Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/20/2000Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Henry Smith Axtie Foster Ken Poliwoda Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 PRESENT WERE; BOARD OF TO~~EES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Wednesday, September 20, 2000 7:00 p.m. Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Henry Smith, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Charlotte Cunningham, Clerk CALL MEET1NG TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION; Wednesday, October 18, 2000 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEEFOSTER moved to APprove, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. WORKSESSION; 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of August 23, 2000 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustee monthly report for AuguSt 2000. A check for $3,790.76 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's BUlletin Board for review. IH. AMENDMENTS/WAIVER CHANGES: J. Kevin McLaughlin on behalf of ORIENT WHARF CO. request an Amendment to Permit 474 to allow the existing 6'x8' shed which houses necessary water filtration equipment to remain on the wharf as long as the filtration system is required in order to obtain a potable water supply. ¸4. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#24-2-28.1 POSTPONED UNTIL OCTOBER PER AGENT'S REQUEST Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of DONALD BRENNAN requests an Amendment to Permit # 5152 to install a 5000 lb. boat lii2 on the existing bulkhead piles. Located: 1661 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue 118-2-4.2 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES LARRY B. & JOAN M. KULICK requests a one year extension to Permit #4951 to construct a 140" stone wall above ordinary high water line, dredge approx. 10 cy from silted are of boat slip and add a 4'x18' ramp at landward end of existing dock and clear vegetation within 50' of high water mark. Located: 2200 Minnehaha Blvd. Southold SCTM#87-3- 6t TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application with the condition that no stonewall attached to this permit. The dredging was completed at the boat slip. And a 4'x18' ramp will be added to the landward existing dock. Clear vegetation on the property leaving a 50' undisturbed buffer on the waterside. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES. LEFKIOS ANTONIOU, CHARIKLIA VARELLAS AND THEOROROS ANTONIOU requests a Transfer of Permit #4167 from Susan E, Tasker ti Lefkios Antoniou, Chariklia Varellas and Theororos Antoniou. Located: 58235 Middle Road (CR 48) Greenport. SCTM#44-2- 11 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES ROBERT AND MARIANNE SOBIESIAK requests a Transfer of Permit #2212 from Ralph and Shirley Crocker to Robert and Marianne Sobiesiak. Located: 1225 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport, SCTM#35-4-9 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of TOM FITZPATRICK requests a Transfer of Permit #5181 from Mark McDonald to Tom Fitzpatrick proposed residence with pool and deck is setback 79' from the landward edge of the tidal wetlands as compared to Mr. McDonald's initial proposal of 77' in addition, please note that Mr. Fitzpatrick's proposed contouring s 75'from the landward edge of tidal wetlands as compared to Mr. McDonald's initial proposal of 73'. Located:: 1030 Clearview Road, Southold. SCTM#89-3-11.3 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application. TRUSTEE K1NG seconded. ALL AYES 10. 11. 12. TONY & JULIA M. GRAZINA (Contract Vendee) requests a Transfer of Permit g4378 issued to Henry Braun/Leslie Windisch to Anthony GrazianaJJulia M. Graziana. Located: 1375 Pine Neck Road, Southold SCTM#70-5-39 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the application.. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES JOItN EDLER requests a one year extension to Permit #4825 to expire November 21, 2000 to construct 2-40' low profile groins that begin at the highest vertical point which is at the whaler of the bulkhead and no pre- filling. Located: 130 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion. SCTM#38-2-32 TRUSTEE KiNG moved to approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES ANTHONY NAPOLITANO requests a one year extension to Permit #4828 to expire November 21, 2000 to construct 2-40' low profile groins that begin at the highest vertical point which is at the whaler of the bulkhead and no pre-filling. Located: 200 Cleaves point Road, East Marion SCTM#38-2-33 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES NORMAN TAYLOR requests a one year extension of Permit #4826 to expire November 21, 2000 tO construct 1-40' low profile groin that begin at the highest vertical point which is at the whaler of the bulkhead and no pre-filling. Located: 300 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion SCTM#38-2- 35 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES CANDIDA HARPER & PAUL LIEBLICH 111 requests a one year extension to Permit g4827 to expire November 21,2000 to construct 2-40' low profile groins that begin at the highest vertical point which is at the whaler of the bulkhead and no pre-filling. Located: 290 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion SCTM#38-2-34 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES VICTORIA M. URY requests a Waiver to excavate that portion of the basements which has not been excavated and create a new entrance to the basement at the front of the house. Located: 3915 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 137-1-5.1 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application with the condition that hay bales be placed along creek side during construction.. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI Do I have a motion to go off the Regular Meeting and onto the Public Hearings. TRUSTEE SMITH so moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE REAAD PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS 1F POSSIBLE. RICHARD SANSEVERE requests a Wetland Permit for additional cesspool to be added to property, or to rebuild second cesspool near driveway. Located: 7433 Soundview Avenue, Southold SCTM#59-6-5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? RICHARD SANSEVERE; Good evening, Richard Sansevere, this is the second time this has been in front of the Board. I thank you for hearing it again. The original septic system is thirty years old and it is six foot in height. They are not performing as good as when they were new-. So instead of digging them up and causing a major destruction on the property. It is easier to add another septic which will be a spill over. As the six footers fill up they would then they would flow into the eight footer. The location that I choose is probably the least offensive to all concerned in the position.. It is further away from the wetland. It does not intrude on anyone's well. Because it is at least 75 feet from my own well. My nearest neighbor's will not be affected. So I felt it was a legitimate request to do this. The area was picked because the depth is adequate, done by Morrison Cesspool. There is enough depth before you hit water to put in a cesspool. So unless someone has an objection? I would like to go ahead with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments in favor or against? Does the Board have any comments? We did not go look at this month, hut we went last month.. But we were unclear of what we were looking at? There is still the unresolved dock issue. RICHARD SANSEVERE: Right, the dock was on the agenda. Whatever conditions you want me to meet. I will do the best I could on it. I did float the top off. Or lifted the top off. Only the frame is left. The pilings that are in there. If you move them would go under. (cannot understand) TRUSTEE SMITH: You are going to have a backhoe when you do the cesspool.. So then he can pul1 the pilings in. RICHARD SANSEVERE: I do not know if the cesspool contractor would want to get involved with the waterfront like that. It is part of the marine contractor to do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is kind of simple. RICHARD SANSEVERE: Whatever conditions I am willing to look into it. TRUSTEE SMITH: I have no problem with the cesspools. But I would like to see that framework taken out, because it is dangerous. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is a Board feelings that it is dangerous. The dock should be the standard size. We have no problem with the septic. RICHARD SANSEVERE: I will come into the office tomorrow. You can give me the conditions that you want I am willing to look into (cannot understand) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The permit that was granted August of 1999. A year ago, we gave you a permit for 4'x20' fixed dock. We gave you six months to comply. So I think that was fair enough, six. months, it has been twelve months. So we would like to see that permit that is in place complied with. RICHARD SANSEVERE: You wanted a drawing, an addition to the drawing (cannot understand). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No we want a 4'x20' to comply with the permit that we issued a year ago. RICHARD SANSEVERE: What I am stating is that the decking would be 4x20. In July you did not mention anything about super structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The dock is enough. RICHARD SANSEVERE: We submitted another drawing when it came and hopefully it will be enough. Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is the permit. We saw it last mo~nth. We saw it in August. I think that was the consensus of the Board that it should be 4'x20' as the permit was issued for. Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: I will make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the stipulation that the 4'x20' fixed dock comply with the permit issued for same. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES E.BROWNELL JOHNSTON & KAREN B. JOHNSTON request a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 68' catwalk, a 2-2 ½' X 12' ramp, and a 6'X 20' float. Located: 4001 Wells Rd., Peconic. SCTM#86-1-9.4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Good evening, my wife and I are here. We appreciate your visit that we had. last week. We just wanted to make sure with the direct effect to the revisions that we all talked about there. Are there any questions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not think so. We might. Is there any one else who would like to speak in favor or against the application? MR. HOLMES: 1625 Indian Neck Lane. We live across the creek from the proposed dock. I have one question I have never seen a plan for it. Here where they talk about the catwalk. Is that from the waters edge out or is that start on the marsh land. Because from the waters edge out .you are talking about 80 some odd feet out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No actually most of the structure, I should not say most. At least half the structure will be over the marsh. We were out on field inspections last week. I am looking for the correct set of plans. If you would like to take a look. MR. HOLMES: I would like to take a look. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think the catwalk starts 43 feet back from the waters edge. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This shows about 30 feet into the water. The float sticking out about 50 feet into the water. Balance of it would be upland. MR. HOLMES: So more than half of it would be upland. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. MR. HOLMES: I only have one other question? I had heard that if you have a three foot walk it only has to be three feet up from the height of the water I do not know if that is true or not. But if it is? Is there any possibility of .you can get by with the three foot wide. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we always press that issue with the DEC. Because we feel that the height of dock is inappropriate on small creeks. It is doubtful that they would approve that. Which to us does not make any sense. That is their policy. MR. HOLMES: Can I get the name of the dock guy. The only reason that I ask is I have an input from the environmental engineer. Who has come up with. Which sounds like a great solution. That would meet all the requirements of the deck and still allow very short ramps coming out from the waters edge. The lktle trick is putting little stops on the pilings so that the dock can not go any lower than. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that it does not rest on the bottom. MR. HOLMES; It will reach the requirements. He can do that very close to shore. Short ramp you can not see much of.and it is a lot cheaper. So I was going to try in touch with him. It does not affect us personally. But it might help other people on the creek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: we have approved some dock with that condition. Put a stop on it. So that the float does not sit on bottom. MR. HOLMES: Oh okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? MR. JOHNSTON: For the record we are going to try with the DEC to create a solution. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay Thank you. MR. GRANT: My name is Roland Grant, I am at 1775 Indian Neck Lane, across the creek. I suppose you went dowel to the sight. When you measured the channel that was there. How far does the dock itsetf extend into the channel. Or does it extend into the channel. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken how far is it? TRUSTEE POLlWODI: We measured it. TRUSTEE SMITH: It does not go into the channel. MR. GRANT: From the waters edge the dock extends how many feet into the creek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A total of 56 feet from the edge of the marsh. MR. GRANT: Where does the channel start from the marsh's edge? The concern that we have and I am sure the Board would also have. The problem is that the channel is small there. The blocking of the navigation of the channel once that dock is put up. Might be a problem there. I know from my side, which is a little more wider part of the creek that where their dock is being put up. I know that at least 50 foot out where I have my pilings put in the channel was not there. The channel actually runs on the other side of the creek. It just runs offthe marshs edge of the of the marsh edge on their side. The thing is that extends 34 feet into the creek. Is that putting it into the inside of the channel? TRUSTEE SMITH: I would say no. MR. GRANT: Do we have soundings out to 50 feet. TRUSTEE KRESS: Yes, I have soundings here. I do not know how far that they go. The soundings on the survey extend 125 feet from the shore ling. Now the originally proposal of the dock was 75 feet from the shoreline. The amended proposal is about 50 feet or 56 feet from the shore line. This other survey shows it extending it is not 56 feet beyond the edge of the marsh. It is closer to 20 feet beyond the edge of the marsh. Twenty six feet beyond the edge of the marsh. It is only 26 feet beyond the edge of marsh. MR. GRANT: That is the floaters, catwalk, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That included the float. If you would tike to take a look here. We have the soundings out to 125 feet. It is only going to be 26 feet out. MR. GRANT: So they are only extending 26 feet in here. So that should clear and have plenty of navigation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will be out of everyone's way. Certainly. MR. GRANT: That is really our own concern just to make sure it is navigable. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. MR. GRANT: If that is the case it does not inhibit the channel we have really do not have any problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can seeit has been shortened considerably from the original proposal. I think we might want to include stops on that. I think it might help with the DEC with stops on the float. So that the float could not rest on the bottom. Any other comment on this application? TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion to close the hearing on Johnston. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion to Approve the application of Johnston with the addition of float stops to keep the float from resting on the bottom. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES Let me just mark this one the one with the L shape. Suffolk Environmental Consulting Inc. on behalf of ELLEN A. GROPPE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling, driveway and septic system. The 24'x36' proposed dwelling is to be built on piles and located 47 +/- from the wetlands. A 40' non-disturbance buffer is proposed adjacent to the tidal wetlands line. Located: 985 Bay Shore Road, Southold. SCTM#053-03-012 POSTPONED UNTIL OCTOBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST. S.E..Long Permits on behalf of TIMOTHY & NANCY HILL requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'x45' catwalk. A 3'x12' ramp and a 6'x20' float with 2 piles. Located: 360 Oak Avenue, Southold SCTM#77-2-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? SUE LONG: I am Susan Long I am here tonight to conclude this tonight. I know you were at the site last week. I was out there also. I will let you go first if you have any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did not see the end of the dock staked. We also need soundings out past the dock. Because there is a concern that it is an in shore channel and there is a flat beyond that and we do not want to put a dock in the middle of the in shore channel. SUE LONG. I can give you another copy. Way back when the application was first submitted. You questioned whether the soundings were accurate. You thought that they were much less than what was indicated. Since that time the soundings had been taken four different days. They were taken again last week at low tide. Each time the soundings were taken we get 42 to 43 inches of water at the float. The float is staked and was staked last Tuesday. In fact we put additional stakes landward where we proposed to cap off the start. In addition to the stake that was at the end of the float. Were we get 43" of water last week. The range is. I got 40 inches one time but everyone else has been getting 42 or 43. at dead low. Last week as the result of a telephone conversation I had with the New York State DEC. They only found 2-1/2 feet of water. I am insisting that they go back again, because they were recommending that we go back and extend the dock system out. An additional 17 feet. I went back out there. I know that they are in total error because the soundings have been taken out on different occasions. When we went out last week we put a stake out there. I faxed a memo to the Board hopefully you would have it when you went to the inspection last week. Letting you know that the most seaward stake out there was the 17 foot mark that the DEC wanted. My son went out again. The next night Tuesday, He went out at dead low. He got 43 inches. The night before on Tuesday, He went out back again at dead low. He got 43 inches, he went out back again on Wednesday. At dead low with a depth finder and he found 42 inches. Seventeen feet seaward we are still getting 42 to 43 inches. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seventeen feet seaward is what? The floating dock? SUE LONG: The seaward end of the floating dock. Since the DEC when they called me they told me that they found 2-1/2 feet of water in the middle of the day. I spoke to my client and my client and my client had taken soundings on two occasions. So I called the analyst and spoke to her and then I sent a note to them. Asking them to go out again. I did speak this morning to Chris Arfsten and Chris was out there and he did not saying anything about that I was in error or anything. I do not know if he found the soundings. When you spoke With him. Anyway, I can give you another copy of the plan. Showing the water depth. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have that, but we need the water depth beyond it. SUSAN LONG: I have that. It is on the second page. Id'you have the plans of March 1st. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do have that. The one that says that the water depth varies from 36 to 40 inches out to 50 feet there. There after 50 feet is over 6 feet deep. SUS4AN LONG: Yes, we have been out from the end of float. We went out 50 feet at ten foot intervals and we were getting 36 to 40 inches ofwater. From that point on there was a drop when we went out a couple of soundings. TRUSTEE KRUJPSKI: This is typical of all of our dock applications. Not with you. It is typical of all of our dock applications. That the soundings, you took soundings, the DEC took soundings. It looks like we have to take soundings. Because no one is happy with the soundings We have just recently hired one of possibly two people who in the future taking soundings for the Board on every dock application. Because this is ridiculous to keep having such a problem with soundings. So the applicant is doing to pay for the Board appointed person who takes soundings for us on every dock application. To take low tide soundings. We go out on the site and we look at it. Kenny says gee there is a flat fight past there. We cannot put the dock in the middle of the channel and we have to go back and forth. We just spent eight months on the last application and I was out there with a kayak and Kenny was out there a couple of times with me. SUSAN LONG: We were too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not on this one. On different ones and it is a waste of everyone time. SUSAN LONG: Yes this one is six months old. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: well this one was held up for other reasons. This was held up for title searches and whatever. Which I am not sure it that is total resolved. SUSAN LONG: Six times I have done the soundings. I came up with 40 to 43 inches and we went out beyond that and got to the point where the channel and we have fifty feet beyond the end of the float out that still ranges in the area of 36 to 40 inches. Beyond that point with the channel you are talking 10 over fift:y feet out. I am honestly upset if you are going to hold this approval up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The end of the float was not staked. We were there on Wednesday. We were all there. We sat in the Adirondack chairs and there were no stakes in the water. There was one stake on the land. Where it started. TRUSTEE KiNG: You said your son went out on Wednesday and did more soundings. Was the stakes there then? SUSAN LONG: Yes ! do not know what time he went out. He started early. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there at high water. We were there in the afternoon. SUSAN LONG: Maybe they were covered up. They were only sticking out of the water about 2-1/2 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was pretty high fide. SUSAN LONG: Trust me. When you put those stakes in it was so dead low. I measured the part seaward of the marsh and it was seven feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were aggravated because we have to go there. There was nothing staked. There was six of us, what are we doing here. SUSAN LONG: I am here trying to conclude this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are not going to vote on this obviously, since we did not see it. We were all there and it was in the afternoon. I wish we could have someone inspect this. But I do not think it is fair to the applicant to have them pay for soundings now. TRUSTEE KiNG: No TRUSTEE SMITH: No TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we are going to have to go out them somehow and do our own soundings. Because if the DEC believes it is over a foot difference from yours. That is a big difference. You are not fighting over inches. This is a problem. SUSAN LONG: There was no discrepancy actually this morning when I spoke to Chris Arfsten about it. The only thing that Chris advised me that he would recommend. The DEC was going to recommend that the catwalk be extended to the sea wall. They wanted extend about 15 feet. So that the growth underneath to continue. Also Chris said that there was slate on the ground as a walkway and he wants them removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is this a proposal for a seasonal dock like the adjacent docks. SUSAN LONG: No it is for a permanent dock, but we do not know what the DEC going to do with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not only that but because it is an area where seasonal docks are for some reason the norm and that the property in question is not the applicant's. So we will table this hearing. We have to deal with this again next month. We have to go down them again. SUSAN LONG: It is unfortunate because the stakes that we used, they were ten feet tall and I did not give a thought how high the tide would rise. So okay tell me what you want. 11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To pull the stakes up a little bit. TRUSTEE SMITH: So that we can see the stakes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to recess it? TRUSTEE KING;: So moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:: All in favor. ALL AYES We will be there on the 18th in the morning, so if you could just make sure that they are there on the 18th. Check them on the 17th. Ed Goodwin on behalf of ASTRID GADDIS requests a Wetland Permit to build two bulkhead landward of existing secondary bulkheads to terrace bluff in levels return wall to be built on east and west side connecting new walls north and south. So neighboring properties have no erosion problem. All material will be 1.5 CCA lumber. A set of stairs will be placed in same location. Sand area to be planted with beach grass. Montauk daisies, rosa rugosa. Located 7020 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. Laurel SCTM#125-11-6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ED GOODWlN; With regard to the property. If you have any questions? TRUSTEE FOSTER: You looked at this Jim? TRUSTEE K1NG: Yes, I would like all of us to take a look at it. There has been a lot of work there. Frankly, I do not see a reason of doing any of this work. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is nothing on the neighbor's property.? TRUSTEE KING: I just felt uncomfortable with it. The house is being completely renovated. A lot of work going on there. It is a nicely vegetated bluff. Beach grass all on it. It seems silly to tear it all up and change everything around. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the reason for the proposal? ED GOODWIN: He is renovating the house and he wants to never have a problem on the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: Is that deck down there. With the little beach house and the showers everything all on his property. ED GOODW1N: No that is the neighbor. TRUSTEE KING: The next door neighbor. ED GOODWIN: The survey states. TRUSTEE K1NG; It is a strange piece of property ED GOODWlN: It is very narrow it is only 65 feet wide. TRUSTEE KING: This is the area where all the work was done. ED GOODWIN: I have to tear out anything between the bluff TRUSTEE KING: There is a lot of work going to be done. I really do not know why they are doing it. TRUSTEE KR~SKI: Well this looked like a pretty straight forward application. Apparently it was not. TRUSTEE KiNG: It looks like they are going to tie right into the neighbor. I would say. ED GOODWlN: It would be separate. Each property owner. 12 TRUSTEE KING: That is why I would like to have more than one trustee look at. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are going to have to table this and take a look at it as a whole Board. Sorry about that. ED GOODWlN: It will be another month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because it is more complicated than it looked like in the field. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see more details in the plan for the work that is going to be done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need a plan with a cross section on it. Showing how the work is going to be done. ED GOODV~qN: Actually I have pictures of another job. Which is very similar, comparison. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, thank you.. Do you make a motion then. TRUSTEE K1NG: I will make a motion to table this application until next month. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES Give that one to Lauren too. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of PETER F. WERTZ requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in kind in place +/- 208.5 of timber bulkhead and a 24' return in kind in place and backfill structure with +/- 15 cy of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 1080 West Lane, Southold SCTM#88-6-15 Tape change TRUSTEE FOSTER: I will make a motion to Approve the application of PETER F. WERTZ to reconstruct in kind in place +/- 208.5' of timber bulk~head and a 24' return in king in place and backfill structure with +/- 15 cy of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located 1080 West Lane, Southoldi NY. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That the non-turf buffer be added. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And that a 10' non-turf buffer be maintained. TRUSTEE KRESS: All in favor. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We hired, maybe you heard. We hired someone to do soundh~gs for the Board on any dock applications. It is going to cost the applicant an additional fee. We hired a separate person todo soundings, because every dock we go out on. There is always a problem with the water depth. Somebody in the Board does not think so. Because they know the area. There is a low spot here, slab and then we go out again and I have to go with my kayak or Kenny has to go out with his waiters. Months go by and everyone is unhappy and the DEC has completely different soundings. We are unhappy with what we have been getting in and we want a standard accounting. So that is what we are going to do. 13 TRUSTEE SMITH: Do you want to explain to them that on all the applications if everything is not staked and not in place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There will be an additional $50.00 for each' inspection. If we go out there and it is not staked, not posted. We cannot find it. It will be another $50.00 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Incorrect information. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We spend a lot of time driving around. We spend a lot of time looking at things that we have to go back again the next month. There is six of us out there. It makes for a long day when we have to go back out the next month again. ROB HERRMANN: I would like to make a comment. You may want to change your policy on the postings. You notice the typical homeowner and you take my client's I am doing it for them. But it says seven days prior to the heating. Seven days is seven days. If the Board for some reason changes k schedule. It goes out a day early or you are there early in the morning. The homeowners posted it 12 o'clock in the afternoon. You are going to punish them in spite that they are actually followSng the Boards regulations. You may wish to make that notice change. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We will make it eight days prior to. Good point. We do not want to punish anyone Rob. It is true. TRUSTEE KING: Bigger signs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The ZBA has signs that are enormous. You cannot miss it. The postings we have had that big of problem with, but occasionally we have a problem. Things that are not staked.that becomes a problem. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So what is the deadline for applications? Week prior to field inspections. CHARLOTTE CLrNNINGHAM; No it depends on the legal going into the paper. So it could be two weeks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it could be two weeks before. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So it could be up to two weeks before field inspection. So when do they get the sign to post. The day of field inspection. CHARLOTTE CUNN1NGHAM: No we send it usually the week before. We mail it to them. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So what is the problem? You have fourteen days. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our official policy says seven days. Rob is right. Official it says seven days. That is not fair if someone puts it up in the evening of that day.and we were there. We will have to make it eight days. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I know when I did mine. The minute I got it I put it up. J.M.O~ Environmental Consulting on behalf of KATItRYN & FREDERICK STUTZMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct an additional to an existing single family dwelling, construct porch, new driveway, retaining wall and garage. All proposed work shall take place 51' landward of an existing functional timber bulkhead. Located: 3066 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue 14 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Against the application? I visited the site today there is a big drain in the driveway. Which I took upon myself to see where it entered out to and of course empty unto the beach. So as the condition of this permit I do not have problem with the additions to the house. But as a condition of the permit I would like to put on. Actually what does the CAC say put in adequate dry wells. It is a fairly new pipe it is not an old pipe. It is a black plastic pipe. It is not corrugated. What do you call that pipe Artie. The black plastic pipe. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It is ADS it is black corrugated with a solid center N12. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is fairly recently put in. Any one else have any other comment on this? Do I have a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that the pipe be removed and sufficient dry wells be put in to contain their driveway and roof run-off. So that it not be discharged directly onto the beach. Is there a second on that? TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHER'S ISLAND COUNTRY CLUB requests a Wetland Permit between the 1~t Fairway and the 2nd Green to remove material that has eroded into an existing drainage ditch, then to install soil erosion matting in the existing ditch to provide for proper drainage. Between the 17t~ Tee and the 16th Tee, the applicant proposed to remove existing collapsed drainage pipes and to remove any material restricting the flow throughout the existing ditch. Collapsed pipe shall be replaced with 18" P.V.C. piping. Between the 1a Tee and the 1a Green, the applicant proposed to install approximately 250' of 18" P.V.C. piping. All drainage in aforementioned areas has been impeded by collapsed pipes. To install +/- 220' of vinyl sheathing along edge of existing ditch. At the bottom of the 16th Green, the applicant proposes to re-grade a 60'x70' area and then to re-vegetate area with Spartina Patens which shall be planted on 6' center: Along the 14a~ and 16th Holes, the applicant proposes to install erosion control blankets place staked hay bales on top of the blankets, and to raise the elevation of the area to prevent flooding and therefore erosion into the existing marsh~ Area shall then be replanted with grass. Located: East End Road, Fisher's Island SCTM#1-1-3.13 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone would like to speak in favor of the application? TRUSTEE KING: We are going to have to table it. Went on Friday, and we went to look at it. Part of area that they want to dig out was not really staked.where they want to do the work. They are going to stake out the area. All this business is the banks of erosion for this little ditch.. Part of it is muskrat damage. The DEC concern is that they are going to open all this up. 15 They are going to drain all the fresh water down, They are going to remodify all of the plans. I will make a motion to Table it until next month. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DOUGLAS & CAROL RYAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x200' fixed timber walkway, a 3.x14. ramp and a 6'x20' float. Located: 3710 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue SCTM#103-9-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any one here who would like to speak in favor of the application? Is there any one who would like to speak against the application? We have a revised request for a Wetland Permit for a 169' fixed timber walkway four feet above grade with a 3'x12' ramp and a 6'x20' float will not exceed 56 feet from the water's edge. Is everyone familiar with this? We were out there in August. It will match the length of the neighbor. I do not think that you were here before Pat when another one in Richmond Creek with less than four feet water depth. We require that they put stops on the float, so that the float does not sit on the bottom. Which is also increase their chances with the DEC. Because the DEC has a problem of the float hitting the bottom, which is going to keep it off the bottom. Really low water. PATRICIA MOORE:: What are the stops made of?. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Chain or metal tings. PATRICIA MOORE: You mean it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is attached to the pilings. PATRICIA MOORE: So then it cannot hit the bottom at extra low tide. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is right I do not know if you were here when we told other applicants. We are hiring. Let us finish the public hearing. Any other comment on this? Everyone happy with this. TRUSTE POLlWODA: With regard to the fixed walk way make sure that the pilings are no larger than 6 inches in diameter. Hand dug no machinery in the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had a problem around the comer with that. machinery in the wetlands and a dock application mid it pumped up a lot of material onto the marsh. They made a big mess. When you go into a nice healthy marsh like what Mr. Ryan has. We want to see that protected for his own benefit. Smaller pilings in diameter which cannot pull out. They should be hand dug into the marsh. TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE KRU~SKI: All in favor. ALL AYES PATRICIA MOORE: Can I have the conditions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we will go over them now. Ken will you make a motion here. TRUSTEE POLlWODA: I make a motion to Approve the application of DOUGLAS & CAROL RYAN for a fixed timber dock 14~x169', 3'x12' ramp, and a 6'x20' float: Located 3710 Beebe Drive with the condition that it is not 56 feet beyond the marsh and the pilings for the fixed dock not to 16 exceed more than 6 inch timber. It will be hand dug. No machinery in the marsh. TRUSTEE KRESS: That the float will have stops on it. Preventing it from hitting the bottom. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we wanted to tell you before we start the next application. We are hiring someone to do soundings for the Board. Because we have such trouble not with you personally. But with almost every dock application. The soundings we are never happy with.. The DEC is unhappy with the soundings. There is always three versions of what is going on. We are tired of making repeat inspections. It makes the process much lengthy by going back and back. So it is a Board appointed .sounding person. The cost will be past onto the applicant at the time of application. We are looking at hiring two people. We have not formally hired both of them yet. PATRICIA MOORE: Do you have someone designated already? TRUSTEE SMITH: One is Charles Harvey of Greenport. TRUSTEE KING: The other one is Kenny Meskill. He used to work for the DEC at one time. PATRICIA MOORE: When we present our applications (cannot understand) so we may not need it in our case. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No we need it in every case. Because anyone is free to submit any information that they want. But we want the Board to have a consistent soundings. Set of soundings for every dock application. Because it is bad for the Board. It is bad for the applicant. Because it just drags on. PATRICIA MOORE: When we are finished with our review. We can discuss what it does not provide. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not on any specific one. I am talking. PATRICIA MOORE: No generally, from now on and in the future. I understand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Every applicant. We are not singularly you out. PATRICIA MOORE: You are just telling me personally. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have been telling everyone right along. Because it has been a problem. We do not want to single anyone out. TRUSTEE KING: We should make a format of the guidelines. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had a discussion with Mr. Harvey. We need someone whois familiar with the tides. That it blows two days out of the east. It is a little higher today than normal. Or it is blown out of the northwest all day so it is a little lower than normal. So we want a normal low fide. Hopefully that will stream line the process. PATRICIA MOORE: Well it will be your guy so you will not argue with us over whether it is accurate. TRISTEE KRUPSKI: You are free to contest it. But you might not. You might be very happy that this was done for the applicant. When you look at it 17 you might say they should be thrilled with this, this is accurate, it will take a burden off your job. PATRICIA MOORE: I rely on Bob who I know does a very good professional job and is a licensed surveyor. So I do not know the qualifications of the people who are applying and I will not comment on it. 10. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of THOMAS & ROBY GLUCKMAN Requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed dock, consisting of a 4'x98' fixed catwalk, 3'x14' ramp, and 6'x20' float to be secured by two (2) 8" diameter pilings. Located: 1350 West Cove Road, Cutchogue TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? PATRICIA MOORE: Before I begin I do want to express our appreciation for allowing us to be on this evening. To apologize for the confusion that occurred during the inspection. We relay our apologizes to the entire Board. I assure you that if you wish to go back to the site. I will make sure that you have refreshments. That I will personally be there. To make sure that the gates are opened and available to use them. Tell me what time? I will be there serving coffee or sof~ drinks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No that is all right. It will be in the morning of the 18th of October. PATRICIA MOORE: 18TM of October. We will find out the time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will be hard to tell. Cutchogue is in the middle. So we usually start to the east and work to the west. It depends on the schedule. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can ask Charlotte. PATPdCIA MOORE: Yes, Charlotte was very helpful and it was not her fault. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We went out to the site in August. We requested that the project be staked. It was not. So we could not do the inspection. We went out last month and the gate was locked. I even tried to see maybe we could hook over the gate and it was not. That was sufficient to discourage us. With the dog sign and it was locked. PATRICIA MOORE: We appreciate your attempts. To begin this presentation I have with me this evening Thomas and Roby Gluckman who are the property owners. Also with me is Jim Walker from the Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. he is my expert and will be presenting some detail information and testimony to the Board, as well as exhibits. To begin with you are all familiar with the code. I know that some of your own records, and there are several permits that have been granted and I have outlined in my application. We have the Gluckman application that you are familiar with. We have proposed 129'.of length of the dock. From the bulkhead to the waters edge or to the water. There are several other docks that are in this cove. Adjacent property owners, one is William Moller, which the application was submitted in 1993. and approved in 1994. However, the construction was late, when you compare Gluckman to the other properties that I discussed. 18 The Gluckman property is a 4 acre parcel with 300 feet of water frontage. So when you look at this situation I want you to keep the size and length of waterfront in mind. The Moller property is 1.9 acres with 170 feet of water front. If you need approval from this Board for a length of 135 feet. So the description I have and I will not extend the evening by going item by item. Peter Izzo is a also within that toe. He made an application March 1998 and was approved in December in 1998. The total length of his dock is 123 feet and in fact is positioned in such away that it is in the area of the lagoon. Also Blair and Izzo together with regard to maintenance dredging in 1998. It was amended 1999 which gave them access by way of the road, crossing the marsh for the equipment. Finally, Jim Riley is probably the most blatant example of how permits have been issued in this cove. His application was made in December of 1998.and approved February of 1999. This Riley dock is a total length of 113 feet. There is also the dock of Collins which is a pre-existing and O~Grady which I did not list here because the construction has not taken place. I think O'Grady is being held up by the DEC and I believe his application is still pending. What I did is identified each of the properties, described them each of the permits that have been granted permit numbers and also took photographs of the area. I took photographs of the Gluckman property. The Riley dock which I highlighted for your benefit. Also photographs and description of the Moller dock. The Riley dock. I again identified the area where the Izzo dock will go. What you will notice right away is this area has numerous docks. Approval for numerous dock in the area. Again the Gluckman application which started to prior to some of these docks being approved and I am going to submit that to you for your records and again I know your evening is busy. So I will ask you to review them at your leisure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. PATRICIA MOORE: Because Mr. & Mrs. Gluckman can not be here at the next meeting. Should you choose to continue this hearing. I have asked Mrs. Gluckman. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually we do not choose to continue it. It is the applicant. PATRICIA MOORE: You may have questions for the applicant. Mrs. Gluckman has suffered from disabilities for some time. It is a degenerative disease and I am going to ask her to come up and explain what her condition is. I have the doctor's evaluation that was just confirmed as an up date since yesterday. I am going to submit this for the record, but I am going to ask Roby Gluckman to explain her physical conditions and the need for the dock that has been proposed TRUSTEE SMITH: It really does not have anything to do with this PATRICIA MOORE: I will disagree. The ADA laws are making it more and more clear that access by way of building permits, structures. The way of the world is to give out for people with disabilities. Certainly, Mrs. Gluckman qualifies for this disability and the need for the dock that we have proposed. What the DEC has considered as the flimsy seasonal dock. Would not be 19 adequate for Mrs. Gluckman and I think it is very relevant to the fact that what we proposed is not only reasonable but it is necessary to provide for Mrs. Gluckman's needs. Also the desire to have access to her boat. I mn going to ask that she place some information on the record and as far as the ADA claims that is to be determined later on. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What claim? Could you please define that? ADA. PATRICIA MOORE: America Disabilities Act and claims can be brought against the Town for violation of that. I know that we have discussed with Mr. Sansevere as a matter of fact. That the first time that we actually looked into it. It was their literature on that issue. Mrs. Gluckman is an example and I think it is something that I would like to have put on the record. Things get worked out but I need a record that all the issues that are potentially issues. Thank you MRS. GLUCKMAN: I do not want to bore you with this. The medical terms the words that I do not understand. All I know is that my knees are deteriorating due to two broken legs. (Cannot understand) I have a letter here .from my doctor which I received today. Because I cannot walk through the rocks onto a row boat, rowing to the dock pulling myself up and I am in a position that is deteriorating. Not only to myself but also to my family, because I cannot be with them. My grandchildren and I want to enjoy my life. This summer I tore my rotary cup which can be very painful. So I would really appreciate you can help me out. At least resolve this. I just want a dock. So that I can have a quality of life. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. PATRICIA MOORE: The letter speaks for itself with respect to the medical condition and I appreciate the short and sweet. The bottom line is that she cannot get access to her boat. By way of the alternatives that have been presented to her. So I would like to submit this in the record, I have the original, letter here from Dr. Stuart Katchis. He is in New York and I believe when the application was first submitted there was a letter in the file that was submitted to you. We just want to show that conditions have not improved. They have deteriorated so that her medical conditions are relevant to the issue of providing for a dock that is adequate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thm]k you. PATRICIA MOORE: Jim Walker is here tonight. The environmental issue is something that you do not want me to testify to. Because I do not have the expertise in the environmental issues. I would ask that Jim Walker now to present to you his report. IIM WALKER: From Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. I have a written report. There are six copies which I am submitting one for each member of the Board of Trustees. I also present an additional copy which you may want to forward to the Conservation Advisory Board. So what we tried to do with this report. Is address permit issues regarding this dock. Try to identify ways and solve the problems with dock and issue permits that allow this project to be successfully be completed. The first important thing to look at is the new survey. The new survey is important to the typographic 20 map. Basically what it does it references the County. It seems that the county will provide it on the map and spot elevations and the natural contours. Most important part of that is New York State DEC requires soundings that reach a depth of 14 feet low mean high water, mean low water for a permanent dock. What we did was. We revised the dock lay out to show the most efficient way to reach the four feet contour. Which basically goes up to the dock that Moeller he might put in. After insisting on reaching that four f oot. We were able to come up with the solution which greatly reduces the length of the dock. With terms to the second copy of the survey in Greenport. The location ten foot off set the town property line.(cannot understand) . Pat and I did a new proposed dock for somebody. That float reaches at the some of land that is important because of New York State DEC problem and to allow plenty of dock. It shortens up the length of the dock by five feet.(cannot understand) The report that you have in front of you is a designed meredith it includes the premise that I have applied for. It included the discussions where we did the soundings. But also includes some information from the title bench mark. These people that you used to know, hired people that are going to do soundings for you. This particular type of survey is a hygrographic survey. It is based on 19 VD and intertitle bench warrant. It is used to determine the elevations of the title bench warrant and the actual soundings. The most important part of that particular information is that mean low water is different for every title bench. This particular instance it is 0.1 for mean high water. What we are trying to tell you is that the hydrographic survey you are getting information. Relative to 1929 survey of series of high and low fides that are measured and pro-type issue. This will give you the most reliable information will be accepted by the New York State DEC. That being said you have soundings that are actual. They are based on the most reliable information that you can get. TRUSTEE KING: Can I ask you a question. Are you telling me that this is more accurate than someone going out and actually measuring. JIM WALKER: Yes, any given day. TRUSTEE KING: Where were these sound'mgs taken? JIM WALKER: The soundings where taken. It does not matter. TRUSTEE KING: Yes it does matter. Bottoms change. I have been a Fisherman for thirty years. I can show you bottoms that change in the matter of weeks. TRUSTEE POLlWODA: I would like to comment. In the past year and a halfI have visited that site, myself. I have walked out there with a pair of waiters and I did not find the soundings to be correct. I have walked out there at times when it gradual decreased at the dipped and then in actual increased. The flat came up where the dock is proposed. The soundings are wrong. JIM WALKER: It is easy for you to say that. You can sit up there and be clinical. TRUSTEE KING: I am not being clinical, I am being realistic: PATRICIA MOORE: I refer you to 97-21B which is your Wetland application process and it refers you to the survey that was Galvin which party 21 is considered to be the method. That is why when we discussed the fact that you wanted to have soundings done on an individual bases. I know you personally disagreed. However, in the code as well as a recognized scientism Method and recognized method for determining the measurements. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This does not seem to be based upon field conditions. Was any measurements done physically in the field? JIM WALKER: Yes, sir. The survey NGBD for the proposed soundings (cannot understand) Listen I think we are getting away from the problem here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh we are away from the problem. JIM WALKER: With all do respect to the Board and Mr. King. But what we are given you here is four foot depth which will be recognized by DEC. The Board of Trustee is really the problem here. The Board of Trustees is going to dictate unreliable and usual dock requirements. What we did was shorten up the dock to 124 feet period. What if that reaches four foot of water. I do not think that is the problem. The problem is that the New York DEC wants to pull the dock back to 105 feet Require six docks to be put in and taken out every season. What that is going to due. It is going to make the bottom be disrupted every single spring and fall. Tape cut off. You can say that the survey is a little bit different that you normal see. But I have put in for the records the particular information that you really need. What we did was to locate the floating dock that is going to be there in four feet By doing that the project sponsor hopes to secure approval through the Board of Trustee, go back to the New York State DEC to get a permanent dock. If you do not have a permanent dock in this location the Board of Trustees provides by the Conservation Advisory Counsel to vote it back to 100 feet. Yes you are saving 24 feet of fixed catwalk out into an estuary that is why all those regulatory agencies (muffled). By doing that you are going to encourage the project sponsor to have to build something that is unreliable and that will have to come in and go out every spring and every fall. It will disrupt shell fish in a manner that is different and unusual and that I do not believe is the correct way to go. All that information in there, we gave five copies.for the Board. One for the Conservation Advisory Counsel. The project sponsor dispute the idea of a shorter dock. The DEC review recommends a 105 feet for a seasonal take out dock. It recommends 4 inch by 4 inch piles any dock builder will tell you that is not going to give you a reliable dock. In my opinion it would be much smarter of the Town to require to have the Gluckman's build a permanent dock with regular round pilings and have that structure stay in place which is a reliable residential dock. In stead of having the dock go in and out I will answer any questions that you have TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I need a brief answer from you on one thing. I have a few other questions? The second survey in the report. The darken one that shows the ten feet off the property line. The end of the float reaches the four foot contour. The float itself is not in four foot of water. Why would you think that would satisfy the DEC? JIM WALKER: Because if you went back and told the New York State DEC i that we are trying to build the shortest dock possible. They would review the ' policy and they will issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The float is not in four feet of water? JIM WALKER: It encourages it to try to push it out professionally. Five or ten feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is incorrect. I amnot encouraging you to push it out. I am asking you a question. Why do you think that the DEC would approve a float in less than four feet of water. JIM WALKER: The position that it is within is in four feet water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The float itself is not.. The float itself is not in four feet of water. I was just wondering why would the DEC. JIM WALKER: That side of it will be in 3'7" of water. What is the difference between I do not think it is sufficient enough for the DEC to discourage the application. Could they allow a permanent dock in that particular lay-out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This survey here. It does not show soundings? Along the length of the structure it only shows scared spots soundings. Why is that? JIM WALKER: Because the project sponsor commissioned a hypsographic survey. Yesterday, I determined where they actually go. (cannot understand muffled) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we are kind of getting off the subject also and I think that what the applicant wishes is access to the water. We met with the applicant two years ago on the site. I believed what was discussed then was that it is the policy of this Board. To grant the shortest possible structure and still provide access to the water. What was submitted two years ago. Which is still in the file here. Showed a structure to 2 '11" x2'8" it is always the policy of the Board to pull the structure back to shore as much as possible to minimize the affect on the environment and to minimiZe the affect on navigation. I think it was the feeling of the Board at that time that it was no point in going out how many feet. To the old soundings. Which was prepared for the applicant on 11/18/98, There was no point in going Out an additional twenty or thirty feet. I think it is in the minutes that you provided us for additional few increases of water. That has always been the policy of this Board. That to put a structure out twenty or thirty feet more feet in order to gain a few more increases ofwater depth is just not a good argument. Because of the environmental issues. We are not looking at what the DEC will or will not approve, what the Army Corp. will or will not approve. We are looking at what is best for Southold Town and to provide access to the water for the applicant. JIM WALKER: I understand what you are saying. Before I let Pat talk. I want to deal with the thrust of what you just said. You said to shorten the dock and reduce it. That is a good idea. That is a good solid thing that the local town's should do. But you have to understand that when you are dealing with a private sponsored ad you have to satisfy three other regulators. That once you go back you are going to get a take out dock. If you have a take out 23 dock the Town of Southold you are going to disrupt the bottom. It is not environmental wise thing to do. I am not trying to rub it in your face or say that you should have to cow down to the New York State DEC. The situation is and that is the way it is. Southampton, Bridgehampton. We deal with these cases all the time. For seventeen years I have been doing this type of project and I tell you what. The best solution that I can see is to satisfy four feet of water or whatever is required to get a permanent dock in that particular location. So that the Southold Town does not have allow a stick dock which has to be hauled in and disrupts the bottom, disrupts shell fish and causes adverse environmental consequences. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: YOU are talking about going to hearings for the DEC to get this dock. He just said that. PATRICIA MOORE: It is a possibility. We do not know how far we are going to have to get. We believe that it is the proposal will give the DEC what they want, as far as reaching four feet of MLW. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you do not understand. My question to you two is why should we treat this application any differently than we treat all the other dock applications. That is the question? PATRICIA MOORE: I understand and you should look at every signal dock that we have addressed in this cove. It is in fact consistent with the dock that she was granted. What we are talking about are docks that are consistent with the Moeller dock, the Riley dock that was very resent which has just been approved. You have the Izzo dock. All those docks are comparable to the one that we proposed. So you are not treating us any differently. In fact to treat us in any other way, which to treat us differently from the others. That is why we are here this evening because the last time you addressed this issue. We there after saw Riely and Izzo get,approved. So it is certainly puts the applicant on notice that something wrong here. Why are they not being approved and the Izzo and Riley docks are. Even more so the Riley dock required actually clearing of a beach area. Where the wetland were. There is photograph in your file when the application was first submitted. The entire area was vegetated with beach grass. The current photograph of what the conditions are today. There is actually a beach there, and there has been an elimination of the beach grass. So in fact, things have deteriorated. What we are suggesting is comparable. Secondly we presented to you evidence what the DEC wOUld do to Mrs. Gluckman if a shorter dock was submitted to them. If you give them a flimsy dock that is a seasonal dock. I was speaking to a DEC officer what is the rational with regard to a seasonal dock. One of the descriptions that were made well they are less sturdy. They come out easily and people tend to put smaller boats on these docks. The rational makes no sense and eventually I am hoping some One will take then to task. However that has not happened yet. In the meantime all of us that are here this evening is facing the conflict between the DEC and the Town Trustee. With respect to your policy. We have litigated that issue.and the Freeman case is fight on point in the same cove. The Supreme Court in New York advised you that the policy is not legislation and it is not something that you can hang 24 your hat on. So it certainly can not be used as the basic for the denial of this application. So we have presented to you, one environmental bases for this. It is compatible with your environmental both. Two it is consistent with the other docks in the area. Three, you are going to extensional eliminate the possibilities of Mrs. Gluckman to be able to get access to the water and when you say that we give you access. Well giving access to a dock that is 56 feet but certainly Mrs. Gluckman in her condition will not satisfy her needs. Again she has three hundred feet of water front. Three hundred compared to every other dock that you gave in that area. The equity of the situation is really questionable because, as far as the fight to water access. The cases are clear that you have a right to get water access and the degree of water frontage that they have. They should without any question be able to get the dock that they are requesting. It is a reasonable request. We even came to you and suggested an aiterative location with a slight reduction that we think that the DEC will approve. Because it meets their criteria of four feet MLW. The fact that the dock just reaches there. Probably splitting hairs but I think it is something that they will ultimate approve, because the alterative there is we certainly will end up in a municipal hearing there are that issue. Because the rational just does not make sense. None the less the point is that it is reasonable in this case. I have Mr. Walker here. I will ask that he submit his personnel vitae and his resume for the Board to add to his report which I think is quiet important. I also ask you to read through it. There is a report that is referenced to me the Coastal Report. JIM WALKER: I think the one you are talking is Environmental Impact, I think that it is basically important to see in my pictures that a small boat a residential dock. The ecology of small boat area has been documented by Hugh Grant. (cannot understand) In most respect to marina areas of the marsh cove area it appears to be but comparable. No different then the number of shell fish below the residential dock to provoke the ecological consideration. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But what you said is all your opinion. I do not think. You are saying that it is fact and very little of it is. What you just said. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I just have one question for Pat. Do you think that I am qualified to measure the depth of the water and take the soundings. PAT MOORE: No offence but I do not think that you are qualified. (Can not understand). TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Who is qualified? PAT MOORE: I am certainly not qualified to give a depth. That is why I rely on surveys by Bob Buff, who certainly is qualified. The DEC relies on his information and I would hope that you would too. As far as what yoU ask your professionals to gather to confirm the information that is given to you. I respectfully ask that you look at your Town Code and see whether or not that it is an appropriate method. I suspect to confirm~what people are giving are. However, as you know, when you are out there measuring if someone goes out there at the next day. At the same there may be slightly different equation 25 So you will always have slightly different equation that is why the NBD is used because it takes the standard. I have asked Tom Samuels to speak to the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just before he starts I think we have been through this before a few years ago. I think the Board felt because of the lack of gain of water depth over the length of the structure. That the structure should be shortened to maximize the water gain and minimize the length of the structure .I think that is the Board's policy on all dock applications and I do not think it is fair to single out a few applications. I think you have to look at all the applications we have granted in the past two years over the whole course of the town to see that it has been standard policy of the Board. We have to visit the site. Hopefully next month it will be staked. So we can actually look at it. PATRICIA MOORE: Do you want both docks staked? I guess that is a suggestion. We have the one that is 10 feet offthe end of the property line. That does give you a shorter dock. It meets the requirements and will allow the Gluckman's to get a dock from the DEC. So that is what we thought was compromise position that we would allow you to meet your goals, and that everyone gives in a little bit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We usually do. It is very rare that push comes to shove on any of our applications. PATRICIA MOORE: Well we can tell you that the most we can compromise is that what we proposed. We suggested that as a matter ora way to try to resolve this matter without ending up in Court. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You know, Pat, we are not worried about Court. Because you are the only applicant that always threatens us with Court. You are out of how many hearing we have every night. You are the only one that threatens with Court. So we are not really worried about Court. This survey that you have submitted with an alternative dock location shows no soundings between MLW and four feet. None at all. It shows what is drawn in as a contour line. But the accuracy ofthat is sort of vague. Because there are so few soundings around it. PATRICIA MOORE: As Mr. Walker stated that particular alternative was provided after we had the map. Because we did not know what the depth of water until this hydrographic map was prepared. So first comes the hydrographic map. Then goes the possibility of alternative locations. So that is what we did. We moved in such a way that it makes sense. To reach the four foot MLW and locate the dock. We have flexibility in the location of the dock. As long as you are reaching the depth of water. That ~411 meet other regulator agencies. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems to be an awfully inconvenient area to put it a long way from the steps. A letter was just submitted about the applicant's medical condition. This is putting it further away from the stairs. PATRICIA MOORE: Just to clarify we have to move the landing to provide access to that dock. From a new landing site. Obviously the location of the landing That is presently will not provide the access that is need. 26 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It does not show that on the plan. PATRICIA MOORE: We just want to know where you want to place the dock and we will work around the location of the access to that. We want to know where you want this dock to go. Then we will work around the positioning the stairway for that purpose? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It has been the Board's policy that the dock, any dock be located 15 feet offthe property. PATRICIA MOORE: In fact I think that we were t~ying to avoid the wetland spot that is shown there on the survey. We were trying to create an appropriate distance from that.. The locations of that dock there is some room. There is about 15 feet left of room. If you want it 15 feet from the edge of the property we can certainly accommodate that. MR. SAMUELS:: The particular applicant is a classic Catch 22. There are a number of gentlemen herewith the same premise of people, Chuck Bowman, Bob Hems, Jimmy Walker. It is a quandary it is a Catch 22. The Gluckmans are placed in the same position as quite a few other people in the five east end towns. In point of fact there is now a law suit in Shelter Island. But the Shelter Island trustees are also members of Shelter Island Town Board had a knock down drag out fight with the DEC over this issue. They too want to limit the length of the dock. I have spoken to several of our trustees and I have been told this is the Board's position. I understand the Board's position. It is a valid position the Gluckman's do not need salty water in their dock But they are in a box. Now the DEC regulations as I know them. Although a new set which has been very recently issued. Do not get into this matter of water depth at the end of dock. The Gluckman's would get by with what they want to use the dock for. In probably in 2-1/2 feet ir 3 feet if water, But they are in a box, This summer, one of our applicants accepted after great effort a stick dock on Peconic Bay. The dock was installed the being of August. By the middle of August. It have to be repaired. You cannot have a dock on the bay on by 4x4 sticks, stick dock. There are some places where they exit in Mecox Bay which is a very enclosed body of water so there is not a lot of wave energy. This particular location is protected in most wind directs except severe northwest or west winds. Southwest they are pretty good. I just brought tonight a recent court decision were the State Appellate term roles in favor of the Patton's again in Huntington Town. Where Huntington V'fllage fought Huntington Town over jurisdiction of the bottom. I believe if the five east end towns which ban together they would get their fights re-established. They have been taken away from them since 1977. What this Board has to do in my mind is to confront the situation. I do not know for what extent you have had conversations with the DEC. I try do not, But we have seen property rights in this particular area and their your property rights as well as the Gluckman's. Because with your approval that we use your bottom in your creeks and so on and so forth. Therefore, you should be able to determine who and what you build. Or allow to be built. The situation here is that if you get a DEC permit. According to their new guide lines as I understand them. I do not believe that the State Legislator has changed the regulations about how 27 long docks should be. Or how deep the water should be at the end of them. It would appear to be some sort of a political agenda to discourage construction of docks. There are very few places in Southold Town where you can have four feet of water. MLW and have a dock. The bay men in Southampton, the bay men in East Hampton, the bay men in Shelter Island are all upset about this ruling. Because it interferes with their activities. If the idea is to construct stick docks that come out and that is ridiculous. The Gluckmans are not interested in a long dock. I am not interested in building long docks. You are not interested in seeing them. We live here. Ihe DEC in its judgment feels that is a way of reducing I would say the number of docks. Because it is patently alchemical position that they have taken. IfI own a canoe or a whaler that draws 18 inches or two feet why do I need four feet. Why do I need four feet? It interferes with navigation. Stick docks are environmental nightmares. You are turning the bottom in the fall. They are expensive and limited. They do not stand up. You loose them all in a bad storm if they are on the bay. If they are on the creek you are going to loose to ice damage. That is what it is all about I have had no fear in my admiration for the trustee's right. I have no fear I fought for it. We took the State to Court forty years ago. All five trustee's bodies of the five east end towns filed statements in favor of the east end maintaining its own rule. As far as the use of the water ways. We went to the State Supreme Court for the highest court in the State. The case was lost because the Supreme Court says that the DEC has fleet policy. But this goes well beyond fleet policy. This idea that you have to build docks that are unattainable condition. Four feet of water. Cab you find four feet of water at MLW in Depot Creek? Ken TRUSTEE POLlWODA: Near the channel MR. SAMUELS: Pretty hard. If you are in the channel Which is the other rub. What has happened in the Quogue Canal and Tiana Bay and places like that. The DEC is saying that you have to build your dock out to the edge of the channel. It is madness. It is truly madness. What do I suggest if the trustees would issue a permit for a dock of less length than what has been applied for. The reason for doing so. Then there is going to be public hearing by an ALG who works for DEC. That public heating can be requested to be held in Southold Town Hall where it should be held. Not in Stony Brook, not in Albany where people can reach. Each and everyone of you trustees should be there. I guarantee you the first one that is held. You will have the trustees from East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island and Riverhead. In Riverhead the Town Board are also the trustees. When we allowed them to split from us that is what they did. But that body of political power should have some beating on this case. Because the DEC position is patently ridiculous it does not make sense. Unless you are going to have a tremendous explosion in marina expansion which the town does not want either. Because of the problems intended with those. You are going to continue to have dock applications. You have to give people something that they can use. Which is all that I am asking the trustees for. Something that will meet the 28 requirements of the Gluckmans. They do not want to bring a 53 foot Hatteras into this dock. They want a tender to get out to a sailboat. That is the point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that we agreed with most of that. We would like to grant them a dock. That they could put a small boat on and have reasonable access to the water and I agree with. We should not roll over to the DEC absolutely not. We should approve a structure that is consistent that is approved in Southold Town for the benefit of Southold Town. MR. SAMUELS: I find that condition tenable that is what has happened in Southampton. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We meet with Ray Calander during the week-end and we spoke to him about this. Needless to say it was not resolved. MR. SAMUELS: It has been lip serviced for over two years now. He is not the problem it is not Ray Calander. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The four foot rule does not really make sense. Because you go around to our creeks. The outer edge of the dock is in four feet of water. How many times to you see a boat on the top on the inside in 1- 1/2 feet of water. What is the purpose of having a four foot rule? MR. SAMUELS: Makes no sense at all. It makes no sense at all. But Calander is not willing. There has to be a test case at ALJ. It is unfortunate we are always looking for people that will challenge irrational positions that the DEC takes, PATTRICIA MOORE: With all do respect to Tom Samuels. The Gluckmans do not want to want to be the test case. They want the permit and allow you, your administrative channels to challenge the DEC policies. They are inconsistent with the Town Trustees. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely, but we should not roll over to the DEC. That would be pathetic if we just roll over. So the DEC wants it 130 feet long whatever. Okay we will do whatever they want. PATRICIA MOORE: In this particular case. We have the room to move the dock over to meet the Court needs: and the length of all the other docks in the area. I appreciate you wanted to shorten it. However, it is consistent with the other docks in the area. We meet your criteria both environmentally and structural. The Gluckmans do not plan to be the test case because what happens is. You approve a shorter dock procedurally you end up in court because the applicant has to preserve their rights. The Gluckmans end up in Court with you and an ALJ hearing with the DEC. That is procedurally what happens with a permit which is left and what we have proposed. So it does not create a very tenable position for the Gluckmans~ They do not want to be in the middle of a cat fight between jurisdictional battles between the trustees and the DEC. TRUSTEE POLlWODA: Just for your personal knowledge. The early comment that the soundings (cannot understand). I do believe that I do have the qualifications for soundings. Out of college I had this job possibility (cannot understand). PATRICIA MOORE: They should hire you because what they are suggesting. 29 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I just want to let you know that I believe my depths when I do out and measure.. PATRICIA MOORE: Not to be insulting in any respect. With all do respect I have to rely on data that is certified and I cannot challenge what you are doing. Because I do not have the time of the day what it is to compare to. So it is nothing personal. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Believe me it would be qualified ifI did take the soundings. TRUSTEE SMITH: This dock to the south, I think it is Moeller and the dock you are showing with the shade in area is actually a little shorter than that dock. PATRICIA MOORE: Slightly, it is within inches of each other. Because of the angle in the cove. The Moeller dock actually will be further out into the navigational channel. Then the Gluckman dock. Remember this is a cove and it is on an angle. So the Moeller dock is sticking from the edge of the land further out. MR. SAMUELS; Moeller's dock is 135. PATRICIA MOORE: We are proposing 124 we are shorter and visually shorter: TRUSTEE SMITH: Pat, I think once you get this staked in its new location. I think this will be resolved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would also like to see soundings along the dock. This is insufficient information. Accurate water soundings. Physically taken not taken from the 1929 survey. But physically taken in the field at low tide. PATRICIA MOORE: I understand that but we still have to rely on the data. TRUSTEE FOSTER; It is unreliable. TRUSTEE KRLrPSKI: It has not proven reliable yet. There is no soundings, no water dePth where the dock is proposed. PATRICIA MOORE: We will try to met your request. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we can have access to the property and have it staked. If you request different access to the beach. PATRICIA MOORE: Different access to the beach through their property. MR. SAMUELS: It depends where it is located? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: that would make sense. If they want to put a stairs where the dock is located. I do not think that is a big deal to move the stairs. To make it easy access for structure. That is not unreasonable. PATRICIA MOORE: I am sorry I misunderstood you mean access for construction or access for. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. PATRICIA MOORE: I apologize. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Access for the Gluckmans to access the dock. Because where it is proposed it is a long ways off from PATRICIA MOORE: We did not change the access. We only gave you an alternative ske for the dock as a possibility because you can reach the level: The access we can move it once we know where you would prefer to see that dock placed. 30 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In August it was not staked. In September it was not available. We do not want to go out in October and then have to come back in November again. TRUSTEE SMITH: It is getting colder all the time. PATRICIA MOORE: Yes it is I was out there in the water so it was beautiful when I was out there. TRUSTEE SMITH: If you show that dock 15 feet off?the property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: that is the policy but 10 feet maybe better if it was closer the neighbors. I do not have a problem with this. TRUSTEE SMITH: I would like to see it go 15 feet, because that is our policy. Five feet on 300 feet is not going to make a big deal. Physical soundings if someone takes with a stick measuring every ten feet at low fide. Your plan for the access to the dock from the top of the bluff I think this would be resolved. PATRICIA MOORE: We will provide all that material for you on the 18~. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will be there in the morning. PATRICIA MOORE: I am just talking with Jim Walker to see if he can provide you with the diagrams. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the property going to be opened? PATRICIA MOORE: I do not know. Mr. Poliwoda wants to go out the day before the 18th. TRUSTEE POLlWODA: I do not have to go on their property. I will go by boat. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are going to take a brief recess. (Tape change) 11. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of MICHAEL McALLISTER request a Wetland Permit to install a timber stairs beach access and stone armoring along the existing blufftoe. The stairway is proposed to be 100'+/- long, and 4' +/- wide with a proposed 4'x8' timber platform as a resting area. The proposed stairway is proposed to be supported by 4"x4" CCA timber posts. Existing deteriorated timber remains of retaining wail and stairway proposed tobe cut at grade as necessary and removed to an approved upland location: Applicant also proposals to install 150 linear feet of stone armoring at the existing toe of bluff 170 linear feet total including the proposed returns. A proposed 100 +/- cubic yards of"Natural" stone (1-2 ton) is proposed to be placed on filter fabric on grade along 1,280 s.f. of existing bluff scarp. Proposed stone installation to be approximately 8" wide at 170 linear feet total. Located: 17665 Soundview Drive, Southold SCTM#51-1-3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only thing that I can think of is that I looked at this in the office about two weeks ago. For some reason I looked at something about only looking at the pool. Maybe it was a different one. It was someone who wanted to move a pool back. GENTLEMEN: I have no problem with you looking at it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am sorry I apologize because it was submitted in timely fashion and I know that we did not look at it. 31 12. 13. GENTLEMEN: Just keep this mind. Initially the owner had put in a request for the bulkhead. We have a rock armored on it. The DEC has turned that down. I just wanted to say softer soil erosion are controlling. (cannot understand) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you again and I apologize. Is there anyone else here to comment on this application NEIGHBOR: Yes I would like to. Jim Boyle I have lived there for 67 years, The thing that I do not understand is just how far out on beach is the dock going to go? I know that the high tide comes right up to the phragamites. The high water comes up to the bank and then that beach there. So if you put in eight feet of rock GENTLEMEN: Eight feet is on the float. JIM BOYLE; Oh so it is coming down the bank to the beach. I looked at the diagram and I could not figure it out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We require this to be staked in the field. JIM BOYLE: It would be nice to have it staked showing the extension. TRUSTEE KRESS: We will be out there again. We are going to reset the hearing because it was our fault. For whatever reason no body saw it. There were six of us there on the field inspection last week and no one saw it. So we will be out there next month. TRUSTEE SMITH: We had time to see it to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we will reset the public hearing. We will not conclude it. Any other comments? TRUSTEE SMITH: I will make a motion to recess the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES En Consultants, Inc on behalf of LISA El)SON requests a Wetland Permit to construct on pilings a one-family, two story dwelling, deck and swimming pool, install a precious driveway and sanitary system, place approx. 850 cy of sand fill, establish a 30' non-disturbance buffer adjacent to tidal wetland boundary and connect to public water and other utilities. Located: 9326 Main Bayview Rd. Southold SCTM#87-5-25 POSTPONED UNTIL OCTOBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of NORMA HINSCH requests a Wetland Permit to construct (within 18" of existing) approximately 98 linear feet of timber bulkheading and backfill with approximately 45 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in fi~om an upland source. Located 77290 Peconic Bay Blvd. Laurel SCTM# 126-11-10 ROB HERRMANN: Of Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of the applicant. Norma Hinsch it is a very straight forward application. It is adjacent to the identical project approved by the Board. The past year, for Mattituck Associates. It is a one time replacement within 18 inches that will line up with the Mattituck Associates wall and replacement of the existing bulkhead. 32 14. TRUSTEE KING: I just had one question on the groin. Why do they want to see that with a hole in it. ROB HERRMAN: I am sorry Jim. TRUSTEE KING: Why do they want to leave that groin with a hole in it? It really is not doing much. Could they replace it with a low profile. Clean it up a little. While they are going the construction. ROB HERRMANN: The applicant is not interested in undertaking a groin re- construction now. That is all I can tell you. TRUSTEE KING: It seem foolish. ROB HERRMANN: I can pass that along. TRUSTEE KING: You are going to have someone doing the bulkhead. It is ridiculous not to clean that little groin up and straighten it out. ROB HERRMANN: Your comments are well taken. TRUSTEE KING: Other than that like you say it is just a straight forward bump out. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Why don't we make it part of the permit. That they have to take care of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How long is the groin? TRUSTEE KING: It is short, only maybe 15 or 20 feet. It has a section missing at the bulkhead and it really is not doing anything. Right in here it has hole right here. ROB HERRMANN: The groins are not in great shape. If she changes her mind. We can come back to modify but I cannot compel her to.do it. TRUSTEE KING: It just makes sense while you are there with equipment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The state's land there obviously the state is not going to compel to remove it or replace it. ROB HERRMANN: I never have had an occasion where the State wanted us to do anything with a groin. I am usually fighting to get it replaced. As I said I can pass the comment along. TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: If it were not functional we would not approve it. TRUSTEE KING: I would suggest it. Can't force her to do it. ROB HERRMANN: I will pass it on. She can discuss it with the contractor. See if they want to do that? If so, I will come back and amend the permit if not there is not much I can do about it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? Do I have a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTF, F, POLIWODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I will make a motion to Approve the application to replace the bulkhead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE INC. request a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-place) +/- 268 linear ft. of existing 33 timber bulkhead with vinyl sheathing. Dredge by clamshell bucket crane up to 20' of bulkhead to a maximum depth of 4'6" ALW. Approx. 200 cy of clean sand will be trucked in from and upland source and used as backfill. Located Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck SCYM#122-9.-6.2 & 122-4-44.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any one here who would like to speak in favor of the applicant? ROB HERRMANN: I am Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE 1NC. this hearing was opened last month. It is a fairly straight forward application. Again for marina maintenance because the Board had asked for two machines to be used. One was for the proposed spoil site on the property to be staked which it was and I hope the Board was able to observe that during field inspection. The other issue you had asked me to take a look. You had been discussing at the last hearing with Jeff Strong about widening the parking area. When I went out there that is exactly what I had found. They had asked me to flag the tidal wetlands boundaries for the purpose of future applications. When I went out there as you described it looked like the parking area had been plowed inclusive of the phragmites to about a foot behind my tidal wetland boundary~ So there were phragmites taken out. There were no wetlands cleared but it was cleared right to the wetland boundary. I do not know how the Board wants to handle that. If you are handling it as a separate issue or violation, as a fine or what ever. They had in response to your comments last time and went out and sort of sand burned along there. As I explained to Jeffthe phragmites will not have a problem growing back. But it was pretty clear what they were doing. They widened parking areas for storage at that location. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right TRUSTEE SMITH: They put gravel on to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They added gravel. What we are going to need from this applicant. Is what we want to see a 20 foot buffer between the wetland fringe and his parking area. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well we said 30. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is 20 reasonable or 30. TRUSTEE FOSTER: No that is what we talked about was thirty. But you do what ever you want to do. If you want to reduce it to twenty?. TRUSTEE SMITH: I thought it was twenty. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay. ROB HERRMANN: I do not know what the footage is but it would make sense to me to basically have the buffer what was there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do not know what was there? ROB HERRMANN: What is that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is all covered. There is a substantial amount of fill. ROB HERRMANN: I would have to check but I think that I may have a survey that shows the wetland boundary verses what was the existing phragmites line. Because as I said we had done this for a future presentation. I do not know for sure that showed, if Joe Gagen office showed the phragmites line. I can tell you exactly what was cut. But in lieu of that or 34 lacking that a twenty foot buffer is probably about wider than was in some places and probably a few feet narrow was in other places. Some places there was not much expansion the wetlands are right there. In other places it looks like it went down about twenty feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It really is obvious. ROB HERRMANN: Oh yes that is why I did not know What you are talking about. What you were saying last month. It did not look plowed to me, but I do know what you are talking about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: After he is done we are going to need a stake row of hay bales to be placed there permanently. The area should be pitched and it should have not mn off into the wetlands it should provide drainage on site for the parking area. We want a survey certainly showing elevations because the survey does not show any elevations. We are not sure about Mr. DeFino site as a spoil site? That might not be appropriate for a spoil site there. It might increase the elevation and cause further mn-off and sedimentation into the creek. So that might not work as far as a spoil site. He might have to track off his materials to an upland source. ROB HERRMANN: The question was, you say a lot of things. The first is the spoil site I would have to take another look at it. It is obviously basically an area of a vacant lot. That invites the phragmites all over it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Pretty wet down in there to, Rob. ROB HERRMANN: Depending how the spoil was laid out it might be possible to increase. We would have to confer with Mr. DeFino.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But if you really want to pursue that as a spoil sight. We will have to see a survey with one foot contours on there. So that we have a really good idea what is going to be done. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It is wet in there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It goes down we walked in there where it was staked and it gets wetter as you go down. You might have to do a couple of boring there. To show what the soil conditions are like. We might not approve it any way because I said it might increase the mn-off'and sedimentation into the creek and it might be a bad idea. ROB HERRMANN: We are awaiting comment back from the State anyway. So they may have additional comments on the site. So that may need to involve. We have to discuss this with Jeff whether this is something of how they struck the agreement to use it as a spoil site. As far as the parking area. You are asking for elevations also in the sewage area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is right. ROB HERRMANN: That is to serve what purpose? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would serve as a bench mark for future activities there. Which is a big plus. ROB HERRMANN: In terms of elevations. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also to provide a reference point that he is actually controlling his mn-off and not like now he is running sediment material into the creek. So that improve that also. 35 ROB HERRMANN: I can certainly relay this information but I do not know if it would be provided by next month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not know if the Board would want to proceed with violations here or what? There has so far a lot of the work has been done there. TRUSTEE SMITH: I think we should proceed with the violations. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make sure that this all moves along. We are not going to act on the rest of the permit Until this is resolved. ROB HERRMANN: That is why, I asked the Board if it does see fit to take an action against the marina and that should come through later so that can be rectified. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That gives them an idea what has to be done to take care of what he should take care of. I will make a motion to recess the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES 15. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JAMES & LILIAN MlltALIOS requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct +/- 93" timber retaining wall with (2) 12" angled returns and truck in from an upland source approx. 150 cy of clean sand to be used to backfill and planted with Cape American beach grass (1" on center) Located: 640 Lloyd's Lane, Mattituck SCTM#99-3- 4.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will open the hearing for your comments. But I would just to like to ask a question. This is a bulkhead that is proposed in between two other bulkheads. ROB HERRMANN: No this, this was going to be my first comment because this project description is now updated This is a proposed retaining wall that is proposed that is proposed between two proposed retaining wall as indicated on the plan. It shows the proposed retaining wall and then it shows the proposed Peck retaining wall to the west and the proposed Reis retaining wall to the east. If you are asking me that question based on how the project description was read I do not know why it would be written exactly that way. There is no structure to the west or to the east. TRUS~ KRUPSKI: That is what I was wondering about? The returns. ROB HERRMANN: The returns have both been eliminated. Pursuant to the most recent plans drafted August 28t~ TRUSTEE KRI~SKI: I am sorry. ROB HERRMANN: The returns have both been eliminated. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Now you can make any other comments. ROB HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann from En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. JAMES & LILIANA MIHALIOS. As we did last month the hearing subsequent to this will have to handle procedurally however this is part of what is now a four-parcel project. So my comments would relate to all 36 of them. Specifically at the last hearing we discussed the Mihalios and the Peck applications. At that time there was proposed a retaining wall only with some beach grass planted and back fill behind it. There was going to be an easterly return on Mihalios side. And there will be openly a westerly return on the Judge Peck's property to the west. The new applications before the Board tonight.are for the two properties to the east.ofMihalios owned singly and separately by George & Rochelle Reis .and solely by Rochelle Reis farther to the east. So the easterly most return now will actually be on Rochelle Reis property. The other return would be on Peck's property. The Board had specific to this application asked for. I think your primary concern about this particular application had to do with the drainage point. For the sake of time and that the record is already covered we will not rehash the discussion. Except to say that at the Board's prompting the Mihalios did have prepared by E.S. Kalogerso, P.E. a drainage plan that was submitted, reviewed and approved by Town Engineer James Richter and subsequently installed. There was a letter submitted to you office this afternoon from Mr. Kalogerso stating that the drain system has been substantially constructed and completed. As to the soil on my shoes will show you that I went out myself tonight to confirm that those things certainly do appear to be substantially replaced. So the drainage situation was addressed subsequent to our last hearing and the design approved and installed. Although I do not know the latest word I understand from the Mihalios that Mr. Richter has already been invited to go out and inspect the property. I do not know if it is practice to do so. But he has been invited to do as it is completed. The Board had asked to see more comprehensive bluff?restoration plan. In addition to the retaining wall a certain degree of terracing to be done on the bluff?as well as the regarding of the crest of the bluffin order to improve the vertical (cannot understand) So in a plan revised and dated August 28th. We do show in great detail the plan in the Board possessions a revised prospect and that would show terracing plan. I do not know if he will in fact be the contractor but he did provided us the plan by ".PLANTINGS BY THE SEA" and it would be a plan similar to that approved by the Board and was taken by Louis and Linda Corstacks. The entire project would become similar to that. In that we would have a retaining wall with terrace walls up the face of the bluff?to be planted. Ideally it would be planted with the deep grass it would be very good and Virginia Creek Grass it would be typical vegetation provided to me by Mr. Strone. What would perhaps separate it from the Corso application which the Board brought to my attention specifically and I would believe in response to some concerns would to undertake some sort of plan that would might other wise be reflected and basically we would have 50 percent up and 50 percent down. Against the face of the wall and perhaps even the toe in front of the retaining wall and so the Board is requesting or would request a placement of toe on it. As also in place on the bulkhead to the west.. The Cutler property. I believe the applicants would be willing to do that and I believe it is something that makes sense. I probably should stop my comments there. As I expect there maybe some comments again from the Cutlers or their representatives and I 37 will particular be response to those. So that I can shorten the amount of time that I speak as much as possible. If the Board has any other questions or concerns. We would be happy to answer but certainly I believe we have done our indulgence in responding to all of the Boards concerns stated at the last hearing. Subsequent to there too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to comment? CHARLES BOWMAN: Good evening, I am representing the Cutlers which are the residence to the west of the Peck. Just to address the very general comments. Certainly this project is one of those situations which has gotten out of control. The way is certainly the wall which has created some tremendous damage to the bluff The first thing that the Board should be looking at is establishing the former toe where that bluff is. Right now there is probably a foot to three, four, five feet of fill that has come, come down onto the beach. I did not see a provision for restoring the drainage of the beach and restoring where the bluff toe is? It also along the whole bluff. The natural toe which is in a certain area along the whole length of k. Not only on Cutlers but also on Peck and right down to the new project which you have now. It is very important to keep that toe in the same place TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: May I interrupt you or are you almost finished. Actually we went out as a board on field inspection on Wednesday. We noticed exactly that I think the theory of the Board is to leave that material alone on the beach. That is not the toe. The toe is where the toe was. Rob Herrmann was out there and we had to move the stakes from where we thought the toe was? Not where the fill has been washed. Rather if you look at the big bluff you can see where the toe is. We moved it considerable up against the toe. CHARLES BOWMAN: In fact if you look on either side of the line. You are going to see a toe on one side and a toe on the other side. That has to be recovered and taken off the beach or pushed back up into the bluff or utilized in the restoration of the bluff itself. There is a difference in and of itselfi There are all sort of wood, debris all sorts of things. But part of the restoration is to be cleaned up. Not left on the beach. That is it. The drainage plan, which is paramount to get the drainage corrected. How do you restore the state like the bluff Our clients are greatly concerned and absolutely they should be. They have a heavily vegetated bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Beautiful. CHARLES BOWMAN: They take care of it. Bluffs are like lawns you have to take of them. By drainage, by planting and by actual pruning you have to take care of them That is one of the things that people do not realize and they should be concerned. The Pecks are certainly in a very difficult situation because there bluff, there vegetated bluff it is an adversely situation. Certainly you cannot go back in history. But I think the Board should look at the bulkhead which is being put in on the west side. That does have rock armament that has a prevent scouring in that area. But if you walk up and down. We also would have negative effect. They reflect wave energy and the scouring of the beach. Or by the adjacent properties. The problem with this 38 whole scenario here is that it has grown and growing, and growing. What you are going to end up with is a stretch of beach that is going to be overly bulkheaded and hardened.. Because what is exactly happening here you start with one owner and I can guarantee another owner will come in for bulkheading, and another one come in for bulkheading and it will go right down the line. You are going to adversely affect the beach. There are many other ways to go. The bluff has to be restored and not only the DEC. but certainly the Conservation Service recommends that you look at bluff alternatives. Stone, there are lots of stone protection on bluffs they work fine. They take the same elevations as a bulkhead. The bluff can get restored. They use wide tract bulldozers. Low ground pressure bulldozers that cn actually work right up and down the bluff regarding. Get the natural angles out. There are all sorts of type X erosion. There are blankets now that are available some made of fiber some others that lined with tiger skinning all sorts of special stickers that hold the whole thing together. We have tremendous success in re-vegetating these bluffs without a tremendous additional expense. They are all quite shnilar and at very least. You should be looking towards what is happening to the west. To the bluffs that are stable there and if you can fringe into that. My own opinion is the whole bluff should be done this way. Now that I found out that it is growing. It makes it more so to do something to preserve the beaches. It is a beautify beach there. I would think that the owners would want that beach preserved. Rock armoring in front of the bulkhead produces that. That reflection of wave energy does not eliminate it. If you have more of a slope structure that wave energy is going to be dissipated it even further. I do not think any one in this room is going to say that nothing should be done. You should leave the bluff that is not the point at all. The bluff should be stabilized. It should be restored. I think the property that caused this problem is the reasonability to do of restoring the bluff and restoring the neighbors bluff. That should be done properly so it does not suffer from additional damage. I would suggest the Board to consider it an alternative. That we have stone use so that no one has to come back to you during the four years from now and they have to repair the bulkhead. That got blow out. You are done. The bluff is then taken care of. It is stable it is planted and you are done. I! is not going to continue this bulkhead, after bulkhead, after bulkhead scenario that is so common and especially on the north shore of Long Island. I think you would set a presentment to reduce the wave energy keeping the beach in beautiful condition and planting, terracing certainly does work. My last comment there are a lot of easy ways to do it. Terracing is a lot of hard work. There are easier ways to do it that is not a tremendously high bluff to work on. You have to recover the bottom material any way. So a LTV bulldozer can take some of that material and push it right up take the debris out of it and it does not have to be trucked away can be used on the process. Then there would be additional fill to be brought in. Usually it is a combination of topsoil and then the grading process. It all has been at time right time of the year. It all has to be done in spring. To do it now, you are dead. That is from personal 39 experience. The spring of the year they can get it all in place. You have to have temporary irrigation, because mulch is falling down and you watch it and get everything to grow right for the first time. So that you are not going to have a problem. But I think this plan needs some alternative and to make it simpler more friendly for the beach. Certainly more friendly to Cutler's bluff. Thank you. ROB HERRMAN: Rob Herrmann of Eh-Consultants again I will try to be brief. Do what I said I wanted to do to make some comments that are responsive to those that have just been heard. Some of Mr. Bowman's comments were very general. I will respond to those more appropriate. Most specifically, I want to respond to his comments regarding the reason that he is here. Which is not a general interest, but in the interest of protecting his clients. Which is a well found interest. I would certainly suggest that the Board would be different position as far as the Curler's concerns. If the proposed structures were up drift and or adjacent to the Cutler property. But in fact it is not. There are three basic types of potential impact the beaches from hard structures. One of them is passive beach loose which you see by Atlantic Ocean. Fire Island for example is transgressing land ward. It would not matter what type of structure you put. Whether it would be rock, timber concrete whatever, So in that regard as far as an alternative concern. If Long Island Sound began to transgress at a rapid rate. It would not matter what was there. The second is beach loose. The retaining wall actually well beach loose if you would take a hard put it out and let us say in the middle of the beach. I think Chuck was getting at that. Well let us define what the real toe of the bluff is. We cannot take out where the delta is because then you are actually taking away beach that was there. Which I think was certainly the productive element of redefining with the Board in the field. What the toe of the bluff. I think that can clearly be seen by looking at the westerly end of Peck property or whether was built to the east because that was where the toe was at the time the Board approved that bulkhead. Or where Goldsmith that is adjacent to Cutler, so I would certainly agree with those comments when we review them. The only qualification that I would say that using one to three ton stone, rock inventment. Would replace more of the beach. Than using a pertaining wall with tin armor renew. I think that is legible but it is just an interesting point. I think most controversional is how the hard structure like this can actively negatively impact the beach. There is two theories that are most commonly accepted. Certainly most easy to witnesses. One would be what is called down drift scouring. And we disguised this at the last hearing where if you take a harden shore line that is located up drift of a unarmored shoreline and if you have a general direction of literal drift and wave energy coming in towards that property. Wave energy is reflected and refracted around the return that is the whole idea instead of having 90 degree returns having angle returns and switching armored angle retains these are all the things that the agencies have done to mitigate that type of problem but you get these erosive down drif~ reentrance formed on that property. The problem with of throwing that theory out on this project is that the Cutlers are not 40 down drift. They are down drift of Goldsmiths retaining wall, which has been there for thirty years. So if the Goldsmiths entire bluff and beach front were going to be destroyed by a retaining wall in placement. We would have seen more evidence of that coming from the Goldsmiths retaining wall. I do not really have any observations or comments on that other than that bluff looks pretty good, but that is not pertinent here. The Peck retaining wall was specifically designed not even to run all the way to the Cutler's property. It was not to cause what even as preserved impact. These properties are down drift of the Cutler's and as Chuck describes the project is growing. It is growing farther down drift to an existing retaining wall one property. (Tape change). The other comment of how you can go about restoring the bluffface I think is six of one and half dozen of the other. There are ways to do by terracing and by erosion control and that. I guess it depends on which contractor wants the job Either way the goal is to revegetate the bluff and the final note when we are talking about to look for alternatives I would say certainly that the Sinsalot heating which unfortunately could not be at. The project has certainly been involved and been tailored to these very types of concerns. But I think certa'mly the point the alternative I would always say that when you are looking for alternatives that you would want to look for near-by projects and where have with respect to failure or success in the past. If the goal is to restore the beach, and restore the bluff, Certainly I do not know if the Board recalls. A1 you might have been the one on the Board. I think Hemy this was during your hiatus. But when Ronald McGreevey was in the same association. In fact the last property which came before the Board. The McGreeveys had undertaken I think something like 12 to 15 years of measurements of their bluff toe. How it eroded and had done all these other things and we went through the same routine with the association giving permission and the McGreeveys went from a bluffthat was completely devoid of vegetation and being badly scoured every year. To having a retaining wall and having a toe armor and then having that bluff completely lushly vegetated. I agree with Chuck it is an unfortunate situation that has developed in some of areas that were vegetated before but I think if we looking to correct this measure. We can look not to theory or text books or some of the things that I am talking about but just look at the identical projects that were approved by this Board. Which were undertaken to the east and to the west. I think that they have been very successful. I referred to the Corso project before because it was a larger project. But it was the same idea with the same result. So I think with the drainage addressed with the plan that is in front of the Board. The terracing through the plantings through the toe armor for the lip re-grading I think that we have addressed these concerns the only one that was not brought up as Chuck said perhaps was the beach clean-up I intend to agree wkh the Board when we discussed it about leaving the material on the beach front, because it will become a natural re-nourishment project. For the owners that located down drift. Unfortunately, it will not swim up to the Cutler property. But if the Board feels that it would he necessary or appropriate to remove that material. I think that Tom Samuels indicated that 41 would not be problematic and I think the applicants do that as well. I would leave that to the Board since it ultimately is your beach front. It is owned by the association who had given it blessing to the Mihalios and the two Reis projects as it is their beach front but naturally resource belongs to the Town. I would defer to your decision. That would be the extent of my comments and would allow the record rest as far as our presentation is concerned TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. ROB HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE SMITH: I think a lot of this stuff is top soil that is down there, Rob. That does not really belong on the beach. ROB HERRMANN: It is a mix. Them is a mix of it which is why I said for areas that are clearly with top soil and any debris I do not think that there would be any problem having that removed for simplicity sake of having ail removed and relevell to what the adjacent existing beach grades are. Tom is that a problem? TIOM SAMUELS: No we did one last winter and k was trucked very close to the line in Old Field. It was well supervised.by Chuck Bowman. CHUCK BOWMAN: Am I to understand that this whole project is going to have toe on it. The whole length. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We required that in the field. TRUSTE FOSTER: Armour stone. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Including the returns. Especially the returns... CHUCK BOWMAN: ! think one of the problems here. Is that the Cutlers here are going to have a very small unprotected area between structures. It will aroid. Unless there a very significant transit'mg from the Peck bulkhead with rock toe on it. There may be further over then slope down into the beaches at the same time. Otherwise we are going to have some problems with the Cutler bluff. I would suggest perhaps Rob look at the plans again. See if more stone can be placed on that return and continue further towards the Cutlers so that we transient into that vegetated bluff and transient down into the beach. ROB HERRMANN: It sound like you are asking for a hard structure to extend closer to the Cutler property. CHUCK BOWMAN: But transient down, Rob. Transient down with more stone .I do not see how you are going to keep between all of this structure in such a narrow area. You are going to keep the Cutlers bluff from having input. There are holes, there are holes between structures. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the scale on this plan here? We want to see. How- about Dr. Samuels could you shed a little light on this discussion of about 100 feet between the Cutlers property line and the bulkhead. Could you shed a little light on that return theory with the armoring. And what not. TOM SAMUELS: After the 92 storm we extended the return on Goldsmiths east return. The Cutlers property had been scoured out considerably and the entire bluff from Cutlers up to Dr. Morales east end of that little association. The Honeysuckle Association was consumed up to that land and Mr. Goldsmith who was aiive at that time wanted to protect himself from being 42 blank from another northeast storm. Which would have gotten behind his bulkhead, so he applied for a permit and the Cutlers did not want the return to go under their property so we angled it back in. To the Goldsmith property that was armored and it has been successful. You have got to remember that it has been eight years since the last serious northeast storm. So there is great deal of compliancy around that we are not going to have anymore. Natural laws says that is something that has happened before is going to happen again. It is going to happen again. The armor does mitigate to a large extent the reflected wave energy; specifically on the return we carry the stone right up to the top of the structure. Right up to the top. They are particularly effective that is why we build the returns at the oblique angle also to reflect waves and keep them away from the structure. It can be done the soft approach that Chuck described we have done a number of projects. Primarily in East Hampton because it is very popular out there. The problem with soft approach is. If the soft approach would work you would not need a bulkhead. You would not need any toe protection but there is not anybody in this room that honestly believes I think that the first step in bluff protection is toe the bluff.. CHUCK BOWMAN: I agree with you 100%. TOM SAMUELS: This goes back to Georgiana Reis CHUCK BOWMAN: I think the point that I am trying to get at is more of a slope transient. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Twenty foot going down. TOM SAMUELS: Relatively simple thing and if that in any way be helpful for the Curlers. Then I am absolutely certain. In matter of fact if we are the contractor and I think we will be. There will be no additional cost to the applicant because it is just another truckload of stone. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It cannot hurt the applicant. ROB HERRMANN: I think structurally it is a good idea. I was confused because I did not understand what you were saying. At first, because of how close any hard armoring would be from Cutler. TOM SAMUELS: We were working on the Peck property? CHUCK BOWMAN: How far is that going to extend? TOM SAMUELS: Twenty feet. The return is going to be armored anyway. What this is made of is large stone. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It is one to three ton? TOM SAMUELS: One to three ton .is what the statement reads. It is going to blend it in to where the vegetation takes. ROB HERRMANN: It will help to maintain the location. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Protect it more than any thing. CHUCK BOWMAN: What you are giving the ability of further deflecting any waves that will be reflected off of that structure {cannot understand) MR. CUTLER: I am asking these questions (cannot understand). ROB HERRMANN: It is on your property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have one more question? 43 I do not know who to direct it to. We noticed in the field that there were birds nesting in the bluff. ROB HERRMANN: That was the other issue. This has to do with another hearing. I just spoke with Pat Moore who is the attorney for Rochelle Reis. PATRICIA MOORE: I know that they are very environmental conscious. ROB HERRMANN: I tried to reach Glenn Just who I know who has bird certification. So do you Chuck have some bird certification? On the Rochelle Reis there are small nests and I was trying to get somebody I know that does the local bird identification. The rest of it was that the Board was interested in having that area preserved and I did not expect that Rambo would be filling that high. TOM SAMUELS: They are cliff swallows is what we call them. They are frequently found in where there is a clay landing at the top that they can borrow out and they will be migrating soon back to Capistrano. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They are on Robins Island.. TOM SAMUELS: Yes.. ROB HERRMANN: That would be acceptable to one side. GAll, WICKHAM: I will be very brief, Gall Wickham on behalf of the Cutlers. We have been listening through the battle of the experts I just want to emphasize that while Mr. Bowman did suggest that toe armoring done certain way would help familiars some of Cutler concerns. Their main concern is the concept of formally putting bulk heading on that property, The Trustees are changing the effect of each year with regard to the environment and if there is a less attractive alternative to a strong structure like that. Mr. Bowman seems to be in a soft position would occur. That is what they would like to see and that is what we would like to explain without that wooden retaining wall. Sticking up while they are up drift there is concern about the repairing their bluff and there is also the concern about the beach in general looks like and that is a liable concern. I think any property owner would ask. What the beach area look like. I just wanted to emphasize that. I also would like to ask that there be some schedule when this work would be conducted particularly the portion of the bluff area and the upland area. Those conditions that occur be all tied into (cannot understand). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is a good point. Thank you. Any one else? Getting back to the bird thing. I think we will need a different set of plans here. Showing armoring on the Peck property. ROB HERRMANN: I know but you said getting back to the birds for Rochelle Reis. We can eliminate the vertical lift is not on the Reis property. As they are other wise for reasons discussed. That can be eliminated from those plans. I do not know if it is necessary that it be done. If it where done it would eliminate those nests. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well if you are going to do the bluffre-grading that I can not fmd now. Because I have so much in front of me. If you are going to do the bluff re-grading. You will eliminate that nesting site. ROB HERRMANN: On the cross section of that plan there is an area identified as a vertical lift to be re-graded. If that part of the plan is 44 eliminated it would eliminate the disturbance to that area. We must leave it in the Mihalios and Peck applications. I think that the birds with lesser. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it is too active. There might have been? So you want to eliminate that re-grading on the whole Reis property that last property. Just at the top. ROB HERRMANN: The last one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about time schedule as far as planting. TOM SAMUELS: The first order of business, of course, is to construct the bulkhead~ Second armor it. It is quite a job. We would be working at the end of Bailee Beach Road and depending on the winter tides. Some weeks you can work only every other week. As everyone familiar with the site knows the problem is the Mattituck Inlet jetties. It seems to been aster bated since the west jetty was repaired and probably not allowing any by pass at all. But that is an entity that exists and will continue to exist. There is a possibility that the Army Corp of Engineer's will get the necessary appropriation to re-dredge the shoal that Jimmy is familiar with off end of the jetty. Because it is getting shallower and shallower. Any sand that would be dredge there would be pumped up the beach from the jetty along the beach in front of Dr. Clements and Goldsmiths. There is an association that has been formed to push for that eventuality Mike Forbes was starting work on that I think he has been occupied lately. But we will see how the new house member from wherever. That is definitely in the Corps plan and has been since we completed the west jetty at Mattituck. That is a by-pass solutions of some kind will in time eventually perhaps not in my life time. Although I feel good today. Get done. Like the Goldsmith jetty problem will ultimately something will happen. Shinnecock jetties are the same thing. Chuck and the rest of us are all available on this on going thing. So the area east of the Mattituck jetties. Has a down drift problem because the by-passing the jetty. And is showing up at the mouth of the inlet and when it gets pass that it is off-shore. The schedule will start, this job will start late Fall, early Winter and continue on as it goes. I would like to give all the applicants involved the benefits of economy and scale It is better for the highway department where there access to Bailee Beach Road instead of continuing opening up the guard rail. So on and so forth. It should be done in late Fall because some people are still using the beaches for surf fishing or whatever. ROB HERRMANN: Why we just have Rambo contact the Board and let the interested parties of the scheduling can contact the Trustees office. TOM SAMUELS: November, December and January just the best time to be on the sound beach. The soil of the delta that was formed can be bucket up as high as we can bucket it. And re-cleaned in that way. There will be a considerable amount of soil. There is a lot still there. Since we have had a storm since the up land rain wash-outs. So that stuff will be removed and re- used. TRUSTEE SMITH: Thank you. Sit down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. 45 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES I think what we need is to think about what we are approving here. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think so. TRUSTEE KRESS: I guess you have to do one at a time. Because they all have different needs. TRUSTEE SMITH: Mr. Cutler, are you satisfied with this?. MR. CUTLER: Am I. No. I am terrified and I am not an expert on these matters but I know that whether we down drift or up drift. We have a northeast storm it is coming right at us. I know that our end is going to erode seriously. I know that I have seen it. I know that most of the beaches to the east of us, which have bulkheads, have no beach at high tide. It cannot pass at high tide. Unless you want to walk up to the east. To get to the next point. If there were no bulkheads there. There still be beach there and would still be passive. My purpose is that there would be nothing buy rocks, terracing and the planting of native plants, rose rugs and what have you. And let nature take it course after that. It worked for us thus far. We have a nice frontage and I work on it manually, frequently and it looks nice and we enjoy it a great deal. I would reiterate the point that this is 443 feet of bulkhead and it is going to extend from the Bailee Beach parking lot all the way up at least a mile. I believe it is the Krupski property where the bulk heading starts. It opens again and there is erosion on that property you can still pass because it is fed by the bluff it self. In addition to that [ think that any thing that you do approve. I would hope that you would mandate that certain conditions be met. Before anything be done and not just a statement that a plan is in place or it has been accepted by somebody. Certain things should be in place like the terracing, like the planting. I agree with Chuck that the planting should really be done in the spring. I do not see the point of doing it in the fall. That is about all that I can think of. It is an important matter to me, I am glad to hear that the Reis are environmental conscience as are the Pecks. But we love the beach and we like the natural state of it and would like it to remain that way. With the damage that has been caused had not been caused we would not be where we are today. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We are concerned of course for your property to. We are making efforts so that your property will not be affected. If you go back to soft plantings about ten or twelve years ago on the sound. Before we had a series of serious coastal storms the nor-Easters. We advised someone in East Marion or Orient we denied their bulkhead application and asked them to re-planting and they did a beautiful job and the first big nor- Easter just gone. It was well established. It was a shame you had it actively eroding bank. They did vegetate and it just disappeared. Henry you were on the Board then, I do not know if you remember that one. After that we were kind of discouraged. To see that happen them was no rock involved it was just the plantings and it was an exposed place that had been actively eroding. You sort of place that you and Pecks are kind of tucked in there some how. 46 16. You are protected somewhat. This was an active place. The rock will deflect the energy and it will act. G^II, WlCKHAM: But not the bulkhead have you done Peck yet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will just open and close them. I think the comments are all general for the whole project. We tried to look it as one project. There are certain things like on the Peck property that needs to be addressed the extra rock. On the Rochelle Reis property it needs to be addressed with the bird colony - swallows. Whatever they are we will save them. We were the ones that saw them. Number 15 En-Consultants, Inc on behalf of JAhdES & L1LIANA MIHALIOS requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 77' timber retaining wall with (2) 12 ' angles this is the wrong description. It would simple be a 77' timber-retaining wall. ROB HERRMANN: No it would be along with the spec tics on the revised plan Which is simple 93' of timber retaining wail with the terracing and the grading and it would be tied into proposed retaining wall to the west and to the east. It is on the most recent plan but that is not reflected in the agenda. TRUSTEE KR~SKI: Okay - 93 foot of retaining wall to be tied into the west of Peck and tied into the east of Reis and to be armored with stone and be terraced as per plan. The plantings shall be done no later than June lst.is that reasonable. The plantings on the terrace otherwise it gets dry and they also fail. Anything else. The terracing is going to occur any time after construction of the bulkhead and I think the planting that is the key, it has to plant at the right time. If you plant too late it will get dry. It will not make it. That the material that is washed down the bank should be recovered and used on the bank as fill. That the structure be held to the toe of the bank. Is there a seconded.'? TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LESTER PECK requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a +/- 145' timber retalmng wall with a 16' westerly returns and truck in approx. 100 c.y. Of dean sand to be used as backfill and planted with Cape American beach grass easterly terminus of retaining wall to be tied into face of proposed retaining wall to east approved for James & Liliana Mihalos in addition slope, the top of the bluff will re- graded the slope of the bluffwill be terraced and planted no later than June Ia. That the westerly return, the whole bulkhead will be armored and the westerly return will be armored up to the top of the bulkhead. Tapered offto the west a distance of 20 feet to the grade of the beach. Any material that has been washed offthe bluffthere will have been recovered offthe beach. CHUCK BOV~WiAN: Can I ask a question? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. CHUCK BOWMAN: I have every expedition that we the Pecks and Mihalios will go along with this project. And ! have every expedition that Reis will go along with this project. (Cannot understand). 47 17. 18. 19. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why would they change their mind? They have a very active bluff CHUCK BOWMAN: I have no idea. It takes time. To get these things going. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is not unreasonable certainly they would have to bring it back to the right angle and have to armor it also. Do I have a Motion. Is there a second. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of GEORGE & ROCHELLE REIS request a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 126' timber all to be constructed in conjunction with and tied into proposed Mihalios and Reis retaining wall to west and east respectively. In order to re-establish stable angle of repose and restore and stabilize the bluff approximately 250- cubic yards of clean sand fill will be trucked in from upland source and used to fill bluff face, which will also be terraced and planted with Rosa rugosa, Myrica Pennsylvanica, Ammophilia bre~51igulata, and ParthenocisSUs quinquefolia. The bluff crest will be re-graded as necessary to remove vertical lip and restore more gradual slope. The entire project will be undertaken with identical Reis project to east that is not completely true. But this project will 1 to 3 tons stone toe armor and it will be terraced as per the plan and it will be planted no later than June 1~t. Is there a second on that? TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ROCHELLE REIS request a Wetland Permit &Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 95' timber retaining wall to be constructed: in conjunction with and tied into proposed Reis retaining wall to west. In order to establish stable angle of repose and restore and stabilize bluff, approximately 250 cubic yards of clean sand fill will be trucked in from an upland sOurCe and used to fill the bluff face, which will also be planted according to plan and terraced aCcording to plan. Bluff crest will not be re- graded in this case in order to preserve the colony of nesting swallows under the area of the bluff crest. The entire project will be armored one to three tons of stone and the return will be armored with one to three ton stone up to the very top ofthe retUrn. The return has to be armored right up to the top of the return on the easterly side. Is there a second on that? TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES STEVEN FABB requests a Wetland Permit for 2 floats 6'x16'5" connected at middle to make overall 6'X32' 10" ramp 21' 10"x3' fixed dock 67'8"x4' with 2 steps at beginning, floating dock has 4 piles, fixed dock has 14 Pilings. Located 1925 Naugles Drive, Mattituck SCTM# 99,3-5 TRUSTEE KR~SKI: Is there any one who would like to speak in favor of the application? 48 STEVEN FABB: I would like to request a postponement to the next meeting. In October, I need to find out more information on certain details. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have you settled the violations? What does the Board think here (Tape change) NEIGHBOR: I am Steve Tuttle, I am the property owner to the north.. I have been waiting ail night to talk about this matter. The dock was built not built to Town Code. There was a stop work order issued. I believe on that dock and they continued to build. I would like to bring up it is over sized dock, it is within six inches of my property. I went and got my permits spent the eight months did everything to the code. I did not go out there and throw a float on there, ramp on there. Then come in an get a permit. The fifteen feet that I was told which people brought up tonight, it is 6 feet from my property line where that float is going. The pilings that were used were ripped out and previous they were having a 48 foot commercial boat. They were re'mstalled in the wrong location. Which pushed them more towards my property line. The float was never put back on. There has been a history here that this was not an existing dock. It was just something that was thrown together and went out there without permits. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for your information on Field Inspection last month we informed Mr. Fabb that the dock is non-conforming to our policy and that the most that we would permit him wOUld be one float 6x20 would be the maximum size of the float. As far as the location to the proximity to your dock and the proximity of the marina it seems like a pretty good location and if you move the six foot float away it will be away from your property. STEVE TUTTLE; The 32 foot extension, you are saying that you are going to take 12-1/2 feet off?the float. That is 12-1/2 feet from my property line so that issue would no longer be in effect. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. STEVE TUTTLE: As I talked to you outside about that because now I have my 16 feet. His 12 feet that inlet runs about five or six, seven knots. You come into the front of that dock and you have that tide running against you do not have a lot of room to work with. TRUSTEE KRUPSK: Sure. This is the way it is going to be with this dock. I do not know ifMrl Fabb would accomplish by postponing for another month. STEVEN FABB: Well this dock was in existence along time ago and I have been trying to find old paper work. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It could have been there when the flood came. There is no permit for it. We told you that it is only going to be permitted for a 6x20' float. STEVEN FABB: Well there is a Grandfather clause to rebuild the dock to the original size which I would like to do the same I have to find proof of that: for these docks for the original size. My understanding is that several years ago also he rebuilt that to the original size which I would like to do the same. I have to find proof of that. That is why I need more time. The dock was originally a lot bigger and I had to cut down quite considerable at the time. That is the reason I have not changed any thing as far as the pole being too 49 dose to his property. I was not the one that put it in. So I will look into moving the pole. Away from the property line back.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not know if you can do that? STEVEN FABB: Who does that type of work to remove a pole. It is just brought to my attention now. I never thought there was that much of a problem. I think six inches is a little close. It is actually quite a bit more than that. STEVE TUTTLE: Here is a copy of the property line. There is a concrete marker on the property line. There is also a survey concrete marker is right on the monument. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows on the survey that he submitted. TRUSTEE FOSTER: How old would you say that dock is? STEVEN FABB: The original one was there before my father bought the property in 1981. So it has been there for quite a long time. Thanks to Hun/cane Gloria and other storms it finally came apart. We had to have it taken out and rebuilt and through certain circumstances. We could not rebuild it in time. Seeing that it was out of the water and when we put it back in. A few years later. I got violations in the mail. I am going through this. NEIGHBOR: I am the neighbor two houses up. I have been there fifteen years and when I moved in the dock was not visible. There was a boat at the dock, which was loose and actually swung into my pilings. I had to call the Coast Guard, because there was no one available to remove it. I had no number to call for the owner of the boat and there was no number for Mrl Fabb. Often times there have been several violations to my property and to me. There has been a motor stolen by one of his tenants. There is nowhere to go when there is a problem with his property. Except to the police or to some other authority. Basically I feel that is the problem. Having a dock so close. Or even having an oversized dock. Because what happens is that when there is a problem. He is going to rent out the spaces on the dock that is a conclusion that he does not live there himself. There will be problems with this. That I have to address and Mr. Tuttle has to address. Really we do not want to, if we can avoid that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Where do you live? NEIGHBOR: To the north, two properties away. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay around the other side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we spoke to Mr. Fabb the way it would operate with a 6x20 foot float. The only thing that your father showed when he was in two months ago. An old survey from 1970 showing a 30 foot long catwalk. Which did not have any permits. STEVEN FABB: I would like to postpone as long as possible to find further evidence. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Town Attorney said you have to go back. TRUSTEE FOSTER: If you can find a survey prior to 1959 showing that dock in place. That is the only thing that will save you at this pointl TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the meantime he has got use of dock so what do you think. Until the next meeting. After the next meeting the dock will have to be conformed. I will make a motion to recess the hearing. 50 20. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES. You will be back here next month. STEVEN FABB: Yes GILBERT PINK[tAM requests Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x 20' floating dock in front of bulkhead. Float to be secured in place by two sets of pilings. Access to shore via a 4' wide ramp. Located: 155 Lake Avenue, Southold SCTM#80-3-14 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any one who would like to speak in favor of the application? GILBERT PINKHAM: I am the owner, Gilbert Pinkham, representing myselfi. All the boats in that harbor there are only two that are not floating docks. I am one of them and another one. We have been there since 1937 going up and down the ladder getting to our boats all of those years. Getting a little older it is getting tough to get in our boat these days. So we are finally going to join the rest of the crowd. Put in a floating dock that is our motivation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Henry you looked at this? TRUSTEE SMITH: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie you look at this? Henry I think you were to look at this. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It was not mine. TRUSTEE SMITH: Where is this? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Lake Avenue, where is Lake Avenue. GILBERT PINKHAM: It is in Raven Shores. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Okay. TRUSTEE SMITH: It is in that little basin there. It is private bottom. You will be ten foot offyour neighbor's dock to the west. GILBERT PINKHAM: To the west. It is more like thirty feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Rob do you have a comment? ROB HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann ofEn-Consultants I am here representing Frederick Rapp who is the owner adjacent to Mr, Pinkham to the east. I wanted to draw the Boards attention just to a couple issues that where concerns for Mr. Raft. What I have noticed from a review ora plan that was forwarded by Eagle Level Mapping. The project description, which the Board just read, is for a four foot by twenty-foot float. Access by a four foot wide by an unidentified. On the plan that was submitted to the Board. On the plan view there shows a 4x12 ramp to a 6x20 float and on the cross-section it showed a 4x16 foot ramp with a 6x20 float. So if you go from the project description submitted in page one to page two of the plan. The dock seems to grow and grow. Until it is actually intersecting into Mr. Rapp area. Although we had discussions wSth this Board as far as obtaining authorization from adjacent owners. Whether this Board would require or not if Mr. Pinkham is not aware of it. It will be required of every other judicial agency. As the dock is presently proposed Mr: Rapp will not consent to it. The dock is angled off this section of the bulkhead. Which would compel Mr. Pinkham to place his boat either in front of Mr. Rapp 51 property. Or to the property to the west. Where if the float were extended directly out of this bulkhead. You could actually moor the boat in front of your own property. It would not be infringing upon Mr. Rapp.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who is Mr. Rapp? ROB HERRMANN: Frederick Rapp is the owner to the east. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the other guy on the other side. ROB HERRMANN: What about the other guy on the other side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not know his name? ROB HERRMANN: Dr. Pace. If you take this float and I can rip this out you can change it. If you stick it this way, this boat would actually be in front of Mr. Pickham property. As the float is now, the boat is either going to be in front ofMr. Rapp property or in front of Dr. Paces property. In any event the float as it is presently proposed although it described in three different ways. Would interfere with any float that Mr. Rapp could put here. What happens is as it is proposed now. Even if Mr. Rapp extended the float all the way east side. It would only leave 24 feet. A boat larger here would be in front of his property. It would then compel Mr. Rapp to get permission from what are the Forechilles on this side. As I can attest I have represented the Forechilles. If we put the float this dose to the Forechilles property line. The DEC and every other agency would require Mr. Forechille to consent. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where did you get that because that is different than ours. ROB HERRMANN: This is the plan that was forwarded to Mr. Rapp TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Look at what we have. We do not have Mr. Rapp's float on there. MR. PINKHAM: There is not any float on there, on Mr. Rapp property. ROB H~RRMANN: Excuse me sir, this is something that I have drawn in for the Board's reference to make a point. IfMr. Rapp proposed a float he Would have to put it to stay away from this dock adjacent to the Forechilles property line and as I can attest to Mr. Raft has been attempting to improve this parcel with a one family dwell'rog.which we are getting an approval for it. We have gotten accurate resistance from the Foreshilles in that attempt so the point here. Although unfortunately get Mr. Pinkham involved is that Mr: Raft does not want to be compelled to need authorization from the Forechilles because of Mr. Pinkham float and I hate being in the middle ofthese things. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No we are in the middle of it. ROB HERRMANN: If you look at the drawings. Mr. Rapp would consent if he took the float here which would actually put the ramp portion closer to his property but at least it would leave the berth space in front of Mr. Pinkhams own property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ron go over that again.. TRUSTEE POLIWODA; Rob, how about a pole and pulley? . ROB HERRMANN: This dock as it is proposed here: Extends out on an angle. First, so if you put the boat here. It would be in front of the Pace property. If you put the boat here it is as is the float in front of Raft property and since Mr. Raft has forty feet of waterfront here. Why should he be compelled to go over 52 all the way over to hostile neighbor? Beg for their permission when another neighbor has infringed upon his area. He would be fine if the dock was simply reposition this way. What this plan shows is that the float would be 10 feet off of the bulkhead. Although the project description doesn't specify any length of the ramp. This shows a 16 foot ramp. Since I am certainly raked over the coals by this Board as affect ional as you all do. Mr. Rapp would just like to see that this be approved with some specific specifications. Because whether the ramp is ten feet, twelve feet or twenty feet. It is really relevant. It is how close the float is and I am sure that Kenny can attest to how close the float is to the bulkhead. If it is only ten feet, we do not much care how long the ramp is. But the longer you make the ramp. The more the float is going to extend into the water and the farther it is going to get off shore into this area. Since you have three different descriptions of this project. We just like to have that clarified. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Rob you should not take it personally. Raked over the coals! ROB HERRMANN: When it comes to these dock issues. I am a little fascia of course. But it is true ifI propose to you a dock application it showed three different projects descriptions. You would ask me to clarify it and you would ask for it to be specified. So what I am saying is not really the length of the ramp that is relative it is how far the float is off the bulkhead. If you want two feet on the ramp or twenty feet whatever. I just want that specified in the permit because the farther that it goes out TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you do not care where the float is? MR. PINKHAM: No the intent is to put a float Basically identical to the one off of Mr. Pace dock space. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So where ever it goes is all right. ROB HERRMANN: If that is specified to be ten feet offthat would be acceptable and make sense. The only other thing that we are asking you to consider would be extending the float perpendicular to this bulkhead rather than to this one. TRUSTEE KRLrPSKI: Draw it out, can you draw it out. ROB HERRMANN: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does it matter to you? MR. P1NKHAM: Not a great deal. TRUSTEE FOSTER: How do you guys get along at the COA meetings? MR. PINKHAM: I do not think that we in Raven Shores have seen Mr. Rapp once in thirty years. Does not matter. In response to his question of how we get along. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I was just kidding. It is late ROB HERRMAN: No I do not have my scale with me. Do you have a scale. MR_ P1NKHAM: May I explain the proposal. Notice that it would require that I cross the area in front of Dr. Pace's float. There is also another float up here. So it will require that my access to this come in from way up over here and come in this way. This boat he has a small boat there a seventeen foot boat. You could get a somewhat larger boat. So it creates a very difficult access situation. 53 TRUSTEE FOSTER: You mean on the return trip. You mean coming back MR. PINKHAM: Whether you are going in or out you still have a tight , situation. Over the years we have had boats as large as 26 and 27 feet. The owner of this Rapp property prior to Mr. Rapp ownership had a boat moorei on a mooring with a pulley. That is out here. We had no problem getting in a] out. Either way I go I have to cross the extensions of property lines. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In this case I do not see where it should be a problem ROB HERRMANN: What I am saying is that physically if this dock were constructed Mr. Rapp would have to get the permission of the Fortchilles Which I guarantee you would never come. They have threatened him in all sorts ways, take him to Court, and the letters that I have gotten from Mr. Fortchilles. MR. P1NKHAM: I have only received one letter. ROB HERRMANN: Mr. Rapp does not want to get squeezed out here by t,~ hostile neighbors. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can Mr. Fortchille honestly keep him from putting a float in. ROB HERRMANN: Yes he can. If he does not give consent we cannot get consistency certification. TRUSTEE SMITH: What can he say? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This dock is not built. There is nothing there. What Rob is saying if he puts this in and this guy cannot put a float in. Which I do not understand. TRUSTEE SMITH: Why can't he put a float in. ROB HERRMANN: IfPinkham dock is constructed it would compel draft az secondary applicant. To put his dock to get out of Mr. Pinkham way adjacenl to the Fortchille property line. Not from your Board but from the Departmen of State and the DEC would require a written letter of authorization from the mutual property line share. Allowing him to encroach within that area. TRUSTEE SMITH: He has forty feet here between the two docks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No why should we penalize Mr. Pinkham because he wants a dock. Maybe Mr. Rapp doesn't want a dock. ROB HIERRMANN: We cannot induce this Board to do anything. It is an informative thing. We are telling Mr. Pinkham that eventually the other agencies are going to come back and tell you to get Mr. Rapp permission for this dock. I am telling you that if you put it here he will consent to it and if y( put it there he will not. So I am just bringing up to the Board's attention and getting the specs of the dock accurate. Because if this does go in. We just want to make sure that the float is as close to the bulkhead as possible. MR. P1NKHAM: As close to the bulkhead as possible. ROB HERRMANN: Ten feet away is the way it is constructed for a dock. MR. P1NKHAM: That is my attention makes my dock a mirror image of Dr. Pace's dock. ROB H]~RRMANN: Dr. Pace's dock according to this survey. The float is 6 feet oft'the bulkhead. If Mr. Pinkham would be willing to come back to that would be acceptable. The problem is that this plan shows a ten feet. id 54 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unfortunately we are going to have to table this. We have no problem we do not care. Because environmental it is not going to make a bit of difference. So if you do not mind we will hold it offfor another month go and look at it. We will find the right spot for it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you presently have a boat or a dock now? MR. P1NKHAM: There has been a dock there since my father bought the property in 1937. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you have access to it. MR. PINKHAM: I have a ladder I made myselfa ladder. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Can you live with another month. ROB HERRMANN: Mr. Rapp does not object to the dock. He just does not want to have his own rights compromised by being a nice guy to Mr. Pinkham. When he knows that the next guy over is a problem. As I have been representing Mr. Rapp. I have gotten writing proof that has been happening. MR. PINKHAM: My problem is that my legal residence is in South Carolina. Never the less, I will not be here next month. I had no warning about this objection. TRUSTEE SMITH: All right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why can't you put it in the middle at an angle. You still have room to get by. You are in the comer there. ROB HERRMANN: If you could do that configuration and to keep it to 6,7 or 8 feet offthe bulkhead. MR. PINKHAM: I would have to discuss this with Dr Pace. I would have to get it to a point where I still use this side. TRUSTEE KRLrPSKI: You should be able to. MR. P1NKHAM: Put my boat on this side. TRUSTEE KR~SKI: So that gives us 6 feet on that side. ROB HERRMANN: The point is that it would provide no opportunity to dock the boat anywhere except in front and Mr. Rapp does not want to be with someone else. Because he knows he is not get any cooperation. So if you could compromise and go towards the middle and shorten the ramp. Not the ramp shorten the distance to the float. MR. P1NKHAM: I can probably do that. But I would have to go over it with Dr. Pace When I saw him this past week-end and he wanted to go over this and showed him. He said he was going to be out this week-end. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Tell him the whole scenario and tell him that we want to accommodate you To us it does not matter. MR. P1NKHAM: If we agree to the way it is drawn. No circumstance that I can moor my boat on this side of the dock .I do not know if Dr. Pace is going to accept that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You may have to go for a smaller float. You might have to go with 5x16' or something. Tighten it up a little. TRUSTEE FOSTER: How big is your boat? MR. P1NKHAM: Twenty foot wide. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems that a 16-foot float you can keep your boat at. MR. P1NKHAM: I would accept a 16-foot float. 55 TRUSTEE FOSTER: You down size the float a little bit. It would make life a little easier. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A 16-foot float would be. ROB HERRMANN: Any way if he reduces the specs. We are going to make it easier. But we do not want compel him to change the size. If you move the float two feet closer the to bulkhead and made it 16 feet to the edge of the float. MR. PINKHAM: I have no problem. TRUSTEE FOSTER: If you are willing to reduce the size of the float. MR. PICKHAM: I have no problem with that as long as it ii stable. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Henry has a 48 foot boat tied onto 20 foot float. That twenty feet should go 16 pretty good. MR. P1NKHAM: I can make that 16 and how far off. ROB HERRMANN: The float would be 8 foot offthe bulkhead with a 6x16 float going out so if you had a 12 foot ramp would be 8 foot over the water and a four foot opening. MR. PINKHAM: That is fine. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We will approve that for you tonight. Providing that you bring in an updated plan showing exactly that into the office in the next couple of days. MR. P1NKHAM: I will do that. TRUSTEE KRL~SKI: All you have to do is white out. You can do yourself (tape change). TRUSTEE FOSTER: ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am going to stamp this, 6x16. Isn't this awful something as simple as this. TRUSTEE FOSTER: With that last one, Fabb I just did not like to drag this on anymore but:I do not think that should be allowed to use that. You told him that he could use the float until next month. You get a Dee-Wee they do not tell you to keep driving if you keep postponing the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right I agree with you. RESOLUTIONS: :NANCY & KENNETH STEIN requests a Grandfather Permit for a 10'x25' dock, 4'x15' ramp, 100' bulkhead, Located: 2535 Cedar Lane, East Marion SCTM#37-04-10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Table k until next month. Needs more information. Also advise the Town Attorney exactly what is required for a Grandfather Permit TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES SYLAN KAPULER requests a Grandfather Permit for existing 6'x20' float with timber piles and 3'x15' ramp. Located: 26655 Cedar Lane East Marion SCTM#37-4-12.1 56 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Table it until next month. Need more information. Also advise the Town Attorney of what would be required for a Grandfather Permit. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES: VI. MOORINGS; 1. RUDOLPH BRUER requests a mooring in Jockey Creek for a sailboat.. ACCESS; Private TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application; TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES .2. PETER TREXLER request a Duck Blind in West Creek. ACCESS: Public TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: moved to Table it until next mOnth. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 11:35 pm Respectfully submitted by,