Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/18/2005 Albert 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 (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, May 18, 2005 7:00 PM Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President 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: Wednesday, June 15,2005 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of December, 2004 and January, 2005. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES. Approve Minutes of February, 2005 and March, 2005. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. Board of Trustees 2 May 18, 2005 I. MONTHLY REPORT: For March, 2005, check for $6,059.53 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 KRUPSKh Welcome to our regular monthly meeting. Just so everyone knows who everyone is here, starting off is our CAC member, Jennifer ManninG. Brownell Johnston is on the end, he's our legal advisor, Heather Tetrault is our Environmental Technician. Lauren Standish runs the office. Jim King, Peggy Dickerson, Ken Poliwoda are all Board Members. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I have a resolution for SEQRA for the following Listed agenda items that are listed on the agenda for Wednesday May 18, 2005. Be it resolved that the following Listed actions by the Board tonight listed on the agenda of May 18, 2005 are Type 2 under the State Environmental Quality Review Act: Thomas J. Apraa, Jr. SCTM#37-7-9.1 Cutchogue-New Suffolk Park District SCTM#104-8-6.1 Jennifer & Philip Stanton SCTM#64-1-14.7 David Wirtz SCTM#37-4-13 Grace Kehle SCTM#103-10-20 Michael & Kim Kenin SCTM#31-9-11 Gabriel Scibelli SCTM#90-2-15 Kathryn Niedoroda SCTM#115-12-10 Lynne ^ngelson SCTM#123-7-13.1 Lucille Seitz SCTM#59-5-17&18 Dennis Hranitzky SCTM#107-9-2.1 Richard Kubiak SCTM#56-5-25 Aspsia Israfil & Vivian Lindermayer SCTM#51-1-4 Graham Head SCTM#78-8-5.1 Paradise Point Association SCTM#81-1-16.10 TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favo~ ALL AYES IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: 1. GARY LAUBE requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 10' by 16.5' storage shed with four stanchions and a rock foundation. Located: 310 Ackerly Pond Lane in Southold. SCTM#70-5-5 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this this afternoon. This 2 Board of Trustees 3 May 18, 2005 is the original 1690 house on Ackerly Pond that we've all looked at. He's bringing in a shed that he's going to construct. It's just to the north of the house, but it's no closer than the existing building already. There's going to be no digging except for archeological digging, which he's already done. It's going to be ground level, and the only thing it's going to have is rock foundation, so it's not going to be dug in. I didn't have a problem with it. Any questions? I'll make the motion to approve the permit for Gary Laube for the construction of a storage shed with stanchions and rock foundation. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ail in favor? ALL AYES 2. WILLIAM & SUSAN GRAF request an Administrative Permit to construct a new deck and screened-in porch with partial roof on south side of existing house. Located: 4855 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#137-3-8.3 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this a year ago. Did the permit just run out? MS. TETRAULT: It did just run out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because the hay bales were there and everybody's permits were up on the porch. MS. TETRAULT: Right. We told them they could come back for an Administrative Permit because of the location of the extensions, just the deck. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's to the side, it's not even seaward. MS. TETRAULT: And you would go out and look at it this month, but if there were problems, you would have to come in for a full review. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. I had looked at this originally and all the construction is going to the west of the house. MS. TETRAULT: Are there any restrictions that you want to put on it? Are there hay bales? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, the hay bales were there with grass growing out of the top. MS. TETRAULT: Was there anything else there that you want to put in this permit? Do you see you had notes? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. They had hay bales, the 50 foot nondisturbance. Let's do that, the hay bales were already there. We'll put in a 50 foot nondisturbance while they're doing a construction. So I'll make a motion to approve the Administrative Permit to construct a new deck and screened-in porch with partial roof on south side of existing house. Board of Trustees 4 May 18, 2005 MS. TETRAULT: And a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer?. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. MS. TETRAULT: Does that show on the plans? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. MS. TETRAULT: I just want it to be clear to them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have them amend the plans to show that on the new plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Can they amend those? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do I have a second on that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES V. RESOLUTIONS-MOORINGS: 1. ROLAND GRANT requests a Mooring Permit in Richmond Creek for a 16' boat replacing Mooring #93. Access: Public TRUSTEE KING: I think our policy is if you have dock you can tie a boat to you don't need a mooring. I make a motion to deny this application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA.' Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES 2. EDWARD BOYLE requests a Mooring Permit in Town Creek for a 17' boat replacing Mooring #530. Access: Public TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I didn't have a problem with this. I don't think anybody did. I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES 3. WILLIAM GORDON requests a Mooring Permit in Richmond Creek, replacing Mooring #992 for a 26' boat. Access: Public TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Once again, there seems to be no problem with replacing this mooring. I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. KARL & MARY CUTLER request a Mooring Permit in Deep Hole Creek for a 21' boat, replacing Mooring #623. Access: Private TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I make a motion to approve that one also. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS 1. CHARLES SAUCE requests an Amendment to Permit #5020 4 Board of Trustees 5 May 18, 2005 to reconfigure the floating dock from its present alignment to straight linear configuration extending out from the present catwalk and ramp and perpendicular to the shoreline and secured by three new piles. Located: 2315 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-3-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I missed this field inspection. I had to attend to other Trustee duties at this time. I don't think the applicant's here. TRUSTEE KING: We met with him in the field and we explained to him we don't want to exceed the pier line. If he wants to rearrange it and keep it within that pier line, we didn't have a problem with it. That means shortening the catwalk. Everything's going to be the same as it is now, except the float will be turned sideways. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He didn't submit anything. MS. STANDISH: He was in the office yesterday, did he bring anything in? TRUSTEE KING: He kind of left it up in the air. MS. TETRAULT: He came into the office and he wanted to be clear about what we told him in the field before he spoke with his dock builder. So I told him shorten the catwalk by 12 feet to 48. I think he understood that he had to go back and draw up the plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSK~: I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: All in favor?. ALL AYES 2. Costello Marine on behalf of THOMAS J. APREA, JR. requests an Amendment to Permit #5844 to resheath existing jetty in-place with vinyl sheathing replacing existing creosoted sheathing, and dredge existing basin to a depth of -5' and depositing spoil (125 cubic yards) on the beach as beach nourishment. Located: 3140 Gardiner's Bay Estate, East Marion. SCTM#37-7-9.1. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh This is a straightforward application. I don't know if anybody had any questions about it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The old jetty? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was a question about the jetty on the west side, there's remnants of the jetty on the west side. MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costelio, and I am the agent Mr. Aprea. There's a question on the jetty? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The remnants of the jetty on the west side, there's a functioning jetty coming out. MR. COSTELLO: We removed that last year. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. It wasn't Iow water, we couldn't see 5 Board of Trustees 6 May 18, 2005 what was going on, but it was pieces of wood sticking up maybe 30 feet, it was the furthermost western side. MR. COSTELLO: The furthest most western jetty was not part of the application as of last year. The second jetty, the next one to it to the east was in the DEC; we made that as part of their permit was to remove from Iow water offshore, at Iow water we removed it. TRUSTEE KP, UPSKh We did see it. MR. COSTELLO: And the inshore end of that jetty was to be cut off at approximate beach level at that time. We were also supposed to take the spoil and pre-fill that area, and it was at that time. That was last year. That's a different application, but it is part of this same amendment request. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's just while we were out on the site we noticed it's the westward leg of that westward jetty that's really in bad shape we were wondering if something could be done with that before it becomes debris. MR. COSTELLO: I haven't inspected it since it was removed. We took most of the material out of the bottom and took it to the landfill. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're talking about a different jetty. It's this here (indicating). MR. COSTELLO: I think it's over on the property line of DiFilipi. We never got involved in that. We never made an application on any portion of that. That is near the property line of the adjacent neighbor. We didn't get involved in that whatsoever. We don't have a permit for it from the DEC or any other agency. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We didn't have an issue with the project. We just noticed when we were there it was in tough shape. Okay, thank you. I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES 4. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of CUTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK PARK DISTRICT requests an Amendment to Permit #5832 to include the existing barrier fence and install a new grade-level boardwalk 300' by 100' plus/minus between the existing gazebo and the existing restroom facility. Located: 9430 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-8-6.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Mr. Fitzgerald, we reviewed this on the site, and I'm not going to speak for myself, I mean, I am going to speak for myself -- I didn't have a problem with the barrier in that it prevents people from driving on the 6 Board of Trustees 7 May 18, 2005 beach, but I think the development of the boardwalk I think it's sort of unnecessary considering there's a paved parking lot that people can access. MR. FITZGERALD: There are two gentleman here from the Park Commission who might want to address that. And if I may, on May 9th, I gave you folks a letter that said that I had, because of a misunderstanding on my part it's not 100 feet, it's 275 feet from the new previously permitted gazebo -- but unbuilt -- to the restroom facility. MR. SMITH: My name is Jeff Smith I'm chamber person of the Park District. The reason we talked about the boardwalk is we had requests from numerous parents with strollers, items of that nature where they can walk, sit on that barrier fence that we put up protecting them from the cars that pull all the way up. The boardwalk is going to go on the inside of that barrier fence. So when they get out of the car and can put the kids on that boardwalk and the barrier fence is protecting them. Right now there's nothing there. It's right into the parking lot. And we get a lot of kids down there. That's why we thought we would put the request in for it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The Board might have comments. TRUSTEE DICKER$ON: I think we all agreed. I think the entire Board agreed that we were trying to reduce structure on the beach. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I know we made comments that we were going to put a walkway in that could exist where the cement, the pavement is now so you're going to lose two or three feet of pavement. MR. SMITH: So in other words, on this side of the barrier fence? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They visited it without me. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. Which I kind of agreed with. I don't see any reason to go beyond that split-mil fence now. MR. SMITH: I hear you. MR. ALLISON: My name is Dave Allison, I'm part of the Parks Commission. I'm trying to think in my head what you were talking about, Ken. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Landward along the split-mil fence that exists along the beach. MR. ALLISON: The cars that park in that parking lot will have a tendency to park right up to the barrier fence. If you put a walkway on that side, then it will necessitate putting cement barriers into the parking lot itself, so they Board of Trustees 8 May 18, 2005 have a stop barrier for the car. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You could always create another stop barrier, whether it's piling, handrail with a rope, something. MR. ALLISON: One of the reasons for the boardwalk also is the seagulls have a tendency to grab rocks and drop them on to the parking lot. And you can't really walk in bare feet because you'll be stepping on all these rocks. It's a constant clean-up job to get. MS. TETRAULT: The seagulls will drop their clams on your boardwalk as well. MR. ALLISON: This is true, they know what's hard and not hard, they'll use the parking lot. MS. TETRAULT: They will use the wood a lot too. They can drop onto that too. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think I would recommend no CCA. MR. ALLISON: It would be trex or similar material. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It could be on this side of the fence. I agree. I grew up on that beach. I don't know, pushing a stroller 10 years ago, seven years ago. MR. SMITH: It was definitely going to be trex, it wasn't going to be CCA. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree. It should be landward of that. MR. SMITH: Of the parking lot? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If it's raised, it's going to stop the cars anyway. MS. TETRAULT: No structure on the beach. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But is that going to reduce the parking area? MR. SMITH: We do plan on going to the Town, if you're standing in the parking lot now, looking at the beach behind us, we do have a problem with the cars lining up there, and we do plan on having signs put up there "no parking." I'm not sure whether that would cause us a problem. TRUSTEE DICKERSON; I would agree with it on the existing roadway but not on the beach. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: My point is environmentally what's the difference whether you have cement or a walkway? It doesn't make much difference. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you give us plans showing that? We could approve that and then you can give us new plans showing that. MR. SMITH: I'm not following. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We can approve it upon submission of plans. MR. FITZGERALD: Showing what? Board of Trustees 9 May 18, 2005 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The walkway is landward of the parking lot. MR. FITZGERALD: What is the objection of having it on the seaward side? Why is that not a good idea? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Not adding more structure to the existing beach. MS. TETRAULT: It's the natural resources of the town. We don't want wood on our sand. We want beaches. It's part of replenishment of the sand and ecosystem. MR. FITZGERALD: Could someone explain to me why that is environmentally unsound? MS. TETRAULT: You can't improve upon Mother Nature. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: For one thing, there's a lot of beach grass along there, and that's holding the sand so it doesn't erode away. MR. FITZGERALD: Don't you think a wood walkway would serve the same purpose? MS. TETRAULT: Absolutely not. In a storm condition, a wood walkway would get in the way of the natural process. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That does flood there. That is prone to flooding. MS. TETRAULT: The water comes up to that parking lot and floods it. MR. FITZGERALD: And having a walkway there -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It becomes a hard structure in a storm event and it's going to accelerate the erosion in a storm event. That's the first thing the waves are going to hit and scour out behind it, you're going to lose that beach elevation. If you get a storm, the water's that high, the wind's blowing and the walk would be gone at that point. Actually putting the walk on the other side of the new guard rail is going to protect it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It will just float. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It won't end up as debris. MR. FITZGERALD: Let me ask you this, the barrier fence is six feet from the edge of the pavement and in that six feet, there is sand with grass in it, not beach grass, but funny grass, that's okay on that side of the fence. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that was the compromise to put it on that side of the fence to allow for that sort of access that's desirable as opposed to putting it on the beach side, correct, Peggy? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. MR. FITZGERALD: But you are talking about putting the walkway in the sand area? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Landward of the fence. Board of Trustees 10 May 18, 2005 MR. SMITH: Just to the other side of the barrier fence. MS. TETRAULT: They asked for seaward and they're being told landward. MR. FITZGERALD: I just want to make sure that Kenny doesn't think it's going to be on the asphalt. MR. SMITH: This side of the barrier fence, towards the parking lot. MR. FITZGERALD: On the sand. MR. SMITH: There is some sand there but not a lot. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Broken asphalt. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As long as it's landward of the fence. MS. TETRAULT: So we need new plans showing that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion showing the 2' by 275' Walkway. MR. SMITH: When I saw that too, that's when I saw this 100 feet I was like I think we're a little short there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It goes from the entrance? MR. SMITH: Yes, down -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It wouldn't be a bad idea since you're putting a four foot path there, maybe put a four foot path of beach grass there as a little buffer on the beach side. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There's a lot of grass there now. That's one of our objections, there's quite a bit. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was thinking make it a nice plush buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve that condition with the plans showing that. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES 5. En-Consultants on behalf of JENNIFER & PHILIP STANTON request an Amendment to Permit #5974 to allow for the replacement of an existing fixed timber dock with a dock consisting of a 4' by 56' fixed timber catwalk; 3' by '14' ramp and 6' by 20' "T" float secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings. Located: 720 Town Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM#64-1-14.7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm going to ask Rob Hermann to give us an explanation of the proposed change. MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. Basically the dock proposed now, the modified dock extends the exact same distance from the shoreline as the dock that was already approved by the Board. But under the prior approval, the float was shore perpendicular, which was denied by the DEC. They said the only condition under which they would approve it is if we extended the dock 10 Board of Trustees 11 May 18, 2005 farther out and situated the float parallel to the shoreline. So what we're showing now is an "L" dock so that the entire float is basically sitting in three to four feet of water. If you went to the site it was staked and where that stake is is the exact same extent as the dock that was previously approved. So the configuration of the dock is changed but the overall seaward extension is the same. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommended disapproval. Why was that? MS. MANNINO: Isn't the dock longer?. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Overall it would be the same length. MR. HERMANN: We had two reference points, if you remember last time, the dock would extend what we showed 34 feet off Iow water, but if you remember Kenny and I took a measurement of how far it would extend off where the existing dock ends, there was about 13 feet and again that's the same. MS. MANNINO: I didn't see this one so I don't know first hand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We visited the site last week, and I don't think the Board had any objection to the proposed amendment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. MS. TETRAULT: I just want to mention there was a boat in the intertidal area sitting on the grasses, and the Board would like to see that moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Very old. MR. HERMANN: Like a row boat? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. MR. HERMANN: Okay, not a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES 6. ARTHUR TOREEL requests a last One-Year Extension to Permit 5587 as issued on July 4, 2002, 385 Westwood Lane, Greenport. SCTM#33-2-11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I seriously doubt it's the last one because I think we have been extending this since the early '90s. But I'll make a motion to approve that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES 7. THOMAS JORDAN requests a first One-Year Extension to Permit 5572 as issued on June 26, 2002 and amended on June 11 Board of Trustees 12 May 18, 2005 24, 2004. Located: 1680 Brigantine Drive, Southoid. SCTM#79-4-25 MS. TETRAULT: Did anybody go look at that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I look at it every day. MS. TETRAULT: I know you do. Did anybody else go look at it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I can't imagine anything changing there, even without Kenny's comments. TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve the extension. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Recuse. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. 8. EDGAR EL CHAAR requests a Transfer of Permit #1470 from Bruce R. Johnson to Edgar El Chaar, as issued on January 7, 1981. Located: 3765 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#137-1-1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There were existing extra floats. This now has three of these pilings, it's got a catwalk, a ramp, the float is still existing, which I didn't have a problem with but it's got this extra float. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Isn't there a violation issued? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. This is a transfer and from what I've been told, she's willing to remove anything that is not of the existing permit. MS. TETRAULT: She just wants to be in compliance. She wants a permit in her name. She doesn't know what was allowed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't we approve it subject to her removing everything that wasn't permitted. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. Hold the permit until it's in compliance. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the permit with the condition that anything that is not in compliance with the existing permit be removed, and I just want to make sure that the one thing that was on the catwalk was this huge white railing that went all the way down; so I would also comment that that be removed. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I need a motion to go offthe regular meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. 12 Board of Trustees 13 May 18, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES 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. Before we start, there are a number of public hearings tonight that will not be opened. I want to announce that so no one has to sit here and wait for nothing. Number 13, James Murray and Susan Segur is postponed; Number 14, Alan Cardinale is postponed; Number 16, Sim Moy; Number 18, Matt-A-Mar by the Bay is postponed; Number 19, Vincent and Carol Manago and Number 20, LI Sound Oyster Company; Number 21, J and C Holding is postponed; Number 22, Frank Purita is postponed. Before we start the other public hearings, we have to go into executive session over some serious matter. And so we will meet, the Board is going to meet in the conference room. (Off the record) TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you everyone for being patient. If anyone would like to comment on any of these applications, please come up to the microphone and identify yourself for the record. COASTAL EROSION & WETLANDS PERMITS 1. Patricia Moore on behalf of LEWIS & HELAINE TEPERMAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing beach house. Located: 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM#21-2-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. Dr. Teperman apologizes. He was planning on coming out here but he was called away so he couldn't make it, but we are here. If you recall from the last meeting we had with the Board Dr. Teperman asked, what do you need to establish 13 Board of Trustees 14 May 18, 2005 clearly that everything that was there to his knowledge was repaired and continued. And you suggested two things, or you asked for two things, which we have now submitted to the Board prior to this meeting, but I have the original aerial photograph, I had to make a photocopy of it, obviously, I have the original here. We also prepared a topographic survey which, quite frankly, the topographical survey I think is superfluous here because we have the aerial photograph that cleady shows that all the structures that Dr. Teperman repaired once he acquired the property are all the structures that were there at the point of enactment of the coastal erosion hazard law that's in the books. So in addition to that, the law went into effect in 1991, the closest aerial that we could get from Aerographics was December 22, 1992, what I did I chased down Mr. Wetmore, who was the owner at the time in '91, and he was kind enough, I found him in Florida, and he was kind enough to go over the structures that were there. I faxed him the photocopy of the aerial survey and he pretty much described everything that was showing on the aerial survey. I submitted to the Board an affidavit from Mr. Wetmore, who lived there, but the house was actually in title to Mrs. Wetmore, Barbara Wetmore, this is before they divorced and they went their separate ways. But certainly they were both living in the house. This was their principal residence and the house and all the beach structures remain as they were when the law went into the books, which is the issue that you have before you. So, if you would like to see the original aerial, I have it here. I'd be happy to present it to the BOard. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is '92? MS. MOORE: The law went into effect August of '91. This aerial, which is the closest in time, is December 22, 1992. That's why I had the affidavit to cover the period of time from the time of the law until today. Nothing has changed. As you can see here, when you matched the survey to the aerial photograph, here's the house here, here's the deck here behind the house, there's a stoop and a walkway that goes around. I know it's difficult, but here's the roofline here. The shadows are a little difficult to follow. Here's the shadow of the roofline, here's the deck, here's a stoop down to the grass, there's the path to a walkway, and that's how you can follow down along everything is there. Here's the deck that's at the top of the bluff, the stairway down to the bluff. As we told you before the only difference was that here there were apparently two 14 Board of Trustees 15 May 18, 2005 protrusions that actually encroached on the neighboring property, so when it was repaired in-kind/in-place those two features were removed so the decking actually no longer encroaches on the neighbor. So it was actually reduced in size on the easterly side. And the aerial speaks for itself. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. MOORE: If you would like to keep that for your file I could submit it. If you would prefer the photocopies and I will take the aerial. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Those are things that we did ask for at the last hearing. I don't know if the Board is satisfied with that proof. But first, anyone else on Teperman? MS. GOREL: This was done when? MR. JOHNSTON: Before '91. MS. MOORE: This structure is prior to the adoption of the coastal zone law, which is what we're dealing with today. MS. GOREL: I don't think that this at all resembles what's there now? MS. MOORE: It's your opinion. MS. GOREL: My name is Jane Gorel and I live on Star's Road in East Marion. MS. SAWASTYNOWICZ: Nancy Sawastynowicz, and I also live on Star's Road in East Marion. MS. GOREL: Just looking at this picture, this doesn't look like what I saw this afternoon and what I have seen; I have seen the current house. I'd seen it more than a month ago, in fact, I wrote a letter which was before the last meeting of your Board saying that the current structure is not the original structure. And it's very different. The current structure is larger, and it's got decking that wasn't there, and it's up higher off the ground. MR. JOHNSTON: Ma'am, are you making reference to the beach house or the beach shed or the property up on the bluff? MS. GOREL: I'm talking about the beach house. And it looks from this picture as though we're looking at the back of it, which I don't think you could see now because it's so close into the bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the picture is from 1992. MS. GOREL: That's what I'm saying, it doesn't look like the same structure is that exists now. I mean that's right off the top of my head. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Thank you. MS. GOREL: Because I just saw the photograph. But also I -- MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, she's looking at the photo 15 Board o f Trustees 16 May 18, 2005 presented by Miss Moore. MS. GOREL: I would say that it's unrecognizable to me in this photo -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. GOREL: -- as the current structure. And well, I know the area because I've walked the beach many, many times in the past 30 years, and I knew the people, I knew the Salamones, who owned the property, and I was familiar with seeing the beach house, and it was small. It was, I would say, level, almost level with the beach. It wasn't up about several feet high now as it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How about the bathroom; did it have a bathroom? MS. GOREL: No. It was a very primitive structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Like a shed. MS. GOREL: Yes. MS. TETRAULT: Did it have that shower off to the west? MS. GOREL: No. MR. JOHNSTON: How often have you walked by that, ma'am? MS. GOREL: How often have I walked by it? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. MS. GOREL: Uncountable. MR. JOHNSTON: Over the last three years, five years? MS. GOREL: Over the last three, five years I would say at least a dozen times, not so many times in the past couple of years. In fact, I was very surprised when I saw this structure as it is now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. GOREL: I have a letter I hope it might be on file that I sent on the 14th of April. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: if it was sent in last month, yes. MS. GOREL: I worked for the people who owned the house. MS. MOORE: Could you please put on the record the year that she worked for the Salamones? MS. GOREL: Yes, sure, I would say about 1980, eady '80s. MS. MOORE: Prior to '917 MS. GOREL: Yes, right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? MS. SAWASTYNOWICZ: Nancy Sawastynowicz, East Marion. Most people go to town meetings not because there is not in my backyard, well, Louis Teperman's violation is Not In My Back Yard, it's in the Town's public beach yard. If this beach house is allowed to stay on the beach 15 feet from the sound, it will set a precedent for other property owners to destroy our fragile shoreline. The little shack that was there was torn down in the two 16 Board of Trustees 17 May 18, 2005 weeks in the fall of 2004. It was taken off in a small trailer. When the existing shack was torn down, the right to build was lost. But the applicant built a new house and it was built and finished before Christmas of 2004 -- not repaired. The applicant keeps saying the toilet was in the shack since the 1950s and the copy of the survey from 1975 submitted by the applicant clearly shows there were no toilet facilities. I don't have much more to add. But the coastal policies are now in place to protect our natural · resources. Please do the right thing with this crime to our beach. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? MS. MOORE: My turn? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You don't have to speak. MS. MOORE: I need to ratify some things I've already put on the record and to clear up I think a misunderstanding on her part regarding the sanitary. What you have in your file is an old 19 -- gosh, I have to find it. It was a sanitary application for the main house up at the top and of the sanitary that was approved was for the one at the top. If you recall, all the affidavits as well as a memorandum of sale that was advertised by the broker at the time prior to my client purchasing the property, it referred to a bathroom, and it's a compostable bathroom. It's a self-contained bathroom. So there would be no sanitary showing where the Health Department would regulate because there's no sanitary system in the ground. So there's a misunderstanding when reading that survey as to what it depicts. Also I want to ratify what you already have in your file. We have provided you an affidavit from Mrs. Palumbo, who was a neighbor there, who is very familiar with the property, and shared with us the history of the property as well as the amenities that are in the cabana/beach house. I did submit that sales memorandum. You also have multiple surveys done by Stanley Isaacson. The surveys, if you look at the dates when the surveys were done, the original survey submitted was done for the seller, Gianopolous, I believe it was, that survey shows all the structures. Then later on, Dr. Teperman had the survey updated, then you asked for further topographic surveys, and we provide that as well. So I think there is ample evidence in your file to show that this was, in fact, a cabana, beach house it's been there for a very, very long time. The structures that were repaired were all prior to the '91 code, and the code allows the applicant to repair in-kind/in-place. 17 Board of Trustees 18 May 18, 2005 The facts are disputed by two neighbors who live on Star's Road who observed the structures by walking on the beach periodically and, in fact, in a sense trespassing and this upset certainly Mm. Palumbo because this beach doesn't have open access, does not have public access. It is a very small, closed-in cove where you can see up and down the street all the old cabanas, all the old beach houses, that are very similar vintage as the one that is on this property. Yes, it was repaired and we have come before this Board for an as-built permit for it. The penalty is that we have to pay double the fees in both wetland permit and coastal zone permit, but it's clear that the structures were there, and you asked for proof it. We submitted it. And at this point we would like our permit so this matter can be resolved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to come up to the microphone, ma'am. MS. GOREL: I'd like to say that it is not trespassing walking up and down the beach. That beach is public; it's for all of us to enjoy, and I have every right to walk on that beach. I did not walk inside the house or even on the property belonging to the owner. I walked on the beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. In light of all the information we received here tonight, I'll make a motion to table the application, put it on for field inspection so we can try to sort this out in the field as to what was received here tonight, and what's been submitted by the applicant. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES MS. MOORE: You want to meet me at the site? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. It's in June 15th, it's in East Marion pretty early, 9:00. MS. TETRAULT: Pat, one thing I would respond to something that you said, under Chapter 97, the ordinary and usual maintenance and repair of a presently permitted existing building is allowed, but there was no permit in place. MS. MOORE: It pre-dates. MS. TETRAULT: I understand and a lot of things pre-date, and people can't rebuild unless people come for permits. That happens all the time. MS. MOORE: I think because we're in Justice Court and statutes are read very strictly against the Town as far as the language. It's a permitted structure in that it's -- I 18 Board o f Trustees 19 May 18, 2005 know what you're intending which is it doesn't have a physical permit because it predates your jurisdiction on issuing permits but it's a permitted structure in that it pre-exists and therefore it's permitted. So I don't want to quibble with you about your intention of the way the code was adopted but it is, in fact, a permitted structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Actually, Heather's right because if you were right you wouldn't be here seeking a permit. MS. MOORE: Actually, we could have taken that position but as Dr. Teperman told you last time, he's trying to work with the Town and certainly coming in and getting a permit for the structure is what the Board would like to do. So rather than fighting the issue and determine whether it needs a permit or doesn't need a permit, it's sometimes easier not to argue the point and get a permit, double the permit application fee for as-builts, that's why you doubled the application fee for as-builts. We have an as-built here situation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We'll see you on the 15th. 2. Patricia Moore on behalf of ANGELO PADAVAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, gravel driveway, and bulkhead. Located: 22455 $oundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#135-1-23&24.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MS. MOORE: Yes. We are continuing a hearing from months ago, when you asked for certain data to be put on a survey, which we have done. I also have with me this evening Tom Cramer from Cramer Consulting Group, who is providing expert testimony for the record. He's an expert with coastal erosion hazard areas. By way of introduction we have a curriculum vitae attached to a written proposal. We have a written submission for the Board members. Tom has prepared planning studies, environmental impact statements and environmental planning reviews for various projects and re-zonings for the Town of Southold. He has also provided similar services to private individuals throughout Long Island and has provided consulting services for numerous municipalities, state agencies. He was the director of environmental protection and commissioner of planning and environment and development in the Town of Brookhaven. In those capacities he was a chief executive officer in charge of the implementation of the Brookhaven Coastal Erosion 19 Board of Trustees 20 May l 8, 2005 Hazard Program, which, like Southold's, is based on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Part 505, Coastal Erosion Management. So, what I will do is step aside and ask Tom to put on the record all the information that we have compiled for this Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. CRAMER: Good evening. For the record, my name is Thomas Cramer, principal of Cramer Consulting Group with offices at 54 North Country Road, Miller Place. I'm sure most of this information has been put in as far as the first part of what I'll go over. What presently exists on site is house, deck, stairs and walkway which total 570 square feet. All the structures predate 1991, the effective date of the Town's Chapter 37 the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. The proposed project is for a three bedroom home with associated sanitary system, parking area and stairs. The new footprint for the home would be 514 square feet in size, plus the other impervious structures on the site, which is 194 square feet; this totals 708 square feet. This is an increase of 138 square feet, and the existing conditions or 24.2 two pement increase over the existing. Since the increase is less than 25 pement, the proposal would be considered a non-major addition under Chapter 37-6. The New York State DEC has set the coastal erosion hazard area boundary on the north side of Soundview Avenue, and the entire project falls within coastal erosion hazard area. The parcel is trapezoidal in shape situated on Long Island Sound, contains approximately 18,874 square feet, the southern portion fronting on Soundview Avenue has elevations that rise to approximately 20 feet and the northern portion of the site is beach with the northern property line being the mean high water line. The mean Iow water line is approximately 45 feet further to the north. The existing structures are located on the wooden slope in the northeast corner of the site. There are several land forms on the site as it transitions from Long Island Sound to the roadway, these are the beach, dune and bluffs. These land forms are defined in Chapter 37 as well as accepted practice. The beach is defined in the code as the zone of unconsolidated earth that extends landward from the mean Iow water line to the waterward toe of the dune or bluff, whichever is the most waterward. Where no dune or bluff exists landward of the beach, the landward limit of the beach is 100 feet landward from the place where there's a marked change in material or physiogeographic form or from 2O Board of Trustees 21 May 18, 2005 the line of permanent vegetation, whichever is most waterward. Shorelines adjacent to seasonal or more frequent overwash are inundated are considered to be beaches. In accordance with the code, definition of the beach in this area would extend to the dune or the bluff in this case both the dune and the bluff are present. ^ Iow, small dune system does exist at the bottom of the slope adjacent to the Sound Avenue. This landward edge of the dune is approximately eight foot contour line and extends north to what's shown on the survey as the limit of beach/edge of dune, and that's the survey I believe the Board has. If not, I think we have some extra copies if the Board needs them. This area of dune ranges in size from approximately 30 feet wide on the eastern portion of the property to about 10 foot wide on the west. In the code, dune is defined as follows: The ridge of sand or loose wind-blown or artificially placed earth whose principal component of which is sand. Dune is further defined in the code under 37-16 as dunes prevent overtopping and store sand for coastal processes, high vegetated dunes provide greater degree protection than the Iow unvegetated ones. Dunes are of the greatest protection value during the conditions of storm induced high water because dunes often protect some of the most biological productive areas, as well as developed coastal areas. The protective value is especially great. The key to maintaining a stable dune system is the establishment and maintenance of beach grass or other vegetation on the dunes and the assurance of a supply of nourishment of sand to the dunes. On this site the dunes are thickly vegetated with beach grass suggesting their permanent nature. As stated previously, this formation is slow and Iow on the site. The other locations such as those on the ocean or where dunes are typically larger or more classic in formation, these result because of the wider beaches there, the higher wind velocity and the smaller grain of sand size, which allows more movement and deposition of the material in these locations. Because of the minimum source of sand and the cobble beaches on the north shore, dunes are typically smaller. In this case the initial development probably started with the deposition of material through wave action during storm events. This raised the elevation and allowed vegetation to take hold. The vegetation then allowed the trapping and 21 Board of Trustees 22 May 18, 2005 depositing of wind blown sand within the current dune area. Soil samples were taken in numerous locations within this dune area on site. All the soil samples that were taken reveal sand, throughout the dune there were no cobblestones or other material found. The presence of only sand on the site with the dune areas further supports the fact that this Iow ridge was established by wind. Attached in the package are several photos that illustrate the existing conditions on and adjacent to the site. Photo A shows the beach and dune area. The rack line starting in the lower right-hand corner is approximately the mean high water line and also the northern property line. The storm beach extends from the mean high water line to the drill line, which starts in the lower left-hand corner of that photo. This is the landward demarcation of the beach and the point at which the material is deposited during storm events. Large material such as tree trunks are clearly visible in the photo. This line also separates the beach from the dune in this particular area. Photo B shows the dune area from the eastern property line looking west. The site as you can see is heavily vegetated with beach grass, and in the center of the photo in the dune you can see where the snow has accumulated in the shallow area between the two Iow slopes, the two Iow ridge lines. While small and shallow, this is typical topographical feature of more classic dune systems and more larger ones. The third form on the site is the bluffs which is adjacent to Sound Avenue. In the code bluff is defined as a bank or cliff with precipice or steeply sloped face adjoining a beach or body of water. The waterward limit of this bluff is the landward limit of its waterward natural protective feature. Where no beach is present, the waterward limit of the bluff would be the mean Iow water. The landward limit is 25 feet landward of the receding edge or in those cases where there is no discernible line of active erosion 25 feet landward of the point of the inflection of the top of the bluff. The point of inflection is that point along the top of the bluff where the trend of the land slope changes to begin its decent to the shoreline. The bluff, while not high as those to the west at Horton Point which extends to approximately 60 feet in height, does represent a protective feature on this site in the area. The bluff on-site is an eroding remnant of the 22 Board of Trustees 23 May 18, 2005 terminal moraine as the ground elevation drops from Horton Point down to Hashamomonk Beach to the east. This landform is, as stated, a previously eroded slope is now wooded. The protective feature of the dune in front no doubt allowed this vegetation to establish itself on the slope. On the east of the area of the existing and proposed structures the grade changes from 20 feet above mean sea level to eight feet mean sea level, at a distance of approximately 45 feet or a grade of approximately 26 percent. On the western edge of the property the slope is more severe with a slope of approximately 76 percent. No activity is proposed within this more severe area of the slope. The wooded slope includes a mix of trees and shrubs, Photo B illustrates this area on the extreme left-hand side of the photo. Photo C looks west, Photo D looks east shows close up to the front of the existing structure and the trees adjacent to and in front of. As can be seen in Photo D, the existing structures to the east of the subject property extend well seaward of the existing and proposed structures on-site. In the past the bluff most likely extended further to the east than this particular property considering the existing topography around the existing homes to the east. The area immediately to the east was apparently modified probably at the time of the construction of those homes. No bluff now exists in those areas to the east. Like the houses to the east, the construction of the existing structure on this particular site no doubt modified the previous bluff and allowed for level area to situate the original site during the original improvements on the bluff face. However, the modifications of the bluff were not severe and the site now represents the eastern terminus of the bluff within the area. With regard to the impacts on the coastal erosion hazard area, as stated previously, the proposed activity is within the coastal erosion boundaries therefore permits are required under Chapter 37. The proposed action is for an addition of 24.2 percent of the existing structure and is considered a non-major addition. While non-major addition is not defined in the code, a major addition is defined under 37-6 as an addition to a structure resulting in 25 percent or greater increase is the ground area coverage. Therefore the additions, they're not greater than 25 percent of the footprint and therefore they were not considered major additions, and hence are considered non-major. Article 2 of Chapter 37 establishes regulations 23 Board of Trustees 24 May 18, 2005 for activities and land and water areas in the coastal erosion areas of the town. Regulations for the three land forms of the site are found within here. In accordance with 37-15, there are no proposed activities within the beach area of the site. 37-6 provides regulations for activities within the dune area. As stated, the dune provides protection from wave action and stores sand for the coastal processes. The vegetated area on the site will protect existing and proposed structure just as it has protected the bluff on the site in the past. Likewise, no activities are proposed directly in the dune area. However, under 37-6, definition of primary dune, the landward limit of the dune extends 25 feet landward of the landward toe of the dune. In this case, the landward toe I'm considering the eight foot contour line. Therefore the existing and the proposed structures would fall within what's defined as a dune under 37-16. Under 37-16A(5) it states that no major additions to existing structures, non-major additions to existing structures are allowed in pdmary dunes pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit and subject to the permit conditions concerning location, design and potential impacts of the structure to the primary dune. Since the addition is considered non-major structure and it is not within the dune area directly, the proposed addition would be a permissible activity. Regulations for the bluff portion of the property is found within 37-17. 37-17A lists the activities that are prohibited in bluffs and the proposed project does not include any of these prohibited activities. The activities specifically allowed on the bluffs are defined under 37-17B. Similar to the dune regulations, 37-17B(4) states that non-major additions to existing structures are allowed on bluffs pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit. Again, this is considered a non-major addition, and therefore would be considered permissible. 37-17B(1 ) allows for major alterations of a bluff done in accordance with conditions stated in the coastal erosion management permit issued for new construction, modification or restoration of erosion protection structure. The proposed activity will include minor alterations of the bluff for the construction of additions. As part of the project mitigation, measures such as gutters, leaders and dry wells will contain storm water runoff, and retaining walls will contain and limit fill on the site as proposed. The northern retaining wall/bulkhead set above the eight 24 Board o f Trustees 25 May ! 8, 2005 foot contour line and adjacent to the dune area will provide additional erosion protection to the bluff and structures if the dune area is ever overtop during a severe storm. In addition, 37-17B(3) allows for new construction, modification or restoration of walkways or stairways done in accordance with conditions of a coastal erosion hazard management. The project calls for new construction of walkways, and the modification, reconstruction of existing stairways on the site. The proposed activities therefore would be permissible under the code. With regard to the impacts to the Town wetlands laws, there are no vegetated wetlands existing on the subject site. The existing structure is located approximately 95 feet from the mean high water line. The 25 percent expansion of the structure is proposed to take place in a line with the existing structure immediately to the east of it. The proposed expanded structure will therefore maintain the present setback from the mean high water. The setback is approximately five feet, less than it is minimum required under 97-12D(1) for a residence. No impacts are expected to occur as a result of the proposed expansion. A new sanitary meeting the Suffolk County Department of Health Services standards is proposed for the house. The septic tank, the non-leaching portion, is proposed for a setback of 104 feet from the mean high water and the nearest proposed leaching pool will be setback 120 feet from the mean high water. These setbacks exceed the minimum setback requirements from 97-12D(1) of 75 feet for the septic and 100 feet for the sanitary. The proposed project does conform with the construction operation standards as found in 97-27 or specifically 97-27A(3) states new and remodeled homes cannot be situated or modified such that they project closer to the wetlands boundary than the homes on either side of the lot. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Cramer, are you just going to read the rest of your letter?. Can we stipulate and put it in the record? It's a seven page letter with several attachments. MR. CRAMER: I've already given her a copy. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll take any other comments before the Board makes comments. MR. JOHNSTON: Was it clear where the house was, Mr. Krupski? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I guess that's one of my comments. go back to the first page. Under project description, it 25 Board of Trustees 26 May 18, 2005 presently exists on the site the following structures as shown on the survey by Young and Young, it says house 187 square feet. I've visited the house probably half a dozen times and I have not seen a house on the site. MR. CRAMER: If you look on the survey it's within the existing dark boundary. TRUSTEE KFIUPSKI: But I've never seen a house on the site. I've seen a shed and some decking, and I've seen some things that have been added since we were there previously. I guess you'd have to define house. MR. CRAMER: It's a small structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But how would you define house as submitted on your report? MR. CRAMER: It's shown on the survey existing line of house which falls within the dark outlined area. The house itself is the dark outlined area and the house itself is the dotted line that's shown within it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does it have plumbing? MR. JOHNSTON: Have you ever been inside it? MR. CRAMER: I've seen it, but I've never been in it. Every time I've been there it's been boarded up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The building we've seen is a small shed that's been added onto, we're going to guess without permits. What struck me is it says house here, and we never saw a house. And I want to make it clear for the record that I've never seen a house on the site as opposed to building or structure or some kind of generic term. MS. TETRAULT: Also that 187 square feet for the house, is that based on actual measurements or the survey? MR. CRAMER: That's taken offthe survey. As I said in my presentation, the following structures as shown on the survey prepared by Young and Young, and if you look over the tabulation on the right-hand side, they go through and they provide the exact measurements for what's found on the site, the existing house, the existing deck, the existing stairway and the existing walkway. MR. JOHNSTON: Would you agree that it's not your personal opinion, reference or whatever you want to call it, your certification, that it's a house and just go on? MR. CRAMER: As I said, I've never been in it so I can't say whether it has sanitary or anything else in it. MS. TETRAULT' We measured it last week at 140 square feet. MS. MOORE: We're relying on the surveying measurement. MS. TETRAULT: I wanted to say for the record the Trustees measured it. MS. MOORE: We have a licensed surveyor'so we hope he's got 26 Board of Trustees 27 May 18, 2005 it right. As a matter of description, the coastal zone law speaks in terms of structure, whatever that structure is is what you're permitted to expand upon. So whether it's a house or some other combination of materials to form a structure, it's the structure. If the surveyor identified it as a house and we're following along with his definition as it showed on the survey for presentation purposes, it's still a structure nonetheless. MR. JOHNSTON: Pat, I have no problem if we change the word "house" to "structure." MS. MOORE: That's fine. MR. CRAMER: My report is based on what I received from the surveyor and it's exactly what he's presented, but as Miss Moore said in your own code talks about a structure. MR. JOHNSTON: I have no problem with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's also a question of when this all was built. We have an aerial photograph and a lot that's currently on the site. So it's sort of a question mark again as to when, and it's clear there were additions on the structure and onto the property, whether they were done with permits or not, it's unclear -- or the required permits, it's unclear. MS. MOORE: Relying on a '71 aerial is inaccurate so we can get an aerial for '91 but only aerials from '92 are available. So if you would like an aerial we can obtain one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's more than an aerial, an aerial is one way but there are other ways too if you have surveys. MS. MOORE: I'll check. MS. TETRAULT: Building permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Predates 1991. MS. MOORE: Because, as you say, it wasn't a dwelling there's probably no permits for it, so. MS. TETRAULT: Was there fill brought in next to the shed or in front of the shed at some point? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To the east of the structure? MR. CRAMER: Not that I'm aware of. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because the area's been filled. We had been out there in 2001, 2002 and there were things added since then that we don't recall. Seems like there was material added to the beach. MR. CRAMER: I'm not aware of that. The first time I was to the site was in the fall and winter. MS. TETRAULT: How about in what you're calling the dune area, was there some beach grass planted in there? MR. CRAMER: I don't know whether it was planted, there's 27 Board of Trustees 28 May 18, 2005 certainly beach grass there now, it's heavily vegetated. MS. TETRAULT: Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: When you type the letter up put structure. MS. TETRAULT: I just wanted to clarify one thing, Mr. Cramer. You mentioned the wetland laws and the jurisdiction 100 feet, beyond 100 feet beyond the high tide mark, Chapter 97 wetlands law, the Board of Trustees jurisdiction is 100 feet from several different natural features one of them being beach and one of them being dunes, so it will need to be reviewed under 97 as well. MR. CRAMER: It falls within the jurisdiction, as I said. MS. TETRAULT: I misunderstood. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sir?. MR. JOHNSON: Good evening. Again, Lars Johnson attorney representing the North Fork Condominium Association. I just want to try to be brief and concise with my points. In terms of practical issues and practical considerations, the condo association is concerned about things like some of the things we talked about today but basically destruction to the vegetation on the bluff, destruction to the vegetation on the beach. I think testimony today has been that the bluff is actually a natural boundary and protects the landward territory there on the other side of the bluff. And the condominium association is directly on the south side of the Soundview Avenue. So there's a concern about the effect it would have on the road there in the long term, there's a concern about also the condo association owns the beach, not all the beach, but just on the other side of the road thers on the western side of this property, they own, they have a deck there that they own. And so there's also concerns about the impact of any erosion on the neighboring beach there. My understanding from the testimony today was that there has been some modification or impact on neighboring beach territory by virtue of development in the area. So I think that is a legitimate concern. I'm not sure that we heard enough to know that there will not be any erosion to the beach property to the west of this project. Also there's a letter in the file from Ms. Tetrault that this project falls within the beach territory; therefore this project will be strictly prohibited. That's not Mr. Cramer's interpretation but I'm curious as to how that's been resolved, but again the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that this is not beach area. Another point, that again, I remind the Board of, is that the Conservation Advisory Council did recommend against 28 Board of Trustees 29 May 18, 2005 this and one of the things they pointed out was there is existing erosion on this property. So I think it's clear that erosion is a concern here, and the fact that this is going to be graded by pavement or some sort of grading for a driveway I think there's going to be excavation and so forth, I'm not sure that they have established that that is not going to have any effect on erosion for the neighboring properties. And finally in terms of legal issues, the bulkhead Proposed, again under Town Code 97-27, prohibits bulkhead on the sound unless -- well, bulkhead on the sound is only authorized if the likelihood of extreme erosion is demonstrated and it shall not increase erosion to neighboring properties. If they have in fact demonstrated that there is a likelihood of extreme erosion, then again, I think that sort of weighs against the building project itself. Again, just pointing out some obvious things, the burden is on the applicant here. We would encourage the Board to strictly enforce the standards for issuance of the permit and that includes the standard requiring 100 foot setback for the residents. I think that a good point has been made today, which is that what's there now is not a residence, and the fact that it is there may be irrelevant to the question of whether this structure meets the setback. Also there's a question as to whether it was a legal structure at all. I think it's implied in the code when talking about the addition to an existing structure, the existing structure must be a legal structure. If someone were to put up a legal structure tomorrow and come here and claim that they're doing an addition to a structure, I would hope that the Board would not authorize that kind of tactic. In conclusion, the North Fork Condominium Association implores this Board to strictly apply the standards in the code and feel strongly that this application should be denied both in the law and in fairness to the interest of the public in general, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, any other comment? MS. MOORE: For a complete record, I just want to put on the fact that this pamel consists of two separate tax map numbers, it is a single and separate property. The North Fork Condominium which is opposing here has a stairway and decking structure down on the beach, on the bank on the bluff, which can be seen from the photographs that is actually square footage-wise, a 29 Board of Trustees 30 May 18, 2005 larger than the proposed footprint of the new house. So with respect to the comparison of the two structures, we have maintained a very limited approach to the development of this property. We have limited to only 25 percent of the existing structures, which leaves a very small -- it's a cottage essentially, which when you look up and down this same street, this same beach you have homes that are quite significant and by virtue of the fact that this piece is one of the last ones to be developed ends up getting the restrictions that are in place today. So keeping that in mind, I think we have established clearly that we have met the standards. If you have any questions, Tom Cramer is here, and I would certainly welcome questions you might have. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? All right, I'll make a motion to table the application to review the information submitted this evening. MS. MOORE: Thank you. If you have any questions after you have reviewed, it you can have Heather submit -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The questions I did have on the record were proof when it was built, when the improvements were done, et cetera, et cetera. We'll leave it open. MS. MOORE: Subject to more questions later. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. Just proof of when the structure was built, when the additions were done, when the soil was brought in. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What about what's inside? Can we have some indication of what's inside the building? MS. MOORE: Dry storage. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: One room, one interior room? MS. MOORE: Is it partitioned inside? MR. PADAVAN: One big room. MR. JOHNSON: May I make one additional comment, very brief. I think you mentioned that you had seen this shed. You can tell there's been a lot of wear on the shed, I'm assuming it wasn't put up in that condition. I think again it goes to show that there is a lot, there's weather battering on the structure and that goes to the question of erosion, the safety of the structure, cost to the Town if there's any kind of emergencies, that kind of thing. Also with respect to the deck, I wasn't making a comparison of the deck, but I think in the previous application there was testimony, if not argument to the effect that this deck actually has been a big project for the condominium association in the sense that they have had to expend a lot of money annually to upkeep the deck and that again goes to 30 Board of Trustees 31 May 18, 2005 the fact of how the sound will affect this structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MS. MOORE: My client just told me that the structure to her knowledge was built in 1927, so that can give you a vintage, and it's still there that's an amazing in fact. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Johnson, did you have that in writing, what you read to us, those notes you wanted to put in the file? MR. JOHNSON: I request an opportunity to submit them if I could. MR. JOHNSTON: We would love to have them. Did I hear Mr. Krupski table? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES WETLAND PERMITS 1. DAVID M. WIRTZ requests a Wetland Permit to remove 158 linear feet of deteriorated existing bulkhead and reconstruct in same location new bulkhead with vinyl sheathing. Located: 245 Pine Place, East Marion. SCTM#37-4-13. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on this application? MR. WIRTZ: My name is David Wirtz. My bulkhead is about 65 years old. I put this off as long as I can, and I'd like to fix it. So I'd appreciate an approval to my application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Are there any other comments on this application? Any Board comments? CAC had some comments, they recommended approval of the Wetland Permit to remove 158 linear feet of deteriorated existing bulkhead and reconstruct same location new bulkhead with vinyl sheathing. CAC recommended approval of the application with the condition of a 10 foot nonturf buffer from the edge of the pool to the bulkhead. Thank you. The whole Board looked at this on field inspection and we had the same line of thought. We were looking for a 10 foot nonturf buffer, as well as when you reconstruct the bulkhead, we're looking to raise the bulkhead six inches above grade so as to make a nonturf buffer that allows the water to penetrate and filter through the soil before it goes over the edge into the creek. MR. WIRTZ: I don't know what that.means but I hope that Kerry Heaney does and will do it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Nonturf means that you wouldn't have lawn 31 Board of Trustees 32 May 18, 2005 running up to the edge and then running over the edge. MR. WIRTZ: i'm actually get that now. It's sinking. And then the buffer means? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No turf grass, you can put in gravel or ornamental plantings. You can put in decking or any combination. We require that in all bulkhead replacements at the time of the replacement because the area's already disturbed. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If there's 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: Make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Mr. David Wirtz and reconstruct in same location six inches above the grade to also include a 10 foot nonturf buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: New bulkhead will be of vinyl sheathing. MS. TETRAULT: Will that be marked on the survey nonturf buffer; was that 10 feet ail the way back to the pool? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 16 feet, we're going to need it shown on the survey, so you can come in the office and have it placed on the survey. MS. TETRAULT: Can you say in there that they don't disturb the spartina on either edge when they reconstruct. We'll put that on there. MR. WIRTZ: It's right up against the bulkhead, on the sort of southeast, I don't know, I assume they can do it, I don't know. It's right up on the bulkhead. MS. TETRAULT: No disturbance to it, if it does it has to be replanted. MR. WIRTZ: Okay. 10 feet is going to be right into my pool, right? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I measured it was like 9'6" to it. MR. WIRTZ: It has to be gravel? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. It can be deck with spaces with sand under it so all the water will drain. MS. TETRAULT: Or you can put any kind of native plantings in there, not grass, nothing that needs to be fertilized, watered, mowed. MR. WIRTZ: Thanks. 2. Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of GRACE KEHLE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 95' timber 32 Board of Trustees 33 May 18, 2005 catwalk terminating with stairs down to the water. Elevated two foot above grade and composed of the fiberglass grating. Located: 450 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#103-10-20 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara on behalf of Land Use Ecological Services, just here tO answer any questions you might have on the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition the eroded bank is planted with native vegetation, and we all looked at this. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak to this application? Any Board Members comments? TRUSTEE KING: Only notes I have is remove the remnants of the old catwalk. MS. TETRAULT: And three foot wide instead of four. TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: Did you hear both of those comments? MS. CANTARA: No, I didn't. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To remove the remnants of an old catwalk whatever there was there, and that it be three foot wide, and that any erosion from the bank be replanted with native vegetation. Any other comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you have a DEC permit yet? MS. CANTARA: We don't, but the revised plans that you got were based on DEC's request. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ail in favor? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I am recusing myself. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE POLIWOD^: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request for Wetland Permit to construct 3' wide by 90' long timber catwalk terminating with stairs down to the water, elevated two foot above grade and composed of fiberglass grating, with the condition that the remnants of the old catwalk be removed and any disturbance to the eroded bank be replanted with native vegetation. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Recuse myself. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you agree to those changes for the record? MS. CANTARA: Yes, we do. 33 Board of Trustees 34 May 18, 2005 MS. TETRAULT: So bring us revised plans. 3. Joel Daly Home Improvements on behalf of MICHAEL & KlM KENIN requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing in-ground swimming pool and construct an 18' by 40' deck. Located: 420 Lakeview Terrace, East Marion. SCTM#31-9-11 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? As for the Board, I looked at this myself; it's fairly straightforward. They're taking a pool away and they're going to put a deck in its place. It's all behind the bulkhead. I didn't see any environmental damage that would occur. With that said, I 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 Michael and Klm Kehle as written. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 4. Donald G. Feller on behalf of GABRIEL SClBELLI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a swimming pool, deck and garage. Located: 450 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM#90-2-15 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR. FELLER: Good evening I'm Don Feller, architect on the project. Mr. Scibelli is also here to talk about his proposed pool, deck and garage. There's an existing two story house, about 1920s structure there located about 40 feet from the double bulkhead. Our proposed decking will be 62 feet from the bulkhead, so we're landward of the existing structure. Our garage will be 105 feet from the bulkhead. We also have DECNJ on the project. And if you have any questions. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments on this application? Once again, I looked at this as far as the Board's inspection. I found it to be in compliance with all our rules and regulations under the wetland codes. The one stipulation I would like to make is that you need dry wells for the pool, for the backwash, you'll have to revise a little plan and put them on. CAC made an inspection, they recommend approval of the application with the condition that the dry wells are installed on the landward side of the pool to contain the pool backwash. They just reiterate my comments. Any other Board comments looking at the plans? 34 Board of Trustees 35 May 18, 2005 You can see it's behind the double bulkhead. It's an accessory structure that's over 50 feet. 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 Gabriel Scibelli with the condition that dry wells be placed on the plans prior to permit being issued. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES 5. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of KATHRYN NIEDORODA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 24.5' by 50' dwelling with a 10' by 24.5' attached deck, on-site sewage disposal system, pervious driveway, clear and maintain a 4' wide pervious path to the proposed dock, 4' by 50' fixed dock with steps to grade. Located: 700 Deep Hole Road, Mattituck. SCTM#115-12-10 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MS. M.ESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of applicant. As you stated, we're here for permits for a new dwelling, septic system and dock on this property. At the site inspection you made a request that if possible, we relocated the proposed dwelling five feet closer to the road to try to increase the setback to the wetlands. We presently have it at 75 feet. Upon review of the survey, we find that the septic system is designed as tightly as possible. We're maintaining all the required setbacks set forth by the Health Department, therefore we don't have any room in which to move that house forward and we request approval of the plan as proposed. One other item, we have revised the proposed dock design at the owner's request and at your request, we're now proposing a iow profile dock with a fiber glass grid surface 4' by 60', eliminating the steps that we had originally shown. The proposed dock is two feet above grade because we're implementing a fiberglass grid and we've brought the end of the dock out to about two feet at Iow tide, which is pretty much in line with the two existing docks on either side of the property; does the Board have any questions? TRUSTEE KING: Cathy, does the dock move to the north at all, or is it in the same place? Because there is less vegetation there if it's moved to the north. 35 Board o f Trustees 36 May 18, 2005 MS. MESIANO: No, I'm sorry. I'll get you a plan. How far North? TRUSTEE KING: I think we figured eight or 10 feet. MS. MESIANO: Oh, yes, I'm sorry, you wanted to flip it. If you would like to put that in the resolution I would put that in the plan. MS. TETRAULT'. What size is the dock? MS. MESIANO: 4' by 60'. MS. TETRAULT: The Board was looking at three foot wide. TRUSTEE KING: With the light penetration, Iow profile. MS. MESI^NO: It's been used on the south shore, I've seen some photographs, the vegetation's going right up to it. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's a good way to go. MS. MESIANO: The only thing I question from a design perspective and a practical perspective is the DEC and your Board I think are advocating four foot posts, and I think that's not the best material to use because it will pull out easier in the winter. So there might be some perfections on the design as they get used. TRUSTEE KING: Did you look into aluminum also besides the fiberglass to see if there's a cost difference? MS. MESIANO: I didn't do a cost analysis on them. I would be worried about the interaction of the aluminum with the salt and the corrosion. This material has a UV inhibitor, so you're not going to have a breakdown. TRUSTEE KING: I was just curious, thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here who would like to speak on this application? Any other Board Members? 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 Wetland Permit to construct the dwelling and the deck as per plans and also the fixed dock, 4' by 60' two foot above grade, also with the grating and also with the stipulation that new plans show that the dock be moved 10 feet to the north. TRUSTEE KING: Dry wells and gutters? MS. MESIANO: Yes, I have the dry wells on there. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE didn'thave poisonivy. DICKERSON: All in favor? POLIWODA: Recuse. KRUPSKI: Aye. KING: Aye. DICKERSON: I just want to make a comment that C^C access to the property. We went through the 36 Board of Trustees 37 May 18, 2005 6. Samuels and Steelman, Architects on behalf of LYNNE ANGELSON requests a Wetland Permit to renovate and construct additions to the existing residence. Located: 950 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#123-7-13.1 TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. I was a little confused because the address was different, but I found it. It's just a straightforward, pretty good size house, there's going to be no impact at all. Are there any other comments on this? If there are no comments, I'll close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES 7. Mark Schwartz, AIA on behalf of LUClLLE SEITZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 10' by 16' shed and 3' by 40' timber dock with 3' by 6' steps to grade. Located: 675 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM#59-5-17&18 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anybody here to comment on this application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, I would, Mark Schwartz for the applicant. We're looking to get approval for the existing shed that's on-site and the proposed dock. The shed was on that property prior to the current owners buying the property, and we're just trying to straighten out an existing situation. We did contact the DEC and we do have a letter from the DEC, they're okay with the shed as-is, and we have not applied to the DEC for the dock yet. The dock was drawn up on the survey by Robert Fox the surveyor, and he told me it's in keeping with several other docks in the area. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. MS. TETRAULT: I would just like to let the Trustees know there are three letters that came into the office concerning this application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other public comments on this application? If not, should I read these letters into the record? TRUSTEE KING: They're in the file. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The letters are in the file if anyone cares to read them. The first one is, I want to go on record as being opposed to the proposed 40 foot dock. And the second objects to the construction of the proposed 40 37 Board of Trustees 38 May 18, 2005 foot timber dock, and the third one, also, we object to the construction of the proposed 40 foot dock. MR. JOHNSTON: Ken, for the record you have read each of the letters, right? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. Any other Board comments? We looked at this as a Board. Do you guys want to make a comment? TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see any use for the dock itself. Didn't you say there was supposed to be a big nondisturbance area there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. It was all cleared and he just bought it. MS. TETRAULT: And the shed was built by permit. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: C^C made an inspection, and they recommended approval with conditions. The CAC recommends approval of the application of the as-built shed, approval of the docking facility with the condition the overall length does not exceed 20 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we were wondering about the need for the dock because it's very undeveloped freshwater wetland, and we just didn't want to encourage additional structure on it. MR. BRENDEL: Good evening, my name is Richard Brendel, and I'm Lucille's husband and co-owner of the property. We'd like to have the dock, quite frankly. We have little row boats, it's a little difficult to get it in from the little opening we have, in fact, we almost capsized through the reeds. My wife is an artist and she likes to do a little bit of painting, so we would like to have a little better access to the lake, quite frankly. There aro many other docks on the lake as it is. So I don't think we're asking for anything that other owners around the lake have already. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seeing how you're going to use if for artistry as well as for launching a small vessel. MS. SEITZ: I'd like to sit on the dock and sit and paint. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll agree there aro other structures on the lake, but none that strewed any groat distance out into that lake, not on your side anyway. MS. SEITZ: I'm happy with the 20 feet. I just want to get into the row boat and not topple over. We finally had one day that wasn't raining, and I almost top sized the boat. My husband got a fishing license the night before, the next morning he said I'm going to fishing with his little rig. He comes back five seconds later, I said what happened, he said, I lost the lure. He said I tried to cast and I got 38 Board of Trustees 39 May 18, 2005 stuck in the tree. Couldn't even get past the reeds. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If the applicants have no objection to the 20 feet as overall length. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are we looking at 3' by 20', Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, 3' by 20' fixed catwalk, no greater than two feet above grade, 4" by 4" posts. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 4" by 4" posts just to try to minimize the amount of structure 4" by 4" posts with a non CCA decking, cedar or trex. Non-treated wood. MS. SEITZ: I'm assuming I would get a permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This will be on the permit so they will know this is what they can build. MS. SEITZ: Because we're not doing it ourselves. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You can even get a piece of that put it 4" by 4" posts. If there's no other public comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favo~ ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Lucille Seitz to construct a 10' by 16' shed and a 3' by 20' timber or fiberglass dock with 3' by 6' steps to grade. Located: 675 Lake Drive, Southold, with the installation of 4" by 4" posts. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES 8. Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of PAUL MALONEY requests a Wetland Permit to remove 4' by 25' catwalk and dispose of same and replace with new 4' by 25' catwalk, in-kind leading to a 32" by 16' ramp onto a 6' by 20' floating dock secured by (2) 2-pile dolphins. Located: 1020 Goose Creek Lane, Southold SCTM#78-8-3. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak on this application? MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, I'm with Costello Marine Contracting and we are the agents for Mr. Maloney on this application. I think it's quite simple. If the Board has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this application? Any Board comments? CAC recommends approval of the application with condition of the total length of the docking facility doesn't exceed one-third the width of the creek. We had also, I believe asked last month, there was some fencing and the mulch that that went to the edge, we were also concerned that it go back, up to the fireplace, there's an old brick 39 Board of Trustees 40 May 18, 2005 fireplace there. MR. COSTELLO: Sure, if that's a condition. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We went down there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, you want to go through? TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: There's still a major concern with the width and the depth there. I think Ken had a suggestion, I believe. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're looking for total dock length to end at 25 feet with no ramp and float, then a pile to the side of it because the ramp and float would put it 50 percent out to the width of the channel. Therefore there was no navigable water out beyond that boat once the guy put a boat there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There are pictures at Iow tide. You can even see the bottom. MR. COSTELLO: I know. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This shows to the other side. MR. COSTELLO: As you see it's the minimum dock. The only trouble is you got to try to get the float to float. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern is for navigation. If he takes up the deep water he's going to block up the channel. MR. COSTELLO: There's very little deep water in the channel. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we went at Iow water because Ken had spoken about it. MR. COSTELLO: You can see where the navigable channel is; it is a troth. It does not approach any portion of that troth. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You literally have 25 foot of water, you put a 8 foot wide boat and secure it somehow. MR. COSTELLO: With the float and the T. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The float and the boat would be too wide. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you in agreement? MR. COSTELLO: If it's a condition. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It works. At least he can dock there. MR. COSTELLO: I just want to make sure that the owner of the property has use. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a really limited area. MR. COSTELLO: Absolutely. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: One pile inshore, one pile parallel to the fixed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are thera any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. 4O Board o f Trustees 41 May 18, 2005 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request for a Wetland Permit for Paul Maloney to remove the existing 4' by 25' catwalk and dispose of same; to replace with a 25' fixed catwalk no more than 4 foot beyond the marsh. With one pile, single pile parallel to the fixed dock and the shoreline. And the mulch that the end of the lawn be backed up to where the brick fireplace is or remaining brick fireplace is. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favo~ ALL AYES 9. Environmental Survey, Inc. on behalf of DENNIS HRANITZKY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 25' fixed dock, 3' by 12' ramp and 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 4105 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#107-9-2.1 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HRANITZKY: I'm Dennis Hranitzky, on behalf of myself to try to answer any questions that the Board has. TRUSTEE KING: I think one of the biggest questions we had is what happened to the wetland down there? MR. HRANITZKY: I'm not sure I understand the question. I just purchased the house in December. I don't know much of the history. TRUSTEE KING: $omebody's done a bunch of clearing there or even sprayed it. Everything's dead. There's a whole area that's devegetated right where you want to put the dock. MR. HRANITZKY: The property looks more or less the same as when I pumhased it. TRUSTEE POLiWODA: That's probably a fact because when we were on the site we were thinking it was probably done last fall. MR. HRANITZKY: I couldn't speak to that. I don't know what the property like looked like then. I can say I was out there last weekend and there was grass growing up where the reeds had been cut back. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You go to the property east and west of you, you can see the shrubs, they're alive and then on your property they're broken. Somebody sprayed them, they're poisoned. MS. TETRAULT: There are protected species in there and they're not supposed to be damaged. We need some kind of restoration, even though it wasn't you who did it. MR. HRANITZKY: I'm happy to cooperate. 41 Board of Trustees 42 May 18, 2005 MS. TETRAULT: We asked for new information. TRUSTEE KING: We need new soundings and check for water depth there. Because I don't think there's a lot of water. I'd like to table it and take another look at it next month, have it staked out how far out the float is going to be. And we need to get some water depths. MR. HRANITZKY: Certainly. I probably don't have anything that you or the Board doesn't have, but I have a diagram that indicates water depths, I'm not sure if this is it. I can bring up everything I have. I'm not sure if any of this is something that's new to you. MR. JOHNSTON: Who is Environmental Survey? MR. HRANITZKY: It's people I hired at the former owner's recommendation to do the docks from. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you still using them? MR. HRANITZKY: I am still using them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you know what we mean by staking it out? MR. HRANITZKY: There are stakes on the property now. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there was anything out in the water. MR. HRANITZKY: I believe that's correct; there was nothing in the water. TRUSTEE KING: I'd like to table this until next month. I know it's not your -- you should do something to restore that area. It's really a shame what happened there. I'd like to table this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: June 15th could you put a stake at the seaward end of the proposed dock? MR. HRANITZKY: I'll see that they do, sure. TRUSTEE KING: Let's see what it looks like in another month maybe some of the stuff is coming back. MR. HRANITZKY: I can say, I welcome you to go out and inspect it, there is some grass that's growing back. TRUSTEE KING: I'm saying it might look a little better in another month. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you use a landscaper?. MR. HRANITZKY: I do have a landscaper. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: To protect yourself in the future, I would highly recommend taking a tape measure, measure from the edge of the creek, edge of the water, go 50 feet landward and put some kind of hay bale line down and say do not touch that. Let everything grow back and when we inspect next month we'll see what's growing, because we're going to probably create a nondisturbance buffer along that creek edge and put a four foot path through it, so we don't want 42 Board of Trustees 43 May 18, 2005 · to see any landscaper mowing. MR. HRANITZKY: At present there is no landscaping back there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We don't want it mowed either. MR. HRANITZKY: Sure. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor ALL AYES 10. 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 garage on the ground level and living space with bath above; with 9' by 8' fully enclosed and conditioned connected hallway to the existing house. Located: 1455 Inlet Way, Southold. SCTM#92-1-4. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Jim Fitzgerald. When we last spoke you asked that we reduce the width of the proposed addition by eight feet, and Mrs. Cacioppo has done that by reducing the width of the garage by four feet and the width of the connecting hallway by four feet. So that the sketch that we gave you on the 9th of May indicates the configuration which would conform to your request. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The Board did look at this and we were pleased with the revised plans. Mr. Fitzgerald, has the fence be been removed along the wetlands? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Miss Cacioppo said that they are actively pursuing that and they have a little kid and they don't want to take it out until they have some way fixed in their minds about protecting the edge of the creek with landscaping. Just in passing, do you have any thoughts about what might be good for that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Good set of eyes on the kid. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? Conservation Advisory Council of January said that they tabled it because the garage was not staked; however, it appears to be too close to the wetlands so we tried to take care of that by pulling it back a bit. Again, the Board doesn't have any problems with the revised plans. So I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES MS. TETRAULT: Does the survey show hay bales and dry wells? 43 Board of Trustees 44 May 18, 2005 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, not on the new one. We'd like to see the hay bale line on the survey and dry wells for roof runoff. MR. FITZGERALD: I think we if we put the hay bales at the top of the retaining wall it would do the job. Does that sound okay? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And dry wells and gutters. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does your pool have a dry wells? MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can you get the pool's backwash to drain into that? MR. FITZGERALD: I will find out. Are you saying you want it done if it's not there, right? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right, yes. MR. DENNELZIC: I'm Chades Dennelzic. I have not seen the layout of the property as to where the structure is going and I'm just curious as to how it related if it's that house I think it is, on the left, there on the wetlands originally laid out in the '20s to the entry for boating and things like that, and now it's all grown over. And some structural spreading of the property has occurred with big blocks and things have been put in to widen the whole front of the property on the west side. It's facing this way as you're looking in. Do you have a copy? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Come up and take a look. This would be within those -- it's sort of planned between the driveway and the pool area. MR. DENNELZIC: That's right in that area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right here, we have been out here about six times. MR. DENNELZIC: This area here was all soft, et cetera, and was all built up with blocks. But this area here is not going to be intruded on? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right. MR. DENNELZIC: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit for Anthony Cacioppo to construct a 24' by 20' two-story extension to the existing house with a garage on ground level, and living space with bath above, with the approved new plans as of May 9, 2005. Also that on this survey we get a new survey with hay bale line on the top of the concrete retaining wall, dry wells and gutters and that the pool if it does not have its own dry wells for backwash that it be connected to that drainage plan and with the condition that the fence be removed before the permit be 44 Board of Trustees 45 May 18, 2005 issued. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 11. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of RICHARD KUBIAK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a one-story addition approximately 14.9' by 17.4' to existing house landward of the existing deck. Located: 185 Willow Point Drive, Southold. SCTM#56-5-25 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak for this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald on behalf of Dr. Kubiak. I think it's pretty straightforward. It's in an area of the house that's already occupied by an existing deck which extends further seaward than the proposed addition. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments? As far as the Board, I looked at this and I agree with you, it is straightforward. There is a deck it's 59 feet behind the bulkhead, and it's being attached right to the house. I have no problem with this whatsoever. There's really no stipulations other than containing roof runoff for the dry wells. No other comments, I'll close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Richard Kubiak to construct addition as described with the condition of dry wells for the roof runoff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES 12. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ASPSlA ISRAFIL & VlVlAN LINDERMAYER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a set of 4' by 129' stairs and platforms from the top of the bluff to beach. Located: 17877 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#51-1-4. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann from En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. Should be pretty straightforward application. The stairs are going to be placed in the location where there are remnants of stairs that existed apparently some long, long time ago to provide access from the top of the bluff to the beach. The Trustees' office has already issued a non-jurisdiction letter for the redevelopment of the site that will be upland and beyond 45 Board of Trustees 46 May 18, 2005 both Chapter 97 and coastal erosion jurisdiction. If the Board has any questions, I can answer them. MS. TETRAULT: The Board wanted to see a hay bale line so there was no clearing seaward of that hay bale line, a 40 foot nondisturbance buffer back from where? TRUSTEE KING: Top of the bluff. Any other comments on this application? MR. HERMANN: The Board is requesting a nondisturbance buffer? MS. TETRAULT: Yes. I'd like to have to look at the survey to see where. MR. HERMANN: Under what jurisdiction? I mean, I can pass it on to the client. I'm not sure in what capacity the Board would ask for that. MS. TETR^ULT: They looked at the one next door to the east and that's been cleared up to the bluff. MR. HERMANN: I'm not arguing with the substance of your question, I'm asking how the Board's going to enforce it. As I said, I can pass it on, but I can't make a representation without you -- in other words, what permit can you issue that you would be able to require that? That's not an argumentative question. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unless the top of the bluff is considered a natural protective feature in which case we'd have jurisdiction. MR. HERMANN: You do have coastal erosion jurisdiction up to the coastal erosion hazard line. MS. TETRAULT: We do. But we also have jurisdiction for other natural protective features landward of the coastal erosion line. It's coastal erosion line indicates an area where there are certain restrictions, but there is still jurisdiction and description in 37 about -- MR. HERMANN: I don't think the Board will actually issue a Chapter 37 permit for this project because unless you would tie that in maybe with the letter, I don't remember what your letter says, but it would seem if you wanted to establish at least a 25 foot buffer landward at the crest of the bluff that you would have some ability to do that. But I would think you would have to tie that into the letter of non-jurisdiction as opposed to a wetlands permit. I don't think you can do it under a wetlands permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it would be coastal erosion. MR. HERMANN: Right. But as it relates to the non-jurisdiction request for the house, tonight we're here for the wetlands permit for the stairs. I think you would have to tie it into the letter. 46 Board of Trustees 47 May 18, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because it would only be under coastal erosion. We should only state the obvious in the letter, then it would be obvious. MR. HERMANN: You can ask Brownell how you want to handle it. i'm saying you may want to either revise or submit an addendum to this letter, but I don't think you can make it part of your wetlands permit. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? MR. KAPL^N: Good evening I'm Mica Kaplan, I own the piece of property to the south, and I have a question. How does the placement of the steps impact my right of way, which is a three foot right of way borders to the east and on the proposed project there's about 12 foot between the edges of their piece or of their steps and my right of way. It may have no impact, but I just don't know. TRUSTEE PO/IWODA: Can I ask you I didn't notice what your right of way consists of? MR. KAPLAN: It's a three foot right of way dirt path. TRUSTEE KING: Does it actually go down the bluff? MR. KAPLAN'. If you wanted to you could go down the bluff, but you would get beat up doing it at this point in time. I think it's more theoretical than it is practical. MR. JOHNSTON: Does the location of the stairway cross over your right of way? MR. KAPLAN: No, there's a space between what is projected and the edge of my three foot there's maybe 12 foot between it, and I'm saying will it ever impact the right of way, that's all. If it doesn't -- TRUSTEE KING: I don't see how it could. MR. HERMANN: Not if it's built in the right place. MR. JOHNSTON: We can't make a legal determination of what legal impact it has on his right of way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't. You own their right of way; they own your right of way. MR. JOHNSTON: You don't anticipate that their stairs is going across your right of way or anything like that? MR. KAPLAN: Absolutely not. And I don't think they do either. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? ^nything from the Board? Still a question of how we can possibly get a nondisturbance area there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we have to put it in the letter with the permit stating that under coastal erosion the Board has jurisdiction over clearing 25 feet landward of the natural protective feature, in this case it's the top of bluff, and that no clearing should be done in this area that 47 Board of Trustees 48 May 18, 2005 would cause erosion to the applicant's property. Obviously you would tell them that anyway. MR. HERMANN: Yes. And I've been asked about that already. I received this letter, it's dated April 25, I was away, I've probably had this for about a week, I notice you didn't put anything in it. I mean, I somewhat anticipated the topic coming up, but since I didn't see how you would tie it into the 97 permit, we have been through this before on other projects where the bulldozer comes in. It wipes everything out, and then it becomes this Board's problem, and a problem for the natural resource, but it's the same problem with the DEC. No one's ever sure once these letters of nonjurisdiction are issued how you prevent it from happening. I think the only tenable way you can do it is by maintaining your 25 foot non-disturbance adjacent to coastal erosion, but I think you'd have to put that in the nonjurisdiction letter. This hasn't gone anywhere, so, as I say, it's up to Brownell, you can revise it or amend it and I'll make sure it gets to the client. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll revise that, thank you. MR. HERMANN: The problem is they're clearing somewhere between the stairs and the house. TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommended approval with the condition of no treated lumber and a 20 foot nonturf buffer at the top of the bluff. It's not in contact with the water at all, so you can use the treated lumber. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's too bad you and this new applicant can't get together and put a stairway on the right of way. Therefore you would have access to the stairway, and he would have access to the stairs and you could live in common. MR. HERMANN: I believe the offer was made, but Mr. Kaplan would have to speak to that. I don't want to speak for him, but I do believe that through the Lindermayer's attorney the offer was made. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the understanding our letter of non-jurisdiction will be modified to include a nondisturbance area at the top of the bluff of 25 foot. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 48 Board of Trustees 49 May 18, 2005 15. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of GRAHAM HEAD requests a Wetland Permit to construct an in-ground swimming pool and surrounding patio and fencing. Located: 1160 Goose Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-8-5.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant, Graham Head. We originally made this application on requesting a letter of nonjurisdiction because it was more than 100 feet from the wetlands boundary. Then what I understood to have happened is that the Trustees determined the wetlands boundary to be closer, therefore, putting it within jurisdiction, and that's why we're here. Now, I have sort of a long history with this property. Years ago when I was younger I used to keep a boat down here when the Epsteins owned it, and, of course, Sam Burrell passed away and the property just became overgrown and whatnot. It was eventually sold to Mr. Head and the first thing happens it was clearing on the property. The Trustees issued a clearing violation. At that point I became involved and one of the things we do is we put together a clearing plan, which is in your file dated April 2002. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Planting plan? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Then that planting plan was implemented. I was there particularly for the wetland-type plantings. When I looked at it I saw that the wetlands that were planted were greater than what were originally flagged as part of the restoration plan. And that's fairly obvious. If you look at the plan here, what was highlighted was in yellow, that was a wetlands line that everyone agreed to when we first got involved in this, and so I think the discrepancy we're talking about is the result of really two things, actively planting the area and not mowing it. That's why I think we're 91 feet instead of 100. I'm here I think we hopefully approve it unless they maintain the buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Any Board comment? I have a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKh CAC recommends approval with the condition that there be dry wells to contain pool backwash on the plan, and a 50 foot nonturf buffer. I'll make a motion to 49 Board of Trustees 50 May 18, 2005 approve the application. MR. ANDERSON: One question, 50 foot nonturf buffer?. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it was a recommendation. MR. ANDERSON: Because it seems we already created. MS. TETRAULT: I had spoken to Mr. Anderson about this because I took a close look, I told him they're mowing a little too close to what was planted there. So we talked to them about having them pull that back an additional five feet, something like that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to that have that shown on the survey? MS. TETRAULT: Yes, I'd like to see that on the survey. MR. ANDERSON: Probably the best way to do that is because the wetlands line is where it is, your buffer line is going to show larger than that because the wetlands that we're considering for purposes of this application are about 10 feet landward of the wetlands that were on the process of the underlying permit. So what you'll see from me is a 15 foot buffer from that wetland line, the original, which is the 10 we planted and the five, probably the easiest way to do it. MS. TETRAULT: Maybe I need to make a measurement from the pool edge to where I think it should be. MR. ANDERSON: It should come out around 85 feet should be the number. MS. TETRAULT: If you remember on the site there was some cutting there, there was landscaping. I spoke with someone who was there; they were doing some clean-up landscaping. They were getting into the buffer. So I want it to be a lot clearer to them where they are and aren't allowed to cut. MR. ANDERSON: I can even stake it for you, however you want to do it. I would relate it to the underlying wetland line, rather than punish them for the wetlands they put in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or maybe the wetlands reestablished themselves after they cleared all cover that had grown up. MR. ANDERSON: When Sam Burrell had it, we used to clear all the way down almost to the line of spartina. I know that from my own recollection. But I also know when we had it done, we had John VerDerBer out there and I watched him put the plants in the ground. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve that subject to new plans. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We'll have a brief recess. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 50 Board of Trustees 51 May 18, 2005 17. Interscience Research Associates, Inc. on behalf of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to allow the repair and/or replacement of the existing docking facility. Located the Basin Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1-16.10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. WALKER: Jim Walker from Interscience, I'm here for the Paradise Point Association. Their attorney's here, several members of the association are here. They may or may not want to speak tonight depending on what transpires. I'm going to give a brief presentation to the Board. The project is limited to repair and replacement of the existing facilities. I'm going to use a presentation board using a plan that was prepared by my office, but mostly referring to the two surveys that were prepared by Young and Young. MR. JOHNSTON: Did you submit a copy of that yet? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. Along with the design narrative and the two surveys by Harvey Young. The first survey was drawn up for the bulkhead repair that the Town approved and will be done soon at the project site. For this portion of the project, these plans were filed with the Town, the state, the Army Corps, and the permit review is ongoing. The plans were filed after the preparation of a survey done by Young and Young, and the survey was only finished in April, and it took a long time to get it but we needed this survey for an accurate application to the Town. I'm also going to refer to a survey that we had prepared prior, which was a survey of an easement area and it shows the docks owned and maintained by the association. MR. JOHNSTON: What is the date of that survey? MR. WALKER: The old survey was February 4, 2004. The current survey is April 15, 2005. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You mention that the permit is in the phase of ongoing with the Army Corps? MR. WALKER: The bulkhead permit is -- all permits received for the bulkhead repair. This project is being reviewed by the Army Corps, the Department of State, the DEC and the Town of Southold. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is holding those permits up? MR. WALKER: General delays. The same type of things that happens when you file a new application with any regulatory agency. We do have a New York State DEC notice of incomplete and we're currently addressing it. A design narrative was one of the things that was required; that 51 Board of Trustees 52 May 18, 2005 design narrative was subsequently provided to the Town. As information becomes available or required by one regulatory agency routinely we would submit it to all four. But the thing that we are providing to the New York State DEC most recently is the design narrative that I'm going to work from tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So this design narrative and plan you're submitting tonight to this Board is the same that you're submitting to the Army Corps and the DEC? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. The project includes two basic elements. The project includes resetting eight existing piles, six of which are on the main dock and two of which are on the float further out in the boat basin. The other aspect of the project is replacement of the main dock floats. We aren't doing any work on this dock in terms of replacement floats, all we are doing is resetting the two piles on this particular dock, we are replacing the main dock floats as well as setting six piles. There is no work in the upland portion of the property, and there isn't any work on fixed pier or ramp down. It's not needed and it's not part of the project. One of the things that's important to see is on the survey that was submitted it was dated February 4, 2004, you see the docks in their winter configuration, the floats are stored alongside the main dock, and there is no float or ramp here. The finger piers are not sticking out on the main dock, and what we would like to do is to take the floats and the pilings and reset them and replace them in the identical configuration that you see on the April 15th survey. That's the entire project; there isn't anything else we're proposing to do. I'm going to go through the improvements one by one, I won't take a lot of time, but in this manner there won't be any confusion. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: May I comment? You mentioned installation of six piles? MR. WALKER: Resetting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Are you claiming that you're resetting them on your bottom or are you conceding to us it's our bottom, Town bottom? MR. WALKER: Paradise Point Association pays taxes on it. It shows up on the tax map parcel, although, the Town of Southold owns all the bay bottom, they own the overlying property. The boat basin is a taxable parcel. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So you're claiming it's private bottom, your bottom? MR. WALKER: It's a dug canal. It's a private bottom in the 52 Board of Trustees 53 May 18, 2005 sense that it doesn't eliminate the jurisdiction of the Town, we're not making any claim to that effect. It's a dug canal. It's an interior boat basin that was created. We're not saying that we're not subject to the Board of Trustees jurisdiction. But that is a tax map parcel, and they do pay taxes on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before you go any further, just one point of clarification so I can understand your presentation better. You submitted this plan, which is inconsistent with this survey, which is -- MR. WALKER: That's 100 percent correct and the likelihood that we finish everything else tonight and you close the hearing, we should revise that large scale color drawing, which was for illustration purposes mainly to be consistent with the summer orientation shown on that February 4th survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What was the purpose of this? MR. WALKER: To show what the dock looks like in an easy to read manner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it only shows two fingers here as opposed to three fingers and a float, which exists on the site. MR. WALKER: It was based on some other surveys that we had when we initially started the project. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why I asked the question earlier what was submitted to other agencies. These two objects differ from each other and they also differ from what's on the site. That's why I was wondering -- MR. WALKER: I understand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: -- what is the project; what are we reviewing? What is the proposal? MR. WALKER: The proposal is exactly what was submitted on the design narrative, resetting of piles and replacement of floating docks would be identical to what's shown on April 15, 2005 survey that we just received and we submitted as part of the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, what are you calling the narrative then? MR. WALKER: We submitted a design narrative dated April 2005, it's a three-page text that I sent to the Town by fax. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just want to see, everything should be the same. MR. WALKER: I understand that, but we got this survey on the 15th of April, and we had waited a long time to submit it and if anything it is unclear. We will certainly address 53 · Board of Trustees 54 May 18, 2005 that and revise the plans. MR. JOHNSTON: Does he want to postpone until next month because he's not ready to make his presentation? MR. BRESSLER: Mr. President, would you mind if we follow along? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem with everyone looking. MR. WALKER: I just don't want him handling my exhibit, it belongs to me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. Just don't touch it. I'm just trying to get a clear picture of what's proposed. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Krupski, for the record, would the two of you please identify who you are? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano. MR. BRESSLER: I'm Eric Bressler, I'm the attorney for Mary Zupa. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's another question I have, just for clarification for the Board. I think what we would like to see are dimensions marked on the plan. I know you have them in the narrative, but just to identify each piece. MR. WALKER: All of that's fine, and I'd like to make the presentation if I could. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only reason I'd like clarification is so we can understand and follow along. We all have the diagrams and the surveys and as you speak we can refer to them. MR. WALKER: I understand where you're coming from and I'd like to continue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't mean to disrupt you, I just want to make it clear. MR. WALKER: I understand. I submitted the design narrative to the Town by fax recently. It was done at the request of New York'State DEC. It was forwarded to the Town after the submission of the initial application. As I stated eadier, we got this survey on April 15th, the plans were drawn up prior to that. And to be precise and complete, I would like to review the improvements that are proposed. For the main dock, the fixed pier catwalk, we aren't going to do any improvements to. We aren't going to do any improvements to the ramp down, no work is needed at the current time. For the 6' by 100' floating dock section, we are proposing replace the float completely in the same configuration that you see again on the April 15th survey. There are three finger piers, each 6' by 20', and in that direction perpendicular from the main dock, there is a small 4' by 12' floating dock, and then a longer 6' by 40' floating dock 54 Board of Trustees 55 May 18, 2005 both those docks are to be replaced at the current time. And there are six existing pilings that are there at the job site but have heaved from winter ice damage, and they need to be reset. The second part of the project is rather minor. There's no work proposed at the smaller dock in terms of the catwalk or the ramp down; the float is fine. All we're doing at that smaller dock is replacing two existing pilings to be reset. They exist. All we would be doing is resetting them so they're installed properly. That's the entire project. To the extent that the Interscience plans are inaccurate or they need notes, details added, of course, we'll provide that information and also, the Board of Trustees should discuss and tell me any additional details that we need to add in terms of construction. It's my impression that floating docks need to be constructed with non-treated decking, for instance, any directives from the Town in that regard, we would appreciate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another comment, the narrative should match the project description. I can't understand from the narrative what you're proposing. On the survey it shows one long dock, with three fingers off of it. The narrative breaks it up into smaller components. Where is the 4' by 12'? MR. WALKER: It's right here (indicating). There's a long 6' by 100' there's a 4' by 12' section that leads to the other float, the other float is precisely 6' by 40'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the field there's another section, that's not even discussed here at all. MR. WALKER: We're not proposing any additional work besides what's shown on the April 15th survey. If there are additional floats or other docks out there, they're not part of the application, and they can be removed, period. This is the project we have in front of you. The design area is accurately portrayed, the work coincides precisely with the survey that was submitted, and it's a very straightforward repair and replacement application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One other thing that the Board discussed on the field inspection was the need for -- and I don't know if this is to scale or not on the s u rvey? MR. WALKER: The survey is to scale, certainly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The distances between the adjacent docks and the proposed dock and we need soundings on the basin. 55 Board of Trustees 56 May 18, 2005 MR. WALKER: Okay, that's fine. MR. JOHNSTON: Can you tie Number 1 to where it is here, Numbers 2, and Number4 and 5? I can't. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do you understand the question, the comment? That's the point I've been trying to make for five minutes. You have seven components to the main dock, they should be labeled and described on that survey. MR. WALKER: I think we should do that as a formal follow-up for your record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Absolutely. I'm just saying that they should be, each component should be labeled as opposed to showing the main dock as one component. MR. WALKER: I understand. The Board should be aware that we're under review at DEC and Army Corps and Department of State. We also have to do the same type of homework items with each of those regulatory agencies. We'll be doing them in any case and we'll certainly submit them within a week. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All set? MR. WALKER: Yes. I'm going to set this up where it's convenient for other people to refer to it, if you want pages changed, I'll be glad to flip them for you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano, and I'm appearing on behalf of the Zupas. I have a couple of comments I'd like to make with respect to the application itself. In reviewing the application I found some irregularities that from my personal experience I've been asked to go back and correct and come back with the correct information. In referring to general rules Number 10, pre-existing, non-permitted and/or nonconforming structures cannot be replaced in-kind without full review and approval by the Trustees. That leads me to a question in my mind. In reviewing what is existing, and I don't think either of these documents that have been shown accurately depict all of the improvements within that basin, I think that's something if you haven't already asked for should be provided to you for proper review; what I think is glaringly conspicuous by its absence is any proof of the legality of these docks; when did they come into existence; how did they come into existence; when did the Trustees' authority begin; when was the permitting process initiated, I believe 1957 and 1959 are the answers to those questions; and when were the docks created. I presented to the Board a memorandum which has ample information in it and part of that information is documentary evidence of the development of those docks, and the docks are not in existence in 1957 or 56 Board of Trustees 57 May 18, 2005 1959. So under what authority is this dock replacement being contemplated? It's not a pre-existing use. It's an illegal structure because by the applicant's own admission in their application on the page that asks are there any previous permits or applications, it's clearly answered no. So under what authority do these structures exist, and under what authority does this Board contemplate approving the replacement or rebuilding of these structures? I can go on. The dock length is not constructed within the regulations. The regulations state that docks should not be more than one-third of the way across the waterway. This dock is clearly two-thirds of the way across the waterway. I also would point out that on one of the pages of the application I think it's the page entitled Trustees' information or Trustees' permit, there's reference in that page to dredge spoils, proposed slopes, et cetera, nothing in the application that we see refers to any type of dredge activity, yet the application form makes reference to dredge activity disposal, proposed slopes, so that was inconsistent. I really don't know what that refers to. Your standards for residential and commercial docks leads me to an interesting question as well. If you contemplate this as a residential dock, again, it doesn't meet any of your standards. There is more than one dock. The float is greater than 6' by 20'. I could reread your code to you but I don't think I need to. This can't be considered as a commercial dock. We don't have M1 or M2 zoning. This is clearly a residential area. So under what thinking is this being contemplated? It doesn't fit your new code. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All done? MS. MESI^NO: I could be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we're having this hearing. That's why we're getting all the information in, you submitted some information. We have some questions of the applicant. The question I had for you was your first comment was what other improvements should be on the survey and should be under the Board's review; do you have anything that you suggest the Board should be reviewing? MS. MESIANO: Is the deteriorated dock on the survey? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is on the survey. MS. MESIANO: Is it on the schematic? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MS. MESIANO: Are all of the other docks within the basin shown on both of those documents accurately? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. 57 Board o f Trustees 58 May 18, 2005 MS. MESIANO: I see on the survey that notations are made to approximate locations, if it's a survey there should be nothing approximate about it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why I asked the applicant to label everything so it would be clearer. MS. MESIANO: Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Bressler, the memorandum that was presented for the record, is that from your firm? MR. BRESSLER: Yes, it is. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you want to sign it or somehow indicate that it's from your firm or orally is good enough for you? MR. BRESSLER: Well, after my colleague spoke I was going to get up. MR. PASCA: Go ahead. MR. BRESSLER: How would you like it, Mr. Johnston? MR. JOHNSTON: Whatever makes you feel good. MR. BRESSLER: I will state for the record that Cathy Mesiano has handed up a memorandum of some of the relevant points that we think should be taken into consideration. Confident in the fact that I'll be given at least a brief opportunity to respond to what I know is coming. I'd just like to make several points tonight. First of all, I am struck, like Miss Mesiano, with the inadequacy of the application. The Board has plainly recognized these inadequacies. You can't come in with a plan for a project such as this without giving the Board full and complete details. I think what's missing far outweighs what's there. What the Board needs is an accurate, scaled, labeled, informative plan that reflects what the applicant intends to do. And I think what the Board needs further is something against which to measure what the applicant plans to do. I'm struck by looking at the exhibits, both the ones that the Board kindly made available to me, including the ones that apparently cannot be touched, that what we're doing is comparing apples and oranges. What we have on the one hand is a later dated writing which purports to be a survey without the necessary information that shows an approximate location what's going to be the end result. This is to be contrasted with something else that the Board has noted doesn't accurately reflect what is there now. I think at a minimum there ought to be some reflection of the comparison of what's there now with what's proposed. And if the pilings are in a different place, I want to know where they're going to be and how many feet different they're going to be. I think it's only fair for the Board 58 Board of Trustees 59 May 18, 2005 to compare what's there with what's proposed. Other than that I join in the comments of Miss Mesiano. Secondly, it seems to me that what's occurring tonight in an abbreviated form is a blatant attempt to convert what is patently an improper set of docks into a proper set of docks by getting the imprimatur of this Board and a permit issued. The deficiencies in this application are legion, and I'm not going to go into them in detail. The Board is well familiar with its code provision and what it has to look at. And it seems to me the items mentioned by Miss Mesiano are certainly at the top of the list. This thing does not comply with this Board's regulations in any way, shape or form. it's too long, in many respects it obstructs navigation, it is a hazard. It is environmentally unsound. It violates just about every standard that the Board has in Chapter 97. I don't think by coming in and blithely telling the Board that we're just going to do a replacement in-kind is sufficient. As to whether or not this is replacement in-kind of something that's pro-existing, I think Miss Mesiano is correct, the Board's got to look at what the history of this is. And I think Chapter 97 requires the Board to do that. When did it come into effect; how did it come into effect; does it have a right to be there? We aro of the opinion that it has no right to be thero. It was built thero rogue. It is a bandit operation. There are no permits for it, and it has no right to be thero. It's not grandfathered under the code. The Board has to take a hard look at it in any event, and we believe it is not pro-existing, nonconforming. You may hear from Counsel for Paradise Point that it is, and it has been determined by the Zoning Board, that is not true. There has been a determination by one justice of the Supreme Court that whatever the Zoning Board may have done before is not binding upon us. You may also hear that another Supreme Court judge has decided differently. That's not a matter for this Board to determine. This Board's got to determine on its own whether this is pre-existing or not. Finally I'd like to comment on Trustee Poliwoda's comment, which I thought was apt. Who owns the bottom? Well, I'm sure the Trustees are well aware, this matter is pending before Mr. Justice Cohalan and the Trustees Counsel has gone into that case and has asserted ownership of the bottom, and the matter is subjudice and this land is presumptively Trustees' land, and the Trustees have an 59 Board of Trustees 60 May 18, 2005 obligation to deal with it accordingly, notwithstanding, whatever jurisdiction may be granted to them under Chapter 97. We expect a determination on that in the not too distant future. In the meantime, I think it behooves the Trustees to act consistently with the assertion of their title and take the appropriate steps to protect the environment down there. In conclusion, I'd like to say that I don't think the Trustees have before them a completed application. It is plain that the items that are required to be shown on the survey in the application were not there, and I think that this requires at the very least a carrying over of this matter until complete surveys can be produced and we have an opportunity to look at them as well as the Board and comment on whatever they may show after the applicant gets done doing whatever they're required to do. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. PASCA: Anthony Pasca, Esseks, Heifer and Angel, 108 East Main Street, Riverhead. We are one of the attorneys for Paradise Point. I'm not going to go into the details of the application. I'll leave that to Jim, he's already done that. We obviously would like an opportunity to review whatever memorandum was handed to you, it's always nice to be given a copy of it. I guess we'll have to FOIL it and make our own copies if we have to, but I'd like to reserve a little opportunity to do that before the next meeting. I want to address a couple things, one the question you asked about who owns the bottom land, what does it matter for purposes of this application? That's one question, are there different regulations applicable to applications where you own the bottom land or where we own the bottom land? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: To be honest, yes. For example, in Gull Pond, which is known to be dredged, we allow substantially larger floats. We take a different look at it because it's a private piece of bottom on that because it's pre-dredged. MR. PA$CA: I'm not sure I've seen regulations in your code that treat them differently. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We also grandfather things into a different extent, rather than if it's public bottom, public domain, we protect it to the fullest extent. MR. PASCA: Randomly? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Not randomly. If it's private, it's private. MR. PASCA: Usually regulations are required to treat things 6O Board of Trustees 61 May 18, 2005 differently. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: But if it is public bottom we will treat it as we have treated those in the past. MR. PASCA: As Mr. Bressler correctly said, that's an issue that is before Judge Cohalan. You guys have counsel, we have counsel, Zupa's have counsel, everybody's got counsel, they'll dealing with the issue, I'm sure they'll work it out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the ownership thing isn't a regulation. It's just a matter of what Ken's referring to is there is a couple of larger docks over the years that had been grandfathered in because they were not over public bottom. It's sort of a limited situation. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In saying that they did not violate the one-third rule, third across the canal, they were always tucked in. They didn't fall under those regulations. MR. PASCA: Okay. I want to address one other thing, which is that somehow that this is a bandit operation, it's not a pre-existing, nonconforming marina, it's illegal, it's not a M1 or M2 district, and therefore, you can't have a marina. There's a time and place for everything. This isn't the time and place for making zoning regulations. That time came and went and the Zoning Board, whatever Mr. Bressler wants to say, did, in fact, issue a written decision that said this is a legal pre-existing, non-conforming marina. And the Zupas took an appeal from that to the Court and the Court said that the decision by the Zoning Board was rational, and it was being upheld. The Zupas still have the opportunity to appeal that if they want to, and they can do whatever they want. But as of today, the only board that has jurisdiction over zoning in this town is the Zoning Board and they have determined that it's a legal nonconforming marina. And it doesn't matter, when you have a nonconforming marina, it doesn't matter if it's a residential district, what matters is whether it's legal under zoning or not. And that board made the determination and everybody's bound by it right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand what you just said. Can I interrupt you? MR. PASCA: Go ahead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand that they ruled that it's a legal marina? MR. PASCA: Yes. They said it's a legal, pre-existing, nonconforming marina. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How could they possible have jurisdiction that would supercede this Board? 6l Board of Trustees 62 May 18, 2005 MR. PASCA: They are a zoning board, that is their jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But their jurisdiction isn't to approve anything within our jurisdiction. MR. PASCA: I didn't say that, but the issue, the suggestion that because it's not in an M2 or M1 district, that means it's an illegal marina, you have to distinguish between zoning regulations and your jurisdiction, which deals with wetlands regulations. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I want to make that clear, and I want to make that distinction because you're saying that some other board said they said it's a legal marina. You're saying that as if it's over tonight -- MR. PASCA: From a zoning standpoint it's a legal, pre-existing, nonconforming marina. Period, that's it. I'm not saying that you don't have any jurisdiction to deal with this from your regulatory standpoint, but to call this a bandit operation and illegal marina and to bring up the zoning districts when the Zoning Board has determined that even though it's in a residential district it's pre-existing and nonconforming, all the zoning issues are gone; they're not before you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you say you had a copy of that? MR. PASCA: I actually have a few sets, these are all just decisions from the courts, the decision from the Zoning Board, it's part of this. There's three sets of them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. PASCA: The determination of the Zoning Board is in there; the determination by Judge Loughlin, who upheld the Zoning Board's decision is in there; there are some decisions by Judge Catterson, who upheld the easement area, for example. MR. JOHNSTON: Anthony, for the record, would you just state what you just gave us? MR. PA$CA: I gave you there's a decision dated April 14th from Judge Loughlin, caption Mary S. Zupa a.qainst Zonin,q Board of Appeals, that is the decision in the Article 78 that upheld the Zoning Board's decision; there's the decision by the Honorable James Catterson, that was his decision on the trial that took place regarding the easement areas and the prescriptive easement; there's an August 2, 2004 decision of the Zoning Board, that's the decision in which the Zoning Board found this to be a legal pre-existing, nonconforming marina; judgment from James Catterson also, and I think that's it, and that was the judgment that dismissed a prior action that the Zupas had started to try to declare this an illegal marina. 62 Board of Trustees 63 May 18, 2005 MR. JOHNSTON: So you gave us four things? MR. PASCA: Yes, four separately stapled things. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just wasn't clear on what it was. MR. P^SC^: For now that's what it is, but I would like a chance to review what has been submitted to you and respond to it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no further comment-- MS. MESIANO: I'd just like to -- this was intended for you, the memorandum and that copy was for another party, I'd just like to swap. The photographs are different, there's color here and so that memorandum, if I could swap with you. MR. BRESSLER: For the sake of documentary completeness, I note that, of course, not all the relevant decisions were handed up and apropos my comments earlier, this is a decision from Judge Catterson, short form order, dated May 6, 2004, which I think is relevant to this pre-existing issue. But the long and short of it is (A) that will be the subject of an appeal if, as and when an order was entered; and (B) as the president correctly pointed out, nothing that the Zoning Board could determine is going to affect this Board's jurisdiction to decide the issues before it on the basis of its statutory mandate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. BRESSLER: With that we'll see what the future brings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Comments? MR. MILLER: My name is James Miller, 1610 Paradise Point Road. This application should be turned down on four reasons at least. The applicants come before this Board with unclean hands. The applicant has maintained a marina in a residentially zoned area without permits from the DEC, the Trustees and contrary to local zoning. The applicant has violated the permitting process for so long they now believe they have the right to continue violating the law; and in addition, they now claim ownership of the Trustees' bay bottom over all others, and yet there is no record of the Trustees giving or selling this bay bottom. This is nothing more than a blatant land grant. This applicant has no standing to file this application. They have no riparian rights and they are not the adjacent landowners. If this permit were granted it would allow a dock to be built in someone else's property in front of it. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else? MR. JOHNSTON: Did you want to say the last thing in that sentence? MR. MILLER: This is a dangerous precedent. 63 Board of Trustees 64 May 18, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, I'll make a motion to table this headng upon further review and the applicant's submission of more information. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES (Time ended 10:55 p.m.) RECEIVED 8EP 9 2005 64