Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/20/2004Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971-0959 Telephone (6311765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, December 20, 2004 7:00 PM Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Patricia Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Monday, January 17, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE DiCKERSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. All AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of August 18, 2004, September 22, 2004 and October 20, 2004. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: For November, 2004, check for $11,091.39 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. Board of Trustees 2 December 20, 2004 II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Welcome to our regular monthly meeting. We have a number of items on the agenda before we get to the public hearings. They're not really public hearings, however, please be ready and come up to the microphone and identify yourself and you're welcome to speak on anything briefly. 1. ROBERT LEHNERT requests an Administrative Permit to install new windows and siding on the existing dwelling. Located: 945 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#137-4-23. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this. It is absolutely everything within the building, windows, doors, siding, couple of trees were being removed that were basically growing into the house. So I didn't have a problem with this at all. If there are no comments, I'll make a motion to approve the installation of new windows and siding on the existing dwelling at 945 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 2. WILLIAM CHILDS requests an Administrative Permit to construct a second-story addition/deck onto the existing dwelling. Located: 1780 Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. SCTM #145-4-2.1. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this, it's a small, two foot addition over the driveway off the house. It will have no impact on the wetlands at all. I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. III. RESOLUTIONS-MOORINGS & ANCHORAGE/STAKES/DUCK BLINDS 1. FREDRIC VlSSER, JR. requests a Duck Blind Permit in East Creek. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It was my understanding that the Board inspected it. I believe we acted to deny this permit. I'll make a motion to deny this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't you give an explanation for the record. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: For the record? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe the Board felt there were too many homes around the area. It was surrounded with homes, Board of Trustees 3 December 20, 2004 and the law states it has to be at least 500. There has to be a distance of 500 feet from a shooter to the dwelling. We didn't feel there was enough distance in that creek for a permitted blind. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. NATHAN ANDRUSKI requests a Mooring Permit replacing a canceled mooring in Arshamomaque Pond for a 15 foot boat, off the boat ramp at the end of the Grove Road, Southold. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this, it's a common replacement. I'll make a motion to approve replacement of the mooring for Nathan Andruski. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: 1. OLIVE PENFIELD requests an Amendment to Permit #5956 to re-sheath 100 of existing bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Located: 515 Harbor Light Drive in Southold. SCTM#71-2-3 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe I looked at this and just a common replacement in-line/in-kind. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Maintenance? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Re-sheathing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment on behalf of Olive Penfield. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 2. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JOHN MORSE requests an Amendment to Permit #5843 to re-sheath on the landward side approximately 119 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl sheathing and replace within 18 inches approximately 125 linear feet of existing concrete seawall with vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately 100 yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Remove five existing timber groins and replace only failed sections of timber sheathing as necessary and existing timber jetty. Located: 820 Old Salt Road, Mattituck. SCTM#: 144-5-15. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are these new plans for Morse? MR. HERMANN: Yes. For the record Rob Hermann for En-Consultants. It's a minor change, Al. There was some question from the DEC as to whether the existing seawall could actually be replaced within 18 inches because of the 3 Board of Trustees 4 December 20, 2004 lip and the footings. And originally Rambo was proposing to use nine inch corrugated vinyl. So once Tom Samuels had a measurement done in the footings, it's about 13 inches. So in order to stay within 18 inches, he's going to switch to use four and-a-half inch fiberglass rather than the corrugated vinyl. So that cross-section shows a four and-a-half inch deep sheathing as opposed to the nine inch deep sheathing that was originally shown. For consistency I wanted the Board to have that revision, otherwise it's exactly the same. We had discussed that seawall when the original permit was issued for the replacement of the bulkhead section in front of the garage, which at the time was a more immediately pressing issue. So this covers some of the things we discussed that time, but were not in front of the Board, including the removal of all of the snow, they're basically non-functional -- they're not doing anything -- groins. The jetty needs some repair, but it's not proposed to be replaced, just patched up essentially ordinary patching where it's necessary. Also the replacement of that timber section of that bulkheading that stands between the jetty and the concrete seawall. So, if you did have any questions, I can answer them, but I think that's pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm looking for a permanent non-turf buffer after the work is complete. MR. HERMANN: The area that's shown for the limit of backfill, 12 feet, we can show that as the buffer. You can even write that into your plans if you want. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? If not, based on what we see here I recommend approval on this. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: And the blend fill, just call for limit of backfill there will be a 12 foot non-turf buffer, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 3, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of Gregory Mazzanobile has been postponed until January. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are a number of Public Hearings that are postponed that will not be open tonight, Douglas Carlen has been postponed and Barry Ball and Kimberley Yanzee has been postponed as well as Elizabeth Lyons. Do I have a motion to go off the regular meeting? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. Board of Trustees 5 December 20, 2004 TRUSTEE KING: 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 1. EDMUND J. BAUMANN requests a Wetland Permit to remove trees and establish a rear property driveway for trailer and boat storage/access and plant evergreens on the north property line. Located: 325 Wood Lane in Peconic. SCTM #86-6-2.2&3.2. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to comment on the application? MR. DEFRIES: Hi, I'm Rob Defries, 5223 Indian Neck Lane. Just a few questions regarding the survey that was submitted regarding this application, it doesn't show any distance from the edge of the wetlands to the edge of the access area. I just want to know how close it is to the wetland areas. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thirty feet. It says here end road 30 feet from wetlands, and it has three locations where the trees are to be removed. MR. DEFRIES: So the edge of the access area will be 30 feet from the edge of the wetlands? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. DEFRIES: About the storage of vehicles back there, are we concerned about fluids leaking out of those vehicles and seeping into the ground and contaminating the wetlands? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh When I was out on inspection, I spoke to the applicant and my only comment was -- and I'll let you speak too, sir, I spoke I guess was with your wife -- was that they would store a boat back there. MR. DEFRIES: Just a boat, nothing else? MR. COSTELLO: There was a boat and utility trailer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll let you finish. MR. DEFRIES: So anything else stored back there will be a violation of that permit; is that correct? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll let the applicant speak first then we'll try to clear that question up. Board of Trustees 6 December 20, 2004 MR. DEFRIES: That's all I have to say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. You can speak again afterwards if you like, but would anyone else like to speak? MR. BAUMANN: Ed Baumann, 325 Wood Lane, Peconic. The purpose of this drive-around is to store a boat with an outboard on it, for storage for non-use storage and also a utility trailer that was basically it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anybody else who would like to comment? Does the Board want to put that as a condition in that it would only be used to store those two items? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I recused myself last month, and I continue that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, did you see it? I went there alone, a few months ago. TRUSTEE KING: Peggy, myself and Al. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there old vehicles? TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE FOSTER: If this is a concern, then put the condition on it that it should only be as applied for, boat and a trailer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that acceptable? MR. BAUMANN: That's fine, it works. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application for Edmund J. Baumann for an access road in the backyard for the removal of the marked trees with the condition that only the trailer and the boat storage are stored -- well, they can be stored in the driveway but they can't be stored within 100 feet of the wetlands, because that's the extent of our jurisdiction. The driveway extends all the way up to the little road there. MR. BAUMANN: This is a drive-around within 100 feet of the wetlands. And the plan was to have a storage off of that drive-around for a utility trailer and a boat, within the perimeter of that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All I'm saying is that your property extends further than 100 feet from the wetlands. If you stored something at the other end of the driveway, it would be nonjurisdictional. MR. BAUMANN: Yes. In fact, that's where currently have the cars. The only thing I'm going to store in that area is a boat and a motor on the trailer and a separate utility traitor and that's it. 6 Board of Trustees 7 December 20, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the motion. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All if all in favor?. ALL AYES. 2. MATINE, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 62' by 52' single-family dwelling and pervious driveway. Located: 435 Albacore Drive, Southold. SCTM#57-1-20. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the application of Matine, Inc., more fully described in Item 2 of the Trustee agenda dated Monday, December 20, 2004 is classified as a Type II Action pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations. It is not subject to review under SEQRA. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. HURTADO: I'm John Hurtado, and we had a Trustee Permit and it expired a few months ago, and this is a renewal. And there is a building permit and all the other permits are in place and the septic system's in also. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anybody else who would like to comment on the application? I think the only comments we had on this was that there was clearing beyond the original clearing line and that the permit wouldn't be issued until there was an established hay bale line at the original line of clearing, then the permit could be issued. Is that correct? TRUSTEE KING: Correct. MS. TETRAULT: When we checked the file and we found the clearing was done without a hay bales. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You have to put the hay bale line in place, have it inspected, and then the permit will be issued. If there is no further comment, do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES MS. TETRAULT: Require silt fence too if you want to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition that the hay bale line and silt fence are in place and inspected before that permit is issued. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. EDWARD JENSEN requests a Wetland Permit to Board of Trustees 8 December 20, 2004 construct a second-floor addition over the existing dwelling, construct an open porch and a new pitched roof over existing shed. Located: 440 Sunset Way, Southold. SCTM#91-1-8. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The resolution is Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby find that the application of Edward Jensen more fully described in the Public Hearing Item 3 of the Trustee agenda dated December 20, 2004, is classified as a Type II Action pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and is not subject to review under SEQRA. With that, is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application? Is there anyone here to speak against the application? MS. TETRAULT: Mr. Jensen called this afternoon just to let me know that he wasn't able to make it, and if there were any questions you'll have to table it, but he was hoping. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this, very straightforward, same footprint, just going up. It didn't look like it would affect the environment negatively at all; do you want to look at the survey? Common stipulation we'd use on this application would be to recommend we put gutters that run into dry wells to contain the roof runoff. Any Board comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to, approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Edward Jensen to construct a second-floor addition over the existing dwelling and construct an open porch and a new pitched roof over existing shed with the stipulation that gutters lead into dry wells on site. Located: 440 Sunset Way; do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 4. CHRISTOPHER & GLORIA GROOCOCK request a Wetland Permit to construct a replacement dock consisting of 3' wide steps leading to a 4' wide fixed "T" dock with an overall length of 69 feet. Located: 1030 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#103-13-8 TRUSTEE KING: We have a resolution here. Resolved by the Board of Trustee of the Town of Southold that the application of Christopher and Gloria Groocock, more fully 8 Board of Trustees 9 December 20, 2004 described in the Public Hearing Item 4 of the Trustee agenda dated Monday December 20, 2004 is pursuant to the SEQRA rules and regulations classified as a Unlisted Action and be it further resolved the applicants are required to submit Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form, LEAF. And be it further resolved that upon receipt of the LEAF the clerk of the Trustees is hereby directed to commence a coordinated review pursuant to SEQRA. I'll also read the comments from the CAC. Moved by Don Wilder, seconded by Doris MacGreevey, "It was resolved to table the Wetland Permit application of Christopher and Gloria Groocock to construct a replacement dock consisting of 3' wide steps leading to a 4' wide "T" dock with an overall length of 69 feet Located: 1030 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. CAC tabled the application because the project was not staked. CAC requested the applicant indicate what type of materials are to be used on the dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was it staked when you were there? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, Ithink there were two stakes. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. GROOCOCK: My name is Chris Groocock, I'm the applicant in this case. I certainly will comply with whatever questions and concerns that you have. Will you be able to make these in writing to us, will you, please? I would like to add that this is a re-application, that thero was a previous approval of this dock. And the reason that we are re-applying is that we ran out of time as far as the original permit was concerned. And that was because of the long negotiations with the DEC when we had to modify the structure. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think any of the members had any problem with this dock as you have submitted it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just have to make it in the resolution that we're going to not require them to submit that. TRUSTEE KING: Based on what we have seen and what was submitted we will not have to continue with the long environmental form. It's not going to have a great impact on anything. Are there any other comments on this application? If there's no other comments, 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 the application as submitted for Christopher and Gloria Groocock. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. 9 Board of Trustees 10 December 20, 2004 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. NANCY SUE MUELLER TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to add new steps and sitting area to replace old existing steps and sifting area to bay beach. Located: 2200 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 123-8-10 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Would anybody like to speak about this application? Any Board comments on this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let him read the resolution. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the application of Nancy Sue Mueller Trust, more fully described in a Public Hearing Item Number 5 of the Trustee agenda dated Monday, December 20, 2004 is classified as a Type II Action pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and is not subject to review under SEQRA. Having said that, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. The changes reflect exactly what they wanted in the beginning. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Exactly, but the field inspection cleared up what was really unclear in the beginning. The original structure straddles the proper~y line. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't know if you wanted me to go through all that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was all there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It was all there. They're going to get what they originally wanted. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There was a little confusion about it. They cleared it up on field inspection. It's basically exactly what they asked for in the beginning. Since there's no public input about it, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All the in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Nancy Sue Mueller Trust as requested. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 6. JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 6' by 80' 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. SCTM#134-3-4. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are we waiting for -- 10 Board of Trustees 11 December 20, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: We're waiting for clarification. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of INGEBORG MUELLER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 102 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead and a plus/minus 7' northerly return vinyl bulkhead and back fill with approximately 15 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source. Remove and replace in-kind/in-place 4' by 9' wood platform and 3' by 10' stairs to beach. Located: 1435 West Drive in Mattituck. SCTM#113-9-8.1 TRUSTEE KING: I have a resolution. Be it resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and more fully described in the Public Hearing Item 7 on the Trustee agenda dated December 20, 2004 is classified as a Type II Action pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and is not subject to review under SEQRA. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann on En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant, It's a very straightforward application, replacement of existing timber bulkhead in-place with a vinyl bulkhead. If the Board has any questions, I'm happy to answer them, otherwise it's just as proposed. TRUSTEE KING: Let me read the CAC comments too. Resolve to recommend the Southold Board Trustees approve with the condition that the Wetland Permit application -- CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition of a 30 foot non-turf landward buffer of the bulkhead. I had a question, Rob, on that northerly return, what is the purpose of that? And is it a return? It looked to me like it was a 2 by 6 on edge with a piece on top of it extending inland. It's not really a return. MR. HERMANN: I don't think that it is, Jim. Is it shown -- I'm looking at the plan, I don't recall that it was -- TRUSTEE KING: I think it shows on the plan but it doesn't really exist that I could see. MR. HERMANN: It's shown, it appeared in the project description. However, I don't think I showed it as being replaced on the plan itself, so -- TRUSTEE KING: It just shows bulkhead coming in. There's nothing there. 11 Board of Trustees 12 December 20, 2004 MR. HERMANN: I don't think it needs to be included. If you just eliminate that from the project description. I think I may have included it, and I think I asked Steve Pollack about it, who I believe is the contractor on the job, I'm pretty sure he told me it was not, as I didn't think was. It runs straight across to the neighbor. So it will tie into the face. So it's really a vestige, so I wouldn't make that part of the permit. And as far as the non-turf, I'm sure that they would be satisfied with a 10 foot, which is what the Board normally requires. TRUSTEE KING: I thought the 30 foot was unnecessary myself, that's a fairly good sized lawn there. I'd say a 15 would be reasonable. MR. HERMANN: I assume that's okay, unless I reappear here to tell you otherwise, but that's fine. TRUSTEE KING: Any further Board comments or comments from the public? If no 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 deletion of the northerly return and the addition of a 15 foot non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. MR. HERMANN: Lauren, for your information that return is not actually shown to be replaced on the plan, so I would not need to give you a revised plan to show that. TRUSTEE KING: We need to show the buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You could do that tonight. MR. HERMANN: I can do that on this and the other one, Morse. 8. Peconic Associates, Inc., on behalf of WEST LAKE ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to hydraulically dredge silted-in entrance to West Lake and provide boat access. Spoil to be hydraulically pumped to adjacent empty lot on West Lake #131. Located: West Lake Drive and Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. SCTM#90-1-11 & 90-1-13. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Resolved by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold that the Application of West Lake Association more fully described in the Public Hearing Item 8 of the Trustee agenda dated December 20, 2004 is pursuant to the SEQRA rules and regulations classified as an Unlisted Action. Be it further resolved that the applicant Board of Trustees 13 December 20, 2004 is waived to be required to submit Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form. I'll make that as a motion, I need that as a resolution. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before I take any other comment, I'd like to find the GAO comments and read those into the record as well. CAC recommends approval of the application, however, the spoil disposal area was unclear, and the condition of the existing bulkheads on both sides of the entrance should be examined. Is there any comment on behalf of the application? MR. WIGGINS: I'm Merlin Wiggins, Peconic Associates on behalf of the applicant. To clarify and make it perhaps a little more understandable, I'd like to give a brief background history of this channel. It goes back quite a ways, the first record we could find was 1926 when the subdivision map showed a channel from West Lake out to Little Peconic Bay. The next one we think in the 1950s, this is pretty much hearsay, the channel was dredged again, or sometime during that time. In 1965 it was a survey of a lot that was across the channel, and it was bulkheaded at the time. At that time the survey showed the lot to the west of the channel not bulkhaaded at all, but just an open channel. Then from 1975 to 1977 the County of Suffolk had dialogue with the Town to consider dredging at their expense or a combination of their expense, as far as I know this didn't go anywhere; it was never done. March 27, 1986, it was a permit issued by the Town Trustees to Herbert Greenfield to replace all the 15 foot bulkhead with a 28 feet of new bulkhead with 2" thick single sheathing to a depth of 5' below mean Iow water and the pilings go down 12 feet and dredged the full-length of the channel along that side. Now there's been 120 cubic yards placed behind the bulkhead. To the best of my knowledge this channel has not been dredged since that time. In 1988 the permits to dredge an 85 by 60 foot area to four feet at the entrance to the West Lake end of the channel that was a delve that was collected out in the West Lake side. At that time the drawings of the application show the rest of the channel had a depth of four feet MLW. March 22, 2000 at the public hearing to dredge West Lake to three feet that application was tabled. And in April 19, 2000 application was made and a permit issued to dredge the entire length of the channel to three feet estimating 600 cubic yards; that permit expired two years 13 Board of Trustees 14 December 20, 2004 later. And the mason it expired was evidently the other agencies applications were never made to the DEC and Corpsmen. So it expired and no action taken. In 2002 a blow out occurred on the east side of the property and that resulted in an emergency repair of that bulkhead, and from talking to the neighbors and so forth, that material ended in front of the channel on the bay side, which a lot of it is still there. In 2002, 2003 a series of permits were issued. January 22nd, the Trustees were issued, and then 9/11 the DEC and then in 4/8/03 the Corps of Engineers were issued. And this was to dredge the channel to three feet. Now estimating as 700 cubic yards, and material to be placed in geotubes along the bay side. These permits are still in place but work cannot be performed for several reasons, which ~ already discussed with you. I'll just repeat them again. There's no access to place the geotubes except across private property, they couldn't get to them. There's no upland site that would take all the projected spoil. All work could not be done hydraulically as required in the permits; and some of the work in the permits was determined to be on private property and should not be included in the permit. Now we feel it's up to the Trustees whether they want to amend the existing permit or issue a new permit. And the changes between what was already in place and what we now are requesting was an upland site had been located, and owners' approval obtained and all material can be pumped to and located. The geotubes have been removed; the work on private property has been omitted, and the Iow bulkhead on the west side of the West Lake entrance, which is in real poor condition, has been proposed to replace to help protect the channel. So one of the considerations that you might just kind of came up to reviewing the background, the channel has the side slope of 3 to 1, so there will be no dredging up to the toe or the base of sheathing. This means the bottom of the channel is only about 10 feet wide, so that limits the traffic considerably because you can't get two boats by there in that 10 feet. There was discussion about the wake, we think it's appropriate for the West Lake to post that as a speed sign of 5 miles per hour, which is standard for that type of entrance. And as is probably the same volume in the lake as it always was, with this present reduced cross-section of the channel this means that the velocity of the flow in and out of the channel is much greater than it used to be and would be during the proposed. 14 Board of Trustees 15 December 20, 2004 During the previous hearing there was considerable mention made as to the frequency of the dredging. I repeat again, as we can tell from the files, there was no dredging since 1988 of the delta and 1986 of the Greenfields, we can find no record of the maintenance dredging since that time. A question came up during the previous hearing as to the concern about the protection of the bulkhead to either side of the channel, and one thought I would just like to pass on to you, when the Trustees approves a project for bulkheading, is it realistic to expect that the responsibility to maintain that property and that bulkhead to go with the approval this bulkhead, especially on the Greenfield side is 20 years old. It's not very good condition. If that fails, that would impact the access to West Lake and the channel for about 21 people. There was also a question that came up several times about the insurance and the contractor. One of the contractors that expressed an interest in doing this before is still interested, and he carries a five million dollar liability insurance and will post a performance bond as required. I will give you my notes and also a copy of the bulkhead to the west side of the Greenfield. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thankyou. MR. WIGGINS: If I can answer any questions, I will try to do so. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Can I ask you the name of the contractor with the five million dollar insurance? MR. WIGGINS: Yes. Gibson and Cushman. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Where are they from? MR. WIGGINS: They're up western Suffolk. I don't remember the exact address. What they propose to do is a small auger type hydraulic dredge so as not to disrupt the sides, and they will pump up to the upland site. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One brief question, before I ask for any other comments. On this plan you have some dredge material to replenish the beach to the east; is that approved by the DEC? MR. WIGGINS: No, it's not. That was an area that would take perhaps the 300 cubic yards of the spoil, if approved by the DEC. There has been a lot of material lost as you people pointed out along the bulkhead. We're going to ask the DEC to approve that. That would take care of that and the upland site would take care of the whole thing in one swoop. That's based on the outcome of the Trustees would go to the DEC. If they turn it down, then we can put the whole thing on the upland. 15 Board o f Trustees 16 December 20, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anybody else who would like to comment on the application? MS. GREENFIELD: My name is Marsdel Greenfield. I own the property adjoining the dredging project. I have that bulkheading to the west. And first of all, the clarification, I just had two inspections, one by Fischetti, the engineer, the structural engineer, and Crowley just did a repair and my bulkheading is supposed to be in excellent condition, for the record at this point. I had submitted to the Board a number of questions, and you said you would address them. Do you think you could do that for me now? Would you go down the list or do you want me to do that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll be happy to do that, I just want to see if there's any other comment, thank you. Yes, sir. MR. GUNN: My name is Peter Gunn. I'm a resident at 2145 Little Peconic Bay Lane in Southold, and I live on West Lake. I would like to, if I may, just read some of what I have in the form of a letter to the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. MR. GUNN: First I would like to thank the Board for once again hearing the issue before you, namely permission to hydraulically dredge the entrance channel to the West Lake. Secondly, I would like to thank the Board for inviting all the property owners affected by this project to participate at this meeting, or if their presence is not possible to write you with their comments and concerns. Twenty-five registered letters were mailed. It made no difference if a property owner was 200 feet distant from the project or at the far north end of the West Lake, you notified everybody. The common denominator for all of us, whether we as individuals support or object to this project, is that we are all property owners in the Town of Southold. Individually we arrived at differing times and the expectation of enjoying life in our neighborhood along with entitlements of ownership. Enjoyment of life in Southold can be defined in more ways than there are participants in this permitting process. Some of these enjoyments and entitlements are in danger of being lost or degraded because the inlet to West Lake is silting in. Some residents of West Lake enjoy fishing, clamming, boating crabbing, bird watching or just the peace and tranquility West Lake has to offer. To the east and west of West Lake is Midway Pond and Terry Pond or Terry Waters Pond respectively, both were once viable, life supporting lakes like ours, and today they are 16 Board of Trustees 17 December 20, 2004 stagnated, algae covered, devoid of fish life with abandoned, rotted boat docks at their water's edge. This degradation has resulted in a substantial financial loss to everyone's real estate property value and most assuredly will translate to West Lake property owners if our lake entrance is allowed to close. Of the 25 concerned West Lake property owners, ten have either a private dock or mooring permitted by the Town of Southold, ail are used to keep a boat. Additionally, three property owners have moorings on the bay and only use the lake front dock or mooring when absolutely necessary. This is because of Iow water and tide restriction when passing through the bulkheaded inlet. It should be obvious to the Board that the majority of West Lake property owners are of common interest and concern. Historically at all previous public hearings regarding this project, there are two property owners objecting to and raising concerns about the project. These owners are on the east and west side of the inlet, and both properties have bulkheading at the edge of their property, and together, these bulkheads define the inlet to West Lake. In both cases these owners bought their property with the full knowledge of the inherent risk of maintaining these bulkheads if they were going to maintain the integrity of their land. Nobody is more aware of this than Mr. Moy. Mr. Moy has the property to the east and has his bulkhead on the east side of the inlet. In 2003, the aging seawall directly in front of his beach house was washed out by a nor'easter storm, leaving no protection to his home. He didn't have a choice, it was fix it or lose it. The earth, sand and silt washed out in that storm now is located in the form of a sandbar at the seaward end of the West Lake entrance channel. You, the Trustees, have a photo of this sandbar. The bulkheading along the channel to the east is Iow and double planked, and it wasn't always that way. Mr. Moy did this to insure the integrity of his property. I have met with Mr. Moy and asked what his objection to the dredging project was. The answer I received was quote, there was no benefit to him. This is a property owner who has a brand new dock inside the lake and a mooring on the bay, the use of which is enjoyed by his children and grandchildren. May I add that at Iow tide, his dock has no water under it, and if it were not for the bay mooring he and his family's enjoyment of water would be greatly diminished. 17 Board of Trustees 18 December 20, 2004 On a late Sunday afternoon in 2003 from his home, Mr. Zebitz, who is another property owner at West Lake, saw a swimmer trying to catch up to a boat adrift on Peconic Bay and realizing how futile the swimmer's efforts were, he ran to his docked boat on West Lake and took off to rescue the swimmer and retrieve the boat. He had just docked the boat at high tide, and so he knew he could get out again. He rescued an exhausted swimmer and errant boat, and this man was Mr. Moy's son. I would have to say to Mr. Moy, you have already received the benefit that you deserve and that is the benefit of your son's life. And we haven't dredged yet. On the west side of the channel, Mrs. Greenfield's property, has a bulkhead that rises in profile to twice the height of Mr. Moy's. This bulkhead was completely rebuilt approximately 20 years ago, 1985, to allow the tear-down and rebuild of the Greenfield home. Mrs. Greenfield has raised objection to this project from day-one and recorded record of the Trustees' public meetings and letters she has written to DEC and Army Corps of Engineers is rife with distortion, false statement and a subterfuge. All the regulatory agencies have dismissed these statements and letters, after all West Lake Association does have a permit to do this project, the subterfuge is that Mrs. Greenfield's bulkhead along the channel is in poor repair and has been for the past 10 years. Repairs and maintaining a bulkhead wall is costly and just ask Mr. Moy, he knows, Mrs. Greenfield has known of these repair problems for many years as evidenced by the pictures in the Trustees possession and by their personal inspection. Mrs. Greenfield's subterfuge is she wants to be indemnified and guaranteed and that nothing negative is going to happen as a result of dredging to her deteriorating wall, and if it does, someone other than herself will be forced to pay for damages. Existing bulkhead deterioration and damages are clearly due to Mrs. Greenfield's neglect and lack of repair. Respectfully, Peter Gunn. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Board either in favor or against the application? MS. KELLY: My name is Patricia Kelly, and I'm one of the owners of the empty lot, Number 131. I live in New Jersey, and we come out and we love our creek front property. I'm a biology teacher and ecology teacher in Bernfield, New Jersey. There's just five small points I want to make. First of all, I don't understand why two people can affect the 18 Board of Trustees 19 December 20, 2004 lives of 25 families living on West Lake. Secondly, West Lake is an estuary, and I know this whole Peconic region is an estuary, but what's really good about West Lake is it does a couple of things for us. When there's a storm, this West Lake, if it remains open, it provides storm surge protection to all the those bay front properties. It reduces flooding and it reduces erosion. It provides a saltwater and freshwater mix runoff from the upland. So that the estuary is nice and clean for the crustaceans and the animals and invertebrates that live inside there. Most people don't really care about food webs, but food webs in estuaries are really complex. You guys understand what I'm talking about, but you got the phytoplankton and it's eaten by the zoo plankton, then the small fish, and then plankton dies at the bottom; then you have the litfie benthic organisms. We used to have oysters and clams in there like crazy. Then you got the crabs and the fish and shrimp that come in there, and you even have blue fishing that used to spawn in there as well as flounders. So it was highly productive all these years. At this point, there's a large algae growth. There's mosquitoes growing in it. What's happening is the oxygen is getting depleted and it's going to wind up like Terry Waters and just like that Midway Pond. And you guys know that the flushing time where the freshwatedsaltwater flushing, it takes anywhere from three weeks to three months. If that creek is not left open, we're not going to have any flushing, and it's going to be dead. So just from an ecological point of view, I wish these people would stop arguing about the bulkheads Fix your own bulkheads, and just keep your estuary open. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.' Just a short response to that, this Board issued a permit for the dredging. No one prevented us from issuing a permit January of 2003. This is a modification of that permit that's been requested. It's not like someone's saying that someone can stop us from issuing it. It's already been issued, this is a modification of that permit that's already been requested. Ma'am? MS. SAWlNSKI: My name is Ann Sawinski, 825 West Lake Drive. I have been spending the last excess of 15 years frequenting Southold. I don't live out here full time, but I spend a lot of free time out here in the summers and even the winters. And I've seen over the last 15 years, how this lake has been slowly but surely being backfilled, where to take a small boat out, you have to be dictated by the tides. From 19 Board of Trustees 20 December 20, 2004 the ecological standpoint and the pleasure standpoint, just what Mr. Gunn stated and, I sorry, this lady, I just want to say that I support what's being talked about this evening. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Sir?. MR. CASE: Jerry Case: I also live on West Lake. I have 2,000 SPAT oysters floating off my dock. They've grown from dime size to at least silver dollar size in the last six months. They flush 60 gallons of water a piece, keeping the water clean and clear. If they don't have flow, they're going to die, and it's important to me for these 2,000 oysters, each of which we named -- I'm not going to go into that -- to keep those 2,000 oysters alive. So we beg you to leave that channel open. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. MCDONOUGH: My name is Tom McDonough, I live at 765 Cedar Point Drive. I would just like to speak in support of the project to dredge the inlet to the lake, and to encourage the Board to grant the requested permit. Dredging is necessary if we're going to keep the inlet open. There are fish, as you heard, shellfish, crab, other creatures in the lake, and if that tidal flows ceases and the lake closes, those species are really in jeopardy in that location. If the lake is allowed to close it will become a stagnant pool of water prone to have mosquitoes, really of no value to the people who live around the lake. Additionally, the people who are there are going to see their quality of life deteriorate. Boating will be impossible, you'll have a stagnant pool sitting in front of you, no scenic beauty to it at all, property values will decline, and I would assume over time perhaps assessed valuation will also go down. I can't see anybody who wants all this to happen, so I would encourage you to grant the permit as requested. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. DICKERSON: I'm Howard Dickerson. I have lived in that area all my life, and I've been in and out of that creek since I was a little kid. I'm not speaking for or against that project because I don't have any property on there right now. Just listening to things here tonight, I would imagine it would be natural for anyone who has a bulkhead to be concerned about whether it might be damaged by dredging; but at the same time, if the bulkhead was put in there under codes knowing there was a channel there, it should have been built so as to withstand any normal processes. So I would think that the issue of damage to the bulkhead should simply be a matter of making sure that no mistakes are made in the 20 Board of Trustees 21 December 20, 2004 process. This is only dredged to three and-a-half feet. It's not like you're dredging to six or eight feet for a deep channel. So there shouldn't be any issue of a deep channel problem undermining the bulkheads. I looked at both of those bulkheads, and there is a particularly bad section of bulkhead, which is not the Greenfield's bulkhead which I think they mentioned in their list which is on someone else's property. So it's possible that some of the people looking at the really bad looking bulkhead, assuming it's the Greenfield's, and is part of the protection of the channel is looking at a bad piece that really is not the Greenfield's bulkhead, but really is a remnant of an older bulkhead that was not taken out, and it's not even on their property. Their bulkhead is not perfect, and I've seen lots of worse bulkheads around there, and they have had some repair done on it this fall, and, in fact, it's probably in better shape just looking at it than the bulkhead across from it. The last thing I had to say was that three and-a-half feet is not asking for a deep channel, and I've been in and out of that since I was a little kid, and I don't think it's ever been deeper than three or four feet, and I don't see that being a possibility of that silting up and closing because what seems to happen is it gets shallower and then the currents get faster and scours it a little more. It seems more like the issue really should be focused on not that it's going to be an ecological disaster of whether it's going to close, but realistically it's whether you can get boats in and out of there. Say only one bulkhead was there for many years and before that there was no bulkheads, the dredging is not what has kept that open for hundreds and hundreds of years. It's a moderately sized creek that a little bit of dredging could keep the boats going in and out of it. But let's not scare people that it's going to silt up like some of those little ponds would. TRUSTEE KING: Just a question, how wide was that before the bulkhead was in place? MR. DICKERSON: Since I was a kid I think there's always been one bulkhead, whereby the Moy's. I don't have very clear memories, but that's always been a tiny little channel, in fact, I heard somebody say they wanted to get two boats side by side, that channel has never been something that you could get two boats by side by side, unless right after a previous dredging. It was always a kind of place where you go in and out at high tide or else 21 Board of Trustees 22 December 20, 2004 with and canoes. A little stability seems to be perfectly called for, but let's not try to turn it into a bigger channel that it ever was. It's not like Corey Creek or one of those. It's a small inlet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anybody else? MR. ZEVITZ: My name is Mike Zevitz. I'm a property owner on that creek also. I'm here with my brother Joe Zevitz, my brother, Bob Zevitz, we have allowed the plan to go through to have the spoils put on our property. I am not going to repeat the words of everyone who has already spoken, but we are firmly in favor of this particular dredging because we too are concerned about the marine life. I'm 43 years old and I've been here for 43 years old years and I've been down that creek also, and I recall it being deep. And I don't recall ever seeing it unbulkheaded on either side, but I mean my memory might fail me also. All I wanted to say was we're strongly behind this plan, we hope you approve it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anybody else? MS. GREENFIELD: I want to thank Howard Dickerson for clarifying that channel. Also I'd like to make some corrections. I think there's some misunderstanding about the condition of my bulkheading, number one; and number two, there was a misunderstanding about why I originally replaced the bulkheading in 1986, it was as a result of losing my bulkheading during the previous year's hurricane. That was the reason I had to re-do my bulkheading. It was completely washed-out in front, and I can give you the name of the contractor who did the original work, and he will give you any records you want to provide you with the proper information. Number 2, please take the names of these four engineers -- lan Crowley just did a major repair for me. I think Mr. Gunn and others around the lake saw it happen. Number 2, Mr. Joseph Fischetti, the structural engineer came and examined my bulkheading and said it was structurally sound, and I can get you a letter to confirm this. And Mr. Stanley Isaackson from New Suffolk, another engineer, was on my property examining it and also attested to the fact that it is structurally sound; is that sufficient? I think it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you submit that information for the record? MS. GREENFIELD: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You did? MS. GREENFIELD: No, I didn't, it never came up. And just to confirm I am not looking for anybody to subsidize me in 22 Board of Trustees 23 December 20, 2004 maintaining my bulkheading. What I requested is done all the time. When your property is in danger in the process of other construction, you should have a bond and that's all I'm asking for. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was written into the current permit issued in January 22, 2003. The current permit states that post the bond to show proof of insurance to protect the property owners must be submitted before permit will be released. That was something that was written in the previous permit, and something I believe the applicant has said that current contractor has insurance to provide that protection. MS. GREENFIELD: And I requested that it's par for the course that my name has to be on the insurance policy directly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're not familiar with that course. I don't know. I never play that course, i'm going to defer to the Town attorney on that one. TOWN ATTY. FINNEGAN: We can put that the Town of Southold is the named insured, but I don't think we can require that you be the named insured. MS. GREENFIELD: I'd like to discuss that with you again, okay? TOWN ATTY. FINNEGAN: You have to discuss it with the applicant. It's not something that the Town can require. The Town is not going to require that you be named as an additional insured. MS. GREENFIELD: Not additionally, but that my name be on the policy. I've spoken to engineers who have said and construction people who have done that in their projects, my next door neighbor, the Hollises. TOWN ATTY. FINNEGAN: I don't know if the applicant wants to speak to that. I don't know that we would make that a condition of the permit. I don't think we have the authority to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh As far as your other concerns that your property would be off limits, we can only issue a permit that would cover the scope of the project, if someone went on your property it would be trespassing; it would be like us saying you can't go there tonight. If we issue it would be like the previous permits we have issued in the past that wouldn't give anyone permission to go on your property for any reason. MS. GREENFIELD: How can I -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't give them permission to go on your property. 23 Board of Trustees 24 December 20, 2004 MS. GREENFIELD: If they don't have permission, then they can't go on the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. MS. GREENFIELD: Because I'm not providing that. Well I think the gentleman who spoke earlier assured us that this process would not impinge on anybody's property. Would you explain that, please? MR. WIGGINS: Yes. The project as written and modified there's no need to go on Mrs. Greenfield's property. Everything is going to be done from the channel and also involves the West Lake and the entrance from the bay and also the upland property for the site inspection. And just repeat, you know that the records show that channel was dredged in front of her property down to minus five feet. We're not doing vertical. We're only doing a three to one slope starting at the surface at the bulkhead on both sides, that's why it's narrowed down to ten feet, and that's why I pointed out that's only room for one boat to go back and forth. And I have never heard of trying to name somebody as insurance on this, but the contractor will have required insurance and he will also post a bond, performance bond if it's required. I think I mentioned that repairs were recently made, I didn't find any record for a permit in your file for that, because I asked about it. I heard that. MS. GREENFIELD: I think, Al Krupski, could you explain that, please, Al? Since the work was done on my property, it was reinforcing the sheathing that did not require a new permit. It went on my original permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct. It was a maintenance type of operation. MR. WIGGINS: There was observations to the contrary. MS. GREENFIELD: Nothing went on except inside just to reinforce the existing. MR. WIGGINS: Which kind of adds to our concern if the repairs were needed that means the bulkhead needed some repairs or it wouldn't have had to have been done. MS. GREENFIELD: It's just reinforcing the existing inside. What happens is, it was explained that the marine bora attacks the kind of sheathing that is outside, that has the water coming and then retreating, and it was explained that there are holes. So the proper way to repair it was to do the sheathing within my own property and leaving the existing bulkheading as it was, but just reinforcing it from the inside. I can get you all this information, if you 24 Board of Trustees 25 December 20, 2004 like. I spoke to Mr. Krupski before about that and that was acceptable based upon my original permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that has not spoken that would like to speak? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, just quickly, I don't know if anyone has raised the point, but we're talking about dredging that inlet, and I've been involved in similar projects and quite often there's a benefit of doing that and bringing a regular exchange of water that will tend to reduce your chloroform levels. It will tend to benefit both fish and shellfish. There is a navigability issue in and out, I understand all that, but in case no one's raised that point, there are very good reasons for maintaining adequate depths of the mouth of any creek for ecological reason and reasons for maintaining water quality. We see a lot of these creeks get silted up. We see a lot of stagnant water; as a result, poor oxygen levels, high chloroform levels, degraded habitat for fin fish and shellfish so keep that in mind. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Just briefly, please. MR. GUNN: Mrs. Greenfield has stated to the Board that she has had it checked by engineers and that it is in excellent condition, is that right Mrs. Greenfield? MS. GREENFIELD: I said it's structurally sound. MR. GUNN: Okay, the Board has before it, blown-up pictures of the condition of that wall and the Board went down there on a field trip to actually look at the condition because we have so notated the condition of that wall on our permit application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thankyou. MR. GUNN: I would like to hear from the Board what they think the condition of that wall is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, df the applicant states that they have had an engineer certified that it's structurally sound, I'm not an engineer so I couldn't say whether that's true or not, for the record. We have seen it. We have been down there actually numerous times over the years. If the applicant states that it's structurally sound, I would assume that a normal maintenance dredging in there couldn't have any impact on it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This is for Mrs. Greenfield, did you get an engineer's report from any of the people that certified this bulkhead, did you get anything in writing stating so? MS. GREENFIELD: No, but I can. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's fine for the record because like I said, if it's structurally sound, then a normal 25 Board of Trustees 26 December 20, 2004 dredging operation, unless they drive the dredge through your house or something, it shouldn't impact a structurally sound bulkhead; it shouldn't impact anyone's bulkhead. It should just be a maintenance operation. MR. GUNN: If you do a re-sheathing job or doubling the planking, that does not require a permit? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you have a current permit, it would be under maintenance. MR. GUNN: This bulkhead was put up 20 years ago, gentlemen. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the file, I see permit was granted to dredge in 1987, and wall was built in '85. I would assume that permits would have been issued to build that. MR. GUNN: That's correct, but to re-sheath it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would be considered maintenance. If it's going to be reconstructed it could or couldn't require a permit depending, but in this case, just re-sheathing on the landward side would be maintenance. Just for the sake of moving this along, here, I think we have addressed a lot of the issues that have been brought up. One of the other issues brought up by Mrs. Greenfield was the automatic three times in 10 year request -- the original permit that was issued in January of 2003 was to dredge three feet below water maintenance dredge with the same conditions as necessary, maximum three additional times during the next 10 years. That's really a pretty standard condition on a maintenance dredging operation. In the event of a storm that would wash a lot of material in, that gives the association the ability to go in without having to get the permits again and maintain the channel. So that's a pretty normal request. It's a pretty normal condition on any dredging permit. Obviously it's an expensive procedure, and they're not going to do this frivolously if they have to pay for it. Does the Board have any comments? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a question. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. And on the 2000 permit that expired, the resolution was the applicant shall provide bonding for the replacement of the adjacent bulkheads plus ten pement and to name the town on the general liability insurance policy as defined in Chapter 97-28. The code has changed since then. What does the new code say? TOWN ATTY. FINNEGAN: 97-24E allows you to require performance guarantee to insure the operations are constructed in compliance with the permit. And then 97-24F says that the applicant shall provide proof of insurance with the Town Clerk's office, I believe, before the permit 26 Board of Trustees 27 December 20, 2004 is issued. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only other issue I can see here -- and I'm familiar with this from previous dredging applications from 1987 -- is there's that little bulkhead that comes in on the west side that comes in from the lake, and on previous permits we've asked that that bulkheading be removed and other structures be removed and that was cleared up to us that the boat ramp and dock that we asked to be removed on previous permits was not on Town property, it was actually on private property. So we understand we can't request that the West Lake remove something on private property, it's understandable. However, that little bulkhead I would still like to see it removed, that little retaining wall that juts out onto Town property into West Lake as part of the operation. MR. WIGGINS: I would like to respond to that, that little bulkhead as we discussed at the site visit that you thought it would be okay to replace that as long as it was not higher than the iow bulkhead on the east side, and I think that's probably important to keep that material from drifting into the channel. And that bulkhead is in pretty poor shape. I think it would be advantageous to the maintenance of the channel to replace that with approximately the same height as it is now, I can't see any benefits to remove it. That's considered on West Lake and Town property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The entire bulkhead would be replaced, now, would you like that included in the permit, to maintain that? Could you come up and clarify that on this picture? We met you, for the record, there is the 9/16/04 field inspection, we're discussing this bulkhead. We're going to reduce it in height the entire length to match that? MR. WIGGINS: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: Is that acceptable? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I just had a couple of questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Are we sure on this bulkhead? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I remember that discussion, yes. But the only question I have is, don't we have an existing permit in place at this time? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Was this not an amendment to that permit just to change a spoil site; wasn't that what this application was? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's also the spoil site and the geotube, they never actually got this permit. They were working on the 2000 permit. 27 Board of Trustees 28 December 20, 2004 MR. WIGGINS: To answer this, the permits are in place including DEC and Corps of Engineers, and we kind of gave you people the option to amend that existing permit to take care of the upland spoil area and the bulkhead and the private property, unless you feel that it changes so much you have to issue a new one. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I was under the impression that that's what this was about, to amend the existing permit to change the location of the spoil site which clearly states to be hydraulically dredged and filled in which case it would automatically assumed -- of course, you should mention I,t that you're not using the geotubes out on the beach -- and that's what I thought this was all about. Now we're involved in this whole new application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a rehash of the old information. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We already gave them a permit to dredge, it's going to happen. All we should be talking about is where we're going to put the spoils. I mean that's what I'm getting out of this, because it's been some time, this has been going on for years. MS. GREENFIELD: One of the questions I submitted was, exactly what you're saying now, how does this plan currently differ from the original one on which the permit was originally granted? For example, Joe Edgar who was the original contractor took us through and showed us where that Iow slung dilapidated bulkheading, illegal, was put in by one of the local loam people to make that channel, I guess extend it, he promised, he came up with a plan that was accepted originally that was very attractive. It included some natural plantings to maintain the existing sand and keep it like a wetlands, which it is. And that was my question that I thought you were going to help determine, is that still part of the new plan? I don't see it on the map, and perhaps I'm not reading it correctly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That is one of the changes. The original permit that was issued called for the removal of an old dock. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We determined it wasn't on -- MR. WIGGINS: Could I help clarify that? The wetlands and the planning, that was part of the delta dredging. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MR. WIGGINS: It was not part of the recent permit that was issued. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was for a more extensive dredging permit. MS. GREENFIELD: So it is different from the original 28 Board of Trustees 29 December 20, 2004 permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct. MS. GREENFIELD: Could you explain other differences? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The spoil site is different. Instead of placing it in front of Mr. Moy's property, the spoils will be placed on Lot 131, Little Peconic Bay Lane, it's up the road to the west, on the lake. MS. GREENFIELD: It's on the lake? That was part of my question. What could be the effect if the spoils are put on the lake, will it not return to the lake? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, there's a plan to have the lot diked up to prevent the sand from re-entering. MS. GREENFIELD: What will prevent it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh A dike. MS. GREENFIELD: So that's also a difference from the original plan? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Correct. MS. GREENFIELD: So this isn't the original plan from which they got their permit originally. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It depends on what you call the original plan or whether you call it maintenance dredge, the details of where the spoils site has changed and the scope of the project is smaller. The dredging is smaller and the spoil site is moved. MS. GREENFIELD: The other question I requested is if the contractor or the people in charge of the project would afford us the courtesy of giving us a walk-through to clarify exactly what will happen. Can we request that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You could request that from the association. I don't think you can request it from the Town. I don't know of any contractor. I don't know who they're going to hire, or who you're going to hire. It would be inappropriate of me to request that. MR. PROCOP: My name is Tom Procop. I also live on West Lake. Any member of West Lake Association who is involved in this project, good, upstanding member, somebody who also participates in other things we do like maintaining our own private roads and whatever, would fully know the scope of this plan. Any time you want to come to a meeting, or join, pay some dues, participate in the association, we'd be happy to let you know. MS. GREENFIELD: I am very disappointed. I feel that my responsibility is to maintain the bulkheading, and I think it was in one of our past meetings where you made it very clear that without Mr. Moy and without my bulkheading, there would be no lake. And I think as a courtesy, I would expect 29 Board of Trustees 30 December 20, 2004 them to afford me the information because I am directly involved and I would expect that courtesy, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. It's all public record, the whole application has been public record. If there's no further comment I'll move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition that - we're trying to work out the details of issuing the personal guarantee, which would be the bond and the liability insurance that the Town would hold. We've made a motion and accepted the motion to approve the application with the details, the physical details of the dredging, the spoil site and the Iow profile jetty to be maintained inside, and to be maintained as a Iow profile jetty on the inside, west side of the inlet. We're going to withhold decision on the liability insurance. It will be a condition, but we want to make sure the details are right, and we don't want to spend another half hour tonight trying to work out those details, because other people are waiting. The details will be available by the end of the week about the bond and any liability insurance, those are the two other items. Thank you for your comments. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 9. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of HERIBERT ORTH requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 45' by 60' two-story frame dwelling, 24' by 24' garage and 8' by 10' breezeway, pervious driveway and on-site sewage disposal system. Clear and maintain a 4' wide pervious path to proposed dock, and construct a 4' by 45' timber dock with steps to grade. Located: 640 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#115-17-17.12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MS. MESlANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the application. I believe the application is pretty straightforward, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.' Would anyone else like to address the Board on this application? Before we get into the resolution, I have a question on the dock location. We had a concern from the neighbor. Is it possible, because there's a number of docks on the west side of that little gutter there, is it possible for the applicant to locate the dock to the north side of the property instead, I think it 30 Board of Trustees 31 December 20, 2004 would move it away from the other docks? MS. MESiANO: Let me review this for a minute. I see no reason why it couldn't be. It's a minimal structure. We're not proposing a float, we just want to be able to access the water to some degree. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was not the size of the structure, it's just the location. There's a very busy spot, in fact, there's a lot of lines they're not showing here, across the water, directly across from the dock. If the dock were moved to the north side of the property, MS. MESlANO: I see no reason why we couldn't do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Resolved by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold that the application of Heribert Orth, more fully described in the Public Hearing Item 9 of the Trustee agenda dated December 20, 2004 is pursuant to the SEQRA rules and regulations classified as an Unlisted Action. Further resolved that the applicant is waived to submit the Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form. And it's a motion, is there a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment on this application, on the dock or on the house, I will make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The application shows roof drains and hay bales. CAC comments, CAC tabled the application because the property wasn't staked, trees above four inch diameter to be removed should be labeled, any question whether or not the dock exceeds one-third width the creek, that would be in the permit as far as requirement that the dock -- as it is now, we thought that the dock and boat on it would not exceed more than one-third of the way across, and that would be, of course, a condition on the permit. So I would put that as a condition of the resolution that the dock with the boat would not exceed more than one-third of the way across the waterway. And the dock be relocated to the north end of the property 15 feet off the property line. MS. MESIANO: 15 feet or at least 15 feet off the property? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh At least 15 feet offthe property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thankyou. MS. MESlANO: I just didn't want to be locked in 31 Board of Trustees 32 December 20, 2004 because the depths do vary a little bit when you go to the north of that one dock on the opposite side so we have a little latitude. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 10. Charles Cuddy, Esq. on behalf of LEONARD M. SESSA requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct a 4' by 38' timber dock and replacement of existing piles in-kind/in-place. Located: 1525 Naugles Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#99-4-27. MR. CUDDY: Good afternoon, Charles Cuddy for the applicant. This is a dock that needs to be repaired that's located in Mattituck Inlet. And as the notice says what we want to do is replace seven piles and we want to reconstruct part of the dock, it's 4' by 38' in length. We have an approval from the DEC. We have approval from the Army Corps and we have approval from the Department of State, and we would ask your approval. TRUSTEE KING: Before we get into it, I would like to read this resolution: Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the application of Leonard M. Sessa more fully described in the Public Hearing Item 10 on the Trustee agenda dated Monday, December 20, 2004 is classified as a Type II Action pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and not subject to a review under SEQRA. MS. TETRAULT: Because it's rebuilt in-kind it comes under Type II. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. CUDDY: I was just outlining what the application was. TRUSTEE KING: You said you do have a DEC permit on this already? MR. CUDDY: We do. We have an Army Corps and we have a Department of State. MS. TETRAULT: I just want to remind the Board that on this one there's a shed sitting on the marsh that had been built years ago for some storage and built without a permit, and also there was a floating dock sitting in the marsh, and you said you wanted that removed. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about that the field, the dilapidated shed in the wetlands. MR. CUDDY: That's been there a long time. TRUSTEE KING: I know. We'd like to see it removed out of 32 Board of Trustees 33 December 20, 2004 the wetlands. It never should have been built there to begin with. I don't think it was ever permitted. MR. CUDDY: The shed as far as I know has been there for probably 30 years or more. I know personally it's been there for more than 20 years. I know that from the prior owner it was there for 30 years. TRUSTEE KING: That was built somewhere in the '7Os. It was one of the lobster dealers built that down them and had lobster tanks down there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It would be an improvement to put that upland. TRUSTEE KING: If they could move that into the upland area, that would be much better. It's a nice wetland in there. If it were cleaned up, it could really come back. MR. CUDDY: I think they could move it back, yes. TRUSTEE KING: That would be acceptable, and just a derelict float that could be removed because it serves no purpose. Other than that it's strictly a replacement of what was there. Are there any other comments on this project, anybody else? If there's no 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 stipulation that the shed be moved landward to the higher ground out of the wetlands, and the derelict float to be removed. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Just get the wetlands cleaned up, there's a lot of debris in there that really could be cleaned up. There's a definite break where you step down, so long as it's landward of that break. All in favor?. ALL AYES 11. Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of STEPHEN HAWKES WITH POA FOR JANE COOKE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 271 linear foot of bulkhead within 18 inches of the existing structure, rebuilding in-place, the steps from the top of the bulkhead to the beach. Place approximately 450 cubic yards of clean fill from an upland source as backfill. Located: 10025Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#119-1-11.12 & 13 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I will read the resolution: Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the application of Stephen Hawkes with POA for Jane Cooke more fully described in the Public Hearing Item 11 of the Trustee agenda dated Monday, December 20, 2004 is 33 Board of Trustees 34 December 20, 2004 clarified as a Type II Action pursuant to SEQRA and is not subject to review under SEQRA. That is the motion. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costelli from Costello Marine Contracting. We're the agents for Steven Hawkes, who is the power of attorney for Jane Cooke. If the Board has any questions in regards to it, this bulkhead is approximately 40 years old and was constructed as creosote and it's going to be rebuilt out of C-Loc and immediately in front of the existing wall after taking the pilings off to minimize the expanse out towards the bay. Any questions the Board may have, I'll attempt to answer them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? I looked at this and it's definitely in need of replacement. Any Board questions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommended approval of the application with the condition the bulkhead is replaced in-place or landward of existing. The top of the bluff is replanted, and all trees that were recently removed should be replaced. Were there trees removed? MR. COSTELLO: There's a few pine trees on the slope, which are sliding down the slope presently because of the loss of fill, and I certainly wouldn't recommend, myself, I wouldn't recommend planting pines on the cliff because of windage. They just loosen the soil, and as you probably have observed the soil is extremely sandy and will slide, and the whole part of the cliff sliding now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there planting? MR. COSTELLO: I wouldn't plant trees, but I put the beach grass down on the bottomed to try to stabilize as much of the cliff. Whether they will spend the money to terrace and plant up the cliff, I'm not so sure. I think if you stabilize the toe, you will see some vegetation naturally take place. MR. ANDERSON: I have a question. The CAC seems to be saying you have to remove the bulkhead in its entirety, that would make a real mess. MR. COSTELLO: That's their recommendations. MR. ANDERSON: That's a bad idea. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Or landward of existing. MR. ANDERSON: No. You have to do it the way he says to do 34 Board of Trustees 35 December 20, 2004 it. If you do it any other way, you're going to make a mess. MR. COSTELLO: If you did it landward, the existing bulkhead would deteriorate, and it would be scattered around the bay, you certainly don't want that. If you remove that bulkhead, you would have probably three or four times the necessary fill brought into the site because one easterly storm, the owner will have a little claim. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The slope disappearing because of the condition of the bulkhead? MR. COSTELLO: There have been holes in the bulkhead that have been patched with plywood, probably 250 or 300 yards have been lost through the bulkhead already. TRUSTEE KING: Is it bulkheaded on both sides of this John? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Are they all in line with each other? didn't look. MR. COSTELLO: No. The one to the south is considerably newer, but it is in not very good shape. It's entirely CCA. This bulkhead was built about 40 years ago, and I had a little bit to do with it, and it's all creosote, and it's lower elevation. The one to the south is higher in elevation. The water and tide is hitting it each afternoon, and the one to the north is of creosote, and it's a little bit better shape because there is more beach in front of it for protection. protection. It's just age, like myself. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do they have a problem with including in the plan replanting of the beach grass? MR. COSTELLO: No. They're almost going to have to because only on a severe easterly storm they will have oversplash and they will lose unless they buffer 15 feet or so with beach grass. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Should say it on the plan. It's not a big deal. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we require a new plan? MR. COSTELLO: If you make it a condition of the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It should be. MR. COSTELLO: It's been recommended to them and they anticipate it anyways. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments? Doris? MS. MACGREEVEY: The only comment is the top of the bluff should have plantings on it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't know that the top of the bluff 35 Board of Trustees 36 December 20, 2004 was planted. It's very barren. MR. COSTELLO: The whole bluff had vegetation whether weeds, small pines it did, where the holes have been created by the loss of fill, then the slumping of the cliff this loss of vegetation has occurred in certain areas, particularly near the stairway. I think when you stabilize the toe, you will see the vegetation start backing up. But how much they're going to plant, I'm sure that they want to save the property more than anyone here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the public, from the Board? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to construct 271 linear feet of bulkhead within 18 inches of the existing structure, rebuilding in-place the steps from the top of the bulkhead to the beach. Replace approximately 450 cubic yards of clean fill from an upland source with the condition that replanting of the beach grass be done all along the toe. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You should come in and just mark up the original plan with like a line for beach grass, you could do it now. 12. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of MARY DEGREGORIO 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. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh At the last hearing we had discussions about a pier line. Miss Moore was going to get us some more information about that pier line and she has? MS. MOORE: No. What I was going to do was go research some of the other docks in the area, and find the lengths of those docks. What I found in the files are 89 permits that the length varied, the longer one by Cusamano was 61 feet, and some shorter ones were in the 40 feet range. And the problem with all the permits was at the time nobody asked for the depth to mean high water -- I mean Iow water, the depth of the float. So all that information was absolutely useless to us because the length of the dock was not as crucial to us as having the adequate water depth at the location of the float. So, I spoke to the client. We will try to reduce the length of the dock, or actually we have different options. You didn't tell me where you wanted the 36 Board o f Trustees 37 December 20, 2004 timber dock. We have the ramp, and obviously the float stays at the end of the ramp. But we weren't exactly sure where you were putting us or where you were stopping us. Once we get it from you, we have to go to the DEC and convince them that the water depth is adequate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh ~ think we're looking at the existing pier line. MS. MOORE: The water line there is less than two, I think that might be a problem. I know that would be a problem, put it that way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That would be the pier line they could work within those parameters. What most people do in that case is they put out a dock with steps or stairs, then they have access. MS. MOORE: FII give to you Cusamano's dock which shows length of a dock 61 feet out to the water. The problem that we have are the two docks that are on either side of those, the Cusamano actually, the one that you're looking at on the east is this one here, that looks to be in the right of way, however Cusamano has her own dock that goes out about 61 feet. So when my client goes out and looks out -- I hate to push it back as far as you proposed because it really doesn't give a very useful structure. So, I'll give this to you for your records, it's in your files. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You propose TO table that? TOWN ATTY. FINNEGAN: I'll table it because I don't want to pursue something that's not going to be useful. We imagined pushing it back to three feet. We're right now at four feet. We could push back to three feet or even two and-a-half, but what you're suggesting is at one and-a-half feet, and that's not consistent with the rest of the docks in the area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's what the one, the Guttinger here -- MS. MOORE: But Guttinger has the depth of the water it looks to be at least two, maybe a little more. You should be looking at water depth, not the distance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't because -- TOWN ATTY. FINNEGAN: The combination of the two but reasonable. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, because if someone says my boat draw six feet. MS. MOORE: We're not asking for a large boat. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The next person might. MS. MOORE: I would ask you to take a look at the aerial in your files, and look at the Cusamano dock because when I added up the length it was at least 61 feet where it goes 37 Board of Trustees 38 December 20, 2004 out. And that's the consistent, anywhere from 40 to 60 is the length of the docks that go out. Keeping in mind that you have the timber bulkhead, the property, my client's property is further out, and you have a cove there. So to measure from someone who is back on a cove is not a comparable measure. So that creates a real difficulty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Heather, could you find an aerial of that couple going back a few years, historical reference on that. MS. TETRAULT: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. 13. Patricia Moore on behalf of GEOFFROY PENNY requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing 232' bulkhead in-place with plastic interlocking sheathing, and matching the existing elevation. Located: 570 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-7-2 TRUSTEE KING: There's a resolution on this. Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the application of Geoffroy Penny more fully described in Public Hearing Item 13 of the Trustee agenda dated Monday, December 20, 2004 is classified as a Type II Action pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and is not subject to review under SEQRA. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: I'm here on behalf of Mr. Penny. I thought he might be here tonight but with a Monday calendar he is not able to be here. Was there a question? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm going to recuse myself on this one, and I didn't remember that until I got to the site then there was other discussions about it. TRUSTEE KING: Let me read the CAC comments. Resolve to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees approval with the condition of the Wetland Permit application of Geoffroy Penny to reconstruct existing 232 foot bulkhead in-place with plastic interlock sheathing and matching existing elevation. CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition no treated lumber is used, and a 30 foot non-tur[' buffer is installed landward of the 38 Board of Trustees 39 December 20, 2004 bulkhead. What we were looking at in the field I think would make a nicer looking job, a better job, the two returns, Pat -- MS. TETRAULT: He was glad that he was going to get them, but he was going to get them in a different place than proposed. TRUSTEE KING: Where the return shows now it's a 90 degree angle, if you backed it up to the second pole on the bulkhead and came into the 45 like this on both sides, it just gives it a much more natural appearance, and it will give a little more fringe. MS. TETRAULT: Keeps the spartina free to grow. TRUSTEE KING: It kind of flows. MS. MOORE: I don't see a problem with it. My problem right now is the DEC. When they took this plan what they came back with it was so unacceptable I guess is the answer. They had marine habitat that took a look at this, and they didn't want us to replace the sheathing. They didn't want us to put piles -- they wanted us essentially to build it on the inside rather than replacement in-kind, and that's going to create a real problem. Certainly we can go with this application as approved by this Board with that modification, that's a very minor modification, but it would be helpful to have your support with the DEC because marine habitat, they obviously haven't built bulkheading before because the suggestions when I talked to the builder, he said it's impossible, you'd eliminate the whole boat basin. TRUSTEE KING: They want to come inside the existing bulkhead? MS. MOORE: They're suggesting the old bulkhead could be cut down to the mud line, and a new structure installed on the seaward side, which is designated as coastal shoal littoral zone. Batter piles would be placed for support, but no new tie rods or dead men will be allowed in the vegetated tidal wetlands. It's just not going to work. It didn't make any sense when I got this. In fact, this is from Karen Westerland. I have a call into the DEC. TRUSTEE KING: Who went out and looked at it? MS. MOORE: I don't know. I thought maybe Chris Arvisson had gone out, because he's usually the guy that goes out and looks for it. I mean, we're limiting the dead men that we're using, we're going to reuse the ones we have. And that's how it's been designed, to try to limit the amount of activity there any way. So this didn't make any sense to US. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know what to say. 39 Board of Trustees 40 December 20, 2004 MS. MOORE: Anything you guys can do to get the DEC on the same page, we'd appreciate it. We can either take this permit, or we can leave the hearing open based on meeting in the field. I'd like to try to set up the meeting with Chris Arvisson if somebody from your Board could be present. TRUSTEE KING: We can do that. We can set up a meeting. I'll make sure I can get there. MS. MOORE: Thank you. If you know of any times when they're coming out, let me know. I have a call into them and they haven't returned my call yet. So, I just got the December 13th. TRUSTEE KING: I'm tentatively supposed to meet with Chris in Mattituck. I don't know if he'd be coming out this way or not. MS. TETRAULT: Also let Miss Moore know that the Trustees wanted to see a buffer to the water there because it existed before. TRUSTEE KING: When they put the sod in there was a nice sand buffer. MS. MOORE: That was a volleyball court. TRUSTEE KING: It was a nice buffer. It was a nice non-vegetated buffer and they sodded right over it. We'd like to see some sort of non-turf buffer. I'll make a motion to table this. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 14. Michael J. Scholz on behalf of ANTHONY & NICOLE SPIRADAKIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with a garage. Located: 8915 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM 59-6-27.3. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the application of Anthony and Nicole Spiridakis more fully described in the Public Hearing Item 14 of the Trustee agenda dated Monday, December 20, 2004 is classified as a Type II Action pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and is not subject to review under SEQRA. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You would like to speak, sir, about this application? MR. NASTASI: Yes. My name is John Nastasi, I'm the architect of record for this project. I have an updated site plan that I need to submit with slight modifications. This reflects as the property is currently staked. 40 Board of Trustees 41 December 20, 2004 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you have an authorization form to represent the owner?. MR. NASTASI: I do not. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Then you cannot speak on behalf of the owner. Michael J. Scholz can. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can comment. Just not the official representative. MR. NASTASI: I just wanted to submit the updated site plan. TRUSTEE FOSTER: How does it differ from the original? MR. NASTASh What happened was when I visited the site a week ago, I thought there was an error in the way the property was staked, and I met with the surveyor, Ehlers, and the owner, and we clarified the actual setbacks so the numbers of the setback is slightly different than what it originally was, TRUSTEE FOSTER: I noticed that. There's no structural changes on anything? MR. NASTASI: No. It's the same exact house it's just the way it's staked on the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our setback for a septic system is 100 feet and we try to setback for the house if possible could be 75 with a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer around the entire property, which you have on the original submission. It seems like you have plenty of room. MR. NASTASh The septic has to be revised? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The whole thing could go to the east or in this case north. We want a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer from the wetlands all the way around and dry wells for roof runoff for the house, backwash dry wells for the swimming pool. We can approve that tonight based on those changes. MR. NASTASh Then I'll have the owners resubmit? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Just send it to our office and we'll check the changes and the permit will be issued. Any other questions? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comments? Board comments? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a question. We noticed there was quite a nice grouping of very large beech trees; is that right where the house is going? Do you know where they are located? TRUSTEE FOSTER: The way it was staked, a couple of those trees were in the building envelope. MR. SPIRIDAKIS: There's such a little envelope, there's really no other place to put the house on the elevation. There's this cluster of these beautiful trees. MRS. SPIRIDAKIS: And we're trying to keep as much of the woods as possible, we're trying to keep it as natural as 41 Board of Trustees 42 December 20, 2004 possible, so it still looks like we're in the woods. Wherever you look at the house from there will be woods surrounding the house. We don't want it clear cut. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Good because it is a beautiful spot. MR. SPIRIDAKIS: Was there CAC? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It was resolved to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees approval with a condition of the Wetland Permit application of Anthony and Nicole Spiridakis to construct a single-family dwelling with a garage. CAC recommends approval to construct a single-family dwelling with the condition that hay bales are placed down before construction and a limit to the number of trees removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: During construction you place hay bales at that 50 foot buffer to prevent sediment from washing into the lake and no trees are to be removed in that 50 foot buffer. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The hay bales go down 50 feet from the wetlands, and nothing happens beyond those hay bales. MR. NASTASI: We understand. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do yourself a big favor, lay those hay bales first, don't drive past it, don't push anything into it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the application as requested noting the changes on the recently submitted survey and with the following conditions: That hay bales are placed along the 50 foot buffer zone, that the septic be relocated to be minimum of 100 feet from the wetlands, that a 50 foot buffer be maintained around the entire structure including the swimming pool, and that the pool have a backwash leaching pool installed, and the house should have gutters with down spouts and dry wells for roof recovery. Anything else? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So carried. And this is approved conditionally on getting a new survey showing the changes that I noted. MR. NASTASh I'll talk to Ehlers about that. Can I ask you a question? If we slide this to 100 feet of here, we just have to watch the next wetland setback because it's all the 42 Board of Trustees 43 December 20, 2004 way over here. We should be well within that, that's okay, no questions. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Why did you move it from its original location? MR. NASTASh We didn't actually move it, I think the surveyor -- I don't want to speak for the surveyor because he's not here, but he inaccurately located it. Thank you very much. 15. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of LI SOUND OYSTER, LLC CIO TOM ANDERSON requests a Wetland Permit to expand an existing dock facility to be utilized for a commercial shellflshing and aquaculture facility. The existing 4' by 130' plus/minus timber catwalk is proposed to be widened to 10' to accommodate a fork-lift or truck. The existing platform and 3' by 20' ramp are proposed to remain. Seven 6' by 20' floats are proposed and 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 off-site 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 off-site location. A shed is proposed in the same location as the previous shed location, and proposed buffer area. South of the dock the buffer area is proposed to extend from the MHW to the concrete wall. North of the dock the buffer area is proposed to extend from the MHW to the back edge of the existing fence north to the property line. Located: 1240 Love lane, Mattituck. SCTM 140-1-23.1. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Resolved by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold that the application of the Long Island Sound Oyster Company, Tom Anderson and more fully described in the Public Hearing Item 15 of the Trustee agenda dated Monday, December 20, 2004 is pursuant to the SEQRA rules and regulations classified as an Unlisted Action, and be it further resolved the applicant is required to submit Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form. Therefore resolved that upon receipt of that Long Environmental Assessment Form the clerk of the Trustees is hereby directed to commence and coordinate a review pursuant to SEQRA. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We received the Long Environmental Assessment Form from the applicant on Friday and because it came in on Friday and because today was the meeting day, the 43 Board of Trustees 44 December 20, 2004 coordinator review is just beginning; is that correct? MS. TETRAULT: We have just notified the other agencies and the Trustees need an opportunity to look it over. Would anyone like to speak on the application? MR. PALUMBO: If I may, I provided an authorization to the Board last week. I have a copy for Mr. Foster if he needs it. My name is Anthony Palumbo of the law firm of Goggins and Palumbo, 13105 Main Road in Mattituck. I understand there was an extensive discussion on the last date, and I have had a long talk with my clients, a couple of long talks, and Mr. Hall from Land Use. So, if I could just basically summarize what our application is now because there were a couple of modifications, couple of different site plans that were added and submitted. Basically what we're looking for is the opportunity to put as many, as you all know, oyster trays as we can. And the most recent submission from Land Use Ecological involved removing a number of floating docks that were on what would be the northwest side of the proposed trays. So we're limited now down to just a few floats toward the Town dock there on the southwesterly side there, on the southern side of the proposed area. And the main concern of the applicants is that they have the opportunity to have a substantial amount of trays or enough trays in order to properly farm. And after lengthy discussion, the most recent submission may not actually work because these trays are 6' by 16' long, and they're 6' deep, and of course if they're filled with oysters at a Iow tide, they cannot hang up. They need sufficient water depth. So our request is, and I know there was some discussion regarding what the previous owner had done, and I know there's a little bit of a bad taste because the place is a disaster, it was infested with rats, they didn't maintain the actual trays themselves. So our proposal is basically this: That the dock be widened to 10 feet in order for the applicant to actually maintain those trays. They need to be removed, because the bugs and warm worms and what have you destroy the trays, so they need to be removed, replaced, maintained and so forth, and that needs to be done with heavy machinery because of the size of them, and specifically, have an area where we could fit, of course, as many trays as we'd like. The applicant bought in excess of 30 trays from the previous tenant because Blue Point owned it, but leased it to someone else. So their position was, well they had all those in the water, but two wrongs don't 44 Board of Trustees 45 December 20, 2004 make a right, and I've explained that to them. And that's the reason they brought me in is really just clarify the situation, and it looks as though they were approved for a 30' by 64' area, which would be an area that would fit 20 trays. And our clients and the applicants certainly are willing to do anything that the Board would require in order to maintain it properly, of course, clean up the entire site. Kevin Anderson intends to live there, so he hopes to ultimately reside and keep and eye on things, and certainly keep it in good shape. So the long and short of it is what we would really ask for is the opportunity to have that 30' distance out toward the middle of the creek and then down the creek one tray further, which would make the entire area 30' by 80' and just those few limited floats, floating docks you can see on the site plan, the most recent submission from December 16th that the Board has, which has just a few short reduced 4' by 12' floats and a 6' by 20' and a 4' by 20' float. So that would be five trays wide and three trays deep. Does that make sense? TRUSTEE FOSTER: You have a row of five, two side by side, but then the others are perpendicular to that. MR. PALUMBO: Those perpendicular ones won't actually work after consulting with Mr. Hall and my client, they won't because of the water depth they would be hung up. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You need to turn them the other way? MR. PALUMBO: Correct. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So instead of being 16 feet, what are they, 127 MR. PALUMBO: They're 16' by 6'. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So 12 feet as opposed to 16 feet. MR. PALUMBO: The previous owner was approved to go five trays out and four trays over. We want to go five trays out and five trays over. And I know my clients we're asking for a lot more, but for now, they're certainly willing to do that and maybe establish to the Board that they are certainly here to stay. They have been residents of the Town of Riverhead their entire lives. They're not going to come and rape the land like it seems that the previous tenant did, they did what they had to do, they didn't maintain it. The place was in shambles, and they packed up and left. And we intend to remedy every aspect of the situation. There's debris in the water and re-bar in the water. We want to clean all that up and maintain it hopefully. If the Board's inclined to grant a permit, we would also ask that it be granted without prejudice. So after may be a year or so the 45 Board of Trustees 46 December 20, 2004 Andersons would be able to establish a track record with the Board to prove that everything is in compliance, then possibly down the road to have an opportunity to maybe sink some more trays, but for now we'd like to stay just slightly out of the permitted use, regardless of what was previously done and make any modifications that the Board would like regarding lighting or anything that you would feel would be appropriate. But we're actually only extending it one tray further, down the creek and away from the traffic and away from the Town dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just have one comment. In the office we worked up a brief history, a summary, because the file is so extensive, it's hard to wade through it without missing something. From what I can see the last applicant was granted permission to place a 30' by 64' area for floating tray area 15 feet past the end of the pier. And one of the conditions was to place lights on that for navigational aid purposes. That's adjacent to the federal anchorage so navigation's a serious concern. It's next to the boat launching ramp for the Town, the boat launching ramp for the park district, the federal anchorage and a busy marina. So that was one of the reasons that we are limited to 15 feet past the end of the dock. If you draw on this plan 115 feet out, it shows the dock -- MR. PALUMBO: If I could briefly comment on that. The Andersons have worked that area for years, and Mr. King certainly is as familiar as anyone in this town is with that area, and I would suggest and submit that the previous owner would not have been able to actually have those trays in the water if they were to hang up. So the previous owner, I think we concede it was in violation based upon everybody's investigation, but the fact of the matter was that the distance they were from the dock had to be 30 feet from the end based upon the water level because they're six feet deep and they're the exact same trays that the ^ndersons have bought. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not sure what they did. We're just saying that's what they were permitted for. There's a big navigational issue. That's my only comment. In the meantime, I don't want to make any more comments because right now we're in the midst of the SEQRA review and we're still kind of-- MR. PALUMBO: You want to get a feel for that first before you make any decisions. I certainly understand. TRUSTEE KING: I have a question, it's not indicated on here, but there's a dry well in that concrete slab. I think 46 Board of Trustees 47 December 20, 2004 what they were doing, they were washing the oysters upland on that slab and draining the residue down into that dry well and that was piped out to the creek, there's about a 12 inch plastic pipe. What is the intention of any further use of that? What is that going to be used for? Because it's mainlining right into the creek from that dry well, no matter what goes in there. So what use is proposed for that dry well? And I would like to see that indicated on the survey where that is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We want to see that removed. Unless it's a necessary thing, that's fine. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Were they being washed with saltwater, Jim? So actually whatever they were washing them -- TRUSTEE KING: They had a big drum, put the oysters in, turn it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Washing it with saltwater. Whatever's going in there is what came out of there, basically? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I'm just looking at down the road. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I understand what you mean. I'm trying to establish what's going on. MR. PALUMBO: Basically it is. What that was overflow from the hatchery up on the land and that's all saltwater, and there are, in fact, the Andersons do have permits from the DEC to do that, because apparently they keep filtering water through and as it overflows it runs back, so they pump it out, and it's a completely closed system. TRUSTEE KING: That should be included on this. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That basin is acting as a silting pen. TRUSTEE KING: I think the original intent of this, a lot of this was going to be an upland grow-out area, when Blue Point had it, and maybe they couldn't do it, maybe the electricity was expensive and they kind of shifted off into the creek, and they just did what they felt like doing. MR. PALUMBO: I don't think we necessarily dispute that. I think that was the reason for the emotion at the last hearing, I think there was misunderstanding. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's fair to hold this Board responsible for the actions of the other people. MR. PALUMBO: I understand that, Mr. King. Our only position as far as the navigational hazard issue, is that wherever those were, and although they weren't permitted to do it, those of us that are familiar with the area recognize that that wasn't a navigational issue or I'm sure it would have been flagged because it was done for years and someone would have said something, and indicated they were in violation somewhere down the road. So basically where they 47 Board of Trustees 48 December 20, 2004 were, which we submit is at least 30 feet from the dock, was not a navigational hazard to day to day traffic, although it may seem like that in a vacuum if you look at it on a survey, it certainly wasn't practically. That's the only reason I commented on that. I think everything else you said we would basically agree with. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no further comment, I will make a motion to table the hearing until we finish the SEQRA review. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could we have the outward corners of the proposal staked, just drive a stake in the mud so we can go out there in the field? MR. HALL: It's really deep to drive a stake. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Just drop a weight with a float. MR. HALL: That's not going to accurately depict it depending what tide's there, you could be off 10, 20 feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make it tight. MR. HALL: It's only accurate for a certain period of time. TRUSTEE KING: Why couldn't you go out to eight foot Iow with a stake? MR. HALL: You'd need a 12 foot stake. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just so we can see it on inspection. TRUSTEE KING: Go out to eight feet. Let us know where eight feet of water is at the outward corners. 16. Suffolk Environment Consulting, Inc. on behalf of KATHLEER ZUAR requests a Wetland Permit to construct a front entrance arbor off the southwestern corner of the existing dwelling 80 square feet; remove an existing rear wood deck 85.6 square foot; construct a rear screened-in porch off the northwestern corner of the dwelling 192 square feet; construct a rear deck off the northeastern side of the dwelling 540 square feet; remove an existing stone driveway from within the western corner of the subject property 880 square feet; construct a driveway within the southwestern section of subject property 2,100 square feet; construct a wood walkway off the existing rear retaining wall measuring 4' by 35' with steps and supported with ten posts; and remove any and all invasive and/or non-native vegetation within the area situated from the existing rear retaining wall 35' seaward 2,600 square feet and revegetate with Rugosa Rose and American Beach Grass. Located: 1905 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM#53-4-9. TRUSTEE KING: Anyone here to comment on this application? 48 Board of Trustees 49 December 20, 2004 MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Kathleen Zuar. Just a point of clarification really only Item 7 and 8 are within 100 feet of the high water mark as shown on the survey. So, we put everything in so you understand everything that's going on here. But really what's regulated here is a wood walkway and native plantings. We think the wood walkway's a good idea because it restricts activity to the walkway. Its only purpose is to get from the existing retaining wall to the beach. We think the plantings are a good idea because it gives us a chance to remove a lot of obnoxious invasive vegetation and create a naturalized seascape. And that's really what this application's about. Dave Chicanowicz is here, he'll be doing the work and we have every confidence that he'll do a great job. I would just turn it over to him if he wants to say anything. TRUSTEE KING: Let me read this resolution. Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the application of Kathleen Zuar more fully described in Public Hearing Item 16 of the Trustees agenda dated Monday, December 20, 2004 is classified as a Type II Action pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and is not subject to review under SEQRA. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All the in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I guess we can move forward now. MR. CHICANOWlCZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Environmental Design. Primarily in the interest of customer to try to maintain a nice seaside, naturalized environment that at this point has been overgrown with some unnatural plantings. I guess some of the stuff are very weedy and non-native to the area. So they're just looking basically to clean it up. We recommended that they put in a series of beach grass, Rosa Rugosa, to maintain this small area between the house and the beach; do you have any questions? TRUSTEE KING: I think the biggest question the Board has, why are we going to do anything down on this beach area? MS. TETRAULT: The Trustees found it was native. There are some locust in there, we found you could have the locust removed, right? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I think there was, did we count five locust trees could be removed? MS. TETRAULT: But there's switch grass and beach grass and a lot of baccharis on the beach they really wanted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We didn't want to see a wood walkway there 49 Board of Trustees 50 December 20, 2004 because it's adding structure to a sort of naturalized area. MR. ANDERSON: I think the wood walkway is a good idea because it would seem to me you would want to restrict the pedestrian movement to a walkway, that's why you build something like that, so environmentally that's a plus. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It was a naturalized sandy path. MR. ANDERSON: Again, that's going to spread and meander and you're going to have plants trampled and whatnot. So I think that's a good idea, and I think what Dave is saying is he's really seeking to augment the area, clean it up. We're obviously not going to be ripping out beach grass if we're planning to put it back in. That's not the point of this. The point of this is to do some very customized augmentation into this area and provide a dedicated way to get there there so the area can be better protected. MS. TETRAULT: There were a couple things you wanted to add when you write the permit, dry wells and gutters on the house plans for the new work, and removing turf under the deck that's going to be rebuilt, and you were concerned about that one tree in front. I don't know whether that's going to be removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Big old cherry tree? MR. ANDERSON: Again, what we're talking about here, we've given you an entire list of particulars. We certainly have no problem putting in dry wells and doing all that. But I think this application is really just about the walkway and the plantings given the location of the wetland boundary shown on the survey. MR. CHICANOWlCZ: You have no objections as far as removing the locusts that are sprouting up, but that would be the only plant to remove -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Unless there was something else that was objectionable. Obviously the locusts are going to take over. MR. CHICANOWlCZ: Basically they're trying to maintain something that's not going to get 20 feet tall. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: On-site we stressed hand pruning and just for the locust, hand pruning, you'd have to pull it out. MR. CHICANOWlCZ: Just for the locust hand pruning? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, you'd have to remove the locusts. The roots are 20 feet long. The roots will go from here to the end of the room, but once you pull it out, they're gone. MR. CHICANOWlCZ: With some maintenance to follow. TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommends approval with the condition of a 10 foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Once the retaining wall's being rebuilt. 50 Board of Trustees 51 December 20, 2004 MR. ANDERSON: We're not rebuilding the retaining wall. TRUSTEE KING: I think the general feeling of the Board was take those locusts out and leave the rest of it alone. MR. CHICANOWlCZ: Would there be any objection to planting additional beach grass and/or Rosa Rugosa? MS. TETRAULT: They don't want to see that landscaped, remove all the natural stuff and mulch and watering. MR. CHICANOWICZ: We would like to see it thickened and more enhanced. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve the application with the provision that only the black locust could be removed in that area, additional grasses can be planted and no walkway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Additional grass and Rosa Rugosa. MS. TETRAULT: Do you want to put in the permit removing the turf under the deck and dry wells and gutters? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES 17. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of DAVID SHANKS requests a WeUand Permit to construct an 1,100 square foot second-story addition to the existing dwelling. Located: 1165 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM#63-7-34 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the application of David Shanks, more fully described in the Public Hearing of Item 17 of the Trustee agenda dated Monday, December 20, 2004 is classified as a Type II Action pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and is not subject to review under SEQRA. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for David Shanks. I think the application is very straightforward, it's simply a second floor addition, and is wholly within the footprint of the house, sufficient setbacks from the water. I wouldn't think other than perhaps some dry wells if there were any issues here. TRUSTEE POLlWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. 51 Board of Trustees 52 December 20, 2004 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of David Shanks as stated. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I just noticed it said floating dock to be removed, it threw me off. 18. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of JOAN SHANNON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new bulkhead 75' plus/minus contiguous within 18 inches seaward of the existing timber bulkhead 75' plus/minus along the southern property boundary. Located: 7080 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#126-11-7 TRUSTEE KING: I have a resolution to read: Resolved by the Town of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold the application of Joan Shannon, more fully described in public hearing Item 18 of the Trustee agenda dated December 20, 2004, is pursuant to the SEQRA rules and regulations classified as an Unlisted Action; and be it further resolved that the applicant is waived to submit Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form, LEAF. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant, Joan Shannon. This is a standard bulkhead construction project, a very tall bulkhead, if anyone has seen it. It's right at the high water mark, it is lapping up against it, and there are various decks, and behind it there's a ladder that goes down to the water, and the idea here is to replace the bulkhead because it's in bad shape. It's a very high bulkhead, so it's not something that we can remove and replace in-kind or the entire front of the property will drop into the sea, but what we can do is remove the exterior piles. We want to drive the fiberglass sheathing, patch legs of timer whalers and replace the pilings. TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommends approval with the condition the bulkhead is replaced in-place and the existing buffer is maintained. I looked at this Monday. I guess it's in pretty bad shape. There's a lot of structure up above here, big decks to adjoining property. 52 Board of Trustees 53 December 20, 2004 MR. ANDERSON: Are they saying remove the whole thing and build a new one? TRUSTEE KING: ithink they want it in-place. MR. ANDERSON: You can't build it that way. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I'll tell you what I saw, the neighboring bulkhead to the west is right in line with it. The neighbor to the east is jogged out almost four feet out in front of this one. What I would like to see done -- I don't have a problem with the 18 inch bump out on the east end -- MR. ANDERSON: It's not going to be eight inches, it's going to be like three. TRUSTEE KING: How are you going to get it down close to three? MR. ANDERSON: You're taking out the piles, you have your ledger there, which is maybe four inches, that remains; then you're putting this three inch interlock fiberglass. You're reattaching the ledger on top of that, and you're driving exterior piles. So 18 inches is this, once you subtract the piles that are there -- TRUSTEE KING: You're adding five inches at least. But what I'm saying is you want to blend it in to be even with the next door neighbor to the west. MR. ANDERSON: I understand what you're saying, but if you look at the property, if you're talking about putting in a triangle here -- (Discussion) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You're saying if you do remove to replace it, you take a chance of losing it. MR. ANDERSON: Take out the exterior pile, you don't want to encroach into the waterway, but when you remove the sheathing -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You're saying keep that and work up to it. MR. ANDERSON: Right. TRUSTEE KING: Did you look under that deck, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: No. TRUSTEE KING: You have a serious erosion problem under there. It's a classic example of what happens to a bluff when there's no vegetation. Under this deck here, this lawn is all going to slough off under there. It's all ridged out from rainwater. I think what's happening, the water's going off the lawn, it's just gullying off the side here. Either side is well vegetated. It's in beautiful shape. MR. ANDERSON: I'll do - those are going to help. TRUSTEE KING: The only other question I have is the access 53 Board of Trustees 54 December 20, 2004 point. How are you going to do this? MR. ANDERSON: Come in from the water. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that the bush on the southeast corner to be left alone. There's some nice growth in there, and I think maybe dry wells in the house for the eroding off the deck, leave the baccharis and the beach grass in the eroded areas because that whole lawn is going to end up underneath the deck. It's really pretty bad under there. I guess that's it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 19. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of MARK ANGELSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct an approximately 4' by 87' stairway to provide access to the shoreline from the top of the bluff. The stairway will be between 2' and 6' feet above the existing grade and terminate at the bottom of the bluff, plus/minus 40' landward of the high water mark. Located: County Road 48, Southold. SCTM#73-6-2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think I saw a resolution. Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the application of Mark Angelson more fully described in the Public Hearing Item 19 of the Trustee agenda dated December 20, 2004 is classified as a Type II Action pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and is not subject to review under SEQRA. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Identical design and location as the one that was done for Marilyn Angleson that was approved by this Board last month. Ken, you looked at that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Two months ago. MR. ANDERSON: We have taken the same exact design and same specifications as the last one. I shouldn't think there should be any issues. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this. I didn't have any problems with the plans for the stairs, but the bluff is very unstable, very little vegetation. I just noticed that CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition of detailed landscaping plan of the bluff is 54 Board of Trustees 55 December 20, 2004 submitted prior to the permit being issued. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. We did one of these over in North Haven. If you look at the excavation profile, what we did was we put in dense planting of Rugosa Rose. It's actually in North Haven going to Noyak Bay, then you look east, sort of the western side of it. Green stripe on either side, and we did that about eight years ago. It's still perfect. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's fine. The bluff was very barren and eroding very quickly. MR. ANDERSON: Fine. We're sort of confined to that two foot area because, unlike you, the DEC they're afraid of vegetation being disturbed, so you see that maximum two and fully vegetated bluff, which it is not. So I would say I got to limit it to that two feet on either side, otherwise I'm between two agencies to determine whether there's vegetation or not on the bluff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There were two setbacks of stakes, is that for the adjacent piece of property? MR. ANDERSON: This is part of the subdivision you see the site plan what we did, the real access will be across from where that ranch house is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They can't share? These two within five steps of each other, and if it's a subdivision that would make sense to have a communal. MR. ANDERSON: Sharing stairs -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to construct a stairway to provide access to the shoreline from the top of the bluff, but I would make a condition that the detailed landscaping plan for the bluff be submitted before the permit be issued. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 20. Alpha Consulting on behalf of RICHARD M. BLAIR requests a Wetland Permit to install a 20' by 40' in-ground swimming pool with on grade 4' wide deck at pool perimeter. Located: 900 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-7-4. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll read the resolution: Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds 55 Board of Trustees 56 December 20, 2004 that the application of Richard M. Blair, more fully described in the Public Hearing Item 20 of the Trustee agenda dated December 20, 2004 is classified as a Type II Action pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and is not subject to review on under SEQRA. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comment on this application? MS. TETRAULT: Was there a dry well for the backwash? TRUSTEE FOSTER: That will be part of the approval. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Dry wells included. The only thing I had here was we measured the distance of the wetlands line I think we had a different measure. TRUSTEE FOSTER: One or two foot disparity there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Closer to 15 or 20 feet. TRUSTEE FOSTER: 15 or 20 feet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He said 75 or it was -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: 67, 68. MS. TETRAULT: Is it written in the file? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. (Time ended: 10:23 p.m.) RECEIVED $o.thol~l '~ow~ 56