Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/24/1994Albert J. Krupski, President John Holzapfel, Vice President William G. Albertson Martin H. Garrell Peter Wenczel BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hail 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 MINUTES PRESENT WERE: March 24, 1994 Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President John Holzapfel, Vice-President Peter Wenczel, Member William Albertson, Member Martin Garrei1, Member Jill Doherty, Clerk Worksession 6:00 P.M. CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: Thursday, April 2B, 1R94 at 7p.m. Worksession: 6:00 p.m. NEXT TRUSTEE INSPECTION: Wednesday, April 20, 1994 12:00 p.m. I. MONTHLY REPORT: Trustee monthly report for February 1994: A check for $4,648.58 was forwarded to the SuPervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: 1. John Bertani Builders Inc., on behalf of CINDY BENEDETTO requests a waiver to construct a 16' X 22' addition to an existing home a concrete patio and new set of steps. Located 910 Maple Lane, East Marion. 35-5-26° After a discussion a motion was made by TRUSTEE GARRELL and seconded by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL to deny the waiver and request a full permit as the concrete patio is not porous. ALL AYES. 2. JOHN Bertaini Builders Inc., on behalf of DONALD BREHM requests a waiver to construct a deck addition with steps. Located 1010 Maple Lane, East Marion. 35-5-27. A motion was made by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL and seconded by TRUSTEE ALBERTSON to approve the waiver. AYES: Holzapfel, Albertson, Garrell, Krupski. Apposed: Wenczel. BOARD OF TRUSTEES 2 MARCH 24, 1994 3. THORNTON SMITH request a waiver to construct approx. 22' 10 1/2" X 9'6" addition to existing kitchen as per plans dated 1/15/94. located Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. A motion was made by TRUSTEE GARRELL and seconced by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL to approve waiver. ALL AYES. 4. Lawrence Matzen on behalf of GARDINERS BAY ESTATES requests an extension to Permit ~3840 to run with the DEC permit which is to expire March 31, 1999 to dredge the existing boat channel (1,100' X 20') to a depth of 4' below MLW. Located Spring Pond, East Marion. 37-4-17. A motion was made by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL and seconded by TRUSTEE ALBERTSON to grant the extension of permit ~3840 amended as per revised DEC permit. ALL AYES. Board held over 95 & 6 to go to public hearings. IV. PUBLIC PIEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER TREWETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES-AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHFn~N. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF: FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE 7:26 P.M - In the matter of ROBERT MCGRAIL to construct a 1-family dwelling and associated sanitary system as per revised plans dated January 27, 1994. Located Cedar Beach Road, Lot 91 ~ranberry Acres Subdivision, South01d. 89-1-10.2. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone here who would like to speak against? BRUCE LOUCKA: Do you have comments from us? (CAC). CLERK: No, but we: did send it to CAC on Dec. 3rd. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The applicant had his cesspool staked adjacent to a fresh water marsh. We met with him and after a lot of discussion with myself and the applicantr he changed his location of the septic system away from the wetlands and we inspected the site and found that the septic system would be out of our jurisdiction at that point. It met with his approval and our approval. Is there any other comments? TRUSTEE GARRELL: Could we act on it conditionally until you can look at it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think so. I need a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So moved. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will have to hold off on the voting until we get the CAC comments. If Mr. McGrail needs his permit immediately, Jill can you pole us by phone? BOARD OF TRUSTEES 3 MARCH 24, 1994 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 7:28 In the matter of Proper-T Services on behalf of WILLIAM T. MOLLER to construct a 100' X 4' walkway, a 16' X 4' hinged ramp, and a 20' X 6' floating dock, 2 single spiles and one 2-pile dolphin to secure dock. Lo-cated 2530 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. 111-5-3. I am going to ask John to run the public hearing. I am going to excuse myself. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are there any comments in favor of this application? JIM FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald of Proper-T Services for Mr. Moller. No comments in addition to that that are in the application, but I am available for questions or to respond to any comments. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other comments pro? Any coa~ents against? BRUCE LOUCKA: you have co~,m~ents from the CAC. We approve it with a stipulation. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: ~as long as it does not block the entrance to the Lagoon." This is on the open bay. JIM FITZGERALD,: At that point the cove is at least 500'. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: My personal feeling is that these kinds of warfs are not appropriate extending out into the bay. Mr. Moller's interest would probably be better served and the safety of his boat better served by having it on a mooring. I am not speaking for the entire board, that is my feeling. JIM FITZGERALD: Mr. Moller has his boat on a mooring now. He finds for purposes of increasing his enjoyment and use of available access to the boat that this would be the best way to do it. He has been there for fifteen years and he has had the boat and mooring for fifteen years. TRUSTEE ~OLZAPFEL: In terms of the depth of the water, was there a significance of going out that far? JIM FITZGERaLd: Yes. As a matter of fact as recently as yesterday, I had my waders on at low water and 135' from the bottom of the stairs which is essentially how far the project extends, the water is 3 1/2' deep at low water. He says he needs 3' for the boat. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other comments? Do we have a motion to close. TRUSTEE GARRELL: So moved. TRUSTEES ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE ~OLZAPFEL: Do we have a motion to approve. TRUSTEE GARRETJ,: Move to approve. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. AYES: Garrell, Albertson, Holzapfel. Oppose: Wenczel. Abstain: Krupski. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 7:35 - In the matter of Eh-COnsultants, Inc. on behalf of DR. ANDREW MC~OWAN to remove and replace (inkind/inplace) 4 timber jettys whose lengths are west to east, 50+1.f., 85+I.f., 100+1.f. and 50+1.f. New structures will be low profile. Outer ends will be at elevation of AR~ except for pilings. Remove and replace (inkind/inplace) 25+1of. of timber bulkhead and backfill with 7 c.y. of clean sand to be trucked in and a new straight bulkhead to replace BOARD OF TRUSTEES 4 MARCH 24, 1994 existing curved bulkhead. Located New Suffolk Ave., Cutchogue. 116-6-18, i9 & 20. W~at does that mean? A new straight bulkhead to replace existing curved bulkhead. ROB HERMAN: Eh-COnsultants. The way the 25' bulk_head is shaped now, it has a slight curve to it. The plans of the contractor is to attempt to Straighten the wall out in that spot. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright. Thank you. With respect to site and the bulkhead, it is f~nctional as are the jetty's and all the structures, what is the concept of having the bulkhead replaced? ROB HERMAN: The concept behind that is in certain areas, especially the 100' 3etty, there are some areas where there is rotting of the wood now~ I think as part of the entire project while they replace those jetty's they wanted to redo that wall and also getting back to the idea of straightening it out and relieve some of the pressure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What function does it have in relating to the whole system? ROB HERMAN: Theoretically it is adding protection in front of the house from any scouring effects that are coming around from the 100' ~etty. TRUSTEE Wenczel: When you reconstruct the jetty's, do you plan to pre-fill them? ROB HERF~%N: No. There are no changes or alteration proposed, besides from just replacing the timber that is there now. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: A lot of times if you pre-fill the area that is going to fill with sand, than you don~t rob sand from the next person down. What happens is the sand just lrfpasses. ~OB HERM3~N: Right. I have spoken with the contractor about that and he said that this s~stem has been in place for ~bout 40 or 50 years. So it is really a stable beach there. The idea is just to replace the deteri0rating wood so that it remains as such. TRUSTEE KRUSPSKI: There is only one section. The first one is non,function, but the rest of them. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Maybe we can ask them ta pre-fill that one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The one on the east? TRUSTEEWENCZEL: The one that has lost some fill. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The west side of the east jetty. The shortest jettY. ROB~HERMAN: What is the recommendation for the amount? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is difficult to tell from here. TOM SAMUELS: HOw long is it? TRUSTEE HOlZAPFEL: It is only 50', but it is after a 100' jetty. TOM SAMUELS: 20 yards should do it very easily. ' TRUSTEE ~OLZAPFEL: What the CAC is suggesting is that the four jetty's may not be necessa~-~. You might be better served with only two of them. ROB HERMAN: I think the fear of the contractor and the applicant is that the system has been in place for so long that to change other than just updating the woo~would serve what end? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Does anyone else have any other comments either for or against it. CAC recommends disapproval BOARD OF TRUSTEES 5 MARCH 24, 1994 of the wetland application to remove and replace the jetty's. The council recommends disapproval of the application as submitted. The council suggest that the applicant replace the two outside 50' jetty's and do not replace the 2 inside jetty's. This would allow the beach to stabilize. The council also suggest that the applicant remove but do not replace the bulkhead as there is no need for a bulkhead, plant the eroded area with Spartina Patents. I think a more appropriate vegetative material there would be American Beach Grass. I don't think you could get patents to grow there. Because of the elevation you go from intertidal to active beach. I don't think patents will grow on active beach. I think you will need American Beach Grass to grow on that. There is a lot of wind and water erosion. Are there any other co~,L~ents? TOM, SAMUELS: Yes. And I am not the contractor. I think we have to encourage our tax people who have permitted structures to keep them in good repair. I think that it is very important. In fact I wish there was a will of the Trustees to make as a condition of their pez~L,its that permitted structures be kept maintained. After the large storms that we had, you all recall, the old bulkheads that where destroyed. There were tremendous impacts to bluffs, beaches, dunes, etc. Tremendous losses to ..up land. So when someone is willing to properly maintain, at a considerable expense, a structure that has been permitted and which has proved to be successful in its original intent, I think you should encourage them. I have said this to many boards before, that you should require that the structures be maintained if you are permitting them. Theoretically if you are permitting them then you think that it is environmentally compatible, therefore maintain them. Don't let them degenerate. One of my favorite spots is the North Fork Shipyard. When you look at the structures there and what a disaster that has become, because of the lack of maintenance for obvious economic reasons, etc. These structures when they deteriorate become blights on the waterfront contribute a great deal of debris to the bay. After the big storms it was a real hazard to cross the bay in any kind of the boat. So I would encourage those owners that have property to maintain it. It may be difficUlt to enforce. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Impossible because of economics. TOM SAMUELS: Yes. But it still should be a Condition so that you have a legal right to stop a dangerous situation. There are a number steel jettys where I have seen the top third of the sheet piling is corroded to the point where it is absolutely dangerous. There is a huge liability on the part Of the landowner of course. I am not suggesting that the liability is transferred to the Trustees, because it is not. Thank you. ROB HERMAN: Here is a picture of the wall. It was explained that the idea was that during storm tide and especially coming around that groin was that the house is directly behind that location as you can see. So the idea is that during a storm to maintain that contour in front of the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have any other comments? Do I have a motion to close the hearing. BOARD OF TRUSTEES 6 MARCH 24, 1994 TRUSTEE WENCZEL: SO moved. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I make a motion that we approve the permit to replace the four groins and that we ask that the one groin be, after completion of the construction of clean sand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Added that the area being replaced and disturbed be plan Grass at 1' centers. The beach gras be used for that planting. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 7:47 - In the matte behalf of JOAN HALLIGAN to construct catwalk (4' min. elev. above grade s alterniflora), 4' X 4' wide wood ste' landward end to attain 4' elev. and i located at seaward end of catwalk as 14, 1994. Located 2475 Bay Ave., Ma' Is there any one here who would like application? ROB HERMAN: Again, from En-Consultan' any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like t, application? TRUSTEEWENCZEL: I would suggest tha' reduce the width of the catwalk and~ TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is standard this point we are granting 3' wide c~ policy. It is not based on this par townWide policy. ROB HERMAN: Can I address that issue TRUSTEES: Sure. ROB HERMAN: That was discussed with' contractor. In this spot I assume o] shading over that area. There is a Spartina Alternflora that is there. aside from an aesthetic eyesore it~ to applicant as hand rails would haw can see on the drawing there that th, here. There is a fringe that is 4' . no marsh grass at present. So it w~ weighing an esthetic and financial that marsh grass~growing back about ! those consideration we would respect~ allow the 4' at this site. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On this plan you ak up to the height of a hand rail. pre-filled with 20 c.y. behind the bulkhead that is ned with American Beach that is native to site can AYES. of En-Consultants, Inc. on a 4' X 40' fixed wood ~pporting spartina ~s will be attached to 4' wide ladder will be per revised map dated March 5tituck. 144-4-5. to comment on this 2s Rob Herman if there are comment against this we would ask them to teps. the Boards practice. At ~twalks as a matter of ~icular property. It is a he applicant and the ~e of the concerns was the )out a 16' fringe of To require the 3' here )uld impose a greater cost ~ to be constructed. You ~re was a catwalk that was 1/4' wide where there is ~s suggested that we are ~rden vs~ the possibility of .' of what is there. Under ~ully request that you Would ~eady have the post coming TRUSTEE GARRELL: I can't see why increasing the difEerence of 6" on either side is...¥ou are not'g6ing to need h~nd rails on a ROB HERMAN: That was just a concern 6f the applicant. The idea of this is just for friends or neighbors come in and dock their boat there at the edge of he property to be able to come on to BOARD OF TRUSTEES 7 MARCH 24, 1994 the land. Her concern was that with a foot less in width, safety reasons. I guess you can argue that, but that is her concern. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The original dock that we have a picture of in the file, what is the width of that? ROB HERMAN: That we were told that it was 4'. It is hard to tell from the picture. When I was at the site I measured the fringe where there is no grass anymore, which is four feet. I would assume that would be as a result of the shading from that walk. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What year is this picture taken? Is it fairly recent? ROB HERMAN:yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is no structure there now? ROB HERMAN: No. There is no structure, there is nothing there. I think that was destroyed in Dec. i992. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do the poles remain-there? ROB HERMAN: There are a couple bf poles that are still there. Let me see if I have any pictures left. Board looked at pictures. TRUSTEES KRUPSKI: The general board policy has been a 3' wide catwalk. Your plans show that the post do extend up. Are there any other comments? A motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Se moved. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES. After further discussion a motion was made by TRUSTEE WENCZEL and seconded by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL to approve application with a 3' wide catwalk and steps. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 7:59 - In the matter of Proper-T Services on behalf of Gregory Poulos to construct 3' X 56' stairs from top of bluff to beach. Located 135 Sound View Road, Orient. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on She project? JIM FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Poulos, if you have questions. Location of stairs has changed to west side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How far off the property line is that? JIM FITZGERALD: It is about 10' at the top of the bluff. It gets closer than that down on the beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The adjacent property is public owned or private? JIM FITZGRRALD: Private. The property owners in the area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. I just wouldn't want to approve a structure that would some how in encroach on their access or add tothe deterioration of their bluff. IS there anyone here to speak against this application? Does the Board have any comments? I'll take a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: So moved. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Approve. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second~ ALL AYES. BOARD OF TRUSTEES 8 MARCH 24, 1994 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 8:01 - In the matter of En-Consultants on behalf of THOMAS BYRNE to replace (within 18") an existing cement block retaining wall 85' in length (plus 5' return on north side and 10' return on south side) by new timber wall approx. 1' higher. Approx. 45 c.y. of clean backfill will be trucked in from upland source. An existing indented block stairway will be backfilled and replaced with a 4' X 8' wood stairway. Located 2345 Bayview Ave., Southold. 52-5-1. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERMAN: Rob Herman from En-Consultants if there are any q~estions I will hand it over to Tom Samuels. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak against the application? I think it was feeling of the board that when we looked at this in the field, o.let me get the CAC comments'first .... A letter from Eh-Consultants. I have presented your reco~m,endation to remove and replace the existing wall to the contractor . Due to the elevation of the bulkhead, removal and replacement would entail excavation of a large amount of fill material landward of it. In addition, the vegetation immediately seaward of the wall is also likely to be more greatly damaged and disturbed by removal rather than by our proposal to replace within 18". The CAC approve within 18" without any conditions. The feeling of the board is always to stop encroachment of the wetlands. Especially when they are Town owned wetlands, because of this conditions, because the height of the wall, Mr. Haje's letter does make some sense in that it would disturb the marsk a great deal if that where to excavated before hand. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I have just one question, I'll direct it to M,r. Samuels. Do you feel you can do this work without disturbing the wetlands there? There is quite a bit of grass. DR. SASKLELS: There is a quite a bit a grass. There is an impact of building a bulkhead which we are all familia~ witk in that when you are jetting material in you are going to make some large... Are company makes a practice of filling any holes that we create that don't naturally fill in. We have found recovery of wetland species very, very rapid. Especially when the bulkhead is built now when the species is dormant... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What Peter means as apposed to excavating the entire length of the property and replacing it. DR. SAMUELS: Much less of impact. (then excavating the entire property). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I feel the same way on this specific application. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: My only co~m,ent would be that any of the grass that is disturbed' should be revegetated and not depend on ~evegetating on its own. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you would also want to put a condition on to impose a 10 or 12' buffer (non-turf) on the landward side of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Sounds good. DR. SAMUELS: How can you do that. BOARD OF TRUSTEES 9 MARCH 24, 1994 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It is in the Town Code, according to the Zoning Code, that you are not allowed to grow grass within 20' of the wetlands. DR. SAMUELS: Here you have a substantial man made structure. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I understand that. I am just saying there is this thing in the code that I never new about. I just thought that was interesting point. People do it automatically and now one has ever enforced it. What we are doing is just trying keep some nutrients from coming into the water there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We try to impose it any new or renovated bulkhead. DR. SAMUELS: I can understand it on new but on a pre-existing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Would you say just because something is old they can cause more problem or is this a chance to remediate something that has gone bad in the past. DR. SAMUELS: tf you restrict the nitrates... TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. That is what we are asking people to do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is a lot easier to restrict something if they are not going to fertilize something that is not there. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Move to approve the application for 18" in front with the stipulation that vegetation disturbed seaward be replaced and a non-turf area 20' landward of the new structure. That could~be left as a gravel bed or a low maintenance species. (Bayberry, Rosa Rugosa, etc.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 8:10 p.m. - In the matter of Land Use Co. on behalf of IRVING FRICK to replace an existing approved dock with a 5' X 30' fixed dock, a 3' X 20' ramp, a 6' X 46' floating dock and a 6' X 28' "L" float extending no greater than 86' west of bulkhead. Please note that proposed structure will extend I0'-12' into the waterway to gain adequate water depth. Located Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM~107-7-5. This came in as an amendment and was denied and requested a full application. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this project? USA LACH_ENMEYER: Tanya Lachenmeyer from land use Co. TEE KRUPSKi: Is there anyone who would like to speak against this project? Does the board have any comments? The board has always tried to limit the amount of structure in the creek for the obvious reason, it monopolizes the creek space which is publicly owned property. Also for the environmental reasonwhich is just simply the shading of the bottom and there is deterioration of the Productivity in the marine environment when you have more activity in it. How many vessel will be moored here? TANYA LACHENMEYER: Just the one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Usually the recommendation of the board for a larger vessel is to put on a mooring in front of the applicants property and access it from a smaller structure. BOARD OF TRUSTEES 10 MARCH 24, 1994 TA~{YA LACHENMEYER: He does have an existing structure there. That was approved in October. 5' X 7' floating dock. That floating dock is to be removed and replace wit~ a 5' X 36' dock elevated 4'. As far as shading by the floats, we are at a water depth of 4' where that really wouldn't be a concern. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommended approval. CAC, Stephen Angel: Based on 86' TANYA LAC~N/~EYER: We are only going 86' out. We are not going to exceeding that original 86' as imposed by DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peter, do you have any co~m~ent on that? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I think it is excessive. I would ask that the applicant demonstrate that that size structureis absolutely essential to dock that size boat. TANYA LACHF/~4EYER: He needs it for water depth. The boat draws 3 1/2 of water. He needs that length to get to 4' of water. CAC Are there soundings on that? I got 4' here. There has been a great deal of discuss' it is not because of this application, in general, the size of the structure, the size of the boat in relati, to the size of the creek. The feeling of the board has always L the boat should fit the creek and that the creek shouldn~ be modified to fit the'boat. In this case it is a 34' there is nothing to stop him from buying a 64' boat or an 84' boat thensaying that ~ou need to dredger you need a larger dock to hold the boat. It has always been the feeling of the board to allow~be to access the water in a reasonable, environmental, ~r necessarily altering the creek because a larger boat is le.. TRUSTEE GAR~__LL: We had a meeting with the Trustees from other toWns not to long ago. That is something that Southampton Town, which is an extremely conservative group of trustees. They have asa matter of policy themselves that they make the boats fit the creeks rather than the creeks fit the boats. We are not saying anything that is really new. T.A~YA LACHENMEYER: The neighbor to the north has 40' fixed dock and 2 40' floats. Mr. Frick is not proposing to go much useYOnd that. TEEKRUPSKI: We cannot deny the policies of the Town are anging constantly in regard to the way the creeks are becoming cr~asingly developed. TANYA LACHENMEYER: I don't think this dock would be a hazard to the waterway. The Width is approx. 500' in the area of the proposed dock, so it is not going to cause hazards to navigation in anyway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, you have such a wide structure. If that could be cut down. There is a proposed 5' wide fixed dock the proposed float is 6' going all the way out, 86'. If something like that can be cut down to a much smaller width fixed dock. TANYA LACHEMEYER: Again, he has existing approval for a 5' wide structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 70' long. TANYA LACHENMEYKR: Correct. He is cutting this down to 30'. The 6' wide float, I don't believe is on reasonable. BOARD OF TRUSTEES 11 MARCH 24, 1994 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the width of the float is not unreasonable as far as stability goes. However, it brings the question in of why is it necessary to have 46.' of float just to reach the "L"? As apposed to a fixed catwalk out to depth and then an "L"? We are trying to limit structure. It is not this application in particular, it is. a matter of town policy to limit the size of the structure. This not a reaction to this application. MR. FRICK: Can I say something? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Certainly. MR. FRICK: We are not going out any further than the dock that the existing dock is today. Not one foot further. We are going out 86' and that is what the original permit is for. The only difference in the dock is that we put that "L" piece on it. The docks today lay on the bottom at low tide. That is the reason why we tried to go up with the stationary dock. TANYA LACHENMEYER: Half the float is sitting on the ground at low water. MR. FRICK: We are not going out any further into the creek. We are putting the "L" on and the only reason I am putting the "L" on it is when. I lay up against the dock that is there right now, the bow lays on the bottom. If it has an "L" it can lay in deeper water, but I am going to stay inside that so it won't be any further out then what is existing now. TRUSTEE KRuPSKI: I understand the problem there. What I suggested was a fixed dock out to deeper water. Instead of g~ing with a 6' wide float, go with a fixed dock out to deep water,and then go with a float. MR. FRICK: How much further would the fixed dock go out? TRUSTEE GARRELL: Right now if the 30' keeps the floating docks not touching the bottom. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we are saying is extend the fixed dock out further out so that the floating docks are no were near the bottom. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: And eliminate some of the floaters. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: YOU would eliminate the floaters. MR. FRICK: But, how much further would we have to bring the dock out. TRUSTEE KRD-PSKt: .That is the next discussion, to go out to reach your depth with a fixed catwalk instead of the floating docks. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: At the point where you moor your boat you can have the floatingdock with the extra width. MR. FRICK: So you are going to eliminate the 46' floater. TRUSTEE EttUPSKI: And replace it with a fixed. MR. FRICK: With 46', so we are going to have 70' of fixed dock? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is just a suggestion of the board. ~R. FRICK: The part that I don't understand is that it is already there. We are not taking up anymore of the bottom. We are taking up less of the bottom right now than we did before. We are not asking to go out .further. We can even shorten that floater because the ramp from stationary to the floater, we can shorten that at least 5 or 6 feet in the float. The ramp will take up the difference. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: You are going to moor your boat on the outside of the last float? BOARD OF TRUSTEES 12 MARCH 24, 1994 MR. FRICK: On the inside. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: On the inside. O.K. now I understand. MR. FRICK: Is that a problem? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: No. My questions was is if you moored on the outside would be be extending further out if you included you boat in the arrangement. MR. FRICK: I wouldn't do that. That is not the way it is set up. The only reason why I want to put the boat north to south is because of the depth. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We understand the "L" configuration. We are ~ust looking for ways, as you can see on every application, we look on ways to minimize the impact. How does the board feel about a fixed structure as apposed to the floats? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: It is narrower. It takes less bottom. But the man already has a permit for what is there. We can't modify what he already has. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is a new application. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: To reconfigure as I understand it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And to construct, the fixed catwalk. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are you using what is there? The parts of what... MR. FRICK: No. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You are just getting rid of what is there any starting all over? MR. FRICK: Yes. Because the land on the bottom has eaten up the bottom of the ... TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So none of that is significant to save? It is not going to save you any money? MR. FRICK: No. As a matter of fact it is going to cost me to get rid of them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:-If you went with a catwalk than had the ramp and float on the end of it, you would reach your water, you would have less structure to impact the creek. You would have the catwalk there permanently. Instead of a shorter catwalk you would have a longer catwalk and just the one float at the end of is for your boat. MR. FRICK: Maybe it is me but if I get out there with a stationary dock or if I get out there with a floating, how does it change the situation we have today. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under a stationary dock there is better water circulation, better flow. You would going at a 4' high elevation so sun light would be able to reach underneat~h and you wouldn't limit the activity underneath. MR. FRICK: That is why we brought it out to at least where the docks can float. That is why we didthat. There is a permit for 76' of floating dock. .We are eliminating more than half of that. We are talking out 30' of floaters. TRUSf~E KRUPSKI: That is not really relevant because you have a new application in front of us. MR. FRICK: t was told to put in a new application just to modify what was there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because we felt that it was more than an amendment. I understand your point. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Do you have something against a single dock? BOARD OF TRUSTEES 13 MARCH 24, 1994 MR. FRICK: A stationary dock? I don't understand why, how.one is going to take care of the other. I do understand what you are taking about flow. If they are floating, we are going to use plastic containers underneath with large spaces to allow, they are not going to be styrofoam containers. They will be plastic with styrofoam fill, which gives us more flow under the dock. There will be no wood in the water. There will be spaces between the plastic containers. We thought about all of this. We really did when we designed it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is what the public hearing is for, discussion. Anymore thoughts on that Peter? The fixed dock was a suggestion that wasn't a reco~L~endation. The CAC recommended approval. Any more comment? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Close the hearing. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: Second. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: I make a motion we go with the CAC recommendations. TRUSTEE GARRELL: Second. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE ~/{UPSKI: 8:26 - In the matter of En-Consultants Inc., on behalf of VINCENT P. GERAGRTY . We had a technical problem with this application. Before we get into the public hearing, we failed to coordinate with the Planning Board and we went ahead and we assess it before we should have assess it. We are going to rescind that assessment, hold the public hearing and keep it open and give the Planning Board time to comment on that. Once we gat there comments in 30 days, then we can close the public hearing. I will make a motion that we will r~scind the negative declaration. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I'll second that. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now we will get into the hearing to construct a two story building a minimum of 17' from the edge of the existing fill. Parking will be located south of the building and will bluestone. Sanitary system will be as close to the easterly property line as possible and a minimum of 100' from wetlands. The existing upland to the west will be used only as a boat display area. Access between the two sections of upland will be via a 4' X 85' pedestrian bridge that will span the wetlands and the drains ditch. None of the wetlands will be filled or otherwise developed. All in accordance with revised plan dated Dec. 21, 1993. Located North side of rt. 25, Southold across from Port of Egypt. 56-4-13.3,13.4, & 14. Is there anyone here wishing to co~L,L,ent in favor of the application? ROB HERF~%N: Rob Herman from En-Consultants and this is Mr. ~eraghty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have had numerous discussions about the project. Is there anyone here who would like to make any comments in favor or against the application? F.M. FLYNN: My name is F.M. FLYNN. I am a resident of the Town of Southold. My initial remarks have to do with the adequacy or rather inadequacy of published legal notice regarding this application. The location of the property described as Route 25, Southold. Route 25 perverse Southold for BOARD OF TRUSTEES 14 FLARCH 24, 1994 a distance of approximately 20 miles. The published description is h informativ~ to the public. It was not even considered necessary to differentiate between the northerly and southerly sides of the highway. Surely a matter of some importants. The subject property is not in the Hamlet of Southold. Were you to consult the plans submitted by the applicant property is properly located in Arshomomaque. In the addition the section, block and lot numbers are plainly stated. Were it really the intent to inform the public these numbers could have been recited. The abutting owners identified and the distance westerly from Mill Creek stated. Incidentally on your agenda you do cite the tax map numbers which you did not in the public notice. I had hoped that this new board would represent an improvement over the policies of the old and I don't seem to see that this is an indication there of. I would request that you re-advertise this matter properly identified so any citizen from SQuthold who has an interest may be aware of what property is actually involved here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is not an unreasonable re.qu~est. ~.M. FLYNN: With respect to the application of ~he property itself, I have done some research into its background. It has some what of a tangled web. The purchasers actually go back to I believe 1978 and 79. There was a period of activity which has seized since 1988. I will state my understanding of the matter and you may of course my correct me if I am mistaken or in error. A~I understand it the intent of this application is to enable the construction of a two story building for boat sails and repairs and to use a separate westerly portion of the property accessible via a bridge for the displaying of boats, new and used. Apparently this application is'baSed on the previsions of article 12 MII zoning of the Town Code Section 100-I21A 5 & 7. These proposed uses are in obvious conflict with the unambiguously stated purpose and intent of the Southold Code. the code clearly states that such facilities are to be confined to water front locations with direct access to or location in marine or tidal waters. The subject property is obviously severed from such access by route 25. With respect to the specifics of the application, I understand it is intended to construct a two story building of some 2800 sq.ft, on the easterly portion of the property and locate it "a minimum of 17' from the edge of the existing fill". I believe this is a misleading way of stating 17' removed from the wetlands to the west. If so, this setback would represent a 77% reduction from the usual 75' requirement. I presume the board would not permit construction in wetlands, witnesSed the proposed bridge spanning the wetlands to the west. The proposed bridge constitutes a structure as defined in the Southold Code and as such should be set back 35' from the highway frontage. It appears that the improvements are to be concentrated on lot 14. The easterly most lot and assessed to Vincent P. Geraghty as vacant rural land. The total assessment is $300.00 which reflects the properties limited utility. Essentially this category in assessment of vacant rural land is meant for properties of absolutely marginal utility. Property that the assessors doesn't really know what BOARD OF TRUSTEES 15 MARCH 24, 1994 else to do with. Lot 13.3 is also assess to Vincent P. Geraghty as vacant residential land with an assessment of $400.00. The westerly most lot, lot 13.4 is assessed to William J. Geraghty and is vacant residential land at $800.00. This of course may bring up a question of ownership. The property to which this application is filed according to the assessment records is held in two distinct ownerships. Correspondence from the DEC in your file leads me to believe that all of the property or at least a major portion of it as described in the environmental assessment was wetlands and the DEC placed some importants on these wetlands. Therefore, ...concerning the fill now on the property are germane to this proceeding. Apparently the applicant filled a portion of the property and as a result was a issued a notice of violation by the DEC on May 1, 1988 with a concurrent order to seize operations. I now pose this question, where and when was the fill placed on this property? The actions of the Trustee, historically and as of tonight., represent somewhat of a dichotomy. A previous board had issued a positive declaration on this application. The present board issued a negative declaration on February 24, 1994. Now as I understand this evening you are back to a positive declaration? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we rescinded the negative declaration. The positive declaration was issued on a different applicatiOn that was for filling the entire parcel. This application does not request any fillo That was the application that was issued the positive declaration. F.M. FLYNN: That answers one of my questions. Was it the addition of the fill which influenced this decision? This question of fill is most important because if the applicant has filled on this land and all three Of these lots are involved in the project and if the fill that was placed on the site was placed there illegally and subject to this notice of this violation and then you approve this application you are effectively rewarding the applicant for disregarding the law and disregarding DEC regulations. In affect legitimiz±ng this application of this action and therefore the application would reward the applicant for his violation. There is no question that these two parcels were purchased to the best of my ability to research the matter, in 1978 and 1979. SEQRA has been a law since August 1st, 1975. Since the fill was added on or about May of 1988, ignorance of the previsions of the act was hardly likely and in any event ignorance is no defense, In conclusion review of both the short and long form of environmental Assessment reveal some discrepancies. They provide little data. At least one is, some of which is of questionable accuracy. As I examined the environmental assessment form, the area of the property is sited to be 1.47 acres. This is precisely the areas of lots 13.3 and 13.4. The property incorporated in the Site plan before you includes fQr a total of 2.99 acres. The area of lot 14 alone is calculated to be 1.52 acre's. Obviously lot 14 can't stand alone. It is also obviou~ that the environmental assessment forms in the file do not include all the area shown on the site plan. Also the assessment form describes surrounding land usage as BOARD OF TRUSTEES 16 MARCH 24, 1994 residential. This would hardly be characterization. Perhaps the preparer of the application was confused by the fact that portions of the property area were and are assessed as vacant residential land. My observation~ lead me to conclude that most if not all of the properties easterly highway frontage is severed from the highway by a Department of Transportation card rail. If this is the case the DOT apparently does not consider this a safe or perficies area for highway access. In view of the questions raised, I request t~at the Board of Trustees deny this application summarily. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Geraghty, Mr. Flynn raised a comment on ownership, could you answer that question of ownership? MR. GERAGHTY: It is a joint ownership, my son and I. In the application that was mentioned. As far as the violation was concerned, that was a violation were someone has put fill on the prouerty, which was not approved. We removed the fill and also were fined $1,000.00 after the permit was granted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: O.K. Thank you. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: You did not put the fill there? MR. GERAGRTY: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any other question? We will keep this hearing open and publish it again for the April 28th regular meeting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 8:47 In the matter of LOUIS CORSO to construct a 4' X 140' stairway with 4' X 12' retractable stairs as per plans dated 8/6/93. Located 1020 Glenn Road, Southold. $CTM 983-2-10.6. Would anyone like to comment in favor of this application? TANYA LACHENMEYER: Tanya Lachenmeyer from Land Use, if you have any questions. Location of the project is off a ROW off of Oregon Road. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: When I saw the cliffs going down I said that can't be Glenn Road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak against this application? Would the board like to make any co,m~ent on this modified application? ~o I have a motion to close this public hearing? TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: So moved. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will table the vote on this until we get the CAC co~u~ents. Jill you can poll the board when the comments come in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 8:55 - In the matter of Briarctiff LandsCape, Inc., on behalf of PULS Family to construct a pool, deck, fence and plantings including a non-turf area on east side of pool and back to driveway as per plans dated 2/14/94. 97-6-1.2 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone who has anything in favor? Anybody against? CLERK DOHERTY: CAC recommends to disapprove waiver request. Council feels a full pe£mit because are slopes towards the creek. BOARD OF TRUSTEES 17 MARCH 24, 1994 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Comments from the Board? What I was concerned with was the vegetation. It is very close to that marsh and we wanted to make sure that that wasn't changed at all. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I agree. - TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We wanted a backwash on ~the sw~m, ing pool as far away as possible. Haybales and the normal things that go with it. I was concerned that the vegetative buffer not be removed. That area not be grassed as it originally was. CAC, LOUCKA: How close is that pool to the wetland? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: 52' CAC, LOUCKA: Why don~t they move it in front of the yard. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It is, almost. CACf LOUCKA: They have a big yard. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I don't think you can have pools in front of a house as far as zoning. CAC, LOUCKA: You can't have it within 75' of the wetland either. TRUSTEE ~OLZAPFEL: I agree with that. We are trying to midigate that. Any other co~ents? TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I think that we should preserve as much of a buffer on the side as possible. There should be no turf or any disturbance beyond the extent of the pool and the decked in area. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: They are going to have a raised planter outside. We said something like...A motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GARRELL: I have to abstain myself from 'this hearing. TRUSTEE ALBERTSON: So moved, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I will second in closing the hearing. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I will make the motion that we approve with the following conditions: No disturbance within 10' outside of the proposed wall (east and north). TRUSTEE WENCZEL: Second. Ayes: Holzapfel, Albertson, Wenczel. Abstain: Krupski, Garrell. TRUSTEE WENCZEL: I make a motion to go back on the regular agenda. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: V. ASSESSMENTS/ENVIRONmENTAL DECLARATIONS: i. DANIEL MCCONLOGUE requests a wetland permit to construct a 2-bedroom, 1-bath. extension to eXisting house and a 3' x 20' catwalk over existing walk, replace and repair a 6' x 8' dock. Located 900 Truman's Path, EastMarion. 31-12-4. CACrecommends approval with stipulations. They recommend approval of the addition. They recommend approval of walkway anddock with the following stipulations: 1. The walkway must go straight down from the top of the bluff to the dock. 2. Walkway must be atleast 3' above grade to allow growth under the walkway and prevent erosion. 3. All disturbed are~ should be planted with a mixture of tall fescue and red rescue and perennial rye grass. I have to ask the members of the CAC, why do want a straight walk? BOARD OF TRUSTEES 18 MARCH 24~ 1994 CAC, ANGEL: The way the bank is at this site, we believe that if you had a angled walkway down the slop that is would promote more erosion to the bank. After further discussion a motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE ALBERTSON to grant a negative declaration. The applicant will s~,h~it a new survey showing walkway straight down prior to next months public hearing. ALL AYES. 3. CHRIS PICKER/ELL on behalf of CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION request an exception under an acquacultural activity and waiver of fees under Chapter 97-12 for a shellfish research project. However, the board will go thru the full process as this project will be publicly funded. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL to grant exception. ALL AYES. 2. WILLIAM KELLY AND SANDRA SIKORSKI request a wetland permitto construct a single family dwelling with septic system, excavate and backfill disturbed areas, see berm pond and area. Located Brigantine Drive, Southold 79-4-62. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL for a negative declaration. ALL AYES. VI. RESOLUTIONS: 1. Board to set p~hlic hearings for April 28, 1994 regular meeting for those applications that have received a negative declarations and the following applications that are Type II actions: a. Daniel Lyons dock b. Anna Stalzer bulkhead c. David Gordon addition A motion was made TRUSTEE KRUPSKI seconded by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL to set public hearings. ALL AYES. 2. Southold Town Board of Trustees requests of the Southold Town Boars to proceed without delay, to amend the code, Chapter 32-13 code Change as requested. This code change is not for a new program. The following motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL; ALL AYES. Whereas; the Southold Town Board of Trustees see the need to better organize the moorings over Trustee owned bottom; whereas; this represents a revision of the existing mooring codes and regulations; whereas; a result in code change will benefit safety and general welfare of the Town Residents using the Town Waters; be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees request that Southold Town Board proceed without delay to amend the code chapter 32-13 as requested. BOARD OF TRUSTEES 19 MARCH 24, i994 3. Board to authorized Roderick Van Tuyl to put 1' contours on map of East Road end for NYSDEC application. Approx. cost will be $300.00. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL to authorize change on map. ALL AYES. 4. Board to vo~e on application for VICTQRRERISI to construct a one-family dwelling, gutters, drywells and landscape plan of Soil Conservation (landward of 6' contour line). Located Snug Harbor Road at Marine Place on Gull Pond, East Marion. 35-5-37. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE WENCZEL to approve project subject to Soil Conservation comments and that the be~m can be built at same time. ALL AYES. 5. Board to vote on Bruce Anderson reports dated March 22, 1994: Robert Searl, Fishers Island Anthony Petrilli, Fishers Island A Motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL to approve reports and forward to the applicant. ALL AYES. VII. MOORINGS: 1. THOMAS COYNE requests a mooring in Richmond Creek for a 17' inboard/outboard with a 150 lb. mushroom. Access: Public. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL to approve mooring subject to the Bay Constable placing mooring. ALL AYES. 2. DONALD WILLIAMS request a mooring in Mattituck Creek for an 18' outboard with an 801b mushroom. Access: public. A motion was made by TRUSTER KRUPSKI and seconded by TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL to approve mooring subject to the Bay Constable placing mooring. ALL AYES. III. Continued 5. J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of RICHARD OLIVERI request the last extension to construct a one family dwelling, to expire September 28, 1994. Located Crescent Avenue Fishers Island. As the applicant did not request an extension in a timely fashion, the Board will not grant an ~xtension. 6. RICHARD ISRAEL request a wavier to Article II 97-21 J as per 97-22, for permit $3952 for the dock at ~ii ~ond. A motion was made by TRUSTEE KRUPSKI and sec¢,n~C~X~~D FILED BY HOLZAPFEL to grant this waiver. ALL AYES. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. R~esp e~l~ubmitt e d, ~o;~Cler k Board of Trustees THE SOUTHOLD TOWN Town Clerk, Town of Southold New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40--SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 (516) 751-1389 FAX (516) 751-3839 Thomas C. Jorling Commissioner August 7, 1992 Gardiners Bay Estates Homeowners AssOc. P. O. Box 342 East Marion, NY 11939 Attn: Mr. Lawrence J. Matzen RE: UPA ~i-4738~00462/00001_0 Gardiners Bay Estates Homeowners Assoc. Property - Dogwood Lane Right-Of-Way Dear Mr. Matzen: on May 21, 1992, ~he Department conducted an on-site inspection of the property located 6n the Dogwood Lane Right-Of- Way. i- Pursuant to the field inspection, it was determined that the are~ is vegetated with both intertidal and high marsh and. that the addition Of a ~econd ca--~-wwalk would degrade the underlying tidal wetland due to increased shading. Additionally, given ~easonable alternatives, the second catwalk is neither reasonable nor necessary. Therefore, please be advised that, as proposed, your proj'~ct does not meet the standards of permit ~issuance as set forth in Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations, 6N¥CRR, Part 661.9(b) (1)(i) and 661.9(b) (1) (iii). A copy of Part 661 is enclosed for your reference. The Department therefore recommends as an alternative that the applicant modify the project to install only one catwalk, constructed a minimum of 3½' above g~ade over tidal wetlands, connected to one main float with three fingers. This Configuration would provide access to all the proposed floats while minimizing damage to the tidal wetland.. Mr. Lawrence J. Matzen August 7, 1992 Page 2 Before review of your project can commence, the following must be. submitted: - Four copies ~f a modified plan which shows one ca~walk, one main float with three fingers and all marsh area accurately depicted (a copy of your plan i s enclosed with recommendations noted thereon); - Four copies of a revised cross-section, to scale, which shows modified structure and, most importantly, distance above grade (minimum 3~') over tidal wetlands. All marsh area must be accurately.shown on cross-seCtion; and - Names of'adjacent landowners. Upon receipt of the requested information, processing of your application will resume. you have any questions. DG/rw enc. cc: file Please do not hesitate to contact me, if Sincerely, Darleen Ge Program Aide RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CT.~RK DATE HOUR Town Clerk, Town of Southold