Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/18/1997 y5 � �IC'� Town Hall Albert J. Krupski,President , ���^. 53095 Main Road James King,Vice-President - P.O.Box 1179 Henry Smith y J Southold, New York 11971 Artie Foster p Ken Poliwoda '' ��� ^ Telephone(516) 765-1882 Fax(516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997 CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 at 12 noon TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, December 7, 1997 at 7 :00 p.m. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded. ALL AYES WORKSESSION: 6 : 00 p.m. APPROVE MINUTES: Approve minutes of October 29, 1997 I . MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for October 1997 : A check for $2, 336. 27 was forwarded to the Supervisor ' s Office for the General fund. II . AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: 1. Costello Marine on behalf o uests an Amendment to Permit #359 to change an existing "T" dock configuration to an "L" configuration using existing 6 ' X 16 ' float and 1 new 6 ' X 16 ' float secured with 3- 2 pile dolphins. Located: 60 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. SCTM #71-2-11. 3 TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to table the application until further drawings to scale were submitted, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 2 . En-Consultants Inc. , on behalf of PENNEY requests an Amendment to Permit MFRNoNmo=vethWe westward 8 feet as opposed to the platform being moved 2 feet. Located: Sailors Needle Lane, Salt Lake Village, Mattituck. SCTM #144-5-26 & 144-5-11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application and and the size of the boats at the dock be limited to the furthest seaward part of the dock, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES �c Board of Trustees 2 N !tuber 18, 1997 En-Consultant Inc. , on behalf of �replace uests an amendment to Grandfather Permit #4678 tohin 8" approx. 90 ' of existing bulkhead, remove and replace inkind/inplace 2- 15 ' returns on either end, remove and replace inkind/inplace an existing 7 ' wide timber walk adjacent to bulkhead and 50 c.y. of clean fill trucked in from upland source. This permit also to be transferred from James Mc Burnie to Robert Profeta. Located: 1060 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-14-16 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve the application with the deletion of clean fill, and approve the transfer also, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 4 . Proper-T Services on behalf of requests an Amendment to Permit #4772 to move th ocation of the platform supporting the heron sculpture landward at above the high water mark as shown on survey dated and received October 24, 1997 . Located: 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM #81-3-19. 4 TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to approve the application with condition that if the high water mark changes the applicant move the heron back to his property, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 5 . uests an Amendment to Permit #4518 to add a cove oof structure to existing decks, add new decks, add a small house addition, and use boulders to build up a section of the property in order to achieve a raised parking area to protect his vehicles from any flood conditions. Located: 820 Fishermans Beach, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-1-19 . 1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table this application until the Board re-inspects the area again with applicant, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 6 . MPIPIPM behalf o ta boar requests splash an Ait #4669 to ins system with 2" spacing. Located: off Maple Lane, Orient Harbor. SCTM #38-1-1 to 22. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to recess this application as per request by Mr. Tuthill. 7 . ests a Waiver to construct a front porch on n existing house. Located: 2760 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM #26-1-20. 1 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 8. equests a Waiver to install a water lin� wn o property alongside the road and then under the road and over to their house. Located: 100 East Mill Road & Sebastians Cove Road, Mattituck. SCTM #106-4-4 TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 3 Nc fiber 18, 1997 9 . Raymond Nine on behalf of quests a 0"i rai e ce Waiver to install about 500 ' on east side of property. Located: 2670 Park Ave. , Mattituck. SCTM #123-8-14 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded. ALL AYES 10 . Gary Olsen on behalf of quests a Waiver for an enclosed porch PONFlost"inqRse. Located: 580 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM #115-11-19 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to go off the Regular Meeting, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES III . PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk' s Bulletin Board for review. IV. HEARINGS- THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF: FIVE ( 5) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE 1 . John H. Geideman on behalf of quests a Wetland Permit to construct 2- 40' groins as r drawing dated 2/7/97 . Located: Cleaves Point. Road, East Marion. SCTM #38-2-32 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Mr. Edler, would you like to comment? It' s good to see you here. MR. EDLER: Every time I heat the word groin, it reminds me of an advertisement that you see on T.V. or radio. It is a salesman talking to a little girl that' s playing with a doll house. His point is about installing an oil burner. Every time he says 'oil burner' , she says, good. But when he says gas furnace, she says, bad. I think there is a mind set in both in the DEC and their past history, and the Trustees and every time you say ' groin' , the response is bad. Now do you have a copy of the letter from the DEC from Nov. 30th? I 'd like to make a quick observation on the second paragraph. My reason is to make certain that possibly the Trustees have reached a point that when we say groin, you don' t automatically agree with what the DEC is doing here. As groins are bad. Now they define the groins that they' re not going to have a compatible use. The whole emphasis of the letter is that they have an adverse affect. If we go into the tidal of wetlands act and go to 661. 5 which is all the types of uses, we go down the line to 25 it refers to the construction of bulkheads, groins and other shoreline stabilizing structures. So therefore they are listed as an accepted type. When we go over to the colonization of the Board of Trustees 4 N(.-' ;::tuber 18, 1997 characteristics of areas, when you get to SM-LZ which means coastal shoals, as well at literal, which is characteristics of an East Marion, it has the code GCE. The GC means generally compatible and a permit required. Now if we go into the 661. 9 and missing in there noting is 661.10 the deed references. 'You are then getting to the standards of the usages. It' s when in the standards of usages and permit granted that the reference comes that groins might be bad. That they might have an adverse affect on the present or potential value of ', property. They might have an adverse affect on recreation. , Wild life, marine groups, aesthetics, as was discussed before. Flood control. It might be education. It's specifically that' s the adverse . affect. It doesn' t stand automatically the reason, but because it' s a groin it' s gonna do something wrong. Now had the DEC had looked at their tidal maps and aerial photos, they would have discovered that in the proposed groin area there existed for over 40 years two rock groins 100. feet in length. I have in my possession, but I .don' t want to waste your time, but you can look at it, an aerial photo from 1955 which shows no adverse, down drift detrimental affect. The very aerial maps that we use by the DEC for their tidal act, done in the beginning of the 19701s, also show no adverse, down drift affect. I even have one that was taken October 1st, 1997, which is even post your visitations, no adverse, down drift affect. So I state to you that the statements made ,by the DEC don' t hold water. That they have no proof that there is down drift adverse affect. Therefore their whole position doesn' t hold water. Now I just now request that the Board "the fish will cut bait" . I know your hesitant to possibly pass the permit, or give a permit issue', but you did it on the heron before consulting the DEC. Now maybe we can come to a. slight compromise. That we don't directly ask you to let' s play to ,the DEC, because at times my observations are that they have a type of malicious arrogance. But I do believe that if the Trustees have a sound position, that they are at least notify the DEC of their position. Before I go further, is the Board still in agreement that they would react positively for the permit issuance on the groins? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think if the Board were positive from the beginning, we would have. issued the permit. Based on environmental factors. And . I think one of the reasons we didn' t issue the permit initially, is because we wanted to see what the State had to say. This is a permit not. . . . .which is completely unlike the one previously mentions, the heron. That could have severe environmental impact on the area. MR. EDLER: For instance? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : For instance, erosion of the shoreline, in various places. MR. EDLER: Alright, we just said that area photos do not prove that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was another thing, can we see that. MR. EDLER: Also look in the article- that was in the Times. They go with the tide when it' s ' 55. . . . . .the first photos are in 1955 . You can see that Marion Manor does not have houses yet and it was organized in 1953 . The next one is, you can see the Board of Trustees 5 Nc mber 18, 1997 tidal notes on the DEC mapitself . If you look at Judy Aerens picture when I was describing it right after the meeting in May issue, you can see the stone groin and a straight shoreline along the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : That' s when you provided us with photographs that show both stone groins. MR. EDLER. Right. And. the thing is that remember we were saying if you took angle of what would be the elevation of the low profile groins in the distance you see the stone groin that kept it flat. Now if we were allowed to supplement or compliment that groin with the low profile the whole beach would be that area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Honestly, from my standpoint these photographs are. . . . .I can' t see where they support what you...are saying because there is not enough detail for me... . . . . . (changed tape) . down drifts, it would be 'affect on the west side. Sure there' s a marked difference on the beach there. MR. EDLER: , However, look between the groins.. Is there any? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. MR. EDLER: Now, if you then go back to the proposal two of the six groins would be east of the first rock jetty. Therefore they could not have detrimental affect on a 100 foot jetty or groin. Tell me how a little 40 footer can affect a 100 footer? If we then go on further, the other 4 are 85 feet east of the last one. And we' ll not have any- affect other than complimentary. The same arguments. A 40 footer cannot affect a 100 footer. If you then look at the last photo that was taken October 1st, you see 6 low profile groins between existing ones. That' s in front of Aprea' s. The beach is level and straight. After recognizing when they were put in they were 11 feet on the land side and down to one foot on the water side and they extended out only 100 feet. They were done by Larry and that .picture was. taken by Larry to show what stabilizing groins can do between adverse and high profile groins. The ones that' s yet to be .corrected on a violation is in that picture the most westerly of the groins. So, I mean you acted fast, but then in a sense I think you are playing 'good Board, bad Board' like cops do. You can say we're with you, but we know the DEC is going to play 'bad guy' . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This could have serious. . . . .this isn' t a matter of what you think it should look like. And what I think looks nice, and what you think looks nice. This is a matter of something having serious. . . . . .this takes a lot of consideration. When you look at the damage the Gull Smith Inlet groin. . . . . MR. EDLER: But this isn' t the Goldmsith Inlet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but this is much more serious than a. . . . . .environmentally. Which is our review process. MR. EDLER: Tell me how. Your taking a brush and painting a 40" groin and saying it' s the same affect as the Goldsmith Inlet which is 300 ' made of stone and has proven itself in 20 years to kill all the beaches to the east. This is you have 2 groins in the area which these are gonna be put inside and you stand there an say that it' s gonn have an impact on. . . . . . Board of Trustees 6 Novi=­nber 18, 1997 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't say that, I said we have to look at it as something that could have serious. . . . MR. EDLER: Well you've been looking along with the DEC for 8 months. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I have a slightly different comment. Normally people would know that I am against most hardened structures. But I think in this particular case there' s a cell formed by 2 major jetties, groins, on each side and that cell is self contained. And what Mr. Edler and neighbors are trying to do is to control that cell. I don't think he' s gonna have any affect beyond the oyster company. Their jetty is so far out that it' s not gonna. . . . . .he' s looking for a low profile. And I think it' s a case where we can look at and see whether this is a proper location. I think it is very controllable. It' s not gonna affect down drift beyond the oyster company. The only people„ that are gonna be involved are the people who are _ applying for the application, by and large. MR. EDLER: I would present to you Al, that the adverse affect is the absence of the groins. Because the adverse affect. of the lack of groins is you can' t practice recreation, we can't swim. Did you ever try, especially if you have a bum hip, and just had to replace it, how do you get off a bulkhead to swim in front of your own water? Or on a boat? Our neighbors used to be able to walk the beach and collect shells. They can't unless they trespass on property. The value of the property is now less, not more. One of the adverse affects claimed of a groin is that it would take the present and potential values (could not here him) . If we put the stabilizers back in it would go back to its value and I ' ll be able to walk down the stairs and. swim in front. Maybe fish, look in the waters, (could not hear him) . So sometimes, when you look at things, you look at them ass backwards. I laid on .my back for a long while nursing this hip and I just lied there and figured this is ridiculous. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: John brought up a very good point. One that we had discussed before. I 'm looking through here to see if the application includes any pre-filling of the groin. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was my other question that 1wanted to ask. We asked that before. . MR. EDLER: We said that about it. It was we could use, because it is already covered, the fill that is on and in the oyster company, which would run the beach and is namely sand that has moved down to our area and is compatible. So we' re not going to steal. That' s another point I 'd like to make. . Property owners on the water front are not thieves trying to steal something from the state. The advanced guard the Trustees maintained on the shoreline so it doesn't further in. So I 'm as conscious as you are of environmental concerns. We would fill it in with the sand as we did when the bulkheads were washed out in 1992. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don' t know. . . . . ..and I 'm not trying to pick a fight with you here, but there' s no filling mentioned on your application. The only groins we would approve here would be low profile groins. It wouldn' t be up to the level. . . . .and you've q1q Board of Trustees z 7 Nip ember 18, 1997 shown us dramatically the level of sand lost here .on the bulkhead. I don' t think there is any quarrel over that: MR. EDLER: The groin construction. . . .if you go back into the specifications, only take it back to what the original sand was. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it' s not included in the application. It says filling and it says 'none' . MR. EDLER: Because you had agreed that we didn' t have to put down fill because that then opens up the DEC to thing that we are going to go out and run and take buckets of sand out of the Bay. In a .previous discussion on record .here, we already discussed that we would get the sand fill. . . . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : There's no question on the sources of sand. It' s just that it has to be included in your application that it will be filled. MR. EDLER: We had it in there and then the recommendation was to pull it because it made a misunderstanding with the Army Corps about dredging. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you need fill. MR. EDLER: We agreed to that. So why don't you just say you' ll issue the permit subject to the fact that we will fill. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : We just want to make sure it' s complete in the application.. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It' s not in the application. MR. EDLER: It was in the application. And it was pulled because of this confusion with the DEC. Your like traffic cops on opposite, you don' t get your signals right. As Mr. Napolitano suggests, well put it in. If we put it in do we have to create the whole process again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : No. We wouldn' t approve it without fill. And I just wanted to look through the application to see if it was put in. And it wasn' t. MR. EDLER: But when we first presented it to you it was. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : But it' s not in the file now. I don' t recall that it was in there. MR. EDLER: OK. Then put it in there. . I want to make it clear we've been yo yo'd. TRUSTEE GARRELL: You haven' t been yo yo'd. The problem here is you've got a major application that takes some time to work over. We're. working on a principle that involves groins and hard structures. Which by our very nature we' re asked to take a hard look at. We' re not playing good cop or bad cop. We're not here to fight the DEC or cow tow the DEC. We' re here to judge these things on their merits. And sometimes the heavy stuff, takes time. Just be patient. You' ll get it. MARY GRIFFIN: If I remember correctly I think our basic recommendation was low profile groin. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think if we're gonna vote on anything, I think we should specify the height. This came up in Mattituck that time. MR. EDLER: The height is on the plans. Do you have the copy , of the plans. The cross section goes I think, goes out 4011 . ' TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : it shows 7 ' from the top. But that shows the beach. Is there a measurement between the top of the groin and the bulkhead? Board of Trustees 8 Nvrmber 18, 1997 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What we're concerned about is last month somebody wanted a low profile, but it was depending in the height. We wanted to set it from the height of the bulkhead down. MR. EDLER: Isn't there a landward notation of what it is to the top? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we have on the cross section shows 7 ' from the top of the bulkhead to the beach. But the beach is a shaded area of undetermined depth going down to the groin. So there' s no actual dimension of the groin height. MR. EDLER: But wasn't there then a landward and other notations which is from -top to the top of the groin? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don' t see any dimension. . (There is a great deal of talking and shuffling of papers, can' t hear) . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So you say it's 4 ' . MR. EDLER: It is on that. It' s hard to see. TRUSTEE* HOLZAPFEL: That makes it a very high profile groin then. MR. EDLER: Well, it's 4 ' from the top of the bulkhead down. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right, and you have 71 ;exposed maybe? MR. EDLER: No, that the 7 ' is down to the existing one, before we put in the groins. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But right now, if you stand on your beach, and you reach your hand up you can just about touch the top. So that' s 7 or 81 . MR. EDLER: Right. It was 841 . Maybe it' s 79" . then you would come .up so that the groin goes down to what you see . in the pictures which is the strand. The strand is about 4 ' down and the top of the groin would be at the stern where the beach existed before. In that picture where I'm standing by the bulkhead. . . . . . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The stringers are a good location. MR. EDLER: So all you have is 4' 'of exposed (cannot hear him) Once again if you walk along the bulkhead you can see where I 'm standing (cannot hear him) TOM SAMUELS: Possibly I could make a suggestion. Most of the low profile groins that are being issued now by the DEC have apparent high water 6" above or a foot above, sometimes even below. But that' s the best way you can. . . . . . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This would accomplish that because the water goes right up to the bulkhead. The stringers are this high (indicating with hand) right now. TOM SAMUELS: If the water is covering the bottom stringer then that' s your low profile. You actually metes and bounds right on the bulkhead. It' s just as effective as. a low profile as a high profile. It will only fill so much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was one of the questions, was how you would get the sand. But I assumed it would be pumped from the west side in the normal dredging hydraulic dredging operation. Is that correct? MR. EDLER: No, it' s going to be from the (could not hear him) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: right, but I think they were talking about what method.. MR. EDLER: Method? From the oyster company beach on our beaches. q1 Board of Trustees 9 Nc ;nber 18, 1997 TRUSTEE WENCZEL: No, no you can't take it from their beach. MR. EDLER: You have a 10 year maintenance contract to dredge the inlet of the oyster company. It will be passed on through negotiations with them. It will go from. 600 c.y. and the rest. . . .that would be worked out to help dredge it because of the baymen are there and we could take out of there under their permit and put it on our bulkhead and take the upland sand which is already- there also. We did it in 1992 with heavy equipment and backf ill all the way down the bulkhead. We had it with the permission of the oyster company. We didn' t go in there and take it. We followed. the same procedure. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Have you discussed it with them? MR. EDLER: Yes, Larry- supposed to have done it and once we get it we take it out and empty out their inlet.. Because their not going to put new groins or bulkheading in there we could possibly have the sand. You know he has the permit to do all this for ten years. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I don' t think that is a concern. I think we would condition it on clean fill. It wouldn' t matter where they got it from. That would be your responsibility to get the fill, not for us to arrange it. Here' s what we were talking about. See how this groin is in the middle of this property. It' s not on the edge. I was concerned it would be on the edge and then how would you. . . . .you would have a drop off there. But it' s not. Because that' s 40 ' and it would give you a taper. One of our questions was we would condition something like this on a pre-filled groin field. How would you handle. . . .and it doesn' t show this. . . . .how would you handle the two east and west ends on the last groin? How would you fill that because that' s gonna go down and impact the neighbors beach. MR. EDLER: The one to the east would be Taylor where he would just put more sand in, .in front of his property. He already has rip rap along the, easterly side of his bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I think it should be made clear. . . . . .we should spell out how he should be allowed to fill there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The problem with fill is filling inter-tidal lands. Your never gonna get DEC to approve that at all. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Do we want to approve filling inter-tidal lands? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, that' s what I'm saying. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I don' t think we want to approve either. . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That' s the hard part. You can fill the higher beach and the higher part of the groin, but it' s not clear. . . . .in your own application are you saying, fill the. entire 40 ' ? That' s the question that is still around. In all honesty, we were waiting. to see what the DEC was gonna do and we still had some of these questions and how they were going to approach them. So these are still questions that are alive in our minds to move the process. along. MR. EDLER: One of the quotes that I read in the article about the heron, was that the Trustees always respect the property owners private property. 45 ' out from the bulkhead is still my property on which I pay taxes. The groin is only 401 . And you can look at it by survey. Board of Trustees 10 .�vember 18, 1997 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we wouldn' t want. . . . . .if we did destroy inter-tidal marine habitat that wouldn' t be respecting your property even if you owned it. Your right, about filling inter-tidal areas, underwater areas. Do you. want to set a limit? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Then it' s not a filled groin field. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right, but your filling the other part of it and the rest is gonna fill in for this. (Changed tape) MR. EDLER: . . . . . .the upper .part is the impact area against the bulkhead. We' re typing to reconstruct the beaches for a sand splash area that dissipates the forward motion of the breakers. In the previous north easters we picked up nine or ten inches of sand out. But then this last storm chewed it out by bouncing more from' Orient and taking it down west. If we had the groin they would have stayed. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I don' t think that you can construct a groin field anywhere. And I expect it not to have an impact on any other area. This will .certainly have an impact on some other area. Obviously it will. be to the west. It will change the flow of the tidal along there. The littoral drift. You put this groin field in and I guarantee you' ll see the oyster company property to the west start to erode. MR. EDLER: How can it be in THE 100 ' lot between it and that hasn' t done it? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Those rock groins don't act anywhere the same of these will. Especially the fact that your not gonna be able to fill these below the high tide mark. We' re not gonna write you a permit. . . . . .I don't think we're gonna write you a permit to fill inter-tidal area. Which means they' re gonna have to fill from, a natural process. When you start to fill them from a natural process your taking the 'sand out of the system. And even beyond that your gonna change the flow, the littoral drift, to flow with the tide along that beach there. For every action there is a re-action. And that' s what it' s gonna be here. MR. EDLER: When the beach goes out there what was the flow then? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I would assume that the whole area was fairly level along there. The beach was the same all along and that the tide was able to travel on a fairly straight line. When you put this groin field in it' s gonna be taking' a turn off shore. That' s what' s gonna happen. MR. EDLER: For 37 years the tide flow is mainly off the end of the rock groins. It doesn't come in and go out. Most of the action is when in storm. conditions (cannot hear him) . It used to be when you got south west wind and (cannot hear him) it stayed there it was more sand out in the Bay., but because of less vegetation the sand has moved more down as Anders pointed out towards the causeway and if you go and look at that beach it' s about a foot and a half higher because that' s where all the sand had gone. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: By the causeway. MR. EDLER: Yes. Because you don' t even have a stopper like the oyster company when you used to have them going out to the Board of Trustees 11 N ember 18, 1997 dolphins to protect the channel. So there is not as much sand action as there used to be. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I think there is not as much sand action because it' s been cut off by. the hardened structures along the area. If you go all the way back to the condominiums, right along there. . MR. EDLER: We' re east of them. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Weren' t you just saying that it was flowing towards the causeway? MR. EDLER: Not the causeway in Orient. The rock jetty just before before Sterlings.. So it' s all down beyond Gull Pond. Beyond Klipps Beach. It' s gone up a foot and a half. When you boat and motor you have to stay out further from the beach than you had to two or -three. years ago. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I don' t know about them. I don' t agree with that at all. That' s fairly stable -down there. That hasn' t _ changed much at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You made a good point about filling inter-tidal area, and where that sand will come from to fill the rest of those groins. Do you believe. . . . . . . TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Just a last point. I think your problem is probably precipitated by the groin field by Aprea' s. Don' t you think that' s had a major affect on you. MR. EDLER: The groins that have created the problems existed before the stabilizing groins. were put in. And it was created in a sense by the east Gardener Bay groin. That is the area that is between the end of the public road and Aprea' s. That' s all gouged out. And testifies that there is definite down drift devastation. But between the stone groin they have always held. As the pictures show. Wherever those are because I have to go against the DEC. So that held. What weakened our beach was first the north easter of 1992, which took out all the bulkhead east of us and gouged land onto the shoreline. For whatever reason, and you and I disagree, in any analysis it all comes' to the same and one was added, and a change takes place. We suspect a new addition. Shortly after all of the bulkheads were repaired then heavy clamming devastated all the vegetation out there. And it was after or during that 25 or 30 hours week after week that .the .beach started to erode rapidly. Now that process only stopped recently. And the beach grass and eel grass is starting to come back and we are starting to see (could not hear him) . But it comes up' 7 inches taken from the Oriente angle and goes down 7 inches. I think .another •thing that has to be considered is if you always use the argument that as the water comes in you can't reclaim it. Eventually it will take time, but you won' t even have a north fork. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 'That' s correct. MR. EDLER: So your part of the coastal retreat then. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: It' s an inevitable process. Sea level is rising, the Island is eroding. It' s been eroding since the glacier left and I think it will continue regardless of what,we do. Especially with the rising sea level. We won' t be able to keep up with it. But your reclamation will affect other people. Board of Trustees 12 &'" ,,ember 18, 1997 MR. EDLER: That' s your estimate. It was like the discussions before here on other things. That' s your opinion. But it doesn't prove there. are many, many groins around, low profile that have existed for 50 years on Paradise Point and they have never done what you claim. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: They've made a major difference on that beach there. They've had big affects. That place has changed tremendously. Which side of Paradise Point are you talking about? MR. EDLER: From the Clubhouse through to the marine study at Cedar Beach. That stayed constant. There have been differences on the easterly side facing the east. Some of them good and some of them bad. That' s not what I 'm talking about. I 'm talking about the run that are low profile. There are, blended high profiles on the easterly side of Paradise Point. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I'm not familiar with the other side. With the north east of the northerly side of Paradise Point, I am familiar with. And that place has experienced severe erosion. The areas that haven' t been bulkheaded have been affected by it too. You know if you look at what has happened all along that shoreline, from Reydon Shores down, those groins, the entrance to that marina has had a tremendous affect to the east there on the Plock property. It doesn't stop. If you build something in one area it has an affect on another. MR. EDLER: Alright, then if that theory is correct then why do you grandfather offending groins. Why don't you say, 'pull them out' ? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: In my opinion, they should be. MR. EDLER: As a Board you haven't done that. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Well, the rest of the Board doesn' t agree with me. I'm only one member. The rest of the Board doesn' t agree with me. MR. EDLER: But you only then allow the offenders to keep it. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: That' s what happens. I don' t agree with that. MR. EDLER: Then the ones that are the victims have no recourse. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I agree, that' s what happens. I don't think it' s right, but that's what happens. MR. EDLER: But you can contribute to the contribution. to putting me on the side the ones the east have. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: To the winners. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You say that you've been played yo yo with but this is not a simple issue, and if .we don' t give it our full consideration, if we come here with a preconceived notion in our head and not listen to anything you say, or anything anyone else says, or anything any other agency says, we've not really doing our job. The idea of a public hearing is to collect all the information and make an informed decision. MR. .EDLER: I commend you for what you stated. But when you start out with a statement that this Board, and you've only been members for 4 years, has not issued a groin permit for 15 years, it certainly shows some sort of preconceived, ideas. When you see the argument of the DEC makes that it .doesn' t even indicate too hoard of Trustees 13 N; `Mber 18, 1997 any great study on their part of being inspected one also starts to suspect that there is a preconceived notion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : It would be dishonest to say that there was no preconceived notion. Of course, there is, based on my experience on the Board. I do have a preconceived notion about any sort of hardened structure and that it will have, or could have serious affect on the marine environment in the area. Whether it' s that property or the adjacent property. And because -I have that preconceived notion I want to make sure I have as much information as I can get. So I can make a good decision. And not just say, ' it might do something, and then it . might not' . MR. EDLER: But do you still have a preconceived notion that. it will have a adverse down drift? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In this case? MR. EDLER: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I - don' t think so. Because of it's .location between the Aprea groin and the oyster company groin, I think it' s a separate isolated cell. MR. EDLER: Then you do not then agree with the argument of the DEC? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I 'm not gonna say I don' t agree with it completely. MR. EDLER: I 'm just talking about the adverse down drift. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well by saying that, I guess I don't agree with it completely. I think one of our big concerns. . . . . .the thing that bothers me too is if you build these you might not accomplish everything that you want to accomplish. I don't believe your ever gonna have your -beach restored to what it was. No matter what you build there. Because as you stated, Long Island is 'eroding and it' s just a steady process. MR. EDLER: But at least for awhile we might put a sand splash area back which dissipates the impact on the boat. And. which adds a little pleasure in the remaining years of an aging person who would like to swim in the beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd have a hard time answering that. We have to move on here. Is there any other comment from anyone else? JOHN COSTELLO: I 've been in the marine contract business for years, and I would like to speak in favor of this application. Some of the reasons stated earlier there is very little detriment that is going to happen to something this small in length. One can only accumulate a minimum of fill that will probably interrupt a minimum of flow-. Of 40 ' long, if there low profile. But their length has caused less dredging to the . west. Less. Minor, but less. These will not hold a lot of fill. The jetties in the general area, and there have been several jetties and groins built to the east of this, that work. It. stabilized a part of the beach east of this for many years. It was installed by Larry. Tuthill many years ago. And the beach is quite stable. There' s a flow from east to west. There is no other access along this beach- at high tide right now. There could be. Minimally. But it will increase with a low profile groin to some degree. Hopefully it will fill. I think that this application. is asking very little, because of Board of Trustees 14 _,ember 18 , 1997 the other groins in the area. The detriment of these groins will be so minimal that I don' t believe it' s going to stabilize this area. These bulkheads, leave it, it needs stabilization. They lost the bulkheads in 1992 because (could not hear him) They were upland at one time. I built it that way. Since the beach has disappeared the bulkhead should be stronger. I 'm not so sure these people can afford the heavy, more costly bulkheads. They repaired them recently, and let me tell you, their slightly too light. By building the beach and dispersing some weight energy will only help these people. I hope some of this information. . . . . . TRUSTEE GARRELL: John how will you deal with that question with the east and west lots and the fill that is required that we have been going back and forth on? MR. COSTELLO: Well Mr. Wenczel is right, I 'm not sure that anybody wants it pre-existing. It will build up a beach to _a certain degree. If their low profile the excess will go over the top and of course less traveled. I think what they' re gonna do is determine the location. I think when they do dredge, the oyster farms or possibly Gull Pond, which is dredge all the time by the Town, that fill lies to the east and this is a good location TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I was just going to ask in terms of. . . . . .and that' s a question I have in the whole process, is the fill. Should the. . . . . .the water almost goes up to the bulkheads, so are you saying, don' t pre-fill or not pre-fill necessary at this stage because the water is going to fill it up by itself? MR. COSTELLO: It will be some filling there. There is literal drift. When it' s done and then if there is fill needed you can view it as a Board and make a determination to put it in. probably with the fill and the rise of either the oyster factory or Gull Pond. And it' s in that system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone else who would like to speak either in favor or against the application? Motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE GARRELL: So moved. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I ' ll make a motion to approve the application of Napolitano, Edler, Taylor and Tomasino for 40 ' low profile groins that will begin at the highest vertical point will be at the whaler of bulkhead and that there be no pre-filling. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Nay 5. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of 0P. requests a Wetland Permit to ins a 00+/- ' of 3 1/2 ' inert submarine cable between New Suffolk and Robins Island at a depth of 5+/- ' below bay bottom. The project shall begin at LILCO specified meter cabinet at First Street landward of the tidal wetlands boundary. Located: foot of First Street, New Suffolk. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of or against the application? Il� 'Board of Trustees 15 N amber 18, 1997 MR. JUST: As we left off the last meeting I 'm here tonight to answer any questions regarding wetlands or environmental concerns with' the installation of cable. You also have Peter Trexler the Island manager and Kevin Lark tonight to answer any legal questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just let me read a letter that we received November 17th. . "Gentleman, we represent John Scott in connection with the application of Robins .Island Preservation Corps. for installation of a power line cable and easement. Enclosed is a copy of Mr. Scott's objection which has been filed with the State of New York. Any applications by Robins Island Preservation Corps to the State of New York and the Town of Southold have all been submitted without the consent or permission of John Scott who is not merely an adjourning property owner but an actual owner of the under water property . through which it appears that the proposed cable is intended to be placed. Therefore, on behalf of John Scott, we would - appreciate being notified of any meetings where this matter will be discussed with Southold Town Trustees. Yours very- truly" , Kevin Law. And .in the file here there is some sort or legal document. of course it' s available to you to review. The jest of it is that John Scott is objecting being duly sworn to oppose and says where he resides and objects to the installation of the cable across his underwater property. That' s the jest of it. KEVIN LAW: I 'm an attorney with Nixon, Hargrave, -Dennis and Doyle. I represent our RIPC and I 'm aware of this letter and his enclosure and received a copy of it and reviewed it and would like to comment on it as well. I know the evening is running late and I ' ll be brief and do not envy your position on some very tough decisions here tonight. What I would like to do is just give you a breakdown of comments of the brief, the discrete areas and again I ' ll try to be quick. I want to discuss what we want the law ,to be and the legal issue. I' d like to reprise the Board of our discussions with Mr. Scott' s attorney' s and then I'd like to propose what I believe is a recommendation. Perhaps a solution that we may address the Board to these. I understand that at the last meeting there was some confusion about the Bay bottom ownership. We're not alone, the Board is not alone, we' re not alone. There' s a law, the laws of New York State, Chapter 990 past in 1969, if I could read you one sentence of that law. And it reads that 'the public generally, the taxing authorities, baymen and in many cases- even the actual owners of land underwater are not certain -of location, status or even the title of their property. So they' re not alone. There is a lot of confusion about bay bottom ownership. : My own title company says they refuse to insure underwater land because of the confusion - surrounding the title. It' s actually a very interesting legal issue. The laws go back, and I have a copy, to Chapter 35 of the laws of 1884. It actually when the New York. State Department of Land which no longer exists granted the .lands underwater in Peconic Bay to the County of Suffolk. The County of Suffolk than had the shellfish committee was then able to grant some interest in bay bottom ownership in the bay bottom to those interested in cultivating Board of Trustees = 16 +_.._,,,ember .18, 1997 the property for oyster farming. That law in 1884 as well as the law in 1969 of the State specifically reserved the right of the State to grant easements in the property for beneficial use and enjoyment of adjoining property owners as well as for commercial purposes. And again, I have copies which shows that the State reserved that right within them. I was on the phone today with the General Council to the New York State Office of General Services which is the successor to the Dept. ' of Land which n& longer exists. Their position that the State is sovereign has never actually. ... . . .they never actually gave absolute big title to Suffolk County. They gave a form of title to Suffolk County and then the County then gave whatever title it had to-various oyster farmers. But it never relinquished big simple absolute ownership which is the highest form of ownership. Again, I will give you a copy of the law that specifically reserves the right to grant an easement. The also reserved the right that if the land was never farmed for oysters then the property would revert back to them. and we're not questioning whether or not someone was or has continuously farmed the property for oyster farming. Be that as it may the law what the law is and what the State has advised us what the law is we have had to apply to them for a permit. That' s the first step. We get a permit from OGS and then they grant you the easement, once the cable is laid under ground so you know exactly where it is. They indicated to us that we needed to notify adjoining property owners. And that' s why. we had to give Mr. Scott one of those notices that he objects to. We weren't indicated in our application to the State that he didn't have some interest in the property. They gave us their forms and we filled out their form and being an adjoining owner to the State owned properties, that' s why he hadn' t received a notice. Again be that as it may the State has advised us that they do have the permission to. grant an easement. Yesterday, I spoke with Mr. Scott' s attorney. I haven't had the opportunity with Mr. Scott. He has retained a Mr. Lark' s Law firm. I spoke with his partner, a woman, Mary Folts. She advised me that they were filing this objection to protect their clients interests until they can resolve this petition. They just wanted to be on record that Mr. Scott wanted to be heard on this issue. Which we have no problem with. She advised me that, and I don't want to misrepresent her comments, so I' ll paraphrase that they are interested in.working with us and that theyare interested in conveying the property that we need to us outright or (shuffling of papers, can't hear him) , and what we need to do is reach agreement on a dollar, figure, to properly compensate Mr. Scott. We don' t really just want to our hat on a New York State law, we want to be a good neighbor, we want to work with Mr. Scott, and arrive at what we believe to be a fair compensation for the interest that he has in the oyster farms. So with that the last thing I ' would leave you with is that we've already secured our DEC wetland permits and they have conditioned the permits with some language that I think the Trustees could use as well. And that is to grant us. a permit but then put the burden on the applicant to secure any approvals that it needs from the 'Board of Trustees ; � ' 19 N mber 18, 1997 reason it was never done. I don' t know why. And so I 'm still inclined to say. . . . . . .I don' t have time to review the document tonight. We should have the Town; Attorney to review it just to make sure, because that' s her job; she' s the Town Attorney. Just to make sure that what is in fact your portraying it as, we agree with. . That' s should be done before we make a decision on. . . . .and if that is in fact the case then it' s no problem. That' s the law. It' s hard for us to get information and make a decision-- on that tonight. MR. LAW: I hear you and respect that but if I may, I don' t really see a down side to the Board to see it the other way. The down side to the applicant is we have a short window opportunity to lay the cable in winter. It is our desire to lay it in the beginning of December. ' I understand the Board will not meet again until December 17th and by conditioning the permit you would say that we do not construct unless we had the agreements that we needed. I think the Board is protected and does not abort the construction schedule that we have to post. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 'But a month ago we were on record saying, 'get the approval from the land owner' . Drive in his yard and say, 'could. you help us out, we have a problem' . We went on- record saying that. That' s why we didn't issue a permit last month and it was requested of us under the exact same conditions. Give us the approval with a condition that the land owner approves. MR. LAW: And the document we submitted tonight indicates that the State is prepared to grant the easement and as far as legally we are required to and that' s the only permission that we need. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not saying I don' t agree with. that, I'm saying I need time to look at it before we agree with it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL; On the other side, if that' s the case, and there' s only' a window of' opportunity do we want. . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we gave them a month. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: We suggested that even before that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now suppose next month comes and he still doesn't approve, and you can' t come to an agreement, it' s not gonna matter anyway. MR. LAW: It was three weeks ago and again I would share with you, my wife had her first child two weeks ago and yesterday was my first day back in the office. So I feel a little preoccupied and although the phone calls and E-mail and phone mails were piled up I was sort of taking care of other things and so again don' t blame that on the applicant, blame it -on me .and so I'm trying to give the Board an out, and I think your protected because of the conditions that you can impose on us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I 'm still not inclined to. . . .someone can make a motion, but I'm not closing. . . . . . . GLENN JUST: Supposing you got permission from Mr. Scott tomorrow? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was last month. GLEN: Things take time. It' s been since the morning after the last meeting previously that this conversation has been going on. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: When we saw you on field inspection, we mentioned it. Board of Trustees , 20 . vember 18, 1997 PETER TREXLER: I 've been to his house twice and I 've been telephone conversations with him at least a half dozen times. I 've tried to contact his lawyer and his lawyer will not return my calls. GLEN: Let me point out that it's not something that started out yesterday, it started actually before the last Trustee meeting that we've reached out. MR. TREXLER: The representations made by his attorney yesterday, I think we just got re-involved now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, the Board is being placed between two neighbors here. We're supposed to decide which neighbor is right. MR.. TREXLER: I think by granting the permit your not saying that Mr. Scott is wrong. I think your preserving our -right to meet our proposed construction schedule and also allowing us time to finish negotiations with him and that we' re not going to commence with construction unless we have the approval that we need. Whether it be Mr. Scott, or the State of New York or anybody else. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Not that we don't trust all lawyers, but just the idea that your saying that the State has ultimate authority in this issue, I could see going ahead with the application if that' s true. I don't know if that' s true at the moment. So it' s hard to say we' ll give you ,a permit then we find out that that' s not true at all, that leaves us in .a bad spot. MR. LAW: I appreciate that and that's why indicated that the law aside, and even if we only need the States approval' as a good neighbor and a gesture of good will we're prepared to get the approval from Mr. Scott whether we need ,it or not and we're willing to compensate for that, whether we have to or not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it hasn't happened. GLEN: That' s the same question we brought across. . . . : TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Exactly, and my point is the same., that it is someone else' s property and you get his approval. GLEN: The State of New York says they' re the ones to grant permission. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we just got that information tonight. GLEN: We gave that information the last time as. well'. As part of my conversation on the mike last month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How can we verify that. GLEN: I don't know, were the microphones working. Maybe you can transcribe the tape. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think Al can verify that. MR. LAW: Does your jurisdiction cover the middle of the Bay, whether it' s 30' deep or is it just the shore line? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That' s a very good point. MR. LAW: If it does not the States property runs 1,500 feet than you got Mr. Scott' s property 1,300 feet and the States property for another 3,500 feet and out -of. the 6,000 for our cable 5,000 the State owns. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In 97-13 Section A #1, "all lands generally covered or intermittently covered with or which border on tidal yam' Board of Trustees 21 N ember 18, 1997 waters, or lands lying beneath tidal waters , which at mean low tide are covered by tidal waters by a maximum depth of 5 feet" . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The town only has 1, 500 feet, but that' s town waters. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : It' s clear that' s it' s outside of our jurisdiction from the information submitted. It' s clear that the project below 5 feet is outside of our jurisdiction. And it' s clear from what is submitted that Mr. Scott' s property is outside our jurisdiction based on Town Wetland Code. So all we have jurisdiction of is where the cable enters the waters up to a depth 75 feet upland and down to 5 feet below mean high water. MR. LAW: And that is only State owned property. And I submitted to you tonight their representation that they are prepared to grant the easement. The DEC has already issued their permit, so then the only thing we need is the Trustee approval for that portion of State owned bay bottom where the cable will be laid. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : It would seem to be correct. MR. LAW: In light of that then I respectfully the Board to move on our application tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I ' ll make a motion to approve the application of Robins Island Preservation for a wetland permit to install 6,000+/- feet of submarine cable. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 6 . En-Consultants Inc. on behalf of Wier ests a Wetland Permit to construct approx. o retaining wall, construct 2- 20+/- ' of angled returns to be armored with 2-3 ton armor stone on east & west sides of property, 200 c.y. of clean sand will be trucked in and remove existing remnants of old dilapidated bulkhead. Located: 3450 Private Road #13, Mattituck. SCTM #105-1-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Would anyone like to speak on behalf of the application? ROB HERRMANN: Just briefly, obviously I think is a good one and necessary for the Town both. As you can see from the plan there is a liberation of over 40 feet of beach by the removal of the old deteriorated bulkhead. At the same time there will be a stabilization of the toe of that bluff for the Burns property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : After looking at it on site last week I did have one major concern. I think it was stated that the house foundation is already, cracked here, at the applicants house. My concern is if you put' a bulkhead at the toe, what is gonna keep the rest of that bluff from stumping another 5 or 10 feet. MR. SAMUELS: Well as a matter of fact, it did over this past week end. The theory is of course that once the toe is stabilized there will be less undercutting of the botL.om and shifting of the sand directly beneath the vegetated area. But I certainly can' t assure you or Mr. Burns that there won' t be further sliding of that vegetated swat there. There is no way stop that. But at least he' ll have the effect of not further Board of Trustees 22 1:- ,:-ember 18, 1997 undermining which is accelerating the process. It' s just dropping off in chunks. We were there on Wednesday, and we had Friday was the day of the worst of the storms, and more of those little pockets of brush and trees and stuff came down. I didn' t see any more apparent damage to the top because I never did measure it on Wednesday, but obviously something happened. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was my concern. It' s a structure on a stretch of beach that doesn't have any hard ' structures. But what I 'd-- hate to see happen is to put that bulkhead in that would affect the whole shoreline and then have to move the house back anyway. It' s not a straight bluff where you preserve the toe, protect the toe, the bluff isn't gonna move anymore. There' s that huge section of that big mass of plant and soil material that' s still gonna slide. MR. SAMUELS: The plan of course is to stabilize the toe before April 15th plant beach grass and so on and so forth and try to keep that angle of repose down below. There is no reason why those roots won't germinate through into a stable slope. The problem is the slope isn' t stable and that' s why this is happening. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : That' s what my concern was, that that whole big section is gonna slump down and your gonna loose that house anyway in a matter of 4 or 5 years because there is no much weight there pushing down anyway. Even though the toe will be stable from up top it' s still pushing down. Your not gonna stabilize the top right away, because your not gonna get the angle of repose right away. MR. SAMUELS: He has engaged an engineer in designing a' bulkhead at the top to preserve the house and that would require your permit also. I think that the. . . . . . .I don't want to .rush into that until we see what the affects are with the toe stabilization. Generally speaking, I don' t have exceptions once the toe is stabilized you can vegetate the bluff and it works. Several places that had similar situations, Corso' s, where you can terrace it, there are various things you can do to re-stabilize it. And it works. You've all seen them where they work and I dare say I don't know if you have seen where it hasn' t worked. I haven't. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have over 300 feet of material than is. moving right now. By everyone' s admission that whole baxjk J-.S. moving. And it' s not just. . . . .like the Corso' s, it' s, not just straight forward as Corso' s, or one like that. MR. SAMUELS: I 'm sure Corso' s looked like that at one time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, .that' s an awful lot of material to be coming down. TRUSTEE GARRELL: But the point is that it' s a question of somebody . trying to save the house or trying to save that situation. As I remember in all our walks down the beach with Enders from the Dept. of State on the Goldsmith thing, he was always talking about you had to do something, with t' he; toe o17 the bluff if the angle of repose is sufficiently sharp. Which that is. I guess the only question I have is how do you work the priority on that. Why is it always cast in stone that you go to the bottom of the bluff first and then try to get up on top. Board of Trustees 23 N( mber 18, 1997 y� MR. SAMUELS: Absolutely cast in stone. TRUSTEE GARRELL: In other words you see whether it works down there and then you go up. MR. SAMUELS: Well nothing else will work without that as a first step. MR. HERRMANN: It' s like I get from the Soil Conservation Service, geologists and whoever. MR. SAMUELS: The bulkhead is actually the foundation of the house when you really look at it. The toe of the bluff, bulkhead. Unless you can stabilize that you can' t really do anything with the top except move houses back and that delays the inevitable. How many times your gonna move them, is like Pete said, before we were living on a sand bar. And nibbling around the edges, and in geologic time we probably won' t be here. But in the mean time the timber bulkhead with a life expectancy of 35 isn' t gonna affect the over all geologic time we' re talking about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommends approval but strongly suggests the applicant look into further erosion control at the top of the bluff. That' s my concern. Your gonna loose the house if you put this in anyway, possibly. MR. SAMUELS: No, we won' t loose the house because it' s to the point where the top of the bluff is in danger then we can proceed with the next step, probably with steel or poly vinyl sheathing of this new stuff of bulkhead on top. He' s prepared for that eventuality. I just would like to wait awhile before he spends additional money. If possible. We' ll watch it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : It looks like it' s inevitable though. MR. SAMUELS: I think your probably right. MR. HERRMANN: This is, as far as I can see it, this is the first of what your saying, it' s probably an inevitable series of stuff. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Do you know any date on the bulkhead that is out there? MR. SAMUELS: Early 50 ' s is what I 'm hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That' s a foot a year. That bluff has lost a foot a year all along the whole front of that. Tremendous volume of material. MR. SAMUELS: It' s not successively. One year you' ll loose yards, and then the next year. . . . . . .the big storms is what cuts the chunks. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: For everyone who is here tonight, you have to see this to understand. There is a bulkhead 50 ' out in the middle of the beach and the bluff is back here. And this was built 40 years ago and it' s just 50 feet of 100 foot cliff out there. TRUSTEE GARRELL: It' s a ship wreck out there. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE GARRELL: I ' ll move to approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 7 . En-Consultants Inc. , on behalf of contract vendees, request a Wetland Pe o cons ruct a single Board of Trustees 24 Y° •- a'ember 18, 1997 family dwelling, driveway, sanitary system, underground utilities, remove existing damaged fixed dock, erect a new timber dock consisting of a 4' X 14' fixed dock, (elev. min. of 4 ' above marsh) a 3 ' X 14 ' ramp and a 6' X 20 ' float with 2- 8" pilings. Located: 135 Hill Road, (Youngs Road west) , Southold. SCTM #70-4-32 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MR. HERRMANN: I have a couple of comments on the project. The first is the house and upland portion I ,believe is out of the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees. And I would certainly welcome any comments. Secondly, in regard to the dock. There is a question at least of one near by waterfront owner, a Mr. Devlin, who is here. I had the pleasure of sitting next, to Mr. Devlin and we criss crossed by phone. I know there is some comment to be made in regard to the configuration of the dock. In the spare moments that Mr. Devlin and I had since the beginning of the 'meeting, I suggested an alternative which I hope will be acceptable to the concerned parties. If we reduced the length of the fixed walk by 8 ' and made it 4 ' X 17 ' and flipped the 6' X 20' float to a "T" shape which would remove about 14 ' of that float we would have an over all reduction of the dock of about 22' and that would be in response to the concern that unlike the other docks which are in a "T" shape flush just beyond low water and out of the channel, which automatically conforms with the associated dock. There actually are some aerials that Mr. Devlin is going to show you. The dock that existed on this property sometime ago, was in that same configuration, "T" . This plan originally came from one that was submitted. And I think the parties were unaware of the channel. I apologize for taking all this time of not having to pick up on that earlier. I think that reduction would satisfy the concerns, but if not. . . . . MR. DEVLIN: The creek. . . . .I own a dock on it and most of ,the people in the room know the dock. It' s s shallow creek. There' s a narrow little channel that goes up right along the. shore. This is where he wanted to build a dock. If the dock were 30 or 35 ' it would block the channel up completely. He would not be able to get on- the other side of his dock. Too bad we didn't catch on to this before. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, this is why we have public hearings. MR. DEVLIN: What I want to show you is this is going in from the Bay. This here is the dock that is our concern. I 'm way back here but all 10 boats have to go out this way. It' s a lousy channel and up here you have to jump. ' If you put it right at the edge of the channel his boat can dock and there is another 10 or 15 feet to get by. If it came out straight no chance ROSE: I 'm on the west side of the property and my only concern was the length of this dock because I know that there aren' t many feet close to the channel at low tide. LAURA COLLINS: I just want to say that tonight we have hear Mr. & Mrs. Geiton who is next -to us and Mr. & Mrs. Van Bourgendein who come further down from us. Mr. & Mrs. L(3. Board of Trustees 25 Nc mber 18, 1997 Bradel gave up and left. Mrs. Bradforth is here and there is a letter in your file from Mr. Jackasee and a letter from in your file Mrs. Wilson and Jacobson. There are many fpeoor ple concerned about this problem and we are very grateful r. Herrmann for paying attention. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is the solution he put forth acceptable to all these people that are here? MR. DEVLIN: We want to see a solution before we know it is acceptable. I think we can see we have an agreement in principle with the dock just like all the other docks are and still be allowed in the channel and to pass. MR. HERRMANN: All I would ask to do is actually all sit down with a scale and revise the groin. I guess the Board can proceed two ways with their decision tonight on the drawings and I can send copies to the concerned parties or even table it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there any time line on your client? MR. HERRMANN: Mr. Marino are the contract vendees for the property and so the contract for the property is contingent upon receiving the permit. That is coming up soon. Guaranteed we can devise a plan that I understand the permit will be issued without revised plans. The only question I have is there any way that we can get the revised plans to the interested parties and get approval without delaying this for another month and going to the second public hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Do you have DEC approval? MR. HERRMANN: No, DEC is still pending. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Who else are you waiting for? MR. HERRMANN: The corps. The corps had a 15 day notice issued 12/17/97 . So that would bring us approx. the first week in December. When is the next Board meeting? TRUSTEE Krupski: The 17th. MR. HERRMANN: In terms of the process I will submit to you revised plans can those be available at Town Hall so everyone doesn' t have to come and sit for 4 hours next month? TRUSTEE GARRELL: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I ' ll make a motion we table the application. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second. ALL AYES 8 . Costello Marine on behalf of requests a wetland Permit to reconstruct o existing bu ead within 18" and backfill with approx. 20 c.y. of clean fill. Located: 1095 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM #71-1-11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? SUE LONG: I have the. notice of posting here. if you have any questions, I 'd be glad to answer them. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I looked at this swandith it' s pretty straight forward. I don' t see any problem TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: The only thing I want to point out is on the neighbors property. This is really amazing. 30 years ago they built this for 22 a foot. It' s on the neighbors property. Board of Trustees 26 L.�aember 18, 1997 ( indicating the property next to this) Send the Bay Constable down. They replaced this bulkhead. Just west of Gilbert. JOHN COSTELLO: I just want to make a general comment. I 'd like to thank the three gentlemen who are leaving the Board. I know you served Southold Town and you served it well. I understand what it is to serve constituents and the residents , and you did a good job. You've earned my respect. I don' t have to agree with any of your ideas, but I heard your opinions and I trust them and tried to do what was best for the Town. And I respect that and I hope everybody in Town does. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I ' ll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 9. equests a Wetland Permit for a 15 ' 10*aWsag�ewaylto beacK 250 ' long, with possible retaining wall. Located: 1100 Back Lane, & Munn Lane, Orient. SCTM #17-2-15. 4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : This application will be postponed until Dec. 17th. 10 . Wetland Permit for split rail fence around one property, a 7 ' X 10 ' deck, a 3 ' X 17 ' ramp, a 6 ' X 20 ' float, 7- 8" piles, a storage shed and 6" X 6" walmanized ties to border driveway on waterfront property. Located: 85 Beverly Road, Southold. SCTM #52-2-14 & 15 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This application also will be postponed until Dec. 17th. 11. Howard Zehner on behalf of quests a Wetland Permit to place 104 ' of steel jetty bu c ead within 18" of the existing corroded one„and fill in erosion behind bulkhead with 75 c.y. of approved channel maintenance dredging. Located: 1670 Sage Blvd. , Greenport. SCTM #57-1-38. 3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? HOWARD ZEHNER: I'm the owner of Brick Cove Marina. The application speaks for itself. We had a hearing on this in November 1996 and I believe one year ago, and the 25 year easement that existed for the other work originally, underwater property, that created a jetty in 1954 and changed the channel and filled this jetty was an old barge. I own approx. 15 wide right across the channel including the underwater, but I don' t own, what is originally Southold Bay where they put this barge up. The easement with the Bureau of Land Management expired and I attempted to renew it in November of 1995 and it took us until November 1995 until just a couple of weeks ago before we started with you. Although it was promised I gave my deed over a month ago, for $1, 250 for 10 years of permit. Last year the only objection to this project was Mr. Flynn who was here at the time and he objected to the fact that I did not show the right, not ownership, the right to easement to repair that jetty and Board of Trustees 27 Nc ,nber 18, 1997 Fill the contents behind the jetty from dredging of the channel. And since that time I submitted the surveys updated by Peconic Surveyors showing the license LUW from the office of General Services. I made copies of the updated plan and I have one for each one of you. And as far as the details of the repair to the jetty, they were submitted at the last hearing but I have copies here showing the Army Corps of steel bulkheading within 18" of the existing one and removing the soil from the maintenance, Army Corps maintenance dredging of the channel to put behind the bulkhead after we place the bulkhead within 18" . I believe it'.s a different kind of steel. Only the south end end where the waves battered it, it rusted through and has- been in there .approx. 20-25 years. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on the application? OLGA FLYNN: I have a copy of my husbands comments and I will read them. "The present Public Hearing .is notices as being for proposed construction on SCTM #57-1-38'. 2. Such is not the case. Lot 38.2 is reputedly in the ownership of Howard Zehner. The area of proposed constriction is some 145 feet distant from such property and is actually on land of the State of New York. Despite its manifold inaccuracies„the Tax Map is at least accurate as depicting the area of the jetty as removed from the tax roll by reason of its tax .exempt status. The Trustees many have asked, or should have, by what feat of legerdemain does the applicant propose to erect structures on land of the State of New York at a point some 145 feet distant from land in his reputed ownership. Since November 13th, the Trustees have received a virtual deluge of new submissions from the applicant. Considering the intervening weekend which resulted in a period of four working days, it is unlikely that the Board has had time for a thorough review of these submissions. In my opinion they are designed to confuse and obfuscate the basic issue involved. An understanding of these issues requires an understanding of the background of the existing jetty and the effect resulting from its construction. Historically, the applicant or his predecessor did, . and the applicant has admitted„sing a barge on the land of the State of New York. Said barge was subsequently filled and partially bulkheaded. Not 'only did this action create the subject jetty, but it had the concomitant effect, as the records indicate, of blocking and diverting the natural, eastward littoral flow. This latter aspect of' the situation should be of particular concern to the Trustees since, I believe„it comes within their purview. The -present location of the jetty, and the attendant blockage and diversion of the natural littoral flow, are clearly the result of deliberate encroachment by the owner, or his predecessor, on lands of the State of New York. Encroachment is defined as the entrance by stealth into the possessions of others, a form of trespass. As such, it is clearly illegal. Property rights cannot be secured by encroachment, appropriation or adverse possession on, or of, government property. It is .obvious that the land involved here is that of the State of New York. It is apparent that the Board of Trustees - � 28 _,.vember 1.8, 1997 applicant places much stock- on the receipt of the New York State office of General Services Permit #LUW0015097. I am convinced the State was unaware of the history and background pertaining to this application and to. the effects on the environment resulting therefrom. In ruling on this matter the Trustees can now plead no such ignorance. As it is often the case in Southold, property owners act illegally and rely on subsequent approval by town agencies ignorant of, or professing to be ignorant of, the background of a matter to effectively bail them out. Approval of this application by this Board would constitute the condoning of illegal actions and effectively reward the perpetrator thereof. The property description cited in the permit cites that ownership of the .uplands fronting on the permit property is in the ownership of Howard H. Zehner and Dorothy Zehner pursuant to conveyance recorded in Deed book 11570, Page 568. There are serious discrepancies inherent in this description. The, most readily demonstrable discrepancy is the question of the purported existence of upland fronting on the permit area and in the ownership of the, applicant. The northwesterly line of the permit area, even as depicted on the most recent survey submitted by the applicant, shows a 103 foot line fronting on the underwater land constituting the inlet area. The applicant owns no upland fronting on the permit area. It appears that the ownership of contiguous upland is a prerequisite for permit approval. Paragraph 7 in the Terms and Conditions of said permit is interpreted to mean that any land accreted to the west of the jetty area, resulting from its construction, is vested in the State of New York. This belies the description of the property incorporated in the Permit' s legal description by which the southwesterly property line of the Permit area extends northwesterly along lands owned by Southold Shores 89 feet. This 89 feet course delineates the area to the west thereof which has accreted to the State of New York. It also effectively defines the original 40 foot boundary of Lot 52 on the map of Southold Shores and the original MHWM of the Peconic Bay. The original MHWM defined the area of the natural littoral flow before it was blocked and diverted by the construction of the subject jetty: I return now to the question of the ownership of property purportedly conveyed to Howard H. Zehner and Dorothy J. Zehner pursuant to a conveyance recorded in Liber 11570 Page 568. I realize that it is difficult to comprehend legal descriptions presented verbally in a forum such as this. Therefore I shall confine myself to a brief description of Parcel II in the various deeds involved. Parcel II pertains to the property constituting the southwesterly spur projecting from the main parcel and its westerly prolongation to the 40 foot course constituting the . easterly line of Lot 52 on the Map of Southold Shores. Should the Trustees feel they lack the materials, or the qualifications; to plot the. pertinent legal descriptions, I urgently recommend that they delegate the task to the Town Attorney or other competent agency. It may be advisable that the Town Attorney be consulted on other material aspects of this matter as well. The conveyance recited in the Permit as Liber mber 18 1997 Board of Trustees 29 Nl 11570 Page 568 is a referee's deed to Howard and Dorothy Zehner who had been the mortgagees and former owners of the property. The legal description therein for Parcel II is the same as that previously incorporated in Liber 6826, Page 427, which was a conveyance from Fred Young to Howard Zehner. The metes and bounds description for Parcel II in both deeds differs substantially, and one must conclude deliberately, from the property actually conveyed from Young to Zehner in Liber 6826, Page 4274 it appears that the metes and. bounds description has been contrived to coincide with the present status of the property. Liber 6826 Page 427 actually constitutes the reconveyance of the same Parcel II property conveyed by the Sages to Fred Young by Liber 5217 Page 35. Liber 6826 Page 35 so states. The only fact on which all three descriptions agree is that the Point of Beginning is at the intersection of the southeasterly corner of Lot 52 and the HWM of the Peconic Bay and a first course that extends 40 feet northwesterly to the, southerly shore of the Sage Basin. This establishes that, prior to the illegal blockage and diversion created by the construction of the jetty, the natural eastward littoral flow it ran eastward from the said Point of Beginning. This - contention is confirmed by the Map of Property. surveyed by Roderick Van Tuyl, PC for Howard Zehner as amended to January 9, 1990. It places the HWM at the southeasterly corner of said Lot 52. Plotting of the actual legal description of the property conveyed by Sage to Young, and reconveyed from Young to Zehner in Liber 6827 Page 427 , provides the reason for the subsequent changes in the legal descriptions. The second course..in Liber 5217, Page 35, runs 250 feet northeasterly along the shore of the basin. This proves that this areas was originally upland and the present inlet was created by excavating the original upland and dredging the underwater land. The third course extends due east through the waters of the basin to land of Fred Young. This course effectively locates the area of the original inlet, at the easterly end of the present spur. The inlet was subsequently filled and rip-rapped. It should be noted that the westerly area of the present spur was severed by the inlet and was contiguous to Lot 52 on the map of Southold Shores. The fifth course conveys property, and I quote, "through the waters of said Peconic Bay about 80 feet" . It is, or should be, obvious that the waters of the Peconic Bay are the property of New York State. The sixth-, and final course runs along the ordinary high water mark to the point of beginning. This prove; lo that the original HWM ran westerly to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 52 and that the. illegal construction of the jetty blocked and diverted 'the existing eastward littoral flow. The applicant and/or his predecessor have displayed a disregard for the natural environment .and treated it as if it were a personal fiefdom. Time does not permit the recitation of other actions taken by the applicant in defiance of permits which were;, in themselves, highly questionable. In conclusion, the applicant confidently expects the Board to reward him by issuing a permit which would, in effect, justify his actions. If justice is to be served, the existing jetty should be demolished, the property 3� Board of Trustees 30 1:=—,ember 18, 1997 restored to its original character and dimensions and the natural littoral flow restored. A sketch map of the permit property also depicting certain additional important factors to be considered is appended. (See map on page 7 of this document) . I will give you a copy of this because I do think with these things you have been quite confused. But this is something you could not and I know you could not have known because the papers for the .application or the last survey I think were only in the files today. I have called everyday and know that you could not have reviewed all the papers for this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I think it was submitted October 24, because we had it on our field inspection. MRS. FLYNN: I only saw them 2 days ago. No, this is not the right one, this is the new one. These are the new ones. November 14, 1997.. _ TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Interesting to notice that the inter-tidal water changes in time.. Mr.. Zehner could you comment on those. . . . MR. ZEHNER: I have a survey. by Van Tuyl and one by Peconic Surveyors and all show that I own right to that westerly line which borders my property and Southold Shores and about a 15 ' strip wide in the north and south direction and the New York State took 2 years to do it, but they in their normal slow process states that that is my land and that. Youngs 'land renewed the easement that extends southward from that property by which they do in that photograph of the jetty that' was put in during the time of the easement which had to be renewed. All this has been done legally and without question. Most of the things Mrs. Flynn said, if not everything, is wrong or -untrue. MRS. FLYNN: I think that I gave you the numbers of the deed, of the Libers and the pages which contained the deeded description from which the land is being (cannot hear her) I think that maybe the Town Attorney will look; at the deed description and or she can read° it and determine herself what the ownership is. MR. ZEHNER: I 'm stating under oath that Van Tuyl' s surveyors have stamped a drawing and Peconic' Surveyors have stamped a drawing and signed their name through the stamp. SPEAKER: Mrs. Flynn' s statement is incorrect. This is not new bulkheading. MR. ZEHNER: An improved bulkheading and being repaired. Which the Army Corps permit said I could do as soon as possible because the soil behind the rusted out huge holes is going into the channel. the work I do on that bulkhead and the paper I do and the cost of doing' it and dredging the channel, not only benefits my agreement but benefits the Southold Shores 12 boat marina should Mr. & Mrs. Flynn should choose to keep a boat, which they have, in front of their house it benefits them and their access to Southold Bay, it benefits other land owners in the Bay and Dennis on the corner which rejuvenates the Killiam house and the Lizack property which now is owned by another person. . . .the DEC has agreed with me and the Army Corps has agreed with me. (could not hear him„due to shuffling of Board of Trustees 31 N( nber 18, 1997 papers) somewhat inadequate and somewhat. . . . . .because the tax map did not show this easement because it' s not taxable to Southold Town or Suffolk County land. New York State land which I pay $1,250 for a ten year period for this easement. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Are there any other comments? (At this point Mrs. Flynn spoke, but could not hear her and she and Mr. Zehner exchanged words) MR. ZEHNER: The barge was falling apart. With permits I put a steel -jetty or steel bulkhead around the barge except around the west side, after I came up on land a ways, I went to wood sheet piling. That was all done by Latham and Larry Tuthill. It' s just the physical steel just rotted out and battered. It' s replaced. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE GARRELL: I ' ll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES 12. Patricia Moore on behalf of R _ Iuests a Wetland Permit for a 35 ' X 35 ' boat basin with a retaining wall ( jetty type, low sill bulkhead) with outside slop to be cut to mean high water to allow growth of inter-tidal marsh plantings, landward wall to be 3 ' above mean high water, an 8 ' wide wood walkway on the landward side of retaining wall, with a 4 ' X 12 ' ramp and a 6 ' X 20 ' float, and dredging which may be necessary to reach 4 ' at mean low tide. Located: 600 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. 145 ' north of Antler Lane. SCTM #97-7-5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I ' ll move to recess this hearing until Dec. 13 . � 7 sts a Wetland Permit to construct a 3 ' X 20 a wa 6 ramp and a 6 ' X 14 ' float. Located: 3380 Private Road off Oaklawn Ave. , Southold. SCTM #70-5-49. 4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Or against it? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I looked at it and it' s pretty straight forward. I ' ll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I ' ll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES 14* ests a Wetland Permit to clear dead rears and c can lawn past 10' contour line with possibility of some plantings. Located: 5223 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM #98-1-1 .1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application. MR. DE FRESE: If there are any questions, I ' ll be happy to answer them. FRANK KULL: I 'm the adjoining property owner and I 'm opposed of this application because the job is already done. Now he' s submitting an application for a permit?The grass is up and all the bulldozing is done. Is this against the law or can you do this without a permit? No`:��:�ber 18,' 1997 Board of Trustees 32 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : That' s why he' s in here. He got a violation and he came into the Board. MR. KULL: Is it a violation or permit or charges or what? TRUSTEE GARRELL: Do you know we deal with violations? Maybe we should explain it. When you receive a notice of violation and your sited, at that point you have to come in for a permit. If what your doing is absolutely against Town Code, y ou cn be forced to tear everything back and go back to square one. If what you have done can be remediated of the you can.bepordered to do so and can be put into obviously what we are faced with here, right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Exactly. MR. KULL: Then everything was done before without permits? TRUSTEE GARRELL: This is quite common. It' s not unusual. We try to work it out so the property owners takes care of the mess and takes care of any penalties or re-working the property and we go on from there. MR. KULL:asldone from' theot a wetlandstee Permit to do. all that up to his �house, how hehas what he feet can he go up to the house? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It' S out of our jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is 751 . MR. KULL: After everything is done he put straw bales, I don't understand what' s going on. That' s when I came into the Town Trustee Office and asked them is they need straw bales and plastic around by the wetlands. Then Bbulldozeray stable Dasnsoonki came around and stopped the guy o as he left he went back to work and now the grass is up and everything else and now they put •up the straw bales. Something doesn't add up to me. No Trustee permit. . . . ' legal TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Your right; he did something il mechanism gives there' s a mechanism that takes care of that, the.him a violation and now they have to come in to remedy the violation. That' s what is happening now. TRUSTEE GARRELL: And the grass will go. At, least the grass that is patently illegal. MR. KULL: It seems tome you :have to have a permit before you do anything. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: That' s right. We agree. MR. KULL: What' s the resolution now? TRUSTEE GARRELL: We haven' t resolved it yet. That' s why we' re here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We went down there and took a look. The CAC recommends disapproval of the lawn at the 10 ' contour line and to fair dead trees and briars passed the contour line. When we took a look at' it we "thought the haybales should be moved back approx. towards the house 14' and that should allowedbtoastayednto re-vegetate naturally. The haybales place for a year so the woods can grow back. TRUSTEE GARRELL: We placed some ribbons so you could see. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL:. The survey ribbons that were there we placed on two of the trees and they should form a line between them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC also recommends disapproval because the project needs clarification. The applicant failed to q`T D Board of Trustees 33 r ember 18 , 1997 provide an adequate description of the removal and replacement plan. MR. DE FRESE: (Could not hear him) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : To what extent thought. Normally we would allow for hand trimming for a view. You want to trim some of the lower branches of the trees some of the higher briars so you can get a view. But we won' t allow for clear cutting in that area. MR. DE FRESE: How far, just up to the haybales? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : For clear cutting and the lawn, yes. MR. DE FRESE: And passed that just hand cutting the trees and. . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Just for a view, not with a machine or anything like that. MRS. DE FRESE: There' s an outhouse that' s knocked over, can we remove it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, remove it or use it. MR. KULL: That outhouse was knocked over the creek by the wetlands. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I would suggest when you work in the future on a sensitive area like that, that you really consult with the Trustees or talk it over before you do anything. Then we can recommend exactly what you can do. I ' ll move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I ' ll make a motion to have the applicant to move the haybales back to 10 ' contour line which is roughly 14 ' landward of the house and let that area re-vegetate naturally and to allow the applicant to hand trim the briars and trees for an eye view. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to off the public hearing, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES RESOLUTIONS: 1. Marion King on behalf o ests the purchase of a quit claim dee rom a Boar Trustees and the Town of Southold for property on Fairhaven Inlet, Cedar Beach, Southold. SCTM #92-1-8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI approved the Resolution for a quit claim deed for shaded area shown on survey, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 2. William Witzke on' behalf of quests a Grandfather Permit for an existing 4' X 75 "ca ft with a 6 ' X 22 ' ramp attached to a 6 ' X 250 ' float with 8- finger floats. Applicant wishes to Amend this Grandfather Permit to change the finger floats to 6 ' X 27 ' and replace and repair as needed, inkind-inplace. Located: Route 25 between Bay Home Road & Port of Egypt. SCTM 356-6-2 . 3 , 8 , 3 . 2, & 3 . 3 Board of Trustees 34 N_ amber 18, 1997 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table the application until further inspection and accurate measurements are made, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 3 . En-Consultants on behalf of * quests a Grandfather Permit to remove an_ rep___- place) 100+/-' of existing timber retaining wall and 2- 10' returns and backfill with approx. 25 c.y. of clean sand to be trucked in from upland source. Located: 285 Sound View Ave. , Mattituck. SCTM 94-1-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table until revised drawings are sent, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES VI . MOORINGS: 1 . oar is a mooring in Arshamomoque Pond for 001F ou with a 50 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: Public TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Meeting Adjourned at: 11: 30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted By: 'Z5 Diane J Herbert, Clerk Board of Trustees 'w 17 r,, � ember 18, 1997 property owners in the path, of the cable. Whether it be the State or Mr. Scott. And that burden will be on us before construction can begin. And so I would propose that the language that the State used and those conditions would be acceptable to us on the permits that the. Trustees may grant. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: First of all the map doesn't show any property delineation at all. Unless I missed it in the file. MR. LAW: It was in the other letter. TRUSTEE-KRUPSKI : Normally the way this Board operates, and this is for a structure, not for a utility, because we never granted a permit for utilities before. That I could remember. For a structure, if your gonna put the structure,. quite often an erosion control structure, on the Sound or the Bay, because of the lay of the land, it- has to be built somewhat where it has to be filled because it has to be affective to control the erosion, Sometimes that structure has to cross a property line. When that does, we require both land owners to get a- permit for that structure even if it' s only an encroachment of 10' or 20 ' for a bulkhead or a revetment, because it' s a separate structure- on a separate piece of property. So I don' t know if the Board even wants to entertain making Mr. Scott get a permit because it' s on his property. , That' s been our policy. You can ask Mr. Costello, who' s a marine contractor, sitting right behind you and shaking his head. But he can agree with us that. this has been our consistent policy. Now I don' t know if we want to. . . . .how do want determine this one because it' s an underground cable and a utility and a little bit different. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I was referring to- the- Long Island Railroad. Because they were building a bridge ,and they don' t have to get a permit because their a public utility. Here' s NY State. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This isn' t public though, it' s private. This is a big extension cord. Your not reaching Greenport. Marty' s not getting on here in Manhattan. . . . . TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The argument is that NY State has jurisdiction over the Bay bottom. And they've signed off on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, I 'm not saying it' s impossible. Absolutely. But something that our Town Attorney ought to look at. TRUSTEE GARRELL: You recently looked at there was a rase that took 6 or 8 years years to wind its way through the courts in Glen Cove. Are you familiar with that one? The Glen Island Association vs. the State of New York over the (can' t hear him) ;patent. it was all about the underwater lands and you might take a look at that. What you said is essentially correct that it' s a question of beneficial use with the State and ethically (too much shuffling os papers) If I remember that one it was decided in favor of NY State and the Fishermans Association. It came out of Glen Cove and it was., a land mark case. I .would think that what your asking for is similar and it stresses upon that. MR. LAW: My clients would not be interested in paying my fee to make that State Law, and again rather than litigating it and Board of Trustees 18 November 18 , 1997 coming out heavy hatted and 'the State says we could do it, we're acknowledging that but at the same time in a gesture of good will and trying to be good neighbor, we' re going to try to work something out. . TRUSTEE GARRELL: I like that idea of us issuing a permit that the burden would be on the applicant to get permission of the property owner. MR. LAW: And we would accept that and contrary to your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's that fair to put the burden on Mr. Scott or our uses applying for a separate permit (could not hear him, shuffling of papers) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've been in that situation before and the land owners are never happy with that. That' s a fact, and I 'm not just saying that to- just to get under your skin but. . . . . MR. LAW: Predecessors and interest to Mr.' Scott got their property originally from the Suffolk County Fisheries Commission, which went out 'of business in the 140' s or 50 ' s and they' re the ones who got the land from the State. The deed site their regulations and rights they may regard. The County Clerk' s Office, of Suffolk County do not even find any records to the existence of this commission, nor any documents. so all we have to hang our hat on is the States reservation of rights and it' s original grants to the County, which just by real property law would, all successors like Mr. Scott would' be subject to. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I suggest again, that I remember more clearly now the names of. . . ...East Island Association' and the City of Glen Cove vs. New York State and the Fisherman' s Defense, Fund and... . . . .Glenn do you know John Caggiola of the Glen Cove Sports Shop? He was head man for a long time and would know all about it, and you can give him a call. It' s, was all over the Long Island press for about 5 or 6 years and it was decided in favor of the Fisherman' s Defense Fund. in New York State. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It' s unfortunate that somebody didn' t just drive in his yard and ask him about this before it all started. Then we'd have a letter from him saying it' s fine and things could progress in a a community like fashion. MR. LAW: I apologize for not having taken (could not hear him) It was confusing. We weren't sure if the the County owned it or he owned it or if the State owned it, or what type of ownership he had. We tried to get our facts straight before we actually approached it. If you notice by the time of the fax I got today it wasn' t until today that received this clarification from the State. We certainly going to. . . .and we showed yesterday that we are willing to cooperate and work with him. ! That' s why we request that the permit be issued subject torus getting the necessary approval from. . . . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : We went on record last month as saying, 'come in with the approval and we' re inclined to issue the permit'. You weren't here last month? MR. LAW: No ' I was not. We tried to do it without the lawyers first, but usually we get them into trouble. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : That' s what we told the applicant last month. Go see Mr. Scott and make whatever arrangements have to be made, get his permission and get the approval. But for whatever