Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/26/2000Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Henry Smith Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Town Hall 53095 Main Read P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-18~2 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2000 PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President Jim King, Vice-President Ken Poliwoda, Trustee Diane Herbert, Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 at 11:00 am TRUSTEE KING moved to approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 at 7:00 pm WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m. APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of November 30, and December 15, 1999. TRUSTEE KING moved to approve with a correction in wording of November Minutes, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI seconded. ALL AYES The Trustees monthly report for December $5,930.25 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General fund. i:~ Public Notices are posted on the Town s Bulletin Board for review. 1. ~O$~IE>&i~iLES~iE>W.INDISCH requested an Amendment to Permit $4378 for a 35' dock. Located: 1375 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM ~70-5-39 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application to replace what was originally there totalling 35', TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 2. ~3RICH~RD~PU%1:of the Marlene Lane Civic Association requested a Waiver to construct and place a portable sun fish boat rack on the beach. Racks will be removed at the end of Board-of Trustees 2 January 26, 2000 each sailing season. Located: north of Peconic Bay Blvd., & west of Town Beach, Mattituck. SCTM #126-6-10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table the application until the Town attorney reviews this as far as ownership is concerned, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 3. Architecnologies on behalf of Waiver to construct a 15' X 22' on east side and a 17' X 22' on west side. Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM #71-1-42 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve the application with condition that a 10' non-turf, non-fertilized buffer be placed along the bulkhead and drywells and gutters be put on and haybales be placed 20' off the bulkhead, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES a ~o an existing house Located; 250 Goose 4. Architechnologies on behalf of LES GAZZ~ requested a Waiver to add a small deck and revise the entrance way. Located: 495 Elizabeth Lane,'Southold. SCTM #78-5-2 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 5. ~RONA~D :~ .C~:N~'QUi~::requested an Amendment to Permit #5021 to construct a 4' X 12' ramp leading to a 4' X 48' catwalk with 4' X 6' steps, as per DEC recommendation. Located: 1150 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM #78-5-2 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 6. requests an Amendment to Permit #5046 to c. 60' fixed catwalk with stairs at the seaward end as per DEC recommendations. Located: 1775 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM #86-5-9.1 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 7. equested a one year extension for Permit #4853 to a fixed timber dock consisting of a 4' X 56' catwalk, a 4' X 14' ramp at landward end, a 4' X 12' hinged ramp and an 8' X 20' float secured by 2- 8" pilings. Located: 2200 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #104-9-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application with a 6' X 20' float only, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 8. ~ . ~ & N~iK~HL requested a Transfer of Permit #872 for a 3~ X 6' walkway, a 3' X 10' ramp and a 6' X 20' float with 2 pilings. Located: 1790 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM #70-12-38.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application subject to Trustee Poliwoda inspecting this to see what is exactly there, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING moved to go off the regular meeting, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees ..... 3 Janu~Y 26, 2000 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 1. a Wetland Permit to conStru 1~ .lng with pool, cabana and garage. Located: 5028 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. SCTM ~115-10-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either for or against the application. We're gonna put off this one for a while until Rob Herrmann arrives. 2. Proper-T Services on behalf of requested a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' ' walkway, a 4' X 16' ramp and a 6' X 20' float with 2- 2 pile ~olphins. Located: 5415 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM #138-2-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? JIM FITZGERALD. I don't intend to add to the application. It's a minimal dock and similar to all the others in the area. It extends only far enough to get a decent amount of water. It doesn't extend further than the other docks in the area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommends disapproval. They recommend a low impact structure for access, like an onshore offshore stake. I don't know how that would be less of an impact. There's quite a bit of marsh to walk through. The fixed dock goes out about 10' passed the edge of the marsh, then the ramp and float. How far have you gotten with the DEC? MR. FITZGERALD: I haven't gotten anywhere with the DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The last dock that applied there, across from Sterling Road, we approved a catwalk with a pipe and a pully system. No float or ramp. Because the property was very narrow there. How wide is this property here? MRt FITZGERALD: 70' TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's 58' along the road. Actually it only shows extending 4' passed at low water. There's nobody to the south, but to the north they had that bulkhead sticking out there. I don't think he could move it back in anymore. I see this has rings and stops to maintain 2 feet of water beneath the float. So the float will never sit on the bottom. Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE KING: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES Board of Trustees January 26, 2000 3~ Proper-T Services on behalf of !i~~i ~i~equested a Wetland Permit to reconstruct an existing 4' X 16' fixed walkway, and extend it landward 10' giving overall 4' X 26' size and add a 4' X 16' ramp and a 5' X 16' float with 3 piles. Located: 6010 Skunk Lane, CutChogue. SCTM 9138~2-29 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: IS there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? JIM F. This is the same situation. Except for the fact that there is a portion of an existing structure there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is the same scenario. The CAC recommends disapproval and suggests an onshore offshore stake. JIM. Why does the CAC recommend disapproval? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is a sensitive area recognized by the Nature Conservancy. Unfortunately there is no CAC member here. I think this has stops also. I think we're gonna table this one and take a look at it in February. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 4. Proper-T Services on behalf of THOMAs~::&!.PATR~iC!~F~NZ requested a Wetland Permit to consttU~{'a 4' X 180' fixed dock, a 4' X 16' ramp and a 6' X 20' float. Located; 1260 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #104-9-4.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor or against the application? JIM F. Nothing other than what is in the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC recommends disapproval because the trade- off of the potential negative impact on the wetlands system from the proposed catwalk for available water depth is not warranted. JIM. It's not warranted? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's their comments. JIM. They're making a valued judgement? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They did. There's no member here to explain their comments. Any other comment? TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion we close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion we approve the application with condition that the catwalk be 3' above grade, with 3/4" spacing between planking and no pilings above planking. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 5. Proper-T services on behalf requested a Wetland Permit to construct a single family .~ng with on-site sewage disposal and public water. Located: 155 Hall's Creek Drive & New Suffolk Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM #116-7-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? JIM. F.: I'm please to report that there is no dock involved. It's pretty straight forward. All the construction will be above the 10' contour line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: CAC tabled this because the proposed structure was not properly staked and labeled. We didn't have a problem with the staking. Board of Trustees January 26, 2000 JIM: It had to do with the timing because it was staked in the morning of your inspection. So if they went out before that they found it not property staked. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know when they make their inspections. The problem we had with that is in that whole little subdivision there we have been keeping all the houses with the same setback from the wetlands and that way you don't get intrusion into the wetlands and it's more orderly and disturbances from the house activity in the building and living. On this lot the house we thought was substantially closer to the wetlands than on all the other lots going to the south. The wetland line that is staked on here we didn't find to be accurate. JIM: The wetlands lines came from the filed map. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't find that to be accurate. I think they put the house substantially close to the wetlands than 75'. It's shown here as 70'. Which is substantially closer than the Other houses in that subdivision. We have approved almost every other house. JIM: The problem because the setback from the road for the Zoning Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows here as 60' JIM: It's in an R80 zone. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what the requirement is in an R807 JIM: Yes.. This is only an acre lot though. JIM: Regardless of R80 or 40 the house as it is sized and configured there just fits in the building envelope on this side, on the road side. From the standpoint of the seaward side, we took advantage of the 10' contour non-jurisdiction from the DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is not consistent with all the other houses that we approved. JIM: You would rather it be closer to the road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are not concerned about the ...... I don't know how close they are. We never even checked that. All we were concerned about was the proximity to the wetlands and that this line wasn't accurate. JIM: But you were there and the stakes were ...... these two corners ...... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seemed to be fairly clear. JIM: My recollection is that this is pretty much lined up with this next house. But the point really is, there's not much we can do except put a smaller house on it because we can't .... other than go to the Town for a variance, we can't make it closer to the road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You could get a variance and make it 40' ...... or any distance that would satisfy ..... we're not worrying about how close it is to the road. JIM: I know your not, but I am. We're worrying about the setback from the creek. And not so much even that because I would rather not even talk about setback from the creek until we see the accurate wetland line on the map. If it's off by a couple of feet ...... you look at it and think, "well it could be Board of Trustees 6 January 26, 2000 here, it could be there', two or three is one thing but this is a substantial difference. JIM: How did you determine this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The house was staked. So we measured from the house corner to the wetlands. JIM: So what should we do? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We could meet you on the site next month and we could make more sense of it on the site. Then we could mark what we feel is the wetlands are and you could have them put on the survey. So we'd like to table this and re-inspect it next month. JIM: The wetlands line is determined by what, the bacharus? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Motion to table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 6. Proper-T Services on behalf of a Wetlands Permit to construct a 9' ge shed, a 55' retaining wall, a 4' X 18' walkway, a 4' X 16' ramp and a 6' X 20' float with 2- 2 pile dolphins. Located: 3600 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM #115-17-8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? JIM: ~I think Mr. Zito was there and you had suggested that he change the location of the dock slightly to the south and he and I talked about that and went over that and he feels pretty strongly that he would like to have it where it is or at least talk about the relative merits of where it is compared to moving it over 3 feet. I think what I'm saying is how important is it to you because it's pretty important to him. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we make our observations on field inspections and we felt the structure should be to the south. I think it would impact the wetlands in front of the property and that if the structure is further south it would ford them better protection. JIM: There is no doubt that it would not cross much of the spartina if it were moved to the south but on the other hand for want of a better term, the landing area where the landward end would be is not shaped very well (changed tape) Do you remember the configuration? It's kind of, the location it's in now, is kind of in a corner off the highest area of yard. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We wanted it to be at the end of the retaining wall~ It should be level behind that retaining wall. Is there any other comment? MR. ZITO: Is it alright if I make the dock an "L" shape instead of a "T"? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. We would need a new drawing first. CAC has no comment. TRUSTEE KING: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application with a walkway at the southerly end of the retaining wall with "L" shaped float extending to the north side with a 5' non-turf buffer behind the retaining wall with condition that the debris, Board of Trustees 7 Janu~'~y 26, 2000 cement & leaves be cleaned out on the seaward side of the retaining wall so marsh can grow in that area and that the boat and the float can extend no further than 1/3 across the creek and if there is a problem with that than the structure will have to be brought in closer to the shore to accommodate that rule. We talked about that in the field. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 7. Proper-T Services on behalf of~AL~E~KO~S~I~.~irequests a Wetland Permit to construct a stairway from t~p'0f bluff to beach measuring: 88'6" with 4' X 8' landings and a 15' X 15' platform on top. Located: 1610 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM #30-2-64 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? JIM: The only thing I'm sure you will comment on is the platform at the top which I would like to discuss with you. I explained the~fact that in general those large platforms are not permitted but he asked that I put it on the application and talk to you about it. Maybe if you could explain why they are not permitted I could pass that along to him. If in deed you would like'to approve it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We generally don't approve platforms at the top of the bluff because they lead to shading to the vegetation and loss of stabilization at the top. While we don't have a problem with the stairs .... in fact the stairs are exempt in Coastal Erosion, the platform would not be because of the size. It provides an area of no vegetation that can lead to erosion. JIM: So we could have a reasonable size landing at the top to get started. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Something like a landing. Like a 4' X 8' landing, sure. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the application with a condition that there be a 4' X 8' landing at top with 4 other 4' X 8' landings. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL Ayes 8. Land Use on behalf of~.J~HN.~HURTADO~i ~.R. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling, sanitary system, and driveway. Driveway consists of grading between 2 small freshwater areas not regulated by DEC. Located: 10995 Bayview Ave.., Southold. SCTM #79-5-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here' who would like to speak in favor of the application? CHECK BOWMAN: It was staked out and I know you had some questions. I was told there would be utilities that would be buried. The description that we submitted for the driveway between the two wetlands is pretty minimal. Its fairly level there and it would be 12 wide gravel drive with two swales 2' wide on either side that would be vegetated with switch grass as a drainage swale to catch any run off from the drive. This is a 23 acre parcel with one house going down the water. They are Board of Trustees January 26, 2000 going to live there themselves and this is their only way of access. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have you spoken to the Hurtado's about this? CHUCK: I haven't spoken them in about a week. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a very complicated scenario there with the Peconic Land Trust. CHUCK: I had worked on that project with the Trustees so I'm very familiar with it. One of the questions which I have talked with the Hurtado's about was access through that area. Right now they don't have the ability to access from the Trust property. They have access on the road further up but not where it comes in where the old Plock property is. They don't have any right to come in that way. I've spoken to John Halsey about it and he knows they don't have a right and more complicated is the individual owners that are on the Plock piece now, the individual home owners who all have an undivided interest in that road way. Again Mr. Hurtado does not have a legal right to use that property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think I'm confused because we had a Conversation very positive with Mr. Hurtado and his son on the site. We walked from the ponds up and back. From the Plock property we met. CHUCK: But the point I'm trying to make is that we all would agree is that if they could have legal access from the Plock property that would make the most sense with that house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm on the Board of Directors for Peconic Land Trust and I approached the Board about this because of the nature of the application. The applicant seemed to think that if he could get access from the Land Trust to use part of that driveway. Not as far up as the neighbors go. CHUCK: I haven't gotten an answer and certainly we have to explore this more. The Trust did not have the ability to grant access to him without-all the other people agreeing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't speak to John about this after we had spoken to Mr. Hurtado. I brought it up in front of the Board at this months meeting and they did not have a problem with this. It's interesting to know that the Land Trust uses the right of way that seems to be over Mr. Hurtado's property. CHUCK: All those lot owners do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean from Bayview. CHUCK: That's what I'm saying. All those owners do and that came about from the Plock property. So we just continued on in title. But Mr. Hurtado who owns the piece that the Trust and all those lot owners have the ability to cross over from Bayview to the property line that was the Plocks. His right does not go any further than that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We understand that. CHUCK: The point I'm trying to make is everybody has agreed, yes, it would be wonderful. I would go back to John to see if there is a legal ability for the Trust to grant that. Yes, it would be great if you have the legal ability to do it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The reason I gave it to the Trust that it would be a good idea was simply for environmental reasons. You wouldn't want to fragment the fresh water wetlands in that area Board of Trustees Janu~y 26, 2000 especially where there's a really nice well maintained road way into the property. CHUCK: I agree with you, 100%. One thing I want to make clear to the Hurtado's is 1) the Trust has a legal right and 2) that Mr. Hurtado isn't forced into paying a lot of money to have that right of access there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was under the impression that we didn't. That this would come off the Land Trust property before it reached that 4 lot subdivision. CHUCK: But you don't know what the status of that road ~is. Is it a right of way or a fee title or those lot owners and the Trust all own it jointly. If they all own it jointly everybody has to sign off on it. If the Trust owns it and the others just have the right of way they could give the right to use it to 50 other people. That's what we have to establish. I will take it upon myself to establish this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will make a call tomorrow to see where that is going. CHUCK: John has sent me the original map of the Plock property that are over wetlands and I thought that would show status. It does not. I looked at all my records when the Plocks owned it and they were going to sell it for a sub-division and I couldn't find any reference to that. What we need really is the copy of the deeds to those individual lot owners which show how they own that right of way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were standing here right at the end of the guard rail is where we had the discussion about putting the driveway in going over to the southerly property line and heading up to their house. From what it looks like that wouldn't be on anyone else's property but the Land Trusts'. CHUCK: I hope your right. It seems as though these people may own these drives in here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that would be separate parcels here. CHUCK: You see these little breaks in here? There's a parcel here, a parcel in the middle and a parcel here. ActUally there's four. But you see this line here ..... I don't know whether their ownership of this that says "right of way" stops here or continues. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it does because I think delineates the actual width of the road as opposed to the actual 50 foot of the right of way. CHUCK: It could be, but in their deed it would say they own actually in feet tidal this .... whatever it is, of this right of way and an undivided interest or easement over this part. It's just an easement over this part the Truste could grant an easement to Mr. Hurtado. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm gonna make a motion to table this and try to resolve this. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a survey of the Plock property? CHUCK: Yes. 9. Land use on behalf of ~!~NS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' X 40' fixed timber dock, elev. 4' above Board of Trustees 10 Jan6~ry 26, 2000 marsh, a 3' X 20' ramp and a 6' X 20/' float. The whole dock will.have 12 - 8" piles overall. Located: 70 Jacksons Landing, Mattituck. SCTM ~113-4-3 & 4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? CHUCK: This application is for a small dock with a small float. TRUSTEE KING: I was supposed to get called when the stakes were put in place and no one called me and with all the ice there's nothing left. CHUCK: I know we had called but I will have it re-staked. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES 10. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of a Wetland Permit to construct a deck~ ~oi~"~atio~ wall, pool equipment shed, backwash, leaching pool and regrade area of pool. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM ~5-1-8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to postpone this application because we did not get to go over to Fishers Island this month. 1. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf :~requested a Wetland Permit to single family dwelling with pool, cabana and garage. Located: 5028 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. SCTM #115-10-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? ROB HERRMANN: I believe it was two months ago that the Board reviewed this application with a prior survey and site plan and just to refresh the Boards memory there were some problems and questions with the survey. The wetlands had not been flagged or located in the field. I believe there were some staking problems and there was some discussions about he survey. What has been accomplished is another surveyor has been retained and prepaid a new survey and site plan and located the wetland flags which I had placed. The site plan that you see in front of you is essentially the one that you discussed but of course all of the proper changes have been made now. The house is shown with the proposed pool and deck, drywells, serving booth and the house and wetlands setback shown. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at it and found it staked properly and setback properly. I'd like to see put on it a staked row of haYbales that would be left in place even after construction. It's such a steep bank there. What does the Board think about a buffer there? Our standard is a 50' buffer. ROB: I think we discussed that a couple of months ago. Joe Ingegno didn't show it on here. What I imagine what would be the case on the southern portion of the property and the crest of the embankment to act as a buffer and then toward the north where the bank is narrower as far as the horizontal distance to impose the 50'. So basically you have 50' or the crest of the embankment whichever is appropriate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could we have that drawn on there. Board of Trustees 11 JaniZary 26, 2000 ROB: Yes. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application provided there be a staked row of haybales with a 50' setback except on the southerly end where is should follow the top of the bank and the area of no disturbance between that and the haybales ito be maintained. TRUSTEES POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES 11. En-Consultants Inc on behalf Frank Flynn's) requested a Wetland Permit t© c0~{~rUd't a fixed timber dock consisting of a 4' X 12' ramp to a 4' X 42' fixed catwalk, elev. 4' above marsh, a 3' X 20 hinged ramp and a 6' X 30' float with a 4' X 4' extension for ramp to be secured by 2- 2 pile dolphins. Located: 835 Tarpon Road, Southold. SCTM #53-5-8 & 57-1-39.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the.application? ROB: Hopefully the Board did get out to see the property in December and the property and the entire length of the dock was staked. It's a fairly straight forward application. It's a recreational boating dock. The Board of course will notice the longer float, a 6' X 30' This is not over Town water it is over a private boat basin. You have a copy of the deed and is shown on the survey. The Board did have a few questions when the hearing was first opened. There was some question as to the positioning of the dock relative to Tarpon Road. It is a privately owned road by the Southold Shore Assoc. It is not a boat launching area to the best of my knowledge. If it were the tidal wetlands along there would be crushed. They are in good condition. Even if they were used there is plenty of room. I hope the Board saw that from the staking. I believe the stake went from the landward most end all the up to the seaward end of the float. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only comment I'd like to make is the 6' X 20' float is not only to minimize the impact on Town owned wetlands it is to minimize on all the wetlands that would affect the people in the Town. We stick from a single family residence to a standard size of a 6' X 20' float. ROBERT WIECZOREK: This bottom is a clay bottom. It is the old brick factory that was closed in the early 20th century. As a result there is no vegetation underneath at all. I'm looking to accommodate boating and the convenience for the family. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As far as the previous owners, they allowed a lot of the Baymen to harvest shellfish in that area, in the private bottom. I was wondering how you were gonna respond to the Baymen. MR. WIECZOREK: I have no problem with that at all. I haven't approached in either way. I only owned the house 3 or 4 weeks now. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's only open Nov. 15 until April 1st. That's the only time shellfishing is open for them Board of Trustees 12 January 26, 2000 MR. WIECZOREK: I lived in Goose Creek and there are Baymen there all the time and it never bothered me either way. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: My other point was the 4' elevation, if you could lower that to 3' ROB: This is what came up earlier. We could lower the elevation between the grade and the bottom of the stringers to 3' and I think that would work. That would meet the 3 1/2' to the actual decking which is the special condition of the DEC permits. I'm not sure what you alluded to before, Al. I don't know of any locations in Southold Town where the DEC is providing some special exceptions for lower catwalks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Someone told me that, not a special exception but actually ..... ROB: No, your being misled there. With all due respect of who told you that. If the DEC were going along with any of these local policies it would make my life so much easier and I would be sure to notice it. We could lower the 4' to 3' here and still accommodate the DEC condition because we have a 6" stringer. So it should work. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm in favor of the 6' X 20' float. Because it's standard policy. ROB: It has been the Boards standard policy over Town waters. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not only the exclusion of other people from public bottom. It's still also the environmental factors of having a larger structure out there and all of that implies. ROB: What is the anticipated environmental impact of a 6' X 30' over 6' X 20' in this particular location? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If the Baymen are harvesting shellfish there, than it must be a healthy bottom. Because they're not gonna go and spend their time if there is nothing to harvest. We don't want to impact that. We want to impact that as little as possible. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I understand you might have a larger boat and a Trustee is not here tonight, and I believe he has a 55 footer who has a 20' float. He takes advantage of a pole. Whether on pole or a pole on each end of his float maybe 10' off his dock where he can accommodate a large boat. MR. WIECZOREK: Well it's just getting on and off the boat. When your tying up lines and the dock's not there it makes it very difficult. My wife and I have been sailing for the last 20 years and when we're sailing it usually takes two of us. It makes it much more convenient. It's not to disturb the bottom with anything too large but it's really for convenience. ROB: Do you foresee any that there would be some significant impact around this float whether it were another 10' long or not? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I haven't approved anything over a 6' X 20' ROB: There was actually in an Amendment there was an 8' X 20' approved to Susan Oiestad a year or two ago. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No as an 8' X 20' And we had a discussion about that and we reviewed the minutes and nobody could understand why we would have approved the 8' X 20' We approved the one year extension for a 6' × 20'. That was some sort of error that passed us. There was some confusion about where that came from. Board of Trustees 13 JaniZary 26, 2000 ROB: If you can be sure that you didn't ...... that the Board did not grant a 6' X 30' over private bottom within the last few years than I would feel comfortable with the decision. I may have misunderstood the policy but I think that my re-statement of what I've heard is fairly accurate. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Again, you can usually accommodate with a pole. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a big problem with it being in private bottom with a 30' float. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the application until the whole Board if present. Two are on vacation. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 12; En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of JOSEPH~CORNACC~IA requests a Wetland Permit to relocate exiSting dock consisting of a 3' X 14' ramp and 3- 4' X 20' floats secured by 7- 8" in diameter pilings onto owners parcel from owners other parcel, and remove 2- 8" mooring piles and 1- 2 pile dolphin. Located: 635 Kimberly Lane, Southold. SCTM #70-13-20.4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB: I have and the Board may have some awful memories of the last application that involved sliding a ramp and float a few feet. Hopefully this application will be shorter lived. The applicant owns both parcels. One has a primary residence on it and the other consists of tennis court and pool. The dock facility, based on the removal of some of these mooring pilings and dolphins will be slightly reduced with the primary purpose of it is for this dock is to front the property of the primary residence. As opposed to the secondary property withoUt the primary dwelling on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the footpath? What does that mean? ROB: The foot path that is shown has been a mystery. It appears in the Suff. County Tax Map, but the Town of Southold has no record of ownership and doesn't know what it is. We checked with the Assessor's Office and they could not tell me what it was or who owned and told me to that it is not taxed. The only thing I can think of is that in some point in time there was some sort of pedestrian right of way through these two lots around the back of the bulkhead and over to what is labeled on the survey as a park and recreational area, which in my best judgement can be that small beach area fronting Southold Bay. From my brief visit to the property I would be pretty amazed that there is normal pedestrian traffic through this property, but it appears to be in place. Again who benefits from it or who owns it, the Town of Southold Assessors Office doesn't know and they tell me that nobody pays taxes on it. I can't answer your question other than what else I found out. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's Trustee land. ROB: I hoped so. It's a question that the DEC has asked me before they issued a notice of complete application. They had asked if there were riparian rights to that. Because the ramp would front that foot path. So as far as I can tell I would imagine No. Because the purpose of it appears to be based on Board of Trustees 14 JaniZary 26, 2000 it's location to gain access over this park and recreational area. So why there would be any riparian rights would be beyond my wildest imagination. The bulkhead fronts two privately owned parcels. This is aright of way over those privately owned parcels to a public area. Without getting Attorney's involved ...... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thanks for bring us into this one. ROB: There's no physical foot path there. But it does seem to exist. The Town of Southold doesn't know who to give it claim to. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I didn't see a problem with sliding the dock over. I questioned the number of floats but that was probably preciously permitted. ROB: Againl the dolphin pilings to the north are going to be removed. The tie off poles on the south will be removed as well. If anything~ there's a slight reduction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a permit for this dock? ROB: I don't know if there was. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we should show this to the Town Attorney just to be fair with everyone involved. Just to make sure it's not a 'snake in the grass' here. Also if you could provide us with any permits with this dock. Because this is a larger float than what we would have approved. So I'll make a motion to table this application until the Town Attorney looks at this and wait until Rob can dig anything up. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES 13. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf o~N~?i~Q~RDS'~requested a Wetland Permit to construct a 4 X 58 ~dck ei~§~5,, above marsh, a 3' X 14' ramp and a 6' X 20' float with 2- 8" pilings and 2' X 4' steps from existing stone wall to catwalk. Located: 2300 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-1-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone to speak either in favor or against the application? ROB: This dock dock is adjacent to Susan Oiestad property. The dock was designed virtually identical to one you approved for Oiestad with the exception of the 6' wide float. Both docks extend about 35' seaward of the inter-tidal marsh. This again, we're hoping this is one of these rare docks which will satisfy the normal standards above the Board of Trustees and the DEC. As you get out to the last 4 or 5 6' of this float you get water deep enough for the DEC to issue a permit. At the same time it is virtually identical to the Oiestad one. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm thinking about you not getting too excited about this one. Did you have water depths measured beyond the dock and show where that flat comes up? ROB: Yes. Right where the flat comes up? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. Right in front of the bog is a flat. ROB: I did it by foot, so where you see at the end of this is about where it was too deep and stand anymore and measure. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If you make a few more steps, you'll come right up and on a good low tide that will be bare. Board of Trustees 15 JaniZary 26, 2000 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was our concern when we looked at it. That there was a natural channel along the edge of the marsh and then the big flat beyond. ROB: I was there at low tide and there was no flat. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At a good tide. ROB: Moon tide? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Otherwise you'll have a foot or maybe 18". TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Probably today there was no water there. ROB: I'm not sure how to respond to that because I would have to see that. I was there at low tide and it was 4' at that spot. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm concerned for the neighbors up to the north that they're trying to navigate that channel and if there is a dock and float on that part they will have to navigate right around and hit that flat. ROB: Was that not a concern with the property next door? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, because that flat sort of ends at this point right where that dock is proposed is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we meet with you next month? ROB: Yes, because I don't know how else to treat it. Your describing a site condition at low tide that I didn't find at all. The numbers that are out there are legitimate. Maybe we should try to get out there at spring low tide. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We might have to wait until the ice melts. So coordinate with Ken and take a look at it. CAC recommend disapproval because the structure is excessive and would have a potential impact on the wetlands due to phragmentation limiting public access to the eco system including navigation. The one next door, they approved. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES 14. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of requests a Wetland Permit to remove approx. 95' of and replace with 93' of vinyl low sill bulkhead, 10 c.y. of upland material will be excavated from behind northern portion of bulkhead and used for backfill with qpprox. 10 c.y. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source, excavated area will be planted with spartina alternflora and patens 6' on center and remove and replace inkind/inplace 17' northern return with low sill vinyl return and construct a 14' southerly low sill vinyl return. Located: 1445 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM #123-3-19 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB: This is one to get excited about. This is about as good as the Board is gonna get. There is an old vertical bulkhead that is dilapidated and obviously deteriorating into the wetlands. That is going to be removed. More or less in it's place is going to be a low sill vinyl bulkhead. And this is a great site because unlike a lot of these newer projects that the Boards see there is a low sill bulkhead next door. I don't know when it went in but it's there and it's working. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To which side? ROB: To the south. It's in the first picture. (indicating in the file) You can see that there is inter-tidal marsh on either Board of Trustees 16 January 26, 2000 side of this bulkhead. The best time to see this is when I went back out to stake this, the corners for the DEC. The low tide was completely flat and totally iced and the only thinq you could see here was the portion of a low sill bulkhead ~bove the bay bottom. This project is basically gonna mimic this one. This has been the theory of each of these project and hopefully in fact for the ones that work. This is a situation where the Board is looking at a stabilization of a toe for privately owned property while at the same time, and in this case really enhancing the tidal wetland area and for change have a purical project right next door. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This was a complicated review out there. We would like to meet with you out there because we had some questions that it would be easier if we could explain on the site. What's the fate of the wood ramp? ROB: I believe that is gonna be removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Than why would the return be on the site? ROB: If your gonna trunk the whole structure the shoreline with low sill bulkhead you've got to keep return low sill as well. The DEC has asked for that too, because otherwise you will loose right behind it. So we have to replace the return. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why isn't the return on the property line? ROB: Because it basically is running along where the existing return is now. It's just less disturbance than going the whole way across to that ramp. I could check with the contractor and see why. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To get the wall exactly placed I think it would be better if we met with you out there. ROB: OK. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion we table this application until it is re-inspected. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 15. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of ~ES~D~LI, AN~:M~/~¥IOS'~ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 77' retaining wall with 2- 12' angled returns and 150 c.y. of clean sand as backfill and planted with Cape American Beach Grass. Located: 640 Lloyd's Lane, Mattituck. SCTM ~99-1-60 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB: This is fairly straight fOrward in terms of similar ones the Board has seen before. The stabilization of bluff toe on Long Island Sound. It is a quite a bit different to the effect that in this sub-division and the Association there, the location of the retaining wall will not be on the Mihalios property. It will be on the property of the Honeysuckle Hills Property Owners Association, who owns basically the privately owned beach fronting the seaward toe of the bluff. So to make this application the first thing I did was contact Alex Doroski who is the President of the Honeysuckle Hills prop. Owners Assoc. because our office has been contacted by George Reese as well who is the owner of the property to the east. They are interested in doing a similar project. This Board should have been provided with a letter from Mr. Doroski. When I spoke with Board of Trustees 17 January 26, 2000 him he was going to bring this up with the entire Association at their meeting. The letter that was entered into the records says. "I Alex Doroski as President of Honeysuckle Hills Prop. Owners. Assoc. which owns property known as SCTM #99-3-4.21 located adjacent to and north owned by James Mihalios. The association Member have been made aware of Mr. Mihalios proposal to construct a retaining wall at the toe of the bluff located on the Associations property and fronting Mr. Mihalios upland property which include the bluff portion of the bluff face. The Association has no objection of this proposal provided Mr. Milhalios and his contractor assume full responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the retaining wa~ll after it is constructed and that the Association bear no liability for any damage caused destruction by storms or other natural forces. Signed on 11/6/99 by Allan Doroski". I can't speak for what was discussed at the Association or the Members but the substance of my discussion with Mr. Doroski is that historically been some sort of permission given by the Association to access this beach front which is very different than acting permission for a structure to be constructed on their beach front. That was why I had approached him and apparently there was some sentiment at least conveyed by him that certainly for each of these properties that may be subject to sound front erosion that was in the Association interest generally that the water front properties within the Association be protected. I know there is some discussion from some of the other land owners that front the water to make similar applications, but the one in front of you is Milhalios. That's basically the application in a nut shell. LUCY CUTTLER: We own the property to the west of this application. So I'm here to voice my concern about the impact of the bulkhead on our property. We spent the last three years of our life on this property cleaning out our beach and protecting it. It is an un-bulkheaded property at this point. any further bulkheading we feel will continue to erode the beach and our property and our neighbors property to the east. I feel that that the continuation of bulkheading which is the domino affect. It's a 'band aid' really on the problem and not a long term solution. ROB: Your how many properties to the west of this site? MRS. CUTTLER: We are directly to the west of the Peck property. What we're asking is that a study be done on the impact of an additional bulkhead on this stretch of the s~und. I walk that beach every day and I've seen nothing but continued erosion of the beach and at high tide it's impassable in many places where there is bulkhead. The loss of habitat, grass and habitat for endangered species are diminishing all the time. TRUSTEE KING: You would be just east of the Goldsmith property. MRS. CUTTLER: Yes, I am. So we're already ..... TRUSTEE KING: I think it's bulkheaded from Baileys going east. MRS. CUTTLER: yes it is. Our property and the Peck property are the only two properties along that stretch un-bulkheaded. At this point we still have the widest beach with the only Board of Trustees .... 18 Jan6~ry 26, 2000 standing natural grass. My husband and I have worked to maintain that grass. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm still unsure of this park property. This has been going on for about half a year. In Mattituck about an Association property. It becomes putting a structure on not your own property. ROB: That was the purpose of going to the Association and having brought in front of the Association during a meeting to get that approval. I don't know if Mrs. Cuttler is in the Association or if she was at that meeting. But I can only go by the letter that was provided to me by the President who represents the Association. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would think the Association would have to apply then. Because they are the ones who own the property. ROB: I believe so. But I don't think the Association would act as an applicant ...... it is an interesting scenario because it's not going on the beach property, it's going at the toe of the bluff. Obviously the standard situation that you see is when the upland property owner installs a retaining wall at the toe in order to stabilize the toe so that the rest of the bluff can be stabilized. This is a perfect example is Louis Corso. The Board has looked at it over a number of years and those properties, once the toe is stabilized. You can then stabilize the slope of the bluff and get a natural angle of repose. Then you can plant that and terrace it and cut the top. The problem is until the toe is stabilized you can't undertake any of those further restoration efforts. The point that Mrs. Cuttler brings up are valid ones and are typically associated with an ocean front bulkhead situation. I'm not aware of tern and plover site from the rocky beach of L.I. Sound that gets regular tidal inundation almost up to the toe of the bluff. That's not a natural habitat for the tern or plover. If a bulkhead is spilled out on a beach it actually displaces the beach property. You do get a loss of public access. That is a problem. In the cases where it is built at the toe of the bluff I can't think of any applications that we've seen through this Board in the last five years where you've seen that kind of problem occur. Again Corso is a great example of it. Where you get the bluff that is adjacent to Corso that continues to erode that continuously un-vegetated verses the job where they did on Corso, where the toe of the bluff is stabilized and then planted. They terraced it and planted it and you get a very well vegetated bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we have seen. By stabilizing the toe of the bluff .... and Rob is correct, you stabilize, and cut the bluff back so that it is stable and that it grows forever. The problem is the possible problems you create by having a hard structure in that area. But there's the technical and legal problem of structures on someone else's property. ROB: I don't know how to address that without having attorneys involved. We took the logical steps which was to approach the owner. Because it is an Association it is the Honeysuckle Hills Subdivision where you have these water front properties who share interest and common in preserving their upland including Board of Trustees 19 January 26, 2000 the Cuttlers. My impression when speaking with Mr. Doroski, was he felt before having spoken to the Association, that it seemed to make sense to him that there would be a common interest in the Association, meaning Association Members looking to preserve the upland properties. The question of course comes down to, is that preservation the upland property occurring at the expense of the beach and we do see that very often on the Atlantic Ocean on the south fork. I really have not witnessed it, and I don't mean to contradict any observations that Mrs. Cuttler has had, but I haven't seen it with any of the applications we've represented and that have been permitted by this Board in the past five years. I haven't seen that problem occur. You don't have a dune environment, you have a very rocky beach and you have an area where there's very severe tidal flooding of these beaches during high, high tide and during storms all the time. That's whether there's bulkheading at the toe of the bluff or not. So there's basically a policy decision that has to be made at some point in time of whether the upland properties are gonna be preserved or not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's-different though than who's property is the upland property. So I think you've got to address that first because we can't approve a structure for someone that's not on their own property. One thing when we did visit the site is that ..... and you can see the way it's graded, or the way the natural grade is, all that water is being pushed towards the northwest. The whole lot was de-vegetated when we were there. There's gonna be a serious erosion problem if that isn't remedied some how. The erosion problem is gonna affect the applicant because it's gonna make a gully down the bank and erode the bank and his property. ROB: Just explain to me ..... because I really didn't look at it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (He shows Rob on the map and explains) I'm gonna make a motion to table until the applicant can show us ownership or right to put a structure on the park property. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 16. Pat Moore on behalf of ~E~E~p~t~>MA~RI~ER.requested a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' X ~0' ~atwalk, a 3' X 12' ramp and a 6' X 20' float. Located: 400 Sailor's Needle Road, Mattituck. SCTM ~144-5-29.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of the application? PAT MOORE: I'm here ,to represent the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This is an exact replica of the one southeast of it. I didn't see a problem with it. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 17. John Kowalski on behalf of.DANi~.C~, M~QN~¥ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 55'6" X 10' deck and a 36'6" X 16'3" deck with roof over decks. Located: 575 Pine Place, East Marion. SCTM ~37-4-16 Board of Trustees ~ 20 Jan{~ry 26, 2000 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of the application? DAN MOONEY: We own the property and this is just decks with a roof over it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I didn't have a problem with it but I do have a couple of recommendations. I couldn't tell if there was a buffer on the bulkhead landward to the house of non-turf. DAN: There is natural grass, it's cut or trimmed and I don't fertilize it. Part of it is a driveway which is paved really with stone on top of pavement and then there's just grass. But it's not fertilized because it is too close to the water. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the application with condition that the roof have gutters that run into drywells. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 18. Catherine Mesiano on behalf requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4' X ~lev. 3 1/2' above marsh, a 3' X 14' ramp and an 8' X 16' float with 6" low profile piles° Located: 1657 Meadow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM #116-4~15 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of the application? CATHY MESIANO: I'm here to represent the applicant. Basically we're here to construct this which would enable them to access the waterway. They own a kayak. They presently launch kayak by walking through the grass want to eliminate the erosion of the wetland area and launch this properly. I'm sure you have a question as to the configuration of the float because it is not placed perpendicular to the ramp as they normally are and placed long ways as it takes two people to launch the kayak and enables them to walk down the ramp and launch the kayak safely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The big thing we had and I don't think it's gonna glet passed the DEC. There's no water there. There's only about 6" of water and it shows right where the floats going. We were there two weeks ago. CATHY: I did have the property surveyed and the elevation showed there was two feet under the ramp and three feet at mean low wa~er. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if we would have with adding another 14' instead of the ramp, on the catwalk, with some stairs. CATHY: So to extend the catwalk so they could put the float out further? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, there's no water for the float. And the DEC wouldn't pass that. Just make the catwalk another 14' out instead of the ramp and since there is no water no matter much further you go out, it's gonna be the same and then a set of stairs attached to the catwalk. No ramp and float. CATHY: I don't have the authority to accept that and I would like to speak with the applicants. Could I table this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. And they can also they can give me a call and be happy to talk with them. Board of Trustees ...... 21 Jan~u~ry 26, 2000 CATHY: I'll have the contractor talk to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 19. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of ~E~I~!i~QI~N~requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' X 100' walkway, a 3' X 12' ramp and a 6' X 20' float with 6" pilings and inkind/inplace replaCement of wall and steps. Located: 1800 Broadwaters Road, CutchOgue. SCTM #104-9-10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the apPlication? CATHY: I understand that when you inspected the site the stake was not visible. I can't respond to that. I did have it staked that morning. I don't know why it was not there when you were there. I can draw your attention to the planned view of the plan that does illustrate that the proposed structure does not extend beyond the existing dock from the neighboring properties~ That's illustrated on page one Sf two 6f the plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would like to see it staked and get Kenny to walk out there. There's a natural channel along the edge and then a flat out in the middle. So we want to make sure to keep it out of that channel~. The retaining wall we weren't happy with. We don't want to glorify that. CATHY: OK. They're willing to forgo that. It was in such poor shape. It was a matter of leaving it there until it deteriorated or replaCing it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And dumping of grass clippings. CATHY: Mr. Johns just acquired the property in October and that was there and he intends to clean all of that out. And it will be removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll make a motion to table this and have it staked. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 20. ~6H"N requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling with attached deck. Located: 10605 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM 954-5-37.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of the application? JOHN DE REEDER: I'm here in Mr. Prizeman's place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We inspected it and we would like to see a buffer between the house and the marsh area of about 35'. we'd like to see a staked row of haybales 20' off where the deck would be. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING moved to go back to the regular meeting, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees J 22 JanUary 26, 2000 1. a stake on public property for an 8' ~reek. ACCESS: Public TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to deny the application as there is too many stakes and moorings in this creek already and that no stakes are allowed on road endings anymore, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 2. uests a stake off private property (Coady's) )addle boat in Goose Creek. ACCESS: Private TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to deny the application for the same reason as above application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 3. a stake in Richmond Creek for a 15' sai ACCESS: Public. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Meeting Adjourned at: 10:05 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: DIANE J. HERBERT, CLERK RECEIVED AND FILED BY Tom Clerk, Town o~ Soathol~