Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TR-08/18/2004
Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 Present were: Absent was: BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, August18, 2004 7:00 PM Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq.- RECEIVED ,~ ,~.~ Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician Artie Foster, Trustee CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. All AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Public hearings, Number 5, William Goggins has been postponed. Number 6, Theodore Laoudis has been postponed. Number 11, Joseph Logiudice has been postponed. Board of Trustees 2 Aug. 18, 2004 Number 18, Andrew Weiner has been postponed. These will automatically come up in the September schedule. We will not open the hearings for those this evening. I. MONTHLY REPORT: For July, 2004, check for $6,477.67 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. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Public hearings, We'd like to move through these fairly quickly, they're not really public hearings, however if anyone has any comment please be ready and feel free to come up to the microphone and make your comments. 1. JOSEPH FRIEDMAN requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing failed cesspool system. Located: 590 Riley Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM # 143-5-11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES 2. ROBERT AND LISA DEFRESE request an Administrative Permit to widen the existing driveway to the property line, cobblestone pave to extend the existing driveway to road, and clear land to 10' contour line to 20' wide. Located: 5223 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Administrative Permit; do I have a second? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there a second before we have a discussion? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Let's have a discussion before we vote. You saw it Peggy. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I saw it, I just didn't know what you guys had discussed when you went. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there something with the area marked on it? That doesn't show really a work area. We saw the stakes and the woods did you have any problem with that? It's still level ground in here. (Discussion with Mr. Defrese at dais.) Board of Trustees 3 Aug. 18, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, when you make your motion, I think there's nothing in here that I can see that says what you want to do. There's nothing that says you want to widen it four feet on each side and put gravel down. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Widen existing driveway to the property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But say all that for the entire length and add hay bales in clearing, clearing as marked on survey. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Administrative Permit for Robert and Lisa Defrese request to widen the existing driveway to the property line with pervious cobblestone, to extend the existing driveway to road and clear land to 10 foot contour line up to 20 foot wide, with hay bales and clearing as marked on the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you own the right of way? MR. DEFRESE: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Pervious driveway not paved. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. NICOLO DIBARTOLO requests an Administrative Permit to install water service approximately 12 feet under the wetlands to the residence. Located: 475 Condor Court, Laurel. SCTM # 127-3-6.1. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. SUSAN JOHNSON AND PETER BOGER request an Administrative Permit to cut the phragmites down to one foot to control the growth and improve the view. Located: 723 Private Road Number 12, Southold. SCTM# 87-4.5. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at this last month, and they marked it on the survey, stand of phragmites in the corner. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And we didn't see any need to do any more than what was approved. MS. TETRAULT: They didn't have a permit for it, so we said we had to have a permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. It'sfine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. Board of Trustees 4 Aug. 18, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 5. Peter Corbin on behalf of TERRY WATERS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Permit to clean up brush, vines, weeds, etc. and to clean a pathway back from the fence along the road to a maximum of 10 feet to 15 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to represent the Terry Waters Property Owners Association? All right, I don't think we'll act on that since we didn't actually get an application. We went and looked at it, but we have to go back there because there's a request to look at that little pond or estuary next to that. I'll make a motion to table that application or inquiry. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. 6. SOUNDVIEW INN requests an Administrative Permit to add a cesspool to the existing system, located on the landward side of the two-story building, in the parking lot. Located: 58775 Route 48, Greenport. SCTM # 44-2-22. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a new cesspool in the parking lot, road side. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Any problems? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I don't think so. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Pre-existing too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. Charles Sidorowicz on behalf of MARK BAISCH requests an Administrative Permit to remove three trees and regrade area of stump removal. Located: 1425 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM # 35-4-11. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have field notes on that, that should show on the plans no turf from the bulkhead to the retaining wall. Hay bale line, where would you like the hay bale line, at the top of the first retaining wall? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh And gutters and dry wells on the house. MR. SlDOROWlCZ: Our original application it stated six trees and now I see I'm only allowed three trees; why is that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Good question. The tree looked like a three. Must have been a bad typewriter, typo. MR. SIDOROWICZ: The owner Mr. Baisch was out yesterday, Board o f Trustees 5 Aug. 18, 2004 and we discussed, we'd like to do the project right. The retaining walls that are there are basically 2 by 8's and 2 by 10's with 2 by4's holding them in place. We'd like to be able to grade after we take the trees and stumps out, grade to the level of the bulkhead, and put grass in there and stop the erosion from going into the creek but with those 2 by 6s are going to rot in a year or two. So we'd like to do it right, take those 2 by 6's and 2 by 8's out of · there. I took pictures I took today, come and show you (handing). TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Under a normal bulkhead reconstruction would require a nonturf buffer behind the bulkhead. It might be better if you put a real retaining wall in here and keep the upland up, then do something different down here, whether plantings, gravel, decking, not turf, you know, in that area? MR. SIDOR©WICZ: Do we have to amend the application or can we take the trees out and amend the application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What they have across the creek, they have gravel down here, they have retaining wall higher up, gravel, plantings, whatnot, but the turf doesn't go right down. That's what we'd rather see, so the lawn doesn't run right down into the creek. MR. SIDOROWICZ: Also, on either side of us to the north and the south, the bulkhead is 10 to 16 inches higher than ours; is it possible with a permit to put another 6 by 6 on top of that existing bulkhead and grade to that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fine with me. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think we'd prefer to grade below the 6 by 6, in case any runoff drains through the soil. MR. SIDOROWlCZ: The bulkhead is 10, 16 inches higher to ours, we want to put another 6 by 6 on top of ours and grade to or below that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. It would be beneficial to raise it and grade below that, catch the water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have to go out there again or can we approve it? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're familiar with the site. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to approve this but you have to send us plans for the retaining wall and what you're going to do down here. We can approve it then. The approval would include tree removal and the hay bales. At that point you'd have to put hay bales at the top of the bulkhead, and the drainage for the house? MR. SIDOROWICZ: I don't know if you noticed when you were there for your inspection on the north side, on the step Board of Trustees 6 Aug. 18, 2004 side, their drainage, originally there's two pipes coming down and dry wells up on the house to catch all the runoff. Right now it just runs to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Put that on the plans. Draw that all up on the plans and when the plans come in we'll stamp them, and you can get your permit. If you have any questions, call the office. You're clear on that, right, Heather? MS. TETRAULT: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application -- to amend the application to approve the removal of the six trees as shown on the survey, elevating the bulkhead to match the neighbors north and south, line of hay bales on the bulkhead during work of clearing the trees and retaining wall reconstruction work; new retaining wall on the upland side, nonturf buffer between the retaining wall and bulkhead, dry wells north of the stairs, and dry wells and gutters to contain the roof runoff. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. IV. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING & ANCHORAGE/STAKES: 1. SUSAN JOHNSON requests an onshore/offshore stake in Corey Creek off her property located at Private Road Number 12, Southold. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looks like there's room out in front of the property. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. MLADEN JAKAClC requests a mooring in Town Creek for a 35 foot boat, replacing Mooring Number 43. Access: Public. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe we had a discussion on the length of the boat, th length was 35 feet? MS. STANDISH: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is that because they were on a waiting list? MS. STANDISH: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They were on a waiting list for that. Is there a problem with that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm looking at the location. I remember discussing the location. I was thinking it should have been more to the east. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Move it. MS. STANDISH: They indicated where they wanted it or where it would be best? Board of Trustees 7 Aug. 18, 2004 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is that 6.5 feet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where do you think it should be? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think it should be in line with 970 and 870 tree in a line, so they're not in the channel. In between the two of them or is that to the south? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Why don't you mark the location in and that will be the location? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right here (indicating). TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Where is their access? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Probably Founder's Lane. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to approve Mooring Permit for Mladen Jakacic to replace Mooring Number 43 to the location I have checked off on the map; do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. EILEEN RIDDELL requests a mooring in Little Creek for a 12 foot boat, replacing Mooring 65. Access: Public. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I recall we spoke about this. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. V. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER 1. Revoke Permit Number 439 issued to GERARD SCHULTHEIS on August 4, 1987 for a 3' by 12' foot ramp and a 6' by 36' floating dock. Located: School House Creek, New Suffolk. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We spoke to Mr. Schultheis in the field last week and he had some information he wanted to share with us. MR. BRESSLER: Representing the Schultheises. Eric J. Bressler, Wickham, Bressler, Gordon and Geasa, Main Road in Mattituck, New York. At the outset, Mr. President, I would like to note for the record that I am handing up to the Board, and, in fact, handing to the President a copy for service for a lawsuit which was commenced by the Schultheises against Lawrence Tuthill and the Board of Trustees to resolve this issue of ownership for the land under water. As the Board is aware, the ownership of the land under water is not a question that's properly before this Board, it's now properly before the Supreme Cour[. But before we get into that, let me speak momentarily to the procedure. First of all, I want to note my objection to this procedure and I challenge the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees 8 Aug. ! 8, 2004 Board to proceed in the manner in which it's proceeding. A little bit of history serves to sharpen the focus of that particular argument. The Board will recall that sometime back in the early '90s in a double secret proceeding it purported to revoke the Schultheises' permit. By double secret proceeding for those who aren't familiar with Animal House, I will explain. The Board held a meeting without giving notice to the Schultheises that it was having such a meeting, purported to take its action, and then, even more shockingly, did not tell the Schultheis's of the action that it took. Within the past year then a criminal prosecution was commenced against the Schultheises based upon the double secret revocation of the permit. After discussion with the Town attorneys, that was dropped. We now find ourselves the subject of a (inaudible) resolution of this Board in violation of the provisions of Chapter 97. Chapter 97 provides that if there is a problem with a permit or if anything is being done in violation of a permit, that a notice of violation be issued. Upon the issuance of a notice of violation there's an opportunity for administrative hearing on appropriate notice; and after the administrative hearing, the Board then has the opportunity to make a determination and the court has an opportunity to review in an Article 78 proceeding. I don't find that any of those procedural safeguards or statutory mandates were followed here. The good news is that I guess the Board has acknowledged that some sort of process is due before you can take away a permit that has been outstanding for almost 20 years. The bad news is that you didn't follow your own Chapter 97. Moving onto the litigation history we have already explored what already happened here before the Board, but I think maybe what this Board doesn't know and what it should know from review of the permit, is that this is a longstanding dispute with Larry Tuthill. It started with the Cremminses, the Schultheis's predecessors in title. It involved in a lawsuit about 20 years ago, at which time Mr. Tuthill was attempting to do the same thing to the Cremminses that he's attempting to do to the Schultheises. Then the Cremminses were anchoring their boat. They were mooring it off their bulkhead, and a lawsuit was commenced to stop the interference with that mooring of their boat in the identical position that you people and the Department of Environmental Conservation granted a permit for a dock. When the lawsuit was commenced, apparently it had the desired effect because the behavior ceased. After that Board of Trustees 9 Aug. 18, 2004 time, Mr. Tuthill came back to your predecessors on this Board. Prior presidents if you have gone back to look at the record, which I invited you to do in my letter, issued letters and told Mr. Tuthill they were going to do nothing about his application, and he went away. Then he came back and he was told again and he went away, now he's starti'ng it again, and we have commenced the instant lawsuit once and for all what the rights and liabilities of the parties are with respect to this particular piece of property. I think it goes without saying that my clients have riparian rights off their own bulkheads and the lawsuit reflects that. Apparently Mr. Tuthill agreed because he ceased and desisted last time around 20 years ago. He appears to be back. Notwithstanding the existence of the riparian rights, the deed, of which the Board has at least four copies in the file, reflects that we own to the center line of the creek. That alone mandates that this resolution be denied, if, in fact, you're determined to move forward with the resolution in light of jurisdictional objections. In short, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever to revoke a permit which has been granted by DEC, which was granted by this Board, which has been extant almost 20 years, in which my clients have utilized continuously on the claim that somebody else has the right to a permit. Against the possibility that this matter will not be resolved, I have commenced the action, and if the Board is inclined to do anything it should do anything, it should await the outcome. I note in that action that the prior President of the Board Bredemeyer took the position in one of his letters that the submission that Mr. Tuthill made led him to believe that the Trustees may indeed lay claim to ownership to the bed of that creek, and it is for that reason among others that the Trustees have been joined to give them an opportunity to come in and assert ownership to the bed of the creek. Our research indicates going back to the maps in the 1800s that School House Creek, at least to a certain extent, was connected to Peconic Bay and was therefore properly Trustees land under the Andros Patent, notwithstanding widening and other things that may have occurred thereafter. I think the Trustees can rightly lay claim to that, and I think the Trustees ought to carefully consider before abandoning any assertion of jurisdiction over that creek bottom. I think President Bredemeyer acknowledged that when he put that in the letter. In short, this is not ripe for anything. The only thing this is ripe for is an answer from the defendants. Board of Trustees 10 Aug. 18, 2004 And let's find out who owns, and leave these poor people alone, and let them used their dock until the judge determines that they have no ownership or riparian rights to that particular dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We did have some communication with the town attorney, Pat Finnigan, about this, and the Board is inclined to give Mr. Schultheis time to prove ownership of this parcel and not act on that resolution tonight because we felt that the file is full of claims. I hope this lawsuit does finally resolve this. MR. BRESSLER: So do I. I await the Trustees' answer with great anticipation actually. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're going to review it. I believe Mr. Johnston is recusing himself from this matter. So you can refer to everything to Kieran Corcoran or Pat Finnigan. MR. BRESSLER: I presume I'll hear from them in due course asking for an extension of time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the Board satisfied? Get a resolution on this? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure. MR. BRESSLER: May we presume that Item Number 17 on the calendar is similarly tabled pending resolution so my client doesn't have to sit around all night? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have an interesting agenda tonight. would assume that if we don't revoke a permit for a dock, that it would be difficult to approve a new permit in the same location. MR. BRESSLER: Mr. President, there's no limit for the ability of the Board to overcome difficulties. I would concur if you're not revoking their permit I don't see how you could possibly grant one for the same space. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Straight answer, I can't see how we could approve an application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: More than likely, tabled. MRS. SCHULTHEIS: Yes or no? MR. BRESSLER: Yes or no? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll be honest with you, it is a scheduled public hearing, so we have to open it up. MR. BRESSLER: Would the Board entertain a motion to take it out of order make its ruling since they seem to be related? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But it would be unfair to other applicants to do that. MR. BRESSLER: Okay, you guys stay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll take no action on Resolution Number 1. I'll make a motion to table the resolution. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. Board of Trustees 11 Aug. 18, 2004 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a resolution in relation to the scallop season, the following action was taken at the Southold Town Board Trustees regular meeting held August 18, 2004 resolve that the Southold Town Board of Trustees open the following dates to scallop harvesting: From Monday, October 4, 2004 from sunrise to sunset through Sunday, October 17, 2004 inclusive. Dip net or scallop net is permitted for noncommercial scallop harvesting only. From Monday, October 18, 2004 from sunrise to sunset through Thursday, March 31,2005 inclusive all gear permitted pursuant to Chapter 77 of the code of the Town of Southold is permitted. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. Amend resolution of April 21,2004. CHARLES SNOW requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct and add onto an existing dock facility as follows: Reconstruct the existing 4' by 39' fixed timber catwalk elevated a minimum of 3.5 feet above the existing grade, add a 4' by 19' fixed timber catwalk to the landward end of the existing catwalk, add a 4' by 31' fixed timber catwalk to the seaward end of the existing catwalk, construct a 3' by 20' ramp and a 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 2826 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. SCTM # 113-8-7.5. TRUSTEE KING: This is consistent with what we saw, looked at in the field and it's consistent with the DEC permit that's already been issued. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS 1. JAMES DEMILT requests a transfer of Permit # 5899 from John and Joan Weegar to James Demilt, with the revised survey prepared by Joseph Ingegno last dated July 15, 2004. Located: 50 Tuthill Road, Southold. SCTM # 55-3-21. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any problem, question? MR. DEMILT: I'm James Demilt. I'm in favor of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. Board of Trustees 12 Aug. 18, 2004 2. FLORENCIO GOMEZ requests a transfer of Permit 641 from William Crawford to Florencio Gomez to repair the existing bulkhead. Located: 1775 Smith Drive North, Southold. SCTM # 76-3-2. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion? MS. TETRAULT: Remember you asked that he remove his fence. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to represent the applicant? No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to grant the transfer to Permit 641 from William Crawford to Florencio Gomez to repair the existing bulkhead and back up the chain link fence to the bulkhead with at least a 15 foot buffer, 1775 Smith Drive North, Southold. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. FRANK JACOBSEN requests an amendment to Permit #5616 to construct a 12' by 22' tool shed and to transfer Permit #5616 from Schembri Homes to Frank Jacobsen. Located: 330 Shore Lane, Peconic. SCTM # $6-1-4.12 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this today, and the shed is 40 feet from the property line and the property line is 50 feet from the wetland, and the buffer area is 75 feet from the wetlands area, so it all looked fine. I'll make a motion to approve; do I have a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. Diane Herold, Architect on behalf of NANCY R. ROSS requests a one-year extension to Permit # 5643 as approved on October 16, 2002. Located: 3350 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM # 123-8-22.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of MONICA KREISCHER FELDMAN requests an amendment to Permit #5801 to construct a total of four additions to the existing dwelling, containing a total of 925 square feet; construct a detached garage within the northeastern section of subject property, containing 320 square feet; abandon the existing septic system within the northern section of the subject property, and construct a more conforming septic system Board of Trustees 13 Aug. 18, 2004 within the central section of the subject property, resulting in a setback from the wetlands of 140 feet; and remove the existing asphalt impervious driveway and install a gravel pervious driveway. Located: 825 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. SCTM # 81-1-20 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I inspected this. It seemed fairly straightforward, and it was actually an upgrade to the environment taking away the paved driveway and creating a pervious driveway and removing the septic system and coming back 140 from the wetlands. It was a bulkheaded property. CAC did not make an inspection. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 6. En-Consultants Incorporated on behalf of KEVlN AND DOREEN BARR request an amendment to Permit # 5725 to remove and replace in-place approximately 158 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source. Remove existing beach steps and deck, and construct a 4' boardwalk, 10' by 10' deck and platform and steps to beach. Located: 200 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM # 81-1-20 MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants, just came to make sure that the application is clarified. This is essentially what the Board has already approved except rather than attempting to do a resheathing on the landward side, they're actually proposing to remove and replace and straighten up that whole structure and actually replace the timber with vinyl. The boardwalk, the decking, all of that is the same. There is one other difference just that they're proposing to relocate the beach steps that right now go out perpendicular from the wall and realign them against the wall. That's all. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine, very straightforward. Any Board comments? If no other Board comments, I'll make a motion to approve as written. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. En-Consultants on behalf of BASIN ROAD REALTY TRUST requests an amendment to Permit # 5926 to shorten the lengths of the proposed vinyl groins from 48', 34' and 32' to 28', 30' and 28' respectfully, from west to east along the shoreline. Located: 450 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM # Board of Trustees 14 Aug. 18, 2004 81-1-17 & 18 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I believe we were all at the location three or four months ago, and this is how we resolved it should be recreated. So, I'll make a motion to approve the three vinyl groins at 28', 30' and 28' from west to east along the shoreline. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. ALL AYES. (Brief recess was taken) VII. 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 COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS 1. Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelly on behalf of JOHN F. BETSCH requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a two-story, single-family dwelling with a two-car garage in place of the existing one-story, two-car garage and dwelling, and to be built on wood pilings. Located: 2325 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM 54-4-24. MS. KARSCH: I'm Tracy Karsch. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just going to entertain a motion to go off the regular meeting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MS. KARSCH: My name is Tracy Karsch from Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelly, I'm here on behalf of the applicant, who is also here this evening. At the outset, we'd like to say that we would like to rest on the extensive record that's been made thus far, but before we do that we would like to make note of the correspondence which has been submitted to the Board since our last hearing. There were two letters, one dated July 21,2004 and the second was dated August 10, 2004, and was accompanied by some DEC decisions. One decision I would like to point out to the Board Board of Trustees 15 Aug. 18, 2004 that was that of Susan Tasker, although the DEC commissioner's decision was regarding a wetlands permit, I noted in reading through it a coastal erosion management permit was issued for Ms. ']'asker in 1999 by this Board and I then FOILed the Trustees' file on the application, and it was brought to my attention that it is a very similar parcel to the one at issue tonight. It's located between North Road and the Long Island Sound in Greenport, and I have a copy of the survey submitted in connection with the application, and it actually depicts the coastal erosion hazard line along the North road, which in effect -- MR. JOHNSTON: Is it landward of the house? MS. KARSCH: Yes, it is. MR. JOHNSTON: Sounds similar. MS. KARSCH: Very similar. I would just like to point that out to the Board. MR. JOHNSTON: I knew that was in process, but I didn't know if you knew where the coastal erosion line was, correct? MS. KARSCH: Correct. I have a copy of the survey if the Board would like to see it at all in considering this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. MS. KARSCH: (Handing). And I also have the permit on the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Doesn't show the coastal erosion line on the survey. MR. JOHNSTON: Rob Hermann's partner was the one who testified on this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? MS. KARSCH: Only that this is the fifth occasion that this application has been before the Board. It has been 10 months since the filing of the application and the applicant, as you can imagine, is very eager to move forward. So we would respectfully ask that the Board render a decision if at all possible. So, if necessary, he can seek other administrative remedies. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment? MS. KARSCH: Mr. Betsch would like to speak. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. MR. BETSCH: I guess just the comment both the DEC and the Town of Southold code would permit me to have a 5,000 square foot house on my property based on the size of my property, over 26,000 square feet; which would mean if I came to the Board with an existing house of 4,300 square feet you would approve it, in fact, it is less than 25 percent. My Board of Trustees 16 Aug. 18, 2004 unfortunate situation is the fact that I am coming with a very small summer bungalow, so I am feeling that I am being penalized based on the size of the house I am beginning with. If I had started with a very large house, the Board would approve a house which is really incongruent with the neighboring homes, but it would fall within the legal, the premise of the law. If I read, according to your code in the Paragraph 37-4B it says, your existence is for the purpose is to minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, natural protective features and other resources and to protect human life. The house that I'm going to build is in compliance with the DEC non-jurisdiction. It's going to be built on pilings. It's going to exceed FEMA requirements because I want to obtain resulting insurance reduction and premiums; and, of course, it's going to comply with the new state environmental and the wind, the Florida codes. In that case my house is beneficial to the environment rather than what is existing now, a 60 year old house that is built on cement block foundation, which is I'm sure below the suggested FEMA flood base elevations. I have come to the Board several times. Previously the Board has suggested I was in a structural hazard area. We researched it, presented all information and found out the DEC said no, you are not in a structural hazard area. At the Board's request you had asked for a second site visit. I contacted the surveyor, I had the house restaked, I had representation there, and the Board came -- not to sound facetious -- but I did hear one of the Board members say why are we here; that kind of blew my mind. Originally it was a question of whether there was a 25 percent increase. I presented documentation of two houses right on North Sea Drive, which you had approved using Trustee records, that were over 25 percent of increase, the Perlstein house next door to me, which the Board had said at the December meeting they would research and provide document information, and also the Van Zuben house, which stayed primarily within their footprint, but added an additional garage which added another 600 square foot to their property behind the coastal erosion line. So there are two instances right on North Sea Drive. I have a survey which I obtained from the Trustees office which shows the Perlstein house. Originally there was 21,000 square feet of their property. They started out with a nine percent coverage, went to 15 percent coverage based on the information they presented to the Board; and the Board approved it, which was 170 percent increase to Board of Trustees 17 Aug. 18, 2004 their property. Subsequently to that, they did go to and obtain an additional shed on the property, which also required a Zoning Board approval, which I don't believe even came back to this for the shed, came back to the Trustees for approval. So I feel at this point in time after starting in November, it is probably time for a decision. The Southold Town Code says if it is reasonable and necessary, you have the authority and responsibility to make a decision. I'm asking for a decision so I can proceed to build a permanent home so I can move out to Southold. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? Well, when you first applied in October 2003, I believe at the first public hearing we brought up the issue of the 25 percent expansion under coastal erosion, which you then had time to look into on your own, which you did. MR. BETSCH: I did. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had a meeting with Eric Start from New York State, and we asked him about that because this is something that -- the meeting wasn't about your application but your application was something that I wanted to ask him because we had him out here. I still am not sure if I agree completely with what you're saying about the 25 percent. Under the definitions of Chapter 37 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, it would be definition 37-6, Major Addition, an addition to a structure resulting in a 25 percent 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 areas coverage to be added including any additions previously constructed under a coastal erosion management permit, divided by the ground area coverage of the existing structure as defined in the existing structure above. This area that your home sits on is a dune area. In Chapter 3716, Dune Area, in primary dune areas, non-major additions to existing structures are allowed on primary dunes pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit and subject to permit conditions concerning the location, design and potential impacts of the structure on the primary dune; and secondary dune areas, non-major additions to existing structures are allowed on secondary dunes pursuant to a Coastal Erosion Management Permit. I would think that leaves you at exactly what I told you on the first public hearing, that 25 percent expansion is permitted in a dune area. Board of Trustees 18 Aug. 18, 2004 MR. BETSCH: If there was a rule in place which there was no requirement for the Board to have latitude of authority of decision, I would understand that; but this Board has the authority and responsibility to consider other alternatives. The 37-12 talks about issuance of a permit if it's reasonable and necessary. If there is no increase in erosion which there cannot be based on where my house is, will be, and if it minimizes adverse effects and natural protective feature, it is your authority to render a decision based on that 37-12. And you have in the past apparently based on the Lasker property presented tonight. The Perlstein house next to me, which used the Town Trustee records to document the fact that it is a 170 percent increase. I do not understand how, when there is precedent based on the those two cases and the Von Zuben house, which added a garage, why I am now -- when there is precedent there, when you're telling me because I am starting with such a minimally sized house, that there is no logic to the premise of the approval or disapproval. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't write the laws. It's a New York State law that the Town Board adopted and let the Trustees administer, we can't address the logic issue. Does the Board understand what the applicant's point is? It's a valid point, just a matter of the Board agreeing with that. MR. BETSCH: If I go back to my original statement about the if I started with 4,400 square feet, I could go to over 5,000 square feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not an argument. MR. BETSCH: Because I am starting with such a minimal size bungalow, I am penalized for that. In a neighborhood where the houses are all -- MR. JOHNSTON: The law says 25 percent more, that's it. Al, two thoughts from a legal standpoint. One, if you have made a mistake in other hearings, that is interesting, but should not carry the day. Just because you made the mistake, you shouldn't make three more mistakes. I am not sure, from a legal standpoint what reasonable and necessary means. I think it's a subjective thing that you as a Trustee, Jim, Peggy and Ken have a better feeling for what's reasonable and necessary. There is no legal. I don't have a legal standard for you like 10 percent, 2 percent, 28 percent or something like that. So, I'm telling you I can't give you guidance on a percentage basis for what is necessary and reasonable. So you're stuck with the percentage you already Board of Trustees 19 Aug. 18, 2004 rendered; does that make sense? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. Also if I may comment on the correspondence that we have been submitting since April on this and talking about the standard, reasonable and necessary, my research, I did on my own, of course, it is a subjective standard; and in administering the code, the three things that under the code you would look at, is it reasonable and necessary; is it not likely to cause immeasurable increase in erosion and prevent or minimize effects on natural protective features. I won't rehash all that. But that is the standard that we are submitting you apply; and reasonable and necessary is where we're caught up on and since that is a subjective thing to be applied in this case, I submitted those prior approvals to possibly assist you, which one would think that on those prior approvals it was the subjective, reasonable and necessary which got the applicant to the approval point and we're submitting that this is reasonable and necessary, and I won't go through all the points that we made in our letters. MR. JOHNSTON: Al, would you like her to restate four or five things that she feels is necessary for this; would that be helpful? And what she thinks is the necessary meeting of that criteria? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand how that would be helpful. MR. JOHNSTON: I don't but I'm asking you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we're hung up on what's reasonable and necessary. I think we're hung up on the black and white part of the code. It's under a major addition in the code, under a major addition, and a major addition isn't allowed in the dune area; that's what we're hung up on, not reasonable and necessary. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If the code said 50 percent, we would be flexible to go to 50 percent. MS. KARSCH: So on other applications I guess we can't turn back to those other applications and ask what the Board was thinking at the time? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think Mr. Johnston's comments are correct and interesting, but they're not relevant here. And if mistakes were made by previous Boards, it still shouldn't be repeated here. MS. KARSCH: I was submitting that they weren't mistakes, rather the Board was either applying 25 percent or greater or the standards that I keep reiterating from the code. If it's the Board's approximation that there's absolutely no leeway here, it's 25 percent or greater is an absolute no, Board of Trustees 20 Aug. l 8, 2004 and the applicant, there's nothing he can do other than -- in this situation, if he were to remove the garage from his footprint, we wouldn't be here, but because he needs a garage to keep his cars in, if this is going to be a full-time residence, he could put the garage under the house, but that would raise the house blocking, it would not be aesthetically pleasing. It would also possibly be in keeping with the area, but it would also block the view of the neighbors across the street, which is one thing the applicant was trying to avoid. So I guess my question is, if they go outside the 25 percent or greater there's no way the Board would be able to issue a permit? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's my understanding upon reading the codes, which is where we were months ago. MR. JOHNSTON: Heather, were the people from Albany and Stony Brook, if they had had this case in their jurisdiction, would they have applied the law similarly, or not? MS. TETRAULT: That's what they told us. MR. JOHNSTON: Who were they? MS. TETRAULT: Eric Starr and Rob McDonough from New York State DEC. MR. BFTSCH: I have several comments before you make your decision. One is who has the responsibility for the vote, New York State DEC or Town of Southold? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Town of Southold. MR. BETSCH: So DEC can make input based on their interpretations, but the Board of Southold has a responsibility to make a decision. It shouldn't be based on what DEC says you should or shouldn't do; you should be your own person. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were not making a comment based on that. I brought this up at the first public hearing long before we ever brought anyone from New York State in. This is our interpretation of the code, we just wanted to get confirmation. We were meeting with them on an unrelated issue, and it made sense to ask for confirmation on our determination on this while we had them in the room. MR. BETSCH: I guess I don't understand. Also, by the way, after presenting in November at the November meeting, it was a question of not having a nonjurisdiction permit, which came through and got that. I was sent away to find additional information; I did find addition information about the coastal erosion zone. Since that time the Board requested to come out to visit again. They didn't say no, we're not going to deny it; we can't do it at that time in Board of Trustees 2l Aug. 18, 2004 January or the next meeting. The Board asked to come up out, the last meeting, the Board requested not to vote on it again because they wanted to have another DEC meeting. So it's just going on and on. I'm looking for a decision, so I can progress. I don't know what else to tell you, the fact that I tried everything possible and it was my understanding that if the purpose of the Board here is to have a latitude of judgment. If there are rules in place, I don't think there's any reason to have a Board. If this is the code book, and this is it, why have a Board? If there's no interpretation allowable, there's no reason to have a Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The reason we went out there a second time is because there are other considerations. There are environmental considerations in Chapter 97 that we wanted to consider also. And also under the issuance of the permits that you brought up, Chapter 37-12, it is not likely because measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site, other locations, and C, prevents or if possible minimizes adverse effects on natural protective features, in this case the dune. If we're going to be firm in telling you what we told you at the first hearing, it's 25 percent or less for a non-major addition allowable in that area, we really wanted to make sure in the field that we were sure with our decision. I mean we told you that the first hearing, but we wanted to confirm that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Al, is it my understanding that the house itself is within 25 percent and it's the garage that puts it over the 25 percent, and the house is already elevated to 13 feet, it's already on pilings? MR. BETSCH: No. My present house is not on pilings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I mean the proposed house. And they could not house a garage underneath? MR. BETSCH. Because the existing contours of the land are high enough that you should not have to raise it 14 feet to build a garage underneath it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's now 13, correct? MR. BETSCH: Whatever it is. What I'm inferring from you, is to say to live with the code, build a square box, go up as high as you possibly can to the Southold Town Code, which goes, I believe, 35 foot to the ridge line; which means, if I wanted to instead of building a house this way, build it up square, build a square box, stick a garage underneath it, you're fine within the code, go do it. However, what it does to the neighborhood is really improper based on the houses in the neighborhood. I'm trying to keep it in the Board of Trustees 22 Aug. 18, 2004 aesthetics of the neighborhood, the houses that are them. That's my whole intent. I can start all over with my architect again. Build a mausoleum-type structure, square box, stick a garage underneath it, but it will look absolutely horrendous. That's my whole intent on trying to live within the neighborhood. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the existing first floor elevation of your house? MR. BETSCH: It's very difficult without looking at the existing survey. You can't visualize it based on -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Off the survey. MR. BETSCH: If you have the surveys, I don't have to interpret that. Unfortunately, based on the contours, you can't visually look at it. I can tell you how many steps it goes up, but visually it does not comply with what the contour is. When the DEC did a field inspection, they marked my property with the 10 foot contour which, I can tell you where they marked it, it is lower than where my existing steps are now. It would probably be 12 or 13. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's almost up that high now. MR. BETSCH: It's very difficult when you look at the property to see that. But if you look where they marked it with the 10 foot marking, it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh He's at least 11 now, maybe 12, so he's only going to 13 and a half, he's not going that much higher. MR. BETSCH: That is the whole purpose of having the garage next to the house rather than under it. Anybody who's familiar with salt air knows what salt air does to anything, a car parked on the weekend -- I don't to have to buy a new car every year based on what salt air does. I just see from the time we're on the property what it does to my aluminum and everything else. There is stainless, but you'd have to build it with marine grade stainless, and also the whole purpose is the aesthetic to the neighborhood. If you have driven down North Sea Drive, you see what's happened in the last three years. I'm appealing to the reasonable and necessary and the latitude of the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have to listen to our legal advisor. And if you're telling me that we have no room, no margin here for a garage, then we don't under the code the way it's written. MR. JOHNSTON: Al, I must admit that you identified it from your experience before I identified it, but I must say as the three town attorneys have all looked at it, and they confirm your initial feeling that we're open, if somebody Board of Trustees 23 Aug. 18, 2004 can show us that our interpretation's wrong. Laurie didn't look at it, but Kieran, Pat and I looked at it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is an appeals process. It can be appealed to the Town Board, which can be done within a month. I don't see how we can -- unless the Board members see where there's any room to move this? MR. JOHNSTON: Peggy, did you have a suggestion of where they should put the garage? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I realized then it was later discussed there was not room because of the elevation; it's much more of an increase than it appeared on the plans. MR. JOHNSTON: Coastal erosion line goes right on the road so they can't put the garage on the other side. MR. BETSCH: I was told to petition the movement of the coastal erosion line, I would have to petition the whole North Sea Drive. I would prefer not to have my grown grandchildren living in the house. I believe you were waiting for some case studies from the DEC to understand, and they were not able to provide any; is that correct for or against rulings like this? MR. JOHNSTON: I go back to what Heather said before, in looking at this case they said that they would have applied it similarly if it was in a place where it was their own jurisdiction. We're not, as Al said, we're not basing our decision on that; they're just saying if it was their jurisdiction they would have applied it the same way. I asked them to give me anything more reasonable and necessary where I might be able to help you, but nothing was forthcoming. The reason why we went out, Mr. Betsch, the reason why we went out initially we thought there might also be a structural hazard area issued, but without going out to your area we couldn't have ruled it out. MR. BETSCH: That was actually another month away for me having to research and incur expense when I find out it was not a structural hazard. MR. JOHNSTON: That's why they did a site visit, if it was and they approved something without going out to make sure of something then they would be wrong. MR. BETSCH: It is my understanding that the DEC said there is no structural hazard areas in the town of Southold whatsoever. I would think that that would have be known knowledge by now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's still what we said at the first public hearing about the 25 percent in the dune area, that didn't change at all. Board of Trustees 24 Aug. 18, 2004 I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to deny the application of John Betsch for a two-story, single-family dwelling and deny the coast erosion permit based on the findings in Chapter 37, Chapter 37-16, dune area in relation to a major addition referenced under definitions in 37-6. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. MR. BETSCH: I'd just like to apologize to the people here for taking so long, except this has been a 10 month process for me. Thank you for your patience. WETLAND PERMITS 2. BARBARA HOCH requests a Wetland Permit to replace 12 pier support piles and repair sections of stone and concrete seawall, 2 plus/minus cubic yards of concrete and stone over 50 plus/minus square feet waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Hedge Street, Fishers Island. SCTM Ct 10-7-14. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here to comment to this application? MR. NEILSON: Yes. My name is Keith Neilson, I'm the president of Docko, Incorporated located in Mystic, Connecticut. We're representing Barbara Hoch and the Hoch Family Trust on this issue tonight. TRUSTEE KING: We were over there last Thursday and looked at it. I don't think we had a problem, with the exception what are you going to do that repair work where that patch work needs to be done looking landward to the right of the dock, a lot of the concrete stones are falling into the intertidal area. They also have done that yard clean-up and thrown all the brush into the intertidal area. We'd like to see that cleaned up, and when you do the repair work, pick up the stones and things in the intertidal area. And if you look to the right further, there's a nice little wetland area in there. I think after you do the repair work, if you planted some spartina right in front of that repair area, you'd have a nice little wetland, that would take off there. I think it's a great potential nice little spot there. I'd like to see some spartina planted. MR. NEILSON: Is that to the west of the pier or east of the pier? TRUSTEE KING: Looking to the house to the right. MR. NEILSON: Northwest of the pier. Board of Trustees 25 Aug. 18, 2004 concrete wall with concrete wall? TRUSTEE KING: time. MR. JOHNSTON: TRUSTEE KING: Northwest. That's all we talked about, wasn't it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, just about the brush. MR. NEILSON: I'd like to make a response to those comments. First of all, absolutely the brush will be cleaned up. Secondly, after the repair was done, would the Board have any objection to some of the stones that are in the intertidal area being placed against the toe of the wall? TRUSTEE KING: No, that's a good move, sure. MR. NEILSON: I think it's impractical that we get a Iow sill bulkhead in there for scour protection, but we have plenty of stone if you would be agreeable to that. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. MR. NEILSON: If the spartina is planted, would that preempt future wall repair work in that area? TRUSTEE KING: No, I don't think so. MR. NEILSON: We'd have the latitude to work through the spartina? TRUSTEE KING: I looked at what is next door, it's a nice little fringe there and I think it would help keep some of the erosion down too. MR. NEILSON: On behalf of the family trust, I'll agree to all those stipulations. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you anticipating then deeming the this application to be a permitted It's been yes, it's been there a long, long Keith, the reason I wanted that added, as you know, repairs and maintenance would have been an exception. Our concern here was we didn't see the concrete wall, we only saw the dock -- I'm sorry, the pilings. So, had we seen the concrete wall on the permit it would have been much easier to say it's a repair. MR. NEILSON: On the original permit from '92? MR. JOHNSTON: Whenever the original -- TRUSTEE KING: I think there was a grandfathered permit for the dock. And there was no mention of the wall. MR. NEILSON: Right, at that time the wall didn't need repair. MR. JOHNSTON: But had it been mentioned in the permit process, we could have said it was a repair and maintenance, and therefore, you wouldn't have had to come all the way over to Southold. We're trying to save you time five years from now. MR. NEILSON: I appreciate that, thank you. Board of Trustees 26 Aug. 18, 2004 TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the modifications noted. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 3. ERNEST H. SCHNEIDER, SR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 1,395 square foot single-family dwelling with second story balcony, second story deck, stairway with platform and sanitary system. Located: 915 Lakeside Drive North, Southold. SCTM # 90-4-5 and 6. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here that would like to speak to this application? Any Board comments? Heather, was the planting done? MS. TETRAULT: It hasn't been done yet, so if you want to give them their permit, it has to be based on first they do their planting before they start any construction. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Al, approve it stipulating that the planting is done, and they will receive the permit once proof of the planting has been done. We'll hold the permit in the office until the planting has been completed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to represent the applicant? It will be in the permit and it will go to the Building Department. They can't issue a house permit until the plantings's done. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think the CAC would have seen this plan, right? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, it was prior to that. We'll approve it with the stipulation based on final plans? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, in your motion could you add on one year inspection for survival until the spring? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve Ernest H. Schneider, Sr.'s request for Wetland Permit to construct a 1,395 square foot single-family dwelling with second story balcony, second story deck, stairway with platform and sanitary system, based on the recommended planting plan of the Trustees and with a one-year inspection for survival of the planting plan. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. Board of Trustees 27 Aug. 18, 2004 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I will amend my resolution for Ernest H. Schneider, Sr. for a hay bale line at the 50 foot line and dry wells and gutters. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 4. DOROSKI FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP requests a Wetland Permit for the subdivision of three (3) lots and the proposed construction of pervious driveways and homes on the proposed lots. Located: Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM # 69-1-9.1 and 59-8-6. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application? MS. MOORE: Yes, good evening, very quickly a little bit of history for the record. The Doroski family owns almost 41 acres of property here. The family had come in for a conservation subdivision back in 2002 and sold the development rights of 33 of those acres leaving behind seven acres for future subdivision. The intention was to have three lots all of them were conforming at the time and wetlands were minimally on these properties. From 2002 there's been a lot of development on Soundview Avenue, in particular some properties to the west that changed the grading and the water patterns or flow, it ultimately resulted in the expansion of the wetlands on these properties. The access points have been combined to make common access points. The house building envelopes have been placed on the property in such a way so that they are a minimum of 100 feet from the wetlands. And we want to be sure that before we complete the subdivision process that we have permits for the common driveways and the homes and sanitary, so that we don't create a situation where lots are created that we come back to you and say we have a problem with the driveway. So we're trying to be prospective in our development here. If you have any questions, I have Mr. Doroski here. MR. DUFFY: My name is Mr. Duff.y, and I'm in one of the newer homes, I never received any notification of this, and I'd like to know why. I did go to my neighbors and look it over, and I'll be very truthful, I don't have a problem with it. But I would like to be kept in the loop, and in the future, make sure you get me my mailing stuff. I think that's almost a plus for you, but that's what we're here to do to spend our night. Board of Trustees 28 Aug. 18,2004 MR. MOORE: Well, we certainly didn't want to exclude anyone that had to legally be included in the notices. We did notice many people that were surrounding all adjacent property owners. If there was for some reason, I think maybe in this instance there might have been a tax map parcel between his property and -- MS. TETRAULT: There's a right of way. MS. MOORE: There was a right of way that was actually owned by someone. It was an ownership parcel, but the property was posted, and I'm glad he's here and I'm glad you don't have an objection, and we appreciate that, and if you have questions, we're here to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are we good on that notification? MS. TETRAULT: It's the right of way she sent it out to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there any other comment before the Board makes comments? Is there any possibility of lot 1 and 2 having a common driveway? MS. MOORE: A common, one driveway for both, is often a problem. We have limited our access, the Planning Board makes us have common access points where you have the two driveways adjacent to each other, but generally you want to have sufficient width because each driveway, I believe usually a driveway width is 12 feet, and you have to have a legal access of 15. So generally you will end up with a wider driveway if you're going to have a common access. Generally, it doesn't work well with neighbors to have a s. hared driveway. Where you have a common curb cut where you have two driveways next to each other, that works better, but where you have a common driveway, there tends to be trouble later on. I don't think that was a preference here. That is actually it's a slope, it's not a wetland, if you're looking at that shaded area between 1 and 2, that's not a wetland. These are going to be pervious surfaces for the driveway so that's not a problem. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's good. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One comment. During construction on Lot 2, the wetlands are very close to the driveway, we're going to have hay bales placed along the driveway during driveway construction. MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, I move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the Board of Trustees 29 Aug. ! 8, 2004 application with the condition that hay bales be placed on Lot 2 adjacent to the driveway during construction on the west side where the wetlands are close to the proposed driveway. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 7. En-Consultants, Incorporated on behalf of JENNIFER AND PHILIP STANTON requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing 54' long plus/minus 245 square feet fixed dock, and construct fixed timber dock consisting of a 4' by 50' fixed timber catwalk, 3' by 14' hinged ramp, and a 6' by 20' float secured by two (2) 6" pilings. Located: 720 Town Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM # 64-1-14.7 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. What I just handed up to Chairman Krupski is a revised plan that reflects the changes that we discussed at the site, specifically the overall length of the dock is reduced by five feet such that it would extend approximately 66 feet from the landward edge of the existing fixed dock to be removed. Hopefully you'll find that consistent with our discussion and I can make haste. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Does anyone else have a comment on this application? Any Board comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Jennifer and Philip Stanton reflecting the revised plans, which are a 4' by 45' fixed timber catwalk, a 3' by 14 ' ramp and 6' by 20' float, and the new dock will extend approximately 66' seaward of the landward end of the existing fixed dock, which is to be removed; do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 8. JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT requests a Wetland Permit to remove and control the growth of Giant Reed phragmites australis from Breeders Pond and Northeast Pond and their adjacent areas utilizing the herbicide Glypro. In both Board of Trustees 30 Aug. 18, 2004 areas the Giant Reed will be cut in the early spring and cuttings shall be removed to an upland site for disposal and the herbicide shall be applied in the fall. When the root mass of the Giant Reed is sufficiently decomposed, native vegetation shall be planted. Located: Robins Island, New Suffolk. SCTM # 134-3-5 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak for this application? MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of this application. Any questions of the Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think so. I think members of the Board got over there last month and met with you and I don't think anybody had any problems with it or questions with it, Jim and Artie I think went. Any other comments, anyone else like to speak for or against? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request for Belvedere Property Management for a Wetland Permit to remove the Giant Reed phragmites from the ponds on the plans on Robins Island, New Suffolk. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 9. Land Use Ecological Service, Inc. on behalf of JLH ASSOCIATES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with attached garage, open porch, pervious driveway and sanitary system. Located: 315 Albacore Drive, Southold. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara, Land Use Ecological Services, I'm here to answer any questions anyone has. TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommends approval. I think all we talked about was moving the house closer to the road, if I remember right, about 40 feet more. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you compare it with the other adjacent properties, see if that buffer would be consistent? MS. TETRAULT: Right. We wanted to keep that -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh -- consistent. TRUSTEE KING: Do you know what the setback off the road is in that area; what it can be; what is the minimum? MS. CANTARA: I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: We'd like to see the house closer to the road Board of Trustees 31 Aug. 18, 2004 if possible. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good, go ahead, please. MR. HURTADO: I'm John Hurtado, the owner. The setback in that area is 40 feet, and the house to the left of the proposed house is at 40 feet, the house two lots over to the right is at 40 feet. So moving the house closer to the road is going to look a little awkward to me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It wasn't so much the setback off the road, we were trying to maximize -- we wanted to make the buffer area in the back consistent between the two lots, that was our concern MR. HURTADO: Between the lots on either side? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Right. MR. HURTADO: I think they are consistent. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We saw the hay bales on the next lot that they just put in. We want to make sure that that hay bale line is going to meet this hay bale line. MR. HURTADO: I think it is, at least that's what they were told to do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was our concern, whatever it was we measured it. TRUSTEE KING: Is this house going to have a basement? MR. HURTADO: Yes. The house to the left does not have a basement, but in my estimation he put that house too Iow and that's the reason for it. The house to the right one lot over has a full basement. TRUSTEE KING: Drainage seems to be a problem in that area. MR. HURTADO: The way it was done to the house to the right two lots over, there was no problems. We didn't even hit, I about the built that house and we didn't hit -- the water table was at least two feet below the footings, and we put two sump pumps in, and we had no problems with it. It was completely dry. I don't remember the elevation but the Town had me raise the house two lots over because I guess they wanted to keep it out of a flood area or something. So I'm going to be keeping this house -- because that street is so fiat, I'm going to be keeping this house the same as the one two lots over and there should be no problems. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Are you going to be doing any, bringing soil in to raise the grade? MR. HURTADO: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not on the application. See our concern is when you bring the soil in on any lot, then you're going to affect the neighbors on both sides. MR. HURTADO: The lot, if you look at it off the road, is Board of Trustees 32 Aug. 18, 2004 lower, and we will meet the existing grade that's on the right side, which is there already, and we will meet the existing grade to the right even though it's an empty lot. I also own that lot so I will make sure they're the same level. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We issued you a permit for that, correct? MR. HURTADO: Yes, I have a building permit for that. TRUSTEE KING: CAC said maximize the buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's the same as the other one. MS. TETRAULT: How many feet is the house from the wetlands? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 28. MS. CANTARA: 28 from the buffer or from the limit of clearing. It's probably about 40 feet from the line of the wetlands, give or take. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What is the soil conditions, does it pay to put in drainage for roof runoff or not? MR. HURTADO: It does pay. I did it for the other house. It's still like a tomb because it's all clay, but we dug down and put sand, and put dry wells on each corner. I think it pays mostly because of the street. It will go out to the street and stay there. There's no drainage in that street. It's from one end of the house to the left all the way down almost to the corner there's not even six inches pitch so it just sits there. There is a catch basin, but it doesn't get there. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the dry wells for roof runoff and the buffer to be consistent with the buffers on both sides of the property. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 10. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of SKUNK LANE TRUST CIO BRADLEY AND MARY KRAUSE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 34' fixed timber catwalk 3' by 18' ramp, and 6' by 20'float. Located: 9105 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, SCTM # 104-3-18.1. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara for Land Use Ecological Services. Hopefully this is what you want. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't think it was going to be this long. I like this part. Board of Trustees 33 Aug. 18, 2004 MS. CANTARA: When we changed the plans. We put the catwalk just landward of where the vegetated wetlands end, best way when we go to DEC this is most likely how they would approve it. MS. TETRAULT: This just came in today. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The seaward end of this, this is the location that we discussed in the field, by field inspection. I had an issue with this plan view last week when we were looking at this. I think we looked at it in the office. If you compare it to the survey that "L" shape that comes down goes out to the east. It's really square in the field, that channel is cut straight out to the south and that old channel goes off, and this drawing shows more of a gentle curve. I don't think that's accurate as to what's really in the field. It's almost like a 90 degree angle there. And this high ground. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There's no wetlands here, it's intertidal. It's beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. It's beach here (indicating). That's why they originally put it here because it's open beach here. But if you move over to the west a little bit, it's vegetated but it doesn't show it here, unfortunately -- can you come up? MS. CANTARA: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unfortunately there's a blank spot here, see the channel comes in, it's almost like a 90 degree turn, and we talked about putting it right in this corner, which is fine. We think this comes over more like this (indicating), more of a 90 degree turn here and then there's room and there was high ground here. Remember I walked up there, and I said if they started over here instead of over here where the beach is and went straight out like this. We never measured it, did we? MS. CANTARA: Where we were standing when we were out there was 16 feet from the Iow water, which was the higher ground. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To the upland? MS. CANTARA: Yes. To where we were standing. I measured it after you left. I'm just concerned that if we end the catwalk in here, DEC's going to say that's right in the middle of the wetlands, there's no way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not intertidal, that was above intertidal. I'd rather approve it -- I'm uncomfortable with this drawing here. MS. CANTARA: We did it after doing soundings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It seemed like in the field it's more of a 90 degree angle. Board of Trustees 34 Aug. 18, 2004 MS. CANTARA: If you look at the high -- I can go out there again and take the high water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I hate to go out there again, this is like four times, but I'd rather get it right. I'm sorry, could we table this again? I'd rather get this right. MS. CANTARA: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to make a motion to table the hearing. Look at the survey, see if we're right about that, it disappears here, but we think it's straighter, more like a 90 as opposed to coming at an angle, then coming at another angle. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 12. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of MICHAEL LIEGEY, AS CONTRACT VENDEE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with garage and sanitary system. Located: 480 Ackerly Pond Lane, Southold. SCTM Cf 69-3-13. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, we have the measurements of the adjacent homes, but unfortunately the Building Department does request that the front yard setbacks of all homes within 300 feet of the proposed structure is what's needed; and John Metzgar, I think there's one more house over to the right it's Slotkin's office, so that measurement has to be put on here. I did ask John Metzgar. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Doesn't it front on the Main Road, the doctor's office? MS. MOORE: It's possible. That's a good point. Thank you. I guess I have to go double check because I'm not sure if they are considering that a front yard setback or not. The Building Department sometimes they don't distinguish where the front door is, it's where the setback is. That's a good argument either way. Nonetheless, the worst case scenario is he's complied at 50 feet, I think it's a 50 foot front yard setback, excuse me, this is 40 feet, but let's assume they have a larger lot it's 50 feet with a 10.4 and a 6.2, I think we can go much closer and still be conforming, so my thought was, if you wanted to push the house forward 20 feet, I think we have room for that and still be at a safe distance. Anything closer than 20 may not be advisable anyway, although you have the homes that are very close, you may want to keep a little bit of a front yard, particularly with the sanitary system in the front, know you have expressed the desire Board of Trustees 35 Aug. 18, 2004 to push the house forward, my recommendation would be 20 feet, but we're willing to listen. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments on this application? Any Board comments? As far as the CAC they recommend approval of the application with the condition that the large trees are protected, a 10 foot nondisturbance buffer landward of the bank. No Board comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No just put dry wells and hay bales. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Does that sound feasible? MS. MOORE: Yes, that's all very reasonable. Dry wells, 10 foot nondisturbance. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As well as the bank is nondisturbance, obviously. MS. MOORE: Yes, seaward of the 10 feet. I understand. Did you want to move the house forward? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. MS. MOORE: So 20 feet is fine? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. Pat, I'll just make it easy and say a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer from the wetlands. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The house will be 63 feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 13 feet behind the house. You can have 13 feet backyard, turf, patio, after the house is moved. MS. MOORE: I was going to say because you're going to have construction activity -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Sure, that's 13 feet. We've seen it done with six feet. MS. MOORE: Okay. I don't like violations. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We'll have a hay bale line at that. MS. MOORE: The hay bale line is there now; did you want it moved forward? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: To the 50 foot mark. MS. MOORE: Okay. Fifty foot from edge of wetlands? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. Okay. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Michael Liegey, as Contract Vendee, to construct a single-family dwelling with garage and sanitary system, located 480 Ackerly Pond Lane with the stipulation that the house be moved forward so that a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer may be created from the wetlands delineation line, and dry wells and gutters will be included on the plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the house and garage? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: House and garage, yes. That's it. Board of Trustees 36 Aug. 18, 2004 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 13. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling on piles, swimming pool, service driveway, sanitary system with concrete retaining wall, 450 cubic yards of fill, dry wells, and a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer, and connection to public water and utilities. Located 9326 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM # 87-5-25. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application? MS. MOORE: It's my understanding that Heather went out and verified the wetland lines that were originally mapped on the plans, these lines were confirmed. There was a small area that I have highlighted, but it's east of a bermed area, you can see contour lines that go from 3.2 to 6 to 4. There is some, it looks like maybe when the canal was dredged that may have been dredge spoils that had accumulated there. Just east of that spot there was a small area that was noted that seems isolated in that it's not connected to any of the other wetlands. What I proposed was to take the same square footage of that spot, whatever dimensions the Board would be feel would be acceptable, and we could either take that and replant it or increase the wetland edged by the same square footage in an appropriate area. Because no matter where we were to build here, and if you recall the sanitary system was very carefully placed here by the Health Department, the DEC and by this Board in keeping the sanitary at least 100 feet from the closest point of any edge of wetlands, that was very carefully mapped and the sanitary system is a firm spot on this map. So that alternative seemed to be a good practical approach to protecting wetlands and taking any impact on a wetlands area and relocating it. So that was a proposal we made. I didn't have the exact dimensions, Miss Tetrault can either give that to me tonight or if you need to go back and measure it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Any other comments? MS. MOORE: I'm trying to listen for input. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We'll take all the comments first. MS. KIRSCH: My name is Mary Kirsch. I'm the neighbor adjacent to the Edson property. First I would like to mention that there is a man-made berm around the entire perimeter of the Edson property. This berm impacts the natural flow of water and is basically Board of Trustees 37 Aug. 18, 2004 one of the only reasons why this entire parcel is not wetlands. It kind of created a dyke, and I'm sure this probably happened a long time ago when they dredged in front of Victoria cottages. Another thing I discovered was I spoke to a botanist over at Cornell and I showed him a particular species called -- which is throughout the footprint and the building packet. This species is called baccharis or high tide bush, an indicator of wetlands. This species is protected federally and is also protected locally by the DEC and in the Town Code Chapter 97-1 lB mentioned as definition of tidal wetlands. So in a way this species is reclaiming what's his. This high tide bush is clearly everywhere down there now. Again, in conclusion, this parcel is extremely sensitive. The building package has been so manipulated through variances and above-ground septics that it just seems inappropriate and environmentally unfriendly, and an expired permit. The whole environment has changed drastically down there, and I just again, really request that a Wetland Permit isn't permitted, it's denied. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? We can ask Heather. Ken, you have any comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: My comment's going to be based on Heather's report. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We asked Heather to go out, and just for the record we issued a permit back in 2001, and when the permit expired it was reapplied for; the Board went out to reinspect the site; it looked completely different. The Board, we had difficulty identifying the project on-site. We asked the applicant to make some paths and to stake it, which the applicant did, and then we asked our environmental analyst to verify the wetlands lines on the site. And? MS. TETRAULT: We did go out a couple times and verify ail the distances, the stakes that were out there and even though the bachrus is all over the site. It has come into an upland area that is now, without doing from this studies on hydrology and distance to water tables to see what else is going on there, it's growing in an area that's upland now. So the wetland lines that are stakes there are pretty accurate to what's actually tidal. MS. KIRSCH: I thought there was one particular area that would actually affect their building package because there's one spot that wasn't mapped. MS. TETRAULT: Right on the other side of the berm, that Board of Trustees 38 Aug. 18, 2004 phragmites is not -- MS. KIRSCH: It's not on the map, it's not on the blueprint, it's not on the survey, it's just omitted. That should be considered. MS. TETRAULT: I know and I don't know if that's changed from when it's originally flagged a couple years ago. MS. KIRSCH: It's nice to conveniently leave out wetlands. That's what seems happened. It's so sensitive, and the package has been manipulated so, it's just terrible. Every piece of wetland that's there should be mapped. They should have their setbacks, and that's the only fair thing that I think, that's the fair thing to do. I mean, that's the code. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's your take on that? Do you want to see that wetland on the map? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd like to see it on the survey. MS. KIRSCH: Even in the Southold code misrepresentation, the Trustees could deny this right here and now. MS. MOORE: I would object to any further comments with respect to the flagging and the professionalism of the people that have been involved in this process. I asked Rob Hermann when we were in the hallway, and he did not recall seeing anything. He went out with Chris Arfston, in fact, he originally went out and mapped the center portion, the southerly portion of the wetlands and when this plan was reviewed with the DEC, they sent Rob back because of that berm that's there. He didn't realize that on the other side of the berm there were additional wetlands that are primarily on what used to be the Bitzes' property. He went back out, that's why the flagging has two different dates, he went back out and reflagged the westerly perimeter of the property all in the presence of the DEC. So this mapping and this property was inspected not only by our own consultant, Rob Hermann, but also in the presence of the DEC. So it was done very professionally and very carefully and what Mrs. Tetrault has placed on the record is that the allegations that she made that these wetlands had deviated is not true, that this, in fact, had been properly flagged. What I'm suggesting is that a small pocket, which from the record you stated are phragmites, that that small portion, this let's assume worst-case scenario it exists there, the reality is that construction on this site, that disturbance of this site is going to impact that small pocket. What would make sense in that instance is to relocate that square footage, which is a very common way of addressing an isolated pocket of wetland that could have Board of Trustees 39 Aug. 18, 2004 occurred from clay pocket or from material accumulation or multiple sources. Rob and I were trying to figure out how a pocket would be created at that point, it could be multiple reasons. The expense to the applicant of having this mapped is about $1,500 just for a pocket of wetlands that nobody's given me an idea of the square footage of it. But if we're just trying to delay this for the sake of delay, and Miss Kirsch has been through the process from day one and is the reason why Rob Hermann called me in was because he got so frustrated with the process. She bought this property knowing that the property to the south would be developed. She in turn also developed her property at distances which exceed, which are closer -- I don't want to misstate it -- which are closer to wetlands and the parcel is half the size. So this piece of property, the percentage of development here is minute in comparison in relation to the size of the property. Ninety percent of this property is being preserved. The house is 30 foot building envelope, which abuts a sanitary system and the structure is accessory structures. So it makes more sense to be proactive here and take the square footage and suggest an alternative location then just to create obstacles that delay the process and incur expense to an applicant needlessly. So I would ask you to please consider what the thoughts are here, what the proposal is here. We are mitigating impact to the wetlands. She is going to continue to come here and object and object until you finally hopefully give -- MS. KIRSCH: Pat, everybody's been extremely accommodating to the Edsons. The Zoning Board, this Board, the Building Department, the code enforcer. I have spoken to everybody along the line, and having a permit expire. I mean, the Edsons have only been in the real estate business decades here on the north fork. You made my building package. You taught me how to make a building package. You know what they should be able to build down there? Maybe a tree house, not the Taj Mahal. You can talk the talk but I'm speaking the truth. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. The suggestion's been made that because Heather Tetrault and Chris Pickerell found this area of wetland on the project side of the berm, and the suggestion was made by the applicant to try to maximize the buffer elsewhere that the suggestion was made that the pool either be eliminated or else pulled in very close to the house and to increase the buffer on that side of the house. MS. MOORE: I'm not sure I follow. Explain to me which Board of Trustees 40 Aug. ! 8, 2004 buffer. There's buffers all throughout, there's 75 foot buffers throughout the entire site, maybe you can point it to me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Either take the pool out and get a larger buffer here, actually all the way through here you need a larger buffer. MS. MOORE: We already have 80 feet. Why do you need a larger buffer? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Because if we could maximize it. You could even turn the pool instead of having all this decking, turn the pool if the pool is really necessary, and put the pool right in here then you maximize the setbacks. MS. MOORE: Okay. I guess I'm just trying -- I was suggesting taking this phragmite and replanting it in any other area, or plant something, a better buffer. MS. TETRAULT: Just keep a buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Maximize this buffer which would protect more of an intertidal area, which is the dredge canal and connecting wetlands to that. Maximize that buffer here by either eliminating or turning the pool, tucking it in. MS. KIRSCH: Eliminating the pool wouldn't be such a bad idea. MS. MOORE: That's not your choice. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Eliminating some of the decking. MS. MOORE: Maximize by 10 feet or so. We now have to redesign everything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just the pool and the deck. MS. MOORE: I understand that. I'm going to have to take it back to the surveyor. If you tell me a general distance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, well, it's 75 here, so if you move the pool here, you could probably get 80 or 90, right? Then if you move this, you get 100 that way. If you get 100 this way, it's 88 already or 83, either way it is a lot of decking here, then you could get 100 here easily. MS. MOORE: This area here try to maximize to 1007 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Then once you did that, it would I think automatically maximize this. Put the pool here. MS. MOORE: This is the only living area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not getting into the living area, just the pool. Then you'd maximize this by going to probably 80 or 85 or 90 feet. It would just happen when you maximize that. MS. MOORE: All right, I'll go back and try to accommodate. MS. KIRSCH: Show me where the wetlands are. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, try to maximize from 80 feet to 100. Try to maximize the intertidal area. The wetland here is Board of Trustees 41 Aug. 18, 2004 really high value. Heather, you want to back me up on that? MS. TETRAULT: The tidal area is more valuable tidal land. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we want to try to maximize. Taking that out and giving us no disturbance across here, it will minimize the impact on this and the phragmites there I don't think are that high. Well, are they high value? MS. TETRAULT: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to end the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Lisa Edson with the condition that -- I'm going to go through all the conditions of the old permit also. MS. MOORE: We'll accept the same conditions that we had before. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Construct on pilings a two-story, one-family dwelling, deck, swimming pool, pervious drive, sanitary system, retaining wall. The driveway plan will be the same as what was approved initially. Approximately 450 cubic yards of fill, install dry wells for roof runoff establish -- here's the difference -- establish the buffer for tidal wetlands subject to receipt of new plans. The distance between the pool and the wetland of the dredged canal will be 100 feet from any disturbance and that will maximize the setbacks from the tongue going into the north from the -- I don't know if it's clear. MS. MOORE: Why don't we make it from the point where it's shown as 83 feet, maximize that to 100 because I don't know how it's going to affect the other precisely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. And that will move the pool closer to the house and eliminate a substantial amount of decking around the pool. Anything else? MR. JOHNSTON: How much fill did you give? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh 450. Same as the old permit. MS. TETRAULT: And the buffer that was on the original permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The buffer will be increased from the original permit, subject to receipt of new plans before a permit is issued. All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How long is this permit good for? MS. MOORE: Is it from today? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. 14. Frank Notaro on behalf of LEONARD ROSENBAUM requests Board of Trustees 42 Aug. 18, 2004 a Wetland Permit to demolish a portion of the existing two-story dwelling and construct a new two-story addition over the garage and utility area of the existing first floor. Located: 965 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. SCTM # 35-6-24.1. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We needed clarification on that, right? And we can't get that tonight, right? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Was that an issue whether they're going straight above the garage and not expanding the footprint over the side into that right of way. The right of way is going to remain intact. It's a standard, straightforward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to represent the applicant? Okay. Do you know what our question is? There was an issue over the right of way adjacent to your property that shows up on maps but doesn't show up on your survey? MR. ROSENBAUM: There is a right of way, but we're not going into it, we're going straight up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh When we were inspecting the site, we didn't see it on your survey, we saw it as an adjacent neighbor. MR. ROSENBAUM: There's a right of way in between us and our neighbor, but we're going straight up on the same footprint, basically raising the roof about two feet, approximately. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments from the public? Any Board comments? Dry wells and gutters. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Dry wells and gutters for roof runoff, to contain the roof runoff. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommended approval with a 6' nonturf buffer installed landward of the bulkhead. We'll deal with the buffer on the bulkhead the day you come in for a new bulkhead down the road. MR. ROSENBAUM: That should be quite a way down the road. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That should be a 10 foot nonturf buffer. With your construction include dry wells and gutters to contain the roof runoff. MR. ROSENBAUM: Dry wells to catch the water? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. Have the gutters run into a dry well. No other comments. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'll have to show us that on the plans. MR. ROSENBAUM: The dry wells. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Whoever's drawing the plans, draw the dry wells and gutters on it. Frank Notaro, it's in the code Board of Trustees 43 Aug. 18, 2004 it's got to be on there. We'll issue the permit and he's got to take the plans and put the dry wells and gutters on it. He'll know what size and when you're doing construction, someone can install them for you. MR. ROSENBAUM: Is this something new? There's already gutters. You want to add the dry wells? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, and connect them to the gutters. It's something we go house by house. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Make the motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in that favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I make the motion to approve the permit on behalf of Leonard Rosenbaum, to demolish a portion of the existing two-story dwelling and construct a new two-story addition over the garage in the utility area of the existing first floor to include dry wells and gutters to contain the roof runoff. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 15. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of BRUNO FRANKOLA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 1,120 square foot single-family dwelling and sanitary system. Located: North Field Road, Southold. SCTM # 71-1-19. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. I'm going to hand up two sets of exhibits which I think will help you in your regulatory efforts for this property. First set will be comprised of a tax map followed by a survey submitted with this application that you already have a copy with, as well as an alternative survey showing an alternative house location. The second set will involve a couple of simple photographs. I'd first like to start with making a couple observations. The first observation is if you look at this tax map before you, you'll see highlighted in yellow is the lot. This particular lot is approximately half acre in size, and you will note that the lots across the street in the general area size lot we're dealing with here is consistent with the size and the majority of the lots found in the neighborhood. The second thing I want to point out is in blue is the sur[ace water of the creek area. It really has service Board of Trustees 44 Aug. l 8, 2004 which I would call really a true wetland. The third observation is if you look at the tax map number for Lot 18, which is just to the northwest, you'll see a dashed line which indicates a swale that eventually leads to the blue area. What we have is a swale that moves to the northwest, and that swale in front of this property is dominated by phragmites. The wetlands boundary on this property is shown on the survey and it's important to note that the rear of the property is actually lawn and that lawn appears to be maintained by the property owner adjacent to and south of the property. If you look at the photographs, what we show here is the rear of the lot and we've located the approximate property boundary. So you can see this swale is really a combination of phragmites and mowed lawn. The boundary there we feel is accurate. You'll notice the wood pile in the foreground of the first picture, which is also shown in the survey. As applied for, we had a property, a house that measured 28 feet by 40 feet and that would have been located 23 feet from the wetland boundary, which is essentially defined as phragmites. There is some ground soil in there. I had an opportunity to meet with your staff this morning, I understand you've been out on the site at least twice as far as I know; and there was some discussion apparently of siting the house along higher ground. So we have provided you with an alternative plan that accomplishes that, and that's the second survey you see before you. It's still the same size house footprint, however, in cocking the house and moving it somewhat to the northwest, we're able to extend the setback from the previous 23 feet to 51 feet from this area. We provided for a 15 foot side lot line setback, which is compliant with the zoning code of this town and also 40 foot setback from the road, also compliant with this town's zoning code. The last portion, which I think is of interest to note on the survey, either survey you look at, is that the original house location was sited 245 feet plus or minus from the landward edge of tidal wetlands as mapped by New York State DEC. So, what I had the surveyor do was take the DEC tidal wetlands maps, locate the high marsh as per the tidal wetland code, place it on the survey at estimated distance from the house. So our argument here is really what we have is a remnant of a wetland that doesn't really function in the way that wetlands do. There's very little value to it, wildlife or otherwise, and that the wetlands of interest are actually Board of Trustees 45 Aug. 18, 2004 quite distant from the property, as born out by both the tidal wetland maps and the tax maps before you. We did provide for I think a fairly substantial buffer, to the wetlands fragment, let's call it, and note that this particular buffer would exceed all buffers found in all the adjoining development lots. I'm here to answer any further questions you might have. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here who would like to comment? MR. HAMILTON: Yes. My name is Art Hamilton and I live adjacent to this property. And the first exception would be his saying that there's no wildlife. I would like to know what those five deer were doing in my driveway this morning, or what that raccoon who got in my garage and got into my garbage did the other night, but that's besides the point. If the police came running in here right now it's because my wife wants to know where the hell am I. My first point I want to make is in the survey that they provided us there, you'll note that the cesspool set up is five feet from the road. Now, we're not a metropolis and there's not a tremendous amount of traffic, but we do have UPS and FedEx and the garbage trucks and your maintenance trucks and other trucks going through there. And I feel five feet from the road having had an experiences where my cesspool did cave in when I lived in Nassau that the vibration might lead to a fault where you would have an environmental problem. The second thing is, I don't know where they are looking at with the tidal flow, but here is a presentation of what the actual tidal flow is, and where that dot is on there, this dark area is where all the impact would be with any kind of a storm. The spot noted there is where they're attempting to build, which is right in the shaded areas. Now, about three years ago, I received a one-page note from my mortgage company telling me they required me to put up $2,800 for flood insurance because we were in a flood tidal impact area there. I was able to beat FEMA and them by having it resurveyed and whatnot, but the impact is still there by the fact that any construction in there might change and deviate which way the flood is going to come through there. One other thing which is kind of peculiar with you people is that I have a driveway which is pervious because I'm not allowed to build within X number of feet of the pond, and this here structure is going to be well within the Board of Trustees 46 Aug. 18, 2004 confines as you lay it. Oddly enough, your road comes within five feet of that same water but that's beside it all. Thank you. MR. BRIDGEN: Mark Bridgen, I live in North Paris Drive across the street from the property. This evening before it got so late, we had 14 neighbors here at the hearing representing 11 households in the vicinity who object to this permit, and I already wrote you one letter, and since then some of the neighbors talked about other things. I'd like to highlight some things. I don't know if one of our neighbors, the landowner that has the wood pile, has given you pictures, he's lived there several years. He said he was going to mail you pictures. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Of the flooded areas. MR. BRIDGEN: So he has sent you pictures of how this lot has flooded over the past years being a tidal wetland. So some of our comments are is that as a tidal wetland, it is subject to flooding, especially during heavy storms and hurricanes, and we're concerned about the environmental impact this would have especially on the cesspools as well as the environmentally sensitive areas. I know you visited the site, but if you go directly to the west of there there's Mr. Hamilton's house and there's an area that the town has designated as an environmentally sensitive area, and we're worried what will happen to that when the water is diverted. In addition, in the Board of Trustees application form we had several questions. First of all, the application states that no excavation will occur, and we wonder how this is possible for a single-family dwelling to be built without any excavation. Second of all, the application states there will not be any fill added to the site and there will not be any material removed or deposited. Again, in order to build a house suitable to withstand severe weather, how is this possible. And third, the application states no impact to the wetlands are anticipated due to the project design and location; is this possible? As far as flooding is concerned, the Health Department will be concerned certainly with cesspools and any in-ground structures. The lot would have to pass a perk test and if it does not, they would have to fill to facilitate drainage. An above ground mound is very unsightly, and if they're going to do this, how are they going to do this if they are not going to bring in fill, like we just discussed previously. Board of Trustees 47 Aug. 18, 2004 So, in addition, according to the survey of the property, the test hole is made at the southwest corner of the house not where the five cesspools are to be located at the northwest corner of the house or from the lot, excuse me. This is as Mr. Hamilton mentioned, is five foot from the road. According to the survey that the applicant submitted, the southeast corner of the dwelling is only 29 feet from the wetlands. It appears that this morning he has changed this and now is 51 feet, but I question whether or not just if the maps say it's a wetland, certainly when it floods that whole Northville Lane will flood on the road. So I don't know if these boundaries are actually legitimate. And considering the Close proximity to the wetlands, I think it needs to be clear to the landowners that if this permit is given, that no deck or patio should be or can be constructed on the sides toward the wetlands because they with project into and possibly interfere with the wetlands. If the permit's approved, the Town should state this in the agreement, in the rules. Mr. Anderson's comments saying that there's little value to wildlife, there are a lot of wildlife there. In addition to raccoons and deer, there are several bird species, several plant species, several wetlands plant species like phragmites, and there's also a willow tree, which requires large amounts of water to survive. And he was also referring to no remnants to the wetlands, and certainly there are lots of remnants to the wetlands. So we ask as a group of neighbors surrounding that area that this permit be denied. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to speak? MR. RUTHKOWSKh Good evening, Adam Ruthkowski, I live on Dayton, which is on the end of Northville. There's a number of other people who are going to speak tonight. It's late. We all want to go home, so I'm not going to recap and beat a dead horse, but I've heard that you have been there twice, and you've observed the lot and observed the area. It's a very special place, it really is. The rear of the property which abuts the Harbor Lights area is just beautiful, pristine wetland area, and this thing is going to be absolutely threatening that area forever. It's very sensitive and again, as I say, I'm not going to beat a dead horse. You've been there, you know there probably are problems that have to be overcome. All I ask is that you not jump to a rash decision on this, that you take your time, that you go through the process, listen Board of Trustees 48 Aug. 18, 2004 to us, and you really observe the property and do what needs to be done to preserve this beautiful piece of land. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? MS. WOOD: Good evening, I'm Miss Wood, I live on Northfield Road. I want to second all of that, but also I want to point out that it was these esteemed Trustees who put up the sign saying environmentally sensitive area that's on the Harborview end of the fresh water pond. I know we're talking about salt water wetlands that are tidal, and the tides fluctuate. But what really worries me is you've seen that the road comes down from this lot that we're talking about, and down from the other end of Northfleld to the point where the pond, which is a freshwater pond has to actually accept that runoff. So that any runoff that comes from this tidally fluctuating salt water wetland, will come down in to the freshwater pond, which is already designated environmentally sensitive. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is this freshwater pond? MS. WOOD: The pond is at the lowest point of Northfield Lane, and it's on both sides of the lane, the road was put through it. So I'm very concerned about the sort of integrity of the freshwater pond, which my property has and also which adjoins Mr. Hamilton's. MR. HAMILTON: The town and I own the other pond. MS. WOOD: So I'd like you to take that relationship of the pond to the wetlands that you're talking about, I'd like you to take that into consideration. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this application? MR. BRIDGEN: They just gave us the revised blueprint. We just wondered is there a height restriction on this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As far as we're concerned there is none. MR. JOHNSTON: There could be a Building Department one, but not us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a question for the applicant. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm referring to the revised plan. You've got an elevation of six to eight in the proposed house location. What would the first floor elevation have to be there? MR. ANDERSON: Eight, that would be your slab elevation. If you look closely at your survey, you'll see that the flood plain lies, splits the property and above that line is zoned Board of Trustees 49 Aug. 18, 2004 X, and in the X zone there are no required first floor elevations. Below that line to the south is, as indicated to the survey, is an AE/8 elevation, 8 which requires a Iow structural member of the house to be 8 feet in order to be flood compliant. Because the house straddles the 8 foot line and does not extend to or below the 6 foot line, utilizing the 2 foot contour doesn't appear on the map because there's not enough grading to be reflected on the contours. You will get some minor grading here, but it's simply not picked up if the contour interval is at 2 feet. I would like to take just a moment, I think I've heard the issues and I can address each and every one, very quickly. First of all, the pond which was under discussion which the last person spoke of, you'll see that's indicated on the survey from the pipe on the northwest corner of the property to the pond is approximately 150 feet, in other words, out of the jurisdiction of this Board. The second thing I've heard is a question about cesspools being five feet from the front lot line on Northfield Lane, please be advised that that does comply with the applicable Health Department regulations. Five feet is the minimum setbacks. The septic system was placed there to maximize its distance from the wetland boundaries; that distance is 100 feet, also placing the leaching pools and approximately half of the septic tank out of the jurisdiction of this Board, so you don't regulate that. The neighbors should not be concerned about the roads and the trucks on the roads because the actual edge of pavement is approximately 10 feet off the front lot line. So the distance between the nearest leaching pool and septic system and the road is 15 feet. As far as tidal flow, I can tell you there is no regular tidal flow into this wetland. There may be flooding under extreme conditions, nor'easters. There's certainly runoff that goes in as a result of rainstorms and things of the like. With respect to the design of the this house, you'll notice on your alternative plan, we show two dry wells, one on the east side of the house, and one on the west side of the house. Those dry wells are sized at 8' by 4' and greatly exceed the 2" design criteria, which is what's required by applicable regulations. So this is a project that features full runoff control. There isn't excavation per se because there can't be a basement because you issue in the AE/8 flood plain; and so Board of Trustees 50 Aug. 18, 2004 those concerns don't exist. As far as a height restriction it's not in the purview of this Board, but for the benefit of the folks here tonight, Town codes regulates the maximum height obstructors at 38 feet above grade, grade being measured from the street. We don't have such designs at this point. And one final point, as far as septic systems go, we note next door you'll see a couple cesspools that are essentially substantially closer than what's being applied for here. It's my position that given the constraints on this property and taking into account some of the suggestions I have heard today, that this is a project that's designed as well as it can be designed given the size of the property, and the location of the wetlands boundary. And again, as far as wetland as a resource is concerned, this is not what a biologist would consider of extraordinary value because of its plant communities, because of its distance from surface waters, the value of the phragmites and the like. MR. BRIDGEN: May I make one comment in reply to his comment? First of ail, I am a professor of horticulture at Cornell University. First of all, this plant material is of value, any kind of wetlands which is disturbed affects all of our natural resources, all of our water; and I think that comment is incorrect. Aisc, his comment saying that because this is 150 feet from the freshwater pond it's not within your jurisdiction. It may not be legally, but as Trustees for the Town of Southold, I'd say, yes, it is. And thirdly, his comment about it may flood but rarely, when you Trustees were there in July, you were going to go look at the property, but it wasn't posted so you didn't. The day before we had some rains, and if you were to look at the property then, there was standing water at the footprint of that house, of course now it's been moved, but it still indicates that that wetlands is farther west and north than actually indicated by the DEC. And lastly, I just want a clarification of when say it's a Zone AE and E/8, that means it's 8 foot up -- what does this mean? MR. ANDERSON: Eight feet from mean sea level using a 1929 MBDG data. It's a flood plain requirement. So, if you are in a flood plain in this case AE/8, the lowest floor can be no lower than 8 feet, which is why you can't have a basement here. One other point that I do want to mention that I forgot Board of Trustees 51 Aug. 18, 2004 to, we do have a test hole here. You'll see that test hole was placed below the house, which is actually at a lower elevation, and when you look at the soil profiles, it consists of sandy loam, loamy sand, medium sand and coarse sand. These are suitable soils for the siting of the septic system. Indeed, the soil survey would indicate it to be suitable soil for the siting of this family dwelling. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? I'm going to make a motion to table, I think we need to revisit it since we just had our plans tonight. We'd also like to do a short environmental form, and we'd like the house staked. MR. ANDERSON: You mean the alternative staking? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. And we'd like to see a line of the buffer area on the plans. MR. ANDERSON: It is on the plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you show us? MR. ANDERSON: It's just the stakes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anything else? And stake where the new house is going to be. So we'll go back in September. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can come in the office and get a copy. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 16. Bryan Villanti on behalf of LEO OL$£N requests a wetland permit to construct a single-family dwelling with garage and deck. Located: 3590 North Road, Greenport. SCTM # 35-4-28.12. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on behalf of this application? MR. VILLANTh Good evening, my name is Bryan Villanti on behalf of Leo Olsen. With regard to the survey that you have and the application, I would like to amend, modify and clarify in regard to where they have the proposed water line, back in '97, this Board had approved the water line. There is a septic system in there. For some reason the survey doesn't show it correctly. We would just like to take that system that is in there and was approved and just modify it. And the other thing is on this footprint on the house, it reads 33' by 58', I'd like to go one more foot landward to make that 40 foot on that setback to the road, and if possible another foot to the rear yard where it says 51, so I can keep it at 50 foot. The other thing is in regards to you have these two Board of Trustees 52 Aug. 18, 2004 entrances, an entrance and exit on the north side for the road, I'd like to kind of just connect that and use that as a driveway. I think it's a great safety feature and it would aesthetically look correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't understand that last comment. MR. VILLANTI: There's an entrance on the east side and also on the west side, it's kind of like a natural half-circle driveway. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Create a pervious driveway? MR. VILLANTI: Yes, like pea grit. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine. Won't create a runoff hazard. MR. VILLANTI: And the only thing I'd like to get this survey modified about those couple things that I had mentioned. I don't know if I have to designate if it's a one-story or two-story. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? Does that sound good to the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know. There's a septic system on the property now, correct? MR. VILLANTh Yes, I staked it. It's in the middle of the road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's in the middle of the house, right? MR. VILLANTI: The septic itself, that would be excavated and relocated landward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What about drainage for the house, we need dry wells and gutters? MR. VILLANTI: Sure, that's not a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All the roof runoff. TRUSTEE KING: Move the septic system towards the road more, it's only about 40 feet from the bulkhead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would that be possible, if you're going to have your driveway -- MR. VILLANTI: I think it's a lot more than that, I think it's about 10 or 15 feet from the west side of the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The last guy said he could put the septic five feet from the road. Why don't we do that? MR. VILLANTI: That doesn't matter to me because the pools, the rings that are already there, they're maybe 10 feet from the road. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Might have a tough time though, look at the elevation of the property. MR. VILLANTI: I don't have any objection to making that landward. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition that the large tree on the Board of Trustees 53 Aug. 18, 2004 southwest corner of the property remains. There's a large tree there? MR. VILLANTh There's a willow tree, kind of grows horizontal to the ground, I think it's right in the middle of the envelope. I'm glad you mentioned about trees. Just landward of the walkway there's 11 cedar trees, I was wondering if I could excavate those and put those landward on the west side of the property line kind of fill in over on that side, because they're maybe 12, 14 feet tall. You could hardly see the water. Plus, I think with the bulkhead the root system is a lot greater now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be fine, then you can have a nice 15 foot nonturf buffer. Put that on there, 15 foot nonturf buffer behind the bulkhead to be installed. MR. VILLANTI: Okay. It's really landscaped beautiful. I don't think it's going to be disturbed too much. TRUSTEE PQLIWODA: The bulkhead had a little runoff problem, a little bit to the east where it comes down that one driveway. It seems it gully's out and goes under the bulkhead. MR. VILLANTI: I thought the little excavation left I could grade that up. There's some planking up in there I think that should be replaced with better planking to hold it back. You know, like 6 by 6 as opposed to I think it's 2 by 12's that's already there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The sheathing is gullying out. You might have to have some sheathing slid behind the bulkhead. MR. VILLANTI: That's not a problem, just if you could designate what area you're referring to. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other Board comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Leo Olsen to construct a single-family dwelling with garage and deck with two minor footprint changes, moving the proposed house one foot closer to the bulkhead, one foot closer to the road, providing a driveway that will be pervious material from one entrance to the other entrance; providing a 15 foot nonturf buffer around the bulkhead. Have dry wells and gutters placed on the proposed house to catch the roof runoff, push the septic system as close as possible to the road. Anything else? And as far as allow sheathing to be placed behind the bulkhead to prevent the runoff from entering the creek; do I have a second? Board of Trustees 54 Aug. 18, 2004 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 17. LAWRENCE TUTHILL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 6' by 40' floating dock 2.5' by 10' ramp and catwalk. Located: Schoolhouse Creek, New Suffolk. SCTM # 117-5-47. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application? We spoke with Pat Finnigan, the Town Attorney, and she said that someone's got to prove one way or the other who owns it. What she suggested was a title search that would prove someone owned it MR. TUTHILL: One with the title seamh is if you go back to my father's deed, which both are split, that's where it comes from. Other than that, none of the deeds would be any good. That's besides the point. Have you received this yet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Hopefully that will solve all the problems. MR. TUTHILL: I think my own personal opinion is there's a few other things that should be resolved by the case, and probably it would be best if we went to court on it, and freed you people, but I mean there's two other things that are wrong. He has built a bulkhead on my property extending to the west, and the other is when they allowed him to go out into the canal, that's a no-no, and get all this stuff straightened out. If I don't do it now, my heirs will have to do it later. We might as well settle it now. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How far did he go in the creek with his bulkhead? MR. TUTHILL: Length-wise or distance out? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Distance out? MR. TUTHILL: He went into two feet. So that's -- and then in the canal or so he probably went out two, two and a half feet into the canal, and that's a no-no. But I mean you read this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We just got it tonight. MR. TUTHILL: So that's what we'll do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Schultheis, can we have your help when the court case is, although I'm recusing myself because of my wife's -- your wife can tell you why I recuse myself, she Board of Trustees 55 Aug. 18, 2004 knows -- when the court case is finished, would you come back so we can resolve this? MR. SCHULTHEIS: Definitely. MR. JOHNSTON: The point is we're not going to be writing you letters on a weekly basis or daily basis or monthly, whenever you get this resolved, can we have your word that you'll come back, so we're not bird-dogging you? We want to resolve the thing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't, that's the problem. MR. SCHULTHEIS: Unfortunately, in speaking with the assessor, the real property tax office, only way to resolve this is through litigation. There are two deeds; they both say the same thing. It's gone on too long, and it needs to be litigated to be determined. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. MR. SCHULTHEIS: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Keith, we had a question when we did your permit, we wanted to know what the pipes were on the side of the dock. MR. NEILSON: They were set the way they are to accommodate a float, and somehow or other I had miscommunications from Miss Hoch about having a float included in the application. MR. JOHNSTON: Al, would you be willing to reopen the hearing to add that correction? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you requesting that we amend your permit? MR. NEILSON: I would respectfully request that you consider the addition of a float to this pier system at the request of Miss Hoch on behalf of her family, and we're agreeable to the 6' by 20' size. MR. JOHNSTON: You were asking for 8' by 20'. MR. NEILSON: 8' by 20' would be better. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 6' by 20'. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to amend the permit to include a 6' by 20' float for the application for Mrs. Hoch; do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MS. STANDISH: Bring in a revised plan. MR. NEILSON: I'll bring in a revised plan, also the neighbor had already reviewed the request, and even though his letter is dated tomorrow, I brought it with me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Adjourn the regular meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES