Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/19/2005Albert 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 1.631 ) 765-1892 Fax ~631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, Januaw19, 2005 7:00 PM Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Saturday, February 5, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. All AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: For December 2004, check for $11,281.58 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Listing of 24 State Environmental Quality Reviews, otherwise known as SEQRA, which are ongoing by this Board of Trustees 2 January 19, 2005 office. I won't list them all. Now, we have a few sections here on the agenda before we get to public hearings. They're not legally public hearings, however, if anyone has any comments at all, please feel free to get up and speak and address any one of these, but please do it in a timely manner as we would like to keep moving through. It's a pretty long agenda tonight. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Be it resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in the Public Hearings on the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 19, 2005 are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and are not subject to review under SEQRA. They are: Charles Burnham; Anchor Lane, LLC; Edward Kavanagh; Gregory Mazzanobile; Douglas Caden; Zbigniew Kozlowski; Judie Lizewski; Elizabeth Lyons; Bob Tapp and Nick Ellis; Reddy Industries, Inc.; Shannon Goldman and Deborah McKeand; Paradise Point Association, Inc.; Peter Crisp; Alexander LeDonne; Karen and Richard Seelig; Alan and Teresa Montane Sucher; Joan O'Leary; Andrew Weiner; Anthony Cacioppo; Chades M. Wendy, Jr.; Mary DiGregorio; Angelo Padavan. I have one more resolution. Resolved by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold the application of Aeros Cultured Oyster Company, more fully described in Public Hearing Item 6 of the Trustee agenda dated Monday, December 20, 2004 is pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations is classified as an Unlisted Action; and be it further resolved that the applicant is required to submit Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form, LEAF; and be it fur[her resolved that upon receipt of the LEAF, the clerk of the Trustees is hereby directed to commence a coordinated review pursuant to SEQRA. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: 1. PRINCIPI PROPERTIES, LLC requests an Administrative Permit to secure the existing foundation of the building. Located: 64300 Main Road, Greenport. SCTM#56-7-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We met with the applicant. We have a letter from Ronnie Hill in the file here, who has submitted photos of the areas of concern and the survey of December 2 Board of Trustees 3 January l 9, 2005 '04. What he would like to do -- request approval to secure the foundation, which includes the foundation repair and maintenance, repair/replacement and rebuilding of existing footings and bulkhead repair and maintenance. We spoke with Mr. Hill on the site two days ago, and I would be inclined to grant an approval for any work on the foundation, including new footings underneath the structure and that with the agreement that the applicant would submit full application for February for all the work that's going to be done including the bulkhead with drainage behind it and the entire marina. Is that all right, Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, that sounds correct. I'm looking for a second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Sure. That would be a motion that I'd make strictly for foundation work and new footings inside the existing building with the condition that the bulkhead be addressed in February's meeting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. IV. RESOLUTIONS-MOORINGS & ANCHORAGE/STAKES/DUCK BLINDS: 1. DAVID FUJITA requests a Mooring Permit in Goose Creek for a 17 foot boat, replacing Mooring #137. Access: Private. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. VINCENT AND CAROLYN THOMSEN request a Mooring Permit in Goose Creek for a 16 foot boat, replacing Mooring #961. Access: Public. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. CARL VAIL III requests an onshore/offshore stake at the end of Meadow Lane for a 12' boat to access his duck blind in West Creek. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: 3 Board o f Trustees 4 January l 9, 2005 1. CHARLES BURNHAM requests an amendment to Permit 4350 to construct an addition to the existing dwelling. Located: 3155 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM#70-6-19 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have a question. I noticed it's on the SEQRA. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's okay we're covered. For the record, I'm going to recuse myself on this application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommended approval on this application with the condition dry wells are installed on the addition and the existing dwelling. I'll agree with them. I didn't see any problem with their addition. It's in-line with the other homes, and all it needed was drainage. I also recommend that a hay bale line be placed between the bluff and the new addition. With that I'll make a motion to approve with those conditions; do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm recusing myself. 2. Philip C. Hancock on behalf of ANCHOR LANE LLC requests an Amendment to Permit #1650 to construct a floating dock with a ramp no larger than 6' by 20' and to transfer Permit #1650 from Richard Hiltz to Anchor Lane LLC. Located: 1615 Anchor Lane, Southold. SCTM#79-4-6.1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this also. CAC questioned the property's boundaries where the dock belonged. I found that there was room. It's pretty much a marina inside that basin. I found there's room alongside the bulkhead and there's room for a 20 foot float. I don't see a reason to deny it. I make a motion to approve the transfer as well as the construction of a floating dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. Jeffrey Butler on behalf of EDWARD KAVANAGH requests an Amendment to Permit #5914 for an expansion of the deck and covered porch. Located: 2000 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM#78-2-37 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do have a member of the CAC in attendance tonight and please feel free to comment on any of these. 4 Board of Trustees 5 January 19, 2005 MR. MCGREEVY: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is an amendment to a permit that was never built. This is approved. The CAC comments were approval with the condition there's a limit to the number of trees being removed on the property. Sir? MR. BUTLER: Jeff Butler on behalf of the applicant and Mary Kavanagh. We had a permit back in May for the single family residence and related improvements, and the applicant has decided to add to the deck and add a covered porch to the rear of the property. The modifications to the permit are further away from the wetlands than the previous approval as shown on the site plan. And we'd like to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We really didn't have any questions. We're looking at almost 100 foot buffer here from the upland that would be nondisturbance. MR. BUTLER: I've also received permit modification from the DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Actually, some of this modification was possibly nonjurisdictional. So with 100 foot nondisturbance buffer the Board really didn't have any concerns. We met the other concerns of the regular permitting process. So if there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. 4. Proper-T Permit Services, Inc. on behalf of GREGORY MAZZANOBILE requests an amendment to Permit 5631 to eliminate the swimming pool and to remove the proposed sanitary system leaching pools 3' further from the wetlands line. Located: 1300 & 1460 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM#59-1-21.6 & 21.7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on this? MR. ANGEL: I'm here for the applicant, Stephen Angel, Esseks, Heifer and Angel, 108 East Main Street, Riverhead. And I'm also here on behalf of the property owner, Constantin Georgeopolis, and I'm speaking in favor of the amendment. What we have here is a really simple situation where this Board has granted a prior permit to construct a single family residence, septic system. We're in favor, we're seeking the approval of the application for the amendment to the permit. As you know, this Board granted a permit for a single-family residence, pool, deck septic system on Board of Trustees 6 January 19, 2005 this property back in 2002. I actually have copies of it here with me. And early this year the DEC granted a permit from the same property, for the same house, but imposed mitigation conditions, made the applicant remove the pool, severely restrict the size of the deck and move the septic system approximately three feet further from the wetlands line. What I have prepared, so you can see it quickly, is I have six copies of the survey of the proposal that you approved, which I have highlighted the portion that was removed by the DEC from the approval, the portion that's mitigated, as well as I've circled the area of the septic system. And I have the new plan as approved by the DEC in which I've also circled the septic system and you can see what's been removed from it. I'd like to hand those up (handing). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: While they're reviewing this, a procedural situation, Mr. Angel, is one of the applicants here tonight? MR. ANGEL: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you one of the applicants? MR. GEORGEOPOLIS: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you authorize Mr. Angel is your agent to represent and make comments to the Board? MR. GEORGEOPOLIS: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Steve, you'll get us a written authorization? MR. ANGEL: As I indicated, I have a written retainer agreement, signed by both, but I'll supply one on the form. One half of the party is on its way. MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, Steve, you wrote one of the best memorandums about the authority of the Trustees some eight or 10 years ago. We do use that as a part of our Bible in doing things. MR. ANGEL: I'm glad you get some use out of it because I wrote it for a problem it was not useable for. We did a lot of research. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you for that memo. MR. ANGEL: I don't want to prolong it, but I have a bunch of other exhibits that I'll identify and give to you. I have six copies of your approvals dated September 25, 2002, then your extension of the approval dated July 21, 2004. Then I have a copy of the DFC permit to which is attached the approved plans the DEC approved, which I think you have seen in another form, and also I have copies of the Suffolk County Department of Health's -- not approval, but its Board of Review decision approving it. The actual 6 Board of Trustees 7 January 19, 2005 permit is not in hand yet, and I'd like to hand up six copies of each in case each one of you want to look at it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you tell us verbally, this survey you have given us earlier match the DEC approval? MR. ANGEL: Yes. The survey that doesn't have the coloring matches the DEC approval. The coloring is the one that you previously approved in which we outlined the area of mitigation, the removal of the pool and the removal of a portion of the deck. I was retained after I believe Mr. Fitzgerald of Proper-T was advised to make application for the amendment, and we're here in support of it. I just want to make a few brief comments. What we have before you is an existing approval, the approval is still in effect until at least July of this year. It has not been challenged. The original approval in 2002 was not challenged, the extension in July of 2004 was not challenged. It's still in effect, and as a result of that, you really can't look back. We're not here to discuss the environmental pros and cons of this application. You people have looked at it at least twice from a substantive viewpoint and granted permits that are valid. The DEC has looked at it from a substantive viewpoint and has granted a permit. The Health Department has looked at it from a substantive viewpoint and has granted a permit, and none of those permits have been challenged. The particular amendments that have been proposed is pure mitigation amendments. It's a removal of structures from an area closer to the wetlands. So the impact on the lot with structures is diminished, and the structures are further setback from the wetlands. And as to the septic system, though three feet isn't a lot, it's three foot movement away from the wetlands, all of which are pure mitigation. So, starting from the clear proposition that we have an existing permit and all of the proposed provisions of the amendment are true mitigation, I would respectfully submit that there is no basis to deny the application for the amendment, and I think that even a denial would be sort of an arbitrary and capricious act on the part of the Board. Nothing has changed, nothing is before you to question that old permit. So I respectfully request that you just grant it as a matter of course, and if you have any questions, Mr. Fitzgerald's here, I'm here, Mr. Georgopolis is here and we'd be pleased to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would any of you like to make any comments while the Board is considering this? 7 Board of Trustees 8 January 19, 2005 MR. GEORGEOPOLIS: I have no comment to make. MS. BALL: I beg to differ with the permit lawyer in that for us, the Great Pond Wetland Preservation Committee of Kenny's Beach Civic Association, everything has changed. We have had a botanical report done, we have had the Department of State say it was a significant habitat. We've had the National Heritage Program giving us information saying that to build on the dunes is to destroy the wetlands. Our maritime freshwater inter-dunal swale is one of only four in the state. It's globally and locally rare. The only one on the north fork being an extension of the Peconic Dunes Park, and all that information was not known two years ago when you originally considered this permit. So therefore, we feel that things have changed. My name is Lillian Ball and I speak for a number of members of the Kenny's Beach Civic Association, though not all. We feel that in order to protect the wetlands, it must be preserved. We have been working for the last six months with the Peconic Land Trust to preserve all 11 lots, and the lot that is proposed for the Mazzanobile permit is in the center of that 11 ache lot. It's adjacent to a county lot, and unfortunately, right next to a cranberry bog. So the 50 foot setbacks that you have designated would effectively destroy this wetland, and also undermine and possibly jeopardize our efforts with the county and the state to preserve this land and to purchase it for public use as open space. And for that reason the members of the Kenny's Beach Civic Association that are involved with the Great Pond Wetland Preservation respectfully submit that you should consider our situation very carefully because you establish a precedent. The CAC I know has come out against this. I spoke with Don Wilder who was here, evidently he's the president of the CAC. He told me that their decision that they made two years ago on the original amendment and the decision they made three years ago on the original permit, still stands. They disapprove. They say it should be a minimum of 75 foot setbacks and they agree that it would destroy the -- for the record, the CAC said it they have concern with the proposed change in the grade elevations and the negative impact due to the runoff into the freshwater wetlands. There's also a major concern with the elevations up to the edge of the wetlands. This project requires a minimum 75 foot nondisturbance buffer. We would hope that the Trustees would consider 100 foot nondisturbance buffer which would effectively eliminate the possibility for any building in the wetlands, and give Board of Trustees 9 January 19, 2005 us an opportunity to proceed with our preservation goals and allow the adjacent neighbors, who have problems with the well situation to consider possibly what their objectives might be. They have been offered public water; they don't really want public water, it's less than 100 feet -- their septic system is less than 100 feet from the public wells. We want to make sure that you understand, we were not notified when the permit was renewed in July. We were not anticipating that the permit would be renewed until September because the original permit was in September, and that was something that we couldn't contest, we couldn't say no. When the original permit was set forth, there were several people from the Kenny's Beach Civic Association here. There were petitions of 80 people or more. There were several letters. The file is full of objections to this. And finally I would like to say that there are a number of people caught on the LIE, as Mr. Mazzanobile is, that couldn't get here to show their support. There are at least 15 people who told me they would be coming. We have six of them here now, adjacent neighbors, Brian and Martina Fayerver, and several other supporters amongst the people in the room. I would like to say ultimately most of the Kenny's Beach Civic Association was in shock when they heard that building would be allowed on these wetlands. They thought the Trustees would protect the wetlands and had protected the wetlands, which is why there was no construction on it. They were very surprised to hear that, in fact, the wetlands are not protected, and all 11 lots are open to development, which would entirely destroy the character of Kenny's Beach and the globally rare inter-dunal swales. I would like to present our support team here. We have the eminent naturalist, Larry Penny, who has come from East Hampton. He's the Natural Resources Director of the Town of East Hampton, for the record, and he would like to speak and give you a little more of the specifics about the inter-dunal swale then we'd like to sum up with a little information from our lawyer, Katherine Dally, who works with the firm Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley in Riverhead. For the record, I'd like to say that I'm going to distribute folders to each of the Trustees that include the botanical report that was done by Eric LaMonte in August, and the map of the wetlands that he did. We have an even better newer improved version from what we gave you in August at the work session. And there are several new 9 Board of Trustees 10 January 19, 2005 documents in here as well as the report by Eric LaMonte. We have a wonderful letter from the Natural Heritage Foundation, the Natural Heritage Program of New York State which says, if you look at their conclusions, says to build on the dunes is to destroy the wetlands and significantly compromise the quality of this Grade B -- there's only four of them in New York State -- these Grade B wetlands. There's that paperwork, which we did not have in August. Also from the Department of State the letter from Michael Kelly saying that the area between Lake Drive and Leighton Drive of Kenny's Beach is being considered for the significant habitat maps of the State of New York. There are only a few of those designated spots on the north fork of Long Island and this would be the only inter-dunal swale. For the record, I'm giving everybody the new and improved version. Mr. Penny. MR. PENNY: Larry Penny, it's true, I'm also the environmental protection director of the Town of East Hampton. I've been so for 20 years, and actually, I'm the only natural resource director of a township in the State of New York, and I think that's because there's only one town that has a natural resources department in the State of New York -- East Hampton. At any rate, I'm here fairly late in the game. I was asked by the association committee to come and speak to you a little bit. I know quite a lot about this kind of situation. I grew up in Mattituck, went to Mattituck High School, visited this area on numerous occasions with Peggy's father, Paul. It was an oddball thing to be a naturalist in those days, and I'm not so sure it still is, but you didn't want to tell anybody you were a naturalist in those days. In any rate, I'm actually an environmental scientist specialist and ecologist in wetlands and have done a ton of work in habitat work and habitat restoration, not only in East Hampton town, but all over Long Island. I would like to reiterate the importance of the inter-dunal swale system, and as I remember from a young person, we didn't have that name, inter-dunal swale, that's a fairly recent introduction from the Department of State from Cai Ruskey and the Natural Heritage Program, not the Department of State, the Natural Heritage Program. But it is a mosaic of wetlands and little duney prominences that is freshwater and the maritime inter-dunal swale makes it a bit rare, and it's immediately adjacent to a maritime situation and is subject to maritime elements like aerosols that blow in, sands that blow in from the beach, and other kinds of 10 Board of Trustees 11 January 19, 2005 episodic effects, including occasional overwashes. Now, I don't want to talk about East Hampton, but there are five of these on Long Island that are documented, 20 in the state, but four of them are in East Hampton, one is in Brookhaven, and you have one in Old Southold Town, and I'm pretty sure that's the only one in Southold Town because I covered the town when I was a young person and for the Nature Conservancy about 20 years ago, and will attest that it's a fairly rare community and it's globally rare, and it's state rare. There are a couple of ways you could destroy this community. There's a couple ways God can destroy it too. If I may, could I hand you a map of a similar community in East Hampton? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.' Please. MR. PENNY: (Handing). Now, this map is part of Promised Land and Promised Land is one of those inter-dunal swale systems of the four in East Hampton. When you get that, take a look at it because I think there's a lot of similarities between your inter-dunal swale and this inter-dunal swale in this picture. If you notice this is one of those ortho-rectified photographs with property tax lines on it. You may ask why do the tax lines go way out into Napeague Bay. Well, that's because about 50 years ago when they drew up those deeds -- and by the way, those deeds are really related to the mean high water line, that's where the mean high water line was. Essentially we have been losing a foot a year for the last 50 years. You'll see there's a house out there in the water, in fact, we're trying to get a burn permit to burn it in the Town of East Hampton. One of those houses has already been removed. Also, if you would look at the house on the left is fairly new, and that's what actually led to the drafting of the Freshwaters Wetlands Law in the Town of East Hampton, which I drafted. You see that house was smack down right in the middle of the inter-dunal swale. You see the huge area of disturbance around it. That's not so bad in itself, it took about an acre of the inter-dunal swale away. You see some lots out there on the beach, and they're disappearing, and they can't be built on after they disappear. And you'll see the other impacts are the septic system, for example, which contributes nitrates and other materials to this inter-dunal swale system, you have to remember that the freshwater inter-dunal swale system has very, very Iow nutrient levels and that's why some of the things that grow there like the insect tiberous plants and get their ll Board o f Trustees 12 January l 9, 2005 nutrients from insects, the spatulide sun dew that you have growing in your inter-dunal swale, iris prismatica, another species, the splendor iris that's on the New York State list, that is pretty much tied to these inter-dunal swales. If you look at the map that Eric LaMonte gave you with the red line around the wetlands, you'll see an interesting thing, you see first of all there's a bunch of lines that run parallel through those inter-dunal swale system, these are old dune ridges, very small dune ridges, not like Napeague over on the ocean, but they're dune ridges. It's just evidence that what's been happening over the years -- same thing happening here as has been happening in East Hampton -- you have a retreating shoreline, it's not all due to Goldsmith's Inlet, it's due to rising sea level, due to storms. It's been going to on for years and years and years. You also have the rising sea level is rising up the freshwater under it, that small volume of freshwater, I don't know how thick that lens is there, but maybe 20 feet thick at the most, and occasionally there's hydrologic connection between the salt and the fresh in extraordinary events. In any event, this little inter-dunal swale is already being bombarded by God, by the recession of that entire situation, and it's getting it from both sides. Now, when you introduce possibility of 11 houses in this particular one, you're introducing an awful lot of nitrates through the septic systems. Now, those septics out there are next to the Long Island Sound are leaching toward the Sound. It's doubtful they're going to have an impact on the Sound, that's the bigger sink, not Great Pond. The septics that are between the pond and any of those built between the wetlands are going to be leaching into that shallow groundwater. They don't recharge any water at this point in the edge of the groundwater, pretty much a horizontal flow, and that pretty much horizontal flow means that some day some of those people out there are going to need public water if they don't have it now. At any rate, you can see that the seeds of destruction have been planted. There's phragmites planted there; this is not the nice tame native phragmites that used to occur on Long Island, this is that European strain that is taking over all of Long Island and taking over the east coast and taking over part of California and part of the inland, very aggressive, phragmites, common reed. You also have that lovely looking but just as evil plant from Eurasia, the Purple Blue Stripe, those thrive on high nitrates. They 12 Board of Trustees 13 January l 9, 2005 thrive on a water table that has high nitrate content. I haven't seen any records of the test wells there, but I would imagine that the nitrate levels somewhere in the order of three, four, five parts per thousand, not good. I might be wrong because I have never seen the test well data, that's very high. That's the same kind of nitrate concentration that in underflow as it comes up into harbors and bays knocks out the eel grass beds because they can't handle that amount of nitrification. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You mean the levels of nitrogen in the wetlands itself or in the Great Pond area, which area are you referring to? MR. PENNY: Talking about the Great Pond, talking about in the inter-dunal swale area. I would be surprised if the nitrate levels haven't been slowly rising because of the proximity of the septic systems and so forth. And I work with Suffolk County all the time, and I work with the people that you have a preservation committee, two percent tax, and the thing today in preserving these rare habitats is to combine the forces of the county, the two percent tax, community preservation fund, and also the forces of sometimes the state. We have several, if the state's interested, they seem to be interested, we have several on the south fork, several state, county, town and sometimes the Nature Conservancy and sometimes the Peconic Land Trust pools going in and buying up a particular rare habitat and actually preserving it in perpetuity through a kind of committee-like structure, generally the township is the one who ends up doing most of the work. I just throw this idea out here. I hate the thought of losing this inter-dunal swale, which would make six on Long Island of significance because of short-sightedness and things that happened in the past. It's not the same now. Things are happening, and so I would hope that you would give some thought to putting this piece of land and all the other pieces of land in some kind of preservation package. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a couple questions for you. One comment actually on the preservation aspect, I've been on the Board for a number of years, and we found the most effective way to preserve a small area such as this is for the neighbors to buy it. MR. PENNY: Oh, yes, we have that going on. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's the quickest and most efficient way. We ran into a situation to the west of this, a much more sensitive site, in that it wasn't over developed, and 13 Board o f Trustees 14 January 19, 2005 development was averted because the neighbors pitched in. MR. PENNY: Two things, you have to have a willing seller, but we have neighbors joining the pool all the time over on the south fork. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is a big pool of neighbors here. This area here that you're referring to the, wetland area, it's faidy well developed, the whole perimeter. MR. PENNY: I bet every time a house is sold or every time a piece of land is sold, it's probably above the limit and produces two percent for the town. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. But the one question I had for you is what would be the impact, you can see clearly where the proposed site is, what would be the impact of one house on that whole system, or are you talking about the cumulative impact of all the lots? MR. PENNY: If you look at the thing I gave you, that one house has made an impact, and I'm chasing that person around all the time and trying to get that impact reduced. It's a hard thing after it's done. It's much more expensive to mitigate the problem and sometimes the problem can't be mitigated. But I would say one lot can have a great impact and then it essentially sets the ball in motion. I see another one in that particular one, Eric LaMonte map on the left of what's the road there, not west but the left of the road on the west side of it, that which is going to have a terrific impact. I think you just revised your freshwater wetlands law recently, right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. We revised the freshwater and saltwater, Chapter 97. MR. PENNY: We're always revising ours too. I have to tell you, that I work for the Town of East Hampton Trustees all the time. We love those patens. The Trustees are a very, very important body. I am very impressed with how orderly and how organized you are. I wish I could bring my Trustees over here and let them sit in here and check you out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not as fortunate as in East Hampton to have a Natural Resources department. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We have the beginning of it. We have Heather. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Penny, could I ask you a question? MR. PENNY: Sure. MR. JOHNSTON: To help the Trustees weigh what you said, are you testifying as a private resident, citizen and environmentalist or as a paid consultant for the party objecting? MR. PENNY: I am getting paid $200 for coming over here and 14 Board of Trustees 15 January 19, 2005 having read and reviewed last night and coming over on the ferry and going back on the ferry. I'm hardly making any money on this, but I am a paid consultant, like Mr. Walker back there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MS. DALLY: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, Katherine Dally, Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley, 33 West Second Street, Riverhead, New York. The Kenny's Beach Civic Association is comprised of local residents certain of whom are here this evening to request this Board's help to preserve the unique ecosystems that exist on the subject property. I'd like to address the president's comment just a moment ago regarding the neighbors purchasing a lot, I believe that that was less than an acre. Here we have approximately 12 acres and it's also my understanding that the county paid the neighbors back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The neighbors put all the money up front. They did the heavy lifting there for the benefit of the whole town. MS. DALLY: We've heard from Miss Lillian Ball tonight who underscored the geological uniqueness of this area, and from Larry Penny, who's an ecologist and native from the north fork. I would like to confirm, for the record, that the Board has received the August 2004 botanical report from Eric LaMonte, the October 12, 2004 Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat narrative prepared by the Department of State, the November 4, 2004 letter from Michael Corey, I think Ms. Ball misspoke said Michael Kelly, but it's Michael Corey, of that division referencing that narrative and the Department of State's intention to submit the report to obtain federal approval of the habitat, and the October 8, 2000 report of the New York Natural Heritage's review of the natural communities report of the Great Pond wetlands and dunes. Well, certain members of the KBCA understand that the Board may have reviewed these reports in the past. We're here tonight and ask that you review them again and reconsider the issuance of a permit to the applicant. It's clear from these reports and the testimony that you have heard tonight that the applicant's property is part of a rare and unique ecological community to the north fork that includes maritime dunes and maritime freshwater inter-dunal swales that's part of diversity of plant species. It's also the understanding of these members of the association that this property is under consideration 15 Board of Trustees 16 January 19, 2005 for purchase by the Town and the County. As the Board is aware, Section 97-28D of the Southold Town Code permits this Board to issue a permit only if it determines that the proposed operation will not substantially adversely affect a natural habitat thereof. Notwithstanding the actions of the DEC, in light of the findings of these reports, these members of the KBCA have come here in the hope that the Trustees would exercise their jurisdiction to revoke the Wetlands Permit issued to the applicant. The existence of these unique ecosystems on the subject property is not in dispute. As confirmed by Dr. LaMonte in his botanical report of August, the proposed development on the applicant's property will irreparably disturb these habitats. It is clear that the Town, County and State and soon Federal environmental and land preservation agencies have earmarked this area for preservation. These actions compel the unavoidable conclusion that the proposed development will indeed have a substantial adverse effect on these unique habitats precluding the applicant from obtaining a permit under Section 97-28. And the alternative as reference by Mr. Penny, these members of the KBCA would request that the Trustees consider holding this matter in abeyance until the applicable government agencies complete their respective efforts to apply the parcel for preservation. The purchase of the parcel for its fair market value for preservation purposes will not result in any prejudice to the applicant. If the Trustees are inclined to grant relief to the applicant, these members of the KBCA, which I represent, would request that the Trustees enforce the wetlands boundaries setbacks in the Town Code because those approved by the DEC, although any development will adversely affect these communities, greater setbacks may reduce that impact. Lastly, I would like to request that the Trustees hold the record of this proceeding open for two weeks to permit the submission of written comments by Mr. Penny who has not had the opportunity to prepare a report. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Ma'am, this is yo. ur first time, here at a hearing? MS. DALLY: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Can I ask you in the future if you're going to read a memorandum to us, that you give us the courtesy of giving us the memorandum before, it may expedite our 16 Board of Trustees 17 January 19, 2005 understanding. MS. DALLY: It wasn't a memorandum, sir. It was notes. Sorry if I glanced down too often. MR. JOHNSTON: I just want to make sure we give everybody their due. MS. BALL: I wanted to tell you that, in fact, the neighbors have raised over $200,000 to purchase the one lot that was offered to us at the outset of this project, where we have two or three more that have since been offered to us, and that over 70 people have contributed to that $200,000. So we have been making an effort, but I think that the property values of sound view property it's going to be difficult to purchase the property with only neighbors' funds, and we like the idea of leveraging with all the possible agencies that are available to produce the money that would be necessary to purchase the fund so that everybody gets fair market rate and goes away feeling good about it. That's our goal. MS. SCHROEDER: Hi, Gwynn Schroeder, North Fork Environmental Council, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Council in support of the Great Pond Wetland Preservation Committee's position on this application. And I want to thank Lillian. I too am late to this game, and I've looked at Eric LaMonte's photographs, and read his report, and it's just simply not a parcel that should be built on. I think especially compelling were Dr. LaMonte's statements and Mr. Penny's statements that this is a globally rare ecosystem. And I think when Dr. LaMonte in his report goes on to say that the strictest environmental laws and codes should be enforced to preserve the integrity of these delicate and sensitive ecological communities, we second that. It's unfortunate that the initial permit was granted. I understand they came back for an extension in 2002. I don't know if your new code was in place at the time the initial permit was granted, if that would have had an effect. If it wouldn't, there's something wrong in my view and things have to be fine-tuned. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think it was in place. MS. SCHROEDER: The time they came back for the extension, was that post? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When was the extension? MS. BALL: July. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Then it would have been. But we have a different scenario now. We did hire a full-time professional to help us with these difficult applications, 17 Board of Trustees 18 January 19, 2005 and my advice to the Board was that we should, and especially in light of all the additional information we received tonight, that we did hire someone to do this kind of work, and that we should have her take a look at all this information and give us a report. That's the whole point of having someone. MS. SCHROEDER: I know you guys are all thoughtful people, and I know the other parcel that you referred to, I think that was probably the last time I came before this Board to testify because it was really disturbing to me that that could even be under consideration for development, and I kind of feel the same way about this. If you look at the map, you see the development all around, but somebody made the reference, we're getting smarter presumably as time goes on, and we shouldn't be making the same mistakes. And I understand this is a burden to the applicant, but I would encourage the applicant to work with the surrounding neighbors and the Peconic Land Trust and any other entity that is interested in buying this, and try to work out a deal because it's a special place, and as we are feeling these development pressures, those kinds of parcels become even more important. So thanks, take care. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. That's my recommendation that we have a lot more information that was submitted tonight and that we have someone hired whose job it is to take a look at these things, and that we should have her give us a report on this. MR. ANGEL: Just a couple of brief comments. I would request that you hold -- I wouldn't call this a hearing, I think this is an application for an amendment and you're talking comments. I think that whatever process you should have should be internal. There's no reason to continue this open process after we've aired all these concerns here today. I know there was a request that you keep things open, I don't know what that means in the context of this particular application, but I would just a soon get it over with tonight on the submissions. I think one of the undercurrents in the comments was this thing about public acquisition. Now, you're being asked at the 11th hour to be the taking agency. Now the term "taking" is when government denies a permit and leaves the property owner with no use of their property. In this particular circumstance, we certainly have a series of 18 Board of Trustees 19 January 19, 2005 permits that have been granted by all the agencies having jurisdiction, including you, and if you were to exercise -- I don't even think you have discretion, but if you were to somehow stop the process in order to either be the handmaiden of a private acquisition effort, or to somehow encourage some governmental agency, I think you put yourself in jeopardy of effectively legally buying the property. That's called a "regulatory taking" or "inverse condemnation," and so many animals have been let out of this barn. All these permits have been granted, the permits started being issued three years ago, that I'm not sure that it's worth the risk, legally that you would deny a permit at this late stage of the game and risk being the agency that ends up legally purchasing the property in the ultimate lawsuit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we got a pretty strong track record of upholding people's property rights. On the other hand, I think we also have a pretty good track record on some sensitive parcels on seeing some of these parcels purchased with the help of the county or state or Land Trust or different agencies. I know what you're saying. I don't consider this being a risk having information. MR. ANGEL: I'm not saying the information. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The town has someone we have hired that we should review it properly. MR. ANGEL: I'm not saying that. Mr. Krupski, what I'm saying is that an outright denial would be risky. Certainly looking at the information is something that you should do, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that to be here and take a position that you deny the application to be the person that tries to force the condemnation by another agency is a very risky thing to do legally. That's what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the acquisition of information. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We understand, we have been there before. MR. ANGEL: Couple of minor things, I don't think we have before you 11 applications. You have before you one application. Who knows how many of those lots would be built. There was some inference that the County has a property for preservation purposes next door to this, I don't know what the purpose of it is now, but Mr. Georgeopolis pointed out to me that that was not acquired for that purpose. It was acquired for nonpayment of taxes. I should point out that there really is technically, and, again, I don't want to argue that you 19 Board of Trustees 20 January 19, 2005 should cut off your deliberative requirements and you should look at all the information, but there really is no application before you to take away our clients' permits. So I think that's part of the argument that was made here and that really is not before you, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I'll make a motion to reserve our decision on this application. What is the Board's feeling towards granting two weeks to collect more information? And no more information will be collected after two weeks. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Just looking through the file, I just noticed that there was something I wasn't aware of, that our original permit was issued on September 25, 2002, and it wasn't until November 18, 2003 that we got a letter from Mark Terry, our senior environmental planner, which pretty much concurred with everything that Mr. Penny said tonight. So to go back and take a second look at this, I don't really think is out of the question because we didn't have a lot of the information that's been presented here prior to issuing our original permit. So in reference to that, I think we should have a little time to kick this around. MR. FITZGERALD: Al, may I? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Please. MR. FITZGERALD: I think it's something that the Board should consider is that none of this information is new. It's been around for a long time MS. BALL: It's all new. MR. FITZGERALD: You should also consider the fact that the DEC who approved the permit for this project is the parent, if you will, of the Natural Heritage Trust Foundation, whatever, and it would seem to me that in a situation like that you would have to assume that the DEC would have considered all that information in granting the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We have to assume that they did a thorough review. MR. FITZGERALD: In the context of the newly presented information, much of which comes from the Natural Heritage Program. The other thing is that it's not quite clear to me why the interaction between the wetlands, which have been delineated by the DEC and environmental specialists, and for which we have used the 50 foot setbacks, which is the standard -- in quotation marks -- for the Trustees, and what we're proposing fits into the wetlands with the 50 foot buffer. So it's unclear to me why now we're concerned with 20 Board of Trustees 2l January 19, 2005 the area of the property that is not wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the concem is, and you're correct as far as meeting the parameter of a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer of wetlands and activity for the project, I think the concern that we're going to address is the impact of the whole environment of the inter-dunal swale area and not just the direct adjacent. MR. FITZGERALD: Didn't you do that in the beginning? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we had two, three years ago. MR. FITZGERALD: My concern, Al, is that we're going back and rehashing activities on your part that presumably have already been done, and done correctly and accurately and what have you, and now we're going to go back because a lot of people are concerned about the inter-dunal swales to revisit the whole project, and it doesn't seem that there's any reason to do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's what we're here for. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think there is reason to do it simply because some of the information that came in after the permit was issued. It wasn't going to help us at that point in time, but it might help us now. MR. FITZGERALD: Artie, on this side of the dais, we have to get everything in before the permit is issued, and I would think that it ought to work the same way on the other side of the dais or among the citizenry, is that when the permit is issued, it's issued. But it doesn't seem that way. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I made a motion to withhold decision. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We also want the corresponding agencies to comment on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, I'd like to hear from the CAC. We heard from the CAC I think three years ago, but the application's changed a great deal. There's been a lot of new information, and I don't know if the CAC has commented recently. MR. MCGREEVY: I really can't comment on the group from the CAC since I'm only involved the last five months. I am not that much aware of what is taking place here. I did visit the property, and from my limited experience and observation, it is a very valuable piece of property, but I think it goes way beyond my capabilities. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, we would still like to see the CAC make a comment. MR. MCGREEVY: If you're looking for my guidance -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd like to give you that two weeks still -- 21 Board of Trustees 22 January 19, 2005 TRUSTEE FOSTER: If your committee could come up with -- not tonight. MR. JOHNSTON: Not tonight. MR. MCGREEVY: Of course. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make that motion to reserve decision on this tonight. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. WILLIAM AND BARBARA CLAYTON request a One-Year Extension to Permit 5702, as issued on January 22, 2003. Located: 12832 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM#31-14-15. TRUSTEE KING: It's a simple extension. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 6. Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ROBERT AND HELEN KEITH requests a One-Year Extension on Permit 5700 as issued on January 22, 2003 and amended on October 20, 2004. Located: 995 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#123-10-2. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve this One-Year Extension. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of PATRICK SCOLLARD requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5701 as issued on January 22, 2003 and amended on October 20, 2004. Located: 905 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#123-10-3 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve this One-Year Extension. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. MS. STANDISH: Skip eight. TRUSTEE KING: They didn't need an extension because the project was already well under way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Consider that permit to be active, valid. 9. Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of NANCY CARROL requests a One-Year Extension to Permit 5481 as issued on January 23, 2002 and amended on February 26, 2003. Located: 350 West Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM#90-1~21 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. I don't see any reason why not to extend the permit. I'll make a motion to approve. 22 Board of Trustees 23 January l 9, 2005 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 10. LOUIS & ELIZABETH FORMICA request a transfer to Permit #1658 from Robert Patchell to Louis and Elizabeth Formica, to repair the existing bulkhead. Located: 2422 Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#114-7-10.6 TRUSTEE KING: This is really not to repair, it's a transfer of permit. When they bought the property the permits were not transferred. We're putting the permits in their name now. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve a One-Year Extension for Al Magill, whatever permit number is appropriate. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Before we start into the Public Hearings, I would like to say there are a number that have been postponed. Number 2, Barry Ball and Kimberly Vanzee has been postponed. Number 19, J & C Holding has been postponed; and Number 26 under Coastal Erosion and Wetlands Permits, John Betsch has been postponed, and those will not be open tonight at all. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. I need a motion to go off the regular meeting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. 1. DOUGLAS CARLEN requests a Wetlands Permit to rebuild the existing 12' by 16' deck and to construct a 3' by 20' catwalk with an attached 4' by 8' platform. Located: 23 Board of Trustees 24 January 19, 2005 5550 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#115-10-5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or against the application? MR. CARLEN: Hi, my name is Doug Carlen, property owner, my wife, Lisa. I don't know if I'm supposed to speak, but I appreciate the opportunity anyway. I submitted some rough drawings on what I thought you guys had in mind when you mentioned a 3' by 20' catwalk, which I thought was a nice idea, we can keep the edge of the property, keep the vegetation the way it is. It's filling in nicely since I cleared up top a little bit. I did add the 4' by 8' platform at the end, which is a fixed platform, in addition to the 3' by 20' rather than the steps, I'm just looking for something where my kids to go out and fish, maybe launch a row boat, and the steps I think are going to be kind of slimy and slippery. I'm not sure I'll even put them on if I don't get approval for the platform. But the platform I put on the end for a place for the kids to fish and hang out out there if possible, but at this point I guess we'll take what we can get. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ithink the comment of the Board was if the platform were included in the 20 foot length it would be appropriate. MR. CARLEN: That's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommended the disapproval of the platform in order to limit unnecessary development of the creek, but I think if it's included in the 20 foot length, it's incorporated into it, it's not that much additional. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think it is dimensions should read 3' by 12' catwalk with a 4' by 8' extension of the catwalk, so it's not "T'd" off, it's straight out; do you follow me? It goes from 3' to 4' in the last eight feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you understand? MR. CARLEN: I see. Just widen the last eight feet by another foot? That's not too bad either. Just a little area where they can sit out there with a fishing pole. I'm not here to question you guys so -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Are there any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application for a 3' by 12' catwalk with a 4' by 8' extension on the end of it, all fixed. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 24 Board of Trustees 25 January 19, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll need a new plan from you showing that. MR. CARLEN: The exact location of that, how does that get determined? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We determined that in the field. MR. CARLEN: In that one area that was fairly clear? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MS. TETRAULT: Do the plans specify how high it's going to be? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, Heather. We will approve this height because we think it's appropriate. You're going to have to go to the DEC for a permit, and they may have different ideas about dock height. We'd rather see a smaller catwalk lower to the ground. It's a safer, more usable structure. If they make you amend these plans, you have to come back to us to amend them. We won't have a problem, it's just that you have to do that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We also would like to stipulate that that remain Iow profile, where the pilings don't come up beyond the edge of the dock. MR. CARLEN: I guess when I do these drawings, I'll have to submit another set, and you guys will approve them. Then we won't have another hearing, I'll just submit them and you'll approve them, and the Building Department, do I also need to submit a copy; do I need a building permit also? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing we'd like to see is instead of 6' by 6' posts supporting it, use 4' by 4's. We'd like to see 4' by 4'. MR. CARLEN: Can I use that ACQ lumber they're selling now? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the posts, on the decking you can't use that. MR. CARLEN: Cedar? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fine. MR. CARLEN: Then there's no problem with the deck, the original 12' by 16'? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. MRS. CARLEN: What if the catwalk went out 3' by 16' then had a "T" off the end, would that be possible? MR. CARLEN: That was my original application. Take the 4' by 8' and turn it sideways, the way I had it on the drawing? MRS. CARLEN: But go out '16' then 4' by 8', facing the other way. It will still only be 20 feet out. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The reason we like to see it perpendicular to the shoreline, it's less bottom coverage. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't have a problem with that. 25 Board of Trustees 26 January 19, 2005 TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 3' by 16' or 4' by 8'. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It would be better for the kids because it has the longer width facing the water. MR. CARLEN: The way I drew it, other than lopping four feet off of the catwalk. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think it's kind of a safety issue there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You send the plans in, we're going to have to okay it before we send the permit out. MR. CARLEN: I'll just redraw it. The way we drew that, is that okay? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's fine. You have the location and a drawing on the survey. Then that doesn't have dimensions. You should put the dimensions on that, just draw them in. then give us your scaled drawing to go with that. MR. CARLEN: Just take the four feet off the catwalk. TRUSTEE KING: The overall length's 20 feet. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We'll approve that tonight subject to the new drawing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct. We did approve it, I believe. 3. ZBIGNIEW KOZLOWKSI requests a Wetland Permit to expand the existing single-family dwelling by converting decks and the front stoop into interior living space. Located: 7345 Soundview Avenue in Southold. SCTM#59-6-5.2 TRUSTEE KING: Any comments? Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hay bales. TRUSTEE KING: 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 a row of hay bales staked around TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You have on the survey there, is that going to give you enough room to work? TRUSTEE KING: You have a hay bale line, but it's only 10 feet from the work; is that going to give you enough room to work? MR. KOZLOWSKh Absolutely, just from the front we had the living room, and the side's it's just going to be a roof on the top. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 26 Board of Trustees 27 January 19, 2005 4. JUDIE LIZEWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with on-site sewage disposal system and private well, and construct a 4' by 26' fixed walkway dock. Located: 145 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#137-4-10.1. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? MR. LIZEWSKh Sir, I'm going to ask for this application again, but what happened was between the Health Department and the DEC moving cesspools from 125 feet to 250 away from the water, took over two and-a-half years to get corrected. I'm back asking for the same thing I asked for two years ago, but not to my fault. I couldn't move any faster but what happened was there were cesspools that were approved 35 years ago on the property, and now since we have public water, it allowed me to move cesspools further away from the crick by over 100 feet, but in order to do that you have to get Health Department approval and get DEC approval to the Health Department to allow you to do it. It's the same application I had before, nothing's changed, nothing, you can go down and see that the hay bales are still in place and nothing's moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there Monday. MR. LIZEWSKh Nothing has changed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you get the DEC permit? MR. LIZEWSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it the same survey we have? MR. LIZEWSKI: Yes, it is. TRUSTEE FOSTER: How is that going to affect the location of the house? MR. LIZEWSKI: It doesn't. Basically the house would have had to be a little narrower by having the -- the cesspools were on the left-hand side, so by having public water we could move the cesspools up toward the road by 100 feet. It was something that should be to the betterment of everybody. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They will be in front of the house? MR. LIZEWSKh Yes, 250 feet from the water line instead of 125 feet. But in order to do that you have to go to the Health Department, go to the DEC and they approve each other, and it took this long. TRUSTEE KING: Did they give you a reason why it took so long? MR. LIZEWSKI: I don't know. TRUSTEE FOSTER: By moving that far back aren't you above the 10 foot contour? MR. LiZEWSKI: Yes. 27 Board of Trustees 28 January 19, 2005 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Then it's non-jurisdictional. MR. LIZEWSKh I am now. I'm just telling you why I'm asking for your permit again. It's the same permit, nothing has changed since the day I gave you everything except the moving of these cesspools. That's what this was all about. It took that long to get through the Health Department and DEC. I'm sorry to be back but I paid you again. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition a landscape plan is to be submitted specifying what trees are to be removed and what trees are to remain before a permit is issued and a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer in order to protect the water quality. MS. TETRAULT: Does the survey show a nondisturbance buffer? MR. LIZEWSKI: I'm not moving any trees. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there is no one who would like to speak, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the permit to construct a single-family dwelling with on-site sewage disposal system and private will, and construct a 4' by 26' fixed walkway dock with the 50 foot nondisturbance buffer marked on the survey, gutters and dry wells for roof runoff and hay bales are there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. ELIZABETH LYONS requests a Wetland Permit to install a fence within 100 feet of the water constructed of 4" by 4" posts and 1" by 6" boards. Located: 8685 Fifth Street, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-10-12.2 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on this application? MR. LYONS: Mr. Krupski, Members of the Board, my name is Daniel Lyons appearing on behalf of my mother, Elizabeth Lyons. First of all, I have an authorization to appear on behalf of my mother, which was requested my last appearance before the Board. Number 2, during the last hearing before this Board in November, the Board suggested that I have an updated survey and also a survey with contours performed, that survey was done, and was mailed to the Board, several copies of it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? 28 Board of Trustees 29 January 19, 2005 MR. LYONS: I'm not going to rehash what I said last time. The only new information that was not discussed last time is I also have some liability concerns that I mentioned in writing. There's a lot of very legitimate activities that take place on this portion of our property, horse shoes, beach umbrellas are placed there, boats are anchored there, and it presents a hazard especially at night time when people walk along that area along the public beach. If there's no fence, that's an additional problem, and all the points I raised before, there's no adverse environmental impact here and other similar fences have been approved. I'm prepared to comment on anything else. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Anyone else? Any Board comments? TRUSTEE KING: How many 1" by 6"s are proposed? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Two. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I went over to see if there's a diagram. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looks like a total of 36 inches from the base to the top of the fence? MR. LYONS: 48 inches is the current height of the poles, other similar fences that have been approved are of similar height. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you write that in for us? MR. LYONS: Sure. One of the reasons for a 48" height is a 36" height would be a perfect height for people to come over and sit on, and then it causes another problem with people sitting on the fence and other liability concerns and the fence breaking. Other ones that have been approved are also 48 inches. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't have a problem with 48. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other Board comments? What about regarding the distance from high water? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have that measurement? TRUSTEE KING: We measured from the timber wall out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ten feet, no closer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to go offthe timber bulkhead. We made it roughly, we're looking at it would match your neighbor's cement abutment. MR. LYONS: My request is still similar to other requests that have been granted, 10 feet from the high water mark, which has recently been measured again by a survey in November, and other fences have been granted, and I don't see a real problem with it being placed there. It still serves all the environmental concerns to have it up to the limit that's allowed by the Town code. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We came up with a measurement of 65 feet from the timber wall of the total length of the fence that 29 Board of Trustees 30 January l 9, 2005 would reach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That pretty much matches that cement, it's almost 10 feet. It goes pretty far down. MR. LYONS: My request is for 10 feet from the high water mark as is in the Town code because all the points that I mentioned regarding the private property issues and the liability issues and other people coming onto the property, really isn't served unless it goes to within 10 feet of the high water mark, as is permitted by the code. I think it's a pretty simpler amount. I think it would be easier to measure if we have it 10 feet from the high water mark. TRUSTEE KING: I feel the other way around, you've got a timber wall there that isn't going to move. We can take a measurement off that timber wall, seaward of that, we use that measurement. The high tide line there can come and go. We have a fixed measurement on your property that's not going to change. What was it, 65 feet out? It's not going to go, it's not going to change anything, and it's very close to your high water mark. MR. LYONS: Maybe we can take a minute and figure from this survey, the survey gives a very specific indication that -- TRUSTEE KING: For example, we just received some information on one of the last hearings we had where the gentleman brought in a very dramatic photo of how the high water mark moves. MR. LYONS: The high water mark moves on a daily basis, but the mean high water mark, legally and what surveyors use, is the mean high water mark, the high water mark, the average on an annual basis. And the surveyor came down and used a well-recognized practice within the surveying business in order to evaluate the high tide mark. It has a specific measurement. I can't figure it out at the moment because I don't have a ruler with me, but we can measure up until the 10 feet of the high tide mark by using the survey here, and it would be a fixed amount. TRUSTEE KING: I think we have a fixed amount established. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think so too. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I concur with Jim also. The sand in that area is very fluid. It rises and falls daily with each storm, so for us to measure where the high tide mark is and put the fence ten feet behind it could change substantially between storm and storm. I think using the fixed wall and measuring 65 feet seems sufficient, and that's how we all felt in the field. Any other comments? MR. LYONS: I can't agree to that at the moment. I have no idea how far 65 feet brings the fence out. Again, I refer 3O Board of Trustees 31 January 19, 2005 back to the Town code that says 10 feet from the high water mark, and I think it would be best to follow the Town code rather than to change the practice at this point. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think the 65 foot mark is where Mr. Krupski is standing. I believe that measures with the four foot contour also where it comes up. It's a good distance out there. MR. LYONS: At that point, that shows it at the fourth wooden fence post? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Correct. MR. LYONS: I would like to reserve the right, if I get out there and, hey, if it ends up being significantly further back from the high tide mark than 10 feet, then I would be able to amend the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You would be able to apply to amend, absolutely. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure, take a permit in hand tonight with 65 feet and then have the right to amend at a later date. MR. LYONS: If 65 feet is significantly different than 10 feet from the high water mark, then that can be amended. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can apply to amend it. We'll also give you on the permit to post private property signs but no larger than 12" by 18". Since someone started posting the private property signs 4' by 18' sheets of plywood, that didn't work. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Also I'd like to specify that the wood remain natural color. MR. LYONS: No problem. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: And for the record CAC recommends approval with the condition the fence is extended to the top of the bluff only, and all existing posts are removed from the beach. If you're satisfied with that, 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 for Elizabeth Lyons to install a fence which extends 65 feet from the wood wall seaward to be constructed of 4" by 4" inch posts, 1" by 6" boards and remain natural color, and no greater than 48 inches above the base of the sand. Located: 8680 Fifth Street, New Suffolk. And they can put a sign on it no larger than 12" by 18". TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. LYONS: What do we do to get an actual copy of the permit? 31 Board of Trustees 32 January 19, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will be sent. 6. Karen Rivara on behalf of AEROS CULTURED OYSTER CO. requests a Wetland Permit to use the existing aquaculture dock, preserved for aquaculture for floating upweller system. A maximum of four units will be secured to floating dock at south end of aquaculture dock. Two small land-based upweller tanks will be temporarily located on the aquaculture dock until greenhouse is improved. Additionally, 30 floating cages will be used to culture shellfish in saltwater pond. Located: 10273 North Bayview Road in Southold. SCTM#79-5-20.12. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MS. RIVARA: Good evening, Karen Rivara, Aeros Cultured Oyster Company. Just to be clear, this permit is for my hatchery permit that I had gotten from the DEC and had gone through all permit requirements prior to your change in wetland codes. So this is now required of me to have a Wetland Permit from you for existing. I just wanted to clarify it's not expansion and take any questions if you had them regarding the project? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments on this application? I had a couple questions, one it says temporarily located on the dock until the greenhouse is improved; does that mean they would be removed at some point in time? MS. RIVARA: I originally had them in the greenhouse, then it filled in with too much water to keep them there. So I moved them to the dock. I don't particularly like having stuff on the dock, so when the greenhouse is fixed, I'll move them to the greenhouse. But I had permission to have them there prior to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to need dimensions on -- you've got four FLUPSEYs, for the record, and we need dimensions on the FLUPSEYs. MS. RIVARA: Those are 12 by 14. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How deep to do they FLUP? Also, you've got the floating cages and shellfish pond, could you get a dimension of that area that's being used? There's no dimensions there. MS. RIVARA: I was told that the pond is about three acres. So it would be one acre area, which sounds big to me. TRUSTEE KING: 200 by 200. MS. RIVARA: It probably wouldn't take up that much space. 32 Board of Trustees 33 January 19, 2005 MS. RIVARA: What the Land Trust does it divides portions of the property into sections, so I was given a third of that pond. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you give us the dimensions of that length and width? MS. RIVARA: I mean, roughly, I'd say 100 by 100. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. MS. RIVARA: You mean the area where the floating cages are going to be? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Right. An acre is 43,560 square feet, so that's a lot. Anybody else have any comments on this? Heather, the CAC recommended SEQRA review as well as review of the Peconic Estuary guidelines with regard to the aquaculture, how are we coming with the SEQRA review? MS. TETRAULT: We have a long form, it's in the file now so if everybody wants to look it over. I looked it over, and it seems to be consistent with what was recommended by the Southampton Trustees for aquaculture. It did address all the concerns in there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is an area that was built for aquaculture, designed for it years ago. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: For the record, this is private bottom? MS. RIVARA: Yes, it's owned by the Land Trust. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You provided us with a pamphlet. MS. RIVARA: Just for point of information on aquaculture. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It says no fertilizers, herbicides, drugs, chemicals or antibiotics are used. MS. RIVARA: That's correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, we'll put that in our permit also; that was one of our concerns about aquaculture. MS. RIVARA: I think that was in the SEQRA review also. I checked off no. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You know growth regulators, that sort of thing. No other comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition that as in this brochure that no fertilizer, herbicides, drugs, chemicals, antibiotics or growth regulators are used, and I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. Samuels and Steelman Architects on behalf of BOB 33 Board of Trustees 34 January 19, 2005 TAPP and NICK ELLIS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing residence and reconstruct further back from the wetlands with a new sanitary system. Located: 275 West Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#110-7-11.1 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here to comment on this application? MR. TAPP: My name is Bob Tapp, I'll be happy to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KING: This is the one that was right next door to the club. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As a member of the adjacent Pequash Club, I'm going to recuse myself. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As a wife of a member of the Pequash Club, I'm going to recuse myself. TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition that hay bales are placed down at the top of the bluff before construction begins and dry wells are installed to contain roof runoff, that would be part of the permit. We were talking also, the bluff going down there looks like it's been pretty well manicured, maybe you could plant some natural grasses in there, American beach grass, it really has an unnatural manicured look to it. Are there any other comments on it? 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 recommendation to approve the application with the stipulation that the hay bales are placed and we have dry wells to contain the roof runoff. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Aye. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aye. MR. JOHNSTON: Show on the record that Trustees Foster, King and Poliwoda voted in favor. Trustees Dickerson and Krupski recused themselves. 8. Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E. on behalf of MICHAEL GRIFFIN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling, swimming pool, driveway, two-story deck, and a septic system. Located: 435 Pine Place, East Marion. SCTM#37-4-14 & 15. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BUTLER: I'm Jeffrey Butler here with the applicants Mike and Grace Griffin. 34 Board of Trustees 35 January 19, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a copy of the DEC survey? MR. BUTLER: Not with us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We were out there on Monday, it wasn't staked, and it seems like the project's changed so much. So what we would like before our next field inspection was to have it staked and have a copy of the DEC approved plan, that we way we can get a better idea. What we require would be the same as the DEC, a line of hay bales at a certain area, gutters and dry wells for roof runoff. MR. BUTLER: The DEC approval includes the pool. We're going to omit the pool from the project, and I have updated site plans showing the new driveway location within the approved hay bale line, and the elimination of the pool. Other than the structure itself, is there anything else that you would like to see staked? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is a different survey than what the DEC approved. MR. BUTLER: It's the same footprint for the structure, and the same line of the hay bales and the same setbacks, but the driveway's now a side entry rather than a front entry, and the pool's eliminated from the plan. This isn't the one stamped by the DEC, but that's the survey they had. That's the site plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any comments? Because we have to go out there next month. TRUSTEE KING: My only feeling is that the house could be closer to the road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any way to move that house back? I think the comment we had when we were there -- we were there Monday, and that if you could swing the house, the proposed house square with Pine Place, that it would maximize the setback off the wetland. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thirty-five foot setbacks offthe road? MR. BUTLER: Yes. We have a 35 foot setback offthe road and we're kind of getting jammed in with the sanitary system also. TRUSTEE KING: If you shift the north side of the house to the west. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you take the corner by the sanitary system and swing it towards the road, square it up, it would maximize the setback, probably bring it back, 12, 15 feet. MR. GRIFFIN: Good evening, the proposed plan basically keeps the same width as the current house and the same angle of the current house, and if it's possible, we would appreciate keeping it the same way. The land is a long rectangle, so it's kind of in the middle between the road 35 Board o f Trustees 36 January 19, 2005 and the bluff. So if we could, we'd like to keep it in the approximate location where the existing house is now. If we move it back the other way, it will be very close to the road, so we'd like to try to keep it in middle, in the present location. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would be no closer to the road if you swung it back to that 100 foot wetland setback, that dotted line. That's our suggestion and we'd like to see it staked in the field, and you're welcome to meet us out there. MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there any other comments? I'll table this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 9. Cramer Consulting Group on behalf of REDDY INDUSTRIES, INC. as contract vendee, requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 15' ramp and 4' by 110' elevated fixed dock, 4' by 16' ramp and 6' by 16' floating dock, and to clear an 4' access path to docking facility. Located: 930, Clearview Road, Southold. SCTM#89-3-11.4 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. CRAMER: Yes. Good evening, my name is Tom Cramer, Principal of Cramer and Cramer Consulting Group at 54 North Country Road in Miller Place. I represent the owner of this, or the applicant for this property. There's a house presently being constructed on the site, which had received DEC permits. Previous to this application it was also outside of the Trustees' jurisdiction at that time; at that time all they wanted to do is just build a house, however, now they're seeking to construct a dock. The dock itself measures a total of approximately 155 feet. It's my understanding that the Trustees have been out on the property and have spoken to the applicant when you were out on the site. I have also spoken to the adjoining property owner to the south, Mr. Richard Perry and in my discussions with Mr. Perry there were four issues that he raised that I told him I would bring to the Board's attention. One was the length of the dock, he was concerned with how far it goes out, and I understand that's one of the Board's concerns on this one. You also question the need for the handrails that we're proposing on the dock. The dock itself runs over existing high marsh, New York State DEC restricts the height of that above the wetlands to four 36 Board of Trustees 37 January 19, 2005 feet minimum. We were proposing four foot minimum across the wetlands. As the Board was aware, structures that are over a foot and-a-half high require handrails or adjacent to 37 Board of Trustees 38 January. 19, 2005 them if New York State building permit is required, that's the reason we're showing the handrails on this. However, we understand that the Town does not require a building permit for this type of construction. So if the Board wishes we could remove those handrails. However, for safety standpoint, we're proposing them at this time. He was also concerned about the dimensions on the pilings. We're showing a 4' by 4' structural component on the dock. This is what we're proposing, what we would like to keep, as I informed him. It's also the DEC in the past has required limiting to 4' by 4' posts. And also he suggested turning the dock perpendicular to the shoreline, and that's certainly one thing we could do if the Board so desires. As I said, the length of the dock originally, we had proposed a four foot wide, but 10 foot shorter dock, but the DEC came back and wanted to know whether we could extend it out so the dock sits in four feet of water. We did contact the Town at that time to see whether there were any objections to and since the Trustees hadn't gone out to the site at that time, we were informed that they didn't anticipate any problems. However, we could cut the dock back and pull it back in closer. The DEC was not requiring it, they were suggesting it at that time, which leads me to believe that we will have some flexibility on that. If there are any questions from the Board, I'll be glad to try and answer them for you. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments on this application? MR. PERRY: Rich Perry, 830 Clearview Road. The concerns Tom brought up, we discussed today and they're all, I feel strongly against the dock going in at this strange, acute angle it is to my dock. It makes for a strange looking waterfront area as the land curves around. It needs to be perpendicular to the shoreline. It will keep it similar to the other two docks on that same harbor. The height, I thought typical height was three foot above the marsh. It seems all the other ones were above that. I just wanted the dock going in to look similar to the other ones in the area, not stand out and be an eyesore, look different than everything. The handrails would totally make it stand out. I'm adamantly against those. I think he brought up before having the posts flush cut to the deck is more appropriate. Ideally, I'd prefer pilings instead of the 4' by 4', but if that's the direction the Town is going, I don't have an objection to that. One 38 Board of Trustees 39 January 19, 2005 of the biggest concerns I think is the channel that runs through the harbor there. I don't go in that direction because that's goes away from the inlet but there's a lot of houses on the other side of this property that have to hug the shoreline to exit the inlet. And the survey shows the water depths around three, then they go to four and then back to three, anything in those fours is the channel, and it's a very small channel. And if the dock's extended out with a boat at the dock, it will be pretty tight for people to go in there. It's a concern for the length of the dock off the shore. Right now if my boat's at the dock, passing boats will pass me by about three feet to stay in the channel. I just wanted to bring that up. I'm not objecting to them putting in a dock, I think everybody has a right to put in whatever they want as long as it's within the regulatory agencies. TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Perry, what is the width of your catwalk right now? MR. PERRY: It's two right now, and there's a permit in place to go four. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To address the dock length, we had the dock to the west, away from Mr. Perry's. We issued a permit must have been 15 years ago for that dock, it was under construction. They got to the edge of the marsh and somebody called up and said, where is the dock going to go -- we issued a permit over, through the inshore channel, the float was going to sit on the mud flat. So we corrected that, we worked with the homeowner, and we corrected that. The navigation is the big issue there, there is that inshore channel. Even though the DEC might want the water depth, we can't allow the float to be in the middle of the channel. MR. CRAMER: We have no problem the shortening the -- as I said, the DEC asked us if we could bring it out to four feet. We have no problem with pulling it back in. I think you're absolutely correct, that is a legitimate reason why that should be pulled in tighter. So if the DEC does object we have the real reason why it should be pulled in. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Speaking with the applicant out in the field we were inclined to go six feet beyond the edge of the marsh, stop the fixed catwalk and construct the ramp and float from there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be consistent with the other two docks. MR. CRAMER: That would pull it back in -- 39 Board of Trustees 40 January 19, 2005 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is the distance between the pilings? MR. CRAMER: I think with that plan it shows 10 feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Probably bring it back 25 feet. MR. CRAMER: We had it out 10 feet before. There is another option, if I may show the Board, a sketch I did this afternoon after speaking to Mr. Perry (handing). Because of the configuration of the shoreline, if we spin it perpendicular to the shoreline, we're able to reduce the length of the dock substantially, whereas before I said we're total about 155 feet, we're able to get it down to 98 feet, 100 feet, also pulls it back substantially, away from that channel and pretty much in line with the adjoining docks on the site, that's by rotating about 20 degrees. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Looks a lot better to me. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think the Board would be inclined to bring that new drawing back nine feet. It looks like you're 15 feet out beyond the edge of the marsh on this new drawing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With the fixed dock? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: With the fixed dock and ramp and float. MR. CRAMER: The problem we run into there is bringing it back too much with the DEC. They do have the provisions for seasonal dock, they'll sometimes let us go lower than the four feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's a common method to get a permit from them, to go with the seasonal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's the navigation that's the issue there. MR. CRAMER: And because the way the channel runs through that area. I was under the impression that there might be dredging that could occur there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Generally at the mouth of the creek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think this is a natural channel. MR. CRAMER: Yes, I believe so. We could certainly spin it like this if the Board so agrees. I think it provides a better layout than what was originally shown, and it also does pull it back in. If you look coming off six feet then with the ramp down, it would almost be about the same place, it would be about 25 feet back, but I think we have it in deeper water now. I'm saying if you take 25 feet off the existing dock to pull it in. It's about in line with rotating it the same way. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, you're correct. MR. CRAMER: So I think we accomplished -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We would have to specify the starting point. 4O Board of Trustees 41 January 19, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Specify so many feet off the edge of the marsh. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Six feet beyond the edge of the marsh, period. As far as going upland, he can go basically right to his door step, but six feet out beyond the edge of the dock with the fixed dock, fixed catwalk, then ramp and float, which is 15 foot ramp. MR. CRAMER: Talking about an additional 10 feet even the sketch that I provided you with? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, it's probably nine feet, 10 feet. MR. CRAMER: Originally I think you said 25 feet reducing the original dock back. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Either way the end result we'd like to see six feet out beyond the edge of the marsh, no further. As far as height on the dock, I don't know if your neighbor is going for a dock and his is two feet and only three feet high. I know the DEC works with homeowners. If you go with a three feet catwalk then they'll bring it down to three feet in height, to minimize the aesthetic viewpoint of the dock sticking out in the creek. That's one alternative we might employ here, going with three feet wide catwalks so they're all three feet in height above the marsh. MR. CRAMER: Is that what the Board would like to see? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. And that would be the same for Mr. Perry when he comes in. MR. PERRY: Permit's already in. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Permit's in? MR. PERRY: Yes. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: With DEC? MR. PERRY: They're doing it now. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine. It will be amended. MR. PERRY: Is it possible to turn where the new proposed one intersects the original one to maintain the same footprint so it doesn't come so close to the property line? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's up to the applicant they can dog leg it, if you want or make it straight. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Oh, you mean the starting point? That's up to the applicant. MR. CRAMER: I'll speak to the applicant on it. MR. PERRY: It will basically be the same as you had it originally, going out then dog leg into what it is, over the Iow lying grass in the water. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm showing 10 feet off the property line. We make recommendations I think it might be our 41 Board of Trustees 42 January 19, 2005 policy 15 feet off the property line for any structures. MR. CRAMER: This is a little reduced this one, it's not quite the same scale, you have to go back on it. I scaled it off about 15 feet from that end. MR. PERRY: I really have no strong objections to it. I think it would be aesthetically better for them too, but that's their decision. Our permitting is in place to do almost that exact same thing our extension dog legs just like that would. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Reddy Industries to construct a catwalk that would extend no further out beyond the edge of the marsh than six feet with a 4' by 16' ramp and a 6' by 16' floating dock on the waterward side of it, and the dock can be no larger than 3' in width and no higher than 3' above the edge of the marsh. Create it as a Iow profile dock all studs be cut off at the base of the deck. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. MR. CRAMER: Thank you very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You'll submit a new plan? MR. CRAMER: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. 10. Michael Scholz on behalf of SHANNON GOLDMAN & DEBORAH MCKEAND requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and garage. Located: 8605 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#59-6-27.2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. GOLDMAN: I'm Shannon, i'm here, if you have any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We do. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did Heather have a chance to look at the wetlands? MS. TETRAULT: We asked on this. We wanted to see the wetlands line put on the survey. I spoke to the surveyor called up today. MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, John Ehlers. MS. TETRAULT: He said he would put that on and when we got there it was not staked so they weren't able to see the location. 42 Board of Trustees 43 January 19, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need to have this project staked in the field. MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, it was meant to be. It was a little miscommunication. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC tabled the application because the wetlands line is inaccurate. And CAC recommends a full wetlands review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's what we're doing. MS. TETRAULT: I also told the surveyor that we would probably want to see a 50 foot buffer so show that on the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh 50 foot nondisturbance buffer and beyond that you would be able to put the house and the yard and whatever else. MR. GOLDMAN: On there now, it is 50 feet from something but there's not a wetlands demarcation there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Right. He just drew it off a tie line, and it's a fairly well-defined wetland edge there. It's a steep bank, and then he should follow that with a 50 foot line of nondisturbance and a row of staked hay bales. He can show that on the survey at that 50 foot line. Then he's got to show -- MS. TETRAULT: Septic 100 feet back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And show gutters and dry wells to contain roof runoff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then if you give us all that information it will come up for public hearing next month on the 16th. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. (Whereupon a brief recess was taken.) 11. Interscience Research Associates on behalf of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION, INC. Requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing bulkhead. Located: Basin Road, Southold, SCTM#81-1-16.10 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. WALKER: Jim Walker from Interscience. The application is to repair the existing bulkhead. The repair is limited resheath the back side of the existing timber bulkhead using quarter-inch vinyl sheets. Each of the sheets will be 4' by 8" installed immediately behind the existing bulkhead. 43 Board o f Trustees 44 January 19, 2005 The contractor would also replace the whalers as needed, then backfill with the sand that's already stored at the west jetty. If you did a site inspection, there's an area that's about 24' to 28' long that needs backfill about a yard deep. The amount of fill is 40 cube yards. The Army Corps has issued a letter of nonjurisdiction, and the New York State DEC permit is pending and we would expect it soon. That's it unless you have questions on the plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Are they going to excavate and resheath behind it? MR. WALKER: Excavate a little bit and install the 4' by 8' sheets. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Quarter inch vinyl? MR. WALKER: Yes. Behind the existing timber sheathing so it doesn't leach the sand forward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What kind of material is that? MR. WALKER: Recycled vinyl. It's similar to the shore guard or C-Loc, except it's a cheaper solution. Eventually that bulkhead will have to be replaced period, but it this will resolve it for the time being. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To what depth? MR. WALKER: The deepest they can install them is eight feet. The penetration is the existing timber sheathing. You can't dig it that deep. Probably cave in the old bulkhead. That bulkhead is very old. We're simply putting the 4' by 8' sheets of vinyl to make sure that the existing bulkhead holds up as long as possible. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the proposed access? MR. WALKER: There's a private road from the west jetty down to Paradise Point Road. I can show you on the tax map, if you would like. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're familiar with the area, is that drivable? MR. WALKER: Yes, that's where I posted the property, and I brought a photo into the Board of Trustees office at the time I posted the property. It's easier to show you on the tax map (handing). (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application? CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition that the bulkhead is repaired in place, which it is, they're going to sheath in behind the old sheathing with plastic. Any Board comments? I don't think anybody had a problem with it. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. 44 Board o£Trustees 45 January 19, 2005 MR. WALKER: Ken, that stone was on the canal side, on the inside, right? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, where Jim was pointing inside, on the outside? TRUSTEE KING: On the outside where there is serious erosion behind there. MR. WALKER: Down the canal, though. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I'll make the motion to approve the application with the addition of the stone on the canal side of that bulkhead on the inland end of it to act like a small return. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 12. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of PETER O. CRISP requests a wetlands Permit to construct a 16' by 24' addition onto an existing single-family dwelling. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM#9-3-10.1 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Anyone here to speak against this application? If there's no comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: It's a small addition on top of an existing deck, so even though we didn't make a site inspection, I can't see it having an impact on the environment. So I would make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I agree and second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: There was no inspection by CAC and so there was no recommendation. 13. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of ALEXANDER LEDONNE requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in-place 97' of concrete bulkhead utilizing vinyl sheathing and to backfill structure with approximately 10 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located. 850 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM#77-1-5. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. STEPNOWSKh Andrew Stepnowski, Greenport Dock. Glen was unable to come over today because of the snow, and I'm the contractor on the job and he asked me if there was any questions he asked me to address them. 45 Board of Trustees 46 January 19, 2005 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The only thing the Trustees commented on was possibly the buffer area could match up with the buffer areas on both sides of the two neighboring properties, one was 15 foot the other was 20. MR. STEPNOWSKI: I can't speak for Mr. LeDonne, but I was under the assumption he was going to do that. He wanted the same situation as Mr. Lucarelli, McGovern that are to the east. TRUSTEE KING: The one on one side has a smaller buffer than the one on the other side. We just wanted to draw a line between the two of them to match it up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Instead of having one stuck out with an odd jog. MR. STEPNQWSKI: I'll suggest that to him. I don't know if he'll have an objection or not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You'd notice it if it were different. This way it will match up. MR. STEPNOWSKI: There's also that concrete drainage pit between the two of them, that's going to break them up anyway. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I know in the field we spoke about having the concrete being removed. MR. STEPNOWSKI: That's all going, the entire bulkhead and the entire footing for the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: What happens with that drainage ditch? MR. STEPNOWSKI: I don't know, we just run the returns right up, if we don't touch it. If we have to, we cement to it to make a nice tight closure. They have those between every house. TRUSTEE KING: I have a feeling they put those in years ago when they developed all that property. MR. STEPNOWSKI: When they dredged the channel. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I had one concern, when you pull out that cement, you know what it's going to look like? MR. STEPNOWSKh I did the one next door, I know exactly what it's going to look like. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you think we can manicure it somehow so some spartina grass grows in its place? MR. STEPNOWSKh We're taking it all out, the concrete's all going. We'll make sure the beach that there's not holes or nasty, it will be just like the one next door. MS. TETRAULT: There's that little patch of spartina that you wanted to make sure would be okay, stay there. MR. STEPNOWSKI: We'll be as cautious as possible. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there are no other comments, I'll 46 Board of Trustees 47 January 19, 2005 make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC also recommends approval of the application with the condition of a 20 foot non-turf buffer, we'll take that into account. I'll make a motion to approve the application on behalf of Alexander DeDonne requests a Wetland Permit to construct in-place 97' of concrete bulkhead utilizing vinyl sheathing and backfill structure with approximately 10 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source, that all the concrete will be removed and that the buffer be angled from the 15 foot to 20 foot buffer on both sides of the property. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 14. J.M.O. 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 3-pile dolphins, to relocate one ladder, and to install one new ladder. Located: Robins Island. SCTM#134-3-5. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Table. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to table it until further information is received. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We talked about that last month, we're not inclined to allow that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 15. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of KAREN & RICHARD SEELIG requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place remaining 4' by 50' section of previously existing 4' by 75' fixed catwalk with a 4' by 86' fixed catwalk; 3' by 14' ramp and 6' by 20' float secured by two 8" piles. Located: 1515 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM#63-7-37 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. I did have a chance to speak with the Trustees office about this and there is some concern about the length, overall length of the dock given that as you get toward the very end of it, as you increase out beyond a certain point we're not really gaining appreciable water 47 Board of Trustees 48 January 19, 2005 depth. What was originally here was a four and-a-half by 75 foot fixed dock and I finally found a permit for someone that predates Al Krupski. It was a permit that was issued to someone by the name of Karstenski, on November 16, 1954, so that was the original permit for a 75' dock. So what I was going to suggest, after assessing the water depths and considering the Board's comments, would be to shorten the dock by 11 feet, shorten the catwalk by 11 feet from 86 to 75. So in effect you would have a recreation of the same fixed dock that had already been approved and had already been in existence, only extending a ramp and L-shaped float off of that. Even as originally submitted, the dock fits in between the two adjoining docks. This would make it actually tuck inside it. I sketched it out so you could take a look. It's this, (indicating). This would be the change, so rather than being in line with the neighboring docks, it would actually dip in and the whole float would be in three feet of water. So it would be inside the pier line. You would be stopping at the point beyond which you would not have any appreciable increase in water depth that would be consistent with DEC -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You're showing a parallel float? MR. HERMANN: Yeah, it would still be the same thing, an L-shaped float parallel to the shoreline. The proposal would be exactly as submitted only it would be a proposed 4' by 75' catwalk, which is where the 11 feet are coming off. Hopefully the Board would find that to be an acceptable resolution. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All six inch pilings or smaller? MR. HERMANN: Yes. All the support pilings are six inches except for the two on the float. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? Any Board comments? If I seem to agree with the new dimensions. I recall in the field we were going to cut it back to within 10 feet of that, that works for the applicant. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Karen and Richard Seelig as submitted stipulating that there be a new survey. MR. HERMANN: I didn't hand anything in. I would have to give you a revised plan showing the shortened walk. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We'll approve it upon receiving the 48 Board o f Trustees 49 January 19, 2005 revised plans. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 16. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ALAN & TERESA MONTANO SUCHER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 168 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately 75 cubic yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source, Remove and replace in-kind/in-place existing step-down platform as necessary during construction of bulkhead. Construct dormer, deck and chimney additions to an existing 1.5 story, one-family dwelling. Located: 60 Fishermans Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#111-1-6 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann on behalf of the applicant, the Suchers. This is a pretty straightforward application. It basically entails the in-place replacement of existing timber, CCA timber bulkheading with vinyl bulkheading, same location et cetera, and some minor dormer, deck and chimney additions that are being proposed for the house. All essentially, with the exception of a small step-out on the deck, everything is basically occurring within the existing footprint of the house. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this, and I only had a question or concern about the marsh area to the - MR. HERMANN: On the east side? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. MR. HERMANN: There is a 27 foot return on the east side, there is intertidal marsh, which is depicted on the plan. That return is also being replaced in-place, and though I did not notate it I don't believe on this plan, how the DEC and I think this Board normally handles that is that if there is any marsh disturbed or lost it does have to be replanted with spartina altema flora 12 inches on center at the completion of the construction. So there would be no problem including that as a special condition, that should be included. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any Board comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just that disturbed area, the 15 feet should be left non-turf after construction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Say that again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The disturbed 15 feet area should be left non-turf after construction. 49 Board of Trustees 50 January 19, 2005 MR. HERMANN: Would the Board accept a 10 foot buffer, it's very narrow. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's very narrow. MR. HERMANN: It's very narrow. If that would be acceptable, I could give you a revised plan showing the 10 foot non-turf. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Did you have to go to the ZBA with this? MR. HERMANN: I think, I'm not sure because I'm not involved with that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Increasing a permitted lot coverage by 11.7 percent. MR. HERMANN: It would seem that they would, and there's something in the back of my brain telling me the answer is yes. Is it of any consequence to this permit, Artie, or are you just curious? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I just asked a question. MR. HERMANN: Yes, the answer is yes, they would have to apply to the Zoning Board. MS. MOORE: Yes. The garage for side yards, actually from a bulkhead I think we have 100 foot requirement from the bulkhead. MR. HERMANN: 75 is what's still in the code. MS. MOORE: Okay, whatever. We need variances because everything is pre-existing here. I think it's actually coming up in February, we're scheduled. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I was just curious. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition of a 15 foot non-turf buffer in order to prevent chemicals from entering into the water. Did you have any comments, Jack, on understanding that it's a very small area? MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes, I agree, 10 foot would be adequate to give more space to move around. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the application for Alan and Teresa Sucher, request for a Wetland Permit to remove and replace their bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and remove and replace the existing step-down platform during construction to construct dormers, deck and chimney additions to the existing family dwelling with the condition that in the new plans they show a 10 foot nondisturbance buffer, and also that any marsh that is disturbed be replaced. 50 Board of Trustees 51 January 19, 2005 MR. HERMANN: Non-turf. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Non-turf, yes. MR. HEP, MANN: You said nondisturbance. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 17. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JOAN O'LEARY requests a Wetland Permit to replace within 18" approximately 100 linear feet of existing concrete seawall with fiberglass bulkhead and backfill with approximately 75 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source. For bulkhead installation purposes, remove and replace 3' by 8' platform. Located: 770 Old Salt Road, Mattituck. SCTM#144-5-14 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HEP, MANN: Rob Hermann, on behalf of Joan O'Leary. This is essentially the continuation of the Morse application that the Board approved last month, same seawall same replacement, same specs, same design, basically all part of the same project, Miss O'Leary just got a little later jump on it than Mr. Morse. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? I went out and looked at it. I agree with what Rob just said. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. MS. TETRAULT: Can there be a non-tuff area there too? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. It's already indicated there will be a 12 foot non-tuff buffer. MR. HERMANN: That's on the plan, which I think is consistent, they're going to do it all as one project. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 18. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of L.I. Sound Oyster, LLC C/O TOM ANDERSON. The applicant proposes to expand an existing dock facility proposed to be utilized for a commercial she,fishing and aquaculture facility. The existing 4' by 130' timber catwalk is proposed to be widened to 10' to accommodate a forklift or truck. The existing platform is 6' by 6' is proposed to remain. A 3 by 20 ramp is proposed off the platform landing to three proposed floats, a 6' by 20' float, a 4' by 20' and a 4' by 12' float. Existing oyster trays are proposed to be relocated as depicted on the project plans for a total of 25 proposed 6' by 16' oyster trays. The 51 Board of Trustees 52 January 19, 2005 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. The shed is proposed in the same location as the previous shed location. The buffer area is proposed as is indicated on the project plans south of the dock, the buffer area is proposed to extend from the mean high water to concrete wall. North of the dock, the buffer area is proposed to extend from mean high water to the back edge of the existing fence north to the property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was the most recent description received January 14, 2005. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. PALUMBO: Tony Palumbo of the law firm of Goggins and Palumbo. I previously provided an application last month, and I believe we sufficiently addressed our position and some new concerns of the Board, and I'm certainly here to answer any questions, hoping the Board was able to get out and see it. Mr. Anderson did place a buoy and did the best that he could to mark off the area because it gets relatively deep toward the channel side in that area. But otherwise, I'm certainly ready to field any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? MR. PALUMBO: And I believe the Board does have that new copy. Dan submitted a new-- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, that's what we're looking at. We were out there on Monday. I didn't see the buoy, it was blowing so hard. Let me relate to you our concerns. Here are some of our thoughts. Start with the dock width, the Board felt that we always try to minimize the structure especially on a long dock and we were wondering if the applicant could live with an eight foot wide dock, which would accommodate only a fork lift and not a truck. MR. PALUMBO: I think what the concern was, and the reason why the place is in such total disarray is that with that narrow dock, it's difficult to actually pull the trays out, and they get destroyed over time with certain predators, and what have you, and bugs and worms, and if they're not properly maintained, if they're not lifted out, because they're so big, they're 6' by 20' by 6' deep, that obviously heavy piece of machinery is needed to get it out, properly maintain and replace and repair. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Originally they built a 4' wide one 52 Board of Trustees 53 January 19, 2005 because it was strictly an upland grow-out, and they just piped the water in to the tanks on the upland. They didn't have anything originally in the water. All right. The next thing would be the total length of the dock relating to the Federal Anchorage and the other navigational concerns in the area. What we would like to see on that -- personally, I would like to go back to the original permit, or the original amendment to the original permit, which would show 100 foot dock with the floats, the oyster grow-out floats 15 feet out and 15 feet back, sort of around the end of the dock and not offto one side. So you wouldn't extend that far out into the water. MR. PALUMBO: I think the dock is currently 130 feet. I think it's existing as 130 right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Not permitted. MR. PALUMBO: Not permitted, of course. I think that was kind of the concerns. We can all kind of agree that the previous owners were well in excess -- and obviously we cannot hold the Board to that -- but they were in excess of their permit, but in order to adequately farm these trays, they need to be at least at the end of that dock now and forward because the median water mark there is around five feet right at the end of the dock. So once they start to hang up, then it really becomes a problem. It's not really worth it. I'm assuming that's why they went outside their permit, and we're trying to find a happy medium so Long Island Oyster can get their company started. And as I indicated at the last meeting, hopefully, we can have whatever is ultimately granted, if anything, of course, we would like to have an opportunity to come back without prejudice, once we establish a rapport with the Town, and they get their farm under way so to speak. I understand the concerns of the Board. This is certainly the length and the navigational issues, and to even put those trays with the existing dock, 15 feet behind the existing dock, which is in excess of the existing permit, I don't think that's possible. The only place that any trays can go now is right at the current end of that dock toward the navigable area. And that was my position at the last meeting was that although they were certainly in excess of their permit, no one was alerted to it for practical reasons. I would suggest that -- Long Island Oyster bought almost 40 trays from them, and almost all of them are in the water, so however they had them situated, they were not practically a navigational hazard, although they were certainly in excess of their permit. That's why we're 53 Board o f Trustees 54 January 19, 2005 hoping for the happy medium. And that's why we reconfigured it this way to just get as many trays as we could, and certainly not even as many as the previous owner did, just a fair amount in order to get started, like I said, and clean the area up and what have you. One of the owners of Long Island Oyster is planning to live there and raise a family. He is going to clean that whole place up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Navigation is a big concern. Let me go back to a letter that we wrote to Mr. Edco, Ocean Consulting of Blue Point Company back in 1999. Resolve the Southold Town Board of Trustees denies the request to amendment to Permit 4276, which is their permit, to add eight piles at the end of the existing floating trays, and five piles to hold trays and a 3' by 18' ramp and 12' by 12' float because it would impede navigation, and it is a Federal Anchorage area. So this is a concern of ours, that's six years ago, that was the same concern. Not only is it a bottom coverage, it's also a big navigational issue. My suggestion, and I'm not speaking for the whole Board, my suggestion would be to allow 110 foot dock to have adequate access, some sort float for boat dockage, the original configuration of floats, and if the operation's a great success, come back and we'll try to work with them as best as possible but the Federal Anchorage is pretty close. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They had this before, did it create any kind of navigational problem that we're aware of? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm sure it didn't make it any easier. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Was there anything documented that it indicated created a navigational problem? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Not that I know of. If it had, it wouldn't have been the Town's liability and if we approve something, then it becomes the Town's liability. MR. PALUMBO: As I previously mentioned, as far as any outer edge of these trays, Long Island Oyster will do whatever it needs to do, they'll put lights up, they'll put pilings, they'll do whatever remedial measures, I guess, the Board requires. They're certainly willing to do whatever it takes in order to have an opportunity to adequately farm. Of course, they can't have four or five trays, certainly it wouldn't be worthwhile. If I could direct the Board to the second page from Land Use that was submitted. There's a cross-section of the sea bottom and the water marks there, the median, the various depths, and if you can see right at the end, plus/minus five, and it drops off very quickly. 54 Board of Trustees 55 January 19, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't change the water depth, you're limited by what it is. My point is, and I think it's well taken, is there's navigational issues that aren't new. We didn't just make this up. MR. PALUMBO: I'm not disputing that. The position I'm trying to express is that at the end of the dock where it is right now, there is no way that those trays regardless of what the year was, whether it was a previous owner within their permit or outside of their permit you cannot put a tray from the end of that dock landward. So all of the trays at any time had to have been at least past the end of the existing dock. TRUSTEE KING: Could those trays be modified so everything can be moved in, a little shallower water? MR. PALUMBO: My clients are shaking their heads no. I don't know if that's possible. MR. MCGREEVY: Wouldn't dredging at the short end of the short dock, wouldn't that satisfy their concern? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Sure it would if you could ever get a permit to do it. MR. PALUMBO: If we were allowed to do that, the length of the dock is obviously of no concern of ours, its water depth is the only concern. TRUSTEE KING: Have you applied to DEC with this yet? MR. PALUMBO: Yes, they have. TRUSTEE KING: What is the outcome on that? MR. HALL: I haven't pushed it too much we were waiting for a design to be approved by the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we're going to pursue this, those are, like I said, my program recommendation, but if we're going to review this further, we do have a survey here of the extent of the Federal Anchorage and that should be put on your plan here. And also put on the two adjacent structures to the west, the Mattituck Park District, not the entire structures just the seaward end of them. TRUSTEE KING: There's a bulkhead by the launching ramp that goes out too. I think what the previous Boards might have done was to look at those two structures to the west and set up a pier line, that's why they went for the 100 feet; that's my thoughts on it. If you stand there and look at the two other structures to the west, the 100 foot mark is right in line. I think they were trying to set up that line so in the event further docks are built further east on the undeveloped property, you've already got a line established. That's my rationale. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Jim's correct. There was a pier line at 5 Board of Trustees 56 January 19, 2005 100 feet, the Mattituck Park District to the right of it, in between this dock and that dock and where we stood out at 100 foot. MR. PALUMBO: How does this dock look, even with it, maybe? Maybe everyone's at 130, I don't know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we did with the other aquaculture permit tonight, physical plant itself is owned by the Peconic Land Trust, they received a permit from us to do the physical improvements on the site, all that work was done under private bottom, so that was a little different. Then the aquaculture operation itself received a permit to conduct operations separate from the physical work. In this case we issue a permit for something eventually here, it's going to reflect use as well as the physical dock, so in other words, if you put out X amount of floats, and they're being used for aquaculture, that's fine. But when, if, as in Blue Point's, which we were deficient with Blue Point, once that operation ceases to exist, all those extra floats have to come out of the water, because they're for aquaculture and nothing else. That was the problem with Blue Point, all that stuff should have come out afterwards, and when they left it didn't. So the permit would run that way. It would run for the dock, ramp and float for access, plus all the other oyster floats, but it's going to have a limit to it, that if those floats are not used to grow oysters or any other shellfish, then they have to be removed. MR. PALUMBO: Long Island Oyster understands that it's specific for that use. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're sort of evolving with this that's going to be part of it. MR. PALUMBO: My only question is obviously, because they're very anxious because it's going on four months, is there any potential maybe demarcation or distance from the existing dock that the Board could come up with, so we could have a proposal and hopefully at the next meeting have something issued. Just so they can get started. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was my proposal. My proposal widening a new dock to 10 feet wide, but then to match the original permit for oyster -- I don't know what you call them -- the grow-out trays, if they need that ramp that aluminum side ramp, and they need a float and dock for boat access. MR. PALUMBO: Practically speaking, regardless of what they're permitted to do, they'll probably have one row of trays 15 feet from the 100 foot dock. If they shorten it, 56 Board of Trustees 57 January 19, 2005 it's almost as if you're permitting them to do it in their backyard, they could be permitted. That's really the position that we have. These trays need to draw a certain amount of water and obviously float because predators will get in and eat the oysters themselves. They need to be in that water level regardless of what the permit is with respect to the dock. So it would be useless. It would almost be in the position that we would have to withdraw the application and sell the property. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I agree with that. I think if you make him cut the dock back to 100 feet, you're not giving them anything because they don't have the water depth. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're not going to give -- it's public bottom, that's a big issue. It's public bottom, how much can you give? The next guy is going to say I need 150. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's already there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Not really. It is not, they're going to tear it out. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's still already there. You're just going to increase it to 10 feet. They could put a marina in there, what would you rather see? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How could you put a marina in? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's zoned for it, M2. The original plan had -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The upland's zoned for it. We denied two marina expansions in that creek already, even though it was zoned Marine 2. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The original plan had a little marina on there. I know all the concerns. It's so hard to do business in this town it gets harder every day. We could shut everybody down and tell them to go home. I don't think it's that environmentally unpleasing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm not saying environmentally, I'm saying from a public land used point of view it's a lot. It's a big structure. Then you get into navigation, and it's a big issue. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They're paying big taxes too, Al. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aren't we all? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I know. Whatever you want from them, give them everything this month instead next month something else and next month something else. Get them all on there. MR. PALUMBO: Is it possible with this configuration to take off the fifth row, maybe four rows deep, to even shrink it if we have to? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Why can't those trays be modified? 57 Board of Trustees 58 January 19, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, ask them. People grow oysters in a foot of water. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Those trays can't be modified so they can be more functional closer in? MR. PALUMBO: I asked that question earlier to my clients. And the feeling is at this stage in their growth, they're done in bags and they're done in massive quantities; so to modify them would - I mean, again practically speaking they need to have a large amount for it to be profitable. The fact of the matter is they're very deep. They may have to construct new trays or buy new trays, maybe that's possible, and that's something we'll investigate, even as far as that's concerned, then maybe one or two rows it looks as though about 15 feet off the existing dock it's already about two feet. So now we're talking one bushel bag deep of tray. So the concern is that these trays have a long tube, the way I understand it, and they stack the bags in there, and they can have a massive quantity in there, which is obviously what's profitable, it's a two-year cycle for them to grow. So they can only harvest whatever's in the trays. They try to do it an every other year type of cycle. TRUSTEE KING: Are they going to take these oysters, they can't grow them to legal size out there. They must take them to an off-site, temporary assignment in the Sound where they grow them out there? MR. PALUMBO: They do. Correct, and I believe my clients already have approval. TRUSTEE KING: Because I know there's certain restrictions on the permit, when you can do it, the size of the stock. MR. PALUMBO: Exactly. They have been moving forward on that, and they do have preliminary approvals. TRUSTEE KING: I just have some concern on that location as far as the success of growing the oysters there because of the water quality. I don't know how successful Blue Point was there. I heard they had all sorts of massive die offs, you hear all kinds of rumors. I do know the water quality up there is very poor and there's no tidal flow whatsoever. Most of the aquacultures I've talked to, they like to see their facility out toward the mouth of the creek, rather than at the head of the creek. I'm no expert, that's just what I have heard. We've seen some other proposals come along really that are really grand proposals, and then we're stuck with a lot of structure on the public bottom. MR. PALUMBO: I understand. That was their concern was to buy it further down the creek away from the real traffic, that's why I think their mind set was they would get more 58 Board of Trustees 59 January 19, 2005 approval and they would have an opportunity to use a little bit more see bottom there. TRUSTEE KING: Ithink water quality's an issue as far as being able to do it down there. Whatever, what will be will be. MR. PALUMBO: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to see those two neighboring structures on a survey with the Federal Anchorage out on there, and I would be willing to make a decision next month. MR. PALUMBO: Okay, understood. We'll have those and we'll have, as I indicated, I believe other concerns regarding boat dockage are also my client's issues. So they would like to get moving. So I don't want to put too much pressure and have the Board make a hasty decision, but we'll have all that prepared, actually Mr. Hall will, that we'll have that to the Board as soon as possible. That was the two lines, the two adjoining properties and the Federal Anchorage line? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Two adjoining properties to the west and the Federal Anchorage line. TRUSTEE KING: There's two structures to the west, one is the dock and one is the bulkhead that sticks out by the launching ramp to the west of the property. I'm pretty familiar with that area because I take water samples up there for the DEC. So I know what's going on. MR. PALUMBO: Okay. Very good. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES 20. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of ANDREW WEINER requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing dock and replace with 152' by 4' fixed open catwalk with three pile bays at a minimum height of 3.5' above vegetated grade, 20' by 32" aluminum ramp, 6' by 20' float secured by two 2-pile dolphins, with a 15' by 4' ramp to grade at landward end of catwalk. Located: 2185 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SOTM#107-7-12 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Weiner. As you know, there is an existing dock there much of which apparently is illegal unless the previous owners, whose name is Galligan got it fixed, but I don't know whether they did that or not. But it doesn't seem that that would have any 59 Board o f Trustees 60 January 19, 2005 effect on putting in a new dock. And I know you're going to say it's too long, and it may be. What we want to do is get a good, usable dock in the creek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at it Monday. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments from the audience? Board comments? Anyone have a comment other than the distance? We came out with a measurement we would like to see a 90' fixed catwalk and then add the ramp and float with that. MR. FITZGERALD: Ken, is that based on what you saw when you were there, you think that would work? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. I don't know how large a vessel you could get, but I could get my boat there, a 25 foot boat there, probably fit a 30. MR. FITZGERALD: 90 feet wouldn't be to where the end of the existing catwalk ends. TRUSTEE POLIWOD^: Correct, but then add a ramp and float to it. You have a 20' ramp and a 6' by 20' float, so you add another 26 feet. MR. FITZGERALD: The way I have it drawn it would be another 38 feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Straight out, okay. MR. FITZGERALD: So 90 -- 128, it just gets beyond the Iow water mark; is that okay? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We found it acceptable in the field as a Board. So it would be okay here. MR. FITZGERALD: It would seem almost certain that the float is going to be on the bottom at Iow water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't know about that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, we walked right out there it was mid-tide. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I mean, okay, we'll give it a try. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The starting point of that 90 foot. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was just wondering then we have to add that landward ramp to it. He wouldn't start way back, he starts pretty far out, then he's got that little ramp that goes back towards his beach. We could re-add that ramp, that would not be included in that 90 feet. You see, you got that ramp out there he shows it. It's right here, it shows it here, a wood walk. MR. FITZGERALD: That's the existing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But if you wanted to include that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If l have him give him 110. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Depends where you start it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We measure from right there, 90 feet to 60 Board o f Trustees 61 January 19, 2005 this point, 90 feet plus the ramp, it pushes it out a little more. See where we measure from. We measured from here, 90 feet out, see, it was pushing that whole thing out. So when he says 90, you're adding cut out all that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No other comments? 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 Andrew Weiner, for a 90 foot fixed catwalk with a 20' by 32" aluminum ramp with a 6' by 20' float standing perpendicular to the shoreline, and a wood walk 20' landward of the beginning point of this fixed dock, which will begin at the 6' dotted contour line on this survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And ramped down to grade. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: And ramped down to grade, yes. So you're not up in the air. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 21. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of ANTHONY CACIOPPO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 24' by 24' two-story extension to the existing house with a garage on ground level and living space with bath above; with 9' by 8' fully enclosed and conditioned connecting hallway to the existing. Located: 1455 Inlet Way in Southold. SCTM#92-1-4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Jim Fitzgerald on behalf of Mr. Cacioppo. That breezeway will be totally enclosed and conditioned space, so what we're proposing is an addition to the house and not an accessory structure with a breezeway connecting. Heather said you were concerned that it was too close to the water. There's a retaining wall there, and this would be on the landward side of the retaining wall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh A big cement retaining wall structure? MR. FITZGERALD: I've never seen it from the down side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It wasn't staked either. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There was a lot of no-no stakes all along the edge of the water. They had fencing on them. We need to have them removed. We'll stipulate that later. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It wasn't staked. The proposed garage 61 Board of Trustees 62 January 19, 2005 area wasn't staked. I just have a question, Heather's letter asks for septic and addition does not include a bedroom, no expansion or certification of sewage disposal system will be required, but then you say it's a living space with a bath above it. MR. FITZGERALD: But it's not a bedroom. And the bedroom is how the Health Department and zoning department measure that stuff. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You mean as far as determining the size of the septic system? If you have two people living in a house, you have five bathrooms, they can only be in one bathroom at a time, but if you've got six bedrooms, that's more people. TRUSTEE KING: I guess that's logical. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You have two people living in a five bathroom home with only two bedrooms. But if you have five bedrooms, two bathrooms, I know that's how the formula works. They don't care if you have 20 bathrooms, it's how many bathrooms you've got. MR. FITZGERALD: The zoning department said that they would not require any investigation or certification or expansion of the septic system if that is not a bedroom and it's not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is the septic system anyway? MR. FITZGERALD: Along with the stakes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 22. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of CHARLES M. WENDY, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed platform 4' by 4', hinged ramp 4' by 16', and floating dock 5' by 20'. Located: 765 Willow Point Road, Southold. SCTM#56-5-28. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Wendy. I gave you a note indicating that the ramp should be reduced in size. The association asks that the float be not as far seaward as we had it shown. TRUSTEE KING: That was our concern. MR. FITZGERALD: So the ramp is 4' by 6' instead of 4' by 16'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe you want to reduce the float to 62 Board of Trustees 63 January. l 9, 2005 16. We're getting into our one-third of the way across rule. It was sticking out. MR. FITZGERALD: This is further back then all the other ones. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The problem was the channel is wider up on the entrance, then as you got to this location, the other side, the northern side, actually came towards the south. MR. FITZGERALD: They're very well aware of that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's a one-third rule instance. MR. FITZGERALD: So, what are you saying; do you think that's necessary? Shorten the float now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make a 6' by 16' float just make it four feet less, then that would be 4, then minus 10 it would bring it back a little bit. MR. FITZGERALD: We need to figure out how long the float would be to meet that requirement. MR. WENDY: My name is Charles Wendy. All the other floats in the association marina are 20 feet. Our proposal, since it's the last one and it is on that curve, is to bring the ramp, make the ramp shorter so we could still have a 20 foot float, but it would be closer to the shoreline than originally indicated. Originally we were going to put a 16' ramp in. We reduced 10 feet, so that would bring the floating dock 10 feet closer to shore; we could even reduce the ramp maybe a few more feet. But I would like to keep a 20' floating dock since that would limit the size of my boat. If l get down to 16 feet, there's not much left, and all the other ramps are 20. TRUSTEE KING: The other floats in the area are 20 foot floats? MR. WENDY: Yes. MR. MCGAGNAN: Can I say something? I'm Joe McGagnan, I'm an officer with the Willow Point Association. They're talking about a four foot ramp, and you don't show an elevation on your drawings for the platform. So I don't know, six foot is probably the distance you have from the ramp to the water. So I can't see a six foot ramp being utilized there, unless you put steps on it. MR. FITZGERALD: That is why Charlie asked me to change it. MR. MCGAGNAN: I know he asked you, but if you had given it any thought you need a staircase there if you're going to go with six feet. It's not going to work. MR. FITZGERALD: I'll mention it to him. MR. MCGAGNAN: We have no objection to the float. Our main 63 Board of Trustees 64 January 19, 2005 concern is keeping the waterway open, the four foot channel. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We put it in the code last year, the one-third rule, the dock and the boat can't go more than one-third across the waterway. In this case, you just measure across, and you take one-third, and you could squeeze in whatever you could squeeze in whatever float/ramp would physically work. You get to the starting point, where do you start that ramp. MR. FITZGERALD: We could solve the ramp problem by not having it come down right at the end of the float. It can come down in the middle of the float on the side. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That includes your boat also, even if we give you a short float, your boat cannot protrude more than one-third across that channel. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And your ramp would be longer. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You couldn't get a 30 foot boat extruding out more than one-third. MR. WENDY: I have no intention of getting a 30 foot boat. I'm talking about a boat that would fit with a 20 foot dock. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's prudent to go out to two foot depth on each side, find where two feet is, measure the distance between those points, and then you know if you have 60 feet, you're allowed 20 feet, then you know you're not breaking codes and falling through a violation of some sort. TRUSTEE KING: The CAC did not make an inspection because the gate was locked. MR. GORIELLO: Bob Goriello, Willow Point Association. What is the parameter of the channel, in other words, what depth would the channel begin and end with? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We usually go from shoreline to shoreline, but the depth of the channel is important also. See the last one's very narrow. If you want, we could meet you out on the site next month. We could meet everybody and maybe get somebody across to throw a line, measure it. We'll work something out. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 23. Patricia Moore on behalf of MARY DIGREGORIO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 58' fixed timber dock, a 3' by '16' ramp, and a 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 100 Oak Street, Cutchogue. SCTM#136-1-36. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Can I come up and we can look at the map? 64 Board of Trustees 65 January 19, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. MS. MOORE: This afternoon Heather pulled out the aerial, and if you take a look, my client's property is right here. They're the only ones left who doesn't have a dock. You can see everyone has a dock. The problem I believe in some respects is this dock next door, his float goes way out to the property line, and I think may even be encroaching a little bit across from the property line. It's there, nobody's going to make an issue out of it. However, it does affect where we put our dock and float. The reason it was drawn this way, this was the shortest distance in which the ramp, the fixed dock crossing the wetlands, so Bob Fox when he looks at this, he always looks at it for wetlands issues and takes the shortest spot, but obviously when we have to go out to water depth that would be approvable both for the DEC and navigable -- he doesn't have a big boat, but I think all of us would agree that two to two and-a-half is about minimum that you want to have the boat sit in with a float. So the there are a couple of alternatives that we could work out. One is move the fixed dock and float closer to this one. You can see that the properties are on kind of a peninsula area. There's a cove in, and you were looking at the docks that were within inside the cove. So we are more consistent with this property in between in a sense if we put our dock out closer to this dock here, we are going to cross more wetlands, but we're going to have water depth faster. It's a matter of choice. We could certainly move it over. Our key is to keep it between two and three because we don't want to go to the DEC, waste eight months at the DEC for something that really isn't approvable. That doesn't make sense. We're willing to modify our design, move our location if need be, the key is the depth of the water. So I think that the aerial gives you a better clue, you know, we moved it over some, obviously we're going to be crossing wetlands. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Isn't this deep? MS. MOORE: I don't know when this aerial was done but he took the measurements. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We still can't let them go out past the pier line. This guy's going to say I only have a foot and-a-half I want three feet. MS. MOORE: We don't know what he has. It looks like he has deep water from the color of the water. It's very shoaled. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: He tied his boat here, put his prop. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On this it shows less than two 65 Board of Trustees 66 January ! 9, 2005 feet. That's the contour. MS. MOORE: Accurate on that side of his property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe he should go back and do some sediment, maybe that's not -- MS. MOORE: I can give this to Bob Fox, have him draw from this location. So you have fixed dock this spot here, then a ramp and float? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It couldn't go past that line. Actually, showing by this it would be shallower out here but he couldn't go past that line. MS. MOORE: You couldn't go past this line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Has to be inside that line. That's showing us the two feet of water. MS. MOORE: I'll have to have him go double check. That's the information; he's done the soundings. He was out there, he's in the boat doing it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to table. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm recusing myself on the next one. 24. 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: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this? MS. MOORE: Yes. We had a good time out there with Chuck Hamilton and Chris Arvisson. Thank you, Jim. Jimmy King was there. Probably the only thing that we would suggest at this point as far as a modification to what we submitted is try the helix anchors, using helix anchors into the land there behind the bulkhead. Because what Chuck Hamilton was proposing would eat into the boat basin tremendously, also wouldn't work in the channel because he narrowed the channel so it wouldn't be navigable. I don't know, Jim, what your impression was, but what he was suggesting didn't make sense. TRUSTEE KING: My impression was he wasn't going to bend as far as not disturbing that marsh. That didn't even seem to be negotiable. MS. MOORE: If I have your permit I will go to appeal. TRUSTEE KING: I have no problem going to the helix, you're boring underground, what are you disturbing. We had another application where the next door property owner would not let 66 Board of Trustees 67 January 19, 2005 the contractor go on the property to do any excavation to put a new bulkhead in. He used those. He drilled in, and it seemed to work out fine. Chris' comment was he read or heard it wouldn't hold in bog, but you said that there's not a bog there. MS. MOORE: I mean if we need to do a test hole there to prove that it's all sand, it's cheaper to do a test hole. TRUSTEE KING: I see you've modified this to put the little short returns to come in? MS. MOORE: We agreed to that when you suggested it the first time. I think it's on your drawings, we haven't modified the drawings yet. TRUSTEE KING: You have it shown on this plan. MS. MOORE: That's the original plan. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't think that was on the original but it is. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: He wanted to shorten that up. He wanted to shorten the bulkhead up and come in with a short return. MS. MOORE: I'm not sure that's wise. TRUSTEE KING: If it will help. MS. MOORE: We have to negotiate that issue. TRUSTEE KING: It's going to give you more in the basin, increase the size of the basin, basically if you cut them back. MS. TETRAULT: I think when the Trustees were there last month they didn't like those returns either. TRUSTEE KING: We suggested on an angle, and he didn't like that idea. He wanted to go straight in with a short return. I'd say back it up maybe one pole. MR. PENNY: He only wanted to go to the first pile. TRUSTEE KING: Other than that -- MS. MOORE: It would be very helpful if the Trustees kind of encouraged -- it's screwed in, it's subsurface. They use that type of drilling for utilities all the time, and it hasn't been a problem to the DEC before. MR. MCGREEVEY: Is it civil anchoring or does it screw into a base? MR. PENNY: Drive in just like a screw. MR. MCGREEVEY: What is the diameter of a screw? MR. PENNY: As big as a 24 if you have conditions that warrant it and you drive them in and you have a gauge on your drive that gives you an indication of how much holding power you have, you can get putting extensions on. If you have the ability to turn it, you can go 100 feet if you have to. When you disconnect your drive, you have an adapter. 67 Board of Trustees 68 January 19, 2005 And couple to that you can bring the wall down. You can do it without excavating. Doesn't disturb the surface at all, you wouldn't even know it's there. MS. MOORE: It's a nice alternative it's something you should consider when you have situations like this. If you can get the DEC on Board to accept it as a preferred method for replacement of bulkhead, I think we all have to speak with a common voice with the DEC sometimes. TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommend approval with the condition that no treated lumber is used, which it's not, and 30 foot non-turf buffer be installed landward of the bulkhead, that's all marsh land that's not to be touched. I don't think the rest of the Board had had any problem with it. Does anybody have a problem with it? MS. TETRAULT: When the Trustees were there last month they said when they came for the house that was all sand, and now where the turf goes down they wanted it to be pulled back. TRUSTEE KING: I'm going to put in there. MS. MOORE: Don't go too crazy, it used to be a manmade sand play area. I think it was a volleyball court. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that they're going to use helix coils as deadmen instead of digging in the marsh and disturbing the marsh. So all this disturbance will be below ground and won't disturb the marsh in any way that I can see, and I'd also put in this want to see a 15 foot non-turf buffer on the seaward end of the lawn. It used to be a sandy area there, let's see a 15 foot non-turf buffer there, have that sod removed. MS. MOORE: There goes his nice lawn. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, I'm going to mark on this that those returns are backed up one pole, both of them. MS. MOORE: Across the way too? TRUSTEE KING: They're almost identical. COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS 25. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of ANGELO PADAVAN requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to 68 Board of Trustees 69 January l 9, 2005 construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, gravel driveway, and bulkhead. Located: 22455 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#135-1-23&24.1. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Thank you, I have Mr. and Mrs. Padavan here tonight, and I also have Bob Tass from Young and Young. We can talk about how we can accomplish this with minimal disturbance, and that's what we're trying to achieve. I know your goal and we're trying to make it work. I arm-twisted Mr. and Mrs. Padavan to follow the coastal zone law which says it's an approvable project if it's no more than 25 percent of the existing structure. This has been certified by Young and Young. We took the existing structures, gave the addition of the 25 percent, the numbers, all the calculations are shown right on the survey, and we are at 24.2 to be precise. And if you have gone to see the property, when you saw the stakes that shows that the building envelope is slightly larger than the existing structure. It's 25 percent, doesn't take very much to make 25 percent. This was before this Board a long time ago, and obviously it did not meet the criteria to make it approvable. So it got rejected. It went to the Town Board and the Town Board thought that project was way too big. The Town attorney when he wrote the decision said, well, there was no discussion about making the project smaller, there was no discussion about moving it here, there whatever. So we're here tonight with what we think is -- or at least taking the existing structure in-kind/in-place, adding 25 percent and keeping it right where it is. If the Board believes that it would be more approvable, more conducive to this Board, we are flexible. We can move it slightly. I spoke to Bob and Bob Tass said we could move the dwelling five feet forward towards the road, but obviously, we'd have to go to the Zoning Board to get approval. The Zoning Board would keep in mind that it was a recommendation from the Trustees with environmental issues in mind. I think there is a high likelihood of success going to the Zoning Board for a front yard variance. With respect to the construction style, we can do the construction with the equipment on the adjacent property. You can use concrete with forms and with forms and with the pumped concrete so that you have minimal truck disturbance here on the property. You can do the sanitary with backhoe construction, again, trying to keep 69 Board of Trustees 70 January 19, 2005 everything as minimal a disturbance to the existing conditions as we can. We have the property is vegetated along the road. The right of way goes right into the property. We can keep the disturbance of the vegetation to a minimum as well by cutting a swath for vehicular access to about 15 feet. So you have all the vegetation that's on the road, and certainly this piece of property consists of two tax map numbers, probably double the size of most of the properties that run along Soundview Avenue, and you're getting a very small portion of this property that's going to be developed, extremely small portion. We have tried to construct an application that we hope is approvable, that we believe is approvable. What I did was I took some photographs, for the record, just as an example. The Board certainly is familiar with the surrounding area. This is one of the very few little structures that hasn't been redone, and it's just a question of keeping it to a minimum size and a minimum disturbance. You have a lot of homes that are all within the coastal zone line. The coastal zone line here is up on the street. So every house that's along Soundview Avenue are all within the coastal zone line. They're all seaward of the coastal zone line, and I have the houses to the east you can see are significant structures, many of them have been renovated over time. This is the house to the east. The property to the west is owned by the condominium association, and you can see that their decking area is larger than the house we're proposing. These are the structures that are next door and that's the condominium. You have formerly Donna Garity Dickers I think it was, this house got renovated very recently, I guess in the last five years certainly after the coastal zone law was in effect. And this house to the east. This is an interesting one, you can see the size in particular of the Garity house I call it the Garity house because it's the owner I knew at the time. This is a 1970 aerial photograph, it shows the existing structure we have today, all the vegetation and you can see that the house, you've got the house next door and the big - how will we describe that -- a Greek colonial. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Garity house, that's fine. MS. MOORE: The Garity house, look at the size of this house in '78 versus as to how it was converted just four or five years ago. That shows you that most of the homes in this area have been renovated, have been expanded and whether or not it was done propedy at the time or not, it's too late, 70 Board o f Trustees 71 January 19, 2005 it's been done. But certainly our proposal for 25 percent over what is existing structure is absolutely miniscule in comparison to the homes that surround this property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me read something into the record first, we were out there Monday, and one thing we noticed, which isn't here, it's all landscaped going up to it now. It's got a little sidewalk and a little sod area? MS. MOORE: It's grass in the lawn area? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That was all new. MS. MOORE: It's been there for years, it's just cut, so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The difference in vegetation, what you have, if you looks at the picture we took on Monday, and you look on that, can you see the amount of vegetation, it's all gone in front of that. All right, we just received this. "To Southold Town Trustees, this is to confirm the analysis of Brownell Johnston concerning the legal elements and my interpretation of the environmental elements of this application. Our conclusion is that the existing structure is existing as defined in Chapter 37 Coastal Erosion Hazard Area." I'm assuming it's 37-15D. MR. JOHNSTON: 37-6, definitional I think. Forthe record, I think that we can stipulate that it existed prior to '91, the structure. So that was that legal determination. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh "My interpretation of the location of the building on the beach is defined in this chapter. As a zone of unconsolidated earth that extends landward from the mean Iow water line to the waterward toe over dune, or where no dune exists the landward of a beach is 100 feet landward from the place where there is a marked change in material or from the line of permanent vegetation, and that all development is prohibited on beaches, prohibits the Trustees from considering the permit. The conclusion is that since the proposed construction will be on a beach, the Trustees are prohibited from granting a permit." That's our interpretation of Chapter 37. It's pretty straightforward. I think it was straightforward in 1991, and I think it's straightforward now. MS. MOORE: I think the analysis of what a beach is is the debris line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's clearly defined under Chapter 37, and this meets its definition. MS. MOORE: If you take a look at the topography and you look up and down the roads and where the homes are, and where the debris line and where their construction and where their landscaping is, it seems to run along the seven foot 7l Board of Trustees 72 January 19, 2005 contour. So when you look at where our seven foot contour line is, it's seaward of the retaining wall. We have the retaining wall that seems to run, and we could certainly modify the location of the retaining wall to hug the house, the structure a little tighter, but when you look up and down, and that's why I put on the record the photograph showing down the beach because you can see that the line really does seem to fall with respect to a seven foot contour. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We saw that it was a beach, and our environmental technician saw that it was a beach, and that was our analysis, and the conclusion under that analysis is that under Chapter 37 it's straightforward that development is prohibited. MS. MOORE: I would respectfully disagree that we have established through topography and the survey has all the topographic features on the survey, and you can see that the topography changes. The beach, we disagree with the analysis of where this beach line is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We could double check if you want. MS. MOORE: I would like to leave the hearing open, and I'll present environmental assessment of where the beach line is. Common sense, if you look up and down with the photographs that you see there, we're not on the beach. In fact, the structure is above the 10 foot contour -- 12 foot contour. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We took pictures this time, it's on the beach. MS. MOORE: The survey trumps your pictures, because the survey uses the topography. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the beach is defined in the code. It's defined under 37-6 as defined beach, that's what we have to go by, what's written in the code. It doesn't matter when topography or what the pictures say, it's written in the code. MS. MOORE: I understand, but there is room for interpretation, what the definition of beach is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What would you define this as under Chapter 37? MS. MOORE: This area here? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MS. MOORE: I would assume we were dealing with its natural features. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All those are defined under Chapter 37, what would you define it as if not a beach? MS. MOORE: The issue is we have an existing structure 72 Board of Trustees 73 January. 19, 2005 that's already there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not the issue. MR. JOHNSTON: I have no problem that there's an existing structure, that's not an issue, and the only issue is that I see, which is not my issue, it's the environmental issue, is if it's a beach, then 37-15D applies, all development is prohibited on a beach. So I leave it up to everybody else, is it a beach or isn't it? I'm a lawyer. MS. MOORE: And I would defer to the environmentalist. It's not binding on us. MR. JOHNSTON: If she's looking, maybe we could ask her to take 37-6 and see how she differentiates those hundred words as to what defines a beach, I'm not telling her what to do. I think our environmental person came up and said it is. MS. MOORE: You walk through the beach and stick your feet in the sand, that's a beach. MS. TETRAULT: The definition's pretty clear based on the material. MR. TASS: My name is Bob Tass from Young and Young Architect. Would it be helpful if we got the Iow water mark, I think that's what we used for a definition, correct? MS. MOORE: Yes, 100 feet from the Iow water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Beach is a zone of unconsolidated earth that extends landward from the mean Iow water line to the waterward toe of a dune or bluff, whichever is most waterward. So, right behind the shack is the bluff. MS. MOORE: No, because the dune or bluff is about seven foot elevation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The toe of the bluff is right behind the shack. MS. MOORE: We disagree with you. MR. TASS: It rises for some short distance, then it levels off then it rises again. MS. MOORE: And the leveling off is where the structure is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right behind it is where the bluff starts. MS. MOORE: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What would you call that behind the shack then? That is the bluff behind the shack. MR. TASS: It may not be the toe of the bluff. MS. MOORE: The toe of the bluff is at the beginning, which is generally at a seven foot contour line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we can agree with that. MS. MOORE: If you have a precipitous slope, if you have a sloping elevation, you start with the slope where you generally have the toe of the slope, that's generally how 73 Board of Trustees 74 January 19, 2005 you define the bluffs. I think there's a definition of bluff in there as well. MS. TETRAULT: There is a definition, but it doesn't use seven feet. MS. MOORE: I'm using that based on the topography that we have that looks to be at the precipitous rise begins that starts at seven feet then rises up to 20 at the road. So you have a slope there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Shoreline subject to seasonal or more frequent overwash or inundation are considered to be beaches, which would certainly put this in the beach category. MS. MOORE: We don't dispute that there is a beach here. We're disputing that this structure is definitely not in a beach. We will get the Iow water. We're already at 80 feet from the tie line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. We mentioned where the rack line -- MS. TETRAULT: We measured 55 feet from the shed to the rack line, and 49 feet from the proposed bulkhead to the rack line MS. MOORE: Would you repeat that again? MS. TETRAULT: 55 feet from the shed to the rack line and 49 feet from the proposed bulkhead. MS. MOORE: That's consistent with what I was seeing on the photographs, which is midway point between the tie line and the structure. If it's 80 a little more. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know where you get the 80 from? MS. MOORE: If you look at the measurement shown there from the tie line to the structure, we have a measurement that shows 80.33, that's the actual measurement. We have 75 to the retaining wall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the line significance though? That's high water?. MR. TASS: That's high water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's incorrect. We get 58 feet from the corner of the shack to high water. That's not a correct measurement. We measured it on Monday, and we were there after a snow and the pictures actually show -- MS. MOORE: I actually have pictures that shows where the ice shows, the line that ice about half way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But did you measure from there? MS. MOORE: I prefer surveyor's certifications because then I can get mad at them if it's wrong. MR. TASS: I don't know the date it was surveyed. It wasn't surveyed this week that's for sure. MS. MOORE: Maybe you can go do -- we'll provide you high 74 Board of Trustees 75 January 19, 2005 and Iow water for the next time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, you can submit whatever you want. MS. MOORE: We'll submit it for the record. But we are willing to work with you if the retaining wall should be of a different material, if you wanted us to take the building and move it closer to the read. My client is willing to discuss altematives, but the outright, no, we can't do it, that's not appropriate in this instance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's black and white in the code. It's not like we can say maybe in this case. MS. MOORE: We disagree with your analysis with what the beach area is. We'll put it on the record and go from there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do you want to table this or not? MS. MOORE: Yes, we have to. Obviously, you want to put it on the record. You don't want to send it in? MR. JOHNSTON: If she wants a denial, we can do that. MS. MOORE: No, I think we should have a full record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make a motion to go back to the regular meeting. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make a motion to resolve that the Southold Town Board of Trustees appoints the following members to the Shellfish Advisory Committee for the term of one year, term to expire December 31, 2005: Carlton Raab, Alicia Martin, Walter Strohmeyer, Charlie Manwaring, Peter Winters, Michael Savage, and add Nathan Andruski. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. t~.CEIV£D ~ 75