The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-07/16/2003 Albert J. Krupski, President �� C� Town Hall James King,Vice-President = GZ� 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster O P.O.Box 1179 COD Poliwoda Z Southold,New York 11971-0959 Peggy A.Dickerson y � Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Town of Southold Wetland Code Revisions Public Hearing —Working Draft Wednesday, July 16, 2003 7:00 PM Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Patricia Finnegan, Esq. —Assistant Town Attorney E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. —Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Chris Pickerall, Cornell Cooperative Extension Lauren Standish, Senior Clerk Absent was: Peggy Dickerson, Trustee CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are going to start off with an introduction from Chris Pickerall about what we've been doing. CHRIS PICKERALL: Thanks, Al. I'm Chris Pickerall and I work at Cornell Cooperative Extension, the marine program at Cedar Beach right down the road here and I've been working with the Trustees for the last six months or so to help revamp the existing code, Chapter 97. What we've done is a couple of things. In one way we tried to fold in the existing policies that have been in place and put them into the Code and another way to add additional things to Code, to strengthen it and allow the Trustees, not to increase their jurisdiction but just to better manage the resources that are out there. So, hopefully you all picked up a copy of the draft to date and I emphasize this is in fact a draft, this is 2 a public hearing so you're here to give comments and this is going to be going on for at least a couple of more months, I would imagine, and you can e-mail me and I can give you the e-mail address later or call me or whatever you want to do but we really would like your input so we can make this as user friendly as possible. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Chris, on the last page, they can send hard copy and on page 17 is the address for hard copy, the address for faxes, and the e-mail for those that want to e-mail. CHRIS PICKERALL: It's better off going through the Town and then to me actually, so that's great. Okay, looking at this, starting at the very top, I'm just going to go section- by-section and basically point out the changes that have been made to date, and again, this is a draft. To start off with, we've changed the title of the Code from just Wetlands to Wetlands and Shoreline because by incorporating a lot of the policies, we were doing more than looking at just the wetland resources, although it's all inter-twined in some way. So for now, it's Wetlands and Shoreline. Moorings at this point were taken out and will be in a different section entirely. So, moorings were part of the policy but not in Chapter 97. In terms of 97-10, it has not changed. 97-11 has been just added to. That's simply just a declaration of policies, so that's just listed out the resources and jurisdiction. Something on page 3, C-Setbacks, is very new. That was a recommendation that we had from some of the consultants who came to meet with us a couple of weeks ago that there was no clear place in the Code for setbacks. We have not established any setbacks as of yet. That number 50' was just thrown in there and that is not set in stone by any means, but many other Towns have codes where the setbacks are clearly numerated, so we're thinking of doing that although we're not sure just yet. Down to 97-12, Exceptions, that was pretty much left in tact except for the fact that aquaculture was removed from a couple of these, including #1, #2, and maybe #3, and also landward of the wetland boundary was put in there as well. The other thing that was added was #8, Proactive restoration or enhancement projects conducted in cooperation with the Trustees. So, that's just to kind of foster more cooperation and support of local restoration efforts, whether they be shellfish or wetland, or eelgrass or upland or whatever it may be in within the Trustee jurisdiction. Down to the bottom of the page, Definitions, 97-13, this is a section that needs a lot of work. If you turn to page 4, you'll notice there are a lot of blanks behind the definitions. What we're finding is as we add to the Code, we have to define a lot more terms and we're going to leave some of those definitions until the very end, as we integrate this whole process. So, we're open to suggestions on those definitions, but for now we have some ideas, but we're not going to set that down until closer to the end, but we want to make it again, as user friendly as possible and consistent so that when somebody sees a term, it's used consistently throughout the document and also consistently throughout the Town when the LWRP and Planning work as well. On the top of page 6, near the end of the definitions, is a section that will be added to considerably relating to the definition of the wetland boundary and the freshwater and tidal wetlands. That will be a section that will probably appear at the end of this Code. It's not written yet but what I wanted to do, in order to assist the Trustees, is to come up with 10-12 wetland types within the Town to cover all wetlands in the Town and define the species that are in there. Define how you would look at the wetland boundary, define the species that are in there, how you would find the wetland boundary, so whether it's a consultant or a homeowner, they could 3 better determine that boundary and make a better assessment. Hopefully there will be more consistency between what the Town is receiving and what the Town perceives is the wetland boundary. The other thing Would be planting and mitigation protocols. In many cases, there is mitigation for impacts or if there is some type of clearing violation, the Trustees in addition to the State will require re-planting so we want to make it almost like a recipe in that in certain habitats you're going to require certain species. This will be realistic based on the species that are available commercially, not just the species pulled out of a book that theoretically could be there but ones that are available so it's going to be realistic. The way it would be set up is basically that describe the wetland type for each of the 10-12 and I have them listed out here in another section, define the delineation protocol and then define mitigation protocols. So, require certain number of plants per square foot, certain planting methods, no rocket science, nothing any different than you should already be doing but just again, to define it so it's straight- forward so when somebody comes in they'll know what their in for. Article 2, Permits 97-20, this is a section where we actually added in most of the policies and #1 General Construction, we still haven't clarified that section yet, but if you skip, quickly, to page 7, docks is in there, docks and floats, bulkheads, retaining walls...so there are broken out pretty nicely, but general construction is kind of a catch all for some of the policies that didn't fit anywhere else, so right now we have to break that out, but these are all new in terms of the Code...drainage upgrades for an application for a swimming pool, silt fence, hay bales...some of these things...you've dealt with all these things before but again, we're putting them in the Code. Let's look at page 7, Dock and Floats. This is all new. It's all been the policy but it's all new in terms of the Code. You've been dealing with these for years. Things like the size of residential floats. Something new if number 2-C, putting numbers on the docks so that the Trustees and the Town can keep track of existing permits and things like that. So, other Towns use it and it's very helpful so they can track so if the Bay Constable is on the water and he sees a dock, he doesn't have to describe it as the red house, it's dock number and the permit number. So, if there is something going on, they know whether or not it's an active file. Going down D & E, these are existing policies that have been in place for a while. "F" is the same thing. "G" is something that has basically been a policy that we put into Code, the height of the pilings. "H" is again a policy. "I", tie-off poles, is something that's kind of a little difficult to define sometimes but the jist is to reduce the amount of tie-off poles and limit it to what's needed for the vessel that's going to be put in that spot. Handrails have been another issue, apparently, so we put some of that in there. I should mention that in each of these sections for docks, floats, and for bulkheads, and what have you, you have kind of defined what the Trustees expect in terms of applications and proposals and then what's prohibited, so it's broken down that way. So, as you go down to 1", it's prohibited activities within the context of docks and floats, and a few weeks ago the Trustees held a meeting with marine contractors and talked about the possibility of banning CCA entirely. It wasn't necessarily a good idea, after discussion, because an alternative to CCA would be the use of tropical hardwoods, which are very expensive, which shouldn't be a concern of the Town, but also it's depleting a resource worldwide, as opposed to the other materials. So, at this point, and again we're open for suggestions, we want to not use CCA for sheathing and for decking. So, it would just be for pilings and the deadmen and for things like that. We want to ban boat-lifts, machine i 4 excavation, no new docks in some of the areas where there are no existing docks or only one or two docks. No floating docks shall be placed or stored in marshes, that's one of the existing policies. Under number 7 on page 8, pre-existing, non-permitted, and/or non-conforming structures cannot be replaced in-kind without a full review by the Board. That's just to get people under the proper review. If there's a problem with loss of a structure, it should've been permitted in the first place. Bulkhead, retaining walls...only in-kind, in-place replacement of an existing functional bulkhead, and functional will be defined, is permitted. In-kind, in-place relates to position and dimensions. It does not necessarily require or allow for the use of the same material, so again, getting away from the CCA for the sheathing and things like that. Under certain circumstances the Board may allow for a one-time seaward projection of the replacement structure seaward of the original, so again, this has been the policy all along. I don't see the low-sill section in here. The intention of the Trustees is to allow, and there would be new bulkheads allowed for low-sill situations where it would be associated with navigation for boat basins and things like that. Notwithstanding restrictions of new bulkheads, proposals for new low-sill bulkheads will be considered at the discretion of the Board. So, it's not an outright ban. But, that would be allowed. Permanent non-turf buffer...that's something I think has been a policy for a while. No new bulkheads in the creeks and bays and machine excavation in the marsh areas. Is this useful to go through all these things or do you want to go to comments? I'm going to go through this whole thing. It's not very long. I'm more than half way through. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Go through it all and then take comments. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: How much longer are we talking about? CHRIS PICKERALL: Another 10 minutes or so. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: I think for the minutes I'd like you to do it and establish it for the record. CHRIS PICKERALL: I'm not reading everything but I'm trying to hit the points that I know are changes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You didn't clarify creosote. I think some of the dock builders made it clear that the bottom whaler can't be CCA because it's not going to hold up, so they wanted the bottom whaler to be allowed to be creosote, because there is no other alternative. CHRIS PICKERALL: That brings up the point where the Trustees may want to put in preferred materials and David Corwin was nice enough to put together a list of materials, which I'm going to show to the Trustees at the next meeting, and part of that could be use of different materials in different places on the structures as well as the creosote for the whalers. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What it says here is it's prohibited, but I think after meeting for a couple of hours with some of the contractors and some of the marina owners, that the bottom whaler that's in the water all the time, has to be creosote. There is not other alternative except for tropical hardwoods. There was a suggestion of an outright ban of tropical hardwoods also. CHRIS PICKERALL: On the number 4, the same page, Jetties and Groins, only in- kind/in-place replacement of existing low-profile functional jetties and groins is allowed. Low profile jetties are defined on page 4. The definition of a low-profile jetty is site specific and typically is a structure no higher than 18"-24" above existing soil or 5 sediment grade. "C", no new groins will be permitted unless the work resulted in a net decrease in the total number of jetties in the subject area. In other words, if you have 5 and some of them are failing, put 3 into their place in the same footprint. They would actually be new ones but you're getting a net decrease in total. Prohibited activities, again, you're get into the CCA portion. Dredging, only maintenance dredging is permitted, and that has been the policy of the Trustees as far as I know, for quite a while, unless proposed dredging is associated with the installation of a low-sill bulkhead. So again, a low sill bulkhead fits into new bulkheads and also would fit into this category that the Trustees have seen it as a beneficial thing. Prohibited activities: no new dredging. Number 2, dredging in or close proximity to eelgrass, meadows. "B" has not changed as far as I know. "C" on the same page is a totally new section in order to streamline the process. Other municipalities have used this. It's called an administrative permit. It will streamline the process so that if you have a simple straight-forward project that doesn't need full review, you can get it through hopefully relatively quickly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Without a public hearing. CHRIS PICKERALL: So basically what will happen is the application would be sent in as is, for the most part, it would be jobbed out to one of the Trustees depending on how they want to do that, they would look at that and then they would come back to the full Board at the next meeting and say "yes, we agree", issue an administrative permit, if it's "no, it's not", then it would have to go through the permit process, but more than likely, if you follow what's listed out here, it would go through the initial process and it would actually get a permit. I think that's going to help things quite a bit. Then next page, page 10, 97-21, Application, the number of copies was up to 6 from 3 or 4, or whatever it was, just to get Planning and Building, and I guess one of the things you want to do throughout the Town is to integrate what's happening with the Trustees, relative to what's happening with the ZBA, Planning and Building, so that there is somebody who is not doing the right thing in terms of building their house, they wouldn't get a Trustee permit or if there is a pending violation of a Trustee permit, they wouldn't get the Building Permit and just to make sure everybody is playing on level ground and doing the right thing with the Town with all divisions. In terms of 97-21, the application, there is not really that much new here that I can think of. There was something relative to "B", schedule for the proposed activity with a completion date. They want to know when it's going to be done by. "K" has not really changed much. Documentary proof that all other permit applications applied for pending and granted including but not limited to DEC, Suffolk County Health and US Army Corp. of Engineers. Current photos are very helpful. The DEC requires this kind of stuff and the Town should as well. "N" is totally new, on the next page. Drainage upgrade: all Trustee non-administrative applications. So, the straight-forward ones wouldn't get caught by this. But, all full applications require a submittal of a drainage upgrade plan. This plan must indicate how all existing and proposed on-site drainage is retained within the subject parcel landward of the wetland boundary. The drainage plan shall include certification from a licensed engineer that the property shall retain a 2" rainfall from all impervious surfaces. 97-22, that refers to waivers for "H", "K" and "N". "H" would be the topographic map. "K" is the need to inform the Trustees about other permits pending. "N" is the drainage upgrade. In some cases that may be waived maybe for projects that are full applications but maybe still there is no earth moving or change in grade. Fees, as with every other division and 6 department and municipality, fees go up. So, this fee has gone up a little bit here. There is also, I think the idea is to set the application fee at the hearing, according to the number of visits so it would be clear and there wouldn't be this waiting to hear from the Trustees of how many visits it's going to be at $5.00 a visit. SEQRA costs will be paid by the applicant, when needed. The consultant fee is something new. That gives the Trustees the ability to hire their own consultants to look at an application if it's questionable or they can't answer the question. Another new thing, 97-24, the processing of an application, this "A" is a new section. Pre-submission conferences are to foster communication between the Board and the applicant, whether it be a homeowner or a consultant to kind of streamline the process, if somebody comes or calls up and they say they want to do something but they are not sure how to do it. When you do your field visits, you can go take a look at it. It's going to help them in the future. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do that now. CHRIS PICKERALL: Right, but this puts it in the Code. Minor changes in "B". "C" is something new. All paperwork relative to an application shall be submitted prior to or during the day of the field inspection, which is (7) seven days before the hearing. No additional paperwork shall be accepted after this time unless specifically requested by the Board. In other words, you can't come with a stack or a report this big and expect the Trustees to vote on that application. It's going to have to be delayed, I guess for a month, or whatever it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unless it's asked for. CHRIS PICKERALL: "G" deals with the new section, administrative permits. An administrative permit is deemed to have no adverse impact on the wetlands and tidal waters of the Town and a public hearing notice is not required prior to issuance of a permit. The final decision will be made upon resolution. So again, one Trustee will come back to the full Board and says "yes, it conforms to the regulations and we should allow it". 97-25, "B" is new. Fix a time in which operations must be commenced and within they must be completed so to kind of get things a little tighter so they know what's happening. Inspection fees will be $50.00 per site visit. Under certain circumstances, "D" the Board may require the submittal of"as-built" plans. Said plans must be stamped by a licensed surveyor or engineer. For some of these projects, which may be, and I'll use my own words, the Board is convinced but still it's questionable whether or not it's going to be able to take place the way it was intended, to make sure that it is in fact done according to the plans. "E" is new, performance guarantee. Again, for some of these maybe large scale questionable projects. They want to make sure it's done according to the plans, so there would be a performance guarantee, which would be a deposit of money or a bond and then hopefully when the project is done and the "as- built" plans are submitted, it would show that it looks exactly like it was proposed and everything would be fine and the money would be given back. Liability insurance was not changed as far as I know. 97-27, there is something new here is the first and second sentence. Each permit issued hereunder by the Clerk pursuant to a resolution shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance. They've been thinking about one-year, eighteen months, but right now it's a year. We recommend comments on this. Said permit may be renewed for (2) two consecutive one-year periods at the discretion of the Board. Once you get into it, "C" is new. I don't think anything else has 7 changed. "I" is new on the top of page 14. The applicant is required to notify the Trustees in writing upon completion of operations such that the site can be inspected for issuance of a certificate of compliance. So if someone wants a C.O. the Trustees want to be able to issue a C.C. basically to say, you've done what you said you were going to do, good, it's legal, it's good to go. 97-28 on the top of page 15, Standards, the only change there is "J", dealing with the affect on the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas. 97-28.1 for now, until we figure out the numbers, is that Certificate of Compliance, that I just mentioned. No structure hereafter erected requiring the issuance of a wetland permit shall be used or occupied in whole or in part until a certificate of compliance shall have been issued by the Board of Trustees, and "B", no structure hereafter enlarged, extended or altered, or upon which work has been performed which required the issuance of a wetland permit, shall be occupied or used unless a certificate of compliance shall have been issued by the Board of Trustees. This note is kind of a note to myself to keep track of things, but this relates to the fact that we want to make changes in 45-15 to reflect the need for Planning so there is coordination between this permit process and what's happening in the Building Dept. Transferability was not changed, but was there a fee before? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. CHRIS PICKERALL: Well it's been set now. Article III, Administration and Enforcement, 97-31, we put in Director of Code Enforcement in addition to the Bay Constables. It was always implied in the existing Code. Let me see if we have any changes in 97-33. 1 don't there are any changes in 97-33. 97-34, this is where we are going to have to come up with some numbers in terms of fines for 97-34B, 1-5, failure to obtain a permit, failure to heed a cease and desist order, ground disturbance, clearing violation, we don't know what kind of numbers we are going to be using there, "C" I believe is new. No new permits will be issued to any carter, owner, occupant, builder, architect, contractor or their agents if they are named as defendants in an outstanding or unresolved wetland violation. That's it. There will be a section on the wetland habitat description delineation mitigation, which will be referred to in the definitions but will probably end up at the end of this. It may be as many as 20 or 25 pages and it's not meant to weigh down the Code but just make it more user friendly so that it may also be available as a separate guide in the Trustees office so homeowners can look at that and become educated. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you Chris. We've been working on this for quite a while and we had a lot of people that have worked on this with us, including the Chief of Police, the Bay Constable, the Town Board has made comments, the Town Planning Dept. has made comments, certainly our legal advisors here, Pat and her helper Mr. Johnston, has made numerous comments, and we did meet with a number of dock builders, marina owners, and some of the consultants came before us, and we incorporated a lot of their comments into this, but it is still a draft and it still needs work. So, any help that anyone has, any kind of suggestions, please, tonight, but also I want to get out of here by 9:00 PM tonight, any comments you can think of at all, get them back to our Board and we will forward them to Chris and we'll keep working on this. We'll probably have another one of these open meetings. At least one more. CHRIS PICKERALL: There are also going to be Town Board meetings, public hearings as well. They have to actually adopt this. This is the first step in the public hearing process. 8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd rather get the kinks worked out of it before we get that far. I'd rather take it section by section instead of jumping around so does anyone have any comments to start it off? E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Al, for the record, when John or Bruce or Richard or whoever are making their comments, if you could propose the draft language that you are trying to accomplish when you send the e-mail, as opposed to just giving an idea, / think it ought to be tighter or I think it ought to be nicer, or whatever. That would help us understand what you are trying to accomplish, much easier. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. BRUCE ANDERSON: I didn't attend whatever meeting you've had since ... CHRIS PICKERALL: You were invited though. BRUCE ANDERSON: I know. Unfortunately there is so much going on I can't always make every meeting that I'm invited to. The first thing...I went through the draft and I was given an e-mail dated 7/8/03, which is substantially similar to the one here tonight. The first thing I noticed that's lacking in this is, you need to put a structure on this. The structure on this is not adequate. It's going to cause a great deal of problems in the future. I've prepared a structure. We work with Town and State statutes and all kinds of different statutes and they all have a common structure that is absent here. The problem with the organization of this thing, is that it wanders. Now what you want is a good clear structure to it and when you look at what I've prepared here, that is a typical structure. Now you may want to elaborate on it but I suggest you don't want to stray too much. The first part of course starts with a purpose and then a findings. You have this is here, although I'm looking at the earlier draft, you have them sort of backwards here. I think that under purpose, under the 7-8, you've gone overboard here. Really what's meant is a narrative because if you look at the State, you look at Article 24, you look at Article 25 of the environmental conservation laws, you look at what other towns have done with wetland statutes, they are expressed in narratives. The reason why they are expressed in narratives rather than lists is because it benefits... to me it doesn't care...we all know what the benefits and the values are. But, put yourself in the place of an attorney who looks at statutes or even a homeowner who ought to be able to go out and get a copy of the Code and read through it and actually understand it. So, you take your purpose and your findings and you knit that into a cohesive brief, a cohesive narrative, so we understand, so people understand, why the regulation of wetlands are important. You will not get that under the version you have printed now. So, I suggest you re-do that. The next thing is really definitions. Now, I've had some experience writing statutes myself, so I've been through these struggles. It is my advise to you that you always write the definitions last because really what you want to decide is what you want to do with the wetlands. For example, when you get down way into this thing, you see something like low-sill bulkhead and you refer back to this draft or the 7-15 draft, you'll see it's nowhere defined. When you look at a toe-armoring against a bulkhead, which appears on page 15 or 20 here, you stumble upon it and you cant' go back to the definitions to see what toe-armoring is. Well it is massive rock of some specification. It is angular relative to the flat plane of the surface of the bulkhead. So, my advise to you is when you do your definitions, you always do them last, after you've almost finished 99% of it, so when you read though it, here's a term of art. We all know what it means. But, don't think of what I know or what you even know. Think of what others might not 9 know and then you fill in your definitions. A lot of the stuff you have like bays, beaches, dunes, and flats, that's almost silly because everyone knows what that is and it doesn't relate to a specific standard in your statute. CHRIS PICKERALL: This does in fact because we're talking about banning the bulkheads in the bays for example, or whatever it is. So, that's why it's in there. BRUCE ANDERSON: Okay, maybe that's not a good example. But you follow what I'm saying. So, you always fill in your definitions last and it seems like you're doing that. CHRIS PICKERALL: That was the intention. BRUCE ANDERSON: You then list the approving authority. The approving authority is the Trustees. Everyone knows you have to go to the Trustees for this. You then examine what activities you are going to regulate, and under what jurisdictions. Now, different towns and different municipalities and states do this different ways. There may be a linear distance, or right now the distance is 100' as we all know. There may be a reduced distance if there is a bulkhead because there is a lesser environmental concern. There may be a concern to expand that distance but you must identify what your jurisdiction is and you must identify what are your regulated activities. Once you've done that, you have to tell us what are the activities that don't require a permit, and those are the exempted activities. It seemed when I read through this that we're trying to apply different standards to different levels of projects based on a perceived intensity of use. That's what I got out of this. Now, mind you, I'm struggling through this because I don't like the organization to begin with. The typical way that that is done is you define what is called a major activity and that has certain standards and then you have a minor activity. Now I have watched this Board for many years. I have participated in a lot of things and I see the Board arguing about fences and I see you taking that out and stuff. To listen through that ordeal in Paradise Point over a fence almost made my hair fall out. I would not want to be sitting on that side of the table. So, the idea is to have a minor activity where you can exclude the public hearings and then just push them right through and it eliminates the pain in the asses that are out there. It eliminates that sort of public participation over nothing. I think you're trying to do that but I want you to organize it better. So, you have major or minor, a letter of permission of even a lesser thing, where one member of the Trustees can say, it's fine, here's a letter. There's really no process in that. A letter of non-jurisdiction so that there is a question as to whether or not you're regulated, and then comes the application contents. Obviously if you're looking at a big process, it would seem to me that the application contents would be greater than if you were looking at a minor project. It is my opinion that there should be some distinguishing between a major and a minor and then the application for something small should lend itself to a very small thin application whereas something big should lend itself to a much more detailed application. You have this in bits and pieces throughout this but I'm going to ask you to pull it together so that it's more readable and understandable so anyone can pick it up and read it. Because you would have something that is major and something that is minor, there would be different review procedures for that which is major and that which is minor. The major ones would most likely require a public hearing. Right now this Board seems to have a public hearing on everything, including a simple amendment to a permit, which most recently caused a great stir over, in my opinion, nothing. It's resolved, so don't worry about it, but there is no reason to embroil yourselves and become neighborhood cops on silly 10 things because one neighbor doesn't like another neighbor, which was my case the last time I appeared in front of you. That's not worth my time, that's not worth your time, and frankly I found it to be a very aggravating experience with no benefit. So, like a permit amendment should not be something that draws in the crazy people in this community whose only interest is that they hate their neighbors. You don't want to listen to that. So, I suggest you do that. The standards for a major are different then the standards for a minor, and again, the difference in magnitude. Then you should have a procedure for a renewal, modification, and transfer of permits, which should be completely administrative, involving no formal action of the Board, in my opinion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we do transfer permits and when we do renew permits, we do some office review because things have been historically omitted by the Board on an initial approval, something like a hay bale line, drywells and gutters, and maybe a non- turf buffer. Now these should not fall through the cracks of the new Code. But they had in the past. So when we got the two-year renewal, we just made a quick check of those. Administrative permit, and you bring up a good point, how many did we have in the office today... TRUSTEE FOSTER: Eight or ten of them, at least. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any how many do we have when the contractor is in the middle of a project and because of the conditions on the site, they need to change something, and it becomes a problem because we can't on the spot amend the permit because it makes sense to do it this way instead of that way. BRUCE ANDERSON: But don't you agree, I mean you guys have always worked well together, I mean the members have changed, but what I've noticed about this Board is that you rely on one another. Certainly one member of the Board could make that call. Maybe that's your remedy there. I'm trying to lighten your load because I don't want to sit here until midnight arguing about permits. I want to be out of here by 10:00 PM. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Your right. That would resolve a lot of problems. That's what we're attempting to do with the administrative permits. You want to take it one step further where we can do more of an administrative review in the office that day or if there is a problem with the project we can amend the permit on the site or in the office that day. BRUCE ANDERSON: That would be great. For sake of semantics here, let's consider an administrative permit as something like a letter of permission. Let's consider a minor project as something that is small and not worth a great deal of time and let's concentrate on the things that matter. That would be the major projects. That's what I'm trying to do in this structure I handed out to you. I think it will save you time. I would never want to be a Trustee because what I see with the Trustees, I see with the Zoning Board, I see it...mostly with the Zoning Board and Trustees, is you sit there and you have to play neighborhood cop and it must be horrible for you because it's very painful for me to even listen to and it's every week. So you use this statute as a way of weeding out the crap so you can really look at what's important. I don't really see that in this draft. I see it hinted but I don't see it pulled together and I think if you change the structure and reorganize this and you don't necessarily have to follow exactly what I say, but something along that format is going to make a lot of sense to people and it's going to make your lives easy and make everyone's lives easy. I've gotten to the point with this land use stuff, because this is what I do, that I think the Codes of the future will 11 be designed to minimize community conflict because right now, I was in front of the Town Board the other night with the farmer thing, I was over at Southampton with the wild lands things, every town is doing it, and they adopt these sweeping changes and what they do is they polarize their community. The people sitting up on that end of the table have to listen to attacks back and forth and among themselves. Use your Code to eliminate as much as that as possible because when the day is done, we are one world and we all have to live together and in our Codes we should have an underpinning of policy that suggests that we should also get along with one another. So the minor procedures and the letters of permissions and that sort of thing sort of foster that sort of getting along attitude and it eliminates, I don't like my neighbors so I'm just going to piss all over his project and cost everyone a lot of money. I suggest you do that. The wording I could get into in much greater detail, but I'm not going to because I think this is going to continue to change and I might actually just draft what I think they should say. But, I do find that there are things like proactive restoration and enhancement projects that are not defined. I don't know what that means and I think they are too subjective to use in the case of a statute. I see the area of a non-turf buffer area. I struggled with one of those on an application. We should define what that is, not by so much what can be planted in there but what can't be planted in there because I think it will open up options. Obviously I think what you're looking for is native non-fertilized vegetation. The homeowner is typically looking for...if you're one on the water, that's going to grow up and block the water, and that kind of defeats the purpose of being there. You're interested in a buffer...is a fertilizer...is a filter of contaminants running over the land toward the wetland. That doesn't have any implication that it be 10, high or 20' high. It can be low. The key is, does it buffer? Does it accomplish its objectives? So, I would like you to tighten that up because when you go to a waterfront homeowner and say you have to plant 15' cedar trees, they are going to say, what are you crazy? Okay, I'll plant them, give me my C.O., and then I'm going to cut them down, or they'll get sick somehow. You want to work with people, so I suggest that you talk about a non-turf buffer, not so much by what must be planted there, but what can't be planted there and leave the option open to the homeowners because you don't really care what's planted there as long as it serves that filtration purpose. So, there is no reason to engage in that kind of debate. I see something about a silt boom. I'm not even sure what that means. If you could put a definition in and show us how it works it would be helpful. When you do your storm-water stuff, I want to remind you that the new clean water amendments provide us with very easy user-friendly formulas as to how much, what the conversion is, when we build a hard structure vs. a 2" rainstorm. It's a very simple calculation. Don't put me in a position where I can prepare all the plans to your satisfaction and above your satisfaction, and then have to turn around and hire an engineer, pay the guy $500.00 to put a stamp on my plan, I mean the guy would stamp a ham sandwich for $500.00. You don't need an engineer there. What you need is a simple method for determining storm-water run-off and those methods are already available to you. I will send you a copy. It's a very simple calculation. It's the identical calculations that the Suffolk County Soil Services use when they respond to ZBA applications. We are all working off of the same sheets. We don't need to add an extra $500.00 for some engineer to sign and stamp something that he doesn't have to look at for more than 5 seconds. So, I would as you to take that out. There are uses for an 12 engineer. There are complicated applications. I think you can leave it open to request it where there is a legitimate question of engineering. But to turn that into a standard pro forma activity in the granting of a permit, I think is expensive, unnecessary, and it won't benefit you and it won't benefit me. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's an acceptance of responsibility. BRUCE ANDERSON: But this is all soft engineering. We're not talking about the structural stability of something. You're talking about environmental controls that require an engineering stamp and I'm saying to you it's unnecessary, it's expensive, it wont' benefit you and it won't benefit me. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well I know the formulas myself. I could figure them out but that's not my job. That's not why I'm up here. BRUCE ANDERSON: But the applicant can figure it out. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's the applicant's responsibility. When the applicant submits a plan and says this is going to work, well let me see your credentials. BRUCE ANDERSON: You don't need credentials. What you need is a showing, if you're doing a run-off thing, you just need a showing...a surveyor can do it. How much of a pervious surface, how much run-off is generated on a 2" rainstorm, you take the square footage multiply it by 0.166 and wallah, there is your volume control distributed. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I know that's the way it is but that's not my responsibility when it fails, because it wasn't done properly and we approved it. That's why we want the engineer's stamp because he's accepting the responsibility that that is correct. He's verifying that all those calculations with that many square feet of drainage area is going to work. That's what he is doing. BRUCE ANDERSON: It's simple math. By the way, you do drainage work all the time and you know that when the road....we can design a road drain with the appropriate leaching basins, on the side of the road, the road run-off comes and goes into the catch basin into the leaching field, we know all of that, and we know how to size them. It doesn't mean that 5 years from now it actually works. Why? It's because the silt would block the drain. So the engineer is not really providing you with the protection you think, other than to check the math, and I can check the math, and you can check the math. We can all agree on the math. The math is math. CHRIS PICKERALL: But potentially they could require that those calculations be shown on the application. BRUCE ANDERSON: I have no objection to that. All I'm objecting to is the $500.00 expense per application, because that is what it costs. We have to pay these guys. I hate paying them because I'm doing the work and I feel like, here's $500.00, oh yeah, you did it right, just like the last one. Thanks for the $500.00. I'm tired of paying it. There is a legal problem in your draft that I want you to think about and I know you have very strong feelings about it, but I'm not sure where it appears in your more recent draft. I'm looking on July 8th, where you say, no new docks permitted in Down's Creek, Hallocks Bay, West Creek, or Arshamomaque Pond. Let me assure you, that is illegal. That will be challenged and struck down because you have the riparian rights problem with that. It may be that they are great clamming areas and you prefer to see no docks. It may be that some of these creeks are too shallow and they will have difficulty getting docks from DEC or elsewhere, but to blanketly say that somehow these creeks are off limits and their riparian rights don't count in those four creeks, I'm going to tell you, if 13 someone wants to step up to the plate and challenge it, you will lose that. You ought not to put it in the statute, a standard that you know you're going to lose, if someone wants to fight you. I understand how precious they are to you, I understand the clams, the oysters and the rest of it, but a person's riparian rights on Arshamomaque Creek are no different than a person's riparian rights if they are on Mattituck Creek. And that's just a fact. If you put it in, it's going to be a lightening rod. They're maybe other reasons why a dock can't be built but a blanket statement like that, I'm telling you right now, is illegal. I suggest you take it out. CHRIS PICKERALL: We have discussed that with the Department of State so it is definitely something on the forefront on our list of things to look at. BRUCE ANDERSON: This bulkhead thing is interesting to me. It seemed to me that you were saying that if you had a bulkhead, you could put one in front of the other and then you had sort of a one shot deal for doing that. Preferably, it seemed to me that you wanted us to pull the bulkheads out and put new ones in their place. My personal feeling is that shouldn't be a standard. The last one we did, I think was for my mom. It was a fiberglass bulkhead and I had struggled with it greatly because I had thought we could put this fiberglass right across right to the face of it and avoid disturbance because I knew once I pulled out that bulkhead, that there would be some collapse. I had watched the installation that Terry had done down by the Town Creek, the Parks Dept. there, and you can see the stuff sort of collapse into the water. I'm talking about the back, and it's very hard to retain. My suggestion to you is, I can understand your concern about constantly going out and out, and losing water, water, and water, but I think you should leave that thing open because there are going to be cases where it's going to make more sense to just put it flat up against the bulkhead and there will be other cases where it makes more sense to pull the bulkhead out and put it in. In our case, under advise of contractors, because of the deadmen complications, there really was no difference, so it was better to pull it out, which we agreed to do, put in the fiberglass with the deadmen, and we agreed to do that. But, that may not be the same everywhere you go. My guess is that when you talk about replacing bulkheads, that ought to be left to the discretion of the Board and really the method by which that is done should be the best management practice, and define what that is in your definitions. I don't think you want to bootstrap yourself into a situation where you are compelled by statutes to do something that you know in your heart and your knowledge, and your knowledge of the environment is less preferable than doing it another way. CHRIS PICKERALL: To address that, in the meeting we had with the marine contractors, originally we had 18" in there. BRUCE ANDERSON: Right. That was a DEC standard. CHRIS PICKERALL: There is that flexibility but at this point, the Board is thinking about just a one-time seaward bump-out, that's it, rather than two or three. BRUCE ANDERSON: It's not going to be the end of the world one way or another but what I'm saying is you may not want to bootstrap yourself that way. You might not actually want to make that decision in the context of constructing a statute because you're not only going to run into a situation where you are going to wind up doing the wrong thing because the statute demands you do the wrong thing, when in your heart and your mind, and in your experience, you know the right thing is to do something else. So, it's just my suggestion. This part I find interesting. We talk about low-sill bulkheads. 14 Now a low-sill bulkhead, and we're coming in with one by the way, which is a bulkhead that the top elevation is set somewhere between midway between high and low tide. The idea is you can plant wetland grasses behind it and it's a semi-soft way of dealing with a shoreline structural problem. But, you somehow tied this with dredging. Now I thought what you meant is the dredging being when you're focusing the water jets to sink the piles, what sort of dredging do you mean there? CHRIS PICKERALL: The Trustees did not want to allow any new dredging. Only maintenance dredging, which is defined but may be changed. So, that's the dredging issue. Then we got into this low-sill bulkhead issue and you may require that to install and to maintain it for it to work property. So that was to allow new dredging to take place in association with the installation and maintenance of a low-sill bulkhead. BRUCE ANDERSON: Okay. If you can sort of tweak that a little bit to make it more clear, that works for me. When you talk about construction of additions to the landward side of an existing, functional, single-family dwelling, now functional is not the term of art. Functional relates to bulkheads and groins. When you talk about single-family dwellings, you want to talk about loftily existing single-family dwellings, not functional single-family dwellings. When you talk about equal to 25% of the square footage of an existing building, and footage is not a word by the way, but I think what you mean, 25% of the area of the footprint of the single-family dwelling because I don't think you would want to penalize someone because they had a second-floor on their house. I think what you're talking about is the footprint, the area the building occupies on the land, plus 25%. So, I suggest you clean that up a little bit. When you get to #8, that was kind of curious and I think that's a mistake. You say the demolition, relocation, repair or upgrade of existing fuel tanks, fuel lines, fuel dispensers, cesspools...well we want to use the word septic systems because we're trying to get rid of cesspools in favor of the more modern septic systems. I think that those are going to require some review because I think your goal is to try to get the septic system as far away from the water as possible. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is under administrative permits because sometimes you have the old cesspool on the waterside of the house, right against the creek, and you want to upgrade it and then you go through a whole permit process because they're going to move the cesspool because there is city water on the street now so they can put it anywhere in their back yard or front yard or which ever you want to consider the roadside, and we don't want to wear somebody out with a public on that. We want to say, oh, you're going to move the cesspool to the roadside of the house because you're going to upgrade it and fill in the old one, okay. And that's why it's under administrative permits. BRUCE ANDERSON: Then put a provision in it so that relative to the relocation of it landward of their existing locations, because right now it looks like I can just throw another septic ring in. If my cesspool is 5' from the water, I can throw another ring in with an administrative permit. I think what you're trying to do is move these things further away from the water and I support that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But under the administrative permit, if one Board member looks at it and says no, this is a full permit, then it becomes a full permit. That's the check of the administrative permit. It's under the review of one Board member, but that Board member can then say, no, this is an application and it needs a full Board review, public 15 hearing, neighbor notification, and the whole works. Then it gets kicked back to the whole review process. BRUCE ANDERSON: That's fine. We're in agreement on that. I'm very much in favor of, I believe the septic system should be moved as far away from the water as possible given how much room a property owner has to give. So, I'm not in favor of it's got to be 100', it's got to be 150', it's got to be 75', it's got to be 50'. 1 think those are silly numbers. When you talk about setbacks and you're leaving them blank, and I think we're going to have this discussion later on, but perhaps not tonight, is I'm hoping we're going to take into account the character of the area, the depths of the lot, and we're going to make them fit each lot. If you put a number on them, you're asking for trouble. CHRIS PICKERALL: That's what the Board has been concerned about. That's why we don't have numbers. We're trying to wrestle with that right now. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's difficult to put numbers on pre-existing situations but not on new. BRUCE ANDERSON: Oh it could be. There is no such thing as an unbuildable lot, unless it's underwater. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You used to be able to catch fifty stripped bass too and now you can only catch one. Things change. BRUCE ANDERSON: We're looking at some lots that I thought were unbuildable. Down the road from here, and you won't believe this Artie, but I have DEC letters of non- jurisdiction. No one would ever have build on these lands except...these half-acre lots are worth about $100,000 apiece. A $100,000 apiece, you can afford to wait the battle on them. Don't think there are lots that are unbuildable unless they are underwater. They may be non-conforming, but they are buildable. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we need specific recommendations and that's why we don't have numbers. BRUCE ANDERSON: You'll lose that in court because if we come after you, because the lot was created prior to your restrictive regulation, if we do it right and we put in the right time and the right amount of money, we're going to win, or you're going to buy them. Maybe that's what you should do. When we get to the application, I'm going to tell you a little trick here in the Hamptons that happened a lot, and it's going to happen here sooner or later. When this rental market, and if you ever see a rental market like you see in the Hamptons, what you'll see is people coming in and applying for permits and usually for something like swimming pools. What happens is, they file their application and you don't really know who the owner is. This has happened a dozen times. The owner gets an assessment and says my god, I don't have a swimming pool on my property, why am I being assessed for a swimming pool? He goes out to his house and sees a swimming pool there. Why, because some renter made an application on behalf of the owner, got the swimming pool in, installed it for his summer parties or whatever they did, without the owner's consent. You have an owner's consent here but you really don't know who the owner is. What you should require is the deed in your applications so you can match the deed name with the property owner, otherwise, you really don't know who owns the property. So make that part of your application. It's easy to do. It's an old trick and I think we should avoid here in Southold. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Yes, we had that and we asked for the deed. 16 BRUCE ANDERSON: Make it part of all of your applications so you're sure you have the owner's consent. I've never given you one on any application I've ever filed. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: You're so trustworthy we don't have to worry about it. BRUCE ANDERSON: I do object to the certification of the engineer today, because I know that's just an extra $500.00 and it wont' amount to anything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll look at that. Maybe that's not necessary on every single one. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well not on every one but you want the option to request it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's different. The option to request it is different than required. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It becomes a problem when there is a homeowner, a neighboring homeowner who raises the question about liability and in that case, I believe you do. BRUCE ANDERSON: Oh, if they raise it, then make them get it. But, it's a silly argument. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd be comfortable with that being left to the discretion of the Board. BRUCE ANDERSON: Yeah, do that. If it comes up as an issue, you might want to address it and you want to give yourself that flexibility. But to subject everyone to $500.00 1 think is extreme. 97-24E, you have an action that's either an approval or a denial, and you should put in an approval with modifications, which you do now. You don't want to bootstrap yourself. The performance guarantee is fraught with difficulty. First of all, you're trying to get into the bonding business. You list bond, deposit of money, whatever that is, negotiable securities, other undertaking of financial responsibilities. First of all, you're not in a position to accept any of these things. That has to all go through the Town Board. You're going to have to find another mechanism because I don't think I'm going to be ...you're not in the position to get into the bonding business and all of that and I suggest you stay out of it. We have to do this with Planning Boards, and it takes hours, and hours, and hours, and believe me, you're not going to want to do it. So, think about that a little further. I like the idea of holding up a C.O., although I don't think you want to get into the C.O. business either. So, there should be some internal check there, probably through the Code Enforcement Officer. Make him do the work, but don't get into the business of bonding. You will regret it. The insurance bit about the certificate of the applicant of public liability insurance, I mean, that's silly. Just take it out. CHRIS PICKERALL: That's always been there. BRUCE ANDERSON: I've never given you one. I don't know anyone else whoever has. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't require it all the time. It's very seldom used. BRUCE ANDERSON: Then put it at the discretion of the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We usually use it on some sort of a dredging project where there would be undermining of the neighbors bulkhead. BRUCE ANDERSON: Make sure it reads "discretionary" then. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This isn't for every application. BRUCE ANDERSON: When you get to the one-year time frame. I like the 18 months because it's now taking more than a year to build a house for example. But, I'll leave that to you. It won't matter when the day is done because as soon as I put my 17 foundation in you're going to have to give it to me anyway but the question is do you want to do the extra work. If you do, make it a year, if you want a little less work, make it 18 months. Your statement at 97-27G where you have, "the applicant does and accepts and assumes all responsibilities, blah, blah, blah, blah, you're going to have to take out the agents and the rest of it because you simply can't hold us responsible for what the applicant does. If the applicant builds his house in the wrong location, or he puts his deck on the wrong side of the house, against his own permit, that is certainly not my liability. So, I certainly won't be signing that statement. It should be specific to the owner. So leave the agents out of it. It's the owner's responsibility. No one else. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: We'll take it under advisement. CHRIS PICKERALL: That was an addition. BRUCE ANDERSON: You might have the owner sign, notarize, and return to the Trustees prior to permit issuance. In fact, you might combine that with the preceding statement in "F". Put it into a statement, send it out to the owner, the owner agrees, he signs, notarizes and sends it back. Then, you hand out the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well a lot of this is mechanical. This is for the protection of the Town. BRUCE ANDERSON: I understand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's got to be for the protection of the Town. CHRIS PICKERALL: That last statement...what are you talking about exactly? BRUCE ANDERSON: Well the way you have this written, you have the owner, the agent, the applicant, all sort of grouped into one. I'm in the business of obtaining approvals for people, sometimes representing Boards like you against people who want to get approvals. But, when the day is done and the deck is installed and the house is built, once the permit is handed over, I am out. Therefore, I cannot be held responsible for any screw-up in the construction. CHRIS PICKERALL: I got that but the next part you talked about the.... BRUCE ANDERSON: So the way to cure it is to center it right onto the owner whose taking the permit and let them sign and notarize whatever statement and send it back to you. When the day is done, it's the owner that is responsible. I don't like the term "performance guarantee" because it doesn't mean anything. Just think of something different to call it. "Certificate of Compliance required", you know, you don't do C.C.'s and you don't have the ability to do C.C.'s. That a Building Dept. function. The cure there is some sort of internal referral service between yourselves and the Building Dept. I suspect you don't want the work. I wouldn't want the work if I were in your position, nor do I want to sign off on something. I want to address the problem when the problem arises but I don't want to certify anything. I think you should take all of that out and if anything have an internal referral over to the Building Dept. CHRIS PICKERALL: This was a suggestion from the Director of Code Enforcement. BRUCE ANDERSON: I don't think you have the authority to do it anyway. TOM SAMUELS: From who? I can't hear you Chris. CHRIS PICKERALL: Director of Code Enforcement. TOM SAMUELS: Mr. Forrester. BRUCE ANDERSON: Let Ed work. He's got lots of time. He can do it. When you get into coordination and enforcement, make sure if you say Director of Code Enforcement, say and/or Bay Constable because it follows everywhere else in the statute. Where you 18 have one, you have both. I don't care if in 97-32A if the Code Enforcement Officer or Bay Constable calls me because of some violation. I will tell you that I would certainly call the owner but you might not get someone like me. So, to say that service to an applicant's representative is service, you'll find is deficient. It must be to the owner of record. Now, I don't know about your fines and we'll talk about it later. I don't particularly care about them. But, be careful when you do assess fines. I would talk to your local judges because there are limitations on what you can do and how you can do them. I suggest you talk with Mr. Bruer, Mr. Price, and he'll tell you how to do that properly. That's the best people to address that. One thing you haven't done that I'm surprised is that I think there should be a Trustee permit required for subdivisions and I'll tell you why. There could be, and I'm working on a subdivision now, the fellow has already has sold a ton of development rights, too much in my opinion, to the point where he is now causing problems with the lots he's left for his kids. He was, in my opinion, poorly advised, sold the development rights, he was under great pressure from the farmland committee and everyone else. But, he sold them. Now he has a chunk of land left. Now he has wetlands on the land. The wetlands are bigger than he initially new when he sold the development rights. He's not a developer. It's for his kids. There should be a check on every subdivision by the Trustees relative to the wetlands. The worst thing that could happen is have one agency in this Town grant a subdivision creating lots that we discover later on can't be built upon. This one I caught but I'm sure there are others where this has happened. There should be a Trustee application in connection with a subdivision and there should be an approval with that as to a building envelope and then when the map is filed, that building envelope should be honored. It will save you a lot of time and trouble in the future. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do coordinate with the Planning Board. BRUCE ANDERSON: Make it a permit. Coordination is fine. Members will change, opinions will change. A permit is different because I have my permit. I filed my map in accordance with the permit and I come back ten years ago and the members are different and I've got a bunch of crazy people on the other side of the table saying, oh, this will kill the wetlands, screw you. No, I say I want to assemble my bundle of rights at the point where I file that map and to enhance my bundle of rights and I'd like to get a Trustees permit, and you'd like to give me one, because you want a real check on that. You want a permit given to the property owner, in connection with that subdivision so that I can rely on that subdivision in the future. It has caused great problems in other towns by not doing it. In the context of doing a subdivision, you're not an expense, so we're not worried about you. But, we would like to collect those bundles of rights for the future. So, I implore you to have some sort of permit process for subdivisions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else? TOM SAMUELS: I don't know how you follow that act. That was good. By and large, I commend the Trustees as I have before on your common sense. I still rely on it. I still think there will be some site specific situations, which are not covered by this draft, event the eventual resolution that goes to the Town Board. However, you can incorporate into it some mechanism for exceptions so that the party doesn't have to go to the ZBA, for example, which is another problem. As far as the riparian rights issue, I am sure counsel can investigate the riparian rights issue, I'm sure he's aware it. I send the Trustees a letter from the Long Island Bar Association, Anthony Guadino of Farrell, 19 Fritz, and you probably know of the firm, you certainly know Anthony, I think. The riparian rights issue is very real. It can't be just wished away and it can't be legislated away, the way I read it. I think the best way to handle these situations is to, as you have in the past, when an applicant comes before you, you attempt, and usually succeed in giving him something, which at least satisfies him. That's the best way to handle it. Eventually there is going to be the guy like, in Cold Spring Harbor, which is a federal preserve, a reserve, or whatever, and a fellow built a dock that was a 150' long for an 85' boat and the State, and the Town, and the I guess the County too took him to court and it proved that he could have a dock but it couldn't be 185' long and he didn't have enough water to get in there anyway. It's the only case that I heard was refuted. The rest of them essentially all have been sustained to some extent, something must be allowed. I commend you for going to the NGVD as a measure of high water and low water. I think that is in imperative. We're doing it on all of our applications, in particular with the DEC. You can't gauge high water or low water by going out with a pair of waders and a yardstick. You can't do it. NGVD is universally and legally the way to do it. I see with pleasure that you are allowing the cutting of phragmites. I'd like to see something in there encouraging the elimination of phragmites and the planting of spartina. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Like riparian rights, I don't know if we address it in the legislation. TOM SAMUELS: Well, true. You've heard my argument before. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. We put that in and we had long discussions about phragmites. In certain instances we feel it is appropriate to have them cut down to a foot. Is comes we're going to say "no". It's going to be site specific, but it's an option. TOM SAMUELS: There are a number of projects going on now in the Town of East Hampton and on some private projects in the Town of Southampton on Sag Pond and other places where, and I'm sure you're aware of it Chris, where they are attempting to reconstitute marsh. Phargmites is noticeable by its lack of wildlife. About the only thing you see in it is red-winged blackbirds. CHRIS PICKERALL: One thing is...it's getting richer with accounts of more species diversity than is obvious from just walking up to the site, so that argument has kind of fallen by the wayside, to a certain extent. TOM SAMUELS: Only what I can see, and I really hate to walk through it and the other thing about it is a number of homes are being built that are surrounded by phragmites and I can't think of anything more inflammable than phargmites in the winter time when it's dry. We had one time sparks from a crane. We were driving piles and it went like that. Fortunately it was about 400 yds. from the North Sea Fire Department. They got there right away, but it really goes. You can't run as fast as it will go, if the wind is blowing. CHRIS PICKERALL: The other issue Tom, relative to this aspect, is the fact that you still need a DEC permit. It streamlines the Town aspect but it doesn't mean that Chuck is going to get you a permit, or Karen is. TOM SAMUELS: Well that leads me to the next point that I wanted to make. Too often, in my opinion, and I say this to the Trustees in the all the Towns, and believe me, I admire nobody more than the Trustees. There isn't a Town Board that I think as highly of. There never has been. On occasion, the various Trustee bodies rely on the DEC to reject applications to them, as the DEC being the mentor. I have brought this matter up 20 before. If it is a very controversial issue, there are occasions where the Trustees will rely on the DEC's militants, and aggressiveness and policies that are not part of their regulations to delay ruling on an application, until the DEC rules. The Town of Shelter Island will not issue a permit until you have a DEC permit. Shelter Island board members are Trustees. They don't have a separate body. The Town should always take lead agency on every application before the Trustees. The Trustees should take lead agency. They must maintain control of it. We've had this argument since 1973, when the moratorium first went into effect, where the DEC took over what I considered the Trustees rights. It was later confirmed in court after a very lengthy procedure, which cost our firm $40,000.00, which in 1973 was a lot of money. All the Trustees filed, friends of the court briefs. The court of appeals ruled that the DEC had police powers, and therefore superceded the Trustees to a large extent as to what can be done. So, I think there should be to some extent, an eyes open view of what the DEC's action is. This water depth, the dock thing, is just typical of one of the excesses of the DEC. It's not in the regulations, believe me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've had some active discussion with them on just that. TOM SAMUELS: I know. I understand that but I think you should take lead agency to the extent that it protects you from some of their actions, because you are a legal body and you're dealing with SEQRA now. It's a pain in the neck, I know. The length of time that permits are enforced...it's not unusual, and it's not rare, unfortunately, for Town permits to expire. In Southampton you get a year and then you get another year extension and then you have to reapply. It's not unusual not to have a permit in two years from the DEC. That is not rare at all. So there should be, I would think, some verbiage in this time frame that you're talking about, which allows for the delays of another agency. God for bid you get the Department of State fighting with the DEC. That is a killer. Talk about brain-dead opposition. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what's your suggestion? Is it two years? Are you satisfied with what we had? TOM SAMUELS: Yes. I'm satisfied with what you have because again, if I come before this Board at the end of the two years, and I said to you, through no fault of my applicant, my customer, he has not gotten a DEC permit, you will site specific say we'll give you another year. That's the way you work. That's why I'd rather come before this Board than any other, including a court of law of course, counselor. TRUSTEE FOSTER: One of the things that we were talking about, and I suggested it, and we talked about it but it never went much further than that, was to make the approval for a permit on our hearing night but make the permit starting date effective the day we actually it, which would be the day you get the DEC permit, so that they run concurrent with one another. TOM SAMUELS: I don't want you to have to hold up your issuance of a permit until the DEC does. You see one of the best things you can have when you go to the DEC is the Trustee permit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Or a letter of approval. TOM SAMUELS: Or a letter of approval. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But that's basically what I'm saying. You get a letter of approval. TOM SAMUELS: You see, apply concurrently always, you should. 21 TRUSTEE FOSTER: But you psychically can come get the permit when you have the DEC permit in hand and it will have that date of two years. TOM SAMUELS: As long as the language is such that it isn't contingent on you to have a DEC permit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And we're aware of the situation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think administratively it would be more of a burden for us though. I think it would be easier just to keep this status quo. Two years and two one- year extensions. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well it doesn't really make any difference but sometimes that's not enough either. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: So in other words, just write it back the way it was. TOM SAMUELS: It's rare that...I would really throw up my hands in despair if it gets to four years. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Two years, with two, one-year extensions. That's the way it is right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That works, doesn't it? TOM SAMUELS: On balance, what you performed is good. I have some minuscule objections and Bruce Anderson certainly can exhaustively pick more of the "and do" out of the pepper than I can, but you're on the right path, you're still treating property rights with some value, and I have no real quarrel with these new draft regulations. Unlike Southampton, we're not using green heart and angelic, we're cutting down the rainforest to build bulkheads. This is just ridiculous. But, I think on balance, it is a good draft and certainly something you can work with. You can fine-tune it as much as you want. I'd like to see more work done in the Town in eradicating phragmites. I think it's a pest. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Doctor, could I ask you a question of your experiences or maybe somebody else's, after you, in the phragmite area? It is some of the Board's knowledge that although we would want to include some ability to cut down the phragmite, or replace it with Baccharis or replace it with Rosa Rugosa, or replace it with something that we would feel would be indigenous based on a long list that Chris might provide us. Is your experience that the DEC has adopted a plan for a client of yours or somebody that you know about that where they've allowed that? That seems to be the only situation where we have in our lexicon that the DEC would go along with it, if we have a plan of re-planting or re-vegetations of one of these five or six kinds of types of vegetations. Do you have something that is broader than that? TOM SAMUELS: It's very costly to do, number one. You've got to get the roots. It's costly. But, to someone who wants to do it, and certainly government wants to do it, although I remember right up near your farm stand there that they are counting on the phragmites there to filter nutrients. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They didn't grow. They died. TOM SAMUELS: Yes. But, it should be encouraged for people to do it if they can. Certainly mowing eliminates the fire hazard. I think the fire hazard is a real issue. I really do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we have let people cut it right from their houses before. TOM SAMUELS: You do, but the DEC doesn't. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: That's my dilemma here. Thank you very much Southold but if we give you permission and you can't do it anyways, what have we really done. 22 TOM SAMUELS: Well every time the guy comes to cut the lawn, he cuts a little bit more and it's a game that's being played but it's not the answer. I would encourage some discussion with the department. There are some people up there with considerable knowledge. Chris? CHRIS PICKERALL: I think the DEC's mindset is such that if you devalue phragmites as a species, you are devaluing that wetland as well. They don't want to see that. So, they don't want to just let anybody do what they want and they will not rubber stamp things. They will accept watershed plans so they want to see steps taken over the course over a couple of years, small scale going up, and maybe a Town could propose that at that scale. But, they really don't want to open up that barn door. They really don't want to do that. TOM SAMUELS: Yeah, but when you look at Sag Pond, which is putrefying with phragmites, I mean it's just terrible. It really is terrible. I hate to see it. Phragmites only grows on disturbed soils, dredged spoil usually, and all marshes that have been excavated. That's been pretty well established and you can go around and see phragmites and know where man has been. It's the result of degradation of a marsh, generally speaking. Once it gets in the bog, you've got to take everything out and start from scratch. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Thank you. TOM SAMUELS: My pleasure. I haven't been called doctor except by a head waiter in ten years, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else? JOHN COSTELLO: My name is John Costello. I applaud the effort but I fear that this is going to get more complicated as it gets refined. The more complicated it gets, we're eliminating a certain way of life out here in Southold where we are going to make applications with engineers, architects, scientists, and particularly lawyers, and I regret that happening. The only thing is, it's what your trying to protect is important. What you're trying to protect is important and I think the big thing is the working with the zoning powers to be and the master plan that's being drafted because the most critical areas of the Town have got to be up-zoned somehow, and I did speak at the hearing and I would love to see 25 acre zoning in Southold. Everybody is talking five-acre. I'm not particularly fond of five-acre but there are areas that I think you have to try to protect the land. This document certainly needs time to be refined, there are terms...it has to work. Please don't make it so complicated and keep adding to it and make it more difficult that no one can understand it except professionals. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we're trying to make it user-friendly. CHRIS PICKERALL: We're trying to balance the two things. JOHN COSTELLO: I know but it's going to be difficult. That's going to be the task and it is not. It's going to become more and more difficult. What happens is when you do have a five-member board, you can plead your case at a public hearing, and I don't want to say this too loud because I've been reprimanded by the DEC already, I've read the deal, at a public hearing, tried to make a case before five individuals like a jury. At least if you have a case, and you can make the points and persuade the majority of the individuals that the process is good or can be modified, or the project can be mitigated in order to protect the environment, is what you're trying to do. Then you can sell the job. When you to the DEC you are assigned one individual that is going to rule on you and you'll 23 never even see the individual, normally. But it goes through a process. But, I think this Board, and Mr. Samuels said, that this Board is an important ingredient and does have the power but you also have the power, and he did ask, and Mr. Anderson asked, please have an exception or a variance because each case, and I applaud this Board by taking, having public hearings on every application, and the person pleading the case making the issues and you guys have made suggestions, recommended things to be changed, to benefit the environmental issues, and I think you have to keep heading in that general direction. I could go through this and tell you one word I don't agree with and some of the terms I don't agree with, and I don't agree with the maintenance dredging, but this has to be gone through, modified, and I would have to probably put it in writing because you're going to get inundated with suggestions. The maintenance dredging on a ten-year, it doesn't work, historically. If it's important for the creek to have the circulation, I don't care when it was dredged. When it fills in do to a storm or whatnot, it happens all the time in Deep Hole Creek and in other areas. I don't care when it was dredged. The environmental concern of that creek staying healthy, I'm sure that this Board wants that, and take that into jurisdiction. CHRIS PICKERALL: Do you think there should be a number there because that came up? JOHN COSTELLO: I think in the Town, in the Town's records, where they date back many years, historically if the area has been dredged, if it has been dredged, I can tell you, I mean I used to own the bottom of a creek in Gull Pond. It was dredged back in the early sixties. It needs to be dredged in certain areas. It's filling in where it is eroding and whatnot but it should be in order to keep the flow, there should be an area...you have to make the issue, you have to plead your case, you have to come up here in front of this Board and hopefully the Board can make the exception. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well there's merit to that. That's why we struggled with a number to come up with a number on to define maintenance dredging because sometimes we have these old permit also that are in a creek, say Town Creek, where a dock permit was issued and then maybe 40 years ago, they issued an area of dredging around the dock. Was that every done? It's all naturalized bottom and 40 years later, so in that case, the Board is reluctant to look at that permit and say "yeah, we're going to consider that maintenance now". JOHN COSTELLO: This Board has the knowledge. Kenny Poliwoda has the knowledge, Mr. King has the knowledge, the siltation is some of these creeks, deoxygenates the bottom. After a period of time, it was certainly help the environment in that creek, leaves, siltation, road run-off, is certainly somewhere along the line, environmentally that material should be taken off because the bottom becomes deoxygenated. It's healthier and certainly Mattituck Creek in particular. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I remember, and I'm sure you do, years and years ago they dredged them every year. JOHN COSTELLO: Well they don't have the monies now. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There were plenty of clams and you name it, it was there. JOHN COSTELLO: And they have areas that are so polluted because it is deoxygenated with siltation. But, hopefully that evaluation will be made by this Board, if it's going to improve the health of an area, is certainly your prerogative. 24 E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: John, on page 4, are you proposing, for the record, that the "if it has ever been dredged before", changed from previous 15 years? JOHN COSTELLO: Permitted. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Well I mean, have we always permitted, and this is my lack of knowledge, but could 20 years ago dredging been done without, and I'm sorry I just don't know, without a permit? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well years and years ago there were no permits. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: At some point, a long time ago, they didn't have permits for anything. JOHN COSTELLO: To be consistent with the DEC, that right now, right now, the DEC plugs in the number 20 years. They want you to prove that it has been dredged within the last 20 years. There are occasions, and I have, and I've gotten permits from the DEC, historically basically Sterling Creek, where there were shipyards. It was dredged 40 years ago and the DEC has made the exceptions and allowed the maintenance dredging due to that circumstance. Again, at that time, I can remember back in the early sixties when I went into business, we used to get Trustee permits in Sterling Creek. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And all of a sudden we don't have control there. JOHN COSTELLO: I think probably, you probably still do. You've just relinquished that power to the Village Board in Greenport. You had the creeks. But I know if it is important to save and improvement the environment for an issue, it makes no difference. That's what you're trying to accomplish. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're walking the line here too on all of these things between 1) the flexibility of the Board, and for future Boards, and 2) is all giving the future Boards a template to work with. So, we're trying to meet it in the middle. JOHN COSTELLO: That's why I think you need the power for exceptions. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: But John, if you were up here on the Board and you were the only one on the Board, do I understand that your proposal, your language, would say, "if dredging has ever been done". Is that what you're saying? JOHN COSTELLO: You would have to document that dredging has been previously done. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: It's a question of fact. You're saying no time limit. JOHN COSTELLO: Well there are certain circumstances where it's not going to improve the environment. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Well that's a different issue. I just want to know what your proposal is. JOHN COSTELLO: My proposal is not to limit it to a ten-year period. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Or fifteen, as it is now. JOHN COSTELLO: Right. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Okay. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well you find out prior to having permits it was dredged, why should it not be allowed to be dredged again? E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: I don't get the permitted part. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well permits came in after a certain point. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: What if the County did it and they didn't need a permit because it was a government. Is that a permitted or a non-permitted? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well I don't think it should matter. 25 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you prove it was dredged in the last ten years? TRUSTEE FOSTER: No and you shouldn't have to. If it's ever been dredged. I mean you had it for thirty years and can't have it anymore because you didn't have a permit. It was dredged. TOM SAMUELS: The 2000 DEC Regulations have a different definition of maintenance dredging. That definition is "anything that was dredged since 1964. 1964, and that's getting close to 40 years, isn't it? You need a permit. You need a permit but they have to allow you to maintain the depth and the width that was originally permitted. That's Fordham Canal and that's that case that we're wrestling with now. So, that's 40 years. Why did the State change that regulation? Well I looked into it because I had not really been fully aware of it. You go up in the western part of the island where all of those canals are in Amityville and all those little towns up in there, and the State was coming along and saying, well you had to prove it was dredged in the last 20 years. Well some of them hadn't needed dredging in 20 years. The guys where the fishing boats are going out everyday stirring up the water and everything else didn't need it. What happened is the State recognized that there was apparently a huge outcry from the legislators in that area, they couldn't prove that it was dredged in the last 20 years, so they changed it back to 1964. Why 1964, 1 haven't got the faintest idea. But that will be 40 years next year, won't it? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is that when the permits came into effect? Where permits required prior to that? TOM SAMUELS: Well the Fordham Canal one, the Gull Pond one, the Trustees did issue a permit for that and the Planning Board issued a permit for the subdivision and for the dredging. That's why that one goes back to 1964. So, I don't know. It's a tough definition, and again, it goes back to site specific. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so ten years isn't enough. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's got to be 40 or previously dredged. E. BROWELL JOHNSTON: That's just a finding of a fact. The principle I think is good. JOHN COSTELLO: One of the things I think the Board is making a major step in the right direction by having one individual going out and spending the time to find out whether the project is going to need to go through the whole process. Southampton Trustees have been very successful doing just that. If they need the entire Board to go and review it, and that decision is made by one of the Trustees to his fellow members. You always seem to work well together and rely on each other. I mean if Kenny Poliwoda says hey, this is not minor project, it is a major project, and the Board should look at it, then I'm sure you guys are going to go and see the site. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We do that now. That hasn't changed. JOHN COSTELLO: I think you have to work in that direction or you're going to be inundated spending your life on the Board, and nobody should do that. You all work for a living and I think that's key. You all have families and that's key. I think you have to live like a human being and try to get the things done efficiently and by getting it done efficiently, having a Code that helps you, is certainly a step in the right direction. There are so many variables in this and I don't want to sit here and comment on them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you have to. 26 JOHN COSTELLO: I'll write them down because I don't want to go through them, but I think the big thing is having a definition that has a minor and major, because if it is, it's going to simplify everybody's life in understanding. The DEC has the verbiage in there on minor and major projects. In 661-5 it gives you everything whether it needs a permit or it doesn't need a permit. Even if you require it, you can change it and modify it. CHRIS PICKERALL: Do you know if Southampton has minor or major? They have the administrative permits, but do they consider the minor the administrative permits or is there another category? JOHN COSTELLO: When one of the Trustees acts on it, and will make the recommendation by himself without the review of the entire Board, it's basically considered a minor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the administrative permit, is for more their...don't they have the environmental land use department? That's where they have the administrative permit. I don't think the Trustees have it, do they? Do they have the administrative permit? JOHN COSTELLO: No, they don't consider it administrative. But, one individual will make the recommendation to the Board. They don't label it in their Code. I think one of the things I find confusing on this whole application is the application and the confusion whether it's a dock, jetty, bulkhead, and house. There is some major confusion on separation of what this structure is being applied for. Whether you need the 2' contours for a dock, you don't. I mean, you don't. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you can get a waiver on that. JOHN COSTELLO: I know. But, the separation of the projects, there should be a separation in the application. To make a request for a waiver, it's a meeting. What you could do is, if they were separated, you certainly don't need some of the contours for some of the structures that I'm involved in, but if I'm going to put a house and the contours and the septic systems and water supply, I mean, you certainly do. I think the separation is slumped together and it was quite confusing in that one section. I think everything else has been either discussed earlier and I think where you mentioned C.O. and the Certificate of Compliance, there is a slight difference between them but you could certainly issue... TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think they are meant to be one of the same. JOHN COSTELLO: I know. Like Bruce was saying, stay away from the C.O. But if you wanted to give a certificate that they built a 100' bulkhead and it's built to the specifications that you permitted, so be it. The Bay Constable could give it to you. It's part of the post-inspection. A Trustee could issue it. It's just saying you built what you said you said you were going to build. RICHARD MULLEN: I'm Dick Mullen from Southold. I've lived on Arshamomaque Pond for 45 years and I've finally saved up enough money to build a dock. Now, you're telling me I can't. I pay premium taxes on this waterfront piece of property and now I can't use it. What are we going to do? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're waiting for give and take. We discussed give and take. At first it was my recommendation for the west side of Arshamomaque Pond as you look up almost like a scenic byway from the bridge, on the west side. RICHARD MULLEN: I live on the Long Creek part. 27 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's pretty much pristine. So, that's what we want so we'll ask for it all and hopefully we'll get that. So, obviously if there is going to be a concern with all three areas, we'll probably give on that and then try to get the section on the west side. RICHARD MULLEN: How soon are you going to be able to do that because I'm getting old you know. CHRIS PICKERALL: We have to look at the legalities as well so they may not be able to put it in the way it is anyway, based on the conversation we had tonight and based on the conversation I had with the Dept. of State already, so it's kind of the wish list but I'm sure if it's actually going to happen. RICHARD MULLEN: Can I put in an application now? TRUSTEE FOSTER: You can but we can't act on it until the end of the moratorium. RICHARD MULLEN: When does that end? TRUSTEE FOSTER: January 13th is the deadline date but we're hoping to have this all wrapped up... PATRICIA FINNEGAN: Artie, the applications are being returned. Anybody that puts in an application now, they're being returned. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Oh, they're being returned. Okay, we couldn't act on it anyway, but we're hoping to have this wrapped up in the next couple of months. RICHARD MULLEN: But you have to consider people like me too you know. I've been here a long time and paid a lot of taxes on a piece of property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do your neighbors have docks? RICHARD MULLEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's another consideration too. It's hard to deny the guy whose got...you know we talked about like Hallocks Bay there, it's the only place in Town where the scallops grow naturally, basically. Except maybe in Arshamomaque somewhere. We really want to protect places like that because obviously it's a special place. Your neighbor has a dock here and another neighbor has a dock here, it's hard to deny the guy in the middle a dock. That's how we've always operated before. RICHARD MULLEN: Thank you. JOHN COSTELLO: In that same vein, I'd like to make the point one more time is, through the zoning, hopefully, this Board will insist takes place, that the environmental areas of the Town, that can be protected now, there are subdivisions where Mr. Mullen lives that were subdivided in Southold, in smaller lots, where there is density. They do have more septic there. They do use more water. There is more road run-off up there. There is more roof run-off. But, there are many parts of Arshamomaque Pond that are undeveloped and hopefully try to get the zoning up there as high as it can so you can protect the major portions of Arshamomaque Pond. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else? We'll have another and any comments you want to submit to us, fax, letter, or e-mail... JOHN COSTELLO: Send them to the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, send them to the Board. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: On the last page John, there is mechanically how to send it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Page 17 on your draft. We'll keep working on this. We struggle with trying not to make is overly complicated. 28 SPEAKER: I have one recommendation. The numbers of the dock should coincide with the house number. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would be the permit number that we issue. We used to require it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's the permit number. It's site specific. Even though the house would be too, and let's use Arshamomaque Pond as an example, you could have five different streets. So, it would be 57 Oakwood and you could have a 57 Brightwood. So, this way with the permit number, it makes it much easier to keep track of it. SPEAKER: Could it also be reflective so if the Bay Constable is out there at night he can see it better? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you. Meeting adjourned at: 9:15 PM. Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk Board of Trustees RECEIVED DEC 3 2003 outhold On C art