Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/03/2007 James F. King. President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIV;:D?&C-~ ..3 35-(1111 MINUTES ?J:-_~ f"1~Ort,...'Jk, $ovll,dd Tw~ Clilrk TOWN OF SOUTH OLD Wednesday, October 3, 2007 6:00 PM Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Bob Ghosio, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, November 6,2007 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM. TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our meeting. I'm Jim King. I would like to introduce the rest of the Board before we get going. To my far left is Dave Bergen; next to him is Peg Dickerson; to my left is Jill Doherty, vice-chair; to my right is Lauren Standish, she runs the office and; Bob Ghosio is a Trustee. There is nobody here from Legal for us tonight, and Wayne Galante Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 is our recorder. He takes down everything we say. This is really not our regular October meeting. This is kind of a special fill-in meeting to catch up on some of the things we are behind on. I have been sick the last couple of months and Dave couldn't make the last meeting, so we got a little behind. So we are doing this tonight just to get things in order. And I would not be surprised, but in the future we may do a few more of these because we are just seeing more and more applications at night. I don't want to sit here to midnight anymore like we used to because you get tired and that's when you make mistakes, and I don't think it's fair to everybody to be here that long. Maybe during the course of the year we'll have two or three meetings like this to catch up on odds and ends. I think it's a good idea. I. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONITRANSFERS: TRUSTEE KING: So with that, we'll get going. Number one, applications for amendments, extensions and transfers, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of TOM AND JULIA FITZPATRICK requests an Amendment to Permit #6645 to construct a 4x16 foot ramp up to a 4x166 foot catwalk in place of the approved 4x55 foot footpath through the high marsh area. Located: 1030 ClearviewRoad, Southold. Did anybody go out and look at this recently? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not recently. TRUSTEE KING: I was out there this morning. I know we have looked at this a lot. I was supportive of the path rather than the walkway all the way through the marsh. I don't know. I have mixed emotions about it. The marsh is definitely getting pretty well trampled. It doesn't look good. I think maybe a low profile, open-grate catwalk is the answer. I'm open to suggestions from the rest of the Board. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What was the LWRP review? TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the original request? TRUSTEE KING: There are some pictures here, too, they gave me when I was out there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sure it was reviewed under the original request. TRUSTEE KING: The original request, I believe, was for-- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is pictures of Costello trying to build the dock that we approved. TRUSTEE KING: The original one was found inconsistent. This was from June, 2007. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know that I talked to Mr. Costello about this after he had started construction and he said he had to stop construction because it was just impossible, and when his men went 3 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 down there and were working, they were sinking quite low in the marsh, and in his professional opinion it was just going to completely destroy the marsh, between the construction phase with the men and then the use of it, using this path, the 4x55 foot path. And it had just become very frustrating for the workers when they were trying to do the work because it was obviously going to make it extremely difficult to construct and it was going to destroy the marsh. In his opinion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I spoke to him as well. He stated all that and he felt it was, it would really render the dock useless, that they really couldn't get out there. And Mr. Costello also mentioned he had a town board meeting over on the south side. That's why he couldn't be here tonight. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If this is changing the application again, Jim, does it have to go back to LWRP if it's a different application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, it was reviewed under this. This was part of the original application and they reviewed it as it is tonight. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I'm trying to figure out. TRUSTEE KING: This was reviewed as a path. The proposal was to request a wetland permit to clear and maintain a 4x55 foot mowed path through the high marsh leading to 4x16 foot ramp and 4x26 foot fixed dock. It was reviewed on that under the LWRP. It was found inconsistent with that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As I recall, didn't they go back to doing this because this was the DEC original review? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: The reasoning here is the dock is not permitted with vegetative wetlands located within a significant fish and wildlife habitat. The proposed action is located at Cedar Beach Point Bay, New York State Fish and Wildlife Habitat area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, I think going back to the original permit, I was in favor of doing the catwalk because I felt that the marsh could not sustain the path, and I think that Mr. Costello did a really good job trying to do what we asked and it just doesn't seem like it's going to work. So I'm inclined to say do a low-profile, open-grate catwalk. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But legally does it have to go back to LWRP? TRUSTEE KING: It has to be re-reviewed because it's a different proposal. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought the original proposal was for this and they -- and you are absolutely right, Peg, I thought the original proposal was for this and that's why -- and then in the hearing then it was changed to this. So I thought it was originally reviewed with the catwalk. TRUSTEE KING: This is January, 2007. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know. That's why I'm surprised at that. Because 4 Board of Trustees October 3,2007 that decision to change it from a catwalk to -- TRUSTEE KING: All right. The original proposal dated January of 2007, was to construct a 4x16 ramp up to 4x20 catwalk, continuing with a 4x42 foot catwalk section. So there were two catwalks proposed. Remember it was like on a crazy angle off to one side. And when we initially went out there we said what are you doing all this for, why don't we just go straight toward the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So it was reviewed under the original -- TRUSTEE KING: It was also found inconsistent. In both scenarios it's been found inconsistent. Not with this one but with the mowed path -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would assume, and I shouldn't assume because I'm not a lawyer-- TRUSTEE KING: Now the reason, I think the primary reason this was changed, when Mr. Hamilton came out doing field inspections, I went with him. He went out and looked at this application and he said no way will it be a catwalk. It's going to have to be a path. That's why I believe it was changed to a proposed walking path was because he said no way he'll approve a catwalk. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just questioning whether-- TRUSTEE KING: It's a good question. It's a legal question. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This came in as an amendment now and technically amendments don't have to go to LWRP. MS. STANDISH: My understanding is this does not go back because once the parties deemed it inconsistent, changing a portion, and based on those reasons, depends on what the policy is consistent with, those particular policies make the fact it's a dock, period, inconsistent. Changing anything on the dock will not make it consistent. TRUSTEE KING: No matter what we'll do, he'll find it inconsistent, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was going to say; it's probably going to be inconsistent anyway. TRUSTEE KING: Because the dock is not permitted over vegetated wetlands within -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think if we make it a low open-grate catwalk, that would bring it into some consistency. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We discussed that the first time around. As I recall, we requested they use locust instead of CCA, and they were agreeable to that. And we spoke about using the grating and they were amenable to that. You know, we tried to do something different based upon what the DEC said, so. TRUSTEE KING: The original notes from January, with modifications; it was catwalk straight out, start further landward. In other words we talked about stopping that catwalk and going straight out. 5 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, because as I recall, the applicant also, when we looked at it, was interested in the starting the catwalk a little bit farther out so you didn't start the catwalk in the marsh. Which makes sense. MR. FITZPATRICK: Mike Fitzpatrick. Just to show you, this is Mr. Costello's men working. This damage to the wetlands is only like a day. We have not been down there because we can't get down there. We used our neighbor's dock this morning. You can have that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, we have that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My concern is still the pristine wetland and I think the DEC and LWRP's comments -- and I understand when Jill and Dave comment that the grated catwalk prevents that walking on the marsh, but when we first visited the site, it was a pristine wetland area. And I understand what you are saying and I understand all of your other comments, but I'm going to be sticking with my original vote. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just to make a comment, that's why John Costello originally applied for it the way he did, on an angle, because that was the least amount of space to use for that wetland area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only comment I want to make, Peggy, is when you said when we first went out and looked at it, it was pristine wetlands. When we first went out and looked at it, are you talking about this application or prior to this application? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I mean, my first impression, my first view and vision of that area was a very vast, pristine, wetland area and my belief is that is what we are here to protect. And I know it's very difficult because you have a huge dock on one side and huge dock on the other and I completely understand it's very deceiving but I'm going to have to stay with my original vote. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. Because my point was there is a dock on either side so since I have been on the Board and since I have seen this location I would not consider this pristine because there is docks on both sides. That's just my opinion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was pristine five years, before we allowed the houses to be built there. That was pristine. TRUSTEE KING: I have mixed emotions. I didn't like what I saw out there this morning. MR. FITZPATRICK: That was only one day of Mr. Costello's two guys working out there. You saw it. That's the damage. It's obvious that's a problem. If we were to now use that, we have to put our boots on, that's going to really be messed up. I mean, and we see the docks dock next to us, that they just put in and that grass is growing up underneath it now. TRUSTEE KING: With the open grate you will not have a problem. think Peggy's primary concern -- MR. FITZPATRICK: It's obvious. It's a no brainer to see the 6 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 damage that is inflicted just by walking on it several times, it's too much. We probably are the most pristine people in that sense of trying to take care of the property. We don't even go down there. We don't really, we don't do any damage to the property down there. We try to keep it as nice as we can. You know, so we do want to use the dock but we don't want to damage those grasslands. I mean, walking in that mud just damages the grasslands. So the dock really is useless. This has been going on for like two years. And we don't use it. Costello has all his planks on there. We can't even use the dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You say you have been using your neighbor's? MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes. My neighbor is here. He supports us. He's a wonderful guy. MR. CIEPLlNSKI: May I speak? My name is Frank Cieplinski. I live at 720 Orchard Lane. I'm the next door neighbor. We are the ones who took the pictures of all those things over there. At high tide the water is all the way back. You just can't walk through that. You can't walk through there at all. I think one of the concerns I have, especially if I had my grandchildren trying to walk down to the dock over there, would be with deer ticks. Walking through all the high grass and things like that, there is a big heard of deer, at least 14, that live around there. Just the concern of the deer tick being around there. Personally, from what I seen so far, they put the dock in there, there has been more damage to the wetlands as a result, the way you wanted to do that as opposed to having some kind of ramp. I can't say no more about it. Really. It's just I would see there would be more damage right now. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was reviewing with Peggy on this. You came with me. I know the area. I spoke with John. The damage that he's doing, he's trying to do, just trying to do what was asked. I'm inclined to go back to what we were talking about with the open grating, TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Then just make a motion. I think people's minds are set. There is no need for further discussion if everyone made up their mind. Jim, except for you. TRUSTEE KING: I wish John was here. It looks like he's got it three-and-a-half feet above grade. Now, I know I looked at two in Halls Creek. We approved catwalks and DEC made them go to the open grate and they lowered it to 18 inches. That was the DEC request and they came back to us and we approved it. If you are going to go with the open grate, I would say get it down to the 18 inches. Maybe go three feet wide instead of four feet so you get less structure out there. I could walk down three feet with no problem. Even Bob can. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Even I can? What are you trying to say. Of 7 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 course. It's all right. I understand. TRUSTEE KING: I was the test for 6x20 floats. Now you are the test for catwalks. TRUSTEE KING: Does somebody want to make a motion on this? Because I don't. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would you have any objection to reducing the size of the catwalk to three feet wide? MR. FITZPATRICK: No. TRUSTEE KING: Get it down to 18 inches. MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes, that's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the request for Costello Marine on behalf of Tom and Julia Fitzpatrick to amend permit #6645 to construct a 4x16 ramp up to a 3x166 foot catwalk, no higher than 18 inches above grade, in place of the 4x55 foot pathway through the high marsh. TRUSTEE KING: Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote no. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My no vote is, certainly I believe everything you are saying about how you feel about the marsh but I have to go, after listening to DEC and listening to LWRP, you know, we hear over and over again, the last piece of pristine area, and I know there is two docks but to me it was a fairly substantial size of marsh. And I understand your frustrations and inability. But I still have to go with my heart, so. MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes, but you can see that damage. You see a problem there. So what you do is you just can't override the problem. You have a problem. You have to correct the problem and that's one way to do it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we tried. TRUSTEE KING: You spoke my own thoughts. My concern is it was found inconsistent. Which we have to address that, too. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I feel if we do lower it to 18 inches and make it three feet wide it brings it into consistency with LWRP. MR. FITZPATRICK: It would be what? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It would bring it into consistency with LWRP. MR. FITZPATRICK: As long as the grass grows. I'm for that. Why damage it, more than anything. TRUSTEE KING: Three ayes, two nays. Motion carried. MR. FITZPATRICK: Thank you. 8 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 II. APPLICATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Application for administrative permits, number one, AMELIA P. MANCINI requests an Administrative Permit to construct an addition to the existing deck, replace the existing front stoop and add a 24-inch canopy over the front stoop. Located: 600 Grove Road, Southold. This came in for the October meeting. It was such a minor thing I thought we would put it on here. I did go out and inspect it. It was staked. They had come in before to add an addition on, which they never did. And that permit expired and they don't want to do that larger addition. They just want to do this smaller addition. And it's basically, it's on Grove Road, which basically it's a row of houses, and behind the houses, behind their back yards is a low lying area with a stream which was completely dry when I was there, at that point. So I would just suggest, because the backyard sloped toward that, that she put drywells for roof runoff for the entire house. Whether it takes one drywell, two drywells. It's a small house. I don't want to say how many drywells because I'm not a professional on that. So I would be inclined to approve this subject to -- TRUSTEE KING: Did the town engineer look at that and make a recommendation as to what the capacity should be? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They could, or what we usually do is have the contractors do the capacity for a two-inch rain fall. So whatever it would take for a two-inch rainfall on the house. If she needs the help she can certainly ask the town engineer. TRUSTEE KING: Because I know we were concerned about some of this drainage stuff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can confirm it with them. I'll make a motion to approve subject to drywells to contain roof runoff on the entire house. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: JOHN KEITT requests an Administrative Permit to install one 1 ,ODD-gallon septic tank and one 8x12 foot leaching pool and abandon and fill two existing block pools. Located: 280 Basin Road, Southold. This also came in for the October meeting. And they are replacing the septic system and it's landward of. We are all familiar with the property. We were out there for their bulkheading work. If you look at the survey you see it going landward, and I don't think it's a problem. 9 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: How much farther landward is it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know. I didn't measure it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was wondering if there is any way to put this farther back so it's out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KING: You are reading my mind here. What's the scale? (Perusing). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because where they have it marked looks like it's in the driveway already. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Oh, they do have Suffolk County Water. I didn't think they had Suffolk County Water. TRUSTEE KING: It's 83, 84 feet from the bulkhead. The septic is, you know -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's contained. So the pool could be pulled back so it's at least 100 feet outside. TRUSTEE KING: It would be tough. But you could do it. There is 100 there. If they get that pool up in here. If they could put the pool there and septic here, it's almost everything out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It makes sense. It's just of a matter of putting more pipe in, I would think. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I would like to see done. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: More pipe and you have to go deeper. It has to be pitched the whole way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are talking 14 feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How far off the house is it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's right on the side of it. TRUSTEE KING: 20 feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So that's where it will be when we are done. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it will be almost the same. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's still 20 feet off the side of the house instead of coming back 86, it's coming back 100. TRUSTEE KING: They would have to move the septic tank 20 feet. They would have to move the pool another 20 feet. They move everything 20 feet, 22 feet landward, it would be out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would work. And it's in the same location, basically. I think that would work. TRUSTEE KING: That's something to think about. If they could move that out of our jurisdiction, it's an improvement over what is there now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. But if we could move it back out of our jurisdiction, it's that much better. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the replacement of the septic system, septic part, with the condition that it's 100 feet -- TRUSTEE KING: Then they don't need a permit. 10 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They will because this will be within. There is still some activity within a hundred feet. They'll still need an Administrative Permit. TRUSTEE KING: With the condition that the septic tank should be a minimum of 75 feet from the bulkhead and the cesspool shall be a minimum of 100 feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: From the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's my motion. And put it back on the survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Cesspool is 100 feet. Septic, minimum 75 and cesspool minimum of 100. TRUSTEE KING: 101. That gets it out of our jurisdiction. If they are going to be doing all that work, you know, it would be the way to go. If it's physically impossible for them to do it, then that's a different story. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't see anything in those plans to indicate that it's physically impossible because it's on what is already listed as the driveway. It's under the pervious driveway. So it just continues under the pervious driveway another ten feet or so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make that motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Subject to receiving new plans. MS. MOORE: The Health Department doesn't allow you to put a sanitary under a driveway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Even under pervious? MS. MOORE: No. TRUSTEE KING: When did this start? MS. MOORE: Since all the time I know. TRUSTEE KING: Because I seen septic systems in parking lots. MS. MOORE: No, commercial is different. Because you are in commercial, you are allowed to put it in parking lots, driveways, whatever. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe they'll put a commercial grade in there, you never know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not commercial property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When I do it, I listen to what the general contractor tells me. If he says it goes there and you want a pipe from there to there. Okay. TRUSTEE KING: This is in the driveway now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That could be why they couldn't get it out of 100 feet. Because it's at the end of the driveway. See where it ends right here. The cesspool is in the driveway. It could go right there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just put it off to the side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It doesn't change the amendment at all. 11 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 MS. MOORE: You might want to tell them when they come in or you tell them they may want to double check with the engineer where they want to put it. TRUSTEE KING: All right. Because I know I seen it in driveways and stuff it says "sewer" on it. MS. MOORE: I agree. I think you have to go to the Board of Review if you want it for residential, and it's not worth it. TRUSTEE KING: We need a motion to go off the regular hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. (ALL AYES.) WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Wetland permits, Patricia Moore on behalf of PERI HINDEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x115 foot fixed dock, 3x24 foot ramp and 6x20 foot floating dock. Located: 1255 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck. I didn't go out on the last field inspection to see this. Did you guys go? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we met Mr. Costello there. TRUSTEE KING: I took a ride up in the boat over the weekend and there were no stakes or anything so I couldn't tell exactly where everything was. MS. MOORE: It was staked for the inspection. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we went out it was staked further, it looked like -- MS. MOORE: Do you have the one that is staked? Here's a drawing with stakes, where the stake was. Did you need that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Is this the proposal there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think -- MS. MOORE: Can I help with you this. Because there was the original proposal which we actually reduced down and relocated because you guys relocated us to start further west. And then we had it staked and that was where, Jim, you were not there, but the rest of you, I think were. Mr. Hinden is here in case you have an issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have several different drawings. TRUSTEE KING: Which one is the latest proposal? MS. MOORE: The one I just gave you is the final version which has the dock that goes 4x125 to a ramp that is two-and-a-half by 22 and a float that is 6x20. It reduces the fixed, from the original. It's slightly over. We have to make the depth of water, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So this is the one. 12 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 MS. MOORE: The one I just gave you. If you want more, I have more prints. Here you go. I have two more. This is the one that Costello had out there. And you had actually for the inspection as well. TRUSTEE KING: This is tight. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's tight between the two docks, yes. TRUSTEE KING: We have a boat there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This boat is technically on his property. When we went out there, you sighted it out. This boat is, in reality, on his property. The property line is through that boat, I should say. As extended. So that's an issue that he could have with his neighbor. It could very well be his neighbor couldn't keep that boat there anymore. We'll let the neighbors work that one out. MS. MOORE: They are friendly. I don't think it's a -- the small boat is not a permanent fixture there, or shouldn't be. TRUSTEE KING: This is something I talked to the Town Attorney about. I'm trying to get a determination on this. These property lines, when the channel is like this, the property line gets extended and gets perpendicular to the channel. So that kind of moves it over. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I thought that's the case. TRUSTEE KING: That's the way it's supposed to be done. For years everyone extended the lines out the way it ran. That's not the proper way to do it. In fact it was Pat Moore that brought this to our attention about five years ago. There is a whole thing for extending property lines. This gives them more room. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So there is plenty of room when you extend the property line in that manner, it's plenty of room on the south side. It's the north side where it's tight with the neighbors. TRUSTEE KING: That's because the neighbors -- MS. MOORE: It's on their line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Exactly. It's 15 feet off the property line as you extend it out. MS. MOORE: We actually have quite a bit of room. It looks like at least 30 feet. Because the float is 20 in length, so if you scale it -- TRUSTEE KING: And there is a channel marker not too far offshore. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you know what the distance is from the outer part of the float to the opposite shore? MS. MOORE: Oh, it's more than 300 feet. It's actually shown on there. 300 to opposite shoreline, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: It's about 20 fight feet outside of this, where this would be. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went by there by boat the other day and noticed 13 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 there seemed to be plenty of room. So I don't think this would interfere with navigation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What depth are you looking for, the minimum depth? MS. MOORE: His propeller should be in four-and-a-half feet of water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The boat draws four-and-a-half feet. MS. MOORE: Right. His plan is to be on the south side of the dock and pointing into shore. Just like the neighbor's. So it's fine the way it's designed. TRUSTEE KING: If you remember, we talked about this I think at the first hearing. This is the Smith dock we approved just to the south of here. When the original application came in, they wanted eight-inch piles. It was downsized. 4x4 piles through the vegetated marsh. Eight-inch piles seaward of that. Two eight-inch piles to hold the float in place. That's what DEC is going to approve. They are not going to approve this as submitted. I'll tell you that right now. We tried to standardize these plans so they come in and they know they are going to go ahead with this. It's not going to be a matter of oh, no, you can't have this. Now you have to come back to us and amend it. MS. MOORE: I want to try to get something. The DEC, though, they say well, anywhere from four to six. They give the range based on the type the water you are in. TRUSTEE KING: That's not my understanding because I had a job trying to talk them into eight-inch piles instead of six-inch piles. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On these plans you just gave us, you don't show any piles. MS. MOORE: On the bottom, shows eight-inch piles and 12-inch in water. TRUSTEE KING: You want change that to 4x4 to the end the intertidal marsh, then you go to eight-inch piles for the rest of it. MS. MOORE: Let me make sure you have it in the right spot. Where you have the line for -- TRUSTEE KING: If you look at your profile-- MS. MOORE: In the intertidal marsh -- TRUSTEE KING: Look at your profile, from right to left. There is nine piles in the intertidal marsh. Those should be 4x4s. MS. MOORE: Got it. TRUSTEE KING: The rest of them, four, would be eight-inch piles. MS. MOORE: Let me make sure I have it. Nine or eight. TRUSTEE KING: Nine. And then eight-inch piles the rest of the way out. 14 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 MS. MOORE: What did you say, eight inch? The problem is we have a large boat, so. TRUSTEE KING: I worked hard with this. Because originally on the other dock application, with the Smith dock, originally it was six-inch piles they would approve only. They would not go to eight. But I talked him into going into eight-inch piles in the main part of Mattituck Creek. If you get it into the little inlets, like up at the end of Hallocks Creek, where it's really small, then you could use the six-inch piles. MS. MOORE: What area is this considered? TRUSTEE KING: This is the main area. MS. MOORE: So this is eight inch. TRUSTEE KING: Right. I don't have a problem with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would support that also. MS. MOORE: All right. Because we have 12 inches on the outside for the boats. TRUSTEE KING: He won't go for that. He'll give you the eights. MS. MOORE: Eight inch, eight inch and 4x4s. I have not spoken to Costello, the contractor here, but do you need to add more poles when you reduce the size of the posts? TRUSTEE KING: These are on ten foot centers? MS. MOORE: Yes. That's the down side of downsizing the post, so. TRUSTEE KING: Hang on a second. This was approved on eight-foot centers. 4x4s on eight-foot centers. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: That was the last dock we approved just to the south of this dock. We are trying to stay consistent. MS. MOORE: That's all right. I knew it couldn't be ten-foot centers. TRUSTEE KING: I just scaled it off, Pat. It's eight feet. MS. MOORE: Okay. That's fine. TRUSTEE KING: John is familiar with what we have been doing on these. He's kind of understands what the process is here. MS. MOORE: I just have to give this to Bob Fox to re-draw. TRUSTEE KING: It's difficult because you have an old dock to the north of you that has eight or ten inch piles. The dock was there 40 years ago and the standards have changed. Conditions have changed. We are trying to downsize this structure so it doesn't have such an impact on the wetlands. MS. MOORE: I think time will tell, when the piles are so small that they pop up in the winter so you end up with a lot more maintenance. TRUSTEE KING: We have one up in Long Creek, how many years ago? Schultz. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Three, maybe. TRUSTEE KING: And that was a 4x4 dock. It initially started out as 15 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 massive. It was cut down to 4x4. It's three years, they haven't had a problem. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: You don't get that heavy ice up where the intertidal marsh is. You get it out further. Of course I have seen some winters where nothing stays. We haven't had one in a long time. But I have seen it. MS. MOORE: Do you want me to help you identify what I think you approved? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think I have it written. We haven't approved anything yet. MS. MOORE: What you have for a proposed resolution, do you want those also eight-inch piles on center. Eight foot on center. Do you want those also eight foot on center? TRUSTEE KING: This other dock was on eight foot centers. MS. MOORE: Okay. So eight on center. TRUSTEE KING: Just trying to be consistent. It really simplifies things where we can get in this process where it stops all the back and forth between the two agencies. MS. MOORE: What I'll let Bob Fox know is that these are the standards that we try to apply so when he gives it to me, it will be consistent. It will take a while. TRUSTEE KING: It's new, I know. Any other comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any comments there under LWRP or CAC? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's consistent. TRUSTEE KING: It's consistent. Because it's in Mattituck Creek. That's determined to be a maritime center. So, I don't understand some of this, as far as the L WRP goes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The point is it is consistent. MS. MOORE: I'm not arguing with consistency. It's just it surprises me sometimes. I can't make heads or tails of their consistency. TRUSTEE KING: I don't understand half of this. It's very confusing to me and very troubling to me, to be quite honest, because another dock almost similar to this will be found inconsistent if it's not in this particular location, but environmentally it's the same. If there is another one someplace else, it will be found inconsistent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: How about CAC comments? TRUSTEE KING: Table the application until construction details are submitted depicting fiberglass grid material on the deck. No CCA treated lumber should be used. There should be no disturbance to the existing, non-turf areas. I have talked to DEC about this fiberglass grid material being used in this location. And the feeling I got or the opinion I got is you have an area where you have a quite a large rise and fall of 16 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 tide, Mattituck Creek is about five-and-a-half feet rise and fall of tide. Spartina grows much taller and the open grate really doesn't do anything for you. So. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is plenty of growth underneath. TRUSTEE KING: So the decking would be non-treated lumber. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with a couple of changes. That the piles through the intertidal marsh will be 4x4 on eight foot centers and it will be eight-inch piles on eight foot centers on the seaward end and two eight-inch piles holding the float in place and decking will be untreated material. I think that covers it. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: And if we could get new plans showing those. MS. MOORE: I'll give you new plans, sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Patricia Moore on behalf of JAN JUNGBLUT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x48 foot timber dock, 3.5 foot above grade, 2.5x18 foot ramp and 6x20 foot floating dock, install eight inch piles and two 10-inch anchor piles. Located: 3295 Pine Neck Road, Southold. This came, came before us in a previous meeting. It was tabled. Just to review from the previous meeting, under the LWRP, it was found inconsistent and it was entered into the record the reasons for the inconsistency last time. But just for review, can't interfere with the neighbor's access to waterway. That's it. And the tax map indicates that it, again, this is too close to the neighbor's property. So that's why it was found inconsistent under the LWRP. There is no evaluation in the file from the CAC that I could find at all. And the other piece of history that came out at the last meeting was the fact that back in April of 1995, this was reviewed, excuse me, a dock application was reviewed for this property and it was denied for boater safety to quote from the letter from Albert Krupski. We had asked for opinions from the neighbors. We had received a letter -- bear with me -- I'm sorry. CAC resolved to support the application. I apologize. I found it. There is a letter here from Charles Burham who is to the west side saying it consists to allowing the relocation of proposed dock so it extends in a westerly direction crossing the extension of my property line. We then asked for a letter, similar type letter 17 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 from the gentleman who lives to the other side, a William Geckle. He wrote a letter on August 28 where he was not in support of the original application. MS. MOORE: No, the opposite. Sorry TRUSTEE BERGEN: At that time I would like to offer Mr. Jungblut the opportunity to have his dock as long as it doesn't interfere with my property and navigational rights. Since then he did send an E-mail, at our request, at the end of August, where he stated he did not have an issue with this dock being located as the plans depicted. And the latest plans I have here, because have I several stamped plans, the latest ones I have, I want to make sure we are in concurrence here, is August 20,2007. MS. MOORE: September 10, 2007. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I thought. Hang on. MS. MOORE: I only have one copy of that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think you handed us one copy in the field that day. You never really submitted -- MS. MOORE: (Handing). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stamp that and look at that as the latest set of plans. So as I recall, one of the concerns of this was the proximity to the neighbors because, again, as you extend the property line out, this proposedd dock was not going to be more than 15 feet away either adjoining neighbor's property lines and so both neighbors have put in writing that they do not have a problem with it. MS. MOORE: Can I add some additional information? Are you ready for it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only other additional information I have here for the records is a fax that was received on September 18 from a doctor verifying that there is health related reasons for disability of the applicant due to, because of disability with a knee. MS. MOORE: She has severe spinal stenosis in both cervical and lumbar spine, which affects her upper body strength and also the knee. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. So with that, I open it up if there is anybody here to speak for this application. MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. Confirming what you have in the record, which is that the neighbor to the east did submit, he was shown the latest version, which is a float that goes in the westerly direction, it actually works better for him than the mooring and the boat that Mr. Jungblut uses presently. So he actually thought that that was a very good plan. It actually, his navigational ability there with his boat, it works better than what is presently the only form of access that they have. So they want to make sure 18 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 that if this dock is approved that they would remove the mooring and there certainly they would abandon that mooring and not ask for another one, obviously. As far as the neighbor to the west, Mr. Burnham, his waterfront is quite wide and he finds no problem with this dock because any future dock that he might enjoy is most likely going to be on the far opposite side of his property because that's where all the activity is. That's where his, I think he has access stairs, steps, and so this works well for both sides. TRUSTEE KING: What would happen if the neighbor sold and they wanted something else? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's my concern. I wish we had someone from legal here. I wondering if there is some way to resolve that legally that either property owner can do on either side. Because I agree with you. If either property owner sells, we are then running into a potential problem with the new property owner with approving the dock. MS. MOORE: Actually, you have that issue with Monago. I hate to mention that application, but. TRUSTEE KING: This was a nice night so far. MS. MOORE: But actually the legal issue was in the courts and it was determined that because the structure is there prior to the person buying the property that they, in a sense, I want to call it adverse possession, but there is a right to continue the keep the structure in place that they, the person who buys the property sees what is there and is assuming -- yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bob and I had that conversation. TRUSTEE KING: We are approving the encroaching on someone else's property? MS. MOORE: With the permission of the other side. The alternative is a straight dock. That didn't work well for the neighbor to the east, so we tried to come up with a design that worked better for both neighbors. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And this design, the latest one submitted as of October 3, today, is an L-shaped. Just so the Board understands. It's an L-shaped where the "L" basically juts toward the west, over the property line, correct? MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We also talked about it being a seasonal dock to be removed. MS. MOORE: I don't think it's a problem making it seasonal. He lives here year-round, so that's not a problem. I think that would make sense in general, in that water body. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm uneasy with. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think this is one of those cases -- TRUSTEE KING: It was denied by a previous Board and the problem is 19 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 I agree with the original denials. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's unfortunate because we understand the disability and the need, but it's very tough to -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm of the opinion that this is one of those cases where every so often you come cross something where just breaking the rules is the right thing to do. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If it didn't set a precedent that once this dock is there, it gets to stay there. That's the problem. If it's something we could give these homeowners and it would not be permanent. TRUSTEE KING: We have someone with disabilities. I don't want to sound cruel, but we have not modified a code specifically for them because they have a disability. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, do you want to finish? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You know. People give easements to their neighbors to give various things in various, different ways. Once the easement is given then the person who buys the property basically assumes that easement when they buy the property. I kind of see this as basically the same thing. We have letters from two neighbors saying it's okay. We are essentially giving them an easement to the setbacks in order to make this work. I think it's the right thing to do. The person who buys the property subsequently to the west and east are going to know that this dock is there. It's been permitted. You know, as long as they do their due diligence I don't know see how there will be a problem in the futu re. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't see it as being a safety issue. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: According to the neighbors, it's going to make it better, navigationally. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm asking according to the Board. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess my question, and, again, in 1995 and, I'm not, who knows why in 1995 it was decided that it's a denial for boater safety, I don't know what they meant by boater safety, so. What I'm looking at, is it farther out than the other dock? No, it's not. I don't see where it's a boating safety issue. It's not interfering with navigation. It has the same effect of navigation as the other dock as. Identical. It's not extending farther out than the other dock. I don't know see it's a navigation issue here at all. The other thing I'll point out is this Board, a few months ago, with an application in Southold, approved a dock that was within, on both sides, well within the 15 foot limit. So the Board already did, I believe it was back during the summer, approved a dock that -- TRUSTEE KING: Was that a dock or just a float? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was a dock and float. Because the whole piece 20 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 of property was only 15 feet wide in total. And this Board approved a dock. TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was just a ramp to a float. I didn't know it was a dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You could be right. TRUSTEE KING: I think it was a ramp to a float. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But it still didn't meet the 15-foot setback on either side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When this first came out I was uneasy with it because of the boater safety, but the changes they made and with the letters from both neighbors and the doctor's note, I'm kind of leaning toward basically what Bob was saying. But I'm still uneasy, the closeness of this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Closeness to what? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: To the docks. The docks being close together like that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My concern, I sympathize and I understand the need in this situation. It's unfortunate there is not an alternative to enable you and your wife to get to your boat, aside from this permanent structure, which in everything that I believe is right, shouldn't be there. And yet I want you, I don't want to take away your ability to get to your vessel. So, I'm very torn between what Bob is saying and what Jim is saying. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify Jill's point, it looks like approximately 20 feet between the two docks, between the two floats, I should say. It's approximately 20 feet, give or take a foot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought it was a little closer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's according to the scale here. MS. MOORE: And also look at the float size. It's exactly double what our float is. TRUSTEE KING: We had an application in east Marion. They had to put the boat on the other side of the float. Which we approved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We, legally, for safety, are we liable once we have given the permit? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a way, I'm just talking out loud, to do some kind of shorter catwalk, shorter thing that they still have the mooring out there and then she could walk out on a hard structure and then step in the boat from there? Instead of having this being the full thing. So you would still have the mooring so you still row out to the boat like you normally do now, but you bring it in where she can step on a platform and then get in. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: She is saying get in and out of the smaller boat is the difficult part. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She wouldn't have to get in and out of the smaller boat. He could go out and bring the boat to her. 21 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: Have a little shorter catwalk that he could bring his boat into. MS. MOORE: The catwalk would have to go out as far as the water depth. In lieu of the float and the ramp, you would have to make the permanent, the fixed catwalk, much longer, and that is actually not a seasonal structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You could tilt the motor up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Looking at the depth, you are talking about the beginning of what is now the floating dock. 1.2 feet. It's not like you have a lot of water there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was just trying -- MS. MOORE: I appreciate your brainstorming. TRUSTEE KING: What's the depth of the water where the float is? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The depth of the water where the float is 2.7 feet, on the outside of the float. 1.6 feet on the inside of the float TRUSTEE KING: That's just barely approvable by DEC. MS. MOORE: That's the bare minimum. We kept it to the bare minimum. TRUSTEE KING: That's cutting it close, for them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If the goal was to try to pull the structure back so it meets the setbacks even without that floating dock, you still have the setback issue, you are still going to have the setback issue. So even to do what is being proposed, you are not eliminating that setback problem. TRUSTEE KING: In my mind it is not doable. (Perusing). MS. MOORE: Keep in mind, this is no different than being in a marina. You have marinas, the boats are very close. TRUSTEE KING: That's an entirely different story. MS. MOORE: I'm saying -- TRUSTEE KING: You are comparing apples and oranges. MS. MOORE: The sailboat is -- you have pre-existing conditions. You have pre-existing properties. You have pre-existing docks. The neighbor has a dock that quite frankly should have been straight out, like all the other docks are. But as soon as he turned it on a "T", he now impacted the next neighbor. Or my client. So this works for now if at some time the neighbor, Mr. Werner Taylor, had a different boat or changed their -- well, a different boat that changed the dimension of the positioning of the float, at that point we could all agree to come back and change the float direction to straight out, which is the right way it should be. But we are hampered by our easterly neighbor. So we are working within the constraints that have been left for us. We have no problem with making an agreement to come back if we ever convince the neighbor to come and change the positioning of his float. It would work. So. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It still wouldn't meet the 15-foot rule. 22 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 MS. MOORE: But the neighbor doesn't meet the 15. He's only got -- the neighbor to the east, our neighbor is not at 15 feet. And keep in mind your 15 foot distance is a recommendation that you are permitted to waive if you have a pre-existing condition. You have pre-existing properties here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to bring one other matter up. I know it was a condition of the land marker, Werner Taylor, that if this was approved, that the mooring would be removed? MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just wanted to put that on the record. MS. MOORE: That's understood. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is the mooring further out? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MS. MOORE: The mooring is actually more in the way than this float, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the Board? (No response.) If not, I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to approve the application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Jan Jungblut, location 3295 Pine Neck Road, as per the plans submitted stamped October 3, 2007, with the condition that the mooring will be removed and that this is a seasonal, as it is marked, seasonal float and ramp. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? TRUSTEE KING: Are you going keep the pile sizes all the same? MS. MOORE: Pile sizings, these are the old versions, sorry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: They are eight-inch piles marked here going to ten inch. MS. MOORE: So it should be six inch? TRUSTEE KING: You can try it. MS. MOORE: No. Why waste my time. It takes six weeks to get a response from DEC, so I would rather give it to them right from the beginning. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you are willing to amend this to six-inch piles, ten foot on center. MS. MOORE: And eight inch anchor piles, right? Isn't that what you generally approve? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know in that particular area if they'll go for eight inch or not. MS. MOORE: Seven? 23 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: I simply don't know. I know you'll be looking at 4x4s for the intertidal marsh. You are looking at six-inch piles seaward of the intertidal marsh. That I know. The rest I'm not sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can say up to six-inch piles and if they do 4x4 they don't have to come back to us. Does that make sense? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That makes sense. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was there any discussion of a grated catwalk? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there a opportunity here to do a grated catwalk? MS. MOORE: Yes, that's not a problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would like to do is withdraw my previous motion. Second to withdraw that motion? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would like to do is make a motion now, amended motion, to approve the application of Jan Jungblut, 3295 Pine Neck Road, as with the condition of the removal of the mooring, the use of a grated catwalk, and as per the plans submitted October 3, with the adjustment with the piles for the catwalk will be six-inch piles, ten foot on center, and -- up to six-inch piles. And that the piles for the float and ramp will be up to eight inch. And that's a seasonal, as depicted on the plans, seasonal float and ramp. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With that, that brings it into consistency with LWRP? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. With those modifications. It will bring it into consistency under the LWRP. Once again, do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Nay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As I stated before, with the letters from the neighbors and the letters from the doctor. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Peggy? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think it's unfortunate that the structure is permanent. Even with the grated catwalk, which makes it more in line with LWRP, it's a permanent structure in a creek in the vicinity that I think goes against our code and it's unfortunate 24 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 that it does not enable these current residents to get to their vessel. But I'm going to have to vote no. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let the record reflect both Trustee King and Trustee Dickerson voted no. And Trustees Bergen, Doherty and Ghosio voted yes. Thank you. MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, Patricia Moore on behalf of RUTH FALBEL SCHWARTZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x22 foot timber dock with steps to grade, a minimum 3.5 feet above grade, 2.5x18 foot ramp and 6x20 foot floating dock. Located: 2350 Clearview Avenue, Southold. As I recall, we all went out and saw this one. It has been revolved by the CAC to support the application with the condition that the dock doesn't extend any further seaward than the neighboring docks, and CAC requests a more definitive plan with regard to the trimming of the phragmites. In addition the CAC recommends consideration to allow for public access below mean high water. LWRP finds it to be inconsistent for various reasons. Goose Creek is in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation critical environmental area. The applicant currently enjoys access to the water via a public boat ramp located immediately to the east of the subject property at the end of Gagen's Landing Road. And there are some others but that is the crux of what LWRP is saying. As I recall, when we were out in the field, that's exactly what we found, that it was directly next to a public access ramp and, as I understand it, when that is the case, in general, we do not issue the permits. Does anybody have any comments? MS. MOORE: Do you want me to comment? Sorry. I submitted a letter September 24 where I went through and identified all the properties that have docks, and there were, between tax map lot 27 -- let me see. 12 docks within, adjacent in that whole range and there was one after another that have docks there. In particular, in 2006, with a similar inconsistency finding, you approved the Buglione (sic) dock that is directly on the opposite side of the boat ramp. So there is ample proof that there are docks throughout this whole area. Right next door on the opposite side you approved one, and this property owner actually had gotten from the Board an approval for cutting the phragmites but the DEC doesn't allow for cutting of phragmites. So we didn't even bother. I spoke to Darlene Garbino and she said don't even bother making the application because the DEC says no because they are afraid you wouldn't know good phragmites from bad phragmites, so 25 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 it's easier to say no. So that was denied. So her ability to use this water is pretty much limited to this dock because the property is covered with reeds. So. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was Bob on the Board when it was approved for the other dock? MS. MOORE: In '06, I don't know. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bob wasn't on the Board. I voted no. So it was not unanimous. And I think Jim said previously also, counting the docks in the area, standards have changed, we changed code and we've learned more. Looking to what is there is not always a justification for an approval. I do in know that I did vote no on the last one and it is because not only is there a dock ramp there but I believe it's also been noted by the senior planner that it's highly subaquatic vegetation in that area also. MS. MOORE: I would also point out if you go to the end of Gagen's landing Road, there are several, I think there are boat docks that are actually, or piles, there are numbered piles there, essentially on the, partly on my client's property, if you extend the property line. So the town has been in a sense giving access to boats as permanent dockage there on the east side of my client's property. There has been no objection to that, but in all fairness, they are asking for a very minimal structure, the fixed portion of which is only 20 feet in length. It is, Goose Creek and this area of Goose Creek, as I said, with an aerial photograph, you can see that absolutely every property that surrounds this Goose Creek within a thousand feet of this property have docks. So you can't say that the rules have changed. Since the '80's they have been pretty much the same. And 275 was adjusted, but it doesn't take away people's rights to have a dock on the water. She is asking for a minimal access and Gagen's Landing Road is not an appropriate boat launch for a neighbor right there. And I would also point out Sheidet (sic), similarly got an approval in '05. I pointed out the permit. I gave you permit numbers and more importantly the one right next door which got approved. So. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just looking at the plan right here and it shows at the end of, the floating dock depth, looks like between 5.2 and 5.3 feet. The water. Is there any opportunity to move that back slightly so it's in slightly shallower water? Because I see 4.4, 3.2 coming back along the catwalk. MS. MOORE: It drops very quickly so I don't see a problem with reducing the length of either the fixed portion or reducing the length of any part of this, as long as we can accomplish let's say three feet of water. Because you go from 1.7 to three. So I don't think you can get the two-and-a-half. 26 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question Jim is asking is why is there a deep section there. I know there are two shallower sections. I know there is a natural channel that has occurred through there along Goose Creek. That came up with the other dock we looked at over on the other side of Gagen's Landing. There is a natural channel there that was probably created with the flow of water. Anyhow, that's why it is that way. I just want to make sure if we do reduce it in length, we don't reduce it to the point where the boat is sitting on the bottom at the low tide. MS. MOORE: I think safely you could reduce the length so that the float is just seaward of where the ramp is now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the applicant be acceptable to using grating on the catwalk? MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. I asked her. (Perusing.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim is saying it looks like we can cut the overall structure, the overall length, could be reduced almost 20 feet. MS. MOORE: I don't disagree with you. I was surprised. We were all surprised that there was this depth of water that gives us the flexibility. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we were out there we saw it just drops. MS. MOORE: It doesn't mean -- I think we have to work within that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to table it and work something out, maybe? I mean because I don't know if it's going to work. I'm thinking cut the catwalk back by 12 feet. Maybe cut the ramp back. MS. MOORE: I don't want to cut the ramp so short that it's so steep. It may make more sense to cut the fixed portion back so it creates the right angle. Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to come back? MS. MOORE: I have no problem with a revision here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a very wide body of water. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Before we table it and send it for revisions, I think we need to determine whether or not we are going to deny based on -- MS. MOORE: Would you consider an alternative plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would rather see if we could work, if the decision is going to be -- excuse me. If the feeling of the Board is in favor of this then I would like to see if we could work an agreement on a plan tonight rather than table this. MS. MOORE: I could certainly go back and you set the depth of water at, say 3.2 or three where the float is. I will re-draw it so that the float is at three. You know, you go from 1.7 to 3.2. But I would say at that spot -- approve the float, I'll work with the ramp and give it back to you so you write the decision. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the goal is -- and I don't want on jump 27 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 ahead here -- but I think the goal of the Board is try to reduce the permanent structure as much as possible. So if the permanent structure could be reduced to the maximum amount so the end of the float is in 3.2 feet of water and the landward side of the float is not sitting on the bottom at low tide. MS. MOORE: Right. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: The last one we approved, I think was the one Peggy was talking about is to the, there is a yellow house. MS. MOORE: Sheidet. TRUSTEE KING: And if you go to the left, that was just a little short grated catwalk. That was very small. MS. MOORE: If you give me a second, I have all of them here. TRUSTEE KING: I think it was 12 feet long. It was a grated catwalk that leads to a float. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we reduce that by 20 feet, it would be the same size as this and she said she would be willing to go along with the grated MS. MOORE: Are we looking at Buglione, the yellow, is that what you are looking at? TRUSTEE KING: If you walk past his house and keep going, that was the last one I remember approving. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was the one that was approved in '06. I remember that one. And I remember, Peggy, you voted no on that one also. MS. MOORE: This was a 4x10 catwalk with a 3x15 ramp and a 6x20 float. Minimum four feet above. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Say that again. MS. MOORE: 4x10 catwalk, 3x15 ramp and 6x20 floating dock elevated a minimum four feet above tidal wetlands and supported by four six-inch piles. The float will be supported by four six-inch piles and the docking facility will be accessible via a four-foot wide by 155 long natural cleared path. TRUSTEE KING: Does that say open grate? Because it seems to me it was modified to open grate -- MS. MOORE: I haven't gotten to it yet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: She is saying she would not have a problem with open grate. MS. MOORE: Yes, it doesn't show it on the one part of it but it's just 4x1 0 fiberglass grated catwalk elevated 18-inches above grade and supported by four six-inch piles, 3x15 seasonal ramp and 6x20 seasonal floating dock supported by two six-inch piles to be accessed by a 4x155 natural, hand-cleared path. TRUSTEE KING: I know we downsized the original application. I remember that. MS. MOORE: That's your resolution August 23, 2006. Permit number 28 Board of Trustees October 3,2007 -- I don't have TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well -- MS. MOORE: Do you want us to try to design something to match this? TRUSTEE KING: Something similar, for that area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now, to go on what Dave said, I mean, I would be comfortable approving something to, reducing it, subject to receiving the drawing on the new survey so they don't have to come back and we don't have another, you know, we could put it on the 17th. I'm trying to reduce, because the 17th is kind of loaded. If that's what our goal is. If she can't meet that then she doesn't get the approval. So it's still subject to -- MS. MOORE: I don't want to have to go back to another re-noticed. So I would say why don't you, I guess with the understanding that you're all right with having me redesign it to match Buglione, why don't I adjourn it tonight because I don't know, I don't know how long Bob Fox, it's a very short meeting before the 17th. I don't know that Bob can re-draw this in time for the 17th. So rather than have that time pressure and have it get screwed up -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we'll have the exact dimensions, too. MS. MOORE: I don't have a problem with that. It can go very quickly that night. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only I think want to point out, as far as I can tell, in the code there is nothing about not being able to approve this based on the fact that it's next to a public access. The code is very clear about putting steps or stairs on bluffs that the property is part of an association, next to an association property, which is basically private property but it's owned by the whole community. But I can't find anything that would make this, that we couldn't do it. TRUSTEE KING: Nothing in the code that I know. MS. MOORE: Given that this fiberglass is elevated only 18 inches above grade, people can probably walk on top of it and over it. That's what the Buglione was. 18-inches above grade. Do you want that or no? Fiberglass, grating, catwalk. That's the yellow house on the other side is Buglione. TRUSTEE KING: But they don't have the docks. Next to them they have docks. MS. MOORE: They all have docks. Everybody has docks. I was reading from Buglione. Sheidet has a dock also, and so does everybody else. TRUSTEE KING: How does Sheidet and Buglione compare to each other? That's my point. MS. MOORE: Sheidet is a different one. I have it. I just have to find it. I have them separated by tax map numbers. There are so many of 29 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 them. Sheidet. Here we go. 4x5 platform, stairway to grade, 3x10 seasonal ramp and 5x20 floating dock. That's Sheidet. That's '04. TRUSTEE KING: So the Buglione that we are comparing. MS. MOORE: Yes. That's the one on the another side. Sheidet is more of a platform to a ramp to float. Again, to get three-and-a-half and the right angle, I don't know which of the two we would be closer to. TRUSTEE KING: I would prefer the grated, low profile. MS. MOORE: Well that would be the more current permit you approved. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's the direction the Board wants to go. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would entertain a motion to table this so we can get new plans to address this at other time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Patricia Moore on behalf of CAROL MERCIER & PETER SCHRAMM requests a Wetland Permit for repairs to the existing 3x28 foot fixed timber dock, 3x12 foot seasonal ramp and 6x10 foot floating dock, and replace piles with galvanized steel posts. Located: 600 Sunset Way, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Thank you. This is one where, this is originally constructed 1962. It's been repaired for many, many years. The most recent repairs were replacing the piles with galvanized posts, which are a nice size. You have the dimensions. I think you had some questions which -- you had some questions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You just said the dock was built in 1962. MS. MOORE: Originally built in 1962. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there any structure there two years ago? MS. MOORE: Yes. In fact some of the structure that is there now is the same structure. And I would be happy to put her on the record and tell you the substructure sill remains. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My understanding is we were informed out in the field was that this was a dock that was built without any permits recently, and that's what we were informed of out in the field. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So it's a permitted structure. MS. MOORE: I have to look and see. A grandfathered structure. don't know that this one showed up on your '84 inventory. So clearly I had photographs, and I have my client who was a child at the time, the dock was there and I have a photograph of her as a child, but in the '80's when they went around town and did the inventory, some of the docks were missed. And this was apparently 30 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 one of them, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are looking at a copy of the Southold Town report. Court date 7/27/07, where there was a fine paid. It was reported a dock built in above location without a permit. MS. MOORE: No, that was the settlement in court. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just looking at the paperwork here. MS. MOORE: That was to try to get it out of the court system, but it was a dock that was pre-existing, and I have photographs if you would like for your file, with 1964 and 1981. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Can I see them? MS. MOORE: Sure. Here is 1963 and it should appear in the aerial photographs. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is an aerial here, Jim. That's 2007. MS. MOORE: '76 it was there. MR. SCHRAMM: It was in the aerial photograph. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This looks like the pilings are all wood pilings. MS. MOORE: Yes, everything was wood piles at the time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In reviewing it out the field it appears the whole thing is relatively new; the pilings, the catwalk, everything appeared to us to be relatively new. MS. MOORE: Alii could tell you is the substructure remains the same, the planking, some of it is newer than others, planking, you could tell by the rust on the nails. Some of it, over time, the planking has been repaired. But it's an existing dock and it would show on the 1977 aerial map and I have the photographs of the structure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think one of our concerns is it's sitting as low as it's sitting where normally it would be raised or grated. MS. MOORE: Or what? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: One of the concerns of the Board, one of the things we talked about was either raising it, because it's so low, or having it grated on top. Which is unfortunate -- MS. MOORE: Unfortunately that's the way it was originally built. I have a photographs from 1982 were you could see the muck. It was a relatively, I guess at the time, low profile. That's what it was. It was a low dock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other thing we were talking about is maybe extending the catwalk landward of the cement wall and stop mowing in front of the cement wall. MS. MOORE: I have to address that. Because that's a serious problem for owners. Not for, in general, I'll tell you, of a situation that has occurred. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me say, the reason I brought that up before we were finished with the other is because if we do that, that affects the height of the dock as well. That's why I brought that up before we finish the height thing. 31 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 MS. MOORE: My concern with doing that is that I just recently had a case, and it's going to be on appeal with the DEC at a hearing. There was a concrete or retaining wall that was added at one point in time. The wetland line was, the DEC acknowledged where it was, ten or 15 years ago, and what happened is that they allowed the wetlands to infiltrate the property. Urn, and what happened is the DEC now took the new wetland line, even though it was a creeping line, and they have actually denied putting a second story on an existing house and that's only because they are now taking the wetland edge, because the people did not maintain the property, that the house has been there since, again, the '60s, maybe the '50s. So that's the problem with allowing nature to take over, the DEC all of a sudden prevents you from -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When you look at this picture, that's where it normally was going to -- this is the normal vegetation. Because it's being mowed, it's been removed. That natural vegetation has been removed. MS. MOORE: I understand that but -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Why are you saying we can't let that -- MS. MOORE: One, this property predates all Trustees' jurisdiction, DEC jurisdiction, it all predates. If you allow the wetlands to infiltrate the property, if you don't maintain the property, you'll essentially allow the DEC to condemn your property. And that's the problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand what you are saying, where you are coming from. But it's not just grass there. There is wetland species coming up that are being mowed, that we don't allow certain wetland bushes and plants to be mowed, and they are being mowed there. MS. MOORE: I understand that. All over town people are mowing their lawn and mowing whatever it is that would otherwise creep up through their lawn and the fact is that it's a pre-existing property, pre-existing condition. So if you don't maintain your pre-existing condition, essentially what you'll find is, and I wish it were not the case because we would be much better off with wetlands going as close as they are as long as the DEC recognizes you have a property you want to improve. So that's the conflict. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. But I look at this as when we have bulkhead repairs and people have lawn all the way up to the bulkhead and we say, okay, now we want a ten-foot buffer. That's how I look at this. Yes, they had a lawn there for 30 years that way. Well, guess what, things have changed and we want a buffer there now. You know. MS. MOORE: I understand your goal and we don't really have an objection to meeting that goal through vegetation, putting in natural plantings, keeping a natural buffer. The problem we have 32 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 is not maintaining it and allowing what is, it could be wetlands that are invasive wetlands, that are not natural growing wetlands and essentially you are creating a situation where your property becomes regulated to the point where you can't improve it. And this is a very small house. They do have plans to improve the house, possibly put a second floor on the house and if they allow that to happen I'll guarantee you we'll be in a fight with the DEC because what used to be a setback that was reasonable, all of a sudden has become a nonconforming setback that your house is now within 75 feet of your newly created wetlands that you allowed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's very possible the DEC can come out, say you applied for the second story, come out and see the wetlands species in the mowed part that we saw and use that as a line. Just because you mow it doesn't mean they are saying that's the line. TRUSTEE KING: You could probably get a violation for what they've done there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: For the wetlands to be designated, that is just as much a wetland, if they did their spoil samples, there is a core sampling that they can do that they can still designate that as an existing wetland. So, regardless of whether it's been mowed, that area can still be considered wetlands. I don't know how you could say it's removed and now it's not there anymore because it's been mowed. Anyway that brings us back to the original question is this a grandfathered dock that was repaired? I see Lauren had a question in here. Is it an as-built fee? What is the Board's feeling on the dock itself, the catwalk itself? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's been replaced. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's been replaced and there is proof there was a dock there and it's been replaced and for whatever reason it never got a grandfather permit. So my feeling is it was replaced without a permit. But there was a structure there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Who built this, by the way? MS. MOORE: They themselves. So they will, I'll put them on the record to testify that it is not a replacement, it is a repair. The portions that were replaced were piles with the posts which is a more environmentally appropriate -- TRUSTEE KING: Are the old piles still there? MR. SCHRAMM: No, I removed them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Could we have them put in their words on the record? MS. MOORE: Can you put your words on the record so they get that from you; put your name on the record. TRUSTEE KING: The biggest question on my mind, was it a functional dock? MR. SCHRAMM: Peter Schramm. Yes. 33 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 MS. MOORE: Whose property was this originally? MR. SCHRAMM: This was my wife's family's property since the '50s. We have been married 15 years. I have been repairing the float. the walk and the dock for 15 years. You know, a board here, a board there, a post here, a post there. And it came to the point where my father-in-law had steel posts. And when I was replacing the steel posts, he had the dock about this high off the ground, (indicating). So I wanted to go higher because at high tide it was under water. So I replaced the posts and brought the whole structure up. But I have been replacing items on it for the past 15 years. In bits and pieces, bits and pieces. Sometimes big pieces, sometimes small pieces. Sometimes a board. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you have no legal document of, except it's been in your family. There is no grandfather permit? MS. MOORE: We have an aerial photograph to show it existed in 1977, which is the DEC jurisdiction and predates you. So any of your aerial photographs you may rely on, the flood maps will show there is a dock there. MR. SCHRAMM: Our neighbor, Ed, I don't know his last name, provided us with a '76 aerial photograph. It shows our property exactly as it is, with the seawall maintained exactly where it is, mowed to where it is. It's been like that since 1958. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. What we are trying to say over and over again is that practice is not the best practice for our shore lines so that practice has been changed and we are trying bit by piece by piece as applicants come in, to change that practice and improve it to what we have been informed to be the best practice. MR. SCHRAMM: I have an attorney because she is knows the law. But my problem is, I have a third of an acre. Because my property is at its widest point at the water's edge, that's 18% of my property. When we want to retire out here and make that home nicer, it's been built in bits and pieces since the '50s, we might not be able to do that. That's the dream. That's the reason we bought out her brother and maintained the property. We are not talking about it's a summer cottage and we don't care about it. This is where we want to retire. We want to make a beautiful home when we sell our primary home. MS. MERCIER: I would also like to add when you came out to look the property, I believe you thought it would be a good idea for us to grow our bull rushes as like the neighbor next door, and in actuality, a great part of the bull rushes there are on our property. Our property is shaped like this down toward the water. So most of those bull rushes are in fact on our property and the rest of the neighbor's property, 80% of it, has grass and sand. MR. SCHRAMM: They have a bulkhead and they have grass. Everyone else around has bulkheads and sod lawns. 34 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there an opportunity to look at a more recent, such as around a 2004 aerial to see if this dock is there? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The closest we have here is 2007. I'm not even sure this is the right house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If he's stating for the record he's maintained it and it's been there. MS. MOORE: I think it's pretty final on that issue, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other docks built like this, with these kinds of materials? MS. MOORE: Are you talking about the pile? We looked, because that was my question. I thought if that is environmentally appropriate and the internet there, there are actually marinas are built with these kind of piles as far as being an appropriate material, because it's less circumstance of the piles. It's much more concise. It's stronger. So it's not a bad material to use as an alternative material. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's galvanized pipe? MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the wood on top treated? Is it treated wood? MS. MERCIER: No. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How far down do they go? MR. SCHRAMM: The posts. They are 12 feet. So depending on where we come off the property. In some places it's seven foot in the ground. So, in some places it's 6.5. They are in the ground substantially. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How go you get them in? MR. SCHRAMM: I made a steel tube with handles and pounded them in; put a level on them and pounded them in. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The reason I ask is because my issue wasn't so much that it was there. Particularly since there was a structure there to begin with. I happen to agree with him, I think we ought to let the buffer area grow in, but my concern was that it was not built like anything I had seen, so it didn't have the standards you are accustomed to in terms of whether or not it was safe or not. I know the edges are very sharp. I was concerned about that myself. But if anybody was to fall and hit themselves on that, it's not like wood. There is no give to those edges. MR. SCHRAMM: Essentially, I could put plastic over those. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure you can. I'm not saying that's a criteria, I'm just bringing it up because I was interested, that's all. MS. MOORE: It's a recognized material that is used in the marine industry, because I asked her to pull it out. In fact I could provide it. I know I may have some information on it. MR. SCHRAMM: The only reason I got the idea is my father-in-law worked for a sign shop in Nassau County and that's what we built it 35 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 with. I was like, okay, that worked, it's easy to bolt. So I matched what he had. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's feeling of the Board moving on this tonight or do you want to consider -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could we first -- if you did this already, I apologize. The LWRP and the CAC opinion on it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: LWRP is inconsistent. And CAC I believe supports the application but also said that the condition that the dock is replaced with open grate decking. See, you are saying you raised it. It's still quite low even though, you know, it's covering those marsh grasses, which is why the DEC raises it. MR. SCHRAMM: The pilings, as you call them, there is two bolts. I could remove that and raise that to the top of the posts if that's what you want. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's one of the things we were asking for. We noticed that, in the notes that we had from the field inspection either grated decking or raise it. MR. SCHRAMM: Raising it is not an issue at all. It's a bit of an issue. It's burdensome, but I could do it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The other issue, I think a major issue, because we do require these buffer areas, and we wanted to see the deck all the way back to the cement wall and also this no mow area. I understand what you are saying but I mean in the eyes of this Board, that area is a wetland. And time after time when we see it, we tell applicants that they cannot mow this wetland area, so. I think if we -- MR. SCHRAMM: I'm sorry, but I have an issue with surrounding 18% of my property. MS. MOORE: Look at the survey. There is already from the high water mark, there is already a buffer. So there is, Bob drew, I mean it's mowed but the buffer is, in some areas, 30 feet in width. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But if everyone mowed their wetland area, everyone could increase that usable property space. Wetlands are not allowed to be mowed. MR. SCHRAMM: We are discussing 20 feet. But that 20 feet, because of the width, is 18% of my property if you go around Drier's Basin you'll see everybody is mowed. Well, almost everybody is mowed. And mowed a lot more than 20 feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We are not saying it's right and we are not saying that should be allowed. We are saying we are here and that's what we are looking at. MR. SCHRAMM: I'm saying I'll gladly surrender 18% of my property-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I hear what you are saying. I understand your frustration. We are not asking you to surrender 18% of your property. MR. SCHRAMM: I'm sorry, it's an emotional issue for me. Sorry. 36 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know. It's a very emotional issue for people to come in and we designate areas as non-turf buffers, because we are in essence saying you can't do anything. When we designate non-disturbance buffers, where there is a large piece of their property they are not allowed to touch, not allowed to do a thing with, that will affect their setbacks also should they decide to come in and put a house up or second-floor addition or whatever. So, believe me, I hear your frustration I know when we went out and looked at it, there were clearly wetland species here being mowed. So it was a wetland. So it is a wetland. And to look at it another way, you are encroaching into the wetlands, where it is your property, but you are encroaching with this activity into the wetland area. And believe me, I'm one to try to balance property owner's rights at all times with the environment. I really am. But I think with this particular instance, I think the Board is being reasonable with the request to extend the catwalk back to that wall and not mow the wetland area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: May I say something. If you are considering renovations, and I'm not speaking for the Board, I'm speaking out loud to try to resolve this. Renovations, I believe, if you were considering going up, are probably are not an issue here. MS. MOORE: I would have thought and they just denied that exact application for a second floor. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Who? MS. MOORE: The DEC. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm aware of one they denied in Southold last year. MS. MOORE: In could not believe it. And in fact I'm meeting with a client on Friday to get the facts -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because of setbacks? MS. MOORE: Setbacks similar to this, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm trying to think of the name of the property. We were out there about a year-and-a-half go. MS. MOORE: There are no foundation changes. I really questioned the legitimacy of their denial. It's ridiculous that you can't improve your property, put a second floor. There is absolutely no environmental effect by putting a second floor on your existing foundation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Like Peggy, I'm talking out loud. Is there a chance we can compromise here and come in with some kind of planting plan and really get some type of buffer and some of this grows back but yet they could still utilize some of this area? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The property will still be there. The DEC is going to look at that and still say it's a wetland, whether you are mowing it or not. MS. MOORE: I think we could plant a vegetative buffer, okay, that is a appropriate. I'm not a landscaper but something that is 37 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 appropriate. So you don't have turf. You have a vegetated buffer. But you have a controlled vegetative buffer. That works very well and that's something I was suggesting to them. That, I think we at least have a fighting chance that when we go to the DEC we can make improvements to this house and we've got a natural buffer that is a properly controlled, maintained buffer. I'm not talking about manicured. I'm talking about a natural buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Was that an intertidal wetland? TRUSTEE KING: No, it's high marsh. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm intrigued by that compromise. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would definitely want to see a planting plan and I would want it viewed. But if it's still going to create, like we are enhancing the wetland that is there. MS. MOORE: Keep in mind those are not valuable, I'm going to a class, I'm going to go see all about it. In October, I get to go hear all about phragmites. So I hope to bring home information on what is good phragmites and are what are invasive phragmites and what are appropriate plantings. I'm hoping that a two-day seminar, I'll come back with something valuable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And also what is natural to the area. This is natural to the area and that's why it's still there. MR. SCHRAMM: Forgive my ignorance, but between myself and my neighbor, there is phragmites, bull rushes, whatever you want to call it, all the way up to my garage. So bear with me. If I never mow, it will take over my whole property. Where does that end? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We allow you to cut them to 12 inches. MS. MOORE: You can, but DEC won't. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What we do is you are allowed to hand cut the phragmites to 12 inches. The concern with the mowing is you are not only mowing phragmites, which I could care less about. You end up mowing other species that are native and you are mowing the spartina patens and mowing the bacharus and other native species that make a wetland. MR. SCHRAMM: In the area that I don't maintain, alii see is phragmites. That's alii see. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They are dominant. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with you, the phragmites risons spread very rapidly. If I lived in your property, I would agree, without mowing, those phragmites would probably spread all the way up near to the base of the foundation of your house. MR. SCHRAMM: I'm out to my property line on either side of my property because I'm afraid to touch those things, but I know if I never touch them, just like if you never touch your own property, maybe it will claim it all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I'm agreeing with you. I would do the same thing with the phragmites if they encroach up to your house, 38 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 beyond, on other side. I agree with you. But we are talking in front of this wall. MR. SCHRAMM: So I would certainly prefer to just raise up my -- I didn't, I thought it was a catwalk, you call it a dock. I would certainly prefer to raise it and put some kind of a planting that I could control so that when we are both old enough to retire, we could put plants in and not have an issue with, you know, you have bull rushes four feet from your back window, you can't do anything. Why don't you move. I don't need that. That's not why we bought the property. We are talking about, from what I paid, ninety thousand dollars worth of my property, that the DEC might come in and say since you let nature take that you cannot do a thing to your house now. What house? If I can't do a thing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You keep saying let nature take it. It was nature's to begin with. MR. SCHRAMM: This whole planet is nature's to begin with. We all have to live some place. I drive pavement to my house between the wetland and watch your road drain off into two sides of it. But that's okay. You mow those. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand. Please. We do understand. And I think Jim has a good point. He hasn't seen it. He was not there for the inspection when we were out. We have a lot of things, I think the raising of the dock is something we all agree on. I think we do need to reconsider this buffer area and would be willing to go out and the look at it again for October, which is next week. MS. MOORE: I have a 2005 survey that it's not quite as detailed as Bob Fox's with respect to wetland edge but it has the mean high water mark on February 2, 2005. On this one. And there is a dock on it. So that might actually help you when you go out. It's my only print. So unless you want to take it with you and copy it and I'll come back in for a copy. MS. MERCIER: I just wanted to add, we never rototilled that area. MR. SCHRAMM: We don't use fertilizer, weed killer. MS. MERCIER: We didn't put fertilizer down. My parents didn't either. You are asking us to give up a big portion of our property MR. SCHRAMM: It may not be relevant but 18% of my property is very relevant to me and I understand you don't want me to mow because nature wants to consume. Then I look at two of your boat ramps and I know storm water runoff is a problem and both roads, the roads into your ramps slope to the water and drain into the water. But my 20 feet, my 18% is going to be the end of the planet. I have a problem with that. I have a problem with water draining into Drier's Basin TRUSTEE KING: I should put you on the Storm Water Committee. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We see a lot of things we are not happy with. 39 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 We see a lot of things we would like to change. MR. SCHRAMM: But you are not giving up 18% of potentially your rights to enhance your home but the town itself is not doing it. We are in here with these lights on. Global warming is a huge problem to the wetlands, if you research it. How many hybrid vehicles is the town using? Do we use solar panels on this roof? But my 18% TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The issue there is, and I appreciate that, and it's a slow process. But when the town does do that, and they are moving into that direction. There are committees already set up. I'll tell you, taxes are going to go sky high when it happens. So it's a political volleyball. And I agree with you. MS. MOORE: I think we are willing to work with you with a vegetative buffer and I think the vegetative buffer, what you don't want is the water and the nitrates to go into the creek. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we don't want to lose the wetland. MS. MOORE: I understand that. But we have not really determined what in that area is truly a valuable wetland. I think it just, from looking in between, I don't know that -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Should we get a professional out there to tell us? MS. MOORE: I think we are prepared to give you vegetative buffer but we have to be very cautious because we can't create a situation where, you know -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I sympathize. That's why I'm very hesitant to do doing anything with this tonight, because I understand your dilemma. But I'm saying I still believe that could still be determined a wetland as it is now. MS. MOORE: I'll end up with yes, you'll have issues of adjacent areas because if you have wetland on the adjacent properties, it will impact -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But the soil itself will tell you that it's wetlands. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why doesn't DEC just flag it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm saying, when you have someone come in, if this needs to be decided if this is an existing wetlands mowed, it very well could be designated a wetland. MR. SCHRAMM: When I go to '74, New York State survey of the wetlands I see wetlands marked out on all my neighbors' property. They all have sod. Where is that? It's on the aerial photographs. I don't see it though. I'm the only person that really has any because most of what you see between my neighbor and I is my property. Because I don't go out to the boundary. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is. I been to that area. I don't know what you are talking about. There is no sod there. I know your neighbors. I do business with most of them. MR. SCHRAMM: I call it sod because they have inground sprinklers and it's nice and green and I have whatever is grown there 40 Board of Trustees October 3,2007 naturally. I call it sod. They have nicely maintained lawns. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion that we table this. Again, I don't think the issue is your dock. I think if raising it up will be, you know, half the battle. But I do think we need to reconsider this wetland area and have a discussion since we did not have Jim out there. So I'll make that motion to table. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because it's next week, right? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, the field inspection is next Wednesday. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: The 17th is the next meeting it's on. TRUSTEE KING: We are on next week for inspection, so. MS. MOORE: That's fine. TRUSTEE KING: It's not that we are holding you up for months. MR. SCHRAMM: I'm sorry I mis-spoke. They don't have sod but they have nice lawns and I don't. Because I don't fertilize myself. TRUSTEE KING: The first time we were out in that area doing other field inspections, we had a report that there was no dock there and these people just built a whole new dock. That's what -- MS. MOORE: I know and that's the frustration of why I'm in court. And that's why it's frustrating because in Southold you are guilty until proven innocent. And even though -- TRUSTEE KING: I wouldn't say that. Don't go saying that. That's not true. MS. MOORE: In this instance, I had ample proof. TRUSTEE KING: They said in the papers it's easier to do it then beg for forgiveness, you know. MS. MOORE: I disagree with that completely. I wanted to kick whoever said that. That's not true. TRUSTEE KING: Anyway, my concern was there is no dock there, these people went and built a whole dock. In looking at the survey, that shows me you have a licensed surveyor in 2005 showing this dock, it's the same dimensions as what you got there. So that takes that question out of my mind. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Same concern I had. When you produced -- MS. MERCIER: Do we have the right to know who it was that said we built a new dock? TRUSTEE KING: A lot of these are anonymous. People don't like to give their name. You can't ignore it though because they won't give their name. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To answer your question, I believe you do have a right. They I could FOIL the police report. TRUSTEE KING: If they don't leave the name, it's useless. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You have a right to meet your accuser, unless they are anonymous. 41 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: Most complaints are anonymous. But usually it's a next door neighbor. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have the report here. It's anonymous. MR. SCHRAMM: I'll try to say with amusement to it, but I get so emotional about this. I come here and look to argue with you about it. But the constable came down in his SUV to give me the summons and global warming is a tremendous issue for the wetlands. He came down in his SUV. TRUSTEE KING: It's killing the wetlands, thousands and thousands of acres. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This has been tabled. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What Lauren is saying about the report, when somebody called in for a Trustee matter and they called in anonymous, the bay constable is also put the Trustees. So if you look at the report, it's not saying we called it in, it's just saying it came through our office. MS. MOORE: I was under the impression the Trustees were after us. TRUSTEE KING: No. But technically you did repairs on an unpermitted structure, right? That's the technicality. MR. SCHRAMM: That's been in since the '60s. TRUSTEE KING: I know. But by code you can make ordinary repairs or anything to a permitted structure. This at the time was an unpermitted structure. MS. MOORE: Let me put it another way. A permitted structure is a structure that was legally existing prior to the ordinance. Not a permitted structure but a permitted structure is one that is permitted. But that's a conversation between lawyers. Anyway, I'm glad that was resolved. We had to go through our paces and we are done. MR. SCHRAMM: I apologize if I was rude. I'm very, very emotional. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We understand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are not the first one that expressed that frustration at all. MS. MOORE: We should get our money back for the guilty plea and paying the fine because -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All right, I would like to make a motion to go off the public hearings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) IV. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have one more item on the agenda under "Resolutions." It's the 2007-08 scallop season. The DEC is sticking with what they did last year which is the 42 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 first Monday in November to start the season. So we cannot start it any sooner than that. I would propose that we do the two weeks residential and then open it two weeks later to commercial. However, in speaking with Steve Tuttleback from Long Island University and Chris Pickeral from Cornell, in Hallocks Bay there are no scallops. I spoke to several baymen. They concur. I spoke to the bay constable. They concur. Steve Tuttleback and Chris Pickeral feel that if we leave the area alone there is a chance that they will -- I don't know if this is the right word -- re-spawn and maybe have a second set of scallops. I would like to give that a chance and see what happens for next year. So I propose we keep Hallocks Bay closed completely. Last year we opened it for residential and then closed it for commercial. I would like to close it completely for scallops. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to set the scallop season for 2007-08, for Monday, to start Monday, November 5,2007, from sunrise to sunset, through Sunday, November 18,2007, inclusive. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What were those dates again? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: November 5th to the 18th with the exception of Hallocks Bay, where that area will be closed. And then set Monday, November 19, 2007, from sunrise to sunset, through Saturday, March 29, 2008, inclusive, in all town waters with the exception of Hallocks Bay, where that area will be closed. MS. STANDISH: We don't go through the 31st? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That goes through the Saturday, March 29th. TRUSTEE KING: Can we have some discussion on it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes TRUSTEE KING: Opening it up for two weeks for the residential licensed holders and not the commercial, primarily was for Hallocks Bay. That was, Hallocks Bay was the reason. That was so residential non-commercial people could go in Hallocks Bay for two weeks before the commercial man had a chance to go in there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Why doesn't that apply to other creeks? TRUSTEE KING: It did but it was never an issue because the scallops were always in Hallocks Bay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But right now, like last year, off Robins Island there was a lot and gave the residential -- TRUSTEE KING: Robins Island is state water. So it's anybody's scallops. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Doesn't it give the appearance of residential sort of getting a head start? TRUSTEE KING: Of course. I would rather see a week. If you are not going to open Hallocks Bay, they are not going to be scallops anywhere else. Make it a week. Give residential people a week 43 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 then let the commercial guy go in. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where is he going to go, though? TRUSTEE KING: Maybe Hashamomuck, possibly. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know if it's open to shellfish. TRUSTEE KING: It's December. It's seasonal. All right, it was just a thought. Stay with the two weeks. But that was the whole reason for Hallocks Bay was the place for everybody to go scalloping and recreational people wanted to be able to go in there without the commercial guys. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And my issue has always been that the commercial guys go in during the residential times saying I'm doing commercially, they just take the residential limit instead of the commercial limit. But they are there anyway. They are going as a resident. I saw this happen for the last two seasons, since I been only involved with this for two seasons now. I have watched them in and they are the same guys, commercial guys, coming in as residents and coming in with a lesser amount. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why don't we just eliminate the commercial limit. TRUSTEE KING: So the recreational guy goes in and sells his stuff anyway. Which is totally illegal TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Correct. Why are we setting it if it's already set? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because on town waters. The DEC is doing state, which is inclusive of town waters. TRUSTEE KING: The DEC just opens up the scallop season for everybody. You have a season. It used to be mid September. Then when we had all these crisis with the scallops and getting into October and now we are into November because they want to give every scallop that is going to spawn a chance to spawn. MS. STANDISH: What's the Monday opening date again? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Monday, November 19. TRUSTEE KING: Great South Bay had scallops last year. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to open it up to commercial on November 5? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we need to keep residents -- TRUSTEE KING: You'll get a fire storm of why you are shutting down Hallocks Bay for everybody. But that's only fair. If you are going to shut it down, shut it down for everybody. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And just to put it on the record, the reason why we didn't do this in September is we wanted to give the public a chance to give us their say and we published this in the paper that we were going to be discussing this tonight. So everybody was notified that we had this, that we published this. TRUSTEE KING: They are not going to be interested in the discussion but they'll be interested in disclosure. 44 Board of Trustees October 3, 2007 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I made a motion. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE KING: Motion to go off the regular meeting. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) RECEIVeD ""' ~d7 3: 3 S" f'1'1l ".0 2008 ~O~/~ SoJ1!,old T~vm C~erk 45