Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/25/2001 Albert J.Krupski, President SVFFO`�, Town Hall James King,Vice-President ��,� CD 53095 Route 25 Henry Smith h� �y� P.O.Box 1179 Artie Foster o 1 Southold,New York 11971-0959 y 2 Ken Poliwoda Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax(631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Ken Poliwoda, Trustee Lauren Standish, Clerk ABSENT WAS: Henry Smith, Trustee CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Thursday, May 24, 2001 at 7:00 PM. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 21, 2001. Hold until May meeting. I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for March 2001. A check for $6,006.75 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENTSMAIVERS/CHANGES: 2 1. JON KERBS requests a One-Year Extension to Permit#4986 to build a single- family home with a 30' setback from the freshwater wetlands. Located: 400 Rene's Drive, Southold. SCTM#54-6-4.4 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 2. BRUCE JOHNSON requests a Transfer of Permit#1470 from Corinne Boos to Bruce Johnson. Permit to replace existing 6'X 9' floating dock with two new floating docks 8'X 10'. Located: 3765 Stillwater Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM#137- 1-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application until the violation is cleared- up, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 3. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of JOSEPH CORTALE requests an Amendment to Permit#5288 to construct a recreational dock facility consisting of a 4'X 12' fixed CCA timber dock, a 3'X 25' ramp and a 6'X 20' float elevated 2.5' above grade at the tidal wetlands line. The ramp with a float is proposed to project off at an "L" configuration and removed seasonally. The float proposed will be supported by (2) 6" diameter piles on the landward side of the float. A 4'X 40' +/- natural wood chip path is proposed from the residence to the proposed dock facility. A light post with an electrical outlet is proposed near the end of the fixed dock. Located: 2200 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM#78-2-39 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application until after the May Field Inspection, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 4. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of JOAN MCDONALD requests an Amendment to Permit,#5287 to construct a single-family residence within the building envelope. The actual footprint of the proposed dwelling will be less than the total square footage of the building envelope proposed. Located: 605 Bay Shore Rd., Greenport. SCTM#53-3-9 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Table the application. Property must be posted and the neighbors must be re-noticed. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 5. J. Kevin McLaughlin Esq. on behalf of ORIENT WHARF CO. requests a Coastal Erosion Permit and an Amendment to Permit#474 for the existing 6'X 8' shed, housing necessary water filtration equipment, to remain on the wharf as long as the filtration system is required to obtain a safe water supply, and to remove 54 pilings from west side of timber pier and relocate to north side of solid stone/rock pier. Install approx. 84 pilings on south side of existing solid stone/rock pier. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#24-2-28.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to allow the construction of a shed and water filtration system behind the Coastal Erosion Line on the property of the Orient Wharf Co. subject to plans showing the new location. This will be an open ended permit. The permit will not be issued from the Trustees until they show the new location of the shed landward of the Coastal Erosion Line and whether they put it there or not is at their discretion. This permit shall also include the removal of 54 pilings from the west side of timber pier and relocate to north side of solid stone/rock pier. Install approx. 84 pilings on south side of existing solid stone/rock pier. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to go off the Regular Meeting and go onto the Public Hearings, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING.FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE 1. MARTIN & DOREEN EVANS request a Wetland Permit to construct a 10'X 22' deck at the rear of the house and a 6'X 27' side deck. Located: 5050 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#115-10-3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? TRUSTEE KING: I make a recommendation that the deck ought to be 8'. If it's 10' it's going to hanging right over the bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any comment at all? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application but the rear to be 8' wide rather than 10', and there is to be no clearing of the bluff, like what has been done next door. That's been clear-cut right down to the water's edge. No clearing from the deck to the water's edge. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Abstain, TRUSTEE KING: Aye, TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aye, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye. 2. ANN DOBSON CLEMENTS requests a Wetland Permit for a ground-level wooden patio approx. 15' attached to existing screened-in porch of house. Located: 560 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM#52-2-25 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or against the application? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone on behalf of the application? ANN CLEMENTS: I'm here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you realize why there was a violation issued? ANN CLEMENTS: For the clearing of the steps, yes. 4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have pictures here. Now the bluff is very stable there. There is very little erosion in Arshamomque and.Arshamomaque is one of the main shellfish areas in the Town and we don't want to have any sediment running into the water that will silt up the shellfish beds. So, all efforts have to be made to preserve the integrity of the water quality. ANN CLEMENTS: I appreciate that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken what are your thoughts? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't have a problem with the deck but where the clearing occurred, I'd recommend vegetation of that entire bank, with the exception of your 4' path. ANN CLEMENTS: So the regulation is Z on each side of the existing staircase? Is that correct? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's what we could issue a permit for, a clear path. We don't have a problem with a path to the water. That's not a problem. It's the whole bank being de-vegetated that's the problem. ANN CLEMENTS: I asked the contractor to see is there were any stairs there and it was so overgrown that we didn't know, and they found the stairs. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd like to make a recommendation that maybe some Rosa Rugosa be planted throughout the entire bluff, hand planted, so that it doesn't de-stabilize that bluff at all. They have a very strong root system that. would help maintain that bluff, and where's it's been de-vegetated, I don't know if that will come back or not. ANN CLEMENTS: I.would be happy to do that, but I think what is still there definitely has root system. There is no dirt really visible. They cut it down but they didn't... TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Did they spray anything on it? ANN CLEMENTS: Oh no. I'm happy to do the planting if that's what you want. I have no problem with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see any dimensions on this deck. ANN CLEMENTS: It was 15' square. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The holes were dug, remember, for the posts. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommends Disapproval of the proposed deck because it is too close to the edge of the bluff, which would promote erosion and they recommend re-vegetation of the bluff with approved planting plan,which Ken already described. ANN CLEMENTS: Since I started the process with the wetland application, my architect and I decided to move it anyway, so it's not going to be there regardless, but I'm happy to do the planting. The holes have been filled in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh no deck? ANN CLEMENTS: It's going to be on the other side of the house. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're still going to have to get a permit for it. ANN CLEMENTS: Yes, it's in application. Or if it gets too complicated, I just won't do one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? ANN CLEMENTS: . Do you have a name so I don't forget? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You can call Chris Pickerall. He works over at Cedar Beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He works for Cornell Cooperative Extension and he can give you advice on what you need. ANN CLEMENTS: So when do I show proof that I've done that. Is this going to hang up the application? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: He may agree with you. If he does come over and inspect that, he may agree that leaving it alone it may grow back fine. But if he finds that there might be a problem, then planting is probably the best remedy. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's in your best interest, it's your property, to stabilize the bank. ANN CLEMENTS: I completely understand and appreciate that. My question though is still, do I have to do that and prove it to you all that I've done it and wait another month and all that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we'd rather see you do it immediately. ANN CLEMENTS: I'm going to do it immediately but do I have to prove that I've done it and then get back on the docket for a whole another month before we can do anything? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No just send us a letter and we can come out next month and inspect it, but you can do it immediately. ANN CLEMENTS: In other words, the wetland permit will be issued now? TRUSTEE KING: So the deck is going on the side of the house? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion that we not approve the 15' patio onto the existing screened porch of the house and to have the bank re-vegetated with Rosa Rugosa or other natural plantings. ANN CLEMENTS: I'm sorry we're you talking to me? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't have to be Rosa Rugosa. It can be honeysuckle, poison ivy, there are a lot of things that will grow there and stabilize the bluff. ANN CLEMENTS: Right. Ok. But can I wait and see if it's green or should I just call the Cornell guy and'let him look at it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Call Chris Pickerall and have him come down and look at it. He'll come down free of charge. TRUSTEE KING: Is she getting a permit for the deck? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the deck is going on the other side of the house. Right? ANN CLEMENTS: Right, if at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That deck will be out of our jurisdiction so you won't have to come to us for that deck. ANN CLEMENTS: Right. But, what I'm supposed to be doing here tonight, I've done it correctly? So, I can move forward? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. ANN CLEMENTS: Right, with the building guys. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Call Pickerall so you can get the bluff re-vegetated. ANN CLEMENTS: Ok great, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 3. WILLIAM J. AYLWARD (AS CONTRACT VENDEE) requests a Wetland Permit to construct a dwelling, cesspools and septic tank, impervious driveway, 24'X 24' detached garage, drywells, and related necessary activities to construct. Located: 14395 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#89-1-3.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak.in favor of the application? WILLIAM AYLWARD: I made the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? PAT MOORE: I represent the neighbor's to the east; the daughter and mother are both here tonight. We had an opportunity to discuss the application out in the hallway. Everybody, is trying to work out their differences. For the most part, the location of the house and so on, there is little discussion about it, but the problem is the sanitary system location, presumes a location of a well that is incorrect, and our suggestion is that you might consider leaving his hearing open because . if we find, my clients are going to go out and give the precise location of wells, so that when he's dealing with the Health Dept. we have accurate information. That might resolve in some shifting of the house or the garage or the sanitary, in some way that might be in the jurisdiction of this Board. So, we leave it obviously up to him to decide whether or not he wants to leave the hearing open but the house is presently just within your jurisdiction. The sanitary is outside your jurisdiction presently. But, the location may change once we have the details on where the wells are location. There are two wells on my clients' property, once that provides water for the pool and the other one that provides water for the house. Those are going to be important for the Health Dept. We are trying to be good neighbors but on the other hand also, just keep in mind the best, in particular the health concerns on the location of the sanitary system. We just wanted you to be aware of this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? MR. AYLWARD: Based on that, the existing well.according to the survey is what we went by, she said that she was going research it and find out where it is and if that changes or it changes the footprint of the property, than I would just come back here again, so maybe if I could get a postponement until next time, because she said she would do it in a week or so. This way I won't have to keep coming back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. That would be fine. I think before you go, I think this is a pretty well laid out plan giving the restrictions on the lot. I think we were inclined, just to let you know, we're inclined towards an Approval. So, we didn't have any concerns. MR. AYLWARD: I know that it's not in your jurisdiction; but one thing can lead to another and just in case the well does change, I'll be back here again, so if I 7 could just leave it open and come back the next time in case something does change. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We just had one stipulation for a hay bale line to be set up. MR. AYLWARD: Yes, I am aware of that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At the 50' buffer. That's where we would like to see it. I don't know if we had the discussion about having it left or not, permanently. It shows it on the driveway but we'd rather see it at the 50' buffer because that delineates the buffer from the wetlands and then it becomes an untouchable place and upland of that you can have your yard and whatever else. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's also a letter in the file, I don't know if you're aware it, about the proper noticing. Come in and take a look at the file. Tomorrow please come in and take a look at the file as far as noticing the neighbors go, because there is an issue there. You can get that squared away for next month. 4. BOBETTE SUTER requests a Wetland Permit to raise the existing house (elev. +5.15) up to and above (elev. +9.75) for required FEMA flood elevation. Install 200 cy. of clean fill. Located: 855 Fisherman's Beach Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-1-30 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? Would anyone like to speak against the application, or anything else concerning the application? Let's take a look at the fill lines. I think one of our questions is how is that going to contour into the property to the west? The east they have quite a high wall there already. BOBETTE SUTER: When the Croneys renovated their house, I guess about 4 years ago, they raised it and brought fill in, so we're bringing our grade up to theirs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They are on the east or west? BOBETTE SUTER: They are to the west and then to the east, that neighbor has a very large retaining wall elevation 8'. That's Gold. Immediately parallel to our property is their driveway. The house sits pretty far beyond our house. The hedge breaks the two properties so the end of the fill sort of dips down at our privet hedge. The current grade of our house, it slopes up. We're in a pit. We just want to raise the grade as much as we need because the house is so low and as you can see the current grade is so low that we have to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would be good to get it above the road at least. BOBETTE SUTER: Also, the current foundation only has about 8" of soil down to the footings so when we raise the grade then our pools will be far more stable. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are you going to raise the house or are you just going to lift the roof off and make the house higher? BOBETTE SUTER: The house is concrete block. In sections it does not go all the way up to the bottom of the floor joints. For example, the little wing that protrudes towards the bay, that's all wood frame. We don't have concrete walls 8 on that section but the other section that's closer to the road, the block goes nearly up to the bottom of the floor joints. We're going to install a ledger board up about 4 Y2' above the concrete slab which is our floor now, which will be a rat slab later, and then extend our floor joints across and the wood frame of the house would be raised and there will be just be a short crib wall from the top plate to the bottom of the current floor joints. That will occur around the entire house and when they raise it they will disconnect that little wing, that I referenced to before that's closer to the bay, we'll completely disconnect that because for some reason, you step up three steps into that space. The floor is higher there. But, when we're done, the floor will be at the same elevation. The road is higher than our floor and it stopped the water. That's the main thing that we want to do now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommends Approval with no conditions. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES . TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 5. JAMES E. & KAREN A. HOEG requests a Wetland Permit to construct 4'X 50' fixed CCA timber dock raised a min. of 3.5' above grade supported by (16)4"X 4" posts or 6" diameter timber piles, a 7'X 25' fixed CCA timber dock approx. 3' above AHW and supported by (6) 6" diameter timber piles with a depth of penetration of 6' to 8'. A proposed 4' wide natural wood chip access path will lead from grass lawn to project at landward end. Located: 350 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#115-17-17.10 POSTPONED UNTIL MAY AS PER THE.APPLICANT'S REQUEST 6. LEON L. MUNIER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace the existing jetty inkind/inplace. Located: 4030 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM#128-6-1 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I looked at this and I didn't see any problem with it at all. It's detached and deteriorated and seems to be'working. I met the gentleman out there and we took a look at it. The bulkhead itself is in good shape, it's going to be the same elevation. I don't see any problem with it at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it low-profile? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's not underwater if that's.what you mean. It's the same elevation as all of the others. MR. MUNIER: The one next door to me which was re-done two years ago, was a higher profile and when he re-did it, he lowered it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We always look to have them lowered actually. I didn't have a problem with it and I would recommend Approval. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 7. ARTHUR & BERNADETTE WALSH request a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, garage, driveway, and septic system. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. SCTM#7-2-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application? GLEN JUST: I'm here for the application. Permits were issued for John Stripp and then again to Mr. Walsh last year and they hadn't started construction on the 4 lot when the wetlands ordinance changed. Initially we had a non-jurisdiction for the project and the project the Walsh's are proposing is basically the same but they are removing the pool and the surrounding decking, and replacing it with a small garage. It's just barely into your jurisdiction. The house will be I think 82' or 77' set back from the freshwater wetland line. The same buffer will be maintained as originally asked for. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't we had a problem with decking on there, did we? GLEN JUST: We removed the decking that was around the pool. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, that was around the pool, ok. What is that straight line that runs sort of parallel to the house? GLEN JUST: What's that? That's the staked hay bale line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the hay bale line is marked on here. It's further towards the wetland. TRUSTEE KING: Right at where the wetland point comes in, almost at the 100' mark. GLEN JUST: I don't know. I actually don't know. I would truly have to find out. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd recommend no clearing within 50' of that wetland. GLEN JUST: The hay bale line shown on the plan is 50' at the closest point to the wetland. Actually most of it will be more like 75' to 80' buffer area. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, because you do have Barlow Pond there to consider. GLEN JUST: This is across the street from Barlow Pond but close enough to it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application, with a 50' non- disturbance buffer. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 8. Frank Uellendahl.on behalf of THOMAS LEWICK requests a Wetland Permit to add a partial second-floor addition on existing one-story building. Added gross floor area will be 945 sq.ft. Located: 1315 North Parish Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-1-13 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone here like to comment on this? FRANK UELLENDAHL: I'm the architect. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Ok. Would anyone like to comment against this application? I looked at this today and I had no problem with it. I have one 10 question about some decking that was behind the bulkhead out by the bay. It has no effect on this application. I'll make a motion to close this hearing? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA:- I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 9. Mark K. Schwartz, AIA on behalf of LEONARD & JOYCE BECKENSTEIN requests a Wetland Permit for additions to the existing single-family dwelling. Located: 830 Jackson's Landing, Mattituck. SCTM#113-6-4 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone who wants to comment on this project? MARK SCHWARTZ: I'll just answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at it and I can't see it having any environmental impact. As a matter of fact, I think it's really nice the way that whole area is naturalized around the house. I can't see any environmental impact whatsoever. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 10.Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of RICHARD & MARIA KICK requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'X 4' timber access stairway, a 4'X 41' fixed CCA timber dock secured by (20) 4"X 6" CCA timber dock posts and elevated a minimum of 4' above grade. (2) 8" dia. CCA timber tie off piles are proposed off the southwest side of the proposed dock. The proposed facility is to be accessed by a 4'X 100' natural wood chip pathway. Located: 500 Tarpon Dr., Southold. i SCTM#57-1-5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? CHARLES BOWMAN: I believe we made the changes the Board requested and if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we comment, is there any other comment from anyone else on this application? MRS. MAINO: I live diagonally across the canal from this property. I'm confused by the description. It sounds like it's going to be a fixed dock now instead of a floating. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like to take a look at the plans? MRS. MAINO: We have the original plan. The plan has changed? TRUSTEE.KRUPSKI: Well this is the umteenth change. MRS. MAINO: This was the plan that was two months ago? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No this is different. MRS. MAINO: No, I wasn't notified. If this going through, we will lose access to at least 15' to 20' of our dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Take a look at this please. MRS. MAINO: I'll also show you a picture of where these poles are out of the water. I was not notified of this change at all. 11 -- PAT MOORE: None of us were. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll it just-came in. This is a familiar site to us. MRS. MAINO: That was taken a couple of weeks ago. I didn't get a chance to take it this week. We have a full moon tide. That is now 2' back more. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're the house from which this picture is taken. MRS. MAINO: Yes. I am diagonally across. PAT MOORE: My client, Mr. Wilson is right here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do they have a dock? PAT MOORE: No, they don't have anything right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do they have a house? PAT MOORE: No. But they have a permit for a house. MRS. MAINO: They would lose so much of their dock space. PAT MOORE: Well that is one of the points that I was going to raise. Rob Herrmann is doing some depth measuring in front of the property so we know where, when my client, Mr. Wilson, intends to put a dock there as well and so that we're not foreclosed from putting a dock, we wanted to know what the measurements were so that everybody can be accommodated. Because of weather problems, he hasn't got that information to me yet. None of us have seen this plan so we would ask the chance to review it. We'd also ask that this plan await until we have some information so that we can coordinate with Mr. Wilson and he be able to accommodate his dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How much waterfront does Mr. Wilson have? PAT MOORE: The length of the property is 100'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see where he would be inconvenienced by this dock here, or by a dock from the neighbors. .PAT MOORE: I'm not going to prejudge it because I don't know what the depth is. MRS. MAINO: This is a very narrow canal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've been out there believe me, every month for quite some time now. We are very familiar with this. MRS. MAINO: Do you know how hard it is to even get a boat in a dead end canal as it is. We have plenty of dock but, thank you, I pay very good taxes on that waterfront property. Are the Kick's going to pay waterfront property taxes? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If they are approved for a dock, the Assessors will be notified. If that makes you feel any better. MRS. MAINO: I don't want to lose access to my dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In narrow areas like this such as a little canal like this, we have a basic policy. It's the 1/3 rule. The float and the boat cannot exceed, and this of course applies to Mr. Wilson, cannot exceed more than 1/3 across the waterway. CHARLES BOWMAN: I think that's the reason we eliminated the float completely so that it would take up less room, he has a very minimal dock, he'll be docking bow in, and take up preferably no room compared to all the other .docks on the canal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. So that's the basic 1/3 rule. That accommodates everyone so that everyone gets the same limited space. 12 MRS. MAINO: Your talking about from the end of the canal that they're going to have access. PAT MOORE: There are three property owners at the end. That's our concern. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would think that there is four. PAT MOORE: We're the last bulkheaded piece. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But Kick is not bulkheaded. PAT MOORE: Kick is what everyone thought has no waterfront. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How does Kick have waterfront? MRS. MAINO: They have one foot of waterfront. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We never allowed a permit for a dock to be built within 15' of the property line and if they only own 5'... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's policy, but if they own the whole lot, I don't see why they couldn't have some sort of access to the water and I don't see where that would inconvenient the neighbors. CHARLES BOWMAN: I don't see, the point here when the neighbors each have a 100' of bulkhead on the canal, how this could impact them. We have one existing dock that we're not going to be interfering with, we're going to be planning another dock which we have 100' of bulkhead to.plan where that's going to be. PAT MOORE: If I could interject for a moment, we have a 100' but if we go out and measure and we find out that the only 4' depth of water is on the last 10', which is right next to Kick's and that's the only place where we can put it a dock that is reasonable with the depth that will meet the DEC and your requirements, than we don't have the kind of length that we hoped we had. That's why all that we ask for is we hold off until we get the depth of water so that we can confirm for Mr. Wilson that, in fact, he will not be impacted. If he's not impacted, then I'm sure that his position will change. CHARLES BOWMAN: The DEC is not going to require 4' here. It will be a float or a ramp to the float that will be removed seasonally. So they would be looking for 2 W. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have you been out there Pat? PAT MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The shallowest part is by Mr. Kick's end, so would assume they wouldn't be putting the float any where near him. PAT MOORE: I would assume that too but I'd rather take a position that we want facts rather than assumptions and we told everyone that we're right in the middle of waiting for the depths to come from Rob. I expected them about 3 weeks ago. He went out there but found it very difficult. The day he went out there he stopped by my office, he was in his gear, and apparently he didn't have what he needed to go get the depths. So, I know he tried his hardest but it just didn't work out. He said that he had to go back there. CHARLES BOWMAN: I would ask the Board, I think it's very reasonably and orderly process, and a great solution, I really don't see a problem with it and it's certainly not going to effect the application that Pat's talking about, and I would ask the Board to make a decision. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let us look at it for a second. 13 J `' TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What did CAC recommend? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They recommended Approval of the original application. The original application was for a ... CHARLES BOWMAN: The original application had a catwalk coming out down the middle of the float and it was a lot more dock. PAT MOORE: Has the DEC approved this? CHARLES BOWMAN: Not yet, no. PAT MOORE: So they're not rushed, the DEC is still reviewing it. Quite honestly I think it's unfair for him to come in with different plans and not giving the neighbors who have been here every single time voicing their objection, an opportunity to review it. I don't have a client here. I think in all fairness, my client should look at it himself. I can't speak for him and our position has been, let's find out what depth of water is in front of the Wilson property, and I think that's a fair position to take. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Navigability is one of our biggest concerns that's why we have the 1/3 rule which this plan kind of violates but this is.the third of fourth plan we've had on this site so I'd rather move this along. There is no way this applicant going to affect this woman here. I don't see how this could possibly affect your dock. You're seaward of these people. MRS. MAINO: My property goes right up to the end of the canal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you see how this would affect this woman's dock? MRS. MAINO: In order to get to our dock, we have to go down to the end of the canal and turn around. How do we dock? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If I lived where you lived, I wouldn't be very happy with this application. MRS. MAINO: You've seen our sailboat there. We have a power boat that we're about to put into the water down the end there. It's almost impossible to get there now because it's so shallow. How are we going to be able to access the end, I take objection to the point that's being made that we have 100' of bulkhead. Yes, we do and we should be able to access every 100' of it. Right? CHARLES BOWMAN: I disagree because that's like saying you have the right to bring in as big a boat as you want too. If it's too shallow, it might need to be dredged in front of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the 1/3 rule only gives you 16' off of Mr. Wilson's bulkhead for a dock and a boat. That's are rule and we have to stick with it here obviously. By our policy that we stand by, you're talking about 16'. Now, this dock application is for really 35' off of the opposite bulkhead from you. Our policy is only allow a structure 16'. So, his boat, not his dock, would only come out 16' from the opposite bulkhead.. MRS. MAINO: I have not seen the new plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't approve this plan. This is what was submitted. You can take that if you want it. CHARLES BOWMAN: Pat's clients are going to have a greater impact on her property than this dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely, because they're going to take 16' up. Do you understand that? i 14 MRS. MAINO: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: By our current policy, you can take up 1/3 between the dock and the boat, you can take up 1/3 of the canal. No more than 1/3. You can take up less obviously, but no more than 1/3. In a 50' canal, that's about 16'. So, when Mr. Wilson comes in for an application, we're going to say, your float and boat can't be any more than 16' wide. That's it. So they're going to be sticking out 16'. MRS. MAINO: We understand that. PAT MOORE: We have 1 00' of bulkhead. I think it was anticipated that we were going to have a boat there. What has not been anticipated is that a marsh frontage property with no bulkhead some how another gets himself access by way of a 10' strip and pops out at the end of the canal, where appropriately it should be dredged. If he wants waterfront, I think all of us would support his efforts to dredge to give him waterfront, which I think that back when this subdivision was created, that was the intention. If you look at the canal on the tax map, it was intended to go all the way through. That never happened. Unfortunately for them they are looking at a piece of property that is very marginal water frontage.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh sure. MRS. MAINO: They do not own the property at the end of the canal, you understand that? TRUSTEEE KRUPSKI: We understand that. If you saw last month's proposal, it was for a dock on that paper canal, which we said no, it has to come off of your own property. But anything that they put there has to be very small. CHARLES BOWMAN: But the argument here is that they can't turn their boat around. That's the problem here. If you can't turn your boat around, Pat's clients' is going to have a greater impact on their property to be able to turn the boat around than this one will but that seems to be OK. MRS. MAINO: Two way traffic on that canal is impossible. We have to be very courteous with each other, pulling over and being able to back up, because no way can two boats of that size can pass each other. We have to stagger the docking. CHARLES BOWMAN: I agree with that and if you look at the other docks and your boat on you dock, probably violates the 1/3 rule, and the boats that you have. That's not to say that you shouldn't have those but you have to understand that you have bigger boats than would be allowed if you came in for a dock. That's why it's going to be affecting the property-across the way. Everybody has to try to accommodate everybody, turning around and being careful, obviously. MRS. MAINO: My point is that these people really do not own the waterfront property and they are trying to get access to the waterfront. CHARLES BOWMAN: It's a private canal, it's a dredged canal, it's not Town bottom. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The first application that we had here back in January, I thought that's what the Board found acceptable except for the float. It's a very short catwalk, you can have a pole out there where you can tie the boat off to, but it's just simply a little catwalk at the very end with a pole. 15 CHARLES BOWMAN: However you want it, we will put it that way. That's now a' problem. We thought that this was the way you wanted it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a little large. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: A catwalk with a piling and the piling will not exceed 16' from the side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From Mr. Wilson's bulkhead.side. If you take the pole off and put a pole out there somewhere no more than 16', that is where the boat has to stay within that area. You're very limited in size as to what size boat he can have put he can have a canoe or something. PAT MOORE: Here is our property. Here is the bulkhead. Is it 16' in? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. PAT MOORE: 16' out. I thought that you had a 15' setback from the property lines. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's impossible here. PAT MOORE: He's going to be crossing our property now, at this point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No he's not. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Why doesn't he apply for an onshore/offshore stake with a pulley and a walk. CHARLES BOWMAN: I think Ken and I solved this. PAT MOORE: Now that the man is here, what we would like to do is postpone it just one more time so at least Mr. Wilson will have an application submitted by the time your next hearing is on. He's promised me that the measurement will be done by then and the application will be in. That way we can assure Mr. Wilson that his property will be protected. I think that is a reasonable request. CHARLES BOWMAN: Just so you know, Ken and I were talking about shortening up the catwalk and putting a little onshore/offshore stake which will even shorten it up more. PAT MOORE: Could he draw that up so that we can give it to Rob so that we can show it all integrated as far as the Wilson's property is concerned? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Basically a pair of pipes with a pulley attachment. PAT MOORE: I think Mr. Wilson would like to know what the heck is going on next to him in all fairness. CHARLES BOWMAN: I'll send you a copy. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application until next month. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 11.Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of JAMES & EILEEN BUGLION requests a Wetland.Permit to construct a single-family dwelling (1,200 sf.) approx. 99' landward of the tidal wetland boundary, a 540 sq.ft. deck approx. 81' landward of the tidal wetland boundary, a 6 X 10 set of steps on the south side of the dwelling approx. 75' landward of the tidal wetland boundary, a 4'X 40' porch on the west side of the dwelling approx. 101' landward of the tidal wetland boundary, a 8'X 10' set of steps on the west side of the dwelling approx. 120' landward of the tidal wetland boundary, install a sanitary system approx. 150' landward of the tidal wetland boundary, install a well approx. 50' landward of the 16 tidal wetland boundary, install (2) 6' dia. drywells to contain roof run-off a min. of 62' landward of the wetland boundary, install a pervious driveway a min. of 140' landward of the wetland boundary, clear by hand a 4' wide path to the water and install a chain link fence approx. 35' landward of the tidal wetland boundary. Located: 2520 Gagen's Landing Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-10-29.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? CHARLES BOWMAN: I'm here for the applicant. I think the plan is pretty much self-explanatory. I think it should be noted that there is a 50' non- disturbance/non-fertilization buffer, which will have native plantings in it in the areas that require planting. Everything else should be in accordance with your standards. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? CHARLES BOWMAN: There is a line of hay bales at 50'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We want to be consistent and match this up with the neighbor's application. Do you want to see how they match up? CHARLES BOWMAN: What.is interesting here is that this is the 50' line in here, the surveyor put this mark on it. I don't quite know what it means. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't either. Maybe the coastal barrier. CHARLES BOWMAN: Ok. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now are they going to need that concrete retaining wall? CHARLES BOWMAN: I would say yes because you see here, they don't have the grade to the road so the Health Dept., may change both of these designs and we won't know until we get there so we may be back. They both.may be back in front of you for the sanitary systems. They are set now at a 100' however, I'm sure they are going to require retaining walls, or a linear system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's way out of our jurisdiction. CHARLES BOWMAN: We'll try to keep it out of your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommends the non-disturbance buffer and that the proposed fence is consistent with Trustee Policy. NEIGHBOR: I have a question on the driveway. Now that there are two driveways.at the end of Clearview, does the Town consider finishing that road? Because I was told that that when it was just mine, and that driveway was going to come in on Gagen's that I was responsible for that 180'. Now you've got two driveways going in. Do you consider that a road that should be finished? CHARLES BOWMAN: Can I answer that from personal experience? The answer is no. That road, that part of Clearview has not been dedicated. The reason I'm saying that is that I have had the same experience with my own house and I was the first one to build and I actually built the whole road and everything else and as other people came, you had other people to share the maintenance with. So really you have to be friends with your neighbors and decide whose going to put stone down or what's necessary, and sometimes they don't do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's way out of our jurisdiction. CHARLES BOWMAN: If the Town was going to accept it as a dedicated road, you would have to build it to Town specs, which would be asphalt curves, drainage... 17 NEIGHBOR: So the Town is not responsible... CHARLES BOWMAN: It's not a dedicated Town road, that's correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who has Title to that I wonder. CHARLES BOWMAN: The owners to the south, I would imagine, since it was never dedicated. That portion of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 12.Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of C&D REALTY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with private well and on-site sewage disposal system. Located: 3640 Cox Neck Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#114-4-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? JIM FITZGERALD: Yes indeed. Here is the survey with the additional items you asked for. It is indicated on there that the house will be on piles. I would just like to point out again that this project was approved by the Trustees in 1985 and the permit was extended in 1987 and I don't think anything has changed. The rules haven't changed, the location hasn't changed, and the technology hasn't changed. The DEC approved it at that time and they extended the permit once. The Health Dept. approved it at that time. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Nobody built the house. That's when they should've built it. JIM FITZGERALD: So, we're really anxious to resolve this and we hope that everything we presented so far will be adequate for your needs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? On the old permit, the house is 35' from the road. JIM FITZGERALD: Well we could do that Al. 40' is the required setback and if in order to obtain the Board's approval, you feel that,it's necessary to move it back the 5', we'll go to the Zoning Board and see if we can work it out with them. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I feel as though I stated my case last month for the environment and it's impact that this development would have on the environment. I don't feel as if I should have to reiterate everything, but I will. I stated that these type of lots are built in .a marine habitat area where it's actually crucial to all marine life because this is the warmest spot in the creek in the early stages of Spring, where fish spawn, the juvenile fish get to breath and any type of development upon this area could be detrimental to that ecosystem. Therefore, I find reason not to. permit these type of developments, not only on this lot but many lots like this, where we can't maintain a 50' non-disturbance buffer from the wetlands and 100' setback for the septic, from the wetland edge. GAIL WICKHAM: Ken, could I address that? I represent C&D Realty. I understand your concern. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't know if it's a concern or a fact. GAIL WICKHAM: It's a factual concern, but in the meantime we are not looking at a new application. It's an old application that was here before. The very end of the creek is more towards the.west, right where the Town drain pipe come in, 18 and if anything is hurting your wetlands, that's got to be it. This is off to the side of it and I'm not saying that's it's totally out of that.area but it is, the septic,system is about as far away as your going to get, and it's not at the very end of the creek where the contours would indicate close up to Cox Neck Rd. I'm not saying it's a great situation but I think that that is a bigger concern than the septic, which is way over on the side. Any buffer that you would want would have to be accommodated. I think that is what he expects. One reason the house was proposed on pilings rather than on some sort of foundation is so that it would minimize the impact. JIM FITZGERALD: I think that Gail's point is excellent about the run-off from the road. The drain empties directly into the end of that creek. It's hard for a civilian to believe that that wouldn't have a much more significant impact on the environmental well-being of the area than putting a house in there would, and obviously the Town has chosen not to do anything about that, up until now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:. Well there is no question that the road drainage negatively impacts the water quality. I think Jim could tell you that because Jim's done the water sampling there for many years. TRUSTEE KING: It's a hot spot. But by developing it and putting a house on it isn't going to help it either. I have to agree with Kenny. I think the lot itself is an inappropriate spot to try and build a house. Maybe 15 or 18 years ago it was approved, but they should've built the house then. Things change. There are a lot of things that we can't do today that we.could do 15 years ago. JIM FITZGERALD: Why is that? TRUSTEE KING: I used to be able to go out and catch all of the fish I wanted to catch too but I can't do that anymore. Things change. JIM FITZGERALD: Yes, but that's not a matter of regulation. TRUSTEE KING: Well this is regulation too. JIM FITZGERALD: Well that's what I'm saying. This is and the fish is not. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have to agree with the other guys. I don't think you can get this through the Health Dept. with 88' to the wetlands to the septic system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well let's move on here. We have to bring it to a vote and move on because we've been out to the site about a dozen times. We've actively been working on trying to remediate the road run-off. That's been.a particular difficult spot. The Town is the biggest polluter in the area, without question, and we've been working to alleviate that, but nothing has been done in this spot. The CAC recommends Disapproval based on the comments previously submitted and not being able to meet the Dept. of Health setbacks and not being able to maintain a 50' non-disturbance buffer from the wetlands. So, if there is no other comment, we'll close the hearing and have a vote. GAIL WICKHAM: I think that CAC's comments about the setback is really something that the Health Dept. has to focus on in terms of how far the pools are. Again, if you would like us to approach the Zoning Board to try to move this back somewhat towards the road, I think that would be something that would mitigate the circumstances somewhat. But again, other than your jurisdictional factors, and we're within the,old factors as much as we are the new, but nothing has really changed here since the approvals were previously issued, and we're not 19 coming in on a new.application, we're coming in on a revision of an old plan. To basically just sterilize the lot when it was previously approved, I think is really unfair to the owner. I'd ask that you not do that. If there is anything that could be done with the Town on the west side of the property in terms of drainage easements to accommodate some of that run-off, and that's a tough one, because as you know, that's a real low area coming down from some higher roads around the outside. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a lot of water. GAIL WICKHAM: It's a lot of water coming down a big elevation drop. Right now it's flowing right into the creek. If there's a way to filter that somehow over on that, I guess it's the southwest corner, before it hits that creek area, certainly we would be willing-to consider that, and see if something could be worked out with the Highway Dept. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's such a mess there. There is so much water coming off the roads there, it's a real mess. GAIL WICKHAM: And again, that's a problem. It's a very small house and whatever needs to be done to shelter the front yard area to the wetland should be done and kept protected and planted and if you want to impose conditions there I would fully expect that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well the bad thing about this, 15' from the wetlands to the corner of the house. GAIL WICKHAM: Well that's the phragmites line. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well that's what they show as the wetland line. You can call it whatever you want. GAIL WICKHAM: That hasn't really changed since the last approval. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes but do you know want is going to change, every application that comes in here for 15' we're going to have to give it to him. GAIL WICKHAM: I don't think so and you can quote me but this is based on a prior map that was submitted and approved by all of the relevant agencies. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm inclined to have the applicant get the Health Dept. and see if we can do any kind of drainage work there at all to stop some of that sediment that is coming into the creek. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'd feel better if they applied with them. I can call them. I deal with them all of the time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's an offer to remediate some of the road drainage there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We've been trying to get that done. You mean by the applicant? Aren't we in a position to take care of that? Don't we have permission to do that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE KING: It's going to be looked at. GAIL WICKHAM: I would expect that the water is coming in from Cox Neck Rd. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We actually have an approved map for the watershed for Mattituck Creek. TRUSTEE FOSTER: A lot of it comes down from Rosewood Estates. It comes from behind the farm. 20 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm inclined to Table it and look at it next month, under those conditions. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we can downsize the house. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'd go along with it if the Health Dept. goes along with it. GAIL WICKHAM: Mr. Fitzgerald advised me that he is in the process of submitting those applications but they haven't gone yet. Do you want to Table that until we do this? TRUSTEEKRUPSKI: Well we can Table it and we've done this on other applications with the Health Dept., we have to send them a letter requesting that they act on it. They generally won't act on an application without our approval. We can send them a letter saying please review this application without our approval, and then they'll go ahead with it. In the meantime, we'll look at this with the applicant's offer to possibly do anything at all with the road run-off. TRUSTEE KING: There is no drainage easement there or anything, is there? It's just a pipe that put there years ago. GAIL WICKHAM: Not that I'm aware of. I can't say that I've looked at the Title. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application, and please put it on for field inspection next month. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What are we going to look at? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To see if we can do anything with the run-off. I'll make a motion to Table the application. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 13.Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JOANNE MCSHERRY requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace, inkind/inplace, 173 linear ft. of bulkhead, 95 linear ft. of 4' wide walk, 4'X 6' stair landing, and 4'X 7' stairs to grade. Located: 660 Bayberry Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#118-1-13.1 JIM FITZGERALD: I don't have anything to add. The material in the application is relatively straight-forward. We would just like to replace everything that's there with plastic sheathing, inkind/inplace. Inkind except plastic. .TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor or against the application? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application as stated. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 14.Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JAMES HARRINGTON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed open walkway in an L-configuration, one leg being 4'X 28' perpendicular to the shoreline, and the other leg being 4'X 10' parallel to the shoreline. Located: 1780 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#122-4- 5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? JIM FITZGERALD: Again, the material is self-explanatory. I don't have anything to add. I would be happy to answer questions. We intend to keep the overall 21 size of the project to a minimal as you can see. We were able to keep as short as it is because the canal is relatively deep. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are they interested in stairs at all on the landward side? It seems like it leaves them up in the area on the lawn end. Are they interested in stairs there at all. JIM FITZGERALD: I think it's an oversight on the drawing. As indicated, it would be a min. of 3 Y2' above the vegetated wetland and it may be that, I think it was indicated, that the number of steps may vary depending upon the height necessary. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No I mean on the landward end. JIM FITZGERALD: What I'm saying Al is that it may be possible to eliminate those steps so that the landward section is closer to the non-wetland vegetation, the grass in that area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment on this application? Does the Board have any objection to closing the hearing? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 15.Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of NORTH BAY PROPERTIES, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct 160' at toe of bluff to connect with existing bulkhead to the west; backfill behind bulkhead to level of top of bulkhead; plant filled area with American beachgrass on 18" centers; place rock armoring at base of bulkhead on seaward side. Construct stairs.from top of bluff to beach at seaward side of bulkhead, overall run approx. 85'. Located: 8869 Oregon Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#83-1-33 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? JIM FITZGERALD: This as you know is next to the property to the west for which you issued a permit at the last meeting subject to the submission of Before photographs'and it will connect directly with that bulkhead. To the east it will connect or be built around the large boulder at that particular location depending upon the ingenuity of the bulkhead builder. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? We had a huge problem with this. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This is bad news. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The bluff is completely destabilized. The destabilization seems to be taking place from the top of the bluff. Has the applicant ever received a violation on this? JIM FITZGERALD: I don't know whether they actually got the violation. We talked about the problem on the property to the west, Bigane, and we talked about putting swales in and so forth and that has been done. Unfortunately, as I understand it, it was not done until after the two recent heavy rain storms, but it's done now. They are hay bales along the area between the swales and the bluff. An interesting point is, if you've been down there you know, that the most 22 significant blow-out is on the property to the east of this property, which is the one which is vegetated at the top of the bluff, the area where all of the grass is. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's because all the water ran from next door over there and then blew the top out, because they de-vegetated the whole thing. JIM FITZGERALD: Anyhow, the material ran down, ran over the top of the bulkhead and onto the beach, as you saw. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was a huge mess. I'm looking for something in Coastal Erosion here. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would suggest Tabling this until next month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In Coastal Erosion, it specifically states that the following activities are prohibited on bluffs: Section 37-17-5 says soil disturbance, that directs surface water run-off over a bluff face...and that is what has happened here. Because, clearing was done at the top and the water was directed over the face. From the looks of what was done there, it's not adequate to prevent that from happening again. After those two big rainfalls, we haven't had a significant rainfall. I think what we need is an actual planting plan and grading plan that's going to show, I think what we need to see is the area actually replanted and regraded to the specifications of the Natural Resource Conservation Service to ensure us that this is 37-17-5 soil disturbance can't direct surface run-off over the bluff face. And then, I think we can consider this application because to see...did you go to the beach? JIM FITZGERALD: Yes. I don't agree with Artie that the blow-out on the property to the east is a result of run-off from this property but there was a lot of damage in that whole area and there is no doubt that much of it is due to the run-off from this property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's my suggestion anyway. JIM FITZGERALD: Are you saying that we may perform the activity of replanting this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE KING: All of the top soil is down on the beach now. Who is going to take care of that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The fine material that has washed down the beach isn't consistent with the heavier material, the larger grain size beach itself, so that the fine material is going to wash out sediment into the Sound and silt up shellfish areas. I think you have to contact the Natural Resource Conservation Service and have them approval a plan for the top of the bluff, that's not going to direct the water onto the neighbor's property, which aggravates their situation, and also onto the Sound bluff and have that replanted, and then, how do you want to remediate the beach? TRUSTEE KING: I don't know what to do with it? JIM FITZGERALD: If there were a bulkhead there, we could put it behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How can we direct them to remediate the problem right now? Artie, you move dirt around. Do you think they should just push it back? Right now it's in the inter-tidal area. 23 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I guess you could push it back but I don't know how long it's going to stay there. The next high storm tide would pull it right down again. JOE EDGAR: May I make a suggestion? Take and perhaps pump the material into a Geo-Tube temporarily at the toe of the bluff and take any excess and put it up behind the Geo-Tube. Re-establish the bluff, re-vegetate it and at a time where you feel it's stable enough, remove the Geo-Tube. What's the elevation of the bluff? JIM FITZGERALD: 35' JOE EDGAR: You could pump the material back up too if you have a way to contain it up top. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Pump it with what? JOE EDGAR: Mobile dredge booster pump. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's 90% water, 10% sediment. JOE EDGAR: No, you can push a 20% mix. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And then what do you do with the 80% of water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'd have a problem at the top. TRUSTEE KING: You have a problem up there now and that would make it worse. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that we'll go with the re-vegetation and re-grading plan—at the top and I'll move to Table the application until we get the top stabilized. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 16.Latham Sand & Gravel & Susan E. Long Permits on behalf of WILLIAM GORDON requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'X 65' catwalk, 3'X 14' ramp, 6'X 20' float with two 2-pile dolphins. Located: 2875 Wells Rd., Peconic. SCTM#86-2-3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? TERRY LATHAM: You spoke with Mr. Gordon about moving the dock over? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TERRY LATHAM: We moved it over 8', shortened it 10'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we wanted, isn't it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You can't ask for anything more than that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to comment on the application? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion that we Approve the revised plans, for the relocation of the dock and that the end of the float extend no further seaward than the end of the two adjacent floats. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 17.Latham Sand & Gravel on behalf of JACQUELINE M.OELLER requests a Wetland Permit for the pre-existing 45' west jetty and 125 east jetty maintained beach level to maintain bulkhead and prevent loss of upland property. Jetties washed away during storm wind and waves. Two low-profile jetties 2.5'X 45' and 24 75' will aid to maintain beach level and prevent property loss of subject property. Located: 4305 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#68-1-17.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? TERRY LATHAM: I can answer any questions you may have: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? GREG YAKABOSKI: I'm speaking on behalf of the Town of Southold. The last time I spoke last month, I do represent the Trustees and I'm representing them now and not giving them advice because I am representing the Town Board. This was Tabled last time based on a request to see if the owner of the property had given permission. I believe there is no such letter in the file. I request that this hearing be adjourned until ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand...it was Tabled because... GREG YAKABOSKI: The owner of property, where this structure is being placed, is the State of New York. The Officer of General Services is the one that governs the property. I don't believe, in the file, that there is such authorization from the owner. As in any other application, you need authorization of the owner of the property involved. I don't believe that exists in this case. At the time of the last Board meeting, the Board did Table this, I believe, pending such approval. I don't believe at this time, approval has been obtained. I think it would be prudent to have that initial threshold crossed, or taken care of. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do have a fax from Mr. Pendergrass stating that the Department of State has been advised that the Southold Trustees may be considering local permits for construction of groins in waters of Long Island Sound. The Trustees should be aware that such construction would require permits from the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers, the NYSDEC, the Trustees should provide the project application with this information so that they are fully informed as well. Please feel free to contact me directly at the phone number below if you have any questions on these matters. I think you representing the applicant, Mr. Latham, please be advised that construction of these groins would require permits from the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers and as well as from the NYSDEC. So we've advised the applicant. GREG YAKABOSKI: That letter, I don't believe, addresses the fact that the Office of General Services, that letter does not speak on behalf of the Office of General Services. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why wouldn't they comment? GREG YAKABOSKI: I don't know if the applicant has made application to the Office of General Services. I don't believe it's a permit, I believe it's permission. TRUSTEE KRUPKKI: But if the request was made, what would prevent them from approving or denying it. GREG YAKABOSKI: That's up to the property owner. It's just like any other property owner making a decision. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But what does that have to do with us? GREG YAKABOSKI: [believe both Chapter 97 and the Coastal Erosion chapter speak about the owner making application. I don't believe...if you allow the permit to go forward at this point, you'd be addressing an application on a piece 25 of property, which the applicant does not own. I don't believe the Board, unless it's in their past practice would normally entertain such an application unless the applicant was listed as an agent and had written permission of the owner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Was there ever permission from the owner, because the structure existed. They are just replacing what was there to prevent loss of what is theirs. GREG YAKABOSKI: I believe if the Board went out there right now, there are no such structures. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They were there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When the application was made, the Board did see the structures there and one was partially functional, on the initial application. If we act on this, there is nothing from stopping the State from acting independently on this. GREG YAKABOSKI: Is the Board going to move forward on an application for property where the owner has not given its' permission? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm trying to find where it says that in the Code. GREG YAKABOSKI: Stepping back from the Code just for a second, would the Board entertain an application for a property to do construction where the owner has not stepped forward, without written consent. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well we do it all the time. Consultants come in here with applications and we approve them. GREG YAKABOSKI: Who are the approved agents, correct. That's a different situation, that's an approved agent of the owner. There is no approved agent of the owner here tonight. I don't believe there is any approved agent or even an agent of the owner on file with the Trustees. Therefore the application apparently is not complete. Respectfully, the applicant can write to the office of General Services and seek permission. That would solve this issue. TRUSTEE KING: I have a problem with something that has been there. Why didn't the owner ask to have it removed a long time ago if it's on his property without his permission? GREG YAKABOSKI: I can't speak for the owner. I can tell you at the moment, that at the time of this application,-there is no structure apparently there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was at the time of application. GREG YAKABOSKI: They applied for groins at the time or they applied to have the retaining wall on the west side repaired and then that was amended without notice. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess we would have to determine when the groins actually disappeared. GREG YAKABOSKI: You have to determine when it's a valid application. It goes back to whether or not there's permission of the owner. Respectfully, I believe it's a cut and dry issue for this Board. For the Board to spend significant time and resources, when you don't have a complete application, or you don't have the owner on board, it might not be a prudent use of time. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What did the CAC recommend? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC did not make an inspection. 97-21 Section A, In all cases where the applicant is not the owner of the premises which such Y 26 operations are proposed to be conducted, the consent of the owner duly acknowledged must be attached to said application. Is there anyone here who is ready to speak for the State? Is there any question that this proposal is on State land? TERRY LATHAM: It extends on State land,,yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under the Code the applicant has to get permission of the land owner in order to pursue the application. Do you want to Table this application? GREG YAKABOSKI: If it's Tabled, does that mean it automatically comes back next time? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Automatically. TRUSTEE KING: We should send a letter to the State and recommend that they remove all of these things off of their property that they don't want on their property. There is an aluminum groin to the east that's tremendous. That would be my recommendation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 18.En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ERIKA SWIMMER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling; sanitary system with retaining wall; pervious driveway; and connect to public water service. Approx. 250 cy. of clean sand fill will be trucked in to raise grades. Located: 850 Orchard Lane, Southold. SCTM#90-4-12 POSTPONED UNTIL MAY AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST 19.En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DOROTHY ABBOTT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 58' westerly extension of an existing rock revetment and a 15' westerly return. Backfill with approx. 25 cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source and planted with Cape American beach grass (12" on center). Proposed revetment extension, including return, will consist of 3-5 ton quarry capstone and 50-100 lb. core stone to be underlain with Carthage 6% filter cloth. Located: 1995 Ryder Farm Lane, Orient. SCTM#15-3-1.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? ROB HERRMANN: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. This structure also fronts Long Island Sound but is on the homeowner's property. It is a pretty straight forward application. It's a proposed extension of a revetment that was previously approved by this Board as well as the NYSDEC. As the Board could probably see from the site, the bluff between the house and the existing revetment has become fairly well stabilized whereas there is continued landward transgression of the bluff in the westerly portion of the property where this extension is proposed. If the Board has any questions regarding this proposal, I'd be happy to address them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to address the Board on this application? Does the Board have any comments? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? 27 TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 20.En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of THOMAS ESCHMANN requests a Wetland Permit.to replace (within 18") approx. 86.5' of existing timber bulkhead with an 86.5' vinyl bulkhead and remove and replace (in-place) an existing 34' timber return with a 34' vinyl return. Approx. 50 cy. clean sand backfill will be trucked in from an upland source and planted with Cape American beach grass (12" on center). Located: 495 Mesrobian Drive, Laurel. SCTM#145-4-10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: This is also a pretty straight-forward application. The timber bulkhead, as is typically the case here, this would be the one-time we would step out of the bulkhead. The bulkhead would still be located landward of the adjoining bulkhead to the east. The only difference between the structure that is there is that we would be replacing CCA timber structure with a vinyl structure as indicated on the plan. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I looked at this and I didn't really see any problem with it. The bulkhead itself appeared to be in good shape. I don't know why they want to replace it? But, other than my personal comment, I didn't see anything wrong with it. If they bumped that out 18", it's going to be right in line with the bulkhead to the east and everything will be in one line. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application for replacing his bulkhead, bringing in sand, planting American beachgrass. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seconded. ALL AYES 21.Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of WILLIAM F. TYREE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 178' catwalk with a 12' "T". Structure shall be constructed 4' above grade of marsh for the purpose of kayak launching. Located: 2280 Moore's Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#116-1-8.3 POSTPONED UNTIL MAY AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST 22.Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of GERALD RAFFERTY requests a Wetland Permit for the placement of spoil (from SCDPW dredge of Little Creek or oth.er); Geotube for retention of sand and plant with Cape American Beach Grass 18" on center, and Rosa Regosa 5' on center. Relocate away from wetland existing float, ramp and piles approx. 75' west (inside private boat basin). Located: 9205 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-3-16.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? PAT MOORE: I also have Joe Edgar who is the contractor with respect to the installation of the Geotube and he will go over some of the details of the - , 28 Geotube. What I wanted to get on the record is some of these pictures and things just so you have an idea... and Mr. & Mrs. Rafferty are here and Mr. Rafferty reminded me that the problem here with respect to the sand and the loss of sand on that property, begins in 1985 when Mrs. Swanson, Mr. Rafferty's previous owner, had agreed with the County, and this is the division of waterways, that they wanted permission to dredge that canal and have continued...In 1985 the County asked for permission to cross the property and to be able to dredge what's been going on continuously now for, annual dredging, maintenance dredging, every year. I have a letter here that I want to put in your file that says that, asking Mrs. Swanson's permission to use the Rafferty/Swanson property for access for the equipment as a staging area and part of the agreement with the easement that was to be provided, was going to be the placement of the spoils so that there would be, the recognition was that the County when it's dredging, affects the adjacent beach area. In order to maintain the levels of sand, they have a certain responsibility to relocate and place the sand on the adjacent property. Well that was the agreement but the reality there has been no sand placed there and what has been the result is what we give to you, the different surveys that we provided to show the increase and reduction of sand and the incretion, well incretion is not the right term, it's the loss of the beach, in that the sand has not been used to re-nourish that beach area. I have that letter for you. Mr. Lynch has been there forever and he's very cooperative. He's not the problem. But, he says that he wants to know that the Town and the DEC have given permission for the sand. I don't think anybody has that original DEC permit that is for the dredging. I think if they were to look at that original permit, they might find that it's already provided for where placing of.the sand might go, including the Rafferty property. But, nobody has been able to find that original permit. Based on that letter it would seem that this property was the logical site where the sand would be placed, among other places. It's been going to the Town beach and other areas. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you're looking at two different issues. Stabilization of the property is one, and we talked on the phone about moving the dock being a separate issue, stabilization of the property being one, but as far as getting the County sand, I don't know if this Board is inclined to ask the County to direct them from re-nourishing public beaches for a private beach. PAT MOORE: No, I know what you're saying but that's not the case. There is a great deal of sand that is taken out of this area. I think first and foremost, there has to be a protection to.the adjacent property owner. That they recognize. The trucks that are going on there, the staging area, there is activity that is occurring on the Rafferty property. Based on that letter, the agreement that was made with Swanson, and the easement that was granted to the County to allow for the access to that canal to the creek, was that there was going to be sand placed there, among other places, that was not going to be the exclusive site of the dredge spoil but it was going to be, hey we recognize that when you dredge the adjacent area is affected, and if you don't re-nourish it, what has occurred today,. what we're facing today, is precisely in what in 1985 they recognized and that's 29 why they would place the sand on the beach. Unless the owner objects obviously, they are not going to do something without the consent of the owner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it doesn't say that. PAT MOORE: It does say that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It only says that permission must be obtained from each property owner to place sand. It doesn't say that they are losing sand or anything. This is simply an. easement. PAT MOORE: No, but that's the fact. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it doesn't say that though. I didn't anticipate this. I thought we were just going to do the stabilization thing. PAT MOORE: Let me give you some history here. Back in 1985 when they started the dredging... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, they started the dredging 20 years earlier. PAT MOORE: I'm sorry you're right. I stand corrected. But in 1985 when they sent that letter saying that they need easy access to get to the dredging site, we'll put some sand on your property,just give us an easement, unless you object. That letter says that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They don't actually say it's an easement for access. It's just an easement to dump the sand. It's not an easement for access. PAT MOORE: It's an easement for access, that's how I read it. How else are you going to go onto private property to dredge. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we're talking about something that neither or us can affect, is how the County operates. PAT MOORE: I understand that but when Lynch says that he wants to see the Trustees...he doesn't want to do anything that is going to obviously result in either a penalty or just ill will between the Trustees and the County. They want to know that the Trustees have no objection to having the sand placed on that property. He's not aware of the history prior to his date but if he goes back in his records, he'll see that letter. I don't think there's an easement of record. You and I would look at an easement and say give us continuous access, it's an easement to allow for access. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't say that though. GERRY RAFFERTY: If I may address the Board, My name is Gerry Rafferty. Actually this is a renewal. This is a 10 year permit that we signed as a renewal in 1995, and I don't have that with me tonight, and it will be up again in the year 2005, and the same conditions that were put on the one in 1985 is contained in ours. So, it was giving them permission to put the pipes on our property, to run their equipment there and also if we agreed, to have some of the spoils placed to re-nourish the beach if we needed it. PAT MOORE: Onto some other issues, we wanted to show you... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But seriously, just to finish that up, I don't know, honestly, I don't know if we would want to direct the County to deprive the public beach of sand through, for a private beach. GERRY RAFFERTY: Well I could, most of the sand does go to the public beach. They stopped putting sand because there was too much sand, so then they put it to the beach north of us where the wetlands are. Then, I think they were told not 30 to do that because it could effect the wetlands. Last year they pumped it out into the Bay, which I understand from the DEC is illegal. So, they are putting it everywhere but where it's most needed, which is on my property and the property adjacent to us going towards the public beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually the beach to the north of you, years ago we requested that the spoil be put there. Originally it was owned by the commoners, now it's owned by the Trustees, that beach was getting eroded, so we requested, now that it's a public beach, that they put the spoil on that beach to re-nourish it, every second year. PAT MOORE: Mrs. Ball's property? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the Trustee property, across the creek. It's a public beach and we want that re-nourished. We want to maintain the dune line there that protects the marsh. GERRY RAFFERTY: But where did the sand go last year? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That I have no idea. GERRY RAFFERTY: Well I can tell you. We saw the pipes right out into the Bay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not disputing that. GERRY RAFFERTY: That's senseless when all we have is this erosion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll call Ed Lynch tomorrow and see what's going on. JOE EDGAR: Often times the County will elect not to place material in close proximity to the dredge for fear of eroding directly back into the area they are dredging. This Geotube proposal and the spoil site behind it would enable the County the option of placing amounts of material that would be suitable to re- nourish his property annually. They would have no fear of pumping into a containment area such as a Geotube. PAT MOORE: Do you want to talk about the Geotube now? JOE EDGAR: If you have any questions about what their functions are, they are basically sand-filled containers. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, what's it made out of? JOE EDGAR: Polyester or polypropoline. The one's for erosion control are generally polyester. They come in 30' circumferences, 45', 60', 30' is the most common which is a 10' diameter steer and it generally fills to an elevation of approximately 5' to 6' in height, 11' to 12' in width. They are manufactured in lengths up to 1000'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How do you fill it? JOE EDGAR: With a pump. There are various methods of pumping. Either a light dredge.manual or hand-held submersible pumps. TRUSTEE KRUPSK: I mean the water has to get out. What's the size of the ... JOE EDGAR: The size varies depending on the region. Generally what we do is sample the particular sand in a given area and the manufacture of material suitable for that area. It allows water to bleed out at a regular 6 gallons per square foot but it retains sand particles up to a 200 seed size, which is fairly fine material. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What happens if it cracks. JOE EDGAR: If the bag cracks during the filling, or after the filling? 31 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Either. JOE EDGAR: During the filling, it takes a little bit of skill and understanding to maintain an eternal pressure that's not going to burst the bag. Generally, any contractor with experience in filling, will not burst them. If you had some type of water debris impact it during a storm event and it ripped, usually the angle of repose from the sand leaking out will seal that tear which can then be re-stitched, repaired and re-filled. TRUSTEE KRUPSK: How many of these Geotubes have you filled? JOE EDGAR: Over 10,000' of Geo textile material. I've worked with the Army Corp. of Engineer, several projects on the south shore... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the ocean? JOE EDGAR: Yes, on the ocean, all of which by the way are functioning without problem and have remain covered. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've been in contact with the...have you done any in Southampton? JOE EDGAR: We did the Goldberg's which was a temporary Geotube that the owner refused to remove, and he's in litigation with the DEC, and I did two erosion control projects, one in Bridgehampton, and one in Quogue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: May be you could direct us over there and we could go and take a look at those. JOE EDGAR: The one in Quogue and Bridgehampton were fairly large, 20 tier systems. I have photographs and pictures of the project. It wouldn't be a problem to enter the one property and they could show you that it, to this day, is just a covered mound with beach grass and well vegetated. You're not going to see any of the product, only the pictures during the course of.construction. The other client will not entertain anyone going on his property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you give that information to Lauren, with the address? JOE EDGAR: Sure. I can also give you case histories dating back to 1962 with the Army Corp. of Engineers. Current projects that I have done, the most recent one in New Jersey, which was 3000' of Geotube... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it would be better to go to Quogue. JOE EDGAR: Well just so you could see pictures of the different uses. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's good to see it. This is unusual, and I told Pat last month when she came in, we said, we'll entertain it. We're not just going to say no, let's forget this. We'd like to take a look at it. JOE EDGAR: All your going to see if the sand over the tube. It's been covered and remains covered since the installation. We can provide documentation and pictures of the installation process. PAT MOORE: Would you want to meet at the property at the next field inspection? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's the next thing. The project will have to be staked and then you should meet us out there so we can get an idea... PAT MOORE: Do you want actual staking there or would you rather just, when we're there, we can put some kind of physical monument there. 32 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Staking there, definitely, and not only to delineate the extend of it, but also the elevation, the proposed final elevation. JOE EDGAR: The survey, Bob Fox gives us a pretty detailed indication of where it might be. These also will promote germination. We talked about plantings. Root structures will permeate and penetrate the material in time. The can be quite successful. I will mention that the DEC, any time they permit these Geotubes, they always attach conditions, unique to each project. If at any way it fails, or it doesn't meet the criteria of the permit, it be removed. To date, we've never had a removal. It is an enforceable condition that the DEC will exercise. I think really there is no risk to the Town or the neighbors based on the conditions you will see with the DEC permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we're concerned about the integrity of the creek. That's our concern, and how it could possibly affect the creek itself. The creek itself now is filled in yearly and it has to be dredged out yearly. JOE EDGAR: Do you have any idea where most of the material that's filling the creek it originates from? Is it right from the immediate beach area? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh sure, it's a very small channel, so it doesn't take much material to fill it in. JOE EDGAR: I would think that any type of retention device to hold back... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well no, not from the upland. I mean you're talking about upland there. Those are our concerns. You'd almost look at this as a hardened structure, and so our concerns are going to be, is this going to ever be in the inter-tidal area during a storm event and how is it going to affect the flow of the water, in that case. JOE EDGAR: There has been questions, and the DEC addressed this at one time, as to whether or not this is a hardened structure, and they deemed it to be a soft structure. For one thing, the installation is on a continual curve. The ends are tapered in at a termination point and the fact that the bags are round themselves, and they are actually soft to some degree, they take wave energy different than a standard or conventional bulkhead. It's an omni directional dissipation of wave energy that occurs. They often rebuild during the normal excretion cycles that you'll see on the south shore. Tubes that exposed under wave impact, have recovered without any artificial dumping of material or additive sand. And again, that stuff you can see through documentation, which we'll get to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll take a look at it May 16th. Depending on our agenda, I would say early afternoon. JOE EDGAR: Would you like to see Quogue? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll have to make an independent trip over there. I don't think we'll go as a group. JOE EDGAR: Ok, because I'd have to notify the client. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Unless two of us drive over there together. JOE EDGAR: I have access to the property but if we could establish a time and whether the client is there or not, I can bring you in and take a look. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, we'll set that up through our office. 33 PAT MOORE: The other issue we might be able to resolve this evening is the relocation of the existing dock to get it away from the wetlands, make it more navigatible because of the filling that occurred there. Mr. & Mrs. Rafferty gave me pictures that if you want to put it in your file that show you...she gave me two pictures. One is...this is right after the 100 year storm. It shows the little building and how it was exposed at that time. Since then, you've seen when you went out to the property, here are the steps. The steps are now about 2' or 3' above the sand, the grade of the sand. That's how much loss we've experienced in the short time since the storm of the century. This is the inside of the channel which again shows the conditions at that same time, and when you went out there this month, you saw how it was pretty much filled in. So, we're experiencing extreme. filling in of the boat basin. For now, I think the relocation of the dock will just protect their ability to continue to use that boat basin. Once we've stabilized the area, then I think I can express the desire would be to possibly put the two docks together and eventually make one larger dock, so we would eliminate the two and turn it into one. That might be a future goal, but that's after they've stabilized this area, because right now, to do anything other than move over the one dock, it just doesn't make sense. We're going to continue to have that problem of the change in the sand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Given time, that's the old channel, given time it wants to open up to what it was. PAT MOORE: That is true yes. The old channel is coming back, which is fine for the Raffertys because it's going to create a channel right in front of their house, but not good for the community because you've got Little Creek that there has been long term efforts to keep it navitatible. I don't see the policies of the Town changing to allow the natural course of waters to change back to what they were in the 30's, 40's. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually old elevations would be helpful in establishing an elevation around the little but there. PAT MOORE: We have it here on the cross-section. We'll I don't know if I have it. We'll look around but I don't think Bob Fox did an elevation. I think he did it by way of the loss of beach. I think, visually, you could see the loss that was occurring elevation wise, that the poles just from the inspection, you can see where the sand lines were and how they come down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's why it's important on field inspection to note the elevation of the proposal. PAT MOORE: I'll see if I can get that from Bob Fox. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So does anyone has an objection to Approving the relocation of the dock tonight? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't have a problem with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'll have to reapply for the larger project. PAT MOORE: Yeah, but as I said, once we stabilize the area, then it makes sense to consider... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No I mean reapply for the stabilization project. PAT MOORE: You mean you want us to do it as a separate application for next time around? 34 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah because they are completely different...does the little dock have a permit? GERRY RAFFERTY: Well these have been in there for 40 years so I doubt they have a permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well why don't we consider this as a separate permit for the two docks. You should look to see if there is a permit. PAT MOORE: I checked the Town records. There is nothing in Town records. If you find something, certainly let me know. I don't think you have any records in your possession. GERRY RAFFERTY: Janet Swanson bought the house in 1972 and those docks were in there before her. The dredging of the channel took place somewhere around 1968. So at some time right around there, the docks were installed because that's when that channel was created. (changed tape) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't have Title but we still have jurisdiction under the wetland code. PAT MOORE: We are willing to come in with a larger proposal but I think it would be silly to start over with the DEC. That's why we suggest just a relocation because that is something that is before the DEC already. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: May be you should consider that, making one structure instead then. Because if you have to remove one, and build a completely new one... PAT MOORE: But we have an existing summer season that we have a dock there presently, we have two existing docks already in the water right now. I see all of this happening once the DEC finishes up their review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For some reason I assumed there were permits for the docks. PAT MOORE: They pre-date the Board's jurisdiction. So, they are pre-existing. They have their grandfather. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What did the Town Attorney say, 1959? PAT MOORE: No, the Town didn't have jurisdiction over docks until the Trustee's issued it in 1984; 1987? When did the ordinance come into affect? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee's issued permits for docks much earlier than that? PAT MOORE: Trustee's issued permits for docks? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, I want to say 1959. 1 want to check on that. If you have to apply for DEC, holding off on this for a month is not going to slow you up or anything. If you can have them grandfathered, I don't think we have a problem. If you can't, then I think maybe you should, if you're thinking about merging the two docks into one, it might be a good time to do it, if you have to move one anyway. PAT MOORE: Or just keep everything the way it is for now and do it when ...my sense is, the recommendation we've gotten so far is, don't relocate, don't make one larger dock that when we're continually filling in the boat basin. It makes sense to stabilize the boat basin. It makes sense to stabilize the boat basin. Then, it makes sense to consider what you're doing with the docks. The relocation of the docks is just to make it useful and functional for this season, but ' 35 the long term project would be to coming back to you. If you want to put us on a time frame, that's fine. We would be happy to come back within a certain time period of two years or whatever. It's really up to you guys how long for the Geotube project and for us to stabilize the area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it would be kind of unfair to let you spend the money to move something and then say "no you can't have it". That wouldn't be right. I think I'll make a motion to Table it all then and we'll take a look. The month certainly isn't going to, if your applying to the DEC, shouldn't be a...are you applying to the DEC for everything together. PAT MOORE: That's the only way the DEC allows it. We tried to do it as separate projects and they don't allow for it. Because it's a coordinated review, their feeling of what a coordinated review is, the whole project is to. be reviewed as one project. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll check on the grandfather permit possibility on these docks also. PAT MOORE: I'll check the records again. I seem to recall that was the first place I started when I started this project two years ago. I'll.look again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I seem to recall permits for these for some reason, but you have to find them. I'm not saying that they are there. You have to do the homework though and see if they exist. I could be thinking of something else. But, it's an unusual situation with two docks and that's why it sticks in our mind. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 23.J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of YVETTE LANG EINCZIG requests a Wetland Permit to remove a 5 W X 28' fixed dock and to construct a 4'X 56' extension with a 6'X 10' "L" at it's seaward end. Located: 3055 Wells Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-4-11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to represent the applicant? GLENN JUST: I'm here for the applicant. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The existing dock is 55' to the bulkhead. We couldn't any reason for lengthening it out into the creek. GLENN JUST: There is 15" of water there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is the one that wants to go across that flat. You have.to go out there on low-tide and take a walk. In front of that little patch of marsh, are you familiar with that patch of marsh? There is one little spot of marsh. There is actually a shallow spot. You could walk to an offshore flat which comes back around to the south in front of that property. If you extend out 56' you're probably going to end up with less water..Actually you'll be right smack in the middle. GLENN JUST: I was out there at low-tide and I had 4'. 1 put my waders on and walked out 28' out past, where we want to extend the dock at, 4' of water, and it was dropping off real fast. If you walked out another 10' maybe 8', it would come right back up to probably 2'. 36 GLENN JUST: See, when I'm walking out there to get the magic DEC number, when I hit the magic number, I stop. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I said maybe a 10' extension which would make sense because the boat would be sitting in the deep spot. GLENN JUST: Did you see the measurements I had there? I had 20" about 10' out that went to 44" and then 48". It's on the drawing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right, it is 4' in that little dip there, but then there's a flat that comes right up and I walked out and it's only knee deep if that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're looking at about 30 more feet of dock. GLENN JUST: We're asking for 28'. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It would probably put the end of the dock right in the middle of the deep part. You would have maybe 6' and you would be sitting on the flat. GLENN JUST: I didn't even bother walking out. Once I got 4' 1 stopped. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It would be much more reasonable to only extend it another 10' if that. Have the boat sitting in deep water and be able to maneuver it and to go the south, which is where the channel runs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's got it pegged. If you scale it out, the dock goes to 20" of water and the boat sits at 44". GLENN JUST: Which is exactly what I show.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What you show, the dock goes through the deep water. Here is you're existing dock length. If you go another 10', 20" of water, where does your boat sit? If you have 44" here, that's enough for a boat. We'll give you 10' more and you can put the boat on the outside. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: When he goes to maneuver the boat, he's going to hit that offshore flat. Even if you have a simple 16' boat you're not going to be able to make a spin off of that dock. You're going to hit the flat. There is a channel that runs to the south and then you get to the main channel. You can't go north from that position. GLENN JUST: I don't'want to drag this out and make this anymore painful for any of us but unfortunately I'm here by myself tonight and the applicant is in California. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that makes sense. If-you want, we can approve that and they get 44" at the end of the dock for the boat, that's not bad. GLENN JUST: I agree with you. If it was my dock I would say Ok now, but I'd like to be able to ask the applicant. I did research the file and I had an old Permit #515 issued on August of 1968. All it says is to install a dock, float and one pile. They don't note the distances. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok we'll Table it then. GLENN JUST: If you don't mind. I don't want to do it myself. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me just make a note that we suggested all of that so that next month we'll know what happened. GLENN JUST: You'll have to have a new drawing anyway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES ` 37 24.J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of STEVE POWERS requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing catwalk and piles that had secured float and ramp assembly, ramp and float had drifted away. To reconstruct a 4'X 103' catwalk, a 4'X 16' ramp and 6'X 20' float in a "T" formation to be secured by (2) 8" piles. Located: 220 Park Ave. Extension, Mattituck. SCTM#123-8-26.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comments? GLENN JUST: Back in 1993 the prior owner of the property had received a Grandfather authorization from the Board, to construct a 4'X 126' catwalk, a 4'X 12' ramp and a 6 Y2' X 20' float. This would be just a little shorter than that. TRUSTEE KING: They are all jammed in there pretty tight. GLENN JUST: I think one is in worse condition than the next. Maybe we can get Jim McMahon to get you some grant money to fix the run-off into Deep Hole Creek. The day I was there it looked like Hershey Syrup, both on the incoming and the outgoing water, right off of New Suffolk Ave. Nothing against Mr. Sidor, but there is some run-off there. Why doesn't the Town buy a quarter-acre and put a sump in there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good question. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I want to do. GLENN JUST: There must have been 200-300 gallons a minute. There are guys claming in there everyday. TRUSTEE KING: Who owns all of this wetland here. Does this belong to these people? Who owns that? GLENN JUST: The tie line shows that it goes down to about just where the dock ends. But that's at mean high water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think they own across the dirt road a little bit. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: .Does that dock keep them in line? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, pretty much so. It's just a maze of catwalks in that whole area. Do they have to run it right out into the road? GLENN JUST: No, they actually were told to remove it at one time. It used to run out into the road. The proposed will start just where it is now. TRUSTEE KING: Ok, because it shows it right at the road. GLENN JUST: Again, that was taken out. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with it. I'd like to keep it light. 6" poles maybe. GLENN JUST: That can be easily done. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe you can hand-dig the holes so there is less disturbance. We've had some of these guys go in there and I mean they pump this stuff in there... GLENN JUST: We're talking about a couple of reputable dock builders. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Hand-dug poles on the catwalk though. No bulldozer. There was one instance where somebody put a bulldozer through and bulldozers don't hold well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. 38 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with 6" poles and hand-dig through the marsh. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 25.Costello Marine Contracting, Inc. on behalf of RICARDO RENGIFO requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing 4'X 46` existing dock, inkind/inplace and continuing with a new 32"X 16' ramp leading to a new 6'X 20' float secured with a 2-pile dolphin and two single piles. Installing two single mooring piles adding 24 new piles to face of existing bulkhead and reconstruct 30' existing jetty in-place with C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Located: 1875 Shore Rd., Greenport. SCTM#47-2-32 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm the agent for the applicant. One of the purposes of this job is to try to get a little more water. At the end of this dock, several times in the moon phases, there's about a foot, or a foot and a half of water. They tried an offshore pulley and a stake one time, and the ice took it out the first year. They would like to just put a seasonal float in and be able to access it. They are 70 years old. That's the purpose of it. The bulkhead was probably built in the early 60's by Ralph T. Preston. He wants to resheath it and re-enforce the bulkhead. The existing jetty is there and is creosoted and we would like to take it out and put a C-loc in, something that's going to have more life. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you inspect the site? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes I did. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see why there's a shortage of water. They seem to be discharging water from both points. JOHN COSTELLO: Discharging water? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are three separate pipes coming out of the bulkhead. JOHN COSTELLO: Let me tell you, that whole property, that whole stretch of beach, we drilled holes in the wood, in the bulkhead, after several of those bulkheads collapsed in the 1960's because of the clay and the backfilled material. It trapped the water and it collapsed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How does that fit in with discharging...so those pipes are just coming out of the ground? JOHN COSTELLO: It's rain water. There are no swimming pools, I don't know anybody who has a swimming pool. We had to drill holes through the sheathing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are all kinds of pipes shooting out of there. What about that bulkhead on the west side of the property? When was that built? That's looks awfully new. JOHN COSTELLO: I have no idea. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we're going to find out before we act on this application because there's an awful lot going on down there. The Bay Constable is going to pay a visit and we're going to find out when that bulkhead was built, we're going to find out where.the pipes go, and then we'll act on the application. JOHN COSTELLO: Then you'll act on it? 39 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. You can tell the applicant that we're going to Table this application until we find out the story and if you don't know, the Bay Constable will find out. JOHN COSTELLO: I have no idea. Find out and let me know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'll know, because then we'll proceed with the application. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 26.Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ROBERT & RITA WIECZOREK requests a Wetland Permit to dredge approx. 30'X 15' at existing dock (15 cy.) and dredge area approx. 50'X 26' at channel entrance (40 cy.). Located: 835 Tarpon Dr., Southold.. SCTM#53-5-8 & 57-1-39.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm the agent for Mr. & Mrs. Wieczorek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I've got a question for, I guess the applicant. It shows here that the water depth of about 4' by the float. What I don't understand is that we granted a dock permit last year and the water depths, on last years permit shows 6'2,6'8 by the float. JOHN COSTELLO: Just off shore of that there is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's not what it shows. I don't' see how there could be such a big difference in a year, or less than a year. JOHN COSTELLO: Well let me tell you, first of all, I was (can't understand) for the first 5' or 6' and then driven and there's a lot of siltation in it. The tides are just taken certain times of the year, certain times of the moon phases. They vary considerably. Do you know what tides vary around here? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 2'. JOHN COSTELLO: Yes sir. His boat is hitting bottom and that whole creek, as you well know, is a man-made, it was basically closed at one time, opened up, and it's clay. It's approx. 70' of clay underneath there before you run through the clay. We took those test borings when they rebuilt the bridge going into Mill Creek. When they did, you're going to find out, when they did dredge that place, they used it for a brick factory. It varies considerably. The last dredging, that was done in the area was done by Melrose Marine and it is clay. The Town landfill was where they took the last of it. The Town landfill said that they would take this material. There are two spots that he hits, when the tide is below normal, he would like to correct that problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You see, the measurements vary an awful lot through. It's not like it's an inch or two. It's 2' on the soundings. It's more than 2'. It's 2'6" and it's 10' on the dock. The measurements are really variable out there. JOHN COSTELLO: Do you want to go measure with me? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we measured the dock without you and the permit for the dock, which says a 6'X 20' float, has actually turned into a 6'X 30' float. JOHN COSTELLO: I didn't measure the dock this time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we measured it. And, I'm not saying that you installed it. I'm just saying that we measured it. Mr. Wieczorek is in violation with 40 the float and we belabored this point with him last year on and on and on. He chose to install a 6'X 30' float. Maybe he didn't. Maybe somebody came at night and switched it on him. I don't know what happened. But, he's got a violation on the float and until we get the violation on the float cleared up, and some consistent soundings, I think we'll have to Table this application. JOHN COSTELLO: Who will do the soundings, and when. I'll go with them. Every day of the month is a different tide. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well once we get the violation cleared up, I guess then we can talk about who is going to do the soundings. I think anybody can measure the dock. JOHN COSTELLO: Ok, so how is he going to get the violation so he can get it corrected? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well he's going to get a visit from the Bay Constable and then he can go through the violation system. I'll make a motion to Table the application until the violation is satisfied. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 27.Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of CHRISTOPHER FINAZZO requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 118' of bulkhead (with T&G sheathing) (18" face-to-face) in front of existing and built.18" higher to match neighbor's bulkhead. Backfilling behind new bulkhead with 120 cy. of clean, trucked-in sand. Located: 20675 Sound View Ave., Southold. SCTM#51-4-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: Any questions? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is a one-time hop. JOHN COSTELLO: If you remove the other bulkhead, you'd have some major erosion on the cliff, much more than it is now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 28.Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of SCHEMBRI HOMES, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct 31'X 56' single family dwelling with pervious driveway, on-site sewage disposal system, public water, drywells to contain roof run-off. Located: Albacore Drive, Southold. SCTM#56-7-13 POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST 29.Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of BEIXEDON DREDGING ASSN. & JOHN J. NICKLES requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge approx. 300 cy. of shoaled material from the inlet to Petty's Pond to a depth of 5 feet below mean low water at 1:3 slopes, over an irregularly shaped area with maximum dimension of 35'X 150', for the-purpose of navigational safety. Dredge spoil is to be deposited above mean high water on the eroded beach of the lot to the west 41 of-the inlet. Silt fencing will be placed and maintained on the north, east and south sides of the spoil site. The spoil site will be planted with Cape American beach grass on 18" centers. Located: Inlet to Petty's Pond @ Town Harbor, Southold. SCTM#66-3-14 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? CATHERINE MESIANO: The applicants are proposing this dredge project to provide for navigational safety through the inlet into Petty's Pond. I've given you a revised map that was revised as a result of DEC's request. I will try to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think we had any did we? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we didn't really see a problem and this is a maintenance type of operation. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What kind of silt fencing? CATHERINE MESIANO: A filter fabric. It will be maintained until the spoil has dried. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Ball, you sent us a letter. Do you have any further comment? MR. BALL: Well it's in the last letter in that the last time they did this project, as is says in the letter, they actually made an effort to allow the beach to be re- nourished, especially in front of the bulkhead all the way down as far as Mr. Latham's property. There is a lot of erosion caused by the jetties going out, especially the east jetties and to try to retain it, all of it, that's a lot of fill they are taking out, they can deposit some of it against the rocks, it does help. Those- rocks, two years ago, were completely covered with sand. I know it's going to erode away. As a matter of fact, a lot of it is on the property where they propose to put it.. Eventually, perhaps they'll come up with another alternative. Maybe they'll shorten that east jetty. For now, we need to have some of this placed evenly, not all on the property. We need to place some of it so that we re-nourish the beach. It's a little confusing. I haven't seen the new survey, but on the old survey it's kind of misleading in that they had Beixedon Estates, POA, instead of...we'll that gets a little confusing. We spoke to the President of the Association at last years annual meeting and it was a real concern. The beach is heavily eroded and it is no longer a nice beach in Beixedon Assoc. They have a little roped off area, that's heavily eroded and what used to be a nice sandy beach, it's shortened, and we're counting on this sand to be drifting down in that direction. Basically, I have no objection to this dredging, actually we're looking forward to it, it helps us, and in the long term, well we will deal with that later. Basically we're dealing with re-nourishment of the beach and we don't want to retain it against the property the way they show it. We would like to see at least a third of it going up against the bulkheads and being distributed out more evenly rather than retained against the property. That was the only objection we have. HOWARD FRIEDMAN: I live to the west of the creek. I'd like to say that there is no objection to dredging the inlet, as a matter of fact the inlet needs dredging in order for it to be navigatible. However, I haven't seen, or I'm not sure that the map I have is the revised map. The point is that the revised, or both maps 42 anyway, do not show the entire beach front. They only show a very local area. It would appear from this map that that's the only area that's eroded. It's not. The erosion goes all the way down to the beach as far as Rogers Rd, to some degree. It's almost certainly, at least a large part, the result of the eastern most jetty. We believe, as Tom Ball has said, that the spoil should be distributed along the eroded area. Not limited to one particular place. The beach needs nourishment. If sand is coming out of there, it should go on the beach, the whole beach that's eroded, should profit from it. Anything else is in the letter would be repetitious. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC did not make an inspection. Who is paying for the dredging? CATHERINE MESIANO: Mr. Nickles and Mr. Clavus. I'd like to address certain comments that have been made. As far as the erosion on the beach that is west of the proposed spoil site, that area is seaward of the bulkheading that was placed on those private properties and while there is some recognition that the erosion may be in part related to the length of our easterly jetty, I believe that a case could be made for the erosion also being caused in part by the installation of those bulkheads at that beach. The bulkheading, as you know, does tend to change the natural occurrences on a beach that is on (can't understand) by the bulkheading. As far as the placement of the dredge spoils, calculations have been done based on the soundings and the proposals, we believe that the dredge spoils, the quantities that are proposed will be contained within the area that we have demonstrated. It is the requirement of the DEC to contain the dredge spoils in silt fencing and pinned hay bales, so as not to allow any run-off or silt to run into the open waters. Placing this dredge spoil below the high-water mark would be completely unacceptable. I believe that is an act of violation of the clean water act. The condition of the beach in front of the neighboring property, well that is unfortunate, but I don't believe is the responsibility of another private property owner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is a comment behind you. Just briefly please. HOWARD FRIEDMAN: I think this is very similar to the situation of Goldsmith's Inlet. The effect of erosion extends for a long distance, depending upon the length of the jetty that's sticking out there. Not only does it impede the flow but after it gets to a certain level, it no longer permits the sand to come back to the beach. It sends it out into the Bay. It doesn't return to the beach. I think, and I think it's a classical situation, of erosion of the properties to the west, that is the down-drift side of the literal drift, being a result of the extended jetty. I think that beach has to continue to be nourished. Now whether or not it should be placed below the high-water mark, or whether it should be placed against the bulkheads, or wherever above the high-water mark, the whole beach should be considered, rather than any one property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what Cathy said is correct though. The DEC will not allow placement of spoils below mean-high water. HOWARD FRIEDMAN: Fine, then place it above mean-high water. The idea is to place it along the beach that's affected. Don't select one spot to put it: TOM BALL: Do you have that DEC Permit#? 43 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TOM BALL: Then how do I refer back to it? I'm not objecting to this. I have a problem with the way they submitted this survey. He can't put on a survey, and it really bothers me that they put on here, Beixedon Estates, POA. It's almost indicating to the DEC that this is the property owner's association and we're in favor of it. We're in favor of the dredging but they definitely want that distributed the way they did in previous years. This has been done since I've been there, .three times. Every time they do it, they take and they move the sand in front of the bulkheads and they make sure that the sand moves along the beach. Over time it probably will anyway. I assume this will erode again anyway, unless they retain it with a bulkhead or something. We need to have this to move along the beach and not be retained on one property. I think it was misrepresented when this was first sent to the DEC. They don't know what has actually happened. Maybe they don't know because it was misrepresented, I don't know. Also, they have the wrong address for me. I've been there 15 years. How could they have the wrong address? I'm not an absentee landlord. I've been living there for 15 years. CATHERINE MESIANO: May I address that please? There was an error on the map that was prepared by Sea-Level Mapping. My application to the DEC is in the correct names and any applications and any permits that will be forthcoming from the DEC will reflect the appropriate applicant's name. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a question here now. Who did you say is paying for this dredging? CATHERINE MESIANO: John Nickles is the owner and there is a Beixedon Dredging Assoc. formed. The person who has been in contact with me is. a Mr. Gus Clavis. I don't even know who the rest of the people are. I've spoken with Gus Clavis and I've spoken with John Nickles. It's my impression that it's probably the owners of property that front of Petty's Pond who are impacted by the fact that the Inlet has silted over and they are unable to gain access through there except at high-tide. If you notice on the application, the applicant is the Beixedon Dredging Assoc. and John Nickles. John Nickles is actually the owner of the property and the Dredging Assoc. is the beneficiaries of this action. So, it's a joint effort between the parties. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So this is not the Beixedon Property Owners Assoc.? CATHERINE MESIANO: This has nothing to do with the Beixedon Property Owners Assoc. TOM BALL: That should be removed from this survey then. CATHERINE MESIANO: It will be removed from the survey as I noted. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So the people that are paying for the dredging are getting the sand, what appears to be on their property. CATHERINE MESIANO: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Who owns the property to the west? CATHERINE MESIANO: To the.west of the proposed dredge site? TRUSTEE FOSTER: In other words, who owns the property where there isn't going to be no spoil? 44 CATHERINE MESIANO: That is Mr. Balls, and Dr. Friedman, I believe is his name, and I believe the next property owner is Mr. Ilibassi TOM BALL: And Mr. Latham. We had letters from each one of those people. Have they been read? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well they are all here in the file. I just looked through them. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I was just curious to whose getting the sand and whose paying the bill and who wants the sand and are those people paying the bill? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well Mr. Ilibassi wants the sand and Mr. Ball wants the sand and Dr. Friedman wants the sand. When was the last time this was dredged? TOM BALL: It was dredged about three years ago and the spoil at that time, I have no objection to the majority of it being placed on Mr. Nickles' property. That's not the problem. But immediately, we need to have them do what they did last time, which to put some of the spoil in front of the bulkhead. It takes them a couple of hours to do it. They put it in front of the bulkheads and it them quickly washes down and also goes onto the Beixedon beach. That's what we are requesting at this time. We are actually in favor of this project. It's not a matter of whose paying for it. It's actually caused by this little inlet, which has the jetty. Especially the long jetty. There is no question that it's causing this erosion: We're not getting the east to west movement of the sand. That's the way the sand moves in that area. The common sense of it all is that in the past has always been to re-nourish the bulkheads and the beach area. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well if that bulkhead wasn't there you'd probably be dredging this twice a year. CATHERINE MESIANO: And if the jetty wasn't there, the inlet to the pond would close up. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's what I'm saying, you'd be doing it once a month. CATHERINE MESIANO: I don't think the length of the jetty is the topic of discussion. It's there and I don't think any agency can direct any activity with respect to that. The people who are the applicants are paying for the operation and I think they are entitled to direct the depositing of the dredge spoil. I have been authorized by the owners to offer that if in the event there is excess dredge spoil, that maybe more than can be contained on that site, that they would offer it to the other owners but the responsibility of the containment would be at the responsibility of those property owners. The applicants would not assume any liability or responsibility for the containment of that spoil. TOM BALL: We don't want to contain the sand. We want the sand to do it's natural movement along the beach. CATHERINE MESIANO:, We don't have any option with respect to the containment of the spoil because that is directed by the DEC. TOM BALL: Then we should go back to the DEC with this.then. CATHERINE MESIANO: We don't have any option with respect to.the containment of the spoil because containment of the spoil is mandated by the DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That bulkhead is right up against the water anyway. 45 CATHERINE MESIANO: I honestly don't believe that there is adequate space between the bulkhead and the high-water mark to do any type of reasonable containment. The presence of the bulkhead, I've had discussions with design professionals with respect in this matter and it is their opinion that both issues are contributing to the erosion, both the existence of the jetty and the existence of the bulkheading itself. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we thought on field inspection. The bulkhead sticks out so far into the bay that you now have no beach. TOM BALL: It seems that way. When the bulkhead was done, it actually was quite a distance out. That's all caused by beach erosion. Those rocks were covered just three years ago with sand. The DEC, when the came to the site, originally they said, let's just truck the sand away and I said that we need it to re- nourish the beach, and they changed their position on that and decided to leave it on the beach after I spoke with them. I guess if I write them a letter, because we need to have this put back the way it was three years ago. CATHERINE MESIANO: I believe that in the past as well, the dredging was done to a deeper level, which generated a greater amount of spoil. TOM BALL: No it was 300 cy. I spoke to the DEC. CATHERINE MESIANO: Well I do know that the last time it was dredged it was dredged to a depth of 6' , 6' below mean-low water as opposed to the 5' that we're proposing and some of the spoil was placed to the east of the jetty as well as the west. TOM BALL: No spoil was placed east of the jetty. That never happened. I've been there 15 years and I've watched this take place. I spoke to the DEC when they were there and they said 300 cy. is a lot of sand and they said we were going to have to restrict that and I said we need that to re-nourish the beach and I said how much did they takeout last time, and they said 300 cy. This is the same proposal. It's the same amount of sand and it should be done the same way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, how is that sand going to spread out there, 300 cy.? What is that going to look like? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well it's 220' long and 30' wide in some spots. You can put it all in there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How much is it going to raise it? A foot? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I need a calculator. Probably. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't seem like it's a great deal of spoil to be talking about and is it going to be pumped up? CATHERINE MESIANO: It's going to be mechanically dredged. It was not a large enough job to warrant a hydraulic dredge. . TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're going to use a drag line probably. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see why Mr. Ball's bulkhead sticking out into the basically mean-high water...I don't where the DEC is going to allow you to put any sand in front of that. TOM BALL: But it doesn't, that's the point. It never did. This is all caused by erosion. All we're asking Al, is to put a little sand, just to cover most of the rocks, all of the way down. 46 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't even Approve that because we don't have a plan for that. TOM BALL: The DEC, when I spoke to him, said they would Approve it, and as a matter of fact, they said they were going to bring all the way down the beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who did you speak with? TOM BALL: I don't know. I can get you him name. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Were you here earlier tonight? Did you hear about Hippodrome Creek, where they want to dredge? TOM BALL: No I missed that. Where are they going to put that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't know but that's a skip and a jump from your home. Maybe they can shovel that to the east a little bit. HOWARD FRIEDMAN: They can shovel that but that's a question, as I recall and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that's a question of establishing tidal effect of that pool. It's not a question of navigatibility or anything else. The idea is to continue the tidal effect into that area so that it doesn't turn into a marsh with odors and algae in it and everything else. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right. TRUSTEE FOSTER: How was that dredged three years ago? TOM BALL: The first time they did it they actually pumped it out. Three years ago that was actually mechanically done. It was very simple. They had a machine lift it up and it took about an hour and they put it in front of each bulkhead. The actual dredging takes a couple of days but the actual movement of the sand along the beach didn't take them long at all. HOWARD FRIEDMAN: I watched most of the process because I live right there and what they did was lift it up with a mechanical dredge and put it on the beach and that was the extent of it. As far as the bulkhead sticking out, that's an illusion caused by the fact that there has been additional erosion. You see, when it was originally built, it was not that way. The appearance of that thing sticking out is the result of the fact that there was erosion. I don't question the idea that there has to be a jetty to protect the entrance to that creek. This is not a subject we did not intend really to address this subject at this time because that was not part of the application but as long as that jetty extends out further-than necessary, to protect the entrance to the creek, it's going to cause erosion. There are things that can be done that can addressed at another time to mitigate some of these things, but the fact of the erosion will.continue and will effect-the properties to the west. TOM BALL: We're not asking for a lot. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to vote on this. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve as presented. There is really nothing we can do about the rest of it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 30.Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of JOHN DEMPSEY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 55'X 55' single-family residence, on-site sewage disposal 47 system, with public water and pervious driveway. Located: 240 Briar Lane, Southold. SCTM#81-1-16.8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommends Approval. We looked at this one and what we need is a 50' buffer to be drawn on the survey and then we can... CATHERINE MESIANO: Can we condition the Approval on that survey being submitted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Could someone make a motion to close? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that there be a 50' setback, non-disturbance setback drawn on the survey and submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 31.Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of ALLEN S. MATHERS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 38'X 63' single family dwelling and attached garage, 45'X 63' deck with 16'X 32' in-ground pool, gravel driveway and 4'X 80' catwalk @ 3.5' above grade. Located: 1245 Sleepy Hollow Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-1-10.15 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? CATHERINE MESIANO: Mr. & Mrs. Mathers are proposing to construct the residence, deck, and dock that we have set forth. I've just handed Lauren a revised dock plan that basically reflects the discussions that we had in the field last week. It is a low-profile dock with a proposed walk approx. 80' long to be elevated a min. of 2.%' above grade, with steps down into the water with a pile and a pulley for a boat. I want to note that Mrs. Mathers is handicapped which is why we are requesting a dock with a lower elevation than is normally considered, especially by the DEC. If you have any questions... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How far off shore of those stairs is that pulley going to be to that single-piling? CATHERINE MESIANO: From the end of the dock, it is approx. 55' to 1' of water at low-tide. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The pole will be 55'? CATHERINE MESIANO: That's what he has proposed, but now that you mention it, it looks to be a little bit long. What do you suggest, just to be able to have a small runabout out there? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If I had a pulley system for an 18', it would probably be about 24', 25 . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Write it in there Ken and I'll stamp the plans. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What's the non-disturbance on there, 50'? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't say. CATHERINE MESIANO: I have a question on the non-disturbance. Because that wetland line is so irregular, can I make a suggestion on that? I propose that 48 we put the non-disturbance buffer at the 4' elevation, which probably will average out to be 50'. It's a reasonable point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, it looks reasonable. Unless you just want to make a line here, starting from the 75'. See where the 75' is, this curve? Just make a curve here at 50'. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Ok. CATHERINE MESIANO: Ok, so you want the 50' to be parallel to the 75'? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right. I've got a motion, I need a second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 32.Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of GRACE KEHLE requests a Wetland Permit for a first and second story addition to the existing single-family dwelling. To construct a 4'X 150' fixed timber dock with steps to grade. Located: 450 Strohson Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#103-10-20 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? CATHERINE MESIANO: One of the questions you had on the site was with respect to the proposal of the renovation of the house and I checked with the architect today, and he told me that the plans that he has developed provides for the house that's there to remain. It's not a tear down. The house is going to remain and there are additions as noted on the map. The only thing that's going to be demolished is that front porch area and it will be an open front porch. I've submitted dock plans conforming to what we discussed at the site which was the 115' long timber dock, with steps to grade to be built in a location of the previous dock, which I believe was Grandfathered. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is longer than the previous dock. I think we'll have to stake this because it's very narrow there. CATHERINE MESIANO: Can I get an Approval on the house and carry the dock over? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. CATHERINE MESIANO: And I request that perhaps in your wording of your Approval with the...because there are some discrepancies on here. The wetland line being subjective as it is, the distance is from the proposed construction to the wetland line, is at 62.8' and 62.9', whereas the existing structure is 63'. Our intention is that no portion of the proposed construction be seaward of the existing, and that would be seaward in length to the wetland. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application for the house reconstruction and Table the application for the dock which should be staked. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 33.Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of CHRISTINE HOWLEY requests a Wetland Permit for first and second story additions and porch additions to existing single- a 1 49 family dwelling. At the nearest point, existing structure is 61.3' from the bulkhead; proposed additions are no closer than 61.3' to bulkhead. Located: 320 Sailor's Needle Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#144-5-28 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who is interested in commenting on this application? CATHERINE MESIANO: I'm here for the applicant. I think the application speaks for itself.. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at it and I can't see it having any impact. It's a developed area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone want to talk about non-turf buffers or hay bales or anything like that? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's necessary there. CATHERINE MESIANO: It's all vegetated there. They've got hedges, Montauk Daisies... TRUSTEE_KING: I move to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING moved to go back to the Regular Meeting, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES V. MOORINGS: 1. BOB GRIGONIS requests a mooring in Goose Creek for a 13' boat. Access: Sleepy Hollow Lane, Southold (Replace previous Mooring.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 2. FABIO RUCCIONICH requests a mooring in Goose Creek for an 18' boat. Access: Gagen's Landing, Southold (Replace Mooring #90.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 3. JOHN BRAIDER requests a mooring in Gull Pond for a 22' boat. Access: Public. (Replace Mooring #10.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 4. DONALD ANNINO requests a mooring in Corey Creek for a 28' boat. Access: Public. (Replace Mooring #780.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 50 f 5. THOMAS & CHERYLE AMARA request a stake in Arshamomaque Pond for an 18' Canoe. (Replace Stake #S58.) Access: Public TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 6. THOMAS & PATRICIA FRENZ request a mooring in Broadwaters Cove for a 9' boat. Mooring will be cancelled after dock is built. Access: Private TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application for a 9' boat with the condition that once the dock is built, the mooring will be cancelled. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT:, 12:30 AM Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Clerk Board of Trustees RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2001 Q uthold Town CI rk