Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/26/1998Albert 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 AUGUST 26, 1998 CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 at 12 noon TRUSTEE SMITH approved, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MF, F. TING: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 at 7 p.m. WORKSESSION: 6 p.m. TRUSTEE SMITH approved, TRUSTEF. KRUPSKI seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 22, 1998 Regular Meeting. TRUSTEE SMITH approved, TRUSTF, E KING seconded. ALL AYES MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for July 1998: A check for $2137.63 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. III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: 1. Proper -T Services on behalf of ROBERT K. SCRIPPS requests an Amendment to Permit #4004 to increase the length of the ramp from 14' to 16', change the orientation of the float so that it is perpendicular to the shore instead of parallel to it, and relocate the two 2-pile dolphins appropriately to secure the float in its new location. Located: 2745 Pine Tree Road, Cutch0gue, SCTM #104-3-6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to table the application until next month. TRUSTEE KI2qG seconded. ALL AYES 2. DONALD LESLIE requests an Amendment to Permit #369 to remove a 4' X 36' section of fixed dock and 16 pilings and replace it with a 6' X 36' float and 5 pilings, add a 6' X 6' float to connect to existing floats that are ro remain, and 2 existing ramps are to be replaced with one new ramp. Located: 340 Robinson Road, Greenport. SCTM #34-5-13 TRUSTEE SMITH approved. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 3. JOHN & KELLY LOMBARD request an Amendment to Permit #1502 to extend the dock by adding a 5' X 16' float onto an existing float and to Transfer this permit from Elwood Hughes to John & Kelly Lombard. Located: 6125 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM #104-4-1 Page 2 TRIJSTEE IGRUPSKI moved to approve switching 5' X 16' for a 6' X 20' subject to receiving new plans. · '4. EDWARD TASHJIAN requests an Amendment to Permit #290 to construct an 8 s.f. enclosed deck with some modification to the deck's footprint. Located: 4955 Stillwater Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM #137-3-8.4. TRUSTF. F. KING approved. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI seconded. ALL AYES 5. HOWARD & DEBORAH WIGGINS requests an Amendment to Permit ~4252 to construct a 3' X 190' catwalk down to an existing dock, and Transfer permit from Bruce & Barbara Beany to Howard & Deborah Wiggins. Located: 1750 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM #103-3-5.1. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI approved. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 6. MATTITUCK INLET MARINA & SHIPYARD request an Amendment to Permit ~4857 to extend the bulkhead replacement approx. 106' further to the south 18' or in front of existing deteriorated bulkhead, and to build an 8' remm connecting to existing bulkhead. Located: End of West Mill Road, on west side, Mattituck Creek. SCTM #106-6-13.3. TRUSTF. F. KING approved. TRUSTF. F. SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 7. JAMES 1~ WlLKINS, IR. requests a Waiver to construct an 8' X 10' landing near the edge of the cliff, a set of wood stairs leading down about 25' to the beach that will replace old stairs. Located: 585 Aquaview Ave., East Marion. SCTM #21-2-17.1. TRUSTEgTSMIllffapp~oV~d-waiver f0~--~a~fs~onl?.'~ALL AYES ...... 8.'DORIS E. SPAHR requests a Waiver for construct a 15' X 18' enclosure over an existing deck. Located: 125 North Lane, East Marion. SCTM #31-7-12. TRUSTI~. FOSTER approved. TRUSTF. F. SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 9. Vic Beck on behalf of LAUGHING WATER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. requests a Waiver to install approx. 500' of zig-zag snow fence, plant spartina patens (salt hay) and small pine shrubs along the outer beach high water line. Located: Hog Neck Bay at Corey Creek Inlet. SCTM #87-3-65. TRUSTEE KK~S~ approved. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES t0. JEANNE B ARTOS requests a Waiver for an existing 10' X 14' deck. Located: 1820 Mill Lane, NY tel. Pole ~t46, Peconic. SCTM #67-7-14. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI approved. TRUSTI~F. FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 11. Costello Marine on behalf of BARBARA BRAATZ requests a 10 year maintenance dredge pera-dt extension to coincide with the Army Corps Pemfit to expire 2007. Located: 5250 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-10-14. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI approved, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES. TRUST~.F. SMITH moved to go off the Regular Meeting and go onto the Public Hearings, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES. PUBLIC HEARINGS~ THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOI.D. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE TRAVELER-WATCHMAN. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIT~.D AND BRIF. F' FIVE :(5) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE Page 3 1. J. Kevin McLaughlin on behalf of ANTHONY SCARMATO requests a Public Hearing in the matter of a V' ola~ion f~or a chain hnk fence down into water seaward of high water mark. Located: 235 Huckleberry Hill Koadi Eastl lVlarion. SCTM#31-16-9 TKUSTI~ KR ~UPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak? KEVIN MCL~UGHLIN: I'm here on behalf of Mr. Scarmato, my client has been served with a notice of violation concerning a fence that was constructed approx. 25 years ago, which everyone has admitted he obtained all .of the necessary permits at that time to erect. Basically he has done nothing with the fence since then whicl~just:stopped there. Now the violation that he is served with is violation #Sec. 9720 of the code which~ says~ thatmo person shall :conduct.operations on any wetlands in the Town.of Southold unless he first obtains a permit. Section 9713 of the Code defines the word "operations" and I sent you a letter to this effect and hopefully you have all had a chance to read it But the definition says that "O~emtions are removal of m~als from Wetlands, deposited on wetlands, the erection, construction, alteration, or enlargements of any bUilding, dock, pier, wharf; imlkhead, jetty, groin or other structure temporary or permanent on wetland." My position is very simple, we are not conducting any operations on the wetlands. The fence was built 25 years ago, the feace remains. To now try to say that we arein violation of this section of the Code is ludicrous. We:re not doing anything. We haven't done anything in 25 years. Under this logic, if you had a house, let's say, that was 75~feet back and didn't need any ldnd of permits, and you lost 15 feet ofbeachfront due to a storm, the ~house isnow illegal, and you?d be certain to notice some violation. This is not the way the Code is s~'~d:~-~y ~li~r~t b_~'d6ne nothing,"~/fd"theref6fe'I see absolutel[y rio reason h0W-li~"dan be alleged to be in violation ~the Code since he has done nothing under the definition of the operations as listed in the Code. I got some pictures that I would tike to submit, most of which are the neighborhood around where the fence is located, I know some of you were there, we met at the site, some month or six weeks ago, and I think if you remember being ~here and if you look at the pictures, there was some discussion at the site of this being an obstmction~ and I would agree that certainly in some sense of the word that is an obstruction but there have to be six or eight obstmcfions right in the pictures of this property. There are groins going out, there are cement piers going om, there are fences going out, and I think if you take a look at all of these pictures you'll see that all ofukings are obstructions, all ofwhich may or may not have permits, I'm not aware, all I know is that my client'S fence had a permit when it was built. The last two pictures I would like to submit to this Board are pictures of~ fence that Cedar Beach running down to the water similarly to what my client's now does due to beach erosion. I would like to submit these to the Board. TRUS~ .~ ,KRUPSKI: Thank you. There is some question about a Building Permit. I think when we met in the'field, you showed us a Building Permit for a chaimlinked fence? KEVIN MCLAUGHI JN: Yes, I have a copy of the ..... a Building Peimit was issued in 1973 to erect a 6 foot high chain-linked fence, that is my only copy, and I would be happy to submit a copy to the Board, tomorrow, I can drop one off. TRUSTI~-F. KRUPSKI: We would appreciate that. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN: Now I understand there are no operations presently being conducted nor have been conducted for 25 years and therefore with all due respect I submit this Board has no jurisdiction. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Can we look at that permit? Can we make a copy of it now? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN: Sure. TRUSTF. F. FOSTER: OK. KEVIN MCLAUGI-ILIN: If anyone has any questions I would be happy to.answer them. TRUSTF. F. KRL~SKI: The main thing, we wanted to take a look at that Building Permit, that question that I had and the other Board members ... Are there any other comments? Yes. -JL MURPHY:( I live at 2165 Bay Ave. in East Marion, about two houses in from the bay. On Memorial Day weekend, it was my child, I was the one who issued the complaint who went underneath the dock and who got Page 4 caught around that fence that was well into the water past the high-water mark, and speaking to the people regarding the coastal rights in the State of New York, I have an excerpt from the Newsday, it's in the Newsday for the past couple of weeks now, that in New York, it is every citizen's birthright and in theory it means that the lowliest peon is entitled to walk on the beach in front of the wealthiest millionaire's oceanfront land house. So that fence is blocking my access to walk along the beach, and it is blocking my access and that is how my child got caught-up under the fence. There is another dock that's falling down right next to that adjacent piece of property and if everyone has access in the State of New York to walk freely in the water and on the beach and the high-water mark down, then how can that fence be allowed to remain there, at our access. In that neighborhood there are predominately elderly people or people who have children, lfI want to take a walk along the beach with my children I want them ??? to that fence or anything else. The other groins and the piers that go out, any one can walk over them in that area. This poses a threat to anyone who wants to walk freely along the beach with their family members. I gave you a copy of all the photos I have regarding that and how far that goes into the water and we did discuss that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Does the Board have any comments? TKUSTF. F, KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTIqF. SMITH: Seconded. TRUSTlqF. KRUPSKI: No other comments? ALL AYES. 2. Proper-T Services on behalf ofRENEE PONCET requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dw-etling-~a~i-gei~ti~' gystem~ 'Located: 702-Wiggin-s Lane, Greenport. SCTM #34-5-20.- TRUST~J~. KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? JIM FITZGERALD: .ti don't have anything to add to the material in the application but I would be happy to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to make any other comments on this application in favor or against the application. NEIGHBOR: I'll be their, neighbor and I've seen the plans and met the couple and the property is the last lot in the subdivision, that started 30 years ago, I am here to listen in keeping with the things that we would like to see happen. TRUST~.lq KRUPSKI: Thank you. Do we have any notes from the field inspection? I think the only thing, there is no CAC comments here. I think We wanted a non-turf buffer to the 10' contour. If the applicant wants to clear her view, which I assumed he would, he should appeal to us in writing and show us what he wants afterwards. Non-turf means that he can put landscaping in front. JIM F1TZGERAI.D: May I make a comment on that? I gave you some months an article, I think itwas published by the Cooperative Extension Service, and the point of the article was that well-maintained groin was a better deterrent to bad things going in water than a non-turf buffer. TRUSTI~. KRUPSKI: Actually I did read that and I do remember it, having an agricultural background and a degree in plant science, I find that article to be an over-simplification and sort of a real generic one-sided, sort of a little slice of the whole picture and I didn't quite agree with the way it worded. I think in the long run as far as property maintenance goes, I think the non-turf buffer is the safest bet towards keeping nutrients entering the creek, and like I said, they can landscape it, and clear for a view. I did not agree with that article. (Talking) FRANCINE PRATO: I have a question, I 'ma neighbor there too. Can you just define to me a "non-turf buffer". TRUST~.R KRUPSKI: Well, some of the problems with turf going all the way to the water is that the mn-off would naturally flow much quicker to the water, of course, this property, most waterfront properties are naturally graded towards the water. So anything that you put on the low end is going to run, on heavy rains, directly into the creek. If you put in the non-turf buffer, you can put in plantings, flowing, non-flowing, native grasses, and all kinds of things you can put in that will slow the water coming down and you won't get that quick flush in heavy in rain of nutrients or whatever is put on the lawn. Page 5 FRANCINE PRATO: This is just my own question, does bulkheading fulfill that requirement? TRIJS~ I~I~SKI: No. Not as a buff.er. As Jim said, it usually aggravates it. When you have, which this -pro~ doesn't have, when you have wetland fringe along the property that protects the property more than anything and the creek, both. This property doesn't have that. ~CINE PRATO: Thank you. TRUSTF~gJ KR~UPSKI: Any other comments on the Poncet application? TRUSTI~F~ SMITH: I like to make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE SMITH: Approved with condition of 10' non-turf buffer. TRUSTF~F. KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 3. Proper-T Services on behalf of LARRY KULICK requests a Wetland Permit to dear undergrowth (poison ivy, brambles, and other undesirable vegetation) from eastern portion of property, plant ero,ded area behind bulkhead return with alternaflora and/or other suitable wetland vegetation, (construct a 140 stone wall above ordinary high water line, dredge approx. 10 c.y. from silted area or boat slip and add a 4' X 18' ramp at landward end of existing dock). Located: 2200 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. SCTM #87-3-61. TRUSTF. R KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the Application? ~'FITZGERALD: Yes, again, nothing to add to the information that's in the application, if you will recall tha~there were per inspection, some months ago, all the suggestions that you indicated, items that you indicated woald l~e addressed and I think Ken looked'at the proPosed dredging and one thing p~rh~ips that should be commented on is the '~could not understand" of the area behind that return, like originally we were talking about the possibility of putting fill in there and all of you in unison said absolutely not, it continues TRUSTI~. KRI~SKI: Is there anyone else who would tike to comment on the application, in favor, or against? TRUSTI~ POLIWADA: Yeah, I would. I reviewed that property twice. I found no problem with the dredge o~the hoar ramp. I was down there today and I see we staked it o~.., stake 1,2,3,4.. That wasn't there last time ~.inspected everything. FITZGERALD: It was there because Jill called and said that it hadn't been done. TRUSTg:g. POLIWADA: I looked at the stakes today and I didn't have a problem with 4,3 and 2 but stake No. 1 I'd like to see moved back 3', and the reason for that is the marsh is eroding slowly but where the Stakes are now if you laid a s~one wall in there it would:be about 18 ~ to where it's eroding. So you're basically putting in a stone wall where the erosion is going,to be. JIM FITZGERALD: Let me say, ifI may, that it is not intended that the stone wall be a straight line but rather that thoSe lines represent the most seaward approach any wall would have, in other words, Mr. Kulick if he was here would prefer'to have something that bent. a little bit but we could, I would think, certainly start 3' land of where it is now. And even get further around the area we're refei-ring to. TRUSTI~. KRUPSKI: The only other question was the clearing, that I had, we would like to be consistent on these things, we just issued..., we've been out there, of course, a number of times at the property, the only...across the creek we just issued a Building Permit for a house that the DEC and our Board imposed a 50' buffer between the creek and the upland. I would be inclined to keep consistent with that and let you clear it within 50' but not up to the creek JIM FITZGERALD: Not clear anything. TRUSTg. F. KRUPSKI: Not clear anything within 50', that' s right. Because if we were looking at a house application in which we've had how many years ago, with the application we have now, there was a clearing restriction on that and this is being consistent on Corey Creek, right across the creek, same restriction. Because there are some wetland species in there, I think you would get the same answer from the DEC as well as far as clearing. JIM FITZGERALD: (noise) leave it in its natural state. TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: Well, its present state in a sense. JIM FITZGERALD: Well, yeah. Including the phragmities and the poison ivy and what have you. Page 6 LAR~Y KULICK: Last year we had poison ivy and I didn't even think ..... like this. TRUSTFW. KRUPSKI: Well we saw you out there, yes. We met with you. LARRY KULICK: How else, there is no way I can get somebody to get poison ivy out one leave at a time. I'd be willing to .discuss even upon clearing.. TRISSTlq~R ICRUPSKI: But I don't what the point of rearing is at that point because you certainly have enough access to the :water there, you know, and I think the Board won't allow you to dock and dredging to get a boat in and it's certainly a large enough area so that area isn't, we only allow clearing so people can get access to the water. The people who (noise) with a permit is a house, there are going to be a lot of 4' wide walking (noise) through there to get to the access to water, because they need that, otherwise they can't walk through the same sort of situation you have, the phragmities, .....talking .... straight across, more toward the east, by the cove. South of the cove. So it's the same scenario, really, and it seems like the Board should be consistent on clearing. Where you already have access ~o the water, what would the point of the clearing be. LARRY KULICK: The land right now, the kids play on it, I can't use all that land, I don't have any intentions on building it, just use alone, a better view for my neighbors as well as myself. TRUSTI=.R KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any comments? (talking among the Board members) There is a lot of bacharus there which is a protected species which was pointed out to you when we were there a year ago. TRUSTR~ FOSTER: Those you can't take down anyway. TRUSTRlq. KRUPSKI: In any kind of clearing, you would have to be selective towards those. My suggestion would be to meet with you in the wintertime when the foliage is down, (talking) we can't ..... LARRY KULICK: One gentleman told me, he's not on the board now, but he told me to use this good poison ivy medication. My kids can't even go near-the edg~ so you walk ...~7. I can't go n~rit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yeah, you can't get rid of that poison ivy, unless you just devegetate it put Round-Up down, in which you really couldn't do, you have to take all the soil out with all the roots, those roots go from here to the fi-0nt door, and that's what you would have to do in order to do it which you have to strip it completely and bring new soil in otherwise it's just going to keep coming up. It's a big job. LARRY KULICK: That's what I was going to do, physically .... TRUSTI~.R KRUPSKI: But we don't really allow routine cleating to the waters edge which you've applied for, and. we've told you that in the field and also that the Bacharus is a protected species. LARRY KULICK: So what are you saying, that I can't .... what do you want me to do? You mentioned a buffer,~how far up? TRUSTRR KRUPSKI: 50'. That's what we pemdtted across the creek. JIM FITZGEKALD: Highwater mark 50' LARRY KULICK: I don't know in perception, what that would be so .... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe, Mr. Fitzgerald could scale it out to you on your plan. (talking) JIM FITZGERALD: Would it be possible, with the 50' to selectively take out some of the big junky species? TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: Well, we allow for cutting in certain cases of phragmifies but those are in areas where it's just phragmifies. The Bacharus is a protected species where people have gotten fines for cutting back, it' s in the Code, it's not something we feel should be lett, it's in the Code, so, it's in the New York State Wetland Code also, so it's not like we can say, yeah you can take them down, because we can't. If you come in with a specific plan that shows that you are going to remove the phragmities and the poison ivy, but leave the Baeharus, then we could review that, but without a specific plan, ....... which wouldn't solve your poison ivy problem. BM FITZGERALD: May we have a resolution on that part of the application which is not involved with the clearing. And then we'll get a specific plan. TRUSTRF. KKUPSKI: Sure. LARKY KULICK: Do you need anything filled out to approve the 50'? TRUSTEE KKUPSKI: We'd have to vote on that, we could vote on that tonight if you wanted to, and then if you wanted to work on that, trying to selectively (end of tape) Page 7 TRUST~.~ TRUST~.~ TRUSTI;.~ TRUS~ FOSTER: TMs isn't the time of year to do it, you want to wait until it's devegetated. KRUPSKI: Do you have a comment? Board? Do I have a motion to dose the hearing? SMITH: Moved to dose the hearing. FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES. TRUSTRF. KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application for Larry Kulick to construct a 140' of stone wall above ordinary high-water line, dredge approx. 10 c.y. from silted area or boat slip and add a 4' X 18' ramp at landward end of existing dock and clear vegetation within 50' of high-water mark. Do I have a second on that? TRUSTRI~. SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES. TRUSTF. F. POLIWADA: Stake No. 1 will be moved 3'? TRUSTRR. KRUPSKI: Stake No. 1 as marked in the field will be moved landward 3'. All in favor. AT.I. AYES. 4. Proper-T Services on behalf on JOHN O'GRADY requests a Wetland Periifit to construct a wood walk 4' X 19~ at grade landward of bulkhead, a 4' X112' catwalk 4' above AI-IW, and a landing platform 6' X 18' one foot above AHW and two 2-pile dolphins. Located: 830 West Cove Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-2-11. TP~US~EE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to speak in favor of the application? JIM FITZGERAI.D: Yes, first let me comment on, .... the stake is 112' from the bulkhead. The water at 8:30 yesterday morning which was low tide, was 1', 9 in. at the stake. These figures came from another source and this is the only ~ewlnformation. . TRUST KRUPSKI: Is'th6re anyone 6Is~'~vho WOuld like to comment on this appliC~ition? NEIGHBOR: I had a current, drawing done for this man and for Proper-T Services received by the Board of Trustees in August 27, 1997 and I found several errors in the drawing. No. 1 the existing stairs to beach are on the property line of the cause they don't meet down to the property of the O'Gradys. No. 2 the depths of leverage of low water mark at 112 ' is marked 3ft. lin.. whereas in the hand-drawing by Mr. Fitzgerald which shows that at a 110' the depthofonly 2'ft. and received a hand-drawing on this Sept. 22, 1997. My husband and I measured it several times and we came up with something between 22 to 24 in. measurements because our neighbors on the other side were also opposed (noise). The O'Gradys (noise) 320ft out which means to me that (noise). Yesterday, a float was put in the water 112ft. diagonally measured from the, a few feet in from the property line of the cause going to the edge of our property, I' d say 2 ',3': feet away from our property tine, the draWing shows the dock is somewhat perpendicular to the bulkheading not diagonal at a sharp angle which would mean Ihat almost 1:00' ofbeachfront would be used by a dock so that no one could use it for a Sunfish, a walk along the beach, swim or things like that. The drawing does not show a (couldn't understand) leading to the dock and down for people.to walkalong, who enjoy walking along the beach. Mr. Fitzgeralds's letter of August 27, 1~997 mentions :the. possibility of the installation of the lift mechanism to raise the boat out of the water is appropriate. I don't know what that means but there is not mention in the drawing, nothing about this installation, I have no idea what that would look like, whether it is approved by the Building Dept. and one more question I have is, the dock is going to be built for recreational purposes and (couldn't understand) since mooring the boat doesn't seem to be one of the possibilities. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Okay, Kenny you were out there. TRUSTI~F. POLIWADA: Yeah, I inspected it today, about 9:00, I went out there in a pair of waders, and I measured it 112' from the bulkhead to that stake, I got 21 in. I found a problem with the whole, what you submitted. If this occurred, this whole dock occurred (couldn't understand) walk 15' past, where that stake was, about 125', about 130' out ? (talking). extends about 40' further. It comes up to 16 in, a 5 in. rise in depth. So, it wouldn't be likely, I couldn't see them permitting a boat right there and then just take off into a flat. People might use that 2I in. as navigation inside that flat. So I walked back towards the bulkhead, from 112', I walked all the way back to where is was 72' and it was consistent, 21 in. From 72' to 54' it rose to 18 in., a 3 in. increase. So, ifI was going to pemfit this application I'd start from 72 ', I'd put your fixed dock out 72' and have your float (couldn't understand) come back at 54'. 6'X18' float. Which is basically the same Page 8 depth, you're not using. You're using 3 in. on the inner side of that. But there is nothing to gain by going an extra 40' out. It's exactly the same depth, you might see ..... inside that flat, so ! don't know if you want to change the diagram? If there's any other comments? TRUST~. KRUPSKI: At that point, I'd like to make a comment, you might as well bring it back to 54' and minimize the structure completely, there was a letter from Mr. Fitzgerald in the file stating the possibility ora lif~ mechanism, and that point, should be brought back as far as possible, ifa lift mechanism is proposed, then the concern about water depth, your talking about 3 in. is minimized. Something in the nature of 54' I think you said.. TRUST~ POLIWADA: Yes, 54' and then have your float extend out 18' which would meet up to the 72' mark. JIM FITZGERALD: If you got into the lif~ mechanism, the contractor, Mr. Stepnoski, spent a lot of time talking (couldn't understand) and it was decided that the wooden dock would be more in keeping with his needs and desires. ANGELO STEPNOSKI: The only comment I have is ..... the depth of the water, the boats (couldn't understand) sits on the bottom. Your~talklng about lft. 9in. and lft. 6 in. your talking about a big difference, cause you're talking about the boat sitting on the bottom as a matter of 2 or 3 in. So you need the length oftbe dock, otto have a lift you have to dredge where the boat is going to sit. With dredging you can put the lift at 54'. But we didn't think that dredging was a possibility. TKUSTF~gJ POLIWADA~ I'd seen the 3 in. was negligible because once the boat was there I'm sure his prop- wash, of every dock I've ever seen, the prop-wash alone, probably knocks 8-12 in. off so then you have 23.4 in. '~' S6 -I ~6iildn'~ ~e~"~-b~g d-eaTih'~t-3 in. ri~-~ '~-~t-is 21 in. at the end and it y~ill come tii~'~b-~g in... ANGELO STEPNOSKI: The boat is going to have to face bow out, because with that exposure you can't have the boat face bow in (couldn't understand) as much water inward as possible. The boats going to sit on a pulley system if we rose the platform, which is not (couldn't understand) to lower it back on and two 2-pile dolphins those would be on a pulley system between lines sitting bow out. He's going to need as much water as possible. As far as that (couldn't understand) you can usually dock your boat to the south, where it's deeper. NEIGHBOR: Actually, in West Cove we are very lucky because we have a harbor, a national harbor, that is currently protected by beach and a lot of people instead of a line or pulley system, they keep their row boats there and then they go out and it's very simple and then thek boat has protection (couldn't understand) that no matter where the winds comes from or what kind of storm there is, it's safe. So, the dock actually is not used, in our cove, in our harbor. There's no other dock in the area, or need one, I would think. The man never keeps his boat there. He hasn't in 27 years. TRUSTEE KRLrPSKI: There is another dock there and that's what I wanted to ask. Has there ever been a boat at it? (talking) Why? NEIGHBOR: Mr. Corwin has always put his boat on a buoy because he said to us that it's not safe, and he would not have put the dock in, he had to by the property with the dock. It's costing him money to repair, because every couple of years because of the storms and the ice, there's been damage. TRUSTF:g. KRUPSKI: We also have letters in opposition in the file from two different neighbors. Any other comments. JIM FITZGERALD: Just, let me say that, I don't know the answer to the question about whether or not there has ever been a boat at the other dock.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I've been on the board quite a few years and I've approved a number of docks out on the bay and to be honest with you, most of those were a mistake because the bay is public property and every time you put a dock, you really infringe on navigation and access to navigation to the bay. This is an area, West Cove there, where most people have boats on moorings and that's the accepted system of having a boat, if you have a boat out there you have it on a mooring. JIM FITZGERALD: Well, the reason most people have boats on moorings, there is that, and I'm not quite sure how they all gain access, but, it is a protected area and there are dozens of boats in there as recently as right now. TRUSTI~ KRUPSKI: We were there last night, right. Page 9 ' JIM FITZGEKALD: And, it is unlikely that all of those boats belong to people whose property faces on Horseshoe Cove. That may be a reason why most of them are moored instead of a dock. TRUSTEE POLIWADA: There's 8' or 9' of water out there also, where the mooring are. They don't want their boats in 20 or 21in. of water. JIM FITZGERALD: But there is a dock in Horseshoe Cove. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Inside the Cove? JIM FITZGERALD: Yeah. TRUSTF. I~. KRUPSKI: Which I did not vote on. Jim, could I see your drawing? Any Board comment? (talking)Yeah, if you go out halfthe length you get the same amount ofwater. (talking) Yeah, but those 50' makes a big difference, your sticking out in public property, it's going to be there forever. (talking)The one to the North is not useable, it's not protected. I've never seen a boat at it, not that I'm there everyday, but I've never seen a boat. (talking) JIM FITZGEKALD: The reason I asked Mr. Stepnoski here is to discuss the question of safety which apparently was an important consideration of the Board the last time. TRUSTEF. KRUPSKI: It was, because you don't want a permanent structure that's going to be unusable and inappropriate because you could permit a 200' dock there and if you can't use it, it doesn't serve the applicant or the community any good at all. TRUSTI~F. POLIWADA: And, one of my other points were that your impeding on a 21 in. shot ..... ANGELO STEPNOSKI: Doesn't the channel end at 112'? TRUSTI~.F.'POLIWAD~: The channel, ~rfds at 127'. So, you have 15'. (talking) TKUSTRR. KING: Why is that landing platform 3' below the dock? I don't understand that. The walkway is 4' about AI-IW, the platform is 1' above AHW. TRUSTRR SMITH: That's probably so they can have access to the boat. JIM FITZGERALD: That's the design which was submitted, they wanted to eliminate the need for a movable float, and (couldn't understand) a floating ramp to minimize the impact of the winds out of the southeast. TRUST~.F. POLIWADA: I have a question, do you have a State permit yet? Have you applied to the State yet, for a permit? JIM:FITZGERALD: No, because we trying to get the design straightened out before ..... TRUST~.R POLIWADA: I was just curious about the depth of water there regarding this .... JIM FITZGERALD: Well, we know that Chuck Hamilton, says should be 4' ofwater and Mr. (couldn't understand) should be lg in. at the end of the dock. ANGELO STEPNOSKI: That's why it's a fixed dock, you don't need 4' to fix that, it's afloating dock. You don't want the float sitting on a dock. That' s why we have a fixed dock or floating system, it's the only system (can't understand) a hoist you could go to the depth that you want and or else dredge so the boat doesn't sit on the bottom and the hoist can get underneath the boat. And the boat won't be in the water at all, it will be on the hoist .... but you have to dredge to do that because the hoist has to be able to get under the boat. TRUST~ KRUPSKI: But that's assuming that there is some inherit right to have whatever you want on public property. ANGELO STEPNOSKI: I'm just giving you the options, for the guy to have a useable dock, these are the two options. One is to put his boat on a pulley system in as much water as possible, which for the length of the dock and the cost of the dock and everything, we came up with a number that we came up with and the other one is put a hoist but the hoist has to be able to get under the boat and your dealing with 21 in. of water, you know, you're not going to get under the boat. NEIGHBOR:' (couldn't understand) and it worked. Mr. O'Grady has had his boat out there for ten year without a dock and (noise). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Is there a motion to dose the hearing? TRUST~.R SMITH: Moved. TRUSTRR FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES. TRUSTR~. KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to make a motion? Page 10 TRUSTI~.F. POLIWADA: I'll make a motion to approve the application of John O'Grady for a dock, for a fixed dock that goes out 54' with a 6' X 18' landing platform as requested, which would be a total length of 72' from the bulkhead. TRUSTF~F~ KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. Trustee Krupski voted ney. (talking) TRUSTEF~ KRUPSKI: But are you certain they would approve a fixed platform one foot AHW? ANGELO STEPNOSKI: I'm pretty certain. TRUSTEE ICRUPSKI: Well, if you come back with that, with their approval on that, then bring it back to us and maybe we'll amend it. We'll take a look at that. ANGELO STEPNOSKI: (can't understand) TRUSTF~F. ICRUPSKI: No, the length tO dock, that's why I didn't vote on it, because I think 54' gives you the same depth as at 72'. ANGELO STEPNOSKI: No, it doesn't. The (couldn't understand) fit is 3 in and your taking about a foot and a half, is a huge difference. It's a difference between being able to move and not being able to move. TRUSTF:F. ICRUPSKI: But access isn't being denied. You still have access to the water. He's got a boat in the water today. But if you can convince the state that a fixed platform is the way to go, then come back to the board for an amendmem. ANGFJ~O STEPNOSKI: (can't understand) TRUSTF. F. POLIWADA: I gave you that b~cause that's what I thought you appli~dT0~;- ANGELO STEPNOSKI: No, we applied for a 112' fixed with a lower platform that doesn't go beyond the property along side it but access on and offthe boat. TRUSTF. F. POLIWADA: Platform or a float? ANGFJ.O STEPNOSKI: Boat floats TRUSTI~.F. KRUPSKI: Boats floats, but Kenny explained that there's that deeper area there that it (unclear) up after that and I think that's why Kenny pulled it back so that you'd keep that deeper area open for navigation. ANGELO STEPNOSKI: But he said 54' of stakes and then a float. I'm saying are you going to go the 72' overall fixed. TRUSTI~F~ KRUPSKI: I'm not. ANGELO STEPNOSKI: A 72' overall length of dock, is that an acceptable thing? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, we voted on it already, that's what we voted on. You have to go to the State now and you have to compel them to grant you something that they think is the way to go. TRUSTF. F~ POL1WADA: To answer your other question, I personally don't see a difference between a fixed and a float when it comes to 72'. But I'm just one member of this Board. 5. Eh-Consultants Inc., on behalf of AQUA FOODS PROPERTY LTD., request a Wetland Permit' to replace 1,438' (within 18*in.) of existing bulkhead and maintenance dredge (with 10 year maintenance agreement) 228+' X 245' (max.) basin and 5+/-' X 179+' of channel to a maximum depth of 7' below ALW. Approx. 3,000 c.y. of resultant spoil will be used both for backfill and temporarily deposited on open field site. Spoil deposited in stated located will be removed and deposited at approved upland site after de-watering. Located: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM #38-7-7.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before we start this public heating, I just want to clarify something. The Board first issued this Permit four year ago, I'm looking for the exact date, March 28, 1995, the Permit expired. So that is why they re-applied for this Permit. However, there was a 10 year maintenance dredging that was granted on the original Permit in 1995. So the applicant, for everyone involved here, still has the maintenance dredging portion, is still valid. The only part that ran out is the re-building of the bulkhead and all the structures on the site. So now, is there anyone who would like to comment on the application? JOHN EDLER:~':'You partially clarified some of my questions, became of the way it was listed, it looked as if also the DEC permit about the dredging along with the Army Corp. of Engineers was up for grabs again. Page 11 Exactly, what is here tonight is simply you already knowing that the 3/28/95 permit which deals only with bulkhead and the east jetty and west jetty. TRUSTN-F. KRUPSKI: As far as I'm concerned, yes. And all work related to that. We might look through that and add a few items but that's all work related to that JOHN EDLER: The second thing for clarification, because you know were having a calm deal with the DEC about some little innocent (unclear). Is it still within our (laughing) the understanding, because there is the dredging permit and that if we are to need on the beach all eventually down to groins and persuade the DEC to allow us to beach that. That and with the permission of the owner we can go down and dredge the sand out of the channel which is basically ours and roll it back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think this Board would have any objection to that. I think we spoke to you about that on the site. If they pump that fill up onto your beach there to the east, I don't this Board would have a problem with that. TRUSTEE SMITH: I don't think the Aqua Foods would have a problem with it either but I think all they're doing is getting these pernfits and having them balance so they can sell it. JOHN EDLER: Yeah, so they can sell it, but I mean nowadays, the way things get lost or misinterpreted, I have to.keep questioning because unless you question it and get it on record it seems to fall through the cracks. TRUSTI~.g. SMITH: But as a Board I don't think that any ofus will have a problem with you people going in there and dredging that sand out. JOHN EDLER: Mr. Mulhall doesn't either because in 1992 even before they got the reef in there we went d6wn there with TabOr iind'u~ed equipnierit"along 'the'beach, the backfill washed o/t~;-6f destroyed groins, that was just east of my property, and they had to objection. TRUSTEE-KRUPSKI: Any other comment on this application? IOHN EDLER: Ifthis is granted, and the dredging permit continues on for another six Years, that's not being renewed for another ten. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It only runs from ten years from the original date. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'd like to make a motion to close the heating. TRUSTF. g. KRUPSKI: Just one other item that we saw on the field inspection, is that, we talked to Rob Herman from Eh-Consultants about it, is that, on the hayside, remember all of those pipes through the bulkhead and also all the tings there. The rings should be filled with sand, most of them are already, the ones that we saw, and the pipes all be removed. JOHN EDLER: You're talking about the pipes that came out when they were using the air-conditioning? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't know what those pipes were for. There are some small ones, some large JOHN EDLER: That was all in when they had the fish when they were using the freezer, the water circulation on the freezers, but the one that has the angle (couldn't understand) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Straight into the bay? JOHN EDLg~R: Yeah, it came out on the east side almost at the end of the structure and was (talking). TRUSTNF. KRUPSKI: Do we have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: Motioned to dose. TRUSTI~.I~. FOSTER: Seconded ALL AYES TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the option of the owner putting the dredge on the beach to the east for beach nourishment and with the condition that all pipes be removed from the bulkhead and that tings on the south side of the property be filled with sand during the course of the bulkhead reconstruction. TRUSTN. F. KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES 6. Costello Marine Contracting on behalf ~iSPATRICK LOHN requests a~Wetland pera-dt to remove an existing timber bulkhead and install approx. 142' of shoreguard series 500 vinyl, relocate a 2- 4' X 8' lower platforms, maintenance dredge to 4' at ALW and approx. 25 c.Y. of spoil to be tracked to approved upland areai Located: Page 12 24813 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. SCTM #87-3°57 TRUSTRR. KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to speak in favor of the application? GEORGE COSTELLO, SR.:~ I represent Mr. Lohn. I have some paperwork I'd like to add to the file. Basically, the existing structure that is there was poorly built and I've been patching it on and off for the last 5 or 6 years and if you guys made an inspection you'd see where the bulkheads are leaning towards one another. There' s 14 comers that are leaking and we're trying to improve conditions down there. So my idea was to remove all that leaky bulkhead and at the same time make a better improvement, so were taking out all the bulkhead there and we're going to use vinyl sheeting to go over the bulkhead. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Do you have the DEC Permit? GEORGE COSTELLO: No, they wanted to see the drawing~ and the survey which just came in. TRUSTI~.I~. KRUPSKI: And this looks like all the work is going to be done on Mr. Lohn's property? GEORGE COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone else have any comment on this application? You fellows took a look at it? Comments? TRUSTEE SMITH: It looks like it's just the way its drawn here. It's alt going to be on private property too. TRUSTRF. FOSTER: You going to 230 yds. material out of that? GEORGE COSTELLO: Well if you look at the dredged area which is in orange, that's your dredge material. It's only 25 yds. But excavating the yellow part is actually dry land behind the existing bulkhead right now. So we're going to excavate that before I pull the wall out and move the bulkheads over. TRUSTF. R KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to dose the heating? TRUSTEE SMITH: MO~¢ed. - ........... TRUSTEF. KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: Motioned to approve. (talking) TRUSTF~ KRUPSKI: Approve with 5' non-tuffbuffer around new construction. All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. J~M.O. Consulting on' behalf of THOMAS J. MCCARTHY requests a Wetland Perafit to construct a 4' X 15' elevated catwalk, a 3' X 8' ramp and 3 -6' X 25' floats. Located: 1605 Goose Neck Lane, Southold. SCTM #77-3 - 17.1 TRUSTI~.I~. KRUPSKI: Does anyone here Want to speak in favor of the application? GLEN JUST: Good evening, I'm from J.M.O. Consulting, if anyone, orthe Board members have any questions onthis? TRUSTI~.I~. KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this application? Well, we were out on the site, and we explained to Mr.'McCarthy that the standard size for a float, that we permit, is 6' X 20' and that we can't pem-dt any float and boat to go out any further than 1/3 across the channel. We asked him to move the'structure over a little bit to the north where it's the widest and to design something that tucked into the bank there so he could access the water safely. GLEN JUST: I discussed that, your conversation, with Mr. McCarthy, and I think I can come up with, I've just sketched one up tonight, but a small docking facility would be like a 4' X 20' or 30' fixed dock, with a 4' X 12' ramp and float that would go up to the north there, but what we had in mind is a 6' X 40' float which is limited to only using the outward side of the float there. In a narrow waterway like that we'll be getting 33% of the waterway limited to one side and I believe the Town Code or trustee policy allows two boats a float. TRUSTF~F. KRUPSKI: Two boats other than your own. It doesn't say what size though. GLF. N JUST: True, but given the size of a man made dredged canal like that, I think the mouth is probably the shallowest part of that canal right there. If your really going to be limited to size of the boats that you could bring to that canal and also the size of the bridge, again, that's when Mr. McCarthy was hoping to come back, go out and take more depths, more accurate distance of the width across the waterway there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I don't think that that's a problem, it seems like it's pretty deep. But, the policy is a 6' X 20' float and it certainly would be larger than anything that's in that cove. If we don't stick to that here, Page 13 me don't stick to that anywhere. (talking) We don't want to keep repeating mistakes that were made in the past. (talking) It's still the size of the float that's an issue. GLEN JUST: We could ...into the creek itself and use both sides and get two boats on it. Your talking about a bigger dock going closer to the channel, perhaps even putting off some of the access in and om. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Well we wouldn't allow that though. We wouldn't allow someone to block off someone else's access. GLEN JUST: Well not block it off, but cut it closely. I'm trying to work with a very narrow canal. TRUSTEE SMITH: Our policy is a 6' X 20' float and we've stood by this and this is the way it's been in the past. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: We went over it in the field at length and the problem is, there has to be limits, otherwise there are no limits. There would be no point in having a Board here. GLEN JUST: I think then, that the application should be put on hold until we can come back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to recess the hearing, that way you'll get an automatic hearing when you come back and until the applicant requests to go ahead.. GLEN JUST: And the other part of the application needs a letter of non-jurisdiction? TRUSTRF. KRUPSKI: Okay, that' s no problem. There's no question to where the wetlands are is there? GLEN JUST: No. TRUSTRR KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion on recess? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to recess the hearing of McCarthy. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ~ - - - TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will automatically be published for next month then. 8. David Cichaniwicz on behalf of ROBERT MII.LER requests a Wetland Perirdt to construct a 98' retaining wall approx. 11' behind an existing bulkhead and backfill with clean sand and plant with beach grass to help retainthe bluff. Located: 6825 Nassau Point Road, 110' south of intersection of Nassau Point Road and Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111-115-8.1 TRUSTFI~. KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to speak in favor of or against the application? I took a look at the applicatior~ It's straight forward just the retaining won't be on the existing bulkhead. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll motion to move. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTRF. KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTRF. sMrrH: Seconded. A1J. AYES 9. Donna Geraghty on behalf of BRAVO CONTRACTING CORP. requests a,Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permit to create a dune by backfilling property on both sides, place marine mattresses, filling with stones and sand to stabilize Shoreline[ Located: 22655 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#135-1-26 TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Does anybody here want to speak in favor of the application? DONNA GERAGHTY:' I'm just here to answer any questions that you may have. TRUSTRF. KRUPSKI: I'll read the letter to the Board. "The DEC has completed review of the listed above and no objection to the proposal, however before a permit can be issued the following items must be submitted, five copies ora scale plan, as well as showing the proposed dwelling etc. the existing dwelling of the dune etc. as well as APW line and spring high water line, during a 4/24/98 field visit. A cross section which is drawn to scale and shows the proposed dwelling dune and water lines as discussed above. And then we have a revised plan here and what makes...what is the difference between these two? DONNA GERAGHTY: The only thing that they requested, was I guess they didn't have original copies, they had faxed copy, so they just needed the revised copy to scale, which this is, and Susan asked that these two lines were not on here. APW and spring high water. TRUSTRF. KRUPSKI: What about the coastal erosion? Page 14 DONNA GERAGHTY: That's on there. TRUSTF~F. SMITH: How high is that dune going to be up there? DONNA GERAGHTY: I think that's it going to be up at about elevation 10. TRUSTF. R KRUPSKI: Do you have that cross section that the DEC asked for? DONNA GERAGHTY: The cross section is the area to be filled which is this shaded section correct? TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: No, they wanted a cross section, drawn to scale, showing the dwelling, the dune and the water lines. DONNA GERAGHTY: That's this here? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's a cross section showing a septic system. Also, I can't find the coastal erosion line. DONNA GERAGHTY: That's the spring high water line, which is also the same as the coastal erosion line. It's one of the same. When they were out there they determined that. And, it's just because we had a heavy storm and apparently at one point, during the winter months, it came up to the .... So basically really what we are looking to do is, we originally, I had filed to put a bulkhead in there, so this is what they came back and suggested, it's called mattresses. You just load the rocks down and put the grass on the sand and plant beach grass. TRUSTRF. I~UBS~: I don't think we had any problem with it, we just had questions about it and there were some things we didn't understand. TRUSTI~..F. SMITH: How are you going to tie into the neighbors? DONNA GERAGHTY:' There's that ~einef~ wall just to the east of the'property White we plan to just bring it up to that po'mt oVei here and then our neighbors to the opposite side and what were going to do is just try to grade it in because their proPerty is much higher and ours falls down and just do a gradual grading and we talked with each other and worked it out in favor of both of us. 'TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, that was our concern. DONNA GERAGHTY: We've got to do something thero. Everyone has said that all the mn-off from the road happens to fall on that spot. TRUSTEE KR~SKI: That's another question. How do you propose to deal with that? The nm-off DONNA GERAGHTY: The m-n-off,om the road? We may have to put in a dry well or something I don't know the answer to that quite honestly. TRUSTI~.F. KRUPSKI: Because that' s a serious concern, I mean, that's where it goes now. And just by putting a house there isn't go'rog to stop it. Artie? TRUSTF. F. FOSTER: You should contact the County because the house that was built fight next door to the east had a culvertin front of it and they.removed that because that is where the Potekas' driveway went and theymoved that and put a dry well down to the east a little bit which doesn't do the job but nevertheless, it's there. Now I don't know where the mn-offis coming from, on County Road 48? DONNA GERAGHTY: I think what it is, we've asked to backfill that area and I'm hoping that's going alleviate, apparently, that just falls right out~ TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Right, but that water is not going to disappear. That is my question. What I'm talking about is well out of our jurisdiction. But it's just a concern for you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You see that concrete curb is, you'll have to continue that. I guess the water must be coming in right where ..... yeah we did pull in over there on that side, so the water is obviously coming in between that curb and the property marker or even past that. You' re going to need something up there to stop it otherwise it's just going to keep coming down. DONNA GERAGHTY: My only other question is to ultimately confine that whole area and maybe even put some type of low stone wall in front and ultimately plant cedars there to alleviate some of the sound on Sound Ave. Whether that's going to do the trick... TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, that's not going to stop the water, Donna, you're going to have to continue that concrete curbing further past the line and put a regular curb cut that goes up so the water is not going to go up and over. Page 15 DONNA GERAGHTY: Now, do I have to go to the State for that? TRUSTI~J~. FOSTER: I don't know. It depends on where the jurisdiction is. Soundview Ave. is a Town road. It's obviously not coming off48 because that's a lower point, if you look at the contours. TRUSTFJ~. KRUPSKI: We had this similar problem at another site, we don't want to repeat it. DONNA GERAGHTY: Yeah, I'll have waterfront on both sides. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If what you say is true, you do now. Any other comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll move. TRUSTF. F. KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTF. F. SMITH: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTF. F. KING: Seconded. ALL AYES. 10, lon& Rosemary Schneider requests a Wetland Permit to clear land and plant grass, wildflowers and shrubbery as indicated on survey. Located: 8095 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM #59-6-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to speak in favor of the application? JON SCHNEIDER: Good evening Trustees, I own the property and I'm here to answer any questions and to just Suggest that. tM concept of the landscaping plans we're proposing is to repopulate what had been destroyed and traumatized by the construction. So what we're trying to do is re-create that (noise) such as heather and ju ~pers, and make (noise). '"TKIJSTi~.F. KRUPSKI: 'I~ ~he-t~"any oth~¥ ~mmefit?~ Jim Ki~ig and I VCere both oiif'tti~: I'd seen that it's mortared in the marsh and we went out there sort of on a pre-submission meeting with the DEC and with the original applicant.~It was determined, the DEC imposed a 100' buffer from Great Pond. Now, I don't know ~w2~ the.DEC wOuld ever, back away from that buffer. JO~ SCHNEIDER: UnfOrtunately, before, not until just this came up, did we realize that there was (couldn't understand) and doing some research for this request, we found out that apparently upon (unclear) builder, which was apparently turned away in court, he didn't actually have to pay that fine. Nevertheless, when you 1oo~ at the land you can clearly see that this land is different than the surrounding areas. I don't know if it was bulldozed, we did actually lose about five trees over the last year that died from post-construction, I would gu~s. So the land has clearly changed and we are trying to, last, during the course of the Spring and last year, we noticecl a major ('couldnmt understand) going though the backyard, and what we're trying to do is just re- populate it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, we only have jurisdiction within 75'. The DEC has jurisdiction of 300'. JON SCHNEIDF. Rz So I have to go to the DEC? TRIJSTI~.F. KRUPSKI: YOu certainly would, sure, because that's their buffer. I would stick with our original condition, that no cleating be done in that area ,and that it allowed to re-vegetate naturally. When we met with the original applicant on-site before anything was tOuched at all, we said leave this area as a buffer, in Great Pond, which is a very good pond. Then, it was violated, and I don't see any reason why .... JON SCHNEIDER: What was it originally, was it like the woods that surrounds the house? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. You could barely walk through it. WellI see no reason why you shouldn't revert back to that. We spent time out there and we made a decision and we thought about it and we discussed it, it wasn't like we never saw this before, so I see no reason why we would change that. JON SCHNEIDER: Well, we agree over what the situation, which I wouldn't want to plant trees to block the view so the happy, happenstance, of the construction, or whatever happened is that we have a view, instead of the phragmities. So that's obviously a benefit to us but what we would like to do is re-populate that area. So that's what were asking pernfission for. Rather than just, fight now it's just weeds, I guess everything is a weed, ultimately, but we want to have some sense of actually holding the soil, which is why we are proposing this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the weeds will hold the soil. I think what you need is a different plan showing...is this what you submitted? We wouldn't allow grass going fight down to the pond. So, I think you're going to Page 16 have to go to the State also and get their blessing for something, but you're going to have to show us a little more specific what...and I still don't see within, our jurisdiction like I said is 75'. JON SCHNEIDER: Which is from the phragmities or from the water? TRUSTI~.F. KRUPSKI: Well, from the original line of wetlands which is showing here on the survey with a Department of Health stamp. Now within, which gives you an extra 25-35 feet towards the water that you could landscape up to where you see fit. That wouldn't effect your view in any way, if you landscaped that area behind your house. Giving you an extra 25-35 feet out, that's out of our jurisdiction and you don't' need any action by this Board to do that. Anything beyond that you will and you need a little more specific plan, if there's going to be any grading, or whatnot. We wouldn't allow grass in that area either. So if you want to come to us with a plan that's a little more specific showing that, we would go out and take another look at it. It should be put on the survey and you should check with the State because then you'll get a violation also. Even if there was no fine, I'm sure there were lawyer' s fees involved and I'm sure it's not a pleasant experience. So we could go two ways, we could deny this or we could table this and give us a different plan. JON SCHNEIDER: I'll come back with a different plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the application of Jori & Rosemary Schneider. It will come up automatically in 30 days, the next months meeting. TRUSTF. I~. KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 11. M_ARm JONES & KEVIN MIDDLETON request a Wetland Permit to construct a single family dwelling, 2 car garage, driveway, and septic system. Located: 8516 Main Bayview Road, between NY tel. Pole #75 & 76, Southold. SCTM g87-5-23.10 ......... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to speak on behalf of this application? Would anyone like to speak against the application? (talking) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? ~rRUSTF. F. SMITH: Moved. TRUSTF. F. FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Pet-mit. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Wait a second, the application says the floating dock is the only thing that will come in contact. Is there a floating dock in the .... TRUSTF. F. SMITH: We've got nothing on the.floating dock. TRUSTF. I~. FOSTER: This is it. It borders, I think the Cove, this is right next to the Cove. TRUST1 .~. KRUPSKI: In the project description it doesn't say anything, but then it says statement of effect if any other wetlands in tidal waters of the Town is none, not applicable, area of wetlands on lot 80 sq.ft ........ I think the area of the wetlands of the lot, the claim is 80 sq.f~. But then they mentioned a floating dock. (talking) Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Do you want to leave a .... what kind of buffer do you want to leave here? Do you want to leave 50' like we did for the neighbor there? Okay, we'll leave a 50' undisturbed buffer. And, is there a second on that motion? We'll leave a 50' non-disturbed buffer from what would be called the edge of the wetlands on the survey. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 12. JAMES & JOAN REILLY request a Wetland Permit to construct a 14.6'X 24' extension to southwest part of house, a 22' X 16' brick patio, a cedar deck and a second floor addition. Located: 1195 Waters Edge Way, Southold. SCTM #88-5-66 TRUSTFJ~. KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to speak in favor of the application? JIM REILLY: The only think I have to add is that it' s southwest. It's the southwest portion of the house. (Discussion among the Board as to who looked at property.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTF. F. SMITH: I'll move. AIJ. AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit and that the hay-bales be placed along the edge of the water. Page 17 TRUSTR.~. SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 13. MAllIF. SHACK requests a Wetland Permit to repair existing bulkhead within 18'. Located 1265 Shore Drive, Greenport. SCTM #47-2-26.1 DIANE: These two were grandfathered until Rambo said theY can't do it, they have to be moved out 18', so we had to go for the full permit. So we're going to rescind the grandfather later on when we do resolutions, and go for full permit. And you had a problem with getting a survey, is that correct? MARIF. SHACK: Right, I spoke to John at Peconic Surveyors and he didn't have it ready today but it would be ready next week. TRUSTF. F. KRUPSKI: Okay, in a case like this where it's pretty straight forward, I think we could vote on it except you won't get your permit until you get us the survey, because then you'll have to wait until next month. Anybody want to comment on this? DIANE: Do you want a buffer? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, what does the property took like? Usually a bulkhead re-construction would call for buffer. We'd ask for a 5' wide non,tuffwater where you could put gravel, plantings, whatever. We have a motionto close the hearing and a second, All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTF. g. KRUPSKI: I'll makea motion to approve the application at 18 in. out provided that there is a survey and also a 5' non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. TRUSTF. F. KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 14. g. DMOND THOMAS requests a Wetlan. d Permi(to repair existing bulkhead within 18 in. Located: 1355 , Shore Drive, Greeriport:? SCTM ~47-2-2:7 '. ..: ., - TRUSTEF. KRUPSKI: Any comments on this? TRUSTF. F. SMITH I'll make a motion to dose the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application with condition of receiving survey and 5' wide non-turf buffer. TRUSTg. R SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 15. Kristen E. Rishe on behalf of STEPHEN PARzLAI'F' requests a Wetland Pet-afit for an existing 24' X 16' deck. Located 8425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #118-4-11 TRUSTF. R KRUPSKI: Any here who like to speak in favor ofthe application? I looked at it, it' s there, and it's no problem. I'll makea motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES There will be a brief recess. IV. RESOLUTIONS: 1.Board to set scallop season dates for Recreational Season & Commercial Season. A motion was made by TRUSTEE POLIWADA to set the scallop season for the recreational season to start October 5, 1998 and the commercial season to start October 19, 1998 and was seconded by TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 2. Board to rescind~Grandfather Permits forMARm SHACK & EDMOND THOMAS issued on October 29, 1997 Regular Meeting, to repair bulkheads inklnd/inplace. Located: 1355 & 1265 Shore Drive, Greenport. SCTM #'s 47-2-26.1 & 27. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI to approve. TRUSTF. I~. SMITH seconded. ALL AYES Page 18 3. Diane Herold on behalf of ANTHONY D. HUGHES requests a Coastal Erosion Permit to move existing house and porches approx. 40' back from Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and replace sanitary system. Located: 1330 Salt Marsh lane, ROW offLakeview Ave., Peconic. SCTM #68-3-3 TRUSTI~F. KRUPSKI approved. TR.USTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 4. Elizabeth Thompson on behalf of DAVID PAGE & BARB~ SHINN requests a Coastal Erosion Permit for an existing wood picket fence along the easterly portion of property. Located: 19965 Soundview., Southold. SCTM #51-4-5.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI made a motion to approve. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 5. JEANNE BARTOS requests a Grandfather Permit for an existing 118' bulkhead. Located: 1820 Mill Lane, NY tel. Pole g46, Peconic. SCTM 367-7-14 TRUSTI~.F. KRUPSKI approved. TRUSTF. E KING seconded. ALL AYES V. MOORINGS: 1. JIM MC MAHON requests an on-shore/off-shore mooring in Mattituck Creek for a 15' outboard with permission of owner, Rita Martin. ACCESS: Private. TRUSTF. R KRUPSKI: approved. TRUSTEF~ SMITH seconded. A! J. AYES 10:00 P.M. A motion was made by TRUSTEE SMITH to adjourn the meeting and seconded by TRUSTEE FOSTEP~ Respectfully Submitted by: Lauren M. Standish, Clerk Board of Trustees