlet and a mooring out in Orient as well. I'm paying one fee structure for my Mattituck inlet by the foot and now the proposal is to pay another fee structure for a mooring in the bay. I don't see where the actual differentiation is where you can say everyone in the bay pays $50, everyone on the inlet and creeks pays by the foot. Either everyone pays $50 or everyone pays by the foot. It's just not fair to have it 57 Board of Trustees 58 both ways, and I think you will have a complete uproar if you make everyone on the bay start shelling out by the foot. The other issue about the fees touched on the riparian issue. I know we spoke about this at the task force meeting we had. By creating a riparian right, you're doing something that doesn't exist. Riparian law in upstate New York is completely different than riparian law in downstate New York. Riparian property owners rights ends, as you all know, at the high water mark and that's it, done. I don't want to prevent anyone from putting a mooring out in back of their house, I do have a problem with them having a separate fee structure. Everyone should be treated fairly equally in this type of a situation. Anchoring. That was done also to prevent live-aboards. It's currently seven days out of 14 days, which is what the proposal is. I put forward to you that I don't think seven days is a long enough period of time. If your goal is to stop someone from living aboard, besides for the rules that are already in effect if you want to cover that in some way, shape or form in this legislation, change it. Spending seven days out of two weeks does not in my mind make a live-aboard. Spending three months certainly July 18, 2006 58 Board of Trustees 59 does, spending anything over two, three, four weeks, but if someone wants to come out here on their boat, tie it up, stay on it for a week or two, and then move on, let them. Why should they be in violation of the law? The abandoned mooring issue I spoke about earlier. I know at the task force meeting, we amongst ourselves agreed that 30 days usage out of one year to be the limitation of how much time you get before you lose your mooring is unfair. We were talking about 60 days over two years, and the problem is -- and no one spoke about it before -- if I'm sick or if I don't have the time or if I'm in a financial situation where I can't put my boat in the water for one year, I lose my mooring. I waited nine years for the mooring I have in Mattituck Inlet, you guys all the know this because you're here. Jimmy knows it. I waited for this thing, and if I don't put my boat in the water for one year, I'm at the bottom of the list. Oh, and I'm sorry, there are non-Southold residents on the list as well, what a surprise. Now I have to wait for them as well. I also think on that issue, town residents versus nonresident, if we are going to have a list, the list is populated by people who pay taxes in this town first. It is not populated by people from Wading River. I'm sorry, this is my mooring July 18, 2006 59 Board of Trustees 60 July 18, 2006 field. Trustees look out for the interests of the people of the town of Southold. And that should be considered. Removal every three years has been spoken about here before, send a diver down, send yourself down, hauling up a mooring every three years is ridiculous. You just can't do it. And finally for the smaller boaters in the world and if you drive down Peconic Bay Boulevard you'll see them down by Mattituck Yacht Club, there's a provision in here that will prevent Sunfish and board boats from being moored, there's a lot of, quote, riparian owners down there that have Sunfish sitting in their back yards, are they now not going to be allowed to use their Sunfish? Just a concern for the little guys out there. Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Just a quick question, it came up one time in Hallock's Bay, but say I have a mooring and say I die, I'm old enough anyway, but my son, I give the boat to my son and he goes out there, is he going to be in violation of the law because it was issued to me? We have a guy that got arrested in Hallock's bay for that. Anyway, I think this should be taken care of. I think you have a lot of problems, a lot of things you haven't thought through. It's come up clearly time and time again in this whole discussion 60 Board of Trustees 61 July 18, 2006 this evening. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. NESFELD: My name is Charles Nesfeld. I also have an independent marine business which I also do mooring work -- I'm from Cutchogue. I do a lot of mooring work on the south shore for yacht clubs, and the way they do it, Southampton towns that all their moorings have to be removed by December 1 st and that every three years they have to be inspected. I have yet to see many boats on the south shore up on the beaches in these areas as I do in the Cutchogue Harbor area. I've dropped moorings in the Cutchogue Harbor area, I've checked them in the area, I have had people ask me to pick up thousand pound moorings because they can't pick them up. I go pick them up, I check them. I beg to differ about diving and checking because you can't really get a good look at the metals. I think you're in a real big hitch. When I talk to Southampton Town Trustees and people and ask them about the moorings in the bay, they say they have no jurisdiction nor want any jurisdiction over them. I do some mooring out in Napeague also, same thing also, East Hampton Town has no jurisdiction. At one point I was 61 Board of Trustees 62 July 18, 2006 directed to Army Corps of Engineers, who are in control of moorings and anchorages, and I sent for information. And most of it, these fields that are around here are in through of the Army Corps of Engineers, the fields that have cropped up in New Suffolk so on and so forth, they are a commercial entity that are running them that have 20 plus moorings that they rent. They have to actually apply with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Army Corps of Engineers is supposed to come, survey the area, make a federal anchorage, like Mattituck Inlet, then you don't have to have mooring lights because it is a known anchorage. There are speed limits that are supposed to be obeyed, so I believe there's a lot more issues than what is going on. I truly believe about these live-a boards -- I go in and out of a lot of creeks and I watch moorings, I watch new moorings go in and I watch moorings not used year in and year out, this is what I do, so I'm looking, it just dumbfounds me. You also have as Trustees a law about keeping your docks on the tidal wetlands. I had to go move one dock because it was ticketed for $1 ,000. I look the at the 10 other docks down the line that were visible, none of them were ticketed. I just wonder what gives. You can actually 62 Board of Trustees 63 July 18, 2006 go up and down the creeks now, and you can actually see 15 to 20 docks still sitting in tidal wetlands, but no tickets on it. So I think you ought to address having the constables going in and doing what they're supposed to do and take care of this before you go after the moorings. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one point of clarification, you state that in Southampton they're required to pull their mooring every year when you say that the anchor, the whole mooring every year, everything every year? MR. NESFELD: (Inaudible.) And it can't go in before March 1st. TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. MR. NESFELD: They don't have problems, I'm telling you, they don't have problems. May I speak again? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Just step up, the tape recorder can get you when you're at microphone. MR. NESFELD: It takes massive equipment to pull these moorings and it takes big investment if you pull these moorings. If you take a look at Huntington Town, there's a set fee, everybody works on 50 cents a pound, but these men just go out into a limited area and they do 200, 300 moorings, so they can actually pay for their equipment, pay 63 Board of Trustees 64 July 18, 2006 for their insurances and so forth. Out here we're running anywhere from Orient to Southampton, whatever, and with fuel costs and everything, people are up in arms, but it does take a massive amount of equipment and time. And the thing is that it doesn't have to be rock star pricing to do this because I find that my insurance every year for my business goes up about 15 percent because of people that do not adhere to proper tackle and gear, the boats ends up on the beach. I have to pay for insurance now because of people that are neglectful. If you had real people doing the job, you wouldn't have this problem. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments? If there's no other comments -- TRUSTEE KING: That's enough to chew on for a while. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I certainly appreciate all the comments and suggestions that have been given tonight. And what will happen now is obviously the Trustees will again talk about the comments, suggestions that have been provided tonight and consider making some changes to the draft. As I said before, which this is not something that the Trustees if they decide to put forward will be placing into law, that goes through the Town Board and there has to be a public hearing in order for that to happen, so for anyone's who's 64 Board of Trustees 65 July 18, 2006 wondering will there be an opportunity again for the public to make comments, absolutely. I can guarantee there will be at least one public hearing that will be held, but in the meantime, if folks have any suggestions, please feel free, as several people have done, put them in writing and submit them to our office and we'll take them into consideration. MR. JOHNSTON: They can fax them in, email them in, they don't have to actually come to our office. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One other item that I wanted to mention before we close tonight because I know a lot of people in this room are very interested in is the topic of dredging and the dredging of inlets. The Trustees are planning on having a public information meeting similar to this one being held tonight pertaining to dredging of the interfaces of inlets in Southold. We're obtaining information. We've asked for a lot of information from the county, an inventory of the creeks and the permit situations and where are the spoils go, et cetera. Once we obtain that from the county, we will be announcing a public meeting for people to hear about dredging and county dredging projects in Southold town. Since there's nothing else, we thank you very much for coming out tonight. As I say, your comments are very 65 Board of Trustees 66 July 18, 2006 much appreciated. RECEIV"O ~ /0: ",-00; /lift (!Y~~tl~ SoullHAd T(,v.n Clerk 66