Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TR-08/21/2002
A~bor~ J. Krupski, Pres]den~ James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hail 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 Wednesday, August 2t, 2002 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Ken Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Attorney Bob Ghosio, CAC Chairman Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 8:00 AM TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded.. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 26, 2002. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES II. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for July 2002. A check for $4,866.16 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. III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: JOSEPH & ELIZABETH BRITTMAN request an Amendment to Permit #5492 to accommodate a 4'X 13' landing with same size balcony above. Located: 80 Glenn Rd., Southold. SCTM#78-2-10 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES ROBERT & SUSAN TOMAN requesi an Amendment to Permit #5239 to change the house and garage configuration, install a 20'X 40' pool and deck. Located: 3480 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#78-2-13 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application and re-inspect the property in September, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES ALLEN & MARY MATHERS requests an Amendment to Permit #5320 to construct a 4'X 45' catwalk/dock, 3.5' above grade, with a piling pulley placed approx. 25' seaward of the dock, and to re-position the swimming pool. Located: 1245 Sleepy Hollow Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-1-10.15 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the cross-section for the dock application an d approve the survey for the pool and deck, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES Mark Schwartz on behalf of BRAD WINSTON & SANDRA POWERS request an Amendment to Permit #5383 to alter the building footprint as shown on survey dated July 12, 2002, and to Transfer Permit #5383 from Robert Somerville to Brad Winston & Sandra Powers. Located: 485 Breezy Path, Southold. SCTM#89-2-8 TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM A. LOIS requests an Amendment to Permit #5583 to fill the cleared area of lot with approx. 60 cy. of clean fill, re- grade the site to level with adjoining lot to west (approx. 8"-12" grade change), level piles of stockpiled topsoil, create earthen berm <3' high along south lot line, and deposit <5 cy. rip-rap at NE corner of bank as a temporary measure to elimin ate further degradation of the bluff resulting from the design of the bulkhead located on the eastedy adjoining property. Located: 58105 North Rd., Greenport. SCTM#44-2-9 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the a pplication, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES TED DOWD requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5073 to maintenance dredge the entrance of Fairhaven Inlet with the provisions stated the original permit dated 10/28/99. Located: 1775 Inlet Way, Southold. SCTM#92-1-8 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES FREDERICK J. & JOAN V. FROHNE request a Transfer of Permit #81-3-4 from Arthur Bertsch to Frederick J. & Joan V. Frohne for the existing bulkhead and stairs. Located: 4700 Paradise Point Rd., Southold. SCTM#81-3-4 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING moved to go off the Regular Meeting and onto the Public Hearings, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE ALEXANDRA JONES requests a Wetland Permit to resheath 100' of existing bulkhead and 3' walkway in back of bulkhead out of CCA. Remove existing rotted sheathing. Backfill excavated soil. Install 100'X 24" high rabbit/chicken wire fence on both right and left side of property line. Located: 1625 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-13 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would any like to comment in favor of this application? Would anyone like to comment against it? MR. PASSUDETTI: I'm the neighbor to Ms. Jones. I think I had expressed my dissatisfaction with that fence at the last hearing and I would like to do so again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. ALEXANDRA JONES: I'm the applicant. Again, 'm going to reiterate tothe Board, please, I also live in Huntington and I met with Frank Petrone, the Supervisor of the Town of Huntington, this past week and regarding that fence, which is, I brought the bills, it is 26" high. If the Board doesn't see fit to give me permission tonight then I would like to know if I can put them in the 18 planters that run along the properzy line because Mr. Petrone, if Mr. Passudetti wants to continue loving the ducks and the geese and the doo-doo, he is willing to give me 500 and have then shipped down to Mr. Passudetti's property tomorrow. We have a serious, serious problem there and brought my grandson this evening to the Board. He cannot walk on our own property. That fence deters them. I love them. They are beautiful, when they are flying, not doing their thing so that my family can't utilize my property. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We have a question before you leave. You have an application to resheath the bulkhead and for a walkway in the back. Behind your bulkhead is completely vegetated, it's non-turf. ALEXANDRA JONES: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You probably had 50-70' of vegetation. What were your plans for that area? ALEXANDRA JONES: I also wanted to add something. Since I had spoken to Lauren during the week, I went down to the bulkhead and apparently the Ramos family, originally, we dug down a little bit. There is poison ivy and I have it all over me, 1 was North Shore to get shots, but when I dug down there is a concrete 3' wide of these, I guess they're about 4" thick, 8" X 16" pack, and it goes under, but over the years, the earth has covered it and it's there. If I could just get to that, I'm happy. If you say I can't have the walkway that's okay too, we could leave the buffer, because I have no intention of cutting up all the way and not have some sort of buffer. I want a buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the platform, there's a ramp and a float. Does any of that haYe a permit? AL EXANDRA JONES: Yeah sure. I brought all of that tonight. The Ramos built that in 1975 and I also have photographs and my contract of sale. These are all of the pictures 'and this is my contract of sale for the property. (not speaking into the microphone) Here's another one showing the dock. I power-washed that, by the way, with Clorox Bleach, so it may look new to you but it's actually 30 years old. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't think you want to put bleach in the creek. Clorox is a pretty powerful insecticide and it will kill about anything. ALEXANDRA JONES: Well I just brushed it on the wood and it turned it white. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well you shouldn't do that anymore. That's a pretty serious chemical. TRUSTEE KING: It's very toxic. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I can see it's pretty existing and all but I'm looking for a permit for it. ALEXANDRA JONES: The Building Dept. has that in their file. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh They shouldn't have that. We should have that. ALEXANDRA JONES: You should have that? 1967 was the year. if need be, we can verify that with the broker who sold us the property, Kathy Rosenbaum. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well you don't have an actual approval for it. It should be included. ALEXANDRA JONES: Lauren mentioned an amendment or something that we should maybe add to this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's an idea. We can act on this tonight and you can file for an amendment for this based on all of this information. ALEXANDRA JONES: That's what I'm g~ving to the DEC also. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do. you have a current survey? ALEXANDRA JONES: Yes. I don't have it with me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay, that's what we would like to see. ALEXANDRA JONES: Joe Ingegno just re-surveyed the entire property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Showing the dock? ALEXANDRA JONES: Yeah, sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good, that's what we need. You can call Lauren tomorrow and get the proper paperwork. Is there any other comment? BOB GHOSIO: The CAC has a comment. The CAC recommends Approval of the bulkhead replacement but stipulated...we felt that there should be a 10'-15' non-turf installed behind the bulkhead. As I recall, it was mostly turf up to the bulkhead. ALEXANDRA JONES: No, not at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was really no turf up to the bulkhead. It's all vegetated. ALEXANDRA JONES: 27'. It's all vegetated beautifully, Iow lying. The entire 105' is covered in it. The poison ivy is at the far end. BOB GHOSIO: As far as the wire fence is concerned, the CAC was definitely against having the wire fence there. The feeling of the CAC was that it would impede migratory corridor for the waterfowl and so the comment was made that if your living on the waterfront, you have to learn to co-exist with the wildlife that also lives there. That was basically it. ALEXANDRA JONES: Well I would like to know then if I could completely shrub it, the whole length. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well let's make it clear, the CAC is a separate entity from the BOard of TruStees. That's their recommendation. Yes, planting shrubs wouldn't require any action from this Board. ALEXANDRA JONES: I'm not a millionaire, it just costs me to do all of that work and to take it out again and start all over again...I tried from100' back, I put in some Christmas trees to make it very nice and that fence costs me $50.00 to do on both sides. It's non-visible, it's green, vinyl green, so you can't even see it. You guys were there, you saw it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can't they get over the fence? ALEXANDRA JONES: Kathy Rosenbaum was the one that told me. They touch it with their nose and for whatever reason, I swear, we have witnesses in the audience, they don't jump over it. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's my prayers but I swear to you, they don't fly. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What about the bulkhead? We recommend strongly that you move away from the creosote and CCA bulkheading and use some kind of vinyl or plastic sheathing..There are other kinds that are much more environmentally friendly. We haven't allowed any type of wood bulkheadwith any type of Coating in a while. ALEXANDRA JONES: Can I just ask you a question? Why are all these people that we applied to, J. Rambo, Reeve dock building, Steve...oh and Latham, every one of them had quoted the other. None of them quoted any vinyl. When I did ask for vinyl, it's like three times the price. $18,000 I can afford with a loan, but $37,000, quoted from Costello Marine, for the vinyl, r can't afford that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the reason why people are going for the vinyl is because, not that we're endorsing the vinyl and saying that it's going to be the miracle cure, we're saying that, first of all, it's environmentally friendly. CCA stands for cromated copper arsenate. So, it's a real serious chemical that's being put into the water. ALEXANDRA JONES: What about creosote? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Creosote is oil, It's like dumping oil into the water. Another problem with the CCA is that marine worms eat into it and in about 7 to 8 years your sheathing will be rotted through and eaten away and will need replacing. So you're going to have to look in 7 or 8 years what you're replacement costs are going to be on top of that. That's why people are putting vinyl in. ALEXANDRA JONES: I understand but I have to live within my budget and I just went to my friend's funeral today and I might not be here 7 years from now. I've gotto worry about today sir. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't want to get into that discussion. We don't have a ban on CCA. I don't have a prOblem approwng CCA, it's just that most people don't do it because it's not going to last and the replacement cost is going to be...Artie what do you think? TRUSTEE FOSTER: What's our policy? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well no one has gone with CCA. TRUSTEE FQSTER: Because we've recommended vinyl. TRUSTEE I~RU:PSKI: Right. What do you think Jim? TRUSTEE I~ING: I'd prefer the plastic but it's not illegal to use CCA either. ALEXANDRA JONES: May I say something? You're here also tonight for my neighborwho spoke against me, and his application is for the same. We are abutting each other. He has '105'. So, apparently it's for him also tonight and I understand that. But if you disapprove me tonight, then I'll just have to leave it the way it is. Right now we've had dirt seeping into the water and I don't want that to happen. I want to stop that. If it lasts 7 years, God be it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well we told your neighbor he had to use vinyl. ALEXANDRA JONES: I didn't hear that. I'm only here for the first time. But, it says in the paper, creosote, in the Southold newspaper, very clearly in his ad. TRUSTEE KRUPS~KI: Well that we wouldn't allow. ALEXANDRA JONES: I can't afford to do that and I want to step what's happening. I want ~o stop it. That's why we have the fence next door around the area that's caving in on his property. We have a lot of seepage there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the Boards inclined not to approve the new CCA sheathing in front so what Jim suggested is that you could resheath behind it in CCA. ALEXANDRA JONES: Okay. John Reeves said he could do that, if you want to go that route. That gets a little cheaper for me. I definitely could go that route if you guys think that's the way to go. It's less money. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We could approve that subject to receipt of new plans showing that work, the way it's supposed to be done. ALEXANDRA JONES: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'll get your permit when you give us the new plans. ALEXANDRA JONES: Great. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You pick your contractor and they'll draw the plans up for you. ALEXANDRA JONES: Ok that will be John. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.' Any other comment? ALEXAND~ JONES: Thank you very much. Do you need copies of all of this. Should I drop this off? LAUREN STANDISH: When you apply for the amendment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIW©DA: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application to resheath 100' of existing bulkhead with sheathing behind the existing bulkhead and backfill excavated, soil, not install 100'X 24" high rabbit/chicken wire fence and install a 10' non-turf buffer, which already exists. What about the walkway? ALEXANDRA JONES: I don't want the walkway. I just want to get that stone up and leave it the way it is. What about the fence? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're not approving the fence. TRUSTEE KRUPSKk We're not? TRUSTEE FOSTER: We're not approving the fence? TRUSTEE I~RUPSKI: I don't have a problem with the fence. -FRUS~EE POLIWODA: I thought we were going with the shrubs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, shrubs don't require an action but she requested the fence. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We normally go with a split rail fence. ALEXANDRA JONES: Do you know what this fence is like? TRUSTEE POUWQDA: Is everybody ok with the fence? Jim? TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay, we'll allow the fence. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES STEPHEN E. BRANDER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with a basement. Located: 850 Private Rd. #22, Southold. SCTM#76-1- 15.6 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak to this application? STEPHEN BRANDER: On the application, we spoke to Lauren earlier in the week, requesting that I move the dwelling back 10' more landward from the wetlands boundary. One part of the house just touched it and we have ample reom to do that and we are making that change as requested. Also, I didn't think I would be able to get a new survey but surprise, J was able to get it today. I have a new survey showing the new setback as you requested. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay, this is a 50' non-disturbance buffer and you're property was large enough to accommodate that without a problem. We're just trying to be consistent. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? The CAC Disapproved it because it wasn't staked at the time of their inspection as they have consistently done. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: SO moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: r'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that gutters and drywells are installed and hay bales placed down. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES PATRICE M. McCAFFREY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single- family dwelling with a basement. Located: 497 Private Rd. #22, Southold. SCTM#76-1-15.3 TRUSTEE KING: Is there any comment on this application? STEVEN BRANDER: I would just say that we would like to do this and I have met all of your Stipulations and howl understand that l will need drywells and hay bales. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with drywells and gutters on the house and a hay bale line. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded, ALL AYES JOHN & SARAH MILLER request a Wetland Permit to enlarge a second-story bathroom and add a deck porch and trellis to the dwelling. Located: 1132 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#118-1-18.1- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to-speak for or against thi:s application? The CAC recommends Approval with the Stipulation that all building permits are in place for the work that has already taken place. I agree with that. That would take care of my question TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is the applicant here? JOHN MILLER: Yes. All building permits were attached to the side, by the Building Dept. and the DEC, TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When I went to look for a bathroom it was... JOHN MILLER: It's a little difficult. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would just like to see gutters and drywells for the new construction. JOHN MILLER: Drywells and gutters are in the plans to be done, which I believe they should be on the survey or the cow struction plan. TRUSTEE KRUPKSh What we got wasn't really clear. JOHN MILLER: It's included in the construction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It just showed a small area in the middle of the house. It wasn't clear that the whole house was going to be completely renovated. JOHN MILLER: Most of the house is still there. The older house was just renovated. It was not torn down completely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about hay bales? TRUSTEE DJCKERSON: There were. I'll make a motion to close the headng. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. Was the deck not going to be.. JOHN MILLER: The deck is a part of this. Both items were to be addressed this evening. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's just that you may not do it immediately? JOHN MILLER: We're waiting for you to give us approval to do it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When was speaking to the builder, he said it wasn't going to be done at this time, but you want the approval. JOHN MILLER: It actually will be done as soon as you give us the approval. He was mistaken. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, and to add a deck porch and trellis to the dwelling. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES WALTER CHADWICK requests a Wetland Permit to convert a garage to a pool house and add a new septic tank to the existing cesspool. Located: 6565 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-6-25 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of or against the application? Does the Board have any comments? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to Approve the application? TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES DONALD PASSUDETTI requests a Wetland Permit to repair and replace 105' bulkhead using creosote lumber. Located: 1775 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-14 DONALD PASSUDETTI: I understand you want to use vinyl rather than the creosote and that's fine. Does the Board have any objection to the planting of arborvitaes? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's a horticultural operation and we wouldn't have any action on that. The only comment I would have is that we have a non-turf buffer. We want a 15' non-turf buffer but only in the area that's going to be dug up. If you're going to do the whole bulkhead eventually, we're not saying dig up the whole area and put in the buffer, only put the buffer in where you're going to actually do the work at the time. That whole area is going to be disturbed, the whole lawn there is going to be disturbed there, put the non-turf buffer in there. DONALD PASSUDETTh Like bales of hay?. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh' No, instead of putting turf grass in, you put in gravel or plantings or something just in that area. DONALD PASSUDETTh Okay. TRUSTEE FOSTER: 15'. Whatever area you're going to disturb has to be replaced with a non-turf buffer. ALEXANDRA JONES: I'm the neighbor to the left. I just had a question. I am hardly in favor of this application. My question is, I have a survey dated 1982 and [0 there are a lot of floats and docks them and I would like to know if all permits are in place for everything that's there because it doesn't show it on this survey at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There's a permit here from 1986, floating dock, ramp... ALEXANDRA JONES: Diving floats? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No diving floats. ALEXANDRA JONES: Well they are presently there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually we were on the site and I believe the applicant showed us this on the site, and we had it with us, and we reviewed what was on the site last week, and it matched the description of what was permitted in 1986. ALEXANDRA. JONES: And that would be in the files in the Building Dept.? TRUSTEE KRUPS:KI: No, in our office. ALEXANDRA JONES: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application to replace 105' of bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl and a '15' non-turf buffer in the areas he disturbs. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES SUSAN BECKER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed open walkway dock 4'X 60' with 4' wide access pathway and 4'X 9' stairs at the seaward end. The dock will extend into the water approx. 29' from the edge of the marsh with no greater th an 6" pilings. Located: 4483 Wells Rd., Peconic. SOTM#86-1-9.6 POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST MICHAEL A. CHUISANO as Contract Vendee requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling. Located: 575 Diamond Lane, Southold. SCTM#68-2-10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? CHARLES BOWMAN: I'm from Land Use Ecological Services and I'm representing the applicant. We have submitted new plans to the Board. The new plan, that you'll notice, shows the house 60' from the little Iow-lying wetlands area, which would enable us that 50' non-disturbance buffer. The sanitary system does fit landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line with a small area of fill extending into the CEHA, which the Board may or may not have a problem with. My own personal opinion is this is not the best plan. Ir'requires the road being extended further northward down to where the house would be now. So therefore, the road is longer than the previous plan which if you recall, had the driveway much closer and probably that plan in enough of itself, I believe, would have less impacts. Just to go on record, we've listened to the neighbors about acquiring or having the County acquire this property, and with all of the controversy surrounding it, neither the owners nor the contract vendee have gotten a phone call from anyone as far as acquiring the property. (inaudible) I know the Board did do an inspection. We've had the surveyor out there numerous times, staking and re-staking. (inaudible) Again, from my own professional opinion, I don't think this is the best plan, however it is a plan that for the most part meets the requirements as far as setbacks from the well and sanitary system and the Iow-lying area. But that creates other parameters that we have to .... and I don't know which direction the Board wants to go with this but I'm certainly here to listen and provide you with any information that I can. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you We're going to take all comments first. Part of the acquisition thing, we addressed that from the beginning because we really want to give the landowner all of his options, but we're not going to pursue that tonight.~ We've dOne that. CHARLES BOWMAN; I understand that. I just wanted to make the Board aware that still nothing has happened. PAT MOORE: I represent Gottbetter and Ramis who are the adjacent property owners. We have all the other property owners here from Diamond Lane. They all certainly have a stake in this proceeding and I'm sure will speak on their own behalf. I want to put on the record, as an officer of the court, that I personally offered Mr. Chuisano, that on behalf of my clients, that they will buy the property. I personally advised him of that I passed the message to his attorney, Gall Wickham, and I presume that the message was passed from Gall to the client. As far asthe Ce~Jnty and their offers to purchase, have a etter that was addressed to :thlis Board dated April 22, 2002, which also includes a Resolution #39 autho?zing Steps for the acquisition of the land, the property adjacent to Goldsmith s Inlet park, the Town of Southold. I will certainly make this available to Mr. Chuisano. I assumed he had it but maybe he doesn't. I'll be sure that he has. We have always maintained that we do not want to hurt the owner, we do not want to hurt the applicant. The neighbors are prepared to buy the property but so:far our o~fers have been rejected. At least Mr. Chuisano has told me he's not interested. I have passed that message onto my clients. There are some things that have come.~n since the last meeting. The Zoning Board, Chairman Goehringer, often as a matter of course on properties along the sound, refers the a pplication submitted to the soil and water conservation district. They just provided, receiviad by the ZBA July 26th, which is a letter that I don't believe you have in YOur filelYet. If.you don't mind, I'll just read it to you very quickly for the record so that the Board is aware of what soil and water has stated. DearMr. Goehrigher, We have visited the site known in the ZBA file as Michael Chusiano, Diamond Lane, Peconlc for a proposed dwelling. This parcel is mapped as BC beaches and DU Dune land. It is well vegetated over most of the area. The soils are all sand. The USDA Natural Conservation Service recommends that they only be used fo~ wildlife habitat and recreation and also should be left undisturbed to provide protection from storms and high-tides. Access to the site is by a narrow footpath worn into the wooded area from above which is used by the other existing homes above the bluff area. The slope down the bluff face is steep and the path becomes a raised area of sand above fhe back dune area. It is unclear~where the property line along most of the parcel I found the corner stakes at the north and south end of the parcel and the corner stakes for the proposed house. It was impossible to make out the property boundary using these since you have no line of site from one to another due to the elevations and existing plants. Placement of the paper street or driveway will be down the steep slope and erosion control and road drainage should be considered carefully since this will have an adverse impact on the soils and the groundwater. The proposed house is to be located in the back dune area, which is below 5' in elevation. Groundwater in the test hole was measured at 2.8'below the existing ground surface. However, this is a drought year and alfhough it doesn't show when the test hole was dug, the groundwater elevation will rise and fa# dependent on rainfall and time of year. Therefore, the area may become wet or saturated. I spotted phragmites growing in that area and now there may be other wetland issues there also. You may-want to do a wetland boundary determination. The septic system design is of some concern due to it's location on pure sand in the back dune area close to the sound with very shallow (inaudible) above groundwater. I noted that fhe first floor elevation is at 14' and the mound is to be topped off at 20' righ! behind the house. The well location is 150' upslope :from the septic system, however it does not show the proximity of the existing wells or septic systems of neighboring lots. A location map should include these. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us. I have that for the Board to put n your f e. Another matter, which is, and I know the Board did a field inspection, and quite fra'r~kly, un~til you went out there and inspected it, the measure merits ortho road and elevations that the surveyor placed to show the amount of fill, it's just amazing. We took photographs, for the court, so. a nice judge sitting there looking at,this from his comfy seat, will be able to get a picture of what the road profiles are going t0 10ok like. On paper it doesn't ~live you the kind of impact :that being ~here~ at the property does. The photographs, and i'.ll present them all to the ~°ard a. nd when you're looking at them, they are numbered just so that you can.follow. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. PAT MOORE: As you Iookat these photographs, the photographs show the end of the road by the house, which shows a 4' fill In the first photograph, we ask you note the vegetation in the dune meadow. The second photograph is the west border.of the road and again with the 4' fill. The third photograph has a 5.2' fill. You can see the mature! cypress on the westerly line. The fourth photograph has the east border of the roaC with 5'5" of height:of fill. The fifth photograph is the east border of the road and that is 5'6" inland toward the bank. The sixth photograph is a west border, which is again 5'6" of fill. The seventh is contiguous to the wetlands and it sfiows 7' above the grade. Again, it was just amazing to see the contour and the',change to the topography that this road is going to cause. The eighth photcigraph is the marsh fern and scme of the corner of wetlands. The ninth photograph is the footpath. Again, you can notice the mature vegetation and it is just Sandy material as the base. The tenth photograph shows the border of GordOn/BrOwn and Ramis/Gottbetter and the area that's going to be cut. I'11~ get into the property dimensions in a moment, but that photograph shows you how it's going to impact adjacent properties, in particular, the Gordon/Brown property. The house and foundation looks to be only a few feet from the one tree, which is going to be undermined. Just a cut of this road is going to impact the stability of the bank there. The eleventh photograph is again the embankment, which you can see again the large locust and the stabilized bank. Photograph twelve also is adjacent to the Gordon house. The thirteenth photograph is a close up of the soil and sand and the intensity for erosion based on the materials. You can see that it's just sand with a light and very thin coating of leaf compost or soil material. Fifteen is again a road cut. You can see the mature cherries, oak, and hickory trees. Then we get to the end photograph, which shows the.height of a 5'5" cut. My client did a very good job identifying the photographs and marking them. So, this is just for the record to identify the photographs that have been placed on the record. Photograph "D" is the west border of the road. It's again, a 7' height of the road from, the natural grade. "E" is the freshwater wetland area and finally "F' is the marsh fern. These photographs really give: a very good picture of the impact of this road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for the record, I believe the Board is familiar enough with this and we could .probably walk down there at night without stumbling. PAT MOORE: I know, and again, it's kind of tedious for you and I appreciate your patience, but my concern is obviously, when someone else looks at this that doesn't have the benefit of going out to the field, 1 think that these photographs are really important because you really can't appreciate on paper and when I saw the plan that was submitted, it didn't have any impact on me and on paper, quite different than being out on the field. Mr. Palmer is right here and he brought over a survey Of his when he purchased this property and it's the one he just gave me, and if it's all right with you, I'll photocopy it out in the hallway at the machine, and provide it for the Board. He also owns the larger piece that goes to the L.I. Sound. The right-of-way that Mr. Chuisano and Maggio are planning'to cut into is actually cutting into the right-of-way area that is his fee title. It is his land, at least according to the survey. We are in the process of doing a title search on the ownership of the road but coincidentally, Mr. Palmer came in with his survey and from all appearances the survey would actually map out fee title, meets and bounds description, as tlie deed would show, and in fact, they do have the meets and bounds on the survey and the easterly side of the right-of-way isl going to be the area that is actually owned by Mr. Palmer. I'll submit that for the ,record. I think it's fair to say that Mr. Palmer objects to the type of improvements that are being proposed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just a little clarification to what you just said. You say Mr. Palmer.owns the fee to half of the right-of-way. TRUSTEE FOSTER: When will that information be available? PAT MOORE: We're in the process of searching it out. It could take a couple of weeks to get. As soon as I have it, I'll give it to you. Right now, I have a survey that shows so your attorney can see. This is the title survey that is included and it goes all the way down L.I. Sound. The actual ownership goes to the halfway point of that right-of-way. (not speaking into the microphone) TRUSTEE KRUPSKh One of the questions we were going to bring up tonight it who owns the road. This doesn't answer our other question of who owns the road up to that point. PAT MOORE: only know that from Mr. Palmers survey but we'll find out based on the title search to see who might own the road. You have to keep 'n mind that this subdivision was approved back in 1933. It shows a map of Acres of Diamonds, Inc. filed June 12, 1933. What happens is, in 1933 these subdivisions were created without any thought to environmental issues. You have lots of subdivisions out there like that all over the County. I had a client that had a lot on map on Fire Island that was underwater. There would be no reasonable expectation to .be able to build on this lot, which was an identified lot, that the family had owned for generations, and it was essentially into the ocean. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But somebody owns it and we would like to find out who owns it. CHARLES BOWMAN: We have a title search and we will make that available to the Board. That should take care of all of the problems. PAT MOORE: I would like to see that title search. The point that I was making is that from the map of 1933, you can't ignore the environmental laws that have taken, place s~nce then. The 1933 map does not necessarily mean that the lot is a buildable lot. While it may be single and separate, there are still environmental issues and access issues. We're going to continue to research the question of access. We've gotten that much information so far just from Mr. Palmer's survey. A couple of other issues that came up that were questioned is that I understand that the DEC issued a permit under the previous plan but the plan has now been modified in it's bringing you in closer to the 300'. CHARLES BOWMAN: 300' is their jurisdiction but he told us that (not using the microphone). PAT MOORE: Essentially what you're saying is that until you know what the Trustees will approve, you're not going to amend the plan with the DEC. But the permit that's before you now does not match the proposal. Again, the CEHA line issue, as far as the fill, and whether or not it's appropriate to place the fill, now that you have the information from the County as well, on the amount of fill that's being proposed. Those are the issues that I want to raise this evening. We still have serious problems with the development of this property. The adjoining property owners have very strong objections on cutting the path that is not only to be used as access ingress egress for them on a regular basis, but also the access is going to be needed to bring the trucks down to build this house and to excavate the sanitary system. We are talking about a significant impact on the environment onto the property and to the property owners, the affected property owners. We still maintain that this should've been an environmental, a positive declaration with respect to environmental impacts. We understand your position on that but we still raise our objection. DEBORAH GORDON-BROWN: My land has already been endangered. I went down the path today and I found a birch tree that has a 2 ½' circumference that was cut down. On my land the savagery, I mean nobody did this work with an arborist around. The trees that we pay an arborist to take care of on the common right-of-way is horrendous. My land, during the course of this, is going to fall down without any further road work being done. I had a lot of things to say but I also want to know how in the world can one potential land owner or one land owner, take over the right-of-way that serves for at least seven other and impose his or her will on it. This survey was imposing one persons will on all of us in the community. We see this everyday and who is going to clean it up. JOHN PALMER: I have the lot next to the Maggios. What I was wondering is this. I have been caught on the beach in a severe rain storm. I've tried to get up the bluff and was slushing through mud and water, and this was on the dirt path, with dirt surroundings. What's going to take it's place if Chuisano gets permiss,on to build and the access road comes in. You going to have a thousand square feet or more of (inaudible). Now in the Board's opinion, can enough water go over the sides to en danger the hillside as so to affect the stability of the houses there. You probably have this sort of thing taking place time and time again. Of course, Ms. Brown's house is at risk because the road will come so close to her. I'm next door and Fm worried about mine as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was one of our concerns. I'll take all the other comments first. Any other comments? CARMEN RAMIS: I'm one of the adjacent property owners and I just wanted to read a couple of paragraphs from a letter that is already in the file but I want it for the record. I'm going to be submitting a copy that is already highlighted so when the transcription happens it will be less painful. It is a lette¢ from Save the Sound which is a 30 year old regional non-profit organization that has over the years been affiliated with [he Sierra Clu b, the Oceanic Society, and continues to work in collaboration with other National Conservation organizations like the Audubon Society. They have offices not only in Connecticut including at Yukon's marine technology and research center in Groton but also in Long Island at Garvey's Point Museum in Glen Cove, and they want to save the sound. The letter is addressed and dated July 17th of this year and it's addressed to President Krupski and the rest of the Board of Trustees and it goes over three points. The o pen space, the habitat, and the water quality. I'm going to read from the habitat and the water quality sections. (Letter on file.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? DEBORAH GORDON-BROWN: The DEC Coastal Environmental Areas in Suffolk County, Goldsmith's Inlet is listed as one. This was last updated 3/9/90. I'll give you a copy. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have a few questions for the applicant. CHARLES BOWMAN: If I could just make a couple of brief comments...(inaudible) a stone blend has been proposed. Joseph Fischetti, P.E. has discussed the road plan with the Town Engineer. We intend to get a letter from the Town Engineer saying that it is proper engineering practices that the Town will accept. I want to make it a point that the neither the Chuisanos or myself think this is the best plan. This plan was brought together because of your request for a 50' buffer from the wetlands. Where there is opportunity to reduce the road, keep the house where it is, bring the driveway along the back slope, to a much less impact, and not have the roadway as long as this. Even the house location. It all comes back to us trying to maintain a 50' buffer from a wetland area that is minute and has a few wetland plants. Rather than allowing or even considering either moving it and making it large, there are all sorts of innovative things to reduce impacts, which certainly is available and very easy to do. The vegetation in it can be moved very easily. I've done it many, many times before in many, many areas. We've moved wetlands where there were endangered species and whole sections of wetlands. I'm just pointing out that this is not the best plan for that site. know that and the Chuisanos know that but it was prepared to give you the 50' and to show that the house could fit with the 50' buffer but it makes the road longer. If we had some flexibility that the Board might consider something else, we certainly could provide that to you, and what we think is the best plan, and it would reduce the im Pact. It's u p to the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know why the applicant wouldn't provide the Board with the best plan. CHARLES BOWMAN: Because at the last meeting... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Instead of some crude substitution. CHARLES BOWMAN: Because at the last meeting, it was pointed out to us that we had to have a 50' buffer. That was the Board's criteria and that's what's you've always asked for, and that's what we provided. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But, you don't provide it. CHARLES BOWMAN: The house is at 80' TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But it's a 50' non-disturbance buffer that we try to maintain on undeveloped properties. CHARLES BOWMAN: If you're counting the road, the road is to the right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's another issue. I think before I ask any specific questiens, the more we look into this, the more questions it raises. You're telling us that know, that this isn't even the best plan, and maybe there's a better plan. it's ike We,re going backwar,d.s on this. CHARLES BOWMAN: I don t think so. I'l I'm trying to point out is that the plan that's been proposed to you shows a 50'...the ability to have a 50' from the dwelling. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But there's not a 50' undisturbed buffer, which is the stand ard that we've been using. CHARLES BOWMAN: From the dwelling it would be a 50' buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But not a 50' undisturbed buffer. CHARLES BOWMAN: I'm talking about the dwelling and not the road. You're talking about 50' from...we can't move the road. It's impossible to move the road. The road is where it is. TRUSTEE KRUPKSI: That's correct. CHARLES BOWMAN: That does not provide you with...there are lots of roads in the Town of Southold that are close to the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's one of the problems. CHARLES BOWMAN: The Town itself does all sorts of drainage work in all sorts of roa~lways that are close to wetlands. All I'm saying is that the proposed house provides a 50' buffer. We can do better on the road, on the shortening of the road, but the road is not going to be 50'. If we bring the driveway down on the landward side of that little wetland area, it's certainly not going to meet your criteria for keeping it 50' all around. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Then how do you say you can do better on this? To be honest, the more we look at the standards of the Code, the more this application isn't making sense. You're telling me you can do better on this application. CHARLES BOWMAN: I'm saying there is a better way to mitigate any impacts. If that's your feeling, we'll keep this the same. This meets the 50' setback for th e house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But it doesn't. CHARLES BOWMAN: For the house, it certainly does. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But it's not a 50' non-disturbance buffer. You can say it meets it for the house and just completely fill it. That doesn't meet the setback. OHARLES BOWMAN: I'm saying it meets it for the house. It doesn't meet it for the road, but we can't change the road. All I'm trying to point out to you is that by putting the house there, and having that 50' buffer for the house, we have to make the road longer. I don~t see hoWthe Board can say...if the title to the road is good, we can't ch ange where the road is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Let's start with title to the road then. CHARLES BOWMAN: Sure. TRU~STEE FOLSTER: Do you have it? CHARLES BOWMAN: No, not with me. Gall Wickham has it. I don't know the answer to that question. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What was presented...we have Mr. PalmeYs survey, if you could come up and take a look... CHARLES BOWMAN: I did, but it doesn't show who owns the road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It doesn't show who owns the southerly part of the road either that goes up the hill. CHARLES BOWMAN: That's correct. I think we have to look into who owns the whole road from the end of the existing improved roadway, and even actually probably down Diamond Lane. I don't know the status of Diamond Lane either. I would presume that it's probably all the same, but I may be wrong. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's an important consideration. Everything about this project does haS.impact and it does affect the standards under Chapter 97. CHARLES BOWMAN: I'm not standing here saying it doesn't. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, let's stay with the road for the moment. Destabilization of the adjacent property is something that's been brought up tonig~ht, in light of the clearing that has been done by the surveyor. Now, you had the surveyor mark out the proposed driveway, but what was unclear is the im pacts to the: neighboring properties. CHARLES BOWMAN: Well that is why I'm suggesting that Mr. Fischetti, the enginee[, and the Town Engineer, review the plan, and make sure...just like it was a subdivision road, any road in the Town of Southold has to be reviewed by the Town Engineer and certified that it's not going to affect the adjoining parcels. Is it possible to build a road down a slope like that? Absolutely. It happens all the time on Long Island. It happens all the time in the state of New York. Can it be engineered to make sure it doesn't affect the properties? Yes. Is this an engineered plan that does that? I don't know. I'm not a P.E. I certainly would 18 trust Mr. Fischetti and the Town Engineer to look at it and decide as to whether it's efficient or not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't know, in the experience of Trustee Foster, this is going to have considerable about of disturbance on the side of the right-of-way. Now that wasn't clear, when we looked at the strings, unless you propose to put in steel or concrete to support the right-of-way, it was unclear as to how far out this would protrude. It would seem to cover even Mr. Palmer's property. He's got a wetland adjacent to the roadway there. CHARLES BOWMAN: We can't go beyond the right-of-way. When you're building roads, you're going to have permanent and temporary erosion controls during construction. Those certa:inly would have to be provided to the Town Engineer to look at and be a part of the approvals to bu lid that roadway and driveway. But we can't go onto any other persons property with fill. We can't do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it's not clear on your plan as to how that's going to be accomplished. CHARLES BOWMAN: I think what your asking is that be clarified and all I'm suggested is we clarify it and have a plan that has been accepted or certified or approved by the Town Engineer so the Board can feel comfortable that he's looked at- it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What spec did he give you on the driveway? Is it a minor subdivision spec that you have to maintain? CHARLES BOWMAN: I think it's for a fire-truck. TRUSTEE' FOSTER: 16' width with a driveable shoulder on either side so vehicles can pass. So that gives you 22' and you've got a 30' right-of-way and you're going to elevate the road 7'. CHARLES BOWMAN: I don't know whether this one, I know the former plan that we had, the Town Engineer felt was okay. I don't know for a fact that he thinks this is okay or that there shouldn't be...like I said, a temporary or permanent erosion control specification to go along with it. I think there should be. All I'm saying is let us take it to the Town Engineer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's just another step. We're not saying that's ReSolution. Another question we have is, there is a doted line on the survey that was submitted, I couldn't find a, key, what is that. It's a diamond shaped dotted line. CHARLES BOWMAN: That was on the old survey, which was labeled "low-area". TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On our most recent field inspection, that "low-area" seemed to be a freshwater wetland area. CHARLES BOWMAN: The freshwater wetland area, and Chris Pickerall and I both looked at it, is what is indicated by the four flags. TRUSTEE ~(RUPSKI: We thought that that area was not inclusive of every part of the freshwater wetland. CHARLES BOWMAN: I flagged every blueberry and marsh fern that was in there that was contained within the line. TRUSTEE K:RUPSKI: We thought the diamond shaped Iow area was more representative... CHARLES BOWMAN: It's all upland species. I would take exception to that. It's all bayberry, cedar, there is Rugosa Rose in there. It's not freshwater species. The marsh fern and the high-bush blueberry are within the area where the flags are flagged. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the freshwater wetlands adjacent to the east on Mr. Palmer's property? CHARLES BOWMAN: I haven't flagged them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're looking also of course into impacts on the neighborS' property as we should. CHARLES BOW. MAN: Do you want me to flag that? I certainly will. TRUSTEE I~RUPSKI: You'll need permission from Mr. Palmer. That's a consideration that we have to take into account. Another consideration that has been brought UP tonight and has been brought up in the past but has never been addressed, except in sort of a passing way, is the way a structure here, a human habitation, would affect the wildlife corridor and the wildlife habitat that exists not only in the preserVed County park, but also to that large stretch of land to the east. CHARLES BOWMAN: I do a lot of wildlife surVeys. It's a very general statement. If yOUr wish US to do an inventory of what fauna we find in that area, what species are utilized, what certain habitat for nesting or breeding of origin, then that certainly would see what portions we're going to be disturbing or not disturbing. What species would co,exist with people, and what species do not co-exist with people. The Board itself has to be pretty specific so that we know what to do. TRUSTEE KRUP. SKI: I ~hink w.e want to be inclusive of everything. Not only of what's existing there but how bisecting this habitat is going to affect. CHARLES BOWMAN: Fm just saying that you have a large stretch of land that is undisturbed all the way down to the sound. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you're going to put a house in the middle of this large stret0h of undisturbed area. CHARLES BOWMAN: And one. of the problems with the wildlife population is the fragmentation of habitat. I think that's what you're trying to get at. Are we fragmenting the habitat? If that is the question then we find answers. I'm just trying to. find out the questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the question. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What are you going to do put transmitters on the rabbits and track which way they run and say if we put a house here they can't cross it? CHARLES BOWMAN: Any house that is put, whether it be next to a house that's already there, you are continuing that fragmentation of a habitat. We live on Long Island. Even if we lived in upstate New York, there are many, many, many speci~es that co-exist with people...and some don't. (inaudible) if we are in open field hal~itat where we already have houses around it, you're probably going to find (inaUdible) the one's that are in our bird feeders al of time. Are they going to be affected by tha't? No. But, that's what you have to know. I'm not trying to lecture the Board or anything but I'm just saying that it's a legitimate question that you have to identify what actually utilizes that area. You can't just say "you are 20 going to fragment it and it's going to have a negative effect", without knowing what's there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're going to have to provide us with that. CHARLES BQWMAN: I will. It's a legitimate question. We'll also give you the title search TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Just so you know, this is just bringing...what you're being asked to answer tonight, might raise ten more questions, if you bring us two bushels of information, we might say we need ten more bushes, because you just raised other questions. CHARLES BOWMAN: Sure. I wou~d certainly appreciate that if the Board had any other questions right now... TRUST:EE KRUPSKI: But we don't know. Something like the issue as simple as the, well you can call it a driveway, what is a driveway, something like that h~s become very complicated. Now it's been staked and delineated but the property lines haven't been staked and we don't know because there's nothing on paper that shows .how it's going to effect, or possibly weaken or undermine the lateral support of ~he neighbors property, or how the driveway itself... CHARLES BOWMAN: The only thing that I can say AI...believe me, it's with all due respect, I'm not going to say that it's not going to have any structural impact...l'm going to let the engineers decide that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But it's an example of how other questions arise when we get more information, then other questions arise. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You know the questions and you also know the answers. You've been around long enough. CHARLES BOWMAN: (inaudible) TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Of course we'll entertain it. Especially if you tell us that this is not the best plan. CHARLES BOWMAN: .I've been a party to building in environmentally sensitive areas and there are other things that can be done. I would certainly like the Board to at 'least have the ability to look at it and have that information in front of them. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think kind of what you're proposing here is something that resembles the Great Wall of China in a smaller form. CHARLES BOWMAN: Artie, again, this was done to reach the house where we pushed to get 50' from the house to the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We weren't very clear then because a 50' non-disturbance buffer is supposed to be non-disturbance. CHARLES BOWMAN: We can't do anything about that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well that's a problem. CHARLES BOWMAN: This plan is part of the record and that's fine. TRUSTEE KRUF~SKh Any other comment? DEBORAH GOROON-BROWN: The east side of the road is adjacent to my property line, which I am now having re-surveyed. If you need an area to get to your proposed road, it's on my property. Just for your information. CHARLES BOWMAN: (inaudible) on the east side and ask Mr. Palmeffs permission to be able to do that and the surveyors. I would ask him if we have his 2! permission to do that or not. We can't go on your property sir, without your permission. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If you don't have his permission you would have to at least address the poSsible impacts that the road would have. We've looked at it. From our experience, we believe that wetlands exist on Mr. PalmeCs property, just viewing it from the road. CHARLES BOWMAN: If you're requesting it, we would like to add some accurate information to it. I certainly can stand on the road and look and say, yeah I see a highq~ush blueberry. I can't tell you exactly where it is from there and assess how the road is going to have an impact. If Mr. Palmer says "yes" we'll put it on. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ask Mr. Palmer if he would consider that. CHARLES BOWMAN: I think I just did. NEIGBOR: If Mr. Palmer gives his permission, then the surveyors better not do the vandalizing that they did on the other side. TRUSiTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's something that has to be considered. I think that should be made clear to Mr. Palmer, the amount of disturbance that will be done ifin fact the survey is conducted. (talki.n g) CHA~RLES BOWMAN: If your flagging, not to try to insult you personally, but I could do a much better job. But, if you could just take another look at the subject parcel. CHARLES BOWMAN: I'll get Chris out there again. He looked at it twice and I looked at it twice. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. CARMEN RAMIS: Two quick comments. The first one is indeed the marking of the wetlands in the Maggio property. I thought that in the May hearing you had asked, to re-mark it and I very much agree with you that what they marked at the Iow area, the little diamond shaped thing, does not encompass all of the wetlar~ds. Chapter 97 is the Wetlands chapter, under emerging vegetation, there is a section of that that quotes phragmites as part of the freshwater wetlands emerging vegetation. There is a lot of phragmites beyond the marsh fern and the blueberries that was marked. So, it's indeed a lot more extensive. The second point is having to do with the test hole. In the (interference) dated May 16th by Mr. Bowman of Land Use it's states (interference). MR. PALMER: Right at the bottom of the hill, where you turn left to Mr. Chuisano's property, ~s going to go up. The water is going to go down and it must go over our access road and onto my land. At least I think it will. It seems to be that way, and I object. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. If there is no further comment... LESUIE WlSEMANN: I have to say, I've sat through all of these hearings, and I live on Soundview in Southold, professor of architecture in land use development, and I have been extraordinarily impressed with the patience and open-mindedness of the Trustees in their attem pt to adjudicate this complex situation. Again and again you have made requests for the potential owners, the people who want to build a house on that very fragile piece of land, to provide evidence that this is an appropriate building site. Tonight, I've listened once 10. again carefully to all of the questions you've asked, I know you've walked that property, and Artie I know you understand fully what the impact of that road will be, in terms of run-off and destruction, and it's very clear that this is not a building site period. The question before all of us, before all of your in particular, is at what point do you say enough is enough. When do you say we have g~ven incredible opportunities, res pectfully, to provide (inaudible) that building something within an appropriate building envelope with an appropriate buffer zone without profound environmental impacts not only to the flora and fauna, but to the existing property owners, will take place. Tonight, once again, they have proven to the contrary. This is not a building site. Even those who would want to pretend to want to build on it, recognize how difficult and impossible it is to (inaudible) not disturb migration across the site. It's simply not the right thing to do. (inaudible) This is not creating an economic hardship for an individual whose (inaudible.) with the considerable of building equity in that property and selling at an open market rate. (inaudible) I suggest to you that tonight is a good opportunity to say, all of us, we have listened and we've listened, and we looked and we Walked the property, and we've seen the proposal to profoundly transform the topography of the land into something that it isn't. (inaudible) to put an end to the amount of money to continue to stake things and re-plot things and get more' information. It's costing (inaudible) to the potential buyers of this as well. That's a better answer and I hope that you will seriously considering saying that we have enough information .now to make a decision that is in favor of stewardship of the environment. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to Table the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLWIODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Glenn E. Just on behalf of JOSEPH A. KADDIS, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, associated sanitary system, waterline, underground utilities, deck, covered porch, garage and patio. Located: Private Rd., Fishers Island. SCTM#3-3-3.4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for or against the application? The CAC does not have a recommendation because they did not make an inspection. Jim and I both inspected this. Is there anyone here who would like to speak? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition of gutter, drywells, and hay bales. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Eric Bressler, Esq. on behalf of RICHARD HORSTMANN requests 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 FOSTER: Is the applicant or anyone here in his behalf? ERIC BRESSLER: For the applicant, I am Eric Bressler, having an address at P.O. Box 1424, Main Road, Mattituck, NY 11952. I come before you this evening to ask that this matter be closed an d that the Board render a determination on the matter before it, taking into the account the standards set forth in Chapter 97. Specifically, we believe that those standards have been met and that the application should be granted. As the Board is well aware, the granting of the permit is of course subject to all the other necessary approvals that would have to be obtained in order to write your permit into full effectiveness as it's stated in both in the Code and in your permit. Recalling the time that we were last here, there was before you, at that time, an order toshow cause with a stay in it signed by a Judge of the Supreme Court, which prohibited me, unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately from your point of view, from addressing the Boardthere, to this particular issue. As you may know, that particular order 'has been vacated and all stays have been removed, thus the matter can proceed to a determination in front of this. Board. Let me just conclude by saying that any issues as to ownership of property for anything else, issues that are for a determination in or befo re the Supreme Court or some other Board, and respectfully under Chapter 97 we believe we have met the requirements, therefore we would ask you to close the hearing, issue the nece'ssary permitS;'and let us fight out at tt~e Supreme COurt Whatever claims may be raised there and obtain from. the other necessary j;u!risdictions whatever permitS we need and move on down the road. Th ank you. ERIC BRESSLER: Any other comments? FRANK,BLANGIARDO: Frank Blangiardo. Blangiardo and Blangiardo, Main Road, same side of the street as Mr. Bressler, although we never received a notice from my colleague, who practices on the same side of the street, here in Southold Town. It's interesting to note, and I'm sorry I'm not wearing my tie, but I don't want to keep us, so I'll just to talk fast. Mr. Bressler was retained by Mr. Horstmann on June 9% Magically, miraculously, on June 6th, Lauren from the Trustee's office had this noticed in the Suffolk Times three days before Mr. Bressler was retained 'by Mr. Horstmann, and received his consent. I can only imagine that'Mr. Bressler picked up the phone, called the Trustees and said, "hey, it's Eric, put something in the paper and have the Town taxpayers pay for it". Well I object to that. If you look in the file, you'll see that. With regard to the stay, that was the time before last, the time that I was forced to come down here and represent the interests of not only the Nassau Point Property Owners Association by the interest of my family, with regard to the adjoining land owner, was four weeks ago from tonight. Mr. Bressler was on vacation with his wife, and the applicant appeared with Frank Notare, the architect. Ybu were here Mr. Krupski and you said, with Mr. FosteCs support, you said, go to Riverhead and have Judge Catterson determine this in the Supreme Court and then come back. This was only four weeks ago. I'm 42 years of age and I'm not taking my aerosape (sp.) and;I don't think I have Alzheimer's but I think I can remember what happened four weeks ago. If this BOard told the applicant and the responding members of the community here four weeks ago, on the record, to go and get this determined, must I be forced to come back at every four weeks with 24 the husband and wife law firm that they appear and take intuitions and perhaps I'll be at the bathroom and we can rush something through and maybe my daughter is sick and I have to stay at home with her and every month even the Preside nt of the Trustees instructs the applicant to get this resolved by a Supreme Court judge from Riverhead, which is not that far away, and have Judge Seidell sign a stay twO months, and Gail Wickham, as was Eric Bressler, and they were served and Judge Catterson had an order to show cause found that there should be no longer a stay, that we will. determine this in Supreme Court in Riverhead pursuant to Article 58 of the Real Property Law. Since the last meeting, what has transpired, was I had to see fit to join the necessary parties to this law suit as a nice way of saying that I had to sue the Nassau :Point Property Owners Association as well as sue the surveyor, the one of two surveyors that we have her~ in South01d Town, so I had tosue Mr. Stanley Isaksen in'the Supreme Court as well, and I have copies of the summonses that were served upon them, filed with the court on August 2nd, for the Trustees, if you would like a copy, I would be happy to provide that to you. I have copies for each of you. So, the reason I' did'that was, Mr. Krupski, was because based upon your last comments, ~ith the support of Mr. Foster, that you were going to let Judge CattersOn determine, as is absolutely true, and as my colleague Mr. Bressler pointed out,~,that~s the way it should be, and that's the only place ~hat can nullify a marriage, divorce, give:!tbe death penalty, or decide matter of specific performanc.e; 0f;real properly, to say this property nowbelongs to you, Joe, not to you Sam. Tl~at's spe~if~c performance and that has to be determined by Supreme Court judge. ~hat's ;the, Place where this is being handled. The judge is Judge Catter~On. The neceSsary parties are the Nassau Point ProPertY OWners Association has ;been jQined, and the President is here, Nell McShane, also Stanley Isaksen has been joined, So, clearly, we have all the necessary parties, and this'is going~to be determined in short order by Judge Catterson in Supreme Court in ;Riverhead. We~ will find out who exactly owns that block 0f property between, myself and thei applicant. I don't want one inch of that property. However, he's:claiming :to own it so that he can build a McMansior~. What Mr. Goehringer haS stated en the record, is the last thing we need is another McMansion and an ovet'sized mansion with eight bedrooms, that requires multiple variances, and ~that's where we're headed. They are trying'to push me into this position ~vhere !I want to be defending :the Building Dept. and the Zoning BOard ofiApPeal$ and tills should be stopped right nov(,. People should not be able to come to the Trustees and put in applications for property that they don't own. And, more import~ntly, their representatives shouldn't be able to pick up the phone and call up the -Frustees and say "hey", I don't know what he said, but the guy he representS doesn't even own the property and here we arein the Town putting an ad in:the paper fora piece, of property, based on the representative, who doeSn't represent the fellow yet, and the fellow doesn't even own the property, and I'm paying for the advertisement. I didn't even get a notice. This is the second year in a row that I didn't get a notice. But, I'm here now and I'm just a citizen Of Southold Town and I feel sorry for the other members who are not attorneys, who are not able to draft orders to show cause, who are not able to 25 enjoin Wickham, Wickham, and Bressler and get them to sit mum so that it can't go forward, two months, so.that we could show up last month, and Mr. Krupski, you can say let Judge Catterson decide, but clearly, we're back here one month, and now I have to sit vigil watching, waiting, every month, to see if this is on, or it isn't on, and sit here every Wednesday night. I can't go to the Pridwin and have a barbeque. It's a tough thing. It's not my sitting fee. It's something I have to do to monitor the situation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: ActUally, for the record, none of the Board members are forcing you to be here tonight. FRANK BLANGIARDO: I agree. I'm surprised that it's on again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well don't be surprised. We also have a notice that was sent to your address where you pay your taxes, that was sent to you. So, you were noticed. FRANK BL.ANGIARD©: Well...when was I noticed? In 2001 or 2002? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: June 18th, 2002, and mailed from Mattituck. FRANKi BLANGIARDO: And then it came back? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It says, "addressee unknown". FRANI~'BLANGIARDO: Well...I would imagine that if you make your living practicir~g the law of Article 78, and I don't, I would 'mag~ne that's something you would reYel in, findi~ng people that's deeds...actually, when a piece of property is purchased, you dorYt own the property yet. So, when the deed is drawn at the closing da~e, you don't live there. So, the return date is always, in many instances, the return of :your last address. I would imagine that if I made my living practicing doing Article 78's, if that was my goal in life, that's one of the niches in my life that say hey, I'm going to carve out my niche, I'm going to look for deeds that were sent back to the old ownership and this is the way I'm going to make my application to the Trustees, and that's a very simple thing that the Town should look into getting updated. But, I would imagine that is one of the things that the attorney, who is looking to get things through different Boards would look to do and notify old landowner's addresses on their deeds. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? NElL ~'~CSHANE: I'm the president of the Nassau Point Proper~y Owners' Association. I'm not an .attorney. I do have an attorney that represents us, a Riverhead firm, and ~we have res ponded to the law suits that were brought against us. It's really all been joined together, the applicant, the association, and the surveyor. It's in the Supreme Court. The way I've read it, it's initially been really Idnd of a property line dispute of where is the line, two or three feet away. It really doesn't, other than indirectly dealt with the 10' path that we own, or we claim to own, which We have stated publicly in the past, and at this meeting, or at this Beard. But it's kind of growing into (noise) that we assert our ownership and we will'.have to prove that. I guess, just to clari~ one thing that Mr. Blangiardo said, he did say he represented the Nassau Point Property Owners Association at prior meetings and that is incorrect. He's represented his own interest. As it happens, we really have interest in kind because he is concerned about his neighbor claiming the ownership of this 10' path, and we have the same concern. But, there is a lot of criss-crossin~l that seems to be going on. I have a couple of questions. One, it's really in a sense the same question, but my experience with planning boards and zoning boards, is that an applicant always has had to certify that he owns the property, in the interest of that statement, before it goes forward with any Board, in any jurisdiction. I don't know what the answer is with this Board and how you would proceed, and whether you would wait for the courts to finish up or whether it goes forward subject to. It would seem to me that the logical thing to do is to wait for some clarification in a reasonable time frame what the ownership to this, and you're moving ~n that direction, I believe, in the courts. I guess the second question I have is, and I was not at last months meeting, but the prior meeting~ the onewhere the injunction was served, you made the statement, Mr. KruPski, that you spoke to, a week or two prior, to the surveyor and that surveyor, at that time, was preparing a survey with a frontage less than the original application,..which I think was 104'. He was doing one for 94'. That kind of gave:us a Warm comfortable feeling that somebody was backing away from the claim of ownership, and I would like a copy of it. Is it here? TRUSTEE KRUF~SKI: I don't know. I never saw it. I spoke to him.in the office that day. I spoke to the surveyor and he said he was going to re-do the survey. NEll MCSHANE: Can'we get an answer from the appl cant? ERIC BRE3SLER: I can address that one. TRUSTEE K~RUP.SKI: And I'm sorry, I don't know the date that I spoke to him. ERIC BRESSLE~R: To refer to your comments first~ to my knowledge, there will be no re-drawing of the survey. The survey was taken off of the deed. The deed is in front of you, We've met the provisions of Article 97. The Supreme Court vacated the stay. It's was specifically stated on the record. We're not staying that Board. We're not staying that Board at all. I'm not going to prevent this application from going forward with permits. The stay vacated. That says it ail. While I am sympathetic with Mr. Blangiardo's plight, that he must "stand in vigil", and watch all of you on a monthly basis, surely that can come to an end tonight, for him, and all of us. Then, the Supreme Court can determine what it determines and you can make your determination and if it warrants a permits, issue it subject to Whatever anybody elSe does. The Supreme Court didn't issue a stay, they Vacated it. The next question, and as far as I'm concerned, the specific answer to that question is, no, he's not going to re-do the survey. It's right off of the' deed. If anybody else chooses to produce something, they can produce it to Judge Catterson and we'll let the chips fall where they may, but that's not up the purview of this particular Board. The stay vacated. NEll_ MCSHANE: As a question of process, if this Board approves the request, does it go tb the Pianning Board because although there i~ no dimension on the side yard setback, it loOks like it probably would be inconformity, if you include the 10' piece. It would seem to me that's a major issue because if it doesn't go to, as a right, to a .Planning Board, then it seems to me it has to go to a Zoning Board. So, I mean, not that you want to hold up the world here, but there has to be another step. Maybe you're the wrong Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. FRANK BLANGIAF~DO: Very quickly, with the Town talking, we have a moratorium now. It;s on the front page. I think it has a reverse effect because they advertise it so quickly, I think everyone with a single and separate lot came running in to put a building permit in for the,last six months. However, Trustees are, for right now, for environmental issues. You're the first permit for attorneys that want to get, or applicants and their agents, to get things approved. If the attorneys only have to pick-up a phone, and they don't really represent the fellow yet, are we running an expediting service here paid by the Town of Southold? Isn't it the exact opposite that the current trend and intent of all of the bodies and Boards of the Town, aren't they doing the exact opposite, if we allow all the attorneys in Town to pick up and say; "hey Joe, put it in the paper, I'll be over with the papers sometime next week". It's an expediting service. That shouldn't be allowed. Regarding the application, I've joined all necessary parties (inaudible) this is not a medical malpractice claim, there is nothing to it. This can be done on paper, and it's going to be done in a short order in less'than two months. (inaudible):.and make a determination and it's not about a property line, it's exactly...and Nell and Eric, everyone that is there, is now, who is my:neighbor to the south? Is it the Nassau Point Property Owners Association where I've been a member for 10: years or is it Horstmann, who felt the need ~o file a survey, which eliminated, for the first,time in 80 years, a 10' right-of-way that goes 390' to the Peconic Bay, for the benefit, since 1921, for80 or 90 homes. This is on the tax map. His property card, as I produced for the Trustees, shows he only has 90' of bulkhead, not: 100'. Ho'only pays taxes on 90' of bull~head. On my survey, this clearly, a 10' right~of-way:, owned by the Nassau Point Property ~Owners Assocation, and the NaSsau Point Prop~erty Owners AsSociatiOn insures the Title of that 10' and everyone knows: that the 10' is.a rightlof-Way owned by the Nassau Po nt PrQpe~y Owners Assoc at on But n their haste, Mr. Bressler's client, the applica!nt, has 94' of frontage, and then he (inaudible) but he never bothered to check that the between ChUCk Fraiser's and my property, there is only 101'. It's so easy to grab that 10'. They never bothere~l to measure. There own survey shows 1.'01'but their deed .says 104'. It's like putting a 2 lb. bologna in a 1 lb. bag. They were so eager to steal 10' of property t~hey didn't measure between Chuck F'raiSer's and my property. It doesn't make sense. Judge Catterson is going to,deal with this. I've joined the necessary parties and this is going to be dealt with in a court fashion. At your last meeting, Mr. Krupski you said, let Riverhead decide. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI;: They will, thank you. Any other comment? CATHERINE ME$1ANO: I would like to make a comment. I'm not involved with this particular...my name is Catherine Mesiano and Icome before this Board almost every month for almost the past 10 years, and I have to say, on behalf of the Board, I'm offended for you that someone would imply, more than imply, to stand up here and oUtright accuse you of doing things outside of the purview of the Code. I put applications before this Board every month. There is a deadline for the application, the mailings get done, the services get done, the notices get- put into the newspaper, according to a very strict schedule, and-I'm offended for you that someone would :imply that a simple telephone call by an insider is all it takes to slide something in at the last minute. I just want to go on the record as saying that I know how you run and Lauren runs the office and on behalf of this 11. 12. 13. Board, I am offended at that implication and I just wanted to put that on the record because that is highly inappropriate. I have nothing to do with this case and Ihave no interest in it, but the implication that that's how the Board is run, I find to be totally offensive. BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm just going to answer Cathy. The reason we didn't say anything is because the accusation was so pathetic that it didn't really warrant a respon se. CATHERINE MESlANO: I could not let it go because I make my living before the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: Is there any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application of Richard Horstmann to increase the footprint of the existing house and add a second floor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to reference something in the Code here. I'm going to reference Chapter 97-21J. I'd like to add to the motion that under Chapter 97-21J it states documentary proof that all other necessary permits and approvals have been obtained. This permit is not active until everything property-wise has been resolved. This is strictly an environmental review, based on the merits of the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Carol Governale on behalf of MARTIN & DOREEN EVANS requests a Wetland Permit to construct stairs, fixed dock, hinged ramp and a floating dock. Located: 5050 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#115-10-3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table the application because the Board has been unable to coordinate with the Bay Constable to make sounding. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. on behalf of BRADLEY ANDERSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a dock and bulkhead replacement with CL9900 vinyl sheets - 12' length, 6"X 8" timber wale, 4"X 6" timber follower and 2"X 12" timber cap. Seawall to be anchored using I"X 16" tie-rod @ 6' on center with 10' diameter X 8' timber deadmen. Located: 3820 South Harbor Rd., Southold. SCTM#86-3-1,2,3.3&3.5 POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of JUDITH SCHAPP requests a Wetland Permit to replant area within 100' of the wetlands, install a mulch path to the existing dock and bluestone walk on the side yard. Located: 485 Orchard Lane, Southold. SCTM#89-2-7 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? PAT MOORE: We submitted to the Board a planting plan and if you have any comments... TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We've been out there several times. We've taken measurements off of the house. I believe the buffer was supposed to begin 42' from the house corner to the south. We measured it and it was 47' or 49'. PAT MOORE: The first description is the edge of wetlands...are you dealing with the house? Maybe I'm confused with what you're saying. You have the edge of wetlands, and then you have on one side 60' and 60' for the hay bales, and on the other side you have from the edge of wetlands, it aCtual starts from the adjacent property, and it goes to the corner of the house, an that's 76'. I'm not following. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We measured the hay bale line from the house. Not from the wetland edge. We try to simply enforcement. PAT MOORE: Oh, that's why I'm not following. I'm sorry. So you're saying that from the house to the hay bale line, you measured 40'? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It should'ye been 42'. PAT MOORE: Ok, 42'. From the corner of the covered porch or the southeast corner, you're measuring 42'. I guess I just need to know where you're going with [his. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The hay bale line was incorrectly placed, PAT MOORE: I would disagree in that we had John Metzger actually go out and stake or actually place the distance of the hay bale line 60' from the edge of wetlands. He marked it from...he's been the constant surveyor throughout this whole thing. He marked form the edge of wetland line, 60', which is what the permit required and that is where the hay bale line went. We followed the survey and the permit. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I see your point of view. PAT MOORE: The survey that was used and the location of the hay bales is what they used for placement of the hay bales. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I understand that what you went with if 50' off of the wetland delineation line, PAT MOORE: Correct. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What's the Board feeling on it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we measured off of the house for a buffer, not off of the wetlands. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Originally before the house was in we did but the hay bale line isn't consistent with the survey, it changed. The hay bales were removed and then we made them replace them and they didn't put them back in the same place. PAT MOORE: But what they did is they made sure that when they replaced them, because the hay bales were put there first during construction. They were by the odginal builder. The hay bales had deteriorated. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They didn't deteriorate. They pushed them out of the way and cleared all the way down to the wetlands, MRS. SCHAPP: The Board has to understand what happened. Our house had two builders. We had a lot of trouble building our house because we were stupid 3O and hired a bad builder. We never knew anything about anything, least of all that you even existed. We just trusted the first builder that we hired. Then, we saw the construction of the house, a previous buyer had changed: his mind about the property, and we were, I believe, the third buyer. When we saw the property, there was hole in'the ground, no foundation, and there were hay bales. We thought the hay bales we to protect the property from erosion. We had no idea that this was an environmental issue at all. Both odginal hay bales were placed much closer to the water than they are right now. We had no idea that they were supposed to be, or that they were placed with any kind of reason or specific footage. We didn't know that. Those hay bales were there until we were ready to landscape our house. In the meantime, we fired our builder and hired another builder, and hired a landscaping firm, and because of our ignorance, which we plead totally guilty to, and perhaps his inexperience because it's a new business, he started to landscape our property and we thought we were done building a house. He thought we. were done. He should~ve known .and we should'ye known and we.didn% and we're guilty of that. That's when those original hay bales got moved aside. That's when you folks told us that we were in trouble and that's when we stopped doing everything. At that time, we hired Pat, and we were instructed to go back to our surveyor, the same surveyor who was the original surveyor of the house, and we've had the hoUse surveyed three times already, and finally we asked him to please place the hay bales according to our original survey, where they belong. I couldn't tell you what the footage,:and.we'll put them wherever you want us to put them. But, Peconic Surveyors went and staked those bales where they are right now. That's how they got moved, and that's the truth of what happened. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? PAT MOORE: All we want to do is just landscape landward of the edge of the wetland, or re-vegetate, ,with the natural plantings that are indigenous to the area. That's what's been proposed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't understand. It shows three "X's". PAT MOORE: The landscaper is here. We have Iow-bush blueberry, Virginia creeper and black cherry. They are going to be in the area in a natural looking way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh How many plants? JOHN GIBSON: Approximately 50 spaced about 18" apart. PAT MOORE: More or less, it's 15' apart you're going to build the entire area from the wetland edge, 50'. So, we don't want to say 50 plants, when in fact we might have 60 plants. So, it makes more sense to show you the general area with 15' apart and then at the end, if you want to count them, if you want more. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well he said 18" and you said 15'. PAT MOORE: I'm sorry, you said 18"? JOHN GIBSON: 18" apart. The side to the left on the survey that you're looking at, are you looking towards Dryad's Basin? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. JOHN GIBSON: That was never touched. That was the way it is. I was just going to plant there to match the other side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We know what was there. Artie do you have any comments on the measuring? Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is the applicant willing to move the hay bales 7' forward on the southeast corner?. PAT MOORE: Landward? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. PAT MOORE: Well the problem is that you're eliminating what would be the back yard. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What Ken is suggesting is what's consistent with the property next door to the east. We just approved the transfer of the permit to the property to the east. PAT MOORE: They haven't built their house yet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But they have permits to build there. We want to make the setbacks consistent with that property. MRS. SCHAPP: But our permit is three years older than theirs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you don't have a permit. PAT MOORE: We have a permit. The permit was build with the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, Mrs. Schapp does not have a permit. Correct? Did we transfer it? PAT MOORE: The house is built. It's vested. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The permit was never transferred. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's issued to Martin & Denise Krall in 1998. That's the original permit. PAT MOORE: Keep in mind that the permit enables the person to build. Once the house is complete, or once you start, you vest a permit. The permit is good and now it's vested. The house is built. The problem I've had with thiS whole thing ~s that they built in accordance with the permit, there was no non-disturbance buffer imposed on the permit and then their whole construction schedule, their C.O., they were at the end, and here they thought they were going to occupy the house this summer, and you sent them a letter asking them to put a stop work order on the job, the Building Dept. refused to follow through with any further inspection, and essentially you took the entire summer away from them, over a permit ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKh They never had a permit. PAT.MOORE: The permit that was issued was not in violation. There was no violation to the permit in that there was no non-disturbance buffer. What they did was they cut:the back in an area, which was not in the wetlands. They did not touch the ed;ge of wetlands. They were finishing the property. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The permit says "Wetland Permit to construct a single- family dwelling with septic system, driveway and deck, with the condition that hay bales be moved 15' towards Dryad's Basin and drywells be placed to contain roof run-off. It looks like they building envelope with a hay bale line 15' beyond the house. PAT MOORE: 15' towards Dryad's Basin. It means that it was going towards the edge of wetlands and actually pushing the area closer to the wetlands. 'We took the survey that was used for the setback. It didn't have the standard language 32 14 that says, non-disturbance, don't touch, don't do anything. It was permits that you issued at that time and it was common. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there another permit under Bonati? PAT MOORE: One was a renewal but it was really no different. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Krall got the original permit but they never acted. PAT MOORE: You've dealt with this many of time. There has never been any discussion about a non-disturbance buffer. From what I can tell, we've given you more of a buffer than was originally imposed because the hay bales were supposed to go towards Dryad's Basin but the drawing had it at 60', and we kept it at 60'. We've now proposed to vegetate the entire 60' from the edge of the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, the hay bales were supposed to go 15' from the house. PAT MOORE: No, that's not what your permit says. I'm sorry. He just read it. It says towards Dryad's Basin and that goes towards the water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, and that's where you put the hay bales. PAT MOORE: I'm sorry, read it as someone who had not been involved in the permit. I looked at the survey and the survey showed the 60' from the edge of wetland and I read your permit language and I said, Okay, it looks like everything is fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Alright, lets move on then. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would the Board be happy with 60' of non-disturbance? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'd like to see a few more than...it says here 50 plants. I woulri like to see a few more than 50 and not necessarily black cherries, but if you're going to plant Iow-bush blueberry and Virginia creeper 18" on center, with a mul:ch woodchip... JOHN GIBSON: Oh yes. UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Just for the record also, the vegetation is growing bauk quite abit. TR~USTEE KRUPSKh So what's your feeling on the buffer?. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm fine with it being 60'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition of a 60' non-disturbance buffer beyond the hay bale line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh And that the area be planted with Iow-bush blueberry and virginia Creeper 18" on center and mulch with a woodchip mulch of the applicants choice, and black cherry where appropriate, and a 4' path through the buffer area to access the dock. The planting should be done before March 1, 2003. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES Redwin Industries, Inc. on behalf of BOB LOBICK requests a Wetland Permit extend an existing wood deck 12'X 16' to 12'X 22' wide then build a 12'X 22' glass and screen sun room on 12'X 22' wood deck. Located: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#115-5-7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? BOB LOBICK: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I'm Bob Lobick. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The CAC Tabled the application until all previous permits for the property are reviewed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We looked at the site last week and then we looked back through :the Old file that was under Baumgratz, because there seemed to be a lot of things that happened on the property, and I was on the Board then, and I couldn't recal:l off the top of my head what the conditions of the original permit were. So, we had to have Lauren dig out the old file and try to take a look. I remember, being on the Board, we worked on this application, I believe for years, and I'll let you go through the file' afterwards, after the meeting. We would rather see. these covenants and restrictions adhered to. They are quite lengthy, We wanted to bring you up to speed on some of this. The size of the house was in the :permit, the height above the h gh water The condit ons, if any, subject to the preferred site setbacks and C&R's as described in the findings and subject to the- proper language of the C&R's by the Town AttOrney...and the findings, the covenants and restrictions...Number 1, there should be no disturbance within 30' of the marsh fringe., as shown on the survey and made part of the application for the wetland permit on file, except for a 4'.wide path. Number 2, there should be no use of inorganic fertilizers on the property, nor shall there be no managed turf areas. Number 3, there shall be no deCks or patios constructed in the rear yard of the property. Number 4, no in-ground sprinkler systems are permitted on the property, Number 5, if it is determined that an accumulative impacts of residential areas on other lots in. Mattituck Estates, Which border the head water of Deep Hole Creek, which 'is at this date are undeveloped, has caused the pond area north of ,New Suffolk Ave., which borders this property, to become anaerobic, than the' sanitary system presently approved bythe Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services will be upgraded to the method of sewage disposal then being approved ~y the sUffol.k County Dept. of Health Services provided that the develo pme~t of said ~unimproved 'lots, if pSrmitted, is accc~mpanied by a covenant .a;nd restriction to upgrade sanitary disposal, systems as agreed to herein. This is filed with the'Coun~;[y¢Clerk December 24, 1987. So, we would like to see some compliance. BOB LOBICK: That was a long time ago. I'm there since three years ago. I'm not aware of any of that stuff. TRUSTEEKRUPSKh You didn't know about any covenants when you bought the property? BOB LOBICK: Oh yeah, some of the things well obviously we've heard of. That's 1987. I believe they started to build in 1995 because the survey is 1996. So, it was about three years old when we bought it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So there is a great deal of work that needs to be done before we can consider your permit. Some of the things on your permit don't even seem to comply with the original permit. So, we would like to see 34 15. 16. compliance with the covenants and restrictions that were filed with the County for this piece of property. BOB LOBICK: I don't know what that means. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Come into the office and we'll give you the directions. BOB LOBICK: We had a deck on the side of the house and we're looking to enclose itto keep the West Nile and the mosquitos off of us when we're sitting outside. We can't do it without a screened porch or Deer. I prefer not to use Deet. We just figured, let's see if we can enclose it. It seemed like a very simple thing. The extension of the deck was going to the road and not towards the wetlands. It sounded like a slam-dunk. We were just trying to keep away from the mosquitos and enjoy our property. We weren't extending it, widening it, except going a little bit further towa.rds the road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well this is what you have. Please come into the office. We Wou Id like to, see these covenants and restrictions complied with. BOB,LQBICK: I might add, I'm not aware of them being there ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well this is what you bought and it runs with the property. Tha~s why we had it filed with the County Clerk. BOB LOBICK: When I did walk into the clerk!s office right down here and I asked them for any informatiOn we regard to my property, including the permits and everything, I don't remember ever seeing that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Wouldn't this have been brought up by the Title search? BOB LOBICK: Would that be in my file right down the road? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, at your closing. BOB LOBICK: Not to my knowledge. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, I'm not going to argue. You're just going to have to comply:~Vith the C~R's for the property. That's what they are, You can come into the office and Lauren ~will make copies of those for you. Thank you. BOB LQBICK: okay, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh~ I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JAMES MILLER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 6'X 40' ramp, continuing with a level 6'X 110' dock and,ending with a 6'X 24' "L" dock pointing northeast. From the "L" dock, installing a 32"X 12' ramp leading to a 6'X 20' float, and install a 15,000 lb. boat- lift on the southwest side. Located,: 1610 Paradise Point Rd., Southold. SCTM#81-3-19.4 POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalt~ of JOHN L. HURTADO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a wood dock into Southold Bay. Located: 10995 North Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#79-5-20.3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Would anyone like to speak on behalf of this application? CATHERINE MESIANO: I'm Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. We were here last month on this matter and took care of a couple items on the agenda but the dock issue seems; to be outstanding. I received a letter, as you 35 know, on Monday from the Board requesting an adjournment of this but after speaking with Mr. Hurtado, we felt that we wanted to come before the Board and understand what your specific concerns are and see if we can address them and resolve this matter. So, if you could tell me what the concerns are, we would like to try and do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Before we start, is there any other comment? Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You're looking for a dock on the bay. One of the basic concerns I have, to my knowledge out in the bay, when you put a structure there, you change some of th e marine life that exists, prior to having that structure in place. CATHERINE MESIANO: That may be. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In the location that Mr. Hurtado is in, you can look to the east and see a fish trap. Obviously, there must be a lot of migratory fish there. Probably flounder, squid, different small species that live ~n a sandy area. The moment you put in a hard structure, you ruin the whole dynamics of the estuary. R;ight now, I don't have enough information gathered to make a decision on a dock in the bay. CATHERINE MESIANO: Okay, well Mr. Bowman is also here to address some of those concerns. What I can tell you is that we've looked at the situation on the bigger picture. There is a dock, a similar structure a couple of hundred feet to the right. Itts the area that's between the Reydon Shores Property Owners basin and ParadiSe Point basin. The bottom in the proposed location of this dock is a rocky bottom, not a sandy or vegetated bottom. The structure is the minimal size of a magnitude that is the minimal necessary to come into conformance with maintaining the required 4', so as to not be overshadowing the bottom, etc. Since there are other structures similar to this and we're proposing the minimal structure' that we can, we don't feel that the ~mpact is that significant. Yes, every action causes a reaction, but can you necessarily say that reaction is a negative or bad reaction. Just to oversimplify, people go out and sink boats in the ocean to form reefs, and that causes a positive reaction. It gives habitat. I have a dock on my own property and it has a habitat. The muskrat wouldn't be residing there if it didn't have a place to live. If you get a storm and a trees blown down into the water it forms a habitat. It's not necessarily a negative reaction. Since we already have a dock within a close proximity, I'll let Chuck speak to that but seeing that we're not the first kid of the block, I don't know that our impact is as Substantial as you may be thinking it is. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The concern is also they give an accumulative impact over time. One dock maybe should be studied to see what impacts it has. We don't have any data on that dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to agree with Ken. We've been working along with the Nature Conservancy, Kevin McAIlister, and our own Town's, our Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and there is still information being gathered and all of Ken's points are valid and I concur with him. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Cathy, if I could answer some of the things you said, first of all, you said that it's a minimal structure, but that's kind of a vague term. That doesn't really answer the fact. Minimal is just a word that fits.., it's a word that you want to use. It's not really a scientific word. CATHERIENE MESIANO: We're proposing a fixed dock with no floating dock attached to it, elevated 4', so as to get the appropriate light penetration and so on. Again, we're not proposing a float. I think the impact is much less than one would expect with a floating dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the impact would be different. CATHERINE MESIANO: I'll let Chuck speak to the magnitude because that's more of an environmental issue. I would like Chuck to speak to that issue, but my point is that we would like to have this matter adjudicated on it's own merits. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That, s how we try to do everything. CATNF_.RINE MESIANO: I would hope so. I'~1 let Chuck speak. CHUCK BOWMAN~ LJstening to Ken's.comments, and speaking to Mr. Hurtado, who you knoW I've known for a long time andwe've worked together for a long time, and he has. a great respect for this Board, and we worked out that his driveway go ng through the little kettle holes and with that I think he's proba,bly one of t~e most conScientious clients that I have. With that being said, Ken s comments I explain'ed to h m on what that really comes down to, and if this was an application f~r aT~n dock or a municipa dock, or a private dock, many times now Army :Corp. er (inaudible) call for an essential fish habitat assessment for any structures, which, looks to be exactly~what yo~'re trying to do. That's a process that has bben ~inaudible) to identify the bottom tYp~s, not on y the finflsh but whattime of year~ and What stages of their lifecycles are going to be used durin( year and how things are going to be affected. That is a fairly compile go through. TRUSTEE POLIW( If I may comment, I believe I would need that information to m~ke a fair and just :vote on this. CHUCK BOWMAN: Ken, I'm not saying you're wrong at all. We've done them on dcks, again, from ~large municipal projects to a small dock on Shelter Island. Do we do it on all docl~s, riO. Do we do it on some docks, yes. It's not even from this Board. 'Sometimes weiget a letter from National Marine Fisheries saying that we have to look at these~ issues. I think what Mr. Hurtado, you Know, would certainly like a dock, and he~s a terrific guy, he has a nice house, and he's very environmentally sensitive, and I think it has to be left up to him whether he wants to proceed with that and putting together all of the information or not. If you're saying that that's tl~e~ information you need to make a decision, I think he needs to hear that because, it's a s!ep that is something that is (inaudible). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don t know Mr. Hurtado personally but we've worked on his property before a,nd when we worked on his driveway, and we needed information, he provided it, we made a decision, and we moved on. The Board feels that this is a different project than anything else that he's ~roposed before. So, it's not, and certainly you said he's a nice guy and all, and I'm sure he is, and it's got nothing to do with his personality or anything, this is strictly so important that we feel that we have to get the information that Ken asked for and that you mentioned. 'CHUCK BOWMAN: I'm not saying you shouldn't ask for the information. I just want to make sure of the information you're really asking for and what you're really asking for in order to make a decision. The reason bring uphis past activities is because one of the people whose very good to work with and he will make a decision on wh ether he wants to go forward and do it or not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We start making decisions here that are going to have really far reaching effects and we have to...just let me read something into the record. The Town Board of the Town of Southold finds that rapid growth, spread of development and increasing demands upon natural resources which are encroaching upon or eliminating many of it's wetlands, which are ~preserved and maintained in. an undisturbed and natural condition, constitute important physical, social, aesthetic, ~recreational and economic assets, to existing and future residents of the Town of Southold. That's 1971. We're trying to hold to that and that s why we re not trying to say...this is serious. CHUCK BE)WMAN: If you want my own personal opinion, I think you should base your decisions on facts rather than on what people believed to be true as opposed to what is actually out there. In order to do that, you have to do a wildlife inventory, a wetland inventory, a fiSh habitat inventory, and then you're getting the facts. It's just somethi,ng that:the owner should be aware of so'that they can make a decision whether they want to go down the road or not. I think that's what.M'r. Hurtacto is here and what's to know what road he's going to be going down. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I appreciate your honesty and sincerity about timing and year and when the fish are there. It is a lengthy procesS. CHUCK BOWMAN: Just so you know, most., of the essential fish habitat are done are...are document searches. There is a lot of data available like the Peconic Estuary. Then, you have to look for bottom types. Sometimes you might be out there seining to see what is there but a lot of the information is compiled from studies that have been done for the past 20 years. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That micro-location, (inaudible) CHUCK BOWMAN: But that's where you have to look at the bottom types. We're not disagreeing but I want Mr. Hurtado to know what you're asking for. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? TRUSTEE KING: How far is the proposed dock to the fish trap? CHUCK BOWMAN: I started this afternoon with this. Cathy, do you know how far it is? JOHN HURTADO: I would say it's about 300' to 200'. I'm John Hurtado. I would certainly love a dock. My concern is if we give you a report and surveys that's favorable, will that still make a difference n your decision? I'm not sure it will. All I really want to have is kind of a feeling from you as to whether if we did that survey that you want, if it was favorable, would that stil make a favorable decision on your part, as far as I'm concerned. If it's not, I'll just withdraw my application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're putting us on the spot here. You're asking us make a decision without the-information that we asked for. JOHN HURTADO: I'm just trying to get the big picture as to what Southol'd is trying to do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we re not encouraging you. We'll put it that way. JOHN HURTADO: When was the last time a dock permit was issued? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: On the bay? I haven't signed one yet. JOHN HURTADO: How many years is that Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've been on the Board 4 ¼ years. JOHN HURTADO: Well then I!11 just withdraw my application because I know you said it's site specific but it jUst seems to me that no matter what I present to you, no matter how many experts I give you, it's really not in the grand scheme of what you want to. have done to the bay area. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Again, if you can read into what I said in the opening statements, through my experience and education, my work out in the bay, a structure does bring in. more aggressive species, which does change the habitat ~n the area. FIounder,'blowfish, squid, running the shorelines, now you have a bunch of aggressive fish hanging out under a structure, which changes that area. So, it does have a negative impact on those species. JOHN HURTADO: So, what I'm actually saying to you ~s that I will withdraw and perhaps when things change, I'll come back. TRUSTEE POLIW~DA: Tl~ank you. MR. MiI,LLER: Fm I led to believe then that (inaudible) that either increase and make the environmental more 'beneficial, more productive, will be turned down just because they are 'different?. 'FRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to look at what different is and you have to see if it's a char~ge for the positive or is it just a change. Without knowing what the change will be and evaluating what that change will be, we really can't tell. MR. MILLER: We certainly the use of the marine environment in any way creates a change. Certainly when a clam digger goes out and drags a rake across the bay bottom, he'Creates a change. If {here is one clam digger and he drags h s rake 400' in a day, that's 400' Of change. If there is 40 clam diggers, that's substa~i~tially more. Now do we need to evaluate the accumulative effect of all of the potential clam diggers, do we need to protect and evaluate the potential fish that are caught now in that fish trap, when ifs jetted in, in the Spring, what fish are caught, What fish are damaged, what fish are killed and become prey to other fish? YOU need an entire environm'ental im pact statement for any action that takes place in a .day there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But what you described are activities that are ongoing. If there has been clamming consistently in an area for the past 40, 50, 150, or 250 years, that's nota change. That's an ongoing process. MR. MILLER: Wel certainly docks have been an existing thing for several hundred years. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely, and someone gave the example of a jetty. If someone has a jetty out there, well that made a substantial change to the inter- tidal area .and the near-shore area now, environmentally. Substantial, because it changed the elevation of the underwater land in that area. It built up sand on one side and took away sand on the other. Once that jetty is in place, it's had it's environmental effects, and it's stabilized that area, for better or for worse, it's stabilized the area. When someone comes in, because the jetty of course is out in a pretty tough area and it's going to be damaged and it's going to need replacement, or it's going to need maintenance, if someone comes in and that jetty is funotional, if we allow that applicant to replace it as it is, it's not a change. It's going to be the same stable environment that it created, for better or for worse. But, put a new jetty out there, and then it's going to completely change the area. MR. MILI~ER: Okay. This is a long, Ior~g discussion. I would like to have it sometime with the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Certainly. JIM' FITZGERALD: Do you have different standards for docks on the bay then you do for docks on the creek? I ask that because when Mr. Hurtado asked you a question and everybody said, "is it on the bay". Do the same standards apply when somebody comes in for a dock on the creek, and Ken is going to worry about the founders and the blackfish and so forth? I've never heard that reaction to an application ;for a dock in one of our creeks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We approved an amendment to a dock application on the creek tonight, and I can think of only one, and maybe there are others, but it's been awhile. The dock extended about 12' into the creek and that's about as long, and that was a previously approved permit, that's about as large a structure as we've been approving in the creek. Usually it's less. The intrusiveness is really minimalized JIM FITZGERALD: There seem to be different standards and different reactions by this Board... TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't know if it's different standards. I think it's different sized struCtures, it's a different dynamic, it's a different environment. We look at every, and you know, you're here every month, every dock application that we review on ¢[he creek gets a different look depending on the bottom conditions, depending on the marsh fringe, depending on the water depth, depending on where the navigational channel is, I mean we look at every condition. So, no, I thin'k the Standards are the same. JIM FITZ~GERALD: I never heard anybody ask for an environmental analysis with regard to an application for a dock on a ,.creek. TRUSTE~E KRLJPSKI: Maybe we should ve 20 years ago. JIM FITZGERALD: Okay, so ~s that's the way it is? I would just like to know what the rules are. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Everything is site specific. Any other comment? CATHERIiN',E MESIANO: I would like to clarify one point. When we talked about the stairs down the face of the bluff onto the beach, I don't recall and Mr. Hurtado seems to recall that we did discuss the stairs and you approved them however we didn'~'t get a resolution for that. If you could just clarify that and if we didn't get that app~ rq~ved could you please address that issue. TRUS-I:E~ POLiWODA: I didn't have a problem with the stairs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We can condition the approval on receiving a drawing shoWing the dimensions. 40 17. CATHERINE MESIANO: I'1~ get you a drawing. I just want to add one thing. We would like to put on the record that Mr. Hurtado's withdrawal of his application was without prejudice. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Ken would you like to make that motion? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion that the application of John Hurtado is withdrawn without prejudice and Approve the application for a set of stairs approx. 4'X 20' in length, contingent on the plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MARY ZUPA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 60*X 100' single-family dwelling, porch and patio, on-site sewage disposal system, free-form, in-ground (gunite) pool (approx. 16'X 32') and pervious driveway. In-place replacement of approx. 520' bulkhead. Install approx~ 95' new bulkhead for erosion control. Install 4' wide steps from bulkhead to beach (approx. 3.5'). Install 137' Iow-profile timber retaining wall. Install three terraced stone retaining walls (approx. 220'X 2') upland for erosion control. Install approx. 4'X 25' wood dock, 3'X 6' wood ramp, and 6'X 20' wood float and two 8" wood piles. Re-vegetate approx. 640 sq.ft seaward of new Iow-profile wall with spartina altenaflora 18" on center. Re-vegetate sections of buffer area. Remove the existing asphalt driveway. Located: 580 Basin Rd., Southold. SCTM#81-1- 16,7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this application. CATHERINE MESIANO: I'm Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. Where shall we start. This is our second hearing on this matter. There's been lots of discussions and I think I would like to refer to Chapter 97 and point out that we have followed your procedures of Chapter 97-24 outlining the processing of the application, and I believe we have adhered to that and we've provided you with all the documentation that which was exhausted. We're here tonight seeking a decision on this matter. I would like to then refer to the standards in your Code, 97-28. I know that. I don't have to read them to you but for the record, Trustees may adopt a resolution directing issuance ora permit to perform operations applied for only if i~ determines that such operations will not substantially, adversely affect the wetlands of the Town. We believe that the project that we are proposi,ng has no adverse affect on the wetl,ands of the Town. ,The dwelling is set back 75 from the bulkheaded wetlands. We ve already to a 50 non- disturbance buffer. We would of course (inaudible) and staked hay bales, silt fencing, and the installation of drywelis for any run-off. So, we really don't think the construction of the proposed improvements would have an adverse affect on the wetlands. Certainly the repair of the existing bulkheading would not be a detriment. From what we understand, it's to protect the wetlands and the environment around it. The new bulkheading that we're proposing is cer[ainly not a detriment to the wetlands because we're seeking to minimize the erosion that is currently taking place and stabilize the shoreline. Going on to article three, 4~ cause damage from erosion turbidity and siltation, and again, I thought long and hard about it I don't see where any of the actions that we're proposing could cause damage, erosion, turbidity or siltation. Again, I've (inaudible) it certainly Wouldn't be imposing salt water intrusion into the freshwater resources of the Town. There could not possibly be an adverse affect on fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, wildlife, vegetation, and the natural habitat the reof. This land has been developed in a very enwronmentally conscious manner. As far as the nature of the entire project, we're certainly not going to increase the danger of flood and storm tide damage. We are certainly not going to affect or have an adverse affect on navigation of tidal waters or the tidal flow of tidal waters. We're not going: to change the course of any channel. We're certainly not going to weaken 'or undermine the lateral support of any other lands in the vicinity. We don't believe Wewould adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the Town of Southold. It's the construction of a single,family dwelling and .it's certainly:a benign use especiallY con'sidering the setback, the buffers that we wou d use, the reinforcement of the existing bulkheadir~g, the construction of the propOSed new bulkheading, the. re- vegetation of the: wetland areas, the grading and selective pruning of the shoreline area, and :these are all actions that were discussed in great length and at our site inspection Where beth the Trustees and the DEC, Who at that t me were not only in favo, r of but encouraged us to proceed on. our course of action and we believe that We have me( all of the standards that are in your; Code and we are here to request that you make adeciSiOn, on this matter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:'Thank you. Would anyone else like to comment in favor of the application? WoUld anyone like to comment on this application? JAMES SPEISS; GoOd evening Mr. President member Of the Board, my name is James S.Peissi I'm a membe~ of the firm ~cNU ty-Spe ss 633 East Main St., Riverhead, a'nd I', represent the Paradise Poirit Association, which is the homeowner's association, the community in' ~vhich. this property is located. All 26 families in that community, except for oi~e, namely the applicant, are members of the association. The association has voted ~unar~imously to, among other things oppose this app[ cation. Thefirst thing i wodid I ke to d(~ is point o~t:that the application 'as it's submitted requests alppro~al for 10 specific items of construction all r;elated to tile construction o~a one-family residential dwelling on the Property. Five of those requested items :propose work to be done in an area in which the association has a deeded-easement. That deeded easement, according to the angUage n the deed s for.~ee and unobstructed.access to the basin and canal,.shoWn on a certain map entitled Map ofSectionf of Paradise Point at BayvieW. ~he deed further indicates that the easement was specifically for the construcliion and maintenance of bul;~h;eads, cdbs, jetties, docks, etc. and for other purposes as are consistent with th6 constitution of this plair~tiff, inc ud ng but not being limited to providing for the care and maintenance of the beaches, waters, bulkheads, road, clubhouses, buildin:gs, and all structures recreational facilities. Another one of the requested ,items seeks to demolish an existing roadway on the ;property that runs from the west end of the private rOad owned by the association, called Basin Rd., in a northwesterly direction to the canal and 42 the jetty. That roadway has been used by the association and it's members for the past 40 years to obtain access to the canal and the jetty, which was constructed approximately 30 years ago. The 'association does not consent to these improvements on its deeded easement area or it's descriptive easement area, .which is the roadway. The associations' permission was not sought for this application nor if it was sought if wouldn't have been obtained. But, what I think is more important than the issue of the easements, which as you now know is the subject of a pending Supreme CoUrt action in Riverhead, is the fact that this application, I believe, contains a number of misstatements or misrepresentations which impacts significantly on the merits of the application. The general data section of the application indicates that the previous use of the property was a vacant residential lot and we all know that this property is not now norwas it ever a vacant residential lot. The short form environmental assessment portion of the application indicates in paragraph 8 that the proposed action v~ill comply with existing' zoning or other restrictions. As we now know by virtue of that Zoning Board of Appeals determination ~back in 1995, this. action will not cc ml~ly with those restrictions. Se~io,n_ 9 of tt~at form indica?_s that the present use for the property is residentiall It s not residential and it s never been residential. In paragraph 10 it states that the only other agencies that are going to be involved in this projeCt are the Department of Environmental Conservation, the. Health Dept. and theSouthold Building: Dept. What is not mentioned in this application is the fact that in 1995 in a similar application, the zoning Board of Appeals of this Town made ~a number of significant findings. ThoSe findings rhave not been disturbed to ;this day to appeal them or bring in an A~ticle' 78 proceeding has expired They run with the land and they have not changed. At.,that time the Board found that the :subject parcel was not shown: on the map that'S the map of Paradise Paint, as a bui:l~ling parcel: we a'lso found ihat the s~il~ject Parcel already had an ex sting use o~ a prvate mar:na far the lot owne~ in ;dte Paradise Point A, ssoci~tion. It also found that the existing pdva~e marina was "as-built" with dOcks, bulkheads, parking areas and !existing improved access eXtension and 'easements for access tothe jetty by ct owners and others uSing~the private marina: as w~ll as open accessibility to and around tl~e entire perimeter of the lot. The Board a so fet at that t me that the usab e area ~for the a ready e×~st~ng marina, and any proposed residen?al use was appro×imately 70,000 sq.ff. As a resuit of those findings, the Board s position was that an undesirable change would be prbdu~ed 6y the grant of t~/o pr nc pal use~ on this subject parce and tha~ the gra~,;t would create m~ed uses for both a private mad ~a, which had existed for S;ome time, and ~he residents fbr which 1¢0,000 sq;ft. is required under the COde. In ~closing, the Board stated that the proposal does not adequately @reserce and protect the characte:r of the ~eighborhood and the hea th, safe~y and welfare of the immediate commur~ity, in a letter that was sent to [his Board: before the last meeting, enclosed a cb~y of that dec S on n short, this Town through ~he Zoning Board of Appeals has already determined that a residential u~,se is not permil~ted on this lot. Given that scenario, I [hink this Board shoald ask i!self the question of why is it being aske~ to approve ten specific items of resi~dential construction on a lot, of which r~sidential use is not permitted. This application is, in my opinion, an attempt to circumvent that Zoning Board of Appeals decision. Chapter 97 of the Town Code requires that, and I believe Mr. President you referenced this earlier on another application, 97-21J, in order for the permit to be issued, documentary proof must be present that all necessary permits and approvals have been obtained. We don't have that here. We have documentary proof to the exact opposite. We also know that this Town has recognized an existing private marina on that lot. This applicant, through this application, is seeking to destroy that private marina and destroy the boating rights of the 25 neighbors in this community. Boating rights that have existed, recognizably exiSted, for 40 years. I urge you to give careful, consideration on this application. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just have one quick question. The question was raised about the rights of the applicant to build something on this easement, like what's been proposed, a Iow-profile retaining wail. Can you answer that for me because I'm not quite Clear on that? JAMES SPEISS: Our position, and this is set forth in the Supreme Court action, our position is that our easement rights, our deeded rights and our prescriptive dghts, are going to be .irreparably harmed if this construction is allowed to proceed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I know but, they'll be harmed but is there any legal back,up to say be can't do this? JAMES SPEISS: Absolutely. f we have an easement, the purpose for which that easement is created :cannot be impinged upon TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that didn't answer my question though. Is building, and this is specific here, is bu ding a Iow-prof I~ retaining wall impinging on that easement, and how? JAM:ES SPEISS: We don't give consent to that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I'm looking for...do you have to? JAMES SPEiS,$: If we have a deeded easement, don't you require consent to th~ owner before the improvement is taking place on that property? ERIC R: No, Mr. Chairman, you do not, provided that it doesn't interfere'with their use of the easement. It's our position that we as the owner of the underlying fee can do what we want. But that's a question for another day. The quest on before you s have the env ronmenta factors that this Board is bound to consider been met by this project. If the answer to that is "yes", then we respectfully submit that what ought to be done is that there ought to be an approVal subjeot to bringing yo~ the other approvals that are necessary, thereupon a,permit will issue. It s seems to me that a Iotof issues have been raised that are ,somewhat similar to another matter that we heard tonight. That is, the issue asrto.whether there is an easement. The issue as to whether or not there are otl~e~ approvals that are necessary. All of those issues can be decided by the a ppr°pr ~te adm n strat ve agency and indeed in fact a Supreme Court action was oommenced, and Mr. Speiss says it has and I'm sure it has, the Supreme Court will decide whatever issues are before it. Whether or n_o,t the Supreme C0ur~: rules on those claims in favor of Ms. Zupa or Mr. Speiss clients remains to be seen. But the environmental issues, Mr. President, as you pointed 44 out, are the issues before this Board. What about the dock, what about the environmental impacts? Now let's consider the Zoning Board for a minute, in order to get a permit, assuming we get an approval from this Board that tells us to come back with the rest of our approvals, we have to go to the Building Dept., and that's why that was listed on the application. If the Building Dept. tells us "yes", we don't have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If the Building Dept. tells us "no", then we have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If we go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, it is my opinion that the instant application is different than that which was before the Zoning Board of Appeals before, which sought variances. We are seeking those things. That's a different set of.facts for the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider. That remains to be seen. Whether there are two uses or net is something that remains to be seen and to be decided under the Zoning Board of Appea Is standards. TRUS~FEE FOSTER: I think they already made that decision didn't they? ERIC BRESSEER: They made. the decision on whether or not to grant a variance. If we are denied by th~. Building Dept., then we will go to the Zoning Board of Appeals on a different set of facts and ask among other things, for a variarice. If you read the decisior~ closely, and I invite you to do so outSide your official capa0ity, because I don't think it's relevant, and if you read it in your official capacity, you will see that the. holding of the Zoning Board of Appeals was based on the.f;actual circumstances before it. The applicant was not willing to make,'Changes with respect to setbacks. Would the Zoning Board of Appeals grant,a variance on a different set of facts before it on setbacks that were conforming9 There is every reason to believe that at least they would consider it. A Zoning BoaCd of Appeals decision ,on one set of facts before Jt to grant a variance is not determinative of the issue :as a matter of law. Therefore, what they will do with it, or not do with it, is irrelevant here. As a practical matter, if you grant what we;re aski, ng for, and you make us come back to you with their approval, and we don't get it, what difference does it make, it's no harm no foul as far as this Board' is concerned. We didn't do what you asked us to do and we don't have a permit. Now, if you grant us what we want, and you attached the "J" condition to it, then we can go onto the next Board and tell them we've passed the environmental review and we're ready :to fight this out in another forum. The Zonirig:Board.of Appeals upon request from my client, issued a letter, which I'm sure the Boa,rd is aware of, that said, by all means, go to the Trustees and get whatever preliminary approvals you can get, go to the Building Dept. and if necessary, come to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Do it in an orgar~ized progression and if the environmental issues are sound, then deal with the zoning issues. This is not to concede any of the points that have been raised by Mr. SpeiSs, We don't think they are valid. We think we will get our permits. But, we ask you here to give us what we need environmentally and let us move on to the next step andi we'll come back to you, if, as, and when, we have the rest of the approvals, and we'l move along down the road. That's our application and I hope I've answered your questions. 45 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I just have one more 97-21J documentary proof, like Mr. Speiss just said, that all other necessary permits and approvals have been obtained. What do we do with that? ERIC BRESSLER: What you do with it is you make a determination that we have passed the environmental review of this Board and tell us that a permit will issue upon satisfying that condition, which we will do. TRUSTEE FOSTER: 1 don't read it that way. Is that what it means? ERIC BRESSL ER: That's what it means because otherwise we have the chicken and the egg and nobody wants to go first. That cannot be. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're asking us to go first. ERIC BRESSLER: This was the case with Mr. Horstmann. We'll come back to you. When we get the approvals from everybody, we'll come back to you. You've. lest nothing and we know we passed the environmental standard. If we never get started, we never get.finished. If we make an application to the Building Dept., they're going to send us over here. Mr. Goehringer makes it clear that we need an, ap preval at least in principle from this Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Alright, I'm going to have to change the subject a little here, we rece veda plan On August 15th, a detailed plan for the stabilization of the boat basin, and I Wi~h I had the old file With me here for Paradise Point because I knew one of the conditions of a previously maintenance dredging permit was that the ar,ea inside the basin be stabd~zed because part of the problem was 0onStantl need of maintena'nce dredging of the channel and the basin erosion from the upland. CATI- Al, excuse me, was it 1995 or was it the year 2000? I ~ust . What else Would you' like? Rt '~hank you. So there is some sort of an acknowledged problem' of erosion here, which we have obviously isSued permits for to remediate. Itls obvious; when you look at the survey, that there's an area that, the easement area, that's been eroded into the basin. The upland has eroded into the basin. JAMES ,SPEISS: A portion of, it, yes. TRUSTEE' KRUPSKI: Now, I m not commenting on whether the easement exists, where it exists, how it exists, at what elevation exists, I'm just saying it has eroded. I would doubt that when the easement was granted, they drew it like it was in its' Present condition. ERIC BRESSLER: It changed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The elevation has changed in the easement, correct? JAMES SPEI'SS: I don't know. I've seen the survey but I haven't seen what it Iookeo like when it wasdrawn. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI! This Board ~s going to assume from its' past experience of this, that this boat basin has eroded, the edge of it. Now, we met with the applicants on site, and I believe it was two months ago, and we discussed, and we met With the NYSDEC, as we discussed about stabilization of the basin. One of the...two purposes, one of course is to protect the upland and two, is to prevent erosion into the boat basin, which increases the need for maintenance dredging. I don't know, and I asked Jim this, and he agreed with me, and I'm 46 going to ask Ken and Peggy and Artie, what we discussed is different from what was submitted. Didn't we discuss a Iow-profile retaining wall here and no structure here? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. CATHERINE MESlANO: When he drew this Iow-profile, Iow-sill bulkhead retaining wall, (inaudible) to where the erosion had occurred and they moved the structure here to (inaudible). That was a 52' length in this area to hold back the erosion because of this. This was the area of the Iow-sill bulkhead. That's fine, if that's what you want, we'll provide it. The Iow-sill bulkhead, we have the cross- section and that was an error and that was the 52' length that we have measured off the back corner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for the record, the purpose of the Iow-sill bulkhead is to stabilize the upland. In fact it actually gives you the opportunity to create an inter-tidal marsh behind it to stabilize the upland and dredge in front of it. You basically are try ng to accommodate all your navigational and environmental and erosion concerns. You requested it here because there's a lot of erosion back here. CATHERINE MESlANO: I'll have the drawing that reflects that and I apologize for the error. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're not going to make a decision on this easement ~ssue because nobody seems to agree. We can't make a decision on the environmental issue, which is what we're really interested in here because we don't have plans that reflect what this Board was inclined to approve. However, I would really want to encourage everyone to work out this easement issue in the meantime, while we're getting these plans, because it seems to be an important issue to everyone. JAMES SPEISS: I agree. It's a very important issue. But I don't know how it's going to .be worked out. The applicant has made it very clear that his position, or her position is that this easement doesn't exist, whether it's eroded away or lost or terminated or abandoned or something. I mean, there's plenty of correspondence to this Board and other agencies in the Town that say that. That was the .reason we had to commence the action. So, I admire your concerns and I appreciate your advise but as I stand here before you tonight, I don't know how it's going to be Worked out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well I'm going to make a motion to Table the application BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Can you ask him what his position ~s on the easement just for the record? · TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Certainly. We want to know what the applicant's position of the easement is and how ... I mean...environmentally to us, it's important and I thought it was really clear in the last permit that this basin be stabilized because the environmental effects of more frequent dredging operations and I think that's one of the key issues that should be, environmentally, that should be worked out, is who has the right to control the erosion inside the basin that happens to be on the easement area? Okay? I mean it doesn't matter. But, it happens to be on that easement area. JAMESSPEISS: Weren't those previous permits issued to the association? 4? TRUSTEE KRUPKSh Correct. ERIC BRESSLER: They have the obligation, which they've not met, but we have the right as the serviette owner to protect our property so long as it does not impinge unreasonably on their use. So while they may have the obligation, they didn't meet it, we have the right. That's our position and I think that's a fair statement of the law a nd we certainly appreciate the Board's urging us to try to work it out and we will do so. If you're talking about the easement that runs smack-dab to the middle of our property, tough problem. But, we'll take a shot at it. If you're talking about the deeded easement, that's something we can deal with and we'll certainly do so and any plans you need will certainly be provided. JAMES SPEISS: This plan that was just being diSCussed u p there at the table, I'm told is part of the application. I. had not seen it before this evening. CATHERINE MESlANO: / submitted it On the 15th. JAMES SPEISS: ;But, it indicates something that I did not notice in the previous version of the application that I looked at, and that is, work to be done at the jetty. That jetty is not part of this parcel of property, it's not included in the meets and bounds description. In fact, that jetty was d .e;eded to the association at the same time' it received tl~e easement. So, What I nbtice in this plan is that there is a note to re-vegetate this area with native grasses and'the tie-line that is in the survey, that I saw that Was part of this applicatio:n is missing from this map. That was the survey that was done n Janua~ of 2002 ERIOBRESSLER: Mr. president,, our position on that is very simple. We've got a deed to: it and we intend environmentally to re-vegetate it. If we siug this thing out as to who owns it, wecan slug it.out, but if it passes environmental review, we think re,vegetation is probably a good thing and if we slug it out who owns it, then wecan slugi that out. But, we're asking for the environmental review to determine that, re.veg etation is a good: thing. JAMES'SPEISS: BUt, you're talking about re-vegetation of someone else's property. ERIC BRESSLER: No we're not. CATHERINE MESIANO: On the inspection the re-vegetation was recommended by the Trustees because there is erosion occurring there. There is nothing holding in the sand between the two sections of the jetty and it was recommended by the Trustees as an environmental concern. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. ERIC BRESSLER: So, Mr. President, where does that leave us tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're waiting for plans. We're going to Table the appliCal:ion until next month, but I'm going to let this lady speak. ANDRBA 14OLYIER: have a couple of things to say. One, as a neighbor, and as this ongoing controversy is going on, if they had a deed, they surely should of shared it with us so we possibly could've worked something out or seeing if they do own it or whether we own it or what. I have not seen that after all of this time and I would like To see that because that could answer a lot of questions. That's one. Number two, the constitution of Paradise Point Association says, and this is our constitution, article section 1, the purpose for which the corporation is formed is as follows: to Provide for the care and maintenance of the beaches, waters, 48 bulkheads, roads, clubhouse, buildings or other structures and other recreational facilities, etc. and I believe that there are two sides to every situation and they are saying that the association did not maintain these but the sellers of that property apparently had some controversy and we had a gentleman after our special meeting last week and one of the sellers came to my husband, our house, and told us that he actually had a personal strife with someone in the association and he was using this issue to play that out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't want to cut you short but this is not really of any interest to the Board about somebody's personal problem with an association member. ANDREA KOLYIER: But the association tried to take care of the basir and they couldn't work it out with the people. That's all I'm just saying. Okay? I was going to read the 24 families that voted at our meeting to preserve the rights of the association, but I'm not going to do that. I'll just tell you that there are 24. CATHERINE MESIANO: My one fear is that by you r not making a determination, we're facing the bulkhead, (inaudible) subject to further degradation areas, which would certainly create those negative impacts that we discussed earlier and I'm just concerned that as time goes on, more of those negative impacts are going to occur and so 1 urge the Board to make a determination on those issues, which you can make a determination on. That 54' length of Iow-sill retaining wall literally does not impaCt the construction of the dwelling nor does the replacement of the bulkhead along the bay and the. bulkhead on the canal. The re-vegetation in the othe:r areas, preservation of the' bank, if there is one issue that your waiting for, you can certainly decide around thatand keep that issue alive, because I fear that delay in this is causing further degradation to the situation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.: You people don't need us to make a decision. You don't need a judge, in Riverhead either to work this out. CATHERINE MESIANO: I have, to say that the issue of the easement is not before this Board as the attorneys have discussed and you've done your environmental .review..We've come before you many times and if the drawing is sufficient, you can make a determination subject to my presentation of the Board, of those details, and l see this as being no different. So, I clearly want to close the headng because we want to move on. We've been talking about it on and on and. you've done your job. JAMES SPEISS: You are being asked to look at this application with blinders on and I don't think it's right to ask you to do that. The standards that were read verbatim, the last one.was kind of glossed over quickly, and it talks about you being able to take into consideration matters that adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of this Town. I represent 25 landowners that are going to be adversely affected by this application We tried to make that clear to you. Chapter 97 requires an applicant to come forward with documentary proof that all other requirements have been corn plied with. We don't have that. To the contrary, you have documentary proof that says that this application should not be granted. Thank you. STEVE PER~RICONE: I live in Paradise Point. This lady is saying that these people should go ahead and put the bulkhead up because it's deteriorating. Well 49 I swim there everyday back and forth, and I've watched this very closely, even in the winter I walk down there everyday. It doesn't deteriorate that quick. It takes years'to deteriorate it. I've watched it for the last eight years. It doesn't deteriorate within the month, or two months. So, to Table this application might be a good idea. From what I understand, the application ~s asking for a floating dock, 8" poles, in the marina. Now, I just heard you say something about not allowing this on the bay side, and it being the same condition in the marina areas of the Town, then here is seems to be a double standard, If you want to approve that here and not for the other gentleman that asked for it, then there seems to be a doUble standard. Now, I think you should really think about this and let them get all the other papers together, and all our other permits, and then come back here and see if they can meet your requirements, environmental requirements. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One question about the dock, it says, replace the existing dock, ramp and float with new 4'X 25' dock, 3'X 16' ramp and 6'X 20' float. That just makes me curbus. Why would you want to replace it? It's existing. CATHERINE MESIANO: That does not belong to the Zupas and they are not claiming it (inaudible:). Our preference is to have the dock offset in the area near the Iow-sill retaining: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But my question is, and I guess it's more of a rhetorical question, is how...whose dock is it. JAMES SPEISS: The association's dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it doesn't have a permit. JAMES SPEI / it did. I just said it's the associations. TRUSYE I.: But the association actually owns the dock? JAMES SPEI association put the dock in, I'm told. -FRUSTE' How long ago? years ago. we're talking about is 1995 with no permit. STEVE PERRICONE: 1968, I remember working with Pat Carrig and Tom Taggert. I owned a fence company and we used to install docks and floating docks. We did work,in that marina nstalling docks and floating docks. That was 1968. Those docks were existing prior to us working there. ERIC BREsSL. ER: There seems to be some confusion about the dock. The one were talking ~bout is 1995 and We've seen the construction contract and that's the one we're talking about. NEIGHBOR: I,t was.fixed in 1995. TRUSTEE KR~PSK]: Nothing has a permit (here. That's why ~t s curious. STEVE PERRICONE: The marina floating docks and maybe the existing posts now, they were on 2 ½'~ pipe, fence pipe, but I don't think they needed permits because these have been existing, from what I understand, and I saw them myself in 1968, and they were prior to 1968 at least 15 years. So, they didn't need permits at that time, from what I understand. ERIC BRESSLER: It's our position you've always needed permits for that bottom. 5O 18. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm going to make a motion to Table the application until we get new drawings and I'm going to urge all of the members of a place called Paradise Point to really try to re-evaluate what is going on. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of SCHEMBRI HOMES, INC. requests a Wetland Permit for clearing and grading required for the construction of a 48'X 54' single-family dwelling with attached garage, pervious driveway and on-site sewage disposal system. Located: E/s Shore Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-1-4.10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application. CATH£ iRINE MESIANO: Earlier in this meeting, you stressed a concept that I would-like to point out and that is consistency. You consistently talk about structures being setback 75' and a 50' non-disturbance buffer. I understand we're looking for a 75' non-disturbance buffer and we have a problem with that because that'S not consistent with your current decisions TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's it? Is there any other comment before we start? We are being consistent in this because this was a subdivision that was laid out in... CATHERINE MESIANO: 1981. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh 1981, thank you. CATHERINE MESIANO: Oh, I'm sorry, 1979. TRUSTEE KRuPSKi: Oh okay, 1979. This was a subdivision that was laid out a long ~me ago. We're trying to be consistent and if you notice, across the creek there was a subdivision that was laid out more recently. The homes on that, right across .the creek, received 75' non-disturbance buffers. CATHERINE MESI~.INO: What are the sizes of those lots. TRUSTEE KRUPSKih Off hand, I don't know. CATHERINE MESIANO: What are the open space considerations that were given to that subdi,vi~ion. , TRUSTEE KRuPsI~h That doesnt matter. The open space wasn't going to have an effect on the estqary. CATH!ERINE M'ESlANO: I ask that because when a subdivision is clustered and the open space is g~anted, it does have an effect because that goes to preservation cfa wildlife migration corridors (changed tape) that was granted with open space considerations and was (noise) of the subdivision that your talking about and wEile you had to make those decisions on the other side of the creek, l:don!t think the issues are the same. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, the conditions are much worse on this side because the density of development is much greater and that really I think, if it's our responsibility to have to react to something, that's why we're here. We're here to make recommendations and to react to things that could affect, in this case, Richmond Creek. I don't see how a 75' non-disturbance buffer is a problem here. CATHERINE MESlANO: I see it as a problem because it does cause a degradation of property values and that's a serious concern to us and since the 50' buffer is (noise) to create a subdivision and open space that is there, I think offset, the difference between a 75' and 50' buffer. $! TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The open space that's there? CATHERINE MESIANO: Pete, would you like to describe the degree of open space that's in that subdivision? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The reserved area, I might add, is very small. Who owns the reserved area? PETE S(;HEMBRh It will be part of the association. CATHERINE MESlANO: Have you deeded it to the association or is it still (inaudible). TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't how the rest of the Board feels. PETE SCHEMBRh I don't have a problem working it out, it's just that some lots are only 150', 160' deep. The Town designed this. I didn't design it. The engineers for the Town, when I first came up the concept, they felt that this reserved area was enough area to buffer these homes. Apparently now things change and you want to get more of a buffer area so I'm more than willing to do that. When we met out in the field, we talked about maintaining the buffer and all three of these houses we've designed to meet that 50' buffer. Now you want a 75~ buffer, as Cathy told me on the phone yesterday. So, you required me to plot and show you exactly what we want to build after we had the meeting in the field months ago. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh When was the meeting? I don't remember meeting in the field with a 50' buffer. I always remember a 75' buffer. In fact, at one point... TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's why we had the meeting in the field. TRUSTE KRUPSKh We wanted the applicant to put up a fence. On new subdivisions... PETE SCHEMBRh Artie mentioned that a 50' buffer on these lots would be appropriate because the lots across the way, and I don't know nothing about the lots across the way, were doubled the size. The houses that you build with the setbacks on a half acre lot are much different than an acre to two acre parcel. It's very hard to say that you're not going to encroach. I'm willing to do whatever we have to, to make it work. I just don't want people to walk out their door and have to stop 2' from their step. I don't think it's' right. I don't think when they designed the subdivision it was meant to be that way. It's like saying you can't put a picnic table in your backyard. You can't do anything. I don't think that's right. The lots aren't that big. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But, the lots aren't that big, okay, absolutely, but the house doesn't have to be that big. So, you would have a bigger backyard if you had a smaller house. You can move things around, then you can put that. picnic table in there. I'm trying to be flexible and fair. I think we were flexible on the fence. What do you think Peggy? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I wasn't here for the first field inspection. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I-remember mentioning 50' and I remember getting shot in the foot. But I do also remember our discussion"about leaving it the way it was, and having the homeowner come in individually and dealing with all three lots individually with the homeowner. Do you remember that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh ldo remember that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I was in favor of a little relief, personally, but that was what the Board came up with and as a matter of fact, Henry was still on the Board then and ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The problem we're having is that you're all well intentioned and you're going to build a house and it's going to have a buffer, whatever it's supposed to be, and that's going to be it. But, you're going to sell to somebody, and we just had this tonight with this poor guy in Mattituck, and he bought a pig in a poke, and he says he doesn't even know it. He's got a house and he can't have turf on it. He can't have a sprinkler system and he can't have a deck in the backyard. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And, he's got them all. PETE SCHEMBRI: Everybody that we're going to build for is aware of that anything they want to do in the yard, they'll have to come back here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, if we deal with them, then we get to deal with them. It's got nothing to do with you really. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's a matter of having somebody accountable. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Not that we're questioning you because you're going to build it and it's going to be right and you're going to sell it. But then we have to deal with the next guy who is going to come in and he's going to say, like the woman on the North Rd., she said, when the Bay Constable came, she hollered and her husband and said, "1 told you not to take it all out at once." We want to avoid that. PETE SCHEMBRh I understand but all I'm saying is that if we had, when they designed the subdivision, of the previous Board that was doing the planning, and they were conforming to a 75' setback, they wouldn't have designed it like this. It would'ye been designed differently. We have to work with what we have. This isn't what we want to work with, this is what we have. it's existing. I just want people to be able to walk out their door. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh They can come back to us and appeal to us. Artie is right. That'.s fair. Then, they have to come before us and then we can go out and look at it and see what their needs are. We'll leave that in the permit. We'll say that any disturbance, you're more than welcome in to the Board to appeal the 75' if you feel you think that's necessary. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is that reserved area behind each lot on the creek side? CATHERINE MESIANO: It runs along the whole creek. None of the properties run to the creek. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I would like to see a contingency, when you sell those, we can work something out here, one of the contingencies being that there will be no structure placed in there, such as docks. It's reserved. PETE SCHEMBRI: Everybody knows that it's part of the association. I told eve rybody in the-whole subdivision, (talking). TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm still for that, Then, you're of the hook. You tell them "hey, you wanted something else, you can go and talk to the Board", and that way it's clear with them, and the property owners are not on your back. CATHERINE MESIANO: There is one in particular that I would like you to just be a little flexible on, On Lot #11, that's very tight, it's really unreasonable. There is a number between 50' and 75' TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But they can come in. CATHERINE MESIANO: But there is nothing there, Al There is semething between 50' and 75' that everybody can live with. The house is 76' from the edge of the wetlan ds. That's unreasonable for you to 'mpose a 75' no- disturbance, buffer when the corner of the house is 76'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, you're looking at it from the corner of the house. We're looking at it from the wetlands. We're looking at it from opposite sides of the property here and we make... CATHERINE MES~ANO: Wouldn't it be preferable to have a managed area rather than a trampled on area? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We make people go to the ZBA to move the house closer to the road so they ~an squeeze a house on a piece of property and still meet out setbacks. That was this year, two houses, we made them to go the ZBA. CATHERI NE MESIANO: Thafs an extreme measure. But at some point between 50' arid 75' is reasonable and I think having a 75' non-disturbance one foot off the.back of the house is an unreasonable request. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: :But that's the proposed house. We didn't propose the house. That's not our house. We didn't say put the house there and then say... CA'FHERINE MESIAN0: The house is not excessive in size. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My point is, we didn't say, put the house there and now there's a buffer. CATHERINE MESIANO: Based on your consistency and your 50' determination, it was reasonable for the developer to propose this and provide a site plan like this because, it's standard operating procedure that this Board gives 50' non- disturbance buffers and 75' setbacks. The other two houses are more than 100' from the wetland s. We're just looking for a backyard. The houses are not even within your jur[:sdiction. We're just coming to you to be able to have something of a backyard. Lot #11, with a non-disturbance area is right outside the back of the house. PETE SCHEMBRI: If I though it was going to be more than 50' I would've put something else there. We thought it was 50'. CATHERINE MESIANO: To get on the ZBA's calendar is a five-month ordeal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not suggesting that. CATHERINE MESIANO: You just did. TRUSTEE KRUPKSI: No, I said we've made other people do that this year. CATHE!RINE MESlANO: But ithink that there's a numoer somewhere between 50' and 25' that's not going to cause total degradation of the Peconic Bay Estuary system. Call it non-fertilizer dependent vegetation. Call it drought resistant vegetation. Call it something else but I [hink it's reasonable for a person buying a house to be able to walk out the back door. For #11, it's unreasonable and I wouldn't push it if I didn't think it was unreasonable. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: To be reasonable Al, I would say everything over 6" in diameter has to stay in that 75'. 54 CATHERINE MESIANO: That's fine. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The 25' they maybe rake it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh For Lot #11, you're talking about 25' of non-turf. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, natural. CATHERINE MESlANO: So, we can clear out the underbrush and leave anything' over a 6' diameter and put in mulch. (talking) I don't have a problem with that. (talking) I like that idea. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Let's make a motion on the first one then. CATHERINE MESlANO: I would like you to re-visit the issue and Ken's su,ggestion is more than reasonable and more than workable that we give you a 50 nomdisturbance buffer and a 25' non-turf area with no clearing of anything over 6" with hay bales at the set back line prior to any disturbance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On which lot? CATH~ERINE' MESIANO: Number ten. You most likely won't see the next owner if we can accomplish that. TRUSTEE' POLIWODA: How many feet do you have be~t~, een t,he buffer (noise). CATHERINE MEsl/~NO: Number ten has, it looks like 25 to 30 from the edge of thewet ands tothe ,PrOperty line. TRUSTEE POLI'W~DA: No, I mean from the 50' buffer mark. Ti On 11 or 107 TRI. For each one actually. CAT~ On Lot #10, we maintained 104' from the nearest point of the edge of the wetlands. (talking) Non-turf to 25', hay bales with mil~i~ ~ and a 50' non-disturbance buffer. : On 107 On 10. get a fence with that? Where do you want it? Do you want it at 50? 4E TRI TF 10, 11& 12. CAT1 Fine, we'll give you a split-rail fence at 50'. PETE (inaudible) CATHBRINt IANO: You can brush-hog anything up to 6" and at 50' you put a sp~ ;s the back, and it's non-turf 25' landward. TRU,~ plant anything they want, but it can't be lawn. They ( arden, flowers... ~o, 25' from the fence, that's what I got to tell them. 25' from the fence is a non-turf area. TRUSTEE ~ ~l~h I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE t ) moved. TRUSTEE [ Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE ;1~1: I'll make a motion for lot 10, 11 & 12 to Approve and that there be a riomdistSrbance buffer at 50', that there be a split-rail fence placed at the 50' line ,for the 1three lots, that there be 25' of non-turf buffer on the west side of the fence, and that the reserved area be deeded to the association. 19. 20. 21. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: One stipulation, the fence be placed in before any brush-hogging ... CATHERINE MESlANO: But how do we get there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Wel get the surveyor to ... CATHERINE MESlANO: We have to get through to be able to get in there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You'll have to stake the line so they don't go crazy. CATHERINE MESlANO: You'll have to cut a path through, have Joe go stake the 50' line, run the brush-hog through at that point, and then basically put in (inaudible) and then you can clear landward of that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of SCHEMBRI HOMES, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 51'X 61' single-family dwelling and on-site sewage disposal system, and maintain a 50' buffer area landward of the edge of wetland. Located: E/s Shore Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-1-4.11 SEE PUBLIC HEARING #18 Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of SCHEMBRI HOMES, INC. requests a Wetland. Permit for clearing and grading required for the construction of a 59'X 75' single-family dwelling with attached garage, driveway and on-site sewage disposal system. Located: E/s Shore Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-1-4.12 SEE PUBLIC HEARING #19 Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of GREGORY MAZZANOBILE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with pool and decks; install on-site sewage disposal system. Located: 1460 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#59- 1-21.6&21.7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? JIM FITZGERALD: (noise) and there is plenty of it there. The architect is here but he had to go back to the Big Apple tonight but before she goes would like herto (inaudible) TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I would be happy to. If l may first, can I g~ve a copy.to the neighbor, who is concerned about it, and I just want to make it clear that we're going to have to have this staked when we look at it next month. This way, you'll see it. ARCHITECT: We significantly reduced the amount of fill. The fill is basically where we have to have it, just to cover the septic system, otherwise it's left quite natural. We got rid of the garage, basically the garage will have to be underneath the house. That's basically it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What's the square footage of the house? ARCHITECT: The square foot is about 1200 sq.ft. NEIGHBOR: Has the house been moved? ARCHITECT: We had to move it away from the cranberry bog. NEIGHBOR: How far did you move it? ARCHITECT: 50'. 22. NEIGHBOR: Well one question I have it, at a previous hearing, I believe you asked on the original drawing why there was only a 40' setback. I believe Mr. Fitzgerald mentioned that they had a variance. I checked with the Town and they do have a variance. However, the variance is very specific. The variance states, Resolved, to grant a variance in the matter of the application of Constantine Georgiapolis subject to the following conditions; 1) that the dwelling be located as shown on the survey by Robert VanTuyl dated 7/10/89, and be no closer than 40' as closest point to Lake Dr., that there be a division of tax map lots 21 & 26 into separate and distinct parcels. This is the survey of Robert VanTuyl and the house is specifically located a distance from the property on either side and this is the copy of the variance that was issued by the Southold Town Board of Appeals. So, you can't move the house under that variance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well we're going to have to rewew it next month in the field. I can't see where it's been moved, really, if you look at both maps. NEIGHBOR: She said it was moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think she said it was moved from the last submission. NEIGHBOR: From what? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh From what they originally proposed, it was moved. NEIGHBOR: That' survey you see is not their submission. That's an entirely different Survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But I think it's pretty consistent. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What about the division of the two lots? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well they are straddling. Take a look. NEIGHBOR: I have some pictures here also to show you where the lot is flagged. Reference the ,blue marks by the flagging of the cranberry bog and the white stake, is the edge of his property line. It shows you the cranberry bog as it normally is, underwater. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Sure. Can we keep the photographs? NEIGHBOR: Yes, you can keep the photographs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What we're going to do though is, were going to review this next month in the field. It's going to be staked and we're going to take a look at it. NEIGHBOR: My point is, the cranberry bog is there, it's a definite wetland and on a previous hearing, two of you Board members that were sitting over here, they had recommended a 75' buffer. If you go 75' from that cranberry bog, I don't know if you can stay within the restrictions. JIM FITZGERALD: And we couldn't get a 100' but the Board said a 50' buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well it's staked so we can get a look at it in the field. It's easier to see it in the field to see what it lookS like. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of PETER BOGER requests a Wetland Permit for the existing concrete block bulkhead 23'-9" overall length, with small- stone armoring on seaward side; permit existing small-stone return configuration 57 23. 24. 25. at south end of bulkhead at grade, 9'+/- overall length. Located: Windy Point Lane, Southold. SCTM#87-4-4 POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SALVATORE GUERRERA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a sing le-family dwelling with on-site sewage disposal system and public water. Construct a 4'X 220' fixed walkway and dock, overall length, and a mooring pile 20' out from the seaward end of the dock. Located: 1450 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#122-4-44.6 POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of RYCK KOKE requests a Wetland Permit to replace (within 18") approx. 185 linear fi. of existing timber bulkhead and truck in approximately 40 cy. of clean sand fill from an upland source to be used as backfill. Remove and replace (in-kind) an existing 5'X 50' wood deck and 4'X 5' cantilevered platform (in same positions relative to new bulkhead). Located: 245 Kimberly Lane, Southold. SCTM#70-13-20.2 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this and Mr. Koke was in earlier. It's pretty straight-forward. I believe there was an agreement that we'll allow him to use CCA sheathing behind what's existing and allow him to go in front using C-Loc within 18" and there will either be a 12' non-disturbance/non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. TRUS~TEE DICKERSON: How much of a buffer? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think he showed on his plan a 12' buffer. 12' is fine with me. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I;11 make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with those stipulations and a 12' non-turf buffer. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DONNA BLANCHARD requests a Wetland Permit to excavate approx. 14 cy. of upland material behind existing bulkhead; remove existing bulkhead and returns; and construct (5' landward of former bulkhead) approx. 15 linear ft. of new bulkhead and 5' southerly return, to be backfilled with excavated upland material. Construct off new bulkhead a 3'X 10' hinged ramp and 6'X 12' float to be secured with (2) 8" diameter pilings. Backfill area will be planted with Ammophila breviligulata (18" on center) and excess excavation material will be trucked away to an approved upland site. Located: 50 Budds Pond Rd., Southold. SCTM#56-5-21 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this one and I think everyone is familiar with it. I don't anyone had a problem with it. As it's written, I don't have a problem with it. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a 10' non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 26. Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE requests a Wetland Permit to restore non-disturbance buffer adjacent to tidal wetlands by removing parking materials; planting with native vegetation; and establishing earthen curb and gravelqined swale. Located: Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#122-9- NTI L SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST EmConsultants, Inc. on behalf of FRANK & LOUISE MARCIGLIANO, as c0ntract vendees, requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two:sto~7, one~ ~, :' '.famil'~idWelling On~ndPilings, install a sanitary sYstem,~stablishPervi~o, US driveway, drywell- orai~age?ystem, public water service; a 50 wide non~ disturbahce/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the tidal wetland boundary; driveway; and replant with native vegetation the approx. 1,150 the existing driveway located within the proposed' buffer area. ) Cedar Beach Rd., Southold, SCTMff89-2-3 UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST 28. En-COnsultants, Inc. on behalf of DEBRA COADY requests a Wetland Permit to existing "seasonal" dock and construct in the same location a timber dock consisting of a 4'X 89' fixed catwalk, 3'X 14' ramp :to be secured by (4) 8" diameter pilings, and install (2) two-pile ;.,Float and ramp will continue to be removed seasonally. Located: 2625 · Southold. SCTM#77-t-1 lED UNTIL SEPTEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST TRUS~FEE K~NG moved to go off the Public Hearings and go back to the Regular Meeting, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES RESOLUTIONS: Board to set the scallop season. MoVed by TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded by TRUSTEE FOSTER to open the following dates to scallop harvesting. From Monday, October 7, 2002 from sunrise to sunset through Sunday, October 20, 2002 inclusive, dip net or scalp net is permitted for non-commercial scallop harvesting only. From Monday, October 21,2002 from sunrise to sunset through Monday, March 31,2003 inclusive, all gear permitted pursuant to Chapter 77 (shellfish)of the Code of the Town of Southold is permitted. ALL AYES There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 AM. Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk Board of Trustees RECEIVED OCT ~ 2002