Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/28/2001Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Henry Smith Artie Foster 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 Thursday, September 28, 2001 4:00 PIVl PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Henry Smith, Trustee Ken Poliwoda, Trustee Greg Yakaboski, Toxvn Attorney Lauren Standish, Senior Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS ROBERT WIECZOREK received a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock consisting ofa 4'X 12' ramp to a 4'X 42' fixed catwalk, elevated 3 Ch' above marsh, a 3'X 20' hinged ramp and a 6'X 20' float with a 4'X 4' extension for ramp, to be secured by (2) ~ro-pile dolphins. Located: 835 Tarpon Rd., Southold. SCTM#53-5-8 & 57-1- 39.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? ERIC BRESSLER: For the applicant, Eric J. Bressler, Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C., P.O. Box 1424, 10315 Main Road, Mattituck, NY 11952. Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that we are here this afternoon on a heating with respect to a request to rescind the violation that has been previously issued in this matter. Is that your understanding? GREG YAKABOSKI: Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, thank you. ERIC BRESSLER: Thank you Mr. Yakaboski and I am here for the purposes of an application for a permit, the permit, the notice of violation, the request pursuant to Article 97 for a hearing. Are all of those matters in the record? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They should be. The file is open for public scrutiny so you are welcome to take a look at it. GREG YAKABOSKI: Correct, this is going to be based on the record that's with the Trustees and all of those items are in the record. ERIC BRESSI~ER: Okay, good. For purposes of a particular hearing that we're doing this afternoon, I'm introducing a number of evidence and listen to testimony from two witnesses Rob Herrmann and John Costello. I'd like to start with Mr. Herrmann if it pleases the Board and put some of the questions to Mr. Herrmann. I have his, which I xvould like to introduce the record, his Curriculum Vitae. GREG YAKABOSKI: Eric, that will start as Exhibit 1. ERIC BRESSLER: That's right, since all of the other matters are already in the record. GREG YAKABOSKI: Eric, we xvill keep track of all of the Exhibits you submit and Lauren will get you a copy at the end of the day or after that. ERIC BRESSLER: Okay. Mr. Herm~ann, for purposes of the record, we've already introduced as Exhibit 1 your Curriculum Vitae so we will not go through the ... GREG YAKABOSKI: Eric, excuse me, for the transcripts, Rob maybe you could use the other microphone. ERIC BRESSLER: Mr. Herrmann, by whom are you employed? ROBERT HERRMANN: Eh-Consultants, Inc. located at 1329 North Sea Road in Southampton, NY 11968. ERIC BRESSLER: How long have you been employed by them? ROBERT HERRMANN? Since 1993 ~vith a hiatus of two years. ERIC BRESSLER: And did there come a time when you were retained, or the firm was retained with respect to pursuing permits with respect to the project in issue? Tell the Board and what those circumstances were. ROBERT HERRMANN: Yes, we were originally retained in August of 1999 by Frank and Ingeborg Flynn who were the owners of SCTM#1000-53-5-8 and #1000-57-l-39.2, which is the upland parcel and the under~,ater parcel contiguous thereto. We had made applications to this Board and to the New York State DEC, the U.S..Army Corp. of Engineers and the New York Dept. of State Coastal Resources Division on behalf of the Flynns. During that permit process, the property was transferred to Robert Wieczorek who continued to have us represent his interest at obtaining regulatmy approvals for a dock over his bottom. ERIC BRESSLER: Now did there come a time in connection with the applications that you had occasion to visit the site in question? ROBERT HERRMANN: ! did. ERIC BKESSLER: When ~vas that? ROBERT HERRMANN: That was August 18, 1999. ERIC BRESSLER: Please tell the Board about that site examination. ROBERT HERRMANN: Both myself and a then associate with En-Consultants, Todd Waskcuch visited xvhat was still then the Flynn property for the purposes of recording water depths at lo~v tide. The water depths are required by this Board and the NYSDEC for purposes of application that review docks. ERIC BRESSLER: Did you have occasion to take those readings? ROBERT HERRMANN: I did. 3 ERIC BRESSLER: Please tell the Board how you proceeded and what the results of your depth soundings were. ROBERT HERRMANN: What I did at the site is a typical methodology that I used to measure water depths, which I've actually used at other sites with these Board members, I walk out into the water while the other person with me stands and a fixed location on the upland with a 200' tape. That person holds the tape and I walk out xvith what's referred to as the dumb end of the tape, and I walk out and he stops me at every 10' from that fixed point and using a stick, which is basically the same type of stick that's used by oil companies to measure oil in tanks, I put the stick in the water until I start to feel the top of the bottom. At that point I stop, I look at the stick, and I see what the water depth is and read that information back to the person with the smart end of the tape, what distance I'm at, and also takes notes as to the information I give him. ERIC BRESSLER: Did you follow that procedure that day? ROBERT HERRMANN: I did. I used the tidal wetland boundary as the fixed point of reference. ERIC BRESSLER: Did you record those water depths, which were shown on the surveys that were submitted to the Board? ROBERT HERRMANN: I did up until the measurement reflected as 5'. I went out 12', 22', 32', 42', and 52' from the tidal wetland boundary and recorded at those intervals. The apparent lo~v water line was actually at 12' from the tidal wetland boundary and then 22' was 1' 1", 32' xvas 3'5", 42' was 4'3", and 52' was 5' and those depths are indicated on the plan that was most recently dated, for this Board, June l, 2000. After that point, it's very difficult for me to do it anymore by foot and also, at the time, because I was still retained by the Flynns, really was only looking to get 4' of water at low tide because that's the depth that the NYSDEC requires for a fixed dock, so I basically stopped my data collection at that point. ERIC BRESSLER: Was additional data collected? ROBERT HERRMANN: It was. It was collected subsequent to the time that Mr. Wieczorek pumhased the property from the Flyrms. He contacted me to indicate that he wanted a longer dock because he had a sailboat and I had explained to him that I would have to go out using a kayak but he indicated that that was unnecessary because he had hired John Costello to construct the dock and that Mr. Costello would be obtaining additional water depths. Mr. Costello contacted me on or about, or it would'ye been on or shortly after October 27, 1999 and gave me further data, ~vhich I indicated on the plan, and note number six of that plan, it is indicated that the water depths provided were collected both by us on August 18, 1999 with additional data by Costello Marine on October 27, 1999. ERIC BRESSLER: What do those depths show? ROBERT HERRMANN: The depths that were indicated to me by Mr. Costello, he measured out starting at 52' which is where I had left off at 5'. He also indicated to me that he found 5' and he then went out at three 5' intervals of 57', 62' and 67' and indicated to me that he found 5'6", 6'2", and 6'8", and on my project it's 6'2" and 6'8" for Mr. Costello that I reflected on my plan. ERIC BRESSLER: Now with respect to the 6'X 20' floating dock, where does that fall with respect to those water depths? 4 ROBERT HERRMANN: Well the 4'X 4' float extension and the proposed float or what are now the existing 4'X 4' extension and float, lay beyond, I'm sorry, could you repeat that? ERIC BRESSLER: At what water depths. ROBERT HERRMANN: At what water depths, on this plan, 6'2" and 6'8". ERIC BRESSLER: Thank you. I'm showing you two photographs, 2A and 2B on the back. Would you tell the Board what they are, please? ROBERT HERRMANN: The photograph marked 2A is a photograph of me standing in the water on August 18, 1999 in the process of taking the soundings. The second photograph which you've marked 2B is dated November 23, 1999 and it is a photograph of the staking of the then proposed dock by Costello Marine. It show s a tall stake being read with a rope tied from that stake up in to the tidal wetlands. That type of photograph is typically requested as part of the application requirements by the I'D/SDEC. They like to see a photograph of the structure staked. ERIC BRESSLER: And with respect to the photograph 2B, were you taking ~vater depth soundings along that line? ROBERT HERRMANN: I wasn't at this time but that is the same location. ERIC BRESSLER: Noxv Mr. Herrmann, did there come a time when you xvent out to the project site and took further water depth readings? ROBERT HERRMANN: I did. Having represented this application, I was contacted by Mr. Wieczorek and also by yourself to ask ifI would indicate how I had been taking these soundings and the depths that I had found and just as part of this type of process, I had indicated to you that I would go out and confirm, at least go out and take the same water depths that I had taken two years ago. This time, of course, it's easier for me to continue out farther because I can actually walk on the dock itself and take measurements from there. I took those measurements on September 24, which was Monday of this week. ERIC BRESSLER: Please tell the Board what you found. ROBERT HERRMANN: What I found at the same intervals that I had taken before, I had found out again approximately 12' to 12 V2' seaward of the tidal wetland boundary was the location of apparent low xvater. At 22' I actually found 1 '9", which is 8" deeper than I found txvo years ago. At 32' was 3'4", which I believe is 1" less than I found two years ago. At 42', I found 4' l", which is 2" less than I found two years ago. At 52' I found 4'10", which is also 2" less than I found two years ago. I also took measurements both on the inside comer of where the 4'X 4' float extension meets the now existing 6'X 30' float and also on the seaward side immediately adjacent to the 6'X 30' float. I found 5'3" both on the inside of the float and on the outside of the float. ERIC BRESSLER: So ifI understand you correctly, the float that is in issue here, the 6'X 30', still resided in 5' of water. ROBERT HERRMANN: That's correct. ERIC BRESSLER: Now the readings that you took in August of 19[}9, were they taken at low tide? ROBERT HERRMANN: They were. They were taken about 10:50 AM which according to the tide tables, which I provided you a copy with but I don't have another copy in here, by Preston & Son, indicated that that would'ye been low tide. ERIC BRESSLER: And with respect to your readings on September 24th? ROBERT HERRMANN: Also at low tide, that was done around l l:25 AM and again it was based on the precedence on tide tables of 2001. ERIC BRESSLER: Exhibits 3A & 3B, tide tables. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. ERIC BRESSLER: Were the Iow tides, according to those tide tables, typical of average low tides for the periods involved. ROBERT HERRMANN: I would say they xvere typical. They occurred on or about a quarter moon, xvhich would be typical. ERIC BRESSLER: Unless the Board has any further questions for Mr. Herrmarm. GREG YAKABOSKI: Rob, how big is the float that is there now? ROBERT HERRMANN: The dimensions of the float there now is a 6'X 30' float and on the landward side of that float is a 4'X 4' section upon xvhich rests the hinged ramp. GREG YAKABOSKI: And you took the application from the Flynns to Wieczorek all the way through to the permit? ROBERT HERRMANN: That's correct. GREG YAKABOSKI: And the permit is #5118, just so we're on the same page, dated March 1, 2000? ROBERT HERRMANN: #5118 dated March 1, 2000, that's correct. GREG YAKABOSKI: And I believe, I also see here in the file, a letter to you dated March l, 2000 notifying. It's from Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President of the Board of Trustees. I can show it to you. It's a letter dated to you, Rob, just letting you know, and I believe there's a plan that you referenced earlier, with the final date of 6/1/20007 ROBERT HERRMANN: That's correct. GREG YAKABOSKI: Just for the record in establishing why the plan was dated after the permit, well the permit xvas dated March 1, 2000. ROBERT HERRMANN: Oh yes, do you want me to clarify that? GREG YAKABOSKI: I would appreciate it. ROBERT HERRMANN: If my recollection serves me correctly, xve had, by the time we appeared before the Board of Trustees for the public heating on the project, permits had already been issued by the NYSDEC and the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers for the dock showing a 6'X 30' float with the most recent date on it being 12/28/99. This Board, I believe, based on the permit date that usually coincides with the date of the hearing, there was a discussion at that hearing over the length of the float. Mr. Wieczorek was petitioning for a 6'X 30' float and this Board had required that as a condition of the permit that it be reduced to a 6'X 20' float. Typically what happens is that the Board will issue a Resolution with the actual issuance of the permit then condition it upon my for~varding a revised plan to the Board that meets the recommendations made during the public hearing. So, I can't clarify for you exactly why it's June 1st as opposed to some other date closer to March 1st but that would've been the revised plan that I forward to this Board for the purpose of permit issuance. GREG YAKABOSKI: I also see a fax from En-Consultants from yourself and I can show you this, it's dated June 2nd, to Charlotte, which states that Someone from Costello blarine ma3' co,ne by the office to pick-up the original permit today, which is fine with us. Please mail me a copy for m), records. I'll just show you that. ROBERT HERRMANN: The reason for that fax would be typically the personnel within the Trustees Office xvill typically only release the Board's wetland permit to the agent who represented the application. So, I believe Mr. Costello was planning on picking up the permit and I had indicated to Charlotte, apparently through that fax, that we had no objection to the permit being picked up directly by Mr. Costello. GREG YAKABOSKI: Thank you. You mentioned earlier that there were other permits for this dock, the DEC, ACE. ROBERT HERRMANN: That's correct. GREG YAKABOSKI: When this Board issued a permit for a 6'X 20' float, did you have to go back and amend any of those? ROBERT HERRMANN: No. Typically when there is a reduction in the scope of an approved project you need not go back to the agencies to indicate that there has been a change. GREG YAKABOSKI: Again, just so we're on the same page, I'm going to show you, if you don't mind, here is the plan, just make sure that it's the same one you're looking at. I believe that this was the amended plan that was submitted. In the bottom right comer of 6/1/2000, just to read it, how large is the floating dock shown on that plan? ROBERT HERRMANN: It's a proposed 6'X 20' float. GREG YAKABOSKI: And that has been constructed already, correct? Is there a float on the property? ROBERT HERRMANN: There is a float on the property, yes. GREG YAKABOSKI: Is the float larger than 6'X 20' right now? ROBERT HERRMANN: Yes. GREG YAKABOSKI: Were there any permits from the Trustees amending that original permit? ROBERT HERRMANN: Not to my knowledge, or not through En-Consultants, no. GREG YAKABOSKi: And what was in the pernfit dated March l, 2000, xvhat was the size of the float permitted? ROBERT HERRMANN: 6'X 20' with a 4'X 4' extension. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a question for Rob. You said you took soundings on two different dates. What were those dates again? ROBERT HERRMANN: I took soundings on August 18, 1999 during the original permit application phase. I also revised the site this xveek for purposes of providing information to Mr. Bressler for this heating on September 24th, this Monday. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have something that we received from the applicant in relation to a dredging project. We received March 16th of this year of 2001 and it shows a large difference in those soundings and I was wondering, well you're 5'3" at the float, on both sides of the float, this shows 4' at the float, which is quite a big difference. ROBERT HERRMANN: That is a big difference. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I wondering how you could, if you have any way of explaining that or give us any information how there is such a wide discrepancy how sounding could exist. ROBERT HERRMANN: I don't know where that data is from. It's not from our office. I could answer you generally to say that a possible discrepancy xvould be if it were during an extreme moon, a full moon, or a new moon, and possible had very. strong off shore winds pushing the water out, it could account for water depths being shalloxver. But, that's just a general answer that could explain the difference water depths on different dates. Why at that particular location, I don't know, because I didn't find those depths. 7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you consider your depths to be accurate and your method of finding the depths to be not only accurate, but fair. ROBERT HERRMANN: Oh absolutely. GREG YAKABOSKI: Just for the record, Mr. Bressler and Mr. Herrmann, just to clarify it for the record, the reason I'm asking the questions I'm asking, in rny capacity as representing the Trustees here at this hearing, not in representing the folks who issued the violation. There was a Notice of Violation dated May 16, 200l, Eric that's the Notice of Violation you're talking about xvith respect to Mr. Wieczorek, correct? ERIC BRESSLER: I'm presuming so, I'm not looking at it. That was issued by the Bay Constable? GREG YAKABOSKI: Correct. It states that you 're float is not itt compliance with the Trustee Permit, I'm going to hand this to you in a second, contact the Southold Town Trustees, reapply for Trustee Permit. and if Permit is denied, float iz: to be constructed 6 ',Y20 '. Rob, right now, was the float built in compliance with the Trustee Permit that was issued? ROBERT HERRMANN: Unless the dock is built according to specifications of what's in the permit, it would not comply xvith the permit, no. Just to clarify that, and I don't typically delve in vague answers Greg, but I didn't physically measure the float xvhen I went out to do the soundings. I have been told that it's a 6'X 30' float and that was xvhy a violation was issued so I couldn't swear that it's a 6'X 30' float but it's bigger than 6'X 20'. GREG YAKABOSKI: If the float that was built was bigger than 6'X 20', it would not comply correct? ROBERT HERRMANN: That's correct. ERIC BRESSLER: Does the Board have in it's file the DEC permit, the Army Corp. permit and the Dept. of State approval? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would imagine so, if the applicant had provided them. ERIC BRESSLER: Are they in there Mr. Yakaboski? GREG YAKABOSKI: At a quick glance, I would ask if you have them to submit them for the record. ERIC BRESSLER: #4, #5, #6. GREG YAKABOSKI: #4 would be which one? ERIC BRESSLER: #4 would be DEC, then Army Corp. and then DOS. GREG YAKABOSKI: Ok, DEC, Army Corp. then Dept. of State. Mr. Bressler, just to remind you to keep the hearing focused, the purpose of this hearing is to determine whether or not the Notice of Violation, which was issued by the Bay Constable, who said that the float that was constructed, was not in compliance with the Trustee Permit, whether or not that was a valid Notice of Violation. The purpose of this hearing, is so that we're all on the same page, and is not to go and see ifa different decision should'ye or could've been made with respect to a 6'X 20' or 6'X 30' float. ERIC BRESSLER: Well I certainly don't think this hearing is limited in scope to ~vhether or not 6'X 20' as opposed to 6'X 30' xvill necessarily support the decision. I do agree with you that the purpose of the hearing is whether or not that a Notice of Violation should stand. GREG YAKABOSKI: I didn't understand your first part but I agree with the second. ERIC BRESSLER: In other words, if this Board should find that it's 6'X 20' or 6'X 30' or 6'X 40', whatever, and it doesn't comply, it means that the Notice of Violation (interference xvith the microphone) that the issue at this particular hearing is xvhether they are going to over turn that violation, for whatever reason. GREG YAKABOSKI: Fair enough. Just again for the Board and the folks here, (interference with the microphone). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: IfI could interrupt you, unless you're done? ERIC BRESSI- ER: I don't have any further questions with Rob. If you don't have anything further, we'll let him go. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well not at the moment. ERIC BRESSLER: Well tell me and if you have something more let's do the witness, if we could, because I told we'd put him on first, and if you have any questions, ask away. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if it's relevant to bring it up now. GREG YAKABOSKI: Idid have one more question. Rob, just acot,ple more questions. ROBERT HERRMANN: Sure. GREG YAKABOSKI: In the original application, what was the size of the float that was applied for? ROBERT HERRMANN: The original application was made on behalf of Frank and Ingeborg Flynn. If you can give me a moment, I can see ifI can find our original application to the Board. Our cover letter with the application to the Board was made November 9, 1999 regarding Frank & Ingeborg Flynn and the application was for a 6'X 30' float with a 4'X 4' extension. It's basically what's reflected on that October plan. GREG YAKABOSKI: Okay, and that's the 6'X 30' float? ROBERT HERRMANN: Yes, construct a fixed timber dock consisting ora 4'X 12' inclined ramp leading to a 4'X 42' fixed catwalk to be elevated above marsh grade, 3'X 20' hinged ramp, 6'X 30' float, 4'X 4' extension, supported by (2) pdings. The dock xvill be constructed, etc. etc. GREG HERRMANN: And I realize I already asked the question, the final permit issued was not for a 6'X 30'. ROBERT HERRMANN: That's correct. GREG HERRMANN: I have no further questions. ERIC BRESSLER: Mr. Herrmann, was the same application submitted to each agency? ROBERT HERRMANN: The same request, I believe so, but let me check so I can ansxver you accurately. Yes, it was word for word identical request as that would appear on the Board of Trustees application and that's on the NYSDEC joint application for permit which copy which also goes to the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers and NYS Dept. of State. ERIC BRESSLER: You did not consider at that time whether or not the 5' water depth that is contained in Article 97 of the Code, had any impact on your submissions, did you? ROBERT HERRMANN: No I didn't. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How could he have xvhen the submission shows 6'8" ofxvater depth? ERIC BRESSLER: That's not my question. I just wanted to know if he took that into account at all. I have no further questions. ROBERT HERRMANN: In other words, when I said that I stopped recording depths at 5', it xvas not because I had gotten to 5, it was because I had surpassed 4' and going out any farther I would have not been able to physically take any more readings because at that point it does start to silt up on the bottom and I would've been in under my head. ERIC BRESSI~ER: But you didn't take into account any of the provisions of Article 97 when you were ultimately in front of the Trustees, as to jurisdictional issues, did you? ROBERT HERRMANN: Well that's a broad question and the answer is not completely "no". When we were retained by...do you want me to ansxver you broadly...when we were retained by Frank and Ingeborg Flynn, I had explained xvhich agencies we had to apply to. It was Mr. Flynn's opinion that we need not go to this Board at all for a permit because he privately oxvned the bottom. I told him that I believe that through the wetland jurisdiction we would go to this Board but that he would not be charged with paying what the Trustees refer to as coverage fees, or fees for the portion of the dock constructed typically over their public bottom, because it's privately owned. I contacted the Trustees office and was advised to submit application and indicated that for purposes of precaution, we ought to apply to everybody, and that's xvhat we did. But, with respect to the depth of water, no, I did not consider the Trustees jurisdiction in that matter. ERIC BRESSLER: Okay, I don't have any further questions. GREG YAKABOSKI: Just a couple more. Mr. Herrmann, do you appear before this Board often? ROBERT HERRMANN: I do. GREG YAKABOSKI: Are you familiar with the Town of Southold's Chapter 97 requirements? ROBERT HERRMANN: I am. GREG YAKABOSKI: Hoxv many, for example just in the last year, how many applications, roughly, do you think you've been before this Board? ROBERT HERRMANN: Probably an average of 3 or 4 a month. Some repeat themselves so often it's hard to tell. GREG YAKABOSKI: I don't have your Curriculum Vitae in front of me but how many years have you been appearing before this Board? ROBERT HERRMANN: Since 1993. GREG YAKABOSKI: As an expert, and in the environmental field, hypothetically, if somebody came in today, a different owner on this particular piece of property, would you advise them to seek out a Trustee permit? ROBERT HERRMANN: Depending on what they ~vere asking for? GREG YAKABOSKI: Just like this one. ROBERT HERRMANN: For which a dock extended from the wetlands? Absolutely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Rob, xvhen Mr. Flynn asked you to represent him to get permits, did you have any questions in your mind that this xvould be jurisdictional by the Board of Trustees? ROBERT HERRMANN: Well I did because he was so emphatic that there was some unique circumstance with Brick Cove, which apparently, my interest was that he had a long history with this Board and with everyone that lived around him, but that there was some history since the time of a Brick Cove Marina application that the bottom lands there that are privately o~vned and that the Trustees would have no jurisdiction. What I told him was regardless of the ownership of the bottom, we were constructing a catwalk starting at his upland through wetlands and so to be perfectly honest with you and again consistent xvith my ansxver to her, I didn't give any thought to where your jurisdiction 10 ended going out and your jurisdiction over depth because if we xvere just proposing a catxvalk in the wetlands, that just stopped right there, and we have some of those applications, ~ve would need to come to this Board. So that was the extent of my consideration of it. I told him that if for nothing else, xve have to come before the Trustees and make an application. GREG YAKABOSKI: Rob, have you ever handled any other applications were folks have owned the bottom? ROBERT HERRMANN: I'm handling one right now for Donna Fragola. GREG YAKABOSKI: What does that application entail? ROBERT HERRMANN: It's an application for a retaining wall and a dock that extends off of that retaining wall but there is no question whether the application would involve dredging. GREG YAKABOSKI: Is this in Gull Pond? ROBERT HERRMANN: Yes. GREG YAKABOSKI: I have no further questions. Have a nice evening. ERIC BRESSLER: Before we go any further, I would like to hand this into the Board. This is the deed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For which property? ERIC BRESSLER: This property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The under~vater? ERIC BRESSLER: Well their property. Their property includes both the upland and the underwater. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aren't there two separate tax numbers for the two properties? What deed would this represent? ERIC BRESSLER: That's everything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What was submitted to us has two different tax numbers. One for the undenvater land and one for the upland that contains the house. That's why when you said, here's the deed, I was wondering, does the deed include both properties. ERIC BRESSLER: Yes. John Costello, would you tell the Board your business. JOHN COSTEI-LO: I'm the marine contractor and have been full time since 1963. ERIC BRESSI~ER: Mr. Costello, did there come a time when you became involved with the project at issue here? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes I did. I xvas called by Rob Herrmann and I believe it was in October of 1999 to do some off/shore depth findings and as a dock builder I did. ERIC BRESSLER: Tell the Board xvhat you did. JOHN COSTELLO: Well since he said the depth of water was too hard to navigate by land, he tried to walk out there and it was silty to some degree, he wanted to knoxv ifI had a boat available to do a continuation of those depths, I did. ERIC BRESSLER: You heard Mr. Herrmann's testimony regarding the depths. The testimony showed correct? JOHN COSTELLO: Well it depends upon what exactly the moon was at that stage. I'm not sure, I don't have the book in front of me. ERIC BRESSLER: It was a quarter moon according to the charts. JOHN COSTELLO: Okay, well there are many other conditions but I don't knoxv the conditions of his depths. I don't know the conditions of the xvinds. I don't know the barometer reading. 11 ERIC BRESSLER: No, your depths. The depths you took. JOHN COSTELLO: Oh, my depths. The depths that I took, I took at the time, are on his chart and they do exceed the 5', at that time of October 19, 1999. ERIC BRESSLER: Taken at low tide? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes, I did. ERIC BRESSLER: Were there unusual conditions? JOHN COSTELLO: Well I believe it was a blustery day. The xvinds were coming from the north~vest but ... ERIC BRESSLER: What xvould that indicate? JOHN COSTELLO: That the tides would probably be slightly lower than normal but the exact time of low-tide at that day was as close to low-tide, you could see the altema flora was all exposed which is an indicator of the low-tide range. ERIC BRESSLER: Do you have those photographs? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes I do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Excuse me, this is 1999 you're referring to? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes. ERIC BRESSLER: Were the depths that you found then accurately shoxvn on the original application submitted by Mr. Herrmann? JOHN COSTELLO: They were the depths at that date and at that time that I took them. ERIC BRESSLER: That is 52", 5', 57", 5'6", 6'2" and 67. JOHN COSTELI-O: Ican't honestly say that Icontributed all of those numbers. Iknow that I did the off/shore ones. That's all. ERIC BRESSLER: Does that place the outermost float of the project in more than 5' of water? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes it does. ERIC BRESSI~ER: Now, we've mentioned here to the Board, ora certain application for dredging. Do you have any familiarity with that, that affects this location? JOHN COSTEL1-O: Well I don't if that pertains to the violation. It has nothing to do with the violation we received. But, I have a record of taking water depths before and after the installation. ERIC BRESSI-ER: What have you found down there with respect to the 5' depth of the outermost float? JOHN COSTELLO: Well xvhen we originally installed the dock and the pilings, there was minimal jetting done. It has a tendency to shoal up slightly that was indicative of Rob's depth measurements recently. A few inches, usually when you do jet, there is a little bit of sand on top and it will shoal up a little bit. Subsequent depths are taken and if you take them at different times of the month, you can get variable readings. The unique tides that occur txvice a month, on the full moon basically, the tides do not rise as high, or fall as low, at that time. The new moon, the tides are increased in height and they are lower than normal. Also, a full moon, the tides are higher and loxver. So it depends solely of what you're trying to obtain on the xvater depths. The water depths that we took on a different application, that has nothing to do with this application, were taken on a new moon and a full moon in order to try to get the lowest depths because that's when the boat will bottom out. Mr. Wieczorek does have a sailboat that on occasion has hit the bottom and that was the application for dredging. That's a different issue. .. 12 ERIC BRESSLER: So those depths that are shown on that application do not represent a typical low tide. JOHN COSTELLO: Well a mean low tide is one thing and an apparent low tide is another thing. There are many degrees of measuring tides. ERIC BRESSLER: Well the ordinance refers to mean low tide. JOHN COSTELLO: That's 19 some-odd years to determine that. Nobody is going to go to a site for 19 years prior to making an application so to determine the mean lo'ar water, it is not going to occur. So, you have to take and practically every application is done with an apparent high water or low water mark. ERIC BRESSLER: Did you feel that the readings that you and Mr. He,tmann took xvhen he testified to on Th the 18 of August 1999, and later on October 27, 1999, were indicative of the mean low tide? JOHN COSTELLO: The dock wasn't there, I can't say that. Were they indicative, I don't know. There are charts and there are computer read-outs of tides on every individual day. They are done by NOAH. You can find out if they were below the mean or above the mean. ERIC BRESSLER: But if these did not occur on those extreme days, such as the new and the full moon as you indicated, then you would not see such a great deviation. JOHN COSTELLO: No you would not. ERIC BRESSLER: So if you wanted to find mean lo~v water, you xvouldn't go on one of those days or near to it. JOHN COSTELLO: No you xvould try to go as close to the days and you should also go when the barometer is reading somewhere between 29.8 and 30. That's the average. When the barometer does fall below 29.9, the tides xvill rise an inch of the barometer reading, the ride will raise one foot. ERIC BRESSLER: Does the Board have any questions for Mr. Costello? GREG YAKABOSKI: Mr. Costello, did you construct the dock and the float? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes. My company did. GREG YAKABOSKI: Yes, your company. Do you recall xvhen, what dates they constructed it. The dock and the float. Specifically the float. JOHN COSTEILO: No, not really. GREG YAKABOSKI: Do you have records that you could submit at a later date that would show roughly when they xvere constructed? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm sure. ERIC BRESSLER: Mr. Yakaboski, I appreciate what you're doing here but because there is a crinfinal prosecution pending, I don't know that that's material Mr. Costello would necessarily want to produce here. I'm not sure if that's material for the Board's consideration. He was cited criminally and Mr. Wieczorek was cited criminally and we're here asking the Board to overturn it and I'm not sure when something may have been constructed is material to the Board's consideration. So xve'll have to take it under advisement. GREG YAKABOSKI: Fair enough. Hypothetically, if the numbers are correct in the application or the site plan prepared by Costello Marine Contracting dated March 1st of 200l, for the dredging project, one question, what would ALW stand for? JOHN COSTELLO: Apparent I~ow Water. 13 GREG YAKABOSKI: With respect to the dock application, the apparent loxv water, if the numbers are correct which shoxv apparent loxv xvater at approx. 4' if[ read this correctly, xvould that be relevant to the point you're trying to make? ERIC BRESSLER: Well I don't think it's strictly relevant any longer in light of the testimony of Mr. Costello. I think what has occurred here is that we have all been given an education about apparent low xvater, mean loxv water, the phases of the moon and the tides, and I think xvhat Mr. Costello has told the Board is that that reading xvas taken with a specific purpose in mind and it xvas taken at the time not only of wind condition, but also of lunar condition, that xvould lead to the lowest possible number which did not represent mean low water. It's not indicated as such or is on the other plan, in fact, on the reading taken just this week, they were taken at the time as Mr. Costello and Mr. Hemnann would be a typical indicator of mean low water. That's the position that I think, everybody on the Board being nautically inclined, (interference with the microphone) and if you took reading at the time when Mr. Costello and Mr. Herrmann did initially, and later this week, you won't get mean low water, you will get much lower than normal tides and you will get much higher than normal low tides and much higher than normal high tides. Indeed for a dredging project I think that maybe (interference with the microphone) so I think the question the Chairman put about that, can you explain it? I think you can get an explanation and do I think it's relevant, no not really. You can give an explanation to the Board to consider it obviously at it's discretion and give what credence it deems appropriate but I think it's fairly standard and it's well known by everyone that these things can fluctuate quite a bit particularly xvith northwest winds. I think that's your ansxver. The testimony is what it is and you've got testimony relating to 1999, you've got it to 2001, you've got it at the appropriate times of the month, and that's what the xvater reads. GREG YAKABOSKI: I think that the point that you might be driving that the date of the construction might be relevant. A different question, Mr. Costello. Do you do other work in the Town of Southold. JOHN COSTELLO: Absolutely. GREG YAKABOSKI: Have you done other project ie. docks or marinas or that kind of thing, where the depth of the water, the apparent low water, I guess that's what you would normally shoot for, apparent low water, was 5' or greater? ERIC BRESSLER: Note my objection with the use of the word, apparent. Your ordinance says mean. GREG YAKABOSKI: I'm asking him a simple question. JOHN COSTELLO: Yes, it's a simple question. Yes, absolutely. But the water is a very big issue particularly the type of boat your going to have. GREG YAKABOSKI: Do you find that the folks that are doing the projects that have retained you, to do these type of projects, have they come in for DEC' and Board of Trustee Permits? JOHN COSTELLO: Absolutely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a question for Mr. Costello. When you submit an application for any structure, take Gull Pond for example because it's a dredged canal, and say it's 6' to 8' of water in a dredged canal for a floating dock, and you come before the Board for a permit, do you have any question that the Trustees have jurisdiction in Gull Pond which is a dredged canal, privately oxvned? 14 JOHN COSTELLO: I certainly do. I have a question about that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And yet you routinely apply for applications for structures in there. JOHN COSTELLO: I'm just trying to think of one I did. I don't know. If there was wetland vegetation I would certainly apply. There is a period of time that an act and a policy of the Board is more than environmentally concerned than they used to be. We're getting an education but I can certainly assure you it's all benefiting everything in the public, the concern, but the jurisdiction of that dredged canal, for many years was done without permits. And I can assure you, I built a bulkhead probably in the 70's there without a permit from the Southold Town Trustees. There were no concerns about the environmental grasses, the ahernaflora and the patens at that time. It wasn't the main issue. That canal was dredged. It `aras dredged to a depth of 8'. That's in the center. It was not bulkheaded when it was dredged. The shores did slough in. They xvent from nothing down to 8'. At that time, many of the projects in Gull Pond and Fordham Canal xve not ever approved by the Trustees. ERIC BRESSLER: Mr. Yakaboski, let me make something clear here, sir. Since it seems the Board may be under a misapprehension here and that is the fact that Mr. Herm~ann, Mr. Costello and others may have doubts about the jurisdiction of the Board, with respect to property on the bay, or indeed on land, and in fact that I have an argument here and going to make further arguments to you, I think many people, as Mr. Herrmann said, out of an abundance of caution, and with (interference xvith microphone). Somebody like me, maybe not so much like me, comes before you mid says "wait". (Interference with microphone.) I wanted to make it clear to you since I knoxv that Mr. Yakaboski understands where I'm coming from, that it's a jurisdictional challenge and I don't xvant you to (interference with microphone) on a reading of Article 97 and said gee `are have to go to the Board of Trustees, or the fact that Mr. Herrmarm took water depths and he came before you. What is he going to do? Chop it off and not show the end of it? He took the same thing and he put it before you so I just want to make it clear that he can ask for whatever (interference with microphone) is not going to foreclose us from raising that point now that the Bay Constable is prosecuting us criminally. GREG YAKABOSKI: Mr. Costello, the float in question at the end of Mr. Wieczorek's dock, do you know the dimensions of that float? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes, it's 5' 10" wide by 30' long. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Costello, you're familiar with how the Board operates, I believe. JOHN COSTELLO: Many Boards, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No this Board. JOHN COSTELLO: The recent Board, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We receive information in order to make a decision. We base our decision on all of the information that we think, that's collected in the file, and that's how we make our decision. This water depth issue, it's such a big issue here. On one hand xve have two different dates, two years apart, showing fairly consistent water depths. Then we have something you submitted showing 4' of water underneath the dock. JOHN COSTELLO: Yes sir. TRUSTEE KRUPKSI: So, there is such a lack of consistency here, it makes it difficult sometimes for a Board to make a decision when there is such a lack of consistency. What 15 do you think we could do to improve on the consistency of soundings so that the Board can make better decisions on structures built within their jurisdiction? JOHN COSTELLO: Well I could suggest one thing. Get a computer program that is similar or you can go into the web site, there is NOAH web site that gives you the tide of every day. You can get it the day later. So you know it's part of the application. I mean it's a free thing. You can find out what the tide was yesterday relative to mean. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you consider that to be accurate in the field? JOHN COSTELI_O: Absolutely, it's the day after so it is accurate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why wouldn't you provide this to the applicant to be submitted to this Board, if that's accurate? JOHN COSTELLO: I try to at the application, xvell first of all you said that there xvas a violation, we am not hem for the dredging application, I certainly would have tried to make the point to the Board that the gentlemen whose making the application, Mr. Wieczorek, would not xvant his boat on bottom on any tide. I don't believe any body or any boatman would. Tides do, and everybody here knows that tides mn beloxv normal and above normal on different occasions. So, when you try to design, and I've designed many docks, marinas, several of them over the years, we try to account, so if the tide, if we were to do a dredging application, we would try to anticipate the lower of the tides because you don't want the boat on the bottom. It's not good enviroamentally, particularly if there is eel grass but I don't believe there is eel grass in this area. Them is a lot of clay, there is much siltation. You also know, and Kenny will verify it, I'm sure he knows from clamming, and maybe Artie does clamming in there, this Brick Cove area, the depths change in a foot. That whole place xvas dug, the whole thing was opened up, it was all private bottom, and it's very, very irregular. There are some very deep spots. You can walk 10' to find out that there is no xvater. You don't have to take my word. Take Kenny or somebody who has clammed in there and they'll tell you that. I've clammed in there on occasion but I was much younger. GREG YAKABOSKI: Mr. Costello, with respect to the, just a clarification, with respect to the sounding and the NOAH web site, that web site would allow somebody to establish xvhat the tide ~vas on a particular day. ERIC BRESSLER: The tide, not the depth. There are two points, Mr. Chairman, you raised a very good point. First of all, when Mr. Costello says... GREG YAKABOSKI: If you don't mind, speak into the microphone. I would appreciate that. ERIC BRESSLER: What Mr. Costello said, you can check tides, and typically what Mr. Herrmann submission does, the lunar charts, and that was interpreted for you, and you already know it, I don't need to tell you that, the nexv moon and the fi~ll moon, that's xvhen you have the extreme tides. But the NOAH chart xvon't give you that variation not obviously for that one point nearest (interference with the microphone) and you must apply to whatever depths (interference with the microphone). To answer your second part of your question, what can we do to improve the consistency of soundings, and I think this application points up fairly sharply one thing that you can do. I'm sure it hasn't been lost on anybody that the issue of the two applications reflect txvo different measurements of water, two different means of water. Mr. Costello has told you he used the apparent low, the ultimate low because he was doing, or proposing to do a dredge permit, while the Code book says to use mean, which is different and is measured at 16 different times. One thing we could do, would be maybe, assuming you have jurisdiction, would be to revise that portion of the Code so ~ve could be dealing with apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Mr. Herrmann can't tell you because he (interference xvith the microphone) he not going to give you the answer, the answer is I did it on a day when I was going to get the most extreme reading. I had a full or a new moon and I had a northwest xvind. (interference ~vith microphone) then xve're comparing the san~e thing. You can then do what John suggested and take them in conjunction with standardized type readings and then you wouldn't have these types of difficulties. You consider everything that you've heard here and yet question the readings and what they were attempting including the most recent readings at the appropriate: time, I think you'll conclude that that float is in more than 5' of water at the time your ordinance says to measure it. I don't think you need to struggle as I did a couple of months ago for three days in front of DEC arguing about water depths. Water depths, by their nature, variable from time to time and I think we've demonstrated to you that we took them at the right time for meeting your ordinance. If you xvant to change that with respect to dredging, maybe that's not a bad idea. Maybe then, we you don't have these range variations. So I just wanted to say that. If you have any more questions for Mr. Coste:llo... JOHN COSTELLO: Can I continue to answer Al's question because I think on the applications, and this would probably help everyone, if they had told you on the application hoxv to determine, when and what tide, you can get tide charts, they are not very accurate, but you can also get a book and it's available at Preston's, it gives you the tide for everyday and every location basically on Long Island. It will give you the tides, and it will tell you the time. It xvill also tell you the variations of tides. We run into this all the time in Brookhaven Toxvn. They have a 7' rise and fall of tide. They also have an ordinance that no dock can go out past 3'. Do you know what, there is a 3' difference in tide. So, the dock is sitting on the bottom. DEC, at that time, and they changed their policy, it's a DEC policy, not a regulation, and it's a Southold Toxvn, I believe it's a Southold Town policy, and not a regulation, that they would like to have every float to be 6'X 20'. Those regulations, and we've tried to meet the DEC's 4' depth of water, and do you know what, they're waivering it now. On different jobs, they're waivering it. I don't know how to follow the rules. If there are certain gone rules, you can try to design xvhatever the dock is for an approval. Although there's an approval and I design it, this Board can make it more sensitive to the environment, then I'm all for it. But, there has to be specific regulations and they can't contradict each other. When they do contradict each other, somebody is in violation. Let me tell you, you're going to be in violation on one of the others when you get the applications. They are all concerned about the same thing; improving the education and make people more environmentally axvare. They should be. ERIC BRESSLER: Let me just say one thing in that regard. I know Mr. Yakaboski asked a question of Mr. Herrmann, xvell you know you've got a 6'X 30' approval from DEC, couldn't you just go in there and do the 6'X 20'. I had that just a month ago in front of the DEC where a man got an approval to do certain things and he decided that he no longer had to do that, and it wasn't going to be impactful. Twenty five hundred dollars later (interference with microphone) because he didn't do this. So with all due respect to Rob Herm~ann, I don't think that's always so and you cannot always do less with DEC and expect to get away without not getting fined, much to my chagrin and surprise. I .. 17 think that's the answer to that. If you have any more questions for Mr. Costello I guess you could entertain them, otherwise I would like to finish up with my last pitch and let you guys get on with your agenda. GREG YAKABOSKI: Mr. Costello, with respect to Mr. Wieczorek':~ dock, the catwalk starting on the dry land, I'm taking it, and heading out into the water, if the floating dock and the ramp leading down to the floating dock, which I guess rise and fall with the tide, if that was removed, xvould Mr. Wieczorek be able to dock at the remaining fixed portion of the dock? JOHN COSTEI-LO: No. GREG YAKABOSKI: What xvould be the difficulties? JOHN COSTELLO: Depth ofxvater. GREG YAKABOSKI: In your opinion, and when you receive the application and the project to build the project, was the catwalk, the fixed catwalk, the ramp and the float all integral to other? An integral overall project? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes it is. TRUSTEE KRUPKSI: Does any of the Board have any other questions for Mr. Costello or Mr. Bressler? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. ERIC BRESSLER: Okay, I xvould just like to summarize and let you guys get on with your business. I think that xvith respect to this particular notice of violation, I think you ought to overturn it. I think you ought to overturn it on several grounds. Number one, the testimony that you heard today does satisfy you that the float on the property that is in issue, a 6'X 20' vs. a 6'X 30' is in more than 5' of water at least as defined by your ordinance at mean low water, therefore the violation should not be sustained. There is evidence before you that shoxvs the applicants own the bay bottom there. I am going to raise this issue at this time and hopefully I won't have to raise it again but it is our opinion that the Law of New York Chapter 615 1993 in the I_aws of Nexv York Chapter 404 1952, xvhich are referred to in your permit, which fall (interference with the microphone) for your power and authority. Specifically, empower you to manage, lease, convey, of all or any part of all waters and lands underwater, or rights or other interests, (interference with microphone) the public right of navigation and the riparian rights and the adjoining owners, and the Town of Southold acquired and now holds by virtue of a colonial patent or charter. To the extent that Chapter 97 proclaims to you any power (interference with the microphone) any power that was granted to yon under the Laws of 1893 and the Laws of 1952, is invalid. It is an invalid delegation of authority. Moreover, under Article 97, (interference with the microphone) to receive xvhatever delegation of power the Toxvn Board may chose to give them, they were given (interference with microphone) under Section 97-25 or (interference) as it deems appropriate. There are no standards or procedures or anything that (interference) and assuming that you do have jurisdiction over that bay bottom. I don't think a legislative authority can do that xvithout any guidelines xvhatsoever. We've seen the effect of that. I asked the Board the last time I was here, assuming you have jurisdiction, to do something about that. However, (interference) xvhen DEC and Army Corp. and the Dept. of State say 6'X 30' is fine. Why 6'X 20'? Why not 6'X 18'? Why not 6'X 24? If you're going to do something, do it in a way so that everyone knows what the deal is. If it's 6'X 20' then say it's 6'X 20' and (interference) and then they're given violations (interference) and I think it's a very 18 heavy burden on this Board or any Board to say it's 6'X 20', if the DEC says 6'X 30', and Mr. Chairman your right, you (interference) 6'X 30' and you're saying 6'X 20'. Under the circumstances where your taking away, to say why... (interference) I can't imagine anybody would disagree with that, but we don't need to go there in this case. I think there is more than adequate evidence before you that this particular portion of the property that's in 5' of water, or more, is beyond your jurisdiction. Is there any serious environmental harm here? (interference) and make people face criminal charges and move forward and whatever happens out of this. You have to ask yourself, (interference) is Rob lying to you, I don't think so. He appears before you all the time. He has nothing to gain by doing that. (interference) in this particular case, they have more than 5' of water and maybe we just ought to overturn this violation and go onto the next case. If it were a 6'X 123', I don't I could stand before you and say (interference). I think you need to look at that and ask yourselves what is really going on here and what your (interference) to protect to environment, has been done violence and I don't it has and I think that under the circumstances you should overturn the violation and let us get on with this. Thanks for your time guys. GREG YAKABOSKI: One last question, Eric. I knoxv we discussed it earlier, if you have any documentation or anything you wanted to submit as to the date of the construction of the dock or the float, I think it would be helpful. And just so you know for procedural house-keeping, xve will give Exhibit numbers to some of the documents you referenced earlier in terms of the application and we'll let you know all of those also. ERIC BRESSLER: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One thing I agree with you, Mr. Bressler, there is a lot (interference). ERIC BRESSLER: In more ways than one. I think you have to look at all of the facts and circumstances and determine what you're going to do. I think the number of applications that fall in this particular set of standards, (interference) and all of them you wouldn't find a whole lot given the nature of the bottom in our area of the world. I think xvhat Mr. Costello says is likely to be closer to the truth. You're dealing with 4' of water and while I was the drafter of the Code, it seems to me, assuming that's valid, that ~vhoever picked that 5' depth, probably picked a depth that they thought represented a number that would be inclusive ora very large portion of the bottom, rather than smaller. I bet if you went back and looked at your applications, which I did not do, but I'm sure you will, you would not find many people in Mr. Wieczorek's position. So, I certainly agree with you on several of the grounds that I put forth as (interference). I think this may be a very small portion of your overall business. You guys knoxv the bay bottom better than I do. I don't think that there's a xvhole lot of things that Pall into this particular category that is more than 5' privately owned bottom. (interference) hundreds of these things, I would urge you to take that into account and maybe it's not as significant as it appears at first blush. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good night. JOHN COSTELLO: I want to thank this Board because I think the concern, the environmental concerns and the navigational concerns that you do have, and I think that the large, large majority of the requests and abiding by whatever possible to have that 6'X 20' float, I think that you're doing a good justice for the Town. There are exceptions and I hope you treat every case on it's own merits. Thank you. 19 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good night. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES AL STRAZZA received a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 40' fixed open walkway with 4 piles and the piles should be low-profile. Located: 1255 Grathwohl Rd., New Suffolk. SCTM#117-1-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? AL STRAZZA: I'm going to speaking on behalf of myself, Al Strazza. My problem is ~fo-fold. One is I have a violation. I admit to that. I have safety rails and I have safety posts above the catxvalk. I have no intentions to take the rail off. I'll fight or squirmish or whatever you want to call it. There are also violations that were cited. I think Kenny told me I was using round-up. I wasn't. You can even take a sample to make a determination. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I speculated. AL STRAZZA: All you had to do was tum around and look and you would have seen vegetation was growing back, and that was only a week and a half. So, round-up wasn't used. Henry, you told me my dock was the ugliest thing that you had ever seen. It was blight to the pristine area of the West Creek. I guess you haven't seen your slip lately, the Town slip. You better go take a look at it. TRUSTEE SMITH: What slip? AL STRAZZA: The slip that's on West Creek, where people are putting their boats everyday. The thing is a disaster. It's ugly as hell. TRUSTEE SMITH: You mean the road ending? AL STRAZZA: The whole thing, I've got pictures of it. I personally feel that the Board should be objective, not subjective. You descended upon my property, you didn't tell me who you are, I had to come out and ask, and I xvas told that this is the ugliest thing that I've ever seen. Why, because I decided I was going to have safety rails? I personally thought the safety rails were on the permit. I was also told that the dock was larger than 4'. I'm a professional engineer and I'm a mechanical engineer. This is not the spaceship. Under normal circumstances you're allowed about 10%, 5% tolerance. The dock is approximately, or the catwalk is approximately 4" larger. It's been cut. It is now 4', but at least it's close to it as we can get. The dock builder decided for aesthetics, because he happened to have like the dock, that he was going to put a gravel path to the front. I was told that I had ruined the berm forever. GREG YAKABOSKI: Could you repeat that? AL STRAZZA: I was told that I had ruined the berm forever. Now, I don't understand that. The Town mows that area every day, every month. It's grass. It has nothing to do with the wetlands. I'm going to present pictures so you can have them on record, my dock. I told you that I xvould make a modification to the permit, it xvas my fault because I didn't realize that it wasn't done. I was told don't even bother because you would not honor it. Now ill put a deck on my house, I have to have a rail. Town Code. State Code. IfI build a swimming pool, I need a fence. But ifI put a dock on the water, I'm told I have to be loxv-profile and I caimot have posts. I have three small grandchildren and I'm permanently disabled and unless I'm told by more than this Board that I can put my family at risk and put myself at risk, I'm not taking the posts down. I've taken care of 20 everything else. I xvas also told that the dock is built too high. I've had myself, and I think I'm qualified as an engineer to measure it, I've had Jim Fitzgerald, I've had the Bay Constable, and I've had the dock builder, all measure it. They all said if anything, the dock is too low. Now when the Bay Constable showed up, I told him I wanted every violation xvritten up. I asked him to measure the dock to see if it was a bit too high, he did, and he said it wasn't. He saw the catwalk was 4' so he said he wasn't xvriting that up. He saw that xve xvere removing the gravel and he didn't write thai up. He looked around and said, normal construction site, normal damage, nothing permanent, it's all going to come back, it's coming back now, and he didn't write that up. The only violation xve have now is that I have the safety rails and I have the posts and I intend to keep them or at least keep them until my fight is over, because I happen to think: that it's safer with them. I said, well, let me see what's going on. So, I drive around Tc,xvn to see. Most docks have posts. I went to see some of your posts, and some of your docks, and your docks have posts. I ~vent to see how pristine your areas were in comparison to mine. I saxv no major difference. So, I don't understand. If you're going to be the Board of Trustees than be objective, not subjective. Don't come to someone's property and accuse them of building something that's ugly. That's not your job. Your job is to make a determination of whether or not it ,aras done according to Code. Whether or not it was done according to the permit. I'm admitting it wasn't. I'm admitting my stupidity because I didn't realize. I asked for a correction on the permit. I hired someone to do them because I figured someone had more experience in this area than I did. My expertise in environmental is cleaning up toxic dumps, not working in a xvetland area in a local neighborhood. So, I hired people that were in tune xvith the Town. I was told that the Town xvould not allow the posts, the Town Board of Trustees, therefore I left it off. My fault. I wouldn't have built the dock ifI couldn't have safety rails. That's conunon sense practice. So, if you're saying to take the safety rails offthe dock, I'm saying you're violating Town Codes. You're violating State Codes. I don't think you have that right. You have the right to ensure that the environmental considerations of West Creek are maintained. You have a right to make sure someone isn't creating a blight. But, if you have that right, then fix the Town's areas as well. IfI made a mistake, and I infringed on the xvetlands, by putting a rope, then tell the Town to stop mowing. But their not, because it's grass. It has nothing to do xvith the wetlands. I pleaded Not Guilty to the violation that I have, which is that I have these rails, and my defense is going to be that I have three young grandchildren and I'm disabled. Maybe I'm going to be wrong. If I'm wrong, then I'll take the xvhole dock up because I won't have dock xvithout safety rails. That's my argument, that's my contention, and I still think you people should be a little bit more subjective, and a lot less objective. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want my comments, Greg, or the Board's comment? GREG YAKABOSKI: I have no questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Strazza received a permit from us March 22, 2000. The plans that we approved shoxv a dock length and the dock xvidth, and a dock height. It actually shows a drawing of the approved dock and a cross-section. AL STRAZZA: I've already agreed that the low-profile is an error and I made it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In your application, from Proper-T Services dated April of 2000, there is a sketch ora dock, is that the dock that you were approved for by this Board? AL STRAZZA: Yes. 21 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, that's the dock that we approved. We went out to the site, are looked at the site, we had a public hearing, we considered all of the fi~cts, including CAC comments and that's the dock that we approved. If you measure it from post to post, the dock is actually 5' wide. If you... AL STRAZZA: Just a minute... TRUSTEE KRLrPSKI: No, let me finish... AL STRAZZA: No, you're talking about the permit, look at the permit, the permit shows... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You won't let me finish. Why should ! listen to you if won't even let me finish. Greg, if you look at the first picture, you see that them is a berm bet~veen the road and the ~vetlands. That was cut into and gravel and sort ora xvood thing was built there. A lot of the debris was placed on the wetlands underneath the dock. That was another one of our problems we had at the site. That disturbance xvas going to lead to siltation into the wetlands, in a rain event. So, we objected to that, xvhich was another un- permitted activity. Mr. Strazzajust stated that he removed the gravel. He didn't make clear whether that extra xvood was removed or whether the debris in the wetlands were removed or whether the dike xvas restored. He didn't mention that. AL STRAZZA: Everything was removed. The only thing that's in violation of my permit is the rails and the posts. GREG YAKABOSKI: Mr. Strazza, with respect to the...can I just show you these pictures so we 'know what we're talking about? AL STRAZZA: Sure. And I'm going to show you my ugly dock. TRUSTEE SMITH: That xvas my opinion. You asked me, and that was not the opinion of this Board. AL STRAZZA: There was more than one of you that said it was ugly. GREG YAKABOSKI: Mr. Strazza, with respect to the first page, I know you stated earlier that the gravel had been removed. AL STRAZZA: Yes, it's gone. GREG YAKABOSKI: One of the questions that the Board I think is raising at the moment is, do you see how the grass kind of makes a berm? The grass goes doxvn like this and then there's the wetlands doxvn this way, this was cut into. When you put the dirt back, did you fill it up back to grade? AL STRAZZA: Yes. There is also a water stop. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's a water stop? AL STRAZZA: There is a water stop at the edge of the dock so that the water wouldn't go back in. GREG YAKABOSKI: Thank you. Can I see a copy of the violation? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Remove the piling tops or apply to the Trustees to leave the same. If the permit is denied, dock must be reconfigured to fit the issued permit. That's what the violation says. GREG YAKABOSKI: Could I see that for a second, please? Mr. Strazza, just so we're on the same page, we're talking about the Notice of Violation dated September 13, 2001. AL STKAZZA: Yes. GREG YAKABOSKI: I have no further questions. AL STRAZZA: The only violation on that citation is the fact that I have the ropes and the rail. I'm going to fight this because of safety issues and I'm going to fight this 22 because I think you're in violation of the ADA if you're going to tell me I have to take it down. If the ADA tells me I'm not, and I have to take it down, then I'm going to remove the entire dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's the ADA? GREG YAKABOSKI: American Disabilities Act. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From the outside of one post to the outside of another post, what's the measurement on that dock? AL STRAZZA: I don't knoxv. But if you look at the ...oh I can tell you. If you look at the permit, you'll see the permit shows that those posts are on the outside plans. If each post is 6", then it's 5'. So, I'm within the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it shows on your drawing that was submitted... AL STRAZZA: It shows a solid line not a dotted line. If it xvas a dotted line it xvould be inside the frame. The solid line is the outside of the frame. So, I'm within the permit, there. I had the Bay Constable agree. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I disagree with that. It shows a 4'X 40'. It's the intention of the Board to approve a 4'X 40' fixed dock and have the applicant what they build they please. GREG YAKABOSKI: I believe at the moment that the questions are limited, xvith the purpose of this hearing, I believe is limited to the Notice of Violation, which xvas issued on 9/13 if my memory setw'es me correct. AL STRAZZA: Can I answer his question? Can I show him? GREG YAKABOSKI: It's up to the chairman. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Can I comment on the posts? It said 4"X 4". What's in the field is 6"X 6". AI_ STRAZZA: It's 6"X 6" and the Bay Constable alloxved it. GREG YAKABOSKI: That's a different issue. AL STRAZZA: Look at the sketch. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What Ken brought up is also true. The permit xvas issued for a 4"X 4", now maybe, and [ know what you're saying, Greg, but maybe another violation should be issued to address the whole project and not just one aspect of the project. GREG YAKABOSKI: I understand. That's just come up and that's something that's totally different. AI_ STRAZZA: The Bay Constable looked this over and gave me the violation that he indicated xvas a violation. Noxv, I'm admitting that I'm in violation of the permit but I was told that ifI modified it, it would be turned down anyway. So, that's an effort in futility. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You said that if you modified it, it would be turned down? AL STRAZZA: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, if you modify it in conformance xvith the permit, then it wouldn't be turned down. AL STRAZZA: But I xvould modify it in conformance to my needs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why wouldn't you have applied for something... AL STRAZZA: I thought I xvas. I made a mistake, I didn't look at them. After I looked at them and I said I want this and I xvant that, I thought it xvas done. I was on a project in California, that's why dock wasn't built immediately. I've already admitted to that mistake. I'm looked for the sketch that you showed with the steps. The side view. GREG YAKABOSKI: With all due respect, I think given that this whole hearing was limited to a particular issue, it might be prudent to focus on that for the moment. TRUSTEE KRUPKSI: Did the dock builder receive a violation? AL STRAZZA: Yes, the dock builder received a violation. In fact the builder was going to court and plead not guilty. He was going to come tonight and I told him there wasn't any reason to come and that ifI had a problem, I xvould let him knox,,. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did the dock builder see the plans prior to construction? AL STRAZZA: Yes he did. I told him I wanted the rails. I didn't tell him I wanted the gravel. After I saw it I said, gee that looks nice. It looks pretty. He said well the dock looked so nice I figured that I would just add this as a freebee. But, it's been removed and it's been reseeded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a DEC permit for this dock? AL STRAZZA: Yes. This is what I'm talking about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could we have a copy of it? AL STRAZZA: They're solid. They are outside the frame. That's the way it was built by the dock builder. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well he could build the posts outside the frame. AL STRAZZA: And make it 5'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because if it was built according to Code, with 4"X 4" posts, like it shows here, according to the permit, the 4"X 4" posts, the outside to outside posts should be 4'. AL STRAZZA: It would then be 4'8". TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it could be 4'. You can make it anything you want but thc permit said 4'. You could make it 20' or make it 1 '. AL STRAZZA: The permit said the catwalk ~vas 4' and I kno~v made the permit 4'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says fixed walkway 4', right. It doesn't say 4'8" or 4'10", it says 4'. AL STRAZZA: Alright, but the dock builder built according to that plan and according to that plan, the posts are outside the frame. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine. It can be outside the frame. But, it should be 4'. AL STRAZZA: Jim, explain this to him. JIM FITZGERALD: You just want to see the DEC permit now? AL STRAZZA: No, no. He's questioning the fact that we've got the posts beyond 4'. JIM FITZGERALD: I'm Jim Fitzgerald of Proper-T Permit Sel~rices and I have never made a submission here nor considered anything with the Board approved with regard to the width to include the supporting members. It has alxvays been shown on the plans that I have submitted indicating that the deck itself was, in this case, 4' wide, not including... TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: But when we went on field inspection, the deck itselfxvas not 4'. JIM FITZGERALD: Well, okay, I'm not addressing that point. But I thought you were saying that the outside dimensions, including the supporting piles, or the 4X4's should be the nominal width of the xvalkway. I don't think that's so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you think that the sketch of the dock showing the low-profile, from the side view, do you think that is consistent with xvhat was built? JIM FITZGERALD: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you think it was built to the correct dimensions, the 4"X 4" posts'? JIM FITZGERALD: No. AL STRAZZA: I agree. I fixed everything but the low-profile. Eve .rything has been corrected. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You changed the posts? AL STRAZZA: No. Jim just told you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No he didn't tell us. AL STRAZZA: Jim just told you that in all his years, that's never been considered. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I don't think he said that. GREG YAKABOSKI: I think the question, Mr. Strazza, there's a couple questions. What Jim was referring to is measurement and calculation of the xvidth of the dock. Correct me if I misspeak, what he was representing to the Board was that in his years, or in his experience, in calculating, when the Board gives a permit for a 4' wide catwalk, that in calculating that 4' width, that in his opinion, or his experience, the supporting structures, the posts, if they were outside the catwalk, were not counted as additional width of the catwalk. AL STRAZZA: And that's what I said. GREG YAKABOSKI: That's a point I'm going to leave over here for a second. The second thing, which the Board is raising, is that per the plans, the supporting piles were supposed to be 4"X 4"? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Correct. GREG YAKABOSKI: I believe in heating what we're hearing, is that the supporting posts are not 4"X 4", they were 6"X 6"? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct. GREG YAKABOSKI: I think that was the second point. AL STRAZZA: That's a separate issue and that's true. I would've added that modification to the permit. If I would've made that dock 4"X 4" the same thing would've occurred that occurred to the dock down the street. It would've broken off. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why wasn't that applied for then? AL STRAZZA: It was a mistake and I thought I had gotten it corrected. On my sketches to Jim, I indicated make it 6"X 6" and I wanted safety rails. I thought it was done and that's my fault and I'm admitting that. I was stupid, I xvas negligent. I should've looked at the permits before the dock builder built it. He asked me ifI wanted the safety rails and I said "yes". He didn't say the3' aren't noted here because the posts are still high enough. When we called for the first inspection you guys decided you weren't going to come. At that time if you wouldn't told me hey, you've got to cut these posts all the way down to the catwalk, I wouldn't stopped. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or you could'ye looked at the permit. AL STRAZZA: Or I could'ye looked at the permit, but I didn't. I'm admitting that that's wrong. Now, when I wanted to make the modification, I was told "don't bother". The Board xvill not approve it. I said okay, so now what do I do. GREG YAKABOSKI: Mr. Strazza, any individual always has the right to submit an application to this Board or any Board. AL STRAZZA: That would be pretty stupid for me to submit something I was told you were already going to object. GREG YAKABOSKI: I would tell this not just to you, to anybody, is that if somebody has something that they want to apply for, either before the Board of Trustees, to the 25 Town Board, perhaps a zone change, or the Zoning Board, or a Building Permit, or a site plan approval from the Planning Board, that person has the right to submit that application and go from there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand that too, Greg, but I think what happened in the field was that the Board wanted to be straight-forward with Mr. Strazza and say that we're not going to allow a 4 V2' wide dock, among other things that ~vere wrong there, so we didn't want to give him the impression that, well yeah it's too wide, it's high, and our opinion in the field was that it was too high, the berm xvas dug up by the road and material was placed in the wetlands. We didn't want to give him the impression in the field that oh yeah, just come in for an amendment and we'll take care of it next month and then he would come in for an amendment next month and we'd say "no", because it's too high and it xvasn't built with 4X4's, you disturbed the berm by the road, you've got to get the material out of the marsh, and it's too wide, and all of that. So, we didn't want to give him that false impression. It really wouldn't be fair to him to say oh, yeah, we'll see you in the office, sure no problem. AL STRAZZA: I told you that I was going to only modify, put the permit modification in for the rails and the posts. Now I wasn't even talking about the distance of the posts because I didn't think that was an issue. I was talking about the size of the posts which were 6"X 6" instead of 4"X 4". Now there were other mistakes on that permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I was talking about the whole thing. AL STRAZZA: I wasn't. I was being specific to my needs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We xveren't. We were being general to the whole thing. Ak STRAZZA: I have no problem with anything else. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The posts are not 4"X 4". AL STRAZZA: No, they are 6"X 6" and they are going to remain 6"X 6" or the dock won't be safe. It will break. IfI built a dock with 4"X 4" posts, that xvould save me about $800.00. I built them and they are 26' deep to make sure that that's not going to fall off. I'm concerned about my neighborhood, I'm concerned about my family, I'm concerned about my neighbors. They are all using that dock. That dock was calculated so that it's going to take one hell ora storm to break it offover the next 25 years. I also didn't use super, super, duper, preserved wood. I used normal standard. I was asked, hey do you want me to get you this stuffthat will really do a number, and I said no. As far as debris being in there, I didn't see any. I saw a piece of rope and I picked it up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No I mean material from the excavation by the road, placed under the dock. AL STRAZZA: I saw none of that and if it was there, it's still there. I saw none of it and none of it has been cleaned. But, the area where the construction people xvere working to build the dock, that's slowly growing back and that's going to groxv back in time. That's a construction site. There has to be a certain amount of area that you're alloxved to work with and they only took up what, a foot and half on each side. They raked it, there was nothing there that was more than 6", as far as clumps, that's an environmental requirement. The first big rain, that's going to settle down. I still think it's a safety issue and I still think that's common sense. There are docks all over Town that have posts. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well just to answer you briefly on the safety thing, I don't know if you could make any dock safe for an unsupervised child. AL STRAZZA: I'm not saying that they're going to be unsupervised or supervised. But forget the child. If my knee goes out, I'll fall over the sucker myself. I don't see any handicapped requirements in this Code. So you go to the Town Code and you look. But you can't have it both ways. Right now you're saying you only xvant low-profile docks. The Town Code, the Building Code says, if you build a deck by a house, you must have a rail. Why, because you're going to fall 4' into the ground? You stand more chance of getting hurt falling in the water and drowning. I don't understand. That's my question. When you people sho~ved up, that was just totally unexpected. No one should tell me I built an ugly dock. That's objective. You're supposed to be professionals, you're supposed to work for the Town. If you work for the Town you work for Me. I'm not trying to say I'm different than everybody else because I don't want to be. But, I also am not going to leave something that I think is unsafe so when push comes to shove and everything runs through it's course, if I'm told I must take down those posts, I xvill rip that entire dock out. But, it's going to run its' course. I'm going to go as high above this Board as I have to, to find out #l, your violating ADA, and if you are, why you are. If you're not, then what do I have as far as the dock construction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And if we're not violating it, then xve come back to the environmental concerns that we had in the field. AL STRAZZA: What environmental concerns do you have with having posts with a safety rail above the catwalk? You people have that on your own docks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a dock but for One, it wasn't even considered in the application. AL STRAZZA: I understand that and that's my fault. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, we didn't even consider it in the application. We didn't even consider it in this case. It was approved for what it was. So, it's kind of hard to say it now after it's all done and built. AL STRAZZA: It was considered when I asked the question. I said I would modify my permit and I was told don't bother. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I told you why. We were straight-forward with you in the field because the impression was that you wanted to modify it to leave it the way it was. AL STRAZZA: I specifically specified... GREG YAKABOSKI: May I interrupt for a second, Mr. Strazza, one of the reasons I stated before what I said that everybody has a right to submit an application if they see fit, xvhether they think it's going to pass or fail, or get modified, is that one of the benefits of doing something along those lines, is that when an application is done, it's in black and white. It's in writing. It comes into the system and it follows a set process of the system. Which answers a lot of questions, perhaps that you're raising, and also misinterpretation. AL STRAZZA: I agree and I will ask Jim to modify it. That's easy GREG YAKABOSKI: You have the right to submit an application. How the Board handles that application, it goes into the system. TRUSTEE FOSTER: IfI could just say something, I don't think this Board is in the position of approving everybody's violation simply because it's xvhat they wanted and not what they applied for. AL STRAZZA: I understand that too. 27 TRUSTEE FOSTER: What Greg says is well taken by me. I suggest that you might resubmit another application for what you have as opposed to what you might think you want. GREG YAKABOSKI: In addition, whether or not the Board, thisBoar& if you submit such an application, let's say the Board, Approval was granted, for the modification. I can tell you that most likely, since there was a violation, the Town would seek a fine for that violation. You still might get a permit for what you're seeking or you might no. But [ find it's a policy that the Town's been diligent on since April of last year, to try to send a message out to folks, do try to pay attention to what they're trying to build, to the permits. And, come in for a permit. I'm not picking on you. I understand and I heard everything you said. You were very frank and very clear. I understm~d it was a mistake and I understand all of that. AL STRAZZA: I'm not questioning the fact that you people may fine me for violating the initial permit. I would not disagree with that. I happen to think if anything, that's probably appropriate. I pleaded Not Guilty to the violation simply to get my day in court. My plea there is going to be the same. The Bay Constable is going to be my expert witness. GREG YAKABOSKI: I understand. And as I told Mr. Fitzgerald when we met, we're putting offthe Justice Court until a determination is made by this Board as to this hearing. AL STRAZZA: I've gotten a notice to January 5, which is my date in court. GREG YAKABOSKI: We talked about that day. Not that specific date, but just putting it off. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who xvas the Bay Constable that issued the Notice of Violation? AL STRAZZA: I don't know I can't read it. JIM FITZGERALD: Don. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. GREG YAKABOSKI: I have no further questions. JIM FITZGERALD: MayI.'? Since the quesfion of submitting an application for an amendment has come up, may I ask if the Board does indeed have established policy with regard to the concept of a low-profile dock.'? Are all docks that are being approved by the Board low-profile docks.`? GREG YAKABOSKI: I would really strongly respectfully suggest that this is a question that's more appropriate at a different time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what you have to do is apply for what the applicant thinks he wants today and see ~vhere it goes at a public hearing when all the facts come out and do a field inspection and all of that. AL STRAZZA: Does the Board have specific requirements for complying with ADA? Because, when I make my application, I would want to base it on that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sure there is a lot oflegislation out there concerning a lot of things but I don't think that's really relevant. AL STRAZZA: Yes because I happened to be a handicapped person so it's relevant to me. GREG YAKABSOKI: Again I think that's something that needs to be handled through the permit process and the system I ~vas talking about earlier. 28 AL STRAZZA: I agree but I have to know what the requirements are otherwise I'll be in violation again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are in violation. GREG YAKABOSKi: What would happen is that Jim, or whoever would make an application on your behalf and it would be handled appropriately through the process the Trustees have established. This is a hearing strictly as to the Notice of Violation, which was issued on September 13, 2001. These other questions, while excellent questions from Jim and yourself, again, xvere taken out of context and I think would be best at the time of an actual application. You obviously feel very strongly about the position and you have the right to do it. AL STRAZZA: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good night. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES II. RESOLUTIONS: DONALD M. BAYLES requests a Waiver to expand an existing loft into the adjoining attic space. Located: 785 Albacore Dr., Southold. SCTM#57-1-16.3 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES Larry Matzen on behalf of GARDINERS BAY ESTATES HOME OWNER ASSOCIATION INC. requests a Letter of Permission to remove, by herbicide, Jerusalem Artichoke and plant indigenous plants such as rosa rugosa, bayberry bushes and beach grass. Located: Beach at end of Knoll Circle, East Marion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve request for 2002 & 2003. The applicant must reapply with pictures. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES Meeting adjourned at: 6:15 PM RECEI~.D Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk Board of Trustees