Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/24/1996 o��gUFFO(,�c� Albert J. Krupski, President � �y Town Hall Tohn Holzapfel, Vice President 53095 Main Road Jim King W ,? P.O. Box 1179 Martin H. Carrell �y Southold, New York 11971 Peter Wenczel ��l Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PRESENT WERE: John Holzapfel, Vice-President Peter Wenczel, Trustee Martin Garrell, Trustee Jim King, Trustee Diane Herbert, Clerk ABSENT WAS: Albert J. Krupski Jr. , President CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 15, 1996 at 12 noon TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: Wednesday, May 22, 1996 at 7 pm WORKSESSION: 6: 00 p.m. TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded. ALL AYES MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 27th, 1996 at the Regular Meeting, and Special Meeting on March 13 , 1996. TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to table until he makes comments to it, TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded. ALL AYES I . MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for March 1996: A check for $3,037.51 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 . AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES.: 1. Docko, Inc. on behalf of GREY GULLS PARTNERSHIP requests an Amendment to Permit #3966 to relocate an existing floating dock (approx. 14' X 221 ) and restraint piles ( 4) and installing a new floating dock approx. 8 ' X 54' adjacent to the existing fixed wood pile and timber pier, including ramps and 9 ' 63 Board of Trustees 2 April 24, 1996 -Float restraint piles, extend the existing 9' wide "L" shaped end dock by 6 ' and install two dual. tie-off piles. Located: Private Road, West Harbor, Fishers Island. SCTM #7-4-5 TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to approve, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES. 2 . Docko Inc. , on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DISTRICT requests a Waiver to reconstruct east ramp in the Silver Eel Cove which includes the installation of 65+ l.f. of steel sheetpile bulkhead. with backfill of 70+ c.y. over 250+ s.f. and new counter weight supports. and protective dolphins seaward of the high tide line. Located: Fishers Island. SCTM #12-1-10 TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve for a Grandfather Permit rather than a Waiver, TRUSTEE CARREL seconded. ALL AYES. 3 . J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of LOUIS M. BACON requests an Amendment to Permit #4422 to allow for the construction of a 2' X 90' timber walkway which will span newly reconstructed dune. Located: Robins Island. SCTM #134-3-5 TRUSTEE RING moved to approve the request, TRUSTEE GARRELL .seconded. ALL AYES 4 . Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of LOUIS M. BACON requests a one year extension to Permit #4346 which allows relocation of existing dolphins and installation of buffer piles. Located: end of First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM #117-8-20 TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 5 . Patrick Perritt on behalf of TOLLWOOD COMMUNITY requests an Amendment to Permit #206 to replace a 4' X 75' catwalk, a 2' 8" X 18' ramp and a dock totaling 220 s.f. A 4' X 1016" addition will be added landward to catwalk and entire catwalk elev. 316" as per Dept. of State. Located: at end of Illinois Ave. , 375 ' north of Meday Ave. , LILCO pole #114A, Mattituck. SCTM #113-8- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE RING second. ALL AYES 5 . Paul Reinkens on behalf of GERALD P. REIDY requests a Waiver to replace front cement stoop with a 6' X 12' wood deck on west side of house and install a 4' X 8' walk-in bay window on west side. Located: 167 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM #57-2-33 TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded. ALL AYES 6. LOIS MC GOWAN requests a Waiver to construct a loose gravel driveway with a small parking area with loose gravel. Located: 13350 New Suffolk Ave. , Cutchogue. SCTM #116-6-19.1 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE RING seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 3 April 24, 1996 7_ WILLIAM & COLLEEN CONNORS request an Amendment to Permit 4567 to add an 8 ' X 40' deck onto the western side of house which would require additional. pilings but no additional fill. Located: 350 West Drive, Southold. SCTM #55-3-29.3 TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to amend the Amendment for a 6' deck buttressed to house on western side and 50' in length with no pilings and no fill, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded, TRUSTEE WENCZEL voted Nay. 8. MICHAEL P. BONTJE requests an Amendment to Permit . #4496 to change dock extension which will be in a "J" configuration rather than an "L" configuration. The other dock will have a 20' extension south rather than 18' and a 16' return on the "J" rather than 14' to allow for the 10' vegetation setback and still reach deep water. Located: Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM #57-2-23 TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to go of f the Regular Meeting and go onto the Public hearings, TRUSTEE WENCZEL 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 ORGANIZER. AND BRIEF: FIVE ( 5) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE 7: 18 p.m. In the matter of En-Consultants. Inc. , on behalf of JOHN LA FORCE requests a Wetland. Permit to construct a 3 ' X 95' fixed elev. walk, . (4) above grade of marsh) a 32" X 20' hinged ramp and a 6 ' X 20' float secured by 2- 2 pile dolphins. Located: 855 Hole Pike, Mattituck. SCTM #113-9-16 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? I' ll make a motion that we close the hearing. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I ' ll make a. motion that we approve the application. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. TRUSTEE. WENCZEL: Abstained. 7 : 21 p.m. - In the matter of En-Consultants Inc. , on behalf of ARMONDO & JACQUELINE GRASSI requests a Wetland Permit to remove 3 existing timber groins and construct. 1- 40' timber groin needed to prevent further loss of beach and which will be similar in length to other groins to east and west. Located: 4510 Peconic Bay Blvd. , Laurel. SCTM #128-4-21 Board of Trustees 4 April 24, 1996 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone wishing to speak for this application.? Is there anyone wishing to speak against this application? MR. TERRY SULLIVAN: I 'm a neighbor adjacent to the Grassi' s there and I 'm concerned that as opposed it will cost beach erosion on my property. They' re proposing essentially a high profile groin which. is pretty much unknown of how it will work out. I 'm against the project. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: CAC resolved to recommend to the Southold Town Board of. Trustees disapproval to remove three existing timber groins and construct. one. New structure will be similar in length and construction to others to the east. and west. The Council recommends disapproval because there is no need shown. Is there an owner present, or anybody from En-Consultants? I think we had a problem similar to your concerns and our concern was that we wanted it to be a low profile groin similar to the ones on both sides and not be a high profile groin. We had real concerns about that. TRUSTEE GARRELL: And the angle too. We wanted it to the east. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: My question to the Board is, do we just want to deny' the application, or do we want to table it and. . . .I thought they would be here tonight and deal with the application. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I would suggest. table and ask the consultants. to come in. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I think that would be a good idea. TRUSTEE GARRELL:' Because if we disapprove then we have to give grounds and give alternatives. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I' ll make a motion that we now table the application. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Then would. you send a letter to them stating our concerns and also. to En-Consultants.. 7 :25 p.m. - In the matter of Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of STANLEY J. CAPUTA requests a Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permit to install 200' of timber bulkhead and backfill with 300 c.y. of clean fill from approved upland source. Located: 635 Soundview Ave. , Southold. SCTM #50-2-7 TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL: Is there. anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of the application? GEORGE COSTELLO: I'm representing Mr. Caputa. I have some documentation here and a few pictures and a letter that I don' t know if you received from Mrs.. Caputa. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I don't think so. MR. COSTELLO: She might have faxed it to you, I don' t know. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It' s .not here in the file. MR. COSTELLO: Here' s some pictures of Mr. Caputa' s property and the next door neighbors.. The east and west neighbor. From the pictures you can see the amount of erosion that has been going on in the last ten years or so. The pictures with the. beach house, you can see where the concrete columns on it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Who' s property is that? MR. COSTELLO.: That is the property just west of Caputa. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Arcus? Board of Trustees 5 April .24, 1996 MR. COSTELLO: Just on the other side of Arcus. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So it' s another property from Caputa. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So it' s two over. MR. COSTELLO. Yes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That' s why I didn' t recognize the building. MR. COSTELLO: There are some pictures of Caputa and Arcus. But if you notice the concrete. columns, there about 5 1/2 or 6 feet above beach level that used to be a beach level. If you look at the stairs, the stairs are short by 4 feet and the beach has dropped 4 feet in 14 years because I put that building there and supported it there for that 100 year rain. The property was owned by Sandy Hanover at the time. But you can see where the bluff has slid down in the last tow storms. One in January and one in December. And that slide is approx. 20' tall. Underneath that tree. that' s overhanging where the gazebo is. On Caputa' s property. TRUSTEE GARRELL.: Are there bulkheads on any of the adjacent properties? MR. COSTELLO: Adjacent, in terms of 1,000 feet, no. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, there's nothing within about 1/2 mile. MR. COSTELLO: Around the corner there is three bulkheads. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: That was one of our concerns, just as a Board. In that none of that is bulkheaded. And that your gonna be creating a bulkhead :in the middle of a "pristine" area in the sense of unprotected. And there was some concern that whether that's gonna start a whole- movement on both sides and that' s why we were a little hesitant to move ahead on this application immediately. MR. COSTELLO: So you feel that that will be setting a precedent? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes. MR. COSTELLO: Actually the precedent is set by Mother Nature. Nobody on along that coast wants to spend $40 or $50,000 to . protect their property if it' s unnecessary. You can see their perilous position of that large tree. But this has been going on for 15 years and finally he wants to stop the erosion. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: How far is the house from the. . . . MR. COSTELLO: The house is back from the edge of the bluff probably about 75 ' back. . The- main house. There is another house to the east which is close to the property line. And that' s back from the. edge of the bluff. about 25 feet. But most of the erosion is on the east side of the stairs. As you can see in the pictures. Because it' s facing more to the northeast than anything else. There' s a little bit of a bump out. there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other comments? ALLAN CONNELL: The CAC recommends disapproval. We didn't see the description of erosion that Mr. Costello describes. The bluff face itself is very stable. The house is in no danger. It has excellent boulders on the beach protecting the toe of the bluff. There' s no real erosion. (Could not hear due to shuffling of papers in front of the mike) . As well as the fact that they want to fill behind the bulkhead which is gonna destroy the existing vegetation that' s stabilizing the bluff. So,. I think in this case constructing a bulkhead is gonna 67 Board of Trustees b, April 24, 1996 actually do more harm than good. And the property is stabilized right now. TRUSTEE GARRELL: For example we took a look at a proposal for bulkheading on Fishers Island today and it was a regional proposal. It involved several people who had gotten together and they were gonna link bulkheads across a long. . . . . .a -revetment, not a bulkhead. But the point was that there was nobody doing it in isolation and I would feel much more comfortable. in if you had a bulkheading proposal that involved neighbors and involves linking bulkheads. But that proposal is just kind of sitting out there in isolation. And I 'm really concerned about people on either side. MR. COSTELLO: V d like to make a comment on that. That at your next meeting you are going to have two applications.. One from Mr. Arcus on the east lot and one from Mr. Arcus on the west lot. In regards to the CAC comments, I would request an on site inspection be taken place again. The erosion is very evident. The stairs that exist on the Caputa property basically is right in the middle. The comment was made that there' s plenty of boulders down there. There' s actually 7 boulders. I counted them before I came to this meeting. On 100 .feet of property. The bottom section of this bank is unstable. There is a gouge sticking out in two locations.. One requiring about 150 yards of fill and the other about 50 yards of fill at this point. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I would be perfectly willing to do that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think if your coming in with two more applications it makes sense to view the thing in entirety instead of a single. . . MR. COSTELLO: Well it couldn't be done that way. It was requested that we submit individual ' applications by the Board and the DEC. TRUSTEE. WENCZEL: Right we can look at it as a. . . .well it' s individual applications if you put the three together, but it' s a different scenario. MR. COSTELLO: All three properties have erosion. Mr. Caputa. and the lot to the east, the Arcus property is probably the worst. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I would also suggest when bulkheading propositions come along like this, and they always are controversial and then to be controversial, that it might be expedient to do those inspection with you down there and talk about it. TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this application? I'm gonna make a motion that we table this particular application and that we return to it next month. And we' ll do another inspection and if there are other applications we' ll deal with it next month. TRUSTEE KING: Second.. ALL AYES 7 : 3 3 p.m. - In the matter of J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of DR. THOMAS J. MC DONAGH requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 10 ' X 60 ' X 2 ' earthen berm which shall be fronted by a rock revetment consisting of -200-500 l.b. rock placed. 2' below grade on filter cloth. Berm shall then be planted with. Rosa Rugosa ' Board of Trustees 7 April 24, 1996 18" on center and a 3 ' X 40 ' catwalk, (elev. 3 1/2' over grade of marsh) a 3 ' X 12 ' ramp and a 6' - X 20' float. (NOTE: Applicant wishes to amend this to read 30 ' catwalk) . Located: Cedar Beach Drive West, Southold. SCTM #90-1-6 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of this application? GLENN JUST: We did cut back that fixed catwalk after I' spoke with Peter Wenczel so we don't go 10 ' further than mean high water. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Our concern going out there on field inspection is it was not clear still where this, berm was going to be. It was not marked very clearly. MR. JUST: We originally marked it two years ago when the application came in. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: I understand and that' s why we went back out because we had asked you to move those markings back. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I looked at it this afternoon and I hate to disagree with what John said, but it was clear to me where your gonna put the berm there' s patents growing there. MR. JUST: This is the first question that arose to you when we originally did this. He' s been mowing patents since the house has been bought. You could see where there' s a little salt pan place down there behind the alterna flora. He was told to move the revetment back 6 feet landward of the patent line and put the revetment in there. This way you get your 10' buffer that' s required in. the Town Law between wetlands and any lawn and have the berm in there and that place will not be mowed any more. There will be no fertilization, no, mowing, no nothing in that area. Everything is moved back a min. of 6' landward of the patent line. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: The only thing I was able to find to locate where this berm was was that concrete marker on the northern. corner there and as you see the landward edge of the berm ends right there. ' As far as on the southern side I could really tell I just eyeballed it up and said yes, it looks like its gonna go there but it was. . . . .we talked about these numbers on here. . . .a 3 ' X 6' a 4' X 9' . . . . . .what are they again? MR. JUST: Those are spot elevations. Albert had asked at one point. . . . . TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Spot elevations, OK. MR. JUST: Albert had asked one time that we get the elevations located between the juniper trees and the marshes. TRUSTEE WENCZEL.: I don' t know what the Board feels about this - but I think if you put the berm. . . .I don' t know why they want a berm. . . . . .but if you put the berm behind the landward edge I wouldn' t have any problem with it. MR. JUST: That was the whole idea why we moved it back. . . . TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I mean moved it back again though. Because. . . . maybe we need to look at it when it' s staked out. MR. JUST: The survey that you have in front of you shows that he moved back landward of that tidal wetlands line. By the wetlands line is the .dotted line. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I don' t know, I think there' s patents where the berm is but without you staking it I guess we could. . . . . Board of Trustees 8 April 24, 1996 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was the question, we, and very honestly wanted the berm back much further. And it's not clear where it is. If it' s this, we have a problem with that. Again, I'm speaking. . . MR. JUST: What' s the problem? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It' s too close to the patent line. Well, you have to understand, any activity within 75' that' s part of our control. Our concern was, first of all, it' s not gonna function as a berm because the lowland is behind it on the property on the southand the water will run right behind it. MR. JUST: You can' t control that. That' s not the applicants property. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, no, if he brought his berm up along the line. MR. JUST. That was our original intention. Remember it. had been horseshoe shaped. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. MR. JUST: Then we were told no just fill it. Once you fill it up into the area of the junipers and that' s what you see in front of you.. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: No, you have to stake it. MR. JUST: Again? TRUSTEE GARRELL: We' ll come out there. MR. JUST: I've been out there with the Board twice. The record shows that. It' s only a matter of taking a tape measurer and you see the concrete monument there and stealing off the survey. . If you want me to be able to do that. for you I' ll be more than happy to. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I told you I measured it and I looked at it and I saw the monument and I think it' s too close to the wetlands. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think that' s the feeling of the Board that when we went out there it wasn' t clear that the survey is not what we' re interested in seeing there. We also asked you to move it back I believe. MR. JUST: I did.. The object. of the berm is two fold. The rack line goes up behind those juniper trees in a good storm. You have photographs of that. Any time the water goes up there it' s also washing dog droppings, fertilizers, anything on that lawn back into the wetlands. That' s what we' re trying to prevent. And trying to prevent further loss of property and further erosion of property. That' s the reason for the. berm. We' re not coming in for a bulkhead, a hard structure. . . . TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Is there erosion there? MR. JUST: Somewhat.. If you look at the old surveys. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: It wasn't apparent being down there. That' s why I asked. MR. JUST: Flooding is obvious, right? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I think the lawn's in the wetlands. I think that' s why there' s flooding there. I think that' s the problem. MR. JUST: Look at the survey it shows. . . . . . TRUSTEE WENCZEL: We all know the water comes up in a. big storm. You can't hide from it. MR. JUST: You can stop it from going too far up. �V Board of Trustees 9 April 24, , 1996 TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Not with that. It' s just gonna go around it. MR. JUST: Again, we can't control. :;what' s on the adjacent property. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think it would be. . .just a , suggestion for everyone' s benefit to meet with you out there next month. I think that would solve everyone' s problem much easier. CAC wanted it moved back. ALLAN CONNELL: It' s been so long since we've been out there, but we did say to move it back way back when we first looked at it. We were concerned about. the location of the berm also. And at that time we recommended that it be moved landward. . When I went out and. looked at that back in Sept. of 1995 we were concerned about (could not hear, shuffling of papers) . It sounds to me like it' s a flooding problem. And the way that this berm is configured it' s not gonna work to protect the property. So why construct a berm that' s not gonna work. It needs to be proven that that water is not gonna get around the outside end of the berm. If -that' s the case then it can protect the property and so be it and should be in, but it' s not gonna function that way. . We should not. be constructing something so close to the wetlands that it' s gonna do damage. MR. JUST: How can it do damage to the wetlands? MR. CONNELL: It has. . . .because it is so close to the spartina patents. . . . . MR. JUST: How can it possibly do damage. . . . . MR. CONNELL:. Excuse me I have the podium and you can speak next. We don't think. there' s any need for a cap rock on the berm. We don't see any need for that. That' s just putting 'a. hard structure on the face of the berm. So we would., recommend that that not be allowed. MR. JUST: As far as the rock is concerned, that' s the requirement of the wisdom of the DEC. I don' t necessarily agree with them either, but that the wisdom of the people living in the ivory tower. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is that true in creeks too, Glenn? MR. JUST: They feel that there is a high energy problem there and the rock will reflect and break up the wave energy. But: what problems are gonna be caused? MR. CONNELL: Disturbance of the wetland area. (Mr. Connell and Glenn Just proceeded to talk at once in an apparent argument) . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other comments? TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to table. TRUSTEE ROLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES 7: 55 'p.m. - In the matter. of Bruce Anderson on behalf of HAROLD HEPENSTEIL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a. 4' X 88' raised catwalk, a 4' X 14' ramp and a 6 ' X 20' floating dock as per Doctor' s recommendation. Located: 1055 Bungalow Lane, . Mattituck. SCTM #123-3-14 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? BRUCE ANDERSON: I 've just given the Board, I think, a pretty comprehensive overview of the . project. I have delivered into a Board of Trustees 10 April 24, 1996 record a letter drafted to Albert Krupski the President, dated 4/24/96 with numerous. exhibits. I've also entered into the record an aerial photograph. This we will call exhibit A. Our objective is solely to reach navigable waters. The survey submitted with the application, the aerial submitted tonight indicates that the proposed dock will only extend into navigable waters and won' t have an impact to navigation into and out of and through Deep Hole Creek. I would like to hear whatever. the Public has to say or whatever this Board has to say. And I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to any comments that may come up in this proceeding. TRUSTEE HOLZAPHEL: Is there anyone else who wishes to respond to this application? ALLAN CONNELL.: The CAC didn't have a problem with the dock but we were concerned with the length of the dock. The fact that it was reaching out so . far and we recommended that the length not exceed the neighbor to the north.. That dock didn' t reach out as far as this one. TRUSTEE HOLZAPHEL: You might want to take a look at the picture.. Bruce was . here at our Work Session much earlier and gave us a run down on some of the information. The white line is the edge of the channel. And the white added line is the dock that they' re proposing and it give a prospective of the length.. So it' s a little bit different from what. . . . . . PAT MOORE: Excuse me, because there are several people here who would like to see this diagram, if you could take a five minute recess so we don' t interfere with the meeting. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I' ll make a motion we take a 4 minute recess. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES BRUCE ANDERSON: The information you have in front of you is a survey. On that survey there are soundings. There is an estimate or an exact measurement of how far the dock will extend. from the low tide mark. That distance is 441 . We have taken that dock. We purchased an aerial photograph that was taken in 1994 which shows the channel. We were able to very accurately locate this dock because the high water mark as shown the survey corresponds with the base of the bulkhead to the property adjacent to and north of this property. So we know where the high water mark is, we know the distance of the dock that the dock extends from the high water mark, we have an aerial photograph to scale so we are able. to plot exactly where that. docks goes. I.t goes here, it goes out to navigable. waters. It is not, to my clients interest at all to build the dock any longer that it has to be. TRUSTEE. WENCZEL: Could I ask one question. What were the weather conditions when you took that soundings. MR. ANDERSON: Clear, calm. I don't actually recall. Clear, calm, maybe breezy. I'm telling .you that was low tide at that point. If your now gonna argue that it is extreme low tide or what ever I will save you that. Possibly that low tide could vary under weather conditions. But even taking that. into account you still can't overcome the truth that comes. out on the survey. On this aerial photograph. Namely the size of th.e. dock Board of Trustees_ 11;.... April 24, 1996 in relationship to the high water mark , and this is where the dock terminates. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody who would like to speak against this application? MR. JOHN KENNELLY: I 'm 28 years on that creek. now and I realize that I'm not much of a • Southolder but I 'm on the opposite side. That gentleman just told us that he is going to have 36" of water at low tide where his float is gonna be. He' s gonna be halfway down the channel then. I have children and Grandchildren who stand in the area where he thinks he' s gonna have 36" of water. You don' t have a foot of. water. We all on that creek have outboard motors. because at - low tide the boats sit on the bottom. He was there on a lucky day when he took those soundings. That' s not the average soundings. The clammers come and stand on the banks of the channel and clam in. the channel. He' s mistaken as to what the figuration of the bottom is. Where he draws his white line to bring his dock out to the channel, he' s coming out considerably further than the property to the north of him and he' s taking up what the real use of that creek is that everybody is using it for sail fishing and row boating and swimming. His dock is coming out 100 ' or more. Which is ridiculous. . But we said now we could sail our sailfish in that wide open part of the creek and we could watch the kids and when they fall over we could run out and pick them up. That' s a shallow spot.. He' s gonna have no water under his boat unless. his boat is sitting in the channel. I oppose this because there isn't that much water. You don't get 36" of water at low tide out of the channel. MR. WHELAN: I agree with this gentleman 100%. And this man is telling me two years ago that channel. is 125' wide at that point on that point. The tide we had a..couple of weeks ago, you could almost. walk across the channel right at that point where he tells me he' s gonna have 3 ' of water at low tide. The man should get out there with his waders. on again and. I want to stand there and watch him when he walks out there. I oppose it 100%. PATRICIA MOORE: I'.m an Attorney. I know your well aware of the law in. this issue. I've often sat on the other side where Mr. Anderson sits and had to bring cases to court. In this case these is - an appropriate place far a long dock. and an inappropriate place. - This creek is not the appropriate place for an extended dock. The relevant docks along that creek are the ones_ that you permitted since your jurisdiction started. And I believe that was 1971. Anyway when. you go and look at the history of the permits that have been granted. by this Board, they generally do not exceed 50 ' to 80 ' in length. And that' s a total length. Many of these docks start inland, on the upward land and extend into the creek. But the extension into the creek is apparently about. 30 ' or 40' 50 in some cases. Probably the longest one is the one that is to the east. The one that' s been mentioned over and over again. The Demig property. To the north. The Demig property which you -permitted 82' . That is the longest dock that is that area. Certainly to get that Board of Trustees 12 April 24, 1996 length oZ the dock is substantial. but certainly acceptable versus what has been requested, which is 1221 . It' s a shame that Mr. Hepensteil, that the contact with your neighbors is this way. I know that Mrs.' Stanton, who I represent, certainly as a neighbor, doesn't oppose you personally but this dock and the proposed application is just not acceptable. Thank you. LES HAGERMAN: I live directly opposite (tape malfunctioned at this point. Could not hear Mr. Hagerman or Janet Stanton' s testimony) . MRS. STANTON: He said to me, "Oh it' s not the Verranzano Bridge" . So for the first time that I realized that' s what it looked like to me from looking at the blueprints. Now, I 'm not used to reading blueprints- so I had. someone help me. But it did look like the Verranzano Bridge to me. I know it' s a purely emotional appeal. It' s purely emotional on my part and everyone does have a vested interest in living on this creek. Mine might not be exactly like the others even though I. see a navigation issue. That is why I had put the information I received from the Board in the doors of people who lived on the creek. Because I personally felt that people had large craft or had boats they would need to be concerned of their navigation. I don't have a dock yet nor do I have a craft yet so and I would be going in the opposite direction out to the sound so I don' t have that issue. But people north of me I felt did so as I stated earlier I don't have any animosity towards our new neighbors. In fact Rosemary and I might get along fine. But it is an emotional issue and it is something that I feel very very strongly about. It would totally disturb the nature setting of Deep Hole Creek. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone else against? Bruce, would you like to speak? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I would like to respond to all the comments made. The .first one regarding Mr. Kennelly and Mr. Whelan. Mr. Kennelly made some points and he questioned the depth. of the creek, the width of the channel and I guess what he implied is we have an impact to navigation. What I have submitted to, this Board so far is the survey showing the meets and bounds of the property, shows the high water mark, shows the low water mark, shows the distance that the dock will extend from both points. I also submitted to this Board which I will call exhibit A which is an aerial photograph taken at a scale of 1" = 200' which identifies. the location of the channel which was also possible to exactly locate the size of the dock in relationship to the creek and channel due to the existence of points of reference, particularly including the bulkhead on the adjoining property to the north which represents the high water mark. You may refer to the survey and you will see the high water mark corresponds to the bulkhead. face. I don' t know what more I can say and the question of what' s appropriate speaks to the question of what' s is reasonable safe and convenient access, which I believe I gave this Board sufficient information so that you can conclude that that is an absolute right of my applicant. I also want to point out that I have shown pictures of the dock to the north and. have been told that this is much Board of Trustees 13 . , April 24, 1996 larger than or much smaller than what we' re proposing. Those pictures represent only a catwalk without showing ramps, floating docks or anything of the kind. Both docks fully in place are shown in the aerial photographs and what you can see from that they are substantially similar. Next I 've heard comments from Patricia Moore who represents Janet Stanton who speaks to the opprobriousness of a dock in this location and to that I can say again the applicant has the absolute right to wharf out into navigable. waters in that case you have in front of you. I. also want to correct in this statement that she made that there is a history of docks in that area and that none of them exceed more than 50 to 801 . I submitted to you in writing a documentation indicating that this dock can stand or anywhere as large as 160 ' or almost twice as large as what we are proposing. I've also submitted to your consideration a survey taken from your files to the neighboring parcel to two properties, three. properties to the north owned by Dr. Connor and that. survey shows that the dock you approved is not only larger and longer than what we are proposing here but also extends further out into the creek than what we are proposing. So the comment that the docks are such that they don' t exceed 50 ' to 80 ' is clearly false. And finally the comment that the Demig property represents the longest dock is also false. There are docks much longer than the dock on the Demig property. Mr. Hagerman submitted a comment such that his concern has to do with compatibility and. his concern is that the stern of the boat will. be in navigable waters. What the aerial photo shows is, unfortunately is that the dock will extend up to the bank where the channel starts. . The boat Mr. Hepensteil intends to dock at this facility is 25' which also looking at the aerial photograph of . the docks and the boats contained therein is nothing unusual or out of character to boats in Deep Hole Creek. In other words there are boats of equal length or even greater there. To speak to the comment raised by Katherine Kennelly which I regarded as constructed, she said as a matter of advise, that if your dock is shorter it won't cost as much. She was implying that if the maintenance cost could be as less. I would add that the construction cost would be less. And this is precisely why we made the dock as short as possible. Bringing it only up to the point where navigable waters begin. We do not block a channel, it is not in our interest to build any longer than it has to be. And f inally to the comments made by Janet Stanton. The first of which is that. the creek is characterized as pristine, unmarked beach with no large craft. The aerial photograph. entered into the records as. exhibit A speaks for itself . There. are numerous other docks. Sixty-six. As of that date. And now even more than that. There are numerous other boats. There is bulkheaded property. And I am not saying that the creek is ugly but what I am saying that nothing that is proposed here is out of character with what already exists in the creek and the aerial photo shows there. Secondly to be concerned of an obstruction of view. What we have done, and I 'd like to state for the record that the obstruction of view is not a criterion that this Board can Board of Trustees 14 April 24, 1996 entertain in permitting a dock. We operate solely under the Town' s Wetland Statute, we' re talking about a Type II Action here that will. have no significant impact on the environment. And I 'd like to point out that as in consideration of other people living in the creek and as shown on the cross section of the diagram submitted with this application, you will see that we made every attempt. to lower the dock at a point where it crosses the seaward edge of the vegetated tidal wetlands.. That was done in part to reduce visual impact. Finally the comment that it would look like the Verranzano Bridge, all I can say is it is a standard dock design, no different than any other standard design that this. Board routinely permits. I 'd just like to conclude. I understand the comments made by Mrs. Stanton, that she printed a flyer, went door to door stuffing them into people' s mailbox. I would like to see a copy of that mailing because what may have happened here is the mailing may have misled people who read it. It may not have accurately reflected what is actually proposed here. I would like to see that mailing and I'd like to respond to it. MRS. STANTON: This is what I gave to neighbors on Deep Hole Creek. A photostat of. what was sent to me exactly. MR. ANDERSON: You are representing that a copy of the survey and a copy of the cross section of the diagram absent of any notes or anything else was placed in mailboxes. MRS. STANTON: I photostated exactly as I made from my own copy. MR. ANDERSON: So your representation is as you submitted is a letter, a survey, a cross section., and nothing else. MR. - STANTON: And to my neighbors that did not receive this, because when I called the Town I said to her, who should receive this? She said to people on all four sides. So I drove around to the other side of the creek and knocked on Mr. Hagemen' s door and said did you get this? And he said no. Then I knocked on Mr. Kennelly' s door who is opposite my house and I said, did you get this? And he said no. Then I went .directly to Mrs. Nashes' s who is directly in the middle and asked did you get this? And she said no.. All three houses face our property. I said I will photostat everything I got from the Town and give it to you. And I went back the next day which was Sunday and. I handed to them personally. And on the side of the envelope. . . . .I said here is everything I got. . . . .and those are the only three people that received a personal enclosure because I had met them personally. The ten other mail boxes are people who I have never met so on the envelope it said, it is important if you live on Deep Hole Creek. I have a copy of that envelope, and the three inserts. There is no personal letter inside there. I met the people personally and chatted with them so they received a note from myself. MR. ANDERSON: Then in this letter a conclusion is drawn that the dock is too long due to the extended length into the channel. That is precisely what I am. trying to convince this Board with objective evidence that it doesn' t extend into the channel. I suspect that a letter if I had gotten a letter that says, here is a dock that extends into the channel, I too would have concerns. 7,6 Board of Trustees 15;;,•;,•. ' April 24, 1996. MRS. STANTON: Objection, that is not that comment. I was told that. MR. ANDERSON: Who told you that? MRS. STANTON: The people that live across from me on the channel. MR. ANDERSON: O.K. But if they didn't receive notice and had no knowledge of the application how could. they have told. you that the dock extended out into the creek? MRS. STANTON: You weren't listening. I said I spoke to them on Saturday. MR. ANDERSON: I want to hand something into the record. I want to close by speaking to the notice issue. On submitting this application and getting word back from your clerks which. I appreciate, I was told to notice .the two adjacent land owners on either side of the property, by certified mail, which is something I did and submitted the documentation to . the Board and I would point out that the folks across the creek are not adjacent neighbors. MRS. STANTON: Just let me give you my original because that did not come out too clearly. MR. ANDERSON: One final thing, I request you close the hearing. BILL STANTON: I 'm on Deep Hole Creek and the gentleman has spoken about an absolute right to reach navigable water and I question why are we here tonight, if that is a clear and cut and dry right. To get to navigable water they have to build a dock on an extreme length at an expense. of. .the rest of us. A dock that is, that many of us feel not characteristic of the creek and by shear numbers and. length I think that is rather objective, to prove that it .is establishing a precedent of a dock this long. I ask the Board to strike a balance between their absolute right and ours through a compromising of scaleing this dock back. . MR. KENNELLY: It seems to be a use of the word navigable only in reference in low tide. A great deal of that creek is used during regular tides when you can sail fish, catfish, sunfish and row boats and use the creek other than that dead low tide. The navigable part of the creek, as far as I'm concerned, extends right up to the average tides where the floats halfway up off the ground. My float sits on the bottom at low tide. If. he thinks he' s got three feet of water he doesn't. And when you get half way up then you can get out and sail fish. I. thought there was gonna be a question of- how much water is gonna. be in that creek at low tide. We all now the Dr. somebody once who wanted to place his boat.. When he came and put his boat there he had to get it out : right away because he knew it would be sitting on the bottom. That' s a fact of the creek. MR. WHELAN: So your an environmentalist. (indicating Mr. Anderson) Then you should be protecting the environment, right? But your main concern is to get this man his permit. Here' s what I want to ask the Board. Every house, from this house- that he' s trying to get the permit for, coming south to a bulkhead which is just next to Arnones' property. Would you. allow all these house, either 7 or 8 , I don't know exactly, to get to navigable water, which is what he wants to do, there will be 250 Board of Trustees 16 April 24, 1996 to 300 feet long. Are you gonna allow that? If you allow him to do it, why can't the next neighbor, and the next neighbor, and the -first thing you know, we' re gonna have 1.0 walkways going out 250 feet to get to exactly where he wants'. The channel is only 50 feet wide. He says 12.5 feet. It was 30 years ago when they dredged. it. Then it was 50 feet wide.. But right now it' s dead. . . .he should have been there 2. weeks ago when, we had that low tide. I could walk from my house over to Mr. Kennelly's ` house. Maybe just. jump and I'd go over the channel.. So now, would. you, I'm asking the Town Board now, not this gentleman, would you allow me or .any other people there 300 feet going out there? MR. ANDERSON: I would still like my right to respond to what' s been said. To the comments , of Bill Stanton, are you related to Janet? MR. STANTON: Yes. She is my wife. . MR. ANDERSON: First question you raised here is why are we here. if the applicant has an absolute right to access navigable waters and there is a very simple reason and that because it is this Boards' duty to make sure that a dock does not extend out such that it blocks the channel. This dock does not do that. And that is the purpose of. this regulation. The question of what about our rights. The three cases I have submitted to you speaks to that very issue. So I suggest that we take. ,a careful. at what the rights of a riparian owners- are. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Bruce, didn't you do this before? Isn' t this already entered the -record already? Don' t I have that in front of me here? MR. ANDERSON: Please let me continue. The creek, I've been told., is more shallow than what we represented. Well, that' s all fine and good, but if the creek is more shallow that would lend more credence to a longer dock than what we are proposing. We have reduced the length of that dock and if the soundings that we show show deeper water than what is actually there than that is our problem and we're willing to take that risk. Mr. Kennelly speaks to navigability referring only to low tide, what about high tide? The reason why navigation and elevations are all referenced to low tide is because it relates back. to the 1929 National Geodesic - Survey which establishes all the elevations for the north eastern portion of the United States at low tide. So low tide is our bench marsh and that is where navigability is determined.. And finally the question. directed. to this Board that every house would. then have the: ability to extend 200 or 300 feet out into the channel. is not an. accurate question. Because. if you were to extend that. distance you would go across the entire channel thereby blocking navigability and it would be this Board' s responsibility to make sure that 200 or 300 foot docks across the channel are. deni.ed.. Thank you.. MR. WHELAN: I'd just like to ask this gentleman, in other words are you maintaining that the only area that shouldn't be docked over is the channel, and everyone have the. natural right to dock over? Board of Trustees 17,,;,.' April 24, 1996 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There' s no reason that' s not gonna help us, in any shape, form or matter. What; I would like to 'do is ask the Board for it' s comments. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I don' t think we should. allow the dock to be any longer than the adjacent docks. I don't think that the right to navigable water is obviously contingent on the size of the vessel. Just because you. have a 50' boat and draws 4 or 5 ' of water does not guarantee you, in my opinion, access to that much water. Perhaps a boat of a more appropriate size would guarantee right to navigable waters. It' s my feeling, and. I'm not sure it' s the Boards policy, if you cannot reach navigable water with a reasonable size dock. then perhaps the boats should. be moored with a mooring and then. you reach the boat. with another boat, a row boat, or a dinghy. This would certainly guarantees you access to navigable water. But you just might have to use something appropriate for the: area your in. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I also comments for the Counselor and I won' t make it a cross examination, but I' ll say that to size -the term navigable is ambiguous because as Peter says it depends on the draft of the boat, and the size of the. vessel and the amount of water it draws. I also quibble with the term exactly . for channel width and depth of water plainly an aerial photo is a beautiful thing and we do it with satellites all the time and do it from planes but there' s always a plus or minus. There are changes from year to year in creeks and there is no substitute for actual soundings under. actual conditions. The fourth thing ' is the question about the proof of length of other docks. I would have to see more than just a picture. I'd have to do some dock measurements up and down the creek. The' only thing we go by as Trustees as a rule. is the adjacent docks, the docks we can see within our line of site in that area. Bruce,. your well aware as an Environmental Consultant for us and you know that the Board is often prepared in cases like this to go with something. that ' is shorter or more modest. You've seemed to joined the issue from the onset as though: . .it almost seems like overkill in initial hearing. I hope this isn' t one of the opening of a long legal struggle. I hope that we and your neighbors and your client can compromise here and come up with something reasonable for the creek. TRUSTEE RING: When I went and looked at it I thought the size was excessive myself. I would like to see a compromise. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm gonna make a suggestion based on a number of things. Your argument that law is on your side in this case and the cases that. you obviously presented to us. I am sure that our Town Attorney can find three cases on the opposite side in the same way: And. there' s ` no doubt in my mind that there' s an equal legal side to a person not having a right to navigable water. I am not willing to accept these documents at this moment and say "that' s the law" . Secondly I would like to see depths. Other than your own depths taken. The Trustees will take their own depths on the dock and do that. MR. ANDERSON: Question.. How are you proposing to take those measurements? Board of Trustees 18 April 24, 1996 TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I think with a tape measurer, a small boat, and. . . . .TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We've taken soundings in the way that we've taken soundings on a number of different projects.. It depends on a particular situation. If you can walk out and . do it, fine. If you need a boat to do it. . . . . .it all depends on the situation. So am I gonna say that we' re gonna do it this way, no, I.'m not gonna do that.. We will take the soundings and we' ll get measurements so that we can make a decision. MR. ANDERSON: Would you please provide me with a methodology on how the soundings were taken. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Of course. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: We' ll document it. MR. ANDERSON: May I also suggest that perhaps you hire a surveyor to take the soundings so that that becomes. . . . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If you'd like to you could do that. MR. ANDERSON: No, no, we weren't paid for that. Perhaps, you should do_ that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What. I'm going to suggest. . . . TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Bruce, just let me ask one question. Your completely unwilling to compromise on this? Just so we know what direction we're going here. MR. ANDERSON: I am not willing (changed tape) to any significant degree. We're talking about a couple of feet. A few feet, I think, we could. work something out.. If we're talking about 30 feet or something in that order, I'm afraid we have to stand our ground. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: What's a few feet? A few to me is 2 or 3 feet. MR. ANDERSON: Let me just say, perhaps this is the forum to do horse trading, perhaps you should reserve this for another time. TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL: I.'m gonna make a motion that. we table this with the idea that we will collect further information. It will be still an open hearing so that this will continue next month. We will collect our information and we' ll deal with it next month. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second. ALL AYES 8:37 p.m. - In the matter of Cheryl Crane on behalf of SOUTHOLD PARR DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to dredge approx. 700 c.y. of Town Creek silt to a depth of 3 ' at Mean Low Water, re-dredge channel to provide access to Southold Bay and make south side of seawall usable for resident moorings. Located: south end of Youngs Ave. , before. entrance to Calves Neck Rd. , Southold. SCTM #64-1-10.1 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm told this will he -tabled. until applicant produces more information. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second. ALL AYES 8 : 38 p.m. - In the matter of John. Geideman on behalf of: JOHN MANNING requests a Wetland Permit to replace 2 existing 110' long damaged groins. Located: 1370 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. SCTM #117-10-10 Board of Trustees 1.9, a April 24, 1996 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I 'm: going to put both this application and the next application together. They're adjacent properties owned by brothers and its the same identical projects. Is there ,anyone here to speak in favor of these applications? JOHN TUTTLE: Just the fact that they are replacing what has been there for years or so and there"s about 20 groins in the vicinity of this. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Larry, let me say this to save time. Our real problem in this is, when we went out it' s- not clear that there are 4 groins and on the survey it shows 4. MR. TUTTLE: There are - groins. If you look closely at the survey you' ll find there are 3 or 4 that have been buried about 30 or 40 years underneath the sand. So if you' re referring to those. . . .so you can be confused by what' s on the survey. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are you the contractor? MR. TUTTLE: I don' t know. . . . .I'm just speaking in favor, that' s all. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: O.K. MR. TUTTLE: The point is, you can he very confused. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The survey is supposed to show what' s there now. It' s supposed to be a recent survey, and it doesn't reflect what' s there. MR. TUTTLE: Your asking what the survey reflects, I - don' t know, but it reflected what was there many, many years ago. And they are buried underneath that. whole beach about 4 or 5 under the sand. TRUSTEE' HOLZAPFEL: It' s just that it doesn' t reflect the true situation and we didn't know how to deal with that. Is there anybody who would like to speak about this. application? Again, I will leave this up to the Board. It' s not what we wanted and we told him to provide the survey. TRUSTEEGARRELL: Are we going for 6 tables in a row? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It has to be. He doesn't have the stairs on it or the right groins.. I'm gonna make a motion that we table this until we get the properinformation. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES (The other application is for JAMES MANNING who requests a Wetland Permit to replace 2 existing 110 ' long damaged groins. Located: 1370 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. SCTM. #117-10-11) 8: 40 p.m. In the matter of ARNOLD NEUER requests a Wetland Permit to clear property of debris and leave in natural state. Located: 2475 Mill Path, Southold. SCTM #56-1-6 . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Again I will put both. of these applications together. Is there anybody who wishes to speak. .. . . . 'MR. ANDREW AURICHIO: He thinks he has rights and all other stuff. He' s not even here. I have a lot of concerns. Are you aware? TRUSTEES HOLZAPFEL: Yes. MR. AURI CHIO: We were here a month ago. I got this in the mail, a petition to property owners. But he doesn't really state what he wants to do. He already did something as your well aware of. Without my permission. It' s within wetlands jurisdiction. I mean, I don' t know what he wants from me. And �I Board of Trustees 20 April 24, 1996 he' s not even here. He did stop on my property. I have concerns. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Well the hearing is open so why don' t you state your concerns now and get it on the record. MR. AURI CHI 0: I'd like to adjourn until such time that he is here and maybe he needs a lawyer. But basically my concerns ,are that the fact that it' s my property and he's got a right of way over it allowing anybody else who owns property north of the parcel that he obviously cleared without permission and. it' s within. the wetlands jurisdiction and. I assume I need all kinds of permits to do anything over there. I don't approve of what he did and I'm not gonna give him permission to do any more. As a matter of fact I wish he would return it to the way it was. I'm concerned with the wetlands. It' s right on the wetlands, it' s too close. I won't allow him to do what he wants to do. I'm not even sure what he wants. to do. Because he already did something, with bull dozers. He probably upset the whole ecology of the area. And I don' t want to subject myself to any kind of liability, and. I don't want to hire any lawyers, and. I don' t want to fill. .out any impact statements or what. ever I 'm gonna have to do at my expense. He thinks he' s got the right to do certain things. and I don' t think he has the right. As a matter of fact, I know he doesn' t have the right. He only has the right of way over the road. And that is in all kinds of deeds, it' s in my deed. He went in there with bull dozers. and excavated. the whole area and. knocked down trees and did damage to my property. I 'm at the point where I might sue him for damages. That' s where I'm coming from. I don' t know where is. But that' s my position. As it stands right now he. . . .in this notice it says, "you are hereby given notice that it is the intention of the undersigned to request that permit from the Board of Trustees to clear roads that have been overgrown with fallen trees and brushes in the last few years. That is an over simplification of what he wants to do or what he. did. It doesn't mention that. he already did this. Without permission. I object to anything that he wants to do or already did. I think he has to replace it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Our Town Attorney reviewed the deed and here comment was exactly the same. It is a civil matter between you and he. That' s the way that has to be settle in terms of that. She made that recommendation and that it becomes a civil matter between you and he in determining who could do what. But he did do activities within the wetlands and. that's our problem. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Where do we stand as far as Mr. Neuer applying for a permit to do work on Mr. - Aurichio' s property? Can he' do that? CLERK: According to Laurie, the road to the other piece of property states he can maintain it. That' s how she read it. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Yes, but he can apply for a permit to do work on Mr. Aurichio? CLERK: But he has to ask Mr. Aurichio first. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Right. That' s my impression. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Mr. Aurichio can sue him. Board of Trustees 21 April 24, 1996 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Peter has a bigger question which I don' think has been answered, is that does ' he. even have the right. to apply for a permit? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I don' t think he does, at least not without Mr. Aurichios' approval. MR. AURICHIO: Not only my approval, but the CAC and the DEC. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, we' re talking about a separate piece of property. We' re not talking about. what he did or didn't do, we' re talking 'about is does he even have the right to apply for a permit. This is an unbelievable night. TRUSTEE. WENCZEt: We're not sure of the legal aspect of this. Mr. Aurichio we will confer with the Town Attorney on that question. I would suggest that as a citizen that maybe you should confer with your attorney on that question. I hate to tell anybody to go see an attorney but. . . . MR. AURICHIO: Just for the record. I'm not granting any permission and I maintain that he doesn' t have the right to do what he thinks he has. What he stated here is he cleared roads but he already did it. He did major excavation work in a wetland. area and disturbed my property, damaged my property, damaged wetlands. He doesn' t have the right to do it and calling that a right of way. And the thing that he submitted to you guys was an excerpt out of his deed, not mine. So he took it out of context and is trying to make a case out of it. It' s ridiculous also. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Well. you could give him the right. . . .I'm assuming. You could give him permission to apply for a permit to do that work. I would assume. MR. AURICHIO: Well you know what I suggested to Mr. Neuer that he buy the piece of property and he could do whatever he "blank, blank" , wishes to do. But he didn' t want to do that. And that' s where it stands.. As it stands. right now, he' s subject to a law suit to replace the damages. To compensate for mutual damages and. or maybe a potential law suit from the. CAC and the DEC and from you guys. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You can be fined. So what do we do with this application then? TRUSTEE GARRELL: Let me try to summarize for the record. Where is Neuer in respect to violations and being. . . . TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Well. he got a notice. ' of violation. But he can' t straighten out without. Mr. Aurichio. So it' s almost like we have to allow them to work out their civil matter before we could go ahead with this. Doesn' t it seem? At any rate,- we need to talk with Laurie. TRUSTEE GARRELL: At any rate we need to have an attorney on call here tonight. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think we really have to table. this one. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I think we need to table it but I think we need to try to limit the inconvenience to Mr. Aurichio too. If we don' t have anything constructive to report before the next meeting I think Mr. Aurichio should be notified , so he doesn' t have to sit through this circus again. Maybe we could schedule some sort of meeting before that and discuss with Mr. Aurichio Board of Trustees 22 April 24, 1996 and Mr. Neuer if he' s so willing to be there and what the Town. Attorney feels. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I would go so far as to say if you can't bring Mr. Neuer or if he refuses to make contact with us or Mr. Aurichio that we maybe have to consult. with Mr. Aurichio and the Town Attorney and ourselves and try to work something out. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There was damage. done and that has to be answered. MR. CONNELL: The. damage that has been done I don't know if it appropriate or he can do this, but Mr. Neuer should. be made to go back in there and take care of the damage that has been done. He' s really upset that area where it' s threatening the wetlands and somethi-ng should. be done to stabilize that area in the mean time. I don' t know if you can do that without putting the burden on Mr. Aurichio. I don' t want to see that happen either but it sounds like he tress passed and it should be a legal thing where he' s made to go back and straighten it out.. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is natural. resources willing to develop a plan as to what should be done? MR. CONNELL: Yes, we could do that. If we get a request from the land owner. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Or the Trustees? MR. CONNELL: Or from the Trustees. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That might be something to pursue at this moment. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: We can develop a plan and tell Mr. Neuer he' s got to do it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And then. we have something to say that this is what he has to do now or else and. then we kick it up to the next. step. And that next step might be you (referring to Mr. Aurichio) because your the. property owner. MR. AURICHIO: Yeah, but if it' s gonna cost me some money. . . . TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL: Right, you have to solve that with him, that' s. the civil part of the. whole thing. But Allen works with , two hats' to let you know, he' s the President, of the Conservation Advisory Council but he also works with the federal Government with Natural Resource. So his responsibility for the whole County is to provide planting, 'run off and erosion control and that.' s really what this is a problem of. So what we' re gonna do is ask him to develop what should done to mitigate the damage already done and then we' ll follow up on that by enforcing that on somebody.. MR. AURICHIO: Then what? You' ll notify me of this then? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Yes. We' ll stay in touch. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: I'll make a motion. that we table both the applications of Arnold Neuer. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 8: 59 P.M. - In the matter of MARDIK & LOUIS. DONIKYAN requests a. Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 100 ' wooden bulkhead. with 2 returns 6 ' above existing beach level. Located: 5425.5 Route 48, Southold. SCTM# 52-1-4 Board of Trustees 23 April 24, 1996 TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I apologize for not being at the Work Session on this. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We talked to him and our concern was, once. again, was the toe of the bluff and what we said what we would. do was meet at our next inspection and. find where that .actually - is for our mind and his mind. And be. able to work it out there.. MR. DONIKYAN: I would like to ask if Mr. Wenczel has seen those three stakes. TRUSTEE. WENCZEL: Yes, I was down there and I made some detailed measurements. MR. DONIKYAN: Recently, sir? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Yes, within the last. . . . . . MR. DONIKYAN: The surveyor's stakes? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: When did you do this? MR. DONIKYAN: The first week (could not hear him) . Easter date, which was April 9th. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: O.K. I think I was there prior to that. No I haven' t seen the latest revision. MR. DONIKYAN: And then I took photographs sir and. . . . TRUSTEE WENCZEL: O.K. We' ll come down and look. MR. DONIKYAN: The reason I bring this up is I am an engineer. I live in Englewood. Board of Adjustment Committees, Army Corps of Engineers. for 15 years and. of course New Jersey is first authority but I have some profession. I wanted to. hear somebodies, maybe neighbors, objection. This way we will be prepared. TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL: I don' t see any other faces here, but I' ll ask the question. Is there anyone here who wishes to object to the application? What we' ll do is once again, we' ll table this and meet you out at the site and we' ll talk about exactly where it's going to go. The week before, it will be the 15th. Wednesday. The field inspections are Wednesday, and they start at 12:00 and Diane or Jill will call you and let you know when we will be at the site. TRUSTEE GARRELL.: You don't have to come all the way from New Jersey, your contractor can do that too. As long as. someone. is there to speak with us. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I 'm gonna make a motion to table this application for re-inspection. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 9:20 p.m. - In the matter of FAUVNER L. SCRIBNER as Trustee requests a Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a rock revetment along property to stabilize erosion and construct a 1,200 s.f. single family dwelling. Located: ROW off Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. SCTM #10-3-1 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Marty or Peter you guys went out and looked at thus. TRUSTEE GARRELL: This was no problem. We just added to this a requirement to add a non-turf buffer and hay bales. There was no problem with this. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Well I think the question was, "How big a buffer?" I thought 30 ' from the top of the bluff would be appropriate. I' ll make a motion to close the hearing. 1 jryy ;V ��1y ( Sp hr.6 ti Br aiNJ�flr 7 ii i Board of Trustees 24 April 24, 1996 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE GARRELL: I' ll make a motion to grant for a Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permit with stipulation there be a 30' non-turf non-fertilized buffer along buff and haybales placed during construction. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I' ll make a motion to return to the Regular Meeting, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES AMENDMENTS./WAIVERS/CHANGES: 8. MICHAEL P. BONTJE requests. an Amendment to Permit #4496 to change dock extension which will be in a "J" configuration rather than an "L" configuration. The other dock will be a 20' extension south rather than 18' and a 16 ' return on the ."J" rather than 14' to allow for the 10' vegetation setback and still reach deep water. Located. Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM #57-2-23 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone. who wishes to speak either for or against this application? I' ll make a motion that we approve the Amendment based on our own view and the comments -of- - — - --- the CAC. , TRUSTEE GARRELL SECONDED. ALL AYES 9. THOMAS DEMOPOULOS ref- �-sts a Waiver to erect a chain link fence 4' high around. property for protection. Located: - 970 Village Lane, Mattituck. SCTM #114-6-15 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to table the application for re-inspection, TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded. ALL AYES 10. Mary G. Roberts on behalf of GOOSE ISLAND CORPORATION requests a Waiver to construct a doorway on one of the side walls of summer restaurant. Located: Central Ave. , Fishers Island. SCTM #10-1.-8.1 TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to approve the Waiver, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES V. RESOLUTIONS• 1. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of EDNA MC CALLION requests a Grandfather Permit to resheath an existing functional timber groin. Located: 1100 Dean Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM #116-5-13 TRUSTEE GARRELL. moved to approve. the Grandfather Permit, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 2. Resolution to restrict the length of residential docks on the Peconic & Gardeners ' Bays such that they shall extend no further than 100 ' from Mean High Water. TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL moved to approve the resolution, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded, TRUSTEE RING abstained. 3 . Resolution to allow fences delineating property lines to extend seaward only .}- -she.._point of Mean, High Tide, and to be no more dense than a split rail f ance. I. 1 Board of Trustees 25, April 24, 1996 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE WENCZEL. seconded. ALL AYES 4. Resolution to restrict the width of residential catwalks construct over tidal waters and tidal wetlands to 3 feet. A motion was made by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL to propose the above policy and seconded by TRUSTEE WENCZEL. As 'there was not a majority of the Board voting for the above policy, the MOTION WAS LOST. (policy was not adopted) . VI. MOORINGS• 1. ANTOINE ROMANO requests a mooring in Mattituck Creek (Howard' s Branch) for a 24' outboard with 175 l.b. mushroom. ACCESS: Private TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve according to Bay Constables approval, TRUSTEE. WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 2. GREGORY OLSEN requests a mooring-- in Richmond Creek for a 22' outboard with a 100 '1.b. mushroom. ACCESS: Public TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve according to Bay Constables approval, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 3 . SEAN HALLAHAN requests a mooring in James Creek .for an 8' jetski. ACCESS: Private_- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve according to Bay Constables approval, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 4. RAYMOND CONKLIN requests a mooring. in Little Creek for a 13 ' outboard with a 50 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: Public. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve according to Bay Constables approval, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 5 . CLAIRE M. POWERS requests a mooring .in Little Creek for a 15 ' boat with oars. ACCESS: Public TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved, to approve with according to Bay Constables approval, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES Meeting Adjourned at 9:35 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: Diane J. rbert Clerk, Board of Trustees