Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/08/1991-S TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Henry P. Smith, Vice President Albert I. Krupski, Jr. lohn L. Bednosld, Jr. John B. Tuthill 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 SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 1991 BRICK COVE MARINA PRESENT WERE: John Bredemeyer, III, President Trustee Albert Jo Krupski, Jr. Trustee John B. Tuthill Consultant Bruce Anderson Anthony Tohill, Merlon Wiggin, Mr. & Mrs. Howard Zehner, Chris Kelly, Frank Flynn, Henry Weisman, Bruce Wilson, Larry Penny. Notice of publication in the Suffolk Times and notice of publication in Long Island Traveler Watchman. Pledge of Allegiance TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Reviewed the agenda with everyone. He noted the attachments. Started reading chronology done by Bruce Anderson, as Bruce has not arrived yet. BRUCE ANDERSON: First of all, what I have set out to do was, the first, in this project here is to determine what are the necessary componentS of a complete application. My understanding from the start was that we are going to start anew and receive a very formal application. Then we were going to go from there. The application that I propose consist of a very specific detailed format that is provided in Chapter 97 and Chapter 44 of the Town Code. Plus an application that recognizes the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Then, my thinking is, once we get all these m~teriats together then the next question for the Board to determine is whether or not the project as proposed will have a significant impact on the environment and therefore require a preparation of a draft environmental impact report. I am just going to read this out load and feel free to stop me at any'point, if you have any questions. Brick Cove Marina: Recommended application procedure The following report is intended to provide for an orderly processing of the wetlands application of Brick Cove Marina pending before the Southold Board of Trustees. The proposal of marina expansion at Brick Cove Marina is regarded as a Type 1 ~ction pursuant to SEQRA because the project action is located Within a criticallenvironmentai area (CE~) and because the ~xtent of the dredging previously proposed exCeeds the 100 cubic ~ard criterion adopted bythe Southold Board of Trustees. Part ~17.12 of SEQRA s~ates that the fact that a project has been. ~isted as a Type I action carries with it the presumption that ~t is'likely to have a significant effect on the environment and Fay require an impact statement. The key word here is may. ~us not all Type I actions require an impact statement. It is 'or this reason that an expanded application including some .etai~d narratives and analysis is recommended. Once the ~xpanded application is submitted for the Board's consideration, ~he B6ard should be in a position to evaluate said application ~s to whether an impact statement is required for the action as proposed. ~RUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Bruce before you go any further, I would ~ust like to add a historical note~ The Trustees in the initial ~eview of this apPliCa{ion in 1987, indicated that they felt .at the operatio~s wa~ principally of a maintenance nature. xpanSion to an e~isting facility. At that time had not adopted ormal agency procSdures for SEQRA. This last year in January f 1~99~ we adopted a Type I and a Type II list. That copy of ~he Type I list is annexed to the agenda item that I gave out to ~veryone. So that they have the Boards Type I action list. ~hat was adopted by a unanimous vote of the Board of Trustees at ~hat meeting in January of 1'990. ~RUCE'ANDER~ON: Does that mean that the extent of dredging )reviously proposed that exceeds 100 cubic yards ~quatifies under ~e Trustee criterion as Type I? ~STEE BREDEMEYER: That is correct. At this time we would have ~o 'view this as a Tlrpe I action. Previous to that there was no !°rmally adopted agency position and in addition there was no ount¥ designated CEA until 1988. RUCE ANDERSON: So we all agree that we are talking about a Type action? 2ndication of Yes from everyone. ~RUCEANDERSON:i O.K. Components of the Application: ~Pplication for a wetlands permit, which is my understanding is ~at we are here for is a wetlands permit, must follow )rocedures described in SEQRA and'additional procedures outlined .n Chapter 97 of the Town Code. Previous application submission )Y the applicantis regarded as incomplete for a number of ~easons. Deficiencies in the application were discovered in the ~pplication form itself, the Environmental Assessment Form, Part ~, the submitted suruey and site plan, and the failure to submit [11 other necessary permits as required under Chapter 97 Section !1 Part J of the Town Code. ~ERLON WIGGIN: Will you list those? or will you later? ~USTEE BREDEMEYER: We will discuss those at length. It is on ~he-agenda item. I think some of this will have to be [iscussed. Not only in the light of the code requirement but also the possibility that other agency actions may be none jurisdictional. We will go into that later though. BRUCE ANDERSON: ~le following is a list of items that must be submitted as part of a complete application. I. A complete application form-signed and notarized by the applicant. For your information th? application that we have in the file was not signed, therefore ~s not complete. It is suggested that if the applicant has Chosen an agent to act on his behalf, then a statement authorizing the agent to do so also be submitted With the application. The authorizing statement will also enable the agent for the applicant to complete all other reqUired paperwork as part of ~he total application. 2. A complete Environmental Assessment Form (EAF, Part I)-. It is the responsibility of the applicant to submit a complete and accurate EAF as part of the overall application. There may be questions contained within the EAF From which do not pertain to the action as proposed. Any questions which fall into this category should be marked NA standing for not applicable. 3. The application must be accompanied with a survey prepared by a .New Yore State registered surveyor or a registered PrOfessional ~ngineer showing topography at one foot contours, the area at whi6h materials will be deposited or removed, all existing and proposed structures. Furthermore, the survey must show soundings Of the area in which operations are proposed to be conducted. These and other survey reqUirements are stated'in Chapter 97-21 (G)of the Town Code. hapter 97-22 provides for a waiver of the survey requirements. fthe applicant wishes that provisions under Article II 97-21D, G and J be waived in whole or in part, I recommend that such request be s~bmitted in writing and that the ~rust~esconsider such reqUestresponding back to the applicant in writing. The applicant must satisfy all other criterion as outlined under Section 97,21 of the Town Code~ Attached is a copy of those requirements. Now I assume you made copies of that. TRUSTEE BREDE~EYER: Copies are attached of 97-21 application. We don't go i~to any of the other standards such as 97-28 as far as permitting standards. It is just strictly.., the application material is all in this packet. BRUCE ANDERSON: O.K Everyone has that? Indication of Yes. BRUCE ANDERSON: 4. Chapter 44-5 of the Town Code (Environmental Quality Review) provides for the requirement of filing of a written statement by the appliCant. This sectionreads as follows, "For the purpose of assisting in the determination of whether an action may or will not have a significant effect on the environment, applicants for permits or other approvals shall file a written statement, with the town agency having jurisdiction setting forth, the name of the applicant, the location of the real property affected, if any, a description of the nature of the proposed action and the effect it may have on the environment. In addition, the applicant may include a detailed statement of the reasons why, in the applicant's view, the proposed action may or will not have a significant effect on the environment. If the action involves an application, the statement shall be filed simultaneously with the application for the action. The statement required herein shall be upon a form prescribed by the town and shall contain such additional relevant information as may be required. Such statement shall be accompanied by drawings, sketches and maps, if any, together with any other relevant explanatory material required by the town agency." Based upon this provision in the Town Code I recommend that a narrative and accompanying analysis be submitted by the applicant simultaneously with the completed application. Components of the Narrative and Analysis An Expanded Environmental Assessment The narrative and analysis for the project as proposed must Satisfy all requirements stated in Chapter 97 of the Town Code. The applicant may also wish to describe the benefits or positive aspects of the proposal particularly as it concerns local economics, improved public access to the waterways and safe navigation. It is my opinion that the nature of the potential environmental ~mpacts governing projects of this type may be divided into three general categories. They are: 1- the construction and dredging proposed; 2- Overland runoff into surface waters; and 3- The activities associated with marina operation and use. It is my understanding that construction activities are limited to the realignment and expansion of docks and boat slips and the refurbishing of rest room facilities for the use of the boating patrons. Permits issued for the realignment and expansion of the boat slips include conditions for mitigation of environmental impacts. The applicant may wish to discuss these conditions in terms of the mitigation already~required. The applicant has already been granted variousapprovals for the 2900 c~bic feet of dredging. Permits issued for the dredging have included conditions designed to mitigate impacts to the waterways. The applicant may wish to reiterate those conditions providing explanation as to how said impacts are actually mitigated. Finally, the fate of the material to be removed is germane to the question of dredging impacts. The applicant may therefore wish to discuss where this material will be deposited and how it will be retained in its future location° The applicant should state if he proposes to remove this material from the site. The concern of potential impacts resulting from overland runoff is directly linked to the drainage improvements as required in site plan approval. Mitigationof these impacts may be explained by the applicant referencing a site plan as approved by the Town Engineer and the Planning Board. A second area of concern is related to the runoff impacts caused by the powerwashing of boat bottoms. Modernmarina designs have mitigated this impact by constructing a concrete wash down platform having a central drain. The size of the platform having a central drain. The size of the platforms are usually determined by the size of the boats docked at the marina. It therefore would seem appropriate to discuss the length frequency of boats currently using the existing marina. A integrated into parking field drywells is becoming a typical design feature in the mitigation of this type of runoff impact. The applicant may wish to propose such a structure submitting a sketch of the structure as well as a narrative on how such a design actually mitigates this runoff impact. The potential for direct discharge of boat wastes into surface waters has received increasing attention from those who regulate marinas. Obviously, the potential for direct discharge depends upon the number of boats having holding tanks which can be discharged. It is recommended that the percentage of such vessels be extrapolated to include the probable number of boats which could discharge boat wastes. In doing so, it is possible to evaluate increased potential for discharge after the marina has been expanded. I further recommend that any and all slips provided for transient boaters be assumed to have direct discharge capabilities. It is my understanding that the applicant has proposed a pumpout facility for its boater patrons. A discussion of the disposal of collected pumpout wastes would therefore seem appropriate. I would add also that a location of this pumpout station should be sited on the survey. Direct discharges of boat wastes has also received increasing attention for those who regulate shellfishing. It would seem appropriate to discuss exactly how productive this and adjacent areas are in terms of shellfish. The present water quality status for shellfishing should likewise be stated. The harvesting of tainted shellfish from this~an~ adjacent areas is regarded as a serious health threat because clams and other shellfish are filter feeders. The National ShellfishSanitation Program Manual outlines control of areas used as marinas. I have included a copy of the section of the manual which pertains to shellfish closures. I recommend that the applicant determine the closure area around the marina as it exists today and compare that to future closure boundaries resulting from the expansion of the existing marina. In doing so, it will be possible to evaluate the environmental significance of the action as proposed. Following that I have taken out the section of the NSSP Manual which deals with the actual closer around marinas. If you turn to page five of that, they give you an example of how those calculations are done. What we have here is two cases. In case one we have the calculation that it would be in the event that no documentation of occupancy or discharge rates exist. In case two we have we have a different formula for case where the boat slip occupancy, population, holding tanks and pumpout facilities are documented. I am not sure which case pertains to Brick Cove Marina. I would have to leave that up to the applicant. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just as we go, as a historical reference, the Trustees have some positions and have done some work recently in the marina impact issue. One is that we have developed restrictive convenient which we have been filing with small marinas that boats that typically do not have toilets aboard. We are using that as tool for small boat marinas. To what extent that that type of a C & R could be used for some boats here, is debatable. We do have that C & R language available, so that the applicant can review it. That language has been sent to the DEC. They have not chosen to formally speak to that, although they seem grateful whenever we do keep toilets out of an area and we eliminate having have expanded closures. The other is that, the issue of a pumpo~t is a... I did generate a letter on behalf of the Board in general terms to a the Greenport Sewer District for their scavenger waste treatment plant, to find out if they would regularly except this waste, since there is some question that since many of the additives for recreational and boats to septic systems contain certain substances that can violate their discharge permits. My understanding is that Greenport has been taking these waste without any special pre-treatment. That is another~ issue that should possibly be looked into. The other possibility is that the County Health Department in developing an approved sanitary system or use of an existing system on site may require boat waste go to on site sub-surface sewage disposal systems where no hardship is shown. They typically like to keep all waste on site contained in sub-surface systems on site. That would have to be reviewed by the applicant in an approach to the County Health Department to find out whether they would allow trucking off site of pumpout waste held in a holding tank or it has to be entrained in the sewage., you know coming from other devices, you know from any of the toilets .... BRUCE ANDERSON: Do you have the letter, the Greenport... TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The letter to Greenport? BRUCE ANDERSON: Yea, do you have the response to that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have been awaiting a response and have not. I know the plant is involved in some consulting and some research know on that issue. The letter went out to a'day when apparently when the Town and the Village where have problems over their contracts. I suspect it is in a dead letter file some place. MERLON WIGGIN: The present review of the plan includes the boat waste. BRUCE ANDERSON: Includes what? MERLON WIGGIN: It includes the review of how to except marine waste. That report should be done about the middle of March. BRUCEANDERSON: O.K. So you think that that question can be answered. MERLON WIGGIN: Yes, but right know we could not answer that question. BRUCE ANDERSON: But in the middle of it could? MERLON WIGGIN: I would expect that is a good date, middle to late March. BRUCE ANDERSON: Is that a hardship for the applicant? MERLON WIGGIN: I don't think so. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: O.K. Mr. Anderson do want to say anything else about the report of the 7th before I went into discussion of... BRUCE ANDERSON: The issuance of shellfish, I am not sure I dealt with it in enough detail. Certainly you have to express what the status of Sage Basin is relative shellfish. My understanding is that it is seasonally closed. I also understand that the marinas survey as instituted by the DEC is an effort to refine exactly what the closure should be. I think it would be a good idea to obtain a map of Sage Basin, perhaps off the sewer topo maps(Suffolk County Topo maps) and determine exactly what that closure is as described as a radius in the final calculation of the formulas that I have given you. And then plot that on that map. Then plot what the radius would be after the expansion acures so we can judge what the significances of the expansion is in terms of shellfish. It maybe that the, I have not done the actual calculations, it maybe that Sage Basin is closed to shellfishing. Pursuant to the Calculation as it stands today so that the additional slips don't generate additional shellfish closure line that is meaningful. MERLON WIGGIN: Can we just talk about that for a second? The present DEC criteria with their radius includes all of Sage Basin. BRUCE ANDERSON: It does? MERLON WIGGIN: It does. It cover the whole thing with their large radius. Now DEC, I have not applied, as far as I know the new calCulations of the FDA...have they said that they will accept these? TRUSTEE BRED~NIEYER: They Will review them on a case by case basis. They arepresently involved with Sea Grant in sending out a marina questionnaire. We haven't had a.~chance to get involved in Southold other then getting copies of it. I think it remains to be seen. I think to the larger marinas they are going to be coming around. They have indicated in several communications with this office with respect to other pending applications that they would be willing to work through these on a case by case basis. M~ERLON WIGGIN: A few months ago they where still applying old c~iteria with distance, no matter what kind of boat they had or What kind of discharges they have. BRUCE ANDERSON: If you took at the formula, it allows you to distinguish that. MERLON WIGGIN: I know, but that is the prior formula. The DEC didn't use to use this formula because it wasn't available. BRUCE ANDERSON: I understand that, but we are not the DEC. We are here to evaluate what your project does. MERLON WIGGIN: I understand. The question was, will the DEC accept? BRUCE ANDERSON: I don't think that makes and difference in terms of how we handle the application. MERLON WIGGIN: It was just one question. The second question was, the formula itself. If you have~ for example, no transient boats and you control the.., there are no live valves, no discharges because that formula goes to zero and there is no closer. BRUCE ANDERSON: That is right. MERLON WIGGIN: And, as I understand that you feel that this is an unrealistic way to go and you want include ten percent no matter what the... BRUCE ANDERSON: I didn't say that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I indicated it in conversation with Merl the other day... MERLON WIGGIN: That is the second part of the question. Is there a minimum number or percent that you expect to be used no matter... TRUSTEES BREDEMEYER: Let me speak to that, because I attended a training session with the FDA and the DEC people. With respect to that, I believe there is a default rate of ten percent. When I gave you a copy of the FDA rule, I had indicated that it was my interpretation that the DEC would be discussing ten percent no matter what. Know with respect to the DEC reviewing suCh things I understand that if you...those cases where we already have had marinas with the C & R's and no toilets or "Y" valves, they indicated to me that there still will be an area closure that corresponds to the confines of the marina. They are not telling me how few boats you have to.have before they won't have a confine closer. That is currently, we have communications back and forth between this office. Certainly, at the level of boats you have there there will always be a closure within the outboard limits of the marina. Just to prevent against a possible unknown, they have still written off, as an unknown possible entrance into the water column and/oz the possibility that an individual boat came in that had a head for some reason mis~attached. MERLON WIGGIN: So if I understand, you would like to see the calculations no matter how good controlled, show ten percent. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can't say that definitely because that was may understanding from a conference that the DEC and the FDA people are talking to. The best thing to do is to confirm that with Charles DeQuilfeldt or Morean Davidson at the DEC directly. There is a certain amount of professional judgement involved here. I don't know if there is any leeway. The NSP, as ~ matter of fact the language right in the guideline does refer o best information, best professional judgement. So at some point they are looking at a hole picture after doing a calculation they would have some leeway. I don't know were leeway goes with DEC. BRUCE ANDERSON: Merl there may be a benefit in doing this in terms af if the DEC were to close the entire area and the calculations show that it really should not be closing the entire area. It could be a public benefit involved in that. MERLON WIGGIN: No question, but I am trying to be very specific as to what you are looking for as far as limitation on the calculations. Just to repeat again, I am just using a hypothetical example. Lets say the applicant/owner establishes a very stringent acceptance of the boats. There are no "Y" valves they cannot be in the marina and they inspect them periodically to make sure that nobody changes it and so forth. I count that one of the fozmula items becomes zero. That means there is a zero closure then. BRUCE ANDERSON: That is right, but regardless then you are looking at a closure within the confines. MERLON WIGGIN: That is what TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Accepting this ten percent figure, I don't know if they are going to impose it. Like I said I herd that... BRUCE ANDERSON: May I suggest that you talk to Charles deQuillfeldt, because he will tell you, I would assume that he could tell you very directly as to whether or not the ten percent. You might as well use that. If they have a policy, whether by professional judgement or not, I would think it would be in your best interest to apply that policy. MERLON WIGGIN: No question. I just want to' get clear in line distance as to what your expectation and latitude and so forth. BRUCE ANDERSON: I would like to see.., what I am ultimately getting at is, what effect would marina expansion have when shellfish closure show in Sage Basin. That is what I am getting at. MERLON WIGGIN: The basis is the new FDA formula and so on and so forth. BRUCE ANDERSON: That is right. MERLON WIGGIN: And you also mention transients. Again that has to be a judgement discission of the applicants whether he could allow zero transients or he can control transients or he could say that all transients are violators and come up with... BRUCE ANDERSON: I think you have to assume that because you don't have any control over people that may come in and rent a slip for a weekend or a week or wh&tever, MERLON WIGGIN: Other places are doing that. Like Rhode Island they are inspecting the boats so next yearyou are not going to anchor in those waters. BRUCE ANDERSON: That may be, but we don't have that control in ~New York. CHRIS KELLY: Who inspects them Merl? MERLON WIGGIN: I assume that when you come in and pick up a mooring or an anchor, Harbor Patrol is going to, local authority. That is my understanding, people are saying they are not going to Block Island because my boat is not equiped that way. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Block Island had a very serious problem with transientS and it was the same group that I had that seminar on, the North Eastern Technical Services Unit, NETSU of FDA, had done a very extensive dye test in the Harbor. From that they developed a management plan to minimize and reduce the shellfish related impacts. They are talking about 1000 boats a weekend sometimes. MERLON WIGGIN: Because you lack the means of enforcement, all transients, as far as the formula, potential violators. BRUCE ANDERSON: Yes, I think that is realistic. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Town does not have sufficient Bay Constable coverage in this Town to even suggest that we could give routine checkon something like that. MERLON WIGGIN: So this becomes a function of the nUmber of transient slips? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:.Right. It also becomes a function of record keeping. BRUCE ANDERSON: To put it back into prospective, the NSSP manual as I understand it, does not deal with the existing quality of the water. What they are looking at is the potential of for degradation. That is what all this is about. The water could be completely prestein, it could be fantastic. There is always that potential that someone is going to from their boat and that passengins can be released in that discharge and someone can dig up a clam and eat it and be sick. That is what it is all about. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is an in water sampling station at the entrance of Sage Basin which has been tested fairly rigorously now for abOut two and a half years as a result of the DEC's new mandate under the NSSP manual. BRUCE ANDERSON: Yes, but it would still not... TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I am just, with respect to developing discussion. Like you said, it is two different issues. I shouldn't try to Confuse them at this point. We are talking about potential closure, but there is in water data available for the entrance where heretofor had not been available at a level sufficient for regulatory discissions. Mr. Flynn? FRANK FLYNN: We are not concerned with the water conditions in the Peconic Bay, We are concerned with water conditions within the Sage Estuary. There is a presice difference between the two and the water study should be confined within the basin. As a matter of fact were you to inquire you would find out that theShell fishing is much more acti~e~within the Sage Estuary th~n offshore locations in the Peconic Bay. That is a uery germain polnt. TRUSTEE BREDE~EYER: The level of shellfishing definitely comes under the discussion here on shellfishing. FRANK FLYNN:.Water quality out in Peconic Bay has no bearing on the waterlquality in Sage Estuary. TRUSTEE BREDESIEYER: No what I said is the station is at the entranCe. That is germane because the nature of tidal flow particularly those dates and times on discharge from the basin and particularly at peak low tides and with northeast and northwest winds would be readings substantial, substantially what the water quality of the basin is. FRANK FLYNN: If this project constricts tidal flow within the basin obviOusly it has an effect. One of the most ridiculous statements in this entire procedure, and I say this on the basis of forty years experience, is for anybody to say that floating- docks improve water Circulation. I will take you to any number of marinas when they have floating docks and they serve to confine the effluent within the area, rather than promote its circulation. MERLON WIGGIN: A question going back on the shellfish. This question comes up based on some~recent studies done in Connecticut and other states that have been concerned about the quality of water within the marinas. They have found in a large number of cases that even when the boats are doing everything they are supposed to be doing, they still are contaminating waters primarily from runoff. And there is considerable amount of surface runoff in Sage Basin that is not connected with the marina. One of the studies actually done in here, the only coliform counts that they found during that testing was on the opposite side of the marina. BRUCE ANDERSON: That would be proper to make that point. I know the national urban runoff program sites something like ninety three percent of shellfish closure are due to this runoff phenomena. There is no argument there. What we are talking about here is the potential. MERLON WIGGIN: I was leading up to a question. That really... BRUCE ANDERSON: No matter how good or how bad the quality is, what is in this manual here determines bureaucratically, whether you like it or not, what the closure will be. MERLON WIGGIN: Let me just qualify that. I assume we would not expect the applicant, owner of the marina to establish the source of water contamination outside his area? BRUCE ANDERSON: No, but it may be to your advantage to state that. It is perfectly proper. MERLON WtGGIN: I just want to clarify that who's responsibility this might be to determine the source. BRUCE ANDERSON: That is right. I, frankly, agree because the n~ture of compounds are, in my opinion, sporadic and possibly a~ute. The more pernicious inputs of coliform into a system, based on all the studies I have read and all the analysis that I have performed are more of an over land runoff phenomena. It is completely proper to say that and I believe accurate accurate. MERLON WIGGIN: O.K BRUCE ANDERSON: That still doesn't alleviate the responsibility of doing what we say here.. This is coming down the pipe, like it or not. ~IEP~ON WIGGIN: Please, I wasn't even implying that that was... BRUCE ANDERSON: It may be a very small problem. I think in most cases it is. Particularly in small boat marinas where there is no opportunity for discharge. So how much coliform can result from direct discharge? Very little. However, what is the potential is a completely different thing altogether. That is what the NSSP manual attempting to get at. MERLON WIGGIN: O.K. I just want to,get some clarification as to... BRUCE ANDERSON: No, you are on target. MERLON WI~GIN: O.K. BRUCE ANDERSON: I do think a graphic portrayal of what the closure is now verses what it would be is, can be useful. Not just for me, but the Board. Also how many shellfish are we talking about. Are we talking about five clams or are we talking abut five hundred'bushels of clams. Obviously that should have an effect on the decision reached by the Board as to whether this pro]ect will or will not have a significant impact. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it should and it shouldn't. We have to guard against the one clam. If there is one clam there being taken and eaten. BRUCE ANDERSON: No, what I am saying is resource quantity. Everyone talking at once. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: O.K. To go back to the outline for tonight's meeting. Item Number 3. Discussion of what constitutes complete application: You can refer directly to the copy of the code which is attached 97-21. Most administrative agency require two foot contour's presently in application to make permitting decisions. I understand that the previous survey that was s~bmitted for property was two foot contours and I have not had a ~hance to review, but I just got a copy from the Planning Board of the approved drainage. It may have been based on that basis also. Apparently there was a sign off by the Town Engineer on the drainage calculation and drainage. I believe with respect to whether it be one or two foot contours provided that the drainage calculations have been reviewed by a licensed engineer that might serve as the basis for a waiver on that individual point after a request from the applicant for that. Howsver, that also, just jumping ahead. ~I will get to it, but just briefly. That would mean establishing that the drainage plan is one in the same as what you would be moving forward with to get site plan approval at this time. In other words if there is any change to the site plan approval, it might effect drainage. Than that... (inaudible, moving papers) waiver of the one foot contours. BRUCE ANDERSON: Is that the approved drainage plan? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I hadn't had a chance. I believe it is because the~Planning Board sent it up. I guess the plan was signed. ANTHONY TOHILL: It was signed prior to the law suit and that was one of the things that was nullified by th~law .suit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are claiming the site plan is nullified by the law suit? For factual? CHANGED TAPE. BRUCE ANDERSON: Did you get site plan approval? MERLON WIGGIN: Yes on September 15, 1988. TRUSTEE BREDES~_2~: The signed Engineer report will remain in fact if the'new site plan .... two people talking at once and moving papers. We can not declare lead agency without having a complete application. We have really take a complete step back here. We have decided that we will take a much more literal approach on the application. BRUCE ANDERSON: There is one point I would just like to make. tt is up to the Board. I work as a consultant to the Board. What I was suggesting was a wash down p~atform with central d rain encatchment to the overflow, linked to existiag parking catchment. As apposed to an overflow to the water. It seems to me that the drainage approvals should take in account that wash down~ TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course, that wouldn't be acceptable to the Board to have that drainage wash down overflow into the surface water. BRUCE ANDERSON: Yes, but it has to go somewhere. Now you have a travel lift here? Is that what this is? MERLON WIGGIN: Yes. BRUCE ANDERSON: Alright, so the boats come in, you pull the boat up. It rolls onto what could be a platform at your suggestion or the Board's requirement. This as it rolls it up will roll it up onto a concrete platform at your suggestion again or at the Board's requirement. It would go into a drain and the overflow would have to go somewhere. Where does it go? M~RLON"WIGGIN: i can't remember the details, but it would go int6 the drains leaching system. BRUCE ANDERSON: Where is the leaching system? (INAUDIBLE, PAPERS MOVING) ALBERT !KRUPSKI: Inaudible...drain underneath. It is not necessary to have an overflow...two people talking at once. BRUCE ANDERSON: The only thing that I would say is that you are dealing with a low water table. We are also dealing with an unknown as to what that capacity really is. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Absolutely. BRUCE ANDERSON: So I am suggesting a safety valve, if you will. MERLON ,WIGGIN: Here is the catch basin here, this is the l~aching area and here is the connection here. BRUCE ANDERSON: Alright, this is a French drain. ~nat was my impression. MER~ON WIGGIN: It is a perforated drain and this is the collection. This is an excavated area to go with course material. BRUCE ANDERSON: It is a ditch with gravel and perforated pipe. Isn't ~hat correct? Adjacent to the waters edge. MERLON WIGGIN: That is right. With an intercepting berm here. This is the collection here and this is where the catch basin...two people talking at once. ~RUCE ANDERSON: You are free to explain that~and you~are free to make that point. It will up to the Board to determine whether that is adequate. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There where prior discussions on prior application or studies done. MERLON WIGGIN: The Town Engineer had reviewed this and had us make a lot of changes to it and they are made. The DEC reviewed it and had us make more changes and they where made. ~RUCE ANDERSON: I am not trying to jag your wires here, but I am just suggesting that it would seem that you would want to move this away from the water. MERLONWIGGIN: This was to collect the primary of the parking lot runoff which no runs overboard the surface wa~ers. The slope of the land, as you see from the contours, is all towards the surface of the basin. Without restructurinq the whole landscape and changing away from it. The only area to pick up ~that service runoff, intercept it and stop it, is at the edge of the basin. BRUCE ANDERSON: So you are saying that there is no opportunity for a sub-surface catchment of that. MERLON WIGGIN: It is all clay. BRUCE ANDERSON: O.K. Please make that point. I will tell you this. In marina's that I have had a hand in designing, what we have done is put contour platform that is sized in relation to the boat that it services. For the second drain, what we have done is move the other one back away from the water into what is essential another septic ring. In fact in the case most recently we have interconnecting septic ring, parking designs. MERLON WIGGIN: That is not the logical case here. BRUCE ANDERSON: Please make that point. MERLON WIGGIN: We felt that at the time we did this that the major possible contributor to the service contamination from runoff was all the parking in the upland area. Because of the clay nature. The length of this whole area was intercepted, WhiCh is perhaps unusual. I don't think you will see another marina that has that. BRUCE ANDERSON: I don't think so either. MERLON WIGGIN: Which means everything from this whole site is intercepted from this point all the way across to here. That is a~lot more water. BRUCE ANDERSON: I suggest very strongly that you go into detail. MERLON WIGGIN: That is a lot more water than the wash down from the boats. Volume wise. BRUCE ANDERSON: Yes, volume wise that is true. Concentration wise, maybe not. MERLON WIGGIN: We can sample and discuss it. BRUCE ANDERSON: We don't need to do that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: O.K. Is it clear so... the Board is a position to consider the specific 1',2' waiver with an engineering basis on that. MERLON WIGGIN: We can request that? TRUSTEES BREDEMEY~: Yes, that is what I am saying. We would give it consideration. It would be logical. Discussions on the need forsurvey by a licensed land surveyor or~.E., wetland line, all other items in 97-21. We should have a up to date licensed land survey showing all the structures on the property. There should be affixed to it, the current wetland line, if there had been any changes. This placing of wetland lines now is the policy of the Board wherever we have the need for outside consulting, such as Mr. Anderson. It is done on all reviews weare presently doing. We do conduct reviews of applications as well as proposed subdivision applications through the Planning Board. We require it on all just to verify that vegetative wetlands aren't going to receive undo alteration. MERLON WIGGIN: The present licensed survey of the property does not include the Trustees wetland delineation because it was done by the surveyor not by the Trustees. So you will do this and we will put it on the survey. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Anderson will have to flag it and the surveyor... BRUCE ANDERSON: This is the map we have. My understanding, I may be totally off base. Inaudible, maps rustling..~what we have here is not a survey. I don't see a stamp. MERLON WIGGIN: There is a separate drawing with just a survey. BRUCE ANDERSON: The Van Tuyl survey? MERLON WIGGIN: Yes. BRUCE ANDERSON: The Van Tuyl survey shows no topo nor does it show all the structures. Nor does it show any of the proposed structures. MERLON WIGGIN: This was Young's survey. BRUCE ANDERSON: Is it signed? Is it stamped? ANTHONY TOHILL: No. MERLON WIGGIN: I am sure we can get those. We should not have himback there again until you flag the wetlands? BRUCE ANDERSON': Right. It depends. What we have here is a map showing 2' contours. My understanding is you can either prepare a survey with 1' contours~ You may request in writing to the Board, a waiver to that requirement. It seems to me that you must do that Eirst, to find out what the survey requirements would actually.beJ When you get that answer and it is the BOards discisslon~ then it would seem appropriate to contact me and~I will flag the wetlands. Which is no ~ig deal in this case.: I have seen the wetlands. It is a very neat job. MERLON~WIGGIN': O.K. I just wanted to verify that we shouldn't hav~ithe survey come back until you flag the wetlands and the contour lines :have been determined. TRUSTEE BREDE~EYER: A1 just asked to make sure that there is a proposed...in other words show the proposed on the map as well. Ithink the final grade will come under the site plan approval under the planning Board. BRUCE ANDERSON: I will tell you. Some people do a survey of eXisting and they do another survey of proposed. Others combine the two. The advantage of combining the two I would assume is the cost savings on the applicants part. It may be the adVantage to do two separate surveys, one existing, one proposed. It might make it more clear. That is up to you. We can. not require one way or the other. TRUSTEE ERUPSKI: I don't think it matters. ANTHONY TOHILL: I think in this case. As I recall some of the docks, the jay it is reconfigured, it gets very confusing if you have'the existing and the proposed on the same map~ It might be e!p~ul to do the two. RUCE ANDERSON: It might be. It really is the applicants di~cission. It might be a matter of cost. TRUSTEE BREDE~EYER: O.K. Discussion of requirement 97-21-J with respect to Planning Board and Suffolk Health Department and information necessary to determine jurisdiction or issue'97-21-I waiver. LARRY PENNY: Excuse me Mr. Bredemeyer. On the map of the contours, what about the underwater lands and the existing state. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it should be on there. BRUCE ANDERSON: That is a good point. I understand you own the Underwater land. It would seem then, logical that you show the boundaries of your property and I think it would be very helpful if you show who the adjacent properties are. Not only on land, butmaybe underwater land as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which is important because dredging is proposed. ANTHONY TOHILL: Larry, is that what you where saying? TRUSTRR BREDEMEYER: He was asking to clarify. ANTHONY TOHILL: Soundings? BRUCE ANDERSON: That is another point. ANTHONY TOHILL: We have three points on the table now. TRUSTEE BREDESIEYER: He means part of the survey package and the 1' contours, does the Board extend this. The interpretation of the Board that that is also for underwater land. Yes it is. BRUCE ANDERSON: Right, but Larry also mentioned soundings. I believe the code specifies soundings as well. We want to have this thing really follow the code. We have two points the boundaries of the underwater land plus the soundings. ANTHONY TOHILL: Plus the boundary owners. BRUCE ANDERSON: O.K. Three points. Plus the soul, dings because that is in the code. ANTHONY TOHILL: ~e soundings either at the 1' or 2' depending upon the Boards outcome of a request on that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. BRUCE ANDERSON: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As well as the proposed depth of the dredging. BRUCE ANDERSON: What is before and what is after, is what we are getting at. FRANK FLYNN: I would just like to co~,~ent that I don't know whether Mr. Anderson is aware that approximately 80% of the bottom of the Sage Estuary is owned by owners other then the marina. BRUCE ANDERSON: Well, that would come out in the survey then. That is why we are asking for it. ~ FLYNN: But the impact has to be measured in the context. BRUCE ANDERSON: Right, I understand this. TRUSTEE BREDEME~ER~ Discussion f requirement 97-21-J with respect to Planning Board and Suffolk Health Department and information necessary to determine jurisdictio~ or issue 97-21-I waiver. In the code 97-21-J Documentary proofof all the necessary permits and approvals have been obtained. It is impossible to conduct the SEQRA review and show that you have obtained otherpermits; is a practical problem with the Code. In order to show that there is a good faith attempt to SEQRA the Board ordinarily without any special resolution confirms that there is current application with the same materials and the same basis before the various involved agencies. In this case it may well be that the application to the Health Department for change to the sanitary system, if any are envisionSd, may be beyond the ~oard of Town Trustees 75' jurisdiction. Typically sanitary systems on commercial properties are over 100' from the water therefore a submission to the. Health Departmen~ if showed all structures beyond our coordination under SEQRA with the Health ~Depa~tment might merely be a coordinating letter stating that we would like to be notified if per chance structures would have to go within 75'. In other words we would be out, it would be non-jurisdictional. Likewise with the Planning Board. An application for site plan approval and the drainage approval may have all the major elements of the building structures more then 75' away and as such that maybe only the drainage plan would be jurisdictional. Just as a matter of simplifyin~ processing on that. In that case there wo~ld be, again, a possibility that you could request a waiver with using the provisions of the code. CHRIS KELLY: I don't think you can do that because if you end up being lead agency, which sounds like you are going to end up doing, you have to take the whole projec~ into account from a SEQRA point of view and not from a substance point of view. You are going tO have to do findings on the whole thing. TRUSTEE BREDEbSUfER: Good point. ANTHONY TOHILL: I don't think that is what Jay is saying. What Jay is saying is that... TRUSTEE BREDE~EYER: I am talking about the form of the application. ANTHONY TOHILL: Jay can put an applicant in a position where in order to comply with SEQRA ... TRUSTEE BRED~: He has to violate SEQRA. ANTHONY TOHILL: y~s, you would have to get approvals without reference to SEQRA. TRUSTEE BREDEME¥~R: It says here that I can't even go, what we are discussing know, having a complete application. Section J states, it iS a catch 22, that the applicant has to get other permits. WhiCh we know he can't do without coordinating. I had requested that this be removed under the previous Board and no one could understand why I wanted this section removed and just go with classic SEQRA. The Towns Chapter 44-97. It comes clear when~ you discuss in length as to the problem that we put the applicant in o~ this. ANTHONY TOHiSL. So you are not advocating that any other aPPlication~be i~nQred but instead, as Chris is pointing out, a~d~esSed. EX~e~ ithat you don't have the permit in your hand because You.can't do it? BRUCE ANDERSON!: TonY, if that is the case then you are talking about a waiver, Which the code allows for. It~must~be made in writin¢ would also submit the application and (to other any preliminary findings that you had. Like the sePtic will take place outside of SEQRA. ANTHONY TOHIAL: Right. O.K. I agree. BRUCE ANDERSON: D0 yOU follow that? TRUSTEE BRED~: Can you just repeat again? BRUCE ANDERSON: In other words~ what I am saying is that you have on one'hand the question of getting permits from other agencies, in case the Health Department, you have your wetlands ord that extends 75' from the waters edge. You have your SEQRA ordinance and you have your waive~ request. If he is to proceed with the Health Department approval for a modification of a ~eptic system and if that. sentic s~stem is outside 75', then he should submit the application plus a letter from the Health D~partment indicating that it is out side that jurisdiction plus the waiver, before the Board decides whether to waive the business of having to get a completed Health Department permit or not. (prior to any Trustee approvals). TRUSTEE BRR~EMEYER: What he is saying is that you can't ignore it because it is SEQRA, if you took the lead agency. BRUCE ANDERSON: But you are not ignoring it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are not. At least you are looking at it. You might develope the case that anbther agency should be lead agency through this process. I tend to doubt it. ANTHONY TOHILL: Right. That would be your only solution. BRUCE ANDERSON: The Board has to decide ultimately whether or not to grant you a waiver or not. TRUSTEE B~DEMEYER: There are two kinds of waivers. There is a waiver waiving specific items in the application. One on the engineering data. There is a blanket waiver possible for any activity in the adjacent zone, wherein the Board feels that it will not have an'impact. It would be impractical to even consider it for this application. This is not that kind of an application. O.K. 94. Local and State Environmental Quality Review: additional requirements/clarification of Long Environmental Assessment forms (L.E.A.F.) form ~2 above (if necessary). I just read through the items to them. There were specific questions/items on the L.E.A.F. completed. We asked that the applicant address them item by item and to have that information complete for the review of the L.E.A.F. BRUCE ANDERSON: Is that clear? ANTHONY:TOHILL: Yes. MERLON WIGGIN: We were asked to revise and re-submit that back June. I am assuming now that you would like to start over 'again and start brand new... BRUCE ANDERSON: What I ~m saying is I want it perfect. Absolutely' Perfect. ~ERLON WIGG1N: O.K. TRUSTEE BREDES~E~ER: At this time if the Board wishes to entertain a vote specifically endorsing the report of Mr. Anderson, they could. Given the length of discussion we have had just to affirm his report and what we have asked. I don~t see a need for a vote on any other item here at this time. I would make a motion to approve the reco,u,endations as discussed at the meeting as dated February 3, 1991 and February 7, 1991. TRUSTEE F/{UPSKI: Second. AYES: BREDE~EYER, KRUPSKI, TUTHILL TRUSTEE BREDEME~ER: The Board of Trustees had set special meeting dates to continue in this process. BRUCE ANDERSON: I think we are finished. ANTHONY TOHILL: We are finished and it is in our court now. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Absolutely, BRUCE ANDERSON: What we are here to do, is to discuss a complete applications.~ Does everyone understand what a complete application is? EVERYONE SAID YES. BRUCE ANDERSON: Complete application the waiver question all submitted simultaneously, so we have a package in front of us that says this is the application plus the request for the waiver. At that point it seems to me that the Trustees go to a formal vote in a regular meeting as to whether to accept or deny the waivers. If the Trustees deny the waivers, then we still don't have a complete application. Then you have to go and get these permits and approvals and then you come back with the complete application. ANTHONY TOHILL: No, then we would go to court at that point, because the court has already ruled that site plan approval by the Planning Board is inadequate because you don't have the environmental review. You are establishing yourselves as lead agent. We are in virtual catch-22. Unless there is a waiver in which you condition~ somehow, any further processing by this Board on your receipt of our actually filing the application which then go into a stalled position with any other agency which needs to review it. So that the Town Board, hopefully, will see that this is impossible-to work with and they will say something to the effect that the application to you for this kind of approval or permit has to be accompanied by an application to any other agency requiring regulatory approval with any aspect of the job. So that you can see the whole picture from a SEQRA side. Otherwise, whoever drew that didn't ever do this. BRUCE ANDERSON: You are talking about the site plane? ANTHONYTOHiLL: Site plan, Health Department, DEC, Army Crop. I think the list is even longer than that. HOWARD ZEHNER: The site plan being the Planning Board? ANTHONY TOHILL: That is correct. Different agency. You would have to, in effect, give us that waiver because if any other thing you are, in effect, putting us into outerspace. You are shooting yourselves in the foot as a matter of fact. BRUCE ANDERSON: O.K. At that point we have-a complete application to go to E.A.F. Part II, we route it to the C.A.C. and we coordinate the review. Then after that point arrive at "Does the project have or does not have a significant impact on the environment". If it does, then we say so based on findings and what not, we complete the positive declaration, we go to a scoping and we know that route. If we that is not the case then we SEQRA is effectively completed and we go towards and approval. That is about the way I see it. ANTHONY TOHILL: Yes. I see it the same way. TRUSTEE BRF~EMEYER: O.K. Future Trustee meetings, I want to bring the Board into a vote to discontinue the Other meetings that we had set up. I move that the special meetings not be held. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. AYES: EREDEMEYER, KRUPSKI, TUTHILL TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With respect to the future meetings of the Board we have a regular meeting schedule which I believe we can now, we could at any time the materials are ready, can commence consideration for request for waivers or completeness of application and such and go into the regular meeting Schedule. Since the Board regularly holds field surveys once a month as well as a regular meeting. We have gotten into the habit now of doing a short business meeting at the conclusion of field surveys, so if necessary and with sufficient advanced notice we can publish that as an additional meeting date~ Typically those meetings would run from around 11:00 am to 12:00 pm. The clerk has made a copy for everyone so those who wish to attend the meeting could...these are fixed meeting dates. Mr. Flynn? MR. FLYNN: I gather we have a new application here and we haven't had a chance to go over Mr. Andersons report. I believe we can probably respond directly to Mr. Anderson with any criticism of his report any data that we can supply or any criticism of subsequent submissions by the applicant? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it might be most appropriate that any criticisms you might should be directed to the Board in writing in response to an application we might have before us and then... MR. FLYNN: With copy to Mr. Anderson. TRUSTEE BREDE~EYER: Mr. Anderson is a contracted employee of the Trustees and I think if you address the chair we would automatically send him a copy as well as Mr. Tohill and Mr. Wiggin. We are getting uniform now on stuff like this. With respect to orderly processing I think we can see that there would be an opportunity to comment with respect to the application and would have to be considered. The Towns SEQRA Ordinance specifically calls for meetings formal and informal, Part 6-17 of the New York State Code and regulations. MR. FLYNN: As long as we have ample time to respond, that is Perfsctly satisfying. Now, the other question. May I jump the gun here? I think it is per ordained that you are to be the lead agent? Ami right in that assumption? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: By default if nothing else. ~iR. FLYNN: In what context do you intend to review this application? I presume in terms of SEQRA. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What context? The law. MR. FLYNN: Yes, but the specific portions of the law being SEQRA? BRUCE ANDERSON: 97 and 44 being SEQRA. MR. ~FLYNN: Yes. And the Town Code? TRUSTEE'BREDEMEYER: The Town Code...We have authority, we have an obligation to review an'application under..Chapter 44 which is the Town SEQRA Ordinance, the umbrella part 617 of the State SEQRA andChapter 97 of the Town Wetlands Ordinance. That is the limit, of our jurisdiction on this site. MR. FLYNN: Now you introduced this mismanagement practices. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We would have an opportunity to discuss that as part of the application or if you want to specifically comment on that. I think there is a discussion here on Mr. Andersons... MR. FLYNN: Yes, we have not had time to absorb that it. The final thing is that I presume that you will consider this in context of the Water Front Revitalization Program criteria. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, because the Coastal Zone ~rogram is run by the New York State Department of State. They have already issued a certificate of consistency for the projecs. If the project as re-applied for is not at variance with the application already reviewed by them, I see no reason at all for them to do another review. And at this time there is no approved Southold Town Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. MR. FLYNN: I realize that. On the other hand if the Town of Southold expects to obtain any funds from the State they have to... TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is specifically with respect to a separate issue of the Town. The Town is in process through other offices and several consultants of developing alocal waterfront revitalization plan. It is totally beyond the scope of this application to deal with it. The DOS has already looked at there 44 policies. When we get done plugging in the amount of questions developed here and the full site plan review, discussion of any items that are pertinent from the marina best practices list we are probably talking far away and above 44 policies. Which I must say in my experience are overly general. They are really not that applicable. We are talking about a serious review here. DOS does not get into such things as area closures and boater loads and wash downs... MR. FLYNN: No, but their marina criteria get into considerable...with respect to dredging and access... I can site 16 instances from their marina criteria which would apply to this property. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It is just not the time for that now. Not to say that it would be in the future when the Town has its own local waterfront revitalization plan, then we would have to review it in the context of what a Town law might be if we had one on it. CHRIS KELLY: When a complete application is submitted, will we get notified when it is going to show up on an agenda? You have been very good at giving us a call. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. O~K. If there are no further items with respect to this matter, I have two off agenda items for the Board of Trustees in relation to other matters. Ail left except members of the Board. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Information on the US/UK stuartship exchange. Albert Krupski and John Tuthill will attend US/UKmeetings and be the Board designees of the Board. A motion was made by TRUSTEE BREDE~EYER and seconded by TRUSTEE TUTHILL issue a waiver with regard to Mr. Zeidler removing stone subject to Bay Constable inspection and all items as per letter of 2/5/1991. On a motion made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE TUTHILL the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted by, Bill M. Thorp, Clerk ~ard of Trustees RE IVED AND FILED THE SOUTHOLD TOWN Town Clerk, Town of