Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TR-05/26/2004
.k[bert J. Krupsld, President r~.~N.~mm~¢~ Town Hall Janles King, Vice-President ~ 53095 Route 25 fA/tie Foster P,O. Box 1179 Ken Poliwoda Southold, New York 11971-0959 Peggy A. Dickerson Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, May 26, 2004 7:00 PM Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President, Trustee James King, Vice-President, Trustee Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Secretary,Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. - Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Thursday June 24, 2004 at 7:00 PM WORK SESSION: 6:00 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve minutes of April 21, 2004. I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for April 2004. A check for $6,737.91 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. Ill. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/VVAIVERS/CHANGES: TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Skip to the back, skip to the administrative permits on the back, Page 6. Board of Trustees 2 May 26, 2004 Vh RESOLUTIONS: TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, I looked at this. 1. En-Consultants on behalf of CLAIRE AND THOMAS DRENNAN requests an Administrative Permit to construct a second story dormer addition over an existing one-family dwelling. Located: 1265 Calves Neck Road, Southold. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have looked at this, found there to be negligible environmental impact and have no problem approving it. Make that motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, do the next one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Trimble's Nursery on behalf of BERNARD TELSEY requests an Administrative Permit to re-plant the bluff with native plantings. Located: 465 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. I looked at this, and I looked at the planting plan, and it looked good to me. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 3. MICHAEL CIRRITO requests an Administrative Permit to repair the existing stairs from house to bulkhead, inkind/inplace. Located: 7625 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #118-4-4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I also looked at this, it is minor, replacing deck with stairs. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON.' All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll do the next one. Last month's meeting we made a mistake on the size of the float Permit 5898 issued to JAMES GIBBONS reduced the size of the floating dock from 10 by 20 to 6 by 20 when the float is replaced, so they can use the float as-is until the float is actually going to 'be replaced, and that it should be replaced by a 6 by 20. I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now we can go to Page 1 for Amendments, Waivers and Changes. Ken, you looked at that one, right? III. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, once again. 1. JOHN LEHNER requests an amendment to Permit Number 5371 Board of Trustees 3 May 26, 2004 to include the existing deck located on the front of the house. Located: 505 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM #59-5-20. I looked at that, I didn't have a problem. It was existing and it's behind a concrete retaining wall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do you want to see the plans again? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was just there two hours ago. I'll make the motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES 2. En-Consultants on behalf of SANDRA AND FRANK CURRAN requests an amendment to Permit 4666 to install a 3' by 12' double hinged ramp and a 5' by 12' Iow-profile kayak float off existing.fixed dock. Located 560 Fishers Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM # 111-1-16. MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consu[tants on behalf of the applicants. What l did, Al, was prepare just a preliminary sketch that I'm going to walk up and show you to make sure it's consistent with what you discussed with the applicant during your field inspection. Presuming it is, you'd go to resolution just pending a formalized plan, which I would then submit to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MR. HERMANN: This would be a 6' by 12' float over in this area, which on cress would be attached to the existing bulkhead pilingswith a chain around a pipe that would simp!y be atta.ched to one of those pilings. TRUSTEE KING: I think we talked about a ramp from here to there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We would approve a ramp if they wanted a ramp. MR; HERMANN: Tom Samuels said, this was what he had given to me, if we want to show a ramp here, you want to approve it with a ramp or -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: He was worried about it being too steep, so we ~,old him to put three steps down. MR. HERMANN: There's an existing ladder there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Not a ladder, regular steps down to the ramp. So that the ramp would be lower, and it wouldn't be quite as steep. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Three steps down here, then a ramp down to the float. TRUS'[EE POLIWODA: We'll approve it all, you can do less. MR: HERMANN: I don't know what dimensions would give you without scaling the side. If you just want to approve the 6' by 12' float with access steps and ramp, we'll either Board of Trustees 4 May 26, 2004 give you that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's what we discussed out there. He was concerned because of the steepness. If you drop it down, that will take you down 24 inches. MR. HERMANN: Now you think why I just prepared a sketch. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Al, make sure the wording reads it's affixed to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make a motion to approve the application to amend application 4666 for a 5' by 12' Iow profile kayak dock attached to the bulkhead with access stairs and/or ramp. MR. HERMANN: 6' by 12', Al, because that original proposal was for 5' by 12' but on the balance that's what Tom brought up since it's just being affixed to the bulkhead, he said you had discussed 6 feet for stability since it's not going to be secured by pilings, TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Fine. 6' by 12'. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. HERMANN: Thank you. 3. LINDA S. SANFORD requests a One-year extension. Demolish and construct a new dwelling and renovate the existing garage. Located: 780 Private Road 17, Southold. SCTM # 81-3-27.1. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Permit states stipulation that gutters and dry wells to new house to retain runoff, stake read with hay bales during demolish and construction. I']1 make motion to approve the one year extension. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to go offthe regular meeting. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We have a number of public hearings tonight. There are a few that were postponed. I'm going to read them off first so nobody sits here until 11:30 and realizes we're not going to open the hearing. Number 4 Michael Liegey has been postponed until June. Number 6 Ernest Schneider has been postponed until June. Number 18, John Betsch has been postponed. If anyone would like to comment during the public hearing, please come up and use the microphones and identify yourself for the record, and we'll start with Ken, could you start. Board of Trustees 5 May 26, 2004 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. 1. ANN D. CLEMENTS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 300 square foot ground-level deck. Located: 560 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM #52-2-25. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a comment that I inspected the site, I found that the deck was going to be alongside the home, not encroaching on to the wetlands. It was probably 30 feet from the top of the bank. The only recommendation I wduld make that thero be a porous surface underneath and have quarter-inch spaces between the deck boards. Any other public comments or board comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Ann D. Clements with the stipulation I requested. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Quarter-inch spacing between the decking and porous surface such as sand underneath. 2. LOUISE MOYLE requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing dock and to construct a 9' by 10' storage out-building. Located: 1920 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM # 87-3-63.1. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or against the application? The Board visited this site last month, then I met with the applicant when he came up from Florida after that. And remember our recommendations were to take the one float away and to replace it with a 6' by 20' and to extend the catwalk 8 feet Board of Trustees 6 May 26, 2004 out, so he would have the same amount of water, and he was really reluctant to do that because he didn't want to spend any money on the dock, he just wanted to repair it. I said put your comments in writing. We had a long discussion about it, and he wasn't real happy with the solution. First, he wanted to retain the present size, location and configuration of the dock, make necessary repairs in compliance with requirements for materials at a minimum cost. B, if and when the dock is replaced it would be in compliance with the rules and requirements in effect at the time of replacement, which is what we just did on a different dock. We have been owners since 1960. Our dock was built '68 and '70. It was designed for two boats. Our concern indicated is that the landward side of the dock rests on the bottom at Iow tide. This has developed through the sedimentation that did not exist for many years after the dock was built. It could be resolved by moving the dock out about 5 feet, which is what we all decided at the field inspection. So, if there's no other comments, if the Board has no problem, I will make a motion, once I close the hearing, to grant him -- right now he's got a 3 and-a-half by 40 foot structure, that includes the ramp. We wanted to make that -- it will be 3 and a half by 48 feet. Make it eight feet longer including the ramp, then a 6' by 20' float. Is that right? I want to make sure it's worded properly. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make a motion to approve the application of Louise Moyle for a 9 by 10 storage out-building and to approve, a 3 and-a,half foot wide by 48 foot catwalk and ramp with a 6"by 20' float and an %" configuration at the end of that, and he'll need'to submit a sketch drawing showing that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Once he goes to replace the float, he's going to bring it to conformity. He can use what he has now. That's what he asked for, to be able to use what he has now, but when that float needs to be replaced, then he's got to replace it. MS. STANDISH: He can't repair it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, he can repair it, he can't replace Board of Trustees 7 May 26, 2004 the floats. The floats are going to have to be replaced. 3. MIRO RADOVICH requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing bulkhead within 18 inches using vinyl sheathing and pilings of CCA material. Located: 400 Budd's Pond Road, Southold. SCTM # 56-5-18. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What did we decide here? Jim, do you have the field notes? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Put the sheathing in front of and take the pilings out and put them back in place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sorry, Peg, should have let Ken read that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: is there anyone here who would like to comment?. Any Board comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE'DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to replace the existing bulkhead within 18 inches using vinyl sheathing but not the pilings? TRUSTE.E KRUPSKI: During construction remove the pilings, install the sheathing, and install the whalers, and reinstall, the pilings. MR. R~EtOV.!,GH: Why can't I leave it as it is? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Are you the applicant? MR. R~.DOVI..C,H: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you come up to the microphone and iden6fy yourself? I'll explain what we did here. You applied to go within 18 inches, what we try to do is minimize:'~ha amount of encroachment into the water. So as your con5ra~:tor, as he's doing the work as he pulls the piling, he, p,]~ the:sheathing right up tight against your old bulkhead, against the wha ers, and takes out about eight or 10 inches extra, basically it keeps it tighter to your bulkhead. IYs a: different construction process that eliminates Ne encroachment into the water. MR. RADO,¥1CH: It won't be as strong as it is now. TRUS'PEE KRUPSKI: Depends who does the work. It should be just ~s Ftrong. It's like a new -- they can put -- they put new dead m~en ir~, it should be just as strong. MR. RAE~OV!CH: Okay. TRUSTEE I~RUPSKI: It shouldn't affect the integrity of the struoture at all. This is a requirement that we used in tight areas pretty consistently. MR. R/~Do"~CH: 18 inches. TRU$~E F~,UPSKh Actually, it will be 18 inches once you're don~. B~/'the time you put the sheathing and the whaler and Board of Trustees 8 May 26, 2004 the new pilings, it's going to be 18 inches. MR. RADOVICH: Thank you. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Jim? 5. ANNA ACKER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 4' deck and a 4' X 88' fixed catwalk with a ladder at the seaward end. Located: 855 Pine Neck Road, Southold. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this project? MS. ACKER: I'm Anna Acker, I'm here, if you have any questions. TRUSTEE KING: My notes were we issued a permit in '76. We didn't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were fortunate to see it in Iow water. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's okay, I just had a note on it. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application for 4' by 4' deck and 4' by 88' fixed catwalk. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All if in favor. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Radovich, just give us a different sketch showing that the bulkhead will be, you'll take the old pilings out and put the bulkhead up against the old one. Thank you. 7. HOWARD SAFIR requests a Wetland Permit to install a water line over the driveway utility easement for county water. Located. 3121 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. SCTM # 70-6-10. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. SAFIR: Howard Safir here. This is to connect county water down the driveway that I have and to replace a well which we have a filter system on and the water is still not very good. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anybody else like to comment on this application? The only question we had, the CAC recommended to restore the driveway to its previous condition. I think we're familiar with that driveway. MR. SAFIR: It's a dirt driveway and I've spoken to the Board of Trustees 9 May 26, 2004 contractor, and the contractor said he will and I will insure that he restores it to the smooth condition that it was before. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. MR. JOHNSTON: That was an as-built? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. 8. RUDOLPH AND VIRGINIA BRUER request a Wetland Permit for the existing 4' by 56' dock. Located: 3693 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM # 70-6-25. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BRUER: Yes. Rudolph Bruer, one of the applicants. My wife is here. Obviously, I'd like the Board to grant the application, but also included in the application, I believe, was the request to be able to repair the dock and replace the outer piling. I'd like to put it back the way it was, as the dock that was built in 1959. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We went and looked at that and I don't think the Board had any problem with that; am I correct? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. MR_ JOHNSTON: Once he gets the permit, it is expected to do the repair. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'd like to see a sketch when you come in to get the permit, we'd like to see a sketch of the dock with the piling. A sketch of the dock, then measure off how many feet you want the piling, was there piling there? MR. BRUER: There was one laying -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: It came out in the winter. M.R. BRU~ER: A 44 year old piling was sitting there. TRUSTEiE KRUPSKI: Show us on the sketch where you want that. MR. B,RUER: Like a hand drawing? I'm not very good at that. I will. Thank you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to approve the application of Rudolph ,,and virginia Bruer as requested. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Second. Board of Trustees 10 May 26, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: With the condition that a sketch is brought in noting the dock in its existence and piling location. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. 9. SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY requests a Wetland Permit to install a 12 inch HDPE water main parallel to north Bayview Road under Goose Creek to support the increased fire protection and domestic flow. Located: North/south of North Bayview Road under Goose Creek. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? I looked at this. I don't think anyone had a problem. I make a motion to close the public headng. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Suffolk County Water Authority for the permit as read. Do I baize a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES 10. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of CHRISTOPHER MILLIKEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 28' by 18' deck with pergola. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM # 1-1-3.15 and 3.16. MR. JUST: Glenn Just on behalf of the Millikens. Here's some additional photographs, Jimmy. I think you were here before. Mr. Fosterand I, I think had been there April 20th, 19th, this is the one all the way on the east end of Fishers Island. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I remember the one, I questioned -- it's high up above the 10 foot contour. I didn't see a problem with that to be honest. Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Christopher Milliken as requested. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So carried. 11. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BASIN ROAD REALTY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (inplace) existing 32', 34' and 48' timber groins with Iow-profile vinyl groins. Located: 450 Basin Road, Board of Trustees 1 l May 26, 2004 Southold. SCTM # 81-1-17 & 18. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann, Eh-Consultants. This is a plan for the removal and replacement in place of three existing timber groins with Iow profile vinyl groins. I had met with Jim King at the property prior to submitting the application in order to assess the site for the Iow profile elevation which Jim had recommended and I agreed with, and that elevation is shown on Sheet 2 of 2 on the cross section. If the Board has any questions, I'd be happy to address them. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We all looked at this in the field. We'd like to shorten the southernmost groin to 28 feet. We found that the groin was -- MR. HERMANN; You're saying southern? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Southern, eastern, southeastern. MR. HERMANN: Looking all the way to the water to the right, easternmost. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. We found it was nonfunctional at 28 feet. MR. HERMANN: So 28 instead of 32? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. And make the Iow profile top of the groin to be five feet below the top of the bulkhead, that's the starting height of the Iow profile groin. MR. HERMANN: Jim, is that the same mark that we set; do you recall? TRUSTEE KING: I'm not sure. MR. HERMANN: Let me scale it. It's going to vary, Jim, because the numbers that we had were one and-a-half feet max above grade, and, of course, the number that Kenny's giving is basically the distance from the top of bulkhead. There were different beach elevations where you and I were, the top of the bulkhead was only four and-a-half feet above grade. So if we went five feet down from there, the groin would be under the sand. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We used the higher of the two grades. I stood on the higher which was the northwestern side. MR. HERMANN: Right. But for each groin the beach elevation referenced to the top of the bulkhead is going to vary. Your measurement is for that specific groin. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Correct. We'll go groin by groin. We'll move to the center next. MR. HERMANN: So the easterly you're saying 28 length five feet from the top of bulkhead. Board of Trustees 12 May 26, 2004 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's right. The center one we found 34 feet which I believe is what you're asking for. And again, top of groin five feet below top of bulkhead. And the northwestern third one, make 32 feet. Is that what you're asking for?. MR. HERMANN: We're asking for48. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There was a lot of holes in it. It was nonfunctional at 32 feet? MR. HERMANN: At 32, this is the one Jim and I measured. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Top of groin should be two and-a-half from top of bulkhead. MR. HERMANN: That's what I had, three. So about the same, two and-a-half from top. I don't really have any disagreement with those numbers. So, I mean, I could give you a revised plan that shows that. I'm not going to give a separate cross for each one. We'll have to notate in some way those numbers. Because as I say, the cross I gave you is based on the westerly-most groin, the longest one. That's the one Jim and I measured, and that's the one the cross reflects, so I'll just indicate that in some way and otherwise I would say that's fine. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Good, glad you're happy with it. Just a comment, the CAC, Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council recommended disapproval of the Wetland Permit application Basin Road Realty Trust to remove and replace existing 32', 34' and 48' timber groins with Iow profile groins. They de.nied it because denying the application because the groins should be left to expire on their own and allow the beach to revert to its original state. That's just our advisory council. MR. HERMANN: I can respond to that, if you wish; otherwise, if you're happy with ypur recommendation I am. TRUSTEE POLI~WODA: I believe the Board's happy with their recommendatior~. We did find they're functional and established the beach. MR. HERMANN[ Especially along this area of the beach. TRUSTEE POLf~WO'DA: Any other comment on this application? If not, I'll make ~ mo1~ion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICK, ERS:ON: Second. TRUSi'EE POL~/OBA: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLCCVODA: Make a motion to approve Wetland Permit on behalf of Bas,in .Read Realty Trust. To reiterate, the three groins, for~the r,~cord, the southeastern groin shall be shoctened to(28 feet, and the top of the groin will be will begin 5 feet ~aelow the top of the bulkhead. The center groin wi remains3'4 Ceet and again the top of the groin Board of Trustees l 3 May 26, 2004 will be 5 feet from the below the top of the bulkhead; and the northwestern groin will be shortened from 48 feet down to 32 feet and the top of the groin will begin two and-a-half feet below the top of the bulkhead. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Motion carried. 12. En-Consultants on behalf of GREGORY AND MIKAL-ANN TYRER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-place) approximately 113 linear feet of existing concrete seawall with vinyl bulkhead. Dredge up to 8' off new bulkhead to a maximum depth of-3' average Iow water to recover and remove remnants of concrete structure and footings and enable safe and adequate boat dockage. Approximately 50 cubic yards of sand/silt spoil to be used as backfill. Located: 1490 Smith Drive South, Southo[d. SCTM #76-3-6. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants Gregory and MikaI-Ann Tyrer. This application - I'm sure the Board has looked at the condition of the existing concrete seawall. The seawall -- actually the original construction of this concrete seawal! predates the Trustees jurisdiction over this area, so it is without benefit of a permit but legally preexisting. As you're surely aware, this property was created in the map of Goose Creek. This is privately owned bottom. The main I~ortion of the creek is privately owned by Thomas O'Neill, and the filed map line extends out about eight to 10 feet, which is an underwater portion owned by the Tyrers. The application is essentially to completely eliminate the existing concrete seawall, which is 3 to 4 feet wide, and replace it with vinyl bulkheading at the landward-most location of the seawall, also to add 10 foot returns on either side to maintain the upland. There is a proposal to dredge up to eight feet off the proposed vinyl bulkhead, in order primarily to recapture lost backfill and rubble associated With the footing of the seawall so that the boat could be moored against the new bulkhead rather than having to propose a floating dock that would extend the structure and the boat farther into the canal. This is privately owned bottom up until at least the late '70s, the Trustees had determined that they didn't have ownership or jurisdiction over this land. It is still Board of Trustees 14 May 26, 2004 privately owned though the Trustees now have regulatory jurisdiction over the area. If there is an objection at all to the extent of the dredging, we could reduce the length of the dredged area so as to just accommodate the potential area where boats could be moored against the bulkhead. But it is a very rocky bottom immediately at the seaward toe of the seawall, and there is no vegetated marsh present at the site. The Tyrers are both here, if the Board has any questions, I would be happy to address them. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? Comments from the Board? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have one comment. I don't know who the Tyrers are. MR. TYRER: Hi. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well, in front of your property I know it's privately owned, but there is one incredible shellfish bed, literally paved with hard clams and soft clams. It's something you might want to cherish, leave intact whether it's for personal used or whatever, basically go from the concrete right down to the bottom. MR. HERMANN: Which portion of the property is it? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Pretty much the entire length of their property. It's one massive amount of shellfish. As the Board, we looked at the site and came up with a recommendation. Instead of bulkheading it all, dredging it out possibly down to the west, cut into your property 20 feet, actually just excavate your property and you can park your boat within a basin of the property. Am I correct? Cut in a 20 foot basin, this way your boat's not in the navigab~le waters of your neighbors, because I know there's quite a few boats, then you would have your boat within your own littlle basin where it's easy access for yourself. I'm a boater myself and I know if I had that property that's proba~l~/exactly what I'd do. MR. HERMANN: The only difference between that proposal and this, Ke~, is basically the proposed eight foot wide dredge area would be replaced by a boat slip that cuts into the lot? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Correct. You could probably save quite a bit by not having to dredge all that material. MR. TYRER: Most of that spoil is laying in front of the existing seawall now, is just rock and spoil from the wall collapsing. I mean, I'm not sure if there's that much shellfish in there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's a lot. Board of Trustees l 5 May 26, 2004 MR. TYRER: That's all from the sea gulls dropping it on the seawall and breaking it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. That's one area that's set up year after year after year, if you went in there with a clammer, you'd probably fill it right to the top because I don't know anybody's that's clammed there in the last five years. MR. HERMANN: Ken, you're talking about the seaward toe of that seawall, which is rubble and stone, you're saying that that's a shellfish bed? TRUSTEE POLJWODA: That's all intertidal land, and the shellfish basically exist probably from the Iow tide mark right down to the bottom. It's just something that as a homeowner you might want in front of your home. MR. TYRER: Digging out to the basin it turns it in from a remove and replace into a major proje~';c It's going to have to be 50 feet in. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How large is your vessel? MR. TYRER: 27 feet plus the engine's on a bracket, so it's another four or five feet behind that. So in order to get it out of the canal, it's probably going to have to be probably 30 feet deep and 20 feet wide. MR. NF~RMANN: And you'd still have to dredge to get out and all of that- see, the only thing I'm not certain of is the dredging is really -- I mean, half of the area that's to be dredged is currently seawall. So in other words, it's not like the eight feet is starting out from the seaward toe of the seawall; it's starting th~ landward most edge of the seawall. So you're talking four feet from the existing toe and that area is going ~o have to be excavated to remove the seawalk So it's not like we're proposing dredging that won't occur or, I mean if you w. ant to use the term excavation, we're not proposing any activity that isn't going to occur to remo~e the seawall, whether they dock the boat in front or not. So. you're not really preventing any activity. I mean, the seawall has to be excavated out and that thing is going to slope down in and there's going to be a footing underneath it, presumably, so we're really not asking for -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think the difference between what I recommended and what really will happen is that right now at the bottom of the basin is mud, and it comes up on a harder slope, so if you dredge that entire length you'd basically be taking out the hard slope, which has all your shellfish in it. Maybe we can work it out that you only dredge a certain area; instead of dredging 115 feet, maybe dredge 30, 40 feet. So as a homeowner you'd have the shellfish still Board of Trustees 16 May 26, 2004 intact. MR. HERMANN: If that's a concern, and I don't know, Greg, you can tell me, I would be happy to -- we could meet out there and actually stake out an area that would be the minimum area both widthwise and lengthwise that would be dredged. I haven't actually done soundings at Iow tide all the way out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there at Iow water three weeks ago, it looks like a pretty consistent slope across the whole front of the property. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What was the width of that canal? MR. TYRER: 70, 75 feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: From the edge of the bank to you. MR. TYRER: I think I took it at Iow water. MR. HERMANN: It's 113 feet proposed, you could probably cut that in half and still be adequate. So, would that be a reasonable compromise? Just wipe out half that area? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Leave the seawall in? MR. HERMANN: No, that's got to be excavated. TRLISTEE FOSTER: Then it's going to get excavated when you take the seawall out. MR. HERMANN: That's what I'm arguing. A significant portion of that area' is going to be excavated no matter what. The difference is in one area we'd be limiting the excavation to the four to six ~eet that's got to be pulled out, then the other area' you,d, actually be extending out another two feet to smooth it out. I don't disagree with you, Artie. The argument I'm mal~ing to Kenny is I don't think, given this thing needs to be excavated, that approving a larger or smaller dre~lge, area is going to make that much difference or impact on what's really going to happen. I mean he doesn't need 115 feet worth'of boats, so if it would help the Board's approval, if it would be some movement trying to preserve as much of the resource Kenny's describing, then I think it's a reasonable compromise. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's extremely difficult unless you eliminate ~emoving the concrete wall for a certain portion. MR. HERMANhI.: That,we can't do. TRUSTEE FOSTER: If you can take the whole thing out, my experience is pieces are going to fall seaward and you're going to have ~o go out and get them, it's going to be dug out, no way to get around it. MR. HERMANN: That's why I proposed the entire length as opposed to jusit a section of it. Because another application, if it's 100 foot section of bulkhead and the owner needs 4~, 50 foot area for navigation for mooring, Board of Trustees 17 May 26, 2004 that's what we propose. Here we're proposing what we're proposing because of what you're stating. I would like the application to be approved as we proposed it because I think that in reality is what's going to happen. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think it's unavoidable actually. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Even down to three feet? I mean, I can see Ken's point. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At Iow tide, you've seen the intertidal lining, it had sand there. If they're just taking out the concrete, which is pretty much above the intertidal line. MR. HERMANN: We don't know how deep -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's a can of worms. Once you get in there and start digging, you don't know what you're going to find. You have no idea how deep that is. It could be three, four feet below the water. Something had to keep it there all those years. It has to have a substantial footing or it wouldn't have been there as long as it has. I understand Ken's point, it's well taken. I agree with it. I'm just being a little more realistic, having done that kind of work for a number of years, I know what you're going to encounter once you get in there. If you get in the middle of it, you're in it. You have to finish the job. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we have a problem with taking the wall out and the effects of taking the wall out. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think the effect of taking the wall out is going to be a little more drastic than what we're proposing here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I agree also with what Rob said in a case like this normally, we would allow only for a limited scope of dredging to get -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: Absolutely, and I agree with that. But I think the limited amount is going to be a little bit more than what you're anticipating, just as a result of the scope of the job. That's all I'm saying. Be prepared. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I agree. MR. HERMANN: The only thing I could say is if it could be approved .as it's proposed with the condition in the area we -- for some half of the site, if the dredging can be minimized and can be minimized down, if it only requires us going down to two feet in instead of three feet, we can do that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd say knowing the site confine the dredging to thewest because to the east you have the point with the marsh, you don't really want to take that out, then have undermining of the marsh to the east of the property. MR. HERMANN: The westerly portion? TRUSTEE PO[_IWODA: The western side of the properly. Board o f Trustees 18 May 26, 2004 MR. HERMANN: I don't know how you want to write that up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not too far to the west that you destabilize the neighbor's property. MR. HERMANN: There's another bulkhead to the west. That's the O'Neill bulkhead, I think. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't know the age of the bulkhead. You might want to be careful there also. If you go right up to the property line you might undermine his. MR. HERMANN: We have proposed a return within the confines of this property, that can just be jetted in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay, all right, Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine. How many feet are we speaking about? 50? MR. HERMANN: I would say half of what's proposed, so half of 112 is what? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 56. MR. HERMANN: Is that 56 feet? Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Round is offto 60. TRUST. EE POL. IWODA: Any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? MS. MOORE: Pat Moore, I represent Mr. O'Neill next door. We're in support of this project. We have no opposition to it. The concern that I think what the Board is aware of is that we.do have riprap of our own, and we also have a bulkhead, and retaining a wood retaining wall that runs along the common property line. And it was built many, many years ago, and it coul'd very easily be undermined just with the construction process because you're using new materials and putting up.agaihst very old materials, very antiquated materials.. One thought that we had was Mr. O'Neill has a long term plan that he would also like to have a similar repair and reconstru~,tion of what he's got in such a way that it brings it Up to Current standards and it may be somethirrg where m~iybe it's best for him to come in now versus la.ter, so, that we do kind of a comprehensive plan that protects bqth properties at the same time. I anticipate from being there that the property on the otherside of O'~Neill, to the easterly, they just built a brand new hdus& .It's a beautiful house and -- wrong side, the other side 9n the other side, away from Tyrer, on the other side -- Halig'ell has a house that was just constructed that you:issued permits for. They look like their ground is slopirtg down, and I think eventually they're also going to find their they're going to be in need of some kind of a bulkhead':as well. That area there is a lot of spoil and a lot of very old structures because it's one of Board of Trustees 19 May 26, 2004 the oldest communities that we have out here as a subdivision goes. So, if you would like us to start thinking about designing something and submit it to the Board, we certainly would do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's timely to talk about it. MS. MOORE: It would seem to me it would make sense to talk about it now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not if Mr. O'Neill wants to do the same project, and have the dredging next to one another so there's one area, instead of segmenting little holes. So we would put -- if I could get the applicants -- so we put your dredged area towards Mr. O'Neill's side of the property, then he would put his next to yours. MS. MOORE: I think the O'Neill side may be the most difficult side for you to match up during construction. O'Neill does stick out a little bit further but we have both ripr&P and bulkhead there; so we're going to have to sit down and do some kind of a plan, but if the Board is, starting to think about this area, certainly we don't wa~nt to hold up Mr. Tyrer, but I think if we could move this process, we could certainly try to put something together and try to move this process along. If that's acceptable with the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Sure, I don't see why not and if we keep it with adjacent property lines, I think it would be consistent. MS. MOORE: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, is there any plans to replace the bulkhead? MS. MOORE: There's a bulkhead there that's in a better condition but there's some riprap -- I'm not a designer of the bulkhead. I think he needs to talk to somebody like John Co.stello or someone in the business. TRUSTEE KING: I was just curious if that included a bulkhead replacement or not. MS. MOORE: I think there's a lot that needs to be worked on. We have to figure out how to do it in such a way that we protect our property. We don't want to give up any property, obviously. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? If not I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve the application as we discussed and Conservation Advisory Council recommended approval, and they'd like a condition with the 10 foot Board of Trustees 20 May 26, 2004 non-turf buffer, which I think is appropriate. Other than that, I guess we -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: For the record, that would be 60 feet of dredging for the western portion of the property. TRUSTEE KING: Correct. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 13. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DEBRA VICTOROFF requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling with onsite sewage disposal system. Located: 445 and 505 Dogwood Lane, Southold. SCTM # 54-5-29.1 & 55. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And to comment on this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald, for the applicant. Miss Victoroff has retained Rob Hermann to investigate the site and prepare a report, and I think he would like to share that with us now. MR. HERMANN: For the record, Rob Hermann of En-Consultants. Thank you, Jim. As the Board is aware, Miss Victoroff had retained En-Consultants last October to delineate the freshwater wetland present in the northwestern corner of this property as after having been told by the New York State DEC and receiving a nonjurisdiction letter therefrom that there were no state regulated wetlands present on the property, it was brought up at the Zoning Board hearing that there were possibly wetlands present on the property. And so I was asked to delineate them. [ have not participated in the representation of the. application, but I do understand from Miss Victoroff and from Mr. Fitzgerald that over the past several headngs there has been a lot of additional information brought to the Board both by some of the adjoining property owners and also by the Southold CAC, which has' brought into question the extent of wetlands on the property ahd my wetland boundary delineation in particular. So Miss Victoroff asked me again to revisit the property and prepare a quantitative wetland analysis pursuant to the newly adopted Chapter 97 of the Town Code in order to see if I would be able to present the Board with confirmation of my.defineation. To take the form of testimony before the Board, what I'd like to do simply is to read into the record a letter dated today, May 26, 2004 addressed to Albert Krupski, Chairman, that will summarize as briefly as possible what can be the com~ plicated 'issue of determining what is a wetlarid and what is not a wetland. So without further ado, Board of Ttxtstees 21 May 26, 2004 I'll do so. The letter dated May 26, 2004: "Dear Mr. Krupski, For the purpose of responding to a number of issues raised during the last public hearing held on the captioned application, Debra Victoroff further retained En-Consultants, Incorporated to provide a quantitative analysis of the wetlands present on the captioned properties, which may be viewed in conjunction with the brief qualitative analysis that I prepared on October 21,2003. Specifically, Miss Victoroff asked us to prepare this analysis in light of (1) the 13 April 2004 resolution by the Town of Southold Conservation Advisory Counsel which states that the, quote, CAC recommends disapproval of the application because the entire parcel contains wetlands and spatterdock was found along the road, end quote; and (2) the 20 April 2004 letter from Ann and Thomas Rosakis which champions the, quote/unquote naturaloess of the subject property and asserts that, quote, by all accounts the parcel is indeed a freohw~aterwetland as defined by New York State law, end quote. "Indeed. without an objective and fact-based analysis of ~hetl~er'this entire parcel exists in a naturally occurring condition and is comprised entirely wetlands, the Trustees cannot render a sound judgr~erat of as to whether and how development of this site should be authorized. Therefore, on May 5,.2004 I visited this property again for the purpose of rea.ssiessi:ng my wetlands boundaries determination wh~i(~h limits the extent of wetlands to the northwest ¢orr~er o¢ the parcel and contrasts sharply with th.e a~bove:-referenced determinations made by the QA¢ and.by Mr. and Mrs. Rosakis. "Specifibal!y, pursu~int to Section 11 of the Town's newly adopted'Chapter 97 of the Town Code, I inventoried all identifiable vegetation present at the site and recorded the regional wetland indicator associated with each species as indicated by the national list of plant sp~.cies that occur in wetlands provided by the U.S. Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. According to the Town Code, the Wetland boundary is, quote, to be defined at the point where existing wetland indicator species. no Iohger have a competitive advantage over wetlarfd species, end quote. And Board of Trustees 22 May 26, 2004 methodology used to determine same should be that utilized in the New York State DEC technical method statement relating to the Freshwater Wetlands Act, otherwise known as Part 1 Technical Criteria for New York State Wetland Delineation of the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Delineation manual. "The state's delineation manual states that the most reliable vegetation field indicator of a wetland area is when, quote, facultative wetland or wetter species comprise more than 50 percent of the dominant species of the plant community and of the and no facultative upland or upland species are dominant, end quote. For your reference, a species designated as facultative wetland has an estimated 67 to 99 percent probability of occurring in wetlands. "As Summarized in the tables attached hereto, and I've included as Page 2 a series of tables, 75 percent or three of the four species present within the area l'have delineated as a wetland have an indicator,status of facultative wetlands or wetter, a result.that confirms this area as wetland. However, only nine percent or one of the 11 species present outside o~ the area delineated as a wetland has an indicator status of facultative wetland or wetter, a result that confirms this area as non-wetland or upi'and. "The sole wetland indicator species is represer~ted by the single, large black willow specimen.locate, d in the center of the parcel. The roadside species referred to by the CAC as spatterdock, which is a floating aquatic wetland species, is in fact, and lesser celandine a non-native and aggressively invasive upland weed. Therefore~ a~:cording to objective methodology mandated by-both Town and New York State law, the entire parcel is not, in fact, comprised of wetlands. AS for the naturalness of the parcel, I have also provid';ed an.assessment of the on-site vegetation as to whether each species is a naturally occurring native species. While three of the four species present in the wetland are native, the dominant one, phragmite, is invasive, and the 11 of the 1:3 upland species are non-native or ornamental and/o.r inyasive species, including rosa multiflora, which, dominates almost the entire site. Board of Trustees 23 May 26, 2004 "Therefore, the site is hardly in a natural condition by any ecological standard, a conclusion supported by the presence of ornamental species such as lesser celandine, daffodil and common day lily, which are commonly dispersed from nearby developed land. The soils, hedge clippings and brush dumped along the roadside edge of the parcel provide some evidence as to how these species have been so dispersed. "1 do not disagree with the Rosakis's assertion that the Iow elevations and shallow depth of groundwater present on this property are naturally occurring land features, and I have not researched when the adjoining properties were developed. Regardless, the conclusion I articulated in my 2'1 October 2003 evaluation was not that the onsite groundwater elevation or toP0.graphy were unnaturally created by landscaping and 'ho:me building, but rather that the currently existing and nearly linear westerly and southerly boundaries of the subject wetland were unnaturally defined by the development of adjacent lands, and whether those lands were developed five or 35 years ago is immaterial. The. point is that whatever larger scale topographical patterns and vegetation community'thJs.:parcbl' may have been .associated with decade.s ago, has long since been impacted and altered Cevereiy by the developments that surround this property on; all slues. The circumstantial evidence Of this con(~lu.sion is, in my opinion, incontrovertible. "In short, this is an extremely disturbed and highly denaturalized site, and while I would recommend frbm a planner's perspective the preser?ation of the wetland itself and some kind of buffer area adjacent thereto, the development of the upland I?ortion'bf the site would not constitute the filling, destruction or loss of Town wetland or other valuable 'habitat in any way. WVhether and how Miss Victoroff should be allowe6.to develop that portion of the site, is, of course, a decision to.be rendered by the Board of Trustees. Thus, it is my hope that the information I have provide61 herein will aid her ability to make such a decision. "Respectfally yours, Robert D. Hermann, Board of Trustees 24 May 26, 2004 Coastal Management Specialist." The attachments that I've included, one, I will not go into, it is just for the record, which is again the tables with the wetland assessment of the site; and the third is the inventory of onsite vegetation in which I list in one column the native and non-invasive species which consist of black willow, red maple and eastern red cedar and in the other column I list what are invasive and/or non-native or ornamental species, which consists of the following species on the site: Wild crab apple, Japanese honeysuckle, pdvet, creeping euonymus, multiflora rose, bittersweet, common reed or phragmities lesser celandine, common day lily and daffodil. What. I was also asked to do by Mr. Fitzgerald and by Ms. Victoroff was to work with them to craft a revised site plan that woul',d take this.information into account and provide a bette~=layo.ut a[~d one that would guarantee the preservation b'dth of the wetland area and of at east a 10 foot non-d!~ur'bar~ce~.buffer adjacent thereto. The Board may have noticed dt~ri~g i~s sire'inspection, there are two red maple trees, the~b, are two of the few native specimens on the site that are p~'esent immediately at or beyond or I should say ]and~ard:.of the wet ands boundary. These two trees, thougih, boi~g v~et and indicator species, were not included' edfi~-el~, ~[thih my delineation because immediately on the wetlar~d, ~i~'e ~fthem is an unnaturally created berm. Ho'~ th~i~rrfl'waS Placed on the lot I don't know, but either w~y,~0se red maples are certainly worthy of prese'rv.atio,n. ~h~ would have to be included within this non-distUrbance b~ffer area Lan'dward'e~: a,t ~still would be a non-turf buffer that wouild ~xte~d a ~inimu.m of five feet landward of the wetlands bounda~ up to the corner of the house, and then extend and~en~mPa~ss, the ientire area that's on the other side of the house~. ~ntd ;the retaining wall that contains a sanitary sys~ern. The house and deck have both been reconfigured. The house is recon~gured in a way that it just barely meets the requirement of the Town of Southold for a minimum footprint of 850 square feet. It's been realigned in a way that would allow at least the maximization of the setback of the house from the wetlands without encroaching any further than they already proposed 10 feet from the road. And I had Miss Victoroff speak to a builder who confirmed that not only for environmental concerns, the house would he,ye to be constructed on a piling foundation as Board of Trustees 25 May 26, 2004 there simply is just no way to truck in dump and grade enough fill to increase your site elevation from five feet to the FEMA required elevation of 11 feet. So the house would be proposed on pilings so that there would be no fill associated with the foundation of the house. And the only fill that would be brought in would be contained within the retaining wall that supports the elevated sanitary system, which, as the Board knows, is consistent with the Suffolk County Health Department. That was my participation in this revision. If the Board has any questions regarding my testimony, I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise, I'll turn it back over to the agent for the application, Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there any other comments? MR. FITZGERALD: If I may add that the changes that have been made in the site plan are all of those things which we disoussect witl5 the Trustees during the last inspection. TRUSTE~ FOSTER: Is there any other comments? MS. ROSENBLUM: Good evening, my name is Helen Rosenblum, I represent the adjacent landowners. I assume you have copies of Mr. Bowmaffs report dated October 9, 2003. I am not going to get into a debate with Mr. Hermann, becau~.e.frankl,y, he knows a lot more and Mr. Bowman knows a lot more. about wetlands. So does the CAC, so I will leave that to your judgm'ent as to what kind of wetlands they are. I had written a .letter to the Building Department with a copy to you raising some issues concerning the viability ofthis lot,as ,a legal building lot. I believe there may be~s'o.m.o people here tonight on Miss Victoroff's behalfw, hoc. buid sh~d some light on that. I recently became aware, because.W,e.l~ave been doing some appraisals of the property, th~at~tCere:rhay: be a real question as to whether it's a legal building I~ at. all. Mr. Verity res~ponded'~to my letter. He telephoned me today, and,we spoke o{;it. While he did not make a determination 0ne ,,vgy Orthe other, he understood where I was coming, from. Irl.e felt that this property might need to go back tothe B~ard of Appeals. I don't know if it does, if you have tl~e.revi.q:~.d site plan, which I haven't seen, but whether it does.or doesn't, it is a matter that I think should take a pdod~yof Ihe issuance of any permits by any board, whether or not this is a legal lot, and I don't want to bore you~ unless items:brought up by others, I won't bore you with my feeling ~b.ou~whether or not it is a legal lot, unless you want t6 hear it. Board of Trttstees 26 May 26, 2004 I have requested that Mr. Verity take a look at it. I think it's the most fundamental thing, and it shouldn't even be before you, if there's any question of it being a lot. Therefore no permit should be issued, no disapproval should be issued. Mr. and Mrs. Rosakis are here. They have a letter for you from the North Fork Environmental Council, and I'm going to turn it over to them. Mrs. Rosakis? MS. ROSAKIS: Good evening, Ann Rosakis, I have a letter to the Trustees. "We stood in opposition to this Wetlands Application at last month's public hearing. Since then we have learned more about wetlands, the Town's commitment, and other relevan~ and convincing information that has strengthened our resolve in this matter. We would like to share our findings with you. "In two separate reports, which the Town Board commissioned, accepted and published, it was recommended that the Town inventory and map its freshwater wetlands. Although this w~s never done, a map was published with the May 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. This map shows the general vicinity of tl~e subject parcel as being in one of the most intensive freshwater wetland areas in Southold. It also shows an ~rea of.wetlands running from Great Pond east to Little Pond consistent with the Bowman repert and aerial photograph. 'qn their field inspection, the CAC concurred with this analysis and stated that the entire parcel was wetland, and therefore recommended disapproval. "Nurflber 2, since the late 1990s at least four consultant reports including the local waterfront revitalizalJon program and the Peconic Estuary Comprehensive Management Plan identified Southold's wetlands as one of its most valuable resources for recreation, scenic beauty, flood control and ddnking water quality. "Each report recommended controlled development near and restoration of impacted wetlands. Based on these reports, as well as public outcry, the Town Board declared a one-year moratorium on Wetland applications and then rewrote a stronger Wetland Code. This code requires, among other things, a 100 foot buffer from wetland to residential buildings. "Number 3, the area of this parcel known as Reach 2 in the Waterfront Revitalization Program is identified as important for its contribution to the groundwater supply. Three years earlier in 2000, this was also stated in the Board ot' Trustees 27 May 26, 2004 water supply management and waterfront protection strategy commissioned by the Town Planning Board and Department. Known in this report is Zone 110. Is, quote, or considerable importance to the protection of future groundwater resources. Further, the section of this subwater shed area lined within the environmentally sensitive groundwater area is largely undeveloped, end quote. "In accordance with the provision of the Peconic Bay Regional Community Preservation Act of 1998, this parcel would be eligible for purchase as an aquifer recharge area through the Community Preservation Project Plan. A smaller parcel, just one lot, 120 feet to the northeast, is already owned by the Town for this purpose. It is shown on Map 7 Community Preservation Fund included in the 2004 watershed strategy cited above, "Number 4, as habitat, this area is well-regarded and mentioned in the local waterfront revitalization program and in the scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan of 2001. In the latter, the Sound View Avenue corddor is especially singled out for its d!versity of flora, fauna and habitat. This parcel is less than 270 feet north of Sound View. It provides.habitat for a multitude of migrating and resident birds and mam, rli'al$. L~st week we had a number of American red starts and 13':altimore Orioles and king birds feeding. A sharp skinned: tCawk passes through often. We have warblers, cedar wax Wing.s, rose breasted gross beaks, resident migrating.hum~ng; birds and bats. We have seen a Virginia rail:and American woodcock and an indigo bunting, and we see regular ,~i~its fro-~n ~creech owls and occasionally from barn owls, an~l'twice dai!y visits of green heron traveling from Great to Little Pond. A fox forages the area often as well as muskEats and s~appit~g turtles. It is an extremely rich and persiStent: I'~bitat as the Trustees who walked the property on May 1!2th: knew.from the raucous and inhospitable reception g~ven them by rrest~ng red winged black birds. It must not be lost forever to the bu.lld~zer. "In our res.e,a,rch this past month we did not find a mere pr~.pende~n~e'of evidence or opinion that would support the preservatio~o~:,this lot. Indeed, we discovered an out and out iJnanimi~ ~f science, convict on and policy, all of which as.been e~nc[orsed by the Town Board and reflected in the Town Code. in:its January 2003 SEQRA resolution, the Town Board, state~J ils goals, quote, to preserve the natural environment, to ~r~vent further deterioration of resources, and ~o restore degraded resources back to pristine or near Board of Trustees 28 May 26, 2004 pristine quality, end quote. "If this nonconforming wetland parcel does not qualify for preservation, we question what would. We therefore again urge, in the strongest possible terms that this Wetland application be denied. We don't expect the applicant's property to be confiscated. And we don't expect the government subsidy or buyout to make this preservation possible, although this is often done on other towns on Long Island, and has been made feasible by law by Southold's two percent CPP fund, instead we have made the offer of paying fair market value for this wetland and we are truly pursuing that so that we can restore it to a more pristine condition. "In the 45 years that we have lived in Southoid, we have'contributed thousands of dollars to the Audubon Society, the NFEC and other open space advocacy groups. In furtherance of our commitment to preservation, we would much prefer to spend o~Jr'resources to preserve the property in question rather than to finance further litigation. We would like to become one of:the first participants in the rather optimistic voluntary preservation plan recently adopted by the TOwn. If we do so, no one will be hurt except p,erhaps the excavation, drainage and building contractors lined up to build this one house. With all due respect, we're not worried-about them. Despite our extensive research this month, we failed to find them on any of the endanger, ed lists." I just wah'~ to read one paragraph from the NFEC letter. Tl~ey're recommending disapproval also. I think the pertinent paragraph is, "As development pressures continue to increase rin Southold, more substandard lots will continue to come before the various boards of the Town. If permits are issued for construction on such lots, our environment will continue to be degraded. We speak of maintaining, quote, Southold's rural quality, end quote, but if development'such as is proposed in this application is allowed, we are only giving lip service to our stated goals of environmental prOtection." I tha'nk,foryour time. MR. JOHNSTON: Could you submit the letter? MS. ROSAKIS: Sure. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you stipulate that the letter that you read is the same thing that you're giving? MS. ROSAKI~;: I do. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are there any other comments? MR, ROSAKIB~ Yes, sir, my name is Thomas Rosakis, I've been asked by'my wife and my neighbors to make some Board of Trustees 29 May 26, 2004 technical comments on the application. We don't know what's in the file. Monday, the only thing that was there was a letter by the applicant. This is the first time we've seen this plan. We don't know what else has been submitted. However, we do know that photos are required to be submitted. We don't know if there are any photos in the file other than ones taken by me. There's a problem I see in the retaining wall proposed, the footing encroaches on my property by one foot as well as on the Southold Town land. If you notice the cross-section, we assume that it's facing us, the lower end is on my property or on town land. It's shown on the property line, however, the. footing encroaches one foot. believe that's illegal. There's a problem with the test hole. At the ZBA, the applicant submitted a survey showing the same test hole dated 1987. On the new survey, the same test hole is sho~vf~, however it's plotted 30 feet to the south. It is Stil! dated. 1987. What I question is: Where is the test hole? When was it dug? I will submit their previous survey, Which was given to the ZBA. Another queCtion is: What is the level of groundwater? if'9.rie does the math on the present survey, the top of the test hole is shown as 5.4. The water and sand is 1.4 bel.ow, If you subtract 1.4 from 5, one gets 4, which is the leveDOf the wetland water in the corner. However, if one looks at the profile of the septic system, one sees groundwater shown as elevation 3, not 4. That would effect thC i~bigbt of the retaining wall, perhaps the height of the first fl0or and therefore, I would say much of the information is.q~uestionable on this. There is a w(rlbw and a white swamp oak also shown in the proposed sepfic system. I have not seen Mr. Hermann's list of plants, the~fore, I don't know if they are on that. Perhaps this is aa.impacted area. However, if one was there about a month agO, one,would have seen a strain of red maple going along from Kenny's. Road directly to this property, through the back, along our property line to a wetland that is owned by the TIbwn of Southold as a recharge area, which continues on to Lilltle Pond. This is a wetland area as shown on m~ps, as shown on aerial maps. I have no further comments. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Thank you. Does anybody else have anything to say about this?' Okay, we looked at it as a Board last month. MS. RAVE: We were the previous owners. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Step up to the microphone and identify Board of Trustees 30 May 26, 2004 yourself, please. MS. RAVE: Sandra Rave. I live in Peconic. The Town itself combined two lots. There were four lots there, one that these people owned, and we added an additional lot to the home when we sold it, and there were two smaller lots, this is the lots in question, which were combined by the Town. We agreed to it, we didn't change the names so that it made one buildable lot. We assumed it was a buildable lot. We talked about it with the Building Department. We talked with the Suffolk County Department of Health. It might not be the right jurisdiction, but one of the attorneys alluded it was not a buildable lot; to our knowledge, it was. Other homes were granted building permits, both to the left and DiCados on the end put on an addition into the same wetland. This lot was up for sale and it's our feeling that if these people wanted to keep the open space, which we all love, they should have purchased the lot. So as long as this is a building lot, it's not fair that this woman has been working for an entire year with all of you to have these people come',in now and say they'd like to keep this open space. We all:would. So that's my only comment. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Thank you. As I started to say, we looked at the Iot, the subject property, as a Board, and after we waded through junk and debds and metal and crap that everybe-dy's b~en d,',mping there for years, we were finally able to get to the inside and see what was there. And I think the Boar~d's feeling was that the entire area's been impac'~ed such that, it isn't going to affect this lot to put a heuse~on it und~r~he methods which have been described here. And I'M pret~ sure that was the Board's feeling; was it not? As far as purchasing the property, that's something you have to ta'ke u~vith the present owner. That's not our issue, really, our r's,~e,really is just the impact to the wetlands. You hea,~d Mr. Hermann's report. We kind of agreed with that, ~ I think that's pretty much where the Board stands ~n it. MS. ROSENBLUM.' I don't want to, again, get into why we feel it isn't a builda~ble~or legal lot, because I don't think that's your issue. TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, absolutely not. That should be determihed by the Building Department and Zoning Board. MS. ROSENB~[_UM:. As I said, I have contacted them and I will be taiking to them again. I can only say that it's common in every town that a lot of lots that appear to be buildable because they're old Jots, either they slip through and some Board of Trustees 31 May 26, 2004 way by some kind of defacto process are validated. When you look at the origin and you look at your town code, then there are some real questions that come up and sometimes the building department has to take a second look. That's what I'm asking them to do. It's only something that I only recently became aware of, or I would have brought it up a long time ago, and I just think it's a very fundamental thing that has to be determined before permits should be issued because if permits are issued on a lot that is not a viable lot, then the permit itself is null and void. But I think Mrs. Rosakis wanted to speak again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to answer your comments, ma'am. You're absolutely correct. If, in fact, we issue a permit on this, whether it's tonight or whatever, and it's not a legal bt~ilding lot and doesn't meet any other part of the Town code then absolutely our permit is not valid. MS. ROSAKiS: One brief comment. Just for the record, I think Miss R~ve forgot an encounter we had not so many years ago where we. asked that if the lot was ever up for sale, to please contact us because, we did want to buy it. So we felt we were on tl~e. record with: that. I just don't want you to think we're Johnny come lately and we woke up one morning and said, oh, we can't have this. I'm sorry that wasn't fair. MS. RAVE: There were signs on it. Signs on it. MS. ROSAKIS: We haven't seen a sign in 12 years. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, ma'am? MS. VICTOROFF: I'm Debra Victoroff, the owner. One of the things I want, related to Helen's letter that she had sent copies of which to you and also to Mike Verity. I spoke with Mike Verity this afternoon, and I brought him my single and separate search, my deed, the plans from the house, and the original disapproval letter from the Building Department and he looked it over. We looked through the tax documents, and he felt that it was a legal building lot, but also said that he would go; when the application came before them again, they would reevaluate all of my paperwork that I have done since I got the original disapproval lot. So I did speak to Mike Verity about this. Secondly, Helen mentioned that she had just found this issue recently, and the last time we were before the Zoning Board, I think it was last year, the issue was brought up about the defect in the single and separate title search, and in October of 2003, we asked for that information along with the pictures that the neighbors had taken, and we never received a response on that. I have a Board of Trustees 32 May 26, 2004 copy of the letter that was sent to Helen Rosenblum. So it's just it's too bad that it's all coming up the night of or the night before this hearing. That's all I wanted to say. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Thank you. Any other comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'd like to make a comment. The Board's visited this site twice. It is a heavily impacted site. We're familiar with the area. It's got houses on really all four sides of it; it's really a tiny parcel. That's .21 acres, it's less than a quarter of an acre in its entirety. It's got residential development completely surrounding it. I'm looking at Mr. Hermann's report which he presented to us tonight. I have to say that I agree with what he submitted to us. We did have to get through a lot of the species that he found, there's some daffodils, some day lily, celand ne a ong the road. The phragmities would be found i~ the back, Basically what I saw was mostly the multi flora rose, the honeysuckle and the bittersweet that really predominated on the site. So in my opihion, inwhat was submitted in the file by Mr. Fitzgerald earlier, this probably was part of a really nice freshwater v~fland 'system originally that extended both east and wes~ for quite a distance, but after 300 years of residential de,elop~nt surrounded it, this is just a small portion of it that's left and what I saw, the integrity of that pert[on that's eft wasn't much because it's really been compromised because of the development around it and the amount o{:'con~t~uctic~n and human activity. That's what I saw. I dOn't'knoW ~,hat the other Board members -- TRUSTEE KI~qG: I agree. TRUSTEE DICKER$ON: I agree. TRUSTEE PQLh/V~:3~A Well said. TRUST'EE FOSTE~.R: Any other Board comments? Ill make a motion to: elosrg tl!e ~earing. TRUSTE~ DI~E~R2~:~O'N: Second. TRUSTi:F;E F~S'-I'F:,F~: /~11 in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTF:~ F~'TE!R: I'll make a motion to approve the applicat, i~n of~eb¢~ V c. toroff as requested with a recent survey and itsChat~ge..of design elevations and so forth. Second? TRUSTEE KII~G: I'll second. TRUSTbE F(~STER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTE~ F~TER: So carried. TRUSTi=E KRCJPSKI: In ne way does our approval give it any rights in, a,ny kind of Zoning form at all. Board of Trustees 33 May 26, 2004 14. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SALVATORE GUERRERA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling with on-site sewage disposal system and public water, and construct a walkway and fixed dock 220' overall, and one mooring pile 20 feet from end of the fixed dock. Located: 1450 Cie Jule Lane, Mattituck. MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Guerrera. We have nothing new to report except a willingness on the part of the applicant to agree with the Board's suggestion that the house and the dock be separated as far as the application process is concerned. And we would ask that you consider the house as a separate entity, and we'd like to get that approved and we will then, with the Board's approval on it, we talked about this, submit or continue to pursue the application for the dock as an amendment to -- presumably -- the original permit: The ne~v survey which would include the required 50 foot buffer that'the Board requested and the standard gutters andilleaders and dry wells sort of thing was not available, howeVer, we'd 'be happy to have a finding · the: Submission of such a survey. contingent upon . . TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comments? Board have any comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh For the record, the CAC recommended disapproval because the proposed project requires at least a 50 foot non-disturbance buffer which the applicant now has proposed. TRUSTEE.POLIWODA: My comment is we should act on the house, not the dock tonight. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, please. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we've been to the site about 12 times. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the application as amended by Mr. Fitzgerald and act on the house only at this hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh House would include 50 foot non-disturbance buffer, hay bales during construction, and dry wells and gutters for the roof run off. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Call for a brief recess. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) Board of Trustees 34 May 26, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Back on the record. 15. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling on piles, swimming pool, pervious driveway, sanitary system with concrete retaining wall, 450 cubic yards of fill, dry wells, a 50 foot non-disturbance buffer, and connection to public water and utilities. Located: 9326 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM # 87-5-25. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MS. MOORE: Good evening, Patricia Moore. This application should also look familiar to you. In fact, originally was designed prior to your 100 foot jurisdiction we started with the DEC and got a permit from them, then you changed your jurisdiction to the 100 feet, came to you. At that time, we incorporated all ofyour policies, which have now become legislation, and we had incorporated at that time and continue to incorporate, into the permit the limit of non-fertil!zer, non-disturbance, 50 foot non-disturbance area. We also ha~/e the structures 75 feet from the flagged wetlands, and .the;h0use and structures do have to be elevated du6to FBMA standards, so that the house is going to be on piles.' Thiar6's,going to be limited amount of fill only to the extent hecessary for the sanitary system, which similar to the another application, I think one or two before this one, the sanitary system has to meet Health Department standards with the retaining wall and the clean fill. All of this was. i'eviewed by you and unfortunately when you first issu, ed the el.lent in 10/01, they had to come back because ~he..Z. Qning Board, which gave their approval in '02 and the Health. Department had us change the configuration of som..e of the dry wells along the right of way. We came b~,ck to this Board and my client thought that the reissued perm!t a.:nd the revisions that you granted us in April of'01 extended!ithe permit, and unfortunately that was not the case. So ~t when she had completed all her construction plans;'~va.s, ready with all her permits in hand to go to the'Buildidg;-D'epartment, your permit was expiring and the moratorium then kicked in. So she's had to wait this whole time, jus_t about the entire period that your moratorium wac in(pi.ace to come back to the Board because unfortunately she bad not started construction, even though the permit bad beer~ thoroughly reviewed by this Board. We had to wait Out ad~ Wait out the adoption of your revised regulations and:the end of the moratorium. Board of Trustees 35 May 26, 2004 So now we are before you again with the identical plan with all of our permits poised to act. We've made sure all our existing permits have been extended and can be submitted to the Building Department, and we ask for your mercy because we want to move forward now. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: She should have dug the hole. MS. MOORE: Had she asked me -- certainly she had spent serious bucks getting to that point, including the architectural plans. But unfortunately when asked had she started construction, what could you say? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a question for the record. Were we not able to renewthat permit under the moratorium? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think it was applied for. MS. MOORE: No, it was not one of your provisions, if construction had not been initiated., the way I read it, you couldn't get an extension. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is that correct?. I mean, the moratorium, in other word~, ~nybody that had a two year permit that didn't start cons~euctien and the moratorium was imposed, they didn't have, their relief to extend their permit. MR. JOHNS"FeN: In, the beginning it was that way, then I think ~we modffied! it to say that you could have extensions. TRUSTEE KRUPSI<]: I don't think that's the case. I don't think it was a~plied~for. TRUSTEE FOS'IiER: If that is the case we got a faulty mechanism here. TRU$'Ir. EE KRURSKI: I don't think that was the case. M'S. MOOR, E: It'.s. passed anyway. So here we are with the application that% identical to the last. TRUSTEE KRUP~SKI: Are there any other comments? MB. ~IRaOH: I am Mary Kirsch, I'm the adjacent neighbor to the Edson project, and I'll make this very brief. I just respectfully requ. ~st*that the Board of Trustees review the pr, op~sed buil~lin¢.envelope of the Edsons and have them comp!¥ with the Southold code of 100 foot setbacks from the wetlands. The E~iS0n building package consists of 3.4 acres and mainta~ning'a 100 foot setback in order to have less of an impact on the. w¢tlan:ds does not seem unfair or unreasonable to'r;hy husband and me. The Zoning Board decision ~vas extrenhely forgiving with zero side yard, above ground septic in tbe front yard with nine foot high retaining walls a.ri.¢l minimal front yard. The issue at hand is not to build or tO build,. We welcome the Edsons as neighbors:, but m~ae{.ing the code of 100 feet is very possible and appropriate eSl~ecially with a 3.4 acreage lot. The Edsons will still be ~ble to build a lovely home in a Board of Trustees 36 May 26, 2004 beautiful setting. So this, again, is a perfect example of the need for that recent moratorium regarding wetlands and building packages on the north fork. If we're talking seriously about keeping some kind of integrity regarding the sensitive wetlands and environment here in Southold Town, then my request for a 100 foot setback is justified, fair and environmentally sound. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MS. MOORE: For the record, we had about four public hearings pdor to the development of this plan, two with the Trustees, I think we had two or three at the Zoning Board hearing and Miss Kirsch. We had several, as I recall, but she had .an opportunity to object each and every time, and again, the process took a very long time. The road was proposed with much. greater design because of her objections. And this road with the drainage structure that is being propose8 is probably, Artie, I don't know the cost, but it's significant:cost compared to the driveway which Miss Kirsch enjoys. MS. KIRSCH; I don't want a developed driveway. MS. MOORE: She similarly has a permit for the house that was constructed, and this property, while it is 3.4 acres, you can see from the survey that most of it is a dredged canal and that the upland area is up towards the north end of the property. The'house was designed very carefully with recognizing the limitations of the wetlands, and it was, again, reviewed thoroughly by the DEC, reviewed thoroughly by the Health Department, reviewed very thoroughly by this Board:. And at this point, we are here because we cannot meet the 100 foot setback. We have variances, this property has a front yard setback that was granted from the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board, because of the dght of way, considered the right of way that ?uns, the 20 foot right of way that runs down to the; capal a front yard setback and that is why the Zoning Board granted what would be equivalent of a zero lot line. They recoghized that this access is purely for boats or pedestrian use. It is not for a road. This lot is at the end, it is d0ul~l~ the size of Mary Kirsch's property. It has setbacks that are almost equal to Mary Kirsch, and we have three acres, and'she has one acre. MS. KIRSCH: Wait a minute. MS. MOORE: At this point, my client has been extremely Patient, has honoCed M':s: Kirsch's objections and opinions all throughout, ,and she has had every opportunity to express her viewpoint throughout the four years that this project Board o£Trustees 37 May 26, 2004 was reviewed originally. So at this point I think it's a fair application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Just briefly, Mary. MS. KIRSCH: I'm sorry, but their permit expired, things are different now and somebody explain to me why they can't reach 100 foot setback. It's very possible and they can still have a very nice sized home in a beautiful setting. It's not that I don't want them to build down there. It's fine, but build the appropriate size building. That's all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh For the record, the original -- I'm looking through the file here, which-is getting thicker every day -- the original application came in in October of '99, and the Board issued a permit two years later 2001, so it wasn't, and I mean.-- MS. KIRSCH: But ir'lapsed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I know. This Board was on this site numerous times and I thought myself pretty familiar with this site because I don't know how many times we have been out here through the past four years. TRUSTEE FOSTER'. It was a diligent process. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We went through there two weeks ago, and there were four Board members, and we staked walking around, and I'll be hqnest with you, we got turned around, and we weren't really sure. where the project was. MS. MOORE: We had it flagged at that point. TRUSTEE KRUP~S!Ki: We didn't see the house stakes, we saw the septic stakes, we saw the right of way stakes. MS. MOORE: The surveyor was out there and has flagged it. He swears to me he flagged it. MS. KIRSCH: I d~n!t touch flags. I promise you. It's just that it's so overgrown, you can't find them. TRUSTEE KRUPSt~I: I think all of us agree that it was really a mystery. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Try to re-familiarize yourself with it, but it's just so overgrown. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have the surveyor hand-cut paths three or four paths, stake it so we could see the site. We were honestly unable to identify the location of the house or the pool. MS. MOORE: This is why it took two years because we had the same problem the first time, and you spent an enormous amount of time reviewing it. If you review your files, the house size was larger. We shrunk the size of the house through your process. MS. KIRSCH: Not really, you just switched things around. MS. MOORE: Keep in mind, this house, because it's elevated Board of Trustees 38 May 26, 2004 at 11 foot elevation, the only living area is what is above where the piles are. The rest of the property is in a natural state and will be left in a natural state because of your non-disturbance buffers and because of the wetland setbacks. This property has about 90 percent preservation compared to the lots to the north, Miss Kirsch's property alone has the house covedng much more of the lot coverage than our property. It seems extremely unfair for my client to continue to pay for staking and surveying and clearing, the surveyor doesn't clear, I have to get an excavator in there to clear. This has just been an endless process to the owner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand, Pat, and I expected you to feel that way, believe me. But the four of us were out there, and I think we're all in agreement, we walked around and we walked and pushed through the brush, and we couldn't make heads or tails. MS. MOORE: So in fact you're in the high land. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Pat, there was a stake that said corner, I don't know if it was an accurate stake, if it was part of the house project, it was literally 10 to 12 feet away from the back, true wetlands, with an actual bog type of wetland there. So I don't know. TRUSTEE KRIJP~S. Kl: It was an old stake. TRUS'I~EE POLIW, ODA: It was an old stake but it was orange. TRUST, EE,KRUP',SKI: It was an old stake anyway which made it unclear. MS. MOORE: I don't know what stakes the old stakes were. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The project's changed throughout the review process. MS. MOORE: Your regulations have not changed with the way you reviewed it originally. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We couldn't go by something that's an old stake. ,We don't want to use that as a determination. So, we'd really need to see. MS. MOORE: I'll ask Joe Ingegno to go back out there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not saying it wasn't done. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Maybe hand-cut the parameter of the house. MS. KIRSCH: Yeah, maybe they should like they said. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The perimeter of the project so we can see. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Hand-cut the perimeter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There's four of us and we're not afraid to get our feet wet. MS. MOORE: Just understand that I've been dealing with Mary Board of Trustees 39 May 26, 2004 Kirsch since 2000 and all her objections, and it has been the same objection over and over, and the reason we're here is that we can't make 100 foot setback. MS. KIRSCH: Why is that? MS. MOORE: She wants the house that has been proposed, just like you wanted the house you proposed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Let's get into this later. You two can meet later on that. MS. MOORE: We'll have the wrestling activities outside. It's frustrating to have one neighbor continually block the progress of the project. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's got nothing to do with her objection. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is an environmental review. MS. MOORE: I will ask Joe to go out again and stake and do a better job this time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not saying that he that he didn't stake 'it, we couldn't find it. Maybe he can pull up the old ones. MS. MOORE: I would have expected that he would have removed the old ones. As long as I have no violations for getting somebody in there to do some clearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hand trimming to make paths up to three foot v~ide to get through. Make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES. 16. Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E. on behalf of EDWARD L. KAVANAGH requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two story, single family dwelling with related improvements. Located: 2000 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM #78-2-37. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to make a comment on this application? MR. BUTLER: Jeffrey T. Butler, Professional Engineer, on behalf of the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Kavanagh, who are here as well, to answer any questions. We have received DEC approval and our Suffolk County Health Department application is pending Trustees approval. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have the DEC permit? MR. BUTLER: Yes. TRUSq'EE KRUPSKh Oh, we have it here. Are there any other comments on this application? Does the Board have any comments? Then if there's no other comment, do I have a motion to close t~e hearing? TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved. Board of Trustees 40 May 26, 2004 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. 17. Steven Cataldo, AIA on behalf of JACK DA SILVA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new 3,500 square foot single-family dwelling. Located: 470 Tarpon Drive, Southold. SCTM #57-1-4. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anybody here who would like to speak in favor of this application? MR. CATALDO: I'm Steve Cataldo, the architect for the applicant. We have DEC approval, Health Department, so on. We were here last month, but we didn't send out the certified mail, we have done that. And we'd like to ask your favorable consideration. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Anybody else have any comment? Does the Board have any comment? TRUSTEE DICKERS'ON: Was this last month? TRU:STEE KRUPSKh Tarpon Drive, it was held up due to moratorium. '[=here's a wetland off the site, they have got hay bales buffer in the back as well. (COnve.rsation} TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Place a 50 foot non-disturbance setback, that's it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If there's no other comment, I"11 make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition that the non-disturbance seiback shall be at the line of hay bales so marked on the survey. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. 19. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of SKUNK LANE TRUST CIO BRADLEY AND MARY KRAUSE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 34' fixed timber catwalk, 3' by 18' ramp and 6' by 20' float. Located: 9105 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, SCTM 104-3-18.1. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MS. CANTARA: Hi, Kelly Cantara for Land Use Ecological Board of Trustees 41 May 26, 2004 Services here to answer any questions you might have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which one is this? MS. CANTARA: 9105, the lot to the left. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was out there today to take a look. The only thing I'd like to see, and I hate to postpone if for another month, I'd like to see just the end the dock staked. MS. CANTARA: The seaward end? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The seaward end. MS. CANTARA: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think I have a problem with this. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd like to see this downsized a little bit. It's five steps up over some wetlands, then you're seven, eight feet high, plus the hand rail, you're nine feet in the air. It's a monstrosity. I'd rather see it a three foot wide catwalk. Three feet high, cut down the steps, and one handrail. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ken's right. By the time you get to the Iow water, the dock's going to be this high (indicating). MS. CANTARA: we were trying to maintain four feet between the wetlands and the dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The DEC will relax that if you go to a three foot wide dock. MS. CANTARA: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That is a lot for that area. It's a lot of structu.re. MS. CANTARA: Okay, we can modify that. That's not a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then we can see both of them staked? MS. CANTARA: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? MR. LARSEN: I'm Peter Larsen, the adjacent landowner. I just want to get a clarification on the description of the application because it was my understanding that there was no longer going to be a floating dock or ramp, yet the descr[pt!on on the agenda shows there is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Two locations. The more westedy lot has -- there's a proposed catwalk and the lot with the house shows a ramp involved. MR. LARSEN: That's not the way it's described on the agenda, 19 is 9105, which is the westerly lot. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's basically just an artifact. That description just keeps running. MR. LARSEN.' Is just ends with tie off pilings? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I thought this was the eastern. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, here's the other one. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The one that's existing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Here's the one existing. The other little Board of Trustees 42 May 26, 2004 bulkhead, this is the proposal for this one. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Stake it at the end for navigation purposes. MR. LARSEN: With the modifications that the Board recommended, I would have no objections. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh On both applications? MR. LARSEN: Yes. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other public comments on number 197 If not, I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Move on to 20. 20. Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of KRAUSE FAMILY TRUST CIO BRADLEY AND MARY KRAUSE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a dock facility consisting of 4' by 36.2' fixed timber catwalk, 3' by 15' ramp and a 6' by 20' float. Located: 9205 Skunk Lane in Cutchogue. MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara for Land Use Ecological Services. We actually modified the plans on this dock to match what the other one is with the ladder and tie off pilings; so there's no longer a ramp and float. But we'll do the same thing with this one as we did with the other one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, you might want to approve this one. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're going to be out there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh This one here you're not, this is the end of the old channel, so you're not blocking anyone. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's the last one, right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. This one's a little different, there's no navigation issue. Did you see this one, Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I haven't seen the new plan. MS. CANTARA: With this one we don't have any stairs coming up. It's coming off the existing bulkhead. That's where we got the height from. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The applicant could also, if they wanted, they could ramp it down, once they get to the seaward end, they don't have that drop. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At high water they have got a 6 foot drop, at Iow water they have nine, ten foot drop. They might want to consider somehow ramping that down to -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: -- to about a foot above high water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.: I think the state allows two and-a-half feet above high water. This is 6 feet. I think they could come off the bulkhead and either angle it down gradually Board of Trustees 43 May 26, 2004 then come out level with the water. It would be a lot better to use it. MS. CANTARA: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like us to approve this with new plans tonight? MS. CANTARA: That would be great. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other public comment? Any other Board comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit for number 20, Krause Family Trust, Brad and Mary Krause, for their request for a 4' by 30' fixed dock with one tie up pile, and that dock shall be ramped down so that it finishes approximately one foot above the mean high tide. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't think the state's going to approve that. MS. CANTARA: So it ends where it ends now, just ramp it from that basically, no further out? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just put ramped down. Ramp down as far as the state will allow you. We'll allow you to go farther than the state, ramp it down so it makes it easier to use. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Are there any stipulations as far as the state is concerned where your fixed dock ends in relation to the high water?. MR. COSTELLO: Depth of water. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So you can ramp it right down into the Water?. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. As a matter of fact, we've done a couple by ramping it into the water. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd say no higher than one foot above mean high water. Do I have a Second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 21. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of GEERT MARTENS AND RAY MURRAY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 83' fixed timber catwalk, a 3' by 20' ramp and a 6' by 20' float. Located: 5028 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM # 115-10-2. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara, Land Use Ecological Services. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anybody else here with Board of Trustees 44 May 26, 2004 comments on this application? I was there in April then the guys went out in May. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We were fortunate to go out at Iow water and where we suggested, we originally suggested by the oak tree to go straight out, there was about that much water as far out as you could see. So we realized that wasn't a very good location. Our only concern was navigation adjacent to the other dock. I don't know, Artie, do you have any suggestions here? TRUSTEE FOSTER: The only thing I can tell you we all agreed that you have to change the location. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But you can't, there's no water to the north. It's tough. MS. CANTARA: I see on the new plans the measurement between isn't there, but on the old plans it was about 28 feet between the other docks. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 28 feet? MS. CANTARA: 28 feet between the two docks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, we're looking at a structure, the profile is so h!gh up in the air we'd rather see it three feet wide. So they can bring it down a foot at least. TRUSTEE FOSq'ER: Is this for a kayak or a motor boat? MS. CANTARA: It's for a motor boat. I don't know what size. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Why does it have to be that high? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh DEC. MS. CANTARA: It's generally just four feet above the wetlands that ~hey like to see. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We don't have a lot of wet[ands there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's a pretty sandy beach, but -- MS. CANTARA: The area that the dock is in actually has more wetland vegetation than the area to the north, and I believe, i'd have to look through the file, I think the Army Corps had asked us to raise it up as a protection to the wetlands because we couldn't move the dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No other comments, I'll close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Don't close it yet. Make a suggestion. Is everyone comfortable with the length and location? TRUSTEE KING: That's the only spot, I'd be more comfortable if it was three feet wide and three feet elevation. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I agree. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Again, once it's over the marsh, then ramp it down to one foot over the water. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It only had 8, 10, 12 feet of marsh. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI' It's a very narrow marsh. Drop it down, Board of Trustees 45 May 26, 2004 then go straight out. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Foot above high water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I make a motion to approve Martens and Murray request for a wetland permit to construct a 3' by 83' fixed timber catwalk, 3' by 20' ramp and 6' by 20' float, with the elevation starting out at three feet then going down to one foot above high water. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need new plans for that. But I guess you would have to gd to the DEC first and make sure you're sq/jare.with themlbefore you submit new plans. MS. CANTARA: C~kay. 22. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of JOHN HURT,ADO SENIOR;., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 135' plus/minus CCA timber beach access stairs with an 8' by 6' platform. Located: 3400 Lighthouse Road, Southold. SCTM Cf 50-2-2. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf:of this application? I'm looking at the plans, doesn't seem like a problem, beach access down the sound. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any comments? MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara, Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of the applicant. Do you have any questions? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Anybody else like to comment on this application? If not, any Board members? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just was wondering about the size of the platform. TI~USTEE POLIWODA: 6' by 8'. Is that beyond the coastal erosion? I'm familiar with the area. I'm down Lighthouse Ro~ad. Almost everywhere there has access stairs. TF~USTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have any issue with stairs, it's just the platform size. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommended disapproval mentioning the platform. They also suggest that the applicant doesn't use CCA. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh They recommended disapproval because of the platform size? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They mention the platform. They Board of Trustees 46 May 26, 2004 disapproved it, suggests the applicant resubmit new plans with no CCA materials. TRUSTEE FOSTER: For stairs? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Did they make any alternative recommendations? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. I don't have a problem with the CCA because it's upland. It's not in contact with the wetlands or the water. The only question is that platform, Al. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the interest of moving this along, make it an 8' by 4' platform. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was going to say 4' by 8'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If there's no other questions, I'll make a motion.~o close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of ,fphn Hurtado, Sr. construct a 4' by 135' CCA timber beach access stairs with an 8' by 4' foot platform. Located: ;~400 Lighthouse Road, Southold. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POblWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. MS. CANTARA: Thank you very much. 23. Costello Marine Contracting, Corp. on behalf of RENE PONCET FITZPATRICK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new 130' bulkhead with C-lock vinyl sheathing and dredging the area in front of it to a depth of 4' below AMLW. Dredged spoils are to be used as backfill behind bulkhead. Bulkhead to include a 10 foot wide boat launch. Located: 360 Wiggins Lame, Greenport. SCTM #35-4-28.3. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application~ MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello. I'm with Costello Marine Contracting. And we are the agent for Rene Poncet Fitzpatrick on this application. If this Board has any questions, I woCd just like to start off and say that I've met on site witl~two members of the DEC, and they made a recommendatio¢~, and they said that they would approve it if we would minirhize the dredging and maintain the dredging only in the are~a~h~ere they want to put a boat. The south end of the proj,~.Ot ~hey would like to leave undredged. That is a dredged c~[ial~'they own out into the middle of the canal, and it is $!um..' ping in from all sides. It was eight foot depth when, it ~vas originally dredged, and now it's Board of Trustees 47 May 26, 2004 minimal, lam one of the adjoining property owners, and I did have at one time eight foot of water at my bulkhead and now ~ have about six. It is silting in where there are no bulkheads in sight. Each and all those canals are owned by the upland property owners. (Handing plans.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MR. COSTELLO: You'll see that they only want that north end, where the floating dock is going to be the area dredged, they want the rest left. Somewhere along the line that canal will require dredging, but it's going to be the responsibility of the property owners to do it. If you visited the site, you will also see the beech trees, and over the years I've probably pulled out 20 or more beech trees that.have fallen into the one canal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh 'I'd ju.st like to see on a house plan, we'll just write into the permit dry wells and gutters for the house: MR. COSTELLO: When is secondary with the DEC. We do not have an application forthe house with the DEC. They wanted the topo, showing that it's out of their jurisdiction, and we just received the topo from Sea Level Mapping before they would approve it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. MR. CQSTELLO: I'm sure that the house should have the dry well, 'm surelhey will and I'm sure -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. MR. COST, EL:I_O: I don't know if the hay bales will be necessary once.they, have that little rock retaining wall put in there, but I would probably recommend it anyway. TRUSTEE POLIVVODA: You might want to have the hay bales, the retaining wall might come second. MR. COSTELLO: I'm sure they will make sure the contractors stay away because the rock retaining wall will not support any de~.j-ee o[equipment weight. TRUS'PEE KIIXlI3: Any other comments? Board? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FO, STER: Second. TRUSTEE KIi~G: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KI..~G:: I'll'.make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE :FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING.: All in favor? ALL AYES. 24. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of WILLIAM STANTON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3' by 9' ramp leading to a level 3' by 23.5' dock and ending with a Board of Trustees 48 May 26, 2004 32" by 12' ramp onto a 6' by 20' fioat. Located: 1115 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM # 123-3-15. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Anyone to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Again, John Costello, agent for William Stanton. As you can see the design of the dock, and Mr. Stanton only wanted the minimal. He doesn't want to spend any more money or build any structure larger than is necessary tb support a small boat. That's why it is three foot. He was getting to the offshore end to meed the DEC's approval, and that's all I want. He didn't want tie off piles, that's it. He's trying to minimize it, and I think this Board has a theory of trying to minimize it, and he did: TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comments? Boards comments? Everybody okay with this? Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the application request for Costello Marine on behalf of William Stanton as requested. Was there any request for a change, modification? Everything is okay. Get a second on that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES MR. COSTELLO: Can I make one other comment that is relevant to the other applications? Mean high water, Kenny will certainly, verify, mean high water changes daily. And mean high water one time part of the month is more than a foot higher than it is at other times of the month. So you want to try to keep the dbcks, even if you want to minimize the height, you certainly want to stay two and-a-half feet above high water. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Talking in reference to the last one? MR. COSTELLO: It's going to be dangerous because it will be under water and it will be slimy and slippery. It's not a good situation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The one on Skunk Lane is a pretty tame spot. They had it way in the air, it's the smallest channel you'll ever permit a dock in. To have it Iow, you're pretty safe there. MR. COSTELLO: Try to keep them two and-a-half, three feet above high water. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: By you saying that, it's vague. MR. COSTELLO: I've seen some docks that were never under water that are presently under water and they're slippery Board of Trustees 49 May 26, 2004 and they're dangerous. 25. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Incorporated on behalf of GENEVIEVE MGGRATH requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 295.1 square foot second floor addition; a 377.4 square foot front porch; and a 162 square foot shower enclosure and ramp facility, all to the existing dwelling. Located: 640 Daly Lane, Southold. SCTM Cf 66-1-28. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson for Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Mrs. McGrath. This is a very minimal project. I understand the second floor addition, what it is is a dormer. You'll see on the Survey it is a one and-a-half story frame house. We're talking about lifting the roof and puttying windows in. The shower and the porch (think Spea'k for themselves. They are one story structures, not two sto,ry structures. So this is a house that doesn't grow very much in size. It's on a piece of propertythat we've always called the Daly compound. I've spent a lot of time in this area as a kid. It's literally frozen this time. It's been owned by the same family sinc, e 1916, and it will probably remain in that same family for themext 100 years. I don't think there are any special cono~rns with this property, we'd simply like to do't[a'e minimal'things to this house. Essentially no g'rouud disturban6e whatsoever. TRUSTEE POLII~.'ODA: Anybody else like to comment on this application? I looked, at this. I found it to be minimal impact. It's basicailLy 'putt~g an addition over 82 feet away from the w6qland 1;6.;foot UP in the air on elevation. I spoke with Mrs. McGra;tf~:today, and I just recommend that we put some drainage on it. MR. ANDERSON.'. W,e're perfectly amenable to that. TRUSTEE POLIW'OE~A: Dry wells. MR. ANDERSON; Arid I will size and put the appropriate drainage, and 1 wi'Il re[urn you a sketch. TRUSTEE POLI~/ODA: Any other Board comments? CAC recommended approval, and if no other comments, I'll make a motion to close t. he publiohearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIW'ODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE PDLIMCODA: FII make a motion to approve the application of (~erlevie~e McGrath with the stipulation that dry wells and;gulttC,'rs be placed on the addition. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. Board of Trustees 50 May 26, 2004 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES 26. Harvey Arnoff on behalf of 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 to stone material into the proposed driveway landward of the right of way. Located: Diachun Road in Laurel. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of application? MR. ARNOFF: Harvey Arnoff, 206 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead. Good evening. I don't have much to say that hasn't been said before. This application is essentially the same application it was when we first came in. There have been, I believe, seven modifications of the survey as a result of input from this Board. The last one was done and submitted on April 16, 2004. I would askthis Board to vote to this application tonight. I think we have done everything we can to coma into compliance with any request that you have made. [ think we have beat this horse enough. I think ultimately whatever the Board decides, they certainly will make a well-reasoned determination. Under the circumstances, I see no reason to deny the application. We essentially'are govemed..by our only means of access; this is the only way to the site, and short of a condemnation, this particu:]ar parcel we're entitled to go forward at some point. We can't Sit here forever. I would ask the Board to vote on this toqight. Thank.you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Would anyone else like to comment on this application? MR. ATKINSON: Good evening, I'm Matthew Atkinson from Laurel, New York. I'm here to represent members of our community who are opposing this application. There isn't much new. I have looked at the newly submitted DAF and the new survey, and it's basically the same argument, which is that this Board should only look at this one-half acre of road that the rest of the activities that are planned here have been presented to other boards are beyond this Beard's jurisdiction. This Board is not to consider it. This is an invitation to break the law. SEQRA requires this Board to look at the consequences of its decisions, as it usually does. And I don't see why the Board would except that invitation. The EAF continuously talks about there just being a road, therefore, there's no sewage disposal, therefore there's no improvements from other people, there's going to Board of Trustees 51 May 26, 2004 be no herbicides or pesticides ever used. It's just wrong. It's simply wrong. This project involves 288 approval for 30 acres, five tax lots, this road provides that access, that's what this is all about. Now I realize that all of that is not in the jurisdiction of the Board, but SEQRA's very clear. It says that you need to look at all of the aspects of the action, not just what's under your jurisdiction. ZBA declined to do any environmental review with this application, and with this kind of application missing a Part 2, missing a visual addendum it's preposterous. They're not asking you to look at the action at all. The purported hardship is self-imposed. The only reason they're routing the road here is because Eleanore Diachun as stated on the record before you doesn't want the road moved the other way because it would get too close to her house. What she wants in this regard should not deteFmine what's in the public interest of the community, the protection of the wetlands. Now the present wetlands law has a presumption against interfering with a buffer within 50 feet of the wetlands. This road just cuts right through it, right up against the wetlands. Where is the waiver? There's no special conditions of the site, there's no special environmental conditions. The waiver is simply done because what Mr. Hallock purchased has a right of way that he's allowed to use, but he purchased it under those terms subject to the wetlands law, subject to a presumption that you don't develol~ right up against the wetlands. This is going to create a pattern of development for multiple housing all draining down right against the wetlands. And the effort to mitig,ate this is to create a kind of pond. This road would never be approved by the Town engineer. It's a convex road~, not a concave road. It's like a big mud puddle that's going to wash out. It's really kind of hopeless and it's just trying to push this through. DEC has denied this. All the experts that have looked at this have said it's a bad idea, it is a bad idea. I really urge you to go ahead and vote on it tonight and to deny it. But if you are going to continue to entertain this, you need to at least look at the action as it really is and not as they're saying, that it's just a 15 foot road. Finally I'd like to point out, in this application they say that the road itself is all the non-vegetated. This used to be a very little path a couple years ago. It's been used by heavy equipment and trucks and cars while this Board of Trustees 52 May 26, 2004 application has been pending. ZBA noted that fill has been deposited in this road. This has all happened while this Board has been watching this. In fact this road is being developed while we speak, they should be given no advantage for this, certainly. I have no further statements unless you have further questions, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? MS. LASKIN: My name is Barbara Laskin, I have a home on the west side of Brush's Creek. I don't want to beat a dead horse, like Harvey said, but I would like to make a couple comments. This has been an absolutely exhausting 18 months, and we're aJways at the last -- Matthew would say save the best for last, but just once I wish we were at the beginning. It has been tortuous. And I think as Matthew Atkinson pointed out, not particularly thorough. This process seems designed to wear people down not reach a conclusion. Five people in this community are still here, there were others but they left. We have been accused of many things over this year and a half, but here are thefacts. Many have lived on this creek for more than 40 years. They know the history of the creek. There was a time at:which many of these folks could simply walk along the ea~brn side of the creek. They have told me many, many times that the path that is now tramped down and there's so many r~ore vehicles upon it. At one time, it was like two to three f~et and there was very'little that ever went up and down it. 'Aerial views, incidentally, that were introduced more than a year and-a-half ago support that contention. Under your noses this road has been considerably widened. We have seen it. It is cars, an orange tractor is totally visible now. I can tell you that eight years ago when we first came here, you couldn't see anything. Now, miraculbusly, trees have simply disappeared. So what was once a.small little path is no longer. Finally, we believe this matter is not about the past. It is not about what has happened 20, 30, 40 years ago. It is about now. It is also about the future of Southold. It is about what will we do now and, what will our actions or inactions look like. I would lastly like to point out that a year and-a-hal~ ago this Board said that it would reach a decision based upon the expert advice -- and I quote -- of its appoifited envi:ronmentalist. Well, we had a report from Scott Hughes. It wasn't our fault that he left, but he made a report before he did so, and he said that this road, this Board of Trustees 53 May 26, 2004 application as it exists, should not go through in his opinion. Then we had another expert, Terry, he said the same thing, then we had yet a third environmental expert, none of whom have a stake in this application, all of whom have denied that this application should go forth as it now stands. I have one simple question for this august body that is: Why have you not taken the advice of three impartial environmental experts, why? I mean, why are we still here? They have given you a road map, and they have said no. They've given you the reasoning behind your decision. They've said, it's okay to deny this not because it's personal but because it's wrong. It's going to impact negatively on the aesthetic of the north fork and the environment, the wetlands, your jurisdiction. So I think as a favor to the people.who keep coming here month after month at great cost, and it is not easy, we demand, and I think we're owed an explanation as to why. Thanks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you, anybody else? Who is the third expert, .ma'am? You referenced three .experts from the Town that urged us to deny the application? MS. RAVE: Scott Hughes, from I believe your department, Mark Terry from the DEC -- no, from the Town Planning Board and Randall -- Matthew Penski from the DEC, I spoke to him. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did he make any comment into our file? MS. RAVE: He did, in fact, if you go for Freedom of Information, I went to the DEC headquarters, I don't know where I went, it was offthe L.I.E., I spoke to Nancy Pinimenti, who is the permit administrator, I took a look at the file, all three of those decisions are in those files. I have copies if you would like them, I can easily fax them to. you tomorrow. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just have to answer your comment somewhat because you said that it is the intent of the Board is to wear everyone down. MS. RAVE: It seems so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I disagree with that. If you look at our agenda. If had been present tonight at our entire meeting, you would have seen that that was not the case; that we have almost 30 public hearings that we're hearing, that we have reviewed in all different stages from granting permits the first month to this much more extreme condition, where we are still reviewing this application after many months, and ~ think that's our job to review it and not to make a hasty Board of Trttstees 54 May 26, 2004 decision, and, therefore, possibly a bad decision and if we were not going to try to -- there's no such thing as a timely decision. It's either a good decision or a bad decision. Are there any other comments? MR. ARNOFF: I have one, if I may, Mr. Chairman. There's a letter, a notice of incomplete application by Mr. Penski, it's not a report, and you may or may not have that as par[ of yourfile. If you don't Ill hand it up. It's was a letter from Mr. Hallockto Mr. Penski. But I think it is, at very best, a doomsday comment that the future of this Town will be impacted or affected by the granting of this application. This is a single application. Perhaps other people may be affected and they don't like the result, but ultimately that's what this Board is caused to do. This Board is appointed or elected; this Board is elected but I'm talking about boards that serve this community have to make hard decisions. That's you.r job. If you didn't want to do it, you wouldn't be here. You have other choices. You have families and things you want to do. It's been a frustrating process for Jeff Hallock, but you know what, we've lived with it and we're not here to complain. We're just here to say I think.it's time to make a decision. And I respect the Board and the, Board,kno~vs me a long time. I commend this Board for its hard work. But I want to make something clear. Jeff Hallock has not developed this road. He's hasn't done a thing to this road. So if somebody in this room is trying to lay at his feet some kind of sinister a~tivity, I resent that. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my client and I want record to be clear on that. And if somebody has some proof to the contrary, I would demand that they make that availabJ~ to this Board tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any Board comment? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would just like to comment that all along I have maintained this road, that this road should remain 50 feet from the tidal wetlands where possible and it seems possible in some Ibcations on this project site. TRUSTEE KRUPSKk Sir? MR. HAUSER: Hi, my name is Jim Hauser. I live on Nor[h Oakwood Road. I don't think there was any implication that Jeff Hallock was driving the orange tractor, it's Ronnie or Teddy Diachun who's been doing that. It's been going on for the last couple of years and I'm very familiar with that path. It used to go u.p to the old farm house at the end of the creek that belonged to -- what I always refer to as "old Mrs. Diach~n." As a kid I used to go up and pick punks; she Board of Trustees 55 May 26, 2004 never minded, just knock on the door, ask permission, and we'd pick cattails to dry out, use for punks, walk back along the road, the path, whatever you call it, and it was very narrow and grassy and leafy on the bottom. It wasn't something, it may have been a farm track at one time but hadn't been used all the way through my years growing up until just the last couple of years, Mr. Diachun's been driving up and more and more so lately. So that's the person who's been breaking the road down or building it up, or however you want to look at it. I've gone into a couple of environmental sites on the internet, see what they're talking any wetlands and all and I just came across a couple for the EPA Region 2, which is our region for the Federal EPA. They have come up with some pointers, not points of law, just suggestions on that, and I thought they were pertinent, One was selecting upland rather tha, n:wetland sites for development projects and avoid wetland alteration or degradation, maintain wetlands and adjacent buffer stdps as open space. Now, this proposed road is the buffer strip. It rips right through it.. I-hear the saying that it's going to be 15 feet wjdle and. some 1,600. feet long; that's about 25,000 square feet of ei~vironmental impact, not a mild action. As it's been rrter!.~oged before, three studies have looked at this. They diCln't say Mr.. F!~llock can't build a house; they just said it Wgs not a wise t~ing, not a good thing, not an advisable thihg to 15uild g road right along the wetlands in the buffer zoae, rippibg Up 25,000 square feet of it, trees, plant~, natural.habitat for animals, birds, ospreys, as'l,mentio~d ~Bef. ore. They all said Mr. Hallock can bund a road on the east part of his property. I have no proglem w)th that. I don't think anybody on our side of this issue ha~any problePh w!th it. It's an open option for him, rather tl'fan~ rippi,ng u,l~ 25,000 square feet of wetland buffer z. one. We're c~omi~g up with a presidential election, and I just noticed'thai bo~. the president and his opponent have both co,ne out on,the record how much they care about the wetiaeds.' If's ab~g d~eal. It's an important issue. And I notice that a lot of the cases that were before this Board t~nighf,!had to ~ea~:!with docks, mostly docks being put down. ThiS is, a:tota'lly di~er, ent issue. And that's the on y poi~nt wlanted ~o regime on that. And one fna point s the state EP/~ the st~Ind~rds for issuing permits, they talk about they wi]i not have ~ undo adverse impact on the present:or pe~.ntial v, alue[;~wildlife habitat, open space and ae~thetio:appre~ialJcln; personally, the aesthetic Board of Trustees 56 May 26, 2004 appreciation doesn't seem binding to me. Looks like a lot of legal wiggle room, but wildlife habitat, open space, the nature of the wetland and the importance of the buffer zones, these are all important issues, and I don't think they should be plowed up to be made for a road when there is an option of putting a road as the three experts who testified before, putting a road over on the eastern side of the property. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MR. HALLOCK: Good evening, Jeff Hallock, the applicant. I'd just like to reiterate one more time, I think I've said it a dozen times here over the course of the last year. We've all met there on the road with the DEC representafive -- the rOad, not the woodland, not pristine -- you people.have been there, you know what's there. There is a road there and they admit that it's traveled daily with dump truckS, bulldozers. It's a road. It's there. I'm not ripping up 25,000isquare feet of anything, and we've amended our plan to keep the road. exactly the way it is. We're going to kebp it an eight foot road. We've gotten approval to do that. 'Nothihgis changing. If the road moves anyplace we do much more damage to the environment than leaving it the wax it is. Tkiat's what the DEC said. That's common sense to me. The road exists the way it right now is there. We've ~11 walkerl it, we've all been up and down it. Heavy e.qu pment goes. up and down it daily if it moves to the east S!de 0f the property, away from the wetlands, if it moves 50~l~eet from the wetlands. If it moves anyplace, we do more damage fhan leaving it the way it is. And that's where our applic.a~ion sits! right now. Thank you. TRUSTEE ~,REIF'S~KI: Thank you. Any other comment? Does the Board have any cdmment? There was some question before wh,ther the~SE~QRA form had been reviewed by the Town. MR. JOHNSTON: Is the¢e something in the file to show that it's been reviewed? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Presumably there should be. (Conversation) TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I have a letter from Mark Terry on March 24th: "The applicant needs to amend application and specifically ~tate improvement. The current application references the ZBA decision. It is my understanding that this action is not consistent with that shown on the survey dated as re .ceived on February 20, 2004. The data in the application must match the survey received February 20, 2004. I recommend no action tonight until the application is amended or conditions are noted into the record." Board of Trustees 57 May 26, 2004 MR. ARNOFF: That's exactly what happened since that letter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I just want to finish it. "The improvements indicated on the LEAF, the Long Environmental Assessment Form, and the survey need to be clarified. The standard stone blend road cross section is inconsistent with the eight foot road shown on the survey. It shows a 16 foot wide road section with an eight foot wide section on the east side noted to be cleared. I recommend the Trustees request actual proposed improvements including courses, trees to be cleared, et cetera. I cannot issue a SEQRA determination or clarification until the proposed action is consistent with the survey." Your question was has that been reviewed? MR. JOHNSTON: Has somebody with environmental credentials reviewed this submissiob after it was submitted, is what we're trying to say. Did he have the benefit of their answers? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You're right. I don't see it. MR. JOHNSTON: I thinkthat was one of the lawyer's questions. Was the evidence of the review subsequent to the submission. We may just say yes, it doesn't change my conclusion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh My answer is no. MR. JOHNSTON: No what? TRUSi'EE KRUPSKh No, I don't believe it has been reviewed. Is everyone comfortable with that, closing the hearing and getting a report from Mark, Brownell? If there's no change with whatever it is, if it's consistent with what he said before. TRUS-CEE FOSTER: Make a decision on that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUS-~EE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTiEE KRUPSKI: The Board will reserve decision. MR. ARI~OFF: Thank you Mr. Krupski. 27. Liberty Permit and Research on behalf of BROADWATER$ COVE MARINA requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace existing 160' of bulkhead and 4' wood walk, remove existing shrub hedge, restore retaining wall and wood steps as necessary and install 5' wide by 160' wood walk at parking lot level. Remove and replace existing 320' of bulkhead and wood walk 5' wide, and repair plus/minus 3' of retaining wall with wood steps where necessary. Re-deck existing 4' by 40' dock and install vinyl sheathing on north side of 4' Board of Trustees 58 May 26, 2004 by 40' dock to prevent further erosion. Remove and replace existing 140' of bulkhead and install 5' by 140' wood walk. Located: 8000 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM # 104-8-2.5. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? MR. MCHENRY: Tom McHenry, Liberty Permit and Research for the applicant. MR. JOHNSTON: Did you fill out a disclosure form? MR. MCHENRY: Yes. There are two items that we would like to remove from our application after discussing with the DEC. We got an indication from them that they're ready to give our final approval, but they would like two things omitted from our application. Line 7 of the calendar listing it says, Install vinyl sheathing on north side of 4' by 40' foot dock to prevent further erosion, there's a bed of muss(~ls'[n~ there, so they would rather we didn't do that. The otffer thing at the end of Line 9 is a 5' by 140' wood walk that's going to be omitted also; that's over on the west side. of the marina where there is no walk now. I also ask if the Board would consider the fact that we're not proposing anything new. We're only refacing and repairing whal's, existing. Perhaps the Board could waive the condition",~f a new site plan we could work with the old site plan:that we have. TRUSTEE 'Iq~UPSKI: You mean survey?. MR. MCHE~RY: Yes. The necessity of getting a new survey. TRUSTEE K;RUPSKh Any comment, is there any other comment? Does th~ Bo~ird!ha~e any comment? TRUSTEE POE'IWODA: What DEC recommended, we recommended on site. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Those were our recommendations. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You know one thing I was going to recommend, you put spotlights up, if you shield them down onto the doc[~s themselves. Whether you put a cover on them so they hit do~vn on the dock. MR. MCHENRY: They're sensors, they only stay on for five minutes, only if someone forgets their keys, or their wallet, to walk down the dock. TRUSTEE K~RUPSKI: Sure, great idea. Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve the amended application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. Board of Trustees 59 May 26, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. JOHNSTON: Could you fill out -- not tonight, but can you make sure that Lauren gets the transaction disclosure form from you as an agent for them. He filled one out as a principal. We received that one yesterday, correct? MR. MCHENRY: Yes, sir. 28. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MARY S. ZUPA requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge approximately 190 cubic yards of shoaled material from the mouth of the canal at Paradise Point to maintain 4' MLW at a maximum of 1 on 2 slope. The dredge activity is proposed to be conducted hydraulically. Place dredged materials along plus/minus 100 of shoreline (+MHW) of properly owned by Mary Zupa for beach renourishment. Containment of excess dredge material in plus/minus 75' Geotube placed at toe of westerly section of bulkhead for temporary bulkhead fortification. Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM 81-1-16.7. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the application. At the site inspection you asked me for additional material which I would like to present to you. Here's the soundingS. Here's the revised plan because we talked to the DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If you could just read it into the record, the proposed activity, the revised application. MS. MESIANO: Maintenance dredging of approximately 190 cubic yards ~f~shoaled material from the mouth of the canal to Paradise Point to maintain 4' below mean Iow water at a maximum of 1 on 2 slope. The dredged activity is proposed to be conducted hydraulically. Place~nent of 50 cubic yards dredged material along 100 foot of shereline above mean high water of property owned by.Mary Zupa. Dredged material to be used for beach renoudshment containment of excess dredge material in a temporary upland drawing site. All proposed activity as shown on;[he attached plan prepared by Sea Level Mappidg dated 4¢23/04. The purpose of the proposed activity to -- maintenance dredging is proposed because the mouth of the canal into the basin at Paradise Point is severely shoaled. The purPoSe of,the dredging operation is to maintafn a chanael d, epth of 4' below mean Iow water to provide for navig,atit~nal safety and to prevent disturbance of the bottom by bo;a~ traffic. New York State DEC supports use of dredge m~atCrCal for beach renourishment because the Board of Trustees 60 May 26, 2004 existing jetty has caused diminution of beach to the east and placement of the dredged material as proposed will serve to return natural indigenous materials back into the system in which it was originated. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comment? MS. MESIANO: Yes, I would just like to comment that between the time that our application was submitted and the time of the site inspection, the dredge operation was conducted by others, which is part of the reason for the revision of our application. Further discussion with the DEC resulted in our removing the request for the Geotube. Since the activity has been conducted this year, there is no spoil to temporarily store, so we have just eliminated that whole section of the permit. We have eliminated the Geotube because we don't have a temporary storage issue. The proposed activ!ty that I. have described is before the DEC and my application'is pending. I expected the written application to be'iSsued by this meeting, but I just don't have it in hand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. MESIANO: Does the Board have any questions? TRUSTEE K~UPSKI: We have lots of questions. MR. JOHNSTON: As a point of record, Cathy, can you identify the tax,map nu~n'ber of where you are going to be taking the spoils from? MS. MES'[A. NO: I don't believe there is a tax map number. MR. JOHNSTON: Or the physical location. MS. M~S.IANO: The physical location is the mouth of the inlet at'the seaward end of the jetties that form the canal that gO~es into the basin at Paradise Point. It's outside of the mban high water, so therefore, I don't believe it's part of any!ax map number. It's in state waters. MR. JQHNSq-ON: Are you satisfied that you know where that is, Al? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, I'm not. MR. JOHNSTON: I'm concerned over Chapter 58 notification of the adjacent properties to wherever the revised activity is. MS. MESIANO: The revised activity is outside the basin at the mouth of the jetty and the adjacent property owners are the Paradise Point Association, who owns the piece of propeKy to the west of the westerly jetty. Mary Zupa owns the property to the east of the easterly jet, and the realty trust -- let me just give you the name of that -- the Basin Road'Realty Trust, which is the Curcura property which you visite(J earlier in this hearing owns the properly to the east o~r, the Zupa property. I noticed that property because Board of Trustees 61 May 26, 2004 it is adjacent to the Zupa property upon which the dredged spoil would be temporarily placed and also part of the spoil would be used for beach nourishment; and I noticed the Paradise Point Association because that property is adjacent to the westerly jetty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh For clarification, you handed us two documents tonight, one of them show a dredged section to be dredged; the other one shows soundings currently. So this is a request for -- MS. MESIANO: Let me back up and reiterate my request. We had initially requested this permit because the mouth of the inlet was shoaled; the area has since been dredged by others. However, the permits that allow dredging in that area, some or all' of'those permits will expire by the next time this needs, tO be done, and we don't want to be here at the 12th hour tryir~g to get a dredge permit before the end of May in the year 2005. The Paradise Point Association, since you bring.it, up, has some type of permits, I have copy of their permits which I~m sure you do too. Their latest permit dated 11¢21/20Q0, that would be Permit Number 5246 allows them to, and I will read this to you, "To resheath from the inside existing east jetty with Sealock Series 4500 vinyl shea[hing. Also replace one-inch toe rods and place washers 3" by 6"'top plant and 2" ail drains at Iow point of Basin Road to eliminate potential runoff. Each drain to consist of 8" by 8"'concrete leaching structure bearing traffic with on~ casting to grade to receive road water. Connecting pipe between structures to be 6" PVC. Maintenance Dredge Permit Number 5161 only at maintenance area to.repair outside jetty and not inside basin. Run concurrent ,with Army Corps and DEC. Ten year permit. Any work done is subject to. getting authorization from the owner to access prop, erty." Prior to that May 15, 2000 you issued under Permit 5161, "Maintenance dredge existing basin to 4' ALW 1,100 cubic yards to be utilized as backfill or to be trucked away to an approved upland site dredge by crane on a barge with enclosed containers dredging will occur in two areas, 50' by 100' and 50' by 130': as per enclosed plans. No upland clearing is approved: by this permit. This is a one time approval to solve a shallow water problem because of the deteriorating condition of the onsite bulkhead structures and the erosion in ,the basin. The issues of the deteriorated bulkhead and erosion in the basin must be addressed before additional maintenance dredging is approved. Upland, access to the staging area dewatering site Board of Trustees 62 May 26, 2004 must be provided by the applicant." We have an amendment to a permit from the DEC dated May 19, 2000 which states, "Your recent request to modify the above permit has been reviewed pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 621. It has been determined that the proposed modifications will not substantially change the scope of the permitted actions or the existing permit conditions. Therefore, the permit is amended to authorize the transfer of dredged material from the barge container directly to conveyance vehicles within Paradise Point basin at the terminus at Basin Road." And prior to that, effective April 19, 2000, expiring April 18, 2005, the DEC issued permits to maintenance dredge two areas within the basin and its inlet. The inlet area being 50' by 130' and the basin area 50' by 100'. Both areasto be dredged to a maximum depth of 4' below mean water, a maximum of 1,000 cubic yards of material comb~ed may be removed from the two areas in any calendar year, all work mus'~ be 'clOne jn accordance With the attached plans by J.M.o~ Con'suiting last revised the 2/21/2000 and stamped New York State".' .DEC approved 4/19/2000. So my pointiS'thatthe DEC permit will expire 4/16/2005. Your las.t two: p'ermits are not consistent with each other. My furthe!'~point is that the Zupas are the riparian owners to [he.,~tea in question, and as riparian owners to the area:'-in .q~esfion, they certainly have the right toconduct the l~rCpos~d activity. The proposed activity is adtivity that.h~a~ previously been approved and is r~ot inconsistent ~vithsp,.rJor approvals. The proposed acthtity is to 9rovide'f0r:Safe navigation. If you have questions~ I would be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSK!: You say our previous two permits were not consistent with each other?. MS. MESIANO: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh In what way? MS. MESlANO: Your May 15, 2000 permit states, "This is a one time approval t~so.lve a shallow water problem because of the deteriorating' condition of the on-site bulkhead structures and the eroslon in the basin." Then your 11/21/2000 permit says 10 year permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSiKI: I believe the Board issued a permit to the landowner to -- MS. MESIANO: Which landowner? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The current landowner. MS. MESIANO: Of? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Tax map 81-1-16.7 to conduct some upland Board of Trustees 63 May 26, 2004 improvements to control the erosion. MS. MESIANO: Okay. My concern is with your earlier permit saying a one time approval, and then referring to that approval as a 10 year maintenance permit; and then referring to the 10 year maintenance permit to run concurrent with the Army Corps and the DEC when that will expire in April of 2005. So I really don't know where you're going with this. Why don't you tell me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I wasn't going anywhere. I want clarification on what you said. MS. MESIANO: I guess we both were looking for the same thing, then. Then we are looking for a 10 year maintenance dredging permit for this particular location by my client to maintain .a depth of 4 feet at Iow water, dredge spoil to be temporarily stored onsJte and either utilized for back filling of bulkheading onsJte or removed to an approved upland location;. There's no need for this this year but them most likely will be need for it in the future, and I think we have,he right to request a permit for activity that wili needto be done. TRUSTEE POLIW©DA: I thought in the field you proposed rock revetment in front of the bulkhead and then sand it over? MS. MESIANO: We talked about that, and at this point in time since we're not conducting the bulkhead activity, we don't want to make any modifications to the existing permit. When the point in time comes that the applicant is undertaking those activities under that permit, we will then come back to you to discuss those issues. But since we don't have material to store temporarily, there's no mason for us to touch that area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:: Just the bulkhead stabilization seems to be an issue. MS. MESIANO: It is an issue. However, we don't want to touch that permit at this point, we're talking strictly about the dredging of that inlet. That's something that's approved under a different permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can't find it, I can't find the scope of the dredging. Or is it just a generic request to keep the channel open to four feet? I mean, you referenced our old permit that had a 50' =by 130' dredge area. MS. MESIANO: Yes, I'm referencing yours. TRUSTEE ,KRUPSKI: Could I get that drawn on a survey? MS. MESIANO: You would have that information in your file; that's in your old permits. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand that. That's why I'm asking. Board of Trustees 64 May 26, 2004 It makes a lot clearer. I mean this would be a different permit from what we issued to the association. So we need to see that dredge rectangle drawn on your application. MS. MESIANO: The areas denoted on the new hydrographic survey of the current conditions, the area denoted as -5, I think that reasonably reflects the area about which we are speaking because the overall length of that area denoted as -5 is approximately 150 feet from north to south, and at its widest point, it looks like between 30 and 35 feet from west to east. And its narrowest point, I would say it looks like 15 feet or thereabouts. So I think for a point of reference, the area denoted as being the -5 elevation contour on thehydrographic survey, prepared by Robert Foxx of Sea Level Mapping that is dated 5/19/2004, provides the information that you just asked for. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MS. MEsI~IqO: You're welcome. TRUSTEE KRUPSK]: Any other comments? MR. PASCA: Anthony Pas~:a of Esseks, Hefter and Angel. We represent Paradise Point Association. First, point is I d~id get a chance to look at what I guess is now an outdated application this morning. I obviously h~rv. en't, seen.wh~at was just handed up at almost the 11th h6urt0day, certai'fil~t the 11th hour figuratively, so we would like~a chance, to Iobk at whatever they have submitted and study it, of course. Going to the permits, she says that there is a conflict betwe'en you~ r.permits; what she doesn't tell you is that be~.en your first Permit and the second permit, someth[n'g hapl~ened, and is that the Army Corps give a 10 year permit. So in the second permit of yours, when you said to run concurrent with U.S. Army Corps 10 year permit, it makes a lots of sense wi~y you did that. We have a 10 year permit, it, goes until 2010. I don't know why they're trying toju,mp in line five years ahead of the game, but for whatever, reason theY're here asking for a permit, even though we have a. permit a(nd we're acting under that permit, something doesn't make sbnse, whatever's going on, and I don't think they have.expla~med it to you, and I don't think they've been honest to you about why they're here. MS. MES'IANO: I haven't opened my mouth. I'm just standing up. MR. PASCA: I haven't finished. I don't see how you can issue conflicting permits. We are the holder of the current permit. We are the holder of the current Army Corps permit, at least until Board of Trustees 65 May 26, 2004 2010; we are the current owner of the DEC permit, we plan on renewing that permit, of course. As you probably know, at least the DEC does not allow more than one dredging per year, so two people can't hold the same permit to do the same activity. So I think before they come to you to ask you for a new permit, they would have to find a way to invalidate our existing permits, and until that's done, I don't see how you have any power to grant a duplicate conflicting permit for ones you've already granted and the ones the other agencies have already granted. Let's get past that for a second. Assume for the sake of argument that you did have the power to do it, I'd like you to at least ask yourselves why should we. Why should we grant a permit to dredge a basin that is used by many people, including a homeowners association. Why should we grant the exclusive right-to do that to a single landowner,.doesn~t make much sense to me. But then add in another factor (hat a few'years ago when we were applying for our permit, the. Zupas, came before you and said they're against annual dTedgidg. I'~'s in your records, you can check your-tranScripts. It says it, I'm against annual dredging. Now all of a sudden, he's the saviour of the ba¢in, and they want to take care of evep/thing, so much so that they have~g?;.t te ,.come in a year ahead of time to get some sort,o_f aiS~:l'icatbns. There s a [dj, of difficult questions here, and I hope you take your ~i~ne to ~k them, and we'd certainly like a chance to review:new ~submissions and, of course, address whatever is~ rai~ed by tf~e;.Board. TRUSTEE,KRUPSKI: ~Thank you. Is it just a bi-ief r~C, po:nse or is it new -- MS. MESIA._'NO; Firs~t'4¥ all, I object heartily to being accused'oC, lbei~g"di.~b..¢nest. I want to go on the record loud and clear. I've, been.!¢e:~.lng before this Board for 11 years, and I thir~'k } ha~e~,a r;~!d:~r~t with you people of being direct and honest and I heartli'y object to anyone standing before you and mak ng that as,:sertpn. Number 1. Number 2; wbh r/e~pecll~to the alleged objection earlier by the Zupas~.Ufia~nual dredging, I think that was in reference to th.e ¢.'acbthCt jetties were leaking, and no, dredging s'h'.oul~l.n~t be conducted on an annual basis because if proper m~intbnance ~yere being done on areas that were under the contEoI .of thC, quote, homeowners association, which I'd liki~ to remind,you, doesn't really fit all the criteria of a lho~e~)wners association. If those people who assume that level of authority were acting out in that Board of Trustees 66 May 26, 2004 capacity, the condition of the jetties that exists today wouldn't exist. When I was there a week ago, the westerly jetty was half empty of sand. I don't care how many permits you've issued, there has not been one iota of maintenance that has occurred to that structure. That structure is half empty. The material is lying in the bottom of the channel or in the bottom of the bay or in a landfill somewhere. They're so concerned about all of these things, yet the activity for which the association has permits, the activity is not occurring. The land is continuing to deteriorate. Now whether the Zupas dredge or some entity dredges, that's all well and good, but if one has a permit for activity to protect that wh!ch is sacred, why is it deteriorating to the point that it is. And why am I standing here being acCused of being dishonest, et cetera, when nothing's happening except a lot of verbose garbage. Now, can I ans~ver some relevant questions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: That's what I'd like to get into. Does the Board haye any ~ue~ions? My comments are, either you say we issued one d~edg)ng permit for maintenance dredging and that's enough, it's reUu.ndant to issue more; or you can say there's o~her interested parties that aren't satisfied with the performance of the maintenance dredging and they'd like to insure -- MS. MESIANO: I would tike to comment if you don't mind my interrupting you. TRUSiEE.KRUPSKI: I do mind. MS. MESIANfD: We are concerned with the maintenance dredging because the Zupa boat sustains substantial damage as a result of'the'condition of the channel, which is why we're before you seeking this because if we maintain a boat to come in and .out of this basin, we want to be able to do it safely. I apologize for interrupting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, I'll start again. There's two schools of tttought on, do you allow one entity to dredge as is the norm and customary in areas where private dredging takes place, where people are happy to have one entity take responsibility and the financial burden of dredging, or do you allow another interested party to dredge because they feel that they're not satisfied with the performance and that it's not reaching'their expectations, and in which case you would say what does it matter who dredges? The only similarity I can see in my experience is when the Town actually and the county actually gave up the responsibility of dredging: to a private homeowner, who took on the responsibility to dredge because they weren't satisfied with Board of Trustees 67 May 26, 2004 the county and Town's performance, and that was down in New Suffolk, and that was Louis Bacon and he took that over privately because he was unhappy because the County would dredge annually and by boating season, the area was pretty much shoaled in; and it was pretty much unusable down in New Suffolk. So this isn't totally without precedent that somebody would take it over because they were unhappy with the maintenance dredging. The scope of the project never changed, so environmentally it was no difference. MS. MESlANO: I'd like to add another point. Aside from the fact that the Zupas are not satisfied with the level of the quality of the maintenance, there's the issue of what happens to the dredge spoils. The. Zupas own the waterfront lot to the east of the subject site; that.~hat be,ach front is being depleted because of the diversion .of the sand that would otherwise flow in that direction. Part of their application entails the use of these Spoils to renourish some of that beach. They would like to be able to use the spoil to backfill at the point in time w.',h, en,their bulkheading is done. As you know, we.have s~nt numerous hours discussing the Iow sill bulkhead ins['de tf]e basin and restoration of that area utilization of th.e s,a. nd taken from the mouth of the channel, it would be, apwol~r,-i~te:to Use that for that purpose. So aside from.th~:fa~t that-~h'e maintenance is not being conducted iapp~ro~dte!y, th.e use of the dredge spoil would be better -- tt~ u~ of th'e dredge spoil for our proposed purposes is a I~etf~-~us~ ti4fin having it trucked to an upland site and taken oul of:th.e system totally. All of the beaches upddff o{~ffiS loo8tion are being starved as a result of thosp jettit~s. [ don t th~nk that can be disputed altf~;bu,g~?l'm su~eithere's some n this room that wi!l take thb 6pp~r~ni~ to dispute it. TRUSTEE K~,U~K~': Ooes the Board have any objection to using the dredged spoi~l~j~site as~beach nourishment? TRUSTEE F~S.~,I~.R; No. TRUSTEE K~.~J~: I don't think that's an issue. TRUSTEE F®STER,; I think it is with the DEC, it's intertidal. MS. MESIANO: No. My application clearly states that any spoil would be deposited above the high water mark at that clearly outline the area -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's no beach there at Iow tide, is there? MS, MESIANO: There is a beach at the easterly end of the Zupa property. Board of Trustees 68 May 26, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: So you're going to put it on that one end? MS. MESlANO: We can only put it above the high water mark at the easterly end of the property. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't have a problem with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No one here does. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think it's ever been an issue with this Board. It's always been a DEC issue. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you satisfied with the notice? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm satisfied with the notice. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Legally there's no problem with the permit, one overriding the other?. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They don't override, it's just an extra permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I'm saying. TRUSTEE KING: What's it going to be a race to dredge? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thoughts, Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't care if we issue 10 permits. MS. MESlANO: We only want one so it makes it easy. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was my one question whether there was apything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any other comments? MR. JOHNSTON: Al, are you satisfied that anybody of interest has had a chance to object? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I remember that whatever the dredge permit we issued earlier for Paradise Point Association, whether it was four feet or five feet or 6 feet should be identical to that permit. MS. MESlANO: We requested the same four feet that was issued and granted on the earlier. That they dredged to five feet is..out of our control. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, you're absolutely right. That should be in there. That should be an absolutely identical permit so that one person dredges and the next person can't go in and say there's 1'0 feet extra because that shows on my permit. MR. JOHNSTON: I'm going to go a half foot deeper. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're asking for trouble. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Brownell brought up the question of notification, is everyone satisfied that the neighbors have been adequately noticed? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Did you get it or didn't you? MS. MESlANO: The neighbors were adequately noticed. They chose to refuse delivery of the certified mailing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I saw that. MR. JOHNSTON: I leave it up to you, Al. MS. MESIANO: They're here. If they weren't adequately Board of Trustees 69 May 26, 2004 noticed, their attorney would not be present. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only other issue I can see from not granting this tonight is that -- I'll call them, can I call them for the records, the neighbors? -- have asked to review the information that was submitted tonight, and of course, it's impossible for them to review that, and I think - MS. MESIANO: I object to that. They have had adequate notice. I gave you what you asked for a week and-a-half ago. MR. JOHNSTON: What would be the detriment to giving this a month to be thought about? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is none because the dredging can't be done. MR. JOHNSTON: What damage to be on the conservative side? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see any damage to table this for a m~)nth and let it be reviewed by any interested parties, and I'm not questioning the notification, which seems to be adequate, even if someone refuses it. And we do have, I mean I do have an issue personally, to submitting something at the meeting that an interested party can't have time to review. MS. MESIANO: If it were something new but what I submitted to,you was what you requested, and it is a depiction of the activity that was conducted by that party. They know full well what activity they conducted, and my map chose the results of their operations. MR. PASCA: I'm sorry, from what I heard before, you were reading modifications to the proposal, modifications to the application itself. How we could know about the modifications to the application when I was here this morning and those modifications were not in the file? MS. MESIANO: Those modifications only affect the shore front of the Zupa property. It has nothing to do with any dredge area, any land that others have. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was just going to say, what we issue is probably going to be an identical permit as far as in water operations. MR. PASCA: I think we're entitled to see what they submitted today; that is what due process and notice and having public hearings is all about, is to let the public see what is going on. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You can't issue two different spoil sites. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes, you can. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Whoever gets there first, now you're starting real problems. Board of Trustees 70 May 26, 2004 MR. JOHNSTON: That's the first I saw that. MR. PASCA: Maybe everyone along the basin should apply for dredging permits, and to the victor go the spoil, is what they say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I personally feel that it's better if you have full disclosure and everyone has a chance to review it, especially that this is in a timely -- I would like to see you amend your application to make the scope of the dredging to be identical to the existing Town permit that's currently issued to the association, same description, same scope. MS. MESIANO: That's a little difficult to achieve because the shoaling takes place in maybe subtle differences, but if I outline a specific area that's perfectly delineated and it shoals in a little bit of a different area, then I'm in violation. I've shown, you an area on this map where others have created a five foot depth. We're looking to maintain a maximum of four foot at loW water. I have no responsibility to the.five foot d~pth, but that area outlines the area in which is most probable th.~. the dredge activity would be necessary, and I. don't thin,k that the earlier permits were any more scientific or techgical than that which I submitted to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have the old permit in front of me, but was there an area drawn in on the -- MS. MESIANO: It was a hatch-marked area. Nothing even as technical as what I have submitted to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think the Board would be more comfortable in issuing an identical permit in scope of dredging. Now the Board doesn't have a problem, as you have heard, with issuing an alternate spoils site, that's going to be different. But I think the scope of the dredging should, be completely identical because we don't want to have two dredging pro~Jects in one year, and we don't want to get into a situatioT~ where everyone's going to be playing around. TR~US'..TEE POLIWODA: We're not giving out 10 permits for 10 different dredging operations and everyone does their own thing. It would have to be identical. One person comes in, he does the work, that's it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's got to be worded the same. MS. MESIANO: That wording is up to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm going to ask you as an applicant to word it the same as the existing, valid dredge permit for that area, and then to amend your application to have it, the hatch-mark area identical to the existing valid permit. MS. MESIANO: Fine. Board of Trustees 71 May 26, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because then we don't get into the -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't understand the need for the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Let's take a step back. We're looking at this from an environmental standpoint. Most of the creeks in Southold Town have the mouths dredged for navigation and flushing purposes. MS. MESlANO: That's the purpose of the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Most of the creeks in the county, we had a big controversy this year with Little Creek, most of the creeks are done by the county, some of the creeks are done privately; they're usually granted a 10 year maintenance permit because not every creek has to be dredged every year, and then they're dredged as an as-needed basis, but they have the dredging permit. Sometimes some areas go through 10 years without being dredged at all, but the 10 year maintenance permit gives them that window of opportunity to come in and dredge. What I would like to see from the applicant is a. rnaidtenance dredging permit that is going to be environmentally as sound as the current maintenance dredging permit. MS. MESlANO: Okay. TRUSTEE KR. EIPSKh So I'll make a motion to table. MR. PASCA: Can I make a comment? MR. JOHNSTON: Al, I just want to make sure that the three out of five of you can, in your mind, have a need. I don't want to .set ourselves up to have five permits here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Let's think it out as to what we're -- MR. JOHNSTON: Ken, you have no problem with five permits? TRUSTEE PO[~JWODA: No. As long as they're all worded the same and sem¢:body does the work. TRUSTEE KRE~SK[: Basically you're looking at someone wants to dredge; look at it e'nvironmentally, forget the players because, it's too confgsing. TRUSTEE POLIWOBA: It's a fight over sand, Harbor Lights is all filled, in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our Board doesn't have a problem with putting the sand as beach nourishment instead of carting it off. Our Board environmentally doesn't have a problem with the basin being dredged as needed to a certain depth in a certain area, so, that% the environmental issue. Beyond that it's just a social problem. (Conversation) TRUSTEE FOSTER: You said there's no issue here, that we're not responsible for that, but if you create the situation, you areresponsible. You have created that situation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't think we're responsible for Board of Trustees 72 May 26, 2004 creating any situation down there. Sir? MR. PASCA: You are creating an environmental problem if you do this. You say, no big deal environmental, why do we have a problem with this. What happens in January, somebody dredges, then in spring another person dredges, then in the fall, another person dredges. You're only supposed to have one dredging a year, that's the way the DEC has their permits, each permitee is only allowed to dredge once a year for a reason, because they don't want the ground being raked up multiple times a year. If you start giving out permits to different people, they're each allowed to dredge once a year, and you're going to be effectively bypassing the once a year limit, so you do have an environmental consideration here, .and I think you should think about it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: if those permits are identical, there's nothing to dredge. MR. PASCA: Shoaling happens more than just one day a year, it happens throughout a year. If we decide now it's gone from four feet tO three feet over the summer, and we want to dredge in,he fall; we have a permit to do that; and if they decide, oh~ it's gone :back from four feet to three feet and now we want to dredge in the spring, then they can do it. Then let's, add a;few more permitees. MS. MESIANO: I would like to interject. TRUSTEE.KRUPSKI: Peggy's first. TRUSTE .E BlCtCJ~RSON: I was just going to say just make it contingent that if can't be dredged any sooner or closer to the one year. MR. PAS ~CA: You can't take away existing rights. TRUSTBE FOS.TER: If it's dredged in February, it's within a year, it jus. t can't be dredged again for eight more months or 10 more rhonths. MS. MESlAIIIO: I'll speak on behalf of the applicant and say they wouid be willing to offer whatever insurances the Board needs that they would not contribute to any dredge activity occurring !n excess of once a year. MR. PAS.GA; Who decides when the year star[s? We did the last dredg!ng, so if we dredge 364 days later, does that mean thai' th.ey can,t dredge again for a year?. If we dredge 364 days aftbr that? TRUSTE,E KRUPSKh Absolutely. MS. MES[ANO: The dredge window is very narrow. MR. PASCA: I'm telling you we have an existing permit. We're not'gi¥ing that up. So if you want to allow other people to continue,raking the bottom, I think you're disregarding your ~nvironmental obligations on your Wetland Board of Trustees 73 May 26, 2004 Code. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That is the last thing that we would do. MR. PASCA: You're saying it's no big deal. Let's let as many people as want have a permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. Ken said as many people can have a permit, we didn't say we would consider having people dredge more than once a year. MR. PASCA: Since you've already allowed us to dredge once a year at least, I don't know how you can take that away from us, so if you give that right to somebody else, you're effectively saying you guys get to dredge again. It's not as simple as, oh, let them fight it out. We would give out 20 permits and whoever gets there first gets the spoils. It's not that simple. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would be because we wouldn't allow it to be dredged once every 364 days. MR. PASCA: You've. already given us a permit. How are you going to enforce thaf? MS. MESlANO; F'ro.m a practical perspective, and I risk being practica ,.one does not undertake a dredge activity until that point in the boating season when you're starting to put your boats in the wa~er, and it's time to start using them. Fr0m:a practical perspective, one doesn't generally go out to dredge in Iqovember, December, January February; it's usually not done until March, April and May for the purposes of prep.,a.ring for the summer boating season. So one might argue until 2:Ob'in the morning all of these fine points, but from a p[a~filc,al perspective, the dredge window is very sh~rt, highl.y~, nlikely that one will be dredging in October, highly uftlikely that one wou d be dredging in February. The onty ,e~reme circumstance I could imagine is if you have tlbe 100 ,gear storm, it completely shoals over the mouth of'the ba~,'rl, and there are boats trapped in there and people Want te ~et~ttteir boats out for the winter. That's the only scenado I,can imagine. And in that scenario, I imagine qae. r~ight come to this Board for an emergency permit.fg)' relief:from that once a year restriction, b~t looking at it from a practical perspective rather than nitpicki.n~'the;rifle points as nauseam, I think this can be reso veal sirbl:)ly f we look at it from a practical perspective. TRUSTEE KP~PSKI: Make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Sepond. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES 29. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of SCHEMBRI HOMES, Board of Trustees 74 May 26, 2004 INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 30' by 66' single-family dwelling, on-site sewage disposal system and a pervious driveway. Located: 1025 Seawood Drive, Southold. SCTM # 79-7-63. MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there a violation on this property? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. Go ahead. MS. MESIANO: We're here because Mr. Schembri received a building permit for the construction of a single-family dwelling'on this site. Prior to that we received a Health Department approval for the installation of the septic system and the water supply system. Prior to that we received an approval from the Southold Town Board of Appeals for a Waiver of Merger thereby recognizing this as a single and separate lot. The construction activity was commenced and upon commencement of the activity, it was found that the westerly end of the property, that being the rear of the property, was underWater. Now, I would refer you to the survey of the property - and I should back up and say this project has been-going on for the last two years. We first surveyed th)s property and did the test hole, et cetera, November 5, 20.02 there was activity, test hole was done August30, 2002, at that point in time there was no standing water and no ideh~ifi~ible areas of potential wetlands on the site. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Where did all that water come from? MS. MESIANO: That's interesting you should ask that. We have numerous Photographs that have been taken on the site, that demonstrate tha't the runoff that is terminating at this site and is collecting on this site is coming from off-site. The neighborihg properties are both improved. Neighboring dwellings are dwelhngs that are not un ~ke the dwelling that is prqposed on this site. The neighboring properties have b~en cleared' and have grassy lawns all the way down to the Wetland areas. Land has been denoted, there are no trees in the back, there are sheds. There is playground equipment. There's lawn all the way down to the bottom of the property; by bottom, I mean the back end of the property. There are down spouts and gutters and leaders from the neighboring property that connect to pipes that terminate on Mr. SChembri's property and the runoff that is being created on the qeighbodng site is being directed onto this site from the n~ighbodng properties. Both neighboring properties have aslShalt basketball courts. Now we all know that asphalt is not a pervious material. Water collects on the asphalt and runs off down into the bottom of the Board of Trustees 75 May 26, 2004 property. So the runoff that's coming onto this site is being generated at least in part off-site. It's collecting because of the clay content in the subsoil conditions. If you look at the test hole that was done in August of 2002, that test hole happened to have been done at the area that is just landward, if you will, of the line of hay bales, which is consistent with the edge of the flagged wetland. That test hole did not indicate that there was any wet ground at that point. So I have photographs that I'd be glad to give to you. I'll start them down here. You have a 38 by 40 basketball court. This is a neighboring backyard, and I just want to point out all the stumps remaining of the trees that were taken out that goes right down to the wetlands area. The contours on the neighboring lots is consistent with the contours on oursubject property. I should also add that the subject property has been used as a dump site for yard. debris, chunks of concrete, tires, old appliances. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Cut to the chase, is there a wetland indicator plan~s in that? MS. MESIAI~IO: There is moss on some of the trees. There is today no standing water on the site. This is the neighboring houses. Here you see some of those photographs show the pip,es from the downspouts from the neighboring properties and being, directed onto this site. So I can{t say we can assume responsibility for this problem becaus* thi.s is a problem that we have not created. The agencies have adequate opportunity to get their hands on this. Mr. Scheml~r(act,ed in reliance upon the Town's decision to g,ranl him the waiver of merger, to grant him the building permit, started his construction, and then we end up at this point. Sr~ ~e're asking for a permit to construct the structure as pr~p~osed and to move forward. TRUSTEE KRU~S~I: is there any other comment? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Glenn Just, he delineated the wetlands boundary. I'm going;to say maybe we're wrong and maybe it was a runoff pole, btlt why did an environmental consultant come out and -- MS. MESIANO:, Because of the water sitting on the site as a result of the clay condition, it being dark, shady, there was a lot of vegetation in there. Mosses were allowed to grow in the area; this is what was explained to me. So if one were to look at the technical definition of a freshwater wetland, you name mosses as one of the criteria. So in his doing his job':honestly -- we need to bring up that word again -- there was some evidence of vegetation that was Board of Trustees 76 May 26, 2004 listed in your definition. Therefore we were obligated to make this delineation. This site is not on the New York State DEC's inventory of freshwater wetlands. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If this is a wetlands, it's probably very important to the area because there are a lot of deer. MS. MESlANO: How important to the neighborhood can it be, Ken, this is the last unimproved lot on this block. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm not saying it's not buildable, there's plenty of room upland. It's a matter of setting up the buffers correctly. MS. MESlANO: We're willing to work with the Town. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It looks like you ran the driveway right through the wetlands. MS. MESlANO: We didn't have much choice in that site planning becau~;e of the contours on the site. TRUSTEE POblWODA: I mean, it has to be worked out. Maybe he has to have a front yard driveway. MS. MESlANO: If you look at the contours, when you're looking af~it'from t. hat single plain yes, you might say that~ bpt if you look at it from an engineering perspective and you stattrCtaking into account what happens when you start cfitfinginto that area, and then having to provide fill to b. Ui!d, upthe back of the house, and so on, you're creating more of a problem than you're curing. TRUS~E-'E POLIWODA: I have a neighbor, he built an eight foot wall, He lives On a;hill just like this, and he built an eight foot bloCk'w~ili, and that's his buffer. I think he has a 3.5;foot buffer. Similar to that we can set up a 50 foot buffer. MS. M.,E'S.~NO: We have considered that request of the Town, of the TruStees with respect to your discussion of a 50 foot buffer, arrd. it is not feasible on this site to provide a 50 foot buffer. The primary reason behind that is that the septic sy~,~em has to be located in the front yard and we have loc&ted the septic system as far away as we can. We've gotten approval for the location of this septic system; there's no place else'to put it. The house is presently at I believe we measured 36 or 38 feet, and there's no place to put it. The se~ptic sy, stem has to be where it is. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How many feet is that septic according to your wetland ,bCundaries; is that 90? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're going to have that verified by our people. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was going to say have Mark Terry look at it, our environmental engineer. MS. MESlANO: Okay. Then if you want to skip to the next Board of Trustees 77 May 26, 2004 issue of talk about buffering and so on. I'm sure that we can offer a buffer along an area delineated by the hay bales. We really are not in favor of creating a hard structure there. We would be in favor of doing some kind of a planting that would restore some of the area that's been disturbed, and provide a buffer in that manner. I think we've talked about -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's up to him. I figured because it's on a hill you put an eight foot berm up, you have the land. MS. MESlANO: This is Alan Bernhart. Mr. Bernhart is Mr. Schembri's engineer, and he can address technical issues. MR. BERNHART: You brought up the driveway in the back, that's as a permeable driveway. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Before we get into this, I think we should table this and have our environmental consultant go outthere and measure 50 feet then you know what we're working wish. MR. BERNHART: We know where 50 feet would be, it's just not feasible. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: First we're going to do is what Ken said, we're going to delineate the wetland boundary with our people first, and see how it matches up with your people. Then we're going to strive to achieve at least a 50 foot buffer from that wetlands. I don't see how it's not feasible. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's going to be feasible from the hay bale line of 50 feet. MR. BERNHART' Right now the hay bale line, we'd have to push up the offset of the house; right now we only have 38 feet, by pushing it up -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh With that size house. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We do that all the time. Houses can be twisted and shortened. MR. BERNHART: It's 29 foot depth to the house, it's consistent with the neighbors on both sides. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But the property might not be consistent. Just because you look at the footprint, every piece of property is different. Sometimes you have to adjust what you could do on that piece of property just because of the cOnstraints of it. MR. BERNHART: it's actually very similar, the property boundaries are very similar to the adjacent properties. Another point I wanted to bring up regarding the wetland issue, and whether or not you know when Glenn had delineated this it's what we call truly a wetlands issue or not, in my professional opinion, this is not a naturally Board of Trustees 78 May 26, 2004 occurring wetlands. This is a wet area that was derived from runoff of the adjacent properties. That the drainage from the two adjacent properties contribute -- you could see it from the photographs -- that the drainage from the two adjacent properties contribute to this; the grading of the adjacent properties, you can see on the contours both funnel towards the back of this property. So this property is receiving 100 percent of the runoff from both of these properties. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's why we need our engineer in there to delineate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think I'd like a second opinion. MR. SCHEMBRI: Pete Schembri. We had gone to the Zoning Board and we got it unmerged. If you look at the map, when McDonald did his test hole, he did it to the rear of the property. It was dry as a bone there. When he did that test hole he was there with a machine down right at the site. There was nothing there, and you could see the "X". TR0S'[EE KRUPSKh August of'02? You wouldn't expect in August'of '02 to see much water anywhere, that was one of the most ddest summers on record. MR. SCHEMBRI: When we started clearing the lot, going back to a couple months ago, there was no water standing water on the log at all. The only water there was to the rear of the property, ali the way in the back. When the machine 'took down a couple of those oak trees that were there, and he made ruts, the water that ended up standing there was from puddling L~p because of the clay that was under there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You're hitting the nail on the head, that's why We'd like. our environmental consultant out there. Maybe the water is 50 feet encroached and no wetland species under it. MR. SCHEMBRh Okay. And as far as when he asked about a violation, we've discussed the violation with the attorney and we sent a check in, and it was all squared away. I don't know if he knows that. But we mailed our summons and supposedly that's taken care of. They wanted to know if we were on the calendar to come in tonight. MR. JOHNSTON: Was it Town Attorney, Ms. Montefusco? MR. SCHEMBRh Itwas a woman. I'm not sure, my attorney spoke with her and he mailed -- we gave a check to the Town of Southold and mailed it out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's move this along then, please. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you remember the amount of the check? MR. SCHEMBRI: I think it was $1,000. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to get our people to take a Board of Trustees 79 May 26, 2004 look at it. I'm going to ask-- guess we're going to ask you for some modification of your plan that we received tonight. I would guess it's going to include some sort of restoration of the disturbed area and probably not include a driveway and a buffer area, we're going to include a buffer area. Maybe I'm way ahead of myself, and we're going to take our plan that you provided us with tonight and we'll have our people take a look at it to verify that wetland. Thank you. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make a motion to reopen that hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES MR. JOHNSON: Donald Johnson, 895 Seaweed. I'm the next door neighbor to the lot. I just wanted to point out a few things, and yes,, you brought it up, that the test hole was done August 20~2, ~hich has been the driest year around here in a long time. I have lived there four years, and there has been standing water every year there except for 2002. Aisc, the~re is a lot more water standing back there, it's not on this Iht, bul it go.e~s back much further than their lot, ~t s not. coming from my lot, ~t's not coming from my neighbor's lot.that's causing all this water. I mean, I guess the last thi'rtg I would say is that if you do your wetlands marking, by, vegetation, it's going tO be a lot harder to do i! l~ec"Ta,.'Ose there's no vegetation left there. TRUSTEE KR~F~lq: Thby'll be able to seg what was there, I think. Thank you. Any otfaer comment? MR. KLEIN: M~,'i~ar~e is B~rry Klein, my family owns the property on the;o~:p~site aide, at 1125 Seaweed. Just to reiterate what my:n~lghbor~a~d I've been there for three years and;there's alwaYs been standing water there, even in the dry ~ear,:what Was that, 2002, it was so dry there was always sta*d:in~'water there. I got this.through the mail through-th~ ~buil~er's lawyer, and the b!g question was determined the;b.cmrtdary line of the wetlands, now I saw, I went to your offi.'~a the TnJstees, and I saw a notice there where the~ ba~e~ of his'building proposed building is 34 feet from the bou~ry line, that is on his map that I got through the mail.--"Sd it is well within the 100 foot zone that they think. 'So I would just say that you, know I think that his proposal for approval is way out of line. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who has any other comment? Board of Trustees 80 May 26, 2004 Sir? MR. BERGESON: Thank you. Sitting here a long time I can't talk. Bob Bergeson, I live on the other side of Seawood Drive. I've been asked to come as a historian of Seawood Drive. You heard Rudy Brewer say his dock is 44 years old, well I've been in my house for44 years, and I can tell you that that standing pond has been back there for the 44 years that I've been there. On occasion you will have a dry year, but I'm not sure that that standing pond ever dries up completely. There are ducks in this at this point, but my kids used to go there and catch goldfish out of it. So it's been there a leng time, and to have there what Mr. Schembri said when they cut some trees down they saw the water back, I have some pidtures that were taken the day after the trees were felled if'you'd like to keep them and put them in the file. Some of themshow trees laying right across the standing w~ter, if you would have that (handing). And what happened, J in the mid~lle~ .after 9:00, 9:30 at night one night, abou~' .a week later shine'guys showed up and they were out making..~oise i.n the woods, and I didn't.~know anything about it, bu~ my neighb0rs told me, and that's when the hay bales went tn and itwas 9:@0, 10:00 at night. I have no idea why~l~y did Jtlhen. there's two sets ef them. The day after the.,cuttings arid -- MR. JONNSTON: CoUld you put the approximate date on these? MR BERG~S~,N: 'rn goidg to have to go home and do that. MR SCI~E~B!R ' 'd liEe ~ say one thing. When we went for the unmerger'to split thee ~sibgle lot from the 20 acre parcel, the ~h~ r~eighbor~ood showed up here to discuss it, and not enff p~s~n ever sa. id anything about wetlands. The Zoning B~m-d s~ here and,about 30 people came to this micropheae: a~d no one evffr brought up anything about water. The BoardwaSg.'t a~va.r,e ef~it; I wasn't aware of it. I never went to the ba¢.~ ~f t~e:!lo~ a, nd across the property line into the wq~.ds~'~ee i~ there was water there 'cause on the survey it ~id~n't ~hew water. For people to come out now and say that it's'been~here ~nd~meanwhile we went through an unmerger, and we went t~rbugh a building permit process and no one eve~ sam a word abbut [t until they started cutting trees down, .I vcish, so, meb.o~y would have spoke up sooner when we were g, oilngithro~gh ~he process. TRUSTBE ¢(R.U.~$Ki: W.ho owns that back lot? MR. SCHi~I~F~: 'Mr. Reese. Everybody was more concerned about it bbir~'g an ~cc,esS point into that 20 acre, 25 acre parcel, bu['they~ere~'~c~cerned about water. They weren't c~r~cerned about ariything. They didn't want the Board of Trustees 81 May 26, 2004 traffic, and this was actually benefiting them because by putting a house there, there would never be 20 homes coming up and down for 20 people as an access point. So it actually benefits people that are there instead of deters cars coming through. I wish somebody would have spoke up two processes ago when it was in front of the Town instead of tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Sorry, I got to say I did speak in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals with the map. I said at that point where this test hole is the year before there was standing water. I did mention water. I did not mention traffic I mentioned water. I was there. MS. MESlANO: I would like to comment that the objectants are raising issues about Mr. Schembri's activities, but I just want to point' out, I've given the Board photographs, the neighboring properties are cleared, down to the back lot lines; there's not. a.tree left on the property; there's lawn planted all the way down to the wetland area. There's been ongoing dumping occurring on the site. For a neighborhood so concerned with the em, ironmental factors to come out and object so vehemCr!tl~( to Mr. Schembri's activity, when the activity that's occurred on the.presently improved lots is as at least as de~r~ental to the environment as that to which-they're oppo~sed tonight. So I th nk there's a double standard being heiU here and I think the Board needs to take that into consideration. Wte've given you ample 'photographic evidence to show you that these properti~s.~i-e well cleared, well established in lawns. The house thatwe.propose is no closer to the wetland than any of the exis~in, g homes. 'Fhe design of the house is consistent with the designs of the ne~g~hboring homes taking that contour of the land into account; .I'll;stop at that point, since we'll be here next month, but,my:point is that there's a double standard being imlSosed'here. TRUSTEE KR;IJJP~SK].: Th'ank you. MR. SCHEMBP, I:' If I could say one more thing, if I could show you something, on [he. pictures so you know. This was gutters from this ~entl~man's house, the downspout right into the lot, that'siw[th'the Water ju.st coming out, and this is, I took these, pictures~t,,y~ o days ago, there's no water coming from our lot that's~ b, ui~ding up in front of the bales of hay to occur, .a~nd the,.Oth~r slde the gentleman said his family owns the lot, this:'i~:ti~eir rear yard; there's not a tree left in it, and this [,s~hi~ basketba court, which is 4 and-a-hatf.feet.encrolached into our property, so of course Board of Trustees 82 May 26, 2004 he didn't want us to build a house because then he has a problem, not that I would make it a problem. They can keep the basketball court there, I don't have a problem with it, but if he's bringing it up, I've got to speak up, I can't just sit here. Here's the debris 6 feet high of dumping. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We saw that. MR. SCHEMBRh It is what it is. That's really it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MR. SCHEMBRI: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Briefly, sir. MR. KLEIN: The counsel said it's a double standard being involved here. When our homes were built, we had a permit to build them. The.builder doesn't have a permit to build them now, and there's all kinds of different regulations that come into effect the last 10, 15 to 20 years. So there's no double standard involved, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make a motion to table. TRUSTEE POLIW~DA: Second. MS. MESlANO: Just.like to say there was a permit issued on this project. I just want to clarify that point that all permits were issued prior to the issuance of your violation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I have a motion and a second. All in favor? ALL AYES. 30. David Corwin on behalf of NORA TUTHILL GLUECK-TRUSTEE FOR KATHARINE TUTHILL ESTATE requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge approximately 300 cubic yards of sand, place sand in front of Old Cove Club bulkhead and end of Old Harbor Road as beach nourishment, and install four 6' by 20' floats. Located: Old Cove Yacht Club, New Suffolk. SCTM # 117-5-14.1 and 14.2 MR. CORWIN: My name is David Corwin. I'm acting as the agent for the applicant. I would just like to address a couple of the things that Mr. Schultheis brought up in his letter of April 21st, and at the non-public hearing a month ago. And one was the question of the nature and material there. Mr. Schultheis is concerned that it would be silty material and be suspended into the water. I gave you a silt analysis, the material inside the canal there is substantially the same as the beach material. There is little or no silt in the material. The question of heavy metals was brought up, you need some industry to have heavy metals in the sediments, and I don't think there was much industry in New Suffolk besides the submarine and weak fish. The question of well contamination by the temporary Board of Trustees 83 May 26, 2004 stock pile was brought up. The Suffolk County Water Authority has a water main down Old Harbor Road, and the neighbors on either side of QId Cove Yacht Club property are hooked up the Suffolk County Water Authority. The question Mr. Schultheis brought up that material would travel back into the canal; there's a jog in the bulkhead, the Hartong bulkhead that's about 12 feet, which jogs to the east of the Old Cove Yacht Club bulkhead that would trap any material from going back into the canal. The material, because of the wind and waves is going to travel to the north if it's placed on the bea/:h there, and that's where the materials are needed, it's eroded there. There was a question of the road drain at the end of the road that that was washing material into the bay, the road drain is the Town's problem. They stuck a drain in there and the DEC weren't happy when. they noticed it on the photos I sent to them, that's the Tbwn Highway Department's department. I also want to point out that the DEC gave a permit to the Suffolk County Department of Public Works to dredge Wickham Creek and put the, material up on the south side of the entrance to Wickham Creek. They went down below apparent Iow water, ~ind they must have dredged -- I'm taking a wild guess -- 2,000 cul3.ic yards of material, and placed on the beach there.as:.beach nourishment in March of'04, and they had a permit'from th'e.DEC for that. And there's, a~question of the Building Inspector and whether any variances or nonconforming uses are there. The work's going to b~Jn an M1 Zone, and the question is whether nr~ncoaf, orraing use of the Old Cove Yacht Club, I would contend, is! not the :purview of the Trustees. If you have, any additibnal questions, I would try to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUP.SKI: Does the Board have any comment? My comment was I th~ought was it was kind of appropriate. TRUS'FEE P~)LIWODA: That creek needs to be dredged. TRUS'~EE I(RUPSKI: For that creek. It's not an environmentally sensitive creek. It's a creek that's used with boats and maritime activities, and it Seems like it's kind of more like restoring what was there then creating something new. I believe we. apprgved dredge spoil placement at the end of Old Harbor Road before. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is more or less maintenance dredging. It hasn't.been dredged in a while but it's more or less a dredgedlehannel, just maintenance. TRUSTEE KRU, P~Kh Artie? This isn't publicly owned bottom. TRUSTEE PiDLIWODA: Any other comments? Board of Trustees 84 May 26, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to close hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ali in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER:: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a motion to adjourn. Second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES