Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/26/2003Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Az~tie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy. A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: ABSENT WAS: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Legal Advisor Lauren M. Standish, Senior-Clerk Artie Foster, Trustee CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, March 11,2003 at 8:00 AM TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 22, 2003. (unavailable) MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for January 2003. A check for $7,581.57 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. Board of Trustees 2 February 26, 2003 AMEN DMENTSNVAIVERS/CHANGES: GARY GERNS requests an Amendment to Permit #5572 to construct a new single-family residential dwelling with a 40' front yard setback on vacant land. Located: 1680 Brigantine Dr., Southold. SCTM#79-4-25 (MORATORIUM-Table) PAUL NAHAS requests an Amendment to Permit #5622 to allow for alterations to new residential building/construction plan on vacant land to include approx. 850 cy. of clean fill to raise parts of building floor to 8' to meet FEMA requirements. Located: Critten's & Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM#70-12-17 (MORATORIUM-Table) Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of WILLIAM SEIFERT requests an Amendment to Permit #5589 to include a stone parking area to the east of the existing driveway. Located: 7145 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#59-6-3 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application with the condition that the parking area will never be paved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of NANCY CARROLL requests an Amendment to Permit #5481 to modify and reconstruct the existing deck with a new configuration, increasing the setback from the existing bulkhead, to construct a second-floor addition over the existing dwelling, and for an addition of a new garage on the northeast corner of the premises. Located: 350 West Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#90-1-21 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application with the condition that drywells and gutters are installed to contain the roof run-off. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES William A. DiConza, Esq. on behalf of SHAWN & JOLYNE FITZGERALD requests a Waiver to erect an open split-rail fence within 100' of Wolf Pit Lake. Located: 495 Paddock Way, Mattituck. SCTM#107-7-2 POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH JOAN McDONALD requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5287 to construct a single-family residential dwelling. Permit will expire 2/21/03. Located: 705 Bayshore Rd., Greenport. SCTM#53-3-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve with the application with the condition that the restoration of the buffer and the cutting of the phragmites is removed from the permit and will have to be applied for Board of Trustees 3 February 26, 2003 under a separate application with a specific site plan. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services, Inc. on behalf of MICHAEL CARBONE requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5293 to demolish the existing wood frame house and construct new wood frame house with septic system, if required, deck, and attached two-car garage. Permit will expire 2/21/03. Located: 1580 North Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-12-34 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application with the condition that gutters and drywells are installed to contain the roof run- off. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SALT LAKE ASSOCIATION requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5133 to remove and replace in the same location 145'+/- of existing retaining wall; remove and replace in the same location 115'+/~ of existing bulkhead; remove and replace in the same location 1345'+/- of existing decking between the bulkhead and the retaining wall. Remove and replace in the same location two sets of stairs. Remove any fill that enters the waterway and replace it behind the bulkhead or retaining wall. Fill as necessary behind the bulkhead and retaining wall to maintain established grades using an estimated 30 cy. of spoil from an associated separately permitted dredging activity and establish a 10' non-turf buffer. Located: Old Salt Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#144-5-19 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to go off the Regular Meeting and onto the Public Hearings, TRUSTEE KING 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 TRAVELER WATCHMAN. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE MARLENE & ARCHER ISRAEL request a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling and the construction of a new deck. Located: 660 Howard Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#113-9-3 Board of Trustees Februat3, 26, 2003 4 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this application? I looked at this and it's pretty straight-forward. It's an expansion of the home. I didn't have a problem with it. It just needs some gutters and drywells. If there is no comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that gutters and drywells are installed to contain the roof run-off. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES J & C HOLDINGS, LP requests a Wetland Permit to add a 39.8'X 33' addition to the existing 20.4'X 26.4' residence. Located: 19625 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#51-1-22.2 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? GAlL WICKHAM: Good evening, I am here for the applicant, who couldn't be here this evening. If you have any questions, or need specific information, I would be glad to try and tell you. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone else like to comment on this application? PAUL LANCY: I'm the neighbor to the west. The only question I have is that there is a bulkhead down on the beach that's in a poor state of condition. I was just curious as to what the intention is for that bulkhead since I just put in, throe years ago, a brand new bulkhead, and with the erosion of that bulkhead, that would potentially take down my new bulkhead. GAlL WICKHAM: The bulkhead to the extent it needs repair, would be addressed, not in this application. We would need a separate application. But, I'm sure the owner would want to maintain the bulkhead's integrity if that need be. I don't think there is any question about that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's normal. They wouldn't let their bulkhead go because it would put their house in jeopardy. PAUL LANCY: So, your word is good as gold? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not my bulkhead. PAUL LANCY: Well aren't you supposed to protect the wetlands? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. GAlL WICKHAM: I'm willing to state for the record that, upon construction, and obtaining all of the approvals for the rosidence, the bulkhead would be looked at in terms of what needs to be done to make it an integral...in good shape. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Not only the wetlands, but as par~ of Chapter 97, Wetlands Code, you can't do anything to destabilize your neighbor's property. GAlL WICKHAM: There is a very well vegetated stable bluff hero. It's certainly in everyone's interest to protect it. I'm sure they would do that and I'm willing to state that on the record. Board of Trustees 5 February 26, 2003 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the Board satisfied with that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. PAUL LANCY: If you stated that for the record and if you're comfortable with that, I'm comfortable with that. GAlL WICKHAM: J&C, I want to clarify, is not at this point the owner. They are the contract vendee. I cannot speak for the owner but they are certainly interested in acquiring the property and upon doing do and obtaining permits would address the bulkhead. PAUL LANCY: I didn't understand. They didn't buy the property yet? GAlL WICKHAM: They are under contract to purchase it. So, I'm not representing that on behalf of the current owner. PAUL LANCY: The intended owner. GAlL WlCKHAM: Yes. PAUL LANCY: For the record that they're going to repair it then I'm comfortable with that. That's on the record? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. PAUL LANCY: Thank you. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone else like to comment on this hearing? Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Gutters and drywells. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I see we have notes for hay bales. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you think we need that? It's sloping up. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I thought it was sloping up. GAlL WICKHAM: It slopes down from the bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We mean sloping up from the project. GAlL WlCKHAM: Yes, sloping up from the project. TRUSTEE POLiWODA: If there is no other comment, 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 with the addition of drywells and gutters. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They will have to be shown on the plan. GAlL WICKHAM: Okay. GLENN F. HEIDTMANN, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new single-family dwelling and garage on vacant land. Located: 600 Albacore Dr., Southold. SCTM#57-1-21 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone have any concern over this application? Mr. Heidtmann came into our worksession and explained all of this to us. I don't want to hold everyone up for another 10 minutes. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Do you have anything different than what you said to us a half an hour ago? GLENN HEIDTMANN: No. Board of Trustees 6 February 26, 2003 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there is no comment, we'll make a motion to postpone it. TRUSTEE KING: We'll look at it next field inspection. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there are no other comments, 1'11 make a motion to postpone this hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES JOHN J. GALLAGHER requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 8'X 16' dock. Located: 700 Bayview Dr., East Marion. SCTM#37-5-4 POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST JEFFREY HALLOCK requests a Wetland Permit to cut into ground of right-of-way for installation of underground utilities, permission to cut base of existing dirt roadway to upgrade with stone materials, and for the proposed driveway landward of the right-of-way. Located: Diachun Rd., Laurel. SCTM#127-3-9.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are two things, before I start the hearing and take comments, if there will be any. There are two items on this application before I start. One is, we just received word this evening, that the Town Attorney is reserving the decision on the moratorium on this so nothing has been decided but he said he wants to reserve decision. Also, just to re-coup, at the last month's meeting, a letter finally went out this week, basically putting in writing what was requested at the last meeting which was a letter from the Planning Board, stating, under the current zoning, what is the total build-out of this area and then under the current Town standards, what would the road be required by the Town, for this area, so that we can make a decision based on what this road was going to look like if it's going to be...in this location, what this road is going to be required to be by current Town standards, and that's what we requested at the last month's meeting. Now, I'll open the public hearing for anyone in favor of or against the application. HARVEY ARNOFF: I'd like to address briefly your comments because that is not what your letter said. I think that's maybe, first of all, a threshold problem. What you want, and I'm not certain that we are in a position to gather and get that type of an advisory opinion in kind of a vacuum from the Planning Board. So, I don't know if this is an invitation to being put in the neverlands of never getting an answer from the Planning Board because I'm not so sure it will come. If I wrote to them and said, how many lots can you build on this right-of-way all along, that presupposes a lot of things. It presupposes that anybody is ever going to build on it other than my client. It presupposes things that I don't know we or the Planning Board can address and under existing zoning, I'm not sure they're going to answer that because there are too many variables and they are all out of the control of my client. In reality, all that happened here was that there was, and by way of history, I think I really have to lay this out for the Board tonight, that the history of this property is that there was a substantial Board of Trustees 7 February 26, 2003 amount of family litigation. Barbara Diachun, who is our grantor, one of our grantors, is here tonight to address that. This right-of-way existed certainly, I think her testimony will be for 40 years. It hasn't changed. It exists. It's narrowed by virtue of some overgrowth but it has existed. I have for the Board a 1977 aerial photograph, dated April of 1977 because I recall at our last meeting there was some issue as to whether or not this right-of-way existed. The Board can review this, and anyone else who wants to, and you will find, in your deliberations, that the right-of-way is depicted very clearly on this particular photo. 1 would offer that up at this point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. HARVEY ARNOFF: The history was that there was litigation ongoing, and before they settled the litigation, they came to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval of an application. The Zoning Board of Appeals, according to Ms. Diachun, sent them back to court, to say you've got to have a description of what the right-of-way is going to be. It was ultimately determined in that litigation that this was the right-of-way and the access to the property. The Zoning Board of Appeals gave 280A approval and I think you should have a copy of that Zoning Board of Appeals decision and if you don't, I have one for you. Do you have it in your file? It's a decision dated January 18, 2001. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do, thank you. HARVEY ARNOFF: Having said that, I would call the Board's attention to the application, which was very similar, that you approved for Lisa Edson, on Main Bayview Rd., which dealt with a pervious, not an impervious road, in the wetlands, and the widening of that to establish 280A approval. The Board has already established a precedent for approving this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is a difference. HARVEY ARNOFF: Well every piece is different. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see where it's a precedent. HARVEY ARNOFF: Reasonable people would disagree. But having said that, it is our position that this particular application should be granted. There is no logical reason to deny it. Now let me just add additional components. We could go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and say, we would like to leave the road as it is and build the property. Give us a variance to leave it the way it is. That's a possibility. If we're faced with that, we could do that. But the Board's request, and I believe, by the way, my client would jump at the opportunity to embrace your request, and the last sentence, the Board would like the right-of-way somewhere else, so would we. But, we can't make it happen. We don't own the contiguous parcels. We have no relationship with the contiguous parcels and inquiries have been made and we are told that no one is inclined to sell us or to make any changes. I wanted to address that because I know that was the concern of this Board the last time we were here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Only because we would like to see if all options... Board of Trustees 8 February 26, 2003 HARVEY ARNOFF: And I for one, and I know my client joins in this, would love to be able to do that. But ultimately, and I don't know what, and maybe the Board...I think the Board would be in a better position to request of the Planning Board, what their opinion would be if that is what this Board wishes to do. But to request that we get that from the Planning Board I think is a request that they are not going to respond to because we have nothing pending in front of them. I don't know whether this Board would be inclined to make the request directly of the Planning Board. If they're asking for information about property surrounding an application that's not my client's property, perhaps the Planning Board would be more apt, in a more efficient fashion to reply to you rather than to myself. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone have any problem with that? HARVEY ARNOFF: So if that's a concern and I'm not so sure it's an appropriate concern, but if it is a concern, I don't know what that ultimately has with the ultimate decision making process, one way or another. We're not looking to change anything. We want the surface to remain the same. All we want to do is widen it to comply with the Zoning Board's direction. I don't want to be faced with a condemnation situation where we can't do anything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we suggested that. I think we're just trying to get all the information. HARVEY ARNOFF: I certainly am not looking to prevent that but I think that certainly this Board would be in a better position to obtain that information than we would. Other than that, 1 think 1 addressed the last time all the positions my client has in this regard and I don't want to bore this Board with my repeating it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? HARVEY ARNOFF: I believe Ms. Diachun is here. BARBARA DIACHUN: I'm Barbara Diachun and my mother Rose Diachun sold this property to Jeff Hallock last year and I am very familiar with this property. It was owned by father Leo Diachun and my grandmother for over 40 years and also we lived at one time on Peconic Bay Blvd. at the house right west of this right-of-way. This right-of-way always was where it is along Brushes Creek. I know that from my own knowledge plus from what different relatives have said. It always was there and we never moved it or changed it. We just did a little bit of work on it to repair pot holes and to cut back branches. We did go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get 280A approval. They wanted us to get a meets and bounds description establishing it. We then went to the Supreme Court of the State of New York and the Court established the right-of-way, where it is along Brushes Creek, because it was proven to them that's where it had always existed. So then we went back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and go the 280A approval and the right-of-way was always where it is along Brushes Creek. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else? Board of Trustees 9 February 26, 2003 MATTHEW ATKINSON: I'm representing members of the community who are opposing the placement of this road. In addition to the need to establish the potential usage of this road, because in fact it does serve about nearly 30 acres of undeveloped property, and once it becomes established, if there are any other houses developed, which there certainly may be, they will tend to want to use the same road and as they go in for approval from the ZBA, the road will be looked at over and over again. So, I think it's a completely legitimate request on the part of the Board. It's also highlighted by the fact that the ZBA, when they authorized this road as acCess for the lot in question, they authorized this road all the way up to property shown as Ronald Diachun's property and all the way down to Peconic Bay Blvd. serving this entire parcel. Why they granted authorization to develop this road, or indeed required it, north and south of what's now Mr. Hallock's property is completely unclear, but clearly by a request of the Diachun family at the time to rationalize this whole property for future development. In regards to the applicability of the moratorium, the moratorium prohibits any new residences or structures on vacant land. I believe that this road is part in parcel of a residence and is a structure. Structure is not defined specifically in the Town wetlands law but if you look at operations, it first talks about the placement of fill, the removal of fill, and then the construction of any other things like piers, houses, bulkhead, docks, or other structures, and clearly a road would be another structure if you ran it through a wetland. Likewise, it would be a structure if you ran it through the buffer zone of a wetland. So, what we are looking at here is a structure, which is part of a residential development, which is presently vacant, and I believe it does fall under the moratorium. I don't have the survey in front of me but I can get it. I looked at another survey of this property that showed the conditions as is and it does show a traveled track here within the right-of-way where they are seeking to develop into a permanent road. They also show two other tracks. One that wanders through the middle of the property and one that wanders through the east end of the property. Clearly these are more or less farm roads operated by a family and their trucks are there are more than one. To say that Mr. Hallock is unable to relocate this road is perhaps true. On the other hand, the property to the north of his, that would be land-locked if this road did not go through, is also Eleanor Diachun, who owns the property to the south of this. So, her interests and Mr. Hallocks interests are directly alive. If she ever wants to get to her property to the north, this road has to go through, if she ever wishes to develop it, or she has to find another route to get there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? MATTHEW ATKINSON: I had just one final comment, I'm sorry. When they say that they could just try and use the road as is, without further improvements, this goes back to the structure problem. They need to run utilities as part of their application. Whether they are underground utilities Board of Trustees 10 February 26, 2003 or over the ground utilities, they are going to be running utilities along this area and that will also require this Boards approval. Thank you. RONALD DIACHUN: I have the last lot on the property. The only way I can get to my lot is through the original right-of-way. Otherwise I'm land- locked. You can see that on the map. Unless I go to North Oakwood Dr., which I own Property there, and build another bridge. Thank you. HARVEY ARNOFF: Mr. Krupski and members of the Board, I just want to address two things. One, we're not looking to establish a road. I don't know where anybody gets that. We have a right-of-way. We're looking to keep the right-of-way and only make it in conformity with the Zoning Board of Appeals approval. When counsel stood up and said "once this is established", it is established. We're not looking to establish anything that's not already there. Finally, and I think this Board is familiar with the fact, I don't know of any other attorney other than Mr. Angell, who has dwelled as long as I have over the past four years on the definition of what is a structure. There is a 38' high sculpture in this town that has been the subject of what is a structure. I can tell this Board that there is no way under any stretch of any definition that I have been able to secure under any applicable zoning, Websters, or any definitive sources that a road would be a structure. It is not a structure. Sure, if we build an "L", or if we built some elevated thing, perhaps then. This is not a structure and I don't want this Board to try to confuse...I don't want to muddy the issues with that. We're not looking to create any structures in any wetlands. The house is built solely and completely outside the necessary jurisdictional limit of the wetlands and the wetlands moratorium. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I only have one comment and the Board can make any comments. It's our responsibility as a Board to protect the resources of the Town, and in this case, the adjacent wetland areas. So, if we don't explore every alternative, and a lot of times the applicant isn't aware of alternatives, as far as moving the right-of-way and such and such, and you've given us more information about that, which we've asked for. The reason we want to know how many lots could be built there is because we want to know ultimately what is the other Town agencies going to require as far as the final size of the driveway. When you mentioned the Edson application, there have been others also, long driveways adjacent to wetlands, freshwater and saltwater. In the two cases I can think of, I think the Board made some pretty good decisions. We have had similar situations where it's possible to have access near the wetlands and not impact the wetlands. HARVEY ARNOFF: We are prepared to do anything that this Board directs us to do within the confines of what we have, by way of deed or other grant. I think I can do more than to say that if the Board directs us to do certain things, we're prepared to do them in accordance with what is reasonable. Board of Trustees February 26, 2003 11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we just want to make sure we don't miss something and if we seem to be slow, we're actually trying to be deliberate and to not miss something. HARVEY ARNOFF: I'm not looking to rush the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a little more complicated than your normal application for someone to put a deck on the side of their house. HARVEY ARNOFF: Absolutely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It deserves the time to be looked at. HARVEY ARNOFF: I understand what the Board is doing as far as the build ability and whatever of the contiguous parcels. It's just that I think that I hope you don't feel that I'm trying to pass the buck but I really think under the circumstances, I think you're in a better position than I am. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No problem with making that request. MATTHEW ATKINSON: I just wanted to clarify the point about the applicability of the moratorium. That's only one argument. The road is also a critical part of the development of the house. You can't have a house without the road any more than you can have it without the driveway or the utilities running to it. As such, it is a residential development that is before the Board. Secondly, I would like to just emphasize that this isn't just any wetlands. This is a critical environmental area and the courts have long given our Boards greater latitude in their scrutiny of these areas and as a final matter, Mr. Hallock is a sophisticated builder in this area. He has built part of my house, in fact, and did a very good job. He enters into this land, and this property, knowing full well what the regulations are, knowing that this is subject to this Board's approval and looking at the ZBA approval, it says this is subject to this Board's approval. To the extend that there is a hardship, he entered into it knowingly and if the Board doesn't choose to approve the road in the other place, I believe that they can solve the problem but if they can't, it's his own hardship and his own speculation. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comments? I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This Board will find out from the Planning Board about road specifications and whatnot. Ultimately, if this is determined...and now as I said before, the Town Attorney has reserved the right to review this under the moratorium. So there are two scenarios. One, it's not. In which case, we proceed with the information we have. Two, it is, in which case you have to wait, but even if it is under the moratorium, we urge everyone who has a project that falls under the moratorium, to do all their homework. Don't wait for the moratorium to end to start up again. HARVEY ARNOFF: I'm going to assume, albeit that's a poor choice of words, that this is not subject to the moratorium. I would just ask the Board if I could secure a copy of any response that you may get from the Board of Trustees 12 February 26, 2003 Planning Board so I can keep some kind of a timetable on this. That's the only thing I would ask. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. MATTHEW ATKINSON: I have asked repeatedly, but I just feel like I better make the statement again, but if your envisioning this road along this entire length, all the way from Peconic Bay Blvd., the survey ought to show that and it ought to show where the wetlands are in relation to the road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't want. to get into that next step of physically defining the right-of-way in the field and then physically delineating the proposed improvements to the right-of-way in the field. If we come to that step saying "yes, the right-of-way is going to be here, the driveway is going to be here" and it's not covered under the moratorium, then the next step is to say that we want to see it staked out exactly where the right-of-way is and where the improvements are going to be in the field. Drainage and whatnot is going to be addressed at that stage. That's the next step, to see it physically in the field. HARVEY ARNOFF: I have a survey, I'm not sure that you have it, and I think it's the only copy that we have, which really does delineate the survey, that 50' wide strip, if you would like that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have that, thank you. What Matt had just mentioned, it's determined that the right-of-way is 100% going to be here, and its going to be "X" amount of feet wide, than that is going to be staked in the field so we can review it in the field, then we can look at it for further considerations, at that point. HARVEY ARNOFF: That's fine. I agree. If you recall, we were.., the only, and I hate to use the word improvements, but the only change that we were seeking to what exists today was going to be on the landward side of what exists there. There was going to be no change on the creek-side at all. So we were not disturbing that at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. B. Laing Associates, Inc. on behalf of INGER BOYAJIAN requests a Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permit to renovate the house, deck, and bulkhead within the existing footprint. Located: 2400 Bay Ave., East Marion, SCTM#31-16-8 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who wishes to comment on this application? BRIAN VILLANTI: Good evening. We met in the field a couple of times and I talked to Jim the other day and I kind of think we had a meeting of the minds in regards to this. It was just a little bit questionable about where that bulkhead should actually be. Mr. Bonchi here form B. Laing Associates, he just had a drawing, and I would like to show it to you. MIKE BONCHI: For the record, I am the President of B. Laing Associates. As I understand the status of the agreement yourself and Mr. Villanti have been talking about is to basically bring the bulkhead, or the edge of the Board of Trustees February 26, 2003 13 deck, as we propose the edge of the fill, to the northern end of the ramp, the boat ramp that is adjacent on Bay Ave. Additionally, the jetty that occurs to the west side of the property would be made into a Iow-profile jetty as opposed to what it is now. The only think I just wanted to show the Board was a drawing that I came up with and it's just in regard to (inaudible) the engineering principles relating to the boat ramp. In the aerial photograph from 1993 that we provided, we have an indication of the northern end of the boat ramp and the southern edge of the deck. Actually, the southern edge of the deck was extended 3'-4' beyond the northern end of the boat ramp at that time in 1993. Right now what you're proposing is to bring that southern edge of the deck right to the northern edge. I just have a concern that over time, particularly if we take down the jetty, which, if you take the left hand column as you're looking at it and go from the top to the bottom, what's going to happen is we're going to lose some sand on the beach in the front, some material on the front beach. Then, there's going to be nothing. So, what I'm asking is for this Board to consider one last time the concept of some kind of overlap with that boat ramp joint. Even it's just a foot and a half. Enough to prevent that from being an absolute corner, and also provide for any fill materials that goes in behind the bulkhead would then be the structural material that would hold the boat ramp up, which is where the boat ramp wants to rest right now. These are some photographs from October 'into November of this year. We went there in October and the street was fine but by the time I went back in November, December, you'll notice that this is the corner right here, and also in this one you'll see how the material has been excavated out behind. The waves are coming in and reflecting around it. What I'm afraid of by having an even joint like this is that you'll wind up eventually in the same circumstance. You'll get material behind and there is nothing to hold material in there once the water gets behind the bulkhead that will run up along Bay Ave. However, if you provide a little bit of overlap, even a foot and a half, what you do is you prevent that from being just a butted joint. In other words, you have an overlap on the joint, and then, I prefer a full 3'. The more material you have against that boat ramp the better. But even a foot and a half I think will improve that situation beyond what I think is going to happen now, particularly if you're going to be cutting the jetty down. That's going to lose some material from that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For some reason, some jetties were built really tall, for no reason, because they couldn't possibly trap sand at that height. MIKE BONCHI: That's true. TRUSTEE KRUPKSI: Right now, we didn't think the jetty functioning that well as it is, to replace that with a functioning, Iow-profile jetty should really stabilize, and I'm not talking about against the overlap here, I'm just commenting on the jetty, so you really should, from what you provided with us on the aerial, you really should provide some pretty substantial protection for this property. Board of Trustees 14 February 26, 2003 MIKE BONCHI: If the jetty remains in place, the beach will remain in place, and it's functional because you can see the drift is all accumulating on the east side of all the jetties that are in the area. To the east side, there is always more sand along this particular shoreline as shown in this photograph. But I was concerned with was two things. Number one was, and it sounds like we're going to go with keeping the jetty, because there was some discussion about removing it, with my client, but the idea of a Iow-profile jetty sounds great. The second items was just some kind of an overlap on the north edge of the boat ramp because I own property here in the Town too and I'm a taxpayer and I can see the Town Highway Dept. out here from now, basically breaking up this ramp and doing something to replace or repair this ramp because it's going to break to the west. As of right now, if you're going to look at it, the structures go down and they are actually breaking to the south. They have already broken down to the south and settled 5" or 6" on the southern end as material has come up underneath and there is nothing to support them. Just for your consideration as one final item, otherwise I think we're in agreement. BRIAN VILLANTI: One other thing, it's almost 4' at this point now. We're not going the full 4'. It would be landward of where the remains were in 1993. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How does the Board feel on that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What would be the finished length of the new jetty? TRUSTEE KING: It would remain the same. BRIAN VILLANTI: It would be exactly what you have only you're cutting it down to Iow-profile, which is what 18" today? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I didn't find it functional that far out. It was non- functional. There was no difference in grade on either side. Just all Iow- profile. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We saying Iow-profile but you're going to have to show us a scaled drawing and cross-section showing...the landward of the jetty is going to start where? MIKE BONCHI: As of right now, it starts several feet out from where the old deck was. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you make it match this gabion...you wouldn't leave a hole in this? MIKE BONCHI: No, we would want to have it continuous. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so you're going to have to come up with a sketch to show that but also an elevation no higher than 2' above grade. BRIAN VILLANTI: I think it's roughly now 42" and we're actually cutting it in half. TRUSTEE KING: You're showing this as gabions, not a bulkhead. Is that you're intention. BRIAN VILLANTI: No, we had spoke about that and you said either we build gabions (inaudible). He made that drawing on his own. I didn't even have any knowledge of that. It's going to be timber like it was in 1993. I Board of Trustees February 26, 2003 15 would prefer to put fill because if you look at the house to the east, what I would be doing is actually duplicating what they have there and they don't have gabions. I spoke to Costello regarding that and he believes that it's better not to have the gabions because then I don't have those voids. TRUSTEE KING: We need a plan showing what's going to be there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about armoring it with stone? MIKE BONCHI: Well the plans that you have before you right now are the gabions. BRIAN VILLANTI: Everything would remain the same except you wouldn't have the gabions. You would just have fill in lieu of that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then you might have to armor that with stone. The State recommends armoring. PAT MOORE: I don't think you want to change from what you have with the DEC because otherwise you have to go back to the DEC and I think you're kind of rushed to get started. I would suggested that we take what is being submitted and if you later want to change it... TRUSTEE KING: Well this isn't a bulkhead, it's a gabion. MIKE BONCHI: This is the way it was proposed. It was proposed with gabions behind a bulkhead so that the two would be a structure. In other words, it's going to be a bulkhead...the fill would be containing gabions behind it. That was the original diagram. That is what was approved in 1996. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And this is what the DEC approved? MIKE BONCHI: Yes. My thought was this. What happened the last time was in 1992, 1993, the storm came in and ripped the bulkhead out. If you take the bulkhead and tie it to a gabion behind it, with all the stone and all the gabion behind it, that bulkhead is not going to go anywhere, because the stone and the gabion tied to the bulkhead will weight that whole thing down. TRUSTEE KING: So there's going to be a bulkhead in front of it. MIKE BONCHI: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Then we should see that on a drawing. MIKE BONCHI: That is on the original drawing. I just gave this for the purpose of illustration with the overlap. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a problem with approving it subject to a new drawing? TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that's what we need. We need to see the cross- section of the bulkhead. The final elevation of the bulkhead is very important. The elevation of the gabion to the bulkhead. MIKE BONCHI: The jetty coming in and going out and matching into that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The elevation of that, and obviously the bulkhead is going to be higher than the jetty. So show that height difference, and the height of the final jetty, the end of the jetty. Board of Trustees February 26, 2003 16 MIKE BONCHI: Okay, very good. And the amount of overlap, I think, is something that should be specified in your approval so that way we know exactly where to put it. TRUSTEE KING: In that corner, where that's all eroded, you're going to fill that? MIKE BONCHI: Actually it's already been filled back with gravel but to the extent that it's gone by the time we get there we'll fill. BRIAN VILLANTI: I planted black-top in that area. MIKE BONCHI: It's sort of a very make-shift bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about drywells to run their roof run-off into. It will get some re-charge and it won't be just washed over into that area. MIKE BONCHI: We may wind up with a single drywell on both sides only because we're going to wrap the gabion baskets around and it will take up some space. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, and then you'll get your recharge and you'll be eliminating the erosion on your property. Is there any other comment on this application? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN: I'm here on behalf of the Mandero family whose property wraps around the applicant's property. Frankly I'm rather confused. Last month I made a direct statement to the Board and to the applicant. One of my clients biggest concerns is the jetty. I was told at that time there was absolutely nothing that was going to be done with the jetty and now it seems as if there's a rather extensive rebuilding of the jetty and my clients strongly object to that and I don't believe it's a part of the application before this Board. I don't think there was anything in the application that indicated that anything was ever going to be done with the jetty. The second main issue that my clients have is the height of the building when it's finished. There was discussion last month that they had hoped to not increase the height by more than 18" and that was acceptable to my clients but I haven't heard anything this evening about the height of the building. So, those are our two things. We strongly object to anything being done with the timber jetty. My clients are very concerned as to what impact rebuilding that jetty will have on their beach, which is located just to the east of that timber jetty, which basically now, I believe, from what I've been told, is mostly non-functioning. Their concerned as to what impact that will have on their beach and again, they strongly oppose any work being done on that and I don't believe it is part of the application before this Board at this time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You said your clients are to the east of them? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN: No. My clients' property wraps around the subject property on the north and on the west side of the subject property. MIKE BONCHI: They own the beach to the west. Which is why they are concerned about the jetty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are they the people that have the fences into the water?. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN: No, that's further down. Board of Trustees February 26, 2003 17 BRIAN VILLANTI: That chain link fence is right adjacent to the property in subject. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just trying to figure out whose going to be affected here. PAT MOORE: If I could make a suggestion, I know they are pretty anxious to get going particularly with the DEC permit that is running and his ability to stabilize the property, may I suggest that we get the permit for what is already before you that you would be prepared to act on and I don't think that there is any disagreement with the neighbor and then we can come back and you can amend the permit with the jetty with whatever the ultimate decision is with respect to the jetty. Would that be acceptable? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN: As long as the building height is... PAT MOORE: Yeah, we can put on the record that we've confirmed with the state that the construction, the renovation of the house can remain at approximately the same level, 18", the only difference in the foundation, and that is what Mr. Villanti, you intend to build, right? BRIAN VILLANTI: Yeah, I don't want to be held down to 18". I could just go with the flood zone that the house is in, and that's AE, and that requires no higher than a 10' elevation. The first floor elevation today stands at 7 ¼'. It probably will be at 18" it could be 20". But, what I would like to agree on is that it will not exceed the flood zone that it's in now. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN: I would like a maximum placed on the amount of the increase in the total height of the house. Whether it be 18" or 24", I don't think makes a lot of difference to me but I don't want to just leave it open-ended as to tie it into something else that I'm not aware of what that's going to be in the overall raising of the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This isn't normally in our review, but somebody must know. If you want to go with 24"... (inaudible) PAT MOORE: So, we'll come back with respect to the groin for next month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, we're ready to move on this? MIKE BONCHI: With regard to the bulkhead, and then set aside the jetty for consideration next month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE KING: I'd like to see a set of plans to scale showing the bulkhead, showing the gabions, showing everything in detail. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Showing the elevations. MIKE BONCHI: Yes, that would be a subject to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the permit doesn't get released until those items are provided. MIKE BONCHI: Yes, understood. But that will give us guidance as to how to prepare those drawing too, since they're slightly different from what was approved. PAT MOORE: We have an existing jetty that we could leave there the way it is, and what you're suggesting is we cut it down to Iow-profile, so Board of Trustees February 26, 2003 18 inkind/inplace, I think our Code allows you to do repairs inkind/inplace. What you're suggesting is, to mitigate, is to reduce the height of the jetty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which is normal for jetty reconstruction in the bay. PAT MOORE: Exactly. That was, I guess, what you were hoping to do with condition it as part of this permit but they don't want to see...they want to discuss the jetty independently, which is fine with us. We'll come back and discuss the jetty independently and then we can amend this permit as a condition. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what we're going to do is we're going to add that on as a condition of the permit that any work on the jetty is going to have to come under the review of the Board, which means you can't replace it inkind/inplace. Any replacement is going to have to be done at a Iow-profile. PAT MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You still have to come in for the amendment but I just want to lock it in that you can't put it back in the same height. PAT MOORE: Okay. Do you want us to come in, in the meantime, with a drawing for the next...are we going to be able to get it onto the next Board meeting? What's your timeline? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Tomorrow is the deadline. PAT MOORE: No, okay probably two months from now we'll be back. That's fine. MIKE BONCHI: But in the meantime, if we could go forward with the house and the bulkhead conditioned on a set of drawings to the specifications provided by the Board. TRUSTEE KING: Do we have any other comments? ~'11 make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application based on a scaled drawing showing the bulkhead, the gabions, and I'd like to see a measurement on the overlap of, I think 18" would be appropriate from the face of the bulkhead, on that overlap. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And also the drywells, and conditioned that no work can be done on the jetty unless the applicant or the owner comes before the Board with a plan for a Iow-profile jetty. BRIAN VILLANTI: That would be considered an amendment to this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, and that's also a condition on that. No work can be done on it unless they come back to us. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN: Are we also going to put that 24" height restriction on the increase in the height of this structure. MIKE BONCHI: That's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The first story finished floor height elevation of the structure shall not increase greater than 24" from the present elevation. MIKE BONCHI: Very good. That will be plenty. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees February 26, 2003 19 Diane Herold, Architect on behalf of J. PARKER WICKHAM requests a Wetland Permit to raise the existing dwelling and attached decks to required FEMA elevation (3'+/-), new pile foundation and rebuild decks as necessary. Located: 710 Park Ave. Extension, Mattituck. SCTM#123-8- 28.5 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak? DIANE HEROLD: I know this Board is very familiar with Marratooka Point and this is another house that we want to put up on pilings and raise to the FEMA elevation. I'm sure you're pretty familiar with what we're doing. I did want to make a clarification. This morning I gave you a letter from the DEC and I want to clarify. They have no objection but they did ask for the current tidal wetland boundary on the plan. On Monday I had Glenn Just from J.M.O. Consulting go look at the property and flag it for me. Yesterday he was nice enough to go speak to Chris at the DEC. The flagging that they want is actually on the south side, on the bay front. It is not on the north side. I just wanted to clarify that with this Board. We do have 54' from the apparent high water to the existing location of the house. I just wanted to read that into the record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In other words, a 1970 survey is wishful thinking. DIANE HEROLD: Yes, it's quite old. Mr. VanTuyl is no longer with us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Although you said 54' now? DIANE HEROLD: It's 54' yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's about 70' now. DIANE HEROLD: Actually this piece of property has a pretty good beach front compared to a lot of them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this application? Any Board comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of FREDERICK J. & JOAN V. FROHNE requests a Wetland Permit for alterations to the existing residence, including proposed new stone terrace addition @ grade, decorative stone landscape wall and planters. Located: 4700 Paradise Point Rd., Southold. SCTM#81-3-4 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application? GARRETT STRANG: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Basically what we have here is a piece of property, which I'm sure you're aware has improved presently with a dwelling, stone terrace at grade, some wood walkways, stairs to the beach, and a cabana that's presently existing. The proposed improvements are essentially a roofed over but unenclosed portico area over the existing terrace to act as a sun shade. An addition of Board of Trustees February 26, 2003 2O a stone terrace area, most of which is actually in excess of 100' from the high-water mark, and a landscaping wall just behind the top of the bank with some shrubs behind and some landscaping in front, and the reason for this is to act as a barrier from their young grandchildren from inadvertently going over the edge of the bank and lastly, we want the Board to acknowledge that we're looking to make some necessary inkind and inplace repairs to the walkways, the stairs, the platform, and the cabana. There will be no increase in size or the location of any of those items. If there are any questions the Board may have, I'll address them at this time. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments on this application? Does the Board have any comments? Actually I have one question about the cabana. Did it have a roof? I can't recall. GARRETT STRANG: The cabana is at the bottom of the steps just behind the bulkhead. There is a structure there that functions as a cabana. It has a roof deck on it presently and it's in serious need of repairs. It's been there for many years. It's part of the C.O. for the building when my client bought it. The repairs are inplace/inkind. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think we would stipulate that the cabana could be raised no higher than it currently sits. GARRETT STRANG: There is no intention to raise it at all. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have no other comments. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that the cabana cannot be increased in height, as it's rebuilt. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES David Corwin on behalf of HELEN HANSEN requests a Wetland Permit to remove 100 If. of existing timber bulkhead, install in same location 100 If. of vinyl sheet bulkhead, and recover approx. 15 cy. of lost fill. Located: 235 Sailors Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#111-14-6&10 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against the application? I didn't have a problem with it because it's basically inkind/inplace. They're just repairing it. I just had a question about them using CCA. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They're using vinyl DICKERSON: Where did I see CCA? Maybe it was something TRUSTEE else. TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you just want to condition a non-turf buffer? DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that there be a 15' non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees February 26, 2003 10. 21 Peconic Building Solutions, Inc. on behalf of JEFF GREEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a garage near existing dwelling. Located: 495 Williamsburg Rd., Southold. SCTM#78-5-10 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? If not, any Board comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we wanted drywells and gutters. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If there is no other comment, 1'11 make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that there be no plumbing in the garage as well as having drywells and gutters installed, and hay bales on the south side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The drywells, gutters and hay bales can be put on the plan before they get the permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 11. Richard Saetta on behalf of ELAINE NESIN requests a Wetland Permit for a new modular home. Located: 875 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-7.4&28.22 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? RICHARD SAETTA: I have the return receipt requests. I realize the drywells for the rain run-off have to be added to the survey. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this a new modular home? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a little house on the property now. RICHARD SAETTA: Yeah, it's a garage that has a bathroom and it was used to service the dock area. There's an existing septic and water service there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a note from the neighbor here. Please have the Board of Health check out the code requirements. I'm not sure what this says. RICHARD SAETTA: Well this is going to the Board of Health. We have to apply to change the septic system. I already saw Charlie Brigham on that. There will be a Board of Health permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern is that the septic system is not near the wetlands. The Board of Health is concerned that their septic is not next to the neighbor's well. RICHARD SAETTA: I don't know if there is a well on the neighbor's property. There's water service there. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Was there ever any permits issued for this septic system that is there now? RICHARD SAETTA: Yes, we have a Board of Health reference number there right on top of the survey. It's says right here Reference #850'1156 existing septic system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it possible to tuck that septic closer to the road away from the canal? Board of Trustees 22 February 26, 2003 RICHARD SAETTA: It is but you realize that there are the existing pools, so what we would do, is yes, we can go closer to the road, sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to see that as much as possible. We'll put that as a condition of the permit. RICHARD SAETTA: I think we can go 10' from the property line. We can do that without a problem. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with drywells and gutters, and we would like to see the septic system moved closer to the road, as close as you can get it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 12. Agnieszka Drozdowska on behalf of RONALD & MARIA SMITH requests a Wetland Permit to expand the house 1' behind the existing footprint of existing deck on creek side. Attached heated breezeway with two-car garage. Addition of second floor above existing footprint and enclose the existing gazebo. Located: 2105 Westview Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#107-7-2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? RONALD SMITH: Good evening. My wife and I put in this application to expand and modernize our home to make it more suitable for future needs. We engaged Architechnologies to draw up the plans for this. I have the affidavits from the neighbors. If you have any questions regarding this, our architect Frank Notaro is present and can answer them for you. I have a set of reduced plans if that would be of some help. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I couldn't see. Was it staked? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a foot beyond the deck. RONALD SMITH: It's a foot in back of the existing deck. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The deck is going to disappear. Did you see the plans? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. FRANK NOTARO: We have a larger drawing also that might clarify this. (unintelligible) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you say you had letters from the neighbors? FRANK NOTARO: We have the signed affidavit that we noticed them. (unintelligible) TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there any objection? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you get the signed receipts? This just showed that you mailed it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They should have drywells and gutters. FRANK NOTARO: The neighbors don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well we don't know that they received these, right? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We shouldn't act on it unless we have that. Board of Trustees February 26, 2003 23 FRANK NOTARO: I know that they twhere sent out certified mail. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: On the 24 , which was Monday and today is Wednesday. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't act on it then if they weren't property noticed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We just want to be sure that everyone received it. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 13. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of OKI-DO LTD. requests a Wetland Permit to clean up debris and demolish tin building, retain structure, remove wood building on north side of property, and retain concrete building board. Located: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM#38-7- 7.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? PAT MOORE: This is all part of the process of the unsafe structures that was started by the Town Board a number of months ago. We started off with fencing the property and in order to remove the...the directive of the Town was to remove or bring down unsafe structures but unfortunately you need a permit to do it. So, we're here before you for a permit to remove the tin building. We're going to remove the outside walls, take down the structural beams and leave them there for the reuse of the building, or future reuse of the building. The larger building, I believe it's a brick building, that's just going to be secured and there was the old garage that was probably 300' from any wetlands and that was already removed. It's shown here, because you wanted to know what was being removed and what wasn't and I didn't realize it had already been removed. But, that wouldn't have been in your jurisdiction anyway. That's about it. Its just part of the process for the reuse of this property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And what is that? PAT MOORE: Well it's an M2 zoning so there is, in the plans right now, it hasn't been formally submitted, we've met with the Planning staff just to get some input, but they want to build a spa/motel and another permitted use here is a restaurant. So, if you like, I have the preliminary plans, but it's very rough because it hasn't been reviewed by the Town. I can share it with you. We've shared it with anybody who wants to take a look at it. Are you interested? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well just because our input might save you a month later on. PAT MOORE: That's fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did the CAC have any comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC's only concern was with the tanks, soil types and other environmental hazards. I think they're talking about any possible existing... Board of Trustees 24 February 26, 2003 PAT MOORE: (inaudible) As you know this is an M2 zoned property. The existing building here would be the spa/hotel. The part of this building, the metal building, is coming down but the foundation is still in tact, and that would be the restaurant. Here are the motel units. The person who is developing this is a Japanese woman who is very much is into (inaudible) principles so it has to have a lot of water, a lot of open space, and a lot of greenery, and as long as she continues to be the person developing this, that's her plan. The marina, to my knowledge, she doesn't really have any plans for the commercial use of this marina. It would be for the use within this spa. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is an appropriate place for a marina. I think if she's going to develop it, I think she wants to think about...this is all natural shoreline...we'll I don't want to call it a natural shoreline because it was man-made. PAT MOORE: Yes, it is a dredged canal. It doesn't have hard structures, let's put it that way. To my knowledge there is no bulkheading around it. I think the bulkheading right now is just here. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Didn't you give them a permit to dredge that? Where are they dredging? PAT MOORE: Actually the dredging was initiated by Cleaves Point, mostly because they wanted to get some of the material, and that worked out for them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make sure their permits are in place because we have no objection to them using this. But just to make sure because then someone says "oh, yeah, they have their permits" and then they don't. PAT MOORE: What permits? TRUSTE KRUPSKI: For the maintenance dredging. PAT MOORE: Oh, Larry Tuthill was the one who came in and you guys gave it to him fairly recently, in the last four or five months. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One thing we would like to see instead of a bulkhead here though is a revetment similar to what Cleaves Point has. If you notice, Cleaves Point has a beach in front of it. We believe one of the reasons is because they have a revetment and not a hard structure. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They actually might want to put the dredged spoil right here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if this has to be dredged again or not, and if they're going to develop this, they might want to consider a Iow-sill bulkhead where they can plant wetland behind it. PAT MOORE: Yes, that would be nice and natural looking. (inaudible) I welcome your comments. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? JIM TONESMEYER: I'm from Cleaves Point and I just have a couple of questions. I heard you referring to the bulkhead and possibly putting a revetment in. Is the bulkhead being addressed as part of this permit? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't believe so. Board of Trustees February 26, 2003 25 JIM TONESMEYER: Should something be done with it? It's been disintegrating for several years and it's a problem as far as navigation is concerned with pieces of wood floating off of it, and l'm also concerned about erosion because it's in such bad shape right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good question. PAT MOORE: I'll pass it on to the owner. I think this is such an enormous project and the number of permits that we're ultimately going to have to get, I think it's one bite at a time. JIM TONESMEYER: Is there any way that the Trustees can ask the owner to do something as part of granting this permit? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As part of a clean-up maybe. We didn't look at this month, but we've seen it a lot recently. We've been there numerous times and I know it's been falling apart for a long time. JIM TONESMEYER: We don't want to let this sit until she gets...it could take years to get all of these permits. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what do, we're going to require on this permit that the loose pieces of the bulkhead should be removed at the time the building are taken down. PAT MOORE: But we're not going to start taking out what is there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, but anything that is not secured should be either removed or re-attached, so that it's secure. PAT MOORE: I think that's kind of the job anyway. Your mission has been clean-up there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To get back to the bulkhead, Cleaves Point does have that retaining wall on the other side of the revetment, and we've always noticed a beach. It's cobbles but it's a beach at least. We feel that the same situation could exist there if it were in fact a softer structure, like a revetment. JIM TONESMEYER: Is there a time frame on this? PAT MOORE: She wants it in as of yesterday. JIM TONESMEYER: I tell you why I ask is because, yes she did put a fence along Shipyard Lane, but there is nothing along the waterside, so the property is not secured and the building is wide open. There is overhead door that's been open all winter. So really, anybody can still get into the property because it's wide open. PAT MOORE: To a certain extent but I think that the activity going on there...the problem in the past was people leaving boats and garbage there. JIM TONESMEYER: Well people were going in there and taking drugs and doing whatever else they do in there. PAT MOORE: Maybe you want to explain what you're job description is. JOHN HOCKER: I'm from Latham Sand and Gravel and have been contracted to do general clean-up of all the old boats and debris and collection of things that's already been completed. The dilapidated building on the north side has already been removed. The large tin building I've been contracted to remove along with the debris that's to the south side of Board of Trustees 26 February 26, 2003 that building. She has intentions of boarding up the windows on the main concrete building. That large concrete building, she originally talked about bringing it down but it has a very good chance of being reused and she needs to finalize her plans a little further. PAT MOORE: As far as time frame goes, the plans are right now...Young & Young is preparing the site plan. That, as soon as it's prepared, will be submitted to the Planning Board, that's the first step. There's probably going to be a need for going to the Zoning Board as well for, I believe, a special permit. So, those processes work somewhat in coordinated fashion, but it takes months to get. JIM TONESMEYER: Well our only concern is that we would like the building secured since the Town has declared it an unsafe structure. It shouldn't be allowed open the way it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's the timetable on that? JOHN HOCKER: Taking the building down? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. JOHN HOCKER: It might be by the summer. It won't be immediately. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's in the owner's best interest. JIM TONESMEYER: Can they secure it in the meantime before they take it down? PAT MOORE: Well they're working on the fencing. The weather stopped them from continuing the fence along the north and east side. The waterfront side is tough because you have the boat basin. That's always going to present a problem. Boarding the building, I think, is part of the...it's going to be done. JIM TONESMEYER: Well get the door closed and board it up or whatever to keep people out. JOHN HOCKER: Believe me, it's been closed many times. People who want to go in there will find a way to go in there. PAT MOORE: Certainly your support at the Board meeting to move this project along will help us to get this project done, and convince the Planning Board and Zoning Board to process us quickly. JIM TONESMEYER: And then we would just like to make it clear that we would like to see that building secured as much as you possibly can. PAT MOORE: We're working on it. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? BARBARA MACKENZIE: I own a home on Fire Rd. #7, which is the dirt road, the private road, on the backside of this particular area, and the fence that they have up now is very secure along Shipyard Lane. It goes in maybe 100' on the dirt road and it stops. So, all anybody has to do is walk down the dirt road and just walk right in there. It is quite open. My concern is, I don't know how long it's going to take them to do this work and are they going to start at 6:00 in the morning on weekends and you know, work until 9:00 at night. The last time somebody has something build around there, they did start around 5:30 in the morning and after I complained to the Police Department, they said, oh yes, they really Board of Trustees 27 February 26, 2003 shouldn't start until 8:00 am. So, I don't know what time these people are thinking about starting but you know, summer, and this is a resort type neighborhood, and we've been there for 20 years, so I have some concerns about that. The other concerns I have are about where they put their tennis court and their parking lot. I suppose this isn't the time to bring that up. That would be brought up at another time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a different Board also. Those are all good concerns. It's hard to get a good neighbor. BARBARA MACKENZIE: Yes it is, but I don't think it's an awful request that people start at 8:00 in the morning instead of 6:00 in the morning and work until 6:00 or 7:00 at night. JOHN HOCKER: If I could make a comment. The fence, the distance that it is under the contract with the fence guy who isn't here, he stopped because he needed clearing done and he couldn't continue by hand. I have since taken a machine and cleared a path for him and that's about the time it got really cold. The weather has been a problem. BARBARA MACKENZIE: They came on my property and took my hose and tried to use my water but it was turned off. I was a little annoyed about that. PAT MOORE: That's not him. BARBARA MACKENZIE: I just have some concerns about whose going to be doing it, what time frame is this going to be done, and I don't have too much confidence in what was done so far so I think we need to have it spelled out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Those are all good concerns. Thank you. Any other comment? PAT MOORE: We did talk in the hallway and I promised I would pass her concerns onto the owner and the contractor with the extent that I have contact with them. I'll keep it in the back of my mind. In particular, weekends.' BARBARA MACKENZIE: It's not a request that you're being kind to us, I think that it's something that we have a right to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well something like that should be worked out between neighbors really. BARBARA MACKENZIE: Well I can take it up with the Police Department. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good neighbors go both ways. Our Board wouldn't have any control over that. BARBARA MACKENZIE: Well then I'll just have to go through those channels again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application to demolish and secure all the buildings, and secure or remove any loose debris from the bulkhead, so it can't enter the Bay. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees February 26, 2003 28 14. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of LARRY SEVERINI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 975 sq.ft.+/- addition to the existing dwelling; a 256 sq.ft.+/- attached porch; a 187 sq.ft.+/- rear deck/patio addition to the existing rear deck/patio; and a 500 sq.ft.+/- detached garage. Located: 1795 Pipes Neck Rd., Greenport. SCTM#53- 1-14 POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST 15. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of LOIS T. ANDERSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new wood bulkhead in front of the existing wood bulkhead (within 18"). Construct (to replace existing) fiberglass sheathing bulkhead, 132'+/- long secured by deadmen 8" round at 8' intervals; and two (2) returns 5' long each, and to remove the existing pilings securing the existing wood bulkhead. Located: 2515 Calves Neck Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-4-45.5 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this application? MATT IVANS: I'm from Suffolk Environmental Consulting, and I just want to clarify something. Instead of two returns, we're just going to go with one of the eastern end, as per the request of the DFC, and just to note that we're not going to use any pilings. It's fiberglass sheathing, which is supposed to be strong enough to go without the pilings. I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd like to know if the DEC allowed you to go out in front of, the 18". MATT IVANS: Yes, it sounds like it. We got the notice of incomplete application, satisfied it, and so far it seems like they have no problem with that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's a letter for the record. It's from Katherine & Harry Bais. My wife and I vehemently object to appficant's request to construct a new wood bulkhead in front of her existing bulkhead within 18" seaward for the following reasons: 1) Undermining and weakening the foundations and stability of our bulkhead, which is adjacent to hers. 2) Both Mrs. Anderson's and our bulkheads are in excellent condition so why disturb what is working well and take a chance on certain ecological developments to Jockey Creek. 3) Her request to extend the proposed bulkhead 18" seaward is an unjustified encroachment on pubfic/county property and waters. We strongly object to that. It would set a bad precedent for others to follow. 4) There is currently a moratorium on building new bulkheads in our town. One may repair existing bulkheads not rebuild, and certainly not going out into our creek. This would be kicking out part of the moratorium. 5) We therefore expect to see a denial of her unreasonable thoughtless request, which again would set a negative precedent for other. I also would like to read into the record that Board of Trustees 29 February 26, 2003 the CAC recommends Approval of the application with the condition that the bulkhead is replaced in-place and a 25' vegetated buffer is established landward of the bulkhead with a swale at the edge of the buffer. Would anyone else like to speak on this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, what do think? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would say keep it in-place along with all the rest of the comments. Remove the existing and keep it in-place. MATT WANS: I'll probably have to get back to you. I have to talk to the client about it. And a buffer? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They recommend 25' but our normal buffer is 15' non-turf vegetated buffer. MATT WANS: I'm going to have to talk to the client and go from there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 16. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of DOUG ELY requests a Wetland Permit to construct 116' new batter-style bulkhead (including 2 - 8' long returns) with C-Loc vinyl sheathing seaward of existing bank, above the high-tide line. Located: 1250 Grand Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#107-1-10.4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for or against this application? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes, my name is John Costello and I am the agent for this application and I would ask the Board to Table this application. First of all, the Board recommended that the owner consider a small rock revetment and prune some of the existing trees. He's in favor of pruning the trees and he'll probably do the pruning of the trees. He understands that there is a possibility, if they did prune the trees, there would be a possible increase in the high marsh, that's out front. There's a vacant spot in the high marsh that may expand. He knows that the rock revetment and the small retaining wall that was proposed were about equal in price. He had a concern about possible debris and possible infestation by rats or whatever, and he wanted to research and ask a couple of people along the shoreline, including the Old Mill and whatnot, to what degree that had effect, before he made a decision to go either one way or another. I certainly understand it and I would like to try to Table this until he makes a decision to either go with it or without. He has legitimate concerns. TRUSTEE KING: John, tell him if he's in the area if he wants to come look at my rock retaining wall on my property he's more than welcome to. JOHN COSTELLO: Well I know, there is that and I know the one across there, I've seen rats. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have any rats. JOHN COSTELLO: We worked under the Old Mill and let me tell you, that is a possibility and it does happen. TRUSTEE KING: They have to have a food supply. Board of Trustees 30 February 26, 2003 JOHN COSTELLO: Absolutely. I know that the higher tides, that's where they get the debris in it and that's his concern. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If the applicant is looking for a restoration of the spartina, he might be able to call Cornell Cooperative down in Cedar Beach. JOHN COSTELLO: He would do that but there is a small barrier of high marsh past the spartina, and that would expand if he would let some more sunlight come in there because there is a small portion of un-vegetated land there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They're looking for spots to do projects. E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: And the construction would be above the high-tide line? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes it is, except at Spring tides. There is a little erosion but it's only above high water. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Table. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 17. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JOHN DILL requests a Wetland Permit to remove and dispose 273' of existing timber jetties. Construct 142' total of three (3) new jetties with C-Loc vinyl sheathing in- place of existing. Located: 484 Jackson St., New Suffolk. SCTM#117-10- 3.4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There has been a request to Table this application. JOHN COSTELLO: Again, I'm going to ask that this be Tabled for the simple reason the surveyor has not gotten to the site and at the last meeting, the Board agreed, with two neighbors that were concerned about the exact location of the three jetties, being close to the property line, and the piers that the inshore end of one, which is not being affected, is not on his property and the offshore is. But, that has to be verified by a surveyor and Peconic Surveyors just did not get there. So I can't submit the information this Board wanted. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Table this application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 18. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of VINCENT T£SE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and dispose 130' of existing timber jetties. Construct 130' total of three new jetties with C-Loc vinyl sheathing in-place of existing. Located: 800 Jackson St., New Suffolk. SCTM#117-10-5 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? JOHN COSTELLO: There are three Iow-profile jetties and we intend to take only the exposed offshore ends off, they are constructed of creosoted materials and locust posts, and reconstruct them exactly the same thing, using vinyl sheathing of the same length and same height and we're keeping them Iow-profile. There are very effective. Board of Trustees F~maw 26, 2003 TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE 31 DICKERSON: Is there any other comment? KRUPSKI: No comment on this. POLIWODA: Inkind/inplace and the same height. DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. KING: Seconded. ALL AYES DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 19. Docko, Inc. on behalf of HAY HARBOR CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge +/-3' in the diving area around the swimming dock. Dredged material will be used for upland fill purposes. Located: Bell Hill Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#3-1-3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 20. Docko, Inc. on behalf of LUCIUS L. FOWLER requests a Wetland Permit to relocate an existing 10'X 20' float with four new restraint piles and install a new 3'X 20' hinged ramp. Install seven new tie-off piles, all waterward of the apparent high-water line. Located: Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#9-3-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here for or against the application. They want to relocate it seaward. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I can't agree with this. This is a residential lot right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. They want to go out that much more. They have seven new pilings they want to put in. I have a problem with the tie- off piles. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't like the tie-off piles either because they monopolize the bottom. Once they're in, they're in, and it's a residential lot. If they need a tie-off pile, they can just throw an anchor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem with one tie off pile. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. One pile to accommodate the boat is fine. It's usually on the inshore side of their float. (talking, inaudible) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know what you're saying. Peggy is questioning the need to go out further too. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They're going out past the neighbor's dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, we're going to have to Table this and have Artie send us his written comments. I'll make a motion to Table. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 21. Docko, Inc. on behalf of RICHARD BINGHAM requests a Wetland Permit to extend an existing 6' wide fixed pier by 30 (+/-) If. to reach suitable berthing depth all waterward of the apparent high-water line. Located: Central Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#6-4-2 Board of Trustees 32 February 26, 2003 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here for or against the application? I have a problem with extending a dock into the eelgmss beds. It shows eelgrass beds and it shows them going right in between. But, what I would like to do is have Scott prepare a report on it. He should give us a page why we shouldn't put a dock in the middle of the eelgrass. TRUSTEE KING: I'll see if I can get a ride over there somehow. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 22. Gail Wickham, Esq. on behalf of MICHAEL CHUISANO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new single-family dwelling on vacant land. Located: 575 Diamond Lane, Southold. SCTM#68-2-10 POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST (MORATORIUM-Table) 23. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of CHRISTOPHER PlA requests a Wetland Permit to dredge a 12'X 360' channel to a depth of -4', the resultant spoil (320 cy.) of sand will be placed on the adjacent beach for beach nourishment. Located: 1455 Inlet Way, Southold. SCTM#92-1-4 POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST (MORATORlU M-Table) 24. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of JOHN DEFILIPPI requests a Wetland Permit to remove the phragmites from the shoreline and stabilize with native plantings for erosion control. Located: 3345 Cedar Lane, East Marion. SCTM#37-7-10.2 POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL. SCHEDULED FOR MARCH FIELD INSPECTION, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to go off the Public Hearings and go back to the Regular Meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES MOORINGS/STAKES: PETER BOGER requests an onshore/offshore stake off his own property. Located: Private Rd., off of Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-4-4 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application for an onshore/offshore stake off his own property using a 4"X 4" post. TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES WILLIAM H. GAFFGA requests a Mooring/Stake Permit, replacing stake #33 in Arshamomaque Pond, for a 14' boat. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees February 26, 2003 33 There being no further business to come before the Board of Trustees, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM. Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk Board of Trustees