Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/21/2004 OFF®(� Albert J. Krupski,President ��� C� Town Hall James King,Vice-President h'Z` G�fi� 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster CM P.O.Box 1179 W Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ken Poliwoda Peggy A.Dickerson �ifi� Telephone(631) 765-1892 j Fax(631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, January 21, 2004 7:00 PM Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq., Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Friday, February 20, 2004 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve minutes of December 17, 2003. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for December 2003. A check for $10,004.66 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. III. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/ CHANGES: Board of Trustees 2 January 21, 2004 1: GARDINERS BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. requests an amendment to permit#5003 to use dredged sand to fill 33 X 40 area with spoil and use dredged sand for beach nourishment on adjacent property. Located: Gardiners Bay Estates channel/boat basin. East Marion. SCTM # 37-4-7. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion on this? TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll second. ALL AYES 2. Docko, Inc. on behalf of ROLLA CAMPBELL requests an amendment to Permit #5201 to add 24 (+/-) If. of 4' wide fixed wood pile and timber pier extension and a 30 (+/-) If. X 4' wide wood fixed "L", a boat-lift including associated braced support piling and relocate three braced tie-off pilings all waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. SCTM #4-4-16. MORATORIUM 3. Richard Larsen on behalf of JOHN JOY requests an amendment to permit#5762 to change width of a 33 foot dock from 3' feet to 4' feet. Located: 1330 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM #115-12-18. TRUSTEE KING: Did you look at this too, Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We approved a 3' X 33' and they built a 4' X 33'. TRUSTEE KING: We discussed this, two sets of handrails. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want to put it off and have all of them prepare them? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, go ahead. TRUSTEE KING: I want to make a motion to table this because of the inconsistencies with the permit that we issued compared to what's been built. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of FAYE REYNOLDS requests an amendment to Permit#5338 to add to and include in the project the inkind/inplace replacement of an additional 142 (+/-) linear foot of existing bulkhead located: 855 Old Salt Road, Mattituck. SCTM #144-5-16. TRUSTEE KING: They're about halfway through the project 2 Board of Trustees 3 January 21, 2004 now. Looked at it, I don't have any problem with it. And the only thing I would recommend is a ten foot non-trip and CAC recommended not touse treated wood, but they're doing it in plastic. I would assume they're going to continue doing it in plastic. I can't imagine them changing, so I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA:: Second. TRUSTEE KING: With the stipulation there's a 10' non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. JASON LUHRS requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5488 to install a stone driveway to the garage. Located: 1132 Chestnut Road, Southold. SCTM #59-3-16.5. TRUSTEE DICKRESON: We did it in the office. Do we go ahead and make a motion? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go ahead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the One-Year Extension. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 6. JOAN MCDONALD requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #5287 to construct a single-family dwelling with deck/porch, septic system, public water supply and a pervious driveway. Located: 705 Bayshore Road, Greenport. SCTM #53-3-9. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe we all looked at this in the field. After looking through the permit I believe the one that excludes the cutting of phragmites and allow the 50' non-disturbance buffer to remain intact without a planting plan. With those stipulations I'll make a motion to approve the one-year extension. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here on behalf of Joan McDonald? Okay, go ahead. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Did that plan originally show any stone wall retention? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe it did. I think we checked, but it had sort of an ambiguous wording on the buffer area that we wanted to clear up. If you could, in fact, put in the minutes there were no (inaudible) TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yeah, what she requested didn't exist. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Last year we gave the first one-year extension. For single-family residence, deck/porch with 3 Board of Trustees 4 January 21, 2004 septic system, public water pervious driveway, setback 100 feet from the wetlands selective clearing to within 50 feet of the wetlands, hay bails would be placed down at the 50 foot buffer line. During construction there is to be no mechanical clearing within the buffer zone, only hand trimming. Four foot wide mulch path, all roof runoff to be contained by dry wells. Then there's another sentence: Any cutting of the phragmites without planning to restore the buffer with non-fertilizer dependent vegetation will require review from this office. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what Ken said is consistent with that. She can certainly apply for anything -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right (inaudible). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. It will eliminate the phragmites cutting because there are no phragmites there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Peg seconded it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. Jennifer B. Gould, Esq., on behalf of ALLEN KRAUS requests a One-Year Extension to Permit#5501, to construct a single-family dwelling. Located: 110 Second Avenue, Peconic. SCTM # 7-4-20.3 and 20.4. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, you want to take the second one? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'm familiar with this anyway. They had some basically setbacks with well, so they needed -- time's running out. So I see no problem with this. I'll make a motion to grant the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Approved. 8. Amato & Associates, P.C. on behalf of JOSE SUQUET requests a Transfer of Permit#5518 from North Bay Properties to Jose Suquet and a One-Year Extension to Permit 5518 to stabilize/restore eroded bluff face and install timber access walk and timber platforms for access to the beach. Located: 8869 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM # 83-1-33. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I actually spoke to the attorney representing Mr. Suquet, and he said that it had all sorts of problems. They didn't begin any work on the project and just want to transfer the permit and then get on with the work. So they never, there are no changes and nothing was ever done. And the next one is the next door neighbor and 4 Board of Trustees 5 January 21, 2004 they're -- because of the problem, they're doing the work for the neighbors. TRUSTEE KING: So they're going to do the work for both properties? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: So do the next one, then do them both? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. 9. JOSEPH CASARONA requests a One-Year Extension to permit 5517, to stabilize/restore the eroded bluff face and install timber access walk and timber platforms for access to the beach. Located: 55 Glen Court, Cutchogue. SCTM #83-1-1 & 36.1. TRUSTEE KING: So I guess they're going to do these together. I'll make a motion to approve the extension. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to go off the Regular Meeting and onto the Public Hearings, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES At the beginning, we have 12 public hearings, tonight two at the end, if anyone came in late, have been postponed by the agents, #13, John Betsch and #14 Peconic Design and Construction. Just for information, the Town Board has accepted the draft of the rewrite of Chapter 97 Wetland Code for the Town, and there will be a Public Hearing on that Wetland Code draft February 24th, and a copy of the draft is available on line on the Town's web site, or if you would like a hard copy, you can come into the Trustees office. And for you folks who just came in, there are two items on the agenda that aren't going to be heard tonight, #13, John Betsch, and #14, Peconic Design and Construction. 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 TRAVELER WATCHMAN. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. 5 Board of Trustees 6 January 21, 2004 PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE. 1. MIRIAM MEYERS & 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: Is there anyone here that would like to speak on this, to this application? For or against, either? MR. MANGUS: Is there any information you need to go forward? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Actually, the Board had a discussion about the existing bulkhead. MR. MANGUS: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you get up and use the mike, please, so we have a clear record? MR. MANGUS: Sure. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think the Board pretty much decided that the garage was not even within our jurisdiction but the bulkhead being what it was, the Board felt that its existence wasn't necessary and possibly the top boards could be removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a tidal marsh behind the bulkhead, which lends us to believe the bulkhead's not functional. But there's a bunch of snow and ice covering, and it was kind of hard to see behind it, so. MR. MANGUS: I had to dig out behind it this past year because during some heavy weather a couple of the boards were coming off, and I had to dig down in and bolt that to the pile, bolt that through the piles to attach them. So most of the way along I dug it out and filled it back in. But water comes over it in storms and then erodes it back out. So we had a lot of loss of soil and stuff on that side. We do have plants and stuff in there in the summer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's one of the problems with a hard structure is that you do tend to accelerate the structure because of it, and looking at it, if you'd like, we could look at it without the snow cover. MR. MANGUS: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because it's difficult without the ice, but looking at it, it just seemed obvious to the Board that if you took that top board off, then that storm water would be able to erode it because it wouldn't be there. It would just flow in and out. MR. MANGUS: I'm actually keeping my boat on the other side of it and tied it to it, and it would ride up over that in 6 Board of Trustees 7 January 21, 2004 the high tide and stuff. The high tide I'm actually standing ankle deep in water on the inside of the bulkhead as it comes to it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As you can see if you look either to the right or left you can see the natural shoreline years ago that property was filled. MR. MANGUS: I think so, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So when you stick out like that you kind of accelerate erosion also and the wave action. MR. MANGUS: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it would be the suggestion of the Board to take that top plank off. MR. MANGUS: Okay. I might have an engineer take a look at that and maybe get some other, you know, I mean, I'm sure you guys, you know a lot more about it than I do, but certainly I could take a close look at that and I'm going to try to maintain that. It's been eroded a lot since we have been there. We had a breach a couple times and got back and repaired that. It seemed to be after that that it really seemed to go out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you get more plans to us with the septic because we didn't see any? MR. MANGUS: I did not. I'm not sure, I stopped at the Health Board to see what the regulations on it. We have to get a variance on the project, and I wanted to make sure we were able to do it and go forward with it before I went too much further with the detailing on it, but I did take a look to see where the 100 foot mark was from the wetland and I scanned the site plan with a radius from the wetland to see where that was going to go in. I have it. I can show it to you at some point. It's going to be very tricky to get the septic work in given the width of the site and everything. So I'm going to have to get that engineering worked out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We wouldn't approve this without the septic plan. MR. MANGUS: The site's 35 foot wide and with the ten foot setback from the building puts the garage almost 18 feet in and five foot back from the other side isn't much room. So I've got to take a look at that. I may have to shift that garage back and get the septic between the garage and the house. But I'm going to have to look at that. TRUSTEE KING: We need to see that on the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah. You have to put that on the survey. It could or couldn't be in our jurisdiction, it's very close. Like we said the garage -- 7 Board of Trustees 8 January 21, 2004 MR. MANGUS: Your jurisdiction's 100 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 100 feet. MR. MANGUS: I have to show you, you said at some point. It's -- I have to show you -- yeah, the 100 foot line is just about the center of the garage. I scanned in the survey of the site next to ours that had the environmental hold on it. This was Jones that just presented recently. I took the closest point of the wetlands and did it within 100 feet so you could see where it's coming in. My plan was originally to put the septic up here. But I may have a tight fit. I might have to bring the garage up, keep it at least 35 feet in and do the septic in here. There turns out to be another tree here. This is a big tree and I was trying not to take the trees out, but maybe the only place I can get the septic to work is in here, in which case it's just going to be at the edge. So those are the 100 foot markers the nearest point of the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any permit at all for the bulkhead; do you have anything? MR. MANGUS: I don't think so. It was there when we got there, our neighbors couldn't remember when it was put in. It's been in a long time. There were some remnants of things, some old 54 that are just in front of it something. TRUSTEE KING: It might be permitted. MR. MANGUS: Yeah. The woman that did it is still alive, I'm not sure, she's in her 90s. I can try and contact Madeline. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It should be in our files. We'll check on that. MR. MANGUS: But this should be fairly accurate. I had this survey and I brought it up to scale to meet and all these met. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And you're aware there is a letter in your file from your neighbor? MR. MANGUS: No. Probably Jones or-- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, could you read the letter? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm sorry. November 12, 2004 -- January 12, 2004. Received January 15th. Dear Board Members: We are in receipt of notice to adjacent property owner for application to perform addition, extensions and improvements to below-referenced property. We notice below-referenced property, the noticed addition is insufficient to thoroughly understand the impacts of the applicant's proposed work to our property. We will recommend that the Board of Trustees require the applicant to submit the following information 8 Board of Trustees 9 January 21, 2004 for further evaluation prior to reviewing the referenced application. (1) proposed two-story garage is located within three feet of the property line and is proposed approximately 20 feet in front of Jones' property bedroom window. Please request that the applicant submit a visual impact analysis clearly illustrating the impact of the proposed additions including sunlight, shading, shading simulations on the Jones' property, porches are proposed to be put from property line. The proposed addition to the second story of the house is located within eight feet of the Jones' property and to the southeast in the direction of morning sunlight. Further, addition of the second story and porches appears to require the removal of existing trees and branches, we request that the applicant submit a visual impact analysis clearly illustrating the impacts of the proposed additions including sunlight, shading and simulations on the Jones' property. (3) The proposed addition of the existing house appears to be located in conflict with existing overhead utility tables. Please request that the applicant submit the proposed method utility cables (inaudible) perform the work including (inaudible)to have existing overhead utility cables will be protected or relocated. The applicant should also describe if the work will result in a temporary loss of power or communications to adjacent properties. (4) The properties in the area are primarily summer vacation homes. The residents in the area occupy these properties exclusively in warmer weather from May until October. Please request the applicants supply construction schedule and methods to mitigate construction noise and air quality impacts during May through October use period. (5) The applicants materials references and improvements to existing bulkhead. Please request that the applicant submit all necessary New York State DEC permits in clear detail and describe on the proposed site plan the proposed improvements to the existing bulkhead. We further request that if, during review of the referenced applications to be submitted supplemented with the additional request information, that the Board of Trustees determines the result of the proposed work adversely impacts the Jones' property that the applicants commit proposed remedial alternatives to mitigate those impacts. We are grateful to the distinguished Board of Trustees of this Town of Southold to afford us the 9 Board of Trustees 10 January 21, 2004 opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposed work and look forward to comment on the applicant's proposed work and look forward to working with the Board of this Town of Southold to afford us this opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposed work and look forward to working with the Board to review the additional application materials that we await. We can be reached at the following address and phone number. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I think -- the CAC comment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The CAC recommends approval of the application with the following stipulations: The ten foot non-turf buffer is installed landward of the bulkhead, no pressure treated wood is used in the bulkhead and dry wells are installed to contain the roof runoff. MR. MANGUS: Do you want me to address any of her concerns? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Her concerns are not really part of our review. MR. MANGUS: Right. But I'll address that prior to that hearing or for-- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think most of her concerns are about side yard setbacks and whatnot. MR. MANGUS: It's already eight foot. I'm going to continue the eight foot that's already-- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a different review process. Our concerns are how the project will impact the creek. We're more concerned with any activity on the creek side. As the CAC recommended, we're going to condition dry wells and gutters for roof runoff. We're happy with the septic system upgrade and anything that would affect the environment, as I said before, the garage is not jurisdictional for us anyway. MR. MANGUS: Okay. Given the constraints on the septic, I may have to shift that garage up just to get it in there. But it would be further from the water than the existing septic is. I can show you where that is located now, if you want. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we need to see the proposed -- MR. MANGUS: That's fine. I'll get you a survey of what is there and the proposed. I submit that to? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To Lauren. MR. MANGUS: That's fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, I'll make a motion to table this applicant until we get updated surveys and septic upgrades on the surveys. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And what we'll do is we'll put it on for 10 Board of Trustees 11 January 21, 2004 field inspection next month and have a further look at that bulkhead. MR. MANGUS: Yeah, and I'll try to talk to some of our engineers that deal with that just to see if I can add information that will help in making that decision. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. ANTHONY MACALUSO, requests a Wetland Permit to construct a deck onto the existing dwelling. Located: 1900 Reydon Drive, Southold. SCTM 80-3-12. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR. MACALUSO: I'm Anthony Macaluso. The only comments I'd like to make is that I am currently under permit to do renovations at my home, and I just wanted to seek permission to extend the application to include my deck. I have notified all my neighbors, I have proof of the advertisement and also the affidavit of posting. Would you like to see it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please, bring one up. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to comment on this application? If not, as far as the Board, I looked at this, found it to be very minimal with any impact on the creek. It begins 109 feet off the bulkhead and ends 97 feet off the bulkhead, and it's just a basic deck overall. I don't have any objections to this. And if there's no other public comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. Richard Larsen on behalf of JOHN DICARLO requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing bulkhead in the same location with C-lock vinyl sheathing. Located: 1150 Terry Lane, Southold. SCTM 64-3-13. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this? MR. LARSEN: Yeah, I'd like to get a permit in less than a couple years. 11 Board of Trustees 12 January 21, 2004 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: For the record, what's your name? MR. LARSEN: For the record, Richard Larsen. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay. Again, is there any other public comments? I've looked at this, I found it straightforward. You have an existing bulkhead. It's all existing. The only stipulations I'd like to see put in place is that it remains in kind and in place with the C-Loc and a ten foot non-turf buffer behind. MR. LARSEN: That can be gravel? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Gravel, sand, natural plantings, decking. MR. LARSEN: Good. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there any other Board comments? I looked at it, found it straightforward. With that, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: And I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. Amy Martin of Fairweather-Brown Design Associates, Inc., on behalf of ELENA KARACOSTAS AND ANDREAS KARACOSTAS, requests a Wetlands Permit to renovate and add to the existing residence on first and second floors and an addition of a deck and pool in the side yard. Located: 21275 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM 135-1-2. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Good evening. AMY MARTIN: Amy Martin for Elena and Andreas Karacostas. Excuse my voice, I'm trying to get rid of a cold so I'm sort of going to refer to my notes. Basically the owner's request to demolish and remove the western exposure sun room to replace it with a deck and a swimming pool. The deck would be recessed three feet from the bluff than the existing sun room extends. The deck as proposed will be an irregular shape but maintains a 15 foot setback on the right side of the property. The existing water side of the home is 20 feet 11 inches from the bulkhead and approximately 14 feet to the coastal erosion hazard line at its nearest point. The room to be demolished is approximately 16 feet to the coastal hazard line and the proposed deck would then be 19 feet from the proposed hazard line. The pool pump -- and proposed deck. The proposed pump and dry wells are proposed to be located well landward of the proposed deck. The project also will consist of repairing and 12 Board of Trustees 13 January 21, 2004 replacing window on the water side and the siding from vinyl to cedar, There are two proposed two story additions to the residence. The larger of these is located on the southwest corner of the home and the smaller is located on the southeast corner of the home, both of which are on landward side of the home thereby squaring off the building. There's a proposed landward entry side covered porch. The garage is to be demolished and removed at this time, which will help the lot coverage restraints. Perhaps a smaller garage will be asked for later to be put in place, but at this point in time it will be removed and we're awaiting a topographical survey that the DEC requested for a letter of nonjurisdiction. Appropriate gutters and french drains will be directed to add runoff to the landward dry well, and an upgrade of the existing septic system to meet required standards of the Health Department have been applied for as this will be a six bedroom house. The current lot coverage of buildings is 12.8 percent. The proposed lot coverage after the demolition of the part of the building and the demolition of the garage is 15 percent. Neither of these figures include all of the black top that's there, which is a large amount, which is 13.1 percent. I'm sure that they would, with the demolition of the garage the driveway will be reduced in size and perhaps we could convince them to put in porous surface on, not the slope part, but the upper part because it's at a steep incline from the road. Any questions? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yeah, my one question is not a question but a request, that you put the dry wells on the survey. MS. MARTIN: Okay. Actually, I have a revised survey to give you that shows the proposed upgrade to the septic system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's on there. You mentioned french drains and dry wells? MS. MARTIN: They're not there, okay, I am showing those. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As well, during construction retain a hay bail line to catch any sediment? MS. MARTIN: Right. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Other than that I don't have any opposition and as I went through the file I see CAC doesn't have any reason to disapprove also. MS. MARTIN: Okay. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anybody else who would like to comment on this application? NEIGHBOR: Yes, I'm the lucky neighbor who's getting the pool. Naturally I'm not thrilled with that more I'm 13 Board of Trustees 14 January 21, 2004 concerned with the possible problems with the bluff. We have a place there for a long time. I've seen a lot of erosion. We have pictures from before the hurricane of '38. There was a lot more land there. There's been a lot less land in the last six or seven years. A pool I don't know how big aside from the fact that it's going to be within ten or 12 feet of my property line, affords the huge potential for problems going right into the Sound. As they say in Connecticut, what goes in the ground goes into the Sound. I can't really see the need for this kind of a pool that close to the Sound. No one has been out to examine the property. There was a gentleman that came out; the door was locked; he couldn't get in. As far as I know there's been no one out there with a camera to take some visual shots of how this may potentially impact on Long Island Sound, far more important than my house. Will we have somebody out to examine in a little more detail? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe the whole Board has been out there numerous times because they recently had a bulkhead placed in there. We're very familiar with the site. As far as having a pool placed so close to the Sound and your property line, that's a decision we'll end up making as far as being a negative impact to the Sound, I don't see -- NEIGHBOR : Or the bluff. I don't want to be here like Amato and Company three years, I believe that was what we heard earlier requested to stabilize and restore eroded bluff face. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The structures are proposed behind the coastal erosion hazard. This doesn't show coastal erosion. This one shows the pool. It doesn't show the coastal erosion. This survey showed it, this one didn't. You have to use the mike, I'm sorry. MS. MARTIN: Just as a point of information, the pool is 698 square feet. It's really quite small. It's sort of odd-shaped. It just fits into the deck and the deck is 15 feet from the property line, as allowed by zoning law. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Once again, we are an environmental board and it is going to be located behind the coastal erosion. NEIGHBOR: I thought that was 100 feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No coastal erosion line varies. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our jurisdiction under Chapter 97 wetland is 100 feet. In this case it would be behind water in the Sound, which would be water in the bulkhead so I scaled it out. It's roughly 80 feet from high water. NEIGHBOR: Not 100? 14 Board of Trustees 15 January 21, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. That's why it's in jurisdiction. If it was 100 or more it would be non-jurisdiction, we wouldn't even be here. One of our big concerns is destabilization of the Sound bluff. NEIGHBOR: Once it's gone it's not coming back, pool or no pool. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, we've seen some pretty massive restorations. NEIGHBOR: I've seen some pretty massive erosion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I'll speak for myself. There was nothing here. We are familiar, as Ken said, we are very familiar with the property having been there a number of times over the years just as recently I think as the spring. The bluff goes back toward the road. I didn't see anything in the application that would lead to destabilization of the bluff that I saw. I don't know if any other board members could see that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'm relatively sure that that whole bluff pitches --that whole property pitches back toward the road. I don't see any contra lines on here. The only times we have been out there, if I remember correctly. MS. MARTIN: We are in the process of having a topographical survey done. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We can look at it if you want us to. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We can Table it once the topographical survey comes in and finalize it, make our decision next month. NEIGHBOR: Any idea when that might be? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Are we going to re-inspect once we get the topographical survey? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll go look at it. It's my recollection that that entire piece of property pitches from the bluff back towards the road, in which case a pool set that far back wouldn't create an erosion problem on the bluff. Any over spillage or backwash or anything would have to be on the landward side, which wouldn't create a hazard for erosion on the bluff. Might be a little tricky excavating to get it in there, but it could be done. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: February 20th. NEIGHBOR: February 20tn. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's our inspection date. NEIGHBOR: That's your inspection date, thank you. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other public comments? I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 15 Board of Trustees 16 January 21, 2004 5. Amy Martin of Fair-Weather Brown Design Associates, Inc. on behalf of MEG REED & MICHAEL SCHUBERT requests a Wetland Permit to construct additions and renovations to the existing residence landward of the existing deck. Located: 815 Fire Road, East Marion. SCTM 21-1-1.3 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak to this application? MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin, again, for the homeowners. This is a request for a permit to construct a 15 X 26 second story master bedroom suite as an addition to the east end of a one story residence. This is within and above the existing footprint of their home. Also being requested are two deck additions. The first is a small deck addition landward of the existing deck at a minimum of 38 feet from the coastal erosion hazard line. The existing deck is about 31 feet from the coastal hazard line. Second is a larger proposed deck is an addition is six foot by 25 feet with an east corner to reduce the impact on the bluff and would be stepped back from the existing deck by one foot at approximately 33 feet from the coastal hazard line at its nearest normal plain. French drains would be made around all the decking and lead to a landward dry well, which again, is not shown on the plan, and again, which I will have shown on the plan, and that will be used to catch the proposed second story addition runoff with the proposed gutter system or French drain. On January 5th we received a letter of nonjurisdiction from the DEC dated December 31 st. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? MS. MARTIN: Did you find it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What? MS. MARTIN: Fire Road 3. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was cold. I don't think anybody on the Board had any problems with this. If there are no further comments from -- the only thing was the second floor were hay bails because it's so close or not, no?If the guys fall over the edge as they work? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's briars that will catch them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Oh, okay. (LAUGHTER.) Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. I'll make a motion to approve the application for 16 Board of Trustees 17 January 21, 2004 Meg Reed and Michael Schubert for a Wetland Permit to construct additions and renovations to the existing residence with gutters and dry wells, second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 6. Patricia Moore on behalf of MATT-A-MAR MARINA, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to expand the existing boat storage building, relocate the existing office, and replace the sanitary system. Located: Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM: 114-3-1. TRUSTEE KING: Anyone here wish to speak on this property? MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening. Hello again. It's what has been described. This is an expansion of an existing boat storage building. We are relocating some of the pre-existing nonconforming buildings. They're some older buildings. We're consolidating those and incorporating the uses into the expanded storage buildings so you can see that the office is being relocated and the boat building, storage building is being enlarged. We are proceeding to the site review process, and we'll go through all the agencies that require approval and review. So if you have any questions, I have Mrs. Raynor here and I have Henry, Henry Raynor as well. This is Monica Raynor. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this project? Anybody else would care to comment? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a big grade change there because when they create a dry bed on the other side of the barn (inaudible). MS. MOORE: You're more familiar with the property than I am. Come on up. MR. RAYNOR: On the southwest corner of the proposed addition, there's a drop-off there of about four and a half, five feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you going to keep that? MR. RAYNOR: The idea would be below the office to leave that open so that you could either use it for storage or supplies, actually utilize the drop in the elevation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'll excavate into that? MR. RAYNOR: Right. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Just like with the other building? MS. MOORE: Yeah. Like the lower level is -- yeah, right. Right. TRUSTEE KING: Any Board comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at it a few days ago on 17 Board of Trustees 18 January 21, 2004 field inspection. TRUSTEE KING: You're going to put in a new pool because there's quite a bit more runoff, right? MS. MOORE: Yeah, we're going to have to put in drainage additions issues for the site plan process so that's one of the things that Jamie Richter looks at making sure all roof runoff is contained in dry wells. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have a big problem with anything. I know we talked about this before, but we'd like to see an increase in pump-out facilities too. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear. TRUSTEE KING: We have been looking at trying to expand some of the pump out facilities. It's an issue we have to look at, and I know it's a tough issue. MS. MOORE: It's funny, because all the agencies always ask wouldn't you be interested in a pump out station. If you convince the DEC and the Health Department to make life easier for operators who pump out stations, I think you'd get more of an interest. But the regulations are so severe that it really is not cost effective, that the cost of infrastructure, the cost of regulations far exceeds anything that the pump out return, even though it's necessary -- everybody represents that it's necessary. TRUSTEE KING: The cost of the water quality. MS. MOORE: Well, there are pump out stations that are available; it's just difficult for new ones to be constructed. So to the extent that you can assist existing pump out stations realistically to expand, I think that's in everybody's best interest. I think that's an easier process to start new. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the status of the current pump out system? MS. MOORE: I'm sorry? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the status of the current pump out system? MS. MOORE: You don't have a pump out system, no, it's -- TRUSTEE KING: There was one before. MONICA RAYNOR: There was a portable pump out system, it was very unreliable. So now -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So now there's none. MONICA RAYNOR: We don't have a pump out system. MS. MOORE: You know you have a failure of those portables and that's serious problems, so. TRUSTEE KING: It's an issue we're going to have to address down the road, that's for sure. 18 Board of Trustees 19 January 21, 2004 MS. MOORE: Maybe you should consider just as an idea trying to get the state grants or-- or programs that will make it available for marinas to consider. TRUSTEE KING: We have been wrestling with this whole problem. It has to be very inexpensive and Number 1, it has to be convenient or people aren't going to use it. MS. MOORE: Absolutely. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There are grandfathered, you need to purchase the facility. MS. MOORE: It's the purchasing and it's the maintenance, and then it becomes the DEC regulations. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You mentioned the purchasing. MS. MOORE: Go ahead, Monica, you should put on the record the difficulty. MONICA RAYNOR: We've looked into the grants and unfortunately they're very cost prohibitive for us because to accept the grant, we then have to offer severe discounts in our fuel prices, our dockage prices, and I don't think that's fair for us. We're very, very competitive right now. We don't want to lower our prices as such or be subject to such severe discounts that we have to offer if we accept those grants. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I teach in a local school district and I just had fifth graders survey your marina, and they found out you had one and they also found out that your marina was being used quite frequently because you had the pump out and sort of just -- it's a surprise to me that now that's not available. MONICA RAYNOR: There was a portable pump out system that the previous owners didn't operate. TRUSTEE DICKRESON: I can understand that. MONICA RAYNOR: So that's why we decided not to use that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Interesting that now it's without any at all? MONICA RAYNOR: But I know there are a lot of services that come with boats that will pump out for people, and I know some people have called that -- MS. MOORE: The Honey Pumpers, if you had something that, would work for portable, where it became kind of a, you know, they could go from one marina to another that would be a great business to set up that type of business. It's having them onsite that's difficult. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, that's falls under the same premise as the onsite as far as the other agencies. MS. MOORE: Yeah, DEC watches it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's tough enough to have one on land, believe me I know. To have one put on water it was pursued, and it 19 Board of Trustees 20 January 21, 2004 just got cost prohibitive. Southampton has five of them and that was all generated through federal and state grant money. MS. MOORE: Did the Town operate that one? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, Southampton Town. MS. MOORE: At least you have the insurance. In a sense you have it underwritten by all the tax payers. Insurance is just getting -- insurance for those type of facilities, so, unfortunately that may be a -- TRUSTEE KING: We have to look at it that way. MS. MOORE: Just like you deal with drainage issues throughout the town I think it's an important issue that you should take up and consider. I just think that private industry, if it was cost effective, believe me, someone would have done it, but that's not the case, so, it might be that government has to run that type of operation. Town dock, having it at the town dock. MONICA RAYNOR: That's something somebody has spoken a lot about is having it at that Town ramp. It's something I'm sure a lot of marinas would be willing to help. Not something that could be some sort of joint effort. MS. MOORE: That would be something you should consider if you had all the money, all the marinas participate in some sort of a -- kind of like a joint agreement or if you did an inter-municipal agreement where, the term that you use if you have two towns collaborating with each other, it's almost an inter-municipal agreement between private industry and public. So that's another option. MR. RAYNOR : It would also be exempt. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That doesn't seem fair. MS. MOORE: Any time you give money somebody's going to take it away someplace. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Money should go for improvement not to tie in with the fee structure. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Get our environmental man. MS. MOORE: That will be his pet project. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Any other questions? Any other public comments? Being none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application as presented. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 7. En-Consultants on behalf of CAROL &ANTHONY MITAROTONDO requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-place) approximately 94 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead 20 Board of Trustees 21 January 21, 2004 with vinyl bulkheading and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source. Temporarily remove existing dock during construction and replace in same location and configuration. Located: 950 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM 111-14-15. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Hermann from En-Consultants here on behalf of the applicants Anthony and Carol Mitarotondo. Pretty straightforward application. It's the in-place replacement of the existing bulkhead structure. The only change is that the treated timber will be replaced with vinyl. If the Board has any questions, I can answer them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this. I didn't have any problem with it, very straightforward, and it was very icy down there. MR. HERRMANN: Yeah. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Besides that I didn't see any problem, besides a 10 foot non-turf buffer. MR. HERRMANN: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Put in a dry well for the pool while we're in there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, say that again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Dry well for the pool. We did notice a little over pumping for the pool when we did our field inspection, and since they have got a machine there digging, it might be an appropriate time to put in a small backwash valve for the pool instead of pumping that chlorine overboard? MR. HERRMANN: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anybody else who would like to speak to this application? No, I'll make a motion to close this application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. I'll make a motion to approve Carol and Anthony Mitarotondo ask for a Wetland Permit to remove and replace timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkheading temporarily remove the existing dock during construction and to stipulate that there be a 10 foot non-turf buffer with backwash dry well for the swimming pool. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. HERRMANN: You issued a permit for that pool a couple of 21 Board of Trustees 22 January 21, 2004 years ago. Was that not a resolution, doesn't look like it was stipulated at that time. That's probably why it's -- if it's lacking, that may be why it's lacking, assuming everybody does exactly what their permits say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it's not in their file, thank you. MR. HERRMANN: I have a copy of it, but it doesn't say, but I'll pass it on regardless. 8. En-Consultants on behalf of ELLEN RIEGER requests a Wetlands Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 50 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately 20 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source. Located 4235 Camp Mineola Road in Mattituck. SCTM 123-5-25. Anyone who wishes to comment on this application? MR. HERRMANN: Again, Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of Ellen Rieger, similar project in great Peconic Bay. It's in-kind -- I'm sorry, in-place replacement of the existing bulkhead, but again, the timber bulkhead would be replaced with a vinyl structure, non-turf buffer exists there now that will continue to be maintained undisturbed in disturbance area underneath the deck. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else wish to comment on this project? I looked at it. It's kind of a no-brainer, very straightforward. Like Rob said, there is an existing buffer there already. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in.favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. HERMANN: Thank you. 9. Catherine Mesiano, Inc., 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 back-filled area will be revegetated as required with native vegetation and a ten foot non-turf buffer will be maintained. Clean-up and removal of dangerous debris within 100 feet of HWM and performed manually. Located: 58105 North Road, Greenport, 22 Board of Trustees 23 January 21, 2004 SCTM #44-2-8 and 9. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano. We have been before you a number of times on this project, and I believe as our last discussion ended in your requesting my bringing to you a plan for the revetment, which I have submitted. So if you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, before we answer any questions, is there any other comments for this application? Does the Board have any comment or questions? MS. MESIANO: Specifications of the rock I believe are shown in the cross-section. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, we're going to postpone this. Just thought we'd open the hearing anyways, I don't know if Lauren told you, we're going to postpone.this because of complete snow and ice cover. According to my recollection, as part of declaring the violation on this property for clearing, we required a 35 foot non-turf buffer, and that's what was destroyed, and that was the violation. MS. MESIANO: We had resolved that months ago. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. But this application here is for a ten foot non-turf buffer, and it says for only a ten foot non-turf buffer which would be, it shows here pavers set in sand, which would not be the -- MS. MESIANO: The area that was disturbed under that old violation has been left to re-vegetate. There's been nothing else done there. We don't propose to go back as far as that area that you're talking about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you mean go back? MS. MESIANO: We don't intend to excavate as far back into that area that you are speaking of. The area that was disturbed earlier was left to re-vegetate. I believe -- I don't know if Pat Moore is still here, she had represented Dr. Lois on the violation. But that had been resolved, I believe, the last time I was before you on that, that was last May. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it was resolved but we would wait for a re-vegetation plan until the work was done, which makes sense because you weren't going to re-vegetate and then dig it all up and put the revetment. We said we'll wait until the revetment is put in and at that time that buffer area would be re-vegetated. MS. MESIANO: Yes, but the buffer area that you're speaking of that had been disturbed was cut not dug and excavated, 23 Board of Trustees 24 January 21, 2004 and the area that you're speaking of was left to re-vegetate and over the course of the summer, it did that; it just re-grew. There was no further disturbance to that particular area that you're speaking of. So for me -- I don't mean to be difficult -- but I can't give you a plan to re-vegetate something that has naturally re-vegetated, and we have no plan of disturbing it further. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we wanted to table this because we were unable to see if it had, in fact, re-vegetated because it was covered with snow and ice. It was impossible to inspect. MS. MESIANO: The vegetation at this point without snow and ice would be minimal because of all that dies out in the winter time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, no, what was originally there certainly would have been there, despite the snow and ice. And I guess we'll look through the minutes. I'm going to make a motion to table it anyway because we couldn't inspect it because of the snow and ice. But I'm going to look through the minutes of the previous meetings, that's what I recollect. We wanted that area replanted and re-vegetated, the area that had been disturbed. MS. MESIANO: Yeah, that was not my recollection how it was left. It was my understanding you were looking to the area that would be landward of the proposed revetment and that was what was represented to me in my earlier conversations with Charlotte. It was what was relayed to me was the area landward of the revetment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what was disturbed and that' what has to be re-vegetated, correct, landward of the revetment. MS. MESIANO: Landward of the revetment. Resulting further installation of the revetment. It was not relayed to me that you were talking about the old violation, which I had understood had been resolved last May or June, the last time I came before you on this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was resolved, but I remember-- MS. MESIANO: I'm not going to argue with you because I don't have the minutes before me either. I'll come into the office and go over the transcripts of the old hearings.and see what it is that you want. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe what we're looking for is the reinstallation of the vegetated buffer, and I believe it was -- I'm thinking 35 feet, and that you did not have to have that planted because before the work was done on the 24 Board of Trustees 25 January 21, 2004 revetment, which we said made sense because then you would disturb it at that time when the work was done. So I'll make a motion -- if there's no other comment I'll make a motion to table the application until the next field inspection is February 20th. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At which time we will re-inspect. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In fact, I do have this. The plans are not finalized and we do not want to come in with a separate re-vegetation plan and then have to re-vegetate the re-vegetation for the shoreline stabilization is done. We're still holding this to finalize the plan. These minutes -- MS. MESIANO: I guess we're caught in kind of a circle here because there's no intention during the course of the revetment to disturb back that far and other area that would be disturbed because it's revetment and not bulkheading, we're not going to be digging substantially landward of the line of the revetment. I assumed it would be, but we don't intend to create as great a disturbance and the area that would be disturbed behind the line of the revetment, we would maintain that buffer with a porous material with some pavers set in there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern isn't aesthetics here, it's for the pedigree of the bay, and pavers would probably not accomplish this. What you're going to have to do is probably in the minutes is to re-vegetate that original non-disturbance area on the property, and then when the vegetation and the revetment you can stabilize the property. MS. MESIANO: There won't be a bank as such to erode at that point because the face of it will be the rock armor, so as we speak, we're losing substantial feet there. Over the course of the last month, there's been a loss of at least another three feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This wasn't applied for until -- we talked about this for years. The revetment, it wasn't applied for-- MS. MESIANO: The loss that I'm talking about has occurred over the last month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's been occurring since the glacial dropped sand there. MS. MESIANO: I understand, I understand. I'm talking about TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. But this wasn't applied for until 25 Board of Trustees 26 January 21, 2004 February 27th, until recently, so I mean we had talked about, sand eroding on these banks so it's really not a surprise. We'll table the application. MS. MESIANO: I'll be into your office to review the minutes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. 10. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of JOHN NICKLES c/o BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a wetlands permit to replace inkind/inplace approximately 1,154 linear feet of existing timber bulkheading and 775 linear feet of proposed fiberglass bulkheading installed inkind/inplace to the existing bulkheading, located along the properties both north and south sides of Petty's Pond. Located Arshamomague Avenue and Petty's Pond, Southold. SCTM 66-3-14 and 15. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson for Suffolk Environment Consulting on behalf of the applicant. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Camping tonight? MR. ANDERSON: Pardon? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Camping here? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Movie slide presentation? MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, I'm Bruce Anderson of Suffolk Environmental for the applicant, John Nickles, Beixedon Estate Property Owners Association, also known as the Canal Owners Association. I want to go over this project description because I know that the description we provided in the application is quite complicated. Basically what we're seeking to do is secure regulatory approvals for inkind/inplace construction of existing functional timber bulkhead located along both the north and south side of Petty's Pond. The northern timber bulkhead approximately 1,660 feet would be replaced. This proposal included a number of 848 of bulkheading and the reason for that is our initial plans envisioned redoing on the eastern side the boxed jetty system, and it was originally built as a solid fill system. Through the process that we have had with DEC, the applicants offered to give up the box dial jetty in favor of a single jetty system, so the actual number of linear feet of bulkheading reduces along the eastern or northern timber bulkhead from the 848 feet to the 616 feet. The actual placement of those would be on the western face of that eastern bulkhead. That bulkheading we've also requested 26 Board of Trustees 27 January 21, 2004 that it go through the mouth in Petty's Pond, and also replace all the bulkheading that's deteriorating inside. Along the southern jetty timber bulkhead again through the regulatory process we've already been through we would be replacing approximately 159 feet of linear bulkheading again, in-kind/in-place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you show us that as you go through that? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. That's why I brought this. What we have here, the first drawing shows the initial proposal and what you will notice is we had this box type solid fill jetty appear off the northern side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, when was that built? MR. ANDERSON: That was originally built in the late '20s. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, anyone is welcome to come up and take a look at this. MR. ANDERSON: What we have done is voluntarily given up there, and, in fact, the earlier bulkheading built in the late '20s, early '30s centered about 108 feet from where it is today. You can still see the remnants of it, you can still see the similar portions of it. The second thing that occurred was the existing bulkheading that you see today on the southern carries on this shape here, and what we have done in the process is also to give up this portion of the jetty as well as the double walls here, resulting in what we're proposing today, would be the single pile, single line bulkhead with approximately 78 in this section here. So that is where we have been and where we're -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go back there, Bruce, I'm sorry, can you go back? You're giving up the yellow portion on the east side? MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And that will be now, when we saw it there was ice in it. So we couldn't see, we didn't know what was in there. MR. ANDERSON: Basically (inaudible) 215 feet here was. removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any sand inside or would that be removed also? MR. ANDERSON: No, the sand will stay. In addition to this portion of the bulkhead will be removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about that little dog leg to the east? MR. ANDERSON: Here the outer wall will be removed. Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you. Just want to make sure that everyone's clear on exactly what's proposed. 27 Board of Trustees 28 January 21, 2004 MR. ANDERSON: Going to take you back in time. Our client, particularly John Nickles and his family are the previous owners of all the Beixedon Association and all of the area on the east side of Petty's Pond about 68 acres here, I'm guessing 35, 45 acres on this side, it's about a thousand feet of beach, and the map before you today right here is a map drawn by Otto Van Tuyl on October 31, 1932. This shows how the original jetties came to be. This is the double-walled (inaudible) solid bulkhead here and here was the original, we'll call it the southern or western bulkhead here. The outer base here and in the early '30s a bridge was constructed right at the mouth of Petty's Pond and that was the original construction. Into the '40s the basin was redeveloped in a couple of very significant ways. Again, the northern, if you will, box-type jetty has maintained the same configuration that was originally built in the 1930s, but the western more southern portion of the jetties this section here was rebuilt and expanded. The bridge was removed as well. What you had in those days was the outer basin, the mooring area/ramp, and an inner basin here. And this is reflected conditions 1946, this happened to be a copy of the map approved by the Health Department also approved in 1946. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any dredge records for those years? MR. ANDERSON: No, I don't think so. We don't have the 1930s and '40s, but it does reflect the accurate facts around that time. Now, of course what's happened is these jetties were built in a 20 or 25 year cycle. The last time they were done was 1977, and there are records they were done under emergency circumstances and (inaudible) at that time. So I tell you that for two reasons, the first reason that I explain that is that through the course of the last 50, 60, 70 years, what you've seen in this situation is a reduction in the amount of hard structures and the reduction is quite significant. So what we're talking about today is a total of approximately 775 linear feet proposed fiberglass bulkheading which results in about a third reduction over what was historically what Mr. Nickles had a right to maintain. He gave up voluntarily in response to applications before the DEC, and the reasons for maintaining this bulkhead are two-fold reason. One is -- three-fold. One because he has a right to and that's the most important; and second is to maintain navigability into and out of Petty's Pond; third, also is to protect land holdings, 28 Board of Trustees 29 January 21, 2004 substantial land holdings that the Nickles have to the east of the northern jetty, and, again, it's important to note, we're talking about maintaining this line here, that already exists and already functions. That jetty, there is no doubt, is a functional jetty. And the permits that we have already received reflect that fact. And in addition to that, we had a survey drawn of the jetties which included soundings both within the basin and on either side that being this area, that area, and sounding survey shows that the water in that area is substantially deeper than the water encountered here and the water encountered there. The jetties even in their present condition do indeed -- we have a littoral drift that goes from east to west, and that's also important to note because that factors into the decision-making of other agencies. The Town, the applicant and his project benefits from a DEC permit already obtained, and also an Army Corps of Engineers, that permit that likewise was obtained and that's important to note because we had two agencies with specific expertise, both in terms of erosion and wetland issues that have signed-off on this project. And again, I point out that the applicants have been flexible revising their applications resulting in substantially less bulkheading than what was there historically, and what arguably he could maintain today. This is a replacement. It's not subject to the moratorium as we understand. We agree we've done many such applications, and it is our contention that the proposal as presented complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 97 of the Town Code. We argue that to replace it will not adversely affect wetlands in the Town. The project will maintain the present quality of wetland because this is an application to replace that which already exists. The replacements of jetties and bulkheads will not cause damage to turbidity or siltation because the structures are fundamentally functional. So it is a status quo application. Obviously, they bear no relation to issues of saltwater intrusion. The replacement of the jetties will not affect fish, shellfish or other marine organisms. It is a very nonintensive application compared to what arguably Mr. Nickles has a right to do. And that these jetties will actually decrease the dangers of flood and storm-type damage because it will stabilize the mouth of this inlet. They will obviously preserve navigation, which is critical in this area because you have the inner harbor, Petty's Pond is developed substantially for recreational docks, and those property owners that are located within the Petty's Pond have an 29 Board of Trustees 30 January 21, 2004 obvious and definite right to navigate into and out of Petty's Pond. This has a history of prior dredging. The last dredging occurring in 2003, and the securing of these structures in the way proposed will protect that inlet because if otherwise, it is our opinion that the frequency of dredging would increase as a result of littoral drift and the filling of the mouth at Petty's Pond. So it really seeks to maintain the course of existing channels and the natural movement of water. It will not undermine the lateral support of other lands. The property merely maintains the existing condition of the inlet of Petty's Pond and therefore, there is no impact to the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town. The local community is very much aware of what's going on here. We have noticed them twice. We have offered to answer any questions they have. We have received thus far six letters of support. I know there are others here to support the applications. The first letter is one from Gus Clavis dated February 25th, which indicates unanimous support among those property owners that rely on the mouth of Petty's Pond remaining open and navigable. You have correspondence from William J. Balas and Pauline Balas to the Trustees also in support dated January 11, 2004. You have correspondence from Bruce and Harriet Woodruff dated January 10th to your Board also voicing their strong support for the application. You have correspondence from Barbara Granias to the Board dated January 15th expressing their support. We have correspondence from Craig Essinger dated January 17th voicing their support. We have correspondence from Donald J. Raffis to John Nickles dated January 17, 2004 also supporting this application. What that leaves us with is a project that has received agency support, by virtue of the issuance of a permit from New York State DEC and also the Army Corps of Engineers, and also we have a project that demonstrates substantial community support as many of the people that live in this area rely on those shoreline structures, however diminished voluntarily on our behalf, to get into and out of there. They're also concerned about beaches and our proposal is one that will protect. I am aware we also have a strong objectant by a fellow by the name of Ball. And Mr. Ball filed an Article 78 against the DEC arguing that the permit should not have been issued. We don't believe that that Article 78 has any merit. I expect him to object. I expect he may explain about wetland issues and things within the four corners of the code. I want you to be aware of Mr. Ball lives in a 30 Board of Trustees 31 January 21, 2004 bulkheaded property which is located adjacent to the southern or western jetty here. That bulkhead was built, as was his house, in approximately 1987 during that regulatory process -- during your regulatory process for Mr. Ball you required a 50 foot buffer zone to be maintained on the property. I will hand up his complete file or recent photo showing the buffer which has not been maintained. My point in showing you that is you will discover that he will come to you with unclean hands, and it is my opinion that he can't legitimately speak about wetland concerns, which is what we're here for tonight.l conclude by saying that this project is reasonable, and it is necessary. It should be granted because we're talking about a mere replacement of jetties and bulkheads. We're talking about a substantial reduction in bulkheads that exist today. This will provide for safe navigation into and out of Petty's Pond, reduce the amount of-- reduce the need for frequently dredging, of future dredging in the mouth of Petty's Pond, and will maintain the existing environmental conditions in the immediate and adjacent areas. My presentation tonight is summarized in a letter I will hand up with the exhibits that are before you. It's a brief letter, but I think it touches all of the points that I've made tonight. Our attorney is here. Mr. Nickles is here, and we're all prepared to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Would anyone like to speak on behalf of the application? MR. NICKLES: Hi, I'm the applicant John Nickles. I'm living in Southold. Just a little historical perspective, back in the '20s the areas called Beixedon Estates and the adjacent area to the east was a summer resort area consisting of 28 cottages and a hotel called the Arshamomaque Inn and that became my family's business back in the '30s and they operated that business right up through sometime in World War II. At one point the inn burned down and after the war my mother created that subdivision, that you see before you, and had an auction and sold off many of the houses. I think 20 of the houses that existed in there, and it was all she could do to hang on through the war, can you imagine, right through the Depression. At that point she consolidated the business on the east side of the canal, and today we still continue that same family business there on the roughly 30 acres of Southold bay front with eight summer cottages, a dock that the tenants use for their boats, which 31 Board of Trustees 32 January 21, 2004 is part of their attractions. Obviously, there's two attractions, one to be in Southold and the other is to be on the bay; and three, to have a convenient place to have a boat for recreational purposes. So it does, in my point of view as a local businessman running this family business, it's integral that we have the ability to get boats into and out of that canal. I, along with my neighbors, own almost 52 pieces of property in Beixedon Estates not counting the property on the east side, so my speaking here, I'm speaking for a substantial number of parcels in the Beixedon Estates Association. On the waterfront on the east side there's close to a thousand feet of bay front and on the west side of the seven parcels, indeed I own I think four of those seven parcels on the bay. So when you talk about the waterfront, this is a piece of property I'm well familiar with for 65 years. I either lived on one side of the canal or the other side, and I can tell you one thing for sure, I'm sure of death and taxes, and I'm sure if you own waterfront property, you have a erosion, and you have accretion, and it comes and goes. And as Trustees I'm sure you're well aware of it, and you see your applications even tonight of people trying to control their erosion. We're trying to protect our harbor, for the people that live on that harbor, and I'm trying to project my interest on either side. And those people who have a problem should probably make an application before you to try to do something to protect their interests, and that's about all I have to say on that. And we ask that you approve this application. We have given up a substantial amount of the existing bulkhead out there to try to make the DEC happy and the Corps of Engineers I would have preferred to maintain that box and have it filled in because it makes a much more substantial jetty, but we decided to give that up, not only for matter of principal but also because dollars are limited, you know, you just can't pay for everything. If we could pay for everything, there would still probably be a full marina there, which I neglected to mention. During the course of the Arshamomaque Inn, that marina was a busy place for open fishing boats, charter boats all going out of that marina and in the inner basin that was all part of that operation of the hotel and so forth. Thank you so much for your time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: John, when was that bulkhead built, the west side where the little marina is? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you come up and take,a look at this? 32 Board of Trustees 33 January 21, 2004 We want to be clear. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a little doubt about what I'm looking at here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're trying to get some resolution on the shoreline, and the shoreline changes. This was built in the '30s. This was all marina. There was an ice house in here. There's a road, this is a road that came all the way around like this. These houses are not accessible from Route 25. MR. ANDERSON: This section here came somewhere in 1932. MR. NICKLES: This has never been touched since it was built, and every 25 years they did something here. Last time I remember in the '50s, part of this in here, but not this part, it was not touched. TRUSTEE FOSTER: When was this picture taken? MR. ANDERSON: '53. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Was this filled with sand in here? MR. NICKLES: This was all the sand in here. TRUSTEE FOSTER: From the spoils from the dredging? MR. NICKLES: I wasn't here. I was born in 1938. This was done before I was born. When I was a small child, this was all sand. .TRUSTEE FOSTER: But the bulkhead was in? MR. NICKLES: The bulkhead was in. All this was in 1938. When this was intact there was no erosion, you'll have letters testifying that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I wanted to clarify that. MR. NICKLES: There's significant erosion on this side but you don't really see it because there's no bulkheading there so there's no scouring effect. I manage properties and I'm very familiar with this. This is the story house, the chimney house and right now we have about two feet of fragmite, all this gone. This shoreline looks something like this now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there Monday. MR. NICKLES: You can see there was a gazebo here, that gazebo is gone. I don't know if you remember. That was way back in the -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we stop everything again, we want to make sure everybody knows what's going on, including the Board but not limited to the Board, right. All right, is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Dave CICHANOWICZ, resident at Beixedon. I'm, quote, one of the canal people, as we have been named. Of course I'm in favor of having this taken care of. And I also 33 Board of Trustees 34 January 21, 2004 served on a committee along with different fellow community residents for a couple of years. We tried to attack the issue of what the objections are going to be about the erosion along the westerly side of this inlet. We've contacted several different consultants, got different opinions from a wide array of people. I don't know if you're familiar with the Woodhull Group from Rhode Island. They're a very, quote, specialized environmental group, and they came down to survey it, gave us some off the record opinions, but the long and short of it was that there's no one that's going to tell you specifically what would be the outcome if the jetty was to stay as-is or to be shortened. It seems to be logical when you look at maps from the era from whatever has happened over the years, erosion is a common occurrence in years it happens wherever it's not protected and will continue to happen. So I don't know if there is an answer to this and how to make everywhere happy, I wish there was, but I'm just showing my support for this as-is, and I wish that we could also come up with a way of also connecting the beach at the same time, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak in favor of the application? MR. ZACK: Tom Zack, I'm a resident of Beixedon as well. I'm one of the people inside and I'm just here to show my support for this project. I want to be able to get my boat in and out and be able to do that without having to worry, whether we can get the dredging done in time for the seasonal deadlines. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, anybody else? MS. NESLINGER: Yes. I'm Jean Neslinger, and I'm also a resident of Beixedon, and I certainly approve of this. We need it because years ago when the bulkhead was there we had no problem with the beaches, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anybody else? MR. KLAVIS: My name's Dean Klavis. I am also a resident of Southold. I too am in favor of it. I feel that history shows that when the bulkhead was in its full integrity, it did provide a certain amount of shelter for the beaches. It held off a lot of sand out of the beach and also out of the inlet. It wasn't until late '80s that the bulkhead started to deteriorate that it actually started to create a faster rate of erosion. I too hope that you vote in favor of it. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anybody else? Before we start, if there's any other comments that are 34 Board of Trustees 35 January 21, 2004 going to object to this application I call for a five minute recess. (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition or would have any other comments otherwise about this application? MR. BRESSLER: Yes, please. My name is Eric Bressler Wickham, Bressler, Gordon and Geasa. I'm here on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Friedman, Mr. and Mrs. Ball, who are what we'll call adjacent property owners and we would like to speak in opposition of this this evening. The first thing we would like to do -- E. Brownell Johnston: Did they submit a letter either of them? MR. BRESSLER: Did they submit a letter? E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Yes, any correspondence? MR. BRESSLER: Well, the first thing I'd like to do is it's my understanding that the Board has received previously a binder, a white binder. TRUSTEE FOSTER: With the pictures? MR. BRESSLER: With the pictures and the surveys, yeah, with the overlays. I would like that to be formally made a part of the record. I would like that previously submitted, and we'll come back to that later. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: So it was only the binder that you submitted? MR. BRESSLER: And the surveys that went with it. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: We're trying to make a record, here. MR. BRESSLER: Yes. Now, by way of opening, I must confess that upon review of this project, it strikes me as one of the most ill advised and environmentally unsound projects ever to come before this Board. As the applicant pointed out incredibly other agencies have granted permits. The one that we knew about and caught in time, the DEC, is the subject of an Article 78 this Board is the last bastion. You are the last hope to protect the area, subject area, here subject to what the court may do in the Article 78. Thus, the responsibility rests upon this Board to protect the environment in Peconic Bays. The one thing that strikes me here is that while the applicant said a lot of things, the most significant thing about the application is what the applicant didn't say. What the applicant didn't say was anything of a scientific or quantitative nature that would justify this particular application. Absolutely nothing. The reasons that were given for the application are, I have a right to. 35 Board of Trustees 36 January 21, 2004 Well, we certainly disagree with that. You don't have a right to it. You have a right only to what the regulatory agencies say you have a right to. It's an aid to navigation. Well, a thousand foot jetty would be an aid to navigation in and out of that pond, and so would a 50 foot jetty; and to say that we need this project for navigation aids this Board but little in determining whether the scope of this project is appropriate. I think in that regard the Board could look at some place like Gull Pond for guidance as to what's reasonable and necessary as to getting in and out, nothing of the magnitude of this project. So again, here are vague generalities to support the fact that we need it for navigation, but there's no evidence at all to support this particular project. And finally, I think we come to the crux of this application, as shown by the photographs, we need this to protect our property. Well, yes, everybody knows that's what's going on here, and let's make no bones about it. There is a huge or there has been a huge jetty sticking out in the Peconic Bay. It is beyond argument what happens with respect to the littoral drift and jetties. We all know it's scientifically established. We know that the sand accumulates on the up drift side, and it robs properties, these jetties on the down drift side and they get scoured out eroded and lost. There is no doubt that that is what happened here. And as the Nickles' property benefits from the so obvious build-up of the sand, so the Ball and Friedman properties are eroded. Because the sand that's supposed to be going there isn't going there. We all know this. We all know what happened over on the south side with that ill-conceived jetty field and what happens when you stop, and what happens on the downside. What's the problem here? We all know what it is, and a 300 foot jetty out in Peconic Bay is not the answer to the problem here, and there's no support on the record upon which you could find that a 300 foot jetty is the answer to anything. What is the answer? The answer is a much more modest proposal, if anything, such as exists at the mouth of Gull Pond, that's the first thing that can be done. The second thing that can be done is the dredging spoils have to be placed down drift with where they may naturally go. There may even be a need at this juncture for replenishment like the photographs establish that so what is called for here is a unified approach to this particular location. It needs to be studied. The options need to be considered and a unified plan that preserves the entire bay 36 Board of Trustees 37 January 21, 2004 front has to be adopted. We should like this, we're told, the Board should like this because it's less than what was there before. Well, my clients have been punched in the face two to three times and now they're being told you're only going to be punched once and you should like that a whole lot better. Well, I don't buy into that. There's a better way to get this done and the applicants have not met even the slightest amount of their burden to show you why this is reasonable or necessary. To show you just how far this application fails to address the environmental concerns, consider for a moment the remains out beyond the 300 feet. You guys were out there, ladies, you were out there, you saw it, it was this crap out there. That stuffs got to be removed. That's 400 and 500 feet offshore; does that get proposed as part of this proposal? No. Maybe money's an issue but money's not the only issue. What has to be done here is the right thing. Now, let's address briefly some of the specific comments that were made. It's in-kind/in-place. I don't know I've seen that; that doesn't look in-kind/in-place to me. That thing looks like a broken old, broken up comb. This is not in-kind/in-place by any stretch of the imagination, and is it a functional jetty? I don't think so. Does it serve some function? Of course it does. Even if you put one pile in one drift, it's going to accumulate sand, no doubt about that. You all went down and looked at it. You can draw your own conclusions. This is essentially a new application. That's what this is, and they want to put out fully to the extent that's possible, a fully impervious 300 foot jetty, and the jetty that's there now is not that, that's what they want. Okay. The existing conditions are well known to you. You've been down there. You've seen them. The photographs are there. It's obvious what has happened to the down drift properties. The historical changes that have occurred to the property over time were somewhat passed over by the applicant. Well, historically this is what happened, but all you have to do is look at the maps and surveys and see just how much property has been lost, a huge amount, and my clients are losing several feet every year. Even with the jetty in its dilapidated state. To replace this thing and put 300 feet of brand new impervious jetty, you may as well just slice off their property and stick it into the bay. Now, let's talk a bit about the soundings, we 37 Board of Trustees 38 January 21, 2004 took soundings, if you look carefully at the diagrams you'll see the soundings are several years old and their surveys so state. They used old numbers that predated the dredging, that in and of itself is reason for denying this application. They didn't even show you what the true state of the bottom was and the depths. Is it reasonably necessary? I don't think so. That's basically the bottom line here. There's been no showing that what these people are showing is reasonably necessary to protect any body but John Nickles' property because of the accretion of sand, and when you looked at the pictures to see that's what has occurred here. For the witnesses to get up and tell this Board to me is just incredible that, well, you know, erosion comes and goes and sometimes it accretes and sometimes it doesn't accrete. My client's properties are down drift, they don't accrete. Maybe on a rare, rare odd windy day, but they don't accrete over time. Everybody knows that. I'm surprised that that argument has even been advanced to you people. We have consulted the land use company, and I'm handing up for the record the credentials of Chuck Bowman and his findings down there which reflects the fact that in order to preserve navigation -- and don't get me wrong, there's a pond there, whatever you want to call it, and there is a legitimate interest in having navigation, and I don't come before you saying give them nothing, Chuck Bowman doesn't recommend give them nothing but what they're asking for is patently unreasonable. But what I'd like to hand up now before we get to Mr. Ball is a revised table of contents, a joint application for permit, a letter from John Nickles, a printout of a DEC web site, a letter from Dr. Friedman to Bay Constable Desinkowski, as well as an updated photograph of low tide taken at low tide January 20, 2004 at 4:30 showing the mess that's out there. Now, the blow-ups that we have on the poster board here are all contained in the booklet that was previously submitted. Mr. Ball is going to work from these boards but everything that he's talking about has been provided to you, albeit in smaller form. Mr. Ball, why don't you start at the beginning here and tell the Board what comes first in this particular chronology. MR. BALL: 46 surveys, we started with the original 46 surveys, which I got from Joan Latham. There's a lot of pride in our community. 38 Board of Trustees 39 January 21, 2004 MR. BRESSLER: What have you shown? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, excuse me. MR. BALL: You have every survey you need. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I want to make sure that it's easier for the Board to review it here or review it there. MR. BALL: Probably there. This is a map of Beixedon Estates that was 1946. MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Ball, what have you shown on this map with your lines? MR. BALL: Basically the other basins that's been gone for some time it used to be, as explained, a place for large boats -- the outer portion here. That was the first jetty off (inaudible). MR. BRESSLER: What is this dotted line? MR. BALL: The dotted line is the massive erosion that has taken place, there's a diagram here, basically that's all that's left of the bay front beach of the Beixedon community area. MR. BRESSLER: That's since? MR. BALL: That's since '46. MR. BRESSLER: Does the blue line mark then where the shoreline is now? MR. BALL: Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was plotted by whom and when? MR. BALL: That was just a rough idea to get an idea. That was a plot that I did to show, just to get a rough idea, just to get an overview of what's happened. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not by a licensed surveyor? MR. BALL: This is a licensed surveyor of the same thing. It's easier to see in a gross format first. What you have is a picture of what little remains of Beixedon Beach. MR. BRESSLER: Where is that located? MR. BALL: That's located here. MR. BRESSLER: And where is it on the survey? MR. BALL: Right here. That recently, if you see the permit, see the DEC permit. MR. BRESSLER: That's the southwestern corner? MR. BALL: Right. It's in such bad condition, if you see the DEC permit, they received the DEC permit to put 330 yards of fill base to try to refill, re-nourish that beach because the community really loves that beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When you mention documents like that, could you please reference them? MR. BALL: It's on the table of contents. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: For the record so it will be clear what you're referencing. 39 Board of Trustees 40 January 21, 2004 MR. BALL: That would be the DEC permit of'01. The DEC permit of'01 shows that the community received a DEC permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:. But submitted by Mr. Friedman. MR. BALL: It was submitted by the Estate of Grace R. Lewis because they still claim to pay taxes on it although it's a community beach. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Mr. Ball, for the record, could you just state who you are and what your status is here? We're making a record. MR. BALL: I'm Thomas Ball, my wife Barbara's right over here. Basically I'm here on Lot 4 of this subdivision map and Dr. Friedman is right here, Harry's right here, Lot 6. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Okay, thank you. MR. BRESSLER: Now you have an updated picture. MR. BALL: Basically that was what happened. Well, what happened is when I first moved there, one of the first things I did I became president of Beixedon and one of the things I did was I tried to do something about the road. There was a tremendous road runoff, and what we did was try to stabilize the end of the road, and we had a survey done, that's this one here, and if you look at the bottom of this map, it's the bottom of this one here. This survey belongs to 1988 (inaudible). Joe Ingegno did that. He's a licensed surveyor. What happened is it reflects Joe Ingegno's own drawings. This is all high water marks. This is all basically gone at that point, I moved here in '88. Since then as this indicates the high tide is up against the bulkhead and has actually cut in behind the bulkhead and starting to wash that out and goes into the Nickles' property to the east of my property. That's when you see the trees are falling down, when you view the site. That's what's happening. And I just did it again, not talking about a licensed surveyor. When we had a Beixedon Beach committee formed back in '01, we had an annual meeting and we had a real concern about the Beixedon Beach community beach. So we formed a committee and one of the things we did was we tried to find out what could be done about the erosion, and one of the fundamental things we came up with -- and this was one of the big arguments -- costly was to do a comprehensive survey, the whole survey. You had to do that if they really wanted to make everybody happy. Obviously we were aware of the jetty problems to begin with. We studied that, but the Nickleses had objections, the Nickleses had objections to it. So we 40 Board of Trustees 41 January 21, 2004 figured, fine, let's try to find out, get some solid core information on that, but that was costly, and it never happened. MR. BRESSLER: As far as these photographs on this board here and the first board to the right of the old Beixedon what is that to? MR. BALL: This is an aerial photograph that shows the old jetty, you have it in that book. The 160 feet of submerged, and then you have what remains here. The boards stick out of the water, basically, the super structure is gone and I kind of show in those pictures because we had wrote to various agencies, which is a big issue, one of the agencies we wrote to was the Town Bay Constable because these large 8 X 8 X 16 beams were constantly floating in. I have them picked up so we don't hit them. My brother had stitches one time because he stepped on a board with a large nail sticking out of it. This jetty has been falling apart for years. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, you're referencing a photo that isn't otherwise dated or marked; that was a photo done in jurisdiction one, I can get the exact information on that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Appreciate that. MR. BRESSLER: That is the photograph '01 is the photograph. That is the photograph, and your property is -- MR. BALL: Is located if you look at the Photograph A to the left. MR. BRESSLER: To the left? MR. BALL: Right. And the jetty is -- MR. BRESSLER: And the jetty is to the right? MR. BALL: Correct. MR. BRESSLER: And the picture below it dated 3/11/02 is a picture of the jetty? MR. BALL: Yes, the remains of that western jetty that they were talking about. This is the three bulkheads that go across, and we have (inaudible) in '88 that's what we were showing the high water mark is here. If you do a scale and measure it out, it's not official. If you take a scale you can actually calculate. We moved here in '88 that's what it was showing was actually the high water mark is here. If you get a scale and measure it out, it's not official, but if you take a scale, the scales on here you can actually calculate yourself, although it should be done by a licensed surveyor. I came up with a rough, as it is now, 40 feet, plus. 41 Board of Trustees 42 January 21, 2004 MR. BRESSLER: How long have you been here? MR. BALL: Since '88. MR. BRESSLER: So you're losing two to three feet a year? MR. BALL: Right. About two feet a year. MR. BRESSLER: Moving onto this photo over here, what's shown on this? MR. BALL: What I tried to do is I tried to through an aerial photograph that we have, and, again, it's approximate 160 feet this 316, this shows the outer basin as it used to exist, and you can start to see the washout occurring here, and the creek, okay. And up here I just had some of the research we did that was the beginning parts of from our -- he handled our coastal erosion when we studied that, but basically we had the presentation of a series of--this is a '79 picture, so to show you the condition of how much land was there and condition of how much land was there and basically this is another aerial view. This is a County tax map. What I found interesting on this was they were constantly revised. They were constantly revising the shoreline. And the shoreline to the east basically has not been revised, but the shoreline west of the jetty has been revised three times and I drew a blue line there to give my estimate of approximately where we are now. And you can walk the beach and pretty much come to that conclusion or get a survey, but it had been after basically the high tide mark. The high tide mark is basically where the bulkhead is now. What I had here after that is a another series of photographs and surveys. What I tried to do was to show the survey that was submitted. The survey that was submitted in '01 is the bottom survey, and that was done, and then I realized as I looked at the surveys that they didn't indicate -- this was the survey that was submitted, the high tide mark is the same and to prove that you can overlap them by doing clear overlays. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the same as what? MR. BALL: The high tide marks haven't moved. They amended their surveys before they put in the structures, but they never did change the high tide mark. They're not reflecting the new state of erosion. They're not changing the water depths, they stayed the same. Certainly after 400 cubic yards have been taken out those depths had to have changed. You can't use that same survey. The reason why I say that's so critical to me is the amount of fill that comes out is very, very important, not only how much comes out, but how much and when. This is very, very important 42 Board of Trustees 43 January 21, 2004 because it's going to definitely affect us on the west. MR. BRESSLER: If you look at the survey it says the water depths are old. It says they used them in 2001. So there is no secret you can take the overlay and lay them over, but you really don't need to, they tell you. Now, if you would briefly go through the book and identify, in other words, so we have for the record, what each of these photographs represents. TRUSTEE : I'm sorry, I think because they're easily to remove doesn't change them. I think Mr. Ball's going to have to come into the office and -- MR. BALL: Okay, they're the same as just showed anyway. MR. BRESSLER: Besides the photographs, which are shown in there, I notice black and white, what year is that? MR. BALL: That's '53. MR. BRESSLER: Then we come into the applications, and then as I noted before there's this statement in there of no impact is anticipated. I think that that clearly is a misstatement. We all know that there's going to be an impact, and I think that impact has to be addressed, short environmental impact assessment. This is a very serious project and I think it needs to be substantially studied. You have then the Beixedon Estate Association, an annual meeting. Made it clear minutes that this beach is eroding. Now, we'll go to the letter from Suffolk Environmental Consultant in 2001. 1 would just address the Boards's attention -- MR. BALL: It basically says: It is my understanding that it would be better-- (inaudible) -- and the maintenance of the inlet includes dredging and restoration of the beach relates to the long term and persistent erosion of the wetland. We had a long discussion talking about this erosion about how he was going to correct it at one of our beach committee meetings, and I think that the memo is in there and the memo's -- MR. BRESSLER: I think that the memos in there speak for themselves. And there's another letter from En-Consultants which also reflects the fact that there's serious down drift, and that serious consideration has to be given to the design of the plans that are going to take place there. If a study has not been done, rather you have this proposal before you and a blanket assertion that 300 foot jetty is necessary -- that 300 people readied is necessary. You have 43 Board of Trustees 44 January 21, 2004 then surveys that are on the board, and you have photographs that reflect the inside of what appears to be basically a non-(inaudible)jetty, which you all saw when you went down there, and finally you have down at the end here a comparison with respect to Gull Pond, which I mentioned earlier, which is a much smaller project, sort of serves essentially the similar function, I think there is matter that also needs to be clarified here, to the west you have the Beixedon Estate Association. That is not (inaudible) to the applicant here, I think there's been some confusion. The applicant, John Nickles, Beixedon Estate Owners Association is that (inaudible). At this juncture we conclude our presentation. We will come in and number these things so they don't get lost or mislaid. We'd like to do that, then to amend the Table of Contents to reflect that. If the Board has questions for me or Mr. Ball. I know that there are other people here that want to talk about this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just a word of clarification, it's not that the Board is disinterested or fidgety, it's just a matter that has gone back between different items that were presented. We're trying to clarify everything in our mind. If there's anybody else that hasn't spoken. MR. Wren: Yes, I'm John Wren. I'm a director of the Beixedon Estate Association. I've been past president, director and officer through the years. I'm also a resident of Beixedon Estates. All the owners of Beixedon Estates purchased their property-- not the current owner, but people that had prior titles to the deeds purchased their property from Mr. Nickles' mother. And when we purchased those properties, connected to the properties was the right to use this beach, it is an easement of the Beixedon Estate Beach, which is the beach to west of the subject canal. When I was young, younger, when the whole bulkheading was there for the marina, there was a lot of sand on this beach because it was constantly dredged out of there and piled up so when it eroded it eroded downstream or to the west, so that we continued to have sand, because this bulkheading would have limited it the same way as it's doing it now. But today, the amount of spoil that's being taken out is nowhere near where it used to be to take out of that whole marina. So that's one of the reasons the beach was maintained over all those years because of all this sand that was taken out and 44 Board of Trustees 45 January 21, 2004 put up there on the road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but why do you figure that is? MR. WREN: Why was it taken out? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, why is there substantially there less amount of sand? MR. WREN: Because -- because you're not allowed to take the sand. The amount of permits -- you're given permits to do certain things at certain times. Back in those days they just did things, did whatever they wanted to do and -- as you can see by the bulkhead -- and took tremendous amounts of sand and put it up on the beach. When we were kids there were mounds, huge mounds of sand that slowly eroded down the beach and kept the beach intact, and they would dredge it some more and put it up there. I think the crux of what I'd like to say that from all the members of the association, many of whom are here, from our association, of whom the canal people are also members of this association, we don't really want anyone to stop people from using the canal. That isn't our canal. We'd like them to use the canal, but our intention is to see if there's a way to see if you can shorten the length of the replacement so that it doesn't have such a tremendous impact on the Beixedon Estates Association Beach. We don't mind, and we think they should have the canal left open. That is not what we object to. We object to the length of the jetty, and we believe if the jetty were shortened, we believe we would have a better chance of maintaining some of the beach and also the homeowners not losing that much of their property. It seems there are really two issues here. One is that of the erosion by putting this out there; the second is taking somebody's property, by pleasing one person and harming other people's property. It seems to me that there's a way it can be done so that everybody's happy, and I would ask you to take a look at that because I don't believe that the length of the jetty requested is needed at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before you start, could you just put that down, set that board down. Thank you. MR. BRESSLER: Are you taking objections or support? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I didn't see any other hands so -- JOHN NICKLES: I'd be happy to sit down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you. MR. FRIEDMAN: My name is Howard Friedman. I'm a full-time, 45 Board of Trustees 46 January 21, 2004 year round resident in the Beixedon Estates. It was pointed out earlier the lot on which I live, which is about 400 or 500 yards west of the inlet. During that period of time that we lived here, now 17 years, we have lost 36 feet of beach, which runs out to about two feet a year, which is continuing because of the erosion; it was necessary for us to put up the bulkhead. If you think I like bulkheads, well, needless to say, I don't like bulkheads, but we had to do it or else our property would have been eroded away. It's been my understanding on this study --well, I'm not going to repeat it. I've studied the article that was quoted in here about beach erosion. I have the whole article with me if you'd like to have it. You have the first page, the one by Dr. Kumar, specifically identified the fact that it is well-known throughout the world that down drift erosion results from the presence of jetties and the degree of down drift erosion is related to the lengths of the jetty that is sticking out of the land. It varies from place to place, it's true, but the basic rule is that overall the length of the jetty does it. As far as I can see in this and I think it's been said but you'll forgive me if I say it again, and that is those of us who lived in Beixedon Estates have always been aware of the fact that the entrance to Petty's Pond should be kept navigable. It's right that it be navigable. It should be navigable. But a compromise solution has been -- at least we of the Beixedon Estates Association have tried to work out a compromise that would not only protect the existing beach of Mr. Nickles' property, which lies to the west, would aid in reducing or preventing the silting up of the entrance to Petty's Pond, and would also reduce the rate of erosion of the land west of the jetty. This is a type of compromise in a situation like this where there are different factors involved, but for a community to live, there has to be a compromise. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anybody else? E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Can we have a copy of that full article 78? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Going to receive a full copy of the article that you referenced. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also could we have a copy of the Article 78 proceedings filed against the DEC? MR. BRESSLER: Certainly. And one more matter that I omitted to mention, and I'm sure this Board is intimately familiar with the CCMP of the Comprehensive plan for the Peconic Bay. I assume that there is a copy of that in the 46 Board of Trustees 47 January 21, 2004 Trustees office, if there is not, then I would ask for leave to obtain and submit a complete copy with particular attention to the provisions contained therein with respect to shore hardening structures, bulkhead, jetties, groins, because I'm sure the Board is aware after the CCMP was promulgated and adopted, there was a general policy against those sorts of shore hardening structures, and I think that the Board can take note of that, and I'd be happy to submit the four or five inch document. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, I have seen that. MR. BRESSLER: Yes, I thought as much. And there's a map and the whole thing that goes with it, and I make reference to that and we will hand that up as it is a public document and you don't have it. I'd like to make that part of the record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. BRESSLER: And we will also supply the 78 to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. BRESSLER: Although, Mr. Chairman, I would point out one thing and that is in conjunction with the Article 78 despite requests to the DEC for access to their files, they failed and refused to give access to the files. We are awaiting still either in the form of a return or FOIL request the information that we requested to see just exactly what they based their so-called decision on. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our files, all of this is available at any time. MR. BRESSLER: Duly noted. MS. BLAKELY: Hi, my name's Fran Blakely, I live in Beixedon. I am not against a jetty, but my big question listening today, is I don't think we have been told why it's necessary to be that long. I know there's been requests, but there's been no reason. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I'll have the applicant answer, yes, sir. MR. LATHAM: My name is Steve Latham, my wife is here, Joan. We've lived in Beixedon for about -- well, different times, but I've been here about since 1951. 1 happen to have my parents home -- I'm not familiar with the pictures -- is the home that is just to the west of Dr. Friedman's on the beach, and we actually live up on the other end, two houses there. And I can remember growing up -- and I've known John for 50 years, maybe a little bit more than that. And this was a very friendly 47 Board of Trustees 48 January 21, 2004 community. We're summer residents. We live here now for all year round, and I can remember-- I can't tell you how many feet it was, I know we've lost a lot of beach -- but I can remember as a youngster having all this wonderful beach in front of me and walking down to the -- I think there's a picture here that shows the outline of the original, the western side of the original marina, and you could walk to that corner at high tide, you couldn't get quite to that corner because the water came in, but you could get to within ten feet of that corner. The whole beach it was marvelous. As John Rand mentioned and I couldn't explain it, I do recall the sand dunes that we had you could go behind it, hide and get in all kinds of trouble, they're gone now so the kids can't get any trouble. But they were there, and we never really appreciated what was happening because of this continual flow from east to west, but it was replenishing the beach. Well, over years you run out of that sand, and now we're paying for it. And there's no recovery from the east, you know the littoral drift is east to west unless you interrupt it, well, it's interrupted. The Balls the LaBasis and the Friedmans, the water is to their bulkhead now. I am the next house, the water isn't to our bulkhead except to the edge. Beach in the front of our house, that beach is the beach that's owned by the Estate of Grace R. Lewis, and we all have rights to easements over it. But even there within a relatively short period of time there will be no beach to go to. I'm thinking of putting cleats on the bulkhead. It's just an observation, and I had never-- and I've spoken to John, I've spoken to John, Junior-- I don't think any of us have ever suggested that he should not be able to and encouraged him to reconstruct that which was deteriorating on his side of the -- on the east side of the canal, because a lot of the sand that is filling up at the neck, actually he's losing beach, but it's on that side. It's on the canal side, and it's coming through where that part of the jetty has broken down, and it's filled and they have to dredge it out. He should have the right to protect his property, but not to the detriment of the rest of us. And the question as John and Fran and others have mentioned is not whether he should be able to replace the jetty, but replace it to what extent. The closer you can get to the beach where we had some possible chance of getting that littoral drift, bringing the sand that has accumulated not on his beach, off the beach, some distance off the beach. If there were some 48 Board of Trustees 49 January 21, 2004 possibility of that coming in the shadow and stabilizing the beaches of the Balls, the LaBasis and the Friedmans, and I wouldn't complain either. That's all we're interested in. Otherwise I support John in the reconstruction of everything else, but it's just the distance out that we're very concerned about, and we hope that you consider that. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anybody else like to speak who hasn't spoken? MR. NICKLES: John Nickles, Jr. During 2001 when we had the beach committee meetings I represented my father at the meetings because he was running the business. My recollection of the -- we all wanted to get together and Tom Ball made mention of this, and even I said, of course we want to see what we can do to mitigate any erosion that may be going on on the west side, and when it became apparent that what they meant was that they wanted our jetty to come down, then it became -- it's almost like we didn't go anywhere, even though we tried to suggest that maybe we could work on the west side and figure out what possible mitigation measures we could use to hold the sand in place on that side. As a boy I grew up -- I was born in 1970. 1 spent my whole life in Beixedon Estates. I moved out of my father's house when I was 30 years old. So I'm very well acquainted with the beach and with the property and with my father's property on the east side. As I recall, when the first houses were built down there next to Mr. Latham, and my grandmother had to sell those properties off, I recall when the bulkhead went up, the first couple big storms that we had, that's when I really noticed that the beach acceleration started. Now, I've been in the real estate business for quite some time, and as well as it's I guess common knowledge by now that lengths of jetties have certain effects on shorelines on the down side of the littoral drift, it's also common knowledge that when you put up a bulkhead, you make a choice about whether or not you're going to protect what's above your bulkhead or below it. And when your bulkhead goes up, it's been my experience looking at properties since I've been in the real estate business, since 1995 on many waterfront properties, not as many as the Trustees have I'm quite sure of that, but the properties that have the bulkheads typically experience the most erosion because when you get that surge, the tide comes up, the wave energy has 49 Board of Trustees 50 January 21, 2004 nowhere to go, it hits that bulkhead and it scours it out. Now, we've had erosion on the east side of the jetty, we have no bulkheading over there and there has been an incredible loss of property over there they talk about 36 to 40 feet of property since I guess the '80s, since the bulkhead went up. But there's been a significant amount of erosion on my grandmother's piece, which is now my father's real estate, on the east side, and that is due to the storm surge. Even though we have that jetty there to protect us, we're still losing real estate and if we had a bulkhead there, I'm sure we'd be losing more real estate. So that's the other side of the story that wasn't told. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anybody else who hasn't spoken? MR. BLAKELY: My name is John Blakely, I also am a homeowner in Beixedon. I'd like to address John about his bulkhead question. If that were so, why is it when those bulkheads — when those jetties going out farther west of us and they have bulkheads, they still have plenty of beach? I don't believe it's tidal surge. I do believe it's the length of that jetty going out, and I for one would be extremely happy if we could take another look at this whole issue and possibly come up with a better solution than is on the Board table at the moment, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. And actually when he's talking about a hardening structure, generally you do get, it's varies, either beach loss or beach elevation loss with a bulkhead, generally. MR. BLAKELY: If you go down to the beach, you'll see where the bulkheads, they have sand, but we have been gouged out and the sand is all going down there. : Mr. Blakely is referring to the Hoey property and the Daley property to the west of Hippodrome Pond, and they have bulkheads and low profile groins as well. So it's not exactly the same scenario. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anybody else who hasn't spoken? MR. FRIEDMAN: I hate to address this thing on personalities, but I must disabuse the Trustees of a remark that was just made by Mr. Nickles, Junior. We made these meetings; we had these meetings, and we tried very hard to approach the idea, just as I said it earlier, of proposing in a way that would protect the beach to the east of the bulkhead, help to maintain the opening to this into Petty's Pond and to reduce the erosion. We went over and over that and over that and there was an absolute wall of resistance 50 Board of Trustees 51 January 21, 2004 to try to make any compromise. Now, if it's necessary, I have here a letter that I wrote to the Board of Trustees in 2001 in favor of continuing the dredging. I've been accused by some of the people of even opposing the dredging, but if you would like, I'd just a soon you have a copy of this letter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We'll add it to the record: That's the difficulty here is that it's not only the information that we received yesterday and also the information that we have received tonight, it's going to be pretty difficult to make a decision without really reviewing this information. There's been, as the people have spoken here, just one moment, as people have spoken here tonight. The Board has been reviewing this and going through this and I'd just like to say that coastal erosion is a really complicated process. It's hard to compare one structure beach with another. But this Board does have a tremendous amount of experience and I've heard a lot of comments mentioned up here tonight that were really important relating to the different structures that exist, and the different structures that existed here, and how they related to erosion, and I think that's important to put the whole picture together. And it's a good historical, all the historical reference is really important here, and I think we'll consider it in that context. MR. NICKLES: Fran wanted to know why the jetty had to be so long, I think historically Southold Bay is very shoaled on the north side of it. When you compare it to Gull Pond, which is in an abetment with a very large jetty to the southwest. Anybody that's familiar with the waters over there you got ten, 15 feet of water going practically into where you could throw a stone into where the inlet is. I think a mere check of a nautical chart, you'll see that the whole north side of Southold Bay is shoal; whereas, if you go over near where let's say Paradise Point you got six, seven, eight feet of water going in fairly close to the beach there, even inside the traps that are over there. That's why the originators of the original pier went out an additional 100 feet from what we have still standing, and the footage that you see there, if you measure it from the ordinary high water mark it's not that long. If you measure it from inside the basin where the channel is, of course, it's 300 feet, but if it's from the east side, it's not 300 feet, it's quite different and as to the west of my -- east of my property, the bay or Lange property, that has 51 Board of Trustees 52 January 21, 2004 jetties. And to the west of Beixedon Estates west of Hippodrome Pond there are bulkheads and numerable jetties going out culminating in the jetty that lies between Newtown Creek and the Wharf House. So all of those jetties along there are catching the littoral drift and that's why you don't see the scouring effect. I can take my experience, which is almost 40 years of selling waterfront property, if you go to Mattituck I don't know how long you people have been entertaining applications on the bay, when I was a Trustee we didn't do it. We had a much simpler job, you'll see in Mattituck they had an erosion problem, and unfortunately they all bulkheaded, and now at high tide, the water is two, three feet up on the bulkhead. I think if they had used some other type of means like a jetty rather than bulkhead, they would still have beaches, but they will never have beaches with just that bulkhead, and that is basically a consequence of-- you know, the good thing is you save your upland, the bad thing is the upland can't retreat and you lose your beach. And my son was trying to indicate you make a decision, you want to save the upland, you want to save the beach, and there are many factors involved, and basically it's if that jetty I think is shortened any substantial amount more, I don't think the people are going to get their boats out into the bay unless they dredge all the way out into the bay. Right now we're just dredging in the mouth, and within inside that existing jetty towards where the old bridge was, and that we're doing basically on an annual basis now, we have a ten year permit. When I was a kid, it only used to happen maybe once every ten years and the guy that used to do it was Duke Latham. And he was just marvelous. He had a drag line, which you're not allowed to use, he'd come down on the road by where Mr. Ball lives and drive that thing out there where the old bridge abutment was, and he would throw that thing out there. It was like watching Joe DiMaggio, somebody work, that was never heard that motor rev up or anything. He'd slide that up there. He was out there for maybe a day and it would make a big pile of sand behind him, and that's true as someone recollected. A pile of sand, the kids used to love it. They'd run up and down it and sure it gradually went in the water, but just wind and everything it blew it downstream. I don't know if that's the cause of replenishing the beach, but obviously it did do that. Now we are putting our spoil on the west side, as you well know because you approve our permits, and that does probably some 52 Board of Trustees 53 January 21, 2004 help but not enough to make everybody happy. But essentially that's why I think the length of the jetty is important. It's a difficult question, I realize, but I think I'll just close with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The dredging, I don't know if you want to answer it or Mr. Anderson wants to answer it, the dredging you've got depths surveyed in 2001, the dredging was done in 2003, maintenance dredging. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that's correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In what area? MR. ANDERSON: Down towards the mouth. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How far out; how many yards? MR. ANDERSON: Oh, I would say the maps show it going out 50 feet, 75 feet, something like that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: It's already in the record. I believe they put it in, and if they haven't I will put it in, but it is concentrated at the mouth, it was concentrated right in this area here. The point is, when in -- by the way, I don't want you mislead, I want you to understand this completely, this 308 on this side, this is the inlet, about 160 on that side. Okay, the dredging occurs in here, the map permits I have in my files, I will furnish them to you, okay. So as this is cut back, and I would say we have absolute right to maintain this, I would further say we have no responsibility -- these people are asking us if we could rebuild our beaches, that's not part of our application. They could certainly seek their own remedies to do that. But as this decreases the frequency of dredging, the amount of dredging is all going to have to increase. It's going to have to increase at our expense. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what -- the lady behind you is going to speak next, but that's what I'm trying to get at. One of the things that's been brought up is the length of the jetty and we have been through it before in a number of places. You know if you cut the jetty back, is it in fact the question that we're going to contemplate, if you cut the jetty back, will it effect Mr. Nickles' property to the east, and that's one issue, or if you cut the jetty back, will it in fact benefit the people to the west? That's something that -- MR. ANDERSON: Shows the high tide mark up to the bulkhead line, that's what that shows. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, currently. MR. ANDERSON: Currently, under the status quo. So why is 53 Board of Trustees 54 January 21, 2004 it that somehow having an existing structure that we've already cut back, by the way because this jetty went back substantially, that's what this does not show. This jetty is bigger than the jetty you see today. This jetty is 108 feet bigger, longer, so we have a jetty that has decreased 508 feet. Here's what we have here. How is it logically that further reduction is somehow going to build a beach here? It's not. And the solution here is they have to undertake their own project, and we're not really here to subsidize that project. You know, I don't see the great cooperation among neighbors that sue one another. That's not cooperation. And the reality is that what we have is what we have, is what we seek to maintain is what we seek to maintain. The variances we've already obtained from other agencies and it is essentially a status quo operation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, thank you, because of the time factor, I'm going to ask people -- anybody can comment. MR. ANDERSON: Can I make one further comment? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, briefly. MR. ANDERSON: What I'd like to do is when we get through this, they're going to do what they're going to do, submit their comments in writing within a reasonable time so we don't prolong this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The woman in front of you is going to speak next, she had her hand up. MR. ANDERSON: But no one will dispute that the depths in here are deeper than the depths here and here. Do you want to say they have changed over the 16 months we have been filing applications, or 18 months, they probably have, they also changed significantly. But no one can dispute that the water is deeper within the outer harbor than it is on either side. And no one has disputed that that means -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I just wanted to know where the dredging took place MR. ANDERSON: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now, I'm sorry, the woman behind you wanted to speak. MR. ANDERSON: It actually shows. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, I have a glare there, that's why I keep getting up. MS. LATHAM: Mr. Anderson, has been making comments about people in the community. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what I wanted to avoid. And could you identify yourself? 54 Board of Trustees 55 January 21, 2004 MS. LATHAM: Joan Latham. And I just wanted to point out the property between the west side of the bulkhead and Mr. Ball's property and the property west of Dr. Friedman's property to the Hippodrome Creek, those two beach properties belong to John Nickles. He is the owner. BRUCE ANDERSON: That's true: It goes down to this area, you see it here. This is beach owned by -- MS. LATHAM: And one on the other side of this canal. There are two. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. LATHAM: He keeps sayings that the people in Beixedon are complaining they want their beach rebuilt. It's not our beach. It belongs to Mr. Nickles, and we have deeded rights to it. MR. BRESSLER: Just one or two comments. First of all, think that the photographs and the book and your examination, this one in particular demonstrate what the current situation on the bulkhead is down there, and you can give it what credence you think it deserves, the statement that we already have a bulkhead there. The thing is porous, thank God or my clients would have no property left. So what is being proposed is actually a significant change from what's there. That's comment one. Comment two is the word that comes to mind when I listen to the science that's being foisted on the Board is "voodoo." I haven't heard any. Well, I think if we cut it down to 150 feet that wouldn't be so good, and it's shallow and it's silt, and it would do this and it would do that and everybody knows that it's this and everybody knows that it's that, but there's nothing, nothing before the Board to disabuse the Board or anybody else here of the notion that, yes, down drift properties get robbed when you put jetties in the way, and there has been a conspicuous failure of any sort of proof here or to give you any sort of guidance, and while we were extremely pleased that the Board will take under consideration based upon its experience all of these issues, the applicant hasn't given you much to work with. Well, I need 300 feet and well, that it's great to say that and you've heard it again and again and again, but that doesn't make it so. There's not one shred of proof as to what will happen if they don't have the 300 feet of bulkhead that is relatively impervious. They have made no showing whatsoever except generalized statements to you, and we ask that you look very closely, and I guess based upon whatever experience you have because there's certainly not 55 Board of Trustees 56 January 21, 2004 much in the record as to the conditions at this particular site, and the Board correctly points out that there are site-specific conditions that have to be considered here and you're given 33 year old numbers on the soundings, and you're given no data or information whatsoever as to what the real effect of this thing is going to be, and we ask you to consider that very carefully in making any sort of determination. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Mr. Bressler has the floor. MR. BRESSLER: I think Dr. Friedman wants me to mention about the numbers. Without belaboring the point, the Board knows what was there. It can look at the surveys and compute the lengths and add them up. It's aware of what the situation is, what the current state of the bulkhead, and we ask you to consider all of that and apply your best judgment to this problem. It's not an easy one, and it won't be the last time you're faced with it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: In our own defense, I'd like to say that we are somewhat familiar with these situations. What causes them, what the remedies if any are, and we really want all this information in time to go over it so we can make the right decision. MR. BRESSLER: Absolutely. And I did not mean to downplay your experience. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Just for everybody's benefit, we're not all amateurs. MR. BRESSLER: I say you have to apply that experience because you haven't been given a whole lot else to work with here except claims and allegations and desires. So we ask you to use that expertise. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we close this hearing though, I'd like to ask the Board -- MR. BRESSLER: Subject of course to the receipt of the things that you indicated earlier. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, but I just wanted to ask the Board if they wanted any other additional information so that we could review what was submitted so far and make a decision? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My only thought was both parties mentioned research and consultants; do we have all of that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That they referenced? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, they gave us a great deal of information. There's one from Land Use, and Kumar, and there's -- JOAN LATHAM: I have the minutes from all the canal committee meetings that we in our community had a couple of 56 Board of Trustees 57 January 21, 2004 years ago, if you want those. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. I meant consultants that were referenced. JOAN LATHAM: We had consultants speak to our committee. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Personally I think an aerial photo would be beneficial. MR. BRESSLER: What are you looking for in particular? TRUSTEE FOSTER: The latest is in the '50s and the bulkhead was built back in the '30s; if there are any aerial photos available that are earlier than the '50s. MR. BRESSLER: So between what dates are you looking for because obviously our office has lots of stuff. TRUSTEE FOSTER: As far back as you can go in succession because in the '50s and the aerial shot in 2001 is too long a span. If you had two to two and-a-half feet of beach erosion since the '50s, well, the water would be all the way back to 25. MR. BRESSLER: So you're looking for photos between the '50s and the present? TRUSTEE FOSTER: No. As well as prior to. MR. BRESSLER: So you want any aerials in addition to what you've got? TRUSTEE FOSTER: So we can establish a pattern of erosion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's very helpful because it goes 1953 to 1979, that's a big lapse. 1979 photo doesn't show the actual mouth of the inlet, it only shows the Hippodrome. MR. BRESSLER: You will of course have to take into account the other factors that were in play at the time, the dredging. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why earlier, the dredging, the fact that there were other structures there. The fact that there were no bulkheads along the bay at that point, so there's a lot of complicating little factors that we're going to take all that into consideration. MR. BRESSLER: Yeah. Clearly you'll have to take it into consideration, but weighing most heavily what we got now and what's happening today. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There seems to be an acceleration of erosion. MR. BRESSLER: Well, we will do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we're going to make a motion to table this hearing and we will have this information reviewed. We'd like any information in as soon as possible. The next hearing is February 25th. 57 Board of Trustees 58 January 21, 2004 MR. BRESSLER: You want it before then? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need it really within a week so that we can review it. We want to review it. We can read it now, but we really want to see it all. So we can review it all in context. MR. BRESSLER: Right. So what submission date are you looking for. TRUSTEE FOSTER: As early as possible. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A week? TRUSTEE FOSTER: If we don't get it, it's going to take another month to review it. MR. BRESSLER: That's why I'm asking what date so we can work within the parameter? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, we're looking for aerials. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I just want to see what the progression is. MR. BRESSLER: Well, there's lots of places you can look for aerials. You can go to the Air Force out in Colorado; you can go to Lockwood Kessler and Aerographics. You know, I have another case where that's at issue, so you know, there's lots of different sources you can go to that take varying amounts of time, and in the fullness of time, you can get them all. So tell me what your time parameter is, and we'll get as many of them as possible. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This actually I would imagine there's resources at Town Hall that would be available. There's quite a few at Town Hall at the planning office. MR. BRESSLER: Well, we could certainly start there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that might be sufficient. MR. BRESSLER: Well, I don't know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't we start with that, and we can review those, and if we really think that there's a gap or a lapse that's really critical, then we can add to that. MR. BRESSLER: Of course when I looked in the office, you know, Bill had a lot of materials going back to -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: See what you can find. MR. BRESSLER: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. BALL: In addition to that they had mentioned they had said the hardened structures almost as though I did that. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Can you mention your name? MR. BALL: My name is Tom Ball again. I'm the adjacent neighbor. If I didn't put the structure up, I would look like the property just went to the jetty, that's what I looked like. Without that that's what I would look like. 58 Board of Trustees 59 January 21, 2004 TRUSTEE : That's your opinion, for the record. MR. BALL: I mean, there's no sand to replace it, and here's all the trees in the bay right now. That's Nickles property, and those trees are eventually going to go down the bay and probably won't take care of them and it's a ridiculous situation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for the record that's your opinion. MR. BALL: Okay. And then just for the record what this side looks like. If you look at the sand, it's right at the beginning, it's right where it was 46 years ago, at the beginning of the bulkhead, at the jetty actually. That hasn't moved one bit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we want the aerials. Because then we can see that definitively. MR. BALL: And then referring to the length of the jetty, this is till I actually went over and measured it these numbers are real. It is close to 200 feet from the high water mark. That is real and so you could have a surveyor, this would be accurate. So we really need a survey so we get the high water marks shown so you can actually see what you have. We need to have a survey done. Because without a survey you're going by my measurements. These things --this survey that he has does not reflect close to the high water mark. It's way off. When you walk the beach at high tide, you will see what I'm talking about, the high tide is beyond the bulkhead. It's got to be 15 feet off this high water mark. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We are not obligated to go out and get surveys. It's the applicant's obligation to submit the surveys. TOM BALL: Is it my obligation to do? There's been a huge difference in high tide. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The burden of proof is on the applicant. It's not (inaudible). Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 11. Harvey Arnoff, Esq., 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: Anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? 59 Board of Trustees 60 January 21, 2004 MR. ARNOFF: Yes. Harvey Arnoff, 206 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, New York, on behalf of the applicant. Good evening, my initial presentation was going to be about an hour and-a-half, I'll see if I can shorten it a bit for you. I think I should comment that everybody tonight has talked about it's been 50 years that I've known John Nickles, and I was a young man when this happened -- I think I was a young man when this case started. It's been over a year and I don't know that I'm any further ahead today than I was when we first came before this Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would hope that we are. MR. ARNOFF: I say that tongue-in-cheek. I think the Board knows me. I'm just somewhat frustrated by the fact, and I know the effort that this Board has made in coming up with some type of resolution how complicated some of the issues are. You have before you an opinion of the Zoning Board of Appeals, in fact, a follow-up that was sent to you by Ms. Oliva indicating an inspection that was done very recently by Mr. Goehringer in regard to the right of way. It would appear that his recommendations are somewhat in line with those recommendations that came within the four corners of the DEC approval too. What we're asking this Board to do then is to endorse that. Again, we're not looking to create Route 58 along Brush's Creek. All we're really looking to do is to be able to allow my client build a house, and the last thing in the way of that is this. I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have, but I'm merely here to ask you to rely upon the -- I mean, you have heard enough for me to say you've heard enough is a major accomplishment, you've heard enough from a lot of people on this and certainly I'm not going to add any other great information other than to say I'd like you to rely upon Mr. Goehringer's recommendation. That's all I have to say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, any other comment? MR. HEFRON: My name is Jim Hefron, I'm here representing Barbara Laskin and the Brush Creek owners who have property on the west side of Brushes Creek. I'm Of Counsel to Matthew Atkinson. Matthew is the attorney who has been appearing and generating the record on behalf of Barbara Laskin and the others, and he's out of the country and unavailable and I'm standing in for him. I am not as up to speed on the files as 60 Board of Trustees 61 January 21, 2004 Mr. Arnoff or as you, but based on what I know my clients have several reasons to oppose the application. First of all, I'd like to say it's my understanding that the proposed road is going to be sited abutting the creek on the west side of the property. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You should also understand that it's an existing road as we speak. MR. HEFRON: Well, I'm not trying to make a record about what the road is. The road is what the road is. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's a proposed improvement, not a proposed new road. The road has been a farm road for many, many years. So it's an existing road. MR. HEFRON: I don't want to get into a semantic issue about is it a road, is it not a road. I guess it's depicted on a survey and whatever the survey is, that's what it is, okay. But I've seen three documents in the file by environmental experts pertaining to the application. Each one of them says there's no basis to put the proposed road abutting the wetland. That it should be, if anyplace, on the east side of the property. I don't think there's -- as in the previous case you heard, I don't see any scientific credible objective basis to site the road next to the wetland, and all you have to do is look at the provision of the Town Code that you are charged to enforce that says Section 97-28, "The Trustees may add pt a resolution directing the issuance of a permit to perform operations applied for only if it determines that such operations will not substantially" -- then it has a laundry list of attributes you're supposed to look for-- "adversely effect the wetlands of the Town." Now, in the face of a record where the DEC expert says don't allow it next to the wetland, the Town environmental expert says don't allow it next to the wetland, and the third Town environmental person says don't allow it next to the wetland, I can't see how there's any basis in the record to approve it there. So that's the nub of my presentation. I'd like to ask that you hold the record open for a submission of a written objection by Matthew Atkinson when he returns and is able to consult with his clients. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to clarify a few things for the Board just to bring us up to speed. I think our heads are still ringing from the last hearing. MR. ARNOFF: I'm sure they are. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The DEC received October 24, 2003, the Department objects to the proposed increase in width of the 61 Board of Trustees 62 January 21, 2004 roadway. The Department will not authorize the proposed widening of the roadway. That's from the DEC. We have a letter from Mark Terry-- I'm sorry, the letter from Jerry Goehringer dated 12/29/03. It references the 1/18/01 decision of the ZBA and his inspection, and he believes that the decision -- 2001 decision of this Board should stand. Now, both things -- then I'm going to read the letter-- you want me to read that? Applicant requests a variance under New York Town Law Section 288 -- Board resolution resolved by Jerry Goehringer, seconded by Member Dinizio was resolved granted under New York Town Law 228 for access over a right-of-way subject to the following conditions and improvements: The applicant's right-of-way must remain open and unobstructed for a minimum width of 15 feet for its entire length. Improvements with continuous maintenance in good condition are at all times --then it has, areas that it should be widened to 15 feet unobstructed minimum clearance height 15 feet, straighten it as much as possible to remove trees. It has, place approximately four to six inches -- remove -- I'm sorry -- approximately four to six inches of loam-packed base; replace with four to six inches of crushed concrete as needed. So some areas we need six inches in which you then top coat it with two inches of three-quarter stone blends. So to me this is -- I'm sorry, I'm going to read Mark Terry's letter, I'm getting out of myself. Now the ZBA's position has changed because they don't recommend excavation any longer. They changed it to delete the excavation, but put a double layer of stones across the (inaudible) to avoid any excavation. Okay. This is the February 18, 2003 to the Town Trustees from Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner. Review of the file was conducted on November 18th to assess feasible alternatives to the right of way serving Tax Map 127-3-10, and it is my understanding that the current right-of-way width of eight feet. Pursuant to A108-15A --the right-of-way width should be 50 feet based on the future potential of the right-of-way to serve five or more lots. On January 18, 2001, the ZBA granted a variance form as allowing the right-of-way to be constructed to a minimum width of 15 feet. As July 25, 2003, the New York DEC conducted a site inspection on October 22, 2003, the New York DEC sent a letter to the applicant stating the width of the roadway would not change. In addition, the letter requires relocating the roadway to the east, away from tidal wetlands in two locations and clean fill to be placed in low 62 Board of Trustees 63 January 21, 2004 areas. Pursuant to 288 of New York State Town Law and Section 123 -- I'm sorry, 100-235A of the Southold Town Zoning Code, emergency vehicle access must be 50 feet in width and any improvements would be in violation of the DEC ruling. Based upon such, the applicant currently has one option to abandon the current right-of-way, relocate the right-of-way landward. Any new proposal must be reviewed and approved by the DEC. So I would think that would be the two, the DEC and the ZBA decisions are in conflict with one another. MR. HEFRON: Mr. Chairman, can I also point out that I have received by fax a letter to the applicants signed by Matthew Penski of the DEC, appears to be stamped in by your office. The letter is dated October 22, 2003 reflecting the DEC's position in opposition to placement of the road abutting the wetland. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I referenced that. MR. HEFRON: There's also a third document, a memo by Scott Hughes, Senior Environmental Planner dated August 13, 2003 to the Southold Town Trustees and his last paragraph he says: "My recommendation is to disapprove the proposal So, that's what I've been advised in the state of the record regarding the weight of the environmental evidence about siting the road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, now I'm going to ask a question: How relevant is this Board's decision in light of the fact that you have two other jurisdictional agencies in conflict? TRUSTEE FOSTER: We're in conflict with them all the time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you're going to be in conflict with them one way or the other. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: You can use whatever they use to make your decisions. We can use that to help make our decisions but we're not bound by their conclusions. TRUSTEE FOSTER: He does all the inspections for the Board and they stand by his decisions. Every time I've ever dealt with them on many, many projects, Jerry's done the inspections and the Board abides by his inspection and recommendation. TRUSTEE KING: I don't agree with (inaudible). MR. ARNOFF: May I shed some light on something? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wait just one moment. So, if you make a decision, in one direction, the applicant, you're putting the applicant in a box that they're going to be in violation of either the DEC or the ZBA or both. There's no middle ground between the two agencies. MR. ARNOFF: I don't agree. 63 Board of Trustees 64 January 21, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now go right ahead. MR. ARNOFF: I don't agree with that conclusion because the letter to the DEC to which you're referring, okay, came as a result of us changing the scope of the application to widen the road. We're not now widening the road. If you read Mr. Goehringer's determination, we don't need to widen it, so now we're back to the initial statement of the DEC where they had no problem with the application. So in reality Mr. Goehringer's not saying widen the road to 15 feet all the way down. That's not how I read it. So I don't think (1) that the ZBA and the DEC are necessarily in conflict. They're in conflict if you are -- if we're widening that road to 15 feet all the way, we're not. We're clearing the five feet of trees. We're clearing the trees and grinding the stumps, but we're not widening it. You don't see that in Mr. Goehringer's recommendation. All he's doing is saying by clearing it -- the 15 feet doesn't have to be the road bed. It has to be to allow 15 feet of clearance. We're doing that by cutting the trees on the landward side of the right-of-way where needed. That's it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This Board never thought that was a good idea; in fact. I'm going to put the word to the DEC's mouth and I bet you they considered taking all the trees out for five feet all the way along that right-of-way. MR. ARNOFF: Only the trees within 15 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To me that's widening. That's not keeping it the same; that's widening. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's only for emergency vehicles. I would say if you -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean we didn't look at that. We didn't talk about that in the field. That's totally different than what we looked at and talked about. MR. ARNOFF: No, we would just as soon leave it the way it is. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There are certain trees that had to come down. MR. ARNOFF: That's correct. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They would come down on the landward side as opposed to the east side on the west side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The letter from the ZBA says all the trees within five feet. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, that's to give them the width they need, but you don't have to do it on either side, you can do it on either side. You can do it on the east side. MR. ARNOFF: And we've agreed to do that. To limit any type of disruption to the landward side and not the creek side. 64 Board of Trustees 65 January 21, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: What is the deeded right-of-way there? MR. ARNOFF: It's 50 feet. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So if you can put that road anywhere within that 50 feet? MR. ARNOFF: That's where we got into trouble. Because -- the DEC doesn't want us to do that. You see we originally came before you and said we'll put that 15 foot swath, if you will, wherever you want within the 50 foot right of way. And then what happened was that's when the DEC said no. So what they wanted to do, they're not ecstatic with the fact that that right-of-way exists in the first place, but it's there, just like you said, and it's been there for a very long time. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You didn't give me a chance to finish. MR. ARNOFF: I'm sorry, apologize, bad habit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You guys have to do that. But you know, the right-of-way can be anywhere within the 50 feet. If you wind within the 50, it can go on one extreme side of the 50, it doesn't matter. So, if all the trees on the east side of the right-of-way as opposed to the creek side are taken down to achieve a little additional width it doesn't really make any difference. Now, I don't know if in doing so you will get outside of that line, 50 foot -- MR. ARNOFF: No, we will not. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Then the ZBA does not have a problem or anybody-- preferably to take the trees down on the east side as opposed -- MR. ARNOFF: And we would be willing to stipulate that we would only touch the plant material on the east side. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And I remember discussing that. But the other change they made was in reference to excavation that there really should be none. The trees should be cut, the stumps should be ground instead of excavation and a double -- in other words, the road is, yes, it's going to have to be improved, but you want to do it totally to the landward side. MR. ARNOFF: Correct. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The reason for the 15 feet is for emergency vehicles. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Emergency vehicles to pass, yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So as opposed to paving it to make it accessible, you're saying the trees aren't going to be there. MR. ARNOFF: Yeah, we're not paving it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Right. Normally then they require a three 65 Board of Trustees 66 January 21, 2004 foot driveable shoulder on either side and on a minor subdivision they sometimes include that six feet into the total width. But now what Jerry's saying is improve the existing right-of-way by putting a double layer of stone down, cut the trees on either side to achieve additional width, but it doesn't matter whether you cut it on either or you cut it to the east side, stay within the 50 foot right-of-way. You certainly can't put the road up on either one of the rocks. MR. ARNOFF: No. TRUSTEE KING: I would rather see this removed -- I don't want to say remove all trees within five feet, but it should be remove necessary trees within five feet of the existing roadway. MR. ARNOFF: Absolutely, that's fine. TRUSTEE KING: But it doesn't say that. It says here, remove all trees within five feet east side of the right-of-way, or either side of the right-of-way? MR. ARNOFF: I don't think he means that we're going to clear-- well, we would certainly allow and whether or not your attorney said it, you also have the right to say that's not what we want. We will direct that where necessary you remove up to five feet. For example, there's part of the right-of-way which are 15 feet wide. As we sit here right now, we don't have to do anything. We're certainly not going to make it another five feet and clear five feet of trees, I think it's clear that's not what Mr. Goehringer means. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, he needs the five feet to achieve the width, so ... MR. ARNOFF: In some places, that's correct. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Not to clear every tree, only trees that you need to clear within five to achieve the additional. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct but he doesn't say that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, that's what he means. TRUSTEE KING: How many people have we come in here and say, well, we're only going to do a little trimming. MR. ARNOFF: Mr. King, I certainly would be willing to stipulate with this Board on behalf of my client that we limit it as you suggested. That's not what we're looking to do. I just want to make one comment, and I know that the Board is aware of this and I also see by the hour that it's really late, it's disingenuous of Mr. Hefron, and I know he's new to this file, to think that we can move this right-of-way. We don't own the land. We can't touch this right-of-way. If we owned the properties to the east and 66 Board of Trustees 67 January 21, 2004 west of us of the Diachun properties, we would be leaping for joy right now because, one, we wouldn't be here; and two, this right-of-way would be moved instantly. We can't do it legally. We can't force it. We are stuck with what Justice -- I think it was Underwood said in his decision. We're stuck with the Zoning Board, and this is what we have. So this is the hand we were dealt, if you will, and these are the cards we have to play. It would be nice to do what Mr. Hefron said, it's not possible. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I've got one more question. MR. ARNOFF: Yes, sir. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about water and utilities? JEFFREY HALLOCK: I already have water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the well? JEFFREY HALLOCK: For the well, it's already in the file. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about for the other properties, I don't want to get into a situation. JEFFREY HALLOCK: I don't know anything about the other properties. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not trying to make trouble or hard feelings or anything, but I just don't want to get into a situation where we're going to approve something and then the other properties further out are going to say, no, now we have to have it a certain width, now we have to trench it out for water. It's got to be 30 foot. Now the town or state, and now they have got to trench it into city water. TRUSTEE FOSTER: My understanding that this existing right-of-way has to go up to the very edge of the last lot; is that correct? MR. ARNOFF: That's correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Water Authority and the Health Department says no, you need city water. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, you know city water isn't available down there. So they have to put a well in. JEFFREY HALLOCK: We have the Board of Health permit for a well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You do, but I mean the properties to the north of you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: If water ever becomes available, which means that the Water Authority-- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's water on Peconic Bay Boulevard, Right? JEFFREY HALLOCK: Yeah. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the first road they brought it into. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Right. But if the Water Authority takes the initiative to put water down there, he's obligated by the Health Department to hook up. Let me back up a little 67 Board of Trustees 68 January 21, 2004 bit. If there was water down that road, he wouldn't get a well permit. Being as there's no water down that road and no intent to put water down that road, he got permission to put in a well. I went through this a few years ago. Believe me, so I know the whole story. So, when and if supposedly now, they put a covenant on your deed or they probably will put a covenant on your deed that if and when -- Harvey, I'm sure you're familiar with this -- if and when they ever put public water down that road, which is probably very unlikely unless something happens, I mean, then the Water Authority's got to go through all the water permits to get it, he's expected to hook up to public water. But they can't make him and nobody ever polices that. So he's got a well permit, the next guy will get a well permit. It's only when public water becomes available, which it probably never will in that area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's available up to Peconic Bay Boulevard. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's not down the road. They gave him a well permit. If they wanted him to put public water in, or they may force him to they would not have -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I wanted to bring that up. I wanted to ask that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I went through a six month horror show with the health department with my house, so I know exactly what you're going through. MR. ARNOFF: There's one more thing, I would hope that we could bring some finality to this tonight. Leaving this open for submissions by Mr. Atkinson, so I submit he submitted enough to the Board. I think everybody's submitted enough. I don't know other than a rehash of what you have before, I don't know what that would accomplish. I, of course, leave that up to your good offices. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, I think something's got to give. It's been hanging around long enough. We've got to bust and move and make a decision. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know but it's a matter of protecting the Town. It's not a matter of convenience, I mean, come on. MR. HEFRON: Can I add one thing, Mr. Chairman? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. MR. HEFRON: The ZBA takes care of variances and various matters under its jurisdiction. Your jurisdiction concerns the wetlands. You can't operate -- you don't have boundless discretion to make decisions. You have to conform to standards in the Town Code. This provision of the Town Code says standards, Section 97-28, and it says that you can 68 Board of Trustees 69 January 21, 2004 grant permits only if you determine the following things: There's no evidence in the codes that you can even get by hurdle A. Can you say the installation of this road adjoining a wetlands, I mean it's an absurd invasion of the wetland that the DEC does not tolerate basically, and they said it in their papers but (A) says you can only make the determination to grant the permit if you can find that granting the permit will not substantially adversely affect the wetlands of the town. Whatever the ZBA wants to do, they can do, but you don't have to follow them. You have a different charge; you have a different public trust than the ZBA does. I think it would be completely inconsistent with your mission to grant approval of a road abutting a sensitive tidal wetland. We have in the record those three items that I referred to. Every single one of them says do not put the road next to the wetland, period. Now, I don't think we need to be concerned with moving the road or not moving the road. The question is: Is there a basis to put the road in such a place as to disturb the wetland and cause associated environmental problems? I don't think that you can get over that hurdle. Your decision, if you grant this permit, it's insupportable on the record. There's no basis to grant it and it just flies in the face of your own statutory mandate. In addition to which, based on the record and the comments of the environmental experts who weighed in, you may very well be required to do an environmental -- EAF long form because each one of these three submissions by environmental experts indicates that you got a sensitive wetland and that this is a significant disturbance of this. You're having a significant effect on the environment if you were to approve this action, and I don't see that the groundwork has been laid in terms of the environmental analysis to support it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. HALLOCK: May I ask a question? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. MR. HALLOCK: I'm Jeff Hallock. I'd just like to ask everybody to remember when we met at that road with the DEC what the DEC representative Christ Arfsten, I think everybody was there, we were all present, as well as Ronald Diachun, and I'd like everyone to remember what he said to us. He said what are we all doing here? The road is existing. The damage was done a long time ago. Let the man build his house; do you remember him saying that to us? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Absolutely, I remember. 69 Board of Trustees 70 January 21, 2004 MR. HALLOCK: That's all I'd like you to think about. What are we all doing here for a year and a month? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You know the ZBA granted relief from those standards and that property for probably the last 30-plus years or more to the west side of that road. Those wetlands have suffered from tires, trucks, old tractors, drain oils, old oil filters, hydraulic filters, hydraulic pistons, leaky rear ends and everything else, and some of which is still there on the west side doing far more damage than what this road is going to do. And I don't have a problem with it. I really don't. A lot of that's been removed and a lot more will be removed in the future, and the wetlands are flourishing in spite of all that and I don't really see a problem with it. That's my position. MR. HALLOCK: Thank you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You know he's suggesting a CCA curve or not CCA, whatever railroad tie, curb or whatever along the west side you're talking a lot of precautions here. I can't see putting four, five, or six inches of RCA blend down and driving a vehicle on that as opposed to driving in and out of the mud holes that's there, how that's going to hurt anything. It might hurt your feelings to the people on the other side of the creek cause they didn't get their way, but I don't think environmentally it's any impact at all. Regardless of what the environmental experts say. I mean, they're doing what they're supposed to say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, Peg, what are your thoughts down there? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: On the five feet of clearing? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, on the whole project. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The whole project? My gut feeling, yeah, it's environmentally damaging. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They have an existing road and they want to put crushed rocks on it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: By not giving permission to put that in there isn't going to stop the activity down there. I mean, that guy that lives there is still going to drag that stuff up and down the road. That isn't going to change anything. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I personally don't feel bad about him laying the stone down, but if he has to start clearing five feet now, then come back and 15 more feet later, then there's a problem. MR. ARNOFF: Why not a covenant not to go any further than the 15 feet? 70 Board of Trustees 71 January 21, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Jim, what do you think? TRUSTEE KING: That's my feeling. MR. ARNOFF: I can't speak for the Diachun, but as far as my client and my client's property we will limit the right-of-way to the 15 feet, period. We don't want to even -- look. We would just a soon leave everything as it is except filling the pot holes. They're not letting us do that. Write it in the permit, restrict the permit. If they violate the permit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Write it in the permit. If they violate the permit, we can yank it. We can approve it; we can take it away. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I make a suggestion? And I've been looking through here trying to find a plan, and I can't find one that reflects what the applicant seems to be proposing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It should be in there. JEFFREY HALLOC: Yes, sir. We drew about six surveys. The last one is where we got into trouble and we tried to straighten out those cut holes bend it a little bit further away. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I still want to see those bends straightened. MR. ARNOFF: They wouldn't let us straighten them. JEFFREY HALLOCK: That's what the letter from the DEC is referenced. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what the DEC wants, but that's not what I want. There's two places adjacent to the wetland. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I wasn't aware of that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean those two are basically in the wetlands. Those two areas have to be straightened out. MR. HEFRON: I just want to mention, the DEC letter, in the last sentence it says: If a wider roadway is needed for this location then you should investigate alternative access to your property greater than 75 feet from the tidal wetland. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's been done. That was done initially. MR. HEFRON: Within 75 feet is an area of great concern to the DEC because of environmental sensitivity. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did investigate that at length. MR. ARNOFF: I will adopt that language ad nauseam. MR. HEFRON: But it comes back to your mandate, what does this Board exist to do? Protect the environment, and our statute language is in the form of mandatory language. You must make certain findings and the record wouldn't support them. 71 Board of Trustees 72 January 21, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we're working on. I'm still looking for that original plan. Which I'm sorry, but you can help me out by providing me with one? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Al, can you clarify again what the DEC's final decision was? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My concern is do we want to say okay, and the DEC says no, TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well, they don't always make the same decision we do. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: I know they don't, but I want to make sure that we have our ducks in order as to why we're saying something different than them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: (inaudible) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, now, that's what the applicant wants. They want to not widen it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I'm saying. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I need to see every little detail. I need to see, before I can vote on that, I need to see every little detail of that worked out on a survey including the two -- that shows the two areas adjacent to the wetlands moved upland. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That we asked for? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That we asked for. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the survey that I want to see. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I thought we did. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm looking for that plan. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yeah, I saw it with my own eyes. MR. ARNOFF: Because I remember you asked for that and we gave you copies. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I never saw it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was May 25, 2003. JEFFREY HALLOCK: It's pretty confusing which one is which one is which. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Okay, the DEC agreed that the roadway would be shifted to the east away from the tidal wetland in two locations. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. JEFFREY HALLOC: But not widened. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, just moved away. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The majority of the work occurring within the existing road bed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Stone and clean fill could be placed -- I remember they said no concrete -- to be placed in some locations that are very low on pot holes; this is what was 72 Board of Trustees 73 January 21, 2004 agreed by all parties. The only work that can be approved by the department. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We still don't have the one that shows the road moved away from those two areas. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And that's so they agreed to moving those two locations also. JEFFREY HALLOCK: We have a DEC permit for that. After we moved widen the road according to the map. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But this doesn't show that. And I think that's what your proposal tonight was for a road that showed taken out a few trees roughly doing what Jerry said in the letter. Although it would be good if he could clarify -- no, doesn't do what Jerry says in the letter. We don't want to remove all the trees five feet -- so not doing what Jerry said. Doing what Jerry meant to say. Doing what we said Jerry meant to say. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I know what he means. JEFFREY HALLOCK: The letter from the DEC for some reason said 16 feet instead of 15, so the DEC got a letter saying that we were making roads 16 feet instead of 15 (inaudible). That's what that letter--widening the road and -- (inaudible). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seriously though, I think what the Board's looking for is a plan that's going to reflect the change of the road in two locations. JEFFREY HALLOCK: It's right here. This is where we got in trouble is because he widened it here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who widened it? JEFFREY HALLOCK: John Ehlers. On this survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, you have to show us a plan that doesn't have it widened. I mean, that's what -- we can't vote on something, you know we can't vote. JEFFREY HALLOCK: This is showing 16 feet instead of 15. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you can't show a plan that's 15 either. What this Board was looking at was a plan showing the eight foot mark Terry referenced it eight foot wide road bed, and it's got to show the existing road bed. It's got to show a few removed trees wherever you want to remove the trees, show them on the survey, and then it's -- am I right so far? -- It's got to show the two locations where the road is moved, and you want to see restoration to those two areas, you want to see it replanted, filled, what do you want to see so -- see if you move the roadway, that water's still going to pour down in both directions into the wetlands. So we want to see some remediation of those two areas, but you have to show that, and I feel uncomfortable making up that 73 Board of Trustees 74 January 21, 2004 JEFFREY HALLOCK: That fine dotted line is what's proposed. The fine dotted line is the existing roadway. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We issue the permit and put the terms of the permit in the permit. Don't they notify you before construction begins, you go down there, they're violating the permit, you yank the permit. (talking) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we're going to approve something, it's got to be what you say it's going to be and not what Jerry meant he was going to say. It's got to be exactly on the survey. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What the survey is the only thing that's showing here is it should be saying what is the changed road than what you're saying is missing is what trees are going to be removed? MR. ARNOFF: We're not doing a landscape plan for you; is that what you want? I mean, I'm not. Do you want a landscape plan? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, more of a restoration. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm saying there's not an awful lot of room. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's got to be pinched. It's got to be shown that the road is not going to be moved-even if you move it east, the old road's still going to be pinched in there. MR. HALLOCK: This is what you guys asked for. Every time you asked for something, I did what you asked me. If we go back in the minutes, I paid for six surveys now, each one was at your request. You tell me to do it and I do it, and I come back and you tell me it's not what you wanted, and I get frustrated. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He can't move any further from here or here because of the right-of-way. MR. HALLOCK: You want us to cut all those trees down, I'll do it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we do in those two areas. areas. MR. ARNOFF: Which two areas are we talking about? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, I guess this one and definitely this one, but there is room. I mean, we were in the field. MR. HALLOCK: It's done here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but this is still against the wetland, this has got to be moved away from the wetlands. MR. ARNOFF: But the DEC is saying -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They said they would allow us the two areas. 74 Board of Trustees 75 January 21, 2004 JEFFREY HALLOC: No they would not, not that area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well listen, this is all quoted. Additionally, it was agreed that the roadway could be shifted to the east, away from the tidal wetlands in two locations, the majority of work occurring within the existing road bed. MR. ARNOFF: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So those two locations -- JEFFREY HALLOCK: Two locations right here. MR. ARNOFF: We've already done it on the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't see that. MR. HALLOCK: First location was where we first came in, which was over here; and the second location is right here. These were the two locations. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. This is the one here. MR. HALLOCK: No. These were the two we were concerned about. These two shifted. This is the one that was shifted. These are the two that when we walked the road, this is the first two locations. You had asked me to straighten out and move. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then how could this road bed show right up against the tidal wetland? That's inconsistent. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think that might be -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: It was a large amount of large trees. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There's some other obstacle there I think, Al. There was some reason why that one couldn't be moved. MR. HALLOCK: These were the ones when we walked the field you asked me to have it moved. You marked it on the survey when we were there. I marked it on the survey when I had it there, and I asked the Board is this the -- we were in the two places, we walked in the road. I showed you, you wanted to reference where we were on the map because you were thinking when we made this bend (inaudible) to someplace else and there were a few big trees as we went up here too. You know, once again, we'll do whatever you want. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As opposed to getting a new survey, would you be terribly upset if we walked it again with that survey with us? Just to be sure that it's showing because it's hard -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It should show the correct width. MR. ARNOFF: Okay. If you can redraw it to show 15 feet that's -- MR. HALLOCK: I'm eight foot. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We could approve 15 feet all day and the DEC's 75 Board of Trustees 76 January 21, 2004 going to say no. MR. HALLOCK: Well what happened is this Board asked me to have a 15 foot right-of-way, but for some reason when I got the letter it said 16 feet. John Ehlers said what should I do, it says 16, and I said, if it says 16 make it 16. So I think it says under 16. MR. ARNOFF: You can draw eight on there just as easily as you can draw 16. 1 mean, you know, it's not going to make a big difference. He can redo that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My concern is because we did ask for two, and we can't sit here tonight and say are you talking those two or those two, would it be better to walk this and be sure? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah, either way, you can see it in the snow. Sure. You can see it today. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just trying to suggest something that would prevent him from having to go and pay for another survey if this one is correct and we -- MR. ARNOFF: It is correct other than the -- make it eight instead of 16, 1 can probably have that to you probably within a week. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Go out, take a look at it. MR. ARNOFF: So we're going to close the hearing other than the submission of the amended survey? MR. HEFRON: If they're going to submit an amended survey, I don't see why on behalf of Matthew Atkinson, allow him to submit based on his file and his contact with his clients. I mean... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let him submit what? MR. HEFRON: Further comments because with respect to the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course. Sure. They have proposed to cut the roadway_in half. MR. HEFRON: I understand what you're saying, but I still am insisting on behalf of these people that your mandate of this Board is to protect the environment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course. MR. ARNOFF: Don't tell this Board what its mandate is. I'm tired of you telling this Board what its mandate is. This Board has been in existence long enough to know their mandate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI Well, we get told a lot of things, but that's alright. MR. HEFRON: Read the Town Code. MR. ARNOFF: I have read it. I'm sure the Board is familiar with it. 76 Board of Trustees 77 January 21, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, boys. MR. ARNOFF: They don't need lectures from Mr. Hefron. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table this application and it's going to be on he agenda for the field inspection for February 20th. MR. ARNOFF: Back on the agenda for what date? TRUSTEE DICKRESON: 25th of February. MR. ARNOFF: We'll have a survey for you shortly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I want the record to reflect that I may not be here next month. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I'm going to table Number 12? Make a motion to table Number 12 because we haven't had a chance to inspect over there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to go back to the regular meeting? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. Meeting adjourned at 11:45 PM. RECEIVED APR 2 7 2004 vthold Town C erk 77