Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/22/1996 MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1996 PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President John Holzapfel, Vice-President Martin Garrell, Trustee Jim King, Trustee Peter Wenczel, Trustee Diane Herbert, Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTIONS: Wednesday, December 11, t996 at 12 noon TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE. GARR~TJ. seconded, ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: Wednesday, December 18, 1996 at 7:00 pm WORKSRSSION: 6:00 pm TRUSTEE WENCZELmoved to approve, TRUSTEE GARRELL second~d, ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve minutes of October 23, 1996 Regular Meeting: TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve, TRUSTEE GARRELL seconded. ALL AYES I. MOI~TH~Yi~ORT: The Trustees monthly ~eport for October 1996: A Check for $1,916.27 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II~. pUBLI~C~i~t~CES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's BUlletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERSZCHAN~ES: 1. Carmela Borrelli on behalf of GARY'S~CKS & ALAN sCHLESlN~ER requests a WaiVer :to construct a wooden deck onto an existing house. Located: 125 Mesrobian Drive, Laurel. SCTM ~145-4-7 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve the Waiver, TRUSTEE ~IOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 2. ROBERT COADY requests an Amendment to Permit ~4542 to move proposed dock from original position about 45 feet to north on property. Located: 3150 Beebe Drive & Wilson Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM %103-9-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the Amendment, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 3. Costello Marine on behalf of GLENDALOU~PROPERTIESc/o BRAATZ .requests an:lAmendment to Permit %4634 to create a 60' X 65' deposition ba~%n (1,150 c.y.) to a depth of 7.5' below MLW as per DEC and ~my Corps per~ts. Located: 5250 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM ~111-10-14 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the D~endment with condition they provide a series of soundings as desc=ibed on map they provided us with (7 soundings) one year after date of construction, TRUSTEE HOLZb3FEL seconded. ALL AYES 4. Costetlo Marine on behalf of MONIQUEMORRIS requests an Amendment to'~ermit %333 to add a 20' ramp in place of the 10' ramp, and three 2-pile dolphins to float float. Located: 1555 Shore Drive, Greenport. SCT~ %47-2-29 TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to approve the Amendment, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 5. Maurice Fitzgerald on behalf of LILCO rec/uests a Waiver to install a gas compressor station on the south side of Main Road, Mattituck with an 8' high chain ]~nk fence around it. SCTM %122-7-6.6 TRUSTEE H©LZAPFEL moved to approve the Waiver, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES 6. J.M.O. on behalf of ROBERT ME~CH~ONE requests an ~935~to change existing 3' X 70' timber dock to a 4' X 57' timber catwalk (elev. 3 1/2' over grade) and a 4' X 12' ramp and an 8' X 18' float. Located: 1130 Oak Ave., SoUthold. SCTM ~77-1-8 TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to approve the Amendment witk condition that entire dock from the retaining wall to the end of the float be no longer that 77' long and on no condition it extend beyond a line drawn between the two adjacent dock~, one to the east and one to the west and under no condition shall the float, dock and boat block mo~e than 1/3 of the channel and if those two conditions were to occur we would ask the owner to shorten that dock, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seeonded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to go off the Regular Meeting and go onto Public hearings, TRUSTEE WENCZEL seconded. ALL AYES .... IV , i~UBLI C HEARINGS THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PEP/~ITS UNqDER THE WETLANDS ORDINA~CE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDA~-IT OF PUBLICATION FRO~ THE TRAVELER-WATC~E4AN. PERTINENT CORRESPONI1ENC~E MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR CObS~ENTS FROM T~E PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANI~ AND BRIEF: FIVE (5) FIINUTES OR LESS~ IF POSSIBLE 1. John H. Geideman on behalf of E~GARM~2{VINrequests a Wetland Permit to repair inkind/inptace i.10' of timber gToin on west side and replace 110' of damaged groin on e~t si~e and add 25' to beth groins to reach base of slope. Located: 1260 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. SCTM 9117-10-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR'. MARVIN: We have retained Larry Tuttle to do that. His father originally built them all along that entire stretch. They're all uniform. The people to the east, the Mannings, have had that. done. And ours are in the same basic condition and we're having that done. The Department of Environmental Conservation Said they didn't think it was anything but a minor .... whatever it was. We just feel that it is to protect what beach is left. At one point there was a beaCh at high water mark, 160' Now it's maybe 12' or 13' and we'd like to keep what beach we have and if we don't we're afraid ...... LARRY:~TU~PLE~ We did the job next door at Mannings. We'd like to do the same hero. The County has just 8topped a tremendous amount of fill to the west there. Some of it will probably move to the west, some will pr~Dablymove to the east. We think to maintain the beach the groins will have to be fixed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC reco~mende~ approval of the project without any conditions. The only condition we would put on there is thatthe groins be built to the same specifications as the neighbors to the east there, a low profile type of groin. MR~ M~WtN: They were all done by Larry's father and there all gonna be the same now. Low profile. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And we have no problem of it coming into the land like that. TRUSTEE WENCZEL moved to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE GARRELL~ Move to approve with stipulation that the groins be low profile. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second. ALL AYES 2. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of H~ROLDP. S~requests a Wekland permit to remove 94+/-' of concrete block retaining wall and reconstruct inkind/inplace with an 80' timber wall, construct a 7' return on either end of wall and back~ill with 5+ c.y. of sand, remove 4' X 40' catwalk and a 4' X 8' inshore ramp, and construct a new 4' X 52' catwalk (elev. 4' above grade) a 3' X 11' ramp and ~n 8' X 16" float secured by 2 two-pile dolphins. Located.: 440 Oak Ave., Southold. SCTM 977-2-1 ~%~USTEE KRUPSKI': Would anyone like to speak on behalf of SchWerdt? Does the Board have any questions? The C~C recommended disapproval of the concrete block retaining wall and ~ecommend approval with stipulations of the catwalk, ramp and loa~ assembly with stipulation that it extends no further tb~n the existing catwalk, ramp and float. The Board went out there ~nd inspected the site last week and we did not see chwerdt. TRUSTEE WENCZRL: I spoke with Mr. Schwerdt an~ I told him I could not guess how the Board would react to this retaining wall request~ I discussed it with him and I said maybe one of the ways he ceuld stabilize that beach would be to possibly regrade and plant with spartina. Spartina is growing to the east of ~here. As far as the dock, I guess when your' guys went there was a little misunderstanding about what was going on there. We cleared that up. What he really wants to do there is eliminate an inshore ramp and extend the dock from his retaining wall out. I thir~ it's gor~%a be no longer than 4' longer than what is pre-existing. So that's where we stand. TRusTEE HOLZAP~L: Peter, did you. mention to Gle~n~ about the Soft approach? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I don't know that I did. I did say that I wasn't sure how the Boa~d was gonna reac~ to that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ~en we looked at that, you can see the dramatic difference between that applicants property and the property to the eas~.t. It's a much lower elevation, and it comes right into the retaining wall. In our opinion, it's always that when there's native vegetation in front, it retains the soil and it doesn't wash away into the creek. Our recommendation would be, and in that case and every other case like it, would be to plant ..... and I wcul~n't have any problem in filling, to reach a desirable elevation, then planting spa~tina. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Yes, and then regrade with clean sand. ~= ~:~ I~.think there's two separate issues. One is the dock, and it doesn't appear to he any question about the dock. the Schwerdts have owned the property for about 23 years. At that time a survey was done and it showed that the concrete block wall was in e~istence and it was located about 25 to 30 feet landward of the Mean High Water Mark. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is that from? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: That's the retaining wall that's now ...... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What was submitted' is sort of~ insipherahle. MR~~ ~ST: It doesn't show the retaining wall. It only shows the block wall. Which if you scale it, it's 36 or TRUSTEE KRUPSKt: That's the wall that's shown on the survey. What we saw is some~ng that's in front of that. MR. ~3ST: It was originally a concrete wall. What I'm showing here is a sezies of photographs going back to the day the property was ~urchased. That's s concrete wall. These are pictures in 1984 and there was a wall there. This is April 1994 and you can see how tha~ wall is undermined and how it had be.e~ at that time. There's only one brick le~t there now. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: When I was the~e maybe I misunderstood. I said to Mr. Schwer~t, and maybe I was not quite clear. I asked if the timber retaining wall was the cement block wall that's in this picture. It's not correct.~ ~!R. ~UST: The concrete wall is the one depicted, and it says on the survey, existing concrete wall. TRUSTRR KRUPSKI :~ And you~ saying that' s that? ~R. ~UST: That's how it is today. On a north-easter this plac~ gets Whacked. And that wall has gone from maybe 4 foot in the ground to ..... TRUSTEE WENCZEL: It seems to me that what he's got there is adequate and all he. needs is the planting. We would entertain another wall? It's not functional. It's not existing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: In my own mind I hadn't pictured it as being a functional wall. TRUSTEE WENCZRL: It's not functional. Any other structure that we've looked at that was not functional was considered a new structure. And we want a full application. Isn't that true? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is a full application. We had better go out and talk to Mr. Schwerdt on the site. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are you willing to separate the two and we'll give the permit for the dock and look at the other one. TRUSTEE KRLr~SKI: We' 11 table half of it and review it again next month at no expense to the applicant. ~ ~ST: F~ine. ~ 'SCHWER~: If I may. I purchased that in 1973 and at that time you saw pictures of the sand approx. 25' to 35' of beautiful sand that you find in Jones' Beach. If you go down there now i~'s ~wo feet of sand. This is erosion. You saw a picture of the What the hurricane did in 1984. That's when I had the bulkhead put in the cinder blocks was %u~dsrmined.. You saw what happened to the trees. You suggest we plant grass. If this hurricane can do that to the trees what will it do to the grass? I've never had grass on that beach. And right now it Used to be water~ront property. I used to call it beach front. I had nice beach. I don't have it now. That's why I'm requesting a retaining wall to hold that so the other wall won't fall down. TRUSTEE KRU~SKI: Well, Mr. Schwerdt we just received those pictures tonight. ~ ~ S ~~ 1: But he saw them the other day. TRUSTEE' WENCZEL: Yes, but I misunderstood what we were talking about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We' re not den~ing the applicati.on either. TRUSTEE. WE~CZEL: i thought When I looked at it, t thought that the timber retainin~ wall was what you have replaced the cement block wal.1 with. If~ you recall when we were down on the beach, I asked you about the cement block~ there and you told me you have put that there after they finished, the timber wall and ~u had a few pieces o~ material left. I said to you, "well you don't have pe~it for this do you?" And you said., "no, if my neighbor down the way could do it, then I can." Right? then I said well, we ha~e to deal with it, we ha~e to discuss it and I thought a soft solution would solve your problem and I could not predict how the Board would react to it. And that's how I recall our conversation and maybe there was some other misunderstandings there. Because obviously I didn't understand what you told me about the block wall when we discussed it, TRUSTEE KRUPSK!: What we would like to do is like to approve your dock application but because ...... MR. SCHWERDT: I already have a dock application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we would like to approve that tonight. But what we'd like to do is put the other application off one month. We' 11 meet you in December on the site again, and then based on the new information that we've just received tonight then we can make a better decision. K~ POAIWODA: ~en you go to do that. field inspection, c'an you please take note that there's a go~d amount of salt plants in front of his ho~e there? Can you evaluate that and make sure it doesn't get ruined in the process of all that building? Because a lot of men work there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFR~,: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I' 11 make a motion based on what we just heard and information we received, to approve the application to construct remove a 4' X 40' catwalk and a 4' X 8' inshore ramp and construct a new 4' X 52' catwalk, 3' X 11' ramp and an B' X 16' float and two 2-pile dolpP~tns and table until December meeting the part of application that requests to remove 94' of concrete block retaining wall and reconstruct inkind/inplace an 80 ' timber retaining wall. TRUSTEE HOLZA~FEL: Second. ALL AYES 3., ~.B~K~ CO~q~ MARINA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a i~04' steel jetty bulkhead within 18" of existing eroded one and dredge 75 c.y. to below 6' of MLW and use spoil to replenish behind bulkh~ead, Located: 1670 Sage Blvd., Greenport. SCTM ~.57-1-38.3 TRUSTEE ~KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behal~ of the application? ',: I'm the owner of Brick Cove Marina and I can .~ bulkhead has rusted and has holes in it and fill behind the bulkhead has flowe~ out through the holes. I'd like very much to repair the jetty and bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRLr~SKI: Anyone here like to speak against the FLYNN: I'm a resident of the Town of Sou~hold and more an owner of upland, on Sage Basin and underwater land in the basin~ As such I ha~ee~idence more than~ passing interest in activities which adversely a~fectthe interests of owners and some o~ the properties in which d~grade the natural environment. In 40 years I've seldom seen s~ch an application. I am acutely aware that I am addressing the Board, but I am also speaking for the record. M~previous exqoerience with various Boardsin Southotd. has. led me to the conclusion that these public hearings are largely pro-formal. By voting, these Boards~ have reached the decision prior te the public hearing and public comments ~or evidence which were introduced with disregard. In fact, some of the Boards actually aided and abetted applicants, in the violation of the law. Statements made by applicants are accepted at face value and are un-nvestigated despite readily available evidence to the contrary. The subject application is a case in point. I would now like ~to address a short form environmental statement submitted by th~ applicant on October 29, 1996. The very fact that (changed ta~) on the bulkhead on the property. Nothing can be further if~om the truth. I first investigated the current applicat~ 18, 1996 last Monday. Among the records I found tbe statement dated November 13, 1996 of the fee to be charged tl~e applicant b~ the Tr~tees. It incited and I quote, 'tif payment is now due~'. Patn~ent was profered and accepted same day. Subsequently, the record has been altered. At wors~t the original record, indicated approval of the application prior to the public hearing. .At best, it indicates a caret~ss uninvolved and disinterested atti~t~ude on the paxt of the Tl~_stees. An attitude which is unwar'ranted and from which I sb~L1 disabuse them. It is also worthy to note that the Trustees did not get around to inspecting the property until November 14~th, 1996. The day subsequent to 1 that on which the unaltered rlecord indicated the approval of the properly/. Now, as to~ the specific application it, the DEIS, the public notice and the application described the subject property as Section 57, Block i, Lot 38. Again, nothin~ can be further from the truth. Had the Trustees or the CAC for that matter, both constrained to consult the tax map, a copy of which I have and can provide, even a cursory view wOUld have revealed that the sub.j e ct application is not remotely connected to Lot 38.3. Nor is it on property vested in the applicant. In fact, it is seine 120' southeast Of Lot 38.3 and on the property of others.. I shall return to the deceptive description later. But at this point I would like to conclude mM specific comments pertaining to the actual contents of the EIS. In the EIS the. applicant states, and I quote~ "there will be affect on the wetlands or tidal waters of the Town~. This statement the least disingenuous.. The applicant proposes to waters. This opens up the whole sorted history o exploitation of the entire basin b~ th.e marina operation or minority owners of the underwater land. They treat it as if it's their sole province or sphere of influence and regardless of the rights of others. The disruption of the natural tidal flow 9oes back virtually to the inception of the marine operation. I won~ if any of the T~dstees a~e aware that the original access to this marina was via a channel at the southeasterly side of the basin and through the easterly part what is now the rip-rap located at.the southwesterly upland portion of .what is now Lot 38.3. This channel was filled and new basin entrance was created at the southwesterly portion of the basin. It is presumed that this was ~or the convenience of the marina and proba~tM to increase marina capa2ity. There can be no question, however, that the natural tidal float was altered. More recently the marina operator was issued several stop work orders for infractions. And most recently, the operator proceeded to dredge outside the permitted area and on the property of others. His pretext w~, and I quote, "a recently discovered shoat~'. Are you, or any other reasonably cognizant individuals prepared to believe that after 20 years of marina operations the shoal was recently discov~ed? The operator proceeded to dredge sc~e 50% of the area of the stoat outside of his property and also outside the permitted area. He went on the dredge the entire width of the basin entrance including ~some 40 feet in width., in which ne permit has been issued.. Most of this work was accomplished on week ends when Town offices were closed. Perhaps the most shocking aspect of this affair, is tP~t Bay Constable Don Dzenkowski reported~ this transgression to the Town Attorne~, the then Town Attorney, and was told. to ignore it. Nevertheless I have pictures to prove my allegations. It is important to know that even prior to this dredging a~ the seeping session, concerned was evidence as to the affects of marina projects on tidal flow. A tidal flow study was required. Such a study was never co~teted. It is also note~ that K~amer-Voorhis Associates, the Town's Consultants, expressed similar concerns as well as many other concerns. The entire basin entrance now constitutes a channel. That any Town Official bothered to investigate a red channel marker was placed in season at the point of the spit. Anyone familiar With the ma~ine rules of the road knows the. phrase, "red,1 right, return". It mear~ that it is safe to operate or navigate to the port of the marker. Confirmation of my contention is to be found in the FEIS submitted by the applicant which included an. underwater profile of the area. As a result, the tidal, flow in the basin was vastly increased resulting in. notedly higl~ tides and for which I hold the Town responsible. In addition, of the basin has been altered by the increased of water. It has been well established that the basin was a fertile the Tell that to the~ ] I see outside, my window, const~_tly in season~, of the marina b~-~ resulted in the seasonal clOsure of the basin for shellfishing~. Thus, even owners of~ underwate~ land are now precluding' frC~ shellfis~ing on their own properties. I Would now like to return to the question of location and ownership. I have undertaken a title search of the applicants property and plodded each parcel to scale. The.. members of this Board are Probably not aware that I served in a simila~ function as a Consulta/~t to the New York State Attorney General's Office for a numbe~ of years. To repeat, the proposed site is not part of Lot 38.3 and does not and cannot belong to the applicant~ Rather than go through the entire chain o~ title, which I'm prepared to do, I confine myself at this time to the relevance of! title to the area of the proposed, action. The 40 foot wide strip (could not hear~ shuffling of paper) The legal description of this parcel has a point of beginning at the southeasterly corner of Lot 52 on the map of Southold shores, then proceeds northweste~l~ 40' then northeasterly 25' then southerly to the high water mark of Peconic Bay and then significantly along the ordinary high water mark of Peconic Bay thr~ough the waters of the marina 325' to the point of beginning. Examination of the map of Southeld shores reveals that the southwesterly corner of Lot 52 was the high watermark the lot line 51t. the southerly Lot 52 are from the first. The of the 40' high water And there's anyone who ~ appticar~t bulkhead is per (could s.f. ha~e been entire iD~ormed on the a bulkhead parcel New York. I am Trustees or an5 of Bay which ma~ked it's southwesterly along The significance of this finding is that the 40~ strip and that of the continuous high water mark of Peconie Bay and remote project. you show us that~ at the end. I'd like to conclude this of this finding is the southenrly line of the continuous Lot 52 are along the Bay and remote, of the prop~sedsite. thing that should hate been obvious to that site plan. The plan s~itted by the of 6,537 s.f. along which the With the exceptien of a possible 600 s.f. ~r~ !shuffling of papers) it cannot be in the :liC~nt. Significa~tl~ this parcel of 6,537 on the tax map. And for I good reason. find the conveyance for this parcel. This viewed in a historical prospective. I am ca, be tree,cite the beactktng of barns Bay. It was subse~aently filled and .around it. Plus approx. 6,000' of the encroachment on the land o~ the State of or adverse possession, can be advanced ~ or a~ other municipality. It is as stopped. Of'the application is fallacious and should be to present my detailed argument to the familiar with these legal If not I shall bring this matter to th~ attention Now in closing, it is apparent that the committee are!carried out. As a small example the apptio'an~s property looks to be landscaped. Was it? A 15' clearing area was to be kept out of any construction. The applicant habitually dOCks large boats in this area. How many other requirements hy the Trustees have beendisregarded. Do the Trustees evidence an~ interest? That they're provisions imposedbe followed? Finally, and not entizely apropos of this matter, but indicative of tbs Trustees cavalier attitude to their responsibilities, the complaint was l~gedthis spzing concerning the transgTession of the wetlands and the const~ction of an ille~aldock in sage basin. The Trustees stated it ,would be rem~v~d. As of November lS, 1996 it was still in place. That is a completion of my remarks and at your convenience and with whomever you want I'm preparec~to bae~ every statement I mad~ and ever~ legal d~cription that I recited and all the surrounding influences. This propert!ris not on the Lot designated. It is remote from that and on the property of the State of New York. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One question. Could you clazify that here. (all talking at once and indicating on survey submitted) TRUSTEEi GARRELL: I think it's a legal question for the Town A~torney. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: According to your description, we're not any ~ore qua~lified than the~ are. (Meaning ~b~ State Dept. ) . FLY-NN: I don't think you are, really. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Than what are we arguing about? MR. FLYNN: I'm not normally an ag~£essive or conceited In this area, I hame 40 years of experience. They're not responsible of course from what I do on ~property... MR. FLYNN: Yes they are, if they're issuing you a permit to do MR~ Whether it' s my property, or easement property or what ever .... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And Mr. Zehner, could you provide us with that easement? Any other co~,ents? MR. SA~E/ELSi: I know Mr. Flynn ver~ well and I agree with him on very many things. However, his complagnts about the Trustees not investigating things, not going down and looking at them, not making a good decision, etc, etc, I've been in front of this Board for 37 years. I go back to Alva Goldsmith. And I have found the Trustees have be'-~ on balance and completely fair to the applicant, that they do go look at the sites; the~ do make valued judgement. I'd just dislike the intimidation of going to the Attorney General and all that stuff. I would suggest that you disregard it. It's a good Board. As you kr~ow I disagree on man~ occasions with some of the decisio~ an~ we have to compromise. But the idea that you don~t look or you d~n't care or that your rubber sts~ing stuff is absolutely wrong. And I want whatever p~blic here tonight to realize that, that it is not the case with the Southold Trustees. or with Southampton, or Southampton~ TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE GARR~.LL: I th~ink the point is, as an elec~ad official I think one of the things is certain kinds of things that are kind of let off our back, like water off a duck. I'd also like to say something for the people here who sitting here and listening the scope of tbs project involved is no startling or unique or particularly large. In fact the amount of dredging that's involved is 75 c.y. That's 15' X ~5' X about 3' high. And that's what's typically used if I'm correct to fill in behind a bulkhead project. So it's not an eno/lnous dredging project. What is a question here, and what is important is a question of ownership. Who has the right to do what to what kind of land. We're gonna have to deal with this through the Town Attorney and go further with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As far as the ownership issne when an applicant comes in for a structure t~%t's not on their p~opert~, they always miss that. Often times, it will be a dock that is extending into Town waters, or on the property of' the State of New York. But they would never list that property as the State of New York or Southold Town. So we' re tryinq to look into that matter of ownership to cover all the basis. We went back, not once but we went back by boat too. TRUSTEE GARRELL: MOve to table until December Meeting. TRUSTEE HOLZA~FEL: Second. ALL AYES 4. Eh-COnsultants Inc., on behalf of DOUC~LAS BORtSKY requests a Wet!an~~, Permit to replace (within 18") 99+/- 1.f. of timber bulkhead and back~ill with 12 c.y. of clean sand to he trucked. in from an upland, source. Located: 9475 Nassau Point. Road., Cutchogue. SCTM %1t9-1-t TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either in favor or against the application? I'm gonna remove myself fr~u this vote. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone here who wishes to comment on this application? DIANNE: I'm here to answer any- questions you might have. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The CAC recommends approval. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE WENCZRL: Second. ALL At~S TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 5. En-Consulta/%ts Inc., on behalf of FRANK & SANDRA CURRAN requests a Wetllahd P~,it to reconstruct (within 18") an existing westerly 48+/- 1.f. of bulkhead, back~ill with. 10 c.y. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 56D F$1sherm~n's Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM %111-1-i6 · %{USTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is the~e anyone here who wishes to sp~ behalf of the applicant? 'tape) The~'re proposing to change this within. 18" the porch is about 8' away frem the bulkhead, so there's a construction issue there where it would have to be within TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone else who wishes to c~m~ent on this application? It would appear that if you put 18" in front there's gonna he strand, o~ spartina that's gonna be Can we replant that in front? It's not actually gonna he 18". It's gonna be 6". We're gonna frame to the old bulkhead with 4 X 6's and then put the sheathing in. The whalers are of course aren't in the bo;ttom. So it's just the piling that will he out in the marsh there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's just that there was just a good strand of healthy spartina there. MR~!SAM~ELS:. We're gonna disturb as little as possible because I know how sensitive it is. After we put the pilings in, if there are any holes left from the jetty process we' 11 fill it with sand and plant alterna~Iora or whatever you choose. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFF. L: The CAC approves the Wetland application. I' 11 make a motiDn we close the hearing. TRUSTEE GAR~ELL: Second. AL~ AYES TRUSTEE HOLZA~FEL: I' 1t make a motion to approve the Wetland application with stipulation that spartina atterna~lc=a will he planted in any open spaces. TRUSTR~ WENCZEL: Since it's gonna he cons+~-ucta~ within. 6" can we re-phrase it to he constructed within 6"? MR. SAMUELS:, Yes, my suggestion is it usually is when the bulkhead is straight and you could frame it straight. That the permit read, "and he attached to the old bulkhead,', which eliminates any possible transgressio~ on the 18". TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to approve the application saying the ne~ bulkhead will he attached to the old bulkhead and spartina be replanted. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Abstained. 6. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of MICHAEL WITHERS requests a~Wetland pe'rmit to replace (within 18") 160+/- 1.f. of steel bulkhead- with a knee walt and backfill with 10 c.y. of clean sand~ t.Existing docks will be removed to allow for construction and~then replaced. Located.: 6515 New Suffolk Road, New Suff~tk. SCTM ~117-5-24 TRUSTEE KRIIPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in "favor of the application? D~.~FNE.~z If you have any questions, I'll be glad to help. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I looked at it for the Board and I saw no problems at all and I' 11 also say the CAC recommended approval. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The question I have, and Larry is here and maybe he help me. My only concern was, I think somebody else may own the bottom and if you want to go out 18" you might need .... LARRY TUTH1UJ~L: It's being built to just patch the holes in the steel bulkhead. TRUSTEE HOLZA~FEL: O.K, Because it does. say within. 18". MR. TLWITIILL: It's just going right along side the steelings. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: My concern was it's your land and this is gornla be there and I didn't want the owner to claim your land. TRUSTEE KltUPSKI: Any other Board c~m~ent? TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to close the hearing. TR~JSTE, F, HOLZAPFEL: second.. ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I' 11 make a motion we approve the application. TRUST~EE KING: Second.. ALL AYES 7. a Wetland &:~Coastal'Erosion foot of bank and replant bluff. Located: 1000 Sound Drive, Greenpozt. SCTM~ ~43-4-3 TRUSTEE KR~: IS there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application2 MS'~.AN~SON~:~-I have here with me a new drawing and will be happy to answer any of your questions. On your last inspection your remaining question was the area of erosion halfway down the bluff. At which, point we had indicated originally to have the rip rap. Upon your suggestion we have revised the diagram to put in wood rather than deadmen to hold it in place.. The DEC asked for the toe stone a foot below and we've done that as indicated. They wanted the apparent high and low tide which we've had sketched in. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just a quick question. Would lowering that down, is that taking the whole size of the wall down a bit too? Or is it adding something below the ground? MS.. ANDEt~SON: This is just below the ground for the boulders. TRUSTEE F~RUPSK/: Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to close the beaming? TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Move to approve the application based on last drawing submitted 11/22/96. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 8. Pat on behalf of CRESCENT BEACH cerIUMS request a~iWetl.and add 68' of fixed dock to existing dock with 7 piles, a .4' X 48' "T", a 3' X 10' ramp and a 6' X 20' float. Located: of~f Maple Lane, Greenport. SCTM 938.1-1-22. TRUSTEE t~R~PSKT: IS there anyone here who would like to speak in favor :o~ the app%ication? MS,.MOOR~ We are here again continuing the hearing with respect to ~the application.. Since the date of our last hearing we have SUbmitted fo~ the record an as built survey. This clearly shows whereall structures are, where the lateral boundarie~ are measured accurately, and the fact that we are well within our propert~ limit contrary to our neighbors contentio~ and that we are dealing with property owners to the east who has e~croache~ into our area. We've learned to live with it and for now we are trying to establish our own dock area and extension to pro~ide sufficient slips for...I don't want to say 21 units, but we have 21 u/~_~ts in the condominium. We have presently 7 slips. And t~ sand has accumulated ~m~er many of those slips and ~ny of thom have become ~ractical to use. We are requesting an extension of the dock in order to accommodate additional, slips for the cerium. This evening I have with me, Mr. TuthilI who built the original structure and is here to answer any questi~ns you might have. I also want to ~at him on the record inerder to create my' record if I need to proceed this. I also have Mr. Guideman who has also been the permit applicant from the inception o~ this dock and can answer any ~uestion you might have. ARRY ~: I'm a professional Engineer and have been in marine construction for about 40 years. i~?M~R~ Letme start out by saying that you were the ihdividual who built this existing dock. MR1TUTHILL: I did build the original dock. your planning on building the propose~ extension? Yes. · MS~ MOORE: Larry did you have an idea what the depth is of the water for some of these, not specific, but general terms? ~LR.:TUTHILL: The end of the present dock or so of the standing structure is about 4 feet at iow tide, but as we approach shore the sand has receded to a point now where at the inner it's only about 2 1/2 feet at low tide. close to shore. · ~MS. MOORE: Just to start off I'm gonn~ ask you some questions to put on the record. Does the present dock where the proposed extension of the dock ever sleeve back to wetlands? No, I don't believe it. does. There's nothing but and it's in the water and there's no wetland~-~ there. Does the proposed dock or the existing dock cause from erosion, turbidity or siltation? The propertsr is. si.t~ted ~.~ such it doesn' t make difference as to whether some erosion or some '. It's consequential really, except for the use of the Does the proposed dock cause salt water intrusion freshwater resources? No. Does it adversely affect fish, shellfish or other marine organisms, aquatic, wild]~fle and vegetation or natural habitat? ~!~ '~ilLLi: The only thing when we built it was the splash board and we did get complaints from the fish and wildlife for openings in the splash board. We did reco~igure the there were openings for the aquatic life to swim ~hrough boards. Does the propose~ dock increase danger of flood or waters? Does it adversely affec~ navigation on these tidal No. the main channel is about 1/2 mile away that Freeport out to the ocean. ~S~ Does it change the course of any channel or navigation in regards of the water? · : ~ere's no change there. it weaken or undermine lateral support of the land? ~R~ TUTHI~LL: No. ~S:'M©OR~: In your opinion does it adversely affect the health, welfare of the people of the Town? No. Let me just get into some specifics. The dock that we have proposed, we had at one point early on in the process in order to try to reach a compromise, that some of your member's of the Eoard, we agreed to reduce the length o.f the fixed dock from 68' which is in your notice to 40'. : Actually', in the field, it was 34'. ~S~ h Well we propose 40' since we're only gonna be able. to get 4~ .... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you came hack with that afte~%r~ds. MS.'MOO~E: O.K. I didn't have my client there at the time, but it was suggested hy the Board that we took it into advisement and you said we c~itd reduce it to 40'. TRUSTEE K~UPSKI: I just wanted to make that cte~. That 40 was not discussed. MS.~MOORE: Right no, we ha~e the floating-dock that extend~ out ...... what's the difference that it extends out? MRi ~i~: 30 feet f~omthe original, dock. At the end of the floating dock would be 30 feet.. MS. MOORE: Therefore, what we're asking for is only 10 more feet than what is presently there. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Is there a difference between what's there and What your proposing, to go another 10 feet? MS. ~0RE: E~cuse me? TRUSTEE' WENCZEL: Is there a difference betw~cn the structure that is presently there for that last 30 feet and the structure that your proposin~ to build to go another 40 feet? MS. MOORE: Yes, the extension ..... what is presently there is a floating doCk and a platform and that's what extends out to the pilings you see on the survey, that piling is actually 30 fe~t out from the end of the dock. So what. I'm expressing to v~ is the fact that the proposed extension is wei1 ~ithin .... is-10 feet .more than the area that is presently being used. Not with the fixed dock but with the fixed dock plus the floating dock. TRUS~E WENCZEL: But the construction of what your proposing is s&gn~ficantly different than~ what. presently exists over those 30 feet, correct? ~Si~I'.!M~0RE: No, I have to disagree with your significant increase. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Well isn't it a fixed structure made of spiles with a boardwalk with battan boards and a "T" on the end? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why do y~e want to change it? If it's not sic icantly different? We' re g0Dna get crooked out of it where the ftoati~g dock is not allow any slips. That's not significant? That's a matter of opinion. So, I'm just (could not underst'and words) so the judge will be able to hear what we're proposing and what we have discussed with you. TRUSTEE~ KRIIPSKI: What judge? MS. M00~JS: For the record, an Article 78. That's our next step if we cannot accomplish a reasoD~ble alternative here, our next step obviously is an Article 78. That's what we've tried to a~oid, up to now, that's why we've tried to give you evertrthing that you've asked for. At this point I'm placing on the record, all the facts I need to do in order to convince the judge what our proposal is, was in_ttially re~om~ble and our compromise was ..... TRUSTEE KRLVPSKI: In your opinion. MS. ~M~RE: In our opinion. For the reco~d~ I had a conversation with your Bay Constable. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which one? We ?~ve 3.. DOn Dzenkowski. ~Ie recognizes that lateral ~s are measured perpendicular to shore. So 3ust to confirm, what I've said to you in the past when I described to you that the extension of pzopert~~ lines is not the process of measuring lateral boundaries. The general rule is perpendicular to shore and that specific rule is 90 degrees, from the head land which is what I 'ye presented to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I interrupt, here. You've given us quite an education on that. I don't think I'm gonna take an exception to that method of extending lines into public water. ~owever, what I find completely inaccurate in what you've submitted here in the survey, and it makes me question the the survey, is that it says that it's called a head line is that correct? Correct. KRU¥SKI: Except this head land baseline doesn' t go to the headland. And that's inaccurate. Because headland baseline goes from headland to headland. And this doesn't. And it's shown to be inaccurate. I would respectfully disagree, with you. YOu could take whole Bay as a baseland headline. That's the. position you could take sa!~, from erie end of the bay to the ~ther, that's the headland.. The reasonable, and all the cases and the interpretatiens and warrants and su~vi~al of real estate and the underwater rights, it explains that what you do is take the area that your speaking of in this case, you have a cove, and you take the ...... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I shew you the cove on the map? The cove is marked by headland, that's why they call it a cove. And it ends at the headlands. TRUSTEE' HOLZAPFRY~: I think that's a very impo~Lant point. TRUSTEE KRIIPSKI: That's a very import point because ....... TRUSTEE ~OLZA~FEL: Because if your gonna put it on the recerd we have to be ve~ careful that your line anal o~ line differs d~amatically. TRUSTEE KRU~SKI: Because the headline baseline can' t end conveniently at some a~bit~'ary point. It has to go from. headland to 'headland. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: It's our feeling that. the headland line on this gees from the headland to the middle of the cove as opposed to the adjacent headland. That's our contention. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is based on what you-have shown us ~hout eXtendin~ property lines. This is the way the Board. uses to extend the property lines. It's a straight extension. Now you disagreed with t~t, and. you said, "no, there's a legal way to do it". TRUSTEE ~OLZA~FEL: And I did read most of those cases. I went tP~ough them and quite clearly it says from head~an~ to headland. TRUSTEE KllU~SKI: And we're not disputing that. This way, the old way is not the legal way. However, headland we found to be different.. That's not a headland there.. That's a c.onti~ous curve. You could have easily put it. here, here, or here. ¢ ~.. fo~ the re. ce~xl. Regardless. of if it's your i~terpretation o~ the headland or the surveyors interpretation or the judge or anyone else who has an int.erpretation~ the. existing structures that are there have been~ built. And we a~e dealing with our neigkbo_r's dock which is 300' out. This drawin~ · s very good because it shows the location of the structure that has been approved to date. The]~ cross., square across our entire ...... bas. ed on your interpretation o~-the headlar~t and you would read the hesxlland or mark the headland to be and~ lateral boundaries ...... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I disagree. That is not m~ interpretation. ~S? M .CK1RE: No, you misunderstood.. I have this drawing here. I ~ve this drawing here.~ I am looking at this drawing ...... can I mark it. as exhibit A? ~VSTEE KRUPSKI: Go right ahead. ~ MOORE: Just so we knew what we are talking about. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I think you at~'eady hav'e an exhibit A here in the packet. ~S. 'MOORE: Alright the, make it exhibit Z then. The lateral bOundaries that have been created eliminate alt our waterfront based on the way the vat, tis o~1 Goosemar Realty dock. extends. The DEC, when we orig~ly applied to them, placed us in a certain direction~. Recognizing the fact that we are in a cove. That while the headland that you described P~s many properties around it, the aifected properties that are going to be dealing with are crossing over of the docks, is the area that I described on my survey~ So whether I described it or you disagree with my description of whether or not it's a headland. The practical affect. The reasonable application of the law is that you take the area that's affected, the cove, and you try to located th.e structures in that. area. That's what I 'm trying to point out. That we cou~ld take this, but right now we've got an existing structures that have alr~eady eliminated any waterfront to us. If we apply your interpretation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we' re applying your interpretati~ of how to extend property lines. And we agreed with that. What we disagreed with w~ the survey by Joseph Ingegno. Is he here tonight? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ~at's the point we're trying to make since ~9~Ur threat!~ning us with a law suite. ~.~M00~: I'm not trying to threaten you, I'm just have to let y0~ know that we ha~e been here ..... th~ is our 4th tim~. we are asking for 10 feet more than what we are presently using. They have extended an enormous amount of money, both in exhibits to you. My time here and my presentations t~ you and you have exhausted enormous, time of your own, so I recognize that .and I appreciate it. WR're all trying to get through this process. I'm trying to get through this process with an ultimate permit in hand. I'm just trying to establish a record so that if we can' t get anywhere today, what choice do we have? Do we come back here month after month? At one point or another we end up with somebody else looking at this. TRUSTEE HOLZAPEEL.: I'm still not clealr. In the sense that there are two ways that we have used to delineate p~operty lines~ into the water'. The past history of the Trustees ..... TRUSTEE ERUPSKI: Which is docume~ited in the file. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFE/i: The past history has been tc follow seme sort of perpendicular, line or following the line. You then presented a very clear case that that isn't what should be followed.. That State Law ils very clear' that it. should go to headland. Now, n~ question is, which do you want? You can't have both. Just let us know which one you are looking for. · MS. MOORE: What I'm saying is I don't ha~e an. answer to that.. Because a headland is a d~finition in .... · t~USTEE HOLZAPFEL: But the doc~dment that you presented, you ~e presenting, that you were this was the wa~ it had to be. ~!~ MOORE!~ If I could come up to you and show you what I'm ~escribing. (explaining and referring to map) Here pou have ~he cove that's affected, it has all the docks that are buildi_~ up. This is the area that really it's from this creek to this D0int of land. That's the area the surveyor has used. and that I have used. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No it's not the area ..... what your showing is GUll Pond. And he's not showing that at all on here. The surveyor is not showing that at all. When you show it to the judge and you say it's right., they said itJs right, the judge has to be able to say, that's not a headtar~d and they can bring in Mr. Tuthill or anyone else and say or give their opinion on whether that's a headland or not. So we want to establish that that's not .... the middle of a curved line is not a headland. M~I~OORE: We're bogged down in the definition of the headland hat we can all disagree or agree. That's where we $~e~ What I tried to do is present or dispute Paulson's argument that our dock was infringing on his waterfront. That's all we were trying to acc~aplish with that drawing and with that headland description. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But, do you understand the implications, that if that isn't the headland now you have what we consider a different headland. And tPmt presents a whole different ball game. I disagree with you. What we have today are that have established a line. We have Mr. ~akaris t~hat has estat~lished a 300 foot dock out there. We can't change that. If we adopt your interpretation of a headland then'we have no waterfront. If you take our interpretation of the headland ..... TRusTEE HoLZA~FEL: You have waterfront. We're never denying that waterfront. frontage. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You do have frontage and can you have a dock. That'swhat the law allows. TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: And you have access to the water with 7 slips. MS'~!:MOOR~: We have asked for an extension because we b~ve 21 units. All of them have equal rights to put a boat there, if they choose to. We have a limited numbe~ of slips. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who's affording them these equal rights2 MS~.'MOORE: Each one of them as property owners have a right to ask for one of those slips. Is there a dispute with that also? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, your sa~ing they have equal rights, within. their little community. Not equal rights. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: There's one small mistake on this.. On the one the Trustees exhibit. The nexb dock t~ the east of your dock was mistakentyplaced in front of the wrong property. It belongs in front of that long narrow propert~. It doesn't really change what it shows, b~t I'd just like to point out that that where it belongs. MS. MOORE: It would show exactl~ what I just mentioned. TRUSTE~KRtVPSKI: The fur~er intrusion would .... but bear in mind t~s~s not an intrusion in the property of the applicant. This is intrusion into property the State of New York and the Subject to the interpretation of what rights the .... KRUPSKI: I'm not talking ~bout rights, I'm talking about p~operty. TRUSTE~!W~NCZEL: It belongs to all of us. TRUSTEE!KRUPSKI: I would like to ask Larry Tuthill if he has any professional experience or professional knowledge, of environmental science, and if he c~uld list the courses that he took and his professional experience. You are a professional enginee~ and you mad~ a number of judgements, but you also Moore questioning answered a number of environmental I'm not positive that you have the sam~ expertise. I just want to make it clear that your not speaking as an expert. No, he's speaking as an engineer with 30 years experience. T~JSTEE! HOLZAPFEL: The question was,. do you have any experience in environmental studies? · ~: No, but ...... Th~nk ~ou. That's all I asked. MS. Oh, excuse me, this is not an interrogation. This is unfair. M~~. T~:. You have to ~llow me to finish the question. It has been realized and recognized that the experience that I've had for ] zn dealing with wetlands it is of value ~nd is We have had court cases where I have spoken in environmental things that they recognized my wetland and tidal wetlands and that has been recognized. I'd like te have that on the record. T~USTEEHOL~ZAPF~L: But y~ have no professional experience. , yes. Because oE time. It's like being a I've had no actual training as to coastal engineer but the other thi~lgs add up to it. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: When you look at that dock, on the west side of it, where they have the beat slips, it appears to me when I TRUSTEE WENCZEL: There's shoaling on'th~ west side 0~ that. So it's shallower on the west side than e~ the east. side. It seems to me., and I'm sure you'll a~ree with me, that the reason that's occurring is because this structure is there diszupting the littoral flow. And the sand is being deposited~ o~ side. When I looked~ at that area it seemed that the littoral flow there was from west to east. Would you agree with that? MR. ~3~TLL: No, I would.not a~ree wi~k that. Because if your familiar with the chann~t at the entrance ta Gull Pond built up on the east not on the west. side. And this is onl~ 4 or 5 hundred feet distance from it. We've had to exterzd the jetty at the entrance to Gull Pond on the easterly'side. We have extended that out. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: You've extended it out on the east side. I was just looking at this map and it shows that it's the west. Bu~ regardless of that, because as we all know the littoral flow can change over a short distance. I think it's west to east there. BUt that's not the point. Where is that sand cuffing from that's piling up on the west side of that dock? It's co~ng from the east. fCZEL: The sand that is piling up. on the west side is east. :]~ Yes, the littoral drift in that area is coming from thei east. TRUSTEEi WENCZEL: And so the sand is coming along and it's piling up on the west side of the dock. Would you say then, that th~ st~u~cture that is there is changing the flow of the sand alGng that beach. MRi[1TUTHILL: Just recently down in ...... the DEC had these conferences in reference to structures and they were showing where they built these "T's" out into the water in front so they would block the waves and help stop erosion. This is essentially What ..... they had the splash boards .... and the property a little but to that ..... but there's nothing major in there. Obviously there's some there but not much. TRUSTEEiWENCZEL: So you think that in the course of this winter they coUld all of a sudden have more water on the west side. A storm could come along and scour that out. The problem is as she stated before .... They have more people than docks. Do you think that ..... your probably more familiar with that whole cove, right? I've fished there Sinlce before I was 19. Before there were any docks there and it seems to me that alon~ there there's always been a thick bed of eel grass. I can remember scalloping right up on the beach and catching scallops in the eel grass. And now on the west side of the dock there's all that sand in there. Do you think that maybe that dock had an effect where it made that sand accrete there and bury t~e eel grass? It seems to methat's what happened there. Because y~d said you figured that sand was coming from the east and the~ being dePOsited on the west. MR~F-FJ~NCIS M~N~L¥: I'm a retired tester from Grumman Aircraft. I've owned the particular parcel at Crescent Beach since Mr. Cavana~gh sold it 18 yea~s ago. What you~re~er~i~ to the eel grass, it's still in the area. It hasn't Stopped buildiP~N in the sand~. Which we have experienced on the westerly side of the Mr. Fakaris' property-. The eel gr~s is still in that particular area. Now the past two storms we've had, I spent the week-ends out here, and we have see~ a tremendous buildup there over the dock itset~ near the bea~. On the easterly side of the dock we have a small boardwalk out to the dock itself. That was totally covered with sand from the l~t nor'easter. And there's lots o~ eel grass in that area from our dock over to the inlet of the cove. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: And there's eel grass off these other docks and in between th~a~. Se what your saying is the sand. ca~he on either side there. ~. ~ McNALAY: I don't feel that the dock has caused any bnildup of sand. I've watch~ it for 18 years. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: The fact is that what I 'm just trying to get to the matter is, I'm trying to point out that there is a shoaling on one side of the dock that's causing a problem, and that if you put a jetty in you'll have sand build up on one side of the other of it. That's why he wants to do that project in New Suffolk and all the other jetties. This dock and it's hart.er boards are acting essentially like a jetty. They're sand in that a~ea and buz-ying the eel grass beds. kud you did go down and look at tP~t before and after the most recent storm. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: No, I don' t go down after e~ery storm. I' ve been t~here many, many, many times and I was there ~este~da~. .-' Fakaris' dock, I was off Crescent Beach's dock. In your evaluation is that sand built up in there because of the boarding that he has on it. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I think that probably had an affect because whole principal behind jetties. Well, being fair sir, if thCt's your point, of view, then how come Mr. Fakaris., the dock he has, and there's noting being done about that. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Nothing being done? What do you mean by that? MR~. .~M~d~A~LY: Yes, in regards to the dock and the build up of sand on the westerly side of his dock. TRUSTEE, WENCKEL.:. Well sir, for the record, I don't believe any of these docks should ever be placed there. I think it's a travesty .th&t they were. ~R.!~.M~N~r,.T.Y: Well, there was a dock tk~ere initially when Mr. Fakaris put his out. Now what he wanted to do initially was to rebuild the dock that was there and that w~m not the location of the initial dock.~ That dock was ~dch further east tha~ where he actually put it out. I know that for a fact. And that whole area, where those condo?s a~e built, that was a wetland. I don' t know how the DEC ever approved that, to put those condo' s there. TRUSTEE' WENCZEL: Neither do I. And I 'm appalled also. MR~i~ii~NAi~.~Y: I' 11 tell you what. One winter, that whole area was filled with concrete, sand and garbage to put those condo ' s in. I ' ve seen. that myself. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I don't doubt it, I agree with ~u~ one hundred. percent. ~R. Because of what ~ir. Fakaris tD~re, putting in a and. naising his land, it cost our condQminium 30,000 to put a french drain in that area. He raised the ground 3 feet higher with concr, ete wall. And we wound up getting up into our units. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where did the water come from? I'm not doubting you, I'm just asking. MR1. MCNALLY: It comes off the land he built. It runs into our property. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I think we' ve turned away fr°m the original problem which somewhere way back was puttin~ 10 feet onto a dock. We're now discussing some of th~ major problems of the worked that include jetties, eel grass, it's geod. However, this is really not a marine seminar and we have a lot of people here who are waiting on other things. What I'm saying is I would like at this juncture to propose taking one more stab at some kind of reconfiguration. Perhaps not an orthodox "T perhaps not a straight forward extension. I would think that with all the engineering expertise in this room, that we could somehow find a way to accommodate a coupte of more boats and put in ten feet of dock in a cove that is already been~ shall we say, disturbed or compromise~. I'd love to have or~more shot at it. Sir, we go on spending money .... May i make suggestion? We have ~o~e back to the board an~ att~ to give you what we could live with. Is there any ether alternative that you could think of that does not encroach the swim area? Does not go closer tO Fakaris? MR. G~IDEbIAN~: We need a little more length in the dock that we have to acco~o~ate an~ additional boa~ at all, whether it's one, two or three. All we ne~d is the 10 foot to get out there. MS.~MOORE: Classification: The 10 feet we're talking about is an extension from what is there. TRUS~ GAPd~ELL: I would like to get togethe~ for 2 or 3 hours some afternoon and try to do this. I really .... TRUSTEE HOLZAPF~L: We did that. I think we'll see what people vote on. But we talked about this thing, we batted it back and forth, we did it seven times and we told you what we wanted you to do. M$~iMO~RE: And we've done it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's all I'm saying. What I'm saying is let's hear what the rest of the public has to say and then we'll decide on the application. We sat and we talked to these people and we said, "this is what we want, and this is what want, we want them all out by October 1st, we wa~nt it cleared so that the Baymen can get in there, it won't close down the season because the DEC won't be able to make it, but when youstart bring up Larry up to make question on it's not gonna hurt the environment, that bothers me a lot because those boats will close that area. ~EC will make it a closed area because of shellfish. And to sa~ that no marine life there, the eel grass beds are there and th~e's ........ NS?MOORE::~ If the adverse affect on marine life TRUSTEE HOLZA~FEL: I'm just tellin~ you what you did, you triggered that mech~nis~. MS.i~MOORE: I didn't mean to o~f~end you. What I mean is there are standards, to be met and you know from the Freem~-n case ~nd from other cases that is those kinds of things I have to ..... TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We have to defend ourselves too when you do that. MS. MOORE: Exactly, and it should not have reached this point, but if we can't get any further toda~ ..... TRUSTEE HOLAPFEL: I'm suggesting, and not what Marry suggested, that we go on with the pez~t., hear from the p,~btic~ both sides that are present, and we'll make the decision. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else like to speak either in favor or ag~ainst the application? ST~;E IAATSON: If you want to find headland, there, go someday w~en it's blowing 35 mph from the northwest and you'll find it. Oulr concern is the eel grass beds. They've been mentioned, this is where we work, this is our welfare, this is our income. This area ..... as far as your neighbors dock? I'd love to see your dock going back 40 feet, that dock going back 150 feet. This would be good for us. Anymore encroachment into the eel grass bed is more encroachment, into our already dwindling resource. JOE GORDOn,: I was born. down there. Gull Pond when I was a kid, you could walk across the whole place. Everythir~g. down there is filled in. enough is enough. This is a new Board. Your trying to do the right thing. Keep doing it~ Don't let any more of these things happen. I clammed and tried scalloping this year bu~ there were no scallops. And there was eel grass there. We have to: have that eel grass for the plants, scallops and everything else to survive. I agree with what Pete said, that that sand coming on both sides is because of the dock being there.. ~ ~B©SIWODA: ! I ' ve scalloped this year and haven' t caught any scallops other than small bugs. Or juvenile scallops for next years~ crop. I know for myself and a bunch of us will be working there next year. Any more encroach~l~nt on our land with big doCks will demolish our crop next season. Also you brought up the point shoreline and and I have a B~-hetor oE Science in These docks will cause shoaling on the weste_~rn There's a west to east drift constantly on the eastern of Gull Pond channel. With that s~rt of drift through the. area there's always gonna be shoaling on the western side of any of the bulkheads, jetties or any type of creation that,s built there. With the. addition, of.' bulkheading or additional, docks it's gonna increase the sand pile up on the western side. KRUPSKI: You ha~e a degree in oceanography? Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In that ..... in your experience, do you think that sand that gonna be slowed down and as we know, or in my opinion, when you build a structure out there that's fairly solid, it's gonna slow down the water movement, which is gonna drop the sand. The more velocit~ the sand will settle ouu. Is that sand that is gonna settle out there, is that gonna smotker the eel grass beds~ in your opinion? MR~ POL/W~D/&~ I believe so.. It already has.. This past year when I went there. I've sanded up my dredges. Normally you just catch some of the grass and catch b. ottom. But over in that Particular area I' 11 sand up my dredges. PATRICK"REGINA: First of all fellas, we love the Baymen. We' re not against the ~aymen at all. We're asking for 10 feet. We have a floating dock there. We have pilings there. First o~ all my wife has a Masters Degree in Environmental Science and if you look it up, eel grass does move. I hate to say this, and no offense but if you, we buy clams from you ~etlas right o~ the shore, and if you see our floating raft, we have 35 to 40 kids, the kids swim there, all the eel grass is under there, but when someone comes and drags a rake across the bottom of the water all the kids are full of eel grass from the Balrm~n clamming. That rips up more land. I've seen from my own because I'm 80 feet from the water than the kids have done since 1955. I hate to say that, because we are for the Baymen. Don't say that. I just wan~ for the record, we're here to comprc~ise with you, we're here to work with you, we'ne not here to threaten anybody. I agree with Marty and John. We're just here to get a few boats, our sand is building up, we pay taxes on that land. We've beenhnrt for r~any years. And people look at us and say, "we can do this". And looked at us and laughed., right to my face. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't under stand, why are. they laughing at you? ~ REGINA: Because they can do what they like. I'm not mentioning any names, but neighbors, but because of power or money or whatever the case may be, but we're here to just compromise, we're asking for 10 feet. We're not here to hurt a Baymen, or hurt anybody. We're here to make a commzomise, to get it over with. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any Board co~ent? I think under the threat of a law suit I think we should el~bQrate on what we discussed because at least the judge can realize that some discussion as to alternatives to getting Crescent Beach property C~rners additional ..... ~i~ MCN~L~i: You say a threat, that was not a threat. She sa~d, "the 0nly alternative we had for the next step',. I wish you'd strike that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I won't strike that, because that's my opinion. That's~my personal opinion. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEA: We have over the last 4 months, 6 months, whatever it through a series of reconsiderations, reptanning, of the original project. And it has slowly but smat.le~ and s~tler and thez~'s been other in place. I must say, and I speak for the Baymen in particula~, I'm on the Shellfish Advisory and I'm 100% in accordance with your feelings, but I don't think that 40 feet will make a big difference in that they did it, they were quite willing to take all of the lines up, all of the piles, audi understand, there will still be poles out there, but I still think if someone still wants to get in there and take scallops they can, a~d they'll be in there~ That's my co,~uent. That the docks aren't gonna shade the eel g~ass,,the eel grass will still be there and theze will. be an opportunity for bugs to grow in there and to be protected. MR~ L~TSON: I've lived in the Town for 49 years, and I've seen this T~wn and it's shellfish go down the tub~s. When I was 12 or 13 years old, unbelievable. People in this audience saw what there was. And if they saw what there w~ now, they'd be shocked. And what we have seen through these years is more and more picking away, picking away, dredging the czeek, building this, building that. It hurts big time. Every' little inch takes more away. It's a very tiny little world out there. MR. GOAD: Like someone said, 21 more boats, DEC may close it bacause there's too much pollution, or toc much grass. Not that we could go there, sure. But they wouldn't allow us to. You have to think that part. toe. TRUSTEE GARRELL: How many more boats do you anticipate? I think if we were starting out from point zero where there, were no 300 foot docks, if that were our project, if theze were no docks in that cove it would be a rather straight forward cal~. What makes t~s difficult, is, that this is an increm~l call. This is a call for basically a fractional increase in dock space for a stzulcture that is there. The decision that has to be made for many of us is whether this change will somehow trigger, a much ~eater affect.. Or whether the affect an!z loss will be small in relative terms. That's what ouz decision will be based on. It's not as though we're dealing with a catastrophic affect. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I see that from a different viewpoint. The problems that have occurred have occurred in increments. And when you add up all the increments you have a disaster. When we're finished here is where do you draw the line. When do you say, "enough is enough". ~o you sit here, "well, they did it in the past, it's fine". Well they filled wetlands in the past. Are we gonna continue to fill wetlands? No. Obviously not. There's any number. They dredged out the creek channels way back into the back of the creeks and created d~ad spots and what not. Are we gonna sit here and say, "well, it was done in the past, why don't we do some more". No. We've realized that. those mistakes made in the past had a detrimental affect on the environment~ on the resources, not only that the Baymen enjoy, but all. the p~ople in the Town of Southol~ enjo~ and. all the people in the Town of Southold who deserve to have access to. Asd: here we are looking at another increment in a problem that has been going On for 50 yea~s. The question is when do we say, "enough is enough". And do the. right thing. TRUST~.R GARRELL: I think you say that at a point where you decide you slice a salami. When you decide thak the next chunk, that that salami is a big one and it's big enough so that when the judge in court takes a sniff of it, he'll say, "well I agree with it"~ If it looks like your denying another small slice of salami like everybody else has taken alon~ the shoreline east and West and you really denying a very small change and everyone else is done the thing before everybody else has their dock. Now your gonna be fighting some legal challenges. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I 'm aware of that. But i~ we destro~ the salami with little slices, the big slices, the ~nd results will be no salami. So you have to draw the line. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: ~ne major question is I believe is, the most negative thing I'm hearing is that there is shoaling, sand is covering up eel grass and that your loosing some of that habitat. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I think you have to consider that access is also denied. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. But I think that's a major issue in terms of environme~it. Eltough people have said that's happeP~ng. My question is the splash boards~ obviously the distance between the splash boards break the ~drrent. Can they be extended, can the splash boards, be kept up a foot or two off the bottom? Can you change the design of the splash boards to accommodate a greater transfer of sand? Being not an engineer to me the wider the opening the bigge~ the slits~ the- more water goes thr~rugh, ~he more transport of sand. ~MR. + TU~LLI:~ something is wrong in what everyone is saying here. If you have a splash board there, therefore you. stop the movement of the sand. Now if the eel grass, and~ sand in the bottom is moving or so and it's covering the grass to begin with and I don't think this is happening. Theze isn't that movement out there. There is some moveme~t. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I thought you s~d there, was a sand ~hoal? ~R~ T%KISI~LL]~ There is. But this is on the. beach. This is what I disagree on what he is saying. He's talking'., about the beach area, and the shoaling on the beach and saying this is happening in deep water' where the eel grass is. I don't believe it's in the eel grass ~where you are having the problems. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I thought I heard public testimony to the opposite. One of the Bayman and Peter, both made comments that there is shoaling next to the d~cks. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: It seemed to me that when I walked down that dock, and I've been there more than once, was there was a deposit of sand clearly nothing but a sand. next to the west side of that dock almost the whole length of it. And once you get away from that dock, go down there with a pair of polaroid ~ once you get away from the ~ if you look is grass and vegetation grown. It might be from the movement of~ the boats there. 'that are blocking the sun. I don't believe it's the movement of ~the sand. MS~i'MOORE: I think that the main impact, the skoating and the sand is the Fakaris dock, as the structures unserwater there. .That is causing the most significant effect and John you were the one told me~ that.. If you could explain. ~ It's got to the point, that feeling for on set and fe. eling for another set. Th~ that's out there now is the big one and has destr to the extent that thes~ people are whatever is happening no~,. never started until that dock got out there. And it's been a problem since the day that it was built and then they put that big "T: out there and Eitled it all in an~ it caused a whole disruption in he tide flow from east to west and from west to easu. It comes in from one direction and it seems to me, I've been in the neighborhood for 25 years too, and the reaction of the tide to conditions in the water, not the wind, not the surface o~' the water itself, but it's bumping into something and changing the tidal action. I don't see why that big dock out there, these people were settled in the area for many, many years. They've reached a point where they delight in the place and tr~ing only to do what th~ can for the people whe are participating. If it comes down to where we agree tb~t somewhere alon~ the line something has happened to the. eel grass, something has happened to the growth of the shellfish. But I can't see ~ny these people who have been residents there, I think 1956, and they have done everything to cooperate. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I just didn't get an answer to my ~estion. Can the splash boards be separated and can they be raised up a foot? MR. TUTHILL: The can, but I don't know wb. at the advantage o~ it is. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You don't think it will let more water go through and thus move the sand along? MR.~ ~LL: No, what happens is to some extent if there is any movement, it stops the speed of the water and it's the speed of the water to carry the sand. If ~u stop the speed, o~ the water than you are stopping movement of sand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. What John is saying is the problem that people have with this is the splash board is slowing, and taking the ensrgy away and the sand is dropping out of it. What John is suggesting is that is it possible to raise the splash board off the bottom a certain foot or so se that the energ~ would protect the boats up here but the energy of the water could sweep underneath, and carry the sand away and it wouldn't be on the other side.. First of all this sand is only on the beach. The is if you raise it, it sounds great and we tried it other areas that wave or so the water just comes underneath it. You get very little dissipation of the wave. TRUSTEEKRUPSKI: So your saying it's not effectiv~ for the boats then. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: It would dnstroy the purpose of having it there then. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll ask for a motion to close the. hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: so moved. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second ALL AYES TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I~ll make a motion. MOORE': I have just one problem with the motion Peter will because he has a financial interest in this whole project. I have been holding back ..... you have on the record, you say that you scalloped in the area so you have a direct financial interest. I don't think it's appropriate for you to make a motion, i don't want to cause a problem with those who may be in favor or those who .... I just don't want that issue to be the one. TRUSTEE KRU~SKI: It's fair to m~ntion that in the public form. I wish that on the record. NS : .I did not want to embarrass him, I did net expect be the one to move the motion, but if your gonnamake the motion I think that we're gonna have a problem. So, I'm just letting you know that it's already on the record and would say to the judge TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to reopen the public hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AY-ES TRUSTEE WENCZEL: My point is that I have an economic interest in every permit that comes before this Board. The ecological health, of the waters of this Town have an a~fect on my tivin~. The reason that t sit on this Bsard is because I've realized that if we don't have clean waters, if we don't have a health environment, if we don't have h~althy resources I'm. in trouble and so is everybody else in thiS room. Everything that. is good for me or for. any other Bayman in this Town is also good for the public beca,,-~e I know we alI live here because of the beauty Of the place, because of the resources of the place. Isn't that correct. That's why we're here. and that's why I sit on this Board because I am making an attempt to protect my livelih~c~ and the, reason that the rest of us are here. So, if that's the. cas then somebody has to thro.~ me off the Board. M~ Since my objection ~o you to make a motion on this I Will put it on the record.. You have a direct financial benefit from the denial of this application in that you have already stated on the record that you actively scallop under these docks, right in this area and I feel it is i~nappropriate for you to participate, and I stayed quite ab~lt that, but certainly it is inappropriate for you to vote on this application and to move this application one way or' the other. ~TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I wa~t to take that one step further. I think that it was a mistake to bring that up because, by you objecting to a participating. ..... ~ No, by sitting on the Board deciding this application. It's not a Bayman. All these Bayman have SPoken. I certainly have no objection to their speaking, they have an ~bsol~te right to speak. It is inappropriate to make a m~tion on this apptication~. If you choose to do it., so be it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKZK: That must be because you realize it might ha~e an adverse affect o~ his livelihood. Because. i~ it wouldn't, if he thinks ...... .MS~i~i~; He has a financial interest in this, one way or another. Whether it's adverse or within his favor. He stated stated that he's ~alrea8¥ gone out there and this area is an area he has searched for and scalloped. Whether or not he found any this year or maybe not, next year maybe so, who knows~ but financially he has a direct interest in this. TRUSTEE ~CzET,: As I do all the waters in Southold. TRUSTEE KRIIPSKI: Now, do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFRT.: So moved. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE GARRELL: I'll make a motion to approve the application, with a stipulation that the proposed splash boards he raised 1 1/2 feet from bottom and that the~ be separated of 1 foot betwee~ splash boards because this is critical for the bottom the bay as we heard. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I would also include some of the a~reements that we made with with propert~ owner, s association~. That boats or any lines be removed by the first day of scallop season. I use the first day because the Tz-~stees may charl~e date. The first d~y of scallop se~on. TRUSTR~R GARRELL: I accept the amendment to my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As a c~a~ent I've been on the B0~rd for 10 years, and as in my personal, life, I'm not perfect, I made Plenty of mistakes, and I'm sure ms~y people would be eager to point them out. but one mistake that h~-~ been pointed out tonight is. the dock to the east of the applicant. I try to think of myself as art intelligent and educated person who does not try to repeat those mistakes, and we try to live and learn. That dock was such a disaster but here we are just adding to that disaster. TRUSTEE~ WEN'CZEL: Ready to approve another one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Nay. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Nay TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: May I tar the oppcztunity to point out that a little earlier in the evening a certain gentleman mad~ a statement on how we have already precluded what's gonna happen before the mccting. 9. Ra!rnor on behalf of MICHAF25 RA_~OR requests a to remove an existing dock and replace with a to tie into existing bulkhead of neighbor and backfill. wit~ ¢.y. of fill to stabilize, and construct a 1,900 s.f. sing'le family dwelling. Located: Private ROW west side of Old Harbor~ Road~, Ne Suffolk. SCTM ~117-5-22 TRUS~E KRU~SKI: Henr~, do you want to speak in favor of this I've been: instructed to show the delineation of property by a certified survey, I'm not sure we have that. We have a survey with the zoning on it. And that's been approve~ b~f the Zoning Bcaz~t? · the Zoning Board has nothin~ tc do with it. They sent me to the 'BUilding Inspector. He sent me to a surveyo~ tc get it certified and that'S why 'it's back here with you guys. We went around in a big circle. Because of the bui] well as the ~]khead~ I' 11 try to address The property as you ha~e it before you pre-existed zoning by seme 25 years when it was created by the dredging of Schc°lhouse Creek. There preSe/~tly exists a shed on the property on the west with by itsel~ est'~hlishes the huildin~ line. The property itself pre-exists the ordinance and is in conformity both in size and coniiguration with those in the adji The setbacks as proposed, you have a proposed ~ envelope there., Those setbacks are greatar than or equal to the adjourning prepez~ that is directly to the south. The bulkheadi~g action was discussed with both the Trustees and the DEC and is proposed high bulkhead and low bulkheading on the west side of the property~ This actually will take pla~-e in FLarine I Zoning. This was discusse~l by the Trustees on our meeting in August as well as in October. (Could not hear, too many papers being shuffled) ...... concerning septic and water supply with regard to we will show you the water supply and septic .... (could not hear) If there are any questions we will be happ~ to ge over them tonight. The property itself is 1/3 acre.. I undexstand it's in an L-3 Zone. it is listed as part of a man-made creek. There is no wetland. e] as the Board is adeq~dately aware. If i can answer I will be happy to. I'm just wondering about the low bulkhead. Do we have on that? No you do not. What I was going to do is depend to dictate those things. We generally don' t do that. Just as a we don't design such ..... I can always get you a cross section at whatevez choose. I was just thinking of' what would be there. So it would be roughly s~mething that would belo~ mean high water. What we would like is go for~sdrd with the project that is going to be comparable. SKI: The full bullhead would be up to ground level. Obviously, outside of that where the existing CAC re.co~ends disapproval. There appears no ~roblem and no demonstrated need. Recon~ends of the hou~.e and septic system are too close to the don't'have Health Dept. approval yet? s correct. Have you been to the Health Dept. ? No. I wanted to start at the the Town level The survey is a draft and design, it's not a I apologize. The survey that y~u have, you have the draft and design was for building out and at the draftsm~n put a zoning line on and it was We went out and had the propert~ surveyed by Van TUyl to correct that. So that we knew e~ctly the in,te~pretation. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Obviously if your 9~nna put in the septic .is this where they're going or just ...... la proposal based on the critenia~ set forth in ArtiCle 6 of the Dept. of Health Code. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFML: I didn't think they allowed them within that distance of the shoreline. TRUSTEE KRU~SKI: We had a hearing .... that's our concern. We met in the field and talked about the bulkhead and I think the board is satisfied with the structures proposed and the house. But the septic system .... I was at a Health Dept.i meeting for a hearing on the same distance in a septic system in the wetlands before and I don't know i~ you want to act on this with a condition on Health Dept. approval. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm just saying let's not give the permit without that ..... TRUSTEE GARRRIJ,: They may propose to you that you elevate the septic system and somehow alter it or move it around and putts it around with the Zoning Board. But certainly with the bulkhead and the hous.e there's no problem. ~RUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the problem is we' re not gonna move the septic system closer to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE No. But the septic system could, be adjusted with to the roa~, neighbors well. We've already taken that into co~mideration and. the point, TRUSTEE H©LZAPFEL: Planning Board. Have you talked, to them at all. Because it is a commercial pzoperty. The proposed structure is in a residential zonm. HOLZAPFEL: Yes, but the doc~ and all that. MR.~, IRAYNOR: It's not a structure becm~-~e it's not going above grade. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But in terms of it's going to be a marina.. There's be boats there. It's an M-1 zone. There' s gonna be boats there, they ~ re gonna be rented so there has to be parking, there has to be things. Has that been worked out? The Building Inspector in difference to keeping the Enforcement Officer of the Town that you could put that building up tomorrow if you want. That's what we choose to do. We choose to go through and make sure we have stabilization of property before we put a building on it. The property itself. pre-exists. It's been a small lot. It's a 1/3 acre. It sat there since the creek was done. With it go veste~ rights. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I just feel that it could be a problem for a lot of other beards. The Planning Board in particular. And that ...... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because if we're gonna act ou a permit. and they have to act on it than that's separate. Your acting on a house and a dock. Your not saying, "He's needs parking spaces" ..... TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But. that influences the position of the house,. TRUSTEE KRU~SKI: Well if you have to amend the position of the house you have to come back to amend the permit. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We 'ye been through this before and you don't want to.hold it up for another Board because then they're gonna hold it up for us. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I' 11 make a mO%ion to approve the application based on Healt~h Dept. approval and as it says. in our permit.., "the securing of all other n~cessary permits". TRUSTEE GARRELL: Abstain. TRUSTEE KING: Second. 10. Bruce Anders~on on behalf of CAROL CASSEL requests a Wetland permit to construct a 10' X 12' deck attached to east side of catwalk as per revised survey dated ~ r~ceiv~d 10/23/96. Located.: 800 Willow Point Road, Southold. SCTM %56-5-39 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? BRUCE ,~.ANDERSON: I apologize for being far less interesting that some of the other applications. As you know we started out with 2- 10' X 12' platforms in a "T" form beside the rocks and we're gonna cut that in half. when we met out in the field the feeling was a portion of the rock constituted inter-tidal waters and what we agree to do is move it off the rock and landmard of the wetland line. That location is shown on the survey. The vegetation that we are going to cover is considered in an area that is highly disturbed. In dealing with standards set fozth in the wetland code I can assure you that we meet each and every standard. It was also supposed to be referred to the CAC. i made diligent attempt to meet wit~ them or discuss with them, however, it didn't happen. So I had no idea what recommendation that they had. TRUSTEE F~RUPSKI: CAC recommended approval. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE Kt~UPSKI,: I' 11 make a motion to approve as pez revised drawing of 10/23/96. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 11. Bruce Anderson on behalf of LOIS T. ANDERSON :requests a Wetland Perm.it to construct a 16.6' X t0' addition and a 14.2' X 12' deck onto an existing dwelling. Located: 2515 Calves Neck Road., Southold. SCT~ ~70-4-45.5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on BbRuehalf of this application, CE'iANDERS0N: I understand Peter was out there. What we're dealing with here is a series of small .... what is even out the exterior wall of the house and is located near ornamental shrubbery and there's really not a beck of a lot to say on this. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I inspected- it and it's fairly routine. I'll make a motion to close ~h~ hearing. TEUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I' 11 make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEI;: Second. ALL AYES 12. Environment East on behalf of JOE & NOEA~ ~ON request a Wetland Pe~t. to construct an 18' X 36.6' addition on the south-east side of existing dwellin~ withi~ the footprint of the~ deck structure. Located: 595 Clearwater Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM ~118-2-14.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak either in favor or against the application? I took a look at this and. I'm gonna require hay bales. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE ~OLZAPFEL: Second, ALL. AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve provided there is a line of hay bales between the 5' X 10' contour lines during construction. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ALL AYES 13. Proper-T Services on behalf of MATT-A-MAR MARINA (as contract v~ndee) for Harold Tribble request a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' X 60' floating walkway, a 4' X 16~ ramp and a 5' X 200' floating dock with 2 finger floating docks each 4' X 30' at ends of and perpendicular to main dock, iD_stall 8- 12" X 35' mooring pikes and approx. 10- 12, X 35' piles to secure main dock and fim~er docks as per revised survey dated 9/25/96. L~cated: 2615~ Wickham Ave., Mattituck. SC.TM ~i39-2-5 TRUSTEE : Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor applicationQ JIM You have all the information. TR'JSTEE There is no DEC approval. We received a FAX yesterday f~Omthe DEC addressed to ~. King, from Leu Chiareita, Regional Man~ger of Marine Habita~ Protection, "Our guide ~line~ for installation of commercial docks or private docks for the PUrpose of vessels dOcking requires the ~ollowing: 1. a minimum depth of 4 feet below mean low water for the docks and docking area, 2. a minimum depth of 4 feet below mean low water for all f~irways to docks, 3. fairways should be 1 1/2 times the length of vessels to he dock~, :4. open pile docks should be no greater than 4 feet in width over vegetated tidal wetlands and a min. of 3 1/2 feet over vegetated tidal wetlands". That was our coma~nt from the DEC. We asked th~m for some information on their standard practices. Mr. King is a Trustee from Mattituck and because he is from Mattituck and familiar with the area we always have whatever Trustee lives in that area do a straight~ forward application~ One Trustee will do that inspection. When it's a more difficult project, all the Trustees. will gD and look. However, if there's an additional inspection to be made generally one T~Lstee can go out to make it. We asked Mr. King to go out and check the depths of water. TRUSTEE~ KING: I've been up there on three occasions and three different times taking soundings.. At low tide, high tide and again at low tide. I took pictures. At a good low tide the whole area is bare. The floats will be on the bottom at low tide~ The area is mostly private decks with a dock here and there. TheZe's nothing anywhere like this in the area. It's inappropriate. The soundings I've taken and the .there's just no water there at all. TEDi. ii Do they give you any yardstick or ~a~ount of dockl square footage to be added in one area. This looks like an awful lot of DICK. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can basically apply for what you want. for what they want. I mean is there any' amount that would be too much? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's what we've been talking about all night. I can't give you a straight forward ~er' to that. We don't have any specific design or specific size for a commercial dock. Generally a private deck, we limit the float section a 6' X 20' standard size. A catwalk the length to get out, a reasonable navigab, le water. A c~m~ercial d~ck is a different situation in that there needs are gonna be different than a private residence., so they can apply for basically whatever size or .guration the~'re gonna need. MR the summer time on the creek as the water~ star~s to warm up and boat traffic starts to increase the. water gets to .... it starts to smell. At low tide it gets pretty bad. MR.M~GI~: My property is directly across the creek from this proposal. I was ftabhergastedandtaken back when I learned that that property had been re-zoned, from reside~tial to Marine II. The only observation I can make is ~bout the water. It's Yery shallow there. When I bought myplace in 1975, I brought the boat from B~bylon I had a sailboat, that drew 3'2". It floated there. Before the end of 1970's m~ neighbors and I had Permission. from the Cou/~ty to dredge that area an'd a~ter a few meetings, they agree~ to dredge. They told us the County had some responsibility because that creek was partially man-made. But since than the creek has been filling in. I got rid of that boat and looked for a boat that floats. I settled for a Chesapeake Bay Skip Jack that draws 1 foot high for a d~ck1. But it barely floats there. My dock is comMletely on the bottc~ at low tide. I ra~aground with myboat. I wonder how a 1 9 boat is gonna float there. Because the creek is It should be point out that this proposal is fl piece of property. Of which Mat-A Mar is contract vendee. It is not an expansion of the M~t-A-Mar faciIity. It is something presumably the owner of this property could apply to. With regards to the creek filling in this is a~out before, so I'm not gonna make any q~estion ar.ises about whether or not we should sit ! watch the creeks fill in. And whether or not it is the right thing to do because that's presumably what Mother NatureWants it to be. After we built our houses and our roads and had taken away the vegetation and so forth that permit the landlord to assist in filling in the creek. So that question as to whethe~ or not we should sit back and keep getting smaller and smaller'boats or whether we should do something about it as long -astir doesn't hurt anything else. With regard to the questions as to the depth of the water is apparently the significantfaCtor. If the Board is inclined to decline this proposal on the basis of that, I would appreciate it if you would not disapprove the application b~t rather favor it a~d give us an opportunity to present an additional alternative to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Has this gone before the Plannin~ Board? MR. FITZGEP~L~: Yes. TRUETEE HOLZAPFEL: And they've approved it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the~ just applied to them. MR. FITZGEPLAL~:'~ The Planning Board is the Lead Agent and are waitin~ for you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I asked the Planning Board to send us the status. "The Plannin~ Board is currently reviewing a site plan for the aboMe reEerenced p~oject~ Following is the current status: Health Dept. review not received, DEC permit not received, Merger Deed of all three lots not received, drainage review not completed, Trustee not received, Certification by Building Dept. not completed, Fire Commissioner not completed, outdoor lighting plan not received. The last contact in writing with the applicant was on Dec. 15, 1995". TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So, nothing has been basically done for a year. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At the applicants request, I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. MR. FITZGERALD: May I hear what your thoughts are? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My thoughts are that this would go against quite a few of the standards of Chapter 97.28 as far as you will let the floats set on the bottom, which they obviously would, then they would be increasing the turbidity in the water and have an adverse affect on the shellfish and marine organisms in that area. It goes directly as adverse of standards in the wetland code. MR. FITZGERALD: The problem is with the floating docks being on the bottom. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In general those are some of the problems. We try to coordinate with other agencies. That's why ii asked the Planning Board and Jim contacted the DEC as far as their standard. MR. FITZGERAld: How do you feel about the DEC standard. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't feel one way or the other.. That's their standards. MR. FITZGERALD: They're not having any affect on what we are doing here are they? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no. I just wanted to know where they are. We occasionally touch bases and we have a pretty good working relationship. We think different areas of government should work together instead of we approve something than they approve thing different and your caught in the middle and you never resolve it. So we try and work things out so that the applicant gets a consistent review from all agencies and doesn't get fragmented and goes against them. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's just too big a structure for that whole area. If Mr. Tribble wanted to put a dock out for a boat, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but this is one big floating dock in front of ..... and I really think it's obstructive to the whole area. TRUST~ KRUPSKI: Because we have navigational issues also. MR. FITZGERALD: We don't have to worry about navigation in there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Pardon. MR. FITZGERAt~: There's not enough water to navigate. TRUSTEE KING: There's plenty of water at high tide and mid-tide is not too bad. There's about 4- 4 1/2 feet in the middle of the channel. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then it wouldn't be a good place to put a marina. TRUSTEE GARRELL: So your distinguishing between needs of an owner of a personal dock and a commercial dock. TRUSTEE KING: That While area is nothing but individual docks. Just because it su~eho~ gets zoned Marine 2 ...... TRUSTRR. KRUPSKI: But it's zoned Marine 2 and I don't think we should make a distinction between upland being zoned Marine 2 and .... we really don't have ..... correct me if I'm wrong, there is nothing proposed on. the upland of this? MR. FITZG~: Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If the upland is zoned Marine 2 that's completely different than putting a marina on Town owned property. Two different issued as far as property rights go. Now I' 11 make a motion to close the hearing.. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the application until the applicant decides otherwise as opposed that we table it now and normally it comes back next month. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Meeting. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I' 11 make a motion to go back into the Regular Second~ ALL AYES RESOSUTIONS: 10. Price on behalf of CLARENCE W. POWELL requests a for an existing 6' X 22' dock, a 4' X 12' ramp and a 6' X 55' float. Located: 380 Robinson Road., Greenport. SCTM %34-5-14 TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to approve the Grandfathe~ Permit, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFRL seconded. ALL AYES ~S/WAIVERE? ~GES: 7. Bruce Anderson on behalf of PEGG¥~ &ANNEWYDEN request ~n amendment tQi Permit 4489 to implement proposed planting plan preparedk~ Su{fotk E~vir~nmental Consulting Inc., dated~ and received November 20, 1996, to r~move deal and diseased trees by hand and romove by hand vines endangering existing trees and remove debris including a junk car in area depicting the limits on revised su~ve~ dated 6/12/95, TRUSTEE KING seconded, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL abstained. RESOLUTIONS: 1o J.M.O. Consulting on a G~andEatha~ Pe~mitto remove 108' of 1 reconstruct it 5' landward and back~ill with 10 c.y. of clean sand. Located: 30 West Lake Road, Southold. SC~t~ ~90-1-25 TRUSTEE WENCZELmoved to approve the Grand~attzer Permit, but for applicant to come back with ap_ AmeD~k to move bulkhea~ back 5' and maintain an 18' non-turf buffer, TRUSTEE GARRELL second. ALL AYES. 2. J.M.O. Consulting on beh~tf of DOLORES HO~ requests a Grandfather Permit to reconstruct inkind/inplace 100' of' timber bulkhead and backfill with 10 c.y. of clean sand. Located: 130 West Lake Road, Southold, SCTM ~ 90-1-19 TRUSTEE Wq~NCZEL moved to approve the Grandfather Permit and maintain an 18' non-turf buffer and restore an natural disturbance, TRUSTEE G~II~T~T~ seconded~ ALL AYES 3. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of ROBERT & ~UL!A SORENS. ON request a Grandfather Permit for an existing 71' X 11' fixed dock and a 16' X 5 1/2' float. Located: Peninsula Road, Fish~rs Island. SCTM $10-3-20 TRUSTEE KRI3PSKI moved to approve the Grand~ather Permit, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 4. J. on ~ehalf of JAMES W. MILTON request a to reconstruct inkin~/inplace approx. 315' of timber bulkhe~8 and backfill with 10~ c.y. of clean sand. Located.: 10090 New Suffolk Ave., Cutcho~!e. SCTM $116-6-2 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL moved to approve the Grandfather Permit, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 5. Gail Wickham on behalf of JAMES & MARILYN MC BURNIE request a ~'for~an existing 65' timber bulkhead ~nd ~. Located: 1060 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM 9111-14-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the Grandfather Permit, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL second~d. ALL AYES 6. a Grandi?ather Permit for an existing 88' prior to 1930. Located: 240 Knoll Circle, East Marion. SC~ $37-5-15 TRUSTEE EOLZAPFEL moved to approve the Grandfather Permit, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 7. ~..~'~EY requests a Grand~ather~ Permit for an existing 75'~'d06k. LOCated:~Reservoir Road, 174' from Winthrop Drive, Fishers Island. SCTM ~9-8-3.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the Grandfather Permit, TRUSTEE KING secOnded. ALL AYES 8. JOHN S~TESSIER~requests a Grandfather Permit for a 70' existing bulkhea~ and a 4' X 20~ dock with a 6' X 12' float ~at was built in1946. Located: 730 Bayview Drive, East ~arion. TRUSTEE HOLZA~FELmoved~ to approve~ the Grandfather Permit, TRUSTRR KIN~ seconded.. ALL AYES 9. ~K P~'.IT.A requests a Coastal Erosion ~Per.~.t to erect a 6' high chain link fence from bluff to house,, then landward to a height of 4' on both sides of house, then across the bluff at a height of 3'. Located: 19995 Soundview Ave., Southoldbetween Mt.. Beulah and Clark Road~. SCTM $51-4-6 TRUSTEE GARRELL moved to approve the CEHAPermit, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL seconded. ALL AYES 11. En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of EVELYN STEWART REQUESTS A Grandfather Permit to remove and replace inkind/inplace existing 95 1.f. of bulkhead, and backfill with 17 c.¥. of sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 8180 Peconi~. Bay Blvd., Mattituck. SCTM 9126-11-18 VI. MOORINGS: i. PETER. WE~CZEL requests a mooring for a 16' outboard in Long Creek. ACCESS: Public. (As per Bay Constable) 2. KENNETHPOLIWODA requests an on-shore.off-shore stake in Long Creek for a 16' outb. oard. ACCE. Mm: Public (As per Bay Constable) 3. STEPHEN W. LATSON requests an on-shore/off-shore mooring in Long Creek for an 18' outboard. ACCESS: Public (As per Bay Constable) Meeting Adjourned at: 11:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted By: Clerk, Board of Trustees