Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/17/2004Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggs' A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:00 PM RECEIVED j. oot~ FEB ~ 8 2005 n Clerk' Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Monday, December 13, 2004 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. All AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Thursday, December 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: For October, 2004, a check for $10,658.61 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. IL PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. Board of Trustees 2 November 17, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Welcome to our regular monthly meeting. Before we start this agenda, there are a number of items on the agenda that are postponed until next month. Under Amendments Extensions and Transfers, Number 6, Gregory Mazzanobile is postponed. Number 9, Alex Hillenbrand is postponed. And under Wetlands Permit Number 20 Sandra Schpoont is withdrawn. We have a number of items on the agenda that aren't public hearings, however anyone's welcome to comment on any of them. IV RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: 1. JAMES MURRAY requests an Administrative Permit to cut down phragmites along his property. Located: 1905 Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. ACTM # 127-8-12. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Jim, did you look at this? TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this one. I know what he's doing, he's trying to stop the phragmites from coming into his lawn, and he's been mowing about 10 feet off from these two bushes. I would say we approve this with the stipulation that he can mow no more than 10 foot seaward of those two trees, and the only area to mow is in here, just seaward of this telephone pole there's a Martin nest on top of that. Those are all patens in there. He shouldn't be mowing that far. So I recommend no mowing seaward of the pole with the martin house on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Heather, did you take a look at that? MS. TETRAULT: No. TRUSTEE KING: There's a pole with a martin house in the yard, he shouldn't be mowing seaward of that pole because there's nothing but patens in there. If he follows the same line and goes around landward of the pole, it's fine. I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 2. BARRY R. BRYAN & MARGARET E. BRYAN request an Administrative Permit to install a split-rail fence along easterly boundary of property from top of bluff to road. Located: 1635 Isabella Beach Road, Fishers Island. SCTM # 10-6-12.5. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's any problem whatsoever. I was out there a few years ago. I'm familiar with the property. I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. IV. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER 1. Rescind resolution of October 20, 2004 of the 2 Board of Trustees 3 November 17, 2004 approval of a Wetland Permit for ALEX KOUTSOUBIS to construct an in-ground swimming pool, concrete grade level patio and security fence, as project is out of the Wetland jurisdiction under Chapter 97 of the Town Wetland Code and Chapter 37 of the Town Code. Located: 1610 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM #30-2-64. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is one we granted and then we realized that it was really not in our jurisdiction so we really didn't want to issue a permit because it's sort of meaningless. That's the resolution, is there a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Did he get his money back? MS. STANDISH: (Handing.) Just have to sign it. V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: 1. MGH ENTERPRISES, INC./DBA ORIENT BY THE SEA requests an amendment to Permit 4188 to add four feet to the west side of the kitchen. Located: 40200 Main Road, Orient. SCTM 15-9-8. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This is at the restaurant. Does anybody have any comment on this application? We all looked at this and I believe we agreed there was no problem. I make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. TOM SCHLICHTER & FELICiA SCOCOZZA request an Amendment to Permit #4986 to add an attached deck to the rear of the dwelling, 22' by 12'. Located: 400 Rene's Drive, Southold. SCTM 54-6-4.4. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this pretty much what it says doesn't encroach on any wetland. It's on the back side of the house. CAC didn't make a comment. I didn't find a problem with that. I'll make a motion to approve the amendment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. MARTIN KOSYMNKA requests an amendment to Permit 3829 to modify the existing floating dock to make it wider and larger, so it would be more accessible. Located: 1985 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #98-1-11.1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We all looked at this; do you want to add anything? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The platform on the south side of the catwalk that you currently use to access the long aluminum ramp; can that be removed? Board of Trustees 4 November l 7, 2004 MR. KOSYMNKA: Yes, it's cantilevered out. I can cut that off, put it on the other side. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're going to put it on the other side? MR. KOSYMNKA: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was just going to mention there will be no transfer of this permit. MR. KOSYMNKA: That's more than fair, it will revert back to the old permit, right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No permit's transferable. If anybody sells their house on the water, that permit doesn't go with the house. They have to come in and make a transfer for permit. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It will come back before the Trustees. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment to Permit 3829 to modify the existing floating dock as per plans with the platform on the south side to be removed, and that there be a condition that this permit not be transferable. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. Thomas Cavanagh requests an amendment to Permit 5875 to allow a 6' boardwalk in the 10' non-turf buffer and the addition of an open gazebo structure adjacent to the non-turf buffer. Located: 600 Little Peconic Bay Road in Cutchogue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are a number of letters in opposition to this that came in recently since the notices went out. I don't know if anyone would like to speak briefly about the project, otherwise, I'll take Board comments. MR. CAVANAGH: Tom Cavanagh, I have not seen the letters so I'm not familiar with the content. I would request some clarifications because the actual design falls into two parts. There's actually a boardwalk, which I believe is an allowable use in a non-turf area as long as it's sloped and as long as there's separation. Then there's the addition, the gazebo structure, which I think may raise more concerns. Is there any issue with the boardwalk as proposed? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not that I'm aware of, and that is a fairly usual and normal placement. MR. CAVANAGH: In terms of the gazebo structure itself, from my review of the applicable codes, just the fact that it's less than 100 square feet, I have a letter of non-jurisdiction from the DEC. I feel it's justifiable use, but it's a moot point to argue because I really agree with 4 Board o f Trustees 5 November 17, 2004 my neighbors that we would review the location and find a mutually compatible location, if that's at all possible. What I would like to understand is if there are any restrictions in terms of where that gazebo could be placed that the Trustees would like me to consider, and I would like the opportunity, if there are no other restrictions, to coordinate with my neighbors and get signatures on an as-built and submit that to you as proof that the work has been coordinated and that we have an agreement. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only thing, and I reviewed the code here, the only restrictions I could find and I don't know if it comes under swimming pool or related structures, which is a 50 foot setback, or landscaping and gardening, which is a 50 foot setback, which in the field that's what we were looking for, a 50 foot setback from the bulkhead. MR. CAVANAGH: Would you like me to respond to the setback issue relative to landscaping, would that be my next step? You don't feel the gazebo could be approved as of right the way it's located now; are you disapproving that based on the landscaping issue? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's nothing specific about a gazebo. We would consider it a structure, not a primary residence. I think the Board felt comfortable with a 50 foot setback. MR. CAVANAGH: The Board does have the ability to have an administrative review for split rail fences, and it does reference arbors and trellises, and I would think a gazebo structure would fall into that category. When you have the ability of an administrative use, I would assume that's a lower level of review than an actual hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's correct. But we still would restrict it at an administrative review. We would still make the same -- we would have come to the same conclusion had this been an administrative review or amendment. MR. CAVANAGH: So we're saying no structures allowed within 50 feet of the water based on landscaping, is that the Board's decision? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: My comment of the gazebo, it may require maintenance such as preservatives or maybe bug repellent. I would like to see it 50 feet from the bulkhead. Environmentally I would like to see it. MR. CAVANAGH: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's your feeling, Peg? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree with you. I think it comes under related structures with a 50 foot setback. 5 Board of Trustees 6 November 17, 2004 MR. CAVANAGH: So you're saying you would like the 50 foot setback? Okay. I could proceed with the boardwalk I assume, then I would resubmit again if I want to get a new hearing on a new gazebo based on those parameters. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unless you're satisfied with 50 feet setback now you could resubmit the plans. MR. CAVANAGH: If I elect to go ahead with the gazebo structure, I'll need to see if it makes sense to redesign it based on those parameters. If it does, can I submit it as an as-built based on a 50 foot setback? MS. TETRAULT: It would be an amendment. MR. JOHNSTON: Not as an as-built, that would be a violation. MR. CAVANAGH: I'll resubmit the drawings just with the boardwalk, which has been approved for record? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would approve the boardwalk tonight. MR. CAVANAGH: Do you need to see a revision to the document with the gazebo off the document? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Not necessary. MR. CAVANAGH: Okay. If I decide to proceed with the gazebo, I will submit for another review and another amendment to my existing permit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The gazebo won't be included in the permit. MR. CAVANAGH: I understand. TRUSTEE FOSTER: If you wish to put the gazebo in later, you come in to amend your permit with the gazebo. MR. JOHNSTON: Or you could have the gazebo on the permit if it's 50 foot. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let it go. MR. CAVANAGH: I have no issue with a second amendment if it will simplify things. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a few more letters to add on this case. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The letters were stamped received today, that's why you didn't get a chance to see them. MR. CAVANAGH: Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Handing.) MR. CAVANAGH: Will I receive copies of those documents with my revised permit? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh They will be in the file, if you would like to see them, they're available, it's public record. MR. CAVANAGH: The file's public record? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. It came in today, so we're just seeing them for the first time. I'll make a motion to approve the application for the 6 foot boardwalk in the 10 6 Board of Trustees 7 November 17, 2004 foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 5. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of FRANK MARTORANO requests an Amendment to Permit #5456 to allow the construction of a house with a different footprint and which would be constructed 10 feet further from the wetlands. Located: 3500 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM 115-17-9 and 10. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Would anyone care to speak on behalf or against this application? Is there any Board comment on this? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did we need a new survey? I could be wrong. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Right here. Would you care to see it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did the applicant receive Health Department and DEC permits for this? MR. FITZGERALD: We have DEC. We don't have the Health Department yet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there city water down there? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, they do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to comment on buffers or anything? TRUSTEE FOSTER: We had buffers before. We're going to want dry wells for the roof runoff. The house is 10 foot further landward than it was before. I think we're going to want staked hay bales, and it shows dry wells on the plan. MR. FITZGERALD: The original permit specified that the entire backyard would be a buffer area, and I would like to suggest that now we quantify that as to what it used to be so that we can be 10 feet of backyard now. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Since you're moving the house 10 feet landward, you want that 10 feet to be accessible as backyard rather than a natural buffer?. MR. FITZGERALD: I'm Jim Fitzgerald for the applicant, and I would like to request that the buffer area be as it was originally on the permit quantified, and I believe it was 45 feet as opposed to a qualitative description of the entire backyard. MS. TETRAULT: Do you need to see it before you make that decision, or can you tell from the survey? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can tell from the survey. We've been out here numerous times. It's sort of a messy little place. I have no problem, there's really not much. It's 7 Board of Trustees 8 November 17, 2004 sort of just like dirt and weeds, there's nothing naturalized about the area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He's saying don't change the buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had it from the house here, now the house is going to be here. Mr. Fitzgerald has asked not to change the buffer. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The terms of the original permit we issued had all the conditions in it that we just talked about. The gutters, leaders, dry wells, roof runoff, hay bales and silt fencing during construction, and I don't personally have a problem with him picking up 10 feet for actual backyard as long as that original existing buffer goes undisturbed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On one side of the house it's a 20 foot buffer. So if we ran that the whole length of the waterfront, it's a little less on the other side; is that acceptable to the Board, if we just made it 20 feet, which gives them another 20 for backyard. Twenty feet would be the buffer. Actually, I would make the whole backyard non-turf, but it could be planted up with something appropriate. I make a motion to approve the amendment for Frank Martorana, Permit 5456 with a change that there be a nondisturbance buffer 20 feet from what's marked on the survey as top of bank and edge of wetlands, and that the backyard, rear yard of the house basically from the 10 foot contours seaward would be non-turf, but it could be planted with any kind of native plantings and maintained. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOSEPH FARRELL requests a One-Year Extension to Permit 5662 as issued on November 20, 2002. Located: 235 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM # 135-3-26. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It appears on the survey that the nondisturbance buffer is at the 10 foot contour, which is probably a rough average of 40 feet buffer. It looks fine. I make a motion to approve the one-year extension to Permit 5662 as per the survey dated 2/4/03. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 8. Sandra Savage on behalf of AUBREY AND PRISCILLA MEALY requests a one-year extension to Permit 5682 as issued on December 18, 2002. Located: 460 Nokamis Road, Southold. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did we discuss this in house? And we didn't have a problem. Okay, I'll make a motion to approve 8 Board of Trustees 9 November 17, 2004 the one-year extension to Permit 5682 as issued on December 18, 2002 for Aubrey and Priscilla Mealy. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I need a motion to go offthe regular meeting. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So called. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have 19 public hearings tonight. The only one which is not going to be heard is Number 20, Sandra Schpoont, whose application has been withdrawn. 1. BARRY BALL AND KIMBERLY VANZEE request a Wetland Permit to remove debris, poison ivy and invasive nonnative species and plant additional native species and ground cover in the 50 foot wide buffer along the driveway; repair the bridge to island; renovate existing dock and boathouse; remove debris and poison ivy and invasive species from island at southern end of property and maintain by seeding with grass and mowing; re-gravel driveway south of house as needed; renovate the existing dock on the pond on the east side of the house, and trim the phragmites along the western edge of the pond. Located: 525 Cedar Birch Lane, Orient. SCTM#15-8-26.8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on 9 Board of Trustees 10 November 17, 2004 behalf of the application? We took a look at the information that you submitted, and we just need some more information. We need a plan of the dock so we have it in the record so when we approve it, it's approved a certain size and dimensions. MR. BALL: The current? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MS. TETRAULT: And the wetland line on the survey. MR. BALL: Other than our hand drawing wetland line there, an official survey? MS. TETRAULT: The same for the dock, the two different docks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The dock and the boat house. We need a regular scaled plan. MR. BALL: Hire a surveyor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A surveyor could place it on the survey. They could just add it to the survey. MS. TETRAULT: Have the Wetland flagged and put on there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a stamped survey, they could just use this. MS. TETRAULT: Then proper plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. MS. VANZEE: We'd love it if we can hear any other discussion or comment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if there's any other problem. We just wanted it for a complete record. Does the Board have any other comment? Can you call Heather during the week and ask her about some of the details about the plant species? MR. BALL: We ordered a book that she told us about, it's a hundred bucks, by the way, on Amazon. It's out of print. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Don't we have lists about plant materials? It's out of print and we put a bid on Amazon. MS. TETRAULT: We just have to be more specific where you put on your application plant native species and ground cover. MR. BALL: We'll consult with you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So we can approve it next month. By December 16th and we can act on it. Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 2. ELIZABETH LYONS requests Wetland Permit to install a fence within 100 feet of the water constructed of 4" by 4" 10 Board of Trustees 1! November 17, 2004 posts and 1" by 6" boards. Located: 8680 Fifth Street, New Suffolk. SCTM #117-10-12.2 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment? MR. LYONS: My name is Daniel Lyons, my mother, Elizabeth Lyons, the property owner, is also present this evening. First I want to thank Mr. Krupski and Members of the Board for taking the time to hear this application tonight. I'd like to present three basic arguments in support of our application to allow this preexisting fence to remain. The first argument deals with the protection of private property; the second is that the fence is permitted under the Town Code and the Public Trust Doctrine; and finally, I will discuss the fact that the Board has granted permits for identical fences in identical circumstances in the past. My overall goal tonight is to reach a compromise which will allow us to protect our private property and at the same time let the public walk along the beach. I myself like to walk along the beach with my children and I would not propose anything that would compromise that ability with anyone. First the private property issues, the area we are requesting to fence in is essentially our backyard. We don't have a large backyard there covered with grass like most people do, and this is the area we use as a yard to sit out and eat in, to relax, the area we use to play baseball with our children, to play volleyball, horse shoes, the activities most people use their backyards for. Just because this area happens to be covered in sand and is close to the water does not lessen our ownership interest in that land. What would happen if there was no fence? As demonstrated by photographs that I submitted during my last appearance before the Board, many people drive cars and small ATVs, all terrain vehicles, and motorcycles on the beach. This presents both a dangerous and environmentally unsound condition. Barriers from the top of the beach may prevent cars from coming down, but they would not prevent smaller all terrain vehicles or motorcycles from obtaining access to the beach. Additionally, there's many dogs that walk along the beach, and these animals defecate on our property. As you may know, anybody who has children knows, that young children tend to put anything and everything in their mouths. My children go down to the beach, they eat the rocks, they eat the sand and at times they have picked up 11 Board of Trustees 12 November 17, 2004 animal feces from dogs that walk along the beach. It's just an unsanitary condition that the fence would definitely minimize. The other issue that must be considered is that our property is immediately adjacent to an extremely crowded public beach. At one point last summer, the fence was knocked down by vandals and was gone for a few days. During this period of time multiple people, not understanding -- there was no ability to understand what was private property and what was the public area, with no ill will -- many people came over onto private property with coolers full of beer, lounge chairs, large umbrellas and just set up camp for the day and we were prevented from using the beach from playing ball and all the other activities that I mentioned. If somebody had a yard next to a public beach, I think it would be unreasonable to tell those people they couldn't put up a fence to protect their privacy from a crowded public park, or if somebody had a yard next to a public park is what I meant to say, and I think it's a similar situation here. The lack of a fence would cause a situation where our property would be consistently used by others, this would also interfere with our property rights because repeated use by third parties could eventually create an easement. This is a valid concern, and we've seen many examples, even here in our own town where third parties have obtained easements or adverse possession of land after many years of continued use. Eventually we could lose some of our property rights. This is all keeping mind our deed and the property we own goes to the high tide mark. There are many other areas in the town where private property is within 100 feet of the water, and is fenced in without any distinction, seems to be that most of these areas might be on creeks and areas that look like more traditional yards. They're covered in grass and trees, and they're fenced in without a problem. The only distinction here is all these areas are within 100 feet of the water, this area is covered in sand. This is the distinction that's not supported by the laws of the State of New York. That brings us to the definition of a beach. I think one of the main issues here is what is a beach. I don't think we really need to fight over it because the courts of the state have analyzed that to a very large extent. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in a case of Bell versus Hayes defined the beach as follows: "The beach is the space on the shore between the ordinary high and Iow Board of Trustees 13 November 17, 2004 water marks." So The beach in definition of the state is limited to the area below the high water mark. It does not extend to any areas that may be covered in sand. The Supreme Court right here in Riverhead in the case of Dolphin Lane Associates versus the Town of Southampton found that the words "beach," "shore" and "seashore" are defined as the territory between the high and Iow water mark over which the tide ebbs and flows. The court goes on to note that appellate courts of the State of the New York have followed this definition. More importantly in the Dolphin Lane Associates, the court went on to state that changing the definition of a beach would result in a taking of the plaintiff's property without just compensation. The court found that the Town of Southampton made no attempt to take the lands by eminent domain. However, it achieved the same result by effecting a retroactive transformation of private property into public property. I submit to the Board that if this fence, which has been in existence for 30 years, is removed, it will essentially cause private property to be turned into public land that could freely be used by the general public, and would prevent the owners from using this land. The beach is the area between the high and Iow water mark, and that's the area that's subject to some special protection. There's no legal justification to extending these special restrictions to all areas that are covered with sand especially when other areas within 100 feet of the water are treated differently. The next point I want to address is the Town Code and Public Trust Doctrine. I reviewed the Public Trust Doctrine as described in the documentation provided to me by the Town. The Public Trust Doctrine deals with the area under the seas and the area below the high tide mark. The doctrine protects the citizens' rights to walk along the shoreline on the area below the high tide mark, and this permit application would not interfere with that right at all, and, in fact, it would enhance that right because the permit is only for a fence that would go within 10 feet of the high tide mark. This is a doctrine which was given to me by the Board's representative and is cited by the Board as the basis for its authority, and it does not in any way discuss the public's right of access to a beach or to an area above the high tide line. MR. JOHNSTON: Excuse me, how long is this presentation 13 Board of Trustees 14 November 17, 2004 going to be? MR. LYONS: I'm Page 5 and I have till 7. MR. JOHNSTON: Did you submit this prior so we could read it and consider it before this evening? MR. LYONS: No, I did not. The Town Code itself, Section 9727 provides that fences are permitted on the beach provided they are split rail fences, and do not come closer than 10 feet of the mean high water mark. The code only permits more stringent requirements in critical environmental areas, which is defined in Section 9711. The property addition here doesn't fall within one of the critical environmental areas, and therefore more stringent requirements should not be applied to this request. Most importantly, the fence has been in place for over 30 years, and there's no evidence of any adverse environmental impact. The areas where the fence is doesn't appear to be any different than other areas of the beach. There is no change in the shifting of sand or any problems of that nature associated with the fence. The proposed fence will not even touch the sand. Finally, this Board has granted permits for identical fences. Anyone who can walk around the beach will see there's many, many similar fences. I don't know if all the fences exist under a permit. However, I do know of one permit specifically to that was granted by this Board to Donald and Maryanne DiCarlo, who reside at 1425 Kimberly Lane in Southold. Their beach is adjacent to the Old LaMorte estate on Southold Bay. They received a permit from this Board for a split rail fence on the exact same type of beach, covered with sand on both sides of the fence, to go within 10 feet of the high water mark. They later amended the request to put in a rope fence and that amendment was also granted, and the fence still exists today. That's only one example I stumbled across because I happen to know the DiCarlos. But I'm sure if I dug deeper, there would be others. Finally, I want to reiterate, I'm fully supportive of everybody's right to walk along the beach. There is the area below the high tide mark in addition to a 10 foot buffer zone that the Town Board has set, and I think that 10 feet is certainly enough room for a person to walk down the beach, but I'm open to any questions the Board may have. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? MR. JOHNSTON: Who are you, for the record? MR. LYONS: I'm the son of the owner, Daniel Lyons, sir. 14 Board of Trustees 15 November 17, 2004 The owner of the property is also here. MR. GOGGINS: Good evening, William C. Goggins. I'm a neighbor of the Lyons family, and I support the application. His property is adjacent to mine. It's a unique area because Fifth Street ends at a point, not at the end of the beach where the other roads in New Suffolk end, it ends about 80 feet from the high tide mark, and basically the town has abandoned its road from that point down to the beach. Since the abandonment, people still walk down the beach and use it. The problem that we have down there is that when people go down to use it, it's not just that the dogs defecate, I've watched a man drop his drawers and defecate there too. People have lounge chairs, it's great, they get to come down and use the beach; the problem that Mr. Lyons has, and that I don't have because I have a hedge up, and I have a lawn, is that he's got a sandy beach, and people don't understand where his property line is. So they don't know that they're trespassing, and that's the importance for the Lyons family of having this fence, so they can have a demarcation of where their property is, so people that do come down to the beach, they can look and see what area he is excluding them from and which he has a right to exclude them from. Thank you. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any Board comments? If not, I'll make a note of CAC comments that's the Conservation Advisory Council, they recommended approval of this with the condition that the fence is extended to the top of the bluff only, and all existing posts are removed from the beach. For the record, that's their viewpoint, that's their recommendation for the Trustees. MR. LYONS: That would essentially involve removing the fence if the posts were removed. That would be more than 80 feet from the high tide mark. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's not our Board, that's their recommendation, Conservation Advisory Council. They're just advisory. He just had to read that into the record. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have one comment. You base much of your case on private property, yet you don't have an updated survey. MR. LYONS: I'm sorry, I'll submit a survey. I have a copy of my comment, can I mail them? Or I can give them to you tonight. They have handwritten notes, whatever the Board would prefer. MR. JOHNSTON: For the future, if you ever have a future -- are you an attorney? MR. LYONS: Yes, I am. 15 Board of Trustees 16 November 17, 2004 MR. JOHNSTON: Normally, you would provide it as an attorney to a board, so they could look at it prior to the evening and not read it to them. MR. LYONS: I don't work in the area of zoning or real estate. I apologize for that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm looking at this survey. It just doesn't provide enough information. We need a survey with contour lines showing height elevation of the land, elevation of the dune between the beach. MR. LYONS: If you can tell me if I should hire a surveyor then and have a contour survey. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's what we need then. For now we'll table. MR. LYONS: It will be continued until I submit a contour survey. Will it be heard? Should I be present? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, next month. MR. LYONS: December 16th at 7:00 p.m.? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. I'll make a motion to table. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. ALEX WlPF requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 10' by 38' extension to the existing dwelling and spread top soil on top of bank toward house, behind retaining wall. Located: 940 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM #103-13-7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? MR. WIPF: Not anything more than we have already said. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll just open it up to anyone who would like to speak for or against this application? We went out the other day, and I just want to make sure -- we had talked about the retaining wall, I just need to get that final. We walked it out and decided to move it back a little bit I believe. MR. WlPF: I was thinking about that. Basically I'm trying to correct the situation where there's a little bit of an angle on the property, seems the runoff would be much better if we didn't have that. That's the only reason I've done what I've done. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you remember, Al? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Paced it out 40 feet from the existing house. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: From the old foundation. Retaining wall 40 feet from the existing foundation. 16 Board of Trustees November 17, 2004 Albert .J. Krupski, President, Town Hall J a m e s ~.V~c~ff~ ~je~[. 53095 Route 25 : Then Ji was a stump P.O. Box 1179 K[i~,~o~x~o~ and we lined it up~g~:lll/vl~e. Soul;hold, New York 11971-0959 Pegg~.PA.Ul~Fe.~o~RUPSKl: I agre~,-~j~]l~~, ~ of a grade. · U rb'~A~( Telephone (631) 765-1892 MR. WlPF: Also if you dist kes for Fa~ (631) 765-1366 better absorption. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What is your proposed elevation change, what height retaining wall? MR. WIPF: It's handle it if it's spread out oVl~8Oqfe~'t.SO~ll~l~(ltll,~lo whatever has to be done. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Hay bales? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's got hay bales on there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is the height of the retaining wall? MR. WlPF: One foot. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Put that on as a stipulation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there's no further comments from anyone, rll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to construct a 10' by 38' extension to the existing dry well and spread top soil on top of the bank toward the house behind the retaining wall· CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition dry wells are installed to contain the roof runoff, and the retaining wall is maintained at the top of the bluff to stop runoff; with the stipulation also that the retaining wall be 40 feet from the existing foundation and no more than one foot in height. Hay bales are on the survey. Dry wells and gutters for the roof runoff need to be added to the survey. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. NICHOLAS NOTIAS requests a Wetland Permit to install a 30' by 14' in-ground swimming pool, deck and fence; construct a 60 foot long by 5 foot high retaining wall and backfill with 40 cubic yards of fill. Remove a diseased oak tree and trim the brush located on the bluff. Located: 460 Inlet View East, Mattituck. SCTM Ct 100-3-10.11. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this? MR. NOTIAS: Based on the recommendation of the Trustees in the several meetings we had at my home, I would like to submit a new survey with their recommendations on it, and your recommendations, I put them on the survey. I want to make sure that everything that goes to you guys looks the same way. 17 Board of Trustees l 8 November 17, 2004 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is the tree going to be trimmed? MR. NOTIAS: We brought the retaining wall up off the bluff and really just to the top of the backyard to the grassy area. We're still asking for the removal of the tree, and we pretty much clarified the swimming pool area with the deck. TRUSTEE KING: What is going to be the height of the retaining wall now that you have revised it? It's not going to be five foot? MR. NOTIAS: It's not going to be five foot. To be honest with you, I didn't calculate that, but I would assume it's going to be shorter than the five foot that we asked before. This retaining wall is basically going to match up with the contours, and from what I could tell there, it's probably going to be about two to three feet. TRUSTEE KING: Didn't we make a partial approval for the pool? So we don't have to worry about the pool, we have approved that had already. The question was the retaining wall and the tree. Personally I think the retaining wall is much more acceptable now that it's moved, and it's much lower. I guess the last question is the tree. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The tree rots, it's going to wind up in the pool or on the deck, one or the other. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't want the tree removed. I don't think there's a need. We talked about it being trimmed but I'm just one vote. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken? MR. NOTIAS: My fear is that the tree is going to wind up in the pool. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm looking at the plan and it's obvious. If they go ahead with the wall, the tree is going down. What is it a foot, two foot away? I don't see how the tree would ever live. MR. NOTIAS: The tree is not going to live even if the wall is not there. MS. TETRAULT: It doesn't look that bad. It's a nice tree. MR. NOTIAS: It's fine, I have many of them. MS. TETRAULT: Those large trees along the coastline are really important for bird nesting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I got an idea, take one down and plant tWO. MR. NOTIAS: Take that one down and plant two? That's fine. I have a problem because the ultimate investment of the swimming pool, seems like I'm putting it right on the edge there. And I'm going to invest all this money in the pool, and if I lose the tree and it does go in that 18 Board of Trustees 19 November 17, 2004 direction, I'm going to start from square-one all over again. I feel like this is part of my overall plan to develop, and I don't have a problem with the planting of a tree. MS. TETRAULT: Dead trees are essential for owl nesting. MR. NOTIAS: My attic is essential for owl nesting too. I didn't throw the owls out of my attic yet. I kept that open for them. TRUSTEE KING: Any more comment on this project from the audience? I don't have a big problem removing the tree because I think it's in pretty bad shape. Two of those limbs are coming down. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We talked about trimming those. TRUSTEE KING: I know. As far as trimming the brush, I would recommend just very minimal cutting, don't go whacking anything down here. You've got a nice view now. MR. NOTIAS: That's exactly what I am proposing. I am not looking to take anything out. I am looking to keep my view, keep it clean, keep the vines off the thing and give it a hair cut every once in a while. We're not talking about taking anything out. TRUSTEE KING: You're right on top of the state area there. We can't tell you go ahead cut everything down so you can look out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's have a vote. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve it as submitted with the modification to the retaining wall only two feet high now and with the removal of the tree. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll recuse because I didn't visit the site. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Then we don't have enough people to approve it then. 19 Board of Trustees 20 November 17, 2004 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Say aye, but stipulate you plant two trees in its place. MR. NOTIAS: That's not a problem. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I like Ken's compromise but Peggy didn't. That's three votes. It's approved with the trees. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you want to specify sizes? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Three inch. MR. NOTIAS: Can I ask you, is it a specific location or anyplace on the property? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Anyplace. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Within that buffer. MR. NOTIAS: I have a no plant zone in my deed with my neighbor so I can't plant anything in that area, that's my problem. I can plant anyplace else on the property, but I can't place any trees in that area. I'd be more than happy to plant it anyplace else that you want me to, but in that area right there I can't. MS. TETRAULT: Maybe between your neighbor and your house. MR. NOTIAS: That's not a problem, anyplace else but that little no plant zone. TRUSTEE KING: On that tree when that is removed I want the stump the same level as the retaining wall. MR. NOTIAS: Thanks. MS. TETRAULT: Do you want to say what kind of tree? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Oak or maple. 5. Plantings by the Sea, Inc. on behalf of MARK GORDON requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing deteriorated stairs and landings to the beach with new stairs and landings. Located: 63165 County Road 48 in Greenport. SCTM: 40-1-14. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? Does the Board have any comment? CAC recommended approval. If no comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. 6. Design Development, LLC on behalf of ANTHONY AND BARBARA BONAGURA requests a Wetland Permit to construct first and second floor additions to the existing dwelling, cut back existing porch, construct new covered porch, new 20 Board of Trustees 21 November 17, 2004 second floor covered deck, new frame and brick garage, covered carport and to legalize the existing rear yard deck on grade. Located: 900 Holbrook Lane, Mattituck. SCTM # 113-6-11. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? Any Board comments? We all looked at this, this is in Mattituck. Had a great big deck that he had built for his wedding. It's on Holbrook Street. Right down in this area is a big, big deck, 10 years ago. It's pretty much deteriorated. We met with him, he said he was willing to do anything with the deck. MS. TETRAULT: He was bringing it back to the retaining wall. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think any of us had a problem with cutting that forward section off so it was landward of the retaining wall. Or he could remove the whole thing, it was his choice, he said he would do either. And the rest of it is pretty straightforward as far as the addition goes. We just want to see dry wells for the roof runoff. As far as the large deck goes, he can either remove the seaward half and leave the landward part from the retaining wall landward or remove the whole thing. It's his choice.' MS. TETRAULT: He's getting a permit for it, so maybe when he's ready. TRUSTEE KING: He would have a permit for the landward half of that deck. The forward section could be removed. I guess it's going to be his choice as long as half of it's gone. 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 with the stated stipulation. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're going to skip over 7 for a minute, go ahead with 8. Jim, can you do the next one? 8. JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 6' by 80' foot extension with wavebreaks onto an existing pier to relocate three 3-pile dolphins, to relocate one ladder and to install one new ladder. Located: Robbins Island. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on this application? Artie and I looked at this a few months back 21 Board of Trustees 22 November 17, 2004 because we knew it was coming up. Pretty straightforward what's already there. I didn't have any problem with it, did you Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, not at all. They explained it very well. It's pretty commercial as it is. So I really didn't see a problem with it. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE KING: 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 as submitted. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 9. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of MARY DIGREGORIO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 58' fixed timber dock, a 3' by 16' ramp and a 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 100 Oak Street, Cutchogue. SCTM # 136-1-36. MS. MOORE: Good evening, Pat Moore. I am here with my client, Mr. DiGregorio. We're here to answer any questions you have. I understand from the field inspection you noticed a picket fence that was on top of a wall, and I had my client take a picture of it because I honestly don't remember it. I remember standing behind it and looking out, but never seeing the picket fence. Let me show it to you. It's very different from the previous hearing that you had with regard to fences. This is a picket fence on above a wall, a stone wall. My client tells me that wall has been there since the 1940s. The fence was added when he had his first child, he has three of them, the youngest right now is two, and they were concerned about making sure that the children were protected from accidentally going into the water, and that high wall also creates somewhat of a dangerous condition for the little children. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there a permit for it? MS. MOORE: No. He wasn't aware there was a need for a permit because, well, there was no permit requirement from the Town, and since it was on top of the stone wall and it was in the grass area, not in the Wetland area, it didn't occur to him that a permit was necessary. It's up to you how you want to do it. We have administrative permits available that we could certainly amend since this has no impact on the wetlands at all, and, in fact, it's not 22 Board of Trustees 23 November 17, 2004 secured with cement posts, it's secured with ties because eventually when the children are older, the fence can be removed. We would certainly come back in with an administrative permit or amend the permit we have now presently and just add a picket fence to it. It's up to you. I am certainly amenable to any of the options available. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You guys were out there. We came in late. Did you walk down? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Still on the fence, does anyone have an objection to it? MS. TETRAULT: I think you need to review it. It should have a permit. You can still give a permit for the dock. MS. MOORE: Certainly we can send you a letter amending our application to include the picket fence. That's fine, I would do that tomorrow. (Discussion) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're still on the fence. I don't have a problem with leaving it there until the children are old enough, put like a 10 year time frame on it. MS. MOORE: 10 years is certainly enough. We hope that a 12 year old should be able to swim by then. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would rather add it tonight. TRUSTEE KING: We would like to maintain this pier line between the neighbors' docks. MS. MOORE: What I asked my client, because I remember seeing docks that were protruding further, in fact, you can see the way the topography of the property, you've got it curving in, the dock that is one to the north of our plan, it's just northeast of our neighbor's dock, you have Pierce Drive, then you have a dock that's not really useable, at least my client tells me it's sitting on almost two feet of water, so it's not a very useable dock. The one just to the north of that is actually protruding further out than my client's. I have the photographs of the waterfront. It's quite a large body of water there. The land does meander back and forth, it curves back. There's a canal and as far as the distance to the canal, everybody is pretty much approximately the same distance to the canal. The canal kind of meanders again along the shoreline. So that's why it was proposed here. We didn't want a problem with the DEC. We have to maintain a certain minimum depth, and as far as the DEC is concerned, because the float comes out seasonally, the fixed dock goes to two then you have the ramp and the float, we anticipate that the DEC doesn't give a problem because we're extending out by a float to the depth of water they insist 23 Board of Trustees 24 November 17, 2004 we maintain. This dock is useless (indicating). It's two feet of water at best that's it, and the DEC certainly wouldn't give it to you. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What kind of boat? MR. DIGREGORIO: 21 foot. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In-board or outboard? MR. DIGREGORIO: It's outboard. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's plenty of water. MS. MOORE: If you can convince the DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually we've made great progress towards convincing the DEC. We got a very encouraging letter from the commissioner of Region 1. MS. MOORE: You're hoping they will give you the jurisdiction to decide depths? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MS. MOORE: That's a very good thing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Maybe January. MS. MOORE: If you want to take a look, and we can give you a diagram of the dock just to the north, I'm sorry, it's upside down. The one that's on the other side of this one to the noah of the one next door, which is not a very helpful example because you see the property's setback significantly. You've got about 40 feet back on our property, so distance-wise it's not as comparable. The other piece to the north is more comparable to ours and the length of the dock is actually pushing out in the canal further than ours or closer than the one that is on the other side of Pierce Drive. We can get that for you if you like. If you have an aerial, maybe you can look at an aerial and compare it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you still have to make your case because in the field everyone agreed that it would be best kept at the pier line. I'm very familiar with the creek. MS. MOORE: It's a nice creek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It still should be kept at the pier line once you get that leap-frogging effect, your neighbor's going to go I need 20 feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You know how it works. MS. MOORE: I thought it was the depth of water. The fixed pier is ending exactly where you want it, I think. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be it. MS. MOORE: If we put a float at that point, we're going to have a real problem with the DEC. We might be able to push it back a little bit to three and a half, we're right at the 24 Board of Trustees 25 November l 7, 2004 ~our, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We really can't go past the pier line. MS. MOORE: Give me a chance to show you the dock to the north. I don't want to propose something that you will like, but that will never get approved by the DEC, we're just going to be back and forth on this for months. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's always the option of putting out a fixed catwalk and then having a single piling offshore and using the pulley system without a float or ramp. MS. MOORE: Trying to get kids on to the boat, I don't know. Well, you're here, come up. MR. DIGREGORIO: Is the concern impeding navigation? TRUSTEE POLiWODA: The structure extruding out to the creek and then your neighbor some day will change properties and he'll want to get a bigger boat, and he'll want to come out a little further and use you as an example and say, oh, the pier line's out here. MS. TETRAULT: Your dock is covering Town owned bottom. MR. DIGREGORIO: It's just so happens my neighbor is considerably farther in than the dock that's about 15 feet north of him. So it seems somewhat unfair that I end up having to live with the dock that he chose as the pier line. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think the Board's feeling is to keep to the pier line unless you want to consider getting more information for next month. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You personally have plenty of water depth. If you have two feet for a 20 foot outboard, it's plenty of water. It's just a matter of getting through the system. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the question is do you want to keep to the pier line or do you want to come back next month? MS. MOORE: Is it a permitted dock in your files? MS. TETRAULT: We'll look it up. MS. MOORE: I think it's worth looking to the one to the north of this one, this one for sure, but the one to the north, see what their length is and so on. We could work a little bit in the length of the catwalk to the float. It's just that we need to get to at least a three foot depth, and we're only talking about probably less than a foot. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think the feeling of the Board is to keep it to the pier line. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I understand that, we all agreed that. However, if the dock immediately to the north is dysfunctional because of its length. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: From the information we have tonight, we don't know that. 25 Board of Trustees 26 November 17, 2004 MS. MOORE: I'll put him on the record, and he's very familiar with that and he can tell you about the neighbor's dock. He uses a dingy to get out to a mooring. So it seems inconsistent to have a dock for a dingy and then go out to a mooring, and impede navigation with the mooring and the boat in the middle of the channel. It seems a little bit contrary to your ultimate goal. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Board comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm with you, Peg. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Keep to the pier line or look at it next month? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's both. Keep it to the pier line or look at it next month. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table this application; do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Do you have an aerial of this, Pat? MS. MOORE: We don't have one, but I think the Town does. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Heather, you can look at that dock. MS. MOORE: Between the permits that you have or even an adjacent dock permit may have had the neighboring dock permit in their application, so we can look on either side. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to be with us at that time? MS. MOORE: Yes, let me know when you're going to be there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor. ALL AYES. 10. Michael Insel on behalf of NANCY SUE MUELLER TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to add new steps and sitting area to replace old existing steps and sitting area to bay beach. Located: 2200 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM #123-8-10. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this project? We all looked at this in the office, and it's got steps on one side of the property with a shared platform at the bottom. So I think if we give them a permit for stairs down to the common platform on their property that would fill the bill. CAC approval with stipulations, that's an old application for the bulkhead that's already been done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's for the old Permit, 2003. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve a new set of stairs down to the shared platform on the beach. 26 Board of Trustees 27 November 17, 2004 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 11. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of MARK TESSER requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 5' by 22' fixed elevated catwalk, construct a fixed elevated catwalk extension 5' by 8', construct a fixed elevated walkway including hinged ramp 5' by 32', and construct a floating dock 6' by 20' secured by four (4) pilings. Located: 455 Lesters Road, Mattituck. SCTM #114-7-1. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. IVAN: Good evening, Matt Ivan, Suffolk Environmental. I would like to submit the affidavit of posting. I want to go through this quick with the history so you understand what's going on. This property benefits from a Town of Southold Board of Trustees Permit No. 746, which is in your hands, issued to Joseph Rukowski, a local Iobsterman. This was issued September 11, 1972. Subsequently to this, Mr. Rukowski removed the dock, which is depicted on that plan, and he installed two floating docks with a hinged ramp presumably to assist with the off loading of his boats, and to make that clear, I have a second plan (handing). This just clarifies that there's also a photo from the '80s of what it looked like, and it looks like that pretty much now. In 1987 Mary Sheerin bought the property from Rukowski, sells the property to Chris Callis and Lisa Jenks. The only difference being that the Kales and Jenks rebuilt the remaining fixed portion of the dock sometime prior to 2003. Then that brings us up to date. 2003 Callis and Jenks sells the property to Mark Tessa, the applicant. And Tessa's goal is to basically rebuild the dock in compliance with what the original Rukowski permit reflected, and I'll just submit what he wishes to build. I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KING: I've got one question, what is the difference between an elevated catwalk and an elevated walkway? MR. IVAN: That is to clarify the eight foot catwalk extension would be landward. TRUSTEE KING: It's just an extension of the catwalk? MR. IVAN: Yes. There's a dock existing now, and I basically had to match up to the original permit, which had the original dock situated 25 feet off the shoreline. I imagine there was some kind of planking or something going on there, but that would extend to the original dock design. 27 Board of Trustees 28 November 17, 2004 Overall I think it's about two feet shorter now from what it was originally approved as, and it's going to be shorter than what's there now. The square footage is going to be reduced. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Was that it, Ken, it was going to be shorter when it's done? It was going to be 6 feet shorter than what's there now? MR. IVAN: Yes, I wouldn't say substantial, but it's going to look better than what's there now. He's trying to bring everything in compliance. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Out in the field we recommended that the total dock length from the beginning outward into the water would be 65 feet based on the water depths. MR. IVAN: 65 feet from the average high -- what, the shoreline? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: From the starting point of your project. You have 70 feet. We're making a recommendation that the project come in five feet. TRUSTEE KING: 63 on this drawing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Five on this one. TRUSTEE KING: This one says 67. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the current. The current one is 67. MR. IVAN: The current one right now is the longest, and you guys marked it off as you measured it out as what again? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 63. KRUPSKI: This one is going to be shorter than the TRUSTEE old one. TRUSTEE TRUSTEE four feet? MR. IVAN: KRUPSKI: It's four feet shorter, total. POLIWODA: As far as the width in the field we said Not a problem. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you just change that on one of the plans, four feet wide and I can stamp that tonight? MR. IVAN: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The elevated catwalk reduced to four feet. MR. IVAN: That's the existing one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Reduce it to four feet? MR. IVAN: Okay. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland 28 Board of Trustees 29 November 17, 2004 Permit on behalf of Mark Tesser for a 4' by 22' elevated catwalk, a 4' by 6' catwalk extension, a 4' by 18' elevated walkway, 3' by 15' finished ramp and floating dock of 6' by 20'. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 12. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of EDGAR SMITH requests a Wetland Permit for the existing dock on the seaward side of the concrete seawall; dock is 111' -5" by 10' with an "L" section on the northerly side of the seaward end 20' -4" by 10'. At the seaward end of the dock structures consisting of pilings and horizontal timbers extend approximately 10' from the northerly side and approximately 20' from the southerly side. There are 3' wide steps to grade with an 8' run on the north side of the dock to the landward end. A three-pile dolphin is located offthe northerly side of the dock and a 7' by 10' ramp to grade exists on the landward side of the seawall. The project also includes the repair of approximately 20' of the concrete seawall, in-kind/in-place, on the northerly side of the dock. Located: 680 Bay Lane West, Orient. SCTM # 24-2-10. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Smith. I'm sorry about the long description. TRUSTEE KING: It's okay, it's a long dock. MR. FITZGERALD: As you can see from the aerial photograph that was included, it's been there since at least 1963, and there appears to be a sketch plan done by Van Tuyl that is dated in the '50s, indicating that that's probably the time that it was actually built. And Mr. Smith is anxious to get everything legally shipshape. TRUSTEE KING: Is that dock to the south on the same piece of property? 29 Board of Trustees 30 November 17, 2004 MR. FITZGERALD: No. TRUSTEE KING: Following recommendation was made by the Conservation Advisory Council. I won't read the whole thing, just the very end. CAC notes there are presently two docking facilities on the property. The Council recommends removal of one dock and repair of the remaining dock in accordance with the code. You're saying it's a separate piece of property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It appears that both docks are on the same piece of property? MR. FITZGERALD: They're not. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What size boat does Mr. Smith have? MR. FITZGERALD: I have no idea. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think that's the only concern I have. MR. FITZGERALD: I have seen about 21 or 23 footer there, but I don't know whether that's all there is. TRUSTEE KING: I think our concern is with the structure to the south. It looked like it was an old wave break at one time. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There is concern in that harbor because there are so many boats, people moor in there, especially sailboats, that come in along the shore and turn back up in their moorings, told that that piling offshore impedes their navigation. MR. FITZGERALD: Which one? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The one offshore of the old structure. There's a piling out there that probably doesn't belong in that harbor. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's a picture. Didn't come up on any of the old aerials. MR. FITZGERALD: So that's probably been there for 40 years too and the sailors are probably well aware of it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's fairly new. I don't think it was there more than 10 years. TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at this aerial, it shows an "L" shaped dock, that' all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Board had an issue with the wave break, it seems unnecessary. MR. FITZGERALD: I thought that might be the case, but you just approved a dock with a wave break on Robbins Island earlier tonight. I drew a circle around it. TRUSTEE KING: He's right. MR. FITZGERALD: But, Al, I don't think there are any breaks in it, it's just the piles. TRUSTEE KING: I would recommend removing it, especially with that other dock being so close to it. 30 Board of Trustees 31 November 17, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Those wave breaks on Robbins Island, that was a mistake. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That will be corrected. MR. FITZGERALD: I don't think these are functioning wave breaks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't have a problem with the dock permit. You documented very well they existed there, certainly pre our jurisdiction on the bay by many years, but that structure to the south seems to be something that was added on later. It's not really part of the dock. It doesn't affect the dock. MR. FITZGERALD: You mean the thing we've calling a wave break? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know. It's certainly been around long enough to have significantly deteriorated. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had jurisdiction on the bay since 1991 if they can document it's been in existence prior to that, I have no problem. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is that, the wave break? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I wouldn't call it a wave break because it's not functioning. MR. FITZGERALD: It's a series of piles that are connected above by water. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Wave breakers, it's obvious that they've been proven to catch silt and sediment and change the contour of the bottom. MR. FITZGERALD: There's nothing there but piles. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One thing that wasn't brought to light until now. This is in a coastal erosion hazard area and it would require a coastal erosion permit. So it should be applied for. MR. FITZGERALD: Is that a different form or something? It's not clear to me what you need. And that has what information on it that you don't already have? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm trying to find if there's one here that he can fill out now, and we can move this along tonight. MS. TETRAULT: Get a Wetland Permit and still apply for this. MR. FITZGERALD: Do whatever you're going to do subject to the submission of the completed Page 4 of the application just as you would with the map that needed something added to it or whatever. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm comfortable with that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. 31 Board of Trustees 32 November 17, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't you make that motion? TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve repair of the existing dock, and the structure to the south of the dock is to be removed. I'll make a motion to approve repairing the existing fixed dock, the structure to the south of the dock the series of poles is to be removed and the one offshore pile to the west of the dock is to be removed. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Now you can speak. MR. FITZGERALD: I'm not sure my client will be comfortable with that. I don't want to fight it, but I think he ought to have an opportunity to talk to the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine too. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe you can come up with another aerial that shows that in existing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We wouldn't approve it as a wave break, but we wouldn't approve it just as an superfluous structure either, that doesn't serve a purpose. MR. FITZGERALD: But the town is full of piles that are standing around. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Case by case we try to annoy people by having these things removed. MR. FITZGERALD: It's working. I think that taking them out would be more disruptive to the micro environment than leaving them in. They're not harming anybody. They have been there for a long time, and I think the environment has come to a state of equilibrium, and taking them out just to pull it out -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We wouldn't require that he take it out immediately, we just wouldn't permit it. Eventually when father time or mother nature took it out, they wouldn't replace it. MR. FITZGERALD: But Jim was saying to remove. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Under the coastal erosion --there's an unregulated activity section under coastal erosion. There's accepted activities, which are not regulated by this chapter include but are not limited to docks or similar open structures with a top surface area of less than 200 square feet, which are removed in the fall of each year. So this is regulated, it's over 200. We wanted to be clear on that. MS. TETRAULT: It's not going to be removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I would say just leave them, just not 2 Board of Trustees 33 November 17, 2004 permit them. You want to remove a pile off the floor, that's a different issue. TRUSTEE KING: Let me modify my motion, I'll make a motion to approve repair of the existing dock and the removal of the one offshore pole west of the end of the dock, and the concrete repairs to the retaining wall. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. FITZGERALD: I'm asking that you issue the permit in the name of the partnership. They are the legal owners of the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Personally, I don't have a problem with it, I'm going to ask Mr. Johnston. MR. JOHNSTON: What was the name of the application? TRUSTEE KING: Name of the applicant was Edgar Smith. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there any legal action pending in that partnership? MR. JOHNSTON: What does that tax map show? MR. FITZGERALD: We as house partners. MS. TETRAULT: We need the owners signing for the agent. MR. JOHNSTON: Why don't we reserve decision on how we're going to do the permit so we can go on, but get him to give us a copy of the deed or tax map or something to show who owns it, and then a copy from Bob Scott's office for the tax map and to tie it all altogether, Jim, and we can do it. Don't ask at 9:00 on the night of the hearing. So you'll reserve decision on issuing the permit until you get the documentation, Mr. Krupski; is that what you propose? MR. FITZGERALD: You already decided you were going to approve? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just don't know whose name you're going to issue it in. 8. JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of SYDNEY AND DEBORAH DUFTON, as contract vendees, requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling on a concrete foundation, associated sanitary system, driveway, roof drains, to truck approximately 290 cubic yards of clean sand to site for grading, and to establish a 25' wide undisturbed buffer. Located: 13555 New Suffolk Avenue in Cutchogue. SCTM # 116-2-23 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Would anyone like to comment on the application? MR. JUST: Glen Just, JMO Consulting, as the agent for the applicant here, if there's any questions for the applicant 33 Board of Trustees 34 November 17, 2004 or the Board Mrs. Dufton is here as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? We've inspected the site. We're familiar with the site; we have been there a number of times. We met Mrs. Dufton on the site. We explained to her about the 50 foot nondisturbance buffer. We took some measurements and other than that, we didn't have -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: How far back was the house, Al? TRUSTEE FOSTER: 70 some feet on one side and not very far on the other side. MR. JUST: 75. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was just wondering if we could move the house back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's still going to have a 50 foot buffer. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Northeast corner was real close. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just wondering since it's such a critical area if we can move the house back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's still going to have a 50 foot buffer which is adequate, but it is right on the road there too, it's on both roads; you know, Peggy. Honestly, I don't see where because it's on the road here I can't see where you could really make it. You got a 50 foot buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's a tremendous marsh area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The marsh area's right up close too. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm considering the size of the house -- what does everyone else think? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TETRAULT: You were looking at the line a little further back? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 50 feet. Someone like to close the Hearing? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve with the condition that it's a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer, staked hay bales during construction and the plans do shows dry wells and gutters. MR. JUST: On either side of the house there's quite a few of them, actually. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Go back to Robbie? 34 Board of Trustees 35 November 17, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to reopen Number 8, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. It was about the wave breaks that somehow everyone didn't pick up on. I had spoke with Mr. Just. He suggested that we postpone the application so we can discuss it with the contractor before making decision on it. I thought that was fair, because the contractor was here earlier and left. MR. JUST: I asked him to be here. He didn't realize I was going to be stuck on Fishers Island today. I would rather discuss it with him before we carry it any further. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to reopen and then table the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: On the existing pier now it shows it with wave breaks; do they go all the way to the bottom? MR. JUST: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, that was one of my questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I made a motion to reopen the hearing and then table it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 13. En-Consultants, Incorporated on behalf of RYCK KOKE requests a Wetland Permit to replace (within 18") approximately 185 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead, install approximately 185 linear feet of timber bulkhead on landward side of existing bulkhead. Truck in approximately 40 cubic yards of clean sand fill from an upland source be used as backfill. Remove and replace (in-kind) an existing 5' by 50' wood deck and 4' by 5' cantilevered platform (in same positions relative to new bulkhead). Located: 245 Klm Lane, Southold. SCTM # 70-13-20.2. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. This proposal and plan is identical to that approved by the Trustees as part of Permit 5613 that was issued August 28, 2002. The Kokes let the permit expire before commencing the work. So we're essentially asking for a new permit because he was too late to ask for an extension. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommended approval with the condition of a 20 foot non-turf buffer and no treated lumber be used on the bulkhead, which is addressed. MR. HERMANN: We can't completely comply with that because the Board -- now this is not me making this law, this is the 5 Board of Trustees 36 November ! 7, 2004 CAC -- the Board had required when this permit was issued that the bulkhead be replaced in front with vinyl. Mr. Koke was very skeptical of vinyl, so as a concession the Board agreed to allow him, in addition to building out in front with vinyl, to resheath on the landward side with CCA timber. So we're repeating the same request, it's on the landward side of the bulkhead. It will basically be in the ground and not in the water TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. MR. HERMANN: But it would still be vinyl going out in front and there's no problem with that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments? Board, any comments? I looked at this, I didn't have a problem with this, it was straightforward. As far as the non-turf buffer, what the Board's been doing is 10 feet. MR. HERMANN: There was a 12 foot approved with the prior permit, so if we stick with the 12 feet that's fine. You can make it verbatim from the prior permit. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay. If no other comments, 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 on behalf of Ryck Koke to replace within 18 inches 185 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with the vinyl bulkhead, install approximately 185 feet of timber bulkhead on landward side of existing bulkhead. Truck in the clean sand, 40 cubic yards, remove and replace existing 5' by 50' wood deck, and the 4' by 5' cantilever platform, as well as keep in place a 12 foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 14. Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of PATRICE AND JOHN KEITT requests a Wetland Permit to remove/replace (in-place) approximately 152 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; remove two existing timber retaining walls and construct (1) approximately 159 linear feet timber retaining wall; and backfill with approximately 125 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source. Remove existing swimming pool, patio, decks landings and stairs; and construct new swimming pool, terrace, deck, stone landscape wall, walks, landings, and stairs, including 4' by 15' platform/stairs to beach. Located: 280 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM # 81-1-19. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to 36 Board of Trustees 37 November 17, 2004 speak to this of this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the Keitts. Jim has been kind enough to meet us down at this property on a few different occasions. They were trying to find, in conjunction with Kevin and Doreen Barr, the adjoining property owners, a way to approach replacing the bulkhead. And, Jim, you may recall we talked about a bunch of ideas some of which were more amenable than others to the DEC. The Keitts ultimately were not able to get all of the different pieces together in terms of the neighbors' positions, et cetera, to do anything other than to just try to replace this bulkhead in its current location. So after all of our time it's basically come back to an in-kind/in-place replacement with vinyl. Most of the rest of the application is just reshuffling and replacing the structures that are upland. The only other critical portion of the application is that there are two retaining walls now, and we'll decrease the structure on the bluff by putting just one retaining wall that was actually designed by Samuels and Steelman in conjunction with Steve Pollack, the marine contractor. I think the bluff will end up being a little neater. It's a little chaotic with the various decks and landings that are there now. And hopefully between putting in the new bulkhead and the one retaining wall, it should end up being a better layout than what's there now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends approval for the application with the condition that the bluff is replanted with native species, are there plans to replant? MR. HERMANN: There are, and you may see on the survey, there are some areas that are shown to be planted. I don't think there will be any problem with basically showing everything on the bluff that is not going to be a landing or stairway to be planted; that's only to the advantage of the Keitts. And obviously that would need to be done to restablize the bluff face. So if we left that out, I certainly wouldn't have any problem agreeing to that. It should be done. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And a 10 foot buffer? MR. HERMANN: Again, basically, the whole bluff area behind the new vinyl bulkhead would in effect become a buffer, basically everything from the crust to the bulkhead that's not -- there's no way to establish a lawn or anything there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. Are there any other comments? From the Board? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. 37 Board of Trustees 38 November l 7, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-kind) vinyl bulkhead, the dry wells for the swimming pool and backwash and that the vegetation be replanted as per plans, did I miss anything? Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 15. Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LESLIE BARNEY & SEAN OLSEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock, consisting of a 4' by 12' inclined ramp; 4' by 18' fixed elevated catwalk; 3' by 14' hinged ramp; and 6' by 20' "T" float, secured by two 6" diameter pilings. Located: 1075 Smith Drive North, Southold. SCTM 76-2-1. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants. In the interest of time, I did get a chance to speak to Heather and also the applicants subsequent to your field inspection. There was apparently some suggestion for this particular site that the fixed catwalk, which would include the 18 foot section and the 12 foot ramp up, be narrowed from four feet to three feet. The applicants have no problem making that modification, and I could submit a revised plan. MS. TETRAULT: You wanted the ramp 5' by 16'? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Were there any changes the Board made? MS. TETRAULT: 5' by 16' float. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The owner agreed with us in the field. MR. HERMANN: That would be a problem. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Why? MR. HERMANN: I'm not sure why the length of the float matters. You normally do allow a 20' float. In terms of shortening the float from 6' wide to 5', we are solidly 7' feet less than one-third the width of the canal, which allowed for a six to seven foot beam boat. Ordinarily I would not find it to be a problem, but we have designed this at the absolute minimum length for which we can get a DEC permit. So I would make the argument that the 12 inches in the float width is inconsequential in terms of width of the waterway. But it may actually be the difference in being able to or not being able to get a permit from DEC. We're right -- even as it is now, we're right on two and a half. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem with that. 38 Board of Trustees 39 November ! 7, 2004 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't either. MR. HERMANN: But they are willing to narrow it up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just thought it was a protected area. We're trying to minimize the structure as we always do, but if you have a need for that, an extra 12 inches I don't think is going to bother me. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 6' by 16', he was accommodating 5' by 16', why don't we just make it 6' by 16' then. MR. HERMANN: What is the difference in the length of the float? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's a protected area bottom coverage. MR. HERMANN: But the 20 feet is what you ordinarily approve. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's true. MS. TETRAULT: It's just such a narrow, little spot. MR. HERMANN: How about splitting the difference, 6' by 18'? MR. OLSEN: I didn't know you wanted to shorten the length of the dock. I thought when we spoke you talked about making it a little narrower. But if it's a matter of approval or disapproval of the plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem with 6' by 20'. As long as the catwalk's three feet wide. TRUSTEE KING: It's standard size. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We suggested it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I thought it might be easier for you too, to pull it up. Where are you going to store it in the winter? MR. OLSEN: I haven't crossed that bridge. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. The smaller the float the easier the pull. Fine. TRUSTEE FOSTER: 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 Leslie Barney and Sean Olsen as requested, 39 Board of Trustees 40 November 17, 2004 any changes noted 1075 Smith Drive North, Southold. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. HERMANN: If it helps, even though you just voted, maybe can he make a condition of the permit that you insure that the ramp and float be removed seasonally. Because DEC's going to require that anyway. So at least you can enforce the float getting out of the water in the off season, just a suggestion. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay, note that on the record, please. 16. Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DAVID CORCORAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 83 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead (forming boat slip) with vinyl bulkhead; maintenance dredge 30' by 30' area within boat slip to a maximum depth of minus 4' average Iow water; spread approximately 45 of 85 cubic yards sand/silt spoil landward of bulkhead as backfill; and truck remaining spoil to an approved upland source. Remove and replace (in-kind/in-place) 2.5' by 12' ramp and remove and replace (in-place) plus/minus 7' by plus/minus 20' float with 6' by 20' float. Located: 405 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #137-4-15. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann, En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. Again, in the interest of time, I had a chance to speak just briefly with Al about this in terms of there was some question of how long the slip has been around, was it an inventoried structure with the Town, was it permitted, et cetera. I'm going to hand up some information. I assume it's in your file but I also have an aerial photograph to show the structures. This is a copy of your creek structures inventory from '84 that shows a little sketch of the bulkhead, the ramp and float and a comment on it says went through permit process, dock on their property not town. Less than 10 years old, bulkhead, ramp 2 by 10, float 5 by 12, two pilings and sketch that shows a 30, 40 and 20 foot section of bulkhead forming a slip. This is the plan in your file that shows the same bulkheaded slip and the ramp and float and there's some notes on here again, it says 90 feet of bulkhead, 100 yards of spoil behind bulkhead, all work applicant's property. Which again, just reiterating the Town. I do have an aerial photograph from March of 1976 that shows the cut-out, and you can see at the time this was cut within the applicant's property. See how much 40 Board of Trustees 41 November 17, 2004 more shoreline actually existed at that time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It accreted though because it shows the flow out into the creek, and what you're asking for is almost a (inaudible). MR. HERMANN: All this land on this side is basically gone. The bulkheading is the same, that obviously has been made static, but this whole area is all revegetated area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I'm talking about especially here it seems like the marsh has grown out. MR. HERMANN: For any littoral drift here the boat slip is going to act in some way to either catch it or not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It should be in the creek, though? MR. HERMANN: It depends on the ebb and flow. if the littoral drift is -- in other words, if there's more sand that's going to move in this direction, and the tide ebbs out here, it's going to accumulate here and it's going to be lost here. But either way over time you're going to have some landward translation of the entire shoreline. The point of the photo is that the documents here have some indication that it was built into the owner's upland, and the photo would tend to support that. it's from 1976. And again, there was a permit issued in your file from 1983, which allowed a second maintenance dredge event of the slip. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm talking this side has grown out, this side has eroded significantly. MS. TETRAULT: You said maybe shortening it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It was built on their property. It's documented. At this point I don't have a big problem with it. Unless there's a suggestion to somehow curb this erosion here. MR. HERMANN: All the bulkhead on the outside, it shows on the plan all the pilings will be built basically like a groin. In other words, instead of coming out battered into the wetland, it will be built immediately straight to keep this supported. If you would like to do some sort of planting on the side, we could try that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where it's eroding then they also mow? MR. HERMANN: I think the biggest thing the Board can do here is impose some sort of buffer and make sure this doesn't get cut. This is obviously just purchased, and it's all been pretty much manicured. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Look at that, it was probably intertidal, here. There's a line here, it was probably filled at one point, this whole section. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, seeing how you documented it's on the 41 Board of Trustees 42 November 17, 2004 applicant's property. MR. HERMANN: We can try to get some sort of ground cover planted. However, we can mitigate the problem from the current contact should be done anyway. I can give you a copy of this section, but I can't give you the photo. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other hearing, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve the application of David Corcoran with the condition that the area to the south where the backfill will be spread will be planted with amobhollan. MR. HERMANN: Beach grass. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: American beach grass, or the plants, small bacchyris or bayberry, something that would normally be there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh And 15 foot area on the south side of the new bulkhead, and some spartina patens to be planted on the east side to stabilize the intertidal, just above the intertidal are for ten feet around the structure. No mowing to take place within -- MR. HERMANN: Well, you said 15 foot buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. 15 foot. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES 17. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of FRANCES and JOHN DIVELLO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock, consisting of a 4' by 126' fixed catwalk to be elevated a minimum of 3.5' above grade of marsh; a 3' by 18' ramp; and a 6' by 20' float secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings. Construct a 4' by 9' platform/steps at landward end of catwalk. Located: 1705 Meday Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM # 113-9-8.1. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann on behalf of the Divellos. The DiVellos were a victim of the moratorium, so the time that's passed they have obtained a DEC permit for this dock, and so we're in before the Trustees asking for the exact same -- or I should say now we're able to come in before the Trustees and ask for the same exact structure that was approved by the DEC. It should be pretty straightforward, so if the 42 Board of Trustees 43 November 17, 2004 Board has any questions I'd be happy to answer them. And the DiVellos are here. TRUSTEE KING: Conservation Advisory Council recommends approval as submitted. We were all out there and took a look. Pretty straightforward, it's a very well-developed creek as far as structures go and it fits right in with the neighborhood from what I could see. If no other comments, I 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 as submitted. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 18. George Tsunis on behalf of THOMAS ANDERSON AND THOMAS KEVIN ANDERSON requests a Wetland Permit for the existing deck. Located: 1240 Love Lane, Mattituck. SCTM # 140-1-23.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? Any Board comments on the deck or the house? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do I have a motion to approve the application? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 19. Land Use Ecological Service, Inc. on behalf of LONG ISLAND SOUND OYSTER, LLC CIO TOM ANDERSON requests a Wetland Permit to expand an existing dock facility to be utilized for a commercial shellfishing and aquaculture facility. The existing 4' by 130' plus/minus timber catwalk is proposed to be widened to 10 foot to accommodate a fork-lift or truck. The existing platform and 3' by 20' ramp are proposed to remain. (7) 6' by 20' floats are proposed to be supported by (15) 8" diameter piles. The existing re-bar and garbage debris on the creek bottom is proposed to be removed and disposed of at an approved offsite location. On the north side of the property west of the existing house the applicant proposes to remove the remains of a dilapidated concrete wall, and proposes to remove existing wood landscape debris to an approved offsite location. A shed is proposed in the same location as the previous shed location, and proposed buffer area. South of the dock the 43 Board of Trustees 44 November 17, 2004 buffer area is proposed to extend from the mean high water to the concrete wall. North of the dock the buffer area is proposed to extend from the mean high water to the back edge of the existing fence north to the property line. Located: 1240 Love Lane, Mattituck. SCTM 140-1-23.1. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. HALL: Dan Hall, Land Use, I'm here to answer any questions the Board may have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need to ask for a long environmental assessment form. We want to open the hearing tonight. Does the Board have any other comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Not right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just looked at it two days ago, and after looking at it two days ago, it's not like we could have gotten it to you, and you could have filled it out and gotten it back here. We were there Monday night about dark. MS. TETRAULT: And there were a lot of problems with the previous owner so this time they want to make sure they do it right. MR. HALL: Would there be a limit to the number of oyster trays that would be permitted here? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, absolutely. That's one of our concerns is that it's public bottom. That's what we're trying to figure out, how much area the applicant can use on the creek. MR. HALL: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that's what we haven't -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: Plus the other was water quality. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That was another area that came up. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That area's been closed for years. I don't know how you can grow shellfish there when you got bad water quality. MR. ANDERSON: They were permitted 36 trays there, previous owner. I just want what they had. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have applied for something further out into the creek and further east. What's applied for is very close to federal anchorage and its navigation issue as well as public land use. MR. HALL: That actually goes out same distance that Bluepoint went out, 30 feet from the end of the dock. Actually it's less than that now, but before the DEC permit we had it reflected that it's 30 feet out from the end of the pier, which now we're a little short of that actually. The fixed catwalk I'm referring to. MS. TETRAULT: You just want further review. 44 Board of Trustees 45 November l 7, 2004 TRUSTEE KING: Are you going to be mooring vessels outside of the floats, north of the floats? MR. HALL: I guess two vessels next to the south side? MR. ANDERSON: Well, the south side. I don't want to put all the floats in, there will be two vessels, one here and one to the north, I guess you would call it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Can I ask the Board, would the applicant be pleased to separate or piecemeal this application, maybe consider the fixed dock as one portion then the aquaculture changes as another?. Looking at the full project, there's a lot of variables to this project. You have a fixed dock, which you want to increase; then you have all the floats to be considered. I know the fixed dock probably serves one purpose, such as tying up your boats and do what you have to do in the business there; then you have the aquaculture side, which is another segment which we haven't figured out yet. I don't know how needy you need that or how quick you need that dock, I don't know what part of that is in the game plan. MR. ANDERSON: The width of the dock? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. And I don't know when you want to build that. MR. ANDERSON: I want to get that on, because if I want to get something on instead of going to the Town dock and liability. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right, I figured you'd want to get the dock started MR. ANDERSON: Want to do it on my own property so I'm not liable. I don't know what kind of problem I do have going to the Town. I don't know if that's even legal. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's may be legal. MR. HALL: Is there concern with the extra floats orthe trays or both? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a public land use issue, we just want to make sure we don't make a mistake here. What Ken suggested is that we issue you a permit for the dock and then you could have use of the property then we could -- MR. HALL: The property's zoned Marine 2. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Upland zoned Marine 2, but the creek is private property. Is that acceptable? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At least if you have the dock permit you could start something, give you something to work on for the next month or two. MR. ANDERSON: Does that include the 6' by 20' float in the water? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would have to give you a couple floats, 45 Board of Trustees 46 November l 7, 2004 a float at least to get started. MR. ANDERSON: But I might want to change the float if you're going to reconsider how many trays. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You could change it around too, that wouldn't be a problem. But what Ken is suggesting is that to give you access, permitted access today, then we'll work on the rest of the floats next month or after today. MR. HALL: There are also trays there now, I think part of their concern is holding the ones they have there, there. Winter is coming up, they're going to start going all over the place. He's talking about me putting piles there holding it there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have no objection to that. The permit that was issued -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is for a 4' by 100' pier and four refabrioated 8' by 30' open tanks; is that the permit that was issued earlier? MR. HALL: That was one of them. TRUSTEE KING: Was there any amendments to that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Were there any amendments to that? MR. HALL: I don't know. We were provided with DEC permits, several DEC permits with amendments from the previous owner, and we have Permit Number 4276, that's what you were referring to? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what I would say I would approve. The existing length now gives you almost five feet of water, and the existing ramp and float off the end gives you five feet of water, right? I would suggest -- and this is not a motion, it's just a suggestion to the Board -- that we approve of a 100, which is the length now, a 100 by 10 foot wide dock with a ramp and float coming off that little platform to give the applicant access and then he could build that right away. MR. ANDERSON: Even if I didn't need them all, I was going to put trays instead of putting all the floats in. I probably don't need all them floats we're asking for, but I would put trays in their place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You need a float for access for a boat, though. TRUSTEE FOSTER: If we're not going to give him enough trays to make it economically feasible to grow the oysters, he might not want to build the dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You could ask him, but I think this is also commercial access to any sort of fishery. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The thought that I had, well, we'll give you this, we'll give you that, then we're not going to give you that, then, why don't you tell me that in the beginning, 46 Board o f Trustees 47 November 17, 2004 I wouldn't have done all of this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't you tell him that. I think what we had in mind just to give him commercial access for any sort of fishery, it wouldn't be limited to just oyster growing. You could ask him that question. TRUSTEE FOSTER: One of my concerns is to not personally piecemeal an application as much as this and in the end, when you want the trays to grow the oysters not get enough trays to make all the previous work that you did worthwhile. I wouldn't want to see the Board, or at least my part of the Board, get involved in a situation where that happened. So keep that in mind. I don't know what the rest of the Board's feeling is about how many trays you're going to get, or how much bottom you're going to cover, or if we're going to give as many. We did discuss this. MR. ANDERSON: I seen somewhere where it was 36, that number keeps coming up. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Just from having spent time out there during field inspections, I don't think this Board's inclined to give you 36 of those floats. Am I right in assuming that? What's there now is 157 MR. ANDERSON: There's 18 there now, they sold a bunch of them. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You plan on putting 36? MR. ANDERSON: No. I just want what they had. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you didn't get what they had, what Artie's asking, would -- MR. ANDERSON: I would like to get what they had permitted. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This is always a concern of mine on this Board when people come in. MR. HALL: So Bluepoint X amount of floats, you didn't say nothing, why should you limit me? TRUSTEE KING: What we did for those turned out to be a very bad experience for us. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They violated their permit, they put in a lot more than they were permitted for. Don't get me wrong. I'm trying to act in your behalf. What I'm suggesting is that I don't know where this is going to go as far as how many floats you're going to get. I just know that in the conversations we had about this in field inspections when we looked at it, from what I gathered out of the conversation, I don't think that this Board is going to allow 36 6 by 20 floats there because a big concern was the amount of area that was going to be taken up in relation to the navigation, the marina and the public access that the park district has there. Personally I would not want to piecemeal this and 47 Board o f Trustees 48 November 17, 2004 say you can have this and you can have that, and then in the end say, but you can't have that. By not doing that, it would make all the money you previously spent wasted. MR. ANDERSON: You're saying you don't want that much aquaculture. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'm not saying you can't. I'm saying I don't know if the Board is inclined based on our -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh One of our questions is you say you need 36, so then what's to stop Dan from coming in and saying he wants 56? MR. ANDERSON: I'm not asking for 56. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He might be the next day. Orthe next guy down the creek might say I need 106. MR. HALL: They got no history, I got history there. MR. TSUNIS: If I might address the Board, George Tsunis, I was the previous application, I was here on behalf of Bluepoint Oyster Company, and I'd like to say on behalf of this applicant that Bluepoint Oyster Company, although they owned the property, the property was being rented by a subcontractor and he was the one that was operating the facility. So to maybe alleviate this fear that you have that Bluepoint, this big company was running it, and they weren't running it to your liking. It's because they weren't running it, it was a subcontractor, and where these two gentlemen are going to own it and run it themselves, and they're long time fishermen in the area, local, and I think they do a heck of a job. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think it's anything against you and wanting to do aquaculture. I think what we're saying is we want to be sure by doing a long environmental form that this major project is going to be what is best for the environment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And what's best for the town. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The only thing Ken was suggesting to give you part of it, and what Artie was saying maybe it's not a good idea to give you part of it if in the end you're not going to get what you want. We can't tell you what that's to be because we still need to do an environmental review of it. So there are a couple different decisions here. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I personally don't want to be misleading. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You're right. MR. HALL: Nobody had a problem with what was there before. There was no complaints, now there's a problem. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Actually, I think there was complaints and it was complaints about how the place was left. 48 Board of Trustees 49 November 17, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: One of our complaints was we were supposed to get 10,000 oysters a year. We didn't get one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 50,000 oysters a year. MR. ANDERSON: I'm raising seed I'm buying the spat. I got to buy the seed. I don't have 10,000 to give you. MR. TSUNIS: If I may reiterate again, it wasn't Bluepoint Oyster that was there, they were renting it and they moved out in the middle and left. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't want you to read me wrong here. My major concern is for you people, really. The town as well, but I wouldn't want to get into a situation where you have invested a lot of money and don't get what you think you're going to get in the end, and I only say that from what I absorbed out of the conversation with the Board in looking at this and what was there and what everybody felt should be there isn't 36 of these cages, I can tell you that. Maybe I shouldn't do this, I'm revealing what I heard. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It might be 20. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't want to be part of a situation where you invest a ton of money and don't get what you want in the end. MR. TSUNIS: If they do have documentation that there were 36 trays there, that they would be allowed to put 36 trays back? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think that matters. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Anderson, my question is if you didn't get 36, what would you feel that would be a number you would be comfortable with? MR. ANDERSON: There's no history of a complaint for the 36, why should I give up the 36? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Our concern is for the wetland. MR. ANDERSON: How am I going to hurt the wetland? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My question is, would you be content with 20; would you be content with 25? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We shouldn't put a number on it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not putting a number on it. He said 49 Board of Trustees 50 November 17, 2004 he wouldn't do it for 10; would he continue the project with another number. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ithink Artie raised a very good point. MR. HALL: I think we have to decide on a number otherwise that's how he's going to determine whether or not to go through with the project. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why when Artie said -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's exactly why I mentioned that. We shouldn't segment it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Kenny was right to suggest immediate access, but-- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I know you guys have another business, you might want that 10 foot dock to run your pots. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But if you don't want that immediately, then maybe what Artie said makes sense maybe you don't need that immediately, we'll wait until next month and try to hash that out. MR. HALL: Where they're posed now, the water's pretty deep there now. I mean it will have an effect, but it's a question what that effect will be on the bottom anyway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because like I said, the next guy on the creek is going to say I want 56, because that's what my operation is. MR. HALL: But if our operation -- TRUSTEE KING: Dan, could you give us a measurement -- that federal anchorage is buoyed off-- could you give us a measurement from the seaward end to where these floats will be to that buoy, and that's the corner of the anchorage? MR. HALL: What are you asking for? TRUSTEE KING: Can you give us a measurement from the proposed dock to that southerly buoy in the anchorage, there's a white and orange buoy that marks the corner of the anchorage. MR. HALL: I can't give it to you now, but I can give it to you. TRUSTEE KING: I'd like to see what that dimension is because there's a lot of traffic that goes in between there, and that's one of my concerns, traffic. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's pretty busy in there in the summer[ime, even at night. TRUSTEE KING: There's a lot of night time traffic. We have to look at that issue. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is the depth of those trays? MR. HALL: 6 foot, but we can make them shallow to float in the shallow water. MR. ANDERSON: So the history of them going out before don't 50 Board of Trustees 51 November l 7, 2004 mean -- TRUSTEE KING: It's history. MR. ANDERSON: Even the permits the DEC gave me for what they had I got permits for I throw them out, don't mean nothing? TRUSTEE KING: They're still a valid permit. That's DEC, this is patens land that the Trustees control. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to table the application. MR. HALL: I thought when you go out so far out over five feet Trustees don't - TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Only in the bay this is patens land. Dan, if you can get us the long environmental assessment form. MR. HALL: Yes. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you want to start with the dock or put it all together?. MR. HALL: Dock and ramp? TRUSTEE POLIVVODA: Dock and ramp and float. That's up to you. MR. HALL: What's the big thing about a few floats in the water? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we don't review it -- MR. HALL: If you just go out 30 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Doesn't make sense if we don't review it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The form is part of the application form. MR. ANDERSON: Thirty feet they had their floats out. That's what I want, what they had, 30 feet out from the end of my pier, and now it's a problem. I don't know who do you see? I don't see how it's a problem. I didn't change nothing. It's 30 feet, here's the end of the pier, 30 feet out, now it's a problem. Navigation. Do you think the creek changed since I bought it, got smaller? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the application. MR. ANDERSON: I'll take the dock and the float to get down to my three oyster trays. MR. HALL; What float would you allow there at the end of the ramp, one float, the two that are there? There's two there now. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We're going to take another look at it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He wants the dock. All right, I'll make the motion to approve the 100 or is it 1307 I'm looking for the original permit for 100, and your drawing, Dan, it's 130; which is it? MR. HALL: That's what the surveyor scaled out to be. That's what the reference is to. MR. JOHNSTON: So 30 of it in as-built. 51 Board of Trustees 52 November l 7, 2004 MS. TETRAULT: Did you measure it? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, we did measure it. MS. TETRAULT: What was it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that last 30 foot permitted? TRUSTEE FOSTER: The original permit says 100. TRUSTEE KING: I know they came in for that platform and the float on the west side of the dock, I can remember that one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Dan, do you have records of that? MR. HALL: I don't have any Trustees permit other than the one I mentioned before. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We granted an amendment in ~94 to eliminate the 2,000 gallon per minute pump enclosed in a 5 by 5 structure, and instead using 2,000 gallon a minute pump to be placed at the end of the pier. Two davits were installed for pump servicing. That's one amendment. In ~96 they have 64' by 30' area at the end of the pier, at the end of the 100' pier. So it's only about 15 feet past it. I don't know if that was ever approved or is that the original. Stand up and take a look at this. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So far we've got 30' by 64' of trays but it can't stick out past 15 feet past the end of the dock, but one of the conditions of approval on this was that the applicant and the permitee was going to give the Town 50,000 seed oysters, that was part of the arrangement, that wasn't just like here you go. MR. ANDERSON: I got to bribe you? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. It's payment to the Town, it's not a bribe. I didn't get anything, it went right into the creek. MR. ANDERSON: I didn't get nothing either. The old dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's DEC. Now DEC went up to a 130 foot pier, I don't know where that came from. I'm looking for a Town approval. MR. TSUNIS: This says Southold Town Number 4276, so this is in coordination with 4276. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's for 4' by 100'. MR. TSUNIS: It says 4' by 130' on the diagram. MR. JOHNSTON: What is the page on your right-hand side? MR. TSUNIS: This is Southold. MR. JOHNSTON: That's who we are. MR. TSUNIS: Construct 100' by 4' open pile pier and place four prefabricated 8 by 30 open tanks in adjacent area. Tanks will be serviced by 2,000 gallon per minute pump enclosed by a 5 by 5 structure intake and outflow pipes would run underneath the pier and tanks connected in 52 Board of Trustees 53 November 17, 2004 parallel. In all accordance with detail specifications as presented in the originating application, which is this application (indicating). So the diagram and this permit go together. TRUSTEE KING: You've got two separate applications. You've got a DEC permit, and we have a Town permit. They're two entirely separate permits to me. Just looking at our records and what you've got there, it looks like they went to DEC and got a permit for a 130 foot dock. They got a permit from us for a 100 foot dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They also got an amendment -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: Which is what they applied for, they applied for 100 foot dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A ramp, a 3 by 5 work float and four piles. So what we approved for them is substantially different than what the DEC approved. I don't know what DEC approved. MR. TSUNIS: But the DEC approval notes the Southold Town 4276 permit. MR. JOHNSTON: So what. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what. I would say table the whole thing at this point. MR. JOHNSTON: They may have a dock that's not in compliance and could be subject to a violation. MR. TSUNIS: Why can't you let them proceed with doing a dock so he can start working at least in the next month. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We're inclined to do that, but we have to determine the length. MS. TETRAULT: You can approve it based on the research. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At this point it's too confusing. You see the problem, the last people who applied here have a valid permit for a 4' by 100' dock; they also have conditions on it that the float couldn't exceed 15 feet past the dock. What's currently there is 131 foot dock with all kinds of extra floats. We're looking through here looking for Town permits. So I'd rather table this and let Heather sort through this file. Maybe I missed something but I could only find one amendment that was approved here granting the cantilever off the pier, 3 by 20 ramp and a 3 by 5 work float and four piles, that was from 2000, and I can't find much else that the Town approved. TRUSTEE KING: I would just like to point out there's a lot of structure, people come and get a permit then they build something quite a bit bigger. Nobody says anything, nobody complains, maybe they don't know or they don't pay any attention, and then when somebody comes along and buys the 53 Board o f Trustees 54 November 17, 2004 property and things start to get transferred, you start coming in, then we go back and start reviewing the files, we find these discrepancies. MR. TSUNIS: But they have a C of O for this. TRUSTEE KING: They were permitted for a 100 foot dock, they build a 130 foot dock. We didn't know what they built. MR. TSUNIS: They have a Certificate of Occupancy for it, so somebody had to go out and inspect it from the Town to get that. TRUSTEE KING: From the Town? MR. JOHNSTON: Certificate of Occupancy, what does that have to do with our permit? MR. TSUNIS: Somebody had to do a final inspection on the dock and the house and the premises. TRUSTEE KING: No, you're wrong. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unless I missed something and, Dan, you can look through your files also. MR. HALL: I don't have any Trustees permits in my file except for the one that Mr. Tsunis presented that you have already. TRUSTEE KING: I just want to do what's right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't want to make a decision and be wrong either. I make a motion to table the whole application for further review. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do what's right for you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. ANDERSON: Can you get me a fluke permit and a bass permit with the DEC? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have no influence with the DEC. MR. ANDERSON: Maybe you could write me a letter. I can't raise oysters, I can't fish. How do you expect somebody to make a living on the water? And you guys are Trustees. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You've got a dock there that doesn't even have a Town permit that we can find. MR. ANDERSON: Why didn't you guys inspect it? That's not my fault. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe you should have checked on this when you bought it. MR. HALL: Why did you guys leave it there? MR. ANDERSON: You wait for somebody to buy it and we do your dirty work. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You didn't do our dirty work, that means we should go every day and measure every dock. MR. HALL: When somebody builds something, you should check it out. 54 Board of Trustees 55 November 17, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do now, but they still add on to it afterwards. MR. ANDERSON: We're trying to do something honest. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We haven't denied anything yet. MR. ANDERSON: I know, but you haven't agreed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't. It's public land. It's not built on your land. You wanted a deck for the house, we said no problem, it's on your land. This is all on public land. We're supposed to protect the land for the public because it's owned by the public. MR. ANDERSON: And you got no complaints, that's what gets me. MR. HALL: It's good for the community, it purifies the water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We said it's public land and we better get everything straight. MR. ANDERSON: Then I'll wait for you to let me know what I can do? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. December 16th. MR. ANDERSON: I come back and you'll have an answer? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So Heather, you've got to go through the files, find out which permits are there, all the denied amendments because there's denied amendments in there too, they asked for stuff in the past and the Board denied it. They might have built it after they asked for it, I don't know. MR. JOHNSTON: Dan, as the agent of the record, what are you going to do? Do you have a clear understanding from Mr. Krupski what you're going to do? MR. HALL: He requested a long environmental assessment form, which I will prepare. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Could you also review the file for your applicant to see what has been permitted there in the past? MR. HALL: I don't have any Trustees permits in my file, I have DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh File's open to you. MR. JOHNSTON: I just want to make perfectly clear from a legal standpoint, as his agent you have to come to us with an understanding of what you're asking for and what has been permitted before. You know, because the difference as an as-built could be double the fee, could be other issues. For all of your clients you should come to us with an understanding of reconciling what you're asking for versus what's already permitted. MR. HALL: I understand. MR. JOHNSTON: So you have committed to Mr. Krupski to do 55 Board of Trustees 56 November l 7, 2004 three things: Long form, find out what is permitted, and then reconcile it to what you're asking for, right? MR. HALL: Right. MR. JOHNSTON: That will help your client understand what was going on today, which is normally done -- the work done by the agent or the attorney or whoever is representing the client, and not by the Trustees trying to figure out what you're asking for. Sorry to be harsh, but that's what you're being paid for. MR. HALL: Right. We presented you with a proposal for what was there. MR. JOHNSTON: And to present that proposal you have to reconcile what was permitted. MR. HALL: What was permitted in the past doesn't mean it necessarily won't be permitted in the future, or will not, or will? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh They asked tonight what was permitted in the past, not necessarily what was built. MR. JOHNSTON: Your client should know what has been permitted, what they have and what you're asking for. Any doubt in your mind? MR. HALL: No. MR. JOHNSTON: Did you have for us tonight? Done. I'm sorry. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Looks like 100 foot, but let's -- MR. JOHNSTON: Al, let him find out, do his job, then we can compare. TRUSTEE KING: These people are under the impression that what was there was all permitted and we'll just transfer it. Looks like these guys did a lot of stuff that nobody knew about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One of the conditions was what was also permitted. We're not enforcement. We have no badge and gun either. MR. ANDERSON: You tell them what to do. You tell the enforcement to go give a summons. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Only if we see something. I'll make a motion to go back to the regular meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, scallop season. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any discussion regarding scallop season? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have no problem with Ken's resolution because in the past when we have closed Hallock's Bay because of concerns of eel grass and bugs and whatnot, it's 56 Board of Trustees 57 November 17, 2004 been acknowledged that the Hallock's Bay is an area in town where scallops spawn. It's kind of like -- I don't want to say not a sacred place -- but it's kind of like a sacred place. But we've never closed other town waters to scalloping. I'm comfortable with leaving Hallock's Bay closed but opening up the rest of the town because if there's a few scallops they can harvest... TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In this day and age of shellfish populations being very sensitive, would it be wise to propose that seasonally when we open the scallop season that we possibly get information from, one, the Shellfish Advisory Council that's supposedly being reformulated and also maybe request that Cornell give us a written scientific report on the status of eel grass and scallop bugs in the bay? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Shouldn't representatives of Cornell be participating in the Shellfish Advisory Commission? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's fine, but I'm saying that it become routine that prior to that season being determined that we get that information first. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Bringing up the Shellfish Advisory Council, there are no meets and bounds of how many meetings a year, there was nothing. Sometimes they have a meeting every month, sometimes every four months. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There's more issues now, Ken, you have to get more people to commit now than just scallop season and it would be good to have. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: When we met the other night, it was a healthy group, it was a healthy meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are we creating that; are those applicants coming to us? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. We have the authority from the Town Board. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where are we creating criteria for those, is that person asked tonight? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We haven't done so yet. MS. STANDISH: Right now there's resumes being submitted to the Town Clerk's office, once she gets them in and stamps them as being received, and then we'll get them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We need to set the criteria before we interview. MS. STANDISH: Yes. They haven't come in yet. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Heather, do you have a memo you would like to read? MS. TETRAULT: This is a memo from me, Heather Tetrault, 57 Board of Trustees 58 November 17, 2004 Environmental Technician to the Southold Town Board of Trustees, cc: Lauren Standish and Brownell Johnston. "Attached please find the results of my research into the scallop harvest. I have contacted and received scientific information from the following: "Chris Smith, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Riverhead, NY; Chris Pickerel, Comell Cooperative Extension, Southold, NY; Kevin McAIlister, Peconic Baykeeper, Riverhead, NY; Debra Barnes, NYSDEC Shellfisheries, Setauket, NY; Steven Teitelbach, Southampton College, Southampton, NY; Joe Gordon, Southold Baymens Association, Southold, NY; East Hampton Trustees, East Hampton, NY; Southampton Trustees, Southampton, NY; Laura Bavaro, Peconic Estuary Program, Riverhead, NY; Rick Karney, Martha's Vineyard Shellfish Group, MV, MA; Bill Walton, Woods Hole Oceanographic, Woods Hole, MA; Dave Grunden, Shellfish Constable, Oak Bluffs, Martha's Vineyard, MA; Sandy Macfarlane, Shellfish biologist, Orleans, Cape Cod, MA; We also received a letter from Stephen Zaluski, a diver from Mattituck, NY." "Please read the attached comments from the people specified above. "In accordance with the information that I have collected over the past month, I recommend opening scallop season on December 1,2004 in all Town waters, with the exception of Hallock's Bay, and keep Hallock's Bay closed as a scallop sanctuary, just for the remainder of this season. "This recommendation is based on the variety of information that has been submitted, discussed and evaluated through this office." TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This for this season only. I will make a resolution. Whereas, based upon new marine science information now available, the Southold Town Trustees open scallop season as of sunrise December 1,2004 through sunset March 31,2005 in all Town waters with the exception of Hallocks Bay, where that area will remain closed until more scientific information becomes available. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. 58