Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/22/1996 MINUTES. NOVEMBER 22 , 1996 PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr. , President John Holzapfel, Vice-President Martin Garrell, Trustee Jim King, Trustee Peter Wenczel, Trustee Diane Herbert, Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTIONS: Wednesday, December 11, 1996 at 12 noon TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded, ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: Wednesday, December 18, 1996 at 7: 00 pm WORKSESSION: 6:00 pm TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve., TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded, ALL. AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve minutes of October 23, 1996 Regular Meeting: TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, .TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded.. ALL AYES I . MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report. for October 1996: A check for $1,916.27 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. Carmela Borrelli on behalf of GARY SACKS & ALAN . SCHLESINGER requests a Waiver to construct a wooden deck onto an existing house. Located: 125 Mesrobian Drive, Laurel. SCTM #145-4-7 '-3 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the Waiver, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 2. ROBERT COADY requests an Amendment to Permit #45.42 to move proposed dock from original position about 45 feet to north on property. Located: 315G Beebe Drive & Wilson Ave. , Cutchogue. SCTM #1.03-9-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the Amendment,. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 3 . Costello Marine on behalf of GLENDALOUGH PROPERTIES c/o BRAATZ requests an Amendment .to Permit #4634 to create a 60' X 65' deposition basin. ( 1,150 c.y. ) to a depth of 7.5' below MLW as per DEC and Army Corps permits. Located: 52.50 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-10-14 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the Amendment with condition they provide a series of soundings as described on map they provided us with (7 soundings..) one year after date of construction, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL. seconded. ALL AYES. 4. Costello Marine on. behalf of MONIQUE MORRIS requests an Amendment to Permit 03.3 to add a 20 ' rump in place of the 10' ramp, and three 2-pile dolphins to float float. Located: 1555 Shore Drive, Greenport. SCTM #47-2-29 TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to approve the Amendment, TRUSTEE H.OLZAPFEL. seconded. ALL AYES 5. Maurice Fitzgerald on. behalf of LILCO requests a Waiver to install a gas compressor station on the south side of Main Road, Mattituck. with an 8' high chain link. fence around. it. SCTM #122-7-6. 6 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL. moved to approve the Waiver, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded.. ALL AYES. 6. J.M.O. consulting on. behalf of ROBERT MELCHIONE requests. an Amendment. to Permit #933 to change. existing 3 ' X 70' timber dock to a 4' X_ 57 ' timber catwalk (elev. 3 1/2' over grade) and a 4' X 12' ramp and an 8' X 18' float. Located: 1130 Oak Ave. , Southold. SCTM #77-1-8 TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve the Amendment. with. condition that entire dock from. the retaining wall -to the end of the float be no longer that 77' long and on. no condition it extend. beyond. a line drawn between the two adjacent. docks, one to the east and. one to the west and under no condition shall the float, dock and boat block more than 1/3 of the channel and- if those two conditions were to occur: we would ask the owner to shorten that dock, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL. seconded. ALL. AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to go off the Regular Meeting and go onto 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 PUBLICATI.ON' FROM THE TRAVELER-WATCHMAN. 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. John H. Geideman on behalf of EDGAR MARVIN requests a Wetland Permit to repair inkind/inplace 1.10 ' of timber groin. on west side and replace 110' of damaged groin on east side -and add. 25' to both groins to reach base of. slope:. Located: 1260 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. SCTM #117-10-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? .MR. MARVIN: We have retained Larry Tuttle to do that. His father originally built them all along that entire stretch. They' re all uniform. The people to the east, the Manning.s, have had that done. And ours are in the same basic condition and we're having that. done. The. Department of Environmental Conservation said they didn' t think it was anything but. a minor. . . .whatever it wasp. We just feel that it is to protect what beach is left. At one point there was a beach at high water mark, 1.601 . Now it' s maybe 12' or 13 ' and we'd like to keep what beach we have and if we don't we' re afraid. . . . . . LARRY TUTTLE: We did the job next door. at Mannings. We'd like to do the same here. The County has just dropped. a tremendous amount of fill to the west there. Some of it will probably move to the west, some will probably move to the east. We think to maintain the beach the groins will have to be fixed.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommended approval of the project without any conditions. The only condition we would put on there is that the groins be built to the same specifications as the neighbors to the east there, a low profile type of groin. MR. MARVIN: They were all done by Larry's father and there all gonna be the same now. Low profile. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And we have no problem of it coming into the land like that. TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to close the. hearing. TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL.: Second. ALL. AYES TRUSTEE GARRELL. Move to approve with stipulation that. the groins. be low profile.. TRUSTEE: WENCZEL.: Second. ALL AYES- 2. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of .HAROLD P. SCHWERT requests.. a Wetland Permit to. remove 94+/-! of concrete block retaining wall and reconstruct inkind/inplace with an 80' timber wall, construct a 7' return on either end of wall. and backfill with 5+ c.y. of sand, remove 4' X 40' catwalk and a 4' X 8' inshore ramp, and construct a. new 4' X 52' catwalk (elev. 4' above grade) a 3 ' X 11' ramp and an 8' X 16 ' float secured by 2 two-pile dolphins. Located: 440 Oak Ave. , Southold. SCTM #77-2-1 85 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak on behalf of Mr. Schwerdt? Does the Board have 'any questions? The CAC recommended disapproval of the concrete block retaining wall and recommend approval with stipulations of the catwalk., ramp and float assembly with stipulation that it extends no further than. the existing catwalk, ramp .and float. The Board went out there and, inspected the site last week and we did not see Mr. Schwerdt. TRUSTEE WENCZEL.:. I spoke with Mr. Schwerdt and, I told him I could not guess how the Board would react to this retaining wall request. I discussed it with him and. I said maybe one of the ways he could stabilize that beach would be. to possibly regrade and plant with spartina.. Spartina is growing to the east of. there. As far as the dock., I guess when your guys went there. was a little misunderstanding about what was going on there. We cleared that up. What he really wants to do there is eliminate an inshore ramp and extend the. dock from his retaining wall out. I think it' s gonna be no longer than 4' longer than what is pre-existing. So that' s where we stand. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEI.: Peter., did. you. mention. to Glenn about the soft approach? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I don't know that I did. I did say that I wasn't sure how the Board. was gonna reac.t. to that.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we looked at that, you can see the dramatic difference between that applicants property and the property to the east. It' s a much. lower elevation and it comes. right into the retaining wall.. In our opinion, it' s always that when there' s native vegetation. in front, it retains the soil and it doesn' t wash away into the creek. Our recommendation would be, and in that case and every other case like it, would be to plant. . . . .and I wouldn't have any problem in filling, to reach a. desirable elevation, then planting spartina. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Yes, and then regrade with clean sand. MR. JUST: I think there' s two separate issues. One is the. dock, and it doesn't appear to be any question about the dock. the Schwerdts have owned the property for about 23 years. - At that time a survey was done and it showed that the concrete block wall was in existence .and it. was located about 25 to 30 feet landward of the Mean High Water Mark. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is that. from? TRUSTEE. WENCZEL:. That's the retaining wall. that' s now. . . . . . TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI: What was. submitted is sort of insipherable. MR. JUST: It doesn't show the retaining wall.. It only shows the block wall. Which if you. scale it, it's 36 or. . . . . TRUSTEE..KRUPSKI: That' s the. wall that' s shown on the survey. . What we saw is something that's in front of that. MR. JUST: It was originally a concrete wall.. What. I'm showing here is a series. of photographs going back to .the day the property was purchased. That's s concrete wall. These are pictures in 1984 and there was a wall. there. This is April. 1994 and you can see how that. wall is undermined and' how it had been at that time. There's only one brick left there now. TRUSTEE WENCZEL.: When I was there maybe I misunderstood. I said to Mr. Schwerdt, and maybe I was. not quite clear. I asked if the timber retaining wall. was the cement block wall that' s in this picture.. It' s not correct.. MR. JUST: The concrete wall is the one depicted, and. it says on the survey, existing concrete wall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And your saying that.' s that.? MR. JUST: That' s how it is today. on a north-easter this, place gets whacked. And that wall. has. gone from maybe 4 feet. in the. ground to. . . . . TRUSTEE: WENCZEL: It seems to me'- that what. he' s got there is- adequate and all he needs is the. planting. We would entertain another wall? It' s not functional. It' s not existing... TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: In. my own mind I hadn't pictur.ed.. it as being a functional wall. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: It's not functional. Any other structure that we've looked at that was not functional was considered a new structure. And. we want a full application. Isn't that true? TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI: This is a full application. We had better go out and talk to Mr. Schwerdt on the site. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are you willing to separate the two and. we' ll give the permit for the. dock and. loak at the other one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We' ll. table half of it and review it again next_ month at no .expense to the applicant.. MR. JUST: Fine. MR. SCHWERDT: If I may. I purchased that in 1973 and at that time you saw pictures of the sand approx. 25' to 35' of beautiful sand. that you find- in Jones.' Beach. If you go down there now it' s- two feet of sand.. This. is erosion., You, saw a picture of the what the: hurricane did in 1984. That' s when I had the bulkhead put in the cinder blocks was undermined., You saw what happened to the trees. You suggest we plant grass. If this hurricane can do that to the trees what will it do to the grass? I've never had. grass on 'that beach. And right now it used to be waterfront property. I used to call it beach front. I had nice beach. I don't have it now. That' s .why I'm requestingg a retaining wall. to hold. that. so the. other wall won't fall down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, Mr. Schwerdt we just. received those pictures tonight. MR. .SCHWERDT: But he saw them the other day. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Yes, but I misunderstood what we were talking about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.: We' re not denying the application either. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: i thought when I looked at it, I thought that. the timber retaining wall was what you have replaced. the cement block wall with. If you recall, when..we were down. on the beach, I asked you about the cement. blocks. there and you told me you have put that there after they finished the. timber wall and you had a few pieces of material left. I said to you, "well you don't have permit for this do you?" And you said., "no, if my neighbor down the way could. do it, then I. can." Right? then I said well., we have to deal with it, we have to discuss it and I thought a soft solution would. solve your problem and. I could not predict how the. Board would. react to it. And that' s how I recall our conversation and maybe there was some other r S�7 misunderstandings there. Because obviously I didn't understand. what you told me about the block wall when- we discussed it. TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI.: What we would like. to do is like to approve: your dock application but because. . . . . . MR. SCHWERDT: I already have a dock application. TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI: No, we would like to approve that tonight. But what we'd like to do is put the other application off one . month. We' ll meet you in December on the site again; and then based on the new information- that we.'ve just received- tonight then we can make a better. decision. KEN POLIWODA: When. you. go to do that field inspection, can you please take note that there's a good amount of salt plants. in front of his house there? Can you evaluate that and make. sure it doesn't get ruined in. the process of all. that. building? Because a lot of men work there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: I' ll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING.: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I' ll make a motion based.. on what we just heard and information we received, to approve the application to construct remove a 4.' X 4.0' catwalk and a 4:' X 8' inshore ramp and construct a new 4' X 52' catwalk, 3 ' X 11' ramp and an 8' X 16' float and two 2-pile dolphins and table until December meeting the part of application that requests to remove 94' of concrete block retaining wall and reconstruct inkind/inplace an 80' timber retaining wall. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL. AYES. 3. - BRICK COME MARINA requests a.'Wetland Permit to construct a 104 ' steel jetty bulkhead within 1.8" of existing eroded one and dredge 75 c.y. to below 6' of. MLW and use spoil to replenish behind bulkhead. Located: 1670 Sage Blvd. , Greenport. SCTM #57-1-38.3 TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI:. Is there anyone here who would. like to speak on behalf of the application? MR. HOWARD ZEHNER: I 'm the owner of Brick Cove Marina and I can only say the bulkhead has rusted and has holes in it and fill behind the bulkhead ha& flowed out through the holes. I'd like very much to repair the jetty and bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone here like to speak against the application? MR. FRANK FLYNN: I'm a resident of the Town of Southold and more particularly an. owner of upland on. Sage. Basin and, underwater land in the basin. As such I have. evidence more than- passing interest in activities. which adversely affect the. interests of owners and some of the: properties in whi.ch. degrade, the natural environment. In. 40 years- I've seldom seen such an application. I am acutely aware that I am addressing the Board, but I am. also speaking for the record. My previous. experi.ence with various Boards in Southold. has. led me to the conclusion that these public hearinga are largely pro-formal.. By voting, these Boards have reached the decision prior to the public. hearing, and public comments for evidence which were introduced with disregard. In fact, some of the Boards actually aided and abetted applicants in the violation of the law. Statements made by applicants are accepted. at face value and are up-nvesti.gated despite readily available evidence to the contrary. The subject . application is a case in point. I would now like to address a short form environmental statement. submitted. by the applicant on October 29, 1996. The very fact that (changed. tape) on the bulkhead. on. the. pr.operty. Nothing can be further from the truth. I first investigated the current. application on. November 18, 1996 last Monday., Among the records I found the statement dated November 13, 1.996 of the fee to be charged the applicant by the Trustees. It incited. and I quote, "if approved., payment- is now due" . Payment was profered and. accepted. the. same. day. Subsequently, the record has. been altered. At worst the original record indicated approval, of the. applicati.on prior to the public: hearing. At best, it indicates a careless uninvolved and disinterested attitude on the part of the Trustees. An attitude which is unwarranted and from which I shall disabuse them. It is also worthy to note that the Trustees did not get around to inspecting the property until November 14th, 1.996. The day subsequent to .that on which the unaltered record indicated the approval of the property. Now, as to-, the specific application it., the DEIS, the public. notice and the. application. described the subject property as Section 57, Block 1, Lot 38. Again., nothing can be further from the truth. Had the. Trustees or the CAC for that matter, both constrained to consult the tax map, a copy of which I have and can provide, even a . cursory view would have. revealed that. the subject application. is not remotely connected to Lot 3a.3. Nor is. it on. property vested in the applicant. In. fact, it is. some. 120' southeas:t. of Lot 38.3 and on the property of others.. I shall return to the deceptive description. lat.er. But at this point I would like to conclude my specific comments pertaining to the actual contents of the EIS. In the EIS the applicant states., and I. quote-, "there will be affect on the wetlands.. or tidal waters of the Town". This statement is to say the. least disingenuous.. The applicant proposes to dredge- municipal. waters. This opens up the whole sorted history of the exploitation of the entire basin by the marina operation or minority owners of the underwater land. They treat it as if it's their sole province or sphere of influence and regardless of the rights of others. The disruption of the natural tidal flow goes back virtually to the- inception of the marine: operation. I wonder if any of the Trustees: are aware that the. original access to this marina was via a channel at the. southeasterly side of the basin and through the easterly part of what is now the rip-rap. located at -the southwesterly upland portion of what is now Lot 38.3. This channel was filled and a- new basin entrance was. created at the southwesterly portion of the basin. It is presumed that this. was f.o.r the convenience of the marina and. probably to increase. marina capacity. There can. be no question, however, that the natural tidal float. was altered. More recently the marina operator was issued several stop work orders for infractions.. And. mos.t recently, the:. operator proceeded to dredge outside the permitted area and on. the property of others.. His pretext was., and. I quote, "a. 1 Cf recently discovered shoal" . Are you, or any other reasonably cognizant individuals prepar.ed. to believe that. after 20 years of marina operations. the shoal was recently discovered? The operator proceeded to dredge some 50%. of the area of. the shoal. outside' of his property and. also outside the permitted area.. He. went on the dredge the. entire width. of. the basin entrance including some. 40 feet in. width., in. which.. no permit. has- been issued. Most of this work was accomplished on week ends when Town offices were closed. Perhaps the most. shocking aspect of this affair is that. Bay Constable. Don. Dzenkowski reported this transgression to the. Town Attorney, the then Town Attorney, and. was. told. to ignore it.. Nevertheless I have pictures- to prove my' allegations. It is important to know that even prior to this dredging at the scoping session, concerned was evidence as to the affects of marina. projects on tidal flow.- A tidal. flow- study was required. Such a study was never completed. It is also noted that Kramer-Voorhis Associates, the Town's Consultants, expressed similar concerns as well as many other concerns. The entire basin entrance now constitutes a channel. That any Town Official bothered to investigate a. red channel marker was placed. in season. at the. point of the spit. Anyone familiar with the marine rules of the road knows the phrase, "red, right, return" . It means that it is safe to operate or navigate to the port of the marker. Confirmation of my contention is .to be found in the FEIS. submitted by the applicant which included an underwater profile of the area.. As a result, the tidal flow in the basin was vastly increased. resulting in notedly high tides. and creating erosion. for which I hold .the Town responsible. In addition, the silenity of the basin has been altered. by the increased. i.nflux' of salt water. It has been well established that the basin was a fertile breeding ground for shellfish. However, in one submission, the applicant stated that'a days. effort produced three clams. Tell that to the Baymen I see outside my window, constantly in season.. The very presence_ of the marina has. resulted. in the seasonal closure .of the basin for shellfishing. Thus, even owners of underwater land are now precluding from shellfishing on -their own properties. I would now like to return to the question of location and ownership. I have undertaken a title search of the applicants property and plodded each parcel to scale. The members of this Board are probably not. aware. that I served in a similar function as a Consultant to the New York State Attorney General' s Office for a number of years. To repeat, the proposed site is not part of Lot 38.3 and does not and cannot belong to the applicant: Rather than. go through the entire chain of title, which I'm prepared to do, I confine myself at this time to the relevance of title to the area of the proposed action. The 40 foot, wide strip (could not hear, shuffling of paper) The lega.l. description of this parcel has a. point of beginning at the southeasterly corner of Lot 52. on the map of Southold shores.., then proceeds. northwesterly 40' then northeasterly 25' then southerly to the high water mark of Peconic Bay and then significantly along the ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay through the waters of the marina. 325' to the point of beginning. Examination of, the map of Southold. shores. reveals that the southwesterly corner of Lot 52 was: the high water mark of Peconic Bay whi.ch. marked it' s southwesterly along the lot line 311.131 . The significance. of. this finding is that the southerly line of the 40' strip and. that. of the. continuous. Lot 52 are along the high water mark of. Peconic. Bay and remote. from the site of the proposed project. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you show us that? MR. FLYNN: I shall. a.t the end. I 'd like to conclude this first. The signifi.cance. of this finding is the. southerly line of the 40 ' strip and that of the continuous Lot 52 are along the. high water mark. of Pec.onic. Bay and remote of the proposed site.. And there' s another thing that should have been obvious to anyone who looked at that site plan. The plan submitted by the applicant indicates an area of 6,537 s.f. along which the bulkhead is located. With the exception of a possible 600 s.f . per (could not hear, shuffling of papers) it cannot be in the ownership of the applicant. Significantly this parcel of. 6,53.7 s.f. is not indicated on the tax map. And for good reason. I have been unable to find the conveyance for this parcel. This. entire parcel must be. viewed in a historical prospective. I am informed that its genesis can. be traced. to the beaching of barns on the shoreline of Peconic Bay. It was subsequently filled and a bulkhead col.lected. around.. .it. Plus approx. 6,000' of the parcel represents an encroachment on the land of the State of New York. No plain or adverse possession can. be advanced. against the State or any other municipality. It. is. as stopped. The entire basis of the application is fallacious_ and should be rejected. I am prepared to present my detailed argument to the Trustees or any designee familiar with these legal descriptions. If not I shall bring this matter to the attention of the Attorney General. Now in closing, it is apparent that the Trustees. issue permits and then wash their hands. of any responsibility to see to it that the requirements enclosed by the committee are carried out. As a -small example the applicants property looks to be .lands.caped. Was it? A 15' clearing area was to be kept out of any construction. The applicant habitually docks large boats in. this area.. How many other requirements by the Trustees have been disregarded. Do the Trustees evidence any interest? That they' re provisions imposed be followed? Finally, and not entirely apropos of this. matter, but indicative of the Trustees cavalier attitude to their responsibilities, the complaint was lodged this.. spring concerning the. transgressi_on. of the wetlands. and. the. construction of an illegal. dock in sage. basin.. The Trustees stated it would be removed. As of. November, 18, 1996 it was still in place. That is a completion of: my remarks and. at. your convenience and with whomever you want. I'm prepared. to. backup. every statement I made-and.- every legal description that I recited and all the surrounding influences.. This property is not on the. Lot designated... It is. remote- from that and on the property of the State of New York. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One. question.. Could you clarify that here. (all talking at. once and indicating on survey submitted) TRUSTEE GARRELL: I think it' s. a legal question for. the Town Attorney. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: According to your description., we:' re not any more qualified: than they are. (Meaning the State Dept. ) MR. FLYNN: I don' t think you are, really. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then what are we arguing about? MR. FLYNN: I'm not normally an aggressive or conceited person. In this area, I have 40 years of experience. MR. ZEHNER: They' re not responsible of course from what I do. on property. . . MR. FLYNN: Yes they are, if they're issuing you a permit to. do it. MR. ZEHNER: Whether it' s my property, or easement. property or what ever. . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And Mr. Kehner., could you provide us with that easement? Any other comments? MR. SAMUELS.: I know Mr. Flynn very well and I agree with him on very many things. However, his complaints ,about the Trustees- not investigating things., not going down and looking at them, not making a good decision, etc, etc, I've been in front of this Board for 37 years. I go back to Alva Goldsmith.. And I have found the Trustees have been on balance and completely fair to the applicant. that they do go look at the- si.tes., they do make valued judgement. I 'd just dislike the intimidation of going to the Attorney General and all that stuff. I would suggest that you disregard it. I.t's a good Board.. As you know I. disagree on many occasions with some: of the decisions and we: have to compromise. But the idea that you don't look or you don' t care or that your rubber stamping stuff is absolutely wrong. And I . Want whatever public here tonight to realize that, that it is not the case with the Southold Trustees. or with Southampton, or Southampton.. TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI: Thank you.. TRUSTEE. GARRELL.: I think the. point. i.s, as an elected official I think one of the things is. certain kinds. of things that are kind of let off our back, like water off a duck. I'd also like to say something for the people here who sitting here and listening the scope of the project involved is no startling or unique .or particularly .large. I:n .fact the amount of dredging that's involved is 75 c.y. That' s 15' X 15' X about 3 ' high. And that' s what' s typically used if I 'm correct to fill in behind a bulkhead. project. So it's not an enormous- dredging project.. - What is a question here, and what is important is a question of: ownership. Who has the right to do what to what kind of land. We' re gonna have to deal with this through the. Town Attorney and go further with it. TRUSTEE .KRUPSKI: As far as the ownership issue when an applicant comes in for a structure that' s not. on their property, they always miss. that. Often. times, it will be a dock that is extending into Town waters, or on the property of the State of New York. But they would never list that property as the State. of New York or Southold. Town.. So we' re trying to look into that matter of ownership to cover all the basis. We went back, not once but we went back by boat too. TRUSTEE GARRELL:. Move. to table until December Meeting. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: Second. ALL AYES. 4. En-Consultants. Inc. , on behalf of DOUGLAS. BORISKY requests. a. Wetland Permit to replace (within 1811) 99+/- l.f. of timber bulkhead and backf ill with 12. c.y. of clean sand, to be trucked in from an upland source. Located.: 9475 Nassau. Poin.t Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #1.1.9-1-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would. like to speak either in favor or against the application? I'm. gonna. remove myself from. this vote. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone here who wishes to- comment on this application.? DIANNE: I'm here to answer any questions .you might have. TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL: The CAC recommends approval.. I' ll make a motion to close: the hearing. TRUSTEE. WENCZEL.: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 5. En-Consultants Inc.. , . on behalt: of FRANK & SANDRA CURRAN requests: a Wetland Permit to reconstruct (within 18") an existing westerly 48+/ 1.f. of: bulkhead, backfill with. 10 c...y. of clean sand to be trucked in from, an upland source: Located.: 560 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-1-16 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.:. Is there: anyone hero who wishes to speak on behalf of the applicant? DIANNE: (changed tape). They're proposing to change this within. 18" and. the. porch is. ahout 8' away from the bulkhead, so th.ere' s. a construction issue there where -it would have - to be within 1&11 . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone else who wishes to comment on this application? It. would. appear. that if you put 18" in front there's gonna be strand of spartina that' s gonna be destroyed. Can we replant that in front? MR. SAMUELS: It' s not actually gonna. be. 18" . It' s gonna be 611 . We' re gonna frame. to the old bulkhead with 4 X 6' s and then put the sheathing in. The whalers are of course aren't in the bottom. So it' s just the piling that will he out in the marsh there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It' s just that there was just a good strand of healthy spartina there. MR.. SAMUELS:. We' re gonna disturb as little as. possible because I know how sensitive it is. After we put the pilings in, if there are any holes left. from the jetty Process we' ll fill: it. with sand and plant. alternaflora or whatever you choose. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: The CAC approves: the Wetland application. I ' ll make a motion we close the hearing. TRUSTEE. GARRELL.: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: 11 11 make a. motion to approve the. Wetland application with stipulation. that spartina alternaflora will be planted in any open spaces. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Since. it' s gonna be constructed within 6." can we re-phrase it to be constructed within 61 ? 1(� MR. SAMUELS: Yes, my suggestion is it usually is when the bulkhead. is straight- and you could. frame it. straight. That the: permit read, "and be attached. to the. old bulkhead" , which. eliminates any possible transgression on the 18.11 . TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL: I' ll make a motion to approve the. application. saying the new bulkhead will be attached to the old. bulkhead and spartina be replanted.. TRUSTEE KING: Second_. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Abstained. 6. En-Consultants Inc. , on behalf of MICHAEL WITHERS requests a Wetland Permit to replace (within. 1811) 16.0+/- l.f.. of steel bulkhead with a knee wall and backfill with 1.0 c.y. of clean sand: ;Existing. docks will be removed to allow for construction and°then replaced. Located: 651.5 New Suffolk Road, New Suff( lk.. SCTM #117-5-24 TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in/favor of the application? DIANNE: If you have any questions, I ' ll be glad to help. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I looked at it for the Board and I saw no problems at all and I' ll also say the CAC recommended approval. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The question I have, and Larry is here and maybe he help me. My only concern was., I think somebody else. may own. the. bottom and .if you want to go out 18" you might need. . . . LARRY TUTHILL: It' s being built to just patch the holes in the steel bulkhead. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.:, O.K. Because it does. say within. 18.11 . MR. TUTHILL: It' s just going right along side the. steelings. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: My concern was it' s your land and this is gonna be there and I didn't want the owner to claim your land. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: . Any other Board comment? TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL: second- ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I ' ll. make a motion we approve the application. TRUSTEE. KING: Second. ALL AYES 7. CHRISTINE ANDER SON requests a Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permit to place boulders along. foot of bank and replant bluff. Located: 1000 Sound Drive, Greenport.. SCTM. #4.3-4-3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of. the. application? MS. ANDERSON: I have here with me a new drawing and will be happy to answer any of your. questions. On your last inspection. your remaining question was the are.a. of erosion halfway down the bluff. At which. point we had indicated originally to have the rip rap. Upon your suggestion we have revised the diagram to put in wood rather than deadmen to. hold. it in place.. The DEC asked for the toe stone a foot below and we've done that as. . indicated. They wanted the apparent high and low tide which we've had sketched in. TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL: Just a quick question. Would lowering that down, is that taking the whole size of the wall. down a bit too? Or is it adding something, below. the ground? MS. ANDERSON: This is just below the ground for, the boulders.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:. Is there any other comment? , TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to close the hearing? , TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Move to approve the application based on last drawing submitted 11/2.2/96. TRUSTEE KING.: Second. ALL. AYES 8. Pat Moore on behalf of. CRESCENT BEACH CONDOMINIUMS request a Wetland Permit to add 6.8' of fixed dock to existing dock with. 7 piles, a 41 . X 48' "T", a 3' X .10' ramp and a 6' X 20' float. Located: off Maple Lane, Greenport. SCTM #p38.1-1-22. TRUSTER KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? MS. MOORE: We are here again continuing the hearing with. respect to the application. Since the date of our last hearing we have submitted for the .record an as built survey. This clearly shows where all structures are, where the lateral boundaries are measured accurately, and the fact that we are well within our property limit contrary to our neighbors contention and that we are dealing with property owners to the east who has encroached into our area. We've learned to live with it and for now we are trying: to establish our own dock area and extension to provide sufficient slips_ for.. . .I don't want to say 21 units, but we have 21 units., i.n the condominium. We have presently 7 slips.. And the sand has accumulated under many of those slips and many of them have become impractical to use. We are requesting an extension of. the dock in order to accommodate additional. slips for the condominium.. This evening I have with. me, Mr. Tuthill who built the original.. structure and is here to answer any questi.ons. you mi.ght. have.. I also want: to put him on the record. in_ order to create my record if I need to proceed this. I also have Mr. Guideman who has also been the permit applicant from the inception of this dock and can answer any question you might have. LARRY TUTHILL: I'm a professional Engineer and have been in marine construction for about 40 years. . MS. MOORE: _ Let me start out by saying that you were the individual who built. this existing dock. MR. TUTHILL.: I did build the original, dock. MS. MOORS: And your., planning on building the proposed. 'extension? MR. TUTHI:LL: Yes. MS. MOORE: Larry did you have an idea what the depth is of the water for some of these., not specific, but general terms? MR. TUTHILL: The end of the present dock or so of the standing structure is about 4 feet at low tide., but. as we approach shore. the sand has receded to a. point now where at the inner it' s only about 2 1/2 feet at low tide close to shore. MS. MOORE: Just to s.tart- off I.'m gonna ask you some questions to put on the record.. Does the present dock: where the proposed extension of the dock ever sleeve back to wetlands.? MR. TUTHILL: No, I don't believe it does. There' s nothing but. sand there and it' s in the water and there' s no wetlands there. MS. MOORE: Does the proposed dock or the existing dock. cause damage from erosion,. turbidity or .siltation? MR. TUTHILL: The property is situated as- such it: doesn't make too much difference as to .whether some erosion or some turbidity. It'-s consequential really, except for the. use of the dock. MS. MOORE: Does the proposed dock cause salt water intrusion into the freshwater resources? MR. TUTHILL: No. MS. MOORE: Does it adversely affect fish, shellfish or other. beneficiary marine- organisms., aquatic.. wi.ld.life_ and vegetation.. or natural habitat? MR. TUTHILL: The only thing when we built it was the splash board and. we did get complaints from the fish and wildlife .peop'le 'for openings in the splash board. We did reconfigure the dock so there were openings for the aquatic life to swim through the splash boards.. MS. MOORE Does the proposed: dock. increase danger of flood or storm damage? MR'- TUTHILL: No. . MS. MOORE: Does it adversely affect navigation on these- tidal waters? MR. TUTHILL: No. the main channel is about .1/2 mile away that leads to Freeport. out to the ocean. MS. MOORE: Does it change the course of any channel or navigation in regards of the water? MR. TUTHILL: ' There' s no change there. . MS. MOORE: Does it weaken or undermine.. lateral support of the 1 an_d? MR. .TUTHILL:. , No MS, MOORE: In your opinion does it adversely affect the. health., safety or general welfare of the people of the Town? MR. TUTHILL: No. MS. MOORE: Let me just get into some specifics. The dock that we have proposed, we had at one point early on in the process in order to try to reach a compromise, that some of your members of the Board, we agreed to reduce the length of the fixed dock from 68' which is in your notice to 401 . TRUSTER. KRUPSKI: Actually, in the field it was: 34' . MS. MOORE: Well we propose 40' since we're only gonna be able to get 4. . . . . TRUSTER KRUPSKI.: But you came. back with. that. afterwards. MS. MOORE:: O.K. I didn't have my client there at the time, but ' it was. .s.uggested. by the Board that we took it into advisement. and you said we could. reduce it to 401 . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.: I just wanted. to make that clear.. That 40 was not discussed.. MS. MOORE: Right now we have the floating dock that extends out.. . . . .what' s the difference that it extends out? MR. TUTHILL..:. 30 feet from the or.iginaL dock. At the end of the. floating dock would be 30 feet.. MS. MOORE: Therefore, what we're asking for is only 10 more. feet than what is presently there. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Is there a difference between what' s there and what your proposing, to go another 10 feet? MS. MOORE:. Excuse: me? TRUSTEE. WENCZEL.: I.s these a difference between. the structure that is presently there for that last 30 feet and. the structure. . that your proposing to build to go another 40 feet? MS. MOORE: Yes, the extension. . . . .what is. presently there is a floating dock and a platform and that's what extends out to the pilings- you see on the survey. that piling is actually 30 feet out from the end of. the dock. So what. I'm expressing to you is. the fact that the proposed extension is well within. . . .is 10 feet more than the area that is presently being used. Not with the fixed dock but with the fixed dock plus the floating dock. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: But the construction of what your proposing.. is significantly different than what presently exists over those 30 feet, correct? MS. MOORE: No, I have to disagree with your significant increase.. TRUSTEE. WENCZEL:. Well isn't it a fixed structure made of spiles with a boardwalk with. battan boards and a "T" on the end? TRUSTEE .KRUPSKI: Why do you want to change it? If it' s not significantly different? MS. MOORE: We' re gonna. get crooked out of it- where the. floating dock is not allow any slips. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not significant? MS. MOORE: That' s. a matter of opinion. So, I'm just (could. not understand words) so the judge will be able to hear what we' re proposing and what we have discussed with you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What. judge? MS. MOORE.: For the record., an Article. 78. That' s our next step_ if we cannot accompli.sh. a reasonable alternative here, our next step obviously is an Article 78. That' s what we've tried to avoid up to now, that' s why we've tried to give you everything that you've asked for. At this point I 'm placing on the record, all the facts I need to do in order to convince the judge what our proposal is, was initially reasonable and our compromise was. . . . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKL:. In your opinion... MS. MOORE: In our opinion.. For the record. I had a conversation. with your Bay Constable. TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI:. Which. on.e? We. have 3.. MS. MOORE.: Don Dzenkowski. He recognizes. that lateral boundaries are measured perpendicular to shore. So. just. to confirm what I've said to you in the past when I described to you that the extension of property lines is not the process. of measuring lateral boundaries. The general rule is perpendicular to shore and. that specific rule is 90 degrees_ from the head land which is what I've presented to you.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I interrupt here. You've given us quite an education on that.. I. don't think I'm gonna take an. exception. to that method_of extending lines into. public water.. ( c / However, what I find completely inaccurate in what you've submitted. here in the survey, and it makes. me question the. accuracy of the survey, is that it says that it' s called a head line baseline, is that correct? MS. MOORE: Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Except. this head land baseline doesn't go to the headland.. And that' s inaccurate. Because headland baseline goes from headland to headland. And. this doesn.'t. And. it's shown to be inaccurate. MS. MOORE: I would respectfully disagree with you. You could take the whole Bay as a baseland: headline. That' s the. position you could take say, from one. end of the bay to the other, that' s the headland. The reasonable., and all the cases and the interpretations and warrants and survival of real estate and the underwater rights, it explains that what you do is take the area that, your speaking of in this case, you have a cove, and you take the. . . . '. . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I show you the cove on the map? . The cove is marked by headland, that's why they call it a cove. And 'it ends at, the headlands. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL:. I think that' s a very, important point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That' s a very import point because. . . . . . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Because if your gonna put. it on the record we have to be very careful that your line. and our line differs dramatically. TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI: Because: the: headline. baseline. can't end conveniently at some arbitrary point. It has to ga from. headland to headland. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: It' s our feeling that- the headland line on this goes from the headland to the middle- of the cove as opposed to the adjacent headland. That' s our contention. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is based on what you -have shown us about extending property lines. This is the way the Board uses to extend the property lines.. Its a straight extension. Now you disagreed with that., and you said, "no,. there' s a. legal way to. do it" TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And I did read most of those cases. I went through them and quite clearly it says from headland to headland. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And we're not disputing that. This way, the old way is not the legal way. However., headland we found to be different. That' s not a headland. there. That' s a continuous curve. You could have easily put i.t here, here, or here.. (indicating on map) MS. MOORE.: Just for the record- Regardless. of if. it' s your interpretation of the. headland or the surveyors interpretation or the Judge or anyone else. who has .an. interpretation, the existing structures that are there have been.. built.. And we. are dealing with our neighbors dock which is 300' out. This drawing is very good because it shows the location of the structure that. has been approved to date. They cross., square across our entire. . . . . .based on your interpretation of the headland and. how- you would read the headland. or mark the headland_.to be and lateral boundaries.. . . . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I disagree.. That is. not. my interpretation. lf"r� l +U MS. MOORE: No, you misunderstood. I have this drawing here.. I have this drawing here... I am looking at this drawing. ... . .can I mark. it as exhibit A? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go right ahead. . MS. MOORE: Just so we know what we are talking. about. TRUSTEE. WENCZEL: I think. you already have an exhibit. A here in. the packet.. MS. MOORE: Alright. the, make it exhibit. 2 then. The lateral. boundaries that have been created eliminate all our waterfront. based on the way the Vakaris or Goosemar Realty dock extends. The DEC, when we originally applied to them., placed- us. in a certain direction. Recogni.zing. the. fact that we are in a cove. That while. the headland that you described. has many properties around- it., the affected properties that are going to be dealing with are crossing over of the docks. is the area that I described on my survey. So whether. I described it or you disagree with my description of whether or not it' s a headland. The practical affect. The reasonable application of the law is. that you take the area that' s affected, the cove, and you try to located the structures in that area.. That' s what. I'm trying to point out. That we could take this:, but right now we've got an .existing structures that have already eliminated any waterfront to us.. If we apply your interpretation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we're applying your interpretation of how to extend property lines. And we agreed with that. What we disagreed. with was the survey by Joseph Ingegno:. Is he here tonight? MS. MOORE: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That' s the point we're . trying to make since your threateningg us with a law suite. MS. MOORE: I 'm not trying to threaten you, I 'm just have to let , you know that we have been here. . . . .this. is our 4th time. we are asking for 10 feet more than. what we are presently using. They have extended an enormous amount of money, both in exhibits. to you. My time here and my presentations. to .you and you have exhausted enormous time of your own, so I recognize that. .and I appreciate it. We're all trying to get through this process. I'm trying to get through this process with an ultimate permit in hand. I'm just trying to establish a record so that if we can't get anywhere today, what choice do we have? Do we come back here month after month? At one point or another we end up with somebody else looking at. this TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: I'm still not clear. In the sense that there are .two ways that we have used to delineate property lines-- into the water. The past. history of the Trustees. . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which is documented. in the file. TRUSTEE. HOLZAPEEL.: The past history, has. been to follow some. sort of perpendicular line. or following the line. You then. presented. a very clear case that that isn't what should be followed.. That State Law is. very clear that it should go to headland... Now, my question is, which do. you want? You can't have both.. Just let us know which one you .are looking for. MS. MOORE: What I'm. saying is I don't have an answer to that. Because a. headland is a definition in. . . . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But the document that you presented, you were presenting, that you were this- was the way it had to be. MS. MOORE: If I could come up to you and- show you what I 'm describing. (explaining and. referring to map) Here you have the cove that' s affected., it has all the docks that. are building. up. This is the area that really it' s. from this creek to this point of land. That' s the area the surveyor has. used and that I have used. TRUSTER KRUPSKI: No it' s not the area. . . . .what your showing is Gull Pond. And he' s not showing that at all on here. The surveyor is not showing that at all. When. you show it to the judge and you say it' s right, they said it' s right, the judge has to be able to say, that's not a headland and they can bring in Mr. Tuthill or anyone. els.e and. say or give their opinion on whether that' s a headland or not. So we want to establish that that's not. . . .the middle of a curved line is not a headland. MS. MOORE: We' re bogged down in the definition of the headland that we can all disagree or agree. That' s. where we are. What. I tried to do is present or dispute Paulson's argument that our dock was infringing on his. waterfront. That' s all we were trying to accomplish with that drawing and with that headland description. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But, do you understand the implications, that if that isn' t the headland now you have what we consider a different headland. And that presents a whole different ball game. MS. MOORE: No, I disagree with you. What we have today are existing structures that have established a line. We have Mr. Fakaris. that has establi.shed. a 300 foot dock out there.. We can' t change that. If we adopt your interpretation of a headland then we have no waterfront. If you take our interpretation of the headland. . . . . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You have waterfront. We' re never denying that you have waterfront. MS. MOORE.: No frontage. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You do have frontage and can. you have a dock. That's what the law allows. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And you have access to the water with 7 slips. MS. MOORE: We have asked for an extension because we have 21 units. All of them have equal rights to put a boat there, if they choose to. We have a limited number of slips. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who' s affording them these equal. rights:? MS. MOORE: Each one of them as property owners have a right to ask for one of those slips-. Is there a. dispute with. that also.? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.: No, your saying they have equal rights, within. their little community. Not equal rights. TRUSTEE WENGZEL.: There' s one small mistake on. this.. On the one the Trustees exhibit. The next dock to the east of your dock was mistakenly placed in front of. the wrong property. It belongs in front of that long narrow property'. It. doesn.' t really change what it. shows., but. 2.'d just like to point. out that that where it belongs. MS. MOORE: It would show exactly what I just mentioned. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.: The further intrusion would. . . .but bear in mind this is not an intrusion in. the property of the applicant. This is intrusion into property the State of New York. and the. general public. MS. MOORE: Subject to the interpretation of what rights the. . . . TRUSTEE- KRUPSKI: I 'm. not talking about rights., I'm talking about property. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: It belongs to all of us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to ask Larry Tuthill if he has. any professional. experience or professional knowledge of - environmental science, and if he could. list the courses that he took and his professional experience. You are a professional engineer and you made a number of judgements, but you also. through Ms. Moore questioning: answered a number of environmental questions which I'm not positive that you have the same expertise. I just want to make it clear that your not speaking as an environmental expert. MS.- MOORE: No, he' s speaking as an engineer with 30 years experience. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The question was, do you have any professional experience in envir.onmental. studies? MR. TUTHILL: No, but.. . . . . . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Thank. you. That's all I asked.. MS. MOORE: Oh, excuse me:, this is not an interrogation. This is unfair. MR. TUTHILL: You have to allow me to finish the question. It has been realized and recognized that. the experience that L've. had. for many years in dealing with wetlands it is of value and. is recognized. We have: had court cases where I have spoken in reference to environmental things that they recognized my experience with the wetland and tidal wetlands and that has been recognized. I'd like to have that on the record. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: But you have no professional experience. MR. TUTHILL: No, yes. Because 'of time. It' s like being a coastal engineer. I 've had no actual training .as to coastal engineer but the other things add up to it. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: When you look at that dock, on the west side of it, where they have the boat slips., it appears to me when I was down there, that there is shoaling occurring there. MR. TUTHILL: No. This is what -we discussed. before. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: There's shoaling on the west side of that.. So it' s shallower on. the west side_ than. on.. the east side.. It seems to me., and I'm sure you.' ll. agree. with me, that the reason that's occurring is because this structure is there disrupting the littoral. flow. And. the sand. is. being deposited. on that. side. When I looked at that area it seemed that. the littoral. flow there was from west to east.. Would.. you agree with that? MR. TUTHILL: No, I would not agree. with. that. Because. if your familiar with the channe.l. at the entrance to. Gull Pond that. has built up on the east not on the west. side. . And this is only 4 or 5 hundred feet distance from it.. We've had. to extend. the. jetty at the entrance to Gull. Pond on. the. eas.terly side. We have extended.' that out. 20l " TRUSTEE WENCZEL: You've extended. it. out on the east side. I was just looking at this map and it shows that it' s the west. But regardless of that, because as we all know the littoral flow can change over a. short. distanc.e.. I think. it' s west to east there. But that' s not the point. Where is that sand coming from that's. piling up on the. west side of that dock? MR.' TUTHILL: It' s coming from the east. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: The sand that is piling upon the west side is coming from the east. MR. TUTHILL:. Yes, the littoral drift in that area is coming from the east. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: And so the sand is coming along and. it' s piling up on the west side of the dock. Would. you say then, that the structure that is .there is changing the flow of the. sand along that beach? MR. TUTHILL: Just recently down in. . . . . .the DEC had these conferences in reference to structures and they were showing where they built these "T's" out into the water in front so they would block the waves and help stop erosion. This is essentially what.. . . . .they had the splash boards. . . .and the property a little but to that. . . . .but there's nothing major in there. Obviously there' s some there but not much. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: So you think that in the course of this winter they could all of a sudden. have more water on the west side. A storm could come along and scour that out. MR. TUTHILL: The problem is as she stated before. . . . TRUSTEE WENCZEL: They have. more people than docks. Do you think tha.t.. . . . .your probably more familiar with that whole cove,. right? I've fished there since before: I was 19. Before there were any docks there and it seems to me that along there there' s always been a thick bed of eel grass. I can remember scalloping right up on the. beach and catching scallops in the eel grass. And now on the west side of the dock there's all that sand in there. Do you think that maybe that. dock had an effect where. it made that. sand. accrete there. and bury the eel grass? It. seems to me that' s what happened there. Because you said you figured.. that sand was coming from the east .and then being deposited on. the west. MR. FRANCIS McNALLY: I'M a retired tester from Grumman Aircraft. I've owned the particular parcel at Crescent Beach since Mr. .Cavanaugh sold. it 18. year.s ago.. What your referr.ing to the eel grass, it's still in the area. It hasn't stopped building in the sand. Which we have experienced on the westerly side of the Mr. Fakaris' property.' The eel grass is still in that. particular area. Now the: past two storms we've had-, I spent the week-•ends out here, and we have. seen. a tremendous_ buildup. there over the dock itself near the. beach. On the. easterly side of the: dock. we have a small boardwalk out to the. dock itself.. That was totally covered with. sand. from the last. nor'eas.ter. And there' s lots of eel grass in that area. from. our dock over to the inlet of the cove. TRUSTEE WENCZEL.: And there' s eel grass off these other docks. and in between them. So what your saying is the. sand can be on either side: there. - zoz MR.. McNALLY: I don't feel that the dock has caused any buildup of sand.. I 've watched it for 18 years. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: The fact is that what I 'm just trying to get. to the matter is, L'm trying to point out that there is a shoaling on one side of the dock that' s causing a problem, and that if you put a jetty in you' ll. have sand build up on one side of the other of it. That' s why he wants to do that project in. New Suffolk and all the. other jetties.. This. dock and it' s batter boards are acting essentially like a jetty. They're causing the sand in that area. and. burying the eel grass beds... MR. McNALLY: And you dial go down and look at that before and after the most recent storm. TRUSTEE WENCZEL.: No, I don' t go down after every storm. I've been there many, many, many times and I was there yesterday. I was not off Fakaris' dock, I was off Crescent Beach's dock. MR. McNALLY: In your evaluation is that sand built. up in there because of the boarding that he has on. it. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I think that. probably had an affect because- that' s the whole principal behind jetties. MR. McNALLY.: Well, being fair sir., if that' s your point of view, then how come Mr. Fakaris, the dock he has, and there's. nothing being done about that. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Nothing being done? What do you mean by that? MR. McNALLY: Yes, in regards to the dock and the build- up of sand on the westerly side of his dock. TRUSTEE WENCZEL.: Well sir, for the record., I don't believe any of these docks should ever be placed there. I think it's a travesty _that they were. MR. McNALLY: Well, there was a dock there initially when Mr. Fakaris put his out. Now what he wanted to do initially was to rebuild the dock that was there and that was not the location of the initial dock. That dock. was much. further east than where he actually.put it out. I know that for a fact. And that whole area, where those: condo.' s are built, that was a wetland. I. don' t know how the DEC ever approved that., to put those condo's there. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Neither do I. And I 'm appalled also. MR. McNALLY: I ' ll tell you what. One winter, that whole area was filled with concrete, sand and garbage to put those condo' s. in. I 've seen that myself. TRUSTEE. WENCZEL.: I don' t doubt it, I agree with you one hundred percent. MR. McNALLY: Because: of' what.. Mr:. Fakaris. there, putting in a concrete wall. and. r.aising his land, it cost. our condominium 30,000 to put a french drain in that area. He raised the. ground feet higher with concrete wall.. And. we wound up getting up into our units... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where did the water come from? I'm not doubting you, I'm just asking. MR. McNALLY: I t. comes. off the. land he built... It runs off- into our property. TRUSTEE GARRELL.: I think we've turned away from the original problem which somewhere way back was. putting 10 feet. onto. a dock. We're now discussing some of the major problems- of- the 705 worked that include jetties, eel grass, it' s good. However,. this is really not a marine seminar and we have a lot of people. here who are waiting on other things. What I'm saying is I would like at this juncture to propose taking one more stab at some kind of reconfiguration. Perhaps not an orthodox "T", perhaps not a straight forward extension. I would think that_ with all the engineering expertise in this room, that. we could. somehow find away to accommodate a couple of more boats. and put. in ten feet of dock in a cove that is already been, shall we say, disturbed or compromised._ I'd love to have one more shot at it. MR. McNALLY: Sir, we go on. spending money. . . . MS. MOORE: May i make suggestion? We have gone back to the drawing board and attempted to give you. what we could, live .. with. Is there any other alternative that you could think of that does not encroach the swim area? Does not go closer to Fakaris? MR. GEIDEMAN: We need a little more length in the dock that we have to accommodate any additional boats at all, whether it' s one, two or three. All we need is the 10 foot to get out there. MS. MOORE: Classification: The 10 feet we're talking about is an extension from what is there.. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I would like to get together. for 2 or 3 hours some afternoon and try to do this. I really. . . . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We did that. I think we' ll see what people vote on. But we talked. about this thing, we batted it back and forth, we did it seven times and we told you what we wanted you. to do. MS. MOORE: And. we've done. it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That' s all I 'm saying. What. I 'm saying is let' s hear what the rest of the public has to say and then we' ll decide on the application. We sat and. we talked to these people and we said, "this is what we want, and this is what want, we want them all out by October 1st, we want it cleared so that the Baymen can get in there, it. won_' t close down the season because the DEC won't be able to make it, but when youstart bring up Larry up to make question on it' s not gonna hurt the environment, that bothers me a lot because those boats will- close that area. DEC will make it a closed area because of. shellfish. And to say that no marine life there, the eel grass beds are there_ and there.' s. . . . . . . MS. MOORE: If the adverse: affect on marine life. . . . . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm just telling you what you did, you triggered that. mechanism.. MS_. MOORE: , I didn't mean to offend you.. What I mean is: there are standards to be met and you know from the Freeman case and from other cases that i.s. those kinds. of things. I have to. . . . . TRUSTEE" HOLZAPFEL: We have to defend ourselves too when you do that. MS. MOORE.: Exactly, and it should not have reached this point., but. if we can't get any further. today. . . . . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: I'm suggesting, and not what Marty suggested, that we go on. with the permit, hear from the public, both sides that are present, and we' ll make the decision. 2a�( -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Anyone. else. like to speak either in favor or against the application? -STEV'E LATSON: If you want to find headland there, go someday when it's blowing 35 mph from the .northwest and you.' l.l. find. it.. Our concern- is the eel grass beds. They've been. mentioned, this. is where we work, this is our welfare, this is our income:. This. area. . . . .as far as your neighbors. dock? I'd love to see your. dock going. back 40 feet, that dock. going back 1.50 feet. This would be good for us. Anymore encroachment into the eel grass: bed is more encroachment. into our already dwindling resource. JOE GORDON: I was born. down there. Gull. Pond when I was a kid, you could walk across: the whole place. Everything down. there is. filled in. enough is enough. This is a new Board. Your trying- to do the- right thing. Keep doing it. Don't let any more of these things happen. I clammed and tried scalloping this year but there were no scallops. . And there was eel grass there. We have to have that eel grass for the plants; scallops. and everything else to survive. I agree with what Pete said, that. that sand coming on both sides is because of the dock being there. KEN POLIWODA: I've scalloped this year and haven't caught any scallops: other than small bugs. Or juvenile. scallops for next years -crop. I know for myself and a bunch of us will be working there next year. Any more encroachment. on our land with big docks will demolish our crop next season. Also you brought up the point on bulkheads shoreline and and I have a Bachelor of Science in Oceanography. These: docks will cause shoaling on. the western side. There' s a west to east drift constantly on. the eastern side. of Gull Pond channel. With that sort of drift through the area. there' s always gonna be shoaling on the western side of any of the. bulkheads, jetties or any type of creation that's built there.. With the. addition of bulkheading or additional. docks .it's gonna increase. -the sand pile up on the western. side:. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have a degre.e. in. oceano.graphy? MR. POLIWODA:- Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In that. . . . .in your experience, do you think that sand that gonna be slowed down and as we know, or in my opinion, when you build a structure out there that' s fairly solid, it' s gonna slow down the water movement, which is gonna drop the sand.. The more. velocity the sand will settle out.. Is that sand that is gonna settle out there, is that gonna smother the eel grass beds- in your opinion? MR. POLIWODA: I believe so. It already has. This past year when I went there-. I 've sanded up my dredges. Normally you just, catch some of the grass and catch bottom. But over in that particular area I' ll sand up my dredges... PATRICK REGINA: First .of all fellas., we love the Baymen. We' re not against the. Baymen at all. We' re asking for 10 feet. We have a floating dock there. We have pilings there. First of all my wife has: a Masters Degree- in Environmental Science and if you look it up, eel, grass does. move:. I hate to say this, and no offense but if you., we buy clams from you- fe.11as right off the, shore, and if you see our floating raft, we have 35 to 40 kids, the kids swim there, all the eel grass is under there, but when someone comes and. drags a rake across the bottom of the water all the kids are full of eel grass from the Baymen clamming. . That rips. up more. land. I've seen from my own because I'M 80 feet from the water than the: kids have done since_ 1955. I hate to say that, because we are for the Baymen. Don't say that.. I just want for the record, we're here to compromise. with. .you,. we're here to work with you, welre nat here to threaten anybody. I agree with, Marty and John. We're just here to get a few boats, our sand. is building. up, we pay taxes. on that land. We've been hurt for many years.. And people look at us. and say, "we can do this'.. And looked at' us and laughed., right to my face. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I don't under stand, why are. they laughing at you? MR. REGINA: Because they can do what they like. I'm not mentioning any names, but neighbors, but because of power or money or whatever the case may be, but we're here to just compromise, we' re asking for 10 feet. We're not here to hurt a Baymen, or hurt anybody. We' re here to make a compromise, .to get it over with. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any Board comment? I think under the threat of a law suit. I think we should elaborate on what we discussed because at least the judge can realize that some discussion as to alternatives to getting Crescent Beach .property Owners additional. . . . . MR. McNALLY: You say a threat, that was not a threat. She. said, "the only alternative we had for the next step" . I wish you'd strike that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I won't strike that, because that's my opinion. That' s my personal opinion. TRUSTEE HOLZAPEEL. We have over the last 4 months, 6 months., whatever it was, gone through a series of reconsiderations,. replanning, redirection of the; original project. And it has slowly but surely gotten smaller and smaller and there's been. other considerations taken in place. I must say, and I speak for the Baymen in particular.,. I.'m on the Shellfish Advisory and I'm 100% in accordance with your feelings, but I don' t think that 40 feet will make a big difference in that they did it, they were quite willing to take all of the lines up, all of the piles., and. I. understand:. there. will still be poles out there, but I still think if someone. still wants. to get in there and. take scallops they can, and they' ll be in ther.e.. That' s my comment. That the docks. aren't gonna shade- the eel grass:,,the eel grass_. will still be there and there will be an opportunity for bugs to grow in there and to be protected.. MR. LATSON: I 've lived in the Town for 49 years,. and I've seen this Town and it' s shellfish go down the tubes. When I was 12 or 13 years old., unbelievable.. People in this audience saw what there was. And if they saw what there was now, they'd be: shocked. And what we have seen through these years is more and more picking away, picking away, dredging the creek, building this, building. that. It hurts ,big time. Every little inch. takes more away. It' s a very tiny little world. out there. zv� MR. GOLD: Like someone said, 21 more boats:, DEC may close it because there' s too much pollution, or too much grass- Not that we could go there. sure. But they wouldn'-t allow us to.. You have to think that part, too. TRUSTEE GARRELL.: How many more boats. do you anticipate? I think if we were starting out from point zero where there were no 300 foot docks, if that. were our project, if there were no docks in that cove it would- be a rather straight: forward call.. What makes this difficul.t. is-, that this. is an incremental call.. This is a call for basically a fractional increase in dock space- for a strueture. that. is there. The. decision that. has to be made for many of us is whether this change will somehow trigger: a much greater affect:. Or whether the affect any loss. wi.11 be small in relative terms.. That'.s what our decision will. be: based. on. It's not as though we' re dealing with a catastrophic affect. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I see that from a different viewpoint. The problems that have occurred have occurred in increments. And .when you add up all the increments you have a disaster. When we're finished here is where do you draw the line.. When do you say, "enough is enough" . Do you sit here, "well, they did it .in the past, it' s fine" . Well they filled wetlands in the past. Are we gonna continue to fill wetlands? No. Obviously not. There' s any number. They dredged out. the_ creek channels way back into the back of the creeks and created dead spots and what not. Are we gonna sit here and say, "well, it was done 'in the past, why .don't we do some more" . No. We've 'realized that. those mistakes made in the past had a detrimental affect on- the environment, on the resources, not only that the Baymen enjoy, but all, the people in the Town. of Southold enjoy and all the people in the Town of Southold who deserve to have access to. And here we are looking at another increment in a problem that has. been going on for 5.0 years- The question is- when do we say, "enough is enough". And do the right thing. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I think you say that at a point where you decide you. slice a salami. When. you decide that the next. chunk., that that salami is a big one and it's big enough so that when the judge in court takes. a sniff of it, he' ll say, "well I agree with it" . If it looks like your denying another small slice .of salami . like everybody else has taken along the shoreline east. and west and- you really denying a very small change and everyone else is done- the thing before everybody else has their dock.. Now your -gonna be fighting some .legal challenges. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I'm aware of that. But if we destroy the salami. with little slices., the big slices., the. end. results will be no salami. So you have to draw the line.. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: The major question is. I-believe is, the most- negative thing I'm hearing is that there is shoaling:, sand. is covering up eel grass and that your loosing some of that habitat.. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I think you have to consider that access is also denied.. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right.. But. I think that' s. a major issue in terms of environment.. Enough people have said that' s happening.. My question is the splash boards, obviously the distance between the splash boards break the current. Can they be extended, can the splash. boards be kept up a foot or two off the bottom? Can you change: the design of the splash. boards to accommodate a greater transfer of sand? Being not: an engineer to me the wider the opening the- bigger the slits, the more- water goes through, the more transport of sand. MR. TUTHILL: Something is wrong in what everyone is saying here. If you have a splash 'board there, therefore you. stop the movement of the sand. Now if the. eel. gr.ass and sand. in the. bottom is moving or so and it's covering the grass. to begin with. and I don.' t think this is. happening:'. There isn.'t that movement. out there. There is some. movement. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I thought you said there was a sand shoal? MR.. TUTHILL:. There is.. But this is on. the. beach.. This is what. I disagree on what he is. saying. He`s .talking about the beach area, and the shoaling on the beach and saying this is happening in deep water where the eel grass is.. I don' t believe it' s in the eel grass where you are having the problems. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I thought I heard public testimony to the opposite. One of the Bayman and Peter, both made comments that there is shoaling next to the docks. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: It seemed to me that when I walked down that dock, and I 've been there more than once,' was that there was a deposit- of sand clearly nothing but a sand bottom next to the west side of that dock almost the whole length of it. And once you get away from that dock, go down there with a pair of polaroid glasses., once you get away from the dock if, you look out you' ll see .there is: grass and vegetation grown. MR. TUTHILL: It. might be from the. movement of the boats there. You have boats that are blocking the. sun. I don't believe it' s the movement of the sand. MS. MOORE: I think that the main ,,impact, the shoaling and .the sand is the Fakaris dock, as. the' structures underwater there. That is causing the most significant effect and John you ,were the .one who told me that. If. you. could explain. MR. GEIDEMAN It' s got to the point that in between feeling: for on. set and feeling for another set. The dock that's out there now is the big one and has destroyed the area to the extent that these people are besides themselves because whatever is happening now,. never started until that dock got out there. And it' s been a problem since the day that it was built and then they put that big 'IT: out. there and filled it, all. in and it caused a whole disruption in he tide flow from east to west and, from west to east. It comes in from one direction and- it seems. to me, I 've been in the neighborhood. for 2.5 years. too, and the reaction of the tide to conditions in the water, not the wind, not the surface of the water itself, but it's bumping into something and, changing the tidal. action. I don.'t see why that big dock out there, these people were settled in. the area for many, many years. They've reached a point. where. they delight. in. the place and trying only to do what they can for the people who are participating. I.f it comes down to where we agree that somewhere along the line. something. has. happened to the eel.. grass.. something: has: happened to the growth of the shellfish... 20� But I can' t see why these people who have been residents there, I think 1956, and they have done everything to cooperate. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I just didn' t get an answer to my question. Can the splash boards be separated and can they be raised up a foot? MR. TUTHILL: The can., but I don't know what the: advantage of it. is. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: You don't think it will let more water go through and thus move the sand. along? MR. TUTHILL: No, what happens is to some extent if there: is any movement, it stops the speed of the water and it' s the speed of the water to carry the sand.. If you stop the speed. of the water than you are stopping movement of sand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.. What John is saying is the problem that People have .with this is the splash board is slowing, and taking the energy away and the sand is dropping out of it. What John is suggesting is that is it possible to raise the splash board off the bottom a certain foot or so so that the energy would protect the boats up here but the energy of the water could sweep underneath- and carry the sand away and it wouldn't be deposited on the other side.. MR. TUTHILL:. First of all this sand is only on the beach. The second is if you raise. it, it sounds great. and .we tried it other areas that wave or so the water just comes underneath it. You get very little dissipation of the wave. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So your saying it' s not effective for the boats then. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: . It' would destroy the purpose: of having it. there then. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I' ll ask for a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: so moved. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second ALL AYES TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I' ll make a. motion. MS. MOORE: I _have just one problem with the motion Peter will make only because. he has a financial interest in this whole. project. I have been holding back. . . . .you have on the record, you say that you scalloped in the area so. you have a direct financial interest. I don't think it' s appropriate for you to make a motion. i don' t want to cause a problem with those who may be in favor or those who. . . .I just don.'t want that issue to be the one. TRUSTER KRUPSKI: It' s fair to mention that in. the public form. I wish you'd mention that on the record. MS. MOORE: I did not want to embarrass him, I did not expect him to be the one to move the motion, but if: your gonna make the motion I think that we're gonna have a problem. So, I'm just letting you know that it' s already on the record and. I would say to the judge. . . . . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I ' ll make a motion to reopen the public hearing. TRUSTEE: HOLZAPFEL.: Second. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: My point is that I have an economic interest in every permit that comes. before this Board. The- ecological health. of the waters of this Town. have an affect on my living. The reason that I sit on this Board is because. I've realized. that if we don' t have clean waters, if we don't have a. health environment, if we don.' t have healthy resources I'm in. trouble and so is everybody else in. this room. Everything that. is_ goad. for me or for any other Bayman in this. Town is also good for the public because I know we all live here because of the beauty of the place, because of the. resources of the. place. Isn't that correct. That' s why we're here. and that-Is why I sit on this: Board because I am making an attempt to protect my livelihood and the reason that the rest of us are. here. So, if- that' s the. case, then somebody has- to throw me off the Board. MS. MOORE.: Since my objection to you to make a motion. on this application I will put it on the record.. You have a direct. financial benefit from the denial of this application in that you have already stated on the record that. you actively scallop under these docks, right in this area and _I feel it is inappropriate for you to participate, and I stayed quite about that, but certainly it is inappropriate for you to vote on this application and to move this application one way or the other. TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI: I. want to take that one step further. I think that it was a mistake to bring that up because, by you objecting to a Bayman participating. . . . . . ---� MS. MOORE: No, by sitting on the Board deciding this application.- It' s not a Bayman. All these Bayman have spoken. I certainly have no objection to their speaking. they have an absolute right to speak. It is inappropriate. to make a motion on this appli.cation.. If you. choose to do it., so be it. TRUSTEE._ KRUPSKI: That must be. because you realize it might have an adverse affect .on his livelihood.. Because if it wouldn' t, if he thinks. . . . . . MS. MOORE: He has a financial interest. in this, one way or another. Whether it' s adverse or within his favor. He stated stated that he' s- already gone out there and this area is an area he has searched for and scalloped. Whether or not he found any this year or maybe not, next yearr maybe so who knows., but. financially he has a direct interest in this. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: As I do all the waters in Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now, do I have a motion to close the hearing?, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So moved. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE. GARRELL: I' ll. make a motion to approve the application., with a stipulation that the proposed splash boards be raised 1 1/2 feet from bottom and that they be separated of 1 foot between splash boards- because this is critical for the bottom of the bay as we heard. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I would. also include some of the. agreements that we made with with. property owners association.. That any boats or any lines be removed by the first day of scallop season. I use the first. day because. the. Trustees may change the. date. The first day of scallop season. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I accept the amendment to my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As .a comment I've been on the. Board for 10 years, and as in my personal life, I'm not. perfect, I made. plenty of mistakes, and I'm .sure many people would.. be eager to point-them out. but one mistake that has been pointed out tonight is. the dock to the east of the applicant. I try to think of myself as an intelligent and educated person who: does not try to repeat those mistakes. and. we try to, live and learn. That. dock was such a. disaster but. .here we are just adding to that disaster'. TRUSTEE.. WENCZEL: Ready to approve another. one:. TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI:: Nay. TRUSTEE. WEN'CZEL: Nay TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: May I toke_> the opportunity to point out that a little earlier in the evening a certain gentleman made a statement on how we have already precluded. what's gonna happen- before the meeting. 9. Henry Raynor on behalf of MICHAEL RAYNOR requests a Wetland Permit to remove an existing dock and replace with a bulkhead to tie into existing bulkhead of neighbor and backf ill with 450 c.y. of fill to stabilize, and construct a 1,900 s.f. single family dwelling.. Located.:. Private ROW west, side of Old Harbor Road., Ne Suffolk. SCTM #k11.7-5-22 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Henry, do you want to speak in favor of _this application? HENRY RAYNOR.: I've been instructed. to show the delineation of the zoning on the property by a certified survey. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: I'm not sure we have that. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: We have a survey with the zoning on it. TRUSTEE: HOLZAPFEL.-- And that' s been approved by the Zoning Board? MR. RAYNOR: No, the Zoning Board has nothing to do with it. They sent me to the Building Inspector. He sent me to a . surveyor to get it certified and' that' s why it' s back here with you guys. We went around. in a: big circle. Because of the building application. as. well. as. the bulkhead. I ' ll try to address. both briefly. The property as you have itbefore .you pre-existed zoning by some 25 years when it was created by the dredging of Schoolhouse Creek. There presently exists a shed on. the property on the west with by itself establishes the. building: line. The property itself pre-exists the ordinance and is in conformity both in. size and. configuration with those in the adjacent neighborhood. The setbacks as proposed, you have a' proposed building envelope there. Those setbacks are greater than or equal. to the adjourning property that is directly to the:. south. The bulkheading action was discussed with both the Trustees and the DEC and. it. proposed high bulkhead and low bulkheading on the west side of: the. property. This. actually will take place- in Marine, I Zoning. This. was discussed by the Trustees on our meeting in August as well as in October. (Could. not hear, too many papers being shuffled.) . . . .concerning septic and water supply with regard to we will show you the water supply and septic. . . . (coul.d_ not hear) If there are any questions. we will be happy to go over them toni.ght.. The. property itself is 1/3 acre:.. I understand. it's in an L-3 Zone. it is listed as part of a man-made. ,creek. There is. no wetland vegetation as the Board is adequately aware. If i can answer any questions, I will be happy to. KRUPSKI : I 'm just wondering about the low bulkhead. Do we have a drawing on that? MR. RAYNOR: No you do not. What I was going to do is depend. on the Board to dictate those things. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: We generally don't do. that. Just as a general practice we don't design such. . . . . MR. RAYNOR: I can always get you a cross section at. whatever elevation you choose_.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I. was just. thinking of what would be appropriate there. So it would be roughly something that would be 6 inches below mean. high water. MR. RAYNOR: What we would like is go forward. wi.th the project_ and make something that is going to be comparable. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The full bullhead would be up to ground level. MR. RAYNOR: Obviously, outside of that where the existing dock would be removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommends disapproval. There appears no erosion problem and. no demonstrated. need. Recommends disapproval of the house and septic system are too close to the water.. Now, you don' t have Health Dept., approval yet? MR. RAYNOR: That' s correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have you been to the Health Dept.? MR. RAYNOR: No. I. wanted to start at the the Town level first. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The survey is a draft and design, it' s not a survey though? MR. RAYNOR: I apologize. The survey that you have, you have two up there, the draft and design was for building out and at that point, the draftsman. put a zoning line on and it was incorrect. We went out and had the property surveyed by Van Tuyl to correct that. So that we knew exactly the interpretation. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL:. Obviously if your gonna- put in the septic system. . . . .is this where they're going or just. . . . . . MR. RAYNOR: That' s a proposal based on the criteria- set forth in Article 6 of the Dept. of Health Code. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL':' I didn't think they allowed them within that distance of the shoreline. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had a. hearing. . . .that' s our concern. We met in the field and talked. about the bulkhead. and.. I think the board is satisfied with the structures proposed and. the house. But the septic system. . . .I was at a Health. Dept.. meeting for a .hearing on the same. distance in a septic system in the wetlands:. before and I don' t know if you want to act on this with a condition on Health Dept. approval. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I 'm just saying let' s not give the permit without that. . . . . TRUSTEE GARRELL: They may propose to you that. you elevate the septic system and somehow alter it or move it around and. putts it around with the. Zoning Board. But certainly with the bulkhead and. the house there' s no problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the problem. is we're not gonna move the. septic system closer to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GARRELL: No. But the septic systeu could- be adjusted with respect to the road, neighbors: well. MR. RAYNOR: We've already taken that into consideration and. located the. point. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Planning Board.. Have you talked. to them at. all. Because it is a commer.cial. property.. MR. RAYNOR: The proposed structure is in a residential. zone. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes., but the docks and all that. MR. RAYNOR: It' s not a structure because it.' s not going above grade. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: But in terms.. of it' s going to be. a marina.. There' s gonna be boats there. MR. RAYNOR: It' s an M-1 zone. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There's gonna be boats there, they're gonna be rented so there has. to be parking, there has to be all of those things. Has that been worked. -out? MR. RAYNOR: The Building Inspector in difference to keeping the Enforcement Officer of the. Town that you could. put. that building up tomorrow if you want. That' s what. we choose to do. We choose to go through and make sure we have stabilization of property. before we put a building. on. it. The property itself. pre-exists. It' s been a small lot. It's a 1/3 acre. It sat there since the creek was done. With it go vested rights. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I just feel that it could be a problem for a lot of other boards.. The Planning Board in- particular. And that. . . . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because if we're- gonna act on a permit. and they have to act on it than that'.s separate. Your acting on a house and a dock. Your not saying, "He' s needs parking spaces" . . . . . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: But. that influences- the position of the house.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI..: Well if. you have: to. amend the position of the house you have to come back to amend. the permit. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've been through this before and you don't want to hold it up for another Board because then they're gonna hold it up for us. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second.. ALL. AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I' ll make a motion to approve the application based on Health Dept. approval. and as it says in our permit.., "the securing of all other necessary permits.". TRUSTEE GARRELL: Abstain.. TRUSTEE. KING.: Second.. 10. Bruce Anderson on behalf of CAROL CASSEL requests a Wetland Permit to. construct a 10' X 12 ' deck attached to east side. of catwalk as. per revised survey dated and. r.ecei.ved 10/23/96. Located: 800 Willow Point Road, Southold. SCTM. *56-5-39 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like. to speak on behalf. of the .application? BRUCE ANDERSON: I apologize for being far less interesting that some of the other applications. As you know we, started out with. 2- 10' X 12' platforms. in a "T" form beside the rocks and we're gonna. cut that in half. when we met out in the field the feeling was a portion of the rock cons:ti.tuted. inter-tidal waters and what we agree to. do is move it off the rock and landward of the wetland line. That location is shown on the survey. The vegetation that we are going to cover is considered in an area. that. is highly disturbed. In dealing with. s.tandards set forth in the wetland code. I can assure you that we meet each and every standard.. It was also supposed to be referred to the CAC. i made diligent attempt: to meet with. them or discuss with them, however, it didn't happen. So I had no idea what recommendation that they had. TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI: CAC recommended approval.. L' ll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.: I' ll make. a mo.tion. to approve as per revised. drawing of 10/23/96. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 11. Bruce Anderson on behalf of LOIS T. ANDERSON '•reguests a Wetland Permit to construct a 16.6' X 10' addition and a 14.2' X 12' deck onto an existing dwelling.. Located: 2515 Calves Neck Road., Southold. SCTM. #70-4-45.5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would. lik.e to speak on behalf of this appli.cati.on... BRUCE ANDERSON:. I understand Peter was out there. What we' re dealing with here is a series of small. . . .what is even out the. exterior wall of the house. and is-' located near ornamental shrubbery and there's really not a heck. of a lotto say on this. . TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I inspected it. and it.' s fairly routine:. I' ll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I' ll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: Second. ALL AYES 12. Environment East- on beha:lf. of JOE & NORA FLOTTERON .' request a Wetland. Permit to construct. an 18' X 36.6' addition. on the south-east.. side of existing dwelling wi.thin. the footprint of. the deck structure. Located.: 595 Clearwater Lane., Cutchogue.. SCTM #118-2-14.1 TRUSTEE: KRUPSKI: Is there. anyone. here who would like. to: speak. either in favor or against the application? I took a look- at this and. I'm gonna require ,hay bales:. I ' 11_ make. a motion: to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL.: Second... ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve provided there is a line of hay bales between the 5' X. 10' contour lines during. construction. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 13. Proper-T Services on behalf of MATT-A-MAR MARINA (as. contract vendee) for Harold Tribble request a Wetland Permit. to construct a 4' X 60' floating walkway, a 4' X 16 ' ramp and a 5' X 200' floating dock with 2 finger floating docks each 4' X 30' at ends of and perpendicular to main dock, install. 8- 12" X 35' mooring piles and approx. 1.0- 12" X 35 ' piles to secure main dock and finger docks as per revised survey dated 9/25/96. Located: 2655 Wickham Ave. , Mattituck. SCTM #1.3.9-2-5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in. favor of the application. JIM FITZGERALD: You have all the information. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is no DEC approval.. We received a FAX yesterday from the DEC addressed. to Mr. King, from Lou Chiarella, Regional Manager of Marine Habitat Protection, "Our guide lines for installation of commercial. docks .or private docks for the purpose of. vessels docking requires the following: 1. a minimum depth of 4 feet below mean low water for, the docks and docking .area, 2. a minimum depth of 4 feet below mean low water for all fairways to docks, 3. fairways should be 1 1/2 times the length of vessels to be. docked, 4. open pile docks should be no greater than 4 feet in width over vegetated tidal wetlands. and. a min.. of 3 1/2 feet over vegetated tidal. wetlands" . That was our comment from the- DEC. We asked them for some information on their standard practices. Mr. King is a Trustee from Mattituck and because he is from Mattituck and familiar with the area we always have whatever- Trustee lives in that area do a straight forward application. One. Trustee will do that inspection. When it' s a more difficult project, all. the Trustees will go and look. However, if there' s an additional inspection to be made generally one Trustee can go out to make. it. We asked Mr. King to go out and check the depths of water. TRUSTEE KING: I've been up there on three occasions and three different times taking soundings.. At low tide, high tide and again at low tide. I took pictures. ' At a good low tide the whole area is bare. The floats will be on the. bottom. at low tide. The area is mostly private docks with a dock here and. there. There' s nothing anywhere like. this. in the area. It's inappropriate. The soundings I 've taken and the drawings. . .there' s just no water there at all. TED MERANGES: Do they give you any yardstick or amount of dock square footage to be added. in one area... This looks like. an awful lot of DICK. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can basically apply for what you want.. They're applying for what they want. MR. MERANGES:. I mean is. there any amount. that would. be. too. much? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that' s what we've been talking about all night. I can' t give you a straight forward answer to that.. We don't have any specific. design. or specific size. for a commercial dock. Generally a private dock, we limit the float section a 6' X 20' standard size. A catwalk the length to get out, a reasonable navigable water. A commercial dock is a different. situation in that there needs are gonna be different than a private residence, so they can apply for basically whatever size. or configuration they're gonna need.. MR. MERANGES: In the summer time on the creek as the water, starts to warm up and boat traffic starts to increase the water gets to. . . .it starts to smell. At low tide it gets pretty bad.. MR. McGINTY: My property is directly across the creek. from this proposal. I was flabbergasted and. taken back when I learned that that property had. been re-zoned, fr.om residential to. Marine II. The only observation I can make. is about the water. It' s very shallow there. When I bought. my place in 1975, I brought the boat from Babylon I had a sailboat that drew 31211 . It floated there. Before the end. of 1970' s my neighbors and I had permission from the: County to dredge that area. and after a. few meetings, they agreed to dredge.. They told -us the County had some responsibility because that creek was partially man-made. But since then the creek has been filling in. I got rid of that boat and looked. for a boat that floats. I settled for a Chesapeake Bay Skip Jack that draws 1 foot high for a dock. But it barely floats. there. My dock is completely on the bottom at low tide. I. ran aground with my boat.. I wonder how a 1 foot 9 boat is gonna float there. Because the creek is filling. MR. FITZGERALD: It should be point out that this proposal is for a separate piece . of property. Of which Mat-A Mar is contract vendee. It is not an expansion of the Mat-A-Mar facility. It is something presumably the owner of this property could apply to. With regards to the creek filling in this is. something we talked about before:, so I'm not gonna make any speeches. The question ari.ses. about whether or not we should sit back and watch the creeks fill in. And whether or not it is the right thing to do because that' s presumably what Mother Nature wants it to be. After we built our houses and our roads and had taken away the vegetation. and so forth that permit the landlord to assist in filling in the creek. So that question as to whether or not we should sit back and keep getting smaller and smaller boats or whether we should do something about it as long -as it doesn' t hurt anything else. With regard to the questions as to the depth of the water is apparently the significant factor. If the Board is inclined to decline this proposal on the basis of that, I would appreciate it if you would not disapprove the. application but rather favor it and give us an opportunity to present an additional alternative to the bulkhead.. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Has this gone before the Planning Board? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And they!ve approved 'it? TRUSTER KRUPSKI: No, they just applied to them. MR. FITZGERALD: The Planning Board is: the Lead. Agent and are waiting for you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I asked the Planning Board.. to send us the status. "The Planning Board is currently reviewing a site plan for the above referenced project. Following is. the current status_: Health Dept. review not received, DEC permit not received, Merger Deed. of all three lots not received, drainage review not completed, Trustee not received, Certification by Building -Dept. not completed-, Fire Commissioner not completed, outdoor lighting plan not received. The last contact in writing with the applicant was on Dec. 15, 1995" . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So, nothing has been basically done for a year. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At the applicants request, I' ll make a motion to table the application.. TRUSTEE KING: Second. MR. FITZGERALD: May I hear what your thoughts. are? TRUSTEE. KRUPSKI: My thoughts are- that this,- would go against. quite a few of the standards. of Chapter 97.28 as far as you will let the floats set on the bottom, which. they obviously would.,. then they would. be increasing the turbidity in the water and have an adverse affect on the shellfish and marine organisms in that area. It goes directly as adverse. of standards in the wetland code. MR. FITZGERALD: : The problem is with the floating docks being on the bottom. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In general those ar.e some. of the problems-. We try to coordinate with other agencies. That's why I asked the Planning Board and. Jim contacted the DEC as far as their standard. MR. FITZGERALD: How do you feel about the DEC standard. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't feel one way or the other. That' s their standards. MR. FITZGERALD: They're not having any affect on what. we are doing here are they? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no. I just wanted to know where they are. We occasionally touch bases and we have a pretty good working relationship. We think different areas of government should work together instead of we approve something than they approve thing different. and your caught in the middle and you never resolve it. So we try and. work things out so that the applicant gets a consi.stent. review from all. agencies and doesn.Ft. get fragmented and goes against them. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's- just too big a structure for that whole area. . If Mr. Tribble wanted to put a dock out for a boat; I wouldn't have' a problem with it, but this is one big floating dock in front of. . . . .and I really think it' s obstructive to the whole area.- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because we have navigational issues also. MR. FITZGERALD: We don't have to worry about navigation in there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Pardon. MR. FITZGERALD: Ther.e' s. not enough water. to navigate.. TRUSTEE. KING: There' s plenty of water at high tide and mid-tide.. is not too bad. There' s about 4- 4 1/2 feet in the middle of the channel. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then it wouldn't be a good place to put a. marina. TRUSTEE GARRELL.: So your: distinguishing between needs of an owner of a personal dock and a commercial dock. 217 TRUSTEE KING: That while area is nothing but individual docks.. Just because it somehow gets zoned Marine 2 . . . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it' s zoned Marine. 2 and. I don't think we , should make a distinction between upland being zoned Marine 2 and. . . .we really don't. have. . . . .correct me if I 'm wrong, there is nothing proposed on. the upland of this.? MR. FITZGERALD: Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If the upland is zoned Marine. 2 that' s completely different than. putti.ng: a marina on Town owned property. Two different issued as far as. property rights go. Now I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing.. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I ' ll make a motion to table the application until the applicant decides. othexwise as. opposed. that we table it now and normally it comes back next month. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTER KRUPSKI: I ' ll make a motion. to go back into the Regular. Meeting. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL. AYES.. RESOLUTIONS• 10. William Price on behalf .of CLARENCE W. POWELL requests a Grandfather Permit for an existing 6' X 2.2' dock, a 4' X 12' ramp and a 6' X 55' float. Located.: 380 Robinson Road, Greenport. SCTM. #34-5-14 TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to approve the Grandfather. Permit, TRUSTEE. HOLZAPFEL. seconded. ALL. AYES: AMENDMENTS/WAI.VERS?CHANGES: 7. Bruce Anderson on behalf of. PEG.GY` HELLER & ANNE WYDEN request an amendment to Permit. 4489 to implement proposed planting plan prepared by Suffolk Environmental Consulting Inc.., dated and received November 20, 1996, to remove deal and diseased trees by hand and remove by hand. vines endangering existing trees and remove debris including a junk car in area depicting the limits on revised survey dated 6/12/95, TRUSTEE KING seconded, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL. abstained. RESOLUTIONS'• 1. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf.. of JOHN FRANCO requests: a Grandfather Permit to remove 108' of timber bulkhead and reconstruct it 5' landward and backfil.l with 10 c.y. of clean. sand. Located: 30 West. Lake Road, Southold. SCTM #90-1-25 TRUSTEE. WENCZEL moved to approve the Grandfather. Permit, but. for applicant to come back with. an Amendment to move bulkhead. back 5' and maintain an 18' non-turf buffer, TRUSTEE GARRELL. second. ALL AYES 2. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of DOLORES. HOLMAN requests:: a. Grandfather Permit to reconstruct inki:nd/inplace. 100' of timber bulkhead and backf.ill with 10 c.y. of clean sand. Located: 130 West Lake. Road, Southold.. SCTM #90-1-19 TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve. the Grandfather Permit and maintain an 18' non-turf buffer and restore an natural disturbance, TRUSTEE. GARRELL. seconded.. ALL. AYES. 3. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of ROBERT & JULIA SORENSON request. a. Grandfather Permi . 1or an existing 71' X 11' fixed dock and a 16' X 5 1/2 ' float. Located: Peninsula Road-, Fishers: Island. SCTM #10-3-20 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to- approve the Grandfather. Permit, TRUSTEE:. KING seconded.. ALL AYES 4. J.M.O, . Consulting on behalf of JAMES. W. MILTON request a Grandfather. Permit to reconstruct inkind/inplace.. approx. 315' of .timber bulkhead and backfill with 10+ c.y. ,of clean sand.. Located: 10090 New Suffolk Ave. , Cutchogue. SCTM #116-6-2 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve the Grandfather Permit, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 5. Gail Wickham on behalf of JAMES & MARILYN MC BURNIE request a Grandfather Permit for an existing 65' timber bulkhead and wood walkway. Located: 1060 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-14-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the. Grandfather Permit, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 6. GLADYS J. MILNE' requests a Grandfather. Permit for an existing 88' bulkhead built prior to 1930. Located.:. 240 Knoll Circle, East Marion. SCTM #37-5-15 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve the Grandfather Permit, TRUSTER KING seconded. ALL AYES 7. JANET HARVEY requests. a Grandfather. Permit -for an existing. 78' dock. Located: Reservoir. Road, 174' from Winthrop Drive, Fishers Island. SCTM #9-8-3 .3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the Grandfather Permit, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 8. JOHN S. TESSIER requests a Grandfather Permit for a .70' existing bulkhead and a 4' X 20' dock with a 6' X 12' float that was built in 1946. Located.: 730 Bayview Drive, East Marion. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved. to. approve the' Grandf;ath.er Permit, TRUSTEE KING seconded.. ALL AYES 9. FRANK PURITA requests a Coastal. Erosion. Permit to erect a 6' high chain. link fence from bluff to house, then landward. to a height. of 4' on both sides of house, then across the bluff at a. height of 31 . Located: 19995 Soundview Ave. , Southold between Mt. Beulah and Clark Roads. SCTM 451-4-6 TRUSTEE: GARRELL. moved to approve the CEHA Permit, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 2 l�� 11. En-Consultants Inc. , on behalf of EVELYN STEWART REQUESTS A Grandfather Permit to remove and. replace inkind/inplace existing 95 l.f. of bulkhead, and. backfill with 17 c.y. of sand to be trucked in from an upland source.. Located: 818.0 Peconic_ Bay Bl.vd.. , Mattituck. SCTM #126-11-18 VI. MOORINGS: 1. PETER WENCZEL requests a mooring for a 16' outboard in Long Creek. ACCESS: Public. (As per Bay Constable) 2. KENNETH POLIWODA requests an on-shore.off-shore stake in Long. Creek for a 1.6' outboard. ACCESS: Public: (As per. Bay Constable) 3 . STEPHEN W. LATSON requests an on-shore/off-shore mooring in Long Creek for an 18' outboard. ACCESS.: Public (As per Bay Constable) Meeting Adjourned. at: 11:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted By: Diane J erbert Clerk, Board of Trustees.