Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/21/2000Albert 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 1197~_-0959 Telephone (6311 765-1892 Fax (631~ 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, June 21, 2000 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Henry Smith, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Lauren Standish, Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Monday, July 10, 2000 at 12:00 PM TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of May 24, 2000. Minutes will be voted on at the July meeting. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for May 2000. A check for $3,426.62 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. III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: J.M.O. Consulting Services on behalf of BERNARD KIERNAN requests an Amendment to Permit #5171 to reconstruct+/-157' of bulkhead within 18" instead of inkind/inplace. Located: 1605 North Parish Dr., Southold. SCTM#71-1-15 TRUSTF. F. POLlWODA moved to Approve the application as a one-time expansion, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES J.M.O. Consulting Services on behalf of GERARD BELLESHEIM requests an Amendment to Permit #4904 for the construction ofa 6'X 6' platform and 3'X 15' stairs for beach access. Located: 122 Soundview Rd., Orient. SCTM#15-3-9 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES J. Kevin McLaughlin on behalf of THE ORIENT WHARF requests a Waiver to allow the existing shed, which houses necessary water filtration equipment to remain on the wharf. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#24-2-28.1 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Table the application. Applicant must amend the previous permit. TRUSTF. F. KING seconded. ALL AYES Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behatf of CHARLES & BARBARA RODIN requests an Amendment to Permit #5000 to modify the boat ramp so that the outer edge of the float is 10' further from the shoreline. Located: 70 Strohson Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#103-10-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to deny the application to modify the boat ramp and to Approve the placement of stops so that the float is not sitting on the bottom of the creek. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of ALEX KOUTSOUBIS requests an Amendment to Permit #5105 to include the installation of a fence at the crest of the bluff and the re- grading of the area landward of the crest of the bluff. Located: 1610 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM#30-2-64 TRUSTF. F, FOSTER moved to Approve the application with the condition that they clean-up the remnants on the bluff and no new work will be performed until the Permit is secure. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Peter DeNicola on behalf of JOHN A. GREFE & MARY ANN MASRIANI requests an Amendment to Permit ~4983 for the addition ora wood deck 14'X 18' to the rear of the residence. Located: 1505 Yennecott Dr., Southold. SCTM#55-4-25.3 TRUSTEE POL1WODA moved to Approve the application with the condition that the PVC pipe be put into a drywell. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Charles VanVoorhis on behalf of LOUiS BURNMAN PACKARD requests a Waiver for the addition ora 18'X 18' sunroom and a 18' wraparound deck. Located: Madeline Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#6-7-12 POSTPONED UNTIL JULY- TRUSTEE FOSTER WILL MAKE AN INSPECTION. ALI AGARABI requests an Amendment to Permit #5083 for the relocation of an electric box 100' north of original location. Located: 2255 Wickham Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#114-3-1 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTF~F. POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES MII,DRED POLESNY & JERRY MATEJKA requests an Amendment to Permit #868 to add a 4'X 12' ramp and a 6'X 20' floating dock to the exiting dock. Located: 1300 Strohson Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#103-10-27 TRUSTEE KR~SKI moved to Table the application until the applicant hears from the DEC. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 10. LEONARD J. FROSINA requests an Amendment to Permit #1430 W add one 6'X 40' float and to Transfer Permit #1430 from Richard A. Schlumpfto Leonard J. Frosina. Located: 675 Point Pleasant Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#113-9-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application. New plans must be submitted showing the dock in line with the neighbors (1/3) with one float. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 11. PATRICIA GAZOULEAS requests an Amendment to Permit #3890 for a 4'X 14' extension to the existing dock. Located: 9613 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#123- 10-1 TRUSTFF POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 12. PETER SWAHN requests a Waiver for an existing deck. Located: 925 Bennetts Pond Lane, Matttituck. SCTM#113-13-10 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 13. RICHARD F. BONATI & ARNOLD RASSO request a Transfer of Permit ~4961 from Martin & Denise Krall to Richard F. Bonati & Arnold Rasso to construct a single family dwelling with septic system, driveway, and deck. Located: 485 Orchard Lane, Southold. SCTM~89-2-7 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application with the condition that the terms of the Permit be followed, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 14. Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JAMES ECKERT request an Amendment to Permit g4965 for a revised building footprint. The proposed house will be smaller and moved back further from the water. Located: 1635 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#116-7-8 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLlWODA seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH moved to go off the Regular Meeting and onto the Public Hearings, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES IV, PUBLIC HEARINGS: TI-US IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PER2VHTS 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 MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of RICBAR1) ANDERSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling and attached garage; deck; pervious driveway and sanitary system, and to install drywell; connect to public utilities; and connect to drinking water well located in right-of-way to Wunneweta Rd. Located: R/O/W off Wunneweta Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-14-28 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMbaNN: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. We opened this hearing last month but the proposed structures had not been staked at that time. I understand that Start Isaakson, the surveyor, has since staked them. Also, I had mentioned that we wanted to get you a revised site plan that was going to show a slight redesign and a separate way out. That part of the project would be out of your jurisdiction but just for the purpose of having a consistent record, I do want to submit that for your approval but do not have it yet this evening. I could certainly have it pretty shortly. Again, it won't affect any of the parts of the project that are within your jurisdiction but certainly I would want you to have that plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was at the site today. My Concern was that there is a proposed 40' buffer along the fi-ont. The CAC recommends a 50' buffer along the front. I'm calling it the front of the property. It's the south side of the property. My concern is, and I was thinking about this after we had inspected this last month as a Board, was run-off to the north side of the property into the existing driveway. ROB I-IERRMANN: The only re-grading that we're proposing is in the area that shows the proposed 8' contour. That is of course to meet the base flood elevation requirement of FEMA_ The garage will be at an elevation of 8' and the elevation of the roadway there is 6' so you're basically talking about just grading down from 8' to 6'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I know and I agree with the survey but there is a drop-off here fi-om the property to the road. My concern is that once that area between the driveway and the house is cleared, they'll get all of that run-offinto the driveway and it'll flow right into the creek. ROB HERRMANN: You're talking about the area that would be between the house and the road itself. TRUSTF~E KRUPSKI: Right. ROB HERRMANN: What I could discuss with Mr. Anderson would be the possibility of, and I mean I would assume that he would do this anyway, but I would assume he would leave a vegetated strip along the roadway up to the driveway just for privacy, if nothing else. So, I could ask him if he would be agreeable to leaving at least a 6' to 10' strip of vegetation on the south side of the road so that you don't have a complete stripage of the soil there. Obviously it will have to be cleared in the area of the driveway but I would imagine that he would be amenable to that only because it would sort of be in keeping with the character of that sort of rustic neighborhood there and also just for privacy for the house given that there's going to be exposure to that side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the view is the other side. The backside you're looking at those houses. ROB HERRMANN: And again, just with the buffer that was proposed, we basically, we proposed what we thought was a reasonable size buffer given the site. If we increased the buffer further, first of all, you wouldn't be able to keep it, on the east side, because of the proposed parking area. At that point you would be restricting that property of virtually no cleared lawn area for the applicant, so maybe we could increase the buffer as you just mentioned by adding a strip to the north side of the property and basically having a buffer on either side as opposed to just expanding the buffer on the south side because 40' behind the wetland boundary there is sufficient. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the same Anderson that owns the house next door? ROB HERRMANN: It is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What are their intentions as far as a dock goes? ROB HERRMANN: For this property? I have no idea. It hasn't been discussed with me at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do they want a path to the water or anything like that? I was just down there today and I'm thinking of all these things that they would want to do. ROB HERRMANN: Well certainly if they did at some point, we would have to make that as part of an application for a dock. The dock notwithstanding, yeah we could certainly proposed a 4' access way just through the vegetation down there as would be the normal anyway which is a good point because since that would require clearing of the path, we would want to include that in the permit. So, I could mention that to his as well and also to include that in the revised plan. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: We wouldn't want to see any disturbance on the north side of that dirt road also. ROB HERRMANN: Right. We can show that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're going to have to give us a new plan. You're giving us a new plan with the septic anyway right? So, if you could show us the 4' path. ROB HERRMANN: We could show a 4' path on the sOuth side. We could show the area to the north of the traveled-way as a non-disturbance area and then also to include that strip just south of the road and to include that all as a buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? Is there any other comment from anyone out here? ROB HERRMANN: Just from your knowledge of that site Al, would you (changed tape) feel that One side vs. the other would better (can't understand)? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know. ROB HERRMANN: We could clear a 4' path both ways I guess. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe Ken would know. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What does it show on the chart? TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: I don't know, I'm not familiar with the bottom. It's very narrow there. ROB HERRMANN: I would think it would probably be the south side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you would have to see what the water depths are. You might get deep water there. ROB I-B~~: I'll just show an access path on either side just to provide pedestrian access to the water on either side of the property. :rRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: In the channe, l they might be leal ~h~__~py with a short dock in deep water. That might work better. I don t know though. ~ didn t really look at that. ROB HERRMANN: Well I'm quite sure that it's not being proposed as part of the development of the parcels. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do they have a dock at the other house? ROB HERRMANN: I don't know. I don't recall seeing one but that doesn't mean it wasn't there on the south side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know either. Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to Approve? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of EDNA RICHARDS requests a Wetland Permil to construct a fixed timber dock, consisting ora 4'X 58' fixed catwalk elev. 3.5' above marsh, a 3'X 14' ramp and a 6'X 20' float secured with (2) 8" diameter pilings, and steps 2'X 4' landward of existing stone wall. Located: 2300 Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM# 111-1-1 POSTPONED UNTIl, JULY AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Gary Olsen, Esq. on behalf ofNEIL SCHLUSSEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single,family dwelling as per revised plans.dated June 6, 2000. Located: Stillwater Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM#36-2-7&8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to represent the application? GARY OLSEN: I'm an Attorney-at-Law having my office at Main Rd. in Cutchogue and I represent the applicant Nell Schlussel. The revised survey was prepared by Young and Young, amended June 6, 2000, has been submitted to your office. The revised survey does the following: 1) Labels the building area for a one-family house with four bedrooms showing a 5'X 6' front area with a notation on the survey that there are no decks or patios proposed at this time. 2) The proposed house has been angled with the north 40 degrees 58 min. 40 seconds west roadiine allowing for a 64' natural buffer. I have prepared an overlay of the new house location on the 1999 survey and I believe on the 1999 survey the surveyor did actually stake that house out but has not staked out the new location with the shifting of the house. With the overlay we can pretty much see where the comers are in relation to where they were staked out before. I'll pass that up to you. This is the old survey that is underneath and would I did was I traced the new foundation survey, the new foundation location from the June 6 survey and just superimposed it on top. This gives you a pretty good idea of where it's located in relation to where it was staked previously. I understand that the shifting of the house was at the Board's request. The cesspool had been reversed from the old survey. The new survey shows that the wetlands were flagged by Jeffrey Seaman of Coastal Environmental Corp. on April 4, 2000. 5) It further shows the proposed limit of clearing along with the proposed foundation. 6) It shows the names of the adjacent land owners with the County Tax Map numbers and the utility pole number and apparent high water mark. 7) The elevations are shown and 8) there is a notation on the new survey that no additional fill will be brought to the site, the building will not be on pilings and that the driveway surface will be a stone driveway. These changes in the tilting of the house were done at the request of the Board at it's last meeting. The wetlands area is comprised of phragmites. 9) As respectfully submitted, this house is being built in a wooded area and that the construction site will be protected with hay bales and a silt fence so that there will be no adverse affects on any wetlands or the creek. I respectfully request that the Board grant this approval. TRUSTF,~ KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? CARL VAIl,: At the last meeting, I believe the Board said that the standard buffer new construction is 50' from the wetlands and this new map only shows a slight shifting of the house It's still within 20' of the wetlands. The buffer area shown here is 60' natural buffer is actua .}ly the wetlands itself instead ora 50' buffer between the wetlands line and the house. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? NEIGHBOR: I live a few houses down from the proposed development. I was just concerned about the Board is satisfied with the cesspool arrangement because I go swimming off the dock which is two lots down. Also, the map shows the property here which is actually o~vned by me. TRUSTEE KRL~SKI: Were you noticed? NEIGHBOR: But, I'm not adjacent property owner but on this map that they submitted, they show the wrong ownership. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That doesn't matter. If both the adjacent neighbors were noticed, then that satisfied the Code. NEIGHBOR: I was just concerned that it shows the wrong property owner. TRUSTEF~ KRLrPSKI: As far as the septic system goes, that would be located, hopefully out of our jurisdiction which would put it anyway in the jurisdiction of Suffolk Co. Health Dept. Our jurisdiction is always 75'. What is their setback for a septic system? TRUSTEE FOSTER: 100' onthis. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? This doesn't show the house much further away. What we were really looking for was the house further away from the wetlands. Shift it further away, maybe more to the south and bring it closer to the road. We're trying to get a 50' buffer between the wetlands. The wetland line we consider to be what's marked on here. It says right here on the survey, the wetland line is flagged by Jeffrey Seaman, REM, Coastal Environmental Corp. It's the heavy dotted line. So what we really need is as much separation between the house and that as much as possible. GARY OLSEN: I wasn't unfortunately at the last meeting so I was under the impression that the shifting that was requested on the survey was what the Board had requested. The northeast corner is 87.5' from the top of the bank on the new survey and on the old survey was 77.7'. TRUSTF~F~ KRUPSKI: Can you come up here, Gary? Here is the wetland line. See how close it is? We'd rather see the house ekher pushed into this comer or further over here to get as much separation from this line as possible. I don't know what the front yard setbacks are. GARY OLSEN: I think you have to be 50' from the road or the average setback. The LoGrande house down here apparently is about 43'~ TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They going to have to...we just approve one with a 40' setback. GARY OLSEN: Does it matter to you that this is phragmites. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. In fact it's marked on the survey as the wetland line so that's what we go by. GARY OLSEN: So what do you want the survey to do? Shift the house more to the south? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Either over here or over here. GARY OLSEN: We can't go too much closer to the road because of our front yard requirements for the Zoning Board. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Actually you're already out of the building envelope now. TRUSTEE KRESS: Couldn't they get a variance for about 30' from the road or something? GARY OLSEN: I don't know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How does the rest of the Board feel? TRUSTF. E SMITH: It's all wooded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's all wooded an upland. But, like on the last one, we got a 40' setback from the wetlands. GARY OLSEN: We have to work with the space that we have available. It's tight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we would like to see something, see it moved back. GARY OLSEN: I don't think moving it over more toward the southeast is going to do too much. TRUSTF~F~ KRUPSKI: Even if you could move it here and get 20'. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're not going to do it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You don't think so? TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're out of the building envelope now. You're 40'. If you go to the ZBA you'll get a little bit. What are you going to gain, 2', 3'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'll gain more than that. Don't you think? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Maybe. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it should be moved as close as possible. TRUSTEE POLlWODA: As close as a variance will allow. GARY OLSEN: I believe the location now meets the Zoning requirements in that it's the average setback. TRUSTEE FOSTER: 50' orthe average of what's on the street. GARY OLSEN: I think the neighbors would prefer something set further back rather than have this thing stuck way out by the road. I would think from the standPoint of the people across the street, it would be better where it is than moved over but I'll do whatever you want. There isn't too much room to work with. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think Henry? TRUSTEE SMITH: Well there's not much you can do with it. It's all phragmites. I realize that it's a wetland but... GARY OLSEN: Well you can cut phragmites down but you Can't take them out, fight? TRUSTEE SMITH: Well you can get trim. GARY OLSEN: There will be a fence and hay bales. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there going to be a basement?. That's part of the problem with being so close is that it's tough to construct a house like this without...because you have to dig a hole and you've got to put the dirt someplace. You try to stay within...you almost need a helicopter to do it. But you can get to the point where it's ridiculous and you have 50 different sets of plans drawn and you never accomplish anything, move this way a little bit and that way a little bit and then you wind up being... GARY OLSEN: That's why I did the overlay because I know he didn't re-stake the comers but you can see what happened with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you moved it to the south you would get a little more ora setback. You would get a consistent setback. If you move it 30'. GARY OLEN: This corner and that comer are going to be the same distance from the wetland line TRUSTEEKRUPSKI: No, because fight know it's here and it's very close, the wetland line here. If you move it over here, you would get a much separation here and I think that's something that the Board could like with as opposed to this. See what I'm saying. GARY OLSEN: It's going to be right smack in front of their house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But this is like 16' from the...that's right on the wetlands. That's our concern That's gives us the maximum distance. If you could have it staked for next month's meeting, we could go out there and take a look at it. What we would do then is have like a no-turf area in the hackyard. You could have turf in the front but no tuffto minimize the impact on the wetlands. So if you could show a no-disturbance along the back of the house, just have the surveyor draw a line on the back of the house there. GARY OLSEN: Alright. I'll come back with another proposal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The inspection is set for Monday, July 19th so if you could have -it staked by then, is that possible? GARY OLSEN: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? CARL VAIl,' If the house is supposed to be constructed 50' back from the wetlands and 50' back from the road, perhaps this lot is unsuitable for building on. I don't believe that the Trustees are under any obligation to approve this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We aren't under any obligation but we would like to see the house in a different location. The one that was currently submitted shows it very close to the staked wetland line on the survey. In a different location it would show it significantly further setback from the wetlands. The 50' is a general guideline. It's not set in the Code. CARL VAIl,: I don't believe that every person who owns a piece of property in the Town of Southold is entitled to a building permit. I just want to say that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? Do I have a motion to Table the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTF, F, FOSTER: Seconded: ALL AYES 10 S.E.L. Permits on behalf of TIMOTHY & NANCY BII,L requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'X 45' catwalk, a 3'X 12' ramp and a 6'X 20' float with 2 piles. Located: 360 Oak Ave., Southold. SCTM#77-2-2 POSTPONED UNTIL JULY AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of LAURENCE NIEBLING requests a Wetland Permit to install 100+/- cy. of 500-1000 lbs. stone along 1000 sr. -~/- of existing bluff scarp. The stone is proposed to be placed on filter fabric on a graded 1 on 2 slope, then back-filled to existing back elevations/conditions. Proposed installation not to exceed 3'+/- below existing beach grade. Applicant also proposed to remove existing timber stairs and to install a 6'X 10' CCA timber platform with 4'X 15' CCA timber stairs as beach access. Proposed platform and stairs will be installed to match up to an existing concrete walk and are proposed to be supported by 4"X 4" CCA timber posts with a depth of penetration of 6'+. Existing concrete walk 18"+/- wide 70'+/- in length is proposed to be reconstructed 4' wide in place. Located: 10020 Nassau Point Rd., Nassau Point. SCTM#119-1-18 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on the application? CHUCK BOWMAN: I represent Mr. Niebling. This shoreline stabilization project, the Board has seen the site, it is in Nassau Point. He has less erosion than most areas, however, in major storm events he still has some erosion of the bluff area. He has some really good vegetation on it. We were trying to avoid here putting in any kind of bulkheading and this minimal toe protection with planting above it and it's going to provide him with the security he needs for his bluff and keeping the vegetation in place without adversely affecting the beach area. The stairway, he does have an existing stairway that does need to be reconstructed and we have this configuration in keeping with what he wanted as a straight line down. If you went down the path, it's extremely narrow and it's very difficult for him to get anything down to beach when they have beach parties and that's why he would like it 4' wide. But, other than that, I think it's a pretty straight forward application. I would be more than happy to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment? CHUCK BOWMAN: One other point I would like to make which I forgot to mention was that there is very easy access here at the end of Nassau Point Rd., which is two houses down, the guardrail comes down, and so we are not going to be disturbing any of the bluff area with any construction. The CAC comments Disapproval. "There is no need for the stone and the walkway is too wide. The platform is unnecessary". CHUCK BOWMAN: There is erosion there at the toe of the bluff and this is really a good way to keep it from gett'mg so significant that you have to do a really big project to stabilize the bluff. He's actually been a pretty good steward of the bluff vegetation. We gave him some other advice on how to keep the vegetation in place. There are some bigger trees that are growing up now and shading out and restoring and he's going to be doing that. He's real conscious about it. But, certainly we would like to keep those trees from falling over and I think this is the kind of erosion control that the Board should be referred to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This property didn't have a previous permit for the retaining wall? 11 CHUCK BOWMAN: I don't believe so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's to the north here? What do they have? CHUCK BOWMAN: There's one property with nothing and then a bulkhead, I believe. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well more importantly what do you think? You looked at it. CHUCK BOWMAN: Mr. Niebling had contacted several people and they advised him not to put a bulkhead in. So I do agree somewhat with the CAC's recommendation. The erosion to him is really significant but along the other side of Nassau Point where you get the nor-easters, this is not much, but, during some of the Hurricane's that go past, he gets scour and real high tides. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And they have it tapered with the neighbors'. CHUCK BOWMAN: We tapered it in because the erosion actually stops. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The concern is that the nm-off coming down, if you make that 4' wide cement walkway, it's going to generate quite a bit of water coming down. CHUCK BOWMAN: It's probably a good point. I would see no problem with substituting a timber walkway so that the water could go through. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We saw that happen in Greenport and the fellow was just losing his bank and this is longer. CHUCK BOWiVLAN: If you want to approve it that way, I agree with you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What do you suggest? Get rid of the concrete walk? Take it out and replace it with a timber walkway? TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: Yes. Take a look at the picture. I don't think 4' wide is a problem. Artie you have the cross-section. You can see how most of it is buffed. CHUCK BOWMAN: It has a lot of vegetation. The problem is that 4' wide isn't a lot when you're carrying a whole bunch of stuff to the beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it's not that wide to go through the woods there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to dose the hearing? TRUSTF~ SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve he application with a condition that the existing walk be removed and that the replacement 4' wide walk be made out of timber with spaces between the timbers to allow for drainage. Do I have a second on that? TRUSTEE KING: Seconded: ALL AYES Suffolk Environmental Consuking, Inc. on behalf of MARK MC DONALD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a residence with pool and attached garage proposed 77' from the wetlands with proposed contouring within 73' of wetlands. Located: 1030 Clearview Blvd., Southold. SCTM#89-3-11.3 TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? The Board looked at this and it was staked. Does anyone want to see the survey? The proposed hay bales are at the 7' contour. It pretty much mirrors the original permit from 1996. Any other comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: I have no problem with it Al. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to dose the hearing? 12 TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTF~E KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTF. F~ SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With the condition that there be no disturbance seaward of the 7' contour hay bale line. TRUSTF. F~ KING: Seconded. ALL AYES J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of FISItERS ISLAND COUNTRY CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to install a 6'X +/-560' gravel golf cart path at the 18th Green. Located: East End Rd., 18th Green at Golf Course, Fishers Island. SCTM#1-1-3.13 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of LAWRENCE G. CREEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling, sanitary system, driveway, decking, gazebo, pool, pool fence, pool backwash, public water hook-up and to install and maintain continuous erosion control barrier throughout construction. Located: Crescent Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#6-1-4.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE POLiWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of RICHARD FRAKER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace existing piles and construct 134'-6" of new bulkhead (incl. 5' north return and 7' south return) with "C-Loc" vinyl sheathing of 14' and 16' lengths in front of existing bulkhead. Located: 1015 Knollwood Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#107-6-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm with Costello Marine Contracting. We're the agents for Mr. Fraker. If the Board has any questions, I'd certainly be happy to answer them. JOHN COSTELLO: Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE KING: Are you going to pull this out and put that sheathing as tight as you can go John? Is that the idea? JOHN COSTELLO: That's the intention. We're going to pull the poles out, excavate behind it so that we can be within 10" of the existing sheathing. We'd also at that time straighten it because the bulkhead is failing, the piling on the bottom of the sheathing is failing, the age of the bulkhead probably goes back to the early 60's and it needs attention. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. JOHN COSTELLO: The only thing I would like to request from this Board is it either be constructed immediately in front or should the DEC, and we requested from the DEC, that it be placed immediately in front of, 10" in front of, for the simple reason that the bulkhead is creosote. Most of the leaching that is in the soil has is retained behind that bulkhead. I do not want to encroach upon the wetlands anymore than possible but one of the analysts at the DEC would like to see it removed and hopefully they will listen to reason and allow for it to be placed immediately in front of it because it will do 13 10. considerably less damage because the tides on this bulkhead are approx. 3 ½' to 4' up on the bulkhead, TRUSTEE KING: I think there would less disturbance. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It makes sense. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we would just require a non-turf buffer. The CAC recommends Approval with a non-turf buffer. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTF, F, SMITH: So moved. JOHN COSTELLO: I'd like to make a comment on the non-turf buffer. Right now presently there is grass right up to the edge of the bulkhead. There has been. I think the buffer, well it depends on the footage of the buffer, I think that backfill, whatever is clean sand there so it does filter down, I don't know if Mr. Fraker uses chemicals on his lawn or not but certainly I think if clean fill, sand, is put right immediately in back of the bulkhead, the filtering of that will certainly be a benefit. It's important for the construction too. It puts less weight on the bulkhead, which is important. That bulkhead is falling over. The bulkhead needs to be replaced. TRUSTEE KING: I met with Mr. Fraker down there today. I advised him of the fact that We would like to see a 10' buffer there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was a motion to close the hearing? Is there a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. Al J, AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a 10' non-tuff buffer behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Pemait Services on behalf of WEST LAKE ASSOC. requests a Wetland Permit to dredge the entrance channel and adjoining portions of West Lake to 3' below MLW, place a total of approx. 600 cy. of dredge spoil on indicated sites, maintenance dredge to same conditions as necessary to max. of 3 additional times during the next 10 years. Located: 505 Cedar Point Dr. West, Southold. SCTM#90-1-11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? JIM FITZGERALD: I have a new survey which includes the changes that we discussed at the site. The changes are all in that area to the rest of the inside of the inlet and we indicated that we would take out the debris and the concrete boat ramp, the timber dock, plant spartina alternaflora, 3' below the high-water mark. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have one question before we take other comments. In that cross-section E, you have it extending to a dotted line and then it stops. Right here. What is the water depth in here? JIM FITZGERALD: What he's saying here is that this represents the 3 on 1 slope atthe edge of the dredging. This represents the dredging to the level that we talked about and this is the 3 on I slope and this from the high-water mark to there is indicated by the lower of these two lines as they propose and the higher one is the existing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now is there any other comment on this application? MARCELLE GREENFIELD: I'm the property owner that is right behind West Lake Dr. in this illustration and that is my dwelling and deck and there is a line and I'm on the canal. That's my bulkheading which continues beyond West Lake Dr. as a turn around. It was not meant essentially to be a primary bulkheading as the west was constructed, there 14 was just a mm around because we had this whole big area where I can't quite understand professionally, I'm not a professional, to be the first time I'm looking at this diagram and I think each one of us should be entitled to have a copy and to be able to present it to someone that can interpret it because it's a very vital part of my t~ont property. The West Lake Dr. is a right-of-way and that have been flooded numerous times in extreme storms. The water will come up and has come up at least 15' or 20' up-wise to my property from West Lake. That comes sometimes in November when we have these storms. It means nothing to me as it is unfortunate but I would like to be able to have it Tabled so that we have an impact statement, how all of this is going to be done, what kind of fill we're going to have, what kind of marsh, how it's defined, and the height of this whole change- over in this whole area. All of this is very essential to protecting our road, my property, and this tom-around bulkheading which was only put in there as a result of all of the other areas being taken care of as a (can't understand) to the tides. To me it's very important that this information be presented to us. I know for myself and I want to be able to present it to someone who can explain it to me and I also request that we have an impact statement because this is a very essential part dealing with the Lake and the canal and my property and our access road. I can't accept something like this for the first time. It's quite scary. And, if I'm sure if I know what it really means perhaps I wont' be as scared but ! think we are owed an explanation and also an impact statement, what it all means to our area. You can understand how I feel. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. So I don't lose your comments, I asked Lauren to make a number of copies if anyone is interested. Mrs. Greenfield, just to answer some of your questions on this, originally this was just a proposal to restore the depth of water in the channel and not only does it have the sort of incidental of maintaining the people's navigational problems, but it also has the benefit of improving the water quality in the Lake and keeping the water flow back and forth. Right behind your house, that proposal there is to restore the wetlands, I don't know if it's to its' natural condition but certainly more towards its' natural condition. That bulkhead was put in there illegally, I don't know when, and it was filled, there're engine blocks in there now, there is some sort of black substance on the top, it's not healthy there at all. MRS. GREENFIELD: That isn't my bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. It's the one adjacent to yours. When we were out there, two of the Trustees noted that it's a breeding ground for horseshoe crabs and we want to restore it to that to its' natural state. This project has some positive environmental benefits to it. It's not just for navigation and for people to get a boat in. It's got a lot more than that. We understand your concerns about the integrity of your bulkhead and that rightly so. MRS. GREENFIELD: Did you notice the turn there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The return, yes. I don't think, and I don't know if the rest of the Board noticed that, I don't think the. . . if you look at the cross-section E, they're just going to take off, shave offa little bit of that, you know, take that old bulkhead out. Just shave offa little bit of the beach and grade it down gradually, it's a very gradual slope there. MRS. GREENFIELD: I thought that we were going to have the fill from the Lake. 15 TRUSTEE KRESS: No, that was on the original permit but that would almost be filling in the inter-tidal area and there are horseshoe crabs breeding there, and fiddler crabs living there and we wouldn't allow that at all. MRS. GREENFIELD: What happened is, originally when we bought the property, I think over 30 years ago, there was a high mound of lovely pristine sand and marsh there much higher than as it is now. So, what your proposing is to make even less of where.., so that to me, you think, and I think, differently. I think it makes sense to get some kind of professional engineer, or some kind of an expert to explain to us. TRUSTFF. KRUPSKI: What kind of expert. MRS. GREENFIELD: Somebody who knows the marsh. TRUSTFF. KRUPSKI: Oh we know the marsh. JIM FITZGERALD: These are all elected experts sitting here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're looking at this a wetland restoration project. MRS. GREENFIELD: Then why would you shave it down instead of building it up? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because that would be just filling it in. That's an inter-tidal area that could be a very productive bottom there especially as far as the horseshoe crabs go. That's the kind of thing we want to encourage. That area was bulkheaded and filled illegally years ago. When you fill in the marsh, you rain all it's productivity. This is a wetland restoration project that will restore that productivity to West Lake. It will enhance the environment of all of West Lake. MRS. GREENFIELD: Then you will be making them place land into the Lake taking away some of the existing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Some of the illegally dumped fill, yes. There are engine blocks in there. MRS. GREENFIELD: I understand. I have no doubt about that but what alarmed me is that you're changing the configuration and how vulnerable am I. We don't have a proper bulkheading to withstand the change of tides and there's going to be an increased flush. Will it be flooding over? This is worrisome. When the bulkheading was put in, we did that fight after Gloria, that's when we did our bulkheading, there was no mm-around originally. We did it as an extra to protect ourselves from the overflow of the Lake and now it's going to be less of a barrier to tides that will come in extreme weather and I'm concerned, in just looking at it for the first fane visually, what it represents. It could be extremely injurious to our Lake, to our entire road. That's a fight-of-way road that is available to the whole community. It doesn't belong to me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is this an accurate survey? Does that show your bulkhead in that road? MRS. GREENFIELD: I really find it difficult to read, I must say. In not having seen it and not having anybody indicate to me what everything means, I would need time and somebody to help me with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our contention is this is Town owned property that was filled in illegally. MRS. GREENFIELD: What was filled in illegally? TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: The wetlands here. That bulkhead was put in illegally and it was filled in. MRS. GREENFIELD: I understand and I am very sympathetic to the environment. I want to maintain the integrity of the environment but if there are changes that are going 16 tO be made again, I want them to be positive changes and I still have to maintain the integrity of my property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Certainly. MRS. GREENFIELD: I didn't put in that bulkheading, I wasn't the cause of any of this, we have lost that barrier and now you're indicating that you're going to take away even more. TRUSTEE 1CRUPSKI: Well actually, the wetland fringe will be replanted and the wetland fringe is a much better buffer against a storm than a hard structure. MRS. GREENFIELD: I don't care about the hard structure. I'm saying that we didn't have that hard structure but there was a much higher elevation, the natural elevation that existed before this structure went in. What caused what, I don't know. I do know that the changes were negative. I was hoping that when you originally discussed, you were going to be reinstating the marsh that would be elevated to its' original height. It was mounded much higher towards the road with growth on it. JIM FITZGERALD: You would have to pile up the sand or dirt or whatever it was around the whole outside of the Lake to keep the water from coming in. You could pile up dirt as deep as you want in the area that we' re talking about dredging and it will not prevent the water from coming up to the road. The area to the west of the area that we're talking about, we're not going to touch. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you put a mound here the water is just going to go around it when the tide comes in. MRS. GREENFIELD: Well that's my land mass. When you put that mound... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not on West Lake Rd. though. If you restored what you think was natural, it's probably just dredge spoil from when they dredged the channel. They probably just threw it. MRS. GREENFIELD: But it had growth on k. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You know that marina we visited where the sand actually built up on the bulkhead? It's somewhat to the area like this where you have the bay access, the sand actually drops out and deposits, well I think that's what is going to happen here. That's probably what happened years ago. You had a big mound of white sand (talking). MRS. GREENFIELD: So you think by taking away even more that we're going to be protected. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It doesn't matter what you take away because I believe the sand blew and ended up on that western comer. MRS. GREENFIELD: If you can guarantee it and you promise you can indemnify me I might consider it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's not your property, so we can't indemnify. MRS. GREENFIELD: But I have my bulkheading there and that return. TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: But hopefully your bulkhead isn't on the Town property although it looks like it's on the West Lake property, so that wouldn't affect you if we did this on Town property. The project isn't proposed near your property. Take a look at that. I'll take other comments. Then, you'll see that the project, well except the dredging of the channel that is right against your property, but the back part is not proposed to be against your property. MRS. GREENF1F, I,D: May I take tlfis for reference and can I consult somebody about this? 17 TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Absolutely. MRS. GREENFIELD: I mean, not at the moment. I'd like to take it back and have time to consult with someone. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we're just going to go through the rest of the hearing. JIM FITZGERALD: At the last meeting we verbally decided on this approach at the last public heating, which you have before you and what Mrs. Greenfield has is a representation of that. We can't keep, it seems to me, we ought not to have to keep Tabling this because of the changes that we're trying to make to fulfill the Board's wishes or represent something new to Mrs. Greenfield. You gentlemen are the experts and that's why you're sitting up there and that's why we bring you these plans and ask you to Approve them or Disapprove them or Approve them with conditions. TRUSTEE POLlWODA: I agree and that's why the job should be bonded and if something does happen the bonded money will protect her property. JIM FITZGERALD: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, let's take other comments. Any other comments? DAI MOY: I'd like to submit a few comments. Number one, I want to be assured that I would be financially protected from any damage from this job. Number two, again I repeat I am against an automatic three renewals of this permit. I just believe that each fane this comes up, because the conditions here are so different than other places and we should be allowed to make comments on it. This is private property that we're dealing with. Not public property. This property, this job, was done in from of my house for me and personally constructed for. But, this job is done by other people near my property where I can be hurt. Every time k happens, I should be protected. I should be able to speak up against it. That's the reason why I want to repeat that. This permit should be for only this and 0nly this time. If they desire another permit in the future, they should come back for another permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? CATHERINE BARBATO: At the last meeting, Mr. McAllister stated that at the last public meeting that the main concerns should be the preservation of the environment and the impact that illegal structures have. At a private meeting that arranged by the Town Attorney on 10/25/90 we discussed the illegal work at the West Lake location mentioned on the new survey and the illegal on the bay which included six illegal jetties in the proximity of 500 ft. and an illegal bulkhead on the 50 ft. line. Although it was stated at the time that the West Lake and vicinity had the most violations in the Township, no action was taken for any remedy. We have documents that the Dept. of Coastal Zone sent a letter that was received by the Office of the Trustees on August 31, 1990 which was two months previous to the meeting, discussing the illegal and requesting that the matter be resolved to the satisfaction of all involved at the Town level. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Excuse me, ma'am. This Board doesn't do enforcement. That's the responsibility of the Bay Constables. If there is illegal work done, you have to report that to the Bay Constable and make out a police report and it goes through that system. This Board doesn't do enforcement. So, what I need tonight is comments on this application that is before us. CATHERINE BARBATO: May I continue with your respect? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not on something that doesn't concern this because there are a lot of people waiting not only for this application but there are a number of other 18 applications on the agenda. If it concerns enforcement, you have to take that up with the Bay Constable. CATHERINE BARBATO: How do I contact the Bay Constable TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Call the Police Dept. They work under the Police Dept. CATHERINE BARBATO: If you recall when we had this meeting, a few of you Trustees were on the Board then, and I have all the information that you'd want. Do I take it up with the Bay Constable or do I present it to you? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it's enforcement, you take it up with the Bay Constable. CATHERINE BARBATO: Okay, thank you very much. JOE BARBATO: My name is Joe Barbato. I just want to mention that the dock that's down there on the west side of the canal has to be eliminated. Well when I built that dock 30 some odd years ago, 35, 38 years ago, I asked at that time, do I need a Permit. They said no go ahead and do it. I do have a State permit. If this thing is going to be eliminated, who is going to eliminate it and who's expense and why should my personal property, that to me is my personal property because I had it at that time, and at that time it didn't require anything. Now it all comes up and it has to be eliminated. With that in mind, how many other docks or any other floats have permits in that area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Were you here at the entire meeting tonight, Mr. Barbato? MR. BARBATO: Yes, I was. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We dealt with two other people tonight that weren't permitted and they're being removed. MR. BARBATO: You're cutting some of them down and some of them your altering but again, there are other people who don't have any kind ora permit. What are you going to do about that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe the Bay Constable has set out to look at that area. MR. BARBATO: Now I'I1 be notified by who? You, the Bay Constable or by who. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Bay Constable, he does enforcement. MR. BARBATO: In other words, he's going to send me a letter or some other communication? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Bay Constable is investigating every structure on the Lake, currently. MR. BARBATO: When this comes about I would like to have it in writing for my records. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh no, the Bay Constable is enforcement. He'll make sure he finds you. MR. BARBATO: I have another question. What affect does my dock have on this particular project. It's out of the way. TRUSTEE K_RUPSKI: Well because whose property is this dock built on? MR. BARBATO: At the time, it was the owner. I was told that Mrs. Brown was the originator of the subdivision of the whole Cedar Beach area. She had built bulkheads all around the whole thing. The Town came up with the Anderson Law or somebody... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Was that the Andros Patent? 1VIK BARBATO: Yes. I think you people should speak up. TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: I don't think it's the responsibility of the applicant here for this dredging project to remove your dock. MR. BARBATO: Well it would mention so. It shows you here in the print. 19 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It does show. I've seen this for the first time tonight also. MR. BARBATO: I'm just trying to protect my personal property. TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: Sure. TRUSTEE SMITH: We asked him to remove that dock and to remove the concrete ramp. MR. BARBATO: The ramp was put there illegally. Again, ifI want to keep that dock there, do I need a permit? How do I get a permit for that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'd have to apply. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Are you the landowner of that land? MR. BARBATO: No, I'm not the landowner of that particular land, no. It belongs to the Town like you mentioned from the Andros there. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Well you'd have to come in and apply for a dock just like everybody else. MR. BARBATO: Well ifI do apply for it, does my dock stay? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it's Approved then it stays. MR. BARBATO: That's very interesting. [ can see right now that it's print that that has togo. TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: No, this is a plan that was given to us tonight. MR. BARBATO: There is no confirmation that that's going to be granted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's true. MK B~ATO: Thank you for your time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you're willing to apply for the dock, that's your right. MR. B~ATO: Can you tell me the procedure? TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Well you'll have to come in tomorrow to talk to Lauren and she'll set you up with the paperwork. MR. BARBATO: Thank you. DOUG DEFEIS: Just listening, addressing Mrs. Greenfield's problems about the water filling in the Lake and it rising 15' or 20', k seems to me that removing that mound and that debris or what-have-you, would provide more speeding drainage when you have a more common occurrence which would be heavy storms. Regarding Mr. Moi's comments regarding maintenance dredging of the next three times over the next 10 years, I think there's ample precedent in our community that Reydon Shores was able to achieve the same thing. It's a typical permit, you get the chance to review this Occurrence as a property owners, and I'm sure as many property owners here in front of you, to go through this three times once every three years would to me seem like gridlock. It just seems to me that this would be a waste of Trustee time, the proper bondings that would be in place then as would be in now, we're addressing all of these issues up front and again, it is Trustee property. Thank you. PHI1, GIADANO: I've lived on West Lake for about 30 years. Unfortunately I missed the last meeting and I appear redundant, I apologize. But, living here this long I noticed that two blocks or three blocks north of us up West Lake, there's a creek that's been filled in and it's nothing but a huge water hole. About three blocks south of us, the same thing has happened. We just have a big water hole there and it's a chance for mosquitoes to breed and whatnot and I think it's a shame that people think that they shouldn't have this Lake to build up and not have water any longer. That's it. Thank you. 20 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The comment on the creek he just mentioned, again, the west side of the entrance is the place where the sand settled. Just for observation, the area around there, the sand does seem to settle. MR. MOI: I've been there since 1960. Our channel has been maintained because we have bulkheads on both sides. The Lake east of us, they used to have an entrance going into the lake in the back there, however, only one side was bulkheaded. The other side was not bulkheaded. When that bulkhead went, they did nothing to repair it or to maintain it. There was nothing to prevent it from falling in. That's why that lake was filled in. Not because of dredging but because there was nothing holding up the sand. Unless they dredged it every year, that would keep filling in. There is no bulkhead on either side. The Trustees should go down and look at it. This is the same thing with the other lakes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Mol, I have to disagree with you. When you put in the bulkheads then you alter the flow of the water. Now you never saw a straight creek. There's one creek in Town that hasn't been dredged and it's Down's Creek. It comes in like a big snake like that and the natural flow of the water keeps it open. As soon as the County came in and dredged or the private individuals dredging all the creeks in Town straight out~ mother nature wants to go back to that original cart. If you bulkhead up, it can't keep it open and then people have to dredge all of the time. There are 22 creeks in Town and they all need dredging and it's all because people built something. MR. MOI: I agree but this channel that were talking about today is a man made opening. It's not a natural opening, natural water action. It was actually a freshwater lake that was made into saltwater so that would not apply. There is no natural flow of water in and otn of West Lake. CATHERINE BARBATO: Several times we have asked who is the owner of this particular place here. I have the topographical map that I obtained from the Suffolk Co. to see when it was established. I'm not an expert at it but if you would like to look at it you can determine who is the owner or who is not the owner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, I'd like to see that. Okay, this lacks detail and it doesn't tell what the elevations are, but thank you. CATHERINE BARBATO: Does it help you in any way? TRUSTEE KRESS: Unfortunately not. It doesn't show any elevations so we don't know what.those lines mean. Thank you. Alright, see on that comer, we shouldn't be going into that extension on Lake Dr. It's unclear as to who owns it. (Board discussing plan.) MRS. GREENFIELD: Now I'm trying to get a clarification. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This isn't Approved. This is just submitted. MRS. GREENFIELD: Okay because I don't quite understand the slant that goes here now and where they're going to put those ecological... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right along the edge here. We were actually considering something like this. We're not going to dig anything past the extension of the road so you'd only start the excavation here, the replanting here, so if you planted up here, then it would be excavated this way. MRS. GREENFIELD: Okay, where is the road that would be affected? It seems as if you're cutting very close to where my turn around it. The return. Where is there is something there~ I think we have some marsh there. 21 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MRS. GREENFIELD: Is that going to be removed? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. We're not going to started excavating until...Cross Section E shows.., we just got this tonight too so we're looking at it for the first time also. Bear that in mind. MRS. GREENFIELD: In theory, I'm interested in seeing a natural environment restored. TRUSTF~ FOSTER: Well that's what this project is all about. MRS. GREENFIELD: It's very scary to think that it might be shaved down even more than it is and ifI had the same quality length and depth of the bulkhead in that I do along the canal, I would feel secure but it was just a return that we did there thinking that we were buffered. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we're not going to excavate any where near that. We all thing that ...you know how the sand washes in and gets deposited here, they think that the sand is now going to get deposited here and you'll have a natural sand beach here. TRUSTEE KING: That existing bulkhead is stopping that sand from filtering in there. The main reason for scrapping that top is to get rid of that black stuff. MRS. GREENFIELD: I'm concerned about whether it would just be a washout. Well I hope you study it thoroughly and help us on that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now what about the question of bonding and insurance? JERRY CASE: We talked to Joe Edgar about it about two weeks ago and he's hesitant about bonding at this point because he's doing a big federal job and apparently he's bonded up to here. He's prepared to bond but not at this point but next Spring when we'll be doing the job. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that will be a condition of the Permit then. I don't know what kind of numbers we're looking at though for the bonding. We need a comfort zone for Mr. Moi and for Mrs. Greenfield. JIM FITZGERALD: That's between Mrs. Greenfield and the Association. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We want to resolve this too because we feel environmentally this project is a plus and our big concern now is the protection of your bulkheads on either side. This shoUld easily be resolved, if the works done properly, there won't be any damage, there won't be any problems and everybody will be happy. But, it's just a matter of coming down to saying, ok, everyone is satisfied with a number on it. I don't like being in the middle here. JIM FITZGERALD: Neither do I. TIPPY CASE: We didn't discuss numbers in my conversation with him but he had no problem with bonding, obtaining a bond for a job that was to be done next Spring. We're talking about, I asked when the window opens again, in the fall, and then I said well lets get through the winter storms, let's schedule it for next spr'mg. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And plus you need DEC and Army Corp. TIPPY CASE: Absolutely. MRS. GREENFIELD: Now would our Town Attorney be involved in helping us negotiate this bond. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think this is a private matter between the contractor and the Association. Now are you a member of the Association? MRS. GREENFIELD: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you Mr. Moi? 22 MR. MOI: No. JERRY CASE: Would you like to join? JIM FITZGERALD: I think the way that it would be done ordinarily is to indicate that it would subject to the actual cost of replacement. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That sounds fair. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's usually the estimate plus 10% for soft costs. That's generally what they do with a bond. Total replacement cost plus 10%. MR. BARBATO: I have one question. Before this work proceeds, are all of the other departments going to be notified, DEC, ACE, so on and so forth, everybody. Are they all going to be in place? TRUSTF~ FOSTER: They all have to be in place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One final thing then, Mr. Moi brought it up, the maintenance dredging aspect of it. Do we want to let it go for up to three times in ten years, do you want to let it go for one time in ten years? TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're going through all of this, you've got to let them keep it open if they want to do it. TRUSTEE KING: I think we'd have to stipulate to be notified when they're going to do it and we'll need another bond to be posted to protect their bulkheads. TRUSTI~.F. KRUPSKI: Right. If we did that you'd have to have the bond posted every time it was done. TRUSTI~.F. KING: That way you're protected throughout the whole process. TRUSTF~. FOSTER: Well normally what they would do is they'd put it out...maybe the same guy isn't going to do the dredging so when you contract out to dredge it in three years or four years or whatever, one of your requirements in the contract of the Association and the person doing the dredging that he will post a bond for the cost plus 10% of whatever your agreed number is. But, that's up to you to do that. MR. MOI: Replacement or just the cost of that contract? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Cost of replacement if the bulkhead was damaged. In other words if all the bulkheading on both sides failed as a result of this, what would it cost to fix it. That's the bond that you would require of the contractor plus 10%. NEIGHBOR: So it's the actual replacement and have a cap and add 10%. TRUSTF, E FOSTER: It's usually based on an engineer's estimate. That's how they do it. MRS. GREENFIELD: I think it's protection for everybody because I think A1 made that statement at the first hearing that if anything should happen to any of the bulkheading and the property owner was unable to cover the cost of replacement ... TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well it shouldn't be the property owner's obligation to have to replace it if it was damaged during construction. That's what insurance is all about. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: There's one more thing. I've got a note from the Town Attorney. Under Chapter 97-26 that the Trustees need to be named on the General Liability Insurance. It's in the Code. Mr. Fitzgerald will have to come in and take a look at this. There's a copy of an old insurance policy, if you can reference, in the file. The last time it was dredged, I believe it was 1987, and you can reference offthis. That was done the last time it was dredged. TIPPY CASE: The Town was named in that policy, yes? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. 23 JIM FITZGERAI,D: Does that just apply to this case or everything we do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's supposed to be for everything apparently. I don't know if it's invoked on everything. There's just one more thing. Looking at the details on the plan that you submitted tonight, I think the Board would be more comfortable removing the old bulkhead, but scale back the excavation from where the old bulkhead crosses Line B...well let me draw it on the survey. That would provide Mrs. Greenfield with more protection. JIM FITZGERALD: There's a break in that bulkhead. It's easily 4' or 6' from the return. The old illegal bulkhead is this high and from there on it goes down to this high and it seems like it might be an appropriate place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we can Approve it tonight based on another plan showing right from here, roughly from over to here. What we're asking is that the area to be excavated behind the illegal bulkhead be reduced a little bit. It gives Mrs. Greenfield and West Lake Dr. a little more of a buffer. The area will still be replanted with vegetation but there will be less excavation behind you on the Lake there. You should have a nice clean beach there in the back. If Kenny said was true, that sand will wash in there and come around to the west. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm not guaranteeing it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who wants to make a motion? I'll make a motion to Approve the application to dredge the entrance channel and adjoining portions of West lake to 3' below mean low water, place a total of approx. 600 cy. of dredge spoil on the indicated sites on the Approved plan. The area of the old bulkhead will be removed, the concrete removed, Mr. Barbato's dock. He said he's going to apply for it so we'll let it stay for now. The area to be excavated will be marked on the new plan. It was go roughly from theend from the north terminus of West Lake Dr. and the northwesterly direction, that's the area to be excavated. The applicant shall provide bonding for the replacement of the adjacent bulkheads plus 10% and also to name the Town in a General Liability Insurance which is defined in Chapter 97-26. This doesn't absolve the applicant from receiving permission from any other jurisdictional agencies, DEC, the Army Corp. or anyone else like that. Anything else? MRS. GREENFIELD: The dredged material, will any of us be getting it on our private beaches? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows here that it's supposed to go onto Mr. Moi's beach in the front. MRS. GREENFIELD: Well they promised us some too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well if you want to make that... MRS. GREENFIELD: Yes I would. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, I 'm talking about the applicant. It's up to them. Do you want to give Mrs. Greenfield some of that dredged spoil? JERRY CASE: Well I have to talk to the contractor. I see no reason to say "no". TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, then make that change. The dredged spoil areas will be marked on the plan. This plan shall be Approved only for the maintenance dredging of the channel itself three more times in the next 10 years from the date of issuance of this 24 11. 12. 13. Permit, not the first time it's done, and that each time if necessary it's dredged, that the applicant provide bonding to protect the neighbor's bulkhead and that they also each time name the Town on a General Liability Insurance Policy. Do I have a second on that? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JOSEPH ULRICH requests a Wetland Permit for the existing wood deck and landing, stairs connecting them and an existing Trustee- Permitted dock, and a metal shed. Located: 2345 Mill CreekDr., Southold. SCTM#51- 6-39 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Would anyone like to speak briefly about this application? JIM FITZGERALD: Very briefly. It exists and he would like to legitimize it. It's been there a long time apparently but not long enough for a Grandfather Permit. The Trustee Permit for the dock structure, which was issued in 1973, and he is as best as he can recall says this was built two years after that. So, he's kind of getting things in order and this is one of the things he wanted to do TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone else have a comment? TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE have. TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEF, POLIWODA: How big is the float? SMITH: I don't think at the time we had a problem with it. KRUPSKh Are you going to allow him to have that extra float? SMITH: That was part of the original permit. KRUPSKI: Oh ok. FOSTER: I think it was the deck and stairs, and the platform that he didn't SMITH: I'll make a motion we close the heating. KRUPSKh Seconded. ALL AYES SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve the application. POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Proper-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 TItlE AGENT'S REQUEST LAWRENCE M. TUTltlI,L requests a Wetland Permit to remove all second growth trees, to fill' and grade property to level, grade pave roadway, to plant grass and erect fences. Located: 945 Orchard St., New Suffolk. SCTM#117-5-46.4 Note: Violation TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? LARRY TUTHILL: I just want to reiterate what was said at the last meeting. You visited the site, and if there are any questions that you have. TRUSTEE KRLrPSKI: Thank you. We will, I'm sure. Is there any other comment? JERRY SCHULTHEIS: I live adjacent to the property. When we met last month, it was decided that there wasn't enough detail and there was no plan, the location of the fences was not delineated, there was no plan to where the paving is. I don't seethat anything has changed. We're still there. I stopped by the Office this afternoon and asked to see if there was an updated plan. There is no plan. There is no way to know where the fences 25 are going to be located, where the paving is going to happen. I'm really upset that...I mean Mr. Tuthill is a professional engineer whose livelihood was working on the water. Somebody that has an understanding of what's required, I mean, he just apparently doesn't have that. There's a violation served on him. There's a violation from the DEC served on him. There is no plan. I do not know what he's going to do. There' s nothing there. If you look at what's been done already, all the trees have been removed. They're referred to as "second-growth" trees. There were trees there that were 14, 18 in. in diameter. That's not a second-growth tree. There has been concrete rubble brought in as fill. There are road sweepings that have been brought in as fill since the trees have been removed. There's no plan. There's no indication of what's happening. I don't see where anyth'mg has changed from last month. I understand that last month was that he would get back to the Trustees with a plan that delineated where everything was going to be located, but I don't see that. Without seeing anything and knowing what's going to happen, I have to be against the project. Thank you. TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: Any other comment? BILL GOODALE: I'm from New Suffolk. I've walked the 'streets of the Schoolhouse Creek there for pr°bably about 15 years, it's been a great spot over the years, over time things fell into disrepair. His father, his grandfather overtime have tried to keep it up and now Larry comes along and tries to fix it up a little bit and I said that would be great. I t~ it's time that, in my mind, I can remember back to the days his grandfather, I don't remember too much change. There was an old building on that property when I was a boy, that collapsed, and I think Larry carted it away, and every time he wants to do something and people say "you can't do this", this seems to be the 21~t centm~ and you can't do anything anymore because somebody has a gripe. Now I was just reading this thing right here on what Larry wants to do dean up the briar patch and the poison ivy path as it has existed for seven years, and get the place looking a little bit more ship- shape, and make it a little more pleasant for everybody that goes by there. Now Whatever he does on a schematic drawing the (can't understand) is probably going to knock away at it anyway and he's going to have to do something else. The thing is that long before you were here, his grandfather was here and that place has been maintained every since. I think as we get into this 21a century, what has happened is, we have organized to a point where the guy who has the gripe has a lot to say and the guy who owns the place is getting dumped on2 I think it's time we got back a little bit to square one which is he wants to improve his land a little bit, let him do it, if you want to look over on it and see that he's not doing anything too (can't understand) I would certainly think that's a good idea. On the same token, he was here first, and when everybody else starts telling him what to do with his property, you've gone a little bit too ~ar. Thank you for listening. MRS. GONZALEZ: I have property on Orchard and First and Mr. Tuthill's right-of-way is there. This had numerous storms... Mr. Schultheis and my husband had paid for the repair of the road, not Mr. Tuthill. I'd be very happy if Mr. Tuthill is going to fix, or do what he says, but the talk all over the Town is not this. We don't want to go against Mr. Tuthill because we live right there but we want to know really what he's going to do. According to this, this looks good. But, that's not what the talk is. The talk is about parking, storage and getting rid of all of the trees and the rest ofthe trees all the way up the whole strip including what he akeady did next door to us. 26 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? When we visited the site last inspection on Wednesday, Mr. Tuthill described to the Board what he intended to do there. We let him know that paving the driveway wasn't an option. Paving the driveway is not going to be possible. If he wants to grade the driveway and put down a pervious surface like gravel, our concern is run-off into the creek Our concern is the creek environment, even though the Town doesn't own the creek, normally the Town owns the creek, there's a Town owned shellfish resource there, we have to protect that, but this is not the case in Schoolhouse Creek~ But, it still flows out into the Bay and it's part of the Peconic system so we want to safeguard it as much as possible. Mr. Tuthill has showed up the area that he wants to clear out the brush and the trees. We told him that we would like to see a buffer area left between the driveway and the bulkhead to prevent sediment from nmning off into the creek. He can trim the trees and whatnot but we don't want to see that stripped down to dirt so that all of the water will rush into the creek and sediment and soil and whatnot. It's zoned Marine I, there's quite a bit of uses that can be used in a Marine I zoning, that's black and white in the Code. That has nothing to do with our Board, that's a Planning Board issue. What we're going to ask Mr. Tuthill to do is, you've the survey here in the file, and you're going to have to write on it the areas that you want to clear and the areas that you want to grade and show the driveway and show the extent of the work that you want to do. Then, we can act from there. You've got a good survey here. Some of these sheds are gone I think so we can "X" them off. Then, we'll have a clear idea about the whole extent of it. So, could you do that for us? MR SCHULTHEIS: The land has been stripped already. We want a guarantee that there is going to be some gravel put down for the road. There is a tremendous dust situation there now, especially since the land has been completely stripped. When the wind blows there is dust all over the place. TRUSTEF. KRUPSKI: Well he doesn't have to do anything. He can just leave the dirt road as it is. I mean, we're not requiting him to do anything tothe road. Il'he wants to leave it the way it is that' s the way it is. We're not telling him he has to improve the road. He owns it. He can leave it as dirt. MR. SCHULTHEIS: So as far as protecting the environment we now have a continual dust storm and that's ok, leave it as it is? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well then we would have to go around to everyone's property and say "Ok this is a problem, and this is a problem...", if he wants to come in and improve his property, we want to make sure he does it in an environmentally sound way. We're not just going to go start picking on Mr. Tuthill because he has a dust storm when it blows and he has probably ruts in the road when it rains. MR. SCHULTHEIS: So by definition you're saying that what he has done now is an improvement. TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: I don't understand that question. MR. SCHULTHEIS: You're telling me that by stripping all of the trees off of the land and leaving bare earth there, that's an improvement? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh no, I didn't say that. I said we're not going to make him improve the road. If he wants to grade the road and put gravel on it, [ don't think that's a problem with this Board. That's more or less maintaining the road that's already there. But, we can't make him do that. We can't say that we're going to make "you" do that. How could we do that? 27 MR. SCHULTHEIS: Then the issue of if in fact...the information that everybody has is that that area is going to be used to store boats. I understand that not in the Tmstee's jurisdiction but you have to go to Planning Board. There's nothing in the paperwork that was submitted by him.., as a matter of fact, ifI read the paperwork that was submitted by him, which I reviewed today, I mean it says that on the application that the surrounding area is completely commercial. He's surrounded completely by residential areas. That's not correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is submitted on the survey shows that all of the houses there are residential. MR. SCHULTHEIS: But he's actually written on the application that he submitted for the permit he specifically says that the whole surrounding area is commercial. TRUSTEE SMITH: His surrounding area is commercial. His area is commercial. MR. SCHULTHEIS: It says surrounding area. TRUSTEE POLlWODA: The area to the north is commercial, to the marina. MR. SCHULTHEIS: There's a residential line in between. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well he's going to put it on a plan and then we're going to take a look at it. But, to tell him he's got to improve, that's like coming to your property and say "well you know you've got turf and that's running nutrients and you've got to tear the turf up because your running nutrients into the creek". Oh, you have a cesspool and well all of your shampoo and washing detergent and waste goes into the cesspool and where does that go. It goes out into the bay. So, we'd go from house to house. That would be nice if you could just plow everything under. MI~ SCHULTHEIS: If everything is Ok then on this is says Note: Violation. What is the violation? I'm not hearing that it's a violation. But, it says that a violation has been issued. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unfommately, we've had a lot of that tonight. The violation was issued for clearing, for conducting activities within 75'. Now, we went out there when the viOlation occurred, this is a couple of months ago, and we taped it off, and most of the work that was done on that comer was outside of 75' if you measure from the bay or if you measure from the creek. Most of that work is outside of 75'. MR. SCHULTHEIS: But there is work within 75'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is some sure. That's why is says Violation. Sure. MR. SCHULTHEIS: So there is a Violation but nothing to be done to correct the damage that's been done. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Well that's what we're here for. That's what we're doing. MR. SCHULTHEIS: It references fences etc. and it would be nice to know that was going to be a fence so people don't have to look at it and it would cut down on the dust. But, there is no plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's what he's going to submit to us now. He's going to submit to uS what he wants to do. That's why we're here. MR. SCHULTHES: So they'll be a plan submitted for us to look at? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Basically, Jerry, he told us when we met him that he wanted to clean...it's been a mess for years. He wanted to clean it up, grade the road, pave the road, we're not going to permit that. He' s going to have to put stone on the road, but, bear in mind, that's M-1 Zoning. If he want to store boats there, he can store boats there. 28 14. 15. MR. SCHULTHEIS: With approval by the Planning Board. TRUSTF~ FOSTER: Well it's been M-1 for how long. MR. SCHULTHEIS: The only thing that doesn't require Planning Board approval in M-1 is residential. A-1 which is the first one, you can be right above that in the zoning, it says that any of these uses require site review by the Planning Board. TRUSTF. F. SMITH: Well I don't think that will be a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why there's M-1 Zoning in Town so people can...traditionally it's a maritime area and people need upland space to support the maritime industry whether it' s for pleasure boats or commercial fisherman, I mean that's pretty traditional in Southold Town. MR SCHULTHEIS: I understand that the zoning was like that when I bought the property. The zoning hasn't changed, the description of it hasn't changed, and I always felt that because it was that if anything was residential, it required Planning Board site review, as some degree of protection. TRUSTEE KRL~SKI: Well that's between Mr. Tuthill and the Planning Board. Any other comment? Alright, do I have a motion to Table the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES ANTHONY IENNA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed "T" shaped t'unber dock consisting ofa 4'X 24' fixed catwalk (min. 3.5" above grade of marsh); a 3'X 12' ramp; and a 6'X 16' float secured by (2) 8" d'mmeter pilings. Located: 2400 Glenn Rd., Southold. SCTM#78-2-41 TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? ANTHONY IENNA: I own the property and I had a dock permit and it expired in January. I didn't realize when the expiration date was so I'm here to renew it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just give us a minute here to collect our thoughts. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this today. There's a dock down the beach adjacent to this property and they all look as this one is written. I can't see not approving it. I'd like to see the fixed dock extended no more than 6' beyond the marsh and 6" pilings throughout and 8" single pilings on the flOat. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a letter from your neighbor who has no objection to the proposed dock and their only concern is maintaining the natural vegetation of the shoreline. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to dose the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve with the condition that the fixed dock may not extend more than 6' beyond the marsh, 6" pilings on the fixed dock and 2- 8" single pilings to hold the float. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES MICHAEL D, ANERELLA requests a Wetland Permit for a 4'X 108' catwalk, a 16' ramp and an 8'X 16' floating dock. Located: 855 Pine Neck Rd., Southold. SCTM#70- 5-33 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here for or against the application? 29 TRUSTF~ POLIWODA: I think we cut thing back. TRUSTEE KRESS: The dock can go back 20' past the edge of the marsh to be the same as the neighbors. So, do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTF, F, SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: ['11 make a motion to Approve the application. The dock shall start atthe upland as staked and extend out 20' past the edge of the marsh with 6" low- profile pilings all the way out. Piles should be hand-dug through out the marsh, not jetted in all on a new set of plans. No float and no ramp. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES MOORINGS: FREDERICK OLLSON requests a mooring in Broadwaters Creek for a 16' SAROCA (sail-row-canoe). ACCESS: Public. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application 300' north of the osprey platform. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES Meeting adjourned at: 10:30 PM Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Clerk Board of Trustees ' - D tlECEIV :D AN FILED BY TtiE bOUTHOI.D TOWN CLERK i ' k Iown Clef , Town of Southolcl