Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/27/1989FRANK A. KUJAWSKI, JR., President ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III JOHN L. BEDNOSKI, JR. HENRY P. SMITH TELEPHONE (516) 765-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 MINUTES April 27, 1989 Present were: President Frank A. Kujawski, Jr. Trustee Albert J. Krupski, Jr. Trustee John Bredemeyer, III Trustee John L. Bednoski, Jr. Trustee Henry P. Smith Clerk Joan Schneider I. MONTHLY REPORT: Trustees monthly report for March, 1989, a check for $4,807 was issued to the Supervisor's Office for deposit in general fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are published outside on the bulletin board for review. III.COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Agnetha H. Ewer re: proposed structure to be located on Campfire Lane. FRANK KUJAWSKI: This particular permit has been tabled pending the outcome of a discussion of between the property owners and other members of the community. FRANK KUJAWSKI: This letter is in response to the Board of Trustees hearing regarding Mrs. Margaret McGwire request to construct a two-story garage including living quarters on the above captioned property. This proposed structure is to include a walkway from the second story to the present house. The walkway to extend out 30' plus east from the proposed two-story building and the same distance south to the back of the present building. "As I own the property to east and the north of McGwire's land, I am not please about having my view spoiled anymore than it is now". And it goes on that way, maybe you would like to get a copy of this since you will representing Mr. McGwire right? It probably concerns the design you have been talking about. Okay anyone else ? (AUDIENCE SPEAKER NOT IDENTIFIED AND NOT CLEARLY HEARD): On the original application there is nothing about living space. Is that something that has been added to the application? FRANK KUJAWSKI: Not to my knowledge. (AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Or is this just a letter coming in indicating what there are going to do? FRANK KUJAWSKI: That's what I have. A Walkway? ED DIEFENBACH: It is in the file plan. FRANK KUJAWSKI: With the building department not with the Trustees. That would have to be a part of our permit if it is going to be approved at some stage. ED DIEFENBACH: FRANK KUJAWSKI: ED DIEFENBACH: FRANK KUJAWSKI: ED DIEFENBACH: FRANK KUJAWSKI: garage. I thought a plan was included with an application. Not to my knowledge. Is it living quarters? There are two rooms above the garage Septic system? No. This is all news to us. It was represented to us as a 2. Susan O'Brien re: closing the R.O.W access at Luptons Point. FRANK KUJAWSKI: We have a letter from Susan O'Brien about the closing of the right of way access at Luptons Point and I think the Board will probably be interested this because we just took a look at this site for a dock the other day. "We wish to notify the Board that Mr. Anthony Gambino of Luptons Point has blocked our deeded 20' R.O.W. to the water. Our family has owned our property on Lupton's Point for 37 years and we have always had access to the water and as you can see by the pictures we have enclosed that it is blocked with pine trees. We would also like to express our concerns regarding Mr. Gambino's application to put in a dockand hope that it is done properly without violating anyone else's rights". HENRY SMITH, JR.: I talked to Mr. Gambino yesterday Frank and he said the trees are removed. They are either removed now or they will be removed. His landscaper put them there without his knowledge is what happened. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Fine. I don't think anyone had a problem with the dock, but we will be discussing that later. 3. William Pymm for extension to permit granted 1987. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The last one is William Pymm for an extension granted 1987. "Dear Sirs. By this letter I respectfully request a two-year renewal or extension of the above mentioned permits until July 27, 1991. Construction has been delayed due to difficulties of getting a pez~t from the Suffolk County Department of Health. I hope to be ableto resolve the obstacles in obtaining a Health department permit and complete construction by the fore mentioned date. I would like to thank you in advance for your consideration". This is not our standard way of handling this, we usually don't give two year extensions. I think probably what should happen is ask the person to reappl¥ again six months before they anticipated beginning construction. We can grant them a one year extension, but that does not seem to be enough. ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR.: I would sort of have reservations about granting them a two year extension, but I would not have a problem granting them a one year extension. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I have no problem , but in a year but they would have to reapply. ALBERT KRUPSKI: There doing it in a timely fashion its not like it expired in February. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Did he obtain the DEC permit on July of 19877 Well I think we can do it for one year and then reconsider it. Would you like to handle it right now? MOVED by Albert Krupski, second by John Bredemeyer, extension of one year granted. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. IV. NEW APPLICATIONS: 1. Adele Dusenbury FRANK KUJAWSKI: We have several new applications. John would you tell us about the first one. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Adele Dusenbury was the one we had been out on for a waiver inspection as you recall. We requested an application, I went out and taped off the proposed well and sanitary system. They are beyond ouE jurisdiction, but some of the landscaping activities may be within our jurisdiction. We should probably put a buffer restriction because of the pond there. I did not see a problem-with a move for negative declaration. FRANK KUJAWSKI: CAC approval was submitted. MOVED by John Bredemeyer, second by Frank Kujawski. Vote of the board: Ayes, all. 2. John Geideman JOHN BREDEMEYER: This application is for a bulkhead located on willow Terrace Lane. I believe the CAC had concerns and would have preferred revetment structure. I know we heard several years ago that there were restrictive covenants for use of wood bulkhead only. There are several wood bulkheads in the area. I did not have a problem with it except for one question from the diagram submitted by Mr. Geideman on behalf of Mr. Hands. It wasn't clear where the tie in was. I wasn't exactly certain which property I was on. I hoped the office would get in touch with Mr. Geideman. I tried several times,~but the line was busy, He could have shown us where the tie in was. Its in the file? Okay. I really didn't have a problem with it, I just wanted to make sure I had my bearings right. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Mr. Hands is here. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Is there a house immediately to the right of your lot, with the bulkhead? With out the bulkhead. MR. HANDS: Both myself and the property owner next door by the name of Robert Keith, whose application will be forthcoming. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Could you just show, me with respect to your application, where Holtsmann is? Before I advance a motion, I just want to make sure I have the right location. Okay, I was on the right spot. Then these will all be in line. That was the big question that I had that that we weren't approving a structure ...... The CAC had requested it based on its very useful functioning, but I don't know if they were aware, I believe there are community restrictions on the use and type of material you use. We ourselves wanted to have another application with a revetment at the time that Bob Douglas came down and informed us that they had community rules against it. MR. HANDS: My understanding is that his wife still has to give approval because of the way they are overseeing the development. They put a bulkhead in ~hout fifteen or eighteen years ago and we are not proposing anything different. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Right, I didn't hav~ a problem with it. I had to mention the comments of the Conservation CounCil and offer some discussion on it. JOHN BEDNOSKI: I think I just came back on the Board when the last one was up and remember having the same discussion. But there was a problem maybe with ...of the possibility of things like that, but I think that it worked out. MR. HOLZAPFEL: Just to add two cents before you say something, I am speaking for the CAC and just as a general policy the revetment is probably a better thing in most cases, but we as you noticed our minutes were decided right down the middle and usually we vote for revetment, but anybody understands that its already done; one after another so there was a toss up between the two, but I think, if I remember correctly, the DEC was the one who actually forced that issue even more so. Its because they wanted that, it was their reco~m~endation and that's not usually their policy, MOVED by John Bredemeyer and seconded by John Bednoski. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All 3. John B. Tuthill JOHN BREDEMEYER: I did this one also. This is a JMO Consulting on behalf on John B. Tuthill to construct a catwalk, ramp and three floats on Narrow River Road, Orient. I do not know what the CAC had to say about this because the last time I heard they were still discussing it. I had a problem with it. FRANK KUJAWSKI: It seems to be a very large project here. ALBERT KRUPSKI: We thought the scale was kind of large. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Three eight foot by thirty JOHN BREDEMEYER: Actually the problem I had with it does nou apply so much much with what Mr. Tuthill has, but what the DEC is doing. We have a critical environmental area here and if they are in the process of negotiating easements down to the water, down to Trustee lands in a piecemeal fashion then they are essentially performing a segmentation SEQRAwithout involving the trustees, and I would still like to meet with the DEC to discuss what plans they have with Hallock's Bay. I think what they are doing is good, and I believe it is receiving general public favor and now some of the landowners, such as Mr. Tuthill, are coming to negotiated settlements, but for us to bury our heads in the sand and allow one easement after the other to possibly pop up where maybe we don't want people going down to our bay bottom would be a mistake. I think particularly since we took it upon ourselves to form the critical environmental area we should enforce it by insisting that the DEC sit down With us to discuss what their plans are, how many easements they want, and we may well agree with how many they have planned and again we may not, and maybe this is the only one they have planned, but to date the DEC is just really treated us, if you will, as a weak step child and has left us out to wither on the vine and no matter what happens with the land policy there we axe still going have title to that bay bottom we should be looking out for it. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Do you have any comments about this? ALBERT KRUPSKI: How does that fit in with this application? FRANK KUJAWSKI: Well this is going to be a type one, so all we are up for tonight is a Lead Agency determination. As of what date, I have a Lead Agency request here? How much time did they give us for a response? I think the problem here, Glenn, and I think we should contact the DEC is that apparently this request for information and so on was sent to the Supervisors office and not to the Trustees office. So it never reached us. JOHN BREDEMEYER: If it went to the Town Clerk, they might have a pretty strong case, because the Town Clerk, maybe the Supervisor's office is the officer of record under SEQRA. If this one is out of the barn that's fine. We should at least have a meeting with them and say all right let's see what is going to be coming down the pike. ALBERT KRUPSKI: What would you like to do? Who do you want to meet with? You are pretty elusive as far as trying to pin it down... JOHN BREDEMEYER: I think maybe we should just table the application and request a meeting with the DEC and possibly direct it through Chuck Hamilton to Dick Ryan's office. This may be the only easement offered, I have heard of no others being discussed at this time. I'll move to table this application to contact the DEC for discussion of possible future easements. FRANK KUJAWSKI: HENRY P. SMITH: FRANK KUJAWSKI: ALBERT KRUPSKI: Agency on this. FRANK KUJAWSKI: know of that has been to Frank Murphy's office rather than my office. usually ends up on our desks. Okay. All in favor of tabling this application? MOVED by John Bredemeyer, second by Henry Smith. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second. Any other discussion about this? Yes, Glenn said that the DEC has already taken Lead I think in the past several months was the first one I It 4. Claudio Zustovich re: to construct a floating dock on willow Point. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Number four is an application by Claudio Zustovich to construct 5' by 20' floating dock on Willow Point. HENRY P. SMITH: I looked at this one Frank and its just another dock, it is no different than the ones already there. It is their marina. FRANK KUJAWSKI: CAC did not have any problems with it? HENRY P. SMITH: No, they approved it. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Is it one of those things that the Association is going to get excited... HENRY P. SMITH: No, they all have deeded rights for this .... to put a dock in this particularly designated marina area. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Did you make a motion Henry? HENRY P. SMITH: Yes. MOVED by Henry Smith, second byAlbert Krupski. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. 5. FRANK KUJAWSKI: En Consultants on behalf of Frederick Rapp to remove and replace bulkhead and dredge 10 cu. yds at property located on Lake Drive, Reydon Shores. I believe this project is along with several others that we had processed in this area. I don't have a problem with it and I don't think any of us did. As a matter of fact we liked the way it was being done down there. MOVED by Henry Smith, second by John Bredemeyer for a negative declaration. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All 6. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Number six is Proper T Services on behalf on Kenneth Coles to construct walkway, ramp and floating dock on Sleepy Hollow Lane in Southold. The CAC did not have a problem with this. We took a look at this the other day. Does anyone want to make any comments on it? No. MOVED by John Bredemeyer, second by Albert Krupski for a negative declaration. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. 7. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The next is JMO Consulting on behalf of John Fife to reconstruct a bulkhead at Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. We did have a little confusion here. I think our confusion was at what we were looking at. Apparently we were looking at the wrong thing at first, and went down the road and found it. The comments from the CAC were that approval with stipulations the applicant to install a dry well near the bulkhead and replant with native vegetation. I guess we have an application because it is being built within 18" and that is how they want to do it. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Glenn do you have any input on this. Because the application is for 18", we see no need to go on any further into the creek than is necessary. And in this case, I don't think we saw that is was necessary to go 18" in front of the structure. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I think the other thing we noticed is that this structure and one other structure were two that had actually projected out. And we were wondering what was going to happen eventually at some point down the road. We were hoping that we not keep this progression marching out forward through the years. Does anyone else have any comments about this? JOHN B~RDEMEYER: Applications are going to us, the DEC, Army Corps and then all of sudden we say we are really going to be firm in keeping it 18" backward. Would it help in the future if you request that some of these go on a field survey the prior month before you start the full application process? Because I have suspicions that the Board is fairly firm in their concern in this one. Its a small creek and there is not a lot of bulkheads. ALBERT KRUPSKI: But generally it is the Board's policy that we don't want to see anymore...especially when you can get a piece of equipment in there to do the work. It is not a hardship case where its up against the side of a house or something where you can't get anything in there to do it. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I would be willing to move a negative declaration if. it would speed up the application if they won't pull it back 18" otherwise it might be weakening the case for it. I think pushing structures farther and farther into the creek is not advisable. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I think bygiving it a negative declaration in a month or two the applicant will come in with the Army Corps and the DEC... FRANK KUJAWSKI: Mr. Fife is not here is he? I was just wondering. Is that a route we could follow; a conditional negative declaration? I would make a motion that we give this a conditional negative declaration. JOHN BREDEMEYER: That terminates SEQRA in the permit process. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Well they would have to agree to the conditions~ MOVED by Frank Kujawski, second by John Bredemeyer. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Do you expect to contact Mr. Fife before our next meeting, if there is a problem we would be willing to meet with him again at the site. 8. FRANK KUJAWSKI: En Consultants on behalf of Lynn Chanin to construct 4' by 120' boardwalk, ramp and float on property located on Haywaters Road. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Roy brought up an interesting point before he said that where there is a reconstruction , there is something already existing. So there is the coverage on town property. So should we charge for the additional coverage or for all of the coverage? FRANK KUJAWSKI: Well we have already taken the 150 dollars but normally what happens in a case like this, now did this structure have a permit from this board? Probably not, because I am looking through and I do not see anything that ever went back prior to this application. So what is going to happen in a case like this is for the first time it is going to get a permit through the process and I think probably what we have done in the past, and as a matter of fact we just had an issue about this recently, to charge for the additional construction, I attempted to charge for the whole thing. JOHN BREDEMEYER: But the past, if one had a permit though...was charged for the whole structure unless they can show a Grandfather permit. ALBERT KRUPSKI: And then just charge for the additional coverage. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Just charge for the whole thing unless they had a Grandfather you could charge for the additional coverage. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I am looking at that. We would just be looking at the length from the shoreline out. Your talking mean high water using your scale here. Your looking at 10 feet then a ramp and then a float. So we are not talking shout a major deal. I would move to accept this application and give it a negative declaration. ALBERT KRUPSKI: But just as a point of general policy, what does the Board think? FRANK KUJAWSKI: The policy is that I do not see a permit number, I am inclined to charge for ALBERT KRUPSKI: Oh, granted if there is no permit number, but what if there was a permit number? FRANK KUJAWSKI: Well, the policy of the board was established a few meetings ago. We charged for the increase. MOVED by Frank Kujawski, second by John Bredemeyer. Vote of the Board: Ayes, all. 9. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The next is Land Use Co. on behalf of Anthony Gambino to construct catwalk, ramp and 2 floats at Luptons Point Road, Mattituck. We took a loOk at this the other day. We liked what we saw as far as planning went. I don't believe the docking structure would interfere with the other property neighbors. So I would make a motion to give this a negative declaration. MOVED by Frank Kujawski, second by John Bednoski. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. 10. FR~K KUJAWSKI: This is En Consultants on behalf of James and Frances Klein to remove and replace existing retaining wall and construct new section with returns, probably should be a note with this application that this is above tidal marsh. We had some thoughts shout it, but after we had figured out the sketch, I do not think anyone had a problem with it. There was, Mrs. Klein we are talking about, a note from some of the Trustees that we hope the applicant and probsblywould clean up the debris that is out on the marsh that I am sure they did not place it there, but it is a mess. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Did they want to change the configuration of that? HENRY P. SMITH: We thought we did then we changed our minds, because it was behind the wetland. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I thought on a short section we were going to tie it in with a neighbor. That was also ours on the field survey. FRANK KUJAWSKI: To the East of the dock you know how it jumps out there. Couldn't it be tied in with the neighbors bulkhead? ALBERT KRUPSKI: We are saying from the West bring the bulkhead to the catwalk and then directly with a straight line tie into the neighbor. You are really pressing that to say it is a structural bulkhead. HENRY P. SMITH: It is there. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Oh it is there. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The hearing will be next month. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Its a small alteration. There is some ...marsh behind it. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I think it would look a lot better. I think a motion to give this a negative declaration with some of the suggestions that we have made...MOVRD by Frank Kujawski, second by Albert Krupski. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. ll. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Number 11 is Land Use on behalf of Charles Allen for a home on Old Jule Lane. Before we give this an assessment, there was a note by some of the neighbors that a 20' by 5' float would practically cut everybody off in the canal out there. I feel that 20' by 5' float would be way out of the ball park for everybody. You know in that little canal they have about eight feet of water and practically none at low tide. Well maybe by the next time a meeting rolls around we have a hearing about this . I'm going to make motion on this to give it a negative declaration. But maybe we can revise the float. I know ...Samuels said that, but I am on a four foot float every weekend, I have never fallen off. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Have you ever felt insecure? FRANK KUJAWSKI: No. What do we need to do with this application? JOHN BREDEMEYER: I was down there Thursday doing the field inspection for the environmental declaration. I saw the deck was gone. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I think we should just table the application and when you have made the adjustmentS you can give us the details. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Well the neighbor had a dune didn't they? FRANK KUJAWSKI: I think what I will do is make a motion to accept this application. MOVED by Frank Kujawski, second by Albert Krupski. Vote of the Board: Ayes, all. 13. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Steve Donadic to construct 5' by 20' floating dock at Willow Point. Henry do you want to tell us about that? HENRY SMITH: Its a dock that is put in place. One was there already, because the piling stakes to tie up to were existing. I think probably at one time there were docks put in there and there was no permits for them and now the property has changed ownership and thsy want to put a float back in between the two poles that are there and he is just going through the permit process. I think it is next to the last one. I think what happened is that they put some pipes in there a few years ago. Port of Egypt had a float in there. The pilings are still there and now all he is doing is replacing them with a float. MOVED by Frank Kujawski, second by Albert Krupski. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. 14. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Number 14 is John O'Hagan to construct a catwalk and floating dock at Corey Creek Lane, Southold. Why don't we table the application until we can take a look at it. MOVED by Frank Kujawski, second by Henry Smith. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All 15. William Moore re: to construct ramp. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I am going to do number 15 because I spoke to Mr. Siriano. I went there and what he applied for is less than what it seems. We had a long .talk and I thought he wanted a ramp where you could back down. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Yeah, me too. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Heavy equipment and a lot of disturbance, etc. He got a floating dock built with two wheels, it is eight feet wide. He wants to put an eight foot ramp which is about seven foot long from the fringe of the marsh and dig out a little by hand. He showed me the bank there...You know when you want to pull up something over the bank it doesn't want to go up and over it wants to go into the bank. After a lengthy discussion, I did not see a problem with the size of what he wanted to do. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Well, that is why I wanted you to go down there. So you can make a recommendation for a negative declaration. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I will make a motion for the negative declaration and we will work on the size at the public hearing. MOVED by Albert Krupski, second by Frank Kujawski. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. VI. APPROVAL OF THE MARC~ MINUTES. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Number six, the approval of the March Minutes. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I would like to make some comments since I was not here. I had a problem with how some of the votes went. It's pretty hard for me to see how they took place. PRANK KUJAWSKI: What would you like to know? ALBERT KRUPSKI: Magii1. We approved a 40' dock by Magill? It seemed like a pretty small area to approve a structure that long. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I don't think we approved it. It is what he asked for. HENRY SMITH: Who is Magill ? FRANK KUJAWSKI: That's in Cutchogue, Fleets Neck, he Grandfathered an old structure and then an amendment for something. He wanted to maintenance dredge out he main channel. We did not approve a 40 dock. Any thing else? ALBERT KRUPSKI: Yes, the Notaro thing. It seems that every time I do not come to a meeting the dredging gets passed. JOH~ BREDE~EYER: We will hold off all dredging until A1 gets here. Will take it under advisement, consideration. I mean... ALBERT KRUPSKI: -It just--seems that we do lip service to some of these applications. It seems that some of the applicants are playing us like a fiddle and saying well look here is a big permit, a big application, well, okay we'll scale it down and you'll like that. That's it. The Board will say okay they scaled it down, that's good. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I don't like to think that our Conservation Council gives people lip service. It is difficult for them not to always have their advice taken and in this case we did take their advice. ALBERT KRUPSKI: When this application first came in, I pressed for a policy of the Trustees on dredging and everyone said , well, we will cut it down. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I was not one in favor of this. You were not here and you could have registered that no vote. But before we get completely off track, we were discussing the minutes. If you want to talk about dredging policies we really should reserve that for later on. The only policy we have in place now if it is more than 100 cubic yards it gets a type one Significant Assessment. That is the policy that is in place now. Now if you want to make a modification on that, that is fine, there is a place and a time to do that. I have heard so many conflicting things about this...I did not make up my mind until the night of the meeting which way I was going to vote on it and I am not so sure I voted right in voting no. I would like to make a motion to approve the March minutes. MOVED by Frank Kujawski, second by John Bednoski. Vote of the Board: Abstained by John Bredemeyer and Albert Krupski. VII. APPROVAL OF MAY MOORING RENEWALS FRANK KUJAWSKI: I have a motion to approve the May mooring renewals. MOVED by Frank Kujawski, second by John Bredemeyer. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. VIII. MOORINGS: 1. Stephen Angell to place an offshore mooring in Deep Hole Creek, using private access. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The first one is for Stephen Angelton. Theresa Drive. Don, I do not see a problem with this, do you? Access is private, I have a letter from...It is going to be next to a sailboat there in that cove. I make a motion to approve this. MOVED by Frank Kujawski, second by Albert Krupski. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. 2. Vincent J. Contento to place an offshore stake in Narrow River FRANK KUJAWSKI: Jay or Don, number two Vincent Contento. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Yes, I did all the Orient ones and got in touch with everybody. No problem. MOVED by John Bredemeyer, second by Albert Krupski. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. 3. David Di Spirito to place an offshore mooring in Town Creek using public access. FRANK KUJAWSKI: David Di Spirito on Brigantine Drive, Town Creek, public access. Is there room there, Don? Henry, Do you have any feelings about this application? HENRY SMITH: Where he wants it there appears to be room. He's probably going to go close to the channel. When your out of a channel you are out of the water in a lot of the places. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Only the anchorage and the channel.' There is a 50 foot wide channel that they maintain control over from the anchorage of the creek. HENRY SMITH: But there is somebody right in the channel. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Well, in other words if he stays 100 feet away from the channel he is okay. MOVED by Henry Smith, second by Albert Krupski. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All 4. Randall Eilers to place an offshore mooring in Mattituck Creek using public access. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Reeve avenue, offshore mooring in Mattituck creek, public access. What is the note on that. I'll make a motion to approve this subject to Mr. Eilers contacting the Bay Constable for the exact location. MOVED by Frank Kujawski, second by Albert Krupski. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All FRANK KUJAWSKI: I would like to make one more motion that our fee schedule take effect immediately tomorrow, APril 28. HENRY SMITH: If the Town Board does not have to approve our recommendation on a fee schedule, why did we bother to go to the Code Committee? FRANK KUJAWSKI: I guess the Code Committee has to approve what goes in the Town Code under chapter 32 so it is up to us to determine what those fees are. HENRY SMITH: Doesn't the Town board have to approve what goes in to the Town Code.? FRANK KUJAWSKI: According to the Town Attorney, no. HENRY SMITH: That seems kind of odd. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I know. Well I was told it could take effect... JOHN BREDEMEYER: Maybe some of the fees are within the code Structure, I don't know. It seems to me in the past that we have or may not have. FRANK KUJAWSKI: What has to be filed with the Secretary of State is law. This is not a law. HENRY SMITH: The next Board will come in and do what ever they please. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I know we are entitled to raise fees under Chapter 32, but the question is all those fees strictly chapter 32 fees? FRANK KUJAWSKI: None of those other fees that we have been charging were within the Town Code. Which meant that the Board has been doing this illegally for some time. What the Trustees had been doing there was probably no problem except that we had never been challenged, but any fee we charge should be under Chapter 32. The only one that falls under Chapter 97 is the application fee for $150. I will do one check with the Town Attorneys before ... HENRY SMITH: The last time we raised the fees for the dredging and etc, we had to make a recoL~.t~endation and go to the Town Board. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I had a feeling that the Town Board went an acted on this as a separate vote. FRANK KUJAWSKI: They did. I was told it is the same thing with refunds. All the refunds have to go through the Town Board. Not true anymore. Now that they have gotten into the Town Code , we have a Town Attorney who starts looking this over. We have our own checking account. We can issue our own refunds. I don't know, I think we have streamlined things under this method, and I question really whether our funds should go into the General fund. But I am not going to make that battle. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Can I make some suggestions for next month's work session or for discussion for that time.? FRANK KUJAWSKI: Sure. JOHN BREDEMEYER: One is a discussion of the Critical Environmental area. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Yes, we were going to that now but... JOHN BREDEMEYER: Okay, I don't have any information on it. FRANK KUJAWSKI: That map is now filed on the wall down in our office. JOHN BREDEMEYER: We have a copy of the resolution. It was originally tailored that they were going to exclude single family residence... FRANK KUJAWSKI: I was also led to believe that it...was 500' onshore. Well if you look at the map they filed there John, It's 500' offshore. They stayed out of our jurisdiction. No, they go right across the mouth's of the creeks offshore and right along the shoreline. JOHN BREDEMEYER: So that would effect all local lakes? I suspect that no one is doing anything with this yet. And maybe when we discuss this you may want to be present for the work session or whatever so you can take back that input to the other Board , to the CAC so that we do not have any gaping holes in our Environmental program. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Does anyone have anything else? Jay do you have any other things for the work session? JOHN BREDEMEYER: That's it or possibly to continue discussion on dredging policy. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Do you want to take that up at the work session? I would like to wait until John gets some of the information back and the CAC has a chance to come up with a policy of their own and forward it on to us. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Yes, I saw the minutes on that. I believe its probably in the file becauss I got a copy. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Did everyone fill out the driver's license information? Is there a motion to adjourn? MOVED by Frank Kujawski, This meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Jo~ S6~neider, Clerk FRANK A. KUJAWSKI, JR., President ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III JOHN L. BEDNOSKI, JR. HENRY P. SMITH April 27, 1989. PUBLIC HEARINGS: BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE {516) 765-1892 This is a public hearing in the matter of the following applicants for a permit 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 coa,uents from the public. 7:30 P.M. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING FEE SCHEDULE FOR 1989. FRANK KUJAWSKI: We have several hearings this evening. I would like to make a couple of comments about these fees. Not everyone is aware of how our fees are arrived at or :what kind of rationale is used to determine this. Our filing fee for Permits at $150 is no change even though probably in some cases the work inVolved with handling a permit has increased the fee has remained the same at $150. We have thought by the way of adopting a two fee schedule. One filing fee'at $150 which if the application was going to be typed significant receive a type 1 certification and then the fee would double to $300 since there was much more review work involved and usually environmental impact statements and so on which this Board really does not contract out for review, but in fact we review ourselves. We didn't pursue that and it may be confusing and at this time we are going to leave it or rec~muend leaving it at a $150. We have a fee for mooring applications at $25. I believe that is our present fee for a mooring application. There is no increase. We. have made an adjustment to or renewal fee. This was, I think before I came back on the Board, there was a progression in mind of $15 a year for this year it would go $20 in 1989, and then $25 in 1990. Am I correct? I have asked the Board to consider this and took this to the Code Committee rather than have a progressive increase in the annual fees, to base the fee on the length of the vessel. It was the feeling of the Board that certainly with mooring spaces becoming a critical issue in the Town that we should encourage the mooring of smaller boats that take up less of public bottom; less room and discourage larger boats from using our creeks and Town bottoms as mooring places but instead use marinas, where larger boats belong. We think this fee schedule will show that we are asking a $1 a foot for a vessel less than 20', and $2 a foot for a vessel over 20'. That is still probably a bargain in comparison to other towns certainly in comparison to the Village of Greenport where it is about $600. Part C is an increase of a $1 a square foot to $1.50 and a $25 per piling which means a post pole or other device that is put into public bottom thereby making it a permanent structure and denying the public access to that portion of the bottom. This would be used for poles being used as mooring poles or poles to secure floats. Again this is in public bottom, now, not the owners land. Part D is for a bulkhead at mean high water at $6 per lineal foot. This is an increase from the past fee of $5 per lineal foot. Just to clear up any confusion, we regard a retaining wall as a structure above high water and therefore on the owners property, not on Town property or public bottom. We do not charge a fee for retaining walls. Our fee for dredging at $6 per ~ubic yard is an increase from $5 a cubic yard. The Town Code Committee had some concerns that this should even be higher. I think the $6 rate was established by determining the price of a cubic yard of sand contractors price. Waivers, amendments, or changes to applications which are becoming more and more common are $35. This used to be $25. We used to charge $25 for a request for an amendment and then $10...inspection necessary to take a look at the property. I felt is would be simpler and more streamlined just to charge $35 and have the inspection included. The same with a general inspection we do get requests periodically from the Planning Board and other agencies. We get requests from prospective buyers of property to determine if there were going to be problems with the piece of property. In other words, if I purchase this would I have any problems building a house here or putting in a Septic system, putting a dock our for my boat. This is becoming more and more common and the price of waterfront property is a reasonable investment of $35 to find out if you are going to be investing a lot money for nothing but problems. Most of the Grandfather applications have been submitted through the survey process years ago, but every once in a while someone who is missed on the survey or the piece of property finds an unregistered older structure on.the property years ago maybe before permits were required and now either through selling the property or possibly replace the structure if it was damaged in the storm would like to have a registration file on record at the Town Hall with the dimensions of the structure. We do periodically inspect and consider Grandfather applications, they would be $35. Are there any comments about the fee schedule as devised? Mr. Samuels, please identify yourself for the record. MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels, I live in Cutchogue and I am representing the Rambo Corporation. I am forced to look at some of these revisions as a tax increase, because it is a tax on waterfront property owners. I oppose them, because in some cases they are to high. I also think we need some definition. For example for a dock that is well built will have ice breaker piles, piles that are in between the piles on the dock. Essentially the public is denying the access to the bottom of the square footage of the dock. BUt the more piles that are in, the applicant pays more in the way of fees.. That does not seem fair. The question is bulkheads, below the mean high water mark, are the piles in the bulkhead $25 a piece? That should be clear. I believe that question was raised by a consultant or a applicant and he was not quite' sure. The other thing that is probably the most difficult is the $6 a yard for dredging. $5 a yard for dredging is very, very high. Equating dredge material with sand that is from a sand pit that is trucked to a site i~ not a valid analogy. The average Suffolk County Dredging price for the last year has been a little under $4 a yard. Here the fee is $6 a yard. Let's for example take a marina with Town bottom that has to dredge 2,000 yards that's a $12,000 bill. FRANK K~jAWsKI: Is it okay if I interrupt? Tom, the maintenance dredging is never~ charged for by this Board. We are talking new dredging. That has been a consistent policy that has been here for the 10 years that I have been around. We are talking two different languages here. MR. SAMUELS: Generally speaking, my attitude is, and I am probably the last exponent left on the East End of Long Island. Quote on quote wealthy waterfront property owners are the most heavily taxed people to start with. A great many of them bought their property at yesterdays rates, but the majority of the ones I know, myself among them, are paying very high taxes. I think we have to look at what we are doing here. This County wide tax revolt, I firmly believe there will be a school tax revolt in this next election. There is a general attitude that governments are not looking at the socioeconomic impacts of what they are doing and I think this is a very good case in point. I have no quarrel with mooring application fees and length of foot of boat, although t do not think you are going to discourage boats over 20' with a $2. I think that is not realistic. We have to look at the overall picture, where are we going ? We can't pay for the composting facility with Trustees fees. We are increasing burdens in the Town and we have increasing burden in the Town. I see and increasing number of people selling their property because they feel that they do not want to pay the taxes. We have to draw the line at some point. I do not see any need for this increase it exceeds the rate of inflation. You have to look at it again. We are getting to the point where we have to be very careful ~bout what we are~doing in taxing the public and this is nothing but a tax. Having made my point, I would like to say that this is not meant to be a criticism of the Board who I admire. Thank you very much for your attention. I hope you consider what I have said and get it back to the Town Board. At some point, we are going to have to arrest what I consider a stampede towards fees and taxes that the public can no longer sustain. Thank you. ROY HAJE: Roy Haje, En Consultants, a similar question regarding the fees for bulkheading, piles in bulkheads and pilings to support docks. It was my understand that the first square foot charge for dockage and for linear foot bulkhead would not include piles as a separate fee. It came as a shock to me awhile ago to learn that pilings supporting docks were charge an extra $25 a piece. That had not been the case before. I just learned that today and I would like to get verification that each piling would also be charge $25. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I do not think that was the intention of the Board. The lineal charge on bulkheads is a separate category here. ROY HAJE: Okay, I just wanted to clear that up, because that question did arise today. That is not the case? FRANK KUJAWSKI: No. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Can I interrupt you for a second Roy? I just wanted to say that these fees are relative where it is a maintenance project and it is a replacement. If you have a bulkhead and you want to replace it or a dock you want to replace, there is no fee, no permit is required. You can maintain whatever you have. ROY HAJE: What about those pilings supporting a dock? I think what you might be encouraging is in some case, although I wouldn't think the reputable dock builders would go for it, you might be encouraging slip-shod construction where people would be spacing them more than they should be just to escape the fee. I think it might be more the home made type structures. I see that it could happen. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I hope what we are doing is encouraging, rather than fixed structures over a public bottom, ramps and floats. That is what I hope this will accomplish. In other words, if you have to get out 150' into the creek and your choice is 50' of fixed dock that the public can!t move and does damage the bottom by being driven into the bottom or 50' of float secured by 3 poles since they are both a $1.50 a square foot, you would choose not to use the pilings to support the dock, but choose to use 3 poles to support the float. We do not charge, once again, for private property structures. We charge when the structure is over or on or in public bottom. ROY HAJE: And as the delineation line you choose mean high water? You have an intertidal marsh that goes into which goes from high water to low water. It is the intention to charge per piling in the dock in addition to the square foot. FRANK KUJAWSKI: That is the way this fee schedule_is constructed. It has not been approved by this Board yet. It has been approved by the Town Code Committee, but not this Board. ROY HAJE: In speaking with you on it you said you had not received objections from people. I have been met with incredulous pauses when I have explained to the people what the fees are, because it is tremendously high now. It is the highest on the Island if it is not it certainly is up there. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I think we should give all of the public a chance to comment and then we can ask any questions or give any comments that we have. What do you think? It seems more orderly. Mrs. Wacker. MRS. WACKER: Ronnie Wacker, president of the North Fork Environmental Council. I am a property owner on waterfront also. My taxes are such that if now I tried to buy my house, I do not think I could afford it. At the the same time, I do think these services are just very occasional services. I could never consider them a tax, because they-are used very, very seldom. I feel that this kind of service has to be paid by all of us. We do not pay it that often. I do not think it is that exorbitant I think the increases are relatively modest and as far as I know compare favorably with those in other Towns. The cost of everything is going up and I believe that the Trustees are no exception, We know how the fees of environmental impact statements take considerably more time now then they ever did before. More is required of the Trustees, you give many more hours, you have to have more staff work and paper work. I say that these fees are modest and I hope will approve them. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Thank you. Any other co~m~ents? C~ents by the Board members here, questions? HENRY SMITH: I have a question for Dr. Samuels. In your business, would it be less expensive, say for instance a person is going to put a dock out a 100' long, if they put out a float or 5 floats 20', 4' wide the construction cost I presume would be more expensive than if they put out a fixed structure 4' x 100' even putting piles every 8' using the $25 per pile fee. MR. SAMUELS: It is really relative. First of all, 4' wide floats are pretty narrow, they should be 6' wide minimum for public safety. Number two, how well are we building the fixed structure? If we are building it properly with poles 8' on center with icebreakers, that would be a pretty expensive dock, because the owner of that structure does not want to maintain it every year. He does not want the spring ice problem. So that is a fairly expensive structure. Floats on the other hand, there is so much variability on how they are constructed. Are you going to use fiber glass floats? It is pretty difficult, but I would say this though, unfortunately and I will think you will notice those who are around the creeks in the winter time, those floats that are disconnected for the winter in fear of ice damage are usually dragged up on the low marsh and tied to the fixed part of the structure. There is nothing else you can do with them, where are you going to store them? So we are impacting the low marsh with the floating docks. That is one thing~that I have objected too. A more serious problem is connecting floating docks together with a so called 100' floating dock. In order for it to be a stable structure, they have to be pre-bolted so it is really one as rigid as you can get it structure, because if there is any way to get energy at all; wind or boat waves. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I just think he picked a 100 out of the air. HENRY SMITH: What I am getting at is relative cost and maintenance. MR. SAMUELS: Maintenance on a floating docks are much higher. HENRY SMITH: I agree. MR. SAMUELS: There is an annual maintenance problem. You got to disconnect it, you got to reconnect it, you got to put the mooring poles back in, but the mooring poles themselves are not connected to anything, unless they are very, very long. We service approximately 165 floating dock installations annually. Some years it is a big bill. The fixed structures on the other hand, if they are well built with ice breakers with long enoughpites, rarely a problem although there are winters where they will be. HENRY SMITH: What I am getting at is you are not going to discourage fixed structures by substituting a cheapness in permits for a floating structure. I know personally the maintenance on a floating structure is a lot... MR. SAMUELS: Similar to the idea that you are going to have to pay a higher price for a mooring for a boat over 20' That is not the critical factor. If someone can afford a big fixed structure they would prefer to build it in most cases and possibly have a floating dock where...it is a hard question to answer, FRANK KUJAWSKI: Any other comments by some Board members here? HENRY SMITH: I got a problem Frank. Would the fees for boats and docks in Part C for docks be at the rate of $1.50 per square feet plus the $25 per piling. I would like to see those two fees incorporated into a square footage fee, so you would discourage slip-shod dock construction, etc. I just think it is leaving us wide open. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Do you have a suggestive price, Henry? HENRY SMITH: I do not have a suggestive price at this time, but I got no problem with the fee...$3.50 per square foot with a fixed structure allowing the piles to be put in where needed. I do not have a problem with the fee because I believe it is a one shot deal. It is like when you build a house, its built. When you want to replace this dock in kind and in place it is not going to cost a fee to do it. This is just for a new structure, but I would like to see the incorporation of the square footage and the pilings as one fee for the fixed dock. ALRERT KRUPSKI: That's valid, but we have a problem going back to the Code Committee to get approval on that change. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I think we would make a couple of changes that would accommodate all the public speakers that are here tonight. We could insert the word fee for new filling and dredging so that would be clarified, so that we would not constantly have to tell people that it does not apply to maintenance projects and I'll admit that we had previously charged for pilings because we have found just recently they have been very vague and difficult to enforce. I kind of like the idea of what Henry's says and in reconsideration I like the idea of just going to a square footage. I would even go so far as saying if we are charging more for boats of different size and we are getting to the aspect of coverage of bottom, the guy who has his boat in his dock, maybe that should have a mooring permit as well. If you are really looking at the coverage aspect, look at coverage, but looking at pilings, I think the pilings are very confusing and very punitive from what I hear tonight. I almost wonder if a fixed dock has less impact, when you consider the surface area of treated woods in contact with the water, petroleum based foams that are going to be breaking down, the shading over the bottom and combined with the fact that we do see them pulled up on intertidal marsh that maybe there is no real incentive to diminish size, in other words try... FRANK KUJAWSKI: They are not all pulled up on intertidal marsh. There are none on intertidal marshes in my creek. None. And that is a 100 property owners. We are making generalizations here. I just want to make one comment here. I just did a little calculation here with a 4' wide by a 50' long dock, and under the method that I proposed a $1,50 per square foot and $25 per pile, I come up with a fee of $500, using 10 pilings for 50'. Is that a reasonable amount of pilings? 14, so I would have to add another $100, so it comes to $600. Under a $3.50 price per square foot, that same dock would be $700. If anything it is punitive, I think the square footage method turns out to be punitive. JOHN BREDE~EYER: Well, that was what your intent was. Didn't you say you wanted to diminish the size over the water? HENRY SMITH: That's part of the problem, isn't it? I knew I would not get anywhere lowering these fees, so I wanted to incorporate two piles for 8' of dock. Then I took the $50 fee for 2 piles plus the square footage of thedock and added those two together and then divided by the square footage of the dock and I think it came up to around $3.50. I think Joan was in the office when I did that today. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Mr. Willis, is it? Is Wills or Wilson? Wills then, so I had it right. Its the Frank part that is important. MR. WILLS: Just a question, we have all sorts of rules and regulations, codes for building houses are there any for docks? If there is none, I would hate to add to the paperwork, if there is a question that shall be on workmanship, it would be simple to say that the dock will have 8' on centers... HENRY SMITH: I agree with the building department we have a New York State Code that the Town follows, but that does not deter shoddy work. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Instead of shoddy workmanship, we have seen an overkill on safety and structures have been coming in pretty fordable as opposed to going the other way. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I am going to make a couple of co~Lmients about some of the things that have been said. First of all, I don't regard this as a tax. I regard this as, and I want to point out that a property owner that owns Waterfront property undoubtedly does pay more taxes, because what they own is assessed at a higher value. That same property owner who uses the public bottom pays a one time fee. That, by the way, unbeknownst to other people it does not add to their assessment. You can have a 100' dock going out from your house to 16 floats all over public bottom and pay for that once in your life. It does not increase your assessment, you do not have to pay taxes on it, but you are using something that belongs to the public. This is not a tax, this is a rightful payment to the people of this Town for use of something that belongs to them. That is what.it really is. Now, if you consider the data that has been developed, and I have heard many times, and I think Paul Stoutenburgh was the first one to show me the documentation done by the University of Georgia that a viable wetland creek bottom is worth 1 million dollars an acre. I think that is probably on the shy~side. This goes back a few years. The point that I am trying to make is that this 40,000 square feet in an acre and it is worth a million dollars that comes to $25 a square foot. And that piling that goes in on the bottom is certainly worth $25, if it is going to stay there and it is meant to stay there. It is a permanent structure. JO~N BREDEMEYER: then again that piling has maybe 4 or 5 feet in the water and the circumference which provides b~hitat and surface area for all... FRANK KUJAWSKI: This is just the way I feel ~hout it. You regard this as a tax. I regard this as a rightful payment that I really feel is on the reasonable side. Certainly I will abide by the vote of the Board on this. The other thing I want to point out is that the suggestion has been made and I believe that is done is some towns...this Board has toyed with the idea of an annual fee. We have also toyed with the idea of a Town Mooring program, because I believe that there are still many illegal moorings in our creeks and Town bottoms that are not paid for. I also believe the moorings in some case are out of control in some areas. Some maybe the Town should run that program and all moorings should be pulled at the end of the season and then re-established by the Town again at the beginning of the boating season. I think that might have merit. We are going to be exploring some of those things such as annual fees and a Town mooring program. It is time to pay the public. Its the public that is crying about the increases in taxes, it is time to pay that public what they are due. If we did pay the town what they are due, maybe the taxes would not be as high. I think Mr. Tuthill has some comments. MR. TUTHILL: You mentioned that public bottom; what if it is privately owned land? FRANK KUJAWSKI: We do not charge. MR. TUTHILL: And if it is privately owned there is no charge? FRANK KUJAWSKI: That is the way it has been. MR. TUTHILL: ...you made a notion that waterfront...1 million dollars an acre. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I am saying that wetlands are worth 1 million dollars an acre. Not unless there is one million feet in an acre. MR. TUTHILL: You are charging $25 dollars a pile. 25 X 40,000 is 1 million. JOHN BRED~EYER: I agree with a lot of what you are saying Frank .... my comments with respect to creating marine habitat are put into perspective. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Actually the best crabs that I~have ever gotten have been off of piles. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Obviously it is a balancing issue and it is based on not necessarily perfect information. But you could turn around and apply the same 1 foot criteria into the bay and every time he puts his dredge or...so we have looked at historic uses which include plying the bottom with some nasty hardware in the name of getting clams and scallops. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Okay, it seems to be that this Board is sort of in discord over the C part of it which charges per piles separately and square footage separately. What I want to suggest is that why don't we vote on this in light of the fact that we can certainly take this back to the Code Committee and change Part C with just one meeting with the Code Committee; if there is a problem or someone has a problem and certainly not to hold up the whole fee structure because of one problem. That is what I am working at and not to say well... HENRY SMITH: I think we have three problems here; on the bulkheads I think it should be included in there that pilings in front of a bulkhead will not be charged for and I think the dredging should determine whether it is new dredging or maintenance dredging. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Those are clarifications, they do not change the main structure. HENRY SMITH: Well on the bulkhead... FRANK KUJAWSKI: Well I am making a note, pilings not included we can add that right in. Let's just give a shot to the package here. I would make a motion that we approve the fee schedule as it stands; filing fees and A through H. We will do a roll call here. MOVED by Frank Kujawski, second Albert Krupski. Vote of the Board: John Bednoski, Aye; Henry Smith, Nay; John Bredemeyer, Nay; Albert Krupski, Aye; Frank Kujawski, Aye - APPROVED. 7:33 P.M. HEARING IN THE MATTER OF EN CONSULTANTS ON BEHALF OF GEORGE ANDREGG, JR. FRANK KUJAWSKI: At 7:33 we were going to have a hearing in the matter of En Consultants on behalf of George Andregg, Jr. to construct new bulkhead within 18" of existing bulkhead, fill with 10 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source on property located Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? ROY HAJE: Roy Haje, En Consultants for the applicant. The structure is for replacement within 18". Given the discussion before, It is really quite amusing, because our original request was to take the old structure out and put it back in the same spot. The DEC rather vehemently objected to that and said no they would rather have it within 18" so we bounced back and forth trying to convince them of the removal and replacement they have not. They have insisted upon it. The application before you is for 18" in part again because of the DEC's insistence on the method they prefer. So that is why we are here today. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Okay, I would just like to make a note on that and it says removal of bulkhead for replacement will probably cause loss of material to waterway. Suggests replacement within 18" with no removal, concrete backfill is not approvable. And because runoff is directed to tidal water, clean fill only from a upland source. You are correct that they did suggest that. Well, I think his hands are tied is what I am saying. And probably so are ours. But we will see. Any other c~muents opposing this application? Any co~tm,ent by the Board? I think we will be going along with it. I am not going to fight the DEC. HENRY SMITH: I am not going to fight the DEC, but on this other one in Nassau Point that...recommend that one in kind, in place. FP~NK KUJAWSKI: Maybe in our meeting coming up we better have a little discussion. I would like to take them down to Reydon Shores. JOHN BREDEMEYER: ...principally different issues. The State can say what it will, but when it comes down to one of our creeks we can stand on the end of our patents and we have patent rights and we just do not want stuff pushed out there. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The CAC has commented here approval to remove replace in kind back fill with concrete, bulkhead remove to first bulkhead to remain. I guess you were hoping it would be in kind and in place. JOHN BEDNOSKI: My comment on this particular project is I certainly do not agree with the DEC on this and my vote will reflect that, but it certainly does not have anything to do with the way the votes are going to turn out, hopefully. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Okay, anything else? Well this hearing is closed. Would you like to vote on the application right now? MOVED BY Albert Krupski, second by John Bredemeyer. John Bednoski, Nay. APPROVED. CLERK 7:34 FRANK KUJAWSKI: The next is in the matter of John and Eleanor Bastone to construct a floating dock and landing at property located on North oakwood Driver Laurel. And I see Debbie Dobrava out there with some information for us. Okay, some comments about the application? How far it would reject out into the creek? Well, it shows 10' It probably is not a problem. Is there anyone else who would like to speak regarding this application? JOHN HOLZAPFEL: Frank, just one minor point I think. From the diagram that I had originally, it looks like the catwalk is right on top of the marsh, like 1". So you just mentioned that there might,be a newer diagram. Is this the one? There is nothing there at all? FRANK KUJAWSKI: No. any other comments? I would make a motion to approve this application. MOVED by Frank Kujawski, second by Albert Krupski. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. 7:35 P.M. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The next application is for Kevin McLaughlin on behalf of Anthony and Rosemary Bolletino to construct tennis court and pool on property located on Main Road, East Marion. Anyone to speak for this application? KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN: My name is Kevin McLaughlin and I am here on behalf of the applicants the Bolletinos. I believe you have our application and it is pretty straightforward. We have gone before the ZBA and have gotten the necessary variance laws to put this in front accessory uses in the front yard area. There are some wetland grasses in this area. Our intent is certainly to disturb those wetland grasses as little as possible and I am here to answer any questions I can. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I think the CAC may have a couple of questions for you. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: My question is maybe to you people. KEVIN MCLAUG~LIN: I have not been out to the property in several weeks. I am very surprised to hear that, because I have been in contact with,..tennis court contractor, I have not heard anything from a full contractor. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: I happen to drive out there a few days ago and we inspected it a month ago and this is the house with a cess pool up above the ground and the pool is right there and it is already in. I think there is another application where people have done things and its already done. Last month there was an application where people have done things. I think it is just starting to become more and more of a trend that people are doing a project and then saying here is the application, take care of it. The contractor's know and the owners probably now and I think it is just happening and nothing is being done about it. And I think that is one of the things that came out, not this particular case, but is was one that just jumped out at me. I happen to see this two days ago. The pool is already in, but the application has not even gone to public hearing yet. We do not have a real major problem with it at all. I called a couple of people just to check on a few things. There is no real problem. This was an issue that I was going to bring up anla~ay. That invariably and tonight is another one I believe is already done and the contractors and I asked this a year ago, you said you sent out letters telling them what the rules and regulations are. Somebody should have to be responsible. Maybe it is time that you people should do something about it. We do not have a problem with this particular issue, but it is there already.. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN: If I may respond to that. I am quite frankly very surprised. Everyone knew this application was on tonight. Everyone knew it was necessary to obtain this permit. I do not know what relevance it has, but I do not believe that the area in which the pool is located will in anyway intrude upon the wetlands grasses that are there. The area of the tennis court itself which has been staked out was the area that was going to intrude partially on wetland grasses. The only thing I can do is to apologize to the Board. I do not believe it was anyone intent to circumvent the permit process. I do not know how this has happened, because it certainly wasn't supposed to. Frankly I am a little shocked that it has happened. I do apologize to the Board for that. FRANK KUJAWSKI: This is a 10 year old problem. We did reco~.end maybe way back in 1980, Henry, when we first go on here, that we saw alot of applications that were being done and we recommended to the Town Board at that time that they set up a fine structure, so that when something like this happens, you fine the person $25 per square foot or something. Then process the application. At that time we were told by the justice court that it is there prerogative and there province to issue fines for things like this. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: But someone has to bring that to them. FRANK KUJAWSKI: We did. But, we are not going to solve those 10 year old problems today. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: Just as a side point, your big green sign or yellow signs, have they disappeared? They are very rare. They are supposed to go out when the application is applied for. FRANK KUJAWSKI: But, a lot of applications are mailed to us. If you go back now, you would see them all posted. JOHN BEDNOSKI: I have a comment. This is going back to what we spoke about about 8 years ago, when I first got on the Board, with projects being done and we vote on them. The first time I had agreed to one , which was pretty much the same case, there was nothing wrong with it, it was done, it was fine, but after that particular project, I stated quite firmly that I would never vote for a project that was already done, again without a permit. So again, understand my vote. HENRY SMITH: Do you know for a fact that it is that way, John? I do not have a problem with it. JOHN BREDEMEYER: This is a public hearing, this sounds like a Trustee hearing. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Any other colL.~tents from some of the other Board members? You did not reatize that this was going to be such a hot issue. This is Ronnie Wacker. RONNIE WACKER: I think this is very unfortunate that this has been carried with greater frequency. If you go ahead and do something and then they come in and get their approvals. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I do not think it is that great of a frequency. JOHN BREDEMEYER: It is difficult to say. It is very sporadic and at least for the six years that I have been on the Board, its a sporadic occasion. We have pretty good cooperation from the public in general. JOHN BEDNOSKI: For the past year and a half it has not happened. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Believe it or not we have many people take things out too. That is a real pain. HENRY SMITH: We have one structure that is coming up tonight that has been removed. I have not seen it personally, but I was told by the applicant that it has been removed. RONNIE WACKER: I know that when I called the Building Department about Matt-A-Mar, no Dave Strong, I guess, you know a number of things have been done there and they said yes, yes. He is going to be fined for this for doing these things illegally. Now he is coming in for his building permit and...he has gotten a jump on all the other marinas. It is something that is totally unfair. I don't think that fine is going to make that much difference to him. HENRY SMITH: Well, it used to be general practice with a lot of the contractors. Let's do this thing, what are they going to do, fine us? That is no longer true. Even though a structure gets started off or built before we have a chance to approve it or disapprove it, we have had structures disapproved that have been started and they have been removed. We try to do our job here and sometimes things happen, but sometime it is through the fault of the applicant, sometimes it is not through the fault of the applicant. It is rare, but it does happen. FRANK KUJAWSKI: But, we also give out alot more violations and our Bay Constables do find these things. Violations are~alot more common these days. HENRY SMITH: There have been newspaper stories where people had to take 6' off the garage and houses had to be moved. There are incidents where it has not worked out for the applicant. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Some are corrected,for instance tonight there is a violation that will hopefully be rescinded for the Mattituck Park Commission. We have people who do not fix the violation and they have been fined. The last one was on Ole Jule Lane. I won't mention the contractors name, but there was a bulldozer involved and this gentleman chose not to file a permit, not to correct the situation and he said, fine me. He paid the fine. JOHN BREDEMEYER: We were on the Board when we had the Leggio matter, because there was one where we actually made them remove the structure. I would say that the Ordinance is geared to having them apply and come before the Board and cooperate with us. We have not really barred any kind of method to go to a conclusion that we are certain that, in other words in the case of the swimming pool, I would think at this point with the history of habit, we have had houses moved we have had bulkheads moved and in any number of cases you have a swimming pool remove for an investigation of what is around and replanting. It is not our of the realm of possibilities now. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I think we are getting off the track of this particular hearing. We can carry this discussion on later. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I would to make a motion to t~hle the application based on the fact that since then, the swimming pool has been put in, I think the board should go down and make an inspection and see if it does in fact have any environmental impact on the area. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I would second it if we would include a recess on the hearing so the matter is not closed and then maybe we can have further discussion after the inspection. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I will include that in the motion. MOVED by Albert Krupski to TABLE this application , second by John Bredemeyer. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The next application is for Lew Edson to construct single family dwelling, sanitary system, deck, driveway, and well on property located on Cedar Point Drive West, Southold. Any one to comment on this? ROY HAJE: Roy Haje for the applicant. The project as you can see is a medium size house .... parcel we have placed it at a reasonable setback we feel from the edge marsh that would be agreable to a buffer condition if you see it same. We plan to put in a bluestone driveway. We feel there would be no significant adverse effects. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Okay as a matter of fact the CAC has recommended a bluestone driveway and a 50' buffer. Any other comments? MR. PROVENCHER: My name is Provencher and I live at 505 Midway Road opposite the proposed residence just described. On or about the date the well was board, I noticed a serious discoloration of the water which lasted for about 3 days .... opposite of what used to be called the Midway Inlet which at this point is only 35 or 40' FRANK KUJAWSKI: We did inspect that and noticed that. We did not notice the discoloration, but we did notice the little inlet that comes in there. MR. PROVENCHER: Well, I am very concerned, because I am not an expert, but to me something occured with that well because approximately 75' north of the inlet. JOH~ BREDEMEYER: When was the date of the drilling? MR. PROVENCHER: ...but shortly there after ice formed on it. The ice was running just in that area, which to me, I have questions to what occured there. What happened to the water? When you draw water from the alleged inlet or the so called inlet... HE~RY SMITH: I W~ll tell you what happened. They set their well down and then they pumped it off and probably the runoff form the pumping ran into the pondand~at was just muddy water. In order to put a test well in, you have tosample the water and in order to sample the water you have to maintain a couple hours pumping on this well before you can take a sample. Well, the well builder probably came in and put the well down and set his machinery right there on the well site and just started pumping and the water pumped on the ground and probably eventually trickled into the pond. It was probably pitched down hill from the well site, I am just speculating this, from the well head to the pond. And in doing this it just ran muddy water into the pond. This is just a possibility. JOH~ BREDEMEYER: That is a strong possibility...Health department required a pump off of a number of hours to make sure they were not going to get salt water. HENRY SMITH: I used to have a well drilling licsence and I have since gave it up, but the is very unprobable. What happen is a logical explanation, the water flows landward the the pond, it does not go from the pond landward. In other words, that pond is regenerated with fresh water from the...there is no open route to the bay. There used to he at one time and now the pond is brakish fresh. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Are there records that it used to be open? then it is Town bottom. HENRY SMITH: I would have to agree with Frank. I~.is Town bottom if it was open at one time. JOHN BREDEMEYER: It is not likely that the well would be any different as far as any of the other neighbors wells in that area. So it would not be a problem. MR. PROVENCHER: It sounds like a logical explanation. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. FRANK KUJAWSKI: We are very glad that you did...with the restrictions suggested by the CAC with a 50' buffer. MOVED by John Bedneski, second by John Bredemeyer. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. 7:37 P.M. HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE APLLICATION OF HENRY RAYNOR, JR. ON BEHALF OF JOHN LEVIEN FRANK KUJAWSKI: The next hearing is in the matter of the application of Henry Raynor, Jr. on behalf of John Levien to construct catwalk over meadowland to floating dock at property located on Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. Henry? HENRY RAYNOR NOT CLEARLY HEARD. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Do you have those amendments, Henry? Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Raynor? Thank you. This hearing is closed. Is there a motion? MOVED by Albert Krupski, second by Henry Smith. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. /7:38 P.M. HEARING IN THE MATTER OF J.M.O. CONSULTING ON BEHALF OF WILLARD S. MAHOOD. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The next hearing is for J.M.O. on behalf of Willard Mahood to construct single family dwelling, sanitary system, deck and driveway, place fill on north and west side of house on property located on Crescent Avenue, Fishers Island. This was quite awhile that we looked at this. Any other comments? I barely remember this. August is a long time ago. MOVED by Albert Krupski, second my Frank Kujawski. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. 7:39 P.M. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The next hearing is for David Merz to construct a 150' stone revetment extending from top of bank seaward, construct wood deck on existing house on property located on Robinson Road, Greenport. The comments from the CAC were to disapprove. The CAC feels the area would be better served with a bulkhead. A stone revetment would cause more damage. JOHN HOLZAPEEL: ...we drove with the guy and everything else. The DEC was the one who was telling him to put in a revetment. ROY HAJE: what the DEC wanted us to do we since gotten the permit... FRANK KUJAWSKI: Any other col~,~ents? LARRY TUTHILL: I would like to reiterate what I had said several months ago for the same application .... waterfront property with the changing shoreline and wood is only temporary that will last maybe 30 or 40 years. I know the neighbor next door had mentioned to me that he thought that a rock revetment wall would decrease the value of his own property. The small bulkhead or so would be alot preferable which was approved by this Board in the fact that it takes up less space, you have more space for wetlands and you still have more space upland so that rocks could be laid in an angle and there is a small amout of erosion there, but not any major erosion, except in a rare strom from an easterly direction. To maintain this property it would be alot less expensive to build a bulkhead. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Mr. Tuthill, I have a couple of questions. I know you have maintained this as a consistent statement and~I find it interesting and I would like find out more about it. You mentioned the one neighbor considering it was going to depreciate or somehow affect his property value. Did he explain as to why, because this is the first I have heard of this stone being more expensive and more permenent structure. I would think it would be an improvement in a community. I was wondering if he had expanded on that? MR. TUTHILL: It was his personal opinion. Because everything else is wood, the whole area in general. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I have heard it said also that whether good or bad the tight fitting tongue and groove sheathing on some wooden bulkhead would dam up the watertable behind it depending on whether you can conserve the water and or nurish marsh fringe. It could be argued either way. It would seem that the stone revetment might allow the natural contour of the groundwaters as they create the wedge going out into the wetlands. I was just curious what thought you would have on that. Certianly your argument that the wood structure is less permenent and maybe it is something we should look at in the future. I am also concerned about the near term when we start putting bulkheadsor even retaining walls in where the sheathing penetrates the watertable and you are going to deny nurishment to the marsh fringe in the form of the freshwater. MR. TUTHILL: Right in the same area there is a bulkhead right next to Mr. Muirs on the adjacent property and there is flourishing wetlands adjacent to the bulkhead. I have seen where the bulkheads are in the marshes and I have seen no deteriation. In fact I think they can in general protect the wetlands where they will not allow upland soil to erode and come on to the wetlands and kill them. You might find in the long run that they might be more beneficai, because of this particular location you have...vigorous growing wetlands right along side of it. JOHN BRRnEMEYER: Any literature you may have on it I would apprecitate it, because I would almost think this would be the basis of a masters thesis as opposed to Trustee work which is better. I sounds to me that there is a lot of pros and cons both ways. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: I do not know if you remember it, but there is spartina down on the bottom of that and the way they have to angle and the way they have to post mark out that was going to back. FRANK KUJAWSKI: They did stipulate replanting it. The plan we have now shows that the area will be replanted. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: That was my concern, because if they did put revetment in thereit would destroy it. FRANK KUJAWSKI: It was one of the special conditions that plantings of intertidal marsh grasses must be completed by June 30 as the year that in which the revetment has will be constructed and it shows quite a distance out of... JOHN HOLZAPFEL: I have said it for the last two or three months we would really like to get copies. We never see the revisions. We get the original applications. I am making the recoam~endations on the applications we receive six months ago. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Probably with our coordinated system... JOHN HOLZAPFEL: ...if we could get a copy when something comes in and changes the application, it would make it much more meaningful. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Roy, what would happen; I know what would happens when the DEC says it has to be this way and weturn around and say okay, what would happen if we said it had to another way? ROY HAJE: Well, I would imagine that you would have to sue somebody. or the other because you could not be put in a contridictory position between agencies. Someone somewhere would have to give. One HENRY SMITH: Well, I think it was this Board that recommended that a stone revetment go in there. I think we told him that at that time we would not go along with a bulkhead. ROY HAJE: it originally started out as a bulkhead and it remained that way for a long time and probably still if you scratch the surface you would still prefer to do that. MR. TUTHILL: I believe it was an approval for a wood bulkhead by this Board. ALBERT KRUPSKI: It probably was. Out intial problem was location. We did not think it should be out as far as it was. We wanted it moved back to where the erosion was taking place on the property. We did not have a problem with that. HENRY SMITH: At one time we had this great belief that we would put retaining walls behind the wetland that we were indeed going to say this wetland fringe was in front, but we were proven wrong in a couple of incidences that just washes away very quickly. FRANK KUJAWSKI: ARe there any other comments? I close this hearing. MOVED by Henry Smith, second by John Bredemeyer. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. 7:40 P.M. HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF EN CONSULTANTS ON BEHALF OF KENNETH ROCK. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The next one is in the matter of En Consultants on behalf of Kenneth Rock. We have had this application in front of us a few times. I guess we are up to the hearing stage. Roy? ROY HAJE: Roy Haje for the applicant. You were opposed to the project before here we are taliking ahout...rock. The DEC, and the Trustees were involved, we have made and in various degree modifications here to take into account the presence of the considerable marsh which is located in and around the vicinity. We feel we have minimized or perhaps eliminated...therefore based upon that I would think that the project is approvable. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Any other comments regarding the application. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: I brought it up last time and I will bring it up again. Behind the bulkhead there is some spartina growing in there that would be mowed. I believe the owner has to walk through that. I just think that should be corrected if I am correct. There was spartina behind that and now basically he is going to be walking through that every day. It is a little silly to be going up and then back down to an area, but it is consistent I think to say that he shguld not be allowed to walk through a wetland anla~ore than anyone else should. ROY HAJE: Well, the situation you would have to have here, is how high would you want a walkway though? If you are requesting a 4' elevation over what is over now what is really totally upland and it is dryland there is spartina there and expert would recognize that. You would the be talikng about a very strange looking structure which woul be up over. If it were right on, the you can argue~the shading. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I do not think this Board has a problem with mowing a path and walking a path, because it is a colLm,on occurance. The Indians did it before we .were given the lands. I think that mowing up everything there is what we really objected too. I think we will probably attach that condition that the applicant can mow a path; a walking path, but we would ask the Bay Constable to check it out by the summer. Any other comments? I will close the hearing. MOVED by Frank Kujawski, second by Henry Smith. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. 7:41 P.M. HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ROBERT AND ELIZABETH SIMON. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The next application is in the matter of Robert and Elizabeth Simon to construct single family ~welling and sanitary system on property located on R.O.W. off Indian Neck Road, Peconic. This was rescined also. I did not think it was. Okay, Mr. Simon. ROBERT SIMON: My name is Simon and I own property on the R.O.W. off Indian Neck Lane. I propose to buildi a 1,000 square foot house. I did not perceive the process to be a long one. I would like to point out that if the Town Board could point out something about letting the property ownerwhat the actual process is. I started this process 2 years ago in March and everyone seems to take there tim~. The Suffolk County Department of Health, nine months. The Sou~hold Town Trustees, 7 months. The DEC 11 months. It is a very long process. I think I have complied with the law as much as possible. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Do you have any feelings about the impervious wall I suggested between the sanitary system... ROBERT SIMON: Yes. I checked with an engineering copmany called Civil Train and they said it would be kind of useless from a standpoint that leaching he showed me in an engineering manual, the leaching process goes down instead of horizontal and he even showgd the rate in which it does go down. He said 25' away from the septic system would be way below whatever the ground decrease of elevation y~u have. In fact, the SuffOlk County Department of Health also has specifications~ for thast situation. And they say it does not warrant either. FRANK KUJAWSKI: This does not meet those sDecifications? ROBERT SIMON: No. He said that'the slope is not sufficient enough. It has to be over 25' away from the septic system if the slop was over 1' FRANK KUJAWSKI: Any questions? Any co!~,~en%s? ! ROBERT SIMON: By the way the Suffolk Depar~ent of Health also recommended that location also because the Well would be upland off the septic system and he said that there is a water problem in that area. I have had the test well put in and there is~at 40' an intrusion of chloride so I had to have it pulled back up 105' to~ry and find water then we kept pulling it back and back. Now it is ~out 35'. I have to pull it back again. It is just under the minimum,So with a large pump off it might make it. HENRY SMITH: If you can get 35' of water in you well, you one of the few who can get that much water. Most of them are less the 20. ROBERT SIMON: From the bottom of the pipe right now to the top which sticks up ~hove the ground 2', there is ~o~t 10 and one half to 11' of space. Then you have got 15' of water there. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Okay, we will close the~hearing. MOVED by John Bredemeyer, second by Frank Kujawski. Ayes, All. Vote of the Board: 7:42 P.M. HEARING IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT STAPLES. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The next hearing is in the matter or Robert Staples to construct a single family dwelling on property located on Wilmarth Avenue, Greenport. Mr. StaPles is here. ROBERT STAPLES: Robert Staples and I am ~he owner of the property. I too have been going through the false starts~ and blind alleys of town government. We are here now to construct couple over here and I am here to answer a have. We do have a letter of authorizatio to get public water at this location. HENRY SMITH: There is no public sewer is ROBERT STAPLES: There is no public sewer FRANK KUJAWSKI: Any questions for Mr. Sta else about this application? small residence for this young ay questions that the Board may from the Village of Greenport there, Mr. Staples? available. )les? Any comments from anyone NOT CLEARLY HEARD. HENRY SMITH: We used to have that problem too until we heard that New York State uses that whole area as a sump and it is now longer of the New York State Wetland List. Where the traffic circle is, all that runoff there now runs into that pond. That pondis virtually a sump. I can't see where we can deny this applicant because of water quality. ALBERT KRUPSKI: You are talking about the DEC trying to protect one area, John and in fact just the branch of the Slate which is polluting another. As much as we would like to protect this area, we would be pretty hardpressed to say well, if this is going to hive an impact on water quality we should have a buffer zone here or . . JOHN BREDEMEYER: We do not have surface waters of the A Classification as far as fish or whateever. In other wordswe are dealing with a utification system in its last stages; the last building lot probably in the perimeter around that area. The nitratesr~ from a sanitary system along and in front of the house probably is insignificant to the amount of nitrogen fixed into the system, tremendous amount of runoff and everything else. If we had a different wetland system other than... that I concur with the rest of the Board ~embers as much as it is not infringing on an endangered species or wh~re the house itself is going does not look to be ~m~Lediately disturbin~ any freshwater wetlands so I would have to say that I would concur with the rest of the Board. It does not seem to be a site that is worthy of nomination for the local preservation. JOHN BEDNOSKI: So that is not a viable wetland in any way shape or form? Is that what I am led to believe? JOHN BREDEMEYER: Let's not say it is not a viable wetland. Its a habitat. Just like the ones we were trying to create in a lot of areas to filter pollutants. It is a very nutrient rich one. It is one that is in the last stages of being a lake if you will. It started out as a ligotrophic clear water trout in it sometime when after a few thousands years after the ice glacier and now it is finally coming to its final stages where it is just filling in. It is filling in with nutrients, the natural process of runoff filling up with accumulation of material. That does not mean it is not a viable wetland; this is going to speed up the process somewhat. JOHN HOLZAPFEL: Not to complicate the issue, but that might complicate putting a house there. I am not trying to stop you. I am just trying to protect the fresh water wetlands. Your house then becomes part of the wetlands. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I do not think we are talking about rising levels per foot. Any other comments? We can certainly appreciate both sides of the issue. I do not know if this particular piece of property is where we want to make our stand. HENRY SMITH: I make a motion that we approve this application as submitted. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I will second that. I would like to put one condition on that though to have 5 or whatever the Board feels appropriate maybe a 10' buffer between what is marked here as a swamp and what you would call a maintained yard. FRANK KUJAWSKI: I think we had that agreement, did we not, that no construction fill or anything beyond... HENRY SMITH: I would like to make a motion with a 5' buffer zone where natural vegitation that is in the area now will be maintained. MOVED by Henry Smith, second by John Bredemeyer. Abstain by John Bednoski - APPROVED. 7:43 P.M. HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOSEPH VERWAYEN. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The next hearing is in the matter of Joseph Verwayen to construct catwalk, dock and so on, floats on property on Glenn Road, Southold. Any one hear to speak in the matter of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition to it? The CAC had no problem. I will then close the hearing. MOVED by Frank Kujawski, second by Henry Smith. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. 7:44 P.M. HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF VILLAGE MARINE. FRANK KUJAWSKI: The last hearing is in the matter of Village Marine to construct an accessory building, adjacent to existing structure on Bay Avenue, Mattituck. We looked at this quite some time back. I think it was in limbo for awhile, but the CAC has noted that is should be approved with the stipulation regarding that a pump outstation and catch station and servicing to be done in building. It is a storage building. ALBERT KRUPSKI: I got that message from the minutes last month and I guess when you brought it up and that is a valid point. We weren't going to try and take each marina at a time and come up that everytime someone would apply for something and use that say well you are applying for this, but you should have a pump our facility for your boats, because your marina and boats put waste into public water. Unfortunately, I do not think we ever reach some sort of concrete enough consensus to say here is the pump out sheet for Southold Town; follow step A, B... FRANK KUJAWSKI: There is another problem; this marina does close down at night. It is mostly small boats. ALBERT KRUPSKI: Well, it is going to come down to the point where the people who are producing the wastes are going to have to be accoutable for. Then if your marina is taking the waste in you are going to have to treat it. If you are a big boat owner you are going to haveto either treat it or have it treated, because the public can not bare the burden of having all the wastes go on...if it is not regulated it is a serious problem. JOHN BREDEMEYER: It is a real serious issue. It is easy to jump to conclusions and make grandiose statements. HENRY SMITH: Not only that, but you can not find any boat owners who will pay $5 to get his holding tank pumped out either. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Did this application have to go through a site plan review to the Town Planning Board? Oh, I was just curious. FRANK KUJAWSKI: Any other comments? HENRY SMITH: I'll make a motion to approve. ALBERT KRUPSKI: As long as a provision for runoff is taken. JOHN BREDEMEYER: It is dirt. It should have runoff. The size of that hs changed s,~bstantially since the original application. ALBERT KRUPSKI: There should be drywells put in to handle the runoff. MOVED by Henry Smith, second by Frank Kujawski. Vote of the Board: Ayes, All. 2ECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUl/If)ID TOWN CLERK ~/to/~/. DATE/~: /'~/~/~ HOUR Town Clerk, Town of Sout~old