HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/1991
,
--- '
,.
MEETING FOR LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION - SEPT. 18, 1991
The purpose of this meeting is for a response to the draft of
the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program which was done by
Wendy Weber of Cashen Associates. The comments and review of the
draft plan would then be forwarded to Wendy so that she can
respond, and perhaps be with us at a subsequent meeting to review
these comments.
J. Bredemeyer of the Southold Town Trustees reported that they
really do not have any problems with the work to date. They do
have some concerns of some of the factual material in the report
but the general thrust and direction it takes they are generally
comfortable with. We will submit comments in written form at a
later date.
Steve Latson, Chairman of the CAC made comments in letter form,
copy attached.
Don Stanton, Member of the CAC made comments in letter form,
copy attached.
Larry Tuthill, made comments in letter form, copy attached. He
recommends inventory should include Suffolk County Soil Maps.
The Committee feels that Cashin did not organize the report in
the manner the committee had prepared the data, and alot of the
data was not included. On the advice of Peter Walsh, the town
was broken down in to 9 Geographic Sub-Areas, and the committee
focused on one area at a time. We believe there has been
inadequate input from the Local Waterfront Advisory committee
to Cashen in the process of writing the draft, and even at this
late date would like to have an opportunity for the input still
to be made as we go over the comments. The Committee will get
a complete set of minutes together and possibly set up a meeting
with Cashen. Don Stanton stated that he felt the analysis is
qualitative in nature for the most part, and needs to be put
in qualitative measure wherever possible to reflect the current
status of the waterfront inventory.
We note that the NYS has used the expression of the Town's
acceptance of Sections 1 and 2. We interpret that to mean that
we have had the opportunity to make a full comment on those
sections. Final acceptance by the Town would be possible only
when the authorized board has access to the entire plan.
Mr. Wickham commented that he was surprised that no one from the
other boards ie, Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, etc.
were at the meeting. Everybody was notified.
Steve stated, and the members of the Advisory Committee agreed,
since the Town Boards have now had an opportunity to respond to
the draft, the report should be made more readily available to
the public.
Committee would also like to have comments from Suffolk County
Planning Department on the draft.
The next meeting of the Advisory Committee will be held in
the middle of October. Chairman Steve Latson will advise the
members of the date.
LWRP COMMENTS FROM
STEVE LATSON
Enclosed are some comments on the LWRP Draft. Overall I was
satisifed with the work, but there is much material that needs
to be added. I look forward to meeting with Cashin Associates
and whover and delving further into this project. There is
still much that needs to be addressed at greater depth. The
LWRPCAC spent years on this project - much of our work is not
reflected in the document.
Pgs. 2-28 Surface waters - Laurel Lake should be included - Dam
Pond is a salt water creek.
2-31 Average depth of Long Island Sound 16 feet??
2-33 Statment not actively harvested for shelf ish is
erroneous.
2-33 All creeks have been recommended by baymen to take
priority for drainage problems.
2-50 Hashamomack creek is a conditional shelf ish area.
2-50 What marina is on goose creek?
2-55 Brown tide negatively affected the entire food chain
and many shellfish not listed - (clams, oysters etc.)
2-62 Tidal wetlands are associated with every creek -
(delete nearly)
2-64 Other coastal barriers - ex: Budds Pond - Town Creek
2-76 Horton's Point - This section is not well done -
many erroneous statements and misconceptions.
2-85 A narrow fringe of marsh borders the entire shore of
gOldsmiths inlet.
"
2-87 Sub-Area 5 contains Gull Pond wetlands and wetlands
at Gardiners Bay Estates.
2-91 Laurel Lake should be within Sub-Area 9
2-95 Significant Habitats - many areas are neglected
in this list.
2-120-121
Table 2-7 CEA list needs improvement unless
Suffolk County CEA includes all of these.
2-123
These bluffs should be preserved - is on
a list.
2-124
Dune area is on same list.
2-152
2-153
Hashamomuck Beach is in Sub-Area 3
Shelter Island Oyster Farm is a well
utilized facility.
2-156
Boat launch site on sound - Not cost
effective - Better off developing site
on Gardiners Bay side of point.
2-161
Hashamomuck (Southold Town) Beach is in
Sub-Area 3.
2-162
Unique dune system goes from Goldsmith Inlet
to Hortons Point.
2-163
2-171-172
Not the Race - Plum Gut.
Hard shell clams are found especially to
Southold Creeks.
2-172:
Scallops found in most creeks in abundance
( normally)
2-176
Lb. for scallops is lower than reality
substantially.
2-176
North Carolina bay scallop is actually a
different species.
2-179
Town shellfish license money goes -
,
2-186
Dredging of Town Creeks (not entrances) for
the entire length ruined the natural
habitat of the Towns creeks - more that any
other single event in history - by far.
2-213
Water degradation - also because of dredging
to related altered flushing rates.
" ,
.'. ~- .
"."
LAWRENCE M. TUTHILL
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
P.O. BOX 162
GREENPORT. N.Y. 11944
:~c~r;!~~
..:o"':-r.l-1 r~..._ ,-1 "4!.
(516) 4n-1652
July :1:4, 19\'1
Sout'cold "'O"'!! 'lo"rd
% Scott Harris, Sunervisor
Hain Street
Southold, NY 11971
.
.'
.'
I
Re. Southold Town Warerfront ftevitilization Study
Dear Suuervisor. Council Men and Women,
I have read the recent study of the Southold Town Waterfront
Revitilization Proaraa. I am reminded of one of my first jobs
~s 'ro~ress EnaLneer on the construction of the New York
Colisium "t Columbus CircLe, Hew York City. when I was asked to
write the suecifications for various subcontracts to be let for
bid. I told my supervisor I WaS unqualified to do such a task.
His answer was that if he wrote the snecs that there would be
no one to correct his ttistakes, but if I wrote the specs he
I could correct my mistakes. a.nd so I dutifully wrote the s"eC8.
This study has too many errors, mis~akes. ~ri~itive assations
and incorrect data. 11any itens should discussed and evaluated,
and many items should be onxitted
The TOHn Board in its wisdon has selected a unique gruon of
compotent inviduals that are resTIonsible, knowledgea.ble and
dediCated. They also as individuals each represent a dxPferent
conmercial ~usiness interest. Eut the Town Bo" rd as individuals {
and as a group by lack of conllunic..tion. either verb.il 3E wr~ten II' jj,,,,_
failed to keep the Waterfront Revitiliz"tion Committee.of the
Boards action. Nor has been any interest or conments Seen nae
on the conmittees wark. It is disgraceful that such a dedicated group
be so ill treated. /i
A review of thQS Study by this comnittee\aeetings will create
a great docu.,. nt for the Town of Southold rather than the boiler nlate
study as now exists. The individual review as requested is highly
unsatisfactory to Reets the needs of SOllthold Town, because ,t
lacks open reVi{W, discussion, the entertainRent of conflicting
rh
points of view^ he Merit of any changes. This comaittp.p. has the
experti~e to properly scrutenize this study and transforR it in
to a ~odel of excell~nce.
. Sincerely,
::J "-"- ~ ~ ~V
~ Lawrence M. Tuthill
, .
:;:,->:;1;";.'
."..~. .
_.....i_
~~::lI.,th('!i~ T......._
II
5 July 1991
Judith Terry, Clerk
Town of Southold,N.Y.
This note is in response to your notice of a 718191 closing date for
comments on the Preliminary Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.
My comments:
Having spent over three years as a participating member of the Citizens
Advisory Committee for Local Waterfront Revitalization, I am dismayed by
a number of things related to this matter. For one, there has been no
meeting or,more importantly, no communication from either the Committee
or TOS regarding the manner in which a draft plan is being implemented or
the manner in which the Citizens Committee is to have a role in determining
its content. We are now presented with a set of 3 draft volumes that are
only a portion of a comprehensive Plan. No indication is given regarding
additional volumes required to constitute a complete Plan.
Regarding Section1.0: This section deals with LWRP boundaries for TOS.
However, it presents the revised boundaries suggested by the CAC as a
. set of proposed boundaries, rather than as the TOS defined boundaries.
Regarding Section 2.0: No introduction is provided to t~is volume, or
explanation of its purpose and function. Secondly, while each area and
sub-area reviewed by CAC was reviewed to a specific set of criteria, neither
the sub-area organization or criteria are referred to in the discussion.
Doing so would make the discussion more understandable.
Additionally, there is much 'editorial' comment in this section that hasno
bearing on the PLan. Statements and commmnts of this type should be removed.
Regarding Section 2.0 Appendices: It is apparent that much good effort
was expended by a number of citizens and members of Town Government in
developing the database provided in these appendices. However, an intro-
duction is required to the volume and each sub-section explaining its source,
purpose and function.
Question: Who in TOS government is coordinating the work by Cashin Assoc.,
and why are they not in communication with the members of the CAC?
There is still a long way to go before TOS will have a comprehensive Local
Waterfront Revitalization PLan or
Program. (." ., /' I .I
) t ,'r---/,/. "
.' /. ~', I
/ ." I? .....,J _..:..-
/.-<c'C._i:.. / (/l./~>~
DonaLd J. ~tanton PE
LWRP CAC Member