The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-09/21/2005Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:00 PM Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Cusack, Environmental Technician RECEIVED ~AN - 5 Z006 uthold To~n ClerE CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Thursday, October 13, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES I. MONTHLY REPORT: For August, 2005, a check for $9,747.88 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 September. Before we start, we'll introduce the Board Members, Ken Poliwoda, Peg Dickerson, Jim King, Lauren Standish, Artie Foster, Brownell Johnston, our legal Board of Trustees 2 September 21, 2005 advisor, Heather Cusack, our environmental technician. There's a few things before we start, we'd just to like to go over for public information. Jim, could you go over some legislative changes in the legal agenda that we have had? TRUSTEE KING: We have a pretty active agenda, just to give you a brief rundown on it. In 2002 to 2003 we've done some drafts of the Chapter 97 Wetland Code. In 2003 to 2005, we're going to be working on Mooring and Anchorage Law. In March of 2004 the new Chapter 97 was enacted. In 2005 we have been working on changes to the Shellfish Code, drafting technical changes to Chapter 37, Coastal Erosion. We've made revisions to 97, enacted new revisions to 97, it's kind of like a document that's continually going to be upgraded. We're doing draft revisions to Chapter 32, which is Boats, Docks and Wharfs and we're hoping for enacting of revisions of Chapter 77 in 2006. Right now we're working on Mooring and Anchorage Law, that's going to take a while and we're also looking for revisions to Chapter 32. We have a pretty busy agenda; we're kind of struggling through things that haven't been worked on for a while. That's it. We've got to schedule some public information hearings too that Al will tell you about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will have two public hearings on the changes to Chapter 97, October 11th at 5:00 in this room, we will have changes, public hearings, and any final comments on the technical changes that were made to Chapter 97, and also a second hearing on Chapter 37 on those changes. We have had two meetings on new Chapter 34 Mooring Code; then we had one meeting with the yacht club so far, and after tonight I think we'll schedule another meeting on the Mooring Code to keep that code work moving along on that. Then we don't have a scheduled meeting yet. We're working on changes, actually a total rewrite for Chapter 77, Shellfish. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Lewis L. Grace R. Edson -- SCTM#90-2-26 Lewis L. & Lefferts P. Edson -- SCTM#90-2-27 Grace R. Edson ~- SCTM#90-2-28 Otto Ferchau -- SCTM#115-5-4&5 James Brown -- SCTM136-1-52&53 John & Joy Gallagher -- SCTM#37-5-4 D. Claeys Bahrenburg -- SCTM#24-2-21 Joseph & Therese Ciampa -- SCTM#70-10-56 John & Madha Watts -- SCTM#24-2-8 Bart & Pat Johnson -- SCTM#37-5-7 William Kelsey-- SCTM#128-6-2 Alex Wipf -- SCTM#103-13-7 Cove Cottage Co., LLC -- SCTM#10-11-2 Thomas J. Gorman -- SCTM#121-4-23 2 Board of Trustees 3 September 21, 2005 Robert Fox c/o Kimogenor Point Co. -- SCTM#116-6-24.1 Shirley Tuthill -- SCTM#107-4-12 Audrey Wigley -- SCTM#139-1-22 Board of Trustees 4 September 21, 2005 Lewis L. Edson -- SCTM#17-1-2.2 Joanne & William Turnbull -- SCTM#52-1-1 Kevin & Doreen Barr -- SCTM#81-1-20 Victor & Mary Zupa -- SCTM#81-1-13.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have a number of items that I will not read that are on the agenda. Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold that the following applications more fully described in the public hearing of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, September 21, 2005 are classified as Type 2 actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations are not subject to review under SEQRA. TRUSTEE KING: Second TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES IV. RESOLUTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS 1. J. R. Holzmacher, P.E. on behalf of ELLEN LEVIN WlEDERLIGHT requests an Administrative Permit to rebuild existing portion of central building with addition of 80' by 18' second story and for the existing deck proposed construction will be on the existing foundation. Located: 58775 Route 48, Greenport. SCTM#44-2-22 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 2. rlh Land Planning Services, Inc. on behalf of PRINCIPI PROPERTIES, LLC requests an Administrative Permit to demolish the existing building leaving in place the existing foundation. Located: 64300 Main Road, Southold. SCTM#56-7-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to add to that conditions to that permit that will be before demolition takes place there will be a staked row of hay bales at the top of the bulkhead and on the landward side of the hay bales snow fence put up to contain material during demolition and then construction. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES RESOLUTIONS--MOORING & ANCHORAGE/STAKES/DUCK BLINDS: 1. CARL VAIL requests an Amendment to Duck Blind Permit 3998 to include the name of Eugene Burger on the permit. Located: West Creek. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Recuse myself on that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aye. Board of Trustees 5 September 21, 2005 TRUSTEE KING: Aye. 2. BILL ESPOSlTO requests a Mooring Permit in Deep Hole Creek for a 22' boat, replacing Mooring #135. Access: Private. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Al, on resolutions, do you want to comment now on the Shellfish resolution? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At the end. VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: These are not public hearings and we try to go through these rather quickly, so if anyone has any comment, please be ready. 1. AUDREY WlGLEY requests an Amendment to Permit 995 for the existing 4' by 48' fixed dock, 2.5' ramp, and two 6' by 20' floating docks, and to transfer Permit 995 from Mariano J. Cassata 1o Audrey Wigley. Located: 535 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#139-1-22. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this last month. One of the floats was larger than was allowed on the permits. I didn't have a problem with any of it. One of the existing floats was larger than it was supposed to be so they downsized it back down to a 6' by 20' float. So I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 2. PETER COWAN requests an Amendment to Permit #6165 to move the location of the proposed in-ground swimming pool approximately 3' closer to the house and away from the wetlands. Located: 435 Mockingbird Lane, Southold. SCTM#55-6-15.57 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's self-explanatory, I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 3. JOHN & JOY GALLAGHER request an Amendment to Permit 5745 to add a 2'8" by 10' foot ramp and a 6' by 20' floating dock to the existing fixed dock. Located: 730 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM#37-5-4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We want to turn that float and make a 5' by 16' float. Is the applicant here? MR. MADSEN: Larry Madsen, Gardiner's Bay Estates, chairman and member of the board. We had a meeting Sunday and this was brought up. We disapprove of putting this in at this time. We have already 5 Board of Trustees 6 September 21, 2005 applied for permits. If your inspectors saw it, they should have said something that his dock would have cut off our main dock. TRUSTEE KING: That's why we suggested turning the float rather than going straight out with that. MR. MADSEN: We're moving our docks. Costello has put in for permits last June to the Army and the DEC. The Army say it is minor and they will issue a letter of permission. DEC hasn't gotten back to us on the final permit, but has approved the plans so far. I have the plans here if you want to put a copy in the file. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're talking about the adjacent dock, correct? We have a picture we're referring to. MR. MADSEN: Our dock is going to be moved over 46 feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this you here? MR. MADSEN: Yes. We're moving that further south 46 and a half feet, and in place of this, it's still going to be a 30 foot float straight in and straight out, no turning, and that's the problem with this. Here's the final permits. It's the one that's going to be moved over, and we're going to add this. This should not be in the way of what he's going to do. TRUSTEE KING: Our recommendation was instead of him going straight was to turn it this way. MR. MADSEN: That way he loses a slip. We haven't decided what we're going to approve. Here is our letter to Gallagher. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll let you read that to the Board. MR. MADSEN: "At the Gardiner's Bay Estate Homeowner's Association semi-annual board meeting yesterday, we agreed 12 to 1 that as of this date we cannot give our permission for you to extend your dock into Spring Pond. We own the bottom and we can stop it. "When we receive final approval and complete construction of our proposed new slips on Fox Island, we will then have another board meeting to decide what we're going to do. If we don't receive approval for which we applied in June of 2005, the proposed dock extension would block access." That's the gist of it. Do you want this letter? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please. So as owners of the underwater land, they object. They would have a say in it. TRUSTEE KING: I would assume. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Madsen, I think we'll table this until we get some further resolution on what the community wants to do there. MR. MADSEN: Once we get our permits from the DEC, then we go to you with that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE KING: Second. Board of Trustees 7 September 21, 2005 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES MRS. EGAN: I'm Joan Egan from East Marion, and these floating docks have caused problems down there before, so I'd be very careful about issuing any permit there. A lot of people put these floating docks in and they don't put enough of the undersiding in it and it comes off and it has caused a lot of problems. So please be very careful. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. 4. LESLIE GAZZOLA requests an Amendment to Permit 4960 for a 10 year maintenance permit to continue dredging the canal. Located: 495 Elizabeth Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-5-2 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. CHERYL HANSEN requests an Amendment to Permit #4961 for a Ten-Year Maintenance Permit to continue dredging the canal. Located: 445 Elizabeth Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-5-3 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve that also. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES 6. WILLIAM KELSEY requests an Amendment to Permit #5848 to spread excavated soil from the basement down the bank to be graded under the existing stairway down the bank to the beach. Located: 4000 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck. SCTM#:128-6-2 TRUSTEE KING: It says to the beach, but it's from the bulkhead. I looked at this, this was a house renovation where they put a new foundation under the house, a little bit of sand left over. They've got a little problem with erosion on this side of the stairway in the bank and the level of the sand behind the bulkhead is about 18 inches Iow. They want to take this sand, they're going to fill in this section here, grade this out, and I recommend they plant beach grass, and she wants Bayberry plantings around the back. I thought it was pretty good. I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 7. ALEX WIPF requests an Amendment to Permit #6024 to increase the height of the retaining wall from 1' to 18" and rebuild the steps down to the beach to accommodate the 18" height and to install a 9.5' step in front of the wall. Located: 940 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#103-13-7 7 Board of Trustees 8 September 21, 2005 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this. The wall had been raised 18 inches. Because of the runoff they want to raise the steps in front of it. The only thing I would recommend be put in the permit is that the right and left of the steps that it be revegetated with native plantings because of the work there is some runoff problems there, and they agreed to that on site. I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 8. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of PAUL MALONEY requests an Amendment to Permit #6130 to remove and replace the existing 4' by 25' catwalk in-kind/in-place and install access stairs at the offshore end. Located: 1020 Goose Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-8-3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I saw this in the office. I don't know if anyone else took a look at this. This is a permit that we issued a couple of months ago, in May. It was that little inshore channel at Goose Creek, the DEC wanted them to modify the permit so we issued a permit for -- a permit was never issued. But this is what the DEC recommended. I think that would be appropriate instructions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The 4' by 25' catwalk and with the condition that the fence be removed and never be replaced parallel to the creek. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 9. Garrett A. Strang, Architect, on behalf of JOSEPH & THERESE ClAMPA requests an Amendment to Permit 5667 to remove the existing rock wall and wire fence, replant designated area, trim phragmites to height of one foot each year, and for the existing jet ski float at the end of the dock. Located: 650 Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM#70-10-56 TRUSTEE KING: CAC tabled it because the gate was locked and denied them access on to the property. We looked at this. I think we're in agreement with everything except the jet ski float. We want to see that removed. The rest of it is okay. I'll make a motion to approve the amendment with the removal of the jet ski float. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES MR. STRANG: Garret Strang representing the Ciampas. Just a question with respect to we know that the jet ski dock is there and wasn't part of the original permit. Is there any way in which that can be approved? Is there a way or is there something that's palatable to the Board to have something like that? 8 Board of Trustees 9 September 21, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Only if he incorporated it into his float. In other words, took part of his 6' by 20' float and made it into a jet ski float. Because we have had problems in the past with the jet ski floats, they kind of add on and they build up. We've never allowed one as an add-on. MR. STRANG: So if it's incorporated into the 6' by 20', as long as it doesn't exceed that 6' by 20'? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Some people have done that. They make like a ramp and pull up on that. MR. STRANG: Is that something you could write, put on to the resolution that would be an acceptable compromise? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure make amend the float to accommodate -- TRUSTEE KING: The existing float, the 6' by 20' float could be retrofitted so it could be used also for the jet ski as long as it doesn't exceed the size that it is now. MS. CUSACK: But we would have to get some kind of plans to approve when we write up the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Give us a plan right of way. MR. STRANG: Conditional. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 10. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of VICTOR AND MARY ZUPA requests an Amendment to Permit 4992 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. 365 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1-13.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Board took a look at this and what we recommended was instead of a reconfiguration, because there was a road runoff problem there in the past that we believe has been corrected, limited dredging at the site to accommodate the necessary water depth. The Board recommended, because there had been a runoff problem there that has since been corrected that contributed some siltation to that area, the Board recommended a limited amount of dredging under and around that dock to accommodate the dock and the boat instead of reconfiguring the structure itself. MS. MESIANO: That still doesn't solve our navigation problems. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if the reconfiguration would have solved the navigation problems. MS. MESlANO: In the larger sense, perhaps it would. Because I think that the legal dock should take precedence and have greater standing than an illegal structure. Why is it that the riparian rights of a property owner who has a legal structure is being overridden and usurped by an illegal structure that we have been talking about for three years now. I really fail to see how a legal dock and a person's riparian rights are being usurped by the 9 Board of Trustees 10 September 21, 2005 existence of an illegal structure, which this Board has refused repeatedly to address. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: First of all the Board is addressing all those issues. MS. MESIANO: I am waiting with baited breath. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me finish. The Board is addressing those issues and the riparian rights, they have, no one's blocking their riparian rights to access the water. MS. MESIANO: Really, really? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. The riparian rights are access to the water. MS. MESIANO: Right. And it's also access to the navigable channel I understand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That depends on how you define navigable. MS. MESIANO: I would say not to have your boat in mud. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That depends what size boat. Navigable is something that we're going to define. MS. MESIANO: Either boat at that location does not have free and reasonable access to the channel in that basin. Regardless of its size, neither boat has free and navigable access to the channel. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why the Board suggested instead -- MS. MESlANO: That still does not address the issue of access to the channel. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. That's not what we were trying to address, we were trying to address the water depth. MS. MESIANO: We have been trying to address that for months. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are going to address that tonight. MS. MESIANO: I'd like one minute to consult with my client. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. We could table this matter. MS. MESlANO: I don't want to be here until midnight. I want to address this and get this done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The other items you're referring to, they aren't public hearings. MS. MESlANO: I know they're not, but I don't want to table this matter until 2:00 in the morning or 2:00 in the morning next month. Mr. Zupa has just informed me that the DEC has told him that they will not allow him to dredge in that corner, and it will deteriorate or affect the integrity of that bulkhead structure because the staving is not deep enough for a dredging. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not what the application is for. The application as submitted says to provide adequate depth so that neither the float nor the boat rests on the bottom at Iow tide. Now, by providing you with some limited dredging that would accommodate what you asked for. MS. MESlANO: Except if the DEC already stated that we can't dredge it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't control the DEC, and do you have 10 Board of Trustees 11 September 21, 2005 that in the form of a denial? MR. ZUPA: I have it in form the statement from Chuck Hamilton from the DEC. But more importantly, as the riparian owner, I'm entitled to have the dock straight out to the navigable point of the waters, and that's not what I'm getting here. I'm getting a dock that is placed parallel up against my bulkhead, most people have a dock straight out and they have two boats, and that's not what I have. I'm forced to keep my dock parallel to the bulkhead, because of an illegal structure that blocks the navigable channel. What I asked for is a dock that's straight out, where it can float without hitting the bottom. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem, and I referenced that before, Is with who's going to define navigable because if you have a kayak, a certain water depth is navigable. If you have a 20 foot boat, a certain water depth you need for navigability, and if you have an 80 foot boat, the criteria changes. So riparian ownership is access to the water not for any size boat that one could imagine; that's what the riparian rights mean. MR. ZUPA: Let me give you a reasonable standard. I'm entitled to a dock that sits on the minimum amount of water at Iow tide allowed by the DEC, which I understand is two and a half feet. I don't have that in there. You want me to dig out the bottom in order to get two and a half feet at that point of my dock and dig it out further towards the other dock so I can have two and a half feet for my boat, I'm think that's unreasonable. I'm saying two and a half feet at Iow water, I don't have that. MS. MESlANO: It won't work because if you dig a hole, it's going to fill in. Your proposal technically doesn't work because if you dig a hole under his dock, you're going to have a hole within which the sand, the silt, the bottom matter is going to collect. There is not a reasonable solution. You granted a neighboring property owner, without any objection from anyone, the ability to further extend the dock seaward so that they would be in deeper water. Now the neighbor is saying you can't do that because that makes them float in front of our property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What neighbor said that? MS. MESlANO: Read the letter in your file. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we saw was the plan you submitted showing a foot and a half at the float and 3.1 feet, three feet, where the boat currently sits. When we said a limited amount of dredging, that's exactly what we meant. I don't know how the boat couldn't float in three feet of water, ~ don't know how much the draw is. Again, we get into navigability. You show three foot of water at Iow water. MS. MESIANO: How come, Al, I really have to ask a 11 Board of Trustees 12 September 21, 2005 redundant, rhetorical question, how come this issue has not been raised when we're before you on the Paradise Point project, and they talk about the need for 12 to 14 boats at a dock when historically there's been five or six at the dock. The depth, you don't need that much depth, you don't need that many slips. How come now need has become an issue and never before have we addressed the need for anyone else's application? I'm curious as to what that answer would be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not relevant. MS. MESlANO: It's totally relevant because it's the existence of that structure that brings us here now. It is the fact that there is erosion in that canal because of the lack of action of others who were supposed to undertake certain operations and didn't. We're left with the result of that. And the only actual property owners are being stripped of their rights. I really am baffled as to how you can sit there and take the position, well, just dig a hole under your dock. I've been sitting before this Board for 12 years, that's one of the best ones I've heard yet. It's not deep enough, dig a hole under the dock. I've never heard you say that before; that's unbelievable. Oh, you need more water, no, you can't move your dock, dig a hole under it. Tell me something, I want to hear something reasonable and logical. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't know that for my term we ever had someone move a dock because of -- MS. MESIANO: Yes, you did, last month. TRUSTEE KING: Four feet for the same configuration. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because Mr. Zupa had an erosion problem at the corner of his property, and that contributed to the siltation of that corner of the basin. MS. MESIANO: No. Mr. Zupa does not have an erosion problem in the corner of his property. The erosion problem was caused by illegal activity by others. That was corrected after this Board issued a summons for that illegal activity. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I disagree with that. MS. MESIANO: I don't know on what basis you disagree because it's a fact. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With the fact. MR. ZUPA: That is a fact, in fact, this Board made mention of the fact that the erosion problem was fixed in allowing the Paradise Point Association to rebuild the jetty out there. The erosion problem was supposedly fixed. What we have in there, we do not have sufficient depth. You're asking me to dredge, whether you know it or not, six to seven feet out. The entire place is filled with eel grass, that was confirmed with a member of the Cornell Cooperative. You want me to dig up the eel grass in order to have sufficient navigation. That's what I understand. 12 Board of Trustees 13 September 21, 2005 TRUSTEE KING: Table this for next month. MR. ZUPA: You want to allow a person who does not have riparian rights to have a dock out in water as much as six feet in depth, when I can't even get two feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You brought up some interesting points about the eel grass that we were unaware of. So I would make a motion to table this application. We will inspect this basin on that Iow tide next month on October 13th. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES MS. MESIANO: My final comment to this Board is that we expect equal treatment, the same as you give others. And if it can't be handled in that manner, there's another authority that will handle it in that matter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. KOLYER: Is this tabled? I have some comments. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's tabled, we're not going to hear comments. We're willing to go out again to take a look at it. MS. KOLYER: I need to let you know I wrote you a letter, did you get it? I need to say some things about that. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Put it in writing and put it in a letter form. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: For the record they still owe us the $250. 11. ROSEMARY & SEBASTIAN AVOLESE request a One-Year Extension to Permit #5829, as issued on November 19, 2003. Located: 4150Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#111-14-24 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. 12. RICHARD OLIVO requests a Transfer of Permit 5572 from Thomas & Annette Jordan to Richard Olivo, as issued on June 26, 2002 and amended on June 24, 2004. Located: 1680 Brigantine Drive, Southold. SCTM#79-4-25. TRUSTEE KING: Not much you can do about it, I'm make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Abstain. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have four resolutions tonight. VII. RESOLUTIONS-- OTHER: 1. Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc., on behalf of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to allow the repair and/or replacement of the existing docking facility. Located: Basin Road, Southold. 13 Board of Trustees 14 September 21, 2005 SCTM#81-1-16.10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Board of Trustees approved the application of Paradise Point Association for a Wetland Permit for repair of an existing docking facility with the following changes, and is subject to new plans approved before release of a permit. The existing 6' by 100' foot floating dock to be moved 10 feet to the northwest; the same dock will be shortened to the end of the third seaward finger float to approximately 76 feet in order to follow the code requirement for docks setting no more than one-third across the waterway. The finger at the end of the existing dock to the west will be removed. The fingers of the docks landward to seaward will be permitted at 3' by 20', 3' by 40', and 3' by 40'. The two docks to the west will be removed. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 2. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of MARY ZUPA requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4' by 30' fiberglass grid walk two and a half feet above grade, 3' by 6' ramp and a 6' by 20' float, two 8" piles. Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1-16.7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Board of Trustees approves the Wetland Permit of Mary S. Zupa to install a 4' by 30' fiberglass grid walk two and a half feet above grade, a 3' by 6' ramp, and 6' by 20' float, two 8" piles parallel to the Paradise Point dock with the condition that the new plans be submitted that place the location of the dock 20 feet to the west of the proposed location. The new location must be staked and inspected before construction begins. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. MS. MESlANO: Can I expect a copy of that resolution in the future? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can go through the office tomorrow. 3. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of JOSEPH LOGUIDICE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 108' fixed timber catwalk, with four tie-off piles. The catwalk is proposed to be elevated a minimum of four foot above the average high water mark and will utilize four 4" by 4" piles with a depth of penetration 6' plus, and 26 6" diameter timber piles with a depth of penetration of 10' plus, and four 10" diameter CCA timber tie-off piles. Located: 10995 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM#79-5-20.13. MS. MOORE: Can I start? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're just reading the resolution, there's no public hearing. MS. MOORE: Are you going to accept the LWRP recommendation? BROWNELL JOHNSTON: There's no discussion. 14 Board of Trustees 15 September 21, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we have a choice but to accept it. It's just a recommendation. MS. MOORE: No. Let me put on the record for you, you have to decide what you're going to do, but - TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, we have decided, that's why we have the resolution. MS. MOORE: If you're going to deny it and it's based in part on the LWRP, that LWRP report came after the close of the hearing, and it came after the consistency was already granted by the state. If, in fact, you're going to rely on it, then we would ask for an opportunity to respond to LWRP. LWRP has determined this to be inconsistent and they have made the statement, which I think is erroneous both under LWRP as well as I think anybody's knowledge of the Chapter 97, which is that you are permitted to have a dock in the bay. If this Board is taking the position that there are no docks permitted in the bay that people like my client who pays $38,000 in taxes a year will have a serious issue with the Town of Southold and everybody else who has a waterfront property, is a bay front property owner, is going to have a serious problem with this Board and the Town Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: First things first, the LWRP, if you have a problem with the LWRP consistency report, you have to take that up with the LWRP consistency report coordinator. MS. MOORE: We tried, I tried, and the LWRP coordinator said -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, let me finish, otherwise I'm not going to answer anything because this isn't a public hearing. We get the recommendation; if you have a problem with the recommendation, you talk to the coordinator, not us. It's not our recommendation, we didn't write it, we didn't research it. MS. MOORE: Then you're misunderstanding the procedure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can talk to the Town Board. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, you're wrong. The LWRP is a recommendation to this Board. There is no appeal procedure. There is no variance procedure. It is a recommendation by LWRP coordinator. If, in fact, it's a report to this Board, and you're going to rely on it in any way in coming to your decision, then an applicant has the right to respond and submit comments and response to the LWRP recommendation. Because otherwise it's a bunch of numbers and the following policy standard. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me read the resolution. Have you seen the resolution? MS. MOORE: In if it's an approval then I apologize. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You got to let me read the resolution. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. The only problem I have is if it's a denial, I have to put in a response because we'll be in court. 15 Board o f Trustees 16 September 21, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Otherwise, you want what you want and that's it. MS. MOORE: No, no, what I'm trying to say is, if the Board is inclined to approve it then we have no issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me read the resolution. MS. MOORE: Fine, you read the resolution before you vote. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's there's no public comment. It's just a resolution. We had the public hearing. MS. MOORE: You've taken in documentation after the close of the public hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We understand completely what we did. MS. MOORE: All right, I guess my point is -- BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Pat, you also have the alternative if you don't like what they do to sue us under Article 78. MS. MOORE: That's what you will get. And what I'm trying to do is avoid that situation and establish a record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Every time someone comes in here and wants something that we feel would damage the town environmentally, and just threaten us with a lawsuit, we can't roll over and say, do whatever you want. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's my understanding whatever the LWRP decision is is binding on us that we don't have the opportunity to overturn it. Whatever the decision is we have to abide by it. MS. MOORE: You're absolutely wrong. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We were told by our attorneys today that's the way it was. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, LWRP is a recommendation. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's a law from what I understand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me read the resolution, so we can move on. There are a lot of people waiting here for things that are important to them, and this probably isn't one of them. "Whereas, the Land Use Ecological Service, Inc. on behalf of Joseph Loguidice applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated May 2004, and "Whereas, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and "Whereas, the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council resolved to recommend disapproval, and "Whereas, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on September 22, 2004 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and "Whereas, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and "Whereas, the Board has considered all the testimony 16 Board of Trustees 17 September 21, 2005 and documentation submitted concerning the application, and "Whereas, the dock as proposed is located in an area prohibited by Chapter 97 of the Town code specifically: "Wetlands and Shorelines, 97-27, C. In water. (2) Docks, (b) Dock Locations and Length: 1, no dock shall be erected if in the opinion of the Trustees such structure would adversely affect navigation, fishery, scenic quality or habitat areas; (c) Regulations for the Placement and Configuration of Docking Facilities: 1, residential docks: In determining the permitted length of a proposed residential dock the Trustees shall seek to maintain length consistent with other docks in the waterway. (D) Review and Approval of Dock Applications: 1, before issuing a permit for a dock structure the Trustees shall consider whether the dock will have any of the following harmful effects: (d) Whether the dock will significantly impair the use or value of any property adjacent to or near the dock. (e) Whether the dock will cause degradation of the surface water quality and natural resources. (f) Whether the dock will cause habitat fragmentation and loss of significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats. (g) Whether the dock will result in the destruction of or prevent the growth of vegetated wetlands, sea grasses, including eel grass and widgeon grass or shellfish. (j) Whether the dock will be safe when constructed. (k) Whether the dock will adversely effect view, viewsheds and vistas important to the community. And "Whereas, it is found that the area of shoreline where the dock is proposed currently is not developed with docks and in following the stated intent of the town code, the Trustees are committed to preserving such sections of shoreline which still exist in the natural state into enhancing visual quality and protecting scenic resources of the Town, and, "Whereas, the proposed dock will cause fragmentation of habitat and structural intrusion and change the continuity and configuration of the natural shoreline, and, "Whereas, the proposed dock will run contrary to the Trustees' efforts to maintain the natural resources and the ecological integrity of the contiguous and ecological community and maintain corridors to allow for the exchange of biological resources, and, "Whereas, the Trustees support the findings of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Peconic Estuary, which was recently approved by New York State and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and which plan's goals include a policy of no net increase of 17 Board of Trustees 18 September 21, 2005 hardened shoreline in the Peconic Estuary, and thus the permission of the instant application would run counter to that policy and the factors enumerated above and in Chapter 97, and, "Whereas aerial photographs of the surrounding area show the shoreline to be stable in areas in which there are no such structures and show significant erosion in areas in which there are docks, jetties and wave breaks, leading the Trustees to the conclusion that the installation of a dock in this area would adversely affect the shoreline, and, "Whereas the area consists of a significant and unaltered shoreline, a near shore shallow water habitat, a historical fisheries area with a fishing weir, a horseshoe crab nesting area, and contains healthy underwater vegetation, and, "Whereas, the dock as proposed is in very shallow water and will cause interference with navigation, with a fish weir and with boats traveling along the shore, and, "Whereas the proposed dock would face towards the northeast in such direction that area experiences very high winds and ice in the winter months, any such structure would not be safe from the wind, weather and ice conditions. Damage to the structure at that location would subject the shoreline downwind to significant harm in the event it breaks off, and, "Whereas, the proposed dock is inconsistent to the following Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Policy Standards: 1, 3, 3.1, (A) (D) (J) (K.3), 4.1 (A), 5.3 (C), 6.1 (A.2, A.3 and B.3), 8.3 (A, B and E), 9.1 (C-2, C-3 and E), 9.2 (A.1 and 3), 9.3 (Aand E), 9.4 (A, B, E.1, E.2, E.3 and E.4), 9.5, 10.3, 10.4 (A, B and C), 11.1 and 11.2, which are attached hereto, and is therefore inconsistent with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, and, "Whereas, the development of a dock in this area will interfere with public access to publicly owned lands and waters and is in an area that is undeveloped, highly valued open space a natural resource with visual and scenic views, and the LWRP includes policies that demand the protection of such characteristics and resources, and, "Whereas, the application for the proposed dock is contradictory to the findings of the Peconic Estuary Program's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan and Nature Conservancy's Peconic Bays Natural Shoreline Committee, and, "Whereas, the applicant currently enjoys reasonable, safe, convenient access to the waters of the Town as demonstrated by the stairs to the beach, boats on the beach, including a sailboat and a row boat, chairs, a table, and a 18 Board of Trustees 19 September 21, 2005 fire box, and, "Whereas, 'reasonable access' is defined as the ability for riparian property owners to access the navigable waters of the Town, and, "Whereas, the land ownership of the applicant is to the high tide mark, and the Town may reasonably refuse to grant the proposed access over its property and rationally exercise its jurisdiction to deny the construction of a dock, and, "Now therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Trustees upon consideration of the application, personal inspection, review of the completed Consistency Assessment Form, the recommendation of the LWRP coordinator, policies of the LWRP, and the above enumerated factors, find the proposed action to be inconsistent with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and "Be it further resolved, that the Board of Trustees Denies the application of Joseph Logiudice to construct a 4' by 108' fixed timber catwalk with four tie-off piles, the catwalk proposed to be elevated a minimum of 4' above the average high water mark and to utilize four 4" by 4" piles with a depth of penetration 6', and 26 6" diameter timber piles with a depth of penetration of 10 feet, four 10" diameter CCA timber tie-off piles are proposed, and, "Be it further resolved that this determination should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project." TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES BROWNELL JOHNSTON; Because of the sensitivity of this application, could we do a roll call vote? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aye to deny. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye to deny. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Jim? TRUSTEE KING: Aye to deny. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye to deny. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye. MS. MOORE: I still place my objections on the record that there was a consistency review done by the Department of State that that consistency issued a determination of consistency, which is what the LWRP based their legislation on. Aisc the fact that you have declared that docks are not permitted in the bay -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We haven't done that, we said in this area. We didn't say Peconic Bay. We said in this area. MS. MOORE: We'll see what other ones you give in the bay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We review each site specific. 19 Board of Trustees 20 September 21, 2005 MS. MOORE: This is an area where there are docks on either side. Both sides of this property looking up and down there are docks in the water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Site specific. MS. MOORE: And this property owner pays $38,000 in taxes and deserves some consideration. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not sure what everyone deserves. We're not here to grant everyone what everyone deserves, I don't think we're that powerful. Ken, would you like to make a motion on Scallop Season? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe we were going to table the motion until October because Scallop Season is set by the DEC in the state waters, and we can't open Scallop Season prior to the setting of Scallop Season by the state. It looks like it's going to be after November 1st. I'~1 make a motion to table until the October meeting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll take a recess. There are a couple of public hearings that were postponed that won't be opened. 11, Alan Cardinale is postponed until October; 17, Vincent and Carol Manago has been postponed until further notice. Under Coastal Erosion, 4, Angelo Padavan and 5, Lewis and Helaine Teperman have also been postponed at the agent's request. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Was it entered into the record that Jim was going to contact the state? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It should be noted that Jim will contact the state to make sure we have an accurate opening date for scallops. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to go off the regular meeting. (Recess was taken.) VIII. 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: For the Public Hearings we have about a dozen public hearings tonight. If you would like to comment please come up to the microphone and identify yourself so we have a clear record. 1. Docko, Inc. on behalf of COVE COTTAGE COMPANY, 20 Board of Trustees 21 September 2 I, 2005 LLC requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct plus/minus 62 linear feet of existing 4' wide fixed wood pile and timber pier, extend reconstructed pier plus/minus 40 feet landward to replace existing ramps and platform, elevate pier to clear tidal wetlands and install a new 20' by 3.5' hinged ramp, and retain three existing 8' by 20' floats in their current location and configuration. Located: Peninsula Drive, Fishers Island. SCTM#10-11-2 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. NEILSON: Good evening, my name is Keith Neilson, Docko, Incorporated, and I prepared the application documents before you tonight. I'd just like to make a couple of quick summary comments about the project. The project is intended to replace failing structural members of the existing fixed pier, and where the existing fixed pier comes to shore there's various assortments of structurally unsuitable ramps and decking and so on to elevate it on support piles consistent with the rest of the structure, consistent with local law in 2004. When we first prepared the documents, we met with the DEC to get clarification on DEC's Tidal Wetland clearance requirements. And since the dock is being built and extended 40 feet to land to form a reasonable landing, we're following the existing path where there is no tidal vegetation, nonetheless, we're raising the dock to an elevation of 7', and it will go level to shore at that elevation. The DEC has made an initial comment on this and said that pending their technical review, they may want to increase the height of that to four feet above the tidal wetlands -- the bottom sediments where tidal wetlands could vegetate. So I've prepared a drawing that shows you what that would look like, maintaining a level profile of about five until we get about 60 to shore, then it will slope up, clear all the tidal vegetations, the soils that could support tidal vegetations and back down to seven feet. We would prefer to build the configuration shown in the original application because of some of the elderly people who use the pier, but if you decide that you would rather have the four feet of vegetation, we would agree to that as well. TRUSTEE KING: The first one is lower, am I correct? MR. NEILSON: The first one is a foot lower in this area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you consider using -- we're starting to see some success with this grating system, DEC's letting us put down lower, did you consider using that maybe on one section where you can keep it Iow using the grate? MR. NEILSON: I have considered that. The Miller's parents are not handicapped, but slightly agility impaired, and they 21 Board of Trustees 22 September 21, 2005 feel that the grating may be a problem for them. They would rather use conventional wood decking if that's allowable. This dock is oriented in a north/south direction, so sun will shine under in the mornings and will shine under it in the afternoons on the west side, and so we feel that this is a habitat improvement, it is diminishing a fragmentation pattern that has existed on the site for 40 -- 50 years, and this is the client, the applicant's preferred configuration. TRUSTEE KING: My way of thinking the lower the better. MR. NEILSON: We were trying to comply with some of the aesthetics for the LWRP and at the same time as the environmental, I believe that the environmental aspects will prove themselves, so that is the applicant's request. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Have they seen the grating? I don't understand how the grating is any different than walking on wood dock. We just took pictures of one. MR. NEILSON: My experience with grating is any time that you have a gap of about an inch between baring bars, that there is a tendency of the lip of the shoe to get caught in it. If you're not very careful about what you're doing. And with elderly people there are tripping hazards, they have animals, we have had problems with animals getting stuck in grating. I personally do not have an objection to it. The applicant prefers not use it if we can avoid it. Otherwise, we have reviewed carefully all the requirements of Local Law 6 of 2004 and the LWRP, and we believe that what we presented here is consistent with all those requirements. The ones that you noted before about public access, we have a strip on the upland for passage if shorefront walkers want to get around the dock. There is no public access along the shore here. I mean, it's not suitable for it. The pier has been a long-standing structure and will not impede water access around the edges, and it's consistent with the previous use of the code and the previous structure, water quality, it's an open pile and timber structure. It is resolving I believe habitat fragmentation, it will not adversely affect views, tidal wetland corridor, tidal flows. It's got adequate surfaces right across the cove, Pirate's Cove, as required to be a consideration in the law. It definitely will not be CCA treated; it's 15 feet off the property line. The enlarged ramp is really for the agility, I should say for the access, for the elderly folks and to comply more with safe standards of a 3 to 1 maximum slope. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them and I appreciate your consideration. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application? It is consistent with the LWRP, Conservation Advisory Council tabled it because they have not made an inspection on it. If there's no other comments, I'll make a 22 Board of Trustees 23 September 21, 2005 motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 2. OTTO FERCHAU requests a Wetland Permit to enclose the existing patio and to convert the existing garage into living space by removing the door and installing new windows and a new floor. Located: 345 Meadow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#115-5-4&5 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone to speak on that application? With that I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE application TRUSTEE TRUSTEE KING: Second. FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the as requested. KING: Second. FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES 3. Alpha Consulting on behalf of LARRY KULICK requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing section of bulkhead and dock assembly and replace with new wall section, catwalk, ramp and float. Located: 2200 Minnehaha Boulevard. Southold SCTM#87-3-61 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. ANGEL Ted Angel, Alpha Consulting on behalf of Larry Kulick. We recently changed the configuration on the application for a ramp and float parallel to the shoreline, which the Board had recommended not to exceed six feet further out from the existing structure. And I did submit the revised site plan and cross-sections to the Board a few days ago. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this application for or against? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I see a copy of the cross-section? I just had a question on the existing structure, it says removed the existing section of bulkhead and dock assembly, replace with new wall section, catwalk, ramp and float. Why would the applicant want to replace the new wall section, the bulkhead? MR. ANGEL It's been there for a while and since he decided to retain what he has and simply add off of that structure a ramp and a float for safe access to the water, in the event that it would eventually fail, he'd like to be able to do the work all at the same time and just replace it 23 Board of Trustees 24 September 21, 2005 in-place/in-kind with no changes in dimensions whatever. Miss Dickerson, the removal was on the original application, which was changed because the applicant was denied a wall section to tie into the existing wall on the adjacent property. So at that point, it was decided to just keep what's there existing and without any changes put a parallel float. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see any function to that bulkhead, and where we're adding to the dock structure, it seems like if you remove some there and add some here, it would have no net effect structure-wise as opposed to just keep adding. I don't see where the function comes from that bulkhead. It's sort of, the proposed dock is to the side of it. What is the purpose of that bulkhead? MR. ANGEL It is existing and there is some soil retention because of the scouring that had taken place on the side. There is some retention if you will notice in the photographs that were submitted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think if you remove the bulkhead -- MR. ANGEL It is a sizable property. There's a lot of linear footage on the water, and this is only a small existing section that Mr. and Mrs. Kulick decided to leave as it is and just replace it in-kind because the proportion of the linear footage on the waterway is much greater and the structure is minimal. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The LWRP review has reviewed it as inconsistent. So the feeling of the Board is? Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Based on what I have here to look at -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Take a look at the picture. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think the discussion is that because this LWRP came in on Monday, and we haven't had a chance to look at it, and with your new plans, we'd like to go out and look at it again. MR. ANGEL With your permission, I'd like to make a comment. The proposed improvements are minimal, non-intrusive, basically we're looking at a platform, a ramp and a float that make no soil contact and no contact with the bottom, and it's parallel to the shoreline. So the pre-existing structure that's there, if nothing were done, that would just remain. So we're not asking to make any increases in that, just to leave it where it is, but just to put new updated material to make it more structurally sound. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What this Board has always done is try to minimize a structure, and it's not uncommon for us to grant permission to increase the structure in one area, if the applicant is going to decrease it in another. That's very common for us to make that request, say if you want to go out with a floating dock, get deeper water, we can accommodate you, if you can in this case, eliminate the old 24 Board of Trustees 25 September 21, 2005 bulkhead section that isn't really functioning. I think we did at one point in the field offer to allow the applicant to dredge in there and put a float inside there so they would utilize that, instead of going out further. That was another alternative to let the applicant access deeper water. MR. ANGEL The depths are established there. The depths are okay where we are with this application and the ramp and the floats are parallel to the shoreline. So there is no obstruction to navigation. It's really nice and tight. And as you said on inspection, 6 feet out, it's adequate and acceptable. So basically, since we do have existing structure there, and if nothing were done it would remain, it would still be there, and a ramp that's up in the air and a float that's just floating on the surface, is really non-intrusive. And the applicant would like to retain that because it's an awfully large piece of property, and this is really minimal in terms of linear footage. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Based on the fact that the LWRP report came back that it's inconsistent, we really can't approve it unless we modify it. MR. ANGEL Is there a recommendation that this Board would make tonight? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. We have to take another look at it and meet you down there and decide what's going to come down and determine what's consistent, otherwise we can't act on it. If it comes back consistent or exempt we can act on it; if it's inconsistent we have to deny it. MR. ANGEL: But, Artie, is the inconsistency specified here? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It says the replacement of the dock is not in-kind. The property to the south of the subject parcel is a single and separate lot listed within the Town GIS system as private/subdivision/park. The applicant should prove that the use is permitted on the parcel and has permission for such a use. The dock proposes CCA piles and the remaining materials have not been identified. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We got this consistency report today. We didn't review this. This is right now. It's not like we knew it was inconsistent a week ago. MR. ANGEL: Can I have one moment? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would be happy to table it. MR. ANGEL: Just one moment, please. Your recommendation at this point is? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Table it, and look at it next month, and have time to look at the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh And modify it somewhat so it will be consistent. MS. CUSACK: Approve it based on recommendations that -- MR. ANGEL: There' no determination that can be made this 25 Board of Trustees 26 September 21, 2005 evening? TRUSTEE FOSTER: We can approve it based on modifications that will give it a consistent review. MR. ANGEL: Those modifications will be determined at a later time? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. We can approve this tonight based on modifications to make it consistent with the LWRP. MR. ANGEL: Okay. Would I be able to secure a copy of that report at some point? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You might see it before we do. MR. ANGEL: Oh, you just -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just got the report today, we haven't seen it. That's why the previous application was consistent, that's why we just mentioned it in passing. This one was inconsistent that's why we have to try to work with it. We're still working with the LWRP trying to make it work. MR. ANGEL It's all in the matter of the wall; is that correct? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what we need to confirm. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All these on our agenda that have declared inconsistent, in reality we can skip right over it, because we can't approve them anyway until we determine what the inconsistency is and how it can be made consistent, which means that would take another month but we're addressing it here hoping we can come to some resolution. MR. ANGEL: But if there is a consideration of land mass and linear waterfront footage -- TRUSTEE FOSTER; We're not the ones that determined it inconsistent. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the problem. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's not something that we have control of within our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And this came in so late that we didn't have a chance to have a discussion prior to the hearing tonight. So I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve it based on modifications to make it consistent with the LWRP as per the revised plans and removal of the section of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 4. Young and Young on behalf of THOMAS J. GORMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a one-story 12' by 25' addition and stairway onto an existing two-story frame 26 Board of Trustees 27 September 21, 2005 house. Located: 1875 Laurel Way, Mattituck. SCTM#121-4-23 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? The only comment I have to make is add a dry well and gutters. It's a structure in between existing structures. If there's no other public or Board comment, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Thomas J. Gorman as submitted with the stipulation a dry well and gutters be added on. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 5. 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 KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? Based on our field inspection last week, we needed more information from the applicant. We recommend that the dock be moved over slightly and the end of the dock be staked and that soundings be taken at the end of the creek around the proposed dock location. On top of all that, the LWRP coordinator sent us a report saying this dock is inconsistent. So since we're tabling this, we'll work through that with the applicant at a later date. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 6. John Prudenti on behalf of SHIRLEY TUTHILL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with attached garage, driveway and sanitary system. Located: 4563 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#107-4-12 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. PRUDENTI: John Prudenti for the applicant. Rest on the application as presented. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are there any other comments on this application? Yes, sir. MR. STEVENSON: My name is Jim Stevenson, and I have a house on that little access road that goes to this property, and my real concern is that allowing any building to be done in the wetlands there would have an adverse effect on the drainage, and also, these two lots actually act as a buffer between my property and the creek, and as we've all seen 27 Board of Trustees 28 September 21, 2005 with recent events and hurricanes and things, like I say, it acts as a buffer between my house and the creek. And being that it is a wetlands, and it is a flood plain, I think it would have an adverse effect on my property. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Actually the house is out of our jurisdiction; so there would be a small of amount of activity within our jurisdiction because it's right at 100 feet from the wetlands, which is our jurisdictional line. So really they're only here because they're going to have to encroach on the 100 foot mark slightly, but the wetlands is actually 100 feet away from the edge of the house. The flood plain, that's the Building Department, that's not really something we get into. So really we just have to act on the small amount of area that's going to be disturbed, the pilings or whatever happens here. So this is not shown or indicated to be wetlands and it was flagged by Eh-Consultants, which, in my experience on this Board, has been pretty reliable as far as the determination of where the wetland line is. MR. STEVENSON: All right, thank you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comments? Any Board comments? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was just going to say with the last person's concerns that we are considering a 50 foot buffer, which is probably one of the biggest buffers that we give. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any hay bales on this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They should have hay bales. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At the 50 foot mark, TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any dry wells, that's part of the code; you want to mention it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It should say it on the permit and on the plan. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You want to approve it subject to the submission of the plan indicating that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you have any other comments, sir? We're going to impose a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer from the wetlands and require that you put a row of hay bales at the 50 foot nondisturbance line, and that you put in roof gutters and dry wells for roof runoff, and show that on a new plan, and we will approve it tonight subject to you submitting that plan and when you do that you'll get your permit. MR. PRUDENTI: That's no problem. Thank you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: No other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to that we approve the application with the conditions that there be a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer indicated by a row of hay bales and 28 Board of Trustees 29 September 21, 2005 that there be roof gutters and dry wells to contain roof runoff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES 7. Samuels and Steelman Architects on behalf of JOHN & MARTHA WATTS requests a Wetland Permit to regrade the surrounding property around the existing residence with additional soil brought onto the property. Located: 100 Harbor River Road, Orient. SCTM#24-2-8 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of that application? MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman from Samuels and Steelman Architects. I'm here on behalf of my clients. If you have any questions, I'll be here to answer them. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think we have any questions, but the feeling of the Board was that this was inconsistent, let's say. The Board felt that we would allow you to bring in fill around the foundation to raise the grade and to fill in the Iow area of the driveway just enough to bring the steps so that you had an equal step as you came off but not to fill the entire yard in. And I don't know if we had a number on how far from the house, it was basically just around the house and the driveway, we didn't measure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't have anything written down. MS. STEELMAN: I guess my question would be wouldn't that be out of your jurisdiction around the house? I primarily was applying for this area that is within 100 feet on our Wetland Permit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The house itself is not even 100 feet away. MS. STEELMAN: The house is more than 100 feet. TRUSTEE FOSTER: From the front, but it was 60 feet from the beach on the other side of the road. MS. STEELMAN: On the other side. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Right. MS. STEELMAN: Okay. Then do you have an approximate dimension from where you were from the wetlands off the road side? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was starting at the steps. MS. STEELMAN: Then how far -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: That was high, Nancy, it's further out, where it says new five foot contour on the land, that's the area that was Iow. It really wasn't Iow up by the house. We weren't going to allow you to fill in that Iow area because that was going to chase the water somewhere else. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's natural drainage in the front yard there. We wanted to fill around the steps, and also the driveway too is very Iow. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The driveway is very Iow and there is a drain in the street, so if you want to raise that driveway 29 Board of Trustees 30 September 21, 2005 to chase that water out to that drain MS. STEELMAN: I think the intent of my client was to get rid of the pond, and that's what he's having problems with. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is that going to go? MS. STEELMAN: This water's coming all the way over from the historic society's property, you know, just ponding in his area, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In his driveway? MS. STEELMAN: Not in his driveway but in the Iow portion, the center of the site. It's coming from the historic society. If you look, there's a slight slope on the lawned area, it's all coming back onto his property from that location into this area, in the Iow spot so other properties are creating his drainage problem. MS. CUSACK: That water's got nowhere to go, that's just where it is. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's just water table. MS. STEELMAN: It's all just running over from the adjacent properties. It's very Iow. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you open that up? MS. STEELMAN: Its elevation at the lowest point is 3.9. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't we let them fill right across here, start from the porch and fill all the way across and that would take care of -- could you come up, Nancy? Does is that make sense, Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. We talked about filling and berming here to prevent this water from going that way too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did talk about filling all the way down to here. MS. STEELMAN: If we could get to that point, yeah, and we were trying to anyway because these elevations in here are 5.6, 5.6, we were filling to the five foot. So we still had it sloping back down very gradually. We're really trying to work with contour elevation number 5, but this from that contour elevation number 5 to the bulkhead is sloping up. Then it comes back up to 5.7 around the house. We were just taking that five foot contour and just flattening out that area, but still allowing for everything to slope back up. TRUSTEE FOSTER: If you don't have a lake there, where is it going to go? MS. STEELMAN: We were acting almost as a berm in this area to keep it off his property, coming off the historic society. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They could fill up to this line. MS. STEELMAN: Then this would be a Iow buffered area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would taper into that, that does slope up. TRUSTEE FOSTER: My question is, where is the water going to go? If you have a lake here and if you prevent that, where is all that water going to go? 30 Board of Trustees 31 September 21, 2005 MS. STEELMAN: It's going to sit right here, right here. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We didn't address this. It's out of our jurisdiction. We weren't going to let you go past the 100 foot mark, but we also considered that here. They were just going to be able to do the driveway because this was very, very close here. So you can fill up to the 100 foot mark. MS. STEELMAN: We were trying to avoid that and just fill up to the five foot contour line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Still some merit of leaving on the applicant's property and they can maintain their own water. MS. STEELMAN: It would be more dramatic, we're still trying to do that but with a fairly gradual slope. This is 4.2 to 5, so it's 8. TRUSTEE FOSTER: How are you containing your own water? There's water generated off this property, now, if you're trying to contain the water that's coming off of somebody else's property or trying to chase away the water from someone else's property, where is your water going to go? That was one of the questions we had. There's going to be water, there's water coming from other properties. MS. STEELMAN: This is a 6 inch change in grade here. We're talking about 6 inches here, 8 inches, this isn't substantial slopes we're creating. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But you said all the water coming off here is coming off of the neighbor's property. So if you stop it, that's fine, but you are also contributing to that water. This house, this roof and this land is generating a fair amount of runoff; where is that going? We don't want you to chase it over to this guy, when you're complaining about this guy putting it on you. MS. STEELMAN: If we just maintain this in here, at the same elevation, I guess that's all we can do then. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That will eliminate any water coming from off-site. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What happens to the omsite water? MS. STEELMAN: That would be any property anywhere. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So he's willing to have a pond of his own water, but he doesn't want a pond of everybody else's. MS. STEELMAN: It's just that much more intrusive. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I understand, so up to the 100 foot mark. Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DIOKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the application of John and Martha Watts with the condition that they fill no further seaward than the 100 foot setback line. MS. CUSACK: To create like a little berm? TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, nobody mentioned it. MS. CUSACK: I just wanted to be clear when I write it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: No. Just be through contours, and if there 31 Board of Trustees 32 September 21, 2005 continues to be a problem, we'll just have to re-address it. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. 8. Samuels and Steelman Architects on behalf of BART & PAT JOHNSON requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling, attached garage, sanitary system, and parking area. Located: 860 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM#37-5-7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this application? MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman, here for any questions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Heather, I did take pictures. MS. CUSACK: If they're not in there, I didn't see any. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think we had a problem with this. It is consistent with LWRP. CAC recommends disapproval of the application because of the following: The property was not posted, the house is too close to the water. MS. STEELMAN: It was posted. There's two access points onto the property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It may have been, sometimes they go out earlier. I'm just reading. Access was denied onto the property by the property owner. MS. CUSACK: That's true. It was a big problem. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You might want to tell your client that Conservation Advisory Council is an official council of the Town. I don't think we had any problem with this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Parking area is pervious? MS. STEELMAN: Yes, gravel. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Gutters, dry wells? MS. CUSACK: Are there hay bales on the plan, Peggy? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. MS. STEELMAN: No hay bales on the plan, we usually wait for your instructions on that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Hay bales, staked hay bales. It's all lawn there. Hay bale line just before the bulkhead, just in front of the bulkhead, landward of the bulkhead. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland application to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling, attached garage, sanitary system, and parking area with gutters and dry wells, staked hay bales landward of the bulkhead, pervious driveway. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 32 Board of Trustees 33 September 21, 2005 9. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of KEVIN & DOREEN BARR requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 158 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source. Remove existing beach steps and deck, and construct a 4' boardwalk, 10' by 10' deck and platform and steps to beach. Located: 200 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1~20 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR, HERMANN: Rob Hermann, En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. This is actually just a resubmission of an approval that the Board issued last summer. But when it was issued last summer, it was issued as an amendment to a prior permit, so the permitee inadvertently allowed the permit to lapse. They're now ready to do the work and are just submitting for approval for the exact same project that was originally issued as an amendment to Permit 5725. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you, any other comments for this application? I'd just like to mention that the LWRP finds it consistent, And I believe the CAC recommends approval with the condition that the length of the boardwalk is specified and no CC^ lumber is used. I also see in Mark Terry's recommendation no CCA treated wood, oil-based preservatives containing creosote, PCP applied to the surface of the wood should be permitted. MR. HERMANN: For which part of it, Kenny? Because the sheathing is going to be vinyl. What is he referring to? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Doesn't. It just says -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the decking and the steps, can that be non CCA? MR. HERMANN: What would be the purpose of the decking being non CCA behind the bulkhead? It's not leaching into the waterway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A lot of people don't want to use CCA for decking anyway. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It twists, it warps, you get a splinter. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Kevin, you have young children, don't you? Some of the playground recommendations is not to use CCA. MR. BARR: What is CCA? MR. HERMANN: It's a standard treated wood that's now being increasingly prohibited in the waterways because of leaching in the waterways. And playgrounds. MR. BARR: The wood that is Epay, whatever it is, I think that was the plan; is that appropriate? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. BARR: That's the intention to do the boardwalk and the deck in that kind of wood. 33 Board of Trustees 34 September 21, 2005 MR. HERMANN: The pilings would most likely be CCA treated. We can stipulate that all of the timber other than the pilings would be non CCA. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine. Any other Board comments? Then I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Kevin and Doreen Barr as submitted with the stipulation that there will be no CCA other than the pilings. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 10. Eh-Consultants on behalf of JAMES MURRAY & SUSAN SEGUR requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing 8', 16', 67', 17', 14' and 38' sections of existing timber bulkhead and construct up to two feet far[her landward and 18" higher plus/minus 6', plus/minus 83', plus/minus 30', plus/minus 38' sections of vinyl bulkhead, remove and replace in-kind/in-place existing 6' by 22' timber boat ramp, remove 3' by 9' wood walk, remove and replace and raise 18 inches existing 3' by 14' wood walk, and 10' by 17' fixed dock; remove existing 3' walkway along bulkhead, construct up to two feet far[her landward and five inches higher a 4' walkway along the new bulkhead and dredge approximately 335 cubic yards of sand spoil from area up to 32 feet seaward of new bulkhead to a maximum depth of 3' average iow water, approximately 40 cubic yards of which will be used onsite as backfill and 295 cubic yards of which will be trucked off-site to an approved upland source. All is depicted on the project plan as prepared by En-Consultants last dated 9/6/05. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann on behalf of the applicants. This was the marina site that we looked at as par[ of a full Board inspection back in March. The Board had requested some specific changes to the plan, which are now reflected in the plan and in that project description. We have taken this long to come to the Board because we wanted to get our full comments back from the New York State DEC, none of which would preclude us from doing any of these things that you requested. So after we heard back from the DEC, we have modified the plan pursuant to our discussions in the field, and that's what's in front of the Board tonight. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Rob, the LWRP is consistent. It does recommend, if feasible, turbidity screens, which we will be considering more often. 34 Board of Trustees 35 September 21, 2005 MR. HERMANN: Yes. And that would end up being requested through both, if not the DEC and the Army Corps, at least the Army Corps and Department of State, so that's fine, those would be used. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? It's pretty consistent with what we recommended and looked at. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that turbidity screen is used during the process. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's been requested that the agent for the applicant's wife is having a baby apparently tonight. So, we will skip to Number 2 under Coastal Erosion Wetland Permits, so he can finish his work here. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Coastal Erosion Wetland Permits, Number 2, Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JOANNE & WILLIAM TURNBULL requests a Wetland Permit & Coast Erosion Permit to construct a 14.5' by 19' addition to an existing attached deck. Located: 54005 North Road, Southold. SCTM#52-1-1. Would you like to comment on this application? MR. HERMANN: Yes, Rob Hermann of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. The portion of the project that is within the Board's jurisdiction is approximately 74 square feet of deck that will fall within the jurisdiction of Chapter 97 and also within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Law. Pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Law, there is allowable a non-major addition to a structure located within the coastal erosion hazard area. I know the Board has been hearing a lot about that portion of the code for the past several months, this is a fairly straightforward interpretation of it in that there is an existing deck seaward of the coastal erosion area, approximately 313 square feet. So the applicant would be allowed pursuant to Chapter 37 to construct up to 25 percent addition to that and what is proposed is a 23.6 percent addition or 74 square feet. To put the proposal in context is basically a squaring of the deck to the north or northeast, that would be in line with a proposed house addition that is landward of the coastal erosion line and beyond the Board's jurisdiction both pursuant to 37 and 97. So, while there are other activities going on for which the applicants will have to visit other agencies within the Town, the only thing before this Board is that portion of deck located within both jurisdictions. The explanation is far more 35 Board of Trustees 36 September 21, 2005 complicated than what they're proposing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you, any other comments? As far as any Board comments, take a look, Al. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd rather see them cut it back to the coastal erosion line. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I agree. I'm looking at the survey here. If it was in line with the existing wood deck apparently it would not go out and extend beyond that coastal erosion hazard line. So it looks like approximately -- MR. HERMANN: The section of the code, Brownell, is 37-17 (b) (4), if you have it. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Rob, scaling it off to get behind the coastal erosion hazard line and be in line with the existing deck, it looks like it would be a 14 foot by 13 foot in length towards the water, instead of 14 by 19, basically whack 6 feet off. Cut it back six feet closer toward the house. I'd like to make the comment that CAC recommends disapproval of this application, the proposed deck is too close to the bluff and would create a potential erosion problem. The natural vegetation should be restored along the bluff. I think we're going to move forward and try to solve that problem and cut the deck back 6 feet. So it would be behind the coastal erosion hazard line. The total dimensions would wind up being 14' by 13' deck. Any other Board comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No other public comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES MR. HERMANN: Again, by right the code allows what is proposed, but the applicant is willing to cut back the 6 feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Coastal Erosion Permit on behalf of Joanne and William Turnbull to construct a 14 and a half by 13 foot addition and existing attached deck. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES MR. HERMANN: Brownell, the coastal erosion line would still run through the corner of it. So we need to keep the coastal erosion permit. I just need to make that clear by law he needs it. 12. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of LEWIS L. & GRACE R. EDSON request a Wetland Permit to construct single-family dwelling, attached rear deck, driveway, and sanitary system. Located: 305 Cedar Point 36 Board of Trustees 37 September 21, 2005 Drive, Southold. SCTM#90-2-26. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. I'm going to first pass up a tax map because the next two properties that follow are adjacent so this may save us some time. The dwelling proposed would be 1,700 square feet and would be located at 65 feet approximately from the wetland boundary. It has a 900 square foot deck that would be 60 feet from the wetlands line, and the septic line is 125 feet from the wetlands boundary. There's also a proposed gravel driveway. The tax maps that I submitted to you will show this lot in relation to the others, and the interesting thing about the tax map shows it open to the bay. It is not. That area was filled in and bulkheaded some years ago, and off lot, I guess 9.1, and there is no tidal exchange. This is a freshwater wetland, no outlet, no inlet border surrounded by phragmites. It's also regulated for freshwater wetland by the New York State DEC. I think this and the two that follow are approvable on their face because they comport with the neighborhood, they do match my wetlands setbacks. And I think probably the most useful tool here today is to try and establish some sort of a natural buffer common to all three lots that will come around this portion of the pond. it would be probably the only buffer on this little, tiny pond. And I'm here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I really don't think the Board had any issues, any of the three of these, to be honest with you, we were all there. Am I right in assuming that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, Lot 28 I think we had to discuss. Setbacks for Lot 28 -- MR. ANDERSON: They're at 50 or 55 to the house, 28 is a little shallower, we'll get to that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comments? MS. PRENDERGAST: My name is Theresa Prendergast. I am speaking on behalf of both the Cedar Beach Park Association and on behalf of myself. I own Lot 9.1 and we didn't bulkhead that or fill it, that was filled by a storm; we only have a bulkhead along a portion of that. Just to clarify that point. After hearing about this project, we looked at it. I received no less than three or four phone calls from my immediate neighbors. There are three issues, as I see it with this project. The first, actually, which you may disagree with me whether or not it's an issue relevant to this Board, but I think that it is, because it potentially can affect the number of dwellings and structures permitted 37 Board of Trustees 38 September 21, 2005 on these three properties. The way it's shown on the application Lewis L. and Lefferts own Lot 26, Lewis L. and Grace own Lot 27, and Grace owns Lot 28. As the president of the park association, it's been brought to my attention that two of the three applicants for this permit are deceased. And it's my understanding that deceased people can't apply for permits. So the question then arises as to who actually owns these properties because traditionally -- again, and if I'm saying something wrong, please feel free to correct me if -- Lewis L. owns two adjacent properties then traditionally it's consolidated to one tax lot, which would decrease this to two dwellings being built on this property. Grace, on the third property, deceased, who owns that lot if she's deceased? So if she's deceased and Lewis happens to own it, but this hasn't been recorded in the county, then it's one lot for tax purposes. So that would limit it further to one building and structures on this property. So I think that we need to find out, in fact, who owns this property and whether it is owned by one person or by two separate parties or three separate parties. That's the first issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 20 years on this Board, this is a first. MS. PRENDERGAST: It is a matter of public record. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's a man who can answer that question right there. MR. PROVENCHER: Bill Provencher, Southold. I did make a couple phone calls because the tree on the Edson property was blocking the road and it was impeding traffic. So I called a number for Grace, asked for Grace Edson and the party answering the phone told me she was deceased. So I looked further into the phone book and I saw the name Lefferts Edson, so I called that number and a man by the name of Rudy Brewer answered the phone and he told me that Lefferts Edson was deceased also. This was on I believe Friday last. MS. PRENDERGAST: May I continue? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, ma'am. MS. PRENDERGAST: I do want to preface these last two things with a statement, I'm not saying don't build anything; I'm not trying to say that at all. But there is a significant amount of concern in the neighborhood for the degree of environmental stress that three new homes are going to place on the immediate creek environment. We're placing three individual septic systems for three individual homes within little more than an acre of property, and we'd like to know if the Board plans to ask for an environmental impact study, or if there is an indication for an LWRP in a project like this. And again, as it's always a concern of the Board, we would ask that the amount of ground coverage by impermeable structures, including decking, pools and out buildings, be 38 Board of Trustees 39 September 21, 2005 limited. The third item is the type and construction of pools, if they are, in fact, allowed. I would ask that you consider construction constraints being placed on the pools and that they be limited to vinyl. Gunite, as you know, has potentially toxic consequences particularly related to the maintenance of paint; and if they choose to go to the route of marble dusting, then you have acid washing and the runoff with that. In the event that gunite is permitted, we would ask that the water be removed, rather than allow it to drain into dry wells. The other issues with the pool is the type of sanitation, in other words, whether it's a chlorinated system or an ionization system, we would ask again that a chlorine based sanitation system not be utilized because again, the extremely toxic nature of high levels of chlorine dumped into the environment. An ionization system probably would be a better choice in this situation given that it's a salt-based self-contained system used to maintain the sanitation in the pool. In either case, again, rather than dumping this water into a local dry well, it would be preferable to have it removed. And just as a personal comment, putting three houses on that acre of property is going to turn that little area into an area that looks like Queens, and I don't think any of us want that. Thank you for your time. MR. ANDERSON: Just a quick response to the four issues. The first is I'm advised by the attorneys involved that they are held single and separate and that's not an issue for this Board, but that is a building issue. The second thing I want to advise the Board with regards to the septic systems, they're all laid out to comply. In this case the septic system itself is beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. The third being the pool construction, that's not the case in this application, it is the case in other applications but in every event they comply with the statute. It is important to note that the area is served by public water. It is equally important to note that the lots shown here are the same size as the developed lots already in the neighborhood. The difference here is that these lots don't have to be developed, whereas the other lots are. From an environmental standpoint, the important difference here is that they're, I assume there would be some sort of buffer to this tiny pond where there is no buffer on any of the other adjoining developed lots. MS. PRENDE~RGAST: I'm sorry to interrupt again, there are buffers on other properties. Mine in particular has 25 foot non-disturbed, non-fertilization buffer immediately surrounding the wetlands, which was required by this Board at the time of our permit. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, we're satisfied with the ownership on 39 Board of Trustees 40 September 21, 2005 Lot 26. Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: A motion has been made and a second made to close the hearing. All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Lewis L. and the Estate of Grace R. Edson to construct a single-family dwelling, attached rear deck, driveway, sanitary system at 305 Cedar Point Drive, and do we have any conditions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 50 foot nondisturbance buffer, staked row of hay bales at that 50 foot line. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Dry wells and gutters for roof runoff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No pool. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Pervious driveway. MR. ANDERSON: It is. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES MR. PROVENCHER: This is a disgrace. You all know Mr. Edson. Every one of you knows Mr. Edson, don't you? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I know a lot of people in this room. You're lying to me, you know Mr. Edson, all MR. PROVENCHER: ofyoudo. TRUSTEE FOSTER: MR. PROVENCHER: What does that have to do with it? Give me a break, will you? TRUSTEE FOSTER: These are all approved by the Town of Southold building lots. Everything on that plan has met our -- MR. PROVENCHER: You're not making any sense. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Everything that he applied for on this plan meets our regulations. We can't deny him his permit because we don't think he should build there. If he meets the legal requirements, he gets the permit, and that's what he does. MR. PROVENCHER: How much have you explored out there? TRUSTEE FOSTER: This whole Board went out there, we walked the whole property last week, all of us. MR. PROVENCHER: You did not, you couldn't. It's impossible to get through there, don't tell me you did. You're lying. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Excuse me? I'm lying? MR. PROVENCHER: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Maybe you ought to write a letter and say that. Put it in writing that I'm lying. This whole Board went out there last week and spent a half-hour, forty-five minutes there. MR. PROVENCHER: Get lost. TRUSTEE FOSTER: No. Why don't you get the hell out of here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hey, that's it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We don't have to put up with this. MR. PROVENCHER: I don't have to put up with you. 40 Board of Trustees 41 September 21, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's enough. Let's move on to the next application. 13. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of LEWIS L. & LEFFERTS P. EDSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, swimming pool, attached deck, detached garage, driveway and sanitary system. Located: 405 Cedar Point Drive, Southold. SCTM#90-2-27 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The hearing's open. Before I ask for comment, I would just like to say, the Board inspected these sites. We walked -- I personally walked these three sites completely. There are paths through the whole site all the way down to the wetlands, not only did we walk the site, we measured from the wetlands to the proposed structure. I don't know if we took pictures or not or whether these are the applicant's pictures. We made ourselves familiar with the area. We reviewed the files. This Board worked for over a year to rewrite Chapter 97. We don't take any of this lightly, and we're not lying about any of this. And we know Mr. Edson because he lives in Southold town we live in Southold town. We know Bruce Anderson because he lives in Southold town. I know many of you. Of course we know Mr. Edson, he's an applicant here. He's been before this Board. TRUSTEE FOSTER: He doesn't get any preferential treatment, I can tell you that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. This particular property meets all regulations. In fact, what is proposed with respect to the garage is that 99 feet requires the Wetland Permit for one foot of one corner. The entire house is beyond the jurisdiction; the entire septic system is beyond 150 feet. The only issue before this Board is clearing in the previous application, a 50 foot buffer was established which would line up with this buffer. I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll take other comment before we -- BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Al, is the Lefferts person dead? If so, we might want to issue the permit in the name of Lewis and the Estate of the person who is dead. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Bruce, is the Lefferts person deceased? MR. ANDERSON: I do not know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you ask your applicant if he's deceased? MR. EDSON: I'm not his applicant but he is, 1988, Grace died in '87. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Mr. Anderson, do you have any problem if 41 Board of Trustees 42 September 21, 2005 we act on this application that it be in the name of Lewis L. and the Estate of this dead person? MR. ANDERSON: Not at all. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Would you have any problem with the last one -- is Grace Edson dead? MR. ANDERSON: No problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Any Board comment? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seems like it meets the setback requirements. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only comment I had -- notice, if you skip over to 28. When we were in the field, we laid the three surveys out so we could compare them. We were unable to find the survey for the last lot, 28. Do you have a copy that you could provide us with? MR. ANDERSON: Sure (handing). (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, this has got a consistency review form from the LWRP coordinator proposed action is generally consistent with the policy standards and is therefore consistent with the LWRP. CAC recommends approval of the application. If there's no other comment, Fd recommend a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Lewis L. and the Estate of Lefferts P. Edson with the condition that dry wells be added to contain roof runoff and that a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer be marked on the survey and that a staked row of hay bales be placed at that mark before construction begins and that the driveway be pervious. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 14. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of GRACE R. EDSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, swimming pool, attached decking, driveway, sanitary system and public water. Located: 355 Midway Road, Southold. SCTM#90-2-28 BROWNELL JOHNSTON: You corrected the record on the last one to have it Estate of Grace as well? Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application? BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Bruce, do I have your permission to amend the application to the Estate of Grace Edson? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: With your understanding that she's deceased; that's correct? 42 Board of Trustees 43 September 21, 2005 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. The application, I believe speaks to itself. You'll notice that the pool complies. The house is set back 55 feet. What I was going to suggest is that there be some room seaward of these structures so that you could impose a 50 foot buffer, and what I was going to suggest is that the adjacent lot further expand its buffer by 10 feet to 60. So that you get a little bit more in that area, and that's acceptable, and there's plenty of room to do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What he said is what I suggested before, to make a larger buffer. We'd rather see for the long term use and enforcement purposes, we'd rather see a consistent buffer. MR. ANDERSON: Perhaps the way to do this then is to take all three maps, put them together and file them with each application, so you don't have a 10 foot jot at the property line is what you're thinking. What I can offer to do is to pursue that concept but make them smoother lines that essentially follow contour lines so they will fit the sites. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine. Is there any other comment? Any Board comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sounds good. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we discussed in the field is the elimination of the swimming pool or at least moving the swimming pool back as far to the road as possible because the house is one thing but the pool is sort of an unnecessary. The other swimming pool that we approved was at 100 feet; this swimming pool was at 50, feet and we didn't think it was necessary. MR. ANDERSON: The pool was set up because the standards for pools are at 50 foot from the wetlands boundaries, that was its choice in placement. It may be possible with that, and I believe it is, and also comply with the zoning law. So I would suggest that we make an effort to relocate it further back. I believe the Town would consider this property a waterfront property, and therefore there would be some zoning relief towards the road. So I would suggest that the pool be relocated further back to the minimum setback as provided by zoning. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do you have a number on that? MR. ANDERSON: No, not offthe top of my head. As I said, we designed it to comply with the wetlands law because we were before this Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I would suggest that we eliminate the pool and at some point in time someone who's living in the house come in for an amendment if they really want a pool, then they can worry about the pool at that time. 43 Board of Trustees 44 September 21, 2005 MR. ANDERSON: If that is the case, I will then suggest that the pool be withdrawn without prejudice. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Then you could have a full 50 foot buffer on the south east side of the house, and the only place it won't be a full 50 foot non-disturbance buffer would be the house itself. It would just be 45 feet. We'd like to see that drawn on the survey before we send the permit out. MS. PROVENCHER: Mary Provencher, from Southold. I would like to know how high these houses are because they don't look that high? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know. Bruce, can you answer that? MR. ANDERSON: I do not have an answer, but it will comply with the Town's height requirements. Two and a half stories maximum and no higher than 35 feet above natural grade. Those are the rules. MS. PROVENCHER: Does that mean your foundation is above the ground and then two and a half feet? MR. ANDERSON: No, it's measured from natural grade. Typically, the foundation will be 18 inches above grade, and that's a termite protection device. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment, questions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Board comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL. AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition that the proposed pool has been withdrawn without prejudice, the buffer, the nondisturbance buffer, shall be marked with hay bales at 50 feet prior to construction except where the house is, that should be marked at 40 feet to allow for construction of the house, and that after construction no tuff on the midway inlet side of house in that area. Gutters and dry wells have to be added to the site to contain runoff. The driveway is of pervious nature. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES '15. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. 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: Last month the applicant submitted a rather complex groundwater flow analysis. I, for one, have not digested this just for the record. I am not prepared to act on this tonight. 44 Board of Trustees 45 September 21, 2005 MR. ANDERSON: My only question is have you received the LWRP report? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: LWRP was received August 23rd. The proposed action is generally consistent with the policy standards and is therefore consistent with the LWRP. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. What I would suggest if you haven't fully digested it we would all be better served if it be tabled until the next meeting. I would like everyone to be comfortable with what we have submitted so we can shorten our presentation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Ma'am, did you see what was submitted by the applicant last month? MS. SAWINSKI: Ann Sawinski, 825 West Lake Road. Yes, I was here. I wasn't able to get a copy of that. I did submit a letter, but I know you didn't get it because it was sent out too late. MR. ANDERSON: You submitted a letter? MS. SAWINSKI: And I was here last month but ~ did not have the opportunity to see that letter, publication information. But I did want to make some comments based on what was mentioned at the last month's meeting about the property. Is it okay if I read a few things here? I abbreviated it. I, along with my cousin Sarah Sawinski Herman, also of 825 West Lake, attended the Town Board meeting of August 24th when you were presented further information about a Wetland Permit. Bruce Anderson of Suffolk Environmental Consulting made a presentation on the most sensitive issue, the septic system. They're testing to determine the water flow after a breach in the system has shown that the movement to take 18.75 hours for the vertical flow to groundwater and 3.75 days for horizontal flow to move south to the Peconic Bay and southwest toward the inlet. These are the results of his tests. Our question was on what basis are they acceptable? It was stated that there would be no impact on the creek or lake, which is just 42 feet, one of the unmet 100 foot setbacks to the north because water would flow in the opposite direction. Yet the creek lake would be impacted as the tidal water flows from bay to inlet into the creek lake's ecosystem, one that counts the obvious birds and fish among the wildlife that does exist on the peninsula and the lake, contrary to statements referencing wildlife at the last meeting. When discussing the impact of this application and the possible pollution if there was a breach of the septic system, a comment was made that it's just one house amidst an ecosystem that could be and is polluted by any of the thousands of homes between Cedar Beach and North Road, each of those homes is just one house. If that position is brought to bear weight in the decision process, policy can 45 Board of Trustees 46 September 21, 2005 be easily ignored resulting in a situation tantamount to the effect of the policy in force. Construction permitted because testing was per[ormed at the next level weakens policy creating conditions that were supposed to be prevented. One last statement here, if the septic research is deemed acceptable by the Board, there are two other setbacks on the survey submitted with the application which are not being met. The residence is approximately 30 feet from the bay and inlet bulkheads, which 100 feet policy setback, and the driveway 25 feet from the north edge where a 50 foot setback policy remains. These just appear to be rather large variances. In conclusion, in reviewing the current policy publication to protect and preserve the wetlands, and for guidance in deeming acceptable projects, this application fails to conform to policy discrepancies. I look to the Board to be staunch in the execution of the policy currently in existence. And that is our concern about the septic system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, ma'am. That's the reason the Board's moving very slowly on this. We have visited the site here, and we are familiar with it. Having been on the site previously, we were unaware this was a separate parcel until the application was made, and as you said, the septic system, the retaining wall itself is located 12 feet from the canal. So that's why this is a serious concern to us. And that's why we want to make sure we understand what was submitted. So we don't want to close the hearing because we might have more questions from the applicant. MS. SAWINSKI: Thank you. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Could we have a copy of that letter? MS. SAWINSKh Yes, I made several copies. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 16. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. 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 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' 46 Board of Trustees 47 September 21, 2005 elevation. 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 altemiflora planted on 6 inches on center. Located: Kimogenor Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#116-6-24.1 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the Kimogenor Point Company. I'm going to take an opportunity to pass out revised surveys that focus on an issue that was brought to our attention by the New York State DEC. This may help in your review as well. So I wanted both agencies to be apprised of the same project. And first of all, we're talking about resheathing an existing bulkhead area to the north that wraps around the frame building, which is actually the clubhouse for the association. That bulkhead is in very bad shape so the concept there is to remove the existing exterior piles, replace the vinyl bulkhead to extend the return slightly, because we're getting some scour behind that and we are getting some flooding behind that, and install the dead men, make it strong. That it seems to me would follow all the guidelines that this Board typically requires. The second part of the project is really the Iow sill bulkhead, which is a more modern feature as the Board is aware, and something that is specifically discussed in the Town's new wetlands ordinance. What I want understood here is what we have here is a Iow sill bulkhead whose top elevation is placed at midpoint between the normal high and the normal Iow tide. That bas to be straight. But if you went down there and looked at the intertidal marsh along that thing, you will see that the bog is getting scoured out. And in fact, the association has been measuring this by aerials and whatnot and stakes that they have placed in the ground over a number of years, and you've lost a variable distance somewhere between seven and 10 feet of spartina marsh and that is because the bog is getting undermined. So the idea is to put this in to limit the amount of fill and then simply to plug it with spartina. That will regain the marsh lost by the scouring of the underlying bog to that marsh. I believe that was the purpose for -- or this Board's purpose in inserting that into the Wetland Law, particularly the Iow sill bulkhead was to project marshes from precisely those types of impacts. So I would suggest that the application complies. The fill that goes between the clubhouse and the northerly section of the replaced vinyl bulkhead is just intended to bring that elevation back to what its previous elevation was, and that will eliminate some flooding and 47 Board of Trustees 48 September 21, 2005 protect the clubhouse. For your information there is no septic system associated with the clubhouse. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have two concerns. One on field inspection we noticed it was staked way too close to the bog. What you just submitted here shows (inaudible) to the bog, which is more appropriate because you could place fill behind it and plant behind it and re-establish. MR. ANDERSON: We're trying to put this, we have piles here that are, I believe, 6 inches, we're looking to snug it up to it but not actually disturb the clay on that bog. The staking that we did is intended to give you a visual idea of it being snugged up. We have to build it straight, but in no event do we want to actually disturb that bog. The association has spoken to several contractors and we were advised that that could be done in that fashion. So we're talking about one to two feet seaward of that bog except in some places it may be closer because the bog does meander. But I do agree that it shouldn't go into the bog and that the bog itself shouldn't be disturbed. I suggest that if we're going to approve this, the condition be that no bog be disturbed and that it's really going to be a feature of the installation rather than a feature of any plan I come up with. The reason we put this in this was DEC's concern as well, and so we have tried to make that representation, but it really is a feature of careful installation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to look at it at Iow tide? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to go back and look at it. I think there were only three members of the Board there. I think it's major enough. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm very comfortable with iow sill bulkheads, having seen a number of them approved by this Board and installed and having seen the results of the marsh re-established behind them. But we should take a look at this, the whole Board wasn't there. We should look at this at ~ow tide to get an idea of the whole intertidal area. One thing I'd like to bring up before we table this, we'd like to see, if possible, the existing bulkhead replaced in-place. MR. ANDERSON: We feel if we do that the earth is going to collapse into the creek. So we're really talking about removing those piles but using that as a surface. I can look and explore that, but it is my opinion that in these types of situations where you have literally a five foot drop right adjacent to the waters at high tide that it is advisable to actually use that as a barrier to contain that fill and preventing it from spilling into the creek. We have had these discussions before and I suppose we can agree to disagree. But I think it's a proper way to do it. TRUSTEE KING: How about if you go landward of the old 48 Board of Trustees 49 September 21, 2005 bulkhead. Put the new one in take the old one out? MR. ANDERSON: That's a possibility. I could speak with the association. We had filed an application to do precisely that, I don't know what the complications are. It sounds like you want to go out at Iow tide, I would make myself available to meet you out there. And in the meantime, I can explore that sort of methodology. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to table that application, if there's no other comment. TRUSTEE KING: The only comment I have is it's been found inconsistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have a month to take that up with the consistency coordinator. MR. ANDERSON: Is it possible, here you're working on an LWRP for 20 years by my recollection and you're working on a Wetland Law that provides for the Iow sill bulkheads, how is it then by following the law, could it possibly be inconsistent? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to talk to the coordinator. MR. ANDERSON: You don't know. COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS 1. LEWIS L. EDSON requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a single4amily dwelling, deck and sanitary system. Located: Stevenson Road, Orient. SCTM#17-1-2.2 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. EDSON: Lewis Edson, Main Road, Cutchogue. Since the work session last month I had the surveyor push the house back, eliminate the swimming pool and in compliance with the suggestions that the Board made last time. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Good evening, my name is Kevin McLoughlin, I'm here on behalf of 10 of the neighboring families, both of the adjoining property owners, several of which are here this evening. Our basic concern as far as this Board is concerned, your jurisdiction, relates to the size of the house and its impact therefore, on where the sanitary system is sited below the coastal erosion hazard line. As you can see on the proposal, the proposed house is very substantial, takes up the vast bulk of the property above the coastal erosion hazard line and is very inconsistent with the size of other houses in the neighborhood. One of the criteria that this Board has to look at in reviewing an application under the coastal erosion law is if there are viable alternatives, and 49 Board of Trustees 50 September 21, 2005 clearly there would be here. Simply by reducing the footprint of the first floor of the house, it would be possible to then move the septic system back above the coastal erosion hazard line and do away with that issue. Clearly we feel that's inappropriate to have below the coastal erosion hazard line. We're happy that the pool has been eliminated from the application. There are several other issues we have with the proposal, but they really don't have a lot to do with what's before the Board. There are several of the neighbors that would also like to address the Board this evening regarding this application. MR. EDSON: I'd like to make a couple comments on what the attorney just said while it's still fresh. The cesspools are there because of the 150 foot requirement by the Board of Health. I don't have any problem moving the cesspools anywhere, but the requirements by the Board of Health is 150 feet from the well. The footprint of the house also includes a deck. So a lot of that house, a lot of that footprint is taken up by deck. As far as being inconsistent with the area, the house behind me is probably equally as big if not bigger. So there's really nothing inconsistent, though I don't think that has anything to do with what the Board's here for, but so you can recognize what's going on, it's not quite the case. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: If I could just follow-up on that. There is going to be problems with the 150 foot separation whether the septic systems and cesspools are located below the hazard erosion line or not, there are at least two other cesspools within the 150 foot arc on other properties from where the proposed well is. So he's already going to have to deal with the issue before the Board of Health for getting a variance for the location of his well. So bringing up the cesspools above the coastal erosion hazard line is really not going to add any additional burden to him as he already has that burden. One of them is located on the survey that you have; the other one for some reason that I can't explain, although there is a large cement cover over it, is not located on the map and is located next to the septic tank that is shown on the westerly side of the property. I don't know why it doesn't appear on the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKk Does this map relate to what he just said? MR. SHARMIN: Fred Sharmin from Orient, and I have live in this area, and I'm here primarily speaking for Donna Tweedy, who is in the emergency room tonight and couldn't be here. She's in the house he just referred to, it's an adjacent property to this. Comments on some of the size of the houses, the big 50 Board of Trustees 51 September 21, 2005 house on the hill is 3,600 square feet, that used to be the Hanson house, I don't know the people in there now. Aquino house is 2,600 feet and my house is about 1,500 square feet. So we're talking about a significantly larger house. But what I want to get back to is what Mr. McLoughlin said on that well situation. If you notice, that was my point number four, but I'll start with that one. There was a clearing of the land a while back and perhaps inappropriate, and when that happened it basically went over the existing septic tank. So the septic tank you can see there on the map as square, and you can see it on the west side of the lot, but there is also a cesspool located over there which is round and very visible. And if you do your 150 foot arc from that cesspool, I think I did it in either purple or yellow, you'll see that his suggested well site is within the 150 feet. So he's having some problems locating where that well could possibly be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Question, the existing septic tank and cesspool, for what? MR. SHARMIN: For the house we're just talking about, the Tweedy house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's on someone else's property? MR. SHARMIN: This whole area was owned by one family and property was never a concern in the past. What's happened as time has gone on, certain lots have been broken off and other people started to buy into it. But it was all one family at one time. So as a result, people weren't concerned in the 1800s where you put your cesspools and that was there. He has, there is a right of way along there, 15 foot right of way which gives the right to have that cesspool there. It's been deeded. I have the deed for that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's in the coastal erosion hazard area. MR. SHARMIN: Right. But I think the coastal erosion concept came in well after all that stuff came in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's possible, I don't know. And then you have this existing septic. MR. EDSON: That's a distribution tank that's on my property. It goes to the cesspools to the south, and that's been there since long before I owned the property, which is 1980. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is it functional? MR. EDSON: Yes. The distribution box is functional but the Board of Health doesn't look at it as a cesspool. They don't measure from that point. They measure from -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: But this shows a leaching pool cover too. MR. SHARMIN: Right adjacent to that there is a leaching pool. I've indicated in red, and you're more than welcome to take a look at that, it's very visible. It's there already so you won't have any problem finding it, what you won't see is the square box because that has been buried by 51 Board of Trustees 52 September 21, 2005 a plow that went down there. So it's been covered by dirt. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So that system connects down almost to the beach? MR. SHARMIN: I think this connects to the other pool down there. There's another pool way on the beach, i know you guys wouldn't approve it today but this was done basically at the beginning of time. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You say this is functional; what is it servicing? MR. SHARMIN: It services the Tweedy house, you'll see Donna Tweedy on there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I see, but it doesn't show a house. MR. SHARMIN: It doesn't include the actual houses, but it's on that property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It crosses the property line again as it goes down to the beach. MR. SHARMIN: Basically I just want to show them that this does exist there. It was put there a long time ago. So that's going to be a concern when he decides where to put the well. There are some other issues which I would like to bring up. There are two roads I have done in blue, and those roads again have been there for many, many years. They cut across the Tweedy property. They actually cut into the new Edson property or the Terry property, they're not really, except for what you own, that's the only ones you deed, but they have been there for a very long time, and people have used these roads really for over 100 years, 122 years to be exact. And as you can see, he has developed his lot in such a way that he's coming off the blue road that goes straight, and it actually cuts across the Tweedy property again in a second place where I had that marked in red. I'm very concerned about that because that is actually taking an area that she would plan to put up there some buffer or trees, something to put a buffer between these two houses. So I believe she was never approached about using that property and yet he's put it there. The way I see it, he can't be landlocked, and we want him to have his house there, but we want him to use the available infrastructure that's there. He reported in his footnote that he would use the infrastructure -- referring back to the LWRP -- that was in place, and those two roads are what's in place. So it seems to me he has to come off either of those two roads where they touch his property. So we have a very serious concern about that. The dirt road that goes through the sound is a road that's been used for access for everybody that lives in that area to walk down to the beach or drive down. I used to 52 Board of Trustees 53 September 21, 2005 lobster down there and drove my car down there. Having said that, that would be a wonderful access road for him to use because it cuts directly into his property, if he could put his garage somehow there. So we would like to ask that that road be continued to be used, and there's some easement by prescription considerations there because it has been used over the years. Basically those are the points that I want to make. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Do you have any information about the two rights of way, one that appears to go similar to the leaching pool, the first one I guess the south. MR. SHARMIN: I can tell you exactly where those are. Those rights of way were given so there would be access to those cesspools. When the Terrys sold the property, they subdivided and actually it became a lot over there. It was always a concern they would have access to those pools. They were given that 10 foot right of way by Horace Terry. We have the deed for that. There's another 15 foot right of way, the Lomis right of way. And that was given because the Terry property was given an area where the well is, and there's also a structure there, and for that gift, they were then given the other right of way, the other second dotted line you see down there. So there are two rights of way that go down on this property. Those are deeded right of ways. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: I'm sorry, Al, we only see one right of way. MR. SHARrvllN: There are two dotted lines. He only put one, he put the one, if you look carefully, he did show two of them on there. One's inside the other. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. MR. EDSON: They're on my survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? MR. TERRY: My name is Dick Terry. I actually live in Pennsylvania, but I am co-owner with the adjacent property with my sister Pat, who is sitting right there. We have a couple of concerns, one of which was already mentioned, so maybe it's beating a dead horse but we're just questioning whether leaching pools can be under the coastal erosion zone. Is that allowed? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seems to be consistent with the area. I'm kidding. We're going to get into that later. MR. TERRY: And in another issue as with the Tweedy property, he has proposed going across our land for access to his house on the east side there, we were never approached with, hey, would it be all right with you if I can do that. It's a little bit of a concern and a consideration that wasn't made. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The access part is non-jurisdictional for 53 Board of Trustees 54 September 21, 2005 this Board. It's a legitimate concern but take it up somewhere else, but sure, I can understand that concern. The coastal erosion concern is one that either -- and I don't know how to resolve this easily -- it's either the applicant has to alter the house, bring the septic system back within the coastal erosion, get a permit from this Board and then move onto the Health Department for a variance. Or, as I see it, get a permit from this Board for the house, get denied for the septic, go to the Town Board for a variance for the septic. That's how I see it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We can't issue a permit for the septic because it's past the coastal erosion line. We can approve the house, deny the septic. You have to go to the Town Board for a variance. They can grant you a variance to encroach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can either shrink the house and move the septic back, and we can give you a permit for everything. MR. EDSON: I have to keep the septic where it is to get it through the Board of Health. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Then we can approve the house not the septic, and you have to go to the Town Board to get a variance for the septic. We can't grant a variance for the septic. MR. TERRY: The other point that I didn't make, there's a 40 foot setback that's standard. If you take a look, he has setbacks of 29 feet, 31 feet and I think 32 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a zoning issue. MR. TERRY: Oh, you're saying you're going to approve the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But then the applicant is going to have to deal with the zoning issue. I don't think he can deal with the zoning issue until he gets our permit. Then he can go to the ZBA, the Health Department, Building Department, Town Board, then he can move on. Without our permit he can't do anything. MR. TERRY: Your permit is saying what? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our jurisdiction is coastal erosion and Chapter 97 Wetlands. The septic's 155 feet back from the sound, those are our concerns. This is a constrained lot, so he's going to have to go -- he and apparently you -- are going to have to go to a lot of hearings. But there are alternatives here. But now if Mr. Edson can't get a variance from the Town Board for a septic, then he has to come back to us to amend it to move the house, the septic outside of the coastal erosion. All those things could happen, this isn't cut and dried. MR. TERRY: So the result today is he's got to where? You're not approving anything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We could approve the house because 54 Board of Trustees 55 September 21, 2005 basically the house meets our criteria. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The house does but the other stuff-- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But buffers and hay bales and drainage and everything, but couldn't approve the septic. MR. TERRY: The issues I brought forth about setbacks that's appropriate in another forum; is that correct? I'm sorry. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's okay. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Here tonight what we're considering is environmental issues and not zoning or not building issues or not issues as to the quality of the house or anything like that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? MR. TERRY: One area that's that LWRP, has that thing been done on that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, itwas deemed consistent. MR. TERRY: In looking through that thing, there's a number of places where we find it talks about compatible existing scale. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The LWRP is reviewed by consistency coordinator in the Planning Board. So if you have any issue with the LWRP you have to go to them. That's a report that's handed to us. We don't write it. AUDIENCE MEMBER: They said it was consistent? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. TERRY: So if we had an argument or question, we'd have to go to them? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Mark Terry. MR. TERRY: No, Richard Terry. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, Mark Terry is the coordinator. Can we move on that then? TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the house and disapprove the septic system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKk You want a buffer? TRUSTEE KING: Nondisturbance buffer up to the 12 foot contour. And the house will have to show dry wells and gutters for the roof runoff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The driveway location is out of our jurisdiction and if Mr. Edson changes the driveway location, he doesn't have to come back to us. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES MR. JOHNSTON: Bruce, you're volunteering to give us a letter? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 3. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of D. CLAEYS BAHRENBURG requests a Wetland Permit and 55 Board of Trustees 56 September 21, 2005 Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a docking facility consisting of a 4' by 79' fixed elevated catwalk; 3.5' by 15' hinged ramp, and 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 220 Bay Avenue, Orient. SCTM#24-2-21 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? We don't have an LWRP on this, so we'll keep this short. MR. ANDERSON: I'm here to tell you, I know we're going to table it. Someone in my office told me, maybe I spoke to Heather or Lauren, I don't remember, and said that you were going to do some research because you have a glitch here, some other structures. You have mapped the harbor as a coastal erosion hazard line area; you have a dock which has been permitted there and water dependent uses there, but the statute doesn't contemplate docks. What the coastal erosion hazard generally refers to other things like bulkheads and shore hardening devices and the thrusts of it are structures that protect individual property owner's interest and public property interests, and I think that's where this thing is stuck and has always been stuck. We were sent to DEC on this. I can tell you that issue was never addressed, but I can also tell you that they gave us a permit for the dock. So if we're going to do some research on that point, I'd like to know that, I understand the LWRP point. We can provide you with our own research, if you think that's helpful. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. And on that note, I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 56