Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrick Cove Marina 19931 I r Final Environmental Impact Statement For Brick Cove Marina Location: 12.5 Acres including 4.2 Underwater Acres on Sage Boulevard, south of Route 25, within the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk. Lead Agency: Town of Southold Board of Town Trustees 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Contact Person: John Bredemeyer, President Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold (516)765-1892 Prepared by: Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. P. O. Box 958 Water Mill, New York 11976-0958 Date of Acceptance: ~PL. ~, , ~~~3 j 1' u i Table of Contents ry ............... I. Summa ......................................................... II. Description of Proposed Action ......................................2 III. Analysis of Coiitineuts on Draft Enviromneutal Impact Statement ... .........................................................3 IV. References ............. ........................................................41 V. Appendices ............ ........................................................42 Appendix 1: Minutes of the Public Hearing dated October 28, 1993 Appendix 2: Correspondence from F. M. Flym~ dated October 28, 1993 Appendix 3: Correspondence from Linda Levy of North Fork Environmental Council dated October 28, 1993 Appendix 4: Memo from Richard G. Ward, Chairman of the Southold Planning Board includung attached correspondence from Charles J. Voorhis of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates dated November 2, 1993. Appendix 5: Correspondence from F. M. Fly~m dated November 7, 1993 Appendix 6: Correspondence from Cluistopher Kelley of Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelly including Continents on Brick Cove Marina DEIS prepared by Larry Pemiy Consulting dated November 8, 1993 Appendix 7: Coordination Letter from Jolm M. Bredemeyer, President of the Southold Tntstees to Richard Ward, Chairman of the Southold Plamung Board dated March 25, 1993, requesting Plamring Board input in the Scoping Outline. Appendix 8: Correspondence from Valerie Scopaz, Senior Plamier of the Town of Southold to John Bredemeyer, President of the Southold Trustees regarding the Scoping Outline for Brick Cove Marina. I~ I L Appendix 9: Measurements of actual width of Sage Basin for vehicular passing. Appendix 10: Pwnp-out Log for Brick Cove Marina Appendix 11: Correspondence from Christopher Kelley, Attorney to Frank Flynn to Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney dated November 18, 1993 confirming stay of court judgment. Appendix 12: Dredge Spoil Analysis for Southport Development Proposal by Henderson and Bodwell dated March 26, 1986. r ~~ ~~ i I. Summary A Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") was prepared by Peconic 1 Associates for Brick Cove Marina. The DEIS was submitted to the Southold Board of Trustees ("Southold Trustees" or "Trustees") on August 3Q 1993. On September 3Q 1993, after careful consideration, the Trustees accepted the DEIS as complete and adequate for public review. The DEIS is comprised of 235 pages of narrative which is followed by fourteen appendices and four exhibits. Thereafter, the DEIS was circulated to all Involved Agencies and a public hearing was held. Seven individuals gave oral testimony at the public hearing, of which five presented testimony in favor of the project and/or the DEIS. Six individuals subsequently provided written testimony on the project. For the most part, the nature of the criticisms on the DEIS reflect differing approaches to addressing similar issues. Nevertheless all issues raised are addressed in this FEIS. The major objections and concerns raised in connection with the DEIS include: access and traffic, zoning and conformance with planning studies, property values, impacts to shellfish and shellfish closures, impacts pertaining to vessel discharge and nitrogen loading, and rare species. All such issues were addressed in the DEIS. However, the FEIS provides further information regarding these and other issues in an effort to supplement, place into proper context and/or clarify the analyses presented in the DEIS as appropriate. I.~ L L_ 1 II. Description of Proposed Action Applicant proposes to modernize and improve marina operations from 91 to 138 ' boat slips on a site formally known as Young's Marina, 12.5 acres in size of which 4.2 acres are owned underwater land. Also, the action includes improvement of parking areas, landscaping; marina head pump-out facilities, installation of a paved washdown platform with sediment and oil separation system, a storm drain interception system for the parking area, and relocation and improvement of the existing on-site sanitary system. The improvements to the marina also include dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards, 350 cubic yards of slope dredging, and approximately 550 cubic yards at the basin entrance to the marina inside the basin. !~ 2 I III. Analysis of Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement A public hearing was held on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") on October 28, 1993. The minutes are attached hereto as Appendix 1. The following is an analysis of the comments put forth at the public hearing: ' The following comments were raised by Linda Levy of the North Fork Environmental Council: 1 Comment #l The first problem (with the DEIS) has to do with the access. The site does not have adequate access from ±he Main Road. The right of way called "Sage Boulevard" is barely sixteen feet wide. This is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass each. other. In case of emergency, an ambulance or fue engine would not be able to safely pass any vehicles evacuating the site. i Response #1: The claim that the site does not have adequate access from the Main Road and the right of way, Sage Basin is not wide enough for vehicles to pass each other is without basis in fact. First, it is clear that Sage Boulevard is wide enough for vehicles to pass and indeed vehicles pass each other on Sage Boulevard every day. Sage Basin was constructed several decades ago and has served not only the marina, but the Sage Property to the south as well as several homes which front Sage Boulevard. Second, while the width of paved portion of Sage Boulevard ranges from 16 to 1 17 feet, the actual area of pass and repass is far greater because the road shoulders are for the most part vegetated with grasses and small shrubs. Afield inspection of Sage Boulevard was conducted on November 21, 1993. The purpose of the field inspection was to evaluate the width of Sage Boulevard and its road shoulders. Seventeen measurements of the width available for vehicle passing were conducted between the intersection of Sage Boulevard and the entrance to the marina. Field measurements were taken from existing utility poles where they were found to be opposite of one another, between utility poles and the nearest tree on the opposite side of Sage Boulevard and between trees on opposite sides of Sage Boulevard were they were found to be closer than utility poles or utility poles and trees on opposite sides of Sage Boulevard. A compilation of the data collected in the field is attached hereto as Appendix 9. These data show the range of distance of pass and repass to vary from 26.2 feet to 42.6 feet with the average distance calculated at 30.7 feet. Finally, during the field inspection vehicles were observed passing one another on three occasions. di d s, one rt Third, besides the actual width available for passing, three turnaroun road and five driveways connect to Sage Boulevard between Route 25 and the entrance to Brick Cove Marina. All are available for use in an emergency situation. Forth, Section 280-a of McKinney's Town Law addresses emergency access in a very specific way. Section 280-a (5) states the that for the purposes of access a frontage of 15 feet is sufficient to allow ingress and egress of fire trucks, ambulances, police cars ' and other emergency access. The right of way, Sage Boulevard is mapped at 16 feet. Fifth, comments on the proposed project were solicited from the Southold Police ' and Fire Departments. Both Departments responded that the proposed marina expansion would not affect their ability to perform their respective functions. A copy of their responses were included in the DEIS (See Appendix 14 of the DEIS). It is clear that both ' the Chief of Police and Fire Chief are qualified to render such an expert opinion. Comment #2: The right-of--way is surrounded on both sides by wetlands. Therefore, any widening of the road would have a significant environmental impact and must be addressed. Neither the issue of access nor the environmental impact of any necessary widening have been addressed in the DEIS. Response #2: The issue of access was addressed in the DEIS as disclosed in Response #1. The issue of necessary widening of the right-of way was not addressed in the DEIS because as explained in Response #1, it is not necessary to widen the right-of way and no proposal for its widening has been put forth in connection with the proposed marina expansion. Finally, as disclosed in Comment #16, by the Applicant's Attorney, Mr. Tohill, ' there are no plans for the widening of the right-of--way. Comment #3: No current traffic study has been submitted of the impact on the already hazardous Route 25 (Main Road). The fact that the right-of--way is shared by the Sage Property is also not addressed. This second parcel, if developed, would add a significant traffic burden to the right-of--way and therefore the access to the marina. A traffic study is a necessary part ofthis EIS and should be included. Response #3: The DEIS specifically addressed traffic conditions on Sage Boulevard and Route 25 (See Pages IV 64 through IV 70). The DEIS relied upon a previous traffic study performed by Dunn Engineering in 1985. The Dunn Engineering Traffic study was performed for a previously proposed project at Brick Cove Marina which included a motel, restaurant and a marina which would have generated much more traffic than the present and proposed marina (See page IV - 65). The study concluded that with minimal improvement to the road, mainly resurfacing, posting of speed limit signs and clearing of adjacent vegetation, Sage Basin could safely accommodate the traffic generated from a motel, restaurant and marina (at the Brick Cove Site) and adjacent properties. Also, the traffic study concluded that Route 25 is not hazardous. What is important is the fact that both the Hotel and restaurant are no longer proposed. Nevertheless, the impacts pertaining to traffic can be addressed independently 4 LJ of a restaurant and hotel as they are no longer part of the proposal. The right of way- does indeed serve the dwellings which have direct access as well as the Sage Property. With respect to Sage Property, it is clear that its redevelopment will result in a significant change in density. The Sage Property was initially developed with 31 residential cottages ' that were occupied seasonally. Redevelopment of the Sage Property will result in the removal of these cottages with subsequent construction of 10 homes which represents a 1 reduction of 21 homes. The significant reduction of homes on the Sage Parcel will cause a corresponding reduction of traffic generated therefrom. A parking study of marinas was included in Appendix 6 ofthe DEIS. The study, performed by the University of Rhode Island, disclosed an average car count at marinas during high-use days to be 0.33 cars per slip. Applying this estimate to the expansion of Brick Cove Marina results in an estimated increase in parking of 16 vehicles and a corresponding increase in traffic. This estimate assumes that all slips are, in fact, occupied. Thus, when one factors the increase in traffic resulting from the marina expansion, as determined by parking, with the decrease in density at the Sage Property, it is clear that the overall usage of the right of way will decrease. A formal traffic study specific to this proposed project marina was not required because a previous traffic study was performed at this site for a much more intense use which clearly de-emphasized traffic problems associated with Sage Boulevard and Route 25 and the increased traffic resulting from the proposed project was insignificant and therefore unimportant. Comment #4: The DEIS states that the use of this site in conjunction with both the Town of Southold Master Plan, Zoning and the US/UK Stewardship Program. In fact, the zoning category of Marine II led to a suit against the Master Plan and reconsideration of this category is part of the charge of the US/UK Stewardship Task Force, which has not made its final recommendation. Response #4: It is clear that the proposed project is consistent with both the Master Plan and Zoning. The Marine II Zone which covers the Brick Cove marina site was arrived at through a comprehensive planning study, the Master Plan. With respect to the US/CTK Stewardship Task Force, its charge is to render planning recommendations which the Town Board may consider. The Final Report of the US/[JK Stewardship released on November 29, 1991, extensively recommended additional study. it is clear that no moratorium was placed on this parcel nor any other parcel of the town and thus the Town can not deprive the applicant of due process for an undetermined period of time during which the US/CJK Stewardship Task Force will formulate more specific recommendations. Even so, the US/UK Stewardship Task Force Report of November 29, 1991 did recommend a creed for ecorromie denelopmerrt based orr existing resources of the area. Certainly, the proposed project is in concert with that recommendation. Comment #5: This particular site is an example of the problems of the Marine II Zone...all other zoning within a quarter mile of the site is either R-40 or R-80. Therefore, the Marine II zoning of this site can be considered spot zoning. While the existing zoning allows for this use, the fact that it is currently under examination for possible zone changes should be examined and addressed. Response #5: The Marine II Zoning of the Brick Cove Site can not be considered spot zoning. The zoning of this site was arrived at pursuant to a Master Plan which was upheld by the courts. There is no indication that a change of zone is immanent. Comment #6: Disposal of this waste (boat waste) would certainly have an impact as it would result in increased nitrogen loading. Response #6: Clearly, the disposal of boat waste into the proposed septic system will result in increased nitrogen loading to the bay. The reason for this is the failure of soils to attenuate nitrate. However, to place into proper context, the amount ofboat waste id ti l h en a . as res generated by this marina is insignificant compared to other land uses suc Septic systems in the residential setting are designed to accommodate 300 gallons l h t per day or 109,500 gallons per year as required by Suffolk County Department of Hea Services. Further, Suffolk County Department of Health Services (1983) has estimated average nitrogen loading to groundwater from septic systems to be 4.7 kilograms per year on a per capita basis. Assuming that an average household is occupied by two persons, the average nitrogen per year is calculated to be 9.4 kilograms or 20.8 pounds. Next, consider the pumpout log attached hereto as Appendix 10 which discloses that 1191 gallons of boat pump-out was collected and disposed in the on site septic system. Assume that the concentration of nitrate in boater pump-out is similar to that which is discharged 1 to a septic system from a residence. Given that the maximum number of boats docked at the marina in 1993 was 76, and assuming that two people occupied each boat, the potential nitrogen loading resulting from boat waste in 1993 is calculated to be 0.221 lbs. If marina occupancy is maximized to 138 slips (as per the proposal) and boat waste continues to be collected and disposed of as required by the Trustees, nitrogen loading from this source is expected to be approximately 0.410 Ibs per boating season. In comparing the expected nitrogen loading to the septic system resulting from the collection of boater pumpout (0.410 lbs./boating season) to a residence occupied by two persons on a year round basis (20.81bs/year), it must be concluded that nitrogen loading from boat ared to nitrogen loading resulting from a year round nificant com -out is insi m p g p pu residence occupied by two persons. In summary, while disposal of boat wastes into the septic system will increase nitrogen loading to the bay, its contribution compared to residential inputs is insignificant and therefore unimportant. ~l 6 E 1 ' Comment #7: The applicant maintains that the site will not effect property values based upon a statement from the Town Assessor. This is not the expert opinion needed for such a statement. Only an independent appraiser can judge as to the potential impact on ' property values...regardless of whether the Town would change its assessment of the properties. Response #7: The opinion rendered by the Town Assessor is indeed an expert opinion which is based upon both experience and state law. By virtue of the Real Property Tax Law, the State of New York interprets market value to be directly related to assessed value which is applied by the Town Assessors. Based upon the expert opinion of the knowledgeable and certified Town Assessors, the improvement of Brick Cove marina will ' not diminish surrounding property values. The DEIS statement that the proposed project will not affect property values in the area surrounding the site, is therefore appropriate. Comment #8: The applicant states that "Impacts to shellfish are not regarded as significant because the portions to be dredged do not support important or large concentrations of shellfish. Tltis is based on examining the spoil from dredging already completed. However, this spoil came from an area which had already been disturbed. All that analysis can tell us is that shellfish are not abundant in areas that have been developed as marinas. ' Response #8: It is clear that all of Sage Basin has been disturbed. As disclosed in the DEIS, Sage Basin was created as a result of extensive mining of clay for the purposes of brick manufacturing (See III-2 of the DEIS). During this period, approximately 20 million bricks were produced. Sage Basin became a tidal creek following the 1938 hurricane which caused the basin to be open to Peconic Bay. ' The clay like sediments that underlie the marina, that which has been dredged, are substantially similar to sediments underlying the remainder of Sage Basin. It is clear that sediment size (grain size) is an important factor in determining abundance of the hard clam, with sand and courser sediment characteristics being amenable to greater clam abundances whereas finer sediment characteristics are associated with lesser abundances of hard clams (Arnold, 1984, Grizzle, 1990). The inspection of dredge spoils as well as the numerous on site inspections and shellfish studies which are included in the DEIS support the conclusion that the marina and the larger Sage Basin are not productive for shellfish. The relative lack of shellfish in the dredge spoil is a particularly convincing because it is clear that any moderate to high shellfish concentrations would have been easily detected if marina bottom lands were in fact productive for shellfish. 7 LJ r L~ The DEIS includes other important sources of information regarding shellfish abundances in Brick Cove Marina and Sage Basin. These include an affidavit by two commercial baymen who stated that Sage Basin is not productive for shellfish based upon familiarity with Sage Basin and direct experience, a shellfish survey of Brick Cove Marina and its adjacent areas conducted on September 22, 1993 which did not reveal shellfish abundances in commercial quantities, a shellfish survey of Brick Cove Marina conducted in June and July of 1993 which revealed no commercial abundances of shellfish, and a shellfish survey of all of Sage Basin conducted in 1986 which found no commercial quantities of shellfish. All of these studies were included in Appendix 13 of the DEIS. Finally, in Ecology of Small Boat Marinas by Nixon, Oviatt and Northby (1973), no significant differences in shellfish abundances were found with respect to marina use and non-marina use in portions of a tidal creek. This study clearly suggested that the mere presence of a marina has little effect on shellfish abundances. This report was included in Appendix 6 of the DEIS. In summary, the conclusion no significant impact to shellfish is supported by the numerous studies included in the DEIS. Comment #9: The DEIS is filled with general statements as to the lack of negative impacts which are not proved in any way. Examples include, "Negative impacts resulting from the temporary placement or permanent placement of dredged spoil are not important" ; "there are no negative impacts associated with landscaping"; "the value of vegetation to wildlife is extremely limited throughout most of the project area"; "The probability of the impact occurring, as well as its duration is small"; (in reference to stormwater runoff); "The potential small adverse impact is ultimately viewed as positive." Response #9: In objecting to the proposed project, it is clear that the statements in Comment #9 are taken out of context. These statement were arrived at by detailed studies included in DEIS. Comment #10: Perhaps the attitude of the applicant in taking negative environmental impacts into account is best stated in the constantly repeated refrain, "All improvements to the present facility are considered to have positive impacts". Such generalizations cannot possibly be considered adequate in an Environmental Impact Statement. id d i i ere s cons ty Response #10: The statement that the improvements to the present facil to have positive impacts are supported by voluminous investigations of this marina associated with marinas ll t i d . y s genera mpac uce coupled with the mitigation strategies to re Analysis in support of this and similar conclusions are found in Sections II-D and II-F, III- ~ A, Section V, and the Appendices which follow. ~ Comment #11: The applicant dismisses the alternative designs in the following manner, "The only practical time to review alternative boat slip layouts is prior to start of 1 i r i i C9 construction." The applicant is stating that because the work was done completion of an EIS; he should not be asked to look at alternatives which might be suggested as a result of the belated EIS. The burden to take a hard look and mitigate potential adverse impacts remains, regardless of the current stage of construction. Response #I1: The statement that the only practical time to review alternative slip layouts is prior to start of construction is reasonably arrived at. An alternative entailing removal of existing docks and pilings and re-filling underwater lands that have been dredged would certainly result in extreme and unacceptable impacts to the environment. The Section on Alternatives found in Section VIII of the DEIS lists six other alternatives permitted in the MII Zoning Category. Comment #12: We are concerned that the SEQRA process has been violated in the continued granting of permits and ongoing construction of this project. The New York State Supreme Court has ruled that SEQR requirements have not been fulfilled; therefore no construction should have been permitted to proceed. Response #12: The prior ruling of the State Supreme Court was appealed. The Appeal has the effect of upholding the previously issued permits until such time as the Appeal is argued and a decision is reached. Thus construction pursuant to permit is permitted to proceed. Comment #13: We respectfully request that the Southold Trustees not accept this DEIS until these inadequacies are properly addressed. Response #13: The DEIS was accepted on September 30, 1993 because it was adequate for public review. The purpose of this FEIS is to address comments raised in connection with the accepted DEIS. The following comments were raised by Frank Flynn: Comment # 14: This Board has consistently demonstrated its bias in favor in favor of the applicant by actions which are in conflict with SEQRA, DEC regulation, and Southold's own code. Among its most obvious transgressions the Board has permitted to the applicant to flout regulations by operating the fully expanded marina without a Department of Health Permit. Response #14: The Applicant applied for an received a waiver from obtaining a Department of Health Permit pursuant to 97-21 and 22 of the Town Cocles. Thereafter, the Trustees approved a permit for the marina expansion. The following comments were raised by Anthony B. Tohi11, Attorney for the Applicant:- Comment #15: The issue of access has been unsuccessfully raised 3 times through his attorney in the Supreme Court. The marina has been there for 43 years, and only the Zoning Board of Appeals have jurisdiction over access pursuant to Section 280-a of Town Law. Response #15: So noted. Comment #16: The applicant plans no widened road way from the Main Road. Response #16: So noted. Comment #17: With respect to the traffic study, there is an existing use which has been there for 43 years, there is no existing traffic problem that has been raised ever in this building or from any of the boards in the last 6 years administrative or regulatory review with respect that roadway or cars or trucks that are using that roadway. Response #17: So noted. Comment # 18: With respect to spot zoning, zoning is under the purview of the Town Board and criticisms on zoning should be directed to the Town Board not the Trustees. Response #18: So noted. Comment #19: On the sanitary system, the.complaint was that the applicant is going to change the existing sanitary system, relocate it landward away from its present troublesome location and then, cause all of the boat owners to use it... We intend to do what this Board once recommended as a condition of permit approval with the litigation. I Response #]9: So noted. Mr. Wiggins made the following comments: Comment #20: One problem with the sanitary system was the relocation of the existing ' sanitary system 100 feet more away from the from surface waters. This has proven wonderful...every one should do this if you want to improve the basin. Some of the tests ofwater quality indicate better water quality on the eastern portion of Sage Basin then the western portion. Response #20: Water quality investigations were performed at five locations in Sage Basin including at the marinas as well as locations outside the marina. The results were 10 1 included in Appendix 9 of the DEIS. These tests revealed low levels of both total and fecal coliform bacteria within the confines of the marina. 1n contrast, the highest levels of coliform bacteria were detected at the end of the bulkeaded canal surrounded by residential dwellings which is located away from the marina. Comment #21: Another comment was made about the disturbed site. The whole site was disturbed. That was a mining operation For clay for brick. It has all been disturbed over a period of time. Response #21: So noted. The DEIS reported the history of Sage Basin was disclosed in Section III-2 of the DEIS. Mr. Zehner made the following comments: Comment #22: I would like to note that we (Brick Cove Marina) received a total of 14 permits since 1987 plus 5 additional work amendments to those permits and from 6 different agencies. Response #22: So noted. Comment #23: We could have gone for much more expansion than we did for our project. Response #23: It is clear that the zoning over the site provides for much more intensive development ofthe marina. In fact, a previous proposal which included a motel and restaurant in addition to a marina was pursued and this proposal was permitted by zoning. This development proposal was disclosed in Section III-3 of the DEIS. Mr. Leverage made the following comments: I Comment #24 We have competed almost all of them (Trustee Permit Requirements), that the project is virtually done in water. Progress of the sewage improvements have been slowed by our constant problems in court, but pursuant to Health Department Approval, a new buried water distribution system has been installed so that the septic system is functional on a year round basis. Response #24: So noted. Comtnent #25: Portable pumpout stations have been working for two years and all heads are sealed. 11 I~ Response #25: A log of pump-out facility operation was maintained in accordance with NYSDEC and Southold own Trustee Permit Conditions. The log is attached hereto as Appendix 10. The log reveals that boat heads were sealed and 1191 gallons were collected from holding tanks at the marina. In addition, surface waters were sampled for coliform contamination and these tests revealed surface waters within the marina to have similar or lower coliform concentrations than areas within Sage Basin but outside that marina. Accordingly, there is no indication that boats at the marina have been discharging sewage into marina waters. 1 Comment #26: The marina has been using the (Stop Throwing Out Pollutants) STOP Program for some time; the marina was among the first to implement a recycling program. The Marina does not use toxic (~~) antifreeze; all oil from bilges are trapped in oil sorbs so that none is released. Response #26: So noted. ' Richard Ralyea made the following comments: Comment #27: As a contractor and a boater, it is my opinion that the marina has done nothing but improvements; they were careful about the pumpouts and boaters. Its a real nice operation and I think its good for Southold. We're a waterfront community and I think it's (the marina) is a positive thing for Southold. Response #27: So noted. Linda Levy of the North Fork Environmental Council added the following ' comments: Comment #28: The NFEC is not saying that they are not doing nice things over there (the marina), that it is not a clean operation, that there not trying to make some mischief. The NFEC is concerned that the DEIS is not taking a Hard Look. Response #28: It is clear that extensive analysis has been performed on the marina as evidenced by the DEIS. The above comment suggests that NFEC is supportive of the improvements implemented in connection with the expansion of the marina. Mr. Flynn added the following comments: Comment #29: There is mention of the Ecological Studies made (in the DEIS); however, 80 % of the underwater land is owned by others and these lands should be considered in terms of impact. 12 Response #29: Extensive ecological studies were included in the DEIS which encompassed areas within and outside the property boundaries of the marina. These studies include three significant habitats found outside the marina, a vegetation and wildlife study which encompassed areas both within and outside the marina, and water quality investigations which also included areas both within and outside the marina boundaries. Finally, the survey included in Exhibit A of the DEIS identifies ownership of underwater lands beyond the confines of the marina. Comment #30: The Trustees amended permits subsequent to a court decision requiring a DEIS. Response #30: The previous court decision rendered in connection with the marina was appealed. Accordingly, there has been an automatic stay of the judgment in effect. The automatic stay is recognized by Mr. Flynn's Attorney, Christopher Kelley and a copy of a memo from Mr. Kelley to the Southold Trustee which recognizes the stay is attached hereto as Appendix 11. Comment #31: It is clear that in both DEC regulations and the Town Code, that prior to expansion, a permit was required from the Health Department. Response #31: The Town Code empowers the Southold Trustees to waive the requirement of having to obtain a Health Department Permit prior to obtaining a wetlands permit which was excersized in this case. The Southold Planning Board has issued a preliminary approval for this project with final approval partially contingent upon Health Department Approval. Comment #32: If there wasn't a problem (with the septic system) why hasn't the Heath Department granted a permit? Response #32: 6NYCRR Part 617.9 (c) provides that no involved agency shall make a final decision to approve an action until consideration of an FEIS occurs. Accordingly, the fact that the Health Department has not granted a permit may have nothing to do with problems associated with the septic system. Comment #33: The eventual development of the Sage Property will be financially harmed by the Marina expansion and particularly by the overburdening of the right-of--way. Response #33: As analyzed and explained in Response #1, the eventual development of the Sage Property coupled with the expansion of the marina will result in less intensive development of lands adjacent to the right-of--way. Therefore, there is no basis to 13 conclude that the proposed marina expansion will harm the Sage Property financially by over-burdening the right of way. Comment #34: It is obvious that two vehicles (of 8 ]/2 feet) can not pass on a 16 foot right of way. Response #34: There is no question that vehicles can pass each other on the right of way as explained in Response #l. Comment #35: Emergency vehicles can not pass safely on the right of way Response #35: This comment is addressed in Response #1 Comment #36: The total development of the site needs to be considered. The Department of Health figures two people per boats, 138 boats or 276 people. This is equivalent to 90 households. Added to this is the Sage Property. This will overburden the right-of--way. Response #36: The proposed project will not overburden the right of way as explained in Responses #1 and #2. Comments were submitted in written form by F. M. Flynn on October 28, 1993 and area attached hereto as Appendix 2. These comments were read into the record and are summarized in Comment #14 which is addressed herein in Response #14. Comments were submitted in written form by Linda Levy of the North Fork Environmental Council on October 28, 1993 and are attached hereto as Appendix 3. These comments were summarized in oral testimony appearing herein as Comments 1 through 13, which subsequently are addressed herein in Responses 1 through 13. The following comments are raised by the Southold Planning Board by memo dated November 5, 1993 based upon a report commissioned by the Planning Board and performed by the Planning Board's Consultant, Charles J. Voorhis of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates dated November 2, 1993 both of which are attached hereto as Appendix 4: Comment #37: The following is stated in the memo, "Attached are the Planning Board's comments on the above referenced EIS, as prepared by its consultants in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.8 (c). Please incorporate these comments into the public record for this project. Further, it is our recommendation that the applicant be asked to supply the missing information (that which was requested in the scoping session, but not provided in this document), in a supplemental DEIS." 14 Response #37: It is clear that the correspondence prepared by Charles J. Voorhis of Cramer, Voorhis and Associates dated November 2, 1993 can not be viewed as the Planning Board's Comments as stated in the November 5, 1993 memo from Richard Ward, Chairman of the Southold Planning Board to John M. Bredemeyer, President of the Southold Trustees. According to Planning Board records, no meeting of the Planning Board took place between November 2, 1993 and November 5, 1993 (both dates inclusive). Therefore, the Planning Board never deliberated on the comments prepared by their consultant. Obviously, no resolution accepting the consultant's report was passed by the Planning Board. The following is stated in 6 NYCRR Part 617.8 (c): When scoping occurs, the lead regency shall try to identify each relevant issue during the scoping process and provide the preparer of the EIS ia~ith the gr•ealest possible specificity so that the environmental review process mcry proceed in an effrcier:t manner. If the lead agency later determines that issues not included wi[hin the scoping doarment shosld be irteluded irr the EIS', it mast provide the applicant rend the involved agencies with a written statement explnhring the need for additional rnrnlysis. With respect to these requirements, it is clear that every reasonable effort was made to include the concerns of the Planning Board (as well as those of all Involved Agencies and the general public) into the scoping document for this DEIS. By correspondence dated March 25, 1993 from John M. Bredemeyer, III, President of the Southold Town Trustees to Richard Ward, Chairman of the Southold Planning Department, the Trustees formally requested Planning Board input in the Scoping Outline (See Appendix 9). The Scoping Outline was attached to the March 25, 1993 correspondence. On Aprii 1, 1993, the Southold Trustees published a notice in the local papers informing the general public that a public scoping session was to take place on April 27, 1993. By way of correspondence from Valerie Scopaz, Senior Planner to the Southold Planning Board dated Apri122, 1993, several revisions to the Scoping Outline were recommended. The April 22, 1993 correspondence from Scopaz to Bredemeyer is attached hereto as Appendix 10. Further, both Ms. Scopaz and Bob Kasner, Site Planner to the Southold Planning Board attended the public scoping session and gave oral testimony on the scoping outline. Subsequently, the Scoping Outline was revised to include the additional appropriate requirements as requested not only by the Planning Board but from all Involved Agencies and the general public. On September 30, 1993, the Trustees received a DEIS and deemed it complete and adequate for public review. With respect to the issue of requiring a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, clearly, 6 NYCRR Part 617.8 (g) provides for a lead agency to require a Supplemental EIS when (1) changes are proposed for the project which may result in a significant adverse environmental effect, (2) newly discovered information arises about significant adverse effects which was not previously addressed, (3) a change in circumstance arises which may result in a significant adverse environmental effect. As 15 supported later herein, the recommendations provided by the Planning Board's Consultant are limited to differing approaches on addressing identical issues specified in the Scoping Outline, rather then what can be considered new information. Meanwhile there has been no changes proposed for the project nor has a change in circumstances occurred. Therefore, the criterion set forth in 6 NYCRR Part 617.8 (g) (provisions for Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) have not been satisfied. The following comments were raised by Charles J. Voorhis of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates by correspondence dated November 2, 1993 attached to the November 5, 1993 memo from Richard G. Ward, Chairman of the Planning Board to John M. Bredemeyer, III, President of the Southold Town Trustees: Comment #38: Location: A review of Exhibits A and C appears to reveal that Sage Boulevard does not contact subject premises. The implications of this with regard to the easement of right of way should be considered. Response #38: There is no question that subject premises has access to Route 25 by the right of way known as Sage Boulevard. This access is guaranteed in the deed for Brick Cove Marina. The relevant portion of the deed which establishes access was disclosed on page III - 50 of the DEIS and the deed itself was included in the DEIS in Appendix 15. The Consultant for the Planning Board relies upon Exhibits A and C to suggest that Brick Cove Marina does not have access to Sage Boulevard. Exhibit A is a site plan which includes a location map showing the property boundaries of Brick Cove Marina not touching the Right of Way and a survey which shows the existing driveway at the marina site to connect to the right of way: Importantly, the location map is not a survey and its utility is limited to showing the location of the site and its general relationship to the surrounding region. Exhibit C is not a survey, but rather is a drainage plan constructed for the purposes of drainage design. Comment #39: Design and Layout: The sanitary calculations included on page III-82 should be related to upland area and allowable sewage flow to determine conformance of the proposed sanitary system expansion with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Response #39: Page III-82 of the DEIS reveals the 1505 square feet side walls Leaching rings). Also, the site plan included in Exhibit A of the DEIS discloses the location and therefore upland area to be used for the improved septic system. 16 Comment #40: Design and layout: This section should indicate if there are improvements planned in connection with site access along the 1,700 foot stretch of Sage Boulevard. Response #40: As disclosed in Comment #16, the applicant plans no widened road way from the Main Road. Comment #41: Natural Resources, Sub-Surface: While it is true that depth beneath the site there is 60-70' of clay, this section should summarize information included in Appendix 8 which shows sand and topsoil overlying clay at various depths based on test hole information. Response #41: The above comment reflects only a differing approach to addressing an identical issue. Site conditions are described in numerous sections of the DEIS and Appendix 8 of the DEIS discloses soil geological conditions at the site. Comment #42: Natural Resources: Topography: While page IV-7 indicates that most of the site is basically level with contours ranging from 6-10' the site plans contain contours in the 2-4' range near the shoreline and in the southern portions of the site. The topographic features of the site should be further clarified. Response #42: Areas where elevations range from 2 to 4 feet are confined to the immediate shoreline as disclosed in the site plan included in Exhibit A of the DEIS. The statement that most of the site is basically flat is clearly supported by the survey included in Appendix A ofthe DEIS. Comment #43: Water Resources, Surface Waters: The bottom of page IV-10 indicates "no aspect of the proposed activity is expected to result in any change in these surface water classifications" referring to NYSDEC Classification of Sage Basin as SA Waters. This statement is presumptive and does not contain sufficient substantiation to include in this section of the DEIS. Response #43: The classification of Sage Basin as SA waters are for the most part determined by coliform concentration in its surface waters and among the most serious threats to surface water quality and therefore its classification is direct discharge of boater sewage. However, the applicant has maintained a log of boater pump-out attached hereto as Appendix 10 which indicates that heads were sealed and sewage from boats was collected and properly disposed. Furthermore, the applicant has tested surface waters of Sage Basin, the results of which indicated acceptable surface water quality. Therefore, the statement that no aspect of the proposed activity is expected to result in any changes to these surface water classification is adequately supported. 17 Comment #44: Water Resources, Bacteriological Water Quality: Page IV-21 makes reference to calculations in Appendix 10 that determine the acreage of closed shellfishing grounds based upon FDA shellfish sanitation guidelines. The calculations prepared by Peconic Associates do not consider the minimum ] 0% loading factor used by NYSDEC in implementing the FDA guidelines. Since NYSDEC is the agency implementing shellfish sanitation standards, their methodology should be used. Additionally, since public health is involved, conservatism should be excersized. It is also noted that both FDA and NYSDEC utilize a density of two persons per boat which differs from the density used by Peconic Associates calculations. The guidelines further indicate that the dilution volume necessary to reduce bacteriological loading to a safe level shall be determined without regard to levels observed by monitoring. It is recommended that the DEIS accurately reflect the FDA and NYSDEC shellfish sanitation guidelines. Response #44: Two calculations are included in Appendix 10 of the DEIS. The first calculation was performed by Peconic Associates for the purpose of examining the potential coliform contamination of Sage Basin resulting from the discharge of boater pump-out from an practical standpoint. In this calculation, a number of assumptions were made. As correctly pointed out above, the loading factor often percent was not used because in the opinion of the Applicant's Consultant, such loading factor over estimated what was viewed as reasonable loading factor. Upon receipt of these calculations, the Trustees referred the matter to the NYSDEC for their technical input. NYSDEC responded by correspondence dated September 11, 1991, a copy of which was included in the DEIS in Appendix 10. NYSDEC's correspondence of September 11, 1991 re- analyzed the data and calculated another radius of half circle closure for the site of 718 feet utilizing a loading factor of 10 percent and 2 people per boat. Comment #45: Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology, Vegetation: The DEIS should recognize that the Terrestrial Environmental Specialists report from 1986 included in Appendix 12 indicates that removal or destruction of vegetation along Sage Boulevard could have an adverse environmental impact. Response #45: The Terrestrial Environmental Specialists Report from 1986 is recognized in the DEIS by virtue of its inclusion. As disclosed in Comment #16, the applicant plans no widened road way from the Main Road. Comment #46: Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology, Tidal Wetlands: This section should mention the presence of SM wetlands in Sage Basin and should outline the function, benefits and impact of projected conditions on these wetlands characteristics and benefits. Response #46: The designation SM includes coastal shoals, bars and mudflats is applied to all underwater lands of Sage Basin. Its designation is included in the DEIS IV-35 18 through IV-39 which includes the relevant NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Map. The values of coastal shoals, bars and mudflats as declared in 6NYCRR Part 661 are extremely variable, but can include marine food production, flood, hurricane and storm control, cleansing ecosystems and absorbing silt and organic materials. In the case of Sage Basin, the values of coastal shoals, bars and mudflats are limited. The DEIS documents that these submerged lands do not support commercial quantities of shellfish and in within the confines of the marina, do not support eel grass nor rockweed (See IV - 39 of the DEIS). Additionally, as reported on page III-2 of the DEIS, Sage Basin is a man made tidal creek which was created as a result of extensive mining of brick and which was opened to Peconic-bay by the 1938 hurricane. Thus, the bottom conditions reflect this previous disturbance. Finally, while subsequent dredging resulted in removal of some of the underwater lands, what remains is substantially similar in quality with that which existed prior to dredging. Comment #47: Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology, Fish. Shellfish and Wildlife. It is noted that benthic surveys are concentrated in the marina area and expectedly found little evidence of hard clam and other shellfish due to marina activities, historic brick manufacture causing unsuitable bottom characteristics, and siltation of the basin. Since the project will increase the closure area due to FDA guidelines as implemented by NYSDEC, the impact of the closure should be acknowledged. Response #47: The issue of shellfish abundance within the confines of Brick Cove marina and the greater Sage Basin is addressed in Response #8. As disclosed by correspondence from the NYSDEC dated September 11, 1993 and included in Appendix 10 of the DEIS, all of Sage Basin is closed to shellfishing from May 15 through October 31 because of an active marina capable of servicing boats which can accommodate people living on board. Furthermore, this correspondence states that the current closure in Sage Pond, which includes the pond and all tributaries, is adequate to dilute any discharge. Therefore, it is the existence of the marina that has resulted in closure of Sage Basin, and its closure has been determined by NYSDEC without applying the formulas provide in the FDA Guidelines. The only remaining question regarding shellfish closure relates to adjacent areas in Peconic Bay. However, it is stated in the September 11, 1991 correspondence that the narrow inlet (to Sage Basin) limits any contamination of adjacent waters (such as Peconic Bay). Comment #48: Human Resources, Transportation Services. The impact of the proposed project on transportation systems should relate trip generation to the current gaps in traffic flow or traffic increases since the study prepared 7 years ago for a different project. On 19 page IV-69, there is reference to 50% occupancy of the marina on the busiest 8 hour day of the summer. The basis for this percentage occupancy should be noted. With regard to Sage Boulevard consideration of additional present and future uses of this right of way should be included in this discussion. What impacts (if any) are proposed for Sage Boulevard and what impacts are expected to occur as a result of these improvements Response #48: Traffic and access concerns are addressed in Responses #l, #2 and #3. Comment #49: Land Use and Zoning, Land Use Plans: There is no discussion of any of the land use plans which pertain to uses and planning on the subject property. Relevant land use plans should be examined in order to support the conclusions included on page IV-73. Response #49: The Zoning Classification is analyzed in DEIS (See Section III-51 through 54 and Section IV-71 through IV-73.). The DEIS states that the proposed marina is in conformance with the Southold Master Plan, Zoning and the US/UK Stewardship Program. Comment #50: Community Services, Police and Fire Protection. Given the isolated marine use of the subject site, 1,740 feet from the main road, some discussion of the police and fire emergency response times and the adequacy of Sage Boulevard to handle emergency traffic is warranted. This discussion should also consider existing and proposed use along Sage Boulevard. Response #50: The issues of community services particularly including police and fire protection are addressed in Responses #1, #2, #3. Comment #51: Significant Environmental Impacts. Section V is not consistent with the Trustees Scoping Outline dated May 6, 1993. The outline requires the applicant to "identify and discuss those impacts of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action. Section V of the DEIS only addresses those impacts to land, water and fish shellfish and wildlife. The majority of these analysis is taken verbatim from the EAF Part II addendum prepared by the Trustees. A broader treatment of impacts is warranted and was requested by the Trustees in the Scoping outline. Response #51: The significant environmental impacts were previously subdivided into impacts to land, water, and fish and wildlife. These categories were chosen to reflect significant environmental impacts which can be reasonably anticipated. The DEIS addresses these impacts In Section V (pages i through 25). Even so, the DEIS goes beyond impacts to land, water, and fish and wildlife to also include off site impacts of three NYSDOS designated Significant Habitats and property values. 20 Comment #52: Significant Environmental Impacts, Impact on Land: It is noted that page VI-3 in the Mitigation Section indicates that all spoil will be removed from the site. This conflicts with statements on page V-2 which indicates that spoil may stay on site. If spoil is removed, the number of truck trips, hours of operation and impact on the right of way, traffic and wear and tear on the right of way and town roads should be discussed. It is recognized that much of the spoil has already been removed from the site; however, these impacts should be considered in the context o£ 1) visible or recorded impacts of spoil already removed; and 2) potential impact involving further spoil removal. Response #52: The statement on Page V 2 is as follows, "The temporary or permanent placement of spoil." was taken from the Environmental Assessment Form whose utility is limited to determining the significance of environmental impacts. The statements that appear in Section VI-3 of the DEIS indicate that all of the spoil is to be removed from site and conveyed to the Town's Landfill for use in grading and capping operations. With respect to visible impacts, it is clear by virtue of spoil removal, the corresponding impact has decreased and will continue to decrease as the remainder of spoil is removed from site. It is difficult to assess the impacts to the right of way resulting from the trucking of spoil because it is impossible to segregate wear and tear on the road resulting from the removal of spoil from normal wear and tear resulting from day to day use of the right of way independent of spoil removal. Nevertheless, there has been no measurable deterioration to the right of way resulting from spoil removal. Comment #53: Significant Environmental Impacts, Impacts on Land: Page V-3 indicates "negative impacts resulting from the temporary or permanent placement of spoil are not important". Other part of the DEIS have characterized the spoil as silty and Appendix 6 indicates the presence of heavy metals in marina sediments. What is the suitability of this material for positive drainage on site or landfill cover off site in view of these qualities. Response #53: The dredged material is clearly silty in nature as most if not all of the bottom lands of Sage Basin are characterized as clay like. The presence of heavy metals in sediments of Wikford Cove Marinas spoil as reported in Appendix 6 is limited to copper and its is surmised that the detected copper in sediments was related to anti fouling paints. However, an analysis of sediments was conducted for underwater lands within the boundaries of Brick Cove Marina (See Appendix 12). These analysis indicated low levels of heavy metals particularly copper in the marina sediments. Comment #54: Significant Environmental Impacts, Impact on Water: This section does not comprehensively address the impact of marina expansion on water, based on the reference included in Appendix 6 of the DEIS. Marinas are documented to have other 21 adverse effects beyond boat toilets, dredging and stormwater. The DEIS downplays the expansion to a change from 91 to 138 boats in 1991 indicating that the actual expansion is greater than the increase from 91 to ] 38 boats. Response #54: It is clear that the DEIS did not address every conceivable impact resulting from the marina expansion. Rather, this section in the DEIS dealt with specific significant environmental impacts which could reasonably be anticipated. These impacts included: Impacts to Land, Water, Fish and Wildlife, three off site NYSDOS Significant Habitats and Property Values. Comment #55: Significant Environmental Impacts, Impact on water. Page V-11 of the DEIS indicates with respect to boater toilets, "there are no regional (negative consequences) of this impact and there is no potential divergence from local needs and goals resulting from this impact. Therefore, the potential small adverse impact is ultimately viewed as positive." This statement is not supported by documentation in the DEIS. Page V-9 indicates a potential for closure of all of Sage Basin to shellfishing by application of FDA standards. Page V-9 further indicates that more boats will increase the closure area accordingly. There is no effort to determine the extent or significance of closure area or to assess the impact of the closure area on the Town's water resources, with or possibly beyond Sage Basin. The minimum of 10% load and a density of 2 persons per boat should be used in accordance with NYSDEC methodology. The impact on the continued viability of Sage Basin for classification as SA waters is not addressed. Response #55: The issue of potential shellfish closure is addressed in response #44. As declared by the NYSDEC in correspondence dated September 11, 1993, The current closure in Sage Pwtd, i+~hich inchrdes the pond and all b•ibtdaries, is adequate to dilute rnry discharge... Tidal flow flushes the area of the marina, but the harrow inlet limits the amotrrtt of flushing with each tide, and hence limits any contamination of adjacent waters. However, if more polution sources are found trt Sage Pond which can impact water quality or threaten public health, the Bureau of Shellfisheries ~a~ould consider expanding the current closure. Importantly, the calculations of an area of closure resulting from the presence of a marina or a marina expansion does not take into account the mitigation strategies which may be employed. In this case, the marina has implemented a program to seal wye-valves thereby eliminating direct discharge of boater sewage to surface waters. It is clear that 1191 gallons of boater pumpout were collected and properly disposed of. Nevertheless, some may argue that the expansion of slips from 91 to 138 represents additional source of pollution. The NYSDEC calculated a closure at Sage Basin based upon 95 slips to be 18.6 acres for which the radius of half circle closure is 718 feet based upon a 10% loading factor and two people per boat. By substituting 138 slips into the equation (for the 95 slips previously used), the area of closure is expanded from 18.6 to 25.9 acres and the 22 radius of a half circle closure is increased from 718 feet to 848 feet. One could argue that this increased closure represents the true impact of the proposed marina expansion. However, it is noted that the area of closure calculated by NYSDEC already exceeds the area of Sage Basin and yet, the actual closure (that which DEC determines and enforces) does not include the adjacent waters of Peconic Bay. Thus, it is clear that DEC has the discretion to close surface waters outside Sage Basin pursuant to FDA Guidelines but has declined to do so presumably because Sage Basii7 is ade~uale to diivle any dischmge. Given the environmental improvements already implemented including most particularly, the controls placed on boater pump-out, it is unlikely that adjacent waters in Peconic Bay will be closed as a result of the marina expansion. Comment #56 Significant Environmental Impacts, Impacts on Waters. Reference to dredging of the channel made on page V-12 should indicate the ownership of Sage Basin bottom lands in relation to the proposed dredging areas. Response #56: The survey included in Exhibit A of the DEIS indicates the locations were dredging has taken place along with the ownership of those lands. Comment #57 Significant Environmental Impacts, Impacts on Water. Page V-13 discusses impacts to shellfishing resulting from dredging. Sage Basin is in fact a basin where sediment suspension will have an effect beyond the dredged area. The document does not supply sufficient information to conclude that all of Sage Basin is devoid of significant shellfish populations. Response #57: The DEIS does not argue that all of Sage Basin is devoid of shellfish. Rather, the DEIS provides a wealth of information which supports the. conclusion that Sage Basin does not support commercial quantities of shellfish. The issue of shellfish abundance is address in Responses #8. Comment #58: Significant Environmental Impacts, Impacts on Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife. It is suggested that the impact of the project regarding turbidity, siltation and erosion, and potential deleterious effect on fish, shellfish and wildlife be directly discussed. Response #58: The concern expressed here relates only to a different approach in addressing impacts regarding turbidity, siltation and erosion and potential deleterious effects on fish, shellfish and wildlife impacts. That is, the narrative of this impact statement summarized these impacts while the Appendices addressed these impacts in greater detail. With respect to turbidity, Appendix 6 includes a discussion of turbidity. The relevant technical paper entitled Ecology of Small Boat Marinas (Nixon et. al., 1973) concluded that suspended solids (turbidity) was remarkably uniform between marina waters and tidal waters based upon extensive field measurements during the boating 23 season. Therefore; it was concluded that the marina use did not result in significant impacts on turbidity. With respect to siltation and erosion, the siltation and erosion impacts related to upland improvements are not regarded as significant because the site is relatively flat and the use of haybales as required in permit condition prevents this impact from occurring. The potential deleterious impacts to fish, shellfish and wildlife can be directly dismissed in major part as most of the project has been implemented and the investigations conducted as part of the DEIS revealed no significant impact in fish shellfish and wildlife. Arriving at this conclusion was appropriate given the benefit of previous extensive investigation of the site conducted in connection with a previous and more intensive development proposal. Comment #59: Significant Environmental Impacts, Impacts on Fish Shellfish and Wildlife. Pages V-18 and 19 discuss wildlife species associated with the site. The biological needs of rare species identified should be discussed in greater detail in order to support the conclusion that no impact will occur. A hard look is required in assessing impacts to the osprey, piping plover, least tern and common tern. Response #59: The analysis pertaining to impacts on rare species was conducted in a way that provides clear insight as to what effects, the proposed project would have. For example, in the case of the piping plover and least tern, the DEIS disclosed that these rare species do in fact occur an area immediately adjacent to and connected to a marina. By relating the occurrence of least terns and piping plovers at Port of Egypt Island which is within 100 feet of a much larger marina, it was possible and appropriate to conclude that the proposed marina would not impact these rare species or their habitats as they are found at much greater distances from Brick Cove Marina. With respect to the osprey, its occurrence at Sage Basin was documented as a fly-over. That is, no ospreys nest at Sage Basin. While concern may be expressed with regards to food chain impacts, the DEIS discloses substantially similar finfish diversity as reported in the previous impact statement conducted on the same site. Accordingly, no significant impact to the ability of the osprey to nest and forage is expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. Finally, with respect to the threatened marsh hawk, it is not known to nest in Sage Basin. However, The Sage Parcel Redevelopment and Parkland Proposal: Appendix to the Long Environmental Assessment Form prepared by B. Laing Associates for the neighboring Harborview landing Subdivision reported marsh hawks to rest on the site and hunt within 500 to 1000 feet southeast of the project site. Even though subject marina is northwest of the Harborview Site, it is conceivable that a marsh hawk might hunt in the Sage Basin Area. However, as evidenced by the list of species found to occur at Brick Cove Marina and adjacent areas, the potential prey to the marsh hawk remained substantially similar to potential prey disclosed by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,Inc. prepared for the marina site in 1986. Both studies are included in Appendix 13 of the DEIS. Therefore, there is no basis to substantiate harmful effects to the marsh hawk both from the standpoint of nesting and foraging. 24 Comment #60: The scoping outline requires consideration of the proposed project in view of the Brown Tide Comprehensive Action Management Plan (BTCAMP) summary document, yet little reference is included in the DEIS. Response #60: The Brown Tide Comprehensive Action Management Plan prepared by Suffolk County Department of Health Services (1992) sets forth two recommendations regarding marinas. The first recommendation relates to a Suffolk County Law which mandates SCDHS to undertake an investigation of potential nuisances associated with marinas. This recommendation has yet to be implemented. The second recommendation encourages greater use of shore-based toilets, holding tanks on boats and use of pump-out facilities. The Brick Cove Marina Proposal is consistent with these recommendations. Comment #61: Impact on Property Values. The document indicates that "the Town Assessor has stated that the site project, as approved, will not effect property values in the area surrounding the site." The source of this information and the context in which it was provided should be included. Tlie relation between assessed valuation and property value should be stated and a more accurate reference to the input from the Town Assessor's office with regard to impact on actual property values should be provided. Response #61: The issue of property values is addressed in Response #7. Comment #62: The seasonal restrictions on dredging activities should be mentioned in this section as an important mitigation measure. Response #62: The NYSDEC Permit included in Appendix 3 of the DEIS prohibits dredging from June 1 to ,September 30 of each year. The purpose of said condition is to avoid disturbance of the water column during the warmer months of the year when surface water quality is more susceptible to decline. As such, the window established for dredging is an important mitigation measure. Comment #63: Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact. Appendix 6 indicates that beneficial effects of marina's can be enhanced if fouling substrate is provided. Will floating piers be painted with anti fouling paint or will they be allowed to foul. Response #63: Floating piers will not be painted with anti fouling paint and thus the proposed piers provide fouling substrate. Comment #64: Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact. What periodic maintenance of stormwater disposal systems and boat wash water containment structures are proposed in order to insure proper functioning. 25 Response #64: All stormwater disposal systems will be periodically maintained as required. The material collected as a result of normal maintenance will be deposited in a suitable upland site. Comment #65: Adverse Enviro~imental Impacts that can not be avoided if the project is implemented. An objective list of impacts is warranted for inclusion in this section. Response #65: The DEIS states that the adverse environmental impacts that can not be avoided if the project is implemented are those related to dredging and the increased number of boat slips. Further, the DEIS concludes that these potential impacts have had no recognizable impacts which is supported by the fact that these improvements have been implemented. The impacts related to dredging have clearly not cause any significant impact on the environment With respect to the increased number of slips, it is clear that the increased number of slips leads to an increase number of boats. Thus, the impacts related thereto include additional surface area of bottom paint which will come into contact with surface waters, an increase amount of boater pump-out collected and disposed in an on site septic system, and generally, increased marina activity. Comment #66: Alternatives. Alternative Size. This section provides support for a lib slip marina based on planning information that indicates the site could accommodate a greater number of boats. The size of the marina should be based on the ability of natural and human resources to accommodate the planned facilities on a site specific basis. This should be clearly acknowledged in this section. Response #66: It is clear that the increase in number of slips from 91 to 138 can be accommodated in terms of natural and human resources. When compared to the previous proposal which included a motel and restaurant in addition to a marina, it is clear that the current proposal is far less intensive and represents only a moderate expansion to a lawfully existing marina. Comment #67: Alternative Land Use. The first alternative land use listed is one family dwellings. This section states that "sanitary systems would be a potential problem", as a basis for discounting this alternative land use. The document should note that any new sanitary facilities would be subject to Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code for density and SCDHS design requirements for thorough project review prior to installation and operations of these systems. These existing regulations would certainly minimize or eliminate any environmental impacts associated with sanitary disposal from one family dwellings. In addition, a comparison of the distributed nature on one family dwelling sanitary systems as compared to the large communal system proposed in connection with Brick Cove Marina project would result in a conclusion that the communal system may indeed have a more significant environmental impact with regards to nitrogen, bacteria and viruses in groundwater and surface water. 26 Response #67: It is clear that development of the site for a single family dwelling would invoke Health Department Approval. However, the site already contains a single family dwelling which is served by an individual on site septic system. This particular comment implies that the site could be subdivided for residential use and thus Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code would be invoked. However, subdivision for individual home sites is not permitted in the Marine II Zoning Classification. Accordingly, it is not reasonable to pursue this type of alternative within this Impacts Statement. Comment #68: A list of references used in preparing the DEIS is required. Response #68: The DEIS utilizes extensive environmental studies of various kinds which were included in the appendices. The following comments were raised by F. M. Flynn by correspondence dated November 7, 1993 attached hereto as Appendix 5: Comment #69: The subject property is spot zoned, non conforming, inaccessible, represents a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the community and has an adverse impacts on both the environment and the values of surrounding properties. Response #69: This issue of spot zoning is addressed in Responses #5 and #18. The issue of access is addressed in Responses #1, #15, #34, #35, #36 and #51. The issue of public safety is addressed in Responses #l. The nature and extent of the proposed project was disclosed to both the Police Department of and Fire Department. Both Departments responded that the proposed project would not inhibit their ability to provide for public health and safety. The issue of environmental impact is addressed throughout the EIS. The issue of surrounding property values is addressed in the DEIS as well as in Responses #7, #33, and #61. Comment #70: The Trustees have permitted the marina to operate for two years without a Suffolk County Health Department Permit. Response #70: This issue is addressed in Responses ##14, #31 and #32. Comment #71: The on site drainage has not been installed nor has the washdown platform and parking area. Response #71: Such improvements have not as yet been implemented because the applicant has not received final approval from the Southold Planning Board. Comment #72: He (Brick Cove Marina) dredged underwater lands owned by others 27 Response #72: This issue is addressed in Responses #29 and #56 Comment #73: The Trustees issued supplementary permits regardless of Judge Luciano's decision. Response #73: This issue is addressed in Responses #12 and #30. Comment #74: The approximate doubling of the demand originating in the marina expansion over burdens a RO~T~' that is already inadequate and conforms with neither town nor state standards. Response #74: The proposed expansion does not approximate a doubling of the demand originating from the marina and comments regarding the right of way are addressed in Responses #1, #2, #3, #li, #16, #17, #34, #35, #36, #4Q #45, #48, and #51. Comment #75: A review of the site plan indicates that the property does not have frontage on the Right of Way. Response #75: The issue of contiguity between the site and the right of way is addressed in Response #38. Comment #76: It is obvious that vehicles can not pass on the Right of Way. Response #76: The question of access including the ability of vehicles to pass is addressed in Responses #1, #I5, #34, #35, #36, #51. Comment #77: The Department of Health computes 2 persons per boat for the purposes of sanitary disposal. This computes to 276 people for the 138 boat marina. Using LILCO's ratio, this would approximate 90 houses and all in all this is analogous to 100 houses or more. This provides insight as to the scope of the burden to the right of way. Response #77: The issue of adequacy of the right of way is addressed in Responses #1, #3, #15, #17, #34, #35, #36, #48 and #51. Comment #78: Compound the public's risk (fire and explosion) in places of public assembly demonstrates a callous disregard for the public's safety. Response #78: The issue of public safety is addressed in Responses #1 and #68. Comment #79: How is it proposed to fight fires under the circumstance, particularly when docked between the bulkhead and fuel dock would likely become involved? 28 Response #79: The issue of public safety is addressed in Responses # 1 and #68. Comment #80: While also to be considered in the context of the impact on the environment of the probable leaks and spillage resulting from the extension of fuel lines some 315 feet into the estuary raises the specter of water-borne fires? Response #80: There is no data nor available information to suggest that leaks and spillage resulting from the extension of fuel lines has resulted in a significant environmental impact at marinas in the Town of Southold. Therefore, there is no reason to support that the extension of a fuel line will result in a significant impact with respect to this marina. Comment #81: What about ttre public safety aspects boats up to 55 feet in length as provided in the docking plan, to pass through the channel which is 20 feet wide? Response #81: The proposed slip layout does not indicate that the marina will provide docking for boats up to 55 feet in length. Furthermore, boats up to 55 feet have never been docked at Brick Cove iVlarina. As shown on the survey included as Appendix A of the DEIS, the length of the slips, the distance between the slips and the available turn around between piers do no permit boats of that size. Finally, the marina has operated successfully without problems of boats passing through the channel for many years. Therefore, this particular comment is regarded as an unfounded fear. Comment #82: The area outside the marina is ignored in terms of shellfish (including clams, oysters and scallops). Response #82: The shellfish issue is addressed in Responses #8 and #57. Comment #83: The fact that the marina is devoid of shellfish need come as no surprise. It merely confirms the contention that marina operations are antipathetic to the growth of shellfish there and elsewhere throughout the Sage Estuary. Response #83: The issue of shellfish abundance is addressed in Responses #8 and #57. Comment #84: Correspondence from the DEC, included in the DEIS indicates that marina operations are not conducive to growth of shellfish, or to their health and that of any aquatic life. This constitutes the department's reason for the closing of all of Sage Basin Response #84: The shellfish closure at Sage Basin has nothing to do with shellfish abundance. The issue of shellfish closure at Sage basin is addressed in Responses #43, #44, #47 and #55. 29 Comment #85: A recent survey of the surrounding environment by Harborview Realty came to the conclusion that the property which surrounds the marina including Sage Basin and the freshwater ponds suppo~led threatened and endangered species. Response #85: The survey prepared for Harborview Realty did not conclude that the freshwater ponds supported threatened and endangered species. However, the Harbor View Realty Survey did n?ention that an osprey, classified as a fly-over, was hunting in one of the ponds. Given that the freshwater ponds adjacent to the right of way are not connected to the marina site nor Sage Basin and further, that no improvements or changes are expected to occur on the right of way, there can be no impact to the osprey at a freshwater pond adjacent to the riglrt of way which would result from the project as proposed. The other rare species mentioned in the Harborview Realty Survey included the piping plover, least tern, marsh hawk, and tiger salamander. With respect to the piping plover and least tern, the Harborview Realty Survey correctly reported that both are found at Conkling's Point and its occurrence at Conkling's Point is addressed in the DEIS in Section IV Environmental Setting and again in Section V, Significant Environmental Impacts. With respect to the marsh hawk, the Harborview Realty Survey reported that the marsh hawk was resting on the Harborview site in January of 1989 and was hunting 500 to 1000 feet to the southeast of the Harborview Site (away from the marina). Impacts to the marsh hawk are addressed in Response #59. With respect to the tiger salamander, the Harborview Realty Survey reported that it was not observed nor has it been reported in the literature. Comment #86: What we have here is economic obsolescence, and its concomitant reduction in market value, resulting from and expansion of an inharmonious use. Response #86: The issue of property values is addressed in Responses #7, #33, and #61. Comment #87: Assessed valuations of the residential properties surrounding the marina total $141,365. The total AV of the marina, ail 12+ acres is $28,000 acres. Thus the residential properties adversely effect property assessed at five times the assessment of the marina. Response #87: The issue of property values is addressed in Responses #7, #33, and #61. Comment #88: The flushing study relied upon in the DEIS was outdated and incomplete and thus a new one is required. 30 Response #88: The use of the flushing study in the DEIS was appropriate. Furthermore, the Trustees have familiarity with the site and the waters of Sage Basin and have previously concluded that the dredging at Sage Basin would not have a significant impact on the environment. Having completed the dredging activities, it is clear that no significant impact has occurred to the surface waters of Sage Basin. Therefore, there is no need for yet another flushing study. Comment #89: Removal of the spit was presumed to reduce and possibly eliminate formation of secondary ;lows making the flow more uniform and improving the flushing characteristics "within the improved marina system". Obviously, this improvement was predicated upon removal of the spit, which has not been accomplished. Further, the purported improvement would take place only within the "marina system" ignores the effects on the 80% of the embayment owned by others. Response #89' The spit remains. Plans to remove this spit were abandoned. The reason as why these plans were abandoned was to preserve an intertidal marsh. Instead, C dock was aligned with the marsh as to prevent the necessity for its destruction. Additionally, 8 slips were deleted from the plan at this location, again in order to preserve the intertidal marsh at this locale. Thus, there can be no impact of abandoning this prior proposal to adjacent property owners. The following comments were raised by Christopher Kelley in correspondence dated November 8, 1993 attached hereto as Appendix 6: Comment #90: The DEIS totally fails to address the zoning and planning implications of expanding a commercial use within a residential neighborhood on an environmentally significant estuary. Response #90: Comments pertaining to Zoning and Planning are addressed in Responses #4, #5, #18, and #49. Comment #91: The DEIS and application fail to address the severe access constraints presented by the project. First, the site does not have frontage on a public road as required by Section 280-a of Town Law. Second the DEIS does not address the width of the right away in terms of vehicles including emergency vehicles passing one another. Third, the DEIS does not address attempts at widening the right of way. Response #91: Comments pertaining to frontage are addressed in Response #38. Comments pertaining to the width of the right of way are addressed in Responses #1, #15, 31 #34, #35, #36 and #5 L Continents pertaining to the widening of the right of way are addressed in Responses #2, # 16, #40, #45 and #48. Comment #92: The DEIS does not address actual dredging done and does not indicate that the dredging was done off premises and how the illegally dredged material will be redeposited on areas outside the applicant's property. Response #92: The dredging component of the overall project is addressed throughout the DEIS. Additionally, the1ocations where dredging took place is disclosed in the survey found in Exhibit A of the DEIS. All dredging was done in compliance with the numerous permits issued by agencies havingjurisdiction and thus the dredging can not be considered illegal. The dredge spoil has been trucked from the site to the Cutchogue landfill for use as landfill cover. Comment #93: A traffic study is not included in the DEIS. Presumably, the 55% increase in the number of boat slips will have a concomitant increase in traffic all entering from an existing out onto a major thoroughfare -Route 25. This should be addressed in the DEIS. Response #93: The issue of traffic is addressed in Responses #3, #17 and #48. Comment #94: The location of a 141-boat slip (138 + 3) slip marina with the servicing of boats and the sale of gasoline has not been addressed in terms of the potential for fire and/or spills of gasoline, oil by-products and hazardous chemicals which are used in the marina industry. This should he addressed. Response #94: Public safety concerns are addressed in Responses #1 and #68. Comment #95: The DEIS fails to address off site impacts especially endangered and threatened species (piping plover, least tern, common tern, and osprey) and commercially harvestable shellfish. Response #95: The rare species concerns are addressed in Responses #59 and #85. Comment #96: The potential impacts to these birds are not discussed, nor any mitigation proposed that would have impacts to these (threatened and endangered) birds. Response #96: Impacts to rare species are specifically addressed in Section V of the DEIS. There has been no mitigation proposed because there are no impacts to rare species. Other rare species concerns are addressed in Responses #59 and #85. 32 Comment #97: The financial impact on properties is woefully inadequate and no supporting data is given and a one sentence reference to a statement made by the Town Assessor cannot substitute for real analysis. Response #97: Impact to surrounding property boundaries is addressed in Responses #7, #33, and #61. Comment #98: The flushing characteristics of Sage Cove and its ability to handle an increase in pollutants is not adequately addressed in the DEIS. Response #98: The flushing characteristics of Sage basin were specifically addressed in Section IV-29 and IV-30 of the DEIS. These analysis utilized an estimate of tidal prism to calculate a range of volume flushed by tidal action. The DEIS also relates this information to the dredging of a shoal at the channel to Sage Basin and correctly concludes that removal of the shoal would increase flushing. Comment #99: Adverse environmental affects. There is no basis for the conclusion that there has been no recognizable adverse environmental effects has been listed, nor has it been shown in the DEIS that the marina has been operating at full capacity. Therefore the statement of adverse effects is inadequate. Response #99: The fact that much of the project has been implemented provides for an objective statement of what impacts have occurred as a result of the project. The fact that the marina was not fully occupied during the time in which the DEIS was prepared does not preclude the author of the DEIS from assessing impact. Certainly, having implemented much of the project provides for a more objective statement of impact than a mere prediction of what the extent of impacts could be. Comment #100: The alternative section is inadequate because it approaches the project from the prospective that since most work is already complete, the alternative proposed is the alternative that can be considered. Response #100: The section on alternatives in the DEIS explores alternative design and technology, alternative sites, alternative size, alternative construction/operation scheduling and alternative land use. With respect to alternative design and technology the DEIS argues that removal of pilings for alternate locations and the filling of areas that have been dredged would result in substantial environmental impact. This conclusion is reasonably amved at. Clearly, Comment #100 inappropriately questions the adequacy of the entire section on alternatives based only one of many alternatives addressed and explained. 33 The following comments were raised by Larry Penny Consulting as an attached report to the Kelly correspondence dated November 8, 1993: Comment #101: The access is clouded because the site maps indicate that the site is cut off by the Right of way. Response #101: The issue of the site in relation to the right of way is addressed in Response #38. Comment #102: Impacts to the State highway by the proposed project are already extreme. Response #102: Traffic related issues are addressed in Responses #3, #17, and #48. Comment #103: Design and Layout. This section should take into account any future expansion. Response #103: Future expansion of the marina is not contemplated and thus the design and layout does not reflect further expansion. However, an analysis of potential development of the site as permitted by zoning is addressed in Section III-51 through III- 54 and again in Section VIII: Alternatives. Comment #104: Site topography and stratigraphy should be better characterized in terms of the vertical boring data available. The relevance of these strata and their spatial distribution in terms of groundwater percolation, vector flow, contaminant loading and other hydrology should be presented as such relates to stormwater and subsurface wastewater management. Response #104: The issue of topography and spatial distribution of soils is addressed in Response #42 and #41, respectively. The issue of groundwater percolation is addressed as it relates to soil conditions on site (See Section IV-2 through IV- 6 of the DEIS). The request for vector flow analysis goes beyond the scope of the DEIS and is not a reasonable requirement for this DEIS. The issue of contaminant loading (nitrogen loading) is addressed in Response ##6. Comment #105: The importation of public water from the Greenport Water District in terms of its contribution to the site's groundwater regime needs to be thoroughly addressed, particularly as the groundwater compartment relates to the immediately adjacent surface water compartment and there is the potential for serious contamination to that compartment. 34 Response #105: Groundwater conditions on the site have been thoroughly addressed in Section IV of the DEIS. The question of public water with respect to groundwater regimes is a non-issue as public water has been utilized at this site for numerous years. Comment #106: The calculations pursuant to the national Shellfish Sanitation Program guidelines for assessing risk regarding microbial loading of shellfish growout waters have to be based on the State DEC's current methodology. The potential risk should include the cove's other measurable sources of microbial contaminants, in so far as data is available. Response #106: Issues concerning the FDA Guidelines for the Shellfish Sanitation Program is addressed in Responses #44 and #55. It is clear that the FDA Guidelines do not permit integration of coliforni loading from vessel discharge with other sources of coliform. The DEIS discloses the results of coliform testing as required in previously granted permits from the Southold Trustees and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (See Sections IV-9 through IV-19 of the DEIS). These results reveal the highest coliform concentrations to have been detected adjacent to residential development on the western portion of Sage Basin away from the marina. It is clear that the potential risk posed by a moderate expansion to a marina is minimal given the results on surface water quality obtained thus far from the marina as it exists especially as compared to the existing residential development on the western portion of Sage Boulevard. Comment #107: The flora and fauna of subject site and neighboring sites should be examined in terms of the NYS Heritage Program. Response #107: The flora and fauna of subject site and neighboring sites was extensively examined in the DEIS. The recommendation that the flora and fauna should be examined in terms of the NYS Heritage Program reflects only a different approach to examining the same issue. Comment #108: The spotfin killifish was found in numerous cove samplings; it is rare in Long Island and in the State, what is it's special status if any? Response #108: The spotfin killifish is not rare in Long Island and the State. Its has not been designated an endangered, threatened species nor a species of special concern by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Comment #109: The economically and recreationally valuable shellfish populations and 35 their distributions within the cove and basin have never been properly assayed. Testing only of the marina basin bottom begs the question of whether significant shellfish resources exist in the cove. Response #109: It is clear that numerous investigations and reports have been prepared concerning shellfish abundance. The issue of shellfish abundance is addressed in Responses #8 and #57. Comment #110: Transportation impacts associated with this proposal have never been properly analyzed. Improvements will have to be made of Sage Boulevard. Response #110: Transportation concerns are addressed in Responses #3, #17 and #48. In addition, the DEIS analyzed transportation concerns related to navigation (See Section IV-70 and Appendix 7 of the DEIS). Comment #111: The Brown Tide Study recommends no net nitrogen increase in the Peconic Estuary System. How is this plan consistent with that recommendation. Response #111: The Brown Tide Study disclosed two recommendations concerning marinas (SCDHS, 1992). The first recommendation includes Suffolk County Department of Health Service's investigation of potential nuisances associated with marinas, which has yet to be undertaken. The second recommendation includes greater use of shore-based toilets, holding tanks on boats and pump-out stations and certainly the proposed project is in concert with those recommendations. Other recommendations pertaining to nitrogen control were specifically applied to the western Peconic Bay System particularly that of land use in the western Peconic System and the Riverhead sewage treatment plant. The question of nitrogen loading resulting from the collection and disposal of vessel pump out is addressed in Response #8 herein. Additional sources of nitrogen include increased voluntary use of shore based toilet as related to the marina expansion. The extent of increased nitrogen loading from this source is unknown and can not be accurately estimated due to the lack of data. Comment #112: How does this plan fit with the Southold Master Plan, regional plans, transportation plans, and the like? Response #112: The proposed project is consistent with the zoning classification placed on this parcel. The zoning classification was arrived at through the master plan and therefore is consistent with it. Finally, it is impossible to address the question of whether this proposed plan is consistent with other regional plans and transportation plans as these other plans are not disclosed in Comment #112. 36 Comment #113: How is it consistent with the Critical Environmental Contingencies, e.g. - the Peconic Estuary, the Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat and so on? Response #113: The project is consistent with Critical Environmental Contingencies as it is contains the full range of reasonable mitigation measures designed to protect the Peconic Estuary. The project is also consistent with the Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Three nearby Habitats were described and the corresponding impact analyses were disclosed in Section V of the DEIS. It is clear that the proposed project is not at odds with the impact analyses associated with the Significant Habitats. Comment #114: How will it relate to development plans for adjacent properties including plans proposed for the Harborview Landing Subdivision? Response #114: The relationship between the proposed marina and surrounding properties have been determined by the Town of Southold by virtue of Zoning. The proposed project is consistent with zoning. Comment #115: Emergency response (fire, police ambulance) should be addressed. Response #115: Emeroency response is directly addressed in terms of public safety. These concerns are addressed in Responses #1, #2, #3, #15, #16, #17, #34, #35, #36, #40, #45, #48 and #51. Comment #116: There is genuine threat of closure to the entire cove because of perceived or actual microbial contamination. The tests conducted thus far do not indicate that coliform levels are dropping in the cove. Response #116: All of Sage Basin is closed to shellfishing and the effects of the marina expansion as it relates to shellfish closure is addressed in Response #47 and #55. While sufficient data may not exist to conclude with absolute certainty that coliform levels are dropping the coliform data strongly suggests that the highest coliform concentrations are associated with the residential development on the western portion of Sage Basin away from the marina. Comment #117: What are the potential long term impacts associated with the project in terms of shellfish and fish stocks, subaquatic vegetation, marine birds, and threatened and endangered species? Response #1 ]7: The potential long term effects to wildlife resources are believed to be insignificant. Certainly, the fact that these resources have not been impacted to a significant degree as a result of the proposed project, most of which is implemented, supports this conclusion. 37 Comment #118: How witl it contribute to the further degradation of water quality and shellfish and finfish stocks in the Peconic Estuary System? Will there be a net increase of nutrients (and contaminants) to the system. Can these impacts be mitigated? If so, How? Response #118: The proposed mitigation measures including most particularly the prevention of vessel pump-out and the implementation of the drainage facilities and washdown and collection facilities provides for greater protection to the Peconic Bay Estuary. It is clear that there will be an increase in nutrient loading, but as disclosed in Response #6, the increase is regarded as insignificant It is clear that impacts to the Peconic Estuary have been mitigated to the maximum practical extent. The way in which these impacts are mitigated are disclosed in Section VI of the DEIS: Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact. Comment #119: Some of the specific impacts have to be addressed further: (1) the future need for dredging, (2) influence of peak boater usage on turbidity; (3) chemical water quality, (4) submerged aquatic vegetation, (5) endangered and threatened species; (6) off site impacts. Response #I 19: There is no anticipated future need for dredging inside the marina boundaries because underwater lands are relatively stable. However, the channel leading into Sage Basin requires periodic maintenance to insure safe navigation. The US Army Corps of Engineers has issued a ten year maintenance permit to provide for this contingency. The issue of suspended particulate matter (turbidity) is addressed in Ecology of Small Boat Marinas (Nixon et. al., 1973) included in Appendix 6 of the DEIS. This study found that no consistent effect on turbidity resulting from marinas. Lagler (1950) conducted field studies on freshwater ponds with muddy bottoms and found that although considerable of bottom material was moves by outboard motors in shallow water, the turbidity was not measurably increased. These scientific investigations clearly indicate that the marina operations do not result in significant impacts to turbidity. The issue of chemical water quality impacts associated with marinas are addressed in Appendix 6 of the DEIS. Nixon et. al. (1973) investigated nutrient concentrations, dissolved organics and copper levels. With respect to nutrient concentrations, the researchers concluded that nutrient levels did not appear to be any indication that the boats were a major source of nutrient enrichment. With respect to dissolved organics, the researchers concluded that there were no significant differences between marina waters and tidal creek waters. The researchers that dissolved organic matter was more closely 38 related to decaying marsh grasses. With respect to copper concentrations, the researchers found copper concentrations in the water column to be remarkably similar in marina waters and tidal creek waters. With regards to submerged aquatic vegetation, The DEIS reported that eel grass does not occur along the shoreline of Brick Cove but rather, is found along the shoreline of Southold Bay. (See Section IV-39 of the DEIS). The issue of endangered and threatened species is addressed in Responses #59 and #85. With regard to off site impacts, the above comment reveals no specificity. However, off site impacts with respect to water quality, wildlife, endangered and threatened species are provided in the DEIS where they were judged to be potentially significant (See Section V: Significant Environmental Impacts). Comment #120: This section has to take stock of all of those potentially deleterious impacts that can not be fully mitigated. Response #120: The issue concerning adverse impacts that can not be mitigated if the project is implemented in addressed in Section VII of the DEIS and is further addressed herein in Response #65. Comment #121: Alternative size and operation. Consideration has to be given to scale here. It is conceivable that by diminishing the size ofthe project, certain damaging impacts which can not other\vise be mitigated under the maximally developed project, could be mitigated. For example, if all of the boats in the marina were to be sailboats, the impacts of motors on surface water quality, on bottom properties by way of swash, and ambient noise levels would be reduced dramatically! Response #121: The DEIS considers a range of alternatives. The following is stated in Section VIII-3 of the DEIS, "Based on the size of underwater land (4.2 Acres) and on planning information from "Marinas" by Chamberlain, 378 25 Feet boats could be accommodated, or 160 40-feet boats." Both scenarios far exceed what is being proposed. Additionally, the DEIS describes a prior proposal for the same property which included a motel and restaurant in addition to the marina (See pages 2 - 3 of the DEIS). Importantly, the hotel, restaurant and marina are permitted uses in the Marina II Zone. Given the above it is clear that consideration has been given to scale and the Applicant has pursued a development proposal that is far less intensive than what is permitted and physically possible on the site. The statement that if all the boats were sail boats, then the corresponding impacts 39 including noise, impact of motors on surface watertluality -and on bottom properties by way of swash and noise levels would be dramatically reduced is not supported. With respect to noise, it is clear that sailboats of the size that utilize slips at a marina, access the marina under power just as power boats do. Furthermore, as reported in Environmental Impacts of Marinas and their Boats by Chmura and Ross included in Appendix 6 of the DEIS, sailboats have the added noise impacts of clanging rigging. The impacts to water quality particularly stemming from boat pump-out are not limited to power boats. Finally, the issue of turbidity is addressed in Responses #58 and #119. 40 IV. References Arnold, W. S., 1984. The Effects of Prey Size, Predator Size, and Sediment Composition on the Rate of Predation of the Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, on the Hard Clam, Mercenaria, mercenaria (Linne). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 80:207-219. Grizzle, R. E. 1990. Distribution and Abundance of Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin, 1791) (Eastern Oyster) and ;\lercenaria spp. (Quahogs) in a Coastal Lagoon. Jor. Shellfish Research, Vol 9, No 2. 347-358. Lagler, K. F., A. S. Hazard, \~'. E. Hazen and W. A. Thompkins. 1950. Outboard Motors in Relation to Fish Behavior, Fish Production, and Angling Success. Transactions of the 15th Annual North American Wildlife Conference. p. 280-303. In: The Environmental Impacts of Marinas and their Boats. By Clmmra and Ross. University of Rhode Island Marine Momorandum 45. 1976. Southold Trustees. Drafr Scoping Outline for Brick Cove Marina. March 25, 1993. Peconic Associates. 1993. Draft Environmental Impact Statement relating to Brick Cove Marina. Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 1983. "Pilot Plant Study -Nitrogen Removal in a Modified Residential Subsurface Sewage Disposal System: Phase II." Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 1992. Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program: Summary. 41 Appendix 1: Minutes of the Public Hearing dated October 28, 1993 Fnard of Trustees 9 October 28, 1993 TRUSTEE SMITH: All the guy is asking for is ramp to haul the sea plane out so he could wash it so he doesn't get marine growth on his plantoons. TRUSTEE SMITH: I make my motion again, the same motion. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Abstain. 7:49 p.m. - In the matter of BRICK COVE MARINA to modernize and improve marina operations from 91 previous boat slips to 138 boat slips on site formally known as Young's Marina, 12.5 acres in size of which 4.2 acres are owned underwater land. Also, the action includes improvement of parking areas, landscaping, marina head pump-out facilities, installation of a paved washdown platform with sediment and oil separation system, a storm drain interception system for the parking area, and relocation and improvement of the existing on-site sanitary system. The improvements to the marina also include dredging of approx. 2900 c.y., 350 cubic yards of slope dredging and approx. 550 c.y. at the basin entrance to the marina inside the basin. Located Sage Blvd. Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As a matter of public interest, the majority of this project is complete. Do I have any comments in favor of this application? BILL LEVERAGE: The applicant is here along with his representatives and have been study9_ng this matter since 1987. Mr. Wiggin added to your reading material the last few months very substantially, and this document is heavier than my lawnmower at home. I'm sure you have it in detail. I'm not going to stand or add upon that. We're gonna sit on the DEIS that has been repaired subject to any comments or inquiries that may be made by the audience, since the focus is to make and take a hard look and do anything to assist in that process. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments in favor of this application? Is there anyone here to speak against this application? LINDA LEVY: I have read that, and we have, despite the length, we do have a lot of problems with it. We don't think that the hard look that is required has happened yet. I have something to give you and I'll go over it with you briefly. The major points we had problems with. The first problem we have has to do with the access. The site does not have adequate access from the Main Road. The right-of-way called "Sage Boulevard," is barely sixteen feet wide. This is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other. In case of emergency, an ambulance or fire engine would net be able to safely pass any vehicles evacuating the site. At sixteen feet, the road is substandard and could not be taken over by the Town without improvements. The right-of-way is surrounded on both sides by wetlands. Therefore, any widening of the road would have a significant environmental impact and must be addressed. Neither the issue of access nor the environmental impact of any necessary widening have been addressed in the DEIS. Board of Trustees 10 October 28, 1993 In addition, no current traffic study has been submitted of the impact on the already hazardous Route 25 (Main Road). The fact that the right-of-way is shared by the Sage property is also not addressed. This second parcel, if developed, would add a significant traffic burden to the right-of-way and therefore the access to the marina. A traffic study is a necessary part of this EIS and should be included. Land Use and Zoning. This site is zoned as Marine II. The DEIS states (Section IV, P.73) that the use of this site as a marina "is in conjunction with both the Town Southold Master Plan, Zoning, and the US/UK Stewardship Program". In fact, the zoning category of Marine II led to a suit against the Master Plan and reconsideration of this category is part of the charge of the US/UK Stewardship Task Force, which has not yet made its final recommendation. This particular site is an example of the problems of the Marine II zone....all other zoning within a quarter mile of the site is either R-40 or R-80. Therefore, the Marine II zoning of this parcel can be considered spot-zoning. While the existing zoning allows for this use, the fact that it is currently under examination for possible code changes should be examined and addressed. Sanitation System. The applicant states that the ultimate disposal of the waste removed from boats by the pump-out, stations still to be determined. The "present plan" for which they are seeking Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval calls for disposal in the on-site septic systems. The applicant goes on to state (Section V, p.10), "Neither of the three disposal methods are regarded as causing potentially large impacts". This is a disingenuous statement. Disposal of this waste in the on-site septic system would certainly have an impact as it would result in increased nitrogen loading. (Please also note that as of this date, the Department of Health has not issued any approvals for the sanitary system). Impact on Property Values. The applicant maintains that the site will not affect property values in the surrounding area, based on a statement from the Town Assessor. This is not the expert opinion needed for such a statement. Only an independent appraiser can judge as to the potential impact on property values....regardless of whether the Town would change its assessment of the properties. Impact on Shellfish. The applicant states that "Impacts to shellfish are not regarded as significant because the portions to be dredged do not support important or large concentrations of shellfish". (Section V, p. 13). This is based on examining the spoil from dredging already completed. However, this spoil came from an area which had already been disturbed. All that Board of Trustees 11 October 28, 1993 analysis can tell us is that shellfish are not abundant in areas that have been developed as marinas. A "Hard Look". The DEIS is filled with general statements as to the lack of negative impacts which are not proved in any way. Examples of such statements: "Negative impacts resulting from the temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil are not important". (Section V, p. 3). "There are no important negative impacts associated with landscaping". (Section V, p.5). "The value of vegetation to wildlife is extremely limited throughout most of the project area". (Section IV, p.40). "The probability of the impact occurring, as well as its duration is small". (In reference to storm water runoff; Section V, p.16). "The potentially small adverse impact is ultimately viewed as positive". (Section V, p.11). Perhaps the attitude of the applicant in taking negative environmental impacts into account is best stated in the constantly repeated refrain, "All improvements to the present facility are consider to have positive impacts..." Section V, p.16). Such generalizations cannot possibly be considered adequate in an Environmental Impact Statement. Alternatives. The applicant dismisses alternative designs in the following manner, "The only practical time to review alternate boat slip layouts is prior to start of construction". (Section VIII, p.l). This project is at its present stage of construction due to permits issued without adequate review. The applicant is stating that because the work was done before the completion of an EIS, he should not be asked to look at alternatives which might be suggested as the result of the belated EIS. The burden to take a hard look and mitigate potential adverse impacts remains, regardless of the current stage of construction. Finally, we are concerned that the SEQR process has been violated in the continued granting of permits and ongoing construction of this project. In Section 617.3 (a) (2), the law clearly states that the applicant may not "....commence the action unless and until all requirements of this Part have been fulfilled". The New York State Supreme Court has ruled that SEQR requirements have not been fulfilled; therefore no construction should have been permitted to proceed. This DEIS was ordered by the NYS Supreme Court to provide a "hard look" as required by the laws of our State. The document now submitted is woefully inadequate. We respectfully request that the Southold Trustees not accept this Draft Environmental Impact Statement until these inadequacies are properly addressed. Sincerely, Linda Levy, Southold Coordinator, North Fork Environmental Council. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone else have any comments? FRANK FLYNN: I have some comments to make which are uncharacteristically succinct. I had originally tended to be Board of Trustees 12 October 28, 1993 represented by my attorney and consultant at tonight's hearing, however, my most recent conference resulted in their convincing me that there appearance before this tribunal would be a waste of their time and my money. I consider an appearance before this Board constitutes nothing less than star chamber proceeding. A proceeding designed to masquerade as impartial but merely going through the actions toward a foreordained conclusion. In my opinion this Boards decisions have been politically motivated rather than based upon the concerns of the environment or the law. This Board consistently demonstrated its bias in favor of the applicant by actions which are in conflict with SEQRA, DEC regulation, and Southold's own code. Among its most obvious transgressions the Board has permitted the applicant to flout regulations by operating the fully expanded marina or at least the last two seasons without a Department of Health Permit. Contrast this if you will, with the treatment accorded the typical residential property owner. A more resent outrage is the Trustees role, in permitting extensive dredging outside the applicants property boundaries and on the land of others. This without public notice, or hearing based upon a disingenuous statement by the applicant. The owner of record of the property for the last 23 years that he has newly discovered the shoal. Rather than recite a whole list of infractions all known and condoned by the Trustees, I shall rely in my attorney to continue his preparation of a record which will enable me to pursue all matter of legal recourse available. In conclusion I echo the time honored phrase. "I will see you in court!" TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments against the application? Do we have any other comments from the audience? MR. TOHILL: Getting to the particulars of what Ms. Levy's read, the first, issue that she raised was you as the Trustees should somehow become involved in the question of access for the Main Road down to the marina: The marina by the way, has been there for 43 years which may exceed the age of Ms. Levy. I don't know, and I don't expect her to agree or disagree on that but it may exceed her age. That issue has been raised I think 3 times now by Mr. Flynn through his attorney in the Supreme Court. It has not been successful so far in any of those three efforts and I think (could not hear him due to interference of noise) none the less that issue relates to the section of the New York Town Law or Kinny's Town Law which is Section 280A and if anyone reads it, and I know their counsel has because they said it 3 times in court proceedings, the only board that has jurisdiction with respect to that issue is its own Board of Appeals of this Town. This Board has no jurisdiction. So you can rest free of any claim that you have done something despicable by not impounding an actual issue. As a practical matter the applicant plans no widened road way from the Main Road to this property so there's no need to worry about disturbing wetlands if there is......'cause in our lifetime neither Mr. Zehner nor anyone else that's here is gonna widen the road, we'll never ask to do that. With respect to traffic study there is an existing use as I've mentioned has Board of Trustees 13 October 28, 1993 been there for 43 years, there is no existing traffic problem that has been raised ever in this building or from any of the board in the last 6 years administrative or regulatory review with respect to that roadway or cars or trucks that are using that roadway. We are not planning to change the use or expressly permitted of the zoning ordinance when that use was expressly permitted ordinance and the Board has to have a suit. We have to assume that they knew what they were doing. To the extend that anyone knows of anything wrong with the traffic and nothing was dealt I mean specifically then you're not at fault and we are not at fault if we don't....(interference of noise) On the issue of spot zoning, again, you know, and everybody here knows, that spot zoning is not one of the sins that you can be accused of committing. If someone wants to argue that they can go to the Town Board, and in fact I think they did, and they have even gone to court. On the sanitary system, the complaint was that the applicant is going to change the existing sanitary system, relocate it landward away from its present troublesome location and then, cause all of the boat owners to use it at the place for locating any sanitary waste. Now, I heard that "criticism" not certain how this Board should respond. If the complainant wants us not to get the Health Department approval which has been pending all the time the regulatory has been going on, then I'm afraid we are not going to listen to her. We intend to get Health Dept. approval for the sanitary system. If she is proposing that we leave what's there now, which might be considered troublesome, we're not going to do that either. We are going to relocate landward, the existing sanitary system. If she says that we should not use the sanitary system in order to act as a pump out facility then we disagree with her again. We intend to use it as a pump out facility and we intend to do exactly what this Board once recommended as a condition of permit approval with the litigation. In other words I don't know what the point was, I lost tract of it after she said "and with respect to the sanitary system" because nothing made any sense. I'd like to turn the floor over to Merl Wiggin. MR. wIGGIN: One problem with the sanitary system was the relocation of the existing sanitary system 100 feet more away from the existing surface waters. This has been proven wonderful. This is on the same basis if everybody does this as well if you want the whole basin approved. Some of these surface water tests or water quality exists on the west side of the basin are a problem and not a problem on the east side of the basin. Another comment was made about the disturbed site. The whole site was disturbed. That was a mining operation for clay for brick. It's all been disturbed over that period of time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else? MR. ZEHNER: I'm the owner of the property. I would like to take note that we received a total of 14 permits since 1987 plus 5 additional work amendments to those permits and from 6 different government agencies. All these government agencies are project and approved those permits. (Shuffling of papers, cannot hear Mr. Zehner) We did outside studies on plant and Board of Trustees 14 October 28, 1993 wildlife. And we found no significant impact by our outside agencies on wildlife or plant life. Last item. We could have gone for a much more expansion than we did for our project. (unable to hear Mr. Zehner). MR. BILL LEVERAGE: I know you guys are aware of this, but . everybody should be aware that doing this project, we are farther behind environmentally now than we would be if Mr. Flynn hadn't consistently ~u sued on it. We have gone ahead with the permit requirements that were put out by you fellows. And have completed almost all of them on the project that the project virtually done in the water and t e upland portion remainr~ss to be done and the drainage need~e done and is being held~afid is important. The sewage thing had been slowed down by the constant problems that we had in court. Some of the things that had been done that I think there is no negative impact and perhaps a positive impact on the area is that the two areas that were originally sited as having a problem upland are cleaned up they're done, shipped out, burned and whatever they do with it at a tremendous expense. We put in a new buried water distribution system, Health Dept. approved so that we could keep our regular sanitary system open during the winter. It used to have to be shut down. Now we have year round sanitary system on the property. Portable pump out stations have been working for two years. You have been getting your reports on the fact that we are pumping out. We have gotten tremendous cooperation from the people in the place. All the heads are sealed off. Last year on a monthly basis we did water quality testing and Mr. Flynn can look at them. For some time we have used the Southold stop program for all our toxins and stuff like that. We were probably one f the earlier people to start recycling and again we got o cooperation from the people who come in. All the waste oil at's on the property is collected by us and shipped out at our expense to a certified reprocess throughout the Island. We don't use any toxic antifreeze on the place. We use non-formaldehyde head chemicals. Every boat in the place has oil absorbent material in the bilges, so that when you pump the bilge water out the oil is trapped in the oil sorbs and the water only comes out. So basically that's where we stand. If this keeps going on the way it is, I don't don't know how long it's gonna be before we get everything else done. We're going as fast as we can and we're sorry that we have this constant problem with Mr. Flynn and I think all the environmental groups. ought to take a look at this. I come from 8 years of running a big marina on the Chesapeake and we went through the Chesapeake Bay Estuary program down there. It was a very good program and one of the things that was a key note to that program was that when they re-align what you could do on property on the water in order to make it viable they talked in all cases on intensification say where a location was proper to start with, the operation was there so you could get the boats out of the creeks into the marina where the sewage could be properly pumped and oil absorbs could be put in. I think the environmental groups should think about that when they constantly try to drag these things out. Board of Trustees 15 October 28, 1993 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to comments? RICHARD RALYEA: I kept my boat in the marina for three years and I'm also a LYCO contract. I've done quite a bit of contract work there. So from both views as a contractor and boater they have done a nice job and done nothing but improvements and the improvements are set all upland and I don't see how that could do anything but improve the marina and the environment. They were very careful about the pump outs and boaters. It's a real nice operation and I think it's good for Southold. People come from up the Island and even New Jersey to keep they're boats there. They spend a lot of money, at the restaurants, wineries, shopping locally. We're a waterfront community so I think it's a very positive environment for Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else who would like to speak? Anyone else who would like to speak. LINDA LEVY: I'd just like to point out that the DEIS is to take a hard look. The NFEC is not saying that they are not doing nice things over there, that its not a clean operation, that they're not trying to make some mischief. This is not about what is happening right there right now, but this about the DEIS statement that was charged to take a hard look. When it is completely ignored any negative impact whatsoever, if you were to believe this DEIS there is not a single negative thing that could ever be thought of with conjunction with this marina. And our complaint is with this DEIS that is not taking a hard look and that is what we are expecting to see. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any one else? MR. FLYNN: I'd like to make a short comment. There was mention of the ecological environmental studies made. They were made on the site. I don't know if this board is aware that 80$ of the underwater land and 20-25 times the area of the upland is owned by others and should be considered in terms of the impact. Both on the environment and the value of the surrounding properties. What respect to the environment, our view certainly disinterested parties since they no longer own the Sage Estate, conducted an environmental study of the area? And to their credit and to their detriment they found that the upland and areas of that little estuary and baymans or whatever you want to call it was the habitat of endangered and threatened species. That's somewhat at odds with this DEIS and I think its a matter well worthy of further investigation. Actually the Trustees have or should have had access to the harborview study before any of this permits were issued. Now with respect to permits, there was an original hearing to this project, then the Trustees amended and increased the operations without the additional hearings and many of these amendments were made subsequent to the court decision which required the DEIS. I hardly think that constitutes whatever it may be argued the marginal legality that such a thing may be, I hardly think that demonstrates a proper respect for the environment on a part of the Trustees. Now in respect to the Department of Health, it is clear both in the DEC regulations and the Southold Board of Trustees 16 October 28, 1993 Town Code, that prior to this expansion a permit was required of the Dept. of Health. And the reason has nothing to do, well it's partially to do, with the fact that the present system is located within 100 feet of the bulkhead or high water line whatever you want to define it, but. more to the point it's required because of the expansion of the marina. Now it may very well be that on Aug. 6 the size of the boats in this marina average in the neighborhood of 28 feet, but the docking plan in that marina includes boars up to 55 feet. If you were to project the capacity needed as the Dept. of Health has, they are in doubt when or where any excess capacity can be located. Now this has been going on for over two years, its been stated that this has quoted by the Dept. of Health, if there is not a problem with this property, why hasn't a permit been granted? I think that's also a verbal appeal for an investigation by this Board. Now your talking in terms of road studies and the fact that they are not required. The increased capacity of the marina certainly is going to dictate additional road traffic. The primary owner the theme owner is this property is the Sage Estate. What has happened here is that this marina has grown from its original 14 boat capacity to the present capacity which is stated as 138 boats. That's a 10 boat increase. The fact of the matter is that the Sage property would be having eventual development of the Sage property which certainly would be adversely affected financially by the expansion of this marina but it would also be affected by the overburdening of this right-of-way. Now with respect to this right-of-way and it should be a matter of prime concern to this board is the health, safety and welfare of the community. I don't know whether you are aware of it or not but New York State Law permits vehicles 8 1/2 feet in width without any requirement or permit. It is obvious that two vehicles of that width cannot pass on a right-of-way which is only 16 feet in width. And it constitutes the equivalent of a house or a driveway 740 feet in length with no cross roads or turnouts. So access to what is potentially a dangerous site in terms of.....you must be aware of marina fires and that result there from. The question of public vehicles, safety vehicles, fire department, police department, etc....despite their casual response to the DEIS, I suggest they might not even be aware of the requirements of the Transportation Dept. for width of vehicles. They could not safely pass on that right-of-way. And were there to be a problem the prime owner of this right-of-way would be cut off from access to Route 25. The total development of this property is also a matter to be considered. Were you to think in terms of the Sage property, I don't know what the ultimate development would be but it would certainly be several houses. But more to the point the question of perhaps the indicated load from the marina could be adduced from an analysis from the Dept. of Health's figures. The Dept. of Health in computing their sanitary requirements figures two persons per boat, 138 boats, 276 people. An no question about that they told me themselves. Were to use LILCO's figures where they compute somewhere over 3 persons per household, you would have an equivalent of Board of Trustees 17 October 28, 1993 approx. 90 households in this ratio. Added to that is the Sage property. For the life of me I can't see how this question of access could be dismissed lightly because even in the smallest of the major subdivisions approved in this Town, there has to be an alternative means of access. There is none for this property, nor is there for the Sage property, which in effect is a dead end. With further respect to the road studies there was reference and reliance placed, I believe, on the previous road study that was done in 1986. I suggest if you will that you examine this. Because that study indicated that there would be road movements, vehicular movements over a 24 hour period at approx. intervals of 37 seconds. Now if that is not overburdening the right-of-way, I don't know what possibly could. One further reference is absolutely factual. The selective method of supplying the appendices to this study is hardly forthright. There's a reference made there to close studies conducted. Again I think it was 1986. The quote is that they have only selected Section 6 as a summary. Were the actual summary to be read, and I think it is advisable under the circumstances you do so, it says that the study was only conducted on two days. It was conducted during a period when the winds were prevailing from the north and the northwest and there were no winds at all. And finally that it was non-determinative. That they made recommendations for additional studies to be conducted that were never conducted. So in effect there is a quotation, as I recall it in I think appendix 2, where Mr. Bredemeyer made comment to the effect that he was not impressed by the size or the weight of the submission. I believe at that time it was our submission.. I submit that that statement prevails in spades with respect to this DEIS. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to comment on the DEIS. Would the Board like to make a comment? I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll entertain a motion to go off the public hearings. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES Recessed for 5 minutes V. ASSESSMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: 1. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of W. L. LYONS BROWN, III request permit for construction of a 4' X 100' dock to be constructed 4' above grade. Applicant also requests a statement of jurisdiction under Chapter 97 & 37 to construct a one family dwelling, sanitary system, garage, driveway, retaining wall, patio, stonewall, pool and decking as per map Chandler, Pa]mer & King survey dated 9/29/93. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to table, TRUSTEE ALBERTSON seconded. ALL AYES Appendix 2: Correspondence from F. M. Flynn dated October 28, 1993 To: Southold Board of Town Trustees From: F, M. Flynn Re: Comments on Brick Cove Marina DEIS Date: October 28, 1993 (Public Hearing) My remarks will be uncharacteristically succinct. I had originally intended to be represented by my attorney and consultant at tonight's hearing. However, my most recent conference resulted in their convincing me that their appearance before this tribunal would be a waste of their time and my money I consider appearance before this Board constitutes nothing less than a Star Chamber proceeding; a proceeding designed to masquerade as impartial, but merely going through the motions toward a foreordained conclusion. c In my opinion, this Board's decisions have been politicall motivated, ra` than based upon concern for either the environment or the law. The Board has consistently demonstrated its bias in favor of the applicant by actions which are in conflict with SEQRA, DEC regulations and Southold's own Code. Among its more obvious transgrssions, the Board has permitted the applicant to flout regulations by operating the fully expanded marina for at least the last two seasons without a Department of Health permit. Contrast this with the treatment accorded the typical residential property owner! A more recent outrage is the Trustee's role in permitting extensive dredging outside the applicant's property boundaries and on the land of others. This without public notice~or hearing based on the disingenuous statement by the applicant, the owner of the property for some twenty - three years that he had newly discovered the shoal. Rather than recite a whole list of infractions, all known and condoned by the Trustees, I shall rel~ry~ on my attorney to continue his preparation of a record which will/enable me to pursue all manner of legal recourse available. In conclusion, I echo the time - honored phrase: "I will see you in court." Appendix 3: Correspondence from Linda Levy of North Fork Environmental Council dated October 2S, 1993 NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTi(-L COUNCIL Route 25 st Love Lane, PO Boa 799, Mattituc4, NY 11952 rdltbtz~~~~802 B r 19 9 3 John Bredemeyer, President Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 re: Brick Cove Marina Environmental Impact Study Dear President Bredemeyer and Trustees, The North Fork Environmental Council (NFEC) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared for the Brick Cove Marina project, and finds that there are several significant problems with this document. Most importantly, the NFEC believes that a "hard look", as ordered by the NYS Supreme Court, has still not been taken. Some of the issues which we believe have yet to be addressed follow. Access. The site does not have adequate access from the Main go~,Z~A Road. The right-of-way, called "Sage Boulevard", is barely sixteen feet wide. This is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other.- In case of emergency, an ambulance or fire engine would not be able to safely pass any vehicles evacuating the site. At sixteen feet, the road is substandard and could not be taken over by the Town without improvements. The right of way is surrounded on both sides by wetlands. Therefore, any widening of the road would have a significant environmental impact and must be addressed. Neither the issue of access nor the environmental impact of any necessary widening have been addressed in the DEIS. In addition, no current traffic study has been submitted of the impact on the already hazardous Route 25 (Main Road),. The fact that the right-of-way is shared by the Sage property is also not addressed. This second parcel, if developed, would add a significant traffic burden to the right-of-way and therefore the access to the Marina. A traffic study is a necessary part of this EIS and should be included. Land Use and Zoning. This site is zoned as Marine II. The DEIS states (Section 2V, p.73) that the use of this site as a Marina "is in conjunction with both the Town Southold Master Plan,. Zoning, and the US/UK Stewardship Program." In fact, the zoning category of Marine II led to a suit against the Master Plan and reconsideration of this category is part of the chacge of the e non-profit or9anizatlon for the preservatlon of land, sea, air and quality of Ilfe printed on 100% recycled paper i~ US/UK Stewardship Task Force, which has not yet made its final recommendations. This particular site is an example of II zone -- all other zoning within a either R-40 or R-80. Therefore, the parcel can be considered spot-zoning. allows for this use, the fact that it examination for possible code changes addressed. the problems of the quarter mile of the Marine II zoning of while the existing is currently under should be examined Marine site is this zoning and Sanitation system. The applicant states that the ultimate disposal of the waste removed from boats by the pump-out station is still to be determined. The "present plan" for which they are seeking Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval calls for disposal in the on-site septic systems. The applicant goes on to state (Section V, p.10), "Neither of the three disposal methods are regarded as causing potentially large impacts." This is a disingenuous statement. Disposal of this waste in the on-site septic system would certainly have an impact as it would result in increased nitrogen loading. (Please also note that as of this date, the Department of Health has not issued any approvals for the sanitation system). Impact on Property Values. The applicant maintains that the site will not affect property values in the surrounding area, based on a statement from the Town Assessor. This is not the expert opinion needed for such a statement. Only an independent appraiser can judge as to the potential impact on property values -- regardless of whether the Town would change its assessment of the properties. Impact on shellfish. The applicant states that "Impacts to shellfish ...are not regarded as significant because the portions to be dredged ...do not support important or large concentrations of shellfish." (Section V, p. 13). This is based on examining the spoil from dredging already completed. However, this spoil came from an area which had already been disturbed. All that analysis can tell us is that shellfish are not abundant in areas that have been developed as marinas. A "hard look". The DEIS is filled with general statements as to the lack of negative impacts which are not proved in any way. Examples of such statements: "Negative impacts resulting from the temporary or permanent placement of dredge spoil are not important." (Section V, p.3). "There are no important negative impacts associated with landscaping." (Section V, p.5). "The value of vegetation to wildlife is extremely limited throughout most of the project area." (Section IV, p.40). "The probability of the impact occurring, as well as its duration is small." (in reference to stormwater runoff, Section V, p.15). "The potentially small adverse impact is ultimately viewed as positive" (!! Section V, p.ll). i ~-, Perhaps the attitude of the applicant in taking negative environmental impacts into account is best stated in the constantly repeated refrain, "All improvements to the present facility are considered to have positive impacts..." (Section V, p.16). Such generalizations cannot possibly be considered adequate in an Environmental Impact Statement. Alternatives. The applicant dismisses alternative designs in the following manner, "The only practical time to review alternate boat slip layouts is prior to start of construction." (Section VIII, p.l). This project is at its present stage of construction due to permits issued without adequate review. The applicant is stating that because the work was done before the completion of an EIS, he should not be asked to look at alternatives which might be suggested as the result of the belated EIS. The burden to take a hard look and mitigate potential adverse impacts remains, regardless of the current stage of construction. Finally, we are concerned that the SEAR process has been violated in the continued granting of permits andtheglawgclearlyustatesof this project. In Section 617.3 (a)(2), that the applicant may not "...commence the action unless and until all requirements of this Part have been fulfilled." The New York State Supreme Court has ruled that SEQR requirements have not been fulfilled; therefore no construction should have been permitted to proceed. This DEIS was ordered by the NYS Supreme Court to provide a "hard look" as required by the laws of our State. The document now submitted is woefully inadequate. We respectfully request that. the Southold Trustees not acce t this draft Environmental Impact Statement until these inadequacies are properly addressed. Sincerely, ~~~'`~` Linda Levy Southold Coordinator North Fork Environmental Council Appendix 4: Memo from Richard G. Ward, Chairman of the Southold Planning Board including attached correspondence from Charles J. Voorhis of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates dated November 2, 1993. r PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard O. Ward, Chalnnan George Rltchfe Latham Jr. Bennett OrlowskL Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 =o~~gOFFO(K~OGy.~ a y ~ O ~ ~ PLANDTING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRiS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Ma1n Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 TO: John M. Bredemeyer III, Pres//~~ident, Board of Trustees FROM: Richard G. Ward, Chairman QSu'~ SUBJECT: Draft EIS Brick Cove Marina DATE: November 5, 1993 Attached are the Planning Board's comments on the above referenced EIS, as prepared by its consultants in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.8 (C). Please incorporate these comments into the public record for this project. Further, it is our recommendation that the applicant be asked to supply the missing information,(that which was requested in the scoping session, but not provided in this document), in a supplemental DEIS. Please do not hesitate to call this office if you have any questions. aioHlnos ~o Nmu~ sssi a noN CRAMER, V ~R ~~~/ S CIATES ENVIRONMENT U'~\ G CONSULTANTS Ivir. Richard G. Ward, Chairman. Southold Pl;tnning Board Town of Sotit}rold P.O. Box ] 179 Southold, NY 11971 It November 2, RE: Review of the Drntt 1/nvl.+vnmental Impact Statement Brick Cove Marina Sage Boulevard s~o Route 25 Town of Southold, NY Dear ?vir, Ward: Ur)~I ~~ 1`~~J As per your request, we have completed a review of the Draft Ertvironznental Impact Statement (:EIS) for the above referenced project. The Plaru>;ng Board is an agency involved in the appproval of portions of the subject application and, therefore, has the ability to comment on ttte Draft EIS in accordance with 6 N YCFiIt Fart 517.II (C). T1re Draft EIS was reviewed Cor overall content and accurary as well as specific considerations that may apply durinf; the site plan review phase of this project. The Draft E}S under review was prepared by Peconic Associates and submitted to the Town of Southold Board of Town Trustees on August 27, 1993. 77rc document Indicates that the date of ~.cceptance of the document was September 30, 1993 and the deadline daie for co:rtrrtents is November $, 1993. possiblentTtie rem+~iew follows the format of t};ecUr:tf~~rt, and inbludes~refercnce iEoIS where appropriate sectioru and subsections. Comments arc provided as follows: III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 13. LOCATION 2. Description of Site Access (page ITI-50) Page III.50 states that the subJJ'ect property has an easement of "ri ,ht of tvay to pass and repass for all purposes over the 16' wide roadwayy hcreinbefore merhoned running from wherever said roadway contacts the premises hcreinbefore described in a ,eneral westerly direction to state road (the main highway) . In review of Iwtltibits A and Chit appears as though Sagge Boulevard does not contact the subject premises. Tire implications of this with regard to thr. easement of right of way should be considered. C• DESIGN AND LAYOUT (page III-II2) The sanitary calculations included on page ITI-$2 should be related to upland area and allowable sewage flow to determine cor orntarrcc of the proposed sanitary system 54 NORTN COUNTRY ROAD, N SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 33.1.1455 r~tor~ ;~ tirtClc Cme M1tartna Drxtt EI$ nevlew expansion with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. This section should Indicate if there are any improvements ~;lanned in connection with site acs;ss along the 1,740 foot stretch of Sage Boulevard. This would include potential widening, drainage improvements, tree trirnnung or removal, widening of intersection radius', reswfacing or other possible planuted act~vtt~es now or in the future. N. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. NATIiJ12AL RESOURCES 1. Sub-Surface (page N-2) Page N-2 indicates that most of the site is underlain with 64-70' of clay. While it is true that at depth beneath the site there is GO-70' of clay, t}iis section should summarize information included in Appendix $ which shows sand and topsoil overlying clay at various depths based on test hole -nformation. 3. Topography (page IV-7) Pagge IV-7 indicates that "the site is basically level ~:rith contours ranging from 6-10:" The site plazas contained in Exhibit A .vtd C indicate that the site slopes to sea level with contours in the 2~f range near the shoreline and in the southern portions of the site. 'This should be clauiGed in order to accurately characterise the topographic futures of the subject property. B. WATER RESOURCES 2. Surface Waters (page TV•10) The t•ottom of page IV-10 indicates "no as ect of file proposed actis7ty is a ected to resultut any change In these surface water classifpcations" rciernng to the NYSDE~ classification of Sage Basin as "SA"waters. "SA"waters are suitable for sbell6shing for market purposes and for primary and secondary contact recreation. Tire statement in the Draft EIS is presumptive and does not contain sufficient substantiation to include In this section of th•; document. c) Bacteriological Water Quality (page N-2]) Page N-2] makes reference to calculations in Anpendix 10 that determine We acreage o closed shel(£ishing waters based on FDA shellfish sanitation guidelines.' It should be noted that these calc~dations prepared by Peconic Associates on Apnl i9, 1991 do not consider the minimum 10°!0 loading factor used by the NYSDEC in implementing the FDA guidelines. Since I~fYSDEC is the agency implementing shellfish sanitation standards, their methodolog}• Should be utilized, in addition, since public health is Involved conservatism should also tie exercised. It is also noted chat lwttt We FDA and Use NYSDEC utilize a density of two persons per boat which differs from the density used in the Peconie Associates calculations. l:urthermore, the FDA gttidclines state the following; CRAMER, V Rl~~ /~~~SOCIATES Fagc2o<1 ENVIRONMENT ~,,AIJ ,1~\t`1~G CONSULTANTS \~ ~_ .~ _... ....- ...r~ --. _. ' Brick Cove blirtaa ' L`r.rt EIS ]ttv-rv- 'in view of the fact that many marina facilities are adjacent to shellGshinq arras, and that waste discharges are not uniformly distributed is the water tolwnn, detection of low levels of colifotms from waste diacltargu by tvrtcnt pollution monitoring methods may not provide su~dcut information to properly darsify the waters is or adjacent to marina. 17re hlg}t public health risk ast.ociated with pay dischu•ge of untreated vmste, requues that each marina and mooring area dostue be considered scpuately.' The ~p,uidelines further indicate that the dilution volume necessary to reduce bacteriological loading to a safe level shall be determined without regard to levels observed by mottitonr~g. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Draft EIS accurately reflect the FDA and the NYSDEC shellfish sanitation auidelines_ C. TERI.~ESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation (page N-33) The Draft EIS should recognize that the Terrestrial Environmental Specialists report from 1986 included in Appendix 1'L tndicates that removzt or destruction of vegetation along Sage IIoulevazd could have an adverse environnietital impact. b) Tidal 1Vetlands (page IV-35) Page IV-35 refers to NYSDEC wetlands classifications. This section should mention the presence of SM wetlands in Sage Basin and slwtilu outline the functions, benefits and impact of projected conditions on these wetlands characteristics and benefits. 2. Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife (page N-63) The Draft EIS includes n number of studies which discuss fish, shellfish sad wi]dlife resources on and in the near vicinity of the subject site. it is noted that bentliic surveys arc concentrated in the marina area and expectedly found little evidence of hard clam and other shellfish due to marina activities, histortc brick manufacture causing unsuitable bottom characterstits, and siltation of the basin. Since the project will increase the closure area due to FDA guidelines as implemented by P7Y5DEC, the impact of this closure should be aclmowledgr:d. lrtiis is particularly important in the absence of more conclusive information oa hazd ctant abundance 1n the remaining portions of Sage IIasin. IIUMAN R1:SOURCES A. TRAI.VSPORTATION 1. Transportation Services (page IV-69) The imppact of the proposed project on transportation systems should relate trip generation to dte current gaps to traffic flow or traffic increase since the study prepared approximately, 7 yeazs ago for a different project. On ppage N-69 there is reference to 50°~0 occupancy ol: the marina on the busiest 8 hour day of the summt:r. T}te basis for this percentsge cccttpanty should be noted. tiVitlt regard to Sage Boulevard consideration of additional present and future uses of this right of way should l~ included iu this discussion. _~ CRAMER, V,~ `R-~\ /~~~~ ~pCIATES Psge3ot7 ENVIRONMENT~iAI ~ G CONSULTANTS . ,~. . c artrY con ra.rt~ 1haR E[S Rc.kw Page 1V-70 indicates that certain improvements to Sage : oul~vard ^+ere proposed in connection with the Southport Development project. What i:nprovemente, if any, are proposed in t onnection wttn the curcent project and what impacts arc c~ected to occur as a result of these Improvements. B. LA,M) USE AND ZOMNG 2. Land Use Plans (page IV-73) There is no discussion of an of the land use plans which pertain to uses and planbirtg o^ the subject property. Relevant Iand use plans should be examined in order to support the conclusions i:nc u ed on page IV-73. C. COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Police Protection 2. Fire Protection (page IV-74) Given the isolated marine use of the subject site, 1,740 feet from the main road, some discussion of police and fire emergency response times and ttte adequacy of Sage Boulevard to handle emergency traffic is warranted. This discussion should also ccusider exrsting and proposed adcliUonal use along Sage Boulevard. V. SIGNiFiCANT ENi'IRONIv1ENTAI.IAIPAC;S (page V-1) Section V is not consistent with the Trustee's Scoping Outline dated c~fay 6, 1993 (revised). Ttte outline reqquires the a[~plicattt to "identify and discws thos•° a_apects of the environment:~l setting in SeCuon IV Lhat may be adversely or beneficially affected by the pro used action", Section V of the braft EIS only addresses these hnpacts to Land, Water, andpFish, Shellfish and Wildlife. The ma'ority of the analysis is taken verbatim from the EA,F Part II tuldendum prepared by the ~rustees. A broader treatment of impacts is warranted and was requested by the Trustees in the scoping outline. A IMPACT ON LAND (page V-2) It is noted that pa e VI-3 in the Mitigation Section indicates that aJl spoil will be removed from the site. This conflicts with statements on pace V-2 which indicates that spoil trtay stay on site. If spoil is removed, tl:e number of truck Inps, how•s of operation, itn~aet on the right of way, traffic, attd wear a<,d tear on the n'pht of way and to~.im reads shoed be discussed. It is recognized that much of the spoil has already been removed from the site; however, the:;e imparts should be considered in the context of: i) visible or recorded impacts of spoil already removed; and, 2) potential impact involving further spoil removal, Page `/-3 indicates "negative Imparts resulting, from the tetnporan~ or pcrmartcnt placement of dredge spoil are not important .Other parts of the Draft 7:,IS hnve characterized: the spoil as silty and Appendix 6 utdicatcs a presence of 1~eavy mct.~ils in marina sediments, What is the suitability of this material for positive dxainage on site or landfill cover off site in view of these qualities. RAMER, V RI-l~ ~'`~ SOCIATES ~VIRONMENT~1 ~./ ~ `\D!G CONSULTANTS `--- \` P~ye / 0l7 _n • , - nrkk Core Marina Draft EIS Re.leN B. IMPACT ON WATER (page V-6) This section does not comprehensively address the impact of mazinl expansion on water, based on the reference included in Appendix 6 of the Draft EIS. Marinas arc documented to have other adverse effec4a L•eyond boat toilets, dyed~r'rg and stormwater. The Draft EI:S downplays the expansion to a change from 91 to 138 boats and imolies that impacts have already occurred based on a 91 boat marina, However, the EAF Part II addendum in Appendix 4 indicates dockage of 38 boats in 1991 indicating that the actual expansion is greater than the increase from 91 to 138 boats. Pa e'V-11 of the Draft EIS indicates with respect to boaters toilets, "there are no regional (neF;ative consequences) of this Impact and there is no potential divergence from local needs and goals resulting from this impact. Therefore, the potentially small adverse Impact is uldroaiet viewed as sitive". Thrs statement is not supported by documentation in the Draft 16IS. Page V-9 indicates a potential for closure of all of Safe Basin to shellGshin~ t:y application of the FDA standards. Page V-9 further indicates that more boats will mcrease the closure area accordingly. There is no effort to determine the extent or significance of closuee area or to assess the impact of the closure area on the Town's water resoun:es, with or possibly beyond Sage Basin. The minimum 10°!0 load and a density of 2 persoas per boat should he used in accordance with NYSDEC methodology. The impact on th: continued viability of Sago Basin for classification as SA waters Is not addressed. Reference to dredging of the channel made on page V-12 should indicate the ownership of Sage Basin. ttolnlands in relation to proposed dredging areas. Page`V-13 discusses impacts to shellfish resulting from Bredg~' $.Sage Basin Js in fact a basin where sedunent suspension will have an effect beyond file oreii ed area. The document does not supply sufficient information to conclude that all of Sage Basin is devoid of significant shellfish populations. C. IMPACTS ON FISH, SHELLFISH, AND \VII.DIIFE (page V-17) In view of the legal judgement dated bfay 1II,1990, it is sug&ested that this section directly address the impact of the project regarding turbidityty, siltation and erosion, and potential deleterious effect on fuh, shellfrsh and tvddlife. 'Iliough this is alluded to in many parts of the Draft EIS, a compilation of facts ht this section is appropriate. Pages V-18 and 19 discuss wildlife species associated with the site. The biological needs of rare species identified should be discussed in greater detail in order to support the conclusion that no impact will occur, In additiort, the le al judgement dated January 15, 1993 indicates a need to die ~ ssgpotentIal dchyerious elects to osprey, oipiug clover least tern and common tern. The ud ement clean Buds that a hard look rs needed wrth reggard to these species yet little addrtior><11 Information beyoncl what was considered in prior SEQR documents h.as Ix:en provided. The soaping outline requires consideration of the pprokosed project in view of the Brown Tide Comprehensive Action Management I'Ian (13TGAIviP) suUVnary document, yet little referenx to this document is included in the Dtaft EIS. ~,!_' ~ CRAMER, V Rf~ ~ SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT1U:.6t~~/ ~`~!G CONSULTANTS 3 Page S or 7 .. ;~ `~ arfck con M.,-tn, Drart EIS Rcvtrw D. IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES (page V-25) The document indicates that "the Town Assessor bas stated tl;at the site pproject, as approved, will not effect the property values in the area surroundutg the site." The source of tthurs informa¢ion and the context in which it was provided should be included. Review of page IV-78 finds a table of assessed valuation and property value based on the most recent assessments from years rangr'ng behveen 1970 and 1992. ,4 quotation on that page indicates that the Town Assessor's office has advised that the assessed valuations of four pro~c:tics approximate to the Brick Cove Marina should not be effected by the proposed protect site. The relation between assessed valuation and property value should be stated and a more accurate refs;rence to the in ut from the Town Assessor's office with regard to impact on actual property values should be provided. VI. MTT7CATION MEASURES TQ ?•4INIMIZE ENVIRON141E1~ITr1L IbTI'ACI' (page VI-1) The seasonal restrictions on dredging activities shoiild be mentioned in this section as art importanr, mitigation measure. flp~endix 6 indicates that beneficial effects of marina's cart be enhanced if fouling substrate rs ~rovidcd. Will floating piers be painted with iltttifoulirrg paint or will they be allowed to foul. What periodic maintenance of stotzrtwater disposal systems and the boat wash water containment structure are proposed in order to insure proper [unctioniu~. VII. ADVI:R.SE ENVIRONb4EI~iTAI, FFE'ECTS 'i IIAT C:~NNOT I<E AYOIDEB Ii? 77iE PROJECT I!i IAiPLEMEiVTED (page VII-1) This section should list the adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided. The two sentences included in this section do not acknowledge any adverse effect and base this on observation of activities completed io dale. The actual occtlparrcy of t11a marina will be subject to further significant change resulting in impacts not currentl• lrno~m. The shcUfish closure area based on the FbA shell[ish sanitation program «~~l be effected as a result of the .project. An o`ujective list of impacts is cleazly warranted for inclusion in this section. VIII. ALT7EItNATIVES C: ALTEiRNAT1VE SIZE (page VIII-3) This section provides support fora 138 slip marina based on pi~ouirlg urforntation from a reference that indicates the site could accormnodate a greater number of boats. The size of the marina should be based on the ability of natur.•il and huwan resources to accommodate the ptartned facilities on a site sFecrfic basis. Tltis is particularly Important in view of the sites location within a Critical Envuomnentd Area as well as other potential adverse envuonnrental effects of the proposed project. 'This should be clearly aclvoxdedged ;RAMER, VQ„~{ RE~ ,~ ` SOCIATES Page 6 of 1 NVIRONMENTAt~•Af_ 'i~ ~ ~1G CONSULTANTS =~~ ~~ ~ c -. ., tt~ c~ nt,fto. ihaa EIS Mtew In the alterrssttive size discussion in the document. E. ALTS?RNATIVE LANA USE (page VIII-5) 17te first alternative land use 6sled is one family dwellings. The sections states that "sanitary systems would be potential problems", as a basis for discounting this alternative land use. The document should note that any new sanitary facilities would be subject to Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code for density and the SCDI~S design requirements for thorough project revtrw orior to installation and operation of these , systems. Thcse existing regulations rrould-certainly minitnlze or eliminzte any environmental impacts associated with sanitary disposal from one family dwellirtgs. Fn addition, a ct>mparison of the distributed nature otonc family dwelling ranitary systems as compared to the large communal system proposed iu connection with Ute Brick Cove Marina project would result in a conclusion that the communal system may indeed have a more stgmncant environmental impact with regard to nitrogen, bacteria and viruses in groundwater and surface water. ADDIT'IONA1. COMMENTS A list of references used in preparing the Draft EIS is requited. `ibis is consistent with tite SEClRA Scoping Checklist included to Part 617.".1 as well as the Town Trustee's Scoping Outline. The above comments pertain to the Draft Euvironrneutal Impact Statement for Brick Cove Marina. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you Kith this input and would be pleased to discuss any aspect of this review at your convenience. Pleas<: do not hesitate to call if you havc arty further questions, Very Duly yours, tarps J. ~ o iris, CPP, AdCP CRAMER, V R ~~ ~ SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT- ~ G CONSULTANTS ~-~'~ iii Page 7 of 7 Appendix 5: Correspondence from F. M. Flynn dated November 7, 1993 To: Southold Board of Town Trustees From: F. M. Flynn Re: Brick Cove Marina DEIS Date: November 7, 1993 General The subject prroperty is spot zoned, nonconforming, inaccessible, represents a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the community and has adverse impacts on both the environment and the values of surrounding, properties. The Sage estuary has been treated by the Trustees as if it were the exclusive, private preserve of the marina and a series of of expansion permits have ben issued regardless of the impacts on the 80$ +/- of the residentially zoned underwater land owned by others, or on the vastly larger tracts of surrounding, low density zoned, residential upland. Historically, the Trustees have displayed a palpable bias in favor of the applicant and a cavalier disregard of SEQRA regulations. The Trustees deliberately, and with full knowledge, have permitted the marina to operate for at least the last two years without a permit from the the Suffolk County Department of Health, a prerequisite for any type of construction. The on site drainage Sndicated on the site plan has not ben installed, nor has the wash- down platform-etc. Neither has the parking area been surfaced in accordance with the plan. Indicative of the Trustees' cooperation, if not to say collusion, with the marina operator is that, with their full knowledge, he has, among other things: twice violated court orders, illegally commenced the widening of Sage Blvd. and, in so doing, illegally deposited the resultant debris ih the freshwater wetlands. He' has also dredged on the property of others, outside the perimeter of his property. In these latter instances the Bay Constable issued summonses which have not been acted upon. Most recently, the owner has again conducted extensive dredging operations outside his property lines and on underwater land owned by others. There was not even public notice of intent nor was the owneer of the underwater land notified. The Trustees issued supplementary permits regardless of Judge Luciano's decision. When the Bay Constable investigated this oputrageous action. he was instructed to ignore it by the Town Attorney. Subsequent to the Supreme Court decision requiring the DEIS, the Trustees have continued to cooperate in the implementation of.thb owner's expansion. The expansion has been permitted by the Trustees without either demolition or building permits. Not only do the Trustees admit they have exercised no supervision over the construction, but they admit they have neither the time nor expertise to do so. Further, the town has been deprived of the revenue the permits would have produced. The biased actions of Ithn 9'r•nnl.r~r..^, eo.incide with Chairman Aredemeyer's stated intent.ion I;o remove the rnonrings from other totrn creel, and concentr•ntc them in Sale estuary as a public mooring. All in all, this DGL^, is whit, nn~ could anti~i.pat~ from a preparer who also served as LIr~ nnr,^incer•ing consultant to the owner in the preparat:Lon of the expansion plan. On their part, the. Trusties intr.nd to Isavc the PI?L^, reviewed by a person whose impnrtia].ity is snsP~r't• ~^ a vtrtual "in house" employee oC the Trustees. (.,ee Corln, ^,nr., 1M-?3, 100-2ji, 1G0-2111A) r. _Spot Zoning liven a cursory look at ~outhold's Zoning ltap indicates that that the supject pr•oper•I;y rrrprntsents a prima facie case of spot zoning. LitAe also can he c.r,pected of a so called (taster Plan trlrich, basc,d on pol.l.tlcal consi.clerati.ons~ legitimized previously nonconforming: prnpnrti^s by placing (;hem i.n distrir.t;s rcgFdioss oC their abiltt.y t.o conform t,o the requiremants of said dt,^,trieta• The suhj~et proppnrty connisl:n of an isnlaCnd, interior parcel. rezoned by the Raster Plan into a errvnero.tal rlisl;rict permitt.inr; intensive and incompati.bl~ a^rn ,reel located i.n the midst of approximately 150 actors nr morn of low density residential zanirrg, The flew York state Court of Appeals has hr_ld that spot zoning singles out such a pare~l for n use classifieati.on totally different from the surrrnrnrlinr- area and for the henefit of the parcels owner to the rlet;ri.m~n1; of other careers. The Court went. on I;o mate: "^.pnt. zoning is flee very antithesis of pl.attned zoninr,„" ^o much for ^outhol.rl's vaunted Hasten Plau and any olalrrs marls on il;n behalf as representative of professional and impartial. planning, Approving a site plan for a n.;c arhieh violates al. 1. principles .~ of proper planning and zoninc; and for the. benefit of the applicant and at the expense of snrr•onndiug ownn,rs winose properties far exr,eed that. of Cha applicant. in both area and value, Such approval would contilse the mon~<ery already made oC the high- flown principles erpressnd ( heel; not, observed) in the Southold Town 7.oning Corin, (see Sec. t~n_in) Access The .^ole overland access to the subject property is via a I`. Mli, 16 feet in total wi.rlth and e:tl:endi.ng annrnxirnately~7hD LF • i from Rte. 25 to the northuentcrl" vicinity of the, subject pro ert r p Y. ~ Fort title to the RO!~! is ventcrl i.n the ..^,arre estahe and the pr.icipal'Cunetion of what ..^^r•ves the marina as a Rr1I•J is to t provide the, sole means of nce~ns for the approximately ti5 I' acres of low density, resir)nl;ially zoned land, including the ~' valuable bay fr•ontagn, arhich eonsti.tul:es-the' sage property, 1 Since the primat•y pur•posn of I:h^ Rn;) is to serve. the Sage ~ property, 1.t .is obvious that I:Irr• appr•oxima.l;e rloubl.ing of the deman<i originating in the mnr•ina nr,pansion over hurdPns a I , Rn!•1 that is alt•eady inadc..lnal;r and conforms arith neither town nor stage .>bandarri~, ,. (~) I, ~ ~, _ _~ A review of the site plan and ..^,urvey submitted by the applicant , reveals that not only doen tiro property not have frontage on a state, town or plotted hinc~ray, but that it does hot have frontage on the afor•omcnt.ionerl ROH. Ylhile a traffic study would mnnt certainly be required in more conventional circumstances, prior to any such stud/ the basic questions regarctinC thin property are; 1) whether it . has any legal access at all and ?) if it has, whether such access is adequate for the proposed uses and for~the protection of the community's health, :safety and welfare, Flew Yori< State highway law permits permits vehicles 0} ft: in width 'without requirement for a permit. It is obvious that vehicles of the permitted r•ri.dl;h cannot pass on the ROM nor can vehicles of evr±n lesser width pass safely urithin the bounds of the RO11. The implications of this state of affairs should should be obvious to any impartial observer concerned with the public's safety anri r•rel.fare. The distance from Rte. 25 to the northwester•l.y area of Llrc a,rb,ject property is an uninterupted /740 +/- ft.; a stretch without. intersection or turn-out. Again, the primary purpose of the agCnns road , which nerves the marina as a ROid, is to.nerve tli~ fee owner's property the most valuable i~ortiou of which i.s the bay frontage located beyond the marina. Hith rrsper_t to overburdening the RO[1, the marina has grown in size since itn incept].on from approximately 14 small boats to a stated capacity of 13f< boats of far greater .size. The portion of the Rrna uurier eoirsideration is scarcely more than a driveway som,~((740 fF,. in len;th. As such, even were it otherwise conformin;, it would not he adequate to serve even a minor subdivision. Such a subdivision, by LILCO standards, would ha' 12 to 15 occupants a concomitant increase in traffio. 1~or;-. ''' purposes oC com arison "the Dn P , partment of health oomputes'~;+.<? '•4^ -:F `t sanitary disposal requirements based on 2 persons per. `:boat. ~ 1 In the subject instance, this calculation is probably oonserival;ive ~~` due to the size and capacity of the boats accommodated. Neverthelesey' at even the 1371 boat capacity claimed by the owner, the result "'.' would be ?7G parsons. Unin;=, LILCO's ratio this would approximate •~"~ the equivalent of nomr, RO h rnrses. Added to this would have to be the potential yicid of the. Sage property. Ala in all ,`~t, i ire would have the analaroun rrulairement for• 100 hoses or more . . tlhils this is admittedly nol; a precise basis for comparison, it provides Borne insight into the scope of the burden to be placed on tiro ROId and its i,rrpl..ications for the publie~s health, safety and welfare. t • To maintain that a single Rnrl, bordered nn both sides by wetlands and without provision for alternati.vn means of ingress and egres:i, is adequate and safe: to serve anything; even approaching this intensity of use is nothing short of preposterous. (see Sec. 100-?35, 100-211, 100-252, too=252 A,n,(I,I, too-25hr.) (3) +': •;. ••4 :," - .1 Public Ilcalth Safety and l'r+l the Anyone tire. least bit familiar with marina operations r•nalir.es that theyreresent among the lrigliest risks for catostroplri.c; fires anri explosions. Insurance compariies are well awar? of the.>e hazards. To permit such usage in the midst of residentially zoned areas represents public policy that falls lil.ble short of insanity. To compound the public's rill; by perm.i.tti.ng marinas to operate in the same distrip'~ places of pirhlic assembly such as motels and' restaurants demonstrates a callous disregard for the pub;ic'.s safety. Tire disastrous potential of marinas is due in large part,,to . the volatility of tlrc materi.nl^ present and to the carelessness and incompetence of large numbers of the boating public. _. The dockage and stora;e of boats, largely fueled by gasoline, subject to leakage and the aecunrul.ationof gases in the bilges and often improperly ventilated by careless owners constitutes an invitation to disaster. The fires which result from the burning of fuel, fiberglass, paints and treated wood permeate the neighborhood with toxi.r. r;nses, Again, the expansion. of :;uch a potentially catostrophic use in an overwhelmingly residential environment borders on insanity and one is moved to question the motivation of those who would permit it. This is all the. more so since what was originally a nonconforrnin, marina.nf some lil boats capacity has been permitted Co r_xpanri to i.la present, still non,Cconforming size, without consideration ~f the effect of such expansion on the environment and the utility and value of surrounding properties. The suh•ject property was, and is, nonconforming. Its rd'c~assification into an t1II di.str•ict whenit cannot meet the Code requirements ~~ for such a d.tntrict, was the work of the Master P1an:Marina Committe,c chaired, as one might expect, by one George Penny. „1;.;3 I have discussed Lhe, i.nad~quacies of access for emeCgeney ",-. vehicles, l)nder the circumstances, for the fire and police ,L`, departrnents to state that Cite marina project confronts them ;~~, with no rlifficultiea smaclcn of ignorance of the true situation or,_ as: is so frquently Lhe case in Gouthold, subservience '' :. ;, to political considerations. ~~;.? i Carefully bypassed in the DFL;~in an attempt to conceal the applicant's true intentions, is discussion of the fact that he has received approval from the Trustr:es to locate a fueliiiG~ dock at thr, end of a pier extr.nding some•315 feet into the ' •~age estuary. This pier is wood surfaced and only 6 ft, in width. Aetween the bullchcad and the fueling dock i.t is planned to dock some 30 boats. .. ,~ ~. .`:. Fires and explosions at tlro fucling,point.are not infrequent •~'" in marinas. Ilow is it propo:led to fpght such fast spreading ' fires under the circumstances, particularly when boats doekedb between the bulkhead and the fuel dock would likely become involved] i•fould this not prc.,cnt a problem that the emergency forces should not so casually dismiss? A fire on a far shorter ',` dock at this marina severs]. years back revealed that the Creenport, Fire Department had great difficulty in reaching the site. While also to bMP. consirierai in the context of the impaot on the environment of prohahl.e leaks and spillage resulting from the extension oC fuel ].inns some 315 ft. into the estuary raises the spr_etre of water-borne fires. " ' The D6IS craftily states that the applicant is uncertain whether or not he mill install the fueling; facilities. tlevertheless, he has applied to, and received from, the Trustees an amendment permitting such an installation. This is a transparentr cynical .,, ruse designed to avoid discussion of this critical aspect oC impacts on the ~nvironrnnnt and the communities health, safety and welfare. ' Another aspect oC public safety which has been ignoreded is is the width of the 20 ft. access channel. The applioant~s docking plan provides for boats up to 55 Ft. in length.. The planned average length is some 4Q ft. Typical beams for such boats dictates that they cannot pass within the cha m~el. Further, the Marina Criteria employed hythe iiew York Department of State recommends at least two access channels as well as other design criteria ignored in the pro,ject's expansion program. Impact on the Gnvironrnent The DINS skirts the issue of overall impact on the environment by restricting its observations'% ~• to the confiner of tho marina property. It givos short'='shrift ~~i to the fact that the Sage Iistuary is a Critical Gnvir'otimental Area as decreed by Judgr_ Luciano and Federal enactraent'~`~t°` '` '~~ ,~ ``I The DGI; purports, among; other misleading statements. that there are no shellfish in the ;age iistuary. This conclusion ;; is hased upon a so-called survey conducted within the confines of the marina property. it rants further doubt on its veracity >' by including observations by fire marina owner, hardly a disinterestb party. .: ~ ~;; _ ~r':~:: ,. ,. The fact is that t30y of the underwater land in the Sage estuary ,(, is owned by other than the marina operator, is residentially ', ;i zoned,'and has boon a proli.fi.e source of e,lams and. in the `~ recent past, of oysters and scallops as well as other forms of squab life. In previous years, prier to the closing of the estuaryrs" ~• wat2rs'to shellfishing~coincident with the rnarinars operational "; season, I have observed five or six boats at a time harvesting shellfish in the estuary. The area outside the marina is conspicuous ignored in the DiiL9. ~,; (5) ~r The fact that the marina ar•^a proper is devoid of shellfish need come as no suprize. It mar•cly confirms the contention that marina operations arc antipathetic to the growth of shellfish there and elsewhere throuShout tho Safe estuary. Correspondence from the DTiC, included in the DGI5, indicates that marina operations are Irnrdl.y conducive to the growth of shellfish, or to their health and that of any aquatic life. This constitutes the rlepartmPnt'n rAason for the closing; of the entire Sage estuary to she]lfishin(; withi.ts concomitant effects on the pr•opcrty of others amt to the livlihood ofbaymen~. ,~ Only a fool would expect to find shellfish raithin a marina area where the bottom bail been thoroughly scoured by extensive dredging. iJhile it may be true that that aquatic life within the Sage -- ,„ay ncf be s uar~as it once rrns, Lhis i.s a temporary condition that prevails throughout the the Peconir•, Gntuary. The faot is that qv~,~>~P/6 the brackish quality of tlrn arnter• i.n the Sate estuary, attributable ' to its unlerraater freshwai.nr r;pri.nr;s, and its formerly protecteri nature prior~to the appliranl,s extensive dredging, provide an almost idr.al climate for fostering the growth of an abundant shellfish crop. To deprive the owners of the bulk of the underwater land, as rar_11 as other reni.rlents of thr. town , of these benefits for the benefit and profit of one minority oamer hardly constitutes environmental conservation. 13asie to the entire qunsti.on of impact on the environment is the question of wh~tlrerjlr~ town is prepared to sacrifice its environment for the profit of marina operators who are _ :. often nonresidents and for the accommodation of boat`owners, i?: i 75~ of whom rlo not reside in Southold aeording to the marina ,.;.~~:,~ operators Dorn figures. Doc: the limited increase in!season9l f the`enVlrOnment? ~!~ ~', ~, employment justify the wholesale destruction o o'shortage is h , u ~ n ere Approval of sur_h an expansion project when t ~ ' of doeka;e in the town and more appropiately in the Village ; ti 1 of Greenportrviolatr,s »ny crnracpt of environmental protection. :~.:,. f,;' As thr,ir rationale for ~leni~ratin!~ the Sage estuary, debasing '''.- c Critical Gnvironmental it a ' its environment and tofu:+in~ to declare the Trustees maintain that it is "not a natural creek." Area ^ ~ ~~~ , Y The fact is that the laor makes no distinction between natural ~!_ i ;: , wetlands and other wetland^. furl;her, natural is defined as being created by an act of natur^,. The Sage estuary was created :',~ b Such an act in 1930, sor~n, 55 years ado. Its natural condit.ivn Y~ has bin disturbed by the actions of the Despite thr. Trustees consistr,nt refusal estuary has been defined ar, a Critical the flew Yorl: State Supremo Court and by marina. to do so, the Sage 'environmental Area by ['ederal enactment `. Related to the above, nne has to rlnrstion ,just how disinterested and impartial the conelus.irnrs of tlrc DGIS ar.tually are. Its ~_. cavalier attitude toward the facts is revealed among other ~~~ things, by the repeated statement that the Sare estuary is ,, 14} acres in area, whereas, by its own exhibits, the actual area is 19~ +/~ acres, a difference of 34$. ' A recent survey of the surrounding environment by llarborview ' Realty ( owners of the entire Sarre property at that time) came to conclusions diametri.ral.ly Opposed to those of the sub,ject'D[iIS. The Barberview survey found their property which surrounds the marina anr.l includes both the freshwater por)ds and wetlands as well as srnne ~40~ of the Sage estuary, found the property to be ecologi.ca]].y fragile and the habitat of threatened and endangered species. Piote that the Sage estuary itself, constitutes such a habitat. As a result of its survey, rlarborview offered to declare the bulk of their property as forever wild, retaining only the bay frontage for development.. The actions of Ilarborvicw nee in sharp r_ontrast to those of the marina owner. Ilartrorvl.ew, to its credit and to its financial disadvantage, recognized the true. nature of the environment surrounding the marina, a natural state that is hardly cognizant of property lines. Impact on ~urroundiuc Property Owners As previously stated, the marina property is .;pot zoned and acessihle only over . a 16ft ROii owned, in fee, by I;Ire Sage estate owners of • by far the bulk of the surrounding property. The impacts on the surroundinrg property owners fall'~~into-three categories: 1), environmental, 2) publio safety and Wel,fsre _ and 3) financial. All three are valid considerations;';i11`~;.8ite plan analysis. (S~:e 100-7.51, 100-?_521 "c'~r1'~~~:;`:'~ The selective nature of the DiiIS's analysis of environmental factors has already been discussed. The dangers to the environment and to thc: public's health, safety and welfare have ben expanded upon, supra, in the context of e..r.panding what was, and still is, a nonconforming marina to I;Ire midst of low density residential zoning. To permit the expansion of such a marina in this'environme is an open invitation to rllsaster and contrary not only ,to ' sound planning principles, hul; to basic common sense., i` Any instance of fire or other form of disaster on the marina propertywould effectively ctrl-off and isolate the Sage bay frontage, and any improvcm^ntn to he erected thereon, from its sole means of aCCP.AA. This deCrfn~rvEdA ePPAe~ pn fh~ vddu~v oF•6hr Sagw. rrape~^ty moevrr d'~P/~Ite Xlr~ faeE tfra~` tM:~,f'~ge el~,l•o /.r J:A~r Pre ow»~, of ~',i~rr• ri'AVri r+rd F~+av/ld" ,lYe ~f19 prMze ~tfl E'fUclA~*y. T) r. ~, :~ ,~~' `.:» . :ir' ;; }. ~~,r Ii •F 1 ,_~.~ 1 The detrimental effect of the expansion of a nonconforming '' marina on the value and utility of surrounding properties should be obvious to any impartial observer. In the first "~ place, it demonstrates that no confidence can be pla6ed in " the Code's pledge to gradually eliminate nonconforming properties. Secondly, the surrounding owners' "bundle of rights" includes ,~` their inherent right to the "quiet en,~oyment" of their respective properties. I defy anyone to drive down Sage Boulevard, the grandiose name for the AOW, and view the residences in proximity to the marina and claim that they have not been adversely effected by the marina expansion. The vacuous statement of the assesor cited in the DEIS, to the effect that the assessments of these properties would not be effected is such a transparent evasion as to raise questions as to his competence. I have never known an assessor to voluntarily reduce his assessment voluntar:ly. Ile certainly knows, or should know, that market value is not assessed value. To compare assessed value with market value anywhere, and especially in Southold, constitutes an oxymoron. In technical terminology, what we have here is economic obsolesence, and its concomitant reduction in market value, resulting from the expansion of an inharmonious use. From a monetary and aeshetie standpoint, the bay frontage of the Sage estate has been even more adversely effected. Its Rdw access has become more congested and overburdened. In addition, conditions surrounding the access to a property frequently have a more detrimental effect on the value of a property than its physical characteristics. The value of the Sage property has deteriorated over the years due to town poll.oies which permitted the expansion of the nonconforming marina from its original capacity of 14 small boats to its present capacity of 138, or more, of far larger boats. • A former, interim owner of the Sage property, who had purchased the property from the Sages, resold it because of the adverse ~` influence of the marina on the value of the bayfront property and his inability to achieve an alternative means of access C6e which would bypass the marina influence. In current attempts-- CMe~"`d to to market the Sage property,~'along the aecESS to what would`~aGd!/o+ ordinarily be a valuable parcel of bay frontage serves to substantially inhibit its market va?ue. While, as has been stated, assessments indication of individual market values provide•a rough indication of relative damages they will suffer as the result pro,~ect. are nowt a probative Nevertheless, they valuesand of the cosequential of the marina expansion (8) Asessed valuations of the residential properties surrounding the marina total $141,865-. Ttre total AV of the marina, all 12+ aeres,.is $28,000-. Thus the residential properties adversely effe ~rup~~~y assessed at five times the assessment of the marina. The asessments of the three residene es in Southold Shores facing the marina total $33,800-Thus, they alone are assessed at 21y; more than the entire marina property. My modest residence, alone, is assessed at 40$ of the marinas total assessment including its acreage, buildings and docks. To claim that these properties, whose collective assessments far exceed that of the marina, will not be cosequentially damaged by the marina expansion displays complete ignorance of real property valuation. To increase the value of the marina to the detriment of the far higher value of suurounding substantiates the allegation of deliberate spot zoning. With further reference to the assessorr's self-serving statement, it should be noted that he excludes comment on the Sage property or any of, the other properties effected. Site D_redRinp and Flushin(r Observation From the onset, the Sage estuary has been treated as if it were the private preserve of the marina owner without consideration for the rightsof the other owners of approximately 80~ of its area. The original entrance channel was closed and shifted to the southwest in proximity to the map of Southold Shores. Interveneing unterwater land was filled and riprapped. A barge was sunk and filled and a bulkhead built at the southerly entrance to the ohannel disrupting the natural littoral flow. Over the years the marina site has been dredged, Recently, the Trustees have permitted major dredging whch runs counter to the recommendations of the Department of States Marina Criteria. The latest outrage is that the Trustees, subsequent to the.Supreme Court decision, amended the original application to permit extensive dredging on the property of others without that owner's permission, let alone publio notice. Believe it or not, this dredging was authorized because of "a newly discovered shoal." This by an owner who has owned and operated the property for some 23 years. TYPica of the r sleading data and statements in the DEIS, an s lts disingenuous re iance~Ciibservation study, only a portion ,,,,~.~,i~ of which was incorporated as Appendix 11. ~`~° ~'r Obviously, a flushing study is required to measure the effects `'S'1!^4 of the marina project on the balance of the Sage Estuary and its surrounding properties. (9) i The submission of only Section 6 oC an outmoded 1986 study represents a calculated effort to avoid the necessity for, and the implicationsof, an updated and comprehensive study. The referenced Flushing Observation Study was conducted by Express Dredging Systems, Inc. at Young's Marina on June 9 and 10, 1986. The DEIS, for obvious reasons, incorporates only Section 6 concerning the entrance throat conditions. I submit the exclusion oC the full report was done with.. reason. The complete study virtually ignored the northerly, shallow area of the estuary where flushing would be least effective'due to interveneing sand bars and islands. The wind directions on the days the tests were conducted indicated either winds from the north or northwest or no detectable winds. Thus, they are not indicative of the effects of the generally prevailing southwesterly winds during the marina's operational season. The Qualatative Evaluation incorporated in the study states that flushing would likely be improved predicated upon the removal of the spit. This removal has not been done. Further, it is my opinion that flushing throughout the Sage estuary can hardly be improved by doubling the length of the marina piers and increasing the number of floating docks. At any rate the Express Dredging's conclusion was:"qualified due to the relatively limited duration of the study." (emphasis supplied) Removal of the spit was presumed to reduce and possibly eliminate formation of secondary flows makin~ the flow more uniform and improving the flushing characteristics "within the improved marina system." Obviously this improvement was predicated upon removal of the spit, which has not ben accomplished. Further, the purported improvement would take place only within the "marina system" ignores the effects on the 80A of the embayment owned by others. The study states :"during the two day observation study, winds., from the north and northwest were noted to dominate the tidal Ynduced flows," It was noted that the Drookhave^ National Laboratory reported a predominate southwesterly wind field during May through September. If this condition were to predominate at the marina site:"there could be further significant wind effects upon the flushing characteristics of the study site." (10) The study recommends: that a meteorological station, monitoring wind speed and direction, be established at the development site. Further hydrodynamic studies, i. e. drogue studies, of the embayment circulation should be correlated with the real time studies." In other words, the study upon which the DEIS depends is outdated and ineomplete.,By electing to submit only Section 6 of the report the DEIS deliberately distorts the results of the report. A new flushing observation is obviously required as. no reliance can be placed on the one previously submitted. The prevailing southwesterly winds during the marina season would certainly drive any effluents and contaminants into the northwesterly portion of the Sage 'estuary where they would be contained by the configuration of the area and by its shoals and bars. The fact that the Trustees have permitted the illegal dredging of the entrance to the embayment has certainly changed the water flow characteristics including velocity. This alone would increase the probability of erosion. That this should have been permitted when the government is expressing increased concern for the impact of the elements on waterfront properties, and increasing insurance premiums accordingly, opens the Trustees to claims for "consequential" damages resulting from their actions. Summary Appendix No. 2 of the DEIS, the Trustees' Responee Comments, refers to the writer as being under a cloud. On the contrary, it is actually the Trustees who are under a cloud; witness the repudiation by the electorate of the Board's chairman and former chairman. The entire sordid history of this proceeding has demonstrated the Trustees' bias in favor of the applicant smacks of favoritism, if not collusion. The Board's attitude under chairman Bredemeyer was emonstrated in Appendix No. 2 where the Board stated, in response to a suggestion for an alternative location for the docks, stated it would not consider such a suggestion: "even if court mandated." So certain was the applicant of favorable treatment, that prior to the issuance of any permits, he placed in the New York Times an advertisement offering an approved project for sale. Who assured him of approval? Since that time, the Trustees have ignored SEQRA regulations and the Town Code and turned a blind eye to repeated infractions by the applicant. It is time to recognize that the Trustees, oolleetively and/or individually, are culpable and should be made responsible for any "consequential damages" which may ensue as a result of this pro,jeet Were one to believe the DEIS, we surrounding property owners should be pathetically grateful for the improvements allegedly made by the applicant to our environment and the value of our properties. This is what might have been anticipated from a DEIS whose author served as the owner's consultant in planning the marina and reviewed by a virtual employee of the Trustees whose previous efforts were found wanting by the court. (11) The applicant has presented the Trustees and, if necessary, the courts with what he presumes to be a "fait accompli". He supports his stand by a recitation of the funds he alleges he spent on the project. It should be pointed out that such testimony is not probative in .this matter and should have no bearing on the Trustees' decisions. They are not, or should not be, partners of the applicant. The applicant has boldly gone about his expansion project knowing full well that he lacked the necessary permits and now demands approval of his illegal actions. He is to be viewed in the same light as the son who murdered his parents and then sought mercy as an orphan. If the Trustees intend to continue the expenditure of the taxpayer's money to defend the applicant's actions in court, then these comments also serve to create a record for future ad3udication. (12) Appendix 6: Correspondence from Christopher Kelley of Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelly including Comments on Brick Cove Marina DEIS prepared by Larry Penny Consulfing dated November 8, 1993 THOMAS A.TWOMEV, JR. STEPHEN B. LATHAM JOHN F. SHEA, III CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY LAWRENCE M. STORM• MAUREEN T. LICCIONE DAVIp M. OUBINO P.EDWARD REALE PETER M. MOTT1 JOAN C. HATFIEIDD MARY C. CRONIN TERRY Z. LUCAS RY. DT l iL RARp 0 NY 6 LA BARS 1 NY ~ MD BARS D NY l CT BARS • NY 6 MA BMS T~VOAfEY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELLEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW JO WEST SECOND STREET P.O. BO% 3B8 RIVERHEA D. NEW YORK 11901 618-727-2180 TELEFA%: 618-727-1787 (MAIN) 618-727-1775 (ANNEX) November 8, 1993 ,~~~on~~ ,:~,I 3 ;J"~3 Ira WN OF SOtJTHrn n. 9 NORTH MAIN STREET EAST HAMPTON. N. V. 1193] Sib-02<-1200 400 TOWNLINE ROAD HAUPPAUOE. N.Y. 11708-2830 518-285-ta14 AMV B. TURNER DENNI9 J. HAVES ADAM B. OROSSMAN OF COUNSEL John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road -. Southold, New York 11971 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Application of Howard H. Zehner Brick Cove Marina Dear President Bredemeyer: The following are: submitted as comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the above. These comments are submitted on behalf of Frank Flynn a neighbor of the subject premises. Annexed hereto and incorporated herein by reference are the comments prepared by Cramer,. Voorhis & Associates, consultants to the. Southold Planning Board, and Larry Penny, environmental consultant for the intervenor Frank Flynn. In addition to the comments submitted herewith, we would make the following additional points: I. The DEIS totally fails to address the zoning and- planning implications of expanding a-commercial use within a residential neighborhood on an environmentally significant estuary. This should be addressed and the zoning and planning impacts on the neighborhood and -the Peconic Bay Estuary and methods for mitigating them should be discussed in the DEIS. Also to be discussed is the consistency of the project with the numerous existing relevant land use plans. II. Access - The DEIS and application fail to address the severe access constraints presented by the project. First, the project John M. Bredemeyer, III Chairman, Board of Town Trustees Town of, Southold November 8, 1993 Page 2 site does not have frontage on a public road as required by Section 280-a of Town Law. Although access is claimed to be by right of way, the narrow driveway to the property ironically called Sage "Boulevard" of 790 feet in length does not touch the subject premises and it is not clear that access is available to this right of way. .Furthermore, because of the width of the right-of-way it will not accommodate more than one car at a time or emergency vehicles. This presents a serious health and safety hazard which is not discussed in the DEIS. The DEIS further does not address the attempts at widening the right-of-way which have been done without the required permits and in violation of state and local wetlands laws. The right-of-way is bordered by protected wetlands. III. Dredging - The DEIS does not address actual dredging done and does not indicate that the dredging was done off premises as well and how that illegally dredged material will be redeposited on areas outside of the applicant's property that were dredged. It is our understanding that summonses were issued to the applicant for this illegal dredging but have yet to be disposed of. This should be addressed in the DEIS. IV. A traffic study is not included in the DEIS. Presumably, the 55~ increase in the number of boat slips will have a concomitant increase in traffic all entering from and exiting out onto a major thoroughfare, Route 25. This should be addressed. V. Safety - The location of a 191-boat (138 + 3) slip marina with the servicing of boats and the sale of gasoline and oil by- products has not been addressed in terms of the potential for fire and/or spills of gasoline, oil by-products and hazardous chemicals which are used in the marina industry. That should be addressed. VI. Failure to assess off-site impacts. The thrust of the DEIS appears to be an assessment of impacts solely within the confines of the marina site. This fails to take into account the off-site impacts the project will have particularly on rare and endangered species and commercially harvestable shellfish. The drafters of the DEIS demonstrate their narrow view in this regard at page 11 of the summary where 'they argue that since the bottom of the marina basin is not productive.of shellfish the project .will have no. adverse impact on shellfish:: This approach totally ignores the impact the 55~ expansion of the number of boats at the marina will have on the quality of the waters throughout the cove and the shellfish population throughout the cove. An appendix to a long form EIS submitted to the Southold Planning Board for the Harborview Landing Subdivision application in August of 1991 indicates, at pages 27 through 39, the presence of certain .' j. i t - 1 John M. Bredemeyer, III 'Chairman, Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold November 8, 1993 Page 3 threatened and endangered species on the neighboring site which could be impacted by expansion of construction on the marina site. To simply ignore significant habitat immediately abutting the site and on Conkling Point determined to be an area of significant wildlife habitat is to approach the SEQRA review process with "tunnel vision." The impacts of the project on the piping plover, common-tern, least tern and osprey, all of which maintain significant habitat near to the project site cannot be ignored. These species were specifically referenced in the court determination invalidating the prior SEQRA review of the project. The potential impacts on these shore birds are not discussed, nor is any mitigation proposed that would address the impacts on these species. VII. Financial impacts on neighborhood. The analysis of the financial impact of the project in terms of property values of neighboring properties is woefully inadequate and should be rewritten. No supporting data is given and a one sentence reference to a statement made by the Town Assessor cannot substitute for real analysis. VIII.' The. flushing characteristics of Sage Cove. The flushing characteristics of Sage Cove and its ability to handle an increase in pollutants is not adequately addressed iri the DEIS. Out of date information from 1986 about the flushing characteristics of the cove cannot be used to justify the project. Appendix 11 is only the partial submission of a flushing observation study. For obvious reasons, the full study was not submitted because it shows the relatively poor flushing capacity and shallow nature of parts of the cove. It is also questionable how it can be argued that the flushing capacity of the cove will be increased by the additional obstructions provided by the proposed new docks and piers. IX. Adverse environmental affects. Perhaps the most inadequate section of the'. DEIS deals with adverse environmental affects. Only two sentences are listed and the approach taken by the drafters is that since construction is already essentially complete and no adverse environmental impacts are apparent, the project will not have any. This approach to the DEIS turns the SEQRA process upside down and more importantly, it ignores what potential adverse environmental effects will result from the additional construction proposed.' No basis for the conclusion that there have been no recognizable adverse environmental effects has been listed, nor has it been shown in the DEIS that the marina has been operated at full capacity (i.e. 191 boats). Clearly the full environmental damage from this proposal has not really been felt in the cove for any single season, at least it is not John M. Bredemeyer, ZII Chairman, Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold November 8, 1993 Page 4 apparent from the DEIS. This statement of adverse environmental effects is therefore inadequate. X. Alternatives - The Alternative section is inadequate because it approaches the project from the prospective that since most work is already complete the alternative proposed is the only alternative that can be considered. This is not what SEQRA requires. SEQRA requires a review of alternatives of a lesser scope and size to reduce environmental impacts. Furthermore, no factual support is given for the conclusion in the alternative section that removing pilings or piers already installed would be impossible. Alternatives of a different size and scope should be considered within the DEIS in order to meet the regulatory and case law mandated requirements of SEQRA. XI. Conclusion - So many of the DEIS sections are inadequate that the document itself must be sent back to the drafters for additional work or alternatively for a supplemental DEIS. The defects in the document are so significant that merely responding to comments or submitting new data to respond to the comments without the public scrutiny accorded a DEIS after its original submission will not be a legally cognizable solution for completing the SEQRA process. Since~el , / i::~ /hri o er Kelley CK:js cc: Frank Flynn cc: Southold Planning Board LARRY PENNY CONSULTING 1453 NOYAC ROAD SAG HARBOR, NEW YORK 11963 The DEIS for the Brick Cove Marina project has been reviewed by this office. It contains numerous deficiencies and failures to fully analyze issues or provide mitigation. The areas discussed below are so deficient that they require a supplmental DEIS to address them. Simply responding to comments made, for instance on the alternative section where there are no alternate sizes discussed, with failure then to have comments on such new information, would be contrary to the purpose of the SEQRA regulations. Specific comments on the DEIS are set forth below: IZI. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1. LOCATION. The access to the marina is clouded by the fact that, judging from available site maps, it appears to be off the subject property. Consequently any expansion, improvement, and/or other adjustment or maintenance of that access should be subject to the consent in recordable form of that other property holder and extra-site planning considerations and activities. This further complicates the assessment of "transportation" impacts for both the access road, Sage Boulevard, and N.Y. State Route 25. Impacts to the State highway by the proposed project and possible neighborhood expansion are already potentially extremely severe. BRICK COVE MARINA DEIS COMMENTS Page 2 2. DESIGN AND LAYOUT. This section should take into consideration any future expansion. For example, it should allow for the expansion of the subsurface wastewater system. This is particularly significant inasmuch as the marina site is troubled by a chronically high perched water table, unsuitable leaching substrates, the double duty use of the system for both conventional waste waters and boater waste waters, and the immediate proximity of the system to SA shellfish growout surface waters. Septic failures in such situations are frequent. The relation of the subject site and it's access to future developments on neighboring properties should also be given attention here insofar as on-site and off-site activities might synergize and potentiate impacts. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. 3. SITE SUBSTRATES. Site topography and stratigraphy should be better characterized in terms of the vertical boring data available. A cross-section for the site should be drawn which indicates thicknesses and levels of the different soil and subsoil strata. The relevance of these strata and their spatial distribution in terms of groundwater percolation, vector flow, contaminant loading and other hydrology should be presented as such relates to storm water and subsurface . wastewater management. .._. , - --~.: BRICK COVE MARINA DEIS COMMENTS Page 3 4. WATER RESOURCES. The importation of public water from the Greenport Water District in terms of contribution to the site's groundwater regime needs to be thoroughly addressed, particularly as the ~ groundwater compartment relates to the immediately. adjacent surface water compartment and there is the potential for serious contamination to that compartment. As for surface waters, their continued SA classification is contingent upon maintaining high water quality over a measurably long time. Preliminary coliform results (NYS DEC t and 1992 consultant results) indicate the potential for further coliform level buildup in the cove, particularly so when the potential for shoreside development is realized and boat buildup in the cove is maximized. Furthermore, the calculations pursuant to the National Shellfish Sanitation Program guidelines for assessing risk regarding microbial loading of shellfish growout waters have to be based on the State DEC's current methodology. .The potential risk should include the cove's other measurable sources of microbial contaminants, in so far as data is available. (See the 1992 coliform sampling station results in this regard.) 5. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY. The flora and fauna on the subject site and neighboring sites should be examined in terms of the New York State Heritage Program. The program provides lists of species and. y. ,_.. ., BRICK COVE MARINA DEIS COMMENTS Page 4 their State and global rarity and is, in part, the basis for designating endangered and threatened species in New York State. We already know that the federally threatened piping plover, State endangered least tern, and State threatened common tern, northern harrier and osprey are in the area, what about other species? The spotfin killifish, for example, was found in numerous recent cove samplings; it is rare on Long Island and in the State, what is it's special status if any? What about the eastern mud turtle and the southern leopard frog? The habitat around the cove should be ideal for them, as well? The Heritage plant list is extensive and the site may contain species that are on it. The economically and recreationally valuable shellfish populations and their distributions within the cove and basin have never been properly assayed. For years commercial shellfishers have used the cove to harvest economically important shellfish. No mention of these historical records is made, even though most of the shellfishermen who made the harvests are still living and, conveniently, residing in Southold Town. A thoroughgoing sampling of the cove according to an acceptable method should be undertaken by competent collectors in order to provide this baseline information, once and. for all. Testing only of the marina basin bottom begs the question of whether significant shellfish resources exist in the cove. Such testing is so biased it can't possibly meet basic scientific testing standards. BRICK COVE MARINA DEIS COMMENTS Page 5 6. TRANSPORTATION. As stated above, the transportation impacts associated with this proposal have never been properly analyzed. Improvements will have to be made to Sage Boulevard associated with the instant plan as well as future neighborhood plans. Impacts to .the State highway should be assessed in terms of standard loading, safety, peak flow, and other traffic criteria based on empirical and projected data sets. 7. ZONING AND PLANNING. The agreement, or disagreement, between the subject proposal and land-use and associated plans and regional plans and studies should be elucidated. For example, the Brown Tide Study (BT CAMP) recommends no net nitrogen increase in the Peconic Estuary system. How is the current plan consistent with that recommendation? How does the plan fit with the Southold Master Plan, regional plans, transportation plans, and the like? How is it consistent with the Critical Environmental Area's contingencies, e.g., the Peconic Estuary, the Significant Coastal Fish And Wildlife Habitat, and so on? How will it relate to developmental plans for adjacent properties including plans proposed for the Harborview Landing Subdivision? S. COMMUNITY SERVICES. The tenuous nature of the access from Route 25 to the marina calls into question the ability of emergency services - _ , ... BRICK COVE MARINA DEIS COMMENTS • Page 6 (fire, police, ambulance) to effectively respond to emergencies. This should be discussed in the DEIS. V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT3 9. IMPACTS ON LAND, WATER AND WILDLIFE As outlined above, several impacts need to be further addressed. There is a genuine threat of closure to the entire cove because of "perceived" or actual microbial contamination. The tests conducted thus far do not indicate that coliform levels are dropping in the cove. What are the potential long-term impacts associated with the project when maximally utilized to shellfish and fish stocks, subaquatic vegetation, marine birds, and threatened and endangered species of plants and wildlife? How will it contribute to the further degradation of water quality and shellfish and finfish stocks in the Peconic Estuary system? Will there be a net increase of nutrients and contaminants) to the system. Can these impacts be mitigated? If so how? Some of the specific impacts that have to be assessed are: the future need for dredging and bottom disruption; the influence of peak boater usage on turbidity, chemical water quality, SAV ( by way of shading, prop swash, filming and the like), endangered and threatened species (direct or ~'. secondary, as, for example, by diminishing food supply); .the q impacts translated off-site, i.e., to neighboring areas in 7 ~:i ~~ cove waters or on land; what is the impact from groundwater E' feed to the cove (for example, what is the nitrate level of ~; a ~~ • ~ ~i BRICK~COVE MARINA DEIS COMMENTS Page 7 the groundwater feed from the site)? What are nuisance noise and electric light impacts to the rest of the cove community associated with marina maintenance and marina activity? VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED 10. ADVERSE EFFECTS. This section has to take serious stock of all of those potentially deleterious impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. It is only by summation of these impacts that the overall negative impacts to the system, both short- and long- term, can be assessed. The two sentences that comprise this section underscore the fact that the authors of the DEIS have not taken their role seriously. VIII. ALTERNATIVES ' 11. ALTERNATIVE SIZE AND OPERATION. Consideration has to be given to scale here. It is conceivable that by diminishing the size of the project, certain damaging impacts which can not otherwise be mitigated under the maximally developed project, could be mitigated. Project changes can also mitigate potential impacts. For example, if all of the boats in the marina were to be sailboats, the impact of motors on surface water quality, on bottom properties by way of swash, and ambient noise levels would be reduced dramatically! Parenthetically, the writer notes that several points raised above were brought up in previous reviews of projects for the subject site by him in previous submissions. In most cases the questions raised in _. _ ..dt - _ ..- r BRICK COVE MARINA DEIS COMMENTS ,Page 8 the points were never satisfactorily answered by Che applicant and his consultants. 7 •, Appendix 7: Coordination Letter from John M. Bredemeyer, President of the Southold Trustees to Richard Ward, Chairman of the Southold Planning Board dated March 25, 1993, requesting Planning Board input in the Scoping Outline. TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, lll, President Albers J. Krupskl, Jr., Vice President Henry P. Smith John B. 'ILlhill William G. Albertson Ttlcphone (SIG) 7G5-1892 Fax(51G) 7G5-1823 ~o~~gUFf0(,~cOGy o ~ N = _ _. W - BOARb Olw TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOIJTHOLD SEQRA SLOPING OUTLINE SUPERVISOR SCOTT L. HARRIS 'R~wn Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 March 25, 1993 TO: Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board P. 0. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 In the matter of Brick Cove Marina, please be advised that the applicant has elected to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS'). Attached herewith is a Scoping Outline for the DEIS. The Southold Town Trustees are interested in your agency's comments with regard to the Scoping Outline. Project: Brick Cove Marina Location: 1670 Sage Road, Southold, Suffolk County, New York Description of Action: Im rove, modernize, and enlarge existing marina (138 slips Improvement to include a more efficient slip layout and the addition of environmental improvements that include pump-out station, interception of stormwater runoff, landscaping, dredging of approximately 2900 cubic yards of material from the shoal areas and the relocation of an existing septic system 100 feet landward of mean high water. Additionally, .the applicant seeks to dredge a recently discovered shoal area at the entrance to the Marina, approx. 550 c.y. to a depth of 6', to add a fuel dock slip, a work boat slip for 14' Pram, a work boat slip for boats to pull in that need repairs or servicing. The above will be in accordance with revised plans dated August 31, 1992. Please submit your comments to John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, within 30 days. John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Appendix 8: Correspondence from Valerie Scopaz, Senior Planner of the Town of Southold to John Bredemeyer, President of the Southold Trustees regarding the Scoping Outline for Brick Cove Marina. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone 1516) 765-193R MEMORANDUM ,~ ~ i1 1{ VO ~ ~t Z' ) /~~~ :4 Sao PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Board of Trustees FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Senior Planner /~ RE: Scoping Session Outline for SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Boz 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (5161 765-1823 o~~~on~~ AFR 2 619 Brick Cove Marina 1670 Sage Road, Southold, New York SCTM # 1000-57-1-38.3 DATE: April 22, 1993 I have reviewed the draft Scoping Outline for Brick Cove Marina that was prepared for the April 27th scoping session. The comments are arranged by page number. Cover letter: The Description of should indicate the the existing marin will be added in or slips. The fact t in order to accomo further into the c Action section of the cover letter number of boat slips in a (91?) and the number of slips that der to reach the final tally of 138 hat the docks will be reconfigured date the new slips without extending ove should be mentioned also. The distance of the existing septic system from the water's edge should be noted here, so that the magnitude of the improvement is evident. Any part of the current application that is an addition or modification of the previous application should be noted here. The reason for this is that the agencies that you coordinated with the last time around will not know why this application is before them again unless the differences are set forth. The Scoping outline must provide sufficient information sp that reviewing personnel in the coordinating agencies can do a quick comparison of this outline with their notes on the outline from the last time around. ~ --< Page 2. IIZ. B. Location Subsection 2. requires a description of road access to the site. This site is a landlocked parcel with right of access over a right-of-wa owned by the owner of the adjacent Sage property. The applicant should be asked to provide sufficient information in the DEIS to prove that his access is legal~Z~ how o ~~a P~p~•«,~ III. C. Design and Layout ~~"~~`' In addition to the information requested in this subsection, we should ask for the acreage of land that will be revegetated or allowed to revert to its natural state. The marina has been allowing the waterfront edge between the parking area and the water's edge to revert back to wetland plant species. Formerly this area was weeded clear of most plants. Somewhere in this subsection, we should ask for a description of the proposed extension of potable water to the docks. Page 3. III.C.2. Structures . This section should request inclusion of a review of the previous use of this site as a brickyard. Some of the structures and the landforms bn the site date back to the brickyard use. If we are requiring the inclusion of septic systems, then we should require the inclusion of water supply pipelines. F. Approvals We should ask for copies of the final approved maps and permits that have been obtained, and copies of the actual applications for all pending approvals. A mere listing of the approvals and pending applications will be insufficient for review purposes. Page 4. IV. B. 1. Groundwater Resources This section of the report should indicate whether any groundwater from the site is used. If all water needs are met by the public water system, then DEIS should note the capacity of water supply to the site. IV. B. 2. Surface Waters Suggest that Subsection f.) be written in such a manner that the existing potential and the proposed potential after site improvements are completed are contrasted. ' Page 5. i ~~ C. 1. Vegetation The areas that recently should be mentioned here were allowed to revegetate too. A. Transportation Services Somewhere in this section, reference should be made to the right of way issue that was brought up in Design and Layout section on page 2. Page 6. C. Community Service Perhaps there should be a discussion of what will be done with pump-out station waste as well as with the sediments that will collect in the drainage well for the washdown platform. V. Significant Environmental Impacts This section could stand some rewriting to improve clarity. As written, I have several questions as to what we really want the applicant to do. In the interest of brevity, I have included a copy of this section with some editing comments. If I can be of further Both Bob Kassner and I will Tuesday, April 27, 1993. assistance, please let me know. attend the scoping session on Appendix 9: Measurements of actual width of Sage Basin for vehicular passing. Measurements of the Actua! width of Sage Basin for Vehicular Passing Location Distance (feet) Pole #3 to Pole #3S 29' 10" Pole #4 to nearest tree 33' Pole #5 to nearest tree 29' Un-numbered Pole to nearest tree 34' Tree (44' north of pole #7) to nearest tree 2T Pole #7 to nearest tree 27' Pole #8 to nearest tree 30' 3" Pole #9 to nearest tree 28' 3" Pole #10 to nearest tree 42' 7" Pole #11 to nearest tree 22' Pole #12 to nearest tree 33' 6" Pole #13 to nearest tree 32' Pole #14 to Un-numbered pole 31' Pole #15 to nearest tree (stump) 26' 2" Pole @ entrance to marina to marina sign 63' 6" Tree to split rail fence 28' 8" Trees before clearing at marina 28' 3" Note: all measurements taken across road nearest tree refers to nearest tree on opposite side of road. po]e refers to utility or telephone pole Appendix 10: Pump-out Log for Brick Cove Marina BRICK COVE MARINA Sage Blvd. P.O. Box 455 Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516)477-0830 November 20, 1993 Charles T. Hamilton Chief, Marine Regulatory Section NYSbEC, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection Building 40, SUNY, Room 228 Stony Brook, N.Y. 117090-2356 Dear Mr. Hamilton, Per condition No.l9 of our Modified Permit 1110-87-1618 we have enclosed the log of pumpout facility operation for the boating season ending October 31, 1993 at Brick Cove Marina, A.K.A. Young's ~ Boatyard and Marina (Howard H. Zehner). I Please call if there are any questions. Very truly yours, '~ i c ~ Howard H. Zehner ~'. (owner) 131CK COVE MARINA, INC. ~g© Blvd., P.O. Box 455, Southold, N.Y. 11971 (51 November 20, 1993 Town of Southold Board of Town Trustees 5309 Main Road -. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Mr. John Bredemeyer III ' Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: Attached is the BRICK COVE MARINA Pump-Out Log for the 1993 season through Nov. 19, 1993. Very tr y y u_rs, W l~l m~e`v rich Ggneral Mana ~~-r~-~-.~ Howard Zlehne~~ Owner i BRICK COMB MARINA PUMP-OUT LOG 1993 SBASOP POLLONING IS A TRUE COPY OF TBB NORKING PUMP OUT LOG 1CBPT A BRICK COVE Itl C03ieRde RACIStdAtI01 1 Otdd AAMT 1e16 IORe feRT _ •L1 _ CR1IreR1 1- iSJt 1R 11 A rle ICI11 -22 _ CurrlRl 11 S rdl ICnI -If I ---- CtIItIRI el t td! ICnf - •-lS i __ _ _ Cd11rIR1 - M1L d r6S ICtlI ~-21 [Dell IeC rr l0 fee ICMr __ __ I CIIIrIRI rr 6 ree eCMI -_ ~ - - - - usnn -- er ul2 IR r s s nl - s-21 -- cwrou rr d res unr -- -- Li1Lnu rr Is rds ecnl t-t _ Licuonts loc rr so rds leer l euera~ - - rr a res unr s-c ~ 11Lnu rsL a res ecnr _-_ t-u 1uLSO1 loc rr t res ecnr ---- -- uum rr a tds ecnr . - ~ _ oetleu L- flu eR rr a tes ecnl --- -- - c-u -- -- - - ~ uune ~ rr c res unr - -_- _ - -- - cutroRl - _- rr a res ecnr -- -_- -- =-_ ~ utLaot rr c res scar ___ s-ts - - .- - ~ tlcslortts rr 20 rds ecAr - - -= _ Liunr - _ rr a res uer c~urlu rr s res ecnr _ welt er lrso Ic rr Is ru ecnl -___ - - -- m1ro loc rr ss res ecnr s-is radlc r- one IU rr f res uer 2-I _ - ~ eu~gul - -- -- es a res ecAr _- - _ - ~ usnu es a res unr _ _-:- ~ comet ---- es c rds ecnt - - -_ t-t - - - ~ stns ~ -- -- rr a ru ecnr --- ' - - cutrou -- - rr a rds uAr ---- - _ ~ ceaeell --- _ - -_ ~ ~ rr Io res ecnr - -= __--== - ~_~olu ~ - - _-- - ~ rr r res Ieei - __ _ - sedLSOe __- - rr r I res - ecnr t -n _-_ I _- - - _ ---- cestoetl ~ ucrsn-not t asst -Att ss-L toot rstt e - I rotten - __ n tut n _ Lrr ~ te- _. ~ its I _ ---- tcer- -_ _ I -_ uLSOC -_ sot - _ rr - c ns ecer corset sot rr s -IS eL•er -u tocan --- _ es tt res uet tuts et tt to Icer - uuoe -- -- _ u 4 ru Icnr -u -_ ~ uune - - -- - _ _ rr t res ecer _ Luersts rr a res ecer -tf - _ utu - - ---_ r-L L res Icnr I In1tIC IT ff3f 11 tlL L Ttt ICAr -ti --ILI01 tr 3 iIS ICAI (ILlltl tr 4 TIS ICAI eurrsts rr a res ecer sues rr to res Icnt rout rr s its ecer rutoc -- - rr " t ns IcAt IIeCLItf I- -_ sot rtL 21 rss ecAr -st etatt-r ~ ~ rr 2t ru ecAr s _ ~ usnu rr t res uer - - tuts _ ---- __ _ rr is -es uAr _- cturns - - a c rss IcAr ~ usLSOt rr t ns IcA- : . _ _- I comer rr s its ecAr ustoe rr f TII ecer •~ roeew r-L c res ecAr -f lunrtste sot. ItL s rss ecer -- host sot etL • e t)t un ttn , -u currsts rr I res ecAr ctestu - rr is res ecer soot rr , s rss tcer -u utu rr to res ecnt ' ctese-I ~ rr L ns IcAt L't-trets rr t -ts ecnt r Itl custonnR_ - ___ ttclstllnon t otKt Intl sRIL Konl rotr o-IO tootle .Rr fl2 11 tr Ao rss Icnl tocctto ItL 2s tls Rcnl 1-if LIIIACSr01 Pt 6 teS tCKf 6CKRORI tt t0 tKS RCNI IILIIII tt 8 iK5 IClII 0-22 tUCCllI Pt l2 TKS RCAI _ CRIRI ~ 611-Ut Pt 10 1/1 JCCIRT Ct S[IAfAI tt (f tRS ecn2 0-tt cultoRl IIL 1 tKS Rctl 0-l ^ltE LlT-Ut KI IS 161 ICAI unls Llr-ur el 22 its ecnt cottlt Llt-ae al a rss Rcnl a-t scltoKt Llr-ur el L its Icnl K-lf Ll1I1CSt01 LlT-Ut 81 It TKI ICKI RIICIKL Llt-Ut KI U I69 ICKI I-If IlLtlll LIT-Ut RI 1 TBS ICnf tC11C[ LIT-Vt AI 1 toll ICKI IRLS01 LAT-Ut AI 22 11 COCKERS ITLIII LIT-U! AI 21 1(l R.IlCI 1-11 CWI/RI t1 1 TR9 KClII - - I __ ut toKtoors ntt astosu of 21 KItt11 slttutT srsrtl Appendix 11: Correspondence from Christopher Kelley, Attorney to Frank Flynn to Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney dated November 18, 1993 confirming stay of court judgment. TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELLEY ATTORNEYS AT UW 33 WEST SECOND STREET P.O. BO% 3f18 THOMAS w.TwoMEV, JR. RIVERHEADI NEW YORK 11901 STEPHEN B. UTNAM JOHN F. SHEA, III CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY UWRENCE M. STORM' 518-727-2180 MAUREEN T. LICCIONE TELEFAX: 578.727.1787 (MAIN) DAVID M. DUBINO P.EDWARD REALE 818.727-1775 (ANNEX) PETER M. MOTTt JOAN C. HATFIELDO November 18, 1993 MARY C. CRONIN TERRY L WCAS• N'I. ci ~ ft BMa e nr • u ewwa } rn ~ u0 awna a wv • m elAna • Kr • I.U anna _ .~. m 11111 9 NORTH MAIN STR EAST HAMPTON, N. Y. 515-324-t20D 400 TOWNUNE ROAD HAUPPAUOE, N.Y. 1 V88 • 2830 518-288-14t4 AMY B. TURNER DENN19 J. HAYE9 ADAM B. OR099MAN OF COVNSEL Harvey A. Arnoff, Esq. ~ a Gatz, Arnoff & Czygier '1 16 West Main Street P.O. Box 449 rc6~~ Riverhead, NY 11901 19J~ Re: Flynn v. Orlowaki; Ind x No. -1763 Dear Harvey: As you know, this office represents Frank Flynn in the above. On July 6, 1993, your office served a notice of appeal of the judgment in the above.- The time to perfect that appeal has now expired. First, we would ask that you forward a check to this office payable to Frank Flynn in the amount of 5495 covering the bill of costs approved by the Suffolk County Clerk on June 2, 1993. Second, we demand that the Town take all action to stop the reconstruction or alteration of Young's Marina or the operation of same since that work is now continued without permits and there is no longer an automatic stay of the judgment in effect. Sin erely, r top er Kelley CK:js cc: Mr. Frank Flynn cc: John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Town Trustees cc: Southold Planning Board I ~I, ..; .I:.J~ 5 , ,. , !~•i§ !i t\OV 19 i~~3 ' ` ~,' ~~~~ ~~. Appendix 12: Dredge Spoil Analysis for Southport Development Proposal by Henderson and Bodwell dated March 26, 1986. HENoERSON ANO BOOWELL CONSULTING 'INFERS '/ ll'pTII T. TE 0.RY iow~ Cv Ac rccenu w mu narmcc OFFlCE Of THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 26, 1986 Town Hall, 53091 ~taln Road P.O. Bo:728 Southold, Nc~ York 11971 TEISTHn~E (3161-1~1aa1 Attached hereto is the Dredge Spoil Analysis and Water Samples for Southport Development for inclusion in the Addendum to the braft Environmental Impact Statement transmitted to you under date of February 25,, 1966. ,,/'~,Q/ L~T -" _ ~~1~~ Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk a: Southold Town Planning Board David Emiiita, Planner Board of Town Trustees .. Southport Developmenl/ - Charles Hamilton, DEC,DEC,~ Alban k Commissioner Williams, Y Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of State 3-44 ,`, . ' i • ,r _.rm..,~-,......., ,.,,,.,,~,..,, ~.; ~AENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULT/IJC ENGINEERS _JhE ~CLI2d '(~C1E (.:0172~C2I2tJ N. COUNTRY RD. ~ BOX 16r WADING RIVER, N.Y. nlyr 17ra19~9.1575 DREDGE SPOIL ANALYSIS SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENt Sediment Analraia On February 1, 1986, the staff bf the Land Uu Company collected core tarplaa from tout di[ferent locations !n the aub)act atu (sae map) the auples veto dellrew d to Eco Test laboratetiei,, Inc. of North Babylon on February 4, 1986 and the results are a fellovu SAMPLEt Aotto^ Sediment. Sample Ar 11r2S AN Lindane ua/C6 (2.0 Cad^iu^ a td r6/C~, O,b60 Neptaehler u6/tt <2.0 - Chre^lu^ as Cr " ^C/C6 1.S Aldrin u6/CR (2,0 Coppat as Cu ^A/C6 9.5 ~' Heptachlor Ep eaids u6/ts (2.0 Laad a P6 e6/Cg 1.S b,p-DDE ua/[a (2.0 Mercury as flt ^6/CN 0.07 DrD'DDE u6/[6 <1:0 Nieael as Ni ^a/ta S.2 DteldcSn u6/t6 C2.0 Selenium a Se ^a/CS O.1S e.D'DDt u6/[A (2.0 Silrar ^a Aa rs/[S 0.20 prD-DDD u6/CS (2,0 thallium lJ T1 ^A/ts 0.01 p,D-DDT u6/t6 X2.0 tin as Sn ms/C` 2.) _1_ , 3-45 ~HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ANALTiICAL iARANETEtS AMALT72CAL }AItANETENS Miraa ut![t (2.0 Eino •t in ~t/[{ 22 Mathoiiehlor u6/It (4.0 Chlerdtn4 ut/[t (A.0 - Toraphan4 ut/[R (40 Axochlor 1016 ut/[t (40 Atoehloc 1211 ut/[` ~ 40 Araehlor 12]2 ut/[t ~ AO AiocAlor 1262 ut/Ct X40 AcoCAlor 126A ut/[t ~ AO AtoChlot 1254 ut/[t t40 Aeoehlor 1260 ut/[t X40 Arsente •• Aa •t/[t 1.0 Darilllu• ai /• •t/[t 0,2J -2- 3-46 ,r I i 1 } ~; •' ~~ i~ 'e •i *L i d ".i J ;' :f ;' ~ ~:1 '.( j' \HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAM[LEt fetto^ Sad l^ant, Sa^pla •, 12i0S [N Ltndana u6/it C, 2.0 Cad^lur as Cd ^tl[t ~ O.OfS Raptaehlot u{/Lt ~ 2.0 Chro^iu^ •• Cr ^i/i6 11 Aldrln u6/i6 C 2.0 Ceppat a Cu ^6/it 16 Hapuchlor Epo: ida u61i6 ~ 2.0 Lud a [b ^6I[t 10 e,p-DDE u6/Et L 2.0 Mereutl a Rt ^t/[t O.0) p.D-DDE u6/t6 ~ 2.0 Nlekal t• Ni ^t/[t I1 Dleldrln u6/i6 ( 2.0 Salanlu^ ^t/[t 0.16 e,p-DDD ut/[t (2.0 Sllaar ^a At ^6/it 0.25 EndrSn u6/it (2.0 thallium as 21 ^t/[` O.lt d,p-ODD u6/it ~ 2.0 Tln as So ~t/it 2.t p,p-DDT ut/it ~ 2.0 iinc to in ^t/[t 120 Mite: u6/tt ( 2.0• Nechoa7ehlar u6/[t (4.0 Chlordane u6/iR ~ 0.0 To:aphene ut/Ct ~ 40 Arochlot 1016 •• ut/it (40 A[oohlo[ 1221 ~ ut/Lt ~ 40 Aroohler 1212 ut/tt ~ 40 Aroehlor 1242 u6/CK (60 Atechlor 1245 u6/[t ~ 60 Aroehlor 1254 ut/[t ` 40 Aroehlor 1260' ut/it (40 Areanie as Aa ^t/it 1.7 Rar[iltu~ ea to ^tJCt 0.50 -~- 3-47 r ;,:.~ 5 ..~ •? g • e ~ i . 1 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULj...(S ENGINEERS SAMlLEt totto~ Sadlyant, Sa~pl• C. 122] !N ANALYtICAL YAAAMETLA S ANALYTICAL tARAN ETEAI LSndana ut/[R ~ 2.0 Cad~iu~ a Cd it/Lt O,Ot0 Raptaehlor ut/Ct L2.0 ChtorSu• as Ct ^6/CS 12 Aldrfn utl[t X2.0 Copper a• Cu ^tltt 12 ~. Naptathlot Epoxtd• ut/[t ~ 2.0 Lud a 76 ^6/[t l0 - e,p-DDE ut/[t ~ 2.0 Mereur! as Nt •t/Ct 0.04 . p,p-DDE ut/[t ~ 2.0 Nickel -• NS ^6/tR t.S Di•1dr1n ut/[t (2.0 Salaniu^ a S• ^6/[t O.lt 6,p-DDD ut/kt ~ 2'.0 511rar as At et/[t 0.20 Endrin ut/Ct G 2.0 iAalliu~ a T1 ^6/[t O.lt e,~p-DDf ut/tt X2.0 tin a Sn ~6/[t ].6 p,p-DDD ut/Ct (2.0 2Lnt a• in •6/kt 4] p.p-DDT u6/[6 L 2.0 Nltar u6/C6 G 2.0 MatAOxTeAlor ut/Ct G 4.0 Chloidana u6/kt l [.0 . To:aphena ut/[t (40 AreeAlor 1016 ut/C6 G 40 Aeeenloi 1221 nt/Yt ( 40 Atoehlor 1272 ut/[t X60 Atoehlor 1242 ut/kt (40 __ AreeAlor 1241 ntlCt (•40 , AreeAlor 12]4 ut/[t ( 40 ArotAlor 126D ut/Ct (40 Arsenio as Aa ^t/kt 4.2 L rllliu. at t4 ^tltt 0.44 - ' -A- 3-48. 1 _, ~~ IiENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSUCfINO ENCIN EERS is lANrLEI tone. SadLu nt, Suplt D, L00 rN ANALTT2CAL rAAAMEtEAS ANALTt1CAL TAAAM EtEl11 L indana nt/[t C2.0 Cad.iv •.t/[t 6.1 Naptaehlor ut/Ct ~ 2.0 Chro.tu^aa Ct ^t/tt 0.25 Aldrin ut/E6 L2.0 Copper a Cu .t/tt 12 i% Noptachlor Epotfda u6/C6 ~ 2.0 Lud as re •6/ct 9.S ~- e.P-DDC u6/Ct ~ 2.0 Narcur7 -. qt •6I[t 0.14 P,6-DDE ut/Et ~2.0 S41anlu^ a. St •6/tt O.lt Dlaldrin u6/Et X2.0 Sil~ar a4 At ^6/[t 0.10 e,0-DDD ut/tt ~2.0 Tha111u^ at SI •6/[t O.Ot Endris ut/Et ( 2.0 Niekal as Ni ^6/[t S.0 e,P-DDt ut/C6 ~2.0 21n as 4n rt/[6 1.2 P.P-DDD ut/[t ~2.0 21nc at 2n ^6/ct ~] p,p-DDt v6/E6 ~ 2.0 Mlcaa v6/E6 (2.0 Mathorrehler utfCt ~ 6.0 Teraphana •• v6/Et (40 Aroehlos 1016 ut/t6 (60 Aroehlot 1221 nt/Et (60 Aroehloe 12]2 nt/[t (40 Aroehlot 1242 ut/Et ~40 Atochler 1248 U6/t6 X60 Aroehloe 1256 v6/Et ~40 Aroehlor 1260. ut/[t ~40 Araanie a Aa v6/Et 7.] tart uiu. as t. .t/ct o.t] ~S- 3-49 '<,`.' ~HENDERSON AND BODWELL coNSULT NI G ENGINEERS T'f:ivaw.D F,~ ScurN~er ~[rE! 0~1'+EN~' wrn ,~:_ ~N !} ! ~, 5 j. l~ S~ G s' - 1