Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/21/1989 TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Hen~ P. Smith, Vice President Albert J. Krupski. Jr. John L. Bednoski. Jr. John B. Tuthill Telephone (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 1989 PRESENT WERE: President, Frank A. Kujawski, Jr. Trustee, Albert J. Krupski, Jr. Trustee, John Bredemeyer, III Trustee, Henry P. Smith Trustee, John L. Bednoski, Jr. Clerk, Jane Blados Clerk, Jill Thorp Organizational meeting: January 4, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the meeting Hall.~ Next Trustees Board Meeting on Thursday, January 25, 1990, Worksession at 6:30 p.m. Field Inspections on Tuesday, January 23, 1990 at 1:00 p.m. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance I. MONTHLY REPORT The Trustee monthly report for November 1989, a check for $2~240.25 was issued to the Supervisor's Office for deposit in General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Amendment to Shellfish Ordinance regarding size of little neck clams and time limit that shellfish can be taken from conditional areas. FRANK KUJAWSKI: This is sent to us from the Town Board asking.bus to review this ordinance again. With a goal of resolving any problems about this, I did meet with a group of Baymen last week Board of Trustees 2 December 21, 1989 who have some problems with this and I think we need to rethink this again. Would anyone like to start this discussion. PETER WENCZEL: I am Peter Wenczel. I am President of the Southold Town Baymen's Association. I would just like to let you know what our official position is. There are a lot of arguments to go with this whole issue and I think there are a bunch of other fellows here who will have something to say about it. I won't get into to that. I just want to let you know that we never officially supported a size for little neck clams. We never supported a time limit on conditional areas. Any conversations that we did have, we gave some personal opinions and at the same time we also stated what the official Baymen's position was that we are not in support of those resolutions. That is basically all I want to say right now. There are certainly a lot of opposition for both of these ideas and I think that they are a mistake, a serious mistake. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I should have probably started off by saying that the Board probably did not have any strong feelings about this. Really we did this as a response to a request from our Bay Constables. The Board I am sure has a stake in this, but on the other hand we were trying to be responsive to their needs too. Don, do you have anything to say about what is going on here? DON DZENKOWSKI: Basically the size. Originally I proposed an inch to an inch and a half. Without the size you might as well throw out a thousand clams per day as far as little necks go. It is a good management tool. PETER WENCZEL: I have not seen a two count limit help the clamming production come up. DON'DZENKOWSKI: Because nobody has obeyed it, probably. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I think all the co~L~t~ents should be addressed to us. DON DZENKOWSKI: That was basically the reason for the size, so the two count limit can be enforced. It gives every shellfisher in Town an equal shot at all the clams out there. If you do set a size and there is a standard within the Town you can enforce this. The Town also has standards on soft clams right now. As far as the hours from 8 to 4. It is basically the same reason. It is enforcement tool. It is easier for us to watch these areas. It helps the resources. PETER WENCZEL: That is the issue, the two count limit. I think that there is no doubt that it makes no difference. It is not an effective management tool. It does not help the clam population. DON DZENKOWSKI: Are you saying that the official position of the Baymen's Association is to withdraw the thousand count limit and go back to the State limits on all our creeks? PETER WENCZEL: No, we are not saying that. We have not voted on that yet. I can tell that ninety nine percent of full time fishermen in this Town feel that way. It is not an effective management tool. It has made no difference on the population on the clams in our Town. DON DZENKOWSKI: Because diggers typically do not get a two count bag? PETER WENCZEL: No, because it does not stop diggers from catching clams. I am going to go out every day and get my two Board of Trustees 3 December 21, 1989 counts. I am still going to work those clams out. It does not mean anything whether it is stretched out. DON DZENKOWSKI: In other words the effort is so strong relative to the growth rate they are going? PETER WENCZEL: In an ideal situation where you have a healthy clam situation and you don't have environmental factors, the clam population will sustain itself and there will always be plenty of little necks~ Mill Creek is a classic example, it was the hardest worked creeks in the Town and there was always plenty of seed there. It was closed down, nobody dug it and the bottom went foul. There is no seed there now. Nobody is in favor of a two count limit in a conditional area. The hole object in having it conditional is to eliminate a health hazard as the State sees it. The idea is to remove those clams so that they are not a temptation to the poacher. What is the sense. It is contradictory. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The idea is not to get them out of there. The idea is to have use of the resources. It is unfortunate that the limits imposed are imposed because of public health reasons. They are not trying to clean out the creek. PETER WENCZEL: Yes, they are John. When there are not a lot of people involved, like in other Towns where there are hundreds and hundreds of diggers, they end up expending a lot of man power to do testing. That is not really the point. That is a management thing with the DEC. The point of conditional programs is to eliminate those clams. DON DZENKOWSKI: The point of running this conditional program it to maintain as much shellfish acreage as we possibly can for the diggers. PETER WENCZEL: What is the sense of keeping those clams in there? If you eliminate all the healthy clams the next year there is going to be seed in there. DON DZENKOWSKI~ I think the DEC is trying to help keep these areas open whether it is a seasonal or a conditional program. I have never see~ anything in writing that they are trying to foreclose the Shellfishing opportunity. What your saying is a case of you did successfully remove a lot of clams and then had a spawning failure, which some people blame the brown tide on. Then why isn't the DEC just closing these up and saying that we can not afford to run the program any more. We met are objective in planning it out. The logic is some what lost on me. I am listening. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Does anyone else want to make any comments? WILLIAM GA_WFGA: The 8 to 4 thing which actually comes back to the two count limit. Don says that he can not enforce that because there is nobody there to watch it. There are also two state men in this area, assigned here. I have been check by them. FRANK KUJAWSKI: They work sunrise to sunset? WILLIAM GAFFGA: That is the State Law, sunrise to sunset. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Would a change like that accomplish your needs on that? WILLIAM GAFFGA: I believe if we went by the State Laws all the way, that would leave Don and his crew more available for more important things in the rest of these creeks. The environmental Board of Trustees 4 December 21, 1989 portion of it. You don't have to look to far to see that our creeks are on the border line now. We have seen parts closed, like around the marina areas. I don't see it getting better. I see it getting worse. Next year it might be further and further. I say put more time in keeping these other ones open then trying to create new town laws and go by state laws. The only thing you have watch is the line. You have enough clammer's out there to watch other clammer's. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Is there anybody else that has any co~,uents? SCOTT HARRIS: My name is Scott Harris, for the record. I think the men in this room, the few that do clam in this town, are having a tough enough time as it is. The legislation that was sent to the Town Board was tabled for further investigation. I thank you if you would here the rest of these people here tonight. The limits from 8 to 4 should be put back to state hours. The clam size limit will be eliminated if you do away with the thousand clam limit. If that is what you find is fit. I think it was presented years ago by the Baymen's Association. That is how the thousand clam limit came into being. However, since that time the shellfish industry has depleted, not due to over clamming but due to circumstances beyond our control. I think that if the scallop population is going to come back, which it looks like it is going to do, it will certainly take off a lot of pressure off the clamming industry that is there right now. It will give the industry itself, to come back naturally. Conditional areas, I feel, should be harvested. Only because the time that they are open is so limited and the times available. Every time it rains there are.several days of closure. With conditions such as this year where everything is heavily iced in, maybe these men here won't get out in the next couple of weeks to do any clamming. Hopefully they will. I don't think the industry right now should be overly regulated. I think the state laws that are on the books would be enforced very easily by the way they exist now. I think the men in this room that do make a living clamming are having a hard a enough time getting two counts a day more or less worrying about them getting three or four or five. I certainly can tell you that next year, whatever your disciSsion may be, I will support this. association and there wishes. If there wishes are to do away with the thousand clam limit, I will certainly make that recommendation back to your Board. If it comes back as a suggestion to change the code, I would be glad to change it in that lite. FRANK KUJkWSKI: I don't know if we need any more discussion. Would the Board like to take a position on this? ALBERT KRUPSKI: I have a question. It is just a question because I am not in the clamming business and I don't understand it. If you had a regular sizing scale of the clams, wouldn't it increase the price and the marketability of the clams because you are selling a product that is uniform. PETER WENCZEL: No. I think maybe Kenny can address that. KENNY HOLMAN: The market varies in every Town. What we think is a neck is here, is a cherry stone somewhere else or vis-a-versa. It is very difficult to regulate by size. It hasn't been. Board of Trustees 5 December 21, 1989 PETER WENCZEL: There are no set sizes. It varies with the user. Certain users want large clams, certain users want smaller clams. You can't do it. It doesn't work that way. HENRY SMITH: Is there a size for the smallest you can go set by the State? PETER WENCZRT,: Yes, one inch. A clam must be one inch in thickness. HENRY SMITH: There is no standard after that? PETER WENCZEL: That is right. HENRY SMITH: Personally, this 8 to 4 thing, I don't agree with that because I think clam diggers are like farmers, You can't tell a farmer he can only work 8 to 4. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I think the question is whether or not if there is any support on this board any longer for any of these resolutions that we sent on to the Town Board? HENRY SMITH: Well, after hearing these gentlemen speak I really don't because they are the ones that work in this industry. As far as the 8 to 4 I have a problem with that. You can't limit when a person can work. I see Don's point put I see there point too. PETER WENCZEL: Has anybody caught more then a count and a half this year when it was open? DON DZENKOWSKI: No. The other day when it was open I checked. The men that where there did not start before 8:30 in the morning. Most of the guys were quitting by 1:30 because of the cold whether. PETER WENCZEL: What we are really concerned with is what happen when the days start to get a little longer. What happens when you have a early tide or a late tide. DON DZENKOWSKI: There are a lot of what if's. I was just trying to make it easier for everybody. A uniform standard. Everyone operates under the same conditions. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Any support, John Bednoski? JOHI~ BEDNQSKI: As far as the 8 to 4, that does not bother me. I realize. The sizing I have a question. I guess other towns have other regulations. PETER WENCZEL: They only have the minimum one inch. JOHN BREDEMEYER: They have culling racks? KENN~ HOLMAN: Some do but they just use it to separate the sizes. There is no set size. PETER WENCZEL: That is none existent. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The thousand clam limit is actually a separate issue. What we sent to the Town Board and they held a hearing on was the size of little necks, one inch and an inch and nine sixteenth maximum. The other thing we sent on is that little neck clams Should be kept separate and apart from other clams. I don't detect any support here for either of that. Would someone like to make a motion. A motion was made by JOHN BEDNOSKI and seconded b~- FRANK KUJAWSKI to tell the Town Board that there is no support of the Trustees in this matter. ALL AYES. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The other point was the time. That is not part of the Town ordinances. The time is something we did as a Board of Trustees 6 December 21, 1989 resolution. I would make a motion that shellfishing be operated from sunrise to sunset. The motion was seconded by Albert Krupski. Ail AYES. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I don't detect any consciences here to make any recommendation to the Town Code Committee to revise that and remove the limit of a thousand count. If there is, I think you made some very good points tonight. I don't know if this Board is ready to go along with that. JO~N BREDEMEYER: I would be reluctant to here anything from the Baymen's Association unless it is an official statement, since there has been some confusion with communications in the past. I would like to hear what the Baden, as an official co~mient, want to say. I am sure the Board will be very willing to work with them. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Don, I know you have a problem now. Don DZENKOWSKI: You have to notify the DEC so they could notify all the Baymen... FRANK KUJAWSKI: I think if the Baymen will take an official position and send something to us. 2. From DEC. Protocol for operating the conditional shellfish harvesting programs in Ashamomaque, Mattituck Inlet and Howard Creek and that James Creek, Gull Pond, Goldsmith's Inlet will open and will remain open through the 31st of March. Is there any comments from the Board? 3. a. Merlon Wiggin RE: Narrow River project requesting expediency in approval of application due to worsening conditions of Marina entrance. b. Resolution from Town Board amending Resolution ~33 adop%ed to onNovember 14, 1989 granting permission to Narrow River Marina to temporarily store dredged material on the Town "landing area", to include additional conditions: 16) Narrow River Marina shall provided the Town of Southold with a One Million DOllar liability insurance policy covering the Town Trustees as an additional insured, (7) all conditions and requirements of other involved agencies must be complied with, (8) parking shall not be obstructed on the Town landing area, (9) the entire project shall be completed by December 31, 1990. Does anyone have any col~u~tents on this? ALBERT KRUPSKI: The last part I don't understand. FRANK KUJAWSKI: So it is not done piece meal over a two year period. ALBERT KRUPSKI: O.K. It should be from when they get the permit. By December 31st they might not have a permit. RUTH OLIVA: Then we can extend it. 4. A letter from Steve and Sarah Mainowski in regard to the Robert Searle project on Fishers Island, they are in opposition 'to it. I won't bother reading it. It concerns basically the same as we discussed. JOHN BREDEMEYER: When will be getting the review from Doctor Hansen? Board of Trustees 7 December 21, 1989 FRANK KUJAWSKI: Doctor Hansen has given me a letter tonight and I believe he has a problem. Doctor Hansen would like the Town to carry an insurance policy before he does any work for the Town. Ruth and Ellen, does the Town presently hold an insurance policy on any of its consultants? ELLEN LARSEN: Under an umbrella policy, but that is about it. 5. Letter from Department of State RE: proposed Mattituck Harbor Maintenance Dredging proposal meets their approval. They basically agreed with this Board and the Town Board that the oil, in the entrance where it is sand they assured that the ality be put on the beach to the east side to build up that area of the dune. Which was good to see. 6. A request for waiver from the Mattituck Park Commission to resurface the boat ramp at the Love Lane site with 4" to 6" of concrete on existing ramp. Does the Board have any opinions on this now? Would you like to do any business on this now? A motion was made by John Bredemeyer and seconded by Albert Krupski to waive the above. All AYES. 7. A letter from DEC regarding the designation of Peconic Bay as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA). This took effect February 21, 1989. The letter is dated January 27, 1989 and received by us December 15, 1989. 8. Resolution from the Town Board requesting authorization to use TrustEes property adjacent to Mattituck Park District ramp for new ramp construction. ALBERT FLRUPSKI: Do they have dimensions? FRANK KUJAWSKI: No. ALBERT KRHPSKI: Does the Town Board have any dimensions of the ramp~ size of the parking area, things like that? (Directed to Ellen Larsen and Ruth Oliva). ELLEN LARSEN: There was not any point in going ahead with that until we got permission to use your property. HENRY SMIT~: I make a motion to authorize the Town Board to but a boat ramp next to the park district property in Mattituck for all Southold Town residents. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Second. FRANK KUJkWSKI: I would like to have some discuss on this. My personal opinion is that I am totally opposed to this. HENRY SMITH: I am totally opposed to not any body except Mattituck Park District having access to Mattituck Creek. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I agree. I have no problem with that. I would like to make a few points. I think the best thing that could have happen for Mattituck Park District and $outhotd Town was for an agreement to have been worked out regarding the Mattituck Park District ramp. I think there was a lot of misinformation passed out. Consequently, the Mattituck people thought they were loosing something rather then gaining financial help in reducing taxes from the Town tO repair and maintain that area. To but two ramps side by side in the most congested area of the creek, Board of Trustees 8 December 21, 1989 makes no sense at all. Navigation right now is a problem in this area. It is the most polluted part of the creek. To have increase boat traffic, toxic and people travel the length of the creek. Plus we have moorings congesting this area to get out to the Sound. To get out to the Sound to do fishing, it is ridiculous. It is a waste of a resource and compounds the problem as it is. There are other sites. I personally feel that the property at the end where the tank farm is is the right site for a Town ramp. I also feel that it Will reduce pollution in the creek. HENRY SMITH: I agree that the Care¥ Tank Farms is the right place to have it, but how far away is this? FRANK KUJAWSKI: It is not that far away. I believe the one stumbling block was cleared up, on the contaminated soil? RUTH OLIVA: No. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I am just reading news papers, Ruth. HENRY SMITH: I think we should go ahead with the ramp next to the park district, get that one in use. At a future date when we get the tank farms and get a ramp down there. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I will withdraw my second if the Board can meet with the Mattituck Park District. HENRY SMITH: We met with them. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I haven't. FRANK KUJAWSKI: It went to a public vote. That is done and finished. I don't think the people in Mattituck understood that the Town was going to turn around, if this didn't work out and start putting more ramps in. I really don't. HENRY SMITH: We have a chance to do something right now. This thing with the tank farms has been dragged on. I feel now we have a chance to do something. Whether it is the wrong place, right place, it is a place. JAY BREDEMEYER: I say now is the time to do it. There are speed limits in effect already. Later if we have a different site fine. It won't be any disadvantage to the Town. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Motion has a second. All in fauor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Krupski, smith, Bredemeyer, Bednoski. Opposed: Kujawski. V. HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF TEE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOL~. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM TRE SUFFOLK TIMES AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER WATCHMAN. PERTINENT CORP~ESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THEPUBLIC. 8 p.m. In the matter of the intended designation of the following creeks as Critical Environmental Areas: Brush's Creek, Cedar Beach Creek, Corey Creek, Deep Hole Creek, Goldsmith's Inlet, Halls Creek, Goose Creek, Little Creek, Mill Creek (Arshamomaque, and pipes Cove Creek). Board of Trustees 9 December 21, i989 There are maps attached to the dais up here, if people would like to inspect these areas. These creeks will be added to a list of a half dozen creeks that we have presently designated as critical environmental areas. It will bring the total to fifteen out of the twenty two creeks in the Town of Southold. Are there any comments either pro or con on this designation? BILL WARNER: My name is Bill Warner. I am from Mattituck, Salt Lake Village. I had a question as to why James Creek would not be included as a critical environmental area. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I think I will answer, if anybody will like to answer. When the CEA areas became a possibility to designate certain areas, the Board felt that those under developed creeks that were probably the most pristine and of the highest environmental quality, would be the ones to receive this designation. Consequently places like Downs Creek, West Creek, areas like that that aren't bulkheaded and that aren't even navigated in many cases received the designations. As time went by we realized that this is a tool that is very useful in our review of projects. Basically what it does is it entails more notification. It gives the Board alot more information to review proposed projects. Consequently those creeks did not have any commercial marina sites, which is again, high quality was the next set. Which we are looking at tonight. To designate commercially developed creeks as critical environmental areas, ignores the fact that where there are marinas you don't necessarily have the highest environmental quality. That is not to say that it can't be done. In some cases you are down grading your highest environmental quality creeks~by saying all of our creeks are equally valuable. When in fact, those that are commercially developed may not be as valuable environmentally as the others. There is a method and I hope that in the future that this Board could take that up, to do an area like James Creek. What you would do is actually map the creek a lot more specifically and exclude the areas of James Creek for instance, where you have Village Marine and Strongs Marine. Exclude those areas out of the boundary and take all of the other areas that are still underdevelOped. I think that is something that this Board can move into in the future. BILL WARNER: I herd that James Creek has been called "a dead creek'~. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I had herd somebody say that. BILL WARNER: It is anything but a dead creek. You name it we have it. I am very concerned that if we do not include it as an environmental area, that it will become a dead creek. There are at present two marinas and if we do not do something about it it will become a dead creek. There is some twelve acres of wetlands up at the north end of the creek that will become dead too, if we just say lets forget that one and do some of the others. May I make a specific request that you consider James Creek? FRANK KUJAWSKI: It can not be done this evening. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The request is noted. It is on the public record. BILL WARNER: When might it be able to be done. Board of Trustees 10 December 21, 1989 FRANK KUJAWSKI: There will be a new Board next month. I would say that you can be asked to be notified by them as to what their plans are. BILL WARNER: Thank you, Sir. FRANK KUJAWSKI: O.K. Anybody else have any comments? FRANK FLYNN: F.M. Flynn. I am a resident of Southold. I have a few words. I Will read my remarks so that they are reflected accurately on the record. If I am correct, the purpose of this hearing is to address the question of designating certain creeks in the Town as Critical Environmental Areas. The object is to afford protection to the Peconic Bay Estuar~ System. The ologians consider sins of commission and omission equally important. I should like to pose a rhetorical question° Why was Sage Creek omitted from the list when creeks of lesser ecological value are included? There is no question that Sage Creek is part of the Peconic Bay Estuary System. You have amongst the Boards records a statement by the Southold Baymen's Association that Sage Cove constitutes one of the most productive shell fisheries on the North Fork and that it makes a vital contribution to the ecology of the Peconic Bay. I have frequently seen as many as four or five clam boats operating with its confines. There is additional documentation attesting to the abundance of its aquatic life, its importance as a water foul sanctuary and to the variety Df flora and fauna inhabiting its perimeter. At least some of this testimony emanates from an acknowledged expert who has been retained by the Town on similar matters. The Town's professional Planners, RPPW (before the Town's politicians intruded themselves into the act.) considered the northerly part of Sage Creek so "ecologically Fragile" that they planned it as "open space". Reference to the State's Tidal Wetland'smaps indicates that the entire bottom of Sage Creek is classified as Tidal Wetlands, along with significant portions of its perimeter. App~oximate.ly 8%, at least, of the creeks underwater land is residentially zones. I submit that my interpretation of Section i00-239 of the Town Code is that all of the Sage Creek bottom is residentially zoned. Th~ section goes onto state that nothing contained in the section "shall be considered as permitting th~ filling or dredging of such land". I have the Town Code here with me. I won't burden you with a complete reading of the Section, but I cite it. My interpretation of this section would pertain to many, if not all, of the creeks in the Town. It is my understanding that the protection to be afforded these creeks consists of the requirements of having an applicant submit a Long Form Environmental Assessment. I would like to disabuse those with any concerns in these matters of any impression that this provides any real protection to these creeks. In practice, it provides a form of window Board of Trustees 11 December 21, 1989 dressing, raising false hopes in those concerned, Presumably the entire Town. Reliance on the DEC is fatuous. The DEC represents a good idea whose time has come, and gone. Whether through under-staffing, overwork, or a general malaise, the DEC cannot be counted on to protect the environment. Personally, I have found the only way to get their attention is to sue them. Since the DEC routinely does not respond, the review of these Long Forms is left to various Town agencies. I submit that at least some of these forms are submitted by "hired guns" who either leave vital questions unanswered, or make misleading and sometimes fraudulent statements. I wonder if the Chairman is aware that at least some of these forms have been approved and reviewed byTown Officials. In fact, in some instances the review, which it is the Town Officials duty to perform, was actually done by the applicant. In one flagrant example, of which I am aware, a form was actually received, as reviewed by the applicant, not by officials and dispatched as approved to other government agencies within a time span of forty-five minutes. How many ordinary citizens receive this form of preferred treatment? Having made the remarks in a rhetorical manner, I would now like to pose a direct question to the Chairman. Why was Sage Cove excluded from the designation as a Critical ERvironmental Area and who is responsible for the decision? If you can't provide on complete answer to this question, why not discuss it and vote on it now? Thank you. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Thank you. I can, I think, answer a few points. One, Sage Creek..All of our CEA areas are creeks that contain bottoms that are owned by the people of Southold Town. They are public bottoms and they are the Trustees responsibility to safeguard them and protect them and regulate them. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the creek in question, Sage Creek, is a private bottom, not owned by us? FRANK FLY.N: That is correct. FRANK KUJAWSKI: we really don't feel that we have any right to regulate anyone else's piece of property. FRANK FL~: Why have you intruded on regulation on this property in the past? FRANK KUJAWSKI: I don't know about the past. You ask me a question as to why it was omitted. I think I have answered the question. Two, I disagree with you that a Long Environmental Assessment is a waste of time. I know personally, since I have been back on this Board, the long forms have been used very thoroughly by this Board. As a matter of fact, we have gone to court to defend the findings in the long form on a piece of property called the Connors property and have been upheld. Based on that review and based on our assessment of that information, which was very useful to this Board. Thirdly, the CEA designation automatically types an application as a type I application. Which means it can't circumvent, in 45 minutes, the SEQRA Regulations. The SEQRA Regulations provide time periods Board of Trustees 12 December 21, 1989 for certain things. You can't do an uncoordinated review and drop it out of the SEQRA Process. Even if a Board chose to ignore the information, it still would provide the public and opportunity to make comments on it. FRANK FLYNN: I am aware, to my knowledge none of this has occurred since you have been Chairman. However, it has occurred in the past. The past is still the present because action is pending on it. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I think this is a good step. FRANK FLYNN: I think this is a good step if it is properly and honestly enforced. I agree 100%. It is only a step. It is not a complete cure for the problems that exist in the Town. FRANK KUJAWSKI: If you come up with the cure for the Town let us know. FRANK FLYNN: I have many suggestions, if you would accept them. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Mr. Flynn, just briefly, the Trustees are not empowered to enact legislation on private bottom. That would be a Town Board member. But in light of the lengthy appeal you have made to use, we could take that up at the next work session and consider it for possible referral to the Town Board. FRANK FLYNN: It is my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, that in the past the Trustees have taken actions pertaining to the bottom of Sage Cove. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The actions were taken as a result of the Town Board designating us with the responsibility of the wetlands ordinance. For a municipality or a community to designate a Critical Environmental Area, they have to be the legislative body for that area. The Trustees have legislative authority under the Andros patent in the laws of I893, only for that portion of Town bottom which is Trustee land. What I am saying is that we have been designated for under waterways and the wetlands ordinance by the Town Board just as the Planning and Zoning Laws reside with Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals, but when it comes to the designation we have the ability to designate the critical areas of trustee land, but this is not trustee land. FRANK FLYNN: My I make one final comment? I assure you it will be brief. I gather from the comments made by the Chairman and other members of Board, that marinas are considered pollutants and they have an adverse effect on shellfish. Yet, this Board of Trustees in this instance of Sage Cove is willing to permit the doubling of the ~ockage and the doubling of the size of the marina there. This seems to me to be some what of a conflict. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to address either pro or con on this designations. PAUL CLANCY: I will be very brief. I am Paul Clancy. I live on Bay Shore Road, Greenport. I am also the President of the Peconic Bay Estate Property Owners Association. We are interested in specifically Pipes, Cove Creek. We fully support the CEA designation of all the creeks. FRANK KUJAWSKI: O.K. Thank you. Virginia? VIRGINIA MOORE: I am Virginia Moore from Southold. Mr. Flynn said something about enforcement awhile ago. I want to bring something up about enforcement too. The North Fork Environmental Board of Trustees 13 December 21, 1989 Council, Southold 2000, the Orient Association, the Organization of Riverhead Civic Organizations, and the Long Island High Barrens Association sent out a questionnaire to the candidates in the recent election. You will probably remember that one of the questions was that "Do you believe existing laws protect wetlands adequately and are they enforced equally and fairly?~ Nineteen out of the twenty candidates that responded to this question, said no, they are not. Chairman Kujawski said "I have been requesting a fine for violations since 1981, at present the only penalty for violation is to submit an application for a permit. The wetland fine is in the Code Committee in the Town." John Holzapfel said "Every month at least one project comes before the Trustees in which the project is already completed without a permit. No penalty is administer or registered or recommended." Henry Smith Said "There is no strong enforcement." Now, that is the way the creeks are fairing without them being designated a critical environmental area, I think the least we can do is give what is left of our creeks and there bottoms and sides and so forth as much protection as they possibly can. If this designation will do it, then we should by all means, go ahead and put it threw. I have two other letters taking the same the position. One is from Jane and Ken Tiky and one is from Terry Harnon-. May I turn them over to you? FRANK KUJAWSKI: Sure. Any other co~.~Lents? Ronnie? RONNIE WACKER: I am also a little disappointed that I saw that the public hearing is on a certain number of creeks. Those creeks are listed. I had imagined that after the dssignation of CEA for creeks a year ago, I thought thatwas forward looking step that you took, that we are now adding only a certain number of creeks. I thought that it was to give the Critical Environmental Area designation to all of the creeks. I do think that it is about time that we do that, because all of them are certainly in need of protection. I do think that you showed real leadership a year ago when you designated the six or seven. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Actually, we just did one, Richmond's. t think this Board did the other designation three years ago. RONNIE WACKER: I don't know if you all were members of the Board back then, but it did show a real concern for the creeks and the underwater land. It was an important affect in preserving the purity of the water, shellfish productivity and their importance too as wild life habitat. I do feel the next step is to designate the remaining creeks CEA. Ending last summer we have come throUgh three years of brown tide in Peconic Bay and we are not sure yet what caused it. It is certain that pollution from the creeks finds its way into the Bay. From then on it is only a matter of time before the bay itself becomes polluted. Critical Environmental Area designation will not pull development a long the Creeks, but it will insure that any project proposed will be given a closer look to ascertain that it will not damage the fragile water front area. This Board of Trustees, I think, is perhaps the most forward looking Board of Trustees that this Town has ever had. You have a wonderful opportunity now to set an example for the rest of the Town of concern and caring for what makes Southold a special area. That is it's clean waters Board of Trustees 14 December 21, 1989 and historic fishing industry. We can continue to be a functioning Town. A real Town not just a bedroom community. As so many of the Towns to the west have become. I urge you to designate all of the creeks in Southotd Town Critical Environmental Areas. Never mind naming just a few of the creeks. Just designate every creek CEA. This will protect all of the creek waters. We should be especially concerned about Sage Creek and James Creek which are most likely to be developed in the .near future. I hope that you will give this your careful attention. Thank you. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Is there anyone else that has any comments? HENRY SMITH: Yes. The reason that we just singled out certain creeks, is that we did not want to have anybody in the state have the impression that we were just rubber stamping something. That we where actually going after certain areas and setting them aside. What we thought was our priorities. Then we said that we would add creeks as we go along. As far as our plan was three or four years ago we are still doing what our original plan was. At that particular time we took what we thought was our most pristine creeks and put them on first, so it didn't look like just a rubber stamp and we are going to do all the creeks. We didn't think it would carry as much clout as if we picked out certain areas at that time and designated them. Then in the future kept adding them. RONNIE WACKER: I don't see anything wrong with saying all the creeks should be in the CEA that are in enimint danger of being developed, as I said there are three or four that are. HENRY SMITH: Don't get me wrong. I am not.~disagreeing with what you are saying, but that was the philosophy of the Board at that time and that is why it was done that way. It wasn't a clean sweep type of thing. We wanted to show the New York State D.E.C. that we where doing our homework. We picked out certain areas and did them at certain times. We kept adding creeks as we went along. JOHN BREDESIEYER: I might add that there is a very real concern that we don't impede the water front revitalization plan and we do have marine dependent needs and the needs of marine industry that are supportive of the local way of life, that includes the Baymen. The Long Environmental Assessment Form, the time we have been taking with them regularly, takes a lot of time of the Board and'large projects we are going to have these come in. Until we get a coastal plan established in the Town we did not want to have the Trustees be an impediment to maybe a larger plan that the Town Board is working on and also the concerns of marine dependent uses. RONNIE WACKER: I don't think it would be an impediment, if anything... JOHN BREDEMEYER: No, we are not, like what Henry said, we are not against the concept. We are working into it and we don't want to be making problems either. We want to become familiar with the process. In the beginning there was some failings. I must admit there were several Long Environmental Assessment Forms that got through without the proper treatment. Everyone now is getting a very thorough review. Board of Trustees 15 December 21, 1989 FRANK KUJAWSKI: Yes maam? MARION WARNER: I am Marion Warner. I am from Mattituck. I have herd what you are saying. I feel you are discriminating, using only certain creeks and not using all of them. FR3~qK KUJAWSKI: I believe you are correct. ALBERT KRUPSKI: As Henry Smith said we did not want to use a casual approach and make blanket over all and say that they are all environmentally the same. We looked at the list very carefully and tried to choose the ones that where most sensitive. MARION WARNER: That is discriminating. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Yes, it was. MARION WARNER: Well, you shouldn't FRANK KUJAWSKI: Creeks are not like people. Discrimination is such a bad word. It is like the ward dredge. Immediately bad connotations come to mind. We do discriminate, as a matter of fact when projects do come before this Board part of that discrimination is based upon what is already going on in this area. In other words, what has been allowed in the past. What hasn't been allowed in the past. So, discrimination, I think, is a good thing. As far as reviewing an application, they shouldn't all be treated the same. If they did, I doubt we would get to far in court defending those that we turned down. MR. BEHRER: My name is Behrer. I am from Cutchogue. May I ask this Board if they ever considered a means of birthing boats without using Creeks? FRANK KUJAWSKI: In reference too, specifically? MR. BEHRER: To taking care of marine interest around here. FRANK KUJAWSKI: How to birth them? Do you~ have a suggestion? MR. BEHRER: Yes. In Normandy, during the invasion, they set up barges and built out into the sea, in the harbors. It seems to me that it is possible to consider that in this area. FRANK KUJAWSKI: You mean in the Bay? MR. BEHRER: In the Bay. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I don't think we would want to do that in our creeks. MR. BEHRER: I think it is better to contaminate areas that can be washed threw well and not be wetland areas. I think it is worthy of consideration. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Thank you. MR. FLYNN: May I make some additional comments, Mr. Chairman? FRANK KUJAWSKI: Sure. FRANK FLYNN: I too was on Normandy. The gentlemen's remarks brings back some mixed memories. But, relation closer to home, if I read the Town Code it says that any 5wo marinas are generally located on open bay frontage. There is one such example on the entire Town of Southold. There are areas where open bay frontage is available to marinas, but is not utilized for this purpose. I question why it isn't and why it isn't used as means of off-setting the dilatoriness effects of marinas on creeks. Thank you. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I don't have the answer to that, but maybe someone else does. Steve? STEVE LATSON: Steve Latson, Baymens Association. We are definitely for the CEAs. In all creeks. There are a lot of good Board of TrUstees 16 December 21, 1989 creeks that have been neglected, Furthermore, what we were discussing before. The real issue of the Baymen in the future is not going to be whether or not we have laws dictating how many shellfish catch each day. It is whether we are going to have any place to shellfishing what-so-ever. For a fact, several creeks in the Town could get closed tomorrow. I am sure the list is growing and growing. We really have to get after all the run off problems and start monitoring faulty cesspools, etc. if we want to have a viable fishing industry in this Town in the future. I think if you really looking towards the future of Southold, our own economic advisory committee reco, m~ended fishing and I think it is a great way to go. You are going to have to protect the coast. You are going to have to develope inland. You are going to have to have buffer zones, etc. Thank you. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Are there any other comments? HENRY SMITH: I agree with what you are saying, Steve. The DEC is part of the State and the State was one of the biggest violators of road run off. STEVE LATSON: I know that. The purpose of water front revitalization is to develope a comprehensive local plan. If our plan does get approved by the Town Board and by the State Department then we will tell the DOT, the DEC, the Army Corp. of Engineers what we want done. That is the whole purpose of the water front revitalization. I think this is thing to start aiming at. NANCY SAWASTYNOWICZ: Nancy Sawastynowicz from Orient. I am in favor of designating the creeks as environmental areas and I would like to see more of them handed on ~as you intend to do. Thank you. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Thank you. Anyone else. Make a motion to close this hearing. UnleSs anyone on the Board has any comments. HENRY SMITH: I make a motion to close. JOHN BEDNOSKI: Second. All Ayes: FRANK KUJAWSKI: I make a motion to approve these areas right now. HENRY SMITH: Second. All Ayes: FRANK KUJAWSKI: This will be filed with State and should be in effect probably by late spring. The next hearing which is one hour and four minutes late, is in the matter of the application of Peconic Associates, Inc. on behalf of Young's Marina, Sage Blvd. to maintenance dredge approximately 100 cubic yards from existing channel and extend existing sheet steel bulkhead 45' to prevent further erosion. Are there any comments pro or con? Merlon Wiggin: Good evening. I am Merlon Wiggin. I just like to bring to the Boards attention that this was a continuation of a previous maintenance dredging permit that expired in 1988. The previous one was to dredge to six feet. We reduce it to four feet because we feel that it does not need the added depth and we don't want to encourage larger boats. Also, one of the sources of the filling has been the erosion to the point immediately to the west as you come into the creek. We want to Board of Trustees 17 December 21, 1989 protect that and not allow additional erosion to take place in that area~ FRANK KUJAWSKI: Thank you. Any other comments for or against this application? FRANK FLYNN: F.M. Flynn. Again I shall read some prepared remarks to assure accurate preservation on the record and ( to perhaps assist the secretary with transcribing them). First, I request the Board to examine carefully the dredging plan submitted to it. My examination of this plan indicated no accurate delineation of the applicants property. Thus, it is impossible to establish where he intends to dredge in relation to his own property, or in relation to the property of abutting owners. In my ongoing efforts to be of assistance to the Board, I offer a copy of the deed by which the property of the applicant was acquired and sketch map I have prepared indicating its dimensions and locations. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Could you orientate us. FRANK FLYNN: I believe that is the problem, that you can't orientate. You have the deed and you have the map. You can't supper impose one onto the other. That is part of the problem. In other words you can't tell where he is dredging in relation to other peoples property. HENRY SMITH: Is this the mouth of the creek that everybody uses? FRANK FLYNN: Yes. Essentially. HENRY SMITH: In other words he would be doing the other land owners in this creek a service as well as~his own marina? FRANK FLk~NN: Not necessarily. HENRY SMITH: Why. FRANK FLYNN: Well, let me continue my presentation. Several interesting facts arise from study of the deed and sketch map. 1. The westerly property line is only 40' in depth. 2. The fifth course runs "thence due west through the waters of said Peconic Bay." a. This is no mere "tie line" It conveys property in the Bay. If I am correct the Bay bottom belongs to the people of the State of New York and the Town exercise's certain rights there over. It is impossible for an individual to convey title to State land or indeed to secure adverse possession thereof. This raises questions of the validity of the owners title of the entire property. 3. The question of the 40' depth of the applicants westerly line and his proposed dredging of 200' raises questions of whose property he intends to dredge. If to the north of his property line, he is dredging property owned by others. If he dredges to the South he is dredging on State land. Board of Trustees 15 December 21, 1989 The applicant proposes to maintenance dredge. As far as I have been able to determine, the only maintenance dredging permit he has is for a strip 20' in width and 60' in length. My dictionary defines maintenance as; "The action of continuing, carrying on, or retaining something." New dredging hardly falls into this category. The applicant cannot encroach on State underwater land. There is the concomitant question of whether any dredging at the site is legally permissible. Since it is already on the record this evening I shan't reiterate my description of the physical characteristics of the Sage Creek. Except to state that it is, for the most part, extremely shallow and divided by bars into several sub-sections. I reiterate my previous citation of Section 100-239 of the Town Code, which, if I can correct in my interpretation, puts all the underwater land in Sage Creek in a residential zoning district and, further, prohibits all dredging there. It is my understanding that the Town of Southold adheres to the New York Department of States Coastal Management Program. This program was, incidentally, in effect before the adoption of the Town's Master Plan. If the Town hopes to benefit from any State funding for its Waterfront Revitalization Program, or to secure Department of State permits, it must comply. The Department of State has subscribed to Marina Criteria which incorporated many statements apropos of this application and in conflict thereto. I quote from the publications' desirable site characteristics: "9. Away from shellfish beds harvested for human conception as well as prime settlement and recruitment beds." Under undesirable site characteristics: i. "Too shallow or with inadequate water or land area for intended use, requiring extensive dredging or filling." 4. "Near specifically designated fish or wildlife protection areas or near shellfish bends or submerged grassbeds. Still quoting from the Marine criteria. Under the General Design Criteria. "Generally marinas should be located in areas that are well flushed so the the pollutants will be carried out and dispersed in more open water rather than accumulated or concentrated in the marina basin or adjacent areas." Under Currents/Littoral Drift, Sedimentation Criteria. '~Marinas should be so designed to ensure adequate flushing and should be no'deeper than the parent body of water and aligned with prevailing summer winds circulations." As aside from these notes, there was some mention of the depth that is intended to dredge. My reading to the application says they intend to dredge 6' below mean low water. This is far below the depth of the receiving body of water. Which I hazard to guess, averages perhaps 3' in depth over all. Back to these notes. I would insert the comment that the proposed marina operation, of which the subject application is a part is subject to Board of Trustees 19 December 21, 1989 prevailing south westerly winds which serve to confine pollutants in the creek. Further, anyone familiar with floating docks knows they serve to confine pollutants and debris. Also, the referenced Criteria go on to state: "Turning basins and navigation channels should not be designed to create ...that would result in a degradation of water quality. The depth should not exceed that of the receiving body of water and should not be located in areas of poor water circulation." I might add the applicant proposes to dredge to a depth of 6' below mean low water. This far exceeds the depth of the receiving Creek. The criteria go on to state: "The basin depth should be reduced sloping upward from the receiving body of water: marinas designed with zoned depth increasing toward open water, not to exceed the receiving body depth, will receive flushing rates and reduce the amount of dredging required". I could go on almost an infinitum. Clearly this application is related to the overall marina complex, the construction of which is almost entirely in conflict with the Department of States Marina Criteria. Absolutely no attention has been paid to the effect of the proposed dredging on the property of the owner's of the bulk of the creek's underwater land and the effects of the perimeter wetlands and uplands. This would clearly call for an EIS and flushing studies. I can anticipate that the applicant wilt-~maintain such studies were undertaken. I urge the Board to study the flushing study. It was under taken against the prevailing winds, did not include the entire basin and did not reflect the effect of the new proposed floating piers. Even the firm which prepared the studies admitted it was inconclusive. Next I would like to make some short comments regarding the proposed bulkhead expansion. The Marina Criteria recitation of undesirable site characteristics goes on to cite in this regard: "Location in areas of high littoral drift where shoreline structures, i.e. groins would be necessary to maintain open access channels and areas of high siltation or sedimentation where frequent maintenance dredging would be necessary." Encroachment seems to be the order of the day. The applicant owns a 40' strip, but there appears to be some 150' of existing steel bulkhead. On who's land or who's water is this excess length located? I repeat, you cannot achieve adverse position of public land or water. On who's land or water does he propose to construct the addition 45' of bulkhead? His plan certainly does not reveal his intentions to any degree of accuracy. In conclusion, the applicant proposes to dredge 100 cubic yards from an area 20' X 200'. This constitutes 4000 square feet of surface area. 100 cubic yards constitutes 2700 cubic feet. Board of Trustees 20 December 21, 1989 If anyone were to bother to compute this to make this computation, this constitutes an average 8" in depth. Does anyone believe this calculation? Are the Trustees prepared to guarantee that no excess dredging will be performed to the further detriment of the environment? I caution the Trustees that it is dealing with an owner who recently defied a court order to stop work for a period of over two days. Further this same owner, in the recent past had charges filed against him at the DEC for illegally dredging the creek. At that time he used a bucket dredge, the crane of which was rotated to deposit the spoil elsewhere in the creek. In view of the Board's reconsideration of the merits of the marina expansion project, as evidence by its recent rejection of an extension of the required permit, it should reject the subject application summarily. Thank you. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Are there any other comments regarding this application? MERLON WIGGIN: Frank, if I could add one more. The State has completed its evaluation of the federal consistency evaluation certification and has certified to be in compliance with the coastal zone plan. This has been given the corp. (Army Corp.) and ...addition to the permit we have the DEC permit in our hand .... and the depth...nothing to about 2' from a sharp distance opposite from where the erosion is taking place. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Do you know anything about the ownership? MERLON WIGGIN: Yes. The ownership is shown on the property lines on the drawing. The applicant owns on both sides of the entrance and the narrow piece right across the dredging will also occur in state waters off-shore of the applicants/owners, that is why it is necessary to get the state permits. ALBERT KRUPSKI: What about documentation about previous dredging..? MERLON WIGGIN: Yes. You have that in your file. A Town permit was issued for it. HENRY SMITH: The whole creek has been... ALBERT KRUPSKI: I know, but t mean extending out as far as calling the whole project maintenance. MERLON WIGGIN: The previous approval was 160 cubic yards, ten years ago. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Did it have specific dimensions? MERLON WIGGIN: Yes. They are similar to ones that are in there now. I think the earlier one was a little bit wider then that ore. FRANK FLTNT~: I believe that you would find that the previous permit from the Corp. of Engineers was for an area 20' in width and 60' length. Consequently, by and large this is not a maintenance dredge operation. Secondly, if in the area where the owner intends to dredge 60' and he only has approximately 40' in width, obviously he is dredging on someone else's property. HENRY SMITH: It says 20' in width here. FRANK FLYNN: Perhaps, it is confusing between depth and width. If I may approach. The intent is to dredge somewhere in this area. If you will notice it is in close proximately to the land Board of Trustees 21 December 21, 1989 of the Southold Shores Association, which I have an interest. Also, the width here approximately is less then 60', so where is his ledger? ALBERT KRUPSKI: This is his property there? FRANK FLYNN: Yes. JOHN BREDEMEYER: It is the same essentially. FRANK FLYNN: It is a different scale. JOHN BREDEMEYER: It is a different scale~ but this would be tacked up through this. This tracks, this is the north so it would come up here some place. ALBERT KRUPSKI: If I am going to make any sense out of this, I have to be able to transpose it on there in my mind. FRANK FLYNN: That is exactly what I am saying. That should have been done by the applicant. HEt~RY SMITH: It is done here on the licensed survey. I have no problem with it. FR~K FLYNN: You have no problem with it, but I have problem with it. A legal description is not on the map. So where do you know where he is going to dredge? H~RY SMITH: It says right here. FRANK FLYNN: It doesn't relate specifically to Southold Shores property, to his property. HENRY SMITH: I don't think it is up to this Board to... JOHN BREDEMEYER: Will Southold Shores have an interest? FRANK FLYNN: I have an interest. I have an ownership interest in it. HENRY SMITH: I think the property owners in Southold Shores would have boats in there too. They would probably feel just the opposite as you do. FRANK FLYI~: I don't know. Feelings have nothing to do when we are trying to deal with the law. FRANK KUJAWSKI: No. We have noted your comments. Thank you. FRANK FLYNN: If I may make a suggestion. The only way to solve this is to get some professional to transpose it on to that. MERLON WIGGIN: Frank, in regard to the length of the previous dredge, it was 20' wide and 180' long. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I don't think we have that on file. MERLON WIGGIN: I can supply copies of that for you. It was issued in 1977, 78. FRANK KUJAWSKI: We have that information, but we don't have information as to what actually the permit looked like. A description of it. A motion was made by HENRY SMITH and seconded by JOHN BREDE~EYER to close the hearing. ALL AYES FRANK KUJAWSKI: 9:08 In the matter of the application of En-Consultants on behalf of Russell Ireland to reconstruct 30' groin located in Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel, NY. Is there anyone here to speak in favor or in opposition to this application? Seeing no one, I entertain a motion to close this hearing. HENRY SMITH: So moved. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Second° ALL AYES. Board of Trustees 22 December 21, 1989 FRANK KUJAWSKI: I make a motion to approve this project. ALBERT KRUPSKt: Second. ALL AYES. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The next hearing is in the matter of Richard and Patricia Snow to construct a 3' X 30' catwalk and authorize existing bluestone paved area on property located at 1585 Long Creek Drive, Southold, NY. Is there anyone here to speak in favor or in opposition to this application? Seeing no one I will entertain a motion to close the hearing. ALBERT KRUPSKI: So moved. HENRY SMITH: Wait. I can't go along with the bluestone up on that area. I have no problem with the other. That is not in keeping with the buffer zone or the area. Either that or paved bluestone. ALBERT KRUPSKI: It is a non-fertilized surface. It is not ideal like something that would use the nutrients instead of adding to them. At least it doesn't add to the nutrients and it does provide some sort of buffer zone. HENRY SMITH: That is true. O.K. Would you approve dumping bluestone on top if it wasn't there already? ALBERT KRUPSKI: As opposed to having a lawn there I might. HENRY SMITH: I don't think so. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Why not have an unfertilized surface there instead of a fertilized. HENRY SMITH: Why don't we go ahead and tell everybody to dump bluestone next to the creek instead of growing? ALBERT KRUPSKI: I would love to do that instead. FRANK KUJAWSKI: O.K. Are there any other comments? There was a motion to close the hearing. I will second it. All in favor? ALL AYES. FRANK KUJAWSKI: All in favor of approving this application? AYES: Kujawski, Krupski, Bredemeyer, Bednoski. FRANK KUJAWSKI: All in opposition? Nay: Smith. FRANK KUJAWSKI: In the matter of En-Consultants on behalf of Robert Fairlie to construct a 4' X 65 ' elevated fixed dock, extending from the bulkhead. Property located on Jockey Creek at 3765 Wells Ave., Southold, NY. Is there anyone here to speak in favor or in opposition to this project? TO~ SAMUELS: Mr. Haje couldn't be here tonight and asked if I could answer any questions you might have. FP3~NK KUJAWSKI: I make a motion to close this hearing. JOHN BEDNOSKI: Second. FRANK KUJAWSKI: All in favor? ALL EYES: FRANK KUJAWSKI: Is there a motion to approve this application? HENRY SMITH: I will make the motion. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I will second. FRANK KUJAWSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. Board of Trustees 23 December 21, 1989 FRANK KUJAWSKI: Next one is in the matter of En-Consultants on behalf of Philip Rodilosso to construct a 4' X 30" fixed elevated walk (to be attached to existing catwalk), relocated ramp and existing floats westward, and add 6' X 30' float in "L" configuration. Project located in Eugene's Creek at Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. Any one to speak in favor or in opposition? I guess Mro Samuels will answer any questions. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: A comment in general to the Board. Just as a general policy, we see it more and more know, that people are saying there is no dredging. They are now beginning to build things 100, 150 feet out. There is just a feeling that the Trustees should set a length that they are going to allow something to go up. Particularly in an area were the water is one or two feet deep. Where people are going to go out cl~LuL~ing. All of a sudden they have to walk out 150' around someone's dock in order to get to the other side of it. The area is wide. There is no problem. I think it is something you people should at least consider as a general idea. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The size of the structure was noted to Mr. Haje with the idea of reducing it. The communication that came back to us was that he would not. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: We understand, because obviously the guy wants to get out into deeper water. FRANK KUJAWSKI: What we are saying is that...I personally, I don't know if anyone else is, am opposed to the size of this project. HENRY SMITH: We looked at the project and his neighbor was out on the point and this poor guy was back in a hole. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: We understood. We discussed it. Exactly that point. The other guy sticks out so far and he has to go so much further. It is just the idea of putting a structure out over open water. HENRY SMITH: I think that is another case where each one is handled individually. We thought we did a good job on it. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I was talking to the neighbor to the north and asked them if they had any concerns. They said no they were not upset at all. They thought the guy should go out that far to get water. They thought it was fine. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Maybe I will change my mind, if the neighbors agree. Any other comments on this application? O.K. I will make a motion to close the hearing. HENRY SMITH: I will second the motion. ALL AYES. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Is there a motion to approve this project. HENRY SMITH: I will make the motion to approve it. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Second. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Ail is favor of this application? ALL AYES. FRANK KUJAWSKI: In the matter of the application of En-Consultants on behalf of William and Vincent Geraghty to place a maximum of 1000 cubic yards of fill on existing filled areas, then to be graded and seeded. The property is on the main road~ Southold. Opposite Port of Egypt. I believe that the Board of Trustees 24 December 21, 1989 Trustees have gone back and looked at the staking of this site. I don't know if anyone wants to speak on this matter. The cac originally disapproved this matter. We did reach an agreement with the property owner to not fill any further. The one concern I have is that the seeding *ake place possibly in the Spring, when it has a chance. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: Frank, can I ask what the newest plans our? FRANK KUJAWSKI: This newest plan has been around awhile. We discussed it last week. He wants to top what is there. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: And bring it up? One foot, two foot? FRANK KUJAWSKI: A half of a foot. ALBERT KRU¥SKI: I have a problem with 1000 cubic yards. It seems like it is going to bring it up 20'. The area is not that large. We could scale it out. If they want to fill... 1000 cubic yards is a lot. We also have to specify which way this is to be pitched and put a time limit on when it is going to be done. HENRY SMITH: You pitch it towards the wetlands, in runs into the wetlands. You pitch it towards the road, in runs into the road into the creek. ALBERT KRUPSKI: That is exactly my point. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Should we table the hearing and get more information? ALBERT KRUPSKI: No, I am not saying, I am just saying there is some questions that should be answered. HENRY SMITH: I think if the area was planted, I think there would be less of a problem. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Yes. But I don't want to come back there and see a Sharp pitch either way, so you get a lot of run off. HENRY SMITH: We can put that as a stipulation. That the land has to be pitched toward the road. How's that? JOHN BREDEMEYER: We can come back to this one later. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Yes, but we can close the hearing. HENRY SMITH: I make a motion to close the hearing. JOHN BREDEMEYER. Second. ALL AYES. FRANK KUJAWSKI: We will hold off on a discission on this. Next one is the matter of Robert Keith to create a buffer zone with plantings, and cutting phragmites to 12" in height landward of high tide bushes on property adjacent to Deep Hole Creek at Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. Would any one like to comment in favor or opposition? HENRY SMITH: I make a motion to close the hearing. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Second. ALL AYES. HENRY SMITH: I would like to make a motion to approve. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Second. FRANK KUJAWSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. FRANK KUJAWSKI: In the matter of Roscoe Corey to construct 2' X 35; catwalk 18" high across the marsh grass to waters edge, a 6' X 4' dock, and install necessary pilings. We have to find out Board of Trustees 25 December 21, 1989 what that is. The property is located on Cedar Beach Harbor. Any cements? HENRY SMITH: None other then, do we have a plan with the number of pilings, etc? FRANK KUJAWSKI: Yes, but not with the number of pilings. We will have to ask for specifications on that. HENRY SMITH: I make a motion to close the hearing. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I second that. Ail in favor? ALL AYES. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I make a motion to approve subject to the applicant furnishing us with the proper number of pilings. HENRY SMITH: Second. FRANK KUJAWSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. FRANK KUJAWSKI: O.K. That takes care of hearings. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Lets go with Geraghty for a second. The map here that we have says existing fill in this cross patch this way. Like a southwesterly direction. Actually a south direction. Then it says on the back that is not filled, area to be filled. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: That was the original. I was just looking at the same thing. He wanted to fill right up to the railroad tracks. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Right. Did they ever give us another sketch. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I think there is just letters there. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: I just did a quick thing also while you where talking. That is 27,000 cubic feet and the whole property says 20,000, so even if it was 20,000 you are still up a foot. If it is only 15,000 you are up 2'. That is going to be a big run off problem. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Yes. I thought so. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Maybe we should send it back to get the elevations from a licensed survey of the grade stakes we where given. FRANK KUJAWSKI: First of all you need a licensed survey showing the filled area, which we don't have for the record and with the elevation. ALBERT KRUPSKI: He plans to have that, but there is no gudder in here. It goes straight across. FRANK KUJAWSKI: We need to communicate with Mr. Haje that the Board needs a licensed survey also showing elevations of the... HENRY SMITH: I think with the history of that area we can get a licensed survey with the elevations now and what they want it to be when they get through. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I second that. ALL AYES. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I am sorry about the delay for some people who are waiting. Bob. We are going to take a short r~cess here, for five minutes. IV. ASSESSMENTS: Board of Trustees 26 December 21, 1989 FRANK KUJAWSKI: Yes. The first assessment is Diamond Scarduzio to construct a single family dwelling on Budds Pond. Any comments about Scarduzio? ALBERT KRUPSKI: Sure. Its all upland. JO~N HOLZAPFEL: I just want to say that it is another place where they are building the septic system above the road. I think as a general policy, the Trustees should really step carefully on. I think it has been a problem. JO~ BREDEMEYER: The alternative is allowing to put rings into the ground water where you don't have nitrate removal. ALBERT KRUPSKI: These small ones must be the original elevations 3.7, 5.4. ALBERT KltUPSKI: We need a tong form and we might be requesting Department of Health on this one. FRANK KUJAWSKI: We will be in the same situation on this. They won't do something until we do something. JO~N BREDEMEYER: We can fill out the long form and request review by the Health Department prior to approval on whether they feel the engineering aspects are suitable for the site. In other words they might not want to approve it at this Boards recommendation, but we can question whether or not the proposed retaining structure will meet engineering criteria. FRANK KUJAWSKI: O.K. Would you like to make a motion to that effect? JOHlq BREDEMEYER: So moved. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Second. All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. John Geideman in behalf of Grant H. Lennox to construct 65' af bulkhead to be tied to existing bulkheads at each end on Spring Pond in East Marion. ALBERT KRUPSKI: What was the CAC's co~m~lents? FRANK KUJAWSKI: Recommend approval. ALBERT KRUPSKI: We saw a problem. We reco~m~ended that it be held back. Between the flag pole and like a home made retaining wall that is deteriorating. We suggest that it be held back for that. There is now sense in destroying tidal marsh. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Whereas there will be some destruction of inner tidal marsh and mud flats with the proposal originally submitted and, whereas the applicant has submitted a long environmental assessment form I would move a conditional negative declaration. Conditioned on mitigating the project by constructing the retaining structure landward of mean high water. HENRY SMITH: Second. FRANK KUJAWSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. J.M.O. Consulting in behalf of Peter Bavaro in Luptons Point. This is a catwalk to a ramp and a float. Two sPile dolphins. I mentioned at the time that I would like to make this a part of this, that this not extend into the Channel. Everyone uses that Channel to circumvent that side of Luptons Point. If it extends into the channel people won't be able to get around. Board of Trustees 27 December 21, 1989 ALBERT FA~UPSKI: You want it to be that the structure itself extend or the boat also? FRANK KUJAWSKI: The structure and the boat cannot extend into the channel. Regardless to what length they have down here. I move a negative declaration but I would like that to be part of the record. Structure and boat cannot extend into the channel and consider reorienting the float parallel. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Second. ALL AYES. 4. John and Nancy Pearson this is clearing and muttiflora and catbrier from an area around Richmond Creek. Cover all soil with leaves and hay until undergrowth is re-established. This is on South Harbor Road. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Did somebody get a look at the plan on this. I dontt remember seeing this. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: I don't think there was something on this. I don't know myself on this one. HENRY SMITH: We talked to the lady and it is just so they can walk down there. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I don't remember ever seeing anything. FRANK KUJAWSKI: This is a drawing. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I make a motion to give this a negative declaration. JOHN BEDNOSKI: Second. ALL AYES. 5. En-Consultants in behalf of Robert Barry to replace (within 18") an existing high retaining wall 76' in length. New wall to be approximately 6' lower in elevation that existing one, which will be cut lower (height to be about 6'). A second retaining wall will be built approximately 4' landward to match existing grade elevation. Fill removed from behind the old wall to be used to fill depressed area behind wall. A 25' return on e/s and 'a 15' return on w/s will be built. This is on West Shore Drive, Peconic on Peconic Bay. ALBERT KRUPSKI: This seems so simple when it is in black and white, but they have a lot of problems. HENRY SMITH: That thing is so high anything they can do to lessen the height of it. I make a motion to negative dec. it. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I would too. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I would negative dec. it, but I think there is, you know it could be... HENRY SMITH: It was built wrong to begin with. These people inherit the problem so lets... JOHN BREDEMEYER: It is bellied way out so we thought in kind/in place. I move a negative declaration. HENRY SMITH: Second. All AYES. 6. Proper-T Services in behalf of John F. O'Grady to construct a 16' X 40' swimming pool, construct retaining wall approximately 115', excavate and regrade rear yard, and Board of Trustees 28 December 21, 1989 construct addition to house. The property is located at 830 West Cove Road, Cutchogue. On Cutchogue Harbor. ALBERT KRUPSKI: We had a few questions on that. What is the purpose of the retaining wall? JAMES FITZGERALD: They want to regrade the rear yard, so they see something other then the sky. They have a terrific location, but not from the house.-The house is built way down on the road and the level of the first floor of the house is six or seven feet below the level of the edge of the bluff. So what they want to do is take that dirt out of there and a retaining wall will be necessary to run perpendicular to the edge of bluff a long the property line with the neighbor on the north where the high ground is. The ground slope slopes away from the bluff and down to the south. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Right, so they want to take away... How high is that retaining wall? JAMES FITZGERALD: I am guessing, 4 or 5 ' ALBERT KRUPSKI: That would be on the north property line 4 or 5' and then it would just be level. JAMES FITZGERALD: Yes. After further discussion, a motion was made by ALBERT KRUPSKI and seconded by HENRY SMITH to issue a negative declaration. ALL AYES 7. Peconic Associates, Inc. in behalf of Narrow River Marina, a revised plan to maintenance dredge existing channel to 4' depth, approximately 2100 cubic yards and reduce drainage area. ~ per resolution by Town Board, request granted to temporarily store approximately 2,130 yards of dredged material on the Town property. This is located at Orient. We originally did this as a type one because of the magnitude of the project. I think it has been reduced. It is still a type one because it is one of our categories. I think just as a suggestion, a conditional negative dec. here with those stipulations plus a couple more. That the dredging be done prior to April, if that is possible. Also, some method to retain the spoil, hay bails. MERLON WIGGIN: Stated that the DEC has a condition for dredging to be done by Aprit 30, 1990 and that hay bails are going to be used as stated in the application. After discussion with comments made by John Holzapfel, Steve Latson a motion was made by FRANK KUJAWSKI and seconded by HENRY SMITH to declare a conditional negative declaration with the DEC stipulations as the conditions. AYES: KUJAWSKI, SMITH, BEDNOSKI, BREDEMEYER. NAY: KRUPSKI. 8. En-Consultants in behalf of Antonio Perez/Anne Branch Williams to construct one-family dwelling, pool deck, sanitary system well bluestone (or similar pervious) driveway. Approximately 500 c.y. of clean fill to be trucked in to raise grades. This property is located of a right-of-way in Orient. After a discussion a motion was made by ALBERT KRUPSKI and seconded by JOHN BREDEMEYER to table this project and have it staked for further inspection. ALL AYES. Board of Trustees 29 December 21, 1989 9. Robert KasSner in behalf of Nunnakoma Waters Association, Inc. to dredge approximately 1500 c.y. of material to be hydraulically removed and pumped to adjacent beach as nourishment. This is located on Corey Creek at the southerly end of Wampum Way, Southold. T~is has been in the file for a long time waiting comments from the DEC. We have not heard anything, but Bob has. After discussion with Robert Kassner a motion was made by ALBERT KRUpSKI and seconded by HENRY SMIT~ to type this project a type I because of the size. ALL AYES. NOTE: BOb Kassner submitted all documents from DEC. VI. WAIVERS !. Maria Mercorella request waiver to add a 44' X 12' deck to existing house on property located at 22 60 Great Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel, adjacent to Brushs Creek. A motion was made by FRANK KUJAWSKI and seconded by HENRY SMITH to grant a waiver with the use of Hay bales to be used in a straight line. ALL AYES. VII. RESOLUTIONS: 1. Town Trustees seeking mutual agreement regarding activities and operations of James Bitses concerning freshwater pond and wetlands on Bitses' property located on Hummel Pond at Soundview Avenue and Lighthouse Road, Southold. A motion was made by JOHN BEDNOSKI and seconded by JOHN BREDEMEYER to table the resolution for further review. ALL AYES A motion was made by JOHN BREDEMEYER and seconded by ALBERT KRUPSKI to the Town Board that the Code Committee, at its earliest possible time, meet with the Trustees to discuss changes in the Wetlands Ordinance under Agricultural Exception. ALL AYES 2o Revoke Permit 96-4-89-35-4-7.2 of Harold and Hattie Stettler to construct addition to dwelling on property located on Gull Pond Lane~ Greenport, for failure to file correct information on application. A motion was made by FR~K KUJAWSKI and seconded by JOHN BREDEMEYER to revoke the permit because of misinformation on the application. ALL AYES VIII. MOORINGS: 1. Moore & Moore in behalf of Renato Starcic request mooring permit in Jockey Creek, R.O.W. off Oaklawn Avenue, $outhold. A motion was made by HENRY SMITH and seconded by FRAlqK KUJAWSKI to table this resolution in order to check the size of the boat. ALL AYES. IX. FIELD INSPECTION: Board of Trustees 30 December 21, 1989 1. Donald Sonnen~orn re: compliance of permit to place split rail fence beyond marker on his property located on Smith Road, Peconic. A motion was made by FRANK KUJAWSKI and seconded by JOHN BREDEMEYER to send a letter to the applicant requesting him to remove the fence if it is not on his property. If it is on his property he must submit a~ licensed survey showing the boundaries of the property. ALL AYES. Meeting was adjourned at i1:30 p.m. SOUT OL