The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-06/21/2001Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Henry Smith Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Thursday, June 21, 2001 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: ABSENT WAS: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice -President Artie Foster, Trustee Ken Poliwoda, Trustee Lauren Standish, Clerk Henry Smith, Trustee II. CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 at 7:00 PM. WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Moved by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI, seconded by TRUSTEE KING, it was RESOLVED to set a field inspection for Wednesday, June 27, 2001 at 2:00 PM. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of April 25, 2001. Postponed until July. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for May 2001. A check for $7,745.10 was forwarded to the Supervisor~s Office for the General Fund. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: JOAN MCDONALD requests an Amendment to Permit #5287 to construct a single-family residence within the building envelope. Located: 705 Bay Shore Rd., Greenport. SCTM#53-3-9 POSTPONED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST JERRY MATEJKA & MILDRED POLESNY request an Amendment to Permit #868 to construct a 3'X 15' extension to the existing dock and install one pile for piling pulley system. Located: 1300 Strohson Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#103-10-27 SEQRA DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES JEANNE POWELL requests an Amendment to Permit #2275 to remove three (3) existing wood pilings and add five (5) new timber piles 8" rd. 20 ft. in length, rebuild inkind/inplace 6'X 15' wooden step area along bank, add 6'X 8' and 8'X 32' float at end, for'a 'q'" float design, add two 6'X 6' steps, one on each side at shoreline, and to Transfer Permit #2275 from Bernhard Peper to Jeanne M. Powell. Located: 955 Lupton's Point Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#115-11-6 SEQRA DETERMINATION: Unlisted Action, Coordinated Review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application until July, TRUSTEE KiNG seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of MICHAEL CARBONE requests an Amendment to Permit #698 to reconstruct the existing dock; fxed walkway 22.5'X 4', hinged ramp 10.5'X 3', floatig dock 16.5'X 5', and to Transfer Permit #698 fmm William Albinson to Michael Carbone. Located: 1580 North Bayview Rd, Southold. SCTM#70-12-34 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Table the a pplication and all Resolutions until the structure is in compliance with the original permit, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DOUGLAS FOERTH requests an Amendment to Permit #5093 to excavate and/or dredge 20'X 39' area to -2'-8" ALW and truck approx. 130 cy. of spoil (including phragmites) off-site for upland disposal. Establish 20'X 22' indented boat si ip within excavated/dredged area by constructing a 20' high-sill bulkhead and (2) 22' Iow-sill bulkheads. Plant 20'X 12' backfilled area landward of high-sill bulkhead with Baccharis halimifolia. Excavate and regrade (to a 1:3 slope)22'X 12.5' areas behind each Iow-sill bulkhead; truck approx. 50 cy. excavated material off-site for upland disposal; and vegetate slopes with Spartina alterniflora; Spartina patens; and Iva frutescens. Extend from high-sill bulkhead into boat slip a 3'X 12' timber ramp and 5'X 12' timber float. Located: 700 Beebe Dr., Cutchogue. SCTM#97-7-6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application with the cc ndition of two years to begin the work, and one year to complete the work, including replanting. TRUSTEE KING seconded. Trustee Krupski, Trustee King, Trustee Foster AYES, Trustee Poliwoda, NAY. MARY KIRSCH requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5037 to construct an octagon two-story house with wrap-around deck and concrete foundation. Located: 9720 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-5-24 TRUSTEE KRUPKSl moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES RICHARD PIZZICARA requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5036 to construct a 3'× 21' catwalk with steps. Located: 150 Lakeside Dr. North, Southold. SCTM#90-3-1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES RONALD & CATHERINE QUINN request a One-Year Extension to Permit #5021 to construct a 4'X 12' landward ramp leading to a 4'X 48' catwalk with 4'X 6' steps. Located: 1150 Lupron Point Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#115-11-13 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES JAMES & KAREN HOEG request a One-Year Extension to Permit #5038 to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, concrete patio, pool and driveway, and a 50' non-disturbance buffer area to align with the neighbors on both sides. A line of staked hay bales or silt fence will be placed at a point 50' landward of exist, tidal wetlands line, and drywells for the pool. Located: 350 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#115-17-17.10 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 10. ANTHONY'& JOANNE KROPP requests a Transfer of Permit #769 for the floating dock and catwalk. Located: 360 Riley Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#143-5-8 TRUSTEE KING moved to Table the application until July. The Board will meet with Mr, Kropp on July 18, 2001. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to go off the Regular Meeting and onto the Public Hearings, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES IV. 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. pLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE PAUL LOEB requests a Wetland Permit to remove storm windows and screens from porch,' replace solid porch rail with open porch rail, add set of steps on south side of porch and widen steps on east side of porch. Located: 1215 Main St., Greenport. SCTM#34-1-10 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I looked at this and I didn't see a problem with it at all. It's basically all cosmetic construction. He also cleaned up the wetlands. Is there ar~ybody here to speak in favor or against the application? PAUL LOEB: I'm the applicant. I purchased and old home that is in desperate need of repair. I'm going through a process to get it done and I think it's going to be an improvement, not only for myself but its on Main St., so it's seen by a lot of people. TRUSTEE POSTER: I understand you're going to clean some of that debris out of the wetlands? PAUL LOEB: Yes I am. Actually I bought some wading boots today and that's my weekend chore, is to climb into the swamp and drag the rubbish out that was left behind by the previous owner. TRUSTEE POSTER: I went there and they told me you were going to be on the site sometime...it was last Saturday, I think. I didn't see any problem with it. It's basically all Cosmetic. There is no excavation going on. Are there any other comments on this application? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES CHARLES R. & ELAINE E. CUDDY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 118 sq.ft, bathroom addition to be erected on a slab, and an outdoor porch to replace an existing porch, which will also be constructed on a slab, with the slab replacing an existing patio. Located: 1500 Marratooka Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#115,3-19 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? CHARLES CUDDY: I'm the applicant. This construction is well beyond the landward side of the lake. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? I looked at it. Everything is landward and it will have no impact whatsoever. It's pretty straightforward. I'll make a motion to close the public headng. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALLAY. ES HUG H 14:. SWlTZER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish/remove the existing cottage that is within 6' of Goldsmith Inlet, and replace it with a boat house that would be set back 70' from the Inlet. Located: 2700 Mill F~d., Peconic. SCTM#67-5-2 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here to speak in favor or against this application? I have a letter that was received in reference to this application. 1 will read it. Yes, sir. PETER WALSH: That might be my letter, just spoke to the applicant and he clarified the questions I had, so I have no objection. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So you want to withdraw the letter?. F~ETER WALSH: Yes I do. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Thank you. Any other comments on this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The existing house that they are going to demolish, Which is within 6' of Goldsmith Inlet, I'd recommend that we create our buffer zone, a min. of 10'. Is there a bulkhead there? TRUSTEE FOSTER: No. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Then I would require a larger buffer. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Actually what is proposed there, Ken, is that the house is gOing to be demolished and a small boathouse constructed 70' landward. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: But once demolition is finished, I'd rather not see the garbage~ debris lying there. Just create a natural buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well what is there now?. This is what we consider to be an application that is not going to have a significant environmental impact, which is why I Sent one Trustee to look at it, and not the whole Board. So, we're just having some questions as to what the property looks like now around the whole structure. HUGH SWI'T'ZER: The land slopes gradually down to the north. The cottage that is there now sits on some cedar posts in the front, and in the back, it's a falling apart cement block foundation. TRUSTEE F~OLIWODA: What I as looking for though was some sort of natural buffer to the wetlands. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well you really didn't give me chance. That was going to be one of my suggestions. I looked at this and I didn't see any significant impact at all. Actually it's probably going to do some good because it ~s very rapidly deteriorating. One of the suggestions I was going to have, or one of the terms of the permit was going to be to leave about a 20' natural buffer area between Goldsmiths Inlet, landward, with no grass, so you don't have to fertilize it. I know there is nobody more concerned about Goldsmiths Inlet than you are. I know that to be true. I was go~ng to recommend Approval of the application to demolish the house. F~erhaps put a row of hay bales across during the demolition and ok to fill the area. I don't see a problem with the boathouse. It's 70' landward. Is that OK? I'll make a motion to close to the hearing. TRUSTEE I~ING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to demolish the house with the conditions that there be a 20' natural buffer left between the Inlet and the demolition zone, and that hay bales be placed along the fringe during the demolition process. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES VALERIE KRAMER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family residence. Located: 980 ManhansetAve., Greenport. SCTM#34-5-20 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? MR. KRAMER: We had other permits for this back in the 80's and we are trying to re-instate them. We've got the variance, the Suffolk Co. Dept. of Health and the DEC. TRUSTEE .KRUPSKI: Oh you have a Health Dept. permit on this already? MR. KRAMER: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We did have some comments but I just want to see if there are any other comments in favor of or against the application. We looked at this as a Board last week. Back in 1999, I believe we gave you permission to clear ~he property. Yes, it was 1999, and what we wanted left along the bulkhead to protect the wetland there, is a 20' non-turf, non-fertilized buffer, where the soil should not be disturbed. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You're showing 21' right now. I believe in the field we had seen 16' somewhere. TRUSTEE KRUPS KI: What we're concerned with that there was a house corner stake inside that buffer area. We want that 20' area left, we'll I don't think there is anything natural about the property, so I don't want to say "natural buffer area" but not ... MR. KRAMER: Well you've got phragmites behind the bulkhead because nobodY has been Cutting the gras_s,. TRUS:FEE KRUPSKI: But we don t want to see turf grass up to the edge of the bulkhead. You can put plantings there or gravel, but we don't want to see turf. 21', as far as I am:concerned, is fine, but itwas staked closer in the field. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Your stake was about approx. 16'. MR. KRAMER: According to the survey, it's 16 %' to the corner of the house. That's to the property line and then it's 21' and change to the bulkhead. That stake that you're talking about was the corner of the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They might have put it in the wrong place when it was staked in the field. This survey is different than what we saw in the field. MR. KRAMER: I think I was confused by what I saw in the field too. I think what he staked was.this and this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This stake here was at 16'. MR. KRAMER: Well it has to be within this envelope, and the reality is, that we're not going to build anything this big. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You show 21' and then at 20' I would recommend a double row of hay bales. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it going to have a cellar?. MR. KRAMER: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there is no other comment I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKh '11 make a motion to Approve the application with the 20' non-turf buffer and with gutters and drywells on the house. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES JAMES & KAREN HOEG request a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 50' fixed CCA timber dock raised a min. of 3.5' above grade supported by (16) 4"X 4" posts, a 7'X 25' fixed CCA timber dock approx. 3' above AHW and supported by (6) 6" diameter timber piles, with a depth of penetration of 6' to 8'. A proposed 4' wide natural wood chip access path will lead from grass lawn to project at landward end. Located: 350 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#115-17-17.10 POSTPONED UNTIL JULY AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Donna Geraghty on behalf of GUSMAR REALTY requests a Wetland Permit to reseed and grade existing area, fix existing sprinkler system, 806' of west side and 758' of chain link fence 6' in height. Located: Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM#38-7-12 POSTPONED UNTIL JULY AS PER THE AGENT' REQUEST Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of RIC HARD.& MARIA KICK requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'X 4' timber access stairway, a 4'X 25' fixed CCA timber dock'secured by (12) 4"X 6" CCA timber dock posts and elevated a minimum of 2.5' above grade. The proposed facility is to be accessed by a 4'X 100' natural wood chip pathway. Seaward end of proposed dock is proposed to be 10' northwest of southeast property line. Located: 500 Tarpon Dr., Southold. SCTM#57-1-5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? CHUCK BOWMAN: The plan you have before you has again been revised per the DEC's request. The fixed dock now is very minimal. It extends to about Iow water with a ladder and a pole for a pole and pulley system, (can't understand). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this application? PAT MOORE: We didn't get a copy of the revised plan and we asked for a copy. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Here, you can keep that if you like. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Chuck, why do you have steps up. You're going to be going 2 ½' up a high bank and then coming back down to a hole there. Why don't we start it at grade at the end of the bank and then go straight out. CHUCK BOWMAN: We can do that. PAT MOORE: What are the suggested changes? It's very noisy over here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If you look at the profile of the proposed structure, you start on the upland, and you go up four steps, then you go over it, and then you come back down again. PAT MOORE: So you suggested start it at grade and go straight out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh To whatever level you find appropriate there. There would be less of a structure and less of a structure and easier for the applicant to get on and off of it. CHUCK BOWMAN: I have no problem with that. I'1 call Chris Arfsten. He had asked that it be elevated 2 %'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But that's elevated over the upland, and that's a h~gh bank. CHUCK BOWMAN: They wanted it 2 ~' over the vegetation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'd be inclined to approve this and then amend it to get it changed. CHUCK BOWMAN: That's fine. PAT MOORE: As far as Mr. Wilson's concern, our concern was measurements that were taken, making sure that Mr. Wilson could accommodate his dock. We'd like to present ours as a pre-submission submission because we obviously have to be approved by DEC and they might change it somewhat, but we would like to be sure that you can go along with what Mr. Wilson wants, so that he knoWs he can have a dock there because we are squeezed from both side. Mr. Wilson wants to know that you would take his plan into consideration and consider it approvable so that when we come back to you within the next couple of months, that we're not facing problems because of the positioning of our adjacent docks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Mr. Wilson is... PAT MOORE: He is the property owner that is right next to...to the east. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh He's the bulkheaded property and he has no dock. PAT MOORE: It's a vacant piece of property and he's going to be starting construction and the permit processes. He has permits for the house, which you've issued about a year or two ago. He bought the property with the anticipation of having docks there and not expecting a dock to be built on the Kick property, so the concern that we had throughout, was to make sure that the Kick proposal was not going to preclude our ability from putting our own dock in. That's the research that we conducted and that's the drawing that we submitted. tt seems that we can live with the proposal that's been submitted by Kick, provided that the Trustees will allow us to build out a dock that's reasonable for Wilson. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm just looking at what I assume to be the Wilson proposal here. PAT MOORE: It's very rough. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It looks reasonable. CHUCK BOWMAN: I can just tell you that Mr. Kick is not going to have a large vessel. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's hard to stipulate that. PAT MOORE: I think you better put conditions then on the size of the boat that is going to be docked there. CHUCK BOWMAN: I don't think the problem is the Kick or the Wilson's it has to be looked at in relation to the people across the canal who have a pretty large vessel. Certainly that's the limiting factor because they are right up against the maximum width. TRUSTEE KRU .PSKh Well our policy is the float and boat no more than one-third of the way across. Looking at this proposal for Mr. Wilson, and it looks very reasonable; it shows a float against the side of the bulkhead. CHUCK BOWMAN: I have no problem with that. I'm just saying... PAT MOORE: Obviously we have to walk it through the DEC and bring it back to you.with a full diagram of the proposal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This diagram here is adequate. PAT MOORE: We'll make it as a formal application. GREG YAKABOSKI:' As Kenny pointed out, the Board can't lock itself into a decision on an application not yet before, you're just trying to... PAT MOORE: Well I don't know if you're familiar with this particular site but the Kick application pushes right up to the property of our client. The neighbor on the other side also goes to the property line. So, we have that window of our property and their policy has been 15' that you're structure should be back from the end of the property line. This doesn't exist here on either end. So given that non-comPliance with your policies, we want to make sure that we're not going to be harmed. Our application measured the depths, placed the dock where it would logically be placed based on the depths of water, and based on that, we want to make sure that when we do come in as a formal application that it is something that will be approvable but despite the encroachments, in a sense, on both sides. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It looks pretty straightforward. MRS. MAINO: I own the property diagonally across from the said property in discussion. You've heard my arguments before against it. As we discussed in the past, there is a 50' rise down, it's very narrow. The Wilson's are planning to build a floating dock along there. We have a floating dock right across. We have a 24' against'our bulkhead. We are at the end of the canal. I never received the drawing, by the way, and I requested them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like a copy? MRS. MAINO: Yes I would, thank you. Our concern is that we will not be able to come down the canal and turn our boat around witha boat sitting, at the proposed dock there. You realize that the canal is not a straight canal. There is a bend in it so that we cannot go in stern first all the way down to the end of the canal. We have to be able to turn around at the end, like we have been. Now originally, our sailboat, we had 14' cut off the keel of our boat because that canal is so shallow, so you can imagine how difficult it is to maneuver in that Canal. That is our primary objection. The other thing I would like'to call to the Board's consideration that by establishing 'this precedent of allowing a land-locked homeowner to build a dock on the canal, what is going to happen when the next property owner that will be building on Albacore, directly behind that property? Are you going to allow another dock to go in there? I think you need.to take that into consideration because that property, that easement that goes up to the Main Rd. at the end of the canal, is owned by the Reese family and he could be giving easements to everybody going all the way up to the Main Rd. We're going to have 20 different l0 little docks and other boats sitting there. I didn't here the answer to the question before about was there going to be a limit on the size of the boat that could be maintained there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You've raised some good questions about whether we would allow people who are land-locked to have a dock there and the end of the right-of-way, and that's something we answered at a previous meeting on this application. Originally when we went out to the site, our recommendation was going to be very similar to this, and then a plan came in for a dock, actually n that paper road. We rejected that plan because it's in that paper road. If the docks come off of private property, then we're comfortable with that, but we don't want to start proliferating, as you said, various docks in an area that doesn't come off of the property owner's parcel. MRS. MAINO: So you're saying that this is off their property? CHUCK BOWMAN: This is a waterfront lot. MRS. MAINO: There is 2' of waterfront. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it is what is it. The Board has been out there a number of times. There is very limited water access; but we've certainly seen worse. CHUCK BOWMAN: If I could add one comment though and this is purely observation. You have a 41' boat (can't hear)... MRS. MAINO: We recognize that it's going to take a lot of cooperation with the neighbors to be able to turn our boats around. CHUCK BOWMAN': But the Kick's aren't the problem. You're going to be turning your.boat around, I would imagine, right before you get to your dock. You're going to have to back into your own dock. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That canal, originally when that was built, that was suppesed to go ail the way up but it was never completed. Just because that canal stopped where it is, and this other lot was proposed waterfront as was the next lot, and it was :never completed, does that mean that the obligation to moor a boat er turn a boat around is past onto this lady because she just happens to have a full bu Ikhead. CHUCK BOWMAN: I think the size of the boat serves as a limiting factor, TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well I think the point I'm trying to make is that the people that are on a full bulkhead with deep water shouldn't have to be penalized because the canal was never dug as far up as it was supposed to be, CHUCK BOWMAN: No but on the other hand a 50' boat has a 25' beam and there is no restriction on that either. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well I don't know about the length but the width might have something to do with it. CHUCK BOWMAN: Well I'm just saying that there are lots of factors here, TRUSTEE FOSTER: But there might be right-of-way infringements here as well. CHUCK BOWMAN: Well all of the people.. ,the Kicks have the same right to use the canal. These all came from Harold Reese. They are all the same. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well what about the lot to the north of that. Do they have the same? CHUCK BOWMAN: It doesn't cover the water on the other side. l! TRUSTEE FOSTER: But I think those deeds were all written in hopes that the canal would be corn pleted some day. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Don't forget, the neighbors all have their floats on the canal also. Who owns the canal itself? MRS. MAINO: I would like to bring a point up at this time. All of the homeowners on the canal are in discussion with Mr. Reese about buying that. It's privately owned. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When your dock went in, and the other docks went in, did you have to receive permission from Mr. Reese? MRS. MAINO: I'm the second homeowner. NEIGHBOR: The Town and the DEC were involved with that. CHUCK~ BOWMAN: Their ~deeds contain permission that they are allowed to use that canal. TRUS-FEE KRUPSKh What about Mr. Kick? CHUCK BOWMAN: His does too. GRE:G YAKABOSKI: But does he cross solid land to get there? Does he own that foot portion that he crosses? CHUCK BOWMAN: Yes. Mr. Reese owns the canal. All of the canal is owned by Mr. Reese. TRUS-FEE KRUPSKI: The permission to use the canal is in the deed. CHUCK BOWMAN: All of the parcels along the canal, bulkheads or not, have the same property line along the canal and that is property that Mr. Reese is owning the bottom of. NEIGHBOR: How much actual bulkhead is...we're having a dispute here as to the amount of bulkheading that the Kicks would have on the canal. We see 1' to 2', TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It looks like what we saw in the field. NEIGHBOR: My question is how much existing bulkhead would be on the Kick property. CHUCK BOWMAN: They are not proposing to build any bulkhead. That has to be the Wilson's bulkhead, I guess, that comes over the property line. NEIGHBOR: So the Kicks have no bulkhead. CHUCK BOWMAN: But that has nothing to do with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It looks like 1' on the plan here. GEORGE STARKIE: Originally, all of those other properties in that area, Southold Shores, all of the other properties, going way back, we were guaranteed we would have a place to keep your boat. What they did was, if you weren't on the canal, they had a little marina at the end of the next block that takes care of that, in a sad sort of way, but that's the way it was. So, this property here, basically, is not on the canal. Plus, I would definitely want something on the length of the boat because I was here when Brick Cove Marine was built and they increased that by something like 40 boats, which every body thought would be outboards and they are all 50' and 60' boats. MRS. STARKIE: Our major contention here is that the Kick property may be on water, that water is at the very end of the canal, it's essentially .mud, except when there is a very high tide. Where the canal naturally ends, there is no bulkheading across. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We've been there numerous times, at least three times. MR. STARKIE: There are not fixed docks or fixed pilings anywhere along that canal. It's all floating docks along side of the bulkheads. There is nothing fixed. Thank you. PAT MOORE: I just want to clarify something that was put on the record. I have a copy of the Wilson survey, which shows the setbacks and it shows where the bulkhead ends. The bulkhead actually goes to the end of the Wilson property line. In fact, when we were making the application to the DEC, that ordinarily we wouldn't have a DEC permit requirement landward of a bulkhead, but because of the wetlands to the side on the Kick property, we actually had to go through a wetland ,permit application for a sanitary system for the house, based on the wetland :li~e that was figured from Kick property. If you would like a copy of the survey, I can put it in your file, as far as where the Wilson property line is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh 1 don't think that's necessary. PAT MOORE: You don't need it? I just wanted a clarification that the bulkhead is in fact Wilson property. CHUCK'BOWMAN: Our survey shows that 1' of the bulkhead is on our property. PAT MOORE: I have a licensed surveyor. CHUCK BOWMAN: So do I. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh In this case though, for our environmental review, that the location Of 1' of bulkhead is going to alter our decision either way. Back to the dock application, Ken, what do you think? TRUSteE POLIWODA: I don't have a problem with it. Environmentally, I don't see a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What about restricting the size of boat. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would definitely restrict the size of the boat and a 3' wide catwalk is fine, as opposed to a 4'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now what's drawn in there, and scaled it out, is a 15' boat. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would you be willing to allow us to stipulate to keep it under 167 CHUCK BOWMAN: Absolutely, no problem. PAT MOORE: If there could be covenants and restrictions so that we could be sure that they would be enforceable and that future owners would know about that restriction as well. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do we have the authority to do that, to restrict the size of the boat?. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, because it affects navigation. What about the other people. Can we tell them to make their boats smaller too? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh They are on the canal, a boat and a float less than 1/3. They can have them as long as they can squeeze them in there. That's our rule on a canal or any narrow waterway. The boat and the float can't be more than 1/3 across the waterway. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALI_ AYES SEQRA DETERMINATION: Unlisted Action, Negative Declaration. TRUSTEEE POLIWODA: I'1] make a motion to Approve the application with the Stipulation that no larger than a 16' vessel may be moored or tied at this location, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of FRANCIS & MARIA MCNAMEE requests a Wetland Permit to construct 146 linear ft., including return, of "Navy Style" 'ow-profile timber bulkhead installation. Proposed top of bulkhead installation is proposed to match existing elevations Of adjacent existing bulkhead. (22) 8" Dia. CCA timber piles are proposed for the bulkhead installation 7' on center with a depth of penetration of 10'+. 30+/- cy. of clean fill is proposed to be trucked in and utilized as backfill landward of the proposed bulkhead. A 550 sq. ft. area is proposed to be planted with Spar[ina alterniflora on 18" centers, this area is between the AHWM and the bulkhead. A 475 sq.ft. area is proposed to be planted with Spar[ina patens on 18" centers, this is the area between AHWM and the toe of scarp. Located: 910 Glenn Rd., Southold. SCTM#78-2-27 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? CHUCK BOWMAN: I think we tried to match the Iow-sill that was created adjacent to this, at the slope. I think the Iow-sill is working pretty well. The only question that I really had designing this to match identical to the other, I don't know if we really need (can't hear), so I certainly look for your comments. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? MRS. lYNCH: I approve, and the reason of having this so high is believe it or not, when we have a really big storm, and the float goes up there, you need those, and it made a huge difference. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? I remember very well the Lynch's project and they had some pretty serious erosion scour on their bank. On field inspection, the Board didn't find the same kind of erosion on the McNamee property. The CAC recommends Disapproval because there is no need shown .for a bulkhead and the Board felt that trimming the bank back, the trees in back of the bank, to allow sunlight penetration, because there's a pretty healthy wetland fringe there now. I don't even know if you would need additional planting to stabilize that bank. We found the bank to be pretty stable. Mrs. Lynch, I remember your property and yours was pretty severely impacted, but we didn't find the neighbors' property... MRS. LYNCH: Well I know that they have a couple of trees that are really in the creek there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well they should be trimmed back to allow the sunlight to penetrate. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's a very healthy fringe. CHUCK BOWMAN: Well if there is alterniflora there, and I did not personally see any, but ... 14 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have one comment and that is from the wetland delineation landward, I was going to recommend to walk off 50' and put up a row of hay bales and let that be undisturbed. TRUSTEE I~RUPSKI: Well that's for the house and they made a separate application for the house. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well that's for the bulkhead too. CHUCK BOWMAN: would submit an alternate just to plant it and regrade the bank. I have no problem doing that. TRUSTEE K~RUPSKI: We'll meet you there next month, if you like. CHUCK BOWMAN: That would be great. If what you say is so, it's just not how recall it. I have no problem going back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now because the application is not...well the plans are not finalized, I would rather refrain from making a SEQRA determination because we don't know what we're making a SEQRA determination on. GREG YAKABOSKI: They are withdrawing this set of plans? TRUSTEE I~RUPSKI: No, we're just going to Table the application and re- inspect the, site with the applicant. GREG YAKABOSKh If you want to, you have enough to move forward on SEQRA to start it. TRUSTEE 'KRUPSKh We've been advised to start the coordinated review with the DEC. I'H make that F~esolution. SEQRA DETERMINATION: Unlisted Action, Coordinated Review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to Table the application until next month. TRUSTEE KING:'Seconded. ALL AYES Ira.Haspel, Architect on behalf of FRANCIS & MARIA MCNAMEE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with porch and garage. Located: 910 Glenn Rd., Southold. SCTM#78-2-27 TRUSTEE'KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? IRA HASPEL: I'm the architect and I have with me here tonight the original posting, proof of mailing, the DEC permit and the Health Dept. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. TRUSTEE KRU. PSKh Any other comment in favor of or against the application? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I see the septic is setback 100' and the house is 77'. My only recommendation is to put a buffer behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There's no bulkhead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Oh, that's not a bulkhead? would highly recommend a 50' non-disturbance buffer from the wetland delineation line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh How about from the top of the bank? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that what's shown on the survey here? T1,T2,T3, is that the top of the bank? IRA HASPEL: That's the flagging of the wetlands, I believe. It was flagged on 4/6/01. 10. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think our only requirement is a 50' non-disturbance buffer between the flagged wetlands and the construction. We would hay bales during construction at the 50' line, and you can include on the plans a 4' wide walking path down to the water in any location the applicant desires. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Roof gutters? TRUSTEE KRUC~SKI: Yes, we need gutters and drywells. Is there any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the Stipulation of a 50' non-disturbance buffer landward of the wetlands flagged line, and gutters and drywells for the roof run-off. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Patdcia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of GERALD RAFFERTY requests a Wetland Permit for the placement of spoil (from SCDPW dredge of Little Creek or other); Geotube for retention of sand and plant with Cape American Beachgrass 18" on center, and Rosa Rugusa 5' on center. Relocate away from wetland existing float, ramp and piles approx. 75' west (inside private boat basin). Located: 9205 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-3-16.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the applioation? PAT MOORE: Well I'm here but Joe Edgar is MIA. I don't have any clue where he is. I called him today and left a message on this cell phone. I have no idea where he is. One of these days he'll show up to one of the meetings. I apologize for the inconvenience but at least you won't have to hear me speak to you more than a second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf or against the application, or concerning the application? KEVIN McCALLISTER: I'm the Peconic Baykeeper. I will start.by saying how im'pressed I am With the volume of applications that you see on your regular meeting. It's overwhelming. For the sake of speaking specifically to 'this application, I-wanted to briefly qualify myself. I have UndergradDate degrees in marine biology, natural resources conservation, and approx. 15 years of professional experience in environmental protection and a number of years specific to shoreline management. I'm one of 70 keepers working to protect estuaries nationwide. You discussed in a cou pie of previous ap plications issues protecting shorelines and the Board allowed me to indulge in the importance of protecting.natural shorelines. Obviously there is habitat value. The fact that you described the muskrat coming out of the embankment, is an important component of our estuary. Recently the United Nations completed a study regarding sea-level rise. They have expectations based on the study. It's a scientific report that they expect an increase in sea-level rise up to 2' in the next 100 years. That's huge. Anybody that has spent time locally and gone up the heads of the creeks, you've seen oak trees that are now under 4" of water. The oak trees they can grow there, this is in my lifetime and I'm a fairly young fellow. It's happened. We have to allow our shorelines to define their own limits and not 16 define it for them. Another important component, and again, this relates to protecting buffer zones and that transition, aside from habitat, there .are a number of important factors, of their functions and values. We have to have an exchange of the (can't hear) coming off the uplands. Organic matter that'S brought into surface waters hopefully (can't hear) the food chain within a couple of days. If wee star[ to encapsulate our creeks and our bays, we are .going to lose that exchange. Speaking specifically to this particular projeCt,.and my e~(perience, I've worked in the regulatory field for a number of years for permit e~/~aluation. Working with shoreline hardening structures and alternative approaches. I'm here to at least, my professional opinion, the detrimental effects of bulkheading. As much as werre Concerned about water quality with road run~off an'd some of the other loads coming into the system, if we lose are transitional hal~itats, it's going to be catastrophic. Bulkheads by nature are going to reflect wave energy, even though they may be initially out of play with respect to wave energy, it's just a matter of time as I described with the oak tree in 4" of water dght now. If you recall the nor'easter we'had, think in January or February the volu,m,_e of water com ng into the bay was enormous The rack ine was Probably 100 higher than they normally are c n some beaches. So clearly even a structure that.is out of play in those COnditions, are going to come in play. With :respect to Geo-Tubes, I have serious concerns about them. I've worked with these and evaluated them on Florida shorelines. Although the orders of magnitude are obviously greater on ocean beaches, riley are going to have the same effect. In my personal opinion, I know the DEC has classified this, as I believe, a soft approach, They are not a soft approach. This is a Wolf in sheep's clothing. It truly is. When these structures come into play again with wave energy, they are going to have the same effect. Their reflective wave energy is going to (can't hear) the near shore, we're going to lose our inter-tidal zone, we're going to lose important habitat. Based on the application from the cross-section and the plan view, itlooks like the eastern side of this Geo-Tube is within approx. 10' to meamhigh water. That's not much. Even if that's planted or filled over, and planted with beach vegetation, it's just a matter of time before this is washed out and we're backto a hard wall. This is a bulkhead that's being proposed out there. Professionally I'm adamantly opposed to shoreline hardening structures. I recognize that we've done some activities in the past and we have to learn from that. We do have to start thinking long-term enwsionary with respect to protecting the health and productivity of our system. You have a difficult task. I'm my professional opinion, and I again, I won't belabor the point, I ask you not to permit this project and put it under great scrutiny and really recognize what it is, and the fact that potentially this is precedent setting. 1 know that you have to look at individual projects but we really truly have to start thinking cumulatively, comprehensively, and look at the big picture. Keep the Geo-Tube out of your Town and keep it out of the creek system where the bay fronts, it will cause problems. As we exemplify that, I know that on the south side we employ at least one that is having ramifications to adjacent properties, not to mention the frontal beach. Again, I respectfully ask you to deny this application. l? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. The way it's laid out, now We were out at the site, isn't the inter-tidal area actually underneath the building? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well it is now. TRUSTEE KRUPKSI: Do you have a copy of the plan? KEVIN McCALLISTER: Yes I do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, so the inter-tidal area is actually underneath part of the building. SO, the Geo-Tube would be placed in the inter-tidal area, in that place. KE¥1N McCALLISTER: I obviously haven't seen the site. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ok, so you're considering that Geo-Tube is being a hard structure? KE¥1N McCALLISTER: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As proposed, it was staked out for us on site, as proposed it's really in the inter-tidal area, and not above it. KEVIN McCALLISYER: It's within the inter-tida area, so it's even more so in play with respect to wave action. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct. We're going to leave this hearing open because we don't have the proper people representing the application. Is there any other comment? JOHN COS~FELLO: I'm totally familiar with this. If somebody is totally against hardening strUctures, they are probably totally against people living on the shorefront that has eroded to any degree. There is going to be a tide rise not only for the next couple of hundred years, but it's going to continue for approx. another 3000 years. It's in a cycle. It's in a 5000 year cycle. We had ice here one time. we don't have ice here now. We had ice here a second time. We don't have ~ce. We had dinosaurs running in these areas but we don't have them now. These are ,long-term cycles. If you are going to put some short-term strUcture, this isnot a hardening structure. This structure moves. It goes up and it goes down. I've seen them all over the country. Bio-tube logs are the same thing. They are light weight and a minor approach to slow down some type of erosion. We live here now. If you don't want anybody on the water, you don't want them on areas tt~at erode, let me tell you, there are some areas on the sound that have recently eroded, East Marion, up here on the sound just west of Jack's shacks, seriously that haven't eroded in 30 years. Tides, wind, storms, road run-off, you have many concerns than trying to stop, you have a short term administration, do the best you can. Let's not go too far into the future because we don't even have. the knoWledge to do so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? PAT MOORE: If you don't mind, could I have a transcript of this hearing? I would like to respond appropriately, having Mr. Edgar here to respond to some of the comments that were mentioned. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Sure. I have a letter from the Southampton Board of Trustees, from Scott Strough, the President, and it's regarding the installation of Geo-Textile Tubes. He states that Goo-Textiles Tubes should be considered a hardening shore parallel structure for shoreline management, much like a bulkhead or rock revetment. Our Board has experienced adverse impacts from 11. Geo-Textile Tubes, which include wave reflection, scouring, loss of wetland habitat and loss of adjoining wetland habitat. Typically these sand-filled synthetic mats are installed parallel to the beach intercepting the high water mark or they are used as foundations to recreate dune areas. It has been the policy of our Board to encourage and impose permanence, which includes dune restoration and planting plans along the inland bays and its pond and creek system as an alternative to the installation of Geo-Tubes. We haven't had a Geo-Tube installation in Southold Town or a proposal for one, so we're trying to get out as much information'as possible to make an intelligent choice. It's too bad Mr. Edgar wasn't here because there probably are alternatives to Geo-Tubes and I don't this Board would be contrary to letting the applicant do some sand nourishment. It's a long-term erosion process on this beach. This isn't a beach that's disappearing today or tonight. Sand nourishment I don't think would be a bad option. But this proposal came our way so we're trying to get all of the information. We've got the SEQRA Resolution to read first. SEQRA DETERMINATION: Unlisted Action, Coordinated Review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the next field inspection, if Mr. Edgar is available, let us know and we will meet with him on the site. Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct on pilings a two-story, one-family dwelling, deck, and swimming pool; install a pervious driveway and sanitary system with concrete retaining wall; place approx. 450 cy. of fill; install drywells; establish a 50' non-disturbance/non- fertilization buffer adjacent to the tidal wetlands; and connect to public water and other utilities, Located: 9326 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-2-25 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak briefly in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: At the last public hearing, there were basically two issues that the Board had asked us to address. The first of which was that you wanted to see the Edson right-Of-way from Main BayvieW tothe Edson parCel staked out in the field. Hopefully you were able to take a look at that. As far as the improvement of that right-of-way in the future, certain ly we are open to any suggestions that you might have as far as anything you've seen recently that you might consider successful as far as not altering any drainage patterns to the development of that right-of-way. The other item that came up and Artie had discussed was what really is an issue unrelated to this Board, but as far as zoning codes, whether the Code provides for the fact that the intedor right-of-way shall actually serve as the boundary for the building envelope setbacks as opposed to the property lines. Apparently that is the case if the right-of-way is to serve as a roadway but Patricia Moore had the enjoyment of investigating that on behalf of Lisa Edson .so she may have some comments for the Board 'n response to Artie's inquiries of the last hearing. PAT MOORE: I actually had the benefit and the pleasure of representing Mary Kirsch, who is the property owner to the north, so Mary and I know each other. The Zoning Code does provide that, it's kind of a quirk in our Code; which is that when you have right-of+ways that are used by the owner, the applicant, and provide an access, that you have to measure the setback, the front yard setback, from the edge Of the right-of-way, so you really don't have the benefit from going from the proPerty line, you have to go from the edge Of the right;of-way. In this particular case, we have two right-of-ways. We have the northerly right-of-way and the easterly right-of-way. The Code was recently, in the last two years, amended to try to give relief for people who live off of right-of-ways. Unfortunately, the, relief that was written in doesn't really apply in this case, so it doesnt take them'out of the req u rement of having to g~ to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get a variance from a front yard setback. As you can see, it makes sense tO have a front yard setback when you have a right-of-way that is the equivalent of a street. It doesn't make sense to have a front yard setback when the dght~of-way isan access right-of-way or a shared driveway, or whatever means ,that is less than what a street would require. That'. is what we have here. My first thought was possibly getting...where the right-of-way was limited, but Mary Kitsch and the other property have the right to u se the right-of-ways to the extend !practical because in some cases, at .least the northerly one, is going to be blocked ioff by wetlands. You can't pass through so they are not going to be improved. The righ;t-of-way along tl~e easterly side will I~e improved to the extent that you feel is appropriate and that right-of-way, we a!,e, going to ~ake an applicaU~)n to, theZor~ing Board for a Setback. We can t meet a 50 front yard setbaCl~ from the e~lge.(~ the right-of-way without impacting on the setba(~k from the wetlands and,giVen the balancing...balancing the interest of preserving and proteCtir~g the wetlands vs..the possible variance applical~ion,~t; a Variance from the Zoning ~(~de, the~ Zoning Board has been in practice, condescend of properties that are being pushed from other sides by wetland boundaries. That's going to be the case here. I would like to be able to go to the Zoning Board with a permit from this E~oard with respect to the setbacks from wetlands so that I can tell the Zoning Board that this is where the Trustees feel the house should go and that it should not go much closer than what is proposed. The DEC has approved this and it's. before you. As far as this Boards issues, you're only being asked for a wetland permit from setbacks from the wetlands. That's the westerly side of the property. The eaStedy side is going to be dealt with through the Zoning Board. So it would be nice to finish up with you and then go-to the Zoning Board and say, Ok, these are the parameters. We know how close we can be on the westedy side and now this is how close we need to be to put a reasonable size house in place. Did that make sense to you? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It does but I just want to make sure...this Board must have been out to this site a dozen times and we must have 13 different surveys in the file. I just want to make sure we are looking at the correct survey. PAT MOORE: April 23, 2001 is the revised map. That's the one I have. This is the version the DEC approved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Everyone considers something else to be a front yard, besides what the Zoning Board does. The setbacks that are non-conforming here are going to be... '20 · PAT MOORE: Would you like me to come up and point them? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That would be better because we want to make sure that we're on the right survey. PAT MOORE: This is going to be the front yard, the front yard setback. TRUSTEE I~RUPSKI: That's what they consider to be the front yard setback. PAT MOORE: We have two because of a corner lot. As soon as you have two right-of-ways, you have.a corner lot. It's the equivalent of this piece being on Main Bayview and Clearview, or something. It's the same treatment. So you have a front yard setback from the front, top right-of-way and you have a front yard setback from this right-of-way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is that 30'? PAT MOORE: No the Code requires 50' so that's impossible and that's why the Zoning BOard exists because we need variances. TRUSTE:E KRUPSKI: So you really need relief from everything. PAT MOORE: Eventually. TRUSTEE ~RUPSKI: No, not from our Board but... PAT MOORE: Correct. The only thing that I'm not sure is a setback, because the Building Dept. wasn't really clear, is the sanitary system, is a foundation.with walls, is not Usually:considered a structure, to the extent that it might be incorporated in the houSe, it will trigger...one of the walls possibly being treated as a structure wall. I have Lisa Edson and the architect working on the design so we can narrow the scope and place the actual size of the house because when I go to the Zor~ing BOard I am not going ~n with this footprint. It's going to be more actual. Here the surveyor placed what would be a building envelope, what he visualized as a building envelope. That's not going to be the case. We're getting a building enVelope that will not go any closer to the wetlands than what's shown here but on the easterly side, we want to know what is the size of the house and then we have to go to the Zoning Board on the easterly side as far as how closer the Zoning Board will allow us to go on the right-of-way, protecting the interests of maintaining access. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Rob, we've looked at the right-of-way all staked, which was very helpful, and we looked at that in relation to the wetlands. We're go~ng to look to the applicant for a mitigation plan for a driveway and I've got a question. Does this driveway serve this back lot or is this driveway also going to serve the Io[ of James Bitses? PAT MOORE: The right-of-ways shown here are an internal right-of-way that was created in the Edson subdivison. ROB HERRMANN: Lisa Edson's right-of-way ~s her access from Main Bayview Rd. to her parcel. This right-of-way and this right-of-way are all basically one joint right-of-way except for the fact that this property owner can walk down here and walk into that and walk along here and go down to the water. Mary Kirsch can just walk down her property and walk down here and right to the water. This lot has nothing to do with it. PAT MOORE: Before the wetland ordinances were placed, the subdivision was created and that could have been a common access. The wetlands are going to impede any ability to actually drive through here. This property owner is going to only wetland that could even possibly be affected is the phragmites on the'first property. That's. why I was unsure why you were saying... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no that's what we want to protect. PAT MOORE: All we have before you is a driveway and the proposed house and sanitary. We don't have before you an improvement to the access down to the dredged canal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not looking for that. ROB HERRMANN: He's saying that the right-of-way, Al correct me if I'm wrong, what the Board is saying is that there is a right-of-way from Main Bayview Rd. and over Mary Kirsch's property and passes by this lovely phragmites depression. :What they are asking is how is this going to be improved to serve as an access point and because it passes by the wetlands on the Kirsch property, they want to;make sure that there is not then flooding into that wetland. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sedimentation. ROB HERRMANN: But just so that you're clear, that access is not provided any access to th~ree different homes. It is only providing access to the Edson home. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So how does Mary Kirsch get to the creek? ROB HERRMANN: Down a different right-of-way. Well down a different half of the right-of-way. Vehicular access will be from Main Bayview to the Edson lot. This, Edson is not going to improve this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not saying she's going to improve that. ROB HERRMANN: Legally she gets access from here. She's saying that respect to the Zoning issue, it is not realistic that the Zoning Board could expect that this right-of-way could be developed as a road oecause it goes through the wetlands. But she's saying that this right-of-way, Mary Kirsch could theoretically attached a boat on a ~railer on her car and drive down here, but there would be no proposal made by Lisa Edson to furnish them with that. TRUSTEE' KRUPSKI: No, we're not talking about that. We're talking about here. This guy here hasto go down here. PAT MOORE: But only to go down to the boat basin. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. But he still has to get down here. ROB HERRMANN: No, Pat, no, because legally, this does not serve this parcel. This serves this parcel. PAT MOORE: But I don't think there's a limitation on having this guy use this. ROB HERRMANN: What I'm saying is that this would not be used to serve this guy's home. This guy would be served directly from Main Bayview Rd. You keep saying that this is going to serve three homes as a regular access point to three different residences. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a regular access point to three homes to the water. PAT MOORE: To the water, but it's going to be very periodic. ROB HERRMANN: But that's much different. People are driving to and from their homes with multiple cars multiple times of the day. Presumably somebody ~s not taking a boat to the creek multi pie times of the day, everyday. I just wanted to make that point as far as volume. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely, but we still need...go look at this other one. If you need help to locate it, call Lauren and she'll give you the specs. It's simple 21 get access th~:rough Main Bayview her when they want to go to the water, it will have theright to go down this way. The right-of-way is a common right-of-way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:: What about access down here? PAT MOORE: Down to the water? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. PAT MOORE: That'S a shared dredge canal, it's a boat basin. The boat basin is exclusively for this development and Mary could take a car down to the extend possible withi a trailer, launch off ~)f this boat basin, and then have access for their boat down there. So that's the extent for the use of that area to the south. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: wouldn't claSsify that as a boat basin. PAT MOORE: That's on the subdivision. TRUSTEE PIOLIWODA: If Henry was sitting here tonight, he would classify that as a huntingpoint. TRUSTEE K~UPSKI: When was this subdivision subdivided? PAT MOOR, E: 70's maybe. We could find out. TRUSTEE KRUF~SKI: We're not going to vote on this tonight because we don't have enough~ information eSpecially on the right-of-way and the improvements the applicant,: proposes. PAT MQORE: NO, no, it would seem to me that you want pervious material... TRUSTEE K[RUPSKi: But it doesn't show where. ROB HERRF~IANN: You had mentioned an idea to me that I thought you might want to discuss with the Board. Obviously the improvement to the right-of-way ~n a little far off~so her intent was to put some sort of pervious gravel along that right-of-way or just make sure that it's to be mulch or something, but you had mentioned that there might be some sort of ... TRUSTEE K]RUPSKI: Well, but we need a specific plan. We approved one on the other side of Bayview last year and it we rked out quite well. 'The driveway, or the right-of-way, all pitches in grade into the wetland areas naturally. But the way this drivewa~ ~as designed, small sumps were dug at those areas before the wetlands to ~atch the run-off on both sides of them so that the run-Off went off the sides and the driveway went through the middle. ROB HERRMANN: Have you observed that to be a success there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you know where this is? ROB HERRMANN: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you know where the Peconic Land Trust has the shellfish preserve on the other side of Bayview? It's the next driveway going out. If you go thrOugh the woods there, you'll see a really nice wetland on the south side. and on the north side kind of a hole. Both areas have been protected by real simple cuts into the earth on either side so that the driveway drains and doesn't run into the wetlands. They are like little sumps. They collect the water before the driveway goes through. We need to see a plan on that and then we want to see it staked out in the field. We put a lot of thought and effort into this one because it was a really nice wetland. Where this driveway is going to serve two homes...no three homes... ROB HERRMANN: Lisa Edson is not improving the whole thing. She's only improving from Main Bayview Rd. to the northeasterly corner of her house. The and it's. not like it's going to cost a million dollars. It's a simple plan that really protects the wetland. PAT MOORE: That's fine but we want to keep it relatively natural. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Believe me, this looks like the glacier dropped it off. You don't see it and it does protect it. In the meantime, you're working on a new plan for the Zoning Board of appeals. PAT MOORE: Yes, I am getting from the architect the parameters of the house and the pool. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So why don't we see that in the meantime, for next month's meeting. PAT MOORE: As soon as it's ready, I go to the Zoning Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You still have to come back to us. PAT MOORE: Well the Zoning Board is going to be looking and going we don't wan! to go any closer than what you are willing to go on the wefland side, so that's why I was kind of inclined to say why don't you give us a permit so that I know on one end what my parameters are, and then on the Zoning Board end, on the other side, I'll go to the Zoning Board and say listen, these are practical difficulties. Part of the standard that I have to face is, to what extendcan we move a,nd shift the house. We can't shift it on the one side on the wetland side. MARY KIRSCH: But you don't meet any of the setbacks. This building package is just too big. It'S like you said, you and the architect have to discuss the right size. That's what I did. PAT MOORE: We are going to sacrifice size on the easterly side, not on the westedy side. The westerly side is not going to go further because it's closer to the wetlands. ROB HERRMANN: Just as a point of clarification, if you're looking at this plan, you have two constraints. You have your Zoning constraints from here and you have your wetlands constraints from here. Whether this point from right here is a tool shed or a hotel, we can only go so close to the wetlands. If we eliminate the pool, we trim the house in half, they put a public sewage system inhere, it still doesn't affect what is related to your Board. So that's the only point that we're making is...I don't'know what the sensitivity of the Zoning Board is to wetlands. They may say,~ well we would really like you to meet this setback. Why don't you push the house back and make it 50~ from the wetlands, and then Pat has to say, well because I don't think the Trustees would like to see a house 50' from the wetlands if it can be 80' from the wetlands, and then they will say, well how do we know that, go back to the Trustees. We just don't want to get into a position. Right now this plan conforms 100%.to this Board's Chapter 97 in the Town Code. MARY KIRSCH: But you're using the right-of-way as your front ya~'d and your using the other right-of-way for the side yard. ROB HERRMANN: But that bears no relation to this Board or Chapter 97 of the Town COde. It's a Zoning issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What Rob is saying, and I understand what Rob is saying, is that we are setting our setback, and whatever he wants to build there is going to be fine according to that setback, but we still need the driveway plan and hopefully in a month we can see the whole plan itself. 24 12. 13. 14. PAT MOORE: Hopefully we can get it in time. I just don't know if I can get the architect to draw it but we'll work on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm going to make a motion to Table the hearing. We don't have any SEQRA review on this. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of THEORDORE & ANGELA LAOUDIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to an existing one-family dwelling; a deck; a patio; and a retaining wall, each located approx. 96', ,88', 71'; and 35' from bulkhead surface waters, respectfully. Located: 635 Kimberly Lane, S0uthold. SCTM#70-13-20.4&20.32 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor o.f this? ROB HERRMANN: I don't really have anything to add to the description and the plan that's before you. There are some significant renovations and additions occurring to the house, the deck area, patio areas, and only a portion of what's being proposed is located within 100' of the bulkheaded surface waters. The unbulkheaded portion of the property to the south side, everything that's being proposed is more than 100' from that area. So, everything within your jurisdiction is basically, originates with the bulkheaded surface waters. If the Board has any questions, I'd be happy to address them. Otherwise, it's pretty straight-forward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there any other comment before we hear Ken's comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this and I didn't find any problem with it. It looks pretty straight-forward. I'd make a recommendation to Approve. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application, as written. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of CHARLOTTE DICKERSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a +/-138' timber retaining wall and 21' easterly return; and backfill with approx. 300 cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source and planted wit'h Cape American Beach Grass (12" on center). Westedy terminus of proposed structure will tie into face of adjacent steel retaining wall to west; and portions of existing 1-3 ton stone toe armor fronting adjacent return will be relocated to armor proposed return. Located: 4630 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic. SCTM#74-1-35.51 POSTPONED UNTIL JULY AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Catherine Mesiano, Inc, on behalf of SCHEMBRI HOMES INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 31'X 56' single-family residence with pervious driveway, on-site sewage disposal system, public water, and dryweils to contain roof run-off. Located: 195 Albacore Dr., Southold. SCTM#56-7-13 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? 25 CATHERINE MESIANO: Since we first submitted this, new information was added to the new survey that I presented to the Board earlier. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're looking at the test-holes. CATHE~RINE MESIANO: Are you able to pick them all out? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No we're looking at the first one here. CATHERINE MESIANO: The first one is next to the ditch, test hole No. 2 is on the eastedy side, mid-section of the driveway. No. 3 is off the north corner of the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For test hole No. 1, there is no mention of water. CATHERINE MESlANO: No there isn't. He only went down 12' and I guess because he was still in clay, he stopped at that point. I wasn't involved with the test holes, I only have the data. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: E~ut the water is right there. It should be in the water to start with. CATHERINE MESIANO: He dug it at the edge of that ditch, I agree, and this is the da~ta thatwas provided by North Shore Well Drilling to Joe Ingegno. So I can only represent to you what was represented to me. Would you say that the water in the ditch is freshwater?. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well that's what we're trying to determine, whether it was perched water or ground water. If it's perched water, it's flowing and we still need to know which direction this water is flowing in. CATHERINE MESIANO: I believe that you consulted Chris Pickerall on this and the information that I was given through your office, that you had consulted him and that ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well his comments are very brief and he sort of contradicts himself. First everything seems accurate but then he questions the location of the ditch on the survey compared to the location in the field. CATHERINE'MESIANO: If it were some other surveyor I would say, yeah I'll go out and have it re-surveyed, but generally I can depend on what Joe Ingegno says. TRUS~E E KRUPSKI: I don't think we're questioning the location of the ditch. I think We're questioning, and Kenny was there after that one heavy rain, I forget when it was in the Spring, sometime in April, and the water had drained off of the property and we need to know which way that water is draining. Is it draining directly, is the ditch main lining into Hashamomaque Pond? We need to have that information. Where does that water go? CATHERINE MESlANO: I think that was the reason why you were consulting with Chris PickeralL TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we need to know from you now because we didn't get enough information from Chris Pickerall to fill that ditch. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have the answer to that. I went down there after a heavy rainfall when it just stopped raining and all of that water was flowing right under the Main Road straight into Hashamomaque Pond. CATHERINE MESIANO: But our septic system is not going to be up in that flowing water. Our septic system is going to be... 26 15. 16. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I ran it all the way to the back of the lot and the water was flowing actually from the south east corner, coming around up towards the front and then under the road. It actually came from the west also. Almost like two streams. CATHERINE MESIANO: But wouldn't you say that since there is so much clay on the property, it's going to be prohibiting the flow, the outward flow of the subsurface, and going to be funneled down into the sand areas that will be in the area of the septic and the clay that is around that will inhibit somewhat that migration of the... TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I couldn't predict that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're going to have to show us that really conclusively. You're going to have to have somebody look at it, who is qualified to tell us that conclusively, that the groundwater flow from the se ptic system, because where that mainlines directly into Hashamom aque is absolutely no filtration there at all, or no treatment there at all. The septic system is located about 30' from the ditch. CATHERINE MESIANO: There is no place else to put it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, suggestions will be withheld. CATHERINE. MESlANO: Well we've discussed the suggestions. Is the Board willing to make an offer?. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we're not making any offers. You have to prove to us where that ...and we said that this is not going to be an easy application. CATHERINE MESlANO: Well we'll do what we need to do to either prove you right or prove us rig bt. One of us is right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, there is no right or wrong. It's a matter of physical flow, facts. CATHERINE MESIANO: That's what I'm saying, right or wrong ideologically, but right or wrong, factually. We'll find out what it is and we'll live with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application until we get the information on which way the septic system with flow. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MICHAEL PISACANO requests a Wetland permit to construct a single-family dwelling, private well, on-site sewage disposal system, and pervious driveway. Located: 2390 Mill Creek Dr., Southold SCTM#51-6-4 POSTPONED UNTIL JULY AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of LAWRENCE BLESSINGER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, pool, patio, pervious driveway, on-site sewage disposal system, and private well. Located: 2626 Westphalia Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#114-7-10.8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh This is an application that had an outstanding violation and the Board just received information to possibly satisfy the violation so I don't think, unless there are other comments, we haven't had time to review that information. So I'll take any other comments but we're not going to act on this 2? 17. tonight until we get a chance to review that violation. Are there any other comments on the Blessinger application? CATHERINE MESIANO: With respect to the earlier violation, your requested survey with the cut stumps shown, which was given to you a couple of weeks ago, and a payment of, [ think there was an outstanding application fee, which gave to Lauren when I came eadier, don't believe that there were any other ~ssues outstanding. The hay bales that were placed there a year ago, are still there. Nothing else has been done at the site s~nce that time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well review that and hopefully satisfy the violation and then we'll review this and probably revise the site. We were out physically as a Board last week, and we'll probably revisit the site as well again next month. CATHERINE MESIANO: Ok, what is...you don't want to discuss any of the issues as far as the new application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we really want to get that violation cleared up before we discuss that. We'll hold it off until next month. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of GERALYN WIESER requests a Wetland permit for clearing within ! 00' of wetlands. Re-vegetate cleared area cut existing phrag~it~s!o 12, cut out briars and mulch cleared area. Located: 1030 Country'Club Dr., Cutchogue. SCTM#109-3-2.13 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to s pplication? CATHERINE MESIANO: As you stated, the Wieser ~e clearing primarily of.briars and .Other vegetation around a freshwater wetlar of their property and I presented to you a re-vegetation plan. that you visited the site and the recommendation was for a 50' nOn;~listurbance buffer measured from the edge of the wetland, which the Wiesers have no problem with. They would request that they be allowed to maintain.and cut down in the future ~he briars and they grow back because they seem to.choke out everything elSe that's in there. They are planting species that would be indigenous to that type of an environment and they would like to try to keep the briars out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Before we comment, is there any other comment? RI~CHARD GAMMON: Good evening, I'm the director of the Country Club Estates PropertyOwners Association and we provided you with (can't hear) with both the covenants a nd restrictions of the neighborhood. The President and the Vice-President couldn't be here tonight and after speaking with them and some residents, they thought I should come and voice opposition to this permit for the following reasons. One, the applicant is seeking a permit for a portion of land that they don't own. Some of the land in question belongs to the County Club Estates Property Owners Assoc. and it is dedicated as park and recreation and marshland in a 1978 filed map for the community. I have the map of the community. They show the property line where they are going to clear, but that's not where they have cleared. They cleared here and back into the park and recreation and marsh area. This is their property line going this way. The clearing is in a whole different spot. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually we saw clearing on their property and also into the park and recreation area. RICHARD GAMMON: Well a portion of it is not their property and that's why we're looking to deny this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We were out in the field last week and she showed us the property line. RICHARD GAMMON: I also have a letter that was sent to Mr. Wieser by the President of the Association informing him of his over-stepping of his boundaries onto community property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's an area here that says 75' setback line on the back .of the property. What does that denote? RICHARD GAMMON: That for any dwelling from the back of your property line, can't be 75'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Oh, it's just a building setback line, from the Association. When we were on the site, it actually looked like, to me anyway, like the property line was set further back from the pond. RICHARD GAMMON: Yes, there was. There's a post back there with an orange ribbon on it, which is the monument marker. This is where is has all been cleared, up in here, up to the pond. The pond is definitely not on their property. That's all marsh area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we originally recommended in the field was that a 50' setback from their property line, be not cleared at all, in order to protect, because this wetland area is actually the headwaters of Down's Creek, and that should be.protected. RICHARD GAMMON: There is a lot of'natural wildlife back there too. Muskrats and snapping turtles that actually come up on land and lay their eggs, I've seen them do it. There is natural habitat that shouldn't be disturbed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was our recommendation in the field. That there be a 50' buffer that would ,be allowed to be re-vegetated, but now I'm not quite sure where the property line is. We knew where the corner is but we're not sure in which angle '~he property line went in the field. In the field it was impossible to tell because of the cleadng and landscaping that's been done. Maybe we should revisit this with both... CATHERINE MESIANO: I'll have the property line staked. -FRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Put a string across it and then we can...we'll probably measure off of the house instead of measuring off the pond because that's always easier, to establish a buffer area. CATHERINE MESIANO: What is the point of this? The violation has occurred and we're trying to remediate the violation. A 50' non-disturbance area around the freshwater pond that's indicated on here, falls well within the Wieser's property. I don't understand a neighbor's objection would be to maintaining a 50' non-disturbance buffer around that pond because it cleady does what your seeking to accomplish, which is to naturally re-vegetate that area which was disturbed closest to that pond and that 50' certainly takes us well within what is clearly the WieseYs property and takes us out of the area that is owned by, I guess it's the homeowneYs association, it's a common area; or an open space. 29¸ TRUS'FEE KRUPSKh What was unclear was where the 50' actually is and what was unclear in the field was where the applicant's property line is. That's what was unclear. We see one stake, but you don't know what angle that property line goes off out of. We Can't set a buffer until we can see where the property line is. CATHERINE MESIANO: It was my understand that you had referred to the buffer as being measured from the edge of the pond so we would be starting from a known point, that being the pond, and measuring outward from that direction. If we measured from the pond outward, we could establish 50' because I think 50' is more relevant than the actual property line of the Wiesers because you want the 50' and yo'u don't particularly, it doesn't matter to you whose property that 50' falls on. You're Iooking at the 50' for the obvious reasons and for the protection of that wetland. I really don't see why we need to adjourn this to do that because we can establish that 50' from the edge of that pond and if that encompasses 10' of the Wieser's property or that encompasses 50' of the Wieser's property, that's what the end result would be because that would give you your 50' regardless of which point on the Wieser's property that falls. Now I think that perhaps a better suggestion would be for me to have staked from the: edge of the wetland outward 50' to define ~that 50' buffer because if we go out and look at where the property lines are, we. Still haven't accomplished anything with respect to your main focus which is'the preservation and the re-vegetation of that wetland area. I would think that yoa're more.concerned with the 50' around the wetland rather than where is the property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a very valid point but it's sometimes easier to establish a buffer in relation to a property line and in this case we're going to establish a buffer in relation to the house, which is a lot easier to measure, because once it re-vegetates, it's going to be impossible to go back and measure from the pond, and it's going to be impossible to go back and measure from the property line. So, you're never going to have a point of reference again once it re- vegetates, and we don't know whether that buffer zone ~s going to be 30' or 50' at that point~ We're going to establish a buffer, so if you want to go out and flag the wetland'line, that's fine too. We'll establish a buffer zone from the wetland line to the' house, so we can measure from the house and say, this is where the non- disturbance will start, instead of trying to go work it back from the pond. CATHERINE MESIANO: That contradicts what you said. You want 50' around that pond, well then you should determine what that point is and then take a measurement Of that point from the house. You need to know where that point is specifically with respect to the pond and reference it to the house. The property line is not the issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the property line is your reference point. It's not the issue. It's the reference point. CATHERINE MESIANO: But we could get no more get to the property line in a year to two, five years from now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, that's why we're going to measure it from the house. But, we need some sort of reference point there. So, fine, have that wetland line flagged, and we'll go out on field inspection in July and we'll make a determination off the house. You can meet us there if you like. 30 18. CATHERINE MESIANO: Oh, I will. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to Table the application until next month's meeting, and we're going to re-inspect the site. RICHARD GAMMON: Can you tell us when you're going to re-inspect the site? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: July 18, 2001. RICHARD GAMMON: What time of day? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're going to have to call Lauren or Charlotte the day before. It's going to be a rough time. It's impossible to tell know at this point what time. The CAC recommended Disapproval and that they shoUld allow the area to grow back naturally but it doesn't set specific boundaries. May be could contact the CAC and see if you could get some specific setbacks. CATHERINE ME SIANO: This is so contradictory because the violations issue and the person receiving the violation is told to bring in an application for a re- vegetation plan so people proceed along those lines after they've done something that probably should not have been done in the first place, but never much the Jess, it was done, so they act accordingly to the instructions that were given and we would like to believe that this is the way it should go and you take certain actions arid then the CAC says, no you shoUldn't do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why a violation was issued because they should've cleared up to', the head waters of Down's Creek and on theirs and on the neighbor's p~perty. G REG YA~BOSKI: When somebody receives a code violation for a wetland viOlation, one of the things that are done, in this case, take this exam pie where sOmebody p~bably very unintentionally did something that they should've done, was a violation of the Town Code, they do have to deal with that violation, but the other t, hing th'.ey have to do is make an application to the Trustees. I don't think that the appli~catiOn is to do what they did and then see how that's going to be re~medied. It'S not necessarily a re-vegetation plan. It might be simply allowing it toI grow back naturally. That could be. CA-THERINE MESIANO: They were told to submit a re-vegetation plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They really didn't submit much of a re-vegetation plan. CATHERINE MESIANO: It wasn't a formal plan. He gave some specifics as far as types of trees they he intends to put in there and so on. Do you want something more formal? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I don't want to require the applicant to bring in something more formal because that's not acceptable. We told the applicant that in the field last Wednesday, that we were going to require that it grow back naturally and'be a non-disturbance buffer. CATHERINE MESIANO: Right, the 50'. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MAUREEN BENIC requests a Wetland Permit for the seasonal installation of a 6'X 20' float secured with 4 - 251b. mushroom anchors. Located: 395 North Parish Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-1-4 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone like to make a comment on this application? CATHERINE MESIANO: I would like to first reeuest that this be Tabled until next month. I've spoken with Mr. Benic and he just wanted time to look at everything he's got and rethink his position and I would just like to add a cou pie of comments to our earlier informal discussion at :the worksession. You commented that this is a swim platform and it's not intended in anyway to be a swim platform. Itwas intended to be a dock to tie up a small runabout. Mr. Benic has a young family and he was hoping to be able just to load up his kids and his family into a small boat without having to drag them all through the water and all of their stuff and the usual schlepping that one does on a boat, but beyond that, a swim platform would imply that you were in water deep enough to dive off of and swim in and so on, and this is in a very shallow location. We're certainly no where near the channel, and navigatable water. A comment was made about the navigation but l think there should also be some responsibility on the part of the boaters. You mentioned that someone might raise their outboard and run across the flats and so on. I think the boater has some responsibility in raising their outboard and skimming, across the flats, and that their might be things there that he shouldn't be...going .at high speed in the dark, so. there are also responsibility on partlof the boater asthere is on part of the homeowner proposing a structure such as this to be able to tie up a small boat. It's not area would you would want to see a fixed dock. It would be far too long. It would' not be a reasonable thing to do. He's looking for a seasonal structure that would: require no...not jetting down in holes, no disturbance of the bottom. Simply a small structure with which to enjoy some of the recreational facilities, which I think is one thing this Board does:support. Those are my comments and I request that we adjourn. TRUSTEE 'KRUPSKh To add to those comments though, there are also the environmental factors associated with putting a float;and anchors and chains on the bottom, there. Those are factors that we would consider on a request like this, and that's another reason that we never approved a swim platform, either in the bay or the Creek, because environmental factors and navigation factors. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would call this a bathing platform. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wel either way, there are navigation issues associated with it, whatever you want to label. There are also environmental issues associated with it too. CATHERINE MESIANO: Then I'm a bit confused then with your recommendation that the application take a boat and put two anchors out for the same purpose. Would not a boat on two anchors provide the same type of disturbance that your concerned with that a float would cause? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I didn't make that recommendation. CATHERINE MESIANO: It was suggested by a Board member. What's the difference, other than the fact that aboat tied on two anchors would be very unsightly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I don't know that this would look that nice. CATHERINE MESIANO: It would look better than a boat tied up on two anchors. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well we're not going to get into aesthetics tonight. '11 make a motion to Table the application at the agent's request. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 19. 20. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of CAROLYN J. DOHERTY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, driveway, public water line and to regrade areas of property. Located: Reservoir Rd., Fishers Island. SCTM#9-8-2 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Anyone here on behalf of the application? GLENN JUST: I'm here on behalf of the applicant if you have any questions. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I did an inspection there this morning and actually it appears to be out of our jurisdiction. GLENN JUST: I believe it is too. The house is going to be setback greater than 100' from the tidal wetlands line. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I didn't see a problem with it at all. Any other comments? Any E~oard comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm going to go with your judgment on this one, Artie. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I read the tape. I tip-toed through the poison-ivy. That lot is full of poison-ivy. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application for a letter of no-jurisdiction. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of WILLIAM KOOYKER & JUDITH CORRENTE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'× 50' fixed dock elevated +/-6' over existing grade, a 4'X 16" ramp with railings and an 8'X 20' float secured by (3) 8" piles. Located: Private Rd., Fishers Island. SCTM#3-1- 3.1 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I also looked at this one. Anyone to speak on behalf or against the application? GLENN JUST: I'm here on behalf of the application. I don't if the Board has seen the pictures. Most of that dock would be over the boulders near the stairs. I think you were there this past winter. The dock would only go out about 25' out into the water. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I didn't see a problem with it. There's nothing but rocks there. Any other comments? SEQRA DETERMINATION: Unlisted Action, Negative Declaration. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'1 make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Seconded. ALL AYES J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of YVETTE LANG EINCZIG requests a Wetland Permit to remove a 5 %'X 28' fixed dock and to construct a 4'X 56' extension with a 6'× 10' "L" at it's seaward end. Located: 3055 Wells Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-4-11 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application? GLENN JUST: I'm here if you have any questions. 33 22. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ken, we can't keep going back to this one because of the disagreement over water depths. What were your findings? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I met Angelo out there yesterday and we did find the channel that existed and then I walked out around the channel and found the fiat. The flat was 70' from the point of the end of the dock. They're looking to extend 26'. I found that satisfactory what he's proposing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's the overall extension going to be? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I walked off 26' from the existing functional catwalk. Angelo, do you have a measurement. We have 55' from the bulkhead, the existing dock. Is that right? So, it's a total of 81'. The edge was right at 20' and the last 6' was right on the edge of the bank. It looked right. It made sense. I'm going to allow it to go out 81' from the bulkhead. ANGELO STEPNOSKI: (can't hear, no microphone) 5'X 10' or 6'X 10', does it make a difference. When I met Ken yesterday, I didn't remember, I said 5'X 10'. They wanted it to be able to put chairs out there. GLENN JUST: It's still smaller than a float. There's an 8' wide dock that they're willing to take down. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd keep it at 5'. What do you think, Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think it's all right. We don't normally go with that width thougn. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wel is it straight out or is it a %"? TRUSTEE KING: It's an "L" (can't hear discussion, no m~crophones were being used) ANGELO STEPNOSKh The reason why they want this dock is because they want to be a'ble to use their property, they want to have a dock that's built substantially to withstand any weather because they live in California, they don't want to deal:with a float. We're reducing the square footage by 60 sq. ft. of coverage of the :bottom, plus the 60 sq. ft. of dock your going to. have, you have light going underneath it that's going to be 3' above high water, and I don't think it's unreasonable at all. It's shorter than both docks on either side of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can give him 5' then, with the condition that if they reapply for a float in the future, they're going to have to remove that "T". SEQRA DETERMINATION: Unlisted Action, Negative Declaration. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application to remove a 5 ¼' X 28' fixed dock and to construct a 4'X 81' fixed dock, with a 5'X 10' "L" located to the northwest side. I will make a stipulation that no float shall be suspended from this dock as long as the "L" remains. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Seconded. ALL AYES Keith B. Neilson, P.E. Docko, Inc. on behalf of RICHARD BINGHAM requests a Wetland Permit to remove 5+/- cy. of stone over an area of 300+/- sf. from a 23. 24. docking area and dispose of, underwater. Located: Central Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#6-4-2 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of, in favor of, or against this application? This was a little unclear to me as it was extreme high tide when I was there, so Mrs. Bingham explained it to me. I guess there are several rocks that are so big that are right in the area where they already have the dock and everything tied up and they've hit their propeller a couple of times and in extreme low-tide, the boat hits these rocks. They would like to remove them. They have all of the other permits from all the.other agencies. I didn't see where it was going to have a real significant impact on anything but their boat. This is right at the end of their dock. They plan on taking them out into deeper water and dumping them. Any other comments? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seconded. ALL AYES I~mper-T Permit Services on behalf of C&D REALTY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with private well and on-site sewage disposal system Located: 3640 Cox Neck Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#113-4-1 POSTPONED UNTIL JULY AS PER THE AGENT'S REO. UEST Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of AMELIA SMrULIgHESKI requests a Wetland Permit for the existing one-story wood frame dwelling 24'X 28', Wood frame garage 10'X 24', concrete grade-level patio 9'X 14', wood deck built on top of concrete, patio 9'X 14', 50' concrete bulkhbad, wood steps to grade on seaward side of bulkhead, wire mesh fences on both property lines to the landward side'of concrete bulkhead. No new excavation or construction is proposed. Located: 140 Carole Rd., Southold. SCTM#52-2-5 TRUSTEE FOSTER: This is all existing and has been for some time and the lady told me that she's trying to get a C.O. for this. Everything is there. It's just the way it says On the description. There is a portion of a dock that floated in and is lying right in the middle of the marsh. They tied it up so it wouldn't float off to somebody else. I suggested that it be removed. She said that her boys were coming out and they were going to dismantle it, so that's fine, but I want to make a note that it has to be addressed. They have to get rid of that. Other than that, it's all there. I see no problem with it. Any other comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What's the distance between the wetland and the deck? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's all up behind the concrete bulkhead. It's up high. JIM FITZGERALD: The Trustees did issue a permit, a grandfather permit for that bulkhead in 1986. The.building was built in 1959. The garage was built with a Trustee permit and Bu'ilding permit in 1986. So everything was OK. We just need you to agree with that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, everything is there just as it reads. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. 25. 26. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application as requested with the condition that the piece of debris be removed out of the wetlands, the floating dock. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of FREDERICK MAYNE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace, inkind/inplace, 32'linear ff. of bulkhead. Located: 860 Bayberry Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#118-1-15.1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone like to comment on this application? JIM':FITZGERALD: You Approved last month the application for the McSherry residence to replace a bulkhead, west of this. This section of bulkhead is (can't hear) and yes it will be vinyl. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER:- Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. Ayes, Trustee King, Trustee Foster, Trustee Poliwoda, Abstained, Trustee Krupski. ProPer-T Permit Services on behalf of CUTCHOGUE HARBOR MARINA requests a Wetland Permit to install two trecks, 20' on centere, perpendicular to the existing bulkhead in theproject area. The trecks will be 10"X 24" I-beams approx. 48' lOng overa'll which wil be runways for the wheels of a boatlift treveler. The tracks will be supported by pairs of piles approx, every 5' along their lengths. ncrease the. height of.the existing bulkhead by 2.5' in a 24' long section between the landward ends of the trecks. Construct two retaining walls perpendicular to the bulkhead on the landward side, maximum 2.5' high X 24' long. Fill the area surrounded by the raised-height bulkhead and the two retaining walls. Install concrete pad on top of fill. Install dry well in concrete pad to catch run-off. Operate motor-driven boatlift treveler in and around the project area. Located: 3350 West Creek Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM#110-1-12 TRUSTEE KING: Are there any comments on this application, for or against? NEIGHBOR: Well my comments are that this is a residential area and 25 years ago it was a tiny marina and now it's huge and we might have big boats in there, many people will be inconvenienced by the moving of boats, I think. TRUSTEE KING: What's the zoning on there Jim? Marine Il? JIM FITZGERALD: Marine I1. TRUSTEE KING: It's Marine I17 GREG YAKABOSKh Mr. Fitzgerald, do you have site plan approval? JIM FITZGERALD: No, not yet. Jim, it's Marine I, I'm sorry. TRUSTEE KING: M1. (can't hear, microphone problem) GREG YAKABOSKh ...to get before the Zoning Board, if you need to be there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So who actually...a lot of what we Approve has to go to different agencies so where do we start that off. Ordinarily, we're the first agency to act on something. GRE(; YAKABOSKI: (Greg's microphone not working.) JIM FITZGERALD: What does that have to do with the environmental aspect of the thing? TRUSTEE K:RUPSKh M1 use, Marinas, Docking, Mooring, etc. What's the objection then? RAY HUNTINGTON: Fleet's Neck Property Owner's Assoc. and there are two concerns that we have. First of all, this facility will be used to wash boats and I understand from the design and the description, that it would be caught in a d~ell. So we're the concerned with the proper disposal of what might be called a washboard. We also have another concern, and that has to do with the greater intensity of use of the facility as the mention of the travel-lift This is a Marine I ZOne, which is for creeks and natural coves. This is not a high-intensity Marine II use more typical of a shipyard operation. The creek across is Wickham's Creek and it has a marginal ability to flush, for all this is well-known to you I'm sure. But as Marine I Zoned, it's subject to a site plan requirement, so first of all, we want toi be'good neighbors with the marina. We want to see the marina be profitable and well maintained, and we want to be kind to people in the environment. Your particular concern, I think, is the environment, but that environment:is the creek, plus, you might say. We request that the map and the applicant be referred to th e: Planning Board to make a site plan application. We anticipate that there would be covenants and restrictioris related to such a review and that the criteria for proper operation would come from the site plan review. So, we ask for your support involving the Planning Board as wel as your own Board in the consideration of this 'application. The marina, as was pointed out by another speaker, is becoming more intensive in use and I suppose that is within the Zoning Code. The effect though of more intensive use, creates some problems for the neighborhood, and that's why we speak here tonight. That site plan review may resolve that kind of thing and then we can get on with a proper relationship between the neighborhood and the marina. Do you have any questions.of me? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We might. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think have a comment. We spoke to the owner on field inspection and he's concerned about replacing all of the trailers breaking down on him', and that's the reason he's rather just have one lift to carry the boat in and out. So, instead of having 10 or 20 boat trailers, he'll end up just having a fork, a lift. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's a small lift too. One that will get the boats inside the building, which he has problems with now. He's not adding any slips, not adding any boats. RAY HUNTINGTON: But this is a non-trivial expense, and that expense has to be recovered, and ought to recover it, one would have to intensify the number of boats going in and out of the water. It also takes up parking. There are factors that are treated under the Zoning Code. Not probably directly before.this partict~lar Beard but certainly where they have a site review plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The way that is was explained to us was that, and I could be wrong, was that now he's moving the boats in and out on trailers and it doesn't seem like he was seeking to move any more boats in and out of the water. It's just that he's seeking to move them in and out more efficiently and easily for him, instead of using the ramp, which I would imagine that the ramp would really' monopolize the road. RAY HUNTI~NGTON: The marina property actually goes to the edge of the road, the edge of the pavement I should say. If in fact the total investment here equals the price of the trailers that are involved, I guess there isn't a call for more intensive use. But, it does seem that the price of doing this is going to be more therefore it's more income, therefore it's more intense activity. So I'm just relating that.eertain set of circumstances to the idea of more intensive use. Of course, just ..looking at the property over time, this past winter we had boats that were stored very, very close to the road. I don't know offhand what is allowed to store with respect to the edge of the road, but they certainly have been a lot closer. That,jUst speaks to the qu,e_stion of more intense of use hence a site plan. TRUSTEE F~STER: He claims it s going to be less expensive. This lift is a one- time investment and he's buying a half a dozen trailers every two or three years and they don't give those away either. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh He claimed that this is going to save him money. His trailers, the.y,., just fall apart in the salt water. He can't even rebuild them. ANN HUN-I;I'~GTON: I live directly across from the parking area where the lift would be installed. This particular manager has been here since the end of last summer andl can't say how many trailers he's ruined. There certainly are enough of them. Aisc, with this mean that they would close the ramp? TRUS-FEE KRUPSKI: I don't think they would close it but I don't think they would be using it hardly at all. If they have a boat lift, I would think getting on the road with a trailer ~Vould be ~nconvenient. ANN HUNTINGTON: I foresee .... if you see that parking lot, and you visualize cars parking in it, and I think the code reads, one car per slip, if you see cars parked there and the trailer lift to maneuver, what if they want to bring a boat to the north parking lot? I.mean they could go out on the road, over to there, and then down to where theY store the boat. It's a very small' madna. It started as a fishing station. It just evolved. Incrementally, step by step by Step, over the years, to the point where it's really impacting our neighborhood tremendously. Where once we would've swam in that creek, we don't swim anymore. There are boats there that are moored. Theynever leave the dock. They are summer homes. That's what they do. There's wetlands, lights are on almost until dawn, overhead lights. What about our environment, the peoples, the animals, and the sea creatures that live in a nocturnal environment. This has happened time and time again. I know this probably isn't your...it is the Planning Board and it should go to the Planning Board. They don't have a good track record in playing by the rules, and we all know that. But, that's all I wanted to say because 'm cold and tired and I know so are you. STANLEY JANOWICZ: I live directly across where this travel-lift proposal is. The existing problem, tl~at my neighbor has been pointing out, a lot has to do with the s~all boat ram~ because tra ers w th the boats are eft part a y on the road and a let of times they block my driveway. I have to back out and part of their Wheel is a little bit on the marina side and part of it is on the narrow two-way street in front, of us. and I.have trouble a lot of times just backing out and pulling back up on my lawn. AZ far as that travel-lift using that for all the boats and shutting down that.small ramp, I don't think that will be done because it's cheaper for small 'boats to'drop their boats off on a small trailer rather than pay for a 20' boat to use a big lift like that. I don't it's too feasible. But, like I said, I'm right across the street from that and that's going to cause a problem with a lot of noise and :a~noth,er thing too, where that travel lift is going, that parking lot, that's only one ~f them, there.are two other parking lots. One is very small over by the main building and another large one, which is a sand lot where a lot of small boats are parked. That travel-lift Will not be able to go out on the street and bring those boats and put them in the Other two parking lot area. If they do it with a trailer, that .means a lot more traffic with backing in and out and everything. Like I said, West Creek Ave., is a narrow road and people that come up with their boats, they figure they're only goingl to be in the building for a few minutes to get some help to find o,u,t where to put their boats and they're just plain beck with the traffic around. I m: against sorriething like that. I don't it belongs in that type of neighborhood. I want to. see them make their money and things like that but it shouldn't be under the price that we have to pay. I don't know if it would do an~hing to Our land. It wen'tbring the price up. I probably will bring it down a little bit. I wish the Trustees would consider this here and use good judgment. As far as myself, I'm not in favor of this. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Greg? GREG YAKABOSKI: I just wanted to mention that Mr. Fitzgerald is correct in that the focus of this pa~icular Board is the environmental aspects of the proposal; not necessarily the zoning aspects. The comments received so far were probably considered a mixed bag of comments. The reason for my earlier question on the site plan was that if the site plan had been required, I didn't have an idea, SEQRA might have been done at that point. I was trying to figure out if there was a SEQRA resolution on the table, or going to be on the table. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well there is a SEQF~-,A Resolution on the Table to require not only a Long Environmental Assessment Form, but also a Coordinated Review. I suppose that a Coordinated Review would involve DEC, ACE, but it would.also include Planning Board. GREG YAKABOSKI: If this thing needed site plan approval. JIM FITZGERALD: How did that happen? GREG YAKABOSKI: It's involved agencies. JIM FITZGERALD: What type project is this? GREG YAKABOSKI: Pursuant to SEQRA? Unlisted Action. JIM FITZGERALD: And, Unlisted Actions require the things that Mr. Krupskijust said? GREG YAKABOSKI: The Board has discretion on either short form or long form and ~ttie Board has discretion for a coordinated or uncoordinated review. Correct. JIM FITZGERALD: Did misunderstand what you said? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle this. Prior concerns were raised about increased use. JIM F~TZGERALD: There is no reason to believe that there will be. increased use in a marina that a limited number of boat spaces and we're not asking to increase that number. In the past you approved finger docks, slips, and what have you, to bring it to where it is. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That man can bring in a travel-lift tomorrow and there isn't anything you can do about it, The only thing he needs from us is permission to change the dock Configuration around so he can run it in and out. I think as it wasa;Stated eadier in the evening in two or three other applications, our particular interests here are strictly environmental and I don't think we have any business going~anywhere else. GREG YAKABOSKI: You're right, so it just comes down to the question of what type Of SEQRA environmental review you want to do. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The travel lift isn't going to increase the capacity for any more boats. ANN HUNTINGTON: You w. ill still have your ramp traffic. You will still have your small 'boats, and you will still have people coming in on a daily basis. I don't think it's going to minimize.., the lift yes; he's going to be able to haul boats out and wash ;them, paint the bottoms, and repair them, and so forth. He would certainly be us ng it to haul o:ut the boats, and he stores very, very large boats. We're talkin~l 40', 50' boats. We're not talking 24' runabouts. I do believe that t's on y going to add to what's already there, in addition to the fact that it will impact parkings the wetlands, the boat traffic. I have. a slip right there so 1 know what it's like to come in on a windy day with the tide pushing you in the direct opposite direction. You have to be pretty darn skilled to make that turn into the basin. If you look how close l~hose wetlands are to that particular area...you don't see too many'herons or.egrets in that area. _T, his is a poorly flus,hing creek. TRUSTEE KRLjPSI~I: But what I don t understand, they re going to take that boat out anyway on a trailer. ANN HUNTINGTON: Maybe, maybe not. Right now, he doesn't do that much repair Where you lift .it out and put it back in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you could do that with a trailer. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And they do and they will. You're not changing anything. The man has so many slips, so many spots. ANN HUNTINGTON: He may not be using them for the people in the slips. He may be using it as a business to bring in boats in for repair and it has nothing to do with how many slips he has. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But that's the business he's in, isn't it? But that's like telling an automotive shop you can only fix two cars a day. ANN HUNTINGTON: That becomes a zoning issue because'they really distinguish between Marine I and Marine II. Marine I is in the tidal creeks and natural coves. We're not talking about big business. This man is doing big 40 business. It does impact our quality of life and quality of life of the wildlife in our creeks, it does. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree that it is an impact but don't see.., and he's taking a boat slip away to put that lift in. ANN HUNTING~ON: He's just not servicing the boats in the marina. He advertises himself as a shipyard. He can accommodate 64' boats in there. STANLEY JANOWICZ: With a travel lift, he can have boats come in, with a travel-lift, lift them out and them put them on a trailer and drive them around to his other parking lot and start to store them over there too. He can start taking boats in from other areas for the winter. With those three lots he can't get to each of them with that travel-lift. It has to be done by a trailer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He can't drive that on the road? STANLEY JANOWlCZ: I doubt that very much. If that start doing something like that, that would be terrible. So, it's just not a certain thing just for those 60 boats and to do away With these trailers. It's going to be for more business coming in. JIM FITZGERALD: The boats will be lifted out on this travel-lift, services in some way, and then put back in the water. What would be the problem with that? TRUSTEE FOSTER: He only has so many spots. You can't put 50 boats in 40 sPots. JIM FITZGERALD: We are here to talk about the environmental impact of the proposal that we're making. You're talking about...all of you are talking about - grudges that you. have because...ok, problems and concerns that you have bui t uP:oVer theyears because he d d th sand that and what have you A of th s has absolutely nothing to do with ...(neighbors all talking at once). RAY HUNTINGON: We're convinced that the extra facility is going to increase the intensity of use, deserving of a site plan and it's review and we are also concerned about the actual operation that would be carried out with the travel-lift because from what I've read in the plan that was sent out to the neighbors in the area, it doesn't sound like the effluent is controlled. I don't know if you looked at that in d~atail yet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is not that much detail. RAY HUNTINGTON: If that were, for example, a sanitary sewer, or a sanitary cesspool, it wouldn't .be allowed in that location. So, those are the two concerns that we have. We appreciate your attention STANLEY JANOWlCZ: 1 don't know what this project is going to cost the marina, but I can't see why there going to put a travel-lift in there just for the sake of just the little amount of boats they have in there. He's in there to draw more business in there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well he says that he's going through more trailers on a regular basis and this will save him money. That's why he wants to do it. What about the drywells? Do we have a cross section for the drywells? I don't know if there is any specification for it. JIM FITZGERALD: No, but we can certainly do that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You know you've got water there, Al. I don't know how deep you are to water but you can make him put in a 10' dia. drywell. 41 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If you have a cesspool, or septic, we can indicate that it h. as to be pumped out at the end of the season and brought to the hazard waste disposal area. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You mean from the bottom paint and all of that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. Stick the hose in the bottom and have them pump it out. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yeah, don't know what they do with them. Every marina has them. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Normally it all just goes into the bay. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But that's where it is when it's on the bottom of the boat. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Once you scrap it off it's go~ng to release all of the metals that are going to do their job. That's a concern. I'm sure it gets glazed over and it's less reactive to the water, and it becomes less and less effective, otherwise you would only have to do it once. But, when you concentrate them all in one spot, then what happens to it? After a couple of seasons, you're going to have a good collection. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We should make that a requirement of all the marinas that have them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Kenny, what do you think? TRUSTEE POLlWODA: Stipulate that the catch basin be pumped out and documented ence a year for the Trustees. They can notify the Trustees upon pumP out. I tl'iink, this iSthe first i~ a creek, rather than a bay entrance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They should all be pumped out. Most of these issues though that are being brought up are Zoning issues and enforcement issues. We are not qualit~ed to answer those issues. From an environmental standpoint, we can make them pump that drywell out, which is a good idea, otherwise that bottom paint is going to accumulate there. Environmentally, your replacing a boat slip with a boat slip. I'd rather vote on that and stick with our environmental issue and if thereis a Zoning problem it should be handled by the Zoning Board. RAY HUN'FINGTON: How would that process get started? The Town Attorney was talking a oout the building inspector... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You would have to talk to Ed Forrester. I~AY HUNTINGTON: Who would initiate that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess he would. I don't know really. I'm not sure how the Zoning process all works. I think they would have to make a determination, I'm guessing~ just like when things get brought to us, when we make a determination whether it's in or jurisdiction, or not. If it's no jurisdiction, it's no jurisdiction. If it is, it requires a permit. I think that same process would probably happen with them. You would need to bring it to their attention and they would require it and say if itwas in their jurisdiction or not. The same as we do. I don't know. RAY HUNTINGTON: It would seem to me that a building permit would be required because it is a structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well they don't have to get a building permit for a dock. We give them a permit to put up a dock. 27. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They might require a building permit. I don't know. RAY HUNTINGTON: Right now you have to get a building permit for a fence. TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, they rescinded that. You don't need it for a fence, shed or deck anymore. RAY HUNTINGTON: Well I guess our concern here is then that if in fact there isn't a way or a.requirement to go get a building permit, then this is going to be built based on your permit. JIM FITZGERALD: It is the responsibility, in my opinion, of the property owner and the project sponsor, to be sure that he, it, has all the permits that are necessary. The Trustees issue a permit and the last thing it says on the bottom of it is that you better and check and see that you get all the permits you need from all the other agencies that might be involved. It is our responsibility to get the other permits. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A lot the permits we acted on tonight, we don't require proof that those people are going to go to all the other agencies. They have to. We are Usually:the first in line to issue a permit. They go on from there. Now, occasionally it becomes a problem because look at the Health Dept. A lot of people have to go back to the Health Dept..and sometimes they change the plan so they have to come back to us. But we don't follow up on it. So, we'd rather act of the environmental merits of it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's all we can act on. SEQRA DETERMINATION: Unlisted Action, Negative Declaration. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved. TRUS-FEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the Stipulation that a Latch basin is installed and be pumped out annually and to notify the Trustees each year. RAY HUNTINGTON: Excuse me, is that impervious catch basin. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if we could make it mpervious to catch all of that water. It would fil up. It would be pervious because it would collect all of the solids that you want pumped out. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The solids would be pumped out and carted out and to notify the Trustees. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't require this of any other marina but we'll have to from now on. TRUSTEE POL. IWODA.'. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of GEORGE PAPPAS requests a Wetland Permit to construct wood stairs from top of bluff to filled area behi nd existing bulkhead, overall run 33'-6", overall rise 20'; to include midway landing 5'X 8', and platform at top 8'X 10'. Place beach sand fill approx. 30 cy. behind existing bulkhead. Remove dead vegetation and debris from face of bluff; plant open areas of face of bluff with vegetation suited to seashore environment. Located: 1205 North Parish Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-1-12 43 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone like to comment on this application? JIM FITZGERALD: That covers it all. I don't have anything to add to that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Does the Board have any comments? I looked at it. What's your feeling on a mid-way landing? 5'X 8'? It's a well-vegetated bluff. I was curious about the erosion effect that a 5'X 8' landing in the middle would have. I'd rather see a straight 4' stairway right down. 33' is not that long. JIM FITZGERALD: With a straight stairway, it's tough, just because it's straight down. It could be 4'X 8' it's just that the 4' steps go down and they go over one section, and then they continue on down. The additional number of square foot would only be 4'X 4', one square. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now what I don't understand is, it says midway landing, 5'X 8'. Now this little note, your note to the Southold Town Trustees, this says that this doesn't actually depict what's intended? JIM FITZGERALD: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the stairs? JIM FITZGERALD: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not really a midway landing. Why don't we just that... JIM FITZGERALD: I'm sorry, this other drawing, I think it refers to the detail. This plan Only refers to the whole concept. The details of the stairs are on the other drawing,, which should be there. TRusTEE P~LIWODA: I thought the bluff was fairly well vegetated and didn't want to see too much of a disturbance on it. TRUSTEE KP~UPSKI: Honestly, I don't have a problem with the landing being placed a~ the bottom because then you're not going to affect the bluff itself. (quiet discussion with agent) TRUSTEE-I~RUPSKI: Ken, what about the bluff? Should they leave it alone? TRUSTEE PQLIWODA: I wouldn't touch that bluff. TRUSTE~E KR~UPSKI: They've go a pretty involved planting plan in here but to me, it Seems too involved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I saw a nice bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd rather see the bluff...it's vegetated, it's stable. We've seen too much bluff degradation in our time. JIM FITZGERALD: I think they ought to be allowed to clean up the stuff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I don't know. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Leave it vegetated. Don't disturb the vegetation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application to construct wood stairs on top of the bluff with a 4'X 10' platform with a midway landing of 4'X 8', and not to disturb the integrity of the bank. No clearing. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seconded. ALL AYES 28. 29. 30. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JAMES WEEDEN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct existing 60' bulkhead 24" higher and place 200 cy. of fill to reduce flooding. Construct 10'X 20' deck on ground with 3'X 16' ramp leading to a 6'X 20' float secured by two 2-pile dolphins. Construct 160' long revetment to. stabilize existing bank using 50-60 lb. rocks on filter cloth and staking in 320' biologs on top and bottom. Located: 1175 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#118-2-6.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I am the agent for this application. Mr. Weeden was here eadier. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't think we have any questions. He's gc~t a problem along that edge there. JOHN COSTELLO: You can see bythe edge of that bank, there is some minor spotting of sPartina and it's heavily eroding. I think that by putting this here and by putting the biologs in, there is a good possibility it might'hold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're curious to see if that will work. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES SEQRA DETERMINATION: Unlisted Action, Negative Declaration. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application as requested. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Seconded. ALL AYES Crowley Marine ConStruction on behalf of OSCAR & BETH BLEVINS requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'X 312' catwalk, 4'X 12' dock, 3'X 16' ramp and 6'X 20' float in an "L" configuration secured with two 2-pile dolphins to secure float. Located: 640 Haywaters Dr., Cutchogue. SCTM#104-5-1.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded, ALL AYES Garrett A. strang, Architect on behalf of ELIZABETH A. SENTELL requests a Wetland Permit to= construct an addition to the existing dwelling, which will consist of three bedrOoms and expansion of waterside porch. Located: 220 Lakewew Dr., East Marion. SCTM#31-9-16 GARRETT STRANG: I have a notice of posting and affidavit of mailing that I would like to present. The application is pretty straight forward. There's a little porch on there now, which is about 7' in depth part of which (can't hear). If there are any questions from the Board, I'd be ha ppy to answer them. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I looked at this and quite honestly had a little concern as to whether this property could support this house. There's a letter here that came in from the neighbors. Actually there are a couple of letters. (Trustee Foster reading letter on file from June & Norman Woodcock and Genevieve Salminen.) There's another letter. (Trustee Foster reading letter on file from Frank A. Heroy.) I think that's it on the letters, It is extremely small. They did mention expansion on the'lakeside and the other side and it's ...well it's just porch isn't it? 31. GARRETT STRANG: Well what's before this Board ArtJe is the porch that's on the lake side of the house that is going to be expanded by 5'. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's a concrete retaining wall at the top. GARRETT STRANG: Actually it would probably be an alignment, once the addition... TRUSTEE.FOSTER: That's not going to be expanded to living space, that's just strictly increasi.ng the deck, outside deck, unenclosed deck... GARRETT SFFRANG: No it is enclosed. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So it's going to be an enclosed an additional 5'? GARRETT SrI'RANG: Right. The rest is on the other side of the house, the road side of the h ,euse. TRUSTEE KRuPSKI: Artie, do you think we should all take a look at it? TRUS'DEE FOSTER: Yes. I don't want to be the heavy here. GARRETT'Srl'RANG: Just for a point of reference. The Code allows 20% lot coverage an,el, that's what we're working with. We do have to go before the Zoning ,Boar~l of Appeals with this application because of the side yards. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What are you going to do with the septic system? You plan to put in an entirely new septic system I would think. GARRETTSZRANG: The septic system will be a new system on the road side of the house and they. have public water available to them. It is a second home. The owner lives in Texas. , TRUSTEE FOSTER: But that s not forever. GARRETT STRANG: Oh sure, it could sell next week. Obviously we have to go to the Health: Dept. We have every agency to deal with and this is the first. TRUSTEE FOSTER: As I said, when I took a look at that I was thinking that I would much prefer if the rest of the Board would look at it as well and make that determination. It's in a fragile area and we've been having all kinds of heat from all of the property owners around Marion Lake for the expansion and the sewage dumping into there and the contamination and it would make me feel a lot better if we all went out and took a look at it instead of me being the guy with the cloud over his head. GARRETT STRANG: Would this be carried over to the next meeting in July? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Automatically. GARRETT STRANG: Because the owner might possibly be attending. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, it Will be on for the field inspection next month. Any other comments? Any other Board comments? I'll make a motion to Table the application until the July meeting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES David Corwin on behalf of RUSSELL HILBERT requests a Wetland Permit to construct 41 linear ft. of new treated timber bulkhead 18" in front of existing deteriorated bulkhead, backfill with 11 cy. of clean sand fill. Located: 2125 Cedar Lane, East Marion. SOTM#37-4-6 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes I did look at this. Is there anyone here on behalf of the application? It's in desperate need of repair. It is full of holes and starting to bleed into the creek. I recommend that we Approve this application for construction. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would like to make a comment. I would like that to be vinyl plastic. SEQRA DETERMINATION: Unlisted Action. Negative Declaration. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC did Approve it and they recommend C-Loc. Do I have a 'motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do have a motion on the project? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'1 make a motion to Approve the application providing it be vinyl and not timber and that the non-turf buffer be maintained. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 32. Chris Rivera on behalf of ROBERT STICKLE requests a Wetland Permit to build a deck at grade level approx. 20'X 30'. Material to be used is TREX. Located: 415 Harbor Lights Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-2-4 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? This is one of those new homes that had the violation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What does their buffer look like now. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's all grass. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's not right. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The front yard is complete with turf and I think the backyard, who knows, I don't know if he planted seed or not, it's a fresh crop of grass, so he might have left it alone and just over the last few months the grass has popped up. It's certainly not turf in the back but its fresh seedling of grass that are growing. It's not very thick. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we just gave him a dock. I'd like to see a buffer on that bulkhead because he should've had one from the beginning. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We can stipulate it with a 10' buffer behind the bulkhead. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the stipulation that a 10' non-turf buffer be maintained behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to go back to the Regular Meeting, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES V. RESOLUTIONS: FLORENCE H. KLEISS requests a Grandfather Permit for the existing 75' of bulkhead. Located: 1500 Leeton Dr., Southold. SCTM#58-2-4 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES Meeting adjourned at: 11:45 PM Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Clerk Board of Trustees RECEIVED /~.' ...~ ~,.,, JUL 2 7 2001