Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/24/2004 y c Albert J.Krupski, President ��. QG Town Hall James King,Vice-President �� 'yam 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster y P.O.Box 1179 Ken Poliwoda �y • Southold,New York 11971-0959 Peggy A. Dickerson �Q a� Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:00 PM Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. -.Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 8:00 AM TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. All AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 at 7:00 PM WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I have a motion to approve minutes of April? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 TRUSTEE KING: Just some corrections. Talking about Fishermans Beach and Samuels said it was bought by "Judge Brawn" I think you meant George Braun. Page 10, fourth line up from the bottom. Page 30, Artie Foster says, "Given the strength of the lot." I think It should be given the length of the lot, we were discussing distance. The surveyor, John Ehlers was spelled wrong, it should be E-H-L-E-R-S. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Based on those corrections, I have a motion and a second. All in favor? ALL AYES I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for May 2004. A check for $5,827.81 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are a number of Public Hearings that have been postponed, I'd just like to mention those. Postponed is Number 5, this is on Public Hearings, 5. Under Wetland Permits ROBERT and KATHLEEN LAWRENCE has been postponed; Number 7, SALVATORE GUERRERA; Number 8, BRUNO FRANKOLA has been postponed; Number 10, ERNEST SCHNEIDER has been postponed. Those hearings will not be opened. And under Resolutions, JEFFREY HALLOCK will be postponed also. There will be no decision made tonight. III. RESOLUTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: 1. JOHN F. MCFEELY requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing 20' by 20' deck with a 24' by 23' deck. Located: 5900 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM 128-2-9.1. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. It's already been built, as-built. Something that's very easy to approve. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They've got a 20' by 20'. TRUSTEE KING: It's already been done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need to get some more money. TRUSTEE KING: Double the fee? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 2. KATHLEEN CHAMBERLAIN requests an Administrative Permit to cut phragmites down to 1' along edge of Autumn Lake and continuing mowing the lawn area. Located: Huntington Boulevard, Peconic. SCTM #: 67-3-5,6&7. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We took a look at this at field inspection last week, and the Board felt that because of the amount of runoff coming down that road, I guess Huntington Boulevard, and because Autumn Lake does drain into Goldsmith's Inlet so anything flowing into Autumn Lake is eventually going to affect Goldsmith's Inlet. The buffer there serves, whether phragmites or other vegetative buffer, really serves a function to filter all that water that comes down that road. You can see it as you go from Huntington Boulevard to the south, you can see gullying from properties coming in. I'm going to make a resolution to deny the permit to let the area revegetate because the Board felt that that buffer is protecting silt sedimentation and any kind of nutrients, any kind of pesticides, anything applied to lawns or properties, people put that black stuff on their driveways. On heavy rains, all that flushes down there. And if you have a heavy vegetation around that to act as a buffer, that will stop all that stuff from getting into Autumn Lake. MS. CHAMBERLAIN: My name is Kathleen Chamberlain. Since we moved there in 1981 and had someone come and advise us about runoff into the pond, we haven't used one drop of fertilizer. And as far as traffic is concerned, that dirt road there gets almost no traffic. It's very, very minimal. So, I don't know what the runoff would consist of. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can see it all coming down Huntington Boulevard. Your property is just to the west of that road. MS. CHAMBERLAIN: As you're coming down that road it's to the left. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's coming off all those other properties to the south of you. That's what our concern is. That strip of vegetation is going to buffer all that. MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Does that mean you don't want the phragmites cut down to a foot? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. Not that we want to see a replanting happen, we just want the area to revegetate naturally. MS. CHAMBERLAIN: How about the mowing that we have historically done since 1981? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The mowing would be fine, but that area that had been cleared, you can see it was newly seeded, that 3 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 should all be allowed to revegetate. MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Is that the only area that you're talking about is the newly reseeded area? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. MS. CHAMBERLAIN: If the permit is denied, what happens to the check I wrote you for$500? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That all goes to Town Hall. MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Whether you actually get your permit or not? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't actually get it. It goes right into the General Fund. MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Do I need to do anything further? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. This will satisfy everything. Let that revegetate. That area that was cleared, let that revegetate naturally. We really felt that was beneficial to Autumn Lake, the more you open it up. It's not just your property, it's all that coming down Autumn Road. MS. STANDISH: They can continue to mow-- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What was historically mowed. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The area that you would normally mow, your lawn with the exception of the violated area, you can continue to mow that, that's not a problem. MS. CHAMBERLAIN. Okay. So we're basically right back to where we started a year ago. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Submit that copy or part of a copy of that map so we can draw that area that had been disturbed, so we have that in the file. Bring that in. MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Bring that in, another copy besides the one I gave you? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we have is the little tiny tax map. MS. CHAMBERLAIN: What do you want instead? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The one that you brought in before. Bring that in and Lauren can make a copy of just that section. We can mark that off so it would be left undisturbed. MR. CHAMBERLAIN : So we can do that tomorrow? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: She lives in a jurisdictional area, shouldn't we issue them a permit to mow the grass the way they've been mowing it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we'll deny the permit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But shouldn't they get a permit to continue to mow their grass because it's 15 feet, just to clarify that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be considered I think this action is only for the area that was newly disturbed this year, and the mowing of the grass would be covered under 4 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 exemption of the new code of normal and usual maintenance. It was just for that one disturbed area. MR. JOHNSTON: She was not asking for permission to continue to mow; is that what you're saying? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, correct. MR. JOHNSTON: All right, I did not understand that the application was only for that area. You're right, it's under the exception. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The mowing that you have done historically is only for the exemptions. MS. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that. One other thing is just this last year the phragmites started spreading all around to areas that it wasn't before. Can other areas containing phragmites without violating -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You mean more towards the west? MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. We haven't cut it down there, but it really has started to spread this last year. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To be honest with you, we'll go out on the 14th and look at that. I didn't see a lot of phragmites that way. MS. CHAMBERLAIN: They're just starting to go. I just wondered if there was a general ruling on that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We allow people to mow one foot, but that's in areas where it's a monoculture of phragmites and not a mixture. We also have a lot of people to control phragmites, you get into areas of control and you really have to be careful because it's a sensitive wetland area, that they want to control the phragmites in. Let us take a look at that, maybe we'll get an opinion from Heather on that and Chris from Cornell Cooperative Extension is helping us out with advice on just how we can go about detailing permits and permission to do that. MS. CHAMBERLAIN: As I said, I haven't cut any out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A lot of times people do it where it's a monoculture. So this is different. I'll make a motion to deny the application to cut phragmites, and this will be in that denial, I'll say that it's a denial in the area that was recently disturbed this year. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For everyone's information, these next few items aren't public hearings. Everyone is welcome to come up and make comments. If it seems like we're moving quickly, it's because it's a long agenda and we're trying to move through it. Artie, do you want to take the next one? 5 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 IV. COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: 1. PAUL ORLICK requests a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and shift footprint of home six feet towards the water and cantilever rear deck into CEHA -- that's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area --with no footings in coastal erosion area. Located 1300 Leeton Drive, Southold. SCTM 58-2-1. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of the permit? MR. ORLICK: Yes. Good evening, I'm Paul Orlick. What I did I went to the ZBA for a front yard setback, and in the process I thought if I shifted further backward towards the water, it would ease my front yard setback, and by cantileving the deck with no footings in the coastal erosion area, that it wouldn't effect any of the vegetation or have adverse effects towards anything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to make a motion? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. ORLICK: Thank you. I also have the record of mailings (handing). V. APPLICATIONS FORAMEN DMENTS/EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS: 1. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of THOMAS JORDAN requests an amendment to Permit 5572 to construct a two-story dwelling and attached garage; install a pervious driveway, sanitary system, and public water service, and establish a 42' non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the freshwater wetland boundary. Located: 1680 Brigantine Drive, Southold. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We looked at this last Wednesday. I think everybody was okay with it. There was some question on a cluster of trees on the northeast corner of that. Do we get a number or just the larger trees in the northeast corner remain? And dry wells and gutters. Is there anyone who would like to make any comments on this? Any other Board comments? MR. JORDAN: My name is Tom Jordan, I'm the landowner. I was working with an environmental company in an effort to obtain the permits. I understand he has a briefcase full of surveys and paperwork, but neither he nor his briefcase are here right now. And the point about the trees I wasn't aware of. I don't really know what I should do next. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we were prepared to approve the 6 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 application with or without the briefcase. But in the northeast corner by the septic system, there were some large oak trees, and we just wanted to see if they could be spared. We weren't sure because the edge of the road, it seems like those trees might be on Town property on Brigantine Drive, actually off the property line. That might be possible, we just wanted to see if those trees, there's good sized oaks. MR. JORDAN: Is that something I need to look for? TRUSTEE FOSTER: That will be one of the conditions of the permit that they be spared. MR. JORDAN: And if they were on Town property, they would obviously be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They would have to be, sure. And in order to get the permit, you're going to have to show dry wells and gutters on the house. We'll approve it tonight, but you're not going to get your permit until you have your surveyor just mark those out. Not in the field, just on the survey. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments? Put the trees in the approval? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to approve the request for amendment to Permit 5572 to construct a two-story dwelling with the condition that dry wells and gutters be on the house and on the plans when they come in. Also not to remove the three large oak trees on the northeast corner of the property. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I abstain, I'm the neighbor. MR. JOHNSTON: Sir, you realize I'm the attorney for the Trustees, you realize what you obligated yourself in essence, if those trees on your property, you'll leave them there; and if you don't leave them there, then they will send the Bay Constable out and you might have a significant violation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's pretty obvious. We saw the way the septic was marked, and it seems like those were pretty well to the east of those. MR. JORDAN: Thank you. 2. ARTHUR TORELL requests a one-year extension to Permit Number 5587 to construct a single-family dwelling, attached garage, pervious driveway and septic system. Located: 365 Westwood Lane, Greenport. SCTM #33-2-10&11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anybody like to make a motion to approve? 7 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make the motion to approve the application of Arthur Torell. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I need a motion to go off the regular meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If anybody would like, I'll go over the postponed ones again. Number 5, ROBERT and KATHLEEN LAWRENCE; Number 7, SALVATORE GUERRERA; Number 8, BRUNO FRANKOLA has been postponed; Number 10, ERNEST SCHNEIDER has been postponed and at the very end off the public hearings under Resolutions, Number 1, JEFFREY HALLOCK has been postponed. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS ROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS 1. Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley on behalf of JOHN F. BETSCH requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a two-story, single-family dwelling with a two-car garage in place of the existing one-story, two-car garage dwelling and to be built on pilings. Located: 2325 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM # 54-4-24 MS. KARSCH: Trace Karsch from Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley on behalf of the applicant, John Betsch. This is not the first time we're here on this application. I will not reiterate all the points made prior to this evening. I would like to reemphasize our position, however, that this is a regulated activity that satisfies the criteria set forth in 3712 for the issuance of a Coastal Erosion Management Permit. I would, however, ask that the Board take note of some correspondence which has been provided since the last hearing date, several letters as 8 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 well as memorandum of law and an affidavit from our surveyor. We would like to answer any questions of the Board which goes back to that correspondence at this time. I do have extra copies if the Board does not have copies. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is something we received today? I can read it for the record if someone wants me to, or we could just review it. We might have questions, we might have comments. MS. KARSCH: There is one letter dated May 25th, which was just reiterating our points made at the last hearing. I also submitted a letter dated June 9th accompanying our memorandum of law that I would like to add to the record. I have copies of it. I submitted six copies of everything when I submitted it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, we have the coastal erosion people from New York State coming out for a meeting June 30th. And we have questions on some of these applications, and this is one of the applications we have questions on. They have been helpful in the past. They have come out and taken a look at specific properties for the Town to help us with definitions of the code. And this is one of the applications we're going to review with them when they come out. And see, in fact, I'm going to ask Lauren to send them most of this information beforehand so they can review it. So it's not like, well, what do you think about this. So they will be prepared. So I'd like to table this and let coastal erosion people from the State and take a look. MS. KARSCH: Could I attend this? Is this something that the public could attend? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think so. But this is something that, if they give us any kind of information or decision from the State, we would definitely ask for it in writing. We're basically going to say this is our opinion. We're going to review what you submitted today. We're going to say this is how we think the code is interpreted, are we right, wrong, in between. And they're going to ask for their opinion in writing. So we're going to say, we asked the coastal erosion people, here's what they said, and we can submit that to you. That's a fair way to do it. They've been pretty consistent as far as giving decisions. It's not like we're going to ask them, and they're going to say I don't know. MS. KARSCH: There were a couple more items that I did submit. I just want to make sure you have them. One was my letter of yesterday, and accompanying that was the affidavit 9 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 of our surveyor, with respect to the erosion issue, John Ehlers. MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, we respect your challenge to our definition of structural hazard area, and we will review your memorandum. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And it will be done timely, like I said, and because they will be coming out on the 30th and at that time we can make a decision as far as what we feel it is. MR. JOHNSTON: We also take notice of your comment of the accretion of 24 feet versus an erosion problem, and we will reconcile that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The State has spent considerable time and expense studying the area of the Sound to the east of Goldsmith's Inlet. So this shouldn't be a problem finding out pretty definitively and quickly how the state feels about erosion or accretion there. It's not like something they haven't seen before or haven't studied. They've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last few years looking at this area. MS. KARSCH: Would we then be tabling this for another hearing or tabling it for us to respond? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct. We will table it for a hearing but as soon as we get their word, we can submit -- Lauren, can we submit anything we get from them to you immediately so you can respond. MS. KARSCH: I only ask because the applicants are quite anxious. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll try to push it along. MS. KARSCH: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES WETLAND PERMITS 1. MARGARET HEIDENRY requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace the existing porch, repair roof and repair siding on the existing dwelling and replace doors and windows at 29 Sage Boulevard, Greenport. SCTM 53-5-12.6. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Would anybody care to speak on behalf of this application? MS. HEIDENRY: Hello, I'm Margaret. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I attempted to look at this, but I didn't. MS. HEIDENRY: You attempted to? TRUSTEE FOSTER: The road was locked off, it was chained 10 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 off, and the gate was locked, and I was in a bit of a rush, and I looked around for somebody who might have a key but couldn't find anybody, so I didn't go inspect it. MS. HEIDENRY: I'm sorry. There's a button that for some reason is not marked clearly. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This was a chain with a padlock on it. MS. HEIDENRY: You were there a while ago. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I was there -- MS. HEIDENRY: In the spring? TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, a couple days ago. MS. HEIDENRY: No, it's a chain that lowers and goes up and down, there's a button. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I wasn't aware of it. I saw the padlock, I got out and looked at it. I didn't have a key to fit it, so I left. MS. HEIDENRY: A wise decision. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I can go look at it sometime tomorrow, if I can get in there. MS. HEIDENRY: Okay. I'll let you in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is this one of the little bungalows on the bay there? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is your pleasure? TRUSTEE FOSTER: We can approve it subject to inspection. MS. HEIDENRY: We had two people come out already. I don't know who they were. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have comments? TRUSTEE FOSTER: CAC recommended approval. So I'll make a motion to approve the application subject to an inspection before the beginning of the week. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you think, Artie, looking at the plans, are dry wells appropriate for this? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Solid clay down there, won't do you a bit of good. Any other comments on this application? MS. HEIDENRY: What were you saying about dry wells; is that something you'll let me know? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I asked Artie Foster if dry wells would be appropriate, a lot of them we require them to contain the roof runoff, but in this case he said because the soil contained so much clay, it would really be inappropriate. MS. HEIDENRY: I see, okay. I'm sorry about the gate. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's okay I got an education. A lock is not always a lock. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm her next door neighbor, and I've looked at her porch for about seven years, they just want to 11 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 replace the exact same porch. And to make a point about the wetlands we've never used fertilizer on the property and we really don't have any erosion there. It's pretty flat land. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This is pretty straightforward, but we still like to have a representative of the Board look at it, and I just happened to be the one, and I couldn't get down there. So we're going to approve it based on an inspection with an operable gate. Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the application subject to an inspection in the next couple of days. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. JOAN AND WILLIAM CORWIN request a Wetland Permit to maintain the lawn, trim shrubs and phragmites, and spread bluestone on existing driveway. Located: 14915 New Suffolk Avenue, New Suffolk. SCTM # 116-3-17. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? MS. CORWIN: Joan Corwin. It's my understanding that you have changed the distance from wetland laws in the past few months; is that correct? TRUSTEE FOSTER: We didn't change in the last few months the distances. It was changed a few years ago. It went from 75 to 100 feet. MS. CORWIN: I guess my concerns are that our yard and our whole house are within a 100 feet. The house has been there over 100 years when there weren't any wetlands laws and do I have to have permission to mow my lawn? TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, ma'am. I don't think that was issue. The bacharis, which was a protected bush, was cut down that's the violation that's the problem. MS. CORWIN: The landscaper did that without our knowledge. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That doesn't change the fact that it was done. MS. CORWIN: I understand that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We went and looked at that. I don't know your position. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You had also asked for bluestone on your existing driveway; we discussed approving that, and we were going to ask that the bacharis not be touched because it does look like it's growing back, and that to protect that 10 foot buffer area, that hay bales be laid down ten feet 12 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 from the wetlands area, so that area can be let to grow back. MS. CORWIN: Nothing was cut out of the ground. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. But the bacharis was cut and we wanted 10 feet that would be left and not mowed. MS. CORWIN: 10 feet towards our house? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. MS. CORWIN: 10 feet into the lawn? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. MS. CORWIN: Where do you get these hay bales? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Agway. MR. CORWIN: Does somebody have vested interest there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A lot of people sell hay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Those were our two concerns. The bluestone would be fine for the driveway, and the 10 foot problem. MS. CORWIN: You saw the problem, they built up on both sides of me and it all drains down into my driveway. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. Do you have any other comments? Any other comments for or against? Any comments for the Board? MS. CORWIN: All I have to do is put the bales of hay? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And let the bacharis grow back. MS. CORWIN: And appear before the judge. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to request the bluestone for an existing driveway and also that hay bales be placed for the buffer between the wetland area and the landward existing lawn. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES MS. CORWIN: I believe 10 feet is going to become where the septic system is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just in front of, just before it, have the hay bales placed just before. MS. CORWIN: On the other side. Okay, now what about the deck? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Your deck should be fine. MS. CORWIN: Well, it's more than 75, do you know what I mean? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Your deck is fine. MS. CORWIN: Okay. We did it with permission. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, that wasn't part of our concern. 13 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 MS. CORWIN: Just that one section. Okay, thank you. 3. JAMES AND EILEEN BUGLION request a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with a deck, pervious driveway, fencing, sanitary system, and a 4' wide path to the water. Located: 2520 Clearview Avenue, Southold. SCTM # 70-10-29.1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. BUGLION: Yes, I'm James Buglion. Basically this is the same permit I let expire three years ago under Permit 5309. Basically I'm reapplying, get everything in order. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a hay bale line on that, Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm just looking at that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Dry wells and gutters? Any field notes, Peggy? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, not besides just it was permit run out, resubmit. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Proposed wire or chain link fence at 50 feet from the flagged wetlands. Any other Board comments? Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: One other comment, CAC approved it. Make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of James and Eileen Buglion. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES MR. BUGLION: Mailings? MS. STANDISH: I'll take those. 4. MICHAEL LIEGEY, AS CONTRACT VENDEE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with garage and sanitary system. Located: 480 Ackerly Pond Lane, Southold. SCTM # 69-3-13 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. VANDENBERG: Good evening, my name is Richard Vandenberg. I'm actually an attorney who represents Michael with regard to the purchase of his property. Mike actually wanted to be here was not able to be here. He asked me to appear to let you know that he couldn't be here. MR. JOHNSTON: Did he sign permission to represent him as an agent? Do we have anything here? MR. VANDENBERG: Probably do not. 14 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 MR. JOHNSTON: Then, Al, he can't speak on behalf of somebody else. MR. VANDENBERG: All I'm saying is Mike couldn't be here. I'm not necessarily advocating anything specifically in support of Mike's position. I just wanted to relay that message. Mike also explained to me that there may have been some question about some additional information regarding the septic system. So I will be glad to relay that message if there was a specific issue in any way on that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to ask for any comment then I will get into the deficiencies of the application. MR. VANDENBERG: Then I will be glad, if it's assistive, to be glad to have him complete an authorization to have me assist him at the next meeting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment in favor of or against the application? MR. LAUBE: Good evening, my name is Gary Laube, L-A-U-B-E. I have several comments. On the information on the survey that was brought to your attention there's quite a bit of information that's not on the survey that needs to be looked at. He doesn't have elevations not referenced to the U.S.G.S. datum, no two foot contours, no first floor elevations or elevations in vicinity of building, no test hole of groundwater elevations, setbacks are not in compliance with DEC or new Town wetlands codes, they're 43 and-a-half feet instead of 100 feet; septic is only about 80 feet, not 100 feet. There's no photographs of the site. There's no question if it's in DEC jurisdiction. Septic system details are missing, adjoining houses are not shown. That's one item. The next item is getting to the historic district. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before you get into that, those are all comments that I believe are all correct. In the application form 9721 under application, it really clearly states what's necessary to apply. Obviously we're not going to make a decision tonight because a lot of those contents are not in the file and aren't complete. So in order to, in fact, really to reopen another public hearing, we'll take comments tonight from anyone who's here, but in order to reopen the public hearing, I think it's appropriate to get the application completed so we can review this as a complete application instead of saying we're not sure, maybe we'll get more information. It's laid out, there's 17 items it's laid out pretty clearly. I just wanted to address that since you had brought that up, address that at the same time. 15 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 MR. LAUBE: The area in question is a map here from the 19th Century, a village adjoining Southold. I live in the doctor's house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we have a copy of that? MR. LAUBE: I can give you this (handing). I live in the doctor's house, now. I've been in touch with the historic preservation office up in Peebles Island up in Albany, and we are in a very archeological sensitivity area. I've got the map and it shows Southold and Ackerly Pond is square right in the areas of archaeology area. I'd like to bring this up to you also (handing). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you please indicate on here which house is which is the subject parcel. MR. LAUBE: (Marking.) These are two 18th Century houses right here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record we marked that on village adjoining Southold map. MR. LAUBE: The reason being the village it had every function, tavern, blacksmith, doctors. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Like a little community. MR. LAUBE: There are all the people that don't know about this. We know there are two foundations of these 18th Century houses right up front, close to the road. This at one time was a little wagon trail. You can't think 21 st Century, you have to think 17th Century, 18th Century. these houses were right up on the road, and the water came up a lot closer than what it is right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the Overton house exists? MR. LAUBE: That's the little blue, that was the captain's house. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: These two houses aren't existing now, they were there? MR. LAUBE: Yes. And there's probably a well on there also somewhere. That I'm going to get into some more. This is from the historic preservation office and it shows -- and you can go online and pull this up -- and it shows where all the sensitivity areas are and if you pull that up, Ackerly Pond is smack right in it. I also have the New York State Historic Archeological Site Inventory Form that was done on my house. It took us about a year and-a-half, and if I could bring that up to you also (handing). This is a form shows it's a very extensive and detailed map gridding out. This is the property in question, here, right here (indicating), and this is all gridded out and it's shown all where archaeology was done, and right next to the line where the property in question 16 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 is, we found a headstone buried in the ground 12 inches into the ground. There's no names or anything on it because it's pretty old, but we did a lot of work trying to find if there was any graves in this area because we didn't want to dig them up. There was nothing over here. So we have a really strong suspicion, just because the lines are here now this is all one piece at one time, there could be grave sites here at one time. This has been registered with the State of New York up in Albany. There was a lot more work that goes with this, but that went to the State with all the artifacts that were found, over 10,000 artifacts were found. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What did they do with them? MR. LAUBE: I got them back. We just recently found a clay pipe with the maker's mark dated 1678 to 1713, which sets right where the house was. So we're finding a lot of pieces that are imperative. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What do you mean pipe? MR. LAUBE: The pipe that you smoke and there's a maker's mark, and we investigated who the maker was. We found out it was Robert Tipton, and he made pipes from 1678 to 1713 out of Bristol, England. So there it was sitting there in the ground and we found it. So the house was dated, we date the house in the 1690s, and this is fitting right in there. We have 10,000 artifacts and there's a lot right on the edge of this piece of property. So just we know that there's a lot more archaeology to be done through the whole area. One other thing is SEQRA, one of the things that are here, I just want to read a little excerpt here, "What is the Environment? The answer is important because many decision-making bodies do not appreciate how broadly SEQRA defines the environment impacts that must be considered when SEQRA applies, includes physical conditions, which will be affected by proposed action including land, air, minerals, water, flora and fauna, noise, objects of historic and aesthetic significance, extend existing patterns of existing population concentration distribution or growth or existing community or neighborhood character. All these environmental impacts in the above definitions encompass three areas: Physical impacts, impacts of population patterns and impacts on community character. We have a very nice community character over there of 17th and 18th Century homes, and to see a brand new home going up there. My house is being put on the National Register. The State has nominated my house to put on the National Register. The next step is to put that whole area on the National Historic District, to me that's going to be an impact by having a new 17 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 house just thrown up in that area, which it's not going to conform to that. I don't know, would you want these pieces of information I have there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. MR. LAUBE: One of the archeologists couldn't be here tonight and she has a letter here. And if you could give me a few minutes, I'd like to read the letter: "The property located at 480 Ackerly Pond Lane, Southold and tax map Number 100069-3-13 may be of archaeological significance. The area according to the Nationale Register of Historic Places GIS databases registered as a place of significance to history and archaeology. Because the area has been officially registered, archaeological survey and excavation should be completed before any changes to the property are made. If the property is built upon, any traces of rich history will be lost. During the 1600s the property was part of the common land used by Laz Manley, who was a miller. The mill itself is yet to be found, but parts of the mill remain in neighboring properties surrounding the lot in question. It seems reasonable to assume that more artifacts pertaining to a mill should be found. On the property line between Lot 480 and 310 a headstone was found. No grave was uncovered on the Laube property; there is a possibility that a burial lies on that lot. "During colonial times we know that the Overton and Simmons families had houses on the lot in question. The foundations of those two homes were filled in during the 1900s. The map which shows the village adjoining Southold is not to scale, but distinctively shows the two houses. Over 10,000 artifacts have been catalogued from the Laube property including rare finds such as 17th Century working well, pottery, coins and rare buttons. The artifacts give insight to the way the earliest colonists in Southold lived. It stands to reason that similar finds will be found on the adjacent property, on the adjacent lot. "Native American artifacts have also been found on the Laube property on 310 Ackerly Pond Lane. These include, but are not exclusive to a 5,000, 6,000 year old speer point, an 1,000 year old spear point and a possible shell midden." And she just kept it tight, there's a lot more she could go on and on about and she signed it off. I'd like to submit that to you (handing). We had some petitions. We had a petition signed here I'd like to read off the petition and hand that in to you. "it is argued that the Town of Southold is the oldest 18 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 English settlement in New York. The early settlers were attracted to the protective waters of Peconic Bay, the abundant wildlife and the natural beauty that the north fork offered. Many of the homes which were built as early as the year 1638 still remain today and continue to be inhabited. Acknowledging the significance and the importance of these homes and their surrounding property is essential in preserving the unique history and landscape to the Southold community. Reckless and poorly planned development are the largest threat to any community with detrimental results that are almost always irreversible. "The Southold Board of Trustees has been presented a building proposal for a single-family dwelling, garage and sanitary system to be built on a wooded property at 480 Ackerly Pond Lane, less than a quarter mile north of Main Road and directly adjoining Billberry Creek. The proposed house construction would require uprooting and removal of approximately 20 indigenous trees, plants and bushes encroach on the recently restored doctor's house, which was built in the late 1690s and has been nominated by the New York Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be listed on the National Register. Increasing the density of the rural and historic community by constructing a house and garage that is too close to the road, too large in size, on a piece of property that is too small poses a threat to the Billberry Creek wetlands with an inadequate setback distance from the house and garage and would rely on a DEC building code variance or dismissal. The proposed property was the former location of the two 18th Century homes of W.W. Overton and Mrs. Simmons. The historic property necessitates an archaeological survey to document and preserve the historic artifacts throughout the property. "Calling-for an overall and absolute stop to development is unrealistic, however thoughtful, controlled and intelligent planning are desperately needed to prevent high density and unchecked development, which has plagued many parts of Long Island. "We, the undersigned residents, are opposed to this construction because of the increased density and negative impacts that will pose to the history Ackerly Pond Lane homes and community. We expect our Town Trustees to uphold the health, preservation and best interests of this Southold community." I'd like to present that to you (handing). Now, I ask the Board of Trustees to reserve their decision until the State Environmental Quality Review form is filled out 19 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 and reviewed by the Department of Environmental Conservation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment? All right, I'd just like to go over again, we won't reopen this public hearing until all the conditions of the application are met so we can have all the information laid out in front of us. And I'm going to ask our attorney to review this historical information as it relates to our function as Trustees. MR. LAUBE: Okay, I'm sorry, but I also have another pamphlet. The pamphlet was done on Southold's historical archaeology, the Billberry swamp site and it's published (handing). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Al, can I make a comment? Mr. Krupski asked me to review your materials in light of their function here.' Can I ask you for the next meeting to take a look at 97-12B, and it's the purpose of what the Tidal Wetland Law is doing so that you can help us hone in your suggestions on to where our purpose and where those things tie together, okay. As opposed to just dumping all the data. If you tie into our what our mission is with some of your things, it might be helpful to us. In case you miss it. MS. TETRAULT: you can get a copy of that at the Trustees office. MR. JOHNSTON: You can have my copy. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, I'll make a motion to table the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 6. East End Land Use Corp. on behalf of SANDFORD BERNHARDT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and deck. Located: 4340 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM 122-4-30. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MS. OSMOND: Good afternoon, Sandra Osmond, East End Land Use, 241 County Road 39 for the applicant. This is the first time before your Board, very nice to meet you. I will have a few submissions that I want to give to the Board. I'll just go over them first, then give them to you. Just a little bit of history on this property. In 1976 this property was the subject of an unmerging, so to speak, from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Apparently for 20 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 some time the Wilsbergs have owned several properties in that area and the property was held in common ownership from 1955 until 1983. At that time, that's when they came before the Board, this was recognized and the Board did provide them a variance to subdivide the property. I will give you a copy of that variance. In addition, what I'd like to give to you is a single and separate title search that we had done that shows that this property has been single and separate since May, 1983. The application before you, our understanding is the relief that we're seeking is very minimal. I'm sure you're all familiar with the property. It's on what's shown as a canal and on a portion of James Creek. The application that we have before you basically conforms to all of your requirements under your wetlands codes except for a 15 foot section of area that extends into the property 60 feet and that supports a boat slip in the water, and that's simply the relief that we're asking for, a portion of the property that's 15 feet in length to be our construction, 75 feet -- our construction -- as opposed to the 100 foot wetlands. What we have done, we have procured approvals from the New York State DEC. A few concerns that they had there, which we agree with and I'm sure similar to concerns that you would have for the environment, that 100 percent pervious driveway, which we have done, and also to provide for a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer zone, which we also have done. What I have for you are updated surveys that show that these things are proposed. As the Board knows, any condition like that is something that is to be provided in the form of a covenant and filed with the Suffolk County clerk's office, which is what we will be doing in connection with the New York State DEC application. Additionally, we have made our application to the Suffolk County Health Department and have received tentative approval, so to speak, because they are obviously waiting for your approvals before they can go forward with this application. When I started this application, which was a really long time ago, there was a moratorium. First there was a Suffolk County Water Authority moratorium and then when I wasn't looking, you placed one on here too, but what we did at that time we got a letter from the Suffolk County Water Authority, if you want copies I will supply them, but they did give us correspondence, November 14, 2002, that says, "Pursuant to our request, the Suffolk County Water Authority 21 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 has approved your application for public water to the above-referenced tax map parcel connection to our distribution system will be done in conjunction with the rules and regulations of the authority and not before all fees have been paid." Standard. Just to show that we have done that, we will be receiving our approvals from the Suffolk County Health services. Our septic system is located in excess of 100 feet from any wetlands, so we certainly meet your requirements in that regard. I don't know if there's any need to belabor the application, it is there. What I'll provide for you some photographs of the site, I provided you the black and white, and that was the staking that was done. But we'll just give you the site conditions that show that we're really, certainly by the water, which is going to be a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer anyway. There's really no vegetation that we have there. This basically concludes our representation. If you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer those. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this? I looked at this. Pretty straightforward. I thought it was a very simple application. I'd like to see dry wells for the roof runoff. I'd like to see those indicated on the survey, other than that, I didn't have a problem on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to put in the nondisturbance zone, I'd like to indicate that as nondisturbance/nonturf zone. TRUSTEE KING: Right now it's just sand. MS. OSMOND: Would you require -- and again, it really wouldn't make sense --that if we add that to our covenant for the New York State DEC to cover that term, I just don't want to incumber the property with a separate covenant to cover basically the same requirement, so would you have a concern if this was included in the covenant we file on behalf of the New York State DEC? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it is or isn't? MS. OSMOND: If it is. We would, we're going to meet your--just to not be redundant in covenants. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine. Normally on a waterfront lot, a nondisturbance buffer is a natural area that's going to be left to filter out any activity or any sediments or any nutrients entering the waterway. In this case, the lot's been impacted completely already, and I just want to make sure that nonturf is added in there so it doesn't eventually creep out. MS. OSMOND: We'll indicate that on the survey so that will satisfy your concern. 22 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 TRUSTEE KING: If there's no other questions, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with additional dry wells for roof runoff. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 9. ANTHONY GRAZIANO requests a Wetland Permit to renovate and construct an addition to the existing dwelling. Located: 915 lakeside Drive North, Southold. SCTM 90-4.5 and 6. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR. GRAZIANO: Anthony Graziano, the homeowner, basically I'm here to answer any questions, if you have them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Basically as of tonight the clock's ticking on the permit. It's good for two years with two one-year extensions. All we need is the surveyor to draw in the dry wells on the plan. Sometimes people wait for two years and sometimes the clock is ticking on this permit now. MS. GRAZIANO: I can guarantee you will not be waiting nearly that long.' TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only comment that I had is that you need to include on your plans dry wells and gutters. Just like our last application. MR. GRAZIANO: I was listening to what went on before me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the only comment I have. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC made the inspection also and they didn't stipulate anything. They approved it. Any other comments on this application? Does the Board have any other comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit of Anthony Graziano with the stipulation that dry wells and gutters be added to the plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let the surveyor draw them in and bring them to Lauren and you'll get the permit. 11: Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of CHARLOTTE MULLEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' 23 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 by 35' level dock leading to a 32" by 12' ramp and ending with a 6' by 20' floating dock, secured by three one pile dolphins. Located: 1775 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM 51-6-33. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, my name is John Costello, I'm with Costello Marine and we are the agents for Charlotte Mullen and her husband. I'd like to explain the project in its entirety. First of all, Mr. and Mrs. Mullen have been residents of Southold. They enjoy Southold. They have children and grandchildren. They live on Long Creek. They have lived there several years, we try to minimize that. And we tried to minimize the dock to make it the minimum in order to reach the depth of water and the requirements of the other agencies. We have received the Army Corps permit, the Department of State permit, and the DEC permit last May, a year ago from this last May. What the dock consists of, there is an existing stairway to the beach, there is wetlands, we are only going 35 feet from the edge of the stairway, the inshore edge of the stairway. We have a 12 foot ramp, not a long ramp, we're only trying to minimize the whole structure. Several discussions with the Mullens were whether they would minimize the dock less than that. The only trouble is neither one are going to get any younger. It is 4 foot wide, 35 foot long, a 32" by 12' ramp with a 26' by 20' float. As you all know that Long Creek, you're not going to have a big boat, you're not going to have a live aboard boat, but you certainly can enjoy the waterfront of Southold. You could enjoy clamming, you can enjoy every aspect of the environment in Long Creek and hopefully this Board, and I'll attempt to answer any questions in regard to the design or the dock or the structures. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against this application? CAC recommending disapproval of the application because the docking facility exceeds the one-third width of the creek and should be in line with the neighboring docks. MR. COSTELLO: What was the recommendation? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends disapproval of the application because the docking facility exceeds the one-third width of the creek and should be in line with the neighboring docks. MR. COSTELLO: It does not even come close to one-third of the width of the creek at that location. Would you like to 24 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 see photographs? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, I see photographs. And I see you also measured the eastern neighbor's dock, and we also did that while we were out on inspection, we were only a foot off, and I think it was the feeling of the Board that it be shortened, if I'm not mistaken. Ramp, floating dock the same, but we wanted to shorten the 35 feet to 20 feet to; am I correct? MR. COSTELLO: You do not reach the depth of water required by the DEC. It is certainly not anywhere near one-third of the distance across. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think we're arguing that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, unless it's a different third, I don't know.which third that is. MR. COSTELLO: As you know that shoreline -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't understand that anymore than you do. We're done with the one-third part. MR. COSTELLO: The shoreline, I'm just telling you, it's an irregular shoreline and this dock is no further offshore than the adjoining neighbors. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You even have in your folder that you have that the neighboring dock was 24 feet, complete. So what we're saying is bring that 35 feet back to 20 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Won't the DEC allow a seasonal float in two and-a-half feet of water? MR. COSTELLO: They may. We have the approvals. The only trouble is on that 35 feet, six foot or seven foot of it is above the high water mark so that it joins an existing stairway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We understand that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We walked it out. We figured if we brought it back from 35 feet to 20 feet on the fixed, brought the whole facility in 15 feet, you still have two and-a-half feet and 4 feet on the end of the dock. So you still met the 4 foot rule on a portion of the dock, the float, and you had two and-a-half feet on the front of the dock, which is regularly approved by the DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not after--we're trying to minimize the structure and still let the applicant have a float. That's not the issue. MR. COSTELLO: One of the things is, one of the applicants is present, so that would be a decision I -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anybody else who would like to speak? MR. COSTELLO: I'll ask the applicant. I tried to design it as a minimum, but I can understand the Board wanting the 25 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 least possible. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there an option of turning the float sideways so it wouldn't stick out that far? That would give you ten feet. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it certainly would. I could suggest by turning it, you know, you want to elevate it over the wetlands area, as you well know. We tried to do that. There is some healthy wetlands, there's a little high marsh, and we tried to avoid both of those. But, by putting the dock in an L-shape, we would have to go get an amendment to the DEC, as long as -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think we explored that out in the field. We decided 20 feet on the fixed would be most suitable to the neighborhood in comparison to the other docks, the dock across the creek. This one will still exceed those other ones around the surrounding creek. MR. COSTELLO: What about lengthening the ramp, that is the other alternative. As you can see, I minimized the length of the ramp to 12 feet. As you can see in the photographs, the adjoining neighbor's ramp is considerably longer than that. I did not want to add that weight onto the float, but that's -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You mean shortening the dock and lengthening the ramp? MR. COSTELLO: Turning the dock and lengthening the ramp. I don't want the DEC to complicate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In regard to water depth? MR. COSTELLO: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think that's an issue with us, right? I think I'm inclined to give him as small a structure possible and yet allow the DEC to approve a float. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They'll approve it, you have two and-a-half feet of water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think if we approve something shorter and the DEC says no, there's not sufficient water depth, I don't have a problem making it a little longer so that the DEC will approve the float. MR. COSTELLO: Let me make this suggestion to the Board and hopefully I can satisfy the other agencies too, I'm always in that position. We'll minimize the dock back to the 20 feet, I'll go to a 16 foot ramp so that we can get out the additional 4 feet and put the float there and by minimizing the structure, the permanent structure will be minimized. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's okay with everybody? And if 26 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 there is no one else in the audience who would like to speak, I'll make that motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetlands Permit for Charlotte Mullen to construct a 4' by 20' dock leading to a 32" by 16' ramp and ending with a 6' by 20' floating dock, secured by three one-pile dolphins, all six inch pilings. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 12. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of MARK SAPORITA AND CHRISTOPHER BRODERICK requests a Wetland permit to construct a 4' by 22' dock, 3' by 15' ramp and 6' by 20' float, create a wood chip path and parking area, and construct a gazebo. Located: Cedar Point Drive West, Southold. SCTM 90-1-1. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MS. MOORE: I'm here on behalf of the applicants and here to answer any questions. This is a very straightforward application. Standard size float and structure. If you want to hear the sordid history about this property, I have it all here, and I'd be happy to share it with you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess. MS. MOORE: You want to hear about it? Okay. This property had at one time in the '80s a building envelope to build the property, and the Effline family, the prior owners of this property had bought the property, and during that time the regulations changed and the DEC refused to reissue a permit. We started a process of getting a variance and potentially we were going to end up in litigation. The DEC ultimately came to a resolution where this property would be limited to just recreational purposes, be it a dock. So what we agreed to do, and actually the client agreed, was to place covenants and restrictions on this property and limit the use to recreation. This actually worked out very well for Mr. Saporita and Mr. Broderick because they live in the community right next door, right across the street from this property. And as it turned out, everyone was happy because Mr. Effline sold the property to Broderick and Saporita and they obviously knew the conditions of the permit that this was limited to dock. So here we are with a dock proposal, and we have a DEC permit that was granted to us on April 13, 27 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 2004. And this application conforms with the DEC permit. So this was a.good alternative to a takings case. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? MR. DEFAY: Good evening, my name is Doug DeFay. I had more of a question, and it deals with more in lines of what's capable. The Angel Shores subdivision is maybe 140 homes. West Lake is only about 18 single-family residents, what is to stop the Angel Shores Association from perhaps acquiring one of the next lots or even this one, and executing a boat launch situation where on Tuesdays this party can use it, and on Wednesdays this party of-- and we have a much higher density than you all had in mind. It was just a question. MS. MOORE: Very good question because I have no idea because I never looked into it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the lot would be limited to a structure similar to this, such as a single-family residence. MS. MOORE: The code speaks to the maximum number of dock slips exclusive of the owners. So given those parameters already in the code, in this instance we have two families that bought the property together and are sharing the dock. MR. DEFAY: I have no problem with individuals using the site as owners, but when you have potential of an association acquiring the site and making a deeded access to make Angel Shores now boat accessible, which could conceivably happen. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But they would be limited to the size of the structure, you'd be limited to one maybe two boats there. Just because an association owned it, that wouldn't necessarily give them any rights to put in a slip for anyone. It would be limited to what is applied for here. MS. MOORE: It has nothing to do with this application by the way, it's theoretical. MR. DEFAY: It's true but it's a constant as there's nothing buildable left. We're dealing with nonconforming wetlands lots, and I'm not in your position to determine whether or not they should be cleared or not for such recreational uses, it's your decision. But my concern is, if it's a small single-family residential environment and you are surrounded by a 150 single-family residences, it just makes sense that if I owned this site, I could sell it to the association. I'm just trying to find out the question. MS. MOORE: I don't think there's a general rule. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thanks for the scare, but there also would be a limited clearing on it. They've got a path which we're going to let them use, of course an access path, but the 28 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 clearing would be limited to 50 foot buffer, there would be very limited clearing done on this lot. Yes, an association could buy this. I would assume that their use would be very limited. I think you're referring to the parcel -- MR. DEFAY: All three, there are two contiguous sites unity of title could be performed, and you could have potentially a boat launch park. I don't mean to be scary, but I'm just saying, I don't know what could be done and maybe you people would have a better idea than me. All I can do ask the question. A number of my neighbors have articulated the same kind of question to me. MS. MOORE: I think as a zoning issue, you're dealing with private dock versus marina. So there is some control with respect to zoning as to how many people and at what point does a private dock become a marina. I think as a general concern, I think there are multiple avenues of control. In this instance, we have two property owners, and that's not the case. I think you're going to be dealing with potentially other situations like this. However, I think they're going to be on a case by case basis, and I think the Trustees have adequate resources and the Zoning Code has adequate resources to control it. MR. DEFAY: I don't want to appear that neighbors would have a concern with the presence of a gazebo on the edge or a wood chip path. MS. MOORE: And certainly it's better than a house. MR. DEFAY: And what point do we make the decision here to -- 'cause all that's left in the area are nonconforming wetlands lots, just a question. MS. TETRAULT: Al, could you make that a narrower dock, three feet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I had a note here to ask if the applicant would accept a three foot wide dock? MS. MOORE: You have two families with young children, and the 6' by 20 is your standard dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not the float, I mean the dock. MS. MOORE: The catwalk? It's already 3' by 15'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the ramp, the catwalk itself. MS. MOORE: The catwalk? It's 4 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, the ramp's 3 feet, why not make the catwalk conform to that? MS. MOORE: I think it's more stable for a parent and child to walk on, 3 feet I think actually is quite narrow and difficult to maneuver as it is. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was on the Mattituck Park District dock today. They have two feet wide and no handrails. That's 29 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 the whole Mattituck Park District, plenty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, Artie. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think the catwalk the way it's constructed is much more stable than the ramp. If the ramp was 3 feet, ought to be able to have a catwalk 3 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't have a problem with the proposed application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Jim? TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem either. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Leave it as-is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We did have a note. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was. There was fill being put on the path, we don't want to see anymore fill being put down there. MS. MOORE: By whom? Did you guys put anything on the path? MR. SAPORITA: I think there was grass put on there from somebody's lawn to try to keep ticks off kids. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Grass won't help keep ticks off kids, for the record. We're approving a 4 foot wide path. I'm sure you have ticks there, you have ticks everywhere. MR. SAPORITA: That was sod cut up from somebody's lawn. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you the applicant? MR. SAPORITA: I'm Mark Saporita. Chris Broderick couldn't be here tonight. I just wanted to reassure my neighbor. It's really for two families, and it's just access for the kids to use the water. We have a small 18 foot motor boat that's already on a permitted mooring, pulley system. It's just going to make it easier for us to use the water with our children. I guess eventually we'd like to do some sort of thing, SPAT program with the kids, make a positive use out of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to limit the path and no more clearing. And we wouldn't allow any clearing within the 50 feet of the wetland edge. Any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: For the record, CAC recommended approval as submitted and I would do the same. I make a motion to approve as submitted. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 13. Patricia Moore on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a 30 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling on piles, swimming pool, pervious driveway, sanitary system with concrete retaining wall, 450 cubic yards of fill, dry wells, a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer, and connection to public water and utilities. Located: 9326 Main Bayview Road. Southold. SCTM # 87-5-25. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MS. MOORE: I've been calling the person who's going to clear it for three weeks now. I'm trying to get them out there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have two more weeks. MS. MOORE: I've used every guilt-trip possible and I'm hoping that they'll go out there in the next couple days, For your information, because I know Mary Kirsch put on the record that she was 80 feet from the wetlands, I think she misremembers because the permits that she got from this Board, she's 80 feet from one set of wetlands, but there's a second set of wetlands that she is 51 feet. So we actually, when we came in with this application, it was a further setback than the neighbor who was very vocal last time. She was actually much closer to the wetlands and got permits from this Board. So for your file when you're out there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to inspect it first, thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Al, maybe before you go out again maybe Pat could call you when they do clear it as opposed to going out there again and have it not cleared. MS. MOORE: I called to assure them not to go out because it hadn't been cleared. I don't want to waste your time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We would have known right away. MS. MOORE: I will put in my calendar for your field inspection, July 14th and keep that date in mind. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 14. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of PETER RUTTURA requests a Wetland Permit to construct 4' by 4' steps leading to a 4' by 40' fixed dock constructed 4 foot above grade of existing marsh 3' by 16' ramp 6' by 20' float and two mooring pilings. Located: 835 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM 78-7-12. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? 31 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 MR. JUST: Glenn Just to answer any questions the'Board or any concerns the CAC may have. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We all looked at this, does anybody have any comments? MR. JUST: I think there were concerns regarding the restoration of the buffer areas to the new homeowner. The homeowner there has been mowing right down to the edge of the high marsh, and I think there's a comment about the length of the pier itself that Lauren had told me about when I called at the end of the week. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, both of those. In order to keep the pier line consistent, the total structure should be 40 feet long. And then I don't know if anyone has a suggestion as to what distance we want to see the wetlands revegetated. MR. JUST: I think the plans indicate there's at least -- I think I had 12 or 13 feet of high marsh landward of the edge of the bog there, at a minimum. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be fine. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is that regarding the two mooring piles for the float? MR. JUST: No. They want two offset mooring piles as to the length. There was a comment putting it back to 40 feet, the structure. We could do that if we turn, flip the float around to either an "L" or a "T". TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why do they need the two tie-off piles? MR. JUST: To be honest, that wasn't explained to me. If you look at the plans, that 40 foot line was about the end of the seaward end of the ramp. If I flip that float around, we could achieve the minimum depths required by all the other agencies and have two and-a-half feet of water on the other end of the float. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fine with me. Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Our goal was to bring it in seven feet. MR. JUST: That would bring it in 17 feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As far as the mooring piles, I don't believe it's acceptable on those. MR. JUST: I got to be honest with you, when I was here this spring, there wasn't much left to that creek after this winter. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Great area for crabbing. The more structures you put out there, the more people. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL-AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to approve the application of Peter Ruttura with a condition that the float is turned and 32 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 stop the mowing, stay back 20 feet and only mow a path down to the dock. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: And withdraw the two mooring piles. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And not install the two mooring piles requested. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: So carried. 15. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of YVETTE LANG EINCZIG requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in-place plus/minus 128' of smooth-faced timber bulkhead Navy-style and to backfill structure with five cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 3055 Wells Road, Southold. SCTM # 70-4-11 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would you like to comment? MR. JUST: I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I met Mr. and Mrs. Einczig on the site today. It looked like it was already done. It was a brand new bulkhead, fairly new. MR. JUST: On either end, where the steps are, there's a big section that's shot, and on the opposite end was a big bow. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Where the bow is is what they want to reconstruct. I think I measured 25 feet plus there was three feet that jogged out. And they said they wanted to remove that altogether. They want to go straight across the 25 feet and somehow pull that bulkhead up and out and remove the sand that is in front of the bulkhead. MR. JUST: That's not the discussion that I had when I was on the site. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was trying to match up what they were saying with what was on the plans, and it didn't match up. But that's their intention, to go straight and remove that jog. MR. JUST: When I initially met with applicant and the contractor, it was in-kind/in-place. I mean to take that bow out and put it out in the original line. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Take the bow out? MR. JUST: Right. Make it a straight line. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Only going to reconstruct approximately 25 feet, not 128. Is the whole property 128? MR. JUST: Yes. I put in for the whole thing in case, sometimes people go in and all of a sudden there will be rotten sheathing and instead of coming back, and this way they can do as much as they want or as much as they can afford, whatever the case may be. 33 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Explain to them we're changing from timber to go with the vinyl. They explained they wanted to continue that 25 feet with timber and try to blend it in. MR. JUST: It's not allowed anymore. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I tried to explain. MR. JUST: I'll further explain it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Does the Board have any comment? Ken, should we grant the permit with vinyl? TRUSTEE KING: Glen, what is Navy bulkhead? MR. JUST: Poles and the whalers are out in front. That's the thing with this one. It's smooth-faced now. When they reconstruct it they want to put the poles on the outside. TRUSTEE KING: Most of the bulkheads we look at are considered Navy? MR. JUST: Yes. And the other are considered smooth-faced. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No other comments on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Yvette Lang Einczig, to reconstruct in-place plus/minus 128 feet of smooth-faced timber bulkhead Navy style and may be replaced with a vinyl or C-lock material and backfill structure with five cubic yards of clean sand. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: With the stipulation that there be a 10 foot nonturf buffer. I didn't speak to her about that, it didn't hit me because we were only looking for a small piece but if they ever do go for the whole permit, we'll put it down with a 10 foot nonturf buffer in there. 16: Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of SKUNK LANE TRUST C/O BRADLEY AND MARY KRAUSE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 34' fixed timber catwalk, 3' by 18' ramp and a 6' by 20' float. Located: 9105 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, SCTM 104-3-18.1. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara for Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of applicants. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We still can't find any stakes. MS. CANTARA: I have to apologize. I put it out there. I don't know what happened. I'll put them up high. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at it a week ago. Somebody 34 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 might have pulled them out. MS. CANTARA: I don't know what happened. I'll make sure they're in well for next time. I hope somebody doesn't remove it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think somebody pulled it out. MS. CANTARA: I'll make sure it's in really well for next time. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You also mentioned that the enclosed site plans have been revised to show a 52' by 3' catwalk, so you want that changed? MS. CANTARA: Yes, we now have -- it's not a catwalk, ramp and float anymore; it's a catwalk with a ladder and the tie-off piles that we had done for the adjoining property. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In the field have you measured across the total width? MS. CANTARA: We did. I'll make sure that it's on. When I stake it, I'll send you something and have everything going across as well. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You have to keep in mind our one-third rule. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against? Any Board comments? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll see your stakes next week. I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 17. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of JOHN HURTADO, SR., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 53' plus/minus CCA timber beach access stairs with an 8' by 6'platform and a 4' by 4' platform. Located: 19625 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM 51-1-22.2 MS. CANTARA: Hi, Kelly Cantara for Land Use Ecological Service. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I see it's already been built. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How does it look? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looks spanking new. But when I looked at the survey, it didn't look like the survey. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What's our policy on the bluff with a deck or platform? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 4' by 8'? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I found they created a platform that was 6' by 12' and they added a bench on it. 35 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 MS. CANTARA: What do you know about that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you sure it's the right one? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was up there today. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There were several. MS. CANTARA: And there was one that was approved last month. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Hurtado's got two houses next to each other up there, and they're both re-done. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there a vacant lot next to this one? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Look on the survey. Should tell you if the lot next door is vacant. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a home on the site? MS. CANTARA: To be honest, this one isn't mine, I don't know. They just said they wanted to do stairs. It will be easy, go ahead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this, Al, it says existing dwelling I was eying it off this, and this was vacant here, if that's what they're going to build, that's fine. Just change that to a 4' by 8' instead of a 6' by 8'. Any other public comments? Any other Board comments? If not I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make the motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of John Hurtado, Sr. to construct a 4' by 53' CCA timber beach access stairs with an 8' by 4' platform and a 4' by 4' platform. Located: 19625 Soundview Avenue, Southold. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 18. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of MATINE, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 145' plus/minus CCA timber beach access stairs, with an 8' by 6' platform. Located: 590 North View Drive, Orient. SCTM 13-1-5.1. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Did you stake this out? MS. CANTARA: You're going to hate me, but -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's okay, you couldn't get to it anyway. I know where this is because I helped fill this gigantic hole for the septic system, but it's totally vegetated. We can't get down there. It's thick. Actually you can't see down the bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a problem with the stairs? TRUSTEE FOSTER: No. It's cut and dried. You might have a problem with the size of the platform 8' by 6'; what do you 36 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 want it to be, 6' by 4'? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, 8' by 4' because 8 gives them a midstation. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I assume you're talking about the top? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Midstation. It's still it's a walkway at that point and not an -- 8' by 4'. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Anybody like to speak in favor of the application? Against? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Take the microphone. MR. RYALL: My name is Bill Ryall, R-Y-A-L-L, and I live in Brown's Hills, which is the neighborhood that this lot is located in, which is a private subdivision. It's been around for about 50 years. We own and maintain our own roads there. We also own our own stair to the beach below Brown's Hills, right below this property, and we own the property under that stairs too. And for 50 years, these stairs have been used by everyone up there, which is now about 21 houses I believe. We share the expense. My job, I am called the "Beach Commissioner." I organize the beach clean-up every year, and I also see that the stairs are properly maintained. This piece of property that you're dealing with, I would say almost capriciously from what we heard so far, is located no more than 150 feet away from these communal stairs which everyone uses on this beautiful, beautiful bluff piece of property, an almost unspoiled beach from the bottom of which you can hardly see any houses, maybe one other stair, almost nothing. It's really a remarkable, an amazing thing that it exists at all at this point of time. Nobody in the neighborhood even knows that this might even happen, that this other stair would be built 150 feet away and parallel to the one that's already there, except for the fact that one lady here happened to be walking her dog past the sign which has appeared on this vacant piece of property. I think you should understand that that piece of property has been incredibly contentious and been a very bad, bad experience for that neighborhood up there. If you were to -- I don't know that you follow what the ZBA did on that -- but the property was, if you were to look at the zoning regulations as well as the environmental setback regulations, that lot is not just unbuildable, but the buildable lot would be a negative space. There was not one square foot on that lot to build anything on if you were to follow the law as on the books, not just the zoning, but the environmental laws too. To say that this is a buildable lot was an extreme 37 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 exaggeration to begin with. It is a ravine. There is erosion there, and you should go and take a look at it, not just on that lot, but on lots adjoining it and lots two or three lots away. The lot has been owned by the same person for many, many years, who is now an elderly lady. And the whole issue is now particularly contentious in the neighborhood because for 30 years she has been telling her neighbors that this is her bird sanctuary and we need not worry because it's an unbuildable lot anyway. Well, on April 24th the ZBA finally gave permission for a house to be built, which after there had been three hearings and this thing had been going on for about a year and-a-half starting with the Building Department rejecting the permit because there was no buildable area on that lot. At each stage, they started out by proposing a house which really would have been equivalent to putting an elephant inside a bird cage; then we went through this charade of each step along the way of more concessions, more concessions, more concessions, fine, everyone can pat themselves on the back for what we have managed to accomplish here, which is, in fact, giving permission to fill the lot, build huge retaining walls, create like an aircraft carrier top there, and then plop a house in the middle of it on a bluff overlooking Long Island Sound. It really is totally outrageous in my opinion and there are many, many people in the neighborhood who felt the same way about it and spoke at the ZBA hearing. The reason there are only four of us here tonight is because only four of us know about it, about what is happening here. And I really think you should have the state go in and take a very close look at this and you should go yourselves. It really should not be built upon. And, in fact, what you would be approving and probably don't realize that you would be approving is a stair that's running parallel to one 150 feet away, which is not just accessible to whoever it is who buys this house from the developer who's going to make the money from doing this, but will, in fact, be partly eventually owned by the person who owns this property. He will be an owner of the joint stairs along with all the rest of us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you for bringing that to our attention because normally when you go to the field inspection on the Sound for access stairs, you see other stairs, and you really assume that they're not available to the applicant. MR. RYALL: Right. This one is not only available. We encourage everyone to use it. 38 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: You have covenants and restrictions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That guarantee the use? MR. RYALL: Definitely. We have an association which is, in fact, the legal owner of that stair. We own the road that they have to use to get there. We maintain all this. The Town of Southold doesn't even maintain the roads. We pay that expense ourselves. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do the C and Rs restrict individual owners from having their own set of stairs? MR. RYALL: No. We don't get into that detail. This is not about someone actually applying for use of stairs because they need a stair, because they want a stair. This is an application from a developer so he can maximize the profit, and it's really about money, and it's about nothing else at all, and the price to be paid will be paid by the community that exists there, by the environment and really by the Town of Southold by losing a little bit more of the natural beauty of this spot. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This application before us is only requesting a set of stairs, and that's really all we can act on. We're not the Building Department. MR. RYALL: This is not a Building Department issue. TRUSTEE FOSTER: If there's going to be a building permit denied there, then that's a different department, but apparently some permits have been issued already because they dug a deep hole there for a septic system, and there has to be certain permits in place by the County Health Department to do such things. MR. RYALL: The ZBA did approve it as a construction, as a buildable site in the end, they did. But as we all know, that's almost a matter of course because the Town does not want to be held liable for denying the use of the property. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We can't say it's an unbuildable lot. That's not our position. MR. RYALL: Let's not talk about whether the lot is buildable or not. I'm just saying that building these stairs is totally and absolutely unnecessary. These people, whoever they end up being who own this house, have the right to use the stairs that, in fact, they own part of 150 feet away from them. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you, very helpful. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a permit for the association's stairs? MR. RYALL: They're existing. There was a permit when these were built. They have been rebuilt in the last two years. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Since 1991 we require permits on the 39 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 Sound. MR. RYALL: Right. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It would be nice to give Matine Incorporated a copy of the existing stairs. MR. MORGAN: Tom Morgan from Brown's Hills as well. can't really add much to Bill's eloquence but the stairs have been there since 1640. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before our jurisdiction. MR. MORGAN: But to answer your question about the stakes. The stakes are in two bundles. They're with a bunch of hay bales. So there aren't any stakes. And it is accessible for you to take a look at. Along the margin of the bluff that has been cleared you could easily walk down there and take a look. TRUSTEE FOSTER: From where? MR. MORGAN: At the site. You said it was heavily vegetated, it was, but it isn't any more. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It isn't? MR. MORGAN: No. I can walk my dog, the dog runs along the deer trails. You can see where it is. The point is, there was maybe 65, 95 feet, I'm not sure, the stair application is for some place, but we don't know where because the stakes aren't in place. There are some places that are better than others. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There were no stakes. I couldn't see any stakes. MR. MORGAN: If you drive by there now they're in bundles right by the edge of the road. Someone dropped them there, today I think. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I wasn't there. MR. MORGAN: The point is, neither were the stakes. I'm just commenting on your initial question and I entirely concur with what Bill said. There's only one lot that doesn't have a house along the bluff on it, that's this one. Thank you. MS. MORGAN: Hello. Mary Foster Morgan. I live in Brown's Hills as well, and I just wanted to add my two cents that I don't think we need another set of stairs there 150 feet away from another set of stairs when all 20 houses happily use the one set of stairs. The sad thing to me is that this is a developer who is coming in to develop this lot. It isn't like it's somebody who loves the property and loves the association and wants to be part of it. We don't know who the final owner's going to be. It's just a developer making money, and so they want to put the stairs in just to add another couple hundred thousand dollars to the final 40 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 price of the property they're going to sell, when that person who's going to buy it has stairs one house a away. There are 18 other houses where this communal stairway is farther away from them than this house will be. It doesn't make any sense. Why ruin the bluff, which is a ravine anyway, why add more stress to this bluff, to add another stairway. That's the way I feel about it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. BERGDOLL: Barry Bergdoll, B-E-R-G-D-O-L-L, resident from Brown's Hills. There is not much to add, which is that I think it behooves you to go look at it and perhaps have the state look at it as well because it is a fragile cliff. To the extent that the association, which was formed in the late 1940s originally had created two pathways that were for two potential stairs to the beach. The one was on the other side of the property in question originally and was moved because of problems of erosion in the ravine that begin at the site of this property. So there's actually historical removal of the stair from the area where this cliff begins to break up and have only to go to the bottom of the cliff to see there's existing erosion right below this property. So aside from the fact that it seems to be a stair that is simply being put in speculatively with hope of making this property more attractive to someone who may or may not want it at the expense of the desires of 20 some houses that already use the beach and are happy to have only one stair in the view, it seems to go also right to the place where there's absolute historical evidence of a fragile land and ecological situation. That's all I would add. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Thank you. Any other comments? I'll make a motion to table the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So carried. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll look at it next month. TRUSTEE FOSTER: On the 14th. 20. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of J.L.H. ASSOCIATES, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with attached garage, open porch, pervious drive and sanitary system. Located: 315 Albacore Drive, Southold. SCTM 56-7-14. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We went to this site and were unable to get into the site it's so heavily vegetated. If a path could be cut into, I would say to the back corner from the road to one of the back corners of the house; would that be 41 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 enough? Create a 4 foot wide path to either corner, whichever one's easier for them to physically access. Would you like to comment on that? If there is anyone here who would like to comment on that, the hearing's open. Would you like to make any comment on that? MS. CANTARA: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 20. Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of JOSEPH LOGIUDICE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 108' fixed timber catwalk with a boat lift. The catwalk is proposed to be elevated a minimum of 4 feet above average high water and will utilize four 4'by 4' piles with a depth of penetration of 6 foot and 26 6" diameter timber piles with a depth of penetration of 10 feet. The boat lift is proposed to be an "Alum-a-Vator" utilizing eight 10" diameter piles with a depth of penetration of 10 feet. Located: 10995 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM # 79-5-20.13 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is a site we couldn't access the driveway was taped off. MS. CANTARA: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the public hearing's open, if anyone would like to comment on it, but we don't -- MS. CANTARA: Does the new code include boat lifts? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The new code does not include boat lifts. MS. CANTARA: Right. They had submitted it with a lift and I guess since you didn't object right away they figured they would see what they could do. We should revise the plans so see about getting tie-off pilings off the catwalk. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If they'd like to revise the plans, that's fine. Just have them submit it before the field inspection. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KING: I'll second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 21. Catherine Messiano on behalf of MARY ZUPA requests a Wetland permit to maintenance dredge approximately 190 cubic yards of shoaled material from the mouth of Canal at Paradise Point to maintain 4 foot below mean low water at maximum 1 on 2 slope. The dredge activity is proposed to be conducted hydraulically. Place dredged materials along plus/minus 100 foot of shoreline of property owned by Mary Zupa for beach re-nourishment. Containment of excess dredge 42 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 material in plus/minus 75 foot Geotube placed at the toe of westerly section of bulkhead for temporary bulkhead fortification. Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM # 79-7-63 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MS. MESSIANO: Catherine Messiano on behalf of the applicant. We are here because you granted an extension or tabled the matter so that the objectant's attorney would have time to review the application. So until something else is said, I really have nothing else to say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak on this application? MR. ANGEL: Stephen Angel, Esseks, Hefter and Angel, 108 East Main Street, Riverhead, New York, on behalf of Paradise Point Association, Inc. We went through the file. We looked through the file this morning, and as you probably recall, one of the other lawyers from my office was here last week, Anthony Pasca, and he couldn't come tonight so he briefed me on the application and I'm here. I believe that he indicated to me that one of the concerns that you . addressed as a Board was you were not interested in granting an application to dredge different than the other permits that had already been issued, and we believe that the plan submitted by the applicant at the last meeting show an area to be dredged that would include a portion of the land owned by the Paradise Point Association, owned of record by the Paradise Point Association, which is the land within the basin. And as you probably know, the Paradise Point Association hasn't consented to the application made by Mary Zupa and actually opposes it. And under your newly adopted regulations you need both consent in notarized form and an affidavit of indemnity from the owner of the property involved. The plans I saw don't indicate the area of demarcation between the ownership of the Paradise Point Association and the -- I guess -- the state, because the interior basin is owned of record, as I said, by the Paradise Point Association. It's ownership would terminate at some point probably at apparent mean high water, which is a relatively difficult calculation in this case, but in our brief research it would be, we believe, where the headlands meet, and it would intersect a portion of the area that was dredged. That being said, I would reiterate what I believe Mr. Pasca mentioned beforehand in opposition of the 43 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 application, as you know we already have permits to dredge which are good from 2005 from the DEC, until 2010 from this Board and the Army Corps. One of the grounds in opposition is that there is no need for the application, so you're having essentially being asked to answer a hypothetical question. The dredging has already been done for this season pursuant to the permit, that's been acknowledged by the applicant and also is reflected on the applicant's plans. I've raised the ownership issue just now. I personally think it's sort of inappropriate to have a couple of permits or potentially a bunch of permits to allow the same sort of use or the same sort of permitted activity of dredging. I looked at the tax map and I counted nine lots on the basin; I think there are six separate ownerships on the basin at Paradise Point creating a situation where you could theoretically have six to nine permits for the particular activity and some sort of race for dredge spoil every periodic dredge cycle. That being said, I don't think I have anything more to say. If you have any questions, I'm here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do have a question, you say theoretically Paradise Point Property Owners Association claims to own part of the proposed dredging? Could you please show me? Could you indicate that on the plan that's submitted? MR. ANGEL: Is that the one that was submitted at the last hearing? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: May 26th, yes. Just curious. MR. ANGEL: The mean high water comes over here (marking). I don't know where it would go to. It's somewhere over here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you look at the shoreline that's sort of artificial. Who would Paradise Point claims owns the land here? MR. ANGEL: The state. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the Town Trustees own the basin? MR. ANGEL: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: By virtue of the Colonial patent. MR. ANGEL: In fact, from what I can tell, in part based upon documents that are produced by Mr. Zupa and some of the other disputes that have been going on in the community, there are two claims to ownership or two potential claims to ownership. One is the Paradise Point Association, Inc. that has a deed to the property, and it also has been paying taxes on the property and the Town acknowledges by accepting the taxes that we're the owners and treats it that way. The 44 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 other claim is not the Trustees, it's the state. Apparently, the basin does appear on some state maps as state owned bottom lands. I have not seen any records of the Trustees' ownership. And it's possible, you see, from what -- can I digress a little on this issue? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. MR. ANGEL: When we looked at the old area maps, and I've spoken to some of the people who have lived in the community their whole lives, because those are some of the issues we've been dealing with, this basin was barely open to the bay at some point in history. I think one of the people who grew up there said that you could jump across whatever stream trickled across there when he was a kid, until the Paradise Point Association dredged the channel for a boat basin, and then constructed a dock. I think that was done in the '60s, but it could have been done earlier. So it's possible, and I believe the way it was treated until now that it became an issue, that that was treated as an nonnavigable portion of land, like an interior freshwater pond. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In which case the Trustees would have ownership, such as Maratooka Lake or Great Pond. MR. ANGEL: Maybe it was a small pond because it was owned by the individual owners. The title was owned. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just wanted to see where this line was. MR. ANGEL: I don't know where the line is exactly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't understand where, but I have a rough idea. MR. ANGEL: We haven't set the line. The line would be probably at apparent high water because you lose your ownership at high water as we enter into the bay. We tried to do research actually, we couldn't find cases, Tony Pasca did the research, but there are some discussions and treatises, and traditionally when you have a river or an inlet flowing into a larger body of water, the demarcation line for ownership would be the line between the headlands. Now, the problem here is where are the headlands because you have the jetty. The demarcation is the jetty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the jetty has changed the shoreline. MR. ANGEL: Correct. It's a difficult issue but it raises a problem with your regulations and I'm raising that type of problem. MS. MESSIANO: May I see this line? TRUSTEE FOSTER: When was that jetty put up? It might have been done when Reese developed that property. I can tell you as a kid in the '50s I water skied from the bay into 45 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 that round circle and out again. MS. MESSIANO: We gave you a map, Al, you might recall. The Zupa's gave you a map that was certified, federally certified that showed that as being an open body of water in the 1850s. Therefore indicating that it was the Andros patent lands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do have one question. The application it says how much material will be excavated 190 yards; how much material will be filled, 100 yards. What happens to the other 90? MS. MESSIANO: Where do you see that, Al? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the second page of the application. MS. MESSIANO: Last month I gave you an addendum that further defined the proposed activity, and I believe what I gave you -- I'll read it to you, "Maintenance dredging of approximately 190 cubic yards of shoaled material from the mouth of the Canal at Paradise Point to maintain minus 4 feet mean low water at a maximum of 1 on 2 slope. The dredge activity is proposed to be conducted hydraulically. Placement of approximately 50 cubic yards of dredge material along approximately 100 feet of shoreline above mean high water of property owned by Mary Zupa. Dredged material to be used for beach renourishment containment of excess dredge material in a temporary upland drying site. All proposed activity as shown on the attached plan prepared by Sea Level Mapping. Dated 4/23/04." TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We have that, but still what happened to the 90 yards? MS. MESSIANO: Well, I talk about 50. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You talked about 50. But what happened to the 90? MS. MESSIANO: Containment of excess dredge material in the temporary upland drying site. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that should be a little clearer. MS. MESSIANO: It's your permit to write, if you want to make the math more specific. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I realize that. I just wondered because you mentioned the 50 on the beach. MS. MESSIANO: We can certainly quantify that because we have a high water mark, we have a bulkhead mark, and since the 190 cubic yards is an approximation given the contours of the bottom. So we know mathematically that the beach renourishment equates to approximately 50 cubic yards, thereby leaving 140 cubic yards give or take, but because of the contours, et cetera, I can't give you a specific to the yard calculation. So I can say we would be dredging 46 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 approximately 190 cubic yards all things being -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine, 190's fine. You're still missing 90 yards of sand. MS. MESSIANO: 190 minus 50 is -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 140. MS. MESSIANO: 140. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you don't even reference 140. MS. MESSIANO: I talk about the excess dredge material. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand where the 100 comes in. MS. MESSIANO: You're looking at the 100 thinking the 100 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 190 excavated, only 100 filled, but you're only using 50 on the beach. MS. MESSIANO: No. Since the time this was submitted to you there was a modification because we removed the Geotube. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. But you see when I'm saying? MS. MESSIANO: Yes. Because this number is no longer accurate because the beach renourishment area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What number should it be? MS. MESSIANO: Should be 50 on the beach for the beach renourishment, balance to be temporary upland. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, write it here. I just want to be able to read it tomorrow. All right, the issue that the Board has to decide is is this acceptable; and the applicant had asked last month that they wanted to make sure that this project had been dredged to their satisfaction so they wanted a permit, even though there's one already issued. So the Board has to decide is that acceptable; and then the Association, the fellow representing the Association said that the danger of that is having two permits issued, three, four, 10, multiple permits issued, is that anyone at any time a month later could come in and dredge this and take the sand. The permit or permits if issued would have to be written as such to say that the dredging could only occur once during the calendar year, and we would have to set a date saying January 1 st, it could only be dredged once after January 1 st in that calendar year. So you'd only get one shot at it. You could only dredge in January and somebody couldn't come in December and dredge it again. I believe that was the applicant's argument. They wanted it dredged to their satisfaction. MS. MESSIANO: They wanted it dredged, but it wasn't just the dredging operation that was at issue, it was the beach renourishment because I think it has been acknowledged by 47 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 this Board that the beach is suffering because of the extent of those jetties. So we're not talking about should the jetties be there, should they be longer, shorter; it's just that there is dredge spoil that will be garnered from this activity and rather than have it trucked to an upland site, it's preferable to contain it within the same system, and the beach renourishment is something that is necessary. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Clarification, the proposed spoil site is that acceptable to the DEC? MS. MESSIANO: That is in to them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the past years the Association wanted the spoil here, which was acceptable to this Board but the DEC would never allow the spoils here. Keep it in the system instead of carting it away. That's what the Board has to decide. Would the applicant be satisfied if the Association had the dredging permit but that the 50 yards of spoil every year had to go up on the beach? MS. MESSIANO: We'd have to discuss that, but I'd like to add a couple of things before they get lost. Mr. Angel brought in a hypothetical situation wherein you could theoretically have nine individuals coming to you for these dredging permits. There isn't another property owner on the basin who has use for dredge material, who owns a bay front piece that's contiguous. So I think that although there may be nine property owners, that's not a highly likely scenario. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Association owns the bay front, right? So anyone in the Association could theoretically get the permit and put the spoil on the Association bay front. MS. MESSIANO: They could if the beach required renourishment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Well, that's what I'm trying to get at whether the applicant would be satisfied -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seems to be more for where the spoil goes than for dredging. MR. JOHNSTON: Giving a permit to put spoil in a place, that's a different issue. The idea of having multiple permits to dredge is what you should be concentrating on, not the permit to put some spoils. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want to issue that permit? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The choice is to issue it or give it -- MR. JOHNSTON: You have to first decide the issue, should you have multiple permits to dredge irrespective of where you put the spoil; is there a need to have a second dredging permit? Then the second issue, could be unrelated, she 48 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 happens to be merging them, but if Mrs. Zupa could come in and say she wants a permit to put sand in this area that she wants sand. They're not asking. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You're saying, Al, one of the choices is to see if the Paradise Point-- MR. JOHNSTON: Peggy that's an addressing of the second issue, how to get the beach renourished. MS. MESSIANO: If I may interject? MR. JOHNSTON: Go ahead. MS. MESSIANO: One of the concerns of the applicant is, if in the event the association is not solvent enough to pay for the dredging project, they want to know that they can get in and out of the channel and access the bay as is their right as a riparian owner. MR. JOHNSTON: Who is the they? MS. MESSIANO: My applicant. They as a riparian owner have a right to dredge property adjacent -- dredge underwater lands adjacent to their property. We're not asking to dredge the basin. We're not tackling the issue as to who owns the basin; we're looking at that area seaward of the headlands, Mr. Zupa has already suffered damage to his boat because it was shoaled over, and he doesn't want to have to contend with that in the future. If, in the event that the Association should not be solvent enough to be able to shoulder the burden of this type of project they, as the riparian owner, should have the opportunity to do that; that's one of my points. You've talked a couple about putting a stipulation or limitation in a permit that dredging can only occur once a year. I don't think the Zupas have a problem with that. As far as the dredge spoils is concerned, if there were a situation in one year where the Zupas' beach nicely built up, and it wasn't needed, and the box jetties were empty, I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem with saying, gee, looks like that's empty, it should go there this year. There's a number of scenarios and there's nothing underhanded, sneaky or sinister about this application. I think people who own properties of this nature have a right to be able to exercise certain opportunities, and this is one of them. Since he's already suffered significant cost as a result of the shoaling, it's only natural that he would like to project himself, themselves in the future. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you suggesting that the applicant has a right to dredge? MS. MESSIANO: Absolutely. Why would they not? MR. JOHNSTON: That's what your proposal is? 49 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 MS. MESSIANO: That's not my proposal. It's my statement. I would like to ask you why -- MR. JOHNSTON: They have a legal right to dredge? MS. MESSIANO: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: I just wanted to make sure I heard what you said. MS. MESSIANO: Is this a trick question? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes or no, that's it. Are you suggesting that they have a right to dredge? MS. MESSIANO: I am absolutely stating, yes, we believe that they have a right to dredge. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, go ahead. MR. ANGEL: Briefly, I'm on the same sort of issue. A couple of things I want to comment on. One is this riparian right. The riparian right is for a riparian owner to have access to water. There is no particular right to a particular method of doing that. I don't think you have an inalienable right to dredge. You have a right to access waters for navigability if that right doesn't conflict with the governmental right on behalf of the people to control navigation. That's the expression of the riparian right; there's no particular right to do any one aspect of getting to navigability. And what we have here in this application is a mixing of apples and oranges. Now, I believe when I looked at the application. The application was made on behalf of Mary Zupa for the vacant property along the bay. Now we're talking about the riparian rights of a nonapplicant parcel that's owned by Mr. and Mrs. Zupa that's on the interior of the basin. That right now is benefited by the dredging that our client did going out. What we have is a whole bunch of concepts being mixed here in support of this application. But the application for you is for a vacant parcel where there is actually no need for navigability because there is no use on the parcel right now. So you have an abstract application where there's an assertion of a right to dredge when that right is not absolute; it's a right to access waters for navigability where necessary subject to the right of public, and you guys and women are well aware of it. I think you have to look at the application technically to understand it. And I think if you look at it, you'll see that the arguments in.favor of the application are flawed. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, what is your-- TRUSTEE FOSTER: You know what it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There should be one permit. 50 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I felt that way all along. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. MS. MESSIANO: Yes, my comment is this: If you're inclined to follow Mr. Angel's point and that we're mixing apples and oranges, then I will amend my application and do a new posting and a mailing and I will amend the application to put it in the name of Mary Zupa and Victor Zupa so that we now have clarity on the fact that we now have two property owners exercising their rights. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And if I don't follow his line of thought? MS. MESSIANO: Then I won't. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not making a decision based on what Mr. Angel just said, not that I don't agree or disagree with all of it. He didn't push me over the edge on that. MR. JOHNSTON: She can apply again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. So I have a motion and a second to close the hearing. All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Based on the fact that navigability for the interior basin inhabitants would always be guaranteed if, in fact, one or two or any parties fail to dredge the basin and another party wanted to pick up that responsibility, that would be accomplished without a problem by this Board with the issuance of an emergency permit at any time during the approved dredging season of the DEC Federal Fish and Wildlife Regulations, etcetera, et cetera. Based on that, I don't believe this Board would have any problem with that, right? Based on that, I'll make a motion to deny this application because one, there is no immediate need for this activity; and two, this can be applied for at any time if a need arises and the conditions warrant it, and no one else will bear the responsibility then it could be applied for at any time. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 22. Catherine Messiano, Inc., on behalf of SCHEMBRI HOMES, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 30' by 66' single-family dwelling, on-site sewage disposal system, and a pervious driveway. Located: 1025 Seawood Drive, Southold. SCTM # 79-7-63 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who wishes to comment on this application? MS. MESSIANO: I have no comment because the ball is in your 51 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 cou rt. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommends that the landowner withdraw the application. Is that feasible? MS. MESSIANO: No. Are you ready to buy the property? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did they really say that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Word for word. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have a revegetation plan or anything? MS. MESSIANO: We have nothing because at the last meeting you tabled this so you could refer it to Mark Terry for his comments. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He didn't have time. We sent him about three or four files. He called me at 3:30 this afternoon with some information on one of them, and he did not do anything on this file. MS. MESSIANO: Peg, a lot of the pictures that you're looking at are pictures we submitted last month because the neighboring properties. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I remember the discussion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I make a motion to table this and now that we have a technical person that works for us. MS. MESSIANO: I have already spoken with her and she has agreed to contact me so we can meet and go over this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a motion, is there a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 23. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of THOMAS PETROSINO requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 252 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead including 40' and 6' returns with vinyl bulkhead and back fill with approximately 100 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 900 Rogers Road, Southold. SCTM 66-2-38. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anybody here to speak on this application? Okay. I got an okay with a 10 foot non-turf buffer. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to remove and replace 250 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and back fill with approximately 100 cubic yards of clean sand fill and fill with a 10 foot nonturf buffer. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 52 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 24 En-Consultants on behalf of KEVIN MCGILLOWAY requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 135 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and restore any disturbed adjacent marsh with spartina altera flora plugs 18 inch on center. Replace within 18 inches approximately 138 linear foot of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead, and dredge a 10' by 24' area adjacent to the easterly 62 foot section to a maximum depth of three feet below mean low water using approximately 10 yards of sand spoil as back fill. Remove and replace existing 4 foot wide and variable by 138 foot timber walkways. Located: The 430 Sailors Needle Road, Mattituck. SCTM # 144-5-30.1. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here to comment on this? I looked at this time at this kind of well-developed area, just about directly across the creek from Strong's Marine. And what they're looking at is this area here it's almost like a little island, bulkhead all the way around it. Walk way like this, they want to replace this in-place with vinyl, and this is where they're going to do -- this is all spartina, nice little wetland here all spartina along here -- in place here and any damage they do they're going to replant, this part here they want to replace within 18 inches. I didn't have a problem with it. There's absolutely nothing there, it's just creek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the dredge? TRUSTEE KING: And dredge in here. It's quite a layout. It's nice. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was done way before my time. TRUSTEE KING: All pretty straightforward. The only thing I'd like to see is maybe a nonturf buffer along here, and if they can't do that or they don't want to, it's highly developed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They have to do it. They have to take the whole thing up. TRUSTEE KING: Another suggestion I had is they may want to continue their walkway. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Either way it's non-turf. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They have to tear that up, so make them 8 foot. TRUSTEE KING: Eight foot nonturf buffer or 4 foot walkway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that what it is, 4 foot? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, fine. Is that a motion? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I'll make that a motion to close the 53 Board of Trustees June 24, 2004 hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Make motion to approve the application with a nonturf buffer 8 feet wide around the area that's going to be replaced in-place or if they so desire, they can just continue the wooden walkway around the perimeter of the island as long as it's pervious like sand or gravel underneath it to get some drainage. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to go back to the regular meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. ALL AYES. VII. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING AND ANCHORAGE/STAKES: 1. JEFFREY AND HEATHER WORTHINGTON request an onshore/offshore stake off their own property. Located: 1025 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM # 55-3-28 Arshamomaque Pond. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve an onshore/offshore stake be no greater than 25 feet from the wetlands marsh fringe. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 2. ROBERT AND CHERYL SCHEIDET request an onshore/offshore stake off their own property on Goose Creek. Located: 2570 Clearview Avenue, Southold. SCTM # 70-10-29.2 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you recall how far out you wanted to go? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 25 feet also. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You took a walk, I didn't go. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm almost certain it was 25 feet. So if it's not, come back and say 30 feet. Make a motion to approve onshore/offshore stake no greater than 25 feet on behalf of Robert and Cheryl Scheidet; do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One more thing, we have to go back to Number 12, SAPORITA and BRODERICK, they applied for and were granted the dock application, but didn't they have a stake or pulley system there also? He said there was one out there. 54 Board of Trustees Jane 24, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: They said they presently have a boat on a mooring stake. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As a condition of the dock permit that mooring stake should be removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When he said it, I thought of it then he went out off on that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to adjourn the hearing. (Time ended: 10:20 p.m.) RECEIVED ¢� CT 4 200 Southold Town Clerk 55