Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/28/1993 TRUSTEES John M. Bredemever. III. President Albert J. Krupski. Jr.. Vice President Henry P. Smith John B. Tuthill William G. Albertson Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUPERVISOR SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 1993 PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Vice President Henry P. Smith, Trustee William G. Albertson, Trustee John B. Tuthill, Trustee Jill M. Doherty, Clerk ABSENT WAS: John M. Bredemeyer, III, President WORKSESSION: 6:00 P.M. CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Thursday, Dec. 2, 1993 at 8:00 a~m~ TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approver TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: Monday, Dec. 6, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES:' Regular meeting of September 30, 1993: TRUSTEE SMITH moved to-~approve, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES .:I; Trustees monthly report for September 1993: A check for $2,136.15 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulleting Board for review. tit; AFfENDMENTS~WAIVERS/CHANGES: 1. GASTON CRIBLEZ requests an Amendment to his Storm Damage Permit ~81-3-2 to replace bulkhead with 18" instead of Board of Trustees 2 October 28, 1993 inkind/inplace. Applicant has DEC Permit to replace within 18". Applicant also requests a waiver of fees as this was storm damage. Located Robinson Road, Southold. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the Amendment and waiver the fee, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 2~ JON KERBS requests an Amendment to Permit ~1951 to add a 4' X 48' float in an "L" shape to the existing 30' X 30' catwalk leading to 8' X 30' ramp to 67' X 4' float. Located Riley Ave., Mattituck. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table until Dec. 2, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 3. Karen Oxholm on behalf of SELMA JACOBSON requests a Waiver to construct a ramp leading to house as per plan. Located Lake Drive, Southold. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to table due to non-inspection, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 4. En-Consultants on behalf of S. HAEGAN BAYLES requests a Waiver to construct secondary retaining wall at the base of the bluff as per map dated 9/22/93. Located Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the Waiver, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 5.~CAROL FOEHR~equests a Waiver to place fence on property line down to water. Located Smith Road, Southold. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to table until a survey is obtained, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES V,~-AS'SESSgiENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL DEOLARATIONS: 1. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of W.L~ LYONS BROWN, III requests permit for construction of a 4' X 100' dock to be constructed 4' above grade. Applicant also requests a statement of jurisdiction under Chapters 97 & 37 to construct a one family dwelling, sanitary system, garage, driveway, retaining wall, patio, stonewall, pool and decking as per map of Chandler, Palmer & King survey dated 9/29/93. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table until inspection of Board, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 2. J.M.O. Consulting on behal, f Of~ E~IS~?TO~EE~ ETrAL requests a permit tO install a "boulder barrier'' appr°x. 1'20' in length along shoreline damaged during the storm of DeC. 1992. Boulders shall be placed on filter fabric along the bottom of the eroded bank at a point approx. 6' landward of MHW line and, if possible, continuous and contiguous with neighbor to south. As per plans dated 3/29/93. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 3 October 28, 1993 TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to go off the regular agenda, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to go on Public Hearings, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEkRING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHFzAN. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMmOn, TS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF: FIVE I5) MINUTES OR LESS~IF POSSIBLE 7:20 p~m. - In the matter of Eh-COnsultants on behalf of BARBARA eI~PLINSKI %0 construct a timber dock consisting of a 4' X 100' fixed elev. (3' X 6" above ~rade of marsh) walkway; a 3' X 16~ ramp and a 6' X 20' float secured by (2) 9' pilings. Located Orchard Lane, Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have anyone here who is in favor of the project? Do I have anyone who would like to speak against the project? Does the Board haVe any comments? BRUCE LOUCKA: You have comments from the CAC, we Ok'd it with some stipulations on it. TRUSTEE KEUPSKI: Let me read them. "Recommend approval with stipulations. CAC recoum~ends approval provided the project does not block the navigation of adjacent neighbors and the walkway is elev. 4' above grade of marsh". I don't think that would be a problem there. If there are no further co~m~ents do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion on the application? TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion that we approve this application with the stipulations of the CAC. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES 7:21 In the matter of En-Consultants on behalf of~.RUSSELL i! approx. 2,000 c.y. of fill, concrete and other debris dumped in marsh by previous owner. Present owner seeks to restore disturbed area to former condition as a marsh and to re-establish tidal flow via presently blocked drains to marsh to east. Located New Suffolk Ave., New Suffolk. TRUSTEE KEUPSKI: Do I have anyone here who would like to coLm,ent in favor of this application? Do I have anyone here who would like to speak against the application? BRUCE~LOUCKA: We. OK'd it but we requested that he have somebody like ..... we talked about that at the assessment. Board of Trustees 4 October 28, 1993 TRUSTEE F~RUPSKI: "CAC recommends tO consult the Cornell Cooperative Extension or an environmental consultant to provide assistance and knowledge to reestablish the marsh quickly and in an environmentally sound way". I did speak with Mrs. Mc Call Whose son bought the property and is the applicant and they do want to do it properly. I think this is a worthy project. This is a real problem there. It was filled in years ago, in fact, there were culverts underneath that road, they rotted out, to service the marsh to the east. So if I have no further comments from the Board or the audience, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll take a motion on the project. TRUSTEE S~ITH: I make a motion we approve the project as per CAC recommendations. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES 7:23 p.m. - In the matter of En-Consultants on behalf o~ FRANCIS ~ SMITH~requests a permit to construct a stairway on face of bluff over bulkhead and outer beach. It will consist of a 4' X 8' platform, 4' X 25' steps, a 4' X 8' walkway and a 5' X 5' platform with 3' X 8' steps. Located 1315 North Parish Drive, Southotd. TRUSTEE'KRUPSKI: Do I have anyone here who would like to comment on the application? Does the Board have any comment? CAC recommended the approval without any further co~m,ent. If there's no further comments, I'll take a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion on the application? TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion we approve as per applicants request. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES 7:25 p.m. - In the matter of En-Consultants on behalf of JOYCE a permit to extend existing southerly 10', construct new 20' northerly return, replace tie-rods and deadmen in existing bulkhead and backfill with 25 +/- c.y. of clean sand fill to be trucked in from upland source and delivered over owner's property. Also remove and replace an existing 4' X 8' staircase. Locate 2625 Bayshore Road, Greenport. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have any comment in favor of this application? Do I have anyone here to speak against the application? "CAC recommends approval provided a 10' native vegetative buffer be maintained". If there are no further comments I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would someone like to make a motion? TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion we approve WITH CAC comments. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 5 October 28, 1993 7:27 p.m. - In the matter of Costello Marine on behalf of MARY LAND BAIZ requests permit to resheath approx. 102' of existing timber jetty, extend inshore 24' landward and backfill scoured void area with approx. 64 c.y. of clean fill from approved source. Located Bay Home Road, Southold. T~USTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? ~EORGE COSTELLO: It's pretty much an inshore continuing of an existing jetty. If you made an inspection you would see at the last couple of high tides it was washed out around the back side af it. She just wants to retain the upland section. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I ask you a question? What's an approved source of clean fill? MR. COSTELLO: Upland source, landfill or just plain sand. It's j~st got to be approved by DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: OK. Thanks. Is there anyone here to speak against the application? CAC "reco~=uendedapproval without comment. Does the Board have any other comment? Can I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: So moved. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion on the application? TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion we approve the application. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES In of on behalf of to construct a timber 170 +/. tlf. overall (including returns) generally at or above line of apparent high water and backfill with 170 +/- c.y. of clean sand to be trucked in from upland source. Wall is necessary to prevent further loss of land and protect road lying close to eroded bank whiCh provides access to marina and beach for m~rs of the association. Existing docks will be unusable due to loss of fill and shoaling of dockage area. Located Wampum Way, Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSK~: Do I have anyone here to speak in favor of this application? ED DE REEDER: I represent the committee in charge of this thing. There are COnSultants here that can handle technical questions that you may have. These are neighbors and property owners here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone here who would like to speak against this application? BRUCE LOUCKA: You have comments on that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommended appro%~t. Does the Board have any co~,~ents on that? TRUSTEE SMITH: I recommend we close the hearing. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Motion? TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion we approve the application. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 6 October 28, 1993 7:31 p.m. - In the matter of GOLDSMITH'S MARINA (held over from last month's meeting). Permit for a temporary sea plane ramp as per drawing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommends approval only for a temporary Permit~of two years since the applicant describes the project as temporary, the permit should only reflect the approval only for a limited time. If after the two year period the applicant still wishes to have the ramp available he would have to reapply for a permanent permit. We have the drawing we asked for with the site plan with the location and diagram. Do I have anyone here to speak in favor of the ramp? Do I have anyone here to speak against the ramp? I'd just like to add some col~m,ent and for discussion of the Board. My personal feeling on this is .... I don't understand the nauure of a temporary ramp when it's probably gonna be in place for a long enough period to kill the marine vegetation underneath it. To me if your gonna grant something like this you might as well make it a permanent structure. I don't understand the need for something that's temporary. I would much rather see something like that fabric. I think a copy of the fabric manufacturer "G~o Web"... I would much rather see something like that placed in there on a permanent basis where the marsh could grow~ through. And if the ramp is used once or twice a year, it wouldn't damage the marsh at all. And at least he would have use of the ramp but it wouldn'.t mean any loss of the wetland and he wouldn't have that Structure sitting there. BRUcE LOUCKA: T~at's pretty much what we decided. It's there and yet something temporary would cover up. TRUS~EE~! KRUPSKI: I don't know if the rest of the Board approves. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'd like to make a motion we approve it before this marSh comes back in the spring, that this structure where the marsh can grown through it, be installed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With the same dimensions. Wait, we have to close the hearing. Is there any further discussion? MR. FLYNN: In effect, is the Board maintaining that a sea plane is a boat? TRUS~TE~E SMITH: A sea plane when it's on the water is a boat. MR. FLYNN: A sea plane when it's on the water is neither registered nor documented as a boat. It is s~jected to the rules of the road. But when one detects the definition of a sea plane has no correlation to a boat. There were ancient flying boats which haven't been used in the last'30 or 40 years to my knoWledge, but by any reasonable definition by inquiries that I've made a sea ulane does not constitute a boat. And as such it is not a conforming use as a marina. And further it sets a very bad precedence for the Town which has already resisted the construction of one form and in lieu of that looms the potential for numerous other small airports at the sites of every marina in this community. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Do we have any other coL~nent? I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 7 October 28, 1993 TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Could we possibly find out from our attorney on zoning. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the M-2 zoning? TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: If there's a question on wether it is a boat or a plane we'll have an answer. TRUSTEE SMIT~: It's my understanding that the Coast Guard recognizes that when it's on the water it's a boat. TRUSTEE AL~ERTSON: Well let's get it official. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: "The purpose of an M-2 district is to provide a waterfront location for a wide range of water dependent water related uses. Which are those uses which require or benefit from direct access and or location in marine or tidal waterways in which in general are located on major waterways open bay fronts or Long Island Sound". That's the definition of the code. So Bill, you think you have problem with the zoning matter or you don't want to approve it just as a ramp? TRUSTEE ~LBERTSON: I'd like to get a little .more clarification before voting. And if it's not gonna be built for another month it won't make a difference. Mr. Flynn has raised a question that I think perhaps we should answer. TRUSTEE SMITH: My motion stands. TRUSTEE ~RUPSKI: Do we have a second on Henr~'s motion. TRUSTEE K~UPSKI: Do they have a regular boat ramp on the site? TRUSTEE SMITE: No, they have a travel lift, a little thing that lifts small out of the water. Peter, your a Coast Guardsman, sea plane, when it's on water, is it a boat or plane? PETER: Boat. TRUSTEE SMITH: And it's subject to all Coast Guard regulations. Speed, lights, safety, life preservers. ThereTs your answer. MR. FLYNN: That's exactly what I said. It maneuvers as a boat on the water but is not classified as a boat. This is basic English, a sea plane is not a boat by any definition. And you can look up your definition or you can look up your current edition of the unexpedited Webster's dictionary and you'll find that to be the case as your code recommends that you do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually the application doesn't say it's a boat it says sea plane. MR. FLYNN: If t~at ramp is actually intended to have an alternative use for launching boats, than I suggest you make a survey of that property and find out whether there's sufficient parking to acco~,~odate both the boats that are on the premises and those that would be acco~fu~,cdated by that ramp including double parking for at least for the towing vehicle and the trailer which would be attended there too. TR~STEETUT~ILL: He didn't say anything for using it other than a sea plane. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No it says small boats. But if he's launching it from his own marina I don't see where he has to provide for double parking for boats for his own marina. His equipment is on the marina. Why woUld he have to provide extra parking for his own equipment. MR. FLYNN: Well first of all the code provides for it and secondly it's a practical matter. Those people who are Board of Trustees 8 October 2B, 1993 launching boats in and out typically have a trailer with them. o as a result of that is you need at least two parking plaCes or every boat launched. TRUSTEE S~ITH: This is not a public boat ramp. MR. FLYNN: I know it isn't. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's got his equipment on the property. Why would he need additional parking for that equipment? MR. FLYNN: I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about his equipment. I'm taking about the trailers that would be attended to the c~stomers coming in to launch boats from the ~ite. It w6uld become in effect a off-profit boat launch ramp. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's assuming that's true. But we have no information to back that charge. MR. FL~: You merely have the statement that it is to be used alternatively for launching boats. Now, what boats are %hey. Is there a facility already on the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was none on the survey that was provided us. TRUSTEE SMITE: I have a motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There ' s no second on the motion. There ' s no motion. It's lost. Is there another motion? TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Table for one month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And? TRUSTEE SMIT~: What are you gonna table for one month for, Bill? To answer a couple of questions. : Which one? I td like to study it a little bit myself. I'd take that tape and listen to it m~self. It's up to you. If you table it, you have to have to table it for cific. TRUSTEE I ' 11 abstain. TRUSTEE KI~D-PSKI: We have a motion but it was lost. Now I thought y~u Were in the process of making another motion to look into something. TRUSTEE ~LBERTS'ON: I'm not satisfied with the terms. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're not satisfied with the amount of information Providedl But why don' t you make a motion to look into whatever specific area you want to look at? I don t want to say "OK there's ~some opposition, we' 11 table it". That's not fair to the applicant.. If there's something specific that's not adequate on the application, that's fine. Let's look into it, and then make a decision yes or no. TRUSTEE TUT~ILL: The thing came up because the question was whether the sea plane is not a boat or not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, not whether its a boat or not. I don't care whether it's a boat, a train or a car. I think the problem is whether a sea plane is allowed use in a marina. The repair and maintenance o~ the sea plane. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Mr. Goldsmith doesn't even have that as a public access to warrant needing two parking places for each? TRUSTEE SMITH: No that's a zoning matter. Board of Trustees 9 October 28, 1993 TRUSTEE SMITH: Ail the guy is asking for is ramp to haul the sea plane out so he could wash it se he doesn't get marine growth on his plantoons. TRUSTEE SMITH: I make my motion again, the same motion. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Abstain. 7:49 p.m. In the matter of BRICK COVE MARINA to modernize and improve marina operations from 91 previous boat slips to 138 boat slips on site formally known as Young's Marina, 12.5 acres in size of which 4.2 acres are owned underwater land. Also, the action includes improvement of parking areas, landscaping, marina head pump-out facilities, installation of a paved washdown platfolm with Sediment and oil separation system, a storm drain interception system for the parking area, and relocation and improvement of the existing on-site sanitary system. The improvements to the marina also include dredging of approx. 2900 c.y., 350 c~bic yards of slope dredging and approx. 550 c.y. at the basin entrance to the marina inside the basin. Located Sage Blvd. Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As a matter of public interest, the majority of this project is complete. Do I have any comments in favor of this application? BILL LEVERAGE: The applicant is here along with his representatives and have been studying this matter since 1987. Mr. Wiggin added to your reading material the last few months very substantially, and this document is heavier than my lawnmower at home. I'm sure you have it in detail. I'm not going to stand or add upon that. We're gonna sit on the DEIS that has been repaired subject to any c~m~nts or inquiries that maybe made by the audience, since the focus is to make and take a hard look and do anything to assist in that process. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments in favor of this application? Is there anyone here to speak against this application? LINDA LEVY: I have read that, and we have, despite the length, we do have a lot of problems with it. We don't think that the hard look that is required has happened ~et. I have something to give you a~d I'll go over it with you briefly. The major points we had Problems with. Thefirst problem we have has to do with the aCcess. The site does no~ have from the Main Road. The right-of-way "is barely sixteen feet wide. This is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass each Other. In case of emergency, an ambulance or fire engine would not be able to safely pass any vehicles evacuating the site. At sixteen feet, the road is substandard and could not be taken over by the Town withOutimprovements. The right-of-way is surrounded on both sides by wetlands. Therefore, any widening of the road would have a significant environmental impact ~nd must be addressed. Neither the issue of access nor the environmental impact of ~ny necessary widening have been addressed in the DEIS. Board of Trustees 10 October 28, 1993 In addition, no current traffic study has been submitted of the impact on the already hazardous Route 25 (Main Road). The fact that the right-of-way is shared by the Sage property is also not addressed. This second parcel, .if developed, would add a significant traffic burden to the right-of-way and therefore the access to the marina. A traffic study is a necessary part of this EIS and should be included. Land Use and Zoning. This site is zoned as Marine II. The DEIS states (Section IV, P.73) that the use of this site as a marina "is in conjunction with both the Town Southold Master Plan, Zoning, and the US/UK Stewardship Program". In fact, the zoning category of Marine II led to a suit against the Master Plan and reconsideration of this category is part of the charge of the US/UK Stewardship Task Force, which has not yet made its final recoim,,endation. This particular site is an example of the problems of the Marine II zone .... all other zoning within a ~arter mile of the site is either R-40 or R-80. Therefore, the Marine II zoning of this parcel can be considered spot-zoning. While the existing zoning allows for this use, the fact that it is currently under examination for possible cOde changes should be examined and addressed. Sanitation System. The applicant states that the ultimate disposal of the waste removed from boats by the pump-out stations still to be determined. The "present plan" for which they are seeking Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval calls for disposal in the on-site septic systems. The applicant goes on to state (Section V, p.10), "Neither of the three disposal methods are regarded as causing potentially large impacts". This is.a disingenuous statement. Disposal of this waste in the on-site septic system would certainly have an impact as it would result in increased nitrogen loading. (Please also note that as of this date, the Department of Health has not issued any approvals for the sanitary system). Impact on Propert~ Values. The applicant maintains that the site will not affect property vaIues in the surrounding area, based on a statement from the Town Assessor. This is not the expert opinion needed for such a statement. Only an independent appraiser can judge as to the potential impact on proper~¥ values .... rega~dless of whether the Town would change its assessment of the properties. I~act on Shellfish. The applicant states that "Impacts to shellfish are not regarded as significant because the portions to be dredged do not support important or large concentratiOns of shellfish". (Section V, p. 13). This is based on examining the spoil from dredging already completed. However, this spoil came from an area which had already been disturbed. All that Board of Trustees 11 October 28, 1993 analysis can tell us is that shellfish are not abundant in areas that have been developed as marinas. A "Hard Look". The DEIS is filled with general statements as to the lack of negative impacts which are not proved in any way. Examples of such statements: "Negative impacts resulting from the temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil are not important". (Section V, p. 3). "There are no important negative impacts associated with landscaping". (Section V, p.5). "The value of vegetation to wildlife is extremely limited throughout most of the project area". (Section IV, p.40). "The probability of the impact occurring, as well as its duration is small". (In reference to storm water runoff, Section V, p.16). "The potentially small adverse impact is ultimately viewed as positive". (Section V, p.ll). Perhaps the attitude of the applicant in taking negative environmental impacts into account is best stated in the constantly repeated refrain, "All ~improvements to the present facility are consider to have positive impacts..." Section V, p.16). Such generalizations cannot possibly be considered adequate in an Environmental Impact Statement. Alternatives. The applicant dismisses alternative designs in the following manner, "The only practical time to review alternate boat slip layouts is prior to start of construction". (Section VIII, p.1). This project is at its present stage of construction due to permits issued without adequate review. The applicant is stating that because the work was done before the completion of an EIS, he should not be asked to look at alternatives which might be suggested as the result of the belated EtS. The burden to take a hard look and mitigate potential adverse impacts remains, regardless of the current stage of construction. Finally, we are concerned that the SEQR process has been violated in the continued granting of permits and ongoing construction of this project. In Section 617.3 (a) (2), the law clearly states that the applicant may not" .... coim~.ence the action unless and until ail requirements of this Part have been fulfilled". The New York State Supreme Court has ruled that SEQR requirements have not been fulfilled; therefore no construction should have been permitted to 'proceed. This DEIS was ordered by the NYS Supreme Court to provide a "hard look" as required by the laws of our State. The document now submitted is woefully inad~,ate. We respectfully request that the Southold Trustees not accept this Draft Environmental Impact Statement until these inadequacies are properly addressed. Sincerely, Linda Levy, Southold Coordinator, North Fork Environmental Council. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone else have any comments? FRANK FLYNN: I have some comments to make which are uncharacteristically succinct. I had originally tended to be Board of Trustees 12 October 28, 1993 represented by my attorney and consultant at tonight's hearing, however, my most recent conference resulted in their convincing me that there appearance before this tribunal would be a waste of their time and my money. I consider an appearance before this Board constitutes nothing less than star chamber proCeeding. A proceeding designed, to masquerade as impartial but merely going through the actions toward a foreordained conclusion. ~ my opinion this Boards decisions have been politically mdtivated rather than based upon the concerns of the environment or the law. This Board consistently demonstrated its bias in favor of the applicant by actions which are in conflict with iSEQRA,' DEC regulation, and Southold's own code. Among its most ~bVious transgressions the Board has permitted the applicant to flout regulations by operating the fully ~xPanded marina~ or at least the last two seasons without a epartment of R~alth Pell~lit. contrast this if you will, with the treatment a~corded the typical residential property owner. A more resent ~trage is the Trustees role, in permitting extensive dredging'outside the applicants property boundaries and on the landI of others. This without public notice, or hearing based upon a disingenuous statement by the applicant. The owner Of record of the property for the last 23 years that he has discovered the shoal. Rather than recite a whole list of all known and condoned by the Trustees, I shall rely attorney to continue his preparation of a reco enable me to pursue all matter of legal recourse In conclusion I echo the time honored Phrase. "I will see you in court!" RUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments against the application? o we have.any Other c~ents from the audience? ~R. TOHILL: Getting to the particulars of whatMs. Levy has ~ead, the ~irst issue that she raised was you, as the Trustees, should somehow ~ecome involved in the question of access for the Main Road dowh ~o the marina. The marina by the way, has been there for 43 years which may exceed the age of Ms. L~vy. Z don't know, and I don't.expect her to agree or disagree on that but it may exceed h~r a~e. That issue has been raised I think 3 times nowby ~r. FlYnn through his attorney in the Supreme Court. It~haS n~t been successful so far in any of those three efforts and · ~hink (coUld not hear him due to ~nterference of noise) none the less that issue relates to'the section of the New York Town Law or Kinny's Town Law which is SeCtion 280A and if anyone reads it, and I know their counsel has because they said it3 times in court proceedings, the only board that has jurisdiction with respect to that issue is its own Board of Appeals of this Town. This Board has no jurisdiction. So you can rest free of any claim that you have done something despicable by not impounding an actual issue. As a practical matter the applicant plans no widened road way from the Main Road to this property so there's no need to worry about disturbing wetlands if there is ...... 'cause in our lifetime neither Mr. Zehner nor anyone else that's here is gonna widen the road, we'll never ask to do that. With respect to traffic study there is an existing use as I've mentioned has Board of Trustees 13 October 28, 1993 been there for 43 years, there is no existing traffic problem that has been raised ever in this building or from any of the board in the last 6 years administrative or regulatory review with respect to that roadway or cars or trucks that are using that roadway. We are not planning to change the use or expressly permitted of the zoning ordinance when that use was expressly permitted ordinance and the Board has to~ have a suit. We have to assume that they knew what they were doing. To the extend that anyone knows of anything wrong with the traffic and nothing was dealt t mean specifically then you're not at fault and we are not at fault if we don~t .... (interference of noise) On the issue of spot zoning, again, you know, .and everybody here knows~ that spot zoning is not one of the sins that you can be accused of committing. If someone wants to argue that they can go to the Town Boardr and in fact I think they didr and they have even gone to court. On the sanitary System, ~he C~mplaint was that the applicant is going to change the existing sanitary system, relocate it landward away from its p~esenttrouhlesome location and then, cause all of the boat owners t~ use it at the place for locating any sanitary waste. Now, I heard that "criticism" not certain how this Board'shOU~'~r~ If the complainant wants us not to get the Heal approval whiCh has been pending all the time the ~has been going on, then I'm afraid we are not ~ her. We intend to get Health Dept. approval for the sanitary system. If she is proposiDg that we leave what'~s which might be considered tro~teS°~e, we're not We are going to r~loc~%e landward, system. If she says that we should sanitary system in order to act as a pump out facilit~ sa~ree with her again. We intend to use it as a pump o~t facJ intend to do exa~tlywhat this Board once as a condition of permit approval with th~ litigation. In I don't know what the point was, I lost tract of it she said "and with respect tO the Sanitary system" because ~made any sense. I'd like to turn the floor over to MR. WIGGIN: One problem with the was the relocation of the existing sanitary system feet more away from the existin~ surface waters. This has been proven wonderful. This is On the same basis if everybody does this as well if you want the whole basin~approved. Some of these surface water tests or water quality exists on the west 'side of the basin are a problem and not a problem on the east side 'of the basin. Another comment was made about the disturbed site. The whole site.was disturbed. That was a mining operation for clay for brick. It's all been disturbed over that period of time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else? MR. ~ZEHNER: I'm the owner of the property. I would like to take note that we received a total of 14 permits since 1987 plus 5 additional work amendments to those permits and from 6 different government agencies. All these government agencies are project and approved those pezmits. (Shuffling of papers, cannot hear Mr. Zehner) We did outside studies on plant and Board of Trustees 14 October 28, 1993 wildlife. And we found no significant impact by our outside agencies on wildlife or plant life. Last item. We could have gone for a much more expansion than we did for our project. (unable to hear Mr. Zehner). MR. BILL LEVERAGE: I know you guys are aware of this, but everybody should be aware that in doing this project, we are farther behind environmentally now than we would be if Mr. Flym~ hadn't constantly sued on it. We have gone ahead with the permit requirements that were put out by you fellows. And have completed almost all of them on the project, and that the project is virtually done in the water and the upland portion remains to be done, the thing that held it up, the part that is important, the drainage and sewage thing, had been slowed down by the constant problems that we had in court. Some of the things that had been done that I think there is no negative impact and perhaps a positive impact on the area is that the two areas that were originaily sited as having a problem upland are cleaned up they're done, shipped out, burned and Whatever they do with it at a tremendous expense. We put in a new buried water distribution system, Health Dept. approved so that we could keep our reqular sanitary facilities open during the winter. It used to have to be shut down. Now we have year round sanitary facilities on the property. Portable pump out stations have, been working for two years. You have been getting your reports on the fact that we are pumping out. We have gotten tremendous coopera~tion from the people in the place. All the heads are sealed off. Last year on a monthly basis we did water quaIity testing and Mr. Flynn can look at them. For some time we have used the Southold stop program for all our toxins and stuff like that. We were probably one of the earlier people to star~ recycling and again we've gotten good cooperation from the people who come in. All the waste oil that's on the property is collected by us and shipped out at our expense to a certified repr~cess throughout the Island. We don't use any toxic antifreeze on the place, We use non-formaldehyde head chemicals. Every b~at in the place has oil ~bsorbent material in the bilges, so that when you pump the bilge water out the oil is t~apped in the oil sorbs and the water only comes out. So basically that's where we stand. If this keeps going on the way it is, I don't know how long it's gonna be be~°re ws get everything else done. We're going as fast as we can and we're sorry that we have this constant Problem with Mr. Flynn and I think all the environmental groups ought to take a look at this. I come from 8 years of running a big marina on the Chesapeake and we went through the Chesapeake Bay Estuary program down there. It was a very good program and one of the things that was a key note to that program was that when they re-align what you could do on property on the water in order to make it viable they talked in all cases on intensification say where a location was proper to start with, the operation was there so you could get the boats out of the creeks into the marina where the sewage could be properly pumped and oil absorbs could be put in. I think the environmental groups should think about that when they constantly try to drag these things out. Board of Trustees 15 October 28, 1993 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to co,,,ents ? RICHARD RALYEA: I kept myiboat in the marina for three years and I'm also a LYCO contract. I've done quite a bit of contract work there. So from both views as a contractor and boater they have done a nice job and done nothing but improvements and the improvements are set all upland and I don't see how that could do anything but improve the marina and the environment. They were very careful about the pump outs and boaters. It's a real nice operation and I think it's good for Southold. People come from up the Island and even New Jersey to keep they're boats there. They spend a lot of money, at the restaurants, wineries, shopping locally. We're a waterfront co~l,unity so I think it's a very positive environment for Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else who would like to speak? Anyone else who would like to speak. LINDA LEV~: ~'d just like to point out that the DEIS is to take a hard i6ok. The NFEC is not saying that they are not doing nice ~hings over there, that its not a clean operation, that they're not trying to make some mischief. This is not about what is there right now, but this about the DEIS sta charged to take a hard look. When it is ignored any negative ~,lpact whatsoever, if you were to this DEIS there is not a single negative thing that could ever be thought of with conjunction with this marina. And. Our complaint is with this DEIS that is not taking a ~harditook and that is what we are expecting to see. Any one else? MR. FLYNN: like make a short comment. There was mention of environmental studies made. ~They were made on the know if this board is aware that 80% of land and 20-25 times the area of the upland is owned by should be ~sidered in te£ms of the impact. BOth environment and the value of the sur~ properties. W~at respect to the environment, our view tY disinterested Pa~ies since t own the Sage Estate, Conducted an e~viro~a,ental~s the area? And to their Credit and to their detriment the~ found that the upland and areas of that and baymans or whatever You Want to call it of endangered and threatened species. That's somewhat at DEIS and I thi~k its a matter well worthy of investigation. Actually the Trustees have or should have had access to the harborview study before any of this permits were issued. Now with respect to permits, there was an original hearing to this project, then the Trustees amended and increased the operations without the additional hearings and many of these amendments were made subsequent to the court decision which required the DEIS. I hardl~ think that constitutes whatever it may be argued the marginal legality that such a thing may be; I hardly think that demonstrates a proper respect for the en,~ironment on a part of the Trustees. Now in respect to the Depar~:~ent of Health, it is clear both in the DEC regulations and the Southold Board of Trustees 16 October 28~ 1993 Town Code, that prior to this expapsion a permit was required of the Dept. of Health. And the reason has nothing to do, well it's partially to do, with the fact that the p~sent system is located within 100 feet of the bulkhead or high water line whatever you want to define it, bu required because of the-expansion very well be that on Aug. 6 the si average in the neighborhood of 28 that marina includes boars up to 5 project the capacity needed as the are in doubt when or where any exc Now this has been going on for ove t more to the point it's ~f the marina. Now it may ze of the boats in this marina ~eet, but the docking plan in 5 feet. If you were to =Dept. of H~lth has, they uss capacity'~an be located. two years, fits been stated that this has quoted by the Dept. Of Health, if there is not a problem with this property, why ha~n't a permit been granted? I think that's also a verbal appeal For an by this Board~ Now your talking in terms ~f road the fact that they are not required. The iDcreased cap~city of the marina Certainly is going to dictate addition~ road traffic. The primary owner the theme owner is this prOPerty is the Sage Estate. What has happened here is that this ~ina has grown from its original 14 boat capacity to the present capacity which is state~ as 138 boats. That's a 10 boat increase. The fact of the m~t~er is that the Sage proper~y would'be having eventual develoPment of the Sage property which certain~y would be adverSel~ affected financially by ~he,expansi°~of this marina but it would also be affected bY the 0ve~burde~ing of this right-of~waY. Now with respect to this right-of-way and it should be a matter of prime concern to this board is the health, safety and welfare of the communzty. I don t know whether you are aware of it or not but New Y~rk State vehicles 8 1/2 feet in width without any requirement It is obvious that two vehicles of that Width on a right-of-way which is only 16 feet in width, it constitutes the equivalent of a house or a driveway 740 feet in length with no cross roads or turnouts. So access to what is potentially a dangerous Site in terms of ..... you must be aware of marina fires and that result there from. Thequestion of p~lic vehicles, safety vehicles, fire department, police etc .... despite their casual response to the I suggest they might not even be aware of th~ the Transportation Dept. ~or width of vehicles, not safely pass on. that right-of,waY.~lAnd were be a problem the prime owner of this right-of,way wo~ld be cut off from access to Route 25. The total development of 'this property is also a matter to be considered. Were you to think in terms of the Sage property, I don't know what the ultimat~ development would be but it would certainly be several houses. But more to the point the question of perhaps the indicated load from the marina could be adduced from an analysis f~omthe Dept. of Health's figures. The Dept. of Health in computing their sanitary requirements figures two persons per boat, 138 boats, 276 people. An no question about that they told me themselves. Were to use LILCO's figures where they compute somewhere over 3 persons per household, you would have an equivalent of Board of Trustees 17 October 28, 1993 approx. 90 households in this ratio. Added to that is the Sage property. For the life of me I can't see how this question of access could be dismissed lightly because even in the smallest of the major subdivisions approved in this Town, there has to be an alternative means of access. There is none for this property, nor is there for the Sage property, which in effect is a dead end. With further respect to the road studies there was reference and reliance placed, I believe, on the previous road study that was done in 1986. I suggest if you will that you examine this. Because that study indicated that there would be road movements, vehicular movements over a 24 hour period at approx, intervals of 37 seconds. Now if that is not overburdening the right-of-way, I don't know what possibly could. One further reference is~absolut~ly factual. The selective method of supplying the appendices to this study is hardly forthright. There's a reference made there to close studies conducted. Again I think it was 1986. The quote is that they have only selected Section 6 as a s~ary. Were the actual s~ary to be read, and I think it is advisable under the circumstances you do so, it says that the study was only conducted on two days. It was conducted during a period when the winds were prevailing from the north and the northwest and there were no winds at all. And finally that it was non-determinative. That they made recor~mendations for additional studies to be conducted that were never conducted. So in effect there is a quotation, as I recall it in I think appendix 2, where Mr. Bredemeyer made co~m~ent to the effect that he was not impressed by the size or the weight of the submission. I believe at that time it was our submission.. I submit that that statement prevails in spades with respect to this DEIS. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to comment on the DEIS. Would the Board like to make a comment? I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing~ TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll entertain a motion to go off the public hearings. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES Recessed for 5 minutes V. ~S~SESSMEN~$/~IRONMENTALDE~TIONS~ 1. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of request permit for construction of a 4' to be constructed 4' above grade. Applicant also re~dests a statement of jurisdiction under Chapter 97 & 37 to construct a one family dwelling, sanitary system, garage, driveway, retaining wall, patio, stonewall, pool and decking as per map Chandler, Palmer & King survey dated 9/29/93. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to table, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 18 October 28, 1993 2. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of ELOISE TORRANCEET-AL requests a peLl~it to install a "boulder barrier" approx. 120' in length along shoreline damaged during the storm of Dec. 1992. Boulders shall be placed on filter fabric along the bottom of the eroded bank at a point approx. 6' landward of MHW line and, if possible, continuous with neighbor to south. As per plans dated 3/29/93. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 3. Peconic Associates on behalf of NARROW'RIVER MARINk~requests a permit to replace 83' of bulkhead and extend bulkhead 34' Extend floating dock to new bulkhead location, remove damaged bulkhead and fill to water depth of 4' Relocate existing floating docks and pilings. Replace and relocate 30' of wave break and replace 50' of bulkhead (wave break). Install 1 1/2' X 8' finger piers. Note: Reconfigured layout e~,~ls 12 slips, replacing existing 14 slips all per survey and plan dated January 18, 1993. Located Narrow River Road, Orient. TRUSTEE SMITH moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 4. Proper-T Services on behalf of JANET T. SWANSON requests a permit to construct 61' overall by 3' wide stairs with landing at top and l~nding in middle section; to replace, in new location, storm-damaged existing stairs. Located 1995 Ryder Farm Lane, Orient. TRUSTEE TUTHILL moved for a Negative Decla~ation, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 5. Costello Marine on behalf of-DAVID FRENCH requests a permit for a 4' X 100' fixed timber dock and (4) 2-pile dolphins. Located Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. TRUSTEE TUTHILL moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 6. ~ANGEL~.RADOVIC~!requests a permit to construct earth berm and place new lawn as per plan of Doroski Nursery, Inc., received October 21, 1993. Located 2060 Clearview Ave., Southotd. TRUSTEE SMITH moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES 7. Costelto Marine on behalf requests a permit to extend existing bulkhead return 10' landward and fill void with 3-4 c.y. of clean fill. Located 85 Waters Edge Way, Southold. TRUSTEE' ALBERTSON moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 8. young and Young Land Surveyors on behalf of FREDEriCK W. COLLIGAN requests a permit to raise the existing bungalow approx. 3 and securing ~t to a new p~le foundation. Located 520 Park Ave. Ext., Mattituck. Board of Trustees 19 October 28, 1993 TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 9. STEPHEN BUCZAK~requests a permit to construct a one family dwelling Wfth associated sanitary system and pool with a 40' buffer. Located Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. TRUSTEE SMITH moved for a Negative Declaration, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 10. Ford Swick on behalf of SUZANNE SWICK requests a permit to construct a one family dwelling as per survey dated March 15, 1993. Located Route 25, East Marion. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to table until Dec. inspection, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES VI. RESOLUTIONS: i. Board to set public hearings for the Dec. 6, 1993 regular meeting for those applications that are Type II and/or have received a negative declaration. TRUSTEE TUTHILL moved to approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 2~ JOHNGANTLY requests an extension on permit ~3943 to replace existing bulkhead to expire Sept. 6, 1994. Located 9680 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE TUTHILLmoved to approve the extension, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 5. PAULINE ISRAEL requests an extension on pe~L,it $3952 to construct dock to expire Oct. 4, 1994. Located Gull Pond, Greenport. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approve the extension, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 4. Richard Lark on behalf of JOHN CONFORTI~requests a grandfather permit for a 5' X 70' dock with a 3' X 16' ramp in Mattituck Creek. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approve the grandfather pezmit, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 5. CostelloMarine on behalf of'~BRU requests a grandfather pez~,it to replace 2 1/2' X 30' ~d timber :dock, a 30' X 14' ramp, a 6' X 20' floating dock with pipe support pilings. Located 1750 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the grandfather pez~it, TRUSTEE SMITH SECONDED. ALL AYES 6. ROBERT.~GUARR~ELLO requests a Grandfather Permit to replace inkind/inplace i30' +/- of bulkhead. Located Budd's Pond Road, Southold. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve Grandfather Permit, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 20 October 28, 1993 7. Eh-Consultants on behalf of'GUS WADE.to construct a one familydwelling. Findings and decision on the final EnvirgnmentaI Impact Statement. Located East Road, Cutchogue. TRUSTE~ KRUPSKI read resolution: was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on ~, October 28, 1993: WHERE~ ~, Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for an act Lon know as Gustave Wade ("Action") and was accepted by the Sc thold Board of Trustees ("Trustees"), AND WHERE~ S, a p~,hlic hsaring was conducted on the Action, AND WHERE~ S, a Final Envirornnental Impact Statement was prepared and accep~sd by the Trustees, AND WHERE~S, the Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") revealed that ~h~ environmental impacts ste~,ing from the proposed septic system will have an undue adverse environmental impact upon wetlands and surface waters of Eugene's Creek and will preclude the T~ustees fr~om restoring their adjacent lands to~heir origihal condition, AND WHEREAS, the E1s revealed that the mobilization and. demobilization cf heavy equipment will adversely' effect tidal wetlands the Action will adversely effect Shellfish, other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation and the natural habitats thereof, AND WHEREAS, the EIS revealed that adequate fire protection to the proposed dwelli~g is impossible and therefore, the p~oposed project will adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the applicant and any future inhabitants; AND WHEREAS, a Findings Statement has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is consistent with the standards set forth in Chapter 97 of the'Town Code, NOW BE IT resolved, that the Findings Statement is hereby accepted,. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Findings Statement be filed with all Involved Agencies and the Applicant, AN~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Southold Town Board of Trustees Den~ the application of Gustave Wade without prejudice". TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion was made that the Southold Trustees deny without prejudice the application, TRUSTEE TD~HILL seconded. ALL AYES 8 !EER~S.~=LBoard to reduce catwalk by one set of doCk at the present length blocks passage for any other boat. Located North Bayview Road, Southold. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to meet with Mr. Fergus to inspect, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 9. PLOCK.PROPERTY- Report from Chris Pickerill - Approve plan for replanting. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE TUTHILL seconded. ALL AYES 10. DON~J=D TUTHILL - 45' buffer fzom top of bank Board of Trustees 21 October 28, 1993 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH moved to adjourn at 10:10 p.m. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES Respectfully Submitted By: Diane J. Herbert Clerk, Board of Trustees RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK Town_ Clerk, Town of Southold