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