The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-10/27/1999Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Henry Smith Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-18~2 Fax (516) 765-1823 ' BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, October 27, 1999 PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr. - President James King - Vice President Artie Foster - Trustee Henry Smith - Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda - Trustee Lauren Standish - Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 at 12:00 PM TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 22, 1999 Regular Meeting. TRUSTEE KiNG moved to Approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for September 1999. A check for $3.244.22 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. 11I. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: FRANK DI'ORIO requests an Amendment to Permk-34-3q-t ~- : / ~ .... - j~k 16'. NOTE: Applicant Changed description to the following: A 16' extension on existing 36' fixed dock, and reconfigure offshore float to create an "L" configuration. Located: 1650 Mason Dr., Cutchogue. SCTM#104-7-11 o TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application and re-inspect it in November, once the proposed structure is staked. TRUSTEE KING sec0ndedl ALL AYES VIRGINIA R. CONWAY requests a Transfer of Permit #1812 from Robert Garben to Virginia Conway and to Amend the permit to replace pilings. Located: 5150 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#115-10-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application and re-inspect it in November. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES LAUGHING WATERS PROPERTY ASSOC. requests an Amendment to Permit #4933 to reflect a reduced dredge area and a more current sounding as required by the DEC. North & South Mar'mas, Laughing Waters, Southold. SCTM#87-3-2. l&60 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application with current figures of 186 cy. ~ $10. = $1,860.00. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of JOSEPH A. ESQUIROL, JR. requests an Amendment to Permit #1675 to reconstruct a 4'X 45' catwalk, 3'X 12' ramp, 6'X 20' float and (2) two-pile dolphins. Located: 1350 Lupton Point Rd., MaW~tuck. SCTM#115-11-11 TRUSTEE Ird-NG moved to Approve the application subject to receiving new plans and a survey, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES DANIEL V. JENNINGS requests an Amendment to Permit g4972 to reconstruct access stairs (4'X 6' upper platform and 4'X t5' stairs) install 3'X 16' ramp and replace 6'X 10' float with a 6'X 20' float Secured with two 2-pile dolphins. Located: 3340 Oaklawn Ave., Southold. SCTM#70-5-54.I TRUSTFf, POLIWODA moved to Table the application until the structure is property staked and soundings are done, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Christopher Stress, AIA on behalf of JANE DELYNN requests a Waiver and Coastal Erosion permit for a second-story to existing one-story to encompass (road) side of house for two bedrooms. Located: 930 Leeton Dr., Southold. SCTM#59-1-4 Postponed until the neighbors are property notified. Tom Ludlow on behalf of RAYMOND GADDIS requests a Waiver to reduce rear deck from 18' in depth to 12' in depth. Construct a one-story addition on landward or north side of residence 16'X 28'. Rear deck to be covered. The excavated area will be approx. 108~ fr0mbulkhead/highwater mark. Located: 7020 Great Peconic Bay Blvd.; Laurel. SCTM#126-11-6 ~ TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. JeffHallock on behalf oflAN SHAND requests a Waiver to construct an open deck 43' from the tidal wetlands. Located: 1460 North Oakwood Dr., Laurel. SCTM#127-6-11 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Permits & Drafting Unlimited on behalf of LEWIS P. JONES requests a Waiver for a fence between lower bank and high water mark. Located: 63429 CR.48, Greenport. SCTMg40-1-19 WlTItD~WN AS PER ~ APPLICANT'S REQUEST Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM J. DALTON III & LORRAINE E. DALTON requests a Transfer of Permit #4717 from the present owner, Laura Rosenberg to William J. Dalton IH & Lorraine E. Dalton. Located: 185 Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTM#88-5-57 TRUSTF. F. SMITH moved to Approve the Application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES CANDIDA HARPER requests a Transfer of Permit #4827 from Frank Tomasini to Paul Lieblich III & Candida Harper and, a One-Year Extension to Permit #4827 to construct 2-40' low profile g~oins that begin at the highest vertical point which is at the whaler of the bulkhead and no pre-filling. Permit amended 9/22/99 to reinstate permission to use fill when constructing groins. Permit will expire 11/18/99 Located: 290 Cleaves Point Rd., East Marion. SCTM#38-2-34 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES. JOHN EDLER requests a One-Year Extension 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. Permit amended 9/22/99 to reinstate permission to use fill when constructing groins. Permit will expire 11/18/99. Located: 130 Cleaves Point Rd., East Marion. SCTM#38-2-32 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES ANTHONY NAPOLITANO requests a One-Year Extension to Permit g4828 to construct 1-40' low profile groin that will begin at the highest vertical point which is at the whaler of the bulkhead and no pre-filling. Permit amended 9/22/99 to reinstate permission to use fill when constructing groin. Permit will expire 11/18/99. Located: 200 Cleaves Point Rd.; East Marion. SCTM#38-2-33 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES NORMAN TAYLOR requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #4826 to construct 1-40' low profile groin that will begin at the highest vertical point which is at the whaler of the bulkhead and no pre-filling. Permit amended 9/22/99 to reinstate permission to use fill when constructing groin. Permit will expire 11/18/99. Located: 300 Cleaves Point Rd., East Marion. SCTM#38-2-35 TRUSTEF, KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES ROSE MARIE.. & LESLIE WlNI)ISCIt request an Amendment to Permit g4378 to add a 4'X 10' ramp and a 6'X 20' floating dock to existing catwalk, and Transfer the Permit from Henry Barry to Rose Marie & Leslie Windisch. Located: Southold. SCTM#70-5-39 POSTPONED AS PER TIlE APPLICANT'S REQUEST 1375 Pine Neck Rd., TRUSTEE SMITH moved to go off the Regular Meeting, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: tHIS ISA PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATINS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZFD AND BRIE, F: FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of DOUGLAS FOERTH requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 8' catwalk, a 30"X 16' ramp to a 5'X 20' floating dock. NOTE: Applicant changed description to the following: Construct a 4'X 10' ramp leading to a level 4'X 4' platform, then to a 32"X 12' aluminum ramp heading southwest leading to a 6'X 20' float. Constructing a low 40' retaining wall with a 12' return on each end. Dredging 62 c.y. to obtain 2' depth and depositing spoil on upland part of lot. Located: 700 Beebe Dr., Cutchogue. SCTM#97-7-6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? IOHN COSTELLO: My name is John Costello and I'm the agent for Mr. Foerth and I represent Costello Marine Contractin~ and I would like to answer any questions that this board may have on this apPlication. I m trying to find out from this Board where they would like it. Mr. Krupski, at the first meeting, told me where he thought k would be ideal and I believe the height and location were partially agreeable in the field, not voted on, and we did put it in that location, I believe that the neighbor's objected, even at that location, and there was since, a second meeting. All I want to know is where you want it so that we can accommodate the riparian rights of this individual without losing his property values. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright, thank you. I'm going to take all of the comments first, so don't go far. We might have questions for you. Would anyone else like to comment on this application? We've had a few meetings out in the field. At the last meeting we were given a deed from a neighbor specifically referring to a 15' area from his property's boundary line. None of us on the board being lawyers, we referred this in writing to the ToWn Attorney. He gave us an answer this afternoon saying that it was very unclear what rights this gave this land owner. This isn't Mr. Foerth's deed now. This is Mr. Romano' s deed, the adjacent land owner, who'is on the same dug canal. So, we're not quiet sure, you don't happen to have Mr. Foerth's deed do you? JOHN COSTELLO: I probably have it back at the office. TRUSTEE KRL~SKI: Okay. I think our concern here is, well to take it a step back further, we've seen a loW-profile bulkhead with limited dredging, work in areas like this. We've seen a healthy marsh fringe established around that, where there is none now, currently on the property. So there a positive benefit for that sort of docking system for that applicant and also for the health of the waters there, by establishing a marsh behind that which would also prevent any erosion of the applicant's property in the future. Having said that, we're not sure, I don't want to get into approving an application that is not on the applicant's property, for a structure that is not on his property, or that he doesn't have a right to put that on his property. Because, that canal, we wouldn't consider it public property, where we would normally say, you know, we do that at every meeting, but, whose property is this proposal on? That's my question. JOHN COSTELLO: Well I believe that the water, the float that's in the water, that these Trustees has some jurisdiction in the wetlands areas. The float and the bulkhead, we're going to move it back onto his property, there are monuments on his property and that is the wishes of this Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that might not be. I don't think we're trying to say that it's necessary even. We'd like to determine whether that is or isn't in fact necessary. You're saying just cut a slip into his property. JOHN COSTELLO: If that is the only alternative that this Board is going to give, absolutely.. I put it where this Board agreed. But, this Board has an obligation to meet the concerns of the neighbOrs and I hope you do meet their concerns. If it is moving it back to the bank, so be it. The only trouble is, the retaining wall that you're desiring, would have to be at a higher elevation and not be promoting the wetlands fringe, which was your desire. TRUSTF~F, KRUPSKI: That's right. JOHN COSTELLO: We will do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we want to make sure, I think, that we are going to approve a structure that we can legally approve and not approve a structure that can't be.,.what was originally discussed in the field was a low-profile bulkhead, pretty much parallel to the canal. He might not have the legal right to put it there, he might not own the property, in which case we couldn't approve k, and wdd say, if you want a boat facility, he'd have to put it on his property. He'd have to dig it in a slip similar to what the neighbor's have. L ' JOHN COSTEL O: If that s what this Board wants, that's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we're not sure if that's necessary. That's my problem. Because the advice we got from the Town Attorney is that this deed here from Mr. Romano, doesn't.say that he can't put any structure there, in that 15'. It was unclear to the Town Attorney what that description in the deed said. JOHN COSTELLO: Well we all know that no one else's float can go on the riparian rights of that property; right? Do we agree there? Okay, so all we need is a determination of where, to meet the concerns of this Board and the neighbors. TRUSTEE SMITH: I don't why we don't just have k cut it back into his property, Al. Then there'll be no problem with the neighbors. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd like to see that low-sill bulkhead. TRUSTEE SMITH: Well you can't have everything you need. It's a very significant piece of wetland. JOHN COSTELLO: I think Henry is right. There are wetlands growing on part of the property in the adjoining southerly neighbor's property. There are wetlands growing in there now and maybe we have to promote it but it has to be at a certain level in order to do that. TRUSTEE SMITH: I think that was one of the biggest concerns of the neighbors too. It wouldn't restrict their navigation if it was setback onto his property, I think we'd keep the neighbors happy and keep their navigation clean. TRUSTEE KRL~SKI: And how far back would he have to go in. How far? JOHN COSTELLO: 8' to get to his property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then to go in father from that? JOHN COSTELLO: I think he owns another 200-300' ...but I don't think that this Board should allow non-use...the person bought a piece of waterfront property for a reason, I mean a trade in pay, $30,000 for that lot. What he did was pay for waterfront property so that he could utilize it and use it to some degree, which does give him some riparian rights, legal rights. All he wants to do is exercise them, meet the concerns of his neighbors, he's going to be neighbors with these people so he's concerned. All we need is a determination by this Board. This Board alone, and I'm not concerned about the DEC or anybody else because this Board has a certain power and I think that they're using that power, and not letting the DEC revert those powers, is important. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we didn't mention the DEC, JOHN COSTELLO: In conversation with you, you did. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the field we did. But, I don't think their decision is going to affect our decision here. JOHN COSTELLO: Good. TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: Because of what we saw, just because of the specific site. Is there any other comment on this application? You kind of came in, in the middle. I see that the neighbors came in. We're trying to determine about that 15'. The Town Attorney was not ...well we only got the determination today, which didn't allow me much time to get back to Mr. Costello to ask about Mr. Foerth's deed and what that says. Would you know if his deed would mn the same, for all of those canal properties? NEIGHBOR: Well the deed I have, Mr. Siriano, and the other people, the deed says the same thing. So, why doesn't he submit his deed and we'll see what his deed says. If his deed reads like us, he cannot utilize that 15' to put in any kind of piling or floating dock on it. Our, are all in the cuts. Everyone one of them are cut back and do not interfere with the canal. So he should conform With the rest of us. We don't want to deny this guy the right to use his boat and everything. We're all for him. But, not at our expense that we can't use the canal ourselves. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what size cut are we looking at. Are we looking at the same... I don't even have plans here.., oh we do. Could you come up for a second and clarify this. Anyone else who is interested please feel free to come up. This line represents the property line. The proposal would be then to come in from here, and instead of this angle, you would come up from here. JOHN COSTELLO: You would have to change this going in the other direction and you want to make the indent going into the property. NEIGHBOR: How many feet? JOHN COSTELLO: Well here's his property line. From there... NEIGHBOR: t don't think that's his property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's monuments there. JOHN COSTELLO: Do you want me to show you the monuments. I'll show you the monuments. Here are the monuments and the measurements. There are pictures and measurements. If you don't believe it, go and measure it. NEIGHBOR: This says here that this is the existing upper bank. Where is the monuments here. It doesn't show a monuments. The monuments is back about 4', 5'. JOHN COSTELLO: There is the south monument. NEIGHBOR: Well where is it in relationship with that to this? JOHN COSTELLO: It's impacting here, and the return goes back to here. NEIGHBOR: Mister...this is your property line. Your go from this point toward the canal 15'. That 15' from here to here, you can't obstiuct us from using it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's not what we're...I don't think that's the point here. The point is, Mr. Costello is proposing a cut in here like this, a basin, similar to the neighboring properties. NEIGHBOR: Perfect. Straight in? NEIGHBOR#2: Into his property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right. I don't know if it would be straight in though because of the way the marsh is and it's not a perpendicular line to the canal. NEIGHBOR#2: As long as his boat is back there and not in the canal, that's fine. That's how our boats are. ~ JOHN COSTELLO: That's all I'm saying. If he wants, these returns would not be put on that shape. What they would is beyond this shape, and have it. back into the property, if that is the concern. That's all. We would not return back into a bank. We'll put the returns going in the opposite direction to hold the fill from going in. NEIGHBOR #2: Where is this floating dock. JOHN COSTELLO: The floating dock would then be moved back into his property. NEIGHBOR #2: Into his property. JOHN COSTELLO: Absolutely. NEIGHBOR #2: So the floating dock and the boat, if you draw a line from his property line, it would be on his property. JOHN COSTELLO: Absolutely. NEIGHBOR #2: It's the same thing. That's all we're asking. NEIGHBOR: The first proposal it was ... JOHN COSTELLO: That has nothing to do with this. This was drawn at the recommendations that I was given. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've seen that work in other areas, canals, that the Town owns. We~ve seen that work where it doesn't obstruct...we'll this is a little different. NEIGHBOR-#2: Well this is an unusual situation. You're talking about private propemy. TRUSTEE SMITH: How big is that cut going to be, John? JOHN COSTELLO: It would be the same. 40' and then we would put the returns so that the boat can get into the slip. NEIGHBOR #2: How deep would it be? JOHN COSTELLO: Whatever... NEIGHBOR #2: In other words, you're going to put the boat parallel to the water. JOHN COSTELLO: Absolutely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it would have to be a pretty deep cut then from the top to the bottom of the bank. JOHN COSTELLO: Whatever you wish. You just tell me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's up to the applicant to see what size float and what size boat. JOHN COSTELLO: If your condition to make sure whether everything or any part of this is on the property, so be it You're the regulating agency. That's the desire of the Board, and he agrees. TRUSTEE SMITH: So the bank is going to dictate the height of the wall. JOHN COSTELLO: Absolutely. I'RUSTEE KRUPSKI: The reason we tried to avoid this was because with a low-profile bulkhead...right now there's really no marsh fringe. The bog sticks out, there's some phragmites, it's really not...we wouldn't have a problem cutting into that to make a marsh fringe because there is none. Like Mrs. Cantrell has that nice marsh fringe along the corner of her property and it protects her bank from eroding. You don't have that in front of this property. That's why we originally suggested this as an alternative to it. The original proposal was for a conventional dock. NEIGHBOR #2: Well my cutback has a retaining wall back there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any marsh fringe in front of it? NEIGHBOR #2: No. Just the water. I got permission from the DEC to put that retaining in because back there was filled in and it was washing in. So, I don't know about his. He'll have the same thing but he'd probably have to put something in the back to prevent that from... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we would only let him dredge to the deepest part of the canal out front because that's a flat area. If you create a hole, it becomes an unhealthy mess. If it's the same area, the bottom would stay fairly healthy. NEIGHBOR#2: You better let him dredge there because he can't get his boat from here to that area because it's dry land. We were down there looking at it. The only thing I'm concerned is that if his boat and dock is on his own property, not that 15' but in there, I don't care what you do with it. NEIGHBOR#3: If he has a 30' floating dock... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No it would only be 20'. NEIGHBOR#3: 20' floating dock, and it was broadside to the canal, how- would he park his boat in there? He would have to ... NEIGHBOR#2: Parallel to the shoreline. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well actually he'd be back far enough. He would have quite an area in here. If he's coming back from the property line 14', he's going to have...there's a lot of excavation taking place because a lot of this is dry land, so he's going to create a lot more underwater land to get in and out. The center of the creek is going to be quite a ways away. JOHN COSTELLO: These returns would be beveled in this direction so he could come in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so we'll have to see plans for that and.to look at it in November again based on...which I think... ! still would like to see some marsh on the ends where it meets up with the creek. Where that elevation changes there. A straight cut is not going to hold. JOHN COSTELLO: No, it's going to be a beveled but anyway. I mean, there is no return on the bulkhead so you're not going to maintain any soil. What it is, is just going to be almost, less, about a... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where would it end though? JOHN COSTELLO: It would have to end at the property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But if you end that at the property line, . .can I write on this. It would be going this way say...that's not to scale (changed tape) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright let's go onto something else. TRUSTEE SMITH: So we agree with a set of drawing to show the existing monuments, John. JOHN COSTELLO: You have a survey that was submitted with the application. It's on there, and it's to scale. TRUSTEE SMITH: Then why can't we approve it fight now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because we really need to see a set of plans to show that the basin... JOHN COSTELLO: I would ask for the approval, contingent, but I think there's too much... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's also elevation questions and all that and we want to make sure that's all going to be worked out. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I seen it excavated down a slope and then put in a Iow sill. JOHN COSTELLO: Make wetlands inland? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Create wetlands. JOHN COSTELLO: On his own propemj? Why? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll be happy with it on both sides coming in where there is none now. We'll have it stabilize everything. I'll make a motion to Table the application do I have a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KR~SKI: Put on for the November field inspection and notify the neighbors when the new plans come in. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of BERNICE LETTIERI, ANDREW LETTIERI AND JOE GAZZA requests a Wetland Permit to improve existing access road with pervious material. Located: Off Private Rd., Main Rd., East Marion. SCTM#2203019,20,21&22 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? PATRICIAMOORE: Good evening. I have here this evening Mr. Gazza who is the owner of the property, who is also an attorney, and he has been representing himself as well as Mr. Lettieri on the contract negotiations with Peconic Land Trust~ So, he's going to bring you up to speed and anyone else who is here is part and curious as to thC status of things, before I proceed with the application and the standards. Rob Herrmann is here, he is the consultant who flagged the property, he is familiar with the wetland system and can provide some expert testimony. But, before we go into it, I'd like Mr. CJazza to be able to bring you up to speed on the whole purchase. JOSEPH GAZZA: Good evening Board members, Joseph Frederick Gazza, I reside on Ogden Lane in Quogue, New York, and I've been the owner of this property out on Dam 10 Pond in East Marion probably since a lot of you were on the Board because I've been there for about 20-25 years. I did have a meeting with the Trustees at the property, maybe 10 years ago. Were there any Board members that were present then? TRUSTEE KRESS: I was on the Board then but I did not meet with you on the site. JOSEPH GAZZA: Maybe it was more than 10 years ago. I brought along an aerial photograph which I might bring up and briefly show you what we're talking about, May I approach? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please. JOSEPH GAZZA: I'm going to hold this so that north is north. I'm going to go backwards for you but I like to work with compass directions. We have a peninsula of land that jets out into the Dam Pond. This photo was taken in 1969 so it's a pretty old photo. It shows the land when it was farmed and you can also see the different hedgerow lines or different coloration in the farm fields indicating the ownership pattern at that time, which shows on the current tax map. This, of course, is about 6.3 acre peninsula point p~ece, we have a 5 ½ acre lot, 4 ½ acre, and a 5 ½ acre. Now these four individual lots have been separate lots going back prior to 1920 and has Title examinations to support that and this has been reviewed by the Town for some time. Initially there was an application to subdivide this into lots, and all of those applications have been withdrawn. At~ the present time the property is under contract to the Peconic Land Trust. An agreement has been signed about 6-7 weeks ago. Mr. Caufield negotiated, Ms. Sime Gerard also negotiated, there are a number of people that were closely involved with Andrew and Bernice Lettieri, Andrew Lettieri and I own the point 6 1,2 acres, Bernice Lettieri owns this 4 ½ acre lot, and I own this 5 V~ acre and this 5 ½ acre lot. So, that's the ownership pattern. Although we have separate deeds and we're separate people, we are related in that we all share a common access way out to this peninsula, and that access way is an existing farm, dirt road, which shows up as a little white line, you can see it, and that existing farm road crosses a wetland area. It's where the head was of this little finger of the Dam pOnd sort of terminate and the road has become the property of Mr. Whittavene. This would be the Cove Beach Estate property. So, where this little farm road crosses, I believe that's what Pat is going to be talking about in a few moments, the issue of the actual crossing. We know that the farm road has been there many years, that was the access out to the peninsula, and we know that at this time the importance ofthis land to be preserved and not developed is substantial on the part of the Peconic Land Trust, the Town of Southold, and the County of Suffolk. Substantial because they have offered, what we have determined to be a fair price. It took us a long time to get to that point but we're at that point now. We have an agreement, we've signed, I have a deposit and I brought along the bank book to show everyone, the escrow deposit, to show you that's it's sincere, and we're proceeding towards a closing..The application for the access to this peninsula, which crosses this little area of wetlands, that has been, and worked on, by Patricia Moore for about a year and a half. It's been in the works. It's not something that has come up overnight but it is something that we have discussed. We have discussed it with the Peconic Land Trust, we discussed with Mr. & Ivlrs. Lettieri, and with Pat, and I believe we are all in agreement that it's an important crossing for the ultimate purchaser of this property. The Town, the County, whoever is going to own this has to have a suitable way to get out there. A safe, suitable way. Right now we have an existing farm road with a culvert pipe beneath it that's crushed, it's limiting the tidal waters, and the road is in a rather poor condition. R is passable, but it's something that should be corrected for the ukimate owner of this peninsula, be it the Land Trust or the Town or the County, or some combination of all three. I'm not sure how it's going to work out. We're selling to the land trust but I understand that they have an arrangement worked out with the Town and the Cotmty. Now, I brought along some evidence that I wanted to leave with the Board. I don't want to give you the contract because I don't want you to see the numbers. I don't want you to see the numbers because that might be privileged information and I don't want to upset the Peconic Land Trust, because we sort of have a privileged understanding about this property until it actually closes. But, in support of my... if you want to look at.this for a moment or maybe there are some people that want to come up and look at this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we're all familiar with this. We've all been at the site. JOSEPH GAZZA: For the Board's file, I have a copy of the Title search that was prepared for the Peconic Land Trust searching the Title to all ofthe properties, which is the subject of the contract. I have two cover letters, I've already delivered the Deeds to Mr. Tim Caufield, which they are reviewing at the present time, in anticipation of our closing, which could be as early as Noveml~er 8m or the 10m They are ~aiting for the County to allocate certain funds for the purchase. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't want to interrupt you but I feel like I have to. If you currently are the applicant and you own the property, then I don't think it matters to us then that you are selling it, because, we're trying to judge this application on it's merits, on it's effect on the overall environment and also as we discussed with your attorney in the past, ownership of the underwater lands, so I don't think the fact that you could sell it to anyone; next week, tomorrow, or next month, or next year, or whatever, I don't think it's going to have a bearing on this, maybe I'm wrong, but does it matter to anyone? TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at the environmental issues. It doesn't make any difference to me who owns it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you are the applicant, you own it today. You haven't transferred it yet. You might not. JOSEPH GAZZA: We'll we hope we are. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll you hope you are, but you know what I'm saying. JOSEPH GAZZA: Well my purpose was just to bring you up to speed on the status of the Title. I'm going to turn over the podium to Mrs. Moore and she can proceed with the environmental application. If you have questions of me, I'll of course be sitting here to respond. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. PATRICIA MOORE: For the benefit of the record, last time that we met in January, the Board was present, several neighbors appeared at the site inspection, the North Fork Environmental CounCil, and the DEC was present. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: I'm sorry Pat, was that April PATRICIAMOORE: That was in January, as I recall. It could be the April meeting. It was the meeting, we'll it was the last meeting we had which was on site. It could be April. TRUSTF~F. KRUPSKI: I believe k was. PATRICIA MOORE: My notes reflected January, but it must have been different. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was snow in March and we couldn't get out there. 12 PATRICIA MOORE: Thank you. Your memory is better than mine. At the time, everybody that was present took a look at the site and identified certain areas of concern. And, based on those areas of concern, Joe Fischetti was present, and we also brought in En-Consultants to flag the wetlands. We believed that we designed an access point that will be both beneficial to the environment as well as take care of safety concerns as provide for adequate access. Certain standards that your going to be considering in issuing a permit, I'd like to go over those standards, and then describe for you and point out on the plan how those issues are addressed and also how Rob Herrmann, whose right there, he will also give you testimony with respect to the wetland system that was identified and how he proposes wetlands are to be improved and mitigation after it's applied here. So, the first issue that you consider in issuing a wetland permit is to determine whether such operations will substantially, adversely affect the wetlands of the Town. Rob can identify, just very briefly and I'll point out, and then you can point out on the map so we make sure we get everything on the record. There is, obviously, when you create the culvert, there will be some cutting of the wetland system because what you have there is a well-established culvert with a narrow, I believe some of you would know better measurements but that 6' culvert that's there, is relatively small. What that existing does is flush out the wetland system to the west and what the Board pointed out, the DEC observed was that it was inadequate flushing. The wetlands there were dying, the ecosystem there, it was not a healthy marsh, and those are one of the issues that Rob Herrmann looked at and the plan addresses. So, Rob, would you point out what we're doing. ROB HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, Inc. 1329 North Sea Rd., in Southampton. Just to inform the Board, I've had pretty limked experience with the history of this project. I was asked by Mrs. Moore, Mr. Gazza, Mr. Letfieri, and Mr. Fischetti, to help on what was Mr. Fischetti was designing as an engineering plan where he would looking to what I understand was to resolve two concepts. One, which was to provide a safe and stable access along this road, as Mr. Gazza and Mrs. Moore explained, and also I understand that it was the Board's interest that during this process they were looking for some improvement in the wetland area. Mr. Fischetti had come to me first with the engineering portion of this plan. And, while I can attest to the specifications, and obviously of his engineering design, it was my understanding at face value that there is going to be an approximate 850 sq:ft, loss of tidal wetlands within anarea that I had identified as tidal wetlands in order to push these wall supports out, provide various engineering specs that would be proper as far as safety, as far as stability, in terms of getting the proper invert, again I can't attest to this. But, what I had suggested in response to that based on what I understood the concerns of the Board to be, was to look on the area inland of the culvert, or to the west, where there is, for lack of a better term a tremendous pile of sand fill of that sitting adjacent to the high marsk The high marsh that's there, I don't know that I would speak to how healthy or not healthy that it is, it's certainly not a well flushed wetland area. It becomes more and more stagnant as you go father inland until the area eventually terminateS. There is spike grass, Spartina patens, which is high marsh grass, and there are some salt water species. It's really all high marsh vegetation that's there now. What I was looking to do was to provide not only an equal replacement of the wetlands that would be lost but to provide some net gain by basically enhancing and increasing that area of high marsh wetlands at the expense of the 13 pile of sand fill. So, consistent with some basic tidal wetlands restoration plan designed and also consistent with what the DEC reviews and approves, I suggested to Mr. Fischetfi that we design an area on the west side where that sand fill is cut back and re-graded to a one to three slope. In terms of the mechanics of it, it's fairly simple. If you look, not only at Mr. Fishcetfi's plan, but at the topographical map that was prepared by Joseph Ingegno, you'll see that as the elevation relieved decreases down to the marsh area, you'll find that where the marsh, where the high marsh exists, is basically at the 2' contouring below. PATRICIA MOORE: Rob, let me interrupt for just a second. I know you have a print but it would probably be more educational if the Board had more than one. I'm sorry I didn't notice that until I saw you all staring. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. ROB HERRMANN: The original topographical data is actually included on Joe FishcettFs engineering design but k's just a little clearer to read. So, in any event, the mechanics are fairly simple in that you're taking an area that had elevations of higher than 2' or reducing them down to 2' and re-establishing a side slope so that sand fill at a 1-3 slope, because what that does is obviously you have a situation, instead of having this precipitous pile of Sand hanging over your newly created wetlands, you grade that back appropriately at a proper slope that's typically accepted as a standard by the DEC. So with all of that said, as to how I came up with the design, what you're looking at would be a created area of approximately 1000 sq.ft, of high marsh that would replace the sand fill that's there. It's proposed to be planted with Spartina patens at a ground cover spacing that would provide potentially full coverage within two years. There's obviously other species that are going to exist there and will occur on their own as disturbance occurs within that high marsh. So, again, with all of that said, to get back to what Mrs. Moore is asking us to do, as far as the first standard is concerned, with that said, obviously, would this project as proposed here adversely affect the wetlands? Certainly not. It's going to provide, actually a net gain of wetlands, and I think it's going to accomplish what the Board was looking which would be to improve flushing within that area to the west of the culvert. That, just for example, provides for the flushing, in particular organic carbons, as well as vegetated material back out into the open tidal waters of Dam Pond. So in a nutshell, it would not have an adverse or mutual affect on the Town wetland, it would actually improve them. PATRICIA MOORE: Thank you Rob. We'll proceed with the other standards. Some may not be applicable. ROB HERRMANN: For B., it states "To cause damage from erosion, turbidity, or siltation." No, you would actually mitigating Siltation to some degree by again, re- grading the slope. I don't know that that's a terribly applicable .standard here but if anything, it certainly would cause any damage. As far as causing salt water intrusion to the freshwater resources, I don't see that as an applicable standard whatsoever. In terms of the it adversely affecting fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife, vegetation, or the natural habitat thereof, again, these are going to start to get redundant, but you're actually increasing wetlands habitat and thus increasing all of those things with associated values of wetlands, and again, you're improving the flushing with the reasons that I've already described, provides benefits to the shellfish and finfish that would inhabit the tidal waters of Dam Pond to the east of the culvert. Increasing the 14 danger of flood and storm-tide damage, no. Again, it seems unclear as to what the ukimate use of the property is. That standard would only make sense if the property were to be developed with structures at some point. If you're increasing wetlands, you're increasing the function, one of the functions of the wetlands, which is to provide storm water flood protection. If there are no structures ever placed on this property, then that would not be an applicable standard. In terms of adversely affecting navigation, navigation I don't believe is applicable here, but in terms of tidal waters, the tidal flow, again, it's going to improve the tidal flushing of this one particular area. The same thing with "G", in terms of changing the course or flow, again, it's improving the flow. Again I think all of these are in line with what the Trustee's original intention was to come out of this project as far as a benefit for the habitat. The last two I don't as applicable in terms of weakening or undermining the lateral support of other lands in the vScinity. This is a project, which is of course, to stabilize the road. I don't think the creation of the wetlands has any affect There is no relevance there. And again, to otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town, it is a small project that's providing a small net gain in wetlands and the other positive aspects that I've already described so I guess, in short, k would not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the Town. Again, my involvement in it has been limited to this restoration plan and if all other aspects 0fthe plan remain the same, it does seem like a positive design for the Town's purpose and for this actual micro-habitat~ PATRICIA MOORE: Thank you Rob. [ bfilieve that all of the standards have been addressed. If the Board has any specific questions we'll try to answer them for you. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Well, are there any other comments before we start asking questions? CHARLES CUDDY: My name is Charles Cuddy, I represent the owner immediately to the west who is Raoul Whitteveen. Mr. Whitteveen owns 100 acres to the west. We oppose the application. We oppose the application because we are treating it the same waythe Board is and that is that this is the owner coming in to ask to use the land. The ecology of this area is incredibly sensitive. I have submitted onbehalfofthe owner, Mr. Whitteveen, the report to the Board. Mr. Seeman is here to come in after I do on the environmental issues. I principally would like to comment on the questiOn of the road because I think it's fundamental to what you're doing. The road that is proposed and you really need to see maps because the maps that you're looking at and the maps that are presented essentially show about an acre of land. This issue that the Board I think is aware involves 20 acres along Dam Pond and it involves another 10 or plus acres where the road goes through and hooks into the Main Rd. So it's a big piece of land and it has a lot of impacts that are going to be associated with it. But, to get to it, we really created, and I say "we" and I'm really talking about the applicant, has created a road. On one of your maps, there's a 50' right-of-way. On the map that's before you, there's a 16' road. But the only road that's ever gone here, is noted by Mr. Ingegno as a dirt and grass 10' road that goes through the middle of this area. Apparently a walking type road,...there is nothing that really shows that road except for the applicants telling you that's it's there. The authority for the road is the applicant saying, the road is there. I have the deeds that were used when this was purchased. The property was purchased Probably in 1977, probably in 1981. In 1977, a total sum of $8,500.00, two lots, lots 19 & 21, were purchased. In that deed there's no reference to a right-of-way. Ifa right-of-way was 15 important, and it should be important if you're going to develop land, it would have been referred to in the deed. In the second deed, which is for the middle parcel, tax lot 20, there if a reference to a 10' right-of-way. That's the right-of-way that's before this Board. But in the other two, the other two lots, 19 & 21, there is no reference whatsoever, to any easement, and the price indicates that there was no easement. Even in 1977 you didn't buy land at $4500.00 per 5 acre unit on the water, unless there was no way to get to it. And, that's precisely what was here. The owner's recognized it, it was recognized in the deeds, and I'll hand those deeds to you. It's our position to that there is no road here, and that there is no access, and what' s being done is a created access and that shouldn't be done by this Board, not to this sensitive area. I'm going to ask Mr. Seeman to address that. But, I'll hand this up to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. JEFFREY SEEMAN: Good evening, my name is Jeffi'ey Seeman, my address is 263 Lakeview Ave. West, Brightwaters, that's up-west to here in Southold, I understand. I'm an environmental consultant, I was asked to 'take a look at the plans that had been submitted on this application. So, I prepared what I could, but I did prepare were my comments on plans that had been submitted earlier to this Board. The date of my comments is June. I hadn't had an oppo~unity to take a look at what the proposed roadway is crossing is today but I am glad it has finally come to an opportunity to provide you with some additional comments that go well beyond just a crossing of the particular marsh that we're talking about. I have not had access to the property. I don't work that way. You ladies and gentlemen have and I appreciate what you have witnessed but it's not true what we would consider the trained eyes that are going to be asked to look at all things involved in making access available to this particular location. As I appreciate the applicants request to file for a wetland permit, if the figures that I wrote down from the comments earlier are accurate, I understand that there will be an 850 sq. ft. loss and a 1,000 sq,ft, restoration for a net of 150 sq.ft, benefit to the Town. However, this particular wetland and Dam Pond itself is located in a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat area, designation by the Dept. of State. Typically that carries with it that this entire project, even though it's only by interpretation a wetland permit, a road access to this property, falls within a very environmentally sensitive area, typically classified under SEQRA as a Type I action because this is a critical environmental resource. When you take the responsibility as being the first to hear this application, you're taking the lead agency status under SEQRA, and it doesn't mean that you're lead agency solely because you're the first at bat. You're responsible for all aspects of the application. All the environmental consequences. Even though, they may not fall under what you consider your jurisdiction or requirement, or by showing us:that it does when you're designated lead agency. So, for example, if there are impacts to this development as a result from the road way and access into the development (can't hear) that would affect the water quality even though you may think that's a County Health Dept. responsibility, as lead agency, it's yours. And even if the County Health Dept. agreed with it, and it was later argued that it was a wrong decision, it falls back on your lap. All I'm asking for this evening is at least time, and preparation of the following information, to take a harder look at this application in a broad scope: Not just the restoration of a culvert in order to improve the water quality in one segment of the wetland But in the overall application, it may affect a larger resource value and take a closer look at some of the other 16 environmental concerns that Could be impacted there. I'm no! going to prejudge this. I haven't even looked at the latest submission of plans. I would suggest though that some of the square footage is better being (can't hear) in general, pretty low. Usually we're looking at a 2 -1, to 3-1 ratio of(can't hear) wetlands to restored wetlands. So for every one lost, you've built three more. A 1 on 3 slope is pretty steep, most of(can't hear) are growing up the side of the I on 3 slope. I'd like to take an opportunity to take a look at what this restoration plans are providing. And, again my feeling is that if you were to ask for additional environmental information, an impact statement, (can't hear) it would give professionals like myself a better opportunity to take a look at what's really there in order to provide a more intense commentary than just w/th the data that just been presented in the file to date. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Would anyone else like to comment in favor of or against the application? Go ahead Rob. ROB HERRMANN: I just wanted to make one comment. Just as a point of clarity, I understand it' s difficult if the gentleman hasn't seen the plan, but just so there is no confusion, the 1 to 3 slope would be the re-graded sand fill outside the wetland area. So, there would be no intention for (salicomia) or any other wetland species to be growing up the side of that sand fill. The slope of the actual created wetland area is flat ground, all the same elevation. PATRICIA MOORE: Thank you. Just a few issues that I would like to address. First of all, Mr. Cuddy's statements with regard to the road. We had, long ago, during the subdivision application, asked Mr. Whitteveen to provide access over to this peninsula. He steadfastly refused. The Planning Board refused to include it as part of an environmental impact statement for the Whitteveen piece and in fact, lead to litigation, which the court said, we couldn't rome him to give us access over that piece, even though environmentally, k was the appropriate th'mg to do. The end result of that fight, which was probably 10 years, from beginning to end, this is my second 10 year, among the later part of the 10 year process. That end result is what ultimately brought the applicants to a point of submission that they withdrew their subdivision application and actually proceeded with what is known under the Town Laws 280A. It's an access route where you don't have a mapped subdivision. That 280A is actually improved~..we have an existing access point. You've driven it yourself. We've all driven it. Many of you are long time residents of the east end have probably gone fishing, claming, and hunting on this property over those same roads. So, to say that those roads don't exist is clearly insuring our intelligence. The second issue is that the owners, all the common owners, they did have prescriptive rights. The law frowns upon the land locking of parcels. So, it would not make sense to create a land locked parcel on the end. The access was always by way of prescriptive easements. It was easements by necessity and easements that were created by use as well as common ownership way back when the property was farmed. In that time, and for clarity, the individual property owners agreed among themselves to grant easements to each other. From the end point, from the piece that is ultimately going to be a gifted to the Land Trust to the Main Rd., and I remind you that you have gone over the Main Rd. opening. There is a DOT curb-cut actually improved curb-cut that was done way back in the 80's when the property was originally submitted to the State. So, there is a curb-cut there, there is a road that goes all the way to the end, and all of us have used it to get access. With respect to the property values, well, /7 everybody in the 70's bought cheaper than what we see now in the 90's, and the year 2000. So, that's completely irrelevant to this application. With regard to SEQRA issues, 280A is a Type II action. A wetland permit, the DEC has issued regulations and issued SEQRA determinations on wetland permits and as to the DEC, it is also considered a Type II action. In fact, I believe, Mr. Gazza is one of the DEC decisions that I read when I was doing research over this issue. So, as far as whether or not it should be deemed a Type I, it is a 280A application, it's improvements to an existing access. What we have proposed to do is to improve an existing access whether Gazza & Lettieri own this property or it ultimately goes to the Peconic Land Trust. We believe that the Peconic Land Trust will want to use the same access for recreational purposed, to continue to access the peninsula for maintenance, and for whatever purposes ultimately the Land Trust chooses. So when you considered irrelevant who is to own this piece, I think it's very relevant because the system, the access has to be created in such a way that it will be safe to whether it's a homeowner of four houses up on the set of four lots, or whether it's the Peconic Land Trust and the public that gets access for recreational purposes. That's all I have for the Board. TRUSTEE SMITH: I've got a question. Will the approval or disapproval of this project have any bearing on the price or the closing or have any bearing on this change of ownership of this property. PATRICtA MOORE: No, the contracts have been executed, according to Mr. GaT?a. There is a contract, and as you know from all of you when you bought and sold property, when you sign a contract, the only contingency that's set forth in the contract is State funding, County funding, Town funding. My understanding from public newspaper accounts, the Town Board passed a resolution to acquire this piece. It has been for the past 10 years prime and foremost on the list of lots, properties, to be purchased. So, regardless of what the outcome of what the closing is, this access is impOrtant, but the price will not change. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I have a question. Is Peconic Land Trust in favor of this wetland application. JOSEPH GAZZA: I spoke with Mr. Tim Caufield, not today because he's been sick, but yesterday. We had a meeting concerning this very topic. I asked him to join with me, and join with the application tonight, on behalf of the Peconic Land Trust, in support of the application. He said he spoke to Mr. Halsey and he did speak to Mr. Halsey because I spoke with him today, he said that at this point, the Trust will not get involved with this application. Once they are the owner's of the property, it's a different story. The Trust does not want to take on the appearance of working with a developer, if you want to look at me as a developer, and they are backing away from it. I asked Mr. Caufield, do you find support in this application. He said that there is no question that we tinct support. He quoted a recent activity in Orient where funding was made available to connect an area ofwedands that Was being starved for a tidal flux of water back by I guess, Narrow River Rd. in some wetland area out there. He said, that is perfect example of exactly what we want to do with the property that we are acquiring from you, Mr. Gazza. We want to make that wetland area better. We want to give it the flush so that the water can nourish the wetland and it can develop. That' s what we're looking to protect, that' s what we want to preserve in the area. He says that as far as the access crossing, we have to have a safe crossing. We may have people going out there in four-wheel drive vehicles, 18 we don't want them to roll of the bank. We might be involved with the Town and the County. They have to have a suitable crossing. TRUSTEE POLlWODA: With that, is that in your contract? JOSEPH GAZZA: It's not in the contract. However, the contract is subject to funding. If there is a problem, maybe on the Town's part or the County's part, with the questions about the access, maybe people haven't voted their final vote on it and until the final vote is given, I'm trying to cover all the bases so that this deal comes together and we have the closing and the land becomes preserved. If some stumbling block comes in, if something comes up, if there's like a question, what will happen? We'll be back before you not just in preserving, but in developing. I've taken the developer hat off. We have a contract which we're hoping is going to close. We don't want any stumbling blocks to prevent it. We're asking for that assurance from your Board that this is going to come together, that there will be no problems or questions with the people who hold any purse strings on that final vote. We know that the land is pristine, we knov~ it should be preserved, we're gettinga fan- price, we want it to work. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But this Board doesn't have any control over those people who are voting to acquire this. PATRtCIA MOORE: Exactly, that's why we're here. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is your interest in this bridge if you're not going to be the owner in the future. Where are the owners? JOSEPH GAZZA: Well, if they were the owners, they would be before you. TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: But they're not~ PATRICIA MOORE: They're not saying whether they're in support or in opposition. They just take no position at this point TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So they're not even in the picture. JOSEPH GAZZA: They're not the owners. But it is relevant. TRUSTF~ FOSTER: Basically what is happening here is, if the Trustees don't give a permit for access across the wetlands, the land isn't really worth anything and it will always be the way it is because there is no access to it and we don't have to pay $900,000 for it PATRICIA MOORE: No offense but I would respectfully disagree, I think, for two reasons. One, I think you would have a situation where you would have possibly a taking. Mr. Cuddy will certainly argue the opposite. But I think that based on what we are asking for, and the testimony with regard to the environmental issues, which are issues that you're concerned with, that it would be completely unreasonable and arbitrary of this Board to deny this application. We're prepared, and that's why the record has been made and that would be something that we would be fighting over. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well I'm not suggesting that the Board, or even myself is going to deny it~ I just made an observation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And, obviously, you're in favor of the project, because you're hired to represent it, so you're in favor of it. So, that's very obvious. PATRICIA MOORE: But as far as what the value of the property, I don't think that you can come to the conclusion Mr. Foster has came to. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That was an observation. That wasn't a conclusion. After sitting here and listening to all of this and observing k, that's the way it appeared to me. 19 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One thing that is sort of, and I don't understand, is that you mentioned the safety of this and how the Town and the County is going to have use of this property. If you want to go down that road, towards its' future use, because the current use would be, I believe, it's zoned for four separate, and single, one-family residences. What would be the Town's and County's intention and how would intense would this use be and how would this affect tidal waters and the water quality of Southold Town, because you seem to be going down that 'road. You want this access for the future because obviously you want to sell it, and you have no interest in it past the closing, I assume. And so, what is the intended use of this property after this access improvement PATRICIA MOORE: Well let me suggest something. We have to take the facts as we know them to be which is right now, we have to consider the property as if it were to be developed with four homes. If the Peconic Land Trust ultimately goes to closing and the property becomes theirs, they have the ability to come before this Board and amend the project to be whatever the Board and Peconic Land Trust wants it to be. So, whether it's to scope it down or increase it, depending on the goals of Peconic Land Trust. I don't think we can speak on behalf of Peconic Land Trust on the extent of the use of that property. I'm sure Mr. Whitteveen would prefer that the property never be used at all but no one goes up and uses it, and really it depends on what the strings attached to all the funding, whether it's Town or County and what access'is legally required to the County as a whole, and to the tax payers, whoever puts the money up, as far as what they can use the property for. But, we have to deal with this application as if it's for the four individual lots and we've proceeded with the plans. Timing is sometimes a little awkward, and that's why we wanted to bring you up to speed because, in fact, we were told as of two or three days that the hearing was today, the County was supposed to be voting on it tomorrow, and the closing was to take place on Friday. But, in fact, Mr. Gazza and I spoke about the possibility of adjourning this and I think he correctly said "No, I've heard this before, let's keep moving", and that's why we're here because, in fact, the County has postponed the vote to the first week of November, the second week of November, and closing will take place immediately thereafter. So, as usual, everybody promises to come up with money and then changes occur. So, in all fairness to an applicant, he has to count on an application, a project, and listen, if the approval comes forward by this Board, you approve the application, and then Peconic Land Trust takes the property, well great. Wonderful for the Town of Southold that we've got a beautiful piece of property and there will be no homes on it. And I said, Peconic Land Trust can take it from there, and you will have a say obviously in the degree of use of that property. TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: I don't know. You brought up the specter of Suffolk County using it, and that's a little disturbing. In the way you mentioned it, it would be that we would have no say, and, what they would describe as "safe" access, or future use. PATRICIA MOORE: It's all speculative. We don't know what the County, what the Town is going to want to use this property for. We believe that it's for vistas and preservation but I think it has some value for access for marine purposes, hunting and so on. But that would be as a park. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it has always been our contention that there was access currently on the site. A lot of this that has been mentioned, I think, has to be cleared up. 20 Il'you really wanted to restore the waterflow between the two marshes, you would take all the fill out that has been put there historically, and restore it to it's natural state. Now one thing that hasn't been brought up yet tonight, but has been put into the record numerous times over the past, at least ten years, is that the Town Trustees has a claim to the underwater lands going underneath that roadway and that we would have to see that in any sort of action by this Board. PATRICIA MOORE: Well certainly if this ended up in court, we would all be disputing the actual ownership interests of the Trustees, because I think that, respectfully, we've always disagreed with the Trustees the opinion on that and we've said, let's go beyond that because that would be a litigated question that the Trustees, the Town, and the applicants really don't want to spend the money on. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, no. I don't think we want to spend the money on something that we wouldn't have to. PATRICIA MOORE: Well the access is necessary whether the courts determine that it's underwater, that culvert, somehow- another, the Trustees had garnered some fights over the... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Andros Patent. PATRICIA MOORE: Of course, and I think I've done enough research on the history with Mrs. Booth to know that this is historically been farm land that goes way back to actually the original settlers of Southold. So, as far as whether or not the Trustees have ownership in the natural course of the wetlands in Dam Pond, I think we would have a great deal of evidence that it'is not underwater, Trustee land, and we are here before you for a wetland permit and not for permission as an underlying owner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I wanted to mention that because we never have resolved this. PATRICIA MOORE: I don't think you or I could. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I think we could. I think we could very easily because we have never given up ownership of that property. Parts of Dam Pond are in private ownership and that's very clear. But this part, that's why this Board has been concerned. PATRICIA MOORE: I think just the natural contours of the land would, common sense would dictate that Dam Pond, particularly after the hurricanes and so on, that the wetland system had changed drastically, In fact, there are maps that show access to this area for farming purposes are far back as I can tell. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't contend that there's access there currently. There is. We've all been out there, we've walked over it, it's a dirt road over the marsh that has been filled in over the years. But, that doesn't say that we would relinquish the property rights of the Town just because it was filled in 100,200, or 300 years ago. If Town owned property is filled in, it's still Town owned property. PATRICIA MOORE: Well let me sfiggest to you. It doesn't really matter as far as whether this is solely a wetland permit application or you expand your scope of decision making and say, well we think it's our land, but, for the benefit of the community as a whole, as well as the wetland restoration, the area, the access, is actually going to be improved as we proposed over your land, if that's how you deem to consider it. I'm still before this Board and whether or not you decide that, if you were to deny the application for the basis that you own the underlying land, and that the permit should be denied for that basis as well as whatever other things you come up with. We would certainly be in 21 court and we would be arguing over that issue. We've decided, I think, to get past that and say, we are before this Board regardless of whether you own it, underlying or not, we're before you for a wetland permit. IOSEPH GAZZA: Just to cap a little bit on Pat's comments...Mr. Cuddy brought up some important points. I know he represents the neighbor, the very affluent gentlemen who has a very sizeable track of land and has done some considerable donating of land himself with the Peconic Land Trust. But, I don't know what Mr. Cuddy's legal fees were in 1977 or 1971 but I'm sure they're considerably higher today. So, when you look at prices in 71' or 73', you might want to compare them to legal fees for a little justification. On the access issue, which Mr. Cuddy focused on, I have documents which are part of all the Planning Boards file and possibly your file also. Going back to March 20, 1857, in the case of Joseph Lewis Tuthill and William S. Hobart as executors, under the will, where they conveyed the Rocky Point farm, which is what this property is called at Liber 63, Page 91. So, we've got an access road going out to farm land back to 1857. We know- the road is there, we have Title, we have a deed. The deeds to the Lettieri land to the south and the Gazza land to the north, those deeds match. There is no gap. I don't want to get into another set of litigation over the Title of the land. TRUSTEE KRL~SKI: Let me interrupt you for a second. Does it say in there that there, and I'm not trying to be argumentative but I'm just trying to clear it up, but, does it say in there that there was access over the marsh at that time? PATRICIA MOORE: It actually has meets and bounds descriptions of the parcels. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know that but could the access have been to the west? JOSEPH GAZZA: There were a series of traveled farm roads, some of which have passed over the lands to the west. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alrighl I don't think that I'm denying that it's a historic road. And, we're denying that it's a functional road. If it were, it would be, I think, a completely different set of circumstances because it is Town owned land underneath there and then it would...if it weren't a functional road, I think it would a whole different set of circumstances. We've been on it. You can drive what you want over that. JOSEPH GAZZA: We're looking at using the road as a 16' driveway, maximum width. We"re looking at it either as the developers potential for four lots on four, five, six acre parcels, or hopefully for a pathway to get out to a 20 acre peninsula owned by the Town with 50% Town money. It was explained to me by Peconic Land Trust that the money that's being used to buy this land is ear-marked for open space preservation. I don't think that that money is going to be released unless there are restrictions on this .property preserving it forever as open space in it's natural state. The money that's being spent is ear-marked specifically for that purpose. I don't think that the Peconic Land Trust would get involved in any type of deal other than complete preservation of this property. Now if anybody has any ideas contrary to that, I'd like to hear them because that's everything that I've been represented up to now, has been just that from the Peconic'Land Trust. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright. There are a couple of things about these plans then, if we can get down to these plans. When we were in the field in April with Mr. Fischetti, and other interested parties, we measured the area of roadway that had been filled through the marsh. I believe it was 16'. Now, this is an area that has been filled, historically. There was no 16' wide...that included not the road but in fact the entire area that had been filled as well. Mr. Fischetti, it was discussed, was go!ng to bring in a plan that showed a 16' 22 wide, and we told him 16' is what you have to work with. Now, he's given us something here that's greater than 16'. That's just a start. PATRICIA MOORE: May I just comment on that? I think there was something that we may have discussed there. The Town's requirements for an access road for this access, is 19'. The de. sign is to meet the Town's specifications. That's why it's 19'. We would, and also the ability to put in the guard-rails because, if you start with...if you have 16' road, you won't have sufficient room on either side to make it safe and passable without having the.threat of a car either sway one way or another. So, the design is actually in compliance with the Town Highway specifications, on this type of an access. It's more than a driveway for one house. When it's more than a driveway for one house, these are the design specifications. [ know that Mr. Fischetti had to go back and actually modify the plan because when he checked with the Highway Dept. the Town's specifications, those specifications had been modified to some extent. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright. I just wanted to bring that up. That's not what was discussed in the field. We couldn't go to the site on field inspection this past week because it was raining heavily on Wednesday and we though we could probably get there but not get back. So, was the property staked? PATRICIA MOORE: Yes. It had been staked at 19' way back after the snow storm, in fact. The process for this design was to have Joe Ingegno stake the property, and he went back twice. The first time he staked it at 16' but then he staked it at 19' because of the fact that the specifications had to be modified. Your office new about that and hopefully the stakes are still there. TRUSTF, E KRUPSKI: We never saw it staked at 19'. Our discussion in the field was that there was 16' that was existing. PATRICIA MOORE: I know- they were there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You werethere. 16'. PATRICIA MOORE: And 19' also because Joe Ingegno went back... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, but you could stake them at 50' but my point is, he was told by this Board that he had 16' to work with because that was the area that had been filled. The fact that he modified this.., that was out of our hands that he wanted to modify this. PATRICIA MOORE: What you have to live with is the Town's specifications. You can go back and we can go back to the Zoning Board and say "Zoning Board, we prefer, the Trustees would prefer to see 16' rather than 19 ft.", however design wise, it's the Town's requirements so you don't want to start sending...you can certainly send a recommendation, but we have to comply with what the Town's specification m'e. Joe Fischetti has to design what is legally and safety wise what...he certifies to this and if anything were to go wrong, they go back to the design professional; the engineer and say well why did you make it 16' when the Code required 19' and safety required 19', so that's what you have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another thing that is inconsistent with what was discussed in the field that day. Mr. Fischetti said that he could make the road pitch away from the creek at both ends of what you call a bridge. PATRICIA MOORE: Right but to do that, doesn't he need a little extra Space? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's got a lot of space there_ That's what he said in the field. JOSEPH GAZZA: The plan shows that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows it pitching toward the water. Not away from it. JOSEPH GAZZA: Well I'm looking at the plans and it shows a 4' leveled area in the vicinity of the crossing, and then it also shows a 4' contour approximately ~A of an inch on either side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, I'm with you so far. JOSEPH GAZZA: So it shows it's completely level but if one considers that the road might have a crown to it, maybe 6", maybe 8", we're talking about a whole distance here maybe 30', 40' tops. I think it can accommodate it. We would go along with the plan that would accomplish that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it doesn't show that, what was discussed in the field. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you consider yourself creating an access here? JOSEPH GAZZA: Creating an access? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aren't you creating an access, because you only have 16' and your looking for three more feet of air basically which is wetlands under it. Wouldn't you consider yourself creating an access? PATRICIA MOORE: So what you're saying, common sense, you're increasing the area. Okay. If you want to go back to the Zoning Board and say, and say "Zoning Board, amend the requirements of the Town Code", we have to live with what the Code requkes. I mean if the Town Code say, you must have this, that is what's designed. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well you should have the land to do it. JOSEPH GAZZA: I don't want to argue with the Board. If there's 16' that's used, I'm happy with 16'. I can live with that. Well make the plans, we'll amend them, so they'll match what you're looking for. TRUSTEE POLlWODA: The only reason I bring that up is because in the field, [ was very secure on 16', and now you're coming up with 19'. JOSEPH GAZZA: I'm going against Pat's best wishes. PATRICIA MOORE: Let me just point out. The road is 16' but what you have is guard rails on either side and a shoulder, so if the Board wants to put on record that a 16' road is a safe way and you want to over ride the engineering specifications... TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well I'm not it's safe or not I'm just saying that's what you have. PATRICIA MOORE: But you have to live with ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what you have now and that's safe now, and you're living with that. PATRICIA MOORE: We'll there's a dirt road there now and we'd be happy to keep it but, I think, the Town would prefer something better. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just a word of explanation to everyone here who has been really patient waiting for their public hearing. This is a matter that has been before this Board for over 10 years. This is not something that just came up tonight. PATRICIA MOORE: If yon want to come up with some comments, and get them to your clerk and send them to me, then I can refer them to Joe Fischetti and see how he would address them because he would know specifically what he can or can't design around. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, that's what we discussed in the field. He had 16' to work with, he was going to pitch the road back away from... 24 PATRICIA MOORE: I understand that but I think he also mentioned the need for the guard rails, land for the guard rails, and also if you want to keep the road from draining into the wetlands, you need to have a certain amount of culvert. Mr. Foster has built these types of roads. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah, but Mr. Fischetti said it in the field, and we weren't going to say, why would we...he a licensed engineer, we're not going to start arguing with him. PATRICIA MOORE: I'm not going to argue with you what he said or what he didn't say because I seem to recall something a little different. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another minor problem that we had with it is that it shows galvanized pipes under the road. They should be made of something substantial like... TRUSTEE FOSTER: Probably even the poly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The poly pipe. Something that will last:because the galvanized is just going to rust on the way out there. JOSEPH GAZZA: The poly, what's the diameter of this? TRUSTEE FOSTER: You can get it big enough to drive a car through. JOSEPH GAZZA: Okay. Why don't we have these plans modified along with these suggestions, and get them back to the Board for your reconsideration for the next meeting. PATRICIA MOORE: If you have any other comments, please let us know. TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any other questions? I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of ULLYSSES GALLANOS requests a Wetland Permit for a driveway 10'-12' in width, on-grade, and pervious surface. Located: 660 Hobart Rd., Southold SCTM#64-1-28 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here, besides Pat, who would like to speak on behalf or against the application? PATRICIA MOORE: May I? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please. PATRICIA MOORE: The green cards are here. TRUSTEE SMITH: Who were they sent to? PATRICIA MOORE: All adjacent property owners, across the street and behind the property. Pretty much everybody that I saw from the Assessor's Records. TRUSTEE SMITH: I didn't get one. PATRICIA MOORE: I don't believe you're an adjacent property owner. TRUSTEE SMITH: I believe so. I'm adjacent to Edson. PATRICIA MOORE: There are two Edson properties I have the Assessor's Records... TRUSTEE SMITH: I'm not positive, but I know I am adjacent to Edson. I've got no problem with it. PATRICIA MOORE: First of all, I'd like to apologize to everybody, it's been a long evening, and the other hearing is a long process. Mr. Gallanos is here. Mr. Gallanos, please stand up. I did receive some phone calls from neighbors inquiring as to exactly what we were doing. What we are simply doing is simply providing a driveway over an existing culvert to provide the access for the house which is, as you pointed out, Edson owns the property and it's under contract with Mr. Gallanos. I have the survey, and you 25 have the survey, I believe, on this. What we did was in order to, on Mr. Gallanos' behalf, I contacted the Town Engineer because this system was designed by the Town and installed by the Town. So, first and foremost, I wanted to make sure that car access, as well as the type of truck access to be able to build a house, would be able to go over this culvert. Jamie Richter who was working for the Town at the time that it was designed, provided a very helpful that says, in his opinion, the normal residential traffic as well as all delivery and construction traffic, that would be considered consistent with the area, that this culvert would be able to accommodate that. In addition, I did provide to the Board, and I'll give k to you again this evening, is the grant of the drainage easement that was negotiated back in 1990, March of 1990, between Mr. Edson and the Town, with regard to these properties and the fact (changed tape) that has access on Hobart and that the access point would be a shared access over this culvert, so I have that here for the Board. TRUSTEE KRESS: That was the only question that we had was that it starts over one property and crosses to another. PATRICIA MOORE: It's a shared access. Yes, you can see from the survey that this piece will actually give access to both Gallanos property as well as the adjacent piece. We have an application pending before the DEC for the access point. They have the same drawing at the DEC. We believe that there will be a no-jurisdiction determination by the DEC because it's all above a 10' contour. But, we haven't yet received anything. The applications went in more than three months ago, and we're still waiting. TRUSTEE SMITH: This is north of that sump that was put in. PATRICIA MOORE: It's north and to the south. South, I'm sorry. The Edson lot that has this sump is not this piece, It's the one right next to it. But they both benefit from that same access point. TRUSTEE SMITH: Does this road go over that dike that's between the creek. TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: That is the road. PATRICIA MOORE: Mr. CJallanos has, if any neighbors want to know what kind of house, he has a design already...it's not really relevant to this Board but it's a very lovely house. Actually very classic. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No but just for the record, the driveway is the only portion of this, which is in our jurisdiction, which we looked at in the field and we really consider this a driveway and that the house itself, and parking area, is outside of our 75' jurisdiction. Any other work within that 75' would require any action by this Board, but the house itself doesn't. PATRICIA MOORE: So, what you have here is the proposed plan and it's strictly limited to the driveway within your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion that we approve the application of Mr. Gallanos. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ADRIAN & JACKIE EDWARDS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4-/-112' timber bulkhead (within 12" of existing concrete seawall) with a 6' westerly return, and backfill with approximately 150 c.y. of clean sand fill to be 26 tracked in from an upland source. New bulkhead to be 1' higher in elevation than existing seawall. Gather existing quarry stone from failed groins(s) as toe stone. Located: 1392 Park Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#123-8-2 TRUSTEE KRESS: This is, I believe, is an application that is almost identical to the next one that before us last month. Is that correct? ROB HERRMANN: Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: I don't know if you have to make a formal motion and do you want to open both hearings at the same time, since it's the same project? Or should we just make subtle references. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make the subtle reference but we'll handle them separately I think. ROB HERRMANN: I believe that the Board had opened the hearing last month. It's a fairly straight forward application with a hitch. It's for a replacement ora failing bulkhead, and in this case it's really a concrete seawall that is beginning to deteriorate, and the proposal that is before you, as designed by James H. Rambo, and I believe Tom Samuels from James H. Rambo is here this evening and I'm actually going to let him do most of the talking on tiffs. The question is how to replace this bulkhead. Or how to replace the seawall. There is a similar, or there was a similar seawall to the, let me get my directional correct, I believe to the east in front of the William Edwards, no relation to the applicant, but the Board had approved an application last month to do a remove and replace inkind/inplace ora portion of the timber bulkhead. Now, to the west also in front of Mr. William Edwards property, was a fallen an collapsed version of the seawall that still stands in front of the Kammerer/Curfin and neighboring Edwards property. As I understand it last month, the Board had some debate and some discussion as to what was the appropriate way to replace this. The proposal was to go in front and I believe the Board might have been looldng at something different. So I would take the Board's comments and also refer to Mr. Samuels as he actually designed the proposal that is in front of you for various construction specifications and reasons that he would be better able to discuss than myself TRUSTEE SMITH: I don't think he can build it any other way ,because if you try and remove that concrete one, you're going to lose the top one. It's pretty cut and dry on how it's got to be done. I don't like the way it's got to be done but it looks like the only way it can be done. ROB HERRMANN: Well that was our position. That has been our position. Aside from the cost of removing it as you just stated, I'm not sure what kind of catastrophe would remit from pulling it out. TRUSTEE SMITH: I agree. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of or against the application? TOM SAMUELS: This is Mrs. Kammerer and she came out from the city tonight. I didn't think she'd be going home so late. As Henry says, it's a problem. If we're going to remove that concrete seawall, then we are going to lose that secondary bulkhead above it because the material, it's very unlikely it's long enough to sustain the upland with the concrete out of place. In addition, it's about a 170 tons of concrete. We'd have to have a 27 hydraulic excavator, a pretty big machine, and there would be considerable impacts on the bay. The immediate shoreline is very shoal for about a halfa mile out. In fact, I just sailed past it tonight, my last Wednesday race for the year. You can't get in close to shore. It's about 3 lA miles to the other side, it's just about opposite to National at Southampton. We're talking about building right up close to it. We're not absolutely certain the footings that this concrete seawall has, was built probably in the 50's. But, we're going to keep fight up close to that concrete and wherever the footings intrude on our bulkhead line, then we'll jack-hammer that off. The broken pieces that are on the beach, that have already fallen over on the neighbor's property, will be removed at low tide, when we can get down the end of the road there, Marratooka. We've gotten on the beach there before with a Town permit, road access permit. I think it's a relatively small incursion on the width of the bay. It can't be a navigation problem It's truly a real hardship on the owners. Neither of these houses are pretentious or... the seawalls are really in terrible shape. TRUSTEE SMITH: How are you going to, just as a question, how are you engineering dead-men for this? TOM SAMUELS: There are batter piles. In order to drill fill through those old concrete walls, so we're using batter piling. There are two ways to hold up a bulkhead. You can use a tie rod and anchor or you can use a pile that's driven on an angle forward. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seaward. TOM SAMUELS: It prevents it from over-turning. In other words, instead of holding it back it prevents it from over-turning. TRUSTEE SMITH: Okay, I was just curious Is this going to be built with that plastic material? TOM SAMUELS: We haven't really contemplated that. The jury is out on open faced structures with either Shore-Guard or C-Loc or any the rest of them. I'm concerned on the sound too. I think it's great in the creeks for bulkheads that are in the water all the time, but until I see what happens after a major storm on some of this plastic sheathing and a 10g come in on the sound... TRUSTEE SMITH: I was just asking. TOM SAMUELS: This is standard CCA. It is dry twice a day. There is a beach there at low tide. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One thing that struck us all while we were out there, is that it's not really straight. Couldn't it be repaired. I mean it's a substantial structure. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to repak it than leave it. It's a monster. TOM SAMUELS: Well I suppose it could be. It is monsterous and ridiculous that they were ever built because they had so much mass compared to a timber wall. The age of the structure makes it difficult-to repair them because k's just not any modem specs. If you look at where it's broken, it's far too much gravel and they used gravel, they didn't use angular crushed stone, as they would today. I suppose you could repair it with some of these epoxy type concrete sets that will bond actually to the old concrete but I couldn't give the owner any assurance of any longevity. It's similar to you don't know what you have...well I don't want to bring that up. In any event, my thought is that, anything is possible. 28 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I mean, that's what struck us as the most logical...k's been there for 50 years. If you repaired it, you've got another 50 years. It's not going to go anywhere. It's a monument. TOM SAMUELS: It's not going to go anywhere. It is a monument. It's not what it seems because it failed. If it hadn't failed, I'd have more confidence in what I'm tying into. But the fact that k's failed, leads me to suspect that there are other areas that are going to fail and that's the concern I would have. TRUSTEE SMITH: I think the only way to do it is the way they proposed to do it. TOM SAMUELS: We'll keep it as close as we can. It's a difficult job because the access from Marratooka, we only have at the most, two hours a day of dry land, so we have to move all of the material then. And the other credit to the project is that we're going to take all that old jetty stone, get it up in the way of toe armor of the bulkhead and remove it from the beach there, because it's scattered all over. It's a little too small to start with. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's another concern we had though. That's right now is stabilizing the beach in front. To remove that is going to change that area, considerably. TOM SAMUELS: Well, that's your choice. I thought it would be more aesthetic and probablY more' environmentally compatible to use it as toe armor but, that's your choice. I don't think Mrs. Kammerer cares either. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems to be hardening that whole frontage and protecting it somewhat. It's very spread out. We could see it clearly when we were there. TOM SAMUELS: It's all over the place. It was quarry stone. It's not natural stone. It's all angular stuff. If you'd prefer to, and I'm sure Mr. Herrmann will amend the permit... ROB HERRMANN: I can get you a revised plan. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is that going to effect you doing the job by having to bounce over that stone. TOM SAMUELS: No, we're going to use our super-hoe. The hydraulic walking hoe. The crazy machine. You've probably seen it We can't do much from the upland because the bluff is pretty high. If we were going to remove the wall we'd have to put a hydraulic excavator and one of biggest on the bluff. It would be a considerable undertaking really. TRUSTEE FOSTER: A tremendous impact. TOM SAMUELS: Ken, do you have anything? TRUSTF, F~ POLIWODA: No. Recently we had concerns about jumping out further out into the bay, but I don't see any reason to stop this one. This is the first time out beyond the seawall, but the owner knows, not that you'll do the job in 20 years from now. TOM SAMUF~I,S: Do I look that bad? I am giving a 50 year guarantee. If nothing else, thank you for your consideration. TRUSTEE SMITH: Do you want to make a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any more comments? Alright; go ahead Henry. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we close the hearing? TRUSTF. F. FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: i'll make a motion that we Approve the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd rather leave the stone there. I need second onthat anyway. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. 29 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to amend that motion to leave the stone where it is. Is there any other discussion? All if favor? AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf ofMICItAEL CURTIN & OLGA KAM~IERER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a +/-132' timber bulkhead (within 12" of existing concrete seawall with an 8' easterly return, and backfill with approx. 150 c.y. of clean sand fill to be trucked in t~om an upland source. New bulkhead to be 1' higher in elevation than existing seawall. Located: 1470.Park Ave., Matfituck. SCTM#123-8-3 TRUSTEE KRL~SKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak briefly on this application? ROB HERRMANN: It's consistent with the application just approved. I don't it requires any further comment? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion on this application? TRUSTF, F, FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM KII,LEN requests a Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approx. 113 linear ft. of timber retaining wall to be tied into adjacent retaining walls to east and west. Approx. 125 c.y. of clean sand will be trucked in from an upland source, used as backfill, and planted with Ammophila breviligulata. Located: 2710 Dignan's Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#83-2-6.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? ROB I-1F~RRMANN: This is an application similar to what the Board has seen before. This property is located between two hardened properties on Long Island Sound and we're looking to tie, as landward as we possibly can, a new retaining wail'into the existing structures. The Board will note that on the western property owned by G-urfein, we will actually have to extend onto the Gurfein property and since we originally submitted the application, I have received a letter back fromMrs. Gurfein, the owner, indicating her awareness and consent to the project and also to the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does Mrs. Gurfein have a Permit for her structure? ROB HERRMANN: That I don't know. I would assume that either she or the prior owner has a Permit or would pre-date the need to get one. The only other alternative would be that's it's illegal. I didn't look into that only into the fact that the Board typically requires adjacent owner's permission if the applicant is going to go onto the adjoining property. The one to the east is Dambassis. This Board has reviewed Dambassis within the last year, I think. It's only a few feet but ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've had a lot of excitement on the Sound over this. ROB HERRMANN: I figured I'd better provide the Board with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's the Board pleasure here. Do we just want to Amend Mrs. Gurfein's Permit also? Take a look at it. See how it goes onto the neighbor's property on the west side? TRUSTEE SMITH: What does the neigbor... 30 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The neighbor is very happy with it. She has given us a letter saying that she likes the idea. TRUSTEE SMITH: Let him go do it then. ROB HERRMANN: I'm starting to anticipate what you're going to say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's good because that would've held this up until Mr. Gurfein, favorably. Is there any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE POLlWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion on this application? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the Wetland Permit for William Killen. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf ofPItlJLIS GUNN requests a Wetland Permit to clear an upland area up to 50' landward of the tidal wetlands boundary; establish a 50' wide non- fertilization/non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the wetlands; and install a drinking water well. Located: 2145 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. SCTM#90-1-15 TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? ROB HERRMANN: I'm going to probably try to save us some time. I did speak with Lauren and I understand that the Board had a question as to placement of the stakes, by the surveyor, that shows the clearing. As it shows on the plan, there is supposed to be...we were proposing a 50' non-fertilization, non-disturbance buffer, as the Board has been typically requiring. What I think, I mean I don't want to anticipate too much, but I think it What's going to have to happen is, we're probably going to have to meet on site to come up with a mutually acceptable tidal wetlands boundary. I'll just speak briefly to that. The line that is shown on the site plan, when you're near the water as the embankment goes up, it's a very steep embankment. There is a very definitive and identifiable line of bacharus bushes that exist. That was the line that clearly is all tidal wetlands from that point seaward, and that was the line I did use. As you get ~further landward of that, there is a great inter-mixing of species that, more bacharus species such as phragmites, the common reed, it's all over that area, but it's mixed in with poison ivy, with virginia creeper, with green brier, with multiflora rose, it's mixed in with a lot of species that are clearly non-tidal wetland species that would not exist if it were being emendated at every high tide. There is a swail to make things a little more complicated right in the middle, which does appearto be more dearly tidal wetlands but that swail is not consistent. What Lauren had mentioned to me was sort of a uniform line in back of the phragmites but, I'm unwilling to (unclear) just offthe cup because I went out this evening because [ went out to this evening when I picked-up the poster, and I revisited the site, and when you get all the way back to end of the phragmites, there is clearly vegetation in there, even several small trees. I don't know what they are but they're gray trees. They remind me of miniature locust. I don't know if that's what it is, but again, there are species that wouldn't'really be found in the tidal wetland. So, I don't really know how to resolve it. 31 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to Table this then and then we'll meet in November? ROB HERRMANN: Yeah, I think we could. My only question would be if you want to come with, what we would deem like a neutral party. I don't know if you want to get somebody like Mr. Bowman to come out and help us? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Neutral. No I think we could... ROB HERRMANN: It's only going to affect the clearing limit, but that's important to the Gunns because of how much yard they have is going to depend on exactly where the line is. TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: No I there's five of us, there's one of you. That would be fair. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you have any DEC recommendations? ROB HERRMANN: I have not heard anything back from the DEC. Theirs is a little different because the house and everything is going to be out of their jurisdiction because it's upland of the 10' comour. So their only concern is also going to be whatever clearing occurs within the 75' so I'm assuming the boundary is going to be important to them, but I haven't heard that from them. TRUSTEE KR~SKI: Just do yourself and us a favor. Just cut a path, walking path, down the middle of the property, so we can just walk down the middle and see it. ROB HERRMANN: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You know, the cedars. Just trim some of the cedar branches through the middle. Because, from the neighbor's side, we walked down and looked, it was hard to determine, so if you cut down the middle, it doesn't have to be straight around the trees or whatever, then we can get a clear view, cross-section view, of what's there. ROB HERRMANN: Right. It's especially confus'mg because on the one side, I think it's the Regolski property, there is existing clearing almost to the wetlands, and then all of a sudden it gets back to What's still natural on the Gunn property, and then it gets even more confusing. It's a hard line. TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: It is. That's why we would rather see it in the middle. Just clip a path through there. Okay, I'll make a motion to Table this application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And, Table the Public Hearing as well. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Table. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LISA EDSON ~requests a Wetland Permit to clear an upland area of up to 30' landward of the tidal wetland boundary and establish a 30' wide non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the wetlands. Located: 9326 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-5-25 TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this applicatiOn? ROB HF, RRMANN: This is a similar type of application in that it appeared that the actual structural elements of the project would be out of the Board's jurisdiction by about 7' or 8' but, there would be, obviously, a certain amount of clearing and disturbance within the Board's jurisdictional area. So, if the Board has any questions? 32 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we had some problems. We couldn't find any house stakes. Now we've been to this site with the Edsons. There was a clearing problem a couple of years ago. So, we had been here and We're familiar with the site, but we couldn't find any house stakes and, in addition, we looked at this plan here and it seems like, and maybe you can correct me on this, the proposed septic system is on the other side, the marsh side of that dike that exists. ROB HERRMANN: Say that again? The septic system is on the northern corner of the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But there's a dike that runs up there. There's a pretty substantial dike. The septic system seems to be on the other side of the dike from the house. The house is sort of straddling the dike. Was it staked? ROB HERRMANN: Well this site plan in itself has been a long time in the nurturing, so I can't promise when stakes will appear once I request them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because I don't think we're...with the site itselfi it's seems like there's a substantial amount of upland. But maybe not, [ don't know. We couldn't locate the house or the property line. ROB HERRMANN: It's immediately, basically southwest of what I believe is not the Kirsch property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh yeah, we're familiar with it. We have been there. ROB HERRMANN: I actually flagged those wetlands and these wetlands here were flagged by Roy Haje back in the beginning of 1998, I believe. As I said, it's been a struggle to get this site plan even in its' current state. So, it's been exasperaf~ng for me as well. But if your referring to a dike that would be to the north or the northwest of the proposed sepflc system... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well actually it would be to the south. The dike would be. Because as you stand on the Site and look to the north, that's where the dike is. It runs from the canal sort of up towards Main Bayview. ROB HERRMANN: Alright. I can't get in my mind at all what you're talking about. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's an old existing dike there, which is shown on the dotted line. (end of tape) ROB'HERRMANN: He did show a proposal of 600 c.y. of clean sand fill to come in becaUse the text hole does show that you've got water 2.8' below the surface. So, order to get the proper separation in feet between ground water and the bottom of the pool, you'd have to grade that area considerably, and he does show that. He does show the proposed contour because you're looking at least in the one place from an increase in the contours from 4' up to 6' and 7' with a finished grade of 9' over the septic tank. So he was taking that into consideration and obviously this plan is going to have to be reviewed in more detail by the Suffolk County Dept. of Health. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're going to have to put a concrete retaining wall around that. That will never fly like that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright, but we'll have to Table it because everything was very unclear. ROB HERRMANN: You want to see, as I would expect, the proposals staked. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. House corners, proposed pool corner, and sepflc system. ROB HERRMANN: Alright. I will ask for that for your next hearing and keep my fingers crossed. 10. 33 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be Nov. 17th. If it's not staked, please let us know. That's when the field inspection would be. I'll make a motion to Table this application until it's staked so it would automatically reappear on the 30th. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Ocean Consulting on behalf of EDGEMERE PARK ASSOC, requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace, in same location, approx. 105' of timber bulkhead and replace any backfill lost in a 10'X 105' area, and maintenance dredge. NOTE: The applicant has withdrawn the request to dredge. Located: ROW offPeconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM#145-4-14 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of or against the application? JULIAN BAYLEK: Our association president, Arthur Smith, is away just now and I'm a 25 year homeowner in Edgemere Park. I live across the street from the bulkhead that we want to replace. It's an original bulkhead from approx. 1937 and is in dire need of replacement. As you see in the letter that you have from Mr. Smith, we've decided not to do any dredging. I went out in a 5' dinghy and we did the soundings that you requested at the last meeting and you have a copy of the site plans for the replacement with those soundings in there. We would like to go ahead with the bulkhead replacement. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? Board comments? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve. TRUSTF. F. POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Suffolk Environmental Consulting, 'Inc. on behalf of HELEN PAPAGIONAKIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 78' stairway including 4'X 11' landing, three (3) 4'X 4' landings, a 6'X 10' shed (8' tall) with a 4'X 14' landing. NOTE: The agent has withdrawn the request for a shed. Located: 1050 Sound Dr., Greenport. SCTM#33-4-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor on behalf of this application? BRUCE ANDERSON: I've put in this case before. The objection was the boat house, so we simply, in our letter, saying that's it's no longer part of this application. So I would presume that we're all in agreement with the stairs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? Do I have a motion to dose the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does someone want to make a motion? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application and no shed and a 4'X 14' landing, I assume on the bottom. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a second. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 11. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of RUTH E. MILLER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 7'X 22' deck addition, including a 7'X 9' gazebo, and repair/replace existing wood deck and stairs in kind. Located: 6400 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-7-2.2 TRUSTEE KRL~SKI: Is there anyone who like to speak in favor of the application? BRUCE ANDERSON: I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Ruth Miller. I trust you've been down to the site and to get an idea of this property and the adjacent properties what is the need (can't hear) about this particular one is that we have a 1200' to almost 1300' long piece of property that is 87' wide and like all of the homes down there, it's built literally right on top of the bluff And so, the expansion or any kind of outdoor living area going between the house and the wetlands, and in this house, the highwater, is going to always trigger some form of jurisdiction from this Board due to the proximity of this home to the water. You have the survey in your hand that shows the proposed, and you'll notice that it's landward of that (noise) towards the bulkhead, the beach in front of it is quite limited at high fide, although there's a shallow water area to the beach which is 20' larger... TRUSTEE SMITH: Was this property Wood at one time? Was it owned by Mrs. Wood? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. This is Mrs. Ewalds's daughter. BRUCE ANDERSON: So this deck that we're talking about is 46' from the wetlands and we've got an existing bulkhead that's about 26' or 20' from the wetlands and the stairs are about 29' from wetlands. My point is that everything that we're doing here is more landward than what you have there. The second point that I want to note is that there is a deck there and when you went down and there and looked up, you'd notice that because of the steepness and because none of these decks are that wide, that the light does penetrate underneath and there is a very good growth of vegetation underneath these decks. Also, I hope you noticed that the bulkhead is in place not only On this property but the adjacent property, are actually higher than the landward grade that abuts up to them My point for saying that is, we're really not talking about kind ora run-offpotentiat that would affect wetlands, which I would assume be your primary interest in this application? And finally, what I wanted to make note of, I don't know if you took an opportunity to walk down the property, but this is an area, because of the way it was developed many years ago, that contains numerous substantial structures, closer than what we're talking about here, I have put together a chart, or diagram to show you some of these. I don't know how well you'll be able to see the actual photos, but I have three sets here and you can sort of look at those as I go though them. In here, you'll see that this is the property that is the subject of this application. And, as you go around the 4 or 5 properties this way, a dozen properties to the west, what you'll find is numerous type decks, boat houses, cabanas, and in some cases, bath houses and many of these things were built many years ago. Some of them though, however, are not quite that old. Now we were unable to obtain a lot of the permit history on some of these adjacent sites because the old records that the Trustee's used to maintain were thrown out. TRUSTEE SMITH: We never had anything on the Bay prior to 1991. Anything prior to 1991, we would have no reason to have any records or any ofthat stuff. ROB HERRMANN: Well then, maybe that's it. I'm not certain exactly when these were built. We did get an old aerial that was in the late 1970's and very few of these structures, in fact, did exist, So, these are not very old, perhaps before 1991. 35 TRUSTEE SMITH: I can remember working down there when ! was a kid, along the Bay there, and everybody had stairs, boat houses, beach houses, right on top of their bulkheads, all along there. That was a common way of doing things in that area. They were above the bulkheads. BRUCE ANDERSON: Most of the houses that were built, were built right on top of the bluff So, if anyone wanted a deck, they were building out over the bluff or down the bluff or in some cases they would put it adjacent to the bulkhead itself. My point for doing this kind of work is to show that really what they're proposing to do is not at all very substantial compared to what's there, although, given a different scenario, a more modern development scenario, I would doubt I'd even bring in this type of application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Well historically, all the homes that were built there, except for a couple of them, they were all basically summer homes. That's why they built them close to the bluff, so you didn't want to live in the back of the woods if you're going to be there just for the summer. You wanted to take advantage of the beach and the view. BRUCE ANDERSON: That is really the substance of my presentation. I do not believe though that there is anything about this proposed deck that threatens any natural resource value whatsoever. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do have a letter in the file from the neighbor complaining about the construction. They just built onto .the house in the past year. The construction, the noise, the blowing garbage, and that sort of thing. I looked at the site because it's in my neighborhood and the question I had was, what elevation is that deck going to be at because it's such a steep slope. It was staked. BRUCE ANDERSON: It's going to be about 12' to 14'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ne, but in relation to the rest of it, because there's a deck by the house, with that sunken deck area with... BRUCE ANDERSON: It's going to be atthe same level. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As the one that comes off`the house? BRUCE ANDERSON: No, there's an intermediary, in fact, you can see this on the survey. It extends offofthat. TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: Oh, so it will be above all of that. BRUCE ANDERSON: Exactly. My point is, is that one of the things you have to think about with these kind of things, is that if you put a lot of structure there, your concern might be that you shade out the plants, the bluff`gives way, and you have a bigger problem then what you started with and that is not the case here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a very steep bank but it's a very stable bank. TRUSTEE SMITH: There'sno erosion there that I can.remember. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No the erosion there would come from the upland and if it' s not coming from the upland now, building this isn't going to increase it because it's nowhere near the upland. It would be an open deck I would imagine. BRUCE ANDERSON: Yeah. The gazebo is really almost like an arbor that they're going to put up. It's not even a building, per say. It's sort of slats that will break up the sunlight onto the deck itself. It's not a house or a shed or anything like that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this application? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to dose the public hearing. TRUSTEE KIING: Seconded. ALL AYES 36 12. 13. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay I saw it so I'll make a motion to Approve the application. BRUCE ANDERSON: In addition, please note that when you came down, you saw that upper deck area directly facing the house. This application includes replacement of that. You can see all of the wood boards are all rotted and neglected. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. I made a motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of EDWARD FOX requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, deck and pool, and approx. 125 c.y. of clean fill required for proposed septic system. Located: 2503 Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck. SCTM# 122 -9-9.4 CHARLES BOWMAN: I talked to Mr. Fox after our meeting and we are revising the plans to show the 55' undisturbed buffer from the edge of the drive. We are also moving the driveway location so it's in that area, that lktle high spot and he is going to be moving his house further towards the Bay as well. I don't know quite how much. He is working with his architect on that. So, we can submit new plans when that is available if that's the Board wish. TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this? Can we act on this subject to new plans, because I think the buffer was our only concern? TRUSTEE KING: I don't see why not. CHARLES BOWMAN: That Would be great. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Wl~at's he moving it? 15'? Is that what we said? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Something like that. CHARLES BOWMAN: I think he actually may be mov'mg it more than that. TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: Our concern was the buffer and the back and he can put it right up against that, as far as we're concerned. But, that would be his decision. CHARLES BOWMAN: I just wanted to make you aware that he is moving it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does somebody want to make a motion? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'It make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll second that, but should haybales be put up? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a good idea. Haybales should be places at the 55' except for where the driveway goes through, during construction, and subject to receiving new plans. TRUSTF. F. KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM A, MALLINS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with a garage and an asphalt driveway, sanitary system, and a recreational dock facility consisting ofa 4'X 40' fixed timber dock, 3'X 20' ramp, and a 6'X 20' timber float. Proposed facility will us e(12) 8" diameter piles, (10) piles for the fixed dock and (2) piles to support the float. Fixed dock is proposed to be elevated a minimum of 4' above the existing wetlands vegetation. A 37 proposed 4'+/- natural woodchip/mulch path is proposed to access proposed dock facility. Located: 70 Jackson's Landing, Mattituck SCTM#113-4-374 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? CHARLES BOWMAN: I think the Board should be made aware of that on this lot, actually there are two single and separate lots. Mr. Mallins is merging them to build one house. We've tried to mainta'm the 75' setback from the tidal wetlands line. We've included a 50' buffer, and I think we've also shown the clearing limits, the sanitary, system about 125' away from the wetlands line and I think the dock is the reasonable length necessary to get him to a reasonable amount of water for just a small boat. So I hope you'll favorably upon k. But, I would be happy to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright. Is there any other comment before we start on this one. We went there and we couldn't find the house staked. CHARLES BOWMAN: I was told there was. TRUSTF~ SMITH: There were stakes all over the place. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They were randomly placed. They don't really define any house corners. CHARLES BOWMAN: We've had some problems this surveyor, and I can't even begin to tell you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There were ribbons hanging in the trees but no stake nearby. IRUSTEF, KRUPSKI: Okay, so we need to have it staked. I don't think that it's a major problem out there. We were out there, if it wasn't on this one, it was a neighboring property, a number of years ago. CHARLES BOWMAN: I believe I was involved in that neighboring property a number of years ago. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did they build that house? CHARLES BOWMAN: I don't know. They got the approval and then I believe they sold it. I don't know. I forget the people's names. The wetland line here is pretty distinct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is. CHARLES BOWMAN: And like I said, he has merged two lots which I think is terrific. He originally came to us to see if he should just build on one and it just really lends itself that property to one nice house. So I think that's great. TRUSTEE KING: Is that dock on the property that would've been the other lot, from where he's building the house, to the east? CHARLES BOWMAN: It would be; yes. That's correct. TRUSTEE KING: There's a buoy in the water. You don't know what that indicates? CHARLES BOWMAN: No. We did sounding. I~RUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want him to stake that as well? TRUSTEE KING: Yeah, I'd like to see the outermost part where the floating dock is going to go. The width of the water wav is about 150'. CHARLES BOWMAN: And when it's staked, if we can slide it closer to the shore that's fine. Again, it's only a 6'X20' float. He knows he can just have a small boat in there anyway. So, that would not be a concern. TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: Okay. I'll make a motion to Table this application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 38 14. 15. Permits & Drafting Unlimited on behalf of DANIEL C. MOONEY requests a Wetland Permit to replace pipes, floating dock and ramp. Dock 3'X 18' and ramp 2 ½'X 8'. Located: 575 Pine Place, East Marion. SCTM#37-4-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken you looked at this? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, I looked at it. It's very straight forward. Easy. DANIEL MOONEY: There were two pipes in the water for many years. The last one broke off this year. There was clamp on the bulkhead for the ramp that went down to the dock that was there. I have a picture from 1960 that shows the two pipes in the water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a not here from Mr. Matsen. He will not allow more than 20', it must be at least 3' wide, and he recommends a 10' ramp. That's just a note that's here. That's not our notes. TRUSTEE KING: Is he your neighbor? DANIEL MOONEY: He's the Gardiner's Bay Estates Homeowners Assoc. Matin Committee. I spoke to him and he knew I was making this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the Wetland Permit application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TED DOW[} requests a Wetland Permit for maintenance dredging of entrance to Fairhaven Inlet which has closed in due to dredging by Suffolk Co. Dredged material to be used as fill nearby. 100-150 c.y. Located: Cedar Beach, 1775 Inlet Way, Southold. SCTM#92-1-8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application? MARK MASSEY: I'm a neighbor involved in the project. TRUSTF. F. KING: Are you in favor of it? MARK MASSEY: Yes. Definitely. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. I've got to problem with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to see what the finished depth is going to be. It wouldn't say it here, would it? 6' deep. Did you see this Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yeah. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the State going to let you dredge to 6'? Do you know? MARK MASSEY: I believe so. We are in the process of acquiring permits from all the powers to be. TRUSTEE SMITH: They'll probably let you go 5'. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What's the depth around there, compared to what you're dredging? MARK MASSEY: I'm not exactly sure. I think we, well the Inlet is just closing off because alt of that sand is just, I mean our concern is just keeping that inlet open, and all the sand from the previous dredging has just washed back in there and it's starting to close off. So, that's really our only concern is to keep that as a natural inlet. I live on the side of that and I'd like to see it stay the way it should be. 39 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Where is that fill nearby going to be? TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: It's like a little beach area that has eroded. Do you want to have that planted up? Put in beach grass? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yeah so it doesn't just wash back in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we discussed that in the field. Alright. We'll add to that that it be planted with american beach grass 18" in center and rosewood regosa would be suggested, because that has a great root system also. TRUSTEE POLlWODA: I'll second it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 16. MATT-MAT, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a boat basin at the southeast side of marina. Boat basin will be 16,900 sq.ft, with an average depth of 15' to be excavated, and construction of 320' of bulkhead and 355' of floating docks. Excavated material is clean gravel and sand, which will be used to create a burm at the east side border of marina and will be available for clean backfill for new bulkhead area. Located: 2255 Wickham Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#114-3-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Here are the plans. While you're looking at that, we've got a letter in today from the North Fork Environmental Council. They think we should require a full environmental impact statement. Alright I'll read you the concerns here. During excavation of this boat basin, there couM be adverse impacts of water quality from sedimentation from storm run-off and erosion. Which I imagine that could be addressed. TRUSTEE SMITH: Wouldn't they excavate and do this ... TRUSTEE KING: Do it last. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll just have to specify that. The increased number of boats would cause additional pollution from boat engines and the surfaces of these boats wouM require and also there is presently no pump-out station at Matt-A-Mar, thus there ia' the potential for increased pollution from sanitary waste, which is a very good point. SPEAKER: Could I ask that you speak up a little louder. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are addressing concerns that we've just received today. One was, during the work phase, there would be sedimentation from the work. The second one was that there is no pump-out facility at Matt-A-Mar marina which was a good point to bring up. ALI AGARABI: To answer the second question, we have the pump-out station. We used to accept anybody who comes. But, as you know now, the charge for removing, went so high up that regardless of how much we charge, it doesn't cover the expenses. So the pump-out station that we have, I'm sure that you aware of that we have had, was listed in books, is just limited to the people that we have. As far as excavation, I'm sure that you have seen it, some of you were there, when the (can't understand) does not involve the water, because we have a bulkhead, and this bulkhead separates the land from the water so excavation is dry up to the area that we get to the bulkhead. In the bulkhead, 40 here you have some separation from the water so this will not be really disturbing the water at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And that's what we would require in our Permit. I'm sure the DEC would also require that the excavation be done first, the interior bulkheaded and then the old bulkhead be replaced. What sort of pump-out station do you have? ALI AGARABI: We have the old one that we've had for years. We have a pump and it' s connected and we have an area that we fill up and they come and take it. But we do not have space for all of them Actually the truth is, we have more than 500 boats and there is no pump-out station and they have been complaining that something has to be done. The Town is concerned about the water, and we have to have a plan for a pump- out station. A few years ago, the State wanted to give some money for a pump-out station but if they gave us $7,000.00 they wanted us to accept every boat that comes from any area for $5.00 to pump-out the station, now each time that they come down and take the sewage, they charge us $250.00, and we can pump maybe 10 boats. So it's $225.00 already we have to pay to take this. Now, you have to have something to pump. You have to have facilities to pump. So, you cannot charge a lot. The reason is, if you charge a boat $50.00 or $60.00 he will very easily go to the water and dump it. Unfortunately, a large number of the boats, they anchor, they come and anchor there and they dump. Because, if they anchor it in the marina we see it. We can stop it. We can do something about that. But if they dump it in the water, even if we see it, there is no way that we can prove it. We don't have access to the federal anchorage area. One of the main problems really, is that the boats, they come, they dump and they go. We cannot afford really to accept every boat for $5.00 or $10.00 to pump. The other thing is, a lot the boats, they want to be pumped out every mormng or late afternoon or at night and we cannot keep somebody there 24 hours a day for a pump-out station. So, as a result we did not accept the $7,000.00 they did promise to give us, for $5.00 aboat. So as a result, we have a pump, we have a single pump which you have seen before because a few years ago you came and saw where the ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I never actually saw the... ALI AGARABI: Well I think that you did but we had to change the...we had a tank, years ago, the other tank that you saw you said had to come above the ground and so on, but that:tank is going to go, with this proposal. So we are going to have a small tank in the area that goes around and we have a pump-out station. We hope that the Town can do something like the other Town's have. They have a (can't understand) that goes around and up all the bOats. The Town (can't understand) the boat and gets the people to work and they charge something. So it actually comes out 50/50. But, we did some a few years ago, ask for some other help but... TRUSTEE FOSTER: Southampton has five boats. ALI ARAGABI: That's right. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And they don't charge. And they didn't pay for them either. They all 'came from State and Federal money. Well we could get them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's talk about the pump-out facility. What we have done in the past is sometimes is we require somebody to keep records of their pump-out, so we know. You provide pump-out for your marina. ALI AGARABI: Only for the boats that are in the marina. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I remember...remember Brick Cove? 41 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well they pump them but they pump it right into their septic system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we had a log of what they're actually doing there, because the water quality is very important and that is our main concern here. ALI AGARABI: The thing is, they don't want me to dump it into the septic system because the boats, they have some kind of chemical and as a result they cannot use that in the regular system. You have to go to a special place. That is the problem. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well as a matter of fact, I put a big $80,000 septic' system in at the Brick Cove Marina and we had a separate tank just for that, for him to dump his boat waste into. TRUSTF, F, KRUPSKI: What do you think about then? Have Matt-A-Mar. have a log of when they pump out so we have an idea, of just their own marina, not everywhere, in the federal anchorage area, but just to have a log of how often the facility is used and how effective it is. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Who is going to enforce it? TRUSTEE KRL~SKI: Well they'd have to give it to us every year. Brick Cove, we required it at Brick Cove and I think it increases their use. ALI AGARABI: We are planning to submit an application for the tank, a large tank, because any way you have to pay $250.00 whether the tank is small or big, it doesn't make any difference. So, we want to apply for a tank and then the smaller thank that goes around and pumps out, and pump to that tank, and from there they can take it. But it's only for the marina. There' a large number of boats and nobody wants to pump-out and nobody has. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But this would be, I mean you're going to put that big tank up by the barn somewhere, not near the creek right? ALI AGARABI: That's right. We have a tank and the smaller tank goes around and will be put in that tank and that tank they can pump it out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because Suffolk County would regulate where you put that tank, correct? ALI AGARABI: I'm not sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You would think they would. Okay, there is one more concern here. Potential for visual, other impacts of the surrounding community due to the possible creation of the need for construction of new boat storage and/or parking area or facility of the additional boats and cars that wouM be used in the marina. Because of the removal qf the current storage and/or parking area where the new boat basin would be constructed, Mat-A-Mar. should disclose it's full expansion plan otherwise the environmental review of this project wouM be segmented. This area here, is right now, a parking area? ALI AGARABI: It's a mixed parking and an area that people can sit. Right now we have, as you remember, you saw some benches where the people sit next to the boats. There's about 25'-30' in the area that they sit. After that, the parking starts. Some of the area of that goes to parking and the other for sitting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you store boats in that area in the wintertime? ALI AGARABI: No. It's grass and gravel and benches, TRUSTEE KRESS: What depth do you propose to dredge that out. 42 ALI AGARABI: If you recall, it is uphill. In some areas maybe 10' maybe 11'. Some areas may be 14', and some areas the maximum 15'. So if we put 15' there is no discussion, but some areas are 10' or less than 10' maybe 9 ½'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But what's the final depth going to be? TRUSTEE SMITH: What's the water depth? ALI AGARABI: The water depth, maybe 14', at low tide. The truth is, this plan is done with the DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have their Permit? ALI AGARABI: I have to submit the plan but I did talk to them. TRUSTF, E FOSTER: What made you change your mind? You said that, when we went out there, you said that you weren't going to do it. ALI AGARABI: Well I don't have a choice. You know what the situation is there. They don't give me any other choice. This is very expensive and it doesn't make sense to do it. But I have to. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You originally thought you were going to get 12 slips and now you're not even going to get that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any comment? NEIGHBOR: I'd like to make a comment. Maybe I don't understand what that Permit is. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Take a look here. As you come in, it's on this corner here. He wants to dig out behind the bulkhead and open it up. NEIGHBOR: In other words, he's digging into his own land. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's digging out his parking lot. NEIGHBOR: So this area over here is going to remain untouched. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. It's just this corner here, that's the parking lot, he's going to remove that and put in boat slips. NEIGHBOR: Now where is Wickham Ave. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Over here. Way over here. NEIGHBOR: So this is Wickham. And this is the estuary. It is very shallow and there's also a wetland behind here. That's going to remain untouched. TRUSTEE FOSTER: He's not touching any of that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, he's not doing any work externally. TRUSTEE FOSTER: He's only affecting his own land actually. TRUSTEE KING: He's coming in by his traveler slip up into the property. See what he'll do is leave that closed oR which it is now. He'll do all this excavating and the last he'll do is open this up to have access to go in an out. So, there won't be any disturbance out there at all. NEIGHBOR: And that fill is going where? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where will the fill go? TRUSTEE KING: He's going to put in a burm and probably sell some of it. ALI AGARABI: They asked us for a burm because they don't want the public to see inside the marina. So the burm would be here. NEIGHBOR: So it's going to look nice. Is that what you're telling me? ALI AGARABI: They wanted to increase the burm. NEIGHBOR: Is there going to be any run-off from here into this little section. 43 ALI AGARABI: We have one big drain in here already. Two. Excuse me. I put one more in here because the Planning Board asked me. So we have two in here 12' deep TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our big concern is that, for some reason the Town wanted to rezone this piece of property across this creek, which we're dead set against. TRUSTEE KING: They've Tabled it for environmental studies. NEIGHBOR: How will this affect the moorings in the inlet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the federal anchorage area you mean? It shouldn't. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It should have no impact whatsoever on anything but the zoned area. TRUSTFF, KRUPSKI: But see what happened is that he just replaced this bulkhead a few years ago, CCA, and it failed, The worms ate into it and the bulkhead it shot, and he has to replace k. NEIGHBOR: These are going to bt floating dock? Slips. TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: Yes, with a little walkway around k. NEIGHBOR: And this is the area where it's going to be an average of 15'? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well no, that's from finished grade all the way down. There's only going to be 4' of water at low tide, but because it's such high ground there, he's got to go down 15' from here down. 11' of ground and 4' below. NEIGHBOR: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I had just the one question. How wide is this area here? This is where the old bulkhead is right? ALI AGARABI: The bulkhead would be here and this is about 18" TRUSTEE KING: My question is what holds this bulkhead up? ALI AGARABI: Pilings. TRUSTEE KING: There's going to be no deadmen on that, that means, because there's no land. TRUSTEE KRI~SKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTF~ SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone want to make a motion? TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion we Approve the application. TRUSTF~ KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need to put in some drywells. ALI AGARABI: We are putting in the driveway here. (noise) We are going to put one here. Alreacty last week we put two in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, what size drywells should be put in there? ALI AGARABI: We had two 4'X 8'. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's all you're going to get in there. You're going to want to put a dome on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to include the new drywells with the construction and to keep a log for the summer of 2000 for the pump-out. ALI AGARABI: We have to pump-out. We want to make it easier, really, and feasibly. You will see the water. Now I live up there. You see the boats in the water in the morning, and what can you do? Nothing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 44 17. 18. 19. David S. Corwin on behalf of JOHN FARRIS requests a Wetland Permit to remove deteriorated 3.5'X 75' dock, install new 4'X 75' dock in same location, install two 2-pile mooring dolphins. Located: 750 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM#26-2-20.1 TRUSTF~ POLIWODA: I'd like to comment and leave it 3 ½' X 75' and no two 2-pile mooring dolphins. TRUSTF~ SMITH: Why? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Because that's what he has now and he won't be able to keep a boat there because he only has about a foot of water at low tide so what's the sense of putting the pilings in. TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: It shows 2 ½'. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At low? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it doesn't say when. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well that's what the DEC said. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine with me. TRUSTEE KING: That's tree. They're not going to approve the dolphins. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'd go with the 4' wide. TRUSTF, E KRUPSKI: No, it's on the Bay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the Wetland Permit with no two-pile mooring dolphins. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES David S. Corwin on behalf of KIMOGENOR POINT CO. requests a Wetland Permit to construct 85' of new timber bulkhead 18" in front of existing deteriorated bulkhead; remove 21' of existing deteriorated bulkhead, construct 21' of new timber bulkhead in same location; backfill as required with clean sand from upland source, approx. 70 c.y. Located: 50 Jackson St., New Suffolk. SCTM#116-6-24.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We all thought this should be inkind/inplace. Henry, it's all sand there and it's away from the house. The little section they want to do inkind/inplace. There's plenty of room to work there. This next section is inkindfmplace. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application, only instead of 18' in from, it will be inkind/inplace. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYEs Nicholas A. Vero, Architect on behalf ofCON1ZAD & JESSIE VEROSTEK requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing structure from existing foundation, and remove existing locust post/concrete foundation, excavate for new poured concrete foundation within existing building footprint, and relocate existing structure on new foundation. Located: 415 Mill Creek Dr., Southold. SCTM#135-3-30.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What did we say on this? Just haybales and guttters? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Haybales and roof drains. 20_ 21 45 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They need haybales during construction and they need drywells for the gutters. What size drywells Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't remember how high above the water they were. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They had 6',8' don't you think? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Oh yeah. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The top of the bank says 7.2. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The house is going to go up two stories isn't it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. The back of the property is 11'. TRUSTEE FOSTER: He should probably put a 4'X 8' ring on each adjacent comer and then you can tie the front into, you know, both ends of the front into one through a pipe and then the same on the other side. So, two 4'X 8' rings in two separate drywells. One 4'X 8' ring in two separate drywells. In other words two separate drywells each 4'X 8'. 4' in depth, 8' in diameter. 'Pre-cast drainage rings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE FOSTER.' So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with haybales and two individual drywells. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. AYES Trustee Smith - no vote. IVIICltAEL CORDASCI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family, private dwelling. Located: 435 Private Rd., #26 off Soundview Ave., Southold POSTPONED AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST Suffolk Environmental Consuking, Inc. on behalf of E. BROWNELL & KAREN B. JOHNSTON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a +/-3854 sq.ft, two story house, a +/-2815 sq,ft, driveway, and a +/-800 sq.ff, pool. Located: Richmond Creek Farms R.O.W. (adjacent to Wells Rd.), Peconic. SCTM#86-1-9.4 NON-JURISDICTION AS PER TRUSTEE'S INSPECTION TRUSTEE SMITH moved to go offthe Public Hearings and go back to the Regular Meeting. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES RESOLUTIONS: Francis J. O'Reilly, Esq. on behalf of JOHN L. KIRCHNER requests a Grandfather Permit for an existing dock. Located: 705 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#118-2-8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES ESTATE OF ELEANOR H. BRUCE requests a Grandfather Permit for three docks existing on the property prior to December 12, 1969. Located: 4150 Wurmeweta Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-14-24 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI Tabled the application until a survey is submitted showing all docks and their dimensions. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 46 HOWARD & VALER1F~ MICHELSEN request a Grandfather Permit for an existing deck, stairs, house, and shed, and to Transfer Permit #31-18-18 from Hazen Cook to Howard & Valerie Michelsen. Located: 860 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. SCTM#31-18- 18 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES MOORINGS: JOE NIXON requests a mooring in Broadwaters Cove for a 22' HobieCat. ACCESS: Public. TRUSTEE POLIWODA denied the application because the water is too shallow. Application will be put on the waking list. No more moorings will be permitted in Broadwaters until further notice. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 PM. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Clerk Board of Town Trustees