Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/25/2004 Albert J. Krupski,President ��. Q Town Hall James King,Vice-President =� G'y� 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster y - P.O.Box 1179 Ken Poliwoda Southold, New York 11971-0959 155 Peggy A. Dickerson y�0 a��� Telephone(631) 765-1892 •( `1► Fax(631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, February 25, 2004 7:00 PM Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Absent was: Artie Foster, Trustee CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 at 8:00 AM TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for January 2004. A check for$3,096 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. 2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we start the meeting tonight there's a few things on the agenda that have been postponed. I'll just go over those so nobody's waiting all night for the postponed items. Anna Acker has been postponed until March. Licalzi have been postponed. James Gibbons is under the moratorium has been postponed until April, and at the very end John Betsch has been postponed. Last night the Code rewrite of Chapter 98 was adopted by the Town Board. This Board worked on the Code for over a year. The estimate was about 70 percent of it was new language, and I'll read what I read to the Town Board last night: "Ladies and gentlemen of the Town Board, ladies and gentlemen of Southold Town, thank you for the current opportunity to present the draft revisions for the Chapter 97 Wetlands. Many people have toiled long to rewrite this code, which I can honestly say cannot be improved upon today. Many people need to be thanked for their contribution towards these efforts, the Town Board, the Planning Board, the police chief, marine contractors and marina owners as well as many other people. Everyone who attended our work sessions, everyone who wrote a letter, everyone who called, we value their contributions to this Code. Special note, of course, were the remarkable efforts of Pat Finnegan and Brownell Johnston. I myself have been on this Board for 18 years, and in that time the basic philosophy has not changed. The integrity of the environmental resources of this Town need to be protected for future generations, and at the same time need to be accessible for all Town's people for their use and enjoyment. It is this philosophy that is written into this Code, this protection of the environment and public property for riparian rights. I said earlier that this Code cannot be improved today, but know that we did not carve our work in stone. This is the best work we can come up with this year, but next year and the coming years, things will change, then the Code will have to change. The new Code will not go into effect until April. The Moratorium doesn't end until March 4th, which puts it past the time to apply for the March meeting. So the new rule will take effect for the April meeting." And all that information is available either on the web site or if you want a hard copy, in the office. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have ten applications for amendments waivers and changes. Ken, you want to start that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I did number#1 and #2. 3 III. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: 1. ROBERT H. FREY requests an Amendment to Permit #268 to repair the existing bulkhead in-place using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Located: 400 Windjammer Drive, Southold. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I took a look at this, looks fairly common. in-place. I'll make a motion to approve this waiver, this amendment and stipulate that there be a ten foot non-turf buffer. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. BRUCE ROMBOLI requests an Amendment to Permit#269 to repair the existing bulkhead in-place using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Located: 240 Windjammer Drive, Southold. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Again, I looked at this one, it's abutting the 400 Windjammer property, and I'd stipulate the same thing, have a ten foot non-turf before and C-locked bulkhead head. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, you want to take the next one? 4. JERRY MATEJKA requests an Amendment to Permit#868 to construct a 3' X 10' foot extension to the existing dock -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, I thought the other one was postponed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's not? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What happened was, Anna Acker, I spoke to her on the phone earlier this month; she wants to transfer the permit from Michael D. Anerella. In fact, I'll make that motion to transfer the Permit#5777 from Michael D. Anerella to Anna Acker. I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Originally she had requested an amendment to the permit to do some work on the bungalow. Then once she realized there was more work, then they applied in order to postpone it until March until they could get new plans drawn up. So we just transferred that. Now you can take Number 4. 4. JERRY MATEJKA requests an Amendment to Permit #868 to construct a 3' X 10' foot extension to the existing dock and install a tie-off pile 20' past the end of the dock. Located: 1300 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #103-10-27. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Al and I looked at this and noticed it 4 was nicely saved with a bubbler, one of the only docks in the area. And we didn't have any problem with this. The CAC also recommended approval for the application with the 10 foot non-turf buffer and no treated lumber is to be used. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The condition with the buffer would only be -- that's a CAC recommendation. The buffer would be when you replace your bulkhead, and at that point we'd make you put in a ten foot non-turf buffer. MR. MATEJKA: I presume I would come back to the Trustees if I were to do anything on the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Could you give me your name, please? MR. MATEJKA: Jerry Matejka. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment to 868. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. MATEJKA: Thank you. 5. Richard Larsen on behalf of JOHN JOY requests an Amendment to Permit#5762 to change the width of a 33 foot dock from 3' to 4'. Located: 1330 Deep Hole Drive in Mattituck. I looked at this last month. MR. JOHNSTON: Could you introduce yourself? MR. LARSEN: Yeah, Richard Larsen. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, we issued the permit for a three foot wide dock, I would like to stay with the three foot wide dock. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I agree. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree also. TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to deny the application for amendment to this permit. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. LARSEN: That's it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. We got your letter and everything, it's in the record. MR. LARSEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do the next one. 6. Fairweather-Brown on behalf of ROBERT EHRENTHAL requests an Amendment to Permit#5592 to reduce the size of the pre-existing non-conforming deck to be closer than 10 feet 5 to the top of the bank. Located: 1957 Soundview Avenue, Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I should have given that one to Peg. The rest of us looked at that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll just mention the CAC recommended the approval of the application with the condition of a re-planting plan to fortify the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: The plan doesn't look like it would have a significant environmental impact. I'll make a motion to approve the amendment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. En-Consultants on behalf of DAVID SCHULTZ requests an amendment to Permit#5744 to reconfigure and relocate approved dock such that "T" dock located 12 foot from the northerly property line located at 2745 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. TRUSTEE KING: This description to me is a little confusing because the northern property is in the water. What they were talking about is this property line here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm recusing myself on this one. TRUSTEE KING: Believe it or not, there's a narrow strip of land between the water and this property. This was a request from the DEC to move the dock to the west, which there's no problem doing it. It was just strange. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We're just surprised. TRUSTEE KING: Kind of unusual. Are you Mr. Schultz? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, I am David Schultz. TRUSTEE KING: Just on the east side of your property there's another piece of property there, some sort of right of way. MR. SCHULTZ: There's a right of way. TRUSTEE KING: On the tax map, but there's no owner listed. MR. SCHULTZ: Right, it says various. I guess what they wanted to do, the DEC, was to move it as close to that side, I don't think so they meant north, I think they meant to the side property to the easterly property. TRUSTEE KING: Towards the bridge? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. That would give access between the fellow across the creek from me. I think they wanted to open traffic there. So if they went straight out on the original plot line, they would come -- TRUSTEE KING: This description really isn't accurate. What you're doing is you're moving the dock to the east a little bit. 6 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. But the way the property is situated, it technically is, if you sort of look up to the property, the bridge is sort of north, so a probably a better description probably would have been northwest, but there is no property line there. Then to make the shape reconfigure again was to keep it from intruding on the side property. TRUSTEE KING: It's my understanding it's going to be a seasonal float? MR. SCHULTZ: I don't know that. To tell you the truth, I haven't heard that back. I haven't talked to Rob this week. I came down here out of curiosity tonight. I became more involved than I planned. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have a problem with it. It's just a minor adjustment. CAC recommends approval with the condition of non-turf buffer; that's why they put that in there I don't know. There's no bulkhead there, I don't know why that was included. I don't think it matters. I'll make a motion to approve the amendment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, President Krupski recused himself. 8. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of JOHN AND BARBARA SEVERINI requests an amendment to Permit#5540 to increase the setback of the proposed addition to 43 feet from the bulkhead. Located: 565 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I took a look at this one. I believe originally it was 45 feet they're asking to increase the setback as stated in the description. I didn't have a problem with that at all, and 43 feet was the distance between the bulkhead and the corner of the structure, the deck. I'll make a motion to approve this amendment. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 9. JAMES SLECKMAN requests a one-year Extension to Permit #5525 to renovate the existing dwelling and add a second story. Located: 150 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM #77-2-5. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've looked at this and there is a straightforward addition of a second story in the same footprint with no environmental impact. I'll make a motion to approve a second story extension. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 10. CHARLES BANK requests a transfer of Permit#5680 from Mark Gordon to CBJB, LLC. Permit issued to lift and reset existing brick walk and construct new brick patio with sand base. Located: 1385 Bayshore Road in Greenport. SCTM #53-4-3. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we all did this the other morning in the office. I'll make a motion to approve the transfer. The permit, the original permit was issued on December 19, 2002, to lift and reset existing brick walk and construct a new brick patio and lay the sand base. I make the motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if there's an inspection list for this or not. MR. JOHNSTON: Lauren, in the letter when you send it to them, could you put a post-it telling them that the permit's going to expire in December? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to reopen James Sleckman. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: And just make a stipulation that there be drywells and gutters on the new addition on this renovation project. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To control the roof runoff? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to go off the regular meeting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ 8 PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is the public hearing portion of the meeting. If anyone would like to speak, please come up and use the microphone, and for purposes of our record, please identify yourself clearly. We have a number of public hearings tonight. I'll go over the ones that are postponed again. We should have agendas on the podium. Number 10, Rita and Luke Licalzi has been postponed. Number 12 is on the agenda, but it's a moratorium and will be postponed until April. Number 25, John Betsch has been postponed until March. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Lauren, did Pat say 22 when she was here earlier? MR. JOHNSTON: She said she'd be back. MS. STANDISH: Yes, 22 is postponed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. 22 also should be Peconic Design and Construction, thank you. Ryan O'Connor the same. MS. STANDISH: Same as far as what? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, can you start with that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Number 1? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. 1. ROBERT H. FREY requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing bulkhead in-place using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Located: Anchor Lane in Southold. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? If not, I inspected this. On inspection I found it needed to be replaced, and it currently bows out, so whoever does the work needs to bring it back in line to its original position as well as I have recommended a ten foot non-turf buffer. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing if there are no other comments. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I make a motion to approve this Wetland Permit. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. DENNIS & LINDA O'CONNOR request a Wetland Permit for the 9 existing deck. Located: 380 Deer Park Drive in Mattituck. Is there anyone here who wishes to comment on this application? I looked at this. This deck has been on for quite a while by the looks of it. I didn't have a problem with it. Any other comments, questions? CAC recommends approval. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the regular public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application for the deck. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. JOHNSTON: Would you mind amending it as saying as-built? TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to restate that it's an as-built application, for the record. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, you want to take the next? 3. MIRIAM MEYERS AND GARY MANGUS request a Wetland Permit to construct a house addition, an accessory garage, and repair the existing bulkhead. Located: 1295 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM #57-2-16. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We all looked at this. And I think we didn't have a problem with the garage or the addition. However, as we had discussed, there was some question about the bulkhead. You saw the first one, Ken, think. First time we went in the snow it was also apparent high tide rack line without the snow. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is the rack line on the lawn. Is there anyone here to represent this application? There seems to be some riprap in front of it, casually placed and it's a pretty stable bank. So if they took that first, the top board off. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Down to grade. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Down to grade, their property wouldn't be at risk, and the wetlands could reestablish itself and protect the property better than -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the property next door, you can see how vegetated it is out on the property to the south of it. There's no one here to discuss this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Close the hearing and make a motion? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to close the hearing. Do 10 I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to construct a house addition and accessory garage; however, not to approve to repair the existing bulkhead but to remove the wood down to grade. I'm looking for a second to approve the addition in the garage but removing the wood down to grade on the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could we add dry wells and gutters? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And with dry wells and gutters for the house and the garage and a silt fence during construction. Do we have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 4. THOMAS CAVANAGH requests a Wetlands Permit to replace in-kind and in-place the existing bulkhead, dock and steps, maintenance dredge and install a new floating dock. Located: 600 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? This is kind of complicated. MR. CAVANAGH: My name is Thomas Cavanagh, I'll be happy to clarify any questions that might come up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Let me explain to the Board -- not all Board Members saw the site, so let me explain it to the Board. Part of the application is for dredging. One of the questions I had, was that area dredged previously? MR. CAVANAGH: The one where the Pond Association has a permit for dredging for the opening and the entrance of the pond and areas on the pond. That's an active permit. Any record of it that that physical area in front of the dock was dredged, but there's obviously silt deposits that come in from the tidal flush from the entrance of the pond, and there's also silt that's coming from the upland area based on the fact that there's holes in the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a little area that's unbulkheaded, what is the purpose of that? MR. CAVANAGH: That's an existing condition where there's steps, and the steps are deteriorating, and the proposal is to replace those steps. My understanding in submitting this application was that the purpose of the Trustees was as much as possible to replace in-place/in-kind. So the application represents replace in-place/in-kind with the exception of the floating dock, and the consideration of the floating 11 dock was the actual fixed dock, a boat goes at the end of the fixed dock, and I wouldn't be one-third across the pond, but I'd be very close, and I'm concerned for my neighbors, and I think there would be difficulty navigating it. So the floating dock was a solution to establish something much closer to the bulkhead. I felt it was a better solution considering the tightness of the pond located at that site, and that's why I submitted that plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was kind of an odd spot. Do you have any idea where that one spot was left unbulkheaded, that one to spot with the stairs? MR. CAVANAGH: The actual Town record card indicates that that was the existing condition when the property was actually put down. There were two parcels to the property. There's a parcel upland, and then there's a parcel of land underwater that extends 35 feet out from the existing bulkhead or actually 40 feet from the existing bulkhead because the existing bulkhead is actually setback 10 feet from the line. So the actual Town card tax application indicates an existing partial bulkhead so that was the existing condition that I'm replicating. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the dredging that's proposed would be on your property? MR. CAVANAGH: On my property, most of it within the ten feet and a little bit of it outside that five feet, but the land they own, which is the land under the water, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comments, Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Not really. Keep the float down to 20 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was going to suggest a low sill bulkhead. It seems like it's kind of an eroded area there; in that one little open spot, it seems like in a rain event you can get silt and sand that washes through there. Are you familiar with a low silt bulkhead? MR. CAVANAGH: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you could -- MR. CAVANAGH: So, the recommendation is that area of the bluff be bulkheaded? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Low sill would be a bulkhead that would be flooded at high water so it would go between your bulkhead, and I'm guessing your neighbor's bulkhead? MR. CAVANAGH: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And you plant the bank up with spartina to stabilize that, so it wouldn't wash out, and the low sill bulkhead gets flooded -- MR. CAVANAGH: So the low sill bulkhead -- 12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: -- and for those plants to survive, enough for the low fringe to survive then it gets -- if you come up, here's an example of a low sill bulkhead. Now this is a expensive one. This gets flooded twice a day by the high tide. You plant spartina behind it, and it would get flooded and then spartina holds the property there. MR. CAVANAGH: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If that's acceptable to you. MR. CAVANAGH: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments or questions? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. It sounds like what we discussed. MR. CAVANAGH: I had enclosed a letter because from reading the Town Laws and the guidelines there, the Board allows for one time requests to extend the existing bulkhead seaward. I think that would help in using this float.. How do I go about requesting that consideration? I am close to nine feet back from the bulkhead from my neighbor on the -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's low sill? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Only this would be low sill. MR. CAVANAGH: Where there's no bulkhead we're putting low sill. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, do you have any problem with that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we'll need then, is we'll need to have you amend your plans to show a low sill bulkhead in the area that's unbulkheaded, and show that area behind the bulkhead planted with spartina altera flora. Then, if you want that one time bump out at 18 inches, you'll have to amend your plans to show that. Right now do they show just a straight replacement? MR. CAVANAGH: Right now it shows an in-place/in-kind, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the dredging? I'm just trying to find on your plans the extent of the dredging. MR. CAVANAGH: (Indicating) it's about 130 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we'll also need on your amended plans is a cross-section of the proposed water depth. I don't understand it. MR. CAVANAGH: Before the dredging the existing bulkhead from the bottom of the pond is 5'6" high. The proposal is to increase it to 6' high, and to have between 2' and 3' of dredging. So the bulkhead would be 9' high. There are soundings indicated on the second drawing which indicate the existing depth at mean low water, and those soundings are taken across the front of the bulkhead out to about 15 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, I'm not-- what is the finished 13 depth, that's what we're trying to get at, after dredging? MR. CAVANAGH: Four feet at mean low water. The whole 98 foot frontage may be less, but that's how it indicated right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it necessary to dredge all that, or could we can scale the.dredging back just in the area of the dock? MR. CAVANAGH: I believe we can, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Say from the middle of the platform to 30 feet past the platform, and you'd have to give us a recalculation on the yardage? MR. CAVANAGH: That's fine. When you say the middle of the platform, you're saying from the edges of the fixed dock to the end of the floating dock? MR. CAVANAGH: There's a site plan on the first sheet that indicates the two parcels of property. It's on the left-hand side. It's based on surveys done in 1997 and '01. There's the first parcel and then there's the parcel in the water, which is labeled Parcel Number 2. The bulkhead along the south side is 95 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the dredging would be proposed for the area of the fixed platform, starting in the middle of the fixed platform and continuing to the -- I want to say -- east. MR. CAVANAGH: It would be east, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Continuing to the east to ten feet past the floating dock. MR. CAVANAGH: Fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And extending 15 feet out. MR. CAVANAGH: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would consider this to be maintenance dredging in that area. Any other comment? So we're clear on what you need, so we could approve this with the conditions that you supply us with those changes to the plan. We'll approve this tonight and then when you submit the plans, we can stamp them and give you your permits so you don't have to wait until next month. MR. CAVANAGH: Thank you. I'm resubmitting plans based on 20 foot floating dock. I'm resubmitting plans based on extending the bulkhead 18 inches forward along the south side, and I'm indicating the maintenance dredging from the middle of the fixed dock to ten feet past the floating dock, 15 feet out, and the low sill at the area that is not bulkheaded, the low sill bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the area behind that planted with spartina altera flora. 14 MR. CAVANAGH: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the area behind the bulkhead, when the bulkhead is replaced, we have a condition that there be a ten foot non-turf buffer placed behind the bulkhead. You could use gravel, you could use plantings but it can't be turf grass. I'll make a motion if there's no other comment to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application subject to those application changes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. CAVANAGH: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Jim, is there any way you can open this hearing, #5? TRUSTEE KING: I think we're going to have to table #5. We have an amended specs over in Fishers Island. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 6. Joseph Santacroce on behalf of CAROL SANTACROCE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-floor addition to the existing one-story residence. Existing footprint would stay the same with the exception of an outdoor cellar entrance. Located: 695 Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport. SCTM #61-4-40. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Anyone who would like to comment on this application? If not, I inspected this property. I took a measurement. It was 62 feet to the wetlands from the house, and 49 feet to the wetlands from the deck. It was all lawn in between. I didn't have a problem with this. I didn't think there would be a negative impact on the environment, and the CAC, also they had recommended approval. With the condition that hay bails are placed down during construction. I'd agree with that. So with that, if there are no other comments I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition that the hay bails be in place. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 7. Warren Samback, Sr., P. E. on behalf of RICHARD DIBLASI 15 requests a Wetland Permit to add a one-story room on existing deck 6' by 12'. Located: 60 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM #: 37-4-1. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a comment as far as the Board s concerned because I inspected it, and I didn't see a problem with it. The addition would be over an existing deck. The only thing I could recommend is putting dry wells with gutters on the new addition. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The CAC motion also approved. If there's no other comment, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Richard Diblasi with the addition of dry wells and gutters on the new addition. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 8. Garrett A. Strang, Architect, on behalf of SAMUEL AND ISABELLE DISTASI requests a Wetland Permit to construct additions and alterations to the existing porch. Located: 125 Youngs Avenue, Southold. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to make any comment? Garrett Strang. MR. STRANG: Yes. Garrett Strang. There was, originally, many years ago a front porch on the house that wrapped around to the west or the north side of the house -- excuse me. They would like to reinstate that porch but now wrap it around onto the south side of the house, with octagonal turrets on the corner, and then roofed-over what was originally a roofed-over structure between the two "L"s on the house, and that's pretty much the extent of it. I don't know if the Board has any questions, I'd be happy to address them. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Is there anybody else who has a comment on this application? If not, I looked at this one also. I measured 80 feet to the wetlands, and it was all the lawn with a driveway in between, and I didn't find a problem with this renovation or addition. With that, if there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Dry wells on that for roof runoff? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't make a comment on that. Yes, 16 CAC makes the comment that there be a condition of dry wells to contain the roof runoff, thanks. MR. STRANG: Would those dry wells be strictly for the new work that we're doing? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We recommend you tie in whatever you're going to tie in, if you're going to put something in, you might as well put something substantial in and tie in everything that you can tie in. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: With that I'll make a motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Sam and Isabelle Distasi with the stipulation that dry wells are installed to contain roof runoff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. STRANG: Thank you. 9. Fairweather-Brown Design Associates, Inc. on behalf of ELENA AND ANDREAS KARACOSTAS requests a Wetland Permit to renovate and add to the existing residence on first and second floors and addition of a deck and pool in the side yard: Located: 21275 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM #135-1-2. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on -- MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin, for Fairweather-Brown and Elena and Andreas Karacostas. Basically, I don't want to resubmit everything that we discussed last month. I have submitted to you the topographical survey that you requested and would be glad to address any questions you might have. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there'anybody else here who would like to speak to this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at it last week, and I didn't see any cause for concern. I'd like to see dry wells and gutters to contain the roof runoff. MS. MARTIN: Okay, I think that was proposed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't recall. MS. MARTIN: Okay, yeah, it was. And a French drain around the deck, if necessary. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The what? MS. MARTIN: The French drain. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, is that on the plans? MS. MARTIN: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. 17 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request for Wetland Permit for Elena and Andreas Karacostas to renovate and add to the existing residence on the first and second floors with the addition of a deck and pool in side yard. Located: 21275 Soundview Avenue, Southold, with dry wells and gutters. Second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to skip ahead here for the next three. We're going to go right to Number 17. 17. David Bers, RA on behalf of HANS SCHEIDELER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new first floor extension with second floor constructed above at the northeast corner of the existing house. Located: 3825 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor or against the application? MR. BERS: I'm David Bers. We intend to use dry wells and gutters on this project. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. It's landward of the bay. I couldn't see it having any impact whatsoever. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're just going to have to show the dry wells and gutters. I mean, you can draw them in on the plan. MR. BERS: Yeah, I'll draw it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI. All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. FITZSIMMONS: Excuse me, what's going on? What happened to11, 12, 13? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will be back to them. Jim doesn't feel well. Because he inspected three applications, because he inspected them, he's got to comment on them, and then he's going to leave because he doesn't feel well. 18. David Bers on behalf of EUGENE AND GEORGENE BOZZO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-floor addition to the existing dwelling and add a deck to the landward side of the house. Located: 4135 Camp Mineola 18 Road, Mattituck. SCTM #123-5-27. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone like to speak in favor of the application? MR. BERS: I'll just make the same comments about the dry wells and gutters, we intend to include them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this, and it's the same thing. It's landward, no impact on the environment, very similar application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the addition of dry wells and gutters. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 19. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of ROBERT LEIGHTON requests a Wetland Permit to replace and extend the roof overhang, extend the existing deck and enclose the existing covered porch, construct a 20' X 25' two-car garage, install a new septic system in the front yard and abandon existing cesspool. Install a 14' X 28' foot inground swimming pool and associated fence, new pervious driveway and relocate the existing shed to front yard. Located: 335 Rochelle Place in Mattituck. SCTM #144-4-10. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. I just gave you a new survey when I met you last Friday. I mentioned to you that the scope of the project was going to be reduced, and if you look at the new survey you'll see that it has been, and the note that I gave you, Jim, basically outlines the project specifically. And I believe the dry wells are shown on the new plan. We're holding the existing setback-- the existing setbacks are shown on that map. Do you have any questions? TRUSTEE KING: No. I looked at this. This is really a very heavily developed area too. In my opinion it's an improvement because we're moving the septic system a lot further away from the water. So I think it's a step in the right direction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only thing I'd like to see is the non-turf buffer on the bulkhead reconstruction. MS. MESIANO: To what extent? Could we make that consistent 19 with the depth of that vegetated area where the wetlands. are delineated to see that there's just a small section of wetland that infringe upon the shore, and then the rest of the shoreline is bulkheaded. So if we could keep it consistent with that depth, then it looks like that depth is probably 15 feet, 20 feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 20 is recommended. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 20 foot was recommended by the Conservation Advisory Counsel. MS. MESIANO: That's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to accept the revised survey and to include on that a 20 foot non-turf buffer behind the new bulkhead reconstruction. MS. MESIANO: Does that also include the in-kind/in-place of the existing? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. (Whereupon, Trustee King left the hearing room.) 11. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of ROSEMARY SCHNEIDER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a stairway from existing deck to grade, extending 13' seaward of existing deck. Located: 8095 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM #59-6-16. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment? MR. FITZSIMMONS: Jim Fitzsimmons for Mrs. Schneider. I don't have anything to add to the material that's in the application. It's very simple and straightforward, but if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? If not, just for the record, there is a letter from Michael P. Flynn. "To whom it may concern, I am in receipt of the Notice of Retaining the construction of the stairway on the deck at the property at 8095 Soundview Avenue. My residence is across the street from the proposed construction site. Please note that I have no objection to this project. CAC recommended approval. I visited the site. I measured that the stairs would be approximately 70 feet from the wetlands, all along the area that's non-turf and I'm sure 20 he'll keep it non-turf. With that, I didn't see a problem with approving this. So if there's no other public comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Rosemary Schneider. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 13. Mark K. Schwartz, AIA, on behalf of RICHARD AND CAROL STANCS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story addition with main entry, steps and deck and new access to basement. Located: 1120 West Lane, Southold. SCTM #88-6-16. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? If not, I visited the site, I just recommend that they show the septic, where septic would be on that survey, and I'd like to see the buffer that is intact behind the bulkhead stay that way. It's a very nice buffer. I have no other comments other than that to approve it. So if there's no other comments, I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Richard and Carol Stancs with the stipulation that they maintain the buffer behind the bulkhead, as well as show the septic on the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How many feet on that buffer? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I didn't measure it but at least ten feet. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All that favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go ahead Ken. 14. Mark Schwartz, AIA, on behalf PATRICK AND DIANE KELLY, requests a Wetland Permit to construct new dormers, rebuild existing deck, new windows and doors and new entry pergola at street side. Located: 75 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. SCTM #71-2-7. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? If not, I visited this site. I witnessed that there might be a possible violation because of the cutting of all the cattails along this northwest side of the property. My recommendation is to leave it alone. 21 He has turf that leads right up to these cattails, and for when they do their construction, I'd like to see a row of hay bails be put in place along the cattail line and remain in place indefinitely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me see that. MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, cattails are phragmite. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In this case. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any problem with that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not at all. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If there are no other public comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion with the stipulation that they place a hay bail line along the phragmite line, cattail line on the northwest side of the house, and let it remain indefinitely as to provide a buffer between lawn and wetlands. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 15. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of PETER C. LEVERICH requests a Wetland Permit inkind/inplace 99' of timber bulkhead, a 4' X 5' landing and 4' X 4' stairs. Bulkhead shall be backfilled with 20 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 1200 West Lane, Southold. SCTM #: 88-6-17. Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR. STEPNOSKI: Angelo Stepnoski, Greenport Dock. I'm the contractor on the job. If you have any questions, I'll address them. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Anyone else have a comment? If not, my only comment was to replant the buffer non-turf. I believe again it was a real nice buffer there. MR. STEPNOSKI: Yeah, we're going to put it back. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At least ten feet we'll stipulate. CAC recommends the approval with the condition no treated lumber be used and recommended the use the vinyl. MR. STEPNOSKI: Ken, we got an expedited permit because there was a dangerous situation there. We haven't completed the bulkhead yet, but we started, and we purchased CCA material because the permit said in-kind/in-place, and the bulkhead on either side are new CCA wood bulkheads, and the owner would very much like to replace it inkind/inplace. We have the material on site, and we would really appreciate if 22 we could do it that way. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay. Personal feelings it's probably a hardship for me to say rip it out. MR. STEPNOSKI: It would be a hardship for the owner to return material and get new material and the vinyl will be more costly, and this is a special situation. The material's all been bought. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure. The majority of it is. MR. STEPNOSKI: There's a new bulkhead on either side, a new CCA bulkhead, both of them built within seven years and it would make a continuous situation. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay, I don't have a problem. With no other public comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit as described in the description, with the stipulation that the buffer be maintained with at least ten feet non-turf. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As a matter of note, a lot of these are going by without comment because basically they don't deserve much comment under the new Code they would be administrative hearings and so won't require a public hearing, it's going to be a simpler process for everyone involved. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you have a copy of the new '97? MR. STEPNOSKI: No. MR. JOHNSTON: Lauren would be happy to give you one if you stop by the office. As a dock builder you should be familiar with it. MR. STEPNOSKI: Yeah, I have last week's Suffolk Times. MR. JOHNSTON: Then you have a copy of it. 16. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JOSEPH S. DONNELLY requests a Wetland Permit to remove a total of 70' of bulkhead; construct a new 50' bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl sheathing in place of existing; construct a new 20' of bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl sheathing placed so not to extend past property line, and place 5 cubic yards of trucked-in clean fill as backfill. Located: 2672 Paradise Shores Road in Southold. SCTM #80-1-2. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Anyone who would like to comment on this application? 23 MR. COSTELLO: Yes. George Costello, Costello Marine. And what we're doing is we're replacing an existing bulkhead, the front half of the same kind -- I mean in-place not in-kind because we're using vinyl, but the existing return is sort of off the mark and so we had the property resurveyed, and we're going to bring the return in onto the property line and connect to the association's bulkhead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: My question on that return is, is it the northwest bulkhead, the northwest return? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it's on an angle. If you look at the plan, it's the existing return was pretty cockeyed running over the property line by two, three feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's the only comment I had. They were over the property line, it's a public beach. MR. COSTELLO: Right. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay that's aggressive. CAC recommended approval, no stipulations. Is there any other public comments in this application? If not I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve this application as described in this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to call for a brief five minute recess. (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 8:25 p.m. until 8:33 p.m.) 20. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of WILLIAM LOIS AND BINA COMES requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the installation of approximately 330 linear feet rock revetment along the bank of two contiguous lots. Approximately 300 cubic yards of material will be excavated from the site and used to backfill the top of slope behind the revetment. The backfilled area will be revegetated as required with native vegetation and a 10' non-turf buffer will be maintained. Clean-up and removal of dangerous debris within 100' of high water mark and performed manually. Located: 58105 North Road, Greenport. SCTM #44-2-8 & 9. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. MESIANO: You're welcome. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comment? 24 MS. MESIANO: I've provided what we discussed at the site on this map. As you've noticed the buffer has been expanded to 35 feet. There is also a notation concerning the grade to be sloped away from the bank when the project is completed. I believe we have given you everything you want on this. Do you have any questions? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What is the storage area? MS. MESIANO: When you're conducting activity, the DEC requires that you provide them with information as to your machinery access, where you're going to stock pile material. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, I'm just going to say that I'm going to amend this plan to show that the grade will grade back away from the water. MS. MESIANO: Yes, Al, if you look at the easterly property line, parallel to that is a notation it says proposed grade sloping down as per Trustees. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it should be sloping the other way. It should be sloping back away from the water. MS. MESIANO: I thought --well, that's what it's intended but write whatever you want. Do you want a couple more to mark up? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine, thank you. If there's no other comment, do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the amended plan as accepted. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. MS. MESIANO: If I may, I just have some minutes to pick up from Lauren on that matter, I'd just like to do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. 21. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of BREEZY SOUND CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a motel on the property with a 50' nondisturbance buffer from flagged wetlands. Located: County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM #45-1-2.1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you, hi. This is the identical plan that was approved by this Board -- reviewed and approved by this Board. Unfortunately, all this time we have been at the Health Department waiting for Health Department approval. I just got word that verbally we've gotten Health Department approval, but we're waiting for the map to be 25 stamped. So I'm hoping we're at the very end of this permit saga. The plan is, as I said, identical to what you had approved before. It's just a freshwater wetlands that's created due to ponding in the area, and it's a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer that when we did the site planning for a number of years for site plan review all the buildings have been setback away from the wetlands. So, it's actually -- it's a renewal of the permit, just time went by and we didn't realize that it had expired. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anybody else here who would like to speak? MR. CABOT: Yes, I would. My name is Byron Cabot, and I own the property on the western boundary of this proposed project. There is, I guess I mean, this proposal is so large. There's a lot of issues really to be addressed, but I'll try and be as direct as I can. First of all, the plans that were submitted, the original plans that were submitted back in 1985, there have been no changes made whatsoever to these plans except for the elimination of tennis courts as far as my understanding, and it seems to me that in light of the increased traffic due to the casinos and the maturity of the vineyards out here that have attracted additional traffic and everything, that this high density use of this property and also the nature in which it is going to be financed, is going to create a severe burden, long term burden on the community at large. For one thing, it's my understanding that they want to -- that they're going to have 68 units. These units will be in a time sharing format, and over a nine month period that would result in 1,224 rentals which will have an impact on the summer rental market, and I guess I have some specific questions to ask Pat. MS. MOORE: Is it all right that; I can respond? It's your Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go ahead as long as -- MS. MOORE: We'll try to keep it civil. MR. CABOT: One of my questions is what form of ownership are these units going? MS. MOORE: I don't know that I can answer that because it's owned presently by one owner, one developer, and to my knowledge, that's the way it is. MR. CABOT: Is it not true that his intention is to sell 68 units to one investor and that investor would rent that out for two week periods? MS. MOORE: No, it's not a time share, if that's what you're trying to imply. 26 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I just -- MS. MOORE: Yes. It has no relevance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We want to confine our comments just to environmental issues. Our jurisdiction is 100 feet from high water and also coastal erosion line basically the top of the bluff. So we have actually, this Board has very little jurisdiction over most of this project. MR. CABOT: Okay. Well then, to address that part of that area which you do have jurisdiction, the wetlands area in the rear of the property, and I don't know, Ken, have you looked over this property, are you familiar with it? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Not recently, two years ago. They went this past week. TRUSTEE DICKINSON: We went out on Friday. MR. CABOT: Well, one of my major concerns is what they did when they put in -- there's some existing foundations and apparently when they dug up those foundations, they took the dirt from those foundations and pushed it up toward the road, and in the front of that property, over towards our boundary line there's this wetlands area, and there's a low lying area that stretches east that's running parallel to the road; situated in the center of this low lying area, which he's got dirt that he pushed up that then drops down about anywhere from five to eight feet. Situated in that low area he has one of his -- I think he's got five buildings on this property-- one of those five buildings is situated in this low area. And it's my guess that when he digs some other foundation, he's going to fill in that whole area and this is going to raise that whole area five to eight feet, and I guess his basement will be right down at the very almost level with the -- MS. MOORE: If I could interject? This project has gone originally in the '80s, went through a positive declaration of a full impact statement. In the '90s the project was actually somewhat reduced in scale. It went through full Special Permit. It went through site plan, and again it went through a supplemental environmental review. All these issues with respect to grading, drainage, environmental were all dealt with at the Planning Board through site plan process. The only reason we're here tonight is with respect to the kettle hole that turned into a wetland and it's been identified and mapped for you from the previous round two years ago when we did this, that wetland had been created somewhat artificially because of the road runoff that came off of the highway. It pooled there and it established itself as a freshwater wetlands. That's being left in its 27 natural state, and, in fact, a buffer has been created. So I believe we have addressed these issues once before. The conditions of the property have not changed. The law is still in place. We are just renewing what has already been thoroughly reviewed by all the agencies, multiple agencies both the Town, state level. We're pretty much done. We're now fortunately within months of a building permit. MR. CABOT: All I have to say is she's describing this wetlands area like it was created by the road or whatever, but it was actually at one time there's some rocks surrounding an area that was once a pond, and I guess it was once used for horses to drink out of or whatever. But I mean, if you go out there and look and you check where I guess it would be the west south buildings is proposed to be located, you'll see it's set down in a troth, and they're going to be raising that whole land area, and in effect what they're doing is they're going to use this wetland area to absorb all this runoff. MS. MOORE: No, that's not correct. There is drainage. This whole project is going to require the drainage for all the nonsurface areas. MR. CABOT: Let me ask a question. The drainage, because it is a wetland area, if you sink something down there it's going to fill up with water. MS. MOORE: No. The only wetlands area is the area that has been mapped and is showing on the map that the Trustees are now dealing with. The rest of the property is high and very dry and was already disturbed completely in '89, and it's all going to be developed in accordance with a site plan that has full engineering with respect to any water retention, water runoff. In fact, your conditions on the permit was that no water should run down the bluff. These things were addressed by drainage, to keep water on site. All the water is to remain on site. MR. CABOT: This is my argument. I don't see how it's possibly going to remain on site unless it's to drain out to the Town sewer system. The other thing is they also want to locate a swimming pool close to this wetland and there's going to be another shed of water coming off of that, which I don't see how they're going to handle all these water issues. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think that's what Pat's trying to say is it's already been designed and planned and accepted by this Board. MS. MOORE: Not only by this Board but the Town engineer. Before we could get site plan approval a fully engineered 2s site plan had to be submitted and reviewed. MR. CABOT: Do you have the drainage plans there? I mean, what are they proposing? MS. MOORE: This site plan consists of several pages. One of them, and I hope I have it with me, one of them is a fully engineered drainage and grading plan. So the full site plan and it probably -- MR. CABOT: Looks at the west side corner of the property. MS. MOORE: Grading and drainage utility plan, here you go. MS. MOORE: The wetland areas, this is the wetland area, the Trustees have jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction is 100 feet from the freshwater wetlands down, so it's about here (indicating). MR. CABOT: This is my point. My point is that this whole building in here is set down in the gulf. This whole area's going to be filled in. Now, what drainage, all this water and everything this area is going like this. MS. MOORE: There is curbings. Do you want an answer to that? MR. CABOT: Yes, I do. MS. MOORE: This whole property has curbing, which is used in order to catch all the water, the roof runoff that is impervious surfaces get caught by the water retention basin. There are catch basins. Catch basins are identified here, and they're all designed in accordance with our code to catch much more than what a normal rainfall requires. What happens is all of this area, you can see here, I think if I'm following the wall, the curbing, there's curbing that goes around and that keeps the water from the roof. MR. CABOT: What do you mean by curbing? MS. MOORE: Like sidewalk curbs. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This water, it can't drain here because of the curbs. MS. MOORE: They have them identified A through whatever number of letters. They're numbered by way of-- MR. CABOT: But the basement of this building is going to be as low as this wetlands area. Are they going to have sump pumps running? What are they going to do there? MS. MOORE: I'm not the engineer with respect to that. I don't know that there is an issue. MR. CABOT: Unless they're going to build this high. MS. MOORE: Remember, you have foundations that are presently built --well, the old location of B and C here. If you remember from the last round, they are the existing foundations right in here, which because of their questionable integrity, and the engineering behind by the 29 Engineering Department, it made more sense to remove it and have a new structure, new foundations, and that was approved two years ago. The lines were established, bluff lines were also established with this Board and for environmental review with Chick Voorhis. But the foundations, they have to be elevated to meet all the required state codes, and you can't put a foundation in water; so obviously, the engineers have done the test hole and determined what the water depth is. MR. CABOT: When were those test holes done? 'Cause we went through a long period of dry weather. MS. MOORE: There's been a lot of engineering and they're relying on the data they collected. The test hole, without finding it specifically-- MR. CABOT: I know we do did go through pretty much of a dry period. MS. MOORE: Do you have water in your basement? MR. CABOT: Yes. Across from Chap MS. MOORE: Well, we'll keep that in mind. MR. CABOT: And you're located in a pond, and you've got to understand, most of that land is marshland. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, it's a big swamp. MR. CABOT: And we're sort of sharing that up in this corner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: See, we're not engineering, so when it's stamped by the engineer that's what we have to go by. It's certified. MS. MOORE: And my client also relies on the engineering that's been certified by Ben Benacci and is a very reputable firm and I would have hoped that they would have considered all those issues. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: With respect to that wetland, see they have placed the 50 foot setbacks and that's our main, along there and it's maintained to satisfy us. MR. CABOT: All right, I wanted to voice that objection. MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comments on this application? MR. CABOT: I mean, there's other issues, but are you telling me that you can only rule on wetlands issues? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. The traffic and the other issues, we can't. MR. CABOT: I guess one of the main reasons why this has been held up is they were waiting for Suffolk County, the Health Department approval, I'd like to have --what are their plans as far as sewage removal? 30 MS. MOORE: They have been approved for a chroma glass system, which is a self-contained system. MR. CABOT: They have final approval on that? MS. MOORE: Yes. MR. CABOT: And they're not going to rely on the Town of Greenport? MS. MOORE: They don't have to rely on the Village. MR. CABOT: This is a self-contained sewage plant on the property; can you explain how this works? MS. MOORE: Why don't we do that in the hallway rather than taking up the Trustees' time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's outside of our review. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments? MS. MOORE: No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make the motion to close the hearing TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Breezy Sound Corporation request for a Wetland Permit to construct a motel on the property with a 50 foot non-disturbance buffer from the flagged wetlands. Located: 61475 County Road, Greenport. Second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 23. Harvey Arnoff on behalf of JEFFREY HALLOCK requests a Wetland Permit to cut into ground of right-of-way for installation of underground utilities, permission to cut base of existing dirt roadway to upgrade with stone materials, and for the proposed driveway landward of the right-of-way. Located: Diachun Road, Laurel. SCTM #127-3-9.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MR. ARNOFF: Good morning. Mr. Hallock is on his way. He should be here. I think he was told that it would probably about be about 9:00. So he should be here within five minutes. It's my understanding that the Board has received the survey recently, the survey that you had asked us to do, and has done an inspection, and I don't have much more to offer other than that. I believe that you have the EAF that was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The one submitted.by my client, and I don't really have much more to offer to the Board. The Board knows our position. I think we've stated it eight or ten times. So I don't want to take 31 up any more time today dealing with that. I'll try to answer any questions you may have. Again, I would ask a little bit of time latitude. Mr. Hallock should be here very shortly. I spoke to him at about a quarter to 5:00 tonight when I was returning from my trial. They indicated to me he would be here by 9:00. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment on this application? MR. ATKINSON: Good evening, my name's Matthew Atkinson representing members of the community. I just have a couple of comments. I've spoken and written to this Board many times, in the press and in these hearings. My clients have been characterized as NIMBYs, Not In My Back Yard types, and I just want to make a point about this. If it weren't for NIMBYs we'd have no environmental laws, we'd have no zoning. It's people who care about what's going on in their area is why we don't have stelter plants in residential neighborhoods or skyscrapers in farms. It's worrying about your own backyard and what we need to do is simply increase our view of the world to include all of Southold, all of Long Island, the entire world. It's a very positive thing, and it's the route of the environmental movement. Similarly, the applicant poses as one who's been distressed, as one who's been under a court order to put the road where it is, and that this road is agreed to go in that location by agreement of the parties in the partition action. The court simply ratified their stipulation. That is a private agreement. That has no impact upon the public decision-making process. This is the first opportunity that this action has been considered for any environmental review. The Board of Appeals made no environmental review. They took a short form EAF, never discussed it, never considered it, said somebody else will look at it. That's a complete dereliction of their duty, and it's now time for this Board to look at this action, and it has been doing so. The question is, what is the scope of this action? The Planning Board says if you approve a 288 road in here to the Board of Appeals, that means all the these tax lots can now be developed. You're now looking at four or five lots, depending on how it works out, without any subdivision. That's really the scope of this action, the houses, the siting of development with roads and every other thing that drain down now to the west into this very valuable wetland, unspoiled wetland. And this is, in my view, a bad plan but 32 it's not just my view. This Board has had reports from independent environmental consultants, Mark Terry, Scott Hughes said move the road to the eastern boundary. Got the same report from DEC, they said no way, don't expand this road here. Nonetheless, we come back with a survey for a 16 foot improved road, graded in a way that seems extraordinary to me. I mean, I'm not an engineer. I would think you would want an engineer to look at this, but to me it's like a cut designed to hold water, and what water? Where's the runoff? Where's the existing drainage plan? I have repeatedly asked that they provide a survey that would show the contours in the whole area where this road is to be developed. So what, this wasn't just to follow road. It's so you can see where the drainage patterns are, how would this road alter them, what's going to happen? This is unclear from these submittals. Now this long form EAF, of course, it's not done, you know, it requires a determination of significance where the impacts. I've looked at it briefly. It's simply not filled out. Somebody at some point has got to look at the full impact of this proposed action. You know, fill out the form and go through it accordingly, unless you choose to deny it which, frankly, I urge you to do. I really don't see, the file says no, this is a private arrangement. All the parties in interest are here. Rose Diachun is here again tonight. MS. DIACHUN: Rose Diachun isn't here. This is Eleanor. MR. ATKINSON: I'm so sorry, so sorry. Eleanor Diachun, who owns property to the north as well as to the south of the applicant's property. They can arrange this road any way they want. But within your file, you'll notice aerials that make it very clear where the roads are. This is the one road that isn't clear. The road that goes down the middle property is clear; the road that goes down the east side of the property is clear, not the one along the wetland, which has now been used repeatedly during this approval process to sort of create a defacto road. This needs to stop. It's really crucial to protect these wetlands. The way you protect them is to protect the buffer zone. Keep the development away from it. Let the natural vegetation grow, plants, trees in this bloody road. That's what should be going on, not developing it further. So really, I urge you to consider this, what's really in the public interest here, not in this applicant's interest, and consider what the real argument that has been presented against moving the road to the east, which is that 33 Eleanor Diachun didn't want it so close to her house. That's what Mr. Arnoff: said on the record. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? MR. ARNOFF: If I may? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Waiting to see if there's any other comment. Yes, ma'am. MS. DIACHUN: First of all, that right of way is there how many years? Ellie Diachun from Laurel. And it's been there over 100 years, and it's a grandfather's clause. I've lived there 35 years, and it never gets flooded, nothing goes into the creek. Well, come over and you'll see what goes into the creek from the other side. Some of the sewage goes in there. They've thrown flower pots in there, and somebody's been cutting someone's lawn, that's been thrown into the creek, and just because somebody moves here four years ago and tells me what to do with my property. And if there are houses, there's not going to be that many built there. You won't even see them because of the Christmas trees my late husband planted right along. They would still be up and you wouldn't see anything. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. HOUSER: Jim Houser. I live on the other side, that side that's castigated, and I've been living there since the mid-'50s. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, for the record, I think Mr. Houser's referring to the west side of the creek? MR. HOUSER: Yes. The west side of the creek. I just have some comments I'd like to read -- looks like a lot of papers, but it's just a little sentence on each one. This comes from the Southold Town web site. I looked it up today, and I saw that yesterday apparently there was a big meeting on this new Chapter 97, and it starts off with, "The Town of Southold possesses a rich heritage, it's scenic, historic, and natural resources, which are vital to the Town's sense of place and to its economic success and community." It goes on to talk about "and protection of that environment is of utmost importance to the Town's financial health and long-term future." Then it talks about the demands upon natural resources, which are encroaching upon or eliminating many of the Town's wetlands which constitute "important, physical, social, aesthetic, recreational and economic assets to existing and future residents to the Town of Southold." This is the core of our argument. All right. Then the Town's own finding here says that they found a problem with Chapter 97. They said that unfortunately the practical reality is that the laws set 34 forth in the former Chapter 97 do not have the effect of protecting the wetlands and wetland boundaries. Goes on to talk about the importance of resource buffer areas, which is the road that we're talking about right now, which is definitely a resource buffer area, and it speaks of the protection of wildlife and water fowl. The last time I spoke before this committee, I mentioned that ospreys, which the governments around here have been trying for 20 years to reintroduce them to the area, and you'll see there are artificial platforms all over the north fork. There's a tree right across from my house where the last five years an osprey family has consistently come back and has been raising their families in the wild, and when I checked it out with my binoculars, I see that there's nice orange tape at the bottom of that tree. Now, I'll tell you that means that tree is slated to be cut down for this road, or that it's right where the road is proposed to be going, and obviously, these osprey won't be hanging around in the wild for too long after that. The Town's own papers here on this Chapter 97 talks about the prevention of loss or degradation of critical wildlife, the minimization of the impact of new development, talks about new structures on existing waterfront lots which impair the Town's unique environment, geology and hydrology. Again, the core of our argument against this road being approved. Talks about the development and redevelopment of these lots is of utmost concern to the Town, is the Town's own words, because these activities have the potential to cause further harm to the coastal environment. Talks about critical environmental areas. All sites previously nominated by the Town of Southold and designated by the New York State Department State as critical environmental areas worthy of protection include Brush's Creek. Then talks about the problem with habitat fragmentation where habitats of wildlife that go along the water lines are broken up. It says, These actions prevent the transfer of organisms, natural materials and energy within a habitat. I can't think of anything that breaks up a habitat more than a road going through it. Talks about a nondisturbance buffer, an area typically 50 feet landward of the wetland boundary; that's the road we're talking about. This is all very clear stuff, frankly. Our coming back here several times over the last year, and I find it very hard to see what's so difficult to understand. These are finders of your own Town study on this new law that this Town proposed, and yet Mr. Hallock's application has not yet been denied. And I 35 have surely in the clear possibility of potential adverse impacts, the Board should comply with three findings that have been brought to the Board's attention. I think one of Southold's own environmental study agents who have gone down and looked at the situation, and their suggestion was that this road not be allowed, and that, in fact, it be moved over to the east. And then there was the New York State Department of Environmental Control came down said the same thing. This road should not be allowed, and should be moved over to the east. That's all I need to say on it. It seems to be fairly clear, and what's not clear to me is why the Board has yet to act to reject this application. It seems it has really no merit except for maybe a small personal merit, which I understand, and can sympathize with, and in contrast to what I've just been reading here from the Town's own environmental study, which it seems to take seriously, you know, Mr. Hallock's case really, it just doesn't hold water, and I don't think it should be approved, and I don't think it should go on any longer from now. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Our reason for not denying initially is because first you have to review it; you have to get all the information; it's just, you don't want to see it, you don't like it all, the things you quoted out of the new Code, this Board wrote the new Code. We're very familiar with that. MR. CABOT: That's exactly why I quoted it. MR. JOHNSTON: Harvey, could I ask you or Mr. Hallock a question about the environmental assessment forms that have been submitted? MR. ARNOFF: Sure. MR. JOHNSTON: Jeffrey, your counsel pointed out that the long form and short form have been submitted previously and we should give them weight and consider them. I would just want to make sure that the Trustees, two of which are not here right now, can read the record for a few of the questions right here in the Environmental Assessment Form. One of the questions that the Trustees would like a little more amplification on. Will the project have a major effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas? MR. HALLOCK: As far as I can see, absolutely not. MR. JOHNSTON: Okay, I just wanted to, because it was signed not by you, but we're relying or Mr. Arnoff. You're considering that we should use some of the analysis that generated a negative dec? 36 MR. ARNOFF: Yes, I am. MR. JOHNSTON: Will the project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare or vibration or electrical disturbances as a result of the project's operations, yes or no? MR. HALLOCK: Absolutely not. MR. JOHNSTON: 14. Will the project effect the existing community directly because of the road in terms of population more than five percent over one year, have a major negative impact on the character of the community or neighborhood, yes or no? MR. HALLOCK: No. MR. JOHNSTON: And the last one with the short form which he did not sign, so we're going to use it. Number 15, is there a public controversy concerning this project, yes or no? MR. ARNOFF: I think that is a matter for this Board to determine. MR. JOHNSTON: How would he answer it if we were relying on -- MR. ARNOFF: Public controversy? I don't believe there's a public controversy. There's a private controversy. MR. JOHNSTON: I'm asking the applicant. MR. HALLOCK: There's a vested interest across the creek. That's how I would answer it. There's a vested interest of people who don't be want me to use my property the way they use theirs. MR. JOHNSTON: It's not a no, which is a maybe. MR. HALLOCK: It's a maybe. MR. ARNOFF: It's a no when you talk about the general public, as compared to a small minority the people across the creek. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. If I can find, we explained, Harvey, if we can find some analysis. We can use that. Al, you go ahead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go ahead. MR. JOHNSTON: This was received Monday or Monday afternoon, the long form one, Jeffrey. MR. HALLOCK: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you for filling it out. And as Harvey pointed out a few minutes ago, there's a lot of questions here, and we have not obviously as a Board reviewed this. After some counsel with say someone like our environmental planner or engineer or somebody like that, as this may be, so I'm sorry that we in the day and a half we haven't done that analysis, although Mark Terry has seen the form but he -- 37 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, he hasn't had a chance to look at it. It wasn't possible. He was out of the office all day, but he -- MR. JOHNSTON: But he knows about it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another thing I would like to apologize for the Board, we're short-handed tonight. One member is out of town, another member was here and we sent him home because he was ill. That's why we're short. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also for the record, we received on a field inspection on the 20th, we received a revised survey, showing, again to answer the gentleman's question, we received a new survey, an amended survey shows an amended plan. So that the way this application evolved it's typical sometimes that these applications, when you have different agencies involved, ZBA's involved, DEC's involved, and you try to -- the applicant has to make sense out of all the governing bodies that have jurisdiction on this piece of property. And so that's why this has evolved into this survey and into this plan, which was really different from what was certainly originally brought. So I make a motion to table the application so until we can review this and review it by next month and Mark Terry, I spoke to him today and he's promised that he would review this. MR. ARNOFF: I have a few comments to make and I will reserve them until the next time this Board meets. When will that be, Mr. Krupski? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: March 24th. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 24. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOHN NICKLES c/o BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to replace inkind/inplace approximately 1,154 linear feet of existing timber bulkheading and 775 linear feet of proposed fiberglass bulkheading installed inking/inplace to the existing bulkheading located alongside the properties both north and south sides of Petty's Pond. Located: Arshamomague Avenue and Petty's Pond in Southold. SCTM #66-3-14&15. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? MR. IVANS: Yes. Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental for the applicant. I'd just to like to clarify a few points for the 38 record. The replacement of the jetty system will result in a system one-third smaller in size and scope than the existing system. This existing system is currently functional and the canal maintains a safe and proper water depth, in that 75 percent of the jetty remains a solid, walled structure. I'd like to submit to the Board two photos taken this afternoon of the jetty (handing). MR. JOHNSTON: Can we have an understanding that nobody will say anything unless they say who they are? This is the same plan. MR. IVANS: The replacement of the jetty system will not cause any kind of diversion to the properties to the west of the system, and that these properties are currently bulkheaded and do not possess beach front in front of their bulkheads. Altering the size of this system in any way will not bring beaches to these properties. In addition, the replacement of the jetty system will resolve the possible safety issues of timber pieces found floating within the east the west of the canal from certain storm damaged sections the jetty system. Also the replacement of the jetty system conforms to the current standards of this Board and will conform to the new standards currently being adopted by the Board. I'm here with John Nickles regarding any site-specific and historical issues as well as Anthony Pasca of Esseks, Hefter and Angel concerning any legal issues. We hope to answer any you have tonight and subsequently I hope to close this hearing tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Are there any other comments? MR. BRESSLER: You mean for or against? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comments relating to, yes. MR. BRESSLER: Yes. On behalf of the objectants. We have here tonight, as we did last time Dr. Freeman, and in addition we're pleased to have here tonight Chuck Bowman, who was not able to attend last time, but we did have a written submission. He's here to speak in just a bit more detail about the nature of the project. Let me just very briefly then reiterate the objectant's position before turning it over to Mr. Bowman. I think that the summary just given by the applicant must have been somewhat tongue-in-cheek. You have to look at those photos and ask yourself what was the angle they were taken at. You're looking down the box jetty, looking down the box jetty is not a fair and reasonable way to determine whether that box jetty is intact or functional. That thing has to be looked at from the side, and those are 39 the photographs which we submitted, and there will be additional photographs close up which show what you really need to see, while certainly not belittling the Board's own knowledge, because I know the Board was out there looking at this. But we are going to put in photographic evidence that shows that the applicant's photos are not a fair and accurate representation of what's out there. The second point is that a statement was made that it's a third less. Well, a third less than what? A third less than what might have existed sometime in the past, or what still exists now in a nonfunctional basis. And a third less considering the derelicts that are out there that this project doesn't begin to address that need to come out. I don't think that's a fair statement, that it's a fully functional system, the Board can make up its own mind. Clearly we think it's not a fully functional system. And I think the most egregious thing I heard is, well, you know, this isn't going to hurt the downdrift properties at all because, you know, they don't have any beach and they're bulkheaded, and so they're not going to be hurt. What an outrageous proposition. Why is it that these properties don't have any beaches? I think it's pretty obvious. We all know what happens to down drift properties. Is it fair to say that because they're bulkheaded, they're not going to suffer any further deterioration? I don't think that's a scientific fact. I think they're going to continue to suffer. The long and short of it is that this project is ill conceived. There is no scientific basis for it. There's no demonstrated need for it. Let's be honest about what it's really about in terms of its size and length. We know what it's there for; it's there to enhance the beach on the updrift side. It's not reasonable or necessary for it to protect that pond that utilizes shallow draft boats. We're asking the Board to consider all the facts and circumstances of all the properties in the area and determine what's appropriate, keeping in mind the horrible mistakes that were made by other agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers over on the south side, which we're all still paying for. Thank God this Board has an opportunity, because of the dilapidated condition of this thing, to remedy what was obviously a terrible wrong that was performed in the past, whether maliciously or not, who knew, nobody thought about it, but this Board knows about it now, but this is an opportunity to fix it, and we ask that you do so. 40 We have this evening for submission including some blow-ups. What we're looking for some photographs which clearly show what's going on down there as well as the blow-ups of some maps in the area. That having been said, I ask Mr. Bowman would like to stand up and with the Board's indulgence, give a few remarks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before Mr. Bowman speaks I'm going to apologize for only having three Board members tonight. One is away, out of town, and Jim King was here earlier, and he was just so ill that he had to leave. So that's why we're shorthanded tonight. MR. BRESSLER: I hope he's okay and I trust that it wasn't in anticipation of this presentation. MR. JOHNSTON: We don't represent anything on that. MR. BOWMAN: Good evening, Charles Bowman, President, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., good evening to the Board. I was requested to go out and take a look at the situation and the application that was submitted. The first thing that struck me was that the application was actually to replace bulkheads and certainly some of it's a bulkhead. Most of the significant portions of the project, jetty, a groin, however you want to call it, it is acting, it was built in order to hold sand on the updrift side and to keep sand from going into what was a dredged boat basin. By its nature, it was built as a solid fill structure, and I think that's very important because I think we're talking here about functionality of a structure. And if I could submit this one photograph, which is quite interesting. It's looking down the middle of the structure, and you can see that there is an east side and a west side to it. There are tie rods going across it, and when this was built, you know that was filled in between. There was fill in it. It is a solid fill jetty, and they were very common on Long Island. They're not permitted any longer, you know, because they take up bay bottom. And once they're in place, pretty much they're there all the time because they work very, very well. In order for this structure to be functional, it would have to have been fill in there. It has no fill. The bottom inside is equal to the adjacent side. So the fill's all disappeared to it. By its nature of being a solid fill jetty, it is no longer functional because it is no longer a solid fill jetty. I think the statement that it's functional is ludicrous, it really is. The purpose of this jetty was to keep sand on one side and also maintain navigation on the other, and that's 41 something that all over Long Island and all over the east coast, when you look at jetties -- and I know the Board is very familiar with these issues -- why are they there? What is the purpose of them? Why do you need them? Navigation is a good reason to have a jetty. If you need to keep a channel open, what you do then, you look and see what size boats are going to be using that channel. What is the draft that's necessary? I've looked at applicant's submissions, and if you look at the depths of water there, there's some pretty good water depth; there's five or six feet going into that channel up to, these are 2001 soundings, at least that's what the information provided to the Board is. If you look at those soundings and you look at the entrance then into the pond, it shoals up to two and a half feet, three feet of water. And the boats that are in the pond are small boats, probably, 20, 25 foot boats. That depth of water is not necessary five or six feet for the boats to have a navigation entrance into that channel. This jetty could very easily be reduced in length significantly. It could follow the practices that we all believe are appropriate now by creating a low profile structure that keeps elevations at the beach and drops down, and it would then allow some of that sand to bypass it and end up on the beach on the properties that have lost their beach. I have aerial photographs here, some in 1966, 1976 and 2000, you have been given them, and I will be more than happy for you to look at them, but to make the statement that there is no effect is again -- (Whereupon, photographs were displayed.) MR. BOWMAN: It's quite evident that the beach on the properties on the down drift side of this entrance has disappeared over the years. In 1966 we had quite a significant beach in front of those properties. In 1976, the main portion of the node, if you will, is gone. You can still see the existing jetty, now it's deteriorating offshore, but it's still holding back sand in a shoal that's off the updrift side. In '66 there's even a bigger shoal, and if you go down here into the year 2000, there's almost no beach whatsoever. The most interesting part that I found is, I went down in a moon tide, dead low tide, and you walk offshore in the down drift beach, and there isn't even any sand below high water. It's a rocky beach. And if you go up on the updrift side, there's a beautiful sandy bottom over on this side. There is no sand. It's all being held by this jetty, 42 none. And I think that's really important for the Board to note because it's not a necessary structure to have this that long to have the navigation. I'm not saying there shouldn't be navigation. I don't think anybody here is. There should be a structure that's appropriate to the size boat and the use of that creek that is going to keep it open. There are maintenance dredging permits to do that. That sand should be taken and put on the down drift side, and just like we do on every creek or inlet and the application itself, as Mr. Bressler said, is ill-conceived. It's beyond me how a DEC permit was issued for it. I've had arguments with them over a 40 foot jetty that was actually functional and doing something. But if you look at the facts in this particular site, and if you go there at a dead low tide, you will see that there's no sand on a down drift side. You will see that that jetty over there just by looking at the soundings should be about 100, 120 feet long, low profile, keep it open and have a maintenance dredging program that allows sand to bypass and go down to the down drift beaches where it should be going. There is no boat basing there. And the other thing that should be done is the remnants of the jetty that's offshore, which I have another picture here taken at low tide, should be ripped out. Those little remnants that are down in the bottom are still holding sand back. They are still acting as a jetty even out that far. If you look at the 2000 photograph, you can still see the shoal that is creating on the updrift side. I think it's very important that should be taken out as well. It should be cut back, into a low profile jetty, the way that this Board always recommends jetties to be reconstructed. And to take the position that the applicant does that it's functional, just doesn't hold any sand, not only water, but it doesn't hold any sand because it's not holding any sand and that's its job. If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, Eric, would you read the dates of the photographs? MR. BRESSLER: Sure. You have the earliest one of May 10, 1966; followed about ten years later with an April 6, 1976; and then you have the third one of March 14, 2000. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a couple of questions. MR. JOHNSTON: And these were taken approximately when? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think they're all dated. MR. JOHNSTON: I just want it read into the record. 43 MR. BRESSLER: We have a series of dated photographs in the book. Here's one showing the empty jetty with the cross braces of 2/8/2004, and a similar dating on the photographs that follow up until the one dated January 20, 2004 at low tide showing the remnants out there. The first photograph is an undated photograph showing the remnants during the same time period. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a question, if you could come up. After last month's meeting, we reviewed the information that was submitted after the last hearing in January, but the Board usually likes to look at the aerial photographs in cases like this because the coastal erosion and coastal erosion processes are pretty complicated and aerial photographs especially when you have a benefit of having a series of aerial photographs over time of really looking at, one thing that we noticed, and we actually reviewed one, there's one from 1962 here also that we reviewed, I think these are smaller identical ones. MR. BOWMAN: That's correct. There's one here from 1962 that we also looked at that was -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: March 2000. Yes, the '65 one's pretty interesting too. All right. Our observations were that maybe the fellow from Suffolk Environmental could come up to take a look at this at the same time, let me see if everyone sees what we saw when we reviewed this. There are similarities over the past almost 40 years, right, between the amount of sand coming out of Hippodrome seems pretty consistent over time as the sand mass there, Hippodrome channel. MR. BRESSLER: You mean the opening down and to the left? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Say the creek to the west, the opening, the channel hasn't changed substantially; it still goes out to the west Hippodrome Pond, this is still a great deal of sand mass out there. It seems like a pretty stabile situation on the west side of Petty's Pond. Originally, I wanted to look at just Petty's Pond, and when we started to look at the aerials, it kind of opened up the dynamic between Town Creek, which is a great deal of water, and Arshamonak Creek, which is even more water that comes out of here. And really it makes Petty's Pond seem very insignificant water-wise, volume-wise. And then we noticed a great deal of sand here was apparently created by dredging out this box here for some sort of marina back in the '20s; is that correct? So that sand was piled up here on the beach artificially in this 44 area. Now, over the course of time, this structure here, which you can see in this nice color photograph, as that deteriorated, the sand behind there got washed away, and we assumed that the sand was building up on the east side of the jetty and eroding on the west side, until we looked at this photograph here, and this photograph here which shows that actually on these jetties here, it's doing just the opposite; and it's not that far away. The littoral drift seems to have changed on this short piece of beach, which we thought was kind of unusual, but it was explained to Peggy, and I think that there's a tremendous dynamic when these creeks empty out into the bay and that would change the littoral drift within certain areas. Now, if you can see these jetties here to the east of Petty's Pond, really the beach hasn't changed in those 40 years. Also, there's an area out here that was apparently dredged out, and I don't know if there's any explanation for the tremendous area beyond the jetty that's deep water; that must be artificial; that can't be a natural deep hole in the middle of the bay, yet that must have been artificially dredged out at one point. So it seemed to us that this jetty was protecting both sides because the beach here has remained the same, Hippodrome Inlet has remained the same over the course of years, and as far as the beach loss directly adjacent to the west side of Petty's Pond as this structure deteriorated, all the sand that was mechanically placed there, of course, moved along. It's going to disperse through normal storm tide. When these bulkheads were built, right here on the west side, we told the applicant -- who's sitting here -- we told him that when you build a bulkhead on the bay, you're going to experience beach loss and loss of beach elevation, and, in fact, that's what happened. As soon as the hard structure was put in, he lost the beach in front, and he lost the beach elevation. And I don't know how that was related. MR. BOWMAN: Can I make one point? Peconic Bay is not the Atlantic Ocean. If we were on the Atlantic Ocean, we know the littoral drift is from east to west. It's very simple, it goes all the way from Montauk all the way to the Rockaways. The Peconic Bay is different in every little section. You can't compare Hippodrome to Petty's Pond to Arshamomague because the site conditions are so restricted by the tidal action in and out, how the waves hit here, shoals hit here. There is no constant littoral drift along any shore whether it be the north side here or the south side in Southampton. 45 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're in agreement on that. That was my point. MR. BOWMAN: No. But you are saying that this is protecting Hippodrome and then you're comparing it down here. You can't. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. I'm saying these structures here protected this beach here, and now that these structures are gone, that this beach is now open bayfront. See these structures here, the ones you can only see the stumps of in some of your photos, those structures here protected this beach front. And now this beach front is subject to normal erosion, which is accelerated by a bulkhead. MR. BOWMAN: The bulkhead, I certainly would agree might have something to do with it, but I think you're trying to make it too simplified here by saying the jetty has no effect. It's impossible for the jetty to have no effect, and it's not protecting that area. It's still, this beach has still gotten larger on that side. It's still catching sand in this little area right in here, and it's little area of influence, and it is still creating deeper water on the outside and shoals, by its nature it has to, and to say that somehow this is not causing any erosion on this side, it would just by its nature of having storms come in out of the southwest and banging up against it and scouring out, it has an impact to it; that's what they do. It could be just like a bulkhead. It's a bulkhead going perpendicular out into the water. It has to have an impact on either side; that's why we don't like them, don't like bulkheads. It's something if you were doing this today, every one of you up here would say there's no way that we would allow that to happen, and I think at this point you have to look to see how to minimize those impacts, whether by storm surge, wave retraction, by the catch of sand. All of these issues come into play, and they are all affected by that perpendicular structure which should be reduced to a low profile design in just the minimum that's necessary. It's just good policy, that's all, not denying anybody anything. It's just good policy, and I think the Board has to rectify that. And again, it doesn't matter what's happening up here because it's completely different; doesn't matter what's happening down further, because each section of this bay and shoreline acts almost independently because of the wave action, the currents, the shoals, and that little section, and the outflow, which you're absolutely right, on the amount of water coming out of the creeks. So I think you just have to keep that in mind. 46 MR. BRESSLER: I think the principles to this bulkhead are not being disputed by the Board. It is plain. It's acting as a barrier. It's plain that the beach is being built up on the back side. I don't think anyone's disputing that and it's equally obvious that the properties down drift have been seriously savaged. MR. BOWMAN: I'm working on one in East Islip, small little creek coming outside. County still owns parkland on the other side, jetty sticks out, waves come up during the winter time, wave energy gets reflected right across, and you can actually see not only the beach but the wetlands being knocked out on the other side. There's no transport of sand. It all comes from wave energy banging up against the structure; that's something you have to consider here. You put a new structure in here, that's still going to happen just like the bulkhead on those people's property, which you know gets rid of the beach, which I agree with 100 percent. Just think of this as a perpendicular bulkhead. MR. IVANS: This is not a new structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I ask the Board, does the Board consider this a new structure, or does the Board consider this a functional structure right now? MR. IVANS: As it is, as it's in place right now? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As applied for. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Partial both ways. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you think it's 75 percent with the exposed cross hatches of the tie rods? MR. JOHNSTON: Going to reserve any comments. MR. BOWMAN: Another solid fill jetty, and the cross braces exposed like that, that anyone anywhere has considered it functional. MR. IVANS: The fact that it's filled with dirt or sand does not make it functional. Basically, the fact that it's a navigable waterway makes it functional. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a question. How often has this been dredged over the years? MR. STEIN: Every other year I was told. John Stein. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How often has this been dredged and to what extent over the years. Was it ever dredged out past -- because this area here, this is what we find curious. There's a big area here not only inside that basin, but in here there's a great big, deep hole. It's pretty unusual in the bay. MR. BOWMAN: It is. It's not natural I wouldn't think. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I couldn't see how it could be natural. MR. BRESSLER: It would be most unusual. 47 MR. STEIN: You're contention is maybe it's dating back to the '20s and '30s when they had that larger boat basin? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess that's an extension of-- there's the proposed jetty replacement, and this is the extension of that. But that must play some role, some function in keeping the sand from -- I don't know how this isn't filled out there. We've seen other areas in the bay where it's dredged, and it's filled within a week out in the open bay. MR. BOWMAN: If you want to know that, you'd actually have to study it over a period of time, see where the prevailing waves -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's where the waves come in. MR. BOWMAN: But you're asking why it hasn't filled in, and there may be some very good reasons as to why it's eroded on one side, and again, I've given you a couple of reasons. One being reflection of wave energy. You don't know where the sand is coming here offshore, this far offshore. There may not be any sand transport that far offshore. It may just all be along the shoreline itself. MR. IVANS: I think you're losing sight, just worried about this area in here. Is this area navigable? The answer is yes. MR. BOWMAN: Navigability has nothing to do with -- MR. IVANS: Don't worry about it. MR. BOWMAN: The channel right now is navigable for the boats that are in here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How often has that been dredged? Has it been dredged further? MR. NICKLES, JR. John Nickles. It's dredged, you can see where of right there from inside the bridge out into this area, the bearing distance to varying distance over the years. MR. BRESSLER: See the dark color on this photograph here on the photograph of'95 is the same area Mr. Nickles just pointed at. MR. NICKLES, JR. All going out of there, not inside from here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We want to get it all on the record. MR. BALL: Name is Tom Ball, B-A-L-L, I submitted this the last time. MR. JOHNSTON: Let Eric read what it is. MR. BRESSLER: This submission in the first booklet consisting of the map of Beixedon Estates, 1976 with a series of photographs around to the right-hand side and below dated, among other things, 3/11/2002. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 12/26/03, 12/25 I'm going to guess '03, 48 1/17/04 and 12/4/2001. MR. BALL: The reason why I bring this out is as you can see since this subdivision was filed 220 feet, all this bay base is gone, all this lot is gone, 220 feet is actually is gone. it actually is more than that now. This needs to be resurveyed. This didn't happen --there were no bulkheads here. This happened over the years and this steadily got blown out. This whole beach front is gone, and without a bulkhead up, my lot would look like this another 40 feet back. What happened is during a storm if you want it, you can just carve this right out because we don't get any new sand. It gets torn up and it gets deflected. It ends up down the beach here. You can see the sand get deflected and move down the beach, Al. It moves right in front of this pond. And you can see the sand out here, you can see the color of water. It comes out here and lands here. MR. BRESSLER: Beyond your property? MR. BALL: Absolutely. You can see all the sand at this lot over here, and it builds up down here, on the other side. Here's where it lands. It gets deflected and lands down here. MR. BRESSLER: Near the Hippodrome. MR. BALL: You can see the color of the water change every storm, and that's what's happening. Especially in the spring when the farmers are farming and they get all the loose dirt in the water. You can see the color turns deep brown, and you can see it move right down the beach. MR. BRESSLER: So the discussion of bulkheads really begs the question since the bulkheads are the most recent invasion, the losses that took place historically prior to that, it clearly indicates that the property loss was not based upon the presence of the bulkhead. MR. BALL: If you average this out 220 feet, it averages out to about four feet a year. When we got here it actually slowed down quite a bit because this is porous, and since they increased the rate of dredging because this is so porous. This fills in quite readily. Right now it's a matter of it's impassable. At the neck it's impassable. It's down to zero feet, you can walk across it, maybe it's two feet deep. It's almost walking a creek. If you had a warm morning, you could walk across maybe to your knees. But at any rate, I didn't build that bulkhead because I wanted to have -- I'd love to be on the beach. The problem was you could see it happening. It was just getting taken right out. This lot, if you go to see it again, you'll see, all these trees are down, every tree on 49 that lot is now in the water, and prior to that there was a whole set of trees beyond that that went into the water. And not one of those trees or any of this loose debris of bulkhead -- they're calling it a bulkhead, it's actually a jetty -- was ever retrieved from the water. My brother hurt himself; he stepped on a large beam with a spike sticking out. We never said anything, but those lawsuits are going to happen because all of this jetty that was never maintained over the years. It's been a real disaster for this Beixedon community. As a matter of fact, the debris ended up all the way down to Town Creek, that's how far it drifts sometimes. And you'll see floating logs the size of 8 X 8's X 20 feet. It's amazing nobody's gotten hurt worse than small incidents of lacerations. But that's why the bulkhead was built. I did a lot of reading since this started, not trying to be an expert on it, but basically you're right, except in bay situations, it's a little bit different than on the ocean how these bulkheads behave, and if you follow it in a storm, because the Trustees had me put those rocks there, it really does mitigate the erosion quite a bit, and that was a smart idea. It absorbs that energy, and it really did help. MR. BRESSLER: To the extent you still have something there. MR. BALL: That's right. What's happened is, and this is the upsetting part, I used to go jogging along the beach, now most of the time the tides cover it. When I moved there, when I first came there and built everything, it was 33 feet of beach there, and now it's down, as I illustrated in the booklet I gave out at the last meeting, basically the tide is mostly up against the till of the bulkhead. It's a shame. It shouldn't be like that. It's not necessary. MR. BRESSLER: So let's not blame it on a recently installed bulkhead. Let's recognize what's happened historically. You have the evidence. You know what happened. The question is, are you going to permit this to continue and exacerbate it, or are we going to reach a reasonable solution here that accommodates a reasonable need that keeps this navigable while at the same time not destroying the property down on the beach. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What's reasonable? How many feet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is Mr. Bowman's solution? MR. BOWMAN: My thought was, and again, I think one, you should look in that pond and see what size boats are there. My opinion is that they're 20, 25 feet probably draws two to three feet of water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, but, I don't think that's a fair 50 assessment because next year someone will get a sailboat, whatever. MR. BALL: Currently you can't get a sailboat in because there's a high tension line. MR. BOWMAN: Someone could buy a fifty foot Hatteras too, and that wouldn't be appropriate either. So I do think that the navigability is a direct function of how people use that little creek, and I think -- let's get beyond that. MR. BRESSLER: What are you recommending and why? MR. BOWMAN: If you look at that, the jetty should be a low profile design or stone sheeting. Stone has some habitat value when it's in the water as opposed to the vertical sheeting, okay. You rip the whole thing out, you do a low profile stone jetty, it's going to have some habitat probably 125 feet. MR. BRESSLER: What is that based on, Chuck, when you say 125? MR. BOWMAN: I'm basing it on the soundings that are there that obviously-- I've just heard that the soundings are not representative of what is out there now. You'd have to look at the current soundings, but the soundings provided in your application show pretty good water offshore. MR. BRESSLER: Does 125 feet comport with what you've seen in other areas? MR. BOWMAN: Still larger than in other areas and it would still maintain Mr. Nickles' beach. MR. STEIN: Mr. Krupski, are you still considering this as an active working bulkhead right now on the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:' I think what you have to consider what it is, and I'm not saying percentage, what it's doing right now is because of its functionality, and whether you want to say it's 65 percent or 75 percent or 85 percent, right now I think everybody can agree that it's doing something, it's having some function, either keeping the sand, holding the sand and holding the water, so I think everyone can agree that it's not nonfunctional. MR. BRESSLER: It is not zero functional. When you say it's not nonfunctional. MR. STEIN: How can that be married with an application to be, you know, replaced for an in-like and in-place when this is likely 65, 75 percent nonfunctional. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It might be 95 percent. MR. BALL: Al, you're right, it is functional, but I think it's functioning more as a low profile groin. I'm not an expert on it, just looking at some other groins in the area. The other thing you mentioned, will it affect 51 Mr. Nickles' beach. If you go and look at it, it's porous throughout, and if you look at it, the sand is not being _held back. I don't think so he'll lose any beach. That's up to him to study, if you look at the tide line, he initially lost over the years all the accreted sand which he would gain back if he rebuilt this thing, but he's lost that initial amount that used to ark out here, but now it's right back to the tow, that sand in his beach is right back here, all the way back. So he wouldn't lose anything. It's not going to get any worse. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a question for Mr. Bowman, again, we're getting information here. During a storm event, does that bulkhead here protect this beach here on this west side? MR. BOWMAN: Depends on which way the storm's coming. If it's coming out of the east, sure, it's going to be a shadow- there. If it's coming from the south, like a hurricane, it's going to have a opposite affect; it's going to reflect that wave action. So it all depends on which way that fetch is in that particular storm. MR. BRESSLER: That's an odd wind pattern. MR. BOWMAN: Peconic we get storms out of all sorts of different directions. I don't think we you can make a generalization that's it's protecting or not. It may have a positive effect on one storm, and it might have a tremendously negative effect. When you do get reflected wave energy, that beach is gone like that, and I think you all know that. MR. BRESSLER: You can see from the survey lines. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have to have this reviewed. Is there any more information that should be submitted because we don't want to drag this on? MR. NICKLES, JR.: John Nickles, Junior I'd like to make a few comments. You should call up Craig Eslinger. He's one of our neighbors. I believe his trawler draws at least four feet of water, it's at least 36 feet long, maybe longer. You should call Peter Clavis, Gus Clavis, they also own a large boat in there. I think it's 40-plus feet long. I don't know what it draws, not that this has anything to do with whether or not we should be able to rebuild our jetty. I just want to make those points of fact, that it's not just 20, 22, 25 foot boats. The points have been argued by the objectants that it's a nonfunctional jetty because of the way it was designed and it's supposed to hold sand. Now, the fact that 52 it holds sand makes it stronger and last longer, and I believe that that's the purpose of it, and I believe that's what my father taught me about it. And then they argue that it's not functioning because there's no sand in it, and there are holes and it's porous. Then they argue that the stuff that's underwater that we no longer see is holding sand back, which in our definition, that's some.level of function. Mr. Bressler pointed to this deep area here that is, we're questioning, as to whether or not that has been dredged recently, and I don't think it's been dredged recently. But the fact that this is a deep area still there, and it shows on the map, and it shows on these aerial photos, it shows that this system is still functioning and doing its job. I'd like to play devil's advocate, throw our own interests to the wind and let's just say we're going to give up the boat basin and we're going to take this whole thing out, and we're going to let the natural sand come across. don't believe it lands here. I believe it still lands down here. If you look at this pattern. Unless we're going to allow erosion to occur to the point where it goes all the way back to our houses, this thing is closed up completely and then when this piece of land has reached back here, level with that piece of land, then I think we're going to start getting some beach there. That's my opinion. MR. BRESSLER: Let's try it then, we accept. MR. NICKLES, JR.: That's fine, but no. What I'm trying to argue here is, if we remove the whole thing, I still don't think it achieves what the objectants are trying to achieve here. So shortening this any length really is not going to have an impact in my opinion, not a positive impact for our neighbors, unfortunately. MR. STEIN: How do you explain the erosion? MR. NICKLES, JR.: I explain this, because this was never here when you were here. This is gone. MR. BALL: How did it get gone? How did it disappear? MR. NICKLES, JR.: When this got destroyed this disappeared. MR. BALL: Why did it disappear? There was no bulkhead there. MR. NICKLES, JR.: This was protecting this area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was bulkheaded. This was placed here mechanically, all this sand. Someone said last month that there were big piles of sand. MR. NICKLES, SR.: That's right, all that sand was placed mechanically. 53 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, when you place it mechanically then there's nothing to protect it -- MR. NICKLES, JR.: Originally, I saw a very old map, I can try and find it for you. MR. BALL: What accounts for this sand here being gone? MR. NICKLES, JR.: You've seen the pictures of Hippodrome Pond and before any of these man-made structures were ever built Petty's Pond looked like Hippodrome Pond, and all this stuff was added. If want to be able to have accretion over on this side, we have to give all of this up; we have to give up all of this, which was added, this was all the sand that was brought in here, and I just don't think that it's feasible to go back in time that way. We're going to go back to pre-1930, and all this property in here's going to be in jeopardy. One other thing I'd like to point out is we shorten this thing, and all this sand starts to move in this direction, this water gets deeper, and the angle of the bottom then rises at a greater rate, and I think that because it gets deeper, in here we're going to be subject to more wave erosion. Which we have still had erosion by the way. When I grew up there were trees on our beach, there were tree stumps. They're all gone. They're all washed away. So it's the same scenario. MR. BOWMAN: Just one point. When this deteriorated, we're getting wave energy hitting on this structure and bouncing off, which could have a lot to do with why it's not there any longer, and it went that quickly. That's the only point I want to make. You have to look at this as the same effect, which you said over here that the bulkheads have, which they do, this is a perpendicular bulkhead. It's going to reflect wave energy. That's why this Board requires low profile, and they require rocks, so we disperse the wave energy, and they shorten it, and this Board has always required that and should continue to do that. And it's the right policy. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I hear that. Why doesn't this fill in this deep spot? MR. BOWMAN: Why? Probably because you get a lot of good storms coming up this way that are going to bounce against that and scour it out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's on the outside of it. MR. BOWMAN: Which side, this side? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The big outside hole. MR. BOWMAN: But you have this. Because there may not be enough sand being transported offshore, Al. This is not the 54 ocean. Ocean you're going to be going out probably to depths of 30, almost 50 feet sometimes where you get that sand transport. Peconic Bay is not like that. You may stop at five or six feet, that's the only time the sand moves. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand that. MR. BOWMAN: So if it's dredged here that may be here forever. I can take you out to Robbins Island, there are some holes that were dredged a long time ago, they're still there. They haven't filled in. I don't think so you can look at that. MR. NICKLES, JR.: That makes my argument perfectly clear. If it's going to be five, six foot depth, and you think it's not going to fill in, I don't understand how you think that shortening the jetty is going to bring enough sand to where you need it to be. MR. BOWMAN: Nowhere on Peconic Bay is there a 300 foot jetty protecting a little creek because it's not necessary. Shinnecock Canal doesn't have one that big. MR. NICKLES, JR.: Please put this in the correct context. A bulkhead, by definition, holds back land. So if you're going to continue to talk about a jetty being a certain length, make sure you're correct about it. A bulkhead or groin comes off a beach from somewhere in the vicinity of the mean high water mark, and goes out into the water. This length is not 308 feet. MR. BOWMAN: This is acting like a groin from the point where you enter the channel all the way out to the point that is just sticking up, sticks out there, which is much greater than 300 feet. I'm making a statement on the conservative side, it's probably more like 700 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're saying this is a functional jetty out here all the way out, including the old setting? MR. BOWMAN: I'm not saying this part isn't functional, but down on the bottom it's still holding a shoal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's functional. MR. BOWMAN: No, it's not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's functional, it's still holding something. MR. BOWMAN: Al, functional not based upon if there's a stick in the water and it never has been by any agency. It is by what is above the bottom, whether that is functional or not, not is what is below the bottom. I can think of some bulkheads that you've looked at, okay, there's a couple of sticks and you go below the ground, and they're all there and above ground it's not, and that's not functional. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, I thought you said that you 55 considered part of that old jetty to be still functioning. MR. BOWMAN: I said it's affecting the bottom, the shoal, it's creating a shoal on the one side from what you can see, it is creating a shoal. MR. BRESSLER: It's a matter of law, we say it's not functional. MR. BOWMAN: If you're talking about the structure being functional, no, it's not functional, no more than a bulkhead is where you dig below and there's part of the staving is still below the bottom. That's not functional if everything on the top is gone. MR. STEIN: And loose and floating away. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what I thought he was referring to the top, the end part. MR. BOWMAN: You made the statement does it have an impact, yes, it does, I'm agreeing with you. MR. BRESSLER: Is it functional? No. MR. BOWMAN: Everything we do in the water has an impact, and the question is what is that impact. And the Peconic Bay it's very tough because it all depends which way the wind blows. MR. STEIN: Is the Board clear in the past ten or 15 years how many times that right of way has been dredged out? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Nickles? MR. NICKLES, JR.: How many times has the canal been dredged in how many years? MR. STEIN: In the last 15 years? MR. NICKLES, JR.: I don't know. Do you know, the canal? MR. NICKLES, SR.: Outside or canal or right here at the mouth? MR. STEIN: From the mouth out. MR. NICKLES, JR. From the mouth all the way out along the side of the jetty? MR. NICKLES, SR.: Once every two to three years. MR. NICKLES, JR.: Over the last two years every two or three years? MR. NICKLES, SR.: Just the mouth going back 15 years is probably once every five years it becomes more frequently. MR. FREEDMAN: Howard Freedman, F-R-E-E-D-M-A-N. I've lived at this beach for 17 years. In that period of time the area has been dredged three times. I'd like to say as long as I'm standing here with reference to the people who have bulkheads, I built a bulkhead in front of the property because of the erosion. The erosion occurred, and it was perfectly apparent that this beach was being washed away. So that it's not the bulkhead that caused the erosion, 56 obviously, the erosion occurred long before the bulkhead was built. MR. BRESSLER: May I inquire as to whether the Board has received something from the applicant's counsel that we have not been made privy to; have there been any submissions that we have not been copied on? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have received a letter from Esseks, Hefter and Angel. I don't know if you have seen it or not, from a Mr. Anthony C. Pasca. It's certainly in the file for review. MR. BRESSLER: We have not, and if the Board is of the mind to close the hearing, I'd like an opportunity to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anything else, any other condition or fact that anyone would like to put into the record? So we can review this and then make a decision. I think I'm satisfied with the amount of material here. I don't know if the other Board members would like to see anything additional. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think what is recommended to us was get some advice from a certified coastal engineer. I don't know if anyone here is. MR. BOWMAN: Certainly we can put you in touch with one. MR. JOHNSTON: Not from that legal memo. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just as we were pursuing. MR. BOWMAN: Believe, me I think it would be a wonderful idea, and I certainly will give you a list of names. MR. STEIN: You certainly have enough information for them to make a good bona fide -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just don't want to get into a situation where every month we get into more information. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Like you said, we certainly have enough information. MR. BOWMAN: They're going to want more data, the soundings around the structure are old. It's 2001. It's now 2004. They have to look at which prevailing way the storms come. There's a bunch of work that would have to be done for them to render an opinion on what has to be done, and you don't have all that information at all, not even close. MR. BRESSLER: Which is one of the points we made at the first hearing, the applicant should come in here bearing a certain burden, and it's to demonstrate this is reasonable and necessary, and I think the suggestion that the coastal engineer is a good one because Mr. Bowman frankly points out that some of the data that's going to be needed in order for the engineer to render some sort of an opinion and -- 57 MR. BOWMAN: He's also looked at grain size and sand granules are out there, and how do they move, and all that goes out to if you were designing this thing from the beginning, on how you would design it. MR. STEIN: Maybe he can give you an assessment on why those deep holes have been there 20, 30 years. MR. BRESSLER: For a structure this size, we think clearly something like that is mandated. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: From your perspective is the coastal engineer going to design it? MR. BOWMAN: If you ask him to design it, sure, it has to be a coastal engineer, not a biologist, it has to be a coastal engineer, and, you know, I agree, you're absolutely right. MR. BRESSLER: If that's the charge. If you ask a different question, you may get a different answer. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Because we have to come up with an answer. MR. BOWMAN: I think it's a wonderful idea, and if it's something you can hang your hats on and he puts his seal on and there you go. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to ask for a two minute recess, the Board's going do discuss, make sure we have everything in order and then we'll hopefully close it. MR. BRESSLER: If I could have leave within the next week to have access and respond to the letter. MR. JOHNSTON: It's in the file. MR. BRESSLER: What day did it come in? MR. JOHNSTON: Monday. MR. BRESSLER: My question is if you're going to close it, I would like the opportunity to submit that. MR. JOHNSTON: You're the lawyer representing the objector, if this coastal erosion specialist or this scientific expert, whatever, requested by the Trustees, are you willing to supply that expertise? MR. PASCA: You want us to pay for it? No. MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. MR. PASCA: That's the answer. MR. JOHNSTON: That's fair. MR. PASCA: That's a fair question. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to make a motion to table the hearing, and we're going to have in-house review of the whole circumstances and all the information that was submitted by the applicant and by the public at large. There's quite a bit of it, and we will make every effort to have a decision made on this by next month's meeting, March 24th, public meeting. Is there anybody else, before we 58 table this hearing until next month, that would like to say anything else or add anything additional? Okay. I make that motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I make a motion to adjourn? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. (Time ended: 10:30 p.m.) RECEIVED APR 2 7 2004 Southold Town Cled