Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/19/2001Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Henry Smith Artie Fester Ken Poliwoda Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES September 19, 2001 PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President Jim King, Vice-President Henry Smith, Trustee Artie Foster, Trustee Ken Poliwoda, Trustee Charlotte Cunningham, Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING; Wednesday, October 24, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 25, 2001 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve with a correction on page 10 name change. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES. II. III. 1. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for August 2001: A check for $7,281.40 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. AMENDMENT/WAIVER/CHANGES: En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of GWYNETH KETTERER & MARY SYKES request an Amendment to Permit #5311 to allow for construct of a 58' westerly extension and 127' easterly extension of an existing rock revetment and (2) 15' returns; backfill with approximately 60 cubic yards of clean sand to be tracked in fi:om an upland source and planted with Cape ,~nerican beach grass (12" O.C.), and plant eroded secretions of bluff with Beach rose, bayberry, Virginia creeper. And transfer Permit 5311 fi:om Dorothy Abbott to Gwyneth Ketterer and Mary Sykes. Located: 1995 Ryder Farm Lane, Orient, NY SCTM#15-3-1 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application, with the stipulation that pictures be taken before and after the project is started and completed. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES. e PHILIP SMITH request an Amendment to Permit #762 for boat dock consisting fi:om the bulkhead a 4'x20' catwalk 3'x10' ramp and 6'x20' float. Transfer Permit #762 from J.J. Ruggles to Philip B. Smith. Located: 320 Beach Lane, Southold, NY SCTM#70-10-53 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve application with new drawings of the dock. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES TED DO}VD request a one-year extension for Maintenance Dredging of Fairhaven Inlet in Cedar Beach, Permit #5073 dated 10/28/99. Located 1775 Inlet Way, Southold, NY SCTM#92-01-0 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the One Year Extension based on an acceptable dredge spoil site. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. AL: L AYES ANN & ED LENESKI request an Amendment to Permit #5294 dated 3/21/01 to build a 10'x20' deck on the back of house. Located: 3700 Minnehaha Blvd. Southold, NY SCTM#87-3-5 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES DONNA & CHRIS DAMILATIS request a transfer of Permit #129 fi:om the Estate of Hope Prior Smith to transfer the name on the existing dock and dredgnng permits to replace in kind the specified dock on the permit papers for a dock 4'x22'. Ramp 3'x6' with four (4) pilings. Located: 655 Pine Neck Road, Southold, NY SCTM#70-05-31.1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Deny the transfer of Permit #129 on behalf of Donna & Chris Damilatis. TRUSTEE SMTItt seconded. ALL AYES LOUIS O. GIGLIOL REQUESTS THE TRANSFER.OF PERMIT #1558 ISSUED ORIGINALLY TO STEIGERWALD. Located: 1275 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck, NY SCTM#123-3-17 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve if it is all there and functional. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded2 ALL AYES JMO Consulting on behalf ofKIM K. CAMPBELL request an Amendment to Permit #5201 to construct a 3-1/2'x22' ramp in lieu of the proposed 4'x12' ramp for the approved docking facility. Located: Private Road, Fisher's Island, NY S CTM#4-4-16 TRUSTEE KiNG moved to Approve. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES o Donohue, McGahan & Catalano , Esqs. On behalf ofLEIKIOS ANTONIOU, CHARIKLIA VARELLA & THEODOROS ANTONIOUrequest a one year extension to Permit #5059 dated 9/22/99 to construct one family dwelling. Deck, revetment, sanitary system, bluestone drive, underground utilities 265 cy of clean sand tracked in. Located: 58235 Middle Road (CR-48) Greenport, New York SCTM#44-2-11 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the One Year Extension. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. ANTHONY ALIPERTI (AS CONTRACT VENDEE) request a One-Year Extension to permit #5039 to construct a single-family residence with septic system and a 40' non-disturbance buffer, and to Transfer Permit #5039 from Francis & Elizabeth Murphy to Anthony Aliperti. Located: 400 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, SCTM#114-12-13.1 (One Year Extension Approved at 8/29/01 Meeting Tabled Transfer) TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the 50-foot buffer, after we receive new survey showing the line of hay bales at the 50-foot buffer zone. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to go off the Regular Meeting and go onto the Public Hearings tonight we have 28 Public Hearings TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL A YES PUBLIC HEARINGS; THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIF. F FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE GUSMAR REALTY requests a Wetland Permit to re-seed existing area for existing sprinkler system and fencing. Located: 1695 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY SCTM#38-7-12 (POSTPONED AS PER ATTORNEY'S REQUEST) ROBERT & DIANE SCHROEDER requests a Wetland Permit for a two-story house, garage and swimming pool. Located: 150 Rene Drive, Southold, NY SCTM#54-06-4.3 (POSTPONED AS PER ATTORNEY'S REQUEST) J.M.O. Consultants on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC request a Wetland Permit to seek to remove/control the aggressive non-indigenous species of plant, Giant Reed (Phragmites commurdas) from two separate areas of regulated freshwater wetlands and their adjacent area on Robins Island and to restore them with native plants. The Phragmites are in a stage of unnatural abundance these two locations where they threaten to dominate the natural systems and diminish the natural biodiversity of the' systems. It is the applicant's intent to maintain these areas are phragmites free. Located Robins Island, New Suffolk NY SCTM#134-3-5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before you start Glenn, I have to mention in order to keep the meeting orderly and manageable. If everyone could come up to the micro-phone when they speak and to identify themselves and please keep your comments brief. GLENN JUST: Good evening I am Glenn Just of JMO Consultants I represent the applicant If you have any questions from the Board or the public. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments on this application? Before we take the Board's comments. We do have one problem with this. We did not see it. Question, Glenn, what is the test area? GLENN JUST: It is staked out located 10xl0 on either area Northeast Pond and Cedar Pond we did a stem density and I believe it is Northeast Pond (Cannot understand) If and when we obtain all the necessary approvals for this. We can come back I am not sure the first year, since we do not expect much growth the first year but the second year phrags do come back we can do a comparison and we can see the square footage. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Will you give us a description of what you are planning to do. GLENN JUST: If anyone is familiar with grounding.(cannot understand) The planting involved takes place in late Fall and it is taking the energy from the top of the plant and bringing it down to the root system, storage for winter. The rodeo would be applied. The best way to do is actually would be to cut the phragmites in the Spring. Then get the regrowth through out the summer .Beginning in the late fall either spray the phragmites directly or you would swipe them. The Northeast Pond which two years ago there was a project to try to eructate the phragmites and it did not work. It came back healthy and stronger. Another property that we have had was South Pond we have actually accelerate phragmites at the root system now and came back and it is phragmite free and beautiful. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They have never come back?. GLENN JUST: Not a single one. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That is the way to do it. GLENN JUST: People think it sounds foolish..Who do not have knowledge of it. (Cannot understand) One of the largest populations eastern mud fills are both of these ponds. Below the phragmites what happens is these ( cannot understand) migrate During the summer they migrate 600 feet away from the pond. They go into the mud into the pond. Where they spend the summer. In the fall the same time the location of the plants they migrate out of the pond and they go upland or they bury themselves which the study that I submitted from Comell put the creators where the location that they go. What pond they come from. That is the reason why we go with the rodeo because in South Pond because the turtles that are there because of the rodeo. TRUSTEE FOSTER: When they are out of the pond. GLENN JUST: Exactly which is kind of neat since that pond was planted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What are your plans for revegetation? GLENN JUST: We do not think that we are hoping the root system breaks down and I am sure you are aware that the phragrnites they have rises on them thirty or forty feet and 8 feet deep and we do not think that will kill then off The second year from what I have done and as part of my application, I submitted a check list of the species that are on Robins Island. (tape change) the phrags have taken over. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They do not look much other than that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are looking at treating them now and then when?. GLENN JUST: It is actually a five year program and we will be happy to meet with you on the site. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Every fall or in the spring. GLENN JUST: In the fall. We have worked out a plan with the Nature Conservatory a lot of concern about the plan with the conservatories on the island that it is being treated properly with regard to the phrags. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other questions? I am inclined to approve it with the condition that we inspect it. GLENN JUST: You could have done it last week. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Last week did not work out. We had made plans to make a date and it did not work out for us. GREGG JUST: A lot of things did not work out last week. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you going to come out with us? What date is good for you. I do not know if anyone has a day next week that is going to be good for them. Monday, TRUSTEE:POLlWODA; Why can't we make it October 17~h' TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We could. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That.is the day of field inspection.. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will be treated by then. I am inclined to approve it now and then see it. GLENN JUST: We would like to cut it in the fall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You would not want to waste another year. TRUSTEE KING: I sa~v what they did in the other area so I do not have a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not have a problem with it either. GLENN JUST: Ifyou want to go over I will set a time for all of you to go. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Monday. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I am going to be working in Wading River all next week. So I will not be in town. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will just go. Around eleven. Is that all right. Time to get organized. GLENN JUST Monday at eleven. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I will make a Motion to Approve the Wetland Permit based upon inspection on Monday. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES. GLENN JUST: Thank you very much. JOHN PRIZEMAN requests a Wetland Permit to build one family house. Located: 715 Monsell Lane, Cutchogue, NY SCTM#97-8-25 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone would like to speak in favor of the application? Is there anyone like to speak at all about the application? NEIGHBOR: I would like to point out. We live on a small road, that is treed and very private. There ~s one house that was built on it recently and the man cut down every tree on the property and now the nm-off there is a lot of mud and this land is ~n my yard. I wanted to ask the Tmstee's not to cut down every tree as well as the fact that (cannot understand) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To ans~ver some of that as part cfa permit for this area we would require and 50 foot non-disturbance buffer. Basically from the bottom of the hill all the way up Nothing would be touched from 50 feet. Now, I cannot answer to the rest as far what trees he is going to take down where the house goes put from the creek up nothing will be touched for 50 feet. JOHN PRIZEMAN: Where the site is I am agreeable to. As far as taking down a few trees and hopefully sighting where the actual house would be. There are actually very few trees to be taken down and we have discussed them. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is it a modular home? JOHN PRIZEMAN: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is no fill to be brought in on the permit. The grade would remain the same. JOHN PRIZEMAN: I saw the house that she was talking about and the amount of trees that were taken down. (Cannot understand). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? GEORGE SCHNEIDER: George Schneider, I live on Monsel Lane and I build the house that Mrs. Stewart is referring to and there is absolutely no troth to that statement that I cut down every tree on the property. You know the property you were there. The erosion that she is referring to did not come bom my property it came from the huffy rainfall we had last summer on the grade of Monsel Lane. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was going to mention that also right adjacent to you the water authority put a big swale and they made a mess fight next door. GEORGE SCHNEIDER: That is right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was a big problem. GEORGE SCHNEIDER: That was an easement to feed us water TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was a sloppy job. GEORGE SCHNEIDER: But they did improve the road up to my house. And I understand that there was an effort to extend the water main past me down Monsel Lane and people have a problem with that. Which is another problem for this homeowner or future homeowner... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ! think as far as the water quality goes I think that the people were satisfied w/th their water quality and did not want it. GEORGE SCHNEIDER: That is their choice. But I built the house and they did not cut down every tree on the property and any erosion or run- off from my property did not cause any problem to Monsel Lane. If that were the case I would have repaired it myself. Just for the record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well for the record I can say that you are adjacent to me and you have been a good neighbor, Any other comment? That is the consideration that we made there it is a 50 foot wide buffer non-disturbance buffer between the house and the creek. Upland of that if' he wants to clear for a lawn or what not. The 50 foot non-disturbance buffer is to protect the creek from water running down sedimentation that sort of thing. Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I will make a Motion to Approve the application of JOHN PRIZEMAN to build a one family house located 715 Monsel Lane, Cutchogue, NY with staked haybales at the 50 foot contour roof drains as shown on plan for roof run-off and driveway run-off resubmit survey showing the staked bales. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES. Charles Cuddy, Esq. on behalf of SHAWN TULLY requests a Wetland Permit to build a new stairway along bluff to replace stairway removal of damage stairway to an approved upland source. Located: 2840 Stars Road, East Marion, NY SCTM#22-3-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? CHARLES CUDDY: (Cannot understand muffled) placing the stairs in center by placing over on the west side. They are used in the vicinity of the stairs to the west and stairs to the east. The bluff there is vegetated TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Are there any other comments. DOROTHY GROSS: I am Dorothy Gross I live at 2650 Stars Road, I am one of the owner's of the lots on Stars Road that has the fight-of-way Two years ago when he was here to get approval to add to the fi:ont of his house. He promised us that he would fix our right-a-way that was undermined because of the erosion when they put up the foundation of that house. It is almost impassable, I have pictures here of the right a way. Which was taken a couple of days ago. Up to that time when I first moved. here. We could drive a pick-up track down that road. Right to the beach. That is how it has grown. We cannot even walk down there. I do not think Mr. Tully should get approval to replace the stairway that has not been used for fifteen years. Fifteen years could hardly see what was there before he makes our right-a-way parable so that we can get to our beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment. JANE DORELL: Yes I have a similar comment, for the time being, I am also Jane Dorell, of Stars Road, I am one of the property owner's who paid the State access to the stretch oh beach. I have been using this year a different approach to the beach. Which has been in existence onan adjacent piece of property from where Mr. Tully is doing his house. But I understand that Mr. Tully also owns this adjacent piece of property. Which has the access that I have been using. I had been given to understand by people associated with Mr. Tully that It is understood that the property owner's have the right to continue to have access. I just want to make sure that these remain for all of us. Whether it is the original access road path or a new one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This fight of way does not shown on survey. JANE DORELL: I do not know if you call it a'right-a-way. It was path that everyone used with the permission of the owner's. The previous owner of the property. In my deed and Mrs. Grossman deed and various others. The mention of the sound front 100 feet immediately adjacent, this was back in the days when the property was called Sound Threat. It was used for years and then it began to be neglected. Then when the property was sold. For years now, the original path has been unusable. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Shouldn't a deeded fight-a-way should it be shown on the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is what I am going to find out now. CHARLES CUDDY: There is a right-a-way over Mr. Tully's property which by virtue they each have a fight to go over his property to the beach. It is not shown because it is a restrained fight-a-way which is a removable fight-of-way. It can be moved from the west side to the other side. There is know definitely lines are this fight-a-way to go down to the beach. If I am correct the existing way that they use is virtually a ravine.and it really is not a pass able type of situation. We said that before and it is correct. It has taken much longer to build a house. When the house is completed. We will improve the rights of those people to go down to the beach. We regret that for the time being that what they said is correct except that this is not part of this application and it will be taken care of. But I represent him and that he is aware of it. He has knowledge of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They have the right to use these stairs then. CHARLES CUDDY: These stairs for the owner of the site. This is a completely separate issue prior who has been there for years and years. You are talking about thirty years or more and it has nothing to do with the stairs and it is a completely separate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern would be any kind of work being done on that what you call a ravine that the old path would be would have to come through this office. Under Wetlands and Coastal Erosion because that could adversely effect erosion. You would not want to cause further erosion and destabilize what is. DOROTHY GROSS: I just wanted to say that what he said is true, but they said this two years ago. They have had a thousand bull dozers down there. They could have very easily fixed this road for us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But they need our permission to work in that area. DOROTHY GROSS: But they have not have not tried to get your permission it is two year. Now they are going to wait until the house is finished. You should see that house. 10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is still legal access even though it does not have any physical standards. But still legal access. Does anyone have any other question for anyone? The Board has any questions? TRUSTEE POL1WODA: I was at the site yesterday, as you can probably understand I obviously wish that the stairs would go where the existing stairs are for environmental reasons. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there any reason why? Is it easier to get them over there maybe? CHARLESS CUDDY: I think by moving them the reason is for moving when to the west. Is that there is less vegetation on that side of the property (cannot understand). That is the least vegetated in all the areas. There is no serious problem if you take a look at it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you satisfied with that Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make a Mot/onto close the public hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. /fl J, AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make a Motion to Approve the request for the Wetland Permit on behalf ofSHA ~ TULLY for a new 55' stainvay located at 2840 Stairs Road, East Marion TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No larger than 4 feet'in width. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a' note here that there is a Dodge pick up with NY Plate ATT6019 the lights are on. Architechnolgies on behalf of RICHARD HORSTMANN request a Wetland Permit to increase the footprint of the existing house and add a second floor. Located: 7225 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue SCTM#111- 15-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone like to speak on behalf of this supplication? ANDREW BARTELL: I am Andrew Barell I represent the Horstmarm's. I just want to say that the Horstmarm's have hired an attorney to look into the issue of the right-a-way that there next door neighbor was kind enough to petition. Unfortunately, since then they have become directly involved with the bombing that has taken place. (Cannot understand). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Very good, we will postpone it since the application and the fee paid we will just postpone it until they can act on it. I will make a Motion to Table this application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES 10 11 Architechnolgies on behalf of BOB & CELIA SFK1NG request a Wetland Permit for an addition to second floor to the existing residence. Located: 445 Island View Lane, Greenport, NY SCTM#57-02-27 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone like to speak on behalf of this application? ROBERTSIYTNG;: My name if Robert Swing both Celia my wife and I have owned this property at 445 Island View Lane, since 1971 we had purchased it in March of 1971. The building was erected in 1954. Just recent my son bought a home across the road from us. My wife and I would like to become permanent residence in the Town. But the present structure is too small'for us to live in. We would like to add a second floor which would accommodate a bedroom and bathroom. We would not be increasmg the amount of bathrooms. We would also.like the existing deck along the building line going no further towards the wetland. We feel that the application that we made has minimum impact on the environment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? We might have questions for you. Ken do you have any other comment. TRUSTEE POLIIYODA: I looked at it yesterday, and I did'not have any problem. What do you want a second floor what any awlful view. That sun must come right offthe bay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only thing that I can think of here is. An - upgrade on the septic system. Where is your present septic system location? ROBERTSFFTNG: By the deck TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is one thing that I would put in for. Any comment on that Ken? TRUSTEE POL1WODA: Sounds reasonable. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that we would want a stake row of hay bales during construction to protect the wetlands. It xs grass from the deck down to the marsh? ROBERT SWING: Yes TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any thoughts on that we would like you to relocate the septic system to the landward side of the house. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there a basement? ROBERT SWING: No TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you going to put a basement under it? ROBERT SWING: No TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Probably too low for a basement there isn't it? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It is only four feet above water. TRUSTEE KRUPSLI: If there is no other comment? I will take a Motion [o close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE RKUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make a Motion to Approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of BOB & CELIA $I~KING for an addition of a second 11 12 floor to the existing residence. Replace septic system to the road side of house, stake row of haybales during construction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES All we need to show that on a survey, have your surveyor mark that out. Then we can give you the permit. Good night. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of ALFRED & MARIANN SUESSER request a Wetland Permit to construct 8 linear ft. +/- of 10' wide +/- rock revetment (with 5' wide splash guard above) starting from the southeastern comer of the property to the existing wood deck/stairs; and to construct 185 hnear ft.+/- 8' wide +/- rock revetment beginning from said existing wood deck/stairs, along the bottom of the bluff which runs contiguous to the southeastern edge of subject property, and terminate at the northeastern comer of subject property. Located: 5055 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. SCTM#110-8-32.8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is kind of hard to separate it this one and the following one which Suffolk Enviro~nental Consulting on behalf of TOM GLEASON and I am going to open up the first one, but we are going to comment on both of them. BRUCE ANDERSON: Just open both of them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will also open the hearing on behalf of TOM GLEASON request a Wetland Permit to construct 195 linear ft. of bulkhead beginning from the southeastern most property comer, along Cutchogue Harbor, (with 5' remm at northern terminus) with a 5' wide splash pad on landward side of proposed bulkhead and 5' wide toe armor on seaward side of proposed bulkhead along entire length. Extending from the northern terminus of said bulkhead will be 130 linear 15 +/-of 16' wide +/- of rock revetment, itself running along the southeastern edge of subject property to the nor[hem property line. In addition, applicant proposes to construct an access road (8.0' wide) on the northeastern section of said property. Located: 5115 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, NY SCTM#110-8-34 Would anyone like to speak on behalf of these application. BRUCE ANDERSON: Brace Anderson of Suffolk Environmental Consultants for these applicants, SUESSER & GLEASON We have before you two sets of surveys on this properties. We have an odd survey on each property. We have cross sections and details of both properties and I think what the Board already understands. This project where we take two adjacent property owners with a common problem - common problem is erosion and I think it is beyond questionable site. We take these two-property owner's we pm them together and integrate a solution that serves the needs of both. I understand that you have been out there and I appreciate that and that you are familiar with the site. You see the line of wetland and the first thing that I need to get off It does various between two properties. The one to the west, into a large closed bluff, 12 13 which was damaged by previous storms, and the erosion there is quite severe. As you move eastward towards Gleason property the erosion is a little less. The bulkhead portion of the site that is proposed. Is placed in the area where the bluff is high and the erosion is most severe. Seaward of that bulkhead and connected to it you see toe armor and that is shown on your cross section. The purpose of that toe armor is deflecting wave action that will occur only during storms to reduce the energy of that wave energy that would otherwise hit a flat surface. East from there the toe armor would be essential be a continuation and sere the revetment. The angles are to be constant on both properties. The reason for that type of structure is to break up wave energy that will occur during storm events and cause more erosion that you have already have witnessed today. Or the past week or so when you looked at the properties. Behind the bulkhead or behind the revetment we have installed a flat bed and the purpose of that is to protect the structures in the event of severe wave action land on the flat beds and hold the structure in place. Couple with that our proposal will include the planting of all areas existing now and after the structure of these structures with American Beach Grass that will provide a vegetated coverage that will protect the upper regions of the bluff from the lesser erosion forces provided by storm water m-off. That ~s our property, we have been careful in the placement of the structures to place them as cio. se like to the bottom of the bluff and get it away from the shoreline as far humanly possible. In addition to that because we are fortunate in bringing together two property owners who can work together on this. It eliminates additional construction which otherwise would be necessary to construct various returns for these properties. The fact that we have two property owners working together on this application means less construction over the hole. To the west of the Gleason property we will notice a very large tall bulkhead that extends a considerable distance seaward of where this bulkhead portion of where Gleason is proposed. In pulling it back our reason for pulling it back is to prevent a situation that could potential impact the beach. The necessity of the structures, as proposed could be obvious to anyone who has witnesses the conditions of this common shore line I submit to you that this is the type of structure which real intention is to protect the property. Which I believe a property owner has every right to do, and it is designed to protect in instances where they have occurred serious and severe. We ask you to approve it because the structures are designed and placement and the way they are fitted into the toe of the bluff. It will maximize the distance from the high water mark and therefOre will not cause any long-term constant type of erosion effect to the beach below. That is our project and we feel it necessary. We do not feel other altematives will accomplish the objective and we believe that it is in keeping in past practices of this Board as well as other agencies (tape change) that concludes. I am here to answer any questions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? 13 14 TOM SAMUELS: May I briefly, this is one of the very good projects that I like to be associated with. Mr. Gleason bought as you know the Henry Wick ham property and he is only going to utilize five acres of it. That does not mean the house is going to be five acres big. Twelve acres are in a conservation easement and is Suesser next door and driving by there you will see that New Suffolk Road, will ever be farmland right up to the road and you see neither house. The analogy of course,, is Robins Island where someone has deed most of Robins Island into a Conservation Easement and actually it is probably the best thing that ever happened to New Suffolk and Southold Towns as far as the use of Robins Island is concerned. Mr. Gleason and Mr. Suesser are very sensitive environmentally if you have been up there and have seen recently installed defective driveway you will see that his intentioned in every way was to save every tree he possible could. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did not come in that way. TOM SAMUELS: That is off of Salt Harbor Road. The one that goes down the yacht club. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there last month. I do not know if it was completed. TOM SAMUELS: It has been done since then. You may want to revisit if you like. It is a real good project and it is well designed and minimal tmpact in an area where there is manual dredging of Wickham's Creek. If the sand is put to the South of Wickham's Creek He seems to keep that beach quite stable but in any case I just would like to express my interest m it and the fact that I think that it is a good project and it is very sound environmental and it is in keeping with our concept of as much open space as we can keep and financial, economically - thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak? We had a lot of concerns with this I called you Bruce the day after inspection last month. The two properties while they are adjacent are quite different erosion wise. We thought what caused the erosion on Mr. Suesser property was caused by the small stone jetty there that sticks out. The property just to the South of that on Mr. Gleason suffers virtually no erosion and the property adjacent to that on Mr. Suesser's shows erosion obvious from the fact that he has extended stairway to reach the beach, So that jetty seems to be causing typical shadow of the jetty type if erosion. You can see the beach elevation bom either side of it It was really obvious that was happening at that location. I think if you go further to the South, towards New Suffolk, the banks pretty active further south you go. Which is further towards that large jetty and bulkhead on the neighboring property. And it is pretty standard shadow of the jetty type of scow on that side of the jetty. Someone suggested to me. I cannot recall who it was. A series of Low Profile Groins here diminishing in length. Instead of a harding structure, I just wanted to air that in public forum to see what your comments Would be. Starting from the jetty, to the South on the New Suffolk side and continuing did you ever hear that. I cannot remember who told me that? 14 15 A series of groins starting from the south getting shorter and shorater and shorter. You can see how this groin scows. Making this a low profile affair. Stand to by-pass them eventually they just disappear. So they would not affect the beach. TOM SAMUELS: Just two things, number one if you looked at Gleason's property and you see a bluff that has no vegetation on it whatsoever. Trees overhanging the crest of the top of the bluff. Which will be lost if not in the construction of the brief restoring bluff. It will be naturally lost so there is erosion there. Now blind fields are very nice but they are very difficult to get permits from other agencies. In particular the DEC they will be negative on the groin field. That does not mean that it is impossible to get a groin field permit. However in the case of the severe easterly storm which happens about six to eleven times a year. A low profile groin and the bluff continue to erode. If in fact you ~vant the beach to remain viable. Than certainly the applicant should consider a low profile field. That will retain the beach; as to whether permits can be required I do not know. Possible with you good offices and your recommendations those permits maybe approved. But it will not prevent erosion of the toe of the bluff on Gleason or Suesser properties. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the comment about the suggestion that someone gave me about the stone groin causing the immediate erosion. If you look at the sight it is really apparent each elevation drop cause of the groins and also the shadow of the groin. TOM SAMUELS: There is no question that the singular groins do have a negative effect on the down drift side. This in fact the permits for the bulkhead and the toe armor are approved. The revetment are approved, I would not be adversely suggesting to the owner's that stone be used in the jetty, to be used to toe armour and remove it. Because by itself, you are absolutely right. It has an effect but in order to get community action on groin fields. You are talking about I would assume structure fifty feet in length with mean high water top elevation of the structure that is all you will get a permit for. It has to be no higher than mean high water. Let us say that they are fifty feet in length, they protect 75 feet the rule of thumb ~s one and half times their length. They will protect 1-1/2 times there length they will protect one and half times they will scowl so very 75 feet we have to have a low profile groin. As you know in Paradise Point that worked out beautifully. Very very well. That was an approved groin field by the Trustee's and the CAC this is before the DEC got in the position of being advisory to the Corp. of Engineer's, which is another player in the mix. Not to mention the Peconic Estuary with Kevin McAllister. They will probably be opposed to groin field. It is sought of a knee jerk reaction. They have their place they are effective and of it is properly designed it will work. But it is a difficult firing to do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No I am asking your opimon. Not to get into other permitting agencies and their policies and what not. In your opinion out in the field. Physically, in this ideal world and paradise for you and you 15 16 could just build this. Would a groin field of dimension length work here in that the beach would be protected and the effect of the groin field would be diminished of the structure be diminished, as they got shorter until they finally tailed off into? TOM SAMUELS: It would work. TRUSTEE KRPSKI: It would work there not to protect the bank I am saying to protect the beach. We did speak to one of the applicant's on the site and there was concern by the Board of course and also by the applicant that the beach elevation be maintained and that the beach is maintained that is the beauty of the property of course is the beach. All to often in the bay, when the shoreline parmers the beach disappears. We just dolt with one last month in Orient. The bulkheads went up there were retaining walls at the time they went up and now there is no beach at all. Actually nice striped bass right off the bulkhead since the beach is gone. We can fish in the water. TOM SAMUELS: Did you have your rod in the water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A spear would have been just fine. It was that close but that is what ~ve want to avoid here. Avoid the loss of the beach and what is going to protect the beach if you just simply harden the shoreline. TOM SAMUELS: The purpose of the toe armor is the key and if you look at the bulkheads in Mattituck and the bulkheads in Cutchogue off that section on Bridge Lane. You will note that all those bulkheads were heavily armored with big stuff and they have retained there beaches. They are remarkable somewhat narrow in winter as any beach does but they have always come back. When the concept of armoring bulkheads was first addressed I first came upon the concept. I felt it was an expensive over-kill. I have since changed my mind and anything on the sound that we build has rock armament. Anything on the ocean has rock armament the assumption of the energy of the waves seems to retain sand in the structure itself and just seaward of it. If you look at a videotape of a structure under attack and you see the difference between the toe armor structure and the unarmored bulkhead. The water hits the bulkhead goes straight up into the air. Depending on the severity 50 feet maybe even more in the ocean. Comes down and scows out the beach. Now the beach recovers. There is no denying that at. Because statically the beaches are still there as they were in 1840. That is on the ocean but on the sound it is a little different because you do not quite have the on shore.sand transport that you have on the ocean. On the ocean you have the southwest winds in the summer which rebuild the beaches every summer. From Westhampton to Montauk this is true. The armor purpose is to minimize the beach force that is the only function. It is expensive to do. It does requlre some maintenance. There ii no question about this sometimes it does require more stones, possibly have to be added if it becomes undermined and sinks below beach grade. That is the pnrpose ofthis, Is it as effective as a pure revetment. As proposed for Suesser I really cannot 16 17 answer. It depends upon the extent of the armor which has been you may want some impm on that. You may very well request more armor than that is proposed. We built a very long, similar structure in Old Field, the Department of State, wanted it armored right up to the top of the bulkhead. Which we did, it has done very well, it has not been exposed to a severe storm, even though there were eleven this winter. It is a question of what you want to do. If in fact another thing you have to be aware of, is revetments have a big footprint. If a revetment is going to go to fourteen feet elevation which it should be on that shoreline that means that if use one and one half to one. You have a twenty one foot toe of the revetment. Most of the revetment would be underground no question about it. Only that part above grade will be exposed. But that is something to consider when you are talking about beach scour. Something that you have to be aware of. It is not rocket science. You can go down to these sites and fin~d again and again ready reference to what I am saying. So that is something to consider. Now the Suesser revetment which I am sure you are aware has not the extent of the scour that Gleason does. It is just toe in the revetment that has scoured. The stairway has not been there very long, [ do not think that Suesser it is probably three or four years old. Three years old the DOS says that - that particular shoreline erodes at a foot and half a year. Which is not bad. In ten years that is 18 feet, so we have got to protect the crest of that bluff. Especially considering that the entire landward structure behind the house is been effective as a Conservtion Easement. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But with Suesser still, you still have to realize that the obvious cause of that is a jetty. BRUCE ANDERSON: If I may I spoke about the jetty on Gleason's property I agree that and the survey shows itself approximately a 10 to 15 foot at high tide. However, it is critical for us that we agree that the jetty maybe a problem. We agree that we have erosion here. If for some reason we do not agree that the bottom of the shore should be sstablized. The alternative then becomes a property that will eroded, erosion will be felt most severely during storm events. That whole landscape is going to change. I do not'have any problem with making an application for a series of groins. As you suggest maybe the appropriate thing to do down there. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate that that be coupled with which I believe is our right to protect that property. I may actual agree with you that we should construct some groins. I can suggest thjat you can write a permit with that not making it a requirement but making it a suggestion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: An omission.. BRUCE ANDERSON: Not an omission because the differences between what we are doing here the reason for the revetment and the bulkhead are entirely different Entirely separated, from the groins that yon are talldng about. 17 18 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You misunderstood me. I only asked your opinions on the groin fields. I am not suggesting them m any way. BRUCE ANDERSON: Then you have our understanding. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No I am not saying no. You have to do this A instead of B I just wanted an opinion to see whether in fact you two thought that this would be a applicable solution to retaining the beach. BRUCE ANDERSON: I like the idea. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Obviously we are not going to get too further tonight and I want to take and see if they're any other comments. We will meet on the site at the next field inspection. We still have a few issues to work out details that in the sight that I think can be seen. I do not think that we saw you on the Site last month - did we? BRUCE ANDERSON: No TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay we will be happy to meet both of you. The applicants and anyone else who wants to be present at our field inspection Is there any other comment on this application? I will make a Motion to Table the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES TOM SAMUELS: Thank you gentlemen. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we are looking at October 17th. BRUCE ANDERSON: That would be the meeting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI That would be the field inspection in the morning I would guess around noon. - Eleven o'clock - twelve o'clock something like that. 10. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of PETER J. JACQUES request a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story house (1775 sq. ft. +/- "footprint") with attached deck (240 sq. f. +/-), pervious driveway, and septic system. Located: 4079 Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY SCTM#78-2-18.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? BRUCE ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson of Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant PETER J. JACQUES this you may recall I am sure some of the board members will recall. We brought this project in. It in 1999 and we had designed and located it and all the structures that was seventy-five feet fxom the edge of wetland, which was defined by the high mark because of primarily ground and shrubs. The only reason that we are here tonight is because since before 1999 when you issued us a letter of non-jurisdiction. Jurisdiction now has increased l~om seventy- five feet to one hundred feet. So what was in 1999 and the project is not subject to is now is. In doing a number of permit applications before the Board I noticed that the Board does seek to save the buffer. This application provides it. I would assume that it is more protective than 18 19 many of the applications that I brought in because them was sufficient room in which to do. We have located leaching pools for the septic at one hundred feet and they are not part of this application. I think it is a very simple application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Field notes that we have on this, does anyone have comments? TRUSTEE SMITH: I do not think that we have any problems. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do not have major problems. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We taped it; I think it is 66 feet. TRUSTEE KING: I have a note to move house landWard. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know that we taped it off. I th'ink it was ...... CHARLOTTE CUNNINGHAM: Sixty-eight feet and a row of hay bales TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we measured it 68 feet from the comer of the house to the stake to the wetlands. BRUCE ANDERSON: I believe that is seventy-five feet that was done by a surveyor Hopeful to install the wetland lines flagged we can have that reproduced. I believe it its seventy five. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We actually measured it might not be possible to move it back. BRUCE ANDERSON: If you have concerns TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was our concern that it was actually sixty- eight feet. As measured by all of us in the field. I see the wetland line is flagged. If you take the middle of that. Well you go between seventy-five and seventy feet. So we measured sixty-eight feet. So if you measure off the survey Brace, you can go five feet either way. So we measure sixty eight feet. Which is pretty close to seventy. We are in the ball park. But that is what we measured sixty eight feet. As far as clearing limits. You got the ten foot contours as a clearing limit. So what do you have the clearing limits on this? BRUCE ANDERSON: We were just going to touch the comer this is the last thing that is filled. The plan would be to stake the cleating limit, Fence it and hay bale it. Conduct as clearance to build a house. This is a house that really is two stories, because the garage basement you will is essentially at grade. Because it goes straight up. It is not a lot of excavation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any fill to be brought in? BRUCE ANDERSON: No. The design is a flat type of structure. I would point out that this house is probably being built all ready if it were for not primarily problems with the water authority and the health department. It has slowed us down for quite a long time. But I th'ink when you look at what we are going here. You look at particularly to the east, I am sure that you will agree with me that this is a very protective type of development. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: [ think that before we issue a permit we do want to see the clearing limits on the survey put a stake row of hay bales. BRUCE ANDERSON: Well we usually do that, we make that a condition. 19 20 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would propose to approve the application tonight with the condition that you will get the permit when the surveyor puts that on there. The clearing limits a stake row of hay bales during construction. BRUCE ANDERSON: Oh I see, in other words it has to be noted on the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPOSKI: Right BRUCE ANDERSON: Fine TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? TRUSTEE SMITH: I will make a Motion to close the hearing of PETER J. JACQUES. TRUSTEE POLYVVODA; Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comment. All in favor. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE SMITH: I will make a Motion we Approve PETER J. JACQUES for a Wetland Permit for a two-story house with a survey showing the fifty-foot set back with the hay bales. Drywells and gutters to contain roof run-off. 11. Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of ERNEST IL. SCHNEIDER, SR. request a Wetland Permit to re-locate an existing lot line and construct a 1,320 s.f. Single family residence & sanitary system on the southern lot. Dwelling will be located a minimum of 100' landward of the tidal wetlands boundary and the proposed sanitary system shall be located 109' landward of said boundary. The limits of clearing, grading & ground disturbance shall not exceed the 100' setback. Located: 915 Lakeside Drive, Southold, NY SCTM#090-04-S&6 (POSTPONED AS PER AGENT'S REQUEST) 12. Samuels & Steel man Architects on behalf of CATHERINE LYNCH & JANE BEAR requests a Wetland Permit for pre-existing greenhouse & shed within 100' from wetlands. A Building Permit ~vas issued onl 1/7/75, but a C.O. was never obtained. Town of Southold Building Department required Trustee Permit prior to issuance of C.O. Located: 375 Wigwam Way, Southold, NY SCTM#87-02-37&38 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? NANCY STEELMAN: I am Nancy Steelman.of Samuels & Steelman Architects I am really here to ask if you have any questions. It seems fairly straightforward application. All are pre-existing. Built twenty-five years ago. We (cannot understand). TRUSTEE SMITH: I looked at this Al, I am sort of confused Instead of doing permits back in 1976 I believe it was. They built it and then got a CO and now it comes to us, for a CO. The way that this thing is now. We would never recommend approval. It is just too close to the wetlands 20 21 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it all maintained and everything. NANCY STEELMAN: Yes, it is m good condition. That was one of the questions discussed with the building department at that time. The applications such as this would have gone to the tmstee's for approval. This comment was an application was submitted the same day. It appears at that time. TRUSTEE SMITH: That the tmstee's were not in jurisdiction. Now we do and times have changed and the way of thinking has changed. So the way we look at ii today we would not approve anything like this today. But you did have a building permit in 1976. Which was probably built in accordanee. But they did not get a C.O.. We are kind of in a Catch 22 situation here because if we approve this. We would open a can of worms for the things that we did not approve. NANCY STEELMAN: So if you do not approve it then there is no way that they can get the C.O. So what happens after that? I think that is what is really happening. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What were the rules and regulations ar the time this permit was issued? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For us? TRUSTEE KING: There was no jurisdiction on up-land. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That is when it was built. Under the circumstances I think you just have to say being that it was built prior to the Trustee's having jurisdiction it really is nothing that we can do about. TRUSTEE KING: It is pre-existing - right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would think so. NANCYSTEELMAN: We received a letter from DEC on this application stating that at that time they did not have jurisdiction. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think that is what we are going to have to do with TRUSTEE KING: I do not think that you have much choice. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. I do not think that we have much choice? It was built prior to. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I would write a letter to that effect. To go to the building department. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: This is not a new project it is pre-existing. TRUSTEE KING: This is not something that we would approve today. This was built long before the trustee's had jurisdiction on the upland area. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There are a lot of things out there that would not be approved today. So I do not know what you would do with them? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments on this application? Do I have a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMTIH: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I will make a Motion to Approve the application based on the date of construction in relation to the rules and regulations at 21 22 that time where it was non-jurisdictional and we should give them a permit for being pre-existing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that we had done that before. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We did do that on New Suffolk Road, one of teachers right on New Suffolk Road where the phragmites were near the back door stop. The house was built in 17th or 18th hundred. Theywere going to refurbish the construction of it. Thatwas a similar conditions. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you want to do this again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No that is fine. Just put into the minutes that we are basing the permit on the fact that it was approved by the Building Department. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Pre-existing jurisdiction by the Tmstee's. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make sure that you pick up in the Minutes that is the reason why we grant this. Is there a second on that Motion. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES 13. Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of RONALD CASSARA request a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to renovate exist'rog fi:me residence and add new additions result'rog in new one and one half story residence. Located: 30185 Cabot Wood Road, Pecouic, NY SCTM#73-04-01 (Postponed per agent's request) 14. SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY requests a Wetland Permit for the installation of a 12" HDPE water ma'm for the purpose of supplying drinking water and fire protection to the residence of Mattimck residing north of Long Creek. The grass area on the roads edge will conta'm all work pertaining to dkectional drilling (staging & receiving). The staging & receiving pits are to be approximately 300' north & south of the bridge centerline. Depth of drill will approximately 20' under the creek bottom. Hay bales and silt screen are to be installed to conta'm sediment laden run- off. All excavation to be back filled, stabilized & returned to original condition. Excess fill to be removed and disposed of legally. Located: Grand Avenue, (at Bridge Creek) Mattituck, NY . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of or against this application? Jim you looked at this? TRUSTEE KING: I am looking at the plans and it looks frae. There is nothing staked, so you really calmot see anything in th field. My concerns is the electric and gas lines, I hope they know where they are when they do the drilling. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They have it all marked out. TRUSTEE KING: I think it will be similar to what they did on New Suffolk. They bored down up to twenty feet under the ground. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a Motion to close the hearing? 22 23 TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I will make a Motion to Approve the application of SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY to put the piping under the creek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a second. TRUSTEE SMTIH: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSIG: All in favor. ALL AYES. 15. Proper-T Services Inc. on behalf of MA TTHEWBARNEY request a Wetland Permit to move existing wood flame house approximately 50' landward; install house in new location on concrete block piers with partial crawl space; add deck 10'x30' on seaward side; add deck 10'x12' on landward side. Install new septic system if required by SCDHS. Located: 1250 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic, NY SCTM#68-3-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone would like to speak in favor of the application. JIM FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for the Bamey's I do not have any thing to add to the material that we submitted in the application. The house as you see it you are very close to the edge of the bluff. In fact they would like to get it back away from it. I think that everyone agrees that it is a good idea. In the process of doing that. They might expand it by adding decks. That is about it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this application? Is it the same house, or is going to be a new house? JIM FITZGERALD: It is going to be the same house. They are going to physically move the existing house to a new location and there are concrete piers and a slab and of course pool space and foundation work. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a Motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEEKRUPSKI: Before we close the hearing, How do theyplan to restore the area where the existing house is? (tape change) our concern is destabilization of the bluff. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make sure that grade pitch is landward of that bluff. Not towards the bluff. I know it does now but you want to maintain that. TRUSTEEKRUPSKI: We are going to write that into the permit that the grade be maintained. JIM FITZGERALD: It wlll not be changed, seaward from the proposed new location TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now would any one move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMTIH: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES Now would anyone like to make a Motion? 23 24 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I will make a Motion to Approve, the application for MATTHEW BARNEY to relocate his house approximately 50 feet landward of its existing location and that any fill or any regrading done to maintain the character of the bluff by pitching landward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a seconded. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES 16. Proper-T Services, Inc. on behalf of SAL VA TORE GUERRERA request a Wetland Permit to construct dwelling with on-site sewage disposal system and public water. Construct fixed walkrway 4'x178', hinged ramp 4'xl6'.and floating dock 6'x20' floating dock to be secured by two pilesi Located: 1450 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY SCTM#122-4-44.6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this application. JIM FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Guerrera. Charlotte told me that you were there and could not find the stakes for the project. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is correct. JIM FITZGERALD: In this case I would like to suggest that you act on the project that we have on the dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will certainly discuss the dock while we are all together here. JIM FITZGERALD: I am not getting what you are saying? TRUSTYEE KRUPSKI: We can discuss the dock because we were on the site. JIM FITZGERALD: That would be good. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have any other comments? I will take another comments? RON DOBERT: Ladies and Gentleman of the Board. My name is Ron Dobert and I live directly north of the proposed lot. I moved to Mattituck m 1986 built the house on this two acre parcel. Moved out to enjoy the open spaces and privacy that Southold that Southold had to offer. I was told that the lot next to me. It is a small lot, was no threat being built on being that it was a substandard lot. At the time Mr. Degrasta in Cutchogue owned that lot and it was 13.5 acres. Which extended south which including all the wetlands. At the time Mr. Saracino bought this lot. Two acres were given to Suffolk County I believe and therefore leaving 1.2 acres which the lot is now. It is an R80 zoning - non-conforming lot and one question that I had on set backs. It?you take a 55 foot set back fro the road and a 75 foot from the wetlands. You have a negative lot to build on. You have negative ten feet. Lots in this area are typically one acre. The smallest is a ½ acre. This lot usable size is 11,500 feet which is a touch over a ¼ acre. The lot south of this lot is 31,500 feet. Which is ~ of an acre three times the size. My lot is 45,000 feet usable one acre lot it is four times the size and direactly across the street is 51,300 which is an 24 25 acre and a quarter. Five times the size. The side yard set-back on my side are twenty feet which is the total set back I believe is 45 feet. It is 19- 1/2 feet on the south side which is about 5-1/2 feet under what it should be. The front yard is 35 feet and the rear is 45 feet, 55 feet, and 75 feet resPectively. The question also that I have is that their septic system on the propose septic system is 55 feet from my well. My usable well. I have city water. The Suffolk County water is very chlorinated and I do not use it for drinking. So I have a well that is being used since 1986 that is 55 feet from the proposed septic system. My recommendation is that along with the adjoum'mg home owner. Myself and the lot south of me and Southold Town we purchase that lot. Turn the wetlands over to Suffolk County an then not use that ¼ acre as build able. If a permit is issued I would like to see the size of the house reduced to a scale that is fitting with that smaller lot. I would like to see the side yard proposed twenty feet on one side and twenty five feet on the other. I would like the septic system moved a 100 feet from my well. Also leaving the trees and the growth on the property line. That is all that I have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you I am going to take other comments before the Board. ROB DUNN: Good evening my name is Rob Dunn and the owner of the property south of the site. If you look at the dock, it seems to be that it is actually on my property line twenty feet. I could not find any stakes either. The depth of the dock is not the depth of the water. The dock is not shown. I do not think that you can put one there. I would like to know why the dock is 12x24 is extremely large. Regarding the gentleman mentioning the side lot. It looks like it is 15 feet - it does not conform to the building code. I would like to know if they start digging where are they going to put the fill for the foundation, where it is going to be stored. My last statement is there any plans for the run-offthat is not shown on here. TRUSTEE'KRUPSKI: There are a lot of good questions raised here on this lot. The CAC comments are recommending disapproval because the proposed project requires a fifty foot non-disturbance buffer which the Board generally requires. I myself would like to see a 50 foot buffer and is there a final grading plan on here to show what the final grade would be? JIM FITZGERALD: No TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie would you take a look at this. What do you think about this grade. It says 400 cubic yards of the excavation. That is just completely removed from the site. JIM FITZGERALD: Ultimately, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean after construction 400 cubic yards will have left the site. JIM FITZGERALD: Yes, more or less 400 cubic yards is the volume of the basement based upon the size of the footprint at the ordinary depth of the basement. It maybe that a basement will not be permitted in that area. 25 26 GREG YAKABOSKI: Because of the flood zone? JIM FITZGERALD: Pardon me. GREG YAKABOSKI: Because of the flood zone? JIM FITZGERALD: Yes, or because 0fthe basic characteristics or both. GREG YAKABOSKI: Did the Building Department comment on the flood zone. JIM FITZGERALD: The Building Department has not seen it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the depth of water at the test hole, Artie. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It looks like it is 7.5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then you really could not have a cellar there or basement. JIM FITZGERALD: Probably not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any comments? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Where did they do the test hole? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The test hole is by the driveway. While we are looking at the survey. TRUSTEE FOSTER: When they show that. It is a 11 foot contour they show that and you only have 7-1/2 feet to water, so it is really not right then. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The standard size residential float that the Board issues is a 6x20 but 12x24 which was applied for. JIM FITZGERALD: The surveyor was totally enthusiastic (cannot understand). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is one of the details I just wanted to bring that up. Something has to be redrawn you might as well try to include everything. I do not know ifa float in that area. I do not know if you spoke with DEC on this because it is unlikely that they will allow floats in that area. Because of the lack of water depth. A float at all. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It is obvious that it is very shallow there, and I ~vas going to recommend maybe a pole out offshore to a catwalk. Depending on the bank, so you can walk off the catwalk and pull your boat ~n.. JIM FITZGERALD: I think the question of the dock (cannot understand) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we need a plan showing the reduced size house so that we can get a 50 foot wetlands set back. JIM FITZGERALD: Let me ask them about that, being saying that they never permit construction unless there is a 50 foot non-disturbed buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh no it is our policy though to require one whenever possible at least 50 foot. The last one we just approved in Southold was larger than 50 feet and the one on Main Bayview was greater than fifty feet. JIM FITZGERALD: I think what I am asking you are the requirement for I presume an established policy for a fifty-foot buffer. In a situation like this where it would preclude the construction of the house and the proposal and what would be required. 26 27 GREG YAKABOSKI: It is based on envkonmental concerns which is why the fifty foot buffer comes into play. The Board has found over time that some of these deserve some of the concerns of the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it is more putting appropriate size structures within the constraint of the lot. It is a very small lot, and the apphcant will have to work within the constraints of that lot. One of the concerns is the buffer area. Also it is brought up by one of the people that spoke as how the drainage is going to affect once the lot is cleared. How the drainage is going to effect the wetlands. It is fairly steep lot. JIM FITZGERALD: Any addition, anywater that is. becomes if you will for the ability conserve these storms which will be contained on the lot with drywells. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need to see that on a plan. What does the Board feel about the size of the house with the set backs. If the house were down size so you could meet the set backs. It would be a different application. JIM FITZGERALD: What would you like them to do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the standard non-disturbance set back is 50 feet. JIM FITZGERALD: So if we made the house - the house is fifty feet near the wetlands. The actual line of the phragmites. It is pretty heavily infested in phraagrnites and pretty ugly. I was wondering what is your policy with regard to phragmities this day. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is what we would regard as the wetland line. I think that was marked here on the survey is 47 feet there. I think that the Board feels that is pretty accurate. We feel that is pretty accurate wetland line. We measured it. We just want to maximize the set backs. JIM FITZGERALD. So the numbers that you are saying is that the phragmities should not be disturbed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is correct. That is being consistent in the area. We try to be consistent in that area. JIM FITZGERALD: I am sure that no one else in that area disturbs their phragmities. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We like to hope not. JIM FITZGERALD: Al, I will take this to the owner and if he moves the house back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that the whole application needs to be reviewed because if it is going on a slab. Then you do not have to excavate 400 cubic yards. That is going to minimize the amount of impact because there will not be any excavations. Then we need to see that put on the survey, but in the mean time if you want to work on the - we will be happy to meet you on the site, and work on the dock application and move it along at the same time. If you want. JIM FITZGERALD: I want to clarify- have you seen the site and speaking in terms of the 50 foot buffer area looks like now. Is that a legal requirement-no disturbance. 27 28 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do not allow people to put a fence in it. Absolutely non-disturbance. That is what is going to protect the wetlands from sedimentation from upland disturbance and from nutrient or anything else that flow overland into the wetlands. Of course, erosion. Right down the bank. Once the rest of the lot is cleared, all that water is just going to flush straight in. That is the whole purpose. So I will make a Motion to Table the application besides a larger set-back. We will need to see drywells and gutters the very least and possibly a drywell for the driveway run-off to contain that. What do you think about that Artie. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It depends on which direction it is falling. TRUSTEE KRLrpSKI: It is falling down hill. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Because it is pervious does not mean it is no flow.there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not when you can see when you start at sixteen and ends at thirteen. It is a pretty short run. So you can assume that they need something to keep the water from flowing right into the garage. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You are going to have to do that any way or you are going to have a garage full of water every time it rains. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The rain has to be contained. I will make a Motion go Table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES 17. Proper-T Services on behalf of C&D REALTY requests a Wetland Permit to construct single family dwelling with private well and on site sewage disposal system. Located: 5640 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck SCTM#113-4-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? Would anyone like to speak against the application, Jim, number 17. JIM FITZGERALD: I am sorry have you spoken to Ms. Wickham? CHARLOTTE CUNNINGHAM: No, she never called. JIM FITZGERALD: There apparently is some confusion, About who is doing what to whom. I think that for all practical purposes. Gail Wickham is the representative. So there is no one here to speak for the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Would you like to speak on this application or the previous one. RON DOBERT: No the previous number sixteen. TRUSTEE K KRUPSKI: Let us finish this one first and then we will take your comments. I do not know who requested that? This be put back on the agenda. CHARLOTTE CUNNINGHAM: They adjourned until September and I just put it back automatically on for September. 28 29 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will make a Motion to Table it since there is no one here to represent the applicant.. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In all fairness to the applicant. All in favor. ALL AYES. We still have your name out heading it leading the charge here so do you want that removed. You can figure it out. Yes. RON DOBERT: My question was how do we proceed. Is there another hearing of variances? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As far as side yard set back, that does not concern this Board that is a ZBA if you have questions if you have to direct then towards them. Any other qUestions you really have to direct towards the Building Department Everyone has there own little jurisdiction here and they do not overlap. RON DOBERT: Septic system and wells are Health Department. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Health Department exactly and I do not know how they treat that at all when you have a hook-up with City Water plus you use your well for drinking I di not know. RON DOBERT: What are the setback from the wetlands what is it actually? I heard it was 75 than I hear 100. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That is the jurisdictional line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our jurisdiction Is one hundred feet, which means that any activity within one hundred feet from tidal or fresh water wetlands. Any activity we have to be involved. Whether it is clearing or putting a driveway in or addition to a house or tennis court or anything like that. NEIGHBOR: What about below the ten foot contour? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; No, that is DEC.? NEIGHBOR; No that is DEC, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are strictly one hundred feet, it used to be 75 feet. The Town Board increased it this year they made it 100 feet because it is Town Code Our jurisdiction is also in the creeks, we actually own the creek bottom and through the Colonial Patent the Andros Patent That is where real jurisdiction and real authority comes from. So any activities within 100 feet we regulate. Anything outside of 100 feet is out of our jurisdiction and no action is required by our Board. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Why don't you pursue the purchase. 18. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MAUREEN BENIC request a Wetland Permit for the seasonal installation of a 8'x20' polyethylene float secured with 4 25 lb. mushroom anchors. Located: 395 North Parish Drive, Southold SCTM#71-1-4 (Postponed per Agent's request) 19. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf ofMICItAEL PISACANO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a smgle-family dwelling, private well, on site 29 30 sewage, disposal system and pervious driveway. Located: 2390 West Mill Creek Drive, Greenport, NY SCTM#51-6-4 (Postponed per agent's request 20. 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 with concrete retaining wall, place approx. 450 cy. of fill, install drywells establish a 50' non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the tidal wetland boundaries. Connect to public water and other utilities. Located: 9326 Main Bayview Road, Southold SCTM#87-5-25 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here would like to speak on behalf of this application? ROB HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant LISA EDSON. I will simply remind the Board that we have certainly been out there for a long time. The last hearing the Board was looking to see a dra'mage plan designed for the driveway that would be constructed through the twenty foot right a way that provides Ms. Edson access from Main Bayview Road to her property with the specific concern for the wetlands on the property to the north. We put Sag Harbor Engineering in the past and what I have just handed up to Charlotte, I believe Patricia Moore had already submitted the revised site plan but what Ijnst handed up. Is the original drainage design by Sag Harbor Engineenng along with a'narrative that describes the storm drainage design? 'Essential it is just a bit more specifically an intoxicatingly designed version of what we had discussed with the Board. In that there wilt be hopefully a blue stone driveway. Seven foot area for basically a seven foot stone trench, Designed to capture run-off which will then be stored in an upper portion and a system of four drywells and in its lower portion in a bed of stone conta'ming GO fabric underneath the driveway. It was designed very conservatively effectively to capture all of the nm- off. There are technically sides to this. Which are described in the narrative as far as run-off goes. Efficient that were used by the engineer etc. But if you look at the plan and it is not. It is blown up a bit more, than the actually engineer plans. The survey or simply took this information translated onto a survey. There is one copy which I just handed to you, Al. Basically shows the cross section. Basically this is what you are looking at with the driveway. The driveway is here and then there is a mangled trench if stone here, Basically this water percolates down and is captured by the drywells and it is closer to the subject parcel were it is too shallow to need drywells. There is a storm water layer, which is used in that area. So that design would be putting place in order to prevent storm water run off from heading into that phragmites wetland on the property to the north and on either side of the driveways. You will notice also that the revised site plan reflects a modified and again reduced 30 31 house plan. As you may recall I think Artie had originally brought up the point of discussion that was raised I believe followed a comment by Ms. Kirsch as far as the set backs of the dwelling and other structures from the fight a way. The plan has again been redesigned in co-ordination with the first floor. Who as the Board knows would ultimately, before a building permit could be issued. Obtain variance from the zoning board for the set backs from the right-a -way. The wetland setbacks we are not compromising. The wetlands set backs have been as long as this Board had been hearing applications. But the size of the house and the configuration has been reduced to achieve better zoning set backs. It does not effect. This Board but it is consistent with the discussions that were heard during the last hearing. The Board has any questions, I will try to anser them and Patdcia Moore is here as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: While we are_reviewing these. Are there any Other comments? TRUSTEE SMITH: What was the square footage of the house before on the old plan? PATRICIA MOORE: Fifty seven along one way 110 on another (cannot understand) 46 width. The architect was able to move ten feet for a total of 30 feet from the property line. TRUSTEE SMITH: So it is ten feet off the fight a way: ROB HERRMANN; The inside of the right a way. The actual square footage. Henry is the building area. He did not have it broken down by structure but the building area on the plan that was approved by DEC was 5,283 s.f. that includes the house, deck and the pool. The proposed building area, indicated on the survey in front ofvou is 4,782 s.f. GREG YAKABOSKI: Pat are you still going to need variances on the set backs for the ZBA PATRICIA MOORE: Yes the requirement is a front yard variance that is sixty feet which is impossible to achieve and also maintain the set backs from the wetlands. The property to North, Kirsch also ended up having to go for variances because of that right a way. Otherwise there would be side yard set backs. It is the fight a way that creates the problems.- GREG YAKABOSKI: That is why I was asking the question. I know. PATRICIA MOORE: It is the fight a way even though that fight a way is really limited in its use. Because it is only giving access down to the dredge canal and mos.t of it is very close to the wetlands. So I think that all uses of that fight a way will be limited in how much activity. GREG YAKABOSKI: Kirsch is the one that built the small house. PATRICIA MOORE: The octagonal house, yes. GREG YAHABOSKI: See what happens A1 we need a set back because of the fight a way. They will need a variance from ZPA. Any thing under 60 foot Pat. PATRICIA MOORE: Anything under 60 feet, and that cannot be achieved. One thing that is a limiting factor here is the sanitary system is fixed in its place. We do not have any options on moving on that. The 31 32 Health Department approved this design. Very specifically and engineered that retaining wall around it. So that retaining wall it is stuck right there where it is. I think at most agreeable to move it five feet, Which is a little bit of buffer from the right a way. That is fixed in its place. ROB HERRMANN: It is the only location where we could actually meet the one hundred foot wetland set back. Because them are wetlands to the north and to the southwest. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that the only location, that the fill is proposed to be be used. I am. looking at a final grade question here. TRYSTEE FOSTER: Where are you going to put 450 yards of fill. ROB HERRMANN: That is all to be contained within the retaining wall for the sanitary system. Because the house is going to be on pilings so there is no fill being brought in to grade up the house. So that is designed for the sanitary system, which of course which must be, elevated a minimum distance above ground water. What happens is once you elevate that system. Unless you ca- grade out of 5% slope before you cross your own property boundaries, the Health Department requires a concrete retaining wall to contain the fill around the system. Obviously there is no room to grade out a project. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you vision this as the final thespian? ROB HERRMANN: Hope so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do too. I guess we have to look at this drainage plan. We just received this. We would like to look at in the field. Artie can review it. Better than most of us for the driveway. ROB HERRMANN: I would also say I can contact your Office. I am sure that the engineer who designed the plan and if you had any questions these great guys talk to us and work with us and I am sure would answer any questions that the Board might have just about the functioning of it. TRUSTEE KRLrPSKI: It looks like in one part section you are going to dig right down to ground water and backfill with gravel. ROB HERRMANN: The closer to the Edson property the depth to ground water is too shallow to put in a dry well. That is how many feet deep. So in that area rather than putting down dry wells it would actually enter into the ground water tables. We are staying above the ground water table with the stone blanket. The novel concept to me would be that the trench would capture the water and then empting into drywells. It empties it into this stone blanket. So in other words the water has time to reach our ground water as to spelling offbut the trench would run the whole seven feet along the side of the driveway to contain the water. The stone bed is just alternate storage mechanizing to the drywells. It is probably more than your Board actually asked us to come up but given the sensitivity (tape change) TRUSTEE FOSTER: That is an effective method of recharge it really works well. We have done that a lot. 32 33 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I will make a Motion to Table this. We will give it a final review in the field on October 17th. ROB HERRMANN: Do you want any new information. That right of way has been shaped. I do not know if you had the chance to look at it. But you may... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did months ago. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We saw it staked. ROB HERRMANN: I just want to make sure that there is nothing else you would need from me. TRUSTEE KRUPKSI: Anything else. 21. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DONNA FRAGOLA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two story, one family dwelling with attached garage and porch; install a pervious driveway, sanitary system, drywells, and public water service, and establish a 50' non- disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the apparent high water line/tidal wetland boundary, construct approximately 125 linear feet of vinyl/plastic retaining wall with a 10' northwesterly remm and backfill with approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sand to be tracked in from an upland source (southerly terminus of proposed structure to be'tied into adjacent reta'ming wall, consisting of a 4'x17' fixed timber catwalk 4'x14' hinged ramp; and 6'x20' float secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings, all as depicted on the project plan. Located: 1145 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport, NY SCTM#35-4-8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone like to speak in favor of this application? ROB HERRMANN: I am Rob Herrmann from Eh-Consultants on behalf of the applicant DONNA FRAGOLA. This plan that is before the Board has three components to it. There ~s a proposed dwelling and sanitary system. There is a proposed reta'ming wall to contain the erosion the ongoing erosion of the upland portion of the parcel and also a dock consisting of a timber catwalk, ramp and float. Probably the most straight forward aspect of the plan is that of the proposed house. It is located a minimum of 76 feet from the adjacent tidal wetland boundary at its closest point. Most of the house ~s graded a distance from the wetlands. The sanitary system is also wholly outside of the Board's jurisdiction. As far as the dock goes. This Board is certainly keenly aware 0four ever and on going Catch 22. Of trying to design a dock that can reach desirable water depths from the NY State DEC prospective. While also staying within this Board's role of t/3 the width of the canal and more generally staying in line with neighboring docks. I was contacted by one of the neighbors to indicate that throughout the neighboring land owners there has been some concern over the extent of the dock into the canal. I will address that two ways, first of all again bear in m'md, the dock length was proposed as it was submitted so that the outside of the float would be in four feet of water as required by the DEC for permanent dock. However, I had discussed with Ms Fragola- Mrs Fragola excuse me. The possibility 33 34 of shorting the dock, so that it would even be more in line with the neighboring dock immediately to the west, and with the other structures. I did design a potential alternate plan to the dock here are three copies of it for the Board to take a look at. Just essentially it pulls the dock in by a float lift. It moves it in by six feet, you measure by kayak the width of the canal fi:om high water on the shoreline to the shoreline on the other side is 115 feet with the alternate plan. The dock would extend a total of 24 feet fi:om high water which would allow for .14 foot wide boat if it was going to be that large and still stay within you one third of the canal nde of thumb or policy. The Fragola's are willing to offer this alternative. We really cannot move the dock any closer and obtain an approval from any agency. As it is it would be six feet. The inside of th float wOuld be six feet from the shoreline at low water and approximately a foot of water but would still obtain at least two feet or more on the outside. If the Board is familiar with the canal it does drop off very deeply. It drops off deeply very quickly. The other thing that you may notice about the plan that I just handed to you that it does also tuck the dock a little bit more to the west- closer to the property owned by Rakaowski so in that way. It trys to cut the dock ina little bit closer to the shoreline as well. As far as the retaining wall goes. The problem with erosion the property is pretty obvious certainly some of the shoreline that exist there is being fed by the up land. If the Board noticed there are a couple rather tall trees that are fringing right on the edge and certainly could certainly pose a risk to the water way. Also contribute to further erosion of the upland. So we designed the two aspects somewhat in conjunction with one another. The existence of the dock of course does not depend on the existence of the retaining wall put certainly each. The retaining wall does seem like a good idea for erosion control. If the Board has any questions? About either the original plan or the difference betweer/the original plan and the one that I just submitted I'would be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will take other comments first, is there any other comment on this application? NEIGHBOR: Remember that is a man-made canal and I have a little remember able for people here. Any body likes to remember Bob Preston grea~ visionary who dug the canal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. NEIGHBOR: Asyou Can see filling the request of the Town in that letter. Mr. Preston agreed to dig a canal to an 80-foot width and maintain an 8- foot at mean low water. I have been there thirty-five years, I have owned that lot. I have watched the erosion on it. That is a builder lot, because it is more severe on the canal on the biblical point or the turn of the canal. We all including Mr. Fragola own the bottom in a separate deed also to the center fi:om our properties. I would like an attempt made with the DEC to grant a special dispensation here. Since we are dealing with a canal all these rules, that is fine- get out to deep water. We are in the pond if you are in the bay. Then as far as taking the high water mark. It is now the 34 35 slip recline of Fred Fragola lot not the originally. It shifts as it lays down. The possibility the DEC would allow him to reta'm and pull back what he has lost So we do not have to pull all the way to the left when we go around that comer. We have been waiting for somebody to develop the property just to regain and recapture as we all did the depth that we need to get by thAt point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are sir? SAL FRATO: Sal Frato 590 Wiggins Lane northeast of Fred Fragola lot on the canal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In other words you pass him. SAL FRATO: ! am beyond him. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Navigation is always a concern on any dock applications. So you are suggesting dredging that section of canal. SAL FRATO: Pull back we lost that there are no phragmities there. It does not interfere with anything, I could never understand the concept of bringing in a fill from some land fill which we do not know who is pee~ng in it. When we have in these slip which is right there. We know that is not contaminated it belongs there. It is part of Southold Town, - right Henry. TRUSTEE SMTIH: What ever you say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? NEIGHBOR: I am the southerly neighbor to the Fragola property and I am just concerned about the attachment to my bulkhead. I have no idea how it is going to be attached. I do know where it is going to be attached I do not know how it is going to be attached, I was not aware of where it was going to be attached until I received notice. Because of the retaimng wall on the north side and there cannot be a return wall on my side. So I am concerned my existing bulkhead is totally on my property. It is not on the property line. It is a weird shape goes out probably three feet at the end of the bulkhead on the property line. It is attached there and if it gets backfilled or whatever it will become part of the adjacent property because there will no (cannot understand). My basic concern is that I have no idea whatsoever the retaining wall is going to look like. There is no plan in view I have no concept of the result of construction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you Any other comment? NElL OLSEN: My name is Neil Olsen, I own the property on 3590 Main Road .it is the northwest comer of Gull Pond and after reviewing the plan the extension and the blank out into the center of pond. There is grave concern. In as much I own a boat that measures 50 feet by 16 feet it needs at least 5 feet water to move. I can navigate that canal pretty comfortable but ifa boat comes the other way. We have a problem As you know boats do not mm like an automobile. They go much wider on the turn. Boat can be as much as twenty feet wide on certain conditions wind and current etc. Allowing the Fragola's to dredge seems to be the best solution for all parties concerned I went out with my 24 foot boat and I just sat 35 feet off their property and really does not look very big when 35 36 you are sitting out on a boat So just imagine a fifty foot boat that is actually turn in height from a bank of 20 feet on turns. They just tam it is right on the turn. I did have an occasion this summer that was 17 feet and we had all to do to get by each other. So, as Mr. Costello should put in his boat which he sometimes does on his property it further narrows that situation. As far as 115 feet at that point the question that I am not an architect or an engineer nor did measure it with a ruler. But just sitting there. It does not seem to be that wide. Eighty feet seems to be more the size, Thank you that is all: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? BOB LITCHMAN: My name is Bob Litchman I live 600 feet north west of the subject property. Personally I measured across the canal at the subject property where a stake was placed recently. We get a maximum reading 102 feet. The average width of the canal between bulkheads is 95 feet I see that the applicant intends to suggest that he proposes to move his dock further to Mandwich which is a move in the right direction, Because if you see by a scale drawing that I made up to supplement the plan I hope that the Board has a copy. It will show graphically how this proposal would restrict navigation in the canal. Especially since it is around the bend ora tight mm. As the canal bends down to the sound. So if the Board will be diligent in pursuing this. Actually see that the dock can be moved landward, which would entail some amount of dredging. Which we believe that the applicant should be able to do. Because it is just his land that has been eroded down the bank and over twenty-five years without any protection. Since that land is quite high on its existing bank it eroded more than other lands. Also it should be noted that on the subject property there ~s no en-dangered grasses that in time that would restrict a dredging permit to that respect. In fact no grasses are there at all. Because of the sift movement of the water over the very shallow beach there. But just to try to go all the way out and place the dock beyond where it has shoaled is really restricting the navigation of the water way. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else who has not spoken. JOHN SEPARINI: I am John Separini I live next to the gentlemen that has just spoken and I am not going to add much to what people have said except that again since I have moved in navigating that turn has been difficult and the proposed floating dock will make it that much more difficult. We would be more significantly further into the canal at any other time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. JOHN COSTELLO: My name is John Costello and I own the property directly across from the Fragola property and I hope this Board approves a project at this site. So it is not postponed and delayed and I hope that it is considered. Doing the right thing in that channel was dredged to an 8 foot depth in the early 1960's and it was maintained to that depth for a 36 37 while. It is eroding now; it is just the matter of the location of the bulkhead and the location of the inclusion into the waterway. I can assure you that the width vaunted around here, 115 feet; none of them applies to navigable water. So it is eroding slumping into the waterway, so it is just a matter of where bulkhead is located. The depth of water at the bulkhead line. Where the float will be located at the bulkhead platform for the boat. The bulkhead allows the float to be tight to the bulkhead. Also remove some of the dirt that is introducing on our waterways and increase the flow of water. There are no wetlands here upon the property. That happened to be the onlv turn in that channel. That is the most difficult on occasion I have barges in there and I can assure you. You cannot turn right there at that length, because it is not navigable ~vat~r. It will show hopefully that the canal was designed for deep water and hopefully maintains that deep water. One of the few spots in Southold Town that has deep water and I hope that you allow to remain like that. TRUSTEE SMITH: Al, we do not have an application for dredging? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE SMITH: I would not have any problem giving them a permit for dredging. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not think I would either. I do not thing that there is any dredging component in the application. ROB HERRMANN: Just let me respond to some of the comments that have been made. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Rob, before you start. The board went out on Field Inspection last Wednesday, and we did not inspect the sight. Because first of all it was not posted. We found it, but it was not posted. Seconded it Was not staked. We know that because we asked the surveyors who were just going to start tht morning. TRUSTEE FOSTER: He was doing the triangiuarations in the car. ROB HERRMANN: What time were you there because I posted it 9:30 that morning. I have the posted it in my car. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just before that. TRUSTEE SMTIH: About nine o'clock. TRUSTEEE KRUPSKI: Because it was not staked we would have looked obviously if it was posted. But it was not staked it was really no point as us looking the property. ROB HERRMANN: But the surveyor had told me that you were there. You said that you would come back and in a little while. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We will come back, but not that day, we were not going to wait for them. We cannot assume that they are going to finish that day or that morning. I think that everyone's comments focus on the navigability factor of the channel. A lot of it was focused on the dredging which Henry stated for the Board that I do not think that anyone Would have a problem. It is a dredged canal. It is a privately owned bottom. 37 38 ROB HERRMANN: That is what I need to respond to. Certainly if the agencies would allow the Fragola's to do that I think that they would just up and down and kiss who would allow them who would allow them to do it. The reason that it is not proposed. Is because my perception is snow balls chance in hell that the DEC would allow this to happen. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I disagree there is a dredge canal, private bottom it is not... ROB HERRMANN: There has been some comment that there are no wetlands. There are no en-damaged phragmities and whatever other catch phrases have been thrown around. The bottom line is it is little shoals and mud flats. It is a catagogral use within Article 25 of the Title Wetland Law. I do not see any applications where there is private bottom. Where there is a canal whatever it is where the New York State DEC region one approves new dredging. Well you say this really is not new dredging because the canal was historically created by man made means. What was articulated by John Costello and articulated by other people. I do not disagree with them. I have been on the same side of argument, as John knows many times. As my boss for twenty five more years than I have. It sounds like something. If the entire community here and the applicant and this Board would view that as a favorable resolution to this. Absolutely let us exposure it. But I am not going through the usual task of getting that permit from this Board and then getting a letter denial from the DEC and then having to come back here. So if the Board feels strongly enough upon looking at the site that is the way ro go. It would definitely be the way my client would go and it sounds that would make everyone else happy but that is going to require coordinating effort. We will have to meet with the DEC at the site. If they are amenable to it, let do it. Let us end this quickly. That would be great. I do not th'ink that they are going to be amenable to this. . I do not know if one of you. I know that Jim you have been able to speak to Chuck much lately. I know that he has been out of town for a long. He would be the one to get down there. Because he would ultimately would the authority that yes or no this. If that could be coordinated, if you would help me coordinate it. I would love to do it. Because it does seem like a logical thing to do. There are inter tidal wetland immediately to the southwest. So dredging this entire shore line does present some issues with the DEC. In the area that they are discussing dredging. But there are adjacent and just because there is not wetland vegetation. It does not mean that the DEC does not regulate. The DEC will not seek to protect it. Whether the material is source from the upland. Whether there are grasses on it. whether there are critters whatever. They will declare little shoals and mud flat by law and the new dredging of such an area is a presumably incompatible use. If there is enough concern here and the Board willingness to help us overcome that presumption with the DEC I think that we should explore it. But I would ask your help in coordinating the meeting to get down there and look *it it. 38 39 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would be happy to facilitate a meefmg. That is without looking at it. Because it seems to make the most sense. ROB HERRMANN: It does. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not think we mention the 1/3 role, which is a policy of the Board, which we do not allow the float and the boat to exceed more than 1/3 away across the w~aterway. That is our basic policy for starters'. It is navigable waterway. You could not allow the boat and the float take the deep end. Leave that much water for the rest of 2/3. ROB HERRMANN: Just for the record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is just for the record that is our policy. But then it is a completely different scenario. You take each application where they come up. This is completely different than a normal dock application. Because where it is located. So we would be happy to meet with DEC ROB HERRMANN: One other comment and I am sure of this gentleman's pronunciation but it is the gentleman that discussed the retaining wall attached to his bulkhead. I apologize for that, that was an over sight by my office. You should have been sent a letter asking for your written permission. Without which we could not do this. To fie in if you are in favor of it. You can give the Fragola's your permission. If you prefer you can say you will not give your permission. And you would have to do it that way. But you should have been notified more specifically than just a general application. That was just an over sight none of the agencies would allow us to tie into you unless we have a letter signed by you. My apologizes for that. So it sounds that you probably you want to meet there during your field inspections in October and I will try to see if we can get someone l~om the DEC down there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right Absolutely. I will make a Motion to Table the application. ROB HERRMANN: Very briefly, I asked Tom to stay TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Stay all night. He is welcomed.. TOM SAMUELS: Just want to make a couple of comments? There are other properties on that canal that have been dredged with DEC permits and have been approved to dredge to a six foot depth of water. In order to replace the fill, place it on the upland side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is not that exoteric proposal. TOM SAMUELS: I know, it is private bottom and I just that this Board could sport this. TRUSTEE SMTII-I: Mr. Costello will do it for $10.00 a foot. TOM SAMUELS: But it will hopefully appease everybody to provide the access. TRUSTEE SMTIH: I think that is the way to go. TOM SAMUELS: It is not just Gold Pond there are other places where it has been allowed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let us not press this too far here. 39 40 TOM SAMUELS: [ would suggest that at that meeting, if the homeowner's can get together and have a representative of them selves there. It might be a good idea. Because it is just common sense. TRUSTEE KRUPSLI: Sure it is. TOM SAMUELS: I think once in a while I prevail. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Not too often. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes sir. ARTHUR LANSING: Arthur Lansing, Gull Pond Lane. Are you talldng about mean high water? All along here the navigation charts are rated in terms of mean low water. If you are going to look at that again come at mean low water and see how wide it is. You have a 3-1/2 foot tide in there. A lot of navigable water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We take that into consideration. ARTHUR LANSING: It narrows down considerably. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We mean high water we are also looking at the reta'ming wall part of that. Also the whole up land part of the project as well. Thank you. I will make a Motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As far as navigable water- soundings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Take a seconded on it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor ALL AYES Rob one more thing we would like some soundings there. So we know what actual area are navigable. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Find the three foot depth contour on 153.7 on the other. ROB I-[ERRMANN: On the entire shorefront. I have water depth in there you want them the whole. TRUSTEE POLlWODA: Instead of that 102 to 115 feet find the three foot mark. ROB HERRMANN: Sound across so you see what the real profile is. Ken again the width that I am showing.is not meant to disguise that there is somehow. We ordinarily measure at high water what the width of creek is. If this Board is looking for it at low tide I can show, I can show what ever you want. We measured from the high water line to the opposite bulkhead and that is the width o the waterway, as the agency specifically define it. But I see what you are saying here. Because most of that is not in fact navigable. Then it is in relative me~surernent so we can sound across that is not a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We table it, good night. It will come up next month automatically. 22. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of GERALD RAFFERTY requests a Wetland Permit for the placement of spoil (from SCDPW dredge of Little Creek or other) Geotube for retention of sand and plant with Cape American Beach Grass 18" on center and Rosa Rugosa 5' on center. Relocate away from wetland existing float, ramp and piles approx. 75' 40 41 west (inside private boat basin). Located: 9205 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, NY SCTM#104-3-16.1 (Postponed as per attorney's requesO 23. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of VINCENT FREDA & LOUISE DAYrequests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x30' set of steps leading to a 4'x+/-311' catwalk tobe constructed a minimum m of 3.5' above grade and a 4'x40' set of steps. Located: 7715 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic SCTM#86-6-p/o26 (Postponed as per attorney's request 24. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf ofRICARDO RENGIFO request a Wetland Permit to reconstruct existing 4'x46' dock, in kind/in place, and extend it another 10' for a total of 56' then continuing with a new 32"x16' ramp leading to anew 6'x20' float secured with a 2-pile dolphin and two single piles. Install two single mooring piles and reconstructing 30' existing jetty in place with "C-Loc" vinyl sheathing. Located: 1875 Shore Road, Greenport, NY SCTM#47-2-32 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes, my name is John Costello I am here to answer any questions the Board has. I wondered if the Board wanted to go to the ske again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Greg wanted to stay. GREG YAKABOSKI: I was out of here, I tried to leave John. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Greg wanted to stay. The question of that retaining wall built on the neighbor's property that is out of our hands. Is that correct? GREG YAKABOSKI: No, what we were going to do. I talked to Lauren this morning about that and she was going to send a letter contact'mg either of the property owners. Both Rengifo and Stackler and the vacant lot to the west. See who claimed it and go from there. We did not know who it was. At the last hearing ifI recall you were not sure. If it was Rengifo. JOHN COSTELLO: I do not know who put it in. But I can submerse who put in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can guess it was Rengifo. JOHN COSTELLO: I believe that Austin Berger was the contractor that put it in. Rengifo owned that property, probably for twenty five years or more. GREG.YAKABOSKI: The vacant lot? JOHN COSTELLO: No the one with the house is. GREG YAKOBOSKI: So you think that retaining wall has been there for a number of years. JOHN COSTELLO: No, but it has been there for several years. I know who did it. I know that is not alive any longer. 41 42 GREG YAKABOSKI: So in that case Mr. Rengifo I believe the vacant land owner has been some prelinary contact with Lauren. JOHN COSTELLO: With who? GREG YAKABOSSKI: Laurn, from the Trustee's office. JOHN COSTELLO: We went to a hearing and meet with the assistant attorney, GREG YAKABOSKI: Mary, what was the outcome of that. JOHN COSTELLO: They pleaded guilty-Mr. Rengifo who was guilty to the violafiom And that he would correct the violations that he was cited on the Bay Constables. The Bay Constable had a violation is for the heating. GREG YAKABOSKI: As to the retaining wail. JOHN COSTELLO: Yes, I believe. GREG YAKABOSKI: The only reason you see a little perplex look on my face. Is that Mary was at the meeting with Lauren this morning. JOHN COSTELLO: I was there. GREG YAKABOSKI: I believe you. I do not know what to tell you. V~re thought we were solving it this morning. We were trying to move it to solve it. JOHN COSTELLO: That was the last meeting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is why I asked Greg to stay, to settle this matter. GREG YAKABOSKI: I believe what you can do is that the application is here for the dock right. If you want you can deal with the dock and the groin. You folks were telling me about that last time. Deal with the retaining wall as a separate issue. JOHN COSTELLO: It is a separate issue. GREG YAKABOSKI: I am trying to help you.. JOHN COSTELLO: It has been for a month anyway. GREG YAKABOSKI: You can deal with that and take that out and get a permit for it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If that is what you recommend that is what we will do. GREG YAKABOSKI: That way you can move forward any where you want to on the dock and I will address this when I come back again a few days from now with regards to the retaining wall. Mary and Lauren were at the meeting this morning we are going to see what happens. JOHN COSTELLO: When ever it is resolved. GREG YAKABOSKI: We are simply going to send a letter out and try to see what happens. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, Ken do want to start the discussion here. Unless Mr. Costello would like to make some comments? JOHN COSTELLO: What do you want me to say that I have not said before. TRUSTEE KING; What would it cost to dredge that canai today. 42 43 JOHN COSTELLO: Probably the volume that they took out of there, and moved it across creek. There was dredge spoils area across the creek and getting rid of fill would be very reasonable, nice clean granulate and you probably could do it for $16. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But not bullheaded. JOHN COSTELLO: I wrote a letter to the Board, hopefully that they saw this site at reasonable low water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No we did not see it. Because they did not have it staked. JOHN COSTELLO: Rengifo TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No Rengifo we saw it. JOHN COSTELLO: Today at low water. It was below normal and the DEC is th3 one that requkes (tape change) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the jetty serve any function? JOHN COSTELLO: Minimum but it is a very minor. They all drift the same in that area. You can see by the lock jetty that is adjacent and probably for years. They are on the easterly side of that rock jetty. There is more beach, than there is to the west. The west side is scoring out and the west side is eroding considerable. There is a lot of clay. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What is that little area called there. JOHN COSTELLO" Pipes Cove TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is that part of Pipes Cove. JOHN COSTELLO: Last month the discussion of possibly lowering it. We certainly would because it is just not sand in there. You never going to fill in the top. I do not know why it is so hard high.. There probably was a beach there at one t'zrne. With these bulkheads along the entire beach. You loose some of the beach that was there. There was a beach before all those bulkheads. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Up east further, where the hotels? JOHN COSTELLO: The whole thing was a beach. When I was a kid which was many years before you. It was all rock. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What was it Cherry Grove. You could walk that whole stretch. We did many times. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: That is when the scallop fishing was good. That was the Hotel Beach. JOHN COSTELLO: We will remove the float in the winter. It will probably be stored at Olsen's boat yard. You take it out because there is no eel grass. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is your feeling here Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I agree with the CAC which recommends that it remains the same in kind/in place position. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am inclined to agree with them also on this. As far as increasing the size of the structure. The point is that this is not Gull Pond and you are going to be able to pull the boat in. 43 44 JOHN COSTELLO: We are not looking for Gull Pond. You are going back to the depth of water at the other existing docks. That is one of the reasons that it was delayed it for a month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did not. Last Wednesday, we did not go. All right. JOHN COSTELLO: Let me tell you I went there today. There was four inches of water at this dock. There was 2-1/2 feet at the Norcess's correspondingly there are different depths of water every where around. He is not looking to put a boat show under there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would be happy to go look again. Because we did not go because it was a bad day that day. It was the day after the Attack and we did not go. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: IfI can add I think that 90% or 95% of the homeowner's on the bay. They have a mooring off shore. This would be substantial dockage space. JOHN COSTELLO: Ninety percent of the people have moorings and dinging. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The have a dinging on the beach. Put it into the bay. Basically from Mattituck to Orient on the bay. JOHN COSTELLO: If you worked on the bay as much as I do. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: But ,I see it. I see one dock TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any way I will be honest with you. We did not measure the neighbor's dock. JOHN COSTELLO: I would appreciate it if you would let me know. So I do not come up here again and go through this circus. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is not a circus. We try to give everyone a fair treatment John. Docks on the bay when do you see us approve docks on the bay. Without total ...we 2'ust say dock on the bay. We never do that. JOHN COSTELLO: This is the fourth time for this. For violations TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just went through it at Cleaves Point.. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would this be acceptable for time and place for what he has. TARUSTEE SMTIH: He has three feet of water, so he cannot tie up his boat up. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It is ineffective. Why rebuild a dock that gives you two inches of water. JOHN COSTELLO: Navigation just tell me what we are doing to navigation? You know about the fish out there That is another two of three hundred feet offthere. You know all of this. It goes right adjacent to tl~is. So it is not going to interfere with navigation. You know that right. What are we going to environmentally? What are we doing? TRUSTE POLIWODA: It is a small piece of the puzzle. JOHN COSTELLO: Ken, I know you decision. You told me several times TRUSTEE POL1WODA: If everyone did it. It would be a disaster. 45 JOHN COSTELLO: No everyone is not doing it. It is just a fact, there is a dock built in Nassau Point. There are all docks in that area on the east side. This is not going to happen. The economy is tight now going to stop a lot of docks. More than anyone else. We are looking for a ten-foot and a float that is removed in the winter. TRUSTEE KRUPSLI: The poles that are sticking om there in addition to it. JOHN COSTELLO: They are not doing anything to the environment. Nothing to navigation. Any body that is in this area and navigating is in a lot of trouble. If any one of you has a boat you will not go anywhere near there including Kenny. There are rocks in there, I will tell you. TRUSTEE SMITH: What are you asking for ten foot? JOHN COSTELLO: Ten foot ofdock~ramp and a float the float and ramp are removable. TRUSTEE SMiTH: And it is seasonal. JOHN COSTELLO: Absolutely, just trying to get to the minimal amount of water.. The minimal for the float and the boat TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do like the extra mooring piles. He wants a floats then he wants a mooting piles. We made a mistake in Cleaves Point. They were in today; they do not want this or that. I told them the biggest mistake that I have ever made on the Board was allowing all those docks in Cleaves Point. That was the biggest mistake that I feel that I have made on the Board:allowing all those docks on the bay there. TRUSTEE POL1WODA: Do you know that they put track lighting over there? Did you see it? JOHN COSTELLO: Concentration of boats in that area so that they are not scattered on. It is a benefit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: [ consider it to be one of the biggest mistakes that I have made. I made plenty but that was the biggest. I do want to see this. This will perforate you have one - you have two- and then you have six and ten. Then we will say that we should have stopped them.. JOHN COSTELLO: Let me tell you the scenario that is prevailing everywhere on every application. The docks are not the problem. The up- land property, the development on water front property is accepted. The roof run-off. The fertilizers that is the problem and if you are trying to slow down development. This dock is not going to cause one podia of pollution. It heads in the right direction. Straight across. It is a mitigated dock you can get it to run north south direction so that sun penetrates underneath it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is your feeling Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I do not have a problem with it really. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Jim TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see a "T" formation to bring it further in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How about that John. JOHN COSTELLO: What? 45 46 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: "T" formation. Jim suggested mm it as a "T" or as an "L" you bring it in a little more. You put one boat on the end. JOHN COSTELLO: We just do not need the water that is fme. TRUSTEE KING: It wouldbe 2-1/2 feet. JOHN COSTELLO: I know it is 2-1/2. TRUSTEE KING: It will be seasonal. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: When you think what you have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is three foot at the boat. JOHN COSTELLO:: I have done it all. TRUSTEE KING: I have no problem with it. JOHN COSTEI J,O: I have put a 16,000 pound anchor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would not have a problem with it. If you turned it at a "T" You cut off some of the length. The boat would sit at three feet, it would be seasonal. The float and ramp would be seasonal. JOHN COSTELLO: The only trouble is. Can I ask Ken one question. The prevailing winds in which direction. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The float does not belong there. JOHN COSTELLO: That is not the question Ken. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You have a three foot sea there. JOHN COSTELLO: You cannot have a three foot sea there. It is in a southwest direction. Which way would you have your boat there. Southwest direction. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Bow in. JONN COSTELLO: Absolutely, you are a seaman. Jim King is a boatsman I do not want to put anyone in a position. All I want is an answer; this is designed for the minimal. He has an outboard, a small outboard he is not going to put a big boat there. Because there is no water. It is clay and rocks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let us vote on it. Because I am getting tired here. TRUSTEE FOSTER: He has an existing dock. He has no water. He cannot use his boat. He is looking for ten more feet I really do not have a problem with it. The guy just Wants to utilize his property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It just keeps going further and further out. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well as the water depth changes. I mean that is what you have to do. Either takes the dock out - sell the house and sell your boat. That is why I sold mine. Could not find enough water. Got rid of it. JOHN COSTELLO: May I make a suggestion; two comments just came out abo~tt the pilings. Just eliminate the two pilings and I will put two anchors in there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Somebody make a Motion. TRUSTEE SMITH: I will make. a Motion. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Unless you close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSLI: I am sorry thank you. TRUSTEE SMITH: I will close the public heating first. I will make a Motion to close the public heating. 46 47 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I will make a Motion to Approve the dock ten foot further with a ramp and float and the float will be secured with anchors no tie up pilings and the jetty will be removed underneath the dock. Removal October 1s~ to April 1s~. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES 25. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ROBERT STICKLE request a Wetland Permit to construct 100 ft. bulkhead using "C-Loc" interlocking vinyl sheathing, directly in front of existing bulkhead. Dredge approx. 10 cu.yds, from canal adjacent to existing bulkhead and use material for backfilling at bulkhead, tie-rods, dead man, reinstatement of surface, etc. as required. Located: 415 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold, NY SCTM#71-02-04 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Basically if you take out the Board said the poles first and you put the vinyl right up against it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Out side it. Yes that is all we were looking for there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you have a non-turf buffer there. You have to remove that pipe there to coming through the bulkhead. Is there a Motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES Motion made in the application of ROBERT STICKLE with the condition that the piles be removed and a plastic sheathing be driven directly to the adjacent to the existing bulkhead and the piles be reinstalled. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES. 26. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JOHN & LESLEY GRAHAM requests a Wetland Permit to construct 100 ft. bulkhead using "C-Loc" interlocking vinyl sheathing, directly in front of existing bulkhead Dredge approx. 10 cu. yds fi:om canal adjacent to existing bulkhead and use material for backfilling at bulkhead, tie-rods, dead man, remstatement of surface, etc. as required. Located: 315 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold, NY SCTM#71-02-05 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like to speak on this one John? IOHN COSTELLO: The same application remove the pilings that he has in fi:ont he has the four pilings on his bulkhead now. Where he used to tie up a boat. Take them out and resheat. But what we are going to do 47 48 is encroaching basically only ten inches. The Department of State asked the same question as to removed. One of the reasons that we talked to Department of State we received the permit a couple of days ago. Do not remove a lot of things - you can excavate out. They have a lot of pollutants behind in the soil. Creosol leaches more into the soil than it does inte the water. TRUSTE POLIWODA: Are you sure that is on the record. JOHN COPSTELLO: It is on the record: TRUSTEE FOSTER: They de not want to release that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That is probably one'ofthe reasons whywe are getting away from Cresol wood bulkheads and using the C-Loc and plastic and vinyl. JOHN COSTELLO: C-Loc is absolutely correct because it ~s a non-toxic material. The trouble with creosote, I do not want to educate any body but the cresol in it self is not a major toxic. When it is put into the water on a piling because it does not mix with water. It evaporates,the DEC the University of South Carolina both agree that it has instant significant toxic effects on water. But it does, and we know from experience. It does into the soil. It blackens the waters. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well you do not have the advantage of evaporation through there. JOHN COSTELLO: It does bleed the soil. One of the permits that you issued one time was to allow me to bulkhead in Mattituck. In front of and the DEC said absolutely not. But it does pollute the soil. It seeps into the soil TRUSTEE FOSTER: Then the soil goes into the water. There you go JOHN COSTELLO: You carmot help it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right is there a seconded on that to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES I will make a Motion to Approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE KURPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES 27. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of/l USTIN POWER request a Wetland Permit to replace existing 100 ft. bulkhead using 16 ft piling ~ 6' cis. Series 4500 "C-Loc" interlocking vinyl sheathing, with l"x12' tie rods into a horizontal dead man secured in place with 8 ft backing piling. Located: 444 Midway Road, Southold, NY SCTM#90-02- 05 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And we will de two of the same AUSTIN POWER & ALFRED AMEND 48 49 28. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ALFRED J. /IMEND request a Wetland Permit existing 100 ft. bulkhead using 16 ft. pilings @6 cis. Series 4500 "C-Loc" interlocking vinyl sheathing, with l"x12' tie rods into a horizontal dead man secured in place with 8 ft. backing piling. Located: 380 Midway Road, Southold, NY SCTM#90-02-04 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken looked at this and what where your comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It looks like it was all ready pumped out once. The bulkhead was all ready pumped out once. Are you going to replace it? JOHN COSTELLO: I was going to take out the bullheads and put in place/in kind using C-Loc sheathing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I did not have problems with either one. TRUSTEE SMITH: I will make a Motion to close the heating on AUSTIN POWER & ALFRED J. AMEND. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Also that it needs a ten-foot buffer on the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A non-turfbuf£cr. It looks kind of gravelly. JOHN COSTELLO: They had gravel on there. One has a deck and one has gravel. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 380 are gravel. I will make a Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I will make a Motion to Approve the Wetland Permit for AUSTIN POWER & ALFRED J. AMEND with the condition that they maintain a ten-foot non-turf buffer. The first bulkhead be removed and the second one left in place and that the vinyl one be placed in place of the old timber TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES. Make sure it is non-turf buffer with STICKLE & GRAHAM TRUSTEE FOSTER: Make a Motion to go back to Regular Meeting. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES VI. RESOLUTIONS: 1. Resolution to set scallop season 49 50 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to set the recreational scallop season on October 1, 2001 and the commercial season to start on October 16, 2001 to run through March 31, 2002 TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES Resolution to allow for the removal of clams from SCTM#56-4- 24 as a Shellfish Depletion Project TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve. TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES Meeting Adjourned I O:45 p. m. Respectfully submitted by: Charlotte Cunhingham, ~lerk Board of Trustees RECEIVED '-~ "~ 77'~ NOV 2 7 2001 50