The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/08/1988 ./ ,., .I. ( ( /0 .,/;/ {ldA..I'-. CAC Local Waterfront Revitalization Program 3/8/88 Attending: Valerie Scopaz, Steve Latson, Peter Kren, Don Stanton, Frank Bear and Dick Wilton. In addition, AMI members Dave Strong, Frank Costello, Charles Witzke and John Costello attended at the commit- tee's request. Hehry Smith and Jeff Goubeaud also sat in. Steve opened the meeting and welcomed the AMI representatives. He explained we were looking for comments from the business community most involved with our waterfront areas, the marina operators. ", Dave Strong asked about the function of the committee. Steve and Valerie briefly explained the committee's purpose. A general discussion ensued. Dave Strong opened the discussion with a brief statement of the AMI position. Marina operators are not going to destroy the waterways. The waterfront is their livelihood: policing and control will help everyone, operator, user, and the community. Expansion or creation of new facilities will allow marina operators to show a profit. A profit making venture will continue to operate: a losing or break even venture will be sold to the highest bidder and will probably cease to function. The marina operators are not opposed to regulations: they are opposed to complicated or conflicting rules and myriad levels of jurisdiction. Where rules have existed, implementation has been hindered; e.g. when holding tanks were first required, five agencies were involved and each had its own set of rules. Marina operators agreed that marinas allow control of docks and moorings. In Nassau County, many waterfront homes have up to five boats at docks behind the house, with little or no regulation. Ample marina space here has not encouraged that here, but some operators see it corning if space remains stable or shrinks. Current law allows property to rent two slips and still have his own boat slip behind the house. AMI reps are concerned with pumping stations. Concern is not so much with construction or operation of station, but with the rules and regulations and the enforcement of those rules. Generally agreed sealed heads should be mandated on a state or region wide basis. Individual marinas could and should have pumping stations, but the facility should be based Ob the size of the marina and the type and size of the boats it serves. .Of major concern, however, is the ultimate disposal of the waste. ~ge Board of Health has not addressed the question and landfills, local sewer plants, and cesspool services will not take chemically treated waste. General consensus was requiring sealed heads and mandating ,,... .J , "j '. ( ( CAC LWRP 3/8/88 pg 2 the use of shores ide facilities (Heads,showers etc.) will will protect Town waters. Operators feel most boaters will prefer to use shores ide facilities. Operators will not permit use of on-board facilities at docks. Marina operators of operation and distinction. Resident Marina-used primarily by local residents, small boats, out for day on water, little or no shores ide facility use Transient Marina-used by out-of-towners on weekily basis, live-aboard boat is second home, needs facility Suggested Bay constable be empowered to monitor the operation of these facilities. feel a distinction should be facilities/services required made in type should reflect a daily or capability, 24 hour shores ide Pumping Stations-located to be easily accessible to all areas. Minimally, stations should be located in Mattituck, New Suffolk, Southold Bay, Greenport, and Mattituck Inlet. General consensus was guidelines for the use of the waterfront, bay, creek, or sound, are absolutely necessary. Guidelines and permit processes should be comprehensive and understandable to all, and one set of rules should apply to all. It was mentioned that restrictions may be imposed on shell- fishing within 100' of marinas. Consensus was bulkheading, dredging, dock construction projects should be well regulated and limitations imposed. Minimum alteration of the site is to be encouraged. Marine operators favor an educational program geared to the weekender boat user, explaining the ecosystem of the waterways and the damage that can be done by just one .violator. Effective'he~A is questionable in many people's opinion. ~ Operators ;re also concerned with providing sufficient access for local users. Dock space is at a premium: small boat owners are being squeezed out in favor of larger boats. Launching ramps are limited in number and availablity. A large [Itlulber of local owners use the ramps, but access is not Town wide. Operators see a need coming for new facilities (private or municipal) to accommoda~2 local residents. Park District property on James Creek was mentioned as a yossible trailer ramp site. .Y' .) < ~ " ( ( CAC LWRP 3/8/88 pg' 3 The AMI has taken a census of facilities. The representatives agreed to provide data for Southold Town to the committee. Operators estimated that Town wide use of facili%ies is probably 50% local and 50% transient. Percentages vary with every marina. A fuul service operation is necessary to accommodate the transient user. Question was posed as to the use and containment of various chemicals/paints/etc.. Some facilities have areas designed t6 collect the waste/runoff from i~e vario.us uses. Most agreed that some attempt is being made to collect and dispose of the waste. Battery disposal was questioned. It was suggested that some thought/research be given to designing an effective ramp and work area that will meet the needs of the operators and protect the environment. Question was posed as to the committee's effect on regional problems, e.g. the brown tide, local jurisdiction in the Bay? We have little effect, but can stimulate others in Town government to seek cooperation in establishing policy. General consensus was the more public access to the water, the better everyone will be. It was suggested the committee look at marinas (both local & out of Town) to see how they work and what they need. It was agreed there is no "state of the art" facility available locally. Economics the principal reason. Operators agreed again that profitable operation is needed to allow capital improvements. Profitable use of existing facilities will encourage improvements. In water dockage may not be best use of marina space-hi-Iow storage may be far better in terms of expanding general access and profitability. AMI has SOme studies of marine business. Univ. of Michigan and Univ. of Rhode Island have done economic, analysis. Operators felt that effective planningsBould provide either dock or ramp access to every resident, and still provide for transient use. Question was posed as to population. Peak year round population estimated to be 42,000, with a peak summer population of 60,000. Question: n"oes peak summer population decline as year round population increases? D~day trippers increase or decrease? Suggested that mooring field locations be chosen in the Bay for future use._ t ,,.. . "I' . " . ^. ( ( CAC LWRP 3/8/88 pg 4 Generally agreed that if you protect the Baymen, you protect the environment. Don Stanton again raised question as to data to support observations, opinions etc.. It appears there is .little hard data on the condition of the waters, causes of problems, effect of varying uses etc.. It was agreed that data is necessary and every effort will be made to collect existing data, and requests will be made for collection of new data. At this point, the AMI representatives withdrew. The committee briefly discussed the mechanics of our work. Valerie reported the initial draft (section 2) had arrived). She has also found a final report the Mattituck Inlet Advisory Committee: it is a 2 page report. Valerie has also obtained a set of the maps used in preparing the report. The County has lent them to us, and Valerie will be copying them for our use. Next meeting will be on 3/22/88. 0_;-_7'-:'::" ..;..:... '- '.=