Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/15/1999 MINUTES Wednesday, December 15, 1999 PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Henry Smith, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Lauren Standish, Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 at 11:00 AM TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of November 30, 1999 Regular Meeting. Minutes were not available. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustee monthly report for November 1999. A check for $7,011.88 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENT S/WAIVERS/CHANGE S: FRANK DI'ORIO requests an Amendment to Permit #431 to extend existing fixed dock 16. NOTE: Applicant changed description to the following: a 4' extension to the fixed dock and either one (1) 6'X 20' float or one (1) 6'X 16' float, and to Transfer the Permit from George F. & Katherine T. Schneider to Frank Di'Orio. Located: 1650 Mason Dr., Cutchogue. SCTM#104-7-11 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES LESLIE & ROSE MARIE WINDISCH request an Amendment to Permit #4378 for a 30' fixed dock, and to Transfer Permit #4378 from Henry Barry to Leslie & Rose Marie Windisch. Located: 1375 Pine Neck Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-5-39 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved Table the application. The applicant must stake the dock at 30' and 35' and submit a dock plan, cross-section and sounding. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES J.M.O. Consulting Services on behalf of MATTIT[ICK INLET MARINA requests an Amendment to Permit #5058 to allow for the reconstruction of 685' of bulkhead, utilize vinyl sheathing, within 18" of the existing structure and to backfill with 100 c.y. of clean sand from an upland source. Located: 5780 West Mill Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#106-6- 13.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the replacement north of the south travel lift replaced within 18" and area south of the travel lift be replaced inkind/inplace. A copy of the survey showing the sections being replaced must be submitted before Amendment is issued. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Robert Haase on behalf of M.G.H. ENT. INC. requests an Amendment to Permit #4188 to replace northwest bulkhead and docks back 36" landward. Located: 40200 Main Rd., Orient. SCTM#15-9-8 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the Application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES Mike Liegey on behalf of JEFFREY J. GREEN requests a Waiver to repair and enlarge the front deck, add a hot tub, and a dormer on the second floor. Located: 490 Williamsburg Dr., Southold. SCTM#78-5-10 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES Ocean Consulting on behalf of BL[IEPOINTS CO. requests an Amendment to Permit #4276 to add 8 piles at the end of existing floating trays as icebreakers, 5 piles to hold trays and 3'X 18' ramp with 12'X 12' float for docking of service vessel. Located: Love Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#140-1-23.1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Deny the application because it is an excessive structure and would impede navigation. The Trustees request that they be notified with the 50,000 seed oysters. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of BENJAMIN S[IGLIA requests a One-Year Extension to Permits Nos. 4849 and 4864 for house renovations and the construction of a dock. Located: 4639 Stillwater Dr., Cutchogue. SCTM#137-3-7 10. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES CHRIS LAMENDOLA requests a Transfer of Permit #1023 from Daniel T. Smith to Chris Lamendola. Located: SCTM#70-12-33.1&2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the Application with a condition that a current survey be submitted showing the dock. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES CARLA CARROLL requests a Transfer of Permit #4999 from Westbury Properties, Inc. to Carla Carroll. Located: 1900 Pipes Neck Rd., Southold. SCTM#53-3-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES GERARD GRALTON requests a Transfer of Permit #4995 from Robert P. Daly to Gerard & Mary Gralton. Located: 5765 Bay Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM#138-2-11 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. AYES. Trustee Krupski abstained. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF: FIVE (5) M1NUTES OR LESS, IF POSSIBLE Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of DOUGLAS FOERTH requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 8' catwalk, a 30"X 16' ramp to a 5'X 20' floating dock. NOTE: The applicant changed description to the following: Construct a 4'X 10' ramp leading to a level 4'X 4' platform, then to a 32"X 12' aluminum ramp heading southwest leading to a 6'X 20' float, construct a low 40' retaining wall with a 12' return on each end, dredge 62 cy. to obtain 2' depth and depositing spoil on upland part of lot. Located: 700 Beebe Dr., Cutchogue. SCTM#97-7-6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The applicant has changed the description. Okay, I'm going to read a new description different than what's on the agenda. A 72' long retaining wall, dredging 160 cy. to obtain a 2' depth and depositing spoil on upland part of lot. Constructing a level 4 iA' X 7' platform with 32"X 10' ramp heading southwest leading to a 6'X 20' float. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: If the Board has any questions...I believe when we met on site, I believe that this is exactly what was discussed and suggested be done. There was a letter enclosed with this. We've reduced the back bulkhead wall from 40' to 32'. We also reduced the two wings that angle out into the water from the 36' that was on the previous drawing, to 20'. Thus, we have resulted with approx. 50% of the dredging material. The dock, the floating dock, is totally behind the tie line from survey monument to survey monument, as suggested by this Board. The boat will be outside of that tie line taking up, the worst scenario, 10' in width, which will be approx. 6'-8' on present land, so it will not encumber the navigation of that narrow channel. Hopefully this is what the Board wished. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? ! was out there the other day. Staked out in the field, it was a lot easier to .... this is actually staked out so it's a lot easier to see. The only concern ! had, was that I'd like to add conditions onto the permit. It concerns the marsh on the south side of the property. After the retaining wall is built, I'd like to see that Spartina replanted on the south side. There's a small area by the wing-wall. And, I'd like to see the.., and any disturbed area on that corner be replanted. ! think on the north side you can make a pretty straight cut through there. On the south side you're going to have a little collapse and a little re-grading, and I'd like to see that replanted. JOHN COSTELLO: We intend not to collapse it because the elevation of that wing-wall from low-tide down is only going to be 2'. We are not going to install any backing system in that area. It's unnecessary with the inter-locking... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But right where the bank drops straight off, you'll have a little disturbance there. ! mean you're talking about an area probably 3' from the wall. Also there's two small oak trees at the top of the bank on the south side of the property. They should all be removed, cut-off, because they're shading that inter-tidal marsh and pretty soon that's going to eliminate that. Once you had it staked, it was a lot easier to look at it. JOHN COSTELLO: The only trouble is that ! didn't want that off-shore stake to confuse you because that is end of the wing-wall out in the water. The boat will be approx. 4' landward of that so that we're not intruding out into the channel. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it seemed fine when ! looked at it the other day. ! just wanted to make that clear that those two little trees should go. Those two little oak trees, because they're starting to shade that over and that if this area is replanted, it will come in and protect it. That's really the only possible place you could get any kind of a wash back up on that bank. That little bit of Spartina would be more than adequate, ! think, to protect it. Any other comments? Do ! have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the revised plan with a condition that the ... JOHN COSTELLO: Could ! ask that the Board, because this may be, this is a compromise, you know, trying to meet all the conditions for this Board, ! hope we didn't put ourselves in jeopardy with any other agency. We've had the Fish & Wildlife from the Army Corp. of Engineers out there. But, the Fish & Wildlife wanted to look at the revised plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What would the Fish & Wildlife concerns be? JOHN COSTELLO: The neighbors contacted them that this was narrowing up the channel. One of the neighbor's suggested that dredging hasn't been done, and that's there's wildlife in the area and that they should come and take a look at it. There are two or three letters here from the same gentlemen with the same concerns. Navagation of that narrow channel. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, I'll make a motion to Approve the revised application with a condition that the area to the south of the wing-wall, in the inter-tidal area, be planted with Spartina Alternaflora on 1' centers, in fact, I'll mark that area in pen. TRUSTEE SMITH: Al, after you get those two oak trees cut down, I think you should put in there also that there will be no future shrubbery or nursery stock planted that would shade that area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, and that any disturbed area along the wing-walls on either side be planted up with a native species that would tolerate that environment and not require any fertilizer, irrigation or other care, and that the two small oak trees on the top of the bank be cut down so that they don't shade the inter-tidal marsh and that no vegetation be planted along the top of the bank that would grow up to shade out and kill off the inter-tidal marsh. And that...they still have a 50' buffer from the top of the bank back to the house and that that area be left undisturbed. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of PAT SCOLLARD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 102' long retaining wall of C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Note: Description changed to the following: To construct a 132' retaining wall of"C-Loc" series 4500 vinyl sheathing and install rock armor on northern return and 28' out on the southern end. Located: 905 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck SCTM#123-10-3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm the agent for this application. Again, meeting on the site with the Trustees on their inspection, Mr. Scollard certainly was willing to make any adjustments that were of concern to the Trustees. The angle of the easterly return, back in back in (can't hear) we would also armor in that area to reduce potential scouring and we would like to extend the westerly return an additional 20' so it's above the high-water mark into that marsh and we would add the rocks, the rock armor around the wetlands area that exists on the west side, in order to reduce wave energy, scouring, and not ending up into the creek. And, I hope that addresses the concerns of the Trustees. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: I think it's a good project, the way that it's set up. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well that's what we talked about. TRUSTEE SMITH: We were concerned about the edges of the wetlands there and I think that the rock revetment will take care of that. JOHN COSTELLO: I've also sent a cover letter with this trying to describe that more in detail and to meet the concerns of getting it above high-water so that it would minimize the scouring. Mr. Scollard has lost probably between 30' and 40' since 1990 when the survey was done and submitted. We will be moving that concrete box back beyond the bulkhead so that it still remains as a filtering system. TRUSTEE KING: Have you been down there in the last couple of days John? JOHN COSTELLO: Not in the last couple of days, no. TRUSTEE KING: I bet he lost more. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At this angle, I didn't have this in mind. The way you angled it inside the concrete. JOHN COSTELLO: Well no but you did express a concern that it goes back further. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure, from the westerly point. A straight line. Not the jag right before...from the 97' line. (talking) Otherwise, I'd consider it. This dotted line is the toe of the bluff correct? JOHN COSTELLO: That dotted line is approx, existing high-water mark. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The inland dotted line. JOHN COSTELLO: That was the top elevation of the bluff. That was part of this survey but much of that is lost. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How far back are you going to set that box. JOHN COSTELLO: We're probably going to have to set it back 10' or so, 8' to 10' in order to be able to get an adequate backing system in there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could we see this on a survey though, this whole plan on a survey? That is what we usually require. (Trustee's talking) We don't need a revised survey of the whole property. Just that area. There is a monument right down there. JOHN COSTELLO: There's a monument on the adjoining property. The corner of the fence post is on the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't show a monument here. It shows a set stake. But I think we would rather approve this based on straightening that angle out. JOHN COSTELLO: How much land do you think should be contributed? If Mr. King is right, there is probably occurring erosion on every easterly wind. This thing is considerably back further than the original drawing. That's called erosion. We can't meet everybody's concern. There's erosion occurring in this area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Well we would like to see it on a survey. We would like to have it for the record. JOHN COSTELLO: There's measurements from the house. We're not going to move the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you could do it as an "after the fact". TRUSTEE FOSTER: How about an "as-built"? Let him go ahead and do it so that they don't lose anymore land and then put in on a survey, "as-built". TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Exactly. That's what I'm talking about so that we have that on file. So that we would have that record. (Changed tape) JOHN COSTELLO: The DEC is going to require physical measurements from the corners of the house. Those measurements on there, and there are several of them, they wanted two, so that it will be determined exactly where it is. TRUSTEE FOSTER: In the interest of saving time, that would probably be the best way to do it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion that we Approve the revised plan and after the job in completed, we will get a survey to "as is where". TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES J.M.O. Consulting Services on behalf of R. VINCENT LYNCH JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 130' fixed dock, 4'X 4' steps, a 4'X 18' ramp and a 6'X 20' float with 4 tie-off poles. Located: Crescent Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#6-1-15 POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a Wetland Permit to clear an upland area up to 30' landward of the tidal wetland boundary and establish a 30' non- disturbance buffer adjacent to the wetlands. Located: 9326 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-5-25 POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of GERALD GELBWAKS requests a Wetland Permit to attach a 3'X 12' ramp and a 6'X 20' float secured by 2-8" diameter piles, to an existing timber dock. Located: 1090 Haywaters Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-1-23.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak on behalf of the application? GERALD GELBWAKS: I'm Gerry Gelbwaks and I am the applicant. Unfortunately I have not been able to be here before and for some reasons it had been rejected, the application. I can't really talk about technicalities. But from the viewpoint of logic that I know, we've done our beach 25 years, Fisherman' s Beach, and the reason that I want to do this is that I've grown from an 11' boat to a 15' boat, to a 19', to a 25' and now I have a 29'. The last boat that I had, the 25', it's a fixed dock, I think Mr. Krupski, you saw that dock... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we all went out a couple of months ago and looked at it. We're all familiar with it. MR. GELBWAKS: I think it's been there since about 1959. I bought the house...well I've been there for 25 years, and it's fantastic but what happened is that in one of the storms in about 5 or 6 years ago, we had a nor'easter hit and we didn't have a change to get the boats moved. And, because it's a fixed dock, and you're very familiar with the situation, the boat sort of flipped and on a floating dock, it wouldn't have happened, and I think that.., now with the new boat, I would like to be able to keep it on a floating dock for that reason and for the reason of convenience of the grandchildren and things like that with the tide. It has been known to me that you had suggested tearing down one and putting up another and putting in the other, which it hurts that that's part of the class of the beach, it's gorgeous, I thought of another alternative plan possibly that would please the Trustees. I have no problem if you put a stipulation in that no matter what happens, if you OK the float, I would have no problem with the stipulation saying that I can never use either dock for more than one boat. That's a healthy compromise that I would be willing to stick to because I only have one and I have no intentions.., it' s more, the personality of the beach. We're not changing the channel, we're not changing anything, we're in a direct line, I don't know a good 30' in from my property line were the end of the floating dock would be. I think it's a good compromise. I did take a row around Broadwater's Cove, East Creek, Mud Creek, and I even have photos of fixed docks with floating docks, and I also saw triangular things with 4 or 5 floating docks that could handle 15 boats and I have photos of them. That doesn't bother me though. I'm only interested in what I think would appease you and possibly serve the purpose that I'm really looking for. I'll answer any questions that you may have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me see if there's any other comment first. The reason we objected to this project is because there is a standard policy that only allows one dock per property, on residential property, and the reasons are because one of course is that you don't want to start a marina and just allow for a proliferation of docks, which we know is not your intention but the second one is that you're covering-up the marine environment with a dock and completely monopolizing that area. So, you're allowed to have one dock. Now, you already have a 7'X 20' fixed dock. MR. GELBWAKS: The fixed dock. No, ! have no argument with anything you have to say but we all know the facts and what it is. Environmentally, ! all for anything that doesn't change environmentally, that would be wonderful. ! mean, but like ! said, you did say that they don't have two docks, but ! have photographs of them. Well that isn't important, but what is important is that if it can be done. I'm not looking to make any demands. I'm looking for some kind of compassion to get.., if ! thought ! was going to be upsetting anything ecologically, believe me, ! wouldn't be standing here. ! know you may disagree. ! love that place to darn much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We also looked at the character of the area and on either side your neighbors have just a simple ramp to a float, a floating dock. MR. GELBWAKS: Yeah but they don't have, you see, this was done in the 50's where it was bulkheaded and ! guess in that time it was probably a fixed dock. ! don't know. That was before me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't have a problem with you changing the fixed dock into a float. We just don't want to see the combination. MR. GELBWAKS: I just wanted the dockto sit on and look. That's why ! said ! was looking for some kind of compromise because I'm not looking to make a marina. ! go all around and ! see dozens of boats tied up at docks. ! just want one boat to keep it as serene as possible. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that was our, and ! think it was a suggestion at last month's meeting that you cut that down into a standard catwalk, which is 4' wide, to get to that float. MR. GELBWAKS: ! don't need, well I'm not into technical... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's the fixed portion. It's 4' wide. MR. GELBWAKS: The fixed portion that ! already have? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No the fixed portion that you have is 7'X 20'. MR. GELBWAKS: Okay then you need a ramp going down to a float. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. MR. GELBWAKS: Okay, so whatever is standard. ! don't need it wide. That I'm sure can be worked out. ! have no problem with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it still comes down to the two docks. The adjacent properties in the immediate area just have the one dock and the catwalk to get to the dock, that's what I'm talking about, is 3' or 4' wide. There are some narrower ones, ! think, further down. MR. GELBWAKS: ! believe the catwalk was going to run from the fixed dock straight down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's the ramp. ROB HERRMANN: He's talking about reducing the size of the 7'X 20' fixed dock that you have to a 4'X 7' dock. MR. GELBWAKS: But that doesn't solve the problem of tying up the boat. I want to tie up the boat for safety purposes. That's all I'm looking for. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I guess that was the Board's opinion when we visited the site. We all visited it together. I'm not quite sure when. It says July in here maybe. MR. GELBWAKS: I'm just asking you to re-consider, if possible. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't make an exception. We try to be consistent. We couldn't allow you to have an extra 4'X 20'. It's almost a deck. We wouldn't allow anyone else to have that. If someone came in who didn't have it, they want to put in a 7'X 20' and a ramp and a float, we wouldn't allow it. MR. GELBWAKS: Again, that's why I rode all around. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well a lot of things have been approved in the past for different areas. Fisherman's Beach is all dredged and filled. That's how they made it. They filled in the marsh and put houses up. We wouldn't allow that today. So, the times have changed. We would allow you put, you know, if you wanted a float, it would have to be one or the other. MR. GELBWAKS: No, I'm not looking to just take up space. I'm looking for exactly what I said. A safety mooring for a boat that would be safer than what I have and I didn't want to tear down the old dock. All the other things that can be done on a fixed dock, you can put a lift out in the water, but I thought I could get you to look from a little different perspective. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So how would you like to handle this? You could either withdrawn it or we would make a motion to Deny it. ROB HERRMANN: Gerry, are you not amenable to the idea of reducing the size... MR. GELBWAKS: It serves no purpose at all. TRUSTEE SMITH: I think you should just withdraw it instead of us Denying it. MR. GELBWAKS: Yeah. I understand. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of GEERT MARTENS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with pool, deck, and cabana. Located: 5028 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#115-10-2 POSTPONED AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JOHN LARSEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling with attached first and second story decks; a pervious driveway; a sanitary system; and a drinking water well; and establish and maintain two non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffers adjacent to freshwater wetlands, all as depicted on the site plan prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, last revised 22 October 1999. Fill created from house excavation will be used on-site for regrading as indicated on site plan. Located: 175 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#59-5-23 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: I'm here on behalf of the applicant, John Larsen. The plan that you have in front of you is for the minimum square footage house allowed by the Southold Town Code. The layout of the site plan was actually designed in coordination with Chris Bach of the Bureau of Environmental Protection of the DEC. As you mentioned, there are two non-fertilization/non-disturbance buffers that will be maintained adjacent both to the wetlands to Great Pond and also to the smaller phragmites dominated wetlands on 10 Lake Dr. All of the setbacks, the buffers, basically all of the environmental mitigation shown on the plan was designed by the DEC, and again, John Larsen and ! had a pre- application conference with Chris Bach. The property was staked, and ! assume the Board had an opportunity to view the stakes. The house is going to be setback father landward than the adjacent house, and we seek the Board's approval on the project, as proposed. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? This is a little Bungalow over here. There's like a huge hole over here. It almost looks manmade. There's a huge swale here. If you come up to the top of that, the house is sitting like right in this hole and you come up to the top here and then it drops straight down to Great Pond. ! mean, if you're standing here you can't see the pond. You have to be past this tree to see the pond. ROB HERRMANN: The house physically is set completely behind the topograhic crest. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! just wanted to look at what would be the finished grade. We just wanted to make sure it wouldn't be tipped back into Great Pond. ROB HERRMANN: There is no grading. There's nothing proposed in that area. It was never Mr. Larsen' s intent, but that was made pretty clear by the DEC in terms of staying off the pond, and again, that's the purpose of the buffer that's there. There's a 50' buffer with a 78' setback from the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at this property years ago. Were you involved with that? ROB HERRMANN: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! was out there years ago to look at this. Somebody proposed a house there. ! remember because it was a pretty distinct piece of property. ROB HERRMANN: And again, the square footage of the house's footprint is 850 sq.ft. and that also came out of our meeting with the DEC that they had wanted us to limit the size of the footprint of the house to that which is the minimum which is allowed by Southold Town Code. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommends Disapproval because the proposed construction is too close to both sets of wetlands which would have an adverse impact on the wetlands as well as being an important part of an important ecological system. 50' is a pretty standard setback for house construction. ROB HERRMANN: Well the setback of the house itself from Great Pond is actually 78'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No ! mean the disturbance. The natural buffer area is a pretty standard 50'. ROB HERRMANN: Well that's the limit of clearing and ground disturbance allowed but that's really going to be associated more with vehicles in terms of construction of the house. There are no structures proposed up to that line. It's running up that sandy crest, so there is really nothing that could be down there anyway. ! mean this will be ...the buffer zone has to be covenanted into the Deed according to when the DEC permit is issued. But again, a great deal of time went into the design and site plan working with the DEC and Chris Bach, and this is the plan that they laid out and all of the setbacks, the buffers, and everything are basically designed consistent with their recommendation. In terms of the CAC's recommendation, we can't build by law, a smaller house, nor can we physically it any better. It's maximizing the distance from both wetlands. Chris Bach of the DEC was concerned about getting a greater setback from Great Pond because it would be a more valuable wetland. The wetland by the road is a depression of wetland 11 and it's a phragmite stand basically, and of marginal value at best. Nonetheless, we're maintaining a disturbance buffer around that as well. So, almost half the property will remain as it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You've got a well in the disturbance buffer. How did they work that out? ROB HERRMANN: They're going to sink a well in that location but that's not a structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So obviously you don't have Health Dept. on this yet. ROB HERRMANN: No. We don't have Health Dept. on this yet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is this jurisdictional with the DEC? ROB HERRMANN: It is jurisdictional with the DEC because it's not tidal wetlands. It's both wetlands and freshwater wetlands and the DEC has tee' jurisdiction. The DEC with freshwater wetlands does not have any structural setbacks as they are with tidal where they have a 300' jurisdiction and then they have a structural setbacks within that. DEC has tee' jurisdiction. They try to keep you as far.., if they can keep you out of their jurisdiction, they will. Obviously here, it's impossible to situate a house on this property and stay out of their jurisdiction. So, what they do is, they ask us to sit down with them before we put in the site plan, as we did on this application, and come up with a design so they can layout the ground rules and decide what they feel are the proper buffers, the proper setbacks and the proper house size. It ends up saving a lot of time as opposed to people just submitting an application asking for a larger house, etc. etc. This Board has seen some of those where the applicant is unwilling to do that. They want to shoot for the stars from the go. Here Mr. Larsen has been one of the more sensitive clients I've ever worked for in terms of looking to preserve the character of a neighborhood and property. So he went into this with me ahead of time to meet with Chris Bach and come up with these parameters. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about a non-turf condition on the property. ROB HERRMANN: In terms of having no lawn, whatsoever anywhere? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Similar to what the neighbor has really. I mean a lot of the neighbors have that non-turf. It's sort of characteristic of that area. ROB HERRMANN: That hadn't really come up. We had asked him, in terms of what would be allowed within the building envelope and I think he did discuss the concept, in fact, how he worded the topic of the limit of clearing and ground disturbance was that he stated he didn't want any turf that would be put down any closer than 30' to the wetlands by the road and any closer than 50' to Great Pond. So what leeway he had within there was pretty much left to his discretion. There is only so many areas on here that you could put a turf. I don't know what plans he would have of where he would put lawn and where he couldn't. Some of the property really isn't conducive to it. I mean it's so sandy and some of the elevations are so winding in terms of increase and decrease. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, I was just wondering if that had been brought up. ROB HERRMANN: No, other than what I had just described. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any other questions on this? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would someone like to make a motion? I'ii make a motion to Approve it. I was out there probably ten years ago and I have pretty much the same things in mind really. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JOSEPH BAJADA & LORRAINE WOLFF requests a Wetland Permit to replace (within 18") approx. 100 linear ft. of existing bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and remove and replace (inkind/inpiace) approx. 102 linear ft. of existing retaining wall, and backfill with approx. 75 cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 7972 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM#126-11-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? ROB HERRMANN: I'm here on behaifofthe applicants. Also, the next hearing scheduled is for Wilbur Osier. These two properties are adjacent to one another. They are planned to be constructed contiguously at the same time. The contractor Steve Pawiik is here if the Board has any questions. What we're basically looking to do is replace both of these bulkheads together. A review of the Bajada property is fairly straight-forward. The bulkheads in reasonably straight line like it is now. The Osier bulkhead is bowed out on the western side so again, ifI can, I'll try to address both applications at the same time. If you look at the line ofbuikheads, the Stewart bulkhead to the east of Osier has stepped out about 10" from the Osier bulkhead now, and then the western section of the Osier section is actually bowed out considerably where it's damaged. So what we'd be looking to do is go out 18" both on this Bajada/Woiff property and on the eastern side of the Osier property, and where the Osier bulkhead is bowed out on its' west side, would be to try to pull that damaged section and replace it inkind. The idea would be pending us getting a fairly uniform straight line. The Osier bulkhead would be stepped out about as much in front of Stewart as Stewart has now stepped out in front of Osier. We have obtained permits from the DEC for the replacement within 18" on both projects as proposed and also received the Osier Corp. of Engineers Permit in the mail today. I have copies of those permits for the Board for your file. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? ROB HERRMANN: Just that this project is similar to two others that we've had in front of the Board to be replaced within 18" on this bay front. One was issued to Mattituck Assoc. and one to Thomas Mastro. I have, just so the Board has a reference of the area, a copy of the tax map and those permits with those sites identified. Those photos you're looking at are the east end of the Osier bulkhead as a tie in and Steward. Basically we have a situation about going out ending up about 8" in front of that bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I've got a couple of registered letters from a neighbor, Mrs. Stewart, whose unhappy with the project. She's concerned that the Osier bulkhead coming out in front of hers is going to cause a problem for her bulkhead, which was recently constructed. ROB HERRMANN: How? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, her concern is that it will be further out and that it will cause an eddy where it meets with her bulkhead, resulting in erosion of sand and weakening of the west corner of her bulkhead. 13 ROB HERRMANN: ! would just have a brief response to that. One, the concept of an eddy induced scour along the, which is usually referred to as a return, as this Board knows is a situation you might see on the sound where you've got a bulkhead that is out 8' or 10', as opposed to 8", if there would be any kind of eddy scour formed, at a minimal scale like this, she would've seen it already because the Stewart bulkhead is already in front. The Stewart bulkhead is now in front of Osler. Even anywhere where you would have a problem on the right angle return, you have a piling in that corner and you would have the same situation here. You would have a rounded pilings in that corner. That's over-scrutinizing the obvious. ! mean you're not going to have an eddy effect. That's an erosional effect that you get when you have a large right angle between two bulkheads, typically on a bay or a sound with several feet. Not of 6" where there is a piling in that corner. ! wouldn't think that the stepping out of the Osler bulkhead would have any different from the Stewart property as the Stewart stepping out in front of Osler has. TRUSTEE KING: It depends on the wind direction. ROB HERRMANN: Well sure, but again, when you're talking about 6"... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you get equipment down there to work on that? Backhoe or whatever? You need equipment to pull back Osler's belly there, right? STEVE PAWLIK: Well certainly in that one section but the problem we have in this particular stretch of the boulevard is that when you remove fill from a bulkhead and you start ripping out a bunch of sheathing, you're exposing yourself. Every time a tide comes up, you're losing a tremendous amount of fill. We are proposing to take out, ! think it's about 36' where we can't, you know if we try to go out in front 18" for the whole thing, we would be out really 3' on one side. So that one section, the only we'd ever want to take that out is to keep a straight line and have as less, and as few turns as we can in that stretch of bulkhead. ! think the 8" going out in front is less than what Stewart is out in front of Osler right now. TRUSTEE KING: Do you know Steve, that Stewart bulkhead, was that replaced? STEVE PAWLIK: ! built that bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Was it inkind/inplace or out in front. STEVE PAWLIK: It had fallen out in a storm and we had gotten an emergency permit about 3 years ago. Now that particular bulkhead, Mrs. Stewarts had fallen out so far, there was no way in heck anything was going to be out in front 18". TRUSTEE KING: I've got one other question. On that easterly corner, instead of coming straight out 90 degrees, can you just go like 45 degrees just to blend that in a little nicer? STEVE PAWLIK: Well the only thing is that we're starting to put returns in and I'm going to have to take out some piles in that corner, and again, the exposure of taking out that sheathing ... TRUSTEE KING: ! mean just to put a 45 shouldn't be any big deal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's very small, he's talking about...it's a matter of feet... STEVE PAWLIK: Still, the more ! start taking pilings down and sheathing out, you know, especially next to Mrs. Stewart's bulkhead, if there is loss of fill and something happens... TRUSTEE KING: I'm not asking you to remove anything. STEVE PAWLIK: Well the only way I'm going to be able to come out there on 45 is ... (Changed tape.) 14 (Steve Pawlik and Trustee King talking.) STEVE PAWLIK: With the sheathing to sheathing, the thing is, we're trying to do something that is environmentally friendly by not using creosote. The only other option on this particular stretch of the boulevard is creosote and in some towns, Southampton Town is now against it, and we're trying to work with something ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we're just trying to minimize a possible erosion problem. STEVE PAWLIK: Well if you go down... I probably have been at every job down on this stretch of the boulevard and Rob had one map where there are, in some places, there are 5 and 6 ft. setbacks and there hasn't been a scouring problem there and this 8" distance that we're going to be out ... TRUSTEE KING: If you can only be 8" out in front of hers I don't have a problem. But, I don't think you can do it. I'll go down and measure it when you're done. STEVE PAWLIK: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: If you can stay just 8" out in front of the old bulkhead then I don't have a problem with it. STEVE PAWLIK: Yeah, we can get the sheathing in there. I done work with Mrs. Stewart and the scouring thing I just don't quite understand what... I think she's very unhappy because her bulkhead had to come out and she doesn't quite understand why hers had to come out. And the reason hers had to come out is because it had fallen out. The same thing with the other applications that we've had in here. We've always gone out in front 18" except for in this one section where it has fallen out. Even then we're going to have to be very careful because one storm like we had last night.., and it may be back through Stewart's property. ROB HERRMANN: And again, I don't know whether...the current concern is the aesthetics of the line ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it's not aesthetics. ROB HERRMANN: If it's erosion, it's a moot point. I mean, having studied it pre- intensely, you can get areas of 8'-10' or more 6'-8'. I mean situations you see on the Atlantic Ocean and Long Island Sound, and you've got areas where basically you're getting wave refraction around a large, it's basically called a head-land effect and what happens is that the waves come in and they refract and reflect around the corner and they produce this scoured eddy where you get an eddy where you get a wave eddy forming and you get what is called a down (can't hear - train). That can't occur at an area where you've got a pilings sitting within a space of 6", I mean there just isn't enough room really for literal action to get something like that to form. I've never seen that anywhere where you have a bulkhead that stepped out a foot and you have some sort of re-enter. There isn't even enough room physically for it to form. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any other comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd like to comment of no more use of creosote on the bulkheads in our creeks. Use C-Loc on all bulkhead replacements. ROB HERRMANN: The only other comment and again Jim, some of the other ones we've done on this stretch, is that this is basically the legal one-time out. Once the DEC, and your Board contract it as well, but it's in the DEC database. Once there's a one-out, that's it. This property is restricted to inkind/inplace for the rest of the time and as I handed out, we have the DEC permit to do it. That is what we discussed with some of 15 these other projects, the ones that I have showed you, where there has been any question in terms of well where do we stop the extension of the uplands into the bay, and this is it. TRUSTEE KING: Well I didn't have a big problem with this at all. I just thought that corner would've blended in a little nicer if it was built that way. If you can keep it 8" out in front, I don't have a problem with that. ROB HERRMANN: It has to stay, the sheathing to sheathing, the face to face on the sheathing to sheathing has to be 18". That's the standard, that's according to the permit. That's what the DEC permit reads and that's how the plan has to reflect. I think we're coming up with that 8" just doing math that if that bulkhead is out 10" now, we're going out 18" then we're 8" in front of that. I don't want to beat it to death. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. KING: Seconded. ALL AYES KING: Do we want to do these both at the same time? KRUPSKI: Just do one at a time. KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of WILBUR OSLER requests a Wetland Permit to replace (within 18") +/-66' section of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and remove and replace (inplace) +/-36' section of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead, and backfill with approx. 50 cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 8070 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM#126-11-17 (See Public Hearing #8.) TRUSTEE SMITH: Closed the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve. I'll just make the notation that I'll probably go down and check the measurement to see how far out in front of it, the Stewart bulkhead. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 10. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM A. MALLINS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with a garage and an asphalt driveway, sanitary system, and a recreational dock facility. Proposed house and garage is proposed to be 3,465 sf., proposed asphalt drive is proposed to be 750 sf. Proposed house is to be setback a minimum of 75' from the tidal wetlands line. Sanitary system proposed to be setback 125'. Recreational dock facility consisting of the following: 4'X 40' fixed timber dock, 3'X 20' ramp, and a 6'X 20' CCA timber float. Proposed facility will utilize (12) 8" diameter piles, (10) piles for fixed dock and (2) piles to support float. Fixed dock to be elevated a min. of 4' above existing wetlands vegetation. A 4'+/- natural woodchip/mulch path is proposed to access proposed dock facility. Located: 70 Jackson's Landing, Mattituck. SCTM#113-4-3&4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? 16 DAN HALL: I'm here from Land Use. I'd like to submit a plan to the Board which shows a different layout of the house but meet the same setbacks and similar building area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. DAN HALL: This is just a more detailed layout of the construction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now how does this compare with what was marked in the field? DAN HALL: That is what was marked in the field. We just didn't have the plans ready yet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Excellent. What we looked at out in the field showed a...what you submitted...what was prepared by the architect showed a final grade. Is that going to be the same? DAN HALL: The grade is the same, yeah. The only thing that changes is the actual layout of the house. The grade for the septic system and the driveway are going to remain the same. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also, it doesn't show where the dock would be on either of these plans. There's a separate plans here prepared by yourself here that shows where the dock would be which is different than what was marked by a buoy in the field. The buoy in the field would be more to the west. DAN HALL: It's a possibility that they were moved. TRUSTEE KING: It hadn't moved because I went and checked that a month or two ago. It's quite a bit from the west. DAN HALL: It's how far it's going to go out but it may not be the exact location. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the dock location where that existing path is now? There's an existing path to the water right from where the house is marked out. DAN HALL: Right. I think that's more... TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Jim, wasn't there a discrepancy on how wide the creek is. TRUSTEE KING: On the width of the creek, yeah. KRUPSKI: It says the width of the waterway is 250' which is a big TRUSTEE difference. TRUSTEE TRUSTEE float. KING: It's 150'. POLIWODA: If we go by the 1/3 rule, he's got a 40' fixed, 20' ramp and a TRUSTEE KING: Even at that he's not that...but I want to see the extreme seaward for what's going to be there because there are some concerns about turning the boats around to come in and out of there. DAN HALL: It will be the same length as the dock to the southeast. It's going to be just as far out as... you know, we measured it from the highwater mark. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't we...we'd like to make sure exactly where the dock is going to be so why don't we split this off, unless you just want to wait a month on the whole thing. DAN HALL: No, we can split it off. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can Approve the house portion and then you can stake out the exact location, the location of the path, and the extent of the dock and then Jim, can you go check it. TRUSTEE KING: Sure I'll go check it. 17 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In fact, give Jim a call when it's staked out or meet him out there and then we can get that cleared-up for next month. DAN HALL: Sure no problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As far as the...what we need here, it shows on the survey, the limit of tidal wetlands, but that also shows the highwater mark. What we want to see is a 50' non-disturbance area from the limit of tidal wetlands. Not from the highwater mark, which is going to push it anywhere from 5' to 15' further landward. DAN HALL: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we'll have to see that. Well we can Approve it but we want to see it revised on the survey before we issue the Permit. Any other comment on this? TRUSTEE KING: Is he going to use haybales anyplace? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a good idea. He can put them up at 50'. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application of the single-family dwelling with a row ofhaybales at the 50' buffer area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before the Permit is issued, we need a new survey showing the 50' buffer area starting at the limit of tidal wetlands. We'll act on the dock next month. Anything else on there. Do I have a second on that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 11. Land Use on behalf of JOHN HURTADO, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system and access driveway. Driveway consists of grading between two (2) small freshwater areas not regulated by DEC. Located: 10995 Bayview Ave., Southold. SCTM#79-5-20.7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? DAN HALL: We spoke in the field about possibly utilizing Peconic Land Trust property and the applicant would like to leave the application as proposed and I understand that because of that you'll need additional staking and or plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what was the outcome with the Hurtados. Why weren't they interested in... DAN HALL: They just wanted their own separate entrance. They own all that land and they want to utilize it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is their... I don't know if final plan is the right word but what are their future plans for the property as far as development. This is a small access road but they do have 23 acres here. DAN HALL: I don't know of any future plans. TRUSTEE SMITH: Did you talk to the land trust, Al? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I did. I spoke to the Board of Directors at the Peconic Land Trust and they said that they would have to see more information as far as exactly where you would want to go and whatnot. But, they didn't say "no". I had the meeting on Monday so I brought that up at the meeting. It's not an impossibility to do that still. They didn't say "yes" but he has to pursue that with them. DAN HALL: Right, he understands that. 18 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what we're going to need to ...well CAC recommends Approval with the following stipulations: All construction is to be 75' landward with no disturbance. Driveway to be re-routed to existing right-of-way in order to avoid... I think the house is the standard setback we established for that little subdivision on the Plock property. As far as the pond goes, you're going to have to have that staked. TRUSTEE SMITH: Before I would issue anything, myself, they would have to exhaust every other alternative, including going over the Peconic Land Trust, because I think it would be a crime to put a driveway through those ponds. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Especially where the Land Trust uses his property as a right-of-way for over a thousand feet. The road exists almost adjacent to his property. It comes around like this right adjacent to his property. TRUSTEE SMITH: I would just say that every avenue would have to be exhausted before I would vote for this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could we meet with the applicant on the site? DAN HALL: Sure. I can arrange it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we need is...well I think it would be better to explain it to him on the site, what our concerns are. If we could meet him on our regular field inspection, we would be happy to go out there. DAN HALL: Is there anything additional that you would like to have staked? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we should have the exact location, I mean we just have the center stake, I'd imagine, of the driveway. You have to have the complete width of the driveway staked within our jurisdiction between the ponds and the proposed elevation, the finished elevation of the driveway, the middle and either sides, so we know exactly what it's going to look like as it goes through there. DAN HALL: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about utilities? How does he get his utilities out there? DAN HALL: There are two other houses there, but I'm not sure what his plans are there. I'll have to speak to him about that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's another consideration because it's about ... TRUSTEE SMITH: I see there's a well there by the road. Is that going to be his or is he going to tap into Town water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's public water supply so he's got to trench all that out. This says proposed drive and water so I was wondering where he was getting his utilities from. But, the property looks to be some 3400', 3300' deep. So I'll make a motion to Table the application or to Recess the hearing until we meet with the applicant on the property. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 12. Land Use on behalf of E.M. KONTOKOSTA requests a Wetland Permit to install 150 lf. of timber bulkhead at the toe of an existing slope and a 10' return at the western property line. Proposed bulkhead will be back-filled with approx. 110 +/- cy. of clean fill. Resultant area (approx. 1,450 sf.) will be planted with Cape American Beach Grass on 18" centers. Located: 54155 Middle Rd., Southold. SCTM#52-1-2&3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? DAN HALL: I'm here to answer any questions. 19 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only question I have on this is that it's a pretty heavily vegetated slope. Okay, it shows it on here. It's just the disturbed area that's going to be replanted. He wouldn't bother the rest of the slope, right? DAN HALL: No, not unless it was disturbed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Alright. I just didn't want to see the whole slope cleared and then replanted. Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 13. David J. Cichanowicz on behalf of ED FRANCESCHINI requests a Wetland Permit to reshape and contour manmade pond to make it more environmentally appealing. Located: 3539 Cox Neck Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#106-8-51 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on the applicant's behalf?. DAVID CICHANOWICZ: I'm from Creative Environmental Design and I was contracted to make this pond a little bit more appealing and also he's looking for a little bit more privacy on his property. So, the idea was to reshape the existing pond that's there, give it a new contour that would allow me to plant it in such a manner to give them a little bit more privacy without really changing any of the actual square footage of this pond. We're basically going to take out and add and just give it a different look. TRUSTEE SMITH: This is a manmade pond from the "getgo" isn't it Dave? DAVID CICHANOWICZ: Yes. I think Artie actually was the one who brought it up. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yeah, I dug it to take road mn-off from Rosewood Estates. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a letter here from Antonio Piraino from Mattituck. This letter is in response to the application of Mr. Edward Franceschini ... (Al reading letter.) There is a copy here from August 8, 1997 from James Richter. TRUSTEE KING: That's that whole wetland we want to dump the storm-water in instead of dumping it in the creek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a 12" plastic pipe that flows from the pond underneath to the wetland. TRUSTEE KING: That was all there before he bought the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now it was my understanding that this project wouldn't affect the water holding capacity of this pond. DAVID CICHANOWICZ: Not at all. We're going to keep the integrity exactly the same it's just basically the reshaping. I did some depth findings in that pond and it's average is about 18" so it's about your normal depth. Maybe in the center but I didn't get out quite far enough. It is just a catchall for the excess rainwater in the area. Again, just keep it exactly the same depth and reshaping as my proposed plan and allow us to do some additional planting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well since this is a manmade pond and clearly a not natural setting at all, and as the operations won't affect the water holding capacity of it one way or another, I don't really have a big problem with it. I don't see how it's going to affect the neighbor or affect the wetland there or anything. 20 DAVID CICHANOWICZ: We're not going to plug up the drainpipe. We need the waterflow for my customer as well as he needs it. So, I mean the passage way through that drainpipe is going to stay open as you see on the plan. It's just really for aesthetic value. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve the reshaping of the pond by David Cichanowicz' s plan. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. AL AYES 14. Amy Martin of Fairweather Brown on behalf of CHARLES BRIENZA requests a Wetland Permit to extend the rock revetment 40. Located: 1240 Latham Lane, Orient. SCTM#15-9-1.5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we act on this as full permit? We're formalizing this. We're giving them a full permit for that and there was some concern that the revetment was actually be at highwater mark which we determined in the field that it was, in fact, as shown on the plans, 50' from the highwater mark. If there is no other comment, I'll take a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH made a motion to go back to the Regular Meeting. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES RESOLUTIONS: J.M.O. Consulting Services on behalf of MICHAEL L. LAUGHLIN requests a Grandfather Permit for the existing deck and to Amend the permit to construct two 10'X 15' additions to the deck. Located: Crescent Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#6-7-16.1 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES VI. 1. MOORINGS: WILLIAM BUHLER requests a stake off the right-of-way in Goose Bay Estates, in Goose Creek for an 8' dinghy. ACCESS: Public TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application. Trustees will re-inspect at the January field inspection. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES GARY J. RIEHL requests a stake off the right-of-way in Goose Bay Estates, in Goose Creek for a 10' paddle boat. ACCESS: Private access from the property of George 21 Coady. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application. Trustees will re-inspect at the January field inspection. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Meeting adjourned at: 9:20 PM Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Clerk Board of Trustees