Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/22/1990 TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Henry P. Smith, Vice President Alber~ J. Kmpski, Jr. John L. Bednoski, Jr. John B. Tuthill Telephone (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING HELD ON MARCH 22, 1990 PRESENT WERE: John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Henry P. Smith, Vice President Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Trustee John L. Bednoski, Jr., Trustee John B. Tuthill, Trustee Jane Blados, Clerk WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF November 16, 1989 AND December 21, 1989: HENRY SMITH moved to approve the November 16, minutes, seconded by JOH~ TUTHILL. ALL AYES. Because all Board member did not review the December minutes, vote will be held over until the next meeting. NEXT TRUSTEE BOARD MEETING: April 25, 1990. Worksession at 6:00 PM / Meeting at 7:00 PM. ALBERT KRUSPKI moved to approve, seconded by JOHN BEDNOSKI. ALL AYES. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: April 17, 1990 at 10:00 AM ALBERT KRUPSKI moved to approve, seconded by JOHN BRR~EMEYER. ALL AYES. I. MON~qqLY REPORT: The Trustees' monthly report for February: A check for $3,143.28 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office to be deposited in the General Fund. HENRY SMITH made a motion to accept the monthly report as read, seconded by AL KRUPSKI. ALL AYES. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review and they include notices of application from the DEC, and COE that this Board coordinates activities with. 2 Board of Trustees III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES 1. Proper-T Services in behalf of PAUL J. REILLY requests a waiver to construct a 4'8"x10'5" addition to existing house; the addition being built on existing concrete and concrete slab. Property is located in Knoll Circle, East Marion, NY., adjacent to Spring Pond. AL KRUPSKI made a motion to grant the waiver, seconded by JOHN BEDNOSKI. ALL AYES. 2. En-Consultants in behalf of ROBERT BOGER request an amendment to a an existing permit to construct a 3' x 16' hinged ramp secured on the landward side by (2) 4"x 4" posts. Ramp will rest on a 5'x 30' float secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings. Property location is Willow Point Road, Southold, NY, adjacent to Dug Canal. Omitted from original application, a retaining wall/bulkhead. DEC would not give a permit, so applicant is complying with the Board's initial wishes. ALBERT KRUPSKI made a motion to grant the request for an amendment, seconded by HENRY SMITH. ALL AYES. 3. KATHERINE KLEIN requests a waiver to add a 16' x 20' deck to an existing house on property located at 485 East Legion Avenue, Mattituck, NY adjacent to James Creek. AL KRUPSKI moved to approve the waiver, seconded by JOHN TUTHILL. ALL AYES. 4. PATRICIA CASTOLDI request a waiver to construct an "L" shaped swimming pool on property located on 737 Old Wood Path, Southold, NY. SCTM #1000-087-01-23.4 HENRY SMITH made a motion to approve the waiver, seconded by JOHN TUTHILL. ALL AYES. MADE WITH USUAL RESTRICTIONS SUCH AS: No discharge of backwash waste water from swimming pool onto surface of ground or surface waters. 5. PAUL KATZ requests a waiver to add a sun-room to an existing home on property located at Mill Road & Jackson Landing, Mattituck, NY, facing West Branch of Mattituck Creek. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I make a motion to give Mr. Katz a waiver for the project, with a condition he put up a snow fence between the project and the Creek. JOHN BEDNOSKI: Second. ALL AYES. JOHN BREDEMEYER: We're pretty much on schedule for our public hearings, but before we go into that, can I take an "off agenda" item to vote the Green Seal Program/Bay Constables authority to transplant scallops inside Town Creeks. 3 Board of Trustees HENRY SMITH: So moved. AL KRUPSKI: Second. ALL AYES. JOH~ BREDEMEYER: Let's move on to the item of the vote in the matter of PETER FAKIRIS which appears at the end of the Hearing Agenda. It's not a hearing item; we already held the hearing. The Board of Trustees met again with the applicant on the site to discuss the project. It's in the matter of the application of J.M.O. Consulting in behalf of PETER FAKIRIS to maintenance dredge a 90' x 100' docking area to 8' at MLW. Approximately 675 c.y. of spoil to be disposed on applicant's upland property. Location of the project is R.O.W. off Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY fronting Gardiners Bay. This project already has a DEC and Army Corps permit. The Board visited the site and felt that given the fact the site contains largely clean, clear sand, it will be subject to frequent movement that the additional depth requested is acceptable for the owners large motor vessel. Does anyone wish to comment or issue or make a motion on this item? HENRY SMITH: I make a motion we approve. JOHlq TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES. JOH~ BREDEMEYER: At this time, our clock reads 7:15 PM. I would have a motion to recess the regular meeting to hold public hearings. HENRY SMITH: So moved. AL KRUPSKI: Second. ALL AYES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. 7:15 PM--JOHN BREDEMEYER: The first hearing is in the matter of the application of John H. Geideman in behalf of LEANDER B. GLOVER, JR. to construct a 25' x 4' dock, a 3' x 10' ramp and (2) 6' x 20' floats on Bay Avenue s/o Sterling Road, on Mudd Creek in Cutchogue, NY. Is there anyone here to speak in behalf of this application? I see no hand or comments, so is there anyone here to speak against this application? No one here to speak against this application, the Clerk may note the time is 7:16 PM. I will take a motion to close the public hearing in the matter of Leander Glover. HENRY SMITH: So moved. AL KRUPSKI: Second. ALL AYES. AL KRUPSKI: Why don't we vote on these as we go along? 4 Board of Trustees JOHN BREDEMEYER: OK, Can I have a motion on the application of Leander Glover. HENRY SMITH: I'll make a motion to approve his pe£mit as so stated, as submitted. AL KRUPSKI: Second. ALL AYES. 7:17 PM--JOHN BREDEMEYER: The second public hearing is in the matter of the application of J. M. O. Consulting in behalf of THOMAS E. COFFIN to install a 4' x 40' floating dock along an existing timber bulkhead, and to maintenance dredge a 10' x 60' area of a dredged canal to 4'at MLW. Approximately 90 c.y. of spoil to be trucked to an upland disposal site. Project is located at 305 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport, NY, fronting Fordham Canal. It is now 7:17. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? My name is GLEN JUST from J. M. O. Consulting. I'm the agent for the applicant. If there are any questions from the Board, I'd be happy to answer them. JOHN BRR~EMEYER: Anyone here to speak against this application, or in any other capacity? There being no comments, the time 7:17, may I have a motion to close the hearing? HENRY SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. JOHN TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES. JOHN BREDEMEYER: May I have a motion of the Board with respect to this application? HENRY SMITH: I make a motion we approve as so stated in the application. JOHN TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES. 7:18 PM--JOHN BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is in the matter of the application of Proper-T Services in behalf of CONSTANTINOS MARKOTSIS to replace 90 1.f. of bulkhead with new 18" seaward of old bulkhead; extend the bulkhead 20'+; relocate walkway, ramp and floating dock at new bulkhead, and dredge around area of floating dock to approximately 3' at MLW. Location of property is Williamsburg Road (private) off Main Bayview, Southold, NY., fronting Canal off Corey Creek. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in behalf of this application. JIM FITZGERALD of Proper-T Services: If you have any questions ..... JOHN BREDEMEYER: I believe not. Is there anyone here to speak against this application? BRUCE LOUCKA, Southold Town CAC: Question, this has been revised since the original, didn't we discuss it last month that it would be in kind/in place? JOHN BREDEMEYER: I believe...did we discuss that? OK, I was wondering about that, also. Maybe the description came from our original application. Let me see what we have. JIM FITZGERALD: ...INAUDIBLE..with the return and that it be in kind/in place. JOHN BR~.~EMEYER: Right, and so was ours. Thank you. AL KRUPSKI: What is the new..can you read the new description. 5 Board of Trustees JOHN BREDEMEYER: OK, what we have is the proposed extension at the north end of the bulkhead has been reduced to 5' with a 10' return directed away from the wetlands, and that we to save the tree. JOHN BEDNOSKI: That's right. AL KRUPSKI: Can you read the entire list? JOH~ BREDEMEYER: You asked that the extension be eliminated, but that would end the bulkhead south of the tree shown on the map. The short extension and proposed return will pe£mit us to retain the tree and contain erosion problems at that location. A survey of the bottom at the end of the canal has been prepared with approximate depths below ordinary high water indicated at half-foot intervals. It is proposed that the dredging be a depth equal to the depth of the channel at the center of the canal. We passed an amendment on this, as well, last month, when this was submitted, so I believe the action is correct, but the notification in the notice that was published is larger than what the Board has before it at this time. AL KRUPSKI: I couldn't believe it. What about the ramp; is that to remain or is that to be bulkheaded, the ramp? JIM FITZGERALD: Is it the earth ramp? AL KRUPSKI: Right. JIM FITZGERALD: No, this new bulkhead will close it off. AL KRUPSKI: OK, and the dredging is to remain the same? JIM FITZGERALD: In discussions with the DEC, the dredging has been reduced to the area south of the south side of the existing ramp, and not to go beyond 25 feet from the new bulkhead, which makes it a little bit shorter the center of the canal. JOHN BREDEMEYER: What does the CAC say on this? Mr. Loucka, what did you have on from CAC besides replacing in place. Did you have a problem with this at all? BRUCE LOUCKA: No, if it's the revised one, no problem. JOHN BREDEMEYER: OK, is there anyone here who wishes to speak in behalf or against this application? If not, I will take a motion to close this hearing in the matter of CONSTANTINOS MARKOTSIS. ALBERT KRUPSKI: So moved. JOH~ BEDNOSKI: Second. ALL AYES. HENRY SMITH: I make a motion we approve the application as per amended application. AL KRUPSKI: Second. ALL AYES. 7:22 PM--JOHN BREDEMEYER: It is now 7:22. The next application is in the matter of J.M.O. Consulting in behalf of SOUTHOLD SHORES BOAT BASIN to enlarge existing docking facility by the installation of (2) 5' x 20' floats and (5) 3 x 18' floats, based on amended map dated November 7, 1988, revised February 13, 1989. Project is in Sage Cove on Blue Marlin Drive, Southold, NY. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in behalf of this application? Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this application? YES, I would like to speak. My name is ROBERT CHILTON. I own the property that's adjacent to the piece in question to the north side. We also own a house that would be to the north and 6 Board of Trustees west ...... inaudible...rustling of papers...It started out back to oh, some years ago with one of the residents putting a single dock in out there. It expanded one time; it expanded again, and now this is the third time. I see no reason why myself and my wife, as property owners down there, should be subject to having a co~m~ercial or non-co~muercial marina put in our front door. I mean, whether it's for the residents or whether it's for outsiders, it really don't make a lot of difference. I mean, if the people wanted to have boats, they should have bought property that had waterfront facilities so they could have a boat; that's what I did. If they want to have a boat and they haven't got that, I think they should put them in a marina. But I don't think a marina should be put down on the end of the street. It's just out of place; it's too big already, and I don't think it should get any bigger. I'm not even sure that it was put in legally as big as it is. Was there ever a permit issued on it, from the Town? Does anybody know? I'm no legal eagle here, but .... JOH~ BREDEMEYER: To the best of our record, this may have been prior to Trustee jurisdiction in this area, so we have no Trustee record of permits. MR. CHILTON: How far back does Trustee jurisdiction go? JOHN BREDEMEYER: Our jurisdiction on public land goes back to 1676, but this is private bottom. MR. CHILTON: So you had no jurisdiction on private bottom as of five years ago? JOHN BREDEMEYER: We gained jurisdiction on private bottom with wetlands applications as an approving agency. It was in 1984, as a result of Town Board Resolution. I can get you the exact dates; I don't have them on the tip of my tongue, but that was the first time we took that jurisdiction. Prior to that, the Trustees were advisory along with the CAC, directly to the Town Board. We both issued an advisory opinion and the Town Board held all the wetlands hearings and all the permit issuances. MR. CHILTON: Well, but there was no ah .... inaudible, two people speaking... JOHN BREDEMEYER: No, they were Army Corps, it was an Army Corp and a DEC permit issued for the project, and there were some indications given to the Trustees, that prior to that there may have been a structure on site. We have no record of that, but there was a communication in the file indicating that. MR. CHILTON: It's been, you know, like I say, a single dock that one one of the residents put in back in, I don't know, has to be fifteen years or more, and little by little it's getting bigger, and I really don't want a marina, whether its commercial or non-commercial on my front door. I can't see any reason why my property should go down hill, so somebody can improve the value of theirs, and basically, that's what's happening. Once they secure this mooring right, this dock space, it's a salable item. It's worth money to them, but it's coming away from me. I mean, if you want to sell a house, and it's basically pristine harbor out there, that's one thing, but if you got to look out and see twenty-five or thirty boats out there, that's something 7 Board of Trustees else again. If I wanted that kind of property, I would have gone down to Sterling Harbor, and I can't see where the Town has a right to grant somebody else the right to move in on what's there already. It wasn't there when I bought, and I don't think it should be there now, but for it to get bigger, is ridiculous. I spoke to you this afternoon about setback on it. I mean, there's..looking to set this thing up five feet from the property line. Now, that was wrong. I mean, I thought it was; I didn't know if there was any rule or regulations that the Town had on how far on waterfront property that you could get to the line. I know it's fifteen feet on residential or something like that, which you know, makes sense, but the fact that this thing is getting bigger and more boats, it's just not in the right place. I mean, the next thing it's going to be securing lights at night, and I've got the house there, that I'm going to have to put up with it. These people who want to put the boat there, live up the road, whether it's a house, ten houses or the other end of the development, and it doesn't affect them, but it does affect me. HENRY SMITH: Excuse me, Mr. Chilton, who owns the property where the marina is proposed? MR. CHILTON: Southold Boat Basin, Inc. HENRY SMITH: Which is? MR. CHILTON: Residents of Southold Shores, but a separate corporation. They got this thing together, I was part of the association when it started, and I think they just kinda said, "Hey, we got a good little thing going here. We'll incorporate this." I think what Charlotte Sage sold the property, I don't think she thought she was selling to individuals, I think she thought she was selling to Southold Shores as a community. I don't believe it's that anymore, because if it was, and you owned a house and you had a dock, when you sold the house, it would seem that the dock would revert back to the next person in the community in line, not the new person coming in and buying the house, and I think that's the way it's working. It's not set up the way it should be. It's not benefiting everybody in the CO~LuL~unity, and it's, like I say, it's hurting me; it's going to hurt my property value, I know that. It's too big already, and I don't think it should be any bigger. HENRY SMITH: Thank you. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak against this application? Let's start in an orderly fashion around. Mr. Loucka, would you like to speak first? BRUCE LOUCKA: Question again, this is a revised one, this one's approved by the DEC, and there's one before you now? JOHN BREDEMEYER: DEC and Army Corps, yes. MR. LOUCKA: They have approved it? JOHN BREDEMEYER: This is the revised one we have before us now. Had you seen the one prior to the horseshoe-shaped one? BRUCE LOUCKA: Yes, that we disapproved. We were not in favor of the first one. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I believe the DEC had a problem with that, also, because of the potential need for dredging they were trying to avoid. I'm going to have a check of the file to make 8 Board of Trustees sure we voted this amended permit at some time, also. OK, we're going to move around the room. I think we'll start in this fashion. Mr. Flynn, would you like to speak? F. M. FLYNN: My name is F. M. Flynn. I'm a resident of Southold and a property owner. I have some fairly, unfortunately extensive, remarks to make. However, this is a complicated problem and the Board of Trustees, that's what the applicant ...over a period of 3 or 4 years...covered. I'll read from my notes and attempt to get through this as quickly as possible. FROM AUDIENCE: Could the speaker please raise his voice? JOHN BREDEF~EYER: Yes. MR. FLYNN: Unfortunately my medication doesn't let me speak too loudly. JOHN BREDEMEYER: OK, the speaker is having trouble speaking because of a health problem. Those who may wish to hear them, if you wish to sit closer or come up to the front. Why don't you come up to the front. This is understandable. It's difficult sometimes to speak. MR. FLYNN: I would like to address three major points in objecting to this application. In addition, I would like to question the accuracy of some of the information submitted to the Board by the applicant, or its agent, as well well as its pertinence and relevance to the matter at hand. Similar mis-information was supplied to State and Federal agencies. 1.----Subject, Marina/Basin, in my opinion, is an illegal nonconforming use in its Zoning District. As it now exists, it was erected in at least two stages with apparent procedural irregularities ..... JOHN B~R~EMEYER: I'm sorry, Mr. Flynn, will you be able to give us a copy of your comments? .... MR FLYNN: I shall, .... and with no record of the required permits. Rather than entertaining an application for its expansion, Town officials in the person of the Town's Enforcement Officer, should see to its removal. SECTION 113 of the Southold Zoning Code defines Marina/or Boat Basin as follows: "Any premises with one or more piers, wharves, docks, moorings, bulkheads, buildings, slips, basins or land under water...changing tape ..... Do you want me to start with that definition again? JOHN B9R~EMEYER: Please, would you. MR. FLYNN: Again I refer to Section 113 defining marina or boat basin as follows: "Any premises containing one or more piers, wharves, docks, moorings, bulkheads, buildings, slips, basins or land under water, designed, used or intended to be used for the docking or mooring of boats, for or without compensation." What is sought by this application is the expansion of an illegal nonconforming use. Such use is not permitted in an R 40 Zoning District. Further, the Code does not differentiate between co~ercial and non-con~ercial marina boat basins. 2.----The applicant has no legal standing to support its application. In addition, it owns no upland. I would like to disabuse the Board of any notion it might have that there any 9 Board of Trustees leqal connection between the applicant , Southold Shores Boat Basin, Inc. and the Southold Shores Association. The Boat Basin files its certificate of incorporation with the State of New York, Department of State, on September 30, 1982 (not in 1983 as stated in Earl T. Miles, Esq.'s letter to the Board. It is perhaps noteworthy that the Corporation owned no land at the time of its incorporation. It is noteworthy that it was fo£med to provide, not a private, but a public, non-profit boating place. The Certificate of Incorporation goes on to state that the Corporation is to operate "not for the pecuniary profit or financial gain of its members, directors of officers." I don't believe you're aware of this, I'd like to provide you with a copy of the Certificate of Incorporation. Mr. F1ynn presents same to President Bredemeyer. MR. FLYNN: Should I go on? JOHN BREDEMEYER: Please proceed. MR. FLYNN: The Southold Shores Boat Basin was incorporated by three officers who happen ~o live in Southold Shores. Based on subsequent events, it appears that, early on, these officers realized that the basin, that they subsequently acquired, could not accommodate all residents of Southold Shores. Accordingly, as an insider group, they sought control for their own purposes and to their advantage at the expense of other members of the community. Their activities were not publicly announced to all members of the Southold Shores Association. Further, at least one duly elected director of Southold Shores, was not informed of the incorporation of the Boat Basin until long after the fact; actually, on the very eve of the announcement of the Boat Basin's existence to the membership of Southold Shores. MR FLYNN IS BEING SEATED. Further, all applications for membership were not considered. If further proof is required of the existence of two separate corporate entities, I refer the Board to its files wherein there is a copy of a Stipulation before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Index No. 87-14315, between the Southold Shores Association et al, and the Southold Shores Boat Basin, Inc. et al. Here we have two distinct, here we have evidence of two distinct separate, private corporations taking legal action against each other, separate corporation. Any claim of commonality is specious. I must admit I take some personal satisfaction in this spectacle of internecine infighting. After the vilification and opprobrium to which we were subjected, it appears that some members of the Southold Shores Association finally awoke, however belatedly, to what was actually going on. The Boat Basin was incorporated as a not for profit corporation, as was evidenced in that certificate. We have accumulated sufficient evidence to cast serious doubt on this contention. We shall submit our findings to the New York State Attorney General, New York State Department of State, as well as the Internal Revenue Service for their respective determinations. Southold Shores Boat Basin, Inc. is the reputed owner of the underwater land described as District 1000, Section 57, Block 1, 10 Board of Trustees Lot 39.3. Property is in a R 40 Zoning District. Applicant owns no upland. Even were it to own upland, defined in the Zoning Code as limited to those defined as "same as Section 100-31C of the Agricultural Conservation District." Section 100-31C (3) (a) clearly states: There Shall be docking or mooring facilities for no more than two (2) boats other than those owned and used by the owner on the premises for his personal use." Special Exception uses in an R 40 District are defined in the Zoning Code under Section 100-30 A.2 B (1) as "Same as Section 100- 3lB of the Agricultural Conservation District except that a children's recreation camp, labor camp, and veterinarian's office and animal hospital are prohibited. Under Section 100-31B of the Zoning Code, no provision is made for marinas, boat basins, or yacht clubs. Further, were the Board of Appeals to invoke the "spirit" of the regulation, Section 31-B (7) would govern. This section states: "Beach clubs, tennis clubs, country clubs, golf clubs, public golf courses and annual membership clubs catering exclusively to members and their guests and accessory playgrounds , beaches and sw~Lm~ing pools, tennis courts, recreational buildings and maintenance buildings, subject to the following requirements: (a) No building thereof or any parking or loading area shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of any street line or within fifty (50) feet of any lot line. That ' s "a" . (c) Such use shall not be conducted for profit as a business enterprise, and under "d" it says: (d) No such use shall occupy a lot with an area of less than three (3) acres. 3) We have now reached a point that, even more pointedly, involves the Trustees. Throughout this application procedure, reference is made to Sage Cove. While it is a cove, I submit that it is more properly designated an estuary. My Webster's Unabridged defines estuary as: "Part of the sea coast over which the tide ebbs and flows." For a more detailed description, my encyclopedia provides a more precise and detailed definition. "Partially enclosed body of water, having an open connection with the ocean, where fresh water from inland is mixed with salt water from the sea." It is, therefore, properly referred to as the Sage Estuary with all the implications inherent in that designation. Subject application is dated 10/2/89; over seven (7) subsequent to the effective date of Suffolk County's Local Law No. 29. The law is entitled "Charter Law to Extend Description of Critical Environmental Area to Peconic Bay. The resolution No. is 869-8, and the effective date of the law is 2/21/89. The effects of the law, among others, is to classify all actions within five hundred (500) feet of the high water line of the Bay as Type I Actions. As you Know, the subject property is located forty (40)+- feet from the Bay. Type I actions require a Long Form Environmental Assessment and a 30-day co~,~ent period. The 11 Board of Trustees SEQRA manual also states the likelihood of an EIS and would require the "hard look" required by SEQRA. I have been informed, that since the DEC issued its permit on 3/3/89 the project should have been classified Type I, with all that entails. On 2/22/1990, the Trustees issued a Negative Declaration as Lead Agency. Action was classified as "Unlisted". Among the reasons cited by the Trustees as supporting their determination was "an environmental assessment (short form) submitted by the applicant and a "site inspection" by the Trustees. In my opinion, and that of others with whom I've consulted, this does not constitute the "hard-look" mandated by law. Also cited is a response from the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council indicating that this project would not have a significant affect on the environment. I have researched the records of this proceeding with some care. The only reference that I find is the CAC's disapproval of Wetland Application No. 665, the previous application. However, certain aspects of the previous disapproval would still obstain. The reco~,,endation states that the project as submitted would increase the number and size of boats in the small waterway, which could cause environmental problems. Marinas are acknowledged sources of pollution. Witness the recent decertification of the Sage Estuary for shellfishing for the months of May through November. This period coincides with marina operations. In addition, in the application reliance is placed on off-site "pump-out" facilities. By law, reliance cannot be placed on the uncertain acts of third parties. What is proposed here can only add additional pollution to a prime shellfishing area. To return to the question of the legality of the existing docks and their proposed expansion, to the best of my knowledge and belief based upon information deemed to be reliable, the first stage of the dock was built by an individual resident for his use and without a permit. The dock has since been expanded, perhaps several stages. An aerial map provided by the State of New York and amended 10/25/78 indicates docks docks for approximately five (5) boats moored stern first at the bulkhead north of the proposed marina site, but none within its confines. On 9/21/82 a DEC pezmit was issued to Joseph A. Baum, Esq., a resident of Southold Shores who did not own the underwater land. It is significant that the existing dock had grown from nothing in 1978 to 70 feet in 1982. Town records apparently confirm that no permits were ever issued by the Town. Also of import, is the apparent involvement of the Building Department in this'area. A memorandum to Victor Lessard, Administrator of the Building Department, from the Trustees dated 8/10/88, requests copies of Notices of Disapproval. No such notices were in the Trustees' file, but the memorandum notes the responsibility of the Building Department in this area. Also in the files, is a copy of a letter from the Trustees to J. M.O. and signed by Frank J. Kujawski as President of the Board of Trustees. It says in part: "Therefore no approval has been issued for the existing docks; therefore, we cannot proceed Board of Trustees with the permit process for extension of same." It goes on to state the need for a subdivision map and "proof of any prior approvals received for existing structures." To my knowledge, no such proof was ever forthcoming. In his letter of 1/10/90 to DEC, attention Ms. Susan Ackerman, Glen E. JuSt acknowledged that he was unable to establish when the original catwalks and ramps were originally constructed. It appears certain they were constructed subsequent to 1978, and equally certain that no records for them exist at Town Hall. I would like now to turn my attention to the only Environmental Assessment Form I was able to find in the Trustee's records. This is a Short Environmental Assessment Form (for unlisted actins only). It is dated 6/30/88 and not useable under present law. It was prepared by Glen E. Just for Southold Shores Boat Basin, Inc. It states applicant proposes to enlarge a private, non-commercial facility, whereas the Certificate of Incorporation refers to a public facility. It states that it will allow for 21 slips, one for each homeowner in Southold Shores. While I don't know how many homeowners there were at the time, there were 51 buildable lots and certainly all property owners would not be provided for. Question No. 7 on the fo~m provides a revealing answer. Amount of land affected initially and ultimately, is answered as zero (0) acres. This is an apparent concession that no upland area is involved. Question No. 12 provides an answer which is negative, but opens a question: Will existing permit approval require modification? Questionably, existing peimits, apparently, is mood. It should also be noted that the required Coastal Assessment Form, on the copy I obtained from the Trustees' file is blank, as is the Declaration of Significance. Incidentally, I note that Charles W. Bowman notarized this form. I would like to know if he's a member or associate of Mr. Just's firm. If so, he is apparently the same Charles Bowman who prepared the Draft Environmental Statement for Southport Development Corporation in its abortive deal with Youngs Marina. As I recall, he stated that a day's clamming in the Sage Estuary area produced three clams. I find this, if correct, to be more than passingly strange, since the Southold Baymens Association and other experts have stated that the Sage Estuary is an extremely productive shellfishery. I have frequently seen five or more professional clammers working this area, one as recently as this morning. I would now like to turn my attention to the application submitted to the Trustees from the date of 10/2/89. No application number appears on my copy. The application is for Southold Shores Basin, Inc. with Glen E. Just/J.M.O. Consulting, as agent. Obviously, the property is not located on Blue Marlin Drive. It is underwater land at the foot of Blue Marlin Drive. No tax map number is provided. I find this exceedingly strange for a professional organization. Could it be that it was not intended to delineate the true limits and dimensions of the property? 13 Board of Trustees The width of the canal, creek or bay fronting the property's easterly line, is closer to 400 feet than 600 feet, and the distance to the nearest canal is, if you remember from our previous discussions, is closer to 50 feet than 100 feet. It is incomprehensible that a professional would state that the zoning is "unknown". It is obviously in an R-40 District, whatever problems that may produce. Further, persuasive evidence, an argument can be produced that all of the Sage Estuary is zoned for low density residential use. And finally with respect to this Certificate of Incorporation states public use, not private use. I would like to point, at this point, to examine the map of this project to see if it coincides with the one in my possession. MR. FLYNN EXAMINES THE MAP JOHN BREDEMEYER: Would you like to indicate if it is the same, for the record? MR. FLYNN: Yes, I have two versions. JOHN BREDEMEYER: OK, fine. MR. FLYNN: I wonder if the Trustees have observed at least two serious faults with this map. One, that its northeasterly corner improvements are located within 4 feet of an abutting property line. Two, the southerly end of the easterly property line terminates in mid-air or water, as the case may be. If is this an error, is this an error, or is it a deliberate effort to obscure and confuse the actual extent of the applicant's ownership? Over a period of forty some odd years, I have never seen a property delineated on the map and submitted to a official agency that didn't have a complete boundary line description. You will also note that there is no indication of the southerly property line, which confuses or or attempts to confuse in the minds of the Board and others the relative ownership between the Basin and the ownership of the Southold Shores Basin, Inc. and Lot 52, which is in the ownership of the Southold Shores Association. No demarcation between the subject property and Lot 52 is indicated. As for the 4 foot setback from the northerly property line, this is strangely at odds with Mr. Just's statement in his letter to Ms. Ackerman at the DEC, wherein he states that the DEC respects how close the property lines...how close to property lines one may construct docks. I find it scarcely credible that this minimum is four feet. In view of the past history of this property, the restrictions imposed on its use by the Zoning Code, the data available in the Trustees' files and in other Town records, and the obvious non-relationship between the two distinct corporations, I request that the Trustees deny this application in s~u~ary fashion. To do otherwise, in the face of the evidence would be the equivalent of creating a parcel with all the utility of the one in the Bermuda Triangle; unconnected to the land and subject to the storms which will surely ensue it. Speaking personally, if in the face of this incontrovertible evidence against this application, originating not only from me, but from other sources as well, the Trustees were to grant this application, I would consider it a form of harassment. I would 14 Board of Trustees expect the Trustees to treat this matter entirely within the confines of the law, in accordance with their duties as elected officials with all personal considerations aside. If, on the other hand, we are forced to contest this matter legally, we shall exercise our constitutional rights to consult counsel and pursue whatever legal remedies he suggests. I trust this will not become necessary. Thank you. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Is that type-written that we could also get a copy with that same.. MR. FLYNN: I have a copy for you. JOHN BREDEMEYER: OK, I'm going to continue to go around in the fashion we had started. I believe I was asking for those who were speaking against the...continuing in that vain, could we have comments brief if they are going to repeat some of the material that was submitted by Mr. Flynn. Yes, Mr. Weismann? MR WEISMAN: My name is Henry Weismann. I'm sure there isn't very much I can add to this app that Mr. Flynn's thorough presentation, but I'm really curious as Mr. Loucka was. I'm not sure of the answer. Is this the same application, application number 665 that was previously submitted to this Board? JOHN BREDEMEYER: This is the amended one with a ... MR. WEISMANN: That application as amended? JOHN BREDEMEYER: As amended, which we approved it for the formal proceeding, the amendment at the previous meeting, the last meeting. MR. WEISMANN: In view of the fact, that due to the County's local law designating the entire bay area as a critical environmental area.. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Correct MR. WEISMANN: In view of the fact that that mandate, the finding of this being a Type I action... JOHN BREDEMEYER: Well, could I interject one point., cause I know a bit about SEQRA. It would say it would have to be treated as a Type I Action, and there's been some discussion ..... TAPE IS BEING CHANGED ...... boat slips in a different configuration was pre the Peconic Bay CEA and had the full benefit of review by our Conservation Advisory Council and the NYSDEC, and it was their feeling at that time, through mitigation to go with the current configuration of the straight linear because they wanted to obviate the need for future dredging. That's where we found ourself now. I'm sorry to interject. MR. WEISMANN: Do you plan on having a re-evaluation of this? JOHN BREDEMEYER: In light of what has been said here, I'm sure the Board will give full consideration to what's being said. MR. WEISMANN: And the present installation of this site, the proposal is completely illegal. It has no basis in law at all. It's in total violation of the Town's Zoning Ordinance, and I can't conceive of any manner in which it can be given, granted a permit under the current zoning ordinance. So, under those circumstances, if this Board were inclined to grant this application, it would have to do so strictly subject to the action of the enforcement authorities under the zoning 15 Board of Trustees ordinance. And so it would be an empty gesture. There's nothing further that I intend to add at this time, other than to again as I did it in my previous communication. I assume that my letter of August, 1988 is part of the file and will be considered in your making your determination in this matter. JOH~ BREDEMEYER: Well, let's check right now to make sure we have it complete with that letter. I suspect we have everything that was sent to us was put in the file, but just to make sure. We'll check our file. If not, we'll make a notation of your submitting a copy of a letter with that date. We probably have it here. Would you wish to continue while we're looking? MR. WEISMANN: Yes, beca~e as I pointed out in that letter, the nature of the ownership of this copy is rather nebulous. The individual members, apparently, of this Boat Basin Association, actually own their own dock. So the docks are not the property of the association, but the property of the individual members, and the individual members apparently sell these things. It's common knowledge that three of them have been sold in the last several years, and that another one is on the market right now. Now that indicates it is sort of a cooperative type ownership or condominium type ownership, and that requires the approval of the Attorney General's Office and the State Department of State. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Ok, October 27, 1988 ...I am a resident of Southold Shores, etc. (Letter referred to earlier is in file) JOHN WEISMANN: Now, I'll leave you with that little note, thank you very much. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else? I believe we were starting to work this way. I saw one or two hands here. Speaking in favor of or against? HOWARD MALONE: Thank you, my name is Howard Malone. I am a resident of Southold Shores, 250 Blue Marlin Drive. I am the president of the Southold Shores Association and also president of the Southold Shores Boat Basin, Inc. Mr. Flynn said that this was a complex situation, and it certainly is. Mr. F1ynn's letter or statements also contain many errors. One of the main errors here, is that the situation when the docks originated. First of all the docks were there before 1978. They were there sometime in 1975 and were completed in the first unit in 1976. It was at the time Mr. Weismann's home was being constructed. I don't believe Mr. Flynn's was there at the time, but I'm not sure. As far as the ownership goes, we have a complex situation because the development was started, filed as a map by Mr. Harold Reese in 1963. It consisted, as we all heard, of approximately fifty (50) home sites and at that time, Mr. Reese had promised to deed to any association that was formed by the property owners, the deeds to the roads, the small triangular park, the undeveloped beach area, and of course, there was the hype and promise of the docking facilities or the mooring facilities that we could have at the east end of Blue Marlin Drive; and indeed, they were developed. Docks were put in. Some time around the end of the 70's or early 80's, Mr. Reese came to one of our meetings, and it was a situation where he said, you know, I'm not sure whether the land under the 16 Board of Trustees water was really mine to sell. There was a question about the deed, the English deed. So, the situation became known among people in the group that there was a question of ownership, whether or not the only single association in existence at that time, of course, was the Southold Shores Association. At the time the question of ownership came up, the heirs to the estate, that did the original transfer, Charlotte Sage, made available land under the water for sale. Now the situation scenario was this. We have a group, the association with a membership of close to about thirty-five or forty people of the possible maximum fifty. It was impossible to get any kind of response quickly from the registration such as that. It was happening at the time of a meeting that we hold on an annual basis, and the meeting got really into an upset and bad situation because number one, the people who were in the association who weren't interested in boats at the time or were interested in any kind of purchase of what they thought they already had deeded. It's also difficult to get people to pay for litigation to try to get something we thought we paid for. It was also the technicality, maybe we should just see what Charlotte Sage wants for the property. At the same time, with the initial delays that are at large meetings, and trying to get an association to function quickly, is difficult. Three members of the association, Mr. Robert Chilton, Mr. Weismann and Mr. Flynn, proceeded to buy the land under the water, adjacent to their home sites. This preempted the association ever having enough sites for dockage for all of fifty possible home-owners. It was still prudent to do something. We purchased the remaining section. We couldn't raise the money on a general solicitation at the meeting. The meeting broke up; Mr. Flynn was there and happened to help break it up. The situation turned into a self-defense activity by the people there that owned boats. I was one of them; there were thirteen of us. We immediately petitioned the sale from Ms. Sage, and we went through that. We own that land under the water by deed. The particulars following that, I'm not going to agree with what's happening, as far as the details that have been enumerated by Mr. Flynn or Mr. Weismann. But the fact remains, their arguments that there's never a place, never sufficient size for docking for everyone, they're absolutely right. They helped contribute to that. What we have going on down there now, is a complete stone-walling. You saw evidence of it tonight on the presentations. I've never seen a meeting like this, where somebody can stand up and go through this ritualistic reading. This to me, is kind of ridiculous. He may have some legal rights to do that, I'm sure he does. I don't think it's in the spirit of neighborliness. We have a bunch of people who have been harassed, stone-walled, and torn apart over eight or nine more docks. Since that wasn't enough to kill off the additional docks, they now have a campaign to destroy them totally. Now as far as operating a marina, I'm not an attorney, I'm not a legal authoritarian on what's a marina or what isn't. But we're not running a "Port of Egypt"; we're not running a "Sterling Harbor" operation. These are homeowners. We use the docks six, seven months out of the year, weekends mostly. 17 Board of Trustees Nobody's polluting the water; it's a sad situation when there is neighbor against neighbor in this fashion. I think it's unfair; I think that should be taken into consideration. At our meetings, we have membership of approximately thirty-five, thirty-six active people. We have two or three people here who are obstructing the whole operation to what could be a peaceful settlement. And as far as operating a marina, I believe Mr. Chilton fits the marina description that Mr. Flynn, his neighbor in this action. Mr. Flynn's description of a marina fits Mr. Chilton's operation, and I'm not out to kill Mr. Chiton's situation, but fair is fair. I don't understand why these arguments or how they're based. Basically, this is our argument. It's simple; we're not arguing to go backward, but we do want the facts revealed. Thank you. JOHN BRRDEMEYER: Thank you. FROM AUDIENCE: May I offer a remark...(unidentified, possibly Mr. Flynn) JOHN BREDEMEYER: Let's let everyone here have an opportunity to speak once, and then we can re-visit for everybody once quickly. Anyone else wish to speak on behalf of this application? JOHN HASSEL: Yes I'd like to say a few words. My name is John Hassel, and I have a home in Southold Shores. I believe I bought my lot around 1980, and at the time I bought it, I had a brochure that said that I would be allowed to share in the swimming and the boating in the Boat Basin and all of those things; and frankly, that's why I bought it. When I first saw the piece of property and decided to build, I was under the impression I could share with the other folks there and have a dock and use the beach and all of that. And how things have changed, as Mr. Malone said. And now there's a lot of animosity and hard feelings, but I feel that some of the folks who are against this, when they bought their property, they also bought it with the same feeling that this was going to be a summer community, and I feel they should take that into consideration. They bought a piece of property with the same understanding, and by the way, while it's in question, I would say most of our deeds say that we are allowed to share in co~L~,on with others, the boating c~,unity. I feel that we're just asking for what they have and, Mr. Chilton has a rather large boat next to his property, and I haven't said anything about it. I would also suggest that in the layout of the Southold Shores, that two lots have been allocated to be used in co~,on, as parks. And Mr. Chilton happens to be..ah happens to have bought a piece of property directly across from one of those. When he bought that, he knew that that property was going to be used by other folks. So, I can't believe he didn't have some feeling that he was getting into a summer environment, and ah, I feel that should be considered. Last, but not least, I feel that we have tried to be reasonable in laying out the docks when there was a request for a change in the layout from the horseshoe shape to the extension of the floating docks, that kind of thing, where it would not impact the environment. We said, fine. All we want to do is have a little boating and fishing like other folks have, and I guess with that, that's my 18 Board of Trustees position. I'm not a lawyer, either, but I feel some of these people who are very legalistic, they read the same documents that I read and unless I misunderstood it, I think they should understand that's what we bought. Thank you. JOHN BREDEMEYER: And your name, again, for the record, sir? My name is JOHN HASSEL. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Ok, I believe, in the back, Mr. Just? GLEN JUST: My name is Glen Just, the owner of J.M.O. Consulting. A few facts that I...I have to take offense with Mr. Flynn and the fact that we're not even, he's not even talking apples and oranges. He's talking apples and watermelons or something. He's taking facts out of mid air. The application was in June of '88. It was amended at the request, actually at the demand of the DEC. That was well before the enactment of the CEA, the Peconic Bay Estuary system. The reason for that change in alignments of the dock, was for the areas was going to definitely shoal up, and you don't want any dredging in the future. The DEC has put numerous special conditions on the pezmit, such as no boats with heads will be allowed to dock there until such time as Youngs Marina, if it's ever approved, has a pump out station. Again, there's no dredging; it's been a well, well thought out and a well reviewed application in the almost two years that I first submitted it. There's a complete paper trail through any of the agencies; that's where I take offense with people take one letter from year and one from another. You have to complete that trail and, again, there are going to be removable docks; can't see where it's going to have any affect on the environment. There's been a Negative Dec issued; the DEC has issued a permit on it; the CAC has recommended approval; it's been reviewed by the Town Attorney, the ZBA, and the Planning Department, all in conjunction with Mr. Kujawski's letter of last year. And in closing, I would just like to say that I'm very proud to see that the wall in eastern Europe went down in my lifetime. I hope this one does, too. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Sir? CARL CHRISTIANSON: Carl Christianson, also a resident of Southold Shores Association, member of the Southold Shores Association, not a member of the Southold Boat Basin Association, Inc. The Southold Shores Boat Basin, Inc., the thirteen people are neighbors of ours who instigated this dock expansion in a neighborly fashion to help others who do not have docks, have no room for docks there, and they have tried to do their best .... They have no legal reason to do this except for being neighbors to try to help some of the rest of us. That's why this application is happening. Some of our neighbors, with them, we don't need enemies. There's one other point. Mr. Chilton, have you ever lived there? MR. CHILTON: Does that have anything to do with it? CARL CHRISTIANSON: Well, you said you lived there and look at it. I'm just asking... MR. CHILTON: I might be living there... MR. CHRISTIANSON: You might, but you have not lived there yet. MR. CHILTON: That's strictly my business. 19 Board of Trustees HENRY SMITH: You know, direct it up here. (to the Board) MR. CHRISTIANSON: Mr. Chilton said that he doesn't want to look at that because he has never lived there, yet. That's just to be sure you understand that. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone here who hasn't had an opportunity to speak? I think we covered this very well in length. Do you have something additional to..ok, please. MR. FLYNN: Yes, I have something that I think is relatively important. It'll only take a minute. JOHN B~RDEMEYER: OK, please. MR. FLYNN: If I may address you from here, if you can hear me. JOHN BREDEMEYER: We can hear you. AL KRUPSKI: Will the recorder pick him up? JOHN BREDEMEYER: You had better come up. We want it all on tape. MR. FLYNN: The question of neighborliness has been brooded about here, having issue. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Could I stop you right now? We're Trustees. You know, I'd like to think there could be some neighborliness, but I don't want to sit here as a judge in neighborliness. Let's.. why don't you suspend any comments .... MR FLYNN: This has technically to do with the ownership of the property. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Let's talk about the technical ownership of the property, not neighborliness, cause I .. MR. FLYNN: It involves that, but the point of the matter is that it was planned to use an area in excess of the boat basin, notably, that portion of the cove under Henry (Weismann's) and my windows as part of the boat basin. Mrs. Sage offered us the land facing our property. But in addition, she offered us the land which is currently the Southold Boat Basin, Inc. I think it was an example of neighborliness that we did not purchase that land, but rather, were neighborly enough to let it be sold to the Southold Boat Basin. AL KRUPSKI: I don't think this is really relevant as to who had the most neighborliness. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Ok, if there are no other co~L,~ents, I will take a motion to close discussion in this matter from the Board. FROM AUDIENCE: Could I make one short statement? It has nothing to do with.. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I think you'll be subject to the pleasures of the Board. Does the Board want to close the hearing on this matter. I think we heard just about everything. AL KRUPSKI: If it's got some background, something that's relevant, fine, but not if it's going to be some kind of finger-pointing or name calling. FROM AUDIENCE: (Mr. Malone?) No, it's not argumentative. It's in answer to the question of the ownership of the property. The Southold Shores Boat Basin purchased the property, and as far as the uplands requirements for it, the by-laws of our Southold Shores Boat Basin, the under water land owners have in their by-laws the requirements that any user and member, has to be a member in good standing of the association. And any member in our association has the rights to go down on 20 Board of Trustees the association property and come and go down to the boat docks as they wish. I don't think there's a problem with permission to go down there or come back. So the upland requirements, whether it's a point of law, I don't know, I'm not an expert in that, but it is a complex case and it does have the permission of the majority of the people in the association to allow the Boat Basin people the use of the land between the public streets and the private docking down there. As far as the private docking goes, we have pledged and have never been in the way of any expansion. That's..I'm leading up to why Mr. Flynn was talking about the Southold Shores Association suing the Southold Shores Boat Basin. We have a few irate residents who thought the association was not defending their rights. As a result of that, they did sue the Boat Basin people. The suit was settled amicably; in fact Mr .... what's your name? "John Hassel" MR. MALONE: (continuing) John Hassel. Sorry, I'm all up tight. Mr. Hassel, and several of my neighbors I talked to, we're friends, we discussed things, we have drinks together. But the fact remains, as president of the association, I have been sued as the president of the Boat Basin. Until it was settled that with the facts, and it was realized that we weren't stone-walling internally, the incoming new people have purchased land and built houses, and I think that you put to sleep the question of who the Association is and who the Boat Basin is. Except for the corporate charters, we're pretty much the same people. Thank you, sir. JO~N BREDEMEYER: OK, I will take a motion of the Board to close the.., no, I'll tell you what, I'll take a motion to recess the hearing, pending further review by the Board, but with the need to re-advertise. If someone would make that a motion, so if we have a continuing discussion that there'll, automatically be a public notification. There's a motion that has been offered by myself, and seconded by AL KRUPSKI to recess and to re-publish, pending a review of the file, the public hearing file. Point of information? FROM THE AUDIENCE: A question, could we please receive copies of the evidence that was presented by Mr. Flynn? JOH~ BREDEMEYER: Yes, you certainly may. OK, a motion has been made and seconded. Vote of the Board. ALL AYES. Can I have a motion with respect to an approval to possibly table the approval in this matter so we have, you know, continue this in an orderly fashion. (Board is briefly discussing as to when the Town Attorney should review file) JOEN BREDEMEYER: OK, I think we're on the same track. Why don't we take a motion to table the application, we have., we will as soon we can get a draft copy of the minutes to the Town Attorney, so he has a full list of items that we have. It'll just be additional co~t,ents we have, and all the cot~,,ents Mr. Flynn had, and then we'll send it along to the Town Attorney for his review. And if possible, we will put it back on and re-advertise for next month. Is that amenable? I'll take.. AL KRUPSKI: Do you want a second on that? 21 Board of Trustees JO~N BREDEMEYER: If that sounds acceptable. Is there a vote of the Board on that? ALL AYES. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Does anyone have a question with what we just did, since there are a number of you here? We tabled the .... there's no approval, we will be collating the co..~,ents from this evening and having it reviewed by the Town Attorney, and we will re-advertise another public hearing after the Town Attorney and the Trustees have an opportunity to review the public hearing tonight.(of tonight) HENRY SMITH: We'll try to have it next month so as not to delay our decision. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Ok, the next matter...it is now 8:27 and the next matter to have begun at 7:19 is in the matter of the application Land Use Company in behalf of FRANK VERMAELEN, JR. to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system on 40,000 s.f. lot. Dwelling to be located 125' landward of the tidal wetland; sanitary system to be set back 212' from said line. Approximately 200 c.y. of fill to be placed within the building area and stabilized with vegetation cover. Approximately 100 c.y. of fill necessary to construct pervious driveway. An 8" culvert pipe will be placed beneath driveway to ensure continued functioning of adjacent wetland area. Additionally, a 50' undisturbed vegetative buffer will be maintained along the entire wetland edge. Property is located w/s of Bay Avenue, Mattituck, NY. OK, Some housekeeping; let's see what we have. We have CAC comments, disapproving. We'll want to get an up-date from the CAC. We had a letter to AL from the Health Department in coordination. OK, let's start the hearing. We're going to have to do a little housekeeping on the file here, to bring all the members up to date with the conm~ents of the CAC and the Health Department. Opening the hearing, Mr. Bowman, I suspect you're here to speak on behalf of the application. CHUCK BOW/4AN: I'm Chuck Bowman, president of Land Use Company. Yes, I'd just like to point factors here. This is a subdivision that came about in the early 1970's, and unfortunately at that time, there wasn't the great assessments we have now, as far as the wet land area, particularly this, which is a small, formally connected wetland. Because of that formally connected wetland, there is a problem with this particular lot, not the other lots in this minor subdivision, one to the north, and one to the south, as far as access. Mr. Vermaelen is building his personal house there. This is not a speculative venture at all. He plans on retiring there. (number of voices, cannot hear Mr. Bowman) But the fact remains, that in order to access his house, which we've set back 220 feet from Bay Avenue, we have to cross this small wetland area. We are more than willing, and I think we made the offer within the application, to compensate for the loss of wetlands within the driveway area by recreating on some other part of the lot. We're talking about a 1000 s.f., and we've also taken care to have a pipe installed so that we're not interrupting the flow of any water into the remaining wetland areas. You know, if there are any questions to be answered, I certainly will. Care would be taken, hay bales 22 Board of Trustees would be installed before the fill is placed in the driveway area. The driveway will be of a pervious material to reduce the amount of storm water; the side slopes of the driveway would be re-vegetated with wetland and native vegetation, and I think it's something that, in this case, is necessary. Thank you. AL KRUPSKI: I have questions, but I would like to hear any other person's comments before I ah.. JOH~ BREDEMEYER: We had CAC concurrents on this, too, if I can inject, interject them. The Conservation Advisory Council is making a recommendation to have the applicant go to the ZBA to try to move the driveway at the south side of the lot. It was..they felt it would eliminate destroying the wetlands. MARGARET FEENEY FROM CAC: It wasn't the south side of the lot. It was.. there's three lots there. The south lot, you could put a driveway for all three lots. The other two lots, you're going to have go to right through the wetlands to put a driveway in. CHUCK BOWMAN: I beg to differ, but the northern lot, which is owned by Mr. Vermaelen's brother, requires no impact to the wetlands. There's plenty of room for a driveway to come into the upland part, as does southern lot. It's the middle lot that has the problem. AL KRUPSKI: Then what is this right-of-way here? It's the drainage, ok. INAUDIBLE...SEVERAL PEOPLE SPEAKING AT ONCE. CHUCK BOWMAN: The right-of-way that shows on the survey, was set up during the time the minor subdivision was placed in the early 1970's to provide access to the back part of one of the lots. But again, that was before the concern for the wetlands... AL KRUPSKI: Yeah, through the most viable part of the wetland... CHUCK BOWMAN: It goes right through the widest part. Yeah, that's why we have the application in the way we do. JO~N BREDEMEYER: We looked at it with respect to one driveway accessing them all, and I think what Mr. Bowman had said, though, the one on the south and the one on the north of it doesn't go invalid. They're not involved in the wetland. MARGARET FEENEY: So maybe there should be some way of getting the driveway for that middle lot, getting some kind of access through one of those other lots, because they are all brothers. AL KRUPSKI: If it is not, I mean, it seems like it wouldn't be totally inconceivable if you move the R.O.W. from the south to the north side of that middle lot, thereby, you'd have enough room to come around on the north side. CHUCK BOWMAN: That would be on the northern lot, and again that's .... HENRY SMITH: Excuse me, are the lots in individual ownerships, are they different ownerships now? OK, then we have to deal with them as per lot. We can't group them together. They are separate ownerships. CHUCK BOWMAN: Even though they are brothers, brothers don't always agree. HENRY SMITH: I'm just saying we have to handle this as not as one lot where everybody is big and happy together. They are individual ownerships and they have to handled as such. 23 Board of Trustees AL~KRUPSKI: Of course. FROM AUDIENCE: The young women over there, who is speaking, what is her function. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Her capacity is a member of the Conservation Advisory Council. They give an opinion to us; we try to... The Conservation Advisory Council is required under the Town's Wetlands Ordinance to give us advise on pending permit application, so we try to confer with them and work with them. FROM AUDIENCE: Thank you. AL KRUPSKI: So it would be impossible, then, to move that ROW to the north and.. CHUCK BOWMAN: We've tried to take into account even the construction of the house, where it is, the sanitary system; we try to recognize the importance of that wetland and make up for the driveway. I don't see beyond trying to re-create a thousand square feet on his lot, which is ..you're certainly able to do. TAPE BEING CHANGED We're taking every opportunity to keep the greens and the wetlands. I think we can certainly maintain its integrity with the plans that we have proposed. As far as building a bridge, it comes down to being very, very expensive. You have to make it suitable for fire trucks to run over and we've experienced this in other areas.. JOHN BREDEMEYER: This also is a fozmerly connected wetland. MARGARET FEENEY: It's still connected ..... under the road. JOHN BREDEMEYER: That's the DEC definition, ok, as far as it's still connected in physical risk, but I think ....... CHUCK BOWMAN: It has more fresh water vegetation than it does tidal. HENRY SMITH: Looks more like a ditch on the side of the road to me, than anything else. CHUCK BOWMAN: It gets a large amount of road run-off. INAUDIBLE...EVERYONE SPEAKING AT ONCE AL KRUPSKI: But anyway, the point is, you know, there might be a title in question as to whether that is Town property there, that wetland, since it is, what you would call, the applicant's admission "fo£merly connected". I don't know if the .... let me finish, Henry. I don't know if the Board understands what I'm saying, ok, then you understand what I am saying; that if we grant this easement over something which could possibly be a, you know, Town owned bottom at one time because it is the wetland, and it was fozmerly connected. HENRY SMITH: I hear what you're saying, Al, but it is on the opposite side of the road. Basically, it's a ditch that has indicative plants in it, and I think it was taken over by private ownership and the area was cleaned up. It would be a more viable wetland than it is now. Right now it's a dumping place for anybody who goes riding by that place, and there is garbage in there. AL KRUPSKI: Well, that's a sad testimony to our society, Henry, but ah... HENRY SMITH: Well, when I looked at it there was. People throw cans and bottles and .... 24 Board of Trustees CHUCK BOWMAN: The best part of the wetland is at the southern end, not where the driveway is. INAUDIBLE...SEVERAL PEOPLE SPEAKING AT ONCE AL KRUPSKI: I'm just cautioning the Board to a different matter. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I understand, I'm on your wave length there, Albert. I have a question. If we were to go with the thousand square foot of marsh creation, how...this, I don't personally on the Board have a lot of experience seeing these kinds of projects, how do we.. how is this done so that you don't just have it invaded by phragmites and be relatively low value? CHUCK BOWMAN: Right in that area, we really do not have that many phragmites. JOHN BREDEMEYER: No, but I mean as far as the disturbance of, you know, the typical situation. You disturb .... CHUCK BOWMAN: But what we'd be doing, we wouldn't be trying to create an emergent marsh, we'd try to be creating a deciduous shrub marsh, which is basically the majority of the marsh that's there right now, and we'd use some of the areas of slope areas, reduce them in grade, and you do have significant amounts of ah ..... JOHN BREDEMEYER: Rely on heavy mulching, or something like that to get the deciduous ..... CHUCK BOWMAN: ...thousand square feet, when it's a thousand square feet, you can spend the time to keep the species you don't want from encroaching upon it. You can pull them out by hand. You know, we're not talking about acres here. AL KRUPSKI: I've got a question, also. Suppose the Board would be receptive to the idea of wetland creation, you know, on the property. The soil characteristics of adjacent upland, would they be compatible with the salt water brackish wetland environment or would it just become a total mess? CHUCK BOWMAN: It would be brackish, and I think that's the key right there. What we'd be doing is taking some of the slope area immediately adjacent to the wetlands line. The slope goes up rather dramatically in the back, and taking and reducing the front portion of it, maybe it would be a 10' wide strip, you know, enough of an elevation to match the existing wetland in there, and then planting shrubs of similar types. So certainly the high ground water conditions in that area would allow the re-structure of... AL KRUPSKI: You know, I wouldn't be objecting to take the plugs from the spartina from the existing and planting them throughout that area. But I think I would like to see some soil for, maybe three or five feet, just to get and idea of, see if there's any consistency between the two areas, and would that, you know, how those two area would grow together, and function as one. AL KRUPSKI AND CHUCK BOWMAN TALKING AT SAME TIME CHUCK BOWMAN: I was speaking to you in terms of wetland creation, which, you know, we do a lot of. As far as the hydric soils that are on the site within the wetland right now, ok, as opposed to even sandy soils that are taken down to a high water table ..... JOHN BREDEMEYER: They will all convert, won't they over a time? 25 Board of Trustees C~3CK BOWMAN: Absolutely, and the point of the fact is that that wetlands plant, which you plant in the sandy soils that are in the high water table, will do just as well. By nature they are more nutrient to man plants, anyway, and you don't need the high organic count that you may have in some of the bogs in order for them to survive. AL KRUPSKI: That was my question, because I doubted the soil types of .... CHUCK BOWMAN: When we create a marsh, all right, we are usually planting it in sand. Just because it's a clean base, it's easy to get the grates right. The bottom's impossible to grate. AL KRUPSKI: One more question when I was out there today to look at it. With this marsh creation in mind, there is a great deal of shade from the south end. Of course, I don't think Spartina patens will grow in shade and that, you know, you can plant it every year. CHUCK BOWMAN: Where the Patens is growing, now, it is growing under the shrubsand what we do when we plant shrubs, most likely a combination of fresh and salt water Bacharis and ...something like that with a understory of Patens. The Patens, we now use nursery pea potted plants which were available, you know, a few years ago. Whether they'll all survive, or the Patens will survive, it's questionable. We can seed it with something like switch grass, which will do or add it in the brackish environment. Between the two, you're going to get grass and shr~,h cover, because it's in that transitional area. You know, it's not a tidal wetland and it's not a fresh water wetland, so you have to cover both bases. AL KRUPSKI: What about the extension of the...is that a mosquito controlled ditch? CHUCK: Yes. AL KRUPSKI: what about the extension of that? To the west into, not necessarily in a straight line, but into that new area to provide greater cort,~unication between the salt water and the fresh. CHUCK BOWMAN: You really don't need it now, because you're talking such a small area, a thousand square feet, and it's really a high water table that's creating the marsh in the rest of that small formerly connected area. As long as we get down to the elevations, the wetlands vegetation is growing there. AL KRUPSKI: OK, what's the feeling of the Board, then, on my initial concern.? JOH~ TUTHILL: My feeling is, it's kind of a small thing. I don't see much sense in doing anything. I'd be willing to go along with it. HENRY SMITH: I think we're terribly over-killing this ah... AL KRUPSKI: NO, no you didn't hear my, understand my question JOHN BREDEMEYER: OK, yeah, you want me to take it up and re-phrase it, Al? AL KRUPSKI: Go ahead, yeah. JOH~ BREDE~EYER: We've had several situations, Henry, where the..where it has been a major part of the application, the Board considering giving an exclusive easement over Trustee land to one's individual property, and one is Gus Wade, and another 26 Board of Trustees is.a subdivision out in East Marion, and there has been a number of these cases. Now, if the situation arises, if there's not clear title to the wetland, here, on site, in other words, if the title of this property doesn't go back prior to the Trustees' original patent, the question is we're conferring a right to this individual that we may have denied to others and there'd be a constitutional argument of equal protection. So, I'm not an attorney, but I think .... HENRY SMITH: Yeah, but we go to normal high tide, correct? JOHN BREDEMEYER: Well, we do, but I think what A1 is saying he saw tidal water. Heretofore, I never saw it, and I stopped a couple of times, but if there's high water going up through the culvert, and this is formerly connected, you know, there's a question, maybe there should be a title search on this. AL KRUPSKI: By the applicant's admission, I believe, it's formerly connected tidal wetland, and therefore, it would bring that under .... CHUCK BOWMAN: "Formerly connected" is a definition. Doesn't say anything about its origin or how it became formerly connected. INAUDIBLE, EVERYONE TALKING AT ONCE I think when the road was put in, the ball field or whatever, probably the Town thought they needed some drainage from the west down to the Bay for that area because there's drain swale that drains on the properties down there, and they put the pipe in. AL KRUPSKI: Well, that certainly is the case, but the, I mean, just as the low spot just happened to be there, it was possibly connected to a system of wetlands that were filled to create the ball field. CHUCK BOWMAN: I also think, that certainly, in the subdivision process the Town Planning Board certainly recognized the fact that it was private property. AL KRUPSKI: No problem. CHUCK BOWMAN: You can search back in the aerial photographs if you can get them from the 30's or 40's. I don't even know when that road was put in. Probably a long time ago. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I'm wondering if maybe the logical way to start is if it is above mean high water, as far as a, in other words, the stakes set in James Creek in MHW shot to this elevation to see whether or not this wetland is actually below the level of MR-W. AL KRUPSKI: I think it would be wise for the Board to pursue it that way. JOHN BREDEMEYER: That's the easiest way to establish it as opposed to the title search that's a historic title search you might never be able to conclude. AL KRUPSKI: But environmentally, you know, from what I hear, the Board is not really upset with this project. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who is going to speak to the application tonight, then maybe we can conclude all the additional comments. Maybe there can be..ah..some..an approval subject to certain conditions. HENRY SMITH: The only thing I would like to see, Jay, in case there is an approval, the culvert under the road, the concrete 27 Board of Trustees construction..(Jay: enlarger) larger or so ? It would not have to be a .... AL KRUPSKI: Well, there's a few other things that I would like to get in. JOHN BREDEMEYER: OK, let's get comments from everyone concerned, and then see what the CAC thinks about wetland creation. FRANK VERMAELEN: Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Frank, it's really Francis Patrick Vermaelen, but everyone calls me Frank. That property has been in my family since the 1930's. That road had been there since before I was born, and I'm not going to tell you how old I am. Now, my folks have owned that property, and when my mother passed away, in settling the estate, we subdivided it. Now we played the bureaucratic shuffle down here for a couple of years. We had the, let's see, I guess we went through the Board of Appeals, and maybe you, the Trustees. At any rate, it took a couple of years and finally, in order to resolve this, we gave to the Town of Southold, an easement, a fifteen foot easement running across that property for drainage. Never at any time was there any question brought up as to who owns that property. That property has always been owned and we have been paying taxes on that property. I've been paying taxes on that property, myself, for the last twenty years, and now I'd like to use it. I want to build a two-bedroom house out there. This is not a big deal, a two-bedroom house. We're going to create less pollution than half the crabs in James Creek. That's a fact. I know that our pollution is considered unnatural, where as the crabs and the fish is natural, and so we have two strikes against us. What I would like to do, I'm just asking you fellows to give permission so that I'll have access to that land, so that I can build my little house there. Now if we can't do that, you tell me that, too, because I've got to make plans, and I'm running out of time. I can just as well leave this area, but I love Southold, I grew up in Southold, and in fact my ancestral property there, and I'd like to stay here. But if you tell me I can't, I will just get out of here and we'll part friends. But I do want to stay; I do want to use the land; I want to build a house for myself. It's going to be my little retirement home. And I don't know, you've all seen the wetlands. The only connection between that land and the water, is an 8" pipe running under the street. Now, that property, that wetland is only viable for mosquitos, and I live in Oakdale, and last year the County sprayed the wetlands down there about eight times. They came with all kinds of insecticides to kill the mosquitos. That property is only good for mosquitos. Now if you're going to tell me that the Trustees own the land, I want to ask you why the devil I've been paying taxes on it for the last so many years, you know. JOHN BREDEMEYER: That's what we're afraid of. MR. VERMAELEN: Well, ok. Again, we're not going to disturb the environment at all. We just want to build a little house. We proposed to put a ten foot road across the wetland, that are about, what ..50 foot? 28 Board of Trustees FROM AUDIENCE: About 1000 s.f. MR. VERMAELEN: Through the narrowest part of the wetland. AL KRUPSKI: Yeah, we saw it; we saw it staked out. MR. VERMAELEN: The wetlands, again, if any fish are breeding in there, they can't get over to James Creek at low...because they can only get out when the tide..when you get this full moon tides, about three or four times a year when the water comes through that pipe on the property. Most of that water you see down there is drainage. That's why the Town wanted the easement that I had to give them. HENRY SMITH: Excuse me, you gave the Town an easement? MR. VERMAELEN: Yes sir. HENRY: OK. MR. VERMAELF~N: I have it here. HENRY SMITH: In other words they realized the fact that you owned the property? MR. VERMAELEN: Oh yes. HENRY SMITH: And they're asking for an easement? MR. VERMAELEN: Let me show you. AL KRUPSKI: I'm not trying to make it hard for Mr...I'm not trying to make it hard for you, personally, because I don't know you. MR. VERMAELEN: I know you're not, that's ok, I like you, too. AL KRUPSKI: The point is, the Town Board is...has been in a few other delicate situations with ownership of the land in question. We have to be consistent on that. CHUCK BOWMAN: I think that the point we're trying to make is that the history of property will lend itself to the argument that the Vermaelen's have had control and ownership of the property, and certainly, the Town Attorney accepted that easement. AL KRUPSKI: Sure, I just wanted to run that by the Board and clear it out and then we can proceed. MR. VERMAELEN: Well, if the Board of Appeals, appeal number 1949, where they approved the minor subdivision predicated of the fact that we granted the Town an..a 50 foot easement from the Town property, which abuts on the property that I own for drainage purposes. Now that easement which we gave to the Town, has value, and for that, I reduced the value of my property to make it easy for the Town of Southold to drain property on Marlene and Sigsby. Now, I think I'm entitled to your consideration, when I want to go to use the land, now. And on top of that, I've been a year now, you know. I'd appreciate your consideration, and I hope we don't part, because I don't want to go to Florida; I want to stay here. JO~N BREDEMEYER: No, we understood. As a matter of fact, we heard you, we heard your call for help and we tried to expedite this as much as we could. That's why we'll have to check our file before we go ahead with the vote, make sure we talked to everybody we should have. Pat, Bruce and Margaret, how do you feel about wetland creation on the site as a CAC. Is that a good alternative or would you prefer to see just a restrictive 29 Board of Trustees covenant on existing vegetation and leave well enough alone? Do you have any thoughts. BRUCE LOUCKA: I don't have any thoughts on it, now. MARGARET FEENEY: I want to see some evidence that it is going to work. I mean my understanding from conferences I've gone to that wetlands creation doesn't always work. HENRY SMIT~: Well, I think this would be a good place to see if it does work. CHUCK BOWMAN: I could certainly point her to just, not anything to do with this application. I'd be more than happy to show her projects where we created beautiful wetlands. HENRY SMITH: I created some in my back yard. I transplanted. AL KRUPSKI: Looking at this I can see there's potential for wetland creation, and also with a kind of buffering, I think, you know, .... someone else spoke, inaudible...right to the west of the wetland. CHUCK BOWMAN AND TRUSTEES REVIEWING THE PLANS. AL KRUPSKI: We'd want to put a couple, instead of one, I think we would want to put a couple of pipes underneath, like Henry said. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I think when we were at the site we were talking about at least 18", two 18". AL KRUPSKI: I think so. I wasn't there with you, but ... CHUCK BOWMAN: The size of the pipe ..... AL KRUPSKI: Then I think of the proper setback from that, of no disturbance, you know, and I think that would really .... Have you been out there? The middle lot; this area here is very high, this end of the wetland. This is where the real viable part is. It's more in here. I don't think we're going to see any other information to the sides. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Have them do a survey? AL KRUPSKI: Or let the Town Attorney just check it, just review it, and we could .... because I think we can work out the details right now. JOHN BREDEMEYER: That's a good idea, I like that idea. Ok, to bring it up to date, I believe the Health Department had no serious concerns with what they had said, did they, Al, as far as .... AL KRUPSKI: They were hung up on a ..... JOHN BREDEMEYER: ...us giving a permit? AL KRUPSKI: No, on the construction of the a ... JOHN B~EMEYER: ...Habitat? AL KRUPSKI: Yeah, ..... inaudible...We object to the filling of tidal wetlands as the prime access .... JOHN BREDEMEYER: This is a canned statement. I think it's a canned one. AL KRUPSKI: Yeah, but they don't give you an alternative. JOHN BREDEMEYER: We have the alternative, here. OK, is there anyone else who wishes to speak on behalf or against this application? If there are no other comments from the public or the Trustees .... AL KRUPSKI: Let's not close it, yet. Let's discuss a few different changes here and there. JOHN B~nEMEYER: Before we close the hearing itself? 30 Board of Trustees AL. KRUPSKI: What is the current setback from the wetlands, and is that setback related to the current wetland or is that setback related to the creative wetlands? CHUCK BOWMAN: Right now, of course it relates to what's there, but as I don't have my scale with me, probably ~hout a 175 feet. JOH~ BREDEMEYER: The current land we would limit, is a 130 feet from the house. CHUCK BOWMAN: So it would still be probably a 120 feet from the creative wetland. AL KRUPSKI: Would you have an objection to two 18" concrete pipes? The fill from the creative wetland? CHUCK BOWMAN: It will be trucked off site. AL KRUSPKI: OK, because when I looked at it, I..maybe it's not my place to make recommendations, but it seems like it would, if it was, you know, sandy fill to be used as ... CHUCK BOWMAN: Or, we could use it for the roadway. Obviously you have to take off the organics in order for it to be a good sand. We can use that, certainly, and that's why we've shown the hay bales to be staked on the side so that we can contain the fill as it's being put down, and it would ~m,ediately be revegetated. AL KRUPSKI: One more, one more thing I want to run by the Board, the possibility of using that fill for the marsh creation to create a slight be£m to protect the wetland from the habitation; two foot rise, something to slow the water flow, just at the edged of Mr. Vermaelen's proposed yard. HENRY SMITH: The Town is using it for a road run-off. CHUCK BOWMAN: We've already said that we're going to have a 50' vegetative buffer, ok, and it's heavily vegetated right now. No water is going to run through that fifty feet. AL KRUPSKI: OK JOHN B~mnEMEYER: OK, so we can get a new map showing the ten, approximately ten-foot deep wetland creation and showing the new 50 foot, it will be 50 feet from their buffer, I guess. And then the haybales, as shown, two 18" culverts; I guess we can close the hearing. We're actually talking about permitting items, now, anyway. Is there a motion to close the hearing? HENRY SMITH: I make a motion to close the hearing. JOHN TUTHILL: Second. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Do I hear a motion for the approval and to set the conditions. HENRY SMITH: Why don't you read it off, Jay, and I'll second it. JOHN BREDEMEYER: OK, I will read it off and so..the chairman shouldn't be doing motions. HENRY SMITH: Jay, do it. JOHN BREDEMEYER: OK, move to approve subject to haybales as shown on the Howard Young Survey dated November 7,1989 updated November 30, it's January 24, 1990 with the placement of 2 minimum 18 inch culverts underneath the drive. The establishment of a minimum 1000 s.f. created marsh, land... immediately landward of the existing tidal wetland limit as delineated. The creation of a and the inclusion of a 50 foot buffer landward of the created marsh to be shown on a submitted..on a new submittal to this Board, subject to a review 31 Board of Trustees of~the issue of ownership of wetlands by the Town Attorney. In other words, we get the new map in, ok, just to clarify this part, side issue of the motion. As soon as we get clearar~ce from the Town Attorney and a new map in, the Clerk will issue the permit for the work. And the type of vegetation as we discussed, this is still part of the motion, species such as Bacharis, Spartina, or do you have access to any rushes or sedges in the fresh area? Cb_HUCK BOWMAN: Sure do. JOH~ BREDEMEYER: OK, if it looks like it's validus, we didn't see any of those. I think we should set an additional inspection, also. I make that part of the motion; an additional inspection upon completion and planting of the marsh. One additional inspection for the..upon the completion of the wetland creation. HENRY SMITH: It's going to be a free inspection? JOHN BREDEMEYER: No, the inspections have a fee attached to them. It requires a separate visit by the Bay Constable just to see that it's properly planted and mulched. OK, I think that's in the form of a motion. Is there a second? HENRY SMITH: I'll second it. ALL AYES. JOHN B~R~EMEYER: We have a request for a brief recess. have a motion to recess? HENRY SMITH: I make a motion. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Second. ALL AYES RECESS TIME: 9:05 PM. Do we JOHN BREDEMEYER: We are going to move our agenda .. who else had pending items here that they wish to expedite? What agenda item, do you know where you're at? HENRY SMITH: Why don't we do the LILCO first? JOHN B~R~EMEYER: OK, we'll do LILCO first. XI. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. Extension of permit %298 of the LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY by Maurice P. Fitzgerald to trench, bury, and backfill, or directional bore to install a 69kv electric cable conduits for submarine crossing from the foot of Island View Lane, (Southold) to Rocky Shore Road (Shelter Island). John Bredemeyer briefly described the project; the initial permit being issued by us on May 29, 1986 for the identical work. Mr. Fitzgerald explained the new process of directional boring, etc. The DEC permit carries through 3/9/93. An amended Army Corps of Engineer permit allows directional boring. Mr. Fitzgerald presented the Board with a copy of the COE permit which is also extended to 3/9/93. Work on this project to commence by October 1, 1990. HENRY SMITH made a motion to extend the permit from the expiration date to 3/9/93, seconded by JOHN TUTHILL. ALL AYES. 32 Board of Trustees JOHN BRRDEMEYER: Let's leave the mooring renewals to the end. Maybe we can do some assessments, item number 8. VIII. ASSESSMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: 1. En-Consultants, Inc. in behalf of ANTONIO PEREZ/ANN BRANCH WILLIAMS to construct a one-family dwelling, pool, deck, sanitary system, well, bluestone (or similar) pervious driveway. Approximately 500 c.y. of clean fill to be trucked in to raise grades. Location of project is ROW off Main Road, Orient, NY, fronting L. I. Sound. (unlisted action, not in the CEA; it's a wetland of local importance). After prolonged discussion: ALBERT KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to give this a Conditional Negative Dec, the conditions being: receipt of a Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF), a 30' buffer zone around the existing marsh, between that and the proposed house, and marsh creation being the removal of the existing road to the middle of the marsh and elevating the proposed driveway. JOHN TUTHILL: Second. ALL AYES JOHN BREDEMEYER: Roy, with this, could you submit an amended plan showing what you plan for marsh creation, and then showing the buffer on it at the 8' or, in other words, the general form of the 8' so we can have at least the 30 feet that A1 put in the CND motion. AL KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, the proposed road will be staked hay bales with vegetation on the slopes. JOHN BRR~EMEYER: Is there a motion to amend the initial resolution on the CND? AL KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to amend it. JOHN TUTHILL: I'll second it. ALL AYES. 2. En-Consultants, Inc. in behalf of ERIKA SWIMMER, revised plan of March 6, to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system (revised location) with retaining wall, well, and bluestone (or similar) driveway. Approximately 300 c.y. of clean fill to be trucked in to raise grades. Location of the project is Orchard Lane, Southold, NY on Sandpiper Basin. The Trustees had no problem with the revised plan, based on the visit. HENRY SMITH made a motion to accept the amended plan, seconded by JOHN TUTHILL. ALL AYES. Revised plan was at the request of the DEC. AL KRUPSKI moved to grant a Negative Dec, seconded by JOHN BEDNOSKI. ALL AYES. 3. Proper-T Services in behalf of AGNES M.DUNN to demolish existing house and construct a new house and regrade property which is located on s/e corner of Queen street and CR 48, Greenport, NY. (DEC has designated "freshwater wetlands" east of the property). HENRY SMITH made a motion to grant a Negative Dec, seconded by JOHN TUTHILL. ALL AYES. 33 Board of Trustees .4.. Land Use Company in behalf of GAIL SCHLEGEL to reconstruct existing single-family dwelling and expand to 35' x 41' envelop with attached 12' x 24' timber deck and 6' x 12' stairway; solid fill pier and boat ramp. Location of project is Sage Blvd., Greenport, NY. CAC approved; the Trustees feel it would be an improvement. A Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) will be completed and signed by Trustee President before declaration is sent. AL KRUPSKI made a motion to give this project a Negative Dec, seconded by JO~IN BEDNOSKI. ALL AYES. 5. HENRY SILVERMAN requests approval of application submitted on January 3, 1989 to construct a floating dock and .walkway on Mill Creek, Southold, NY. John Bredemeyer did not hear from the Town Attorney about a dock attached to commercial property. Originally, Mr. Silverman wanted to put in five or six boats, now he just wants to put his own boat. JOH~ BREDEMEYER moved to table this project until the Trustees hear from the Town Attorney. AL KRUPSKI seconded the motion. ALL AYES. 6. a) Rescind Negative Declaration on EDWARD DEUTSCH project made on 1/25/90. (Unlisted in Peconic CEA, the declaration was done out of sequence of the SEQRA process). Project is to construct 215 1.f. of timber retaining wall at or above the line of MHW. Backfill with 15+ c.y. of clean sand and loam to be trucked in. Wall will be built only along side where shoreline is receding; construct a 4' x 16' hinged ramp secured to crest of bank by (2) 4" posts; and a 6' x 20' float secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings. In addition a request is made for construction of a one-family dwelling, garage, deck, bluestone driveway, well and sanitary system. WE are on record as being Lead Agency, which the DEC has accepted based on the action of our last meeting. JOH~ TUTHILL made a motion to rescind the Negative Declaration, seconded by ALBERT KRUPSKI. AYES: Trustees Bredemeyer, Krupski, Bednoski, and Tuthill ABSTAINED: Trustee Smith. b) Following discussions and comments from the CAC, HENRY SMITH moved to issue this project a Negative Dec; seconded by JOHN TUTHILL. ALL AYES. V. MOORINGS: APPROVAL OF APRIL MOORING R~.NEWALS ....... HENRY SMITH moved to approve, seconded by ~LRERT KRUPSKI. ALL AYES. 1. MARIA DIAKOVASILIS requests a mooring permit in Mattituck Inlet. (Offshore Mushroom) 34 Board of Trustees 2., MICHAEL ZAHARIADIS requests mooring permit in Mattituck Creek. (Offshore Mushroom) 3. EDWARD CAVIN requests mooring permit in Mattituck Creek. (Offshore Mushroom) 4. KENNETH RAAB requests permit for a mooring in Narrow River. (Offshore stake with pulley to onshore stake) 5. WILLIAM BARRON requests permit for a mooring in Narrow River. (Offshore Mushroom) ALBERT KRUPSKI made a motion to TABLE all mooring permit requests, as a group, until a s~muer survey can be completed. JOHlq TUTHILL seconded this motion. ALL AYES. VII. LEAD AGENCY: 1. LARRY M. Tuthill in behalf of Carl E. Vail, Sr. to construct bulkhead behind existing rock revetment and fence on property located on Wells Road, Southold, NY on Jockey Creek. After much discussion and hearing co,u.ents from Larry Tuthill, JOH~ BEDNOSKI moved to TABLE this project pending co-ordination with other involved agencies; seconded by HENRY SMITH. ALL AYES. IX. RESOLUTIONS: 1. Formal resolutions to schedule Public Hearings for April 25, including Gardiners BAy Estates Homeowners Association. Motion was made by ALBERT KRUPSKI, seconded by HENRY SMITH. ALL AYES. 2. Purchase of Video on Seminar held by Suffolk Academy of Law on wetlands, etc., at a cost of $75.00. ALBERT KRUPSKI moved to approve the purchase of the video. HENRY SMITH seconded the motion. ALL AYES. AT 10:15 PM, JOHN BEDNOSKI MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING, SECONDED BY HENRY SMITH. ALL AYES. Respectively submitted, Jane Blados, Clerk RECEIVED AND /LED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CT.m~K DATE ~- Q H-90 HOUR ~ '. }~ Town Clerk, Town of Southold