Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/23/2000 MINUTES Wednesday, August 23, 2000 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., 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, September 13, 2000 at 9:00 AM TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSTON: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 19, 2000. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for July 2000. A check for $2,697.38 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. TT. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. TTT. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq. on behalf of ORIENT WHARF CO. requests an Amendment to Permit #474 to allow for the existing 6'X 8' shed, which houses necessary water filtration equipment to remain on the wharf, as long as the filtration system is required in order to obtain a potable water supply. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM#24-2-28.1 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Table the application until September, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Charles VanVoorhis on behalf of LOUIS BURNHAM PACKARD requests a Waiver for the addition of an 18'X 18' sunroom and an 18' wraparound deck. Located: Madeline Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#6-7-12 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of LAURENCE NIEBLING requests an Amendment to permit #5180 for 1-2 ton stone along the existing grade at the bluff scarp and a detailed vegetation plan noting that the existing upper slope between elevations 6 and 12+/- be supplemented with Cape American beach grass, as per the DEC letter dated 7/7/00. Located: 10020 Nassau Point Rd., Nassau Point. SCTM#119-1-18 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of CHARLES GALLIGAN requests an Amendment to Permit #1852 to add 4'X 20' to fixed open walkway; add two floats each 4'X 20' and one float 4'X 16'; install two piles to secure floats. All are existing. Located: 2185 Westview Dr., Mattituck. SCTM# 107-7-1.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve 4'X 20' to fixed open walkway and one 6'X 20' float with 2 piles to hold the float, and removal of the rest. New plans must be submitted showing the new description. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of FRANK CICHANOWICZ requests an Amendment to Permit #5115 to add an additional attached garage 19'X 12' and add outside steps to cellar. Located: 155 Hall's Creek Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#116-7-1 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. AYES ALL Crowley Construction on behalf of JOSEPH GERACI requests an Amendment to Permit #4118 to reconstruct 100' bulkhead and 25' return in same location using C-Loc (4500 Series) plastic. Truck in 20 cy. clean fill as needed for backfill. Located: 685 Dawn Dr., Greenport. SCTM#35-5-17 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application with the condition of a 10' non- turf buffer, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES Garret A. Strang on behalf of JOANNE GERARDI requests a Waiver to allow the existing decks to remain. South deck added in 1976 and north deck added in 1980. Located: 2150 Nokomis Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-1-24.1 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. AYES ALL 10. 11 12. 13 14. ROBERT L. BOGER requests a Waiver for the existing deck. Located: 455 Willow Point Rd., Southold. SCTM#56-5-27 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES DONNA WEXLER (Stirling Harbor Shipyard & Marina) requests an Amendment to Permit #5164 to change to 1003 pilings, 3300' of staving and repair or replace all docks floating and fixed as necessary. Located: 1410 Manhanset Ave., Greenport. SCTM#36- 1-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application with the condition that a sign be placed at the entrance of the marina directing customers to the pump-out station, and a letter from Brewer Yacht Yard stating that they would allow the customers of Stirling Harbor Marina to use the pump-out station. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES EDWARD & BARBARA BETSCH request a Waiver to replace a set of stairs that was removed by the owner. The bulkhead blocks the access to the beach, which is guaranteed by right-of-way. Located: 625 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. SCTM#31-18-20.1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES RICHARD J. BONATI & ARNOLD E. RASSO request an Amendment to Permit #4961 for a new footprint of the house in accordance with the revised plans, and for a One-Year Extension. Located: 485 Orchard Lane, Southold. SCTM#89-2-7 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES LARRY B. & JOAN M. KULICK request a one-year extension to Permit #4951 to construct a 140' stone wall above ordinary high water line, dredge approx. 10 cy. from silted area or boat slip and add a 4'X 18' ramp at landward end of existing dock and clear vegetation within 50' of high water mark. Located: 2200 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. SCTM#87-3-61 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application. The Trustees will inspect the property on September 13, 2000 without penalty to the applicant. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES DOROTHY GALLAGHER requests a Transfer of Permit #92 for a 3'X 20' dock, 3'X 16' ramp and 5'X 20' float, from Barbara Rader Punch to Dorothy Gallagher. Located: 40 Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM#70-10-62.1 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Deny the application because the 55' catwalk is not what was permitted for. The applicant can either remove 55' off the catwalk or apply for an amendment. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES THEODORE ANGELL requests an Amendment to Permit #4814 for a 6'X 100' boardwalk abutting 3'X 100' retaining wall and for additional 6" seaward over deeded property for bulkhead reconstruction. Applicant also requests a one-year extension for same. Located: 305 Gull PondLane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-28.25 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application with the condition of a 10' non-turf buffer. This is the last one-year extension. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 15. PAUL & KATHLEEN STUCKART request a Transfer of Permit #4969 from Jon Kerbs to Paul & Kathleen Stuckart. Located: 550 Renee's Dr., Southold. SCTM#54-6- 4.5 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 16. MARTIN & MARJORIE DUNN request a Transfer of Permit #1676 from John Brochard to Martin & Marjorie Dunn for a 4'X 10' floating dock in James Creek. Located: 1570 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#122-4-3 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Table the application until a survey is received, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH moved to go off the Regular Meeting and go onto the Public Hearings, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING N 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 Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of JAMES DONOHUE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a timber dock facility. Proposed facility is to consist of a 4'X 42' CCA timber dock with stairs, 3'X 20' ramp, and 6'X 20' float. The fixed dock is to be raised a minimum of 3.5' above grade and supported by (16) 4"X 4" posts. (3) proposed 6"X 6" piles are proposed to support the float. (Depth of penetration 8'+). A 4' wide natural wood chip access path is proposed from the lawn area to the proposed facility. Located: 230Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#115-17-17.9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to comment on the application? DAN HALL: I'm from Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of James Donohue. I'd like to state that this represents more of what this Board would like to see than what was proposed. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Now, by moving the fixed dock down a little bit it wouldn't cross the wetlands. It would cross where it was originally proposed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments? It says three 6" diameter mooring pilings. I only see two on the plan. Where is the third one? DAN HALL: The other one lines up with ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh there's two on the fixed dock? DAN HALL: Right. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I thought we we're going to tuck him into that little nook there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When we were on the site last week, we thought that it was going to be tucked in further into that little cut-out. TRUSTEE SMITH: Where does he plan to put his boat? DAN HALL: I'm not positive but I don't think you can reach that water depth in there. JAMES DONOHUE: We originally discussed that a floating dock on the line that runs across from the two points, that was not acceptable. It was moved back in. We originally discussed it on the west side of where that (can't hear).., and you said that we would have to be within the confines of that delineation from the two points. The dock would have to be inside, or if you will, east of that. Do you recollect us having this conversation? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's the deem on the boat? JAMES DONOHUE: 10' TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you have to make any other comments, you have to come to the microphone, because otherwise we won't get them on the tape. JAMES DONOHUE: Originally we had a floating dock and I guess it was about (can't hear) past where that line is that comes across. TRUSTEE SMITH: There's no way you can bring it right in ... DAN HALL: It could be done then the water depths are shallow and then it's a problem with the State. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it's not a floating dock. There shouldn't be any problem with the State. DAN HALL: Well there just concerned with the boat being there. There worried about the prop sitting on the bottom. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're just trying to see if we could work it out. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: With this design, would that boat along side, how many feet between that boat and the boat across. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows here. Here's another plan. Does that include the float? The boat on the float across the creek? DAN HALL: The 30'? TRUSTEE KING: Is that the outboard side of the boat or to the float? DAN HALL: The float. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think the 5' would...we'd compromise with the DEC really and it would give you all the room in the world then to have, you know, to get further in and to get boats past you, and to swing your boat around. Or do you think you could bring it into that cut around the dock and come around here? JAMES DONOHUE: I think it was part of the original intent to maximize the use of that cove since it's there already. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think Henry and Kenny? TRUSTEE SMITH: There's just not enough distance... TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At least that. DAN HALL: (can't understand) TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The way I look at it right now, with this plan, there's 12' to navigate from that channel. After he puts his boat there, there's probably less than that because each boat will have a bumper between the boat and the floating dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah it squeezing it in pretty much. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It might be 10' of navigation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd rather approve it at 5' in tonight. If you have a problem with the DEC, come back to us. JAMES DONOHUE: It gets deep pretty fast there but ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well if you're cutting it down to 12' to 15' to navigate in between those boats... TRUSTEE SMITH: Is that a dredged canal in there? JAMES DONOHUE: Yes, well I'm assuming that it is because it says dredged creek on there. I assume that it is a dredged creek. DAN HALL: You have a water depth of 2'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's on the very edge though. The middle of the boat would be 3'. I don't know how much your boat draws. JAMES DONOHUE: 30 inches. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So in the middle you would have a 3' depth if you brought it in 5'. I'd rather give you 5' in and then if you have a problem you can come back to us. JAMES DONOHUE: You gentlemen know better than me. I'm just a tennis ball here. DAN HALL: Well if that's what you want we'll have to present it to the state. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean it's a navigation thing. That's one of their concerns also. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You said in-between boats has to be at least 15'? If you went out and measured from boat to boat, it would be 15'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you couldn't say that because the neighbor might have a different boat. JAMES DONOHUE: How much of a problem would there be if they say that they can't do that, it has to be in deeper water? They're looking for 4'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's impossible here. JAMES DONOHUE: Right. So we're trying to maximize the area by that imaginary line that part of the creek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Being realistic, the bay constable's boat has an 8 iA' deem, and if he decides to go up there, as it stands right now, you're giving him 10'. You're asking him to clear 8" on each side of the boat. JAMES DONOHUE: The mouth is kind of narrow too. As I go down the creek, that's a battle also for my boat. It's tight in a number of different spots, south of where I'm at. But, you wouldn't have seem that obviously. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you have a problem, come back to us. I mean navigation is their concern also. They're going to have the same concerns we have. How can they stick to 4' here? DAN HALL: Well originally the boat lift was going to solve a lot of his problems with navigation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well get that past the DEC. DAN HALL: That's another issue too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seriously, we'll work with you if you have to come back if they state will not go for this. JAMES DONOHUE: So this is going to require another meeting on my property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not with us. We'd rather approve this just 5' shorter and then if you have a problem with the state, and I don't think we have to go out there again. DAN HALL: So you'll approve it upon new plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. That way you can move right ahead with it. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve it with the stipulation that the whole structure gets moved 5' landward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND COUNTRY CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to install a 6'X +/-560' gravel golf cart path at the 18th Green. Located: East End. Rd., 18th Green at Golf Course, Fishers Island. SCTM#1-1-3.13 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of or against the application? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of LAWRENCE G. CREEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, driveway, decking, gazebo, pool, pool fence, pool back-wash, public water hook-up and to install and maintain continuous erosion control barrier throughout construction. Located: Crescent Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#6-1-4.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor or against the application? TRUSTEE KING: I don't have any problem with this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it's pretty high ground. It falls off in the back steeper but in the front it's no problem. 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. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of KIM K. CAMPBELL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 120' fixed dock elevated 4' above grade, 4'X 12' ramp, 6'X 20' float and (4) out piles. Located: Private Rd., East Harbor, Fishers Island. SCTM#4-4-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? TRUSTEE KING: This is right next door to the old coast guard docks on the west side. I didn't have a problem with this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. KING: Seconded. ALL AYES KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES Catherine Mesiano on behalf of LA[IRENCE BLESSINGER requests a Wetland Permit to re-vegetate property cleared within 75' of HWM. Located: 2626 Westphalia Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#114-7-10.008 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? CATHERINE MESIANO: As you know we had met at the site last Wednesday and we discussed some of the open issues. The hay bales that you requested, the additional row of hay bales you requested, have been placed on the limit of the Trustee's jurisdiction which was approx. 15' landward of the existing row of hay bales. The additional information on the survey that you requested, I'm sorry but I can't provide you with because the surveyor did not provide that to me, but you only asked for the 4' wide mulch path way to be indicated which I will be able to provide for you. We discussed hand clearing on the remaining stumps and I believe you were going to discuss with the Town Attorney how we can proceed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to comment on the application? Any Board member have any extra comments? The only thing I could see additional put on the survey, and I guess we have so many different plans and surveys, I guess we need to see... CATHERINE MESIANO: I have provided you with a plan that included everything on one sheet rather than three pages that the surveyor provided you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right, and you're still working with the surveyor, is that correct? CATHERINE MESIANO: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only thing I'd like to see on here, in addition to, we asked for the hay bales to be placed on the survey and we asked for the path, I'd like to see it, the large stumps placed on the survey. There's a number of them between the rows of hay bales. I'd like to see those located on the survey. TRUSTEE SMITH: They're to remain. CATHERINE MESIANO: Okay, so the stumps that have started to re-vegetate are the ones that you want to remain. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right, because their roots, right now, are holding the bank in and if those are removed, the live stumps removed, then you would start to lose the bank and you'd get sedimentation into the creeks. I guess we could approve this conditionally upon receipt of that survey. CATHERINE MESIANO: So show everything on one and show the live stumps and the path. Do you want me to provide pictures? TRUSTEEE KING: If you could. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We still have the violation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would guess this is settled. You can take this to court and settle this. CATHERINE MESIANO: That was the open issue. We weren't sure what the procedure would be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We addressed that on a previous matter. I think our approval with satisfy the violation from our end so they can proceed with this. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that we receive a new survey showing all of the details. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Catherine Mesiano on behalf of KARL RIESTERER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-floor addition to extend 5' beyond existing foorprint. Install an 18'X 30' in-ground pool with additional retaining wall landward of existing seawall. Located: 1945 Calves Neck Rd., Southold. SCTM#70-4-47 POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Gary F. Olsen, Esq. on behalf ofNEIL SCHLUSSEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling. Located: E/s Stillwater Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM# 136-2-7&8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? DAVID OLSEN: The last time we were before the Board you wanted us to change the layout. The survey was made and you wanted it staked out, which we've also done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had a problem reading the survey. The radius is 124' but the distance between the house and the property line was 220'. We had a little problem with that in the field. The house was properly staked and everything and the septic system was properly staked. It was just that when we were looking at the survey, we were trying to get our bearings to the adjacent property. DAVID OLSEN: (can't hear) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? CARL VAIL: I'm the neighbor. I'd like to address the Board and I've prepared some letters for you gentlemen and I'd like to just read it to the Board. (Reading letter attached.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. DAVID OLSEN: I would just like to say that at this time there are no plans for a deck on the waterside. We've done everything the Board has asked. NEIGHBOR: I am concerned because the two adjacent pieces of property to the south are for water access only. One is owned by Peter Bell who is here and has a dock and the other is (can't hear) which I have a right-of-way to water access for that. I pass by this property everyday and look at it and it has become the topic of conversation. Just visually looking at it, I see no way a house can be put there. It's just simply not big enough. My concern is also that the property which is adjacent to the other side of it, is directly across from my property, it's owned by Murray Schlussel, that if this property gets approved with all of the exceptions and variances, he's going to be the next one to come here and build a house here. So now there's two houses on that property. Also, the property in questions has been up for sale for three years that I know, numerous real estate agents come with people looking at that property, people have surveyed the property, walk the property, they've measured the property, and everyone walks away from the property because they know that you cannot build a house there. It is my opinion that they have hired Gary Olsen to get you to approve a building permit so that they turn around and sell the property and make a quick buck. It is the mission of your 10 board to be preserving wetlands in this community and I just find it incredulous that you would approve this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: I don't see how we can deny them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the only problem I have, and we've asked the applicant and the applicant certainly has worked with us, we've asked the applicant to keep moving the house to increase the setback. It's just the septic system that we can't move out of the way. I know it has been, to answer Mr. Olsen said, it has been since April, actually its February, that it was originally applied for and the problem is on an application like this that's not straight forward, we try to get all the information together, and I think Mr. Vail made a comments, that it should've been denied right away. But, you can't just deny something right away unless you collect absolutely all of the facts and all of the information you can, you can't just say, that's unbuildable and walk away from it. It's unfair to the applicant. CARL VAIL: The length of the process should not guarantee the outcome of the permit either. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely not. But, in the process of trying to find out all of the facts, you also wear out the applicant because you say we're going to come back next month and you have to move the house over, and then you say well no, it wasn't staked. So now, we're going to wait another month to stake the house so we can see it in the field. CARL VAIL: This property has been empty for since, forever. The reasons that I brought up to you gentlemen are part of the reasons why. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we're just trying to point out that both the applicant and the neighbor are both unhappy with the board's performance on this. It's sort of ironic. But, we're trying to do the best job we can for the Town and Yes, we're wearing out the applicant, but we if we don't try to work with it as much as we can and get all of the information we can, then we're not doing a good job. We just can't go out there one time and say, deny. Honestly, I'd like to kick it to the Health Dept. because the problem is the septic system, that it is that close, and I'd rather see the Health Dept. act of the septic system. We don't normally have the septic system in our jurisdiction. I'd rather see them...with a letter from us they will act it. Normally they don't want to look at an application without our approval. But, with a letter from us, they will act on it without our approval. Whether they approve it or deny it is what they do. They will at least act on it. That's what I'd rather do. This is as far as we can go in our review process. DAVID OLSEN: You want us to go to the Health Dept. and then back here again? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right. Although to come back to us again would be with a final, I don't think the house would move, it would just be the location of the septic system that's in question. The well and the septic system. Does anyone else feel this way. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've never approved a buildable plot with a septic within our jurisdiction. I probably won't make any exceptions. CARL VAIL: What exactly is your jurisdiction? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 75' from the wetlands edge. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you think, Henry? TRUSTEE SMITH: That's fine with me. 11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Ok. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, it depends what the Health Dept. says. Maybe they want to change everything around completely and have less of an impact. Any other comments? MRS. VAIL: So that means that you have not reached a decision. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have not approved it and we have not disapproved it. We've done this in the past, rarely in the past, not even once a year, but there are cases where, because of the wetlands, and the size of the property, the septic system falls within our jurisdiction. We'd rather defer to the Health Dept. who handles the placement of the well and the septic system because that's what they do. They normally won't entertain an application without our permission but if we ask them to process this application, they will, without our permit. MRS. VAIL: So if you had denied the permit, then they couldn't go to the Health Dept.? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know. I guess you could still go to the Health Dept. because it depends on what we deny it is based on. We hate to hold it up for months and to keep looking at it and going back, we've been out 4 or 5 times, but we try to be exhausted at least and try to see what's out there and not just make a quick decision. Do I have a motion to Table the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Lauren, could you write the Health Dept. a letter tomorrow asking them to process the application. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DOUGLAS & CAROL ANN RYAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 200' fixed timber walkway, a 3'X 14' ramp and a 6'X 20' float. Located: 3710 Beebe Dr., Southold. SCTM#103-9-2 POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST PATRICIA MOORE: If you could just put on the record the observations in the field so that I know that I make sure that what you told me that from the water's edge, 56' out is what you would prefer to see. That may create a problem for us with the DEC as you know, because of the seasonal dock that they're imposing. One idea that we had is a possible mooring so that he can access, until the DEC resolves the issue of the seasonal dock. The possibility of some kind of mooring, a temporary mooring, until the dock length can be resolved. That may be an alternative until the DEC issue... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we spoke to Mr. Ryan in the field. I guess we should just open up the hearing. LAUREN STANDISH: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't have the file because it was postponed. Alright, we won't open up the hearing. We met with Mr. Ryan and we spent a lot of time with Mr. Ryan which wasn't a problem but as far as the DEC goes, they just approved a dock and in less than 4' of water at the end of Little Neck Rd. PATRICIA MOORE: That was in error. The DEC regional (can't hear) said that apparently that was in error. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: May be they'll make an error with Mr. Ryan also. PATRICIA MOORE: We're considering different options. Mrs. Ryan has been talking to me because Mr. Ryan wasn't available and I wanted them to think about it before you decided. 12 10. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's also another alternative then. We could give him a shorter catwalk and he could just have, if he wanted to have some access, for a small boat or kayak or canoe, at the end. And then as it progresses, it could be added on to, once it's all resolved. PATRICIA MOORE: Mr. Ryan is very frustrated and he's a contract-vendee so if you buy a very expensive waterfront lot (can't hear). We're looking to present this in September but I wanted you to be aware of this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well please call Lauren and find out about the availability of moorings in East Creek. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of THOMAS & ROBY GLUCKMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock, consisting of a 4'X 98' fixed catwalk; 3'X 14' ramp; and 6'X 20' float to be secured by two (2) 8" diameter pilings. Located: 1350 West Cove Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-5-2 POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would comment briefly. PATRICIA MOORE: We're going to bring in our experts for the next meeting TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? We requested that the project be staked at it wasn't and that was (tape changed) PATRICIA MOORE: It was identical to the neighboring dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it's not at all. That's why we requested that it be staked. But, there's no point in us going out again until it's staked. I'll put it that way. PATRICIA MOORE: Well if Bob Foss is out there measuring, I'll have him stake it too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, if it's not staked by next month, please let us know so we don't go out there again. PATRICIA MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I personally walked out there in waders two years ago. PATRICIA MOORE: Well I'm going to rely on my experts. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to Table the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES James V. DeLucca, R.A. on behalf of ALFONSO ROMANO requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to rebuild existing wood deck that has been removed and add new wood piles for deck and stair area next to and behind existing wood piles. Rebuild dwelling on existing piles and deck. Located: 1380 Leeton Dr., Southold. SCTM#58-2- 2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? JAMES DELUCCA: I'm the architect of the job. Basically, this project was started in good faith. We did have a building permit, I don't know if you checked but there was a building permit, and it did show the reconfiguration of the house on the existing deck and pilings but that's history right now because most of the house is gone. We provided you with pictures of before and after. We do have a DEC approval for adding piles on the deck that was removed and is going to replaced in the same configuration and the same size. Actually the decks that are being replaced are smaller than originally are on the 13 property. We reduced the size of the decks from the existing survey. The decks ran all the way along the side of the dwelling and also there were a set of stairs right next to or adjacent to the existing deck. What we did is we shortened those stairs up slightly and we did actually remove some of the deck that was on the easterly side of the dwelling. What we're asking you is to rebuild the house on the same envelope that's existing. We're not asking for any extension of the envelope. We just want to rebuild it on the same area. The only difference between the existing piles is that we want to add several more piles next to the existing piles for support, and we want to add several small piles for the deck. The deck stairs actually. All the other additions will remain exactly the same. They have not been changed. The envelope is actually remaining the same as the building permit was granted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this? Does the Board have any comment? The survey you just handed us, it shows the pilings on the seaward side of the house, there's going to be a deck there right? JAMES DELUCCA: The deck on the seaward is going to be the same deck that was there. We're just going to replace it. The problem with the deck was that when it was originally constructed, there were actually seven floor beams, and as you know on a 22 foot stairs, it's really inadequate. So, basically what we wanted to do is replace it with the proper construction. One of the reasons why we went to the extent that we did is that according to the New York State Building Code, if you add or change at least 50% of the dwelling, the whole dwelling must meet the building code. So, in the spirit of doing that, that's how the drawings were complete and that's how the building permit was originally issued. Everything was on there. We didn't try to hide anything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any other comment? Is there a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to Approve as per plan. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 11. J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq. on behalf of TIMOTHY & NANCY HILL requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'X 45' catwalk, a 3'X 12' and a 6'X 20' float with 2 piles. Located: 360 Oak Ave., Southold. SCTM#77-2-2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? J. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN: Last month when we were here there was some discussion regarding the ownership interest of the Hills. This is in Goose Bay Estates and the original subdivision map back in the 1930's showed the lots that face Goose Creek and then basically a strip of land running between them and the creek itself and there was a letter that was delivered to this Board when the application was originally submitted by a neighbor indicating that we did not own that area between the filed map line and the high water mark of Goose Creek. Subsequent to the last meeting, I met with Mr. Yakaboski and went over all of the deeds with him, he requested that I obtain some type of verification from a title company that in fact we do own that strip of land. I have provided that to him and to this Board and I'm hoping that we can put this aside and move on to the actual dock application itself. Clearly, all of the deeds into the original 14 subdivider, out of the subdivider and subsequent deeds all in chain language that clearly include not only the filed map but that land lying between the designated filed lot and the highwater mark of Goose Creek. We're basically looking to be able to move on with this application and have the Board look at the dock itself and whether or not acceptable under the Board's standards. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we would like to see then, to proceed with this, is we would like to see for our next field inspection, which the date was set for September 13th, we would like to see the end of the proposed structure staked out in the water for us so that we can have a reference point to review it in the field. The beginning and the end. One stake on each end would be sufficient. We would also like to see water depths every 10' another 60' beyond the end of the proposed structure. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: At low water. J. KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment on this application? Do I have a motion to Table this. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRSUTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 12. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of EDNA RICHARDS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock, consisting ofa 4'X 58' fixed catwalk elev. 3.5' above marsh, a 3'X 14' ramp and a 6'X 20' float secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings. Construct 4'X 2' steps landward of existing stone wall to access elevated catwalk. Located: 2300 Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-1-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: The Board is certainly familiar with this project. We have been working on this since January, have met out there several times and at last month's meeting, we were ever so close to a resolution. The dock had been proposed to the southwest of that framed garage or boat house, if you will, nearly 130' from the Oiested property line. In order to get out of the channel as we discussed, we met out there with the Board of course, and had taken water depth readings along the property line, and had come in with a proposal last month and Tabled it again because of the concern of the dock that approved for Oiested, possibly the two docks interfering with each other. I had faxed to your office, at your request, a drawing that showed both properties, the dock as it was approved for Oiested and the proposed Richards dock as we discussed last time, at the same scale. That brought up some other issues, one which would have been to have to tamper with the Oiested approval which I could not certainly do on my own, and also the fact that the Richards did not want to feel that they were encroaching on the Oiested riparian area. Although this Board, we've discussed how your perception of riparian rights extends off the shoreline, the DEC and Dept. of State and Corps. tend to view a straight extension. So, as I had mentioned in the fax that I had sent over, this did not push the envelope of creativity, but certainly I think it might resolve all of the concerns if we take the dock and rather pushing it 130' all the way to the northeast, that we push it short of that by about 20' and if we position the float to be an "L" shape dock, the entire structure would be within the perceived riparian rights area. The dock would be 75' or more away from Oiested even if they constructed it on an angle, which I don't think they 15 would but even if they did, the two docks would not interfere and we're still more than 70' to the northeast toward Oiested from where the original dock was proposed, where Kenny had voiced strong concerns about being in the channel. So, I think that this might resolve all of the issues. We should be out of the channel. I would expect the water depths 20' over to be approx, the same to where we looked at over in that area. Out of that channel, I think the two docks would no longer potentially interfere and at least that would also get me off the hook of having to approach the Oiesteds again and asking if they want to revisit these applications when they try to sell the property. Does that look like it will work? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, no problem. ROB HERRMANN: I don't believe it. Speaking of fact gathering process, thank you for your patience and cooperation on this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion we Approve the application as re-submitted with revised plans. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 13. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of PETER & BARBARA SWAHN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct (within 18")+/-103' of existing timber bulkhead; remove +/-65' of failing timber retaining wall; and backfill with approx. 75 cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Remove and replace (inkind/inplace) (3) low-profile timber groins (58'; 39'; 75'); construct 4'X 5' steps to beach; and reconstruct as necessary timber stairs landward of bulkhead. New 64' and 12' sections of bulkhead to be reconstructed +/-2.6" higher than existing to meet existing elevation of 27' section. Located: 2100 Park Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#123-8-8.1&8.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: In the interest of time, I may be able to move this application forward. I understand from Peter Swahn that the Board had been to the site and had made certain recommendations with regard to the reconstruction of the bulkhead, as well as the reconstruction of the groins. I'll share with you what I know and see if it meets your satisfaction and if not we can go further but I have had the opportunity to speak also with Chris Arfsten of the DEC about your recommendations which, ifI had stated them correctly with you, he was in agreement with. Rather than reconstructing the bulkhead in it's staggered pattern as it is now, we would tie straight across from point to point in more of a sure diagonal position. Also, as far as the groins, there are two groins there that are very close together, which is sort of a classic pattern on Great Peconic Bay where every single lot was groined at one point and the two lots owned by the Swahns now, they were once, that narrow section, was once a separate lot. The groin extends across onto, or across Mrs. Knoll's beachfront and she has given us permission to reconstruct it but I believe it was the Board's position and I believe it will develop into DEC's positions that while the two other groins, the one of the west, and the 45' groin can be reconstructed, that perhaps that the one that crosses the property line should be removed as part of the project. Chris Arfsten tended to agree with the Board's position and the Swahns did not 16 have a problem with that modification. So, if it's the Board's pleasure, I can give you a revised plan that would meet those specs if you could give us an approval and let us sort of keep moving on this evening. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, it really struck us when we went out there that it would be a lot better for everyone if it was one straight line. ROB HERRMANN: I don't disagree with the comments. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My only concern here then is keeping the groins in a low-profile. ROB HERRMANN: Yes, well that would be standard operating procedure with reconstructing groins in the Town consistent with what the DEC asked for. I think we had gotten, well it should be indicated on the plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not making heads or tails with it. The problem with the plan is that it doesn't show existing... ROB HERRMANN: The section through the proposed groins would mirror the same profile that's there now. It would be my conception that those are basically low-profile groins that are there now and we would replace in the exact same fashion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't have a problem with that, we just want to make sure that they stay in the same.., because sometimes they grow. When you give us the re-done plans, give us the measurement on the westerly side... ROB HERRMANN: Can I see a copy of the plan that you have? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This shows the proposed but this is 2 iA' higher. There is no reference point here. Give us an elevation and the distance and I think we should be okay. And, keep both the same distance of the top because that bulkhead is going to match the neighbors to the west. ROB HERRMANN: Right, the height of the new bulkhead would match the same height from either direction. I can add that. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve the revised plan. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 14. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of STRONG' S MARINE, INC. requests a Wetlandn Permit to remove and replace (in-place) +/-268 linear ft. of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl sheathing. Dredge by clamshall bucket crane up to 20' off bulkhead to a maximum depth of-4.6" ALW. Approx. 150 cy. of resultant spoil will be placed on the property of William Tufano. Approx. 200 cy. of clean sand will be trucked in from an upland source and used as backfill. Located: Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#122-9-6.2&122-4- 44.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: It should be a fairly straight-forward application. It's for replacing the existing bulkhead at the marina and also basically for navigational maintenance dredging off those bulkheads. Jeff Strong is also here is the Board has any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Okay, we looked at the site as far as the bulkheading and the maintenance dredging goes, it is very straight forward. I see the CAC had a ...they voted to Disapprove it because of the spoil site being within the wetland boundary. We had a major problem with the spoil site and we're trying to find 17 out the limits of Strong' s property and the limits of Mr. Tufano' s property. It' s kind of hard to define there. Where does your property start and end and where does his property start and end? JEFF STRONG: There are stakes outlining it. I can show you on the survey just to give you a little bit of direction. This is the whole blue-stone area that's right behind the docks, so basically it' s just as this is shown. The blue-stone is very close to right on the edge of my property line. So, this scale is exactly accurate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But this was all filled. JEFF STRONG: These are all building lots in here now, so it's not wetland area or anything like that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the problem we had through was along this edge where the material was pushed in 2' to 3' in depth along this edge and wetland indicators have been pushed over. One area was clear-cut right to the creek. We started up here and you can see the clear-cut. It was all just filled. There are pieces of asphalt there. It's fairly recently filled. JEFF STRONG: This has been leveled out basically, not filled. TRUSTEE SMITH: The wetlands have been filled in. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Where did all of that asphalt come from? JEFF STRONG: I don't know. Obviously from some of the fill. Where, I don't exactly know. Some of this, where more than likely it came, if you look back at when this project was done, part of the need for doing this project, was the whole area caving in and that had been paved at one time and it's not paved now, so probably some of that residual of that paving is what you're seeing now, I would imagine. I know what you mean, because we tried to clean out as much of it as we could but there is still definitely some chunks in there. What we're talking about for this is everything inland. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What you're going to have to do to show us this is to cut a section here. JEFF STRONG: At the very end here there is a pipe. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No I mean cut through here so we actually see it. Cut a path. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Where you're going to dump the fill, maybe cut a box. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can't see anything. We want a path cut through there so we can see where the spoils going to be. It's pointless to walk in there because you're up against the phragmites. You can't see anything anyway. JEFF STRONG: So you want me to cut a path through the phragmites. ROB HERRMANN: Basically a walking path. JEFF STRONG: As an alternative to that, we could put in stakes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we wouldn't be able to see anything. If you go through with a bush-hog and then we could walk in and there and see what' s there. It' s like a jungle. ROB HERRMAN: It's the same thing the DEC is going to ask for. They're going to want to see the site and see the actual spoil site staked. TRUSTEE SMITH: What about that wetland filling in there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, we had a problem with pushing out the wetland. We want to see some of that spoil removed. JEFF STRONG: Isn't that this contour right here? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yeah but that was freshly filled. 18 JEFF STRONG: This burm has always been there. Those flags aren't wetland flags. Those are flags he put in. TRUSTEE SMITH: Well it was recently filled in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't see any flags. ROB HERRMANN: I had flagged the edge of wetlands in this area at some point and there is all boats and trailers and it's basically just... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's right at the edge of the trailers but it was all just pushed in and you can see bacharas that was pushed over in that area. We want to see it pulled back. (changed tape) There's quite an elevation drop between where the trailers are parked and the wetlands. JEFF STRONG: It always has been. If you go back and look at the County map, this whole area was a dike. That's not new. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have you been down there lately? ROB HERRMANN: I was there about 6 weeks ago and there was nothing that looked new to me. JEFF STRONG: I know what your talking about. This has been leveled out but not pushed back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because, it looks like it's freshly pushed out and we all know, we've seen earth move. You can see the vegetation is still pushed over. JEFF STRONG: Isn't it a line consistent with this whole line? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't see that and plus it's all pushed in here. It's all clear- cut. TRUSTEE SMITH: The wetland fringe has been completely destroyed right there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well take a look at it next month again and well meet you out there. Please have this spoil site cut out so we can walk through. ROB HERRMANN: I'll be out there too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do need something from Mr. Tufano. ROB HERRMANN: There was a letter submitted to your attention. I'll fax it over again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 15. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LESTER PECK c/o GEORGE PECK, P.O.A. requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a +/-145' timber retaining wall with a 16' westerly return, and truck in approx. 100 cy. of clean sand to be used as backfill and planted with Cape American beach grass (1' on center). Easterly terminus of retaining wall to be tied into face of proposed retaining wall to east approved for James & Liliana Mihalios pursuant to NYSDEC permit. Located: 782 Bailie Beach Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#99-3-5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone like to speak on behalf of the application? ROB HERRMANN: I would just like to defer the Board's attention also to the next hearing which is a continuation for James & Liliana Mihalios so I don't know if you want to have two hearings at the same time? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I think we'll just refer back and forth. ROB HERRMANN: Yeah, it's one project so we're going to speak to you at it that way. Judge Peck would like to make some opening comments to address the Board. 19 JUDGE PECK: I guess it was about 1951 when we first bought that property and I've seen a lot of storms and I've seen a lot of damage but somehow or other the beaches have always replenished themselves and the cliffs did not erode that much. I never thought I would be here asking you for a bulkhead permit. A few things have happened over the last few years is that make this applicant, in my judgement, a necessity. One, as a result of the jetty sand project, we are continuously losing beach. I remember not too long ago we used to be able to play softball on the beach. Now, we can't do that anymore. We have a Southold Shores Assoc. that's been in active in trying to get the federal government to put some kind of sand bypass project through. We had a meeting and Supervisor Cochran attended it about three weeks ago with one of the members, and the purpose of this, ladies and gentlemen, was to say that even if we are very, very, successful, I was informed by someone from the Town, and the name escapes me, said that if we're lucky, we're not going to get one yard of sand for five years. TRUSTEE SMITH: Jim McMahon? JUDGE PECK: Yes. That situation plus our neighbor's construction project, to me, is creating a real hazard. In high tide, the water comes almost up to the base of the bluff. There is a few feet there but on certainly on high tide in storms it comes up to the base of the bluff. Recently, as a result, in my judgement of my neighbor's construction project. In the Spring, a whole section of bluff just washed down and it is creating a curvature that is halfway on our property and halfway on his. It's not only effecting property rights, more importantly, in my judgement, it is a real danger. Every once in a while, I have to take kids off of that bluff. But especially on that portion of the property which borders my neighbor and me for about 30' there's nothing but sheer vertical, 90 degree angle bluff. Someone could get killed there, especially a kid if they climb the bluff and they certainly do. I don't know how to fix it but other people do and they told me that you have to reconstruct the cliff. Now, by way of history, after we've had that bad storm, I guess it was in April, I called Mr. Forrester and complained about my neighbor. I don't want to speak for him but the jist of what I got from him was that in order for my neighbor to get a certificate of occupancy, he was going to require some type of cliff stabilization. I hope that is a requirement now but after that, although we started off rather acrimoniously, my neighbor and I have settled our differences and we are now in rhyme with this complete project and he has agreed, man to man, to stabilize the cliff once the bulkheading is in. Personally, I don't know how you're going to stabilize the cliff from the top down. It seems to me you would have to stabilize it from the bottom up. On the survey, if you see, we're talking about roughly 150' of area that in my judgement needs to be bulkheaded, because you'll see it turned in, it is a curvature, that portion of the property is fully vegetated and also has beach grass on it, I don't think the situation is critical at that particular time. I know my neighbors Gary and Lucy Cutler are here and they are going to speak against the project and I respect them for it because about two or three months ago, when we were first talking about this, I asked Gary if he wanted to come in on this project with me. He said to me that in his lifetime he thinks that his property will be safe. After what I've seen recently and after the meeting I attended a couple of weeks ago with Jim McMahon and the representatives of the State and the County, he' s going to live a very short life because I think in about three or four years he is going to have a problem also and he may be coming to you and asking you for the same relief that he is asking you to deny me. I do respect him for it. I think the 20 matter is urgent. I hope you consider it an urgency. I hope that these comments I have made will also carry over on the record to the Mihalios application because ! am in full favor of it and it's something ! wish ! never had to do, but these two circumstances forced me into asking you to give us this relief and ! hope you act on it favorably. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. To answer some of your comments, we met with the Army Corp. of Engineers when they re-built the jetty, three or four years ago or maybe five years ago when they re-built one side. They're very unresponsive when it comes to local concerns. We had a number of local concerns and sand-bypassing certainly was one of them but they have their own agenda, they come out, but why they bother to come out, ! don't know. It's frustrating with us also. Your other problem there is your neighbor and what he has done with his property. He originally applied for a permit in January. He doesn't own the sound frontage as you do, in the park and recreation area in front. It's not the policy of this Board to grant structures on someone else's property and initially that held it up. Trustee King and ! visited the site in the Spring after some heavy rains when the concrete retaining wall was being built and the property was de-vegetated. Mr. Mihalios was here at the next meeting and we told him that he was going to have a serious problem, the bluff is vegetated now, you're going to lose your bluff, you've created a problem for yourself, you have to fix it and you can't let it get worse. Apparently nothing was done. We visited the site last Wednesday and he's created an incredible mess for himself and for you. You see where the sand has washed down, there's a brand new sand delta out on the beach, it's a real mess there. His application is on next. We're not going to approve any structure for him until he resolves his upland, because there' s no point in putting anything on the beach if he' s just going to continuously blow his bluff out from the top. He's got to, whether it's a small bluff or a big bluff like this, you've got to resolve your water problem from the top. Most of the time people want to harden the toe of the bluff because of storm events. In this case, the bluff is eroding from the top and he's got to resolve that first. JUDGE PECK: How would he do that? I'm no engineer but how would he do that unless he starts with the bulkhead? TRUSTEE KING: He's going to have to put enough drywells in to contain his run-off particularly along that concrete wall that he built. That water is all coming down, hitting that wall, accelerating down and blowing right off that bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We told him that this Spring that this was going to happen. JUDGE PECK: I'm my judgement he's certainly willing to do it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This would solve a lot of your problem because that water is hurting you also, it's blowing out your side of the bluff also. So, if that water doesn't pour over the bluff, it's not going to erode your side any more either. He's got to contain his water and recharge it into the ground. When that property was completely vegetated, there was no great flow of water coming onto your property, was there? JUDGE PECK: No, there wasn't. It basically merely started with the construction project but it would seem to me, and I'm no engineer, that we're dealing with a semi- circle, half of which is on my property, half of which is on the association's property. The retaining wall would cover both of these arcs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we don't stop the water from coming down, that sand will flow right over that retaining wall right onto the beach again. ROB HERRMANN: Judge, can you let me... 21 JUDGE PECK: I don't know whether or not that addresses the liability issue or not. ROB HERRMANN: Al, ! would like to respond a little bit to a couple of the comments, and again looking at this project as a whole. Let's accept the legitimacy of all of the comments that were made. There was a problem that was created through the development of a lot and it's one that needs to be corrected. If the problem didn't exist, the two applicants wouldn't be before the Board. What ! would like to suggest and Judge Peck really articulated very well, and we've been through this before, when ! discussed this with Tom Samuels and both clients, the Corso job came to mind because we went through this very similar conversation, well about six years ago now, about 1994 when Corso originally came in, and what was then the soil conservation service got involved and we went through this very similar conversation where there were concerns about the fact that whenever you have the erosion of a bluff like this, you can get it from two different ways. You can get it from wave scour at the toe of the bluff and/or from run-off from the top. Sometimes with the clay bluffs in Mattituck, we see the water coming right through. But, here ! think it's pretty clear that you're getting it from both directions. What the soil conservation service has pointed out, even if your problem is coming from the top of the bluff, let's say it was coming from the top of the bluff only, once the bluff becomes de-stabilized and the angle of repose becomes sheer or vertical as Judge Peck described, you have to stabilize it from the toe up. What ! think the Mihalios' would have to do here is maybe as an inster-remedy to mitigate the problem would be to install a great number of drywells in very specific locations other than just what you would consider liter and gutter drywells for a house, but to try to contain this water. Given the condition of the bluff as it exists now, how the problem was caused and what we can do out it is neither here nor there, we have to resolve it. He's going to have to terrace that area. ! would say certainly doing some addition and re-vegetation of that bluff is one obvious and traditional method. It is typically done the way the Corso's did it through plantings by the sea where they stabilized the toe and then began to terrace down. The problem is he can install the drywells and say ok, well now I'm curving the amount of water that's coming down, but once he goes to re-vegetate the terrace, you really can't do that until you put the retaining wall at the toe to stabilize the bluff. These are both sort of shoddy pictures which ! apologize for. They are actually the Corso site and one was taken April of 1994 before the job was done and the other, if you recall when we revisited Corso just a couple of years ago, it's just a scanned photo, but just to see the difference in the bluff, from 1994 to 1998. The way that we were able to accomplish this was by actually putting, taking this area here, and placing the retaining wall along the toe, and Peter Sterling, if you remember, terraced the whole way up, and now you've got a bluff that looks like this. What the overall plan was here was to do the same thing. ! don't we can separate the two projects and ! think it would be dangerous to say well, let's give Judge Peck an approval to do this but the Mihalios' need to wait until they correct the problem. ! think the solution has to encompass both properties and ! don't think the Mihalios' nor the Pecks would have any objection to stipulating right into the permits conditions of mitigation, whether it be pre-construction installation of drywells to stop the excessive run-off and then as part of the approval rather than just constructing a retaining wall, that it be approved the same way Corso was or the way many of these projects are approved by this Board which is to say that as part of the project, once the retaining wall is constructed, the bluff is terraced and it's vegetated. The problem is that 22 just controlling that run-off all by itself, and saying to Judge Peck that he go forward, I don't think solves the problem. I think this project is one and what it runs the risk of is that if Judge Peck were to go out and construct his bulkhead, Tom Samuels of Rambo would have to go out and construct a return and really what should be done here is the bases should be tied in. As you can see from the proposal, as you get further west and you get to the western portion of Peck's property and over to the Cutler property, the bluff does look very, very different. There may very well be beach loss due to the Mattituck jetties, but that's a separate issue. It may be an unfortunate issue and it may have to do with beach loss with the Cutler, Peck and Mihalios and whathaveyou, but it really has nothing to do with this project. It's not go to improve or degrade whatever beach situation, he's updrift of this loft and that's why the Cutler's are probably losing beach as well as Peck if they're losing the sand that would otherwise would've been transported literally from west to east. So, what I would ask the Board to do is certainly if we could take the opportunity tonight, as the DEC has issued its' permit to the Mihalios' and I undertsand from a conversation with the DEC that they are prepared to promptly issue Judge Peck's permit as well as they would like to see the project done as a whole. So, what I would ask the Board tonight is certainly to continue to treat it as a whole, be aware of the fact that would not construct a wall all the way to the Cutler property but basically stop at that location that would need it and angle the return if the Board feels that armoring a return would be appropriate, I would think that a part of it would be buried at the bottom, but Tom Samuels could certainly address that. I would say to make every effort to treat it as a whole and stipulate right into the permit what Mr. Mihalios needs to accomplish as part of the mitigation and condition it right into the permit even if the Board has to inspect the installation of the drywells before construction can commence. I think the Mihalios' would be willing to do that and I think that if Judge Peck and Mihalios' have managed to come together, sort of go above their differences here, that the Board should afford them the opportunity to continue to try to cooperate and resolve the problem, however it was started. That would be the extend of my comments. Thank you. TRUSTEE SMITH: I think 90% of the problem is the water run-off on the top of the bluff. I've got no problem with granting the bulkheads but that water problem has to be addressed. ROB HERRMANN: I can make it part of the plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The problem is Rob, it's not just saying, okay we need a couple of drywells. Corso is different because he didn't have the water pouring over the bluff. It was a classic sound bluff that went up. This lot is very unusual for the sound. ROB HERRMANN: I was just using Corso to illustrate the concept of stabilizing from the bottom, up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we disagree with that. In this case, with what Judge Peck said about that one area that was sheared, we noticed that, it is a dangerous situation, but I would imagine that some of that bluff would have to be cut back in order to stabilize it. What we're going to need from Mihalios isn't that simple and we would have to have it reviewed by the Town Engineer to make sure that it's going to be sufficient to contain his run-off from his property. That's the big issue there. It would be a substantial re-grading of the upland, re-grading of the bluff, and then some sort of drywell system to recharge all of that water. 23 ROB HERRMANN: The only element, just from a regulation perspective, and you can tell me how to resolve that, is that the area that's landward of the bluff is actually out of your jurisdiction. I realize those activities are affecting your jurisdiction but how do we work that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Very easily because what we said to Mr. Mihalios months ago has happened and that he did blow out the bluff but all of his material and water washed onto the beach and there's a huge sand delta on the beach and that has washed his problem upland into our jurisdiction so that becomes our jurisdiction at that point. So, I think it's not that big a stretch for us to say, you have to solve your run-off problem. ROB HERRMANN: No, I wasn't questioning your authority but I was questioning the logistics. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No I know what you're saying. I think that would cover it. I think that legitimizes our demands on Mr. Mihalios. He was incapable of doing it himself so it has to be forced upon him to control his run-off. JUDGE PECK: One further thing. There has been a substantial improvement in the run- off since he did put in the drywells he did put in. Whether or not that will continue in the winter and the spring rains, I have no idea. But, there has been some improvement. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we would have to have an engineer take a look at them to make sure that they would be adequate and we're not going to come back in a year and say well, we have a big gully forming again after bluff reconstruction planting that this is again a problem. TOM SAMUELS: I've talked a great length with Mr. Mihalios and Judge Peck and they are in agreement and there are solutions and those solutions could be the conditions of the permit be met. If those conditions were not met, then they would be in violation. Mihalios' definitely intend to correct the problem. But, if in fact the toe is not protected, then anything they do on the bluff itself will be worthless because we all know that you have to start at the bottom and work your way up. Recontour the top and regrade the top, that can all be done. There is no mystery to it. From the Goldschmidt's house all the way up to the fire station, they built a number of bulkheads, some of which had, in at least three incidences, gullies like we're talking about here, that have been created, were actually vegetated on, and they had to be filled at considerable expense and effort, but it can be done and should be done. Just re-contouring the top of the hill and re-contouring the face of the bluff will help in a great many ways. It's not rocket-science and Artie might be able to define how much you can do with a good machine operator on the top of that bluff. We did it for the doctor that lives at the end of Bailies Beach Rd., if you recall, he had 600' of property there and we re-contoured the entire top of that bluff. That had considerable run-off. That was a very successful project. The Goldschmidt bulkhead we built 30 years ago. It was remarkable effective. When we went to extend the return after the perfect storm and the 1992 storm, we had to actually angle the return back into Mr. Goldschmidt's property in order to avoid him encroaching on the other property. But, the Goldschmidt's bulkhead has been there a long time and there is a doctor between there...there's no question that since the west jetty was reconstructed that there is less by- pass of sand through the inlet itself. The Corp. is real happy that the shoaling problem is not what it was before. That west jetty is no impervious to by-pass. There is no appropriation available and has not appropriated any money for dredging that shoal at the outside edge of Mattituck Inlet. We're aware of that, we talked about it when we built it, 24 Jimmy King and others were running aground there with full boats. I don't know whether it's still a problem. But, until there is sufficient public interest in dredging that channel, I think most of the pleasure boats probably don't have a problem. But, it's the commercial fisherman and there's a potential for a problem there for somebody getting hurt. But, whether they're going to do it or not, I don't know. The reason I bring this all up is that there is no question that this area of the people that are here are interested in this problem are in the shadow of that jetty and that little drift is being thrown way off shore and doesn't come back in until well past the fire station. That's not something that can easily rectified. How long have they been talking about Goldsmith's Inlet? At least 25 years. So, I would request that you appreciate that the Peck property and the Mihalios property are one that something must be done but I think it really has to start at the bottom and then re-contour the top, harden some sand, get rid of that right angle portion there, and terrace it. It'll work, along with the other things that have to be done, and Mr. Mihalios, who I've spoken with on many occasions, is willing to do all of that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just a question, what is he waiting for. ROB HERRMANN: He can't do all of that without a permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Upland. TRUSTEE SMITH: He can contain his water without a permit. TOM SAMUELS: I don't know that much about run-off of rain, but if you talk to an engineer, which I've done on three or four occasions, about potential rainfall and how they calculate the number inches of rain and so on and so forth, and as a matter of fact they're doing that on my property and my partners property in Southampton right now, maximum rainfall in a twelve hour period or a twenty-four hour period, or on the frequency or five to ten years. It's a big deal. It's not that easy. That's why I'm saying that in addition to whatever more drywells might be worthwhile whether they're going to run-off fast enough in a winter storm without re-contouring that bluff, which can't be done unless the bulkhead is done, is conjectural at best. I doubt very much that you'll get a PE that will warrant that any amount of structure...well it's just like down by the motel at the end of Deep Hole Rd. How would you retain the amount of run-off that comes down that road? I mean, it's a problem throughout the town and all the road endings. Most of your things are involved. That's why it's difficult, Al. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, this wasn't a problem until 6 months ago. So, you both say we need a comprehensive plan to manage the run-off and then terrace and then protect the toe. It's one plan and we should have that. Not just say, we're going to protect the toe today and oh yeah, we'll get to the rest. That's what we should have in the file. That's what the application should say, we're going to do this and this. We need a comprehensive plan and that's what we want to see. We don't want to see just the toe protection. TOM SAMUELS: I understand what you're saying but I think you will also appreciate that it's in Mr. Mihalios' best interest, Judge Peck's best interest to solve this problem. They don't want to endlessly have it. The situation is such that this plan can be developed. I don't see that unless you just mistrust everybody involved, that they're going, in their own best interest, not as a requirement. This is not going to be inexpensive but they're willing to do it. Another winter, another noreaster, another bunch of toe scour is just going to exasperate the problem more and more. 25 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No question about it but I think we want to see the whole package. ROB HERRMANN: ! think we're all sort of on the same page that there should be a plan to stabilize the toe, terrace and plant the face, re-contour the crest, and ! absolutely agree. What I'm just looking for to get is, if the Board could say we're willing to issue this permit, you can't have it yet, but we'll issue the permit based on an approved plan under whatever conditions you want. The thing is, we're going to have every permit for each applicant and it's going to be contingent upon getting a plan that will satisfy you, which is fine. So, all I'm asking is, is there any way, do you only feel comfortable saying, well we'll Table it, submit the plan, and we'll look at it and well do this again next month, or would you be willing to say, we would approve it conditioned upon receipt of an acceptable plan such that if that plan and we would get an engineer involved and came back to you and the Board could look at it in two and a half weeks, so that the two of them could get the project going. Although ! understand your perspective, it doesn't do any good to tell Judge Peck to go ahead because he's got to wait for Mihalios because they both have to do this together. That's all I'm asking you. If we come back with a plan, and you say what is this piece of garage, then no permit. That's all I'm asking. JUDGE PECK: ! don't see how my project can go ahead without Mihalios' project because ! don't know where you would put the return. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no. It's not so much we want yours to proceed without your neighbors'. We want the whole package. The water coming off the upland, we want all of that addressed in one package, not to say, well this year we'll do this, because you won't resolve your problem. You'll have a big sand delta washing over that bulkhead on the Sound. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The first thing you have to do is take care of that water before you do anything else. You've got to stop that water because that's what caused the whole problem. JIM MIHALIOS: I'm a builder and have been for 25 years. I'm well aware of the situation and ! stand fully responsible for what is taking place. For a construction project that lasted as long as mine did, after clearing the land, (can't hear). After our last meeting, ! was given some instruction to take care of the problem. What I've done is ! hired an engineer. We had a drainage plan, which ! took to Jamie Richter several months ago. He looked at it and he asked for it to be blown-up. That is what my engineer has done and ! have the plans, small plans, it has all of the contours and it is very difficult to decipher. Mr. Richter asked me to have it blown-up. In the meantime, we've installed drywells based on my engineer's calculation and these drywells have been installed and ready during the process. They're completed, they're dug in. One catch basin has been installed on the side of...the western side of the property and this is in the process of being done. We did not go within 100' of the protected area. So, we had to address the problem. I've lost 25'. So, we did not go into the protected area. Although one of the suggestions by my engineer was to place a catch basin in that protected area. ! understand that was going to be a lengthy process and we felt that we would bring that back to within the area. So, two drywells, ! can't off-hand tell you exactly the dimensions, but they are capable of holding the water run-off including the rain water that would fall off the roof of the house. So, we have taken measures. The property is still under construction and we're working in phases. I'd be more than happy to bring 26 that blown-up plan and bring it back to Mr. Richter. So, it's not that I was incapable of doing any work. ! fully understand what the situation is. Since we're going to live there, we want to make certain that we protect our bluff, protect our neighbors, and do this thing properly and safely. As you know, the beach is partly owned by the Honeysuckle Assoc. Before we purchased the property, we realized that this needed bulkheading. So we asked them to put that in our contract and they followed through. We feel that it's a safe (changed tape) and we feel that if this is not approved rather quickly, that we will have more problems. ! would like you to give me the opportunity to present the drainage plan. Mr. Richter has looked at it but ! want to present it to him again. Hopefully together with your approval of this project, you will be able to look at this after Mr. Richter has reviewed it. This could happen very, very quickly. Again, ! stand fully responsible for this and ! want to do this thing properly. The fact of the matter is that when you have a building construction project on this size property, it has to be de-vegetated or else how can you build. The property is very difficult. You have to take the majority of the vegetation out and so we would want to finish as fast as possible so we can re-vegetate. ! would be very, very helpful it this was approved. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. That's exactly what we were looking for but there are three components. The drainage plan which you worked on which sounds fine. You've got an engineer whose doing it and that sounds fine. Where you need to re- contour the bluff, we need to see that plan. Then, of course, the retaining wall, which we want to see tucked in as tight to the toe as possible, which we didn't see when we were in the field. That's a whole another issue. ROB HERRMANN: As far as location in terms of where it is in relation to the toe, part of that toe has changed since it was originally staked. We're going sort of by two things. The stake in the field which Young & Young had done originally is actually a little confusing to me. They had put two stakes. One that was about 10' or so up the bluff and one that was 10' seaward of the toe of the bluff. The toe of the bluff is supposed to be centered in the middle of that. ! don't quite understand how they decided to go about doing that but you can see both sets of stakes in the field. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It made it a little confusing. ROB HERRMANN: What ! would say that if the Board is looking for that kind of comprehensive plan, it sounds like, ! mean what do you want to do in terms of timing of this, that you would hold off on a final decision until a full comprehensive plan is resubmitted or how do you want to... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! think we want to see this staked where the toe is. We went out there and from Mr. Mihalios' point, there were orange stakes ! think and Judge Peck had blue stakes. ROB HERRMANN: They were Yound & Young stakes. The blue stakes that were placed on Judge Peck's property, ! put, that were along what ! perceived to be the toe of the bluff in the field. The stakes that were originally placed on the Mihalios property months and months ago were placed by Young & Young and they were orange and black. JUDGE PECK: ! think the toe has changed. ROB HERRMANN: Without a doubt, it has. The retaining wall is going to go at the toe of the bluff that wherever the toe of the bluff is that day, ! mean, you have the proposed location, which is approved and everything else, but if the DEC, for example, approved a 27 location for the retaining wall and the bluff moved back 10' they would expect that the retaining wall would be shifted back to accommodate the toe of the bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have State permits for this? ROB HERRMANN: Yes. Not for the peck property as of yet, but for the Mihalios, only because Peck was more recently submitted but again, from speaking with a representative of the DEC, they were looking to turn this around for Judge Peck as soon as possible so that this project could move forward as a whole. TRUSTEE SMITH: I think everybody is on the same wave length here. Al, I think they should come in with that plan next month and we'll go from there. TRUSTEE HERRMANN: The other element to this as well, is that George Reis, who is the owner on the opposite side of Mihalios, is looking to make the same proposal. So perhaps a comprehensive that would reflect all three properties might make the most sense and come in with that in September. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, but I don't know, is that going to be as complicated as this one? ROB HERRMANN: No. I'm just making the Board aware of it because it's a point that Reis would tie in. Right now on the eastern end of Mihalios, there's a return proposed. Whereas if the construction, ifRambo constructed all three properties at the same time, then there would be no returns other than on the westerly end of Peck and on the easterly end of Reis. So, it's not to throw another complicated factor, it's just to make the Board aware of it that there's actually a third party. Reis is also part of the association, whereas Judge Peck is not and Mihalios is. So, that would just be another element that would come in and you would be effectively be looking at a plan of all three properties from those three elements that you discussed. Mihalios is the only one that would have the drainage element but I believe that all would have the element of crest shaping, terracing and the retaining wall because I know that Mr. Reis, and I had given Peter Sterling's name to him, is interested in terracing as well. So, it might make sense to coordinate all three into one plan for the Board's review and approval. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be fine with me. I think that's what the Board would like to see, a whole comprehensive plan. TRUSTEE SMITH: Go do it and come back next month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we have a problem with it. We would like to see it all in one package. ROB HERRMANN: It sounds fine to me. I don't know what the alternative is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you're waiting on the State anyway so you might as well get it all together. Don't you need to go to the State with any of this, re-facing the bluff and all? ROB HERRMANN: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well get it all together and come back next month with everything. Whether you want to include Reis or not isn't going to matter. We can act on these two separately. That will be up to you. JUDGE PECK: I firmly believe that Jim Mihalios is not going to walk away from his project. I firmly believe that he's going to do whatever he can to correct the situation. I hope that nothing happens in a month. I hope nothing happens in six weeks. I would like to get this bulkhead situation started. Mr. Samuels says he can start momentarily. As far as the State is concerned, I have a feeling that the State is going to issue a permit very, 28 very soon. Your in a bad time weather wise now and I know your concerns but I have a feeling that all of your concerns will be addressed. ! just want to get this bulkhead started because it's a dangerous situation. ROB HERRMANN: That would be my only request as stated before, if it's the Boards judgement is if approvals could be issued contingent on receipt of this plan. That would be only other way. JIM MIHALIOS: ! would like to add that we could have the blown-up plan by the end of this week and in Mr. Richter's hand by Monday or Tuesday. That's as fast as we can get it. GAlL WICKHAM: If! may address the Board on a couple of concerns that have already been raised by you and also another concern that hasn't been mentioned. I'm here representing the Cutlers who are the property owners to the west. They are concerned as you know of the impact of these proposals, both proposals, on their property. ! would like to reiterate their concerns to the Board and discuss that with you. Over the past few years, the Cutler's have spent a considerable amount of effort encouraging the stabilization of both their bluff and their beachfront. ! believe that it' s fair to say that the Peck's have done that much, much longer than that because they have been there for many years. ! have a couple of pictures if ! could submit, that show the Peck frontage. This is their eastern corner at the red flat which shows an extensive amount of beach grass. These pictures were taken recently. This photograph shows heading front onto the bluff, this shows the stairway on side is the Peck's and this is the Cutler frontage. They have stabilized the bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's very striking how stable that one area is. GAlL WICKHAM: That changed, as you know, dramatically, last year when the Mihalios project go started and this is the shot of the delta you discussed. It's really horrifying when you look at it. What ! was about to say next was really spelled out by A1 Krupski earlier. It's not only the Association's bluff, but it's also been (can't hear) that the Peck's bluff is very well planted. What were concerned about is two things. Again, the problem is not coming from the beach, the problem is coming from the top. Although there has been a lot of comments about Mihalios' intentions, this has been going on for months and if you go out, unless in the past few days he's done something, there's an awful lot out there that' s just raw land that' s draining probably today as it' s raining. ! think that now all of a sudden we get plans in two days, where has he been for the past six months. ! think we need, as the Board said, to get this addressed. The other thing that we are very concerned about, and it hasn't been mentioned, is whether the bulkheading is an appropriate approach from the bottom. We've agreed, ! think everybody, that the top has to be addressed, that the re-scaling and the re-contouring of the bluff. But, is the bulkhead the right answer to the beach at the bottom. Are there alternatives that ought to be considered. First of all, there are certain things that can be done that haven't even been discussed and second of all, and a particular concern of the Cutlers is that if that they will now be sandwiched in between the bulkhead on the west and the bulkhead on the east, this could create a scouring problem. Now when Mr. Cutler and ! went out and looked at the property, these are the things that we came up with, but we are not environmental experts so we asked Chuck Bowman to go out and ! believe you have a copy of his letter that he furnished today. He was appearing at another tonight so he couldn't be here. But, he from an environmental expert point of view, has come up with 29 the same concerns that, number one, the problem is from the top, number two, the bulkheading is not necessarily the answer, and we would like to strongly ask the Trustees, when they look at this overall plan, that finally will be presented, that they consider other alternatives to the bulkhead so that we don't have to be forced in a position that Judge Peck is now forced into, after years and years of not wanting a bulkhead, having to have a bulkhead, because they do have a stable beach. ! do think that the urgency that's been expressed tonight, while there is an urgency, the urgency primarily at the top and re- stabilization. We haven't seen any engineering plans, we haven't seen the soil erosion sedimentation plan, have any remediation specifically shown except for just talking about it, and no plans to re-direct the water flow or contain it in any way. It' s just shooting off as a result of that huge excavation and retaining wall. ! think that the matter has to be addressed so that the Association, Judge Peck and the Cutlers are not impacted. So, ! would ask the Board to look at alternatives to the bulkhead. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you just identify yourself?. GAlL WICKHAM: Yes, I'm Gail Wickham, attorney for the Cutlers. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is that letter from Chuck Bowman? GAlL WICKHAM: He said he would fax it but here's a copy. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Actually, when we looked at these applications, we do look at alternatives and we do look at everything. The last one, on the Bay, how we modified the project substantially, and that's one thing we do look at. We don't just say "yes" and "no". GAlL WICKHAM: He looked at very recently and the letter just came in today, which is why you may not have seen it. But, he suggested looking at rock revetment or some other type of work that might be able to help stabilize that part of the beach without creating a wooden structure that because of wave and other action, would cause a scouring effect on the Cutlers and the un-bulkheaded Peck property. Both the Pecks and the Cutlers have structures that are very close to the edge of that bluff so stabilization and retaining the vegetation on that bluff is critical and we can understand why Judge Peck is concerned because his eastern side is really taking a beating. But, just to come in here and say, we're going to fix it, without a plan, and that this is the only way to do it, we're concerned about that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Another other comment? GAlL WICKHAM: Mr. Cutler has some comments which, would you like to hear from him? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now is the time. MR. CUTLER: I think most of what is in this letter, which I want to present to this Board, is covered, but I'll read it anyway. I would also state that before reading it, we have a cordial and close relationships with our neighbors, the Pecks. We are very fond of them and we wish we weren't adversaries in this situation. We do believe that there are other alternatives other than bulkheads and I'll read this letter. (Reading letter submitted.) One of the recommendations I find most appealing on that report is whether them putting a hard structure retaining walls, 1-2 ton rocks or stone or boulders, would well serve that purpose at the base of the bluff. But it's been the action of one individual, so far as I can see, that has put us all where we are today. It is a beautiful and I would like it to remain that way and we would request that the application be denied. I'll submit the letter to the Board. 30 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment? ROB HERRMANN: I'll try to be brief. There are some comments that were made by the last two speakers that I have to address from a technical perspective for clarification of the record. One would be that the suggestion that the Cutler's beach or their use of the beach could somehow be impacted by the projects in front of this Board, would be to the best of my coastal erosion expertise, be impossible. The active erosion that Mr. Cutler has referred to and the speaker before, occurs through one of the mechanisms of potential beach loss by bulkheading, which would be called "active beach loss" and active beach loss occurs from an up-drift direction down-drift, and occurs with a bulkhead on an adjacent property. So, if you will for a moment, you would picture a bulkhead that is jetting out into the beach and there is an unarmored portion immediately down-drift thereof. In the direction of literal drift from up to down, there is wave retraction and reflection from around that corner that can cause what is called an erosive down-drift re- entrant, which is a very common feature that you see on the oceanfront beaches and is a very real mechanism of active beach loss. However, there's two problems with the application of that theory here. One is not only will there be no bulkhead that is on the up-drift side adjacent to the Cutlers that is not already there, because the Goldschmidts are the property that is up-drift of them. So, whatever active erosion they would incur, would be or would've been caused in the past 30 years by the Goldschmidt bulkhead. But, it's sort of leaving out a significant part of the application which is that there will still be a 100' of un-vegetated shoreline between the westerly end of the Mihalios/Peck bulkhead and the Cutler's property. So, even if Peck was up-drift of the Cutlers, his bulkhead would be impacting his own bluff but not the Cutler's because that wall is not connected to the Cutler's property and it's also down-drift of it, not up-drift. The other thing in terms of exploring alternatives, to suggest that even if we assumed that all their remarks were true, and that those are the mechanisms of beach loss that would occur from a hard structure, large 1-3 ton stone rocks are no different than a bulkhead. The only potential difference is if you have immediate wave action on the face, there is a theory that the downward reflection of the wave would somehow steepen the shorefront in front of that property worsening your erosion problem for that property. But, it has no impact on properties that are 200' or 300' away and that's the only reason that any of the agencies switched from vertical faced structures to hard structures, oh I'm sorry, from vertical faced structures such as bulkheads to rocks is that there is a presumption that the downward refection and the toe scour in front is mitigated. It's not applicable to adjacent properties. So, I hate to take the Board's any more time but I didn't want to leave here with some mis-statements from a technical perspective that were made and I did not want to leave those hanging on the record un-clarified. Thank you. TRUSTEE SMITH: I think you ought to recess it until next month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it's the Board's feeling that we want to see everything in one package and we want to see it all together from the top and re-facing the bluff, re- planting the bluff and then the retaining wall. ROB HERRMANN: And that would also include the submission of the drainage plan that Mr. Mihalios... TRUSTEE SMITH: Well that's why we're all here because of that run-off from the top. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would be happy to meet with you in the field next month as far as actual placement of the toe, and I'll make a motion to Table the hearing. 31 TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 16. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JAMES & LILIANA MIHALIOS requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a +/-77' timber retaining wall with (2) 12' angled returns and truck in from an upland source approx. 150 cy. of clean sand to be used as backfill and planted with Cape American beach grass(l' on center). Located: 640 Lloyd's Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#99-3-4.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI made a motion to Table the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 17. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of URBAN LANGUAGE COMPANY, LLC. requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct +/-180' of timber retaining wall to be constructed in conjunction with proposed Palmer retaining wall to west and tied into existing retaining wall to east; and truck in approx. 175 cy. of clean sand from an upland source to be used as backfill and planted with Cape American beach grass (1' on center). Construct 4'X 101' timber stairs and platforms for access to beach. Located: 9206 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#73-2-3.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is Rob out in the hall? I was looking for a brief comment here, Rob. ROB HERRMANN: Let me make sure I hand Lauren these two posting affidavits. This is pretty straight forward. It's another joint project between these two adjacent properties that exist now as unarmored shorelines between the Peacocks to the east and also to Lee Neuman to the west which were permits that this Board had issued years and years ago for the similar project. If the Board has any questions, I'm here and I've lost my voice. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment on this? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 18. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ROBERT & SYLVIA PALMER requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct +/-160' of timber retaining wall to be constructed in conjunction with proposed Urban Language Co. retaining wall to east and tied into existing retaining wall to west; and truck in approx. 150 cy. of clean sand from an upland source to be used as backfill and planted with Cape American beach grass (1' on center). Construct 4'X 98' timber stairs and platforms for access to beach. Located: 9204 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#73-2-3.6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: Since Lauren just changed the tape I will only say again for the record, these are the same comments made for Urban Language. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Is the Board interested in comments? Questions? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve Palmer. 32 19. 20. 21 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct on pilings a one-family, two-story dwelling, deck and swimming pool; install a pervious driveway and sanitary system, place approx. 850 cy. of sand fill; establish a 30' non- disturbance buffer adjacent to tidal wetland boundary; and connect to public water and other utilities. Located: 9326 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-5-25 POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST BOBETTE SUTER requests a Wetland Permit for a 4'X 38' dock, 3.6"X 16' ramp, 6'X 16' float and 2 pilings. Located: 855 Fisherman's Beach Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-1- 20 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or against the application? We wanted to bring this one back a little bit. We wanted it to be shortened. When it's reconstructed, which I'm sure it will be soon, it will have to be put in line with the adjacent neighbors. Would anyone like to comment on this? Do I have 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 with the condition that when it's reconstructed, this Board has to be notified and that the outward limit has to be in-line with the adjacent neighbors. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES E. BROWNELL JOHNSTON & KAREN B. JOHNSTON request a Wetland permit to construct a 4'X 68' catwalk, a 2 iA' X 12' ramp and a 6'X 20' float. Located: 4001 Wells Rd., Peconic. SCTM#86-1-9.4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? BROWNELL JOHNSTON: My wife and I are here, Karen, and if you have any questions we would be happy to respond to them. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There is a narrow channel here. I think I said we should have soundings every 10' right across. MR. JOHNSTON: We had soundings for some 75' beyond...I don't want you to think that that's what we're asking for. That's what was drawn. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Look at the penciled in one there. MR. JOHNSTON: Young & Young thought we should have 200' but we wanted something a little shorter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a drawing? MR. JOHNSTON: It's in the file. (talking) TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Where you end this penciled dock, you have 32 and then it goes to 39 on the outside of that float, and then it comes to 36, 33, and I'm sure it comes right up to 20 right here, what's the distance? MR. JOHNSTON: Those are 25' TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually there's a letter from someone apparently on the creek. As you can see, it projects approx. 77' into the creek and p/aces the floating dock in the 33 deepest part of the narrow channel that provides access to the northern remainder of the creek. At low tide the dock will significantly restrict access to the remainder of the creek and probably make it unusable for small sailboats that would now have to try to maneuver around it, is the shallow portion of the creek. Then it goes on to say it is not clear which plan is being submitted and how it would be a shame to deprive people of that opportunity to use the creek. This is from Margaret and Andrew Halman. That's what Kenny picked up on that there was an in-shore channel. NEIGHBOR: One of the problems is that the channel doesn't run through the middle and the creek at that portion. It's over on the east side so where the buoy marker is anyway, when the creek dies down, it's right dead in the middle of where the channel is, the deepest part of the channel, the whole western side from there on is very shallow. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well actually, if you look back on our agenda, number 12, Edna Richards, they applied in January, and I don't want to discourage anyone here but, we just Approved it tonight. It was for that very same reason. There was an inshore channel and we went out there how many times? We played around and finally found a place to put it. MR. JOHNSTON? Where the buoy is, I walked out there with sneakers on and put the cinder block down. It's about this deep right there, at the end of the dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we want to make sure that the dock and the boat isn't going to block that channel and make it inaccessible to your neighbors. We're going to have to go out there with waders. NEIGHBOR: We weren't allowed to put in a float. We had to put in steps. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we wouldn't let them put the float and the boat in the channel to block that. We were through this numerous times. The longest one was the most recent one, and they applied in January. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: A better alternative here might be a catwalk with a pole offshore with a pulley to the bow to the offshore pole back to your catwalk. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we're going to Table this and we'll meet you out there next month and we'll try to resolve it. MR. JOHNSTON: Whatever you're willing ...we have a Boston Whaler and a Sunfish. Whatever you think would work. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, we'll meet you out there and then we can decide on the site. It's a lot better. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you think we can work out something? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. That's not a problem but sometimes it's hard at 10:30 at night it's hard. But if we see it in the field, we can work something out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 22. SEBASTIAN & ROSEMARY AVOLESE request a Wetland Permit for a one-story addition to the existing single-family dwelling and a new wood deck along the north, south, east and west side of the existing and new addition. Located: 4150 Wunneweta Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-14-24&25 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROSEMARY AVOLESE: If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. 34 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I took a look at it. It's pretty straight forward. I don't see any problem with it. It's an existing house well away from the wetlands, 63' from the wetlands. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 23. RICHARD SANSEVERE requests a Wetland Permit for an additional cesspool to be added to property. Located: 7433 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#59-6-5.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to represent Mr. Sansevere? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Where is that cesspool going to be? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC wanted to Table it because more information was required with the location of the well on site and the location of the neighbor's well. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well if it's 75' or more... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's only 35' TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We'll have to deny it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think they have plenty of room in the back. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Deny a cesspool in that location, as submitted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The neighbor is concerned about his well, which is about 8'-10' off his property line. So, I guess we would have to get some more information from Mr. Sansevere about the neighbor's well. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 24. NICOLO DiBARTOLO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-floor addition on the same footprint, add an attached garage, and add an open porch and second-story deck. Located: 475 Condor Court, Laurel. SCTM#127-3-6.2 NICOLO DiBARTOLO: Basically as I had indicated, this application is to make the house a little bit more livable and practical and it would have no impact on the wetlands whatsoever. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommended Approval. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the Wetland Permit. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH moved to go off the Public Hearings and go back to the Regular Meeting, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES V. RESOLUTIONS: 35 Rory Klinge on behalf of FRED vonZUBEN requests a Coastal Erosion Permit for the renovation to the existing structure. Addition to roof (second-story addition) 15'X 15' octagonal reading room. New roof, siding and windows. No addition to footprint of structure. Construction ora new garage. Located: 1125 North Sea Dr., Southold. SCTM#54-4-13 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES S.E.L. Permits on behalf of ROCCO & EILEEN RESCINITI requests a Grandfather Permit to reconstruct 35 year old fixed dock and replace steps and ramp with 3'X 12' ramp. Located: 1220 Little Peconic Bay Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#111-14-18 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES Board to set scallop season. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to set the recreational scallop season on October 2, 2000 and the commercial season to start on October 16, 2000 to run through March 31,2001. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES VI. MOORINGS: STEPHEN MARONE, JR. requests to replace mooring #890 in Jockey Creek for a 21' boat. ACCESS: Private right-of-way. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 11:00 PM Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Clerk Board of Trustees