Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/22/2005Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:00 PM Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES. APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of April 20, 2005. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, Board of Trustees 2 June 22, 2005 TRUSTEE POLIWODA Seconded. ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: For June, 2005, check for $6,041.48 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. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: 40 C LLC -- SCTM#78-7-10 Michael & Kathryn Russo -- SCTM#90-4-22 Narrow River Marina -- SCTM#27-2-4 John Mulholland -- SCTM#57~2-24 Virginia Bontje -- SCTM#57-2-23 Michael Carlucci - SCTM#57-2-22 George Baldwin -- SCTM#57~2-21 J&C Holdings LP -- SCTM#57-1-20 Jacqueline Bittner-- SCTM#68-1-17.2 and 17.3 Biel Associates, Inc. -- SCTM#88-5-68 Louis and Elizabeth Formica ~- SCTM#114-7-10.6 Sarah Reetz -- SCTM#49-1-16 and 17 Peter Cowan -- SCTM#55-6-15.57 Faith Beiser and Kevin Buccina --SCTM#74-1-44.5 Corey Creek Association, Inc. -- SCTM#78-4-45 Gall Rerisi -- SCTM#76-1-15.3 Victor Rerisi -- SCTM#76-1-15.6 James Eckert -- SCTM#116-7-8 Susan Souder- SCTM#128-6-8 Harold Baer -- SCTM#116-7-6. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll read the resolution: Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications, more fully described in the public hearings of the Trustee agenda dated June 22, 2005 are classified as Type 2 Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations are not subject to review under SEQRA: 40 C LLC; Michael and Kathryn Russo; J&C Holdings, Biel Associates, Inc.; Sarah Reetz; Peter Cowan; Faith Beiser and Kevin Buccina; Corey Creek Association, and Susan Souder. And Resolve by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold that the applications of Narrow River Marina, John Mulholland, Virginia Bontje, Michael Carlucci, George Baldwin, Louis and Elizabeth Formica, Victor Rerisi, Gall Rerisi, James Eckert, Harold Baer, more fully described in Board of Trustees 3 June 22, 2005 the public hearing agenda of the Trustees of the Town of Southold agenda dated Wednesday June 22, 2005 is pursuant to the SEQRA rules and regulations classified as an Unlisted Action; and further resolved that the applicant is required to submit Part One of the Long Environmental Assessment Form; and be it further resolved that upon receipt of the Long Environmental Assessment Form the clerk of the Trustees is hereby directed to commence a coordinated review pursuant to SEQRA. Is there a second on that resolution? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Before we start, I'd like to introduce the Board Members. Starting off here is Bill Cook, CAC member, welcome. Heather Tetrault, is our environmental analyst, she works in the office. Brownell Johnston is on the end in the suit, he dresses like a lawyer because he is one. Artie Foster, Board Member, Lauren Standish runs the office, Jim King, Peggy Dickerson, Kenny Poliwoda. I'm Al Krupski. We'll begin the meeting with a bunch of housekeeping. Then when we get into the other items that aren't public hearings, anyone is free to comment, but please, we try to move through this very quickly, but if you have a comment on any of these resolutions or extensions or transfers or anything, please be ready so we can listen to your comments and keep moving along. Before I even start, there are a n~tmber of items on the public hearing agenda that have been postponed and will not be opened tonight, and I'll go over those to make sure you're not sitting here until 11;00. Number 10, James Murray and Susan Segur; Number 11, Alan Cardinale; Number 17 Matt-A-Mar By the Bay; 18, Sim Moy; 19, Paradise Point; 20 John Mulholland; 21, Virginia Bontje; 22, Michael Carlucci; Number 23 George Baldwin; 24, Vincent and Carol Manago; 25, Long Island Sound Oyster Company; 26 J&C Holdings, and Number 27, Dennis Hranitzky, will not be opened tonight. Those are for reasons that the applicant needs to submit more information or are changing their plans. IV. RESOLUTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS 1. CHRISTOPHER & PEGGY MI,LONAS request an Administrative Permit for the existing stairs and deck. Located: 2400 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM#33-1-14. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is straightforward. The Board sees Board of Trustees 4 June 22, 2005 no problem with this. I'll make a motion to approve at Administrative Permit of this existing stairs and deck. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The following actions have been reviewed and deemed to be consistent for the policy and standards of the LWRP and we will provide a list, Lauren will provide us with that list. MR. JOHNSTON: Do all Trustees stipulate that that's acceptable? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. MS. TETRAULT: So that you all know, Mark's been writing these up and for each one, he really wants you to read them, because for each recommendation that he gives, he gives a very specific thing. TRUSTEE KING: They're all consistent, right? MS. TETRAULT: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Recently the Town Board adopted the LWRP, which is Local Waterfront Revitalization program. We have been going through meetings with the Department of State trying to familiarize our Board, our Board deals with probably 95 to 99 percent of our applications are going to have to handle a consistency review under the LWRP that's another layer of bureaucracy and paperwork for anyone applying for anything, that's the good news. So what we're trying to do here, we're trying to sort out how we're going to handle this so it doesn't hold up the whole permit process and just backlog everyone's project into next year. So you have to bear with us and we'll try to work through this. We have been working closely with the Department of State to try to make it manageable and workable. (Discussion.) 2. JOHN J. GALLAGHER requests an Administrative Permit to construct a second-floor dormer and deck over the existing porch roof at the southwest corner of the dwelling. Located: 730 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM#37-5-5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, did you look at Gallagher?. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Based on our field report inspection, 4 Board of Trustees 5 June 22, 2005 based on our knowledge of Chapter 97 and based on a consistency review with LWRP, I'd make a motion to approve the application with a staked row of hay bales at the eight foot contour during construction, I would say from property line to property line and also gutters and dry wells to contain roof runoff. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now we can have a discussion. MS. TETRAULT: What we talked about, are we going to actually read the comments of the LWRP? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. I did reference the consistency report that we did receive. Those are really Chapter 97 code issues that have to take place anyway. So the LWRP is consistent with Chapter 97. MS. TETRAULT: Right. I guess just because it's in that one file it gets read and everybody sort of absorbs them and hears them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it will be on the permit, better yet. TRUSTEE KING: They will? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Because the LWRP, these recommendations are going to be consistent with our recommendations and code anyway, unless there's something unusual. MS. TETRAULT: Great, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Made a motion, I have a second, all in favor?. ALL AYES. 3. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of KRAUSE FAMILY TRUST C/O BRAD & MARY KRAUSE requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 44' by 3' split-rail fence along the existing reck wall, and extend seaward to terminate at the tidal wetlands. Located: 9205 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-3-16.1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara, Land Use Ecological Services, on behalf of the applicant. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I did look at this, I went with Heather. The purpose of this fence is? It was a little confusing. MS. CANTARA: They just want to discourage people from walking across the property there. They get a lot of people that walk down the beach, come up and walk across, and they just want to discourage that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The problem that I noted when I was down 5 Board of Trustees 6 June 22, 2005 there with Heather is that there was a lot of plant species. There's a tremendous amount of very, very healthy - Heather, is it bayberry? MS. TETRAULT: Beach plum. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Beach plum. Cedar trees right where the fence is going to go. So do you foresee a fence getting put up that's not going to disturb that vegetation? MS. CANTARA: We could move it over a little bit. I mean, if we moved it over three or four feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just don't know how much it's going to deter what we want to deter where it's going. We didn't really go down that far as far as realizing people are still going to be walking along the beach. MS. TETRAULT: Also interested in checking the property line there; do you know where the property line is parallel to the shore? MS. CANTARA: Parallel to the shore? I have it on the survey, visually I can't recall. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's way down the property line, Heather. MS. TETRAULT: How far would the water go? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All of this right here is going through. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 44 feet on the wall, right? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right, straight down from there. All of this is vegetated. There's beach grass here (indicating). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Basically to that line, Peggy, or a little shy of that line? MS. TETRAULT: Yes, which is what? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which is still a beach? MS. TETRAULT: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it onto the beach? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, it's mostly onto the beach. Where would you move it as far as to get it away from that? MS. CANTARA: We could move it into the property a little bit to move it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's just such a vegetated area. All this beach grass down here. MS. TETRAULT: That's holding the beach together. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not happy with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then don't approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what my opinion is. I'm inclined to deny it because of where it is and our Chapter 97-27 A4 says that fences in general are prohibited from beaches and Number 7 is critical environmental areas, which I believe this is. So that would be my recommendation. Board of Trustees 7 June 22, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Make the motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to deny. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. V. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING & ANCHORAGE/STAKES/DUCK BLINDS: 1. EDWARD HANUS requests a Mooring Permit in Deep Hole Creek for a nine foot boat. Access: Private. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve that mooring; do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Ail in favor?. ALL AYES. 2. MICHAEL LEVENTERIS requests a Mooring Permit in Mattituck Creek for a 22 foot boat, replacing Mooring Number 822. Access: Public. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve that mooring or replacement for the mooring. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor.? ALL AYES. 3. HOWARD HECHT requests a Mooring Permit in Gulf Pond for a 30 foot boat, replacing Mooring Number 29. Access: Public. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve that mooring replacement. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: 1. CHARLES SALICE requests an Amendment to Permit #5020 to reconflgure the floating dock from its present alignment, to a 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 KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? We're waiting for new plans from the applicant based on a second field inspection, so I'll make a motion to table this since we don't have new plans or the applicant. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favo~ ALL AYES. 7 Board of Trustees 8 June 22, 2005 2. J&C HOLDINGS, LP requests an Amendment to Permit 6051 to include a new 16' by 25' rear deck. Located: 435 Albacore Drive, Southold. $CTM#57-1-20. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We all looked at this last Thursday, there's an LWRP here. Proposed action is generally consistent with the policy standards and therefore is consistent with the LWRP provided that the following best management practices are applied and implemented: The applicant shall employ erosion and sediment controls, hay bales and silt fencing landward of the wetlands system. The area demonstrates the high groundwater table with seasonal fluctuation. The test hole indicates water is found, fine to course sand at 6.2. Therefore it is the intent of the LWRP no CCA treated wood, oil based preservatives containing CRT or PCP applied to the surface of the wood materials shall be permitted in the construction materials of the deck. The applicant shall use decay resistant wood. When we were out there, we had some concerns on this one, Heather, or as far as the comer of the decking; is that correct? MS. TETRAULT: Just how close it is to the buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did anyone see this, Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I did. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think it's what you want to decide here. You've got a much smaller buffer than normal here. Just based on the size of the buffer, I would recommend denial just because you already compromised on the buffer area. You said adding more structure, I would just let it go. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe that's what we decided when we were out there. Everyone said there was no structure out there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How many feet to the corner of the wetlands was there? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 58, but this is the buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.' You don't have 50 foot buffer. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 50 feet from the wetlands there, is that 50 considering accessory structure? Do you know what I mean? (Discussion.) TRUSTEE FOSTER: You have no choice, you can have an elevated structure. It's already clear so the buffer isn't an issue. You can have an elevated structure or you can have no structure with grass and fertilizer running into the wetlands. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But we all felt -- we didn't feel that 8 Board of Trustees 9 June 22, 2005 the deck that it was too close to the wetlands area, right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, Kennyiust measured it off, it's 55 feet? Right? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 57, 55 on the other survey. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When we were out there, it was closer; did we measure? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, if there's a problem with the wetlands line, table it then. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Go out and look at it, measure? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. There were only two Board members there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We did that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But I think there's inconsistency with the surveys and because there were only three members there. I'll make a motion to table J&C Holdings. I'm sorry, was there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. HURTADO: John Hurtado, the distances from I guess that would be the northeast corner of the house itself is approximately two feet or a foot and-a-half different from the southeast comer of the proposed deck. So it's no different than what you have approved already as far as the distance to the wetlands. The distance from the house to the wetlands is within two feet of the distance from the proposed deck to the wetlands, if you look at it. So, I .lust want to make that point to you. It's not really any different than what you approved in the past. MS. TETRAULT: Is that wetlands line flagged at all? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. MR. SCHIAVETTA: Bob Schiavetta, I live in Southold Shores. MR. JOHNSTON: Would you spell your last name, please. MR. SCHIAVETTA: S-C-H~I-A-V-E-T-T-A, one of the things that we're dealing with here is we started off with a forty foot buffer instead of a 50 foot buffer. Everyone in the neighborhood needs to have a 50 foot buffer because our area is so sensitive. Now, he's talking about being a certain distance away. Actually, the bale line curves in towards the road, at that point that brings it even closer. The other fact is that he was building this without permission to begin with, like he did with the dormers that he did on the third floor. He made changes without getting permission from the Town or the people that actually own the property around him. Behind him the people that own that piece of property weren't on record, although they owned it, and these people disagree with him infringing any further by putting another structure on there that is inconsistent with the bale line, it comes closer than it's supposed to. And Board of Trustees 10 June 22, 2005 the fact that he was putting this up without getting any permission to begin with, I don't think that should be rewarded by allowing this to happen. MR. WILSON: Hi, my name is Mike Wilson, 590 Tarpon Drive in Southold. I'm also the president of the Southold Shores group who own the property behind it marked proposed canal, it's just a piece of property up from the Southold Shores canal. Unfortunately I've been out of Town due to a family health problem, but I'd just like to express my concern. We have never had any notification of any of this. We bought the property about last August, the canal property, but somehow we still don't get notifications of changes on permits such as this. I don't know what to do about that, but I'd like to make sure that we all had to stick within 50 feet of wetlands, and I'd like to make sure that all the new developers in the area have to stick within 50 feet from wetlands, and that's the wetlands as defined by the DEC. I don't know whether those, how they were marked by the DEC about a year ago, have been included, but we just would like future developers and current developers to stick with the same 50 feet we had to live with. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Were you two in from the end of the canal? MR. WILSON: No. The canal as it exists, I'm at the landward end of the canal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are up fronting water? MR. WILSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you're the second home, you're not the very end home? MR. WILSON: I don't know which way you're counting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Starting from the land, I'm going out from the bay. MR. WILSON: I am the second house, not the second lot, but the second house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. MR. WILSON: And as for the number of the people on the canal, purchased the canal property from Reese, the previous owner, and so we're just concerned that we're not getting any notifications and two, we had to stick to the 50 feet and I've spent a lot of money, and I would like to make sure that all future developers have that same requirement. Thanks. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, sir?. MR. WILSON: I looked at the computer earlier this week and Southold Shores is down as owning that piece of property now, so I don't know why we don't get notification. 10 Board of Trustees I 1 June 22, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Since when? MR. WILSON: We've owned it since August of last year. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How long has it been officially in the Southold Town computer?. MR. WILSON: I don't know, but I do know it was there Monday. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, sir?. MR. BOGART: My name is Ed Bogart, I'm one of the owners of the wetlands. I agree with the two prior speakers, I think we should all have to abide by the same rules and regulations, and I don't think changing the deck with its relationship to the wetlands would make the house sell or not sell. I think the law, the rules should be enfomed and not arbitrarily changed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's not looking to change any rules. He's looking to put a deck on the back. The house was issued a permit with a certain size buffer area, and he's looking to put a deck on within the confines of that building envelope. So right now we're trying to figure out if the deck addition is going to have any environmental impact on the wetlands as opposed to the alternative which would be lawn. That's what we're looking at here. MR. BOGART: I thought that the structure had impeded on -~ he's not 50 feet back from the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We measured 57 feet back. MR. BOGART: What is the amendment for? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the deck. The original permit was for the house and he wants to amend the permit to include a deck on the back. MR. BOGART: And the amendment includes what, a change in the setbacks? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it just requires an action by our Board. TRUSTEE KING: It's more of an addition to an already approved deck it looks like. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It was within the confines of our original permit. He just wants to amend the permit to include the deck on the house. He isn't violating the previous permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a Trustee Permit for your home? MR. BOGART: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, if you wanted to put a deck on the back and you had a clearing limit and the deck was outside that clearing limit, you'd come to us and we'd give you an 11 Board of Trustees 12 June 22, 2005 amendment to put a deck on the house. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Whether it's a deck or any accessory structure, you would come to us and get a permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition that the area seaward of the deck remains completely natural. I am still inclined to table since only three of us saw it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've seen the house and I know where the structure is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When we were out there, I thought we all agreed -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Had issue with it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But one of Heather's points is that what is there is not consistent with what is on the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh How would you resolve that? I thought the inconsistency was here not here. The lot next door was the one that raised the inconsistency. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's pretty close, 58 feet, and this is 55 feet. It's pretty close. Now I don't have a problem with it. But that's -~ TRUSTEE KING: I can't see it having an environmental impact. It's outside the buffer area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, after reviewing the plans, I'll make a motion to approve this application for an amendment to Permit 6051 to include a new 16' by 25' rear deck. Located: 435 Albacore Drive in Southold. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 3. LOUIS & ELIZABETH FORMICA request an amendment to Permit 1658 to replace the existing bulkhead with vinyl sheathing and to reclaim sand (scoured from the bulkhead and migrated toward the float-boat slip areas) as backfill. Located: 2422 Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#1 '14-7-10.6. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this and I'll just read a couple of things here. CAC voted to approve it as submitted and now we've got this new LWRP information, I11 just go through it quick I'll try not to bore everybody with that. Proposed action involves replacement of existing bulkhead with vinyl sheathing and to reclaim sand scour from the bulkhead. The proposed action has been reviewed for Chapter 95 waterfront consistency review of the Town of Southold Town Code and Local Waterfront Revitalization 12 Board of Trustees 13 June 22, 2005 Program policy stands based upon the information provided on the consistency assessment form submitted by this Department as well as the records available. The proposed action is generally consistent with the policy standards and therefore is consistent with the LWRP provided that the following standard best management practices are implemented to further the intent of LWRP policy: 5, 6 and 11. Number 1, removal or reclamation of sand as indicated and described. The area is vegetated and demonstrates -- it goes on and on -- all efforts should be employed to minimize impact for this area during construction. Require that the new vinyl bulkhead be backfilled with clean sand from an off-site location. Number 2, require the installation of a floating turbidity screen around the entire project area. The turbidity screen should remain in place a sufficient amount of time post-project to minimize turbidity. Like I say, I looked at this, it's a straightforward vinyl sheathing replacement of wooden bulkhead to be placed in front of as close as possible. I met with Mrs. Formica, I met with the applicants and explained to them that the chances of dredging between that bulkhead are nonexistent. So I think it's not an issue. The rest of the replacement, like I say, is straightforward. They have got a nice vegetated area already. There's vegetated buffer behind the bulkhead. The entire bulkhead face is all naturally vegetated. So I would recommend let that remain as it is. It's fine. That's all I've got to say about it. I have a question for John Costello, this silt screen, talking about a floating turbidity screen around the entire project area, what is this, just a curtain they hang? MR. COSTELLO: it is a curtain, but it will be bottomed out, you can do almost the same thing with a silt fence because at Iow tide there is no bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see the necessity of it. MR. COSTELLO.' A silt screen will accomplish the same thing, a floating barrier will be laying on the ground. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it a DEC requirement? MR. COSTELLO: No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's just a recommendation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: LWRP recommendation? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I wouldn't make it part of the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree with you. MR. COSTELLO: The only thing is I think you mentioned that they should bring in fill from an upland source? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. 13 Board of Trustees 14 June 22, 2005 MR. COSTELLO: Most of the fill on his property has migrated from the bulkheaded area offshore and is shoaling his slip. I don't know if you can allow 15 yards out of that slip to -- TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see that there was a lot of fill lost from behind the bulkhead there. MR. COSTELLO: Not behind the bulkhead, in front of the bulkhead. That lowest stringer was beach level at one time. It's approximately three to four feet out now, the beach has disappeared over a period of time. TRUSTEE KING: I took soundings. While I was at Iow tide it was six foot of water at the float. MR. COSTELLO: At Iow tide? TRUSTEE KING: At Iow tide, so I don't think there's a big problem. Any other comments? MR. FORMICA: You measured it at the south end only, if you had gone to the other end, you'd have found that it's shoaled in there more. TRUSTEE KING: To the north? MR. FORMICA: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: How much more do you think? MR. FORMICA: Two to three feet because it all migrated in there. TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is you just shouldn't dredge in front of that bulkhead there. MR. COSTELLO: I wouldn't recommend dredging. Way out at the end of the dock where his slip is, there's approximately 15 yards of material that is migrated out there over a period of time. That's way offshore. There's no need to dredge in front of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: From what I saw I don't think it's necessary. It's never been dredged before. It's inconsistent with what this LWRP wants too. And I already read the CAC approved the application in its entirety including the sand. I would make a motion to approve the bulkhead replacement with vinyl and to deny the dredging aspect of this. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: It's a nice natural buffer behind the bulkhead. The whole natural buffer is nice, that would remain as it is in its natural state. The bulkhead actually is going down. It's really a pretty steep down. The bulkhead was not very substantial to begin with when it was built. That would be my motion. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor.9 ALL AYES. 14 Board of Trustees 15 June 22, 2005 4. FRANK SHERLOCK requests an Amendment to Permit 5285 to revegetate the 50 foot non-disturbance buffer. Located: 155 Breakwater Road, Mattituck. SCTM#113-3-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve that. MS. TETRAULT: Did they bring in a planting plan? TRUSTEE FOSTER: We agreed to let it naturally revegetate, didn't we; isn't that what our determination was? TRUSTEE KING: I think we wanted to plant some cedars in there. MS. TETRAULT: He wanted to plant because he said there was all this poison ivy. TRUSTEE KING: He wanted to add some stuff. MS. TETRAULT: We gave him a list. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve the application with the submission of a planting plan. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. 5. Chesterfield Associates, Inc. on behalf of JACQUELINE BITTNER requests an Amendment to Wetlands Permit 5726 and Coastal Erosion Permit 5726 to repair the existing collapsed bulkhead, replace excavated sand associated with replacement, allow for the placement of plus/minus 2,000 cubic yards of clean fill from an approved upland source as backfill behind the reconstructed bulkhead. Located: 4305 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#117.2 and 17.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. CUDDY: Good evening, I'm Charles Cuddy for the applicant who is hera with me. We discussed this with you before. We know what we've done, we understand what we have to do and we're prepared to do that. We would simply ask that you extend these existing permits and permit us to complete the establishment of the clean fill at this site and to finish the bulkheading so we can finally get this done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Does the Board have any comment? TRUSTEE FOSTER: No problem with that. MS. TETRAULT: As a part of this can we see the re-creafion of the area where they put sand, we did ask for that before and we didn't receive that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's where they took the fill, that's within the coastal -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To the east. 15 Board of Trustees 16 ,tune 22, 2005 TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's within the coastal road. MS. TETRAULT: Not along the mad? MR. CUDDY: Up closer, yes, not back at the mad, no. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I thought that was quite far removed. MS. TETRAULT: It was in the aerial you could see it right around there. MS. TETRAULT: Mr. Chesterfield as part of the work session said yes, we'll restore that, but that didn't come in, so we were looking for that. MR. CUDDY: For the record, there's no question we're going to do that, that's what we said we were going to do. MS. TETRAULT: We just need some kind of plan, something that shows what you propose to do. MR. CUDDY: We're just going to replace what was taken away. If you made it subject to that, we would send it in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The work's done? MR. CUDDY: The bulkhead is essentially done, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just had one question. The LWRP review came in. To protect water quality and the health of marine organisms, no CCA treated or oil based preservatives containing creosote or pentachlorophenol applied to the surface of the wood material should be permitted in the construction materials of the bulkhead. The applicant should use decay-resistant wood, cedar or black walnut. What is the sheathing; what is the material of the sheathing? MR. CUDDY: That's already done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. CAC recommended disapproval because the house should be moved 100 feet landward. The applicant should be required to submit an engineer's report proving that the new bulkhead will survive a 50 year storm. MR. CUDDY: When we got the original permit you had indicated to us that in the event that if there was a problem in the future, we would move the house. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As part of the permit? MR. CUDDY: I think when you originally did this, you said to us if there was destruction to the house, and we said we would move it back at some point, that's never occurred. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this application? MR. AUDIENCE: We were concerned how long that structure's going to last. That jets out into the sound. It's quite an elevation up, the beach is below. I don't think it's going to last five years. 16 Board of Trustees 17 June 22, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's hard to speculate on that. However we agree it's a pretty tough spot sticking out into the Long Island Sound. MS. TETRAULT: The other concern I have is beach access. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's true. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Stair to the top of the bulkhead? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It was only recently that that's been exposed that way. We'd like to see stairs coming up on either side so you need to have beach access across the top of the bulkhead because it does protrude now. So I'll make a motion to approve the application with the change in the plans showing one stairs to provide beach access east and west, and also the plans should include or a separate set of plans should include restoration of the area used to mine spoil out on the east side of the house. And I don't know if we ever discussed a buffer in the front of this, I would guess that we want a non-turf buffer in front of this bulkhead, 20 foot non-turf buffer. We don't want turf placed down, 20 foot non-turf buffer landward side of this bulkhead. Any other Board comment? Ken, anything else? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm out of this one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There's a motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. 6. Stephen L. Ham, III on behalf of JONATHAN KIBBE & MADORA KIBBE requests a Transfer of Permit 5172 from Frances E. Nielsen to Jonathan Kibbe & Madora Kibbe, as issued on May 24, 2000 and amended on April 21, 2004. Located: East End Road, Fisher's Island. SCTM#5-1-8. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve that. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I need a motion to go offthe regular meeting. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favo~ ALL AYES. 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. 17 Board of Trustees 18 June 22, 2005 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. Once again, I'm going to read off the public headngs that will not be opened this evening. Number 10, James Murray and Susan Segur; Number 11, Alan Cardinale; Number 17 Matt-A-Mar By the Bay; 18, Sim Moy; 19, Paradise Point; 20 John Mulholland; 21, Virginia Bontje; 22, Michael Carlucci; Number 23 George Baldwin; 24, Vincent and Carol Manago; 25, Long Island Sound Oyster Company; 26 J&C Holdings, and Number 27, Dennis Hranitzky. These are all hearings that will not be opened tonight. 1. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 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 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#135-1-23 and 24.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application? MS. MOORE: Good evening, Pat Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Padavan, who are here this evening. You have an extensive report already in your file which Mr. Cramer who couldn't be here tonight had already put on the record. Some questions that were raised at the last headng, you asked about when the building was constructed, we think 1928 is what my client tells me. It was certainly there at the time it survived the 1938 hurricane. We have aedals, three aedals and copies for each of the Board members. An aerial from 1976, I also have the aerial from 1977. You'll see a little discrepancy between the location of the neighboring house, and don't let that confuse you, the neighboring house actually was relocated closer to the street so when you compare the aerial, our house didn't move, we didn't expand out towards the water, the house next door was moved towards the road. So that will be slightly confusing when you look at it. We also have a 1988 aerial. All these aerials and I'll submit them to the Board now, had it stapled, I apologize it was put out of order, what I did, I had Tom Cramer, he's the one who was able to get the aerials, I believe it was Aero Graphics, he provided for me an identifier, you can see the first one is a 1976 aerial, you can see the vegetated buffer line and the dune line, so obviously, the structure is there. It's been there for a very long time. Then you have the 1977 aedal; again, 18 Board of Trustees 19 June 22, 2005 that structure is there and as I said before, the 1988 aerial, which has the current conditions today, the structure, which is there. The coastal erosion hazard law, we have proposed a construction that will be limited to 25 percent of the existing structure. The law doesn't speak in terms of what that structure is; it doesn't matter what it is, it says structure. So what we have taken is a very limited, very narrow reading of the law, have not asked for anything more than what is that 25 percent. So, within the narrow confines of the law and the statute language, we are asking for the bare minimum. The house will obviously be meeting state building code standards, but the size of it will be limited. At this point we would ask that the Board grant the approval, and we can proceed with any permits that we need. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you, is there any other comment? MR. JOHNSON: Good evening, Lars Johnson again, on behalf of the North Fork Condominium Association. I just want to quickly kind of focus in on the standards because I think that's been missed here and we haven't addressed the standards that are applicable to this permit application. Under Article 37 there's no dispute that this is a regulated activity that falls within the Coastal Erosion Hazard area. MS. MOORE: I have to object to this appearance because I understand that the North Fork Condo Association has not voted in favor of supporting his presence here; in fact, they have sent a letter, I have one of the homeowners that are part of the North Fork Condo Association. They just recently sent out a notice to their members and asked whether or not they should hire an attorney and whether he should be present. So I'm not sure whether or not he's authorized to be here and appear on behalf of his client. That's the information we have been informed about. MR. JOHNSON: I have a board member here. MR. GERRERA: The letter she's speaking of is to hire an attorney for the future, not what we've hired already. It's irrelevant to the case and has nothing to do with this. This is something for the future, how people feel about hiring attorneys. MS. MOORE: I think there needs to be on the record who he represents. He's claiming he represents the condominium association and their membership. MR. GERRERA: I represent the board of managers and we 19 Board of Trustees 20 June 22, 2005 already voted. The board of managers voted to hire Mr. Johnson to keep our lovely beach from being destroyed. MS. MOORE: As long as you put on the record what your appearance is. For the record, I want to be sure when somebody comes into object that they, in fact, have the authorization of the association because there have been lots of representations in the past and without authorization, and he can speak for himself as a member of the community, but he's placing an umbrella of authority that I'm not sure he has. MR. GERRERA: Well, I'm sure he has it. We already voted on it and we made the decision. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Can I proceed? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please do. MR. JOHNSON: Focusing on the code provisions that are applicable to this matter, Chapter 37 is beyond dispute that this is a regulated activity and the standards set forth in 37-11, the standards for issuing a permit, that standard requires the applicant to establish that this project is reasonable and necessary. So I question whether the applicant has met that standard. Have they shown that this project is necessary? They have testified, in fact, the very basis of the application is that there is an existing structure there. So why is it necessary now to expand it in the manner that they wish to? I don't think they have met that number one criteria. In addition, they are required to show that the proposed activity is not likely to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site and the other locations. We submitted a report from Miss Harrison that directly contradicts their own expert to the fact that there is a risk of erosion to the neighboring properties by virtue of a bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That report is in the file? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, it is as of the 15th. And finally, does the project prevent, if possible, or minimize adverse effects on natural protective features and their functions and protective values of existing erosion protection structures and natural resources; have they met that standard? I submit they haven't. There is a conclusory statement in the record in the report of Mr. Cramer that they have, and I didn't see any evidence that they, in fact, have met that standard. Also, I don't know that it's been established whether this is a structural hazard area, but if so, the construction of non-movable structures is strictly 20 Board of Trustees 21 June 22, 2005 prohibited, and that's 37-13. Their contention that this is a non-major addition, Miss Harrison points out that if you take into consideration all the structures proposed, then, in fact, it is moro than 25 percent of an addition to the structure that it is presently on the premises, and therefore, it is not a non-major addition. Now, there is also some dispute as to whether this Ps a bluff area, is it a dune area, is it a beach aroa. I believe that Miss Tetrault has a letter in the file that indicates that this project is a beach area, in which case this project would be completely prohibited. Their own expert claims that it is mostly in a bluff area but also in a dune area. And I think that, again, a review of the pertinent Section 37-16 regarding dune areas it states in the initial clause that the protective value of dune areas is especially groat, and I think that sort of sets out the whole tenor or theme of this provision, but in primary dune areas, excavating, grading or mining of property dunes is prohibited period. In secondary dune areas, excavating, grading or mining must not diminish the erosion protection afforded by them, and again, there's no dispute that dunes, in fact, provide that protection. Essentially removing the significant portion of the dune clearly diminishes the protective feature of that, particularly when you're replacing it with basically a firm structure and firm ground. Bluff area under 37-17, their expert again says most of the project is in the bluff area, under Section B there it says a minor alteration of a bluff done in accordance with conditions stated in a coastal erosion management permit issued for new construction, modification or restoration of an erosion protection structure is permitted. Have they shown that this is only a minor alteration of the bluff? i'm not sure that that's in the record and that they have established that. Turning to the wetlands law, again, it's clear that there Ps a jurisdiction under the wetlands law. Again, their own expert says that they do not meet the 100 foot setbacks, and there's sort of this conclusory statement that it's kind of close sort of thing, it's only five feet short. And it meets all the other standards but number one, the standard, it's a firm standard, it doesn't say more or less 100 feet, it says 100 feet and this is a minimum standard. Also 97-27 specifically addresses bulkheading and 21 Board of Trustees 22 June 22, 2005 states that bulkheads on the sound shall only be permitted when the likelihood of extreme erosion is demonstrated and it shall not increase erosion on neighboring properties. Again, Miss Harrison has submitted a report indicating erosion is likely or at least possible. And also, again, if they need to show that there's a likelihood of extreme erosion here, then that sort of counteracts the other provision, which was sort of requiring a showing that there's no risk of extreme erosion in this area. So which one is it? Is it extreme erosion or not? And finally, as to the general standards under the wetlands law, 97-28 just a few of what I believe are the most pertinent, Trustees may adopt a resolution directing issuance of a permit if it determines that such operations will not substantially cause damage from erosion turbidity or siltation. Again, I think there's evidence in the records that there is a risk of erosion by putting a bulkhead on the sound, change the course of any channel or natural movement or flow of any waters, that also is a risk here. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other land in the vicinity; again, I think that's a risk because of the impact of the bulkheading on the sand formations on either side of this property. And finally, otherwise adversely effect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town. And under that heading, general welfare, I again would sort of put forth what the condominium association as approved by their Board they are concerned with traffic, with the affect on the views at the beach and their property just on the other side, and also the integrity of the bluff against which their property sits. So those are all the concerns I think that are critical to this analysis. Finally, I just point out that again, the CAC unanimously recommended disapproval of this project and we encourage you to follow that recommendation, thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Al, I have a quick question. Were you the one that spoke at a prior hearing where you were going to write a letter and document what your position was? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir, we submitted a report. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you talking about the report, the Conservation and Natural Area Planning Report; is that what you meant? Or did you have a letter on your letterhead? Because I don't see a letter on your letterhead in this file. MR. JOHNSON: No, there is no letter. MR. JOHNSTON: You didn't write any letter like we talked 22 Board of Trustees 23 June 22, 2005 about the last time? MR. JOHNSON: No. MR. JOHNSTON: Can you get an original signed letter from Conservation and Natural Area Planning? The letter dated June 15th that's in the file here is not signed by Louise Harrison. it's without signature. Can I ask you to get an original signature from her or get her to sign a letter and send it to us, make the file like it's really from her?. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, I would point out that there is such a signature in the file. MR. JOHNSTON: Not in the file. MR. JOHNSON: There is. Well, I submitted one anyway, but that's fine, I'll submit a new one. MR. JOHNSTON: You submitted a fax copy or something? MR. JOHNSON: I did. But I attended an original signature page to the back of the fax. That's fine, I'll submit it, no problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a comment? MR. JOHNSTON: There's not an original in the file. MS. MOORE: Just for a point of what is obvious to this Board but for the record, the condominium is about maybe 1,000 feet from this property, that the stairs are in closer proximity to an improved property to the west than it would be to the proposed structure to the east. So with respect to all of the concerns expressed as to the impact on their condominium development, I would respectfully submit that there is no impact on their development, the only thing that it impacts is potentially a view. And if they're interested in a view, they can buy a piece of property. No one is entitled to a view unless they purchase a scenic easement or they purchase the property. So I just want to put that on the record that the proximity to this condominium development, which has much greater impacts than a single-family residence would have to the beach and to the degree of use of the beach when you compare the two uses. Secondly, I did not have the benefit of that report. While I'm the attorney on record, I did not get a copy of it from either counsel and I wasn't aware that it had been submitted to this Board. So I would ask for an opportunity to have Cramer Consulting get a copy of that and we'll pick it up and we'll send it to him so he can respond. Not having seen it, I can't comment on a report. Finally, I know that Mr. Gerrera wants to speak for a moment, he's an interested party in that he's one of the homeowners in that association. MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, Mr. Cramer was going to, 23 Board of Trustees 24 June 22, 2005 understand, modify his May 7th letter to resubmit it with the nomenclature "structure" versus "house." MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I thought we did it on the record that it's a structure not it's not a house. When he tried to clarify, he was using a survey that Mr. Young had called it a house when, in fact, it's a structure and we acknowledge that, yes, it's a structure, there's not a house. MR. JOHNSTON: So there's no -- MS. MOORE: There's no dispute. It is what it is. There's pictures. MR. JOHNSTON: Fine, I have no problem. MR. GERRERA: Good evening, my name is it Freddy Gerrera, I'm one of the owners at number 19 at the North Fork Beach Condominium. A couple of years ago when Mr. Angelo first wanted to build a house out there by the beach, we had a meeting, the condominium board called a meeting. Apparently by a show of hands, it was determined that we're going to start the process in trying to stop him building this home. Apparently at that meeting they didn't have enough signatures, so by a show of hands they said, we're going to start process. The process started. During that time the first president of the Board, there was being a transition where the second president was going to take over. We had another meeting, at that other meeting the president, the second president that took over says again, they had a meeting that said by a show of hands, they showed their hands and they said, we're going to go forward, but we're going to send a petition to make sure that everyone was in favor of this. A petition was never sent. And now we have a third president, and I mentioned it to him the other day and he made out a letter so it could be official. I would like to present this letter to the Board so you could see. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Would you like to read it? MR. GERRERA: What was sent out to see if we're going to pursue the matter or stop the matter, and the votes have not all come in yet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Any other comment? I would like to close the hearing if it's all right with the rest of the Board? MS. MOORE: Subject to a response to this submission, otherwise, if you close the hearing I can't submit anything. So you have to leave it open so I can submit written comments of Tom Cramer in response to that report that none of us have seen. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The report came in I believe on the 16th. 24 Board of Trustees 25 June 22, 2005 MS. MOORE: Given that I was the attorney of record, there was no notice to us that any report had been submitted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The file's public record. Every time something comes in, we don't notify every attorney in town. MS. MOORE: I think though as a matter of courtesy, certainly another lawyer knowing that you're submitting a report would give another attorney -- I would object to you closing the hearing not giving us a chance to respond. I haven't read this. I don't know what they're talking about. This lady could have absolutely no credentials whatsoever, and in all fairness, my client has the opportunity to respond. I don't know who this person is. I don't know if what she's claimed to be so is so. I don't think you're providing an adequate record for even your own determination. I think you should have the benefit of our response. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem with that, with tabling it and letting all the attorneys extend courtesy to each other. I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And for the record, there's no LWRP consistency form completed on this. MS. MOORE: There was one filed, I don't know where it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It hasn't been reviewed yet. MS. MOORE: Okay. 2. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of LEWIS & HELAINE TEPERMAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing beach house. Located: 1225 AquaviewAvenue, East Marion. SCTM#2%2-16. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MS. MOORE: Pat Moore on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Teperman. Let me give you some photographs and records. I understand you had some questions with respect to what was there on the property before. What I did was I went over and took photographs to document what we've got. There is an old well that you can still see under, that's the first photograph is a well under the property, and the copper piping is the water that's supplied from that well. The picture that is the best picture I could get under the cabana. That's the layers of cement is actually a dry well, that's the original dry well that has been on the property. 25 Board of Trustees 26 June 22, 2005 You have already in your file surveys showing the history of this property, that the structures were there prior to this Board's jurisdiction of coastal erosion. The second set of photographs, I've asked that we proceed with this permit. It's imperative that we be able to replace the existing structures, the stairway that goes down, that was not done originally and it is in extremely poor condition. The house is used in the summer. You can see from just putting a little bit of pressure on the stairs how the structure is in need of repair. So it's imperative that that be fixed. It creates certainly a liability for the property owner, but at this point we have put the Town on notice that we need to repair it. We have been at this since February, and I just don't know at what point, how long we're going to go. So it's very important that we have the repairs done. Certainly he didn't want to do it without a permit given your position on getting a permit before it's done. So we had asked as part of the as-built the structures that had been repaired without a permit, the balance of the work obviously we need a permit to continue that's at least the position of this Board in-kind/in-place replacement of the stairs we need to get your permit approval. Finally, I've reached an all-time high in my career, I have now started taking pictures of toilets. My children laughed at me when I asked my younger one to download the picture. I have this cabana in it, and you know from your records, that the sales agreement, which is an independently prepared document that was in the broker's file before Dr. Teperman bought this property, the cabana had an electric toilet, an old compost toilet, it had a sink, it had water and it had electricity. Today, it still has water and it still has electricity. It does not have a sanitary system, and does not intend to have a sanitary system. The toilet that was replaced was an electric toilet, it was replaced with a Biolet, which is a company ~- I downloaded the details of the Biolet -- it is a toilet that requires no water, natural electricity for the venting, you're going to get to be as expert as I am on Biolet. It turns the compost material on the bottom for aeration, the most important part of this is the venting of the pipe. So that's what we have here. You can see I even managed to get the photograph of the electric outlet. That is the extent of what this toilet consists of. It's plugged in and it's vented through the roof, and you can see the vent on top of the structure. 26 Board of Trustees 27 June 22, 2005 MS. TETRAULT: What do you do with the compost material? MS. MOORE: Actually they say that you can put it on your plants. They tell me that you can put it in a garbage bag and throw it away. It's natural compost. It has no chemicals. It doesn't go anywhere other than a garbage bag. I tried to give you as much information as I could. We are at a point where it's in-kind/in-place, had they come in for a permit prior to doing the work, I believe that your policies would have allowed, you generally allow in-kind/in-place, particularly a structure that was there prior to the enactment of the regulations. Dr. Teperman was here. He told you personally he apologizes for the misunderstanding in realizing he couldn't do the work without your permit. We have been going through the process, and we're really at a point where we have to continue. We have to repair what is already there and proceed, go on with life. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We have a couple of issues. One, he never applied for the illegal deck at the top of the bluff. MS. MOORE: There is no illegal deck. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay, the deck that was built without Coastal Erosion Permit at the top of the bluff. MS. MOORE: it was not a new construction. It was replacing an existing structure. And you have an aerial photograph that shows you that that structure was there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It doesn't show the retaining wall behind it. It doesn't show the retaining wall behind the house. MS. MOORE: If you can point to me where that shows or doesn't show. That aerial photograph was taken about 500 feet above or 200 feet above and, quite frankly, the vegetation covers the area where the retaining wall was. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So it doesn't show the retaining wall. MS. MOORE: The aerial photograph doesn't. But in-kind/in-place, everything was exactly where it is and, quite frankly, you wouldn't be able to have that bank without a retaining wall there because it would have fallen on top of that structure. So there was a retaining wall. In fact, the prior owner had thrown garbage and apl kinds of stuff behind the cabana. So initially the surveyor didn't see it until after the fact, until after the garage was cleaned up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So Pet me finish now. So we don't have any request to rebuild the illegal deck or illegal retaining wall; we don't have any application, you mentioned the stairs, there's nothing in the application that mentions replacing the stairs or repairing the stairs. 27 Board of Trustees 28 June 22, 2005 MS. MOORE: It's as-built, it's an existing structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You haven't applied for that. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, when I say repair existing structures, an existing structure, whether it was pre-permit and the pre-permit was what we paid in fees not in what we are asking for. It's a pre-permit. It's existing structures. We are asking to replace, repair existing structures. The permit doesn't change, the language doesn't change; whether it is pre your approval or post your approval, I can't write it any other way than to ask to repair, replace existing structures. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says repair existing structure. MS. MOORE: Structures. Singular means plural, plural means singular. Would you like me to amend? I've given you $1,000 in application fees. I think that that covers existing structures. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For $1,000, it should be completed properly. MS. MOORE: If you would like me to amend it to include every single aspect of this, which is pre- existing. Every part of this is pre-existing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which you have failed to prove for the record. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. That's your opinion. Just put it on the record. I'll see you in court and we'll argue this in court because at this point, I can't show you anything more than what I have shown you. I have given you affidavits from neighbors, I've given you affidavits from the property owners that one I'm not sure of, I don't recall off the top of my head because the client was here, I think I was preparing it that he was here instead, and he told you that it was an in-kind/in-place replacement. I have given you, you asked for a topographic survey, which is completely irrelevant to this file, but we gave it to you and we paid for it. We gave you three surveys, the pre-purchase survey, the after purchase survey and again another survey that was updated with the details of the topo or whatever it was. I have given you absolutely more than anybody in their life has given to you on a pre-permit application. At this point, I am sorry, you're belief that it didn't exist there is your belief, I can't change it because once you make up your mind, there's nothing I can do to change it. I have given you absolutely everything and the aerial photographs show that what you claim to be an illegal structure at the top, I got you an aerial photograph because that was your firm belief, and I gave you an aerial photograph that showed 28 Board of Trustees 29 June 22. 2005 you definitively that there is a deck on the top. I don't know what more to show you on an existing structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Last month you said that we could get into this structure because we wanted to make sure it didn't have toilet facilities. MS. MOORE: And I told you all along it had a toilet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Last month you said we could get into the the structure. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I don't remember telling you you could go into the structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have it on tape. MS. MOORE: When you go issue a permit for anybody in this room, you don't ask to go inside their house. This is an existing structure, it's not a house because nobody's sleeping in there, nobody's living in there. It's a beach cabana and it's really no different than the five other beach cabanas that are along this same coast. MS. TETRAULT: It is different. It has air conditioning, electricity an outdoor shower, a toilet. It's very different. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, that is the structure that was there before. The problem is you can't see what was there before. I can only give you some documentation, and all I have is prior owner's sales memorandums of what was there. What he bought when he bought the property all those things were there. To change the permit is not environmentally -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're asking, the application is for a beach house. So that's a house, and it's on the beach and that's what we have a problem with, and last month you said we could get into the structure. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I'm going to have to review your transcript because I don't remember telling you you could go inside the structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. MS. MOORE: I have now given you a photograph of the toilet. Clearly there's a photograph. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a photograph of a toilet. MS. MOORE: As an officer of the court and under possible perjury if I speak the untruth, you can swear me in, I will testify as an officer of the court that the photographs were taken by me on the 21st of June, and it was a picture of the toilet that is inside that cabana. It is a Biolet compostable toilet, electric, no water and Heather knows how they operate. I have given you the downloaded information so you can educate yourself. I have the benefit cfa 15 29 Board of Trustees 30 June 22, 2005 minute film that you can download and be informed about the Biolet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to table this. MS. TETRAULT: May I mention one other thing so we have everything? MS. MOORE: Please tell me everything because I don't know what more to give you. MS. TETRAULT: The Board had asked for invoices for the person who rebuilt this, and I don't think we got those yet. MS. MOORE: I can't get those in part because it's not fair, one to the people that did it without a permit. The owner is made responsible and we are here before the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's not fair to who? MS. MOORE: To the contractor, one of them I think is out of the area, the other one is in the area, and it's not right certainly to Chris Moore, you haven't pursued him, and he's the one who cut illegally the bluff. So we don't know what's going on with Chris Moore. He's a contractor that's here and nothing's going on. We're not going to get another contractor in trouble. Again, understand my job jurisdictionally is to keep you focused on what the permit is. The permit is the structure, the beach cabana. And I will send you in writing clear language requesting that the stairs be replaced, in-kind/in-place replacement. I thought that replacement or repair of existing structures was clear enough, but apparently it's not clear enough to you, and I will be sure that I will make it extremely clear that it is the stairs. Anything that is old needs replacement there. Code enfomement, your own Board members that went down those stairs recognized that they were dangerous, and as you go up, the structure is wobbly a bit and the stairs are giving way. So right now it's a dangerous condition. If anything happens I'm putting this Board on notice that we need that permit immediately. There's a very dangerous condition. It's a summer time use structure and if anything God forbid happens, the client will be sued but so will the Town. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If it's an unpermitted structure, how is the Town involved? And it's the same, suppose they get electrocuted in the electric toilet, how would the Town be involved? I don't see how the Town would be involved. MS. MOORE: You can talk to your lawyer, personal injury attorneys are quite creative when it comes to looking for the deep pocket and at this point, you know, I think most people would recognize that stairs replacement 30 Board of Trustees 31 June 22, 2005 in-kind/in-place you don't even issue permits for those generally, you issue permits for the original structure if it post-dates your regulations, but after that I don't believe you generally get applications to repair/replace existing stairs. I haven't seen many of them if any of them are on your agenda. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We issue permits for emergency situations. The Board visited the site, I didn't see any emergency situation, but the applicant is more than welcome to apply if they think it's an emergency, apply for an emergency permit to repair the stairs. MS. MOORE: I'll tell them that we may do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to table the application. MS. MOORE: Can you tell me what more you want? We need an as-built permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The application should be accurate. MS. MOORE: If you're telling me I can get an emergency permit for the stairs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If it's an emergency. MS. MOORE: I think all you need to do is go up and down the stairs and you'll come to that conclusion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The Board would have to make that determination. MS. MOORE: What more do you want from me? I have given you surveys, pre-construction surveys, post construction surveys, I've given you photographs, I've given you affidavits. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Did you give us an LWRP consistency review? MS. MOORE: I believe we did. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All right, that has not been completed. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. WETLAND PERMITS 1. COREY CREEK ASSOCIATION, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing boat ramp. Located: End of Corey Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-4-45. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the Corey Creek Association in the audience? The Board inspected this last week during our open field inspection. I believe the only question we had was how was the job going to get done? What kind of material are you 31 Board of Trustees James King, Vice-President ~ ]I~4~A.dA: Ugo Polla, I liv~_~~~k Lane. P~~ur years worEl~~~ familiar with pre-cast. I'm familiar with ~~ hard it's called cement -- or concret~ ~~l's cement. It will be pmpedy done. I don't know if you want a slump test. We nee~,~~~_~ concrete. We're going~ there to stop it from breaking~r~wf~O~g to be four to six inches thick and cover the identical footprint of what was there, and we'll get a professional, we have to, it has to be transit mix, it's too much to do. So to replace what's there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And pull out the old one? MR. POLLA: If the contractor deems that, yes, I guess pa~ of it, it's all broken up. It would be be~er to get it out of the way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we'd like is removal of the old one. MR. JOHNSTON: Would you spell your name for the record, please? MR. POLLA: First name is U-G-O, last name is P-O-L-L-A. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is for some reason exempt under the Coastal Erosion, the LWRP. MS. TETRAULT: Would you read the CAC comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. The CAC recommended approval of the application with the condition the road end consists of pe~ious material and/or a drainage plan. Meaning that the road runoff seems to run right down that ramp. So we'd like to address the road runoff problem or the Town parking lot problem. But your contractor would have to address that with the permit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Isn't that a private road? MR. POLLA: Yes. MR. ~ESSlNGER: Ed Kaessinger, K-A-E-S-S-I-N-G-E-R. Basically we would do whatever you guys recommend, the contractor, do you need a catch basin? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think there's room for a catch basin. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: More of a pe~ious material on the edges where right now you have a complete circle of cement, around the cement, cut into the rectangle and go down the ramp, maybe cut that cement out and add a pe~ious material like a gravel. MR. ~ESSINGER: Like blue stone. June 22, 2005 Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 32 Board of Trustees 33 June 22, 2005 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's crushed now? MR. KAESSINGER: Sounds good to me. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments from the audience? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to repair the existing boat ramp with the condition that the edges of the parking lot be of gravel in nature. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How much gravel? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't know the width of that circle. How wide is that boat ramp? MR. POLLA: Nine feet wide. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How wide is the road right there, the road itself? MR. POLLA: We own probably about 100 feet. It goes into the wetlands. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The width of that private road? MR. POLLA: About 50 feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, can't be 50, not the parking lot, the road. Maybe 20? I'd say no more than 20 foot width of cement going down to that ramp, then the outer edge of those become gravel; that will catch the runoff. Okay, you understand that stipulation. Do I have a second on that motion? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, we can't vote on that because we don't have the LWRP on the next one. You can open the hearing and close the headng because I don't think it's going to matter. 2. PETER COWAN requests a Wetland Permit to install an in-ground swimming pool and patio for the existing fence. Located: 435 Mockingbird Lane, Southold. SCTM#55-6-15.57 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COWAN: Yes, Peter Cowan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unfortunately we don't have an LWRP form. It's been submitted, it's a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. It's been submitted but it hasn't been reviewed yet. We can have the public hearing and vote on it another time. We're trying to work out the mechanics of getting these forms done for our review. 33 Board of Trustees 34 June 22, 2005 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We've all been there. The survey shows 54 feet from the wetlands delineation line to the edge of the proposed pool. By code I believe it's 50 feet or greater for an accessory structure. MS. TETRAULT: The problem is the fence is in our conservation easement, it runs right along that wetland. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. As far as the fence, that's a different issue. MS. TETRAULT: No. It's being applied for. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How does the whole Board feel about the fence? It appears the Board's having a problem with the fence in the conservation easement. MR. COWAN: The back fence or the side fence? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The back fence. MR. COWAN: The back fence was put up primarily to stop -- I have a young child going into a swamp that's 15 feet, which is part of my property, I have a small child that lives in my house. I have a swamp that holds farm tractors and everything behind my house that's been there for as long as -- I built the house in 1999. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's not an objection to the fence, there's an objection to the placement of where the fence was placed. It's in the easement. If the fence was moved probably close to 35 feet landward towards your house it wouldn't be an objection. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This conservation easement doesn't allow that to be there. MR. COWAN: So I'm just supposed to leave it open and let my child be injured? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, you put the fence outside the conservation easement. MR. COWAN: So I have the fence at 20 feet from my house? I leave three-quarters of an acre of my property fenced off from myself? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a Planning Board easement. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's not our easement, we have nothing to do with the easement. MR. COWAN: When I went to do this I had to get a surveyor to go into the wetlands to map them out because there was no accurate map for where the wetlands begin. I had to get a surveyor to walk in there with his boots on to get measurements of where the wetlands begin. My property goes into the wetlands, so I have to put a fence, if I have an acre lot, I have to put the fence 10 feet from my house to prevent my child from going in there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that a Planning Board easement? 34 Board of Trustees 35 June 22, 2005 MR. COWAN: I have no idea what it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a letter in the file, Ken. MR. COWAN: There's a fence to the right of my house that I don't even own. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was going to say, does the fence continue? MR. COWAN: I tied into the fence because the fence was already there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: From Planning, Geralyn Woodhouse, Chairperson. Dated June 21,2005. The Southold Town Board of Trustees is hereby advised that the above-referenced property is part of the High Point Meadows subdivision, for which there are filed covenants and restrictions please note that there are no structures permitted within the conservation easement area. A copy of the declaration of covenants and restrictions is attached for the Board's review. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact this office. From the Planning Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that in your deed? MR. COWAN: is what in my deed? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Covenants and restrictions that say no structures in it. MR. COWAN: To be honest with you, I don't know, but what's my solution? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, but that's a Planning Board issue when they created the subdivision apparently, you have to take that up with them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You have to have a fence around the pool, correct? MR. COWAN: I have to have a fence around the pool, which is already in place. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are your children older now? MR. COWAN: No, I still have a six year old son. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was going to say if you could do the fence from the house around the pool in back you'll still have your whole lawn. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, if that's in the deed, we can't do anything about that, that's part of the subdivision language. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At the very least we won't issue a permit for the fence as far as enforcing your easement, that's another issue. MR. COWAN: So you're willing to give me a permit for my pool but not with the fence. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Not in that location. 35 Board of Trustees 36 Jtme 22, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We could give you a permit for the pool, but we can't tonight because of no LWRP. MR. COVVAN: So I have to wait until next month's meeting to get a permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When the form's completed, which I assume you submitted, when the form's been reviewed by the person in the Planning Department, we can vote on it. We have the hearing tonight, we'll close the hearing, so you won't have to come back for another hearing. MR. COWAN: I can't progress with something until this is done, correct? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct. MR. COWAN: I can't even go to the Building Department and say i've got permission and at least wait two weeks. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Wait, we'll vote on it tonight -- you can't vote on it, so when do we vote, next month? MS. TETRAULT: Yes. MR. COWAN: That means I won't have a pool this year then. TRUSTEE KING: How soon can this be reviewed and we'll vote on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't have to wait until the next meeting. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Call us on the phone, we can do that. If they review it before the end of the week. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When the LWRP review comes into our office, we can be notified and vote on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As far as the fence goes, you're going to have to take that up with the Planning Department. MR. COVVAN: The Planning Department's another department in Southold Town? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Upstairs in the bank. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Technically he's going to need a fence. TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: So we'll approve a fence. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We'll approve a fence at the 75 foot conservation easement or landward of that. And then where it exists you take that up with everyone else who created that subdivision. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And if this continued and they're within the same area, they're going to have the same problem. MR. COWAN: Half the people who live behind me have sheds and things they got permits for, so obviously that's within -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: How do you know they have permits? MR. COWAN: They have a building permit for structure within 100 feet of the wetlands, just like my fence is. But the fence is still inside my property. I didn't mean how far my 36 Board o f Trustees 37 June 22, 2005 house is from the wetlands, I doubt it's 100 feet. My deck is within 100 feet so it was obviously approved for a structure inside that 100 feet limit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We have jurisdiction within 100 feet. We can't violate a covenant easement put on by the Planning Board. That's not within our authority to do that. MR. COWAN: Is it possible for me to get permission from them to leave the fence there? If I get permission from them, I can leave it there? MS. TETRAULT: Well, you would still have to apply to the Trustees for the fence. MR. COWAN: Not that one I'm talking about. They're saying they're going to give me permission to build the pool and a new fence if I have to fence the pool. But if I go to the Planning Board, and they say I can leave the existing fence there, then I obviously don't need another fence for the pool. MS. TETRAULT: Right. So you still would have to get permission from the Trustees. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You would need an amendment from us. If you got certified from the Planning Board who created this, that you could have your fence, then apply for an amendment. MR. COWAN: Okay. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? Okay, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Cowan, have you filled out a LWRP form? MR. COWAN: I have no idea what that is. I filled out everything you had. I've been here probably 12 times in the last month. MR. JOHNSTON: This just happened. MS. TETRAULT: This is new. MR. COWAN: I called the office yesterday to make sure everything was in place for this meeting. They said, yes, just show up about 7:30 and you're fine. All the conservation people that came to my house said, sure the pool's going into the wetlands, that's not an issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's not. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The pool's not a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Come into the office tomorrow. The hearing's been closed. We can vote when we get the LWRP report. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When it comes into the office. 37 Board of Trustees 38 June 22, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We apologize for the confusion. We're trying to work through this. 3. 40 C LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 55' timber walkway 3.5' above grade, a 3' by 14' timber ramp, and a 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 635 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM#78-7-10. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this application? MR. RIVLEY: My name is Mario Rivley, I'm the applicant. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Let me see a copy of those plans. TRUSTEE POLiWODA: How was that staked? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Remember the boys were out there? It was staked with boys, correct? MR. RIVLEY: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He had it clearly staked, it didn't seem to be excessive. It seems pretty routine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's 55 feet long but it starts up here. MR. RIVLEY: I got the permit from DEC pending some small adjustments. I still wait to hear from them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we see the DEC permit? What we'd like to see is instead of four feet wide, three feet wide. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's a small structure, keep it minimized, just to give you access to the water. MR. RIVLEY: I think what I was trying to find out from DEC what this modification may be. TRUSTEE KING: This isn't a permit. MR. RIVLEY: Supposedly they said the permits were supposed to be issued. I just had to find out what they need me to modify basically. And I suspect they want me to reduce the size of the pilings. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Absolutely 6" or 4" by 4". MR. RIVLEY: Six inch diameter, that's exactly what they told me. I was supposed to get that in writing, six weeks, I still haven't gotten it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The inspector is Chris Arviston. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have no problems. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is it consistent? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I can close the hearing, but we don't have the form for the LWRP. So I'll make a motion to close the hearing, then when we get the form, we can vote on it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 4. MICHAEL and KATHRYN RUSSO request a Wetland 38 Board of Trustees 39 June 22, 2005 Permit to construct a screen porch in place of the existing rear deck, construct a new porch on the landward side of the dwelling, construct a second-story addition in place of the existing covered porch, and construct a new garage. Located: 775 Oakwood Drive, Southold. SCTM#90-4-22. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. RUSSO: Mike Russo. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. It shows 85 feet, you know, it's over 50 though. It measured close to 60 from any type of cattail, which I wouldn't really call wetlands, it was upland phragmites. Basically accessory structure over turf. I didn't have a problem placing that one side or the deck over front. I don't know how you feel about it, straightforward? TRUSTEE KING: I can't see it having much of an impact. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, I found it exceeds 50 feet for an accessory structure. The only stipulation I'd like to see is on your roof runoff on your garage put it into dry wells so you don't create any type of erosion, damage to the creek. MR. RUSSO: No problem. MS. TETRAULT: Ken, do you want to do that to the house as well, or just the garage? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At least the garage, I don't know does your house have the roof runoff? MR. RUSSO: Yes, it does. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I thought so. Any other comments? If not, any other comments in the audience? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC look at it? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. CAC recommended approval of the Wetland Permit to construct the screen porch in place of existing deck. Construct a new porch on the landward side of the dwelling, construct a second story addition in place of the existing covered porch with no stipulations. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Close the hearing and we'll vote later. MR. RUSSO.' Can you vote -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we can't. MS. TETRAULT: Al, can you have him add the dry wells to the plan? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Dry wells and gutters for the roof runoff? MR. RUSSO: Gutters are on the house already. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The most I can do for you tonight is just close the hearing, give you my hopes. MR. RUSSO: When would I hear from you? TRUSTEE KING: As soon as this is reviewed. 39 Board of Trustees 40 June 22, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're going to ask them to expedite them for us, the last two that we've done without reviews. MR. RUSSO: is that something I can contact you on on a regular basis? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Our office. MR. RUSSO: My wife always speaks with Lauren. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. MR. RUSSO: Thank you. 5. FRANK PURITA requests a Wetland Permit for clearing within 100 feet of the wetlands. Located: 875 Eugene's Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#97-2-19. TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. LOHR: Yes, Donald Lohr, 50 Charles Lindberg Boulevard, Suite 400, Uniondale, New York, on behalf of Frank Purita, who could not be here tonight because of his daughter's school graduation. In any event I submitted this week a proposal based upon the hearing several months ago. We represented that we would have the wetlands area flagged, which we did by En-Consultants, we then had John Metzgar place the flags on the survey showing the boundary, which I have submitted to the Board. We also got an opinion letter from En-Consultants as to what revegetation would be required in their opinion, and then retained a landscape architect from Westminster Nursery and garden center to develop a replanting scheme consistent with the recommendation of En-Consultants, if this is acceptable to the Board. I also submitted some photographs of what the vegetation looks like currently of what was cut back and is starting to regrow in any event and as En-Consuitants indicates much was noxious ground cover. In addition, if it would satisfy the Board, we would be willing to remove the litter and debris, which is depicted in the photographs, which I think you mentioned the last time, whatever permissions or consents we need from the Board or adjacent neighbors, we would be willing to obtain and do that at our cost. If that would satisfy the Board then I would request that the permit be granted and the hearing be closed and the matter be disposed of. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The Board's just looking at what you had submitted. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this application? I'll make a motion to 4O Board of Trustees 41 June 22, 2005 close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the permit for Frank Purita to request a Wetland Permit for the clearing within 100 feet of the wetlands with -- TRUSTEE KING: I'm uncomfortable with that word. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which word? TRUSTEE KING: Wetland Permit for clearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON.' Okay. TRUSTEE KING: How about a Wetland Permit for replanting? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: A permit for replanting as per plans with the replanting plan, with the removal of the debris and with the final inspection of that planting plan. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wait, one sticking point, he's going to dr) the replanting on the neighbor's property?. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He said that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And to clear? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He said he would get permission. MR. LOHR: Whatever replanting is done on the neighbor's property, I said I would be willing to get permission of the Board or of the neighbors. TRUSTEE KING: We can't give him permission. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. He said he would get permission to do the removal of the debris. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do that before we release the permit. TRUSTEE KING: Get a letter from the neighbor stating you have their permission to go on their property. MR, LOHR: You need a replanting permit for the material that's on our property? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be included in this, correct. MR. LOHR: So as part of the replanting permit application, we need the consent of the neighbors for the areas that are on their property, correct? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. I mean it's on his property. TRUSTEE KING: Right. Because it's difficult for us to issue a permit to go on someone else's property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He said he would get the permission. MR. LOHR: I will definitely undertake to do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you get a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, I did. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. MR. LOHR: Thank you. 41 Board of Trustees 42 June 22, 2005 6. Chades Cuddy, Esq. on behalf of BIEL ASSOCIATES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and to remove the existing sanitary system and install a new sanitary system on the landward side of the dwelling. Located: 1315 Watersedge Way, Southold. $CTM#88-5-68. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? MR. CUDDY: Yes, Charles Cuddy on behalf of the applicant. We're simply trying to put a single-family dwelling on this lot, but it's within your jurisdiction because it's less than 100 feet back from the water and the bulkhead. As doing so, we intend, as you indicate, to remove the existing sanitary system that's there, which is in front of the proposed house, and at the same time to remove a shed, which is there and an old debilitated building that's pre-existing but doesn't have any function. We have Health Department approval, which we gained a number of months ago, and the Health Department has required that we place the house in a specific area and we've done that also because I think we then can meet all of the Town setback requirements. I understand that the property wasn't staked and that based on it not being staked, the Board would adjourn this matter so that it can be staked, and I was surprised at that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: Does this exist now? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: It's going to be removed. MS. BREEN: Good evening, my name is Paula Breen, B-R-E-E-N, I live at 1365 Watersedge Way, which is the immediately adjacent property to this property that is proposed by the applicant. I never received notification of this hearing. The notification I received was the posting of the meeting sign on my property. I went to the Trustees office to advise you of that and was advised that it was the applicant's responsibility to notify me of this. My address was formally changed with the Town of Southold Tax Receiver's office in December 2004 to the Watersedge Way address. I never received notification. With respect to the plans that the applicant has filed and the copy that I received from the Trustees, I have a number of concerns as the adjacent property owner, one of 42 Board of Trustees 43 June 22, 2005 which is the fact that the proposed water service is built on the right of way in which I pay taxes, and it's part of my proper/y. My understanding of the easement is access only for them to reach their property as well as Mr. Bernowski, who is the adjacent property. Secondly, I'm concerned about the leaching pools and the future expansion tanks, which I understand are according to where they need to be for the Health Department, however they're extremely close to my property, which I think is about five feet from the property line. The other concern that I have is that there's a 50 foot setback, and while the applicant's attorney has stated that he has tried very hard to place the house in accordance with the Town setbacks, he has done it except for one, which is the 50 foot, 100 foot differential from the wetlands. So, as I see it, he hasn't met that criteria. I'm also concerned with respect to the discharge between the leaching pools, the nearest leaching pool to the property's edge and my existing sanitary system, which I don't know, is 100 feet, which I understand is according to the code. I also have an overflow in the back of my home for my plumbing system for the washing machine and other appliances that is also extremely close to where he's proposing to put this. And also I have to say that whoever did the sketch, if anyone has looked at the property and I do know that a couple of people here have been there in the past couple of weeks, the distance between the shed and the bulkhead is distorted in this view. Perhaps because it wasn't staked at all, you can't have a clear view of where this house is, but the shed is much closer to the bulkhead than it appears. In addition to which, the marking of the high tide mark as per a filed map, I don't understand what that filed map is. The high tide mark at high tide is about four feet up on that wall. So I can't imagine that it's another 20 or 30 feet out into the water is where you will estimate to be the high tide mark. Those are my initial comments. I understand if they haven't staked it, does that mean that this hearing will continue at another point and I'll be able to make additional comments or is this it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will be tabled. And the hearing will automatically come up again next month. MS. BREEN: And just as a concern, my adjacent neighbor who lives in Connecticut, wants to be sure that Heather had received his e-mail, Peter Bernowski, and that's in the file? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Thank you. Any other comments? 43 Board of Trustees 44 June 22, 2005 MR. REiLLY: Hi, my name is Jim Reilly. I live east of the property that's in question. And aside from all that Paula had gone through, there is a wetlands law they're not in conformance with 97.27, Section A 3, which says that they may not project closer to the wetlands border than homes on either side of the sublot. So they're in violation of that particular section, aside from that, that's all I have to say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? I'll make a motion to table the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of NARROW RIVER MARINA requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge two shoaled areas of existing navigational channel to -4.5 feet below mean Iow water. The resulting 350 cubic yards of sand to be transported to shore by barge and trucked offsite to an approved upland disposal site. Located: 5520 Narrow River Road, Odent. SCTM#27-2-4. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: John Costello, Costello Marine Construction. We are the agent for the applicant. And I would like to try to address any questions that the Board may have. The purpose of the dredging is this channel way going into Hallock's Bay is narrowed up in a couple of spots, two different areas, it is intended to dredge and widen the two areas that are significantly shoaled. One area adjacent to Brown's Point is shoaled up more than 50 percent, considerably more than 50 percent, and the other area closer to the harbor is shoaled up about 50 percent. And if this Board would like to see the photographs indicating that, we have some recent photographs, and they were submitted to this Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? MR. COSTELLO: If this Board has any questions, I'll try to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ma'am? MS. DACIMO: My name is Maureen Dacimo, and I own the marina with my husband Fred. I remember you years ago when we first dredged the bay. We have owned it for 17 years and we again want to do maintenance dredging in it. Mr. Costello 44 Board of Trustees 45 June 22, 2005 said, it's shoaled in considerably since we last dredged, and it's crucial to our business to keep it dredged and also to provide safe access to all boaters, not only our customers but all boaters in the Town going in and out of the bay. We believe that when we previously dredged there were no adverse impacts on the environment or environmental concerns after we had dredged. We believe it has benefited the bay by keeping boaters in the marked channel, helping keep the bay healthy with a better flow. We're actually providing a benefit to the Town and all boaters in the bay, we don't own the waterway, yet we are willing again to bear the cost of the dredging and the permits as we did before. Boaters in Hall's Bay need safe access in and out of the bay without running aground. And I would also ask if the Town approves it that it could be consistent with the other agencies to have the maintenance permit for the 10 year period as we had had before. We're asking to dredge two small areas in the bay, Number 1, it's crucial to our business; Number 2, it provides safe access to boaters; and Number 3, it allows for the healthy flow of water in the bay. We want to just continue running our business in the same manner as we have been for the past 17 years. Do you have any questions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. This is the existing historic channel that -- MS. DACIMO: This is the same channel that we had dredged in '93, '94. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh In both locations? MS. DAClMO: Yes. But we are not dredging the whole area again that we had dredged previously. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But this is historic Stoneline Channel? MS. DAClMO: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We did ask the applicant to submit the LWRP form on the 6th, MR. COSTELLO: Let me tell you, if you want to review the LWRP we can go item for item because the LWRP -- and I've been involved with LWRPs for considerable amount of time with other Towns --we can go down the 13 questions and answer every one of them. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It won't do us any good though. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It has to be reviewed. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We need the form. MR. COSTELLO: We did not have the form that I know, but have the form here. I have it filled out. It is a simple deal. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's not our judgment to make a decision 45 Board of Trustees 46 June 22, 2005 on LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's not reviewed. We don't review it. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it is this Board's decision. You're the only Board to vote on this. MS. TETRAULT: The point is Mark Terry- MR. COSTELLO: This Board makes the final decision on the dredging application. That's what it is. I would like to take the opportunity to just review some of this information so this Board is more aware of the process. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree with Mr. Costello in that ultimately it is really our decision but is maintenance dredging exempt under the LWRP? MR. COSTELLO: Not normally with other Towns but this Town may be different. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's not that we're not going to vote on it, we just have to wait for the review. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe it's maintenance dredging. MR. COSTELLO: The channel way in the health and safety of Hall's Bay for boaters, certainly the intention of the LWRP is to promote and maintain existing marine uses to the benefit of recreation. We all know the answer to that question is this is doing it. It has nothing to do with any questions. I'm sure it's one of the questions on the 13 questions, but that is improving the safety, the health of Hall's Bay for our marine usage. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you. TRUSTEE KING: No one's putting stumbling blocks in your way. MR. COSTELLO: I know, I'm not trying to be adversarial. I know there's confusion with the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mechanically there's confusion. We're trying to work it out so we can process the applications. MR. COSTELLO: I know but it doesn't apply to each and every application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We need a screen here with the LWRP coordinator. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When will you plan on dredging? MR. COSTELLO: When we receive the permits from all the agencies together. We can't start anything until all the agencies have it. One of the requests was if we could be consistent with the other agencies because the other agencies, the Army Corps will certainly give a 10 year maintenance permit. Even though it is the Town's bottom, the owners are also taking on the obligation of maintaining 46 Board of Trustees 47 June 22, 2005 a channel way for the Town into Hall's Bay. We all know what the value of Hall's Bay is for boating, shellfish, it's an asset. As a matter of fact, I think the Town ought to try to maintain that channel way themselves, but it's a cost. They're not trying to volunteer to throw money away but they're trying to stay in business. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any other Board comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, I'd recommend when dredging occurs, it occurs on an outgoing tide. In that location you have eel grass fiats there with many scallops that live in that eel grass bed so on an outgoing tide any sedimentation will go outward. MR. COSTELLO: Very logical. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Does anybody have a problem with the 10 year maintenance permit? Then if there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Once we get the form reviewed, we can vote on it. 8. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of SARAH REETZ requests a Wetland permit to replace 112 linear feet of existing bulkhead in-kind/in-place using C-lock 4500 vinyl sheathing, reinstall existing stairway to the beach after new bulkhead is in place. Located: 955 Cove Cimle, Greenport. SCTM#49-1-16&17 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: John Costello, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of the applicant. As the Board can see this application there is a pre-existing permitted bulkhead that does not have the penetration, nor does it have the proper construction of the bottom stringer holding the sheathing in. We are replacing the C-Loc treated sheathing in the bulkhead in the same location with vinyl. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The only thing we recommend is a 10 foot non-turf buffer. MR. COSTELLO: There's a 15 foot there now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Then make it 15. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 15. CAC recommended 30, so continue with 15. Any other Board comments? This is as straightforward as it gets. I don't think we can vote on it as you heard all night. MR. COSTELLO: I'll get you the forms. 47 Board of Trustees 48 June 22, 2005 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 9. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of FAITH BEISER & KEVlN BUCCINA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling with attached outdoor shower; install a pervious driveway, drainage system of dry wells, and concrete retaining wall for proposed sanitary system proposed more than 100 feet from wetlands; and establish a 50 foot non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer to remain natural and undisturbed adjacent to the on-site freshwater wetlands. Located: 2715 Henry's Lane, Peconic. SCTM#74-1-44.5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann, En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. For the record, the LWRP form was completed and submitted by the time requested. The property was staked by the time requested; the property was posted and the neighbors were notified. It is a faidy straightforward application. There are three different small freshwater wetlands which potentially affect the project. Two are located off-site; one is a stream that is piped across Henry's Lane on the property. All of the construction with the exception of approximately maybe two to five linear feet of concrete retaining wall is located entirely beyond a distance of 100 feet of the two off-site wetlands. And with respect to the wetlands on site, we would be able to maintain a 50 foot non-disturbance buffer as read in the project description and a minimum setback of 75 feet for the proposed residence. More than half the residence and the entire sanitary system and the proposed frame shed are actually all located beyond the Board's jurisdiction. So the only thing that the Board is speaking to tonight is the portion of the residence, and the portion of the proposed pervious driveway that are in the Board's jurisdiction clearing up the 50 feet from the stream. There's also a drainage system of dry wells proposed and I believe we have covered everything the Board would typically look for in the site plan for the application, but if you have any other questions, I'd be happy to respond to them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there any other comment? The only comment I'd like to make is there's a proposed fence here, 48 Board of Trustees 49 June 22, 2005 what kind of fence? MR. HERMANN: I don't think they have decided upon that, I assume that it would be some sort of a wire fence, I mean, it would not be chain link, if that's what you're asking. I doubt if it would be stockade. It would probably be a wire fence of some sort like a Yard Guard. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Chicken wire? MR. HERMANN: Probably not chicken wire, probably some vinyl coated fence like Yard Guard or some sort of industry equivalent. MS. TETRAULT: I think split-reil would be better because it allows for -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, what would be the purpose of the fence? MR. HERMANN: I think probably what Kenny just said. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: D-O-G? MR. HERMANN: I would assume it would be to contain the developed area of the property, whether they have children or pets, I don't have any idea. But the fence would be entirely outside the limit of the buffer, in fact, for one portion of it, it would actually delineate the 50 foot buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. I would just like to see -- MR. HERMANN: What could possibly be the objection to the fence? MS. TETRAULT: Turtles. MR. HERMANN: The fence will contain the portion of the property that is developed. It would not otherwise impede any portion of the wildlife corridor here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Didn't they also recommend 70 percent of the property to remain in a natural state? Is there any way of getting more of a buffe~ TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was going to ask him for this jog here (indicating). Otherwise you're really looking at driveway and it's a pretty well thought out plan. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with that fence at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem with the fence. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you see it, Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, I don't have a problem with the fence. It will separate man from nature. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You like the fence, right? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You know what's going to happen there anyway?. Up to the fence it's going to be turf probably turfed over. So put the fence up and keep them out of the 49 Board of Trustees 50 June 22, 2005 buffer. MR. HERMANN: There's no conceivable scenario in which I can see myself relenting from proposing a wire fence on the property if that helps. MS. TETP,AULT: it doesn't help. But thanks for your comment. MR. HEP, MANN: A fence outside of the buffer is actually listed in your code as approvable as an Administrative Permit. TP,USTEE KP,UPSKI: I don't have a problem with it. MP,. HEP`MANN: There would be absolutely nothing in the new code to support the Board objecting to a wire fence. TP,USTEE KP,UPSKI: How high? MP,. HEP, MANN: Fourfeet. TRUSTEE KP,UPSKI: It keeps them out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Keeps who out? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: People out of the buffer. MP,. HEP`MANN: Anything that's outside the 50 foot buffer area that's natural could conceivably be cleared. And the driveway is basically taking the shortest point farther from the wetlands and linear distance from the road to the house. I could also not conceive of any way to create a proposed driveway that would allow room for safe turnaround ingress and egress that would be less -- that would cause less disturbance than what's proposed. (Discussion.) MP,. HEP, MANN: It would seem to me that the purpose of revising Chapter 97 after a long and drawn out process was to create a system by which we could prepare a plan that would conform to your expectations and requirements, which is what exactly has been done here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree. TP,USTEE POLIWODA: I agree too. TP,USTEE KRUPSKh It does conform with everything that we have asked for. And I like the fence. It keeps the human activity limited. is there any other comment? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TP,USTEE KP,UPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KP,UPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the exception that no clearing take place in that little pan handle, whatever you want to call it, on the northwest corner of the property, past where the fence is. Do you see what I'm talking about? 50 Board of Trustees 51 Jtme 22, 2005 MR. HERMANN: Even after the erection of the fence, even if that were cleared it would grow back to the fencing anyway. I can't see any objection to that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, and that the applicant is encouraged to follow the recommendations of the LWRP report. Could you just revise that this evening? MR. HERMANN: You're talking about this area down in the corner? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. I'll make a motion to approve that with that condition. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. TRUSTEE DICKER$ON: I'm going to abstain because I didn't see it. I didn't see the site. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you abstaining or recusing yourself? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm abstaining because I didn't see the site. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aye. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. 12. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of GAlL RERI$1 requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed open walkway, 4' by 110', hinged ramp, 4' by 12', and floating dock 6' by 20' and install two spiles to secure floating dock. Located: 497 Private Road #22, Southold. SCTM#76~1-15.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in behalf of this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald on behalf of the applicant. We sited the dock in an area that we think allows for the shortest structure and still gets us to the deepest water while not intruding more than one-third away across the creek at that point. But if I may, at the beginning of the meeting, Al, I think you mentioned that Part 1 of the Long Environmental Assessment Form and a coordinated review would be required for Type 2, that's a new requirement, isn't it? And I'm wondering why last month or the month before it wasn't required and it is now? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It just happened. MS. TETRAULT: No, this is SEQRA. That's an individual requirement specifically based on the form that we fill out and on this one it came out as an Unlisted Action. MR. FITZGERALD: Are not both those discretionary under the SEQRA regulations, specifically the coordinated review? MS. TETR, AULT: Yes. 51 Board of Trustees 52 June 22, 2005 MR. FITZGERALD: In this case are you requiring it or not? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We read the resolution tonight to require it, I don't think that the coordinated review will take more than a month, dght? MS. TETRAULT: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't act on this orthe next one anyway because the seaward limit was not staked when the Board went on field inspections. MR. FITZGERALD: May we resolve the question of the Long EAF and the coordinated review? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board feel a coordinated review is necessary on these two docks? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Shorten them, no, bottom line, bring them in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: Is there any merit to a coordinated review on these two docks? That are presumably Army Corps; do we do a coordinated review with Army Corps also; will they do a coordinated review with us; have you applied to Army Corps and DEC? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. We thought we'd get the location straightened out first. I don't understand why this hasn't come up before. MS. TETRAULT: It's just per application. It's up to the Board either to give it SEQRA review or -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't remember when we ever did this. MS. TETRAULT: It doesn't necessarily hold you up. It's just a form to fill out. MR. FITZGERALD: I know what it is. It's another form to fill out. And the thing that concerns me is that there's a Part 2 to that form also and that means that one or more of you folks gets to fill out Part 2, which is actually longer and more complicated than Part 1, especially for a project like this, where they ask things like how many cows graze on your property and things like that. I don't think the Long Environmental Assessment Form was intended for this kind of a project. MS. TETRAULT: After we see what he fills out then we decide whether or not we need to go to the next step or whether it's fine. That's just how SEQRA works. I have done a few since I've been here, but maybe not for a dock maybe for something else. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not inclined and I don't think the Board's inclined -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where did the recommendation come from? Did you recommend this, Heather?. MS. TETRAULT: I did, but if you know what you want to do 52 Board of Trustees 53 June 22, 2005 and what you're going to ask for here, and you don't agree, that's fine. I thought that would give us more information that would help with the review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a few of these that maybe would need coordinated reviews. MS. TETRAULT: Well, the coordinated review also is an option. You can get the Long EAF and not have a coordinated review. Which means you can make your decision without the other agency. Sort of another one of those SEQRA things where you go this way or that way. You don't have to go for a review, even if you pass the resolution that way you can still get the form and then not coordinate. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it beneficial for us to simply have that form in with this file? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.' I think we know what we want. Did you see this? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Now that I'm looking at the plans, I did see this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I think we know if we want that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you have a problem, Heather, with what we talked about as far as needing to go further?. MS. TETRAULT: I don't think a decision was made in the field. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because it needed to be staked. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If it had to be staked would it not make sense for the form to be filled out between now and then? MR. FITZGERALD: Stake it, that's easy, that's very clear cut. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I thought you said the first couple pages weren't so bad, the ones you had to fill out. MR. FITZGERALD: We're back to staking it. Peggy, I'm sure there are hundreds of things that are not so easy, like the LWRP, more bureaucracy or whatever and this, and there's no reason for doing it, then I can assure you -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The reason, if Heather recommended it -- MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I'm recommending that we don't do it because there's absolutely no use in reviewing a project of this size, in my humble opinion, and if some day at a work session you want to go over question by question with me, I'd be happy to do it, but things like the grade, slope in the area and the swale. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, are we going to require LEAF on the following four applications? Artie? MS. TETRAULT: Not Souder. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie? 53 Board of Trustees 54 June 22, 2005 TRUSTEE FOSTER: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Jim? TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then we're not going to require the LEAF on the next four. We'll change that resolution at the end of the hearing. Okay, so we'd like to see staked. We'd like to meet the applicant in the field next month on July 13th. MR. FITZGERALD: He'll be there and I'll be there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good, thank you. MR. FITZGERALD: Does that mean that we do not have to do the Long Environmental Assessment Form? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. MR. FITZGERALD: Just out of idle curiosity, you guys get through forms five or 10 years without having this conversation, and I'm curious, if you will care to share with me, how come we're having Jt tonight? Why did this come up? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because we evolve and we get smarter. We have been doing them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have been doing SEQRA resolutions for the past few months. MS. STANDISH: If you look at all the agendas, on the first page, we have been doing them. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We have been doing it. We just haven't required the Long Environmental Assessment Form. MR. FITZGERALD: So before the last few months when you've been doing that everything was some other way and I was just curious. TRUSTEE KING: You did the short form. We didn't do the long form. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And on occasions our attorney has advised us that we needed to do them but not on all of them. MR. FITZGERALD: And how is it decided which one? Who says this is a Type 2, and this is Unlisted? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Heather. MR. FITZGERALD: Heather does? MS. TETRAULT: That's determined, Mr. Fitzgerald, by Part 2 of the impact assessment that's filled out by the lead agency, which is the Town of Southold, and when that form is filled out by the Town, according to the questions that are on there and the answers to the questions, then a SEQRA determination is made either for an Unlisted, a Type 2 or a Type I Action. 54 Board of Trustees 55 June 22, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to table the application of Victor Rerisi for a Wetland Permit for a 4' by 82' dock. Located: 850 Private Road #22, Southold. SCTM#76-1-15.6. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. 14. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JAMES ECKERT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed open walkway 4' by 100', hinged ramp 4' by 12' and floating dock 6' by 20', and install two 2-pile dolphins to secure floating dock. Located: 1635 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#116-7-8. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald on behalf of the applicant. Again, we have located the dock and the area where it could be the shortest and get to the deepest water while keeping it 15 feet from the property line. And I think really that's the only explanation that I have. And I'm happy to answer your questions. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any Board comments? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we have an LWRP here? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. MS. STANDISH: But we don't have the recommendation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Who saw this, Ken and Artie? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, we were there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What we recommended was that the dock be cut back to be consistent with the docks in the area. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Which would be access over the marsh to reach the water so take off about -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Enough to extend more than four feet beyond the edge of the marsh. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You take off about 60 feet off a fixed dock and eliminate the ramp and the float, that would make it consistent with the other docks. MR. FITZGERALD: Which end? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The seaward end. MS. TETRAULT: It's defined as a critical environmental area by the DEC, it's under lists of critical environmental areas. 55 Board of Trustees 56 June 22, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is? MR. FITZGERALD: What is? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Creek. MS. TETRAULT: It's on the website, the DEC website. And it's Part 2 of the Environmental Assessment Form. That's one of the questions, that's why it's SEQRA Unlisted Action. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we should require. MR. FITZGERALD: It's not on the Town's critical list, is it? MS. TETRAULT: No, but the Town is required to follow SEQRA. You're talking like you've never heard of this. This law has been around for a long time. And we do this environmental work, so we would expect you to be aware of it. MR. FITZGERALD: Aware of what? MS. TETRAULT: State Environmental Quality Review Act. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What Heather just explained to us is that you have to fill out the Long Environmental Assessment Form in addition to the LWRP. MR. FITZGERALD: We have done that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You handed that in today? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I think the Board's recommendation is to shorten the dock by 60 feet and to eliminate the ramp and float portion, and I think it's our recommendation -- MR. FITZGERALD: Ramp by 60 feet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I think it would be our recommendation to have the plans for next month's meeting and then we could approve something after we review the Long Environmental Assessment Form. MR. FITZGERALD: You want it to end here? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At the end of the marsh, correct. That's consistent with the neighboring docks. MR. FITZGERALD: I mean this has a ramp and a float. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't see any ramp and float. We were on field inspection last week, all we saw was the catwalk. MR. FITZGERALD: Let me find out about this because I've been told that those pieces existed but weren't in the water yet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What would be the purpose of a ramp and a float here? MR. FITZGERALD: I don't understand the question. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why does the applicant want a ramp and a float? MR. FITZGERALD: I think so that they could access the boat 56 Board of Trustees 57 June 22, 2005 at uniform level with regard to the height of the boat and the height of the water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ithink there's a pier line there now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thero are docks in Creek already? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, that's the problem. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Within four feet of the end of the marsh, two to four feet off the end of the marsh. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There's no access to Creek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I assume it's just access to the water for putting a kayak or something. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Oh, to kayak around the creek. MR. FITZGERALD: May we hold this open so I can discuss it with my client? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely, yes. I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am going to assume we're going to table the next application also? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, if you're going to say the same thing, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, I make a motion to table the application of Harold Baer. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. MS. TETRAULT: Are we inspecting these again, is that what you want to do? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't see the need. I want to make sure that all Board members see this. MR. FITZGERALD: Do you have any interest in looking at this again? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The other Board members should. The three of us that saw it I think we're pretty satisfied with what we saw. We're familiar with the aroa and then we saw it last week. MR. FITZGERALD: If I talk to these guys about this and they say, as they will, what? Would it be possible for one or more of you to show up there and meet with the property owners? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I mean, there's obvious navigation problems putting something 80 feet out into the waterway where there's no other structure in the water, that's sort of an obvious inconsistent problem there. Or they can just look and see what their neighbors have, limited access over the marsh to the water. MR. FITZGERALD: The thing with Baer is he's in kind of a 57 Board of Trustees 58 June 22, 2005 little cove there or an indentation in the shoreline, and then the dock that's to the north, sticks out considerably further into the waterway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't see that. We saw it go right to the edge of the marsh. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They all went to the edge of the marsh. 16. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SUSAN SOUDER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish 7.5' by 14.7' existing extension on northeast side of the existing house, remove 7.5' by 7.5' slate patio on northeast side; construct 8.8' by 12.1' addition at northeast corner of house, and add second floor to house. Located: 3470 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#128-6-8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Would someone like to speak on behalf of the application? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Jim Fitzgerald for the applicant. The drawing I think is self-explanatory, and I am available for questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there any other comment? MR. LOFTON: My name is Carl Lofton, I live on the easterly side of the house. MR. JOHNSTON: Could you give us your address for the record? MR. LOFTON: 3300 Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. And one question I guess I have is what is the side yard setbacks as they exist today? I believe it's 35 feet. TRUSTEE POLIWOD^: Side yard? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It depends on the zoning. Could be 10 on one side and 15 on the other. MR. LOFTON: Now it's 15 and 20. I live adjacent to it. I applied here I got turned down and now I've got a boating permit exactly the way it's supposed to be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 15 and 20? MR. LOFTON: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have you seen these plans? MR. LOFTON: I have a copy of what you have. Is it four foot on one side and it looks like nine foot on the other side, and if you go across here it looks like the lot is 39.9 across. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It appears to me they're taking down the porch of the house and they're increasing the side yard. MR. LOFTON: They are, but not increasing it to the code limits now. My house existed and I was not able to follow the line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe that's the Building Department 58 Board of Trustees 59 June 22, 2005 that would regulate that. MR. LOFTON: So what are we doing here in reference to this now? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right now we're waiting for coastal -- I'm sorry, we're waiting for an LWRP form to be reviewed by the Town, so we can take no action on this tonight. I would assume that if we voted on this and approved this, say we could vote on this and approve this tonight based on environmental factors, the Building Department would take this and say it's inconsistent with zoning, it would make the applicant change the plans to make it however consistent that they wanted to, they may have to go to ZBA or not, whatever, then they would come back to us to amend the plans. That's how it would normally work. MR. FITZGERALD: The Building Department has already disapproved this plan and we do indeed have to go to the ZBA. MR. LOFTON: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be a ZBA matter not for this Board. If there's any other comments? MR. LOFTON: So you're approving -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: We can't approve anything. We have to wait for the LWRP form to be reviewed. MR. LOFTON: If that's reviewed, what are you approving? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then we could approve this, we would definitely put on gutters and dry wells, which we would have to have per code, and then it would go on to the next agency, which would be the ZB^ apparently, and then they would make changes whatever changes they thought were made. If they're going to change the configuration of the house, we're not going to mind, they have to come back to us to amend the permit. So whatever they say, because they rule on the side yard setbacks. We'll gladly amend our permit to match whatever they decide. MR. LOFTON: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor.* ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One more resolution. This is that lot on Albacore this is the house that John Hurtado built. This is the one -- did we approve the deck here? Yes, next door is that vacant lot and this is where we were looking at the line because this wetlands line used to go in here (indicating), and then all of a sudden it stopped and it disappeared when he applied for this lot. It doesn't go in 59 Board of Trustees 60 June 22, 2005 hero again. This wetlands line changed between '04 and when this was flagged. You see what the problem is? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The wavering line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So this is another wavering line based on convenience. So thero's a resolution here to suspend this permit, not revoke it, but to suspend this permit until we get this line straightened out, and then we can place the house where you think it's more appropriate to get more of a buffer because right now there's not much of a buffer. This is the plan we approved based on this. This line was put on a previous, I guess for this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That sounds good. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's faidy consistent hero, but it stops here (indicating). This is the rosolution: Be it resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold suspend Permit 5981 until such time that the Trustees have fully roviewed the problem stated above. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Tell Mr. Hurtado. RECEIVED SEP 9 2005 60