Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/24/2005Albert 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 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:00 PM Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 21,2005 at 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of May, June 24, 2005. TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: For May, 2004, check for $4,097.61 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 in August. A little introduction, the Board is Ken Poliwoda, Peg Dickerson, Jim King, myself and Artie Foster. Lauren Standish is our secretary, at the end of the row there is Brownell Johnston, our attorney, Heather Tetrault is our environmental technician. Jack McGreevey is the CAC representative who attends our meetings, CAC meets every month and advises us on our applications, and they inspect every application. While we are starting here, at the beginning we have a few housekeeping things and then we go into resolutions and administrative permits because they're not technically public hearings, but if anyone has any comments on any of these items, please be ready, and we'll try to move them through pretty quickly because it's a long agenda, and by the time we get to public hearing in the 20s we'll be around 11:20 or 11:30 or so we want to keep things moving along. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in the Public Hearing of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday August 24, 2005 are classified as Type 2 actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and are not subject to review under SEQRA. Anthony & Joanne Kropp -- SCTM#143-5-8 Vincent & Eileen Flaherty -- SCTM#92-1-8 Robert Swing-- SCTM#53-6-24 Leo Alessi -- SCTM#92-1-3 Brian McGinn -- SCTM#88-5-61.1 Amelia P. Mancini -- SCTM#51-6-25 Patricia Gilchrist Mancino -- SCTM#117-10-15 John & Patrice Keitt -- SCTM#81-1-19 George & Mary Pavlicin -- SCTM#33-1-13 Josephine Gels -- SCTM#115-17-6.1 Philip & Debra Rybeck -- SCTM#137-4-24 Steven & Andrea Kolyer-- SCTM#81-1-10 JHL Associates, LLC -- SCTM#56-7-14 David Hoffman -- SCTM#52-2-36 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have the inspector of the LWRP that we have now a coded agenda thanks to Lauren. So as we go through, if they're exempt, we will mention it, and if they're consistent, just say they're consistent and if they're inconsistent, then we can have discussions if anyone cares then we can discuss it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Al, unless even if they're consistent there are regulations that we may want to note. IV. RESOLUTION - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: 1. SAMUEL & ANNE DELUCA request an Administrative Permit to maintain the wetland grasses in the area of the boat ramp, in order to access the boat ramp. Located: 1350 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM#78-2-31. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this the other day, and we talked about the phragmites that they're going to cut 12 inches right on the corner of the boat ramp. I also recommended that the area on the corner where the phragmites are, he's going to do some replantings with native species, and i'm also going to add to the permit that he can trim between the edge between the dock and the bulkhead on his boat ramp because it's basically cinder block. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Can you mark those areas on the permit or on the plans so he'll be clear? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I did on here, but I didn't on here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was a motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was a motion to grant him permission to cut his phragmites to 12 inches to do replanting and to trim on his boat ramp to the edge of the bulkhead and the dock. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. (ALL AYES) 2. JAMES BLACKLEY requests an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to 12 inches around the catwalk each year, remove the existing concrete driveway and fill with top soil and seed, and to straighten the pavers on the second driveway and place down a layer of pebbles. Located: 1455 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-1-13. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We were there, we had no problems. TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES) 3. JEANNE & JOSE CASTANO request an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to 12 inches by hand as needed. Located: 1700 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-1-11 TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 4. Thomas Fitzmaurice on behalf of CRESCENT BEACH CONDOMINIUM requests an Administrative Permit to expand the existing 69' by 16' wide deck to the same 69' long, but add four inches on the width, for total width of 20'. Located: 2500 Maple Lane, Greenport. SCTM#38-7-13 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this. It's a very, very small project. They are expanding the deck landward. My only condition would be on the east side of the deck there was quite a bit of debris, there were some jet ski floats, a sunfish, two canoes, and a floating dock that they agreed they would remove prior to receiving the permit. So I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES) MR. FITZMAURICE: I just want to say, we did remove it, the two floating docks. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. 5. Peter Corbin on behalf of TERRY WATERS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS requests an Administrative Permit to clean up beach property including removal of brush, weeds, vines and other growth along Watersedge Way and Rambler Road. Located: cio Rambler Road and Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTM#88-5-55 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We were there on Wednesday and we had no problem on the east side of the entrance as far as clearing it above the 100 foot, but there was a question on the east side of your entrance and what I'd like to do is to approve the clearing that we looked at, Jim, when we were there, with the condition that after Heather and I go out and check how close they are to the wetlands that maybe they can come in and amend for the second part of the clearing. We tried to measure it off and they also want to replace the fence. We got down as close as we could, but I'd like to go out there and flag it with you. MS. TETRAULT: Can they put on a survey specifically where they want to do that clearing? MS. GENOVESE: I'm Joan Genovese, Peter Corbin is out of town so I'm representing him. I think it's along the whole road part there, which is marked on the survey. The property that's owned by the association, we wanted to go in from where there's part of the road has a fence along it, and a lot of it is broken and sometimes there's no fence at all. So what we wanted to do is replace the fence and go in about 15 feet from the fence. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you check the 15 feet? MS. GENOVESE: 15 feet is what we were looking for. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would be inclined to approve the permit for the west side of the entrance so they can get started on it, and you and I, Heather, can go out and look and they can amend it depending on what we find. So I'm going to approve the Terry Waters property removal of brush and weeds and vines -- well, it's non-jurisdictional. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We weren't quite sure what the extent of the clearing was. MS. GENOVESE: I was there all day waiting. MS. TETRAULT: But now you're saying 15 feet? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, that's on Rambler Road, what we came down. That's the one I'm -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But if they do the clearing of the brush along the 100 foot, do we need a permit? Why don't we mark it for you? Then you can have that permit then we'll look at flagging. MS. GENOVESE: Then we can modify that permit to cover the Rambler Road? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You won't even need a permit for that clearing because it will be non-jurisdictional. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which one? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The one along Rambler Road, yes, you will need to include that in the permit. Down. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to approve the permit that they can clear Watersedge Way, when we go down and mark it, that they can clear on Watersedge, and Heather and I are going to flag and check this and then they can amend this permit? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. MS. GENOVESE: Do you think that could happen before the next meeting? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. MS. GENOVESE: Because I don't think we would do the work piecemeal. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I can go out as soon as Heather can, tomorrow or Friday? MS. TETRAULT: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 6. Marian Sumner on behalf of PECONIC LAND TRUST requests an Administrative Permit to control the spread of phragmites by wicking the phragmites with Rodeo. Located: c/o Lake and West Drives, Southold. SCTM#59-1-20.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh This just came in. Is that wetlands area that's marked on the survey, that's entirely phragmites this would be done soon? MS. SUMNER: It needs to be done in October. We talked to specialists, and they said that's the only time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You'd wait until October? MS. SUMNER: Yes. We'd wait until October. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want all the foliage to get treated and then the Rodeo gets transferred down to the roots and it kills the roots. MS. SUMNER: This is in an effort to save the globally rare flora that's there. We've had specialists come, and they say if the phragmites continue to spread, we're going to lose the iris prismatic and the other important flora that was there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there any further discussion. I'll make the motion; is there a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? (ALL AYES) V. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING & ANCHORAGE/STAKES/DUCK BLINDS: 1. ADELAIDE KNOWLES requests a Mooring Permit in Deep Hole Creek for a boat no larger than 24', replacing Mooring#136. Access: Public TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. (ALL AYES) 2. DAVID ZAZESKI requests an onshore/offshore stake in West Creek for a 12' boat. Access: Public. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES) VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: 1. JLH ASSOCIATES, LLC requests an Amendment to Permit 5981 to relocate the foundation 15' to the west and change the side entry garage to a front entry garage. Located: 315 Albacore Drive, Southold. SCTM#: 56-7-14 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This application is now consistent with the LWRP as opposed to being exempt. This application had been modified and actually what we discussed in the field, it was discussed that with a nonturf buffer behind the house. It was drawn on the survey to follow the row of hay bales, and I modified that when I was in the office the other day to kind of left it an odd place behind the house, a little odd triangle. So I extended the arrows and drew a straight line so the whole back of the house is nonturf. It's current on the one side, on the east side, but on the west side it left a little odd triangle about 10' by 20' by nothing, so it just squared it off. MR. CHIAVETTA: I'm Bob Chiavetta. I live in Southold Shores. I'm not here to speak against it, actually, there was no time between last week and the drawing of the new plans for me to get a chance to see them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: Would you like to take a look? MR. CHIAVETTA: I'm just asking -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's where he moved it to. That's where we talked about the nonturf, instead of making the nonturf this line, we just squared it off here. So the whole back of the house is nonturf. MR. CHIAVETTA: Will there be replanting there, on the side over there? This was a deck and this was a porch. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it's a porch area there. He showed us on the feel inspection. TRUSTEE KING: And the walkway around. MR. CHIAVETTA: And that's -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Wood deck. MR. CHIAVETTA: That's a walkway? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we discussed the deck. Mr. Hurtado? MR. HURTADO: After checking with the Building Department, we were able to move the front yard from 40 feet to 35 feet because it was under 20,000 square feet. So we gave even more behind the house from the wetlands. I just wanted to point that out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I didn't see that. MS. TETRAULT: Mr. Hurtado came in the office with a list of plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They're actually listed on the survey. MS. TETRAULT: Okay, just so you know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the amended plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 2. PHILIP AND DEBRA RYBECKY request an Amendment to Permit #1191 to remove all of the existing asphalt area (driveway and area near creek) and repave an area of asphalt approximately 30' by 32' for parking and basketball. Located: 1065 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#137-4-24 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments on the application? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Ma'am? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There was a boat trailer sitting on the marsh in the back, and there's also a chunk of asphalt still there in the back of the house, if they could continue removing those items. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay, any other comments? I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With those stipulations. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Considering the two stipulations Peggy mentioned, removing of the boat trailer and the asphalt in the rear. I have a motion and a second, all in favor? (ALL AYES) 3. JOSEPHINE GElS requests an Amendment to Permit #35 to repair the existing 3' by 8' catwalk, 3' by 12' hinged ramp, and 6' by 20' floating dock, and to transfer Permit 35 from Mary LePeter to Joseph Geis. Located: 3800 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#115-17.6.1 TRUSTEE KING: Actually it should be change the float size and to transfer. Right now they have an 8' float -- I'm sorry, a 12' float, and they wanted to increase it to a 6' by 20'. I think it's a matter of stability because the gentleman that came to the door was older than I am. And I think it was just a matter of more stability on the float. I didn't have a problem with it. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 4. GERARD GRALTON requests an Amendment to Permit 5897 to construct a 3' high handrail onto the existing catwalk. Located: 5710 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#138-2-34 TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve one handrail on each side of the existing catwalk. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, I'm recusing myself because the applicant's my father-in-law. 5. Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JOHN & PATRICE KEITT requests an Amendment to permit #5883 to re-shingle and re-roof the entire house and reconstruct landward entry porch in-kind. Located: 280 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1-19 TRUSTEE KING: Conservation Council recommended approval. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES) 6. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of STEVEN & ANDREA KOLYER request an Amendment to Permit 5672 to expand the existing fixed platform from 5' by 9' to 5' by 13' and to add five 8" diameter pilings. Located: 4075 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1-10 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would you like to speak? MS. MOORE: Very briefly. I understand that most of this was discussed at another hearing, a neighbor's application. If you recall the history here, the Kolyers had originally proposed to locate the dock and make the fixed platform large enough so the dock could be pushed out slightly into the basin. At the time, I think you had had enough of the Paradise Point activities and you pushed them very far over towards the bulkhead, and it's actually created problems for them because it does cause the float to sit on the bottom. It limits the usability of the float and the ability to have a boat there in the basin. So at the last hearing I believe it was, the association was dealing with their configuration of the dock, Mrs. Kolyer stood up and said listen, this is my problem, I think after some discussion, the Board suggested, well, why don't you come in with something reasonable, and we'll push you out a little bit so you have a better use of your dock. She called me. We got it in right away so we could be at this hearing. And here we are today, where we're requesting a slight addition to the fixed platform and the ramp goes automatically where the float goes. The float will push out away from the bulkhead by four feet; that will give them better use of the water. It will allow them to put a normal size boat there and on occasion you'll have the float that sits on the bottom and we have a photograph on where the float sits on the bottom for your records. I have an original, which Ill give you a copy of. I'm showing you so you have an original and a copy. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is that ice? MS. MOORE: That's during the early winter. See what we're trying to do is push this out slightly, so we have the water depth in the canal. I think you're very well aware of this boat basin, and it's a pretty straightforward application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think we could use a better core section showing actual-- MS. MOORE: We submitted this right away. I had a day from the time it could be submitted to the time your notice schedule was about to expire. So we would make whatever approval subject to us having it drawn properly, so it's showing at four foot, with the proper dimensions. In fairness to you, you should have a better drawing in your file. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Pat, I'm just questioning the five eight inch diameter pilings; is it necessary for all of those in addition to -- MS. MOORE: That actually is the total. We already have the three. It we already have the three. We just need two more, and the six inch diameter piles just aren't working. We need a more sturdy structure, so go with eight inch. Other people in that community have 10 inch. So we're actually asking for less than what's customarily used in that boat basin. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm asking my boaters. MS. MOORE: We were just concerned with the number of piles we need to hold this thing up. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to mention that LWRP is consistent and also the CAC tabled the application because the applicant should be required to submit professionally certified plans, which we're asking for the cross-section now. MS. MOORE: I mean, this was submitted and approved by the iO DEC and Trustees in the original drawing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just mentioning. MR. JOHNSTON: Jack, would you comment, please? MR. MCGREEVEY: We're concerned about the location of the pilings in that sketch, and if five pilings are proper for that, we just questioned that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what we were discussing. MS. MOORE: What I can show you, the drawing shows we have this one, here it's there now. We have this one here. These three are just right now because is stays. We just need the three on the end. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the applicant's going to submit an actual cross-section now showing the dimensional framing. MR. MCGREEVEY: What I'd like to see, Al, is an overview of where the pilings will be located. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh They did show that, but what we want is a cross-section showing the dimensional framing. They did have an overview of the location of the five pilings. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Jack, I did question the location of those five pilings. MR. MCGREEVEY: All I have is an overview of how it would be configured. That's all I have on my worksheet. So I questioned the location of the pilings on that sketch. MS. MOORE: Do you think we need more? MR. MCGREEVEY: No. I question the location. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They seemed appropriate. MS. MOORE: Two out of three are where they are now. So they're working. The other two are needed for the -- MR. JOHNSTON: You didn't have the detailed diagram? MR. MCGREEVEY: It's not a good diagram, Al. MS. KOLYER: It came with our permit from the Trustees. What happened was originally when this process started there were four 10" piles and as things swirled around and the DEC approved that, it became three, 6" inch piles and you could barely build the dock like that. If we go out another four feet, we are supposing we need two more pilings. If we can do it for less, absolutely, we don't want to pay for that. We're just afraid that if it goes out longer, the structural integrity will not be there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We know. We just need a cross-section. MS. MOORE: So I understand the cross-section, your cross-section is here. You want an overall drawing? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes, in a dock builder will provide. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment to Permit 5672 to expand the existing fixed platform subject to the proper dimensions, cross-sections for the new addition. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. (ALL AYES) 7. MARY ZUPA requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #5636, as issued on September 25, 2002. Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1-16.7 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments? Any Board comments? I'll make a motion to approve the request. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 8. Diane Herold, Architect on behalf of NANCY ROSS and others requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit 5643 as issued on October 16, 2002. Located: 3350 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#123-8-22.2 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments on this application? Any Board comments? I'll make a motion to approve the request for a One-Year Extension. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 9. Garrett A. Strang on behalf of THOMAS & PEGGY PROKOP requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5805, as issued on September 24, 2003. Located: 2245 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. SCTM#90-1-16 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any Board comments? TRUSTEE KING: No changes or anything? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, it's an extension. If there's no Board comments, I'll make a motion to approve the extension. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 10. PETER N. BENOTTI requests a transfer of Permit 6070 from Reddy Industries to Peter N. Benotti as issued on January 19, 2005. Located: 930 Clearview Road, Southold. SCTM#89-3-11.4 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Pretty straightforward. Any Board comments? I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE TRAVELER-WATCHMAN. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR OOMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are a number of postponements, we will not open them tonight, Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of Alan Cardinale; 13, James Murray and Susan Segur, and Number 22, Larry Kulick has been postponed until September. If you would like to make a comment on any public hearing, please come up and use the microphone, and, for the sake of all the rest of us, please keep your comments organized and brief. 1. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of ANGELO PADAVAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, gravel driveway, and bulkhead. Located: 22455 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#135-1-23 and 24.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before I ask for comments, I would just like to mention we received a report today from the LWRP coordinator. The LWRP is the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Every applicant is required to fill out a program. It's a Town Board endorsed and sponsored program that the Trustees are administering for the Town. LWRP coordinator is not part of our office. It's a Planning Board initiative and everyone's suffering through it. I want to read into the record that we received the report from the senior environmental planner, who is the LWRP coordinator, today that the proposed action is generally inconsistent with the following policy standards and is therefore inconsistent with the LWRP. It's about five to 10 pages long, and I'm not going to review it at the moment. It's in the file, so you might be interested. MS. MOORE: I'll get a copy of it. I guess I'm not surprised given that he's got to come up with something, and they're purely subjective policies and I could probably find you 20 policies that are consistent. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not tonight. MS. MOORE: Not tonight. I haven't gone through LWRP and given a laundry list. That's purely a recommendation, and it's not binding as far as this Board is concerned. And my understanding of the LWRP regulation is you have to act within your jurisdiction, your permit authority and LWRP, put it this way, it's not a permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We haven't reviewed it yet. MS. MOORE: All right. What I wanted to do is I have several documents here, and when you're reviewing everything, you can review this as well. I don't have one for each Board member because otherwise you'd just spend time reading it. I'll put two in your file. Mr. Johnston already has a packet, which I gave him earlier tonight so he would have a few minutes to look at it. The document that I have -- several items, the first is a memorandum of law, which deals with the statute. Interestingly enough, coastal erosion law and these issues don't have a lot of case law in it. It's purely statute. And I read the statute, and I read it literally. And what we've done is we have followed the statute and our request for this permit is within the bounds of the statute. Chapter 37 says that you can't approve a major structure, we all acknowledge that. You should say no if someone comes in with a major structure. However, the statute specifically allows for a nonmajor structure, and the reason for that is that you have a lot of development along the coastal erosion area. In particular, the Soundview Avenue, you have homes all along from either side of Soundview Avenue that fall within the coastal erosion line. Every house, anything north of the road falls within the coastal erosion line. And there was a recognition in the statute right from the beginning, that you have to honor structures that are already on the property. You have to allow for certain expansion of the structures provided that those structures are not expanded more than 25 percent. And every term is defined. Structure is defined. It's not a house for a house. It specifically says structures. And it can be any impervious structure, that's part of your calculation. So when you look at the beach cabana that's there, the fact that we want to convert it to a house, as long as we are keeping it within the 25 percent maximum expansion of the existing, we are within the bounds of the law. That is why when this application was submitted years ago with a very different house design and the Town Board said no, that's because, as I said, it was a very different plan. It was a very large house on this particular piece of property. What we did is we downsized it to the bare minimum. The existing structures amount to 589 square feet, and we are actually, when we do the calculations, we are asking for 707 square feet. That includes any retaining wall, anything, so that's all part of the calculation. So our proposal is actually at less than 25 percent. When we are doing the number crunching we're at 20 percent. I have to remind you that you have a piece of property here that's developed on the east of it and developed on the west of it. The only thing that's open now is the Town beach, and it has a large parking area all within the same coastal erosion area; that's the only open space; everything else is developed. You have the Padavan property with two separate tax lot numbers, which have been merged for purposes of development. So you have an half acre here of Long Island Sound front property. And the statute allows you to issue a permit as long as it's consistent with the statute, and it will prevent this property from being sterilized and the Town from a regulatory taking. That's extremely important because the decision that's ultimately made when you're asking for the bare minimum within the statutory guidelines, to say no is to say, sorry, we've got a park. They don't have a park there. They have a property that's a building lot just like every other property to the east and to the west. My memorandum, I've got various points in it, but very specifically you have the primary purposes of Chapter 37 are twofold. The first one is to regulate placement of structures at a safe distance from areas of active erosion. Well, those, again, are defined terms, and there is no erosion in the Town of Southold on the sound. It's not an erosion based on the definition of a structural hazard area as identified as shore lands located landward of natural protective features that have shorelines receding at a long term average annual recession rate of one foot or more per year. There is no such thing in the Town of Southold. It's recognized principle by the DEC, by the state, coastal erosion people and as well should be recognized by this Board. The other process that Chapter 37 has you review is minimum impacts to protect the natural protective features. We acknowledge that this is one of the issues that Chapter 37 deals with. What we have is a plan that's going to take 96 percent of this property and keep it in its natural state. We're developing four percent of that property. Of that four percent, you've got three and a half percent being already disturbed by the structures that are presently there. So it's easier, if you look at the survey, and the survey shows the plan that Young and Young prepared, shows you how the property's situated. It shows you that the entire area to the west is left in its natural state. Certainly you can grant a permit that requires that or makes it a condition of the approval. It's already part of the plan. The only portion that's to be affected is the structure where the structure presently is. We're expanding it by about the width of the stairs. The sanitary system is the only area that is has to be newly disturbed area, but again, you have a half acre piece of property and the area of disturbance is very limited to the front easterly side of the property. As far as percentage goes, again, you don't have to sterilize this property. You don't have to have the Town of Southold and the tax payers of the Town of Southold buy this property when limited development can accomplish the same goal. Those are issues with respect to coastal erosion. You also have a wetland permit application as part of this file. The wetland permit line you have 93.98 feet from the tie line along the proximate high water mark. According to tidal wetland definition, that's line we should be marking it from. And we are 93.98 feet from that line. Again, I have the survey from Young and Young that identifies all these setbacks for you. The standards of the wetlands ordinance, doesn't adversely affect the wetlands of the town because we are almost 94 feet from the wetland defined line. We are not going to cause damage to erosion, turbidity or siltation, the plan has addressed these issues through engineering. We don't have salt water intrusion into freshwater resources, it's not applicable. We're not affecting fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms; we're not dealing with underwater activity. We are again 80 feet from mean high water, 96 percent of the property is to be left undisturbed. There's no increase in danger of flood or storm tide damage. The existing structures have been there since -- and my client, I believe last time she was here, she said she believed the structures were there from the '30s, certainly since prior to zoning, adversely affect navigation or tidal waters, not applicable. Change the course of the channel, not applicable. Weaken or undermine lateral support of other lands in the vicinity, that is a preposterous statement to think that we are doing anything like that. Again, the surrounding properties are developed, you have a house to the east that has been there, again, also prior to coastal erosion law. The decking and the activities by the property owners, well, the waterfront for the motel, keeping in mind you've got about 50 motel owners who are using the property next door. Mr. Padavan has routinely thrown people off his property that are motel visitors presumably, the visitors who are urinating on his property, leaving trash on his property. Essentially it's been a nuisance, and he's been a good neighbor to tolerate it. But with respect to affecting the lateral support or any impact on that stairway, I believe the structures are going to be smaller than the existing stairway and the plafform that's there for the motel. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Pat, is there a communal beach for the motel next to it? MS. MOORE: Yes, it's a communal beach for the motel and they have a large stairway and a large plafform. I don't recall if there's a shed on that property or not. Otherwise adversely affect health, safety and welfare of the Town. I think again, it would be well-served to allow them limited development. Again, this is very restrictive development and it's been cut back and trimmed down to the bare minimum. The fact we're dealing with footprints so we are going to meet the state building code with respect to the size of the structure because as you know, I think the dwelling must contain 850 square feet of livable space; we have a first floor and a second floor, so there will be sufficient livable space. But the footprint itself is 707 total, so that takes the retaining wall into that calculation. I've gone over the memorandum of law, the points that I raise in the memorandum of law. I also want to put on the record and I won't go over it item by item because it's well presented by Cramer Consulting Group, we had been presented two meetings ago by a letter from the Louise Harrison, that is the neighbor's expert, and the letter really it has so many falsehoods, and each point is identified by Cramer Consulting point by point and refuted point by point, and I'll let you go through that letter and the response to that letter, but essentially the points that she made many times were irrelevant, not supported by the record, and I believe Cramer Consulting did a fine job in addressing all the points. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's all the material that you've given us tonight? MS. MOORE: The third item that I've given you tonight is the full environmental assessment form. Miss Harrison did point out that there are some inconsistencies with the EAF and probably from the first time it was submitted the plan changed slightly so we redid the full Environmental Assessment Form so it complies precisely with our submission that's before this Board, so there's no question, and you have a final completed document when this permit, I hope, is issued. So I have that in the packet of material that's been presented to you tonight. So I have a lot of documentation here, but I urge you to be reasonable. Keeping in mind that again, this property is isolated. It's the only piece left undeveloped off of Soundview Avenue with the coastal erosion line. I don't think you would question if somebody came in and wanted to make repairs or renovations of their house as long as it was within the guidelines of coastal erosion law. Why punish a property owner that has limited structure. He's already punished enough by the statutory definitions and limitations that are already built into the statute, and the plan reflects that. So, I thank you for your time. I could have talked for hours, but I think the documentation seems to be sufficient for you to review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, any other comments? MR. JOHNSTON: Pat, for the record on the last attachment, the full EAF, can I assume for my own edification that page 11 through 21 is the part of the form that we fill out? MS. MOORE: Let me look. No, I don't think so. MR. JOHNSTON: What is 11 through 217 You gave us 10 pages. MS. MOORE: Oh, yes, 11 through 21 is the agency. MR. JOHNSTON: The part that we fill out? MS. MOORE: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: Good evening, Lars Johnson on behalf of North Fork Condominium Association. Just a couple of brief comments. One is I'd like a few days to respond to the material that was submitted today and sort of generally, of course, I rely on the memo I already submitted, but from the other perspective, I would encourage this Board to not be persuaded by sort of the argument that somehow this is punishment by requiring an applicant to meet the burdens that are in the code. It's not punishment it's what everyone in the town is required to do. Just because you turn down an application does not mean that the Town then is is going to have to buy the property as we know, this individual has applied for a permit before and the Town didn't end up buying the property; and I suspect that if the Board turns down it again, that again, the Town will not have to buy this property. But again, at the end of the day, the applicant has the burden of meeting the standards in the code and if the applicant cannot meet that standards, it's not an attack on the applicant, it's simple enforcement of the code. With that, that's really all I have tonight, and I request an opportunity to respond to the written materials. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comments? MS. MOORE: One quick comment, the Town Board when it reviewed the first submission, one of the bases for the opinion that was crafted by the Town attorney and the Town Board was that they should have considered an alternative project that was a smaller project. That was at least as far as the opinion of the Board at the time. The submission was much larger, they felt that a variance didn't have to be granted and that a smaller project could have been considered. So at the time after that decision, Mr. and Mrs. Padavan had to decide do they do an Article 78, do they resubmit and they came to me at that point. I looked at the statute and I said, well, it's clear to me that the statute says that if you are within less than 25 percent, it is permitable. In other words, this Board can permit it and arguably there's not even a need for a variance because it's what the statute allows, in my opinion, as of right. Because the statute says you keep to a nonmajor structure, you have the jurisdiction and the authority to grant a permit. So reluctantly, but certainly, it is a punishment in the sense that you have a half-acre piece of property and you're limited to a house that has a footprint of 700 square feet, not the common application that you see before this Board. Most houses in Southold right now are tipping the scales at 2,000 square feet. So given the size of the property, it is a very limited application, but it is within the bounds of the statute, and that's what I've been trying to point out to this Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The environmental and physical restraints of the property though are not the Town's burden nor are they this Board's burden. The applicant owns this property. The Board did not ask the applicant to come up with any sort of development plan for this property. The burden is all on the applicant here. MS. MOORE: When you own a piece of property and pay the taxes on the property, you assume you can use it. It's not a park. Because if the Town wanted to buy it as a park, they wouldn't be paying the taxes and the Town would buy it as a park. I assure you that that is always a option and condemnation is the form. You know as well as I do that the Town can't come and insist that you make your property a park, you don't develop it. If that becomes what the Town wants, there's eminent domain powers; there's the right of the Town to buy people's property rights and convert it to anything the Town deems appropriate. So to the extent that this single and separate lot or double lot, there's development proposal, which is a house in a residential zone, no different than the house to the east and the houses to the west, that's the proposal. And the environmental constraints, that's our burden to show, you're right, our burden to show that the environmental constraints are mitigated and that's what we believe we've done with all the Cramer reports, all the aerials, all the history of this property, all the documentation. You've been given by weight, probably about 10 pounds of paper there, and we think that it justifies the development of this property in an environmentally appropriate way and that becomes your decision and -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're here before us, we're going to decide, not whether or not they can use it but rather how they can use it. So there are two different issues. MS. MOORE: It's a single family dwelling or what other uses in residential zoning are there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, currently they have a use for it now. There's a building on it now that's listed as a beach house, bath house maybe? MS. TETRAULT: Boat house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Currently they're using the property. We're not here to deny them use, and I don't think this Board is going to say you can't use this property with a bath house on it. So I don't think it's a matter of us not denying its use, it's how it will be used. MS. MOORE: I understand that, but the environmental impacts of a beach house is really no different than of the dwelling provided that dwelling stays within the parameters of the structural footprint of the beach house. Again, it's area that's already been impacted by development. That's why coastal erosion law is written the way it is, which is taking the footprint and saying, hey, we're not going to let you build outside this footprint more than a certain percentage. We recognize that you can expand slightly, but not too much because that's what the coastal erosion law has from the state been implemented by the Town. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm glad you said that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm confused by your definition of structure. If you had a piece of property with 1,000 square feet of asphalt driveway, you make the case that you're entitled to a 1,250 square foot home? MS. MOORE: Interestingly, look at the definition of structure. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Can you make the case? MS. MOORE: You're talking to a lawyer, I can always make a case. I actually gave you the definition of structure. I can pull it out from the code. A structure and apertinances, so whether or not that blacktop is an apertinance or not, any walls or anything else, in existence prior to the effective date of this chapter. So it does recognize, and, in fact, when you're using the calculation for coverage, for lot coverages, it does take into fact any surfaces, any surface structures. So it's a very interesting definition. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm under the impression, Brownell, that we're going to have to table this because we received new information tonight. Another attorney hasn't received it tonight and has asked us time to review it. The Board, of course, can't review all this information tonight that we have received. MR. JOHNSTON: Pat, you have no problem with being tabled, right? MS. MOORE: I'd like a permit, but if it gets to the point of issuing a permit -- MR. JOHNSTON: We just got this. MS. MOORE: Yes. My goal was to have gotten it to you before but unfortunately it wasn't the case. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. Al, it's my recommendation that we table it so we can review the information and give Mr. Johnson sufficient time to respond. Will you respond in writing, sir?. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir, I will. MR. JOHNSTON: Al, can I ask him to respond within say two weeks of the hearing so I have time to read it prior to the hearing? MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to table the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 2. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of LEWIS & HELAINE TEPERMAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion permit for the existing beach house. Located: 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM#21-2-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? I have a question before we start the public hearing, was this application ever amended to include the stair, either replacement or -- MS. MOORE: Yes, you actually had me do a separate application amending the prior application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's number 5 under Wetlands. MS. MOORE: I'd be happy to have it taken out of order because I really have it ready now. You guys separated it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. General question, stairs are number 5? We will wait and do the stairs. Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? MS. MOORE: But of course. I've given you everything I can give you at this point. You have aerials, you have topographic surveys, you've got affidavits, I pretty much exhausted every avenue of evidence to show you that everything that was there prior to the restoration of the structures is there today. In fact, the only difference is a cutting back for the neighbor because it was encroaching by a foot onto the easterly property owner part of the decking around the beach house, that had been cut back. So to that extent and the only extent it got reduced so the encroachment would be eliminated. Otherwise, everything is still the same. We would like a permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before I ask for any other comments, we just received the LWRP coordination review from the LWRP coordinator, and it was the proposed action is generally inconsistent with the following policies and is therefore inconsistent with the LWRP. Again, too lengthy to review here tonight. I don't know if you have a copy of this? MS. MOORE: Nobody ever gives me a copy of these things. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's available in our file. We just received it yesterday. MS. MOORE: I have an objection for the record, LWRP of all things should be recognizing existing use of the waterfront; that is the whole emphasis of LWRP, and to have him come up unilaterally -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're complaining to the wrong people. MS. MOORE: I'm putting it on the record that his conclusion of inconsistency is inconsistent in that it is contrary to absolutely every regulation, every law, the whole purpose of LWRP, which is the promotion and the continuation of the waterfront uses, and to continue the viability of residential uses of the water, marina uses of the water. If anything -- he's just giving opinions that are, quite frankly, it's a unilateral opinion by someone who, I'm sorry, what credentials, -- and I'm sorry, Mark Terry, I love him dearly, I don't want the word back to him that I'm beating up on him -- but as far as LWRP is concerned, it's policy statements. It's a regurgitation of made-up information, and as I said, 40 policy statements. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyway, this is definitely not the forum to complain about the LWRP. MS. MOORE: To the extent that you rely on it to make a decision. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, not the forum because we're not in control of how we rely on it. MS. MOORE: What do you do with an LWRP inconsistency; where do we go from there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to ask the reviewer of the LWRP. MS. MOORE: Unilaterally? He's not an elected official. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He was anointed by the Town Board. MS. MOORE: His anointment be it so as it is, still has no statutory authority other than the fact that we adopt an LWRP map, an LWRP study. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Law? MS. MOORE: Law, which was intended to philosophically to give this Town grant monies for other purposes. It was the state saying -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, Pat, again, this is not the forum. So we're going to table this until this Board can resolve the -- we're actually not going to resolve the inconsistencies, but we're going to review the report. MS. MOORE: I'll review the report as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And you will review it and we'll table this. MS. MOORE: And if this Board deems to override statutory authority of grandfathering structures that are there prior to the enactment of the law, we'll be in court over what LWRP really means. Which, quite frankly, I think Town Board needs to be put on record what LWRP means to them. It's a policy statement, it's not a regulatory mandate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have to come before them and tell them that. MS. MOORE: I will tell them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES) WETLAND PERMITS 1. 40 C LLC requests a Wetland permit to construct a 4' by 55' timber walkway 3.5' above grade, a 3' by 14' timber ramp, and a 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 635 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM#78-7-10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This was also deemed inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator. Is there anyone here to represent the applicant? Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor or against the application? On field inspection this actually is the second field inspection on this application, and the Board would like -- I would make a motion to table the application and have the applicant provide us with some more information, mainly that the pier line be maintained in the creek and that we would need proof of that with a showing the neighboring surveys and the existing docks on the neighboring properties. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Pier line you're saying? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You want an aerial? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: An aerial would be fine, sure. Then we're going to have to, based on that, the size of the structure might change, and then based on that, a consistency report on the LWRP might change, but we don't know that. I'll make a motion to table. MS. TETRAULT: I had a couple of other notes do you want to put those in the record tonight? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please. MS. TETRAULT: There's a wire fence you wanted removed and that it was too shallow right where they proposed it. Did you ask for soundings? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We want to establish a pier line before we review the water depth. I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 2. KAROL FILIPKOWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling. Located: 65390 Route 25, Southold. SCTM#53-5-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, the rest of the applications tonight with the exception of one, which we'll bring up when we get to it, have been deemed consistent or exempt from the LWRP. So we won't even mention it for another two hours, if everything goes well. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? MR. FILIPKOWSKI: I would just like to get the building permit on that lot. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application? If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES) TRUSTEE KING: What we want to see is a 50 foot buffer, dry wells for roof runoff. I think we're satisfied. We need a planting plan to restore that area. MR. FILIPKOWSKI: Can you write those things I need to get? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Come into the office. MR. FILIPKOWSKI: I need to pick it up at the office? MS. TETRAULT: That's the best. MR. FILIPKOWSKh When should I pick it up? MS. TETRAULT: Tomorrow between 8:00 and 4:00. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We'll approve it tonight as soon as you give us the information, then we'll give you the permit. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this permit per those stipulations. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 3. GEORGE & MARY PAVLICIN request a Wetland Permit for the existing beach stairs built in 1978. Located: 2500 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM#33-1-15 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? Any Board comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They approved. CAC recommend approval. If there's no Board comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. (ALLAYES) TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit for the existing beach stairs built in 1978 located 2500 Sound Drive, Greenport. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 4. AMELIA P. MANCINI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a first and second floor addition to the existing dwelling and to extend the existing deck. Located: 600 Grove Road, Southold. SCTM#51-6-25. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on this application? MS. MANCINI: I'm here. I just want you to approve it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would you consider upgrading the septic or moving the septic while you're working on it? MS. MANCINI: We didn't because it's been fine and it's two people in the house, quite frankly. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We were just concerned because they were so close to the wetlands in the back. It was kind of obvious as we walked over them. MS. MANCINI: Well, they were big enough. One is a washer runoff. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think anyone had a particular problem with it. If there's no other comments, 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 request. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd just like a row of staked hay bales in the back during construction and dry wells for roof runoff should be put in afterwards. MS. MANCINI: Oh, yeah afterwards. TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES) MS. MANCINI: Thank you very much. Do I bring the building things back to Lauren like that gentleman said to get the building permit now? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The previous hearing he needed to show us more information but because we know what the information is that we want, instead of tabling it and say we're going to wait for next month's hearing, we can approve it, and we can wait for his information. What you're going to have to do is put hay bales on. You can draw them on yourself. I mean, he could do that himself also. MS. MANCINh Just draw in hay bales? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh And dry wells for roof runoff. MS. MANCINI: Okay, and then just resubmit the building permit? MS. STANDISH: Resubmit the plan to us and - MS. MANCINI: Draw hay bales and dry wells. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can come into the office tomorrow. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you understand, ma'am, you can come in and Lauren will help you? MS. MANCINh Lauren is very helpful. 5. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of LEWIS & HELAINE TEPERMAN requests a Wetland Permit to replace or repair the existing stairs, landing and supports. Located: 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM#21-2-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: You have the drawings. I hope they meet with your approval. Dave Ciccanowicz didn't want to wait out the evening. They're exactly the same steps in exactly the same place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to take any other comment before I take Board comment. Is there any other comment? This is only for the stairs application. MS. SAVASTANOVICH: Yes, Nancy Savastanovich, East Marion. I'm just curious, did they hand in a side-view of the steps? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, there's a cross-section? MS. SAVASTANOVICH: And I would like to have the Board consider since there's the stairs being attached to two illegal structures I'd like them to keep that in their mind when they decide this. The house is illegal on the beach and the deck above it is illegal, that's just my concern. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. What I'm looking at here on the public notice, it says replace or repair existing structures landings, supports, et cetera, and the plan is marked as landing, so the applicant's calling the deck the landing. So they have applied for everything that is shown on this survey stamped August 22, 2005; is that correct, Pat? MS. MOORE: No. The existing deck landing up at the top doesn't need to be replaced. It's only the stairs and what they call the landing is this portion, the eight foot area here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They're planning on replacing the stairs? MS. MOORE: Yes, they have to replace the stairs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But they're not seeking a permit for what's called the existing 10' by 24' deck landing? MS. MOORE: That's already part of the original as-built. That had been replaced under the previous -- let me just make sure because I have the photograph here. Let me make sure I have the right one. See Dave Ciccanowicz is supposed to be here. He's drawn, you tell me, confirm this. This is the photograph. He took exactly what was there. Here's the first set of steps. One is the first set of steps down, then the landing is eight foot, then there is a landing that goes towards the east, and then the third set, that is the final eight 6 by 8, those are the areas that is being -- everything else has already been replaced. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, not great; right as in I understand. MS. MOORE: Yes, it matches the drawing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, I just wanted to make it clear. MS. MOORE: For the record, I have Stone Engineering, PC, which provides an opinion for the condition of the stairs, the need for the replacement. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have that? MS. MOORE: You don't have that. If you want it for your file, I'd be happy to include it as justification for the repairs to the stairs, but, not necessary, I have it in my file. This is what he provided for me was under the emergency permit basis. So it's up to you if you want the documentation in your file to show the need for repairs, replacement of the stairs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you go over again, you mentioned something, while we were having a discussion about it's called the existing deck landing, 10' by 24' deck, just seaward of the top of the bluff, you mentioned you had some description of that? MS. MOORE: What do you mean description? The work that was done previously came under the other permit. Everything, the one that we just dealt with, coastal zone. Understand there were two sets of work, one that was done without coming to you first, and I asked for an application -- I asked for a permit as-built for that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that's going to be handled -- MS. MOORE: Under the other permit application. This permit application is for what has not been done coming to you prior to the work being done to be able to replace it. So it's what's left needs a permit or in your opinion needs a permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You want to just clarify that to make sure that that portion of the structure -- MS. MOORE: It's everything. If you would like, what might be helpful actually is this engineering report that shows what the condition of the existing structures are, which is the portion of everything that's going to be replaced. If you want us to number one, two, three on your drawing, it will conform. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under which application? MS. MOORE: The one we have today, the application, now, right now, we are dealing with the stairs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I understand stairs, but we want to include -- MS. MOORE: The existing deck landing? 2~ TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The existing upper landing in some portion of some permit somewhere. MS. MOORE: I believe, at least in my opinion, it was part of the request, the original request, because it was the work that was done as-built. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the description says "beach house." It doesn't mention decking, retaining wall. MS. MOORE: It was structure. I guess we went back and forth what you meant by existing structures what got replaced. They were obvious from the inspection what got done. It's up to you, we can include it as part of this one, we can include it as part of another one. I'm not making another application, this is it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's not where I'm going. It should be included in one or the other. MS. MOORE: In my opinion it was included in the first one; you weren't satisfied that it included all the stairs, the replacement of the stairs that are in poor condition right now, so that's why I asked for it in a separate stairs application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm sorry, I'm beating this to death. MS. MOORE: I just don't know what you want from me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, and I hate to say it, so the original application does not include this, see, that's the problem we had about four months ago on this. MS. MOORE: We talked about existing structures. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It says structure and it doesn't mention a description of the deck around the beach house or the shower MS. MOORE: I only had the survey. The survey had all the existing structures prior to -- when Dr. Teperman bought the property, the existing structures were shown on the survey. Then you asked me for an aerial, and then you asked me for a topographic survey that showed all the same structures in the exact same place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You applied for -- the LWRP request for Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for repairs to existing beach house, but that doesn't include the decking or the shower or the retaining wall. We just want to make sure -- I'm not saying new application. I'm saying at some point in time everything's got to be included somewhere. The upper landings I think should be included with the stairs, and the decking and the shower and the retaining walls and the two stairs should be included with the proposed beach house. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I followed you up to a certain point, then I lost you. Here we have the existing deck and the existing building. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What I'm going to ask you to do is amend your application for the previous -- to include the previous application for the beach house to include the decking, the retaining wall and the shower, you can do that tomorrow. MS. MOORE: Okay, it's going to be held up anyway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you mean? MS. MOORE: You have the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's included in that anyway. MS. MOORE: Just amend your paperwork in addition to the structures it describes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have all your plans, just include it in the description. This description you want to amend it to include the upper landing. MS. MOORE: Okay, you have the drawing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, so we don't need anymore information. MR. MCGREEVEY: Al, are you taking into consideration our concern about the width? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We haven't gotten there yet. I'm trying to get there. I just wanted to get that. TRUSTEE KING: Can we get a copy of that report on the condition of the stairs? MS. MOORE: My only concern is that we want this permit, we want to replace what hasn't been replaced. We're not going to touch the upper deck. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The permit has to include it, the language. MS. MOORE: As long as you're not going to tamper with what we've got, I have no problem with it. But if you are going to, I will have a problem with it; do you understand? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Tamper as in? MS. MOORE: As in modify it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That has to be in other permits. We'd rather have everything addressed in one permit. MS. MOORE: The work that was done previously, it's easier to amend where it says beach structures, everything that was done prior as-built, which would have been this and everything down here should be in that original application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anybody have a problem with that, with including the upper landing with the original application? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't care where it's written. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's fine. CAC recommends approval with conditions that the width of the landing be reduced and that there is no disturbance to the bluff that was our concern also. Normally when we approve beach access stairs they're four feet in width with minimal landings, this has larger than -- this says stairs and landings are going to be replaced, as you stated, they should conform to our normal standards, which would be four feet wide stairs and no more than 60 square feet. Actually, there's a vote tonight to change Chapter 97, and I believe there's a consideration to increase the size of the platform at the bottom of the bank, but that hasn't been approved yet because it's only 10 after 9:00, so what we'll do is we'll have to conform to the current code which is the platforms can be no more than 16 square feet. MS. MOORE: What are you going to amend it to? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It might be amended to 4' by 8', which is 30 square feet. MS. MOORE: 24 square feet. TRUSTEE KING: 32 square feet. MS. MOORE: 32 square feet, thank you. Given that we've got existing right now -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But you're going to replace the whole structure, so it doesn't matter, we might as well make it conform to the code. MS. MOORE: But aren't you about to change the code to make larger landings? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe. MS. MOORE: So if you change the code, give us the opportunity to put landings that meet with the code that will be adopted tonight if you adopt it. MR. JOHNSTON: It's not adopted tonight. It isn't going to the Town Board. It's a public information hearing. MS. MOORE: All right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will still be a four foot width, regardless. So we would need a new set of plans. This is existing, but that's irrelevant. MS. MOORE: We're asking to replace exactly what's there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't think the Board is inclined to approve what is there. The Board's inclined to approve a four foot wide stair, and if they need a landing in the middle, I don't know if the Board has a problem with the landing, one in the middle and they can design it with -- I suppose with a jog at the landing there. I don't know how they want to do it, but it would have to conform to the new code. It would reduce this by 75 percent. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just saying one of the comments when we were out there in the field. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where the bank's built they might need a landing to break up the angle. How does the Board feel about that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would like to see a new -- MS. MOORE: You want a drawing four foot wide stairs with a four by four landing? Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. And make it come out -~ MS. MOORE: You understand when we redraw this, when it gets rebuilt, you're going to end up with stairs that are not within the area that is existing right now; you're actually going to be reducing it, but the landing at the bottom that is five feet and it jogs over, you can't have a straight stairs. So I think you're going to end up with something you don't like. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think I'll like it. Because if you look at it from the picture, Pat -- MS. MOORE: I'm looking - the picture's easier to look at. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you come straight down, you lose all those little jogs, you're right up against the building. It saves the applicant money. MS. MOORE: But you're going to end up taking out shrubbery. You're going straight instead of taking the jog over where it is already disturbed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because I think that area was covered under the clearing violation. We did look at it on Wednesday and we viewed that. Under one of the considerations was bluff stabilization and we felt this would be the best way to protect the bluff, to minimize the structure by making it straight stair, straight down the bank to the building instead of the extra jog. Then you'd have to show how the area to the east of that the structure would be gone from, you'd have to show how that area's going to be replanted. MS. MOORE: You have the notations from Ciccanowicz, which is through grasses and other - TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any disturbed bluff, erosion, (inaudible) staked beach grass installed in all disturbed areas six inch on center -- that sounds fine. MS. MOORE: Okay. So we're just talking about this drawing, the first drawing the cross-section's not changing, right? This drawing isn't going to change; in fact, this one shows a straight line down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually this one shows, the way it's - well, no. The way that deck was rebuilt the existing stairs end up very awkward. As a matter of fact, I have a picture of the president of the Board of Trustees struggling down 3~ there because the handrail's -- MS. MOORE: Oh, yeah, it's by your knees. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because the deck was built higher than the original deck. MS. MOORE: No, it's exactly in the same place it's just the way it was built originally. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Because I doubt they would have started a handrail a foot and a half off the deck. MS. MOORE: It's 40, 60 years old, I guess the people were smaller then. Generations do get bigger. So, as you have revised it, I'll give you drawings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. (ALL AYES) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application for stairs and one platform four foot stairs to be redrawn coming straight off the top right down to the building, four foot wide stairs with one 4' by 4' platform come from the top, the 4' by 4' platform, I'm sorry, in the middle, come straight down the bank ending adjacent at the existing building with the same condition on the other plan for stabilization and replanting of the bluff after construct; do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. (ALL AYES) MS. MOORE: Maybe tomorrow, so I don't take up your time, maybe somebody can draw on here the position. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The picture that you show, straight down adjacent to the building. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's been there. 6. Environmental Survey, Inc. on behalf of DENNIS HRANITZKY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 25' fixed dock, $' by 12' ramp and 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 4105 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#107-9-2.1 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HRANITZKY: I'm Dennis Hranitzky, mainly to answer any questions the Trustees have. I also have a certified copy of the survey that I believe has all the information that the Trustees have asked for. TRUSTEE KING: We looked at this before and all we want to do is move that back over to the left. That's what we were looking for. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who did you buy that house from? MR. HRANITZKY: Amelia Kaneski. TRUSTEE KING: They also recommend a non-CCA, and a turbidity screen, but it's such a small project. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Those are just recommendations. TRUSTEE KING: It's consistent with the LWRP. So we don't have to worry. CAC recommends approval with the condition it doesn't exceed one-third the way across the creek, which it doesn't, it is seaward of the dwelling. The dwelling is a long way from the creek. Jack, do you know why they put that in there? MR. MCGREEVEY: I'm not familiar with that inspection there, Jim. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know why that was put in there, I don't think it's necessary. MR. MCGREEVEY: How far is the dwelling? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Very far. MR. MCGREEVEY: It's got to be a mistake. MR. HRANITZKY: It's probably 300 feet away. MR. MCGREEVEY: Then that's -- TRUSTEE KING: I think it was just an error. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application based on the new drawing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 7. Latham Sand & Gravel, Inc. on behalf of BRIAN MCGINN requests a Wetland Permit to remove 126' of old deteriorated wood bulkhead and replace with 126' of vinyl sheathing. Located: 645 Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTM#88-5-61.1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this application? MR. HOCHER: I'm John Hocher, Latham Sand and Gravel on behalf of Brian McGinn. The bulkhead's falling over, I'd like to replace it in-kind/in-place. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you, I have one question. Any other comments on this application? I noticed that the stairs were there, would you like me to include that on the permit? MR. HOCHER: I have no plans of doing anything with the stairs aside from removing them to build the structure and reinstalling them. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I guess as-built. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion. MR. HOCHER: If they can be included. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES) TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Brian McGinn to replace 126' of deteriorated wood bulkhead and replace with vinyl sheathing, and we'll include the set of stairs as-built. MR. MCGREEVEY: Did you include the nonturf in there? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll stipulate that there be a nonturf buffer of 10 foot. MR. HOCHER: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. (ALL AYES) 8. Searles, Stromski, Associates on behalf of ANTHONY AND JOANNE KROPP requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing shed, construct first and second floor additions to the dwelling, increase the front deck and replace the existing sanitary system. Located: 360 Riley Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#143-5-8 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. STROMSKI: My name is Robert Stromski, a member of Searles Stromski Associates, the architect for owner and applicant. I do have for the record the proof of mailing and the affidavit of postings; do I hand those in? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, bring those up here. Thank you. MR. STROMSKI: At this point, I'd like to state if there's any questions the Board has on the application, I'd be more than happy to answer them at this time. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We'll take any public comments, if there is any. Any other comments on this application? Any Board comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Needs to show dry wells for roof runoff and it needs to show a line of hay bales during construction. MR. STROMSKI: As far as the design for the dry wells, how much rainfall do you want to encompass? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a recommendation, Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's kind of tough, it's very shallow water table there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's says 7-4 by the house. TRUSTEE KING: Normally figure two inch rain. TRUSTEE FOSTER: In 24 hours that's what they figure. You're normally talking about roof runoff, maybe you should put 8' diameter dry wells in, but that's overkill, you probably only need 4' by 4 and a half. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How many? You need a couple. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You would need four of them, one off of each corner. MR. STROMSKh Would you like me to submit calculations for a two inch rain fall? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think that's necessary. We haven't asked anyone else to do it, we're not going to ask you do it. We're pretty confident that four 4' diameter by four and a half foot deep leeching rings, one on each corner would take care of it. Represent four, I don't know how many different roofs you're going to have, but they will ultimately lead into probably four or five down spouts, but you should tie them all in. MR. STROMSKh I can definitely do it with underground piping to get into the containment. One of the corners might be difficult to have containment just because of the situation of the septic system. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It doesn't have to be on the corner, just one represents each corner. It doesn't have to be there, it just has to pipe to it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh And the hay bales line somewhere in the back yard. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Just along the waterside from one side to another during construction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Big back yard so there's plenty of room for it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: CAC comments, request a tabling the application because the project was already started and the project too close to the wetlands. I didn't see where it was started, did you? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What phase? TRUSTEE KING: The garage had a canvas over the roof, that's alii say. MR. STROMSKI: Just to clarify, the garage was existing, our client had decided to start to reconstruct it because the structure was under structural damage. They were looking to repair it not knowing they needed a building permit at the time. The Building Department issued a stop work order. Subsequently, they came before this Board in 2003. This Board granted an approval just for that reconstruction of the shed that is what you see under construction with the tarp. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I remember that. MR. STROMSKI: At this point what we're actually trying to do, my client and the owner decided not to go ahead with the project because they were looking to do an addition on the house, and at the time they decided to table the job, they just tarped it, they didn't do any more construction until we can put this entire package before this Board and before the other agencies in this town. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Number of years ago I lived in that house. I don't think we had any other concerns with the project other than that. MR. MCGREEVEY: We did make the comment, Artie, that the project appeared to be too close to the wetlands. TRUSTEE FOSTER: By today's standards it probably is, but it is what it is so what do you do with it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The garage is 87 feet and the current code I think is 50 feet. So I think they're, okay, pretty far. It's just that the backyard is so long. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Everybody happy? 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 approve the application for Anthony and Joanne Kropp for the project as drawn with the exception that there's four dry wells for roof runoff and a row of staked hay bales from side to side during construction on the water side. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. (ALL AYES) MR. STROMSKI: How many copies of the revised site plans would you require? MS. STANDISH: Just one. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You can draw it in too, if you want. You don't have to go out to a surveyor and have him redraw it. MR. STROMSKI: I'll take care of it in my office. 9. Samuels and Steelman Architects on behalf of DAVID HOFFMAN request a Wetland Permit to rehabilitate the existing boat house and repair in-kind, including stucco at existing masonry walls, new wood doors, slab, and new terrace over existing. Located: 1250 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM#52-2-36 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? Any Board member comments? Anyone have any problems with it? CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition that there's minimal disturbance of surrounding wetlands vegetation and the project is consistent with LWRP, however it's exempt because it's a rebuild; is that correct? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says consistent. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It says "E" for exempt. Any comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the application for Wetland Permit to rehabilitate the existing boat house, repair in-kind, including stucco, existing masonry walls, new wood doors, slab, and new terrace over existing. And I would also like to stipulate that there be minimal disturbance to the surrounding wetland vegetation because it was right in amongst baccharis and marsh grasses; do I have a upon second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 10. Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ATHANASIA & BILL KARTSONIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 41' fixed timber walk and stairway down the bluff to the beach. Located: 1790 Grandview Drive, Orient. SCTM#14-2-3.13 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann Eh-Consultants. I think this Board was ready to make a motion but could not because the LWRP coordinator had not reviewed the LWRP application. So I have no doubt that since two months ago, he has done that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: To answer your question, yes. MR. HERMANN: Excellent then I have nothing else that I didn't offer last month. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this application? Any Board members? It's pretty much straightforward, straight run. I don't have any comments either. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in (ALL AYES) TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I11 make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Athanasia and Bill Kartsonis. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALLAYES) 11. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of PATRICIA GILCHRIST MANCINO requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place a plus/minus 91' section of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkheading; construct a 12' westerly return; and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Remove and replace in-place an existing 32' Iow profile timber groin with a 32' Iow profile vinyl groin; remove and replace in-place an existing 53' Iow profile timber groin with a 47' Iow profile vinyl groin, and construct a 3' by 4.5' timber steps to beach. Located: 15 Fourth Street, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-10-15 TRUSTEE FOSTER: And to speak on behalf of this application is? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of Eh-Consultants. It's a very straightforward application. It's all basically in-place repair existing erosion control structures with the exception of the fact that the outermost six feet of the angled groin is not going to be replaced because that section is nonfunctional. If the Board has any other questions, I'm happy to answer them. MS. ROGERS: My name is Patsy Rogers, I live to the north of that property. Since the littoral drift is eastward, if that last piece of groin is removed, will that not affect the beach at the end of Fourth Street? MR. HERMANN: Should I address the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go ahead. MR. HERMANN: The typical policy of the State DEC and this Board is if there is a section of groin that is nonfunctional, in other words, it is not actually having any dynamic interaction with littoral drift it is not to be replaced. Because if it were to be replaced it would have the effect of a new groin and cause sand starvation down drift, which would be to the east. So in effect what we're doing is by not reconstructing that outermost six feet, we're keeping things in their current state. So there's nothing about the application that would create a situation other than what's there. MS. ROGERS: That piece of groin does exist, although it's very Iow. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the last six feet are nonfunctional, so it's not doing anything. So if those last six feet are replaced now-- TRUSTEE FOSTER: It would become functional and have an adverse effect. MS. ROGERS: Can someone explain to me why it's nonfunctional? 3~} MR. HERMANN: Because it's not trapping sand. You can tell the extent to which a groin functions by where the beach extends at Iow tide. So if you reach a point where groin is basically still in one or two feet of Iow water during all Iow tide, it means it's no longer catching or trapping littorally transported sand; which makes it by definition nonfunctional. MS. ROGERS: Thank you. My other question is, on the drawing that was given to the neighbors, there's a line to the east of the property, I don't know how to describe this exactly, but there's a line in the middle of an area of dots, and I would like to know whether that is a property line to the west of which the property belongs to the applicant and to the east of come it belongs to the Town? MR. HERMANN: The dashed line that you're referring to that is to the east of the easterly groin is apparent Iow water line. MS. ROGERS: I'm not describing it right then. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're talking about that wood bulkhead and concrete wall? That's not the property line. MR. HERMANN: The middle line is the property line. MS. ROGERS: So then, can one assume that the Town owns that the easternmost half of that area? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It appears that way. We looked at this on the field inspection last week. MS. ROGERS: There's a bit of confusion about that because the former owner assumed that he owned that, and he did certain operations on it, as you may know, and signed it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We noticed that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Cement signatures? MS. ROGERS: Yes. It was done twice, once in 1964, which was the signed one, then it was done again in approximately '86 or '87, which is the one that is falling down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We were kind of curious as to what happened because it's quite a monument sticking out. MS. ROGERS: I can tell you, Mr. Goodale Senior removed his cellar floor to replace it, and he took the pieces of concrete and put them in that location to shore up the bank so that the water would not come onto his lawn and destroy it. And as you must have seen when you were there, it is now being undercut by the water, and it's falling down onto the beach. And sooner or later the whole thing is going to fall down. It's pretty messy right now already. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We didn't see it from the beach side, and I don't think it was about half-tide, so we didn't see the undercutting, is it undercut the whole way out? MS. ROGERS: If you look at the end of the street there's a wooden bulkhead there and just to the west of that near the end street, I would guess for 10 or 12 feet, there is undercutting, and it's pretty dangerous actually. It's on the verge of falling and I would not like to see anybody get hurt. MR. HERMANN: I'm going to make a dual response to that, and inasmuch as I can respond without being an attorney or the applicant's attorney. The survey prepared by Joseph Ingegno that was submitted with the application sets forth pretty clearly, I wouldn't go by our plan, our plan is an electronic replica of the survey but you would not want to use our plan as a reference for property rights issues. The survey that was submitted with the application does show the meets and bounds of the property quite clearly, and it does show a set nail at a specific location that is about in the middle of that concrete area. I can't make any representations, obviously, as to what a prior owner did in 1964 or any time since then, but I would not think that the applicant would be within their rights to make any representations about the portion of property that appears to be owned by the Town. I can tell you for practical purposes for this application there is no work proposed east of where that concrete slab starts. The marine contractor is not going to try to tinker with that area at least on the beach front, the Peconic Bay front, I guess you would call it the south face of this bulkhead, there is no undermining that structure at all; in fact that's one of the reasons they're not going to touch it. It is pretty well fortified and it was the dock builder's opinion that to try to dismantle that area would cause a much greater catastrophe than it would prevent. What is going on to the east of the property line as the beach front wraps up north on Fourth Street, there is no representations made as part of this application regarding that area nor can I make any representations tonight. The client doesn't own that property, the Town does. MS. ROGERS: I think that's perhaps true, but I don't know. I can't tell from what I've seen, but I think it's something the Town might want to look at pretty soon. I have no objection to the application whatsoever. MS. FIELD: I'm Lucille Field and Miss Rogers and I occupy the same house. As we know out here in our beautiful north fork, we use the end of the roads as beaches and they are well attended. The little beach at the end of Fourth Street, which we used for over 25 years is very well attended. Well, it's gotten smaller and smaller because these huge pieces of concrete are taking over the beach, and we don't know what's eroding the beach other than mother nature, concrete slabs, other construction changing jetties, we have no way of knowing that, but we do know it's very, very dangerous. And if the Town owns it then we have a responsibility. Last year I asked that the wooden bulkhead at the end of the street be looked at because it was absolutely falling apart, and I was told that when it fell then the Town would address the situation. I don't think that's a good way to deal with our citizens. It is dangerous, there are children there. There are people getting hurt by the blocks of cement with jagged edges that are in the water. Every time there's a storm everything changes as you know. And the situation never improves, it gets worse and worse. We assume that the property belonged to the owners because Mr. Goodale always said you cannot remove a block of cement because it's my property. Now I hear that it is not the Mancino's property but it is the Town property. I ask if you would consider or find or tell us the way to go with the Town so we could make that area safe for all our children and grandchildren. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe if it's such a problem maybe it's the state's property. MR. HERMANN: Again, Brownell, for the record I'm not making any representations about who owns of the property other than what's depicted on the survey, which is what I go by. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll take a look at it on field inspection. If there's chunks of concrete, I don't see why the highway department couldn't just do sort of a clean-up, just to push that back underneath and nothing major, just at least to clean it up a bit. MR. JOHNSTON: Mrs. Rogers, who did you communicate to, just for the record? MS. ROGERS: In the town? The department of highways. MR. JOHNSTON: So you sent them a letter? MS. FIELD: No, I phoned. I always had great response from Mr. Jacobs, but that was in the old days. MR. JOHNSTON: If you send a letter, would you mind sending us a copy? MS. FIELD: Absolutely. I would not mind. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there any other public comments? CAC recommended approval of the application with the condition a 20 foot nontur[ buffer is installed landward of the bulkhead. We did discuss that in the field, did we not? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We did. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What was the feeling of the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fifteen feet. I think that was the area that would be disturbed during reconstruction. MR. HERMANN: There is a back fill area about 15 feet shown. TRUSTEE FOSTER: 15 would be acceptable. Is that acceptable to you, Jack? MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One other issue, the fence that runs north to south on the easterly side of the property -- MR. HERMANN: That's in the concrete area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On top of the concrete area. MR. HERMANN: But inside to the west of the area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Correct. There's access along that shoreline is an issue? MS. ROGERS: There is not access. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We noticed that the way the fence is, it appears there is no access but you can walk around the fence. MS. ROGERS: At Iow tide. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On top of the concrete. MS. ROGERS: But you can't get up there because all the concrete is falling down. MR. HERMANN: There are actually a couple of groups of people that were passing through there while I was there taking photographs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On top of or below? MR. HERMANN: Sort of both. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We thought as a Board to maintain access and that fence did allow for people to pass. MS. ROGERS: If they can climb the cement. MR. HERMANN: I would say that's correct. If you were able on the street side to get upon the cement, you can walk around the east side of it and the post is not on the cement. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would like to add that to the permit that the fence -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: How come that was such a big issue next door at the Goggins property if you couldn't actually get through there anyway? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't access it from Fourth Street. MR. HERMANN: Access along the beach front is not impeded, whether you were to trespass on this property or whether you were to go around the public property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just thought it was important to leave that fence where it was, it allows, you can get around it. MR. HERMANN: As I said, there's no plans to do anything to the concrete area, fence, concrete, bulkhead or otherwise. TRUSTEE FOSTER: No further comments. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? (ALL AYES) TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the application as requested with the understanding that a 15 foot nonturf buffer be placed on the landward side of the bulkhead replacement. Was there anything else? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. MS. FIELD: I need a point of information very brief, do people have access up to the high water mark if they're walking along the beach? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. MS. FIELD: Well, there is no way on high tide because the concrete is there and there's a fence. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Even on Iow tide, there used to be a beach there but over the years it's eroded it is what it is. It's mother nature. MS. FIELD: Even though it's blocked by a fence? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's not blocked by a fence. There is access around the end of that fence if you can get up to the concrete, but there's no access for the concrete. MS. FIELD: Thank you TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? (ALL AYES) (Whereupon a brief recess was taken.) 14. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of VINCENT & EILEEN FLAHERTY requests a Wetland Permit to maintain and replace the existing marine structures. Construct 351' of new bulkhead immediately in front of and within 18" of existing bulkhead on south side of property. Remove and replace a portion of existing wooden deck to allow installation of backing system for bulkhead. Stabilize 60' of existing east bulkhead by installing HDPE sheathing below bottom stringer. Repair hole in short return section of exiting east bulkhead using HDPE sheathing. Located: 177 Inlet Way, Southold. SCTM#92-1-8 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would wishes to speak for this application? MR. COSTELLO: John Costello, I'm with Costello Marine Contracting. We are the agents for Mrs. Flaherty on this 44 application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What is HDPE sheathing? MR. COSTELLO: It's a black, poly, plastic sheet, comes in 4 by 8s. You can nail it on, only when the bulkhead is structural and in good condition. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's like a Band-Aid. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fasten it on the face? MR. COSTELLO: Quarter-inch thick, nail it on with stainless steel nails and it stops leakage and doesn't deteriorate. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else like to speak for or against? MR. COSTELLO: We use it in diving and patching things. We've even wrapped piles with it. You can get it thin enough so it is flexible. MS. TETRAULT: Peggy, just wanted to give the Trustees a message, there were two phone calls from the Department of State on this application, just to let you know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did they say anything specific? MS. TETRAULT: Just to call them back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh When did they call? MS. TETRAULT: They called when I was away, and they called today. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who called us, specifically? MS. TETRAULT: Rebecca -- I have it written down. She called with this, and I called her back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about CAC comments? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition the bulkhead remains in line with the neighboring bulkhead and 10 foot nonturf buffer is installed landward of the bulkhead. MR. MCGREEVEY: In addition to that, Peg, we're concerned with the possibility of a previous bump out. They're making an application for up to 18" bump-out, and as I understand it, there's only a one time option. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Actually that was Jim's comment we were looking for in place -- MR. COSTELLO: That bulkhead, there's only one portion of that bulkhead that was bumped out. The majority of that bulkhead was added onto back in the late '50s by Ralph T. Prestons, and I constructed both of the jetties on the property probably about 1965, but there's only one section of the bulkhead that extended off the end of the road that is the second bulkhead. There's only one. We also intend to remove the piling on the bulkhead so the total distance that this is moving out is either six inches if you're going from sheathing to sheathing, but the sheathing is corrugated and it could be up to 10 inches so it's within the 18". TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think the Board is inclined to have it in place MR. COSTELLO: What about the sections of the bulkhead that were not pre-existing? There's only one. This is only 15 feet from that house, that's the only trouble when you start excavating it. You certainly wouldn't want an occurrence at that time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We discussed that we'd rather see it in place once you get to the west of the house, from Inlet Lane to the house could be replaced in-place, then once you'd get to the house, you'd have to step it out. MR. COSTELLO: There was only a small section, I don't know the exact footage, but there was a section of pre-existing bulkhead near the area of Inlet Way, that's where it was, the original bulkhead, but it didn't encompass the entire property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Was there a problem of replacing it in-place up to the house and then going out in front of the house? MR. COSTELLO: You could do it without jeopardizing the house, you're going to lose more vegetation, but it's -- most of it, is just Cape American beach grass. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The deck's going to come up, but I can still see a problem tearing it all out in front of the house. MR. COSTELLO: Let me tell you one of the problems with tearing it out. Some of the soils, it's a creosoted bulkhead, I think I've expressed this several other times, environmentally, the soils that are behind the creosoted bulkheads have some kind of a contamination, minor, but it does have it. It is leaching out with the rainwater and the tides over a period of time, this is over 40 some odd years. To disturb it and allow it to go out into the waterways, environmentally, it's your prerogative, but I certainly wouldn't want to recommend removing creosoted bulkheads when the water is going to enter the bays. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That bulkhead is well away from the water. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we're going to do in-place west of the house and then starting where? TRUSTEE FOSTER: John, didn't you say you were going to run a string and do a straight line from one end to the other? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. I'm going to build it straight no matter what. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, in-place up to the existing deck and then? MR. COSTELLO: Put a jog in it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what we're saying. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. MR. COSTELLO: I would not recommend that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we're going to do the bay front in place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What do you think, Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't know, it's behind the rocks. How many years do you expect to get out of this bulkhead? MR. COSTELLO: The new? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, the sheathing -- MR. COSTELLO: Fifty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's not in front of the rocks, take a look at the picture. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KING: You're removing all the old spiles? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, in order to keep it as close as possible. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this application? 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 Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Vincent and Eileen Flaherty to request a Wetland Permit to maintain and replace the existing marine structures, construct 351 foot of new bulkhead immediately in front of and within 18 inches of existing bulkhead on south side of property. Remove and replace portion of existing wooden deck to allow installation of backing and system for bulkhead and stabilize 60 foot of existing east bulkhead by installing HDPE sheathing below bottom stringer. Repair hole in short return section of existing east bulkhead using HDPE sheathing and remove the fence on the east jetty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh And there be no turf behind the new bulkhead and the disturbed areas replanted with Cape American beach grass. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 15. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of DAVID MCELROY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a bluff stairway within the northeastern section of the subject property. Located: 1640 Grandview Drive, Orient. SCTM#14-2-3.14 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. We already went through this, it's a very simple stairway down the face of a bluff to a beach at the last hearing. The hold up at that hearing was that the LWRP form was not completed by the Town. I don't think there's much more to discuss beyond that, but I'm here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments on this application? If not, any Board comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looking through the file, the LWRP finds it consistent as well as the CAC is approving the permit. They both make a recommendation that no CCA lumber is used. MR. ANDERSON: Why? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC says no CCA. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As well as LWRP report. MR. ANDERSON: Are we just banning this town wide; is that where this is going? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there any alternative you can use? MR. ANDERSON: Sure, it just costs more. I think it's a crazy recommendation because I don't think it's going to go anywhere. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't think the decking would cost more. MR. ANDERSON: Well, the decking certainly. Usually you'll put something like a mahogany decking, I don't think you'd want a CCA decking, but the support, you would usually want a CCA for that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Mahogany? MR. ANDERSON: It's cheaper than clear cedar and other stuff. I would say for the decking, I would think that's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's the landings that we have the problem with. MR. ANDERSON: What do you mean? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The size of the landing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 4' by 16'. MR. ANDERSON: That's necessary. If you went down and looked at it, what happens here is at the bottom of the bluff, there is a 12 foot swale. If you look carefully at your survey, it shows a crest of gravel on the beach, and what happens is the water will or an extreme high tide will wash over that beach, collect in the swale that runs parallel to the bottom of the bluff. So, if you just terminate it there, then you find yourself in a heavily vegetated area that frankly could welcome wetlands because of the overwash on it. So the idea is to get you down the bluff and then straight out to the beach. It is identical to the design of the stairway immediately adjacent to and east of the property; that's why they're built that way. It's not something that's designed as a frill, it's designed because that's the way it should be designed. There's literally a swale at the bottom of this. You'll see that out in the field. It's probably about two or three feet deep and it's about 12 feet wide. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I understand what you're trying to accomplish otherwise instead of having the landing 16 feet long, you'd end up going from here to this point, which you'd stick off the bluff. MR. ANDERSON: It's a better way of doing it and there's really no impact of doing it in that fashion. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other Board comments? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES) TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf David McEIroy to construct the bluff stairway as per plans using non CCA treated lumber for the sheathing, decking. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 16. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of ROBERT SWING requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-story addition to the existing single-family dwelling. Located. 4295 Bayshore Road, Southold. SCTM#:53-6-24 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of the Swings. This is a small house on a small lot at the end of Bayshore Road. It's a tiny house consisting of 845 square feet. The proposal here is simply to add within the existing footprint a second story. The benefit here is that when we go through all this, we'll be installing the new septic system that will replace the old cesspools thereby bringing about compliance with regard to the way septic systems are designed and built and installed with respect to groundwater and also the distance to surface waters. When the day is done, it is our view that it will reflect an environmental improvement rather than an environmental detriment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends approval of the application with the recommendation gutters and dry wells are installed to contain the roof runoff and the 10 foot nonturf buffer is installed landward of the bulkhead. MR. ANDERSON: That's acceptable. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And it is consistent with LWRP. Any comments from the Board? Any other comments from the audience? 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 the request for a Wetland Permit to construct a second-story addition to the existing single-family dwelling with the stipulation that gutters and dry wells are installed and a 10 foot nonturf buffer. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 17. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of LEO ALESSl requests a Wetland Permit to install a 36' by 16' swimming pool contiguous with the existing ground floor, wooden deck on the southeastern side of the existing two-story frame house, and to extend said deck to wrap around the short sides of the proposed pool. Located: 1700 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM#92-1-3. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant, Leo Alessi. It is a proposal for a pool that was 60 feet from the surface waters and approximately 56 feet from the actual wetland boundary, which I flagged in the field. Wetland boundaries are very clear in this application as there is a clear drop off and a clear delineation as to where the wetlands end, and the uplands begin. It appears to comply with your code in all respects, and we provided you with location of the filter and the dry wells that are nestled up against the house. I would suggest that there be a line of hay bales and silt fence that would surround the area of the construction. And we think it's an approvable project on its face. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE KING: CAC didn't inspect it. It's not staked, application because the project was not staked? MR. ANDERSON: It was staked, I staked it myself. It's also very easy to visualize, all you have to do it go to the back of the house and you can see the deck, it's very easy to understand in the field. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does your pool have to have a fence around it? MR. ANDERSON: We're going to have to do something, we haven't gotten to that point yet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's an issue with the existing fence. MR. ANDERSON: What existing fence? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The wire fence down the marsh. MR. ANDERSON: I'm not aware of any issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Here are your pictures. MR. ANDERSON: What are you talking about? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The fence, goes around the whole perimeter of the backyard. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's got to go. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we were wondering about a pool fence. MR. ANDERSON: Probably. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So are you going to come in and amend this for a pool fence? MR. ANDERSON: We are, but we have to go to the DEC. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You don't know how much fence you're going to put up. I'm just wondering why you're not doing it at the same time. MR. ANDERSON: We probably should have. MS. TETRAULT: You can just add it to the plan. MR. ANDERSON: If you feel so inclined to have a fence 10 feet around the perimeter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? if there's no other comments, 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 it with dry wells for the backwash of the pool, a staked row of hay bales during construction and I guess you can modify this plan to show a fence 10 feet around the pool and removal of the fence that's in the wetlands. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I recuse myself. 18. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of SIM MOY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, attached rear deck, pervious driveway and retaining wall and sanitary system. Located: 750 West Lake Road, Southold. SCTM#90-2-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? And I'll pass this out. MS. TETRAULT: Is this the hydrology study? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant, Sim Moy. This is a single and separate building parcel at the terminus of West Lake Drive in Cedar Beach Park. The lot itself is 8,861 square feet, and has been held in single and separate ownership since prior to zoning. It is zoned residential. It is bulkheaded, as you know, on two sides. There are a series of groins that extend out to trap sand along the beach facing Peconic Bay. It fronts the inlet to the creek to the east -- I'm sorry to the west. Adjacent to it, there is property owned by Di Moy, who would be the husband of Sim Moy. What is proposed here is a 1,061 square foot house, three bedroom dwelling, with a septic system to accommodate that dwelling. We have a small house with a very small wraparound deck on a small lot, on a building parcel, legally pre-existing building parcel. And the septic system size is for the minimum septic system for the house, it contains the minimum number of bedrooms. The septic system would be suitably elevated above groundwater. It would be surrounded by a concrete retaining wall to achieve the raised septic system and the appropriate elevation above groundwater. We came in and presented that case to you in May of this year, and two things were requested of us. Number one, that the bulkhead that runs along the southern property line of the adjacent property was to be a strip of sand that was left there, it was an oversight on behalf of the contractor, and that's all been remedied and the strip of sand is there. The second thing you asked us to do was the more important one was that we perform a groundwater study of this parcel, the overriding concern being the impact of the septic system on the creek. So we prepared a report for you, now known as the Groundwater Flow Analysis for the Moy Property. In order to do this, we have to determine what exactly the elevation to groundwater is, and that was accomplished by the help of the surveyor and also the installation of five monitoring wells. The five monitoring wells labeled 1 through 5 on your survey, surround the property and surround the septic system. Those monitoring wells were installed by McDonald Geoscience, and then after their installation we sent the surveyor out in the field to measure the top elevation of each of the wells. We then were able to determine the distance between the top elevation of the top of each well to the top elevation of the groundwater. And that was done by inserting an oak stick down, almost like a dip stick, and measuring the distance between the water level and the top of the well, that gives you very accurate measurements, all of which directly convert back to the underlying datum of the map, which is the 1929 NGBD datum. Because there were concerns on error pertaining to the influence of tides on the elevation of groundwater, there were replicate tests taken at Iow tide, mid tide and high tide. In order to secure appropriate averages for each of the test wells at each of the tides, three sampling events at each of the tide levels were taken for each of the monitoring wells yielding 45 different measurements of groundwater elevation. We then, knowing where the location of the well is, and knowing its exact depth to groundwater, knowing what that depth is in relation to tides, we were able to plot them back onto the survey, creating these isolines that would determine the direction of the groundwater flow. Groundwater flow is influenced by gravity and groundwater flows from its high points to its Iow points. So essentially, the lowest points were found to the south and the southwest of the site. We were also able to determine the difference in these groundwater elevations, the greatest difference meaning that most of the effluent would flow in that direction. Those results in all three tidal conditions that is high tide, Iow tide, mid tide, tell us the groundwater flows in the south and southwest direction. That means that the septic effluent leaving the leaching pool of the septic system will flow into the inlet and into the bay and not into West Lake itself because the groundwater direction of flow is away from West Lake. And that's important to note because your greatest flushing occurs and your greatest elusion occurs in both the bay and the inlet, that's where the most movement of water happens. We also provide you with measurements and application of groundwater monitoring formulas to tell you the amount of time it takes for septic effluent to flow from the bottom of the leaching ring to the groundwater table and that speed of entry is 18.75 hours and that the horizontal gradient that is between the septic system and what would be the dug inlet, or Little Peconic Bay, is approximately 3.76 days. Finally we tell you about the septic system itself, how does it flow out, how all the studies that we're aware of shows the contamination of the septic system including bacteria, nutrients, et cetera, about 99 percent of that is removed by function of the soil, which acts as a giant filtration system. And I think we all know that's intuitively true because in the old days and still today, most properties are served by private wells and yet have septic systems and yet the wells are not contaminated by the septic systems. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Bruce, are you going to go through this whole thing, because we can just review this. MR. ANDERSON: I'm almost finished. And finally we tell you how that relates to the greater watersheds and groundwater contributing areas. The conclusion is then that the impact of the septic system is diminimus on the environment based on the actual measurements in the field, the analysis of the literature and their application to what is proposed here. What remains are discussions that probably aren't of import here; in other words, that the wetlands we're talking about here are strictly confined to surface waters, that there's no wildlife impact because the entire site is comprised of a mowed lawn mostly surrounded by a bulkhead, and that is simply an individual building lot with an inherent right to build on so we've tried to propose a reasonable sized house given the constraints we have had to deal with. I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Yes. MR. WIGGIN: Medon Wiggin with the West Lake Association. Just came to my attention when I arrived tonight, I was shown a survey of the proposed, and it's a procedural question, you may remember from the West Lake application for dredging the channel, they claimed ownership to West Lake Drive. They were not notified of this meeting. Also, the driveway is shown on West Lake Drive, so you may want to verify, assure who owns that West Lake Drive. The survey I have for the other project shows they own West Lake Drive, I think West Lake Association owns it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll just ask Bruce, can you answer that question about the ownership of West Lake? MR. ANDERSON: I probably can. As far as the notice goes, we have to notice the adjacent property owners as per tax maps, there's no tax map number to it. There's no doubt that we have the right to use it. It's not assessed as a parcel in any way. I'm sure the deed would tell us exactly what our rights are to that, and I would be happy to provide that to you. I think that would be a simple matter to clear up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: West Lake Drive is a separately owned parcel. What about the mechanical issue of notification? MR. ANDERSON: We have to go to the assessment records and based on the tax map information and notice adjacent properties and since it doesn't have a tax map number, and since it isn't assessed, there's no one for us to notice. I get the impression that you really haven't had a chance to read the report in any event, and I have no problem sending it to Merlon, he represents them, and he can look at the application if he wants, because it sounds to me like it's not likely to close tonight any way. I would almost rather do that to eliminate a technical problem, if there is one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Merlon, would you provide him with the name and address of the person, please? MR. WlGGIN: P.O. Box 672, Greenport. MR. ANDERSON: I even know where he lives. MR. CASE: My name is Jerry Case, and I live on West Lake and all I want to say is that the cesspool is 42 and a half feet from the water. I don't know much about effluence, there's a lot of nature effluence on the lawn there, so there must be some wildlife. And I don't know much about dip sticks, but if it looks like it and it smells like it, it probably is it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, I'll make a motion to table the application so we can review this groundwater analysis flow report. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bruce, you had a whole section in there on brown tide because... MR. ANDERSON: In the old days, the brown tide, we formed entire working groups to study when it first broke out. This was sor[ of the underpinning issue that led eventually to the National Estuary Program. The National Estuary Program is really more of a comprehensive almost planning, action document at this point that talks about watersheds and zoning issues and things of that nature. So we tried to go right to the cause of what brought all of this in. But the interesting thing about the National Estuary Program is that in describing watersheds and groundwater contributing areas that are so large, when you bring it back to the context of one parcel among hundreds and literally thousands that would contribute some impact, regardless of whether they're 100 feet from the wetland boundary the impact of this parcel in relationship to the whole is diminimus. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But it's cumulative. MR. ANDERSON: But then if you have, for the sake of argument, 4,000 septic systems just in Southold alone that would contribute into this area, then each one utilizing theoretically 300 gallons per day, which would be the Health Department ratable for a single-family dwelling, you're really talking about 1/4000 of an impact. And frankly, when you talk about the groundwater contributing area, you're really extending an area all the way up to the North Road because that's your area of highest groundwater; meaning everyone's septic systems, everyone's lawns, everyone's farms everything that is south of that North Road flows towards the bay and everything north of it flows toward the sound. MS. CASE: I'm Tippy Case from West Cedar Point Drive, and I don't understand Mr. Anderson's talk about water flow and that, but I believe that your code says that the system has to be 100 feet from any water, and this is I think 42 feet. That's blatant to me. Thank you. MR. MCGREEVEY: Al, there's another point that might be considered here. In doing an inspection on one of the properties on that lake a while back, there is a bone of contention between property owners in regard to dredging that creek at some time, whether it will be done or it won't be done. And one of the things that was brought to my attention when I did the inspection was if dredging is done it could compromise one of the bulkheads either on the west side of the creek or on the east side. So if it was compromised by dredging, how would that affect the drainage that this gentleman is talking about? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I assume the bulkhead would be repaired. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There was talk about a bond being put in place by the contractor. MR. ANDERSON: The movement and direction of groundwater flow on this parcel is not determined by the bulkhead. It's determined by the hydraulic gradient and the soils underlying this parcel. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If there's no further comment, I'll make a motion to recess the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. (ALLAYES) 19. Charlotte A. Biblow, Esq. on behalf of VINCENT & CAROL MANAGO requests a Wetland Permit for complete removal of the existing 64' wood jetty and restoration of the beach on subject property with approximately 300 cubic yards of dredged or borrowed sand. Located: 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#118-4-10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? MS. BIBLOW: Good evening, I'm Charlotte Biblow, from the Law Firm of Farrell Fritz. I'm here on behalf of Vincent and Carol Manago, and I do want to speak on behalf of the application. First thing I would like to do is hand up the notice of posting and mailing. The last time I was here in front of the Board I believe it was April on this application. And I would want to do a couple of things this evening, one is to update you on a couple of things pertinent in this application. I also want to tell you that our expert engineer is here again, Gary Mollnar, he's the person who put our expert report in that you got for the April meeting. He's here to answer any questions that you may have. As you may recall, there is a proceeding in front of Judge Baisley in the Supreme Court, and I wanted to update you on that as well. Just briefly, as you may recall we submitted to you at the request of counsel the summary judgment motion. When we were here last in April, there was oral arguments scheduled for May. The oral argument did occur, and as of today, we still have no decision from Judge Baisley. I'm not here this evening to talk about ownership of the jetty. I'm really here to talk about the legality and the damage that's been done by the work that's been done by their lawyers to that jetty. As you may recall, there were unpermitted repairs made to the 50 feet of the 64 foot jetty, and it's the 50 feet that's inshore. I submitted a letter to the Board last week citing both page and numbers and lines of in the summary judgment motions where the Aloias, Mr. Costello, admitted that these changes to the jetty were done without permits, from not only this Board but no permits from the DEC and no permits from the Army Corps of Engineers were obtained and the changes that were done to the jetty was that the jetty was widened because a double row of sheathing was placed in this 50 foot part of the jetty, the jetty was raised, and I think most importantly was they took a nonfunctioning jetty and made it functioning. The result of this action, the result of the changes to the jetty has been a starving of sand to the south of this jetty. And I believe if the Board has visited there, and I know you were there in April, I believe you were there in May, I believe you may have been there recently, it's not just a Manago beach that's being starved of sand, but practically every house that is south of that jetty no longer has a beach. I was there this afternoon at high tide and on the north side of the jetty you have sand, even in high tide you have plenty of sand. On the south side of that jetty you have water that is two and three feet up on the bulkhead. I believe your code 97-27 C says that shoreline structures are supposed to have only Iow profile jetties. This is not a Iow profile jetty. If you have seen it, if anything you want to call it a high profile jetty. It starts at the bulkhead and goes up 64 feet and so at high tide this jetty still juts out of the water. This was also not an inkind or inplace repair. This was not a repair is that merely refurbished the jetty. This was a repair that widened the jetty significantly, raised the jetty and as I said before, made it functioning. Now, this Board is empowered in our view to enforce its own regulations, I think that's fundamental. And your regulations say in 97-34 say that a failure to obtain a permit to do the repairs that were there done to this jetty can result in fines, penalties and an order to be restored to prior to what was done without the permit. We have provided you with photographs in the summary judgment motion, and we provided you with photographs in the application. I have more current paragraphs that were taken this summer that shows the difference between high tide, Iow tide, what the beach is in front of my clients and what the beach is in front of the Aloias because of the changes in this jetty. And I'll hand that up now, and they are marked. Just so you're clear, this is the Manago side, this is the Aloia side. I believe the Board always also has received letters from other people who own houses on Nassau Point, and I have copies of some of the letters I was able to get copies of. I also have copies of a letter that was sent by the 5~ Nassau Point Property Owners Association and part of that notice, that newsletter for lack of a better term, talks about the devastating effects that that jetty repair has had to other owners in Nassau Point. I would like to hand up those letters as well. I know the night is late, the hour is late and I just want to really sum up, since you have been and seen that jetty, those repairs to the jetty were done, again, without permits; they were admittedly been done by the AIoias, there's no question about that. They were done in violation of your code and they have caused extreme devastation to the beaches south of that repair. This Board has the power and I believe has the obligation to make those repairs -- to make the damage, I should say -- undone. If that jetty is taken away, if you saw our expert reports, the natural drift, the sand will be replenished all along that beach, as it was before 2001, before those jetty repairs were finished. You also have the ability to order the person who did those repairs without permits to undo what they did, and that's what we're asking. I'm here to answer any questions you have. Again, our expert is here to answer any technical questions you have, but I cannot stress enough the damage that has been done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It was stated earlier that the DEC forced the contractor to undo changes that he had illegally conducted to the jetty. MS. BIBLOW: What the DEC has done so far- there is a notice of violation pending that was issued a couple years ago. What the DEC required them to do so far was to remove, there was an ex'rte stringer put on top, that was removed after that. What the DEC also ordered them to do was to get a new survey because the survey they had presented to the DEC was a survey from 1984 that had problems with it, basically there was a real question as to whether that survey accurately showed where the jetty was. That goes into the ownership issue. What they did was they got another survey by Mr. Ingegno, and the Aloias never presented that survey to the DEC. We provided you as part of our application, both the survey that the Managos got when they bought the property and the Ingegno survey that the Aloias got in 2002, and both those surveys show that the jetty begins on the Manago property and is on the Manago property. For whatever reason, and you can ask the Aloias, they are here tonight, why they chose not to do what the DEC said to do, which was provide them with this new survey, but I think you can imagine, or you can infer rather why that was not done. Because it disagreed with what they were telling the DEC all along. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To get back to my question, what other work was done illegally by Costello was not undone by the DEC? MS. BIBLOW: Currently, the jetty had been widened. There is now a double row of sheathing where a single row of sheathing was in place. I believe you have a photograph of that in the stuff I just provided you, you also have photographs in submissions that we have done before. So you had a rickety one row of sheathing before the repairs and they just opened the jetty and stuck a second row of sheathing in place. In addition, some of the side stringers were replaced as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The new top area was removed, why wasn't the rest of the work undone? MS. BIBLOW: You have to ask the DEC why they haven't finished the hearing. But the proceeding in front of the DEC, as far as we know, is still ongoing. We have been writing the DEC. We provided the Ingegno study, and there is still an outstanding notice of violation addressed to the Aloias. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just trying to get this clear. Is it clear in the record that this was added by Costello illegally, a second row of sheathing? MS. BIBLOW: It is very clear in the record, not only in the materials we sent you but in the summary judgment motion we sent you in May and in the citations I sent you in my latest letter, to pinpoint where in the transcripts in the summary judgment motion, where both the Costello defendants and the Aloia defendants admit that they did this work without permits from any agency. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I just wanted to clear that up before I took any other comment. MR. JOHNSTON: Al, is it your position that permits are necessary for all repairs to the jetty? I make reference -- it's my understanding that some repairs were made in 1995 thereabouts, in 1999, then in 2001, give or take a year one way or the other. There were three instances of assistance by Costello, whatever the assistance is. MS. BIBLOW: In 1995 the outer portion, the 14 feet, the outer shore portion of the jetty, was repaired. Interestingly enough -- 14 feet, the Aloias got permits from this Town Board, got permits from the DEC and got permission from the Army Corps of the Engineers -- that was just 14 feet -- and the permits that are in the record say in-kind and in-place repair. That's what was allowed, just for that 14 foot section. In 2001 and there's -- MR. JOHNSTON: Can we go back to 19957 Is your position that permits were necessary for those repairs or activity? MS. BIBLOW: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: It was a long answer, but was it a yes or no? MS. BIBLOW: Yes. I apologize. MR. JOHNSTON: Is it your position that a permit was obtained or applied for and given in 1995 or thereabouts? MS. BIBLOW: Yes, in 1995 there was a permit and if you look at the pictures of the jetty there's only a single row of sheathing there. MR. JOHNSTON: In 1999 or thereabouts is it your position that they should have gotten a permit again to do this, whatever it was, this ordinary or this repair or whatever the activity was to the existing jetty or groin? MS. BIBLOW: A permit would be required, and it's not ordinary wear and tear that's being done here. And had that been done in either 1999 or 2000 or 2001 when this work was ongoing, the neighbors would have been informed what was going on, the Town would have been informed of what was going on, and all the neighbors would have had an opportunity to comment on it, and certainly my clients would have had an opportunity to say, wait a minute, I own that jetty, what are you doing. MR. JOHNSTON: Can I make my question simpler then? If it was repair, is it your position that a permit would have been required? MS. BIBLOW: For the repairs that were done, yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. So, if we just assume hypothetically that they were repairs, it's your position that they needed to have a permit for the 1999 one? MS. BIBLOW: Absolutely, for the '99 and forward. MR. JOHNSTON: How about for the 2001 or 2002 or for the third one whenever it was? MS. BIBLOW: Yes, they needed permits because first of all they were taking a nonfunctioning jetty and making it functioning. They were widening a jetty. MR. JOHNSTON: First I want it in the record, if it is a repair, did they need a permit in your position? I want to isolate for the Trustees what they should be worried about and the question in my mind is it a repair or isn't it a repair as opposed to what permits are necessary? MS. BIBLOW: I don't know how you can describe what was done to this jetty other than a total reconstruction. MR. JOHNSTON: That's a different issue. In helping the Trustees I want them to know what they have to decide. They have to decide is it a repair, not if it is a repair then they don't need a permit. It's the size, as I said, the amount and changing the functionality. They needed a permit and they also needed to own it. MR. JOHNSTON: Al, for the record, I would just like to mention what I'm concerned with, just to help you. The old wetlands law as an exception indicated that repairs to previously existing jetties or docks did not need a permit. The new law, obviously that you helped draft and the other Trustees helped draft, say that they have to be permitted structures. And through all of these transcripts, you have to decide whether it was a repair or something more than a repair, but if you come to just a repair, then a permit is not necessary. I don't want that to be a confusing thing. MS. BIBLOW: Mr. Johnston, I think the old code also said that you couldn't make a nonfunctioning jetty a functioning jetty, and that's what was done here. MR. JOHNSTON: I would be happy to have you supply in a note how you came to that conclusion. MS. BIBLOW: Sure. And there is a note from the Town advisory council saying that in 1995 that it was not a functioning jetty. MS. BIBLOW: Any other questions? MR. JOHNSTON: I just wanted to establish for the record. And, Al, the last thing, the nature of their application for a permit is -- I want you to refresh the other Trustees that they're I think asking for a permit to remove the jetty. So, if we are considering other items, we might want to have some amendment of the application, that's all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? MS. BIBLOW: Not until I hear what the other people have to say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There might be no other comments. MR. JOHNSTON: One other thing, Al, the transcript from that court hearing of May 3rd is now in your file, but no decision, obviously, has been made yet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I want to thank you for reviewing that for the Board. MR. JOHNSTON: You're more than welcome. MS. BIBLOW: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? MR. CHIAVETTA: Good evening, my name is David Chiavetta. I'm residing at 825 Nassau Point Road in Cutchogue, two houses south of the jetty. I mailed in a letter earlier this week or last week addressed to the Board about the devastation that this jetty and the reconstruction of this jetty has had on my beach. And more importantly, that the lower sand is undermining my bulkhead and could lead to the ultimate devastation of my bulkhead and major repairs to that bulkhead because of the change in levels. In 1995, just to echo what Charlotte Biblow was saying, the Town issued a permit for a repair of a limited portion of the jetty. At that time the Aloias sought a permit before the Town for the repairs. So in their view, a repair was necessary for the work to be done. Two, the Town in that -- and I have that here, I'll submit it to you -- does state that, in fact, that the jetty is nonfunctioning, and so it was a nonfunctioning jetty. So they got a permit in '95 and three years later in 2001, when they did a 60 feet of the jetty, they determined that they no longer needed to go for additional permits. Two, my understanding of the old code was that a nonfunctioning jetty could not be made functioning. And that's in fact what happened and it's a zero sum gain on. My beach has been devastated. I don't see how the Town could allow that to happen. I think that there are some other neighbors who might also be in favor. So I'm in favor of the Manago application to remove the work. I'm in favor of the Town issuing summonses for the work that was done, in my view without a permit, to be undone. MR. KILBRIDE: Good evening, my name is David Kilbride, a homeowner at 9045 Nassau Point Road. When this hearing was scheduled for June and it appeared I would be unable to attend, my wife and I prepared a letter for the Trustees which I think set forth our views, our concerns and is our analysis of what happened here. Our home is 500 to 600 feet southward, downstream of this jetty. I don't want to take the time to reecho and reiterate all the comments that have been made. I was swimming at high tide today, there's two foot of water at the foot of the bulkhead. I also point out that three years ago my family came to this Board three times for different permits for work we were doing, some of it almost trivial, but I do believe in an environment when we're all living in a fragile eco system that for reconstruction of a substantial waterfront structure is the kind of thing that the whole neighborhood ought to have some voice in, there ought to be due process, and we were denied that. I would like to support the Manago application and ask that the Board vote to have the jetty removed. Thank you. MR. GRAHAM: Good evening, my name is George Graham. I reside at 8625 Nassau Point Road, three houses down from the Manages. And I would also like to support any effort to remove the jetty. When I was last here at the April meeting, I think we had a discussion of what an acceptable type of jetty is and how this jetty doesn't match its criteria. But I think something that was not brought out or thought over is no one has really established that there is a fundamental need for jetties on the eastern shore of Nassau Point. It's my understanding that the beach erosion was minimal up until the point that this jetty was put in. I mentioned to you last time that we lost 20 to 30 feet of sand since the house was purchased in 1958. Five years after it was purchased, this jetty went in and almost immediately the loss of beach was dramatic. The surveyor that we had hired, his opinion back then was that there was no real need near jetty to prevent erosion. I haven't seen the Corps of the Engineers take a position on it one way or the other for this section of beach, and if there is anyone who has an authoritative source, I would like to know it. Also, when this jetty was constructed it was going back into the '60s, it was thrown up by the previous owner to the Aloias without approval from the state, which was a requirement at the time. After approximately the landowners for the lots 10 lots to the south complained to the state, a hearing was held two years later and the jetty was cut down to roughly its present size. At that time, the state, the Department of General Services, allowed the jetty to remain only because they believed the beaches to the south would be replenished. Now you can imagine our surprise after all this time that public officials can sometimes be wrong, but beaches have not recovered. In fact, after these last repairs have occurred we've lost literally vertically one foot of sand or more at the base of the bulkhead. So the jetty does have an impact. I don't know whether it's all due to the jetty, global warming or the judging by the Town. But in an enclosed bay, I can't really see that the natural erosion should be that dramatic or permanent. Since my reading of the Town code is that old structures are more or less grandfathered in and can make repairs, I don't know what the old code was back when, but this jetty was originally allowed on the condition that the beaches would recover to the south, they have not. It should be removed. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. FRASIER: My name is Dougle Frasier, and I live at 7955 Nassau Point Road, about three houses to the north. I am also representing George Frey, who lives next door to the Aloias, and he asked me to bring in a letter. He's 92 and his wife is 91 and they weren't capable of staying up this late. It's a short note: "My name is George Frey, I live at 8045 Nassau Point Road. My wife Eve and I bought our property in the summer of 1955, just a mere 50 years ago. Our property is located on the east side of Nassau Point between Dougle Frasier to the north and John Aloia to the south. Our beach is between two jetties which have been placed there on the advice of Army Corps of Engineers; both jetties have required repairs over these 50 years. "1 knew nothing about jetties and thought them ugly and wondered why we would have a nice clear beach where we could walk freely from causeway to point, a nice pretty walk. I began to keep my ears open for information on jetties, et cetera. My neighbor, Harold Schmidt, was president of the Nassau Point Property Owner's Association, and later years Mrs. Schmidt married Mr. Mortimer Chute. Harold Schmidt was a friendly man, we had many nice talks. When I mentioned my dislike of jetties, he assured me that Nassau Point would have the beaches washed away without them and a few more should be added. A former Trustee or Councilman of Southold Town, Howard Valentine, told me the same thing. He also said the United States Government Army Agency Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over the waterways. I do not know this is so, but I've heard it many times. "Some of my personal observations are as follows: There is a house on the beach about 300 yards south of us which we used to be told was used by rum runners during the years when liquor was illegal. I used to walk from my beach to Nassau Point past this boat house without getting my feet wet. I cannot do this now as this beach has lost too much sand. Possibly one or two more jetties to the north of this house would have prevented this erosion. If Mr. Aloia's jetty was removed, my beach would suffer, but due to the Frasier's jetty north of our beach it would eventually rebuild itself, but it would never be the same. The beaches south of me would be far worse off than they would not improve by the removal of the jetty. The beach to the south of the Aloia's jetty was adversely affected by the damaged bulkhead during the last two years of ownership by the Purpura family during the severe nor'easter. However the beaches to the south, although they gradually lost sand over the past 50 years, they have never been as sandy as the beaches that have jetties protecting them. Possibly there should be more jetties than eliminating any of the present ones. The decision to remove the jetty which is seriously affecting our beaches, bulkhead and property values should not be determined by us property owners who do not have expertise in the study of current waters and storms that affect our beaches. If a government agency with more knowledge than most of us is not considered, it would be a serious mistake. "My wife and I object to the application for a permit by the Managos to remove the jetty to the south. Thank you very much for letting me speak my mind. Very truly, George and Eva Frey." I'll give you the letter. And I feel the same way. We find if you get a good storm and all of a sudden, the Freys' beach on their side fills up like crazy; we get a storm going the other way, it comes back my way. But generally speaking, I find it fills the whole beach up and down very nicely. MR. NYKAMP: Philip Nykamp from Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley, Dubin, Reale and Quartararo in Riverhead, here for John and Vera Aloia, who are the owners of the jetty that is the subject of this application. I just wanted to remind the Board that this application is by the Managos to remove a jetty that is not theirs. I want to address some of the things that have been said so far and then go into the issues that I think the Board needs to decide in order to deny this application, which it should be denied. The 1995, '99 and 2001 repairs were in-kind repairs that did not require a permit under the code at the time. The reason that Costello got a permit for the first repair in 1995, which was because he wanted to provide a legal baseline for the jetty from which to proceed because it had not been permitted before. It had been there for over 50 years. So that's the reason why he got the permit, not because he thought he needed to get a permit, because he wanted to get one to provide that legal baseline for any future use of the jetty. The Managos have brought this application in an attempt to end run around the court who's deciding these very issues right now. As you heard the summary judgment motion has been orally argued. It hasn't been decided yet. We feel confident the summary judgment motion on behalf of the Aloias will be granted and the case will be dismissed. But as I see it, there's three issues that this Board needs to resolve. The first issue is ownership of the jetty. The fact that the jetty now appears, or a piece of the jetty now appears over the property line on a current survey doesn't mean that the Managos own this jetty. The New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law provides for this very occurrence, and what it says is that in this type of situation, the ownership remains with the long time owner of the property. If you agree with me that the Aloias own this jetty that has been on their property for over 50 years, then this application can be denied because it's been applied by someone who doesn't own it. The Second issue that you need to resolve is that the Managos claim that the jetty, the recent jetty maintenance has destroyed their beach has no merit whatsoever. If you agree to look at the evidence of the status and condition of the Manago's beach over the years from the 1980s until the first repair was made and then photographs from later, you will see that the status of the beach is relatively unchanged over that course of time. And then the third issue that you need to analyze is the standards that the Board needs to apply and in evaluating the application, and we feel that when you apply those standards you'll determine that the application needs to be denied. With respect to the ownership issue, John and Vera AIoia purchased the property at 8145 Nassau Point from Dorothy Chute in 1984, and I'd like to present the Board with some documents that will prove that the ownership of the jetty lies with the Aloias. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's going to prove to who? MR. NYKAMP: To you. Seven copies of the survey. And the owner of the property at the time of the closing. Seven copies of the deed and seven copies of a mortgage. MR. JOHNSTON: Can I see the title policy? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. What is the title policy, for the record? MR. NYKAMP: Title policy insures the title of the property and the owner of the property at the time of closing. With respect to the survey which was the first exhibit I handed up, it was a survey prepared in 1984 of the contracting for the property by the Aloias. The survey clearly reflects that the jetty is completely within the Aloias' property line. The next exhibit is the title report. If you look at Paragraph 18 of that report, it's a letter from Big Apple Abstract dated May 11, 1984. It reads as follows: "Survey made by Donick Associates, dated May 3, 1984. Shows premise improved by a one-story dwelling --" MR. JOHNSTON: Where are you reading from? MR. NYKAMP: Paragraph 18 of the title report and it's going to be at the end, it's going to be an added letter towards the end of the title report. MR. JOHNSTON: On the policy of title insurance Schedule A page, after that? MR. NYKAMP: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Conditions of policy orwhat? Where are you reading from? MR. NYKAMP: It's the last page. That paragraph reads: "Premises improved by one-story frame house with an attached screen porch and an attached slate patio and rear wood stairs, wood retaining wall" -- then here's the key -- "wood bulkheads and wood jetty shown in the rear." TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What year is that? MR. NYKAMP: 1984. Now the next exhibit I handed to you was the actual title policy which states the exact same thing in the same paragraph. It's Paragraph 8, it says wood bulkheads and wood jetty shown in the rear. MR. JOHNSTON: Where are you? MR. NYKAMP: Paragraph 8 of the actual title policy; do you see where I was reading there? MR. JOHNSTON: Wood retaining wall, wood bulkheads, wood jetty shown in the rear overhead wires crossing premises. MR. NYKAMP: That's it. The next exhibit you have is the actual deed. At the closing Dorothy Chute provided the Aloias with a deed that contains a description of the property and that description includes the property line as running 99 feet along the said average high water mark of Little Peconic Bay. When you take your ruler and you compare that with the survey, it also shows that the jetty is completely within the Aloias' property. MR. JOHNSTON: Was the words on the left, "Includes all of jetty," with asterisk, was that on the original or was that put in there by you? MR. NYKAMP: I didn't put it there. Let me see. That was probably put in there by the attorney for the AIoias in the Supreme Court action. MR. JOHNSTON: Would this have been recorded? MR. NYKAMP: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: So if we wanted to find out we could go to Riverhead and take a look at this? MR. NYKAMP: Absolutely, in fact it should have the tax stamps on it. MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, I just didn't know whether somebody had written on it. MR. NYKAMP: I'm fairly confident that that was put on there by Nancy Weiner, who is the attorney for the AIoias in the Supreme Court action. MR. JOHNSTON: So no probabative action in that. MR. NYKAMP: Well, the statement that's blocked is very probative. MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. MR. NYKAMP: So the deed clearly transferred title from the subject jetty to the Aloias from Dorothy Chute, and that's important because under the RPAPL, this now is a written instrument pursuant to which they obtained possession of the jetty. If you look at the next document, which was the mortgage, the mortgage includes the same property description, the same schedule A as the deed, and as such the mortgage is an additional written instrument pursuant to which the Aloias obtained possession of the jetty. Now this is important because there's two reasons now under the RPAPL, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, why despite these recent surveys you may have seen that show a portion of the jetty outside of the property line, do not mean that the ownership of the jetty has in fact transferred. There's two-ways that the RPAPL provides by way of adverse possession that that jetty remains in the ownership of the original owner as it has for 50 years. One of those ways is adverse possession based upon a written instrument. And Section 511 of the RPAPL provides that where the occupant or those under whom he claims entered into the possession of the premises under a claim of title exclusive of any other right founding the claim upon a written instrument as being a conveyance of the premises in question, and there has been a continued occupation and possession of the premises included in the instrument or of some part thereof for 10 years under the same claim the premises so included are deemed to have been held adversely. So what this means is that the deed, the mortgage, the policy of title insurance and all the written instruments provided prior to the closing of title on this property, including the title report, the survey, all demonstrate that the subject jetty is solely within the Aloia's property line. And pursuant to the RPAPL, they now acquire that jetty by virtue of adverse possession based upon a written instrument, notwithstanding that a current survey may show that a portion of that survey may show that a portion of that jetty is over the property line. Even if there weren't written instruments that they have, you still acquire adverse possession in another way. If you do not have written instruments, there are six elements to acquire property by adverse possession. The possession must be hostile, open and notorious, actual, exclusive, continuous and under a claim of right. And the Aloias have satisfied all of the elements of that in this case even without any written instruments. With respect to the element of actual use, the Aloias have established their actual possession or use by continued use, repair and maintenance at their sole cost of the jetty. With respect to the element of hostile possession, the AIoias maintained, repaired and used their jetty, this showed that their possession was open and notorious, and constituted an actual and constructive notice to others that they own the jetty. Now, in this case, it may be argued that there was a mutual mistake that the property was actually always a little over the property line. And the courts have held that parties' mutual mistake concerning the location of the borderline between properties doesn't negate a finding of adverse possession. Even if there's a mistake of where the boundary line was, that does not mean that the Aloias do not still have ownership of this jetty by adverse possession. With respect to the element of continuous possession, it is undisputed that Dorothy Chute, the predecessodowner, had the subject jetty built in the 1950s, and during her ownership of the jetty she maintained it and repaired it at her sole cost. And after the Aloias purchased, they did the same. With respect to the element of exclusive possession, Miss Chute exercised exclusive control over the subject jetty by arranging for the construction of the jetty and by bearing the entire cost of construction, repair and maintenance up until the time it was sold to the AIoias. After the Aloias purchased the property, they did the same. So thus the element of exclusive possession is satisfied. With respect to the open and notorious element, the construction of the jetty by Miss Chute in the '50s, the maintenance and repair of the jetty from the '50s until 1984, and the repair and the maintenance of the jetty after the AIoias purchased the jetty constitute open and notorious possession for the required time. And with respect to the claim of right, there's no dispute that the Aloias and their predecessor owner held possession and claim of right. Dorothea Chute had the jetty built on her own property repaired and maintained the jetty. The Aloias purchased the property including the purchase with all the documents that I have just submitted as exhibits which proved that they have a claim of right to the property. And based upon these two avenues of adverse possession, notwithstanding that that jetty has now been shown on a survey to be partially over the line, that does not mean they own the jetty; the Aloias still own the jetty by adverse possession, And we're very confident that these same arguments that we have made in the Supreme Court are going to carry the day as well. I'd also like to show a few pictures, these are pictures - TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A question about what you were just discussing. If all that you say is true, why has Judge Baisley, who I might or might not have had dealings with 20 years ago, why is he having such a problem issuing a decision on this? MR. NYKAMP: I don't think he's had a problem issuing a decision on this. I think it takes sometimes a long time to write an opinion. The opinion could be very long. The law department that actually writes the opinions and then submits them to Judge Baisley and for his review before signing off on it may be backed up. Ordinarily it takes some time after motion papers have been submitted and orally argued to get a written decision even if it's an easy answer. I've waited six months for a one paragraph opinion on a motion for summary judgment that says granted or denied. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay. MR. JOHNSTON: It's three and a half months. MR. NYKAMP: He wanted to bring people in for oral arguments because the issues were so complicated. These are pictures of the Managos' new bulkhead after they moved in in 1996; and these pictures show conclusively that the Managos when they put this new bulkhead in understood that the jetty was on the Aloias' property line. As you can see from the pictures, the bulkhead pilings, retaining walls and return are clearly constructed to the south of the Aloias' jetty. So there can be no dispute that this jetty is owned by the Aloias. For that one reason the application has to be denied. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MR. NYKAMP: If you have any questions before I move on to the merits of the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I will have to request, because the nature of the material that you have submitted this evening, that it's going to have to be reviewed by our counsel and then the Board would be advised as to its content. So I would suggest if you could submit your other comments in writing to this Board because we're not going to make a decision on this this evening. First of all, we don't do it actually by how much paper weighs, but there was a lot of material that was submitted tonight; there is going to be other comments that are going to come in, brief, of course; there is going to be again, discussion with our legal counsel; and also, there's one mechanical flaw in the application of the Managos in that an LWRP form hasn't been submitted yet. MS. BIBLOW: Itwas submitted in June, June 14th. Itwas sent by FedEx. TRUSTEE KRUPSKk I'm sorry, my mistake. It was submitted, it hasn't been reviewed for consistency, which is a matter you can take up with the reviewer not with this Board. MR. JOHNSTON: And Phil, for the record, we also have 75 pages that you did submit in addition to the pages you did submit here, which I got yesterday, I guess it was yesterday. MR. NYKAMP: I believe it was the expert report and the oral argument. MR, JOHNSTON: And your memorandum as well, which I don't know what your policy is of submitting or making that available to the opposing counsel, or do you want them to have to FOIA? MR. NYKAMP: No, not at all. I was going to ask Charlotte, if you want to, do you want to start cc-ing each other? MS. BIBLOW: I would like to start cc-lng each other, and I would like to know what you've submitted. Certainly whatever we submitted we sent to your client as part of the notice requirements, but I don't know what you submitted. MR. NYKAMP: But there were recent letters just on an ongoing basis. Okay, we have agreed. If this hearing is going to go past today, and to next month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. NYKAMP: Well then, I'm going to reserve my comments on the merits and the standards that need to be applied until then. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MS. BIBLOW: I certainly will be submitting certain things in writing since you're going to hold open this hearing. I wanted to make very brief comments as to what Mr. Nykamp has said that I think is very important for the Board to know before they leave tonight, which is although he gave you the title policy and the mortgage and the deed, in the summary judgment documents that we sent to you previously, you will notice the title company disclaimed coverage for the lawsuit and said they were not insuring the jetty, and are not defending the Aloias because of that. So I think that's important to note. In addition, I think you raised a very interesting issue about the judge is struggling. The summary judgment was submitted in March and it wasn't until he had a period of time to read the papers that he requested oral argument, which in Suffolk County is a very unusual thing for a judge to do, and he still hasn't issued an opinion. So I don't think the issue of ownership is as straightforward as Mr. Nykamp would have you believe. But even putting that aside, the bottom line here is those repairs were done without permits. And I think the Board cannot lose respect as to that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to have deliberation on those comments. DR. ALOIA: My name is Dr. John Aloia. I own the property at 8145 Nassau Point Road. It's my property that's being discussed this evening, and what you have before you is an application to damage our property. We have lived there for 21 years and until recently have enjoyed our home very much and enjoyed our neighbors to the north and south. We're currently being sued by the Managos, the suit was not brought by us, it's brought by the Managos, and it will be decided in Supreme Court. Our neighbor next to the Managos, Shift, has also joined in that suit and they're suing us for damage to their beach. Some of the things I've heard tonight make me feel like some of the speakers are from outer space, and they have said the Trustees have walked on the beach, and if you do that, you know that there's extreme exaggeration. We've lived on Nassau Point for 21 years. We understand what happens on waterfront property, I know you all do. Nassau Point is in an erosion zone. I have no question that there is erosion on Nassau Point. My neighbors far to the north also will tell you that their beaches have been eroding, and they have that despite their being proteoted by jetties. The south, the sand on Nassau Point moves from the south -- I'm sorry from the north to the south. There's continuous movement of sand, the point. As I drive my boat around the point, I can see that Nassau point is enlarging from the sand moving in that direction. In the '50s a number of property owners decided that they wanted to protect what sand they could have in front of their beach -- or their home, rather, and they built jetties. There were a number of jetties built on Nassau Point. Our jetty is not a jetty in isolation. It happens to be the last jetty before a number of houses that do not have jetties. And the reason they do not have jetties that the property owners that preceded them decided not to make an investment and build jetties, so the beaches that are there to our south have less sand, and they have had less sand through at least 50 years that I've talked to people about. Again, because I hear things that just aren't true, I need to personally address them, and I appreciate the hour along with all of you. I have to comment on the Manago property and our property. There was never a good beach in front of the Manago property. As a matter of fact, as you look at Nassau Point, we were not talking about long stretches of white sand beaches; we're talking about a little bit of sand in front of a bulkheading. But the previous owners of the Managos property going back 30 or 40 years, never swam on their beach. They used to come down to Chute's house, use our beach because there was less sand, they have a rocky beach. I would like to also point out that the Managos purchased their almost one and a half acres of bay front property in 1996 for $325,000, which was certainly a great bargain. It's a lot of money but for 1.3 acres of bay front property, it's not very much money. And part of the reason I would assume for that is that there isn't much sand in front of that property. So, they knew when they purchased their home that there was no jetty to the south and that there beach wouldn't be protected. They have a rock jetty that's an inadequate jetty that's really not very far from our own jetty that was put there by the previous owner. If you look at that jetty, you'll see it catches sand, so sand passes. I mean there's absolutely no question that sand goes over our jetty all the way down to Nassau Point. As a matter of fact, if our jetty were removed, what would happen is our beach would become the same as the Managos' beach and sand would eventually just keep passing by to the next jetty at the end of the point which collects sand. I want to then just stress that removing our jetty would damage our beach, would damage our neighbor's beach. Mr. Frey couldn't be here tonight because he's elderly and infirm, and you heard a letter from him. This is a jetty that's been in existence for almost half a century. Because some things have been said tonight, I really feel I need to say a few words from my perspective about ownership of the jetty. We bought our home from Dorothea Chute. She told us the story of how she built the jetty. She asked the Purpuras, who were the previous owners of the Managos' home if they would like to chip in with building a jetty or if they would like to build it further to the south, and the answer was, no, we don't want to spend the money on building a jetty. So it was sold to us. So the jetty was sold to us with the home. We were very close friends with the previous owners of the Managos' home, Dr. Purpura, who always told us the jetty belonged to us because it was put there by Mrs. Chute. So, for all the other legal reasons and we feel confident that when Judge Baisley makes a decision it will be deemed to be our jetty, but regardless of that, it's clear to us that this is something that we bought. We had a survey done. The survey showed the jetty totally on our property. That survey is on file in the Town. It's a survey that we have used for any work that we've done on our home. Now, I have to say something about the statements about repairs and the statements that we are not law-abiding and that we have some devious plan to build this monster wood structure that's going to rob all our neighbors of their beaches. First, all the work that we've done has been done by a marine contractor, so it's been done by Costello Marine. To my knowledge, all the permits that are necessary have all been obtained, and I have relied on the contractor to assure me of that. But I've been assured by other people that that's true as well. The jetty was always functional, whatever functional means. The jetty always trapped sand, we can show you pictures of the jetty when we bought the house. It looks exactly the same as the jetty does now. It's no different in height, it's no different in length. It's been that way for 50 years. If you look, at what we've done with the jetty, there was a severe ice storm in 1995, the ice storm actually picked up the pilings at the end of the jetty and because of that, we had to have it repaired. All the permits were obtained to do that. The Town looked at the jetty, issued the permits and approved the work. Subsequent to that, the only thing that's been done is replace sheathing, and in some instances for part of the jetty, what Costello did was put new sheathing in front of old deteriorated sheathing. But we could have in '95, under the permit that we had, replaced the entire jetty in terms of putting new sheathing in. Putting in new sheathing, it's really just repairs, and it's not really changing the size of the jetty. So the jetty, and you can just look at pictures of the jetty and see that despite what you've heard, it's no different. We've had a repair done in 1999. We had had a stringer damaged, and the stringer was damaged when the Managos repaired their bulkheading. The contractor had heavy equipment and went over our stringers and damaged it. I didn't say this to the neighbor, I did say it to the contractor and ordinarily don't make a fuss over things like that, and I told Costello when you repair our jetty -- this is in 2000, in 1999 rather -- when you repair our jetty, why don't you replace the top stringer because it's cracked. What he did instead was put a six inch stringer on top of the jetty. That stringer didn't collect sand, but it was nonconforming, and that's correct that it was nonconforming, and he was ordered to remove it, and he did remove it in 2001. So the only thing about this jetty that was different was for short time there was a stringer that had no effect. And the double sheathing is really just putting sheathing on next to the deteriorated sheathing. The jetty collecting sand has to do with its height and length. All the sheathing does is protect it from waves, the fact that it's somewhat stronger than it was before. We've had certainly no interest in damaging anyone's property. We've only been repairing our own property. I feel that we certainly have the right to that. We have been been told by our contractor that these are ordinary repairs, that is the replacing of the sheathings and at that time did not require permits. Finally, I just wanted to make a few remarks, and the ownership of the jetty is going to be determined in court, whatever's determined so be it. I think entangling the Town with the judiciary, obviously you need to decide that, but it sounds to me a foolish thing to do, and I don't know why this has been brought here, but it's been brought to the DEC, which has not issued a fine to Costello. It's in the Supreme Court, we're being sued for a lot of money and it's now before the Town, and I apologize for being here, but I didn't bring it here. I want to stress that the jetty has been there for 50 years. It's no different in size than it ever has been, and it's no different in size from most of the jetties along Nassau Point. Alteration or removal of the jetty will definitely cause harm to our property. No one can question that. If you look at the arguments that everyone else has made, it's clear that our property will be damaged. I don't know how, what you're being asked to do is to damage our property, and you have a petition from an individual who doesn't own the jetty to ask you to do that. I also think that the jetties along Nassau Point and anywhere else are part of a system. I mean a single jetty doesn't have tremendous effect, you have to consider it along with all the other jetties beach conditions. If the Town decides that it wants to revisit jetties and doesn't think that jetties protect our property, then that should be applied throughout the town. So if there's a new plan and that you're going to look at 50 year old jetties, remove them or change them, then you really ought to do that to everyone in Southold town, not because some homeowners are upset because their beach doesn't look as nice as the beaches next to them. I would just ask you and I know you're not going to do this tonight because, but I would ask you to deny this permit for two reasons. One I think it's unlawful for someone to apply for a permit for something they don't own; and also, this clearly would damage our property values and it will damage Mr. Frey's property values. All the jetties do is hold some sand in front of the houses where they have built them. This has no impact on erosion on Nassau Point. You take down our jetty, the sand is just going to pass along all the way out to the point. I'd be glad to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It was policy for years, it was consistent with DEC policy and now it's Town code that any jetty replacement or reconstruction would involve changing the jetty into a Iow profile jetty, which would allow for sand build up to continue on your property but it would allow it to pass over the top of your property once it reaches the height of the jetty and continue on down the beach in whichever direction it would go. So that's been Town policy for years consistently applied throughout the town. DR. ALOIA: That was in 1995 when we repaired our jetty? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh For some reason that wasn't applied. I don't know. That's why I was curious to see if the file was here, but it's not. That should have been applied then, you should have been to ordered to reconstruct it in a Iow profile manner the same as all the jetties. We have never, in all the jetty reconstructions, we've never had a problem with anyone coming back saying, Oh, this has become a problem because I changed my jetty height. DR. ALOIA: But let me make sure that I make clear than the jetty is no different in size. It's absolutely not different in size than it was when we bought our property. It's the same height and the same width. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But that's notwhatl said, though. I said that all the jetties like this, whether they're built this size or higher and some were built much higher, once they have been reconstructed into a Iow profile configuration, we've never had somebody come back and say -- a year later or ten years later -- that this is has been a problem. So reconfiguring it doesn't mean that you're going to suffer any property damage. DR. ALOIA: I understand what you're saying. I also know that along Nassau Point there have been numerous similar size jetties that have been reconstructed -- not reconstruct, repaired, and they haven't changed the size of them and they're all permitted. But I understand what you're saying. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Any other comment? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a comment, actually. For both sides of the fence there's been a tremendous amount of emphasis this evening put on illegal repairs, permits so forth and so on, and for the record I would just like to read out of the code 97-12 for exceptions. And it says the provisions of this chapter shall not effect nor prohibit nor require a permit for the following. I won't read everything that's in here, but I go down to number 5, and it says the ordinary and usual maintenance or repair of a presently existing building, dock, pier, wharf, bulkhead, jetty, groin, dike, dam or other water controlled device or structure. So there wasn't any work done illegally on that structure because a permit was not needed. Now that's prior to February 24, 2004 when we adopted our new Chapter 97 code. So anything prior to that, the illegal work wasn't an issue. It wasn't required. Just for the record. MR. BERG: My name is Dave Berg. I'm also a resident of Nassau Point, living on Nassau Point. I think the ownership issue that has been discussed tonight is something that will be decided someplace down the road. But I think what my point is here is my understanding is this was determined by the Town at one point to be a nonconforming jetty, work was then done on this jetty -- excuse me, not a nonconforming jetty, it was a jetty that did not effect anything, and since then work has been done on that jetty, and as a result of that work, that jetty is now functioning. It is functioning to the point where it's damaging the properties to the north side. Now, I have listened to what people have said here -- south side, you're absolutely right, south side, just like everybody, it's been a very late night here. With all due respect to the people that have talked here tonight, and the experts, we all know what jetties do. All somebody has to do is go look the Goldsmith's jetty. You put a jetty out, sand builds on one side, it takes away sand on the other side. The result is sand does not move down the beach, and there is no sand down the other side; that's what's happened. I've lived there for 50 years so I can remember probably 40 of those 50 years. I know that as a result of the jetties that have been built the people to the south have suffered. So, what I go back to, if this was a jetty that was nonfunctional, the town determined it was nonfunctional at some point. Subsequent to that work was done on that jetty, it's now become a functional jetty, I'm asking the Board to address that. To wait for a decision based on the courts will take months, perhaps years, the damage continues to happen. That damage will not wait for a decision of the courts to determine who owns this. So I think what this Board needs to address is not the ownership, I know that's what the application is which makes it very difficult, but I go back to ignoring the application right now, the fact that this was a nonfunctioning jetty that became functioning because of the work that was done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who would conduct the work? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Who do we issue the permit to? MR. BERG: If the jetty was returned to the condition, in other words the sheathing was removed that was put in by Costello or whoever, doesn't matter, if that work was done, then sand could now flow through, and the gentleman is absolutely right, just like Mr. Frey, his beach would suffer because what would happen is the sand that's built up on their beaches that should have gone if there wasn't a jetty or a functioning jetty, to the people of the south would then move that way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Who would conduct the work? MR. BERG: To remove the sheathing? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. BERG: That would be up to the people who had the work done to begin with, right? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It should be up to the owner. Who owns it? MR. BERG: It was done by an individual who thought he owned it at the time. He was under the understanding and his lawyers have said, there's no doubt in their minds they own it, absolutely they own in their mind. They did the work, they paid for it, in my mind, they're the ones that should pay for the cost of the removal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MR. GRAHAM: My name is George Graham, I live on Nassau Point Road. Sir, you misquoted the Town code. Section 97-13A and it says no permit required for maintenance or repair of a presently permitted, not existing as you said, jetty or groin. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I didn't read section -- MR. JOHNSTON: Let him finish then we'll tell him. Go ahead. MR. GRAHAM: My question now to the Town council is is this jetty now presently permitted? And does any future repairs require a permit or not? MR. JOHNSTON: Do you realize that what Mr. Foster said was under the old law, which is what he read. You're reading under the new law. The new law says permitted, the old law, which Mr. Foster read, said existing. MR. GRAHAM: I thought he mentioned that that was the new law. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I said prior to February 24, 2004 no permit was required. MR. GRAHAM: My question is under the current law is this jetty presently permitted? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE FOSTER: A permit wasn't required when it was built. It would get a permit, and then the permit would be issued to do the work as well. Right now it's not permitted. MR. GRAHAM: So in the future, any repair whatsoever will require a permit from this Board? MR. JOHNSTON: If it doesn't have a permit then any repair on any groin, jetty or whatever under the new law needs a permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The owner would have to apply for a permit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Repair work on a jetty that is permitted is not required to have a permit as long as the structure is permitted. MR. GRAHAM: That's not the case here and your argument is that under the previous law it didn't require it. Going forward from now on, if the Aloias wanted to repair this jetty, they have to get a permit. MR. JOHNSTON: If they don't have a permit. MR. GRAHAM: I'm sorry to rebut some things that Dr. Aloia unfortunately said, we've been living on Nassau Point continuously since this jetty was constructed in 1962 -- not the 1950s, in 1962. It was originally built without state approval. The only thing they had was a permit from the Corps of Engineers, who only said it was not a menace as to navigation, and to their credit no freighter has hit it since then. But when they built that thing, it was five feet high and it extended 75 feet into the bay, In one year, half the beach was destroyed. To say that we were just cheap and not to construct a jetty, for the last 40 years we have stopped at least three property owners from constructing a jetty to the south of this one. It is the largest jetty on the east side of Nassau Point. And if you want to walk the entire distance, you'll see. This jetty has caused the erosion of our beaches. It has caused us to lose 30 feet of beach. Yes, if it came out, his beach would be worse than the Managos, but collectively all our beaches would be much better. His would probably be a little bit worse. The fact is that the motion of the sand is being blocked by this jetty far and away above whatever sand is being trapped by the Aloias. From 1919 to 1958 there was only four feet of erosion in front of our lot. From 1958 until now, 30 to 40 more feet have disappeared. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. DIVANI: Hi, my name is Maria Divani. My parents are John and Vera Aloia at 8145 Nassau Point Road. I haven't been there quite as long as Mr. Graham, but I've been walking down that beach for 20 years now, and yes, there has been erosion, but not quite the drama that they're all discussing tonight. I keep hearing about this changing jetty. So I do have, not at the advice of counsel, a photo that I found of my husband the first year that my parents bought the house, and he's standing in front of the jetty, it's in 1984, and it looks exactly the same as it looks now. I'd just look like to show it to you, if I could (handing). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. In 1995 what happened with the jetty is that it lifted out of the water due to an ice storm. So it was not reconstructed, it was basically repaired. It's the same dimensions, nothing has changed. I'd like to address the erosion issue to the south. There's a couple of other issues that are not being discussed, one of which are the bulkheadings down south that are built out quite a bit. I'd like to show you a photograph, this is facing south. This is my parents' jetty; this is the Managos' rock jetty, which helps maintain quite a bit of sand for them. It also maintains seaweed as well, which they don't like. The other thing I have hero are some photographs of bulkheads that have been built out, that is this bulkheading over here, and that was built out five feet into the bay. This photograph is of my son standing in front of the jetty south to us, and this was in '02. And what you can see hero is a jetty that has holes in it and what happened is that the holes got filled up with rocks, and this was '02, there was in that year the wind was coming out of the north all summer long. So that year the sand built up on the north side of the jetty and then dropped pretty dramatically down on this south side of the jetty. And that was '02, but then if you look at picturos going forward, it starts evening out. '03 was a little better; '04 was much better, then by '05, I submitted some photographs to Heather, you can see that the Managos really built up a lot of nice sand on their beach. MR. ALOIA: My name is John Aloia, son of John Aloia. One of the arguments I noticed being made by the people in support of the application is that there was a finding in 1995 after the ice storm that the jetty was nonfunctioning. The jetty was then repaired. It seems that the other side is saying that this jetty continued to be nonfunctioning even after the repair. Anyone who's lived on this beach and has walked on this beach can see that this jetty did retain sand, that at no time was it rickety, did it have any major holes in it. I don't know what the technical definition of nonfunctioning might be, however, the jetty performed the function of a jetty which is to retain a moderate amount of sand on the property whero it is placed. So I don't know who here has an engineering degree that they're determining that it was rickety, I don't know if that's a technical term either, but I just wanted to clear that up because I don't think the nonfunctioning aspect goes in perpetuity. MR. NYKAMP: That was a good point, and just to clarify the functionality, in mid June of 1995 you have an advisory body that I believe did advise you that the jetty may be nonfunctional, you didn't listen to that advisory body and then seven days later you issued the permit to repair the jetty, and thereby this Board here determined that it was a functional jetty as of 1995. And I think this is the file you were looking for earlier. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We didn't have jurisdiction in the bay or sound until 1991 thanks to coastal erosion law. MR. JOHNSTON: So even if they wanted to get a permit, they couldn't. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So if we issued a permit in 1995, that means it's a permitted jetty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The permit is to rebuild in-kind/in-place 14 feet of offshore end jetty, rebuild a 3' by 3' access stairs from existing platform to bulkhead, install a 3' by 8' set of access stairs from bulkhead to beach and plant behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Permit wasn't even required but apparently it sounds like it's a permitted jetty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would have been required because -o TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What is the date on that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: '95. It would have been required under coastal erosion which put the bay and the sound into Chapter 97. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Under the wetland code? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes, under the wetland code. Because you're installing stairs and you're building access stairs. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Rebuilding stairs in-kind/in-place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says install a 3' by 8' set of access stairs. So for whatever reason -- MR. JOHNSTON: How long was the jetty? MS. BIBLOW: The jetty was 64 feet. MR. JOHNSTON: And they got a permit to rebuild the 14. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's to rebuild the 14, it hasn't been added to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll chew that one over. MS. BIBLOW: That was what I wanted to point out, I believe Dr. AIoia misspoke when he said he had a permit to repair the entire jetty in 1995; they had a permit to in-kind and in-place repair 14 feet, the outer 14 feet. They did not have a permit for the other 50 feet. And you mentioned, Mr. Foster, about ordinary repair of the jetty, I would submit to you that repair of 50 feet of a 64 foot jetty where you are widening and raising the height is not an ordinary repair. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It says normal and ordinary repairs. MR. NYKAMP: It wasn't 50 feet at one time and it wasn't widened and it wasn't heightened. Any additional height was taken away. MR. ALOIA: I'm Mark Aloia, I just wanted to say one thing. I'm here to support my parents. I'm an attorney, I'm not here as an attorney, but I would point out, this application, an application like this being granted is setting a real bad precedent. If you grant an application like this, then anybody along the point who doesn't like the way their beach looks, whether or not they own the jetty, and in this case we have an ownership issue being determined by the court, can make an application to you to tear it down. That's all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. If there's no other comment, I'll make a motion to table the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWO[)A: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES) 20. Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. on behalf of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to allow the repair and/or replacement of existing docking facility. Located: Basin Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1-16.10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. ANGEL: I'll start. Stephen Angel, Esseks, Hefter and Angel, for the Paradise Point Association. I think this particular dock replacement application has been heard before you at public hearings maybe three or four times, and I did not have the pleasure of appearing before you on those prior occasions, my associate Tony Pasca did. But Tony's on vacation and I'm filling in. If I had known it would be 12:30 I may have made him come back from vacation. My comments are going to be very brief. I think you people are pretty well aware of the application, and I'm going to introduce Jim Walker from Inter-Science, who will recap a little bit what's been done before you. As you indicate when you summarized the application, the application was to replace in-kind the existing docks at the Paradise Point basin, and that is still the preferred alternative on the part of our client. There are members of the association who strongly feel that that is the best alternative. As part of this process before you, however, you've solicited and we have supplied you with other alternatives, and there's one particular alternative that is before you that moves the existing docks closer to the basin or a little bit further away from the southerly shoreline, I think it's the southerly shoreline. And we would request that you do your deliberations, if you haven't done them already, and grant us an approval so we have either the replacement in-kind or an alternative, which allows us to dock the number of boats that had been previously docked at the existing facility. I should point out to you that your application is the first application we're making. As you are well aware, we have to make a whole series of applications after this, DEC, Department of State, Army Corps, and because there already has been a proceeding before the Zoning Board of Appeals in connection with the docks in which the Zoning Board held that the existing docks were nonconforming marine use in the area, I think we may and probably will have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals, especially if there's a modification to the existing facility. I'm just saying that for informational purposes, we would obviously have to do that if you made a determination to change the configuration of the docks. That being said, let me introduce Jim Walker who will recap where we are, and I think our comments will be brief. MR. WALKER: The plan that's mounted on the board is alternative 3. That dock was discussed at the last public hearing. Since the last public hearing I staked out that dock location in the field, both at the end of the proposed outer pier and at 13 and-a-half feet off of that, which would be the width of the beam of the boat tied up to the dock with the bumpers in place. All the information that the Town asked for has been shown on those plans, and I believe the Board of Trustees directives have been complied with. That's all the information that I have for you tonight, except I would like to answer any questions that you have and listen to any directives that you might have. We would like to close the public hearing, move to a decision on the project. So if you have specific directives, I'd like to hear them, if you have them tonight. Other than that, we put a lot of effort into it. The project has been squeezed from three sides, it's less further out into the boat basin than it was. It's further away from the bulkhead to the far side, and it's squeezed in on all three directions. I believe the facility is about as efficient as it's going to get. The Board may have slight modifications to improve the project. But the idea was to compress the facility, have one dock and the have it extend approximately one-third out into the creek. That's what drove the design, and that's what we have in front of you. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll hear other comments first. Any other comments? Could you bring that up, please? Is there a number of boats that in an ideal world the association would like to have utilized? MR. WALKER: This dock had 12, this dock had two (inaudible). TRUSTEE KING: So you want a facility for 14 docks? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 14 vessels. If there's no other comment, Board comment? Comment in the back? MR. DEAN: I'm Tom Dean, we live at 3895 Paradise Point Road which is between the Boyd and Kolyer property and we are in opposition to this configuration. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I have your letter. MR. DEAN: Yes. Which pretty much explains it. We feel like when we bought the property, we bought it mainly with that water view, and this configuration completely destroys that water view, and we appeal to you to deny this application. We actually have spoken to the association, and they have offered to come up with different configuration, and I would appreciate this other configuration to be presented prior to any approval. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? This is like an auction, when it's over it's going to be over, so don't hold on for that last bid, anyone? Mrs. Kolyer. MS. KOLYER: Mrs. Kolyer. When I look at the Inter-Science map, I notice this month two additions were added to it, one is my name as the client, the other one is the disclaimer box saying that nothing on this map can be guaranteed of its accuracy and that a survey prepared by a licensed New York surveyor would be a must. And I feel like there is an insufficient procedural foundation to go forward without a survey. I don't see how we can do this. I think it's a healthy thing for everybody to have a survey so we all know exactly, have a licensed person putting their name on the line to talk about the measurements in here instead of he-said/she-said and then call the lawyers in the morning. It's a complete waste of time and money. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano and I'm here representing the interests of a neighbor, the Zupas. My first comments are with respect to the Inter-Science plan revision date 6/23/05, which I believe is the plan that Inter-Science has presented to the Board. My first observation is that the distance representing the width of the body of water, which is purported to be 288 feet, was measured at the widest point of the body of the water. The distance at the proposed location of the reconfigured dock is approximately 240 feet. You do the math. The reconfigured dock length overall from the Iow water mark is approximately 130 feet, which represents 54 percent of the width at that point, and that figure is exclusive of the beam of the boat intended to be docked at that particular location, I think that would be the westerly end of the proposed structure. And I hope you'll indulge me, your code Chapter 97 states that the width of the creek being defined is the distance across the creek from mean Iow water to mean Iow water perpendicular to the main channel directly in front of the subject parcel. The area of the proposed structure is approximately 925 feet, which is in excess of the cumulative area of the existing structure. The stern of a boat - the stern of a 25 foot boat hypothetically -- the stern of a 25 foot boat docked at the new 3' by 20' float, which would be the finger piers on that would be the southern side of the proposed dock, if a boat of 25 feet in length were docked at that new quote, 3' by 20' float, the stern of that boat would end up sitting where the southern side of the existing long dock is located. Net end result is zero. The Inter-Science disclaimer on the survey I find to be quite interesting. I've been before this Board many, many, many times over the past 12 years, and I don't mind having my feet held to the fire, but I would expect equal treatment, and I really have to read this because this has never been found to be acceptable in any proposal I have brought before this Board, stating: "This is not a survey. The information contained hereon is based upon the information and/or data provided to or obtained by Inter-Science Research Associates during the course of work being undertaken for the client. While efforts have been made to insure the accuracy of this drawing information, Inter-Science acknowledges that any final analysis -- emphasis -- must be made on a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor in the state of New York using up-to-date and site specific information for the property being analyzed. Accordingly it is cautioned that the information contained hereon should be used for preliminary analysis purposes only and be used with caution. Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for errors contained in this drawing." My other comments, and I have to quote directly from your code because I think it gets me to where I think I need to be, the name and address of the applicant and the source of the applicant's right to perform such operations. First and foremost in your requirements for what constitutes a complete application: "Furthermore, it shall be the policy of the Town of Southold that all docks shall be designed, constructed and located so as to reduce a dock's potential adverse impacts to navigation, public safety, waterway congestion," et cetera. "Any application for a dock to be constructed at the end of a right of a way or commonly held land requires the written consent of all parties having an interest in the right of way regardless of how property interests in the upland parcel may be divided among the parties. No dock shall be erected or extended if, in the opinions of the Trustees, such structure would adversely affect navigation fisheries," et cetera. "Within creeks and other narrow waterways no dock length shall exceed one-third the total width of the water body. Determination of the length of the dock must include the dimension of the vessel. Only one dock or mooring is permitted per residential dock no larger than 6' by 20'. In determining the permitted length of the proposed residential dock, the Trustees shall seek to maintain lengths consistent with the other docks in the waterway which meet the requirements of this law." The other docks in this waterway range between 40' and 60'. They maintain 6' by 20' floats that hold, that dock two boats. And I won't go on to read all the items under your review and approval of dock applications because there is no item under that section of your code that this application complies with. Chapter 97 provides no basis for approval of the application as presented. No proof has been offered to support the pre-existence of the structure. Alternate remedies have not been adequately explored. I've suggested a couple significant reconfigurations, which was ignored. I've also suggested at least considering relocation of the association's dock on association property to the west of the west jetty. I have heard no discussion of that. No facet of this application compiles with the letter or the intent of Chapter 97. And I agree with the gentleman from Inter-Science that this hearing should be closed, and that the Trustees should make a decision because I don't think the Trustees have any basis for approval of anything based on the application that is before you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? MR. BRESSLER: Eric J. Bressler on behalf of Zupas. I have listened with great interest to what has been presented by the applicants. I have observed the written submissions such as they are. I think the question before the Board is not whether this application meets the standards of Chapter 97, but rather whether even one aspect of the application meets even one of the criteria of Chapter 97. And it doesn't. I'm not going to reiterate everything that Miss Mesiano so capably said. Chapter 97 speaks for itself. The deficiencies in the application speak for itself. There's no jurisdictional basis for this Board to go forward. The applicant's own expert says you can't act on what I gave you. That would seem to dictate the answer to the question before the Board this evening, and I think it's fair to say that were the Board to go forward and approve an application on documentation that their own expert say they shouldn't act on, you got built-in error. You got to go back; you got to tell them no, and you got to tell them if they want to make an application that they have to come back and their experts have to submit something that they're willing to stand behind and tell you that you can rely upon. That seems pretty self-evident. I just want to speak briefly to several other issues. As far as this nonconforming issue would go, Mr. Angel would have you believe that the Zoning Board has made a determination and that's that. He knows that's not so and I know that's not so; that's currently on appeal at the Appellate Division Second Department. That matter is by no means settled nor do I believe it to be binding in any event on this Board. This is an unpermitted structure, and your code does not grant anything to unpermitted structures and that's exactly what this is. This project goes so far beyond anything that I have ever seen this Board approve, I can't imagine that there should be anything other than a denial and an insistence on some sort of a proper submission. The Board has only to look at that plan to determine that it is no better, and indeed it's worse, than what exists in terms of navigation and obstruction of the creek. One only has to draw the line from the Zupa property to the line of navigation to see that this doesn't pass muster. That matter is currently pending before Mr. Justice Cohalan. You cannot put up a dock that cuts off someone's riparian right to get directly to the stream of navigation, and your code recognizes that. You can't interfere with navigation. This application has got to be rejected out of hand. If they want to come back to you with something that conforms to Chapter 97, that's something different, but that's not before you. Thank TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Any other comment? MS. ZUPA: My name is Mary Zupa, I'm the owner of 580 Basin Road, Southold. I wish to inform you that the application you have before you has never been signed by myself. I have a copy of what is necessary in order for you to consider an application. One of the items is the property owner's permission for the Trustees to come across the property, and, of course, the property owner's permission for an application to be submitted. It's very elementary and I was never consulted, have never been consulted about it. And I wish that it is put on the record that this has never had my permission, and I don't know how it has come even this far. Also, I have never seen a posting of this application, the way you have to post. I believe where it's posted is down on Briar Lane. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Brown, is there any merit to Mrs. Zupa's comment about her having to give permission for them to cross the property or to submit an application for a dock? MR. JOHNSTON: I would have to take a look at it, Al, off the top of my head, are they actually going onto her property? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. They're using the right of way that they have over her property. MR. JOHNSTON: She can sue them for trespassing or something. MR. ANGEL: On that issue, on the issue of consent, let me give you - I have a copy of the deed, let me hand this up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe Mr. Angel is going to help us out here. Go ahead, sir. MR. ANGEL: I'd like to address the consent issue, initially, if I may. I just handed up to you a deed. It's a deed from the predecessor in title to Mrs. Zupa. It's recorded in Liber 1080 -- looks like 4 doesn't it, 1 or 4? Page 555, it's dated February 29, 1989, and it contains the easement by which the Paradise Point Association has authority to cross the property for the purposes of maintaining the structures in the basin. You'll notice that the deed runs to the Paradise Point Association, Inc. and the description of the easement is by meets and bounds. And the last line on the first page it starts to describe what the easement's for, and it says in part, "Said easement to be used by the party of the second part," which is the Paradise Point Association, "for free and unobstructed access to the basin and canal as shown on the aforesaid filed map for the construction and maintenance of bulkheads, cribs, jetties, docks, et cetera, as may be deemed appropriate by the party of the second part." And it keeps on going. I think that that is the authorization, and I think that legally that gives us the authority and satisfies whatever condition you have. That's a written authorization that runs with the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MR. ANGEL: Now, the issue of the disclaimer on those plans, those are alternatives that were done by Inter-Science, I believe your file -- I know I commissioned it, but I believe your file has a meets and bounds survey by Young and Young of the basin, and if you were to accept a particular alternative, obviously we could super impose that on the meets and bounds survey, i'm quite sure a survey was submitted of the basin and the land around it, and so the file maintains that. I think most people who submit to you plans with alternatives of docks have those plans drawn by their environmental consultants and there is little practice where you would always have the proposed docks transposed to a survey by a surveyor before they were approved. And I would point out that it seems to me that there's a groundswell of antipathy towards the alternative that we're proposing, and you have to remember my first comment. The preferred position of the applicant would be to replace in-kind the existing docks, and Mr. Bressler and I do disagree, as you well know, the issue of the nonconformity of the docks was presented on several occasions to the Zoning Boards of Appeals, most recently in a decision that was rendered within the last year or two, an action was brought, a proceeding was brought to set that aside. It resulted in a decision to dismissing the petition, and a decision by Judge Loughlin of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County, specifically finding that the marina use as then existed was a nonconforming use. Yes, a notice of appeals has been filed but appeals aren't always successful. And a judge and the zoning board that sits right where you're sitting tonight have all made that finding. So we're starting with the proposition that we have a legal dock under zoning, and that can't be dismissed lightly. I don't think it's a nullity. I think it's a very important both administrative and now judicial determination that I think you have to acknowledge. What we have done is we have offered alternatives that we thought were consistent with what you wanted us to do because we wanted to be reasonable, and we still want to, but I want to again emphasize that we have no problem with replacement in-kind of the existing facility. If you have any further -- Jim, do you want to add anything to that? MR. WALKER: Just a couple things. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go ahead. MR. WALKER: In terms of the comments that were made, the disclaimer that's on that site plan is a standard disclaimer that we add all the time. I think it's pathetic that it's the challenge that's being brought out at this hearing. It's late at night. I'll let it sit at that. But those drawings are based on actual surveys. They are the design that was discussed at the work session. I think it was very good attempt at trying to meet the concerns of the Town and the adjacent property owners. The dock is not a residential dock. It shouldn't and can't be held to the same standards that a residential dock is held to. We showed the distance down the center line of the dock at 288 feet, and we showed the one-third line across at 96 feet, and we tried to comply with the directives that the Board of Trustees provided. We have one dock; it's pushed in on all sides; it provides roughly the same slip configuration but it certainly is smaller in all respects than the existing dock facilities, and it's a very good attempt at meeting all the Board of Trustees directives head on. Obviously, if the Board of Trustees approved the plan, it could certainly be added to Howie Young's survey. There was a reference to a survey of the easement area, that was submitted for a previous project. The survey that was submitted for this project is for the boat basin, which is owned by the association, and all the normal survey information was added to those plans. They're a standard set of plans similar to plans I've been processing since 1984. And in all my years, I've never heard a disclaimer discussed in a hearing process. I think it's unfortunate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We think we've heard it all. But any other comment? MR. BRESSLER: Briefly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There's still another public hearing to come yet. MR. BRESSLER: Briefly. On the issue of the deeds, as usual, the presentation that has been made to you is partial. What was left out was the issue of whether or not there's even a right of way is the subject of litigation. It's currently before the Appellate Division. This issue came on and was tried before Justice Catterson. He said, yes, you have an easement. The Appellate Division turned around and stayed his order. So there is no substance to the argument that all you have to do is look at the deed and that constitutes a consent. Moreover, your own regulations call for a consent, and they didn't even ask for it. Secondly, a most interesting legal proposition. Something is up on appeal before the Appellate Division, but you ought to give weight to the decision, even though it's not a final judgment. I didn't learn that in law school. I never knew that to be the law. These issues are up in front of the Appellate Division. You are to give no weight to it, unless and until there's a final judgment, nor is anybody bound by it until there's a final judgment on it. Finally the Young and Young survey. How interesting, the Young and Young survey doesn't comply with your own Chapter 97. There are no current soundings; all you have to do is look at that and see that there are no current soundings. The soundings were knocked off from a 2001 Bobby Fox marine survey. They're four or five years old. They're useless. They don't comply with Chapter 97. What has been submitted to you is nothing more than a compilation, whether there's a meets and bounds survey of a claimed easement area has nothing to do with your requirement that there be current soundings and other data set forth. Ladies and gentlemen, you are flying blind on this application, whatever the application may be. Mr. Angel tells us it's one of many. The expert tells us at the last session, we're asking you to consider alternative 3. Whatever it is that you're considering, or whichever of the two agents' theories you go along with, they have not presented you with the information that you need nor have they met the requirements on Chapter 97, no matter what it is that's before you. You got to say no to this, and you have to require a competent application so we know what we're talking about. If they submit one, whether they will ever meet the standards of Chapter 97 in this basin area is a matter for another day. I don't think they can, but that's not before you right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. ANGEL: I'm not going to deal with the merits of what Mr. Bresslerjust said. I just want to say one thing. I believe that Mr. Bressler's statement of the law that a final judgment issued by a court in which he's filed a notice of a appeal in is a nullity, is absolutely wrong, and I will submit law on that to you tomorrow or Friday so that you know that it is wrong. I just had to say that. The final judgment is a final judgment. The fact that you filed a notice of appeal, even perfected an appeal doesn't change the impact of the final judgment until he's successful, which he's not been so far; that's just an incorrect statement of the law, and I can establish it. And if Mr. Bressler wants to submit something to the contrary, I suggest that he do it at the same time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? AUDIENCE MEMBER: I just wanted to state on the record that we're not opposed to association docks of some size and capacity, but I would like and I do think it is wise to get a survey of that basin because I measured that basin on Saturday morning or Saturday afternoon at 12:08, which was high tide and that was measurement of 288 is incorrect, that it is overstated. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, what was your measurement? AUDIENCE MEMBER: 276, same exact location. I took several measurements. We were fortunate to have a full moon Friday night, so that should be the maximum tide we'll ever get. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? MS. MESIANO: Just in response to that, your code requires that that measurement be taken at Iow tide, I think it's median Iow tide. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. If there's no other comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. (ALL AYES) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And this Board will reserve decision. 21. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of MARY S. ZUPA requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4' by 30' fiberglass grid walk at 2.5' above grade, 3' by 6' ramp and 6' by 20' float and two 8" piles. Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1-16.7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? MS. MESlANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. We have discussed this at a prior hearing. We've met at the site and discussed this. So basically I'm here to answer your questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If there's no other comment? MS. MESIANO: Except I am here to answer your questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I'll take any other comments first before the Board makes a comment. MR. ANGEL: Stephen Angel, Esseks, Heifer and Angel, Paradise Point Association. I've got to fulfill my duty here as you would well expect to oppose this application. I would ask that you make as part of the record in this application or include as part of the record in this application a copy of that deeded easement which refers to the association's rights over the area in question, which makes the Zupa rights subservient to the association's rights to maintain the docks and the basin. I read it to you before, it refers to an easement for the free and unobstructed access to the beach and canal as shown on the aforesaid filed map for the construction and maintenance of bulkheads, cribs, jetties, docks, et cetera as may be deemed appropriate by the party of the second part, which is the association. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh At your request, we'll include the whole document in your file. You won't have to repeat it all. MR. ANGEL: Thank you. Also, I think you have an application before you for a dock on a piece of property that is currently occupied by our use, the marina use for the benefit of the Paradise Point Association. What you have is an application for a residential dock without a residence. So, from a zoning viewpoint, I think that the dock is not properly permitted. It would be accessory to a residence but as of now there's no right to put a residence on that property, as you are probably well aware from the Zoning Board's determination. If for some reason you do approve a dock by this applicant, I would ask that you clearly make sure that the proposed location doesn't interfere with whatever dock you approve for my client on the prior application, the prior hearing. I don't know exactly what would it would require, but may involve the limitation on the size of the use of the vessel, et cetera. And also any dock application that would be approved in this particular situation, would also realistically have to await the paramount use of the basin by the Paradise Point Association pursuant to the easement that is now part of both records. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MR. BRESSLER: Well, I guess I've heard it all now, the tail is now wagging the dog. Mary Zupa is the owner of the property. You've granted a permit to her to construct a residence, we now want a permit to construct a dock it's incidental to that. Whatever litigation there may be over other people's requirements is not germane to what you are doing. Mr. Angel has the temerity to tell you that whatever you may grant, the owner of the property in conjunction with the proposed house has to be subservient to what outsiders are going to do. And that we have to be subservient to that and that you have to consider what you're going to give them, if anything, first. That is utterly preposterous. I would suggest to you that what you have to do is consider this application on its merits and grant to the owner of the property something that she's entitled to by law. Then, if there's a problem with any interference, do what you have to do to those folks, not to the owner of the property. We think she's entitled as owner of the property to a dock. Your code says she is. If the Zoning Board has a problem with that, let the Zoning Board deal with that; we'll deal with that. We're already dealing with those problems, we'll deal with one more. That's not a big deal. But you've already indicated that there are no environmental reasons why these folks should not have a residence, and there is no environmental reason why these folks should not have a dock. There's every reason why you shouldn't grant the prior application, and there's every reason why, if you do, and it does stand up, there's every reason why that should be subservient to what we're entitled to do on our property. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any Board comment? I just find it curious there's all this talk about submitting surveys, and this is the third application in Paradise Point basin this evening that's come before us with a plan not on a survey, just for the record. Any approved dock in this area is going to be required to be placed on a survey, that includes the previously approved Kolyer dock, which was applied for without a survey. I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. (ALL AYES) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Board will reserve decision. OTHER: 1. Proposed amendments to Chapter 97-Wetlands and Shoreline, and Chapter 37-Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, of the Southold Town Code. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to make a comment? MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, resident of Cutchogue. I don't want to make any assumptions, but I'm gathering that anything underlined is being added; is that correct? MR. JOHNSTON: Anything in red is being added. MR. BERGEN: Well, there's nothing in red on mine. Anything underlined is an addition? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, except in the very first page where it says, "a local law in relation to" that's not being changed. MR. BERGEN: If I could draw your attention to 27-C, looks like J -- there's no page number -- I'm sorry B, Shoreline Structures, 1 J, where it says "Individual residential stairs are prohibited on bluffs if the property is part of an association that maintains a common stairway." I need some help with clarification. Does this mean if I live on Paradise Point, whether or not I'm a member of their association or not and they have a common stairway, and I'm a waterfront property owner on Paradise Point, that I am not going to be able to have stairs to the beach because the association has installed stairs someplace else along the beach? MR. JOHNSTON: If your deed or your property is a member of that association. MR. BERGEN: My question is for rights of a private property owner, and I'm living on Paradise Point, and the association has steps to the beach, maybe it's a half mile down the road, and I have a house on the beach, I have an objection to any law that states I cannot put steps from my house or my property to my beach because the association a half mile, or a mile or three miles away has a -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's probably in the covenants. A lot of those developments put a covenant in that use a deeded right of way. And if the stairs are built that kind of gives you your right of way to the beach. For future reference that prevents say 30 or say 100 homes are being built and 100 different sets of stairs go down the bluff, blow out the bluff and destroy all the houses. That's why it's deeded in. Same with the docks. If you have 100 homes going in, you don't give them 100 docks. MR. BERGEN: So if membership in the association is voluntary, and I choose not to belong to the association, then can I go ahead and do steps from my property, my house to the beach? Nassau Point Association is voluntary. You don't have to belong to the association to live in Nassau Point. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It seems in that area everyone has a set of stairs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are stairs on association property there also. MR. BERGEN: Correct. And that's my concern here with this property. I live on Nassau Point, the association on one of the right of ways has steps to the beach, is that saying to me then, I cannot apply to have stairs from my bluff to the beach? The right of an individual property owner who owns property who does not want to be a member of the association, I feel as though those individuals should have the right, if it's not causing any environmental issues, in other words, applying for permits as needed, to have stairs to the beach. They shouldn't be told, sorry, you can't get access to your own beach that you're paying taxes on, you can't have access without going half mile or mile or three miles down the road. On the record I'm objecting to it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comments? Any comments on Chapter 37, including the definition of structure? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You have to define it so it cannot be used when you're defining 25 percent increase in home size. (Discussion) TRUSTEE KRUPSKk I'll make a motion to approve those changes as amended and submit them to the Town Board for enactment. TRUSTEE DICKERS©N: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? (ALL AYES) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to go back to the regular meeting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. (ALL AYES) (Time ended: 1:30 a.m.)