Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/16/2005Albert 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 Tele~phone (631} 765-1892 Fax (631} 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, February 16, 2005 7:00 PM Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. - Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, March 17, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. All AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of November 17, 2004. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: For January, 2005, a check for $5,976.71 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. Board of Trustees 2 February 16, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Welcome to our regular monthly meeting. I have a resolution here, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby find the following applications more fully described in the public hearing from the Trustee Agenda dated Wednesday, February 16, 2005 are classified as Type II actions pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review rules and regulations and are not subject to review under SEQRA: James lannone SCTM#51-1-17 Liliana Nealon SCTM#52-5-24 Charles M. Wendy SCTM#56-5-28 Anthony Cacioppo SCTM#92-1-4 Skunk Lane Trust SCTM#104-3-18.1 James Murray and Susan Segur SCTM#145-4-3 Robert and Eileen Schiavetta sss57-1-3 Nancy Carroll SCTM#90-1-21 Thomas Willdigg SCTM#86-1-4.1 Lauren Praus & Mark Schwartz SCTM#111-1-13.1 Mary Raynor SCTM#116-4-21 Virginia Conway SCTM#115-10-4 IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There are a number of items tonight that have been postponed. Under Applications for Amendments, Number 6, Gregory Mazzanobile there will be no action on this evening. MR. FITZGERALD: May I ask why? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Because it hasn't been resolved. We closed the hearings, we're withholding decision. MR. FITZGERALD: When can we expect an answer? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As soon as we have the information we need to get and are satisfied with our review. MR. FITZGERALD: It would have been nice if we had known about it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was not supposed to be on the agenda. I didn't know it was on until about 5:30 tonight. MR. FITZGERALD: I must be missing something. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It wasn't on for hearing anyway. It wasn't on for public comment. It shouldn't have been on here at all. MR. FITZGERALD: Are you saying that was the way it was left at the end of the last meeting? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Correct. It wasn't going to be on the agenda automatically this month. MR. FITZGERALD: Isn't that ordinarily the way it works? Board of Trustees 3 February 16, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Once the hearing is closed, no. MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 3, Schembri Homes has been postponed, this is under Wetland Permits and Public Hearings. Number 11, J and C Holding is postponed. Number 12 Barry Ball and Kimberly Vanzee is postponed. Number 13 Mary DiGregorio is postponed. Number 14, Alan Cardinale is postponed. Number 15, James Murray and Susan Segur are postponed, and Number 2, Angelo Padavan postponed. 1. LAUREN PRAUS & MARK SCHWARTZ request an Administrative Permit to construct a second-floor addition on to the existing single-family dwelling. Located: 375 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 111-1-13.1. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this this afternoon, someone commented on checking on the buffer along the bulkhead. There was already decking going almost all the way around. It's just going straight up to the second floor. I have one concern only because it's very close to the water, there's not a lot of work area, I guess they can work on it along the road side. So I didn't have any problem. I'll make the motion to approve the request to construct a second floor addition to the existing single-family dwelling at 375 Fisherman's Beach Road in Cutchogue. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For public information, what we're acting on now and also the next section of the agenda are not really public hearings, however, if anyone has any comment, please don't hesitate. We'll welcome any comments. 2. MARY RAYNOR requests an Administrative Permit to upgrade the existing septic system. Located: 575 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#116-4-21 TRUSTEE KING: We all looked at this. It's an upgrade of the system. I don't think any of us had a problem with it. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 3. Nigel Robert Williamson, Amhitect on behalf of CLAUDIO AND CAMILLE SCIARA requests an Administrative Permit to install a 16' by 32' above-ground swimming pool, deck and 6' high vinyl fence. Located: 235 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. SCTM#31-17-9 Board of Trustees 4 February 16, 2005 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this. It wasn't staked so I'll make a motion to table. I just have to comment, I went to look at the site on Sunday, there were no stakes in the ground, nothing was staked. I couldn't make heads or tails of how far into the wetlands you are going to run the fence, how close the pool would be to the wetlands. MR. WILLIAMSON: There were no ribbons? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, nothing. What I'd like is staked corners closest to the wetlands for the pool and deck, and stakes where the fence will end. I'll probably recommend 10 feet back from the wetlands delineation line where the baccharis was, give a 10 foot easement for the animals. What you have along this fence here four homes and there's six foot vinyl fence. I wanted to see exactly where it was. The property line wasn't specific. How far off these houses this fence would be. It seemed like a pretty big project for the area. The fence was actually bigger than some of these homes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When I looked at this I didn't notice the fence. I only saw the pool part of the application. It didn't seem that big a deal. So the fencing you think is more of an issue than the pool itself? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. I think the fence would be a bigger issue, you're blocking off the wildlife corridors above the lake itself. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How far down did the fence go? MR. WlLLIAMSON: It was three foot off the tie line. There was yellow flags there about four, five weeks ago. On some of the pictures you can see the ties. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Pictures on the sides. How far is it proposed to go down off the water?. MR. WlLLIAMSON: Three feet offthe tie line. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There is no fence in the whole area. I was kind of uncomfortable looking at the size of this fence and going right up to the wetland edge. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You don't want to segment the wildlife corridor. MR. WlLLIAMSON: I kept it offthree feet but if it's 10 feet you want. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Again, it wasn't marked. MR. WlLLIAMSON: I apologize, on the pictures you can actually see the ties on there. It was originally -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC didn't look at this? MS. MCGREEVY: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh MS. STANDISH: It was an Administrative Permit. Board of Trustees 5 February 16, 2005 MR. WILLIAMSON: So this goes over until next month? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: March 23rd we'll be voting on it. MS. TETRAULT: The hearing is the 23rd, they will go over there on the 17th. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I made a motion to table. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. Richard Romeo on behalf of JOSEPHINE PEARLSTEIN requests an Administrative Permit to construct a screened enclosure on an existing deck. Located: 2225 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 54-4-23. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is something I saw today. It's on the Sound. I have a picture of this. If you would like to see the picture. It's a wooden deck. Is there anyone here to represent Mrs. Pearlstein? We're going to move on then -- or against it? Move on to the next one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make the motion, TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES. V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: 1. THOMAS WlLLDIGG requests an Amendment to Permit #5614 to include the existing 16' by 43' deck. Located: 440 Shore Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-1-4.1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I had this one. The only thing I would comment on is that the steps weren't on the plans. Heather did I hand this to you? They also have that split-rail fencing that goes along all of those houses, there's a path going down to the creek and the phragmites have been cut. had a little bit of a concern with that being washed out there. I didn't see on the permit that there was anything about paths. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's off their property. They don't own that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. I didn't have any problem with the deck, but there are four stairs going off the back of it. I didn't know if you wanted it on the plan. There are four steps about five foot wide, which I didn't have a problem with. But going down this split-rail fence there's a walkway going right down to the water, the phragmites have been cut so that water's going to drain right into that. I would recommend that that be let to grow back. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Do they need to grade it, put wood chips down to prevent it from being bare dirt? No one owns the creek front there. Board of Trustees 6 February 16, 2005 TRUSTEE KING: Who does it belong to? MS. TETRAULT: It's a conservation easement. It has to stay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know who has the deed to it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Put it in with the stipulation - TRUSTEE KING: Should they get permission whoever owns it to cut that back? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I would guess so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My concern too is that it goes down to the edge of the creek. This is all phragmites. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't we table this. I think this is before you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ithink one of the first ones I was on. So we table it to find out who owns that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Heather, could you find out who owns the fee title to that and send them a letter that there's an erosion problem developing there and we'd like to see that addressed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And we'd also like the existing steps need to be on their survey. I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We should find out who owns the path and they should take steps to insure that it doesn't become a gully. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's just going to wash out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wood chips even gravel would stop it from becoming a mud hole. MS. TETRAULT: Are they allowed to put a path through there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what it leads to. Whose property it is. 2. ROBERT & EILEEN SCHIAVETTA request an Amendment to Permit 5664 to include a retaining wall 40 long and between 27"-33" in height at the south end of the driveway, and four foot wide steps. Located: 320 Harp Drive, Southold. SCTM#57-1-3. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommended approval as long as the buffer remained intact. The only comment I have is that all the activity looks like it's 75 feet beyond the canal. Anybody else have a comment? If not, I make a motion to approve the amendment on behalf of Robert and Eileen Schiavetta. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. Board of Trustees 7 February 16, 2005 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 3. VIRGINA CONWAY requests an Amendment to Permit #1812 to include the existing 5' by 8' jet ski float at the end of the dock. Located: 5150 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#115-10-4. TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommends approval with the condition that the float is prepositioned parallel to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do they have a floating dock on the property? TRUSTEE KING: This just shows the dock. MS. TETRAULT: We had said no more bottom coverage. TRUSTEE KING: I think we all talked about it. And said if they want to do that, they can modify the existing float put the jet ski on, but no jet ski float just for that use. So I would recommend denial and recommend they modify the existing float to adapt se they could put the jet ski on that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh See why we recommended that? Because if people just add on there is really no size limit to the float. So if someone wants to modify their float to include a jet ski run up, that's fine, but it's got to be in the confines of the bottom coverage, otherwise the bottom coverage gets too big. It just grows and grows. 4. THOMAS E. CHRISTIANSON requests an Amendment to Permit 5996 to relocate the proposed septic tank to the north side of the leaching pools. Located: 7065 New Suffolk Avenue, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-5-30. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Christianson got a letter from the DEC; they required the septic tank be relocated to the north side of the leaching pool. The leaching pools be relocated as shown on the revised plan. The revised site plan also gives a required distance to the tree indicated, and the covenant will be added to the deed after the permit's granted. So I'll make a motion to approve the amendment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES 5. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of NANCY CARROLL requests an Amendment to Permit 5481 to add a second-floor and renovation of the existing dwelling with replacement of existing deck, construct 13' by 39' deck, 16' by 24' garage, and 8' by 58' porch. Located: 350 West Lake Drive, Board of Trustees 8 February 16, 2005 Southold. SCTM#90-1-21. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've looked at this numerous times. I'll make the comment for CAC that they recommended approval with the condition that dry wells and gutters are installed to contain the roof runoff and installation of at least a 50 foot non-turf buffer. I agree. I'd approve this also. I was thinking more in line of a 20 foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KING: What's there now? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There was some beach grass down on the east side of the property. It's behind bulkhead, so it's more ornamental-type thing. Any other comment? If not, I'll make a recommendation to approve an amendment to Permit 5481 with the condition that a 20 foot non-turf buffer be installed as well as dry wells and gutters to handle the roof runoff. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. INGER BOYAJIAN requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5711, as issued on February 26, 2003. Located: 2400 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM#31-16-8. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Doesn't appear to be any changes in anything, just an extension. I'll make a motion to approve the request. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 8. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of LOIS ANDERSON requests a One-Year Extension as issued on March 18, 2003. Located: 2515 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM#79-4-45.5 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looked at it today, no problem. Keep it the same, it's in-kind/in-place. I'll make a motion to approve the One-Year Extension to Permit 5728. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 9. Mark Schwartz, AIA on behalf of JAMES SLECKMAN requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit 5525, as issued on April 24, 2002. Located: 150 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM#77-2-5 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do we have a file on that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm reading the notices we have shown the roof drainage to new dry wells on the survey. It's from the architect. It's a rebuild on a house, TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looks like a 75 foot setbacks off the Board of Trustees 9 February 16, 2005 wetlands. I don't have a problem. I'll make a motion to approve the last One-Year Extension to Permit 5525 on behalf of James Sleckman. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: We should go back to Number 4. 4. Richard Romeo on behalf of JOSEPHINE PEARLSTEIN requests an Administrative Permit to construct a screened enclosure on an existing deck. Located: 2225 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 54-4-23. TRUSTEE KING: We just reviewed this. It's just an enclosure on a deck, I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I need a motion to go offthe regular meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. VI. 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 WETLAND PERMITS 1. JAMES IANNONE requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing staircase to the beach. Located: 19105 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 51-1-17. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. IANNONE: I am James lannone. Good evening, Members of the Board. My wife and I have a house here in Southold. The house has been in the family for many years. There's an existing staircase built many years ago. I have color photos if anyone wants to see. The stairs, rather than repair them, which I could, I'd rather just replace them, make them safe and up to snuff. I went through the proper channels and got a permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which I attached and attached plans for it. I just want to make it safe for my wife and Board of Trustees 10 February 16, 2005 my daughter, that's it. Thank you very much. If anyone has any questions. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anybody else like to comment on this application? I looked at this as far as the Board's perspective, the stairs are falling apart disheveled, and he just wants to replace them in-kind/in-place. I have no objection. CAC recommended approval of the application with the condition the bluff is revegetated after the construction of the stairs and no treated lumber is used. I'm indifferent. What material will you be using for the record? MR. IANNONE: CCA. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm indifferent on the type of material because this is not touching the water. It's above the tidal marshland. With that, any other Board comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE PQLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to replace the existing staircase to the beach for James lannone. Any destruction to the bluff should be revegetated also. If you don't revegetate it, you might end up blowing it out, and be in a worse position than you already are. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. LILIANA NEALON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second floor addition to the existing dwelling, construct a one-story garage, screened porch, and removal of the wood decks in the rear yard. Located: 395 Bayview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 52-5-24. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MS. NEALON: I'm Liliana Nealon. This has been my weekend house for eight or nine years, and I moved to Southold permanently in May. I just want to make it more comfortable for me and my family, build a second story, insulate it, it got a little cold this winter, and just fix it up. Thank you, if you have any questions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were all there. I think it's pretty self-explanatory. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We did have recommendations for a berm and non-turf buffer on the top at the slope. CAC recommends approval of the application with the following conditions: Board of Trustees 1 l February 16, 2005 Dry wells and gutters are installed to contain the roof runoff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which are on the plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. Installation of a 50 foot non-turf buffer or half the distance to wetlands, whichever is less, and a four foot wide non-pervious path through the 50 foot buffer. We did discuss a berm. It's all lawn. Well, it was all snow, actually. I don't know; do you remember that, Heather?. MS. TETRAULT: We talked about a berm on the next one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Oh, okay. Do we want a non-turf buffer here? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think so. It is what it is. And they're going to eliminate any roof runoff with the dry wells, which are on the plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 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 Wetland Permit to construct a second floor addition to the existing dwelling, construct a one-story garage, screened porch, and removal of the wood decks in the rear yard. Located: 395 Bayview Avenue, Southold. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's with dry wells and gutters installed. All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E. on behalf of MICHAEL GRIFFIN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling, driveway, two-story deck, and a septic system. Located: 435 Pine Place, East Marion. SCTM#37-4-14 and 15. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment? MR. BUTLER: Yes. I'm Daniel Butler from Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E. on behalf of Michael Griffin. Myself and the owners as well as the contractors met on February 6th and The Board had reviewed the staking of the house and had requested that the house be moved back five feet closer to the road. We have a revised site plan showing that that we'd like to submit to you guys (handing). We show the house as being 30'6" from the road rather than 30 feet because we had the adjacent houses, we took a preliminary reading of the adjacent houses as far as their proximity to the street and the house to the right or the south was 27 feet, and the house to the north or to the left of the Board of Trustees 12 February 16, 2005 Griffin's residence was 33 feet, and you take the average of those two, and it comes in about 30 feet. So we, in order to not create a problem with getting a variance with the Building Department, chose to pull it away six inches from that 30 foot mark, and I guess we respectfully ask for your approval of this site plan TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Recommend the berm along the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And show drainage for the driveway. MR. BUTLER: Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was it, really. If you could show that on the plan, drainage for the driveway. Also, I'd be inclined to approve it tonight subject to you drawing it on the plan. Also, show -- we talked about the turf being removed, we put that as a condition of the permit underneath the deck, and that be a one foot berm along the top of the bluff to prevent runoff and to be planted with a non-turf or anything that would survive there. Native plantings that would survive there. MR. BUTLER: That berm it is one foot high? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh One foot. MR. BUTLER: How deep? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: By the angle of the repose. Show that on your plan. Draw that right on this plan, then just show driveway drainage to contain the driveway runoff. You wouldn't have to change the plans just add that to it. And, do it now. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? If there are no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the changes made on the plans being changed right now. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of ANTHONY CACIOPPO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 24' by 24' two story extension to the existing house, with a garage on ground level and living space with bath above, with 9' by 8' fully enclosed and conditioned connecting hallway to the existing house. Located: 1455 Inlet Way in Southold. SCTM#92-1-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here who would like to Board of Trustees 13 February 16, 2005 speak on behalf of this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Cacioppo. Last time we were here you were disappointed that it hadn't been staked, and I was disappointed too. And I understand since then you have had an opportunity to look at it with stakes in place. What do you think? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment on this application? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did we remove the breezeway? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that was the consensus of the Board if the breezeway was removed, it would back the house up closer, and try to maximize the setback from the wetland, which is very close there. I don't think the Board would have a problem with that. And the staking did make it pretty clear about the location. I'm looking for CAC comments here. CAC comments was that it wasn't staked. But that was back in January, so did CAC make any other attempt to inspect? MS. MCGREEVY: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Those were our comments that the house should be brought back as close as possible by eliminating the breezeway. MR. FITZGERALD: I mentioned the possibility of eliminating the breeze to Mrs. Cacioppo, who was the designer, and she indicated there was a design reason for it being there. And it may be that that is not the way to solve the problem. Maybe they would want to reduce the size of the structure and leave the breezeway. The idea I believe was they felt it was important for folks on the land side of the house to be able to look through and see that there was water out there. Which, of course, doesn't mean anything as far as the situation is concerned, but she seemed pretty definite about needing that design feature. So we'll see if we can't work something else out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh See the way we looked at it was that their need was for this two-story garage, and the breezeway seemed to be sort of something that wasn't really necessary to fulfill that need. So we're trying to give them what they needed and maximize the setbacks at the same time. MR. FITZGERALD: I understand, and I think that initially with them that was the case. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How do we resolve this now then? MR. FITZGERALD: I think the next step is for me to go back and say that the Board wants it moved nine feet further away from the wetlands. You took into consideration the fact that it is -- and it looks pretty close in the plan view, Board of Trustees 14 February 16, 2005 but it's not that close in the profile. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. We did actually tape it out and everything. MS. TETRAULT: It was 50 feet to the water, which is close. MR. FITZGERALD: So the answer to the question is that I will go back to the clients and say that they can't have it both ways. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And also that the fence along the edge of the water has to be removed. I don't know if they bought that with the fence there or not, but the fence is -- MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, all that stuff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's just a wildlife area. So I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. 6. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of Charles Wendy, Jr. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed plafform 4' by 4', hinged ramp 4' by 16', and floating dock 5' by 20': Located. 765 Willow Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 56-5-28. MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Wendy. Mr. Wendy is here also. At the last meeting there was concern on your part about the permitted length from the standpoint of the requirement that it not extend more than one-third of the way across the waterway, and I think that's defined as shore to shore. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a letter here Dated January 18th says Mr. Wendy would like to change the details of the project reducing the length of the ramp to six feet as opposed to 16 feet in the description. MR. FITZGERALD: We talked about that last time, Artie, because the two gentlemen that were here from the association, which kind of oversees that association marina said that they wanted the overall length to be reduced by 10 feet. It was felt, they felt that reducing the length of the ramp from 16 to six feet would solve that problem. But I don't think we heard about your feelings on the matter. I understand you were there to inspect it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other public comments or Board comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is the total length across the channel? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Give you one of these, Kenny. Board of Trustees 15 February l 6, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Wendy, our problem is not that you have a dock there, it's a problem of navigation. We put into the new code, which was policy for years, the boat and float can't exceed more than one-third across the waterway. As long as you work within those physical constraints, we don't have a problem. It's got to be documented. See, the plan that's here doesn't show a length across to the other shoreline, then you can scale off the size of your structure, and we can see that it's one-third or less of the distance, then we can approve it. MR. WENDY: What I had proposed was to reduce the end of the dock, my dock, my proposed dock, would be 12 feet closer to the shore than any of the existing six slips that are there. When you're standing there and looking on say Number 4, 5 or 6 across, the distance is essentially the same as my reduction. Now, I'm not a surveyor, but I'm sure if any of you do any surf casting, you could probably put a 60 foot throw cross and measure that way, or I can get a surveyor in there and measure that way. But it will be 12 feet shorter than any of the other six. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We just want to see the measurement. You can go out with a canoe or kayak and tape it end to end also. I don't think the Board's going to require you to get a surveyor to do this. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: From the marsh edge to the marsh edge in this case. The distance from your marsh edge to the opposite shoreline's marsh edge. MR. WENDY: You mentioned 16 feet. I said let's go halfway, I'll do it 18 feet instead of 20, so that would be 14 feet. One of the problems is that Mr. Coriello, in talking to him, he thought 10 would be adequate. He's got this 40 foot ocean liner that he's tied up to his house, and he's worried about navigating the channel. I said how much room do you need. He said all I need is a four foot draft, and there's plenty of room as long as we bring the floating dock in and they can get past it. I think 12 or 14 feet closer than the other six that are already there would do it. I don't have a kayak. I think we're talking about a couple feet here or there, and if it's okay with them -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We still have to adhere to our code that says one-third or less. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If you measure 60 feet, what would be permitable is up to 20 feet from the shoreline. So you couldn't have a 22 foot boat sticking out. MR. WENDY: I'm looking at a 17 foot Key West. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That would probably be fine but the bottom line Board of Trustees 16 February 16, 2005 is you couldn't be more than one-third from that shoreline. MR. WENDY: I know these rules came in, this deeded property, this deeded right for the people who are not on the canal came in in 1966. I do have a right to explore this and I do understand the new code whenever your code came in. Would I be grandfathered in under the old deed before your rules were made? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. We used these principles before we actually formalized them in code form, it's a basic navigability issue on narrow areas like this. MR. WENDY: But if he's got his 40 foot cruiser, if he's not complaining, that's the only other boat out there that's that big. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think what you submitted is a problem, we just need to document it. Can we approve it subject to that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Approve it subject to the submittal of the proper documentation. If we don't get it, then the approval it null and void. MR. WENDY: Do I have the option of reducing it to 18 feet If I'm a couple of feet short on the other end? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Of course. Reduce the float? MR. WENDY: The float, right. MR. FITZGERALD: So this is measured from where to where? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Bank to bank. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Vegetation to vegetation. Should be what's shown there would work very nicely. Any other CAC comments? MS. MCGREEVY: The gate was locked and we couldn't enter. MR. WENDY: It's just a chain, you can go around the chain. MS. MCGREEVY: The weather wasn't very good. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the application for Charles Wendy as requested considering that the distance is not more than one-third of the distance of the channel from vegetation to vegetation, and this approval is based on satisfactory measurement for just that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 7. Michael J. Scholz on behalf of SHANNON GOLDMAN & DEBORAH MCKEAND requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and garage. Located: 8605 Soundview Board of Trustees 17 February 16, 2005 Avenue, Southold. SCTM#59-6-27.2. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. GOLDMAN: Shannon Goldman, I'm here if you have any questions. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll star[ with the CAC tabled the application because the wetlands line is inaccurate. CAC requests a full wetlands review. Could you explain why the wetland line was inaccurate? MS. MCGREEVY: I didn't see that one. They felt it was inaccurate when they saw it, and they wanted a review, that's it. I really can't explain because I didn't see that parcel. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The whole Board went out and looked at it. We felt as though the bank was basically the wetlands delineation line. Does anyone else have a comment for this application? How did the Board feel about this one, any comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think they satisfied the setbacks. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. The 50 foot nondisturbance setbacks. MS. TETRAULT: We looked at the survey, it says nonvegetation instead of nondisturbance. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: On your survey it says 50 foot nondisturbance, nonvegetation buffer. We'd rather see nondisturbance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't want it to be nonvegetation. MS. TETRAULT: The Board said they wanted to leave the hay bales in place. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I remember that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As far as when you put the hay bales line when you put the 50 foot buffer, just leave them in place. MS. MCGREEVY: What I do recall was there was some discussion about the ties and what marked the wetlands. It didn't seem accurate. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We believe the actual indicator was the bank itself. MS. MCGREEVY: We were looking at the ties that they tied around it, that was one thing, and it looked like it had a lot of wetlands there. So that's why we wanted the review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we all looked at it. I think we were satisfied. MS. TETRAULT: Did the dry wells get put on the plans? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't include trimming the phragmites. If you insist on that, contact us in the summer time when they're growing, and we'll come down and review it then. There was snow on it. We won't include that in the Board of Trustees 18 February 16. 2005 permit. MS. TETRAULT: Were gutters and dry wells put on the plan? You asked for it last time. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll just stipulate it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Before you get your permit, you'll have to draw them on there. MR. GOLDMAN: I actually thought they had been. We'll do it right away. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other 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 Shannon Goldman and Deborah McKeand to construct a single-family dwelling and garage. Located 8605 Soundview Avenue in Southold, with the conditions that there be a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer, that gutters and dry wells be included on the survey and the phragmite cutting will be reapplied for in the summer time. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 8. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 6' by 80' extension, with wavebreaks, onto an existing pier, to relocate three 3-pile dolphins to relocate one ladder and to install one new ladder. Located: Robins Island. SCTM#134-3-5 TRUSTEE KING: is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JUST: Good evening Glen Just on behalf of J.M.O. Consulting on behalf of Belvedere Property Management. TRUSTEE KING: The problem the Board has is with the wavebreak. MR. JUST: I don't know if you saw the letter I faxed over this afternoon. I've asked George Costello from Costello Marine, he signed a contract with Mr. Baker to do a lot of work on various properties, to come here and describe the actual dock. His firm is the one who prepared the plan and he's got a lot more experience with wavebreaks than I do. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is the depth of the project? MR. COSTELLO: George Costello. Eight feet, eight on one end and probably 10 on the other end, west end is probably about 10. That was dredged. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, because to the west of there comes Board of Trustees 19 February 16, 2005 straight up. I'm sure you're not going to cut yourself short; you're going to leave at least 30, 40 feet. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. We're going to keep them in deep water around that corner. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I think the problem we have at these wavebreaks is at the bottom, if they actually touch the bottom or come within this much of the bottom, then the water column itself just hits it and falls. MR. COSTELLO: Do you have a copy of the drawing dated August 2, 2004? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. COSTELLO: Can I show you my copy, which is the same thing. I think this will clarify the whole issue. Go to Page 3 of 5. (Discussion) TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? Hearing no further 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 as submitted now that we've had the wavebreak explained to US. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. CONWAY: I'm here for Virginia Conway, Number 3. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Actually, we denied it. We've had a problem with extra floats for wave runners before. We don't allow any extra floats like that. It just makes a bigger floating system. If you wanted to modify your existing float to include that section, that would be fine, somehow modify your float so you can drive your jet ski up on it. We don't want to have an addition. MR. CONWAY: (Inaudible). TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I've seen PVC and you get a 45 degree angle at the edge of your dock, all you need is a foot, foot and-a-half, two of them, acts like a runway system. MR. CONWAY: Thank you very much. TRUSTEE KING: We denied it, but put in there that he has the option of modifying the 6' by 20' to accommodate the jet ski. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Can we take a brief five minute recess? (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 9. Land Use Ecological Service, Inc. on behalf of L.I. SOUND OYSTER, LLC CIO TOM ANDERSON requests a Wetland Board of Trustees 20 February 16, 2005 Permit to expand an existing dock facility to be utilized for a commercial shellfishing and aquaculture facility. The existing 4' by 130' plus/minus timber catwalk is proposed to be widened to 10' to accommodate a forklift or truck. The existing platform and 3' by 20' ramp are proposed to remain. Seven 6' by 20' floats are proposed and to be supported by (15) 8" diameter piles. The existing rebar and garbage debris on the creek bottom is proposed to be removed and disposed of at an approved offsite location. On the north side of the property west of the existing house, the applicant proposes to remove the remains of a dilapidated concrete wall, and proposes to remove existing wood landscape debris to an approved offsite location. A shed is proposed in the same location as the previous shed location, and proposed buffer area. South of the dock the buffer area is proposed to extend from the mean high water to the concrete wall. North of the dock the buffer area is proposed to extend from the mean high water to the back edge of the existing fence north to the property line. Located: 1240 Love Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#140-1-23.1. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to comment in favor of the application? MR. PALUMBO: Good evening, Anthony Palumbo on behalf of the applicant with Mr. Hall from Land Use. We're going around and around a little bit with this but I believe the main issue at the end of the last meeting was navigational hazard. That was a concern of the Board. I do have, if I could provide, petitions with the neighbors surrounding the area and a number of people who are familiar with that have signed the petitions indicating they have reviewed the application, they're familiar with that area. A lot of them are baymen as well as the neighbors and they indicated as the previous owner was conducting those operations, the oyster farm, they certainly didn't feel it was a navigational hazard, and they asked the Board to grant this application. But otherwise, I'd be willing to answer any questions on the application. I believe Mr. Hall provided new surveys showing that the Federal Anchorage area is 75 feet from the end of the dock as it exists now. That was a concern we thought our proposed site plan would have the trays within the Anchorage area, and I believe he also provided a survey indicating what our plan would be, and it's still outside the anchorage area. I believe it's at least 10, 15 feet at its closest, the last tray, and, as I indicated, of course, my clients, the Andersons, Long Island Sound Oyster would be willing to put any lights up, do Board o f Trustees 21 February 16, 2005 anything they needed to do if there were any additional concerns even though they're outside of that Anchorage area and at the end creek. But if there were any other concerns of the Board, they would certainly be willing to do whatever's necessary and whatever the Board suggests in order to alleviate that concern. MR. JOHNSTON: is this the first time we saw those petitions? MR. PALUMBO: I believe it is. Last month, that was the issue, so we just addressed it then. I'm sorry for providing them today, a lot of them were signed recently. We do have a good copy of the aerial from 2000, and I believe it was a month before the Board went out to review the proposed amendment from Blue Point Oyster, although there was a slight modification at the time. It may show what the trays were like at the time; that's what those petitioners are talking about regarding it not being a navigational hazard. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do we have any opposition to this application? MR. JOHNSTON: Is there anybody here speaking against? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do we have any opposition to this application? Okay. MR. HALL: Here's the full scale aerial, which is to scale. It's one inch equals 50 feet, and I believe that is about 150 feet as it exists now. (Discussion.) MR. HALL: This aerial clearly depicts where the shallower water is along the shoreline here. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Do you have an overlay of the Federal Anchorage in relation to where those floats are? It doesn't show the floats on the plan. MR. HALL: I have a plan that shows the floats. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It doesn't appear to me that it's within the Anchorage. MR. HALL: (Handing.) MR. PALUMBO: That's the edge of the Anchorage area. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's with 25 floats. MR. HALL: And it's still 10 feet off, approximately 8 to 10 feet off the northeast corner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Let me go through the history here. This is in March of 2000. This photograph, in '94 we issued a permit for the dock. I think it's important to follow this and relate it to the photograph. In '94 we issued a permit for the 100' by 4' dock; we updated the plans dated March 26, 1996; in '96 we approved for a 30' by 64' area for the Board of Trustees 22 February 16, 2005 floating trays. That was a halfway back plan. That was in the middle, it only extended 15 feet past the end of the dock. In '96 in May we granted an amendment to place floating trays at the end of the existing dock -- not to stick out further, I'm sorry, that's what that was. So in May of'96 we approved the floats. I'm guessing there were 12. In '99 we denied a request to add eight piles at the end of the existing floating trays as ice breakers, five piles to hold the trays and a 3' by 18' ramp and a 12' by 12' float because it impedes navigation and it is a Federal Anchorage area. In 2000 we amended the permit again in April. Now in April of 2000 to amend it for a 3' by 20' ramp cantilever off the pier with a work float, and I would imagine that it would show the ramp and the work float off here. So this is what was permitted here as of 2000. Personally, I was on the Board then in '99 when the request was denied to extend this out because it was a navigation issue, and I still have concerns about navigation there. I don't have a problem increasing the size of the dock for access, and I don't have a problem with letting them -- and except this permit would be more specific than the last permit was in that this permit would say I would permit so many floats at the end of the dock; the permit would only be valid for those floats. It would be two permits. The dock permit would be separate that would be permanently permitted with a ramp and float for access to the water. Then the oyster grow-out racks would be a separate permit. We're doing this in aquaculture now all over. It's sort of a separate permit, so if it's never used, like in this case Blue Point they abandoned it, the permit would become invalid completely, and everything would have to be removed, the oyster growing portion, not the floating dock or the dock portion. That's based on the history of it. It's always been an issue there. It's the same issue. Nothing's really changed. MR. PALUMBO: I think with the rows of trays here in this photograph, you can see none are behind the end of the dock, and ultimately in recent years when it was bought there were about 30 trays in the water. I know we discussed that at length and almost didn't want to mention that they were in violation, but the fact of the matter is that the floats cannot really be put in more shallow water because they're six feet long and they need obviously to float at all times so the only usable water is off the end of the dock as it exists now. I think we clarified the navigation issue as far as the Anchorage area, I don't know if that was Board of Trustees 23 February 16, 2005 clarified in '99 to the extent that we've done it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: it wasn't marked, it was just a general concern. MR. PALUMBO: If the Board could possibly consider, if you're going to do a separate permit for the trays to possibly go maybe a row or two further away from the dock because even though Blue Point Oyster was permitted to go half in, half out from the end of the dock toward the shore is completely useless for these types of trays. So we would ask that it looks like the only usable water is off the end toward the Anchorage area. So if the Board would consider maybe expanding that slightly since we have clarified the Anchorage issue, I think that would be beneficial. (Discussion.) MR. PALUMBO: Could we have it without prejudice see how it works for a year or so and have the ability to come back to the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. You might at that point with success find a shallower float. MR. PALUMBO: Sure. I certainly would advise them. That would be great. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One more detail -- MR. HALL: The floats are going to be 4' by 20', 4' by 12' and off the ramp would be 6' by 20', that's for the landing of the ramp, and the other two would be for an area to moor a boat. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you say, Ken? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That sounds fine to me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Attic, what about the extra floats for docking? TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's fine. You have to give them an opportunity to succeed here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application. We're trying to reduce this as much as possible. We wanted to know if you could handle that eight foot wide fixed dock? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I make a motion to reopen the hearing. MR. PALUMBO: A quick comment about that. I spoke to Mr. Anderson about that, and he said I tried to be as conservative as I could with our original application, 10 feet with a truck, which was really needed to properly maintain these trays they weren't that well maintained, and that's why it's a bit of a mess, the whole site. In order Board of Trustees 24 February 16, 2005 for them to propedy maintain them he said you really do need a truck and you can't necessarily tip toe outside of the truck, alongside it. Basically the 10 feet was all he was asking for not expecting to be reduced at all, so the eight feet really wouldn't work. TRUSTEE KING: You mean a truck, like you drive over the road? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think he's talking about a forklift. MR. PALUMBO: Whatever it may be. They didn't expect to be reduced at all. He said he wanted to make as conservative an application as possible. So unfortunately the 10 feet is something they're stuck with. TRUSTEE KING: Single wheel forklift, 4,000 pound machine is about a 45 inch tread width, dual tire. What are you going to use, a tractor? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: That's a different story, that's a lot wider tread. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Eight feet's pretty tight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve a 100' by 10' wide dock, a 6' by 6' platform and 3' by 20' ramp, 6' by 20' float, 4' by 20' float, 4' by 12' float, and 20 floating oyster trays to be placed on an "L" at the end of the dock secured by 10 pilings -- MR. HALL: The total pilings there is not only for the oyster trays, it's also for the floats on the south -- west side of the pier, that's total pilings for the project, 15. It's only eight for the oyster trays. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, 15 pilings. Make that 15 pilings, and we would need the other conditions on the permit that were mentioned in the original description would stand with the buffer area, the shed, the removal of the wall, the removal of the debris, the underwater debris to be removed. The buffer area should be planted, the cleaned up buffer area, should be planted with honeysuckle or beach grass. MS. TETRAULT: I can give them a list. TRUSTEE KING: Can we have a time frame on removing that rebar and all that debris on the beach in the intertidal area? Can we get that out of there in a certain amount of time? MR. ANDERSON: I figure when the guy comes out to set the dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Debris to be removed at construction. The permit is conditioned on the dock and the floating docks and the platform and the ramp to be part of a docking system. Board of Trustees 25 February 16, 2005 The oyster grow-out trays to be part of an aquaculture system that if they are not used for aquaculture that the trays themselves have to be removed out of the creek, but the dock and the floating docks and the ramp and the platform will remain as part of the dock system as opposed to the trays. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is one of the biggest docks in the creek, it was a big deal for us. MR. PALUMBO: We appreciate it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You're going to issue two separate permits one for the dock and one for the aquaculture. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Two separate numbers. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 10. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of SKUNK LANE TRUST GlO BRAD & MARY KRAUSE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with deck, sanitary system, and pervious driveway. Located: 9105 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-3-18.1. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? MR. HALL: Dan Hall, Land Use Ecological in favor of the application. I just have some revised surveys that just show a new sanitary system because they're proposing four bedrooms now. I'd like to present them to the Board (handing). TRUSTEE FOSTER: What are they doing with the bedrooms? MR. HALL: I think they had three, now they're proposing four, so they needed to upgrade the sanitary system. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Standard system so it includes up to four bedrooms. MS. TETRAULT: What is the distance of the sanitary system from the wetlands? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's way out there. MR. HALL: 140 plus. TRUSTEE DIGKERSON: The one discussion we had down there was that there would be no sod in front of the deck and that the non-turf begin at the nine foot contour. MS. TETRAULT: You said nondisturbance not non-turf. MR. HALL: The 50 foot buffer be extended to the nine foot contour? MS. TETRAULT: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends disapproval of the application until a plan for the disposition of the trees over eight inch DBH is submitted, three 24 inch DBH. Doris, can you help us out with that? Board of Trustees 26 February 16, 2005 MS. MCGREEVY: Diameter Breast Height. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Whole nondisturbance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We only have jurisdiction of 100 feet, we're limited there. The rest of the property they did have those nice trees so we noticed that, that it was something else in previous times, there were specimen trees there, but we only have jurisdiction within 100 feet. So we would be limited there. We only have jurisdiction up to the front of the house. It's doubtful that they would tear those out. Those are really nice specimen trees. MS. MCGREEVY: We're requesting it anyway. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Of course, we need dry wells to show roof runoff. MR. HALL: That's acceptable. What was the contour, no turf on the seaward? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Nondisturbance. Come up and we'll mark your survey. This is fine, this 50 foot here, then we pick up at the top of the bank there. That makes it more uniform and usable because that does drop off sharply. It's unlikely they're going to want to develop that anyway. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this application? Any other comments? Comments from the Board? 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 this on behalf of Skunk Lane Trust and Mary Krause request for their permit for single-family dwelling with deck, sanitary system and pervious driveway with a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer at the nine foot contour, non-turf up to the deck, dry wells and gutters to contain the roof runoff and a four foot path to the dock with wood chips. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Clarify, the 50 foot buffer or nine foot -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, both. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Whichever is bigger. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to go back to the regular hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS Board of Trustees 27 February 16, 2005 1. JOHN BETSCH requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a new single-family dwelling and garage, in place of the existing, and to be built on pilings. Located: 2325 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 54-4-24. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? MR. KELLEY: Christopher Kelley, Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley for the applicant. Before we get started, I want to clear up a couple of issues to make sure they're not issues as we go forward here. First, I have the signed authorization from my client, which I understand was required. I'll get that to you in a second. There were two issues that were raised. One had to do with the survey of the property and the scale that was used because there were two different versions of the survey. One had a one inch per 20 inch scale and one a one inch for 30 foot scale. I want to make sure that's no longer an issue. We sent a letter January 25th, which you all got a copy of that which clarified that. I want to confirm that's not an issue? TRUSTEE KING: Not an issue. MR. KELLEY: The second thing I want to clarify that we are not actually here for a Coastal Erosion Permit because that has been dealt with by the Town Board on the variance that was granted after your denial in August. What we're here for now is only a Wetland Permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I read that because it was on the agenda. That is an issue that we are -- the Coastal Erosion, we adopted that in '91, and we adopted it from the State. The Town Board adopted it, and they graciously gave it to the Trustees to administer. And we are administering it for the Town, but it's a State law. And from time to time the State does check up on us and see how we are working on that, and from time to time we have to ask for clarification. Sometimes it's something physical as do you consider this the toe of the bluff, or sometimes it's something mechanical like the clarification of the way we should actually administrate the code. So we're still waiting for clarification from the State on what exactly the Town Board did procedurally. They might very well have granted a variance from the whole code, but does that mean that the applicant doesn't have to get a Coastal Erosion Permit at all? Because the Town Board can't issue one. MR. KELLEY: No, what they did was they granted the relief Board of Trustees 28 February 16, 2005 necessary. This was an opinion that was given to us by the Town attorney's office. We understood that was no longer an issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He also gave us that opinion. Over the course of the years we do communicate with people in the state who run the program for New York State. We want to do what we're supposed to do. We want to do our job. MR. KELLEY: I believe that the issuance of the permit now is a ministerial task on the part of this Board. The only impediment, and I just re-read the decision, the decision of the Board from August 18 -- the reason for the denial was the fact that you couldn't grant us a permit because we couldn't have that type of expansion in that type of area. Well, they varied that; they said we're okay with that. That relief having been granted, there's no impediment to the issuance of the permit. It should now be a ministerial act. It's not discretionary. I believe that's the opinion of the Town attorney. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not in that case because if they had just granted a variance for that portion of the code, which we thought they had originally, then we would be able to address all the other standards in Chapter 37. MR. KELLEY: If you go through the findings, they addressed all the standards in Chapter 37, you can see that. Use the analogy of a Zoning Board of Appeals and a building inspector. In this example, you're acting as if you're a building inspector, and Town Board acts as if its the Zoning Board of Appeals. Once the variance is granted, the building inspector doesn't have discretion to deny the permit. In this case you are the administer of the permit once the variance is granted, you no longer have the discretion to deny. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we're inclined to deny anything tonight. That wasn't our intention. We want to make sure the law's been followed out properly. We're not saying we are not going to act on this tonight, by any means. We'd rather act on this tonight and withhold judgment on the Coastal Erosion. In case in fact, the Town has acted improperly or not completely, and then we could address that if that's the case. That's the way I'd rather handle it, is say the Town attorney has advised us the Coastal Erosion has been handled properly by the Town Board. MR. KELLEY: Are you questioning the Town attorney? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just want to make sure it's been done properly. To be honest with you, this variance comes up Board of Trustees 29 February 16, 2005 three times since I've been on the Board. It's very rare, no one's familiar with it, there's a lot of questions. And when we get audited by the State, we want to make sure the Town's doing the correct job. We'd rather act on that Chapter 97 tonight and proceed that way. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Did we get a determination from the Department of State? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So we're waiting for a determination from them, correct? MS. TETRAULT: We wrote to them and haven't heard back. They're in the process of writing back to us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would rather not hold this up waiting for them, that doesn't seem right. We'd rather act. They might very well say Southold Town acted properly, everything's fine. I mean, we have no reason to believe they're going to be unhappy with Southold's decision, it's not that either. We'd rather, it's the State law, we'd rather make sure we did it properly. This is kind of foreign to us. MR. KELLEY: Here is that authorization you requested (handing). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. KELLEY: I'd like to briefly refresh your recollection about the facts of the application since it's been August since the Board really addressed the application. The property we're talking about consists of 26,800 square feet on North Sea Drive. It fronts on the sound and is zoned R40. It's improved with a one-story house built on a concrete block foundation, I assume you've all been out to see it. Ground coverage there is 1,782 square feet with the existing dwelling. To the east is a public parking lot for McCabe's Beach and to the west is a residence owned by the Pearlsteins, who I see were on the agenda tonight for screening in a porch. That house was granted approval to expand by a Coastal Erosion permit that you issued for a 432 square foot footprint for a two-story addition that amounted to 864 square feet in total. Our search of the records indicate there was no Wetland Permit issued for or required of the Pearlsteins immediately next door, even though quite clearly -- TRUSTEE KING: What did you say the square footage of the existing house was? MR. KELLEY: 1,782. TRUSTEE KING: Existing now in the footprint? MR. KELLEY: Yes. Board of Trustees 30 February l 6, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm referring to a letter from your firm May 25th of last year. What would you say the current size of the home is now? MR. KELLEY: The current footprint is 1,782 square feet. Proposal is for a footprint of 1,800 square feet, exclusive of decking, which was for the first floor of the structure plus the garage of 600 square feet. The usable square footage of the first floor is 1,800 square feet, livable space. MR. JOHNSTON: With the decking is it 2,800 square feet including with the two-car garage? MR. KELLEY: Approximately 1,000 square feet of decking and 600 square foot garage. MR. JOHNSTON: Or according from your letter a proposed new construction will increase the existing footprint by approximately 53 percent; is that correct? MR. KELLEY: Only when you take into account the decking. Without taking into account the decking it's a 33 percent increase of the square footage of the first floor of the dwelling. MR. JOHNSTON: So that first paragraph is still correct? MR. KELLEY: Correct. MR. JOHNSTON: We're trying to get the numbers, that's all. MR. KELLEY: I'm going to give you the numbers if I can just get through this. The applicant's proposing demolishing the existing house, and, in fact, improving the situation with respect to erosion and wetlands, dune preservation issues because the proposal is to make the house FEMA compliant and putting it on piles, eliminating the cinder block foundation. The DEC has issued a nonjurisdictional letter, which is in the file, I have a copy for you (handing). I show that to staff. All structures are setback minimum of 118 feet from the mean high water mark shown on the survey. The area's served by public water. Now, this application was submitted in November of 1983, it wasn't until August of -- excuse me -- November of 2003, it wasn't until August, 2004 that the application was denied; an appeal ensued on the Town Board and in November, 2004 they granted the variance that we were discussing. Now we only need to submit a Wetland Permit to move forward with construction. Since there's been a history here I ask that you incorporate by reference both the record previously before this Board as well as the record before the Town Board in your deliberations. With respect to that record, I have Board of Trustees 31 February 16, 2005 here the resolution of the Town Board I'd like to draw attention to -- I have copies for each of you -- because several findings are made by the Town Board which address not only the issues in the Coastal Erosion Permit, but the Wetland Permit as well, because a lot of the standards are similar. I have highlighted in yellow on the second page those important findings already reached by the Town Board. I would like to put them in the record. Referring to 2B it says the applicant owns no other site in town in which to construct a year round home and the proposed project may not be located on any other portion of the property without the need for variance. C states, applicant has incorporated all reasonable means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural systems and their functions and values have been incorporated into the activity's design at the property owner's expense. The applicant's proposal contains measures to protect the natural protective area by constructing the home on pilings in compliance with all FEMA regulations and incorporating an upgraded septic system. That's another advantage here environmentally, we will get a new state of the art septic system on the property. D states for the reasons stated above, the development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage. In addition, evidence has been submitted that this property has been accreting rather than eroding in recent years. I draw your attention to a statement in the record previously from the surveyor indicating that the property is actually accreted over the last years, 24 feet. Given the proposed transition from a foundation to pilings, the reconstruction will be safer from potential flood and erosion damage than the existing structure. At E, the Town Board finds the variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or hardship. The proposed reconstruction will be comprised of approximately 1,800 square feet of residential footprint and living space, plus approximately 600 square feet of the garage. This proposal is an increase of approximately 33 percent above the current seasonal use structure, which covers a footprint of approximately 1,800 square feet. Moreover, the proposed structure, flanked on the side by a municipal beach parking lot and in the immediate neighborhood of larger residential homes, is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and immediate neighbors have expressed approval of the project. So this Town has already found those essential Board of Trustees 32 FebruaD, 16, 2005 findings, which I think are relevant, as I said, to the Wetland Permit as well as the Coastal Erosion Permit. If you have been out to the site and seen the staking, and you can see if you align yourself with the northernmost stakes, which would be the edge of the decking, that in fact, looking west you can see structures that actually are closer to the water than the northern terminus of the deck. You can see also the other structures, and we'll talk about that in a second, we have photographs and maps to show the other structures that are built along that street, some of which were expanded without Coastal Erosion Permits, some of which were expanded without Wetland Permits, few of them had both. The Wetlands Permit jurisdiction that you're dealing with tonight is under Section 97-20. It's interesting that the jurisdiction that you have as a result of this being determined to be a dune, which is something you did in your prior decision, for the purpose of tonight's proceedings we're not challenging that it's in a dune. It's clear that if we're in a dune everybody along that stretch is in a dune, but the interesting thing in the code is there is no required setback from a dune. There's no delineation of dune, a crest or peak of a dune that some ordinances that regulate those things have. You have a required setback from a bluff line and you have a required setback from wetlands. We meet those setbacks because there's no bluff here, and we have the 118 feet from the edge of the wetlands. We also meet all the zoning setbacks. We meet all the coverage requirements. We have, as I mentioned earlier, the coastal erosion variance; and there's no DEC jurisdiction. So in all respects in terms of the objective criteria applied to this type of project, this project is conforming. We're not asking for a variance. We meet all the setbacks. In order to be entitled to this permit that we seek tonight we need to show compliance with the standards and those standards are set forth at Section 97-28 of the code. I'll just run through them, subparagraphs A through J in the code. First criteria is whether the project will adversely effect the wetlands of the Town. Well, we meet the setbacks required by the Town, in fact, we exceed them. And I submit to you there will be no impact adverse or otherwise on the wetlands of the town. Criteria B, will the project cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation. Well, the Town Board has Board of Trustees 33 February 16, 2005 already determined that that will not occur. In fact, this situation will be improved with respect to potential erosion because of the construction methods being utilized which will be FEMA compliant. The Town Board also took note that this stretch has also accreted over recent time. Criteria C, whether the project will cause saltwater intrusion into the freshwater resources of the town, and I will submit to you since we're going to be using public water, that pumping freshwater which might induce saltwater intrusion is not an issue in this application. Criteria D is whether the project will adversely effect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural habitat thereof. We will submit that there will be no effect on the habitat for fish or shellfish or marine organisms, the question is whether wildlife and vegetation would be adversely effected, and there will be some slight increase in the footprint, but as you'll note, the north side of the structure towards the wetlands is completely vegetated with beach grass, and we would maintain that after construction. We also would be willing to do whatever other plantings the Board recommends or conditions a permit on. Criteria E, will the project increase the danger of flood or storm tide damage. In fact, no, the project will decrease the possibility of storm tide damage because it will be elevated on pilings. Criteria F, will the project adversely effect navigation or tidal waters or the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the town. I would submit to you that that criteria is not applicable here since we're not, as many of the other applications tonight were, asking for any sort of coastal structure that would protrude into any navigable waters. Likewise with criteria G, the project will not change the course of any channel or natural movement or flow of any waters. Likewise with H, it won't weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity. We're not going to be digging down. We're putting in pilings. There won't be a problem with lateral support. Criteria I is a catchall, whether the project will adversely effect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town. And I would submit there's been no evidence to date in any of the proceedings gone on now for over a year that that would be an issue. With respect to criteria J, will there be an adverse Board of Trustees 34 February ! 6, 2005 effect on the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas. I would submit that there will be no more aesthetic impact than what's already happened in that area. There are houses, the property's improved, and the most aesthetically blighting aspect of the neighborhood is probably the blacktop parking lot that takes up the lot to the east and the comfort station there. If you want to increase the aesthetic value, those are the first things we should work on I think. So I submit to you that we have established and satisfied the criteria in the code between the findings made by the Town Board and the evidence you have in the file, we meet all the criteria for the issuance of a Wetland Permit. One of the things I want to bring up to you so the Board fully understands what's happened to the neighborhood in the past is what type of projects have been approved in the neighborhood, in the exact same dune land area with the exact same or similar proximity to wetlands. This is a board showing -- this was actually prepared for the Town Board's hearing -- you can see the Coastal Erosion hazard line, the property of the applicant going west, and the houses that have been approved along the way, the size and general scale of them. It was very eye-opening to take a walk today from the parking lot down to here and looking visually how those houses are juxtaposed vis-g-vis each other and the dunes, and they're all in the dunes, and most of them didn't have to come here for the Wetland Permit, some came in for Coastal Erosion Hazard Permits. You can see the size and scale of some of these structures. This is the immediate neighbor where she approved a 450 plus square foot footprint for a two-story structure. This is the original house, this is the addition. I'll go over the numbers with you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for clarification the word "dune" was put in about a year ago to the Wetland Code, that's a new addition. MR. KELLEY: So these folks didn't get -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh They didn't get duned. MR. KELLEY: This structure, Paskov here. 4,500 square feet, doesn't even include the garage below. Valley. We didn't find any permits at all for Valley, 3,300 square feet, no permits for either Wetland or Coastal Erosion. Pearlstein next door had Coastal Erosion but no Wetlands. Von Zuben had no Wetlands permit. The only thing we could find was not for the construction of the house, but Board of Trustees 35 February 16, 2005 we could only find something on file for a wall and patio. Rosiki was 1,844 square feet, not including the garage but looking at that construction I can't believe it's 1,844 square feet, it's got to be larger than that. Some of these figures were taken from the assessors records, because that's the only place we could get them, and I think some was estimated. So you get a sense of all the structures in the neighborhood in the dunes, they're all landward of the coastal erosion hazard zone. They all have the same impacts and they're all roughly the same distances. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seaward of the coastal erosion. MR. KELLEY: Seaward, I'm sorry, seaward, north of the coastal erosion hazard line. Same thing with the tax map. So you can see how the lots are configured. We're in the character of the community with the house. We're no more disruptive of the ecological values or the erosion preventing values of the dunes than any of these other structures, and similar to the case law on Zoning permits and variances, I submit that you cannot treat similarly situated applications differently. When the facts present themselves as similar, you have to be consistent with what your rulings are. Otherwise you have a serious problem with the Supreme Court. I've got copies of the permits we were able to find for these other houses, Paskov, Peadstein, Von Zuben. I would submit to you that we have established the criteria for entitlement for a permit. We have done things to mitigate the best we could. We have added coastal erosion benefits to this application over what's existing. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about the application. TRUSTEE KING: The only question I have, I hate to sound stupid, but you said the existing house that's there now is 1,782 square feet. I have just scaled if off and come up with 1,150. Why do I come off with so much smaller? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I got 1,052. TRUSTEE KING: I got 1,152. MR. KELLEY: Maybe the lines on that survey are confusing because they're so many dotted ones. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is that inclusive of the wood decks? I probably added the wood decks in that. MR. KELLEY: It may have include the wood decks, may have included the garage. It's a total footprint. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I've drawn out to what's there, unless you square it off somehow. There's 120 square foot Board of Trustees 36 February 16, 2005 in the breezeway. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You got 100 square feet more than I did. I included the breezeway, but I didn't include the decks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where did you get 10 by 20 on the breezeway? TRUSTEE KING: It's just confusing to me. To see such a big difference. MR. BETSCH: I'm John Betsch. Maybe I can clarify some of that for you. That square footage was provided by Mr. Krupski's footprint, it includes, breezeway, garage, decking and the cemented areas that are covered by cemented areas, so it comes up to 1,786. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Cemented areas? MR. BETSCH: I was told total footprint. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Where did you learn that? MR. BETSCH: That was a message from -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't recall saying that. MR. BETSCH: It was a telephone message on my machine. MR. KELLEY: Footprint is footprint. It's not defined in the code in any event. If you compare the footprint to 782 square feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Under the Wetland Code, with the word "dune" added, the dune would be the natural protective feature on the property. Now, if you take a look at the aerial photographs submitted, Heather provided us with these. It's hard to refer to this one on the table because it's so fuzzy, if you could refer to this one here showing the neighboring three houses to the west. Now, we have made numerous onsite inspections, we're pretty familiar with the property. The dune runs through here, and if you notice the setbacks to the road is much smaller here. What the Board felt is if the house could be moved back in line with the other houses, the dune could be restored. You're not talking about dune restoration, you're talking about sand and beach grass, the dune could be restored, it could be built on pilings like the other houses for the obvious benefits of the owners and to the environment. MR. KELLEY: I don't think we have an issue with that. I think we have to maintain a 50 foot setback there. I think we have room to go only 10 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We looked at that in the field. MR. KELLEY: They probably preexist. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that would be your setback for the area. The dune could be reestablished. I think there's room. MR. KELLEY: The septic system here. I think there's Board of Trustees 37 February 16, 2005 room. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That would satisfy me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would satisfy me too. MR. KELLEY: No problem with that at all. MR. BETSCH: The house next door to me Mr. Pearlstein is closer to the road. He's nonconforming to the zoning. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is what we noticed when we were there one of the previous times. These houses are more or less in a row, so you'd move your house back in line with theirs, reestablish the dune in front, because their setbacks from the road you can see are fairly consistent. MR. BETSCH: At the moment my house is I believe 68 feet or something, the proposal is to be 50 feet from the road. This is Mr. Pearlstein is about 38 or something. We could compromise, I'd come back to five feet or something. So I'm not maybe 45 feet; is that what you're saying? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, no, we'd like to have it more in line. MR. BETSCH: But he is not conforming. I don't want to have a probiem with the Zoning Board. TRUSTEE KING: I thought they take those three houses and take an average of those road setbacks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's existing homes there. That's not like asking for something -- we've required that from people from time to time because we have required it, because of wetland setbacks on restricted lots. They have to go and get the variance for that as long as it's conforming to the community? MR. BETSCH: Would it be appropriate to live with the setback requirement of 40 feet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not sure. MR. BETSCH: For[y feet would move my house 10 feet back closer to the road, would help with your dune question and also be in compliance with the Town zoning. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Might be more like 15 feet, I'm not sure. MR. BETSCH: Then I have a problem, I'm 35 feet -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you sure? MR. BETSCH: Yes. I could show you Mr. Pearlstein's survey when he got his when he went to the Zoning Board because his house the way it's built on an angle. MR. KELLEY: I request we incorporate in the record the Pearlstein survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They're 39 feet. MR. KELLEY: So a 40 foot setback will get you where you need to be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We rarely have anyone kicked back to us Board of Trustees 38 February 16, 2005 after we request a variance, very rarely. MR. KELLEY: Forty feet is what the neighbor has. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The only issue then is the deck. MR. KELLEY: If the whole thing goes back, the deck goes back too. Everything gets moved up. MR. BETSCH: The original plan for the house was trying to accomplish keeping it on the same whole footprint to be easier to explain. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What is your total footprint including deck? MR. KELLEY: 1,800 in livable space and 600 in the garage. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 3,400. I was just confused on the percentage increase because you're using deck and cement and everything else on the original application and you come up with 1,782, and now you're proposing 3,400. That's presenting nearly 100 percent. MR. KELLEY: But we're only increasing livable space. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. Take away the livable space on what exists, it's probably a similar ratio. MR. KELLEY: It is what it is, and the Town Board approved it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: For our clarification. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we're looking at the Town Board approval like what we look at the DEC approval. People a lot of times come in with a DEC approval, that's fine for the DEC, but it doesn't have bearing on our end. MR. KELLEY: The standards for their approval are actually stricter. Here we're not asking for a variance, we're conforming. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't know what we ended up with. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ten feet, the house, everything comes back 10 feet and the dune is restored. MS. TETRAULT: Would they stake that location? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You can see it off the old house. It doesn't push it back that much. If you take 10 feet off of that, you push it to here, that's where the old house is. See what I'm saying? We're looking to average the three houses in the front. If you come back to the middle of the existing house it's about 15 feet, but then the deck comes out. We're really trying to re-establish that dune line, which really goes through your house now. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Our concern with the dune is we want this house closer, and you're concerned about going to the whole zoning issue. If we could move this back and communicate to the Zoning Board that our main concern is the Board of Trustees 39 February !6, 2005 dune, so you wouldn't have to go through the process is what I'm saying. MR. BETSCH: Suppose we cut the deck back by five feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine with me. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The house would come back ten feet, the deck would come back five feet. The deck would start at the front of the house. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Cut five feet off the deck. So you're actually moving it back 15 feet as a result of that. Moving the house ten, then five feet off the deck, that's 15 feet. Is that going to impact the septic system? Yeah, just flip it the other way. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're getting a 40 foot setback now instead of 50. I'm not sure if you went to the ZBA what they would say. It's doubtful they would go down to 37. MR. KELLEY: Because they take the attitude, can you do what you want to do without a variance, and yes, you can do what you want without a variance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh After careful deliberation, are there any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition that the house be moved landward 10 feet and the seaward deck be reduced by five feet, and there be no turf on the site as it currently is, and that the dune on the seaward side of the deck be restored to the existing height on the westerly side, the dune be restored to that height and planted with beach grass on 12 inch on centers after construction from east to west property line. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. MR. KELLEY: Thank you very much. How do we proceed with the Coastal Erosion? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have to wait to see what the State says. It might be something, it might be nothing. We have no indication of what the State's comments are going to be. Like I said, we were audited last August by the State and they were requesting some of our practices, and I think we cleared them up. But this kind of raised a lot of red flags for them. We don't contact them on a daily basis. MR. BETSCH: You have approved something, now, can I go Board of Trustees 40 February. 16, 2005 hypothetically go to the Building Department tomorrow and say Trustees have approved it? MS. STANDISH: You have to get our permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to get a new plan and then showing that and the dune restoration and all that, which is just description on the survey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have to go back on Number 1, Thomas Willdigg, an amendment to include the existing deck, it has to include the restoration of the fence, the path has to let naturalized down to the water, that it cannot be used, and that the survey has to show steps off the deck also. So they have to give us revised plans. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to add two more qualified people to the Shellfish Advisory Committee, make a motion to add Nate Andruski and John Holtzaphel. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. ALL AYES. (Time ended: 10:10 p.m.) RECEIVED 4~ ag'.ol o ~m ~^Y 1~ 2005 -- -~thold Town Clerk