Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/14/1991 TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, 1II, President Henry P. Smith, Vice President Albert J. Kmpsld, Jr. John L. Bednoski, Ir. 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 MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1991 PRESENT WERE: John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Henry P. Smith, Vice-President Albert J. Krupski, Jr. Trustee John L. Bednoski, Jr., Trustee John B. Tuthill, Trustee WORKSESSION: 6:00 P.M. CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: Thursday, December 12, 1991 at 7P.M. WORKSESSION: 6:00 P.M. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Thursday, December 5, 1991 at 8:00 A.M. I. MONTHLY REPORT: Trustees monthly report for October 1991: A check for $4,363.53 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: 1. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JOSEPH CORNACCHIA request to amend permit application to provide for the dredging of the channel at south end of the lagoon so that it opens to Shelter Island Sound. Located Kimberty Lane, Southold. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI to accept the amendment to the application. ALL AYES. 2. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of RENATO STARCIC request amendment to permit 93926 to allow the outer 56 lf. of fixed walk to be 2~ from bottom of decking to MHW rather than 4'. Located on ROW off Oaklawn Ave., Southold. '~Bo~rd of Trustees 2 November 14,1991 A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI to approved amendment to this permit. ALL AYES. 3. THOMAS GRALTON - Trustee Smith request this matter be held until he gets to the meeting. A motion was made by TRUSTEE TUTHIL and seconded by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI to move TRUSTEE SMITH's request. AYES: TUTHILL, BEDNOSKI, BREDEMEYER. ABSTAIN: KRUPSKI. 4. John Bertani on behalf of WILLIAM AH~f3TY request a waiver to add 10' to rear waterside of an existing residence. Located at Bayshore Road, Greenport. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE TUTHILL to grant a waiver provided that the applicant provides drywells to contain roof runoff and a debri fence at or near the bulP~head. ALL AYES. 5. Frank DeNicolo, Jr. on behalf of ROBERT MCGUIRE request a waiver to construct 24' X 24' garage attached to existing house. Located on North Parish Drive, Southold. After a discussion a motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI to deny waiver and request a full permit. The Board feels a need for a landscape plan, drywells on both sides of the garage and a better haybale line. (The Board has to many questions). ALL AYES. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: No Hearings. V. ASSESSMENTS/ESV~IRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: 1. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JOSEPH CORNACCHIA to construct 308+,/- 1.f. of bulkhead within 18" of existing functional bulkhead and maintenance dredge 3900 +/- c.y. of material from naturally filled channel to depth of 4~ below MHW including under foot bridge. Located at Kimberly Lane, Southold. After discussion a motion was made by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI to table the application for updated information and to see if bulkhead can be placed inkind/inplace. ALL AYES. VI. RESOLUTIONS: 1. Board to set the following public hearings for the December 12, 1991 regular meeting: a. CostellO Marine Contracting on behalf of Draqutin Gobic to construct a 3 1/2' X 50' catwalk, 32" X 20' aluminum ramp, 6' X 20' float dock and (2) 2-pile support dolphins subject to receipt of letters from the adjoining neighbors approving project. Located Hobart Lane,Southold. b. Orr Associates on behalf of EUGENE BECHTLE request permit for the construction of a 3' X 138' catwalk, 3' X ~Board of Trustees 3 November 14,1991 12' ramp and a 4' X 12' float. Located 2120 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI set the above applications for public hearings next month as long as all information is in. ALL AYES. 2. ANNETTE CAMPBELL request grandfather permit for a 4' X 180' dock 2' above ~ as indicated on application. Located at Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI to approve application. ALL AYES. 3. Board to review Bruce Anderson's report on field inspection of October 3, 1991 and revised survey submitted by applicant dated October 9, 1991 with regard to the application of DONNA MCDONALD located at Bayview Road, Southold. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI to approve report of Bruce Anderson and revised survey of applicant which brings project out of Trustee jurisdiction. ALL AYES. (TRUSTEE SMITH ARRIVED) 4. Board to review Bruce Anderson's report dated July 1, 1991 with regard to the subdivision application of THOMAS MONSELL LOCATED AT Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconde, d~by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI to table approval of report. Trustee Krupski will talk to Mr. Anderson with regard to the description of property. ALL AYES. 5. BRICK COVE MARINA: A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE BEDNOSKI to move this matter to the end of meeting because, of the length of review° ALL AYES. VII. MOORINGS/DUCK BLINDS: i. ANTE LONIC request offshore/onshore stake with pulley for a 15' rowboat in order to get to boat at mooring $895 located Goose Creek subject to receipt of $78.00 annual fee for mooring and if approved $22.50 annual fee for stake. A motion was made by TRUSTEE SMITH and seconded by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI to approve stake. ALL AYES. This will close area for anymore stakes. 2. KEITH BRINKMAN request mooring in East Creek for a 23' Penn Yan with a mushroom anchor. Access: Permission from mother-in-law, property located at 1075 Harbor Lane, C~tchogue. A motion was made by TRUSTEE SMITH and seconded by TRUSTEE TUTHILL to approve mooring with no less than 100 pound mushroom. ALL AYES. ~' ~Boa~rd of Trustees 4 November 14,1991 3. JAMES FOGARTY request duck blind in West Creek. Access Town Road. (See next request). 4. CARL VAIL Iii request duck blind in West Creek in same location requested by James Fogarty. Both applied same day. Carl has had his duck blind in this location for six years. James has also been hunting there for several years. After discussion a motion was made by TRUSTEE SMITH and seconded by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI to grant approval to Carl Vail III subject to getting permission from Mr. Wickham and maintained and remove at end of season. ALL AYES. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE SMITH to table the application of James Fogarty and put on waiting listo ALL Ak~ES. THOMAS GRALTON AND OTHERS request amendment to permit 43845 to add 2'6" X 10' ramp and 4' X 16' float to a 4' K 12' dock. Located at Stillwater Ave., Cutchoque. After a discussion with all the property owners, 8 for and t against, a motion was made by TRUSTEE SMITH and seconded by TRUSTEE TUTHILL to deny waiver and request full application as amendment is to big to grant on a grandfather permit for this particular area~ To coordinate with DEC and Army Corp. ROW situation. AYES: SMITH, TUTHILL, BREDEMEYER. NAY: BEDNOSKI. ABSTAIN: KRUPSKt. BRICK COVE MARINA: The following was read into the record and discussed prior to approval; Bruce Anderson Environmental Consultant "i I'OWR OF SOUIHO[B October 29, 1991 John Bredemeyer, President Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Brick Cove Marina Dear Mr. Bredemeyer, As you are aware, I attended both the meetings on Brick Cove marina in which the Board declared a negative declaration and held a public hearing. I have considered all comments raised in connection with this project and can find no comments which support a reversal of the Board's finding of negative deciarati'on for the Brick Cove Marina Project. The Board should be aware that the EAF process is one that is designed to "help applicants and agencies determine in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant." The Board should also be aware that the evaluation of the project through the EAF process does not require that the evaluator be an expert in all areas. In considering the comments raised in opposition of the project, I can understand some of the confusion expressed in connection with the EAF forms. The issue of the size of the wetlands is one such area. The EAF Part 1 estimated the size of the wetlands to be 0.1 acres. This estimate is based on the area of vegetated tidal wetlands. Underwater lands was not considered, but there presence should be obvious. Impacts to underwater lands including associated wildlife were examined in detail in both the EAF part 2 and part 3 process. Those analyses indicated that the impacts to underwater lands were not sufficiently important as to require an Environmental Impact Statement. Concerns expressed regarding boat storage were likewise expressed. It is my opinion the impacts associated with boat storage are neither significant nor important. It is inconceivable that the storage of boats would effect to a significant and important degree the ecology of the surrounding environments and the environment itself. This includes the aesthetics of the site as most of the boats Would be stored in the southern portion of the parcel and 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 the landscaping of the parcel would soften visual impacts to the site. The issue of the width of the canal, creek, or bay fronting the property of % to 2 miles as submitted by the applicant in the application form for wetlands permit referred to the distance across Southold Bay. The EAF form Part 1 indicates the size of Sage Basin. This should not have been a source of confusion as the parcel is located on a peninsula. The issue of traffic as addressed in the EAF process represents disagreement from those opposed to the project and the analysis I submitted for the Board's consideration. Traffic impacts resulting from the project are not expected to be significant because the actual usage of boats in marinas as reflected in parking is quite limited. The attached Exhibit 1 demonstrates parking needs of marinas, which is directly related to traffic, to be quite limited. Therefore, traffic impacts resulting from the project as proposed are not considered to be significant. The issue of increased community services resulting from the project as proposed is most directly clarified by materials provided in Exhibit 2. These materials indicate that police and fire service to the property resulting from a previously proposed project which was of greater scale and intensity than as currently proposed will not increase to a significant degree. In summary, I believe that a reasoned elaboration on the potential impacts resulting from the project was made. I can find no basis for reversing the Board's negative declaration for the Brick Cove Project. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 Exhibi~ I 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 US Nafion Automobile & Nell W. R~ ~si&nt ~g fie 19gg ~mm~ ~g ~n. ~e ht~afio~ ~ h~fimm condu~ a nafion~ s~ey ~ ~e U~ Smms of pubic ~d p~v~e m~a f~fi~s m ~in u~ ~d ~e num~ of au~bfl~ ~ h fie ~. S~eys were c~duct~ ~ ~ sum~ ~ys, ~ M~ g~ ~a~g wea~ ~n~fions w~kend, ~d ~o non h6H~y Au~st ~ys: a M~ u~ w~ke~ ~y · e level of ~at u~, ~u we~ ~e of ~pW s~ps, ~gs ~ ~ ~, plus ~ of ~a~ wMch ba~ ~le a~ on ~gs ~ M s~ps. At ~ ~ fi~, ~ veMcl~ p~ s~da~ se~ s~ey f~ ~ &e~, 156 w~ ~vam f~ ~fit f~fies, 3 wm ~n-pmfit clubs, ~d 10 w~ gov~nt o~ 0 ~, ~ mz, I f~ ~). T~ stmge capa~ ~ f~ ~sien~; avmge ~t ~p~afion w~ 38% ~, 62% ~w~ ~ple on ~h ~at u~ p,~nc %e M~st ~ ~y, ~ ~ ~ JMy 3M ~ ~e M~st ~age co=t at &e Au~ w~kaay ~ ~ ~ 4%, ~ 12% ~ ~ w~e~ V~fiom sub~g ~d .7 c~ ~ 8%); August w~end mfi~ w~-e .2 c~t cap~, ~ .75 c~at u~ 02%). PaR~s of~ wm fo~d ~ ~ ~1~ to ~ ~ous s~ies d~e Howev~, ~ si~c~ of ~s study w~ ~ qu~ ~ a h-~ nafio~ ~ f~ ~e ~t fi~ ~t a~ro ~ng s~ wh'ch ~ceed om c~ for ~e~ ~o ~ ~st sites. Auto Parking in Marlrms N~II W. R~s8 l~larine Recreation & BoaUng Industry Spe¢ialis[ Sea Grant Harine Advisory Service University of Rhode Island "How many parking spaces for cars are needed for each boat kept in a marina?' is a simple question which seems to have caused confusion among both marina owners and permit agencies, No United States national standard for marinas has been established on the ratio of parked car spaces to boats. In a discussion with Clinton ChamberlainI (author of Marinas - Recornmendatior!.s for Destqn, Construction & Manaqerrlent, Volume I published in 1983 by NaHona] Harine Hanufacturers Association2; now writing Volume 11) he rec~ommends as an industry guideline one auto parking space per two boat slips (0.5 cars/boat ratio). In 1969 the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Small Craft Harbors I'lanual3 recommended 1.5 to Z.5 auto parking spaces per slip, especially when a restaurant is present. The basis of their ratio was not explained, butASCE may be, in my opinion, the source of the two cars per boat"old rule of thumb'. However, such high parking standards convert valuable income producing land into nonprofitable overhead cost. People ~pend money, cars don't. Southern New England marina owners have long been telling me that on many summer weekends almost ali weekdays (except around July 4th, or a local coastal festival or boat show) they have observed that 251 or less of the boats are used, and thus requiring parking for two cars per. slip is excessive. On most days of the boating season, marinas are filled with empty boats and few cars. From my observations, I suspect that similar patterns exist throughout the nation. In September Ig?7, I organized an aerial photographic survey of all the marinas and docks in Rhode Island as part of a 208 Marinas Task study4 for the RI Statewide Planning Program (purpose: to count as many boats at dock as possible, not empty slips), From the photos we were not surprised to find very few cars parked on the low use days. Asa follow-up, arecommendatlon was made for a high use-day count to determine actual boat use. In fact, on Labor Day, Ig78, an aerial photo survey of Rhode Island's marinas was done by Clarkson Collins and published in the Recreational Boatfnq in Rt'~ Coastal Waters; ALookForwarrl5. The Rhode Island's average car count represented 0.33 cars per slip or mooring forahigi:-useday; well under ASCE's 1.5-2.5 cars per slip and below Chanberlain's 0.5 ratio. Collins recommended that the state Coastal Resource Yla.nagement Council (CRI'lC) use 0.5 cars/slip figure as a iiberal guide for marina construction permits (instead, the state Coastal ResourcesManaqementProqram6 reqyures0,?5 parking space for each boat). Similarly, a Ig8~ Lake Erie Acce~s StudY?, of boat ramps and marinas in Ohio, estimated that only ~10% of the boats in marinas were in use on peak days. These actual counts in Rhode Island and Ohio suggest that requirements of one parklng space or more per sllp for most marlnas may beunreallstlc. One .- marina owner wrote to me suggesting, 'if pesistent lack of parking spaces and overcrowding occurs~ it is the responsibility of the marina/restaurant to remedy same by providing more spaces on or off property, or r.educlnt the number of seats or slips. Hake it a conditio6 of [he general business permit.'9 Obviously each case must be measured separately for its own traffic attraction. For example, whena restaurant;rather traffic generating feature is present, then adc; parking spaces. For those rew peak parking days per year, most marlnas have surplus boat storage, repair areas and lawns which can be pressed Into short term service. When discussing the need for parking, also considered the need to minimize stormwater run-off into the marine environment ~'rom parking areas. In general, run-ol'f is a major source of a variety of contaminants into the nation's waterways. To reduce run-off from parking spaces In msrinasit, la recommended that paving of parking areas be avoided and that porous surfaces be encouraged.8 Crushed stones orshelis, grassy swales, settling ponds and other vegetative buffers are effectiye in decreasing run-off. Also~ why do cars need to be parked near the bulkhead? In many locations consider providing convlent off-loading zones near. pierheads and have cars parked away [rom the shore, Allow people, not cars, to l~ave use of the roreshore to spend money shopping, eating, socializing and enjoying the marina view. Based on what Is known about what actually happens with marina use (and the standards listed below), one car for every two boats seems adequate as a national guideline. Recently adopted minimum auto parking/boat berth regulations: California (1980) IO 0.60 parkipg spaces/recreaUonal boat 2.00 parking spaces/commercial fishing boat w, !,000 root furthest distance from any berth [o parking 9x20 reel I~pace dimension Large vis, lei expanses or asphalt parking are to be avoided; islands or s~rips encouraged New Jersey (1982) 11 0.6-0.8 parking spaces/baaL siip 500-600 reel Furthest distance from head or pier to parking Uain parking area set back from watarl'ront for appearance end safety Parking areas can be used for winter storage Rhode Island (1983) 6 " 0.75 perking space/each boal' 0.6 parking spaces/per employee 300 sq.ft area per space ~ New ~outh Wales, Australia (Ig85) 12 0.6 parking spaces/wet berth 0.2 parking spaces/dry storage borlh 0.5 parking spaces/marina employee 0.2 parking spaces/swing mooring licensed [o marina 0.15-0.2 parking spaces/swing mooring licensed to public 300 meter (964 It) maximum distance from any berth .tu parking remote (orr-site} parking may be used if insufficient waterfront land parking area cannot detract from v~suel appeal of marina use planler Author's Nole: This brief paper is a working discussion O~r this Important issue. Readers ere Invited by the author Lo send references ~o other relevant studies and commenls ~o him al: Harine Advisory Service Universily or Rhode Island Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 Re[erences Chamberlaln, W. CllntonJ. Personal communications. November 2, 1984 and June 28, I985, Chamberlain, W, C. J. I983. l'larinas - Recommend~Itlons for peslqn, ConstructionandManaqement~ Volumel, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Inc,, Chicago, Task Committee on Small Craft Harbors. 1969. Report on Small Craft Harbors, AmerlcanSocletyofCivllEnglneers, NewYork, p, 17, Johns, W. E., N.W. Ross, et al. {978. AreawideWaterQua{fly I~lanaqement Plan, Preliminary £Valuatlon, I'larirlas Task prepared for RI Statewide Planning Program, Providence. Raytheon Co., Portsmouth. Chapter IV, pp 1-14. Collins, C. andS. Sedgwick. 1979. Recreational Boatinq iq Rhode lsl~ind's Coastal Waters: A Look Forward. Unlverslty or Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center, Narragansett. HarineTechnicalReport?5~ pp. 55-56. Olsen, S, and G. L. Seavey. Amended June 28, 198;3. The Stat"e of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Hanaaement Prooram. University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center, p, 71, 7. Office of OutdoorRecreatlonServlces. July1984. Lake Erie Access Study. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Chmura, G.L. andN.W. Ross. 1978. The Environmental Ip~pactsof Haripas and Their Boats. University of Rhode Island Marine Advisory Service. pp. ~i-§. 9. Kingman, T.W. February 25, 1985. KingmanPlarine, Inc., Cataumet, HA. I0. State of Ca~lifornfa. 1980. ~_ayout.and'~eslqn Guidelines for Small Craft BerthinqFacilities. CA Department bfBoating&Waterways, Sacramento. p. i0, il. Rogers, Golden&Happern. I982. DeveloDino aYlarinainNewJCrse¥: A Handbook. NJ Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources. p. 48. 12. New Soutl~ Wales. 1985 Interim edition. Harirta Guidelines. NSW Public- Works Department, Fishing/Tourist Port Advisory Committee, Sydney, Australia. Section ?, 19.1. Exhibi~ 2 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS POLICE DEPARTMENT. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PECONIC. NEW YORK. ~1958 Hr. Joseph Fischetti P.O. Box 616 Southold,New York 11971 Re: SouthDort Development Youngs Harina Greenport,Ne~ York Dear Hr. Fischetti: Pursuant to your inquiry, please be advised the construction of a motel at Youngs .~larina, Greenport would not have an adverse impact on the work load of the Southold Town Police Department. In the past we have experienced a minimum of co~plaints and problems with other motels in Southold Town and I can see no reason why a motel at Youngs ~arina would be any different. If I can be of further assistance to you please feel free to contact me. Ver~,/~'l~/ yours, H Daniel Winters Chief of Police HDW/w 2-116 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~mr~h ~, Joseph Fisehett, ~r. P.E. Box 616 Southold, N Y 11971 ~r. Joseph r~schetti ~r: fn reply to your letter of oanuary 2B th, re: 5ou%hport Lev- elopement, Young's ~rina, C, reenport,:;Y. Constr~ction of t~e ei.~-hty (~0) room 1.1otel and ex~an:-ionof the maz-an~a .ill not ~ause any undue har~2shiF on the G_~een~ort ..~re Delart- eent. ~C/rc 3-4 TRUSTEES Johtl M. Bredemeyer, HI, President Henry. P. Smith, Vice President Albert J. Kmpski, Jr. John L. Bednoski, Jr. lohn 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 BRICK COVE MARINA RESPONSE COMMENTS OF SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES November 14, 1991 Response to report of Larry Penny, Environmental Consultant dated September 25, 1991: Page 2, Paragraph 1 - alludes to material submitted to the Trustee file by Board consultant, Bruce Anderson and alleges they were not made available for review or distribution. Mr. Penny is alluding to the Environmental Assessment report of Bruce Anderson of September 24, 1991 which was reviewed by the Board IN TOTO at our September 26, 1991 public meeting, which was attended by Mr. Penny. Even if the Board were obligated to distribute this material prior to reviewing it, it would not be an official document of this Board until approved, denied or otherwise passed on by this Board. Page 2, Paragraph 2 - with respect to Mr. Penny's comment, "the instant file is thin and the materials hardly sufficient" seems to point to the notion that the Pendency and quality of a review is directly proportional to its mass in pounds or kilograms. The Board feels that with a thicker document the only relation that can safely be ascertained from its heavier weight would seem to be a waste of forest products and paper, hardly what we would expect would curry favor witk environmentalists. Mr. Penny, an ardent and well known biologist-naturalist then goes on to state "SEQRA anticipates that such large actions as the one proposed when placed in an estuary setting will significantly harm the environment". SEQRA only commands that we treat an action on our type I list or in a CEA as a type I action. SEQRA requires we carefully review a LEAF and adhere to type I procedures as a lead agency, as we have done. Page 3, Paragraph 1 Although detailed in the Bruce Anderson report of September 24, 1991, we affirm that we consider the wetland areas as set forth in LEAF Part one A.2 as accurate and representative of what is standard practice, further supported by the fact that our wetlands ordinance is principally a Bri'ck Cove Marina ~ 2 ~ "Vegetative Code" and that ECL Article 25 imposes no criteria on SEQRA or this Board and that underwater areas of the project site are accurately described in the submissions to the Board. Page 3, Paragraph 2 - The Trustees have reviewed the fact that ~he site is poorly drained and after reviewing the SEQRA analysis of Mr. Anderson, and the drainage plans for this site, are confident the systems planned are adequate and substantially beneficial to any proposed marina related activity. Page 3, Paragraph 3 - Mr. Penny's assertion that hunting, fishing and shellfishing opportunities will be foreclosed is entirely inaccurate and relies on conclusions purposefully drawn from misleading information he presents. He alleges water quality degradation in the entirety of Sage Basin since 1986. In fact the closure of Sage Basin to shellfishing in 1990 was based on public health protection presumptions of discharge of sewage; which are fully discussed in mr. Anderson reports as being mitigated through proper controls such as pump outs, tagging "Y" valves, etc. Absent such mitigation as considered in this project, the basin will always be closed to shellfishing. Based on the Boards experience in these matters we expect to have all but the marina proper opened to shellfishing through our close and cooperative relationship with the shellfish control authority, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). We have produced prior permits whichhave achieved this goal in the marina setting. Although Mr. Penny chooses to compare Sage Basin to Mattituck Creek he fails to discuss what we know from empirical testing of Mattituck Creek water by ourselves and NYSDEC and that most of the contamination there results from runoff from roads, cattle and horse farms in addition to unregulated boat and marina activity. The water at the entrance to Sage Basin was tested by NYSDEC for the last three years under "worst case" conditions of warm weather, Ebbing and/or low tide, after heavy rains so as to be indicative of the water quality inside the interior of the basin. These tests revealed that historic marina operations (and other activities) here did not transect the "in water" quality.standards of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. The marina is clean but a potential health problem in relation to shellfish, the mitigation offered and reviewed by the Board is considered a positive and very substantial aspect Of the proposal. As far as the Boards experience with hunting opportunities ( one Board member is a NYSDEC hunter safety instructor) we can safely state that there are little or no hunting opportunities to foreclose because firearms discharge laws prevent such activity here. As far as the Boards experience with fishing opportunities here (one Board member commercially fishes) we would expect an increase in water access to fishing grounds and possible improvements to eel and flounder on the site baSed .on our personal experience with dredge sites in creeks such as this. Brick Cove Marina ~ 3 Page 4, Paragraph 2 - Mr. Penny, as a well known biologist in this bio-region (which be correctly identifies as unique), fails to even postulate what endangered or threatened species exist on our use the site. In addition to supporting the conclusions of Mr. Andersons report, two members of the Board of Trustees hold Baccalaureate degrees from major universities with significant course work in botany; are fully capable of using tools which as dichotomous plant keys and guides and have never seen any questionable species on site during the Boards numerous visits there. The Board may however wish to require an Osprey nesting platform for the site. One member of our Board is an Osprey lover who has participated in and is familiar with Osprey research having appeared in several popular films on the subject aired on National Educational Television. He feels the marina environment here will not negatively impact the Osprey should the expansion be completed. Page 4, Paragraph 3 - The Board members do not believe that ambient noise levels will increase for this site as a result of an increase of activity associated with this expansion but may wish to review whether the marina requires engine mufflers and provides for language in leases requiring sailboat halyards to be tied-off2 The closing comments of Mr. Penny c~ntinue to confuse "in-water"/actual water quality with the highly protective public health closures of shellfish lands recently enforce by the NYSDEC in their capacity as the state shellfish control authority under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program guidelines. This is akin to blighting the reputation of a person who has had a blood transfusion by claimingthey have Aids without the knowledge of a blood test. The subtle difference is of course that mitigation may even eliminate potential injury to this site. We agree with Mr. Penny that we are at the crossroads in in the Peconic Estuary's history; our Board was created 315 years ago to manage common lands in the Town specifically for the protection of common rights in underwater land waters, fish and fowl. This site, as private land with underwater land ownership, was seriously scoured as a brick factory. As a recovered estuary we believe it will be preserved substantially with the mitigations offered. Nothing we have seen in Mr. Penny's report of September 25, 1991 is deemed meritorious of a DEIS or any change in the SEQRA status of the project. Report of Larry Penny of October 17, 1991 1. Claims that the marina expansion will render the bottom unfit for shellfish grow out contradict Mr. Penny's assertion that the area is productive shellfish land in that the area was previously cut and dredged when it was a clay mine for a brick Brick Cove Marina ~ 4 yard. In the intervening years the area has improved to what the Trustees now regard as a poor shellfishing area based their personal observation and knowledge of the area. We agree with the finding of few shellfish of Mr. Anderson and prior surveys conducted in the area. The survey of William Leverage, dated October 17, 1991 is commensurated with what we have seen in numerous visits to the site , i.e. little shellfishing goes on here. The Board is on solid ground when it states NYSDEC sampling at the entrances to this Basin is within SA water quality conditions. 2. Item two enforces and endorses Mr. Penny's report of September 25, 1991. WE DO NOT ENDORSE that report as having a factual basis. 3. The Southotd Town Code Section 97-28 is believed by this Board to be the appropriate bench mark and activator for discussions under SEQRA already concluded by this Board. We support Mr. Andersons analysis. 4. Again we must re-iterate this Board has no obligation under ECL 25, albeit very similar to Town Code Chapter 97. In regard to minute cumulativeimpacts the Board has a history under its Andros Patent powers and relationship with the Town Board which will enable it to promptly act as we have in the past should some unforeseen problem such as a dangerous bio-toxin like TBT be associated with this or any marina in the future in Southold. Noted for the record is our ban on TBT which predated state action in this area. 5. Several members of the Board regularly operate vessels greater than 25' in length and in their experience do not anticipate any significant siltation effect to be seen with vessels operating at safe speeds in the depths proposed for this site. The U.S.C.O.E. and the N.Y.$.D.E.C. are particularly cautious in granting discharge permits when silting may be a problem in construction activities. They have already granted such permits for this site. 6. The SEQRA review of a project is not designed to be an exhaustive compendium of research. Mr. Andersons shellfish survey seems to support the experience of the Board concerning shellfish resources here. They are few and far between. The marina property is private land which we do not anticipate affecting any adjoining shellfish lands any more negatively than currently is the case. The basin will continue to be a viable place for fish, Crustacea and all manner of birds. Slight and relatively minor changes in animal habits in the deeper waters of a dredged basin are to be expected, such as an increase in Brick Cove Marina ~ 5 ~ the frequency of use by the diving ducks; mergansers or goldeneye ducks in the Winter as they prefer depths in excess of 4 feet to dive for food. The mitigation discussed by Mr. Anderson and encouraged by this Board of not disturbing intertidal and high marsh &reas will result in little or no loss of habitat for king fishers, sandpipers, rails, herons, d~bbling ducks, loons and grebes. Mr. Penny is apparently unaware of the essentially forgiving nature of the marine environment with respect to anthropogenic impacts. Since this site proposes to control all potential sewage discharges as well as control surface run off there should be no direct BOD loading of the Basin, which would be undesirable. 7. We no not feel Mr. Penny is qualified to discuss navigation or such things as drag. The Board has reviewed the proposal with respect to Mr. Andersons environmental review and we believe that the type of docks proposed will substantially reduce frictional water losses. The experienced boaters on the Board have navigated this channel with several large vessel's and have never occasioned any problem entering or leaving the Basin or marina area. We do not share Mr. Penny's interpretation of the code as to these matters. We believe substantially affecting navigation or flow of water to mean that "a prudent mariner would have to change his or her course or line of travel or would physically see a change in the tidal flow of a stream as a direct result of the proposed activity. We do not anticipate a problem such as this. 8. Again we do not share Mr. Penny's interpretation of the Code as to "change the course of any channel or natural movement or flow of any waters. We believe the natural flow for this site will remain largely the same based on the large amount of vertical structure already on site which will convert to horizontal structure and the stable configuration of the inlet which was the subject of prior approvals of this Board, NYSDEC, USCOE. 9. Unequivocally, this project as proposed fully stabilizes all lateral land features. Permit cOnditions of NYSDEC and USCOE setting bottom slopes and requiring preservation of existing natural vegetation are all stabilizing features. 10. We believe Mr. Penny is unqualified to speak at all to the issues of health, safety and general welfare of our citizens. The police and fire departments have already found no problem with larger projects proposed for this site. As previously discussed, Mattituck Creek's shellfish closures are indeed much more closely .related to the kind of abuse seen in Easthampton, where Mr. Penny lives and works. The existing marina on site is · 'Brick Cove Marina ~ 6 viewed by this Board as a credible steward of the estuary by virtue of the independent water analysis of the NYSDEC which has shown no marina related problems to date. Although long term impacts might be considered substantial if reviewing a de novo application for a 138 boat marina where no history of operations exists, there is nothing that this Board has encountered in reviewing this and prior lengthy DEIS/FEIS reports for larger projects proposed for the site which would alarm us at all in such areas as traffic and safety. Should other uses be considered which are not traditional for this site, then this argument would bear serious consideration by this Board and possibly others. Mr. Penny's final comments are not generally note worthy as they are unsupported opinions. This Board ishowever of their own opinion that this site is unusual in being derived from a seriously impacted historic clay mining center and not at all similar to our native creeks and underwater lands. As suck, we do not believe a modest expansion at Brick Cove Marina (no matter how it is tallied) can be compared with or be a precedent for the public lands under our control which remain as the largely undredged, fully vegetated, broad alluvial, wind, rain and tidally drive estuaries not unlike the time this Board was created over 315 years ago. We believe the new National Shellfish Sanitation Program guidelines are a call to action and are a valuable threshold to embrace for this historic Board. We fail to appreciate Mr. Penny's apparent attempt to confuse them, especially knowing he is a well respected environmental official of another Eastern Long Island Town, a former resident and employee of Southold. Letter of Christopher Kelley of October 16, 1991 Page 2, Paragraph 3 The Trustees do not believe there has been any short sitedness in discussing the groundwater issues surrounding this site. We stand by the LEAF and Mr. Anderson's report. Page 2, Paragraph 4 The activities already surrounding the marina and neighboring homes are expected to have had a prior effect on the migratory birds in this cove. We stand by Mr. Anderson's report. Page 2, Paragraph 5 - The Trustees are fully aware of this cove as a shellfish producing area. It can only be reopened to shellfish with the cooperation of this marina through the pending permit process or through blanket legislation which appears unlikely at this time. Page 2, Paragraph 6 - We do not contend to know why boats in large numbers will appear beautiful to one person and ugly to Brick Cove Marina ~ 7 another. Our review is under the Towns wetland ordinance and this ordinance has little to do with the aesthetics of an existing marina site. Page 2, Paragraph 7 - The Trustees agree with all reports to date which concur with their own observations that traffic is not a problem for this site. Page 2, Paragraph 8 - We stand by Mr. Andersons report with respect to small to moderate impacts on circulation, biological Productivity and ecology of Sage Basin. Page 2, Paragraph 9 - Discharge of sewage to subsurface disposal systems greater than 75' from waters edge are substantially beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. This Board has directed the Bay Constable and made investigations and complaints to the county Health Dept. and NYSDEC to effect compliance over failing subsurface sewage systems at other marinas in Southold, but has never had a complaint on this facility. We regularly include permit language to effect compliance and enforcement. We do not appreciate that this concern is important. From our experience marina operators run very visible operations and are usually very cooperative in maintaining their sanitary facilities. Page 3 - In response to Mr. Kelley's conclusions; this Board does not see anything in. his letter which points to any failing on our part to honestly embrace SEQRA. We can assure him, that the Board would not entertain any discussion on the alternative of placement of docks on the bayside of this property in any environmental report, even if court mandated. The notion is on face value beyond comprehension. Southold Bay in this area is well known for its finfish and shellfish populations which should be left alone save for monitoring and harvesting. Our experience with Bay sited docks leads us to believe they are more prone to severe storm and Winter damage and will likely result in the need for continuing dredge operations over time. The Board of Trustees and conservation council of $outhold are usually~ very cautious over projects and have required many impact statements for activities in Southold. Our experience and review to date for this site further support our position that a DEIS is not necessary here. There is consensus on our Board that the emotional and legal barrage of Mr. Kelley's clients is damaging our appreciation of SEQRA as a valuable tool to protect the environment. We believe our obligations to the people of Southold have been met in this process despite the negative cloud surrounding one of his clients. The Chairman of this Board does not believe the upset and disruption one of MR. Kelley's clients caused the clerk to the Board concerning photocopies last year, was ever met with a sincere apology. Such behavior is no less polluting the human and social environment of a small Town than an unforeseen impact on its Brick Cove Marina physical environment. The Board believes it has made no serious omissions this time around. TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Henry P. Smith, Vice President Albert I. Krupski, Jr. Johrl L. Bednoski, Jr. lohn 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 BRICK COVE MARINA FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 97-28 (wetlands-standards) These findings, in addition to those of Bruce Anderson, consultant to the Board, which were fully considered, reviewed and approved on September 26, 1991 concluding SEQRA for this action and the subsequent reports of October 19, 1991 and November 5, 1991 of Bruce Anderson, are to be considered as the basis of our determination in this matter. 97-28A - The project as proposed will not substantially adversely affect the wetlands of the Town because all the commonly accepted standard mitigative strategies have been considered, innovative construction of docks in proposed, affects of activities surrounding the construction and operating phases have been considered and reflected on, and all vegetated wetlands on site will be undisturbed. 97-28B - The project as proposed will not substantially cause damage from erosion, turbidity and siltation because the Board has carefully considered and requested operational and structural attributes of this project such as vegetative buffers, low dredge slopes and bucket dredging which will have only minimal affects on siltation, turbidity and erosion. 97-28C - The project will not cause any substantial intrusion of saltwater into freshwaters of the Town by virtue of the soil conditions of the site as disclosed in the environmental review of the project. 97-28D - The proposed operations will not substantially adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural habitat there of because all impacts as disclosed in the SEQRA review are small, the Board has been to the site numerous occasions and is familiar with its marine resources, and the Board has successfully prevented and or reopened closed shellfish areas in Southoldby similar mitigation and enforcement methods to those proposed for this site. 97-28E - The project as proposed and evaluated will not substantially increase the damage of flood and storm damage because no major coastal barriers or structures are considered for this site and the proposed site improvements are actually believed to reduce impediments to flow in the harbor. 97-28F - The proposed project will not likely affect the navigation or flow of tidal waters in the area as this area is already an operational marina which has not been subject of navigation problems. Dock layout is orderly and provides sufficient channels for maneuvering and water flows in the area are not expected to be substantially altered because of innovative floating docks which greatly reduce vertical supports. 97-28G - The proposed project will not substantially change the course of any channel and the natural flow of waters is expected to change little from the present state, as no substantial change to the tidal inlet was approved by a prior wetlands permit issued for the area and the natural movement of waters will not likely be impeded or changed on account of minimal dredging, maintenance of existing shoreline features and elimination of many vertical dock supports. 97-28H - The project as proposed will not substantially weaken the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity as all load bearing angled land surfaces will remain vegetated with indigenous plant species and all sub marine slopes conform to the standard protective measures required by USCOE and NYSDEC; and no new bulkheading is proposed for this site. 97-28I The project as proposed will not likely otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town because: police and fire protection needs will not be affected greatly, traffic associated with marinas is not considered a problem for such expansion of boat numbers, the potential of reopening previously closed shellfish lands is great thus reducing public health risks and the concurrent environmental controls on the site will ensure safe swimming and fishing in Sage Estuary. Bruce Anderson Environmental Consultant John Bredemeyer, President Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Brick Cove Marina November 5~ Dear Mr. Bredemeyer, The following are recommended permit conditions for the above referenced project. It is realized that there are many permit conditions already imposed on the proposed project by the DEC and additional conditions of approval will likely be imposed on the proposed relocation of the septic system by SCDHS. Permit Conditions 1- The temporary stockpiling of spoil resulting from dredging shall be limited to the "Temporary Spoil Disposal And Dewatering Location" as designated on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P. C., last amended September 18, 1991. 2- Lateral movement of spoil shall be controlled by the placement of haybales placed end to end and firmly staked into place along the boundaries of the "Temporary Spoil Disposal And Dewatering Location" as designated on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P. C., last amended September 18, 1991. Haybales shall remain in place until spoil is 3- All power washing of boat bottoms shall be limited to the washdown platform as depicted on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors P. C., last amended September 18, 1991. 4- The overflow of the~c~tchment provided as part of the washdown platform shall'b~ directed to the stormwater control improvements along the western shorefront of the parcel. 5- Haybales shall be placed end to end and firmly staked~/ into place along the western shorefront of the parcel adjacent to Sage Basin at the onset of stormwater runoff improvements and left in place until stormwater control 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 improvements are in place and soils on the upland portion of the site are suitably stable. 6- Ail proposed landscaping within 75 feet of mean high water shall be of species native to Long Island as to preclude the necessity of fertilizer and biocide application. 7- The marina shall continue to provide clean restrooms ~'R~-- 24 hour a day for the use of marina patrons. 8- A boat pumpout facility shall be installed and maintained for the collection of boat wastes for the use of all boaters docked at Brick Cove Marina and vessels coming to same. The marina may charge a fee for the use of the pumpout as to cover its costs of purchase and operation. 9- Ail boats docked at the marina having fixed installed toilets shall also be equipped with holding tanks which permit the collection and pumpout of boater waste. 10- Ail seacocks of~"y" valves shall be in closed position and sealed by means of suitable tag with serial number. tl- F o-t~ owi-ng -ptmrpen{., ~sw~ac~e k s 13- Logs shall be maintained of the use of the pumpout facility and shall indicate for each boat having been serviced; the date of pumpout; the name of the employee servicing pumpout; the vessel registration number; the volume of pumpout; and serial number of "y" valve seal tag. l~Logs shall be made available to the Trustee~ Bay Constables~random inspect~ . , 1~ The applzcant shall erect s~gns promotzng ~e use of the pumpout facility~as per DEC permit condition. 1~ Collected boat waste shall be disposed at the scavenger treatment plant at Greenport, or other scavenger waste treatment plant, or in the relocated septic system on site. The Marina shall maintain records including receipts from treatment plants if appropriate, or date and volume of pumpout if disposed in an on-site septic system. Sincerely, 475 Rambler Road, Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-4071 TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Henry P. Smith, Vice President Albert J. Kmpski, Jr. John L. Bednoski, Jr. lohn 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 November 15, 1991 Merlon Wiggin Peconic Associates One Bootleg Alley P.O. Box 672 RE: Brick Cove Marina SCTM ~1000-57-1-38.3 Dear Mr. Wiggin: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on November 14, 1991 at their regular meeting; Whereas, the Trustees have concluded SEQRA in this action on September 26, 1991 having completed our second and thorough SEQRA process for this site; Whereas, the Board of Trustees as an operating entity was created over 315 years ago to help manage the Towns common natural resources; Whereas, the Town Board has chosen this Board to steward its wetlands ordinance for the people; Whereas, the Board of Trustees has reviewed the instant proposal in light of the standards set forth in the wetlands ordinance; Whereas, this Board has considered all relevant comments raised in this application process including but not limited to: complete application process, SEQRA process, (including Environmental Assessment), comments on the LEAF and SEQRA process, wetlands ordinance, public hearing and meeting discussions; Whereas, the Board of Trustees policy of visiting sites of proposed project led to atleast 5 on site visits by the entire Board to this location; Therefore be it RESOLVED that the $outhold Town Board of Trustees approve the wetlands permit in the matter of the .'Br~ck Cove Marina ~ 2 ~ application of BRICK COVE MARINA by Peconic Associates on behalf of Southold Bay Associates, map dated as amended September 18, 1991, with the following permit conditions: 1. The temporary stockpiling of spoil resulting from dredging shall be limited to the "Temporary Spoil Disposal and Dewatering Location" as designated on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., last amended September 18, 1991. 2. Lateral movement of spoil shall be controlled by the placement of haybales placed end to end and firmly staked into place along the boundaries of the "Temporary spoil disposal and dewatering location" as designated on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., last amended September 18, 1991. Haybales shall remain in place until spoil is removed. 3. Ail power washing of boat bottoms shall be limited to the washdown platform as depicted on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors P.C., last amended September 18, 1991. 4. The overflow of the catchment provided as part of the washdown platform shall be properly plumbed with "T's" directed to the stormwater control improvements along the western shore front of the parcel. 5. Haybales shall be placed end to end and firmly staked with two stakes into place along the western shore front of the parcel adjacent to Sage Basin at the onset of stormwater control improvements are in place and soils on the upland portion of the site are suitably stable. 6. Ail proposed landscaping within 75 feet of mean high water shall be of species native to Long Island as to preclude the necessity of fertilizer .and biocide application. 7. The marina shall continue to provide clean restrooms available 24 hours a day for the use of the marina patrons. 8. A boat pumpout facility shall be installed and maintained for the collection of boat wastes for the use of all boaters docked at Brick Cove Marina and vessels coming to same. The marina may charge a fee for the use of the pumpout as to cover, its costs of purchase and operation. 9. Ail boats docked at the marina having fixed installed toilets shall also be equipped with holding tanks which permit the collection and pumpout of boater waste. 10. Ail seacocks of sanitary system "Y" valves shall be in closed position and sealed by means of suitable tag with serial number. 11. Logs shall be maintained of use of the pumpout facility and shall indicate for eaCh boat having been serviced; ','Brick Cove Marina ~ 3 ~ the date of pumpout; the name of the employee servicing pumpout; the vessel registration number; the volume of pumpout; and serial number of "Y" valve seal tag. 12. Logs shall be made available to the Trustees, Bay Constables and any federal, state or local public health, environmental or building code enforcement official requesting same on any unanounced inspection. 13. The applicant shall erect signs promoting the use of the pumpout facility as per DEC permit condition. 14. Collected boat waste shall be disposed at the scavenger treatment plant at Greenport, or other scavenger waste treatment plant, or in the relocated septic system on site. The marina shall maintain records including receipts from treatment plants if appropriate, or date and volume of pumpout if disposed in an on-site septic system. 15. The marina shall install an osprey nesting platform at a mutually agreed location of Mr. Bruce Anderson, consultant to the Board. 16. Specific language in the leases of prospective marina patrons shall include provisions to control engine noise with mufflers and secure all loose halyards with proper tie offs or face loss of marina privileges. 17. Docks proposed as the innovative floating design shall be maintained with the same functional attributes as described in the literature submitted to the file. 18. Ail other governmental permit conditions shall be adhered to. 19. Ail operations subject this permit shall be concluded in one continuous action of as short a duration as possible without endangering personnel, these permit conditions or the general environment, excepting that an operating pumpout station must be in service by April 15, 1992 on site and all "Y" valve/toilet restrictions/toilet signage and toilet sealing activities of marina patron boat heads must commence immediately. 20. The Trustee office shall be notified within 5 days of completion of DREDGE ACTIVITIES. 21. A survey by a licensed surveyor or engineer shall show the completed dredge area depths at not more than 1' (one foot) increments of elevation as soundings in 20 locations throughout the dredged area. Said survey shall be submitted within 90 days of the completion of dredge activities. 22. The marina shall perform concurrent water quality' monitoring of Sage Basin with grab samples collected at minimum ~--'Brtck Cove Marina ~ 4 ~ water once monthly from April thru October by an approved public or private laboratory for total and fecal coliforms according to the National Shellfish Sanitation Program guidelines and the appropriate testing methods recognized by the state shellfish control authority (NYSDEC). at minimum, said samples shall be taken on ebbing/low tide and have accompanying data'sheets denoting time of sampling, location, tidal cycle and weather for the previous 24 and 48 hours and any other information consistent with NYSDEC shellfish regulations. Samples shall be collected at the following locations: One at the inlet entrance. One within the confines of the marina but greater than 50' from shore. One at a written designated location of Bruce Anderson Environmental Consultant, which may be changed annually. One at the entrance to the bulkheaded canal at Southold Shores. One at a written designated location within the project area by Larry Penny, Environmental consultant, which may be changed annually. Should Mr. Penny not elect a site an additional site of Mr. ~nderson's choice shall be sampled. 23. Once annually in the fall of the year the surficial bottom sediments underlying the sites described in condition number 23 shall be sampled and tested by a certified laboratory according to EPA/Standard Methods for the minimum of the following heavy metals sometimes associated with marina operations: Copper, Zinc, Nickel, Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, Tin, Chrome. 23a. The Board will review all test results after the first year and may elect to continue the sampling program. 24. The Trustees may, upon the finding of any National Estuary Program final report which identifies: limiting nutrient(s), trace element(s), a chemical or biological process(s) directly associated with marina activities as causing or contributing to the Brown Tide (Anorexia anophagefferens) or other positively identified undesirable marine organisms, cause a hearing to be held pursuant to Chapter 97 at which time additional environmental mitigation shall be considered for the site including but not limited to requiring increased water quality monitoring, environmental controls and absent any alternative control method reduction in the size and number of vessels to a lower limit of 95 (the number which was established by the prior certificate of occupancy). 25. There shall not be more than 138 boats on the sit~ exclusive of prams or dinghies or unmotorized row boats. ~ [Brick Cove Marina ~ 5 ~. 26. A copy of the water quality data and pumpout log shall be provided to the Trustees at the end of the boating season during the calendar year in which it is collected. 27. No additional costs associated with setting up the water quality monitoring program for this site shall accrue to the Town. 28. Only "non-toxic" Anti-freeze shall be used on site. 29. Inspections pursuant to Chapter 97 and this permit shall be performed by the Board or Bay Constable upon 24-48 hours notice for: a. Installation of haybale and dredge spoil retentive features (2 inspections). b. supervision of dredge operations (5 inspections). c. Installation of parking lot drainage prior to closing up construction (1 inspection). d. Inspection of operating pumpout facility for first year (2 inspections, one unscheduled). E. Inspection of all signage and boat lease additions (1 inspection). F. Inspection of removal of old sanitary system (1 inspection). g. Final dredge and dock installation inspection (1 inspection). NOTE: Wherein more than one activity may be inspected or reviewed in a single visit, the applicant may request in writing a return of any remaining fees upon the completion of the project. Total fees for 13 inspections at $35.00 per inspection = $455.00 30. The Board at its discretion may annually charge the operation for one inspection at the prevailing inspectional fee rate in order to offset ongoing expenses to the Town in monitoring the pumpout compliance and sampling requirements of this permit. 31. A copy of these permit c¢ Vote of the Board: Ail Ayes. will ~be posted ~e.