Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/19/2005Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOV~N OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, O~oberl9, 2005 7:00 PM RECEIVED q'.oo 2005 u nolcl Town Cle~ Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Cusack, Environmental Technician CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: For September 2005, a check for $8,348.32 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Welcome to our regular monthly meeting for October. I'd like to introduce the Board first, Peggy Dickerson, Jim King, Lauren Standish, Brownell Johnston is our legal advisor, Heather Cusack is our environmental Board of Trustees 2 October 19, 2005 technician, Don Wilder, CAC member. I'd like to start off by asking Jim to summarize some of our recent legislative agenda. TRUSTEE KING: In 2003, we drafted change to our Wetland Code, 97. We had public hearings and it was enacted in 2004. Currently we are working on a new mooring plan. There will be changes to Chapter 37, which is Coastal Erosion. And we're going to start drafting changes to our Shellfish Code, which is 77, it's upgrading everything, and the 97 we just had amendments passed on that. We're going to continue looking at all our chapters and keep upgrading them because they're all living documents and some of these are kind of stale. So we're trying to modernize them and stay with the program. We have to schedule public information hearings too. We have two public hearings on October 11th. We made our technical corrections and the Town Board enacted everything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thanks. Peggy, can you give us a brief rundown on our Mooring Code changes? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sure. We have been holding a series of public information work sessions for the new Chapter 34, Moorings and Anchorages Laws. We have had a few meetings already. We received some significant input from many of the Southold residents and some of the yacht clubs. Next we'll be tackling Chapter 77, as Jim mentioned, and we already received a rough draft from our Shellfish Advisory Board. We're always looking for suggestions from the public. Also, Al, just for the record, we just recently received, all the members of the Board, received a letter from the Nature Conservancy, and it just expresses some of the work we have been doing with them over the last couple of years. It says: "On behalf of the Nature Conservancy on Long Island, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation for your participation in the PBNSC" -- which stands for the Peconic Bays Natural Shoreline Committee -- "By being willing to participate in this collaborative form, you are helping to facilitate an ecosystem-based approach to the protection of the Peconic Estuary, which is the only effective way to insure its protection and the resources that it sustains. "Over the years that the PBNSC has met, we have made significant progress in improving the regulations of the coastal area. We hope that we have provided you with the environmental, legal and scientific support, as well as the inspiration that you need to continue to reflect and improve your adoption and implementation of regulations that affect 2 Board of Trustees 3 October 19, 2005 sensitive near shore and coastal areas. "We hope to meet with each town individually to determine what support we can provide on an ongoing basis. We welcome your thoughts and comments on the best ways to facilitate future meetings with local industries and residents to generate the support." And we have met with them almost on a yearly basis, and they're continuing to reach out to the community to get ideas, and they're continuing to also be in touch with us. So it's a reminder of some of the work that we have done over the last couple of years. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. And we have been the beneficiary of a lot of support from the public. We have worked on Chapter 97, and we did that with a lot of public support. We're working on this mooring code, again, with a lot of public support, and these codes work because we don't formulate them in isolation; we use inputs by the people who are affected by them and that's what makes them effective. We have 21 actions here that were reviewed under SEQRA, which is the State Environmental Quality Review Act. 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 Wednesday, October 19, 2005 are classified as Type 2 actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to review under SEQRA. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Jack Cipriano -- SCTM#87-5-23.6 Leslie Barney & Sean Olsen -- SCTM#76-2-1 Paul Long -- SCTM#123-5-30 Gregersen's Keep, LLC-Lot 1 -- SCTM# 35-3-12.6 & 12.7 Gregersen's Keep, LLC-Lot 2 -- SCTM# 35-3-12.6 & 12.7 Walter Gitlin -- SCTM#76-3-12. 1 Joan McDonald -- SCTM#53-3-9 Robert Keller -- SCTM#37-5-11 Joan A. Egan -- SCTM#37-5-12 William & Marilyn Pymm -- SCTM#122-9-7.25 Allen Kraus -- SCTM#67-4-20.6 Old Orchard Homeowner's Association -- SCTM#38-6-10 Michael & Joan Nickich -- SCTM#86-1-9.4 E. Brownell & Karen Johnston -- SCTM# 86-1-9.4 Nicholas Notias -- SCTM#100-3-10.11 Robert Krudop -- SCTM#122-4-34 Barbara & Joseph Isabella -- SCTM#107-7-6 3 Board of Trustees 4 October 19, 2005 Laughing Waters Property Owners Association -- SCTM#87-3-2.1 & 60 Mattituck Association, Inc. -- SCTM#126-11-11 James Tapscott -- SCTM#9-3-8 William Penney -- SCTM#64-3-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thero are a few items on the agenda that I want to go over before we start because they will not be opened. Page 4, under Public Hearings; Wetlands Permits Number 12, Alan Cardinale is postponed until November; Number 20, Joan MacDonald is postponed until November, and Number 3 under Coastal Erosion and Wetlands Permits, Angelo Padavan has been postponed until November. So those hearings won't be opened tonight. The next part of our meeting, Resolutions and Administrative Permits, applications for Amendments/Extensions/Transfers, we try to move through fairly quickly. The Administrative permit is a permit that doesn't require a public hearing. It's a permit that now is going to cost $50, and it requires only the review of one Board member. You can apply for anything for an Administrative Permit, and it doesn't mean you're going to get it, it means you have an opportunity to receive it. It means one Board member is going to review it. We generally know what is acceptable and what's not. And if it's acceptable, you'll generally receive a permit without much fanfare as opposed to going through a public hearing process, notifying everyone in town and then have to go through a little more of a review. So we try to go through these fairly quickly. If anyone has any comment, please be ready for them because we don't want to spend a lot of time here. IV. RESOLUTIONS -- ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: 1. FRED SEIFERT requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 17' by 16' sunroom with a second floor bedroom above, on the west side of the dwelling. Located: 875 Eugene's Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#97-2-19. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I looked at this. Peggy, you looked at this also? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, I did. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any recommendations? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Only, did you walk out back where there had been a violation? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Plantings had been done but about half of them hadn't survived. I realize that's not the fault of 4 Board of Trustees 5 October 19, 2005 the new owner, however, there was a reason for doing that. So I would recommend that with the condition that some of the plantings are put back. MR. SEIFERT: I think that was already in the condition with the previous owner. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right, they were planted. MR. JOHNSTON: Could you identify yourself? MR. SEIFERT: Fred Seifert. I was under the understanding that Mr. Prieter is still responsible for any plantings that do need to be replaced. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Dry wells for the addition? We would require on the permit dry wells and gutters for the extension, for the roof runoff. MR. SEIFERT: Okay, one four by eight? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would think that would be sufficient. make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: How is the original owner held responsible how does that work? MS. CUSACK: I think that's how it was written up, he is responsible. MR. JOHNSTON: You can condition that permit that those plantings have to be done by somebody else, not paid for by him, but have to be done by that person before they can start this work. If you want to, it's up to you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's not their responsibility, why should their permit be held up? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If our original permit was -- MS. CUSACK: The previous owner can still get a violation for something that he did if these still aren't surviving. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Especially where the violation didn't take place on his property. He actually cleared on the neighbor's property. The planting wouldn't be done on Mr. Seifert's property. MR. JOHNSTON: It's up to you. Do you want to pass? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ithink we should pass. It's not even on the applicant's property. We should follow up on that. MR. JOHNSTON: I just wanted to make it clear for Mr. Seifert what his responsibility was. Thank you. 2. Donna Iglesias-Wexler on behalf of GERTRUDE IGLESlAS requests an Administrative Permit for the existing 5 Board of Trustees 6 October 19, 2005 deck. Located: 955 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM#21-2-12 TRUSTEE KING: We looked at this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fred, can you put the plan on the survey, and have the surveyor - who is the surveyor? MR. SEIFERT: John Metzgar. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just have him put the location on, whatever's going to work for you. TRUSTEE KING: What's existing is there, the only problem I have is the next door neighbor. We didn't check on that at all. Did you find anything out? MS. CUSACK: No. TRUSTEE KING: Like I say, this is all there. I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES 3. Geo Custom Construction on behalf of DIANE DALEY requests an Administrative Permit to convert the second floor of the existing dwelling to living space. Located: 8265 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#59-6-17. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did we all look at this? Is there an old one? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh This is the one where they had the violation with the chain link fence. So wouldn't they need a violation then and not a notice of violation? I mean, if you have a chain link fence, and there's a dock also there. TRUSTEE KING: Table it. If there's a violation on it, table it until we get that straightened out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Why wasn't a violation issued? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because we didn't look at this. I'll make a notion to table. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll recuse myself. 4. Environmental East, Inc. on behalf of JOAN TECHET requests an Administrative Permit to construct an addition on the landward side of the existing dwelling. Located: 550 Bay Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#144-5-11. MR. JOHNSTON: Ken, are there any administrative points on this application? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's consistent. Anybody else have a 6 Board of Trustees 7 October 19, 2005 comment on this resolution? If not, I'll make a motion to approve the resolution on behalf of Joan Techet. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Lauren, I'm going to recuse myself. Would you put a form in my mailbox so I will fill it out? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. MR. JOHNSTON: So it's three ayes, one recusal and one absent. MR. HALLOCK: George Hallock, from Geo Construction. You tabled the last one, the Daley residence? We weren't aware that there was a violation of a chain link fence. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a problem there apparently with the dock and with a chain link fence. When this house was originally built, I believe there was some problems with some clearing. We issued the permit in 2001. MR. HALLOCK: These are new owners that bought the house that are doing the renovation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: We issued the permit in 2001 for a Wetland Permit to place removable for winter storage 32' consisting of four sections of 8' long by 4' wide walk or sit-on, no excavation or permanency of installation to be placed in phragmite wet area, and upland path will consist of wood chips. No trimming of phragmites, just for the path drawn on survey. Now I'm not sure why enforcement was sent out there, but he was sent out there not at our request, and we don't have any report except that there's a chain link fence, and there's a dock, and what it shows on the survey that was submitted it shows the chain link fence, and it shows a dock that crosses the property line before it reaches Great Pond; do you represent the owner?. MR. HALLOCK: Yes, the new owner, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't act on that because of the violations. MR. HALLOCK: So we have to remove the violation? When did this happen that they went out there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When was the inspection made; do you know? MS. STANDISH: I don't know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, and like I said, I don't know why he went out either. He's the code enforcer for the Town. MR. HALLOCK: Would I be able to find out tomorrow if I went to the Town? MR. JOHNSTON: Ed Forester's number is 765-1939, if that's who you want him to contact. He's located in the Town Hall Board of Trustees 8 October 19, 2005 Annex, second floor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Apparently that's not going to help you contacting him. MR. HALLOCK: Okay, what will help me at this point? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't stop because we thought there was no violation. We thought there was going to be some other action taken, which apparently there isn't. So no violation was issued because you have already come in here, so it would have been pointless to issue a violation. We'd rather see a remediation, the removal of the dock and the removal of the fence, Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I recuse myself. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Peggy? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm looking now. Didn't I take pictures? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, because we thought there was a violation, we weren't going to go there. This is all phragmites, and a permit was issued for a temporary walk to be placed in the phragmites. See, I'm familiar with this. Jim, you must have signed this original permit. So they would be satisfied if we just gave them the Administrative Permit to convert the second floor of the existing dwelling to living space, with the condition that they move the fence and the dock? MR. SEIFERT: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay. I'll make a motion to re-open the Administrative process. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Recuse. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then on behalf of Diane Daley to grant an Administrative Permit to convert the second floor of the existing dwelling to living space, with the condition that the chain link fence be removed and the dock be removed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Recuse myself. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. MR. JOHNSTON: Al, did I hear you reopen the administrative process? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. So you would remove those and then you would receive your permit. MR. HALLOCK: Thank you. Board of Trustees 9 October 19, 2005 5. Environment East, Inc. on behalf of ALLAN GOODMAN requests an Administrative Permit to remove the garage door and add a window and replace the siding on the garage. Located: 1555 Bayview Avenue, Greenport. SCTM#52-5-11. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'd like to recuse myself, at the beginning of this hearing. Lauron, would you put another form in my box, please? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Does anybody have a comment? If not, I'll make a motion to approve the Administrative Permit on behalf of Allan Goodman. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS 1. JOHN & JOY GALLAGHER request an Amendment to Permit #5745 to add a 2'8" by 10' ramp and a 6' by 20' floating dock to the existing fixed dock. Located: 730 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM#37-5-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was under the impression that this was tabled. I'll make a motion to table John and Joy Gallagher. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES 2. ANTHONY SCARMATO requests an Amendment to Permit ff4233 to include the maintenance of the pro-existing ponds on the landward side of the bulkhead. Located: 235 Huckleberry Hill Road, East Marion, SCTM#31-16-9 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Does anybody have a comment for or against this? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Something about missing permits? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, we didn't. All that work was done. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Al, there aro recommendations that the permit not being given until the fence is removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is that a motion? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Not yet. MS. CUSACK: We only found a permit for the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There's a gazebo, there's a building. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll recommend that we approve the Amendment to Permit 4233 to include the maintenance of the pro-existing ponds on the landward side of the bulkhead, located at 235 Huckleberry Hill Road, East Marion, with the stipulation that the fence in the bay be removed as well as all the structures landward of the bulkhead be Board of Trustees 10 October 19, 2005 applied for. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 3. MIRO RADOWlCH requests an Amendment to Permit #5924 to replace the existing 110' bulkhead in-place and place 20 cubic yards of fill material behind bulkhead as backfill. Located: 400 Budd's Pond Road, Southold. SCTM#56-5-18 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think we have all been out there once, and what he applied for was to have the new bulkhead replaced in-kind/in-place as part of the amendment. With that, I'll make a motion to approve. And we should mention a non-turf buffer, he doesn't have a lot of yard there, six feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Is there a recommendation from the CAC on that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 4. LONG ISLAND SOUND OYSTER requests an Amendment to Permit #6157 to add dormers to the existing dwelling during the presently permitted roof reconstruction. Located: 1240 Love Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#140-1-23.1 TRUSTEE KING: This is just a minor change to their plans they are going to fix the roof and now they want to add a dormer. They already had dry wells in place. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES 6. WILLIAM PENNEY requests an Amendment to Permit ~4379 for the existing detachable floating dock. Located: 2200 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM#64-3-4 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. The detachable floating dock appears to be a jet ski float, and I spoke with the applicant. They do have floating docks at the site. MR, PENNEY: My name is Bill Penney, it's really not a floating dock, it's a boat lift. It's actually attached to the boat, I could operate the boat with it attached. It's only in the water for three months, four months, and then it comes out. We pull it out on the trailer actually with the boat. I've got all the paperwork on it. They basically claim in here that one of the things it becomes part of the boat, number one, and number two, it's environmentally safe because it's not hitting the bottom. That was the whole 10 Board of Trustees 1 l October 19, 2005 why I did it. I didn't realize there was going to be a problem with it. Every piece of literature I read on it said this is one of the best things you can do with the boat because you're not painting the bottom, and it's only in the water temporarily. So I didn't really consider it a floating dock; it's really a boat lift just like you've seen. I've gone down to the marina and seen the ones that sit inside the slip with the air chambers that lift the boat in and out of the water. It's essentially the same thing. It just doesn't have air chambers. Actually it does have air chambers. We don't consider it a floating dock, it's a boat lift. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I hate to say this, well, the fact of the matter is if you read the Town code and it expressly says no boat lifts. MR. PENNEY: There's boat lifts all over the Southold town. Have you even gone down to the ones out in the bay there's boats up in the air, lifted out of the water?. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. Not likely to be legal and if they were legal years ago, we're not allowed to issue a permit for those any longer. MR. PENNEY; You're not allowed any boat lifts in Southold town at all? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not since 2004. MR. PENNEY: Forwhat reason? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was a whole series of reasons. And we went through a series of public hearings. MR. PENNEY: Again, environmentally I would think you guys would want this because you're not painting the bottom. The bottom of the boat never gets painted. I got photographs and photographs in here, in every state this is legal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Boat lifts, they are allowed in commercial marinas, that was a concession we made, that wasn't a problem, but not for residential. MR. PENNEY: Not even a temporary one that becomes part of the boat, it's not still not allowed? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not allowed in the code. MR. PENNEY: How do I get a copy of that; what the reasoning was for? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We must have copies of that in the minutes, You can contact the office tomorrow. MR. PENNEY: As I said, I would consider this to be a good thing. I don't understand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It adds more surface area, one of the things it adds more bottom coverage. 11 Board of Trustees 12 October 19, 2005 MR. PENNEY: Not if you look at this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't float in the water? MR. PENNEY: Yeah, but it's the same size as the boat. I mean, I could put a 40 foot barge in front of my house, and it's going to cover up more bottom than this. It's the same size as the boat. The boat's just sitting right on top of it, and I can drive the boat with it attached. It's new, this is kind of unique, that's why I didn't think we were doing anything wrong. It's not cheap either. We spent a lot of money on it. I had a 20 year old boat that I found that I basically restored and I just didn't want to paint the bottom. And it's a shame the bottom had never been painted. My idea was let's not paint the bottom, and we'll leave it sitting on this, it's already in the water just for the summer and the entire thing rolls out on a trailer. I'm serious, we put a trailer right under it, boat and everything comes right out one shot. Maybe it's something you guys have never seen. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I've never seen it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would believe it would have to be in the position where one of your boats would be in, we can't allow this to be lying up on top of the marsh. MR. PENNEY: No. It comes out on a trailer. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I mean at the docking facility, such as in front of your house, where you have floating docks, maybe park it in the location the boat is. MR. PENNEY: I got one boat going, so I have to move it over, that's not a problem. The big boat's being sold. I thought this was the coolest thing. Everybody that's seen this -- it's been there for about a year -- everybody that's seen this has the same reaction, it's like this is like awesome. Again, we don't have to paint the bottom on the boat ever. It was a 20 year old Whaler, and I was psyched I didn't have to paint the bottom. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Table it. MS. CUSACK: Could it replace one of the floats? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll take a look at it on the 9th. MR. PENNEY: I know it's playing with words, I know it's not a dock, it's a boat lift, but it's small enough that it's under the boat and attaches to it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You have to call it something else. MR. PENNEY: Boat lift. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You can't call it a boat lift. MR. PENNEY: I'll come up with something next week. I'll call it something. I appreciate that. It's really cool. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Penney, could you submit copies of the 12 Board of Trustees 13 October 19, 2005 literature regarding this non-residential boat lift, so we could look at it before we come out? MR. PENNEY: Sure, oh, yeah. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you know where Heather and Lauren's, the Trustees' office is? MR. PENNEY: Yes. Again, they show pictures here, obviously, they tell you you can keep it in the water all year long. I wouldn't do that. I just want it for the summer, then it hauls out on the trailer. I don't even take the boat off it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to table the amendment request by William Penney. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 7. WILLIAM & MARILYN PYMM request an Amendment to Permit 417 to relocate and realign the existing 3' by 12' ramp and 6' by 20' floating dock. The proposed relocation of both structures would accommodate a new proposed 4' by 12' floating dock and three 35' long guide piles and one 30' long guide pile for extra support of the overall assembly. Located: 2504 Camp Mineola Road Extension, Mattituck. SCTM#122-9-7.25 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem with this, I don't know how far we will get, the LWRP coordinator for Southold Town says it has been reviewed and it's the recommendation that more information is necessary to make a consistency recommendation, specifically the water depths around the existing dock have not been identified, the width of the waterways is referenced at 100 feet, please have the applicant determine the width of the waterway from the opposite shoreline as navigable, it appears to be submerged hazards off the opposite shoreline. And Number 3, the applicant proposed CCA treated lumber, please advise the applicant that the LWRP does not support the use of CCA treated lumber in marine waters. I don't know, CAC did not make an inspection. This dock was built in 1987. I remember when we granted the permit, and I believe it was built the way we wanted it built, to be really tucked into, there's a little bit of a cove there, and tucked into the shoreline, it's at the mouth of the channel there. It's a pretty busy spot with the marina there, there's actually two marinas in James Creek. There's a lot of large boats, private boats in James Creek also, and that's why we located it in that spot in 1987. Would you like to speak, sir? 13 Board of Trustees 14 October 19, 2005 MR. PYMM: Sure. Obviously it's my dock. What we're doing is relocating the dock north about 10 feet, that's parallel with the canal, and it doesn't change the existing path - doesn't hinder anymore than it already does. What we're doing is moving it north. The only addition, if you notice, we're using all the same lumber that's pre-existing. The only thing we're adding is the stationary extension so we can relocate it north from where it is. The creek runs north and south, so it maintains the same distance from the canals as exists right now. There's physically no change to navigation. The only reason it's being done is because there's shallowing on the southern side of the dock, that one corner of the dock over the past 20 years sand has developed. When they dredge the canal it's not a problem, but they don't dredge the canal every year. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If nothing else, I'd like to wait for the information requested from the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand your explanation because the plan submitted shows the dock going, I would call that to the west. MR. PYMM: It's definitely north. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because the north would show it going to the north, and this shows it going to the west. MR. PYMM: If you take a look at the plans showing the new location, you'll see an arrow showing the north direction, right below the scale markings? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. PYMM: So the dock used to be to the left of where it is now, and we're just moving it to the right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the new extension is the blank part? MR. PYMM: If you take a look, I have two drawings, one shows the current location and the other one shows the proposed location. If you notice, where the ramp exists now is where the stationary dock is going to be, and the float is just moving north 10 feet. The reason you see the bank the way it is is there's shallowing on that southern corner, that's not parallel with the creek. The dock itself is parallel with the creek. If you look at the larger planned view, you'll see what I mean. TRUSTEE KING: I think some of the confusion is this description isn't written right. It says a new proposed 4' by 12' floating dock. MR. PYMM: We didn't write that. You'll see what was approved by the Army Corps of Engineers, that has the correct description. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I still don't understand it. Could you 14 Board of Trustees 15 October 19, 2005 come up and explain it? MR. PYMM: Sure. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The description, is very unclear. MR. PYMM: The description in these plans is not what's written in here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we have is one of these (indicating). We looked at the LWRP. So I'm going to guess the reason he couldn't make the recommendation is because he didn't understand the description. Because he gets sent the description. MR. PYMM: This description is there a problem? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see a problem with that because that moves it to the north, which was very unclear. If you look at this, this looks like you're moving it out to the west? MR. PYMM: I'm sorry. The float is moving north but the stationary dock that's going to be where this ramp was. TRUSTEE KING: Technically you're adding a fixed section but it's not as far out because you're removing this? MR. PYMM: Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So in order to have him, and I would suggest that you contact Mark Terry, and you can explain it to him, and he can do his review. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And explain what you just explained to US, TRUSTEE KRUPSKh He can't do his review. He's asked for three different things. He asked for water depth, which I think you provided here. I don't understand that. We were there it's pretty high tide because the wind was blowing out of the east, there is submerged material on the far side, and he doesn't want CCA lumber used. MR. PYMM: I can change the lumber, I didn't realize that was a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not a problem either, change the decking even if you use the coated pilings or something. But you have to explain that to him in order to get your consistency review. That's not our office, that's the Planning office. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We can approve it subject to. MR. PYMM: So we don't have to do this again? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Sure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because it's confusion with the explanation, it's not that he said it was inconsistent, he probably just didn't understand it as we didn't. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh And obviously the CCA issue can be -- 15 Board of Trustees 16 October 19, 2005 MR. PYMM: I'll use whatever's approved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can dismiss that concern tonight. TRUSTEE KING: You're just strictly rearranging the ramp and float. It's already built, it's already there, you're not changing it? MR. PYMM: And who is the person I need to see? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mark Terry. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Brewnell, have you got that telephone number? MR. JOHNSTON: 765-1938. Peggy, to answer your question, I will have the condition that the LWRP response is consistent, if it's not consistent then he would have to come back. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right, what we said. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the condition that the piles be a coated pile and that the decking be a non CCA material, and that the final plan receive a favorable consistency report from the LWRP coordinator. MR. PYMM: What is the approved material? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You could use Trex or you could use cedar or fir, you can use pretty much anything else. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 8. NICHOLAS NOTIAS requests an Amendment to Permit 6030 to increase the height of the timber retaining wall to 30 inches, plant Northern Bayberry bushes on the bluff side of the retaining wall, and fill in planting bed between concrete paver and fence with pebbles. Located: 460 Inlet View Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#100o3-10.11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh CAC recommends approval with the condition all areas between the pool and retaining wall are pervious. Mr. Notias, we were out there in the summer time in June, June 23rd, and you were going to increase the height of the retaining wall, have you done that? MR. NOTIAS: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you backfill it with pervious material? MR. NOTIAS: No, I haven't done that yet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Another condition would be to plant Bayberry bush on the bluff side of the retaining wall. MR. NOTIAS: That's been done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And as part of your previous permit, the Board would condition the planting of the two trees, which we marked here on one of your two surveys, if you would like 16 Board of Trustees 17 October 19, 2005 to come up and take a look. We wanted you to plant the two oak trees, one on this side and one on this side each corner of the wall. MR. NOTIAS: At the time of my original approval you had recommended the two oak trees, I had the two oak trees delivered. The problem was over here, I can't plant here because of the violation I have with my neighbor. I have a no planting clause, which I mentioned at that time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I never heard that. MR. NOTIAS: That's what I have, I mentioned it at my original approval, and at this point in time, anything I believe 75 feet from this marker here over and 75 feet back, I have a no planting clause with my neighbor that I don't plant anything in that area. And in all honesty, there's no room to plant in that. So what I've done, in this area here, I cleaned out an area large enough to accommodate two new oak trees. I was never informed by the Trustees that the trees had to be planted there because at that point I had known that it would be impossible to plant in that area because I would be violating my deed with my neighbor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know what you have with your neighbor, but you wouldn't even have to violate that, whatever that is, you can plant them outside that 75 feet. MR. NOTIAS: In this area right here, there's all trees in this area to begin with, and it's all sloping down, you can't plant a tree on a slope. So what I did was, in this area, between the walk and my retaining wall is only 18 inches. We barely got Bayberry bushes in there, and the Bayberry bushes I was more than happy to do because of not any kind of aesthetics, you can't even see them, but I did them for the erosion. My bluff is as dense a bluff as you're going to find. You were at my house, you saw how dense my bluff is. My bluff is not going anywhere. The trees, I was under the impression the trees were in lieu of the one tree removal, and they are going to be delivered to my property tomorrow morning and planted, were basically, like I said, in lieu of the one taken down. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But they were to be planted in that area. That was my understanding. MR. NOTIAS: I was never told that, and I mentioned at the time of my original approval that I had a deed issue with my neighbor. And I really couldn't plant the trees on this side. The bluff goes down. There's no sense in planting a tree on the bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't want you to plant on the 17 Board of Trustees 18 October 19, 2005 bluff. Just on the corner of the retaining wall. MR. NOTIAS: If you plant over here on the corner of the retaining wall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's plenty of room here. MR. NOTIAS: I have another tree there that's a massive oak to begin with. If I planted right in there, this is not even my property. If you notice the marker, my property runs it's not a square, it's an irregular lot, you can see the shading in there. This tree is so big. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Table this and we'll do a site inspection in November. And you can show us your property line, and you can show us your property line and you can show us this some sort of agreement that you have with your neighbor, you can show us the 75 feet off of your property line on the other side. MR. NOTIAS: If somebody would have told me that I had to plant in this area, I wouldn't have agreed to it because I know that I can't. I would be in violation with the deed that I have with my neighbor. I'm liable in a civil suit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You said 75 feet, right? MR. NOTIAS: It's 75 this way and 75 feet this way, and it comes down this way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, 75 feet is -- MR. NOTIAS: If you scaled off, right? What I have done at my own expense, right over here there's an open area that I cleared to plant these two oak trees. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't we go out in field inspection and take a look. It's hard to imagine the property line here. MR. NOTIAS: Because, if you look at the property line, the retaining wall comes in here. I have a very, very small piece of land in here. It's very difficult to tell but this is not very large. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows about 15 feet off the retaining wall? MR. NOTIAS: And right here I have this large oak tree that covers the whole area. The last thing I need is more trees growing into each other. That's one of my biggest problems. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would think that that would mean in place of those oak trees as opposed to randomly on your property. MR. NOTIAS: I think the way one of the Trustees had mentioned it was in lieu of the diseased oak tree -- the diseased oak tree was going to come down no matter what. It was going to come down with me taking it down or if nature took it down, So I believe at that time one of the Trustees 18 Board of Trustees 19 October 19, 2005 said give me two, and I'll let you take down the one. We never said we want it on a bluff, because I know I couldn't put it on the bluff. I just thought a tree's a tree. I'm giving you two brand new healthy oaks on a property -- did you ever see my property? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. We were all there. I think we'll table this matter. I'm pretty sure the Board was clear. The Board wanted it in place of, the oak would be in place of not somewhere else. MR. NOTIAS: How is it that you place a tree in 18 inches? What are the chances of that tree surviving 18 inches of land to grow on? The tree would need a lot more space to develop. What's the sense of putting in a tree that's not going to make it? Between my retaining wall and the bluff is only about 18 inches. I'm telling you, the Northern Bayberries that we planted basically take up the whole space and they're not even fully grown. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's why we want to take a look at it to make sure. You seem to be saying one thing and we seem to be saying and thinking another. MR. NOTIAS: Does anybody remember my mentioning the deed with my neighbor?. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Speaking of which, can you provide our lawyer with a copy of that so he can look it over?. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you very much, Peggy. I will do that. MR. NOTIAS: I wasn't prepared tonight. I never thought it was an issue. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you, I'll take a look at it. MR. NOTIAS: Basically the two trees that are delivered now shall not be planted. I want them to comply. It's planting season. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can plant them anywhere you want, but that might not satisfy the permit condition. MR. NOTIAS: Can I ask you one question? If the permit required that you plant it in a certain location, wouldn't that have been outlined on my permit, actually on the drawing since we went through all the trouble of putting together several surveys to satisfy all the parties? In my approved survey it doesn't say plant trees here. I think that maybe might have been a little oversight, and I took it for granted -- that maybe took it for granted that the trees were to be put on the property; that's why I went through the expense of clearing the area to plant the trees. Because I want the trees to have a chance of living. If you're going to plant a tree on top of another tree, I'm not a horticulturalist, but I can't see it being any benefit to 19 Board of Trustees 20 October 19, 2005 the young tree. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course, we're concerned with the tree's survival. MR. NOTIAS: I am too because I'm paying for it, right? MS. CUSACK: What is the location where you want to plant it? MR. NOTIAS: On the right hand side as you come down my driveway there's an open area that was basically covered with vines like the rest of my property. So I cleared an area of about 20 feet by 30 feet and it's an area that eventually I'm going to want to develop into some garden area, and I figured the two trees would be the best suited there, not only for visual purposes but also because it's an open area, and they would have an opportunity to live. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to table this matter because we can't seem to decide. We can't seem to agree with the applicant on a tree planting location. MR. NOTIAS: Because I don't live here all year long, is it possible that I can make an appointment with Heather or somebody from the office, bring them out to the property, and we could do this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely, November 9th, that's the date. MR. NOTI^S: That's the date? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. NOTIAS: From nine to five? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. I would say afternoon, between one and five. MR. NOTI^S: Because, like I said, I had no indication -- nobody indicated to me, even at the site meeting on the 23rd, nobody said to me, by the way, this is the spot where we want the two trees, correct? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe there was conversation, it just was not recorded. MR. NOTIAS: I have the notes from that meeting, it's not an official note, but I have a little note that I was handed regarding the amendment. The amendment was the heightening of the wall, the planting of the Bayberry bushes, and the filling in of the bay with some impervious material. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We never thought that when we said plant a tree in place of another tree that it would be taken for anything else but plant something in place of something else. MR. NOTIAS: Ithink the intention of the Trustee at that time was because the tree was eventually going to come down, it was an opportunity to get two new healthy trees in the town of Southold. 20 Board of Trustees 21 October 19, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not exactly what happened. MR. NOTIAS: That's the way I took it. Not that you don't have enough trees in the town of Southold, but I felt it was a thing where you didn't want to lose a tree and nobody said, by the way, we're going to come over and stake out your property and tell you where to put it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think you said I will plant two instead. I think before we come out on the 9th we will look at the minutes. MR. NOTIAS: I will forward a copy of my deed of my property to Heather, and she can forward it to the attorney. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES 9. MICHAEL & JOANN NICKICH request an Amendment to Permit #6006 to allow for the construction of a 4' wide catwalk rather than a 3' wide catwalk. Located: 4297 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM#86-1-9.5 TRUSTEE KING: Any comments from the CAC? MR. WILDER: We did inspect it. The nondisturbance zone here was disturbed, if you want to put it that way. Also, we were looking at the drainage off the property and thinking that we need both a swale and a berm to stop the drainage. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think we gave the applicant permission to remove those cedars out of that area that's cleared toward the dock or dock location. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What area of disturbance are you talking about? MR. WILDER: The nondisturbance zone had been disturbed. There are things that had been removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did give him permission to remove those cedar trees. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think he's talking about this area, not the path area to the dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's a wide path. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think that's what Mr. Wilder is referring to; he's referring to this area that is -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Disturbed? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: -- cleaned. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So what was the recommendation of the CAC? MR. WILDER: We were looking for some way to stop the runoff from the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What location would you look at, how far 21 Board of Trustees 22 October 19, 2005 from the water? MR. WILDER: How far back from the water?. You have to go back to the edge, and you can do that very gently, but you can go back to the edge of the nondisturbance zone. MR. NICKICH: I don't know what area you're talking about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We have some questions, maybe you can clarify. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you go and inspect? MR. WILDER: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you see the garden area? MR. WILDER: Yes. MR. NICKICH: No, he didn't see it, the wildflowers. She's talking about the wildflower gardens. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was just overturned. You were talking about a swale, I was just saying there was an area that might actually act in a similar fashion. MR. WILDER: All that in there? MR. NICKICH: Are you referring to the berm over by the dead tree? MR. WILDER: Yes. MR. NICKICH: There is a berm that ran right through the three properties. It was a farming location. That we never touched it, that's always been there, and it was all grass that you walked across and that's always been there. So I'm not sure what your concern was. TRUSTEE KING: The last recommendation from the CAC was approval of the application with the condition that the access path to the ramp is a natural path. MR. NICKICH: Okay. I didn't intend to do any wood chips or gravel. TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is there is a large buffer area there now, as long as it's left undisturbed. MR. NICKICH: It's left undisturbed. TRUSTEE KING: It's also a DEC condition. MR. NICKICH: Any other questions? TRUSTEE KING: Not from me. The application is to widen the catwalk from three feet to four feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the purpose of widening the catwalk? MR. NICKICH: When I made the first application it was originally for the four foot catwalk, and the recommendation from the Town Trustees was make it three foot because the DEC was being a little bit strict about four foot catwalk. And if you asked me, which one of you made the recommendation, I wouldn't remember, so we modified the 22 Board of Trustees 23 October 19, 2005 application and made it a three foot catwalk. Well, the DEC came back and said why didn't you apply for a four foot catwalk, we give them to everybody, so I said, okay, let me amend the permit back and go for a four foot. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a problem with the three foot catwalk? MR. NICKICH: Do I have a problem, only that four foot's better than three foot, size matters. You're talking about a three foot walk or a four foot walk, and the DEC says it's okay, I didn't think there would be a problem. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The tree you said is still there, do you have plans to leave it there? MR. NICKICH: No. It's right in the middle of the catwalk. The site that you guys approved is right there, and you guys agreed that it would come down. TRUSTEE KING: This is the tree hearing night. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It looked like you started to remove and then you stopped. MR. NICKICH: I haven't removed it yet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know you didn't remove it. MR. NICKICH: There are a ton of hornets in it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They have their purpose. TRUSTEE KING: What do we want to do here? MR. NICKICH: Was there a problem when I tried to apply for a four foot catwalk? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We try to minimize the structure, that's just our policy, and a lot of people go with the three foot wide because of the amount of use it gets. TRUSTEE KING: And it's cheaper. MR. NICKICH: I have little grandchildren. I'm thinking four foot is better for them. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a big problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't have a big problem. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, I denied the original permit, so I'm not going to pass this one. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this amendment for a four foot catwalk. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. 10. E. BROWNELL & KAREN JOHNSTON request an 23 Board of Trustees 24 October 19, 2005 Amendment to Permit 5217 to add a 3.5' by 12' ramp and a 6' by 20' float to the existing dock. Located: 4001 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM#86-1-9.4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We looked at this last Thursday. The LWRP report is consistent with the policy standards. The Conservation Advisory Council recommended approval of the application. MR. WILDER: Yes. We'd like to make another comment if I could. We considered this property as exemplary from the standpoint of the plantings, the areas of buffer zones, the use of locust poles instead of treated lumber on the docks, all of these things were done properly. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Do we have plans? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Soundings? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, there's one change. I don't think the application showed the removal of the stairs, and I think that has to be a condition. MR. JOHNSTON: Al, it is in there, but it's not in the application. It's in the resolution. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make the motion to approve the amendment to Permit #5217 to add a 3.5' by 12' ramp and 6' by 20' float parallel to the shore in an "L" or "T" configuration to the existing dock, with the condition that the existing stairs be removed for E. Brownell and Karen Johnston. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Float is parallel to the shoreline or perpendicular to the shoreline? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Parallel. MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, when I initially received the dock permit, it was perpendicular but it is much more sensitive, environmentally sensitive, to have it parallel. So I would like to amend my request to have it parallel in the form of either an "L" or a "T" depending on how good the dock builder is in centering the ramp; does it make any difference, "L" or "T"? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. MR. JOHNSTON: It will be parallel. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We didn't vote. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 11. William Gorman on behalf of DANIELLE CACIOPPO requests an Amendment to Permit #6134 to move the proposed 24 Board of Trustees 25 October 19, 2005 addition 3' to the southeast. Located: 1455 Inlet Way, Southold. SCTM#92-1-4 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's self-explanatory. I don't think anybody had a comment on this. I'll make a motion to approve the amendment on behalf of Danielle Cacioppo. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 12. Docko, Inc. on behalf of BARBARA HOCH requests an Amendment to Permit #5973 to chip out the upper part of the seawall in order to allow the lower section to be rebuilt correctly. Located: Hedge Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 10-7-14. TRUSTEE KING: I think we all looked at this one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. It had some marsh grass. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, because I had made notes to take out the trash and also to plant spartina. It's just a minor modification on the way they're going to have to do this job. So I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 13. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LESLIE BARNEY & SEAN OLSEN requests an Amendment to Permit #6032 to allow the construction of a 3' by 21' rather than a 3' by 18' fixed catwalk. Located: 1075 Smith Drive North, Southold. SCTM#76-2-1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to comment? MR. HERMANN: We're here for this amendment not because we wanted to be, but we previously obtained this Board's permit, obtained permit from the Army Corps consistency certification from the New York State Department of State and then tried to finish with the DEC, who would not issue a permit for a dock at this site unless we made the catwalk 36 inches longer. I know the Board is not going to be too inclined to be happy about that because we discussed at length the length of the dock during the original public hearing on the application. And basically, while we could have measured immediately opposite the dock into the boat basin on the other side of the canal, what we did for obvious reasons was to take the most conservative measurement of the width of the waterway, which was from the Iow water line of this site to the corner of the bulkhead on the opposite side of Goose Creek, which was 77 feet. So a third of the width of that is 26 feet. So as the dock was 25 Board of Trustees 26 October 19, 2005 originally approved, we were extending 19 feet out, which would still leave room for a seven foot wide boat, which was fine and adequate for the applicants. To go out another 36 inches would only leave, according to section 97-27C2 B2 of your code, a four foot wide boat. What we would like to put to the Board so that Mr. Olsen and Miss Barney are not yet another victim of being sandwiched in the vice between any local town out here and the DEC is to consider what the purpose of that section of the code is and under normal circumstances, you set up, and having been part of the discussions when you amended Chapter 97 was when you had two opposite creek owners, waterfront owners, each would be entitled to take up a third of the width of the waterway leaving a third in the middle for navigation. So in order to resolve this, and of course we're here asking the Town for extra 36 inches, is to consider that the parcel that is opposite the Olsen/Bamey lot could never have a dock extending into the creek at this location because almost entire parcel is a boat basin. So while I don't want to play games with you in terms of the width of the waterway because if we took the width of the dock all the way across then the width obviously becomes negligible, but I would submit that let's say that whole opposite shoreline and somebody could extend the dock out, they would be allowed out 26 feet, including the boat, same as this applicant, leaving 26 feet of a navigable channel in the center. Given that there can't be dock coming from that side, even taking up 22 feet as now proposed basically leaves 55 feet of navigable waterway in the canal. And the navigable channel here actually does hug the opposite side of the creek. So, we're submitting to the Board that the additional 36 inches is really not going to affect navigation adversely, and given that the original permit basically had implicit in it a seven foot wide boat, I'm sure that the applicant would agree that that would still be the maximum boat so we're not encroaching another three feet with a dock and then some other random width of a boat. That's really ail I can offer in way of an explanation and a justification for what we're really asking you to do is grant a three foot variance to the section of the code that applies. MS. CUSACK: Why did the DEC make it longer; is it that shallow? MR. HERMANN: Well, the DEC seems to always find that our soundings are not really as deep as we say it is. Now, I took these soundings with the applicant. Obviously, I've 26 Board of Trustees 27 October 19, 2005 done soundings with this Board for years. I always do it the same way. We have actually designed it to go out at the lowest Iow tide, so that when the DEC picks the lowest Iow tide to go out at we don't get surprised. But still I would say, and you could ask any of the other contractors or agents that deal with the DEC that it is almost chronic that they will always come back and say, well, it's not really deep enough. And why it would be that significant to them to not approve an application without changing it by three feet, I don't know. I've been searching for that answer for about seven years and I still have yet to come up with one. But that is the position that we're put in. So unfortunately the applicant, the homeowner, is basically forced to either ask for your mercy or ask for the DEC's mercy. And to be frank, there's no mercy coming from the state. So in terms of looking at the policy, the DEC's argument for this is purely environmental. They're saying that if the float and the boat is not in deep enough water, the bottom could be potentially prop dredged, which would affect benthic invertebrates and the marine habitat. This section of your code strictly deals with navigation. It really doesn't have anything to do with the wetland impact here other than the scope of the structure, which, of course, the applicant already agreed to decrease the width of everything as you discussed on the prior application at the hearing to make everything three feet wide. In fact, Sean Olsen asked me coming here tonight can I just make the float narrower? I said, well, no, because if we make the float two foot narrower, the DEC is going to say okay, push the catwalk out five feet. It doesn't have to do with the width of the float, it's just the overall length of the dock. So again, it's a unique circumstance given the property on the other side of the creek that would allow you to distinguish this from any other application because, I think it's really unambiguous that you could not have a dock extending from that property. No one would extend a 400 foot dock from the boat basin. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Rob, I think I agree with you. You laid your case out well, but with the three foot extension you're still within the one-third limitations that we allow with a seven foot boat. So with no more being said, I'll make a motion that approves the amendment on behalf of Sean Olsen and Leslie Barney. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. ALL AYES 27 Board of Trustees 28 October ! 9, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll vote aye, but I thought under the LWRP that the Town now has final say on all structures. MR. HERMANN: I've had this conversation with Brownell, and I'm speaking in public now, but the State agency that is involved with this process is the New York State Department of State Coastal Resource Division, not the DEC. Even though the basis of a lot of the consistency policies and New York State Coastal Management Program are based on the DEC rules and regulations, you are not going to see any change in terms of the Town making a decision through the LWRP, and then seeing the DEC say, oh, okay, it's consistent with the Town's LWRP, so we have to -- Department of State will say that they have to agree with you, but the DEC does not, not as far as I understand it. MR. JOHNSTON: Ressler said that he has written and will hold the DEC accountable, whether that's going to work or not -- MR. HERMANN: You won't see it. MR. JOHNSTON: You know that I just believe -- MR. HERMANN: You're believing in something good, but it's something that is not going to happen. MR. JOHNSTON: When those four attorneys came down from Albany and said believe and it will happen, I had faith. We will use mine to see whether we are being bamboozled. MR. HERMANN: I was resisting mentioning that. If you get your float on Richmond Creek, then something has changed. MR. JOHNSTON: I don't want to buy a boat, I just want to see if the LWRP will be -- MR. HERMANN: I'm anxious to see what the result of that is because we haven't gotten a float approved on Richmond Creek in almost a decade that I can think of. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.' Thank you. 14. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of VICTOR AND MARY ZUPA requests an Amendment to Permit fl4992 to reconfigure the existing structure as to provide adequate depths so that neither the float nor the boats rest on the bottom at Iow tide. Located: 365 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1-13.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Just as a matter of record, the Board had pledged they would visit the site at or near Iow tide; that was in fact the case, however, because of environmental conditions, the tide was a lot higher than normal that day. So we didn't actually see anything resting on the bottom because of environmental conditions. MS. MESIANO: Right. I know the storm had the tide very 28 Board of Trustees 29 October 19, 2005 high. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. During our last hearing it was the Board's suggestion that we dredge under the dock. Upon further consideration and consultation with other professionals, we believe it would be imprudent to do so. Our marine contractor has inspected the site with consideration given to the suggestion. He's of the opinion that there is considerable risk of toe failure to the bulkhead as a result of dredging in the suggested location. And his letter is attached in the package I gave you. Further, we have had the benthic vegetation adjacent to the subject property located and indicated on a topographic survey and there appears to be well-established eel grass beds with oysters established therein. As a result of the Zupas' participation in the SPAT program. For your information I have that map. I have also an article out of the environmental newsletters regarding the eel grass in case you might want to see it. As an alternative to our original proposal to reorient the existing ramp and float, we propose to move the fixed platform 25 feet north, extend the ramp from the platform perpendicular to the bulkhead and relocate the float in an "L" configuration parallel with the bulkhead. This design will allow for adequate depths under the float and for the vessels tied to it, eliminate the potential for encroachment over the property line and will allow for reasonable enjoyment of the property owner's riparian rights. Any questions, comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand the cross-section of what you just submitted. It shows no bulkhead. MS. MESIANO: The plan that you have is a plan that encompasses all the actions the Board took at the last, when you made the resolutions on the 580 Basin Road property. The cross-section is for the Mary Zupa dock on 580. It also shows the location of the association dock pursuant to your resolution -- and I'll give you a date of that resolution in one minute -- your resolution dated September 21, 2005. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What you have submitted here is sort of unclear. It shows the shadow of what we presume to be the existing dock here? MS. MESlANO: Yes. This is the existing dock. This is the plan that we came in with originally this is, I have noted here, alternate proposal illustrating that which I just described in my narrative. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So it's two different proposals? MS. MESIANO: Let me clarify. This is number one and this is number two (marking). It's not "and," it's "or." This 29 Board of Trustees 30 October 19, 2005 is the original proposal that we came to you with. Thero was a problem with the neighbor because they felt there would be encroachment over the property line with the boat tied in this location. So you see I have extended the lot line to demonstrate where that is. We think that this configuration and location, it may be preferable to this. It solves all of our problems without giving anyone else any problems. This is the Mary Zupa dock that you approved by resolution on September 21st. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That is this cross-section? MS. MESIANO: That is this cross-section. This is the association dock configuration pursuant to your September 21st resolution. This is the existing association dock. This is our existing dock. This is the vegetation that we discussed that you had difficulty seeing because of the conditions at the site inspection. What else can I clarify? It drops off rather quickly so it's hard to keep it snugged up to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What was the extension that we just gave the neighbor?. MS. MESIANO: The extension that you just gave the neighbor is the darker outline. The lighter outline is existing. This is the extension that you granted. So this represents all of your recent decisions, and it represents all of the current conditions as far as the other docks are concerned. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: MS. MESIANO: Yes, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: MS. MESIANO: I can without my - it will be Is this plan to scale? it is to scale. Is this accurate? give you a survey of that exact plan in about 30 seconds. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: According to this, if you went out another four feet you would be in just three or three-one worth of water, right? That was the what the Board discussed in the field was that if the applicant would move their float out - the Board's feeling was if the applicant would move their float seaward an additional four feet, that would give them three foot of water at the float and at the boat, and that should be certainly sufficient to keep the boat and the float off the bottom. MS. MESlANO: So you're saying to take the existing float and move it four feet -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Seaward? MS. MESIANO: West? That still poses a problem because, again, one is allowed two boats to tie up at a float that still causes disturbance because if we were just to extend 30 Board of Trustees 31 October 19, 2005 everything out four feet, we're still in the shallow water and we're disturbing the bottom. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see how. The code allows for two boats other than your own. It doesn't say you have to keep two boats. MS. MESIANO: I didn't say it said you had to keep two boats. It's not uncommon that property owners have two boats, whether they own them or a neighbor puts a boat at the property. My point is that whether it's Mr. Zupa's boat or someone else's boat, that other boat, either boat, if the dock is oriented that close to the bulkhead, will cause disturbance whether it's a small boat with a propeller or a very heavily laden kayak. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think four foot extensions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Me too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Based on our-- MS. KOLYER: I didn't hear what the plan was. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There were two alternate plans that were submitted tonight. If you would like to come up and take a look. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Board's recommendation on site, on field inspection was to move the float seaward four feet in the same configuration which would be consistent with this one here. MS. KOLYER: I was just asking them why they didn't think this option worked. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't see it staked. It was impossible because of the high water to see the bottom conditions that had been reported to us. MS. KOLYER: Because then you can get two boats in easier. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I suppose we could ask the applicant to stake proposal 1 and proposal 2 and we could visit again at Iow tide? MS. KOLYER: When she said it was 25 feet total from the property line or additional? MS. MESIANO: I said to move it an additional 25 feet, which would cause it to be between 40 and 41 feet from the property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's my recommendation to see this proposal staked, because the Board's feeling, recommendation at the field inspection was that the structure should be moved four feet off the bulkhead. That would provide adequate water depth with the float and for the boat. If the applicant wishes to pursue alternative 1 or alternative 2, I suggest they stake the proposals in the field and we 31 Board of Trustees 32 October 19, 2005 visit the site on November 9th. MS. MESIANO: We did stake the original proposal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We didn't see any stakes in the water on field inspection. MS. MESlANO: They were a little under water at that time. For your information, this is a picture, unfortunately it's not dated but it's obviously at Iow tide. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That could be anywhere. MS. MESIANO: As a matter of fact, I just wanted to bring to your attention too, when I first submitted this application, we had the location staked, and when I inquired as to the timing, et cetera, for the field inspection, I was informed that you did not wish to make a field inspection because you were familiar with the site. So we did have it staked at your first field inspection but no one thought it was necessary to be there. I just find it interesting that the Board has no problem approving the other requests in the basin and every problem approving any request when it comes to either property that is owned by the Zupas. I find it very interesting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do you mean the dock that we approved last month or do you mean the house that we approved for the applicant a couple years ago? MS. MESlANO: The house that took seven months to approve and it took six months and how many lawsuits just to get a written decision out of you? I have to say that your behavior with respect to these clients has not been equal to the behavior and treatment that you have given other applicants. And I have been with this project for over three years now, and I have been working before this Board for 12 years and I've always had respect for this Board and its decisions, and seeing how this matter has morphed into something else, I find it difficult to accept the manner in which this applicant has been treated because it goes on and on and there is nothing about your decisions that is equal or equivalent to other decisions within that same body of water. I felt it was necessary to make that point because I have a problem with not speaking what's on my mind, and let's put it this way, I wouldn't say it behind your back if I wouldn't say it to your face; that's one of my Mesianoisms. You'll have to forgive me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's unfortunate you feel that way. MS. MESIANO: It is unfortunate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: May I finish? Because we don't treat this applicant any better or worse than any other applicant. 32 Board of Trustees 33 October 19, 2005 MS. MESlANO: That's a matter of opinion. TRUSTEE KING: That's your opinion, Cathy. MS. MESlANO: It is. And I think you're entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. I would like thirty seconds to ask the Zupas what they would like to do. Mr. and Mrs. Zupa will accept your decision, reserving their rights to come back for an amendment if the DEC doesn't approve this. If the DEC is not willing to approve what you're willing to approve, they would like the right to come back for an amendment again or if there's insufficient water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. If we approve tonight a four foot extension to your entire structure seaward and the DEC doesn't approve it, we don't have any problem reviewing it again under a different configuration. We just went through that with the last applicant about a dock that we approved last year. The DEC didn't approve it. They came back in, they had extenuating circumstances, and we approved it three feet longer. So we don't have any problem with that at all. MR. ZUPA: This is Victor Zupa. I understand what you're saying, but I don't understand what the difference is between moving the dock out further down the property, which apparently won't cause a problem for our next door neighbor who thinks our boats are too close to her property line, moving it out, I don't know what the total distance is moving the dock out, but it allows easy access to pull in on both sides of the float. We're just moving it down and moving it out. So I don't see what the problem is. And as far as staking, I personally staked it the first time, and I was told take photographs of it just in case somebody moved the stakes, and you weren't interested in coming out because you were familiar with the area. So I'd like to get a resolution. And I think a reasonable resolution is to move the structure down 25 feet from where it is now, put the float out, it's moved out of the way of any other traffic, and allow us to pull two boats in straight away and avoid the difficulties of dredging, which would cause a problem with our bulkhead, and avoid the difficulties of destroying oyster beds and eel grass that is in there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy has a question. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This dock, you have a boat here, you're showing a boat here, where would the other boat be? MR. ZUPA: Tucked in. I'm saying leave this thing out what we have now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But then you're saying you can't tuck a boat in here. 33 Board of Trustees 34 October 19, 2005 MR. ZUPA: This one here. If this is out of the way of what she has here. I don't understand. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: One of Cathy's comments was that it was going to be sitting too close to the shoreline if this was moved out, isn't it going to be sitting in the same area? MR. ZUPA: If you move this out four feet there may be enough water here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand that, but I thought one of the comments of her not accepting our proposal, was that a boat here would be too close to the shoreline; so would it not also be too close to the shoreline in this configuration? MR. ZUPA: I don't know what the distance is on this one. The answer is there's enough depth if this was four feet, that's fine, as long as the ramp faces this way. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KING: What is it from the bulkhead to the seaward edge of the proposed float in the number 2 configuration? MS. MESIANO: That distance is 26. TRUSTEE KING: 10 feet more. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We want to try to reduce this distance here. Mr. Zupa says he only needs two and a half feet. We want to reduce that to consider number two. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Victor and Mary Zupa for an amendment to Permit ~992 to reconfigure the existing structure as to provide adequate depths. We're looking at moving that existing float seaward six feet and reconfiguring it to what we would refer to as alternate number 2 on the plans submitted tonight, and that we would need a cross-section of the structure provided by the applicant, MS. KOLYER: Don't include the 25 feet northward? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's alternate number 2 shows that location. TRUSTEE KING: Second, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES 15. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of STEPHEN SACHMAN requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5820, as issued on October 22, 2003. Located: 4705 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#111-9-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is for a Wetland Permit to replace in-kind/in-place 75 linear feet of existing retaining wall 34 Board of Trustees 35 October 19, 2005 to include the northerly retaining wall as it extends easterly and meets the bulkhead and 4' by 58' wood steps as depicted in the plan prepared by Sea Level Mapping. We were out here two years ago, and I don't know if anybody remembers it, there's no pictures in the file, those really steep steps on the east side of the point, those really steep steps that had that bad retaining wall that was looming. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That huge one? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What did CAC say? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They recommend vinyl sheathing and they disapproved the use of CCA lumber. MS. MESIANO: If I may, I'd just like to clarify one point, I believe the bulkheading on the side of the property it's more of a retaining wall than a bulkhead; that section of the project's been completed. It's just the walkway portion of the application that we would like to renew. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is all they wanted to replace. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the One-Year extension to Permit 5820. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES 16. DEBRA LACHANCE requests a Transfer of Permit 5845 to Sandra Schpoont to Debra LaChance, as issued on December 17, 2003, and a One-Year Extension to Permit 5846. Located: 630 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM#52-2-26. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is a permit for a second floor addition to the existing single-family dwelling with the condition gutters and dry wells are installed to contain the roof runoff, and a staked line of hay bales top of the bluff during construction. I make a motion to approve the Transfer and the One-Year Extension. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, you want to make a resolution on the Scallop Season? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I know we discussed setting the Scallop Season to commence in accordance with state law on November 7, 2005 and the recreational season shall run through November 20, 2005, and commercial as well as recreational season will continue through from November 21, 2005 through December 4, 2005, and then the season will be shut down for juvenile shellfish to survive for the upcoming season of 35 Board of Trustees 36 October 19, 2005 2006. TRUSTEE KING: Just for Hallock's Bay, right? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: For Hallock's Bay, the remaining creeks shall remain open. TRUSTEE KING: You can't shellfish before sunrise that's state law. MR. JOHNSTON: When during that day? We should have a time. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right, midnight. TRUSTEE KING: You can't do anything until sunrise, that's state law. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sunrise November 7th. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES MS. CUSACK: No dredges on Sunday, do you want to put that in there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No dredging on Sundays. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Before we go into the public hearings, we'll recess for five minutes. (Brief recess.) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE TRAVELER-WATCHMAN. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to go off the regular meeting? TRUSTEE KING: I make the motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is the public hearing portion where everyone's allowed to comment. We have 20 public hearings, number 12, Alan Cardinale has been postponed until November; and number 20, Joan MacDonald has been postponed until November. At the end, under Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits, number 1, Angelo Padavan has been postponed until November. Those hearings will not be opened tonight. 1. ALLEN KRAUS requests a Wetland Permit to 36 Board of Trustees 37 October 19, 2005 construct a 28' by 60' single-family dwelling, onsite sewage disposal system and pervious drive. Located: 110 Second Avenue, Peconic. SCTM#67-4-20.6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or against the project? MR. KRAUS: I'm Allen Kraus, it's my project. It's a single-family house, 1,600 plus square feet. Two-thirds house, one-third deck. It's sitting on a slightly less than a half acre lot. It's actually four lots together there. We have been working on this. It's actually a permit that expired and it's reapplying for a permit. The original one was issued in February 2002. I have the DEC permit wetlands, I have a waste water disposal permit, I have a building permit. So this is the last step to build the house. There's a setback from Autumn Pond, which is their 76 foot setback and a buffer. And the plans are not anything other than the building site there. Just the footprint of the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this application? We just received today from the LWRP coordinator, a memo here says the tax map on the survey is incorrect. MR. KRAUS: In what way, did they say? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was the end of that part of it. MR. KRAUS: I don't understand that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is what we received. We don't take any ownership of it. We just received it. It says the structure is located in an AE elevation 11 flood zone, the lowest proposed elevation of the structure is approximately seven foot NGVD. Surface and subsurface hydraulic flow is expected to be towards Second Avenue. The location of the pervious driveway appears to bisect wetland vegetation in an area that a 2001 aerial photo shows also as flooded. Additionally, the driveway is located over a drainpipe not on the subject property. MR. KRAUS: There's a drainpipe that all the driveways go over. It was replaced a few years ago. Every driveway along that side of the street goes over that pipe, which I think is about four, five feet deep. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand the Second -- we were at the site in 2002, and we were at the site last week, also. TRUSTEE KING: I thought that was high ground. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was really high ground. MR. KRAUS: It didn't flood this last week. And the structure's on pilings too. 37 Board of Trustees 38 October 19, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says the location of the pervious driveway appears to bisect wetlands vegetation in the area that the 2001 aerial photographs show also as flooded. We didn't see that. MR. BERRY: Glynis Berry, G-L-Y-N-I-S, B-E-R-R-Y, and this was staked by DEC. And it shows the end of the vegetation, the freshwater wetlands and they marked it, and they approved the existing setback. There's no wetlands here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't see any last week. MS. BERRY: This was staked. MR. KRAUS: It's on the other side of the road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're familiar with the site. We don't understand this. We just got this today. He's looking at an aerial from 2001. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If that, in fact, were the case we would have serious problems, and you would think it would be inconsistent with the LWRP, but that wasn't wetlands vegetation at all on your side of the road. MR. KRAUS: No. It was filled years and years ago. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Really high ground. TRUSTEE KING: It's a road here. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we can make it consistent by saying it's not bisecting any wetland vegetation because there is no actual wetland vegetation on the site, the only reason it's jurisdictional is because there's wetland vegetation off-site, across the road. Maybe he's looking at the tax map on the survey is incorrect. He's saying it's 20.3 and 20.4, and he's saying it's 20.6. MR. KRAUS: I merged it on the tax rolls. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. I think you cleared that up. Is there any other comment? By the way, for the record the CAC recommended approval without any other comment. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: I'll make a motion to approve the application for Allen Kraus for a single-family dwelling, roof drains are on here, I'd like a row of hay bales here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think they're on there also, I thought. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I would put the hay bales on this contour also, because this is going downhill. I would put the hay bales between elevation four and six, more or less on the northern property line. Right now you've got them on the southerly property line, but I think we could change that 38 Board of Trustees 39 October 19, 2005 around. Keep them on the west side, take them out of the south side and add them on the north side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That resolution is made in light that the LWRP consistency review was incorrect in that there's no wetland vegetation on the site and that the Suffolk County tax map appears to be correct. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 2. 40C LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 55' timber walkway 3.5' above grade, a 3' by 14' ramp, and a 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 635 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM#78-7-10. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. VELLI: My name is Marlo Velli, I'm the owner of that property. We had a hearing I guess in June. I had the DEC pending permit. I just got that, and I guess you couldn't vote on that that evening my understanding was because some new law came into effect, and that was the extent of it. And I consulted a few weeks okay, and I was told I had to restake and since then I did provide you with a copy of the DEC permit. I also got the Army Corps of Engineers approved and I guess the Department of State as well. TRUSTEE KING: I'm reading the LWRP. It's been found inconsistent with the LWRP. Goose Creek is listed as a critical environmental area, the 89' length of the proposed dock is inconsistent with the size of the surrounding open walkway or dock structures, property's approximately 35 feet in length, the dock structure to the north of the property is about 35 feet in length. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know what he reviewed there because what we saw that you had staked in the field was consistent with the docks of your neighbors. MR. VELLI: I mean, the stake in the water, it was the one that I never removed. It was still the same one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's our goal there is to -- we're going to address a few other concerns we had there, but as far as the dock is concerned, our goal is to be consistent in this case with the established pier line in the area, which I thought it was. Maybe that doesn't show it. What was staked in the field showed it. MR. YELLI: It's also possible that maybe when you were out we had that big storm and it's possible you couldn't see it. Because the water came up so high. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. Take a look at the picture here. 39 Board of Trustees 40 October 19, 2005 That's the seaward end of the dock. TRUSTEE KING: We had some problems with a mowing that was going on there. MR. VELLI: Yeah, my wife is a landscape architect, she was upset that they cut out all that lavender. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Who did it? MR. VELLh A person we hired. TRUSTEE KING: There's a fence there that we'd like to see removed. We'd like to see a non-disturbance area here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh And they're dumping stuff on the side. If you look in the pictures, they have been dumping. TRUSTEE KING: Over there in the wetlands. MR. VELLI: The previous owner. He had a garden along that edge. We actually cleaned it up when the DEC came, all kinds of rubber and construction material was removed. But yeah, we'll make sure. TRUSTEE KING: You've got two or three big cedar trees across there, we'd like to see no mowing so it naturalizes itself. We don't want to see it mowed. MS. CUSACK: Explain to your landscaper, he's not to mow. MR. VELLI: He's not working for us anymore. There was also beautiful -- he cut all the way up to the edge. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that the dock does not exceed the neighboring dock on either side and try to establish a pier line so nobody's stepping out beyond the next door neighbor. And there should be no disturbance seaward of the three large cedar trees, and the fence is to be removed, the wire fence. I think that covers it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES 3. ROBERT KRUDOP requests a Wetland Permit to construct a rock revetment to cover an area of 5.5' by 125' and plant with spartina patens and spartina alterniflora to help control erosion along the bank. Located: 4650 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#122-4-34 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? MR. KRUDOP: My name is Robert Krudop, I'm the owner of the premises. Just to let you know, I've been in contact with the DEC and a couple of points, some things that they 40 Board of Trustees 41 October 19, 2005 brought to my attention, this filter fabric behind the rocks itself, I don't know if I'm going to use it, reason being I wanted to call Chris Pickerel and discuss it with him before. I wanted it with or without if I could do it pending the DEC permit and what they would approve because they have to work in conjunction, I have to satisfy both you and them. Also, I just wanted to clarify there will be no fill removed or brought in to place the rocks on the bank. It was brought to my attention by the DEC that they wanted to know how much fill was removed or brought in or piped. And when I explained it to her because we spoke over the phone, it was a regrade is the classification I'd like to say. i'm going to grade it so the rocks stay put on the slope, taking out the high and the Iow on the valley, if there's a valley, I just want to slope it up and use the existing material, I'm not looking to bring anything in or remove it in that five and a half foot wide. And also the plans, the spacing, just to let you know the spacing between the plants will be between eight and 12 inches apart also because that has to be added to the permit for the DEC as their requirement. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are there any other comments? Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Just you don't want to use the filter cloth? MR. KRUDOP: I didn't think of it. It was a suggestion by the DEC. TRUSTEE KING: It's a good idea. Those stones aren't going to be knit tight together, so you might have some soil coming through, if you get the filter cloth behind it, it stops it. MR. KRUDOP: Then if you're in agreeance with that, I'll place that in to the DEC as well. TRUSTEE KING: I would use it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll just make note that the CAC recommends approval of the application. Did we discuss the buffer behind the rock? MS. CUSACK: You talked about pulling the buffer area back. MR. KRUDOP: The only place I wasn't going to plant was the pathway going down to the docks that I could see visibly from my house so I could see the ongoings on the ramp because I do have children and they love it. This is to the north of the dock, and I was going to try to plant to the south as well. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there are no other comments, I'll 41 Board of Trustees 42 October 19, 2005 make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll also make a comment that LWRP review is consistent with the policy standards of the LWRP. And I'll make a motion to approve Robert Krudop's request for a Wetland Permit to construct a rock revetment to cover an area of 5.5 foot by 125 foot and plant with spartina patens and spartina alterniflora a 10 foot buffer, with the exception of the pathway to the dock to help control the erosion along the bank, with the addition of filter fabric behind the rocks. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES 4. Rosalie Mangels on behalf of the OLD ORCHARD HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-kind/in-place 5 12" diameter pilings on the existing jetty. Located: South Lane, East Marion. SCTM#38-6-10 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this? As far as the Board, I don't know if anybody else has any comments, but it's very self-explanatory. There's a jetty on the west side of the beach, the piles look like they're dwindling down to tooth picks, they just want to pull them out and replace them. If there are no other Board comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of the Old Orchard Homeowner's Association to replace five 12" pilings on the existing jetty. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES 5. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of JAMES TAPSCOTT requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 8' by 14' shed. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM#9-3-8 TRUSTEE KING: Anybody here to comment on this application? It's a little shed, up very high, absolutely no impact on anything. Anybody here to comment on this application? If there's no comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: It is consistent with the LWRP. I'll make a 42 Board of Trustees 43 October 19, 2005 motion to approve the application. It will have no environmental impact. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES 6. Environmental Survey, Inc. on behalf of JAMES BROWN requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 3' by 64' dock and replace with a 3' by 70' open pile dock in a new location with a 3' by 12' ramp and a 6' by 20' floating dock with two dolphin piles. Located: 170 Oak Street, Cutchogue. SCTM#136-1-52 and 53 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this application? This application has been reviewed as inconsistent by the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think because the location hasn't been designated yet. He reviewed it for LWRP under the original submission, but that's changed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's right. He's going to come back with a new -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We met with the applicant last week and he's going to come back with something. TRUSTEE DICKERSQN: I'll make a motion to table the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES 7. Vicki Toth on behalf of JACK CIPRIANO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, single-family dwelling, sanitary system, and driveway. Located: 8150 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM#87-5-23.6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or against the applicant? All right, this has been staked in the field. We did inspect it. The applicant is going to come in with new plans. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 8. Samuels and Steelman Architects on behalf of WALTER GITLIN requests a Wetland Permit to renovate the existing residence with a first and second floor addition and new on-grade stone terrace and a new garage. Located: 1180 Smith Drive, Southold. SCTM#76-3-12.1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak for this application? MR. SAMUELS: My name is Tom Samuels. I'm the 43 Board of Trustees 44 October 19, 2005 architect for this project and my client Waiter Gitlin is also here basically to answer questions and maybe just to orient you on the project. You were probably down there. It's an existing house mostly within the existing footprint. We are adding on to it, there's a relatively small addition away from the waterside. Half of the house is within your jurisdiction, so almost anything we do especially that is a second floor is within your jurisdiction. I think that's fairly straightforward. The renovations portion of the project, the stone terrace is maybe more of an issue to you because it's obviously within your jurisdiction. It's also nearer to the wetlands than your regulations generally provide, but it is further from the wetlands than the closest point of the existing house. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just had a question, are you still doing the new garage because I didn't find that staked? MR. SAMUELS: We're actually not doing that new garage at the time. I don't know if it matters to you because it's out of your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Conservation Advisory Council recommends the condition of a 20 foot nonturf buffer and a berm and swale are installed on the seaward side of the dwelling. I did notice that near the dock area it's extremely close to the wetland there. Is it being mowed at this time? MR. SAMUELS: It's not. It probably was until Mr. Gitlin was notified that it shouldn't be, but we're certainly aware that it shouldn't be, and any condition of your Board would condition that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would condition it with a 20 foot. MR. SAMUELS: I understand. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Drywells and gutters? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here that would like to speak to this application? Any questions of the Board for the applicant? I didn't have any problems with anything except it needs to be more of a buffer. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This application is also consistent with the LWRP policies. I'll make a motion to approve Samuels and Steelman Architects on behalf of Walter Gitlin to request a Wetland Permit to renovate the existing residence with a first and second floor addition and new on-grade stone terrace with the condition that there be a 20 foot buffer 44 Board of Trustees 45 October 19, 2005 from the wetlands. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 9. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BARBARA & JOSEPH ISABELLA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second story addition over an existing one-story dwelling; remove existing deck and concrete walk, and construct a 10' by 38' deck and two sets of stairs. Located: 1855 West View Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#107-7-6 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the Isabellas. The Board's looked at this property a couple times in the past for other structures. It's very straightforward, second story addition over the existing first story. There's a deck being proposed on the seaward side of the house, the existing wood deck is being removed and a larger deck is proposed in its place. There's also a porch and steps that are proposed on the road side of the house that is beyond the Board's jurisdiction. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. There's also an existing nonturf buffer on that property that was established by one of the prior owners. TRUSTEE KING: Just like to see dry wells for the roof runoff. Never mind, I see it. Okay. I'm familiar with the area. I know where the house is. MR. HERMANN: Probably the third time you've been there. TRUSTEE KING: Pretty straightforward application. I can't see any impact. Any other comments on this application? If no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES 10. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LAUGHING WATERS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to resheath on the landward side approximately 264 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead on the north marina with vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately 65 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source, and remove and replace in-kind/in-place existing 45 Board of Trustees 46 October 19, 2005 shed landward of the bulkhead. Remove and replace (in-place) approximately 226 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead on the south marina with vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately 18 cubic yards sand spoil to be maintenance dredged from most southeasterly boat slip to maximum depth of-4' at Iow water. Remove and replace (in-kind/in-place) existing floating docks attached to existing bulkhead and existing shed landward of the bulkhead. Located: 555 Minnehaha Boulevard, and 2360 Minnehaha Boulevard in Southold. SCTM#87-3-2.1 and 60 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Anyone want to comment on this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann on behalf of En-Consultants on behalf of Laughing Waters Property Owners Association. I know a couple Board members were on the Board seven years ago and you saw this application for maintenance dredging at this site. It has held up actually pretty well. This application is pretty straightforward. It's really just bulkhead repair, landward resheathing at the north marina and in-place with vinyl on the south marina. And the only place where they had a continued problem since the maintenance dredging was done, and that is in that one slip. So we're showing what DEC considers incidental dredging, took 10 feet off that bulkhead in that corner on the south marina just to keep that slip clear. Otherwise the project is pretty straightforward. If the Board has any questions, I can answer them and the president of the association is here. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments on this application? One of our questions the Board has is why so much fill? MR. HERMANN: Why so much fill? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh 60 some yards of fill? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I should mention it the other way, so much backfill? MR. HERMANN: Vic, should I share your more recent picture? This situation with this bulkhead has gotten worse, and it's gotten a lot worse with this past storm. All I did was take a measurement of what the -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's in the south marina. Our concern for fill was in the north marina. How many yards did it call for? 65 yards of fill in the north marina. MR. HERMANN: That's just a calculation from the cross-section. Basically that's a measurement from where the grade was down from the top of the bulkhead and angled back. That's a maximum volume calculation that we show for 46 Board of Trustees 47 October 19, 2005 DEC. If we show 15 yards, and they bring in 20, they get a violation. If they show 60 and they bring in 20, nobody cares. So it's not necessarily the case that they will use that much backfill, it will just be used to top whatever six inches below the back of the bulkhead. It's sloped in that area, Vic, do you care how much you -- it's almost a mathematical consequence of the drawing, that's what that is. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It would be wise for us to stipulate that backfill can exceed a height of no greater than within six inches of the top of the bulkhead. MR. HERMANN: Which is fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And a nonturf buffer behind it. MR. HERMANN: There is a boardwalk that's being proposed also in the north marina, it's the south, I'm sorry. And on the north marina that's about 12 feet that will be backfilled, we could leave that as gravel or whatever you want to do. I don't think you maintain a lawn there anyway, do you? MR. BECK: No, we don't. MR. HERMANN: There's no structures on the property besides the shed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm concerned about the height of the backfill because when we saw the 65 yards, we were -- MR. HERMANN: As I said, that's a -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine as long as we get the height squared away, that's fine. MR. HERMANN: I think if you multiply 233 by 12 by l think by even less than a foot, then you divide by 27 you end up with about 65 yards. It's just a consequence of the sectional. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? Any other Board comments? I'll looking through the LWRP recommendations. I agree with one of their recommendations in that during the dredging, use of a floating turbidity screen during the reconstruction as well as the dredging, so when they're dredging -- MR. HERMANN: Normally you wouldn't set up a silt curtain for dredging that minor, but it would be pretty easy to contain right between the corner of the bulkhead. It wouldn't take much to install that. That's not a problem. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWQDA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland 47 Board of Trustees 48 October 19, 2005 Permit on behalf of Laughing Waters Property Owners Association as written, as applied for with stipulation that the backfill may not exceed the distance less than six inches from the top of the bulkhead, behind the bulkhead, as well as a nontuff buffer of 12 feet in the one location and 10 feet in the other, and as well as a silt screen curtain for construction. MR. HERMANN: And also that area in the south marina behind -- Vic, correct me -- the south marina, there's a lot of that phragmites there that they will replant with native vegetation and that's shown on the plan as well. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Fine. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES 11. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of MATTITUCK ASSOCIATES, INC. requests an Amendment to Permit 5047 to allow for the removal and replacement in-kind/in-place of an existing 12.5' by 14' wood deck behind the bulkhead. Located: 7390 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#126-11-11. TRUSTEE KING: This isn't a public hearing, it's an amendment. I looked at this, it's just what it says. I didn't have a problem with it. I'll make a motion to approve the amendment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 13. lan Crowley on behalf of ROBERT KELLER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace approximately 97' of deteriorated creosote seawall with new vinyl seawall. Existing platform, ramp, and float to be removed and reinstalled following construction. Backfill new wall with 20 cubic yards, clean fill in area 10' behind bulkhead. Re-use existing gravel and stepping stones, plant area behind with Cape American Beach Grass, Bar Harbor Juniper and Rosa Rugosa. Located: 380 Knoll Circle, East Marion. SCTM#37-5-11 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? Is there anyone here who would like to speak against this application? Are there any Board members that would like to make a comment? MR. ANDERSON: I was asked to submit a letter. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is a letter from Joan Egan, I have no objection to Keller/Crowley except that even at that present time Mr. Keller's bulkheading is illegally hooked to 48 Board of Trustees 49 October 19, 2005 my post. Since Mr. Keller is enlarging his home, he will be putting even more weight on bulkheading. I would therefore at this time appreciate it if Mr. Keller would sever his bulkheading from mine as soon as possible. Conservation Advisory Council approves of this application and LWRP shows it consistent with the recommendation that a floating turbidity screen, silt boom during the construction of the structure. MR. CROWLEY: lan Crowley on behalf of Mr. Keller. I have assured Joan that we are not going to touch her bulkhead until she gets the sand out there and sets the pile itself and drill it out herself and makes sure it's done right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would you be agreeable to the silt screen? MR. CROWLEY: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: Is there going to be a return in there? MR. CROWLEY: I don't know. She claims that there was always a natural flow-through. I'm telling her that's not what you want. We're just going to go to the property line with the bulkhead and stop. And then she's proposing to do some work too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We want to make sure they work together. MR. CROWLEY: A bolt has been cut. TRUSTEE KING: Most neighbors, the bulkheads connect to each other. MR. CROWLEY: Hopefully she'll come around. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about a buffer there? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He's going to reuse the gravel. MR. CROWLEY: It's 10 foot on the plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in it favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the permit for Robert Keller requesting to remove and replace approximately 97 feet of deteriorating seawall, existing platform ramp and float to be removed and reinstalled following construction, backfill with 20 cubic yards of clean fill in an area 10' behind bulkhead. Reuse existing gravel and the stepping stones, and plant area behind with appropriate vegetation. And also add to that that there be a floating turbidity screen, silt screen during reconstruction. And I said already a 10 foot buffer. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 14. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on 49 Board of Trustees 50 October 19, 2005 behalf of JOAN EGAN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing facility within subject property by installing timber sheathing bulkhead facility within the subject property by installing timber sheathing 2' by 12" landward of the existing timber sheathing. And securing same with the top cap (2"), clamp (3" by 6") and tie-rod (12") connecting to a deadman (8"/lay-log 8") assembly landward of same. Construction will include the excavation landward of said bulkhead to install the proposed sheathing, and the backfilling of same with the existing excavated material. All activity will occur landward of the existing timber bulkhead facility. Located: 300 Knoll Circle, East Marion. SCTM# 37-5-12 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant, Joan Egan. This is fairly straightforward here. What's happening is the sheathing is failing. In part it's not real bad and in other parts, the idea is to excavate behind the existing bulkhead, reinstall the sheathing, bolt it back through and anchor it properly with the logs and the deadmen. So when that's done you simply just take the material, backfill it back against the existing bulkhead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you, Bruce. It looks straightforward. Anyone else like to comment? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Looking for a nonturf buffer, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: I would suggest if you were to do that, if you see the way it jogs out, you've got that concrete retaining wall. So I would probably create some sort of area maybe 10 feet back from the bulkhead down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be consistent with the neighbor. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bruce, is there a float sitting on that marsh area, was there recently? MR. ANDERSON: Not when I was there. I didn't see it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No other comments. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Joan Egan with the stipulation that there be a 10 foot nonturf buffer created behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 50 Board of Trustees 51 October 19, 2005 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES 15. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of PAUL LONG requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a 38' by 41' two-story frame dwelling on pilings, with a 10' by 32' porch attached to southern side, and to install a new sanitary system. Located: 3945 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. SCTM#123-5-30. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this the application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson from Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of the applicant, Paul Long. Mr. Long is here tonight. What we have is an existing dwelling, I'm sure you saw, with a roofed-over porch, and that dwelling is approximately 1,200 square feet. Plus, the roofed-over area, which is about 275 square feet, and the important thing to note is it's 29 feet from the mean high water line, 22 feet from the bulkhead. The septic system that he has is a nonconforming old cesspool. So what happens here is the house is proposed to be demolished. The new house that would be built would comprise 1,812 feet and be moved back further from the water so it would be 35 feet from mean high water and 28 feet from the bulkhead. Sanitary system as shown on your survey is relocated as far north as you can go, and it relates to the size of the house. And that system would be a proper system suitably elevated above the water table as required by Health Department regulations. The property is served by public water, and when you look at that survey before you, you'll see how it lines up with the adjacent houses on either side and be further back from the water as the houses are. So under those circumstances, we feel that it's an approvable project because the septic system does represent an actual improvement over what's there today, and from the standpoint of elevation above groundwater and also setbacks from wetland, and that the house be moved back is also positive measure of the property. The property is bulkheaded and has been bulkheaded for decades, and there's a small beach area between the bulkhead and the mean high water line. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at it, it's no problem. I just had a question, in part of the application it said will there be any excavation, and it said yes, 2,245 yards to be excavated? MR. ANDERSON: The area is the actual septic and the actual piles, it will be a pile type construction, and the grading 51 Board of Trustees 52 October 19, 2005 on the plans, if you look at the septic system, it actually just does fit so we had to remove soil. TRUSTEE KING: Have you got a copy of the plans? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 134 cubic yards of fill, where would that go? MR. ANDERSON: It's a grading function from the house back. You'll see a seven foot contour that wraps around the septic tank. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. It seems like a lot of material to bring in, that's a tiny lot MR. ANDERSON: The finished grade will be 7-3. I would suggest -- I could have the surveyor look at that again. But the finished grade would be 7-3 in the area of the septic tank because you have to provide for a foot of fill above the top surface of both the septic tank and the leaching pool. The finished grade at around the leaching pool is at 6-5, and if you go up to the corners of the lot, you'll see that six foot contour, you'll see 4.7 at the northeast corner and 5.2 at the northwest corner. So you have to bring some amount of fill just to provide for that foot of required cover over the septic system. And then it has to grade back down to natural grade. So the location of the proposed contours, you see the seven around the septic tank, and you see the six, which is out near the driveway is the Health Department requirements, which caps your slope from the septic leaching field out at five percent, which is a one foot on a one foot drop on the 20 foot horizontal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We get that. We were concerned about runoff onto the neighbor's property. TRUSTEE KING: This lot is quite a bit higher than either lot on either side of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there on Thursday, and our concern is that additional fill is going to affect the neighbors. So could we get a French drain on the sidelines, could we get dry wells and gutters for the roof runoff? MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you going to change the grade of the driveway? MR. ANDERSON: It's slight. Again, you're talking about a foot. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But a foot's a lot there when the property's not even a quarter acre, and the houses, it's pretty cozy location. MR. ANDERSON: What I would suggest to do is take the side lot line and extend it up to the creek and wrap it around with a French drain, and we could capture that, and also go 52 Board of Trustees 53 October 19, 2005 with the dry wells and leaders and that should be calculated at about a two and a half inch rain storm. We can provide you with those designs and calculations. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application, we're going to need to see the French drains on the survey to help alleviate runoff problems, and I'd like to see a row of staked hay bales on the property line on either side to prevent it from going down to the neighbors during construction, because there is quite a bit of change of elevation there between the properties on either side, that way there's not a neighborhood dispute. MR. ANDERSON: Would you like us to put that on the survey as well? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, please. Dry wells for the roof runoff. It's consistent with LWRP, that's fine. I'll make a motion to approve the application with those conditions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 16. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of SIM MOY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, attached rear deck, pervious driveway, retaining wall and sanitary system. Located: 750 West Lake Road, Southold. SCTM#90-2-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson of Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant, Sim Moy. This application was filed last spring, and we had at our first hearing, May 20th, a request from this Board that a groundwater study be conducted on the site. That study was conducted and submitted on August 15th, and what it comprises as you know, monitor wells, five around the periphery of the site, one in the actual location of the septic system. The purpose of that was to determine the direction of groundwater flow, and we also did an analysis of the flow itself, and the breakdown principles, vertical and horizontal movement through the site. The site itself as you know, it's a small site, we have a small house proposed on a small lot here, and it is out on the end of the peninsula. The basic findings are that substantially all of the nutrients, the 53 Board o£Trustees 54 October 19, 2005 filtration and the septic reduction processes take place in the earthen layer beneath the leaching pools and above the groundwater table. And that the direction of groundwater flows to the south and to the southwest. And we provide you with data to support that, and also estimates of how long it takes to get where it goes. The import of that is that the material leaches into the areas that are the best flushed areas, so you're not entrapping nutrients within a semi-enclosed system, that being West Lake. What we're left with, of course, is this house. It would have the raised septic system. I don't know of any other raised septic systems in the area; although, I do believe the property on the other side of the inlet is higher, and that suggests to me that probably what you have here is a system of old pre-existing, nonconforming homes with pre-existing nonconforming septic systems, few of which would comply with the separation distances between the bottom of the leaching pool and the groundwater. So this is a better septic system than most likely what you have throughout the neighborhood. We also have provided an aerial photograph showing the site and the house, which will give you an idea of how that house fits into the neighborhood with size and placement demonstrating what it would it would look like when it's done, fairly accurate. The other thing to understand is that in that port, since we had to sink test wells for each of those five test wells, they're also well logs included in each one which will give you a soil profile across and throughout the property, and what you're doing with very good leaching material for the most part is comprised of sand. Really I'm here to answer any questions you may have. I know Medin Wiggins is here on behalf of West Lake Association, and I discussed this matter with him earlier today. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? MR. WlGGIN: Merlin Wiggin, Peconic Association on behalf of West Lake Association. I'd like to point out as far as the application is concerned, this is on an approved subdivision approved in 1929. It shows copies of West Lake right of way, and I think the application to show that right of way accurately. So you have a better idea of where it is, how it might impact the site. Also, there was covenants and restrictions when Southold approved that subdivision. They include, quote, no dwellings should be erected or maintained on said plot 54 Board of Trustees 55 October 19, 2005 within 20 feet of Peconic Bay and so forth, the best I can determine, legally are administered and controlled by the association themselves. So as far as the Trustees are concerned, why do you proceed on this until you know that the applicant meets the covenants and restrictions. I think you'll just end up in a battle and you don't become part of it. Also, the driveway of the applicant is shown using the right of way, and there's no approval has been given by the association allowing that. You can see on the subdivision map. And that right of way is 33 feet and goes all the way down on each property right down to the bulkhead. I think it would be in the applicant's best interest to resolve that before you take up the time with the Trustees. And I think that's a suggestion both to the applicant, Bruce, and to the Trustees. Also, I'm sure that Brace realized that the Health Department is going to have a lot of say when it comes to that sanitary system. And I think the Trustees have an idea of what the Health Department is going to say about it before you spend a lot of time making your time more efficient, not that you wouldn't like that. I circled the lot, number 119 on the subdivision map. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm sorry, Merlin, how does that correspond to the survey? MR. WlGGIN: The right of way doesn't. The raised elevation on the sanitary system, that boundary is right on the right of way near as I can tell and go out 33 feet more to the west, and that would go all the way in a straight line right to the bulkhead on inlet channel. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand, why would that be a problem? MR. WlGGIN: The jurisdiction of the right of way belongs to the West Lake Association, and they would have right of review and approval if someone wants to use it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wouldn't they be able to use it if they were part of the association if they own a lot there? MR. WlGGIN: If they want to put a driveway, a water main, they need to ask. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can the applicant answer those questions? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. The first point missing from your package is the deed from the right of way, what he simply gives you is a copy of the subdivision map. To my knowledge there is no deed. The right of way may be maintained to some degree by an association of which Mr. Moy would be a member anyway because you must understand his house is right 55 Board of Trustees 56 October 19, 2005 next door. The second thing is I'm unaware of any deed for that that would declare this particular entity an owner. The third thing is I will hand up a map that was done by Roderick VanTuyl which shows that West Lake Road, and you'll note the meets and bounds of description of the north property line fronting that right of way matches that meets and bounds description of the same lot line shown in the survey before you. It is true that Suffolk County Department of Health Services will have a say in that application because the Health Department regulations do require septic systems to be 100 feet from surface waters, and we're less than 100 feet from surface water. However, as you're probably well aware, the application before that Health Department is pending and remains incomplete until such time as wetlands permits are obtained. Well, the Health Department will get their say but their say will come after your say. The important thing to understand about this business with the right of way and whether or not the West Lake Association could somehow impede someone to get to their lot, that is on its face preposterous, and we know that because this lot was created as lot 119 of the same subdivision. This lot is shown on the filed map before you. So this was a building lot created with frontage on a right of way, so that the right of way could be used to access this lot. I am confident that there is nothing West Lake Association can do to prevent Sim Moy from accessing her property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to ask our legal counsel to give us a very brief analysis. MR. JOHNSTON: I would have to read the deeds and other material. It's too complicated at 20 to 11:00. MR. ANDERSON: I would counsel you not to be the covenant or watchdog organization for whatever filed map and a right of way or road created as part of that filing. I don't think you want to be in the middle of that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. But if it's fairly obvious, we could get a decision and move on. If it's sort of -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Fuzzy? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you - fuzzy. MR. ANDERSON: I will say this as well this might interest you, that this property, that this application will also find its way to the Zoning Board and in the town of Southold, the front lot line will be the right of way because in the absence of the street, if you check the zoning code, the front lot line is the lot line adjoining an 56 Board of Trustees 57 October 19, 2005 accessed right of way. So we will be heading to the variance board, and I'm sure that will be a topic of discussion when we get there. What I have told Merlin are those types of issues are probably best determined by a zoning board in a context of a zoning setback and variance application that this Board whose primary concerns relates to what isn't. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I'll make a motion to table the application so we can review submitted information. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you have a copy of the deed that says here it's enclosed with the package that Merlin gave you? And do you have a copy of the covenants and restrictions that this piece of paper says was enclosed? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know. MR. JOHNSTON: Have you supplied that to us, Merlin? MR. WIGGIN: I just excerpted the one paragraph that had to do with the right of way. MR. JOHNSTON: There's a letter dated October 12th, says Board of Trustees, Southold from Landowners Abstract Company. It says copy of deed enclosed and covenants and restrictions enclosed. I just want to make sure that if we're going to do any analysis that we have those documents. Is there more to the letter that was addressed to the Trustees? Is this just the first page of the multi-page letter? MR. WIGGIN: Yes. Well, no, the letter is complete, but the attachment -- MR. JOHNSTON: Nobody signed the letter and it doesn't like normally at the end of the letter you'd say sincerely yours and sign the name to show that it's at the end of the letter. MR. WlGGIN: The next page is signed by Don M. Quinn. MR. ANDERSON: It says anyone looking to take street should be getting permission from the association as we own the street. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't want to analyze it right now. We want all the information so we can analyze it at a later date. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 17. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of ROBERT FOX c/o KIMOGENOR POINT CO. requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 151' of existing timber bulkhead situated along the northern shoreline of subject property, extend the western terminus of the bulkhead by 6' and extend the eastern terminus of the 57 Board of Trustees 58 October 19, 2005 bulkhead by 6', both with vinyl sheathing. Construct an additional Iow-sill vinyl sheathing bulkhead off the northern shoreline measuring 145' and measuring 1.75' in top elevation. Deposit 100 cubic yards of clean fill within the section of the property directly to the north of the existing frame building to match the top elevation of the bulkhead (4.0' EL). Deposit 40-50 cubic yards clean fill where necessary along the landward side of the proposed Iow-sill bulkhead and the edge of the existing vegetation therein to provide a more uniform grade, and actively vegetate this area with spartina alterniflora planted on 6" on center. Located: Kimogenor Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#116-6-24.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because of the high tide situation we were untable to review the site, I'll make a motion to table that application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES MR. ANDERSON: I have one comment to make on that because when we were here last I did take the opportunity to meet with Mark Terry, and he's unaware of the wetlands marsh, I was making another submission to him and he's going to be revising his letter regarding the consistency review. The second quick point is that there is an apparent conflict wherein as I understand the code allows us to use the fiberglass or vinyl sheathing also used in the CCA piles, Mark was saying that any use of any CCA is inconsistent with the plan. So we have a wetlands process that is now in conflict with the LWRP. The best I can figure is we can do some sort of a cross analysis. He wants us to use oak, the piles are CCA. I know it's permitted in the wetlands codes. It is apparently not permitted in the LWRP because the town or the state, the town with the state, declared that creek a critical environmental area, kicking in that standard. So we'll get to the bottom of that. The third thing, which is really important, when you're going out there, the purpose of looking at this at Iow tide is that we have been telling you that the loss of the intertidal marsh, the spartina altemiflora marsh is caused by the sloughing off of the bog in that area, that's why you want to be out there at Iow tide. When you go out there, hopefully you get a Iow tide. We didn't have any Iow tide last week, I realize that. You're going to be looking at that bog and saying to yourself is this in fact sloughing it off, and I think you will conclude as we have that that's precisely what happened. 58 Board of Trustees 59 October 19, 2005 18. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of GREGERSEN'S KEEP, LLC-LOT 1 requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, pervious driveway, deposit 700 cubic yards of clean fill from an upland source and maintain the existing wood frame and canvas building within subject property. Located: Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-3-12.6 & 12.7 19. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of GREGERSEN'S KEEP, LLC-LOT 2 requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and attached garage, Attached terrace off the southeastern corner of subject dwelling, an attached terrace off the northeastern corner of subject swelling, gazebo, pervious driveway, deposit 1,200 cubic yards of clean fill from an upland source within subject property. Located: Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-3-12.6 & 12.7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. There's a letter from Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner. This is about Gregersen's Keep. "It has been brought to the Planning Board's attention that the applications before the Board of Trustees to construct residences and accessory structures on the above-referenced properties. The Trustees should be aware that these lots don't exist because the Planning Board has not yet approved this subdivision application, which remains pending at this time. In addition, according to our records, the Health Department has not issued an approval of proposed subdivision. "It is our understanding that the Trustees normally do not issue permits on lots before the Planning Board has approved a subdivision. In addition, it appears that the development proposals currently before the Trustees are different than what is shown on the proposed subdivision map. Therefore, the Planning Board is requesting that the Trustees hold-off on making any decisions until the subdivision has received final approval." Mr. Anderson, would you like to comment on that? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. It's a technical point you keep raising because the map has not yet been filed. The meets and bounds description of the lots will remain, and those meets and bounds descriptions are not created so much by the Planning Board but the Zoning Board, who granted a variance to subdivide the lots in the fashion that they are subdivided. So each of those lots are not going to change. What I believe he's talking about are simple map notations that wouldn't ordinarily appear on individual 59 Board of Trustees 60 October 19, 2005 surveys anyway. But the Board may wish to table it pending that, but at the same time we're available to go through any of the environmental issues you may have because nothing really is going to change as a result of the actions of the Planning Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Absent our legal counsel, I would recommend we could open it. We visited the site. We have the applicant here. We might as well get some issues out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. WITT: My name is Richard Witt. I own the property directly adjacent, 1800 Gull Pond Lane. It's a four acre piece. It's vacant on the survey, it says it's a dwelling, but it's actually vacant. First I want to say hello to the Trustees of the Town. This is a new town, I just moved here. I was raised in Amagansett on the south fork. I had a good working relationship with the Trustees and God bless them, they saved a lot of the south fork, although it turned to a place that I just didn't want to live any more. So since I started my career here in Greenport on Front Street, I decided to come up here, kind of just continue the fight that I used to be doing with the Trustees on the south fork. Gregersen's Keep the Lot 1 and the Lot 2, I'm sure you've been down to take a look at it. It used to be one piece of property. There was actually in order for the sale, we had to propose a building that fit on there fine without destroying the Trustees, without asking for any variances, without anything. Dividing it into two lots, as we see, creates a lot of difficulty. There's like 1,900 cubic yards of fill here. It's one of the few beaches on Gull Pond not bulkheaded where turtles come up, swans come up, geese come up, mallards come up, a lot of birds use the beach. There is a couple of problems. There is a very misleading survey -- and I'm going to file a letter off to the Zoning Board of Appeals, because the survey, I talked to Mr. Metzgar yesterday, and he said it was an omission, but it really wasn't an error -- because if you look at Lot 1 and nobody points out to you, it almost looks like that dock belongs to Lot 1. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes, it does. MR. WITT: No, it doesn't, that's my dock. As a matter of fact, this is a right of way. This is my right of way down to that dock. I have it on my survey, if you would like to 60 Board of Trustees 61 October 19, 2005 see my survey. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you're north of Lot 17 MR. WITT: Yes. I also wasn't informed of Lot 2. This is the right of way, I have these four acres, and I have these four acres; this is what I've constructed on these four acres so far, but this four acres abuts the property, and this is my right of way. See now, when the Zoning Board of Appeals got this, and they said look how easily we can subdivide this. It looks like each piece has a dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It sure does. MR. WITT: All right, now the Trustees have to realize if this goes through, this little piece of property is the only piece of property on Gull Pond that does not have a dock, and when it sells it will sell for a million plus, guaranteed, and whoever spends that amount of money will go through the legal expense to have a dock built there, whatever it takes. The Planning Board by doing this is throwing a can of worms at you guys. All of a sudden there are 2,000 cubic yards of fill, there's going to be another dock put in here. I just think it's way too much for the property, personally. Me, where I am, I'm not going to see the house, but I'm speaking for everything else that's on Gull Pond. I don't think you should have another dock there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're familiar with this. We had discussions with the past owner. We had discussions with the current owner about the beach and how to stabilize the shoreline without putting in bulkheading, so that's a big concern of ours, and I think we're pretty clear on that. MR. WITT: The previous owner bringing in fill, did he ever ask; did you ever decline him? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, we never discussed the fill yet. I assume -- MR. WITT: I think that's how the Zoning Board of Appeals assumed. They looked at it and said, look how we can divide this up, it's perfect. He owns here (indicating). This is my right of way. Deeded to this piece of property and this piece of property. She has a dock, that's how Gull Pond was laid out. TRUSTEE KING: There's no right of way indicated on the survey. MR. WITT: And now there's the Planning Department is now actually trying to subdivide a subdivision. MR. ANDERSON: Just to clarify, there's a world of difference between having a right of way and owning fee title. The fact that there is a right of way to the dock 61 Board of Trustees 62 October 19, 2005 gives this fellow a right to get to the dock to use the dock. He does not own. Janice, would you please tell -- MS. CLAUDIO: Janice Claudio, Gregersen's Keep. This issue was brought up on Monday, and Pat Moore made it very clear that the right of way is irrevocable as long as the beneficiary of the right of way doesn't specifically waive it by written letter. And as Mr. Witt has said, it is an omission on the map, but no more than that, and the right of way is always detailed in such that if he had written and waived his way to the right of way, which no one has asked, anticipated, expects, thinks, so the right of way is legally his, remains his, as was addressed on Monday. MR. WITT: But that's not my point. My point is the way the survey is drawn, even you said -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We get it. MR. WITT: The problem is not that I'm going to lose my right of way. I know I'm not going to lose my right of way. The problem is there's an obviscation on the drawing that anybody who looks at this, including the Zoning Board of Appeals, unless it was pointed out to them, would assume that each piece of property has a dock. They would not assume that the new piece of property would require a dock to fit in with the neighborhood because then the argument would be, everybody else has a dock why don't I. MR. ANDERSON: The answer is simple. We spoke to the surveyor, the surveyor said it was an omission; the right of way would be added to the survey. MR. WlTT: I just wanted to point that out because I don't want an assumption being made that that dock belongs to the property. I know by drawing it like this is not going to remove my dock, unless it's noted you will assume that that dock belongs to that piece of property and pass the subdivision because of that error; do you understand what I'm trying to say? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you have a permit for that dock? MR. WlTT: I bought it with the property. It came with the property. The thing is on the map it looks like by subdividing it's very easy because everybody has a dock, it doesn't show that you're creating a parcel without a dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the permit for the dock is in your name? MR. WITT: Yes, mine and Henry Clinton. It's on my deed. I just don't want any false assumptions. I'm not afraid of losing the dock. I know that's not going to happen. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Brown, am I tabling this to leave open until we hear from the Planning Board's decision? 62 Board of Trustees 63 October 19, 2005 MR. JOHNSTON: That would be most appropriate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't we resolve any other issues we have on the site. So that when the Planning Board -- when would the Planning Board be making this decision? MS. CLAUDIO: November 7th. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So we have all the interested parties here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: One of the concerns we had was the fill, which you brought up; the other we were talking about decreasing the decks so we could get as much of a buffer. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends a 50 foot nonturf buffer, a berm and swale installed on the seaward side of the dwelling and trees on the property to remain as part of the landscaping plan. Those were just some of the other comments that had come up during the review. MR. ANDERSON: This deck is about 80 feet from the wetlands boundary. That's how big the deck is now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's probably talking about Lot 2. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Lot 2 is 75. Wait, 75, 67 and 63, which I think went from Lot 2. MR. ANDERSON: Are we talking about Lot 1 or Lot 2? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Lot 2 was closer, Lot 1 was set way back. It's Lot 2 that was closer. MR. ANDERSON: Lot 1 is set back 80 feet, Lot 2 is set back 75 feet, and then Lot 2, the wetland boundary is the high water line because there's no wetland vegetation below the escarpments. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On Lot 2 on the survey it has 100 then 75 underneath it. MR. ANDERSON: Hundred goes to the house and 75 goes to the deck. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's from way out -- TRUSTEE KING: Beach area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Ithink we measured it from high water. MR. ANDERSON: The high water mark here is determined by the surveyor, and that is no dispute that that's the wetlands. I'll look at whatever photo you have and compare to the photos we have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So where would you start there, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: If we're going to table it anyway. I can send the surveyor out to locate mean high water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We measured both lots. MR. ANDERSON: Talking mean high water. (Discussion.) MS. CUSACK: Bruce, they're going from vegetation, not mean 63 Board of Trustees 64 October 19, 2005 high water. MR. ANDERSON: If you look the way it was flagged, we didn't omit that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We measured Lot 1. MR. ANDERSON: Here's Lot 2. Really easy to do. MS. CUSACK: Try to keep it in line with the house next door. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The second thing is how are they going to contain the runoff because it's filled right to the property? MR. WlTT: Right now the end of Gull Pond Lane floods during the rain. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Most of that property is pitched back, which we kind of like because it's not flowing into the creek. MR. WlTT: I know. At one point I don't want it to go onto Gull Pond Lane, unfortunately, it's going to come onto my right of way or just come to the end of Gull Pond. Because right now it's nice it's pitched back, nothing runs back into Gull Pond. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's simple, French drain it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Very similar situation to the Mahalias in Southold. He had to come up with a drainage plan for his property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have another question, how much buffer, nonturf buffer?. MR. ANDERSON: We're showing 25 right now. MS. CUSACK: We were looking at 50. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you propose for that buffer? MR. ANDERSON: At some point we were going to come back with a planting plan. I was discussing with the applicant, what we're probably going to do is come back with a native planting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Specially on Lot 1, where you have that -- the Second lot, Lot 2, once you get above that artificial berm it's a more unnatural situation, you couldn't imagine, just dirt there. But that first lot, you have that area that drops off down towards the dock should be naturalized. I think that's more sensitive. Lot 2, once you go up the hill it is what it is. MR. ANDERSON: Planting plan for Lot 17 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Lot 2 also, but I don't think it's as critical, once you get up here, it is what it is. But on Lot 1, the setbacks on Lot 1 I don't think we have an issue with. We measured everything. It's set well back. Our setbacks are 100 feet that's our maximum jurisdiction. 64 Board of Trustees 65 October 19, 2005 MR. WITT: So you're allowing them to come into your jurisdiction. If it wasn't subdivided you wouldn't have to allow them anything, just goes in there perfectly without having to bend any laws. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's -- MR. WITT: I know that's up to the Planning Board. But you as Trustees to protect the water -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We allow a lot of things in our jurisdiction. MR. ANDERSON: We're within your jurisdiction, so we made an application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS 1. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of D. CLAYS BAHRENBURG requests a Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a docking facility consisting of a 4' by 79' fixed elevated catwalk, 3.5' by 15' hinged ramp and a 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 220 Bay Avenue, Orient. SCTM#24-2-21 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at this last not last month, the month before, we were out there in September. MS. CUSACK: We were there a long time. MR. ANDERSON: This was tabled last time because you didn't have an LWRP review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now you do. MR. ANDERSON: What does it say? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Proposed action is inconsistent and it's got a laundry list of numbers and letters, I'm not going to read them all. MR. ANDERSON: When did this arrive because it wasn't here yesterday? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Today. And you didn't review it? MR. ANDERSON: Table this for another month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't know what any of these numbers mean, so I can't say. So, I'll make a motion to table the application until the applicant reviews the LWRP consistency report. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 2. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of LEWIS and HELAINE 65 Board of Trustees 66 October 19, 2005 TEPERMAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing beach house. Located: 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM#21-2-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? Would the Board like to comment? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision on this. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES (Time ended: 11:10 p.m.) 66