Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/29/2001 MINUTES Wednesday, August 29, 2001 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Ken Poliwoda, Trustee Henry Smith, Trustee Lauren Standish, Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSlON: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 25, 2001. (Minutes Unavailable.) MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for July 2001. A check for $3,879.80 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: MANZI HOMES, INC. requests a Transfer of Permit #4986 from Jon C. Kerbs to Manzi Homes, Inc., to construct a single-family dwelling with a 30' setback from the freshwater wetlands. Located: 400 Rene's Dr., Southold. SCTM#54-6-4.4 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES RICHARD BONATI & ARNOLD RASSO request a One-Year Extension to Permit #4961 to construct a single-family dwelling with septic system, driveway and deck. This will be the last extension. Located: 485 Orchard Lane, Southold. SCTM#89-2-7 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES ANTHONY ALIPERTI (AS CONTRACT VENDEE) requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5039 to construct a single-family residence with septic system and a 40' non-disturbance buffer, and to Transfer Permit #5039 from Francis & Elizabeth Murphy to Anthony Aliperti. Located: 400 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#114-12-13.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application for a One-Year Extension and to Table the application for a Transfer until a new survey is received showing the house located at 75' from the wetlands with a 50' non- disturbance buffer, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES JAMES MALONEY requests a Waiver to put a portable pool on the concrete patio. Located: 505 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#123-3-7 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES ANTHONY & JOANNE KROPP request a Waiver to replace the roof and install siding on the existing outbuilding. Located: 360 Riley Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#143-5-8 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES ANTHONY & JOANNE KROPP request an Amendment to Permit #769 to replace in-kind existing floating dock, ramp, and catwalk with a 6'X 44' floating dock, 3'X 10' ramp, and 3'X 80' catwalk. Floating dock reduced from 50' to 44' and catwalk extended from a total length of 66' to 80'. Transfer Permit #769 from Arthur Sauer to Anthony & Joanne Kropp. Located: 360 Riley Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#143-5-8 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES JEANNE M. POWELL requests an Amendment to Permit #2275 to replace existing 44' float sections with a single 40' fixed catwalk section and replacing its existing 4" wood post with an 8"X 20" L timber pile. Place a "T" float design" at end with utilization/relocation of an existing ramp (up to 4'X 12') and one existing float (up to 6'X 20') to form the "T-section" at end of dock, and with two 8" X 20' L piles (includes one pile at each end to secure the end T float (west/east ends of 10. 11. float). Place two 6'X 6' wood steps, one on each side at shoreline. Rebuild inkind/inplace 6'X 15' timber steps along bank; and Transfer Permit #2275 from Bernhard Peper to Jeanne M. Powell. Confirm existing "as built" upland deck areas. The existing fixed portion of the dock and its two posts will remain unchanged. Located: 955 Lupton Point Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#115-11-6 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES WILLIAM & ELIZABETH SMITH requests an Amendment to Permit #5100 for a new footprint of the house, including a porch, deck, and garage. To bring in fill to regrade front yard and structural fill for foundation. Transfer Permit #5100 from John Prizeman to William & Elizabeth Smith. Located: 10605 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#54-5-37.3 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application with the condition that hay bales are placed down before construction and drywells and gutters are installed to contain the roof run-off. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES Docko, Inc. on behalf of DAVID PATTERSON requests an Amendment to Permit #4955 for the splitting and removal of a boulder, approx. 1+/- cy. of stone over 10+/-sf. for upland disposal above the high tide line. Located: Hawk's Nest Point, Fishers Island. SCTM#6-4-5 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of RICHARD & MARIA KICK request an Amendment to Permit #5358 to install a 3'X 25' fixed CCA timber dock secured by (12) 4"X 6" CCA timber dock posts and elevated a minimum of 3.5' +/- above grade in the area of the vegetated tidal wetlands. The proposed facility is to be accessed by a 4'X 100' natural wood chip pathway. Seaward end of proposed dock is proposed to be 10' northwest of southeast property line. Located: 500 Tarpon Dr., Southold. SCTM#57-1-5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, with all original condition set forth in original permit, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. TRUSTEE FOSTER Aye, TRUSTEE KING Aye, TRUSTEE POLIWODA Nay. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of KARL RIESTERER requests an Amendment to Permit #5237 to enclose the first floor below approved second- story addition. Located: 1945 Calves Neck Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-4-47 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE. WILLIAM A. HANDS, JR. requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to install 8' long by 24" above grade, experimental groin and place 5 cy. of pea gravel on each side to fill groin cell. Located: 960 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM#26-1-21 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Would anyone like to speak against the application? Does the Board have any comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: How long did the DEC say...what's their length of time. One year, twenty years? WILLIAM HANDS: Henry, I'm not sure, honestly. It was my impression that they were going to monitor it for one year. After you fellows along with a couple of fellows from the DEC came out to look at it for the second time, they brought up a couple questions, as far as who the analyst was. I found out it was a Marilyn Peterson. I called Chuck Hamilton who was fighting forest fires in Oregon, so I got his understudy there, Chris Arfsten, who e-mailed Chuck and I told them that you fellows had recommended the possibility of building three groins rather than one because you thought it might be a better experimentation. They wanted to stay with the one and then if it worked, they would consider lengthening it. Other than that, if you would approve it, then they would tell me how to monitor it. TRUSTEE SMITH: Very good, thank you. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For what time frame? TRUSTEE SMITH: Two years? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to go with the same time frame as the DEC so it will simplify things? TRUSTEE SMITH: Well they might say, we'll look at it in another year. WILLIAM HANDS: They didn't make that clear. I also asked them if because I feel that this will work, couldn't I put a permanent one in and they answer was that if it works, they may consider lengthening it. They did say to 12' or 22' or anything. I got no answers that way. My question to you guys is, if you approve this tonight, what is my next step. We asked the State to come and they didn't come. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Put it in. Build it. TRUSTEE KING: I'd build it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Don't you have the permission from the DEC to build it? WILLIAM HANDS: Yes ldo. TRUSTEE SMITH: Go ahead and build it then. WILLIAM HANDS: Ok. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion that we Approve it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES ANN DOBSON CLEMENTS requests a Wetland Permit for a ground level (grade) wooden patio approx. 20' square attached to existing screened-in porch of house. Located: 560 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM#52-2-25 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or against the application? Does the Board have any comment? This is the one on Arshamomaque where the clearing was done. Originally they wanted to put it to the front and now they want to put it to the side. Does anybody have any problem with that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Just to make sure that the drainage doesn't come over the bank. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's an open wood patio. Do you want to condition taking the turf out underneath it? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, just make sure there's no run-off that will run over the cliff. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think they're going to change the grade there any, really. They're just putting in a wooden patio. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Ok. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to specify spacing of the planks? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. ANN DOBSON CLEMENTS: Hi, I'm Ann. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our only concern that there's water build up on the deck and that it would flow over the bank. ANN DOBSON CLEMENTS: It's grade level. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With wood planks? We'd just like to see a little spacing instead of them being tight. Spacing between the planks, so the water runs through. ANN DOBSON CLEMENTS: Oh yes, sure. I've got it. Thank you. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES JOSEPH D. MONACO, JR. requests a Wetland Permit for the existing deck (29'8" X 12') with two existing steps. Located: 595 Oakwood Court, Southold. SCTM#90-4-7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of or against the application? TRUSTEE SMITH: I looked at it. They just put a little deck up and a couple of stairs. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES EDWIN & GRACE BERNHARDT request a Wetland Permit to replace rotted deck and increase size of width of deck by 4' wide for a size of 15'X 12'. Located: 500 Koke Dr., Southold. SCTM#87-5-3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of or against this application? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at it and it didn't look like a problem because the deck was going to be on the side of the house. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES BARTON & PAT JOHNSON request a Wetland Permit for the existing 5'X 26' dock, 3.5'X 10' ramp and 10'X 20' float, and for the existing 105' of concrete bulkhead. Located: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI PAT JOHNSON: I'm TRUSTEE KRUPSKI TRUSTEE FOSTER: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE 860 Bayview Dr., East Marion. SCTM#37-5-7 : Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? in favor of it. : Artie, you looked at this? Yes. It's all there. : Is there any other comment? FOSTER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES GUSMAR REALTY requests a Wetland Permit to reseed and grade existing area, fix existing sprinkler system and 806' of west side and 758' of chain link fence 6' high. Located: Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM#38-7-12 POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST ROBERT & DIANE SCHROEDER request a Wetland Permit to construct a two- story, single-family dwelling, garage and swimming pool. Located: 150 Rene's Dr., Southold. SCTM#54-6-4.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? PAT MOORE: I have Mr. Schroeder here as well so that we can deal with the issues here and hopefully receive permits. The application right now is to change the current application, I believe, with a new footprint of the house and garage, and a 20'X 40' pool. Everything is setback away from the no-disturbance area of the rainwater run-off area on the south, the large area, that's shown on the survey. I think there was some confusion along the way because I went back and I read the transcript of the prior hearing and what we have on this piece of property are several pockets of clay as well as, I think, in my opinion, the Town is trespassing with drainage basins that go directly and run-off into the property. So, you have areas that collect water, and I think I remember, or I've heard commentaries that you've made from when Mrs. Schroeder was here, that you had seen some additional water pockets on this property but what you probably.., based on the time of year that you go when you go to inspect the property, you see the ponding that occurs from the water run-off from Soundview Ave. What I see from the file is that the survey is consistent. The survey provided, the topography remains the same. What the Schroeders would like to do is to relocate the driveway entrance. That was something that apparently was discussed at a prior hearing and he did not realize that his entrance was fixed in stone and came in the driveway. Again, there is, from the transcript of the hearing, at the last hearing when you approved the resolution, you dealt primarily with a ponding area north on Rene's Dr. I'm sorry, south on the property. So, I think that there was just a misunderstanding at that point. They are here now and you have the plan before you. What they propose to do is not only have the driveway, but also provide for an entrance off of Soundview Ave. Aside from that, the plan remains the same. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We gave the Schroeders a permit two years ago to build a house and we looked at it carefully and in addition to the wetland area created by the road run-off down on Soundview Ave., which is... we're not going to deny that, it seems to be kind of obvious there.., road run-off contributes to the wetlands area at least. PAT MOORE: They had it looked at by the DEC, not by the DEC, by En- Consultants, to see whether or not it was a DEC regulated wetland, and it isn't. Again, it's seasonal ponding. So, he says that if you go there now, it's dry. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, but that's just part of what was on the property. If you look at the original permit, and the way it was written, we basically put the house between two pond areas, not the one that is right on the road, but there was another pond area ... PAT MOORE: Yes, the one to the south, the large pond area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, and that's why we put on the original permit the driveway was put in on Rene Dr., to avoid going through and disturbing those wetland areas. I don't know if you have that survey. PAT MOORE: I have the original one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would imagine the Board would be inclined to grant that same permit again. But the problem was there was a pond that was completely filled in north of that, that shows on an old survey, as pond #1, that existed, that we all saw in the field. It's not like we just made it up. PAT MOORE: Quite frankly, you had a topographic map on it, and the resolution that I see from the transcript of the hearing was the distance, the 30' buffer, the road run-off area, the large one that Joe Ingegno had mapped for you. That was real clear on the survey. What other intentions or thought processes you had were unfortunately not clearly placed on the resolution of the Board. You were concerned primarily, in looking at the transcript and in most of the discussion, was with regard to the one area that Joe Ingegno mapped. As far as your map that you show that there are ponding areas, you're talking about a VanTyle survey that's about 40 years old with some hatch marks in it and that is not a legitimate survey to base a permit application. Certainly you would throw us out on our ears if we gave that map and said, here give us a permit based on that map. They got a very professionally done topographic survey, submitted it to you, and whether or not that area where the 15' plastic pipe runs off is a wetland area, is debatable. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we're not talking about that area. PAT MOORE: But that's it. There is no other... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The pond that was filled is the wetland area. PAT MOORE: No pond was filled. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We all saw it. Come up and I'll show you. PAT MOORE: Tell me which one you're talking about. This is the pond that we have to worry about with a 30' buffer. That's it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was a pond right here. If you look at the lines, it goes up from here and it goes up to here. There was a pond in here that we all say and that's why in the permit it states there will be a 30' setback from the rear pond a 50' building envelope in front of the house. No grading or filling to be done near and around ponds. Now that pond was filled. PAT MOORE: I'm sorry but I read that same transcript and I looked at the surveys and I never saw a pond there at all, so I can understand why the Schroeders when they went in there said what are you talking about and Mrs. Schroeder went there with the Bay Constable and said what are you talking about. The pond that they were dealing with was a large run-off area that is on your survey and mine. As far as another one, the only one that logically makes sense to me was the topography where it goes down to 17 and it is filled by the road run-off. Aside from that one, there is nothing else, and it shows in fact, elevations that go from 19, 20, 25 and then 27 and it evens out at 29. That's a flat area. So, I can't see how any of those are ponds or even remotely pond areas. I see one clear one but the only other one that I can even comprehend is one where the road run-off pools, a main pool. None of this is a regulated wetland. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course you can't see it because it was filled. PAT MOORE: No but this is a topographic survey that the surveyor has not changed. This is not as-built. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, we have it but the pond was filled and we have an old survey showing a pond marked on it, and we have Board members that all saw the pond in the field, physically. It wasn't like some kind of mass hallucination when we were there, I don't think, because we were all there more than once. Was it a mirage? PAT MOORE: I think your not identifying a pond for purposes of your jurisdiction because based on what I see here, the topography of the property, if you have a wet area, that doesn't give you wetland jurisdiction. There again, the topography of that survey that you have and this survey that has been amended to the extend that the footprint has changed and now the architect has drawn.., before it was a footprint and now you have architectural drawings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well then we're at an impasse because you don't believe there was a pond there that we all saw many times, that was filled. So, I don't know where you're headed with this because you're not going to convince the 5 of use that we didn't see it there. It's backed up by an old survey. PAT MOORE: I'm sorry but it is not backed up by that survey. It is backed up by a VanTuyle...tell me the year of that map and I'll tell you whether or not... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll tell you how old I am, I can still see. PAT MOORE: But for purposes of a permit, you sit there to give wetland permit, authority for someone to go within 100' of a wetland area. These ponds are not wetlands. But, we're not going to even go into the issue of wetlands or not wetlands. They just want to get started because this has delayed their construction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, no. We didn't delay their construction. We issued them a permit that was good for two years. That was delaying construction. We issued the permit. PAT MOORE: I understand but now they have made modifications to the foundation so now they need to come back in and amend their permit, and in the time that they came in to make an amendment to their permit, I think their permit expired. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What does a 50' building envelope on front of house mean. What does no grading or filling to be done near and around ponds mean. That's what that means. PAT MOORE: I understand that but I'm looking at a map that shows where the pond was identified. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Even if you draw 50' from the original house, then that permit was violated anyway because all of that filling and clearing and grading was done outside of that 50' building envelope. PAT MOORE: You're permit says 30' non-disturbance buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about 50' envelope on front of house. Do you think 50' from the house, nothing should've been disturbed, 50' from the house. PAT MOORE: I don't know what you were looking at. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I'm telling you what we were looking at. We were looking at a pond. Now you know what we were looking at. PAT MOORE: You're reading from something... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm reading from the old permit. PAT MOORE: I'm trying to look at the survey and identify what you're talking about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The permit that we granted in 1999. PAT MOORE: I'll read your minutes. I'll make a motion to approve the application with new plans showing a house 30' from the top pond area and no grade change overall, and 50' building envelope in front of the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what does that mean? PAT MOORE: A 50' building envelope in front of house. A 50' building envelope is what you're allowed to clear. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct, but that was clearly violated in the permit. If you stake where the original house was proposed, and you measure 50' in the front, towards the road, that was clearly violated. ]0 PAT MOORE: What he did was clear a driveway entrance, you have to have access. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which was a clear violation of the permit because the driveway access was adjacent to the house. So was there a violation.'? PAT MOORE: Frankly, I don't agree. I'm sorry, if that ever went to trial, we have the judge determine whether or not that was a violation based on the language of your permit. I read it as an independent party. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, who are you being paid by? That's not independent. PAT MOORE: No I read it first to see if there was a violation and I looked at it ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you don't believe us that we have jurisdiction, you don't believe us that there was a pond there, so we're not going to get anywhere on this count, so you've got to satisfy the violations before we can issue a permit. PAT MOORE: I want you to deal with the issue before you which is requesting a permit for a house and garage and pool, all shown on the survey, on a topographic survey, which is consistent with a previously given topographic survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But there was a violation on the previous permit. It's specifically the 50' buffer in the front of the house that's clear, very clear. PAT MOORE: Please show me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Here is the original permit and here is what was permitted. Here is the driveway. If you go 50' from the house, it's right up to there. Now, all of this is cleared and filled. That's a clear violation. PAT MOORE: His only violation is coming in this way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: His violation is clearing and filling over here. When that is restored, we can approve a house very similar, not exactly, to what he was originally approved. PAT MOORE: Well this is what he's requesting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well he can request anything that's fine. This is America. He can request anything he wants. He requested this before and he was approved this. He violated his original permit when he filled and cleared outside of 50' that we gave him on this side. PAT MOORE: I'm sorry, I understand what you're saying was done. I'm saying that your permit and the survey and the markings on the survey are not consistent with that. Whether or not that was your intention, I now understand what you're saying. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why is it inconsistent? PAT MOORE: It says an envelope of 50'. That doesn't include generally getting access to your property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, you don't understand, here is the driveway, access from Rene's Drive. PAT MOORE: I understand that. He came in through Rene's Dr. and then... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And that is a violation. That is what he originally wanted to do and we said no, you have to come in here and went and he cleared and he filled the pond. PAT MOORE: The alternative that we could propose and get this moving forward is come in this way. ]] TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We what is going to happen is the pond has to be restored and the fill removed and then you can apply for, again, you can apply for anything that we're certainly not going to guarantee. PAT MOORE: Well I think we have a problem that we should discuss with the Town Attorney because there is no pond. There is a topographic survey that shows no pond. The only pond that you're identifying is one that VanTuyle identified 40 years ago with yellow highlighter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And that 5 board members saw two years ago. PAT MOORE: I believe you saw what you're explaining, I'm not going to question what you saw. Whether or not it was a pond for your jurisdiction purposes is the whole issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was, we saw it. That's why we saw it, and it was. That's why we wanted 50' off of the house as the end of the clearing. PAT MOORE: I don't see that we're getting anywhere tonight. I think that we should speak to the Town Attorney and deal with the issue because what we have to do is move forward with this application and allow them to continue building there house. They have a house here and they want to continue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But they chose to take actions against the permit that we issued and therefore they are here. They could've built their house. PAT MOORE: No offense Mr. Krupski but the only conceivable violation would be the driveway that comes in because there is no pond here, if you're talking about an area that is from the drainage basin. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's going to happen here, is that your going to have to get in geological experts, they are going to bore test holes there, and say, this soil that was recently brought in is not consistent with the pond material that was originally there underneath it. Everyone is then going to say, that pond should be excavated, all that material is inconsistent should be excavated out to restore that pond. PAT MOORE: No offense, but I think what has to be done is if you want to pay for it to prove that there was a wetland there, go right ahead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have to prove it because we saw it. PAT MOORE: It's not on a topographic survey that I trust, as expert testimony, what the topography of the property was and whether or not a pond could've been formed here. Again, the fact that, let's assume that a pond is created by way of clay, water accumulation, ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you know anything about hydrology? PAT MOORE: That doesn't give you wetland jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application of Robert & Diane Schroeder, unless there is any other comment by anyone, until further notice. PAT MOORE: No, I ask that you put it on the calendar and that you either approve or deny because my next step will be where I can get an independent arbiter. I'd rather meet with the Town Attorney. I would be happy if we would try to compromise here but on the other hand I don't, you're coming up with things that when I looked at the transcript and when I looked at the surveys there was ]2 no pond anywhere that you have identified. As far as I'm concerned, he didn't violate anything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's because you won't listen to use and say we identify the ponds. PAT MOORE: But you're looking at VanTuyle's survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No we looked at it ourselves. Did you look at it? PAT MOORE: No, I haven't gone there yet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then you didn't see it. PAT MOORE: I didn't see it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And you're telling us there is no pond there and you never saw it. PAT MOORE: I'm sorry but I look at the topographic survey because that's what I have to follow. The topographic survey does not identify the pond. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we will Table the application until next month. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of ROBERT & RITA PELLEGRINI requests a Wetland Permit to install a 32"X 20' aluminum ramp onto an existing catwalk, a 3'X 6' float, 6'X 20' float and to install three (2) pile dolphins. Located: 1205 Point Pleasant Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#114-1-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? GLENN JUST: I met with Trustee King this afternoon and we went out at Iow- tide and took some depth measurements and at Mr. King's suggestion, and I talked to the contractor and the owner, and we would like to move (papers shuffling) cut the existing dock back by 5' and go to the same proposal for the ramp and the float. There is plenty of water on that side of the creek. I didn't have enough time tonight after meeting with Mr. King and the contractor and the owner, for a new set of plans but I can have them here in a couple of days. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's see if there is any other comment. Wouldn't you just have to change the number on the drawing? Is there any other comment on this application? TRUSTEE KING: I looked at it. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve it based on receiving new plans shortening the dock. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOSEPH M. PAGLIARULO requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'X 130' seasonal dock, 4'X 16' ramp and 6'X 20' float to be secured by two 6" piles. Located: East End Rd., Fishers Island. SCTM#3-3-7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? GLENN JUST: If there any question, I'd be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KING: Any specific dates when that's going to be taken in and taken out? GLENN JUST: The DEC, to be honest with you, has had different ideas and I think it's the Nov. 1st or something like that. Actually a lot of the dock is upland. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, do we have dates on the installation or removal. GLENN JUST: Again, it hasn't been cemented by other regulatory agencies. It's a short season on Fishers Island. TRUSTEE SMITH: November 15th through March 31st. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve with the stipulation that the dock be taken out no later than November 15th and be put in no earlier than March 31 TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 10. Meryl Kramer on behalf of KATHRYN CAMPBELL requests a first floor addition to the existing one-story residence with new two-story addition. Any new septic work shall be landward of the house. Located: 570 Hippodrome Dr., Southold. SCTM#66-2-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak on behalf of the applicant? MERYL KRAMER: We do have a copy of the new survey (can't hear). The old septic system is going to be abandoned and the new septic system (changed tape) and that any run-off will be minimum. I believe they were the only conditions that were requested. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd really like to Table this and take a look at it next month if that's ok. We only had one Board member look at it originally. Are you satisfied with those driveway plans? TRUSTEE FOSTER: We didn't have a problem with it, it's just that there were certain ... TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I didn't have a problem with it but the driveway should be impervious. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to take any other comments. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's just that the driveway should be put in before construction because the weather and they were going to have difficulty getting in and out of the job, accessing the job, that's all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this application? TRUSTEE SMITH: I don't have a problem with this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well as long as you're satisfied with the driveway. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well it just has to be put in before the winter because you're going to have trouble getting in and out of there. MERYL KRAMER: We would be putting it in before construction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is this something that could be put in immediately or do you need other permits for the driveway? Could you do the driveway first? MERYL KRAMER: We don't have a Building Dept. permit yet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you could do the driveway. MERYL KRAMER: I'm sure the owner would be willing to do that even before the frost. Hopefully we will be breaking ground. I don't know if they'll want to do it immediately. TRUSTEE SMITH: Basically you have until the middle of December. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But once it starts getting wet though you're going to be done. MERYL KRAMER: I think before then though. I think sometime in November. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Within in the next month is the best time to do it. Once it starts raining and it starts getting mushy and they days get short and there is no drying it, it will be a nightmare. MERYL KRAMER: Do you want to say by September 31st or October 15th or something like that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: October even. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's an important part of the job because it's the only access you have in and out of there. MERYL KRAMER: We just don't know when we're going to get the Building Dept. permit and so she didn't want to do any work for sure until she had an idea. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You mean there's doubt about getting a permit at all? MERYL KRAMER: Or for what she wants. We're pretty sure but it's not 100%, it's never. If there's a big delay then she doesn't want to do any work until after next summer. She wants to get it in before next summer but it we are pushed beyond a certain point then... TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well the longer that driveway is established the better it's going to be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI' Sure, Ithink we'll put in conditions, say October 31st MERYL KRAMER: Ok, that sounds fine. TRUSTEE SMITH: Put in October 31st and the construction of the house can't start until after the driveway is in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's better for her. Like Artie said, the longer it sits the better the driveway, and the less the construction is going to tear it up. MERYL KRAMER: The adjacent neighbor to the south, when I was at the house the other day measuring, he had a big huge truck there dumping gravel in the road to stabilize it apparently, according to what DEC asked him to do. We're doing actually more than whatever the requirements are. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there is no other comment, do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that the driveway be put in before October 31~'and that the driveway be put in before any construction starts, and a line of hay bales along the wetland fringe during construction of the driveway and the house. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 11. Samuels & Steelman on behalf of JANE CUMMINS requests a Wetland Permit for the construction of new wood stairs from the top of the existing bulkhead to the beach. Located: 6485 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-13-11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application, or against the application? If there is no comment, is there a board comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 12. Samuels & Steelman on behalf of L. KEVlN O'MARA & ALEXANDRA R. O'MARA requests a Wetland Permit for a new single-family residence with swimming pool, located landward of the 100' setback from the coastal erosion hazard line. Additional work includes clearing and re-grading property within the required building setback. Located: 14345 Oregon Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#72- 2-2.1 POSTPONED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST 13. Architechnologies on behalf of RICHARD HORSTMANN requests a Wetland Permit to increase the footprint of the existing house and add a second floor. Located: 7225 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-15-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? Would anyone like to make any comment at all regarding the application? FRANK BLANGIARDO: Good evening Mr. Krupski and members of the Trustees. I am the adjoining land owner contiguous to the property you have on the application for Trustees this evening. The problem that has arisen and I'm in a bad position because he is my neighbor and a dear friend is trying to build a proposed addition however he doesn't own the land that lies between his house and my house which he's claiming by a deed. There is a new survey by a one Stanley J. Isaackson Jr. which miraculously after 80 years of surveys being performed on this neck of the woods, this piece of property or adjoining property now is a 10' right-of-way which is not legally a right-of-way, it's a 10' lot that's been in creation since 1919, now disappeared. The application now before you is for Richard Horstmann my next door neighbor and if you're familiar with that area or any of the tax maps, you're familiar with the 10' path that goes through these two lots. This property is on Nassau Point and the lots in question are 53 & 54. Directly between lots 53 & 54 is a 10' lot that goes approx. 350'. When this lot was first carved out of Mr. Horstmann's lot #54 in 1920 for the benefit of (can't hear) of Nassau Point, a new map was filed with the Suffolk County Clerk. I have items here for the Board. I am a member of the Nassau Point Property Owners Association and have been since I moved to Nassau Point in 1993. If you follow along with me you can open these folders that I prepared for the Trustees this evening and the first document that I have is the Nassau Point memorandum outlining the Nassau Point rights-of-way. I've highlighted the sentence which ]6 shows that Nassau Point Property Owners Assoc. not only owns this property but they also maintain the insurance. If you look at the second page of that memorandum you'll see in blue highlight the path off of Nassau Point Rd. in question and it's between and adjacent to the section, block and lot numbers one of which happens to be mine. You can see immediately above that there is a lot `10' wide that was purchased and is now private. But that was purchased and is private. The President is here (can't hear). The lots as they go on Little Peconic Bay from the causeway are all in excess of `100' except until you get to Mr. Horstmann's property and then it's listed as 90' along the bay parcel with a `10' path running between my property and his. This was carved out in `19'19 of Nassau Point and the map which is included in the paperwork which (can't hear) and that was filed on October 3'1, '1920 and that's known as map #753. On that map, Mr. Krupski do you have that map in front of you? Right, now if you note, the lots are shown by section lines. Now the section lines on these lots, the only ones that have been sold were along the bay and they were the first few sold as waterfront lots. It shows that lot 54 was not sold at that time and that is why the '10' parcel was carved out of lot 54 and my lot 53 was already sold so they couldn't carve '10' out of my property because they already sold it to some fellow and they couldn't cut '10' out of his property. So, they did cut '10' out of the Horstmann's property and that is why if you look at that map there is 9' and on the Iow side it's 94'. We have an application before us with a new survey, just a couple of months old, we're it's now a '104' lot by '100'. Now, if this was done by Mr. Isaakson, and I don't Mr. Isaakson, but I did speak with him on the phone and he said he would get to me and he has yet to get back to me. The next document that we have is the Town of Southold property record card. As you can see, and if you're familiar with the property cards, they are in chronological order giving the Liber, Page, and transfer, the last of which was Mr. Horstmann (can't hear) in September 30th of '1994 for about a half a million dollars or $499,000. So then if you go four lines above that, just above '1998, you'll see installation of 90' of bulkhead, not '100' of bulkhead and that's on the tax map, so we see that Mr. Horstmann is paying taxing on 90' of property however we have an application before us on '100' of property and coming '18' closer to my property. There was an application last year or the year before for Mr. Bacon's piece which has a right-of-way on the same side of the street a little bit further north and you required Mr. Bacon to keep 55' back from his right-of-way. So, what we have here is Mr. Horstmann, with the help of Mr. Isaakson, trying to take over this right-of-way and use it as a portion of his side yard in an attempt to build the proposed addition. If you look at the next page, you'll see the survey which covers my property, lot 53, which is a Roderick VanTuyle survey which shows the '10' path and it also sites maps #753. Mr. Horstmann also sites map #753 however his survey sites a previous map prior to before he bought his property, prior to this map, and that is for the purpose of misleading the Trustees, misleading the Building Dept. and to approve a building application on the parcel that he does not own and the reason (can't hear). If you go to the application before the Trustees this evening, I want to point out that Mr. Isaakson's survey is precise and in the deed along the roadside, it says '104', however his surveyor ]'7 can only come up with a 101' with the benefit of (can't hear). That was an indication right there. A survey who is coming up 3' short on waterfront property. The reality is that the meets and bounds, as an attorney, (can't hear) meets and bounds are based on (can't hear) or in a reverse direction or we wouldn't have to deal with the problem of these 10' lots. This is an elaborate scheme and a sham involving Mr. Notaro and Mr. Isaakson. This survey is a rip-off. I would like Mr. Isaakson to come before the Trustees explain who encouraged him to draw such a thing. TRUSTEE KING: Is he here? FRANK BLANGIARDO: Well that's all I have if you would like to say something on behalf of the property owner's association. PRESIDENT OF ASSOC: Looking out for the benefit of the association members, we have some, along with studies that you've seen, those are copies from my records, or our records, of research that has been done over a period of years to evaluate and keep track of the rights-of-ways. That subject of right-of- way or path has been in existence from day one, of the subdivision of Nassau Point. There is no record of the disappearing from our position of ownership. If in fact somebody has a record, I would like to see it, and I think that's perhaps the answer. My general understanding of this is, and I'm not an attorney, but from what I've seen, it's gotten picked up in the transfers years back, maybe 10 to 15 years ago, where some attorney, probably made some notations and said, well there's a 10' path here let's pick it up, and this is not uncommon from what I'm told in the Assessor's Office. If you keep transferring these things, that they get lost in the shuffle. It's like somebody coming along and transferring your property along with your property next door. I mean you don't know about it, it's not legal but 15 years later you did discover it through Title Ins. and things of that nature but it takes a lot to unravel these things. I think that's the situation and the applicant may very well be innocent but this is what he bought. He bought a 100' parcel. But, it's not to be sold, it belongs to us. Title companies, they make mistakes and it seems he would have recourse with the Title Co. My question is how do I unravel it all and get it back to the where it was so that he deed is correct and so forth. But, that's basically our position and I'm not taking a position about setbacks or anything of that nature. I just want the records, as far as this Town is concerned, clear, that the 10' parcel does not belong to Mr. Horstmann. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comments? RICHARD HORSTMANN: I don't know where to begin except I am looking, and I've heard that the survey created a couple of months ago, and I'm looking at a survey dated 1981 that also shows 100' and this was to the prior owner, Martin & Susan Orenthal. This has been shown to Mr. Blangiardo. Mr. Blangiardo's comment (can't hear) I can take exception to that. I was talking to the neighbors on both sides since I began thinking about this in January of this year. In fact, plans have been shown to him and asked for his comments and questions and I as delighted, and I had many changes in the plan and the architect here will tell you. We're talking about 10' and I don't have the ability to talk about 10'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think this is the proper board though to satisfy anyone on this 10' issue. This is more of a zoning and legal issue. Our concerns are setbacks and environmental concerns. Until this issue is resolved, I mean you say you bought a piece of property that is almost 100' wide, Nassau Point Prop. Owners Assoc. says they own the 10' path, is that correct? Alright. This shows on a tax map. I don't think that's going to be for us to decide. We're going to have to show this to the Town Attorney. Once that's been properly decided, then you can submit plans based on setback. You see, we don't deal with side yard setbacks. We are dealing with environmental conditions and how your project is going to affect the environment. RICHARD HORSTMANN: I was just about to introduce the architect to talk about those issues. I mean I have some other comments about the taxes that I believe I'm paying on .8 of an acre, which would indicate a 100' not 90'. If you do the math and divide by the number of square feet in an acre, but I'd rather talk about the building. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you see, we're not going to be the ones to decide that for you. We're not going to decide who owns the 10'. We're going to have to give that to the Town Attorney and he's going to have to deal with that. RICHARD HORSTMANN: Since there has been some strong language tonight, an I ask that Mr. Notaro please come before the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just wanted to say that before everyone gets more and more into it. We can't act on it until this is resolved and we can't resolve who owns the 10'. That's not our jurisdiction. FRANK NOTARO: I'm the architect for Mr. Horstmann. I am a licensed professional in the State of New York. I could lose my license for falsifying anything. We work off of a licensed surveyor's drawings. We don't coerce. Surveyors don't change their drawings because they could lose their license. There is absolutely no reason. According to Mr. Isaakson, when I met with him two days ago, this really came to a head about a week ago. The question was, do we pull it, or bring it to the Board, we were like, it's kind of late to do that. So, yes, there is a discrepancy. According to Mr. Isaakson, he spoke to the Title search company and they referenced the survey prepared by Mr. VanTuyle which shows 100'. They said go with it. Now Mr. Isaakson was having a search on it but did not have the information for the meeting tonight. Yes, I understand fully what you're saying about this being an environmental issue. But, I do take a little offense from the statements that were made, and that there was no attempt by either myself or my client to lie to anyone in this matter, including the surveyor. We only work off of a licensed surveyors plans. We don't change his plans We work from a licensed surveyors plans. If it says 90' then we work from 90'. That plan said 100'. He is telling me, the surveyor, that he based it upon talking to the Title search company. In the deed, there is a mistake. It states that this property runs 100', but it also states that there is a 10' path. They call it a path in the deed. If you do the math on it, it should say that he owns 90' and there's a 10' path, which adds up to 100'. So, there's a discrepancy there. But, we do have a survey in our possession that shows 100' prepared by Mr. VanTuyle in 1981. That's what he went by. He went by the surveyor. Stan Isaakson went by the survey that was referred to him by the Title search co. If a mistake was made, it was an honest mistake and it will be corrected. But, we don't have the full information. I just wanted to state that. FRANK BLANGIARDO: The plans that were shown to me months ago were based on 90' that Mr. Notaro drew up. FRANK NOTARO: That's not correct. FRANK BLANGIARDO: Well they tried to obtain .... TRUSTEE SMITH: Ithink we've heard enough. (yelling) FRANK BLANGIARDO: Mr. Horstmann's deed sites the map #753... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we're not the one's to decide this. We are going to Table this and you're going to have to settle this and it's has nothing to do ...we can't take any action on this. FRANK BLANGIARDO: Mr. Krupski, that's why I brought this up now so that it would not incur any additional cost to this charade. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to end it there. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we postpone the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So please, get this straightened out, and I'm sure you can because it should be straight forward. The Town Attorney will review and whenever it's straighten-out to his satisfaction then we'll act on it. 14. Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. on behalf of CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. requests a Coastal Erosion Permit for the proposed re-grading and application of stone/gravel to the snack bar parking area, proposed installation of curb stops and guard rail fence, and for the proposed installation of Iow intensity safety lighting. Located: Route 25, Orient. SCTM#15-9-15.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? RICHARD WARREN: I'm from Inter-Science Research Assoc. on behalf of Cross Sound Ferry. As you know our application before the Trustees is for a Wetlands Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for some resurfacing work at the parcel that's known as the snack bar parcel across from the Cross Sound Ferry Terminal. This has been before the Planning Board for quite some time and as you probably already know, as everybody in the Town of Southold knows, during the course of the review of this application as part of the Planning Board review, a lot of questions came up. One question came up with perspective to the issue of coastal erosion. We had some communication with the NYSDEC with regard to that matter and have two letters to hand out to the board for your file. On April 11, 2000 we were asked by the Planning Board to contact the NYSDEC with respect to parking in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. This is the letter that we submitted to the NYSDEC and the request to the Planning Board. This is the letter that we received in response to that issue that came from Bill Daley, who is the Chief of the NYSDEC with respect to Coastal Erosion. The Planning Board had a question as to whether or not the parking that was there and the improvements that were proposed could occur below the Coastal Erosion Hazard 2O Area. William Daley responded back and the work proposed was not a problem. I had a telephone discussion with him and he followed up a letter that was submitted as part of the record to the Planning Board. As you know, this is a parking area that pre-dates the 1991 adoption date of the Town, Coastal Erosion Hazard Regulation, so we're here to do improvement to the pre-existing nature of the parking area. During the course of the current application, there has been some dialogue with the Trustees. I know you've been out on a site inspection at the request of the Planning Board and we did receive some feedback from that with respect to the most southerly limit of the parking area. It was suggested to us that we should eliminate 21' of the southerly portion of that gravel surface parking area and remove the southerly curb stop that was proposed and do something softer like some plantings. We could not get this plan put on the survey. This is a copy of the site plan that was prepared by my office, Inter- Science Research Assoc. (papers shuffling) and before the Planning Board which you'll see the bluff, the line of the (noise) curb stops and 21' That shows the new limit of the existing edge of the parking and the double row of Rosa Rugosa or beach rose and some staked snow fencing to act as the southerly limit. So we pulled it back, we've eliminated the curb stop and we treated that differently. You can also see that there's a note on the plan that talks about the storm water run-off and I've been out to the site and I've taken a look at that. The plan that was proposed just before the Planning Board at the present time shows some catch basins on the property and regrading and the placement of the gravel surface on top of the entire property and we're in the process of resolving the drainage issue with the Planning Board as far as the site plan approval process but we do make the representation to the Trustees with no run- off will enter into the waters adjacent to the property. So, with the amendments to that, the plan you have before you has eliminated the wetlands permit portion of this application. We are only here for a Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit from you. I think if you look at the standards that are contained in the Code with respect to the work that is proposed, you'll find that this is consistent with these issues. I'm here to listen to the public and answer any questions you might have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? THOR HANSEN: I had a couple of question. My name is Thor Hansen and I'm the President of the Southold Citizens for Safe Roads. We're very interested in this because we are interested in the site plan application, which is before us. My question is, are they in critical environmental areas as well. This is the midst of a CEA and that's just a question that I had. They may not or they may be. The other one, I noticed the Town Engineer, from the mailing, had said that he needed new drainage calculations because he said that the required volume storage for the drainage is considerably more than is shown on the site plan, at that time, and he asked for new calculations and I just wondered if those have been submitted. My third question is really to the Trustees. As I understand it, the Planning Board in September is going to be taking action, or supposed to take action on the site plan that has been submitted. Is it the Trustees intention to get an answer to the Planning Board on this issue prior to September because 2] it seems to me very difficult for them to make a decision if they don't have input. So, if you can't get an answer to them are you going to tell them to wait on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we usually act before the Planning Board acts on these items. (changed tape) ... act on an application because of the environmental issues of the application. We like to have the first say on how any project is going to lay out. I would think, this being no exception, so we don't necessarily coordinate every activity with the Planning Board or ZBA or any other agency. We usually act before they do. There was a question we had about the Coastal Erosion line and activities permitted within it. When we originally went out to the site, which was two months ago, basically what we requested, and we try to be consistent in our Coastal Erosion policies as far as what's allowed in those areas based on site specific details, and that's why we requested no hardening in the Coastal Erosion area at all, which would be that formerly proposed curb stop, and the parking lot kept in line with what we saw was the natural contour of the beach coming from the east, towards the west. That's what, basically, what we required. We had some conversation with Bill Daley, who is the Chief of Coastal Erosion Management on the site two weeks ago and he made some comments that weren't clear, to me anyway. I don't know if the Board here is satisfied with his comments concerning Coastal Erosion, parking and that sort of thing? Can everyone read that letter from Bill Daley? We've got to comment about whether there was existing parking in front of the Coastal Erosion line prior to the issuance of the state map that we have in our office. Now this is a photo copy and it doesn't show any cars, well it shows two cars by the little shack, but it doesn't show any cars on the parking area, that we'll call the snack bar parcel. The letter from Bill Daley says that parking by itself has no affect on the inherent protective nature of the land feature upon which it is located. This is essentially an unregulated activity. Periodic grading and other activities associated with normal maintenance are similarly unregulated activities. However, enhancement of nature buffers and landscaping an installation of railroad tie curb stops within the parking area, although of relatively minor impact, should be subject to CEHA permit issued by the Town. That's what it says. We're just getting this. These were our questions. RICHARD WARREN: With respect to the questions raised on the Coastal Erosion Hazard map and the parking issue, I'll address them one at a time. The was a fair amount of dialogue with the Planning Board with respect to that issue as well and there was actually a memorandum that we submitted to the Planning Board with respect to the pre-existing issue of parking on the site and there was a memorandum prepared by the Town of Southold Building Dept. It said that / have received evidence of, and have determined that parking on the parcel known as the snack bar parcel is a pre-existing use. Affidavits and aerial photos refer to parking there prior to the enactment of Zoning in 1957. This is something from the Town's own Building Dept based upon the memorandum. So, there is a pre-existing parking there and we have acknowledged that point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that doesn't say whether it was parking in front.., it doesn't reference the Coastal Erosion Line. When I looked at the aerial photo, which Artie is looking at a copy of, it looked vegetated. This whole parcel looked vegetated, what they call the snack bar parcel. RICHARD WARREN: Could I see the aerial you're looking at? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's kind of vague. By nature of the fact that there are no cars there, it looked vegetated. RICHARD WARREN: I would need to know the date of the aerial photograph. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's 1988 or 1984. They are old. (audience and Board all talking at once) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need a clarification. We've taken on the Coastal Erosion as part of our Town Code. But it was written by the State, and the Town Board adopted it on our behalf. So, we asked the State for clarification on this. We even had them out there two weeks ago, physically on the site. This was copied to Bill Southard, who was out there on the site with us. Is everyone satisfied with the State's response? Well then that's that issue. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well it's not an issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's become not an issue. I think that the only other additional question I have is, the drainage still shows the property sloped towards Gardiner's Bay. I'm sorry, I can't recall, you said about a drainage plan and how that was going to be formalized or finalized. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I talked to him about that. I guess they had a conversation with Jamie Richter in reference to that because of the shallow water there. You would literally have to saturate the parking lot with shallow leaching rings which are just a maintenance nightmare. He seemed to think that if the grade was changed and it all pitched to the northeast, away from that, and keep the two basins that are in there, and put some sort of, well it was my suggestion actually, to put some sort of a French drain in along the backside, similar to the one that they have on the west side, that that would take care of the problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I had the same conversation with the Town Engineer today also. Do you have any response to that? RICHARD WARREN: We were not able to get the drainage issue resolved for you tonight but we have made a commitment that drainage will not pitch towards the water. This plan shows the contours as part of the application before you. What we had everybody trying to do is actually do exactly what you fellows would need and Mr. Richter and have the engineer work on the drainage issues to your satisfaction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We could condition this on the permit. The Town Engineer has to approve the drainage. For our sake, the Town Engineer has to approve it. Does anybody have any other questions? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve the application with the condition that the road run-off drainage be approved by the Town Engineer before we issue the permit. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 23 15. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct on pilings, a two-story, one-family dwelling, deck, and swimming pool; install a pervious driveway and sanitary system with concrete retaining wall; place approx. 450 cy. of fill; install drywells; establish a 50' non-disturbance/non- fertilization buffer adjacent to the tidal wetlands; and connect to public water and other utilities. Located: 9326 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-5-25 POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST 16. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of CHARLOTTE DICKERSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a +/-138' timber retaining wall and 21' easterly return; and backfill with approx. 300 cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source and planted with Cape American Beach Grass (12" on center). Westerly terminus of proposed structure will tie into face of adjacent steel retaining wall to west; and portions of existing 1-3 ton stone toe armor fronting adjacent returns will be relocated to armor proposed return. Located: 4630 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic. SCTM#74-1-35.51 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak briefly on this application? TOM SAMUELS: You're all aware of my comments from prior instances and there is no need elaborate on them, but I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this application? Did we get a new drawing? TOM SAMUELS: I believe I have a copy. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't have it. TOM SAMUELS: Rob Herrmann faxed it to me and I thought I brought it with me. I will fax it to Lauren tomorrow. I think that's the latest drawing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it should show the bulkhead starting at the end of the neighbors, continue along this way and I don't know what you're going to have to do to the east here but.., that's what we need. I thought I saw a copy of that once. TOM SAMUELS: It's what we were talking about at the site inspection. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I thought I saw a copy of the actual plan. TOM SAMUELS: I'll talk to Rob tomorrow. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is only for the record. This only something that the Board would consider because of the nature of the lot because there is no room to move the house back and because there is an adjacent bulkhead. Those are the two main factors and because the bluff is unstable at top. These are the only reasons we'd consider this structure. We had reservations about it before but after considering all of the factors involved, and we're actually not going to make a resolution on it tonight. We're going to formalize a resolution that isn't going to hold you up because we need plans anyway, that's going to reflect that exactly why we voted on this application on this location. I'll make a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll save our Resolution until receipt of actual plans. 24 17. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of TREVOR & ALLISON DAVlSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 18'X 36' swimming pool; clear up to 50' landward of tidal wetland boundary; and establish a 50' non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the tidal wetland boundary. Located: 385 Grathwohl Rd., New Suffolk. SCTM#117-6-14.1 WITHDRAWN AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST 18. Crowley Marine Construction on behalf of OSCAR & BETH BLEVINS requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'X 312' catwalk, 4'X 12' dock, 3'X 16' ramp and 6'X 20' float in "L" configuration with two 2-pile dolphins to secure float. Located: 640 Haywaters Dr., Cutchogue. SCTM#104-5-1.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? OSCAR BLEVINS: We had some considerable controversy about this application. We originally wanted to go 312' out from the backyard and I understand there have been some changes in that going off from the road, Mason Dr. which runs parallel to the property. The last time you were going to take into consideration the amount of traffic at the end of the road and possibly move the dock entrance, the ramp entrance up a little further to the grass sort of the bush area, and I would appreciate that consideration. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. The conversation we had in the field reflected that but we never got a hold of the DEC to take a look and we want to make sure we're going to be consistent and not grant you, and this happened to other people, grant you a permit for one thing, they're going to grant you a permit for something else, you're going to be back and forth and back and forth. So we'd rather meet with them on the site and give you something consistent. OSCAR BLEVINS: Susan Long had some correspondence from the DEC point out where, approximately where they would like to show it but it wasn't on a scaled drawing. I can show you that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we still want to meet with them on the site because this has happened with dock applications very often in the past two years. OSCAR BLEVINS: This was the original walkway to our house and this is the end of Mason Dr. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who did she speak to in DEC? OSCAR BLEVINS: Chris Arfsten. TRUSTEE FOSTER: He was supposed to meet us there but he didn't show up that day, remember? OSCAR BLEVINS: It's not to scale. I tried to get some kind of... it seems to be somewhat above where the blacktop ends. You can see where the barricade is at the end of the road and primarily this is a little higher up than where the sign is. The sign is 23' if you remember that metal stake and the sign that's there. That's 23' from the end of the road, towards the water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, that doesn't substantiate, increase it's length. OSCAR BLEVINS: If I could make a comment. If we move it up into the grass, the grass area starts, I mean it's like another 30' up to the edge. If you change the angle from the dock, the point where the dock is going to be in the water, and move it up, it doesn't really lengthen the dock. The walkway, considerably. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows it shorter here. This is 95' and this is now 90'. It's shorter here. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine. I'd recommend a 3' width and Iow-profile. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think, Henry? TRUSTEE SMITH: I have no problem with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't either. lAN CROWLEY: The Army Corp. was there later than you guys were and he wants it 4' wide but 4' from the bottom of the lowest timber. He wants it 4' to the bottom. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Height? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Height, why? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Absolutely not. lAN CROWLEY: That's the way he wanted it. He said if you want to build it 2' wide you could build it 2' high. If you want to build it 1' wide you could make it 1' high. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But if it's 3' wide, you can make it 3' high, right? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I spoke to Ray himself and 3' wide and you can go with 2 ½' above marsh, Ray Cowan of the DEC. lAN CROWLEY: Ok, 3' wide 2 ½'? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 2 ½' above marsh. lAN CROWLEY: This guy from the Army Corp. said he wanted it 4' high. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Army Corp. never comes out... OSCAR BLEVlNS: Not to make this any longer and I know you guys are pressed, but I'd like consideration in the location of the entrance. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't have a problem with that location. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's something that the DEC and us both will approve and then you're not going to be bounced around. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you realize people may park there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's the height that's the problem. OSCAR BLEVlNS: Well that's one reason I was asking to have it moved up toward the bush line as so that they don't park, because the bushes go right to the edge of the road, so now they've driven and parked their cars to where they beat them down so they can park. If I could enter through the brush area, the trees are large enough that they can't knock them down. TRUSTEE FOSTER: At least you'll have access to it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you have to put on the end of it, you have to put two serious posts in so if they scrape up against it, it will be their problem. OSCAR BLEVlNS: Should I stay somewhat a distance off the road boundary? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know. Off his property line? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well the thing is, if he pushed the posts right out next to the road and somebody parks right to them, it blocks him. If the posts are in off of the road and they can't physically get back there because of the heavy bushes, it will give him access. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I'm looking a 120' long dock here. If you go straight back a 120' it moves it back another 20'. It's the same length. OSCAR BLEVlNS: It doesn't change the angle. The angle sometimes gets shorter depending. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what's the difference at that point? See what I mean Ken. Take a look. If you take it from here, and then you just bend it around, it's around 120', right? If you take the end of that catwalk and extend it straight, I'm coming to the property line, you bring it almost 20' back. It's the same distance. Instead of making that jog, you can come straight in. Do you see what I'm saying? That's 120' from here to here, the end of the catwalk. If you make it straight out this way, it's 120' from here to here. It's the same length. OSCAR BLEVlNS: What I tried to do here was, this is the stake where the proposed is, moving it back like 30' only changes it by 10' in length. This is what they sent back. This is to scale. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone have a problem with that? Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree with Ken, 3' wide, 2 ½' high. The DEC won't have a problem with that. lAN CROWLEY: I think that's the way to go. TRUSTEE SMITH: The Army Corp, I mean they don't have anything to do with our plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So do you want to approve that subject to getting plans? Ok. So you're going to show us that location or roughly that location and you have about 20' to work with there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The poles should be hand-dug there through the marsh, no machines. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The poles will be hand-dug. We made a mistake around the corner there. They made a heck of a mess. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We won't deal with cranes going through the marsh land anymore. lAN CROWLEY: No jetting? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No jetting, they make a heck of a mess. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They left piles of sand all over the marsh. Unless you have a wheel barrow to take the sand away. lAN CROWLEY: I usually put it back in the hole. OSCAR BLEVlNS: As long as we clean up the piles, can we jet them in? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it can't go back in to the hole, you're putting a pole in. Okay, we'll let you jet it if you remove the excess spoil from.., it's only a pail full, a 5 gallon pail from each hole but somebody really made a mess. lAN CROWLEY: I understand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It has to be Iow-profile from the top. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No hand-rails. OSCAR BLEVlNS: No hand-rails? Will you designate where you want to start, I mean the distance? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I would say it's roughly 120'. Take a look. Put it on the plan, there's room here, a couple feet either way, to swing it at that point so 2'7 when you're installing it, you can say it's going to here or here, it's still going to be 120'. You're measuring from the water side. Give us a drawing that shows it to scale. Draw it up and measure it because you're not going to get the permit until you get the plans in. lAN CROWLEY: So you want it 120' from the end of the fixed pier. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seaward end of catwalk. Then you have that where you want to swing it in. We'll leave that up to you. OSCAR BLEVINS: There is no possibility of having hand-rails because I young children, grandkids? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They can walk down to the end of the ramp. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have little kids too and hand-rails don't stop them. We really want to keep it Iow. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's an open marsh. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't you keep it no hand-rails and come back in a year and see how it worked out. You might be satisfied with it. The problem with have with these high docks, it's such a seasonal use. They aren't using these things every day or twice a day or something. They are using them how many times over the course of the year. These docks are getting higher and higher and higher and it's a major impact on a wetland that's really, it's not like a sidewalk that you use everyday. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's only 2 ¼' high, they'd jump off of there. OSCAR BLEVINS: Ok, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application for a 120' catwalk, 3' wide, 2 ¼' high with a 3'X 16' ramp and a 6'X 20' float in an "L" configuration secured with two 2-pile dolphins subject to receipt of new plans showing the exact location and that the marsh should be restored, excess fill material from the pile installation should be removed after the piles are jetted in. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 19. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of DR. JOHN ALOIA requests a Wetland Permit for the re-built existing stairway inkind/inplace, that lead to an existing 8'X 12' deck which was expanded to 16'X 24'. Rebuilt and expanded existing retaining wall. Located: 8145 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#118-4-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm the agent for the applicant, Mr. Aloia and I'm here if you have any questions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else, there is a letter here that I'll read, but is there anyone here that wants to speak in favor of or against the application? JOHN ALOIA: This is somewhat complicated because... (changed tape) damage and actually this was done with failure of a permit by Costello Marine simply because there was a clerical error in their office and we apologize for that. The deck is fits in with the aerial that's similar to decks throughout Nassau Point and 28 we are seeking approval. There is an objection from our neighbors that have to do with something that we think isn't related to what we have before you and that is repairs that was made on sheathing of our jetty, which we understand is minor repairs and didn't require a permit. What we request is that we be issued a permit for a deck, which is what we've applied for and what we're here for to speak for tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment? PAT MOORE: I have Mr. & Mrs. Manago here who are the adjacent property owners and I also asked Mr. Samuels to stay because he did the work on the Manago property and the letter that was sent by Dr. Aloia, most recently and I just got a copy of it, alleged that some of the work that was being done was based on some damage that Mr. Samuels did, or Rambo Construction, did to the property and I think that it was only fair that Tom address that because he was very careful, very specific, in the area that he was working. With respect to the permit before you, the reason that he's here is because of the notice of violation. But, in that interim, we were given, my clients were given notice of the work that was done and they also noted that the permit did not include any of the work to the jetty. We would respectfully disagree that it was minor work done to the jetty and it appears from the record in this file that back in 1995 there was an application based on a survey that we think is inaccurate and that survey with that application came with a request to extend and rebuild the jetty 14' out in a shore area, I guess nearshore area... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, did we issue the permit to repair that jetty? PAT MOORE: Apparently in 1995 you issued a permit for a 14' offthe end of jetty however that work was never done, not to our knowledge it wasn't done. This past year, significant work was done to the jetty that is not that 14' area but in fact the area along the beach and was actually an expansion of the jetty and in fact has caused some significant affects on the Manago's beach because the jetty that had been built and was functioning was not functioning completely so that there was still some ability for the Manago beach to be re-nourished. Since it was repaired, there have been affects on the Manago beach. I asked Tom because he's certainly more qualified than I am to explain the work that was done and the affects right now that the jetty that has been, the work that has been to the jetty, affects my client's property. TOM SAMUELS: Just very brieftly, the jetty is the Manago's property down-lift, the literal drift, which is north to south and the jetty is or has been scouring the property. I have no way of knowing to the extent of it's increased by way of repair to the jetty, however, and I'm certainly not prepared to answer the question as to who actually owns the jetty, which is another problem, but I would like to make a point to the letter that was written describing the damage that was done to the jetty when we re-built the Manago bulkhead. That couldn't be more inaccurate and false. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, I just want to get this straight because I'm not sure who's on first here. You work for Manago? TOM SAMUELS: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you work for Aloia? TOM SAMUELS: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: PAT MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: PAT MOORE: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: at all. Some years ago. Did you work for Manago? Do you work for Aloia? Is everybody following this because I'm not following this PAT MOORE: Aloia has an application before you after given a notice of violation. There has been additional work that's not covered under the permit application that's before you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But whose jetty is it? PAT MOORE: We think it's the Manago jetty based on our very current and specific survey. We have stakes that were actually placed on the property and we have photographs that Mr. Manago took and didn't go over them with you that clearly show that the jetty, at minimum, begins on the Manago property, and extends out into the water. The Aloia's have an old survey that I don't believe addressed the waterfront very carefully because it was dealing mostly with upland issues. Surveyors, unless you're very specific with them, really won't deal with waterfront issues. They are primarily concerned with the meets and bounds based on the deed and prior descriptions. TRUSTEE SMITH: This permit that they're looking for tonight, all they're requesting is a Wetland Permit for the existing stairway, inkind/inplace, that lead to an exiting 8'X 12' deck with an expanded 16'X 24', and retaining wall. PAT MOORE: I understand that, but their application is incomplete. They made additional work to a jetty that they did not own and don't have an application before you. They're in violation in addition on the jetty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When did they do the work? PAT MOORE: At the same time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now, how do you know they did the work? Did you see it? PAT MOORE: My client. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, did you see it? PAT MOORE: Mr. Krupski, did you see it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's why I'm asking you, who did the work? PAT MOORE: Mr. Costello has admitted that he did the work. There is no question that the work was done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just trying to figure out whose doing this work and when, and is there a permit. PAT MOORE: Mr. Costello is the contractor. They survey is an accurate survey that shows that the jetty belongs to the Manago's. You have an application before you that incomplete. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is the survey that shows it's Mr. Manago's? MR. MANAGO: This is the survey and John Metzger signed it. (Mr. Manago is not speaking into microphone.) If you look at their survey, you'll see that the same jetty is on their survey as well but their survey is inaccurate because these lines are exactly parallel, but his property is not parallel. It goes from 100' of the road and it ends, and it says it right there, the lines do not match. That's why I'm 3O convinced that my survey is absolutely right. John Metzger assures me that it is. I own the jetty. It is on my property, not on their property. TRUSTEE SMITH: And he repaired it? MR. MANAGO: Who did? TRUSTEE SMITH: Costello. MR. MANAGO: Mr. Costello repaired it. He worked for the Aloia's, when we were away. We did not know he was doing it in advance. TRUSTEE SMITH: Well he repaired it. So what's the problem? MR. MANAGO: Because it's now destroyed my beach environmentally. I have no beach. This is what's happened to my beach. These are before pictures and these are after pictures, and I get all of the muck and seaweed. We have also, there is a rock jetty. All of this, every time it rains, and at high tide, not at Iow tide, but at high tide, this is what my beach looks like, in the last couple weeks. So, we are convinced, you see, they raised the jetty. They raised it by another 6". They put a board, and I think you can see the board. So when Mr. Costello came to my house, he said he would remove part of it. I said, what are you going to remove all of it. All of the work he did, they replaced the entire south side of the jetty, which now captures everything onto my beach and if you look at this, you can't swim in this. It's horrible. So I said to wait for the meeting and let's resolve this because when we came to my house, I pointed out the stake marks and the monuments, and you realize now the jetty is on my property. TRUSTEE SMITH: Well Mr. Costello should remove whatever you want removed then. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well let's hear what Mr. Costello's story is because this is getting more interesting. JOHN COSTELLO: This Board is aware that there is application for the deck. I don't know why we're even interviewing anything to do with the jetty. I have a survey that was submitted by the owner of the property that was dated in 1984. That is almost 40 newer that the one Pat was saying about the pond in VanTuyle's earlier. This survey was part of the application, it was given to you as part of the application, and indicated that the jetty was on his property, Mr. Aloia's property. That has nothing, it's all totally irrelevant to the application. He had a violation on the deck. The violation included making an application before this Board for the deck, so we did. Let me tell you, I don't know if Mr. Aloia's house is the neighbor's house is where it's supposed to be, if the setback is... I know none of that. I don't even care. All I want to do is address everything that is relevant to the application that you have before you. That's it. The bulkhead is shown on the 1984 survey that is certified with Title Ins. I have no idea whether that Title Ins. Co. is still in business but the fact of the matter is the survey. Whether one survey is right and one is wrong, I have no idea and it's not part of this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They can't both be right. JOHN COSTELLO: Let me tell you, it's irrelevant to this application for the deck. The deck, I believe, is 100% on Mr. Aloia's property and I do admit the guilt that we did make it bigger than we should of and we're before you, with the JOHN COSTELLO: TRUSTEE SMITH: JOHN COSTELLO: violation. If it is, ... TRUSTEE SMITH: application, for the deck that going behind the bulkhead, environmentally it has no impacts, but that's the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: The jetty is a separate issue. That's a direct violation. When they can find out who owns which two feet of it... I don't care who owns it. That's a violation. I don't know if...we'll have to go out and find out if it's a It's higher than it was John. Even if it's a repair, you're making it higher, it's a violation. If you did it inkind/inplace, I could say that's a repair. But, when you go higher, that's a direct violation. JOHN COSTELLO: You're going to give me a violation, now? For what? The issue, your Bay Constable went out to the site and issued a violation for the deck. We are doing exactly what we were told. That's simple. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is what I told the other people in Nassau Point who had the problem with the surveys. Here we have two surveys showing two different things. There's a survey here and you can see where Mr. Costello looked... MR. MANAGO: That's not an original survey. Those lines were drawn in there. Both cannot be right. The words and the lines cannot be right, so the survey is inaccurate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not saying it is. All I'm saying is if Dr. Aloia came in here last month, two months ago, three months ago, whatever, and said I want to build a deck, I want to fix the jetty, we would have looked at this, we would've said, to be honest with you, because we get these surveys all the time. We can't verify them, we shouldn't have to. They are stamped by a licensed surveyor. We shouldn't have to verify them. MR. MANAGO: That's not what the property looks like today. That is obsolete. The property doesn't look anything like that. There have been major alterations on the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know what you're saying, I'm not disagreeing with you. MR. MANAGO: You make an application to any of the Boards and just put any survey, even a very old one, if that's not what the property looks like. All we're asking is that they get a new survey and this will then, I think, will show the real facts. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's going to have to be worked out between you and your neighbor because we're looking at this for environmental... PAT MOORE: But right now you've got a violation that wasn't complete. The notice of violation had to be... if the Bay Constable realized that the work was done to the jetty, he would've also included that into the notice of violation and the permit would've been... JOHN COSTELLO: You don't know that Pat. You can't mind read the Bay Constable. MARK ALOIA: Those are my parents. I happen to be an attorney and when I saw that they got a letter from an attorney I came but I didn't that it was going to be necessary for me to speak. There are a lot of factual inaccuracies with what they are saying and we could be here all night and we can do that because we 32 have photographs and affidavits and so forth and we can through that as to who owns what and where the border really lies and so forth. In any event, I thought, and I'm hopeful, is the determination going to be just on the deck, or are we discussing the jetty as well, because then we have a lot of proof that we have to offer as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the jetty came up as a surprise to the Board. MARK ALOIA: There was a letter written to the Board by Ms. Moore discussing the jetty and raising issues about the jetty. It had nothing to do with our application. Basically, from what I see, the deck, there is no objection from the Manago's about the deck. The deck is very much like every deck all along Nassau Point. It's the same thing. Every house you can see on either side, as far as you can see, has the same thing. As far as the jetty goes, we have unfortunately a bad neighbor situation. If we have to decide who owns what we could do that. I don't think this is the place to do that. TRUSTEE SMITH: What do you say if we take care of the deck tonight? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Let's just act on the application before us and let them hash the rest of it. MARK ALOIA: We own the jetty and I have to tell you, I believe, and I don't know if it was you, but someone ... we don't care what the jetty looks like or is repaired. We care that there is a jetty there because it preserves the beach. We don't tell specifically, we want to repair it here, or we want three things over here, there are holes there, we rely on Costello to tell us what we need. If it's wrong, then it's got to be taken down. We'll take it down. Oh by the way, the timber was put in like three or four years ago under that other permit. It was not put in recently. I have pictures. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, but the problem is, if the Bay Constable goes out, who gets the violation. MARK ALOIA: That's right. They want the violation. Quite frankly, the permits have been issued to our predecessor, all the permits for the jetty. He doesn't own the land underwater. So, the permits were issued for the construction of the jetty. The last permit that was issued, was issued to my parents. We have spent a lot of money repairing it and now we have our neighbors telling us oh, thanks a lot for repairing it but you know, it's our jetty, and take it down. In any event, what I would really like to know is whether any thing is going to moved on something beyond the application that's before you. If we go beyond that we have things to say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Honestly, the jetty is going to have to be restored to what is was, the height. Is it going to take 6 hours of work, or is going to take 6 years of haggling. That's going to be up to the two neighbors, I'm afraid. MARK ALOIA: Well are they going to pay to remove it? PAT MOORE: I think it was unauthorized when it was done so I think you know the answer to that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the choice is going to be between the Aloias and the Managos. MARK ALOIA: Well we can send Costello down to take it down. PAT MOORE: That would certainly satisfy my clients to have them take it down because the whole purpose here is to allow the jetty to deteriorate because that is actually preserving his beach more so. MARK ALOIA: I mean I don't like it, it's bulky. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well if we send the Bay Constable out and it's not there, and it's not there, then there's no violation. Right? PAT MOORE: But there's a great deal more than just that strip that was added. There was sheathing that was added as well. MARK ALOIA: You mean you want us to pull the sheathing out? PAT MOORE: That's what was working before. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you see the sheathing that was pulled out Pat? PAT MOORE: My clients testified to that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, but did you see it? PAT MOORE: Is that a joke? TRUSTEE SMITH: Let's move on with the deck. The jetty is through for tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone have any other comments? PAT MOORE: Do you want the photographs for the file? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would like them. MARK ALOIA: Well is you're giving things for the file, then I'll start. PAT MOORE: Now he has to remove it or it will be a violation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Exactly. That 6 X 6 on top either has to be removed or it's a violation. PAT MOORE: What about the sheathing? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you think you have a legitimate claim besides the 6 X 6, that the jetty was altered either in height or in length... MR. MANAGO: All of the sheathing has been replaced on my side and all I wanted to do was to work it out with the Aloias, in a reasonable way. TRUSTEE SMITH: Why don't you two work it out between you? MR. MANAGO: Well we are trying to resolve this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd like to see this resolved by you. JOHN ALOIA: We ask that you give us the permit for the deck and we'll work to resolve whatever has been changed to the jetty. I'm certainly not.., the jetty was built by the person who sold us the house. The neighbors on both sides who lived there knew that it belonged to the house and all I ask to have done was repair some rotted sheathing. I'm not going to tear out sheathing and drill holes in the jetty, but if there is any obstruction, we'll see to it that it's removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not going to resolve, obviously, the ownership issue tonight so let's not even mention it. PAT MOORE: So, it either gets resolved or the Bay Constable will go out. TRUSTEE SMITH: Right, the Bay Constable is the enforcement, so you have to contact them. MARK ALOIA: So the permit for the deck is... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we're considering. The permit for the deck, and rebuilding the existing stairways, and the rebuilt and expanded retaining walls. Do you have any comment on those? MR. MANAGO: I have no objections on whatever they want to do on their property other than that. I just wanted them to get a new survey. I didn't think that either this Board or the Building Dept. would want a survey that's inaccurate. The Building Dept. needs an accurate survey. That's all I wanted. I think that would be the first step in our resolution as to who owns what. Mine goes out to the high water mark and there's does not. They're assuming that they own for some other reason but it's on my land. No matter what happens, it's on my land. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not disputing that. Certainly your statement is backed up by a really recent survey. MR. MANAGO: That's all we ask is that they get a more recent survey. MARK ALOIA: Really, there is so much more history and how things have been over the last.., before they even looked here, but we really don't want to get into that. I would again ask that we talk about the other issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion that we Approve the deck, the existing 8'X 12' deck expanded to 16'X 24', rebuilt and expanded existing retaining wall. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 20. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of RICARDO RENGIFO requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct existing 4'X 46' dock, inkind/inplace, and extending it another 10' for a total of 56' then continuing with a new 32"X 16' ramp leading to a new 6'X 20' float secured with a 2-pile dolphin and two single piles. Install two single mooring piles. Install 142' new bulkhead in front of existing and reconstructing 30' existing jetty in-place with "C-Loc" vinyl sheathing for each. Located: 1875 Shore Rd., Greenport. SCTM#47-2-32 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There were structures built on his property. JOHN COSTELLO: I didn't build either one of these structures, but I can tell you when the bulkhead was built. I was built probably in the late 50's by Ralph T. Preston Inc. with a company that I had affiliation with somewhat later on. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What about the retaining walls. JOHN COSTELLO: I have no idea, oh I can tell you, it was built in 1984, because I saw a contract by Edgar and Austin Burke, but they had a contract from that company at that time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to read a letter here from Robert Stackler. (Trustee Krupski reading letter on file.) Ok, where are the photographs. These are the ones that don't show the retaining wall, or the shower. So, we have an issue here, the dock, the jetty, which we saw there was a jetty, a retaining wall and all the pipes coming from the bulkhead. Now there was an old survey from 1972 that shows a bulkhead and a return. You see, we can't permit a return on someone else's property, as I'm sure you know after tonight's meeting. JOHN COSTELLO: The return that is being requested shows on the old survey and the measurements indicate that it is totally, 100%, the 42' return on the west side, not the retaining wall, but the return, is on his own property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But Dr. Rengifo needs a permit also for that retaining wall because he doesn't have one. JOHN COSTELLO: He had a violation on that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But he doesn't have a permit for it. JOHN COSTELLO: I believe that could be resolved between the two neighbors. I have nothing to do with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we're not saying you had anything to do with it. JOHN COSTELLO: I'm just saying, again, the property line issue and whether it has to be removed.., all I know, Mr. Rengifo came in to the attorney to pay the fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we can't permit it. It's a structure and he has to have it permitted. It's within our jurisdiction, so it has to be put in the permit. JOHN COSTELLO: I can't request for something on somebody else's property without the owner of the property saying something. I wouldn't even make an application. I can only apply for what is exactly on his property. I certainly wouldn't make an application for some adjoining property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Excuse me, Greg Yakaboski, we have an issue here is you could come up and take a look at this. GREG YAKABOSKI: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In 1972 the survey showed the bulkhead and a short return but the applicants since built a number of things. It shows a dock also. The applicant has extended the return. This could've been done prior to our jurisdiction on the bay. GREG YAKABOSKI: This is on the bay? Ok. JOHN COSTELLO: It's in Pipes Cove, on the Greenport side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It could've been extended prior to needing a permit from us. The retaining wall definitely is very new. It doesn't exist here and these pictures don't show it, and it's on the neighbor's property. So, Mr. Costello said he couldn't apply for it because ... JOHN COSTELLO: Mr. Costello is here for the person who owns this house? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right. GREG YAKABOSKI: What is it that he wants to do? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well he wants to do everything but ... JOHN COSTELLO: He wants to reconstruct the dock and extend the dock by 10'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And there's a jetty under here, and the return also or not? JOHN COSTELLO: The return? I don't believe so. GREG YAKABOSKI: You're talking about just the bulkhead on the water side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you see Dr. Rengifo received a violation because he had a pipe here, which he still has, ... JOHN COSTELLO: Not we disconnected that. I have photos. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we were there two ago and it was still there. Did he do it since then? JOHN COSTELLO: They were all disconnected. I went over and got photographs last week. There is a pipe there but it is plugged and cut off and not connected to the house. It was at one time connected to the gutters on the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are also pipes on the west side coming out of the retaining wall and return. JOHN COSTELLO: There is one pipe coming out but it was cut off. It is not connected. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, but the question is, we didn't permit this retaining wall. How do we get it removed? It's not on Dr. Rengifo's property. GREG YAKABOSKI: For the retaining wall, I would suggest that you have this land owner contacted and issued the notice of violation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's aware that it's there and he's unhappy with it. GREG YAKABOSKI: Mr. Stackler? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. GREG YAKABOSKI: He has civil remedies if somebody else puts something on this property that's not supposed to be there. If this was within our jurisdiction, it's a violation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's within our jurisdiction. GREG YAKABOSKI: Right, so you give him a notice of violation, with like 60 days to clear it, and we can extend it for him, while he clears this up. It's just keeps things moving. We won't go after him, we'll let him clear it up. But he's going to have civil remedies against whoever put that in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that's the way we should proceed? GREG YAKABOSKI: I would recommend doing it that way. If you had concerns about the pipes, because it's sitting there, that's part of the application and mitigation. If you wanted to, you could ask, I understand and believe what John's saying that they've been plugged, but if you wanted to, you could ask that those pipes be removed, as part of all of this, not just plugged, but removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That answers our question. GREG YAKABOSKI: I would just give Mr. Stackle something, a violation, we understand what they're claiming so we're not going to bring them into court at this time, if he did make that case and he takes the steps against whoever did it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommends Disapproval. JOHN COSTELLO: But we did. We did have a violation on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No but he's talking about the retaining wall on Stackler's property. So, we're not going to consider that tonight. JOHN COSTELLO: No, I'm just trying to say, we did have a violation, the bay constable asked us to make an application, so we did, and we met with the Assistant Town Attorney, and Mr. Rengifo, and we did what we had to do. GREG YAKABOSKI: We're not looking to go back to Mr. Rengifo. We're just trying to mention how to deal with this retaining wall on someone else's property and if Mr. Rengifo, before you were retained, put it on the wrong property, then he has to deal with that with his neighbor. As you said earlier, that's a civil dispute between two neighbors. 37 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright, the CAC recommends Disapproval. The recommend that the dock be repaired inkind/inplace and removal of the existing attached jetty. Now, to bring up the jetty, first. Did anyone have a problem with the jetty? The wood jetty underneath the dock. JOHN COSTELLO: May I make a comment on the jetty. I would probably advise the customer, you know he has a little rock jetty there that has been there, I don't know how long, but that little jetty is down to clay right now and there is never going to be sand (can't hear). All it does it break waves down on an easterly storm, it takes some of the energy out of the waves to the neighboring westerly property, and I'm sure he doesn't know that, and that is not the intention of it, that he's just trying to save up sand to keep the property from eroding anymore. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On our field inspection, we measured 30' of jetty. Now, on your plan it says reconstruct 30' of Iow-profile jetty underneath. Does the Board have any problem with the jetty? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any problem with the bulkhead replacement? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any problem with the dock? TRUSTEE SMITH: No. TRUSTEE FOSTER: No. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As is, no problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The applicant proposed to add a total of, the dock is 50' long and the applicant proposes to add another 46'. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The reason I say "No" is because I have a problem with the south (can't hear). JOHN COSTELLO: There is quite a structure there now. Trap fishing. I don't know what they're fishing for. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree with Kenny on the length. I think it's a lot of dock. You're basically doubling the size of the dock. JOHN COSTELLO: All he is trying to do is get a float on a seasonal basis out there. You would have to take the float off and the ramp off in the winter-time. It wouldn't withstand it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you say to that Ken? They want an extra 6' on the dock, is that correct? JOHN COSTELLO: 10', 16' ramp, and 20' float. I assure that the pilings to secure the float would be untreated materials and put in once. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's 56' we measured from the bulkhead, so it's an extra 6'. The problem I have is the extra proposed mooring piles off to the side. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would say a monopoly. I have a problem with that. If he needs the floats anchored, ... or use a mooring ball. Do any of the other docks stick out 96' off of that bulkhead up and down that beach. You hate to give out 50' and then to have the next neighbor say, I want 80' 90'. JOHN COSTELLO: Do you know why they don't go along that stretch, because of the lack of water, first of all, and because of the material and the expense of putting it in. There is one other dock and I do not know the overall length. They do have untreated pilings and the dock has to come out because the dock will not survive a winter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The whole dock? JOHN COSTELLO: No, the floating dock and the ramp. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The reason why I say this is because this is similar to East Marion. We don't want to see people jumping out 50' at a time just to get a little more water. In the future there will be applications. JOHN COSTELLO: It's not a high traffic area. There's not a lot of docks in the area. The biggest traffic is that trap fish area and I hope he's doing well there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to take a look at what's adjacent in the area first, take a look next door? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yeah, we should take a look up and down the beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think anyone was real in favor of this in the field inspection. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Even the CAC doesn't want to see the expansion. JOHN COSTELLO: Well we have the DEC permit and actually we have the Army Corp and the Dept. of State. I was surprised to get the DEC. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They gave you a permit? What kind of water depth? JOHN COSTELLO: There's 3'. It's the most we've ever found out there, at the dock. I thought we were going to have some difficulty with that but we an go off another 100' and do you know what there is, 3'. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. It actually gets shallow, if you go further. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright, do you want to do that Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Walk up and down, sure. We'll get an estimate. It's just like a creek. For the rest of it, I don't have a problem. JOHN COSTELLO: I would like to get the permit for the bulkhead because I can tell you, the dock, the season is over. I wouldn't build it now anyway. First of all, the season is lost. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll have to look at it again, though. So, we'll put it on for next month's field inspection. JOHN COSTELLO: Can I get a permit for the bulkhead? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve the permit to replace 142' of bulkhead in front of existing with vinyl sheathing. No jetty, no dock, no holes in the bulkhead, no pipes sticking through. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any pipes coming out of Ricardo Rengifo's bulkhead, that he owns have to be physically removed. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 21. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ANDREAS KARACOSTAS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct 105' of timber bulkhead in-place with vinyl, place 50 cy. of fill behind bulkhead as backfill and install plantings. Located: 21275 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#135-1-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm here on behalf of the applicant if you have any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak against the application? Artie would you like to make a comment? TRUSTEE FOSTER: These two go together. They're both going to do this. The neighbor to the west, I was there talking to him the other day and he mentioned wanting to armor in front of the bulkhead with stone. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the tide come in right up against there? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yeah. Actually when we were there, it was pretty high and there was some beach. Did he talk to you about that John? JOHN COSTELLO: He did. He said that if it was a condition of the DEC permit that he might have to, but he doesn't know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well let's let it go for now. TRUSTEE SMITH: Do you want to do both of these together? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, are you going to make a move here? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I just wanted to mention that because I talked to the man and he said he was going to mention it to John. So, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application of Andreas Karacostas for the reconstruction of 105' timber bulkhead in-place with vinyl with 50 cy. of fill behind bulkhead as backfill. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 22. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of NICHOLAS & SOPHIA CHIOTELIS request a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove 98' of existing timber bulkhead and replace in-place with vinyl. Place approx. 50 cy. of clean fill of replacement bulkhead and place with beach grass. Located: 21365 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#135-1-3 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone to speak on behalf of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm here to answer any question you may have. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are you going to do these the same time? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes because of the access to the site. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comments? Any Board comments? TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. KING: Seconded. ALL AYES FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 23. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of KURT FREUDENBERG & JANET R. LATHEM requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family residence with well and sanitary system. Located: 165 Lesters Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#114-7-2.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on the application? 4O PAT MOORE: This is pretty much self-explanatory. I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We looked at this last week, is there any other comment before we continue? The thing was, we looked at it and seems sure like an upland lot and all but the wetland line, it says, landward limit of tidal wetlands as determined by us, that's actually inaccurate. So, we want to see an accurate wetland line on the survey, which the way we saw it, it was about at the 6' contour on the survey and then all we need is a 50' buffer from the wetland line, no disturbance buffer, showing a staked row of hay bales, and gutters and drywells for the house. PAT MOORE: The problem is that our position of the house is where kind of squeezed in the upland area. We couldn't get any closer to the front yard. We've got an average setback of 23'. If you're saying that you want to make this 6' wetland line, I just don't know what a 50', or keep to that limit of clearing line... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually a 50' contour gives you about 2' from the house so all you need to do is swing the house away a little bit more. I mean there's room there for a house. I'm not saying you have a huge problem but you really have to show the 6' contour, actually it's more like 5', I mean there's room there to swing the house closer to the road a little bit. PAT MOORE: The only problem is that the positioning of the house, we want to try to capture the creek, otherwise you're going to facing straight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that lot is what it is so if they don't like it, they shouldn't be building there. That's what the lot is. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How big is the house? PAT MOORE: It's a 45'X 60' building envelope. (noise) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not a big lot. It's a half-acre. You won't have to swing it much to accomplish a 50' buffer. I don't see a problem putting the well in the no- disturbance zone. PAT MOORE: The well has to be where it's proposed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we have a problem with the well. But you need to show the wetland line at the 6' contour. The surveyor can just right it on there. He doesn't have to go out there again. Then a 50' setback from there showing a staked row of hay bales and gutters and drywells. PAT MOORE: That's fine. So just the 50' is for the hay bales. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we can let that go and wait for a survey. We'll approve it tonight and when you get us the survey showing that, you'll get the permit. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the wetland line at the 6' contour and there be a row of hay bales at the 50' line, non- disturbance, upland of that, and that they will contain their own roof run-off and driveway run-off on the property. The permit will be issued when a new survey is shown. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 24. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of VINCENT FREDA & LOUISE DAY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 30' set of steps leading to a 4'X +/-311' catwalk to be constructed a minimum of 3.5' above grade and a 4'X 40' set of steps. Located: 7715 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-6-p/o26 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? PAT MOORE: Mrs. Freda is here. The steps are there, and we expect they will have to be repaired as needed, but the steps are there. So, it's the walkway leading from the steps across this area. This application had been in to the Board a year ago or more and what Dr. Freda, Mrs. Freda, and the Day's did is, I had them go out to the property and put a line, a red line, a string line, as close to the edge of the wooded area, away from the wetland, as possible. So what they did is, at present there is an easement area that is in their deed, they are going to revise the easement area to actually capture the line that has been drawn and push into the bank so that we tried to address your concerns which was let's not have this catwalk, this walkway, close to the wetlands, or into the wetlands, let's push it away. So, they did that. They pushed it into the bank. Both parties are comfortable with that. It's going to take some very minor pruning of some shrubs but for the most part, it a cleared area. If you had a chance to inspect it, you would've seen that. If you haven't yet seen it, we request that you go and see that the line is clearly visible. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm colorblind, I didn't see any red. I didn't see any path either though. PAT MOORE: I don't know what to tell you. It's there. If you look into the shrubbery, into the bank, you can see it. We had it staked. The string runs from one end to the other. A rope was used. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I didn't see that. I saw a couple of red ribbons, but I didn't see the rope. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't see a rope but a saw a stake with a flag on it so it was staked. We didn't see any pathway. It's kind of a heavily vegetated bank. PAT MOORE: No, you should walk down the stairs. You should go through Freda's walkway and then take Freda's over past Day's and to the shared beach and then you can clearly see it. I went out in these shoes and I walked. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it's easy to walk through. PAT MOORE: Yes, because the path way is there now. We're actually pushing for the catwalk away from the existing path and away from the wetlands. TRUSTEE SMITH: What's the reason for this? MRS. FREDA: That's why I came here tonight because I thought you might want to ask what our purpose was. My husband has a disability. He's had it for many years. Actually when we bought the land, in our deed, our contract with the builder, we were supposed to get this catwalk. We've been pursuing it, no aggressively because we come only occasionally out here but now we're moving out here and my husband cannot get to the beach. His condition is such that he has a lot of pain in his feet and he has a loss of touch sensation and so he cannot walk on that irregular surface with all of the roots, the stone and the sand, 42 and the dirt and debris from the trees. So he cannot walk along that pathway to the beach. He needs a smooth level surface just like other handicap people who get ramps to go in and out to building and so on because they cannot walk on the other surface. It's very painful to him and also hazardous because if he steps on something he could fall. He needs a smooth and level surface to walk to the beach. He hasn't been to the beach. We've been out here all summer and he's never been to the beach. We've been here for almost nine years and this particular property because it goes down to the beach and he's enjoyed the water maybe one or two times. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How does he walk on the beach? MRS. FREDA: He doesn't walk on the beach, but he can get to the beach if he has this walkway. He can go down there and enjoy the sun and the water and the family down there. Now he stays at the house because he cannot go down there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, we met with your husband a couple of years ago. MRS. FREDA: Yes, some of the Trustees were there a few years ago. (changed tape) The walkway would go down to Bob Day's property. The rest of it is really built on woodlands. There are cedar trees and cherry trees, not wetlands. The tide does not come up that high. Our problem is that when we're out here, we want to be able to get to that beach. I don't go to the beach because he can't get to the beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we suggested, when we met with your husband, was to walk down the road because the road is level, and it's paved, and they even plow it in the winter. MRS. FREDA: But the problem with that is, once again, your asking him to walk down an incline of about 30' or something like that, in sand, and then along the beach, where we have the easement. In other words he's got to go down this incline in the sand and he can't do that. Sometimes he needs a railing and occasionally he uses a cane to aid in his walking. First of all we would have to take the car and go down, even if we were that close, because he can't walk 200' or 300'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that would be easier than walking that distance. You see the way you have it designed here... MRS. FREDA: He doesn't have to go down the incline here. Where the road ends and the public beach is, there's a very steep incline. He couldn't possibly walk that, he would fall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you have him walking over this dune here through the sand. MRS. FREDA: It's a very short amount. Once this walkway goes along, you're maybe talking about 10' or 15' to get to the end of that dune. It's a very short distance. Then, he could have a chair and sit in the chair and enjoy the beach. TRUSTEEE KRUPSKI: But our factors have to be environmental. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: He can climb the stairs, correct? MRS. FREDA: He has a heart condition also, but be goes up and down. He just takes his time. PAT MOORE: In consideration of your concerns, we moved it and you should really go down and take another look because it's very well indicated. It's pushed up, as I said, into the bank, away from the wetlands. It's going to be in front the Day's property, with shared access for the Day's as well because Day right now has planks that are on the sand that are certainly much more intrusive. The catwalk will allow the vegetation to grow underneath. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there two weeks ago. MRS. FREDA: Two men were there on a Sunday afternoon. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That wasn't us. That might have been the CAC who wrote and recommended Disapproval of the application because of the fragmentation of the natural corridors and buffer. They basically wrote the same thing two years ago. MRS. FREDA: Well let me tell you, I was there that Sunday and those men never went down there. I saw them from the window in the house and then they started walking down toward the pathway to the dock and they came back and I came downstairs and they walked back up, and then I talked to them and I explained the situation to them, and they did not look. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I'm just saying what they recommended and it's in the file. We actually walked down the Day's steps and we didn't walk the whole length. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But we did last time we were there. MRS. FREDA: Well there's a lot of brush there. You have to envision where the stakes are and the survey, they did this last fall, and they used like an orange cord, and it has broken over the winter, but it goes right back in, within a few feet of the embankment, which is where the catwalk would be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll be honest with you. I'm not in favor of this application because I think it does, I agree with the CAC, it does fragment the natural corridor and buffer, and it will have an impact on the marsh because it's a very large structure. If we were to pursue this, you would have to have all of it staked, you would have it placed on a survey showing the wetlands, contours and whatnot, which this doesn't have... MRS. FREDA: Doesn't he survey show that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it doesn't show the contours, it doesn't show the bank, it doesn't show the wetlands, it doesn't show the dune. It doesn't give any detail. We actually could require a survey with one-foot contours. PAT MOORE: Well the contours are shown on the survey. The one that you have shows the contour at 4' elevation, which is about where it's running, along the 4' elevation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a different survey because I don't show that. PAT MOORE: This is dated May 27, 2000, April 18, 2001 additions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't have that. All we have is dated 1991 from VanTuyle. But we would still require a lot more because you don't show wetland vegetation. I want to be fair to Mrs. Freda and not ask for things with the knowledge that I'm not in favor of it and I don't the rest of the Board is, and then we're just going to wear you out and ask you for things, and you're going to spend money and time, and then we're going to say "no" because of environmental reasons, we can't approve this. That's not fair to you. MRS. FREDA: I don't think this would have any impact on the environment at all. 44 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we do, and we're the one's making the decision, and that's why... MRS. FREDA: Well justify that to me in terms of how it would impact the environments. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we'll go back to the CAC comments. It fragments the natural corridors and buffers. You're going to basically take a 4', probably a 6' by the time it's trimmed up and everything... MRS. FREDA: No we have a 5' easement. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You break one spartina grass, it hurts the environment. You break one baccharus branch, it hurts the environment. It can be minor or it can be massive. MRS. FREDA: It can also support the bank by having a structure there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually the bank is stable, and by having a structure there, you're going to hurt the bank, which is now stable. MRS. FREDA: There's a path that's through there now and that path damages where a raised structure wouldn't do it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would do more so. That's our feeling that environmentally it would be damaging to that really undeveloped area. MRS. FREDA: What about the fact that you're denying something to somebody based on a disability. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But our charge is for environmental reasons. I don't want to lead you down a path saying well we need this detail and that detail and this detail and then in two months you've got to pay this one and that one and everyone has their hand out for you and then we're going to deny you, and that doesn't seem fair to you. PAT MOORE: Well right now, we have pushed it towards the bank, it structurally will not impact the bank and we addressed your concerned from the previous submission, keeping in mind your concerns. Balancing that with the owner's rights to get access to the beach, he has a deeded right of access and his disabilities that prevent him from doing it and the impact on he and his family. We are trying to come up with a compromise position, that's why we pushed it and both owners are willing to modify the easement language to try to accommodate that. Everybody is trying to work towards that common goal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we have to look at the environment, period. We can't worry about how wide the easement is, or can it be moved or whatnot. The easement is in place, and it's being used. You said it was easy to walk down. PAT MOORE: For me, yes, with no shoes, I had no problem. I think she has expressed that her husband has a disability. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we have to look at the environment here. This is a huge structure. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There was a man last month that showed us a rolled fiber. This might be an ideal spot for that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You mean the stuff we have in the office? That expanded plastic. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The stuff Kenny's talking about is made out of hemp. Wasn't it Kenny? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That stuff would allow the marsh go grow through but it would stabilize it. MRS. FREDA: Well we still have the stones and the sticks and the fact that there is nothing to hold on to, you know, there's no railing to grab onto. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well is you want to pursue it, we're going to have to go the full distance and you're going to have to put more information on here. You need to have the wetlands put on here. There is no wetland marking on here. MRS. FREDA: The initial map that we submitted some 9 years ago, and then you recommended we move it, VanTuyle did another survey since then. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't remember anyone recommending moving it. MRS. FREDA: Some of you were over there. My son talked to you and Glenn Just was there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I remember meeting with your son and husband and Glenn Just. MRS. FREDA: No, you never met my husband, he doesn't go out, but Mr. Just was there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's my intent so if you want to pursue it, we're going to have to see the wetland line placed on here and we're going to have to see more detail on the construction of it. I don't want to encourage you to pursue it, to be honest with you, because we have to work for the environment. PAT MOORE: There always has to be a compromise and you compromise on the environment everyday when you issue a permit to give people access, so all they're asking for is a reasonable access with flexibility of design. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we're clear Pat. I think you're clear. Do you want us to vote on this? PAT MOORE: If you want additional commentary or additional information, I'll speak to them about it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 25. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of GERALD RAFFERTY requests a Wetland Permit for the placement of spoil (from SCDPW dredge of Little Creek or other); Geotube for retention of sand and plant with Cape American beach grass 18" on center, and Rosa Rugosa 5' on center. Relocate away from wetland existing float, ramp and piles approx. 75' west (inside private boat basin). Located: 9205 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-3-16.1 POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST 26. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of SCHEMBRI HOMES requests a Wetland Permit to construct 31'X 56' single-family residence with pervious driveway, on- site sewage disposal system, public water, and drywells to contain roof run-off. Located: 195 Albacore Dr., Southold. SCTM#56-7-13 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? CATHERINE MESIANO: Peter Schembri has submitted the new survey and we would like your comments. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? MRS. MAINO: I'm the President of Southold Shores Assoc. on behalf of the Assoc. and we object to the development of this specific lot as there is wetlands, mostly the drainage ditch and the danger of any filling of the drain and the subsequent flooding of the neighborhood. Also, in the Do Not Disturb area there are endangered plants in that area and we are concerned that any construction on that lot would hinder those plants. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. CATHERINE MESIANO: First of all, I would just like to comment that many of the people in Southold Shores live on waterfront properties with wetlands on the property that have been developed and secondly I would like to know what species that you were referring to that appears to be endangered. We met at the site and had quite a lengthy discussion as to the, let's call it the quality of the wetlands, and whether or not it's actually a genuine freshwater wetland, so I would really like a clarification on that and again would like your comments on the engineering plan that was put before you. MRS. MAINO: If you're asking me to respond to that, I don't know the specific names of the plants. TRUSTEE SMITH: Can you describe them? MRS. MAINO: Well it looks like a... it has a big broad leaf and it comes up and there are also ferns. We're mostly concerned about the drain ditch and the danger of that being filled in and the ramifications of flooding. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We haven't exactly acted hastily on this application because of the drainage situation there. CATHERINE MESIANO: I would like to point out that at the time of the site inspection, I think we were all in agreement that a good portion of the water that collects on that site is as a result of the broken pipe that directs the run-off from the road into the site. There is a catch basin that enters into the site and there appears to be a drainage pipe some distance into the site, which is not connected to the catch basin of the street and it appears that the water that is being generated on the site comes from the run-off on the road and it sits on the site because of the impervious nature of the soil on that site. So, it's really something that has been perpetuated by the Town's lack of it's obligation of the drainage of the highway systems. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems to drain pretty darn well through there. It runs right through. CATHERINE MESIANO: It just sits there. We stood there and watched it. The point is that the water from the street is ending up in the lot and I know that from other instances that have come before you, we've had discussions about run-off from the roads and the impropriety of it being directed into a private lot and the impropriety of it being directed by the Town into the waterways. I believe that at least part of this situation is created by the run-off that has been directed into the lot from the road. It has been exacerbated by the subsoil conditions and that it is a very heavy clay condition and the water sits. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone have any comments because I have to make a comment. 47 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As per the field inspection, I didn't believe that this was a true wetland. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the one in the back does. Well the problem is, that I have here, is where the water from the site is going to flow once it leaves the site and into the drainage ditch. Now, we have a letter from Jeffrey Butler saying that, please note that a drainage trench is proposed on the easterly boundary. A proposed trench should be excavated to suitable drainage soft and backfilled with sand and gravel. The purpose of this trench is to provide a means for surface water to run off and not interfere with Arshamomaque Pond. Acutally, Mr. Butler should've said that the purpose of the is trench is to prevent water from running off and it should provide a means for the surface water to recharge into the ground and not interfere with Arshamomaque Pond. Maybe that's what he wanted to say. PETER SCHEMBRI: I would say yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what we need though, and it would satisfy me, I don't know about the rest of the Board, a letter from the engineer saying.., and he has to get a specific, because it says varies, he's got to get a specific amount of size for this trench showing that it's going to contain the property run-off. I would suggest no turf on the property, just a natural setting. PETER SCHEMBRI: He shows a dotted line showing the trench. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But he doesn't show the depth. It just says varies. PETER SCHEMBRI: It varies because we hit ground water. You get clean soil, you go through the clay and once you get through the clay and into sand... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we need that in his words in his description saying that this trench can be made to those specifications so it will suitably contain the surface run-off from this property so it will not enter the drainage ditch and I think we need one on both sides. If you don't have any turf in the back, you're not going to have any run-off leaving the property, right Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well that's pretty much what we figured. It all had to stay on site. We talked about excavating this area in front with a French drain. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I think it has to say that specifically that the French drain is going to be built to those details. PETER SCHEMBRI: But when you're digging the site... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, I'm not saying a measurement,... CATHERINE MESlANO: Pete, we need to have him explain in the letter that the site conditions will anticipate the depth and in anticipation of this happening, we're going to have to make a judgment on the site, that these are the things that could happen. PETER SCHEMBRI: Like an open hole inspection. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that has to be made clear. Is that accurate Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: There are drywells here for roof run-off, there isn't going to be any fill brought in, I really think the whole issue here is that the Town's dumping the water in there and if he's going to contain his own water that's coming from the house... I don't see... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we don't want to see his water get into the Town's water and make it worse. That's the only thing. 48 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well he has drywells for the roof run-off and he has a pervious driveway. They have proposed drainage trench right here all along this area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If he puts that in, that will handle it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think so. Look at what the test hole shows here. For the most part, 75% to 80% of that run-off is generated by the roof, of any of the run- off on that property. It's going to be contained in drywells. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does that satisfy the rest of the Board? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's fine. I'd be more concerned with that corner lot that's next to the Main Road and what happens with that. That's were the majority of the water ends up off the road and shoots right into the Mill Creek. Their putting a trench there so if they contain their own, that's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we're looking for and we need to have that put in writing by Jeffrey Butler or any other engineer that can put that in proper English. Do you want to act on that? Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Ok. We've been out there three times and we've asked for different things and they've complied each time. CATHERINE MESlANO: If you would like to condition your approval on receiving the satisfactory letter from the engineer I think Mr. Schembri would go along with that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Year, then our file is complete. Then we don't have to worry about it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application and conditions shown on the survey to be complied with in reference to drainage as well as a letter from Jeffrey Butler, the Professional Engineer, in reference to the drainage. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 27. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of PAUL & JUDITH FRIED requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing +/-200 sq.ft, deck and replace and extend with new deck of 325 sq.ft. Construct 4'X 50' fixed walk @ 3.5' above grade. Planting of indigenous material. Existing vegetation to remain. Located: 15155 Main Rd., East Marion. SCTM#23-1-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? CATHERINE MESIANO: I've given you a plan that illustrates the discussion we had at the site regarding the configuration of the dock that we proposed. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's what we wanted. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application for a 4'X 50' catwalk 3 ¼' above grade, and the deck is no problem. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 28. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MAUREEN BENIC requests a Wetland Permit for the seasonal installation of a 6'X 20' polyethylene float secured with 4 25 lb. mushroom anchors. Located: 395 North Parish Dr., Southold. SCTM#71- 1-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? CATHERINE MESIANO: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I was somewhat surprised when I spoke to Lauren today to learn that this was on the Agenda. When we left the last hearing, both Mr. Bressler and I were of the impression that the matter had been acted on. We had remembered that a motion was made that it was non-jurisdictional. So, I was a bit surprised. I'm not here in full force. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is full force? CATHERINE MESIANO: My friend, Mr. Bressler. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we were corrected by our Town Attorney. He stated something in the Code, do you have it there? He says that we made an error. Tidal waters includes bays and sound, operations includes docks and other structures, tidal wetlands include which mean Iow tide are covered by tidal waters to the maximum depth of 5'. I kind of agreed with him at that point. The Code was pretty clear that this was in our jurisdiction. CATHERINE MESIANO: My confusion I think was being the fact that in the discussions that were had last month, it seemed to have been determined that this was a mooring. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because we don't issue them in the bay. If you want we can Table this. CATHERINE MESIANO: Ok (can't hear, noise). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We only got corrected this evening. So we're not completely prepared either. There seems to be two issues here then. One is jurisdiction and the other is the environmental impacts. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 29. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MICHAEL PISACANO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, private well, on-site sewage disposal system and pervious driveway. Located: 2390 Mill Creek Dr., Southold. SCTM#51-6-4 POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST 30. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of ALFRED & MARIANN SUESSER request a Wetland Permit to construct 8 linear ft. +/- of 10' wide +/- rock revetment (with 5' wide splash guard above) starting from the southeastern corner of the property to the existing wood deck/stairs; and to construct 185 linear ft. +/- of 8' wide +/- rock revetment beginning from said existing wood deck/stairs, along the bottom of the bluff which runs contiguous to the southeastern edge of subject property, and terminate at the northeastern corner of subject property. Located: 5055 New Suffolk Rd., New Suffolk. SCTM#110-8- 32.8 5O 31. 32. POSTPONED UNTIL A JOINT INSPECTION CAN BE MADE WITH THE DEC, AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of TOM GLEASON requests a Wetland Permit to construct 195 linear ft. of bulkhead beginning from the southeastern most property corner, along Cutchogue Harbor, (with 5' return at northern terminus) with a 5' wide splash pad on landward side of proposed bulkhead and 5' wide toe armor on seaward side of proposed bulkhead along entire length. Extending from the northern terminus of said bulkhead will be 130 linear ft. +/- of 16' wide +/- of rock revetment, itself running along the southeastern edge of subject property to the northern property line. In addition, applicant proposes to construct an access road (8.0' wide) on the northeastern section of said property. Located: 5115 New Suffolk Rd., New Suffolk. SCTM#110-8-34 POSTPONED UNTIL A JOINT INSPECTION CAN BE MADE WITH THE DEC, AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of C&D REALTY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with private well and on-site sewage disposal system. Located: 5640 Cox Neck Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#113-4-1 POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to go back to the Regular Meeting, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES RESOLUTIONS: Shellfish shall not be taken from any town waters which have been restricted by the Town Board of Trustees, provided that such restricted areas shall have been properly designated by a Resolution duly passed by said Board of Trustees and properly staked and notices posted by said Board of Trustees. Moved by Trustee Poliwoda, seconded by Trustee Smith, it was RESOLVED that the Town Trustees of the Town of Southold passed a Resolution August 29, 2001 that Little Bay in Orient will acct as a spawner sanctuary. There will be no shellfishing by any means within the buoys on the eastern shore of Little Bay in Orient from August 29, 2001 through 10 years. This is going to act as a shellfish spawner sanctuary. Moved by Trustee Poliwoda, seconded by Trustee Smith, it was RESOLVED that the Town Trustees of the Town of Southold passed a Resolution August 29, 2001 that Broadwaters Cove in Cutchogue will act as a spawner sanctuary. There will be no shellfishing by any means within the buoys in Broadwaters Cove from August 29, 2001 through 10 years. This will act as a shellfish spawner sanctuary. 5] VI. MOORINGS: MICHAEL MEHR requests a mooring in Goose Creek for a 20' boat. Access: Private: Southwood Property Owners Association. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES RITA GALLAGHER requests an onshore/offshore stake on her property, in Corey Creek for an 18' boat. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI seconded. ALL AYES Meeting adjourned at: 12:00 AM Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Clerk Board of Trustees 52