Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/16/2002Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Arkie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hail 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 MINUTES Wednesday, October 16, 2002 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Lauren Standish, Senior Clerk NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 25, 2002. (unavailable) MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for September 2002. A check for $5,494.43 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENTS/VVAIVERS/CHANGES: October 16, 2002 2 Southold Town Board of Trustees 1. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of AL STRAZZA requests an Amendment to Permit #5132 to add a handrail to the existing dock. Located: 1255 Grathwohl Rd., New Suffolk. SCTM#117-1-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to DENY the application, as follows, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, WHEREAS, an original permit for a catwalk was granted to Applicant on March 22, 2000, to allow safe, dry access to the water with minimal disturbance to the wetlands of West Creek, and, WHEREAS, said permit allowed for the construction of a 4'x 40' fixed open walkway, with 4 piles, said piles of Iow profile, and, WHEREAS, Applicant did construct a fixed open walkway with four 6"x 6" piles with rope barriers at two levels between the piles on each side of the walkway, and, WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, including the minutes of the October 24, 2001, public hearing in which Applicant admits said dock was not built in accordance with the original permit, and, WHEREAS, said 6"x 6" piles have destroyed a total of thirty-six (36) square inches of wetlands in West Creek, as opposed to the sixteen (16) square inches originally anticipated, and, WHEREAS, similar structures in the area are small, Iow and have no substantial impact on the wetlands, and, WHEREAS, to allow the 6"x 6" piles to remain would negatively impact the environment, specifically, the wetlands of West Creek, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees DENY the Amendment to Permit # 5132 to allow the 6"x 6" piles to remain. BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this determination should not be considered a determination made for any other Department or Agency that may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. October 16, 2002 3 Southold Town Board of Tru6'tees TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to APPROVE the application, as follows, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, WHEREAS, an original permit for a catwalk was granted to Applicant on March 22, 2000, to allow safe, dry access to the water with minimal disturbance to the wetlands of West Creek, and, WHEREAS, said permit allowed for the construction of a 4'x 40' fixed open walkway, with 4 piles, said piles of Iow profile, and, WHEREAS, Applicant did construct a fixed open walkway with four 6"x 6" piles with rope barriers at two levels between the piles on each side of the walkway, and, WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, including the minutes of the October 24, 2001, public hearing in which Applicant admits said dock was not built in accordance with the original permit, and, WHEREAS, said handrails may act as a safety device for individuals accessing the dock, and, WHEREAS, said handrails are not inconsistent with similar handrails that have been granted in the area, and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVE the Amendment to Permit # 5132 to add hand rails to Applicant's dock, hand rails will be no greater than a 2"X 4" construction on the hand rail itself with a 4"X 4" post to support the hand rails, and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this determination should not be considered a determination made for any other Department or Agency that may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. JAMES HOEG requests an Amendment to Permit #5038 to alter the shape of the pool and add a shed/barn. Located: 350 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#115-17-17.10 POSTPONED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST October 16, 2002 4 Southold Town Board of T~stees 3. Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of MADELINE PISCIOTTA requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5257 to construct a two-stow, one-family dwelling to be raised on pilings; deck; pervious driveway; two (2) drywells; drinking water well; and sanitary system to be placed on approx. 380 cy. of clean sand fill and contained within concrete retaining walls. Located: 8554 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-5- 23.7&23.8 TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve the application, 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 WALTER & LINELL GAIPA request a Wetland Permit to enclose an overhang on the north side of the residence and a new front entrance and entry deck on the west side of the residence. Located: 360 Lakeview Terrace, East Marion. SCTM#31-9-12 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? WALTER GAIPA: I have the construction plan if you need it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any Board members have a comment on this? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Just that the house is going to need roof gutters and dwwells for run-off. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay, 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 the condition that dwwells and gutters are installed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES PAUL & CONSTANCE CONNOR request a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 38' fixed dock, 3'X 14' ramp and 6'X 20' float with a 3'X 5' ramp; (8) 8" rods and 12' "L" piles, locate a pervious patio at the west side of the house, and construct new rear step areas for access from the doors at the rear of the house up to a size of 20'X 7'. Located: 830 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#115-12-12 October 16, 2002 5 Southold Town Board of Trustees TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here Who would like to speak for or against this application? Members of the Board? Have there been any changes? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Did we get new plans for the dock? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We wanted the dock pushed over. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 15' offof the property line. Was there anything else? Ill make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALI_ AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the stipulation that new plans are submitted showing the dock 15' off of the property line. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 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 POSTPONED UNTIL NOVEMBER AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST 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 POLIWODA moved to Table the application, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES Trustee Poliwoda will inspect the property within two weeks. Redwin Industries on behalf of BOB LOBICK requests a Wetland Permit to extend an existing wood deck 12'X 16' to 12'X 22' wide then build a 12'X 22' glass and screen sunroom on 12'X 22' wood deck. Re- vegetate 30' from the landward edge of the wetlands along the southern portion on the property and lawn area between dwelling and wetlands to be covered with wood chips. Located: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#115-5-7 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Would anyone care to speak on this application? BRUCE ANDERSON: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. You should have before you a revised plan last dated 10/8/02, which includes the re-vegetation of the southern portion of the property, the marsh, and the showing of the woodchips to the house and the water, which was discussed and agreed upon the last time. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think the Board had an issue with that piece of land next to that house. What's your disposition on that? BRUCE ANDERSON: Well, back in March of 2000, Mr. & Mrs. Lobick contacted you by letter and you came out on March 14, 2000 and authorized him to do what was done. TRUSTEE KING: But it was more than what we had intended him to do. October 16, 2002 6 Southold Town Board of Trustees BRUCE ANDERSON: Maybe. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it was that specific, but there was far more done that what we thought was going to be done, as far as clearing goes. BRUCE ANDERSON: In truth though, it's really not a part of this application. It's not something that we would normally get into. TRUSTEE KING: I think we wo~ild like to see it rectified somehow. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think if the Board's satisfied with the plan tonight .... I think the Board wants the same sort of buffer on the adjacent property to the south. MARILYN LOBICK: Well when Jim King and Kevin Poliwoda came to the house and to the property, we walked the property and they asked me what I intended to do with it, and I told them that I wanted to remove the garbage and all of the dead branches that people had been dumping in there for years, and then they said that would be fine, and then they said to me, "and what do you intend to do with it"? So I told them I wanted to put woodchips in. They said that would be fine. I asked if I could plant some kind of flowering bushes and they suggested azaleas and rhododendrons. They told me the only restrictions I had on that property was I could not disturb the phragmites and I could not go past the phragmites line. Never at any time was there ever mention of a 10' buffer, a 30' buffer, nothing like that. I planted rhododendrons and they died. So, nothing grows there. That's what they told me I could do and that's what I did. Nobody said anything to me about any buffer from the phragmites up except the woodchips that I was going to put in there. BRUCE ANDERSON: It seems to me that the marsh area is basically a single stand of phragmites and I don't there is any environmental damage that has been done there relative to wetlands. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was in on that decision but I ... MARILYN LOBICK: Right, you had excused yourself because we had had previous dealings and it would have been a conflict of interest. You remained in the vehicle. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I don't think it was intended to plant grass there. The decision was ... MARILYN LOBICK: There is no grass there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What is there? MARILYN LOBICK: Woodchips. BOB LOBICK: This was a voluntary thing. This is not something that you asked us to do. We asked you guys to come there and take a look at it before we even touched it. TRUSTEE KING: It looks to me like a couple of pallets have gone right down through the phragmites. MARILYN LOBICK: In the letter, there was a walkway there originally. When they cleared the land, there was Styrofoam and everything else. October 16, 2002 Southold Town Board of Trustees There was a big hole that was left when everything was taken out. It's all gone now. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have to tell you, a lot of things happen in the time that elapses between when we go there and when people actually come to these meetings so, don't take offense to our questions or what we're asking here. BOB LOBICK: But you have to understand, we voluntarily asked you guys to come and we didn't want to do anything to harm anything there. In fact you can see the woodchips are at least 30'. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I fully understand and the Board understands your position. We know how this all came about and it wasn't your doing. We're just trying to get it straightened-out, that,s all. Any other comments? Is the Board happy with this? Can l get a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING? So move& TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application as requested. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. on behalf of BRADLEY ANDERSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed pier catwalk 4'X 30' with a 6'X 14' platform at the seaward end of the dock. The total length of the fixed pier catwalk dock assembly is 45'. Bulkhead replacement with CL900 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" tierod @ 6' on center with 10" diameter X 8' timber deadmen. Planting of native vegetation for those sections of the bulkheading, which are not currently vegetated. Located: South Harbor Rd. & Richmond Creek. SCTM#86-3-1,2,3.3&3.5 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Would anyone care to speak on behalf of this application? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would you like to comment on this application? JIM WALKER: I'm here on behalf of Brad Anderson. The first sheet on your hand-out is the original proposal. It's a 45' long dock. I spoke to Lauren after you did your fieldwork over and we got the recommendation from you. The maximum length will be 35' and if you turn to the second page, we show a 35' dock. What it consists of is a 4'X 29' fixed pier catwalk and then a 6'X 20' "T" dock. The boat would have to be tied up on the outside of that dock to reach deep enough water and there would have to be two tie-off poles on the outside. I discussed this alternative with my client and they really would like to do something slightly different and if you turn to the third page, the second alternative that we show for you tonight is a 4'X 20' fixed pier catwalk and a 6'X 20' fixed pier catwalk with two tie-off poles and the boat is tied up the way that it currently is which is along side the dock, which is October 16, 2002 8 Southold Town Board of Trustees perpendicular to the bulkhead and the total length of this dock layout is slightly longer than what Ken had indicated was acceptable and the total length here is 40'. If you go back to the alternate one, we don't have to have tie-off poles further offshore and we don't have to tie the boat off outside the dock. So, if you ask me, although we're asking for 5 more feet, it's actually a better dock for both the project sponsor and the Board of Trustees. The third alternate, we tried drawing an alternate with a floating dock that shows a 13' fixed pier catwalk with a 14' ramp down and a 6'X 20' floating dock, but that dock has to be 45' long and I don't think that's the way the Board of Trustees wanted to go. If you will turn back to the secor)d alternate, I wanted to take a Iook...we drew a 25' boat there, which is approximately what the guy has tied up and with inner and outer mooring piles, a bow line, a stern line, the front nose of the boat is going to be just off-shore of the tidal wetlands fringe. I don't think we could really show a dock shorter than that and have they guy tie off his boat and not be on the bay bottom at Iowtide. So, from our point of view, we would like the Board to consider the second alternate, although we did draw up a 35' dock for your consideration. I drew up the small hand-out so that it would easier to compare, but if you take a look, it's right along the tidal wetlands fringe and I really wouldn't want to pull a boat in much shallower than that. It's the minimum of what we can get approval from the DEC unless you turn the "T" dock and you moor the boat parallel to the bulkhead on the outside of the dock. I'm trying to work with the Board of Trustees and also meet the NYSDEC minimum depth requirements. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: My only comment is that I agree with you on number two, however, I don't find this property much different than the standard waterfront property and to ask for such a large degree of pilings under the dock itself, if you look to the southwest of this property, there is a dock which is what we would allow. It consists of 6" pilings based on 8' intervals with ,approximately 3'-4' decking on it. I don't see a reason why there should be a substantial amount of pilings and the size of the pilings, just when maybe 300' or 400' away from this... JIM WALKER: I think we can live with 6" piles. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: My other comment is on the offshore pilings. I was just in the marina the other day and a man has a 25' boat and was using a pair of whippets I think around $300.00. They are fiberglass whippets. JIM WALKER: You want us to try to moor it without those types of pilings? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well pretty much every dock in our township doesn't have offshore tie-off poles. JIM WALKER: I understand that but the reason why we provided the tie-off poles there is because there is a very short barrier beach and October 16, 2002 9 Southold Town Board of Trustees then you're subject to the wind clear across Peconic Bay. If you want us to try and work on that, we would be glad to do that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: A strong spring-line would hold the boat right off the beach the whole time. That boat won't budge an inch. JIM WALKER: You're saying eliminate the two outer piles? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. JIM WALKER: If you would like to do that, we will try to work with the Town and do that, We do not have final specifications in front of the Board tonight. You don't have to make a decision but I would like to try to reach what's acceptable. We can provide 6" round pilings. The reason why we show under-piles on that dock is to break up ice. Those pilings will have to stay in long term. The idea is to break up the ice by having the pilings close together so there is three piles across on the fixed pier catwalk and the ice doesn't hit the dock. That's the only reason why we show an under-pile. The 6" minimum diameter is fine. We can buy those commercially and I think they will hold up just fine. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We have to limit that to two pilings per 8' just like every other catwalk in this town. There might be a theory behind that that maybe it is a little stronger and maybe it holds ice up a little better, (inaudible) then this guy wants four of them and the next guy wants six of them, per 8'. I think you'll get that past the DEC. JIM WALKER: I think the fixed pier catwalk is a good idea. I don't think we want to put a float because we're getting into relatively shallow water. If we show the alternate, I believe we can get a NYSDEC permit for it and I would be glad to try and to work on something different in terms of the outside tie-off poles. If you want to vote on it, I would glad to let you.vote, but I would have to submit the formal plans as a follow- up for your next meeting. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We can vote on it, I think, and you just want get the permit until you submit the revised plan. Is the Board comfortable with that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any comments? It's option two? Do [ have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application based on Number Two drawing, which shows a 40' fixed dock and the lessening of poles as Ken talked about. Do you want to put them down? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, a 4'X 40' fixed catwalk with two 6" pilings spaced 8' apart throughout the 40', and eliminate the tie-off poles. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'm going to approve this subject to a revised plan being submitted. JIM WALKER: All of that is okay. Thanks. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. TRUSTEE DICKERSON, TRUSTEE KING, TRUSTEE POLIWODA, Ayes, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI-recused himself from the hearing. October ]6, 2002 10 Sou&oM Town Board of Trustees En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE requests a Wetland Permit to restore a non-disturbance buffer adjacent to tidal wetlands by removing parking materials; planting with native vegetation; and establishing earthen curb and gravel-lined swale. Located: Camp M ineola Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#122-9-3&122-4-44.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: I'm here on behalf of the Strong's Marine. I don't think there's much left to be said on this one. This is the sort of endless resolution to the parking area restoration. When we last left off in the field, I guess in June, you had asked for Strong's Marine to have a surveyor locate those stakes, which was done. We submitted that and a revised survey that also incorporated the plan that we had been talking about at that time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other public comment? Any Board comment? ROB HERRMANN: A practical question that I would have for the Board is if you do deem tonight that this is now resolved, how do we go back into the bulkhead application that started all of this. In other words, you all put this on hold pending resolution to this violation. So, if I may be so hopeful as to think that we're going to have this resolved, how can we reproach the topic of the bulkhead replacement or do you want me to give you something in writing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's reproach it. ROB HERRMANN: Okay, now, or when you're more prepared? How about next month? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Sure. ROB HERRMANN: That's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then we can make a field inspection. TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty much what we talked about. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If there is no other comment, do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do I have a motion to Approve? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALI AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, do we want to set a time on this? Do we want to set how many months he has to complete this? TRUSTEE KING: 90 days TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 90 days? ROB HERRMANN: We're getting a little late into the plantings aspect of it but I mean the actual gravel removal could take place. You may want to set a commencement date on it but then also a completion date October 16, 2002 11 Southold Town Board of Trustees because I think probably at this point the plantings would be better done in the Spring. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the planting again? ROB HERRMANN: That was sort of cryptic when we discussed it. I think we had basically just said native vegetation that would be compatible such as Bayberry, but I think it was your opinion that probably whatever was planted, the phragmites would just make it's way back in. So, maybe if we even left it that there wasn't going to be an active planting... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't remember a planting. The applicant has 90 days from date of approval to complete the project. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of GVVYNETH KETTERER & MARY SYKES requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct second-story and two-story additions to existing one and two- story, one-family dwelling and install drywells. Located: 1995 Ryder Farm Lane, Orient. SCTM#15-3-1.1 ROB HERRMANN: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. If you look at the site plan that's in front of you, there are essentially three additions being proposed. One addition is entirely beyond the Board's jurisdiction, which is the southerly most addition and therefore not part of this application. There is a small two-story addition in place of an existing shower area, which is beyond your coastal erosion jurisdiction but within wetlands and it does exceed the wetland setback of 75'. So the primary par[ of the application is the waterside second-story addition. It is both within coastal erosion and within wetlands jurisdiction. It's pretty straight-forward for wetlands. It's the same 75' setback from the high-water line that exists. Under coastal erosion, under section 37-17B of your Code, the activity that is proposed is one of the activities that is specifically allowed under coastal erosion, which is a non-major addition. It allows for 25% increase in ground coverage area within the coastal erosion hazard. The second-story is being constructed entirely over the first-story. There is actually a 0% increase as a result of this project. So, it is pretty straight-forward. It just follows your coastal erosion code. If you have any questions, I can go through it in more detail. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I was a little concerned about the closeness to the...it's 15' from the top of the bluff. ROB HERRMANN: Well basically anything that's in the coastal erosion, by definition, is going to be close to the bluff. By definition, the coastal erosion hazard area boundary is 25' landward of the crest of the bluff. The Code specifically allows a non-major addition to an existing structure in a bluff area. It's under section 37-17. Basically if you follow the Code, it says the following activities are prohibited on bluffs: all development unless specifically allowed by 37-17B of this chapter. If you go to 37-17B, it says non-majoradditions to existing structures on October 16, 2002 12 Southold Town Board of Trustees bluffs pursuant to a coastal management permit. So then you go to your definitions. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So what do you determine? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Rob, I have a question for you. Is this a total rebuild? ROB HERRMANN: No, that would be a restoration. TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, it's not. The home has been redone already. But, you don't consider this a major addition? What's a major addition? ROB HERRMANN: A major addition is defined as an addition to a structure resulting in a 25% or greater increase in the ground area coverage of the structure other than an erosion protection structure or a pier, dock, or wharf. The increase will be calculated as the ground area coverage to be added divided by the ground area coverage of the existing structure as defined as an existing structure. The numerator here is zero. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's stdctly on ground coverage. If you went up four more stories, it wouldn't be considered a major addition. ROB HERRMANN: Well under coastal erosion, no. Obviously, that wouldn't be allowed by the Town Code. But, under coastal erosion, yes. Basically the only thing we're doing to upgrade the situation environmentally is to put in drywells. The bluff is completely revetted and in the most drastic case, if this bluff ever completely gave out .... TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well it's not completely vegetated. ROB HERRMANN: The point is, you don't really have any difference in environmental damage whether you have... TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's my concern. My concern was erosion of the bluff down the road and when this thing is only 5' from the bluff, what do you do then? ROB HERRMANN: But whether there's a second-story over that section of the house has no effect on the erosional patterns. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It just adds more weight to it. I didn't have as much as an environmental concern as I did a concern with the fact of the location of the house. It's lasted this long, I guess it will continue to last. Any other Board comments? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with drywells and gutters as shown and hay bales along the bluff line. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES Fairweather-Brown on behalf of ANDREW & LOIS MCGOWAN requests a Wetland Permit for an addition of a new attached garage and removal of the existing garage closer to the wetlands. Located: 13350 New Suffolk Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM#116-6-19.2&20.1 TRUSTEE KING: Would anyone care to comment on this application? October 16, 2002 13 Southold Town Board of Trustees AMY MARTIN: I'm from Fairvveather-Brown in Greenport on behalf of the applicant. I have an additional (inaudible) TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. We were a little unclear until we saw it staked. What do you have planned for the area where the old garage is? AMY MARTIN: (inaudible) What they're doing is, they have just retired and they are moving to the home full time and they are making the existing attached garage into more of the house, which is going to be a dining room area, and in hopes of getting the proposed garage added, they will very gladly give up the free-standing garage, which is much closer and much more, I think, has a much more bigger environmental impact on the inland water there. I was amazed actually at the grade change showing from the existing garage down to the water. It's a big run-off area. What we have come up with is having the entry to the new garage on the landward side and therefore the slope up to that platform will be not draining into the wetlands. Other than that, if -you have any other questions, I think... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other public comment on this? AMY MARTIN: The roadway that exists will remain because that is the access to the next property. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We had no problem on field inspection. TRUSTEE KING: No other comments? 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. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 10. Diane Herold, Architect on behalf of NANCY R. ROSS and others requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing house and boat shed and rebuild a two-story house with a beat shed and decks conforming to the existing non-conforming setbacks. Located: 3350 Park Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#123-8-22.2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? DIANE HEROLD: I'm here on behalf of the applicants, Nancy and Pamela Ross along with their husbands. This is a piece of property that has been purchased from the Ross sister's father and it's been in the family for a number of years. Their brother lives next door. I'm sure that when you went to the site you noticed that the house is in quite a bit of disrepair and the owners have, well it's two sisters, and there are two families that are occupying this house and they have five children among them. So, they really do need extra space. This is part of Marratooka Point, which traditionally has very odd shaped pieces of property and this house has been there for quite some time. We're just hoping to upgrade it. We're going to bring it into conformance with New York State Code, also with FEMA applications and hopefully anything October 16, 2002 14 Southold Town Board of Trustees that might occur. I did speak to the Building Dept. regarding this application and they were comfortable with having me maintain the existing setbacks, so we are keeping the house in the existing location. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The application shows no fill. DIANE HEROLD: There is going to be fill now over the sanitary system. You asked me to submit a sanitary layout, which I hope you have. If you don't, I have a copy with me. We will have to put fill over the sanitary system. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Over the existing system or are you replacing it? DIANE HEROLD: We are going to replace the system and since it's a new system well have to go to the Board of Health. It would be approximately 2' and it would be along the roadway. There is a retaining wall and I would be splaying it down to both east and the west. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are you going to retain it? DIANE HEROLD: I have to retain it because the Board of Health requires 5% grade per 20'. The road is right there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the house itself, elevation wise. Is that going to change? DIANE HEROLD: Yes, the house is going to be raised a couple of feet because I have to conform to FEMA elevations. It will be about, I'm saying elevation 12', and the grade is about elevation 8', the current elevation. It would appear that much because I'm bringing up the two feet in the front of the house. But on the back of the house, it would be approximately 4'. We'll have about 2' clear underneath the house. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are you going to submit a sanitary plan? A plan showing the septic? DIANE HEROLD: I submitted it yesterday. Maybe you didn't get it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looking at this, they are well over 100' from Deep Hole Creek. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are you talking about the house or the septic system? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The septic is closest and it's more than 100'. The house is definitely more than 100'. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You have to go from the bay side. DIANE HEROLD: If the Board desires, I could have someone define a wetlands line for us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it would be upgrade to an existing system. DIANE HEROLD: It's a one-pool system that's in the water. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They're going to take it out and put an entirely new one in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do I need to add gutters? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. October 16, 2002 Southold Town Board of Trustees 15 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition of hay bales, gutters and drywells. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 11. P.R. Anderson Consulting on behalf of JOHN MAZUR requests a Wetland Permit to relocate and reconstruct the existing 6'X 16' deck with steps to the beach as 6'X 12' deck with steps to beach. Install 4 new 10" piles to secure steps and reuse existing decking and pile supports for deck. Located: 3655 Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck. SCTM#123-5-35 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who wishes to comment on this application. PHILLIP ANDERSON: I'm from P.R. Anderson Consulting from Southampton, for Mr. & Mm. Mazur, the applicant. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? It's a down-sizing really. Did you stake this out? PHILLIP ANDERSON: I staked that out sir. TRUSTEE KING: You did a nice job. Thank you. PHILLIP ANDERSON: I received a note to please stake it. TRUSTEE KING: It was very well staked and it was very easy to check it out. I appreciate it. PHILLIP ANDERSON: Thank you. You're welcome. TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. PHILLIP ANDERSON: Sir, Mr. & Mrs. MazuCs immediate neighbors to the east and west are here. Mr. Mazur may want to say something and I believe the neighbors may want to add to that. I have a couple of other items I would like to submit. TRUSTEE KING: Sure, okay. PHILLIP ANDERSON: Mr. Axberg is really the only adjacent neighbor to the west. (Speaker not speaking into the microphone.) TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? PHILLIP ANDERSON: This is Mr. Carvelii. He is the adjacent neighbor across the right-of-way to the east. MR. CARVELLh I have no objections whatsoever. I think it's a good move. TRUSTEE KING: I thought so too, 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. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 12. Boudnik & Assoc., LLC on behalf of LAURA KRATOCHVIL requests a Wetland Permit to renovate the interior of an existing dwelling and add October 16, 2002 Southold Town Board of Trustees 16 a 10'X 10' screened porch and 8'X 21' pomh. Located: 940 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM#52-2-32.4 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone like to comment on this application? ANN CLEMENTS: Good evening, I'm the senior partner from Boudnik & Assoc. I'm just here to answer any questions if you have any. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this today. I found no objection. ANN CLEMENTS: 99% of what we're going to do is going to be all interior and add a small porch. The DEC permit is also in process. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The only comment I might make is on the 10'X 10' screened-in porch, add gutters that lead into a drywell on the southeast corner. Are there any other comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the headng. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition of gutters to a drywell. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 13. Alpha Consulting on behalf of ANTHONY DANIELE requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in-place approx. 162 linear ft. of existing bulkhead with 8"X 10' piles, C-Loc vinyl sheathing and 6'X 6" wales. Located: 990 Koke Dr., Southold. SCTM#87-5-9 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone like to comment on this application? TED ANGELL: I'm from Alpha Consulting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In the file, I noticed that you had an area, even out in field inspection, I noticed an area that was roped off. TED ANGELL: I had to go out of Town but what I had done was submitted a narrative for an indent that was proposed where the applicant was going inward on his property 12'. So that area basically would be existing property where there would be an excavation behind the existing wall and then a new wall put in 12' back, that would basically increase the water distance to the vegetated wetland that the owner also owns approx, a little over 8 acres of wetlands beyond the property being used for residential purposes. So, the application basically is to bring the wall further back into the property as opposed to just replacing,, most of it would be in-place, reconstructing the existing wall but we will have an indentation as you come around that portion where you had seen the line. Just to indicate where the excavation would take place to bring the wall back. Otherwise, it's an in-place reconstruction of the existing wall. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How wide will that indent be? TED ANGELL: We're coming back 12' off that point and going over to the existing return that is in place now. So, basically it will actually increase the water surface and it will even serve to protect that stabilized bank in that little cut area. The idea for this of course, is for October 16, 2002 17 Southold Town Board of Trustees the applicant to be able to bring his boat in front of his property as opposed to having to use neighboring properties or having to utilize the area that is rather shallow now. He's actually giving something as opposed to asking. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In the past, we've allowed this but this is by far the largest one I've inspected. TED ANGELL: It's 12' Ken. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't what to say. It's large and I only looked at it myself. It's much more substantial than the one's we've given. I think the CAC Tabled this. I'm looking to Table this for one month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we meet you on the site? TED ANGELL: Yes, certainly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need it on the plans. TED ANGELL: I had submitted a plan showing the indent coming off at an angle: It was a very soft angle and just coming back 12'. Since he's going into his own property, I didn't think it would present any kind of a problem because we're actually giving property away as opposed to asking for the use of a public waterway. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: My concern is the width. You have 60' on this survey. I measured over 100'. TED ANGELL: It's actually 60' and then an additional 30' for the angle, which is about 90'. When you consider the linear footage of the entire wall if it were just to be replaced, in-place, it would be about 162' including the returns. All we're saying is that we're coming back into our own property and increasing the water surface and actually having more water at that point. Rather than trying to utilize existing water, we're actually giving up land. I thought that would be a fairly logical thing to approve because it's a large parcel plus there is an additional 8 acres that the owner does have that he's keeping in a pristine condition. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm not against this but I'm not really for it because it is a new idea of cutting out your own lawn and creating boat slips and maybe this is the best way or maybe not. Maybe it's a better way just creating a 12' or 15' gap and then cutting into the lawn without excavating 100' or 90' of upland and disturbing 90' of what exists now. TED ANGELL: Well it's only a sliver. Basically all it is, is just coming back a little bit and bring the wall back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's the proposed water depth? TED ANGELL: 4'. In other words, it would be an excavation behind the existing wall 4' and 12' back and then the existing wall would simply be removed and the idea is to tie the boat to the wall, as opposed to asking for a float, a catwalk, or anything else. Nothing will be going into the waterway whatsoever and the owner is simply using his own property so he is utilizing it to his advantage but without a disadvantage to either the stabilized bank across the way or to any public area because it is precisely in front of his property, as you saw that area that was roped off. October 16, 2002 18 Southold Town Board of Trustees TRUSTEE POLIWODA: agree. I'm not against it. I would feel more comfortable if the whole Board looked at it. I'm not against it but I'm not fully in favor of it yet. TED ANGELL: We thought it would be a pretty good idea because we're not asking for anything. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Table this for one month and we will re-inspect as a Board on the November inspection date and possibly meet you out there. TED ANGELL: I'll definitely there. This time I was out of Town, so you'll forgive me for that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 14. Mark K. Schwartz, AIA on behalf of ROBERT SULLIVAN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish an area of roof over single-story room(s) and add new second floor roof dormer with new French doors to new deck. Located: 2715 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#104-13-8 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? It's extremely minor. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 15. Jennifer B. Gould, Esq. on behalf of AGNES S. COMBS requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling with covered porch and step areas. Foundation and deck to be replaced in-kind. Proposed bay window on north side of premises will extend 1 ¼' north of existing structure's footprint. Located: 6525 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-6-24 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? JENNY GOULD: I'm here tonight appearing on behalf of Agnes Combs and her husband and they are both here. If you have any question, I think our survey was faidy self-explanatory and I also have some photographs that you're welcome to have. The only thing that's going to extend past the footprint is our bay window but not the foundation itself. In fact, there are steps off of the house now, that we're removing. So, we're actually going 8' back. Not foundation wise, but we're not going to have steps coming off of the front of the house anymore. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I looked at this and it's about as straight-forward as you can get. It's about a half of a foot off of the property line. JENNY GOULD: What we're going actually is we're cutting the structure down. We are .2' from the property line on one side but we're eliminating 17'. We will have a variance issue but we're actually restoring 18' of side yard. October 16, 2002 Southold Town Board of Trustees TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Environmentally, it's a house and it's going to be a house. JENNY GOULD: We have a non-disturbance zone and drywells. I think we're out of your jurisdiction on the septic. Do you see where our septic is? We are relocating three wells and a new septic system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If there is no other comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that there be a hay bale line at the top of the bluff during construction and that there be gutters and drywells. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 16. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of PAUL & DEBRA LAMAIDA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with deck. Located: 4440 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#122-4-31 PATRICIA MOORE: This is a relatively straight-forward application. It's a new house on Ole Jule Lane. We have, just today, I received the DEC permit which part of the DEC permit has certain conditions, which are your standard conditions as well, and I would expect them to be a part of your permit but the DEC has asked that we put a row of hay bales during construction, a 50' non-disturbance buffer be from the bulkhead landward, it be a permanent vegetated buffer zone, with no disturbance to the natural vegetation. They've also asked us to put drywells for roof run-off, which we've planned to do and then finally the last condition, which is in addition the standard DEC condition, is that a driveway of pervious material be used. So, again, we've agreed to all of those conditions. What I'll do is I'll submit for the record the DEC permit so when you're writing your permit, it might be helpful. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Do you have the survey? PAT MOORE: The DEC survey? Yes I do. Didn't my secretary include that or not? I can make a copy and provide it to you. Anything else? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any other comment on this application? PAT MOORE: When you're considering the moratorium you might consider homes that have similar standard applications, at least 75', that would meet DEC requirements without variances. My concern was if the moratorium hit while this was pending, this was a very simple application. You might consider certain exceptions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh This would'ye been (inaudible) if we did have a moratorium. This would've been caught up in it but I don't think it would've been affected by it, ultimately. PAT MOORE: I know that ultimately it probably would meet all of your requirements, at least your policies presently. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't think it there is any attempt to changing our position on lots like this. October 16, 2002 20 $outhold Town Board of Trustees PAT MOORE: Right, the concern is always that buyers, most people that come before you are buyers and they are on a strict time frame that the sellers have imposed. A sixth month moratorium might cause a problem for them. So, it's something to keep in the back of your mind as you're reviewing the legislation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition of hay bales, gutters, drywells, and a new survey showing a 50' non-tuff buffer. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 17. Garrett A. Strang, Amhitect on behalf of JOSEPH & THERESE CIAMPA requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the residence, install an in-ground swimming pool with a stone terrace, add an extension to the existing dock with a catwalk and float and a stone path access. Located: 650 Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM#70-10- 56 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone who would care to comment on this application? GARRETT STRANG: I'm representing the Ciampas on this application. One thing I wanted to mentioned to the Board, which you're probably aware of based on some correspondence that was submitted yesterday, is that subsequent to your request to check the depth of water in that area, which we did, it became evident that extending the dock as we proposed is not feasible, or isn't practical, so we are going to amend that aspect of our application, as far as extending the dock, and what we've proposed in the letter, at this point, is to the southerly terminus of the present float is to basically turn the float 90 degrees at that point so that the extension actually is 6' beyond what's there now. Between the end of the catwalk and the float as it is now, 20' would be catwalk. We have not amended the drawing yet because my feeling is this Board may have some additional thoughts or insights that I'm not aware of that may impact the site plan so once we've discussed that further, I'd be happy to amend that plan and get it in front of you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Is there any other comment on this application? PAT MOORE: On behalf of Ms. Malone, who bought the property that's known as Chilton on the survey, it's the property owner to the east of this property. I mentioned it to Mr. Strang because we didn't want to surprise him but there are two issues that are of primary concern to the client. The first was, and most importantly, is the dock. It would, as proposed, and I think we need to see exactly a drawing because is the October 16, 2002 21 Southold Town Board of Trustees existing 6'X 20' float, it says relocated, but was it already relocated? (talking) Well, we would oppose the extension into the creek because to begin with, it's affecting the riparian rights of my client. This piece of property is on a crescent and as you know when it comes to extensions of docks in a crescent, you've had a lot of history with respect to Crescent Beach, as one example, that the extensions end up cutting off ultimately one property owner in that crescent if it's permitted to be extended. Again, you know from riparian rights that generally docks have to be in line for all the property owners to be able to maintain their riparian rights in front of their property. This dock is already there. It's been there for 30 years so unfortunately unless it's relocated to be placed in property alignment with the crescent, any extension of it is going to start affecting the riparian rights of the neighboring property. So, certainly that's a concern of ours. The fact that it is going to affect the channel but more so with respect to my clients property that any extension or any activity that occurs on this dock should be pushed away from her property because she has four nephews and nieces that come out on a regular basis and they all swim dght there in front of the property and the proposed extension is going to create more activity in front of their property, because again, the alignment of that crescent and the extension into the area that is the dparian of the waterfront of her property. The second issue, which is again a concern, is the continuation...the screened-porch which is shown as a proposed screened-porch is presently proposed as 10'X 19' and that is going to result in a side yard setback of 8.4, if it goes out as far as it's proposed, there are Zoning Board issues involved in this as well as private covenants. The covenants that are this property, the private covenants, require a 15' side yard setback for the structure. Apparently there is a lot of history on this property. Many of years ago an extension was done. The foundation was poured in violation of the pdvate covenants and because the foundation was poured, they ultimately allowed it to remain but it led to a great deal of contention between Chilton, the owner at the time, and the property owner prior to the present owners. So, it created a lot of ill-will. We don't want to have that extension or exacerbate the already non-conforming setback. We would oppose adding that screen porch on what is known as the Chilton side of the property. Aside from that, renovations are welcome and they hope to be good neighbors and get to know each other and unfortunately this being the first time they meet each other, we!re trying to be cordial about it but certainly asserting our rights as well. (changed tape) TRUSTEE FOSTER: ...which is shown on our permit. Somewhere along the line that structure got added onto without getting a permit to do so. PAT MOORE: I can't answer that. GARRETT STRANG: I can't answer that either. My client bought the house, obviously, as is, and what he purchased is what was there. I'm October 16, 2002 SouthoM To~vn Board of Trustees 22 assuming that Title Search and everything was done and everything was in order as far as what should'ye been there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It was only permitted for 15' of dock in 1977. The walkway is non-desdpt as far as measurement. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you see the old permit for the dock? It's kind of an usual drawing. GARRETT STRANG: That's a good description I think. I don't know who prepared that or what that was arrived at. It's not keyed to a survey at all, It seemed to me as if the permit was issued on the float but there was no determination or distinct description given of the length of the catwalk. The high-water mark is a little bit of a distance away from the bulkhead that exists there now. There had to be some distance of catwalk otherwise the float would've lay on the ground. PAT MOORE: If I could make a suggestion...we're trying to come up with some kind of a compromised position that it seems that the difficulty here is that the drawing, and no offense to Garrett, because you really need a marine surveyor to identify the depths in this area and the channel and it's not that expensive, and I can give you the name of somebody who can do it within $300.00 and you get the depths of the water in this particular area and you would know for sure what the depths are under the existing as well as some of the proposed. It may be more helpful because we are somewhat working blindly here in that there are no depths and you've got a dock that doesn't conform with your existing permit. 1 don't like to be bureaucratic but on the other hand, it helps to be informed, GARRETT STRANG: Along those lines, we did take some measurements last Sunday between rain showers. My client took care of that and he found at the float presently, at high tide that day, the depth of 6' to 7', As he went out the distance that we originally proposed, it became evident that he got past the channel and the depth diminished and there was 4' as we got further out. So that made it obvious to us that we need to amend our application and basically leave the float where it is but turn it 90 degrees so that there would be ample water at Iow tide for the boat and we wouldn't be diminishing the water depths. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: On our field inspection, it was faidy close to Iow tide and I don't know how many feet that boat is that is tied up at the dock right now but there was a solid foot on the bow. That boat could've been tied back 6' or 8' to the south, if need be. It seemed like there was sufficient dock there. I believe the rest of the Board felt the same way. GARRETT STRANG: I think the point here is not so much the sufficiency of the dock but the configuration so that, again, if we could turn it and make it a "T" or even an "L" than that was something that was palatable to this Board, and it may function better, We are October 16, 2002 Southold Town Board of Trustees 23 proposing to turn it in its' present location. What we're proposing at this point, is this dotted line that's here, (not speaking into the microphone). TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think it was the honest opinion of the Board that this dock, even though it's an unpermitted structure, the applicant would have to get a permit to keep it as is, but I don't think the Board was inclined to increase its' length into the creek any further, because it really is conforming to the docks in the area. PAT MOORE: We just want to say that there was a proposal to make it an "L" shape and that certainly would be our preference to the "T". It would be helpful to have it drawn before we can come back for the next meeting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: (inaudible) TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: (inaudible) JOE ClAMPA: I am Joe Ciampa and that's my wife Theresa, and Garrett is our architect. As Garrett said, and we did meet the neighbors very briefly on one weekend that we were out here and I'm not looking to make any waves with the neighbors. What was drawn on the plan obviously does not work, in taking the depths, as I did in the rain on Sunday. On Tuesday morning, I spoke to Garret-[ and I said it doesn't work because what the Board of Trustees said that the bottom goes up, is correct. What Garrett opened and said is, if it's left like that, I have to problem, or a "T" at the end, but I don't want to go into a creek, I don't want to stop anybody from going in front of the dock or around the dock. I have no problem doing that. So, I just wanted to make that clear, and I'm sorry if I spoke out of turn. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What about the addition? PAT MOORE: Are you then suggesting then, to essentially permit what's there, which is a floating dock that's there, is the last portion a floating dock or is it a fixed? GARRETT STRANG: The last 20' is floating. PAT MOORE: So, keeping it the way it is would certainly...the community has been able to live with that and nobody would have opposition to it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Well not only that, but it's consistent with what's existing in the community. We try to establish a pier line. GARRETT STRANG: That's understandable and I can appreciate that. We're not trying to create an issue or a problem or a hazard to boating or neighbors or anything else. We're just trying to make it work both for ourselves and to the pleasure of this Board, given the understanding that you have to protect the Town. So, we don't want to do anything that's not acceptable. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What about the other part of the application, the pool and the terrace. Does the Board have any comments on the rest of the application? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The location of the swimming pool. October 16, 2002 24 Southold Town Board of Trustees GARRETT STRANG: The pool is actually in the only location we can place it without it being out on the street, which obviously no one would want. We can't put it in the rear yard, so we're sort of locked in to it being on the side yard. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You don't show the existing septic system on here. Do you think you could kind of locate that? GARRETT STRANG: We have to see if there are any records on that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're going to have to. You can't just start digging for a swimming pool. GARRETT STRANG: Well I believe it's in the front yard based on seeing the soil lines go out. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The line goes out to the front of the foundation? GARRETT STRANG: The line goes out to the front of the foundation so Fm under the assumption without probing and excavating that's it's probably in the area of the driveway. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What about the well? GARRETT STRANG: The water well is in the basement of the house. TRUSTEE FOSTER: When was this house built? GARRETT STRANG: 1974, 1975, somewhere in there. PAT MOORE: It's probably 100'. In the 70% didn't they have the 100' requirement? One of the neighbors thinks...if you have information it would be helpful. NEIGHBOR: I don't know where it is but when the house was built the well had to be driven so far, the depth, and if it was in the cellar, it wouldn't be driven that deep, so it would have to be outside someplace. The pump would be in the cellar but the well has got to be someplace else. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the issue of the screened-porch? PAT MOORE: One, is that it's 8.9' from the property line and the covenants, the private covenants on the property require 15'. The second objection is that it's again pushing the house closer to the retaining wall, and so it takes away possibility of any natural buffers. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's one of our policies to keep all construction in line with the neighbors'. PAT MOORE: Right. GARRETT STRANG: I think presently, I don't think the neighboring house is shown on the survey. I think they're relatively close in alignment for the most part. We are aware of the fact that we need a variance from the Zoning Board for the side yard setback, and as of earlier this week, become aware of the fact that there are covenants and restrictions on the property that my client wasn't aware of when he purchased it. So again, we want to work that out as well and do whatever we need to do. Again, this is kind of a starting point with this Board to see what this Boards position is and what concerns or October 16, 2002 25 Southold Town Board of Trustees objections you may have with respect to the screened-porch location and we will have to address that accordingly. PAT MOORE: My client is here so she can tell you where the house is in relation to the existing house. I think that's also part of the problem. it would be pushing the house towards the water further than the alignment of the adjacent house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe we could get back to this with the septic location and I think the Board is satisfied with the dock in its present location and configuration and then if we could just determine, and it's not just the house next door, it's the line of the houses, because with one house, you really can't reference it, you need to see what the line is so that they don't bump out in front of each other. GARRETT STRANG: This particular applicant, his house is on the northerly most section of that cove that's created there, so as you go to the east, the houses naturally go further to the south because the lay of the land is such that it bends around. If you were to look at the key map, you can see that the properties start to come further out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can take that into consideration, I'm sure. GARRETT STRANG: Again, we don't want to do anything that's going to be objectionable to the neighbors or whatever. We're trying to be good neighbors and still do what we need to do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any objection to the pool and the patio? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, as long as the septic tank isn't under it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh So, the Board's only concern right now is the porch. PAT MOORE: Everything else has been resolved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The screened-porch off of the side yard is a separate issue that doesn't concern this Board. PAT MOORE: Well the side yard is something that, I think every Board wants to keep in mind private covenants that you're perpetuating the violation of covenants. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not only the private covenants, it's also non- conforming. PAT MOORE: Exactly. it's the Zoning Board that will be addressing that and rather than having an argument at the Zoning Board, you might eliminate it altogether and then we don't have an argument at all. GARRETT STRANG: The porch is elevated. It's at the level of the ...if you're familiar with having seen the house, the house is kind of split- level so to speak, so it's an elevated porch. It's ultimately going to be used as a private screened-porch off of the master bedroom. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what's the Board's feeling is that there's got to be a point where you say, okay you're at 33' now, now you want to go to 23', and then you really just have to come to a point and say it's close enough. GARRETT STRANG: I understand that and we appreciate that. October 16, 2002 26 Southold Town Board of Trustees TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We try to reach that with being consistent with the line of construction in the neighborhood. What's the Board feeling? Do you want to vote on this or do you want to Table this and look at in line with the neighbors and get the information of the septic and the well? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think we should have that information first. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to Table this application and get the other information. JOE CIAMPA: When I purchased the property, they informed me that the septic was in the front of the house just beyond the circle driveway and it was not dug up and it was not excavated but the sanitary sewer line that comes out of the foundation goes directly towards the front. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, just have that put on the survey. Do I have a motion to Table? TRUSTEE FOSTER: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES GARRETT STRANG: Just so I understand completely, we're going to amend our map to show the dock as is. So, part of this application will be to permit that dock as it is, since we don't have the proper documentation on file, and show the location of the well and the septic system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We also want to take in account the setbacks from the neighbors. It was kind of unclear in the field, because there was a lot of vegetation but you could clearly define that, I'm sure. You can take into account the curve of the creek. GARRETT STRANG: We may even be able to get an aerial that cleady depicts where things are placed, Thank you very much. 18. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of PETER BOGER requests a Wetland Permit to re-vegetate and place rocks along eroded and disturbed areas. Located: Windy Point Lane, Southold. SCTM#87-4-4 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone like to comment on this application? JIM FITZGERALD: I'm here on behalf of Mr. Boger. When last we met, I had given you a plan by which the area would be rejuvenated/renovated and then you said you wanted to take a look at it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Some Board members did. Is there any other comment before the Board speaks? Last month the Board allowed the applicant to do work without a permit, specifically to remove the block wall. My feeling is after reviewing this, is that, I don't have a problem with the applicant armoring the scour area adjacent to the neighbors' bulkhead but I really saw no reason to armor the rest. JIM FITZGERALD: (inaudible) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem with them armoring this because he's affected by the neighbor. October 16, 2002 Southold Town Board of Trustees 27 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't see a reason to break up the inter-tidal by putting stone in. JiM FITZGERALD: So what are you saying? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You can armor this here and then you can do a replanting as shown on the plan. Just give us a drawing without the rock. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the wetland permit on behalf of Peter Boger to re-vegetate and to place rocks along the scour area, off the north bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES 19. Preper-T Permit Services on behalf of MICHAEL O'DONNELL requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing 4'X 16' fixed walkway and extend it 10' landward and 5' seaward. Install mooring pile approx. 20' off seaward end of structure to accommodate pulley system. Located: 6010 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#138-2-29 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak to this application? JIM FITZGERALD: I'm here on behalf of Mr. O'Donnell. The Board approved a permit for a dock in this area which what somewhat more extensive than that which was on the application that you have before you. We spent a lot of time discussing it with the DEC and the design that you have there, which was not much more than currently exists, only fixed up. It's the best we could do with the DEC. So, we ask that you approve that. Originally, the plan was, at the beginning of the year 2000, in effect, it was what you have there plus a ramp and the float, and the ramp and float are gone now, and we have a mooring pile to moor the boat at the end of the dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else on the Board? I don't think there were any problems with this at all. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I11 make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 20. Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of NATHANIEL & SUSAN KVVlT requests a Wetland Permit to demolish an existing residence, abandon existing sanitary system, construct new residence and sanitary system, Located: 1000 Old Harbor Rd., New Suffolk. SCTM#117-5-12.1 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who wants to comment on this application? October 16, 2002 28 Soutl~old Town Board of Trustees TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We should include a hay bale line off the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comment? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: 1'11 make a motion to Approve the application with the stipulation of gutters and drywells and a line of hay bales 10' landward of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 21. 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 installing a 15,000 lb. boat lift on the southwest side. Located: 1610 Paradise Point Rd., Southold. SCTM#81-3-19.4 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Would anyone like to speak on behalf of this application? JOHN COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, Costello Madne Contracting, and we are the agents for the application. We've made submittals before this Board, I think, I can't remember back then. As far as this application, this Board has certainly reviewed the application in detail. The NYSDEC under the uniform procedures act, has reviewed the environmenta~ impacts of this dock and has issued a permit under the Article 70. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They have issued a permit? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes they have. TRUSTEE FOSTER: As written here? Everything you asked for on this application, they've given you a permit for? JOHN COSTELLO: Pardon? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Everything that you requested on this application... JOHN COSTELLO: I don't know. I'm not here for a DEC hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, no, but I thought you said that they issued you a permit. JOHN COSTELLO: They did issue a permit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: For everything that you requested on this application? JOHN COSTELLO: Not particularly, no. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What was the permit issued for?. JOHN COSTELLO: They didn't want the boat-lift. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Was the structure itself was what was applied for?. JOHN COSTELLO: I don't have the DEC file with me. But, we made the concessions and changed it to meet the DEC's concern. That has October 16, 2002 29 $outhold Town BoaM of Trustees nothing to do with this Board. You're an independent Board. You might have different concerns. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any information that we can get relevant to this application is information that we should review. If it's available, we should be able to review it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's not a true statement you made either because... JOHN COSTELLO: What's not true? TRUSTEE FOSTER: What you just said. JOHN COSTELLO: What did I just say that was not true. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That is has nothing to do with this Board. JOHN COSTELLO: This is an independent autonomous Board. i've heard on many occasions, let me tell you, am I rightAI, you make independent decisions. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I understand that but you don't honor them. You constructed a dock that was non-permitted, a floating dock, that was non-permitted by this Board that the DEC gave you a permit to put in and you ignored our decision and put it in and it's Wieczorek that I'm talking about so how can you make a statement like that. JOHN COSTELLO: I can make a statement like that because I am hired not by this Board. There are decisions that are made by clients and Artie, you know that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It just kind of hit me... JOHN COSTELLO: Artie, don't nit-pick. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'm not nit-picking. I'm just making a clear statement: It has nothing to do with this application but you stood up there and made the statement that we're an independent Board and the DEC permit has nothing to do with this Board, where it really should, whether it's ignored or it isn't ignored. It has a lot to do with it. JOHN COSTELLO: Are you going to match the DEC's? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I asked you what was on there and .... JOHN COSTELLO: They have less than you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's all I asked you. I just want to know what the facts are. JOHN COSTELLO: They have lessened the degree, they wanted the lift reduced, taken out of it...you can apply for it later. Now let me tell you, if this Board issues a lift permit, the DEC would probably reconsider it. The DEC also wanted the inshore end of the dock reduced to 4'. How much of it? I'm not sure off-hand. And, if this Board would permit the 6' width, they would re-review that. You can even make an application to the DEC. I can't go backwards to every agency. There are four, five, six agencies. You don't go backwards. Now, I can make an application to the DEC if this Board issues a permit. That's a simple thing. That's a simple alternative that everybody should investigate. I've had it happen many times. One agency makes a decision that the other agency won't. You can go back and get it. In large marinas, it happens all of October 16, 2002 30 Southold Town Board of Trustees the time. But, that certainly gives an alternative. Now, if there are four different agencies and four different permits, the lesser structures, guess which one you build? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a good question. JOHN COSTELLO: Well let me tell you, you know the answer to it as well as I do. You know what the DEC can do with the fines. $10,000 a day. You all know. You've heard it before. You've been told by the DEC. I've participated in some of those conversations with the Trustees. Let me tell you, I've been to those hearings. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: The permit application showed that pdor permits and approvals for the site, the respondent indicated that it was ,unknown". When will we (inaudible) ask for a copy of the other permits, the Corp. of Engineers, DEC...I don't see anything in the file that showed that we received a copy of those permits (inaudible). So, at this point, the application is incomplete. (inaudible) JOHN COSTELLO: Wait a second, Don't subject your rights as Trustees to anyone else's authorities because let me tell you, I know that the Board has taken, and they require all other permits, prior to the Trustees, they've basically given up some of their rights and the other people take the lead agency status. You're part of SEQRA. You are. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm not shaking my head to that. I'm saying that you're comparing apples and oranges. JOHN COSTELLO: Well who was the lead agency on this application? Do you want me to tell you? If you have a DEC permit, do you want me to tell you who it is? The DEC. You relinquished it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We should be able to review the DEC permit then, that has been issued. Not that has been applied for, because you can apply for anything. What about the Army Corp. of Engineers? Have they issued a permit? JOHN COSTELLO: No. You're not requiring all of the permits. You never have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we're not. JOHN COSTELLO: Do you know why, they are in typing and it will be issued but before they would issue the permits, the~ wanted to know two things, the exact distances to the two adjoining docks. We're giving them charts with photographs, aerial photos, and measurements, within inches. Maryann Miller, a new person in the Army Corp. of Engineers, Haggerty has been moved out and up. Then, the other question was, measure all of the docks in the vicinity and tell me the lengths of the docks so that they can adjust and try to figure out if they are comparable in size or much larger or very little, much smaller. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The Army Corp.? JOHN COSTELLO: The Army Corp. They usually send, up until very recently, a letter allowing, but they've changed. As Haggerty moved out, the Army Corp. is asking questions. The Dept. of State, their concerns are, this is New York State bottom. Public access is a Dept. of State October 16, 2002 31 $outl~old Town Board of Trustees issue. They have concurred with this. They've allowed it. They told the Army Corp. The Army Corp. cannot issue a permit without the Dept. of State saying that. They can't. They haven't. That was the last question by Maryann Miller from the Army Corp. of Engineers. They need the sizes and the distances of the adjoining docks. After we have that information, they can issue a permit. Don't take my word for it. I wouldn't even take her word for it until I have it in the office. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Just out of curiosity, what permit was the Army Corp. of Engineers issuing? JOHN COSTELLO: They will issue it for this application right here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (inaudible) JOHN COSTELLO: It was until they put a staff in there with some environmental concerns, recently. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But my question is, how can the State sign off on this application and yet the State approve something different: JOHN COSTELLO: Anybody can reduce anything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You said the Dept. of State has to sign off and approve this before the Army Corp. JOHN COSTELLO: Yes they did. The Dept. of State is independent and dependent of the DEC. They don't operate under Article 70. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Does the Board have any other questions for the applicant? JOHN COSTELLO: Where this Board has reviewed, in thorough detail, the application as is, I certainly don't want to start doing a lot of adjustments on it and re-review another application, because this gives me the opportunity to go back to the DEC, the DEC can say "no", and they probably will, maybe, I don't know, I have no clue. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Say "no" to what? JOHN COSTELLO: If I ask for the inshore end to be changed from 4'...they want the inshore end of the dock, the entry onto the dock, to be 4', and the boat-lift eliminated. They will review, if I get the permits from the other agencies, they will re-review it. At that time, they can say "yes" or "no". TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think if we didn't have serious environmental concerns, we wouldn't be worried about this. We're not here because we don't like you. We're here because we're trying to (inaudible). JOHN COSTELLO: Absolutely, and I commend this Board for addressing any environmental concerns. I commend this Board to ask any questions environmentally, that the DEC hasn't have more expertise it hasn't addressed. Maybe I can answer it. We tried to answer every question, Al, and I beg for questions to be asked. I don't know what more I can do. I beg for it. I'm not begging for you to ask for any questions now, but if this Board so desires to ask a question, I'll make every attempt to answer it properly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any other Board comment? October 16, 2002 Southold Town Board of Trustees 32 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well I have a concern but not a question. We've been working with the Nature Conservancy since last February. When was the first meeting? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: January and February. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: January and February, and they have been continuously bringing in new information. They are continuing this process and we actually just received a notification of the next meeting that's coming up, and the purpose of it is to discuss the cumulative impact on docks on the Peconic Estuary. So, I feel this information needs to be considered. JOHN COSTELLO: Can I address that? There is nobody that wants to know that more than I. Let me tell you, do you know how long this study is going to take because PEP, the Peconic Bay Estuary Program recommends, and they are not recommending anything, but they recommend doin9 surveys, knowing how many docks, how many docks could be built, and the locations of docks, not that everybody is going to have one. There is a fear is some localities that if every property potentially had a dock, what would be the accumulative impacts. Guess what? Nobody is going to know that but God, because it's never going to happen. Some people don't want docks. I know plenty of people that don't want docks. They don't like the looks of them. They don't boat. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It doesn't matter if they don't like the looks of them because they're going to look at the neighbors dock and you're going to see docks everywhere. JOHN COSTELLO: But you're never to have a dock on every property. The cumulative impact would be every property that can accommodate a dock would have a dock. That has to be a possibility. Not everybody boats. You'll never get an answer to that and I'm telling you, I'd love to see the study done. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not saying I want an answer because it wasn't a question. I'm saying I'd like to be able to review that information that's upcoming. JOHN COSTELLO: You're not going to get that. That's a study that they project taking 15 years. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you familiar with that timetable? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm saying they are bringing information to us. I'm not saying they're doing a study. JOHN COSTELLO: It's a big study. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're not waiting for a 15 year study. JOHN COSTELLO: Well maybe I missed the question. I thought you wanted to try to find out the accumulative impacts on docks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're meeting again with the east end Boards. We're not looking for a 15 year study. I've never heard of that before. JOHN COSTELLO: The accumulative impacts on docks? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I've never heard of that study. October 16, 2002 Southold Town Board of Trustees 33 JOHN COSTELLO: I can tell you that the budget amount is (inaudible) because it's expensive. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It was also mentioned on one of the field inspections with Mr. Miller, on the dock, about a reduced sized dock, because there is sufficient water for a reduced sized dock there. Now, that was never mentioned to often at public hearings and I would like to see the DEC permit to see ... JOHN COSTELLO: They did not reduce the length, I can tell you that. Their concern was, and I gave them measurements four or five times and the (inaudible) I had at the end of it was 46". Chris Arfsten, a marine biologist, went to the site and he says, I had 44". Let me tell you what Chris Arfsten's stick looked like. It was a piece of wood with black marks on it every six inches. I had a ruler, an engineering ruler. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well you told us that there are different ways, that you use different ways of measuring water depths... JOHN COSTELLO: You have to pick up the book, you have to look at the tide, you have to look at the moon, you have to know what the barometer, so when you do, you can document exactly what the tides are. I went to the site several times to determine exactly, and I passed that information on to the DEC when they told me that there was a differential of 2". The tides everyday, as you well know. The other thing is, you know some of the environmental concerns about the flow of sand, because that was the concern that was asked by, I believe it was you Al. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We've seen a dramatic change in different locations JOHN COSTELLO: It does change in some locations, yes. It has not changed in that location over a long period of time. The vegetation there, and there is no eelgrass. Eelgrass is a major concern because it's the most productive of all grasses. Another thing is that there is none at that location. The flow of sand basically is an onshore/offshore and that's why all the jetties are basically full. There is not a big clamming in that area. It's not a clam bed. There is sand, fine sand. Environmental issues in that locality are certainly minimum and they certainly have been reviewed by the DEC who have staffs of environmental people. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other Board comments? JAMES MILLER: My name is James Miller and I am the applicant on this dock. Certainly I've gone out and I've talked to many of the baymen now about this particular location and historically that's been a non-productive area for clamming and for scalloping. The nearest that's been productive would be for migratory fish on the other side of Cedar Beach where they put out a fish trap. So, if you were going to design an area to build a dock in the Peconic Bay area there, this is probably one of the most desirable and least offensive from an environmental impact position. NYSDEC has a staff of professional biologists. They've October 16, 2002 Southold Town Board of Trustees 34 reviewed the application and they've come to a similar conclusion that this is not a detrimental area to construct a dock as we've proposed. The dock we proposed is substantial. It needs to resist the ice flow and that's the size of dimensions of the dock that the engineers proposed that would withstand the flow of ice in that area. The one area that the New York State did disapprove at this time, and suggested that we could reapply later on if it was approved by another agency, was the boat-lift. For the life of me, I can't understand their rational. I mean, the boat-lift potentially has the bottom with potential to be lowered close to the bottom or possibly on the bottom before it would float off a 3' draft boat, if you had 12" runners on the bottom of the dock and they're concerned about the 2" plank touching the community and possibly endangering that environment. It's just so far fetched that it's ridiculous. I mean, a clam digger destroys more bay bottom in two grabs with a clam rake then could be possibly be hurt here. So, okay fellows, you approved the permit, that's the exception, TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You're wrong there though. I would just like to correct that. We rejuvenate the bottom. We don't destroy it. We destroy nothing. We rejuvenate. It's not different than a farmer cultivating his crop, his cover crop, and he'll have a healthier crop next year. It's just the word "destroy". We don't destroy anything. JAMES MILLER: There's a lot of debate on that Kenny. You and I can spend about a weekon that one. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've been over the bay five times over already and it's all gone. There's nothing left there. I've probably clammed every spot maybe ten times and it's still rejuvenated and healthy. So, you can't use the work "destroy". JAMES MILLER: When a farmer goes out in the farm field and he takes his hoe and he cuts off the weed, the weed is destroyed. It may grow back up again, but that's a different contest and this is not the appropriate occasion to debate this. You're a clam digger, you're a bay man and I certainly have as much credentials and you have Ken. This will be a fair fight outside of this committee, but this is not the appropriate place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I think what Ken said is right then because (inaudible). JAMES MILLER: I think it's in the record now and agree that it's appropriate and accurate. My statement is accurate and I think I provided the Board with a book that brought up several decisions on commercial fisheries and its effect on bay bottom and that's for a different day. But, we're getting off the issue at hand. Certainly, I would be delighted to answer any questions. One of the issues are that this is State bottom, not bay bottom that belongs to the Trustees anyway. I'm not sure how you get jurisdiction over this area at all because it's truly State bottom and you can fish and clam in there with a State license, not a Town license, so I don't even know how your regulations cover October 16, 2002 35 Southold Town Boa~'cl of Trustees that but, we're here, and we've submitted ourselves to your judgment, but that may be for another day in a different way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Our jurisdiction has been questioned in the past and comes to us from Chapter 97. We don't own the bay bottom but our jurisdiction comes to us through the Town Board. JAMES MILLER: Over the State lands? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. JAMES MILLER: I was of the opinion that the Trustees, in the bay, went out to the high-tide mark. But, that's neither here nor there. Let us decide the issue as it stands before you. I urge you to approve the application as it stands before you. If there are some environmental reasons that haven't been brought to our attention, I'd be delighted to answer them and address them and certainly I lean heavily on the review of the NYSDEC biologists who have approved a permit very similar to what you have before you. Thank you. MARK MILLER: My name is Mark Miller and I would like to speak in support of the application. I sat in at a number of the hearings that have been held on this issue and the questions of it's appropriateness for the environment have been most of the questions raised here and I took a look at what the guidance documents says to the DEC in evaluating this permit, and that guidance document states that the department shall issue a permit for a proposed regulated activity on any tidal wetland, only if it is determined that the proposed activity is compatible with the policy of the act to preserve and protect tidal wetlands and to prevent their despoliation and destruction in that such regulated activity will not have any undue adverse impact on the present or potential value of the affected tidal wetland area or adjoining or nearby tidal wetland areas for marine food production, wildlife habitat, flood and hurricane and storm control, cleansing ecosystems, absorption of silt and organic material, recreation, education, research or open space and aesthetic appreciation or more particularly set forth in findings in section 661.2 of this part, taking into account social and economic benefits as well. That;s the guidance that the scientists and the people evaluating these applications are given to come up with a determination as to whether they should issue a permit or not, so if these are scientific people, I respect a baymen's opinion of things but also there is very good scientific evaluation that went into the awarding of this permit and everyone can have an opinion on whether something is nice or pretty or not, but when you have scientific evaluation, people who are credentialed, and who have an ability to evaluate all of these components that were listed, I think you have to respect that and to not pay attention to that and not respect that and simply throw an opinion out because someone thinks something without having any good alternative scientific data behind it, I think is unfair, and it's a bad way to make a decision. October 16, 2002 36 $outhold Town Board of Trustees TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I agree with you and that goes back to what Kenny was saying. MARK MILLER: And what was that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't like the comment that the scientific knowledge of the DEC hasn't been respected. I don't know that we've said that at all here tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We haven't even seen the permit so how can we even judge it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we can base our own opinions on the information we have without saying that we disrespect the DEC's comments. MARK MILLER: Well I think certain points that were being made in the earlier part of the hearings that cleady docks will create problems with the silting in of that particular part of the bay and we proved that to not be true. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just referring to what you just said. MARK MILLER: No, I know, but that's an example of a statement that was not based upon data. That was someone's opinion and all I'm saying is that comments thrown out like that, that are not base upon scientific data are not fair. The fact that the DEC evaluated with this as the guidance, they evaluated this application, and every single item here was evaluated by scientists, I think is a very weady thing. BROWNELE JOHNSTON: (inaudible) the evaluation has been done by the DEC and approved by the DEC, therefore our Trustees should consider that methodology, correct? MARK MILLER: Yes. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: Why won't you show them the DEC permit indicating what they granted to confirm your actions in establishing a record in the hearing so that they can see what the two of you have represented is actually true. MARK MILLER: Well it's not my application. You'll have to speak to the applicant. JAMES MILLER: I can answer that question very directly. Certainly I am trying to get a little bit more. Certainly the application in front of you people right now, if you were to approve the permit as submitted, then I can take that permit and go back to the DEC and say the Trustees approved this, would you reconsider it. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: But that wasn't my point. JAMES MILLER: That's your answer. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: My question is, you've indicated methodology has been done by somebody to therefore grant an approval and we should take judicial notice of that, correct? JAMES MILLER: Correct. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: What I don't understand is why you wouldn't let them see that approval so that it's clear so that no doubt that that October 16, 2002 37 Southold Town Board of Trustees was approved by them. That's all. It's very simple. As opposed to weighing your credibility of what they approved or didn't approve. JOHN COSTELLO: I can answer that, if that's a concern of the Board. I can make a phone call and get the specifics of what was issued, in moments. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we get a copy of the permit? I'm not going to review it at 9:30 at night. JOHN COSTELLO; Take it for granted that I'm telling you the truth. I'll get you the information and I'll drop a copy of the permit off. I want this Board to make an independent decision so that we COuld. If you are giving me a permit for a slightly larger structure or a boat-lift, I don't want to disallow going back to the other agencies. Why would I want to go backwards? You reviewed this application. BROWNELL JOHNSTON: That wasn't my point. My point is saying if another person used these standards and gave you a permit, therefore we should accept that (inaudible) but I can't advise these people to say that's it until they see the permit. JOHN COSTELLO: Do you want me to go get the permit? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not tonight I don't. JOHN COSTELLO: I can do it before you get through the next headng. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Al, your comment to me was that one of the things that Mark mentioned with respect to the DEC and the scientists that have that information, that's the point I was trying to make with the Nature Conservancy and I respect this organization and the information that they are going to be bringing to us at this next gathering, and that information I would also like to consider. The Nature Conservancy has been meeting with all of the East End Trustees since almost a year ago. We have another up-coming meeting, and they are going to be bringing to us more information about docks in the Peconic Estuary. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We approved an iron statue of bird years ago in the same area and we considered all the environmental impacts. JAMES MILLER: Absolutely, and that's what the responsibility of the Board was at that point. You certainly and courageously stepped forward and made the decisions in an appropriate thought-out manner and I certainly appreciate that intellect of the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't worry about what the DEC did. We did it based on the information that we had. We thought that we needed to make a decision. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aesthetically, I didn't think it belonged there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we didn't want to use aesthetics as a basis... TRUSTEE FOSTER: But I don't think these scientists put a very big value on aesthetics as far as this. JOHN COSTELLO: Let me tell you, they do. I've been denied on aesthetics. It depends upon the public input into their hearing. There were people who were more opposed to seeing a dock in their neighborhood. I've seen that denied. I apologize for not addressing Mrs. October ]6, 2002 38 Southold Town Board of Trustees Dickerson before. I apologize that I didn't address you properly, but the Nature Conservancy, who I respect...they are probably my favorite agency, environmentally, and I donate a lot to them, time, efforts, and energies, and I tell you, I know most of them. One of the things they are not going to do is be site specific to this locality and probably this Board, I hope, and the DEC, I hope, did give some specific information to this specific site. That is good. That's good, because every site is slightly different. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We did. I made the comment before about the size of the structure but no one seemed to be responsive to that (inaudible). JOHN COSTELLO: Well the DEC was concerned about the depth of water, as you well know. You know that. The DEC, one of their concerns is the water issues, turbidity created by propeller wash. They tell you that every time, on most application. They addressed that thinking on occasion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To my knowledge, they are (inaudible) in 2 ¼' of water. JOHN COSTELLO: That depends on the analyst. Let me tell you, do you know what they do. It's an in-house policy at the DEC, the width of the dock has to be elevated over the wetlands, the width of the dock, the elevation has to be over the wetlands. There's an application in for a one-foot wide dock. They said they will allow it to be one-foot over the wetlands, if it's one-foot wide.' TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: That's why it's called a catwalk. You say them years ago, and you know you saw them ... JOHN COSTELLO: I built them. I built plenty of them, recently. Go ask the Trustees in Southampton what they give you permits for. That's what they want, if you can accommodate it. They do that. We've done plenty of them. But, they are trying to address the environmental issues and they are trying to limit the structures so that they don't impede navigation. Every Board has their own different policies. Shelter Island is different. East Hampton is different. They are all different. But, that doesn't make anybody wrong. The issues are, and again, I apologize for Mrs. Dickerson that I didn't address it, because this is not going to be site specific. There isn't going to be a study on the impacts of all docks accumulatively. It's going to be expensive. And I tell you, I'd be 100% for your moratorium if you could do that impact and that study. First of all, you would have to hire the scientific people to come do the report. It would be expensive. Very expensive. You would have to take all the impacts. I tried to give you the impacts. Anything you asked for, I tried to give you. I don't know what to do. You can't arbitrarily just say that ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not arbitrary. We denied a dock extension, and we denied a dock on Hogs Bay. JOHN COSTELLO: Well I hope you did it on environmental reasons. October 16, 2002 Southold Town Board of Trustees 39 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Absolutely. (inaudible) JOHN COSTELLO: I don't know the standards. TRUSTE FOSTER: All the information that this Board asks of you and everybody else that comes in here is very important as to the decision we make. Individually, we have five Board members, five different ideas about what you have, and each one maybe wants a little different input than the other. If this Board wants to approve this dock, I'm going to stand up and be counted. That's fine. It's kind of like a group thing. I have a real problem with waiving a permit from another agency and saying, and don't get me wrong but this is how I personally feel, and I have for a long time, I've been on this Board going on almost my fifth year now and I take this pretty seriously. It takes a long time to get used to it, to deal with people, and have to look them in the eye when you run into them in the neighborhood and they're talking under their breath because they would probably like to hit you with something, but then others will come up to you and thank you for doing a good job and trying to keep a lid on things. It's all important. Having been born and raised out here, as you, and probably other people in this Town, and we take a little special interest in what goes on. I resent very much all these other agencies like the State Dept., the DEC, and the Corp. of Engineers issuing permits without actually even living in this area not having any concerns about it other than what they read out of a book. They are all experts on what's good for us out here. I dOn't really see it that way. I think that we have an obligation here. We have an obligation to the Town and to ourselves so that we can sleep at night. This isn't a battle back and forth, well you can't have this and you have that, but consider what I'm saying is we have five people and five different ideas about what you should and shouldn't have and everything you say to us, and the information we get from other people is all very instrumental, as far as I'm concerned in making a decision like this. I know Mr. Miller and I know he wants to have his dock. I would love for him to have his dock. But, there is a lot more and ,you can't just say "yes"to everybody that comes along. We made some mistakes and every time we drive by them I just shake my head and think, how the hell did we ever do that. JOHN COSTELLO: Do you know how you did it? You weren't quite as environmentally educated as you are now. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I as new once and I'm not a new member now but I still have a lot to learn and I still have a lot of concerns and I'm trying to do a good job and I take it very seriously. This isn't something that in any way is against anybody. JOHN COSTELLO: Let me assure you, I'm at least as environmentally concerned as anybody on this Board. At least. Let me tell you, I think the Millers are too. I assure you. We are all working for the same thing. The technology and the items and the information that we've had in the past, compared to what we have now, now is better. October 16, 2002 SouthoM Town Board of Trustees 4O TRUSTEE POLIWODA: A lot of the environmentalists called me up about how you did the work at Reiter's property and I want to congratulate you. You did a great job. It looks good. JOHN COSTELLO: Hey let me tell you, the encroachment into the wetlands would've been today, about that retaining wall, that has nothing to do with this application, but there is so much garbage and debris on that property, most of it put by the DOT, but that's okay. I don't want to go back to an issue that's irrelevant, and I don't care what people say about that project. JAMES MILLER: Mr. Krupski, am I correct that we have to provide you with the copy of the DEC permit as issued and I would suggest, now I don't know because I'm outside of my area of expertise, but if I were to say I would accept the DEC permit and you had the privilege to amend it down to what the DEC permit is, would you consider it that way? Or, do we have to go back and re-file and the whole thing? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's kind of a trick question because I haven't seen the DEC permit, but, and again, I'm not talking for the Board, but as Artie said, there's four other people here with different ideas. I'm talking for me again, the day we were on the dock, about considering a shorter dock. That's still out there, but nothing's been submitted. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I had this conversation with Mr. Miller at a side event and maybe there is a length that might be suitable, but what's on this permit application is excessive. JAMES MILLER: Well certainly it's behind the existing pier head line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You've been through enough Trustee meeting at this point to see that we do, I don't know if you want to call it "beating people up", but we do try to minimize the amount of structure that people build, whether it's a 10' wide catwalk and we want 8' or it's 150' and we want something different. I think we're consistent on that. JAMES MILLER: Is there some number that's acceptable to the Board? I can't negotiate with myself. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't know because I don't know what the other Board's feeling is. JAMES MILLER: Can I cut one finger up and say is that enough then I cut another one off and say is that enough? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But I haven't gotten a response from the Board. That's me talking, not the Board. I'm not representing the whole Board. JAMES MILLER: We believe the depth of water is appropriate to operate a small boat. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think the entire Board was all on the same page in reference to possibly making it a little shorter and I know I mentioned that to you in our conversation that I thought you were going to get a dock but I didn't, not speaking for the rest of the Board, but just feeling out to what they felt, that it may not be as long as you want, but think you'll get something down there. October 15, 2002 41 $outhold :Town Board o./' Trustees JAMES MILLER: I'm in a position because environmentally there's probably no difference to the dock Longer 25' or shorter 25'. There is no environmental reason. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, it's the bottom coverage. (inaudible) It's a fact for an addition of impact. Can we please bring this to an end, if there is any other comment? I know that there are other people waiting. I'd like to move on. JOHN COSTELLO: Do you want those dimensions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We want to see the permit. JOHN COSTELLO: But do you want the dimensions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we want to see the permit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Can we meet you out there and go over it? JAMES MILLER: Absolutely. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We'll all come to an agreement and that's what you'll get. JAMES MILLER: Okay. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Then, we don't have to battle back and forth in here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We'll need the DEC permit. I think Mr. Costello is going to provide us with the DEC permit. It will be November 13th. We'll go first thing at 8:00 am. Please send us a copy, as soon as possible, of the DEC permit. JOHN COSTELLO: Okay. JAMES MILLER: If you need me to provide anything at that time, I'll have the contractor who designed this present so that we can come to a realistic agreement. I can't have something that's going to get washed away in the first ice storm. I need it to be usable and reasonable. I can provide a boat. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you bring your waders Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I can bring my waders. That will be fine. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Table the application until November 13th at 8:00 am. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 22. Docko, Inc. on behalf of RICHARD BINGHAM requests a Wetland Permit to extend an existing 6' wide fixed pier by 30 (+/-) If. to reach suitable berthing depth all waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Central Ave., Fishers Island. SCTM#6-4-2 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Table the application until we can make an inspection. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 23. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of JULIUS BLOCKER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 2,230 sq.ft, single-family dwelling; an attached 1,340 sq.ft, porch; 170 linear ff. of retaining wall surrounding the sanitary system; pervious driveway; public water October 16, 2002 42 $outhold Town Board of Trustees utilization. Located: R.O.W. off of Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-6-12.1 POSTPONED UNTIL NOVEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST 24. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of CHRISTOPHER PlA requests a Wetland Permit to dredge a 12'X 360' channel to a depth of -4'. The resultant spoil (320 cy.) of sand will be placed on adjacent beach for beach nourishment. Located: 1455 Inlet Way, Southold. SCTM#92-1-4 POSTPONED UNTIL NOVEMBER AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to go back to the Regular Meeting, TRUSTEE DICKERSON seconded. ALL AYES V. RESOLUTIONS: Okido Ltd. requests an Amendment to Permit #4952 to include a Chapter 37-Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit. Located: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM#38-7-7.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the following Resolution, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES ResoLution to Amend Permit #4952 issued to Aquafood Property Ltd. to propedy reflect the 10-Year Maintenance/Dredging Agreement under Chapter 37 Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, previously approved and issued on August 26,1998. This maintenance dredge permit will expire August 26, 2008. VI. MOORINGS/DUCK BLINDS: BRET HEDGES requests a Duck Blind Permit to place a duck blind in Long Beach Bay. Access: Public TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES JAMES W. SMITH requests a Duck Blind Permit to place a duck blind in Richmond Creek: Access: Public TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES October 16, 2002 Southold Town Board of Trustees Meeting adjourned at: 10:00 PM. 43 Respectfully submitted by, '-b'adren M. Standish, Senior Clerk Beard of Trustees