Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/21/2005 Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 MINUTES !.!lECEIVij) "f-~~ 3.''-15 f'tY/ APR 2 4 2006 1JtAA/~tllJ.;uiN -~'Tc..v;n Clerk , BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTH OLD Wednesday, December 21, 2005 7:00 PM Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Cusack, Environmental Technician CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 21 , 2005. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING Seconded with a correction to Page 19, roll call vote; Trustee King did vote with the Board. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 2 December 21, 2005 I. MONTHLY REPORT: For November 2005 check for $12,436.28 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: David Shamoon SCTM#122-9-7.20 Carla Starcic SCTM#70-6-9 Janet Carrus SCTM#86-6-26.1 Darren Pfennig SCTM#72-2-2.3 Roy R. Ward III SCTM#137-1-8.1 W. Bruce Bollman SCTM#31-13-4 Thomas & Gekee Wickham SCTM#103-13-10 Robert & Susan Toman SCTM#78-2-15.2 William & Margaret Howell SCTM#73-2-3.1 Eugene Krupski SCTM#100-2-3 Stirling Harbor Shipyard & Marina SCTM#36-1-1 Rita Martin SCTM#140-1-7 Sally Guido SCTM#53-6-20 Stephen Matteini SCTM#53-6-19 Patricia Scott & Richard Terry SCTM#17-1-2.1 Ole Jule, LLC SCTM#122-4-30 David, Preston & Mary Meers and Thomas Couse SCTM#116-5-12 Kathryn A. Campbell SCTM#66-2-12 Mary Zupa SCTM#81-1-16.7 Giacomo Chicco SCTM#79-8-15.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Welcome to our November meeting, our last Board meeting of 2005. We have our Board members in the front here, Ken, Peggy, Jim, Lauren who runs the office, Artie, the last Board member, our legal counsel is Brownell. Heather also works in the office, she's our environmental technician. Jennifer next to Heather is on the CAC, and Florence is keeping notes for us tonight, so when you do make any comments tonight, if anyone cares to -- and you don't have to -- please come up to the microphone and identify yourself so we have a clear record. We have two new Trustees elects here in the office and they're sitting inconspicuously in the back, Dave Bergen and Jill Doherty, if you have any questions, please ask them after the meeting, feel free to call them. Board of Trustees 3 December 21, 2005 We have a number of things we'll go over tonight before we start the regular agenda. Maybe Jim would like to summarize some of our legislative agenda for the past couple of years and for the future. TRUSTEE KING: In 2002 and 2003 we were drafting changes to the Wetland Code, which is 97. And 2003 we held public hearings for Chapter 97 and in 2004 we enacted the new wetlands code. Right now we're working on changes to 37 and 97, coastal erosion. In 2005, 2006 we're going to be drafting changes to Chapter 77, which is our shellfish code, and Chapter 32, which is the mooring. And also 2005/2006 we're starting to draft the new Chapter 34. We have a lot of work ahead of us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The legislative agenda that we have going is an ongoing process as Jim described. Most of the codes are antiquated. Not only did we update 97, but we amended it afterwards after we worked out a lot of the kinks. The mooring code, Chapter 34, is something that's ongoing. We had a number of productive meetings, and now we have to go back to work session and redraft that. Then we'll bring that back out to the public again, that's the new mooring code for the bay. So if anyone has any comment on any of those codes, please feel free to contact the office, emaH or regular mail, to let us know what your suggestions are on any of those. This is my last meeting as president of the Board of Trustees, so our mood here, this is going to be kind of an odd meeting. This is the last meeting for Artie, who is leaving the Board, and for Kenny who is also leaving the Board, and I'm moving onto the Town Board, which is a little different arena. So it's going to be an interesting meeting and we'll get on with it. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby find that the following applications more fully described in the public hearing from the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, December 21,2005 are classified as Type II actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and are not subject to review under SEQRA: David Shamoon SCTM#122-9-7.20 Carla Starcic SCTM#70-6-9 Janet Carrus SCTM#86-6-26.1 Darren Pfennig SCTM#72-2-2.3 Board of Trustees 4 December 21, 2005 Roy R. Ward III SCTM#137-1-8.1 W. Bruce Bollman SCTM#31-13-4 Thomas & Gekee Wickham SCTM#103-13-10 Robert & Susan Toman SCTM#78-2-15.2 William & Margaret Howell SCTM#73-2-3.1 Eugene Krupski SCTM#100-2-3 Stirling Harbor Shipyard & Marina SCTM#36-1-1 Rita Martin SCTM#140-1-7 Sally Guido SCTM#53-6-20 Stephen Matteini SCTM#53-6-19 Patricia Scott & Richard Terry SCTM#17-1-2.1 Ole Jule, LLC SCTM#122-4-30 David, Preston & Mary Meers and Thomas Couse SCTM#116-5-12 Kathryn A. Campbell SCTM#66-2-12 Mary Zupa SCTM#81-1-16.7 Giacomo Chicco SCTM#79-8-15.2 TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: These are not public hearings, however, if anyone has any comment, please feel free to come up to the microphone and speak on them, but please be brief. We have a long agenda tonight and it's getting near Christmas and everyone would rather be home with loved ones instead of here with us, brief, organized and be ready. Peggy, you looked at the first one? 1. ROBERTA F. JAKLEVIC requests an Administrative Permit to install a split-rail fence along the east side of the property. Located: 900 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-5-21.2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't know if there's anyone here tonight. I looked at it. Is there a file? I was just curious as to the purpose of the split-rail, but it's one they said was in existence, and it's on their property, and it's a split-rail. I didn't have any problems. I was going to ask for the purpose, but I don't see anyone here tonight. So I will make a motion to approve the Administrative Permit for the split-rail fence. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 2. CHERYL HANSEN requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 25' by 25' accessory 'I Board of Trustees 5 December 21, 2005 two-car garage. located: 445 Elizabeth lane, Southold. SCTM#78-5-3 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This was under Administrative and I did go out and look at it. If there's no one here to speak to this, I'm going to make a motion to table because it's an extremely small piece of property. It's also almost completely surrounded by the canal, and I would feel more comfortable with the entire new Board looking at it. So if there's no one here to speak, I make a motion to table. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? All AYES 3. WilLIAM STANTON requests an Administrative Permit to install a 29' by 19' patio of brick pavers and sand with a 9" to 11" retaining wall and remove the cement steps to the basement and replace them with the same interlocking cement blocks used in the retaining wall. located: 1115 Bungalow lane, Mattituck. SCTM#123-3-15 TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this, it's just a patio behind the house. The only thing I would like to see it's a steeply sloped lawn down to the wetlands, and I would like a five or 10 foot no-mow zone right down to the top of the bluff. The next door neighbor to the north has a nice buffer, and it would just be beneficial to them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: Other than that there's no problem. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? All AYES TRUSTEE KING: Five to 10 feet of a no-mow area. It's right against the wetlands. 4. MORTON COGEN requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing cesspool 4' to the north with a new larger capacity unit. located: 1395 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#137 -4-30 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: These administrative permit, this is a new permit. We put these into the new Chapter 97. We amended it to make the permit $50 instead of $250. It's for really minor operations conducted within our jurisdiction, however, that really shouldn't require neighbor notification and a public hearing and review only by one Board member. Having said that, this application came in yesterday and I don't think any Board member had a chance to review it. So I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. Board of Trustees 6 December 21, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a question, Number 4, is that tabled until next month or just until somebody looks at it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Until next month. 5. Anne E. Trimble on behalf of JANET CARRUS requests an Administrative Permit to selectively remove non-native plants and revegetate bluff with native species. Located: 7055 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-6-26.1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe most the whole Board looked at this; what was our final outcome? MS. TRIMBLE: I'm Ann Trimble. What I feel is I think you need more information with me. I would like to revisit this site with a native plant consultant to go through the plant material. I'm not talking about any machinery, everything if it was done would be done by hand, not removal of soil, nothing so you'd have tremendous erosion problems. I'm a real conservationist when it comes to matters like this. I'm talking about things like perhaps Russian Olive, Bayberry, Lythrum, things that are on the federal and state invasive species list to keep in check. I think I should go back over there, go through it. I'm not really good when it comes to drawing, but I can do a really rough sketch and really give some information on, okay, this is an example like if there's a block of Iythrum, it should be removed because it's becoming a plant that's becoming a real problem throughout the northeast. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Excuse me, what is Iythrum? MS. TRIMBLE: Lythrum is that tall purple plant, new strife, you see it all upstate New York. It's becoming a real problem especially in waterways. We don't have a problem with it here yet on Long Island. I know another plant we're having a lot of problems with Russian Olives. They tend to take over, bamboo is another example of what I'm talking about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that poliganum? MS. TRIMBLE: Yes. Plants that have been planted per se by people and planted them, that have been deposited by birds or other means of coming in. But I believe that I should give you a rough sketch, identify the plant material that's native, the plant material that is not native but what is what we consider good plant material, plant material that is an invasive species example are like some of the wild roses that are crowding out. I talked to Heather about that there's a lot of walkway Board of Trustees 7 December 21, 2005 that was there by the previous owner, and that should be removed by hand and discarded and perhaps clean up the area. There's a lot of organic and inorganic debris, plastic and things. It should be cleaned up and it goes to the wetlands. The Spartina goes to about where the cliff is. But it's such a steep area that you wouldn't just go in there and cut away a lot of major stuff, not talking about a major project, very selective. But I feel you need a little more information. And I feel I should bring someone with me that's a little bit more an expert in the field on the native and invasives. It wouldn't be done this year. It would be a project for the spring. Perhaps the walkway that we talked about should be removed now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. We were unclear about the scope of the project because if you go to the south past the house, you've got a native slope. MS. TRIMBLE: Wouldn't be touched. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But when you were right by the house it was not even lawn, it was like dirt. Then the bank fell away, it's bare dirt and debris piles. It was kind of rough around the house. MS. TRIMBLE: It's very rough, and also the previous owners planted a lot of day lilies in one area too. Revegetate with some more baccharis. I feel you need a more detailed plan on this; that's my opinion, something a little more specific and then perhaps I could resubmit it to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We could put that on for next month's field inspection. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to table the application until next month. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? All AYES 6. JAMES NEUMANN requests an Administrative Amendment to Permit 6019 to completely demolish the existing dwelling, and reconstruct in accordance with the original permit. located: i'50 East Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM#107-1-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's because they were going to renovate and now they're going to completely demolish. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make that motion; do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aye. Board of Trustees 8 December 21,2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Recuse. MR. JOHNSTON: And Lauren will supply him with the proper forms. 7. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of MICHAEL ZEVITS requests an Administrative Amendment to Permit 6118 to construct the proposed dwelling 15' from the eastern lot line rather than the 11' that was approved. Located: 1450 West Lane, Southold. SCTM#88-6-18.5 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes? MR. LOHN: I'm here to speak on behalf of the applicant if you have any questions. William Lohn, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Mr. Zevitz. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We discussed it and the Board didn't see a problem with it. So I'll make a motion to approve the Administrative Amendment for Michael Zevitz to Permit 6118 to construct the proposed dwelling 15' from the eastern lot line rather than the 11 feet that was approved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 8. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Incorporated on behalf of MONICA KREISCHER requests an Administrative Amendment to Permit 6119 to remove the existing timber bulkhead and replace in-kind with vinyl sheathing. Located: 825 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. SCTM#71-2-16 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Straightforward in-kind/in-place. I'll make a motion to approve the amendment on behalf of Monica Kreischer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES RESOLUTIONS-OTHER: 1. DOROTHY YOUNG requests an Emergency Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permit to restore the bluff face by spreading clean fill on bluff face by hand and replanting with perennial rye grass as a temporary ground cover. Final restoration of bluff face shall be done in the spring. Located: 62615 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM#40-1-8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at the neighbor's and this one in November. It's just a blow-out restoration. MS. YOUNG: Dorothy Young. Board of Trustees 9 December 21, 2005 MS. CUSACK: Her restoration is similar to the one next to her. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we had any problem. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 2. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of LEWIS & HELAINE TEPERMAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing beach house. Located: 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM#21-2-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Whereas, Patricia C. Moore as agent for LEWIS AND HELAINE TEPERMAN applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold Chapter 97 and the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, Chapter 37, application dated February 15,2004,and WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and WHEREAS, several Public Hearings were held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and. WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS, the action as proposed is inconsistent with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and, WHEREAS, there has been shown to be a historical use of a structure and the proposed decks in the proposed location, and, WHEREAS, no residences are allowed in the Coastal Erosion areas, and, WHEREAS, the structure has undergone extensive rebuilding without the proper approvals, to wit, utilities, plumbing, new foundation for the structure, new siding, new windows, new decks; said reconstruction not deemed to be ordinary cosmetic repair, and, WHEREAS, the proposed unpermitted as-built beach house is inconsistent with the following policy standards of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program: 4.1 A, B, 4.2 A, B, C, 5.1, 5.3, 6.1 and 8.3, Board of Trustees 10 December 21, 2005 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board of Trustees Denies the application of Lewis and Helaine Teperman for beach house repairs as built and proposed, and Approves a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the previous existing storage shed with no amenities except the outdoor shower and with two wood decks seaward of the Coastal Erosion area, with the following conditions: 1. The structure be for storage only specifically not for habitation, not a dwelling. 2. The following unpermitted amenities shall be removed prior to the issuance of the permit: a. All plumbing, including the portable toilet. b. Plumbing vent c. All utilities, appliances, and electric d. Air conditioner e. Glass windows and doors on the north side of the structure. f. Stairs located on the west side of the storage shed. 3. Plans showing the size and dimensions of the structures (shed, stairs and decks) submitted for approval, with the decks sizes complying with the current code. 4. Final inspection of the exterior and interior of the structure. 5. Failure to comply with the aforementioned may result in criminal and/or civil action. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination should not be considered a determination made for any other Department or Agency, which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. That's the motion; do I have a second? MS. MOORE: Before you vote may I speak? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me get a second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. MOORE: Before you get a second on this decision, I would urge the Board that given your reluctance to listen to or even accept proof that we have been giving you since February of 2004 with aerial photographs, with photographs, with affidavits, with surveys, with broker's memorandums that were prior to my client purchasing the property describing what was in the beach cabana. It is not a dwelling, it is a beach cabana, it continues to be a beach cabana. I would urge the Board that you do not vote on this decision because it will lead to litigation. Rather, that you leave Board of Trustees 11 December 21, 2005 it to the next Board, who I know there are members of the new Board who have played in this beach house, who live in the area, who have known this property for the past 30 years. So again, I would urge the Board not to throw the next coming Board into a position where they have to defend actions of this Board that you stubbornly cling to despite all the proof that we have provided. So it's your call but seems like future Town Board members are going to be paying for litigation on this file. So rather than do that to everybody, including not only the applicant, this Board and future taxpayers, I would urge the Board to reconsider. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In brief response to that, this Board never considered any approval of a house on the beach. Maybe you're not clear, what we're approving here is basically a shed, a storage shed on the beach, which there seemed to be a pre-existing shed there and pre-existing decks and stairs and whatnot -- MS. MOORE: It was a beach cabana, described as a beach cabana. All that has ever been and will continue to be. It is not a dwelling and -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And it never will be. According to this Board it never will be a dwelling. Then there should be no reason for litigation. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, the way it's been written certainly will lead to litigation because that decision cannot be abided with. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to have a vote on this, and then we're going to move on. MS. MOORE: It's your call. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I made a motion, Trust Foster has seconded it. All in favor? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a unanimous decision, and it would be unfair to new Board members to throw them into that situation. 3. Dru Associates on behalf of JOAN MCDONALD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, porch, garage, driveway and sanitary system. Located: 705 Bayshore Road, Greenport. SCTM#53-3-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Whereas, Dr. R.W. Abrams as agent for Joan McDonald applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit II Board of Trustees 12 December 21, 2005 under provisions of Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold application dated September 21, 2005, and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on November 16, 2005 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS, the structure does not comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code, and, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, and, WHEREAS, the action is found to be Inconsistent with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and, WHEREAS, the house is proposed at 75 feet from the wetlands and the Town Code setbacks are 100 feet for a house from the wetlands, and, WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Board of Trustees to permit houses in line with existing neighboring houses, and, WHEREAS, the retaining wall and fill as proposed would negatively impact the waters of Pipes Cove and the adjacent properties, and, WHEREAS, the property allows for the construction of a house with the minimal setbacks recommended by Chapter 97 of the Town Wetland Code, and, WHEREAS, the proposed house is Inconsistent with the policy standards of the LWRP, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the Board of Trustees Denies Without Prejudice the application of Joan McDonald to construct a single-family dwelling, porch, garage, driveway and sanitary system, and, Be it further resolved that this determination should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency, which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. There's my motion; do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. L: Board of Trustees 13 December 21, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For information, this was an application for a single-family home and sanitary system. Because of the lot size and because of the neighborhood, it's possible for the applicant to build exactly that outside of Trustee jurisdiction. So this Board in denying this application is keeping this applicant completely in line with the character of the neighborhood. They can build a home, exact same home they wanted to build, but just outside of our jurisdiction. The application was for closer to the creek. MR. JOHNSTON: Was that unanimous? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unanimous. 4. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of GREGERSEN'S KEEP, LLC-LOT 1 requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, pervious driveway, deposit 700 cubic yards of clean fill from an upland source and maintain the existing wood frame and canvas building within subject property. Located: Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#: 35-3-12.6 and 12.7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to review that or speak briefly? MR. ANDERSON: I think you have everything you need to move forward and grant the permit including the actual creation of both lots and, planting plan, a request to remove the fence that surrounds the perimeter of the property, Town filed subdivision recognized by every authority that regulates subdivisions and we comply in all respects to every rule, code, setbacks provision, et cetera. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, what we're reviewing is the replanting plan for Lot 2. I don't think there was any issue with Lot 1. So I'll make a motion to approve the application for Lot 1. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 5. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of GREGERSEN'S KEEP, LLC-LOT 2 requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and attached garage, attached terrace off the southeastern corner of the subject dwelling and attached terrace off the northeastern corner of the subject dwellin!~, gazebo, pervious drive and deposit 1,200 cubic yards of clean fill from an upland source within subject property. L.ocated: Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-3-12.6 ~~ 12.7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the planting plan that we're Board of Trustees 14 December 21, 2005 reviewing now, there was an eroded section of the bank going down to Gull Pond. It was reviewed by office staff and the Board, and any other questions? Comments? Great. MS. CUSACK: And the plans also put in those French drains to retain runoff from the fill. MR. ANDERSON: Those are on both properties. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the motion; is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'd like to make a motion for the organizational meeting for the new Board in January, I believe we discussed January 4th at 4:00. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: 1. Bertani Builders, Inc. on behalf W. BRUCE BOLLMAN requests an Amendment to Permit 5901 to move the footprint of the dwelling 2.6' to the east, abandon the existing septic system and install a new septic system, and requests a Coastal Erosion Permit to allow for the construction activity in an approximate 108 square feet section seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Located: 1755 Truman's Path, East Marion. SCTM#31-13-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, this isn't a public hearing. We'll welcome comments, but I see the lawyers are lining up at the microphones. That's always a bad sign if you're sitting here tonight and you don't want to be here until midnight. MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Krupski, on the occasion of this being your last meeting, did I not promise you this would be a night to remember? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to ask comments to be kept brief and to the point of our jurisdiction, meaning we only have jurisdiction within 100 feet of the tidal wetlands and to the extent of the coastal erosion area. And how this project would be affected by our jurisdiction. Mr. Arnoff, you are out of the gate first, so go. MR. ARNOFF: I thought you said that there wasn't a lot of love in this room, didn't you mention something like that? I'm here, first of all, I don't know if Mr. Terry has had the opportunity to review and comment and pass upon the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, he has. MR. ARNOFF: I did not know that. Having said that, I'm 14 Board of Trustees 15 December 21, 2005 here because we're in somewhat of a difficult situation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, who do you represent? MR. ARNOFF: I represent the Bollmans. And the Bollmans had a home on this property that they wish to rebuild in the original footprint. I'll be very brief. As you mayor may not know, they got a permit, they got the required variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, then when the project was started, they found out that the foundation crumbled, could not be utilized. They then wanted to continue and got an okay initially from the Building Department and from the Zoning Board of Appeals to go ahead in the original footprint. There was ultimately a Stop Work order. There was litigation started; there was a new application before the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals conducted a public: hearing and after the public hearing and taking extensive testimony, and hearing Mr. Bressler and I talk for a lot longer than we'll talk tonight -- at least a lot longer than I will talk tonight, I can't speak for him, they approved our application except told us to move it two feet over, take the whole house and move it two feet over. But what had happened was that as a result of the foundation collapsing and in the meantime our excavating for the new footings, we broached into the coastal erosion area, and that's I believe shown on the survey that Mr. Bertani submitted to you and you can see that the 180 square feet, which is not a large area. The situation then blossomed into an Article 78 proceeding; that Article 78 proceeding came on to be heard. At least initially there was a stay issued, stopping us from going forward with construction because we had received permission from the Zoning Board of Appeals to build in the area two feet over, and we went before Justice Costello and the Supreme Court, and I have the minutes of Justice Costello. And Justice Costello said, and we agreed on the record, that before he ruled on any of the facts, we could at our own peril, construct just the foundation walls because we need to secure this property. So he said, okay, you can do it, but you can't come to me at a later date and say poor me, I've put my foundation in and I'm entitled to some proprietary interest as a result of that. My clients were willing to abide by that, and then were faced with the problem that they then realized that their permit here needed to be varied, and what we really didn't want to face was a subsequent Stop Work Order from this Board which hadn't even been addressed in the Supreme Court action where an Article 78 proceeding had started. I ~ Board of Trustees 16 December 21, 2005 It's kind of convoluted. So we're here with a tacit approval, not to construct the house, not to do anything but to put in the foundation where the Zoning Board said we could put it at our own peril and thus shore up the property. And I have the language and I can read it into the record if you want me to of Justice Costello that basically says that. Now we're faced with the situation of we don't know what to do. Because ultimately, if we start, my clients don't want to be faced with a Stop Work Order from this Board that says you didn't get our permission to move it two feet over, and we didn't deal with the coastal erosion issue. What has happened here is diminimus at the very least. It will be immediately remedied. You see from the survey that the actual construction and the final construction does not in any way breach that coastal erosion line. We are still landward of the coastal erosion line. So there is nothing that will be done that hasn't been done already and it will be put back to where it was initially. I don't know if the Board has any questions. My clients are here and we'd be pleased to address anything you have in that regard. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I'm going to listen to any other comments and see if the Board has any further questions of you. MR. ARNOFF: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sir. MR. BRESSLER: Well, Mr. President, this presents an interesting set of facts for the Trustees. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sir, for the record you represent? MR. BRESSLER: I'm representing Jennifer Gould, the neighbor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The neighbor to the west? MR. BRESSLER: It may be somewhat convoluted as explained by Brother Arnoff, however it's fairly clear what happened here. What happened here was that the applicant came forward and wanted to rebuild the house on an existing foundation. This house is nonconforming in so many ways and most particularly in a way that affects this Board. It is far too close to the bulkhead and the wetlands. And the hardship that was pleaded by the applicant was that it would be very expensive to build a new foundation, so therefore you should permit me to rebuild, indeed expand on the existing foundation. And the Zoning Board for reasons known to the Zoning Board, approved that. Only a matter of days Board of Trustees 17 December 21, 2005 passed after the building permit was issued when miraculously the foundation which had been found to be perfectly fine all of a sudden was incapable of being built upon. And the very reason why the house had to be located in the very spot 30 some-odd feet from the wetlands, no longer existed. There is absolutely no reason why this house has to be built so close to the wetlands. There is no reason why it cannot comply with policy standard 4.1 governing this issue. The LWRP, which says structure should be moved as far as possible back. And there is no reason why on this lot this house now cannot be moved further back. And indeed, of even greater significance is the fact that this project calls for a new septic system and there's no reason why the septic system has to be so close to the wetlands. It can be relocated to the back of this lot, behind the accessory building, which is currently being used as a residence, and it can be relocated there with a variance from the Health Department to put a special lid on top of the rings so you can drive over it. That's where the septic system belongs. It does not belong 50 feet from the wetlands within the Trustees jurisdiction. There's no reason for that, and there's no reason for the house to be 30 feet anymore. This foundation can be put anywhere. There's no hardship. The foundation is not in yet. There is no reason why this applicant should put in a foundation at their own risk or anybody else's risk in any way, shape or form. This Board should make them move that house back to where it belongs as far as possible back on the lawn. Now that they need a new foundation, there's no hardship, none. Let them fill in the hole and dig a new one, and let them put it back where it belongs. So we are not in favor of having them move forward and build anything at their own risk, we're not in favor of a septic system 50 feet from the wetlands, and we're not in favor of a house 30 feet from the wetlands. There's no reason why this Board has to do it. Earlier this evening this Board has expressed the opinion that things should be moved back as far as possible, and we don't disagree with that; that's consistent with the wetlands policy, and there's no reason for this Board to do otherwise here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Are there any other comments of people who haven't spoken yet? I just want to ask the Board a few questions. Does the Board have any comments? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What does the LWRP recommend? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommended approval with the Board of Trustees 18 December 21, 2005 condition that the seaward side of the house is planted with native species after construction and a retaining wall is installed on the southwest corner of the property. The LWRP, which is the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, which Mark Terry is the coordinator for the Town gave us a report that was received yesterday. The gist of it, and it's a two and a half page report -- the gist of it is the proposed action is generally consistent with the policy standards and is therefore consistent with the LWRP provided the applicant demonstrates the following policies are applied to the greatest extent possible prior to issuance of any permit, and I'll just go over a couple of these policy standards: 4.1 is to minimize loss of human life and structure from flooding and erosion hazard. And to avoid that, you would avoid hazards by siting the structures to maximize the distance from the coastal erosion hazard areas. So that basically says it's consistent, but if possible to move them back. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to see the cesspool -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Policy standards 5.1, prohibit direct or indirect discharge that would cause or contribute to contravention of water quality standards. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Did Peggy say move the septic system back? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't realize he didn't finish reading the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was another policy standard that the coordinator had mentioned here. Now, bear in mind the septic system is proposed at 97 feet from the wetlands currently so for us to require that the applicant move the cesspool 100 feet back is not unreasonable or impossible. You're talking about moving the septic landward three feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: According to the scale it is 100 feet. MR. BRESSLER: Measured from what? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Measure it from the high tide mark. MR. BRESSLER: You measure from the bluff line; do you not, correct? TRUSTEE FOSTER: From the high tide mark. MR. BRESSLER: I don't believe that's what the code reflects. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are we doing this under Coastal Erosion or under Wetlands? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Both. Originally it was only a Wetland application to completely rebuild the house, then once they dug the hole for the new foundation, because the old foundation was unusable, then they got into the coastal erosion area by virtue of the hole then they had to come in Board of Trustees 19 December 21, 2005 to apply. The conflict here and the confusion is you have Chapter 97, you have Chapter 37 Coastal Erosion, then you have the LWRP, which is something different, so we're trying to right now resolve the two codes plus the LWRP in the proper context of this application. Let me finish up here. It is recommended that the Trustees require that the septic system be relocated to achieve a 100 foot setback from the top of the bluff pursuant to Chapter 97-12, Findings, Purpose, Jurisdiction, Setbacks, unless the Trustees at their discretion, deem it appropriate to grant a variance from this requirement, which is wholly within their jurisdiction. And that is the picture of the hole in the ground. (Discussion) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This Board is going to make an effort here to maintain consistency with our previous applications and uphold Chapter 97, Coastal Erosion and CAC and LWRP. We're going to keep all the balls in the air at once. It was the feeling of the Board that because it is consistent with the LWRP and approvable by the CAC, that the house itself-- I'll address Coastal Erosion first. Under Coastal Erosion, the house itself, because it's behind multiple man made structures, to reconstruct the house there is not going to have any significant effects under Coastal Erosion. Under the LWRP, one of the recommendations was to move the septic system back, and we propose to have the septic system, not the entire system as Trustee Foster pointed out, but to have the leaching pool, which is the only part within 100 feet of tidal wetlands, moved back three feet, which would put it outside of 100 feet of tidal wetlands. And in keeping with the CAC's recommendations, we would condition that the seaward side of the house be planted with native species, and be nonturf from the seaward side of the house to the retaining wall on the south side of the property be nonturf and planted with native species to be approved by this Board, which would maintain the bluff and minimize the erosion of that bluff. MR. ARNOFF: That's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no further comment, I'll make a motion to approve the application of Bertani Builders on behalf of W. Bruce Bollman to amend Permit 5901 to move the footprint of the existing dwelling 2.6 feet to the east, abandon the septic system and construct a new septic system greater than 100 feet from tidal wetlands, which is a change, and grant a Coastal Erosion Permit to allow for the construction activity on the site within the Coastal Erosion Jl} Board of Trustees 20 December 21, 2005 Hazard Area, with the condition on the wetlands permit and the Coastal Erosion Permit that the area to the seaward -- all area of the property seaward of the house be nonturf and be planted with native species to be approved by this Board. And we need, before the permit is released an approved planting plan for that area, post construction planting plan. MR. ARNOFF: Post construction, fine. That's not a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 2. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MARY ZUPA requests an Amendment to Permit 5636 to install 1000-1500 pound rock armor seaward of a section of the new bulkhead from the existing jetty easterly for a distance of 112', install a 332' timber retaining wall, 12' landward of the new or in this case replacement bulkhead. The area between the bulkhead and the proposed retaining wall will be maintained as a nonturf buffer. Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1-16.7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you have any comment on this application, ma'am? MS. MESIANO: I'll wait for your questions. Can I ask if there is correspondence that we are unaware of? MS. STANDISH: You did ask me and there wasn't. I haven't even read it, I just put it in the file. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This correspondence is from Anthony C. Pasca from the office of Esseks, Hefter and Angel. There are 12 pages. The subject is the application of Mary Zupa. There's a copy here available. Coming in this late, this is really irregular. TRUSTEE KING: To get it this late in the game, I don't think it's appropriate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not a public hearing, he could have sent it yesterday. This is again, the LWRP issue, LWRP is sort of a nebulous policy that the Town Board, not this Board has adopted. MS. CUSACK: They found it to be inconsistent. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, it was viewed to be inconsistent. As we went through our agenda, we have little marks on our agenda that say either consistent, and some of these are exempt. The LWRP was adopted by the Town Board sometime in the summer time with some miniscule guidance from the New York Department of State, and we have been struggling with 20 Board of Trustees 21 December 21, 2005 this for months. And one of the items that I'm going to address on the Town Board are kind of straightening this out because it's been nothing but a hardship for the applicants, and it's been nothing but confusing for the Town to administer this policy. This was supposed to provide environmental protection and that's sort of yet to be seen. But I'm going to read the comments. This is in relation to the Amendment to Permit 5636, the application, the original application was a permit to replace an existing bulkhead in-place. The amendment is to put rock armor seaward of the bulkhead, and to put a retaining wall 12' landward, a brand new retaining wall because of issues of the bay, in this area of Paradise Point where the bay overtops the height of the bulkhead and then digs into the upland section, and the upland retaining wall would protect that upland section. I'm going to read this, not in its entirety. The proposed action is inconsistent with the following policy standards and therefore is inconsistent with the LWRP. The Board should assess any adverse impacts to the critical environmental area and adjacent properties that require any necessary amendments to make the action consistent with the LWRP. The following policy standards have not been met Policy Standard 1. Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. And I think the issue here is the use -- now this was received today in our office, so we're just going through this, and to make it clear, this is not something that the Board prepared; this was something that was prepared by the LWRP coordinator for the Town. 4.1 D 5B refers to the use of hard structural erosion protection measures for control of erosion only where B or 5, I'm sorry -- the proposed hard structure erosion protection measures are B, based on sound engineering practices. So I think the applicant in order to satisfy the LWRP is going to have to demonstrate that this amendment is based on sound engineering practices. The applicant has not demonstrated sufficient need for 1000-1500 pound rock armor seaward of the new bulkhead. Further, no engineering report or position has been submitted to the files and established such a need for the potential adverse impacts of the proposed action. That's a separate item from Chapter 97. There's no Coastal Erosion here, just to clarify that. MS. MESIANO: I understand that. I think I would ask Mr. Samuels to address that because his expertise is in that area, and I wouldn't pretend to speak to those because Board of Trustees 22 December 21, 2005 these are areas of his expertise as far as the engineering aspect and the appropriateness. MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels of James H. Rambo, Incorporated. The purposes of the toe armor is to mitigate of the effect of a vertical face wall in a body of water which at times is quite rough and so on and so forth, where the wave energy is reflected down into the bottom. As you can see, we're only going 140 feet, which is the only place it's necessary. The concept of toe armor was originated with the DEC, which began proposing it some years ago. Since then the Trustees have picked up on it and required it on some applications, on some permits. Originally I was skeptical that it would be effective, but as it turns out it's very effective. What the rock does because of its irregular shape in the form of this toe armor, is it absorbs the kinetic wave energy of the wave as it hits the structure, minimizing the reflection of the water which has the potential to scour out the bottom. This is probably what resulted from it being on the down drift side of two jetties. But in any case, that's the purpose of the toe armor; it reinforces the structure, it's environmentally sound, it's accepted by all the agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, the Department of State. We have built a number of them with Department of State suggestion. We use it quite extensively on returns because it minimizes the effect of returns on neighboring properties that are unbulkheaded or unprotected or unrevetted. It's as benign an approach to the environment that I can think of. If you have any more questions about rock armor, although I know you're all familiar with it because it's been going on now for at least 10 years. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are familiar with it. We just wanted to have you address that with respect to the LWRP. That was the reason I think it was deemed inconsistent because there was apparently nothing in the application that demonstrated the need. Now you have just demonstrated the need. MR. SAMUELS: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a question for you. MR. SAMUELS: Yes? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is this approvable by the DEC? MR. SAMUELS: I believe so. The application is before the DEC. If the DEC rejects it, which I think is highly unlikely because they advocate it, then, of course, it won't be done. The nature of the soil at the toe of the bulkhead as it approaches the jetty is extremely dense. Generally Board of Trustees 23 December 21, 2005 speaking, toe armor over time is undermined and sinks, and you get to the point where you have to put another layer in. I don't think that's going to happen on this site because if you look at the bottom adjacent to the jetty and for about 140 feet, it looks like what we call beach pavement. On the sound when you have a very bad storm, the sand is removed and you get down to a hard gravelly clay base. You have all seen it, storm pavement it's called. And that's the way the bottom looks to the south of the jetty for about 140 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any questions? TRUSTEE FOSTER: The only question I have is since it's listed inconsistent, are we able to approve it regardless of that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was listed inconsistent-- TRUSTEE FOSTER: Because of lack of definition? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So we can approve it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, that's the way I understand it. MR. SAMUELS: I might add at an onsite meeting with Chris Arfiston before he quit Chuck Hamilton's department, he recommended toe armor especially in the corner where the jetty meets the bulkhead. He said you just go ahead and do it, you don't need a permit. And I thought about that later and I said, gee, there's a trap if I ever saw one. So we have applied to use the toe armor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also I think there was some question about the necessity of the new retaining wall above the bulkhead. MR. SAMUELS: Well, the Trustees and the DEC and everybody else is concerned about the bluff. And the owners are concerned about the bluff because the house is going to be built with a setback from the bluff, but still it's a matter of concern because over time if the bluff erodes -- I mean, I don't know how many places I've looked at since the 10 day rain period where we have had land slides on the sound, you look at things like that and they're alarming to the homeowner. I know the state says that bluff erosion only occurs at about a foot a year, but some years you get 10 feet and then you don't get it for 10 years again. So the purpose of the retaining wall is pure and simple to prevent overtopping that would destroy the toe of the bluff, thereby the bluff would slide down on the beach. All these plantings we're planning on doing and have planned on doing since the beginnin~l would, as a result of that, slide down the hill. And we would find our buffer area, which is extremely generous of Mrs. Zupa to make it as wide and as 23 Board of Trustees 24 December 21, 2005 well done as it is, is that we don't want it covered with a land slide, and the little retaining wall will do the job. The elevation is probably not the top storm surge that we can get in Peconic Bay because that's humongous. I don't know if you remember December 12, 1992, but realistically, you can't build structures high enough to prevent a seven or nine foot storm surge in the bay; and under those circumstances, you'd have to tier the bluff with many little retaining walls. But that was 100 year storm, and I don't expect to be here 90 years from now. But I just think it's an expensive approach, of course, and is the homeowner would like to avoid the expense, but there is really though no way of doing it unless you built the bay bulkhead another five foot higher, which is unacceptable. We can't do that. We would have too much reflected wave energy under those circumstances. We never would have gotten a permit to do that, so it's a way of protecting a bluff and its plantings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Does the Board have any comment on this? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The words, at the end it says "be maintained as a nonturf buffer." I think It probably should be as a nondisturbance buffer as written in the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Say that again, Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe the permit said it was a nondisturbance buffer and we have maintained as a nonturf buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. They're saying the area between the two structures. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Between the bulkhead and the proposed -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, they're going to put gravel in there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: But originally that was -- on the original permit it was 50 foot nondisturbance buffer with the hay bale line. So we're going to change that over to a nontu rf buffer? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Only between the two bulkheads. And the rest will be subject to a replanting plan. TRUSTEE KING: Still a 50 foot buffer, right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Still a 50 foot buffer only the first 12 between the two will be gravel. Could we see the plan? MS. MESIANO: Before I get that to you, there's one other point I want to bring out, with all the excitement I forgot to mention it to YOLl. At the juncture of the bay side bulkhead and the jetty, we have a return that was proposed and approved, and then at the juncture of the Zupa property and the canal side of the jetty, we had another return that Board of Trustees 25 December 21, 2005 was proposed. After the storm washed out as much as it did at the landward end of that box jetty, we see that there is an old bulkhead buried in there. We would like to be able to replace in-place and fortify that area because otherwise we can't secure the corners where the two structures come together, and we have no authority or jurisdiction over that box jetty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That does make things complicated. MS. MESIANO: There's a time line on the property line, and that -- TRUSTEE KING: Shouldn't the bulkhead be pulled back into there? MS. MESIANO: Yes. We would do it on the Zupa side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you talking about the retaining wall or the bulkhead? MS. MESIANO: The bulkhead. (Discussion) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's go back to the microphones so we can have this on the record. We're going to need a new plan reflecting that change. The issue of the LWRP has been addressed -- the policy standards, I should say, of the LWRP have been addressed by the applicant for the need for the rock and the function of the proposed retaining wall behind the existing bulkhead. The applicant proposes to extend the bulkhead instead of a return, to extend it in this case westward to the canal behind an existing old bulkhead at the same height of the old bulkhead, and the permitting at this end for our agency would only take place with the applicant owning the property and having the right to place that bulkhead there. We can approve it, just like we can say you can drive home 100 miles an hour, it doesn't mean you actually can if we say it. So our permit is only giving you rights to what you already have. So I would make a motion to approve the application of Mary Zupa to amend Permit 5636 to install 1 000-1500 pound rock armor seaward of a section of the new bulkhead from the existing jetty easterly for a distance of 112 feet, install 332 feet of timber retaining wall 12 feet landward of the new replacement bulkhead at varying heights as shown on the survey. The area between the bulkhead and the proposed retaining wall will be maintained as a nonturf buffer. Actually, I'm going to specify that that be maintained as a gravel buffer of size to be determined by the applicant. MS. MESIANO: It's specified on the plan in the cross-section. ,-., Board of Trustees 26 December 21, 2005 TRUSTEE KING: A single rose stone except for the corner? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. And with the addition of a new bulkhead behind the old bulkhead at the same height as the old bulkhead at the far westerly end of the property, far northwesterly end of the property, approaching the timber bulkhead box jetty. That's subject to receipt of a plan showing that new bulkhead. And this action by the Board is also subject to approval of a planting plan. Now this planting plan submitted tonight, we obviously don't have time to review it, I will say we'll approve the application subject to it being reviewed by Heather this week in the office and possibly modified by her as seen appropriate. Because actually what was submitted here isn't reflective of the clearing that was done in these areas. So we want to make sure that the 50 foot buffer area be planted and replanted in its entirety. So I would make that motion; is there a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES MS. MESIANO: I would just like to take this opportunity to wish the outgoing board members the best of luck. 3. ANTHONY MITAROTONDO requests a One-Year Extension to Permit 5856 as issued on January 21, 2004. Located: 950 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#111-14-15 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is a one-year extension for 5856, it says a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 94 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkheading and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source. Temporarily move existing dock during construction and replace in the same location and configuration. Permit is granted with the condition that a dry well is installed to contain the pool backwash and a 10 foot nonturf buffer iinstalled landward of the bulkhead, and as depicted on the plan prepared by En-Consultants. I don't see any reason to deny it. Any Board members have a comment? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No comment. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If not, I'll make a motion to approve the One-Year Extension on behalf of Anthony Mitarotondo. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 4. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Board of Trustees 27 December 21, 2005 BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a One-Year extension to Permit 5888 as issued on March 24, 2004. Located. Arshamomaque Avenue and Petty's Pond, Southold. SCTM#66-3-14 and 15. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any issues. Simple extension. So I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 5. SUMMIT ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Transfer of Permit 453 from Peter Fakiris (Gusmar Realty Corp.) to Summit Estates Homeowners Association as issued on February 18, 1988. Located: Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM# 38-7-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to make sure our attorney is familiar with that. Brown, do you have any issue with this application here, the transfer of the permit to a homeowners association? While you review that why don't we take a comment? Sir? MR. DANISI: William Danisi, president of the homeowners association. The homeowners association just took over the properties as of July of this year therefore, we want to transfer the permit to the homeowners association which now owns the dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have fee title to that piece of property that the dock starts on? MR. DANISI: Yes. I have given the Board a copy of that at an earlier meeting, but I have another copy here. MR. JOHNSTON: AI, I don't have any problem with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I'll make a motion to approve the transfer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES (Brief recess) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to go off the regular meeting? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. Board of Trustees 28 December 21, 2005 PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits, if you would like to speak you have to step up to the microphone and identify yourself for the record. There are a number that have been postponed tonight that won't be opened at all. 2. Claeys Bahrenburg has been postponed; 22. Alan Cardinale has been postponed; 23. Peter Baccile has been postponed; 24. Susanna Doyle has been postponed; and 25. David Johnson has been postponed. 2. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of WILLIAM & MARGARET HOWELL requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to restore and terrace the bluff slope. Located: 9202, Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#73-2-3.1 MS. MOORE: This is another property that Mr. Samuels pointed out the 10 day rain storms created damage. There was some slight erosion prior to that, I believe you might have seen it, but then with the storms, it really broke free. They will with the help of Plantings by the Sea, they have a terracing and planting plan that was submitted for this Board which will be done weather permitting, probably the terracing, as soon as possible with some stabilization but ultimately planting in the spring when it's appropriate to plant. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments? As far as the LWRP is concerned it's consistent. CAC has a recommendation they approve it with the recommendation to use 6" by 6" timbers rather than the pipes that stick out of the ground in the terracing. MS. MOORE: The pipes don't work? AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's not practical to use timber instead of pipes. Hydraulic or air driven hammers, they drive the pipes with 18 feet or so into the slope. It's almost impossible. It all has to be donl3 by hand, and it's so heavy to be that long it would be almost impossible to do it that way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why it's proposed with pipes so you can handle it. AUDIENCE MEMBER: The pipes just don't work, there's not enough surface area and the sand just goes right around it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we see those? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's not much that does work when you get 15 inches of rain. AUDIENCE MEMBER: These are the pipes and this is the timber bulkhead, that's only six months old. And see it just washes right Board of Trustees 29 December 21, 2005 under. That's why we're saying -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 6" by 6" wouldn't have held it either, not with that kind of volume. It's all in grading, after you get this in place, you have to rearrange where the water goes. MS. MOORE: Actually it's the pipes with the planks, so the planks are going to be -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Where is this? MS. MOORE: North Oregon Road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The issue here is that it's not the construction so much it's the amount of pressure placed on it. Like Artie said, the work's got to be done at top in order to stop the pressure. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This was vegetated obviously, it just couldn't take the water, the pressure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's a natural force and I mean years ago there was nothing, and when the bluff failed it was sand generate at the beach. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This was all caused by extensive clearing right to the edge of the bluff. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any consensus? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't we call for a greater buffer at the top of the bluff? TRUSTEE FOSTER: And some regrading, divert the water from building up and coming to the edge of the bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Take a look at the survey. MS. MOORE: There's a topographic survey in your file. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is it within our jurisdiction, top of the bluff? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Sure it is. Coastal Erosion it's got to be in there somewhere. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's 130 feet to the top of the bluff. We can recommend it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Where is the Coastal Erosion line? MS. MOORE: Couldn't you consider some grading? I can talk to the landscaper about grading the property so it slopes back right at the top of the bluff so you don't have the water coming off the property. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Obviously he doesn't want to blow off what he's going to fix. MS. MOORE: Obviously he's going to control that, but right now what he's worried about is stabilizing the bluff. So you could consider making that part of the permit. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You need to do that, otherwise you'll never keep it. ')(; Board of Trustees 30 December 21, 2005 MS. MOORE: So it doesn't recur, otherwise it will undermine what he put in. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit on behalf of William and Margaret Howell to restore and terrace the bluff slope on 9202 Bridge Lane, with the stipulation that the top of the bluff be sloped back landward so the water doesn't run off over the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Pat, you would need a new plan also. MS. MOORE: Just a cross-section? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. A new plan that would demonstrate the approval. MS. MOORE: I gave you an 8" by 10" page, Plantings by the Sea, the drawing the cross-section, that's in there. I could have them revise the top just to show that detail. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, that has to show the area on the survey. That area -- MS. MOORE: Well, I mean it will go faster if I have Plantings by the Sea, which is actually doing the work, the surveyor is just going to show a gray area at the work area. But if we say the entire top of the bank, it just makes more sense to have him do it than to have it all plotted, the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't have to be plotted on the survey, it has to be drawn on the survey. MS. MOORE: But this isn't drawn on the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just the cross-section, you couldn't draw the cross-section on the survey. We went through this with another application. They should draw the proposed work area, wherever it is, on the survey. MS. MOORE: Part of the problem is the cutting back has -- there's nothing consistent here. This is the original topography of the property. At this point you just have complete break of the bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not making myself clear. We're not looking for a new survey, we're looking for the work area to be put on the survey. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Dotted line with the footprint. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the contractor can to say we're going to work HJ Board of Trustees 31 December 21, 2005 in this area. MS. STANDISH: We did this one tonight, they're doing the same thing, and they're showing this on the site plan like this. MS. MOORE: This is the difference, that's the site plan. This doesn't have a date or even who drew it. MS. MOORE: Well, he did, Plantings by the Sea, but I don't think he put a date on it. All right, I'll see what we can do. I don't want to waste a lot of time waiting months for the surveyor to do it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't mean the surveyor has to put it on it. It has to be put on the survey. MS. MOORE: I understand, but Plantings by the Sea doesn't have the capacity to do it, then my only option is to have a surveyor, and that means a wait. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let Plantings by the Sea draw it on there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Draw the work area on it. State what he's going to do on it. And he should put on there that the top of the bluff will be regraded to slope away to prevent further erosion. I could do it. MS. MOORE: I could do it too. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's all we're looking for. 3. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of PATRICIA SCOTT & RICHARD TERRY requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to demolish the existing single-family dwelling, rear steps and construct a new single-family dwelling, front porch/entryway, rear porch, rear deck, swimming pool and attendant sanitary system and private well. Located: 925 Stephensons Road, Orient. SCTM#17-1-2.1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant Scott and Terry. This is an application to demolish an existing single-family dwelling, which has about 1,500 square feet, which is partially seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard line, to restore that area within the footprint of the dwelling to be demolished; and then to build a new house that would be landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard area in accordance with the survey filed and prepared by John C. Ehlers. The new house would consist of 1,440 square feet, would feature a deck, a pool, a front porch and a rear deck. The septic system itself would also be beyond 31 Board of Trustees 32 December 21, 2005 landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard line. All of the proposed activities would be beyond the jurisdiction of this Board pursuant to their wetland laws. So really what is proposed here that is within your jurisdiction is a request to remove a structure that is seaward of that Coastal Erosion Hazard line. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak for or against this application? I think the full Board looked at this, and the house is actually being moved farther off the bluff. CAC, Conservation Advisory Council approves with no recommendations. LWRP reviewed it as consistent, and that there be the placement of hay bales during construction and also dry wells for pool backwash and dry wells to contain roof runoff. We need the replanting area on the survey. Any comments from the Board? If there's no one else here to speak for it, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: "II make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion permit to demolish the existing single-family dwelling, rear deck steps and construct a single-family dwelling, front porch, entryway, rear porch, rear deck, swimming pool and attendant sanitary system and private well with revegetation plan placed on the survey. And there also was a comment -- the path going to the beach, we wanted to make sure that was going to stay the size that it was. MR. ANDERSON: It's a four foot path, it's the same. The idea was to approximate the path that was already there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just wanted to make sure it wasn't going to be enlarged. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES WETLAND PERMITS 1. DONNA WEXLER requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling, repair the existing deck and construct a new deck, relocate the sanitary system, maintain the existing driveway, and construct stone walls at the north entry. Located: 1175 West Hill Road, Southold. SCTM#70-4-23 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Anyone who would like to speak on this application? Any Board comments? Board of Trustees 33 December 21, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make sure it contains dry wells for the roof runoff and I don't know if you want to consider some sort of drainage for the driveway, pretty steep driveway in the back. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They have the drainage rings on the site plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe they want to do that when they redo the bulkhead, put in gravel or something. The bulkhead isn't, they will be in next month for the bulkhead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The existing stone driveway, it's porous. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES MS. CUSACK: Did you want hay bales during construction? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: We mentioned that when we were out there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, we did. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC tabled it, just for the record. The survey didn't depict the proposed modification. I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Donna Wexler as described, which includes the drainage rings and the driveway to be maintained and hay bales between the house and the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 2. THOMAS and GEKEE WICKHAM request a Wetland Permit to remove a closed-in 12' by 20' sun porch on the west side of the house and replace it on the same footprint with new walls, windows, floor and roof and to add a 6' by 7' one-story addition to the southeast angle of the house. Located: 1230 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#103-13-10 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Conservation Advisory Council approved the application with the condition that dry wells and gutters are installed to contain roof runoff. I looked at it. They're both two very small additions to an existing building and the enclosed patio's going to be enclosed. It is consistent with the LWRP, and no recommendations there. So if there's no one else to speak for this application, any Board 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 Wetland Permit Board of Trustees 34 December 21, 2005 to remove the closed in 12' by 20' sun porch on the west side of the house for Thomas and Gekee Wickham, and replace it on the same footprint with new and walls, windows and floor and roof, and to add a 6' by 7' one-story addition to the southeast corner. 1230 West Creek Avenue in Cutchogue, and for it to also have dry well and gutters to contain the roof ru noff. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 3. Peconic Associates, Inc. on behalf of STIRLING HARBOR SHIPYARD & MARINA requests a Wetland Permit to replace approximately 165' of partially failed bulkhead with vinyl sheathing. Located: Manhasset Avenue, Greenport. SCTM#36-1-1 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on this issue? MR. WIGGIN: Merlin Wiggin on behalf of the applicant. As you can see from the photograph, this high water we had this last October, it was about five to six feet above normal high, and all that weight caused this bulkhead to fail. This bulkhead was part of a previously approved permit to replace it, which had expired. And the key thing here is to get this done before any more bulkhead fails and dumps the backfill back into Stirling Harbor. And also, somebody brought up, they are going to replace a pool up on top of the bluff, which will be of a size smaller than the existing pool, and totally inside the existing pool perimeter. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the pool is going back but smaller? MR. WIGGIN: A smaller size. I sent you the size of the pool, it's half the size of the existing pool. It's going to be totally inside the perimeter of the existing pool. And the applicant is making drawings to go to the Building Department with that approval. As well as the Health Department as well. TRUSTEE KING: So you want this pool as part of this Application? MR. WIGGIN: If you think it should be part of that jurisdiction, yes, in that case, yes, please include it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How are we going to handle the drainage between the pool and the new bulkhead? MR. WIGGIN: There's a retaining wall that would go back, that shows on the plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How are we going to handle the marine water drainage? MR. WIGGIN: On the slope itself? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. 3-1 Board of Trustees 35 December 21, 2005 MR. WIGGIN: That was landscaped before and that will be re-Iandscaped again to keep in place. So there's only a short way from there to the top of the embankment. TRUSTEE KING: We did - Mattituck, when they replaced the bulkhead in Mattituck, they left the strip of gravel behind the bulkhead, then they put a little walkway before that and it worked out nice. MR. WIGGIN: That's the way it was before and that took care of the drainage as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have no objection to that? MR. WIGGIN: No. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application including the reinstallation of the pool, which is much smaller than the original pool and to have maybe an 18" or 2' gravel behind the bulkhead. MR. WIGGIN: I think it was about three feet wide before -- excuse me, the owners said it was four feet wide before, and they would continue that. TRUSTEE KING: That's even better yet, with a wooden walkway on top of that? MR. WIGGIN: That's the way it was. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll need a new plan to show that, the walkway, the landscape and whatever you have around the pool. MR. WIGGIN: We'll advise that you will approve it based on the submittal of that revised plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application based on the new drawings on the new plan. THE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 4. Meryl Kramer on behalf of KATHRYN A. CAMPBELL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a screened porch. Located: 570 Hippodrome Drive, Southold. SCTM#66-2-12 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MS. KRAMER: Hi, I'm Meryl Kramer. We had a permit for this Board of Trustees 36 December 21, 2005 property to do a much larger project. We were going to do a second floor addition, and also a first floor addition on the opposite side of the house; that project was abandoned, and now we're starting over again and just doing a small screened-in porch. It's going to be raised level with the house and probably put on sonic tubes, grade is going to stay the same, fairly minimal. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments? I looked at this on behalf of the Board and found it minimally harmful to the environment. It's alongside the home in line with all the other houses. I have no other comment. CAC approved it also. L.WRP is consistent. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Kathryn Campbell to construct a screened-in porch. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 5. Frederick Seifert on behalf of GIACOMO CHICCO requests a Wetland Permit to add a one- story 22' by 11' addition for a sun room and expand the kitchen by adding a one-story 9' by 14' addition. Located: 2797 Cedar Beach Road, Southold. SCTM#79-8-15.2 MS. MOORE: I am Fred Seifert tonight. I look like him, don't I? The client asked that I appear, actually nobody wanted to be here so I get to be here. The proposed renovations to this house are all within an existing developed area. You probably all remember this property. know I dealt with it probably two owners ago on driveways and the original patio that was constructed. This addition is enclosing an area that is now an above grade patio, and then it's continuing on for the kitchen. Did all of you see it or just some of you? It was pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments? Any Board comments? It's all as described. The CAC just recommends that you use dry wells and gutters to contain the roof ru noff. MS. MOORE: I think there may have been -- but I'll make sure. I think that was a prior approval. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Discussed to the west of the structure. LWRP is consistent. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. :-;6 Board of Trustees 37 December 21, 2005 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Giacomo Chicco with the stipulation that gutters and dry wells be added to contain the roof runoff. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 6. Vicki Toth on behalf of EUGENE KRUPSKI requests a Wetland Permit to install a pervious driveway. Located: South side of Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#100-2-3 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. TOTH: Good evening, I'm Vicki Toth, I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Eugene Krupski. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you recusing yourself on this, or is it an unrelated Krupski? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a distantly related Krupski, and I am recusing myself. TRUSTEE KING: Conservation Advisory Council recommended approval. And it is consistent with the LWRP. There was a suggestion made here by the LWRP coordinator that hay bales be placed between the proposed driveway and the pond. I really don't think it's necessary because the driveway's 100 feet away. MS. TOTH: It's a pervious driveway. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there's any need of the hay bales composition. Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Recuse. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm recusing myself. MR. JOHNSTON: Noted that AI is recusing himself. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. 7. Liberty Permit and Research on behalf of ROY R. ::;7 Board of Trustees 38 December 21, 2005 WARD II requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing plus/minus 105 foot retaining wall and in-place with C-Loc vinyl sheathing, and install plus/minus of retaining wall return along the north property line. Located: 4075 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#137-1-8.1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this application? MR. MCHENRY: Good evening, Thomas McHenry, Liberty Permit and Research, for the applicant. I believe this is fairly straightforward, and it kind of speaks for itself, we're replacing the existing wood bulkhead which is beginning to become dilapidated with that new C-Loc product. It will be in-place exactly where the old one is. We do request a small return on the north property line to avoid collapse in the future, just something to give us to hold back the soil. I'm open for any questions that the Board may have. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here to speak for or against this application? LWRP reviewed it as consistent and Conservation Advisory Council approved it with the condition of a 10 foot nonturf buffer. I looked at this. I had no problem with the bulkhead and replacing it with the vinyl. However, there was quite a bit of debris on the seaward side of the bulkhead. There were tubs of leaf litter and some other stuff that was sitting on the marsh area. MR. MCHENRY: I'm looking on my photos. I do see a small dinghy upside down in that area. The rest of it may be stuff that's washed up, flotsam and jetsam that washed up. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It looked like it had been put there after fall clean up, which if it was temporary is one thing, but there were four or five huge tubs of lawn debris. MR. MCHENRY: I apologize for that, that won't happen. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's my only stipulation, and the nonturf buffer. MR. MCHENRY: The nonturf buffer, is that landward of the retaining wall? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. That's to prevent nutrients from running directly over board. MR. MCHENRY: I do understand. We do have a buffer kind of seaward of the bulkhead. You've got pictures up there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We require that only during bulkhead replacement because that area's disturbed during construction. MR. MCHENRY: Absolutely. We'll agree to that as a condition, thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there is no one else who would like Board of Trustees 39 December 21, 2005 to speak to this, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit for Roy Ward II for the replacement in-place with C-Loc vinyl sheathing for the bulkhead and the return with the stipulation that a 10 foot nonturf buffer be in place and that any debris including boats be removed from the marsh seaward side of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 8. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of ROBERT & SUSAN TOMAN requests ,I Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 40' dock 3.5' above grade, 3' by 8' ramp, and a 5' by 18' floating dock. Located: 3795 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM#78-2-15.2 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Did you have some questions? I understood you have some questions about this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. MS. MOORE: Do you want me to try to answer your questions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll get all comments first? MS. MOORE: Just for the record, so this gentleman knows what we're doing. My client, the Tomans, also own tax Lot 13, it's the corner house. They own this parcel as well. And what they are doing is giving essentially themselves a reserving a right of way to the water, and then placing a dock on this property that can be used for both parcels. So that's the intent to build a dock that provides for the two boats, one for this parcel and one for Lot 13. MR. SIMON: Bob Simon, neighbor to the property in question. First I would like to go on record in saying that in no way is this a reflection on my neighbors, but rather on the project. I have many reservations about the project. First, the proposed extent of the dock and float would extend one-third of the way out over the canal according to the survey, the canal is 60 feet wide and this is going to go out about 21 feet. If you can envision somebody getting another dock on the other side, how are the people on the opposite end get through, it would be difficult to navigate. I think that's way out too far. Next one, the width of the right of way or proposed right of way, I'm not sure if it's been put in effect, is 10 feet. The float as described in the plan is five feet, 39 Board of Trustees 40 December 21, 2005 two boats tied to the float, I don't know any boat that's two and a half feet in beam, but even if you had another boat, one boat, my worry is that there is a natural ramp proceeding to the water on my property that that boat would impinge upon that ramp area, and the grade is depicted on their survey that was sent to me. So the last part of it there is an existing driveway to the house that's up for sale, and they propose another right of way to get down to the dock. This would be 10 feet wide. I counted up 35 trees that would have to come down. A driveway next to a driveway. MS. MOORE: Did you want me to respond? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're welcome to. MS. MOORE: With respect to Mr. Simon's comments, the issue of one-third, which is what the Board actually recommends, is not encroaching into the canal more than a third. So you have the center third for navigation and one-third for the opposite side. So we've tried to be consistent with that requirement. With respect to the width of this right of way, we chose 10 feet to try to make it as nonintrusive as possible. The width of this right of way, it's the same owner, so it can be enlarged if we needed to and the dock can be moved over if it needs to be. We were trying to create essentially a community dock in an area that would make the most sense. If the right of way needs to be 15 feet, that's fine it really won't impact the property that greatly and the dock can be moved over by another five feet, if that's something the Board would recommend. So we're flexible. think what we're trying to accomplish here is to try to provide a dock for the two homes, one that this house is for sale, but the house that they are retaining is their personal residence and they want to retain access to a dock. So that's the goal. If you have a recommendation, we'll listen. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think that's a good idea to have a 15 foot right of way, however you don't have to clear all 15 feet of it. MS. MOORE: No. In fact, that's usually not the case. People have right of ways so that if it becomes an issue, you have the legal right to cross over, but they are very sensitive of the need to preserve the vegetation, plus it costs money to take down trees. So I don't believe there's going to be any clearing. The access is for them. We actually do not intend to create an excessive use of that right of way. We have to get access, and it might be with a small wagon; I can't imagine them having a car. ~o Board of Trustees 41 December 21, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was our concern too, I'm surprised at 35 trees, I thought it was 85. It's a solid mass of trees. MS. MOORE: In order to sell this property and preserve a right of way, I have to map it somewhere. I can't say hey you have a right of way to go anywhere on this property to the dock. So the location of it, if you want it larger, 15 feet to give some flexibility to the meandering path, so it doesn't require taking down any trees, that's fine. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: And I think wherever the dock begins can be five feet to the south, this way you have eight feet to work with on the side of the -- MS. MOORE: Yes. We appear to have plenty of water. If we just moved it over, we actually have a little more water depth, 3.1, 4.1, so that's not a problem. TRUSTEE KING: We've always had the docks at least 15 feet off the property IinEl. So it's going to have to be moved that way. Minimum 15 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because it wasn't staked, it has to be tabled. MS. MOORE: I understand. It's been angled so as to leave space for the boat. I can move the entire thing over five feet. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we get it staked and go out and look at it and inspect it on the next field inspection. I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES MS. MOORE: Congratulations and good luck to everyone who is not going to continue. We'll miss you. 9. Robert Barratt on behalf of JULIE TSAI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and driveway. Located: 310 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM#59-1-21 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken and I are both recusing ourselves on the next application. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. BARRATT: My name is Robert Barratt, and I'm representing Julie Tsai. She would like to have been here tonight but she's sick apparently, so you have to put up with me instead. At the meeting a month ago, you asked me to arrange for the building envelope to be staked out and the wetland boundary to also be staked out with blue stakes. That work -41 Board of Trustees 42 December 21, 2005 was done. A corrected survey was presented to the Board, and I gather some members of the Board at least went to the site and did some inspections. In addition, you gave us a copy of a letter written by a Mr. Terry, I think it was dated the 14th of last month, and Mrs. Tsai was very grateful to get that letter. She studied it. She understands better the importance of maintaining the wetlands boundary, and she offered some recommendations regarding how the house would be constructed to insure that any effects on the wetlands were mitigated to the maximum extent. So with that I'll sit down and let you go ahead with other comments. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? MR. KASSIMATIS: Yes, my name is John Kassimatis. I'm an adjoining neighbor and I'm president of the Kenny's Beach Association. I did not receive the updated survey that shows the envelope or the wetland guidelines. I believe I'm entitled to it as an adjoining neighbor. Also, the Kenny's Beach Association goes on record that we are actively trying to preserve as much of the Great Pond coastal wetlands as possible. Two parcels have already been sold and turned over to the Peconic Land Trust. We're trying actively to preserve as much of that as possible. That parcel in question is part of an eight acre parcel that over 20 years ago had to be litigated to be subdivided because every Town board at that time refused to subdivide it. So the person who was buying it wound up having to go to court to have it subdivided. And this is the first house that's being built on one of these parcels. Two of the parcels have gone to Peconic Land Trust. One parcel we successfully showed that it's under water 99.9 percent of the time, so that one will preserve itself, and the Kenny's Beach Association would like you to either deny this permit or table it in our effort to preserve as much of this property as possible. If we use today's standards 50 years ago, there wouldn't be one house anywhere along the coast of the town of Southold or anywhere else on Long Island. It doesn't mean we have to continue to use the guidelines of the past. And I'd like to get a copy of the updated plan. Thank you. MR. BARRATT: Would you like me to give the gentleman a copy of it now? TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Barratt, evidently what you have resubmitted on the LWRP is still insufficient, and I think you should go in to see Mr. Terry. He was out sick but he's back now. So I think it would be a good idea to go see him Board of Trustees 43 December 21, 2005 so you can go get that completed. There's a lot of letters in here. I haven't seen some of them. MS. CUSACK: Some came in very recently. TRUSTEE KING: There's one here on the 20th. We didn't visit it on field inspection. So at this point, I'd make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. BARRATT: You didn't visit the site? TRUSTEE KING: No, I didn't go there. I don't think any of the Board went. MR. BARRATT: I understood that some members did go. MS. CUSACK: They asked me to go and make measurements from the new flags to the stakes so leave everything up because they will go again. MR. BARRATT: I need to report that back because there's a slight error, I had advised Mrs. Tsai that you guys had gone out there at 4:30 on that afternoon. That was reported to me on the following morning. MS. CUSACK: Did you have the septic system staked out or just the house? MR. BARRATT: Well, it's a moot point. We're hoping that the septic system and in particular the leaching pools will be beyond your jurisdiction, in other words, further than 100 feet from the wetland boundary. There's a small part, since you haven't been to the site it's hard for you to understand, but the southwest corner of the site is more than 100 feet from the wetlands boundary and there appears to be room there to put the four leaching pools. So to keep things as simple as possible, we didn't mention that in this particular statement. TRUSTEE KING: I made a motion to table, I had a second. It's unanimous? TRUSTEE FOSTER: All three of us. Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Recuse. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Recuse. TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Barratt, we'd like to see the cesspools staked as well. MR. BARRATT: The leaching pools? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. BARRATT: Okay, we can do that. My pleasure. Jim, there is one minor problem, this may have to carry over into February due to some other engagements. MR. KASSIMATIS: Could I ask an additional question? Our " :+ \ Board of Trustees 44 December 21, 2005 area down there has fallen victim to what we call McMansion building. Is it this forum for height and size or the shape of the structure? TRUSTEE KING: Usually what we see is the footprint. The Building Department sees the actual plans. MR. KASSIMATIS: So I can go to the Building Department? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. 10. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of SIM MOY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, attached rear deck, pervious driveway, retaining wall and sanitary system. Located: 750 West Lake Road, Southold. SCTM#90-2-1 MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicants Sim Moy. This was an application that was filed with the Board in April of this year. In the regular meeting during May we put in what I thought was a fairly detailed description of the project explaining how structures were laid out, why they were laid out, how the septic system was designed, why it was designed the way it was. This is a 1,000 square foot footprint house with a small surrounding deck on a lot which is a legal building lot consisting of 8,000 square feet or 8,600 square feet rather, and it borders up on a dug inlet that goes into West Lake and it also has frontage on Little Peconic Bay. Three-quarters of the shoreline directly surrounding this property is bulkheaded. At that meeting you asked us to prepare a groundwater study, your principal concern being the potential impact of the proposed septic system to surface water benthos associated with West Lake, and we did that by installing a number of test wells and we prepared a groundwater monitoring report that was filed with you in mid August of this year. That report showed the direction of groundwater to be predominant towards the bay and from that because the septic system will be suitably set back from that area, that it was our opinion that the impact pertaining to that septic system would be minimal, and we think the report substantiates that opinion. We also provided you with an aerial photograph that shows how the house is sited in relationship to the other houses in and along and around West Lake, and I think those photos show that this house actually fits as designed. Again, we tried to minimize the size of the house and the size of the structures and put them in the most sensible locations. We provided a couple of months for the review of the groundwater plan. And at the last time we were here, which Board of Trustees 45 December 21, 2005 would have been in October, Merlin Wiggin -- I'm sorry, November -- had approached this Board with various deeds representing the West Lake Association, the claim being that West Lake Association owned West Lake Drive and therefore, the property could not be accessed. We reviewed those documents and we sent them back to you on November 16th pointing out that the deeds filed in opposition to our application did not pertain to this property but rather were from other properties. Then we went to the title company, obtained our own deeds and did our own title search and discovered that, yes, indeed, this property does benefit from the use of West Lake Drive, and, in fact, owns to its center line. The Trustees owning -- West Lake would own from the center line northwards. So this application now being in front of you for some eight months, it's my feeling that we have really addressed and done everything we have been asked to do, and that given the constraints of the lot, we have laid out the most sensible design for this lot. As I said, it is a building lot and we again try to minimize the size of the house, we minimize the impact to the septic system, we designed it correctly, we studied it objectively. We feel that it is the best the applicant can do and that the application should be approved. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment? MR. WIGGIN: Merlin Wiggin for West Lake Association. West Lake Association has two primary concerns. They don't want to see the nutrients from the septic system going into West Lake and granted there's a very extensive study done to show that perhaps it will go into the bay, but one thing it does not show that once the land is raised and the water level is raised in that raised portion which way will the hydraulic grading be then. I don't think that has been adequate proof, and this is something the Trustees want to think about. But of even more concern is that there's been an indication by the applicant that he thinks he owns that right of way. He's blocked it off and other things to try to prevent the West Lake Association people moving there. And West Lake people think that the applicant does not own any portion of that right of way, it belongs to the West Lake Association. And pretty much that's what it shows on the tax map. I brought with me a couple copies of the tax map (handing). One thing that perhaps might help clear up this as far as ownership is that a title company researched that as far as the ri!Jht of way is concerned and made West 45 Board of Trustees 46 December 21, 2005 Lake Association a party to that title company, so they have their input as well, and West Lake people do not want to see that right of way lost. That's our primary concern. I know there's some West Lake people here, they may want to speak to the application as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. MR. PROKOP: Tom Prokop. I think there's no question of right of way here. The question is that the plans that have been submitted use the right of way that belongs to West Lake Association and all of its members as the driveway, and we certainly would not deny access because that's exactly what it is, a right of way. But on the plans that right of way has become the driveway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I don't know if this is an issue with this Board. We're really looking at the environmental aspects of it. Who owns it, who has the right to it, I don't know if that's that important. The fact that it's going to be developed into a driveway or that it's not, that's important. MR. ANDERSON: If I may. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Can I comment for the Board then? In a spirit of moving this along, the plan submitted is for, what you would call a tiny existing lot, 8,800 square feet, bounded on three sides by intertidal wetlands, marina and salt water, very sensitive in nature, which is why this was applied for in April and we're still deliberating on it in December. The septic system as proposed, the edge of the septic system measures 30 feet from the wetlands as submitted by the applicant, which is really incredibly close. The applicant submitted a groundwater flow analysis, which we have tried to process at our office and really I think to really protect the Town. And to process it professionally, we're going to have to do something that we haven't done yet with the new code and that is invoke Chapter 97-22 (d), a consultant fee. The Board may require at its discretion depending on the scale and potential impact of proposed operations it's authorized to require the posting of a consulting fee by an applicant. This fee shall be used to hire an independent expert consultant to investigate the site for the proposed project and to examine the plans or other information submitted by the applicant to assist the Board in evaluating potential adverse impacts upon a resource area on a proposed project. The Board in its discretion will determine whether the complexity of the activity, the difficulty in determining the threat to the resource areas or the size of the request 4() Board of Trustees 47 December 21, 2005 of the project involves or requires more information and analysis, that it can be reasonably supplied to the Board without independent technical assistance. It goes on and on about the way we're conducting ourselves here. I would suggest to the Board that we hire at the applicant's expense someone who is a professional in groundwater flow analysis, not to analyze the impacts of the project by itself but rather to comment on all the work that Mr. Anderson's done here because I don't want to have to have the applicant hire someone to reinvent the wheel. It seems like there's been an awful lot of work done here. I wouldn't want to say go ahead do it again, duplicate it, and have the applicant pay for it. But rather, propose to have the Town hire someone to analyze the work that's already been done, to evaluate it. We want sort of a one page type of report. MR. ANDERSON: You've already had Mark Terry look at it from your staff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mark Terry reviewed this under the LWRP and he found this -.. Mark Terry didn't find it, he determined that the LWRP determines this is consistent. MR. ANDERSON: Based on the groundwater study. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Based on the LWRP. But he's not qualified to review this. So we're going to find someone who is qualified to review this and have them review this at the applicant's request MR. ANDERSON: I don't necessarily mind. I just wish you suggested this in August. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We try to get through this. We try to figure out the best way to protect the Town. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We did our best. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think in August we did say it was going to be a lengthy process. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We thought we could look at it and we could review it ourselves. It was beyond us, the scope of it is beyond us. So we don't want -- MR. ANDERSON: How are you going undertake that process; do you have a list; what are you going to do? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would suggest we go to Cornell, ask for people they would recommend, and find out what they would charge, and that's the only way we could have an idea what the cost is going to be. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Inform the applicant the cost. MR. ANDERSON: I want to move it along. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a complicated application. We can't guarantee any timeline on it because it's of the sensitive 4'" Board of Trustees 48 December 21, 2005 nature. You're talk.ing about a septic system 30 feet from intertidal wetlands. Most of the septic systems we approve, the vast majority are at least 100 feet away. This is really much closer than anything we see. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is something that could be tak.en care of in our office, it's not something that would need to wait a month to do, and they could contact you. MR. ANDERSON: All I'm asking you to do is try to move it along because it just seems to me that we could have gotten to this decision sooner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll take Peggy's recommendation of asking Cornell. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Either they have someone within Cornell or someone they know. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we can go through the Health Department. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're going to have H2M Engineering. MR. JOHNSTON: Did you do this solely in-house? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, my employees, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we're clear on the scope of what we want and the Board's agreed on that, we don't want to reinvent it. We want to review what you have submitted. We don't feel we're competent. TRUSTEE FOSTER: If they find that all the information given in there is correct, then we go from there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's still no guarantee. MR. ANDERSON: I've about run out of things to discuss. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We need that information. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You knew this wasn't going to be an easy approval. MR. ANDERSON: We've spent a lot of the money on this so far; we've sunk a lot of test wells. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a septic system 30 feet away from tidal wetlands. MR. ANDERSON: That's why we spent the resources on it that we did. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to comment? MR. BERKLEY: My name is Pat Berkley. I live in Southold on Jockey Creek, and listening to this whole situation with the septic system within 30 feet of a wetland, there are certain guidelines and rules that are established to protect, why can't you just say no based on that? Why does it have to go to another committee? I don't understand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have to do complete and total review in order to protect the Town legally because if we don't and then we deny this application based on the setbacks, only Board of Trustees 49 December 21, 2005 the Town setbacks, then if we get sued by the applicant for loss of value of the property, we have to have a legally defensible position to protect the Town. MR. BERKLEY: What about the neighbors on the surrounding property, though, where are their rights? I don't follow that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What? MR. BERKLEY: Like a septic system 30 feet from the wetlands. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's the big issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the big issue, septic system at 30 feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Maybe there should be some of them here tonight saying I swim there. MR. ANDERSON: It's not that I -- I'm just a little cranky that we spent this much time getting here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can't be. If this came back at 100 foot setback for a septic and 50 setback for a house and that sort of thing, you would have gotten approval like the other applicants. MR. ANDERSON: I wouldn't need a permit for the septic system, is what you're saying. MS. CASE: I'm a neighbor, my name is Tippy Case and we clam there, and we are in the water there. And we use the inlet, and yeah, we object. I didn't realize that if the Town says it has to be within more than 100 feet, that isn't enough? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's out of our hands then and then it goes to a court or judge. We want to make sure that the Town is protected legally. Now, don't forget that the applicant has to go to the Health Department for approval. MS. CASE: And to the DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct, but we're the first step. We're sort of on the front line here. We have to make that determination without them. We don't want to make that decision and say, well, if you get Health Department approval, we'll approve it, because the Health Department could very well approve this, we don't know. They have a board of review, and they're an independent agency. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We've hung our hat on that a few times and it came right back and jumped up on and bit us. MS. CASE: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. So we've got to do our homework here. Protect all the residents like yourself Mr. Anderson. MR. JOHNSTON: Ma'am, that's five Trustees make sure they do site visits, and do all these types of things so when the judge says are they arbitrary and capricious when they made Board of Trustees 50 December 21, 2005 their decision, they can say, no, because they did these 20 things. And if they don't do all 20 things then the judge can say well, you didn't do all the things and you shouldn't have denied it or you shouldn't have granted it, either way. And it costs money to defend when Mr. Anderson's client sues and says we should have given the permit or when you say we shouldn't give the permit. Both people are going to sue the Town, so if we do our homework, then you pay less taxes because there will be less lawsuits. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to direct Heather to contact a firm or individual company to review the groundwater flow analysis for the application, and to have the Board approve of that review before contract is made. MR. ANDERSON: I have the question. Does the applicant have any say as to who's selected? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think so in the code, but I think it would be fair to the applicant to run it past you. MR. ANDERSON: I want someone who's objective. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's my motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES MR. JOHNSTON: This motion is pursuant to Code Section -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 97-22 (d) 1. MR. WIGGIN: Because of the interests of the West Lake Association, can they be copied because they felt left out of the process as far as notification is concerned. They are the adjacent property owners. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They can stop in the office. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: File's open every day. MR. JOHNSTON: Sorry, no copies. 11. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of CARLA STARCIC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and deck. Located: 205 Private Road #3, Southold. SCTM#70-6-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. for the applicant, Carla Starcic. The application is made to construct a single-family dwelling on a building lot fronting Jockey Creek. I think you're all familiar with the area, and I will pass up aerial photographs that will show where the lots are in relationship to -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have to compliment the applicant on the computer diagramming of this and various other applications. 50 Board of Trustees 51 December 21, 2005 It's very helpful the way it generates the images. MR. ANDERSON: This is, as I said, a building lot, and the applicant proposes to construct a rather small single-family dwelling thereon. It's surrounded by other lots that are similarly sized, many of which are significantly more nonconforming with respect to wetlands setback than as proposed in this application. The dwelling as proposed would be set back 75 feet from the wetlands boundary, the property presently has a dock on it. The septic system itself would be beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. It would comply in all respects to the Town's zoning ordinance and it's interesting in that it benefits from two rights of access. One is a private road, which access is provided both from Pine Neck Road and Oak Lawn Avenue and there's a second right of way that bifurcates the property between where the proposed house would be sited and Jockey Creek. Properties directly north and to the east and so forth are similarly developed, although those houses and their septic systems would be significantly closer to the wetlands and surface waters of Jockey Creek than proposed in this application. You should be aware that there is some controversy pertaining to water supply here, and the applicant is proposing to bring in water service down Pine Creek with the property known as Pine Creek, LLC, where there's an existing water main, and to tap into public water from that, and has made down payment to the water authority to extend public water in that area. That effort to bring public water is opposed by two neighbors, as I understand it, Mr. Hardy and Mr. and Mrs. Hyatt and is the subject of litigation. I request, however, that this Board not get into the question of where public water would come from, how it gets there, who is impacted by it, whose property rights are affected, what interests are affected because all of that activity would be beyond your jurisdiction, and is really a private matter and also a matter for the Health Department. So what's before you today really is a question as to whether or not the small house can be built 75 feet from the wetland boundary in a manner shown on the survey in front of you knowing that the septic system is beyond your jurisdiction and also with a knowledge of the access as I have laid out before you. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. If there's any other comment, we'll take that first. MR. HARDY: Charles Hardy, Southold town, and I live on 51 Board of Trustees 52 Private Road #3, and I'm one of the individuals that Mr. Anderson has mentioned. I wish to oppose this application which proposes to build a four bedroom, two-story dwelling on one-fifth acre lot in a densely developed neighborhood. The footprint of this building is larger and the lot size smaller than all adjacent dwellings and property. In other words, what we're talking about is king of the hill on the smallest lot. The lot is steeply sloped toward Jockey Creek, and because of the nature of the existing land contours in this neighborhood which can extend as far as Pine Neck Road, results in heavy rain fall flowing through the Starcic property into the creek. This is a particular concern to the water quality of Jockey Creek if the canopy of trees and existing ground leaf litter are removed from the property and no longer absorb water flow. This topic will be addressed by Mr. Fred Hyatt, who is a certified professional arborist. There are several points in the application and after hearing Mr. Anderson's glowing description of the property that I would like to ask him if he could clarify, I'm somewhat puzzled by some of his statements. I do have some additional photographs, which I took on this past Saturday, 17 December, and I'd like to give one to Mr. Anderson and several to the Board. If you can see, I crudely inked in the Starcic water, they have 29.5 feet of waterfront straddling their dock, and I've written that roughly inked in. You'll also see that according to the application, there is a flood zone, and I've tried to roughly approximate where the applicant has placed it. Would you agree that's roughly plus or minus a few feet? I'll address it to you. MR. ANDERSON: I'm prepared to answer anything, but you should address it to the Board, then the Board can address it, that's the way it's supposed to be. MR. HARDY: Well, I'm addressing it to you because I'm puzzled at some of your statements. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no. Address the Board. MR. HARDY: I believe that inked in flood zone approximate what the applicant has submitted. By chance, I also took a photograph the previous day at the same time on the 16th of December in approximately the same location. TRUSTEE KRUPSI-<:I: Thank you. It looks more like a flood zone, and I have then marked and I also will submit to you on this sheet -- TRUSTEE FOSTER What is this water from? December 21, 2005 ') :L Board of Trustees 53 December 21, 2005 MR. HARDY: I can explain to you the meteorological conditions. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is this from rain or from the creek? MR. HARDY: From the creek. The wind conditions were east/southeast at 20 miles per hour occasional gusts to 28. But if you look on the second sheet that I have submitted in yellow, I have drawn over the applicant's flood line. In green is the approximate flood line on 16 December. In blue, is the flood line during the October weather. In October, for a week the wind blew from the northeast, which it blows down the longitudinal access of Jockey Creek, and while on the 16th the water depth there was only six or eight inches, we did miss a photo opportunity, there was six mallard ducks swimming there but when we tried to take a picture of them they flew away. But during October the tide or the storm surge gets to be two to three feet deep and there are occasions where it's higher. In fact, if you see in the photograph there's a yellow house there. That yellow house in the past has been vertically raised because the storm surges flooded the house. Here are some other pictures on the 16th. And this is just a minor flooding, we're not talking about a major flooding, during a northeast storm. This past October during that northeast week, the storm surge essentially surrounded the foundations of the yellow house in the background there. In fact, a storm surge of three feet, and it has been reported to be higher, covers 25 percent of the Starcic property. Human activity and disturbances in this large flood zone promises to release unwanted substances directly into the creek. On a different note, I see on the application, that a driveway is proposed from the flood plain up the steep slope to a garage under the house. Part of this driveway would be occasionally flooded. The notation on the proposed driveway indicates the driveway would be pervious, and I'm very curious at what kind of material, gravel or what, that would not wind up into Jockey Creek during heavy rainfalls or during floods. Mr. Anderson made a great point of having us avoid talking about public water, but it's fair game as I can see because in Policy:, of the application he seems to -- it indicates that there is access to public water. The applicant states that the property will utilize public water. The Board of Trustees received this application on 31 October, 2005. On 3 January, 2005, Fred and Lynn Hyatt and myself were issued a summons from the New York State 53 Board of Trustees 54 December 21, 2005 Supreme Court which accused us of malicious disregard of the plaintiffs to use the 50 foot right of way owned by Hyatt and Hardy in order for their purpose to dig up and install a one-inch pipe from the Suffolk County Water Authority. Hyatt and myself refused because our well water quality is good and all residents immediately surrounding the Starcic property use ground well water entirely. We hired a lawyer and went to court, over $5,000 later, we received a verdict which denied the Starcics the right to install water line across our property, and I will give you a copy of that Supreme Court decision. The New York Supreme Court decision is dated 3 July, 2005, which is four months before the Board of Trustees received the Starcic application. We submit that this is a deliberate attempt to deceive the Board of Trustees. In 1995 the Starcic family lost the larger parcel of their property, including a house through bank foreclosure. The neighborhood grew concerned that an attempt might be made to develop this property as land values exploded, and the Suffolk County Water Authority invaded the north fork. I attempted to explore if the Starcic family was interested in selling this small parcel, I have two letters of evidence, which I will submit, that the Starcic family were uninterested and my attempt was futile. Thus, we have this contentious application. The neighborhood remains willing to make an offer for this lot if it cannot be legally developed. Here are the two letters, which in the past I submitted four but I lost two. I think Mr. Hyatt would like to comment. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Can I just ask you a couple questions? MR. HARDY: Sure. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Where do you live in relationship to the Starcic property? MR. HARDY: (Indicating.) TRUSTEE FOSTER: Where is the legal right of way to access the Starcic property; is that going down where Howard Safir goes to his house? MR. HARDY: Here's Oak Lawn and here is our right of way and we have a 50 foot right of way, MR. JOHNSTON: Your property is which one? MR. HARDY: My house is right here (indicating). They also have a 16 foot right of way here, and the photographs that I took, I was standin~l right about here (indicating). MR. JOHNSTON: And Hyatt is next door to you? MR. HARDY: Yes, he's next door. MR. HYATT: My name is Fred Hyatt. I live next to 54 Board of Trustees 55 December 21, 2005 Mr. Hardy. I also have some photographs of that storm, and they're a little bit better. I'd like to submit them. I also wish to oppose this application to build a four bedroom, two-story home at 205 Private Road #3. The house, decks, driveways and septic system that are staked out, I don't know if you noticed they were all staked out on your visit -- it was a little cold that day, I believe it was 15 degrees, everybody was kind of in a rush -- will require the removal of 12 large oak trees and several under story trees to be able to squeeze this house into this piece of property. Many of these trees are at the edges of the property, there's one dominant tree in the center, and they're all at the edges of the property, which I'm really concerned that that's going to cause erosion on the neighboring properties, one of which is mine. As we all know, when you remove trees to build a house, you need to use an excavator to remove the stumps and that's going to compromise those edges of the other properties. I also have some questions about the LWRP consistency assessment form. The first one is Policy 1, it says neighboring properties of similar size homes -- I'd just like to point out that those similar sized homes, some are bungalows. Most of them are tiny houses that now people are living there year round. Policy 4 states that improvements will be above the 10 foot contour, but if you look at the survey map, the 10 foot contour, the northwest corner of the house and the deck and the garage are all below this 10 foot contour, that pervious driveway on the lower area. And I just wanted to mention the issue of public water, I'm not going to drive it home, you all understand. You have a copy of our decision there from the judge. And Policy 6 it also refers to this property as a lawfully created building lot, which when we bought our house we were told it was undersized. It was too small to build on and it was attached to this other property which was lost in foreclosure. So I don't understand that. What is the requirement for a legally sized building lot in Southold? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Doesn't seem to be any here. MR. HYATT: They were all summer bungalows. This one, this one, this one, they're all summer bungalows, so is this and this one. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They were summer homes. How big is this lot; how many square feet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 9,000. Thank you, anyone else? One thing 5<::j Board of Trustees 56 December 21, 2005 before you speak, sir, the LWRP form has not been reviewed; is that correct Heather? MS. CUSACK: Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we wouldn't be able to make any decision on this this evening. However, hearing's open so we're taking comments. MR. RUSSELL: My name is John Russell, I'm co-owner with Michelle Duff. We have the property on the west side of the Starcic proposed building. And the area in question, I know it came up probably not more than a year ago when Howard Safir brought a water line down through that property without a permit and it became issue with the Town. I know DEC was involved, state was involved other Boards and other committees from Town. My question, and just to kind of reinforce this, that area does flood, we're not experts obviously in the field, but as you can see from the photographs it's quite obvious at any time that water could come up through that driveway, the proposed lower driveway and any flow back is going to first go back obviously to the property and back into the canal. We just want to be here tonight to say that we do oppose any building on this property at this time. It doesn't seem to conform. It's a rather large footprint. Any grass or anything else that's going to be put in around this property, obviously the flow is in a downward motion towards that area where that 16 foot right of way is, and any back flow is going to end up probably in Jockey Creek. So we have a concern about that. The other issues that are going to be obviously touched upon, not here, my concern is my groundwater, our well and the close proximity to their proposed cesspool. So that's not an issue for here, we just did want to bring it up today and have it as a matter of record that we did want to bring it up and not just me, but there are other neighbors that are concerned. But our biggest concern is, as you can see, my dock is on the photograph, you can see it is under water and the that property that comes back behind my dock, that small area there is under water. And in one of the photographs you see that the driveway slopes from Oakland down into that area where my dock is and the Starcic dock is. And if you can see from that one photograph, the water is almost all the way to almost my garage. So, thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Could you approach and make sure we know which property is yours? MR. RUSSELL: Because there is no other access for him this right of way really is proposed for Howard Safir and whoever Sf} Board of Trustees 57 December 21, 2005 at one time owned this property, and there's no other access. This property slopes down to his land. So the only way is if there's a sloping driveway down to this low lying area. This is a controlled area. I know it's an issue because it was with Howard Safir. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This survey shows your own cesspool much closer to the proposed septic system and existing. MR. RUSSELL: Addressing that, you know we have an existing property, wells and everything else. He's proposing this is a new build, and we should try to conform to the current standards. Approximate TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, ma'am? MS. GIOCOLl: Hi, my name is Maria Giocoli, and I live on the east side of the Starcic property. Whatever Mr. Russell said, I am witness because I am there very often, most of the time, and I have see the water dragging a log all the way into his driveway all the way into Oakland Avenue. I'm very concerned, I have a well, I am very concerned about my water, I still want to fish there and I still want to clam. So my concern is for the environment and for my water. I want to be able to give my grandchildren, my children good water, not cesspool water, that's what I'm afraid of. MR. STAFFORD: Good morning, my name is Renato Stafford, that was my mom just speaking. I want to make a quick comment. I went door to door in the neighborhood and tried to gain some awareness for this proposal, and I could not find a single person who wasn't adamantly opposed to this, and they seemed to know a lot about the environmental issues. So the community doesn't want this. So that's my message. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. BERKLEY: My name is Pat Berkley. I live on Private Road #3 in that community and I oppose the application for the Starcic wetlands application for the same reasons. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Just a question for Mr. Anderson, there's been attempts by the neighbors to purchase the parcel; is there any response from the applicant? MR. ANDERSON: As far as I know the applicant wishes to build a house just like all the other folks who have houses down there. I'm going to work backwards I guess is the simplest way. First of all, let's keep our eye on what we're here for, and that is a house that would be 75 feet back from the wetlands in an area where you have obviously other houses that are on top of the wetlands. A septic system that would be suitably elevated above groundwater in , Board of Trustees 58 an area where you have many cesspools in groundwater, no doubt. The house would be sited, in any event, above the flooding concerns mentioned here, and I will give you a copy of the deed which tells us that the Starcics have rights to both the Private Road, the 50 foot right of way, which is shown on a map that I handed up to Mr. Foster as well as a 16 foot right of way that's used by Mr. Safir to access his house. This particular lot is what we call a pre-existing non-conforming lot, just as all the lots in this neighborhood are. And that the house selected here, which the footprint is less than probably approximately slightly less than 900 it's by no one's measure a large house. In no event would a zoning variance be required. It would conform with each and every zoning standard in the Town code, and it's problem is really the problem Mr. Starcic has is that he's the last one to build a house in this neighborhood, and I understand that it would be the preference of all the folks who live in this neighborhood that no more houses be built. However, there is an inherent building right for this property. The flooding concerns that have been raised by Mr. Hardy, I'm going to go in backwards order. I'll refer you to his color coded schematic, which is a photocopy of the survey that went with the application, and the yellow line known as a flood zone line, it's not my creation, you should understand that that is a line that is lifted off the flood plain maps produced by FEMA. Seaward of that line is known as the AE line; that's a line that requires a first floor elevation of eight feet above sea level. It is the boundary of what is known as a 100 year flood plain line as per FEMA, and landward of that, you'll see Zone X, and Zone X refers to the 500 year flood plain boundary proscribed in applicable FEMA regulations. That has insurance implications and it has implications as to how first floor elevations must be sited, all of which we would comply with. We would be able to get our flood insurance without difficulty, and there would be no bar to construction of elevations to this house relating to that program. The two lines that simply show a flooding event that happens when the creek runs high as a result of northeaster storms, and I don't doubt that. Alii am saying is if that is the overriding concern then it seems to me that the houses that are right on top of the creek have to be this Board's biggest concern because this house December 21, 2005 ,,~ ;" Ju Board of Trustees 59 December 21, 2005 is not going to flood, and this septic system is not going to flood because it's elevated, it's located up on top of a slope that sits well above this area. There's no doubt that this Board has approved every application I think I have ever handled where a house is 75 feet from a wetland boundary and a septic system is beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. I don't know if there's ever been a case where such a house has been denied. And I'd be happy to submit examples of that seeing how apparently it's going to be held open because the LWRP has not been complied with, and we can't control that. I'm happy to summarize what I have heard today in writing, and I do understand it's the last vacant lot in a neighborhood comprised of preexisting, nonconforming buildings on nonconforming lots, with nonconforming setbacks, and I'm just here to tell you that at least this application complies with the applicable regulations of the Town, the Health Department and every other Board with jurisdiction more so than what you have out there. It's our best attempt to site a house given the constraints you have to deal with, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. HARDY: May I rebut? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Very briefly. We will hold this hearing open. We won't close the hearing tonight. You can rebut briefly tonight, but you have time to review. MR. HARDY: I just want to say that the dramatic pictures of the flooding on the 16th of December were taken under mild conditions of an east/southeast wind of only 20 miles per hour. When we have a northeaster, which two occurrences in October and we'll have many more before May when they cease, where there are waves actually breaking on the steep slope of the property. And I myself have waded in two to three feet water chasing a boat that got loose. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Can we ask Mr. Anderson to put in his letter a comment about them not being interested in selling at any price? MR. ANDERSON: That would be fine. MR. JOHNSTON: If it's true or what is the number, I mean, would they sell it for three million? Is there a number out there and something less than that would be acceptable to the neighbors. MR. ANDERSON: That's completely reasonable. MR. JOHNSTON: The Board's position has been to try to solve these things along the line. Board of Trustees 60 December 21, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 12. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of DAVID SHAMOON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 36' by 60' single-family dwelling with 12' by 34' wood deck attached to the east side, install a 20' by 40' pool to the north of the proposed dwelling, construct a 30' by 24' garage, and install a sanitary system with a retaining wall. Located: 2404 Camp Mineola Road Extension, Mattituck. SCTM#122-9-7.20 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we start this, there's no LWRP review on file. We can't make a decision on this tonight. We can't act on this. We don't have the LWRP form. We'll take some brief comments from the public. We'll reopen it next month at the same time. MR. ANDERSON: I was made aware that there's a low spot that water collects. I'm going to take a look, maybe even delineate it on a survey and come back with something for you at the next meeting. Other than that, we have two adjacent neighbors that are here. I'd just a soon hear what they have to say, and we'll see you next year on this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comment? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Jeff? MR. STRONG: I'm Jeff Strong, president of Strong's Marine. I don't know if you want me to read through, I gave you a copy of what it is. In short, my property is directly adjacent to the proposed application. And my primary concern is that the way that the house and pool are suggested to be situated on here, it puts the pool only 15 feet from my property line. And the 15 feet is one aspect of it, there's no drawing of trees or anything on here which, unfortunately, I did not make mention in my letter, but there's a whole row of birch trees that's probably somewhere in the 30 to 40 foot range that acts as a good buffer right now be1ween residential property and my commercial property, and there's no mention of that at all. So I can only presume that they're planning on removing those trees, which would leave no buffer at all, which I'd hate like heck to be here a couple years from now having this house here and then they tell me, you know, the commercial property that's been there for a very long period of time is a nuisance to them. The other concern I have is the elevation. They're (,(j Board of Trustees 61 December 21, 2005 proposing to raise the elevation within that 15 foot border of the pool to my property almost four feet, and the grade of that will go from the pool towards my property. And they're suggesting to mitigate that by putting in a 75 foot concrete wall, and the concern I have about that is twofold. One is the 70 foot wall at the end of either one of those walls, the grade is still going to be fairly significantly pitched toward my property, so the water's going to work its way around that wall onto that, and then potentially into the creek. Secondarily, if you will look on that plan that they have, the way the wall is designed, the grade would be approximately three foot above my finished grade, right at the road line and the top of their finish grade would be right at the very top of that wall, meaning that water again, would have no choice but to spill right over top of that. So that didn't seem like a great situation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thanks. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I wouldn't worry about the pool too much. MR. STRONG: I'm not worried about the pool, I'm worried about all the ground adjacent to the pool. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's always been our policy in the code that they have to contain their own runoff. So this plan would have to be re-tooled to accommodate that. MR. STRONG: Yeah. Because right now the way the whole grade is not towards their drains it's away from their drains, away from the pool and toward my property. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As far as the concrete unsightly, maybe they can put a four foot lattice up against it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to explain something to Peggy. We walked out here to where the septic was staked, we walked out here to where the garage and pool is proposed. There's a drop off, I don't know if we have a picture of it, but there's a real drop off about two and a half feet down into that area. We looked at that whether that was a wetland or not, yet to be determined, however it certainly is once an artifact of an area that hadn't been filled. We thought it was about two and a half foot of drop off, which would have put it into groundwater. If you look at the test hole -- MR. ANDERSON: What I think you saw was the land that was filled but not smoothed out. I will tell you this, what we want to do here is identify -- nothing else but runoff control because that seems to be Mr. Strong's -- just retool it. MR. STRONG: You're referring to the area around (11 Board of Trustees 62 December 21, 2005 Mr. Tufano's property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. When we walked in here, as you walk towards your parking lot, the area drops off, and I tried to find it on the survey because it really drops off steeply because that's why the garage and pool are in that lower area, it shows two and a half feet to water at the test hole, you're going down two and a half feet of water, it's almost groundwater. Then our concern was maybe the house should be built on pilings, so you wouldn't have to bring in any fill. MR. STRONG: Also indicated in my letter was maybe because of setbacks, could the whole thing not be situated a little more central to the lot. I think we can do that. MR. ANDERSON: I think we can retool it to satisfy any concerns you might have. MR. TUFANO: Let's get this straight, they put him through the ringer I want this house built. It's a legal building lot. William Tufano, 2482 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, mailing address, P.O. Box 1744 in Mattituck. My property is next to the proposed building site. I want to go on record that I have no objection to the proposed house that is planned quote, "as is," with one restriction that if any deviation from this plan here should be applied for, then I rescind that statement that I want the house built there. We had a very sad situation with another incident of which I don't want to take the time here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. TUFANO: But I find the way this is there's no objection on my part, except I just noticed here that in the lower left-hand corner, they're applying for a well. If they go and put that well there, and it's not going to be needed, there's Suffolk County Water available on the road, if he goes and puts that well there and when I get ready to build a house for my children on my lot, it may require me to move my septic system if we have to put it in that area. Secondly, I don't know where he's going to get good water over there. MR. ANDERSON: If you're saying there's public water available down there? MR. TUFANO: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That will be a requirement. The Health Department will require them to hook up to public water if it's available. MR. TUFANO: It's available, okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, I would just advise you to stay (J::~ Board of Trustees 63 December 21, 2005 in touch with the Board, certainly come to the next month's Board meeting. You should stay in touch with the application to make sure there aren't any changes that you would find objectionable. MR. TUFANO: The only thing I don't appreciate here with this thing, you people designate to the applicant to hire an environmentalist to designate wetlands and conveniently they go and blame the wetlands on my property but not theirs. So I want to be on record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The applicant hires the wetland designation. MR. TUFANO: But you force the applicant to hire the environmentalist. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's true, someone has to designate. MR. TUFANO: And the DEC wants no part of these two lots. They have a 400 foot jurisdiction, but they don't want no part in designating. That's your responsibility. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's okay. That's home rule. That's okay. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 13. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of DARREN PFENNIG requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 100' bluff stairway, including three 4' by 4' platforms within the northern section of the subject property. Located: Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#72-2-2.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. LOHN: William Lohn, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of William Pfennig, who is also here with us this evening. As you know, this proposal is to construct a bluff stairway within the northern section of subject parcel in order to access the shoreline. Stairway is going to measure 4' by 100', 125 foot actual. The stairway will include three platforms measuring 4' by 4' and will be supported by 32 posts measuring 6 by 6. Pretty standard application. We feel it speaks for itself and I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommended disapproval because the bluff is a steep angle and the bluff will not support stairs at this time. The CAC recommends a five year planting plan (I' Board of Trustees 64 December 21, 2005 with native species. MR. LOHN: For the entirety of the bluff? Because we already had a proposal for the bottom approximately 2,400 square feet around the toe area. Just one other thing, the property two properties to the west of subject parcel has a bluff stairway on a very similarly angled bluff and it's been supported pretty well. MS. STANDISH: They did not have any angle of repose on their property, and they met with Chuck Hamilton and were told they needed to plant continuously for five years to establish the angle of repose, and it worked and they had a beautiful bluff and they built stairs. I'm just trying to clarify their statement. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Does this application contain a planting plan? MR. LOHN: Yes, the original has a proposed planting. Excuse me, 2,750 square feet from the toe up about 10 feet up the bluff, more like 20, excuse me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the entire bluff? MR. LOHN: Not proposed at this time. MR. PFENNIG: Part of in the purchase of this property in the subdivision of these two lots we have to plant the bluff as a part of the subdivision by the Town. The neighboring property two lots over, there's a lot in between that's preexisting. Second lot over, they planted their property per the code of the Planning Board, which is part of our covenants and restrictions, which I think I have a copy of here. So in order for us to get a CO on the property with the building, we have to plant the bluff. And the neighbor did do that he planted the bluff, he put the matting in and he put his stairs in, O'Mara, and he did all that last year. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, we were just there. MR. PFENNIG: And he's actually applying to put bulkheading in. And we're going to apply subsequently to attach to his bulkheading, and so is the neighboring property next to me, but we have to follow suit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board see any reason to deny stairs at this time? So why don't we go with that, then? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition that not only will the toe of the bluff be vegetated but also an area 20 feet on either side of the construction be revegetated going down on the (j:} Board of Trustees 65 December 21, 2005 bluff. The same rate, I don't know -- what's the rate of revegetation; what is the density? MR. LOHN: One foot off center. MR. PFENNIG: The entire bluff is supposed to be done by the code. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: By when? MR. PFENNIG: Before the end of your construction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the house. But this is going to be on a permit for the stairs. MR. ANDERSON: It's fine, you're just getting a leg up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application with that condition. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 14. Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of JANET CARRUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct first and second story porch additions and a two-story garage. Located: 7055 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-6-26.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone like to speak on behalf of the application? MR. STRANG: Yes. Garrett Strang, Architect, Southold on behalf of the applicant, Janet Carrus. I have two of the green cards return receipt (handing). This particular application deals with as stated primarily with respect to this Board's concerns the additions of porches on the water or wetland side of the house. I just wanted to let the Board know, we do have a letter of no jurisdiction determination from the DEC indicating that their jurisdiction ends at the elevation 14. So we're going to keep everything landward or above elevation 14 with respect to what we're proposing. I'd also like to put on record that although our application makes reference to the garage, the two-story garage, which is of much further back, that is considerably behind the 100 foot jurisdictional boundary of the Trustees. So we have it on the application we want the Board to be aware of the fact that it's beyond their jurisdiction. I'd be happy to answer questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With the extension on, they're going to have a heck of a time walking around that side of the house. MR. STRANG: Actually the idea of the porch is to be able to come out of the house walk across the porch and then come down onto grade or into the rose garden or on the other side, rather than going forward toward the water they'd be going off to the sides. 65 Board of Trustees 66 December 2], 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To walk around the outside of the house. If the addition they're going to be hard pressed to walk around. MR. STRANG: With this porch addition? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. STRANG: The whole idea is they're going to use the porch. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think anyone had a problem. We want dry wells for roof runoff. There's like dirt there now, it's not a stable bank. MR. STRANG: I guess there were some pavers there from the previous owner that have been removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's kind of weird right in front of the house. MR. STRANG: I think there were some bluestone slabs there that have been removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES MS. CUSACK: Just like the one with Mrs. Trimble, you're going to request that they remove the walkway. There was all that wood. And I did check, Mr. Strang came into the office, there was no permit for that. I guess they claimed there was a permit from the neighbor but there wasn't. MR. STRANG: From the input I had on that I had a conversation several months ago with the neighbor Freda adjacent who indicated to me, and I subsequently found out it's not necessarily a valid statement, that they had a permit and a right of way, and it's actually the Fredders that built that walkway across the property when it was built by -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Days. MR. STRANG: By Days. So if the condition is to remove that, we certainly don't have a challenge to it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition that dry wells be added to contain the roof runoff on the east side of the house, and that the wood walkway through the marsh be removed not including the steps, there's existing steps, not including the steps. MR. STRANG: Those steps that are there, I don't think they connected to the walkway. Those are the steps that the Days had. I think they go back to the '30 or the '40s. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't want to make it seem like it's a connection. Do I have a second? Board of Trustees 67 December 21, 2005 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 15. Proper- T Permit Services on behalf of STEPHEN MATTEINI requests a Wetland Permit to replace, inkind/inplace, or repair/reconstruct 150' plus/minus of concrete seawall by adding 6" to 9" thick surface facings of new reinforced concrete on three faces (landward side, seaward side, and top) of existing concrete seawall; construct new 4' wide concrete steps to grade on the seaward side. Excavate as necessary on both seaward and landward sides of seawall to allow placement of forms; backfill with excavated material, removing any excess from the site. Located: 3855 Bayshore Road, Greenport. SCTM#53-6-19 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald on behalf of Mr. Matteini. If you inspected the site, I presume some of you have at least, it's obvious why this work has to be done. In the last nor'easter we had, the walls suffered significantly. So they would like to fix it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. If there's no other comment TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You just want to get a buffer on that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Minimum 10 foot. MR. FITZGERALD: Just in passing, the concrete is not going to let any runoff through it the way the bulkhead would. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No other Board comments. I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Stephen Matteini as submitted with the stipulation that a 10 foot non-turf buffer be placed landward of the sea wall. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 16. Proper- T Permit Services on behalf of SALLY GUIDO requests a Wetland Permit to replace, inkind/inplace, or repair/reconstruct 100' plus/minus of concrete seawall plus 24' plus/minus return on south end by adding 6" to 9" thick surface facings of new reinforced concrete on three faces (landward side, seaward side, and top) of existing concrete seawall and return; construct new 4' wide concrete steps to grade on the seaward side. Excavate as necessary on both seaward and landward sides of seawall to allow 67 Board of Trustees 68 December 21, 2005 placement of forms; backfill with excavated material, removing any excess from the site. Located: 4055 Bayshore Road, Greenport. SCTM#53-6-20 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Miss Guido. The same thing. It's a continuation of the same wall, I presume all the comments and responses would be the same. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's a continuation of the wall, this one big concrete wall. For the record, CAC approved both the last one and this application. I will stipulate 10 nonturf buffer also. If there's no other Board comments I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Sally Guido with the stipulation a 10 foot nonturf buffer be placed landward of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 17. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of RITA MARTIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed open walkway 3' by 42' including steps to grade at the landward ends, hinged ramp, 3' by 16' and floating dock 5' by 12' to be secured by two piles. Located: 295 Maiden Lane, Mattituck, SCTM#140-1-7 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Miss Martin. Just in passing, you approved the same project 10 years ago. She ran out of money or invested unwisely in the stock market or something, but it's the same plan that it was then and the conditions at the site appear to be unchanged. TRUSTEE KING: It's consistent with the LWRP. He recommends no CCA lumber be used in the construction of the dock. The dock does not extend more than one-third the way across the creek, that's not an issue. The only thing when we were out in the field, she's got a chain link fence out in the wetlands, we'd like to have that moved landward, probably 15 feet. MR. FITZGERALD: What makes it in the wetland? TRUSTEE KING: Its location. MR. JOHNSTON: It's in the water. MS. CUSACK: It's in the intertidal on the sand. 68 Board of Trustees 69 December 21, 2005 TRUSTEE KING: Right in there. MR. FITZGERALD: It didn't used to be. TRUSTEE KING: I think we should move it landward at least 15 feet. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the chain link fence being moved landward. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 18. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of GARDINER'S BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing floats from dock "A" and relocate as part of new dock "B". Install 6' by 30' floating dock and re-use (2) existing pilings. Dock "B" construct a 4' by 30' fixed dock with a 42" by 12' ramp onto relocated floats from dock "A" continuing onto new 5' by 28' floating dock, ending with 2-4' by 20' floats perpendicular, and install four (4) new pilings. Located: Fox Island, Gardiner's Bay Estates, East Marion. SCTM#37-4-18 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. I would like to comment on it. I have read the LWRP coordinator's review here, and half of it sounds like he's giving it the positive view for a public access to the waterways and whatnot. Let me just explain one thing, then on the another one he says you currently have and enjoy access already. Well, this association there's 174 lots in this association. I believe the underwater land is owned by them, and what they're trying to do is provide more boating for the property owners, more use and public access to the water than the people who don't own waterfront property. There are 49 of the 174 lots that do have waterfront; there's 145, I believe, that don't have access. So what they're trying to do is accommodate. Most of them are small because of the shoalness of the whole creek, small boats. I think they have a rule in house that no boat can be over 20 feet. That's an in-house rule in the association, and they were thinking about upping it to 22 feet. And again, the consistency report is concerned about public trust lands, they want to know about public trust lands. I don't believe there is any on this site. He also Board of Trustees 70 December 21, 2005 supports the use of public access to the water. The waterways, land side access is adequate because most of the people live right in the same community. Everybody can walk to this facility if necessary. They only have a minimum parking in that roadway. The depth is adequate. It would not be an adverse effect, it's compatible. Dredging is minimized, there's no dredging proposed. Do not rinse the water, have the boat wash go overboard. I don't think they have water out there on Fox Island or electricity. The reason originally the application made for this Board was for a second dock. Mr. Hamilton discouraged that. He met with a couple owners of the property, he said we don't want a lot of dock, and most of the dinghy services that are rendered in that locality are doing more damage to the wetlands. We would like to give you a larger dock so that you can put your dinghies on the dock and not drag them up on to the wetlands on Fox Island. Discharge of sewage, I don't believe any of the boats accommodated at this dock under 20 feet, I don't know what kind of -- I'm sure that they would frown on it themselves, but I don't believe they have the toilet facilities on it. They're day-trippers. Most of them are older people and they use the dinghies. They used to have 17 moorings in this creek. They as a community eliminated it, and cut it down to 13 because they didn't want to obstruct some of the channel ways going in and out. And that was one of the reasons they wanted the additional dock so they could reduce the mooring areas, and they did. Again, that was an in-house decision by the homeowners association and they did it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's so many homeowners in this association, what did you say, 180? MR. COSTEllO: There's 174 lots, but several lots, one owner owns two or three. I know a couple people do own a couple more than one lot. But there's a lot of lots in here, 174, 49 have waterfront. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Obviously they're not going to build for 174 boats. MR. COSTEllO: You can see they're trying to limit it. And then maintaining it, they're doing the dredging in the entrance on occasion, maintaining the bulkheads, you permitted it and they're maintaining it. But they're just trying to make the facilities accommodate for more people. This consistency report, I mean is public access. I see nothing negative in this report. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well, as far as what I can see here, there's one sentence that stands out and it is my Board of Trustees 71 December 21, 2005 recommendation -- this is from the lWRP coordinator -- it is my recommendation that more of the applicant needs to address the following policies make a consistency recommendation. I think he's trying to say he needs more information. So it doesn't look like we can act on this permit tonight. For the record, CAC recommended disapproval for the reason that navigation was an issue. MR. COSTEllO: It's going to increase the navigation by removing additional moorings. It's just the opposite. There's a bridge. There's two bridges, and this is located near one of the bridges to Fox Island. Nobody is going to access through that bridge, and the other bridge being a little higher is on the other side. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think we're going to end up tabling this tonight. MR. COSTEllO: We don't know what the question is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, what's your feeling on this? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I thought we weren't happy with the configuration either. We were concerned about the one-third also. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The other issues too, the fact that the association already has two docks. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They own the land; it's private area; they're trying to take care of their own, They do everything neatly down there. They don't have a conglomeration of crap laying around. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There were concerns with the Board and also DEC had concerns with it. Wasn't Chuck down there? Didn't he have concerns with it also? Just our concerns for getting the lWRP. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you want to make a motion? MR. COSTELLO: Basically this design on here, I dropped, originally we had two docks on here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We couldn't do that two dock thing according to our code. MR. COSTEllO: That was dropped out for the association because Mr. Hamilton made the suggestion, I'm not going to allow the two docks, and I want the dinghies off the wetlands, and I want a small area where the dinghies were revegetated. So we eliminated the one dock. I think he's made a little mistake. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Eliminated which dock? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He didn't eliminate any dock. It was a paper dock he eliminated. MR. COSTEllO: No. It was a proposal to relocate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It wasn't a dock. What our concern is you 'I Board of Trustees 72 December 21, 2005 have an association with 174 people. MR. COSTEllO: 174 lots. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 120-odd non-waterfront people, and then you have two docks already, and next year they're going to say, well, another 20 people want access. MR. COSTEllO: They would have to come in to you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You can't disapprove it because you think they might come in next year. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, Artie, but the issue is when is enough enough, and granted they own the bottom, which is a consideration that is pretty major, so you have to weigh the underwater land ownership versus environmental total bottom coverage, and no limits being imposed because they have a lot of non -- MS. CUSACK: And also up to a certain size under SEQRA it would have to be reviewed because it would be defined under marina. We haven't done that yet, I have to check. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe Kenny's right. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's a lot of variables that I don't think we have really discussed. You probably don't want to hear the others. MR. COSTEllO: The fact of the matter is, they will just continue doing what they are doing, which is not environmentally right. To drag up the dinghies through the wetlands, that's -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Where those dinghies are it's all sand. MR. COSTEllO: It's a lot of vegetation in there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It almost looks like somebody put sand there. MR. COSTEllO: Fox Island is eroding. But whatever the Board desires. I'm not going to build it next week anyway, but I would like to know specifically what the questions are. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Those are my questions, if the dock size is going to make it into a marina, that's a SEQRA issue. MR. COSTEllO: Either that you or you do smaller docks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The issue is how many docks can an association have? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We threw around a lot of comments on the site. We threw those comments out there. MR. COSTEllO: I don't know if you had the survey that showed what the community is being serviced, that's all. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Just by looking at the structure itself, obviously a lot of structure. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? All AYES Board of Trustees 73 December 21, 2005 19. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ANN MARIE NELSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct 570' plus/minus of new bulkhead immediately in front of and within 18" of existing bulkhead. Remove 30' plus/minus of existing bulkhead and replace in-place with new bulkhead. located: 1420 Ninth Street, Greenport. SCTM#45-6-9.4 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this application? MR. COSTEllO: I would just like to make a brief comment because I know the consistency review has not been completed, and it will be tabled because of that. I did have the brief discussion with the three other people that were here. Their concern was that the existing bulkhead on the east side was interrupting the flow of sand to their beach and they wanted to know that if I could place more of the sand on the west side, the spoil that's in the basin on the west side, that was one of their major concerns, that it wouldn't interrupt the flow of sand by being placed on both sides. The flow of sand is from east to west, and they said it should be put on that side. I'm sure that Mr. Hamilton, and they will give me a letter allowing that to be placed on their land, will certainly allow it because he will allow me to put it on 50 feet, but he said I can't allow you to go any further than 50 feet because they don't own it. The second concern, and this is a concern of the Trustees, the DEC has found out that there is some pollution going on in the big wetlands area in the back, which is fed through this area here. Through this channel way the wetlands in the back is fed all the way up to the railroad tracks. It's a park, it's a private park, and the DEC is determined that one of the owners of properties on Silvermere Road is discharging sewage directly into the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We heard that tonight. MR. COSTEllO: You're hearing it again. They said they brought it up, discharging sewage and they would like to have either the DEC -- I gave them Hamilton's number -- the DEC and/or the Trustees make a recommendation or violate the person because discharging raw sewage into the wetlands area, the DEC has come down and drew a circle around this entryway and made it off limits to shellfishing for 100 feet around this entrance of this basin because of the sewage and the lack of flow of water that goes into that wetlands area. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Just 100? MS. CUSACK: 100 feet from the entrance to the basin? , Board of Trustees 74 December 21, 2005 MR. COSTELLO: The entrance to the basin, they arced a circle around that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't understand that at all. We can send enforcement down tomorrow. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to table Number 19. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 20. En-Consultant, Inc. on behalf of DAVID, PRESTON & MARY MEARS AND THOMAS COUSE requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing wood steps; construct an attached wood deck and steps onto an existing one-story, one-family dwelling, and install dry well. Located: 1050 Dean Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM#116-5-12 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this. It is within the realm of all the other houses. The deck doesn't go any farther than any of the other surrounding houses, and there's elevated berm between the house, the deck and the bay. I didn't see any problem with it. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland application for the steps and deck and to install dry wells. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 21. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of OLE JULE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 135 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; dredge approximately 30 cubic yards of sand/silt spoil from an area up to 10 feet off bulkhead to a maximum depth of minus four average low water. Use approximately 15 cubic yards spoil as backfill; truck remaining spoil to an approved upland location; and restore disturbed portions of existing 50' buffer. Located: 4340 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#122-4-30 TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. It's a little unusual down on Ole Jule. Remember where Ralph built his house down on Ole Jule, it's just west of him, two new houses were built there, on vacant land. He's got a 50 foot buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's dirt, isn't it? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, this is all just nondisturbed. They have a hay bale line here, the next door neighbor is in like 75 feet with a hay bale line, and I can't figure out why we 74 Board of Trustees 75 December 21, 2005 had just a such a big difference. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it was just dirt. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing I can think is there's a little cut out here then the bulkhead continues, I'm wondering if these people measured from here 50, and they measured here 50. It just looks kind of strange, the hay bale line 25 feet seaward. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I bet he did. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's what they did. The bulkhead's shot. I didn't have a problem with any of it. So if there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application and maintain the 50 foot nondisturbance buffer. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I was talking to Debra Doty today and she said the berm that was supposed to be put on the Lawrence house there has never gone in, it's not done, and that a post light appeared seaward of the hay bale line down there near the water with a big globe on it. And I told her I'd mention it. So I'm mentioning it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I suggest you inspect it this evening. (Whereupon, the following three proclamations were read into the record) The Southold Town Board of Trustees wishes to pay tribute to ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, JR. for his accomplishments and lasting contributions during his 20 years as a member of the Board of Trustees; and W HER E AS: AL became a member of the Board of Trustees in January of 1986 bringing with him a wealth of knowledge and experience; and W HER E AS: as a lifetime resident of Southold Town, and owner and operator of a well-known family farm, AL is part of the fabric of the community, and a dedicated family man and a friend who deserves the sincere thanks from the community and his co-workers; and W HER E AS: throughout his five (5) terms AL, as President of the Board of Trustees, has helped preserve the wetlands within the Town and spent countless hours working to improve the Town Wetlands Code with success; now, therefore, be it RES 0 LV ED: that the Southold Town Board of Trustees hereby expresses their sincere gratitude to ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, JR. for his commitment and Board of Trustees 76 December 21, 2005 dedication and extends their sincere appreciation and warm wishes for continued personal and professional success. D ATE D : December 31,2005 Trustee James King Trustee Arthur Foster Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda Trustee Peggy Dickerson The Southold Town Board of Trustees wishes to express their appreciation to ARTHUR P. FOSTER for 8 years of dedicated service; and W HER E AS: ARTIE became a member of the Board of Trustees in January of 1998, eager to help protect the wetlands in the Town; and W HER E AS: the fellow Trustees relied on ARTIE'S sense of humor to get them through endless hours of public hearings; and W HER E AS: ARTIE'S knowledge and expertise in drainage has been a valuable contribution in the decision making process in the protection of wetlands; now, therefore, be it RES 0 LV ED: that the Southold Town Board of Trustees extends their sincere appreciation and warm wishes for continued good health and happiness. D ATE D : December 31,2005 Trustee Albert J. Krupski, Jr. Trustee James King Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda Trustee Peggy Dickerson The Southold Town Board of Trustees wishes to express their appreciation to KENNETH POLIWODA for 8 years of dedicated service; and W HER E AS: KEN began his service as a member of the Board of Trustees in January of 1998 and bringing with him a wealth of knowledge and experience as a local baymen; and W HER E AS: because of KEN'S knowledge and experience, he has been an integral part of the adoption of the revised Town Wetlands Code; and W HER E AS: the fellow Trustees valued their working relationship with KEN as well as their friendship with him; now, therefore, be it RES 0 LV ED: that the Southold Town Board of Trustees hereby extends their sincere appreciation to KENNETH POLIWODA for his devotion and commitment to making the community a better place to live, and warm wishes for continued personal and professional success. Board of Trustees 77 December 21, 2005 D ATE D : December 31,2005 Trustee Albert J. Krupski, Jr. Trustee James King Trustee Arthur Foster Trustee Peggy Dickerson (Time ended: 12:15 a.m.) RECEIVeD 9' fJed .J : 'i"s-1"1'/1 r0 . APR 2 4 2006 ~/-!,~t2 7).::41 ~~L.;n (Ierk