Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/26/1992-S TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, 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 SPECIALMEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 1992 PRESENT WERE: John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Albert J. Krupski,Jr., Vice-president Henry P. Smith, Member John L. Bednoski, Jr. Member John B. Tuthill, Member BRICK COVE MARINA: Resolution to approve/deny report of Board consultant, Bruce Anderson for Environmental Assessment in the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Southold Associates for the action known as BRICK COVE MARINA for review of EAF Part 1, EAF Part 2 and 3 and attached exhibits. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Everyone has received a copy of the report. It was distributed the day that Bruce brought it in. We made sure everyone got a copy of it. Bruce is expected to be here, if you have any direct questions. Also we got a co~muunication in by FAX last night from Mr. Kelley. I will read it to you and maybe if we had a question of Mr. Kelley, we might ask. I think I have one for Him. Letter dated September 24, 1992 received September 26, 1992. From Christopher Kelley In reviewing the files today in the above application in preparation for tomorrow night's special meeting, I found that an circulated in the above. Specifically, a proposed Environmental ASsessment form Part II, together with a report and analysis of the Board's consultant, Bruce Anderson, was contained in the file and received yesterday but not adopted by the trustees or sent to involved agencies. I requested a copy of these documents but was advised by your assistant Jill that she could not release same without your approval. Please be advised that it will be impossible for the intervenors to give any complete commentary on the application without having the completed Environmental Assessment Form to review. I have asked Jill, your assistant, to fax those documents upon your approval. However, please be advised that we will be requesting two weeks time within which to co~mL~ent upon these newly received documents. You will note that 6 N.Y.C.R.C. 617.6(c)(1) provides that with respect to coordinated review for a Type I action, the agency receiving the application shall as soon as possible mail the Board of Trustees 2 September 26, 1991 Special Meeting EAF, with Fart I completed by the project's sponsor, or a draft EIS to all in~Volved agenCies. This does not mean that ~nly the EAF Part I~ is mailed bu~ that a full EAF is ~ailed. As you know an EAF consists of four parts. Although we will b~ submitting comments on the application and ~Af Part~I submitted, we respectfully request two weeks from the September 26th~ate within which 'to submit co~,L~ents on~ the F~ Part Iii and report of Bruce ~Anderson. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was discussing this with the Town Attorney and Mr. Anderson ~and my feeling also is that the Board met its obligation in distributing the P~rt I to all agencies and allowing for ~he comment period. At least it is known to me and/or Bruce that the completed form is distributed° We believe at this time we can review the dDcument as a whole. I am a little unclear, ~ir.. Kelley your say here four parts, you are referring to a visual EA_V addendum add-on. ~R. KELLEY: Actually the fourth part is the determination of Signific~ance. At a minimum I think you have to circulate the ~ Part II~ to otb3sr agencies. That is kind of moot if you are wi to allow comments on that. I have somewritten comments on What has been submitted so far. TRUSTEE BREDES~YE~: O.K. The presence of the document in the file did n~ denote acceptance bY the B~ard. It is just a matter of keeping: it saf~ We just don't distribute them until we have a Chance to co~.~Lent on them. Normally the Board, in this case w~uld, as interveners in a prior discussion, I don't think you have any special rights to additionalco~.enting during this particular period. I would Board ~Ou~ld address comments at the public hearin~ that going to have. That WoUld give ample opportunity, a joint public hearing under part 617 and the Town Wetland Ordin~nce, the Board w~ld alwaysremain open to the possibility of any change in a determination should we move ahead with a neg. dec. tonight and have to have the Board re-consider it. There is always a possibility of a rescission of a negative dec. upon submission of additional information that would be considered significant or indicate that an assessment was faulty. ~That one or more impacts that may have been viewed as insignificant or small where ~nfactlarge. In any case, you have this submission item. Do you want to be read at this time. ~R. KESLEY: I want itto be circulated and considered. We also have c~,,ents, our consultant is on his way with his written comments based on the part I and the application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYE~: I would say that it would be appropriate to append this to additional discussion that might take place in the context of a future meeting or the public hearing. I don't know, but the workings of the Board at this point have been pretty straight forward and I just, well, in any case t would say the special ~meetin~ is not to do a whole redo of SEQRA or Mr. Andersons report~ How does the Board feel on this matter? We have a completed report right here that we should be prepared to go through. TRUSTEE SMITH: Go with it. Board of Trustees 3 September 26, 1991 Special Meeting MR. KELLEY: You have to try and make a determination of significance right? You have to consider all available information? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. O.K. Well, I will read this and if there is anything as we go through Mr. Andersons' report that this refers too, we might entertain it. MR. ZEHNER: I am I permitted to say something? Mr. Kelley is giving last minute infozmation that could be beneficial, I totally agree with you, this would be considered at a public hearing but as I Understand your only obligation now is to considered inputs from other involved agencies. Not individuals at this time. The hearing will allow for this. TRUSTEES BREDEMEYER: That is right. I will read for point of information and if for some reason it queues a Board member to concurrent specifically on Mr. Andersons' report and since we are at an official meeting and minutes are being taken, I just ask that the clerk note specifically that by reading this we are trying to be inclusive in our SEQRA review and that we took the extra step here. You are absolutely correct. This is a chance for us to review additional comments from involved agencies. This is an additional comment period for them. They have not chosen to respond. Our previous coordination did not result any additional correspondence with the exception of communications that Mr. Anderson has had with the shellfisheries and some conversations that I have had previously with Maureen Davidson at the DEC. I will just read by reference that way let it not be said that we have not'tried to be conclusive. You may keep these co~L,.ents in mind as we go through Mr. Andersons' report. Delivered by Hand to John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Board of TruStees. Dear President Bredemeyer: In a letter sent to you yesterday, we requested copies of the Environmental Assessment Form Part II and the most recent report of Bruce Anderson. To date, we have not received same, and we hereby request two weeks within which to comment on those documents before the Trustees make a determination of significance under SEQRA. Enclosed please find the preliminary comments of our expert, Larry Penny, on the EAF Part I and application s~bmitted to date. These are submitted only as preliminary comments, inasmuch as we havenot reviewed the Anderson report or the EAF Part II. Additional comments are set fourth below. 1. In the application at page 2, the applicant indicates that the Sage Creek is one to two miles wide. This is clearly not the case and portrays a distorted picture of the size of the cove in question. In fact, it is only several hundred feet wide. 2. In the file is a narrative from the applicant including a "FDA Guideline Calculations." This documents references "affidavits" from licensed shellfishermen using Sage Basin, to indicate non-commercial shellfish availability there. The so-called affidavits are not affidavits at all, but a letter dated May 17, 1989. The letter does not say that Sage Basin is Board of Trustees 4 September 26, 1991 Special Meeting not a productive clamming area. Rather, it lists some Qther creeks that offer "better" clamming. In fact, this is ~ very productive shell f~sh area, as th~s Board hasbeen previously advised by the Town Bayman's Association. Enclosed is a copy of the April 15, 1986, letter from the Bayman's Association describing the productivity of this area. The potential shellfish impacts are an important impact that should be considered in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for this project. 3. In the "FDA ~uideline Calculations" accompanying the application, the applicant speaks of "a realistic conservative number of boats that could cause a potential accidental discharge as 2." We believe this is highly unrealistic in light of the potential for 138 boat slips (which could actually result in 200 boats slips). That would assume that less than 2% of the boats would not be equipped with up-to-date sanitary systems. 4. In the EAF Part I at Section A, item 2, the area of wetlands appears to be drastically understated. Likewise, at Section B, item 23, the water usage at the site appears to be drastically understated. 6. at EAF Section C, item i2 the issue of traffic is not addressed at all even though the access to this project is limited to a 16 foot right-of-way. 7. The application does not address upland storage and repair of boats and the impact that may have on the site and surrounding waters. 8. Although the applicant claims that 138 boat slips will be provided, the area of the piers is being approximately doubled which, given the size of boats historically acco~,odated at the marina, could accommodate upwards of 200 boats. For the reasons set forth herein and more fully set forth in the comments of Larry Penny submitted herewith, it is respectfully submitted that a positive declaration be issued and Draft Environmental Impact Statement be required to address the various environmental issues raised bY this application. This application is for a major project in a critical Environmental preparation of a DEIS. This is a preliminary comment and after review of the Anderson report and the Environmental Assessment Fozm Part II, additional comments will be provided. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did you get a copy of Bruces' report. MR. KELLEY: No. TRUSTEE BP~DE~EYER: You did nou. That was just from the office file review? MR. KELLEY: I looked at for two seconds. Board of Trustees 5 September 26, 1991 Special Meeting TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: O.K. It would seem like very comprehensive letter although exhaustive. MR. KELLEY: That is based on the EAF I. Mr. Penny is going to belarriving with... TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Oh, I'm sorry. It said here this a preliminary report after review Anderson report and the Environmental Assessment Part II, additional colm~lents will be provided. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that the end of the letter? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The attachment here is the letter from the Southold Town Baymens Association which I believe you are all familiar with as they have previously submitted to the Board on previous discussion on this matter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I will just circulate it around so if you haven~t seen it before, you will see it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One thing I wanted to clear up with Bruce is the, I started in with the figures on the shellfish closures due to the number of boats slips and I could quite... TRUSTEEBREDEMEYER: Are you talking about he calculations of ~econic Associates? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, I couldn't figure that out. Is that your calculations? (directed to Merlon Wiggin). MR.. WIGGIN: There are about 3 of them. There is for 10 percent ~hat Maureen Davidson did. One for, assuming that all boats had sealed heads, we picked o figure of 2 because semebodymight make a mistake and not seal their head. I think there was a third one done by Bruce. There were three that took place and have different criteria, TRUSTEE BRED~R: I think any of the calculation, we will have to read through, the letter from Maureen Davidson, I think makes the calculation a bit moot. Why don't we start from the beginniRg and go through. Maybe I will read the introductory statement and then maybe we can go through this and take our time doing. So if the Board has any additional questions or if anything comes, to mind with the letter that we received here, they can ask them those questions directly then we can look to see if we have the info~¥~ation in here to come to a proper conclusion for an assessment. MR. KELLEY: Is there another copy of that available. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure. There is even an extra copy, if someone wants to read along with us. Trustee Bredemeyer read page one of the report of Bruce Anderson and then Board decided to read partially~throughpage bypage as all members are familiar with this report. Does the Board have any questions with respect to the establishment of our charge under the wetlands ordinances, the basis and the conceptual framework for reviewing these impacts? (no response) I would like t°, just for the sake of clarity, to review with the Board the additional wetlands 'flagging that we required of the applicant. Maybe Bruce Anderson can help run this by us. Bruce did go out and flag the wetlands there which consisted primarily of Baccharis, .... and Spartina (opening map,can't hear tape). Board of Trustees 6 September 26, 1991 Special Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON: What is used here is a jagged line, because it has every~- other conceivable line already used. Up in here you have some high marsh plants you come down to the asphalt ramp. The water mark then becomes the wetland line. You go back with more of the high marsh plants. Again it comes back to the high mark, which also forms in to inter tidal marshes, goes all the way around to the point, along these areas here and these areas here there is a very narrow and kind of a intermittent band of Spartina Alturna Flora and the wetland line is essentially the high water mark. Again up in Fy line is different from the DEC in that it comes up further to capture these high marsh plants. You have a pretty good stand of inter-tidal marsh here. You rap around the peninsula. We come the other way. Back through here again where it is marked at the high water mark up to the existing bulkhead which next forms the line. As that is the high water mark. Around here we have a rather narrow band of Spartina marsh. Some high marsh plants here back to the high water mark. Back up along the high marsh plants. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So in no case from the previous map that we reviewed, which did not have anything but a DEC line maybe what had come off the DEC's standard wetland map, we haven't seen anything here that indicates any of the proposed major walkways or.any dredging activity is taking place that is going to physically remove or alter any Of these inter-tidal marshes? MR. ANDERSON: Well there is right along here, this area here. First of all your walk ways are elevated and go above the grasses. Aroundlhere they purpose to use a drag line and during that process they are going to l~ay some: mates-and, tarps over the grasses pursuant to DEC condition of tidal wetland permit, Then they are going to remove the tarps. That will provide protection of the grasses during this operation. Other than that the remainder of the dredging is by means of clamshell bucket. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: From our previous look and the requirement...we didn't have this as part of the complete application since we don't have strict legislative authority to ask for it. We requested this during our review. We haven't had any change. In other words, I notice your document, you know you indicated the wetlands, in other words we haven't seen any change from what we have all known on this site with repeated visits. Basically we. are seeing here what we have all along. That is we are not going to be damaging any of these... MR. ANDERSON: We are not going to be damaging the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about this first finger pier. What kind of depth is on the east side. Would that be usable on the east side? MR. ANDERSON: What do you mean what is the distance from here to here? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, could that be utilized as a boat slip or is that just... MR. ANDERSON: You could conceivably but a tiny little row boat there, but it is not a primary slip. Board of Trustees 7 September 26, 1991 SPecial Meeting TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is what I am asking. Is it being count as a...everyone talking. It is countable. O.K. I just wonder if something like that would be... FLR. ANDERSON: Basically what he has designed here is when you see bigger spaces here and where it is more narrow here the smaller boats go there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand it is just that you got into a tight corner here on this one and I was just wondering if you where counting both sides. TMR. ZEHNER: We did count both sides RuSTEE SMITH: You only have 35' between each set of floats. MR. ZEHNER: Right, that allows for a 17 1/2' beam. Which is a pretty big beam. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: O.K. I am going to go through page by page. Page ~27, Page 3?, Page 4? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Page 4, 48 Second Paragraph: Field inspection of shoal areas did not reveal the presence od significant quantities of fish, shellfish or wild life species. I just wondered who conducted the field inspection? MR. ANDERSON: I did. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When? MR. ANDERSON: Last Sunday. I stand by it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you generate any solid information on that? Like did you find two clams and a ... MR. ANDERSON: We found several clams and an oyster and some dead shells. The other thing I was looking for was stuff like eel grass and sea grass. None where found. The area is kind of a mixture of gravel, sand and clay. On the top the portions are round. The flats are of a softer material and that is were the clams where. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In doing that survey did you move ~bout strictly on the applicants property or did you check other areas in the basin? ~R. ANDERSON: Well, I checked one area that was slightly outside and that was around here. I was out beyond the stake at one point. MR. !KELLEY: So the survey was basically on the applicants? MR. ANDERSON: It was on the applicants part and in adjacent areas. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other questions on page 4?, page 5? Any questions page 6? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Impact to land item #1, first paragraph. The applicant has proposed the dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards. I guess it is a typo from the first page of the environmental assessment past the cover letter where it has 2900 cubic feet? It should all be yards, shouldn't it? MR. ZEHNER: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: O.K. Any other questions on 6? 7? The washdown facility construction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The landscaping plan, is it here? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't believe we have landscaping plan. That normally is part of the site plan approval. I understand that at the conclusion of the the process of this Board the Board of Trustees 8 September 26, 1991 Special Meeting applicant will have to go back to the Planning Board and conclude a site plan process with the Planning Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: O.K. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The relocation of the septic system, just to review with the Board, that was a requirement of the DEC permit. The Health Department chose not to coordinate with us. we would still be looking at that as improvement under the condition of the DEC moving that away from the wetland. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that on the map? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The old system is on the map. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the relocation of it. TRUSTEEBREDEMEYER: I don't know if we have that on the map. I would think that would be subject to control of the Health Department. MR. ZEHNER: That is in the file. I have just a crude sketch of the location here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: O.K. Discussion on impacts to water. I think there may be some questions there. The initial s~bmission that was appended to the EAF Part I and the application. I don't think the DEC was accepting the two person discharge that was projected by the applicant. My conversation with the DEC recently, they have indicated they are going to stick to the 10% limitation. We have all had a chance to read Maureens' letter. Essential out lining that the entire area of Sage Basin is closed. Mr. Anderson goes further to describe the different items on that with respect to sealing of heads and what the applicant is indicated what they are prepared to do for mitigation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are we going to discuss that or those numbers like a brought up before? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know~ I think numbers are somewhat moot. Because if the DEC says it is going to be'10%, we can't really fight them in the context of an application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand, but what area are they going to close? TRUSTEE BREDE~EYER: The current closure is the entire cove. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At whatever it is, the 91 plus the .... TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maureens letter says the cove is closed, the cove is closed and the cove is closed. I think if mitigation is acceptable to the Board, the lack of mitigation could result in larger closure in the future. Particularly like SouthoId Shores boat basin. Even as it stands right now it is a 11 boats so it is over the 10 boat guide line. That could create a closure. So lets say without environmental improvements as proposed, DEC cOuld be going through a re-evaluation at any point in time. Under the national sanitation shellfish program they might be going to back to a number of areas. To the degree that a potential impact exist and it is real and that the level of mitigation is offered, that would seem to decrease the over all impact. The possibility would be just as we hammered out the agreement on Fishers Island which was that offering of the Fishers Island Association and working with Steve Melinowski we were able to change the configuration of the harbor area. Consequently we removed entirely the impact on his commercial Board of Trustees 9 September 26, 1991 Special Meeting grow out operation he has. We are looking at the possibility here of the potential of discharge decreases over time because of environmental improvements. With a performance basis, DEC will nQt grant these based on a s,~bmission, if they see a log and they see the vessel logged and they see that the vessels are being ~ealed, they would then have a basis for using their best professional judgement and to start allowing the closure area to diminish. The surface water quality at the station, the entrance to Sage COve, is in compliance for shellfishing, so basically it indicates at ebb tide water leaving the area has been a good quality already and with the additional fixtures and the additianal controls it wouldn't likely to be degraded. MR. WIGGIN: Can I add a little bit? At this stage without experience ~and date Maureen is not willing to consider a reduction above the 10% eventhough she realizes the good ~ontrols might reach 0 and you would have no closure area. What ~he hasI asked the applicant to do is to keep good records of two ~hings; the number of people that stay on board over night and number two the results of the sealing. They are going to seal the "Y'" valves so they can not be open. They are realying on honesty and if any of those are broken in their inspection. Particularly in the first month and on the last month of the closurei. ~at they would consider is to shorten the closure season Dy month. As a first step to have the basin open. She says they don't what is going to happen in the months away. TRUSTEE~KRUPSKI: That is what I was wondering. You got the boat slips and you also that canal that goes up there that is... TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a questionl of mitigation~is .... we previously enacted a permit approval for the Narrow River Marina that you where instrumental in working out restrictive covenants with no heads and ~wording that permitted inspection by this Board or Governmental body with authority. That provides for access onto vessels that are at docks. Howard, is that a viable thing to look out? We took it seriously enough. We have had the Bay Constable perform inspections. We figure that if we slowly develop an experience rate by not only having the strict controls and the record keeping, but if the applicants are prepared to work with us and accept the authority of the Bay Constable to perform such inspection we will develop the experience rate that will also bolster opening more of these shellfish lands over time. ~R. Wiggin: I think also the marina operator looks at the up end of it too. If you are in a marina and don't see stuff floating around the boat, this makes it a nice pleasant place to stay verses the alternate. TRUSTEEBREDE~EYER: As mitigation, it is not discussed here, is it reasonable to conclude all the other things you do are fairly intensive and require labor and record keeping that would there be an objection to the Board of Trustees establishing at some future date, should we get down to writing a permit here, permitting the Bay Constable or such public health or environmental conservation authorities facility to go down and make reasoD~ble inspections; obviously with some consideration of the privacy of people? Board of Trustees 10 September 26, 1991 Special Meeting MR. ZEHNER: I have no objection. Official Bill Leverich is the manager. MR. LEVERICH: I think it is a great idea because it gives us another lever to use. We have a economic incentive to get this done and that is a way if you have someone that is going to holler at you, why, you just blame the Bay Constable. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: O.K. It would be fair to say then that your offer would be as additional mitigation the Board could consider would be as item 7 (page 10) access for governmental control on the site? O.K. Applicant has indicated potential for inspections. Everyone understands that the discharge points have not been clarified other then the availability of going to Bergen Point as a last resort, which the applicant is prepared to do. There is pending work at the Greenport Scavenger Plant and Merl Wiggin had been working With the Town and the Village, But the Village simply feels that they are not in position to address our letters. MR. WIGGIN: It was not the Village. It was the Town. The Town was going to look at their capital funds for treating t~e scavenger waste plant. That was the next high priority item to install that in the scavenger waste plant. It is not a big item. We are probably only talking about another $15,000. worth of work to install a holding tank andmetering pump. The reason is that you can't slug the boat waste into the scavenger waste plant without impact the process. So you collect it and put it in a separate tank and feed it in a predetermined rate so it mixes up with other. They are waiting for the bids to come in as th~ first phase. TRUSTEE BR~E~EYER. O.K. If there are no further questions, there page ll. Page 12. There is some discussion~ there with respect to impacts to the shellfishing from dredging which extensively indicates that it has been mitigated largely through the DEC permit already. The method of dredging should be note a problem Un this. Any other items on page 127 Page 1.3 addressed the fact that there has been an offer to properly address wash down waste and area set aside on the survey to properly contain it. The actual EAF. There was a question on acreages on wetlands and such. For anyone who has been on the site it is extremely limited though. To the very small areas on that one spit and a very few species. There is just a few bocorous plants straggling aroUnd and just a small amount of spartina. A ten of an acre. There is just not much there. MR. ZEHNER: 4000 sq. ft. That is 200 X 20. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yea. Page 3 on EAF, any questions? Page 4? A question on electrical use. I assume that came from existing meter readings with a projection? MR. WIGGIN: We got those from the Village of Greenport. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did you use just straight existing reading or did you use a pro-rata share existing for X number of slips and expanded out. MR. ZEHNER: I spoke to the electrician who did the wiring. We have all new wiring coming into the marina at the head of each of the four expected docks. Only two docks...inaudible. He knows the total capacity that he can supply. Also he wired Board of Trustees 11 September 26, 1991 Special Meeting Larry's Marina and he is fully aware of the electricity usage there. ~R. WIGGIN: We took the Village actual meter readings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Meter readings for water also then? MR. WIGGIN: That is right. The increase based on the presents slips and the future. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: O.K. The Zoning and Planning information? Pag~ 5. It does show that it is clearing it is within the con%ext of what the permitted uses are for the site. I hope we don~'t see the uses permitted by special exception, ever. Some of the figures here that you suggest for potential maximum site development are from "Marinas", by Chamberlin; is that a standard guide? MR. WIGGIN: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that correct, a 3500 seat restaurant or is that a typo? Is that suppose to be 350 seats? MR. WIGGIN: 3500 seats (? inaudible). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: O.K. You are talking about build-out just for the restaurant for that individual use? MR. ZEHNER: Right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It is basically a build-out absent all other constraints. O.K. It is a water dependent use. I think the CAC has commented on this project in the affirmative looking at some of the mitigation and basically have looked at this area and say that this is an area that is conducive to boats and they would much prefer the Board of Trustees have boats in areas where there are existing marinas and start concluding much stricter actions against areas that are still-open~.to shellfishing. The actual Part II of the EAF. This refers to items that where discussed at length that we just gone through. If you want look through and if you have any questions. If you see an impact that is potential large that was not in MR. Andersons report or if you have any questions about an impact. Page 6? Page 7? Page 8? Bruce I see here reduction of one more species listed on the NY State of Federal list using the site, over or near the site, or found on the site, does that refer to your discussion on the Osprey? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: O.K. The associated impacts with deepening the waters in a marina and a dock configuration, you are not really in the immediate confines of the marirm now anyway? MR. ANDERSON: No. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Page 9, Aesthetic Resources. I think that the different planting arrangements that the Planning Board will come up with in the re-organization probably should soften the impact Somewhat on the site. I think that ~ill beWell handled there. Any questions on any other items on page 9? Recreational activities will definitely be increased. Page 107 Any questions on page 117 EAF Part II Addendum, Impact on Land. Exhibit A. This is a listing of the positive aspects or environmental improvements that will go along with the expansion? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Item number one. There will bulkheading on that. On the west side of the inlet. Is that where the bulkheading is going to be? Board of Trustees 12 September 26, 1991 Special Meeting MR. ANDERSON: That is not part of this project. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was previously approved Trustee permit and DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I saw it on the DEC permit and then I came back to this page and I thought I had seen it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Exhibit B? Exhibit C? Recyclables data. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What are they going to do with that waste oil? MR. ZEHNER: I have no idea. These are licensed DEC waste oil picker-uppers. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was just wondering if they are going to burn it or not. MR. ZEH~ER: I don't know. MR. SMITH: Greenport Utilities generating plant use to send it and refine and get it right back again. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other questions? O.K. Exhibit D. This is the court discission, if you had a chance to look through that thoroughly, I think most of these items where look at with reasoned elaboration. If anything we have elaborated at length at was a lot of prior working of the Board. A lot of questions that was just asked verbally by the applicant in the field and now they are set to writing. Others that will likely be looking at this in the future will get a chance to see if we did our homework or not. Exhibit E? Co~£m,unication from Maureen Davidson. Exhibit F? FDA Guideline. Exhibit G? Additional water quality data from the inlet. MR~ WIGGIN: You might note that on exhibit G that almost every case when the coliform was up it was associated with the higher rainfall. TRUSTEE BRED~: Usually there is that correlation. MR. WIG~IN: Inaudible. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Summer could also be a period of peak water fowl activity in the area. That is always a possibility. Exhibit H? Indication that the facility will be able take other boat waste at the site once the environmental improvements are available. The sample language of the users of boats. I guess that is part of your marina contract? MR. ZEHNER: Yes~. TRUSTEE BR~D~EYER: Item number 16, which is underlined, indicates ~hat there will be a requirement that heads are of approved design so that you will be able to impose any standard that this Board might request. It didn't come up specifically in the statement here, maybe I missed it. What about tying off rigging and things that tend to make noise in marinas? MR. ZEHNER: I am not sure that there is anything listed there, but we certainly do that. We tie the halyards and things like that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Plastic policies, recycling. I am sure you saw the article in the Suffolk Times. Voluntarily this existing operation is one of the first commercial facilities in the Town which has taken it on its own to/do recycling. I think that is a good statement for the kind of management that is currently at this site. Exhibit I? Exhibit J? Discussion of several shellfishermens view on the potential shellfishing here. Does the Board have any questions on what they have seen here? Board of Trustees 13 September 26, 1991 Special Meeting TRUSTEE SMITE: No, I think this is a pretty conclusive, complete.. I think this just about covers everything. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The only other thing we have to see at this point is that we have these other comments tonight and we have another report that Mr. Penny brought in. I would, think that we can't do them in this frame work of concluding our review of Mr. Andersons report, but certainly will be reviewed...(Changed tape) approve Mr. Andersons report and then move into an assessment on this. Mindful of the fact that any of these materials that came in could be addressed in this lite or reconsidered after we get additional public comment. I am sure we will have additional public comment at the public hearing. At this time I would like to take a motion in the matter of approving the report of Bruce Anderson. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So moved. TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion that we approve the report of Bruce Anderson. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: I seconded it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Vote of the Board? Board: ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Please note that the vote was in reference to the complete packet in the environmental review of the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Southold Bay Associates for an action known as Brick Cove and was upon the Board reviewing, additionally, again the report of Bruce Anderson which included parts I, II, and III EAF plus additional exhibits provided by the applicants. Including some Board comments and questions. O.K. At this point if the Board pleases we couldconsider the environmental assessment in this matter. I have a resolution for a negative declaration. What is your pleasure? Should I read the resolution for a negative declaration? TRUSTEE TUTHILL: ~o ahead. TRUSTEE SMITH: Read it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Whereas, an application for wetlands permit was submitted by Peconic Associates, Inc. on behalf of Southold Associates for an action known as Brick Cove Marina on July 29, 1991; and Whereas, the application was deemed complete by the Southold Board of Trustees on August 1, 1991; and Whereas, the project was classified as a Type I action pursuant to SEQRA; and Whereas, an Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF") Part 2 and 3 was prepared; and Whereas, the Southold Board of Trustees conducted a review of the information recorded in the EAF Part 1,2,3; and Whereas, the magnitude and importance of each impact has been considered and reasoned elaboration given; and Board of Trustees 14 September 26, 1991 Special Meeting Whereas, the Southold Board of Trustees have considered all ~ criterion under Section 97-28 of the Town Code; now be it RESOLVED that the project known as Brick Cove Marina will not result in any large and important impacts and therefore, will not have a significant impact on the environment; and be it further RESOLVED that a negative declaration shall be preDared and filed with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and all other involved agencies as provided for i~ ECL Article 8 NYCRR Part 6t7. MR. ZEHNER: Excuse me, Jay. I know you want that to be correct. Maybe I am all mixed up here, but the complete application date~:you gave as August 1st, wasn't iq September 5? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was an application completion date based on the vote of the Board when we said we actually had a complete Package. We had requested additional information, We had a statutory problem. We usually ask for more can get statutorily. So we decided we would conclu the statutory package, get the signed stamped plan what we needed under the wetlands ordinance. That the waivers that you recall. We had to make sure going to waive anything that would be necessary to proPer SEQRA ~reView and get the basic element's an depths that we wanted and such. MR. ZEHNER: O.K. I just wanted to make sure. TRUSTEE Bi%EDEMEYER: That's O.K. What is your pleasure on the resolution? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE BREDE~EYER: Vote of the Board? BOARD: All AYES. TRUSTEE B~EMEYER: O.K. Because this project.is likely to create significan~t public comment, there is additional information submitted tonight that we could not go'oVer under this forma~,~I woUld Suggest that a special meetin~ be held where we would only handle this matter .and maybe one or two minor matters as well to provide for a lengthy pub We will apPend the additional co~m~unicationthat w~ tonight to the minutes of the public hearing that · its consultant will review in making .any determina' it would be to go ahead at the time after a p,,blic permit vote or to move ahead at that time into som~ revisiting of items, because therehas been a probl review.made here. A tentative date to set.the the hearing is Thursday, October 17, 1991. Is if goin problem with any of the Board members? Board: No. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: O.K. Then let us set the special meeting. A motion was made by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI to se~ a special meeting for Thursday, October 17, 1991 at 7 p.m,, worksession at 6:30 p.m. ALL AYES. than what we ~e what Was as a basis of included all · e were not conclude a show the [ic hearing. received :he Board and :ion. Whether hearing for a ~ form of _em with the public to present a Board of Trustees 15 September 26, 1991 Special Meeting A motion was made by TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER and s~conded by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI to set a public hearing at the special meeting on October 17, 1991 at 7:05 p.m. in the matter of Peconic Associates on behalf of Southold Associates for the action known as Brick Cove Marina. ALL AYES. At this time I believe we have concluded action on the Brick Cove matter for this evening. I would ask that the clerk distribute copies of the additional information that was given us tonight so we can think about it. A motion was made by TRUSTR~ KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE BRDNOSKI to table action on the matter of Argentieri/Egan until the November meeting, so as both parties can finish their title search. ALL AYES. A motion was made by TRUSTEE SMITH and seconded by TRUSTEE ~RUPSKI to amend permit ~3931 of Em-consultants on behalf of Leonard Rosen to clear property; 10' of lawn seaward of the deck based on plan dated as received September 19, 1991. Located Bayview Road, Southold. ALL AYES. A motionwas made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE SMITH to grant a waiver in the matter of Proper-T Services on behalf of Constantinos Markotsis to construct a covered deck on property located at Williamsburg Road, Southold. ALL AYES. (Note that this waiver is only for Trustees, it is not for any Zoning Board matters). A motion was made by TRUSTEE BRED~MEYER and seconded by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI to grant permission to Francis Schriefer on behalf of Helen Schwan to replace in-kind/in-place a retaining wall damaged by the hurricane. ALL AYES. A motion was made by TRUSTEE SMITH and seconded by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI to grandfather the structure and postpone the fees in this matter for a floating dock subject to fees at such time that the Board conducts a comprehensive survey to assess such fees for all dock owners on Great Pond. ALL AYRS. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE TUTHILL to amend permit ~810 of Charles Danilcyk to transfer onshore/offshore stake in the vicinity of dock~permit %3721 (formally of Lettieri). ALL AYES. A motion was made by TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER and seconded by TRUSTEE SMITH approve a duck blind in West Creek. He'n~s a letter of permission from John Wickham. ALL AYES. RECEIVED AND FILED BY Meeting adjourned 8: 40 p.m. espectfubmitted M~'~ by; l~ill . Thor,p, Clerk ~Board of Trustees TH~ SOUTtiOLD TOWN CLt~ DATE~/g/Op- HOUR //.'~g'74~ Town C!~k,.:Town of So .W~dtd