Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB-03/10/2009 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Fax (631) 765-6145 MARRIAGE OFFICER Telephone: (631) 765 - 1800 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER southoldtown.northfork.net FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 10, 2009 4:30 PM A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board was held Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at the Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY. Supervisor Russell opened the meeting at 4:30 PM with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Call to Order 4:30 PM Meeting called to order on March 10, 2009 at Meeting Hall, 53095 Route 25, Southold, NY. Attendee Name Organization Title Status Arrived William Ruland Town of Southold Councilman Present Vincent Orlando Town of Southold Councilman Present Albert Krupski Jr. Town of Southold Councilman Present Thomas H. Wickham Town of Southold Councilman Present Louisa P. Evans Town of Southold Justice Present Scott Russell Town of Southold Supervisor Present Elizabeth A. Neville Town of Southold Town Clerk Present Jennifer Andaloro Town of Southold Assistant Town Attorney Present I. Reports 1. Judge Bruer February 2009 2. Department of Public Works Monthly Report February 2009 3. Recreation Department Monthly Reports - January 2009 - February 2009 March 10, 2009 Page 2 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting 4. Program for the Disabled February 2009 5. Claim Lag Report 1/1/07-12/31/08 II. Public Notices 1. NYSDEC Notice of Complete Application - Suffolk County Water Authority 2. SC Department of Health Public Health Hearing 4/1/09 3. Liquor License Renewals - Fishers Island Country Club, Inc. - Club House - Beach House East End Vineyards LLC d/b/a Clovis Point for off premises tasting license at 35 Cox Neck Rd., Mattituck 4. Renew of Liquor License - Agia Varvarainc dba Delicious, 24375 Main Road, Orient 5. USA Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Competing Applications Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC filed an application to study the feasibility of the proposed of the Ventura Ocean Energy Project, to be located on the Long Island Sound and Shelter Island Sound. The proposed “Shelter Island Tidal Energy Project" consists of: (1) 65 proposed Red Hawk TISEC generating units having a total installed capacity of 36.20 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3) appurtenant facilities. The Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC, project would have an average annual generation of 14,000 gig watt-hours and be sold to a local utility. March 10, 2009 Page 3 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting III. Communications IV. Discussion 1. 9:00 AM Docks on the Bay Follow up from Code Committee Meeting 2. 9:30 AM Land Preservation Committee Funding for projects 3. 10:00 AM Jamie Richter Animal Shelter report 4. 10:15 AM Jim McMahon Park & Playground Proposal 5. 10:30 AM Rusty Lever, Jim McMahon North Fork baseball 6. 11:00 AM Lloyd Reisenberg Mitigation Plan 7. 11:15 AM Heather Lanza Change of Zone Application/Lake Shore Ponds at Southold 8. Code Enforcement/Follow Up from Code Committee Meeting 9. Generic Lighting Code 10. 12:00 Noon Event Power Representatives Triathlon 11. 11:30 AM Jim Bunchuck Town Leaf Bags Update of old screening plant 2-year disposal permit Pledge to the Flag Supervisor Russell SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Please rise and join with me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. March 10, 2009 Page 4 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Special Presentation 4:30 Pm - Special Recognition by Legislator Ed Romaine STOP DWI - TOP COP Honors - PO Peter Onufrak and PO Steven Zuhoski SC Legislator Ed Romaine EDWARD ROMAINE, SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Supervisor. Since 1980, the County of Suffolk has begun a very active DWI program and throughout those years, the Board has recognized in each jurisdiction or precinct, the top cop in terms of DWI tickets and prosecution and we have in Southold, two police officers honored this year as the top police officers for the DWI program in Suffolk County. So I would like to ask Peter and Steven to come up and the Chief, to join me. And I think we all understand, I will make it very brief, because I see you have a long meeting with some important issues, to deal with but DWI is driving while intoxicated, it is a very dangerous thing. It has caused a tremendous number of accidents and deaths in this County and we try to crack down on this and our police officers are our first line of defense. I would like to thank both Peter, if I may and Steven, for their work and for being honored as top police officers in the DWI program, 2008. Gentlemen, congratulations. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I would just like to say on behalf of Southold Town, Steven and Peter, congratulations. You make us all proud. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Congratulations. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And I will ask if you recognize any of the faces up on this dais. Wait until after the meeting. MR. ROMAINE: Mr. Supervisor, if you have two seconds, if you would like to join us for a quick photo. We would like to send that out and congratulate these gentlemen. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You know, I do appreciate this. I am going to stay with the agenda though. Thank you though. MR. ROMAINE: Thank you again for the opportunity and I want to thank the Police Department for the great job they do and these two police officers for being named top cops for 2008. Each of them had 14 arrests for DWI. So, thank you again, gentlemen. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. What I would like to do is invite anybody that would like to speak on any issue as it appears on the agenda. I know many people are here for the public input scoping session for the SEQRA with regard to the jetty. It will have its own time allotted shortly but on any other issue that appears on the agenda, please feel free to step forward and address the Town Board now. (No response) Hearing none, we will move to business. March 10, 2009 Page 5 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting V. Resolutions 2009-203 CATEGORY: Audit DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Approve Audit 3/10/09 RESOLVED approves the audit dated that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby March 10, 2009. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-203 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Seconder ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Initiator ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-204 CATEGORY: Set Meeting DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Set Next Meeting 3/24/09 7:30 Pm RESOLVED that the next Regular Town Board Meeting of the Southold Town Board be held, Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at the Southold Town Hall, Southold, New York at 7:30 P. M.. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-204 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Seconder ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Initiator ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-205 CATEGORY: Authorize to Bid DEPARTMENT: Police Dept Authorize and Direct the Town Clerk to Advertise for Bids for Surplus Police Vehicle March 10, 2009 Page 6 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting RESOLVEDauthorizes and directs the that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Town Clerk to advertise for bids for the following surplus police vehicle: 2006 FORD Crown Victoria - color White - VIN 2FAHP71W06X102327 - 124,289 miles Contact person is Lt. H. William Sawicki (631) 765-2600. Vehicle is in "as is" condition and may be viewed at Police Headquarters, Peconic, NY. RESOLVED Be it further that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to advertise for the sale of same. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-205 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Initiator ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Seconder ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-206 CATEGORY: Employment - Town DEPARTMENT: Accounting Change Status of Provisional Spanish Speaking Just RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby changes the status of Diana Van Duzer and Maria Thomas, Justice Court Clerks (Spanish Speaking) from Provisional to Permanent, effective March 10, 2009, salary to remain the same. (These employees were hired provisionally and have taken, passed and were reachable on the Civil Service list for Justice Court Clerks (Spanish Speaking) ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-206 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Initiator ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Seconder ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded March 10, 2009 Page 7 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting 2009-207 CATEGORY: Attend Seminar DEPARTMENT: Police Dept Grant Permission to Captain Martin Flatley to Attend Governor’s Traffic Safety Commission EGrants Training Session in Fishkill, New York RESOLVED grants permission to that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Captain Martin Flatley to attend the Governor's Traffic Safety Commission eGrants training seminar on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 in Fishkill, New York. All expenses for tolls and gas to be a legal charge to the 2009 Police Training Budget line - A.3120.4.600.200. Travel to be by Department vehicle. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-207 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Seconder ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Initiator ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-208 CATEGORY: Bid Acceptance DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management District Accept Lubricants Bid RESOLVED accepts the bid of that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Miles Petroleum Co., Inc. to supply the town with engine oils, greases, and assorted other lubricants at the unit prices specified in their bid of February 26, 2009 , all in accordance with the Town Attorney. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-208 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Seconder ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Initiator ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded March 10, 2009 Page 8 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting 2009-209 CATEGORY: Bid Acceptance DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management District Accept Grinder Hammers Bid RESOLVED accepts the bid of that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby The Trading Company to supply the Solid Waste District with a new set of hammers for the CBI grinder at a total cost of $18,400, all in accordance with the Town Attorney. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-209 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Initiator ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-210 CATEGORY: Close/Use Town Roads DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Suffolk Bicycle Riders Bike/Boat/Bike 6-7-09 RESOLVEDgrants permission to the that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Suffolk Bicycle Riders’ Association to use the following Town Roads for their Annual Bike - Boat - Bike event on Sunday, June 7, 2009, beginning at 7:00 a.m. , provided they file with the Town Clerk a One Million Dollar Certificate of Liability Insurance naming the Town of Southold as an additional insured, provide remuneration of expenses of $55 and a $500 deposit for event clean up (deposit returned upon recommendation of Capt. Flatley) and contact Captain Flatley, upon receipt of this approval, to coordinate traffic control: New Suffolk Avenue, Grathwohl Road, Depot Lane, Mill Road, Soundview Road, Soundview Road Ext., Lighthouse Road, Moores Lane, Albertson Lane, Youngs Avenue, Calves Neck Road, Hill Road, Wells Road, Oaklawn Avenue, Jockey Creek Drive, Ackerly Pond Lane, North Bayview Road, Main Bayview Road, Cedar Avenue, Cedar Beach Road, Bridge Lane, Oregon Road, Wickham March 10, 2009 Page 9 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Avenue, Westphalia Road, Sound Avenue, and Factory Lane. Support is for this year only as the Town Board continues to evaluate the use of town roads. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-210 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Initiator ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ?????????? Withdrawn Albert Krupski Jr. Seconder ?????????? Supervisor's Appt Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Rescinded ???????? Scott Russell Voter Next: Mar 24, 2009 7:30 PM 2009-211 CATEGORY: Organizational DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson RESOLVED, Gerard Geohringer, Jr. is that pursuant to Section 267(1) of the Town Law hereby designated as Chairperson of the Southold Town Board of Appeals , for the term of February 24, 2009 through December 31, 2009, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairperson of the Board of Appeals shall be responsible for furnishing to the Town Board a detailed monthly report of activities within his department; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairperson of the Southold Town Board of Appeals shall be paid a salary of $2,000.00 per annum, in addition to his regular salary, effective February 24, 2009 through December 31, 2009, and the same shall be paid in regular bi-weekly payments. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-211 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Initiator ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Seconder ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded March 10, 2009 Page 10 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting 2009-212 CATEGORY: Contracts, Lease & Agreements DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney Authorizes and Directs Supervisor Scott A. Russell to Execute the Annual Certification Form Between the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town of Southold for the Design, Planning and Flow Management of the Fishers Island Wastewater Treatment Facility RESOLVEDauthorizes and directs that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Supervisor Scott A. Russell to execute the Annual Certification Form between the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town of Southold for the Design, Planning and Flow Management of the Fishers Island Wastewater Treatment Facility , subject to the approval of the Town Attorney. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-212 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Initiator ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-213 CATEGORY: Equipment DEPARTMENT: Highway Department Advertise to Bid for Used Truck for Plowing Highway RESOLVEDauthorizes and directs the that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Town Clerk to advertise for the purchase one (1) used 1982 or newer OSHKOSH M1700 Snow Fighter Truck with Snow Plow for use by the Southold Town Highway. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-213 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Initiator ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded March 10, 2009 Page 11 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting 2009-214 CATEGORY: Local Law Public Hearing DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk LL TOS CPF Management & Stewardship Plan 2009 RESOLVED amends Resolution #2009- that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby 191, adopted at the February 24, 2009 regular Town Board meeting to read as follows: WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk th “A Local Law in County, New York, on the 24 day of February, 2009, a Local Law entitled relation to the Town of Southold Community Preservation Fund Management and Stewardship Plan 2009” now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the th th 24 day of March at 7:33 pm day of March, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. 10 at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. “A Local Law in relation to the Town of Southold The proposed Local Law entitled, Community Preservation Fund Management and Stewardship Plan 2009” reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2009 “A Local Law in relation to the Town of Southold Community A Local Law entitled, Preservation Fund Management and Stewardship Plan 2009”. BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as follows: I. PURPOSE In compliance with the Peconic Bay Community Preservation Fund, the Land Preservation Department has prepared a Community Preservation Fund Management and Stewardship Plan for real property interests acquired through the fund. This plan must be adopted by local law and all expenditures from the fund for management and stewardship functions must be in compliance with the March 10, 2009 Page 12 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting terms of the plan. II. Chapter 17 of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: § 17-13A. Community Preservation Fund Management and Stewardship Plan adopted. A. The Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby approves and adopts the Town of Southold Community Preservation Management and Stewardship 2009 Plan for real property interests acquired by use of moneys from the Town of Southold Community Preservation Fund, prepared by the Land Coordinator, Preservation Department and Land Preservation Committee Director of the Department of Public Works, and the Stewardship Coordinator, , for the periodJuly 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 presented to the Town Board during the Work Session of August 12, 2008 February 24, 2009, and intended to be the management and stewardship plan (6) required by amendments to § 64-e of the New York State Town Law. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-214 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Initiator ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-215 CATEGORY: Budget Modification DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management District SWMD Budget Mod - Grinder March 10, 2009 Page 13 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Fiscal Impact: Restores $$ spent on unplanned repairs. RESOLVEDmodifies the 2009 that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Solid Waste Management District budget as follows: From: SR 8160.4.100.550 (Maint/Komatsu Loader) $ 4,000 To: SR 8160.4.100.596 (Maint/CBI Grinder) $ 4,000 ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-215 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Seconder ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Initiator ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-216 CATEGORY: Employment - Town DEPARTMENT: Accounting Appoint Damon Rallis to the Position of Provisional Zoning Inspector RESOLVEDappoints Damon Rallis to that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby the position of Provisional Zoning Inspector in the Building Department at the rate of effective March 11, 2009 $58,251.25 per annum . ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-216 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Seconder ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Initiator ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-217 CATEGORY: Misc. Public Hearing March 10, 2009 Page 14 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Set Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 7:35 P.M., as the Time and Place for a Public Hearing to Consider the Designation of the Golder House on the Town’s Register of Historic Landmarks RESOLVED that pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 170 (Landmark Preservation) of the Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at Town Code, the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets 7:35 P.M., Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place for a public hearing to consider the designation of the Golder house on the town’s register of Historic Landmarks; the house is owned by Joseph and Catherine Golder and is located at SCTM 1000-114.-11-26, 1305 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, New York . The property owner has requested and the Historic Preservation Commission has recommended the property for inclusion on the town’s register of historic landmarks. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-217 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Seconder ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Initiator ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-218 CATEGORY: Litigation DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney Retain Frank Isler, Esq. in Tenedios Litigation RESOLVEDretains Frank A. Isler, Esq. that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby as Special Counsel in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County civil action entitled “Steven Tenedios and Olga Tenedios v. Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals” , under Index No. 09-08063. March 10, 2009 Page 15 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-218 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Seconder ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Initiator ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-219 CATEGORY: Employment - Town DEPARTMENT: Trustees Set the Salary for Seasonal Pump-Out Boat Operators at a Rate of $14.00 Per Hour RESOLVEDsets the salary for Seasonal that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Pump-Out Boat Operators for the Board of Trustees at a rate of $14.00 per hour , effective April 1, 2009. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-219 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Initiator ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-220 CATEGORY: Advertise DEPARTMENT: Trustees Direct the Town Clerk to Advertise for Pump-Out Boat Operators RESOLVEDauthorizes and directs the that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Town Clerk to advertise for two weeks in the Suffolk Times and the New London Day for Pump-Out Boat Operators, under the supervision of the Board of Trustees, on a seasonal basis starting May 22, 2009 through and including October 12, 2009 at a salary of $14.00 per hour. March 10, 2009 Page 16 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-220 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Initiator ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Seconder ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-221 CATEGORY: Contracts, Lease & Agreements DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney Authorizes and Directs Supervisor Scott A. Russell to Execute the Agreement Between the State of New York and the Town of Southold for the Shoreline Stabilization Erosion Control Project on NYS Route 25 RESOLVEDauthorizes and directs that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Supervisor Scott A. Russell to execute the Agreement between the State of New York and the Town of Southold for the shoreline stabilization erosion control project on NYS Route 25, East Marion, New York , subject to the approval of the Town Attorney. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-221 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Initiator ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Seconder ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-222 CATEGORY: Litigation DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney Retain Frank Isler in Terzis Litigation RESOLVEDretains Frank A. Isler, Esq. that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby as Special Counsel in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County civil action entitled “Costas Terzis v. Michael Verity and the Town of Southold Building Department” , under Index No. 09-08121. March 10, 2009 Page 17 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-222 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Seconder ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ???????? ??Albert Krupski Jr. Initiator Withdrawn ?????????? Supervisor's Appt Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Rescinded ???????? Scott Russell Voter Next: Mar 24, 2009 7:30 PM 2009-223 CATEGORY: Contracts, Lease & Agreements DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney Authorizes and Directs Supervisor Scott A. Russell to Execute the Agreement Between the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport for the Use of the Village Marine Pump-Out Station RESOLVEDauthorizes and directs that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Supervisor Scott A. Russell to execute the Agreement between the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport for the use of the Village Marine Pump-Out Station in connection with the Trustees’ pump-out boat, subject to the approval of the Town Attorney. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-223 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Seconder ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Initiator ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-224 CATEGORY: Budget Modification DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management District Budget Mod - Town Leaf Bags Fiscal Impact: Garbage Bag Line sufficient to cover. RESOLVEDmodifies the 2009 that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Solid Waste Management District budget as follows: From: March 10, 2009 Page 18 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting SR 8160.4.100.650 (Town Garbage Bags) $ 4,000 To: SR 8160.4.100.660 (Town Leaf Bags) $ 4,000 ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-224 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Initiator ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-225 CATEGORY: Bid Acceptance DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management District Accept Bid on Town Garbage Bags RESOLVED accepts the bid of that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Phoenix Recycling, Inc. to supply the Town with plastic garbage bags for calendar years 2009 – 2010 in the amounts submitted by Phoenix in their bid of November 20, 2008, all in accordance with the Town Attorney. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-225 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Initiator ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Voter ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Seconder ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-226 CATEGORY: Attend Seminar DEPARTMENT: Town Attorney Amend Resolution No. 2009-170 RESOLVEDamends Resolution No. that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby 2009-170 dated February 24, 2009 to read as follows: March 10, 2009 Page 19 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting RESOLVEDgrants permission to that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby Planning Director, Heather Lanza, to attend the following two seminars , registrations for both to be a legal charge to the 2009 Planning Board budget: Seminar #1: Complete Management Course for Planning Directors Ft. Lauderdale, Florida March 16-17, 2009 $525.00 Cost: $495.00 Seminar #2: SEQRA Plainview, New York April 21, 2009 Cost: $474.00 ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-226 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Initiator ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Voter ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Seconder ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 2009-227 CATEGORY: Public Service DEPARTMENT: Town Clerk Adopt the Amended (1/14/09) SC Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan WHEREAS , all of Suffolk County has exposure to natural hazards that increase the risk to life, property, environment and the County’s economy; and WHEREAS , pro-active mitigation of known hazards before a disaster event can reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property; and WHEREAS , The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) established new requirements for pre- and post-disaster hazard mitigation programs; and March 10, 2009 Page 20 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting WHEREAS , a coalition of Suffolk County municipalities with like planning objectives has been formed to pool resources and create consistent mitigation strategies to be implemented within each partner’s identified capabilities, within Suffolk County; and WHEREAS , the coalition has completed a planning process that engages the public, assesses the risk and vulnerability to the impacts of natural hazards, develops a mitigation strategy consistent with a set of uniform goals and objectives, and creates a plan for implementing, evaluating and revising this strategy; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold: Amended 1. Adopts the (as received from FEMA 1/14/09) Suffolk County Multi- Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (the “Plan”) as this jurisdiction’s Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, and resolves to execute the actions identified in the Plan that pertain to this jurisdiction. 2. Will use the adopted and approved portions of the Plan to guide pre- and post- disaster mitigation of the hazards identified. 3. Will coordinate the strategies identified in the Plan with other planning programs and mechanisms under its jurisdictional authority. 4. Will continue its support of the Mitigation Planning Committee as described within the Plan. 5. Will help to promote and support the mitigation successes of all participants in this Plan. 6. Will incorporate mitigation planning as an integral component of government and partner operations. ? Vote Record - Resolution RES-2009-227 ? Adopted Yes/Aye No/Nay Abstain Absent ?? Adopted as Amended ? ? ? ? William Ruland Voter ?? Defeated ???????? Vincent Orlando Seconder ?? Tabled ???????? Albert Krupski Jr. Initiator ?? Withdrawn ???????? Thomas H. Wickham Voter ?? Supervisor's Appt ???????? Louisa P. Evans Voter ?? Tax Receiver's Appt ???????? Scott Russell Voter ?? Rescinded 26. Motion To: Motion to recess to Public Hearing COMMENTS - Current Meeting: RESOLVEDbe and hereby is declared that this meeting of the Southold Town Board recessed at 4:46 PM in order to hold a public hearing. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice SECONDER: William Ruland, Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell March 10, 2009 Page 21 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting VI. Public Scoping Session Set 3/10/09 at 4:35 Pm Goldsmiths Inlet RESULT: CLOSED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: William Ruland, Councilman SECONDER: Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell Councilman Thomas Wickham NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENhold COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That the Town Board will a public scoping Session on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold , to allow the public and agencies to provide input into the issues and information to be presented in the DEIS for the Assessment of Jetty Shortening Alternatives Goldsmith Inlet, Bay and Adjacent Shorelines. A complete copy of the draft scope is available at the Southold Town Clerk’s office during normal business hours and is also available on the Town’s website: southoldtown.northfork.net. At least 10 days will be provided for written comment after the close of the public hearing. I have here a notice that it has appeared as a legal in the Suffolk Times and I have in the file a total of 19 written comments received already. It would take us a long time to go through them and I can see a number of people today here in the audience who actually were the authors of these comments. I think you folks could do a better job than I could at reflecting your views about that. So this is a public hearing on a scoping session in regard to shortening alternatives for the Goldsmiths jetty. We also have before us Chick Voorhis, who has been the consultant for the town on this project and has helped us prepare this draft scoping session and perhaps we could turn to him to outline what we are here for this afternoon. Charles Voorhis, Nelson, Pope &Voorhis CHARLES VOORHIS: Thank you, Councilman Wickham. Good afternoon members of the Board. As Tom said, my name is Charles Voorhis, nickname is Chick and I am with the firm Nelson, Pope and Voorhis. We have been assisting the town on this matter. And this is actually nd a continuation of the hearing that started on December 2, at which time we received many comments from many concerned citizens and those comments have been recorded, I will be interested to go through the 19 additional letters that have been received and certainly factor in any comments that are received this afternoon. The purpose of this meeting is to receive input from the public on the scope of the environmental impact statement that will be prepared for the Goldsmith inlet project that proposes removal of a portion of that jetty. It is not to express support or lack of support for the project itself. It is strictly to receive input on the content of the document that will be prepared. So with the extensive comments that were received at the last meeting, supplemented by any additional information tonight, that final scope can be prepared and put in front of this Board for your consideration of adopting it as a final scope so that the process of preparing the environmental impact statement can move forward. If things were said at the last meeting, they are part of the record. They don’t have to be repeated. And like I said, I will be here this evening to record comments, go through any letters and assist the Board in the preparation of that final scope. So, sufficient for your purpose? March 10, 2009 Page 22 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, thank you. What I would like to do now is open up the opportunity for anyone who wants to comment on the issue. We’ll start with you. John Betsch, Pres Kenny’s Beach Civic Assoc JOHN BETSCH: Good evening, my name is John Betsch. I live on North Sea Drive and I am the president of the Kenney’s-McCabe’s beach civic association. For those on the Board who may not know, our civic association area includes from Lighthouse Road on the east to Peconic Dunes camp on the west, from the North Road on the south all the way to the Long Island Sound. Within our area are two of the three lifeguard protected beaches of Southold Town, McCabe’s and Kenney’s. Unfortunately, both those beaches are not the size that they used to be and that is why we are here. There are neighbors who can’t be here but have written their views and letters to the Board. I was going to ask the names on those letters please be read so we can make sure they are included in the public hearing. I have a listing of 20 letters that I know of that have been submitted. So if you would like, I can give you the list of the 20 to make sure they are included… SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I would gladly do that, John. Just as a clarification, we were getting letters and e-mails up until we adjourned at the work session today. It is possible that some got picked up in a spam filter or we just simply didn’t get it in time. But they certainly, after the event, would be included. But I will double check names with you if you would like. MR. BETSCH: I would like to, just to be sure. I would also like to ask that anyone who is here from the Kenney’s-McCabe beach area, if they could just stand up to show the interest in this project and what it does to the area along the Sound. Thank you. I am not going to go through a lengthy monologue of the benefits of removing the jetty. This has been supported through numerous studies, including those authorized by the town. I will also not insult your intelligence by cherry picking statements out of the studies that people have done in past scoping sessions, that is not the proper way to do it. I would like to read one letter, if you would accommodate me, which sums up everything that has been, really comes to a point. This is written by James T. Molloy, who can’t be here, his wife had major surgery and I would like to read that letter into the record. “My name is James T. Molloy and in 1964, my wife and I purchased a home at 1200 Leeton Drive, Southold, situated on this property 219 feet deep by 100 feet wide. To approach the water of Long Island Sound, there were two or three foot high sand dunes and you had to walk about 50 feet to the water. In about 1970, my immediate neighbors to the west noticed the beach was being washed away. They spoke of building bulkheads in front of their property. As my property was bounded by vacant land on the east and the west, I could not afford a bulkhead in front of my property and on both sides of my property. By this time, the water was under my house. I was not aware that a jetty had been built at Goldsmiths and was impeding the flow of sand from the west to the east. I eventually saw two houses east of Goldsmiths crushed and washed away. I subsequently moved my house to the south, with all permits in place. I was limited as to the distance I could move my house as I could only be no closer to Leeton Drive than 35 feet. This move required new electric service, new septic system tanks, new well and it cost us approximately $20,000. The next move was the building of groins, approved by the Corps of Engineers and the Town of Southold. We also purchased 47 truckloads of sand from the Town of Southold to act as a back fill west of the groins. Behind each groin, rocks (at a cost to me of $3,000 and $6,000 for that groin) in my opinion, without these groins, the waterfront March 10, 2009 Page 23 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting houses on Leeton Drive would have been washed away. In legal costs to my neighbors and myself, we have spent well over $150,000. We have been good neighbors to the people west of Goldsmiths inlet. I would hope that the current hearing would be held without conflict of interest by the Board. By way of history, we had contacted New York State authorities who deny the state gave approval for the jetty. They deny, this denial continued for five to seven years. The State eventually notified us that they had deeded the Goldsmith jetty to Suffolk County. Suffolk County, for six to eight years, denied any knowledge of this and eventually the county claimed the Goldsmith jetty was in the provenance of the Town of Southold and more denials continued. It is unfortunate that my wife and I will not be able to attend because of major surgery but I would like to ensure that my letter gets read into the public record. James T. Molloy.” Now I would anticipate that the Town, I am expecting the Town to say yes, we understand from all the studies that the jetty should have been shortened more than a third but we will take a third, however, the town is going to say that they cannot afford to remove the jetty, to the contrary, I believe that the Town can not afford, can not not remove the jetty. From the Town’s own studies, it is documented that the Town is now in a position of significant liability as studies have indicated that the jetty has fallen into significant and considerable disrepair. If a person is hurt, maimed or if there is a death, the cost to the Town in compensation would far outweigh any removal costs and I would believe would also result in the forced removal and cost, and forced removal and additional costs in addition to that liability compensation. With all the studies in print, I think any attorney would find it very easy to prove liability to the Town. And I believe the time has come now to take the jetty down and to accommodate the flow of sand from east to west. As it has been said in all the commercials, either pay me now or pay me later. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. I am going to let you speak first, ma’am. And then you will be right after her. Susan Geitz, Southold SUSAN GEITZ: My name is Susan Geitz. I live at 1580 Leeton Drive. My family has been in the house for five generations, starting with my grandfather and down to my grandchildren. I have lived there for 56 years, I have seen many changes. I have pictures here of the beach when my parents lived in the house and we lived in the house as children and we had about 100 feet of beach in front of the house. The people down at Goldsmiths inlet, their homes were in jeopardy. I remember seeing houses fall off the cliff up there and we all felt very bad for them and we were more or less in favor of the jetty. No one understood the environmental impact it would have on us. They built the jetty and gradually we saw our beaches diminish. As Mr. Betsch said, two houses on the other side of the jetty were crushed and washed away. We used to ride down the beach on the beach buggies with the Conway brothers and you can no longer do that. There is not enough beach between our house and Kenney’s beach to do anything. The water is right up to our bulkhead. I really hope that you can do something about it because I would like my grandchildren to be able to grow up in the house the way we did and the way my children did. I have pictures here of what it looked like before the jetty and some of these pictures are 40 years old because my children are that age now. And you can see the difference in the beach now. I was at the beach today and the water is right up to the bulkhead. The rocks that we put in, the sand has been washed off of them, some of us have had to replace our bulkheads at an extravagant cost to us, tens of thousands of dollars to put in new bulkheads and I think it is time March 10, 2009 Page 24 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting that the jetty, that you know, they have some you know, compassion for us that are on the other end of it now. That we are about to lose our homes and I would like to show you these pictures. (Inaudible) This picture is 30 years old, when the jetty was first built and we still had beach. Now there is no beach at all, right up to the bulkhead. And my husband (inaudible)….. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Just for clarification, she did present, I know this isn’t a public hearing and we want to make sure everything gets recorded for the record. She is just showing me the photos back from the 50’s or 60’s and then a discussion in the amount of sand the trees that are showing up on the west of the jetty. Jonathan Sinnreith JONATHAN SINNREITH: Mr. Supervisor, members of the Town Council. I am Jonathan Sinnreith, I am a partner of Sinnreith, Cosacov and Messina with offices in Central Islip, New York and I am appearing here this afternoon on behalf of Dinah Siever and Tom Foster, the owners of property at 180 Sound Avenue, Marissa Cardinale and Tom is here somewhere, Marisa Cardinale the owner of property at 500 Sound Avenue and Peter Terranova, the owner of property at 280 Sound Avenue. Before I address the scoping issues, I do want to congratulate the Town and the Board on hiring Jennifer, who I have known for many years and she is a first rate attorney and Toomey and Latham’s loss is definitely the Town’s gain. So congratulations, Jennifer. I didn’t know until I got here and congratulations to the Town. I am going to address three subjects and my remarks, I hope, will be brief. All relating to the scoping issues that are before this Board. One is going to be a little bit of a history lesson, the second is going to address some property ownership and economic issues and then third is going to address some of the technical issues that are raised by the assessment report for the Board in 2005. we have retained, however, Matt Dalon, the gentleman sitting next to me, and he is with Ocean and Coastal consultants, and he will be following me with the Board’s permission, to address much more technical issues than I am capable of addressing as an attorney and as I will get to in a minute, these are technical issues which we believe clearly demonstrate the insufficiency of the environmental analysis that has been done to date and that is before the Board to purposes of reaching any kind of substantive and meritorious environmental decision. So I will try not to address those issues because they will be in much better hands with Mr. Dalon. I see that Mr. Terranova is also here, I think he may have some brief remarks also but I think they will be very, I think today they will be very brief because I think that Mr. Dalon and I will probably steal his thunder. Let me begin with the history lesson and the history lesson is very, very important because I have read the documentation leading up to today’s hearing, including prior resolutions of the town, the draft scoping document, etc and there is really a fundamental either misconception or misstatement in those documents. The historical record is absolutely clear, it couldn’t be more clear; that the jetty was not built to protect the inlet, it was not built for purposes of a marina that someday might have been built but wasn’t built. The jetty was built for erosion control purposes, to protect and build up the beach to the west. That was its purpose from the get go and with all due respect, Mr. Voorhees and it is good to see you, that is the reason that the jetty was built in the first place and the reason that that is fundamental to what is before the Board is that the action that you are considering is actually action to undo, to undo an erosion control measure that was enacted and put into place jointly by the State of New York, the County of Suffolk, and the Town of Southold, for environmental and salutary environmental purposes back in the 1960’s. and you don’t have to take my word for it, I am not going to read March 10, 2009 Page 25 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting you everything into the record because I know there are a lot of people that would like to speak but let me just point to several items that I think make this very clear. There is resolution number 351-1962 of this Board which is what authorized the construction of the jetty in terms of the Town’s participation and says very clearly, the title is, ‘Provide for beach protection on the shore of Long Island Sound’ not inlet protection, not marina construction and the resolution says that it is resolved that it is going to support and I am quoting, ‘the construction of a stone jetty for beach protection on Long Island Sound’ Number two and again, I am not going to read everything, is a letter to the New York State Department of Public Works, who actually did the construction, from then Supervisor of this town, Lester Albertson dated January 30, 1967, this was shortly after the jetty was built and is addressing its history and this is what Supervisor Albertson had to say, ‘Through state and county cooperation some years ago, a jetty was constructed projecting out into Long Island Sound and protecting the west side of the inlet. It was an erosion control jetty specifically to protect my client’s property and the property of people pretty far west actually, of the jetty. Number three, I am now reading from a report, a memorandum report from the County of Suffolk DPW back in 1967. I won’t read it all. The jetty that was constructed was built up and maintained, I am sorry, the jetty that was constructed has built up and maintained a beautiful beach to the west. Which was part of its purpose. So that beach that exists there now, the accreted beach was not incidental to the construction of the jetty, from the author of the plans for it, it was its purpose. Its very purpose. And finally, there has been mention of the state role and I certainly sympathize in how difficult it is to get accurate information from the state but there is absolutely no question that the state’s participation in the construction of that jetty, which by the way included specifically the deeding over of the property on which it was built because as we all know, that property belongs to the state of new York and in order to construct the jetty, there had to be actually a conveyance of the state’s rights to the underwater land so it could be built. In the report of the New York State Attorney General and I am reading from a report dated August 6, 1965, addressed to the New York State Department of State and again, I won’t read the whole thing right now, the attorney general informed the Department of State that that conveyance of the land for the construction of the jetty was authorized for one purpose and that is to arrest erosion. The erosion west of the jetty and in fact, members of the Board, that was the only authorized basis under state law that the state could have conveyed it because there happened to be on the books a specific state law that permitted conveyances of underwater state land for erosion control purposes. So, my point number one is this, you are actually trying to undo history and you can’t do that. This jetty was built and authorized for one purpose and one purpose only. You have heard it. To protect the lands to the west from erosion and to build up that beach. And any scope, any DEIS, Mr. Voorhis, must address the fact, in my opinion, that the action that is being contemplated is actually undoing the environmental controls and erosion controls for which that jetty was built. Point number two, my clients and many like them that I don’t yet represent, own the beach to its present mean high water line. Without any question. They own every grain of sand that is out there to the mean high water line. The beach, as everyone admits, your own consultants admit, there is no question, the growth of the beach was the product of accretion which by common law extends the ownership of the riparian owners to that property, i.e. my clients. The fact that that accretion was a result of a manmade structure as opposed to just purely natural forces is completely irrelevant to that ownership issue as a matter of law. They own it and they have owned it since that accretion took place and as we all know, as Mr. Voorhis knows and as all the March 10, 2009 Page 26 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting records indicate, that accretion stabilized by the early 70’s. Not only, members of the Board, do they own it by accretion but as I have indicated, given the fact that the very purpose of building that jetty was to protect those beaches from erosion and to build up that beach as you heard in that memorandum that I read to you from 1967, anybody who has purchased riparian property on that side with that beach in place had a right to rely, a legal as well as in my opinion moral, right to rely on the existence of that beach which was deliberately constructed by this Town. This Town put it there. For them. It cannot legally take it away or constitutionally take it away without compensation. And so this project, which your own consultants have indicated and Mr. Dowling will speak to it, my guess is understated. Without a doubt, you know that if you dismantle any portion of that beach, that is going to result in a taking of a portion, a large portion, I am sorry, the jetty, is going to result in a taking of a large portion of that beach, extending, and we don’t really know exactly how far west but certainly all of the property of my clients. That would be an unconstitutional taking, in my opinion, without compensation. You flat out can’t do it. Now I sympathize obviously and it is not my job to speak on behalf of the people on the other side. The Town is going to have to find remedies if in fact their problems are caused by the jetty. But as I believe Mr. Dowling will now address, this is the last thing I am going to say before I turn over the technical details to him, it is our position and this is nothing to disparage any of the work that your consultants have done, all consultants work within certain budgets and we all know municipal budgets like private budgets are limited, you can’t do everything you want to do or think you should do, so I don’t intend any disparagement to Nelson, Pope and Voorhis, or to your marine consultants but the fact is, as Mr. Dalon will now give you a chapter and verse, the existing environmental study is absolutely insufficient either to describe what is going on today and what the causes are, the multiple causes are of erosion such as it is or the accretion as it recently has been of the beaches to the east nor is it sufficient technically in any way, shape or form to predict what the actual environmental result will be of the dismantling of the jetty that you are proposing. I mean, I am not blaming you. As I said, we all have budget problems but the fact of the matter is there is absolutely not sufficient evidence in the record right now from which this Board could make a meritorious go or no go decision. At the very least you need a lot more data and a lot more studies. With that, I am going to turn it over to our consultant, Mr. Dalon, who will address the technical aspects of what I had to say, if that is acceptable to…. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Before Mr. Dalon speaks I just have a question for our consultant, Mr. Voorhis. What is the scope of the scoping area? How far east is being studied from Goldsmiths inlet? Charles Voorhis, Nelson, Pope&Voorhis MR. VOORHIS: There are modeling runs that do a limited linear distance along the beach to the west and to the east. I believe it is 3,000 feet west and 1,000 feet east but I should probably check that. But there is a limited scope along that beachfront. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED: (from audience) Can we also find out how far back, how far south the scoping covers? March 10, 2009 Page 27 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting MR. VOORHIS: It is linear. Just along the beachfront. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. Matthew Dalon, Consultant MATTHEW DALON: Members of the Board, thank you for your time and for allowing me to speak today. My name is Matthew Dalon and I work for Ocean and Coastal Consultants out of Gibbsboro, New Jersey. I am a coastal engineer by education and by work. My company focuses on ocean, coastal and waterfront development design and engineering and I am here today as Jonathan spoke of to speak my review of the assessment that was done by Offshore Coastal Technologies in 2005. Provide a critique and then also further suggestions where this could be improved upon so that a sound decision could be made. Offshore Coastal Technologies was hired to provide an assessment of jetty shortening alternatives for this Town Board here. They, it is my opinion that they have provided a thorough report under their what is unknown scope and budget however, it is lacking in specific areas that are critical in to determining the effects of the alternatives. In summary, their shoreline summary for one that compared the 10 year benefits showed there is no net gain east of the jetty or minimal net gain east of the jetty with these alternatives. However there is extensive losses west of the jetty. Additionally, the reduction of beach width that is likely to occur from a jetty shortening circumstance would reduce the beach width thus increasing the storm, increasing the (inaudible) to the storm damage. I would like to go through special points of the offshore and coastal technologies reports now. There field measurements that were collected reflected during a four day period is insufficient in characterizing the environment but they are not detailed enough to provide input for modeling results. They are very general and they are not specific. For the modeling that they did, there is regional hydro dynamic modeling that used as surf modeling, it is their statement that high and low pressure systems and easterly and westerly winds which (inaudible) fluctuations in water levels within the Long Island Sound were not accounted for in the model. The model only considered typical tidal conditions, they did not take into effect additional weather fluctuations that can cause effects to the water level and the currents. In the hydro dynamic modeling within the vicinity they used those regional models and interpolated them to the Goldsmith inlet. Again, do not contain the seasonal and long term fluctuations that can occur. Also, the models run with wave generated currents to examine the relative affects of wave driven currents. It is just run with a general wave condition that is not based on recorded wave measurements or detailed local wave (inaudible) casting. The wave measurements were calculated from a four year wind study which were then turned into waves. And then run into the model. And those points were collected at Avery Point, Connecticut and are not local conditions. Wave conditions are very variable throughout the Sound and more accurate data needs to be assessed in order to provide and provide the input for the model. Also, the genesis model that was used is the shoreline response model that they were using to say where the shoreline would end up with the alternatives. This model is a one d model and additionally does not account for the recent sea level rise that over the past 100 years is anywhere up to a foot and it has been measured in the New York-Long Island Sound to be a foot. These rises in sea level elevation (inaudible) cause a loss of shoreline due to the increased water levels and have occurred throughout the model study and need to be included in future studies. Also, the sediment budget that we used for this study was calibrated based on one, the filet area that filled the jetty after it was built. That assumes that the conditions when it was built are the same then as they are now however, it is unknown if March 10, 2009 Page 28 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting this is the case because again, there is a lack of sufficient accurate data to back this up with. Also, for their model verification they used 1955 shorelines until 1976 to calibrate their model and then ran the model to present time for future predictions. Again, assuming that conditions are the same. However, in their recent analysis of the shoreline position, they noted that there was an increase in the shoreline position or accretion of the beaches to the east of the jetty, however, they assume that this short term increase was not a long term affect but it is an unknown and future monitoring of the shoreline is needed to determine if there has been a change in conditions to cause an increase or if there is a short term increase that may be followed with long term erosion but again, it is an unknown condition that can be quantified with more accurate measurements. Also, in relation to the sediment budget, the model does not take into account any losses into the Goldsmith pond and you can see that sediment has moved into the pond with the flood shoals and also they do not take into account the material that is removed from the inlet by dredging. These are two additional sources that need to be included into the sediment budget to fully understand the system. Also, a main basis of the report is that the offshore losses is what is generating, the jetty is causing an increase in offshore losses, however this is not verified with any data and is only concluded from a calibration of the model that this has occurred. But there is no data to support it and there is no data to support that it is only occurring in this specific location and not in other locations. Further reports by the US Army Corps of Engineers, have shown that the wave climate within the Long Island Sound have caused the steepness of the waves and the shortness of the waves causes the offshore movement throughout the entire Sound. Also and this goes into some of the assumptions that were made into the modeling, under the jetty shortening (inaudible) they assumed that offshore losses would be reduced. In the 33 percent reduction, they assume that that the offshore losses would be reduced to 3500 cubic meters and in the 50 percent reduction, they assumed that it would be reduced to 1500 cubic meters. But there is no basis for this assumption. There was one, no basis to determine what the offshore losses were and what they are (inaudible) or to say in the future conditions, why would they be reduced to this level. Additionally when they analyzed potential flooding and wave impact due to the future conditions, various assumptions were made and some of these assumptions include the water level data that was used. They used FEMA water level data that is not specific to this location nor is it updated to current conditions. It is 10 years old now. The f beach model that was used to analyze the wave action flooding relies heavily on wave input but again without this input data, you cannot generate accurate results without accurate inputs. It is from this that I have developed a list of recommendations for further investigation so that we can truly know what is going on, not only at the Goldsmith inlet specifically but within Horton’s Point to Duck Pond Point because the whole beach interacts and acts as a system and it needs to be all looked into, including all the additional structures located within this beach because they all act together and you need to understand how they all interact with each other to get this. Some of the recommendations are for updated data that can now be obtained with today’s technology and technology that has been around for the past 10 or 15 years, this includes more accurate wave data as suggested by the (inaudible) report and by the US Army Corp report published in 2005 that focused on the Mattituck and the Goldsmith inlet. We need to know the wave conditions out in the Long Island Sound. A wave buoy should be installed to get accurate measurements of the wave conditions. Wave conditions are the driving input into the model. Without accurate wave conditions, you cannot get accurate results from your model. And therefore that is our first recommendation. Second, collect and analyze sand March 10, 2009 Page 29 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting samples throughout the reach. This is very informative in telling you how the sediment is interacting and how the sediment budget is working. Thirdly, monitor position of the shoreline. This will give you an accurate, using accurate survey data. The historical shorelines were determined from aerial photography that determines the shoreline from a high water line. This line changes relative to the tide level. Also, due to the scale of the photos, there is an error that is (inaudible) in the report of being up to 50 feet of shoreline error which is relatively large considering a 33 percent reduction is 120 feet of the jetty line. So there is a large variability of error inherent from those lines and to use those shorelines to calibrate your model includes that inherent error in the shoreline itself and includes more errors into the model. Using updated surveying techniques from Lidar or RTK survey, you can get accurate shoreline position that can be used to calibrate the model more accurately than using the historical shoreline and it also captures the shoreline at present today. So that conditions today can be understood and that future conditions can be predicted from today’s conditions. Also as mentioned, the jetty is deteriorating and is not the same as when it was built. Performance of this jetty has been altered and it should be monitored. Also the offshore losses need to be calculated with field verified data or more detailed modeling that includes more detailed wave data so that we can get, you can get a better understanding of what is going on in the system. And this goes again to the modeling, the modeling that was used can be updated. The genesis shoreline model is one d model that can be upgraded. There are two d models and more advanced models such as mike 21 that can include the interactions of waves and currents, long term predictions and more accurate data so that you can get more accurate results as to what is going on now but also what could possibly be happening in the future. Also, the flooding modeling should use the updated wave and water level data and use a FEMA approved model such as champs to reevaluate the potential flooding due to the predicted shoreline response from the more advanced modeling. This will give you more accurate results into potential dangers of reducing and shortening the jetty and the potential effects that it could have on the community and the beach west of the inlet. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: How long does a wave buoy have to stay in for correct data? MR. DALON: How accurate? COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: How long of a duration does a wave buoy have to stay in place? MR. DALON: It is all relative. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: Are you going to keep it there for six months, a year? MR. DALON: It would be great if there could be one installed long term, permanent installation. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: At what water depth? MR. DALON: At what water depth? That would be preferably offshore at greater than 10 meters. March 10, 2009 Page 30 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Oh, okay. MR. DALON: And in summary, from reviewing the offshore coastal technologies report, although it was conducted in a professional manner and done well there are points that are lacking and numerous assumptions have been made in this report that cannot justify the shortening as of now and from their conclusions of their shoreline modeling, that was done, they stated that there would be a minimal net gain east of the jetty. So long term effects there would be minimal effects from reducing the length of the jetty however there would be a large effect west of the jetty. And it is my recommendation that further investigation be conducted before proceeding further. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I have a question for you. You are a coastal engineer? MR. DALON: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: You have inspected the jetty? MR. DALON: I was out there today. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Alright. I didn’t see you. I was there also. In your opinion, and you know when a jetty is new, what it looks like and how it functions? MR. DALON: Yes. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: And you commented on the functionality of it. Could you comment on the functionality of it today? MR. DALON: The functionality of it today? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Mmmhmm. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: As it is today. MR. DALON: I have not studied the jetty itself and I was here merely to review the documents. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Okay. MR. DALON: So I have not myself conducted a thorough analysis. But I think again, it should be monitored and should be analyzed and should be looked into. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Okay. And what, you said monitor the shoreline, so again, relative to what I asked Mr. Voorhees, to what distance east and west and over what time frame? MR. DALON: I think that a shoreline monitoring plan should encompass the beach length from Duck Pond Point to Horton’s Point because within those two (inaudible) the beach interacts and March 10, 2009 Page 31 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting there are lots of dynamics, complex interactions going on. So if you can monitor that entire shoreline you can see what effects are going on overall and try to get a better understanding of what is occurring within that stretch of beach instead of focusing on a narrower section. Thank you. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED: How long is this study going to take? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think they asked that and it wasn’t answered. In other words, how long would be a reasonable time frame for monitoring. Well, the study that is the subject of the discussion tonight is done. It is completed. This is the SEQRA on that. I think they already asked the question what is the time frame for a study and I didn’t hear an answer to that, so I am presuming there is no.. Ron Reeve RON REEVE: Hi, I am Ron Reeve and I am just a little bit confused. I would like to have a couple of things clarified if I can. Number one, that young lawyer just got up and spoke about the fact that you guys can’t do anything, right? Your hands are tied. History has been created, it will not be changed and that is it. And then he introduces a young man from New Jersey that says, hey, you need to study this thing to several degrees of complexity that are unbelievable to me and unknown what the cost is or what the time frame is, what area would have to be surveyed in order to meet his criteria for satisfactory data to make a decision on. I would like to see some criteria of all of the things that he would like to see done that would establish directly when it would be 100 percent accurate to his knowledge, that would give him accurate data to make a decision. It is very unclear at this point. But I am really confused about the point, you can’t do anything but let’s go spend a lot of money. I thought we had already spent a lot of money, so I am really confused. The other thing I wanted to know just from a taxpayers point of view is, is there a different tax rate for accreted property? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: There would, if, the last valuation of the Town I believe was completed in 1973, started in 1969. There was no consideration for it then because most of this action has taken place subsequent to that. The, if the town were to reval, there would certainly be consideration to the accretion or the erosion of waterfront parcels. Any function of value is a function for the assessment process. MR. REEVE: Alright. Because I really think we should look at a formula that puts a good price tag on accreted property and what that, property that people are getting for free and using to their benefit while people to the east of them are suffering and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage and they are being denied the ability to use the property that they once had because the coastal erosion line has moved through their living room, okay, and they have to build bulkheads. Something is wrong when we get this level of (inaudible). SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Sir? Kenneth Richter, Lake Dr Southold March 10, 2009 Page 32 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting KEN RICHTER: My name is Ken Richter, I live on Lake Drive in the Kenney’s beach area. Now we know that the jetty has caused an accretion of somewhere near four to five hundred feet of sand and the people to the west of the jetty aren’t even willing to consider the removal of one foot of that jetty. So I have to question the sincerity of any sympathy they may claim to have from the people on the west for the people on the east. And if you really want to know what is going to happen, take some of that jetty down and do the study concurrently. The rest of this is all conjecture. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Did I see another hand? Peter? Peter Terranova, Peconic PETER TERRANOVA: Good evening. Peter Terranova from Peconic. This is not an east versus west issue and we really don’t want the discussion to get down to that level. We do sympathize with the folks down to the east because we were in that situation back in the late 50’s and the early 60’s before jetty was built. I know they quote the studies but it would appear they haven’t read them because all the studies totally dismiss the notion that the jetty has anything to do with the conditions at Kenney’s beach and that far east. Okay? Now, today’s public hearing is a continuation as we have said, of the public scoping session that was first held on December 2. At that meeting the Town Board heard testimony from many residents and taxpayers from Peconic Sound shores who voiced their opposition to this proposal. Many of those that were in attendance at the December 2 meeting were not able to attend today. But the record shows that they were here and we had a room that while not quite as full as we have today, was, there was a lot of participation. But to summarize here and I am giving you the short version because we did have testimony from an attorney and a coastal engineer, this opposition to this proposal is grounded in two fundamental judgments. One, the proposal to shorten the jetty would probably not achieve the intended desired result. That is the current proposal will not reduce the inlet channel dredging activity necessary to maintain the ecological health of Goldsmiths pond which is a designated critical environmental area. And the proposal will not significantly effect shoreline dynamics on the down drift eastward side of the jetty as modeled in the town’s own funded study ‘An Assessment of Jetty Shortening Alternatives’. Under any scenario modeled in the report that the town paid for, authorized and paid for, okay, under the most optimistic of conditions such as reducing offshore losses, showed that there was no impact on the beach anywhere east of Bittner groin. That is in the report. Now shortening of the jetty would probably, however, instead have the following unintended consequences and we live in the world of unintended consequences. Significantly increase the potential for catastrophic damage to the existing homes immediately west of the jetty, including homes on the bluff and these were the homes and the properties that the jetty was intentionally built to protect. More important is the destruction of the protective dunes, vegetation, and wildlife habitat that has built up and flourished over the past 45 years as a result of the jetty’s construction. Now the proposal to shorten the Goldsmiths inlet jetty has progressed this far based on the modeling study titled ‘An Assessment of Jetty Shortening Alternatives’ it was dated September 30, 2005 and was conducted by offshore and coastal technologies. As you have heard, that study was done professionally however, because of perhaps limited funding or time had to make some very critical assumptions including wave angles, including shoreline, including the depths in the location and severity of offshore eddies, that they were not able to come to the types of conclusions and recommendations that this Board needs to make a decision. But no doubt the March 10, 2009 Page 33 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting Town Board members are relying on this study, requested and paid for by the Town to determine the cost versus the benefit versus the risk of shortening the jetty. Now the record shows that in past presentations to the Board I and other members of Peconic Sound shores have documented specific flaws in the modeling study including errors of fact and the faulty subjective assumptions which drove those computer simulations. The conclusions of the study therefore minimize the risks and maximize the benefits of the jetty shortening alternatives. Now naturally the conclusions postulated by that study drive the issues which need to be addressed in the environmental impact statement. These conclusions however, must be reexamined and reconsidered if the town takes seriously, which we believe the town does, its commitment to an environmental impact statement. I believe and we all believe that the Town wants to do the right thing but in order to do so, you need the right information. The current assessment of jetty shortening alternatives did not use the right FEMA waterline and wave level data in its modeling projections and was overly optimistic in its projection of shoreline accretion east of the jetty which appears to be occurring naturally anyway. The study, as written, has not addressed the true scope and magnitude of the proposed action. The information necessary for the Board to make a responsible decision has yet to be provided. Now I can’t offer you estimates of how much that information is going to cost and how long it is going to take, that is for the Board to decide. What we are here to do is to point out to you those elements of the study, okay, that are incomplete or inaccurate so that you can make the decision necessary for you to make a responsible judgment. Now, since the Town is both the sponsor and the entity that sits in review of its own project proposal, the Town must be totally transparent in presenting and addressing the legitimate concerns of the Town residents who will immediately be affected by this proposed action. The assessment needs to be as accurate as possible and evaluate all of the data available rather than take a selective perspective. And if assumptions have to be made regarding input variables to any computer driven study model, then these assumptions need to be as conservative as possible. That is to say, we need to err on the side of caution. After all, this proposed project involves a significant expenditure of taxpayer dollars and the potential for irreversible damage to private property and the environment, which we are obligate to protect. We believe the Town wants to act responsibly and with care in its deliberations of the cost, benefit and hazards of the jetty shortening proposal. Our concerns are legitimate and are now backed up by qualified engineering opinion. Thank you. John Betsch, Southold MR. BETSCH: I am sorry, I just have to go back to my statement about cherry picking data. Mr. Terranova just stated that Goldsmiths pond is a significant habitat. That is true. However, the New York State Department of State has said that the entire area, all the way down to McCabe’s beach is also part of a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. So once again, we are cherry picking data to our benefit. Tom Chucklyster, Leeton Dr, Southold CHUCK LUYSTER: Chuck Luyster, Leeton Drive, Southold. I have been there a long time and I have watched a lot of things that these engineers have been watching as well. The one thing I just wanted to question you on, did you say that from 1955 to 1975, that the beaches to the east gained? UNIDENTIFIED: No. March 10, 2009 Page 34 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting MR. LUYSTER: I thought you did. Okay. I thought you did. I am going to read this. I am sorry to see that we don’t have some experts and some engineers and so on to discuss some of the things that you are discussing with us. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Let’s just talk to the Board. I would appreciate it. MR. LUYSTER: Okay. I am sorry. In 1954 my family purchased property and built a home on the Sound along Leeton drive. In August of that year hurricane Carol swept across the east end of Long Island. It completely washed across our property and continued further south to the Great Pond. Several homes on Leeton and North Drive were completely destroyed. Our home suffered considerable damage but stood its ground and could be restored. At the same time, the beaches at Goldsmiths inlet were also leveled and many homes damaged. By the early 60’s, the homes along the beach at Goldsmiths inlet were dangerously close to the high water mark which has been brought up. I remember visiting a beachfront owner and seeing the tide come under his front porch. Fortunately these homeowners were saved from a potential disaster by the construction of the Goldsmiths inlet jetty which was completed in ‘64 or ’65. After the hurricane, the beaches along North Sea and Leeton seemed to stabilize and a new dune was formed. Some homes had more than 100 feet of beach from the high water mark. In 1964 when the Goldsmith jetty was completed to 1976, the beach in front of our home eroded 50 feet. Some property owners along Leeton Drive constructed bulkheads and others brought boulders and constructed low profile aluminum groins in an effort to save what was left of their beach. At this time, we had about 10 to 15 feet of beach in front of the bulkhead at high tide. In the ‘80’s, the beach completely eroded away and the high tide mark was beyond our bulkhead. From this point on, the beaches on North Sea and Leeton have stabilized to some extent, however, it is stabilized way back. The bulkhead, boulders, aluminum groins have helped but at high tide, the Sound is very close to reaching the homes along the beach. This is very similar to the situation at Goldsmith inlet jetty in the early 60’s. The jetty saved the property owners to the west. Now those property owners to the east need relief by the partial removal of the jetty, by removing 1/3 of the jetty combined with the removal of the home and bulkhead at the Bittner preserve should increase the build up of sand to the beaches all the way to east or all the way to Horton’s Point. It will be a small amount compared to the build up that was done to the west but it is still very necessary. The Town for the first time in 44 years has obtained a grant to help pay for the removal of 1/3 of the jetty. It is time for the homeowners to the west of the jetty to realize that this is a very small sacrifice compared to the loss of property and the expenses incurred by the people to the east. Let’s stop fighting, let the Town do what it should have done many years ago. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED: I would just like to echo that sentiment, that there will never be enough data, ever, to satisfy anybody. There is only so much science to this thing and it can go on for ever and ever and ever. We are all here because we all love the same thing, that is the Sound and we are all there. And I don’t know why this community is being so divisive on east versus west and why we can’t come together and have a slogan that says share the sand. It is that simple. And March 10, 2009 Page 35 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting we are not asking to have the whole jetty removed, we are not asking to have all that 150 feet of property you have gained taken away. We are asking for a minor part of it to be removed, to share some of the sand to protect the people particularly on Leeton Drive and the Sound beaches that the town owns. So my recommendation is, share the sand and let’s come together. Charles Geitz, Leeton Dr, Southold CHARLES GEITZ: Charlie Geitz, Leeton Drive. Thirty two years ago, there used to be a boat ramp at Kenney’s beach. That winter, gone. Eroded out. Now if you go down there, you take a look, it used to last summer there were about 20 feet of beach where the Suffolk County camp is, that is gone. The high tide mark is up to the dunes. Take a look at it tomorrow if you can. At high tide. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Hugh? Hugh Switzer, Mill Lane, Peconic HUGH SWITZER: Thank you, Scott, thank you, Town Board. My name is Hugh Switzer and I am one of five generations of our family to live at Goldsmith inlet in Peconic. But today I am speaking as a representative of the Group to Save Goldsmiths inlet, which is going to be the third leg of the stool that we have been discussing. This group has more than 500 citizens who are committed to saving Goldsmith inlet and pond from environmental destruction and that is happening as we speak. Those of you who have lived in the town for a while, who grew up here, know that the inlet and the pond used to be an environmental gem. Something that we could all be proud of and enjoy with our families in safety. This was possible because the inlet or channel in from the Sound was open and deep, providing a strong tidal flow in and out of the inlet and the pond. The strength of the tidal flow was the reason that the Goldsmith mill was built in 1840. The mill installed two wooden bulkheads, jetties if you will, equal in length on both sides of the channel. It kept the channel open and even allowed heavily laden boats to deliver grain to the mill via the Sound. Then the Worthwhile tavern was built in the inlet during prohibition in the 1920’s, again using the same bulkheads keeping the same open channel, to deliver their late night deliveries that I guess somebody benefited from. Those two wooden bulkheads, again, equal in length, not extending out beyond the high water mark outlived prohibition but gradually deteriorated through lack of maintenance and that would have been fine. Would have been fine because it would have reverted back to the original state of nothing man made and all would still be fine even until today. But and a big but, it was decided in 1964 that the jetty and it is debatable if it was one jetty or if it was planned to be two, my relatives were involved in donating the land for the county park. They certainly believed there was an intent to build a marina and a second jetty. Now the need, so what we ended up with was one jetty. The need for two jetties of equal length is based on the common knowledge and actually practice everywhere. From Mattituck and Port Jeff and those two are just examples of what is known worldwide. You either have none as it was at Goldsmiths inlet for hundreds of years or two of equal length which also work. Or you have an imbalance that creates the environmental disaster we now have in Goldsmith inlet with only a single jetty. And I would like to look for a moment at this environmental disaster so you all have feel for what is happening. There were a large quantity of clams, mussels, oysters and scallops. Now almost all have been killed by the pollution and shell fishing is banned permanently. There were blue claw crabs and eels and now there are none. There were abundant fish and all season fishing, now there is none. The grasses around March 10, 2009 Page 36 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting the inlet were healthy, now there are invasive plants, extensively. There was recreational boating, now only kayaks can go in and out and only at high tide. Visitors to the Goldsmith county park used to enjoy the full benefits of the inlet. Now they are greeted with warning signs and often the stench of pollution. The inlet coming in from the Sound and now even the pond are being filled with sand, blocking the tidal flow. In fact, when we called the county to request additional water quality testing two years ago, not even today, they said that they would be required to close the inlet for us all and for all uses if it was a county beach and not a town owned property because of the high levels of pollution. All of this has been caused by the creation of a single jetty, rather than none as it was for hundreds of years. Actually since the last glacier on Long Island when Goldsmith inlet was formed, were the two wooden bulkheads from the mill that were of equal length and worked so well for decades. Now, I want to give credit where credit is due. After the jetty was installed, the county did dredge. They dredged for a while until they ran into some real funding problems. They have not been back for decades. I must also thank Scott, you and the Town Board because you have been conducting at significant cost, it has turned out to be very regular and consistent emergency dredging the mouth of the inlet. Now, unfortunately sand begins filling in almost immediately, as we can see today just a few weeks after that last dredging took place. We want to thank you all for not letting the inlet die completely. We really appreciate it. Now coming to the purpose of today’s meeting, to accurately define the scope of the impact of the jetty, the single jetty regardless of its length. The draft EIS as it now stands is deeply flawed and my opinion is going to be very different than here. It is deeply flawed because it assumes that a single jetty is good and all we have to do is change the length and that will fix everything. In fact, with that base assumption being false, any analysis and any decisions resulting from the analysis will also be false. As a long standing citizen and tax payer of this town and representing hundreds of others who are committed to saving Goldsmith inlet and pond for future generations, we ask two things. First that the total environmental impact on Goldsmiths inlet and pond be fully included in the DEIS and secondly that the scope of the DEIS be expanded to create a management plan for future decisions. We need to understand not just the shoreline, we need to understand the whole area. I want to repeat this request, I know it’s a simple request but it has profound implications on the ultimate fate of Goldsmith inlet and pond because the results of this study will be used to make decisions. Decisions that must be based on facts not assumptions. Decisions that will seal the fate of the inlet and pond for generations. We are either going to return it to a safe and healthy eco-system enjoyed by all or we are going to miss this opportunity and we are going to seal the fate of that inlet forever. So we simply and formally request that the total environmental impact on Goldsmith inlet and pond be included in this DEIS and the scope of the DEIS be expanded to create a management plan for future decisions. This will finally, once and for all, provide for a fact based study with fact based results that can be used to make sound decisions. Decisions that will stand the test of time and that we can all be proud of. We have to get away from the assumptions, we have to get back to the facts and we must not, actually we cannot miss this opportunity to do it right. It is a shame to waste money anytime but especially now on a study that would be invalid by being incomplete. The end and this is very important and I am hearing this sentiment expressed this afternoon. It is very important that we agree to a definition of doing it right, that means a win-win solution for all parties concerned. This can’t be win-lose which has been generally an attitude that has gone on too long. Has to be a win-win. Has to be a win for the people on the east of the jetty on the shore to the west and for Goldsmith inlet and March 10, 2009 Page 37 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting pond. And we look forward to meeting with whoever you suggest, Scott, to show how to make the changes to the DEIS in order to accomplish this. Thank you very much. Roxanne Zimmer, Sound Ave, Peconic ROXANNE ZIMMER: I am Roxanne Zimmer, president of Peconic Sound shore association. Hugh, I want to thank you for that because it speaks to what I would like to address today. The process that we are here to consider, the scoping, is to address the most salient environmental issues. and we praise the Town for what has been its holistic view in identifying at least five dynamics, one of which Hugh just spoke to. That is the jetty, the inlet mouth, the inlet pond, beach to the east and beach to the west. Until today, precious little attention has been given to what I think is the big elephant in the room and that is the Long Island Sound. Both those of us on the east and the west are very much affected by that very, that force of nature. In fact, the Long Island Sound is probably the most dynamic factor in all of our decision making yet it has received the least attention in the draft EIS. While the jetty has become sort of the lightening rod, my guess is there are dynamic forces well outside of the jetty’s orbit in the Sound that must be considered. As some of you know, anytime when water and land meet, there are adverse impacts. What is unusual about the Duck to Horton Point configuration is that it is atypical. You know, generally land and sea meet in some general accommodation but if you look at any Sound depth charts of our area, you will see unusual deep submarine canyons. A very odd and unusual phenomena. There are also other peculiar features between Duck and Horton’s and those are our eddies. Eddies are usually predictable within a range. What is peculiar about our waterfront area is that and it has been noted by a number of experts, our eddies are unpredictable. These atypical features of the Long Island Sound must be considered. I mean, I don’t know if that explains in part why the fishing is good in our neighborhood, I don’t know if that explains why not one, not two, but three shipwrecks happened within feet of the Goldsmiths jetty. I think that what we do know is that we cannot control mother nature. That is, the Long Island Sound is not something we can control. That we need to respect our seashore environment and recognize that it packs a wallop for all of us east and west of the jetty. And the reason, that is the reason why the jetty was built. Our message to the Town today is simply this, where is the data that we need to understand regarding how the Long Island Sound functions in its peculiar and unusually forceful way in our area? It is necessary then for the EIS to come to some better understanding of these unknown factors. I believe in the medical creed, first do no harm. We believe the Town wants to come to a resolution because of the decades of finger pointing and all of are, I think, tired of it. The Town also wants to be a very good environmental steward. With this in mind, let us think about what is to be gained with action going forward and what is to be gained with no action. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Who else would like to address the Town Board on this? Lillian Ball, Southold LILLIAN BALL: Lillian Ball from Southold Town. As many of you know, I have a special concern about the maritime freshwater inter-dunal swale which extends from Goldsmiths inlet to Horton’s Point along Long Island Sound. It is a globally rare and only such eco-system found in the north fork. Including many unusual plants and animals. The pond behind Goldsmith inlet is included in this unique area as well as the mouth of the inlet. Therefore, I am pleased to work with Hugh Switzer and the Group to Save Goldsmith Inlet to make sure that the total health of March 10, 2009 Page 38 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting this inter-dunal swale is considered in addition to the concerns of both Kenney’s beach and the Peconic Shores landowners. In fact, we do share the same sand and even more than that, we share the same water table, we share the same Sound, we share much more than we have to fight about, in my estimation. This complex situation calls out for a wider scope environmental impact statement of the entire area to be taken into consideration. This seems the only way to conduct orderly community outreach to build consensus and identify scientific goals to meet the future needs of the three existing groups and in fact, the entire Southold community. Regardless of the history, who builds it for what reason, we certainly have learned something about the science of the area since 1962. The draft scope issued by Nelson, Pope and Voorhis used data that was preexisting. Though it is very thorough in its suggestions, it must include the pond area. As we established before, it is only addressing the area on the beach to the west and the beach to the east of the inlet. It doesn’t say anything about anything to the south or the complex eco- system of the pond area. We must call for a full inventory of flora and fauna with emphasis on shellfish and bird life. I have heard from baymen that the shellfish are still there, they need help but they are definitely still there, they are growing to immense proportion because if you don’t harvest them, they don’t do too well. Base line studies should also be required on all existing conditions. Water quality readings have been taken on a regular basis by Suffolk County and those need to also be factored in. I am concerned when I read in the DEIS about possible effects of changes and I quote from the section on adverse impacts. Number one C, shortening of the jetty may cause increased growth of the flood shoal in Goldsmith pond, reducing easterly sediment transport. That also would affect the Kenney’s beach area. Potential impacts related to ecological resources and documented species sensitivity from records of the New York Natural Heritage Program and the New York State Department of State for Terrestrial and Aquatic Species has designated a potential impact to wetland resources. That’s very scary to me. In general I am not in favor of hardening of the shorelines but under these circumstances where the area has been manipulated for decades, it seems further intervention is necessary. I agree with Al Krupski when he says, nature will take back what nature wants. As he often has said when he was a Trustee. So I am intrigued when I hear from several sources about these previous wooden bulkheads on either side of the inlet mouth that Hugh mentioned. I just would say that they are only out as far as the mouth of the inlet. They only were, Valerie Scopaz has also told me about them. She remembered them. That they were only out, they do not reach any further out but they keep the inlet open. So that is curious to me. The issue of future sea level rise also needs to be calculated. At a lecture this past December at SUNY Southampton, rising seas in a warming world, storm surges were discussed in terms of ongoing erosion problem in our area, both on the Bay and the Sound. New York sea grants Jay Tantze has written an article with Malcolm Bowman a researcher at Stony Brook University School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, he writes many people are concerned about the impact global climate change may have on storms in Long Island Sound, while evidence for global warming is strong, how this warming may impact other phenomena like storms is much less certain. The nor’easters in particular are very, as Roxanne says, incredibly unpredictable. And we have new data all the time about this that Nelson, Pope and Voorhis is very capable of taking into consideration, if given the opportunity I think. Now we know these are trying times financially for our local government, in fact for all government, we don’t want to waste a single taxpayer dollar on needless work. In fact, the Group to Save Goldsmith Inlet can contribute to and coordinate efforts to facilitate this management plan going forward in several ways. It can apply for grants with local non-profits to March 10, 2009 Page 39 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting eradicate invasive species and mitigate stormwater run-off trouble spots based on the information gathered. It can work with graduate students in ecology and biology from SUNY Stony Brook in Southampton, there are many who are very eager to do studies in our area. To gather information and monitor the area. Homeowners around Goldsmiths pond will monitor fertilizers, update septic, and address stormwater on their properties. Hugh assures me that they are all eager to do this. We can also work to collect donations from citizens to support the identified goals, work with the Peconic Land Trust or perhaps other environmental groups. We can organize volunteer efforts at clean up and maintenance. That is really needed as well. So I am hopeful that we can find a way to meet the needs of all involved but it won’t be easy. In fact, you see how long it has taken us to get to this point. As a member of the Kenney’s beach civic association I know the Kenney’s beach civic association has long been involved with legal actions about beach loss and has heartbreaking stories over the last 20 years. The Peconic Shores folks have also been terribly concerned about their homes in the event of a brutal nor’easter for ages. Obviously the way we have been approaching the situation in the past has not solved this huge challenge. If we can build support across neighborhood, town and county lines, we have a chance to save this whole area which has already been designated as a significant habitat by New York DOS. John Betsch mentioned that, it goes all the way from Goldsmith’s to Horton’s. Much of it is preserved, but that does not protect it from degradation. I mean, we have this incredible opportunity to save this globally rare area that is the only one on the north fork. And now is the time. Only careful stewardship can do that. I would like to see some sort of a management plan developed that takes all of these issues into consideration. A management plan is not just another study. It is a way to get us beyond this ongoing stalemate and it is a positive, passive action to let us move forward for a solution for us all. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to address the Town Board on the issue of the Goldsmith jetty? Benja Schwartz, Cutchogue BENJA SCHWARTZ: Good evening, Benja Schwartz, Cutchogue. I am encouraged by some of the questions I have heard tonight mainly the one that Al posed about how big is the littoral cell? The littoral cell being the area of shoreline that effectively functions as one unit. The geomorphologists call it a littoral cell. I am discouraged by other things involved in this process including the fact that it doesn’t seem, it seems that most of the people here don’t really know why we are here. This is part of the New York State environmental quality review act process. The process is triggered by government proposing to take an action. And I think part of the problem in this case is the action that is proposed seems to essentially to be to take the jetty to restore the beach to the east. Which is fine but we have also heard some very good people here talking about the need to protect the western, to continue to protect the beach to the west and also to protect the channel to the inlet. So I agree with the people who said we should expand the scope of this and that gets me to really what we are here for today is to talk about the scope. The document that I saw that was online was entitled a draft scope for the DEIS, which is a draft environmental impact statement. There is no such thing as a draft scope for a draft, you do a scope for the environmental impact statement. Both the draft and the final and most importantly for the decisions that are made based on that final environmental impact statement. So tonight is the beginning of a process and if the Town Board continues, decides to continue this process, there will be hearings on the draft environmental impact statement and there will be final March 10, 2009 Page 40 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting environmental impact statement and opportunity to comment on all of that. But tonight really the question how big the littoral cell, I think, is the most important one and there is two related issues, one the alternatives and the options and the proposed method of study. We can all hire experts and we can all just say take it away and monitor it but the, I would like to hear more about the plans that are in place right now to take the bulkhead from the Bittner property and how that is going to be monitored and studied and I would suggest that maybe as a part of this process, rather than just studying the potential impacts and talking about them, maybe we could start some very simple types of studies. Throw some kind of little sand in the water or something and as we are talking maybe we could do some, something. Put out a little wooden bulkhead and see how that affects the flows around the jetty or something instead of jumping into this massive stone project although I don’t know. Maybe in the end we will decide that is the most important thing. Just one last thing, I just have to say is that you know, if we are just going to, this is the issue here tonight. but this issue is related to the estuaries all around Southold Town and the Long Island Sound. This doesn’t just affect the people who live near the jetty. You know, I grew up eating the mussels, going over and getting the mussels and swimming there, too. It affects us all, and it is all related also to the proposed comprehensive plan which we are supposed to be doing this year so I hope people will get involved in that process if that ever happens. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I would just say this has been going on for so long, I am not sure if anybody can accuse the Town Board of jumping into the stone project. Would anybody else like to address the Town Board on the issue of the Goldsmith jetty? Tom Chucklyster MR. LUYSTER: Chuck Luyster again. Just to ask a question, this grant that I keep hearing about, is that go on forever or is there a limit? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That grant, we apply for it and it gets renewed each year. It is part of the capital budget. That would be the grant from the State of New York. It gets renewed each year. It is earmarked. Any other questions? Let me just tell all of you that…. Benja Schwartz MR. SCHWARTZ: I have to say one thing, Scott, I am sorry but I do accuse you of jumping into this because that is what you have done. This environmental impact statement process, you jumped in by putting forth a proposal as to the proposed action and I think we need to take a step back and think about alternatives before we do the scope and the study because we have got a foregone conclusion as many people have said here tonight. So I do accuse you of jumping into it and it is not that I am accusing you but this Town as a whole. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: This issue has been going on for 20 years and I was merely making a tongue in cheek comment about the Town being in the middle of this issue for at least as long as I have worked here, which is 19 years. This isn’t a new issue, this is an old issue and that was, I am sure everybody from both sides of the jetty can understand. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I think the Supervisor has been very even-handed about this whole thing. What I would like to hear is what is the next step in this process? March 10, 2009 Page 41 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That I will defer to Chick. Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Reeve? Ron Reeves MR. REEVE: Scott, I would applaud you for jumping in and the Board. Because it is a situation that is long overdue in action and it can be studied for the next 50 years, right? and I didn’t know this was part of the stimulus package to create employment but it is looking that way. Consultants, government bureaus and lawyers. That is not what we need here, we need action and sometimes trial and error actions can produce results. Perhaps some of that jetty can be taken off and put on the east side to protect the inlet and try and see what that amounts to. There are things that concrete actions that can be taken to see what works but to continue to study and if we do have to study, I would suggest we study the totally unpredictable nor’easters, right, and try to get a model on that and the totally unpredictable eddies that are swirling off the end of the jetty and get a model on that, right? I don’t know how we do that. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I will say, this jetty was built the year I was born and I doubt the Army Corps of Engineers or my parents knew what kind of pain in the ass they were creating that year. Would anybody else like to speak on the issue of the jetty? The issue of the jetty? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I would like to, just before Mr. Voorhis starts, Mr. Betsch brought up a point that New York State and the County both denied knowledge of the jetty, I would like to make that a Town position also. Some people did bring up some really good points tonight though. You know, I appreciate really everybody coming out and being involved in the process because it is important to everybody, whether you are on the east side or whether you are on the west side. Everybody’s input is important. Mr. Switzer’s comments about Goldsmiths inlet being very important, he is right, that is a valuable creek there, productive and it should be looked after. He is absolutely right and that should be included in any decision making of the Town. Certainly and then, of course, we drag our feet, we jump in, I don’t know which is the right, which we are really doing here. We are being accused of everything here tonight. it is complicated as everybody knows, you can hire all the coastal engineers you want. Everybody has got a different opinion, it is an unpredictable area, all right? Every lawyer is going to have a different opinion as to whether the jetty was built to fortify the shoreline on the west or whether it was built to strengthen the inlet. So we have to get past those things and work and try to work to see what is best for the environment on the Sound. But thank you for coming tonight. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Chick, Tom had asked a very good question and that was what would be the next step in this process? Charles Voorhis, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis MR. VOORHIS: That is why I am here. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Good. MR. VOORHIS: Technically under 617.8, I just want to correct Benja, that this is a valid process under SEQRA. You prepare a draft scope, it is identified in the procedures under 617.8, if you are going to conduct scoping which is optional I should say, a draft scope is circulated, March 10, 2009 Page 42 Minutes Southold Town Board Meeting you provide a forum for public input. We started in December, it is now March. Obviously there has been an extensive opportunity for public input and the next step is to issue a final scope. I will say that many of the observations tonight are exactly accurate. That the draft scope was based on the existing studies that the Town commissioned. and while I have expertise in management plans and coastal processes, our charge was to basically use those studies. And I think you are aware of that and it has certainly been made painfully evident this evening. What I would like to do is synthesize the comments, determine the areas where additional work may be necessary in order to be responsive to the scoping input that we have received, I will speak with the Town engineer who was involved in the commissioning of those studies and has been involved in this throughout the process and also has a valid engineering concern that he is looking to address through the Board’s actions that bring us here tonight. and then speak with, you know, whatever designated representative or a collection of Board members to determine the best course of action. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I am going to nominate Vinnie and Albert. Congratulations. MR. VOORHIS: So I will leave that up to you. And we can digest the comments tonight, you are going to leave a 10 day for the comment period open, if I could ask the Town Clerk to send me all the letters that have been received, again, we can frame out the issues, identify those areas that may require further study and have a meaningful discussion with the Town engineer and the Board on how best to proceed. Supervisor Russell SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. I thank you very much for that. Okay, I have got a motion to close. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay, now I doubt it but if anybody wants to address the Town Board on any issue of mutual interest, come on up and talk at the microphone. (No response) Motion To: Adjourn Town Board Meeting COMMENTS - Current Meeting: RESOLVED that this meeting of the Southold Town Board be and hereby is declared adjourned at 6:28 P.M. * * * * * Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman SECONDER: Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Krupski Jr., Wickham, Evans, Russell