Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/27/1993TRUSTEES SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, III. President SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski. Jr., Vice President Henry P. Smith Town Hall John B. Tuthill 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson EO. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BRICK COVE SCOPING SESSION APRIL 27, 1993 PRESENT WERE: John M. Bredemeyer III, President Henry Smith, Trustee Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Bob Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Bruce Anderson, Consultant Merlon Wiggon, Consultant Howard Zehner Frank & Inga Flynn Sherry Johnson, N.F. Env. Council Ann Lowry Meeting began at 5:30 p.m. JOHN M. BREDEMEYER: We are in possession of a scoping outline of Mr. Anderson. We have agency comments from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, which was received April 19. We have a notice updating positive declaration from the SEQRA repository of the DEC which we received April 16. We have scoping outline revisions requested by Peconic Associates, Inc. We have comments from the Senior Planner, Valerie Scopaz dated April 22, for our scoping session outline. Mr. Flynn you have comments you would like to bring forward? MR. FLYNN As a preliminary I can scarcely see how these involved agencies can make coi~ent without having full knowledge of the legal and other aspects'of this application. MR. BREDEMEYER: Is that reduced to writing so that we can have the Town Attorney's look at it? MR. FLYNN: I'm just saying this off the top of my head because I didn't see them. My comments are apt to be somewhat lengthy, but I think they should be considered in the context of the numerous meetings and conferences you have with the applicant and they... MR. BREDEMEYER: Since you do have lengthy comments, I'll ask the clerk then to transcribe them. B~ard of Trustees 2 April 27, 1993 MR. FLYNN: In the effort I assure you I'm going to read from this... MR. BREDEMEYER: Can we have a copy of that? MR. FLYNN: Yes. MR. BREDE~EYER: I'm trying to be absolutely inclusive, I don't want to leave anything out that you might say. MR. FLYNN: I'll read directly from this. My vision isn't the best, so if I make a few errors, you'll understand. "I am making this statement because I have decided to prove fruitless to have my consultants to appear at this time. The expertise of my planners and environmentalists and attorney have been consistently disregarded by this Board. It has only been the courts which have paid attention to and given weight to their conclusions. Accordingly I am holding this experts in abeyance. As the Public should know, I have brought seven legal actions against the Town pertaining to this matter. The courts have ruled in my favor and five of theSe proceedings withheld judgement on two as premature. Despite this demonstration of the courts disapproval of the Town's actions, I look out my window and see a completed expanded operational marina. Lest it be thought that I brought these actions as the result of some individual aberrant behavior, I would call to your attention the following .... 'The Suffolk County Planning Department opposed the expansion of the marina. The Southold Town Board stated that it couldn't be convinced that the project would not inflict substantial damage on the environment. The Southold Baymen's Association opposed the expansion as being harmful to Sage Cove as a very productive source of shellfish. Various civic groups including the NFEC opposed the project. The positions taken by the CAC are inconsistent to say the least. The first time around the CAC voted unanimously against the marina expansion. In fact the council's Chairman, Dr. Garrell as well as Jean Marina opposed the project so strongly that as a result the Town Board dismissed them from the Council, So much for independence and impartiality. The second time around, it was reported at Trustee's Hearing that the vote was close. I checked and the vote was actually Board of Trustees 3 April 27, 1993 five opposed to the project, one in favor, and one abstaining. This constitutes a close vote? Surprise! On the occasion of the next vote, the CAC reportedly voted unanimously in favor of the project. What transpired in the interim to bring about such a complete reversal? The Trustees have consistently refused to classify Sage Cove as a critical environmental area. This despite the fact that the marina is located within 500 feet ofl Peconic Bay. It is of no little interest that th~ Trustees have declared the portion of Ashamomaque Pond borderi~ on Route 25 and approximate to Sage Cove to be a cri~tical environmental area, but excluded Sage Cove from this classification. The actions of the Trustees aside, inclusion of the Bay and all its tributaries and estuaries as critical environmental areas of the Peconic Bay estuary to define t~e ground Pules this time around. When the Trustees issued their late~t negative declaration, they had knowledge of an environmental report by consultants in connection with the proposed map of Harborview landings owned by the Frendolph Corporation. The ~arborview property includes the bulk of the underwater land and Sage Cove as well as the largest portion of its perimeiter. The owners of Harborview Landings ac~ing ethically and to their own detriment, conceded that the co~e and its s~rrounding upland was ecologically fragile and was th~ habitat of endangered species. They prOposed to leave their underwater land and its for the effects of the expansion of the marina on the environment and on the value of h~s property. In spite of this background, and the|testimony of other experts, the CoUrts have found that ~e trust~es have ignored the ~ provisions of SEQRA. The requirements of the Coastal Management Programt the New York Department of States's Marina Criteria and the Marina Best Management Practices reco~ended by the Peconic NEP CAC must now be considered. The question arises,.WRY have SEQRA ~egulations been ignored? Perhaps the reason l~es in the chairman's disparaging description of the cove as an old clay pit. Does he not know that it has not been a clay pit for some sixty years? The change of name from YoUng's Marina tD Brick COve Marina is yet another attempt at denigrating the area, Bo&rd of Trustees 4 April 27, 1993 The chairman has also disparaged Sage Cove as not being a natural body of water. The definition of natural is: "created by an act or force of nature". Sage Cove has been a natural body for close to sixty years. If it isn't, neither are Fire Island Inlet, Moriches Inlet or any other of the innumerable storm created water bodies. In any event, should the chairman not know, SEQRAdraws no distinction between natural and artificial wetlands. In view of the above, the actions of the Board of Trustees may well be explained in the light of the chairman's agenda, as stated to me, in the course of which he planned to remove the moorings from other town creeks and concentrate them in Sage Cove. The Trustees have consistently viewed Sage Cove as being the private domain of the marina owner to be used as he sees fit. The various reports submitted to~ and approved by, the Trustees and property rights of the owners of the majority os Sage Cove's underwater land as well as the surrounding upland. The marina owner has title to only approximately 22% of the Cove's underwater land. He owns only a small fraction of the surrounding upland which is, except for the marina's spot zoning, also zoned for low density residential use. As a measure of the detrimental impact of the marina expansion "for the benefit of the owner of such property and the detriment of of other owners", the relative values of all properties surrounding the Cove can be deduced from their assessments. The marina assessment of $28~000 - is only 16% of that of the assessments of all the property around the Cove. As a matter of fact, the assessments of my residence, combined with that of only two neighbors facing the marina across the Cove, exceed the marina assessment by 20%. As evidence of further inequity in the treatment afforded the marina owner, all his piers and docks are, and have been unassessed. Not only have the Trustees permitted the expansion of the piers by approximately 100%, but they have permitted extensive dredging, which Will certainly have adverse effects on the Cove's environment, now and in the future, and the changes in water flow and increased exposure to southerly tidal forces and stop,us will inflict consequential damages on the neighboring residential properties. Under date of May 18, 1990, Judge Daniel Fo Luciano granted ~enr¥ Weismann and I a preliminary injunction against the respondent Board of Trustees, Board of Appeals and Planning Board as well as Howard Zehner and Dorothy Zehner as Board of Trustees 5 April 27, 1993 intervenors which restricted the marina to install floating and removable docks, with no additional installation of peimanent fixtures, which will acco~u,odate the same number of boats as were accommodated prior to any work in furtherance of the proposed expansion, for boats of the same size as were previously acco~,odated. The judge concluded that "there would be irreparable injury if such permanent expansion were permitted in the absence of adequate environmental or wetland review". The court, by its decision of January 15, 1993, has concluded that there has been no such adequate review to date. It follows that the judge has concluded that the actions of the Trustees and others have, by action or inaction, inflicted irreparable injury on Henry Weismann and myself. We are confronted with a fully expanded marina acco~m~,odating boats up to 55 feet in length, far larger than previously accommodated, and an extensively dredged basin. All this was done, as the judge has ruled in his consecutive decisions, without compliance by the Trustees with the provisions of SEQRA. The judge has ruled that the whole review process must start anew. How do the Trustees propose to rectify their previous errors? While the supervision of this project was purportedly the responsibility of the Trustees, the owner has among other things: Twice violated the judges stop work order. Demolished docks and installed new docks and related improvements without permits from the Building Department. Dredged outside his property's boundaries and on the property of others, as confirmed by Bay Constable Dzenkowski. Attempted to widen and grade Sage Boulevard on the property of others and to dispose of debris in freshwater wetlands, again confirmed by Constable Dzenkowski. As recently as April 9th, (Good Friday) the owner brought in three units of construction equipment and worked all day. This was almost three months after Judge Luciano's most recent decision. Constable DZenkoWski brought these oPerations to a halt on April 10. Judging by the duration of his dredging operations~ and my estimates of daily yardage, I believe he has far exceeded the cubic yardage his permit allowed. As evidence of his disregard for his site plan permit, and of his presumption that the Trustees will once more give him carte blanche to continue his operations, the owner has kept a hopper B~ard of Trustees 6 April 27, 1993 barge used in his dredging operations moored to the outside of his most northerly dock~ The barges beam far exceeds the 15 feet setback to the pierhead and, as a result, not only is commercial dredging equipment stored in the marina, but the storage is, in part, on residentially zoned property. By these actions, the owner has indicated his contempt for regulations; and the Trustees, for whatever reasons, an inability or unwillingness to enforce them. The Trustees issued a "de facto" conditioned negative declaration on September 26, 1991. There were thirty plus conditions attached. Such a conditional declaration is contrary to SEQRA regulations for Type I actions so stated by Judge Luciano in his January 15, 1993 decision. The effect of this decision is to nullify all existing permits and to require a proper Environmental Impact Statement which would examine and take a hard look at all the areas which could have potential negative impact on the environment. As a result of the Trustee action, the marina was expanded and operated for the 1992 season without valid permits. Even had the declaration been proper, many of the conditions still have not been met. The Trustees have improperly permitted the operation during the 1992 season, and the. owner has started use of the expanded facility for the 1993 season. Certain of the stipulated sits improvements have not been made even as of this late date. It is apparent that the Trustees exercised no supervision over the owner and his actions. Particularly egregious is the fact that the marina operated throughout the 1992 season, and has started the 1993 season without Health Department approval for its sewage disposal system. A conference regarding this installation was held at the department only as recently as last Thursday, April 22, 1993. I am told by the department that no permit has been granted for the pump-out facility to date. Despite the fact that any knowledgeable board would have known that conditional declarations are illegal, and with knowledge that proceedings challenging their action had been initiated on February 10., 19912, the Board arrogantly issued a permit on June 30, 1992 for the construction of additional piers and 350 cubic yards of additional dredging. The January 15, 1993 decision of Judge Luciano held that the marina is located in a "Critical Environmental Area of the Peconic Bay Estuary" a fact that the Trustees had heretofore never been willing to concede. He also held: "while the enw[ronmental assessment purporting to support the negative declaration this case gives the appearance of having reviewed all areas of environmental concern..." (emphasis supplied). Board of Trustees 7 April 27, 1993 The decision also stated: "the court concluded that a reasoned articulation in support of a negative declaration which does not address the specific allegations of adverse environmental significance cannot be deemed sufficient". The Trustees have been effectively been put on notice by the court that the casual broad brush treatment provided by the Trustee's reviewer will not be tolerated the next time around. The court expects a reasoned elaboration reflecting a "hard look" at matters of environmental concern to be part of the record. Evidence of the chairman's prejudice in this matter is provided in his letter to the Suffolk Times dated February 18, 1993. He has displayed his antipathy to me to an extent that constitutes extreme prejudice and skirts the basis of libel. MR. BREDEMEYER: Mr. Flynn, if you would like me to recuse myself from this process I would commend you to write a formal complaint to the Town Attorney's Office. This is not the place for this. I don't believe anyone is here to impugn the character of anyone else. We're here to seek information. MR. FLYNN: Well this is information pertinent to the this whole proceeding. I consider this a star chamber proceeding and I'm putting on the record why I consider it. I have one page in addition to this and I'd like permission to proceed. MR. BREDEMEYER: Are you suggesting that our attempt to hold the scoping session is in some way a nonintervention to the intent of the State Environmental Review Act? If it's so I wish you to provide an addendum or to more formally say so. This form is to secure information for everyone in the Town to participate. MR. FLYNN: What I am saying is the information is being gathered and processed in a clouded manner based upon the previous actions of the Trustees and upon your personal animosity to me. MR. BREDEMEYER: I don't hold any animosity to you, I'll say it to anyone, I don't hold any animosity. MR. FLYNN: Well you spread throughout the Town of Southold a declaration in the paper that in five instances that reflected on my character. And I would like to respond to that at this time. MR. BREDEMEYER: This is not the purpose for this meeting. MR. FLYNN: Another words, you don't want the public to hear. MR. BREDEMEYER: No, why don't you come to a regular meeting and air your grievance right at a regular meeting when you'll have Board of Trustees 8 April 27, 1993 more more public present, and I can assure you I'll even invite the press. MR. FLYNN: Oh I intend to provide this information to the press. Normally a persons statements are not interrupted. I have to bow to your powers as chairman, but I object to them. Now let me bypass this particular aspect. Now we start with the scoping session. The legal notice for the scoping session merely serves to underscore the enormity of the actions and lack of actions by the Trustees in this matter. This session is expos facto. The expanded marina exists. The damage has been done. How do the Trustees propose to recreate conditions as they existed. How, for example do the Trustees propose to replace some 2,900 c.y. of dredge spoil? In short, how do the Trustees propose to create a level plain field? How do the Trustees propose to create a status quo ante, as a necessary basis to consider the effects on the environment resulting from this project. To propose that the same organization prepare the DEIS as planned and engineered the expanded marina, would be ludicrous if it were not indicative of the matter in which this whole application had been treated by the Trustees. Can an impartial DEIS be anticipated under these conditions? To have a DEIS reviewed by a reviewer whose previous efforts have been criticized and rejected by the court practically guarantees future litigation. In view of all the above, two actions are indicated. Firstly, the marina facilities have been extended contrary to the provisions of SEQRA and without either demolition or building permits. The improvements should be summarily removed and Christopher D. Kelley, Esq. has so notified the town. Secondly, the Trustees have demonstrated throughout either incompetence or bias in favor of the applicant. In either case the Trustees have demonstrated that they are unfit to be the lead agency in this matter and I demand that they relinquish this status to more competent and impartial hands. That's the intent of my statement. MR. BREDEMEYER: t suggest if there's additional that you wish to bring to the attention of the Town Attorney that you do so. I ~old no ill will to you, however I felt very strongly about the condition you put the Clerk of the Board in. MR. FLYNN: But you don't commit me to respond. You just brought up this. May I respond? MR. BREDEb~YER: Please. MR. FLYNN: I had incorporated that among my comments, I'll have to find it here. And this incidentally was incorporated in a response to a Miss Waxberger, equal time to comment, I think it was February 11, in the Suffolk Times, "I stand accused of having brought the chairman's secretary to tears. He was not there to witness the circumstances. Board of Trustees 9 April 27, 1993 At my attorney's request I had marked and requested copies of certain documents required for trial purpose. Despite the fact that I was a known litigant, I was told I would have to wait five days for the copies. I deliberately waited till the sixth day and requested my copies. I was told they were not available and I could not be assured when they would be. It was not denied that the copies had been promised to me. I then demanded them and stated I had no intention of leaving until I obtained the copies as promised. The Secretary then became distraught and retreated to the Town Attorney's Office. I followed and repeated by demands. It was agreed the copies had been promised to me and the result was that the Assistant Town Attorney worked out a compromise with my attorney. The Chairman's letter has publicly tarred me as the villain of the peace, when, for all I know, the Secretary was told not to provide me with the copies I required. MR. BREDEMEYER: Mr. Fllrnn, do you have any additional comments that you'd like us to consider? MR. FLYNN: If you'll permit me to make then, or I'll have to make them at the next hearing. MR. BREDEMEYER: No, I'll let you make additional co~m~ents and you'll just continue with your early presentation, that you seemingly accuse .... MR. FLYNN: You prohibited me from responding to your co~nents about me and my actions. May I follow through on this? MR. BREDEMEYER: Please. MR. FLYNN: I'll have to go back in here and find where I was interrupted. In response to these items as sited in your letter. "I am not the only person to have sued the Trustees in the last five years. I dare say many more would have done so were it not for the expense and the frustration resulting fru~ seeing taxpayer's moneyused to defend the often illegal action of applications. In my case, in two of the three actions brought against the Trustees in the last three years, Henry C. W~ismann, Esq. was my c~-petitioner. Actions were decided in our favor in all these instances. The implied full support of the CAC over the period is also deceptive. The CAC has voted on the marina on three separate occasions. The CAC's first note was unanimously opposed. Its Chairman, Dr. Garrell, and Mrs. Mariner we dismissed from the council because of their outspoken opposition. Board of Trustees 10 April 27, 1993 At a later hearing before the Trustees, the results of a second vote were discussed and the impression left that the vote was close. I checked and the fact is that of the seven members, five were opposed to the project, one in favor and one abstaining. Hardly a close vote. While it is maintained that the last vote was unanimously in favor of the marina expansion, the complete reversal of o])lnion raises questions as to motivation and influence. Finally under published date of February 18, 1993, the Ch..irman stated the matter was before the courts. The fact is tha Judge Luciano had rendered his decision on Januar~ 15, 1993. As to the comments of Ruth Oliva and Freddie Wachsberger kn their Equal Time submission printed in the Suffolk Times Zdition of February 11, 1993, who is actually misrepresenting the facts. MR. BREDEMEYER: Mr. Flynn, out of deference to your consistent questioning of the professionalism of this Boa ~d, which is your right, I was. wondering would your feel more comfortable with another Town agency such as the Planninc Board being lead agency. It is my understanding you've never litigated the DEC, Army Corps, or the State Coastal Consistency Provisions such that all the permitting resides within Town Hall. I.'m wondering if you'd feel more comfortable with the Planhing Board with in this process, you would say so now and possibly have your attorney's and yourself amplify such a position in writing. We could conceivable turn over lead agency to another Town Board. Mt~. FLYNN: On balance, I feel the atmosphere that built up between me and the Trustees, of course I'll consult with my attorney, but I'm sure he'll agree. MR. BREDF2~EYER: I would a future m~eting or meeting of the Board I would ask the Board to take that into consideration. Is there anyone else who wishes to add any coim~ent to the record with respect to the scoping outline? MS. SHERRY JOHNSON: I currently serve as Program Direct¢ of the North Fork Environmental Council. Just a quick question before I outline of my comments. Should the scenario that you just outlined with Mr. Flynn happen, what would be the relevance of this meeting? Would the entire process staI over again? MR. BREDEMEYER: We would have to seek an opinion of Council also. If Mr. Fllrnn would follow up in writing requesting Same, I would think he would have to do s© rather quickly. It would be implicit that he would get back to us rather quickly 'cause we would have to consider it and we would have essentially had a claim on his part that we're not qualified to Board of Trustees 11 April 27, 1993 continue with Lead Agency if we were to accept such a claim. We would have to notify all involved agencies and I suspect pick another lead and pursue into SEQRA. That agency would have to conduct a scoping session. MS. JOHNSON: I would not expect comments from any agency to change the matter who would change lead agency in the matter. I do apologize for not being quite up to speed on the application. I did speak before the Trustees, I believe back in October of 1991, and urged you to do a full environmental review of the project at that time. The NFEC does feel that Conklin Point or at least whatever remains of it, is undeveloped, is a very extremely sensitive environmental area and we were pleased that the Planning Board did give Harborview Landing a Type I and will review that project, should it ever be reactivated or whatever and financial problems be resolved. We would expect that Sage Cove didn't always something this marina project should have had the same review and we're glad that its now getting that. The North Fork Environmental Council would like see the following issues addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement which is to be prepared for the Brick Cove Marina. 1. Description of proposed action. We would like to see a description of the existing, unimproved road, which is located off-site, as well as a description of the wetlands adjacent to road included, We would like to see the public need for the project discussed and include a discussion on existing marinas and dock space available within the Town. 2. Environmental Setting a) Under water resources. We would like a complete description of the site including off,site wetlands, their relations to Peconic Bay, Ashamomack Pond and Conklin Point. We would like to see the project impact on wetlands, both fresh and tidal discussed, describe the drainage scheme and runoff control measures. We'd like groundwater discussed, projected water consumption and water conservation plans. Details of the pump-out station, and discuss on possible methods that will be employed to to enforce the use of the pump-out station. We'd like the sanitary system described. We'd like to see a discussion on the infringement of marina operations on adjacent property owner. Board of Trustees 12 April 27, 1993 b) Dredging As for the dredging, gathered from the discussion here today, it may or may not have already been completed or at least started. We would like to have seen a complete discussion of the dredging including the time of year that it would take place and when its spoils would be placed. Have a discussion on any impacts that the dredging would have had or will have on shellfishing and wildlife. c) Landscaping We would like the DEIS to include the specialty of the species and species that require little or no fertilization and/or irrigation to use on site. As for the fuel dock, we would like discussion on the impacts to wildlife and water quality from any potential fuel spills. We would like to see the tanks described, including size and construction. Discussion on compliance with all applicable regulations regarding fuel storage. 3. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology List all wildlife present on this site and in adjacent areas. Include any endangered species present, describe their habitat needs and discuss the role, if any, that Sage Cove plays in attracting and maintaining Conklin Point as a viable wildlife habitat. Discuss the Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitat designation of Conklin Point, List any rare plants found on-site or in adjacent areas. Discuss shellfishing opportunities existing in Sage Cove, include historical information. Include cumulative impacts on shellfishing and water quality from the proposal to use Sage Cove for mooring additional boats, both from the Harborview Landing project and by Town permit° 4. Land Use and Zoning Discuss any and all planning initiative that apply to this site. Include the US/UK Stewardship Exchange Program and its reco~,endations for Southold, particularly their reco~f, endations regarding the Peconic Bay and tourism. Include the benefits of ensuring that water quality is maintained or enhanced so that multiple uses (shellfishing and boating) can co-exist. Discuss theBT CAMP Study and its rec~uendations. Also discuss Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan and how this project complies with these initiatives. Discuss the Peconic's inclusion in the National Estuary Program. Board of Trustees 13 April 27, 1993 5. Traffic Discuss access to the site. Discuss existing traffic conditions on Route 25. Discuss current traffic generated by facility and any projected increase in traffic. Discuss the current conditions and capacity of Sage Boulevard. Discuss the need for improvements to Sage Boulevard to handle both Brick Cove traffic and potential traffic from Harborview Landing. Include improving the r~ad to meet Town Code specifications, costs, impacts to adjacent wetlands, drainage and runoff contaminate plans. 6. Describe work that has been completed, to date, to achieve the proposed expansion. Discuss any mitigation measures that can or should be taken to correct or prevent any adverse impacts from occurring. MR. BREDEMEYER: Thank you. MR. FLYNN: Hr. Chaixman, if I understand you correctly, you would like an authoritarian simple letter from me saying that I petition you tO relinquish lead agency status and assign it to the Planning Board, is that what's required? MR. BREDEMEYER: If that's what you'd like, you seem to have laid a case for it here. MR. FLYNN: You made the suggestion. And I accepted. MR. BREDEMEYER: Then I suggest you dQ it. I suggest you give us a letter togive it consideration. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the Board in this scoping outline? MERLON WIGGIN: I have my co, t~lents in writing. "Suggestion in the introduction to the Scoping Outline that specific reference be made to: 1. The original proposed project. 2. The present status to include the work done to date. 3. The proposed complete project. The outline should require that the environmental impacts of the work already accomplished~as a short term evaluation and comparison with the projected long The outline should also address the alternative of reverting the site to its original configuration to include all impacts pro and con of environmental, economics, etc. B~ard of Trustees 14 April 27, 1993 Add in the Table of Contents and the S~L,uary language regarding the format of the D.E.I.S., e.g.: Original Proposal Present Facilities (As in place) Ultimate Proposed Plan Items A, B, C, D & E should be summarized for all three situations as above and done in the context of "where the project is at". III A - Description of the Proposed Action needs to be separated into Past Action (Proposed in ); Accomplished to Date; and Remaining Actions proposed. III C - Design and Layout needs to delineate what was originally proposed, accomplished to date, and still proposed. D - Construction and Operation needs to delineate what was originally proposed, accomplished to date and still proposed. E Approvals needs to delineate what was originally proposed, accomplished to date, and still proposed. IV - Environmental Setting - Groundwater - (a) only - eliminate (b) as not germain. V and VI Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures should be sub-divided into Originally Proposed; Accomplished; and Ultimately Proposed. Included in the originally proposed and accomplished should be data available that has shown environmental impacts, or lack of (where they can be identified) regarding actions already taken. This type of an evaluation is significantly more accurate and meaningful than that of only proposed actions. VIII Alternatives - again, make comparisons between origi~ally'proposed and present~ One of the alternatives must be the all restoring of the site to its original configuration, including resUltant economic loss and environmental impacts from its accomplishment. IX - Irreversible and Irretrievable Coim~]itment of Resources Identify the ones that have already been committed to and compare with those projected. X - Growth Inducing Aspects - Include those that have already occurred. MR. BREDEMEYER: Any other comments? MR. ANDERSON: I have a question. The purposes is to look at the outline, and see if the outline is right and Valerie submitted something here and I just have one question on page 2, BQard of Trustees 15 April 27, 1993 which is the "applicant should be asked to provide sufficient information in the DEIS to prove that his access is legal". What specifically are you requesting? MS. SCOPAZ: Whatever information he feels is affectable. MR. ANDERSON: What would prove that his access is legal. MS. SCOPAZ: In other words, if you right of way access of some else's property you have some legal documentation to that effect whenever that may be. MR. ANDERSON: You deed power or something the deed says you have access over said~ MR. BREDEMEYER: Mr. Flynn, would it be possible that we could have that note from you for our meeting on Thursday and we'll discuss it at our Work Session? MR. FLYNN: Well I'm a very poor typist, but I'll come up with something. MR. BREDEMEYER: OK, if there be no further comments at this time, we will close the information gathering and let the record show there was no quorum of the Board of Trustees, that its the understanding of those gathering information that a quorum meeting of the Board of Trustees will Consider all the information gathered and that other additional information that may be forthcoming from Mr. Flynn. I'd like to put a deadline on it for all concerned on a letter from yourself, Mr. Flynn. And I know you may seek legal counsel and it may be up but I would think that we would want to get all the infozmation in no later than our regular meeting which will be scheduled for May 27th. MR. ANDERSON: For what? The scoping? MR. BREDEMEYER: In other words, Mr. Flynn I assume will have a note for us to consider on Thursday, and then we move in to discussing collating all this, but there is serious question here whether we should even consider staying on as lead and I want to discuss that but I want it in writing from Mr. Flynn. I'm in deference to his severe statements. TRUSTEE SMITH: This is just a suggestion. MR. BREDEMEYER: Right. We are not going to take it, but in deference to his very severe statements, I want the whole Board to discuss this at a meeting. The Work Session is at 6:00 p.m. and it will be between 6 & 7 p.m. Now if the Board decided it appropriate to continue on in its position as lead agency we would go on at that meeting to collate this record and have the Board consider it themselves and add any additional comments they might have. And then approve this as a scoping outline Board of Trustees 16 April 27, 1993 and move forward in directing the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement. MR. FLYNN: Excuse me, I don't quite understand about the comments that should be made as to adequacy, of at least my opinion, the adequacy of any scoping session conducted. In other words, to what extent is it gonna comply with the full outline provided by SEQRA regulations here. This check list, in other words, I don't know to what extent you are going to emphasize certain portions of this an eliminate other portions. Without burdening you, unnecessarily, can I get a preliminary copy to check against my copy here? MR. BREDEMEYER: It's my understanding we're gonna take the scoping outline of Mr. Anderson and all the comments here and append them together and that is going to be the direction for the DEIS in this matter. There are any number of ways that a lead agency can go in preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. In some cases they don't even have to hold scoping, it's optional, and merely allow a person to bring an application to perform the draft. The burden for the approval of the draft and actually writing a final impact statement, the burden lies with a lead agency. MR. FLYNN: Well I don't want to throw down the gaunt with Mr. Chairman, but if Mr. Anderson prepares this, it virtually guarantees future litigation. MR. B~DEMEYER: So be it, I guess the Board will have to consider your request and I appreciate you honesty. MR. FLYNN: I've never been less than honest with you. MR. BREDE~EYER: We will have to act accordingly. Like I said, scoping is optional, we're trying to do this to be inclusive and we're trying to get our bearings straight and do this job properly. MR. FLYNN: One final question. How do you propose to prepare a scoping analysis, as you call it, of the property which is already approved and to which the damage has already been done? How do you measure the scope? MR. ANDERSON: First of all, a scoping outline has already been prepared, andthat was noticed in the paper. So presumably you read the paper, saw the legal ad, you came in, you were able to look at the draft scoping outline which has been on file for a month. Now regardless of, you must understand, the Trustees haven't Pos. Dec'd. anything yet. The applicant has elected to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on his own initiative. The purpose of this meeting, and the purpose of the scoping, is to make the Environmental Impact Statement as complete as possible so everyone can understand the full nature of the project including its associated impacts. Board of Trustees 17 April 27, 1993 Now I must say that in order to dete~,,ine whether or not you believe the scope is adequate for the project, you must first read it, and its obvious that you have not. ~R. FLYNN: I have not, and frankly I was not aware that it was available, as I had other concerns, but that's no excuse for not reading it. MR. ANDERSON: Now the scoping outline itself is based exactly, precisely upon the appendix found in the SEQRA document. The format is the same ..... MR. FLYNN: The document is the same? MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely. MR. FLYNN: I presume I can still check your outline. MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely. MR. BREDEMEYER: And there will be any number of public co~u~lents here. This is the process you have directed through the courts that we do, and .... MR. ANDERSON: The Trustees have not required an impact statement, the Trustees, my belief is appealing the decision. MRo FLYNN: The court has required an impact statement of the Trustees. MR. ANDERSON: Which is on appeal. Meaning that the Trustees do not have to cause a positive declaration. What the applicant has said is, "we want to prepare an impact statement". So all can understand our project, its' impacts, and so forth, so that is why we're here. MS. SCOPAZ: Can I ask just one question? I think I would find it helpful if we went through the draft scoping outline that you'veprepared. That was my understanding that it was a draft outline to be used a spring board for a discussion, and go through it line by line, to make clear what we're asking the applicant, and as we go through it the suggestions the other agency could be incorporated into itt in other words making it clear we want the applicant all the questions that we have put on the table. And then to issue a revision of this that makes it clearer that the comments of the other agencies are included so that there's a record in the file that this scoping outline is inclusive, so that there's no question in anybody's mind that, when I was just looking over the Trustees draft, that we're working off an inclusive document that includes the co~,entsof all the coordinating agencies. MR. ZEHNER: Valerie, with do respect, I don't think we could possibly, in a reasonable time, I can see, three, four hours, to Board of Trustees 18 April 27, 1993 do what your suggesting to bring this to play, everything that required. MS. SCOPAZ: We could do it within an hour, I've done them before. We could quickly go through it. MR. ZEHNER: Another way to go, would be for Merle has comments. Bruce had planned to look at any co~m~ents including from North Fork Environmental Council and Mr. Flynn had he had any pertaining to scoping and incorporate them. Its our job to incorporate your comments into the scoping outline so that we cover them, so we can take each one into account. That's a future job that we have to do. If we're gonna do a good job, we'll have to not only do your co~m~ents, but everyone else's here and we're gonna have a lot of discussion about this. I don't know if this is the place to do it. MR. BREDEMEYER: I've got to say that I think the process would be a lot neater and tighter, it's easier to put everything in that we received, and I guess I had perceived that this being handled a little differently. The scoping outline coming directly out of the SEQRA handbook that Bruce had drawn up. And by advertising a scoping session was to get the comments in and then collate them. MS. SCOPAZ: I have to say I misunderstood t~at because the comments came from me rather than the Planning Board and the reason for that was that we thought that you were just circulating it as a draft and that it would be used to be as a discussion. That misunderstanding of ours is not exactly the Planning Board doestheir scoping session, a little bit differently. MR. BREDEMEYER: You sit down and go through item by item on the check list? MS. SCOPAZ: Yes, what we do is go item by item and then we make reference to all the other agency co~u,ent to make it clear so as to make no confusion as to what exactly we ask. MR. WIGGIN: Jay, can I make a suggestion, in light of Valerie's co~m~,ents? We've got some input that I made. Mr. Flynn has yet to review it. Could we ask Mr. Flyr~ to make co~m~ents to the outline as soon as possible after he reviews it, which he has not done yet. MR. BREDEMEYER: Well that might be fair, 'cause for everyone to try to digest it, Ms. Johnson had an extremely list of her own wkich may already in large part be included in Mr. Andersons' list that many of them would simply fit together and I haven/t seen what you have submitted, I haven't seen the Health Dept. report. And to be honest with you Valerie I really haven't had a chance to read it. Board of Trustees 19 April 27, 1993 M~. WIGGIN: Because of the importance we're having the outline, that is going to be the guide that will be specifically used to prepare an impact statement. MR. BREDEMEYER: Particularly if the Trustees say "gee, maybe we don't want to do the lead in light of Mr. Flynns' co~L~ents, there's a possibility the Board ..... MR. WIGGIN: I'd like to see the comments in incorporated and then a second scoping session held. I think it would be a little premature to say this is the only scoping session. MR. ANDERSON: My intention was simply gather the information to day, put it into the outline, which is on computer, and then go over it on Thursday, and adopt it or not adopt it. MR. BREDEMEYER: We're not gonna be in a position to do it Thursday. MR. FLYNN: By way of explanation, someone might expense the previous scoping session to my attention, everything that was discussed point by point from the outline at the session. That's what I anticipate today. MR. BREDEMEYER: I'm prepared to do it this evening. I'm not up to speed. MR. ZEHNER: Thescoping outline as I understa~dit from SEQRA is all inclusive. It's just a matter of making sure that we respond to areas that your interested in. MR. BREDEMEYER: I'll ask the whole Board to consider a letter from Mr. Flynn, and we may set up another special meeting to do this. In the meanwhile I would ask Mr. Anderson to try to mesh all the comments we have and will at least for purposes of the discussion, we'll make a point of notifying those parties who are here now, since we have other agency comments. We'll make sure we notify ~r. Flynn and North Fork Environmental Council. Is the other lady representing herself? MS. JOHNSON: No, that was Ann Lowry our President. MR. BREDEMEYER: If there are no further c~,~ents .... MR. ZE~NER: Can I just ask where this stands then. With due respect, we did give notice and people did respond. Now are you limiting until Thursday to receive any more info~L~tion. Is Thursday your latest date now, for Mr. Flynn to supply information if he chooses to? MS. JOHNSON: Did you say May 28th? MR. BREDEMEYER: May 27th. That's a regular monthly meeting, we would set it up as a work session. Board of Trustees 20 April 27, 1993 MR. ANDERSON: Jay, can I suggest this? In the effort in getting this process moving. The applicant has elected to do this, and at his own initiative why not allow me to take the comments that have been submitted thus far and corporate them into the outline that is already on the table and give a presentation on Thursday's meeting at let's say 20 or 30 minutes, or we go over it and if there is something missing that is obviously, has to be there that isn't there we can amend it at that time. But if we get involved in the semantics of how the outline should be and if we get involved in very small items, what you may wind up with is a process that is so complicated that no one can wade through it. The purpose of the impact statement is not to be overly exhausted but to simply to give a clear picture of what nature of the project is, what it's impacts are, what is proposed in mitigation of those impacts and what the alternatives are. As we all know through this very lengthy process much of this work has already been done. MR. ZE~NER: Yes, it's just a matter of compiling it. Could I make one more c~,.ent and see if Bruce agrees with me? Regard to lead agency, It's my thinking~ with due respect to the Planning Board that the sensitive activity here is around the water, the marshes, or any aquatic life we have, or plant life, it seems to me that the Trustees who were originally lead agency should remain as lead agency for all the obvious reasons. It's just my humble opinion. MR. WIGGIN: The outline of SEQRA says "once a lead agency has been established you don't normally change that." MR. BPd~DEF~fER: The reasons for being a lead agency are very specific. The most compelling I thought was the very that Ms. Johnson gave. She was dealing,wit and figures, and probably 90% of what she asked dealt With wetland related impacts. And that would be very compelling. Wh~re we don't have the DECinvolved and a DEC Permit at this time where you d say it should be between a Town agency or a State Agency. But I'm just gonna bring itlup for the Board, I think out of fairness we'll look at it. OK, I would say if Mr. Anderson wants to bring together the package for review Thursday night, Mr. Flynn, if he would like to be here to listen and comment on it, maybe that would get it off center 'cause otherwise we're gonna be conducting a review of a reviewing document infinitely. We're gonna be just chasing this thing around. And then if there's some problems I'm sure Mr. Flynn will have a chance 'cause we'll have all the materials now to be looking it over and make notes on it, so he can comment on it. MR° ZE~NER: Does he have a copy right now of the March 25th outline? Bo~rd of Trustees 21 April 27, 1993 MR. BREDEMEYER: Ok, if that's understood, we'll proceed. We'll try to make it the first item of business, unless the clerk tells me we have something else. Meeting Adjourned at 6:40 p.m~ R~pectfull¥ Submitted B~: Clerk, Brd. of Trustees RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLV. P~