Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/24/2002 yiilbetf:J. Krupski, President Town Hall tfames King,Vice-President %AfFU�,�c 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster �° oG P.O.Box 1179 Ken Poliwoda G y Southold,New York 11971-0959 Peggy A. Dickerson y Z Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, April 24, 2002 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy A. Dickerson, Trustee Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 8:00 AM TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 23, 2002 and February 20, 2002. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for March 2002. A check for $6,385.38 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: 2 1. SUSAN BRAVER & JOSEPH GULMI request an Amendment to Permit#5266 for a 2' extension to the previously permitted house addition. Located: 250 Pine Tree Court, Cutchogue. SCTM#98-1-7.11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 2. DANIEL C. MOONEY requests an Amendment to Permit #5107 to include the second-story alterations to the house. Located: 575 Pine Place, East Marion. SCTM#37-4-16 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 3. WILLIAM J. AYLWARD requests an Amendment to Permit#5329 to move the house closer to the wetlands and garage relocated in the rear yard. Located: 14395 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#89-1-3.1 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES 4. ANTHONY & JOANNE KROPP request an Amendment to Permit #769 for a 4' wide catwalk. Original drawings reflected a 3' wide catwalk. Located: 360 Riley Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#143-5-8 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 5. DOUGLAS & CAROLANN RYAN request an Amendment to Permit #5220 to add a railing and benches to the previously approved dock. Located: 3210 Beebe Dr. Extension, Cutchogue. SCTM#103-9-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application and make an inspection on May 15t", 2002. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 6. CHERYL HANSEN requests an Amendment to Permit#4961 to build a 3' wide deck walkway around the existing bulkheaded boat basin. Located: 445 Elizabeth Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-5-3 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE, DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES 7. PECONIC DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, INC. requests an Amendment to Permit#5446 to remove dead and diseased trees from within 50' of the tidal wetlands and replant with bushes. Located: 57908 Main Rd., Southold. SCTM#66-2-2.2 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Table the application and make an inspection on May 15, 2002. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 8. PETRA & VINCENT BENIC request an Amendment to Permit#4378 to add 12' to the existing dock for a total length of 24'. Install piling pulley system 15' out M 3 from end of dock. Transfer Permit#4378 from Leslie & Rose Marie Windisch to Petra & Vincent Benic. Located: 1375 Pine Neck Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-5-39 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application with a total length of 35', TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES (see Public Hearing #40) 9. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FRANCES E. NIELSEN requests an Amendment to Permit#5172 to construct a deck and screened porch addition to an existing single-family dwelling and a One-Year Extension to Permit#5172. Located: East End Rd., Fishers Island. SCTM#5-1-8 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES 10. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LISA EDSON requests an Amendment to Permit#5427 to reconfigure the drywells located beneath the driveway linearly rather than in a cluster. Located: 9326 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#87- 5-25 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES 11. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of CHARLOTTE DICKERSON requests an Amendment to Permit#5409 to include bluff plantings and bluff crest re-grading and a Coastal Erosion Permit to relocate the existing dwelling landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area boundary. Located: 4630 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic. SCTM#74-1-35.51 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES 12. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of ROBERT. E. & BARBARA C. HOLLEY requests a Transfer of Permit#5238 from Ellen A. Groppe to Robert E. & Barbara C. Holley to construct a single-family dwelling, driveway and septic system. Located: 1085 Bayshore Rd., Greenport. SCTM#53-3-12. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to go off the Regular Meeting on go onto the Public Hearings, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. 4 FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE 1. SALVATORE PALACINO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 65' catwalk with (12) 4' dia. CCA pilings, two sets of steps to grade and two 6" dia. piles for a pulley system. Located: 790 Oak St., Cutchogue. SCTM#136-1-38 TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody wish to comment on this applicaton? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we're all satisfied. We visited the site last week. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 2. JOHN HENRY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 9'X 36' ground-level deck, remove window and install an overhead door, and construct stairs from the existing deck to the ground, on the south side of the house. Located: 2360 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#26-1-15.1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I would. I looked at this three months ago. The only request was a single row of hay bales 15' seaward of the construction. I believe what happened was that there was no neighbor notification on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was also kind of unclear. It seemed like a substantial project and we only had one Trustee out there to look at it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There is no change in footprint. It's just a matter of taking out a door, there's an existing overhead door that they want to remove, and put windows in. There's an overhead deck and they want to put a set of stairs down along side the house down, to get down to the bottom. I didn't see a real problem with it. There is no footprint change at all with the building. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: With the condition of a row of hay bales property line to property line 15' out from the edge of the building. Seconded. ALL AYES 3. JAMES & CATHY SLECKMAN requests a Wetland Permit to renovate the existing dwelling and add a second-story. Located: 150 Oak Ave., Southold. SCTM#77-2-5 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone like to speak on this application? JAMES SLECKMAN: I'm the owner. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I just have one question. Will there be any excavation as in renovating the first floor? Will you be excavating seaward of the house? JAMES SLECKMAN: No. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Ok, I don't have any other questions. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 5 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 4. PAUL & CONSTANCE CONNOR request a Wetland Permit to construct an 8'X 12'X 10' shed, placed on gravel. Located: 830 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#115-12-12 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are there any comments on this application? Any Board comments? I have a letter here from Constance Connor. (letter on file) I think she has to do what we told here to do. Place the shed back 10' in line with the two opposing houses, which is our policy. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We try to keep structures in line with the neighbor's houses, which prevents a leap-frog effect of each neighbor trying to get out closer to being a view, and of course, more disturbance to the creek. Any other comment? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, I agree. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the provision that the shed is no further seaward than the line from the two opposing house foundations on either side, not the covered porch or steps or anything else. The actual corner of the foundation wall, so as not to protrude any further seaward. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 5. GARY GERNS as Contract Vendee requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling. Located: 1680 Brigantine Dr., Southold. SCTM#79-4- 25 POSTPONED UNTIL MAY AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST 6. LOVE LANE ACQUISITION CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing peninsula and rebuild the bulkheads and travel lift. Located: First & Main St., New Suffolk. SCTM#117-8-18 POSTPONED UNTIL MAY AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST 7. PECONIC DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to remove dead and diseased trees from within 50' of the tidal wetlands. Located: 57958 Main Rd., Southold. SCTM#66-2-2.4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 8. DR. THOMAS FALCO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 708 sq.ft. second-floor addition on the existing residence. Located: 945 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. SCTM#70-6-32 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this application, in favor of or against? Ken you looked at this. 6 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I didn't see anything that would cause a negative impact to the environment. I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll read the CAC comments. The CAC is the Conservation Advisory Council in Southold Town. They give us comments on every application. They recommended Approval. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 9. THEODORE ANGELL requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct within 18" +/- 100' of timber bulkhead and to backfill structure with +/-10 cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 305 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-28.25 TRUSTEE KING: Would anyone wish to comment on this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommended Approval with a 10' non-turf buffer. This is the same permit we issued in 1997 but it expired. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: We noticed that the neighbor was doing his in-place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, this should also be done in-place, to be consistent. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to re-open the public hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES MR. ANGELL: This application is basically just a renewal of the permit that was already approved and it expired this past October. This application is exactly the same and there are no changes with circumstances remaining the same. I decided rather than, prior to expiration of the permit, rather than slapping a few boards together and saying the job has started, I have no problem paying the application fee over again, without any expectation of any change because all this is exactly the same that this Board had approved with the exception of Ms. Dickerson who is new to the Board. For the record, I would just like to state that I have a 5 '/2' platform that begins right at the property line where my bulkhead begins. It's a platform that extends out over the underground canal bottom that I own half of, which is 30' out, as the Board is aware. So, what I'm asking for is to simply honor the prior approved permits as there is absolutely no change, so that I can proceed with the work. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other Board comment? I think the feeling was when we went out on field inspection and spoke to Mr. Angell last week, was that it's going to be at least 2' out because of the belly in the structure, and not that we'd consider it a land grab, but it really should be done consistent with the neighbors. That's the proper way to do it. MR. ANGELL: This is the reason why I brought it up about the platform. There is a platform that goes out 5 '/2' and this platform would not be visible to anyone and I would be going out at an angle so that it wouldn't even be noticeable because I'm willing to go with the same construction, the vinyl that I / f the neighbor is, as opposed to going with the wood. In consideration of that fact that I own half the canal anyway, and the small extended portion would be under the platform and not visible by anybody, it's simply a matter of cosmetics that would never be seen anyway. The canal is all bends and turns anyway with the exception of myself and my neighbor, who would be the only one who would be actually looking down that line. Since the platform would be covering it, there should be no cosmetic objection. Since it has been approved in the past in it's entirety, I would like to continue it that way because had I started the job, I wouldn't be here, and I wouldn't have paid another application fee. It's just a matter of a technicality. TRUSTEE KING: This is all going to be dug out behind the bulkhead to put in dead-men, so why can't you, when this is dug out, straighten that bulkhead, get that belly out of it, and you're going to use vinyl sheathing? MR. ANGELL: One of the problems and discussing it with the contractor, where there is additional cost not only for any removal of the existing bulkhead... TRUSTEE KING: I'm not asking that. What I'm saying is that behind the bulkhead it's all going to be dug out. You have to in order to put the dead-men in. MR. ANGELL: He indicated that it would not all be dug out. Basically, it would be dug out as the requirement would be for the dead-men. TRUSTEE KING: What I'm getting out is where you've got the belly in the bulkhead, that's dug out behind that, that can be pulled back in and straightened out. MR. ANGELL: Oh, ok. TRUSTEE KING: See what I mean. If you take the old poles out and put the vinyl sheathing in right against the bulkhead, you're not coming out as far as you would if you bumped out 18". It would be much less moving out and would be acceptable. That way you can leave the old bulkhead but get rid of those old poles and put the sheathing right against the old bulkhead and then the new poles. The only way you can get close with this new vinyl sheathing is remove the old poles. They've been doing that a lot lately. MR. ANGELL: Ok, I haven't discussed that with the contractor but his concern also was using the depth because I also ready have depth and it would not entail any additional dredging because then the costs start to increase. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well this is an advantage to do it that way because you don't lose anything because you're not actually removing the old bulkhead. The sheathing goes right against the existing whalers. TRUSTEE KING: The Board's concern is that you've got a 100' bulkhead and you've got a 2' bow in it, if you start out at each end with a straight line, now you've really gone out way out in front, whereas if you pull that bow back in, then you're staying close. MR. ANGELL: It's only one shot because the property owner on the other side has an indent so basically there is no continuation of a straight line. It's just a matter of logistics because I'm no contractor so it would be a matter of how the 8 contractor can do it as cost effectively as possible and also keeping in mind that I did have the approval in the past. TRUSTEE KING: This would be acceptable to me. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd approve that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application to construct the bulkhead with the stipulation that the old poles are pulled out and the plastic sheathing is placed directly against the old bulkhead and the old bulkhead is straightened where it is bowed out and a 10' non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'll have to supply us with a new set of plans showing that before we can release the permit. MR. ANGELL: Ok. 10. MICHAEL A. CHUISANO as Contract Vendee requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling. Located: 575 Diamond Lane, Peconic. SCTM#68-2-10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we open the hearing, I would just like to say two things. As a Board we went out to the site last Wednesday, we didn't find it _ staked, and so we can open the hearing because if anyone is interested on commenting tonight they are certainly welcome to. There is a series of letters in here but I'm not going to read them all. There is a lot of concern of course about construction there. One thing that we did come across though in Chapter 37 of Coastal Erosion, we've got to make a determination, and once we see where the project is staked, we've go to make a determination under Coastal Erosion to see where exactly this project is going to fall. In other words, is it going to be in a secondary dune area. MR. CHUISANO: The property was staked. I am Michael Chuisano. It's staked right now because I checked it before I came to the meeting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We went out Wednesday morning, we had two representatives from the DEC with us, because we had them in town with us looking at different sites, and there were seven of us that walked through there and we didn't see any stakes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I saw stakes that indicated property lines. I didn't see any house corners. MR. CHUISANO: There are no house corners. There are property corners. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They are there. I saw property line stakes, but we need to see where the proposed house is going to be, where the septic is, that's the kind of stakes that we're talking about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then we can make a determination as far as wetlands go. There's a low area there and we have to make a determination as far as wetlands there and a determination on Coastal Erosion. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's all full of baccharis there. 9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We ran into one two months ago with Coastal Erosion. The Coastal Erosion code is pretty clear. In certain areas, no construction is allowed. It's pretty clear in some areas. We'll make that determination once we can locate the project. So, if you could have the project staked, we'll inspect it on May 15tn MR. CHUISANO: Ok, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? PATRICIA MOORE: I take an unusual position today. I actually represent the neighbors, Ms. Gottbetter and Ms. Ramis, who have retained me to review the project. So, in a sense, I'm sitting on your side as an advocate to make sure that the process is done correctly. You're certainly going to have some very difficult issues that you're going to have to address. Certainly whether or not the standards can be met, he hasn't presented any positions yet that indicated where the structure is going to be located. A very important part of this process I think is going to be the SEQRA process. As I read the regulations of the wetland permit process, this is an Unlisted Action, and under 617.4.10, any Unlisted Action that exceeds 25% of any threshold in this section, or it if it's substantially contiguous to any publicly owned or operated park land recreation area or designated open space, this property is contiguous to Goldsmith's Inlet, the County park and Peconic Dunes, so it is an ecosystem that is quite sensitive. You all recognize that and I know that from years of being before you. I don't need to tell you that. I think the SEQRA review should be done extensively here and possibly having a Positive Declaration. Certain practical issues that you're need to address and is a serious concern to the adjacent owner, is the driveway. There is almost a 45 degree slope down to the property. It bisects freshwater wetlands and what could be identified and the issue that you need to deal with is the flagging of freshwater wetlands. I know you have these photographs in your file already but there have been some enlargements that I think maybe you can use in the future. I would ask that these be part of your record. The road access that has to be cut is going to not only going to be for their use on a daily basis but it's also going to be used for construction to get that equipment down to the property. The reality is that this is going to undermine the adjacent properties and it's going to undermine the bluff. Again, another issue that should be addressed in your review. We're very early in the process. I'm on the other side of the issue that I want you to address and it's really up the applicant to present the evidence to substantiate the permit. Another issue that you're going to be looking at is that this house, whether it's in Coastal Erosion Area or, it's certainly in a flood zone, so it's going to be sitting up on stilts, and from what I can tell of the area, the last house that was built, in the same position as the house that's being proposed, was constructed in the 1950's, and you can tell that from the pre-existing, non-conforming structure of the two little cottages that were down towards the beach. Aside from that, it's a clear view on both sides for houses that have not been built for many,years and there's a reason for that. One, a lot of the property that was developed there now or owned by the previous owners on the to the south up above the bluff line, so this is an 10 unusual circumstance and to allow this house to be built you're going to see a house on stilts similar to the houses in Westhampton that are built down on the ocean in the bluff. All you see is this one house looking like an eye soar as well as being out of place and out of line with everything else that's in that area. Another issue that you should be addressing is public acquisition. For once, I think that the neighborhood and the neighbors have not only objected to this construction but are trying to pressure County forces and even private forces to come and offer to buy this property. Mr. Maggio the seller had been approached. He chose not to go that route and I feel very sorry for the applicant because this is going to be an uphill battle and unfortunately he can be put in a position to be spending an awful lot of money for a permit process where the owner had the opportunity to compensated fairly through County forces and through public acquisition. So again, the SEQRA process does allow you to consider alternative and one of those being that public acquisition that's already been placed on the record as a possibility in this case. That's just to start the process in my objections for the record. More will be coming I'm sure as we review the permit process. But, again, if there is anything that you need from me to help you support your determination, in this instance, I'm working with you and if there is something that environmentalists studies...you have a lot of resources within your power and I know you've used them against me many times. Please use them also in this case (inaudible) and until you see this property, you don't appreciate what's being asked of you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? DEBORAH GORDON BROWN: (Inaudible) Reading letter on file. What we would like to see is that it be made available to Southold Town in perpetuity and it can only happen that way if you allow the land to stay natural. In 1948 my parents purchased the property on the bluff above this land, to the east of it. We've lived there since then. I was warned then by my father, who was a scientist, only to use the deer path, not to climb up the bluff except on the steep step path, and although I obeyed, there has been an enormous amount of erosion since the time I was seven years old. When we first came to the land, there were tall pine trees and enormous and very variable vegetation. It was rather extraordinary. It still is extraordinary. However, we have tiny little plants that almost (inaudible) and what happened is during the hurricane of the 1950's and I don't remember exactly the year, but a lot of houses and trees and the eastern side were damaged and some of them swept by out flat lands, or what we call our flat lands, and the (inaudible) was pretty well destroyed. A lot of the flora has returned but it's much more delicate than what it was. The erosion to the bluff over the course to the years has been quite significant and the erosion to the beach, particularly since the building of the jetty, it has been severe. You can see where the beach has been eroded and the dune land has been eroded and the bluff behind the dune line suffered even more damage from the water. It seems to be that way. (inaudible) a road would have to be driven so you would not only have to take vehicles to construct this house but it is indeed our little foot path and it's not much more than 6' wide. That's at its widest point. We throw mulch down either side of it 11 and leaves and anything we can find to keep it stable and we only cut the poison ivy to avoid getting poison ivy. It lives very happily along that bank. The County purchased land adjacent to this lot. (inaudible) If a house were to be built adjacent to this foot path, you would have a very different kind of land. We would like very much for you to (inaudible)just in front of this lot. We would like to save the wetlands. We would like to see the County and the Peconic Trust involved in this. We are very much concerned that Southold Town and those of us who (inaudible). I thank you for your time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can anyone tell me who owns the parcel to the east of that. DEBORAH GORDON BROWN: Yes, it's John Palmer, who wrote a letter and actually I spoke with him the other day and I'm representing him as well, and he received notification from the Peconic Trust about possibly deeding the land. He owns the land and the house1mmediately, well he owns lots 1 & 3, 1 think. So this little plot, would, if he deeds the lands, be (inaudible). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, there are a lot of issues. Thank you. As far as the SEQRA goes, SEQRA by the way, it sounds like it some kind of a secret thing, but it's actually a State Environmental Quality Review Act. We were unaware that there was some sort of a provision in it related to public parks. We're definitely going to look into that as well. We'll review this again next month after we see it staked in the field. Do I have a motion to Table the hearing? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 11. NEIL MCGOLDRICK requests a Wetland Permit to hydraulically dredge an irregular area (+/-55' maximum width) through the inlet of Hall's Creek, to a maximum depth of—5' at MLW, at a 1:3 slope. Approx. 2,000 cy. of 100% sand spoil to be pumped 1) updrift of existing 80' groin on subject property; and 2) downdrift of groin at end of Dean Dr. to East. Extend existing 70' groin on west side of inlet by 80' to minimize future shoaling of creek mouth and inlet. Located: 7690 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#116-4-16.4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to speak in favor of the application? DOUGLAS JOFFE: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. This was, as the Board knows, a permit that was applied for and previously granted back in 1998. There was, and we found out recently, an expiration date on the permit. We were unaware of that. We had environmental consultants to get these permits. We were under the impression that the permit was still valid and well we found out that the permit was not valid so we re-applied for the same thing that we applied for back in 1998; the jetty extension, the same dimensions, as set forth in the prior permit and maintenance dredging, which we are hoping to have done by the County based on the petition you submitted for the Town, I think back in July of 2000. It was a petition with some letters and names. It makes no sense to go ahead without a privately funded maintenance dredging or a County approved dredging until the groin extension is done. We tried that before and it just resulted in the re-deposition of the dredge material right back p 12 in the creed within months. So, naturally the extension was necessary in order to keep Hall's Creek open. So, we're here asking for the same things that we asked for back in 1998, the 70' extension, maintenance dredge, and you approved it back then and they did limit this permit to 2 years. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this application? JAMES ECKERT: I'm on the Board of Directors of the Mattituck Homeowner's Association. (inaudible) JOE LEE: I'm not part of that group but I live on Hall's Creek. I spoke to you in January. There's concerns that the County dredged Deep Hole Creek and pumped the sand towards Hall's Creek and my fears have been justified and you had suggested that they send a back-hoe but a back-hoe isn't going to handle the mess we have now. We're in danger of living on a sewer and what Mr. McGoldrick proposed, I'm 100% for it. I think essential or we're going to have a big problem. We've got a big problem there now. I don't know if you've been down there. I met a gentlemen from the Town there last week, Mel. He thought it was a beach. He couldn't believe that was the mouth of the creek. I just want to reiterate that I'm 100% in favor of what Mr. Goldrick proposes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. JOFFE: Just for the record, the problem is the fill. That's the problem we had with the initial dredging. The Town, there was a requirement in the permit that it be made available for the Town. Rambo Construction did the dredging. Presumably they notified the Town. We were under that impression. We had all of this fill and we didn't have to permission to put it on the down drift or the up drift so we just put it right on the beach. It looked nice for a while but mother nature had another plan for it and dumped it right back into the creek. We cooperated with anyone in the area with anyone with respects to the material. It's just that it keeps going back into that creek. (inaudible) it regenerated the environment, if you will, within the creek. (inaudible) Without the groin extension, which has been started, and then we found out we didn't have a permit or that it expired, so we can't proceed with the opening of the creek. I do have an affidavit of posting for the Board that I would like to submit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because this is a jetty sticking out into the bay similar to a structure to a dock, we've been advised by our Counsel to follow the procedures for SEQRA which means that you have to fill out the Long Environmental Assessment Form and we're going to coordinate with the other involved agencies, DEC and Army Corp. of Engineers. MR. JOFFE: So is the Town going to Table this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to initiate the SEQRA process. So, you can hand those in. Here are the forms right now. If there is no other comment, I'll read the SEQRA Resolution. RESOLVED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold of the application of NEIL MCGOLDRICK more fully described in the public hearing section of the Trustee agenda #11 dated Wednesday, April 24, 2002 is pursuant to the SEQRA rules and regulations an Unlisted Action and be it further RESOLVED that the applicant is required to submit a Long Environmental Assessment Form and be it further RESOLVED 13 that upon receipt of the Long Environmental Assessment Form the clerk of the Trustees is hereby directed to commence a coordinated review pursuant to SEQRA. MR. JOFFE: I have a question for the Board. Based on the fact that this is exactly the same application submitted in 1998 for which we received approval, is there a reason why this additional requirement is being imposed? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can ask our Town Attorney that question because it's a legal type of matter. This is a type of thing that we're doing now on docks and jetties. We have another one further on and we're going to do the same thing for the dock application. We'll do the environmental review at the same time but we have to wait for comments from the other agencies and get all of our information together before we can really initiate the environmental review. Do I have a second on that resolution? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the public hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 12. HARBOR LIGHTS CANAL ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge approx. 5,000 cy. of sand from the entrance of the canal. Located: Harbor Lights Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-2-1.1 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here for or against the application? WILLIAM COLE: I live in Harbor Lights (interference with the microphone) and I'm sure that in another year everything is going to die in there. Also, if you look at one of those photos there, I'm sure that you know that outside of Goose Creek is has become very low and if you look at that picture it's a little bit straighter up from Goose Creek and you can see that it's already (inaudible) outside there. We want to take that sand out of that and nothing more, and we would like to have you act on that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment? NEIGHBOR: I'm the president of the Harbor Lights Association, which is separate from the group making this application. We have no objection to the dredging but we are concerned about where the spoil will go. The application is for 5,000 cy., which is proposed to be spread along our beach area and the beach area, in the opinion of our Board, if not adequate to take that much fill. (inaudible) We could probably take up to 1,000 cy. in that first area, about 500 yds. on one side and 500 yds. on the other but we could not take 5,000 cy. total. We would like to see some other plan for the disposal of the spoil from the dredging. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. WILLIAM COLE: We appreciate your concern and the reason for this (inaudible) as you can see is that it makes it (inaudible) and we have to work it out. (inaudible) TRUSTEE FOSTER: Who is the contractor? WILLIAM COLE: We contacted Rambo and he is going to come to a meeting hopefully down on the beach with the gentlemen here so we can satisfy them that it's going to be done right. 14 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think the general consensus is that they place the clean sand outside of the jetty and barge out the muck and whatever sand can't be handled outside of the jetty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Environmentally it's ok? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll let Trustee Foster look at the numbers. He let us know what he thinks about the fill placement. CHRIS CONNELLY: I'm the Treasurer of the Harbor Lights Association. Along with what Mr. Poliwoda said, we have no objection to the 1,000 yds. but we would also say that this fill not be trucked out of Harbor Lights, and make a note that it be dredged, and that it be barged out of Harbor Lights. WILLIAM COLE: (inaudible) That's why we're having this meeting with Rambo, to find out whether the barge can be put into that point and we will have this next meeting and go over that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now the permit that was issued in 1990 for the maintenance dredging of the canal at a depth of 4', that permit was for 4,000 cy. of sand and with the condition that it be placed on the adjacent beach for nourishment. Have you contacted the DEC as far as any permits? WILLIAM COLE: J.M.O., we had asked him to look into the DEC permit and he's here tonight, I believe. TRUSTEE KING: He's outside. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you give us a comment on the Harbor Lights dredging project. There's a concern, not that it needs to be done, the concern is the placement of the dredge spoil. GLENN JUST: I've been away but I've gone through the files that we did for them several years ago for these folks and I think it had gone on the right side? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says that it must be placed on adjacent beach. They're talking about 4,000 cy. Here's a letter from 1992. 500 cy. available as beach restoration at Harbor Lights beach. All material be placed above high water as per enclosed plans. The balance of the material 3,500 cy. will be carted and placed at Kenny's Beach Road. That's from April 1992. GLENN JUST: That was up on the sound there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Apparently. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That was when there wasn't any beach at all there at Kenny's Beach. The asphalt was the end of it. GLENN JUST: When we originally had done the project, it was going to go right there on the beach itself. (inaudible) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, but that's what's in the file here. JAY SPEIS: In 1992, what happened was some of the sand was trucked off and taken to Kenny's Beach. A lot of it, and I think when you regarded that it was placed on the beach in piles, it would remain on the beach for the summer season. That's what the members of the Harbor Lights Homeowners Assoc. are trying to avoid this time. Last time it was done, it was not just sand. It was mud and muck and it was left stinking for the summer months. So, our real 1 15 concern is that we don't want to see what happened the last time. As far as the homeowner's association was concerned, too much was left there. GLENN JUST: (inaudible) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The last proposal was for 4,000 cy. at the time. This proposal is for 5,000 cy. That's a substantial amount more. JAY SPEIS: I would just like to comment on that a little bit. If you look at some of those pictures, you'll see the entrance to the canal. It extends about probably close to 300 ft. in a southerly direction. That island that Mr. Cole spoke of is just inside there also. What the neighbors want to do is just around the bulkheading on the inside of the canal, and not dredging the whole canal. I would think that 5,000 cy. that they are speaking of is way high. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem is ... the survey is a little vague. I think maybe we have to revisit the site maybe with the contractor and try to figure out if maybe the Town could use it. JAY SPEIS: That's the point I'm trying to make. The last time we dredged the whole canal, 500 ft. and now we're dredging just inside the entrance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's a tremendous amount of yardage that's being applied for. Their concerns are valid about spoil placement. It's always a problem. We're going to have to go out there with the contractor and maybe ask the Highway Dept. what can be worked out. NEIGHBOR: Can I ask you a question? How long is this dredging operation supposed to take? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't say. NEIGHBOR: Maybe some consideration could be given to doing it after the summer season. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's doubtful that it could be done now, I would think. Could it be done now? GLENN JUST: There are concerns with piping plovers and ospreys in the area and it's likely that it would be done after September 15t". That's the indication that I got from the DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is something that would be conducted next winter. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is it proposed to be done mechanically or hydraulically ? GLENN JUST: I don't that has been worked out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could it be pumped anywhere else up the beach? GLENN JUST: Maybe a few hundred feet down the beach or something like that but you can't move that kind of material all that far unless you pile it and then bulldozer it or pay load it down the beach. NEIGHBOR: You mean pay load it down the beach? GLENN JUST: Sometimes when you're doing hydraulic dredging, it's a matter of how far you place the hose. It's hard to describe. NEIGHBOR: You're talking about not putting it on the beach right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah, but there might be another adjacent beach. Generally, people are fighting over the dredge spoil because they want beach nourishment. It's a little ironic. GLENN JUST: Usually people are screaming for it. People want it. NEIGHBOR: We'll give it to them. a s 16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's what we're trying to see if there's maybe a different location nearby that it can be pumped to so they could use it as beach nourishment. We'll Table the application and we'll meet with everyone on site on May 15th and we'll try to resolve it. I'll make a motion to Table. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 13. PETTY'S BIGHT ASSOC., INC. requests a Wetland Permit for the restoration of the bluff with plantings to prevent further erosion. Located: 3140 North Sea Dr., Orient. SCTM#15-1-6 APPLICATION WITHDRAWN 14. GERALD LANG requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-story addition with a balcony, and new roof line onto the existing dwelling. Located: 3480 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#122-4-21 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any comments? GERALD LANG: No, but I would like to give the Board an updated survey and also better elevations. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Are we going to look at a non-turf buffer here? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's bulkheaded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're just going to ask for gutters and drywells on the house and when you have to repair the bulkhead and that's going to be disturbed, we're going to ask for a non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. You can put in gravel or plantings or something, anything but lawn turf. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to Approve? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 15. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM H. PRICE, ESQ. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 1725 sq.ft. single-family dwelling with a 550 sq.ft. attached deck, an 865 sq.ft. gravel driveway, septic system and waterline; and place 125 cy. of fill to elevate the septic system house. Located: 100 Bay Road, Greenport. SCTM#43-5-10 POSTPONED UNTIL MAY AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST 16. Docko, Inc. on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND YACHT CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to construct a TX 72' wood pile and timber pier with two 5'X 30' finger piers, construct 225 (+/-) LF of floating pier, all with associated tie-off and restraint pilings, reposition an existing 6' wide X 90 (+/-) LF float with new hinged ramp, include all associated restraint and mooring line piles, all waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Central Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#10-1-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. 17 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 17. Crowley Marine Construction on behalf of SEAN FAHEY requests a Wetland Permit to install a 3'X 16' ramp, 6'X 20' float with two 2-pile dolphins to secure float on existing 4'X 70' seasonal dock. Located: 1415 North Parish Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-1-14 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is the seasonal dock application with the extension to the dock, on the bay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll read the CAC comments. They recommended Approval with a Condition. I don't know what the condition is though. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't have a CAC representative here. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't think we should be expanding our bay front dockage especially for a ramp and float since it's unreasonable to dock a boat in the bay on a ramp and float, especially with an east wind in that position. There aren't many docks, if any docks, in that area. The reason that it was given a permit was I guess trial and we found it to be an error. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The applicant already has a dock. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. TRUSTEE KING: This is a seasonal dock that is removed every year, right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, any thoughts on this? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I didn't see this one. TRUSTEE KING: I'm inclined to agree with Ken. Ramps and floats on the bay are a bad idea. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, any thoughts on it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have to go along with Ken. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Disapprove the application because it's damaging to the environment because it covers the bottom and there is habitat that exists there. There are certain grass types that grow in that area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The chance of survival is low, and it monopolizes public bottom. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As well as the comprehensive plan put forth. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For all of those reasons. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 18. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of SOUTHOLD PARK DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 235' of existing functional concrete bulkhead, maintenance dredge slips and adjacent area to —4' MLW for access, and reconstruct open fixed dock on south and east sides +/-130. Located: Young's Ave. Park, Southold. SCTM#64-1-10.1 18 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? CATHERINE MESIANO: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. As you probably recall, we met at the site last Wednesday with representatives of the DEC and we reviewed the park districts initial request which goes to reface the existing bulkhead, which was found to be in a deteriorated state, and it was the consensus of the two agencies that the proposed method was not acceptable to either agency. After consideration and discussion with the applicants, the applicants are now putting forth a request to replace, in-place replacement of the 235' of existing functional but deteriorating concrete bulkhead. I've given Lauren a copy of the proposed activity with the revised description which if you would like I will read it into the minutes. The south wall of the bulkhead is 120 linear ft. We proposed removal of the existing concrete bulkhead and replacing that in-place with an installation of 10X 20'CCA piles 6"on center. 6'X 6"CCA top and bottom wales spaced with 16'long C-Loc vinyl sheating, YO by 14'tie-rods and 8'X 8'CCA backing piles with laylog. The east wall comprised of 115 l.f we propose removing and replacing in place, the installation of 10X 16"CCA piles 6'center, 6'X 6" CCA top and bottom wales faced with 14'long C-Loc vinyl sheathing, YO by 14'tie rods and 8'X 8"CCA backing piles with laylog. The open fixed dock on the east and south side is approx. 130'and we propose to replace the stringers using 6'X 6"and 4'X6" CCA and 8'X 12'inside piling, replace inside piling using 4"X 12'CCA and replace 2"decking as necessary. Now we went on to discuss the extent of the maintenance dredging that's proposed and we propose to dredge to an approximate depth of 3 W at mean low water. The area to be dredged would be approximately 45' seaward of the south-facing wall of the bulkhead and approximately 40' seaward of the east-facing wall of the bulkhead. We anticipate that it's approximately 1,000 cy.-of dredge spoil, which will be contained on site. The northeast spoil site is proposed in the northeast corner of the property contained with silt fence and staked hay bales. The dredging will be performed by crane barge and clamshell buckets. The excess dredge spoil will be trucked to an upland site after it's had a chance to drain first. Are there any questions? I didn't provide you with a sketch because I'll have it drawn to the specifications that we end up agreeing on to depict basically what we talked about. Does this accurately reflect your understanding of what we discussed at the site? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems like what we recollect. CATHERINE MESIANO: I just wanted to make sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Was there any discussion about a non-turf buffer here? CATHERINE MESIANO: There hadn't been any discussion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A gravel path along the edge? CATHERINE MESIANO: Is that what you want? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A 10' gravel path. Anything else? Any other comment? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd like to stipulate no creosote up on the walers in that location. 19 CATHERINE MESIANO: Anything else? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is an application that been going around for at least 2 years. CATHERINE MESIANO: Are you disappointed it's over? You had determined to return the application fee. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, actually we were discussing about charging for the spoil because it's Town bottom. It's not really maintenance dredged, but since it's a Town agency, we don't charge. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application (new plans) with a 10' non-turf buffer as well as no creosote on the waters, and we are waiving the fee for the dredge spoil, all subject to a new plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 19. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MATINE INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 62'X 52' single-family dwelling, on-site sewage disposal system, pervious driveway and public water supply. Located: 435 Albacore Dr., Southold. SCTM#57-1-20 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to make a motion to Table the application because we still didn't see any house stakes so you're going to have to have somebody make a better effort there to make us some paths. CATHERINE MESIANO: They were there. Ok. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We saw the wetland flags. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I stomped all through there and I didn't see any house stakes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we walked all through there. CATHERINE MESIANO: We paid a surveyor a lot of money to put those stakes there. I have a staking plan from him and a bill from him. It was done before March 8tn TRUSTEE KING: Maybe somebody pulled them out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah, because we were there twice and we did see the wetland flags. CATHERINE MESIANO: Well the wetland flags were there from a year ago. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok. I have a motion to Table. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA Seconded. ALL AYES 20. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of JOHN & BARBARA SEVERINI requests a Wetland Permit to add an 8'X 30' extension to and enclose the existing deck. Existing setback from the bulkhead to be maintained. Located: 565 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-28.27 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? 20 CATHERINE MESIANO: I'm here on behalf of the applicants. We have an existing structure with a deck off of the south side and a small porch off of the easterly side. We are proposing to enclose the existing deck that's off of the existing southeasterly side and the existing deck off of the back of, the seaward side of the house, we propose to remove and replace with a covered porch across the back of the house. We are hoping that the existing setback except at the southerly corner of the area where the deck will be replaced, and we're looking to add just two feet onto that portion of the porch, so we'll be at the minimum 40' from the existing bulkhead to the new covered porch and deck. Other than that, we are keeping all of the footprints and setbacks that presently exist. The only excavation proposed would be whatever posts are required for the porch. There is no foundation being excavated. If there are not already drywells on the site, then they will be installed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? I think the only comment the Board had was that the pipe through the bulkhead had to be removed. CATHERINE MESIANO: That's right. We discussed that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We also need additional drywells for the house, and gutters, and shown on the plan. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application subject to receipt of a plan showing the pipe through the bulkhead removed and the drywells and gutters for the house. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 21. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SALVATORE GUERRERA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a dwelling with on-site sewage disposal system and public water. Construct fixed walkway 4'X 178', hinged ramp 4'X 16', and floating dock 6'X 20'. Floating dock to be secured by two piles. Located: 1450 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#122-4-44.6 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone who would like to make a comment? JIM FITZGERALD: You asked last time that the mooring pile for the adjacent property be shown on the project plan and here it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? JIM FITZGERALD: I also indicated that you would require a 50' non- disturbance buffer, which has not been shown on the survey yet until we are certain that there are no other changes that have to be made. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the Board feels that's critical to the project that the house be relocated with a 50' non-disturbance and that you're going to have to show us the house placement and the septic system on the survey, and have it staked in the field, and drywells and gutters for the house. For our inspection in May, we're going to need the proposed mooring pile staked and the end of the dock staked. JIM FITZGERALD: It was for your inspection this month. 21 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We went and it was high water and we couldn't get out there. There was no change in the house, so we left. The house hadn't been staked and we didn't receive any new plans for the house. JIM FITZGERALD: Well it's like I said, I wanted you to determine if there were going to be any changes. This could continue to be a problem. I had called the office when low tide was going to be and indicated that it was a problem in that area and went out there and marked the location of the mooring pile and then had that stolen by somebody who happened to be walking through that area, I guess. I thought that you might have seen it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the house wasn't staked. We asked you last month, or maybe the previous month to have the house staked and to have a 50' setback for the house. It didn't really make sense to keep going back and forth if nothing is ready for us. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES JIM FITZGERALD: Can I hear your thoughts on the dock situation assuming that it turns out to be the way it's shown on the drawing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we have to go look at it. That's my thought. JIM FITZGERALD: It's right here on a piece of paper. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We actually need to see it on a survey. This isn't an actual survey. This should be placed on a survey. JIM FITZGERALD: Why is that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because that's the way the Code is written. JIM FITZGERALD: Would you accept a survey if there was a project plan in all cases? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we need whatever information we need. But, you had one dock placed on a survey but you're going to have to show the house placement on a survey, correct? So you might as well have the dock placed on the survey. JIM FITZGERALD: But I'm thinking about other projects because it seems to change. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I'm sorry if it does. We try to be consistent. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 22. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of STEVEN KRAM requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 57' fixed dock with four 2-pile dolphins for mooring. Located: 100 West Lane, Southold. SCTM#88-6-12 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? JIM FITZGERALD: (inaudible) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The SEQRA requirement has been completed. JIM FITZGERALD: Meaning? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Meaning that we can vote on the project. We've complied with the SEQRA law and coordinated with the required agencies. Now we can vote on the project. JIM FITZGERALD: Did any of the other agencies have any input? i 22 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no comments. JIM FITZGERALD: Which means that they don't care about it right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Presumably. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? JIM FITZGERLALD: I would do nothing but repeat the (inaudible). The most recent drawing I gave you shows the dock moved to the westerly side of the property to accommodate the concern of the property owners association. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. NEIGHBOR: I speak on behalf of the people from Angel Shores. We are opposed to the dock and whether you look left or right, we still surround the whole area so it doesn't make much difference. We oppose the dock and we had submitted previously a petition from 50 of the surrounding area people who oppose the dock and are very against it. We have the environmental concerns for the area and the safety of the people there and therefore we do not want to see the dock there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. NEIGBBOR: I'm from Angel Shores also and we understand that the DEC didn't care for this right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not aware of the DEC's decision on this. NEIGHBOR: How about the Bay Constable? At the last meeting you made it quite clear that he wasn't happy with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe it was the Baykeeper. NEIGHBOR: Oh ok. JIM FITZGERALD: Excuse me, what meeting was he at? NEIGHBORS: The last hearing. JIM FITZGERALD: The Baykeeper was at the last hearing and spoke against this? NEIGHBOR: Yes he did. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He can confirm that. Turn around. KEVIN MCALLISTER: Yes, I did. JIM FITZGERALD: Thank you. NEIGHBOR: To me, this dock is going to look like some sort of fence between the two beaches that we do use. From the high-water mark, out 57', it's an obstruction to the beaches that we do use. This is right in between both beaches. They are pristine beaches. There are no docks there. If this is allowed, you have several other homes that will be looking for it too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? JIM FITZGERALD: May I respond. The concept keeps coming up, which I guess is under the "not in my backyard" heading in the regulations about if you let this, then other people would want to do it. It's not my understanding that that's what this Board is all about. The fact that the area around you at a given time, there was no other dock around and a dock was there, and now there's another dock there. This is a waterfront community. People use docks. People moor their boats, all in the same kind of area we are talking about, and people swim in the water. People swim in the water in front of their 23 beach and the people that have a house, have a dock in front of their house. That's all. NEIGHBOR: (inaudible) This is not a friendly situation and this stems from a party from the year before and they tried to stop anybody crossing in front of the high-water mark from one beach to the other. (inaudible) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE FOSTER: A lot of things changed. Years ago, we all had a beach, then we had to have a bulkhead, then we got a bulkhead, and now we have no beach. Now we want a dock. JIM FITZGERALD: And what will that do? The dock is not going to cause any erosion problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A dock actually is considered hardening of the shoreline and it does contribute to erosion. JIM FITZGERALD: Any more than the hundreds of groins and jetties that we have along there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There were a lot of mistakes made in the past. JIM FITZGERALD: So we're going to fix it now by denying this dock? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't suggest that yet. I just answered your question. JIM FITZGERALD: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who hasn't spoken. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well we have our comments from last month, and the Peconic Baykeeper spoke and the accumulative impact of placing structure on the bay. Nature Conservancy has a large package on reasons why not to allow docks on the bay. I agree with them all. JIM FITZGERALD: Is that information available to civilians. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, it's in the file. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was just going to reiterate what some of the other comments were. You were saying that everyone wants docks when everyone comes out here but I think we've learned from the past and what we've learned and we're hearing more and more from Baykeepers and Nature Conservancy, is now to start taking care of these areas that we've all been so concerned about. It's not just the one dock. It's that all of these things are changing and changing and what's been done in the past, as Artie said, isn't necessarily what's good for the future. JIM FITZGERALD: The thing I really don't understand, I don't think it's been addressed yet is, specifically, in detailed terms, what is it that the dock will do that's bad for the Town of Southold? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It increases the hardening of the shoreline, it increases the... JIM FITZGERALD: Any dock is good or bad for the Town of Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's placed in a public area so for safety and ...if you want to look at Chapter 97-28, the Wetland Code, there are a number of items here that are relevant. One is the safety and navigation. Of course it will result in a problem with navigation because it is a structure completely alone in an area of the bay that's completely undeveloped. Another reason is that it's adjacent to a public bathing beach and the dock is going to attract boats and 24 jet skis and all sorts of motorized boating activities, which could be dangerous. So, that's in the standards, 97-28F, which adversely affects navigational tidal waters. Then of course, you get into 97-28D, adversely affect the shellfish and other beneficial marine organisms because you're actually going to physically displace some of that environment in the tidal and inter-tidal area, by the presence of the dock itself. It will also, because it is a hard structure, it will also cause some damage, under Chapter 97-28B, it will cause damage from erosion and of course during installation, turbidity and siltation. But it will affect, because it is a structure, G-change the course or any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters. It will affect the natural flow of waters, which in fact, will affect the natural flow of sand movement down the beach. We've seen this happen in the past in docks on the bay that were permitted. We've seen how they affected the flow of water and the flow of sand. JIM FITZGERALD: Really. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. JIM FITZGERALD: Is there one that I could look at? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go to Cleaves Point in East Marion and you'll see some of the mistakes of the past that were made. JIM FITZGERALD: These things that you just described would only apply to docks on the bay, right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not necessarily. We're only talking about this particular dock at this moment, not in general. Some are in general, but that this moment we are specifically referring to this location. Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to DENY the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 23. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of R.W. REINIGER requests a Wetland Permit to install post and rail fence 48'+/- overall length with top rail 4' +/- above grade; seaward end of fence to be at ordinary high water mark. Located: 3500 Lighthouse Rd., Southold. SCTM#50-2-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? JIM FITZGERALD: The problem is that this property, as you can see here, is so close to the end of Lighthouse Road, and he gets a lot of activity on the beach, much of which is not stuff he wants to look at. I guess he got tired of taking pictures of them so he would like to give some indication to the citizenry that it's private property that they are doing their thing on. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's the Board policy to permit an open fence of post and rail or less 8' above the high-water mark. • 25 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I found your apparent high-water mark to be far off. There are many rack lines there, as you might expect, because the sound does rise and fall. The rack line was right up against the beach, basically onto the,toe of the bluff. JIM FITZGERALD: That's not the ordinary high-water mark. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You can't really go with the ordinary high-water right there because it's all about public access up and down that beach. There are thousands of people that walk that beach. JIM FITZGERALD: Except it's private property. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Your apparent high-water mark ... JIM FITZGERALD: Well you guys go out and you say, here is the high-water mark, and then we come here for another thing and the high-water mark is (inaudible). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our policy is to allow something above 8' above the high-water mark. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've seen rack lines going right up to the bluff. JIM FITZGERALD: You can't consider that the high-water mark. The next time you go down there and you find water up at the foot of the stairs, give me a call. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've seen the average high-water mark maybe 20'-25' from the toe of the bluff. JIM FITZGERALD: Well is there someway of figuring it out because so much of what you do is dependent on mystical apparent ordinary average, whatever it is, high-water mark. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, I don't have a problem with it if it's private property and it's above the high-water mark. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think you should look at it though because the rack lines are up there and it's about public access and there will be an outcry. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, we'll take a look at it. I thought it was straight- forward. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, it's not straight-forward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll all take a look at it. Can you meet us out there and we'll determine where high-water is. JIM FITZGERALD: For when? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: May 15th. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 24. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of LUCIUS FOWLER requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to remove two additions to an existing single-family dwelling, remove deck, remove fenced enclosure, to construct patios and to construct four (4) porches. Located: Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#9-3-9 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We never made out there to Fishers Island. • 26 25. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of B.G. TREMAINE requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to demolish the existing single- family dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling, garage, associated sanitary system, ramp, porch, pool, terracing and new gravel drive. Prior to commencement a staked line of hay bales and silt fencing shall be installed and maintained until completion of project. Located: Private Rd., Fishers Island. SCTM#7-1-p/o 2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 26. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of PATRICIA RUSHIN requests a Wetland Permit to renovate an existing gazebo. Located: 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-7-5 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application? GLENN JUST: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I had a question on the gazebo. Is it just going to be renovations, it's not going out beyond... GLENN JUST: It's not going any further. It's just a structural renovation in the exact same footprint. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it behind a bulkhead? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's behind two. Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 27. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of PAMELA MOTTLEY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a set of 4'X 5' beach stairs for beach access. Located: 6850 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-7-5 GLENN JUST: This is got to be the easiest one of the night. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I walked down the stairs and your saying... GLENN JUST: This is off of the lower bulkhead to get down to the bay beach. It's just to the right side of the gazebo. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The pictures in the file show no stairs and I walked down stairs to get to the beach. GLENN JUST: There were a set, I have to say, between the bulkheads, that I saw that were laying there, and perhaps taken out during a storm. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, that was my question because I walked down stairs to get to the beach. Any other comment? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES • 27 28. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of JEAN A. SAUNDERS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 25' extension onto the landward end of an existing 4'X 40' fixed dock, a 4'X 30' extension onto the seaward end, a 3'X 20' ramp and 6'X 20' float to be secured by 2 piles. Located: 4322 Westphalia Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#113-9-9.2 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Would anyone like to speak in behalf of the applicant? GLENN JUST: I talked to Lauren the other day. The applicant has asked me to modify the project by removing the existing dock and shifting it 14' to the west. I haven't had time to do a new drawing or take new depth measurements at this relocated site, so if you have any questions right now, I could answer them. Mr. King and I had been there last summer to look at the depths but this is a different location now. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This isn't the proper plan? 14' to the west. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Deeper water. GLENN JUST: (inaudible) I just wanted to see if there were going to be any questions because I have to re-do the plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What were our field notes on that, Artie? I think we felt that a ramp and a float would be appropriate but no extension. GLENN JUST: Where the fixed dock is, last summer at exactly low tide, there was no water whatsoever. (talking) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The length is the issue here. Okay, we'll Table it. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 29. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of LOUIS SIRACUSANO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a garage. Located: 895 North Parish Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-1-9 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone like to comment on this application? GLENN JUST: Last but not least, the proposed garage out 100' away from mean high-water and on the landward side of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. It's landward of the bulkhead and I didn't see any negative impacts. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How about drywells and gutters on the house? GLENN JUST: On the existing house? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is on the road side. I didn't walk around the back. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 30. Gary F. Olsen, Esq. on behalf of NEIL SCHLUSSEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, attached garage, deck and 28 sanitary system. Located: E/s Stillwater Ave. East, Cutchogue. SCTM#136-2- 6,7&8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? GARY OLSEN: I'm the attorney for the applicant, Neil Schlussel and the Estate of Schlussel. As this Board is well aware, we've been before the Board a number of times. Actually, I believe this started November of 1999 and we have approval from the DEC, we have approval, at the Board's request, we went to the Health Dept. and got approval from the Health Dept. and following the recommendation of the Board at out last meeting, the Board requested me to contact my client and see if we could add a third tax lot to the application and this property is presently under contract to sell and the buyer of the property actually is here tonight if you have any questions, and it has been agreed by the seller and by the buyer that we could add the third lot, which is owned by the Estate of Schussel, so the application now is to include three tax parcels, 1000-136-2-6,7,8. We've also had Young & Young reconfigure the location of the house and right now the house is setback 50' from the wetlands line. The sanitary system is located up and the edge of Stillwater Ave. You'll see that there is a septic tank and there are three cesspools. The southerly most cesspool is out of your jurisdiction. The southerly cesspool is within your jurisdiction. It's about 90' from the wetland line. The middle one is outside of your jurisdiction. It's about 105' or so. The northerly cesspool is also out of your jurisdiction. It's about 100' from the wetlands line. You'll see on the survey, which was dated January 30, 2002, there's a non-disturbance buffer area of 30'. 1 have talked to Mr. Mac Farlane, who is the Contract Vendee, and he is amenable to having the buffer 40' instead of the 30' because he does need room to get around the east side of his house to do work, and would be willing to have the non-disturbance buffer area 50' on the south side, extended around to the south side. We've done everything this Board has requested. If you look at the standard, which are set forth in the Code, I respectfully submit that what you have to determine is whether this application will affect the wetlands, and it does not, it doesn't cause damage from erosion, it doesn't cause salt water intrusion into the freshwater resources of the Town, this project will not adversely affect fish or shellfish, will not increase the danger of flood and storm tide damage, will not adversely affect navigation on the tidal waters or the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the Town, will not change the course of any channel or natural movement or flow of any waters, nor will it weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity, it will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood. This parcel now with three tax lots, is actually one of the bigger parcels in the area. To the north of us, there is a house that went up about 1987 built by Michael LoGrande and I believe I gave to your office a copy of his survey because I had been asked to submit how far that house was to the wetlands, and that's it. If you have any question, hopefully we can answer them but we've done everything the Board has asked us to do. This is private property. This is not a Town park. If the Town does not approve this application, in 29 effect it's condemning this property. Mr. Mac Farlane is here to answer questions and also Thomas Wolpert, who is the engineer, is here to answer any questions on the design of the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment? CARL VAIL: I'm representing neighbors adjacent to this parcel. I have a letter, which we made up and I'd like to submit it to the Board. (letter on file) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. PETER BELL: I submitted more petitions to your office and that puts us over 1,050 signatures on these petitions that tell you that the neighbors want the Town to buy the land. We're not looking to take anything away from the Schlussels. We want the Town to reimburse them. We think that's the property solution to it. I realize that that's not in your department. I think you should know about our concerns and that you adhere to the rules regarding variances and setbacks. We think if you do that, to some extent, it would set some kind of example so that this pressure stops on these marginal pieces of land and that the wildlife in these areas is protected. I don't know what else to say except that I think that the wishes of the 1,050 people in this Town should be of some value. CHRISTINE GRETSCH: I own the 5 acres across the way from this house and just looking at this house, just looking at this house, and I just roughly measured it, it's a hundred and something feet long, and looking around the area, my house is 35' and the barn is also 35', this is going to look like a hotel on a little island. This morning I noticed we had birds that were nesting over there. This is all going to be destroyed. I'm new to the area. I've only been here 7 years. I'm just starting to understand, and when I went to put up my barn, they pushed it back 110', and luckily I had the property, but I don't understand how this can be allowed to go on. It's 100' long and it's very narrow, so I highly object to it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. NEIGHBOR: I'm the adjacent property owner and I share her exact sentiments. It will look like a motel. Just by looking at the plans visually, you need a variance for every corner of the house. That in itself tells me something is very wrong. Also, there is no house on that road that is 25' from the road and I know that is not your jurisdiction but there are also no houses that are quite that long either. I have a very small ranch and the neighborhood consists of very modest homes and this will be like a huge motel-like eyesore. I also wanted to go on record that I agree with everything that has been said before and for the last two years. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. RAY HUNTINTON: I'm speaking for the Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association. We certainly appreciate your efforts. Two years is a long time to work on a project and I know you worked hard on it too. We also know that as you addressed these situations, your decisions have to be supportable so that we don't reverse them in a court. So, I can sympathize with the task that you have before you. At the same time we definitely oppose approval of this application. I believe the homeowner's association letter is in the file on this 30 matter. The lot is about half underwater, its on about 30' of wetlands, the surveyor has done a good job on the plan, (inaudible) but look at the deficiencies. The elevations for most of the property are quite low, the cesspools are shoehorned in between the house and the road, and the house is only 19' off of the road line. In the letter that I just described (inaudible) the whole Peconic Estuary Plan was for the (inaudible) in order words there are only ...(inaudible) so we're talking about a very special problem here. This proposal can be stopped right here by the Trustees. And if not here, then where? Are we going to entrust these kinds of things to the Zoning Board of Appeals? This is a very sensitive environment. Now I think it's necessary that here you stand your ground according to a charter that's been upon this Board for a very, very long time. (inaudible) These are our last opportunities. There's only 57 of them. We urge you not to Approve this particular application. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else? KEVIN MCALLISTER: Good evening. I'm the Peconic Baykeeper. If I may, I'd like to speak to the larger picture and then talk about the application specifically. As you know, my credentials include undergraduate degrees in Marine Biology, as well as natural resources, conservation, and a Master's Degree in Coastal Zone Managing. Really, what that does is tie together the land use and water quality. I do have considerable professional experience in that field and specifically to shoreline management. You heard some of the values and functions of wetlands. The woman before us spoke on wading birds utilizing this area. Obviously it's important habitat. Wetlands provide enormous filtration capacity for the freshwater draining into the basin. I want to speak to sea-level rise. Clearly that is happening. I know there has been a number of studies released in the last couple of years that are speaking to factual basis of sea-level rise and I believe on the order of up to half a foot the next 50 years. When you look at a vertical rise in that magnitude, that's enormous when you're looking horizontally to that. We've evolved in the 25 years, obviously the development pressures have been going up. Going back in time, let's say in that time frame, the constraining parcels weren't really pushing the envelope, so to speak. We had upland sites that could be developed. We're running out of upland sites. Obviously in my opinion, and I think everybody in this room should share this, the east end if being suburbanized. Incrementally, but it's happening. It's been happening over the last 25 years. So these marginal parcels are coming into play. Mr. Olsen spoke of the fact that the DEC has issued a permit on this. I want to share with you briefly, going back a year or so ago in the Village of North Haven, there was a DEC permit for a pretty similar condition to this site. I stood shin deep in flood tide waters on a particular day where physically the home site would be and this was about 30' buffer off of the actual tidal wetland area. What's happening is, in that particular agency, they are failing us, and that's my personal opinion on the DEC. But, they're assuming that this Board will do the right thing. So, they take the easy road, issue that permit, and they pass the buck and make it a very difficult position for you folks. We spoke on wetlands 31 and obviously those lines are delineated by the vegetation. We have to start working with a broader picture there, and that includes buffer zones. One element I didn't really speak to, and really this goes to the ecology of the whole base and the whole estuary. If you look at these tidal creek to the arteries of the system. We have to allow for expansion of our bay waters to define their own limits. To allow through the experts and the material, the organics coming off the land that really drive the base of the food chain. Between the carbon and the nitrogen, that is the basis. Specifically this home site, we are looking at a 30' buffer or tonight that might possibly be expanded. It clearly doesn't meet your criteria. Again, I think, as was pointed out, we have to recognize that we are pushing the envelope here. On the South Fork, in a meeting last week, and it really actually counterparts, there was a comment when I was speaking to bulkhead and dock issues and the need to be more progressive in thinking along those lines with respect to policy and legislation, and it was suggested to me that "the house is out of the barn" or maybe it's too late. I can't give into that fact right yet. I would submit I guess using clique terms, it's time to stop pleading. So, as a Board, recognize again that we're putting a square peg into a round hole here. Based on your criteria and obviously the intent to protect valuable habitat and the health of our waters, deny this application. Thank you. ROBERT MAC FARLANE: I'm the Contract Vendee. I'm also the CEO of a corporation called Homes for America Holdings. Homes for America Holdings builds, develops, helps urban centers throughout the United States in terms of their revitalization. We are currently working in Yonkers on the waterfront, Fort Meyers, Florida, we'll be doing a project (inaudible) in Hartford soon. These are large sites, which you need to have pursued the condition that you're doing well and you're doing things properly. I also sat on a forum at Pace University at the Environmental Center. That forum is in hopes of getting public groups such as yourselves and individuals and getting them closer together. I don't know how successful we'll be but there's an attempt. This site is an acre and a half large. In fact we have an aerial of this site and the adjacent sites. This site is considerably larger than most of the sites at hand. We were asked to bring on the third site, we forward, and we went to contract on the third site. I think the Schlussel family probably has had this site for twenty to twenty-five years. They have been paying taxes for twenty to twenty- five years. There have been some points brought up this evening on the profit of Schlussel. I don't know when they paid $60,000 but if they paid $60,000 twenty years ago, I wouldn't consider what they're selling it for today a profit. I don't think that's an issue, but I wanted to bring that up. The size of the house, we're perfectly happy, by the way, I appreciate everyone's comments here this evening, but by golly, we're not trying to build a 20 story glass structure. A 40'X 50', not 100', that's the size we would be happy with. We already received DEC approval. I'm going to assume that the reason we go through the steps is to gain approval from the appropriate bodies. I don't have the wisdom,,,nor the education of this gentleman, in terms of his marine biology. So, I can't address the site by if there's going to be a potential 1 • 32 increase or twenty years or a hundred years. The house that we have asked to build here, as good neighbors, my wife and I, grown daughters all gone, wife born in Sicily, we look at cracks to clean. I would think we're good neighbors. What we would like to do is build a sensible house in common with the neighborhood, backed off of the wetlands, in an appropriate fashion. Tom Wolpert from Young & Young has an aerial, which we would like to show you. That aerial shows the size of this lot, where the house would go, and where the other houses are around there. This is an attempt to designate a piece of property for a specific purpose. For that purpose we try to adjust ourselves. We added the third lot, we pushed the house at the end, not to obstruct or minimize any obstruction of any views. You can't just say, ok it's a park. For that matter, why don't we make the entire peninsula a park. It would make a great State Park. If you don't mind, I would like to ask Tom Wolpert to step up and show you the aerial. TOM WOLPERT: This is the aerial photograph that was based on the photography taken in 1999 and on this we've superimposed a clear plastic copy of a portion of the survey that that is the subject of this application. It may be a little difficult from where the Board is, I'll bring it up. Basically, the subject lot is a 1.4 acre parcel and this black area denotes the proposed location of the house. This is the outline of the 1.4 acre parcel since the addition of the third lot. This is the proposed 2200 sq.ft. house. I just have a few other comments. It's already been stated that over the past 2 or 3 years we've secured the approvals of the NYSDEC, the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services, and I thought we were close to obtaining the approval from this Board back in December of last year. However, at the Board's suggestion, we now added an additional 20,000 sq. ft. to the subject property, which essentially brings the area of the subject parcel from what was previously 42,843 sq. ft. to presently 62,730 sq. ft. That's a 46% increase in the land area of the subject parcel. The footprint of the house has increased, not quite as much as what previous speakers have indicated, but we have gone from proposed 1800 sq. ft. of footprint to 2211 sq. ft., which represents, not double the size, but 23%. The proposed lot covered has gone down based on the footprint and the total lot area, from 4.2% to 3.5%. These are all attempts to make significant gains in the credibility of this application. The house remains at 50' as does the proposed non-disturbance buffer, which with the previous application, it was 30' and remains at 30' although if we make some adjustments, we may be able to get 40' of non-disturbance buffer. That's all the comments I have unless the Board has any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else? I guess I'll make one comment. It's an answer to many comments that were made. I've been on this Board for a long time and it seems like you always think there can't possibly be another undeveloped waterfront lot out there. Impossible. We go all around the Town every month. But, there's always another one, and I guess there will always continue to be another one. It seems impossible. We work with a lot of property owners on a lot of difficult properties, of course some of them more satisfying projects turn out to be ones that the neighbor's y 33 purchased because they didn't want to see the lot developed. It's happened quite a bit locally, especially in Peconic. There were a number of parcels bought by the neighbors. I've worked on the Board of Directors of the Peconic Land Trust, and it happens on Shelter Island quite frequently, it happens in Southampton quite frequently, where the neighbors just simply do not want to tolerate another neighbor, they don't see another house, they don't want to see other people and they purchase the property. I don't know if that's still an option here. I don't know if anything could be worked out because every community benefits when that piece of property has a conservation easement on it. Besides that, we've worked with a lot of difficult pieces of property over the years. We've had quite a bit of experience with this. Arties, what's your feeling on it? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well probably for the first time in my life, I think I'm lost for words. We've been dancing around with this for a long time. These people have met ever requirement we asked of them right from the beginning so I don't know what to do at this point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we have to vote on this tonight. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Unfortunately we have, I think we're in a position where if we don't approve this application, since all of the requests were met, I think we have to be prepared to purchase the land and due to lack of support by our Town Board with certain funds available for this, I don't think we're in a position to do that. I guess you have to vote your conscience. PETER BELL: We brought this question up about buying the land with the Town Board and there seems to be some kind of division amongst the Town Board with Mr. Moore who said that the Board can be proactive and can go out and ask the owner of the property to sell it to the Town and another person on the Board felt that you can't be proactive and that you have to wait for the owner to come to you. I've been in touch with Fred Thieles office in Bridgehampton, who is an assemblyman and has a lot to do with the transfer tax mechanism and the regulatory bodies that are set up for each town has to have (inaudible) and their office has assured me that the Town can be proactive and can go out and ask people if they want to sell their land to the Town. I'm going to go to the meeting tomorrow night and bring this question up. I don't how I can relay it to you people if you can wait a while, wait a month, or a couple of weeks before you make a decision so we can try ironing it out because one of the people who helped write this law says that the Town can do this, and I contacted people in other Towns who say that their Board does the same thing. They see something that the Town wants and it's beneficial to the people of the community, they approach the owner. You don't have to wait for the owner to approach you. So this is the question that has to be decided by the Town Board yet and they could possibly do it within the next couple of weeks. Then, the question that you raised, could be settled in some way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're always happy when someone steps in and takes the development pressure off of the Town. It makes it easier for this Board, and the development pressure in Town as a whole. No one wants to see the 34 Town developed any further. But, the reality is, we've asked the Town Board to purchase a piece of property in Mattituck that a significant drainage problem exists there that really increases the water quality of Mattituck Inlet, and we've been after them for years to do something and we can't get them to put the money down. PETER BELL: Well maybe things have changed over the last couple of months or so. I don't know. We tried to show that the people of the Town want the Town to buy the property. There are 1,050 signatures there. That's not beans, it's people who put their emotions and their beliefs on the line and signed a petition to ask the Town to buy the land. We can't do anymore but show how people want this done. As I said, we're waiting to approach the Board tomorrow. We'll see if something can be done in a couple of weeks or maybe a month, then we can come up with something. We approached the Peconic Land Trust and they expressed interest. They're trying to come up with some kind of a formula that they could propose to us that we can try to get into. I don't know what else to say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Peconic Land Trust would have to work with the owner. PETER BELL: Right, so would the Town have to work with the owner. We tried to get the Town to recognize that these regulatory agencies are set up by the Board and the Land Preservation committee, or whatever they call it, can be proactive, and they can approach the owner. Mr. MacFarland brought the point of being a good neighbor and so on and so forth. We're not against neighbors. If you've had experience in building these immense properties, find a piece of land that you can do that. Don't come here on a little piece of property and try and plant something that doesn't fit. RAY HUNTINGTON: Perhaps I could clarify this issue of pro-activity. Certainly the Town can be proactive in terms of purchasing or buying development rights or purchasing fee title. The confusion may have arisen over the idea that it has to be voluntary. The owner has to be willing to sell it and the Town has to be willing to buy it or some arrangement has to work out that is voluntary. There are a number of arrangements and the Peconic Land Trust is very good at coming up with, and I hesitate to call them unique solutions, but they are very close to being unique because they deal with a particular piece of property that's involved. But who contacts who first is not a people. Who agrees is the whole problem. GARY OLSEN: You and I had discussed this a couple of days ago about whether the property was available, and the property is not. The property is under contract and this Board should not be put in a position of interfering with the seller or the contract vendee's contractual rights. We are presently under contract and the property is not available. It's no secret that this property was for sale for a while. I think Mr. Vail mentioned that in one of the prior hearings, that people would come and look at the property and leave. Everybody knew this property was available and if the neighbors wanted to buy it to protect themselves so no house goes up, it was there for the offering. All they had to do was make a reasonable offer. My clients have owned this property for 35 almost 30 years, I checked the record, in fact somewhere around 1977 or something, and they have been paying taxes on this property. There is now public water, we have Mr. LoGrande, and I know you all know who he is, he has his house on a much smaller piece of property to the north of us. First of all, I think to use the term I've heard thrown out tonight, that we're looking for an exception for this property, well we're not looking for an exception we're looking for your approval and the reason is that because this project falls within your jurisdiction. If it didn't fall within your jurisdiction, we wouldn't be here. You have criteria that you have to address and when we first started this thing, your jurisdiction was 75' from the wetlands and now it's been jacked up to 100', but even at the 100' setback line, the critical thing in this project seems to me, is the sanitary system because everyone is afraid of fluent going into the creeks and the wetlands and affect the shellfishing and so on, and with out three cesspools, we're out of your jurisdiction, with the exception of one, which is darn close to being out. It's within 90'. 1 don't know why this is becoming so complicated and so difficult other than, you know, we have active neighbors that are sending petitions around and putting them up in 7-11 and in the stores and so on, but it's not a question of numbers, it's a question of what is right, and there's nothing in the guidelines where this project is going to adversely effect any of the things this Board has to consider, and I ask for your approval. And again, we've gone through a lot of hoops and all the hoops we jumped through we did because this Board asked us to and we've gotten approval and a lot of money has been spent. It's very easy for people to say, well he only spent $60,000. 1 don't know if that number is right but we'll ask Mr. Vail, who has a house across the street, what he paid for his house and would he be happy to have someone pay him back what he paid for it and ignoring the increase in market value when we know what's going on out here. Prices are going crazy. I do a lot of real estate and prices are just going nuts in this Town. The reason that there may be only 56 other parcels that comply (inaudible) I don't even know how this parcel does, but if you look at this aerial photograph it's because every other piece of property has a house on it already, and the reason is, people love having houses on the water, including the woman who owns 5 acres across the way looking over at this piece. That's all I have to say. We're under contract and this Board should not be put in a position of interfering with our contractual rights. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we're feeling that pressure it's just that we try to look at every opportunity when we look at a property, that's all. We're just trying to explore everything. We have on other parcels also, not just this one. What do you think Jim? CARL VAIL: I just want to say one more thing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's let the Board have a comment first. TRUSTEE KING: I just wish the house could be downsized a little bit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was the comment we had in the field. The house was substantially larger. MR. MAC FARLAND: We are okay with downsizing that house. Again, something in the 40'X 50' range, certainly not the 100'. The design that was in 36 there, I asked the engineer to please lay out what the extremities of the house could be. That's why that house has all these jogs in it. It just follows where we could build. I'm here to say, we would be more than happy with a 40'X 50' house. We don't want to build the Taj, I'm not trying to do that. I want to build down the middle of the road, what's appropriate for the neighborhood. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to say something. I've been on the Board now for three months and I came into this position because of houses like this and seeing them in my Town hoping to do something about it. Unfortunately in this situation however, I came in at the end of a two year process and initially when this was first brought to my attention my initial gut feeling was to disagree, but again, it's been a process that's been ongoing and I think we're near the end, I think with some compromises on size and buffers. I do hope and even now looking into preventing this from happening again, but again, it's been a two year process, it's been worked on, these people have gone through all the hoops that we're set up prior to my coming into this, but it's something that I would like to see happening less and less. But, I don't know if it's appropriate at this time. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You know my voting record. I don't compromise the wetlands. I haven't given out a permit application for a septic system within our jurisdiction. This application falls within 90' of the wetlands. I'm consistent and I deny these type of permits and all of the consultants know that also. You need a minimal of 50' setback from the wetlands. This property has that possibility and it may have a possibility of pushing that septic out to 100'. If those plans are drawn I'd be more inclined to be favorable and as of right now, I'm sitting before the Town Board and asking them to change the Town Code to a 50' setback off of wetlands and 100' setback for the septic and it would be hypocritical if I voted "yes" on this. That's about it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other brief comment? CARL VAIL: I just think you gentlemen are under the impression that length of process is a guarantee of approval. I think you should re-examine that idea. I mean, certainly we've spent as much time opposing this issue as Mr. Olsen has spent proposing it and of course his comments were about our petition, but his coming down here and applying for a permit put this in the public arena, so we do have a right to protest this and bring this before the Board. That's all I have to say about it. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing, unless you have another comment? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well when we first started this, we all went out, and we spent a lot of time talking amongst ourselves about this whole process of this particular application. First we wanted more from the wetlands, and we got it. One thing I feel very strongly about not being is not being similar to the Planning Board where every month when you go in there, they give you one more thing that you have to do so you can come back the next month, and before you know it, it's two, three, four years and many applicants are bankrupt because of the process. So, we all talked about this. We asked for more distance from the wetland, we got it. We asked for cesspools far back 37 from the wetlands as we could get them and we all agreed on what was given us. We said if the Health Dept. would approve the application, we would approve the application. Never in a million years did I think the Health Dept. would approve it, but they did. Well now we're out in the wind again. So, the next thing is, well include the next lot, and we agreed that if they included the next lot, we would go along with that and approve it. Well the next lot is in there. Now, environmentally I'd like to say I don't think this thing should fly. But morally as a Board, having met everything we've asked them to meet, I don't see where we have any choice. They did everything we asked them to do. Kenny, even the cesspools, we talked about that and you agreed, and I understand how you feel about it and I'd like it to be the same way, but we can't say yeah we'll do it and then when they do it, turn around and say "well..." we all agreed that we were going to do this. You can all vote anyway you want but I think I have to be a person of my own conviction and when I said this is way it was going to go if everything was met, I think that's the way I'm going to vote. So, I don't think that we have the right to turn around and try to come up with another reason. Everything that we've asked for has been given. I don't want to be shot when I leave here tonight either, but that kind of tells you how I'm going to vote. You can all vote the way you want. The only comment I had when we went out and looked at that last week, when I opened this plan and saw the size of this house, that wasn't in there initially. But, the man said he was going to down size the house. So, I would say if we could see a little down sized house, personally I feel I have to vote "yes" for it, and for the reasons I stated. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't you make a motion. He can get a smaller house and a bigger buffer. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They agreed to go another 10' right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. The original was 30'X 60. TRUSTEE FOSTER: He wants 40'X 50'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think 30'X 60' would fit in better anyway because it's a narrow house. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Actually, I think what the shocker was the way the house a little protruding out and jetting. Originally it was kind of a rectangle. I think the 40' was agreed to right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, because it shows a smaller house. So you have to make that motion. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the stipulation that the non-disturbance buffer be increased to 40' and that the new plan be submitted showing a slightly smaller dwelling, 40'X 50' or less and non-turf on the water side of the house. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI, TRUSTEE FOSTER, TRUSTEE KING, TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ayes TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Ney 38 31. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JAMES MILLER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 6'X 40' ramp continuing with a level 6'X 110' dock and ending with a 6'X 24' "L" dock pointing northeast. From the "L" dock, installing a 32"X 12' ramp leading to a 6'X 20' float, and install a 15,000 lb. boat lift on the southwest side. Located: 1610 Paradise Point Rd., Southold. SCTM#81-3-19.4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is a dock in the bay and we've been instructed by our Town Attorney to do SEQRA on docks and jetties and things of that nature. RESOLVED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold that the application of James Miller, more fully described in the public hearing section #31 of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, April 24, 2002, is pursuant to the SEQRA rules and regulations an Unlisted Action and be it further RESOLVED that the applicant is required to submit a Long Environmental Assessment Form and be it further resolved that upon receipt of the Long Environmental Assessment Form the clerk of the Trustees is hereby directed to commence a coordinated review pursuant to SEQRA. Do I have a second on that? TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 32. Diaz Contracting on behalf of DOROTHY & LOIS ROTAR request a Wetland Permit to remove window and install double French doors and construct a set of stairs. Located: Peninsula Rd., Fishers Island. SCTM#10-3-24 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application until we make an inspection. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 33. James McMahon on behalf of the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD requests a Wetland Permit to remove a dilapidated wood frame building and construct five off street parking spaces. Located: Route 25, Southold. SCTM#56-4-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? I had a conversation with him in the office the other day about this. He was questioning the buffer zone. His claim is that a 50' buffer zone would eliminate two of the five parking spaces. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't think you'll have three people parking there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application however there will be a 50' buffer created from the wetland delineation line, after removal of the building. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 34. Heaney Marine Construction on behalf of JAMES CAVANAUGH requests a Wetland Permit to rebuild the existing 6'X 24' floating dock, 4'X 16' ramp and 39 re-sheath from behind approx. 104 linear ft. of bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Located: 205 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-28.39 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak on behalf of this application or against the application? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Are we going to change that to 6'X 20'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, and with a 10' non-turf buffer. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a 6'X 20' floating dock, 4'X 16' ramp and resheath from behind approx. 104' of bulkhead using C-Loc Vinyl Sheathing, with the stipulation that there be a 10, non-turf buffer behind that bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 35. Swim King Pools on behalf of JOHN JOY requests a Wetland Permit to install an in-ground swimming pool with hot tub 16'X 40', built 24' from the bulkhead, 8' from the south side and 26' from the north side of the property. Located: 1330 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#115-12-18 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments on this application? Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We thought that the pool was too close there, and maybe they could swing the pool over it would be a lot further away from the wetlands. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't know if we could make that stipulation without a new plan showing that pool swung around. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would only Approve it subject to getting a new plan. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't know, it's a major change in plan. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Al, think it had to be cut down in size too, didn't it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Slightly, but this is only penciled in on the survey. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I recall from the field notes that's there was a 15'X 40' request and then if you swung it around, it would actually end up being 30' wide. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We can stipulate a distance off the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you have to keep it 10' off the house, which it is now, but swung around, it's got to be kept 10' off the house. You can double the setback. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you agree with that? JOHN JOY: I'm trying to understand what you're talking about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you come up and take a look and he'll show you right on the survey. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This should be swung around (talking quietly with John Joy). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're trying to maximize the setback of the pool off the wetlands. 40 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there a pool setback off of the house? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not that I'm aware of. This will also have a condition of a drywell for the backwash. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comment? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the application to install an in-ground swimming pool with hot tub 16'X 30' approx. 48' from the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 36. Meyer Home Remodeling on behalf of RUSS MEYER requests a Wetland Permit to add a second floor to the existing residence, first and second floor decks and covered porch. Located: 6815 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#59-6-1 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments from the audience? RUSS MEYER: I'm just here to answer any questions you might have on this. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I looked at this. There is no major change in footprint of the building. Is there a house plan there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you happen to have one with you? RUSS MEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think there's a jog off of this one corner and they just want to square it off. RUSS MEYER: Away from the water, in the front of house facing the road. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This is all existing here and it just goes up with a second story and a new face-lift for the front of it. There's already a silt fence up there, but they'll need a row of staked hay bales. I also said gutters and downspouts with drywells. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the conditions of a row of staked hay bales placed in front of the existing silt fence and that roof gutters and downspouts with drywells to catch the run-off be installed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 37. Sanford Hanauer on behalf of ROBERT ERENTHAL requests a Wetland Permit to expand the existing residence by 60 sq. ft. on the southeast side and to construct a trellis. Located: 19575 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#51- 4-11 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments on the application? This is probably the most minimal thing I've ever looked at. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any comment? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any Board comments? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? 41 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 38. Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. on behalf of ARTHUR W. & FRANCES JUNE LEUDESDORF requests a Wetland Permit to construct a stairway down the face of the bluff to access the beach. The stairway shall be approx. 4' wide by 130' long with landings 4' wide by 4' long at intervals along the length of the stairway. The landing nearest the beach shall be 6' wide by 8' long to accommodate a storage box. Located: 1700 Hyatt Rd., Southold. SCTM#50- 1-5 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here on behalf of the application? Mr. Cuddy? CHARLES CUDDY: I'm here on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Leudesdorf is to my right. I would like to hand up to you the affidavit of posting and affidavit of mailing, also the plan itself, that you all should have copies of, I have a statement from the soil and water conservation district as to the stability of the bluff, and also the full permit that was issued by the DEC. ARTHUR LEUDESDORF: It's simply a 130' stairway down the bluff, on a very stable bluff. It has five intermittent landing on it. It's been approved by the DEC and I believe it's appropriate for that area. There are other stairways very similar on houses nearby and I would ask the Board to approve it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I looked at it. I didn't find it to be anything out of the ordinary. Actually it's in a valley. It follows the valley right down. It's not a really steep set of stairs at all. There is minimal disturbance there. They have it all staked out. I walked down and took a look at it and I don't see a problem. It's no different than any other stair application. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 39. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JAMES GRATHWOHL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling with attached porch and pervious driveway; install a sanitary system with approx. 240 cy. of clean sand fill to be retained with concrete retaining walls; connect to public water service; and establish a 25' non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the today wetland boundary. Located: 545 Williamsburg Rd., Southold. SCTM#78-5-16 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments on this application? JAMES GRATHWOHL: Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm Jim Grathwohl, and I thank you for your time. As you know this is our second appearance. We have considered the concerns and the questions that the Board expressed in 42 January. We've addressed those concerns and we feel we have adequately answered them. As you recall, I already have the required DEC, County Health Dept. and Suffolk County Water Authority permits. I also remind you that I'm a native of the Town, I've owned the property for over 35 years and currently intend to build a modest retirement home there. I believe I have a credible application and trust you will too. I would like to call on Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants and Wayne Bruin, my attorney, to provide the additional details of my application. ROB HERRMANN: I'm first going to submit to the Board a couple of cover letters with attached information, most of which was faxed to your office yesterday, but I'm going to go over it this evening and discuss it with the Board. Just give me a minute to hand them out. At the last hearing in January, we had discussed at length, the various technical issues which surrounded this application, as far as the applications meeting the Board's standard for a permit issuance under Chapter 97 of the Town Code. The focus of the conversation was on the sanitary system, it's functioning, and it's potential impacts on the adjacent tidal waters. Frederick Keith of Sag Harbor Engineering was here to testify before the Board with regard to that technical information. Mr. Keith had described, and I will not attempt to summarize his technical information that is in the record before the Board in this formal engineering report, but essentially a concept that the Board had responded to with the idea that as per the Suffolk County Health Dept. standards, when you have a site like this with unsuitable soils, particularly close to tidal waters, all of the "unsuitable" soils need to be dug out, excavated and replaced with much more pervious sand. What Mr. Keith was describing to the Board in effect, was how the effluent from the leaching pools how it takes the path of least resistance and travels vertically down through that depth of introduced pervious sand, which prevents it from leaching through a less pervious clay soil around it and to the creek, which is of course, the Board's concern. I believe that Mr. Krupski had asked Mr. Keith how he could be sure that the soils could clean the sanitary system and effectively where the original test hole was done and the tidal waters for a similar nature, and you in fact, asked Mr. Grathwohl if he would have additional test holes bored to confirm that. So, the information I just supplied to you if inclusive of an amendment or essentially an addendum to Mr. Keith's original engineers report, which includes.as figures, locations of two additional test holes that were bored closer to the water and.the test hole log data sheet associated therewith. You'll find from the data sheet and from Mr. Keith's assessment, that indeed those.soils are not only similarly impervious but more impervious as you move closer to the water. Essentially the amendment in.h.is report confirms that the functioning on the system that he described to you in January, is in fact going to be the case based on the site conditions. An unrelated issue, the Board had also mentioned that the proposed driveway was shown partially into the buffer zone and therefore we asked Joseph Ingegno to revise the site plan to show not only the locations of the test holes but also to have that portion of the driveway, which was depicted in the buffer zone, removed. So, the Board i P 43 should also have a copy of that revised survey before it. Those were essentially the items that the Board had asked us to address. In addition to submitting that information up to you, I also submitted a letter dated today, as I cannot recall whether we had introduced into the record previously, Mr. Grathwohl's deed, which describes his purchase of the property in 1966, as well as a single and separate title search, which demonstrates that Mr. Grathwohl has held this property as single and separate ownership ever since. I believe these documents are critically important to your record because as recently as this evening, this Board has made illusions to a general concern of a tight real estate market on the water causing such under-sized wetland related parcels to become part of this speculative development. It does bear reiterating what Mr. Grathwohl is no way a speculative developer. He had in fact owned this property since 1966 and when he had initially tried to improve his property many, many years ago, has been in the process for quite some time, essentially this Board had requested not only recently, but many, many years ago, that he approach the Health Dept. to see if it was possible to obtain variances for the property. The Health Dept. Board of Review essentially agreed with and supported Mr. Keith's position regarding the fact that the sanitary system will not have any measurable adverse effect on the adjacent tidal waters. If the Board has any new questions or concerns or any questions regarding what was just submitted, I would be happy to answer them, and Mr. Grathwohl is here as well as his attorney, Wayne Bruin. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I just want to.take all the other comments first. CHERYL HANSEN: My property is adjacent to Mr. Grathwohl and I think I wrote you in February listing my concerns, and they remain the same. Most importantly, the cesspool, the sanitary system, and the house are so close to the tidal wetlands and the canal. In the past, your requirements have always been 75' and 100' and I think this starts at 55'. Also, there is one correction on this. This says that the land that I own next to it, there is no public water. It states that there is public water. I even called Suffolk County Water Authority a couple of years ago asking for public water and they said they are not granting any empty lots for public water. So, there is no public water on that lot. So, you still have my letter with my concerns. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, thank you. Any other comments? I'd like time to...the septic system is very close. Actually, I've got 40' on the plan here. I just scaled it off. ROB HERRMANN: Where does it show 40' AI? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From the edge of that, what would you call it? ROB HERRMANN: Well there's a concrete retaining wall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well there's a better word for a retaining wall, but yeah, that's 40' from that. Now was that area going to be excavated behind that wall? ROB HERRMANN: Yes. . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was looking for the...Artie has the plans. ROB HERRMANN: (inaudible) 44 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's in clean sand so the effluence is going to move rather freely. ROB HERRMANN: Freely downward, correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I thought we were going to be prepared to vote on this tonight but I'm a little, well, there's been a lot more information just recently submitted that I don't think...I'm uncomfortable without really digesting this and having someone whose... ROB HERRMANN: Al, that's fair. We have submitted additional technical information to you tonight. I was happy to be able to get it by now. What actually was the problem, and I'm not sure which neighbor, but one of the neighbors actually has had at some point, for a period of time, their boat blocking access to Mr. Grathwohl's property. So, the problem with that MacDonald Geoscience couldn't physically access the property to bore the test holes that you had requested. So it was only recently that we finally go the neighbor's boat moved out of Mr. Grathwohls's property so that Mark could get in, got the test holes, the engineer did the report, so that we could at least get this information to you by tonight, but I certainly recognized that you are... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah, we're not stonewalling, this is real information. Does the Board have anything else that we want? Obviously we are going to revisit the site on May 15th also, so if you could just make sure it's staked. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Al, I just wanted to note the letter from the Nature Conservancy that was sent to us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You don't have to read it. We'll just send you a copy. CHERYL HANSEN: Can I ask what they cover the cesspool with? ROB HERRMANN: What would typically be done for an elevated system like this is to actually plant around and over the retaining wall. Usually the way people landscape is to create the appearance of a naturally vegetated berm as opposed to a square retaining wall structure because that would be least pleasing to the person that lived there. So, that's normally what's done. CHERYL HANSEN: But what's on top of that. ROB HERRMANN: Well the cesspools are packed. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well there has to be a minimum.of 1' of cover of top. ROB HERRMANN: Right. There's soil and vegetation that's planted over. Physically, the cesspool has a lid on top of it and then that has to be covered with 12" of dirt. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They are covered with earth. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, if there is no other comment, I'll make a motion to Table the application until next month. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 40. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of VINCENT BENIC requests a Wetland Permit to construct 4'X 29' wood steps (including 4'X 4' platform) and 4'X 22' wood walkway (elevated a minimum of 3.5' above marsh (grade) down bank to existing dock. Construct +/-102 linear ft. timber retaining wall (plus 17' westerly and 8' easterly returns) along top of bank; and remove remaining portions of existing block and wood retaining walls along top of bank. Backfill with approx. • 45 25 cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source and planted with native grasses. Located: 1375 Pine Neck Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-5-39 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? LARRY SIDERIS: I have a question on #8, the permit to Amend Permit #4378. I'm quite concerned about installing the piling and pulley system 15' out from the end of the dock. This was never in a plan submitted to the Board of Trustees. I was just aware of a regular wooden walkway. The previous owners, Mr. Windisch, had the same idea and I denied that. ROB HERRMANN: For the record, there are two applications that are before the Board. One was submitted by Mr. Benic regarding the dock and I'll allow him to respond to that and then I can take questions regarding the retaining wall and the stairs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I think the stairs are kind of uncontroversial. They are straight-forward. LARRY SIDERIS: I have a question about that also. My main concern is about this pulley system is that at night time, it's going to be un-navigatable that canal. (inaudible), and when we're fishing at night, we're not going to be able to see. If it's 15', the pulley system with wires, it's going to be a tremendous hazard to any boater in that canal as well as the marina, to go fishing at night. I'm entirely against it, as you know from the letter I sent in when the previous owner asked for that. MR. BENIC: If I may answer that question, I staked out the area of question. This is the application that was approved by the DEC and we are requesting that the Board approve what the DEC approved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did approve... LARRY SIDERIS: It was just a walkway and nothing with a piling system. MR. BENIC: The original approval that the Board approved for Mr. Windisch was 25' of dock that extended from the wall. The DEC had amended that and with their approval of a 24' dock with a 15' piling. I am currently having an application with the DEC to extend that piling out to 30'. LARRY SIDERIS: 30', you'll never be able to navigate the channel then. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let him finish. MR. BENIC: If I may, the idea is that this dock and this piling would be in line with all of the existing docks that is along the property line, with the adjacent neighbor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at this and I think the feeling of the Board is that we granted an approval January 26, 2000 on this property to Mr. Windisch for a total dock length of 35'. He's got 12' of dock now and this would add an additional 23' to the dock. LARRY SIDERIS: But there wasn't any pulley system installed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But there was no pulley, and I think the Board is inclined to say the total of 35' was enough there. What you're getting out into is navigatable waters and it's also public property and we don't want to see...the longer the dock, the more public property is monopolized and that's just basic. MR. BENIC: I understand that but this is something the DEC said. 46 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The DEC is an agency that has jurisdiction but our Board actually owns the bottom of the creek. It's on Town property, so we have the final say and because it's Town property, it's public property, and we can't allow structures to go out to monopolize public property because it's open for everyone. MR. BENIC: All that I'm asking is that the pulley system, that that pile be in line with the adjacent on the adjacent property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we set 35' as the final length, I think you ought to work the pulley system within that length, I think the Board would accept that. LARRY SIDERIS: Well how about the other boaters in the area coming in there at night? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well if you had a dock that was the total length of 35', it would be the same thing. LARRY SIDERIS: But still, you're up there driving the boat at nighttime and with this pulley system going across, it's going to be dangerous. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, I don't think so. There likely will be a boat there you'll be able to see it. LARRY SIDERIS: I talked to the Coast Guard and the Bay Constable and everyone else and they told me the same thing. It's going to be a great danger to anybody there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We approve these on a routine basis. LARRY SIDERIS: In Jockey Creek and Goose Creek? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In Town water. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's how we would accept it, if it's in line. This way, it's not impeding out beyond the neighbors, where you're used to traveling. If you travel the same bearing that you've always have, you're not going to have a problem. LARRY SIDERIS: But still at night time, it's going to be a great danger with wires and cables going across the canal. MR. BENIC: It's not going across the canal. I think your exaggerating. LARRY SIDERIS: Exaggerating? What do you call it then? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, anyway, I don't think the Board's inclined to grant anything further out than what was originally granted in 2000. So, if you want to work a pulley system into that, we already approved a dock there two years ago. LARRY SIDERIS: Right, but I'm worried about the pulley system being granted. MR. BENIC: The pulley is only 4' out. The pile will be only 4' further out from what was approved by this Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we don't want to see anything go out further than what was originally approved. MR. BENIC: 35' TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Total. MR. BENIC: I would have to put in a 24' dock plus 11'. 47 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Whatever length you want it to work out. To us it wouldn't matter. You're monopolizing the public area, so if you wanted to work out 11', 10' or whatever, I think it would be find with this Board. LARRY SIDERIS: Now all the people, the mariners, as well as the people of the Southold Marine Center can never get out of the canal at night. I can't see how it's possible. First of all, you won't be able to see it. You can't pick it up on radar going through that piece of wire line. It's going to be unbelievable going through that place at night. You see how shallow it is. MR. BENIC: The adjacent dock is over 40' out on the property next to my property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, we are checking on the legality of that dock at this moment. LARRY SIDERIS: Yes, my lawyer is looking into that and we have documentation for that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But anyway, somebody pitch in here. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How many feet wide do you believe that canal is, from bank to bank? It's well over 100' right? LARRY SIDERIS: From dock to dock? TRUSTEE POLWODA: No, from the marsh edge to the marsh edge. MR. BENIC: It's at least 150'. LARRY SIDERIS: No, it can't be that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We wouldn't allow it more than 1/3 out so if you have 35' and there's over 100' across... LARRY SIDERIS: But it's a safety hazard. Most mariners don't stand up as they navigate a boat through a canal. You'd be sitting up there and you come to the wires, it's going to be a great danger, for me as well as the others in the canal and the people from the Southold Marine Center who go out fishing at night. MR. BENIC: If the wire is going to be a danger, then it's also going to be a danger with the adjacent dock. The dock is also sticking out and not only that dock but every dock along the creek, including his dock. LARRY SIDERIS: If your talking about docks, a dock you can hit and bump off of but a wire is going to damage your boat as well as the thing on top, like the antennas, the canvas, and the wire. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Benic has a permit right now for a total length of 35'. LARRY SIDERIS: Of wooden dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. LARRY SIDERIS: Right, and I have no problem with that. The pulley system with the wire vs. 15' and now this evening he tells us 30' out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we're not going for additional length because of the reasons we already stated. LARRY SIDERIS: That's my main concern, is the safety of this wire being swung across the canal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Benic, are you inclined to go with anything other than a 35' wood stick built dock? 48 MR. BENIC: I'm going to stick with my original permit at this point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. MR. BENIC: May I reconsider that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course. MR. BENIC: What I would like to do, in order to build the dock, I would request that you give me permission for a 24' dock, and 11' pulley, a pile 11' out. That would bring me out to 35'. That was originally approved. LARRY SIDERIS: I have no problem with that if you can put some kind of lighting on it. TRUSTEE KING: It's not sticking any further than the other docks. MR. BENIC: If I may also suggest, there are other similar systems to this one on the creek. Right across the creek from me there's a similar one. There's a piling out there, there's a dock out there, it's a similar system, and they do not have any lighting. LARRY SIDERIS: He's incorrect about that. There's a boat hoist across the canal there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a lot of stuff going on over there. Artie, what do you think about it? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well if you put a dock out 35' and the pole is going to be no further than 35', it's really different than having a dock. ROB HERRMANN: If you have two docks that are 35+/- and there's a dock in the middle that's 35', whether it's a dock for 35', or a 24' catwalk and a pile, unless someone is going to boat by, and suddenly cut in and aim for the wire, and then cut back out, it can't have any different effect than three docks in the same line. LARRY SIDERIS: (yelling) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One more brief comment and then we're going to vote on it and move on. MR. BENIC: If I may, I have a photograph. This shows where the pilings are and across the creek. MR. BENIC: I have a comment for application #40. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the Amendment to Permit #378 to add 12' to an existing dock for a total length of 24'. Install a piling pulley system 11' from the end of the dock, which would be a total of 35. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well need a new plan, Mr. Benic. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there any comments on this application. ROB HERRMANN: I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Vincent Benic. The project is reasonably straight-forward. This is proposed a timber retaining wall along the crest of the bank, which will predominately replace the remains and/or existing retaining wall, which is present now, with the exception of the fact that the retaining wall will be extended to the easterly property line and then closed off with an 8' return. We're aware of a letter from Mr. Sideris, who is the adjacent property owner to the east, who had various questions about the project. I don't know if Mr. Sideris received our response but we did prepare a written response to his letter. Many of the questions were answered l 49 in the project plan. If the Board has any questions, we certainly would be happy to address them as well. LARRY SIDERIS: I didn't receive any letter on this matter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll take Mr. Sideris' comments first. LARRY SIDERIS: Well first of all, you have my letter that I wrote you and there are questions that I had written down there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment before I ask some questions? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. We have another one of these situations where you're walking up a couple of stairs and go down the stairs. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well let's take the retaining wall first. We weren't sure about the exact location. I don't think we have a problem with the retaining wall, we just want to know exactly where. There was like a big area where it could've gone and the more we looked the more we... ROB HERRMANN: We can have the surveyor actually stake it at 10' intervals, the location of the retaining wall, plus the two returns. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And also the height. ROB HERRMANN: Well he can string it off because the height is going to be 12" above whatever...the natural grade varies. It's going to be no more than 12" above the natural grade at any point so we could actually have it be staked and string tied to the top so that you actually have a stake and string version of what would be installed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we would like to see because we weren't sure. It kind of shows it but there were no measurements off the house and then it shows the proposed deck. Okay, now we can get into the steps. ROB HERRMANN: If you look at the cross-section on the second sheet, Ken, to respond to your question, we have to essentially show a platform. There's going to be a non-turf buffer established behind this. The bluff is also, in that area it's lawn because Mr. Sideris actually is maintaining that lawn on Mr. Benic's property, so that edge is cleared right now. We would like to allow that area to re-vegetate and we're also going to have a non-turf area behind the retaining wall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you show me? ROB HERRMANN: Do you have the pictures that were submitted with the application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just show me on the survey. ROB HERRMANN: My plan is easier because it actually shows the proposal. In this area, right here, if you actually walk down this edge of the property line here, this is actually lawn here. The rest of the bluff is vegetated. This happens to be a natural area to go down and access the dock but they are a little bit arbitrary in changing with what they say, but the DEC usually wants the stairs elevated at least a foot or two above the grade of the bluff because otherwise it prevents the growth of any vegetation beneath the stairs, so given that the retaining wall is going to be a foot above grade, just in response to 50 what Kenny was saying, we have to just show a couple steps up to a platform and then down in order to gain that... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Even when you're above lawn? ROB HERRMANN: Well here it's lawn but down here, it won't be. Also, this lawn is going to be replaced. In other words, in consistent with what we discussed with this Board in the past, and just as a sound erosion control principal, part of the problem here is that this is lawn right down to the crest so we're going to try to replace this whole area with a non-turf buffer, so rather than being a maintained lawn, we're going to try to plant some sort of native warm season grasses here so they should have some room underneath the platform to grow. It's minimal elevation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It just seems awkward for Mr. Benic when you could just go straight out and down instead of going up and over and down. ROB HERRMANN: Well you could except then it would be flat against the grade. Basically you create one of those spots right under the platform. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You can obtain spacing between the boards. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's fine. If he wants to go up and back down, that's fine. It's just that it's something that we saw as unnecessary. ROB HERRMANN: The idea of it is to help the establishment of the non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comment? LARRY SIDERIS: Yes, my concern is also with the stake out. Nobody has ever staked out the property. I have no idea where this bulkhead is going to be. You saw the copy he sent me. It's unreadable. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's going to be staked for next month, May 15tn LARRY SIDERIS: My tree that I showed you in the pictures, it's right on the property line. What kind of damage is going to be done with that? ROB HERRMANN: We'll have the location staked. LARRY SIDERIS: I'm not finished asking my question. The tree is in the middle of the property line. If they come in their side with a back-hoe, you can't get any water, you can't get any food, and eventually the tree is going to die, fall into the canal, and all of the sand and dirt and grass is going to erode into the canal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's why he's going to stake it with the elevation so we can see the extent of the wall. We'll be on the site May 15tn. 1'11 make a motion to Table the application. LARRY SIDERIS: Did he give me the answers to my question yet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know. LARRY SIDERIS: I mean, how close to my property line will the retaining wall be? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's going to stake it out completely. We're going to find out. ROB HERRMANN: I just handed Mr. Sideris a copy of the letter that he should also receive in the mail that itemizes, according to his numbered list of questions, a numbered list of answers. So, maybe you could digest that between now and next month and if there are any questions that you still have, t 51 we could further address them. There is proposed on a site plan, as you mentioned, there is a proposed two deck additions and house additions. Our office failed to include the language for that in the application. We sent Lauren a revised application but I think that was probably after the legals went out, so I just want to make sure that we can do what we can do at this time. I guess now, Lauren, you have the information and maybe you can just put it in the legals for May, just to make sure. It's my error and I don't expect the Board will have any problem with it, but we have to make sure it gets noticed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just going to say, drywells and gutters. We saw the new deck. ROB HERRMANN: I just wanted to make sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 41. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of FRANK & LOUISE MARCIGLIANO, As Contract Vendees request a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one- family dwelling on pilings; install a sanitary system, pervious driveway, drywell- drainage system, and public water service; establish a 50' wide non- disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the tidal wetland boundary; remove existing driveway; and replant with native vegetation the approx. 1,150 sq.ft. portion of existing driveway located within the proposed buffer area. Located: 1800 Cedar Beach Rd., Southold. SCTM#89-2-3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to explain this application to us? ROB HERRMANN: From speaking with your office, I understand that there is a question by the Board as to the presence of wetlands on the property, so I can address that but I'd rather hear from the Board specifically what part it's questioning before I respond. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: When was that road built? ROB HERRMANN: The road is actually used by the neighboring property owner. It cuts through this property and accesses the adjacent house. So as part of the development agreement of the property, the adjacent owner has to go through Marcigliano's attorney and then their attorney would have to have that roadway limited. PAT MOORE: The Akscin family, just to give you a little bit of history, the Akscin family is the original developer of this property and Akscin is who we are in contract with. Mr. Akscin, old man Akscin, has the larger piece behind it, and he's used that driveway, I think he acquired the property in 1950, so he's been using that as his access since probably close to the 50's just as a convenient entrance from Cedar Beach Rd. That's going to be obviously eliminated when he sells the property and that's been worked out. But just so you know, it comes from the Akscin family and he's the seller of the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concerns, besides the road, the property is pretty much 100% wetland vegetation. ROB HERRMANN: You're saying you believe that the property is all tidal wetlands? 52 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. ROB HERRMANN: What I'm going to guess is that the Board, I don't know how long you spent on the property, I don't know if you actually went into the property, but there is baccharis on this property along the driveway and almost up to the road. What the Board has to recognize is that the mere existence of baccharis or even 50% in habitation of an area by baccharis, does not indicate that the area is a wetland. In the definition of a wetland boundary, Section 97- 13 of the Town Code dictates "the wetland boundary is to be defined and flagged at the point where existing wetland indicator species no longer have a competitive advantage over upland species" and to paraphrase more specifically, where there is no more than 50% habitat composition by wetland species. This lot, in other words, the Code goes on to define how wetlands should be delineated and what you look at is actually where wetland species lose their competitive advantage. Now if you start in the wetlands and walk landward, you find the widest spans of spartina patens. Landward of that is the fringe of (inaudible). Within those entire areas, it's virtually 100% wetlands vegetation. Landward of that fringe of baccharis, which at least 75% coverage of the area is baccharis. Once you move landward of that, you start to get a significant inter-mixing of upland species that are present on that property, mixed with the baccharis, poison ivy, briar, multiflora rose, full season turf and weed species, red cedar, grey birch, species of sumac, these are all upland plants. These trees and shrubs and turf species simply cannot exist in a tidal wetland. It is along that boundary that I flagged the tidal wetlands. In other words, following exactly in your Code, which is how I've always delineated wetlands in this Town, and I can't think of a time that my boundary has every been questioned, but using the methodology that I've always used, I flagged this lot. It's a difficult lot. It's actually very, very similar to the Lisa Edson lot. It is not uncommon to find baccharis growing in open woods and thickets adjacent to coastal areas where you do get occasional flooding probably at that entire property and street during a storm condition. That however, does not make the area a wetland unless the inundation is frequent enough that it allows wetland species to regain a competitive edge, which in this case, it clearly doesn't. I would be happy to go out and look at the site with the Board and I could visually describe everything that I am describing here. You certainly reserve the right to disagree but I think if you looked carefully at the lot, and you saw this inter-mixing of upland species, you would realize what I'm talking about. Not coincidentally, you'll notice that after I flagged the site, we got the survey back from Joe Ingegno, my wetland barrier coincides exactly with the 3' contour, which is actually fairly typical. You would see an increase in elevation there where the upland species begin to gain back an equal competitive edge of the baccharis. Again, keep in mind baccharis does not exist in the interior of a wetland. The wetland shrubs that exist in the area that has regular inundation during every tide is Iva, or is what you call high-tide bush, not baccharis. Obviously we should go out there and look at it so you can see what I'm describing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The CAC also agreed with us. 53 ROB HERRMANN: Is there anyone on the CAC who is actually certified to delineate wetlands or this is just an observation? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the observation that they made. Well, I shouldn't say that, I don't know. Someone could be certified by the Wetlands Certification Board. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What do you have? ROB HERRMANN: I'm academically trained from my master's program at Duke and I'm professionally certified by Rutgers. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We actually visited the site... ROB HERRMANN: Kenny, the fact that your sitting sort of smiling smugly at me, it's a little bit offensive. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, it's just that I've never seen your certificate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Rob, this is a lot that we found to be, except for the driveway, which seemed to have been filled, this is a lot that seemed to be almost completely wetland. Certainly, the whole northern side of the lot is what we consider to be tidal wetlands. ROB HERRMANN: If there is another area there that you're looking at that I may have overlooked, I would be happy to go out and revisit it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we're just trying to be fair here. We don't want to give the wrong impression that somehow you overlooked something, or we overlooked something, we don't want to give you the wrong impression that, well maybe if you got this or that, we'll issue you an approval. That's unfair to you and unfair to the applicant. ROB HERRMANN: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd rather be straight and say we think it's completely tidal wetland vegetation and that should be pretty much the end of it. ROB HERRMANN: I agree. If there is an obstacle with this based on the conditions of the site that you see from day one is going to make it an impossible process to get through, obviously the Marciglianos would like to know that. The owner of the property should know that. I just want to make sure that the Board, and I realize that you're doing 40 or 50 inspection in a day, and I want to make sure the Board didn't go in, get a snapshot image, draw an assumption based on that and be in a situation where you think it's something that it isn't. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we're pretty clear on it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I went with Scott Hilary and we spent a lot of time looking over the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it's better to honest then say oh yeah, we'll go look at it and maybe... ROB HERRMANN: Well do you want to go and look at it so I can visually show you what I'm describing here? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know what purpose it would serve, to be honest with you. We were all there. We're going to start by disputing the wetland line and then you have to verify it and then we have to verify it. ROB HERRMANN: I'm just asking because I do have the professional expertise, as the Board knows, to delineate wetlands. So, I'm just asking if a j 54 there is a difference in opinion, I obviously would want to know that somebody whose qualified to make that determination actually looked at it and can explain to me why the line is (inaudible). That's all I'm asking for, other than you just saying look, we think this all wetlands and that's the end of the show. I obviously have a responsibility to my client to pursue the matter with the Board. So, that's essentially what I'm asking. I can put something in writing and submit it to you. PAT MOORE: Well I think that the sellers, who have owned the property since 1950, are going to be very upset when they are told that this Board believes that the whole piece is unbuildable. Certainly my clients, who are here, are going to be very upset because they already spent a certain amount of money to get to this point and certain months under contract getting here, which he's forgone going to another property and buying another property. When Rob looked at this piece, identified the wetlands based on his expertise, there was adequate upland to meet, well at the time it was a 75' setback jurisdiction, and during that period of time, your jurisdiction changed. So, there's a permit process, but I would want to let the sellers know what position you're taking because they may certainly have interest in being here and maybe taking up the cause, so that there is no taking of their property. Again, you've seen a lot of applications where people have owned the properties for a long time and they've been paying taxes on these properties and they have certain expectations that this Town through regulation isn't going to inverse and condemn it. So, Mr. & Mrs. Marcigliano who are here, are upset of the conclusion you're coming to but I think even more so, the sellers are going to be quite upset. I think it would be wise to meet with Rob, identify, and maybe he can through his expertise, help you go through the property and maybe what the CAC and what you, and I'm not saying your wrong, but I think that you need to sit down with him, or go through the property, and see whether or not he can convince you otherwise. If it can't be done, well so be it, but I think then we all have to get to the next step. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, I mean we all live in the community, and I guess we can give Rob the courtesy but I don't want to give that impression that there's hope, by any means. But, I'll definitely Rob the courtesy, but that's it. It's basically a courtesy, because you asked for it. ROB HERRMANN: Well we're making an application and there is a process that the Board has to go through and I can't go back to a client, and he's going to say to me, well did you just put that tidal wetland boundary there for the hell of it, and obviously, the answer is no. I had a very specific methodology that follows your Code in putting that wetland boundary there. If you disagree with it, that's obviously your right, but I think we at least need to provide an explanation for the disagreement. That's all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We know what it is and you can't make it something that it's not, but we'll do you the courtesy and we'll meet you out there, with absolutely no expectations. PAT MOORE: Well I'll let the sellers know that they have their recourse, if you deny the permit, that they have that right as well. 55 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. MR. BREESE: We have lived next door to this particular property since 1965 and as I can tell you, there are some comments. This area is mainly marshland subjected to considerable flooding in times of high-tides and northeast storms. The map prepared by your surveyor has elevations listed under several 1929 data of the wetland protected area (inaudible). Pictures are available of flood waters taken from my house which there is water completely flooding the present dirt road over into lot #26. Water has flooded over this and across Cedar Beach Rd. In fact on one occasion, water entered over our patio and into the house. (inaudible) At it's highest, where it is completely underwater, it might lead to the improper disbursal of wastewater. The test hole data indicate only 2.2 ft. of sand and loam and dark brown sandy loam, and below that it water. It would seem that the construction of a retaining wall and the insertion of posts to support the residence would be difficult. What will support the retaining wall footers and how deep do the posts have to go. (inaudible) Connection to the water line will have to be down under water (inaudible) and the proposed drywells will probably be as full of water most of the time as the three placed on the other side of Cedar Beach Rd., by the Southold Town Highway Dept. several years ago. The elevation listed in varies portions of the property seem to be somewhat unrealistic, a bit too high. We lived here since 1965 and when I attempted to build on this property, it was turned down. Have the rules been relaxed in such a way that we now allow it. Unfortunately with the DEC records, they told me they stopped in 1977 so they did not have any record of the early prevention. Not too many years ago, the time of the northeast storm, the floating part of the pier to the east was raised to the height of the fixed walkway, and the water was so high it came into my house, flooded across Cedar Beach Rd. into the driveway and the house across the street. I've been in the house across the street, and there is no visible land all the way across Cedar Beach to the south fork. Another comment is that my son is an architect and he is sending these comments: With 4' of wall showing above grade, the septic field retaining wall is a structure and should be made to comply with proper property lines and setbacks from the proposed leaching fields, (inaudible) onto the abutting property causing greater flooding. The footings of the proposed septic field are over 6" below the water table line. This is a relatively dry period when the soil test was taken. The excavation work requires to pour a concrete footing below the water table and will affect the land outside the property line and on the property (inaudible). The edge of wetlands line has varying definitions involving species of vegetation, habitat and (inaudible). The footprint of the proposed house and septic field is 4300 sq. ft. This is more than 60% of lot coverage. A two-story building including a possible 1800 sq. ft. of interior face and an elevation of 8', and second-floor elevation of roughly 17', (inaudible) and it would seem to me that this area is not a buildable lot. MR. WISEMAN: I live right near this lot and right near Mr. Breese and this lot is on my daily walk, which I have been walking since 1957. I've seen this lot completely underwater, many times. I wish the proposed owners could see it. 56 1 think this talk about upland plants, I mean I have an area of my house out in front with some of these same so-called upland trees and bushes, and they are often underwater. Not even a great storm tide but a moderate storm tide floods this piece of land that we're talking about. I just want to say that this is a perfect time for this Board to draw the line in the sand. If you ever see this lot you'll immediately find this is the most unbuildable lot you can think of in Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there is no other comment, we'll Table the hearing. I'll make a motion to Table the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 42. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DONNA BLANCHARD requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in kind/in place) approx. 27 linear ft. (including 5'&7' returns) of existing timber bulkhead and backfill with approx. 5 cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source and planted with beach grass (18" on center). Replant (12" on center) any disturbed spartina alterniflora adjacent to southerly return. Construct a timber dock, consisting of a 3'X 10' hinged ramp to extend from bulkhead onto a 6'X 12' float secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings. Located: 50 Budds Pond Road, Southold. SCTM#56- 5-21 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: After we submitted this application, me and the Blanchards received some comments, almost as expected, from one of the neighbors, Mr. Kruge and also a couple of members of the association, who had concerns as to the extent of the dock, We had initially plotted this out according to soundings, which is DEC's normal requirements, but in light of the comments of the neighbors and the fact, and certainly some valid comments as far as the extent of this thing into the canal, I believe we've come up with a solution to pull the float back, that the members of the association we met with are here this evening indicated that they would be amenable to. This is a very rough sketch of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you get our comments Rob? ROB HERRMANN: Not yet, but I just wanted to give you a look at that because certainly it seems that the association and neighbors comments are relevant to the application. So, having said that, it would make sense to get the Board's comments. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We thought it would be better if you got a little more creative than that. Since this little area has been filled and sticks out so far, and it's got to be excavated to put in the new bulkhead, it should be brought back at least even to the neighbors, maybe even further back, and then that float could be even tucked in further. It's all got to be dug out anyway. ROB HERRMANN: Well that's not really true Al. The existing bulkhead is going to be excavated out, but if you were to step the entire bulkhead back, you would have to excavate the entire portion of upland plus dredge completely beneath that and then install the bulkhead back, you would have to , 57 excavate the entire portion of upland, plus dredge completely beneath that and then install a bulkhead back. First of all, that would add considerable expense to the Blanchards to do it. Second of all, I don't know if any other agency would go along with that concept, given that there is a tidal marsh immediately adjacent to the site. If there were no other viable option, I think the Blanchards would have to consider that. But, if we pulled the float against the bulkhead, it would only be 6 Y2' out from the bulkhead and in line with the neighbor's dock within a couple of feet. It would certainly be less than 1/3 the width of that canal. I don't know what the width of the canal is there but it's more than 18' from the bulkhead. So, from our perspective, it just pulling the float back against the bulkhead, which I've also been advised by the members of the association, is how the float used to be there. If that would certainly make everybody happy, and not impede navigation, it would certainly seem to save the Blanchards a lot of trouble and extra expense and possible bureaucratic denial and saying let's excavate and dredge right next to the vegetated marsh. Unless there is no other option, I don't see the purpose of going through that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Your new plan wouldn't call for any dredging. ROB HERRMANN: It isn't calling for any new dredging now. It would still be 2 Y2' on the outside of the float. The float at low tide would be right up against the shoal at the bulkhead, but so it is the case with everybody else there. We could put stops on the float. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It just seems like even to come back 5' to make it even with the neighbors to the north, then at least you would have a consistent bulkhead line and you would be pulled back. That's what makes sense. It's all going to be torn out anyway. It's kind of a large project for a little tiny area. ROB HERRMANN: Sure but there's a difference between pulling out an old bulkhead and installing a new one and completely excavating and dredging down to whatever depth, because then you would also have to dredge to make the area uniform. I don't know what the additional cost would be. I don't know what the DEC's response to that would be. It would be new excavation and dredging, immediately adjacent to a tidal marsh. We're talking all evening about the values of tidal wetlands and everything else, and certainly they become null and void if when you actually have inter-tidal marsh, inches away. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at it. We were all there. We didn't where that couldn't be easily accomplished. It's all got to be torn out of there anyway. If you don't come back 5' to put a new bulkhead in, you can actually put the new bulkhead in and excavate out in front to minimize any disturbance and you would have a lot more room. ROB HERRMANN: Well sure, with money and approval anything is easily accomplished. I don't know if the Blanchards are willing to undertake that expense and everybody is willing to approve it, I'm sure we could do it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you understand what I'm suggesting? MR. BLANCHARD: Yes, I understand very well. But the only reason the way we're going to do it now, is to be line with all the bulkheads that are there, exactly the same system, and we have two people from our neighborhood 58 here, and they agree with this idea and all the bulkheads are still going to be in line. So, I can't understand why I should be any different. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we wanted to put you in line because right now you're bumped out a little bit. You're bumped out 5'. Our feeling is, and maybe Artie could back me up, once you mobilize your equipment, what would it take to dig the rest of the 5' out. You're going to have to dig that out anyway to put the new bulkhead in. It's a big project for a tiny area to start with. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Another 5' isn't going to make much difference. ROB HERRMANN: I would say that if the Board feels that strongly about it, it's something that we would have to explore. We could explore the cost of it and we could certainly explore it with the DEC. Perhaps we could gain your assistance in speaking to a field analyst from the DEC as far as what your concerns are. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see why they would be concerned because you're moving upland. ROB HERRMANN: Well I agree, but normally, if when you're proposing...new dredging is (inaudible) so when you're proposing new dredging, especially when the dredging is immediately adjacent to tidal marsh, it's not just a lickety split approval by the DEC. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is a pre-dredged canal though. ROB HERRMANN: That's true. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What makes you think they're going to approve a float there in less than 2 Y/2' of water, which this is? ROB HERRMANN: Well the outside of the float would be in 2 Y2' and it would have to be seasonal. In other words, it's not like a typical dock situation where you have 50' of catwalk or something and you're done. You can put the float in and pull the float out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is this approvable because we looked at it as not even approvable by the DEC. We didn't have a problem with letting him dig out a little bit in front so that he could get his depth. ROB HERRMANN: Well let us explore it and if it's approvable and it's affordable and it turns out to be a better solution, we'll do it. We have to take a look one way or another because I can't answer you off hand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's actually less bulkheading, if you want to talk about expense-wise. It's a lot less material because you're not going out and back it out again. You're just going straight across. ROB HERRMANN: Well you still have to put in returns. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not on the north side. ROB HERRMANN: Well that's a good point actually. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a simpler job, is what we saw, to make it simpler and pull it back more, to give you more room. ROB HERRMANN: That's a different way to look at it Al. MR. BLANCHARD: We're just replacing the same as it was before. The docking was there sitting on the side. The bulkhead is there the same. Nothing has been changed on the property next to us on either side. That's why we were thinking of just a replacement, and the neighbors were happy with it. 59 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you've got the neighbors happy, you've got something, as you can see tonight. But really, we always look at it, if you can make an improvement, you should make it better. If you can't, if it doesn't fly for whatever reason, absolutely come back to us. But this seems like a better solution. ROB HERRMANN: We'll come back with either a modified proposal or for help. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 43. Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of GEOFFRY & DOMENICA PENNY requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new house. Located: 570 Mason Dr., Cutchogue. SCTM#104-7-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of or against the application? No comment? Does the Board have any comment? He's got a buffer there and he has drywells in. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 44. David Cichanowicz on behalf of CHRISTOPHER PIA requests a Wetland Permit to install "Redi-Rock" retaining wall with approx. 90 cy. of clean sandy loam fill. Located: 1445 Inlet Dr., Southold. SCTM#92-1-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? Does anybody have a problem with this one? It's already a driveway. It's right next to the wetlands, but it's already a driveway. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What is the Redi-Rock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you go down Skunk Lane, the houses on the east side and they have that long driveway going up, it's those little cement blocks. It's pretty much what's there. It also delineates the wetland. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 45. Glenn A. Haase, R.A. on behalf of ROBERT & KATHLEEN KNAPP request a Wetland Permit to construct a one-story framed residential addition to the existing residence. Proposed addition is 1133 sq.ft. with a deck. Located: 2260 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM#145-4-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comments? GLENN HAASE: I'm here if the Board has any questions. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I looked at this. It's bulkheaded there. I thought I discovered the septic system under the proposed addition, but there is no indication of where that is on any plan. .) think that should be located. GLENN HAASE: We're going to be moving that out toward the front. i 60 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Towards Edgemere Ave.? GLENN HAASE: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, you're going to have to located that on the plan. Can you show us? GLENN HAASE: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is that a garage or an apartment? MR. KNAPP: There is a bedroom over the garage. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is the septic for that? MR. KNAPP: It's the tank that's currently in the driveway. It's right outside the garage. There are four tanks at the moment. Two of them are going to have to be removed. Our idea is to come in adjoining the one that's servicing the garage. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You have to put that on the plan for us, where they're going to go, where they are, where the new ones are going to go. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we vote on it? TRUSTEE FOSTER: We can vote on it contingent on a new plan coming. GLENN HAASE: I'm going to keep it within the area by this road. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're going to need gutters and drywells for roof run-off and show that new septic system on the plan. I don't know about hay bales. The bulkhead actually sticks up about this far above the existing grass. There's grass right to the bulkhead. What kind of excavation are you going to have? There's no basement under that house, is there? GLENN HAASE: No. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are you just putting in slab? GLENN HAASE: A crawl space. What this thing with the bales? TRUSTEE FOSTER: We put a row of staked hay bales down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we think material during excavation is going to wash, during a heavy rain, into the creek, we want a line of hay bales staked so the material hits that. GLENN HAASE: Well the only excavation is for the foundation, which is towards the front. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well it's over towards the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay Arties, hay bales or not. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, throw a row of staked hay bales around the construction and show it on the plans also, and relocation of the septic, and how you're going to tie in, and the roof gutters and drywells. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition of a staked row of hay bales to be put around the perimeter of the construction, relocation of the septic system to the Edgemere side, and that drywells with roof gutters for run-off be shown on the plan, as well as the septic and the hay bales. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seconded. ALL AYES 61 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to go off the Public Hearings and go back to the Regular Meeting, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES RESOLUTIONS: 1. MARTIN KOSMYNKA requests an Amendment to Permit#5505 to move the previously approved sunroom with an above-ground pool, in line with the existing ramp. Located: 1985 Pine Tree Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#98-1-11.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES VI. MOORINGS: 1. DAVID KOLLEN requests to replace mooring #62 located in East Creek with a 12' boat. Access: Public TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 2. RICHARD BUTLER requests to replace mooring #18 in Gull Pond with a 25' boat. Access: Public TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 3. BENEDICT S. ANDRUSKI requests to replace mooring #387 in Arshamomaque Pond with a 14' boat. Access: Public TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 4. CHARLES HARVEY requests to replace stake #54 in Arshamomaque Pond with a 15' boat. Access: Public TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 5. CHARLES C. WATTS requests a mooring in Mud Creek for a 20' sail boat in front of his own property. Access: Private TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 6. WILLIAM & JOAN MOBLEY requests an onshore/offshore stake, for a 15' boat, off of their private right-of-way on Arshamomaque Pond. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES r 62 MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 12:30 AM Respectfully submitted by, (�j 0-u i n - m -_J to ndbyu Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk Board of Trustees RECEIVED J U L 3 0 2002 uthold Town Cler